Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer PDF

(╯°□°）╯ ┻━┻

TABLE Reminders:
• Use at your own risk. Although it is made with
the best effort, we cannot guarantee its
accuracy.
TURNERS
• We’d appreciate it if you could please keep this
within the block J

PREPARED BY:
JOEL ARZAGA
KAYE BALDONADO
AILEEN CRUZ
IJ CHAN-‐GONZAGA, S.J.
PHILIP EVARDONE
GELO GENER
RACHELLE GUTIERREZ
PONCE LOPEZ
ALYSSA MICLAT
IJJI PARAS
RAIZA RADOC
ADRIAN TAN
ERIKA VALDEZ

(╯°□°）╯ ┻━┻

Constitutional Law 1 FR. JOAQUIN BERNAS, S.J.

Introduction: Philippine Constitutionalism, Birth Pangs and  Nominal – cannot be fully operative because of
Traumatic Growth socio‐political problems; principal value is
educational
POINTS  Semantic – tool for the perpetuation of power
I. Early Organic Acts in the hands of power holders
 What is a constitution? o Constitutional document: 3 parts
o Justice Miller: “A constitution. In the American sense of  Constitution of government – set up
the word, is a written instrument by which the government structure
fundamental powers of government are established,  Constitution of liberty – guarantee individual
limited, and defined, and by which these powers are fundamental liberties
distributed among several departments, for their safe  Constitution of sovereignty – outline process
and useful exercise, for the benefit of the body politic.” whereby the sovereign people may change the
 Philippine concept of constitutionalism came constitution
from the American concept  Is the Constitution and constitutional law the same?
o Purpose of a constitution: grant and limitation of o NO. Constitutional law is not just the text of the
government authority constitution itself.
o The written instrument agreed upon by the people… as o It is “a body of rules resulting from the interpretation by
the absolute rule of action for all departments and a high court of cases in which the validity, in relation to
offices of government the constitutional instrument, of some act of
o Government owes it being to the constitution government power, … has been challenged.”
o The supreme written law of the land. o Function of Judicial Review – power and duty of the
 Classifications of constitution Court of pronouncing void any such act which does not
o Generally, the constitution is classified under: written square with its own reading of the constitutional
and unwritten. instrument; in other words, the constitution is what the
 Written constitution – a book of documents judges say it is (Chief Justice Hughes)
(example: Philippine Constitution)  When did constitutionalism in the Philippines start?
 Unwritten constitution – supported by different o Ratification of the Treaty of Paris – transfer of
court rulings, documents, etc. (example: UK sovereignty from Spain to US
Constitution) o US: released different organic acts
o Alternative classification: as norms of government  President McKinley’s Instruction to the Second
action Philippine Commission
 Normative – direct government action and  Philippine Bill of 1902 – US Congress made this
government follows and adjust itself to the  Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 – paved the
norms way for the 1935 Constitution
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o By 1934, US Congress passed the Tydings‐McDuffie Law o March 31, 1973  divided Supreme Court ruled: no
– provided for the establishment of a Commonwealth further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being
Government under a constitution considered in force and effect
II. The 1935 Constitution  Javellana v. Executive Secretary
 Important dates: o Supreme Court ruled there is no further judicial obstacle
o July 30, 1934  Constitutional Convention (CC) met to the new Constitution being considered in force and
o February 8, 1935  CC ended effect
o March 3, 1935  US President approved the draft o Executive Department, with vigor and with all the
o May 14, 1935  ratified by the Filipino electorate resources at its command, proceeded to implement it
o November 15, 1935  Commonwealth Government o Legislative Department was nowhere found to object it
became operative o Ordinary mortals lived under the new Constitution
o July 4, 1946  Philippine Independence  1976  Constitution was amended to give birth to interim
 After independence, many felt unease that Philippines is still Batasang Pambansa – legislative body that affirms the wills and
following a constitution that is fashioned under colonial whims of President Marcos under Amendment 6 of the 1976
auspices, hence a call for amendment of the said constitution. amendments
III. The 1973 Constitution  1981  Departure from parliamentary to presidential
 Important dates:  Interim Batasang Pambansa to a regular one
o March 16, 1967  Philippine Congress passed IV. Freedom Constitution
Resolution No. 2: a call for an amendment of the  Important dates:
Constitution o November 1985  special presidential elections
o June 1, 1971  1971 Constitutional Convention (Ferdinand Marcos vs. Cory Aquino)
o September 21, 1972  Martial Law was imposed o February 15, 1985  Marcos declared as winner by
o November 29, 1972  Convention approved proposed Batasang Pambansa
Constitution o February 22, 1985  Revolt against President Marcos
o November 30, 1972  Presidential Decree 73 – led by Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel Ramos, followed by
“submitting to the Filipino people for ratification or support of unarmed civilians (Edsa Revolution)
rejection the Constitution of the Republic of the o February 25, 1985  Marcos regime ended
Philippines proposed by the CC” o February 25, 1985  Cory Aquino proclaimed first
o January 7, 1973  General Order No. 20: woman President in defiance of 1973 Constitution and
postponement of plebiscite which was originally Batasang Pambansa ‐ sworn in by Claudio Teehankee;
scheduled on January 15, 1973 Marcos was also sworn in by CJ Ramon Aquino then
o January 17, 1973  Proclamation No. 1102: proposed went to exile after
Constitution was ratified by Citizens Assemblies; 1973
Constitution officially took effect
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Article 1: The National Territory
• Barred by the processes of the 1973 Constitution, Cory Aquino

chose to govern under a Provisional Constitution designed to
Section 1: The national territory comprises the Philippine
enable her to meet the people’s challenge.
Archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and
• Proclamation No. 3 – Freedom Constitution
all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
V. The 1987 Constitution
Jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains,
• Article 6 of Proclamation No. 3 – Adopting a New Constitution
including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular
o Section 1: Appointment of Commission within 60 days
shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between,
of Proclamation. Commission shall consist of 30‐60
and connecting the islands of the Archipelago, regardless of their
natural‐born citizens of the Philippines
breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
o Section 2: Accomplish as fast as possible to hasten
Philippines.
normal constitutional circumstances and draft a

document
o Section 3: Conduct public hearings POINTS
o Section 4: Plenary session shall be public and fully
recorded Baseline Law – RA 9522: G.R. No. 187167: Magallona vs. Ermita
o Section 5: Ratification by a majority of votes will make
Constitution valid; date is within 60 days following Petitioner: PROF. MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, AKBAYAN PARTY‐LIST REP.
submission to President RISA HONTIVEROS, PROF. HARRY C. ROQUE, JR., and University of the
• Important dates: Philippines College of Law Students, ALITHEA BARBARA ACAS, VOLTAIRE
o June 1, 1986  CC convened ALFERES, CZARINA MAY ALTEZ, FRANCIS ALVIN ASILO, SHERYL BALOT,
o October 15, 1986  CC ended RUBY AMOR BARRACA, JOSE JAVIER BAUTISTA, ROMINA BERNARDO,
o February 2, 1987  new Constitution is ratified VALERIE PAGASA BUENAVENTURA, EDAN MARRI CAÑETE, VANN ALLEN
• 2010 – Constitution has already lasted 23 years DELA CRUZ, RENE DELORINO, PAULYN MAY DUMAN, SHARON ESCOTO,
• Who wrote the Constitution? Ans: The sovereign Filipino people RODRIGO FAJARDO III, GIRLIE FERRER, RAOULLE OSEN FERRER, CARLA
REGINA GREPO, ANNA MARIE CECILIA GO, IRISH KAY KALAW, MARY
ANN JOY LEE, MARIA LUISA MANALAYSAY, MIGUEL RAFAEL MUSNGI,
MICHAEL OCAMPO, JAKLYN HANNA PINEDA, WILLIAM RAGAMAT,
MARICAR RAMOS, ENRIK FORT REVILLAS, JAMES MARK TERRY RIDON,
JOHANN FRANTZ RIVERA IV, CHRISTIAN RIVERO, DIANNE MARIE ROA,
NICHOLAS SANTIZO, MELISSA CHRISTINA SANTOS, CRISTINE MAE
TABING, VANESSA ANNE TORNO, MARIA ESTER VANGUARDIA, and
MARCELINO VELOSO III
Respondents: HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, in his capacity of Executive
Secretary, HON. ALBERTO ROMULO, in his capacity as Secretary of
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Department of Foreign Affairs, HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA, in his capacity  Petitioners also content the RA’s treatment of KIG as “regime of
of the Department of Budget and Management, HON. DIONY VENTURA, islands” results in loss of large maritime area and prejudices the
in his capacity as administrator of the National Mapping & Research livelihood of subsistence fishermen; RA 9522 excluded to
Information Authority, and HON. HILARIO DAVIDE, JR., in his capacity as reference the Treaty of Paris and included the UNCLOS III’s
representative of the permanent mission of the Republic of the framework.
Philippines to the United Nations.  Respondents raised the ff:
o (1) Petitioners’ lack of locus standi and,
Ponente: Justice Carpio o (2) Propriety of writs of certiorari and prohibition.
 Respondents defended RA 9522 as country’s compliance with
Case: Original action of writs of certiorari and prohibition that assails the terms of UNCLOS III, preserving territory over KIG, and RA 9522
constitutionality of RA 9522. does not undermine country’s security, environment and
economic interests, and country’s claim over Sabah.
Background:  Respondents also question the normative force under
 1961  Congress passed RA No. 3046 demarcating the international law of petitioners’ assertion regarding the Treaty
maritime baselines of the Philippines. This followed the framing of Paris.
of UNCLOS I in 1958, which codified the extent of sovereign
rights over territorial seas. RA No. 3046 remain unchanged for 5 Issues:
decades.  Preliminary Issues:
 Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522 because of the o Whether petitioners possess locus standi.
need to comply to UNCLOS III. UNCLOS III prescribes the water‐ o Whether writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper
land ration, length, and contour of baselines of archipelagic remedies to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522.
States and sets the deadline for the filing of application for the  Merits: whether or not RA 9522 is unconstitutional.
extended continental shelf.
 RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location of Ruling/Ratio  Court holds that:
some basepoints around the Philippine archipelago, and named 1. Petitioners possess locus standi to bring suit as citizens.
KIG and Scarborough Shoal as “regimes of islands”. Ratio: They are citizens with constitutionally sufficient interest in
 Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two the resolution of the merits of the case which undoubtedly raises
principal grounds: issues of national significance necessitating urgent resolution; it is
o (1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory in understandably difficult to find other litigants possessing “a more
violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution, and direct and specific interest” to bring the suit.
o (2) RA 9522 opens the country’s waters landward of the
baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and 2. Writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to test
aircrafts in violation of relevant constitutional constitutionality of RA 9522.
provisions.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Ratio: Court, by tradition, viewed writs of certiorari and prohibition of loss of about 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial
as proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes; waters is unfounded both in fact and law as RA 9522
statute involved in the case has relevance in the life of Philippine optimized the location of basepoints and therefore,
nation so Court inevitably finds itself constrained to take cognizance increased the Philippines’ total maritime space by 146, 216
of the case. square nautical miles as there is an extension of the reach of
exclusive economic zones. Also, Section 2 of RA 9522 shows
3. RA 9522 is constitutional. Philippines’ continued claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction
Ratio: RA 9522is a statutory tool to demarcate the country’s over the KIG and Scarborough Shoal (…over which the
maritime zones and continental shelf under UNCLOS III, not to Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction…).
delineate Philippine territory. UNCLOS III is a multilateral treaty Had Congress enclosed KIG and SS in RA 9522, they would
regulating, among others, sea‐use rights over maritime zones, have committed the following breaches:
territorial waters, exclusive economic zone, and continental shelves o (1) Article 47.3 of UNCLOS III (baselines shall not
that UNCLOS III delimits. It was the culmination of decades‐long depart to any appreciable extent from the general
negotiations among UN members to codify norms regulating the configuration of the archipelago).
conduct of states in the world’s ocean ands and submarine areas. o (2) Article 47.2 of UNCLOS III (length of baselines
Baseline laws are enacted to mark‐out specific basepoints along shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, save for 3% of
States coasts to serve as geographic starting points to measure the the total number of baselines, which can reach up
breadth of maritime zones and continental shelf. (Article 48 of to 125 nautical miles). Classification of KIG and SS as
UNCLOS III) Baselines are nothing but statutory mechanisms to “regimes of islands” is responsible observance of its
delimit with precision the extent of maritime zones and continental pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept)
shelves and this gives notice to the international community within obligation under UNCLOS III.
which the State can exercise treaty‐based rights.
Statutory claim over Sabah under RA 5446 is retained.
Regarding Treaty of Paris: baselines of Philippines would still have to  Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did not repeal, keeps
be drawn in accordance with RA 9522 to conform to UNCLOS III. open the door for drawing the baselines of Sabah.
 UNCLOS III plays no role in the diminution of territory.
States acquire or lose territory through occupation, UNCLOS III and RA 9522 is not incompatible with Constitution’s
accretion, cession and prescription. Territorial claims to land delineation of internal waters.
features are outside of UNCLOS III; it is governed by general  The Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of
international law. water lying landward of the baselines, including the air
 RA 9522’s use of the framework of regime of islands to space over it and the submarine areas underneath. UNCLOS
determine the maritime zones of the KIG and the III affirms this. The fact of sovereignty, however, does not
Scarborough Shoal, is not inconsistent with the Philippines’ preclude the operation of municipal and international law
claim of sovereignty over these areas. Petitioner’s assertion norms subjecting territorial sea or archipelagic waters to
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


necessary, if not marginal burdens in the interest of  Philippines, when it signed the UNCLOS III made the
international navigation (international law principle of following Declaration: “The signing of the Convention by the
freedom to navigate), thus, domestically the political GRP shall not in any manner impair or prejudice the
branches of the Philippine government may pass legislation sovereign rights of the RP under and arising from the
designating routes within the archipelagic waters to Constitution of the Philippines.” “Such signing shall not in
regulate innocent and sea lanes passage. The right of any manner impair or prejudice the sovereignty of the RP
innocent passage is a customary international law, thus over any territory over which it exercises soverign authority,
automatically incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law. such as the KIG and waters appurtenant thereto;”
 The imposition of these passage rights through archipelagic  Article 46 of UNCLOS III in fact recognizes that an
waters was a concession of participating States in exchange archipelagic state, such as the Philippines, is a state
for their right to claim all the waters landward of their “constituted wholly by one or more archipelagos and may
baselines. Moreover, the recognition of waters enclosed by include other islands.
State’s baselines prevents the treatment of their islands as  UNCLOS III pertains to a law on the seas, not territory
separate islands under UNCLOS III.  Philippines maintains the sui generis character of our
archipelagic waters as equivalent to the internal waters of
Regarding the petitioners’ claim of non‐executory constitutional continental coastal states.
provisions in Article II: It must fail. o Article I of the Constitution: “the waters around,
 Our present state of jurisprudence considers the provisions between, and connecting the islands of the
in Article II as mere legislative guides, which absent enabling archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
legislation, “do not embody judicially enforceable dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
constitutional rights.” Philippines. – ratification of people of 1987
Constitution veritably rejected the quid pro quo
RA 9522 and the Philippines’ Maritime Zones – Passage of RA 9522 petitioners take as being subsumed in that treaty.
is in the discretion of Congress. Absent an UNCLOS III compliant
baselines law, Philippines will find itself devoid of internationally CLASS DISCUSSION
acceptable baselines from where the breadth of its maritime zones  24 nautical miles – 200 nautical miles: already considered as
and continental shelf is measured. It sends an open invitation to high seas and not anymore part of Philippine territorial waters
seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the o We don’t own the seas but we have rights
waters and submarine areas around our archipelago and weakens o Lands outside of our territorial waters such as KIG and
country’s case in any international dispute Scarborough Shoal – part of our exclusive economic
zone
Wherefore, we DISMISS the petition.  UNCLOS – not about drawing territorial rights but about usage
Justice J.R. Velasco, Concurring of seas

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Article 2: Declaration of Principles and State Policies authorities for reasons of their own decline to make use
of. The first proposition is implied from the fact of
Section 2. The Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Philippine sovereignty over the bases; the second from
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority the express provisions of the treaty.
emanates from them. o Reagan: The Philippines’ authority may be exercised
over its entire domain. Within its limits, its decrees are
POINTS supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws govern
I. Sovereignty: People vs. Gozo therein, and everyone to whom it applies must submit
to its terms. That is the extent of its jurisdiction, both
Ponente: Justice Fernando territorial and personal.
o Principle of auto‐limitation: a state, then, if it chooses
Background: to, may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is
 Appellant seeks to set aside a judgment of the Court of First illimitable competence. Even if there is diminution of
Instance of Zambales, convicting her of a violation of an jurisdictional rights, there is no disappearance of said
ordinance of Olongapo, Zambales, requiring a permit from the rights.
municipal mayor for the construction or erection of a building, o It is not precluded from allowing another power to
as well as any modification, alternation, repair or demolition participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over
thereof. She questions the validity and applicability of provisions certain portions of its territory. They are still subject to
to her by invoking due process. Her house was constructed its authority.
within the naval base leased to the American armed forces and o Jurisdiction does not disappear. From the military bases
thus seeks emasculation of sovereignty’s rights by asserting agreement, bases under the lease of American armed
administrative jurisdiction is not present. She was given 30 days forces are not and cannot be foreign territory.
from the finality of judgment to obtain a permit, failing which,
she is required to demolish the same.
II. GOVERNMENTS DE JURE AND DE FACTO: Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez
Ruling/Rationale Tan Keh
 No support in law for the stand taken by appellant.
o “By the Agreement, it should be noted, the Philippine Issue: The question to be determined is whether or not the
Government merely consents that the United States governments established in the Phil. Islands under the names of Phil.
exercise jurisdiction in certain cases.” (Justice Tuason) Executive Commission and Republic of the Philippines during the
o Under the terms of the treaty, the US government has Japanese military occupation or regime were de facto governments.
prior or preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction of
such offenses. The Philippine Government retains not Ruling/Rationale:
only jurisdiction rights not granted, but also all Kinds of de facto governments:
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


(1) Government that gets possession and control of, or usurps, by while in its military possession, is one of the incidents of war,
force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal and flows directly from the right to conquer
government and maintains itself against the will of the latter. o Such authority and rules are delivered directly from the
(2) Government that is established and maintained by military laws of war, as established by the usage of the world
forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the and confirmed by the writings of publicists and
course of war and denominated a government of paramount decisions of courts – in fine, from the law of nations
force.  The municipal laws of the conquered territory are considered
(3) Government that is established by the inhabitants of a country continuing in force, as far as they are compatible with the new
who rise in insurrection against the parent state. order of things, until they are suspended or superseded by the
occupying belligerent, and in practice they are allowed to
Government of the 2nd kind: Thorington v Smith remain and to be administered by the ordinary tribunals,
(1) Its existence is maintained by active military power within the substantially as they were before the occupation
territories, and against the rightful authority of an established
and lawful government. Government of the 3rd kind:
(2) While it exists, it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by Thorington vs. Smith
private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in  US recognized the government set up by the Confederate States
submission to such force, do not become responsible, as as a de facto government
wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws Williams vs. Bruffy
of the rightful government.  SC of the US discussing the validity of the acts of the
The powers and duties of de facto governments of this description are Confederate States said: "The same general form of
regulated in Section III of the Hague Conventions of 1907. government, the same general laws for the administration of
 Article 43 provides that “the authority of the legitimate power justice and protection of private rights, which had existed in the
having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter States prior to the rebellion, remained during its continuance
shall take all steps in his power to reestablish, and insure, as far and afterwards. As far as the Acts of the States do not impair or
as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless tend to impair the supremacy of the national authority, or the
absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. just rights of citizens under the Constitution, they are, in
 Belligerent occupant has the right and is burdened with the duty general, to be treated as valid and binding.”
to insure public order and safety – he can suspend old laws and Horn vs. Lockhart
promulgate new ones but he is enjoined to respect the  The existence of a state of insurrection and war did not loosen
municipal laws that promote public order and safety the bonds of society, or do away with civil government or the
 Laws of political complexions are suspended or in abeyance regular administration of the laws.
during military occupation  “No one, that we are aware of, seriously questions the validity
 Halleck, International Law (Vol. 2 p. 444) – the right of one of judicial or legislative Acts in the insurrectionary States
belligerent to occupy and govern the territory of the enemy touching these and kindred subjects, where they were not
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


hostile in their purpose or mode of enforcement to the political complexion, were good and valid after the liberation
authority of the National Government, and did not impair the and reoccupation of the Philippines by US and Filipino forces
rights of citizens under the Constitution.” under the leadership of Gen. Douglas MacArthur.
Baldy vs. Hunter  That not only judicial but also legislative acts of de facto
 De facto governments should not be disregarded or held to be governments, which are not of a political complexion, are and
invalid merely because those governments were organized in remain valid after reoccupation of a territory occupied by a
hostility. belligerent occupant
 Existence of war between the United States and the
Confederate States did not relieve those who are within the III. In re Letter of Associate Justice Reynato Puno
insurrectionary lines from the necessity of civil obedience, nor  Revolution – the complete overthrow of the established
destroy the bonds of society nor do away with civil government government in any country or state by those who are previously
or the regular administration of the laws. subject to it
 It was through the February 1986 revolution that Filipino people
In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the Philippine Executive tore themselves away from the state
Commission, which was organized by Order No. 1, issued on January 23,  From the natural law point of view, the right of revolution has
1942, by the Commander of the Japanese forces, was a civil government been defined as “an inherent right of a people to cast our their
established by the military forces of occupation and therefore a de facto rulers, change their policy or effect radical reforms in their
government of the second kind. systems of government or institutions by force or a general
 The fact that the Philippine Executive Commission was a civil uprising when the legal and constitutional methods of making
and not a military government and was run by Filipinos and not change have proved inadequate or are obstructed as to be
by Japanese nationals, is of no consequence. unavailable.
 The so‐called Republic of the Philippines was the same  Locus of positive law‐making power lies with the people and so
character as the Philippine Executive Commission, and the they can also abolish, alter, and reform the existing constitution
ultimate source of its authority was the same — the Japanese  3 clauses that precede the Freedom Constitution:
military authority and government. o (1) New government under President Cory Aquino was
 However, as a belligerent occupation, being essentially installed through direct exercise of the power of the
provisional, does not serve to transfer sovereignty over the Filipino people.
territory. Thus, Japan had no legal power to grant independence o (2) Action was done in defiance of the provisions of the
to the Philippines. 1973 Constitution.
o (3) Cory Aquino promulgate the ff. Provisional
Virtue of Postliminy (Potliminium) in international law Constitution
 Japanese military occupation being de facto governments, it  Aquino government was “revolutionary” in the sense that it
necessarily follows that the judicial acts and proceedings of the came into existence in defiance of existing legal processes and it
courts of justice of those governments, which are not of a was instituted by the direct action of the people in opposition to
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


the authoritarian values and practices of the overthrown withheld the operation of the 1973 Constitution, which
government. guaranteed private exclusionary rights.
 Was the existing legal order overthrown by the Aquino
government? YES. It is assumed that the legal order remains as Correct issues:
a “culture system” of the polity as long as the latter endures and  (1) Whether the revolutionary government was bound by the
that a point may be reached, however, where the legal system Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum.
ceases to be operative as a whole for it is no longer obeyed by  (2) Whether the protection accorded to individuals under the
the population nor enforced by the officials. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
 Aquino government was a violation of the 1973 Constitution yet (“Covenant”) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
it signaled the point where the legal system then in effect had (“Declaration”) remained in effect during interregnum.
ceased to be obeyed by the Filipino people.
Ruling/Rationale
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan  Court: We hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973
Constitution was not operative during the interregnum.
Ponente: Justice Carpio However, we rule that the protection accorded to individuals
under the Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect
Background: during the interregnum.
President Aquino issued EO No. 1 creating the PCGG, which is tasked to o During the interregnum, a person could not invoke any
investigate former President Marcos, his family, friends, subordinates, exclusionary right under the Bill of Rights because there
and close associates and recover ill‐gotten wealth. PCGG created an AFP was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the
Anti‐Graft Board to investigate officials. AFP Board investigated the interregnum.
respondent Major General Josephus Ramas. o To hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973
Constitution remained operative during the
THIRD ISSUE: Legality of the Search and Seizure interregnum would render void all sequestration orders
 Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan erred in declaring the issued by the PCGG before the adoption of the Freedom
properties confiscated from Dimaano’s house as illegally seized Constitution.
and therefore adminissible in evidence.  Freedom Constitution, as well as the 1987 Constitution
 Raiding team seized ff. items: one baby armalite rifle with two recognized the validity of sequestration orders, thus: … it should
magazines, 40 rounds of 5.56 ammunition, one pistol, caliber be dispelled by the fact that these particular remedies and the
.45, communications equipment, cash amounting to Php authority of the PCGG to issue them have received
2,870,000 and US $50,000, jewelry, and land title. Not all items constitutional approbation and sanction.
are included in the search warrant.  Father Bernas was against the amendment excepting the
 Search and seizure was during the revolutionary government. sequestration orders from the Bill of Rights in drafting the 1987
Petitioner asserts that the revolutionary government effectively Constitution because it is against the Bill of Rights.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


o Excepting sequestration orders are like vices and these faith compliance with it treaty obligations under international
are hard to shed. law.
o What matters are the results and not the legal niceties  The Provisional Constitution served as a self‐limitation by the
are very disturbing. The argument makes the PCGG an revolutionary government to avoid abuses of the absolute
auctioneer and the BOR on an auction. power entrusted to it by the people.
o Nation will only survive and grow only if it would  And so, the search warrant is thus valid with respect to the
become convinced of the values enshrined in the items specifically described in the warrant but those that are
Constitution of a price that is beyond monetary not included in the warrant are considered illegal searches and
estimation. seizures. There was no legal basis to seize these objects without
 Nevertheless, even during the interregnum, the Filipino people showing that these items could be the subject of warrantless
continued to enjoy, under the Covenant and the Declaration, search and seizures.
almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights in the 1987
Constitution. Therefore, petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.
 Revolutionary government installed itself as a de jure
government so assumed good faith compliance of Covenant and
Declaration.
o Covenant:
 Article 2(1) requires every signatory “to respect
and to ensure to all individuals within its
territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights
recognized in the present Covenant.”
 Article 17(1): “no one shall be subjected to
arbitrary or unlawful interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence.”
o Declaration: Article 17(2): “no one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his property.”
 The Court has interpreted the Declaration as
part of the generally accepted principles of
international law and binding on the State.
 The fact is the revolutionary government did not repudiate the
Covenant or the Declaration in the same way it repudiated the
1973 Constitution. As the de jure government, the revolutionary
government could not escape responsibility for the State’s good
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 FR. JOAQUIN BERNAS, S.J.

ARTICLE II: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
PRINCIPLES
Section 1.
The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

Section 2.
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

Section 3.
Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal
is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.

Section 4.
The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the
fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service.

Section 5.
The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the
enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.

Section 6.
The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

STATE POLICIES
Section 7.
The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty,
territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self‐determination.

Section 8.
The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.

Section 9.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from
poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life
for all.

Section 10.
The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.

Case Facts Issues Held Ratio/Ruling
Tondo Medical Center Ponente: Chico‐Nazaro, J. (i) Whether or not the (i) HSRA cannot (i) In Tanada v. Angara the Court has
Employees v. Court of HSRA can be nullified be nullified already ruled the sections found on
Appeals A petition for review of certiorari on based solely on based solely on Article 2 of the Constitution as not self‐
the CA’s decision of denying a petitioner’s allegation the executing and need legislative
petition for nullification of the Health that it violates the aforementioned enactments before they can be
Sector Reform Agenda (HSRA) general principles allegation. implemented. Sections of Article 2 are
Philippines (1999‐2004 DOH). HSRA expressed in Sec. used by the judiciary as aids or as
was issued by former Pres. Erap 5,9,10,11,13,15 and 18 guides in the exercise of its power of
through Executive Order No. 102 of Art. 2. judicial review and by legislature in its
“Redirecting the Functions and enactment of laws.
Operations of the DOH” In Basco v. Phil. Amusement and
Petitioner alleges that the reform Gaming Corporation, Sections 11,12,
resulted in the inaccessibility of free and 13 of Art. 2 are not self‐executing
medicine and medical services to the provisions as they merely lay down a
poor and thus counters the general principle and cannot give rise to
aspirations and ideals of the Filipino a cause of action in the courts.
peoples. Reforms violated Sec. Other non self‐executing provisions:
5,9,10,11,13,15 and 18 of Art. 2; Sec Sec. 1 of Article 8, Section 2 of Article
1 of Art. 3, Sec. 11 and 14 of Art. 8, XIV
and Sec. 1 and 3 of Art. 15 of the
1987 Constitution

Section 11.
The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.

Section 12.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally
protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the
youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

Section 13.
The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation‐building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and
social well‐being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.

Section 14.
The State recognizes the role of women in nation‐building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.

Section 15.
The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them.

Section 16.
The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

Oposa v. Factoran Jr. Ponente: Davide, Jr. J. (i) Whether or not (i) Filipinos have (i) Even though right is found in Art. 2
Filipinos have a right to a right to a and not in the Bill of Rights, it does not
Controvery started in Civil Case No. a balanced and balanced and follow that it is less important than any
90‐777 which was filed before Branch healthful ecology healthful ecology of the civil and political rights. Such a
66 of the RTC NCR. Petitioners are as defined in right belongs to a different category for
minors duly represented and Section 16, Art. it concerns self‐preservation and self‐
enjoined by parents while 2 perpetuation. These different
respondent is former DENR Secretary categories of rights are assumed to be
Factoran, Jr. substituted by current in existence from the inception of
Sec. Honorable Angel C. Alcala. Addt’l humankind and when it was written in
plaintiff is Phil. Ecological Network, the Constitution, it is to highlight their
Inc. (PENI) a domestic, non‐stock, importance.
non‐profit corp. engaging in
concerted action geared for the (ii) Whether or not said (ii) Petitioners (ii) Their personality to sue in behalf of
protection of the environment and petitioners have a cause have a cause of the succeeding generations can only be
national resources. Complaint is of action to “prevent action adequate based on the concept of
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


instituted as a taxpayer’s class suit the misappropriation of enough to show, intergenerational responsibility insofar
and that petitioners are citizens of impairment” of prima facie, the as the right to a balanced and healthful
the Phils. entitled to the full benefit Philippine rainforests claimed violation ecology is concerned. Every generation
and enjoyment of the country’s and “arrest the of their rights. has a responsibility to the next to
resources. Petitioners also assert that unabated hemorrhage preserve the rhythm and harmony for
they represent their generation and of the country’s vital the full enjoyment of a balanced and
the generation yet unborn. They life‐support systems healthful ecology. Right to a balanced
prayed that defendant and his agents and continued rape of and healthful environment carries a
and representatives (1) cancel all Mother Earth.” correlative duty of not impairing the
existing timbler license agreements environment. Right of petitioners is as
(TLA) in the country and (2) cease and clear as the right of DENR with its
desist fron receiving, accepting, functions as provided in EO. No 192. A
processing, renewing or approving denial or violation of that right by the
new TLAs. other who has the correlative duty or
obligation to respect or protect the
Phil. is a rich country with many same gives rise to a cause of action.
resources and scientific evidence Granting of TLAs violated petitioners’
reveals that in order to maintain a right hence the full protection thereof
balanced and healthful ecology, the requires that no further TLAs should be
country’s land area should be utilized renewed or granted.
on a ratio of 54% for forests,
environment, etc. 46% on
agricultural, residential, industrial,
commercial, etc. Disturbances in the
balances resulted in the ff:
(a) Water shortages,
(b) Salinization of the water table,
(c) Massive erosion,
(d) Endangered and extinction of
flora and fauna,
(e) Disturbance of cultural
communities,
(f) Siltation of rivers and waterbeds

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


(g) Recurrent spells of drought
(h) Increasing velocity of typhoon
winds
(i) Flooding of lowlands
(j) Shortening of lifespan of dams
(k) Reduction of capacity to process
CO2.
Laguna Lake Ponente: Romero, J. (i) Whether or not the (i) LLDA has (i) Section 4 of RA explicitly authorizes
Development LLDA has authority and authority and LLDA to make whatever order may be
Authority vs. Court of Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of our power to issue an order power to issue necessary in the exercise of its
Appeals Lady of Lourdes filed a letter‐ an order through jurisdiction; it is likewise a settled rule
complaint with the Laguna Lake Republic Act No. that an administrative agency has also
Development Authority to stop the 4850. such powers as are necessarily implied
operation of the 8.6 hectare in the exercise of its express powers.
dumpsite because of the harmful
health effects it causes and (ii) Whether or not LLDA (ii) LLDA has (ii) The immediate response to the
possibilities of pollution. LLDA found have the authority to authority to demands of “the necessities of
out City of Caloocan maintains entertain complaint entertain protecting vital public interests” gives
dumpsite without ECC and leachate against the dumping of complaint. vitality to the statement on ecology
seeping through the waters can garbage in the open embodied in Art II of the Constitution.
cause pollution and so they ordered a dumpsite in Camarin Section 16 – as a constitutionally
cease and desist order to Caloocan guaranteed right of every person, it
City. Dumping operation closed for a carries the correlative duty of non‐
while then opened again when impairment. Health is a fundamental
settlements failed to happen. LLDA human right (Universal Declaration of
issued another order and stopped Human Rights and Alma Conference
trucks from entering Camarin. City of Declaration of 1978)
Caloocan filed a petition in the RTC
declaring a nullity of the orders given
by LLDA, claiming that it is the sole
authority empowered to promote the
health and safety and enhace the
right of people of Caloocan to a
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


balanced ecology. RTC issued a TRO
to LLDA, LLDA filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of Pollution
Control Law. CA upheld RTC’s
decision.

Section 17.
The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social
progress, and promote total human liberation and development.

Section 18.
The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.

Section 19.
The State shall develop a self‐reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.

Garcia v. Board of Ponente: Gutierrez, Jr. J. (i) Whether or not BOI (i) The Court (i)
Investments was correct in holds and finds (1) Bataan was the original choice
Petition to annul and set aside the approving the transfer that the BOI hence the name of BPC
decision of the BOI/DTI approving the of BPC in Batangas and committed a (2) BRC in Bataan produces 60% naptha
transfer of the proposed the shift of feedstock to grave abuse of (3) Naptha was exempted from tax
petrochemical plant site from Bataan naptha and/or LPG? discretion in because of petrochemical industry and
to Batangas and shift of feedstock to approving the so neither BOI or foreign investors
naptha and/or LPG transfer of the should disregard or contravene
petrochemical expressed policy
Background: 576 hectares in Limay plant from (4) Duty of the State to exercise
Bataan was for the Petrochemical Bataan to authority over foreign investments
Industrial Zone. Taiwanese investors Batangas and within national jurisdiction.
formed BPC with terms specifying authorizing the Development of a self‐reliant and
Bataan as the place and using naptha. change of independent national economy
It was supposed to be a joint venture feedstock from effectively controlled by Filipinos
with PNOC. BPC was accorded several naptha only to (Section 19, Art, 2)
benefits in relation to the industry. naphtha and/or (5) capital requirements will be
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


But in Feb 1989 AT Chong the major LPG for the main minimized if changes won’t happen
investor of BPC gave BOI a letter reason that the (6) PNOC can be involved to the benefit
stating BPC’s desire to relocate in final say is in the and advantage of gov’t
Batangas investor all other
circumstances to > Every provision of the Constitution on
the contrary the national economy and patrimony is
notwithstanding. infused with the spirit of national
interest.
> Petrochemical industry is not an
ordinary industry and essential to
national interest.

Section 20.
The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments.

Section 21.
The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.

Section 22.
The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development.

Section 23.
The State shall encourage non‐governmental, community‐based, or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation.

Section 24.
The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation‐building.

Section 25.
The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.

Section 26.
The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Pamatong v. Comelec Ponente: Tinga, J. (I) Whether or not (i) The clause (i) Sec. 26 of Art. 2 neither bestows
COMELEC violated “equal access to such a right nor elevates the privilege to
Petitioner filed a certificate for petitioner’s right to opportunities for the level of an enforceable right.
candidacy last Dec. 27, 2003 but “equal access to public service” is Provisions in Art. 2 are generally
respondent refused to give due opportunities for public not a considered non self‐executing and
course to petitioners certificate of service.” constitutional merely specifies a guideline for
candidacy (dated: Jan. 17,2004). right but a legislative or executive action.
Petitioner seeks a petition for a privilege subject Commissioner (now Chief Justice)
review of certiorari because the to limitations Hilario Davide, Jr. changed some words
decision was violative of his right to imposed by law. of Sec. 26 (from “broad” to “equal
“equal access to opportunities for protection” and “office” to “service”) –
public service” under Sec. 26 of Art. The provision is not intended to compel
II. Petitioner argues that Comelec the State to enact positive measures
indirectly amended the consti that would accommodate as many
provisions on the electoral process people as possible into public office.
and limited the power of the Words such as “equal access”
sovereign people to choose their “opportunities” “public service” are
leaders. Petitioner alleges that he is susceptible to countless interpretations
the most qualified among and so it is difficult to regard this as
presidential candidates and also operative as positive rights.
attacks the validity of the form for The clause is subject to limitations
the certificate of candidacy of (provisions of the Omnibus Election
Comelec. Code on “Nuisance Candidates” and
Comelec Resolution No. 6452) and the
limitations, as long as it applies to
everyone, is presumed valid. Petitioner
did not challenge the validity of the
limitations so they have to be accorded
due weight.

Section 27.
The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Section 28.
Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving
public interest.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


ARTICLE VI: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 1.
The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the
extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.

Garcia v. Commission Ponente: Puno, J. (i) Whether or not (i) Pambayang (i) Constitution clearly includes
on Elections Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. resolutions as subject of a local
G.R. No. 111230 In its Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10 Kapasyahan Blg. 10 10 of initiative. Resolutions as subject of
September 30, 1994 Serye 1993, Sangguniang Bayang ng serye 1993 of SMB Sangguniang initiative was implemented by Congress
Morong (SBM) agreed to the Bataan is the proper Bayan ng – R.A. No. 6735 Initiative – power of
inclusion of the municipality of subject of an initiative. Morong is a the people to make amendments to the
Morong as part of the Subic Special proper subject of Constitution or propose legislation
Economic Zone as accorded in R.A. an initiative. (rooted from original legislative power);
7227. Petition filed a petition with they can enact or reject any act or law
SBM saying Morong didn’t acted on by Congress or local legislative body.
the petition and petitioners resorted
to power of initiative under Local
Government Code 1991 and solicited
signatures for the repeal. COMELEC
denied the petition on the ground
that its subject is merely a resolution
and not an ordinance
Eastern Shipping Lines Ponente: Cruz, J. (i) Whether or not POEA (i) POEA did not (i) Delegation of legislative power has
v. Philippine Overseas violated the non‐ violate the non‐ become frequent if not necessary and
Employment POEA awarded private respondent delegation of legislative delegation of has established itself to be a rule and
Administration P192,000 for the death of husband power. legislative power. the non‐delegability an exception.
166 SCR.A. 533 (1988) (Vitaliano Saco). Petitioner challenges Modernizing society gave way to more
POEA’s jurisdiction over the case as problems and thus, legislative’s
Saco is not an overseas worker and competence and capacity has become
that POEA has no authority to limited. Delegation or legislative
promulgate the regulation. Petitioner powers are particularly applicable to
argues that POEA’s Memorandum administrative bodies (power of
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


No. 2 is violative of the principle of subordinate legislation). Memorandum
non‐delegation of legislative power. No. 2 falls into administrative
regulation and has passed one of the
tests of valid delegation of power which
is sufficient standard test (limitations
and boundaries of delegate’s authority
are mapped out)
Tablarin v Gutierrez Ponente: Feliciano, J. (i) Whether or not (i) Necessary (i) The general principle of non‐
152 SCR.A. 730 (1987) Section 5(a) and (f) of standards set delegation of legislative power, which
Petitioners have made an argument R.A. 2382 failed to forth in Sec. 1 of both flows from and reinforces the
that Section 5(a) and (f) of R.A. 2382 establish the necessary the 1959 Medical more fundamental rule of the
offend against the constitutional standards and thus, Act and in separation and allocation of powers
principle which forbids the undue offend the principle of Sections 5(a) and among the three depts. Of govt must
delegation of legislative power by forbidding undue 7 of the Same Act be applied with circumspection in
failing to establish the necessary delegation of legislative and that these respect of statutes
standard to be followed by delegate, power considered > Justice Laurel: complexities of modern
the Board of Medical Education. together are government – adapt to subordinate
sufficient legislation; there is a constantly
compliance with growing tendency toward the
the requirements delegation of greater power by the
of the non‐ legislature, and toward the approved of
delegation the practice by the courts
principle Standards set for subordinate
legislation in the exercise of rule‐
making authority may be either
expressed or implied.
Free Telephone Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 empowers (i) Whether or not Batas (i) Batas (i) Non‐delegation of powers appears to
Workers Union v. Minister of Labor to assume Pambansa Blg. 130 is Pambansa Blg. be too strict and rigid for modern
Minister of Labor jurisdiction over labor disputes unconstitutional for 130 is not governments encounter different
108 SCR.A. 757 (1981) causing or likely to cause strikes or violating the non‐ unconstitutional complexities and thus subordinate
lockouts adversely affecting the delegation of legislative for being violate legislation comes into the picture. The
national interest and deciding and powers of the non‐ difficulty with subordinate legislation
certifying the same to the National delegation of comes in the fixing of the limit and
Labor Relations Commission legislative extent of authority. Safest way to
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


powers decide each case is according to its
peculiar environment, having into mind
the wholesome legislative purpose
intended to achieve.
Closer relationship of the departments
in our Constitution there is more
promptitude in framing our policies and
unity in its execution. Non‐delegation
would be an obstacle in our national
development. “Power should be
delegated where there is agreement
that a task must be performed and it
cannot be effectively performed by the
legislature without the assistance of a
delegate or without an expenditure of
time so great as to lead the neglect of
equally important business”
Cebu Oxygen and Ponente: Gancayco, J. (i) Whether or not an (i) An (i) It is fundamental that in a case
Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Implementing Order of implementing where only pure questions of law are
Secretary Drilon R.A. No. 6640 was passed increasing the Secretary of Labor Order of the raised, the doctrine of exhaustion of
176 SCR.A. 24 (1989) minimum wage by 10 pesos. The and Employment Secretary of the administrative remedies cannot
Secretary of Labor issued pertinent (DOLE) can provide for a Labor and apply because issues of law cannot be
rules in implementing the R.A., prohibition not Employment resolved with finality by the
prohibiting the employer from contemplated by the cannot provide administrative officer. The question
crediting anniversary wages increases law it seeks to for a prohibition raised here is a question of law. It is a
negotiated under a CBA against such implement not fundamental rule that implementing
wage increases in R.A. No. 6640 contemplated by rules cannot add or detract from the
the law it seeks provisions of the law it is designed to
to implement as implement. Administrative regulations
R.A. No. 6640 adopted under legislative authority by a
does not prohibit particular department must be in
the crediting of harmony with the provisions of the law,
CBA anniversary and should be for the sole purpose of
wages increases carrying into effect its general
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


for purposes of provisions.
compliance
Tatad v. Secretary of Ponente: Puno, J. (i) Whether or not (i) Section 15 of (i) Section 15 can hurdle both the
Energy Section 15 of R.A. No. R.A. 8180 does completeness test and sufficient
G.R. No. 124360 Petitions challenge the 8180 violates the not violate the standard test of due delegation. The
November 5, 1997 constitutionality of Sec. 15 R.A. No. constitutional constitutional law is complete on the question of the
8180, which ends the 26 years of prohibition on undue prohibition on final date of full deregulation. There
gov’t regulation of downstream oil delegation of power undue delegation were also determinate standards set
industry. Full deregulation will start and whether or not EO of power but EO forth in Sec. 15. The inclusion of EO No.
after March 1997 and when the No. 392 is a No. 392 is a 392 with the depletion of the OPSF
prices of crude oil and petroleum misapplication of R.A. misapplication of fund is extraneous and rewrote the
products in the world market are No. 8180 R.A. No. 8180 standards included in R.A. No. 8180.
declining and when the exchange The Executive is bereft of any right to
rate of the peso in relation to the US alter the standards in the R.A.. The
dollar is stable and upon approval of exercise of delegated power is given a
the President. EO No. 372 issued by strict scrutiny by courts for the delegate
President Ramos approved the is a mere agent whose actions cannot
deregulation of the downstream oil infringe the agency.
industry considering the two factors
stated above plus including the OPSF
fund depletion as a factor.
Petitioners assail that no specific
time frame was set in the R.A. and
does not provide a determinate
standard to guide Executive Branch in
implementing the deregulation
People v. Dacuycuy Ponente: Regalado, J. (i) Whether or not the (i) The penalty of (i) It is not for the courts to fix the term
173 SCR.A. 90 (1989) penalty of imprisonment of imprisonment where no points of
Sec 32 of R.A. No. 4670 expressed 2 imprisonment provided provided in Sec. reference have been provided by the
alternative and distinct penalties: in Sec. 32 of R.A. No. 32 of R.A. No. legislature. What valid delegation
fine ranging from 100 to 1000 or 4670 is declared 4670 is declared presupposes and sanctions is an
imprisonment. No specified period unconstitutional unconstitutional exercise of discretion to fix the length
was indicated for imprisonment. of service of a term of imprisonment
Respondents contend that having no which must be encompassed within
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


People v. Dacuycuy Ponente: Regalado, J. (i) Whether or not the (i) The penalty of (i) It is not for the courts to fix the term
173 SCR.A. 90 (1989) penalty of imprisonment of imprisonment where no points of
Sec 32 of R.A. No. 4670 expressed 2 imprisonment provided provided in Sec. reference have been provided by the
alternative and distinct penalties: in Sec. 32 of R.A. No. 32 of R.A. No. legislature. What valid delegation
fine ranging from 100 to 1000 or 4670 is declared 4670 is declared presupposes and sanctions is an
imprisonment. No specified period unconstitutional unconstitutional exercise of discretion to fix the length
was indicated for imprisonment. of service of a term of imprisonment
Respondents contend that having no which must be encompassed within
specific period for the penalty is specific or designated limits will
violative of the constitutional constitute such exercise as an undue
prohibition against undue delegation delegation if not an outright intrusion
of legislative power as it is left in the into or assumption of legislative power
discretion of the court.
Employees Ponente: Sarmiento, J. (i) Whether or not R.A. (i) R.A. No. 6727 (i) The Commission noted that the
Confederation v. No. 6727 is valid is valid determination of wages generally
National Wages Petitioners are questioning the involves two methods: the floor‐wage
Commission validity of R.A. No. 6727 Wage method and the salary‐ceiling method.
G.R. No. 96169 Rationalization Act which provides It is true that wage‐fixing, like rate‐
September 24, 1991 new wage rates, provides, among fixing, constitutes an act of Congress, it
other things, for various Regional is also true, however, that Congress
Tripartite Wages and productivity may delegate the power to fix rates
Section 2. Boards in charge of prescription of provided that it leaves standards and
minimum wage rates for all workers the Commission has fulfilled this with
The Senate shall be composed of twenty‐four Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by
law. in the various regions, and for a Art. 124.
National Wages and Productivity
Section 3. Commission to review among other
functions wage levels determined by
No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural‐born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty‐five years of age,
the boards.
able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.

Social Justice Society v. Dec. 23, 2003  COMELEC issued (i) Whether or not R.A. (i) Section 36(g) Pimental argued that qualifications
Dangerous Drugs Resolution No. 6486 prescribing rules 9165’s mandatory drug og R.A. 9165 is under Sec. 3, Article 6 are the only
Board and regulations for mandatory drug testing is constitutional unconstitutional qualifications needed to be a candidate
G.R. No. 161658 testing of candidates for public office in the elections. Constitution prevails
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


November 3, 2008 in connection with the May 10, 2004 over administrative acts or laws
elections contrary to it.
> It can be argued that drug testing can
be optional but the provision in the R.A.
specified it to be mandatory hence,
suggesting that the obstinate ones shall
have to suffer to the adverse
consequences for not adhering to the
statutory demand

Section 4.
The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next
following their election. No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall
not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term of which he was elected.

Section 5.
(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be
elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their
respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party‐list
system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) The party‐list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For
three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one‐half of the seats allocated to party‐list representatives shall be filled, as
provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other
sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least
two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.
(4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards
provided in this section.

Veterans Federation COMELEC violated the legal (i) Is the 20% allocation (i) The 20% (i) First Issue: The Constitution simply
Party v. COMELEC parameters of R.A. No. 7941 which for party‐list allocation is not states “the party‐list representatives
G.R. No. 136781 are: (1) 20% allocation (2) 2% representatives mandatory and shall constitute 20 % of the total
October 6, 2000 threshold (3) three seat limit (4) mandatory or merely a merely a ceiling. number of representatives including
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


proportional representation ceiling? 2% allocation those under the party‐list” Section 5(2)
of Article VI is only a ceiling. A statute
remains a valid command of
sovereignty unless declared
unconstitutional.

(ii) Are the 2% threshold (ii) 3 seat limit is (ii) Second Issue: All gov’t authority
requirement and 3 seat constitutional emanates from the people, but is
limit constitutional? Method was exercised by representatives chosen by
How should the indicated in the them. But to have meaningful
additional seats of a case representation, the elected persons
qualified party be must have the mandate of a sufficient
determined? no. of people. When the law is clear,
the function of courts is simple
application, not interpretation or
circumvention. Three seat limit ensures
the entry of various interest‐
representations into the legislature.
Third Issue: How to determine the
allocation:
(1) Rank and determine first party
(2) (No. of seats available to
legislative districts/.80) * .20 =
no. of seats available to party‐
list representatives.
Bagong Bayani v. Ponente: Panganiban, J. (i) Whether or not (i) Political (i) First Issue: Under Sec. 5 Art. 6 of
COMELEC political parties may parties may Consti “members of the House of
G.R. No. 147589 Petitioners seek the disqualification participate in party‐list participate in Representatives may be elected
June 26, 2001 of private respondents, arguing elections party‐list through a party‐list system of
mainly that the party‐list system was elections. registered national, regional, and
intended to benefit the marginalized sectoral parties or organizations.”
and underrepresented, not the Commissioner Monsod and Sections 2
mainstream political parties, the non‐ and 11 of R.A. 7941 further reiterated
marginalized or overrepresented this.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


(ii) Whether or not (ii) The spirit of (ii) Second Issue: purpose of the party‐
party‐list system is the party‐list list system was to give genuine power
exclusive to system is geared to our people. Sec. 2 of R.A. 7941
marginalized and towards mandates a proportional
underrepresented marginalized and representation by means of Filipino
Whether or not underrepresente style party‐list system. The emphasis is
COMELEC committed d on the “marginalized and
grave abuse of underrepresented” “lack of well‐
discretion in defined constituencies” and
promulgating Omnibus “proportional representation.” It is not
Resolution No. 3785 enough for the candidate to claim
representation of the marginalized and
underrepresented; they must belong in
these specific sectors and and factually
and truly represent the marginalized
and underrepresented. The party‐list
system is a tool for the benefit of the
underprivileged. The intent is clear and
thus must be followed thoughout.

Ang Bagong Bayani‐ Ponente: Panganiban, J. (i) Should votes tallied (i) Votes tallied (i) Subtracting the votes of disqualified
OFW Labor Party et for the disqualified for the party‐list groups will make 2%
al., v. COMELEC, et al. The instant Motions for candidates be disqualified threshold attainable for marginalized
G.R. No. 147589 proclaimation contend that the deducted? candidates and underrepresented (proportional
June 25, 2003 disqualification of many party‐list should be representation)
orgs has reduced the “total number deducted.
of votes cast for the party‐list (ii) Does the clause Clause only (ii) Perceived “instability” can be
elections.” Because of this, 2% “total number of votes includes ballots alleviated because COMELEC now has
threshold has now been attained by cast for the party‐list from qualified the herein qualified and disqualified
movants and thus pray for their elections” include only parties. participants’ list and COMELEC can now
proclamation as winners. ballots from qualified be guided accordingly when accrediting
parties. new candidates for the next party‐list
elections and will be able to set the
period for accreditation in such time
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


and manner as to enable it to
determine their qualifications long
before the elections were held. There is
a need for patience and perseverance
in order to uphold the spirit of the law
of opening opportunities to the
marginalized and underrepresented.
Banat v. COMELEC Ponente: Carpio, J. (i) Is the 20% allocation (i) The 20% (i) The Constitution left the manner of
G.R. No. 179295 for party‐list allocation is allocating the seats available to party‐
April 21, 2009 A petition for certiorari and representatives mandatory. list representatives to the wisdom of
mandamus assails the Resolution mandatory or merely a the legislature.
promulgated on 3 August 2007. ceiling?

(ii) Is the 3 limit seat (ii) 3‐seat limit is (ii) New method is shown in the book.
unconstitutional? constitutional. (Table 3 pp.99‐100)

(iii) 2% threshold and (iii) 2% threshold (iii) The Court finds that the 2%
qualified voters is threshold makes it mathematically
constitutional? unconstitutional impossible to achieve the maximum
in the allocation number of available party list seats
of additional when the number of available party‐list
seats. seats exceeds 50. It frustrates the
attainment of the permissive ceiling
that 20% of the members of the House
of Representative shall consist of party‐
list representatives.

(iv) How shall the party‐ (iv) Follow Table 3 of pp. 99‐100 for the
list representatives be method of allocating the additional
allocated? seats to the party‐list winners.

(v) Does the (v) Major political
Constitution prohibit parties are
the major political disallowed and
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


parties from are only allowed
participating in the on sectoral lines.
party‐list elections? If
not, can the major
political parties be
barred from
participating in the
party‐list elections?
Tobias v. Abalos Ponente: Bitin, J. (i) Whether or not (i) Contentions (i) Conversion of Mandaluyong to a
G.R. No. L‐114783 contentions have merit do not have highly urbanized city is in compliance
December 8, 1994 Petitioners assail the constitutionality merit with the “one city‐one representative”
of R.A. 7675 “An Act Converting the proviso in the Constitution. Separation
Municipality of Mandaluyong into a from San Juan is a natural and logical
Highly Urbanized City to be known as consequence of conversion to a highly
the City of Mandaluyong” urbanized city. “One title‐one subject”
Prior to enactment Mandaluyong and rule should be given practical rather
San Juan belonged to one district. than technical construction. The said
Petitioners argue that act breaks the act enjoys the presumption of being
one subject‐one bill rule since it also passed through the regular
tackles the separation of congressional processes, including due
Mandaluyong to San Juan. Separation consideration by the members of the
has resulted in the increase in the Congress of the minimum requirements
composition of the House of for the establishment of separate
Representative and is also legislative districts.
preempting the rights of Congress to > Present limit of 250 members in
reapportion the legislative districts. Congress not absolute because of the
“otherwise provided by law” proviso.
Congress itself drafted, deliberated,
enacted assailed law therefore it
cannot preempt itself on a right, which
pertains itself.
> No “gerrymandering” is present as
incumbent representative of San
Juan/Mandaluyong district’s powers is
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


diminished and not favorable to him.
Mariano, Jr. v. Ponente: Puno, J. (i) Whether or not there (i) The Court (i) Petitions failed to establish the
COMELEC is merit in finds no merit in supposed confusion of not delineating
G.R. No. 118577 Petitioners assailing the aforementioned aforementioned the territory of Makati. Section 2 did
March 7, 1995 constitutionality of R.A. 7854 under petitions petitions not add or subtract and expressly
the ff. grounds: Sec. 2 did not stated that area “shall comprise the
properly identify the proper land area present territory of the municipality.”
or territorial jurisdiction of Makati by Land area was not defined because an
metes and bounds, Sec. 51 attempts ongoing dispute with Taguig was under
to alter or restart the “three‐ court litigation. So long as the territorial
consecutive term” limit for local jurisdiction is ascertained it may be
elective officials, and Sec 52 is concluded that the legislative intent
unconstitutional for it increased the behind the law has been sufficiently
legislative district of Makati only be served.
special law, increase was not stated > Reapportionment of legislative
in the title of bill, and addition of districts may be made through a special
another legislation is not in accord law. Makati has met the minimum
with Section 5(3). requirements of 250,000 population
and thus legislative district can be
increased. Policy of Court favoring a
liberal construction of the “one title‐
one subject rule”
Montejo v. COMELEC Ponente: Puno, J. Whether or not Section Section 1 of Section 2 of the Ordinance (source of
G.R. No.118702 1 of Resolution No. 2736 Resolution No. power of COMELEC) only empowers
March 16, 1995 Petitioner pleads for the annulment is void. 2736 is void. COMELEC to make minor adjustments
of Sec. 1 of Resolution No. 1736 of of the reapportionment herein made.
COMELEC, redistricting certain Minor adjustments do not include
municipalities in Leyte on the ground transferring one municipality from one
that it violates the principle of district to another. The power granted
equality of representation. Petitioner to COMELEC is to adjust the no. of
seeks to transfer the municipality of members “apportioned to the province
Tolosa from his district to the 2nd out of which such new province was
district of the province. created.”
Bagabuyo v. COMELEC Petitioner insists that R.A. No. 9371 Art 6 Sec. 5 and Art. 10 Sec. 10, the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


G.R. No. 176970 converts and divides the City of authority to act of apportionment and
December 8, 2008 Cagayan de Oro as a local gov’t unit reapportionment is within the
and does not merely provide for the Legislature. Art 6, Sec. 5 is a political
city’s legislative apportionment. representation and the means to make
a legislative district sufficiently
represented so that the people can be
effectively heard. Sec. 5(4) specifically
mandates reapportionment as soon as
the given standards are met. In
contrast, Art. 10 Sec 10 talks of the
commencement, termination, and
modification of local gov’t units
corporate existence and territorial
coverage. Distinction between the two
articles is on the requirement of
plebiscite. No plebiscite requirement
exists under the apportionment or
reapportionment provision.

Section 6.
No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural‐born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is
at least twenty‐five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party‐list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall
be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.

Gallego v. Verra Ponente: Ozaeta, J. Whether or not Petitioner has Despite working in several areas in the
G.R. No. L‐48641 petitioner is a resident maintained his country, specifically staying for 2 years
November 24, 1941 A petition of certiorari to review the of Abuyog for at least 1 domicile of birth of in Malaybalay, petitioner always
decision of CA affirming CFI in year prior to Dec. 10, in Leyte. returns to homeland. He ran for the
declaring petitioner’s win as mayor is 1940. same office in Leyte and bought
illegal. property in Leyte. He kept close ties
with the people in the area and won
Petitioner was a native of Abuyog, by a majority of 800 votes. There was
Leyte. He studied in Samar. He found no clear intention of abandoning
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


work in Samar and in municipalities of domicile.
Leyte. He ran for mayor in his
hometown but lost and thus, he went
to Mindanao to search for a job. He
worked in Malaybalay but still
returned to his hometown whether to
deliberate on a job offer or to visit his
wife and kids who resided there. He
did not take the parcel of land offered
by the gov’t in Malaybalay and instead
kept real property in Leyte. He
registered himself as an elector in
Malaybalay and has stated that he had
resided there for a year and a half.
Respondent contends that petitioner
has already abandoned his domicile of
origin and transferred to a new
domicile. Petitioner states that CA
erred in holding him as aresident of
Bukidnon and that his election as
mayor of Leyte is null and void

Romualdez‐Marcos v. Ponente: Kapunan, J. Whether or not Petitioner The residence qualification in the 1987
COMELEC petitioner was a possesses the Consti actually refers to domicile.
G.R. No. 119976 On March 8, 1995, petitioner provided resident, for election necessary Domicile is one’s permanent home
September 18, 1995 that she was residing for 7 months in purposes, of the First residence with two elements: physical presence
the First District of Leyte. Private District of Leyte for a qualifications for in the area or having the intention to
respondent contested that and said period of one year at election go back.
petitioner did not meet the 1‐year the time of the May 9, purposes It would be plainly ridiculous for a
residency requirement. On March 29, 1995 elections. candidate to deliberately and
1995, petitioner changed the entry to knowingly make a statement in a
“since childhood” but the provincial certificate of candidacy which would
Election adviser in Leyte informed her lead to his/her disqualification hence
that it was too late already. Petitioner upholding petitioner’s contention that
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


contends that her first entry is an it was an honest misinterpretation.
honest misinterpretation and she has Tacloban is petitioner’s domicile as
always maintained Tacloban as her she was born and raised there, and
domicile. Petitioner filed for motion even when she moved to other cities
for reconsideration but was denied. to find work and resided because of
Hence, the case. her married life, she still visited the
place and kept close ties in the
community hence showing the
intention to return. Domicile of origin
is not easily lost unless there is an
actual removal or an actual change of
domicile, a bona fide intention of
abandoning domicile, and acts
corresponding to the purpose. Also,
there is nothing in the Civil Code that
presupposes wife takes on the
domicile of her husband.
Aquino v. COMELEC Ponente: Kapunan, J. Whether or not Petitiner was not The fact that petitioner himself claims
G.R. No. 120265 petitioner was able to able to establish of other residences in Metro Manila
September 18, 1995 Court agrees with COMELEC’s establish domicile in domicile in coupled with the short amount of time
contention that in order for petitioner Makati City Makati City he claimed to be a resident of Makati
to qualify as candidate for indicates that the sole purpose of
representation of the 2nd district of transferring to a new residence is not
Makati city, he must prove that he has to establish domicile but to qualify for
established not just residence but also elections. There is an absence of clear
domicile.” and positive proof showing successful
abandonment of domicile.
As found by COMELEC, petitioner
resided in Tarlac for 52 years. He was
born and raised there. Petitioner has
an agreement of lease of a condo unit
in Makati City and has admitted of
owning other properties in QC.
Domino v. COMELEC Ponente: Davide, Jr., J. Whether or not the The judgment of First Issue: COMELEC has jurisdiction
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


G.R. No. 134015 judgment of the MTC of the MTC of QC over a petition to deny due course to
July 19, 1999 A case of certiorari with a prayer for QC declaring petitioner declaring or cancel certificate of candidacy.
preliminary injunction challenging the resident of Sarangani is petitioner MTC’s determination does not
disqualification of Juan Domino as final, conclusive and resident of preclude COMELEC’s determination.
candidate for representative of the binding; Sarangani is final, Second Issue: petitioner lacks
Lone Legislative District of the Whether or not conclusive and intention in changing domiciles. Proofs
Province of Sarangani. Domino petitioner herein binding cannot are lease of home in Sarangani,
maintains that he has complied with resided in the subject be sustained. registering for elections in the QC
the one‐year residency requirement congressional district for Petitioner did not area. Both intent and actual presence
and has been residing there since Jan. at least 1 year; reside in the in the district one intends to represent
1997. He was disqualified because of Whether or not subject must satisfy the length of time
voter’s registration record and address respondent COMELEC congressional prescribed by fundamental law.
in QC. He also lacks the no. of days has jurisdiction in the district for at
from registration (June 22, 1997 –May disqualification of least 1 year
8, 1998) candidate
Domino filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied by
COMELEC. Hence, this petition.
Co v. House Electoral Petitioners asking for a reversal of the Whether or not HRET HRET did not act “Those born before January 17, 1973,
Tribunal decision of the HRET. acted with grave abuse with grave abuse of Filipino mothers, who elect
G.R. Nos. 92191‐92 of discretion in declaring of discretion Philippine citizenship upon reaching
July 30, 1991 Background: Jose Ong, Jr. a natural‐ when it declared the age of majority.” – amended and
Private respondent’s grandfather, Ong born citizen of the Phils. Jose Ong, jr. a made to be retroactive as spirit and
Te, came from China and acquired natural‐born intendment of the law must prevail
land and certification in Samar. His citizen of the over the letter especially when the
son, Jose Ong Chuan was born in Phils. latter results in absurdity and
China, but Ong Te brought him here. injustice. Filipino father, alien mother
Jose Ong Chuan met a Filipino girl, got = natural born and alien father,
married, and bore their son in 1948. Filipino mother = natural born is on
On May 15, 1957, Ong Chuan took an equal footing.
oath of allegiance to the Philippines Respondent is natural‐born. His
and around that time, the respondent mother is a Filipina and his father is a
was only 9 years old. naturalized citizen when he was 9
When respondent became older, he years old. Because of his age, it would
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


ran for public office and hence the be unusual if he undergone election
contention for his citizenship status. through a statement but since he
already exercised his right of suffrage
and established his life here in the
Phils and thus, he is a Filipino citizen.
“It was the law itself that had already
elected Philippine citizenship for
protestee by declaring him as such”
Bengzon v. Cruz Cruz was a natural‐born citizen born Whether or not Cruz, a Cruz can still be There are 2 ways of getting Phil.
G.R. No. 142840 to Filipino parents in April 27, 1960. natural‐born Filipino considered a Citizenship: (1) by birth (2)
May 7, 2001 (1935 Consti was in effect). Nov 5 who became an natural‐born naturalization. Those natural‐born are
1985 – Cruz swore allegiance to the US American citizen, can citizen of the citizens who don’t need to go through
without the consent of the Philippines still be considered a Phils a process to perfect citizenship while
when he joined the marine corps. He natural‐born Filipino those naturalized went to a process to
reacquired his citizenship through through reacquisition. prove that they possess all the
repatriation under R.A. No. 2630. qualities and have no disqualifications
Petitioner argues that respondent is under Phil. Law. For Phil. Citizens who
not anymore a natural‐born citizen of lost their citizenship they can acquire
the Phils because he got his status it through (1) naturalization (2)
from reacquisition but respondents repatriation (3) direct act from
says that the phrase “from birth” Congress. Repatriation consists of
refers to the inherent and inborn taking an oath of allegiance to the
characteristic of being a natural‐born Phils. and registering it to the Local
citizen. Civil Registry of the place of residence.
Repatriation results in the recovery of
original nationality. Cruz went through
repatriation and hence reacquired his
original natural‐born citizen status. He
is also not required by law to go
through the naturalization process
and hence, he is perforce to be a
natural‐born citizen.
Sandoval‐Gutierrez, J. dissenting:
respondent had to take certain acts to
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


be a Filipino citizen again. The
provision on “natural‐born citizens” is
clear, precise, and definite. Citizen
cannot be considered natural‐born if
he went into acts of naturalization,
repatriation, legislation. Even if he
didn’t go through the tedious process
of naturalization, he still did
repatriation.
Valles v. COMELEC The case is about the citizenship of Whether or not Rosalind Rosalind Ybasco Philippines follow the jus sanguinis
G.R. No. 137000 Rosalind Ybasco Lopez. She was born Ybasco Lopez is qualified Lopez is qualified principle – child follows the citizenship
August 9, 2000 with a Filipino father and an Australian to run for governor of to run for of parents regardless of birth
mother in Napier Terrace, Broome, Davao Oriental even if governor even Rosalind Ybasco Lopez did not
Western Australia. She was born a she is a dual citizen with her dual expressly renounce her citizenship in
year before the signing of the 1935 citizen her documents. Renunciation must be
Constitution (May 16, 1934) and laws express to be effective.
governing before were the Philippine For dual citizenship to be counted as a
bill and Jones law. Both laws stated disqualification, it must refer to dual
that all inhabitants of the Phils who allegiance. For candidates with dual
were Spanish subjects and their citizenship, it is enough that they elect
children are deemed as Filipino Philippine citizenship upon filing of
citizens. candidacy (this already terminates
Petitioner contends that private their dual citizenship as this declares
respondent is not qualified since she is the person is a Filipino citizen and is
a dual citizen, has renounced her willing to uphold and defend the
Filipino citizenship because of her Philippine Constitution and ideals)
application of ACR and ICR.

Section 7.
The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon
on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No Member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three consecutive
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full
term for which he was elected.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr. Petitioner seems to confuse “term” “The term of office prescribed by the
G.R. No. 96859 with “tenure.” Constitution may not be extended or
October 15, 1991 shortened by the legislature but the
period during which an officer actually
holds the office (tenure), may be
affected by circumstances within or
beyond the power of said officer.
Tenure may be shorter than the term
or it may not exist at all. These
situations will not change the duration
of the term of office.” (Topacio Nueno
v. Angeles 76 Phil. 12)
When an elected official covered
thereby files a certificate of candidacy
for another office, he is deemed to
have voluntarily cut short his tenure,
not his term. The term remains and his
successor, if any, is allowed to serve its
unexpired portion.
Fariñas, et al. v. Ponente: Callejo, Sr. J Whether or not Petitions do not 1) Sec 14 is not a proscribed
Executive Secretary petitions have valid have valid points rider. The provision in Sec
G.R. No. 147387 Petitioners seek to declare the points and have merit and lacks merit. 26(1) Art. 6 merely calls for all
December 10, 2003 unconstitutionality of Section 14 of Petitions are parts of an act relating to its
the Republic Act 9006 (Fair Election DISMISSED. subject finding expression in
Act) based on the ff grounds: the title. Court is convinced
1) It repeals Sec. 67 of the that the title and the
Omnibus Election Code (OEC) objectives of Rep Act 9006 are
thus violating the one subject‐ comprehensive enough to
one title policy. Sec 14 is a include the repeal of Sec 67 of
proscribed rider because of the Omnibus Election Code.
the differences between Sec. Over time, Congress may find
67 of the OEC: Representative it imperative to repeal the law
Act 9006 primarily deals with on its belief that the election
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


the lifting of the ban on the process is thereby enhanced
use of media for election and the paramount objective
propaganda and the of election laws (fair, honest
elimination of unfair election and orderly) is achieved. It
practices while Sec 67 imposes cannot be claimed the
a limitation on election legislators were not apprised
officials who run for an office of the repeal since it was
other than the one they are deliberated upon and even the
holding in a permanent petitioners admit that they
capacity by considering them have already expressed their
as ipso facto resigned reservations beforehand.
therefrom upon filing of the 2) Rep Act 9006 does not violate
certificate of candidacy. the equal protection clause.
2) Rep Act 9006 violates the Equal protection clause is not
equal protection clause of the absolute but it is subject to
Constitution because it reasonable classification. It
repeals Sec 67 only of the does not demand absolute
Omnibus Election Code and it equality among residents, it
discriminates appointive merely requires that all
officials since they are still persons shall be treated alike,
considered ipso facto under like circumstances and
3) Rep Act 9006 is null in its conditions both as to
entirety since it didn’t follow privileges conferred and
due process (publication of liabilities enforced. Substantial
law before being effective) distinctions clearly exist
4) Sec. 67 of the Omnibus between elective officials and
Election Code is a good law appointive officials. Elective
and is based on the officials got their office
constitutional mandate of the through mandate, has a
“Accountability of Public definite term, can be removed
Offices” upon stringent conditions, and
allowed to take part in
electoral and political
activities. Appointive officials
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


got their office through
appointing authority, holding
office may be in a permanent
capacity or at the pleasure of
the appointing authority, and
they are prohibited from
taking part in partisan political
activity.
3) The Enrolled Bill Doctrine is
applicable in this case. Under
the enrolled bill, the signing of
a bill by the Speaker of the
House and the Senate
President and the certification
of the Secretaries of both
Houses of Congress that it was
passed are conclusive of its
due enactment. The Court
finds no reason to deviate
from the salutary rule since
the irregularities petitioners
raised involves the internal
rules of Congress. “At any rate,
courts have declared that the
rules adopted by deliberative
bodies are subject to
revocation, modification or
waiver at the pleasure of the
body adopting them.”
“Parliamentary rules are
merely procedural and with
their observance, the courts
have no concern.”
4) Effectivity Clause is defective.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


But it does not render the
entire law invalid. Publication
is indispensable in every case,
but the legislature may in its
discretion provide that the
usual 15‐period shall be
shortened or extended.

Main principle: courts do not
involve themselves with nor delve
into the policy or wisdom of a
statute. That is the exclusive
concern of the legislative branch
of gov’t. Sole function of the court
is to determine whether it
transcends constitutional
limitations or the limits of the
legislative power.

Section 8.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the second
Monday of May.

Codilla v. De Venecia Ponente: Puno, J. Whether or not Eufrocino M. The facts are settled and beyond
G.R. No. 150605 Eufrocino M. Codilla, Sr. Codilla, Sr. should dispute. Respondent Locsin has not
December 10, 2002 A petition for mandamus and quo should be declared as be declared as challenged the Decision of the
warranto assailing the holding of the duly‐elected the duly‐elected COMELEC en banc before Supreme
office of respondent Victoria L. Locsin representative of the representative of Court and said decision has become
despite losing to petitioner Codilla by 4th district of Leyte. the 4th district of final and executor. Issue of who is the
17,903 votes last May 14 2001 Leyte. rightful representative has been
elections. Petitioner garnered 71,350 settled by the COMELEC en banc, the
votes while respondent Locsin only constitutional body with jurisdiction
got 53,447 votes. COMELEC 2nd over the matter. The rule of law
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


division initially proclaimed demands that its Decision be obeyed
respondent as winner but on motion by all officials of the land.
of reconsideration COMELEC en banc
reversed and proclaimed petitioner as
the rightful winner.
Petitioner gave a letter‐appeal to the
House of representatives but no
answer came. He sought the help of
party LAKAS NUCD‐UMDP to give a
letter to the House Speaker De
Venecia to which he replied that they
recognize the ruling of COMELEC but
Representative Locsin expressed that
she shall openly defy and disobey the
ruling of COMELEC and thus advised
the petitioner to take the matters into
Supreme Court.

Section 9.
In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a special election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by
law, but the Senator or Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term.

Tolentino v. COMELEC Ponente: Carpio, J. (i) Procedural (i) Procedural The petition has no merit.
a. Whether the petition a. Yes (i) Procedural Issues
In Feb 2001, a Senate seat for a term is in fact a petition for a. YES, the Court can properly exercise
expiring on June 30 2004 was vacated quo warranto which the jurisdiction because what the
w/ the appointment of then Sen. Senate Electoral petitioners are questioning is the
Guingona as VP of the PH. The Senate Tribunal is the sole validity of the special election in wc
then adopted Resolutions which judge, Honasan was elected, NOT his right in
certified the existence of a vacancy in the exercise of his office as Senator. His
the Senate, called the COMELEC to fill election is merely incidental to the
up the said vacancy through a special petitioner’s case of action.
election to be held simultaneously
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


with the regular elections on May 14 b. Whether the petition b. Yes, but.. b. Although the petition may be moot,
2001, and declared that the is moot, and • Yes it is no bar for the Court to decide on its
senatorial candidate garnering the resolution because the question of the
13th validity of a special election is likely to
highest number of votes shall serve be repeated
only for the
unexpired term of former c. Whether petitioners c. Yes c. YES, the Court shall be liberal in
Sen. Guingona. have standing to applying its rule of locus standi because
litigate. the issues raised are of transcendental
This is a petition for prohibition to set significance & paramount importance
aside the COMELEC’s Resolutions, to the people, for it involves the
which the petitioners believe assail people’s freedom of suffrage
the manner by which the special
election was conducted, violating the (ii) On the merits, (ii) On the merits, YES. A special
precedents set by the 1951 & 1955 whether a special election to fill a vacant 3‐yr term Senate
special elections, both of which were election to fill a vacant seat was validly held on May 14 2001.
held simultaneously & yet 3‐yr term Senate seat Although COMELEC DID NOT COMPLY
DISTINCTLY w/ the regular general was validly held on May w/ the requirements of R.A. 6645,
elections. Thus, they pray that the 14, 2001. either strictly or substantially, it does
Court declare that NO special NOT invalidate the special election
elections were held & that the BECAUSE (given that the special
COMELEC’s Resolutions that proclaim election was held simultaneously with a
the senatorial candidates who general election) the law already
obtained the 13th highest # of votes imposes on the voters knowledge of
be declared NULL & VOID. this statutory notice & the COMELEC’s
deficiency in allowing more notice
………………………………… about it doesn’t negate having a special
Supplementary information election, and moreover, invalidating it.

Petitioners contend that such > Had the election been exclusively a
resolutions were issued w/o special election for the House of
jurisdiction because: Representatives (as special elections for
1. They failed to notify the Senate seats are ALWAYS with general
electorate of the position to elections), the COMELEC’s deficiency of
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


be filled in the special failing to inform the public about said
election (required under R.A. special election will make electoral
6645 Sec. 2), process void as it will be well‐nigh
2. It failed to require the impossible for the voters in the
candidates to indicate in congressional district involved to know
their certificates of candidacy the time and place of the special
if they wanted to be elected election and the office to be filled
under special or regular unless the COMELEC so notifies them.
elections (required under
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, > The test in determining the validity of
Sec.73), and a special election in relation to the
3. It failed to specify in the failure to give notice of the special
Voters Info Sheet if the election is whether the want of notice
candidates were seeking has resulted in misleading a sufficient
election under special or number of voters as would change the
regular elections (required result of the special election. In this
under R.A. 6646, Sec. 4, case, petitioners have neither claimed
paragraph 4) nor proved that COMELEC’s failure to
give this required notice misled a
sufficient number of voters as would
change the result of the special
senatorial election or led them to
believe there was not such special
election.
> The May 14, 2001 special senatorial
elections cannot be declared null simply
because COMELEC failed to document
separately the candidates and to
canvass the votes separately. NO SUCH
REQUIREMENT EXISTS IN OUR
ELECTION LAWS. R.A. No. 6645 mere
requires that COMELEC fix the date of
the election if necessary and “state
among others the office or offices to be
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


voted for.” Furthermore, in the conduct
of the special elections, COMELECT
merely implemented the procedure
specified by Senate in Resolution No.
84 that “the senatorial candidate
garnering the 13th highest number of
votes shall serve only for the unexpired
term.”

Section 10.
The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect
until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase.

Section 11.
A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from
arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress
or in any committee thereof.

People v. Jalosjos Ponente: Ynares‐Santiago, J. (i) Whether or not (i) No Under the Constitution, privilege to be
Jalosjos may attend free from arrest applies only if the
Congressman Jalosjos (first district sessions despite his offense is punishable by less than 6
ZamboNorte) was confined at the imprisonment for a years of imprisonment. The accused has
national penitentiary while his case non‐bailable offense, not shown any reason why he should
for statutory rape and acts of which he committed be exempted from this.
lasciviousness was pending appeal. prior to his present
term? The members of Congress cannot
He filed a MOTION THAT HE BE compel absent members to attend
ALLOWED TO FULLY DISCHARGE THE sessions if the reason for the ABSENCE
DUTIES of a Congressman, including IS A LEGITIMATE ONE. The
ATTENDANCE AT SESSIONS AND confinement of a Congressman charged
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


COMMITTEE HEARINGS, despite his with a non‐bailable offense (more than
conviction for a non‐bailable offense. 6 years) is certainly authorized by law,
and has constitutional foundations.
He claims that his re‐election as
congressman proves as an The R.A.TIONALE behind confinement is
EXPRESSION OF THE POPULAR WILL, PUBLIC SELF‐DEFENSE. Society must
and cannot be rendered inutile. (He protect itself, and serves as an example
claims he has the MANDATE OF THE and warning to others. A person is
SOVEREIGN WILL). taken into custody for purpose of the
administration of justice. It is the injury
He further argues that under Sec to the public, which the State seeks to
16(2), a Congressman’s function is to redress in criminal cases.
attend sessions. He also relies on the
case of AGUINALDO involving the The Aguinaldo case also does not apply.
administrative removal of a public It refers only to administrative removals
officer for acts done prior to his and NOT TO IMPRISONMENT ARISING
present term of office where the FROM THE ENFORCEMENT OF
court said that a public officer should CRIMINAL LAW.
not be removed from office for acts
done prior to his present term of ELECTION TO HIGH GOVERNMENT
office. To do otherwise would be OFFICE DOES NOT FREE THE ACCUSED
depriving the right of the people to FROM THE COMMON RESTR.A.INTS OF
elect their officers. GENER.A.L LAW.

What he is seeking is not mere
emergency or temporary leaves from
imprisonment. He is seeking to attend
congressional session and meetings for
5 days or more in a week. THIS WOULD
VIRTUALLY MAKE HIM A FREE MAN.
Jimenez v. Cabangbang Ponente: Concepcion, C.J: Case was (i) Whether (i) No (i) It is obvious that in causing the
issued at the Court of First Instance Cabangbang’s letter is communication to be so published,
(Additional plaintiffs: of Rizal. privileged Cabangbang was NOT PERFORMING HIS
Albert & Lukban) communication: Does it OFFICIAL DUTY, EITHER AS A MEMBER
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Jimenez (plaintiff) brought a suit for fall under “privileged OF CONGRESS OR A MEMBER OF ANY
the recovery of money as damages speech or debate”? Will COMMITTEE THEREOF.
for PUBLICATION OF A LIBELOUS Cabangbang be held
LETTER made by Cabangbang liable? Hence, the communication is not
(defendant). The former claims that absolutely privileged.
the Cabangbang letter is false and
intended to impeach his reputation, …………………………………
expose him to public hatred, Supplementary information
contempt, dishonor and ridicule.
Supreme Court: The Constitution
Cabangbang’s DEFENSE: (1) that the protects utterances made by
letter was not libelous, and (2) it was Congressmen in the performance of:
privileged communication. 1. Their official functions, such as
speeches delivered, statements made,
According to Cabangbang, at the time or votes cast in the halls of Congress,
the letter was written, he was a and while the same is in session.
member of the House and the 2. Bills introduced in Congress, whether
Chairman of the House Committee the same is in session or not.
on National Defense. 3. The acts performed by Congressmen
either in Congress or outside its
The letter involved was an OPEN premises in the official discharge of
LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE their duties as members of Congress
PHILIPPINES dated November 14, and of Congressional Committees.
1959, when CONGRESS WAS NOT IN
SESSION. This was published in
several newspapers of general
circulation.

…………………………………
Supplementary information

The letter describes 3 OPLANS. 
That there was an insidious plan or a
massive political buildup where DND
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Secretary Vargas was plotting to
become the new President,  that
P4‐million of intelligence funds are
allegedly being used to finance the
political campaign.

The letter mentions JIMENEZ AS ONE
OF THE PLANNERS of a COUP D’ETAT.

Cabangbang’s open letter also
recommended that Vargas resign and
that the AFP should stay away from
politics, and that all other intelligence
officials of the AFP should be
reassigned.
Antonino v. Valencia Ponente: Teehankee, J. (i) Whether or not the (i) Yes (i) Yes, the fact that Valencia caused the
Press Release was release and publication of the press
Lorenzo Sarmiento of the Liberal issued by Valencia release is seen when the newspapers
Party lost to Vicente Duterte of the reproduced the specific charges filed by
Nacionalista Party in the election for Antonino; the press release there was
governor in Davao. marked “For release” under the date;
Subsequently, Senator Antonino the press release indicated Valencia’s
issued a statement that the loss was answers to Antonino’s charges in the
caused by the support given by same numerical order; the press
Valencia, the Secretary of Public release said it came from Valencia; it
Works, to the independent LP quoted Valencia and he admitted
candidate Maglana which caused a making the statement in his office in
division in LP votes. Antonino was the presence of the press; the first page
quoted in various newspapers that of the press release consisted of quoted
had Valencia not “Sabotaged” and statements by Valencia and reports and
“double‐crossed” them, the LP would information he received about
have won. Antonino; it mentioned specific figures
which only Valencia could know given
Antonino then proceeded to file the time constraint; and Valencia did
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


requests to have Valencia not make any correction or denial of
investigated by the Senate Blue the published statement!
Ribbon Committee on alleged
anomalous acquisitions of public (ii) Whether or not the (ii) Yes (ii) Yes, because the statements issued
works supplies and equipment. Press Release was were defamatory and libelous in nature
libelous as they imputed upon him certain
Valencia retaliated by issuing a press corrupt practices. Also, because the
release that he will also file charges statement was not issued privately or
with the Blue Ribbon Committee officially, malice is presumed and such
regarding anomalous acts of the presumption was not overcome as
Senator. This release was published Valencia did not prove the truth of his
in newspapers. statements or that they were published
with good intentions and with a
Antonino filed this case of damages. justifiable motive or that they were
Valencia filed a counter‐claim. Lower made in the exercise of the right of fair
court ruled in favor of Antonino. comment on the character, good faith,
Valencia appealed. Antonino died ability and sincerity of public officials.
and was substituted by Senator The court said that had Valencia not
Antonino (Wife). been motivated with malice, he would
have filed charges against Antonino
with the Senate seeing as Antonino was
not a candidate for election and that his
term as senator was no yet to expire.
Also, Valencia cannot claim that his
actions were justified in that Antonino
was first in making libelous statements.
The anomalous transactions charge was
duly filed with the Blue Ribbon. Also,
the statement on sabotage and double
crossing cannot be considered libelous
as contemporary politics shows that no
stigma of disgrace or disrepute befalls
one who changes political parties.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Section 12.
All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall, upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business
interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which
they are authors.

Section 13.
No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including government‐owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat.
Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was
elected.

Liban v. Gordon Ponente: Carpio, J.: Procedural: No, the THE GOVERNEMNT DOESN’T CONTROL
G.R. No. 175352 petitioners have PNRC. THE PNRC IS NOT GOV‐OWNED,
July 15, 2009 This is a petition to declare Senator 1. Whether the Phil Natl no standing to BUT PRIVATELY OWNED.
Gordon (respondent) as having Red Cross (PNRC) is a file this petition
forfeited his seat in the Senate. government‐owned or …………………………………
controlled corporation, Supplementary information

2. Whether Sec.13 Sec. 1, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court:
applies to the
respondent who is Action of the Government against
Chairman of PNRC while individuals relating to their usurpation
at the same time, is a of a public office, position, or
member of the Senate, franchised, may be commenced by
ONLY A VERIFIED PETITION brought in
3. Whether respondent the NAME OF THE RP against:
should be automatically
removed as Senator 1. A person who usurps, intrudes into,
because accdg to the or unlawfully holds or exercises a public
relevant portions in said office, position, or franchise,
article, no member of
the Congress may hold 2. A public officer who does or suffers
any office (whether gov an act which by provision of law,
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


owned or controlled) constitutes a ground for the forfeiture
during his term w/o of his office, or
forfeiting his seat.
3. An association, which acts as a
Substantive: corporation w/in the PH w/o being
legally incorporated or w/o lawful
Whether the office of authority to act.
the PNRC Chairman is a
gov office or an office in Accdg to R.A. 95, or the PNRC Charter,
a gov‐owned or the PNRC is a private organization
controlled corporation performing public functions. It is a non‐
for the purposes of the profit, donor‐funded, voluntary,
prohibition mentioned humanitarian organization.
above relating to Art.
13. THE GOVERNEMNT DOESN’T CONTROL
PNRC. (accdg to the R.A., only 6 of the
36 members of the PNRC Board of
Governors are appointed by the chief
executive. Thus, 24 members of the
board are not appointed by the Pres.)

THE PNRC IS NOT GOV‐OWNED, BUT
PRIVATELY OWNED. Vast majority are
private indivs and students. Under the
charter, if you contribute a certain
amount, you can become a member.
Thus, anyone from 6‐65 years old CAN
become a member, even foreigners.

Section 14.
No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral
Tribunals, or quasi‐judicial and other administrative bodies. 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, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government
for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.

Puyat v. De Guzman, Ponente: Melencio‐Herrera, J: Whether intervention in Yes Ordinarily, it seems that Fernandez was
Jr. the SEC case is in effect not appearing as counsel as he was
113 SCR.A. 31 (1982) This is a case questioning the Order an appearance as theoretically appearing for the
of SEC granting Congressman counsel (indirectly) protection of his ownership of 10
Estanislao Fernandez leave to before an shares.
intervene in a SEC case. administrative body.
HOWEVER, certain salient
Prior to this, there was an election circumstances militate against this. The
for the directors of Int’l Pipe FACT OF ACQUIRING A MERE P200
Industries (IPI). There were 2 worth of stock of only 10 shares (out of
factions: the Puyat Group and the 262,000) shows an OBVIOUS
Acero Group. CIRCUMVENTION OF THE RULE. He
acquired them AFTER THE FACT, after
The Acero Group instituted a QUO the Quo Warranto proceedings had
WARR.A.NTO proceeding before the been filed and one day before the
SEC claiming that the votes were not schedule SEC hearing. What’s more,
properly counted. before he moved to intervene, he
already signified his intention to appear
The Puyat Group claims that as counsel for the Acero group, which
Congressman Fernandez orally was earlier objected to.
entered his appearance as counsel
for the Acero Group. Naturally, the Under those facts and circumstances,
Puyat Group opposed Fernandez’ there has been an INDIRECT
appearance as counsel citing that a APPEAR.A.NCE AS COUNSEL BEFORE AN
Congressman cannot appear as ADMINISTR.A.TIVE BODY. The
counsel in any administrative “intervention” was an afterthought to
proceeding like SEC. So Assemblyman enable him to appear actively in the
Fernandez no longer appeared as proceedings in SOME OTHER CAPACITY.
counsel.
If we were to uphold the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


However, he later purchased 10 “intervention”, then it would make the
SHARES OF STOCK in IPI to qualify constitutional prohibition ineffective.
him to run as Director. After the All an Assemblyman has to do if he
purchase, Fernandez filed a Motion wants to influence an administrative
for Intervention in the SEC case, body is to acquire minimal participation
because now, Fernandez is owner of in the “interest” of the client and then
10 shares. “intervene” in the proceedings. That
which the Constitution directly
SEC granted the motion. prohibits may not be done by
indirection.

SEC’s grant of Motion to Intervene is
reversed and set aside.

Section 15.
The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall
continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call a special session at any time.

Section 16.
(1). The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members. Each House
shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the
attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide.
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two‐thirds of all
its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.
(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect
national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one‐fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal. Each
House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.
(5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other
place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Avelino v. Cuenco Feb 18 – Senator Tanada requested 1) Does the court have 1) No 1) COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION. In
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


G.R. No. L‐ 2821 his right to speak on the floor to jurisdiction? view of the separation of powers, and
March 4, 1949 formulate charges against Senate 2) Yes, if you the political nature of the controversy,
President Avelino be reserved. 2) Was the resolution assume that SC the Constitution grants the Senate the
Request approved. making Cuenco acting has jurisdiction power to elect its own president. It
president validly cannot be interfered with, nor taken
Feb 21 1949 – hours before the approved? WAS THERE 3) No over, by the Judiciary. The selection of
opening of session, Senator Tanada MAJORITY TO the senate president affects only the
filed a TR.A.NSACT BUSINESS senators themselves who are at liberty
resolution enumerating the charges IN THE SENATE? to choose at any time their officers. The
against the Senate President and remedy thus lies in the Senate Session
ordering an investigation. 3) Can Avelino reclaim Hall, not in the Supreme Court.
his position?
Senate President Avelino refused to 2) ASSUMING THAT SC HAD
open the session at 10am. He JURISDICTION, the session under
delayed Senate President Pro‐Tempore Arranz
appearance at session hall until was VALID. It was merely a continuation
11:35am. He read the charges against of the morning session and that a
him in MINORITY OF 10 SENATORS may not,
public. by leaving theSession hall, prevent the
MAJORITY OF 12 OTHER SENATORS
At around 12pm, due to the insistent from passing a resolution with their
demands of Senators Sanidad and unanimous consent.
Cuenco, the session was finally called
to order. Sanidad however, moved When the Constitution says that a
that the roll call be dispensed with. majority shall constitute a quorum,
“THE HOUSE DOES NOT MEAN ALL THE
Avelino’s allies, Senators Francisco MEMBERS.” Even a majority of all the
and Tirona, insisted that the roll be members constitute the House. There is
called in an obvious conspiracy to a difference between a majority of “ALL
prevent Senator Tanada from THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE”, and a
delivering his speech. The roll was majority of “THE HOUSE”.
called.
Therefore, an absolute majority, that is
Senator Tanada repeatedly stood up 12, of all the members of the senate
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


so that he could deliver his speech (23 only), constitutes constitutional
but was continuously ignored by majority for the purpose of a quorum
Avelino. Avelino even threatened to to do business.
arrest any talking senator. Disorder
broke out in the gallery of the The office of the Senate President is
Senate. one that essentially depends on the will
of the majority of the senators.
Senator David, moved for the
adjournment of session but Sanidad Hence, Cuenco is the new Senate
still opposed. President.

Suddenly Avelino banged the gavel
and walked out of the session hall
(along with
David, Tirona and Francisco). The
pro‐Tanada senators remained.

Senate President Pro‐Tempore
Arranz, suggested that Cuenco take
over and
preside over the session. Cuenco did
and took the Chair.
Senator Tanada was able to deliver
his speech.

The position of Senate President was
declared vacant by a unanimous
resolution (#68), by those who were
still there.

Cuenco became Acting Senate
President, he took an oath and was
recognized by the President of the
Philippines the day after.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Avelino now filed a QUO
WARR.A.NTO proceeding to declare
him as the rightful
Senate President.
Santiago v. Guingona There was an election for Senate (i) Does the court have (i) Yes (i) COURT HAS JURISDICTION.
G.R. No. 134577 President. There were 2 contenders, jurisdiction? MAJORITY IS DEFINED AS THE NUMBER
November 18, 1998 Senator Fernan and Senator Tatad. GREATER THAN HALF OR MORE THAN
By a vote of 20 to 2, Fernan won as HALF OF ANY TOTAL. Sec 16(1) simply
Senate President. (The 2 who voted states that the Senate President must
for Tatad were Miriam and Tatad, obtain the votes of more than 1⁄2 of
himself!) ALL THE SENATORS. The Constitution
does not delineate who shall comprise
Senator Tatad thereafter manifested the majority, much less the minority.
that he was assuming the post as
minority leader since according to (ii) Whether or not the (ii) No While the Constitution mandates that
him, only those who had voted for Senate and its officials, the senate president must be elected
him, belonged to the “minority.” particularly Senate by a number constituting MORE THAN
President Fernan 1⁄2 OF ALL THE MEMBERS THEREOF, it
This was opposed by Senator Johnny committed a violation does NOT provide that the members
Flavier. He manifested that 7 LAKAS of the constitution in who will not vote for him shall IPSO
NUCD Senators are also part of the recognizing Respondent FACT CONSTITUTE THE MINORITY. No
minority and they chose Senator Guingona as the Senate law or regulation states that the
Guingona as minority leader. minority leader? What defeated candidate shall automatically
constitutes minority? become the minority leader.
Senator Guingona was recognized by Was Section 16 (1) not
the Senate President as Minority followed in the HISTORY ALL SHOWS that “majority”
Leader. selection of Senate refers to the political party to which the
minority leader? most number of lawmakers belonged,
Senators Santiago and Tatad while the “minority” normally referred
instituted QUO WARR.A.NTO to a party with a lesser number of
proceedings to oust members. MAJORITY = may also refer
Senator Guingona as Minority to the group or party with the larger
Leader, and to declare Tatad as the number of votes, not necessarily more
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


rightful than 1⁄2. è PLUR.A.LITY.
minority leader.
MINORITY = a group or party with a
Tatad argues that the term small number of votes than the
“majority” refers to the group of majority.
senators who voted
for the winning senate president and Between 2 unequal parts or numbers
accepted committee chairmanships. comprising a whole, the greater
Accordingly, they say that those who number would obviously be the
voted for the losing nominee and majority, while the lesser would be the
accepted no committee minority. But where there are more
chairmanships comprise the than 2 unequal groupings, it is not as
“minority.” easy to say which is the minority
entitled to select the leader, which will
represent all minorities. Because we
have a multi‐party system, there could
be several minority parties, one of
which has to be identified as the
dominant minority.

AS TO THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS IN
CONGRESS: While the Constitution is
explicit on the manner of electing the
Senate President and the House
Speaker, it is however, dead silent on
the manner of selecting the other
officers of Congress. The constitution
merely says that “each House shall
choose such other officers as it may
deem necessary.” Hence, the method
of choosing who will be such other
officers is merely a derivative of the
exercise of prerogative conferred by
the Constitution.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Such METHOD MUST BE PRESCRIBED BY
THE SENATE ITSELF, NOT BY THE
COURTS.
The RULES OF SENATE DO NOT
PROVIDE FOR THE POSITIONS OF
MAJORITY/ MINORITY LEADERS. In the
absence of and specific rules, THIS
COURT HAS NO BASIS UPON WHICH TO
DETERMINE THE LEGALITY OF THE ACTS
OF THE SENATE. The Courts cannot
intervene in the internal affairs of the
legislature.

(iii) Whether or not (iii) No (iii) If we were to uphold the contention
there has been an of Tatad and Santiago, that would
usurpation of office amount to judicial legislation. Since no
thus calling for a quo provision of the Constitution or any
warranto proceeding other rule or law has been violated, NO
ABUSE OF POWER CAN BE SHOWN.
(Meaning Guingona acted correctly,
and Fernan also acted correctly in
recognizing Guingona as Minority
Leader).
Arroyo, et. Al. v. De Ponente: Mendoza, J: (i) Was there grave (i) No. Law (i) What is alleged to have been
Venecia abuse of discretion Remains Valid. violated in the enactment of R.A. No.
G.R. No. 127255 Joker Arroyo brought a suit against amounting to lack or 8240 are MERELY INTERNAL RULES OF
August 14, 1997 Speaker JDV, etc for the violation of excess of jurisdiction PROCEDURE of the House rather than
the Rules of House. They are when Congress enacted the Constitutional requirements for the
challenging also the passage of R.A. R.A. 8240? enactment of law. Joker does not claim
8240 (which amended the NIRC by that there was no quorum, but only
imposing sin‐taxes on beer and that, by some maneuver allegedly in
cigarettes, violation of the House rules, he was
prevented from questioning the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


The bill originated from the House, it presence of quorum.
was approved on 3rd reading and
was transmitted to the Senate. Joker claims that the violation of house
rules is a violation of the constitution
The Bicameral Conference itself. NO.
Committee submitted its report to
the House; Congressman Javier, Chair The rules adopted by deliberative
of the ways and means committee, bodies (such as the House) are subject
delivered his sponsorship speech. to revocation, modification, or waiver
by the body adopting them.
During interpellation, JOKER PARLIAMENTARY RULES ARE MERELY
ANNOUNCED THAT HE WAS GOING PROCEDUR.A.L, AND WITH THEIR
TO QUESTION THE QUORUM, OBSERVANCE, THE COURT HAS NO
ALTHOUGH UNTIL THE END OF HIS CONCERN. They may be waived or
INTERPELLATION, HE NEVER DID. disregarded by the legislative body.
Mere failure to conform to
Joker challenged R.A. 8240 arguing parliamentary usage will NOT invalidate
that is was passed in violation of the the action, when the requisite number
rules of the House, which rules of members has agreed to a particular
embody the Constitutional mandate measure.
in Sec 16(3). He argues that a
violation of the House rules is a The constitution empowers each house
violation of the Consti itself. to determine its rules of proceedings.
The power to make rules is not one
Specifically, he alleges that: which once exercised is exhausted. It is
1. The yeas or nays were not a continuous power, always subject to
asked, but was simply be exercised by the House, and within
approved only to prevent the limitations suggested, and
him from questioning the ABSOLUTELY BEYOND THE CHALLENGE
presence of a quorum. OF ANY OTHER BODY.
2. The Chairman deliberately
ignored his questioning. The failure to regard the rule is NOT a
3. The Chairman refused to subject matter of judicial inquiry. A
recognize him and instead legislative act will not be declared
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


proceeded to act on invalid for non compliance with internal
4. Albano’s motion to declare the rules. No court has ever declared an act
report approved. of the legislature void just because of
5. The Chairman suspended the non‐compliance with rules of
session without first ruling on procedure made by itself.
his questioning
6. That the session was hastily In this case, there is NO RULE IN THE
adjourned to prevent him HOUSE which specifically requires that
from formally challenging the in approving the Bicameral Conference
existing of a quorum Committee Report, the Chair must
restate motion and conduct nominal
voting. The manner by which the report
was approved has a BASIS IN
LEGISLATIVE PR.A.CTICE.

The Constitution does NOT require that
the yeas and nays of the Members be
taken every time the House has to vote.
Only in the following instances were
yeas and nays are mandatory:

1) Last and 3rd reading of a bill
2) Request of 1/5 of the members
present
3) Repassing of a bill over the veto of
the President.

Also, while it is true that Albano moved
for adjournment, Joker could have at
least objected if there was anything he
wanted to say. THE FACT HOWEVER IS
THAT HE DID NOT SAY ANYTHING!! The
question he raised was not a point of
order nor a question of privilege
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


entitled to precedence.

As to the QUORUM, the roll call
established the existence of a quorum.
The question of a quorum cannot be
raised repeatedly, especially when the
quorum is obviously present.

LAW VALID.
Osmeña v. Pendatun Osmeña (in his privileged speech) (i) Can Osmeña be held (i) Yes (i) The Constitution provides that the
109 Phil. 863 (1960) charged President Garcia for liable for his speech? speech or debates in Congress shall not
extending pardon for a price. be questioned in any other place. They
are privileged speech. However, the
This prompted the creation of a provision has always been understood
special committee to investigate the to mean that although EXEMPT FROM
accusations against Garcia. A House PROSECUTION OR CIVIL ACTIONS for
Resolution No. 59 was passed, the words uttered in Congress, THE
requiring Osmeña to substantiate his MEMBERS OF CONGRESS MAY
charges against President Garcia). NEVERTHELESS BE QUESTIONED IN
CONGRESS ITSELF.
Osmeña submitted a petition for
injunction against Pendatun, etc who Parliamentary immunity guarantees the
are member of the Special legislator complete freedom of
Committee created by the House expression before the courts or any
through Resolution No. 59. other forum. BUT this is only OUTSIDE
THE CONGRESSIONAL HALLS. It does
Osmeña wants to annul that not protect him from responsibility
Resolution on the ground that it before the legislative body itself
INFRINGES HIS PARLIAMENTARY whenever his words and conduct are
IMMUNITY considered disorderly or unbecoming a
member thereof.
He also claims that the statements he
made were no actionable. On the question of whether the speech
constitutes disorderly conduct, the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Nevertheless, Osmeña was FOUND House is the sole judge of what
GUILTY OF SERIOUS DISORDERLY constitutes disorderly behavior. These
BEHAVIOR. He was suspended for 15 are matters dependent on factual
months. The Special Committee circumstances which the House knows
invoked the Power of Congress to best and cannot be presented in black
Discipline Its Members. and white before the Courts. If the
court would review the act of the
Osmeña argues further: that the House, then it is tantamount to giving
House can no longer take action appellate jurisdiction to a co‐equal
against him because before branch of the government.
Resolution No. 59 had been
approved, the House had taken up House Resolution No. 59 remains
other business. VALID. The House has exclusive power
to discipline, the courts have no
jurisdiction to interfere. It is inherent
legislative prerogative to suspend.
Paredes, Jr. v. (i) While Congressman Paredes was (i) Does the (i) No (i) Petitioner’s invocation of Section
Sandiganbayan still provincial governor, he was Sandiganbayan have 16(3) does not apply. This is the power
G.R. No. 118364 charged before the Sandiganbayan authority to suspend a of each House of Congress, inter alia, to
August 10, 1996 for violating the Anti‐Graft Law. On district representative? “punish its Members for disorderly
his second term of congress, the behavior,” and “suspend/expel a
Sandiganbayan imposed a preventive Member” by a vote of 2/3 of all its
suspension on him pursuant to the Members subject to the penalty of
Anti‐Graft Law, prompting Paredes to suspension, which, when imposed,
challenge the authority of the should not exceed 60 days.
Sandiganbayan to suspend a district
representative) Such invocation mentioned does not
apply, as it appears to be distinct from
the suspension mentioned in Sec.13 of
Republic Act No. 3019, which is not a
penalty but a preliminary, preventive
measure, not considering the fact that
the latter is not being imposed on the
petitioner for misbehavior as a Member
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


of the HoR of the Congress.
United States v. Pons Ponente: Trent, J: (i) What is the real date (i) 12‐midnight, TO INQUIRE INTO THE VER.A.CITY OF
31 Phil. 729 (1916) of adjournment of the February 28, THE JOURNALS OF LEGISLATURE, WHEN
Information was filed against Pons assembly? 1914 THEY ARE ALREADY CLEAR AND
for illegal importation of opium (in EXPLICIT, WOULD BE TO VIOLATE THE
violation of ACT 2381). He was found (ii) Can Courts take (ii) Yes ORGANIC LAWS OF THE GOVERNMENT,
guilty and was sentenced to 2 years judicial notice thereof, TO INVADE A COORDINATE AND CO‐
in Bilibid Prison. or is extraneous EQUAL BR.A.NCH OF GOVERNMENT,
evidence allowed to and TO INTERFERE WITH THE
Pons appealed on the last day of the prove otherwise? LEGITIMATE FUNCTIONS AND POWERS
special session of the Philippine OF THE LEGISLATURE.
Legislature was on February 28,
contending that ACT 2381 was Since the journals clearly stated the
passed only on MARCH 1, NOT actual time of adjournment (12‐
February 28. Hence, he cannot be midnight February 28, 1914), this
prosecuted. settles the question and the court
cannot go behind these journals.
According to the PUBLISHED
JOURNAL OF THE ASSEMBLY, (which Courts CAN take judicial notice of
records all the proceedings), the Legislative Journals  Courts are
Assembly adjourned on February 28, bound to take judicial notice of what
1914 at midnight. The journal shows the law is and to enable them to
with absolute certainty that the determine whether the legal requisites
Legislature adjourned at 12 midnight to the validity of a statute have been
on February 28. complied with. It is their RIGHT AND
DUTY.
Pons wanted the admission of
extraneous evidence to prove that it COURTS cannot go behind the journals
was really on March 1 when the (cannot accept testimonial evidence) as
Assembly adjourned. Pons insists that a matter of public policy and to ensure
it is of public knowledge that the stability. THEY ARE CONCLUSIVE
Assembly’s clock was stopped on EVIDENCE AS TO THE DATE OF
February 28, 1914, and was left until ADJOURNMENT. Extraneous evidence
the determination of all other (such as the stopping of the clock)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


pending matters. The HANDS OF THE cannot be admitted.
CLOCK WERE KEPT IN THEIR LAST
POSITION, in order to enable the
Assembly to effect an adjournment
within the time fixed for a special
session.

Pons argues that by stopping the
clock, a resultant evil might result
because it alters the probative force
and character of legislative records.

On the other hand, the government
asserts that the contents of
legislative journals are conclusive
evidence as to the date of
adjournment.
Casco Philippine This is a review of the decision of the (i) Are the raw materials (i) No (i) It is well settled that the ENROLLED
Chemical Co. v. Auditor General denying the claim for UREA and BILL – which uses the term “UREA
Gimenez refund by Casco. FORMALDEHYD exempt FORMALDEHYDE” instead of “UREA”
7 SCR.A. 347 (1963) based on the bill passed AND “FORMALDEHDYE” – is
Pursuant to the FOREX Margin Fee in Congress? CONCLUSIVE UPON THE COURTS as
Law, the Central Bank issued a regards the TENOR OF THE MEASURE
circular fixing a uniform MARGIN FEE passed by Congress, and approved by
OF 25% on FOREX TRNSX. the President.

Casco, in order to import Urea and If there has been any mistake in the
Formaldehyde for its business, printing of the bill, before it was
bought FOREX and paid MARGIN certified by the officers of Congress and
FEES. approved by the President (which we
cannot speculate now), the remedy is
However, it later claimed that Urea by amendment or curative legislation,
and Formaldehyde are exempt from not by judicial legislation.
the Margin Fees, hence they now
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


seek a refund of the margin fees
paid.

This was denied by the AG because it
says that only UREA FORMALDEHYDE
(the finished product) is exempt and
that UREA “AND” FORMALDEHEDY
(as raw materials) are not.

Casco claims however, that the bill
approved in Congress contained the
conjunction “AND” between “UREA”
and “FORMALDEHYD”, and that
Congress intended these raw
materials to be exempt.
Astorga v. Villegas A bill of local application was filed in (i) Whether R.A. 4065 (i) No. (i) IT NEVER BECAME LAW. ASTORGA
56 SCR.A. 714 (1974) the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, actually became law LOSES. Congress has devised a system
passed 3rd reading without since it was not the bill for authenticating bills duly approved,
amendments, referred to the actually passed by by the signatures of their respective
Committee on local governments, Congress and that it presiding officers and secretaries
which was approved with minor lacked the approved printed on the copy of the approved
amendment. Tolentino Amendment. bill. The function of this attestation
therefore is not of approval.
This minor amendment was that
“instead of the City Engineer, it will The enrolled bill doctrine is based
be the President Pro Tempore of the mainly on the respect due to the co‐
Municipal Board who will succeed equal and independent departments,
the Vice Mayor, in case the latter is which requires the judicial department
unable to act as Mayor”. (This is the to accept as having passed Congress, all
ROXAS AMENDMENT) bills AUTHENTICATED IN THE MANNER
STATED. If the attestation is absent and
AT THE SENATE: Substantial the same is not required for the validity
amendments were introduced by of a statute, the courts may resort to
Senator Tolentino (approved by the the journals and other records of the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Senate). The Roxas Amendment does Congress for proof of its due
not appear in the journal of the enactment.
Senate as having been acted upon.
As far as the Congress itself is
Later, the Secretary of the Senate concerned, there is nothing sacrosanct
sent a letter to the House, that the in the certification made by the
House Bill has been passed by the presiding officers. It is merely a mode
Senate with amendments. Attached of authentication. The law making
was a certification of amendment, process ends when the bill is approved
which was the Roxas Amendment, by both Houses, and the certification
and NOT the Tolentino Amendment does not add to the validity of the bill
which were duly approved by the or cure any defect already present
Senate. upon its passage. IN OTHER WORDS,
THE APPROVAL BY CONGRESS AND NOT
Naturally, Senator Tolentino made a THE SIGNATURES OF THE PRESIDING
press statement saying that the OFFICERS which is essential.
enrolled copy signed into law was a
wrong version! Astorga’s claim that the attestation of
the presiding officers of Congress is
Tolentino argues that the law signed conclusive proof of the bill’s due
did not embody the Tolentino enactment HAS BEEN NEUTR.A.LIZED by
Amendments which were introduced the fact that the Senate President
and approved by the Senate. declared his signature on the bill to be
invalid, and issued a subsequent
The President of the Philippines certification that the invalidation of his
therefore was compelled to signature meant that the bill he had
withdraw his signature on the Bill. earlier signed had never been approved
by the Senate. Obviously, this
As a result, VILLEGAS, THE MAYOR OF declaration has more weight that the
MANILA, issued circulars to disregard attestation which it invalidated.
the R.A. 4065. He also ordered the
Chief of Police to recall the 5 officers Absent such attestation as a result of
assigned to the Vice Mayor. Mayor the DISCLAIMER, and consequently
says that R.A. 4065 never became there being NO ENROLLED BILL to speak
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Astorga v. Villegas A bill of local application was filed in (i) Whether R.A. 4065 (i) No. (i) IT NEVER BECAME LAW. ASTORGA
56 SCR.A. 714 (1974) the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, actually became law LOSES. Congress has devised a system
passed 3rd reading without since it was not the bill for authenticating bills duly approved,
amendments, referred to the actually passed by by the signatures of their respective
Committee on local governments, Congress and that it presiding officers and secretaries
which was approved with minor lacked the approved printed on the copy of the approved
amendment. Tolentino Amendment. bill. The function of this attestation
therefore is not of approval.
This minor amendment was that
“instead of the City Engineer, it will The enrolled bill doctrine is based
be the President Pro Tempore of the mainly on the respect due to the co‐
Municipal Board who will succeed equal and independent departments,
the Vice Mayor, in case the latter is which requires the judicial department
unable to act as Mayor”. (This is the to accept as having passed Congress, all
ROXAS AMENDMENT) bills AUTHENTICATED IN THE MANNER
STATED. If the attestation is absent and
AT THE SENATE: Substantial the same is not required for the validity
amendments were introduced by of a statute, the courts may resort to
Senator Tolentino (approved by the the journals and other records of the
Senate). The Roxas Amendment does Congress for proof of its due
not appear in the journal of the enactment.
Senate as having been acted upon.
As far as the Congress itself is
Later, the Secretary of the Senate concerned, there is nothing sacrosanct
sent a letter to the House, that the in the certification made by the
House Bill has been passed by the presiding officers. It is merely a mode
Senate with amendments. Attached of authentication. The law making
was a certification of amendment, process ends when the bill is approved
which was the Roxas Amendment, by both Houses, and the certification
and NOT the Tolentino Amendment does not add to the validity of the bill
which were duly approved by the or cure any defect already present
Section 17. Senate. upon its passage. IN OTHER WORDS,
THE APPROVAL BY CONGRESS AND NOT
The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal, which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
Naturally, Senator Tolentino made a THE SIGNATURES OF THE PRESIDING
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be
press statement saying that the OFFICERS which is essential.
enrolled copy signed into law was a
wrong version! Astorga’s claim that the attestation of
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻
the presiding officers of Congress is
Tolentino argues that the law signed conclusive proof of the bill’s due
did not embody the Tolentino enactment HAS BEEN NEUTR.A.LIZED by

Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or
organizations registered under the party‐list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.

Angara v. Electoral In the elections of September 17, (i) Whether or not the (i) Yes The Electoral Commission was acting
Commission 1935, petitioner Jose A. Angara and Supreme Court has within the legitimate exercise of its
63 Phil. 134 (1936) the respondents Pedro Ynsua, Miguel jurisdiction over the constitutional prerogative in assuming
Castillo, and Dionisio Mayo were Electoral Commission to take cognizance of the protest filed
candidates for the position of and the subject matter by the respondent, Pedro Ynsua against
members of the National Assembly of the controversy upon the election of the herein petitioner,
for the first district of Tayabas. the foregoing related Jose A. Angara, and that the resolution
facts, and in the of the National Assembly on Dec. 3,
On October 7, 1935, the provincial affirmative, 1935, cannot in any manner toll the
board of canvassers proclaimed time for filing protest against the
Angara as member‐elect of the (ii) Whether or not the (ii) No election, returns, and qualifications of
National Assembly and on Nov. 15, said Electoral the members of the National Assembly,
1935, he took his oath of office. Commission acted nor prevent the filing of protests within
without or in excess of such time as the rules of the Electoral
On December 3, 1935, the National its jurisdiction in Commission might prescribe. The
Assembly passed Resolution No. 8, assuming to take petition for a writ of prohibition against
which in effect, fixed the last date to cognizance of the the electoral commission is hereby
file election protests. protest filed against the denied, with cost against the petitioner.
election of the herein
On Dec. 8, 1935, Ynsua filed before petitioner
the Electoral Commission a "Motion notwithstanding the
of Protest" against Angara and previous confirmation
praying, among other things, that of such election by
Ynsua be named/declared elected resolution of the
Member of the National Assembly or National Assembly
that the election of said position be
nullified.

On December 9, 1935, the Electoral
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Commission adopted a resolution
(No. 6) Angara contended that the
Constitution confers exclusive
jurisdiction upon the Electoral
Commission solely as regards the
merits of contested elections to the
National Assembly and the Supreme
Court therefore has no jurisdiction to
hear the case

Abbas, et al. v. Senate Abbas filed an election contest (i) May the senators be (i) No It seems quite clear that in providing for
166 SCR.A. 651 (1988) before the SET, against 22 candidates disqualified from the the SET to be staffed by both SC
of LABAN who were earlier SET? Is the Abbas Justices and Senators, the Constitution
proclaimed as senators. proposal valid? intended that both those judicial and
legislative components COMMONLY
Abbas moved for the disqualification SHARE the duty and authority of
/ INHIBITION of some senators (who deciding all contests relating to the ERQ
are part of the SET) on the ground of senators.
that they are all interested parties to
the case. He wanted MASS In fact, the prescribed ratio of Senators
DISQUALIFICATION of the 6 senators to Justices is 2 to 1 – an unmistakable
who comprised the SET. (JPE, indication that the legislative
Gonzales, Tito Guingona, Joey Lina, component cannot be totally excluded
Tamano, Ziga) He argues that such is from participation in the resolution of
required by public policy, fair play the contests. The proposed mass
and due process. disqualification would leave the SET no
alternative but to abandon a duty that
Senator JPE in the meantime no other court or body can perform,
voluntarily inhibited himself. but which it cannot lawfully discharge is
shorn of the participation of its entire
In effect, Abbas was also proposing membership of Senators.
to amend the SET’s rules so as to
permit the Let us not be misunderstood as saying
contest being decided by only 3 that no Senator‐Member may inhibit or
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


members (the 3 justices – Yap, disqualify himself from sitting in the
Narvasa, Gutz) Abbas proposes that SET. Every Senator‐Member of the SET
when more than 4 members are may, as his conscience dictates, refrain
disqualified, the remaining shall from participating in the resolution of
constitute a quorum, and that if not the case when he sincerely feels that
less than 3, it may adopt resolutions his personal interests or biases would
by majority vote without abstention. stand in the way of objective and
impartial judgment.

BUT, what we are merely saying is that,
the SET cannot legally function as such,
absent its ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP OF
SENATORS, and that no amendment of
its rules can confer on the 3 remaining
Justice‐Members alone the power of
valid adjudication of senatorial election
contest.
Bondoc v. Pineda Pineda (LDP) vs. Bondoc (i) Whether Camasura (i) No, because The ET was created to function as a
G.R. No. 97710 (Nationalista). They are rival may be taken out of the expulsion from NONPARTISAN court even if 2/3 of its
September 26, 1991 candidates in the 4th district of HRET, when he was the LDP party members are politicians. It is a non‐
Pampanga. Pineda won by 3,300 expelled from the LDP? due to “party political body in the sea of politicians. It
votes and was proclaimed winner. disloyalty” is not was to be an independent and impartial
valid ground for tribunal for the determination of
Bondoc filed a protest before the expulsion from election contests. To be able to exercise
HRET. The HRET ruled that Bondoc HRET. this exclusive jurisdiction, the ET must
won by a margin of 23 votes. be independent. Its jurisdiction to hear
and decide congressional election
Moved by honesty, Congressman contests is not to be share with the
CAMASURA of the LDP, told his LDP Legislature nor the Courts.
party‐
mates that because Bondoc really The ET is a body separate and
won, he was compelled to vote independent of the legislature. While
against Pineda, consistent with truth composed of a majority of the
and justice. members of the legislature, it is an
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


independent body.
On the eve of the promulgation of
the Bondoc decision, LDP Chief Jose The House Resolution removing
Cojuangco Camasura from the HRET because he
EXPELLED CAMASURA from the LDP, cast a vote against his party‐mate is a
stating that his act was inimical, clear IMPAIRMENT OF THE
unethical, and immoral, and was a CONSTITUTIONAL PREPRROGATIVE OF
complete betrayal to the cause and THE HRET TO BE THE SOLE JUGE OF THE
loyalty to LDP. ELECTION CONTEST between Pineda
and Bondoc.
The following day, a letter was sent
to the HRET Chair Justice Melencio‐ (ii) May the house (ii) No. (ii‐iii) The House INTERFERED in the
Herrera informing them that request the dominant work of the HRET, and in doing so
Camasura’s nomination for the HRET party to change the reduced the HRET into a mere tool for
has been withdrawn by LDP, hence party’s representation the AGGRANDIZEMENT OF THE PARTY
they are rescinding Camasura’s in the HRET? IN POWER (LDP), which the 3 justices
election for the HRET. and the lone Nationalista member
(iii) Can the house (iii) No. would be powerless to stop.
Because of this “distressing reorganize
development” the 3 Justices‐ representation in the As judges, the members of the tribunal
Members (Herrera, HRET of the majority must be non‐partisan. They must
Cruz, Feliciano) of the HRET asked party? discharge their duties in complete
that they be relieved from their detachment and impartiality, even
assignments at the HRET because independence from the political party
they felt that the unseating of an to which they belong. DISLOYALTY TO
incumbent member of Congress is THE PARTY, is not a valid ground for the
being prevented at all costs. They cite expulsion of a member of the HRET.
political factors are blocking the The purpose of his expulsion was to
accomplishment of the task of the nullify his vote in the Bondoc case so
HRET. The 3 justices are proposing that the HRET’s decision may not be
amendments to the composition of promulgated, and would clear the way
the HRET that is: 3‐3‐3 (3 members for LDP to nominate a replacement at
from party with largest vote, 3 for the HRET.
second largest vote, 3 from the SC).
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Furthermore, Camasura has a RIGHT TO
The SC directed 3 justices to return to SECURITY OF TENURE. Members of the
the HRET. HRET, are like members of the judiciary,
who enjoy security of tenure.
The HRET resolved to cancel the Membership may not be terminated
promulgation of the Bondoc ruling. except for just cause, such as:
This is because without Camasura’s expiration of term of office, death,
vote, the decision lacks the disability, resignation from the political
concurrence of 5 members as party he represents, etc.
required by the rules and therefore
cannot be validly promulgated. Camasura’s expulsion is therefore null
and void. The expulsion of Camasura by
Bondoc not being proclaimed, filed a the House from the HRET was unjust
case to annul the decision of the interference with the HRET’s
House to withdraw Camasura from disposition in the Bondoc case, and to
the HRET. Bondoc is seeking the deprive Bondoc of the fruits of the
reinstatement of Camasura to the HRET’s decision.
HRET.
The HRET’s decision in favor of Bondoc
Pineda, on the other hand, prays for is thereby PROMULGATED. Camasura
the dismissal of the petition. He reinstated to HRET – House decision is
argues that Congress is the sole annulled.
authority to nominate and elect from
its members, and that the House has
the sole power to remove any
member of the HRET whenever the
ration in representation of political
parties has materially changed. He
contends that Camasura’s expulsion
was purely a party affair, a political
question in the hands of the House,
and beyond the reach of courts.
Guerrero v. COMELEC Guillermo Ruiz sought to disqualify (i) Whether or not the (i) No (i) There is no grave abuse of discretion
G.R. No. 137004 respondent Fariñas as a candidate for COMELEC has on the part of the COMELEC when it
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


July 26, 2000 the position of Congressman in the committed grave abuse held that its jurisdiction over the case
First District of Ilocos Norte. Ruiz of discretion in holding had ceased with the assumption of
alleged that Fariñas had been that the determination office of respondent Fariñas as
campaigning as a candidate for of the validity of the Representative for the first district of
Congressman in the May 11, 1998 certificate of candidacy Ilocos Norte. While COMELEC is vested
polls, despite his failure to file a of respondent Fariñas is with the power to declare valid or
certificate of candidacy for said already within the invalid a certificate of candidacy, its
office. On May 8, 1998, Fariñas filed exclusive jurisdiction of refusal to exercise that power following
his certificate of candidacy the House of the proclamation and assumption of
substituting candidate Chevylle Representatives the position by Fariñas is a recognition
Fariñas who withdrew on April 3, Electoral Tribunal of the jurisdictional boundaries
1998. On May 10, 1998, the (HRET). separating the COMELEC and the HRET.
COMELEC dismissed the petition of Under Art. VI, Sec. 17 of the
Ruiz for lack of merit. Constitution, the HRET has sole and
exclusive jurisdiction over all contests
After the election, Fariñas was duly relative to the election, returns and
proclaimed winner. Thereafter, Ruiz qualifications of members of the House
filed a motion for reconsideration, of Representatives. Thus, once a
contending that Fariñas could not winning candidate has been
validly substitute for Chevylle Fariñas, proclaimed, taken his oath, and
since the latter was not the official assumed office as a member of the
candidate of LAMMP, but was an House of Representatives, COMELEC’s
independent candidate. Another jurisdiction over election contests
person cannot substitute for an relating to his election, returns and
independent candidate. Ruiz claimed qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own
that Fariñas’ certificate of candidacy jurisdiction begins. Thus, the
was fatally defective. On June 3, COMELEC’s decision to discontinue
1988, Fariñas took his oath of office exercising jurisdiction over the case is
as a member of the House of justifiable, in deference to the HRET’s
Representatives. The COMELEC own jurisdiction and functions.
dismissed the case for lack of
jurisdiction.

CLASS DISCUSSION:
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


SC looked at "qualifications" rather
than election process which
concerned the manner in which
Fariñas took office.
Garcia et. al. v. HRET Ponente: Ynares‐Santiago, J: (i) Did HRET commit (i) No (i) It was a judgment call of the HRET as
G.R. No. 134792 grave abuse of to whether or not it would apply its
August 12, 1999 All duly registered voters in the discretion in applying its rules strictly, which is clearly authorized
district (petitioners) filed for quo Rules strictly and in under its Rules. As long as the exercise
warranto before the HRET against dismissing the petition of discretion is based on well‐founded
Congressman Angping for quo warranto? factual and legal basis, as in this case,
(Representative for the 3rd District of no abuse of discretion can be imputed
Manila). They questioned the to the Tribunal.
eligibility of the Congressman to hold (ii) Can the instant (ii) No
office in the House of petition for certiorari (ii) The function of the Court is merely
Representatives because the latter prosper? to check whether grave abuse of
was not a natural‐born citizen of the discretion has been committed in the
PH, which was a constitutional dismissal of the petition for quo
requirement. They pray that warranto before it. A petition for
Congressman Angping be declared certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
ineligible to assume or hold office as Court will prosper only if there is a
a member of the lower house and for showing of grave abuse of discretion or
the candidate who received the an act without or in excess of
highest number of votes from among jurisdiction on the part of respondent
the qualified candidates to be tribunal. There was an absence of such.
proclaimed the winner. There is therefore no reason for the
Court to annul the decision of the
Petitioners filed the required P5k respondent or substitute it for its own
filing fee, but the HRET later issued a judgment. The instant petition must be
Resolution dismissing it for lack of dismissed.
the P5k cash deposit. Petitioners
then paid said deposit and filed a
Motion for Reconsideration on the
same day, which was consequently
denied in view of HRET’s Rule 32
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


saying that the P5k cash deposit
should have been paid at the same
time they submitted the P5k filing
fee.
Pimentel, et. al. v. Ponente: Carpio, J: (i) Whether the present (i) No The direction of the House to choose its
HRET composition of the members to the HRET and the CA is not
G.R. No. 141489 Before this Court are two original HRET violates the absolute, being subject to the
November 29, 2002 petitions for prohibition and constitutional req of mandatory constitutional rule on
mandamus with prayer for writ of proportional proportional representation, BUT under
preliminary injunction. Petitioners representation because the doctrine of the separation of
assail the composition of the HRET there are no party‐list powers, the Court may not interfere
and the Commission on reps in the HRET with the exercise by the House of this
Appointments (CA). Petitioners pray constitutionally mandated duty.
that respondents be ordered to (ii) Whether the present (ii) No
“alter, reorganize, reconstitute, and membership of the The instant petitions are bereft of any
reconfigure” the composition of the House in the CA violates allegation that respondents prevented
HRET and the CA to include party‐list the same constitutional the party‐list groups in the House from
representatives in accordance with req of proportional participating in the election of
Sections 17 and 18, Article VI of our representation because members of the HRET and the CA. It
Consti, and R.A. 7941 (“Party‐List there are no party‐list also doesn’t appear that after the May
System Act”), praying that the HRET reps in the CA 11, 1998 elections, the House barred
and the CA be enjoined from (iii) No the party‐list reps from seeking
exercising their fictions until they (iii) Whether the refusal membership in the HRET or CA. As the
have been reorganized. of the HRET and the CA primary recourse of the party‐list reps
to reconstitute lies with the lower house, the Court
themselves to include cannot resolve the issues presented by
party‐list reps the petitioners this time.
constitutes grave abuse
of discrection It is a well‐settled rule that a
constitutional question will not be
heard and resolved by the courts unless
the following requirements of judicial
inquiry concur:
1) There must be an actual
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


controversy
2) The person or part raising the
constitutional issue must have
a personal and substantial
interest in the resolution of the
controversy
3) The controversy must be raised
at the earliest reasonable
opportunity
4) The resolution of the
constitutional issue must be
indispensable to the final
determination of the
controversy

The petitioners also do not possess the
locus standi necessary to raise the
constitutional issue because in the first
place, they must have “such personal
stake in the outcome of the controversy
as to assure that concrete adverseness
which sharpens the presentation of
issues upon which the court depends
for illumination of difficult
constitutional questions.” Such
petitioners have not alleged that they
are entitled to, or have even been
unlawfully deprived of seats in the
HRET and the CA. They have not even
claimed that they have been nominated
by the party‐list groups in the House to
the HRET and the CA.
Vinzons‐Chato v. Unico has already been proclaimed (i) Should the Court (i) No The court should not take cognizance of
COMELEC and taken his oath of office as a take cognizance of Chato’ selection protest for it would
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


G.R. No. 172131 Member of the HOR, hence, Chato’s election amount to usurpation of the
April 2, 2007 COMELEC ruled that it had already protest? If not, to who constitutionally mandated functions of
lost jurisdiction over petitioner is this issue best the HRET. Civil action for certiorari will
Chato’s election protest against addressed to? not prosper.
Unico regarding canvassing of returns
and alleged invalidityof Unico’s (ii) Will his civil action (ii) No In an electoral contest where the
proclamation. He then filed a special for certiorari prosper? validity of the proclamation of a
civil action for certiorari in the SC. winning candidate who has taken his
oath of office and assumed his post as
Congressman is raised, that issue is best
addressed to the HRET.

It avoids duplicity of proceedings and a
clash of jurisdiction between
constitutional bodies with due regard
to the people’s mandate.

Limkaichong v. Limkaichong ran as a representative (i) Whether or not the (i) Yes The proclamation of Limkaichong was
COMELEC in the 1st District of Negros Oriental. proclamation done by valid. The COMELEC Second Division
G.R. Nos. 178831‐32 Paras, her rival, and some other the COMELEC is valid rendered its Joint Resolution dated May
April 1, 2009 concerned citizens filed 17, 2007. On May 20, 2007,
disqualification cases against (ii) Whether or not (ii) No, the HRET Limkaichong timely filed with the
Limkaichong. Limkaichong is allegedly COMELEC should still must instead COMELEC En Banc her motion for
not a natural born citizen of the exercise jurisdiction reconsideration as well as for the lifting
Philippines because when she was over the matter of the incorporated directive
born her father was still a Chinese suspending her proclamation. The
and that her mom, though Filipino filing of the motion for reconsideration
lost her citizenship by virtue of her effectively suspended the execution of
marriage to Limkaichong’s dad. the May 17, 2007 Joint
During the pendency of the case Resolution. Since the execution of the
against Limkaichong before the May 17, 2007 Joint Resolution was
COMELEC, Election day came and suspended, there was no impediment
votes were cast. Results came in and to the valid proclamation of
Limkaichong won over her rival Limkaichong as the winner. Section 2,
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Paras. COMELEC after due hearing Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of
declared Limkaichong as disqualified. Procedure applies.

About 2 days after the counting of The HRET must exercise jurisdiction
votes, COMELEC declared after Limkaichong’s proclamation. The
Limkaichong as a disqualified SC has invariably held that once a
candidate. On the following days winning candidate has been
however, notwithstanding their proclaimed, taken his oath,
proclamation disqualifying and assumed office as a Member of the
Limkaichong, the COMELEC issued a HOR, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction
proclamation announcing over election contests relating to
Limkaichong as the winner of the his election, returns, and qualifications
recently conducted elections. This is ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction
in compliance with Resolution No. begins. It follows then that the
8062 adopting the policy‐guidelines proclamation of a winning candidate
of not suspending the proclamation divests the COMELEC of its jurisdiction
of winning candidates with pending over matters pending before it at the
disqualification cases which shall be time of the proclamation. The party
without prejudice to the continuation questioning his qualification should
of the hearing and resolution of the now present his case in a proper
involved cases. proceeding before the HRET, the
constitutionally mandated tribunal to
Paras countered the proclamation hear and decide a case involving a
and she filed a petition before the Member of the House of
COMELEC. Limkaichong asailed Paras’ Representatives with respect to the
petitioned arguing that since she is latter’s election, returns and
now the proclaimed winner, the qualifications. The use of the
COMELEC can no longer exercise word “sole” in Section 17, Article VI of
jurisdiction over the matter. It should the Constitution and in Section 250 of
be the HRET which should exercise the OEC underscores the exclusivity of
jurisdiction from then on. COMELEC the Electoral Tribunals’ jurisdiction
agreed with Limkaichong. over election contests relating to its
members.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Section 18.
There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve
Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and parties or
organizations registered under the party‐list system represented therein. The chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The
Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule
by a majority vote of all the Members.

Daza v. Singson Raul Daza was a member of the (i) Does the SC have (i) Yes (i) The Court has jurisdiction. What is
180 SCR.A. 496 (1989) Comission of Appointments (CA), jurisdiction? involved here is the legality, not the
representing LP. wisdom, of the act of the House in
removing Daza from the CA. It is not a
LDP reorganized itself and 24 political question. It is a legal question
members of the LP resigned to join on the manner of filling the CA, as
LDP. prescribed in the Constitution. Even
assuming that it were a political
Because of this political re‐alignment, question, the Courts still have the
the House revised the representation expanded power to check whether
in the grave abuse of discretion amounting to
CA. The House withdrew the seat lack or excess of jurisdiction has been
occupied by Daza and gave this to the committed.
newly‐ formed LDP. (Chavit Singson).
(ii) May LDP still be (ii) Yes (ii) DAZA loses. The COMELEC has
Daza filed a petition to challenge his represented at the CA subsequently recognized LDP for
removal from the CA. He contends despite its being registration as a political party. This has
that his election to the CA is unregistered? taken the wind out of the sails of Daza,
permanent and that reorganization in and he must now limp to shore as best
the House is NOT based on a as he can.
permanent political re‐alignment > The LDP has been existence for more
because the LDP is still not a duly than one year now. Its titular head is no
registered political party and that it less than the President of the
has not attained political stability. He Philippines ad its President is Senator
argues that a party must stand the Gonzales. While there are still some
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


test of time to prove permanence. internal disagreements, these are to be
expected in any political organization.
Singson countered by saying that In fact, even the monolithic Communist
what is involved is a political Party has undergone similar dissension,
question. He argues that nowhere in but surely it cannot be considered
the Constitution is it required that temporary because of such discord. The
the political party be registered to be LDP now commands the biggest
entitled to proportional following in the House, the party has
representation at the CA. thus not only survived but in fact
prevailed.
> Hence, the House has the authority to
change its representation in the CA to
reflect AT ANY TIME, the changes that
may transpire in the political
alignments of its membership. It is
understood that SUCH CHANGES MUST
BE PERMANENT and do not include the
temporary alliances or factional
divisions not involving severance of
political loyalties or formal
disaffiliation.
> Further, when the Liberal Party (Daza)
was allotted 2 seats in the CA, it did not
express any objection.
Coseteng v. Mitra, Jr. On the Congressional Elections of (i) Dose the court have (i) Yes Court has jurisdiction. Not a political
187 SCR.A. 377 (1990) 1987, Anna Dominique Coseteng was jurisdiction? question. As held in Daza vs. Singson,
the only candidate under KAIBA. the issue in this case is the manner of
filling the CA and not the wisdom. Even
The members of the CA were also if the question were political, the court
elected, 11 coming from the still has the power to review grave
majority, and 1 from the coalesced abuse of discretion amounting to lack
Majority. or excess of jurisdiction committed by
any branch or instrumentality of the
A year later. LDP organized, which led government by virtue of Article VII,
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


to the reorganization of the Section 1 of the Constitution.
representation in the CA.
(ii) Whether the (ii) Yes (ii) Coseteng loses. The composition of
Coseteng wrote to Speaker Mitra congressmen in the CA the house membership in the CA was
that as representative of KAIBA, she were chosen on the BASED ON A PROPORTIONAL
should be appointed to the CA. This basis of proportional REPRESENTATION OF THE POLITICAL
was supported by 9 other representation from the PARTIES. There are 160 members of the
congressmen. political parties? LDP in the house. They represent 80%
of the house. 80% of the 12 members in
She later filed a petition for quo the CA = 9.6 or 10. Hence the LDP is
warranto praying that the election of entitled to 10 members in the CA. the
some LDP congressmen in the CA be remaining 2 were apportioned to the
nullified on the theory that it violated Liberal Party as the next largest party in
the constitutional mandate of the Coalesced Majority, and the last
proportional representation because one to the KBL as the principal
the new majority – LDP (158 out of opposition party. There is no doubt that
202), would now be entitled to 9 seat the apportionment in the CA was done
only. She claims that she has the on the basis of proportional
support of the 9 other congressmen representation of political parties in the
as well. House.
> Even if KAIBA were to be considered
She further claims that CA members as an opposition party, its lone member
should have been nominated and (Coseteng) represents only 0.4% of the
elected by their respective political House membership, hence SHE IS NOT
parties. ENTITLED TO ONE OF THE 12 SEATS IN
THE CA. To be able to claim
The LDP congressmen opposed and proportional representation, a political
argued that KAIBA is part of the party should represent at least 8.4% of
coalesced majority which supports the house membership, that is at least
the administration of Cory, and not 17 congressmen.
of the minority, hence she is bound > The endorsement of 9 other
by the choice of the Coalesced congressmen in favor of Coseteng is
majority as to who shall sit in the CA. inconsequential because they are not
members of her party. The claim that
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


the members in the CA should be
nominated and elected by their
respective political parties is untenable.
The members have been nominated
and elective by the House (not by their
party) as provided for in the
Constitution.
Guingona, Jr. v. Based on the rule of proportional (i) Court’s jurisdiction? (i) Yes (i) Court has jurisdiction. The legality of
Gonzales representation from political parties, the filling up of membership of the CA
G.R. No. 106971 a compromise was reached for the is a justiciable issue, not a political
October 20, 1992 election of members of the CA. question.

However, Lakas was given only 1 (and (ii) What should be (ii) There is (ii) The LDP majority converted its
not 2) because the 1.5 was not done to the 0.5 seat to nothing to stop fractional half into a whole number, for
rounded off. which each of them is political parties an additional of one senator, enabling it
entitled? from forming a to elect its 8th member, Romulo. In
The 8 senators from LDP chosen for coalition with doing so, the other party’s fractional
CA were: Angara, Herrera, Alvarez, another political representation was correspondingly
Aquino, Mercado, Ople, Sotto and party in order to reduced leaving that party’s
Romulo. fill up the two representation in CA to less than their
vacancies representation in the Senate. This is
Guingona (LAKAS) opposed the resulting from CLEARLY A VIOLATION OF THE SECTION
nomination of Romulo. Guingona the fractional 18, because it is no longer in
also questioned the appointment of seat each party is compliance with the mandate that
Tanada as lone representative of LP. entitled to. MEMBERSHIP IN THE CA SHOULD BE
BASED ON THE PROPORTIONAL
Based on the mathematical REPRESENTATION OF POLITICAL
computation of proportional PARTIES. The election of Romulo gave
representation, each of the political more representation to the LDP, and
parties are entitled to additional 0.5 reduced the representation of either
seat, Guingona claims that by the the Lakas or NPC.
election of Romulo and Tanada, it > By adding together 2 halves to make a
unduly increased the membership of whole is a breach of the rule on
LDP and the LP, and reduced the proportional representation because it
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


membership of Lakas, and NPC. will give LDP an added member in the
CA, by utilizing the fractional
membership of the minority political
party, who is deprived of half a
representation. Section 18 is
mandatory in character and does not
leave any discretion to the majority
party in the Senate.
> GUIDELINES:
1) In the senate, a political party must
have at least 2 duly elected senators to
be entitled to a seat in the CA.
2) Where there are more than 2
political parties represented, a political
party with a single senator in the
Senate cannot claim a seat in the CA.
(Differs from the case of Senator
Lorenzo Tañada where he was lone
minority, and the 23 came from the
same party)

(iii) Must the 12 (iii) No. So long (iii) The constitution does NOT
members in the CA be as the necessary contemplate that the CA must always
always filled? number for include 12 senators and 12
quorum is met, congressmen. What the constitution
the CA may requires is that there be at least a
exercise its majority of the entire membership. The
functions. constitution does NOT require the
election and presence of 12 senators
and 12 congressmen in order that the
CA may function properly. THEY NEED
NOT BE FULLY CONSTITUTED (even if
the constitution provides for their
composition) to perform their
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


functions.
> The election of ROMULO (LDP) and
TANADA (LP) was clearly a violation of
Section 18. Their nomination was done
by sheer force of superiority in
numbers and was done in grave abuse
of discretion.
> IN SHORT, fractional seats should
never be rounded off. The seats should
be vacant.

Section 19.
The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of
Representatives shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only
while the Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein
conferred upon it.

Section 20.
The records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be
audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each Member.

Section 21.
The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly
published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.

Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate This is a petition for prohibition to (i) Does the court have (i) Yes COURT HAS JURISDICTION to
Blue Ribbon enjoin SBR from requiring Bengzon to jurisdiction over this determine the scope and extent of the
Committee testify regarding the sale of equity of case? Can senate power of the SBRC to conduct inquiries
G.R. No. L‐89914 Kokoy Romualdez to Cory Aquino’s conduct inquiry? into the private affairs in purported aid
November 20, 1991 relative Ricardo Lopa. of legislation.

Case was about the control over the BUT there are limits on Congress’
biggest business enterprises in the power. The power of both houses to
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Philippines through massive infusion conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is
of government funds thru Kokoy NOT ABSOLUTE. The investigation must
Romualdez, and with the aid of be:
BENGZON LAW OFFICE who allegedly 1) in aid of legislation,
maneuvered funds using dummy 2) in accordance with duly published
corporations. rules of procedure
3) the rights of persons appearing or
Senate minority floor leader JPE affected by such inquiries shall be
delivered a speech before the Senate respected.
on the alleged take over of one
company by Ricardo Lopa (Cory’s The Rules of SBRC provide that the
brother‐in‐law), but contained senate may refer to any committee any
nothing about it being in aid of speech filed by a senator which in its
legislation. They merely wanted an judgment requires legislation. TO
investigatn. ASCERTAIN THE CHARACTER OR
NATURE OF INQUIRY, resort to the
The matter was referred to the SPEECH under which such inquiry is
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee proposed to be made.
(SBRC). Bengzon and Lopa were
subpoenaed but declined to testify. Here, THE SPEECH OF ENRILE
CONTAINED NO SUGGESTION OF
EARLIER, civil cases were filed by CONTEMPLATED LEGISLATION. He is
PCGG before the Sandiganbayan to merely calling upon the senate to look
recover ill‐ gotten wealth of into the possible violation by the
Romualdez. The cases impleaded President on prohibition of certain
Bengzon. relatives in gov’t dealings. NO
INTENDED LEGISLATION IS INVOLVED
NOW, Bengzon claims that testifying HERE. Thus it is NOT IN AID OF
before the Senate Blue Ribbon LEGISLATION.
Committee might unduly prejudice
them in the cases before the Also, since there is a pending case
Sandiganbayan. before the Sandiganbayan. There is a
possibility of conflicting judgments
They claim that between legislative and judicial bodies,
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


1) The Blue Ribbon has no valid and influence of Committee judgment
legislative purpose (not in aid of legis) on court judgment. (Separation of
2) The sale of the Romualdez corp is powers).
purely a private affair.
3) The inquiry would violate their
right to due process
Sabio v. Gordon Former President Cory issued EO No. (i) May Section 4 (b) of (i) No Section 4 (b) of E.O. No. 1 is declared
G.R. No. 174177 1 creating the PCGG. She entrusted E.O. No. 1 be invoked by REPEALED by the 1987 Constitution.
October 17, 2006 upon this body the task of recovering Chairman Sabio to The Congress’ power of inquiry, being
the ill‐gotten wealth accumulated by justify non‐appearance broad, encompasses everything that
the deposed President Marcos and on legislative concerns the administration of existing
his close associates. To ensure the investigations? laws as well as proposed or possibly
PCGG’s unhampered performance of needed statutes. It even extends “to
its tasks, Section 4 (b) of E.O. No. 1 government agencies created by
provides that: “No member or staff of Congress and officers whose positions
the Commission shall be required to are within the power of Congress to
testify or produce evidence in any regulate or even abolish.”
judicial, legislative or administrative
proceeding concerning matters Note: Article VI, Section 21 grants the
within its official cognizance.” power of inquiry not only to the Senate
and the House of Representatives, but
20 years later, the Senate invited also to any of their respective
PCGG Chairman Camilo Sabio to be committees.
one of the resource persons in a
Senate investigation. However,
Chairman Sabio declined the
invitation invoking Section 4 (b) of
E.O. No. 1.

Standard Chartered Ponente: Nachura, J: (i) Whether or not the (i) No, petition is Citing Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue
Bank v. Senate respondent can conduct denied Ribbon committee, the petitioners
Committee This is a Petition for Prohibition (with investigation against the claim that since the issue of whether or
G.R. No. 167173 Prayer for Issuance of Temporary petitioner despite not SCB‐Philippines illegally sold
December 27, 2007 Restraining Order and/or Injunction) criminal and civil cases unregistered foreign securities is
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


dated and filed on March 11, 2005, against the latter already preempted by the courts that
by petitioners against respondent, pending in courts took cognizance of the foregoing cases,
wherein Financial Institutions and the Senate Committee, by this
Currencies is represented by the investigation, would encroach upon the
respondent’s Chairperson, Edgardo judicial powers vested solely in these
Angara. courts. Petitioner’s argument does not
apply squarely to this case.
On Feb 1, 2005, Senator Enrile, Vice
Chair of respondent, delivered a Central to the Court’s ruling in Bengzon,
speech entitled, “Arrogance of that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
Wealth” before the Senate, was without any constitutional mooring
denouncing the petitioners for seling to conduct the legislative investigation,
unregistered foreign securities in was the Court’s determination that the
violation of the Securities Regulation intended inquiry was not in aid of
Code, and urging the Senate to legislation. The Court found that
conduct an inquiry immediately, in Enrile’s speech merely called upon the
aid of legislation, to prevent the same Senate to look into the possible
occurrence from happening in the violations in R.A. 3019. The
future. Through Senator Pangilinan, unmistakable objective of the
the speech was referred to the investigation, as set forth in the
respondent. Prior to the privileged resolution, exposes the petitioners’’
speech, Enrile ha introduced PS allegation that the inquiry, as initiated
Resolution 166, “DIRECTING THE in a privilege speech by the very same
COMMITTEE ON BANKS, FINANCIAL Enrile, was simply “to denounce the
INSTITUTIONS AND CURRENCIES, TO illegal practice committed by a foreign
CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF bank in selling unregistered foreign
LEGISLATION, INTO THE ILLEGAL SALE securities”. This fallacy made more
OF UNREGISTERED AND HIGH‐RISK glaring when we consider that, at the
SECURITIES BY STANDARD conclusion of the privilege speech,
CHARTERED BANK, WHICH RESULTED Enrile urged the Senate to immediately
IN BILIONS OF PESOS OF LOSSES TO conduct an inquiry with the help of
THE INVESTIGATING PUBLIC.” legislation, to prevent such acts in the
future.
CLASS DISCUSSION:
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


‐ very clear that it was in aid of Indeed, the mere filing or an
legislation administrative complaint before a court
of quasi‐judicial body should not
automatically bar the conduct of
legislative investigation. Otherwise, it
would be extremely easy to subvert any
intended inquiry by Congress through
the convenient ploy of instituting a
criminal or an administrative complaint.
Surely, the exercise of sovereign
legislative authority, of which the power
of legislative inquiry is an essential
component, cannot be made
subordinate to a criminal or an
administrative investigation.
Senate Blue Ribbon v. Ponente: Ynares‐Santiago, J: Was the TRO issued by No The principle of separation of powers
Judge Majaducon Judge Majaducon ordering essentially means that legislation belongs to
This case involves consolidated petitions: the Senate to cease and Congress, execution to the Executive, and
desist from proceeding with settlement of legal controversies to the
1) For certiorari, prohibition, its hearing valid? Judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the
mandamus and preliminary domain of the others. The RTC of GenSan City
injunction, assailing the resolution or any court, for that matter, had no authority
dated Nov. 11, 1998 of Judge to prohibit the Senate committee from
Madajucon (defendant) of the RTC requiring the respondent (Atty. Flaviano) to
of GenSan City, Branch 23, which appear and testify before it.
denied the petitioner motion to
dismiss the petition for The Bill of Rights grants respect to the rights
prohibition, injunction with writ of to a person appearing in or affected by such
preliminary injunction filed by inquiries mentioned above. However, this
private respondent Atty. Flaviano; must be exercised subject to constitutional
limitations, particularly adhering to
2) For review of the resolution dated governmental action. In the case at bar, such
April 15, 1999 of respondent legislative action taken by the Senate to
Judge Majaducon declaring secure the testimony of Flaviano.
petitioner Senator Pimentel guilty
of contempt of court. There also exists the implicit limitation that
the legislature’s power to commit a witness
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Basically… for contempt terminates when the legislative
body ceases to exist upon its final
The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee adjournment. “This must be so, inasmuch as
conducted an inquiry on the alleged the basis of the power to impose such a
irregularities in the funds used by the penalty is the right which the legislature has
Armed Forces Retirement and Separation to self‐preservation, and which right is
Benefits system (AFP‐RSBS). This was enforceable during the existence of the
becase Senator Blas Ople filed a resolution legislative body.”
to the Committee on National Defense and
Security to investigate charges concerning a
group of active and retired military officials
planning a coup d’état to prevent then
President Estrada’s admin from probing
into such alleged irregularities. The said
Committee subpoenaed Atty. Flaviano to
appear before it and testify to such
charges, but the counsel refused to appear
at the hearing. Instead, he secured a TRO
against the Senate issued by Judge
Majaducon of RTC Branch 23 of GenSan
City.

Section 22.
The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each
House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted
to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations
shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and
the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.

only the heads of departments need consent of President.
Senate v. Ermita Ponente: Carpio Morales, J. (i) Whether E.O. 464 (i) Section 2(b) (i) Validity of Section 1
G.R. No. 169777 contravenes the power and 3 are invalid, > The coverage of department heads
April 20, 2006 September 21‐23, 2005  The of inquiry vested in while Sections 1 under Section 1 is not made to depend
Committee of the Senate as a whole Congress. and 2(a) are on the department heads possession of
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


issued various invitations to various valid. any information which might be
officials of the Executive Department covered by executive privilege.
for them to appear on Sept.29 as > “Question Hour” (where attendance
resource speakers in a public hearing is discretionary) under Section 22,
on the North Rail Project. The Article VI needs to be differentiated
hearing was sparked by alleged from Section 21 which provides for the
overpricing and other unlawful power of either Houses of Congress to
provisions of the contract. “conduct inquiries in aid of legislation”
(where attendance is compulsory).
September 28, 2005 > The requirement then to secure
 Senate President Franklin Drilon presidential consent under Section 1,
received from Executive Secretary limited as it is only to appearances in
Eduardo Ermita a letter(s) requesting the question hour, is valid. It cannot be
for postponement of the hearing. applied to appearances of department
 The president issued E.O. No. 464 heads in inquiries in aid of legislation.
which required “all heads of Validity of Sections 2 and 3
departments of the Executive Branch > Section 2(b) virtually states that
of the government shall secure the executive privilege actually covers
consent of the President prior to persons. The doctrine is misused
appearing before either House of because it is properly invoked in
Congress.” relation to specific categories of
 Sen. Drilon received another letter information and not to categories of
from Sec. Ermita informing him that persons.
the invited executive branch officials > While Section 2(a) enumerates the
will not be able to attend as they types of information that are covered
have not secured the consent of the by the privilege under the challenged
president. order, Congress is left to speculate as to
 AFP Chief of Staff, Gen. Generoso which among them is being referred to
Senga sent a letter to Sen. Biazon by the executive, or on how the
informing “that per instruction of requested information could be
[Pres. Arroyo], thru Secretary of classified as privileged. It does not
National Defense no officer of the suffice to merely declare that President
AFP is authorized to appear before has determined that a piece of
any Senate or Congressional hearings information is so privileged.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


without seeking a written approval > An improperly asserted claim of
from the President.” privilege is no claim of privilege.
> The need to ensure respect for
October 3, 2005  3 petitions (G.R. officials does not change the infirm
169659, 169660, 169667) for nature of the authorization of the
certiorari and prohibition were filed executive order.
challenging the constitutionality of
E.O. No. 464. (ii) Whether E.O. 464 (ii) The right of (ii) The right to information does not
violates the right of the the people to grant a citizen power to exact
people to information information testimony from government officials.
on matters of public cannot be called This power belongs only to Congress
concern. to surface and not to an individual citizen. The
because not all right to information follows the
exercises of the Congress’ power of inquiry only in a
legislative of its highly qualified sense.
power of inquiry > To the extent that investigations in
finds its root in aid of legislation are generally
the people’s right conducted in public, any executive
to information. issuance tending to unduly limit
disclosures of information in such
investigations necessarily deprives the
people of information which, being
presumed to be in aid of legislation, is
presumed to be a matter of public
concern.

(iii) Whether (iii) While E.O. (iii) E.O. 464 has a direct effect on the
respondents have 464 applies only right of the people to information on
committed grave abuse to officials of the matters of public concern. It is,
of discretion when they executive therefore a matter of public interest
implemented E.O. 464 branch, it does which members of the body politic may
prior to its publication not follow that question before this court. Due process
in a newspaper of the same is thus requires that the people should
general circulation. exempt from the have been apprised of this issuance
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


need for before it was implemented.
publication.
Neri v. Senate Motion for reconsideration for the SC (i) Whether or not there (i) While (i) In this case, it was the President
Committee decision granting the petition for is a recognized executive herself, through Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 180643 certiorari filed by Petitioner Romulo presumptive privilege is a Ermita, who invoked executive privilege
September 4, 2008 Neri against respondent Senate presidential constitutional on a specific matter involving an
Committees on Accountability of communications concept, a claim executive agreement between the
Public Officers and Investigations, privilege in our legal thereof may be Philippines and China, which was the
Trade and Commerce, and National system. valid or not subject of the 3 questions propounded
Defense and Security (“respondent depending on to petitioner Neri in the course of the
Committees”). the ground Senate Committees investigation.
invoked to justify
In the investigation regarding the it and the
NBN‐ZTE deal, the respondent context in which
committees required the petitioner it is made.
to answer the following questions:
(a) Whether or not President Arroyo (ii) Whether or not (ii) FIRST The (ii)
followed up the NBN‐ZTE Project, (b) there is factual or legal power to enter > The fact that a power (i.e. to secure a
Whether or not she directed him to basis to hold that the into an executive foreign loan) is subject to the
prioritize it, and (c) whether or not communications agreement is a concurrence of another entity (i.e. the
she directed him to approve it. elicited by the 3 “quintessential Monetary Board) does not make such
questions are covered and non‐ power less executive. The fact that the
November 20, 2007  petitioner did by executive privilege. delegable president has to secure the prior
not appear before respondent presidential concurrence of the Monetary Board,
committees upon orders of the power”. which shall submit to Congress a
President invoking executive SECOND, the complete report of its decision before
privilege. doctrine of contracting or guaranteeing foreign
operational loans, does not diminish the executive
Petitioner was issued with a proximity was nature of the power.
contempt order, but he insisted that laid down > The danger of expanding the privilege
he had not shown any contemptible precisely to limit “to a large swath of the executive
conduct worthy of contempt and the scope of the branch” is absent because the official
arrest. He emphasized his willingness presidential involved here is a member of the
to testify on new matters, but communications Cabinet i.e. her official family.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


respondent committees did not privilege, but in > The letter of Executive Secretary
respond to his request for advance any case, it is not Ermita specified presidential
notice fo questions. conclusive. communications privilege in relation to
THIRD, the diplomatic and economic relations with
president’s claim another sovereign nation as the bases
of executive for the claim.
privilege is not
merely based on
a generalized
interest.

(iii) Whether or not (iii) The (iii) The presumption in favor of the
respondent committees respondent Presidential communications puts the
have shown that the committees have burden on the respondent Senate
communications failed to show Committees to overturn the
elicited by the 3 adequate presumption by demonstrating their
questions are critical to compelling need specific need for the information. Here,
the exercise of their that would justify there is simply a generalized assertion
functions. limitation of the that the information is pertinent to the
privilege. exercise of the power to legislate and a
broad and non‐specific reference to
pending Senate bills.

(iv) Whether or not (iv) Respondent (iv) Witnesses have their constitutional
respondent committees committees right to due process. They should be
committed grave abuse committed grave adequately informed what matters are
of discretion in issuing abuse of to be covered by the inquiry, It will also
the contempt order. discretion in allow them to prepare the pertinent
issuing the information and documents, To our
contempt order mind, these requirements concede too
as the demands little political costs or burdens on the
of the petitioner part of the Congress when viewed vis‐à‐
to be furnished a vis the immensity of its power of
copy of the inquiry.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


questions in
advance is
reasonable.

Section 23.
(1) The Congress, by a vote of two‐thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the
existence of a state of war.
(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such
restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by
resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.

Section 24.
All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills, shall originate
exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

Section 25.
(1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget.
The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.
(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation
therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates.
(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments
and agencies.
(4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the
National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein.
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any
item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
(6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and
subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law.
(7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general
appropriations law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re‐enacted and shall remain in force and effect until the general appropriations bill is
passed by the Congress.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Garcia v. Mata Ponente: Castro, J. (i) Whether or not the (i) Judgment of (i) The incongruity and irrelevancy are
65 SCR.A. 517 (1975) provision in question is the lower court already evident. While R.A. No. 1600
A petition for certiorari to review the a rider with no affirmed. appropraited money for the operation
decision of the Court of First Instance relevance to any of the Government for the fiscal year
of Q.C., Branch XI in Civil Case 1‐ appropriation item 1956‐1957, the said paragraph 11
13466 declaring paragraph 11 of the contained in the act. refers to the fundamental
“Special Provisions for the Armed governmental policy matters of the
Forces of the Philippines” of R.A. No. calling to active duty and the reversion
1600 unconstitutional and there to inactive status of reserve officers in
invalid and inoperative. the AFP.
Demetria v. Alba Ponente: Fernan, J. (i) Whether or not (i) Conflict is (i) Section 44 of P.D. No. 1177
148 SCR.A. 208 (1987) assailed section is in readily empowers the president to
Petition for prohibition with paryer conflict with Section perceivable as indiscriminately transfer funds from on
for writ of preliminary injunction. 16(5) of Article VIII of the decree department, bureau, office or agency of
Petitioners assail the constitutionality the 1973 Constitution. unduly the Executive Department to any
of the first paragraph of Section 44 of overextends program, project or activity of any
P.D. No.1177 otherwise known as presidential department bureau or office included
the “Budget Reform Decree of 1977”. powers. in the General Appropriations Act,
without regard as to whether or not the
fund to be transferred are actually
savings in the item from which the
same are to be taken. It does not only
completely disregard the standards set
in the fundamental law, thereby
amounting to an undue delegation of
legislative powers, but likewise goes
beyond the tenor thereof.

Section 26.
(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form
have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment
to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken
immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Tio v. Videogram Ponente: Melencio‐Herrera, J. (i) Whether or not (i) The petition is (i) The foregoing provision is allied and
Regulatory Board Section 10 thereof, without merit germane to, and is reasonably
151 SCR.A. 208 (1987) P.D. No. 1987 (An Act Creating the which imposes a tax of because the necessary for the accomplishment of,
Videogram Regulatory Board) 30% on the gross constitutional the general objects of the decree which
receipts payable to the requirement as is the regulation of the video industry
November 5, 1985  P.D. No. 1994 local government is a to the title of the through the Videogram Regulatory
amended the National Internal RIDER and the same is bill should not be Board. The tax provision is not
Revenue Code. not germane to the so narrowly inconsistent with, nor foreign to that
subject matter thereof, construed as to general subject and title. The express
thus making the decree cripple or purpose of the decree to include
unconstitutional. impede the taxation of the video industry in order
power of to regulate and rationalize the
legislation. heretofore uncontrolled distribution of
videograms is evident from Preambles
2 and 5 (see p.254 for complete
preamble of decree).

Phil. Judges Ponente: Cruz, J. (i) Whether or not the (i) The title of the (i) The title of the bill is not required to
Association v. Prado law is unconstitutional act does not be an index to the body of the act, or to
G.R. No. 105371 Section 35 of R.A. No. 7354 as because its title violate the be as comprehensive as to cover every
November 11, 1993 implemented by the Philippine Postal embraces more than constitution single detail of the measure. It has been
Corporation through its Circular No. one subject and does because its held that if the title fairly indicates the
9228. These measures withdraw the not express its purpose. sections are general subject, and reasonably covers
franking privilege from the Supreme germane to the all the provisions of the act, and is not
Court, the Court of Appeals, the title. calculated to mislead the legislature of
Regional Trial Courts, the the people, there is sufficient
Metropolitan Trial Courts, the compliance with the constitutional
Municipal Trial Courts, and the Land requirement.
Registration Commission and its
Register of Deeds, along with certain (ii) Whether or not it (ii) While it is (ii) A conference committee may deal
other government offices. violate the constitution true that a generally with the subject matter or it
as it did not pass the conference may be limited to resolving the precise
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


required readings in committee is the differences between the two houses.
both houses of mechanism for Even where the conference committee
Congress and printed compromising is not by rule limited in its jurisdiction,
copies of the bill in its differences legislative custom severely limits the
final form were not between the freedom with which new subject
distributed among the Senate and the matter can be inserted into the
members before its House, it is not conference bill. But occasionally a
passage. limited in its conference committee produced
jurisdiction to unexpected results, results beyond its
this question. mandate. These excursions occur even
where the rules impose strict
limitations on conference committee
jurisdiction.

(iii) Whether or not it is
(iii) It is violative (iii) The repealing clause is a
discriminatory and of Article3, Sec.1 discriminatory provision that denies the
encroaches on the of the Judiciary the equal protection of the
independence of the Constitution on laws guaranteed for all persons or
Judiciary. account of the things similarly situated.
repealing clause.
Fariñas, et al. v. See Supra under Article VI, Section 7
Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 147387
December 10, 2003
Tan v. Del Rosario Ponente: Vitug, J. (i) Whether or not the (i) The plea to (i) Uniformity does not forfend
G.R. No. 109289 continued have the law classification as long as:
October 3, 1994 In G.R. No. 109289, it is asserted that implementation of said declared (1) The standards that are used
the enactment of R.A. No. 7496 law violates the unconstitutional therefore are substantial and not
(Simplified Net Income Taxation constitutional fails because the arbitrary.
Scheme for the Self‐Employed and requirements that concept of equal (2) The categorization is germane to
Professionals Engaged in the practice taxation shall be protection achieve the legislative purpose.
of their Profession) violates the uniform and equitable. merely requires (3) The law applies, all things being
following provisions of the that all subjects equal, to both present and future
Constitution: or objects of conditions.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


(1) Art.VI, Sec.26(1) taxation be (4) The classification applies equally
(2) Art.VI, Sec.28(1) treated alike well to all those belonging to the same
(3) Art.III, Sec.1 both in privileges class. (Pepsi Cola v. City of Butuan)
and limitations.
Tolentino v. Secretary Ponente: Mendoza, J. Procedural Issues: Procedural Issues Procedural Issues
of Finance (i) Does R.A. No. 7716 (i) It does not (i) It is not the law itself, but the
G.R. No. 115455 R.A. No. 7716 seeks to widen the violate Art.VI, Sec.4 of unconstitutional revenue bill which is required by the
August 25, 1994 existing tax base of the existing VAT the Constitution? because the Constitution to originate exclusively
system and enhance its Constitution from the House of Representatives. To
administration by amending the simply means insist that a revenue statute and not
National Internal Revenue Code. that the initiative only the bill which initiated the
for filing legislative process culminating in the
R.A. No. 7716 is the results of revenue, tariff, or enactment of the law must
Conference Committee Bill entitled tax bills, bills substantially be the same as the H.B.
“AN ACT RESTRUCTURING THE authorizing an would be to deny the Senate’s power
VALUE‐ADDED TAX (VAT) SYSTEM, increase of the not only to concur with amendments
WIDENING IT TAX BASE AND public debt must but also propose amendments. Nor
ENHANCING ITS ADMINISTR.A.TION come from the does the Constitution prohibit the filing
AND FOR THESE PURPOSES HOR. in the Senate of a substitute bill in
AMENDING AND REPEALING THE anticipation of its receipt from the
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE House, so long as the action by the
NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE Senate as a body is withheld pending
CODE, AS AMENDED, AND FOR receipt of the House bill.
OTHER PURPOSES”. This results from
the consolidation of Senate Bill No. (ii) Does S. No.1630 (ii) The fact that (ii) Upon certification of the bill by the
1630 (submitted in substitution of violate Art.VI, Sec.26(2) 2nd and 3rd President, the requirement of three
S.B. 1129 taking into consideration of the Constitution readings were readings on separate days and of
P.S. Res. No. 734 and H.B. No.1197) because it did not pass done on the printing and distribution can be
and House Bill no. 1197. three readings on same day is valid dispensed with is supported by the
separate days? because it was weight of legislative practice.
certified by the
President as
urgent, and the
Senate accepted
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Tolentino v. Secretary Ponente: Mendoza, J. Procedural Issues: Procedural Issues Procedural Issues
of Finance (i) Does R.A. No. 7716 (i) It does not (i) It is not the law itself, but the
G.R. No. 115455 R.A. No. 7716 seeks to widen the violate Art.VI, Sec.4 of unconstitutional revenue bill which is required by the
August 25, 1994 existing tax base of the existing VAT
the Constitution? because the Constitution to originate exclusively
system and enhance its Constitution from the House of Representatives. To
administration by amending the simply means insist that a revenue statute and not
National Internal Revenue Code. that the initiative only the bill which initiated the
for filing legislative process culminating in the
R.A. No. 7716 is the results of revenue, tariff, or enactment of the law must
Conference Committee Bill entitled tax bills, bills substantially be the same as the H.B.
“AN ACT RESTRUCTURING THE authorizing an would be to deny the Senate’s power
VALUE‐ADDED TAX (VAT) SYSTEM, increase of the not only to concur with amendments
WIDENING IT TAX BASE AND public debt must but also propose amendments. Nor
ENHANCING ITS ADMINISTR.A.TION come from the does the Constitution prohibit the filing
AND FOR THESE PURPOSES HOR. in the Senate of a substitute bill in
AMENDING AND REPEALING THE anticipation of its receipt from the
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE House, so long as the action by the
NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE Senate as a body is withheld pending
CODE, AS AMENDED, AND FOR receipt of the House bill.
OTHER PURPOSES”. This results from
the consolidation of Senate Bill No. (ii) Does S. No.1630 (ii) The fact that (ii) Upon certification of the bill by the
1630 (submitted in substitution of violate Art.VI, Sec.26(2) 2nd and 3rd President, the requirement of three
S.B. 1129 taking into consideration of the Constitution readings were readings on separate days and of
P.S. Res. No. 734 and H.B. No.1197) because it did not pass done on the printing and distribution can be
and House Bill no. 1197. three readings on same day is valid dispensed with is supported by the
separate days? because it was weight of legislative practice.
certified by the
President as
urgent, and the
Senate accepted
the President’s
certification.

(iii) What is the extent (iii) The (iii) It is within the power of a

of the power of the allegation that conference committee to include it its
Bicameral Conference the included report an entirely new provision that is
Committee?
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻ provisions not not found either in the house bill or in
found in either the Senate bill. If the committee can
the House or propose an amendment consisting of
Senate bill were one or two provisions, there is no

Section 27.
(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall sign it; otherwise,
he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and
proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two‐thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent,
together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two‐thirds of all the Members of that
House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting
for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days
after the date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the
item or items to which he does not object.

Commissioner of Ponente: Medialdea, J. (i) Whether the (i) The (i) To construe the word “item” as
Internal Revenue v. presidential veto presidential veto referring to the whole section would tie
Court of Tax Appeals Commissioner of internal Revenue v. referred to the entire only referred to the President’s hand in choosing either
185 SCR.A. 329 (1990) Manila Hotel Corporation, et al. (G.R. section or merely to the “hotels, motels, to approve the whole section at the
No. 83250), the Supreme Court imposition of 20% tax and resthouses” expense of also approving a provision
overruled a decision of the Court of on gross receipts of in the 20% therein which he deems unacceptable
Tax Appeals which declared the operators or proprietors caterer’s tax or veto the entire section at the espsen
collection of caterer’s tax under of restaurants, bracket, but not of foregoing the collection of the kind
Section 191‐A of R.A. No. 6110 illegal refreshments, parlors, to the whole of tax altogether.
because Section 42 of H.B. No. 17839 bars and other eating section.
which carries that proviso was places which are
vetoed by then President Marcos, maintained within the
and the congress did not take steps premises or compound
to override the veto. of a hotel, motel or
resthouses.
CTA argues that the President has no
power to veto part of an item in a
bill; either he vetoes an entire
section or approves it but not a
fraction thereof.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Manila Golf and Country Club Inc.,
claims it should have been exempt
from payment of privilege taxes were
it not for the last paragraph of
Section 191‐A of R.A. No. 6110.

Petitioner denied the club’s protest
maintaining that Section 42 was not
entirely vetoed but merely the words
“hotels, motels, resthouses” on the
ground that it might restrain
development of hotels which is
essential to the tourism industry.
Gonzales v. Macaraig Ponente: Melencio‐Herrera, J. (i) Whether or not the (i) The veto is (i) “Item” in a bill refers to the
G.R. No. 87636 veto by the President of upheld because particulars the details, the distinct and
November 19, 1990 December 16, 1988  Congress Section 55 of the 1989 the sections are severable parts of the bill.
passed House Bill No. 19186 or the Appropriations Bill considered as > The restrictive interpretation urged
General Approprations Bill for the (Section 55 FY’89) and items and not by petitioners that the President may
Fiscal Year of 1989. subsequently of its some general not veto a provision without vetoing
counterpart Section 16 provision of law, the entire bill not only disregards the
December 29, 1988  President of the 1990 which is within basic principle that a distinct and
signed the bill into law (R.A. No. Appropriations Bill the veto power severable part of a bill may be subject
6688). Seven (7) Special Provisions (Section 16 FY’90) is of the President of a separate veto but also overlooks
and Section 55 a “General Provision” unconstitutional and under Article VI, the Constitutional mandate that any
were vetoed. without effect Section 27 of the provision in the general appropriations
1987 bill shall relate specifically to some
A substantially similar provision as Constitution. particular appropriation therein.
the vetoed Section 55 appears in the > Section 55 FY’89 and Section 16 FY’90
Appropriations Act of 1990, are not provisions in the budgetary
particularly Section 16. sense of the term, as inferred from
Section 25(2) of 1987 Constitution: The
provision should relate specifically to
some particular appropriation therein.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


(1) The vetoed provisions do not relate
to any particular or distinctive
appropriation, they apply to generally
all the items.
(2) The disapproved or reduced items
are nowhere to be found on the fact of
the Bill.
(3) The vetoed Sections are more of an
expression of the Congressional policy
in respect of augmentation from
savings rather than a budgetary
appropriation.

(ii) Whether or not the (ii) The exercise (ii) There is a rule that the Executive is
exercise of the veto of veto power by not allowed to veto a condition or
power by the President the President proviso of an appropriation while
partakes of the nature was not in the allowing the appropriation itself to
of legislative powers nature of stand. However, for the rule to apply,
legislative restrictions should be such in the real
powers as there sense of the term, not some matters
are constitutional which are more properly dealt with in a
laws that allow separate legislation. Section 55 FY’89
for the and Section 16 FY’90 partake more of a
augmentation curtailment on the power to augment
from savings. from savings.
> The power to augment from savings
lies dormant until authorized by law
(Article VI Section 25(5)), and it has
been so authorized by law through
Section 12 of the General
Appropriations Act of 1989.
> The doctrine of separation of powers
is not way endangered because the
transfer is made within a department
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Gonzales v. Macaraig Ponente: Melencio‐Herrera, J. (i) Whether or not the (i) The veto is (i) “Item” in a bill refers to the
G.R. No. 87636 veto by the President of upheld because particulars the details, the distinct and
November 19, 1990 December 16, 1988  Congress Section 55 of the 1989 the sections are severable parts of the bill.
passed House Bill No. 19186 or the Appropriations Bill considered as > The restrictive interpretation urged
General Approprations Bill for the (Section 55 FY’89) and items and not by petitioners that the President may
Fiscal Year of 1989. subsequently of its
some general not veto a provision without vetoing
Section 28. counterpart Section 16 provision of law, the entire bill not only disregards the
December 29, 1988  President of the 1990 which is within basic principle that a distinct and
(1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
signed the bill into law (R.A. No. Appropriations Bill the veto power severable part of a bill may be subject
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose,
6688). Seven (7) Special Provisions (Section 16 FY’90) is of the President of a separate veto but also overlooks
tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development
program of the Government. and Section 55 a “General Provision” unconstitutional and under Article VI, the Constitutional mandate that any
were vetoed. without effect Section 27 of the provision in the general appropriations
(3) Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non‐profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and
1987 bill shall relate specifically to some
improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
A substantially similar provision as Constitution. particular appropriation therein.
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.
the vetoed Section 55 appears in the > Section 55 FY’89 and Section 16 FY’90
Case Appropriations Act of 1990,
Facts
Issues
Held are not provisions in the budgetary
Ratio/Ruling
particularly Section 16.
Gerochi v. Department Ponente: Nachura, J.
(i) Whether or not the
(i) No, because sense of the term, as inferred from
(i) Taxation Power v. Police Power
of Energy
UC imposed under
the tax is merely Section 25(2) of 1987 Constitution: The
> The theory behind taxation power
G.R. No. 159796 Petitioners come before court to
Section 34 of the
incidental of the provision should relate specifically to
emanates from the necessity to help
July 17, 2007 praying for Section 34 of R.A. 9136
EPIR.A. is a tax.
state’s exercise some particular appropriation therein.
the government fulfill its mandate of
otherwise known as the “Electric
of police power (1) The vetoed provisions do not relate
promoting the general welfare and
Power Industry Reform Act of 2001”
in regulating to any particular or distinctive
well‐being of the people.
(EPIR.A.) imposing the Universal
electricity to appropriation, they apply to generally
> Police Power is the power of the state
Charge (UC) and Rule 18 of the Rules
ensure the all the items.
to promote public welfare by
and Regulations (IRR) to be declared
viability of the (2) The disapproved or reduced items
restraining and regulating the use of
unconstitutional.
country’s electric are nowhere to be found on the fact of
liberty and property. The power to

power industry. the Bill.
regulate means the power to protect,
It is assailed to be unconstitutional (3) The vetoed Sections are more of an
foster, promote, preserve and control
on the following grounds: expression of the Congressional policy
with due regard for the interests, first
1. The UC is a tax. The power to in respect of augmentation from
and foremost of the public, then of the
tax is strictly a legislative savings rather than a budgetary
utility and of its patrons.
function. The assailed appropriation.
> If the generation of revenue is the
provision clearly provides
primary purpose and regulation is
that the UC is to be (ii) Whether or not the (ii) The exercise (ii) There is a rule that the Executive is
merely incidental, it is a tax. BUT if
exercise of the veto of veto power by not allowed to veto a condition or
power by the President the President proviso of an appropriation while
partakes of the nature was not in the allowing the appropriation itself to
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻
of legislative powers nature of stand. However, for the rule to apply,
legislative restrictions should be such in the real
powers as there sense of the term, not some matters

determined, fixed and regulation if the primary purposes, the
approved by the Energy fact that revenue is incidentally raised
Regulatory Board (ERC), does not make the imposition a tax.
hence leaving to the latter
complete discretionary
legislative authority.
2. The ERC is also empowered
to approve and determine
where the funds collected
should be used.
3. The imposition of the UC on
all end‐users is oppressive
and confiscatory and
amounts to taxation without
representation as the
consumers were not given a
chance to be heard and
represented.
Garcia v. Executive Ponente: Feliciano, J. (i) Whether or not E.O. (i) The (i) Section 28(2) of the 1987
Secretary Nos. 475 and 478 are enactment of Constitution provides constitutional
G.R. No. 101273 November 27, 1990  E.O. No. 438 violative of Section 24, bills permission to Congress to authorize the
July 3, 1992 which imposed an additional duty of Article VI of the 1987 appropriation, President “subject to such limitations
5% on all imported articles (e.g. Constitution. revenue and and restrictions as [Congress] may
crude oil and other oil products). tariff bills are impose” to fix “within specific limits
Legislative tariff rates…and other duties or
January 3, 1991  E.O. No. 443 functions, but it imposts…”
increased duty from 5% to 9%. doesn’t mean > President invoked Sections 104 and
that the EOs in 401 of the Tariff and Customs Code of
August 15, 1991  E.O. No. 475 question are the Philippines in promulgating the EO
reduced rate of additional duty from unconstitutional in question.
9% to 5% except in cases of crude oil and prohibited. > There is nothing in the Code that
and other oil products which suggests that the President is limited to
continued to be subject to additional act under the Code only when
duty of 9%. protecting local industries. The levying
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


of customs duties on imported goods
August 16, 1991  Upon completion may have in some measure the effect
of public hearings, The Tariff of protecting local industries.
Commission submitted to the > Section 401 of the Tariff and Customs
President a “Report on special duty Code establishes general standards
on Crude Oil and Oil Products”. with which the exercise of authority
delegated by that provision to the
August 23, 1991  E.O. No. 478 President must be consistent: it must
added (besides the 9% duty) a duty be exercised in the interest of national
of P0.95/liter or P151.05/barrel of economy, general welfare and/or
imported crude oil and P1.00/liter of national security. The protection of
imported oil products. consumers is part of the provision.

Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition
and Mandamus were made
Systems Plus Computer SPCC is a non‐stock and non‐profit (i) Petition for certiorari (i) Petition for (i) Mandamus is defined as a writ
College v. Caloocan educational institution organized, imputing grave abuse of certiorari commanding a tribunal, corporation,
City and as such enjoys property tax discretion on the party DISMISSED as board or person to do the act required
G.R. No. 146382 exemption from LGU on its buildings, of the trial court when petitioner is to be done when it or he unlawfully
August 7, 2003 but not the parcel of land which it it ruled: taking an neglects the performance of an act
rents for P5,000/month from its (1) Mandamus does not unwarranted which the law specifically enjoins as a
sister companies Consolidated lie against the public shortcut. duty resulting from an office, trust or
Assembly Inc. (CAI) and Pair respondents. station, or unlawfully excludes another
Management and Development (2) That petitioner from the use and enjoyment of a right
Corporation (PMDC). failed to exhaust or office or which such other is entitled,
available administrative there being no other plain, speedy, and
January 8, 1998  SPCC requested remedies adequate remedy in the ordinary
the City of Caloocan, through course of law. Where administrative
Mamerto Manahan (City Assessor remedies are available, a petition for
and Administrator) to extend tax mandamus does not lie.
exemption since it was actually, > Under Section 226 of R.A. 7160, the
directly and exclusively used for remedy of appeal to the local Board of
educational purposes pursuant to Assessment appeals is available from an
Article VI, Section 28(3) of the 1987 adverse ruling or action of the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Constitution. provincial, city or municipal assessor in
the assessment of property.
February 5, 1998  SPCC’s request > Mandamus does not lie against the
was denied on the ground that the respondent City Assessor in the
land was owned by CAI and PMDC exercise of his function of assessing
which derived income through the properties for taxation purposes.
rents paid by SPCC. Mandamus may not be availed of to
direct the exercise of judgment or
February 15, 1999  CAI and PMDC discretion in a particular way, or to
entered into separate agreements retract or reverse an action already
with SPCC which converted the land taken in the exercise of either.
into donations.

February 19, 1999  SPCC seeks
reconsideration informing the City
Assessor of the new agreements.

July 21, 1999  Application for tax
exemption denied because:
(1) SPCC is an agency for CAI and
PMDC to evade payment of Real
Property Tax.
(2) Grant of exemption rests on the
theory that the exemption will
benefit the body of people, not just
one individual or corporate entity.
(3) There is not showing that land are
actually, directly, and exclusively
used either for religious, charitable,
or educational purposes.

Petitioner filed a petition for
mandamus with the RTC of Caloocan
City, but it was dismissed for being
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


premature.
Central Mindanao Note: This case is added simply (i) Whether or not CMU (i) No, because (i) President Garcia issued Proclamation
University (CMU) v. because of its interpretation of the land is exclusively used CMU is a school No. 476, withdrawing from sale or
Department of meaning of “directly, actually, and and indispensable to established to settlement and reserving for Mindanao
Agrarian Reform exclusively” educational purposes promote Agricultural College (forerunner of the
G.R. No. 100091 and thus covered by agriculture and CMU) a land reservation of 3,080
October 22, 1992 Ponente: Campos, Jr., J. CARP. industry. The hectares as its future campus. It was set
need for a vast up in Bukidnon, in the hinterlands of
This is a petition for Review on tract of Mindanao in order that it can have
Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules agricultural land enough resources and wide open
of Court to nullify the proceedings for future spaces to grow as an agricultural
and decisions of the Department of programs of educational institution, to develop and
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board expansion is train future farmers of Mindanao and
(DAR.A.B), and to set aside the obvious. help attract settlers to that part of the
decision of the Court of Appeals country.
[affirming DAR.A.B’s decision] which > As to determination of when and
ordered the segragation of 400 what lands are found to be necessary
hectares of suitable, compact and for use by the CMU, the school is in the
contiguous portions of CMU land for best position to resolve and answer the
distribution to qualified beneficiaries question. Neither the DARB nor the
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Court of Appeals has the right to
Reform Porgram (CARP) on the substitute its judgment or discretion on
ground of lack of jurisdiction. this matter, unless the evidentiary facts
are so manifest as to show that the
The questioned decision is hinged on CMU has no real need for the land.
the alleged fact that CMU land is “not > It is exempt from coverage under
directly, actually and exclusively used Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 because
for school sites, because the same the lands are actually, directly and
was leased to Philippine Packing exclusively used and found to be
Corporation (no Del Monte necessary for school site and campus,
Philippines)”. In addition, there is not including experimental farm stations
definite and concrete showing that for educational purposes, and for
said lands are essentially establishing seed and seedling research
indispensable for educational and pilot production centers.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Central Mindanao Note: This case is added simply (i) Whether or not CMU (i) No, because (i) President Garcia issued Proclamation
University (CMU) v. because of its interpretation of the land is exclusively used CMU is a school No. 476, withdrawing from sale or
Department of meaning of “directly, actually, and and indispensable to established to settlement and reserving for Mindanao
Agrarian Reform exclusively” educational purposes promote Agricultural College (forerunner of the
G.R. No. 100091 and thus covered by agriculture and CMU) a land reservation of 3,080
October 22, 1992 Ponente: Campos, Jr., J. CARP. industry. The hectares as its future campus. It was set
need for a vast up in Bukidnon, in the hinterlands of
This is a petition for Review on tract of Mindanao in order that it can have
Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules agricultural land enough resources and wide open
of Court to nullify the proceedings for future spaces to grow as an agricultural
and decisions of the Department of programs of educational institution, to develop and
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board expansion is train future farmers of Mindanao and
(DAR.A.B), and to set aside the obvious. help attract settlers to that part of the
decision of the Court of Appeals country.
[affirming DAR.A.B’s decision] which > As to determination of when and
ordered the segragation of 400 what lands are found to be necessary
hectares of suitable, compact and for use by the CMU, the school is in the
contiguous portions of CMU land for best position to resolve and answer the
distribution to qualified beneficiaries question. Neither the DARB nor the
of the Comprehensive Agrarian Court of Appeals has the right to
Reform Porgram (CARP) on the substitute its judgment or discretion on
ground of lack of jurisdiction. this matter, unless the evidentiary facts
are so manifest as to show that the
The questioned decision is hinged on CMU has no real need for the land.
the alleged fact that CMU land is “not > It is exempt from coverage under
directly, actually and exclusively used Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 because
for school sites, because the same the lands are actually, directly and
was leased to Philippine Packing exclusively used and found to be
Corporation (no Del Monte necessary for school site and campus,
Philippines)”. In addition, there is not including experimental farm stations
definite and concrete showing that for educational purposes, and for
said lands are essentially establishing seed and seedling research
indispensable for educational and pilot production centers.
purposes.
Commissioner of BIR v. Ponente: Panganiban, J. (i) Is the income derived (i) Yes, because (i) Article VI, Section 28 of par. 3 of the
Court of Appeals from rentals of real the said 1987 Constitution exempts charitable
G.R. No. 124043 Young Men’s Christian Association of property owned by the exemption only institutions from the payment not only
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻
October 14, 1998 the Philippines, Inc. (YMCA) is a non‐ YMCA subject to refers to of property taxes but also of income tax
stock, non‐profit institution which income tax under the property taxes from any source. According to Justice
conducts various programs in National Internal real estate such Hilario Davide, Jr., “... what is exempted

Commissioner of Ponente: Hermosisima, Jr., J. (i) Whether or not (i) No. (i) The trial judge declared the laws to
Internal Revenue v. Regional Trial Courts’ be inoperative and without force and
Santos The trial judge declared a law can declare a law effect insofar as the private
G.R. No. 119252 inoperative and without force on inoperative and without respondents are concerned. But,
August 18, 1997 account of it’s allegedly oppressive force and effect or respondent judge, in the body of his
and confiscatory nature of the otherwise decision, unequivocally but wrongly
jewelry sector. unconstitutional. If it declared the said provisions of law to
can, under what be violative of Section 1, Article III of
circumstances? the Constitution.
> In advocating the abolition of local tax
and duty on jewelry simply because
other countries have adopted such
policies, the respondent judge
overlooked the fact that such matters
are not for him to decide.
John Hay Peoples Ponente: Carpio‐Morales, J. (i) Whether or not (i) The grant of (i) It is clear that under Section 12 of
Alternative Coalition v. Proclamation No. 420 is tax exemption is R.A. No. 7227 it is only the Subic SEZ
Victor Lim Petition for prohibition and constitutional by void and violative which was granted by Congress with tax
G.R. No. 119775 mandamus and declaratory relief providing for national of the exemption, investment incentives and
October 24, 2003 with prayer for a temporary and local tax exemption Constitution. the like. There is no express extension
retraining order (TRO) and/or writ of within and granting of the aforesaid benefits to other SEZs
preliminary injuction, petitioners other economic still to be created at the time via
assail, in the main, the incentives to the John presidential proclamation.
constitutionality of Presidential Hay Special Economic > The incentives under R.A. No. 7227
Proclamation No. 420, Series of 1994 Zone; and are exclusive only to the Subic SEZ,
“CREATING AND DESIGNATING A hence, the extension of the same to the
PORTION OF THE AREA COVERD BY John Hay SEZ finds no support therein.
THE FORMER CAMP JOHN [HAY] AS Neither does the same grant of
THE JOHN HAY SPECIAL ECONOMIC privileges to the John Hay SEZ find
ZONE PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT support in the other laws specified
NO. 7227.” under Section 3 of Proclamation No.
420, which laws were already extant
March 13, 1992  R.A. 7227 before the issuance of the proclamation
otherwise known as the Bases or the enactment of R.A. No. 7227.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Conversion and Development Act of > The challenged grant of tax
1992 set out the policity to exemption would circumvent the
accelerate the sound and balanced Constitution’s imposition that a law
conversions into alternative granting any tax exemption must have
productive uses of the former the concurrence of a majority of all the
military bases. It created the Bases members of Congress. In the same vein,
Conversion and Development the other kinds of privileges extended
Authority (BCDA), vesting it with to the John Jay SEZ are by tradition and
powers pertaining to the multifarious usage for Congress to legislate upon.
aspects of carrying out the ultimate
objective of utilizing the base areas in
accordance with the declared (ii) Whether or not (ii) No, because (ii) With such broad rights of ownership
government policy. Proclamation No. 420 is under R.A. 7227, and administration vested in BCDA over
constitutional for the BCDA is given Camp John Hay, BCDA virtually has
limiting or interfering the power and control over it, subject to certain
with the local autonomy purposes to fulfill limitations provided for by the law. By
of Baguio City. its mandate. designating BCDA as the governing
agency of the John Hay SEZ, the law
merely emphasizes or reiterates the
statutory role or functions it has been
granted.
> The delineation and declaration of a
portion of the area covered by Camp
John Hay as a SEZ was well within the
powers of the President to do so by
means of a proclamation. The requisite
prior concurrence by the Baguio City
government to such proclamation
appears to have been given in the form
of a duly enacted resolution by the
sanggunian.

Section 29.
(1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


(2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect,
church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such,
except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or
leprosarium.
(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for
which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government.

Guingona, Jr. v. Presidential Decree No. 81 entitled (i) IS THE (i) No. (i) Mr. Ople pointed out that the
Carague “Amending Certain Provisions of R.A. APPROPRIATION OF P86 recognition by the Constitution of the
G.R. No. 94571 4860 as amended (Re: Foreign BILLION IN THE P233 highest priority for public
April 22, 1991 Borwwoing Act)” authorized the BILLION 1990 BUDGET schoolteachers, and by implication, for
automatic appropriation for debt VIOLATIVE OF SECTION all teachers, would ensure that the
service. 5, ARTICLE XIV OF THE President and Congress would be
CONSTITUTION? strongly urged by a constitutional
P.D. No. 1177 entitled “Revising the mandate to grant to them such a level
Budget Process in Order to of remuneration and other incentives
Institutionalize the Budgetary that would take teaching competitive
Innovations of the New Society” again and attractive to the best
available talents in the nation.
P.D. No. 1967 entitled “An Act > It does not thereby follow that the
Strengthening the Guarantee and hands of the Congress are so
Payment Positions of the Republic of hamstrung as to deprive it the power to
the Philippines and Its Contingent respond to the imperatives of the
Liabilities Arising out of Relent and national interest and for the attainment
Guaranteed Loancs by Approprating of other state policies or objectives.
Funds For The Purposes.” > Congress is certainly not without any
power, guided only by its good
judgment, to provide an appropriation,
that can reasonably service our
enormous debt, the greater portion of
which was inherited from the previous
administration. It is not only a matter of
honor and to protect the credit
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


standing of the country. More
especially, the very survival of our
economy is at stake. Thus, if in the
process Congress appropriated an
amount for debt service bigger than the
share allocated to education, the Court
finds and so holds that said
appropriation cannot be thereby
assailed as unconstitutional.

(ii) ARE PD NO. 81, PD (ii) Yes. (ii) Section 3, Article XVII of the
NO. 1177 AND PD NO. Constitution regcognizes that “All
1967 STILL OPER.A.TIVE existing laws, decrees, executive
UNDER THE orders…shall remain operative until
CONSTITUTION? amended, repealed or revoked” to
preserve the social order so that
legislation by the then President
Marcos may be recognized. Such laws
are to remain in force and effect unless
they are inconsistent with the
Constitution or are otherwise amended,
repealed or revoked.

(iii) III. ARE THEY (iii) No. (iii) The Court finds that in this case the
VIOLATIVE OF SECTION questioned laws are complete in all
29(1), ARTICLE VI OF their essential terms and conditions
THE CONSTITUTION? and sufficient standards are indicated
therein.
> Although the subject presidential
decrees do not state specific amounts
to be paid, necessitated by the very
nature of the problem being addressed,
the amounts nevertheless are made
certain by the legislative parameters
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


provided in the decrees.
> Debt service is not included in the
General Appropriation Act, since
authorization therefore already exists
under R.A. No. 4860 and 245, as
amended and P.D. No. 1967. Precisely
in the light of this subsisting
authorization as embodied in said
Republic Acts and PD for debt services,
Congress does not concern itself with
details for implementation by the
Executive, but largely with annual levels
and approval thereof upon due
deliberation as part of the whole
obligation program for the year.
Osmeña v. Orbos Ponente: Navasa, C.J. (i) The invalidity of the (i) It is not (i) The OPSF was established precisely
G.R. No. 99886 “TRUST ACCOUNT” in contrary to the to protect local consumers from the
March 31, 1993 October 10, 1984  Pres. Ferdinand the books of account of constitution. adverse consequences that such
Marcos issued P.D. 1956 creating a the Ministry of Energy frequent oil price adjustments may
Special Account in the General Fund (now the Office of have upon the economy. Thus, the
designated as the Oil Price Energy Affairs) created OPSF serves as a pocket, as it were, into
Stabilization fund (OPSF) – designed pursuant to § 8, which a portion of the purchases price
to reimburse oil companies for costs paragraph 1, of P.D. No of oil and petroleum products paid by
increases in crude oil and imported 1956, as amended, consumers as well as some tax
petroleum producst resulting from “said creation of a trust revenues are inputted and from which
exchange rate adjustments and from fund being contrary to amounts are drawn from time to time
increases in the world market prices Section 29 (3) Article VI to reimburse oil companies, when
of crude oil. of the Constitution.” appropriate situations arise, for
increases in, as well as under recovery
E.O. 1024 reclassified the OPSF into a of, costs of crude importation.
“trust liability account” > It appears to the Court that the
establishment and maintenance of the
February 27, 1987  Pres. Corazon OPSF is well within that pervasive and
Aquino amended P.D. 1956 through non‐waivable power and responsibility
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


E.O. No. 137 expanding the grounds of the government to secure, the
for reimbursement to oil companies physical and economic survival and
for possible cost under recovery well‐being of the community.
incurred as a result of the reduction > Gaston v. Republic Planters Bank
of domestic prices of petroleum  The tax collected is not in a
products. pure exercise of the taxing
power. It is levied with a
regulatory purpose, to provide
a means for the stabilization of
the sugar industry. The levy is
primarily in the exercise of the
police power of the State.
> Moreover, that the OPSF is a special
fund is plain from the special treatment
given it by E.O. No. 137. It is segregated
from the general fund; and while it is
placed in what the law refers to as a
“trust liability account,” the fund
nonetheless remains subject to the
scrutiny and review of the COA.

(ii) The (ii) It is not an (ii) With regard to the alleged undue
unconstitutionality of § undue delegation delegation of legislative power, the
8, paragraph 1(c) of of legislative Court finds that § 8 P.D. 1956
P.D. No. 1956 as authority/power. conferring the authority upon the ERB
amended by Executive to impose additional amounts on
Order No. 137 for petroleum products provides a
“being an undue and sufficient standard by which the
invalid delegation of authority must be exercised. In addition
legislative power to the to the general policy of the law to
Energy Regulatory protect the local consumer by
Board;” stabilizing and subsidizing domestic
pump rates, § 8(c) of P.D. 1956
expressly authorizes the ERB to impose
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


additional amounts to augment the
resources of the Fund.

Section 30.
No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.

Fabian v. Desierto Ponente: Regalado, J. (i) Whether or not R.A. (i) No. (i) Since Section 5(2)(e), Article VIII of
G.R. No. 129742 8770 is violative of the Constitution authorizes this Court to
September 16, 1998 PROMOST Construction Development Section 20, Article VI of review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm
Corporation president, Teresita the Constitution which on appeal or certiorari the aforesaid
Fabian participated in the bidding for states that “no law shall final judgment or orders “as the law of
government construction including be passed increasing the the Rules of Court may provide,” said
those under the First Metro Manila appellate jurisdiction of Section 27 does not increase this Court’s
Engineering District (FMED) whose the Supreme Court as appellate jurisdiction since, by providing
incumbend District Engineer was provided in this that the mode of appeal shall be by
Nestor Desierto. Making use of his Constitution without its petition for certiorari under Rule 45,
official position, he began an affair advice and consent.” then what may be raised therein are
with Fabian and gifted PROMAT with only questions of law of which this Court
public works contracts. already has jurisdiction.
> Also, the very provision cited by
When Fabian wanted to end the petitioner specifies that the appellate
relationship, Desierto refused and jurisdiction of this Court contemplated
went as far as employing harassment, therein is to be exercised over “final
intimidation and threats. judgments and orders of lower courts,”
that is, the courts composing the
January 31, 1996  Graft investigator integrated judicial system. It does not
Eduardo Benitez – acting on the include the quasi‐judicial bodies or
complaint of Fabian regarding agencies, hence whenever the
Desierto’s violation of Section 19, R.A. legislature intends that the decisions or
6770 and Section 36 of P.D. 807 – resolutions of the quasi‐judicial agency
issued a resolution finding Nestor shall be reviewable by the Supreme
Desierto guilty of grave misconduct Court or the Court of Appeals, a specific
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


and ordering his dismissal from provision to that effect is included in the
service with forfeiture of all benefits law creating that quasi‐judiciary agency
under the law. and, for that matter, any special
statutory court.
Pursuant to the amendment of
Section 9, Batasang Pambansa Blg.
129 by R.A. 7902, all adjudications by
the Civil Service Commission in
administrative disciplinary cases were
made appealable to the Court of
Appeals, while those of the Office of
the Ombudsman are appealable to
the Supreme Court.

Section 31.
No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.

Section 32.
The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can
directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body after the
registration of a petition therefor signed by at least ten per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must
be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters thereof.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


ARTICLE VII: EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.

Marcos v. Manglapus Ponente: Cortes, J. (i) Whether or not, in (i) YES. The (i) The 1987 Constitution has fully
the exercise of the President, in the restored the separation of powers of
This is a petition of mandamus and powers granted by the exercise of the the 3 great branches of gov’t. For the
prohibition asking the court to order Constitution, the powers granted executive department, it didn’t really
respondents to issue travel President may prohibit by the define what executive power means
documents to Mr. Marcos and the the Marcoses from Constitution, but Art. 7 touches on the exercise of
immediate members of his family returning to the may prohibit the certain powers of the President found
and to enjoin the implementation of Philippines Marcoses from in Art 7 Secs. 14‐23. Petitioners
the President’s decision to bar their returning to the advance the view that the President’s
return in the Philippines Philippines powers are limited to those specifically
enumerated powers, and what is not
Background: Marcos was deposed enumerated is impliedly denied of her.
from presidency through people Although the 1987 Constitution gave
power revolution, and Cory Aquino limitations to the power of the
replaced him. During Cory’s President, it remains intact what is
presidency, the government traditionally considered as within the
encountered a lot of threats from the scope of executive power. The powers
military (ex: Col. Gregory Honasan’s of the President cannot be said to be
failed coup), communist and limited only to the specific powers
secessionist movement in Mindanao enumerated in the Constitution. Also, it
(they set up a parallel gov’t), as well has been advanced that whatever
as economic woes (rise in foreign power inherent in the gov’t that is
debt, poverty, and ill‐gotten wealth neither legislative nor judicial has to be
of the Marcoses). In short, the gov’t executive.
was in shambles and unstable hence,
the decision of not allowing Marcos Looking at the case in hand, in making
back in the country. any decisions as President of the
Philippines, the President has to
consider the ff principles: serve and
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


protect the people, maintenance of
peace and order, protection of life,
liberty and property, promotion of
general welfare. It must be borne in
mind that the Constitution, aside from
being an allocation of power is also a
social contract whereby the people
have surrendered their sovereign
powers to the State for the common
good. The case calls for the exercise of
the President’s powers as protector of
the peace, which is also a task that
tackles the day‐to‐day problems of
maintaining peace and order and
ensuring domestic tranquility. Lastly,
members of the Legislature also
recognizes the power of the President
to bar the Marcoses as they made a
resolution to appeal to her compassion.
Estrada v. Desierto President Estrada makes two (i) Whether or not the (i) NO. The (i) The Impeachment Court is now
submissions: cases filed against him petitioner enjoys President does functus officio, and if his plea is
before the Ombudsman should be immunity from suit and not enjoy granted, it would put a perpetual bar
prohibited since he was not yet assuming he enjoys immunity from against his prosecution. Such a
convicted in the impeachment immunity, up to what suit, even if there submission has nothing to commend
proceedings and that he enjoys extent is the immunity? is still no itself for it will place him in a better
immunity in civil and criminal suits. conviction in the situation than a non‐sitting president
impeachment who has not been subjected to
proceedings. The impeachment proceedings and yet can
extent of be the object of a criminal prosecution.
immunity does Since his impeachment case has been
not cover liability aborted and he lost the elections,
from unlawful petitioner cannot demand as a
acts and condition sine qua non to his criminal
omissions. prosecution before the Ombudsman
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


that he be convicted in the
impeachment proceedings based on
the ruling in In re: Saturnino Bermudez
– incumbent Presidents are immune
from suit or from being brought to
court during the period of their
incumbency and tenure.
Scope of immunity – 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.
One of the great themes of the
Constitution is that public office is a
public trust. Different constitutional
policies were made to adhere to this
theme (creation of Ombudsman,
Sandiganbayan, etc.) and asserting
petitioner’s claims will devaluate these
policies.
Soliven v. Makasiar President Aquino sued Beltran for (i) Whether or not the (i) YES. The (i) Privilege of immunity may only be
libel for having written that the President of the President of the invoked by the holder of the office (The
President hid under the bed during Philippines, under the Philippines, President in this case). Thus, the
the attempted coup. Constitution, may under the accused in a criminal case of which the
initiate criminal Constitution, President is a complainant cannot raise
Petitioner Beltran argues that “the proceedings against the may initiate the presidential privilege as a defense
reasons which necessitate petitioners through the criminal to prevent the case from proceeding
presidential immunity from suit filing of a complaint‐ proceedings against such accused.
impose a correlative disability to file affidavit against the
a suit.” This would be an indirect way petitioners There is nothing in our laws that can
defeat her privilege of immunity from through the filing stop the President from waiving her
suit, as by testifying on the witness of a complaint‐ presidential privilege. The choice of
stand, she would be exposing herself affidavit whether to exercise the privilege or to
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


to possible contempt of court or waive it is solely the President’s
perjury prerogative. No other person can
assume and waive it for him/her.

Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural‐born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least
forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.

Tecson vs. COMELEC Three consolidated cases, all of which (i) Whether or not the (i) The Court (i) The petitioners invoked Article VII,
raise the issue of whether Supreme Court has dismissed the Section 4, paragraph 7 of the 1987
presidential candidate, Fernando jurisdiction over the separate Constitution in challenging the
Poe, Jr. (FPJ) is a natural‐born Filipino Cases. petitions filed by jurisdiction of the COMELEC. The
citizen. Pet. Tecson and provision states: “The Supreme Court,
Pet. Velez for sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge
Victorino X. Fornier, petitioner in G.R. want of of all contests relating to the election,
No. 161824, in his petition for FPJ’s jurisdiction. returns, and qualifications of the
disqualification alleged that he (FPJ) President or Vice‐President, and may
made material misrepresentation in promulgate its rules for the purpose.”
his certificate of candidacy by
claiming to be a natural‐born Filipino The provision refers to contests in
citizen when his parents were reference to a post‐election scenario
foreigners: his mother, Bessie Kelley where there is already a winner; the
Poe, was an American, and his father, petitions are not contemplative of such
Allan F. Poe, was a Spanish national. scenario.

Granting that Allan F. Poe was a The provision speaks of the jurisdiction
Filipino citizen, he could not have of the Court over the election, returns,
transmitted his Filipino citizenship to and qualifications of the President or
FPJ, the latter being an illegitimate Vice‐President and not of candidates
child of an alien mother – first, Allan for the respective positions.
F. Poe contracted a prior marriage to
a certain Paulita Gomez and second, (ii) Whether or not the (ii) The Court (ii) The Court recognized Rule 64 in
if no such prior marriage existed, COMELEC erred in may take connection to Rule 65 of the Revised
Allan F. Poe married Bessie Kelley dismissing the case filed cognizance of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 7,
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


only a year after the birth of by Victorino X. Fornier petition for Article IX of the Constitution, which
respondent. for lack of merit and both state that in an action for
ruling in favor of the certiorari, the decisions of the
Petition was dismissed by the citizenship of FPJ. COMELEC may be reviewed by the
COMELEC for lack of merit. Upon Court.
filing of motion for reconsideration,
such was also dismissed. Thus, the Section 1, Article VIII, of the
instant petition to the Court. Constitution provides that judicial
power is vested in one Supreme Court
Two other petitions were filed to the and in such lower courts as may be
Court: Maria Jeanette C. Tecson and established by law which power
Felix B. Desiderio, Jr. vs. COMELEC “includes the duty of the courts of
and Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, and Zoilo justice to settle actual controversies
Antonio G. Velez vs. Ronald Allan involving rights which are legally
Kelley Poe. Both challenged the demandable and enforceable, and to
jurisdiction of the COMELEC and determine whether or not there has
asserting that under Article VII, been a grave abuse of discretion
Section 4, paragraph 7 of the amounting to lack or excess of
Constitution, only the Supreme Court jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
had original jurisdiction to resolve instrumentality of the Government.”
the basic issue.
The Court further stated that the
petition brought up by Fornier was
aptly elevated to, and could well be
taken cognizance of, by the Court, and,
that a contrary view would be a gross
denial to the people of their
fundamental right to be fully informed,
and to make a proper choice, on who
could or should be elected to occupy
the highest government post in the
land.

(iii) The Court (iii) The Court in resolving whether
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


affirmed the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
ruling of the discretion, found it necessary to look
COMELEC. into the issue on the citizenship of FPJ.

Considering the evidences presented by
both parties and their reservations as
to the veracity of some of the
documents presented. The ff. facts
were established:

a. The parents of FPJ were Allan F.
Poe and Bessie Kelley;
b. FPJ was born to them on August
20, 1939;
c. Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley
were married to each other on 16
September, 1940;
d. The father of Allan F. Poe was
Lorenzo Poe, and;
e. At the time of his death on 11
September, 1954, Lorenzo Poe was
84 years old.

The Court in resolving whether FPJ was
a natural‐born citizen deemed it fit to
determine whether or not the father
of respondent, Allan F. Poe, would
have himself been a Filipino citizen
and, in the affirmative, whether or not
the alleged illegitimacy of respondent
prevents him from taking after the
Filipino citizenship of his putative
father.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Any conclusion on the Filipino
citizenship of FPJ’s grandfather,
Lorenzo Poe could only be drawn from
the presumption that having died in
1954 at 84 years old, Lorenzo would
have been born sometime in the year
1870, when the Philippines was under
Spanish rule, and that San Carlos,
Pangasinan, his place of residence upon
his death in 1954, in the absence of any
other evidence, could have well been
his place of residence before his death,
such that Lorenzo Poe would have
benefitted from the “en masse
Filipinization” that the Philippine bill
had effected in 1902.

That citizenship (of Lorenzo Poe) if
acquired, would thereby extend to his
son, Allan F. Poe, father of respondent
FPJ.

However, since FPJ’s parents were
married only a year after he was born,
he was considered illegitimate and
thus, it was necessary to establish his
father’s acknowledgment of paternal
relation with him. Because Allan F. Poe
was already deceased, the recognition
by him (Allan F. Poe) of his paternal
relationship with FPJ was attested to
through a declaration made by Ruby
Kelley Mangahas, sister of Bessie Kelley
Poe.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


The 1935 Constitution, during which
regime respondent FPJ was born,
confers citizenship to all persons
whose fathers are Filipino citizens
regardless of whether such children
are legitimate or illegitimate.

The totality of the evidence may not
establish conclusively that respondent
FPJ is a natural‐born citizen of the
Philippines, the evidence on hand still
would preponderate in his favor
enough to hold that he cannot be held
guilty of having made a material
misrepresentation in his certificate of
candidacy in violation of Section 78, in
relation to Section 74, of the Omnibus
Election Code. Petitioner has utterly
failed to substantiate his case before
the Court.

The Court resolved to DISMISS petition.

Section 13. The President, Vice‐President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this
Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other
profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government‐owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.

The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or
offices, including government‐owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
Case Keywords Facts Applicable/Violated

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯Provision/s
┻━┻ Issue & Ratio

Doromal v. Participation Ponente: Section 13. xxx ISSUE 1: Whether or not Doromal violated Article 7,
Sandiganbayan to Doromal Members of the Section 13 of the Constitution. 
(1989) International Quintin S. Doromal, a former Cabinet, and their
177 SCRA 354 Trading Commissioner of the Presidential deputies or  The presence of a signed document bearing the
Corporation Commission on Good Government assistants shall not signature of Doromal as part of the application to
pp. 398‐399 (PCGG), for violation of the Anti‐Graft xxx They shall not, bid shows that he can rightfully be charged with
and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), during said tenure, having participated in a business which act is
P61‐M Section 3(h), in connection with his directly or absolutely prohibited by Section 13 of Article VII of
equipment shareholdings and position as president indirectly, practice the Constitution because the DITC remained a
supply to and director of the Doromal any other family corporation in which Doromal has at least an
DECS &NMYC International Trading Corporation profession, indirect interest.
(DITC) which submitted bids to supply participate in any
P61 million worth of electronic, business, xxx
electrical, automotive, mechanical and
airconditioning equipment to the
Department of Education, Culture and
Sports (or DECS) and the National
Manpower and Youth Council (or
NMYC).

Civil Liberties EO 284 Ponente: Section 13. The ISSUE 1: Whether or not EO 284 is unconstitutional.
Union v. The President, Vice‐  The phrase "unless otherwise provided in this
Executive “unless July 25, 1987  Cory issued EO 284 President, the Constitution" must be given a literal interpretation
Secretary otherwise allows members of the Cabinet, their Members of the to refer only to those particular instances cited in
GR 83896 provided in undersecretaries and assistant Cabinet, and their the Constitution itself, to wit: the Vice‐President
FEB 22,1991 this secretaries to hold NOT MORE THAN 2 deputies or being appointed as a member of the Cabinet under
Constitution” other government offices or positions in assistants shall not, Section 3, par. (2), Article VII; or acting as President
pp. 399‐407 addition to their primary positions unless otherwise in those instances provided under Section 7, pars.
subject to limitations set therein. provided in this (2) and (3), Article VII; and, the Secretary of Justice
Constitution, hold being ex‐officio member of the Judicial and Bar
In sum, the constitutionality of any other office or Council by virtue of Section 8 (1), Article VIII.
Executive Order No. 284 is being employment during
challenged by petitioners on the their tenure. xxx  Finding Executive Order No. 284 to be
principal submission that it adds constitutionally infirm, the court hereby orders
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


exceptions to Section 13, Article VII respondents Secretary of Environment and Natural
other than those provided in the Resources Fulgencio Factoran, Jr., Secretary of Local
Constitution. According to petitioners, Government 45 Luis Santos, Secretary of National
by virtue of the phrase "unless Defense Fidel V. Ramos, Secretary of Health Alfredo
otherwise provided in this R.A. Bengzon and Secretary of the Budget Guillermo
Constitution," the only exceptions Carague to immediately relinquish their other offices
against holding any other office or or employment, as herein defined, in the
employment in Government are those government, including government‐owned or
provided in the Constitution, namely: controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
(1) The Vice‐President may be
appointed as a Member of the Cabinet  WHEREFORE, xxx the petitions are GRANTED.
under Section 3, par. (2), Article VII Executive Order No. 284 is hereby declared null and
thereof; and void xxx
(2) the Secretary of Justice is an ex‐
officio member of the Judicial and Bar
Council by virtue of Section 8 (1),
Article VIII.
Bitonio Jr. v. DOLE Ponente: Article VII ISSUE 1: Whether or not the COA correctly
COA PEZA Prohibition disallowed the per diems received by the petitioner
GR 147392 Disallowance In 1994, petitioner Benedicto Ernesto R. Section 13. The for his attendance in the PEZA Board Director’s
March 12, Per diem Bitonio, Jr. was appointed Director IV of President, Vice‐ meetings as representative of the Secretary of
2004 the Bureau of Labor Relations in the President, the Labor.
Department of Labor and Employment. Members of the  It must be noted that the petitioner’s presence in
pp. 407‐ 412 Cabinet, and their the PEZA Board meetings is solely by virtue of his
In a Letter dated May 11, deputies or capacity as representative of the Secretary of
1995 addressed to Honorable Rizalino S. assistants shall not, Labor. As the petitioner himself admitted, there was
Navarro, then Secretary of the unless otherwise no separate or special appointment for such
Department of Trade and Industry, provided in this position. Since the Secretary of Labor is prohibited
Acting Secretary Jose S. Brilliantes of Constitution, hold from receiving compensation for his additional office
the Department of Labor and any other office or or employment, such prohibition likewise applies to
Employment designated the petitioner employment during the petitioner who sat in the Board only in behalf of
to be the DOLE representative to the their tenure. Xxx the Secretary of Labor.
Board of Directors of PEZA.
Art IX‐B Civil  Citing also the Civil Liberties Union case, the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Such designation was in pursuance to Service Commission Court explained thus:
Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7916, Section 7. No “The ex‐officio position being actually and in legal
otherwise known as the Special elective official shall contemplation part of the principal office, it follows
Economic Zone Act of 1995, which be eligible for that the official concerned has no right to receive
provides: appointment or additional compensation for his services in the said
Section 11. The Philippine Economic designation in any position. The reason is that these services are
Zone Authority (PEZA) Board. – There is capacity to any already paid for and covered by the compensation
hereby created a body corporate to public office or attached to his principal office. It should be obvious
be known as the Philippine Economic position during his that if, say, the Secretary of Finance attends a
Zone Authority (PEZA)… tenure. meeting of the Monetary Board as an ex‐
Unless otherwise officio member thereof, he is actually and in legal
As representative of the Secretary of allowed by law or contemplation performing the primary function of
Labor to the PEZA, the petitioner was by the primary his principal office in defining policy in monetary
receiving a per diem for every board functions of his banking matters, which come under the jurisdiction
meeting he attended during the years position, no of his department. For such attendance, therefore,
1995 to 1997. appointive official he is not entitled to collect any extra compensation,
shall hold any other whether it be in the form of a per diem or
After a post audit of the PEZA’s office or an honorarium or an allowance, or some other such
disbursement transactions, the COA employment in the euphemism. By whatever name it is designated,
disallowed the payment of per diems to Government or any such additional compensation is prohibited by the
the petitioner and thus issued 3 Notices subdivision, agency Constitution.”
of Disallowance. or instrumentality
thereof, including  xxx the petitioner is, indeed, not entitled to
The COA issued Memorandum No. 97‐ Government‐owned receive a per diem for his attendance at board
038 which authorized the issuance of or controlled meetings during his tenure as member of the Board
the Notices of Disallowances for corporations or of Director of the PEZA.
the per diems received by the their subsidiaries.
petitioner. It states:

The Commission received a copy of
Senate Committee Report No. 509
urging “the Commission on Audit to
immediately cause the disallowance of
any payment of any form of additional
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


compensation or remuneration to
cabinet secretaries, their deputies and
assistants, or their representatives in
violation of the rule on multiple
positions and to effect the refund of any
and all such additional compensation
given to and received by the officials
concerned, or their representatives,
from the time of the finality of the
Supreme Court ruling in Civil Liberties
Union vs. Executive Secretary to the
present.” In the Civil Liberties Union
case, the Supreme Court ruled that
Cabinet Secretaries, their deputies and
assistants may not hold any other office
or employment. It declared Executive
Order No. 284 unconstitutional insofar
as it allows Cabinet members, their
deputies and assistants to hold other
offices in addition to their primary
office and to receive compensation
therefore. The said decision became
final and executory on August 19, 1991.
Public Interest Incompatible Article VII ISSUE 1: Whether or not the position of the PCGG
Center v. Elma offices Respondent Elma was appointed as Prohibition Chairman or that of the CPLC falls under the
PCGG & CPLC Chairman of the Presidential Section 13. The prohibition against multiple offices.
GR 138965 Commission on Good Government President, Vice‐  The general rule contained in Article IX‐B is that a
(PCGG) on 30 October 1998. President, the government official occupying two government
June 30, 2006 Members of the offices is permitted as long as there is no
March 5, 2007 Thereafter, during his tenure as PCGG Cabinet, and their incompatibility between both.
Chairman, he was appointed as Chief deputies or
pp. 412‐413 Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC). He assistants shall not,  The concurrent appointments of the respondent
accepted the second appointment, but unless otherwise as PCGG Chairman and CPLC were unconstitutional.
waived any renumeration that he may provided in this It ruled that the concurrent appointment to these
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


receive as CPLC. Constitution, hold offices is in violation of Section 7, par. 2, Article IX‐B
any other office or of the 1987 Constitution, since these are
employment during incompatible offices. The duties of the CPLC include
their tenure. xxx giving independent and impartial legal advice on the
actions of the heads of various executive
Art IX‐B Civil Service departments and agencies and reviewing
Commission investigations involving heads of executive
Section 7. No departments. Since the actions of the PCGG
elective official shall Chairman, a head of an executive agency, are
be eligible for subject to the review of the CPLC, such
appointment or appointments would be incompatible.
designation in any
capacity to any
public office or
position during his
tenure.
Unless otherwise
allowed by law or
by the primary
functions of his
position, no
appointive official
shall hold any other
office or
employment in the
Government or any
subdivision, agency
or instrumentality
thereof, including
Government‐owned
or controlled
corporations or
their subsidiaries.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Section 14. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless revoked by the elected President, within ninety days from
his assumption or reassumption of office.

Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not
make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or
endanger public safety.

Case Keywords Facts Applicable/Violated Issue & Ratio
Provision/s
In Re Void Referred to the Court En Banc by the SEC 15. Two months ISSUE: 1 Whether or not during the period of the
Appointments RTC Chief Justice are the appointments immediately before ban on appointments imposed by Section 15,
of Valenzuela Judge signed by His Excellency the President the next presidential Article VII of the Constitution, the President is
and Vallarta Appointments under the date of March 30, 1998 of elections and up to nonetheless required to fill vacancies in the
Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. the end of his term, judiciary, in view of Sections 4(1) and 9 of Article
AM No 98‐5‐ Placido B. Vallarta as Judges of the a President or Acting VIII.
01‐SC Regional Trial Court of Branch 62, President shall not
Bago City and of Branch 24, make appointments, ISSUE 2: Whether or not he can make
Nov 9, 1998 Cabanatuan City, respectively. xxx will prejudice appointments to the judiciary during the period of
public service or the ban in the interest of public service.
pp. 413‐416 May 7, 1998  The President through endanger public
a letter expressed the view that "the safety” Surely, the prevention of vote‐buying and similar
election‐ban provision (Article VII, evils outweighs the need for avoiding delays in
Section 15) *** applies only filling up of court vacancies or the disposition of
to executive appointments or some cases.
appointments in the executive branch
of government," the whole article It is this Court's view that, as a general
being "entitled 'EXECUTIVE proposition, in case of conflict, the former (Sec
DEPARTMENT.'" He also observed 15) should yield to the latter (Sec 4).
that further proof of his theory "is the
fact that appointments to the To the contention that may perhaps be asserted,
judiciary have special, specific that Sections 4 (1) and 9 of Article VIII should
provisions applicable to them" (citing prevail over Section 15 of Article VII, because they
Article VIII, Section 4 [1] and Article may be considered later expressions of the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


VIII, Section 9. In view thereof, he people when they adopted the Constitution, it
"firmly and respectfully reiterate(d) suffices to point out that the Constitution must be
*** (his) request for the Judicial and Article 8‐Judicial construed in its entirety as one, single,
Bar Council to transmit *** the final Dept. instrument.
list of nominees for the lone Supreme "SEC 4 (1) The
Court vacancy." Supreme Court shall The exception allows only the making
be composed of a of temporary appointments to executive positions
The Chief Justice replied to the letter Chief Justice and when continued vacancies will prejudice public
the following day, May 8, 1998. Since fourteen Associate service or endanger public safety. Obviously, the
the Chief Justice's letter explains the Justices. ***. Any article greatly restricts the appointing power of
issue quite plainly, xxx vacancy shall be the President during the period of the ban.
filled within ninety
As you can see, Your Excellency, days from the The appointments of Messrs. Valenzuela and
Section 15 of Article VII imposes a occurrence thereof." Vallarta xxx were unquestionably made during the
direct prohibition on the period of the ban. Consequently, they come
President: he "shall not make within the operation of the first prohibition
appointments" within the period relating to appointments which are considered to
mentioned, and since there is no be for the purpose of buying votes or influencing
specification of which appointments the election (under Omnibus Election Code)…
are proscribed, the same may be
considered as applying to all
appointments of any kind and Article 8‐ Judicial
nature. xxx As the exception makes Dept xxx the Court Resolved to DECLARE VOID the
reference only to "executive" "SEC 9 The Members appointments signed by His Excellency the
positions, it would seem that of the Supreme President under date of March 30, 1998 xxx
"judicial" positions are covered by the Court and judges in
general rule. lower courts shall be
appointed by the
xxx Section 4 (1) of Article VIII, President from the
requires that any vacancy in the list of at least three
Supreme Court "shall be filled within nominees prepared
ninety days from the occurrence by the Judicial and
thereof." Unlike Section 15, Article Bar Council for every
VII, the duty of filling the vacancy is vacancy. xxx
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


not specifically imposed on the
President; hence, it may be inferred
that it is a duty shared by the Judicial
and Bar council and the President.

The reason for said prohibition,
according to Fr. J. Bernas, S.J., an
authority on Constitutional Law and
himself a member of the
Constitutional Commission, is "(I)n
order not to tie the hands of the
incoming President through midnight
appointments."

Should the Court rule that the
President is indeed prohibited to
make appointments in a presidential
election year, then any appointment
attempted within the proscribed
period would be void anyway. If the
Court should adjudge that the ban has
no application to appointments to the
Supreme Court, the JBC may submit
nominations and the President may
make the appointment forthwith
upon such adjudgment.
DE LA RAMA V. Misinterpretation Upon his assumption to the position Section 15. Two ISSUE 1: Whether or not the so‐called “midnight”
Court of of section 15 by of Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, months immediately appointments by former Mayor Abeja were
Appeals De La Rama petitioner Conrado L. de Rama wrote before the next unconstitutional.  NO
a letter dated July 13, 1995 to the Civil presidential
GR 131136 14 appointed Service Commission (CSC), seeking the elections and up to  It has been held that upon the issuance of an
Municipal recall of the appointments of fourteen the end of his term, appointment and the appointee’s assumption of
FEB 28, 2001 employees (14) municipal employees… a President or Acting the position in the civil service, “he acquires a
President shall not legal right which cannot be taken away either by
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


pp. 417‐418 Misinterpretation Petitioner de Rama justified his recall make appointments revocation of the appointment or by removal
of section 15 by request on the allegation that the xxx except for cause and with previous notice and
De La Rama appointments of the said employees hearing.” Moreover, it is well‐settled that the
were “midnight” appointments of the person assuming a position in the civil service
14 appointed former mayor, Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja, under a completed appointment acquires a legal,
Municipal done in violation of Article VII, Section not just an equitable, right to the position. This
employees 15 of the 1987 Constitution… right is protected not only by statute, but by the
Constitution as well, which right cannot be taken
The CSC upheld the validity of the away by either revocation of the appointment, or
appointments on the ground that by removal, unless there is valid cause to do so,
they had already been approved by provided that there is previous notice and
the Head of the CSC Field Office in hearing.
Lucena City, and for petitioner’s
failure to present evidence that would  The CSC correctly ruled, however, that the
warrant the revocation or recall of the constitutional prohibition on so‐called “midnight
said appointments. appointments,” specifically those made within
two (2) months immediately prior to the next
On November 21, 1996, the CSC presidential elections, applies only to the
denied petitioner’s motion for President or Acting President.
reconsideration. The CSC reiterated
its ruling that:  In truth and in fact, there is no law that
In the absence of any showing that prohibits local elective officials from making
these alleged midnight appointments appointments during the last days of his or her
were defective in form and in tenure. Petitioner certainly did not raise the issue
substance, nor is there evidence of fraud on the part of the outgoing mayor who
presented to show that subject made the appointments.
appointments were issued in
contravention of law or rules, these
appointments are deemed valid and
in effect.

xxx, the Court of Appeals denied for
lack of merit the petition for review.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration arguing that the
appellate court erred in upholding the
CSC’s resolutions despite the
following defects:
I. No screening process and no
criteria were adopted by the
Personnel Selection Board in
nominating the respondents;
II. No posting in three (3) conspicuous
public places of notice of vacancy as
required by the rules and the law;
III. Merit and fitness requirements
were not observed by the selection
board and by the appointing authority
as required by the Civil Service rules;
IV. Petitioner has valid grounds to
recall the appointments of
respondents.

In a Resolution dated October 20,
1997, the Court of Appeals denied the
motion for reconsideration.

Mendoza, J., dissents: What the majority overlooks is that Article VII Section15 is simply an application of a
broader principle xxx This rule binds all, including mayors, who are vested with the power of appointment, and it
flows from the principle that a public office is a public trust. xxx
It is clear, however, that the Civil Service Commission did not find anything wrong or irregular in the appointments
of respondents because it failed to appreciate the fact that “Midnight appointments” – whether made by the
President or by a mayor – are bad, because they are made hurriedly, without due deliberation and careful
consideration of the needs of the office and the qualifications of the appointees, and by an appointing authority on
the eve of his departure from office. “Midnight appointments” are bad because, as the Aytona v. Castillo decision
puts it, they offend principles of “fairness, justice and righteousness.” They cannot be less bad because they are
made at the local level, by mayors and other local executives.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive
departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other
officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments
are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of
other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.

The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such
appointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.

Provision/s
Gov’t v. Milton ISSUE 1: Is the power of appointment
Springer executive? YES.
50 Phil. 259
(1927)  In Concepcion v. Paredes, supra, xxx
pp. 418‐419 Following the lead of Kentucky, it was
announced that “Appointment to office is
intrinsically an executive act involving the
exercise of discretion”
OSCAR BERMUDEZ Revised The occurrence of a vacancy in the Revised Administrative ISSUE 1: Whether or not the absence of a
V. EXECUTIVE Administrative Office of the Provincial Prosecutor Code of 1987 (Book IV, recommendation of the Secretary of Justice
SECRETARY Code of 1987 of Tarlac impelled the main Title III, Chapter II, to the President Fidel Ramos can be held fatal
contestants in this case, petitioner Section 9)— to the appointment of respondent Conrado
GR 131429 Provincial Oscar Bermudez and respondent All provincial and Quiaoit to the post of Provincial Prosecutor of
Prosecutor Conrado Quiaoit, to take city prosecutors and Tarlac.  NO.
AUG 4, 1999 appointment contrasting views on the proper their assistants shall be
interpretation of a provision in the appointed by the  The recommendation is here nothing
pp. 419‐421 Missing 1987 Revised Administrative Code. President upon the really more than advisory in nature.
recommendation recommendation of the
Bermudez, the First Assistant Secretary.  xxx the President has the power to assume
Provincial Prosecutor of Tarlac and directly the functions of an executive
Officer‐In‐Charge of the Office of department, bureau and office. It can
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


the Provincial Prosecutor, was a Executive Order No. accordingly be inferred therefrom that the
recommendee of then Justice 112 — President can interfere in the exercise of
Secretary Teofisto Guingona, Jr., for Section 1. All budget discretion of officials under him or altogether
the position of Provincial officers of provinces, ignore their recommendations.
Prosecutor. Quiaoit, on the other cities and municipalities
hand, would appear to have had shall be appointed  In the instant case, the recommendation
the support of then Representative henceforth by the of the Secretary of Justice and the
Jose Yap of the Second Legislative Minister of Budget and appointment of the President are acts of the
District of Tarlac. Management upon Executive Department itself, and there is no
recommendation of the sharing of power to speak of, the latter being
On 30 June 1997, Quiaoit emerged local chief executive deemed for all intents and purposes as being
the victor when he was appointed concerned. . . . merely an extension of the personality of the
by President Ramos to the coveted President.
office.
Note: EO 112 is just
Petitioners contend that an tangential but not
appointment of a provincial necessarily apt to this
prosecutor mandatorily requires a issue. The appointment
prior recommendation of the in the case of San Juan
Secretary of Justice endorsing the has distinctively given
intended appointment citing, by stress in obeying the
analogy, the case of San Juan constitutional mandate
vs. CSC where the Court held: of the local autonomy.
. . . The DBM may appoint only from
the list of qualified recommendees
nominated by the Governor. If none
is qualified, he must return the list
of nominees to the Governor
explaining why no one meets the
legal requirements and ask for new
recommendees who have the
necessary eligibilities and
qualifications.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


FLORES V. DRILON Gordon’s The constitutionality of Section 13, RA 7227, Par.(d) ‐‐ ISSUE 1: Whether or not the proviso in
& GORDON prohibited par. (d), of R.A. 7227, otherwise Chairman Section 13, par. (d), of R.A. 7227 violates the
GR 104732 appointment to known as the "Bases Conversion administrator — The constitutional proscription against
JUNE 22, 1993 SBMA and Development Act of 1992," President shall appoint appointment or designation of elective
pp. 421‐423 under which respondent Mayor a professional manager officials to other government posts.  YES.
Invalid proviso of Richard J. Gordon of Olongapo City as administrator of the
RA 7227 was appointed Chairman and Chief Subic Authority with a  Section 7 of Art IX‐B expresses the policy
Executive Officer of the Subic Bay compensation to be against the concentration of several public
Violation of S16 Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), is determined by the positions in one person, so that a public
Article IX‐B challenged in this original petition Board subject to the officer or employee may serve full‐time with
with prayer for prohibition, approval of the dedication and thus be efficient in the
preliminary injunction and Secretary of Budget, delivery of public services. It is an affirmation
temporary restraining order "to who shall be the ex that a public office is a full‐time job. ALSO, its
prevent useless and unnecessary oficio chairman of the basic idea really is to prevent a situation
expenditures of public funds by way Board and who shall where a local elective official will work for his
of salaries and other operational serve as the chief appointment in an executive position in
expenses attached to the office…” executive officer of the government, and thus neglect his
Subic constituents.
Authority: Provided,
Petitioners, xxx maintain that however, That for the  The proviso is precisely what the
the proviso in par. (d) of Section 13 first year of its constitutional proscription seeks to prevent,
infringes section 16 of Article VII operations from the it needs no stretching of the imagination to
because the City Mayor of effectivity of this Act, conclude that the proviso contravenes
Olongapo City is an elective official the mayor of the City of Section 7, first par., Article IX‐B, of the
and the subject posts are public Olongapo shall be Constitution. Futhermore, no legislative act
offices, section 7 of Article IX‐B appointed as the can prevail over the fundamental law of the
since it was Congress through the chairman and chief land.
questioned proviso and not the executive officer of the
President who appointed the Mayor Subic  The exemption allowed to appointive
to the subject posts, and, (c) Authority (emphasis officials in the second paragraph of Section 7
Section 261, par. (g), of the supplied). cannot be extended to elective officials who
Omnibus Election Code for the are governed by the first paragraph.
reason that the appointment of Section 16 of Article VII
respondent Gordon to the subject "[t]he President shall . .  While it may be viewed that
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


posts made by respondent . . appoint all other the proviso merely sets the qualifications of
Executive Secretary on 3 April 1992 officers of the the officer during the first year of operations
was within the prohibited 45‐day Government whose of SBMA, i.e., he must be the Mayor of
period prior to the 11 May 1992 appointments are not Olongapo City, it is manifestly an abuse of
Elections. otherwise provided for congressional authority to prescribe
by law, and those qualifications where only one, and no other,
whom he may be can qualify. Accordingly, while the
authorized by law to conferment of the appointing power on the
appoint" President is a perfectly valid legislative act,
the proviso limiting his choice to one is
Note: the appointment certainly an encroachment on his
is invalid and therefore, prerogative.
not authorized by the
fundamental law of the  The proviso in par. (d), Section 13, of R.A.
land. 7227,xxx is declared unconstitutional;
Consequently, the appointment pursuant
Section 7, first par., of thereto of the Mayor of Olongapo City,
Article IX‐B "[n]o respondent Richard J. Gordon, is INVALID,
elective official shall be hence NULL and VOID. However, all per
eligible for appointment diems, allowances and other emoluments
or designation in any received by respondent Gordon, xxx are
capacity to any public hereby UPHELD.
officer or position
during his tenure,"
ULPIANO Appointment to Petitioners assailed that Mison's Section 16, Article VII of ISSUE 1: The second, third and fourth groups
SARMIENTO bureau heads appointment as Commissioner of the 1987 Constitution of officers are the present bone of
(lawyer, taxpayer, w/o CA’s the Bureau of Customs is says: contention. Whether or not they may be
IBP member) V. consent unconstitutional by reason of its not appointed by the President without the
MISON (Customs 2nd, 3rd, 4th having been confirmed by the The President shall consent (confirmation) of the Commission on
Commissioner) group Commission on Appointments. nominate and, with the Appointments?  YES.
156 SCRA 549 consent of the
1987 The respondents, on the other Commission on  xxx the framers of the 1987 Constitution
pp. 423‐433 hand, maintain the constitutionality Appointments, appoint and the people adopting it, struck a "middle
of respondent Mison's appointment the heads of the ground" by requiring the consent
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


without the confirmation of the executive departments, (confirmation) of the Commission on
Commission on Appointments. ambassadors, other Appointments for the first group of
public ministers and appointments and leaving to the President,
This case assumes added consuls, or officers of without such confirmation, the appointment
significance because, at bottom the armed forces from of other officers, i.e., those in the second and
line, it involves a conflict between the rank of colonel or third groups as well as those in the fourth
two (2) great departments of naval captain, and other group, i.e., officers of lower rank.
government, the Executive and officers whose
Legislative Departments. It also appointments are Mr. Monsod: On Section 16, I would like to
occurs early in the life of the 1987 vested in him in this suggest that the power of the Commission on
Constitution. Constitution. He shall Appointments be limited to the department
also appoint all other heads, ambassadors, generals and so on but
It is readily apparent that under the officers of the not to the levels of bureau heads and
provisions of the 1987 Constitution, Government whose colonels.
just quoted, there are four (4) appointments are not
groups of officers whom the otherwise provided for MR. FOZ: Madam President, my proposed
President shall appoint. These four by law, and those amendment is on page 7, Section 16, line 26
(4) groups, to which we will whom he may be which is to delete the words "and
hereafter refer from time to time, authorized by law to bureaus,"xxx
are: appoint. The Congress
may, by law, vest the MR. FOZ: The position of bureau director is
First, the heads of the executive appointment of other actually quite low in the executive
departments, ambassadors, other officers lower in rank in department, and to require further
public ministers and consuls, the President alone, in confirmation of presidential appointment of
officers of the armed forces from the courts, or in the heads of bureaus would subject them to
the rank of colonel or naval captain, heads of the political influence.
and other officers whose departments, agencies,
appointments are vested in him in commissions or boards. MR. REGALADO: The Commissioner's
this Constitution; proposed amendment by deletion also
The President shall have includes regional directors xxx
Second, all other officers of the the power to make
Government whose appointments appointments during  It is evident that the position of
are not otherwise provided for by the recess of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs (a
law; Congress, whether bureau head) is not one of those within the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


voluntary or first group of appointments where the
Third, those whom the President compulsory, but such consent of the Commission on Appointments
may be authorized by law to appointments shall be is required. Thus, the appointment of
appoint; effective only until Salvador Mison as Commissioner of Bureau of
disapproval by the Customs is upheld.
Fourth, officers lower in rank whose Commission on
appointments the Congress may by Appointments or until
law vest in the President alone. the next adjournment
of the Congress.

Cruz, J., dissents: xxx
There is no question that bureau directors are not required to be confirmed under the first sentence of Section
16, but that is not the provision we ought to interpret. It is the second sentence we must understand for a
proper resolution of the issues now before us.
xxx
One may also ask why, if the officers mentioned in the second sentence do not need confirmation, it was still
felt necessary to provide in the third sentence that the appointment of the other officers lower in rank will also
not need confirmation as long as their appointment is vested by law in the President alone. The third sentence
would appear to be superfluous, too, again in view of the first sentence.
xxx
It must be borne in mind that one of the purposes of the Constitutional Commission was to restrict the powers
of the Presidency and so prevent the recurrence of another dictatorship.
xxx
My own reading is that the second sentence is but a continuation of the Idea expressed in the first sentence
and simply mentions the other officers appointed by the President who are also subject to confirmation. The
second sentence is the later expression of the will of the framers and so must be interpreted as complementing
the rule embodied in the first sentence or, if necessary, reversing the original intention to exempt bureau
directors from confirmation. Xxx At any rate, this view is more consistent with the general purpose of Article
VII, which, to repeat, was to reduce the powers of the Presidency.
xxx
The rule re‐ established by the new Constitution is that the power requires confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments as a restraint on presidential excesses, in line with the system of checks and balances. I submit it
is the exception to this rule, and not the rule, that should be strictly construed.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


In my view, the only officers appointed by the President who are not subject to confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments are (1) the members of the judiciary and the Ombudsman and his deputies, who
are nominated by the Judicial and Bar Council; (2) the Vice‐President when he is appointed to the Cabinet; and
(3) "other officers lower in rank," but only when their appointment is vested by law in the President alone. It is
clear that this enumeration does not include the respondent Commissioner of Customs who, while not covered
by the first sentence of Section 16, comes under the second sentence thereof as I would interpret it and so is
also subject to confirmation.

I vote to grant the petition

QUINTOS‐DELES et Sectoral Reps This is a special civil action xxx ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Constitution
al v. CA requires CA seeking to compel respondent requires the appointment of sectoral
confirmation Commission on Appointments to Under Section 7, Article representatives to the House of
177 SCRA 259 allow petitioner Teresita Quintos‐ 18 of the Constitution: Representatives to be confirmed by the
(1989) Deles to perform and discharge her Commission on Appointments.  YES
duties as a member of the House of "SEC. 7. Until a law is
pp. 433‐438 Representatives representing the passed, the President  Since the seats reserved
Women's Sector and to restrain may fill by appointment for sectoral representatives in paragraph 2,
respondents from subjecting peti‐ from a list of nominees Section 5, Article VI may be filled by
tioner's appointment to the by the respective appointment by the President by express
confirmation process. sectors the seats provision of Section 7, Article XVIII of the
reserved for Constitution, it is indubitable
On April 18, 1988, the petitioner sectoral representation that sectoral representatives to the House of
and 3 other sectoral repre‐ in paragraph (1), Representatives are among the "other
sentatives appointed by Pres. Section 5 of Article VI of officers whose appointments are vested in
Corazon Aquino were scheduled to this Constitution." the President in this Constitution," referred to
take their oaths before Speaker in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII
Ramon V. Mitra, Jr. at the Session whose appointments are subject to
Hall of Congress after the Order of Section 16, Article VII of confirmation by the Commission on
Business. However, they were not the Constitution: Appointments (Sarmiento v. Mison, supra).
able to take their oaths and o Implicit in the invocation of paragraph 2,
discharge their duties as members "SEC. 16. x x x Section 16, Article VII as authority for the
of Congress due to the opposition The President shall have appointment of petitioner is, the
of some congressmen‐members of the power to make recognition by the President as
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


the Commission on Appointments, appointments during appointing authority that petitioner's
who insisted the recess of the appointment requires confirmation by
that sectoral representatives must Congress, whether the Commission on Appointments.
first be confirmed by the voluntary or
respondent Commission before compulsory, but such  Thus, appointments by the President of
they could take their oaths and/or appointments shall be sectoral representatives require the consent
assume office as members of the effective only until of the Commission on Appointments in
House of Representatives. disapproval by the accordance with the first sentence of Section
Commission on 16, Article VII of the Constitution. More to
In the May 12, 1988 meeting of the Appointments or until the point, petitioner Deles’ appointment was
Committee of the Constitutional the next adjournment issued not by virtue of Executive Order No.
Commissions and Offices of the of the Congress." 198 but pursuant to Article VII, Section 16,
Commission on Appointments, paragraph 2 and Article XVIII, Section 7 of
chaired by Sen. Edgardo J. Angara, the Constitution which require submission to
the Committee ruled against the the confirmation process.
position of petitioner Deles.

Petitioner Teresita Quintos‐Deles
contends that her appointment
as Sectoral Representative for
Women by the President pursuant
to Section 7, Article XVIII of the
Constitution, does not require
confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments to qualify her to take
her seat in the House of
Representatives.
Calderon v. Carale RA 6715 Pursuant to said law (RA 6715), The second sentence of ISSUE 1: Whether or not Congress may, by
as Chairman of amending art. President Aquino appointed the Section 16, Article VII law, require confirmation by the Commission
the National Labor 215 of Labor Chairman and Commissioners of refers to all other on Appointments of appointments extended
Relations Code the NLRC representing the public, officers of the by the president to government officers
Commission workers and employers sectors. The government whose additional to those expressly mentioned in
NLRC Chair appointments stated that the appointments are not the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII of
GR 91636 under 3rd appointees may qualify and enter otherwise provided for the Constitution whose appointments
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


groups upon the performance of the duties by law and those whom require confirmation by the Commission on
Apr 23, 1992 of the office. After said the President may be Appointments.  NO.
appointments, then Labor Secretary authorized by law to
pp. 438‐444 Franklin Drilon issued appoint.  Ulpiano v. Mison  In the course of the
Administrative Order No. 161, debates on the text of Section 16, there were
series of 1989, designating the two (2) major changes proposed and
places of assignment of the newly approved by the Commission:
appointed commissioners. (1) the exclusion of the appointments of
heads of bureaus from the requirement of
Appointments.
Petitioner insists on a mandatory (2) the exclusion of appointments made
compliance with RA 6715 which has under the second sentence of the section
in its favor the presumption of from the same requirement.
validity. RA 6715 is not, according
to petitioner, an encroachment on  Indubitably, the NLRC Chairman and
the appointing power of the Commissioners fall within the second
executive contained in Section 16, sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the
Article VII, of the Constitution, as Constitution, more specifically under the
Congress may, by law, require "third groups" of appointees referred to
confirmation by the Commission on in Mison, i.e. those whom the President may
Appointments of other officers be authorized by law to appoint. xxx not
appointed by the President among the officers mentioned xxx whose
additional to those mentioned in appointments requires confirmation by the
the first sentence of Section 16 of Commission on Appointments.
Article VII of the Constitution.
Petitioner claims that  To the extent that RA 6715 requires
the Mison and Bautista rulings are confirmation by the Commission on
not decisive of the issue in this case Appointments of the appointments of
for in the case at bar, the President respondents Chairman and Members of the
issued permanent appointments to National Labor Relations Commission, it is
the respondents without submitting unconstitutional because:
them to the CA for 1) It amends by legislation, the first sentence
confirmation despite passage of a of Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


law (RA 6715) which requires the by adding thereto appointments requiring
confirmation by the Commission on confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments of such Appointments; and
appointments. 2) It amends by legislation the second
sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the
Constitution, by imposing the confirmation of
the Commission on Appointments on
appointments, which are otherwise entrusted
only with the President.

 The deliberate limitation on the power of
confirmation of the Commission on
Appointments over presidential
appointments, embodied in Section 16,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution has
undoubtedly evoked the displeasure and
disapproval of members of Congress. The
solution to the apparent problem, if indeed a
problem, is not judicial or legislative but
constitutional. A future constitutional
convention or Congress sitting as a
constituent (constitutional) assembly may
then consider either a return to the 1935
Constitutional provisions or the adoption of a
hybrid system between the 1935 or 1987
constitutional provisions. Until then, it is the
duty of the Court to apply the 1987
Constitution in accordance with what it says
and not in accordance with how the
legislature or the executive would want it
interpreted.
Cruz, J., dissents:
I dissent on the basis of my dissent in Sarmiento v. Mison, which I believe should be re‐examined instead of
being automatically re‐affirmed simply because of its original adoption. I do not believe we should persist in
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


error on the ground merely of adherence to judicial precedent, however unsound.
Ma. Aangelina Comelec ad Petitioner Ma. J. Angelina G. Section 1 (2), Article IX‐ ISSUE 1: Whether or not the assumption of
Matibag v. Alfredo interim Matibag questions the C of the Constitution, office by Benipayo, Borra and Tuason on the
Benipayo appointments constitutionality of the which provides as basis of the ad interim appointments issued
GR 149036 appointment and the right to hold follows: by the President amounts to a temporary
April 2, 2002 Article IX‐C office of the following: (1) Alfredo L. appointment prohibited by Section 1 (2),
pp. 444‐456 Benipayo as Chairman of the "The Chairman and the Article IX‐C of the Constitution.  NO
Commission on Elections; and (2) Commissioners shall be
Resurreccion Z. Borra and appointed by the  An ad interim appointment is a permanent
Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. as President with the appointment because it takes effect
COMELEC Commissioners. consent of the immediately and can no longer be withdrawn
Petitioner also questions the Commission on by the President once the appointee has
legality of the appointment of Appointments for a qualified into office. The fact that it is subject
Velma J. Cinco as Director IV of the term of seven years to confirmation by the Commission on
COMELEC’s Education and without reappointment. Appointments does not alter its permanent
Information Department. Of those first character.xxx
appointed, three
In the meantime, on September 6, Members shall hold  Thus, as provided by Section 16, the ad
2001, President Macapagal Arroyo office for seven years, interim appointment remains effective
renewed once again the ad interim two Members for five until such disapproval or next adjournment,
appointments of Benipayo as years, and the last signifying that it can no longer be withdrawn
COMELEC Chairman and Borra and Members for three or revoked by the President. The fear that the
Tuason as Commissioners, years, without President can withdraw or revoke at any time
respectively, for a term of seven reappointment. and for any reason an ad interim
years expiring on February 2, Appointment to any appointment is utterly without basis.
2008.They all took their oaths of vacancy shall be only
office anew. for the unexpired term  An ad interim appointment can be
of the predecessor. In terminated for two causes specified in the
Petitioner posits the view that no case shall any Constitution. The first cause is the
an ad interim appointment can be Member be appointed disapproval of his ad interim appointment by
withdrawn or revoked by the or designated in a the Commission on Appointments. The
President at her pleasure, and can temporary or acting second cause is the adjournment of Congress
even be disapproved or simply by‐ capacity." without the Commission on Appointments
passed by the Commission on acting on his appointment. These two causes
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Appointments. For this reason, are resolutory conditions expressly imposed
petitioner claims that an ad by the Constitution on all ad
interim appointment is temporary interim appointments. Xxx
in character and consequently The second paragraph
prohibited by the last sentence of of Section 16, Article VII  In the instant case, the President did in
Section 1 (2), Article IX‐C of the of the Constitution fact appoint permanent Commissioners to fill
Constitution. provides as follows: the vacancies in the COMELEC, subject only to
Based on petitioner’s theory, there "The President shall Appointments. Benipayo, Borra and Tuason
can be no ad interim appointment have the power to were extended permanent appointments
to the COMELEC or to the other two make appointments during the recess of Congress. They were not
constitutional commissions, namely during the recess of the appointed or designated in a temporary or
the Civil Service Commission and Congress, whether acting capacity xxx
the Commission on Audit. The last voluntary or
sentence of Section 1 (2), Article IX‐ compulsory, but such  xxx The original intention of the framers of
C of the Constitution is also found appointments shall the Constitution was to do away with ad
in Article IX‐B and Article IX‐D be effective only interim appointments because the plan was
providing for the creation of the until disapproval by the for Congress to remain in session throughout
Civil Service Commission and the Commission on the year except for a brief 30‐day compulsory
Commission on Audit, respectively. Appointments or until recess. xxx
Petitioner interprets the last the next adjournment
sentence of Section 1 (2) of Article of the Congress."  Clearly, the reinstatement in the present
IX‐C to mean that the ad interim Constitution of the ad interim appointing
appointee cannot assume office power of the President (stated in the last
until his appointment is confirmed sentence of Section 16) was for the purpose
by the Commission on of avoiding interruptions in vital government
Appointments for only then does services that otherwise would result from
his appointment become prolonged vacancies in government offices,
permanent and no longer including the three constitutional
temporary in character. commissions. .

 In the instant case, the Commission on
Appointments had long confirmed four of the
incumbent COMELEC members, comprising a
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


majority, who could now be removed from
office only by impeachment. The special
constitutional safeguards that insure the
independence of the COMELEC remain in
place. The COMELEC enjoys fiscal autonomy,
appoints its own officials and employees, and
promulgates its own rules on pleadings and
practice. Moreover, the salaries of COMELEC
members cannot be decreased during their
tenure.

 In fine, we rule that the ad interim
appointments extended by the President to
Benipayo, Borra and Tuason, as COMELEC
Chairman and Commissioners, respectively,
do not constitute temporary or acting
appointments prohibited by Section 1 (2),
Article IX‐C of the Constitution.
Rufino V. Endriga CCP Board of June 25, 1966  then President Section 6(b) of PD 15, ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Court of
GR 139565 Trustees Ferdinand E. Marcos issued as amended, which Appeals committed reversible error in
JULY 21, 2006 Section 6b Executive Order No. 30 (EO 30) reads: not holding that Section 6(b) of PD 15 is
pp. 456‐461 PD 15 creating the Cultural Center of the unconstitutional considering that:
Rufino Group vs Philippines as a trust governed by a Board of Trustees. — x x x [it] is an invalid delegation of
Endriga Group Board of Trustees of seven The governing powers the President’s appointing power under the
members to preserve and promote and authority of the Constitution;
Philippine culture. The original corporation shall be x x x [it] effectively deprives the President
founding trustees, who were all vested in, and exercised of his constitutional power of control and
appointed by President Marcos, by, a Board of eleven supervision over the CCP
were Imelda Romualdez‐Marcos, (11) Trustees who shall  YES.
Juan Ponce‐Enrile, Andres Soriano, serve without
Jr., Antonio Madrigal, Father compensation. As Section 6(b) and (c) of PD 15 is found
Horacio Dela Costa, S.J., I.P. unconstitutional, the President shall appoint
Soliongco, and Ernesto Rufino. x x x x the trustees of the CCP Board because the
trustees fall under the third group of officers.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


October 5 1972  or soon after the (b) Vacancies in the
declaration of Martial Board of Trustees due  The express language of the Constitution
Law, President Marcos issued PD to termination of term, and the clear intent of its framers point to
15, the CCP’s charter, which resignation, incapacity, only one conclusion — the officers whom the
converted the CCP under EO 30 into death or other cause as heads of departments, agencies,
a non‐municipal public corporation may be provided in the commissions, or boards may appoint must be
free from the “pressure or influence By‐laws, shall be filled of lower rank than those vested by law with
of politics.” by election by a vote of the power to appoint.
a majority of the
Eventually, during the term of trustees held at the  Section 6(b) and (c) of PD 15 empowers
President Fidel V. Ramos, the CCP next regular meeting the remaining trustees of the CCP Board to fill
Board included Endriga, Lagdameo, following occurrence of vacancies in the CCP Board, allowing them to
Sison, Potenciano, Fernandez, such elect their fellow trustees. On the other
Lenora A. Cabili (“Cabili”), vacancy. xxx Should for hand, Section 16, Article VII of the
and Manuel T. Mañosa (“Mañosa”). any reason the Board 1987 Constitution allows heads of
be left entirely vacant, departments, agencies, commissions, or
December 22, 1998  then the same shall be filled boards to appoint only “officers lower in
President Joseph E. Estrada by the President of rank” than such “heads of departments,
appointed seven new trustees the Philippines acting in agencies, commissions, or boards.”
(Rufino group) to the CCP Board for consultation with the
a term of four years to replace the aforementioned ranking  Section 6(b) and (c) of PD 15, which
Endriga group as well as two other officers of the authorizes the trustees of the CCP Board to
incumbent trustees. Center. (Emphasis fill vacancies in the Board, runs afoul with the
supplied) President’s power of control under Section
January 6 1999  the Endriga 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. Xxx
group filed a petition for quo it makes the CCP a self‐perpetuating entity,
warranto before this Court Section 16, Article VII of virtually outside the control of the
questioning President Estrada’s the President. Such a public office or board
appointment of seven new 1987 Constitution which cannot legally exist under the 1987
members to the CCP Board. provides: Constitution.

May 14, 1999  the Court of xxx He shall also  Section 3 of PD 15, as amended, states
Appeals rendered the Decision appoint all other that the CCP “shall enjoy autonomy of policy
under review granting the quo officers of the and operation x x x. This provision does not
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


warranto petition. The Court of Government whose free the CCP from the President’s control, for
Appeals declared the Endriga group appointments are not if it does, then it would be unconstitutional.
lawfully entitled to hold office as otherwise provided for
CCP trustees. On the other hand, by law, and those  The CCP is part of the Executive branch.
the appellate court’s Decision whom he may xxx By stating that the “President shall have
ousted the Rufino group from be authorized by law to control of all the executive x x x offices,” the
the CCP Board. appoint. The Congress 1987 Constitution empowers the
may, by law, vest the President not only to influence but even to
Rufino group, seek to set aside the appointment of other control all offices in the Executive branch,
Decision dated 14 May 1999 of the officers lower in rank in including the CCP. Control is far greater than,
Court of Appeals in CA‐G.R. SP No. the President alone, in and subsumes, influence.
50272 as well as the Resolution the courts, or in the
dated 3 August 1999 denying the heads of departments,  WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition in
motion for reconsideration. The agencies, commissions, G.R. No. 139554. We
dispositive portion of the appellate or boards. declare UNCONSTITUTIONAL Section 6(b) and
court’s decision reads: xxx (c) of Presidential Decree No. 15, as
amended, insofar as it authorizes the
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby remaining trustees to fill by election
rendered vacancies in the Board of Trustees of the
1) Declaring petitioners [the Cultural Center of the Philippines.
Endriga group] to have a clear right
to their respective offices to which
they were elected by the CCP Board
up to the expiration of their 4‐year
term,
2) Ousting respondents [the Rufino
group], except respondent Zenaida
R. Tantoco, from their respective
offices and excluding them
therefrom, and
3) Dismissing the case against
respondent Zenaida R. Tantoco. SO
ORDERED

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed.

Issue & Ratio
Provision/s
Lacson‐ Executive An order issued by the Director of Sec 17, Art 7 ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Executive Secretary has
Magallanes Secretary Lands, affirmed by the Secretary of constitution the power to reverse decisions by other department
Co., Inc v. Pano Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, was heads.  YES.
L‐27811 Agriculture reversed by the Executive Secretary
1967 and Natural (ES).  It is not correct to say that the President may not
Resources delegate to his Executive Secretary acts, which the
pp. 461‐465 Director of Petitioner prays that: (1) the decision of Constitution does not command that he perform in
Lands the Secretary of Agriculture has full person.
force, (2) The decision of the ES is
contrary to law and has no legal force,  The president is not expected to perform in
(3) The decision of the ES constituted person all the multifarious executive and
undue delegation of power and (4) The administrative functions.
ES is on equal rank as any other
Secretary and thus is not authorized to  The ES who acts for and in behalf and by
reverse decisions by department heads. authority of the President has an undisputed duty to
Lower courts ruled that ES did not act in affirm, modify or even reverse any order. Only the
excess of jurisdiction. Thus, this petition president may rightfully say that the ES is not
for review. authorized to do so.
Ang‐Angco v. Civil Service A civil service officer bypassed the Art IX‐B, Sec 4 ISSUE 1: Whether or not the President, acting
Castill Executive procedure prescribed by the Civil No officer or through the Executive Secretary, may take
9 SCRA 619 Secretary Service Law. employee of the disciplinary action against a Civil Service officer. 
(1963) Power of Executive Secretary Castillo imposed civil service shall be NO.
control disciplinary actions against the said removed or
pp. 465‐466 tenure officer. suspended except  Despite the power of control given to the
for cause provided President, Section 4, Article 12 of the Constitution
by law. clearly provides that “No officer or employee in the
civil service shall be removed or suspended except
for cause as provided by law”. The constitution gives
stability to the tenure of office of those who belong
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


to classified service.

 To hold that civil service officials hold their office
at the will of the appointing power would
demoralize and undermine the whole civil service
system and structure.

 Congress has provided, by law, for a procedure
for the removal of civil service officers. i.e. Civil
Service Act 1959
Namarco v. NAMARCO The NAMARCO Board of Directors Section 17, Article 7 ISSUE 1: Whether or not the President had authority
Arca GOCC’s dismissed Juan T. Arive from service. to reverse the decision of the Board of Directors. 
29 SCRA 418 Presidential President ordered the reinstatement of YES.
(1969) power of Mr. Arive.
control Petitioners contend that the  Under our government set‐up, corporations
pp. 466‐467 Presidential power of control does not owned or controlled by the government, such as
include government‐owned and NAMARCO, partake the nature of government
controlled corporations such as offices, which are under the power of the President.
NAMARCO. They assert that president The reinstatement order, therefore, falls within the
cannot order reinstatement. constitutional power of the president over all
executive departments, bureaus and offices.
De Leon v. DOJ Orders of reinstatement of Estavillo and Section 17, Article 7 ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Director of NBI can
Carpio CSC De Leon to their respective posts was disobey an explicit and direct order issued to him by
178 SCRA 457 NBI issued by the Civil Service Commission, Secretary of Justice.  NO.
(1989) as referred by the Department of
Justice.  The President’s power of control is directly
pp. 467‐468 Director of National bureau of exercised by him over the members of the Cabinet
Investigation refused to reinstate the who, in turn and by his authority, control the
petitioners. Respondent argues that the bureaus and other offices under their respective
Commission does not have authority to jurisdictions in the executive department. In the
review dismissals made under the case at bar, there is no question that when he
Freedom Constitution directed the respondent to reinstate petitioners,
Secretary Ordonez was acting in the regular
discharge of his functions as an alter ego of the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


President. His acts should therefore have been
respected by the respondent Director of NBI.

E. Blaquera, et AO 29 President issued Administrative order Section 17, Article 7 ISSUE 1: Whether or not the issuance of AO 29 is
al v. Alcasid Power of 29 limiting the amount of incentive within the scope of the President’s power of control
G.R. No. Control benefits, enjoining heads of over executive departments.  YES
109406 Sep 11, government agencies from granting
1998 incentive benefits without prior  The President is the head of the government. His
approval from the President and power includes control over executive departments.
pp. 468 directing the refund of the excess over He can exercise this power motu propio without
the prescribed amount. need of any appeal from any party.

Section 18. The President shall be the Commander‐in‐Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out
such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it,
he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under
martial law. Within forty‐eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the
President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members
in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the
initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the
Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty‐four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules
without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies,
nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically
suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected
with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he
shall be released.

Issue & Ratio
Provision/s
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


IBP vs. Zamora Law and A special civil action for certiorariand Section 18, Article ISSUE 1: Whether or not the President committed
Order, prohibition with prayer for issuance of a VII of the grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed
President temporary restraining order seeking to Constitution Memo.  NO.
Estrada nullify on constitutional grounds the
order of President Joseph Ejercito  What the IBP questions is the basis for calling of
Estrada commanding deployment of the the Marines under the aforestated provision.
Philippine Marines to join the Philippin According to them, o emergency exists that would
National Police in visibility patrols justify the need for calling of the military to assist
around the metropolis. the police force.
In view of the alarming increase in
violent crimes in Metro Manila, like  The Court ruled in the negative saying that the
robberies, kidnappings and carnappings, power of the President involved may be no more
the President, in a verbal directive, than the maintenance of peace and order and
ordered the PNP and the Marines to promotion of the general welfare.
conduct joint visibility patrols for the
purpose of crime prevention and  When the President calls the armed forces to
suppression. The Secretary of National prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
Defense, the Chief of Staff of the Armed rebellion, he necessarily exercises discretionary
Forces of the Philippines, the Chief of power solely vested in his wisdom.
the PNP and the Secretary of the
Interior and Local Government were  The present petition fails to discharge such heavy
tasked to execute and implement said burden as there is no evidence to support the
order. assertion that there exists no justification for calling
Subsequently, the President confirmed out the armed forces. There is, likewise, no evidence
his previous directive on the to support that the President acted with grave abuse
deployment of the Marines in a of discretion.
Memorandum, dated 24 January 2000,
addressed to the Chief of Staff of the  The Court cannot review the factual bases of the
AFP and the PNP Chief. calling of the armed forces.
The selected areas for deployment o In so claiming, the Court found it prudent to
under the Memo are: Monumento note the differences of calling out the armed
Circle, North EDSA (SM City), Araneta forces from the suspension of the privilege of
Shopping Center, Greenhills, SM the writ of habeas corpus and the proclamation
Megamall, Makati Commercial Center, of martial law, the latter two being subject to
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


LRT/MRT Stations and the NAIA and revocation by Congress and review by the court
Domestic Airport. while no such provision was provided for the
On 17 January 2000, the IBP filed the former. The Court elaborated on this by quoting
instant petition to annul the Memo and from the proceedings of the Constitutional
to declare the deployment of the Commission, to wit:
Philippine Marines, null and void. o Fr. Bernas: …There is a graduated power of the
President as Commander‐in‐Chief. First, he can
call out such Armed Forces as may be necessary
to suppress lawless violence; then he can
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, then he can impose martial law. This is a
graduated sequence. When he judges that it is
necessary to impose martial law or suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, his
judgment is subject to review. We are making it
subject to review by the Supreme Court and
subject to concurrence by the National
Assembly. But when he exercises this lesser
power of calling on the Armed Forces, when he
says it is necessary, it is my opinion that his
judgment cannot be reviewed by anybody.

 The reason for the difference in the treatment
of the aforementioned powers highlights the
intent to grant the President the widest leeway
and broadest discretion in using the power to call
out because it is considered as the lesser and
more benign power compared to the power to
corpus and the power to impose martial law.
Moreover, under Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution, in the exercise of the power to
corpus or to impose martial law, two conditions
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


must concur: (1) there must be an actual invasion
or rebellion and, (2) public safety must require it.
These conditions are not required in the case of
the power to call out the armed forces. The only
criterion is that “whenever it becomes necessary,
the President may call the armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion.”

 Further, the Court may not verify the factual
bases of such calling. Whereas, in contrast, the
President as Commander‐in‐Chief has a vast
intelligence network to gather information to
base his decision upon.

 The determination of the necessity for the
calling out power subjected to unfettered judicial
scrutiny could be a veritable prescription for
disaster, as such power may be unduly
straitjacketed by an injunction or a temporary
restraining order every time it is exercised.
The President has already determined the
necessity and factual basis for calling the armed
forces. In his Memorandum, he identified them
as the following: violent crimes like bank/store
robberies, holdups, kidnappings and carnappings,
continue to occur in Metro Manila.

ISSUE 2: Whether or not the deployment of
Marines violates the civilian supremacy clause. 
NO.

 The IBP asserts that by the deployment of the
Marines, the civilian task of law enforcement is
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


“militarized” in violation of Section 3, Article II of
the Constitution.

 The calling of the Marines in this case
constitutes permissible use of military assets for
civilian law enforcement.

 It is noteworthy that the local police forces are
the one sin 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‐Philippine Marines joint
visibility patrols.

ISSUE 3: Whether or not the deployment of the
Marines to assist the PNP unmakes the civilian
character of the police force and amounts to an
“insidious incursion” of the military in the task of law
enforcement in violation of Section 5(4), Article XVI
of the Constitution.  NO.
 The real authority in these operations, as stated
in the Memo, is lodged with the head of a civilian
institution, the PNP, and not with the military.

 Further, since none of the Marines was
incorporated or enlisted as members of the PNP,
there can be no appointment to a civilian position to
speak of.

 The Marines render nothing more than assistance
required in conducting the patrols. As such, there
can be no “insidious incursion” of the military in
civilian affairs nor can there be a violation of the
civilian supremacy clause in the Constitution.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


 Lastly, since the institution of the joint visibility
patrol in January, 2000, not a single citizen has
complained that his political or civil rights have been
violated as a result of the deployment of the
Marines.

 The court dismissed the petitions.
Lacson vs. State of May 1, 2001  President Macapagal‐ ISSUE 1: Whether or not the proclamation of a
Perez rebellion Arroyo, faced by an “angry and violent “state of rebellion” is being used by the authorities
mob armed with explosives, firearms, to justify warrantless arrests, as alleged by
bladed weapons, clubs, stones and Petitioner.  NO.
other deadly weapons” assaulting and
attempting to break into Malacañang,  In quelling or suppressing the rebellion, the
issued Proclamation No. 38 declaring authorities may only resort to warrantless arrests of
that there was a state of rebellion in the persons suspected of rebellion, as provided under
NCR. She likewise issued General Order Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, if the
No. 1 directing the AFP and the PNP to circumstances so warrant. The warrantless arrest
suppress rebellion in the NCR. feared by petitioners is, thus, not based on the
Warrantless arrests of several alleged declaration of a “state of rebellion.”
leaders and promoters of the
“rebellion” were thereafter effected. ISSUE 2: Whether or not the declaration is an
The Petitions assail the declaration of a encroachment on the domain of the judiciary and
state of rebellion by PGMA and the therefore violative of the doctrine of separation of
warrantless arrests ellegedly effected powers.  NO
by virtue thereof, as having no basis in
fact and in law. Significantly, on May 6,  The Court disagrees with the allegation of
2001, PGMA ordered the lifting of the Petitioner. Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution
declaration in Metro Manila. expressly provides that “the President shall be the
Accordingly, the instant petitions have Commander‐in‐Chief of all armed forces of the
been rendered moot and academic. Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he
Petitioners claim that the proclamation may call out such armed forces to prevent or
of a “state of rebellion” is being used by suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.”
the authorities to justify warrantless
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


arrests.  Substantiated by the ruling in IBP vs. Zamora:
Petitioner Lumbao, leader of the …The factual necessity of calling out the
People’s Movement Against Poverty armed forces is not easily quantifiable and
(PMAP), for his part, argues that the cannot be objectively established since
declaration of a “state of rebellion” is matters considered for satisfying the same is a
violative of the doctrine of separation of combination of several factors which are not
powers, being an encroachment on the always accessible to the courts. Besides the
domain of the judiciary which has the absence of textual standards that the court
constitutional prerogative to may use to judge necessity, information
“determine and interpret” what took necessary to arrive at such judgment might
place on May 1, 2001, and that the also prove unmanageable for the courts.
declaration of a state of rebellion Certain pertinent information might be
cannot be an exception to the general difficult to verify, or wholly unavailable to the
rule on the allocation of the courts. In many instances, the evidence upon
governmental powers. which the President might decide that there is
a need to call out the armed forces may be of
a nature not constituting technical proof.
On the other hand, the President as
Commander‐in‐Chief has a vast intelligence
network to gather information, some of which
may be classified as highly confidential or
affecting the security of the state. In the
exercise of the power to call, on‐the‐spot
decisions may be imperatively necessary in
emergency situations to avert great loss of
human lives and mass destruction of poverty…

 The Court dismissed the petitions.
Sanlakas vs. Oakwood They came in the middle of the night. Section 18, Article ISSUE 1: Whether or not Proclamation No. 427 and
Executive Mutiny, State Armed with high‐powered ammunitions VII of the General Order No. 4, declaring a “state of rebellion”
Secretary of rebellion and explosives, some three hundred Constitution, is unconstitutional.  NO.
junior officers and enlisted men of the
AFP stormed into the Oakwood  It is true that for the purpose of exercising the
Premiere apartments in Makati City in calling out power the Constitution (Section 18,
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


the wee hours of July 27, 2003. Article VII) does not require the President to make a
Bewailing the corruption in the AFP, the declaration of a state of rebellion. In this regard, a
soldiers demanded, among other declaration of a state of rebellion is an utter
things, the resignation of the President, superfluity. At most it only gives notice to the nation
the Secretary of Defense and the Chief that such a state exists and that the armed forces
of the PNP. may be called to prevent or suppress it. The Court
In the wake of the Oakwood finds that such a declaration is devoid of any legal
occupation, the President issued later in significance.
the day Proclamation No. 427 and
General Order No. 4, both declaring “a  The declaration of a state of rebellion cannot
state of rebellion” and calling out the diminish or violate constitutionally protected rights.
Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion. For the same reason, apprehensions that the
By the evening of July 27, 2003, the military and police authorities may resort to
Oakwood occupation had ended. After warrantless arrests are likewise unfounded. In
hours‐long negotiations, the soldiers Lacson vs. Perez, the authorities may only resort to
agrred to return to barracks. warrantless arrests of persons suspected of
The President, however, did not rebellion, as provided under Section 5, Rule 113 of
immediately lift the declaration of a the Rules of Court. The warrantless arrest feared is
state of rebellion and did so only on not based on the declaration of a state of rebellion.
August 1, 2003, through Proclamation In other words, a person may be subjected to a
No. 435. warrantless arrest for the crime of rebellion whether
In the interim, several petitions were or not the President has declared a state of
filed before this Court challenging the rebellion, so long as the requisites for a valid
validity of Proclamation No. 427 and warrantless arrest are present.
General Order No. 4.
Since the declaration was lifted,  While the Court may examine whether the power
petitions have become moot and to call out the armed forces was exercised within
academic. However, in light of the fact constitutional limits or in a manner constituting
that once before, ruled on a like matter, grave abuse of discretion, none of the petitioners
the Court treated the instant petitions have, by way of proof, supported their assertion that
as exceptions in that they are capable of the President acted without factual basis.
repetition yet evading review. The argument that the declaration of a state of
rebellion amounts to a declaration of martial law
and, therefore, is a circumvention of the report
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


requirement is a leap of logic. There is no indication
that the military tribunals have replaced civil courts
in the “theater of war” or that military authorities
have taken over the functions of civil government.
There is no allegation of curtailment of civil or
political rights. There is no indication that the
President has exercised judicial and legislative
powers.

 The Petitions were dismissed.
Randolf David pp. 1017 These seven consolidated petitions for Section 18, Article ISSUE 1: Whether the Court can review the factual
et al. vs. Ermita certiorari and prohibition allege that in VII of the bases of pp. 1017. 
issuing Proclamation No. 1017 (pp. Constitution
1017) and General Order No. 5 (G.O. Chapter 2, Book III  As a rule, judicial inquiry can go no further than
No. 5), PGMA committed grave abuse of EO 292 to satisfy the Court not that the President’s decision
of discretion. is correct, but that the President did not act
arbitrarily. Thus, the standard laid down is not
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of correctness, but arbitrariness. In IBP vs. Zamora, the
the said issuances. Court further ruled that it is incumbent upon the
petitioner to show that the President’s decision is
On February 24, 2006, as the nation totally bereft of factual basis and that if he fails, by
celebrated the 20th anniversary of the way of proof, to support his assertion, then this
EDSA People Power I, President Arroyo Court cannot undertake an independent
issued pp. 1017 declaring a state of investigation beyond the pleadings.
national emergency.
 Petitioners failed to show that PGMA exercising
On the same day, pursuant to pp. 1017, of the call‐out power, by issuing pp.1017, is totally
PGMA issued G.O. No. 5 which calls bereft of factual basis.
upon the AFP and PNP to immediately
carry out the necessary and appropriate  Solicitor General, on behalf of respondents, filed
actions and measures to suppress and a Consolidated Comment and Memorandum that
prevent acts of terrorism and lawless shows a detailed narration of the events leading to
violence. the issuance of pp. 1017, with supporting reports
forming part of the records. Mentioned are the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


On March 3, 2006, exactly one week escape of the Magdalo Group, their audacious
after the declaration of a state of threat of the Magdalo D‐Day, the defections in the
national emergency and after all these military, particularly in the Philippine Marines, and
petitions had been filed, the President the reproving statements from the communist
lifted pp. 1017 through the issuance of leaders. There was also the Minutes of the
pp. 1021. Intelligence Report and Security Group of the
Philippine Army showing the growing alliance
In their presentation of the factual between the NPA and the military.
bases of pp. 1017 and G.O. No. 5,
respondents stated the proximate cause  Petitioners presented nothing to refute such
behind the executive issuances was the events. Thus, absent any contrary allegations, the
conspiracy among some military Court is convinced that the President was justified in
officers, leftist insurgents of the NPA, issuing pp. 1017 calling for military aid.
and some members of the political
opposition in a plot to unseat or ISSUE 2: Whether or not pp. 1017 and G.O. No. 5
assassinate President Arroyo. They are constitutional.  No
considered the aim to oust or
assassinate the President and take‐over  2.1. Facial Challenge. Petitioners contend that pp.
the reigns of government as a clear and 1017 is void on its face because of overbreadth.
present danger. It is noteworthy that
respondents fully substantiate these First and foremost, the overbreadth doctrine is an
claims with actual incidents and actual analytical tool developed for testing “on their faces”
reports from the military and various statutes in free speech cases. A plain reading of pp.
sources. 1017 shows that it is not primarily directed to
speech or even speech‐related conduct.
Petitioners allege several violations
against constitutional rights including  Moreover, the overbreadth doctrine is not
arrests, suppression of freedom of intended for testing the validity of a law that
speech, etc. “reflects legitimate state interest in maintaining
comprehensive control over harmful,
constitutionally unprotected conduct.”

A facial challenge using the overbreadth doctrine
17, Article XII of the will require the Court to examine pp. 1017 and
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Constitution pinpoint its flaws and defects, not on the basis of its
Section 17 reads: In actual operation to petitioners, but on the
times of national assumption or prediction that its very existence may
emergency, when cause others not before the Court to refrain from
public interest so constitutionally protected speech or expression.
requires, the State
may, during the Lastly, a facial challenge on the ground of
emergency and overbreadth is the most difficult challenge to mount
under reasonable successfully, since the challenger must establish that
terms prescribed by there can be no instance when the assailed law may
it, temporarily take be valid. The petitioners did not even attempt to
over or direct show whether this situation exists.
operation of any
privately‐owned 2.2. Constitutional Basis of pp. 1017
public utility or
business affected First Provision: Calling‐out Power
with public interest. Some petitioners vehemently maintain that pp. 1017
is actually a declaration of Martial Law. It is not so,
What defines the character of pp. 1017 are its
wordings. It is plain therein that what the President
invoked was her calling‐out power.
pp. 1017, pursuant to Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution, is a valid exercise of the President’s
call‐out power.

Second Provision: Take Care Power
pp. 1017 is unconstitutional as it arrogated upon
President Arroyo the power to enact laws and
decrees in violation of Section 1, Article VI of the
Constitution, which vests the power to enact laws in
Congress. They assail the clause “to enforce
obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders
and regulations promulgated by me personally or
upon my direction.”
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


The President, under Chapter 2, Book III of EO 292
(Administrative Code of 1987), may issue any of the
following: Executive Orders, Administrative Orders,
Proclamations, Memorandum Orders,
Memorandum Circulars, General and Special Orders.
President Arroyo’s ordinance power is limited to the
foregoing issuances. She cannot issue decrees
similar to those issued by Former President Marcos.
Presidential Decrees are of the same category and
binding force as statutes because they were issued
by the President in the exercise of his legislative
power during the period of Martial Law under the
1973 Constitution.
This Court rules that pp. 1017 is unconstitutional
insofar as it grants President Arroyo the authority to
promulgate “decrees.” Legislative power is
peculiarly within the province of the legislature.

Third Provision: Power to take Over
Petitioners, particularly the members of the House
of Representatives, claim that President Arroyo’s
inclusion of Section 17, Article XII in pp. 1017 is an
encroachment on the legislature’s emergency
powers.
President only has authority to declare a state of
national emergency. However, to exercise
emergency powers would need a delegation from
Congress. pp. 1017 does not authorize the President
during the emergency to temporarily take over or
direct privately‐owned public utility or business
affected with public interest without authority from
Congress.

2.3. As Applied Challenge
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Petitioners aver that pp. 1017 should be struck
down for violating constitutional rights in that it
allowed the police to conduct illegal arrest and
searches, and other such violations.
Petitioners David and Llamas alleged arrests without
warrants.
Petitioners Cacho‐Olivares and Tribune Publishing
Co., Inc. claimed that CIDG operatives “raided and
ransacked without warrant” their office.
Petitioners KMU and NAFLU‐KMU et al. alleged that
their members were “turned away and dispersed”
when they went to EDSA and later, to Ayala Avenue
to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the EDSA People
Power I.
The Court was guided by the question: “May this
Court adjudge a law or ordinance unconstitutional
on the ground that its implementor committed
illegal acts?” The answer is no. The criterion by
which validity of the statute or ordinance is to be
measured is the essential basis for the exercise of
power and not a mere incidental result arising from
its exertion…

Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and
pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.

He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.
Provision/s
In re: Torres v. Conditional Wilfredo Sumulong Torres was Section 64(i) of the ISSUE 1: Did the exercise of the President’s
Director of pardon convicted of two counts of estafa by the Revised prerogative under Section 64(i) of the Revised
Prison court of First Instance of Manila before Administrative Administrative Code to determine, if any, any
1979. These convictions were affirmed Code: breach of a condition of pardon in violation of the
by the court of appeals. He was granted the Chief Executive pardonee’s act to due process and the constitutional
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


conditional pardon by the president of is authorized to presumption of innocence constitute a grave abuse
the Philippines on April 18, 1979, the order "the arrest of discretion amounting to lace or excess of
condition being that he would not again and re‐incarceration jurisdiction?  NO.
violate any penal laws of the of any such person
Philippines. He accepted and was who, in his  Courts have no authority to interfere with the
released from confinement. judgment, shall fail grant by the President of a pardon to a convicted
to comply with the criminal. Also, a conditional pardon is in nature a
May 21, 1986  the Board of Pardons condition, or contract between the Chief Executive and the
and Parole resolved to recommend to conditions of his convicted criminal. The determination of the
the president to cancel Torres’ pardon pardon, parole, or violation of the conditional pardon rests exclusively
because Torres had been charged with suspension of in the sound judgment of the Chief Executive.
twenty counts of estafa and convicted sentence." Therefore, no final judicial pronouncement as to the
of sedition by the QC RTC. His guilt of a pardonee is required in determining
conditional pardon was canceled and whether there was a breach of the terms of the
was arrested and confined in conditional pardon.
Muntinlupa.

Torres’ wife and children pray for his
immediate release. This is an original
petition for habeas corpus.
Garcia v. Executive Petitioner Vicente Garcia was a ISSUE 1: Is Garcia entitled to his back wages
Commission on clemency Supervising Lineman in the Region IV pursuant to his reinstatement by grant of executive
Audit Station of the Bureau of clemency?  YES.
Telecommunications in Lucena City. He
was summarily dismissed from servce  Petitioner’s automatic reinstatement to
on the ground of dishonest for the loss government service entitles him to back wages. This
of several telegraph poles. A criminal is meant to afford relief to petitioner who is
case for qualified theft was filed against innocent from the start and to make reparation for
him with the Court of First Instance of what he has suffered as a result of his unjust
Quezon. Petitioner was acquitted on dismissal from the service.
the fact that petitioner was found
innocent and never having committed
the offense. Garcia sought
reinstatement to his former position
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


but was denied by the Bureau of
Telecommunications. Hence petitioner
pleaded to the president for executive
clemency.

Petitioner was granted executive
clemency and was reinstated to his
former employment. He then claimed
payment for back wages but was denied
by the Commission on Audit saying that
since petitioner did not render any
service during the period before his
reinstatement, he is not entitled to back
wages. (No service, no pay)
Llamas v. Petitioner Rodolfo Llamas is the Sec 19, Art 7 ISSUE 1: Can the president grant executive clemency
Orbos incumbent Vice‐Governor of the in administrative cases?  YES.
province of Tarlac.  The president can grant executive clemency
based on Art 7, Sec 19 of the constitution. The
March 1, 1991  he assumed, by constitution does not distinguish between cases that
virtue of a decision of the Office of the executive clemency may be applied to. If the law
President, the governorship. Private does not distinguish, we must not distinguish.
respondent Mariano Un Ocampo III is ISSUE 2: Were petitioner’s constitutional rights to
the incumbent Governor of the due process violated?  NO.
Province of Tarlac and was suspended  The petitioner’s constitutional rights to due
from office for 90 days in violation of process were not violated because his being not
the Anti‐Graft and Corrupt Practices notified of the subject of pardon is because a pardon
Act. Public respondent Oscar Orbos is private, delivered to the individual for whose
(Executive Secretary) is being impleaded benefit it is intended. Therefore, petitioner need not
herein in that official capacity for having be notified.
issued, by authority of the President,
executive clemency to Ocampo.

March 1, 1991  Petitioner took his
oath of office as acting governor. He
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


had until May 31, 1991 as acting
governor under the administrative
suspension order. However, Ocampo
was granted executive clemency and
the reassumption ceremony was held
on May 21, 1991.

Petitioner contends that the president
has the power to grant executive
clemency in criminal cases and not in
administrative cases.
Drilon v. Court Presidential The DOJ has brought this suit to annul ISSUE 1: Did the Court of Appeals commit grave
of Appeals pardon the decision of the Court of Appeals abuse of discretion in granting the prohibition? 
prohibiting the government from NO.
pursuing criminal actions against the
private respondents for the death of  Former deputy presidential executive assistant
Ireneo Longno and Lonely Chavez Joaquin Venus, Jr. declared that Ganzon’s absolute
during early martial law. pardon was indeed signed by former president
Marcos. Also, former presidential executive assistant
Private respondents Raul Paredes and Juan Tuvera testified that he was given by Venus the
Rodolfo Ganzon were charged with Xerox copy of the presidential pardon.
double murder. Paredes was acquitted
while Ganzon was sentenced to life  If Ganzon was not actually extended absolute
imprisonment with hard labor. Ganzon pardon, then he should have remained incarcerated
was made to serve sentence (for 6 or under house arrest until present time, which is
years) until he was released and placed not the case. Also, it would seem that the president
under house arrest (but was apparently commuted Ganzon’s imprisonment to 6 years, and
free to move in and out of his the house arrest being a condition. Therefore, he
residence). Ganzon claims he was has already served his full sentence and can no
extended absolute pardon by the longer be reinvestigated.
president (Marcos).
 It is sufficient that Ganzon was voluntarily
Petitioners allege that the Court of released with terms or conditions. Commutation of
Appeals committed grave abuse of sentence need not be in a specific form.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


discretion in granting the prohibition
since Ganzon has not adequately
proved the fact of presidential pardon.
People v. Salle, Amnesty Under Jones Law: pardon could be Sec 19, Art 7 ISSUE 1: Is pardon granted to an accused during the
Jr. (compare to granted any time after the commission pendency of his appeal from a judgment of
pardon) of the offense, either before or after conviction enforceable?  NO.
conviction
 Before an appellant may be validly granted
Under the 1973 constitution: pardon pardon, he must first ask for the withdrawal of his
could be granted only after final appeal. The ‘conviction by final judgment’ limitation
conviction. of the present constitution prohibits the grant of
pardon, whether full or conditional, to an accused
1981 amendments: removed limitation during the pendency of his appeal from his
of final conviction thereby bringing back conviction by the trial court.
provision of Jones Law.

1987 constitution: pardon may be
granted only after conviction by final
judgment.

Judgment of conviction becomes final
when:
(1) no appeal is seasonably perfected
(2) accused commences to serve the
sentence
(3) right to appeal is expressly waived in
writing, except where the death penalty
was imposed by the trial court
(4) when accused applies for probation

Section 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the
Monetary Board, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from the end of every
quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a complete report of its decision on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Government or government‐owned and controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt, and containing other
matters as may be provided by law.

Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two‐thirds of all the Members of the
Senate.

Issue & Ratio
Provision/s
LIM VS. Visiting Ponente: De Leon, Jr., J. Sec. 25 Article XVIII ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Balikatan 02‐1 is
EXECUTIVE Forces Petition for certiorari praying that of the Constitution. covered by the VFA YES. The TOR of the Balikatan
SECRETARY Agreement respondents be restrained from After the expiration fall within the context of the VFA.
proceeding with the so‐called in 1991 of the  Ratio 1:
G.R. NO. “Balikatan 02‐1” and the deployment of Agreement o The ambiguity on whether the Balikatan falls
151445 U.S. troops in Basilan and Mindanao for between the within the context of the VFA is couched on the
being illegal and in violation of the Republic of the interpretation of the word “activities” by the
P. 540 Constitution. Philippines and the VFA.
January 2002  personnel from the United States of o A review of pertinent sections of the Vienna
armed forces of the USA started arriving America concerning Convention on the Law of Treaties provides
in Mindanao to take part in the the Military Bases, that the cardinal rule of interpretation of
Balikatan 02‐1 foreign military treaties must involve an examination of the
February 1, 2002  petitioners Arthur bases, troops or text, which is presumed to verbalize the
D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando filed this facilities shall not parties’ intentions.
petition for certiorari and prohibition. be allowed in the o The Court ruled that the ambiguity stemming
February 7, 2002  the Senate Philippines… from the word “activities” arose by accident. It
conducted a hearing on the “Balikatan” Section 5 (2) Article held that it was deliberately made that way to
exercise wherein Vice‐President VIII of the give the parties ample leeway in negotiation.
TeofistoGuingona, Jr., concurrently Constitution. o Under this interpretation, the VFA gives
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, presented Review, revise, legitimacy to the Balikatan 02‐1. It falls under
the draft Terms of reference (TOR). Five reverse, modify, or the allowable or sanctioned activities in the
days later, he approved the TOR. affirm on appeal or context of the agreement.
certiorari, as the
law or the Rules of ISSUE 2: May American troops actually engage in
Court may provide, combat in Philippine territory? NO. US forces are
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


final judgments and prohibited from engaging in an offensive war on
order of lower Philippine territory.
courts in:  Ratio 2:
(A) All cases in o Neither the MDT nor the VFA allow foreign
which the troops to engage in an offensive war on
constitutionality or Philippine territory.
validity of any o Further, Article 2 (4) of the United Nations
treaty, international Charter enjoins its countries party to it from the
agreement, law… use of force against the territorial integrity of
any state.
o The VFA and the MTD, as in all other treaties
and international agreements to which the
Philippines is a party must be read in the
context of the 1987 Constitution. Sections 2, 7,
and 8 of Article II of which are key provisions
useful in determining the extent to which
foreign military troops are allowed in Philippine
territory. It is notable that such provisions
prohibit offensive war by foreign countries on
Philippine territory.
Sec. 25 of Article XVIII seems to be in conflict with
our treaty obligations?
o Sec. 25 provides that foreign military bases,
troops or facilities after the expiration in 1991
of the agreement between the RP and the US
shall not be allowed in the Philippines except
under a treaty duly concurred in by the
senate…
o From the perspective of public international
law, a treaty is favored over municipal law. This
is not, however, the case in the Philippines. This
is evidenced by Section 5, Article VII of the
Constitution – the power of the Supreme Court
to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm final
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


judgments in all cases in which the
constitutionality of any treaty, law, decree, and
international agreement is in question, a notion
supported by the decision in Ichong vs.
Hernandez.

ISSUE 3: Are American troops actively engaged in
combat alongside Filipino soldiers under the guise of
an alleged training and assistance exercise? The
Court may not rule on this matter.
 Ratio 3:
o Such is a question of fact and is not a fit topic
for a special civil action for certiorari. The
Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
WHEREFORE, the petition and petition‐in‐
intervention are hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice to the filing of a new petition sufficient in
form and substance in the proper Regional Trial
Court.
BAYAN V. Petitioner Bayan Muna is a duly ISSUE 1: Whether or not the agreement was
EXECUTIVE registered party‐list group established contracted validly, which resolves itself into the
SECRETARY to represent the marginalized sectors of Section 21 states: question of whether or not respondents gravely
G.R. No. society. Respondent Blas F. Ople, now No treaty or abused their discretion in concluding it.  YES it is
159618 deceased, was the Secretary of Foreign international valid and there’s no grave abuse of discretion.
PP 547 Affairs during the period material to this agreement shall be
case. Respondent Alberto Romulo was valid and effective  The Constitution vests in the President the power
impleaded in his capacity as then unless concurred in to enter into international agreements, subject, in
Executive Secretary. by at least two‐ appropriate cases, to the required concurrence
thirds of all the votes of the Senate. But as earlier indicated,
On December 28, 2000, the RP, Members of the executive agreements may be validly entered into
through Charge d’Affaires Enrique A. Senate. without such concurrence.
Manalo, signed the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court which, by  In thus agreeing to conclude the Agreement thru
its terms, is “subject to ratification, E/N BFO‐028‐03, then President Gloria Macapagal‐
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


acceptance or approval” by the Arroyo, represented by the Secretary of Foreign
signatory states. Only 92 out of the 139 Affairs, acted within the scope of the authority and
signatory countries appear to have discretion vested in her by the Constitution. At the
completed the ratification, approval and end of the day, the President––by ratifying, thru her
concurrence process. The Philippines is deputies, the non‐surrender agreement––did
not among the 92. nothing more than discharge a constitutional duty
and exercise a prerogative that pertains to her
The RP, represented by then DFA office.
Secretary Ople, agreed with and
accepted the US proposals embodied  The rationale behind this principle is the
under the US Embassy Note adverted to inviolable doctrine of separation of powers among
and put in effect the Agreement with the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the
the US government. In esse, government.
the Agreement aims to protect what it
refers to and defines as “persons” of ISSUE 2: Whether or not x x x AGREEMENT IS VALID,
the RP and US from frivolous and BINDING AND EFFECTIVE WITHOUT THE
harassment suits that might be brought CONCURRENCE BY AT LEAST TWO‐THIRDS (2/3) OF
against them in international tribunals. ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE SENATE x x x.  YES.

In response to a query of then Solicitor  One type of executive agreement is a treaty or a
General Alfredo L. Benipayo on the Section 25, Article treaty‐implementing executive agreement, which
status of the non‐surrender agreement, 18: necessarily would cover the same matters subject of
Ambassador Ricciardone replied in his After the expiration the underlying treaty.
letter of October 28, 2003 that the in 1991 of the
exchange of diplomatic notes Agreement  In the instant case, it bears stressing that
constituted a legally binding agreement between the the Philippines is only a signatory to the Rome
under international law; and that, under Republic of the Statute and not a State‐Party for lack of ratification
US law, the said agreement did not Philippines and the by the Senate. Thus, it is only obliged to refrain from
require the advice and consent of the United States of acts which would defeat the object and purpose of
US Senate. America concerning the Rome Statute.
military bases,
foreign military  But over and above the foregoing considerations
bases, troops, or is the fact that––save for the situation and matters
facilities shall not be contemplated in Sec. 25, Art. XVIII of the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


allowed in the Constitution]––when a treaty is required, the
Philippines except Constitution does not classify any subject, like that
under a treaty duly involving political issues, to be in the form of, and
concurred in by the ratified as, a treaty. What the Constitution merely
Senate and, when prescribes is that treaties need the concurrence of
the Congress so the Senate by a vote defined therein to complete
requires, ratified by the ratification process.
a majority of the
votes cast by the  The Court has, in Eastern Sea Trading, as
people in a national reiterated in Bayan, given recognition to the
referendum held for obligatory effect of executive agreements without
that purpose, and the concurrence of the Senate:
recognized as a o x x x [T]he right of the Executive to enter into
treaty by the other binding agreements without the necessity of
contracting State. subsequent Congressional approval has been
confirmed by long usage. From the earliest days
of our history, we have entered executive
agreements covering such subjects as
commercial and consular relations, most
favored‐nation rights, patent rights, trademark
and copyright protection, postal and navigation
arrangements and the settlement of claims. The
validity of these has never been seriously
questioned by our courts.

SECRETARY OF Extradition Ponente: Puno, J. P.D. 1069 ISSUE 1: Whether or not the private respondent is
JUSTICE VS. On January 13, 1977  then President entitled to the due process right to notice and
JUDGE Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential Section 6. Issuance hearing during the evaluation stage of the
LANTION Decree No. 1069 "Prescribing the of Summons; extradition process? NO. Respondent is bereft of
Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Temporary Arrest; the right to notice and hearing during the
GR 139465 Who Have Committed Crimes in a Hearing; Service of evaluation stage of the extradition process.
Foreign Country". Notices.  Ratio 1:
P. 564 On November 13, 1994  then (1) Immediately o A review of Section 6(1)(2) of P.D. 1069 and the
Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon, upon receipt of the RP‐US Extradition Treaty reveals that there is
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


representing the Government of the petition, the no provision in both which gives an extraditee
Republic of the Philippines, signed in presiding judge of the right to demand from the Secretary of
Manila the "Extradition Treaty Between the court shall, as Justice copies of the extradition request from
the Government of the Republic of the soon as practicable, the US Government and its supporting
Philippines and the Government of the summon the documents and to comment thereon while the
United States of America" (hereinafter accused to appear request is still undergoing evaluation. Thus, the
referred to as the RP‐US Extradition and to answer the right of the subject to have access to the
Treaty). The Senate, by way of petition on the day evidence in the hands of the executive
Resolution No. 11, expressed its and hour fixed in department is only during the judicial phase
concurrence in the ratification of said the order… and not during the evaluation phase.
treaty. (2) The order and
On June 18, 1999, the Department of notice as well as a o The Court also ruled that treaties should be
Justice received from the Department copy of the warrant interpreted only in the light of their intent.
of Foreign Affairs a request for the of arrest, if issued, Extradition treaties provide the assurance that
extradition of private respondent Mark shall be promptly the punishment of these crimes will not be
Jimenez to the United States for crimes served each upon frustrated by the frontiers of territorial
committed in the US. the accused and the sovereignty. The intent of the treaty is to ensure
On the same day, petitioner issued attorney having that the perpetrators of such crimes will not be
Department Order No. 249 designating charge of the case. overprotected by any of the signatory states.
and authorizing a panel of attorneys to
take charge of and to handle the case
pursuant to Section 5(1) of Presidential
Decree No. 1069. Upon technical
evaluation and assessment of the
extradition request, the panel found
irregularities must first be addressed.
Pending evaluation of the said
documents, respondent Jimenez wrote
to petitioner requesting a copy of the
extradition request from the US
government and that he be given ample
time to respond to the same. However,
request was denied by petitioner.
A petition was brought to the Regional
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Trial Court of Manila, Branch 25
wherein respondent Hon. Judge
Lantion, granted the petition of now
respondent Jimenez.
Petitioner Secretary of Justice appealed
to the Supreme Court, such appeal was
granted on a vote of 9‐6.
Respondent timely filed motion for
reconsideration. Hence, the instant
case.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


ARTICLE VIII: JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.

Provision/s
SANTIAGO Honor In Sero Elementary School in Cotabato Section 1 ISSUE 1: Whether or not the case at bar present a
V. BAUTISTA ranking City, the Committee on the Rating of xxx justiciable controversy  NO.
disputes Students for Honor deliberated and Judicial power
32 SCRA 188 adjudged Socorro Medina, Patricia includes the duty of  Actions questioned exercised neither judicial nor
(1970) Lingat and Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr. as the courts of justice quasi judicial functions in the performance of its
first, second and third honors to settle actual assigned task.
p. 568 respectively for the school year 1964‐ controversies
1965. involving rights  It is necessary that there be a law that gives rise
which are legally to some specific rights of persons under which
The mother represented him while his demandable and adverse claims to such rights are made. The tribunal
father served as their counsel. Reasons enforceable xxx board itself has the power to determine what law is
alleged: in the exercise of its functions.
• The second placer Patricia had
never been a close rival except in  In Felipe v. Leuterio, it was basically declared that
grade V the judiciary would not interfere with the verdicts of
• The closest rival Socorro had been judges/referees in contests/tournaments/
so much benefited for being competitions. Also, no rights to prizes may be
coached and tutored by Mrs. Alpas, asserted by the contestants because theirs was
their Grade VI English teacher and a merely a privilege to compete for the prize. That
member of the selection committee privilege did not ripen into a demandable right
(honors) unless and until they were proclaimed winners.
• Some teachers giving Teodoro a “damnum absque injuria.” If malice or fraud had
starting grade of 75% in Grade VI been proven, it would be a different proposition. But
with the intention to pull him to a then the action, if there was error, should be
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


much lower rank directed to the guilty judge or judges but not against
• Collusion among the teachers, etc. other innocent judges. Besides, error is not
tantamount to a violation of a right.
The petitioner asked the court to set
aside the final list of honor students in
Grade VI and to enjoin the respondent
teachers from officially publishing and
proclaiming the said honor pupils in the
scheduled graduation exercises on May
21, 1965.

The injunction was denied by the lower
court the day before graduation for
restraining the exercises would shock
everybody. The graduation was held
with the same protested list of honor
students.

Appellant here assails the holding of the
lower court that his petition has no
cause of action.
MARCOS V. The Extent of Section 1 ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to
MANGLAPUS Judicial Feb 1986  Ferdinand Marcos was xxx review the case?  NO.
Review on deposed from the presidency via the Judicial power
p. 570 the forbidden non‐violent “people power” revolution includes the duty of  General Rule: No, the issue constitutes a political
return of and forced into exile. In his stead, the courts of justice question. As such, the Court may not rule on it.
Marcos Corazon Aquino was declared President xxx to determine Exception: The Court's decision in this case would
of the Republic under a Revolutionary whether or not undeniably have a profound effect on the political,
government. there has been a economic and other aspects of national life.
grave abuse of When political questions are involved, the
The accumulated foreign debt and the discretion Constitution limits the determination to whether or
plunder of the nation of the nation amounting to lack not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
attributed to Marcos and his cronies left or excess of amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
the economy devastated. jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being questioned.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Now, Mr. Marcos, at his deathbed, has part of any branch If grave abuse is not established, the Court will not
signified his wish to return to the or instrumentality substitute its judgment for that of the official
Philippines to die. of the Government concerned and decide a matter, which by its nature
However, Mrs. Aquino, considering the or by law is for the latter alone to decide.
dire consequences to the nation of his
return at a time when the stability of  Accordingly, the question for the Court to
the government is threatened from determine is whether or not there exist factual
various directions and the economy is bases for the President to conclude that it was in the
just beginning to rise and move national interest to bar the return of the Marcoses
forward, has stod firmly on the decision to the Philippines. If such postulates do exist, it
to bar the return of Marcos and his cannot be said that she has acted, or acts, arbitrarily
family. or that she has gravely abused her discretion in
deciding to bar their return.

 We find that xxx there exist factual bases for the
President's decision…
LEO Finality of a The instant motions concern matters Section 1 ISSUE 1: Whether or not the court lost jurisdiction
ECHEGARAY V. judgment in that are not incidents in G.R. No. xxx over the case after it had rendered final judgment.
THE relation to 117472, where the death penalty was Judicial power  NO.
SECRETARY OF jurisdiction of imposed on petitioner on automatic includes the duty of
JUSTICE the court review of his conviction by this Court. the courts of justice  The Court did NOT lost its jurisdiction over the
The instant motions were filed in this xxx to determine case at bar and thus can restrain the execution of
G.R. 132601 case, G.R. No. 132601, where the whether or not the petitioner.
constitutionality of R.A. No. 8177 there has been a
January 19, (Lethal Injection Law) and its grave abuse of  The Decision was not altered a whit by this Court.
1999 implementing rules and regulations was discretion Contrary to the submission of the Solicitor General,
assailed by petitioner. amounting to lack the rule on finality of judgment cannot divest this
pp. 571‐572 Petitioner contends: or excess of Court of its jurisdiction to execute and enforce the
(1) the stay order. . . is within the scope jurisdiction on the same judgment.
of judicial power and duty and does not part of any branch
trench on executive powers nor on or instrumentality  Retired Justice Camilo Quiason synthesized the
congressional prerogatives; of the Government well established jurisprudence on this issue as
(2) the exercise by this Court of its follows: xxxxxxxxxx
power to stay execution was the finality of a judgment does not mean that the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


reasonable; Court has lost all its powers nor the case. By the
(3) the Court did not lose jurisdiction to finality of the judgment, what the court loses is its
address incidental matters involved or jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same. xxx
arising from the petition; There is a difference between the jurisdiction of the
(4) public respondents are estopped court to execute its judgment and its jurisdiction to
from challenging the Court's amend, modify or alter the same. xxx
jurisdiction; and
(5) there is no certainty that the law on  The power to control the execution of its decision
capital punishment will not be repealed is an essential aspect of jurisdiction. It cannot be the
or modified until Congress convenes subject of substantial subtraction for our
and considers all the various resolutions Constitution vests the entirety of judicial power in
and bills filed before it. one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may
be established by law. xxx. It is because of these
unforeseen, supervening contingencies that courts
have been conceded the inherent and necessary
power of control of its processes and orders to make
them conformable to law and justice.
UNITED STATES Judicial Following indictment alleging violation US CONSTI ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Judiciary was without
V. NIXON review on of federal statutes xxx the Special ARTICLE 3, SECTION authority to review an assertion of executive
executive Prosecutor filed a motion under Fed. 1. privilege by the President.  NO.
p. 573 privilege Rule Crim. Proc. 17 (c) for a subpoena
duces tecum for the production before The judicial power  Powell v. McCormack, supra, at 549. And in Baker
trial of certain tapes and documents of the United v. Carr, the Court stated:
relating to precisely identified States, shall be "Deciding whether a matter has in any measure
conversations and meetings between vested in one been committed by the Constitution to another
the President and others. Supreme Court, and branch of government, or whether the action of that
In support of his claim of absolute in such inferior branch exceeds whatever authority has been
privilege, the President's counsel urges courts as the committed, is itself a delicate exercise in
two grounds: Congress may from constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility
• the valid need for protection of time to time ordain of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the
communications between high and establish. The Constitution."
Government officials and those who judges, both of the
advise and assist them in the supreme and  Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor
performance of their manifold inferior courts, shall the generalized need for confidentiality of high‐level
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


duties; the importance of this hold their offices communications, without more, can sustain an
confidentiality is too plain to during good absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of
require further discussion behaviour, and immunity from judicial process under all
• the claim of absolute privilege rests shall, at stated circumstances. xxx and any absolute executive
on the doctrine of separation of times, receive for privilege under Article II of the Constitution would
powers their services, a plainly conflict with the function of the courts under
compensation, the Constitution.
The court thereafter issued an order which shall not be
for an in camera examination of the diminished during  The impediment that an absolute, unqualified
subpoenaed material, having rejected their continuance in privilege would place in the way of the primary
the President's contentions xxx that the office. constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do
judiciary lacked authority to review the justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict
President's assertion of executive with the function of the courts under Article 3 xxx
privilege. but the separate powers were not intended to
operate with absolute independence.

 [Because] the legitimate needs of the judicial
process may outweigh Presidential privilege, it is
necessary to resolve those competing interests in a
manner that preserves the essential functions of
each branch.
INFOTECH Invalid For the automation of the counting and ISSUE 1: Whether or not the instant petition is
FOUNDATION, automation canvassing of the ballots in the 2004 premature.  NO.
ET AL V. contract elections, Comelec awarded the
COMELEC Bidding Contract to "Mega Pacific Consortium"  There is grave abuse of discretion:
an entity that had not participated in Section 1 (1) when an act is done contrary to the Constitution,
GR 159139 the bidding. Despite this grant, the poll xxx the law or jurisprudence or
January 13, body signed the actual automation Judicial power (2) when it is executed whimsically, capriciously or
2004 Contract with "Mega Pacific eSolutions, includes the duty of arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or personal bias.
Pg 575 Inc.," a company that joined the bidding the courts of justice
but had not met the eligibility xxx to determine  In the present case, the Commission on Elections
requirements. whether or not approved the assailed Resolution and awarded the
there has been a subject Contract not only in clear violation of law
Comelec awarded this billion‐peso grave abuse of and jurisprudence, but also in reckless disregard of
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


undertaking with inexplicable haste, discretion its own bidding rules and procedure.
without adequately checking and amounting to lack
observing mandatory financial, or excess of  In any event, the peculiar circumstances
technical and legal requirements. It also jurisdiction on the surrounding the unconventional rendition of the
accepted the preferred computer part of any branch BAC Report and the precipitate awarding of the
hardware and software even if, at the or instrumentality Contract by the Comelec en banc ‐‐ plus the fact that
time of the award, they had undeniably of the Government it was racing to have its Contract with MPC
failed to pass eight critical requirements implemented in time for the elections in May 2004
designed to safeguard the integrity of (barely four months away) ‐‐ have combined to bring
elections. about the urgent need for judicial intervention, thus
prompting this Court to dispense with the
Respondents claim that petitioners procedural exhaustion of administrative remedies in
acted prematurely, since they had not this case.
first utilized the protest mechanism
available to them under RA 9184, the
Government Procurement Reform Act,
for the settlement of disputes
pertaining to procurement contracts.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the
Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its Members.

Issue & Ratio
Provision/s
MALAGA V. Ponente: CRUZ, J Section 1, P.D. ISSUE 1: Is ISCOF covered by P.D. 1818?  NO.
PENACHOS, JR. 1818: No court
This controversy involves the extent and shall have  P.D. 1818 was not intended to shield from judicial
applicability of P.D. No. 1818, which jurisdiction to issue scrutiny irregularities committed by administrative
prohibits any court from issuing any restraining agencies. Hence, the challenged restraining order
injunctions in cases involving order, preliminary WAS NOT IMPROPERLY ISSUED by the respondent
infrastructure projects of the injunction, or judge and the writ of preliminary injunction SHOULD
government. preliminary NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED.
infrastructure
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


The Iloilo State College of Fisheries project or a mining,
(ISCOF) through its Pre‐qualification, fishery, forest or
Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) other natural
published an invitation to bid for the resource
construction of a micro laboratory development
building. project of the
government, or any
Petitioners submitted their public utility
prequalification documents (PRE‐C1) operated by the
but were not allowed to participate government,
since the said documents were including among
submitted late. Petitioners filed a others public
complaint with the Iloilo RTC against utilities for the
PBAC members and chairman, claiming transport of the
that they submitted their PRE‐C1 on goods and
time. commodities,
stevedoring and
Judge Lodrigio Lebaquin issued a arrastre contracts,
restraining order prohibiting PBAC from to prohibit any
conducting the bidding and awarding person or persons,
project. Defendants filed a motion to lift entity or
the restraining order on the ground that government official
the court was prohibited from issuing from proceeding
restraining orders, preliminary with, or continuing
injunctions, and preliminary mandatory the execution or
injunctions by P.D. 1818. implementation of
any such project, or
Plaintiffs opposed the motion saying the operation of
that ISCOF was a state college BUT it such public utility,
had its own charter and separate or pursuing any
existence and was not part of the lawful activity
national government or of any local necessary for such
political subdivision. execution,
The trial court lifted the restraining implementation or
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


order and denied the petition for operation.
preliminary injunction.

Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount
appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.

Issue & Ratio
Provision/s
RADIOWEALTH In 1949, Radiowealth installed speaker ISSUE 1: Can the auditor general disallow such
, INC. V. phones in the office of the Chief Justice expenditure by the SC?  NO.
AGREGADO and the total expenditure amounted to
(AUDITOR P585.  No one denies the auditor general the power to
GENERAL) audit, in accordance with law and administrative
The clerk of the SC issued a certification regulations, expenditures of funds or property by
that the purchase of the gadgets were government. However, the auditor general’s
valid and due to an emergency. authority to audit and disapprove the court’s
However, the chairman of the Property expenditures has to be limited to the conditions
Requisition Committee (PRC) refused to prescribed by the constitution which is TO NOT
issue disbursement therefore. INVADE THE COURT’S INDEPENDENCE. The auditor
general may not question the court’s expenditures
Auditor General Agregado affirmed except when they are ‘irregular, unnecessary,
PRC’s ruling that the purchase of the excessive and extravagant.’
speaker phones are against E.O. 302
which states that the government
adopts a policy discontinuing open
market purchases.
BENGZON V. The petitioners are retired justices of ISSUE 1: Does the questioned veto impair the Fiscal
DRILON the SC and Court of Appeals who are Autonomy guaranteed to the Judiciary?  YES.
currently receiving monthly pensions
under R.A. 910 as amended by R.A.  Section 3, Article 8 of the Constitution provides
1797. Section 3A which authorizes the for the Fiscal Autonomy of the Judiciary. The veto of
said pensions was repealed by President the specific provisions by the president is
Marcos. The legislature then re‐enacted tantamount to dictating to the Judiciary how its
the said RAs to restore the privileges to funds should be utilized, which is clearly repugnant
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


the retired justices. However, President to fiscal autonomy. The freedom of the Chief Justice
Aquino vetoed certain portions of it. to make adjustments in the utilization of the funds
appropriated for the expenditures of the judiciary,
including the use of any savings from any particular
item to cover deficits or shortages in other items of
the judiciary is withheld. The Judiciary must enjoy
freedom and must be given a free hand on how to
augment appropriations where it is needed.

Section 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division
of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.

(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en
banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application,
or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of
a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the
required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision
rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.


Provision/s
FORTICH In their respective motions for ISSUE 1: Did the court’s resolution, wherein they
(Provincial reconsideration, both respondents and voted two‐two on the separate motions for
Governor Of intervenors pray that this case be reconsideration, as a result of which the decision
Bukidnon) V. referred to this court en banc. was deemed affirmed, effectively resolve the said
CORONA motions?  YES.
(Deputy Exec. The contend that the required number
Sec.) of votes (three) was not met as the  A careful reading of the above constitutional
motions for reconsideration were provision, however, reveals that cases are decided,
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


resolved by a vote of two‐two. and matters (including motions) are resolved. With
that said, only cases are referred to the Court en
banc for decision whenever the required number of
votes is not obtained. If there is a tie in the voting,
there is no decision. On the other hand, if a case has
already been decided by the division and the losing
party files a motion for reconsideration, the failure
of the division to resolve the motion because of a tie
in the voting does not leave the case undecided.
There is still a decision which must stand in view of
the failure of the members of the division to muster
the necessary vote for its reconsideration.
Therefore, if there is a tie, the motion for
reconsideration is lost. The assailed decision is
therefore deemed affirmed.

PEOPLE V. DY Accused‐appellants Bryan Ferdinand Dy ISSUE 1: Whether or not the SC Circular is
and Giovan Bernardino filed separate incongruous to Article VIII, Section 5 (2) (d) of the
motions for reconsideration xxx finding Constitution?  No.
them guilty of rape and acts of
lasciviousness.  The contention is misleading because this one is
In his motion, accused‐appellant Dy actually covered by Article 8 Section 4 (1).
Section 4. (1) The
submits that our decision should have
Supreme Court xxx  At present, it is made up of three
been merely recommendatory, in view
It may sit en banc or divisions. However, the divisions of the Supreme
of the provision of Article VIII, Section 5
in its discretion, in Court are not to be considered as separate and
(2) (d) of the Constitution which
division of three, distinct courts. Actions considered in any of these
provides that the Supreme Court
five, or seven divisions and decisions rendered therein are, in
sitting en banc has jurisdiction over
Members.xxx effect, by the same Tribunal. The divisions are not
“[a]ll criminal cases in which the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or to be considered as separate and distinct courts, but
higher.” He contends that Supreme as divisions of one and the same court
Court Circular No. 2‐89 which provides
that death penalty cases shall be within  Only the Court sitting en banc can reverse the
the jurisdiction of the Court en banc is decision of the Court in division.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


incongruous and incompatible with the
aforementioned constitutional
provision.
PEOPLE V. EBIO (2) All cases ISSUE 1: Whether or not the votes of only seven
involving the Justices of the Court sitting en banc can validly
constitutionality of impose the death penalty and whether there is a
a treaty, need for a quorum when it sits en banc?  No
international or
executive  The term "quorum"' has been defined as "that
agreement, or law, number of members of the body which, when legally
which shall be assembled in their proper places, will enable the
heard by the body to transact its proper business, or, in other
Decision affirmed the judgment of the
Supreme Court en words, that number that makes a lawful body and
Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon,
banc, and all other gives it power to pass a law or ordinance or do any
Sorsogon finding the accused guilty
cases which under other valid corporate act."
beyond reasonable doubt of raping his
the Rules of Court
Court en eleven‐year old daughter, and
are required to be  The second paragraph of Article VIII Section 4 of
banc re‐ sentencing him to death.
heard en banc, the 1987 Constitution does not expressly state the
deliberation
including those number of Justices required to be present to
on rape case In his motion for reconsideration, the
involving the constitute a quorum of the Court en banc. The
of 11‐year accused calls the attention of the Court
constitutionality, deliberations of the 1987 Constitution are also silent
old daughter to the fact that only seven out of the
application, or on what constitutes a quorum when the Court is
fourteen Justices sitting in the Court
operation of composed of only fourteen members. In case of
signed the Decision. The other seven
presidential doubt in a criminal case, especially where the death
Justices were on official leave at the
decrees, penalty is imposed, the doubt should be resolved in
time.
proclamations, favor of the accused. Thus, in this case, considering
orders, instructions, that the life of the accused is at stake, we deem it
ordinances, and wise to resubmit the case to the Court en banc for
other regulations, re‐deliberation.
shall be decided
with the
concurrence of a
majority of the
Members who
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


actually took part
in the deliberations
on the issues in the
case and voted
thereon.

(3) Cases or matters
heard by a division
shall be decided or
resolved with the
concurrence of a
majority of the
Members who
actually took part in
the deliberations on
the issues in the
case and voted
thereon, and in no
case, without the
concurrence of at
least three of such
Members. xxx

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of
lower courts in:
(a) 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.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months
without the consent of the judge concerned.

(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under‐privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi‐judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service Law.

Provision/s
MARBURY VS Judicial Power Ponente: Marshall, C.J. ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Supreme Court has the
MADISON authority to review acts of Congress and determine
On his last day in office, President John its constitutionality and being voidYES. The
p. 587 Adams named forty‐two justices of the Supreme Court has authority to review acts of
peace and sixteen new circuit court Congress.
justices for the District of Columbia
under the Organic Act. The Organic Act  Ratio 1:
was an attempt by the Federalists to o The powers of the Legislature are defined and
take control of the federal judiciary limited; and that those limits may not be
before Thomas Jefferson took office. mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is
The commissions were signed by written.
President Adams and sealed by acting o An act of the legislature, repugnant to the
Secretary of State John Marshall (who Constitution, is void.
later became Chief Justice of the o It is the province and duty of the judicial
Supreme Court and author of this department to say what the law is. If a law be
opinion), but they were not delivered in opposition to the Constitution, if both the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


before the expiration of Adams’s term law and the Constitution apply to a particular
as president. Thomas Jefferson refused case, the court must determine which of these
to honor the commissions, claiming conflicting rules govern the case. This is the
that they were invalid because they had very essence of judicial duty.
not been delivered by the end of o Those who controvert the principle that the
Adams’s term. Constitution is the paramount law are reduced
to the necessity of maintaining that courts
Petitioner William Marbury was an must close their eyes on the Constitution, and
intended recipient of an appointment see only the law.
as justice of the peace. Marbury applied This doctrine would subvert the very
directly to the Supreme Court of the foundation of all written Constitutions. To say
United States for a writ of mandamus that an act, which is entirely void for being
to compel Jefferson’s Secretary of contrary to the Constitution, is yet, in practice,
State, Defendant James Madison, to completely obligatory. It would declare that,
deliver the commissions. The Judiciary however forbidden, any act of the legislature,
Act of 1789 had granted the Supreme shall be effectual. It would be giving the
Court original jurisdiction to issue writs legislature practical and real omnipotence. It is
of mandamus “…to any courts prescribing limits, and declaring that those
appointed, or persons holding office, may be passed at pleasure.
under the authority of the United
States.”

ANGARA VS Electoral Ponente: Laurel, J. ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Supreme Court has
ELECTORAL Commission jurisdiction over the caseYES. The Supreme Court
COMMISSION December 3, 1935  National Assembly has jurisdiction.
by Resolution No. 8 confirmed the
63 Phil. 139 election of petitioner to the said body.  Ratio 1:
(1936) o Upon principle, reason, and authority, the
December 9, 1935  Electoral Court clearly is of the opinion that it has
p. 589 Commission fixed said date as the last jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and
day for filing of protests against the the subject matter of the present controversy
election, returns and qualifications of for the purpose of determining the character,
members of the National Assembly. scope and extent of the commission’s power
It is contended by the petitioner that as the sole judge of contests relating to the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


the resolution of the National Assembly election, returns, and qualifications of the
has the effect of cutting of the power of members of the National Assembly.
the Electoral Commission to entertain o The constitution itself granted the duty to
protests against the election, returns determine the nature, scope and extent of the
and qualifications of members of the powers of government to the judiciary. When
National Assembly submitted after it mediates to allocate constitutional
December 3, 1935. boundaries, it does not assert superiority over
the other departments.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POWER OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW:
o The power of judicial review is limited to actual
cases and controversies and limited further to
the constitutional question raised or the very
lismota presented.
o The judiciary does not pass upon questions of
wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation.
o The courts accord the presumption of
constitutionality to legislative enactments.

TOLENTINO VS VAT Ponente: Mendoza, J. Article VIII, Sec. 1 ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Supreme Court may
SECRETARY OF (2). Judicial power take cognizance of the caseYES. The Supreme
FINANCE R.A. No. 7716 seeks to widen the includes the duty of Court may take cognizance of the case.
existing tax base of the existing VAT the courts of justice
G.R. No. system and enhance its administration to settle actual  Ratio 1:
115455, by amending the National Internal controversies o Although the case at bar is not ripe for
Revenue Code. involving rights adjudication, the constitutionally vested duty
August 25, which are legally of judicial review mandates the Court to look
1994 R.A. No. 7716 is the results of demandable and behind the barriers set by the principle of
Conference Committee Bill entitled “AN enforceable, and to separation of powers.
p. 590 ACT RESTRUCTURING THE VALUE‐ determine whether o The Court may invoke this duty (judicial
ADDED TAX (VAT) SYSTEM, WIDENING or not there has review) to justify its intervention in what is
IT TAX BASE AND ENHANCING ITS been a grave abuse essentially a case that at best is not ripe for
ADMINISTRATION AND FOR THESE of discretion… adjudication.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


PURPOSES AMENDING AND REPEALING Article VIII, Sec. 5
THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE (2). Review, revise,
NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, reverse, modify, or
AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER affirm on appeal…
PURPOSES”. This results from the
consolidation of Senate Bill No. 1630
(submitted in substitution of S.B. 1129
taking into consideration P.S. Res. No.
734 and H.B. No.1197) and House Bill
no. 1197.
TAN VS Constitutional Ponente: Fernando, J. ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Supreme Court should
MACAPAGAL Convention take cognizance of the caseNO.
43 SCRA 678 Petitioner filed petition in the court  Ratio 1:
(1972) seeking declaratory relief and declaring o It is a prerequisite that something had been
p. 591 the authority of the 1971 Constitutional accomplished or performed by either branch
Convention (CC) void. before a court may invoke its power of judicial
review.
Petitioner contends that the CC is o The autonomy of the CC must be respected. It
without authority to discuss and adopt is a coordinate agency and its powers are
proposals which seek to revise the transcendent, since it may radically alter the
present Constitution through the organization and functions of all three
adoption of a form of government departments including the courts.
other than the form outlined in the o The rule of non‐interference should be
present Constitution. adhered to until there is an actual case or
controversy. As long as any proposal to amend
The Court dismissed the petition for the Constitution is not acted upon yet, there is
lack of merit. A motion for no room for interposition of judicial oversight.
reconsideration was filed. Until then, the courts are devoid of
jurisdiction.
Petitioner Gonzales however, waited
until R.A. 4913, act submitting to the WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is
electorate of certain proposed denied.
amendments to the Constitution, was
enacted. It was only then that the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


matter was ripe for adjudication.
PACU VS Private Ponente: Bengzon, J. ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Supreme Court should
SECRETARY OF Schools, take cognizance of the caseNO.
EDUCATION Secretary of Petitioning colleges and universities
97 Phil. 806 Education question the constitutionality of Act  Ratio 1:
(1955) No. 2706. o The Act has been in existence for 37 years. The
p. 592 Secretary of Education has supervised and
The law provides that before anyone regulated the private schools in this country
may operate a school, a permit from without audible protest and with the approval
the Secretary of Education must first be of the general public. The law has long been
obtained. treated as constitutional and important rights
have been dependent on it. Hence, the Court
Petitioners claim that this constitutes a may refuse to consider an attack on its validity.
deprivation of their liberty and property o The petitioners suffered no wrong from the
without due process of law. Act. The petitioners even have permits to
operate and are actually operating by virtue of
Respondent contends that the matter their permits. This Court will not pass upon
constitutes no justiciable controversy validity where the assailant is one who availed
exhibiting unavoidable necessity of of its benefits.
deciding the constitutional questions o There is not even a threat by the Secretary that
and that petitioners suffered no wrong he will revoke the permits of petitioners.
from the enactment of the questioned o The Court does not adjudicate mere scholarly
Act. questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however
intellectually solid the problem may be.

JOYA V. PCGG The 35 petitioners in this special civil ISSUE 1: Do the petitioners have legal standing to
action for prohibition and mandamus file the instant petition?  NO
GR 96541 with prayer for preliminary injunction
and/or restraining order seek to enjoin  “Legal standing” means a personal and
August 24, the PCGG from proceeding with the substantial interest in the case such that the party
1993 auction sale scheduled Jan. 11, 1991 by has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result
Christie’s of New York and of the Old of the governmental act that is being challenged.
pp 593‐596 Masters Paintings and 18th and 19th Petitioners themselves allege that the paintings
century silverware seized from were donated by private persons from different
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Malacañang and the Metropolitan parts of the world to the Metropolitan Museum of
Museum of Manila and placed in the Manila Foundation. On this basis, the ownership of
custody of the Central Bank. these paintings legally belongs to the foundation or
corporation or the members thereof, and not to the
petitioners or to the public. Therefore, they do not
possess any clear legal right in this case.

ISSUE 1: Has this case become moot and academic?
 YES

 Since the purpose of this petition for prohibition
is to enjoin the respondent public officials from
holding the auction sale of the artworks on a
particular date which is long past, the issues raised
in the petition have become moot and academic.
However, there is a need to emphasize that the
court has the discretion to take cognizance of a suit
which does not satisfy the requirements of an
actual case or legal standing when paramount
public interest in involved. In this case though,
there is no such justification.

Macasiano v. Petitioner seeks to have sections 28 and ISSUE 1: Does the petitioner have locus standi? 
National 44 of RA # 7279 (Urban Development NO.
Housing and Housing Act of 1992) declared
Authority unconstitutional. He claims locus standi  As a consultant of the DPWH, he is not vested
on his being a consultant of the DPWH with any authority to demolish obstructions and
and as being a taxpayer. He alleges that encroachments on properties of the public domain,
sections 28 and 44 ‘contain the seeds of much less on private lands. His consultancy is
a ripening controversy that serve as limited to certain duties which do not include the
drawback’ to his ‘tasks and duties above mentioned.
regarding demolition of illegal
structures’ and that because of the said  Nor is the petitioner an owner of an urban
sections, he ‘is unable to continue the property whose enjoyment and use would be
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


demolition of illegal structures which affected by the challenged provisions.
he assiduously and faithfully carried out
in the past.’ As a taxpayer, he alleges  Although petitioner likewise anchors his locus
that ‘he has direct interest in seeing standi on the fact that he is a taxpayer, it does not
that the public funds are properly and mean, however, that in each and every instance
lawfully disbursed.’ where such a ground is invoked, this court is left
with no alternative except to hear the parties.

Mariano Jr. v. Petitioners assail the constitutionality Sec 51. The present ISSUE 1: Do petitioners have locus standi?  NO.
COMELEC of Section 51, Article X or RA # 7854 elective officials of
saying that it collides with Section 8, the Municipality of  Petitioners are residents of Taguig (except for
Article X and Section 7, Article VI of the Makati shall Mariano) and therefore are not the proper parties
constitution. They stress that under continue as the to raise this abstract issue. Also, petition is
these provisions, elective officials, officials of Makati premised on the occurrence of many contingent
including members of the House of and shall exercise events like Mayor Binay will run again in the coming
Representatives, have a term of 3 years their powers and mayoralty elections, and that he would seek re‐
and are prohibited from serving for functions until such election for the same post in the 1998 elections.
more than 3 consecutive terms. They time that a new These are merely hypothetical issues which have
argue that by providing that the new election is held and yet to ripen to an actual case or controversy.
city shall acquire a new corporate the duly elected
existence, section 51 of RA 7854 officials shall have
restarts the term of the present already qualified
municipal elective officials of Makati and assume their
and disregards the terms previously offices: Provided,
served by them. They argue that The new city will
respondent Mayor Jejomar Binay can acquire a new
still run for the same position and seek corporate
another 3‐year consecutive term since existence. The
his previous 3‐year consecutive term as appointive officials
municipal mayor would not be counted. and employees of
the city shall
likewise continue
exercising functions
and duties and they
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


shall be
automatically
absorbed by the city
government of the
City of Makati.
Sec. 8 The term of
the office of
elective local
officials, except
barangay officials,
which shall be
determined by law,
shall be three years
and no such official
shall serve for more
that three
consecutive terms.
Xxx
Sec. 7 the members
of the House of
Representatives
shall be elected for
a term of three
years which shall
begin, unless
otherwise stated by
law, at noon on the
thirtieth day of June
next following their
election. Xxx
Oposa v. Petitioners are minors represented by ISSUE 1: Do the petitioners have locus standi? 
Factoran Jr. their respective parents. They allege YES
that they are all citizens of the
Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to  Petitioners assert that they represent their
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


the full benefit, use and enjoyment of generation as well as generations yet unborn. Their
the natural resource treasure that is the personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding
country’s virgin tropical rainforests. generations can only be based on the concept of
They further asseverate that they intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right
represent their generation as well as to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.
generations yet unborn. Consequently, Needless to say, every generation has a
it is prayed for that judgment be responsibility to the next to preserve nature.
rendered to (a) cancel all existing
timber license agreements in the
country (b) cease and desist from
receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing or approving new timber
license agreements.
Kilosbayan v. This is a special civil action for ISSUE 1: Do petitioners have locus standi? YES
Guingona Jr. prohibition and injunction, with a
prayer for a temporary restraining  The court resolved to set aside the procedural
order and preliminary injunction which technicality in view of the importance of the issues
seeks to prohibit and restrain the raised. The court adopted the liberal policy on locus
implementation of the ‘Contract of standi to allow taxpayers, members of the congress,
Lease’ executed by the PCSO and the and non‐profit civic organizations to initiate and
Philippine Gaming Management prosecute actions to question the validity or
Corporation in connection with the constitutionality of laws, acts, decisions, or rulings
online ‘lotto’ system. of various government agencies or
Petitioners oppose the setting up of the instrumentalities.
online lotto system on the bases of
serious moral and ethical
considerations.
Tatad v. Oil Ponente: Puno, J. Art VI, Sec. 1. The CONNECTION TO ARTICLE VIII:
Secretary of the Deregulation legislative power Although this case was placed in Art. VI (Legislative
Department of Law The petitioners at bar challenge the shall be vested in Department), this case may be connected to the
Energy constitutionality of RA 8180: “An Act the Congress xxx Judicial Department because it speaks of locus
Non‐ Deregulating the Downstream Oil except to the extent standi. The petitioners have locus standi, meaning
G.R. Nos. delegability of Industry and For Other Purposes,” reserved to the that they qualify to challenge the legality of official
124360 and legislative which ends 26 years of government people by the acts done by the government. In this case, it was to
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


127867 power regulation of the downstream oil provision on assail the constitutionality of RA 8180 due to the
industry. initiative and depletion of the OPSF fund, a condition that wasn’t
November 5, Locus Standi referendum. found in such RA that would justify the President’s
1997 The deregulation phase has 2 phases: act of fully deregulating the oil industry.
1. The transition and Art VIII, Sec. 5 (1).
pp. 65‐68 2. The full deregulation phase. Exercise original ISSUE 1: Whether or not Section 15 of the RA 8180
jurisdiction over is constitutional.  NO. Section 15 of R.A. 8180 is
The first phase was commenced on cases affecting xxx unconstitutional.
August 12, 1996. The second phase and over petitions
implemented the full deregulation of for certiorari RATIO:
the Downstream Oil Industry through prohibition,  Administrative agencies may not issue
EO 372 on February 8, 1997. mandamus, quo regulations that contravene law. The Court
warranto, and invalidated EO 392 because in effecting the full
EO 372, on the other hand, speaks how habeas corpus. deregulation of the oil industry, President Ramos
President Ramos implemented the full added a standard, which did not appear in the
deregulation phase. Petitioners delegating law, RA 8180.
basically target Section 15 of RA 8180
for it assigns legislative power to the The standards set by the law were:
president and the Department of 1. The time when the price of crude oil and
Energy. petroleum products in the world market
were declining, and
(EO 372 is about how RA 7638 2. When the exchange rate of the Peso to the
(“Department of Energy Act of 1992”) US Dollar was stable.
provides that at the end of 4 years from
its December 1992 approval, the  EO 392 considered the depletion of the OPSF as
president will institute programs and the 3rd factor for ordering the early implementation
timetable the deregulation of of full oil deregulation. The Court holds that the
appropriate energy projects and Executive Department failed to follow faithfully the
activities of the energy sector, as sworn standards set by RA 8180 when it considered the
to by President Fidel Ramos with the extraneous factor of depletion of the OPSF fund.
powers vested in him by law to declare Such consideration amounts to a rewriting of the
the full deregulation of the downstream standards set forth in the RA 8180.
oil industry.)
 On the basis of the text of EO 392, it is
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


In another case (GR 127867), impossible to determine the weight given by the
petitioners Edcel Lagman, Joker Arroyo, Executive department to the depletion of the OPSF
Enrique Garcia, Wigberto Tañada, the fund. It could well be the principal consideration
Flag Human Rights Foundation, Inc., the for the early deregulation. The Court rules that the
Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) and early deregulation under EO 392 constitutes a
Sanlakas, also contest the misapplication of RA 8180.
constitutionality of Section 15 of RA
8180 and EO 392, the latter because
implementing the full deregulation of
downstream oil industry is
unreasonable because it was made due
to the depletion of the OPSF (Oil Price
Stabilization Fund), a condition that
wasn’t found in RA 8180.
Kilosbayan v. The Kilosbayan, Inc. is an organization Rule 3, §2 of the ISSUE 1: Whether or not the petitioners have claim
Morato Petition to described in its petition as "composed Rules of Court: on the case?  NO.
invalidate ELA of civic‐spirited citizens, pastors, "Every action must
GR 118910 dismissed priests, nuns and lay leaders who are be prosecuted and  Petitioners have neither standing to bring this
committed to the cause of truth, defended in the suit nor substantial interest to make them real
July 17, 1995 Rule on locus justice, and national renewal." name of the real parties in interest within the meaning of Rule 3 §2.
standi vs. Rule On January 25, 1995, the parties signed party in interest." Petitioners do not have such present substantial
pp 605‐613 on real parties an Equipment Lease Agreement interest in the ELA as would entitle them to bring
in interest (hereafter called ELA) whereby the this suit. Denying to them the right to intervene will
PGMC leased on‐line lottery equipment not leave without remedy any perceived illegality in
and accessories to the PCSO in the execution of government contracts. Questions
consideration of a rental equivalent to as to the nature or validity of public contracts or the
4.3% of the gross amount of ticket sales necessity for a public bidding before they may be
derived by the PCSO from the operation made can be raised in an appropriate case before
of the lottery which in no case shall be the Commission on Audit or before the
less than an annual rental computed at Ombudsman.
P35,000.00 per terminal in commercial
operation.  A determination of the petitioners' right to bring
On February 21, 1995 this suit was filed this suit is not precluded or barred by the decision
seeking to declare the ELA invalid on in the prior case between the parties.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


the ground that it is substantially the
same as the Contract of Lease nullified  The ELA, which petitioners seek to declare
in the first case. invalid in this proceeding, is essentially different
Respondents question the right of from the 1993 Contract of Lease entered into by the
petitioners to bring this suit on the PCSO with the PGMC. Hence the determination in
ground that, not being parties to the the prior case (G.R. No. 113375) that petitioners
contract of lease which they seek to had standing to challenge the validity of the 1993
nullify, they have no personal and Contract of Lease of the parties does not preclude
substantial interest likely to be injured determination of their standing in the present suit.
by the enforcement of the contract. SEE also RATIO in Gonzales v. Narvasa…
Petitioners on the other hand contend
that the ruling in the previous case
sustaining their standing to challenge
the validity of the first contract for the
operation of lottery is now the "law of
the case" and therefore the question of
their standing can no longer be
reopened.
J. REGALADO DISSENTING:
 It is true that a right of action is the right or standing to enforce a cause of action. For its purposes, the majority urges the
adoption of the standard concept of a real party in interest based on his possession of a cause of action. It could not have failed to
perceive, but nonetheless refuses to concede, that the concept of a cause of action in public interest cases should not be
straitjacketed within its usual narrow confines in private interest litigations.
 Indeed, if the majority would have its way in this case, there would be no available judicial remedy against irregularities or
excesses in government contracts for lack of a party with legal standing or capacity to sue.
 The majority has apparently forgotten its own argument that in the present case petitioners are not the real parties, hence they
cannot avail of any remedial right to file a complaint or suit. It is, therefore, highly improbable that the Commission on Audit
would deign to deal with those whom the majority says are strangers to the contract. Again, should this Court now sustain the
assailed contract, of what avail would be the suggested recourse to the Ombudsman?
 I repeat what I said at the outset that this case should be decided on the merits and on substantive considerations, not on dubious
technicalities intended to prevent an inquiry into the validity of the supposed amended lease contract. The people are entitled to
the benefit of a duly clarified and translucent transaction, just as respondents deserve the opportunity xxx
 To pay unqualified obeisance to the beguiling locus standi or right of action doctrines posited by the majority in this case would
not only be an abdication of a clear judicial duty. It could conceivably result in depriving the people of recourse to us from dubious
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


government contracts through constitutionally outdated or procedurally insipid theories for such stultification. This is a
contingency which is not only possible, but probable under our oligarchic society in esse; and not only undesirable, but repugnant
within a just regime of law still in posse.
Telebap v. B.P. BLG. 881 Petitioner Telecommunications and Doctrine: ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT TELEBAP has a legal
COMELEC GMA Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines,  A citizen will be standing?  NO.
Inc. is an organization of lawyers of allowed to raise
GR 132922 radio and television broadcasting a constitutional  Members of petitioner have not shown that they
companies. They are suing as citizens, question only have suffered harm as a result of the operation of
April 21, 1998 taxpayers, and registered voters. when he can §92 of B.P. Blg. 881.
The other petitioner, GMA Network, show that he
Pp 614‐615 Inc., operates radio and television has personally  Nor do members of petitioner TELEBAP have an
broadcasting stations throughout the suffered some interest as registered voters since this case does not
Philippines under a franchise granted actual or concern their right of suffrage. A party suing as a
by Congress. threatened taxpayer must specifically show that he has a
Petitioners challenge the validity of §92 injury as a sufficient interest in preventing the illegal
on the ground (1) that it takes property result of the expenditure of money raised by taxation and that
without due process of law and without allegedly illegal he will sustain a direct injury as a result of the
just compensation; (2) that it denies conduct of the enforcement of the questioned statute.
radio and television broadcast government;
companies the equal protection of the the injury fairly  TELEBAP have NO standing to assert the rights of
laws; and (3) that it is in excess of the is fairly radio and television broadcasting companies. The
power given to the COMELEC to traceable to the mere fact that TELEBAP is composed of lawyers in
supervise or regulate the operation of challenged the broadcast industry does not entitle them to
media of communication or action; and the bring this suit in their name as representatives of
information during the period of injury is likely to the affected companies.
election. be redressed by
a favorable ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT GMA has a legal
action. standing?  YES

 GMA operates radio and television broadcast
stations in the Philippines affected by the
enforcement of §92 of B.P. Blg. 881 requiring radio
and television broadcast companies to provide free
air time to the COMELEC for the use of candidates
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


for campaign and other political purposes.
Petitioner claims that it suffered losses running to
several million pesos in providing COMELEC Time in
connection with the 1992 presidential election and
the 1995 senatorial election and that it stands to
suffer even more should it be required to do so
again this year. Petitioner's allegation that it will
suffer losses again because it is required to provide
free air time is sufficient to give it standing to
question the validity of §92.

Gonzalez v. EO 43‐ PCCR Ramon A. Gonzales, in his capacity as a Doctrine/s: ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT the petitioner has a
Narvasa citizen and taxpayer, assails the  An action is standing as a citizen and taxpayer?  NO.
constitutionality of the creation of the considered
Preparatory Commission on “moot” when it  In Kilosbayan, Incorporated v. Morato, we denied
Constitutional Reform (PCCR) and of no longer standing to petitioners who were assailing a lease
the positions of presidential presents a agreement between the Philippine Charity
consultants, advisers and assistants. justiciable Sweepstakes Office and the Philippine Gaming
Respondent Hon. Andres R. Narvasa, controversy Management Corporation, stating that,
impleaded in his capacity as Chairman because the … in Valmonte v. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
of the PCCR. issues involved Office, G.R. No. 78716, Sept. 22, 1987, standing was
The Preparatory Commission on have become denied to a petitioner who sought to declare a form
Constitutional Reform (PCCR) was academic or of lottery known as Instant Sweepstakes invalid
created by President Estrada on dead. because, as the Court held,
November 26, 1998 by virtue of  A citizen Valmonte brings the suit as a citizen, lawyer,
Executive Order No. 43 (E.O. No. 43) in acquires taxpayer and father of three (3) minor children. But
order “to study and recommend standing only if nowhere in his petition does petitioner claim that
proposed amendments and/or revisions he can establish his rights and privileges as a lawyer or citizen have
to the 1987 Constitution, and the that he has been directly and personally injured by the
manner of implementing the same. suffered some operation of the Instant Sweepstakes. xxx He must
Petitioner disputes the constitutionality actual or be able to show, not only that the law is invalid, but
of the PCCR on two grounds: threatened also that he has sustained or in immediate danger
 it is a public office which only the injury as a of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its
legislature can create by way of a result of the enforcement, and not merely that he suffers
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


law allegedly illegal thereby in some indefinite way xxx
 creating such a body the President conduct of the We apprehend no difference between the
is intervening in a process from government; petitioner in Valmonte and the present
which he is totally excluded by the the injury is petitioners. Petitioners do not in fact show what
Constitution – the amendment of fairly traceable particularized interest they have for bringing this
the fundamental charter to the suit. xxx
It is alleged by respondents that, with challenged
respect to the PCCR, this case has action; and the  Petitioner has not shown that he has sustained
become moot and academic. injury is likely to or is in danger of sustaining any personal injury
In addition to the mootness of the be redressed by attributable to the creation of the PCCR.
issue, petitioner’s lack of standing a favorable
constitutes another obstacle to the action.
successful invocation of judicial power  A taxpayer is
insofar as the PCCR is concerned. deemed to have
the standing to
raise a
constitutional
issue when it is
established that
public funds
have been
disbursed in
alleged
contravention
of the law or
the
Constitution.
DEL MAR, ET. These two consolidated petitions Doctrine: ISSUE 1: Do petitioners have locus standi?  YES.
AL. V. PAGCOR PAGCOR’s Jai concern the issue of whether the Taxpayers are
GR 138298 Alai franchise granted to the Philippine allowed to sue  Petitioners complain that the operation of jai‐
Nov. 29, 2000 Amusement and Gaming Corporation where there is a alai constitutes an infringement by PAGCOR of the
PP 616‐619 (PAGCOR) includes the right to manage claim of illegal legislature’s exclusive power to grant franchise. To
and operate jai‐alai. disbursement of the extent the powers of Congress are impaired, so
The Philippine Amusement and Gaming public funds, that is the power of each member thereof, since his
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Corporation is a government‐owned public money is office confers a right to participate in the exercise
and controlled corporation organized being deflected to of the powers of that institution, so petitioners
and existing under Presidential Decree any improper contend.
No. 1869 which was enacted on July 11, purpose,or where
1983. petitioners seek to  As presciently stressed in the case of Kilosbayan,
PAGCOR entered into restrain respondent Inc., viz:
an Agreement with private respondents from wasting public “We find the instant petition to be of
Belle Jai Alai Corporation (BELLE) and funds through the transcendental importance to the public. The
Filipinas Gaming Entertainment enforcement of an issues it raised are of paramount public interest and
Totalizator Corporation (FILGAME) invalid or of a category even higher than those involved in
wherein it was agreed that BELLE will unconstitutional many of the aforecited cases. The ramifications of
make available to PAGCOR the required law. such issues immeasurably affect the social,
infrastructure facilities including the economic, and moral well‐being of the people even
main fronton, as well as provide the A member of the in the remotest barangays of the country and the
needed funding for jai‐alai operations House of counter‐productive and retrogressive effects of the
with no financial outlay from PAGCOR, Representatives has envisioned on‐line lottery system are as staggering
while PAGCOR handles the actual standing to as the billions in pesos it is expected to raise. The
management and operation of jai‐alai. maintain inviolate legal standing then of the petitioners deserves
Petitioners Raoul B. del Mar, Federico S. the prerogatives, recognition x x x.”
Sandoval II, Michael T. Defensor, and powers and
intervenor Juan Miguel Zubiri, are suing privileges vested by
as taxpayers and in their capacity as the Constitution in
members of the House of his office.
Representatives representing the First
District of Cebu City, the Lone
Congressional District of Malabon‐
Navotas, the Third Congressional
District of Quezon City, and the Third
Congressional District of Bukidnon,
respectively.
Respondents allege that petitioners
have no legal standing to file a
taxpayer’s suit because the operation
of jai‐alai does not involve the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


disbursement of public funds.
MATIBAG V. Petitioner Ma. J. Angelina G. Matibag Doctrine: ISSUE 1: WHETHER OR NOT the petitioner has a
BENIPAYO COMELEC Ad‐ questions the constitutionality of the COMELEC locus standi?  YES.
GR 149036 interim appointment and the right to hold Resolution No. 3300
April 2, 2002 appointments office of Alfredo L. Benipayo as does not require  Petitioner has a personal and substantial stake in
Chairman of the Commission on that every transfer the resolution of the constitutionality of Benipayo’s
Reassignment Elections et al or reassignment of assumption of office.
of Matibag to On March 22, 2001, President Gloria COMELEC personnel
law Macapagal Arroyo appointed, ad should carry the  If Benipayo is not the lawful COMELEC Chairman
department interim, Benipayo as COMELEC concurrence of the because he assumed office not in accordance with
Chairman, and Borra and Tuason as COMELEC as a the Constitution, then petitioner’s reassignment is
COMELEC Commissioners, each for a collegial body. illegal and she has a cause to complain provided the
term of seven years and all expiring on The COMELEC reassignment is not in accordance with the Civil
February 2, 2008. Chairman is the Service Law.
Further renewals of appointments for official expressly
same term of seven years were made authorized by law  In any event, the issue raised by petitioner is of
on June 1, 2001, June 8, 2001, and to transfer or paramount importance to the public. The legality of
September 6, 2008 because of the reassign COMELEC the directives and decisions made by the COMELEC
failure of CA to act on it before personnel. in the conduct of the May 14, 2001 national
Congress adjourns. elections may be put in doubt if the constitutional
Petitioner was removed as Director IV issue raised by petitioner is left unresolved.
of the EID and her reassignment to the Petition dismissed. Reassignment authorized.
Law Department by Benipayo.
Tatad v. Oil Ponente: Puno, J. Art VI, Sec. 1. The ISSUE 1: Whether or not the petitioners have Locus
Secretary of the Deregulation legislative power Standi  YES.
Department of Law The petitioners at bar challenge the shall be vested in
Energy constitutionality of RA 8180: “An Act the Congress xxx  The petitioners have locus standi, meaning that
Non‐ Deregulating the Downstream Oil except to the extent they qualify to challenge the legality of official acts
G.R. Nos. delegability of Industry and For Other Purposes,” reserved to the done by the government. In this case, it was to
124360 and legislative which ends 26 years of government people by the assail the constitutionality of RA 8180 due to the
127867 power regulation of the downstream oil provision on depletion of the OPSF fund, a condition that wasn’t
industry. initiative and found in such RA that would justify the President’s
November 5, Locus Standi referendum. act of fully deregulating the oil industry.
1997 The deregulation phase has 2 phases:
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


3. The transition and Art VIII, Sec. 5 (1).
pp. 65‐68 4. The full deregulation phase. Exercise original
jurisdiction over
The first phase was commenced on cases affecting xxx
August 12, 1996. The second phase and over petitions
implemented the full deregulation of for certiorari
the Downstream Oil Industry through prohibition,
EO 372 on February 8, 1997. mandamus, quo
warranto, and
EO 372, on the other hand, speaks how habeas corpus.
President Ramos implemented the full
deregulation phase. Petitioners
basically target Section 15 of RA 8180
for it assigns legislative power to the
president and the Department of
Energy.

(EO 372 is about how RA 7638
(“Department of Energy Act of 1992”)
provides that at the end of 4 years from
its December 1992 approval, the
president will institute programs and
timetable the deregulation of
appropriate energy projects and
activities of the energy sector, as sworn
to by President Fidel Ramos with the
powers vested in him by law to declare
the full deregulation of the downstream
oil industry.)

In another case (GR 127867),
petitioners Edcel Lagman, Joker Arroyo,
Enrique Garcia, Wigberto Tañada, the
Flag Human Rights Foundation, Inc., the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) and
Sanlakas, also contest the
constitutionality of Section 15 of RA
8180 and EO 392, the latter because
implementing the full deregulation of
downstream oil industry is
unreasonable because it was made due
to the depletion of the OPSF (Oil Price
Stabilization Fund), a condition that
wasn’t found in RA 8180.
Bayan v. Ponente: Buena, J. Art VIII, Sec. 1 (2). CONNECTION TO ARTICLE VIII:
Executive Judicial power Although this case was placed in Art. VII (Executive
Secretary March 14, 1947  PH and the US includes the power Department), this case may be connected to the
forged a Military Bases Agreement xxx to determine Judicial Department because it speaks of alleged
GR 138570 which formalized, among others, the whether or not grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch
use of installations in the Philippine there has been a or instrumentality of the government, pursuant to
October 10, territory by US military personnel. grave abuse of Section 1 of Article VIII.
2000 discretion
August 30, 1951  To further amounting to lack In the case at bar, the petitioners allege that the
pp. 547‐564 strengthen their defense and security or excess of President committed grave abuse of discretion by
relationship, both countries entered jurisdiction on the entering into international agreements without the
into a Mutual Defense Treaty. part of any branch required concurrence votes of the Senate. However,
or instrumentality the Court ruled that the Constitution vests in the
In view of the expiration of the RP‐US of the government. President the power to enter into executive
Military Bases Agreement both agreements without such concurrence from the
countries negotiated for its possible Senate. The President was merely exercising a given
extension. right. Furthermore, there is no occasion for the
Court to exercise its corrective power. It has no
September 16, 1991  The PH Senate power to look into what it thinks is an apparent
rejected the extension of the US error.
military bases, which was now called
the RP‐US Treaty of Friendship, ISSUE 1: Whether or not the VFA is governed by the
Cooperation and Security. provisions of Art. 7, Sec. 21, or Art. 18, Sec. 25, of
the 1987 Constitution.  Article 18, Section 25
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


During the term of Pres. Ramos, he should apply.
approved the Visiting Forces
Agreement, which was the result of a RATIO 1:
negotiation on “the complementing  Art. 18, Sec. 25, should apply to this case
strategic interests of the US and the because it is a special provision that specifically
Philippines in the Asia‐Pacific region”. deals with treaties involving foreign military bases,
It provides for the mechanism for troops, or facilities.
regulating the circumstances and
conditions under which the US Armed (Art VII, Sec. 21:  This section disallows for foreign military bases,
Forces and defense personnel may be No treaty or troops, or facilities in the country, unless the ff: had
present in the PH. international been sufficiently met:
agreement shall be 1. It must be under a treaty
October 5, 1998  Pres. Joseph valid and effective 2. The treaty must be duly concurred in by the
Estrada, through respondent Secretary unless concurred in Senate, and when so required by Congress,
of Foreign Affairs Domingo Siazon, by at least two‐ ratified by a majority of the votes cast by
ratified the VFA. thirds of all the the people in a national referendum
Members of the 3. Recognized as a treaty by the other
The Instrument of Ratification, the Senate.) contracting State.
letter of the President and the VFA  The VFA possesses the first two requisites with
were then transmitted to the Philippine regards to the proscription of the VFA.
Senate for concurrence pursuant to Sec
21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.  Although the Court ruled that Art. 18, Sec. 25
(Relevant: Article would prevail in this case, Art. 7, Sec. 21, may also
The necessary 2/3 votes of the XVIII, Sec. 25. After be applied, but it will be in a limited sense, for it will
members of the Senate were gathered the expiration in address only the sole purpose of determining the
thus concurring with the ratification of 1991 of the number of votes required to obtain the valid
the VFA under Resolution No. 18. Agreement concurrence of the Senate. In effect, even though
between the RP and Art. 18, Sec. 25 was the law applicable to the case
June 1, 1999  VFA officially entered the US concerning at bar, its “concurrence requirement” was subject to
into force after the Exchange of Notes military bases, the provisions of Art. 7, Sec. 21.
between Siazon and the Us foreign military o It was held that the Agreement was still valid,
Ambassador, Hubbard. bases, troops, or binding, and effective, without the concurrence
facilities shall not be by at least 2/3 of the members of the Senate,
Petitioners argue that the VFA is allowed in the PH pursuant to Art. 7, Sec. 21.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


governed by the provision of Article 18, except under a o One type of executive agreement is a treaty or a
Sec. 25 of the 1987 Constitution, treaty duly treaty‐implementing executive
considering that the VFA has for its concurred in by the agreement, which necessarily would cover the
subject the presence of foreign military Senate and, when same matters subject of the underlying treaty.
troops in the Philippines. the Congress so o What the Constitution merely prescribes is that
requires, ratified by treaties need the concurrence of the Senate by a
Respondents maintain that Article 7, a majority of the vote defined therein to complete the ratification
Sec. 21, should apply because the VFA votes cast by the process. The Court has in Eastern Sea Trading,
is not a basing arrangement but an people in a national as reiterated in Bayan, given recognition to the
agreement which involves merely the referendum held for obligatory effect of executive agreements
temporary visits of US personnel that purpose, and without the concurrence of the Senate.
engaged in joint military exercises. recognized as a
treaty by the other ISSUE 2: Whether or not the agreement was
contracting State.) contracted validly, meaning Whether or not the
respondents gravely abused their discretion in
concluding it, pursuant to Art. 7, Sec. 21.  YES.

RATIO 2:
 Yes, it is valid. There was no grave abuse of
discretion.

 The Constitution vests in the President the
power to enter into international agreements,
subject, in appropriate cases, to the required
concurrence votes of the Senate. But as earlier
indicated, executive agreements may be validly
entered into without such concurrence.

 It is the Court’s considered view that the
President, in ratifying the VFA and in submitting the
same to the Senate for concurrence, acted within
he confines and limits of the powers vested in him
by the Constitution. He honestly believed that the
VFA fell within the ambit of Art. 7, Sec. 21, referring
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


the VFA for the concurrence of the Senate, when he
should have been adhering to Art. 18, Sec. 25
instead. Certainly, no abuse of discretion was made
because there was no act that was committed that
showed an abuse of patent, gross, and capricious
manner.

 The rationale behind this principle is the
inviolable doctrine of separation of powers among
the legislative, executive and judicial branches of
the government.

IBP v. Zamora President Ponente: Kapunan, J. Art. VII, Sec. 18. CONNECTION TO ARTICLE VIII:
Estrada The President shall Although this case was placed in Art. VII (Executive
GR 141284 At bar is a special civil action for be Commander‐in‐ Department), this case may be connected to the
TRO certionari and prohibition with prayer Chief of all the AFT Judicial Department because it speaks of locus
August 15, for issuance of a TRO seeking to nullify and whenever it standi and the power of judicial review. The
2000 Marines on constitutional grounds the order of becomes necessary, petitioners did not have locus standi, meaning that
President Estrada commanding the he may call out such they did not qualify to challenge the legality of
pp. 474‐482 PNP deployment of the Philippine Marines armed forces to official acts done by the government, but in this
to join the Philippine National Police in prevent or suppress case, the Court relaxed its ruling because the issue
Locus standi visibility patrols around the metropolis. lawless violence, was of transcendental importance. This case also
invasion, or speaks about political questions and justiciable
Judicial rebellion. xxx issues.
Review
Art. VIII, Sec. 1 (2). ISSUE 1: Whether or not the petitioners have locus
Judicial power standi.  NO.
includes the duty of
the courts of justice RATIO: No. The power of judicial review imposes
to settle actual the following requisites:
controversies 1. Existence of an actual and appropriate case
involving rights 2. A personal and substantial interest of the
which are legally party (locus standi) raising the
demandable and constitutional question
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


enforceable, and to 3. Case must be filed at the earliest
determine whether opportunity
or not there has 4. The constitutional question is unavoidable
been a grave abuse or is the very lis mota of the case.
of discretion
amounting to lack  The petitioners (The Integrated Bar of the
or excess of Philippines) had no legal standing, but the Court,
jurisdiction on the through its discretion, relaxed its ruling in order to
part of any branch arrive at a resolution, since the issue was of
or instrumentality transcendental importance.
of the government.
ISSUE 2: Whether or not President Estrada was
Art VIII, Sec. 5 (1) justified in invoking his “calling out power”  YES.
Exercise original
jurisdiction over RATIO 2: Yes. The issue was a political question
cases affecting xxx that involved the wisdom, and not the legality of
and over petitions the act. If the Court exercised its power of judicial
for certiorari review over the case, it would be violating the
prohibition, principle of the separation of powers. The Court
mandamus, quo has no jurisdiction over the President’s use of his
warranto, and discretionary power to decide to use his “calling out
habeas corpus. power.”

ISSUE 3: Whether or not the act of deploying the
Marines to join the PNP is a violation of the
supremacy of civilian authority in the country  NO

RATIO 3: No. The deployment of the Marines in
joining the PNP does not violation civilian
supremacy since it is only a joint and mutual
cooperation between the two. There has been
multifarious activities wherein military aid has
rendered exemplifying activities that bring both
civilian and military together in a relationship of
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


communication. Such activities include elections,
administration of the Philippine National Red Cross,
conservation of natural resources, enforcement of
customs laws, sanitary inspections, anti‐drug
enforcement activities, etc.

Macalintal v. Locus standi Ponente: Austria‐Martinez, J. Art VIII, Sec. 5 (1) ISSUE: Whether or not Macalintal possesses locus
Comelec (taxpayer’s Exercise original standi  NO.
suit) Before the Court is a petition for jurisdiction over
GR 157013 certiorari and prohibition filed by cases affecting xxx RATIO: No, BUT the Court relaxed its ruling through
Overseas Romulo B. Macalintal, a member of the and over petitions its own discretion.
July 10, 2003 Absentee PH Bar, assailing the constitutionality of for certiorari
Voting Act certain provisions of RA 9189 (“The prohibition,  The rule on suing as a taxpayer involves that
pp. 618‐619 Overseas Absentee Voting Act of mandamus, quo there must first be an alleged disbursement of
Justiciable 2003”). warranto, and public funds, bringing forth such taxpayer’s right to
controversies habeas corpus. restrain officials from what he would deem an
This is a taxpayer’s suit, for the unconstitutional act, which would result in the
petitioner claims that he has actual and misapplication of public funds.
material legal interest in the subject
matter in seeing to it that public funds  When an action of the legislative branch is
are properly and lawfully used and seriously alleged to have infringed on the
appropriated. Constitution, it becomes not only the right, but in
fact, the duty of the judiciary to settle the
The petitioner claims that the assailed justiciable controversy.
RA misappropriates funds under its
Section 29, in that it provides a  Considering the transcendental importance to
supplemental budget in the General the public of the cases at bar, and in keeping with
Appropriates Act of the year. the Court’s duty of seeing to it that other branches
of the government stay within the limits of the
discretionary powers granted them under the 1987
Constitution, the Court has brushed aside
technicalities of procedure and has taken
cognizance of this petition. The question of
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


propriety of the instant petition was also filed when
there were no other ongoing proceedings.

 The Court decided to disregard the constitutional
issues raised before it, reasoning that it has been
more than 15 years since the ratification of 1987
Constitution, which required Congress to provide a
system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos
abroad. Thus, strong reasons of public policy made
the Court decide to resolve the instant petition to
determine whether or not the Congress acted
within the limits of the Constitution or if it had
gravely abused the discretion granted to it.
White Light Admission Ponente: Tinga, J. Art VIII, Sec. 5 (1) ISSUE 1: Whether or not the petitioners can
Corporation v. Rates in Exercise original represent 3rd parties as intervenors.
City of Manila Hotels, This petition seeks to reverse the jurisdiction over (Petitioners allege that as owners of establishments
Motels, etc. Decision of the Court of Appeals, cases affecting xxx offering “wash up’ rates, their business is being
GR 122846 challenging the validity of Manila City and over petitions unlawfully interfered with by the Ordinance.
Manila City Ordinance No. 7774: “An Ordinance for certiorari Moreover, the equal protection rights of their
January 20, Ordinance Prohibiting Short‐Time Admission, prohibition, clients are also being interfered with. Thus, the
2009 Short‐Time Admission Rates, and mandamus, quo issue is Whether or not these establishments have
Equal Wash‐Up Rate Schemes in Hotels, warranto, and the requisite standing to plead for protection of
pp. 619‐620 protection Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension habeas corpus. their clients’ equal protection rights.)  YES.
rights Houses, and Similar Establishments in
the City of Manila.” RATIO 1: Yes. The petitioners have the right to
assert the constitutional rights of their clients to
(December 15, 1992  The Malate patronize their establishments for a “wash‐rate”
Tourist and Development Corpotation time frame.
(MTDC) filed a complaint for
declaratory relief with prayer for a writ  The doctrine of locus standi is built on the
of preliminary injunction and/or TRO principle of the separation of powers. The judicial
with the RTC of Manila‐Branch 9, branch may not interfere with the actions rendered
impleading as defendant, the City of by its co‐equal branches of government. A “direct
Manila, represented by Mayor Lim.) and personal interest” presents the most obvious
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


cause, as well as the standard test for a petitioner’
The MTDC basically prayed that the standing.
Ordinance (mentioned above), insofar
as it includes motels and inns as among  The three constitutional standing requirements
its prohibited establishments, be are:
declared invalid and unconstitutional. 1. Injury
2. Causation
(December 21, 1992  The petitioners, 3. Redressability.
along with Titanium Corporation (TC)  However, these general rules have exceptions,
and Sta. Mesa Tourist and too, namely:
Development Corporation (STDC), filed 1. Overbreadth doctrine
a motion to intervene and to admit 2. Taxpayer suits
attached complaint‐in‐intervention.) 3. Third party standing (especially in the PH)
4. The doctrine of transcendental importance.
The petitioners basically filed an
intervention based on the ground that  The case at bar applies the overbreadth doctrine
the Ordinance directly affects their and third party standing as exceptions to
business interests as operators of drive‐ constitutional standing. The petitioners (WLC) here
in hotels and motels in Manila. have a close relation to the third parties (TC and
STDC), and that there is also a hindrance to the
December 23, 1992  RTC granted the third party’s ability to protect his/her own interests.
petitioner’s motion to intervene.
 In overbreadth doctrine analysis, the challengers
to government action are permitted to raise the
rights of third parties when a statute needlessly
restrains even constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Here, the petitioners claim that the Ordinance
interferes with the right to liberty of their clients.
Based on the allegations, the Ordinance suffers
from overbreadth. The petitioners may represent
3rd parties as intervenors.
MARCOS V. SEE SECTION 1 CASE B
MANGLAPUS
DAZA V. The manner Raul Daza was a member of the Article VIII, Section ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction?
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


SINGSON of removing Comission of Appointments (CA), 1, of the  YES.
Daza is not a representing LP. LDP reorganized itself Constitution, which
political and 24 members of the LP resigned to includes the  What is involved here is the legality, not the
180 SCR.A. 496 question join LDP. The House withdrew the seat authority to wisdom, of the act of the House in removing Daza
(1989) occupied by Daza and gave this to the determine whether from the CA. It is not a political question. It is a
newly‐ formed LDP. (Chavit Singson). grave abuse of legal question on the manner of filling the CA, as
discretion prescribed in the Constitution. Even assuming that
Daza filed a petition to challenge his amounting to it were a political question, the Courts still have the
removal from the CA. Singson excess or lack of expanded power to check whether grave abuse of
countered by saying that what is jurisdiction has discretion amounting to lack or excess of
involved is a political question. He been committed by jurisdiction has been committed.
argues that nowhere in the Constitution any branch or
is it required that the political party be instrumentality of
registered to be entitled to the government
proportional representation at the CA.
SANTIAGO V. Minority There was an election for Senate The present ISSUE 1: Does the court have jurisdiction over the
GUINGONA leadership President. There were 2 contenders, Constitution now case?  YES.
dispute Senator Fernan and Senator Tatad. By a fortifies the
between vote of 20 to 2, Fernan won as Senate authority of the  It is well within the power and jurisdiction of the
Tatad & President. (The 2 who voted for Tatad courts to determine Court to inquire whether indeed the Senate or its
Guingona were Miriam and Tatad, himself!) in an appropriate officials committed a violation of the Constitution
action the validity or gravely abused their discretion in the exercise of
The majority leader informed the body of the acts of the their functions and prerogatives.
chat he was in receipt of a letter signed political
by the seven Lakas‐NUCD‐UMDP departments.  The Court ruled that the validity of the selection
senators stating that they had elected of members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal by the
Senator Guingona as the minority Judicial power senators was not a political question. The choice of
leader and formally recognized it. includes the duty of these members did not depend on the Senate's "full
the courts of justice discretionary authority," but was subject to
Senators Santiago and Tatad filed xxx to determine mandatory constitutional limitations. Thus, the
before this Court the subject petition whether or not Court held that not only was it clearly within its
for quo warranto, alleging in the main there has been a jurisdiction to pass upon the validity of the selection
that Senator Guingona had been grave abuse of proceedings, but it was also its duty to consider and
usurping, unlawfully holding and discretion
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


exercising the position of Senate amounting to lack determine the issue.
minority leader, a position that, or excess of
according to them, rightfully belonged jurisdiction on the  Justice Feria elucidated in his Concurring
to Senator Tatad. part of any branch Opinion: "[I] concur with the majority that this
or instrumentality Court has jurisdiction over cases like the present . . .
of the Government. so as to establish in this country the judicial
supremacy, with the Supreme Court as the final
arbiter, to see that no one branch or agency of the
government transcends the Constitution, not only
in justiceable but political questions as well."
DAVIDE On Nov. 28, 2001, the 12th congress of Sec 5, Art XI: ‘no ISSUE 1: Is the filing of the second impeachment
IMPEACHMENT the HOR adopted and approved the impeachment complaint against Davide constitutional?  NO.
Rules of Procedure in Impeachment proceedings shall be
(Francisco v. Proceedings, which superseded the initiated against the  The filing of the second impeachment complaint
House of previous one approved by the 11th same official more clearly violates Sec 5, Art XI of the constitution.
Representatives congress. than once within a
(HOR)) period of one year.’ ISSUE 2: Is the resolution thereof a political
On July 22, 2002, the HOR adopted a question?  NO.
GR 160261 resolution which directed the
Committee on Justice to ‘conduct an  MR. CONCEPCION. It definitely does not
investigation, in aid of legislation, on Doctrine: eliminate the fact that truly political questions are
the manner of disbursements and beyond the pale of judicial power. (ConComm)
expenditures by the Chief Justice of the “Political question
SC of the Judiciary Development Fund xxx, under the  It is clear that judicial power is not only a power;
(JDF). Constitution, are to it is a duty which cannot be abdicated by the mere
be decided by the specter of this creature called the political question
On June 2, 2003, then President Erap people in their doctrine.
filed an impeachment complaint against sovereign capacity,
CJ Hilario Davide and seven associate or in regard to  By virtue of Sec. 1, Art. 8, courts can review
justices of the SC for ‘culpable violation which full questions which are not truly political in nature.
of the Constitution, betrayal of public discretionary Section 1, Article VIII, of the Court does not define
trust, and other high crimes.’ The authority has been what are justiciable political questions and non‐
House Committee on Justice ruled that delegated to the justiciable political questions, however.
the said complaint was sufficient in Legislature or Identification of these two species of political
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


form, but insufficient in substance and executive branch of questions may be problematic.
so voted to dismiss it. the Government.”
(CJ Roberto From the cases decided by the Supreme Court,
A day after the dismissal (4 months, 3 Concepcion in parallel guidelines have been adopted by this Court
weeks after filing of complaint), a Tanada v. Cuenco) in the exercise of judicial review:
second complaint was filed by HOR
(Gibo Teodoro et al) against CJ Davide, 1. actual case or controversy calling for the
which was signed by at least 1/3 of all exercise of judicial power
the HOR members. Lis mota
2. the person challenging the act must have
Various petitions contend that the The cause of "standing" to challenge; he must have a
filing of the second impeachment the suit or action. personal and substantial interest in the case
complaint is unconstitutional as it such that he has sustained, or will sustain,
violates Sec 5 of Art XI of the Lis mota of the direct injury as a result of its enforcement
constitution. case:
3. the question of constitutionality must be
(1) whether raised at the earliest possible opportunity
Sections 15 and 16
of Rule V of the 4. the issue of constitutionality must be the
House very lis mota of the case.
Impeachment Rules
adopted by the  The Court found the existence in full of all the
12th Congress are requisite conditions for its exercise of its
unconstitutional for constitutionally vested power and duty of judicial
violating the review over an issue whose resolution precisely
provisions of called for the construction or interpretation of a
Section 3, Article XI provision of the fundamental law of the land.
of the Constitution;
and  This issue is of a genuine constitutional material
which only this Court can properly and competently
(2) whether, as a address and adjudicate…
result thereof, the
second  This Court in the present petitions subjected to
impeachment judicial scrutiny and resolved on the merits only the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


complaint is barred main issue of whether the impeachment
under Section 3(5) proceedings initiated against the Chief Justice
of Article XI of the transgressed the constitutionally imposed one‐year
Constitution. time bar rule. Beyond this, it did not go about
assuming jurisdiction where it had none, nor
indiscriminately turn justiciable issues out of
decidedly political questions. xxx
BUSTOS V. Substantive In this decision to be reconsidered, it Section 11, Rule 108 ISSUE 1: Does Sec 11, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
LUCERO law was cited that ‘the constitutional rights of the Rules of infringe section 5(5) of article VIII of the
Substantive of an accused to be confronted by the Court: constitution and does it deal with substantive
rights witnesses against him does not apply to After the arrest of matters and impair substantive rights? NO
Procedural preliminary hearings; nor will the the defendant and
law absence of a preliminary examination his delivery to  Section 11, Rule 108 is an adjective law and not
be an infringement of his right to court, he shall be a substantive law or a substantive right. As a rule of
confront witness. As a matter of fact, informed of the evidence, it is also procedural.
preliminary investigation may be done complaint or The curtailment of the right of an accused in a
away with entirely without infringing information filed preliminary investigation to cross‐examine the
the constitutional right of an accused against him. He witnesses who had given evidence for his arrest is
under the due process clause to a fair shall also be of such importance as to offend against the
trial.’ informed of the constitutional inhibition. Preliminary investigation is
substance of the not an essential part of due process of law and may
testimony and be suppressed entirely, and if this may be done,
evidence presented mere restriction of the privilege formerly enjoyed
against him, and if thereunder cannot be held to fall within the
he desires to testify constitutional prohibition.
or to present While section 11 of Rule 108 denies defendant the
witnesses or right to cross examine witnesses in a preliminary
evidence in his investigation, his right to present his witnesses
favor, he may be remains unaffected, and his constitutional right to
allowed to do so. be informed of the charges against him both at such
Doctrine/s: investigation and at the trial is unchanged.
Substantive law –
creates substantive
rights; in criminal
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


law, it declares
what acts are
crimes and
prescribes
punishment for
them.
Substantive rights –
rights which one
enjoys under the
legal system prior to
the disturbance of
normal relations.
Procedural law –
provides or
regulates the steps
by which one who
commits a crime is
to be punished.
IN RE Bar Flunkers Believing themselves to be fully RA 972 (Bar ISSUE 1: Is RA 972 constitutional? NO
CUNANAN Act qualified to practice law as those Flunkers Act):
reconsidered and passed by the SC, and ‘An Act to Fix the  Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to
feeling that they have been Passing Marks for the fatal defects of it not being embraced in the
discriminated against, unsuccessful Bar Examinations title. As per its title, the Act should affect only the
candidates who obtained averages of a from 1946 up to bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar examinations. It
few percentages lower than those and including 1955’ was also struck down for allowing partial passing.
admitted to the bar went to congress Section 1 provided
and secured Senate Bill # 12. The bill the following  As to section 1, the portion for 1946 to 1951 was
substantially became law. passing marks: 70% declared unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to
RA 972 has for its object to admit to the for 1946 to 1951 1955 was declared in force and in effect. This was
Bar those candidates who suffered 71% for 1952, 72% because the law itself admits that the candidates
from insufficiency of reading materials for 1953, 73% for for 1946 to 1952 had inadequate preparation due
and inadequate preparations. It is 1954 and 74% for World War II. The law is in effect revoking the
contrary to public interest since it 1955. Provided that resolution of the court on the petitions of the said
qualifies law graduates who had the examinee shall candidates. It is an encroachment on the court’s
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


inadequate preparation for the practice have no grade primary prerogative to determine who may be
of law profession, as evidenced in their lower than 50%. admitted to practice law and, therefore, in excess of
failed exams. Section 2 provided legislative power to repeal, alter and supplement
that a bar candidate the Rules of Court.
who obtained a
grade of 75% in any As to the portion in force and in effect, it may
subject shall be rationally fall within the power of congress to alter,
deemed to have supplement or modify rules of admission to the
already passed that practice of law.
subject and the
grade/grades shall
be included in the
computation of the
general average in
subsequent bar
examinations.
JAVELLANA V. Rule‐making Ponente: Griño,‐Aquino, J. Article 8, Sec. 5(5). ISSUE 1: Whether or not the DLG Memorandum
DILG power Circular violate Article 8, Sec. 5(5) of the 1987
Promulgate rules Constitution? NO
GR 102549 This petition for review on certiorari concerning the
involves the right of a public official to protection and  The petitioner’s contention was COMPLETELY off
City Councilor engage in the practice of his profession enforcement of tangent, meaning it had no relation to the said
was also a while employed in the Government. constitutional provision whatsoever. Neither the statute nor the
August 10, practicing rights, pleading, circular trenches upon the SC’s power and authority

1992 lawyer practice, and to prescribe rules on the practice of law. The LGC
Petitioner is Atty. Erwin Javellana, an procedure in all and DLG Memorandum Circular 90‐81 simply
elected City Councilor of Bago City, courts, the prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to
Negros Occidental. admission to the avoid conflicts of interest between the discharge of
pp. 625‐626 Local practice of law, the their public duties and private practice of their
Government integrated bar, and professions when the laws allow it.
October 5, 1989  City Engineer
Code legal assistance to
Ernesto Divinagracia filed Admin Case xxx xxx xxx xxx
the under‐
C‐10‐90 against Javellana, basically
privileged. Such
alleging that said Javellana (an
rules shall provide a Note: Amendment of rules by Statute.
incumbent City Councilor and a lawyer
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


DLG by profession) has continuously been simplified and
Memorandum working as a lawyer without securing inexpensive Republic v. Judge Guinguyon
Circular the required permit from the Regional procedure for the (GR 166429, February 1, 2006)
Director, Dept. of Local Government, as speedy disposition
required by DLG Memorandum Circular of cases, shall be Sec. 4 of RA 8974 on expropriation (the
No. 80‐38. uniform for all dispossession of someone’s property by the State)
courts of the same for public infrastructure basically says that
grade, and shall not whenever it is necessary to acquire resal property
Javellana responded through this diminish, increase, for any government infrastructure project through
petition, praying that such DLG or modify expropriation, the appropriate agency shall conduct
Memorandum Circular (80‐38, with the substantive rights. the proceedings before the proper court with the
addition of 90‐91 and Section 90 of the Rules of procedure following guidelines:
new Local Government Code (LGC) of special courts Upon filing of the complaint and notice to the
/RA7160) be declared unconstitutional and quasi‐judicial defendant, the implementing agency shall
and null and void because they violate bodies shall remain immediately pay the owner of the property 100% of
Article 8, Sec. 5(5) of the 1987 effective unless the value of the property based on the BIR’s current
Constitution. disapproved by the relevant zonal valuation
Supreme Court. The value of the improvements/structues as
determined under Section 7 of this RA hereof.

This runs counter of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court
which requires only partial deport before entry.
May a statute amend a Rule of Court?

Substantive matters may be embodied in a rule of
procedure, and in this case, Rule 67 contains
matters of substance, BUT the absorption of the
substantive point into a procedural rule does not
prevent the substantive right from being
superseded or amended by a statute.

This is because the creation of property rights is a
matter that is acted upon by the legislature, and not
for the courts to decide upon. Otherwise, it can
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


lead to the absurd situation of the judiciary
shielding laws by making them irrepealable,
absorbing the provisions of law into the rules of
procedure.

The judiciary has the sole prerogative/right to
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and
procedure, and it should be understood that such
rules necessarily pertain to points of procedure, and
not points of substantive law. This privilege was
restored to the judicial department by the 1987
Constitution.
PEOPLE V. Review of (There was no mention of the case here. Art. 8, Sec. 5(2)(d): Note: Reclusión perpetua.
MATEO death penalty This was merely a discussion on the (2) Review, revise,
review of the death penalty, which cited reverse, modify, or Garcia v. People
GR 147678‐87 Life relevant laws, procedures, and affirm on appeal (GR 106531, November 18, 1999)
imprisonment provisions.) or certiorari, as the
July 7, 2004 and afflictive law or the Rules of It is only in cases where the death penalty is
penalties The SC has assumed direct appellate Court may provide, actually imposed that the trial court must forward
pp. 626‐627 review over all criminal cases in which final judgments and the records of the case to the SC (now CA) for
Fundamental the penalty imposed is death, reclusion orders of lower automatic review of the conviction. This right
Law perpetua, or life imprisonment (or courts in: cannot be waived.
lower penalties but involving offenses
Mandatory v. committed on the same occasion, (d) All criminal cases However, in cases imposing reclusión perpetua, the
Intermediate which gave rise such afflictive penalties in which the penalty right to appeal may be waived by the petitioner:
review including life imprisonment). This imposed is reclusión Filing a notice of appeal, or
practice is justified in Article 8, Sec. perpetua or higher. Indicating a desire to appeal from the decision.
Court of 5(2)(d). In the absence of these, the decision becomes final
Appeals and unappealable.
While the Fundamental Law (FL)
Procedural requires a mandatory review of such xxx xxx xxx xxx
matters cases involving those penalties
mentioned above, such FL does not Remember:
require an intermediate review. Death penalty – Death itself by lethal injection
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Life imprisonment – This applies to Special Laws.
The SC requires that the Court of Life imprisonment has no specific extent of
Appeals (CA) review these cases before punishment, but one may have parole any time.
they are sent to the SC because where Reclusion perpetua – (20‐40 years, applying to
life and liberty are at stake, all possible crimes in the RPC). This is translated from Spanish
avenues to determine the guilt or as “life imprisonment,” too, but here, one has the
innocence of the accused must be possibility of pardon/exec clemency after serving
determined. The SC overemphasizes one’s sentence for 30 years.
the evaluation of facts, and a prior
determination by the CA (particularly
on the factual issues) is paramount to
minimizing the possibility of an error in
judgment.

Statistics show that since the
reimposition of the death penalty law in
1993 until June 2004, the cases where
the judgment of death penalty had
either been modified or vacated was
71.77%, the total number of death
penalty cases directly elevated before
the Court on automatic review. With
the final disposition resting on the SC,
651 out of 907 appellants were saved
from lethal injection.

Under Article 8, Sec. 5, the SC has the
power to amend rules of procedure,
since procedural matters fall within the
law‐making privilege of the SC, instead
of the law‐making power of the
Congress.

Procedural matter  The additional
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


rule allowing immediate review by the
CA (an appellate court) before the case
is elevated to the SC on automatic
review.
IN RE: PETITION Bar Ponente: Tinga, J. Art. 8, Sec. 5(5) of ISSUE 1: Whether or not the SC has jurisdiction over
TO DISQUALIFY integration the 1987 the internal matters of the IBP?  YES
ATTY. DE VERA Petitioners: Constitution.
IBP Atty. Oliver Garcia  VP of the Promulgate rules  Yes, pursuant to Art. 8, Sec. 5 of the 1987
AC 6052 Bukidnon IBP Chapter concerning the Constitution, which confers on the SC the power to
IBP By‐Laws Atty. Emmanuel Ravanera  Past protection and promulgate rules affecting the IBP. Implicit in this
December 11, president of the Misamis Oriental IBP enforcement of constitutional grant is the power to supervise all the
2003 Bar Chapter constitutional activities of the IBP, including the election of its
Atty. Tony Velez  Incumbent rights, pleading, officers. This authority over the IBP originates from
pp. 628‐629 president of the Misamis Oriental IBP practice, and the 1935 Constitution, particularly in Art. 8, Sec. 13.
Chapter procedure in all
courts, the  Ironically, the IBP By‐Laws document invoked by
These petitioners mainly seek the admission to the the respondent in asserting IBP independence from
disqualification of respondent Atty. practice of law, the the SC, recognizes the full range of the power of
Leonard De Vera “from being elected integrated bar xxx supervision of the SC over the IBP.
Governor of Eastern Mindanao” in the and shall not
16th Integrated Bar of the Philippines diminish, increase,  Section 77 of the IBP By‐Laws gives the SC power
(IBP) Regional Governors’ elections. or modify to amend, modify, or repeal the IBP By‐Laws
substantive rights. through:
June 9, 2003  respondent filed a Rules of procedure
Respectful Comment on the petition of special courts  Motu proprio (“On his own impulse”)
after seeking a leave of court. and quasi‐judicial
bodies shall remain  Upon recommendation of the Board of
Respondent argues that this Court has effective unless Governors of the IBP.
no jurisdiction over the controversy, disapproved by the
saying that the election of the Officers Supreme Court.  Section 15 of the IBP By‐Laws also authorizes the
of the IBP, including the determination SC to send observes in the IBP elections, whether
of the qualification of those who want Art. 8, Sec. 13 of local or national.
to serve the organization, is purely an the 1935
internal matter, governed by the IBP  Section 44 of the IBP By‐Laws empowers the SC
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


By‐Laws exclusive regulated and Constitution. to have the final decision on the removal of the
administered by the IBP. members of the Board of Governors.
The Supreme Court
shall have the Thus, the SC has jurisdiction over this issue.
power to
promulgate rules xxx xxx xxx xxx
concerning
pleading, practice, Supplementary information
and procedure in all
courts, and the The term, “Bar” refers to the “collectivity of all
admission to the persons whose names appear in the Roll of
practice of law. Said Attorneys”.
rules shall be
uniform for all October 5, 1970  The Court initiated the
courts of the same integration of the PH Bar by creating the
grade and shall not Commission on Bar Integration whose task was to
diminish, increase, ascertain the advisability of unifying the PH Bar.
or modify
substantive rights. RA 6397 was enacted, confirming the power of the
The existing laws on SC to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar.
pleading, practice,
and procedure are January 1, 1973  “In the Matter of the Integration
hereby repealed as of the Bar to the Philippines” was a per curiam
statutes, and are Resolution of the Court which ordained the
declared Rules of Integration of the PH Bar in accordance with Rule
Courts, subject to 139‐A of the Rules of Court, pursuant to the Court’s
the power of the rule‐making power under the 1935 Constitution.
Supreme Court to
alter and modify the
same. The Congress
of the Philippines
shall have the
power to repeal,
alter, or
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


supplement the
rules concerning
pleading, practice,
and procedure, and
the admission to
the practice of law
in the Philippines.

Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.

Provision/s
MACEDA VS. Ombudsman Ponente: Nocon, J. Article VIII, Section ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Office of the
VASQUEZ FALSIFIED 6 of the 1987 Ombudsman could entertain a criminal complaint
CERTIFICATE Petition for certiorari with prayer for Constitution. The for the alleged falsification of a judge’s certification
G.R. No. OF SERVICE preliminary mandatory injunction. Supreme Court shall submitted to the Supreme Court. NO. The Office
102781, Respondent Napoleon A. Abiera of the have Administrative of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction.
Public Attorney’s Office, in his affidavit‐ supervision over all
April 22, 1993 complaint to the Office of the courts and RATIO:
Ombudsman, alleged that petitioner personnel thereof. o Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the Constitution exclusively
p. 629 Maceda had falsified his Certificate of vests in the Supreme Court administrative
Service by certifying that all civil and supervision over all courts and court personnel.
criminal cases submitted for decision No other branch of government may intrude into
have been determined and decided this power, without running afoul the doctrine of
when in fact some were still pending. separation of powers.
Petitioner Maceda counters the o The Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation
allegation by saying that he had been of petitioner on the powers granted to it by the
granted by the Court an extension of 90 Constitution, for such a justification runs counter
days to decide the aforementioned the Constitution and the independence of the
cases. judiciary.
Petitioner also contends that the o Thus the Ombudsman should first refer the
Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over matter of petitioner’s certificates of service to
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


the complaint since the offenses this Court for determination of whether said
charged arose from the judge’s certificates reflected the true status of his
performance of his official duties which pending case load.
is under the supervision and control of WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
the Supreme Court. GRANTED.
PEOPLE VS Reprimand Ponente: Regalado, J. (1) Article VIII, ISSUE 1: Whether or not the decision of the en banc
GACOTT, JR. Section 11 of the and not just of the Second Division of the Court is
Rebuffed by the Court through the 1987 Constitution. needed for the decision to hold respondent
G.R. No. annulment of his order dismissing The Supreme Court administratively liable. NO. The decision of the
116049, Criminal Case No. 11529 of the court a en banc shall have Second Division of the Court is the decision of the
quo, complemented with a reprimand the power to Court. Petitioner misconstrued Article VIII, Sec. 11
July 13, 1995 and a fine of P10,000.oo for gross discipline judges of of the 1987 Constitution.
ignorance of the law, respondent Judge lower courts, or
p. 630 Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr. has filed a order their Ratio 1:
motion for reconsideration and a dismissal by a vote o On the misconstrual of Article VIII, Sec. 11:
supplemental motion for of a majority of the Fortuitously, the writer of this resolution, as a
reconsideration. Members who member of the committee on the Judiciary of the
Respondent judge questions the actually took part in 1986 Constitutional Commission, had the
competence of the Second Division of the deliberations… opportunity to take up the precise matter with
the Supreme Court to administratively (2) Court En Banc the committee chairman, retired Chief Justice
discipline him. Respondent judge Resolution “Bar Roberto Concepcion. Both were in concurrence
anchors his argument on the wording of Matter No. 209. In that the qualification (en banc) was not intended
Article VIII, Section 11 of the 1987 the Matter of the to make a difference, as a reference to the Court
Constitution where he alleged that only Amendment and/or by itself necessarily means the Court en banc and
the en banc/full court may decide on his Clarification of that where the reference is to the Court acting
administrative liability. various Supreme through its divisions, it would necessarily be so
Courts Rules and specified.
Regulations”. Cases o Per the Court En Banc Resolution, entitled “Bar
where the penalty Matter No. 209. In the Matter of the Amendment
to be imposed is the and/or Clarifications of various Supreme Court
dismissal of a judge, Rules and Resolutions”, cases involving
officer or employee reprimand and a fine of P10, 000.00 are not
of the Judiciary, decided en banc.
disbarment… o To require the entire Court to deliberate upon
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


(3) Circular No. 2‐ and participate in all administrative matters or
89. 2. A decision or cases would result in a congested docket.
resolution of a o Per Circular No. 2‐89 pursuant to Section 4(3),
Division of the Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution, a decision or
Court, when resolution of a Division, when concurred in by a
concurred in by a majority, and in no case without concurrence of
majority of its at least 3 members, is a decision or resolution of
members who the Supreme Court.
actually took part in
the deliberations on
the issues… is a
decision or
resolution of the
Supreme Court.
JUDGE OFFICE The present case involves two members Article VIII, Section ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Office of the
CAOIBES, JR. FURNITURE of the judiciary who were entangled in a 6 of the 1987 Ombudsman has jurisdiction over administrative
VS. fight within court premises over a piece Constitution. The cases involving members of the judiciary.NO. The
OMBUDSMAN of office furniture. Supreme Court shall Office of the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction.
have Administrative
G.R. No. supervision over all RATIO:
132177, courts and o Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the Constitution, it is the
personnel thereof. Supreme Court which is vested with exclusive
July 19, 2001 administrative supervision over all courts and its
personnel. In view of this, the Ombudsman
p. 632 cannot determine for itself and by itself whether
a criminal complaint against a judge, or court
employee, involves an administrative matter.
o Ombudsman must give due recognition of the
administrative authority of the Court. It cannot
dictate to, and bind the Court, to its findings that
a case before it does or does not have
administrative implications. To do so would be to
deprive the Court of the exercise of its
administrative prerogatives and to arrogate
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


under itself a power not constitutionally
sanctioned. This impinges on judicial
independence.
o The ruling in Maceda prevails, to allow the
Ombudsman to oversee judges’ and court
personnel’s compliance with all laws, and take
administrative action against them is to violate
the doctrine of separation of powers.

Section 7.
(1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural‐born citizen of the Philippines. A
Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or more, a judge of a lower court or engaged
in the practice of law in the Philippines.cralaw
(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of
the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.cralaw
(3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence

Provision/s
IN RE JBC V. RTC JUDGE Judge Jaime Vega Quitain was (3) A Member of W/N Judge Quitain failed to meet the
JUDGE QUITAIN appointed Presiding Judge of the the Judiciary must qualifications required of appointees to the
Failure to Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch be a person of Judiciary by Sec. 7(3), Article VIII of the
JBC NO. 013 disclose past 10, Davao City on May 17, 2003. proven Constitution? YES
Administrative competence,
August 22, 2007 Order of Subsequent thereto, xxx integrity, probity, WHEREFORE, in view of our finding that JUDGE
dismissal is a administrative and criminal charges and independence. JAIME V. QUITAIN is guilty of grave misconduct
p. 633 grave were filed against Judge Quitain in his which would have warranted his dismissal from
misconduct capacity as then Assistant Regional the service had he not resigned during the
Director, National Police Commission pendency of this case, he is hereby meted the
(NAPOLCOM), xxx Davao City, as a penalty of a fine of P40,000.00.
result of which he was dismissed from
the service xxx It appearing that he has yet to apply for his
retirement benefits and other privileges, if any,
In this case, Judge Quitain failed to the Court likewise ORDERS the FORFEITURE of all
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


disclose that he was administratively benefits, except earned leave credits which Judge
charged and dismissed from the Quitain may be entitled to, and he
service for grave misconduct per A.O. is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from
No. 183 dated April 10, 1995 by no reinstatement and appointment to any branch,
less than the former President of instrumentality or agency of the government,
the Philippines. including government‐owned and/or controlled
corporations.
xxx it can not be denied that at the
time Judge Quitain applied as an RTC
judge, he had full knowledge of A.O.
No. 183 dismissing him from
government service. xxx the OCA
(Office of the Court Administrator)
maintained its recommendation that
Judge Quitain be dismissed from the
service with prejudice to his
reappointment to any position in the
government xxx
KILOSBAYAN V. Ong’s Petitioners are people and/or non‐ ISSUE 1: Whether or not Gregory S. Ong is a
ERMITA & ONG citizenship governmental organizations engaged natural‐born Filipino Citizen? YES
in public and civic causes aimed at
GR 177721 protecting the people’s rights to self‐  It is clear, therefore, that from the records of
governance and justice. this Court, respondent Ong is a naturalized
July 3, 2007 Filipino citizen.
Respondent Executive Secretary is Section 7 (1) of
the head of the Office of the President
Article VIII provides  The series of events and long string of alleged
and is in charge of releasing that “No person changes in the nationalities of respondent Ong’s
presidential appointments including shall be appointed ancestors, by various births, marriages and
those of Supreme Court Justices. Member of the deaths, all entail factual assertions that need to
Supreme Court or be threshed out in proper judicial proceedings so
Respondent Gregory S. Ong is any lower collegiate as to correct the existing records on his birth and
allegedly the party whose court unless he is a citizenship. The chain of evidence would have to
appointment would fill up the vacancy natural‐born citizen show that Dy Guiok Santos, respondent Ong’s
mother, was a Filipino citizen, contrary to what
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


in this Court. of the Philippines.” still appears in the records of this Court.
Petitioners claim that respondent  Respondent Ong has the burden of proving in
Ong is a Chinese citizen, that this fact court his alleged ancestral tree as well as his
is plain and incontestable, and that his Sec. 2 of Art. IV citizenship under the time‐line of three
own birth certificate indicates his defines “natural‐ Constitutions. Until this is done, respondent Ong
Chinese citizenship. The birth born citizens as cannot accept an appointment to this Court as
certificate, petitioners add, reveals those who are that would be a violation of the Constitution.
that at the time of respondent Ong’s citizens of
birth on May 25, 1953, his father was the Philippines from  History:
Chinese and his mother was also birth without having o As to his citizenship, respondent Ong traces
Chinese. to perform any act his ancestral lines to one Maria Santos of
to acquire or Malolos, Bulacan, born on November 25,
Respondent Executive Secretary perfect their 1881, who was allegedly a Filipino citizen who
added that the President appointed Philippine married Chan Kin, a Chinese citizen; that
respondent Ong from among the list Citizenship.” these two had a son, Juan Santos; that in
of nominees who were duly screened 1906 Chan Kin died in China, as a result of
by and bore the imprimatur of the JBC which Maria Santos reverted to her Filipino
created under Article VIII, Section 8 of citizenship; that at that time Juan Santos was
the Constitution. Said respondent a minor; that Juan Santos thereby also
further stated: “The appointment, became a Filipino citizen; that respondent
however, was not released, but Ong’s mother, Dy Guiok Santos, is the
instead, referred to the JBC for daughter of the spouses Juan Santos and Sy
validation of respondent Ong’s Siok Hian, a Chinese citizen, who were
citizenship.” married in 1927; that, therefore,
respondent’s mother was a Filipino citizen at
birth; that Dy Guiok Santos later married a
Chinese citizen, Eugenio Ong Han Seng,
thereby becoming a Chinese citizen; that
when respondent Ong was eleven years old
his father, Eugenio Ong Han Seng, was
naturalized, and as a result he, his brothers
and sisters, and his mother were included in
the naturalization.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Section 8.
(1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the
Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired
Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.

(2) The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a term of four years with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments. Of the Members first appointed, the representative of the Integrated Bar shall serve for four years, the professor of law for three
years, the retired Justice for two years, and the representative of the private sector for one year.

(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex officio of the Council and shall keep a record of its proceedings.

(4) The regular Members of the Council shall receive such emoluments as may be determined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall provide
in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council.

(5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary. It may exercise such other functions and duties as the
Supreme Court may assign to it.

Section 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three
nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.

For the lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the submission of the list.

Section 10. The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower courts, shall be fixed by law.
During their continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased.

Provision/s
NITAFAN V. Withholding Petitioners are RTC Judges in Manila. Section 10. xxx ISSUE 1: Whether or not withholding taxes should
COMMISSION tax deduction During their be deducted to the salaries of all judiciary
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


OF INTERNAL of Judiciary They seek to prohibit CIR and Financial continuance in members?  YES.
REVENUE members Officer of the SC from making any office, their salary
deduction of withholding taxes from shall not be  The payment of such income tax by Justices and
152 SCRA 284 their salaries. decreased. Judges does not fall within the constitutional
(1987) protection against decrease of their salaries during
They submit that any tax withheld from It also means that the continuance of their office.
pp. 635‐639 their emoluments or compensation as Congress may pass
judicial officers constitutes a decrease a law fixing another  The true intent of the framers of the 1987
of their salaries, contrary to section 10, rate of Constitution was to make the salaries of the
Art. 8. compensation but members of the Judiciary taxable.
such rate must be
June 4, 1987  Court en banc released higher than that  Commissioner Rigos: to give substance to
a decision RE: QUESTION OF which they are equality among the three branches of government
EXEMPTION FROM INCOME TAXATION receiving, or if
that the Finance Office of the Court to lower, it would be  Fr. Bernas: So, we put a period (.) after
continue the deduction of the applicable only to ‘DECREASED’ on the understanding that the salary of
withholding taxes from salaries of all those appointed justices is subject to tax
the members of the Judiciary. after its approval.

Section 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy
years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower
courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon.

Provision/s
Vargas v. Security of Ponente: Hidalgo, J. People’s Court Act, ISSUE 1: Whether or not the Congress had the
Rilloraza tenure Sec. 14. Any justice power to add to the pre‐existing grounds of
Such question of unconstitutionality or of the SC who held disqualification of a Justice of the SC, provided for
80 Phil. 297 Section 14 of repugnancy to the Constitution arises any office or in Section 14.  No.
(1948) the People’s in relation to the disqualification of position under the
Court Act certain members of the Supreme Court Philippine Executive RATIO 1:
provided for in Section 14 of the Commission (PEC)  The ground for disqualification added by Section
Disqualification People’s Court Act. or under the 14 of Commonwealth Act 682 to those already
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


of justices government of the existing at the time of the adoption of the
RP may not sit and Constitution and continued by it is not only
vote in any case arbitrary and irrational but also positively violative
brought to that of Organic Law.
Court under section A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. For
13 hereof in which repugnancy to result, there is no requirement of
the accused is a actual removal of the disqualified judges.
person who held Nonetheless, the jurisdiction of the SC in cases can
any office or only be exercised by those justices who are
position under appointed by the President. The deprivation of
either or both the his/her judicial power is equivalent to the
PEC and the RP or deprivation of the judicial power of this court. It is
any branch, also repugnant that the justices in the lower courts
instrumentality, or do not have the same qualifications as those with
agency thereof. the justices of the SC.

If, on account of ISSUE 2: Whether or not a person may act as a
such Justice of the SC who has not been duly appointed
disqualification, or by the President and confirmed by the CA pursuant
because of any of to the Constitution, even only as a “designee”. 
the grounds or No
disqualification of
judges, in Rule 126, RATIO 2:
section 1 of the  Such designation authorized in Section 14 of the
Rules of Court, or People’s Court Act cannot possibly be a compliance
on account of with the provision requiring that appointment.
illness, absence of Additional disqualifying circumstances of the
temporary disability “designee” are the lack of confirmation by or
the requisite consent of the Commission on Appointments. This
number of Justices is another point of repugnancy between the
necessary to challenged section and the Constitution. It is in fact
constitute a saying that the composition of the Court is
quorum or to temporary, when it is not. This Tribunal,
render judgment in established under the Organic Law, is one of the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


any case is not permanent institutions of the government.
present, the
President may ISSUE 3: Whether or not by the method of
designate such “designation” created by the aforecited Section 14
number of Judges of of a Judge of First Instance, Judge‐at‐Large of First
First Instance, Instance, or Cadastral Judge, designated by the
Judges‐at‐large of President under the same section can
First Instance, or constitutionally “sit temporarily as Justice” of the
Cadastral Judges, SC by virtue thereof.  No.
having none of the
disqualifications set RATIO 3:
forth in said section  A temporary member of the Court would be
one hereof, as may misnomer, implying a position not contemplated by
be necessary to sit the constitution. Pursuant to Sections 4 and 5 of
temporarily as Article 8, the framers intended the SC to function
Justice of said through the members who are therein defined, and
Court, in order to by section 6, they determined who may be
form a quorum or appointed by such members. Hence, we do not see
until a judgment in why “designees” in such a case can constitutionally
said case is reached. “sit temporarily as Justices” of the SC.
Therefore, Section 14 of the People’s Court Act is
Article 8, Sec. 4. unconstitutional.
(1) The Supreme
Court shall be
composed of a Chief
Justice and fourteen
Associate Justices.
xxx

Article 8, Sec. 5.
Discusses the
powers of the SC
and where they
have original
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


jurisdiction.

Section 12. The Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi‐
judicial or administrative functions.

Section 13. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation
before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be
issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Members who took no part, or dissented, or abstained
from a decision or resolution, must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.

Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis
therefor.

Provision/s
AIR FRANCE V. First class Ponente: Sanchez, J. Article 8, Sec. 12 of ISSUE 1: Whether or not the CA failed to make
CARRASCOSO seat The case is now before us for review on the 1935 findings of fact on all issues laid before it by
certiorari. Constitution. No Carrasco.  NO.
18 SCRA 155 White man Essential facts decision shall be
(1956) Carrascoso was one of the 28 Filipino rendered by any  The law solely insists that a decision state that
pilgrims who left Manila for Lourdes, court of record the “essential ultimate facts” upon which the court’s
France. Air France, through the without expressing conclusion is drawn. So long as the decision of the
Philippine Air Lines, Inc., issued a “first therein clearly and CA contains the necessary facts to warrant its
class” round trip ticket to Carrascoso distinctly the facts conclusions, it is no error for said court to withhold
from Manila to Rome. However, during and the law on “any specific finding of facts with respect to the
the Manila to Bangkok flight, Carrascoso which it is based. evidence for the defense. The legal presumptions
was forced by the Air France Manager are that official duty has been regularly performed
to vacate his “first class” seat. Section 1, Rule 36, and that all the matters within an issue in a case
Now, the relief petitioner (Air France) Rules of Court, were laid down before the court and passed upon by
seeks that the Court review “all the which basically it.
findings of the Court of Appeals (CA),” states, “a judgment
saying that respondent court failed to determining the
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


make complete finds of fact on all the merits of a case
issues properly laid before it. shall state ‘clearly
Additional facts and distinctly the
In the words of witness Ernesto Cuento, facts and the law on
there was a “white man,” who the Air which it is based.’”
France Manager alleged had a “better
right” to the seat. When Carrascoso Section 4, Rule 51,
was asked to vacate his seat, he Sec. 33(2), Judiciary
naturally refused, telling the Manager Act of 1948, as
that his seat would be taken over his amended, which
dead body. states, “Every
A commotion ensued between decision of the
Carrascoso and the white man, Court of Appeals
thereupon they all came across to shall contain
Carrasoco and pacified him to give his complete findings
seat to the white man. Plaintiff of fact on all issues
reluctantly gave away his “first class” properly raised
seat in the plane.) before it.”
Note: The claim of W/N the ticket was
“first class” or not is immaterial because
the issue at hand is different.
VALDEZ V. A three‐page decision of the trial court ISSUE 1: Did the decision of the Court of Appeals
COURT OF contained in the first two pages a state the finding of facts?  NO
APPEALS statement of the allegations of the
pleadings of the parties and  The said 3‐page decision which contained a
enumerates the witnesses presented statement of allegations, pleadings of parties, and
and the exhibits marked during the trial. enumeration of witnesses was not a clear and
distinct statement of facts in the basis of which the
The court statement in the decision that decision is rendered. A mere conclusion of facts and
a party has proven his case while the the law based on without stating the facts which
other has not, is not the findings of facts serve the basis is not sufficient.
contemplated by the Constitution and
the rules to be clearly and distinctly  This Court is not the trier of facts and it relies on
the facts found by the lower courts and appellate
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


stated. courts. However, the Court had to wade through
records and make its own findings to avoid further
Unfortunately, the appellate court delay.
overlooked this and adopted the
alleged findings of facts of the trial
court. Facts are stated by they are
hardly a substantial compliance with
the mandate.
PEOPLE V. The accused is alleged of committing 4 ISSUE 1: Did the trial court comply with the
LIZADA counts of rape and was convicted by the constitutional requirements?  NO
trial court of the said crimes. However,
it merely summarized the testimonies  Trial courts should not merely provide
of the witnesses and failed to state in testimonies of witnesses of both parties and just
the said decision the factual and legal come out with a conclusion based on those. The trial
basis for the imposition of death court failed to specifically state the facts proven by
penalty on him. the prosecution based on their evidence, the issues
raised by the parties and its resolution of the factual
and legal issues, as well as the legal and factual
bases for convicting the accused‐appellant for the
crimes charged.
VELARDE This petition for review assails the ISSUE 1: Did the decision of the court fail to comply
decision of the lower courts. The main with the requirements of the constitution in its
(Founder, El question is whether or not the act of a written decision?  YES
Shaddai) V. religious leader like any of herein
respondents, in endorsing the  The essential parts of a case are (1) statement of
SOCIAL JUSTICE candidacy of a candidate for elective the case (2) statement of facts (3) issues or
SYSTEM (SJS) office or in urging or requiring the assignment of errors (4) court ruling (5) dispositive
members of his flock to vote for a portion. This case did not include (2) and (5). It
specified candidate, is violative of the cannot simply say a judgment had been rendered
letter or spirit of the constitutional without any justification. Failure to comply with this
provisions. constitutional provision is a grave abuse of
discretion. It must be a nullity and must be struck
The trial court decided that said acts down as void.
were unconstitutional, however it failed
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


to provide a clear and complete ISSUE 2: Are the acts of a religious leader in
decision. It is alleged that the endorsing a candidate violative of the constitution?
questioned decision did not contain a  NO
statement of facts and a dispositive
portion.  The court deems this constitutional issue to be of
‐paramount interest to the Filipino citizenry for it
concerns the governance of our country and its
people. Therefore, despite the obvious procedural
transgressions by both SJS and the trial court, this
court still called for oral argument, so as not to leave
any doubt that there might be room to entertain
and dispose of the SJS Petition on the merits.
 Counsel for SJS however failed to convince the
Court that there are enough factual and legal bases
to resolve this paramount issue. The office of the
Sol. Gen. has sided with the petitioner insofar as
there are no facts supporting the SJS petition and
the assailed decision.

Section 15.
(1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty‐four months from date of submission
for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower
courts.

(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the
Rules of Court or by the court itself.

(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be
issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a decision or
resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period.

(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in
consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination, without further delay.
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Provision/s
RE: PROBLEM OF Sandiganbayan A question is raised on whether or not Article VIII, Section ISSUE 1: Whether or not the reglementary period
DELAYS IN CASES the Sandiganbayan functions as a 15(1) of the 1987 for the resolution of cases prescribed in Section 15
BEFORE THE regular court and is therefore covered Constitution. All of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution applies to
SANDIGANBAYAN by the reglementary period prescribed cases or matters the Sandiganbayan. NO. The prescribed
in Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 filed after the reglementary period does not apply to the
A.M. No. 00‐8‐ Constitution. effectivity of this Sandiganbayan.
05‐SC Constitution must
be decided or RATIO:
November 28, resolved within o The provision does not apply to the
2001 twenty‐four months Sandiganbayan, it refers to regular courts of
from date of lower collegiate level that in present hierarchy
p. 657 submission to the applies only to the Court of Appeals.
Supreme Court… o The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the
Article VIII, Section same level as the Court of Appeals and
15(2) of the 1987 possessing all the inherent powers of a court of
Constitution. A case justice, with functions of a trial court.
or matter shall be o Court Administrator contradicted this view and
deemed submitted distinguished between cases which the
for decision or Sandiganbayan has cognizance of in its original
resolution upon the jurisdiction, and cases which fall within the
filing of the last appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. He
pleading, brief… posited that since in the first class of cases, the
P.D. No. 1606, Sandiganbayan acts more as a trial court, then
Section 6. for that classification of caes, the 3 month
Maximum period reglementary period applies. For the second
for termination of class of cases, the Sandiganbayan has the 12
cases – As far as month reglementary period for collegiate
practicable, the trial courts. However, the Court disagreed with such
of cases before the contention.
Sandiganbayan o Further, Sec. 6 of P.D. No. 1606, the law that
once commenced created the Sandiganbayan, provided that
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


shall be continuous cases, as far as practicable, must be resolved.
until terminated o Also, on September 18, 1984, the
and the judgment Sandiganbayan promulgated its own rule
shall be rendered affirming the 3‐month period prescribed in P.D.
within three (3) No. 1606.
months…

B. COURT Administrative Ponente: Panganiban, J. Cases must be ISSUE 1: Whether or not the respondent judge
ADMINISTRATOR sanctions Respondent judge was charged with attended to within violated the Code of Judicial Conduct YES.
VS. QUIÑANOLA violations of the Code of Judicial the prescribed
A.M. No. MTJ‐ Conduct for allegedly not deciding period. RATIO:
9901216, matters pending before him within the o The Code of judicial Conduct requires judges to
October 20, 1999 period fixed by law. decide cases and matters pending before them
p. 658 within the period fixed by law. A heavy case
load and a poor health may partially excuse
such lapses, only if the judges concerned
request reasonable extensions.
o Respondent judge made no effort to inform the
Court of his reasons for the delay, much less to
request any extension. Respondent even signed
certifications that all cases and motions
pending before him had been attended to
within the prescribed period.
o This court has always emphasized the need and
the imperative for judges to decide cases
promptly and expeditiously within the
constitutionally prescribed 90‐day period.
Failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency
and warrants administrative sanctions.
Note: Taking into account the failing health and
the respondent’s having already compulsorily
retired, he should be fined in the amount of forty
thousand pesos (P40,000).
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻


Section 16. The Supreme Court shall, within thirty days from the opening of each regular session of the Congress, submit to the President and the
Congress an annual report on the operations and activities of the Judiciary.

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

CONSTITUTIONAL*LAW*1* * FR.*JOAQUIN*BERNAS,*S.J.*
*
ARTICLE(IX:(CONSTITUTIONAL(COMMISSIONS(
(
A.(COMMON(PROVISIONS(
(
SECTION(1.((((The(Constitutional(Commissions,(which(shall(be(independent,(are(the(Civil(Service(Commission,(the(Commission(on(Elections,(and(the(
Commission(on(Audit.(
(
Case( Keywords( Facts( Applicable/Violated( Issue(&(Ratio(
Provision/s(
Respondents’$profile:$COMMISSION$ R.A.$No.$9189$created$ I:$W/N$Sections$19$and$25$of$R.A.$No.$9189$
ON$ELECTIONS,$HON.$ALBERTO$ the$JCOC,$as$follows:$ violate$Article$IXeA$(Common$Provisions)$$Section$
Joint(
ROMULO,$in$his$official$capacity$as$ $ 1$of$the$Constitution$
Congressional(
Executive$Secretary,$and$HON.$ SEC.$25.$Joint& Held:$$YES$
Oversight(
EMILIA$T.$BONCODIN,$Secretary$of$ Congressional& • The$second$sentence$of$the$first$paragraph$of$
Committee(
the$Department$of$Budget$and$ Oversight&Committee.$–$ Section$19,$to$wit:$"The$Implementing$Rules$
(
Management.$ xxx$Provided,$That,$of$ and$Regulations$shall$be$submitted$to$the$
$
$ the$seven$(7)$members$ Joint$Congressional$Oversight$Committee$
R.A.(No.(9189$
ROMULO$MACALINTAL,$IBP$member,$ to$be$designated$by$ created$by$virtue$of$this$Act$for$prior$
"An$Act$
submits(that(the(creation(of(the(Joint( each$House$of$ approval;"$and$
Providing$for$
A. MACALINTAL(( Congressional(Oversight(Committee$ Congress,$four$(4)$ • The$second$sentence$in$the$second$
A$System$of$
V.(COMELEC( with$the$power$to$review,$revise,$ should$come$from$the$ paragraph$of$Section$25,$to$wit:$"It$shall$
Overseas$
G.R.$No.$157013$$ amend$and$approve$the$ majority$and$the$ review,$revise,$amend$and$approve$the$
Absentee$
July$10,$2003$ Implementing$Rules$and$Regulations$ remaining$three$(3)$ Implementing$Rules$and$Regulations$
Voting$by$
Pp(659O660( promulgated$by$the$COMELEC,$R.A.$ from$the$minority.$ promulgated$by$the$Commission"$of$the$
Qualified$
No.$9189$intrudes(into(the( ( same$law;$
Citizens$of$the$
independence(of(the(COMELEC$ The(Joint( are$declared$UNCONSTITUTIONAL$&$VOID$for$
Philippines$
which,$as$a$constitutional$body,$is$not$ Congressional( being$repugnant$to$Section$1,$Article$IXeA$of$the$
Abroad,$
under$the$control$of$either$the$ Oversight(Committee( Constitution$mandating$the$independence$of$
Appropriating$
executive$or$legislative$departments$ shall(have(the(power( constitutional$commission,$such$as$COMELEC.$
Funds$
of$government;$that$only$the$ to(monitor(and( $
Therefor,$and$
COMELEC$itself$can$promulgate$rules$ evaluate(the( Ratio:$The$legislative$function$of$Congress$is$not$
for$Other$
and$regulations$which$may$be$ implementation(of(this( to$approve,$review,$revise$and$amend$the$IRR$of$
Purposes”$
changed$or$revised$only$by$the$ Act.(It(shall(review,( the$COMELEC.$$
majority$of$its$members.$ revise,(amend(and( $
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
$ approve(the( The$framers$of$the$Constitution$wanted$
COMELEC$joins$the$petitioner$in$ Implementing(Rules( COMELEC$to$be$independent$from$the$other$
asserting$that$as$an$independent$ and(Regulations( departments$of$the$Government.$
constitutional$body,$it$may$not$be$ promulgated(by(the( $$
subject$to$interference$by$any$ Commission.$(Emphasis$ Congress,$in$both$provisions,$arrogates$unto$itself$
government$instrumentality$and$that$ supplied)$ a$function$not$specifically$vested$by$the$
only$this$Court$may$review$COMELEC$ $ Constitution,$should$be$stricken$out$of$the$
rules$and$only$in$cases$of$grave$abuse$ $ subject$statute$for$constitutional$infirmity.$Both$
of$discretion.$ SEC.$19.$Authority$of$ provisions$brazenly$violate$the$mandate$on$the$
the$Commission$to$ independence$of$the$COMELEC.$
Promulgate$Rules.$–$
The$Commission$shall$
issue$the$necessary$
rules$and$regulations$to$
effectively$implement$
the$provisions$of$this$
Act$within$sixty$(60)$
days$from$the$
effectivity$of$this$
Act.$The(Implementing(
Rules(and(Regulations(
shall(be(submitted(to(
the(Joint(Congressional(
Oversight(Committee(
created(by(virtue(of(
this(Act(for(prior(
approval.$
(
Section(2.(No(member(of(a(Constitutional(Commission(shall,(during(his(tenure,(hold(any(other(office(or(employment.(Neither(shall(he(engage(in(the(
practice(of(any(profession(or(in(the(active(management(or(control(of(any(business(which,(in(any(way,(may(be(affected(by(the(functions(of(his(office,(
nor(shall(he(be(financially(interested,(directly(or(indirectly,(in(any(contract(with,(or(in(any(franchise(or(privilege(granted(by(the(Government,(any(of(its(
subdivisions,(agencies,(or(instrumentalities,(including(governmentOowned(or(controlled(corporations(or(their(subsidiaries.(
(
Section.(3.(The(salary(of(the(Chairman(and(the(Commissioners(shall(be(fixed(by(law(and(shall(not(be(decreased(during(their(tenure.(
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
(
Section(4.(The(Constitutional(Commissions(shall(appoint(their(officials(and(employees(in(accordance(with(law.(
(
Section(5.(The(Commission(shall(enjoy(fiscal(autonomy.(Their(approved(annual(appropriations(shall(be(automatically(and(regularly(released.(
(
Section(6.(Each(Commission(en(banc(may(promulgate(its(own(rules(concerning(pleadings(and(practice(before(it(or(before(any(of(its(offices.(Such(rules,(
however,(shall(not(diminish,(increase,(or(modify(substantive(rights.(
(
Provision/s(
Aruelo$and$Gatchalian$were$rival$ $ $
candidates$in$the$May$11,$1992$ $ I:$W/N$Aruelo$is$correct$in$asserting$the$COMELEC$
elections.$Gatchalian$won$over$Aruelo$ $ Rules$of$Procedure$in$the$filing$of$motions$to$
by$a$margin$of$four$votes,$such$that$on$ $ dismiss$and$bill$of$particulars$
May$13,$1992,$the$Municipal$Board$of$ $ $
Canvassers$proclaimed$him$as$the$duly$ $ Held:$NO,$petition$is$hereby$DISMISSED$
elected$ViceeMayor$of$Balagtas,$ $ $
(
Bulacan.$$ $ Ratio:$
A. ARUELO,(
$ $ Petitioner$filed$the$election$protest$(Civil$Case$No.$e
JR.(V.(CA(&(
June$6,$1992!$COMELEC$denied$ $ 343eMe92)$with$the$Regional$Trial$Court,$whose$
Gatchalian( COMELEC(
Aruelo’s$petition$to$annul$Gatchalian’s$ $ proceedings$are$GOVERNED$by$the$REVISED$RULES$
$ Rules(of(
proclamation$due$to$nonesubmission$of$ Section$2,$Rule$1,$ OF$COURT$and$not$of$the$COMELEC$Rules$of$
G.R.$No.$ Procedure(vs.(
evidence$&$other$supporting$ Part$I$provides:$ Procedure.$$
107852$ Rules(of(
documents.$ $ $
October$20,$ Court(
$ Sec.$2.$ "$See$also$the$applicability$of$COMELEC$Rules$of$
1993$
November$24,$1992!$the$Court$of$ Applicability$—$ Procedure$according$to$rule$1$of$section$2.$
(
Appeals$rendered$a$decision$denying$ These(rules,$except$ $
Pg(661(
Gatchalian's$petition,$but$declared,$at$ Part$VI,(shall(apply( The$COMELEC$cannot$adopt$a$rule$prohibiting$the$
the$same$time,$that$Gatchalian's$ to(all(actions(and( filing$of$certain$pleadings$in$the$regular$courts.$$
Answer$With$CountereProtest$and$ proceedings( $
Counterclaim$was$timely$filed.$$ brought(before(the( The$power$to$promulgate$rules$concerning$
$ Commission.$Part$VI$ pleadings,$practice$and$procedure$in$all$courts$is$
Hence,$This$petition$for$certiorari$and$ shall$apply$to$ vested$on$the$Supreme$Court$(Constitution,$Art$VIII,$
prohibition$to$set$aside$the$Decision$of$ election$contests$ Sec.$5$[5]).$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
the$Court$of$which$ruled$that$the$ and$quo&
answer$and$countereprotest$of$ warranto$cases$
respondent$Danilo$F.$Gatchalian$was$ cognizable$by$courts$
filed$timely$and$ordered$the$Regional$ of$general$or$limited$
Trial$Court,$Branch$17,$Malolos,$Bulacan$ jurisdiction.$
to$continue$with$the$protest$case$ (
proceedings$filed$by$petitioner$Gregorio$
N.$Aruelo,$Jr.$
$
Aruelo$asserts$“Rule$35,$Sec.$7”$and$
“Rule$13,$Sec.1”$of$the$COMELEC$Rules$
of$Procedure.$
This$is$a$petition$for$certiorari$seeking$ COMELEC$“SEC.$ I:$W/N$the$10edayeperiod$as$provided$in$the$$
to$annul$the$order$of$the$Second$ 21.$$Appeal$–$xxx$ Republic$Act$6679$and$the$Omnibus$Election$Code$
Division$of$the$COMELEC,$dismissing$the$ the$aggrieved$party$ should$be$followed$in$filing$an$appeal$involving$an$
appeal$of$petitioner$Rustico$Antonio$for$ may$appeal$to$the$ election$protest$for$a$barangay$position$
having$been$filed$out$of$time$pursuant$ Commission$on$ $
to$COMELEC$Rules$of$Procedure,$and$ Elections$within(five( Held:$NO,$the$COMELEC$is$the$proper$appellate$
the$order$of$the$COMELEC$en$banc,$ (5)(days$after$the$ court$clothed$with$jurisdiction$to$hear$the$appeal,$
B. ANTONIO(
Filing(of(Brgy.( denying$petitioner’s$motion$for$ promulgation$of$the$ which$appeal$must$be$filed$within$five$days$after$the$
V.(
Election( reconsideration.$$ decision.”$ promulgation$of$the$MTC’s$decision.$
COMELEC(
Appeal( $ $ $
(
COMELEC(5O Antonio$filed$a$Notice$of$Appeal$with$ RA$6679$“SEC.$9.$$A$ Ratio:$Section$6,$Article$IXeA$grants$and$authorizes$
G.R.$135869$
dayOperiod( the$trial$court$nine$(9)$days$after$receipt$ sworn$petition$ the$COMELEC$to$promulgate$its$own$rules$of$
September$22,$
vs.(RA( thereof.$$ contesting$the$ procedure.$$The$1993$COMELEC$Rules$of$Procedure$
1999$
6697/OEC(10O $ election$of$a$ have$provided$a$uniform$five$(5)$day$period$for$
(
day(period( COMELEC$relied$on$Section$21,$Rule$35$ barangay$official$ taking$an$appeal$consistent$with$the$expeditious$
Pg(661(
of$the$COMELEC$Rules$of$Procedure$in$ may$be$filed$with$ resolution$of$electionerelated$cases.$$
dismissing$the$appeal.$ the$proper$ $
$ municipal$or$ To$adopt$a$contrary$view$would$defeat$the$laudable$
Petitioner$contends$that$the$period$of$ metropolitan$trial$ objective$of$providing$a$uniform$period$of$appeal$
appeal$from$decisions$of$the$Municipal$ court$by$any$ and$defy$the$COMELEC’s$constitutional$mandate$to$
Trial$Courts$or$Metropolitan$Trial$Courts$ candidate$xxx$for$a$ enact$rules$of$procedure$to$expedite$disposition$of$
involving$barangay$officials$is$governed$ barangay$office$ election$cases.$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
by$Section$9$of$Republic$Act$6679$and$ within(ten((10)(days$
Section$252$of$the$Omnibus$Election$ after$the$
Code.( proclamation$of$the$
results$of$the$
election.$$xxx$
$“SEC.$252.$$Election&
contest&for&
barangay&offices.$–$
A$sworn$petition$
contesting$the$
election$of$a$
barangay$officer$
shall$be$filed$xxx$by$
any$candidate$who$
has$duly$filed$a$
certificate$of$
candidacy$and$has$
been$voted$for$the$
same$office$within(
ten(days$xxx$
(
Section(7.(Each(Commission(shall(decide(by(a(majority(vote(of(all(its(Members,(any(case(or(matter(brought(before(it(within(sixty(days(from(the(date(of(
its(submission(for(decision(or(resolution.(A(case(or(matter(is(deemed(submitted(for(decision(or(resolution(upon(the(filing(of(the(last(pleading,(brief,(or(
memorandum(required(by(the(rules(of(the(Commission(or(by(the(Commission(itself.(Unless(otherwise(provided(by(this(Constitution(or(by(law,(any(
decision,(order,(or(ruling(of(each(Commission(may(be(brought(to(the(Supreme(Court(on(certiorari(by(the(aggrieved(party(within(thirty(days(from(
receipt(of(a(copy(thereof.(
(
Provision/s(
A. CUA((V.( The$First$Division$of$the$COMELEC$ Section$5$of$COMELEC$ I:$W/N$the$2e1$decision$of$the$First$Division$of$
2O1(
COMELEC( rendered$a$2e1$decision$favoring$the$ Resolution$No.$1669$reads$as$ the$COMELEC$is$valid$
COMELEC(
herein$petitioner$Cua$but$ follows:$ H:$YES,$it$was$a$valid$decision$under$Article$IXe
decision(
G.R.$No.$80519e nevertheless$suspended$his$ $ A,$Section$7$of$the$Constitution.$
QUORUM(
21$December$ proclamation$as$winner$in$the$lone$ SEC.$5.$Quorum:$votes$ $
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
17,1987$ congressional$district$of$Quirino$due$ required;$substitution.$—$Two$ R:$The$three$members$who$voted$constitute$a$
Pg(662$ to$the$lack$of$the$unanimous$vote$ members$shall$constitute$a$ quorum$of$the$five$members$who$deliberated$
required$by$the$procedural$rules$in$ quorum$for$the$transaction$of$ and$voted$thereon$en$banc$and$their$decision$
COMELEC$$ the$official$business$of$the$ is$also$valid$under$the$aforecited$
$ Division.$ constitutional$provision.$
The$respondents$insist$that$no$
decision$was$reached$by$the$First$
Division$because$only$three$votes$
were$cast$in$favor$of$the$petitioner$
and$these$did$not$constitute$a$
majority$of$the$body.$
M/V$‘HyojinMaru’,$a$vessel$of$
I:$W/N$Mr.$Espiritu’s$denial$of$the$claim$valid?$$
Japanese$registry,$sank$while$in$the$
H:$NO,$Mr.$Espiritu$had$no$power$whatsoever$
custody$of$the$Bureau$of$Customs,$
to$render$and$promulgate$a$decision$for$the$
and$could$not$be$salvaged$due$to$
COA,$him$being$‘manager$of$the$COA$
B. MISON( lack$of$funds.$
technical$service$office’.$$
(Customs$ $
SECTION$7.$$$$Each$ R:$The(power(is(lodged(in(the(COA(composed(
Commissio Japanese( The$claimants$(Chan$Chiu$On$and$
Commission$shall$decide$xxx$ of(a(Chairman(and(two(Commissioners.(In$
ner)((V.( Vessel( Cheung$I)$then$filed$a$claim$against$
within$sixty$days$from$the$ fact,$even$the$Chairman$alone$does$not$have$
COA( Acting(COA( the$COA$for$the$payment$of$the$value$
date$of$its$submission$for$ that$power.$Jurisdiction$belongs$to$the$
Chairman( of$the$vessel$amounting$to$US$
decision$or$resolution.$xxx$ Commission,$as(a(collegial(body.$$
G.R.$No.$91429$$ $ $50,000.00,$plus$the$amount$
( (
July$13,$1990$ corresponding$to$legal$interest.$$
Also,$any$adoption$or$ratification$of$the$
Pg(662$ $
‘Espiritu$decision’$by$the$Acting$COA$
Mr.$Espiritu$(Manager,$Technical$
Chairman$was$inconsequential$as$the$decision$
Service$Office$of$the$COA),$‘by$
was$void$ab&initio&it$being$made$without$
authority$of$the$Acting$Chairman’,$
authority.&$
denied$such$claim$of$the$claimants.$
C. MATEO(V.( Sec.$7.$Unless$otherwise$ I:$W/N$$RTC$had$jurisdiction$over$disciplinary$
CA( A$dismissal$of$an$employee$of$ provided$by$this$Constitution$ actions$of$government$employees$which$is$
MOWAD( MOWAD$(Morong$Water$District),$ or$by$law,$any$decision,$order,$ vested$exclusively$in$the$Civil$Service$
G.R.$No.$ CSC( which$is$a$quasiepublic$corporation,$ or$ruling$of$each$Commission$ Commission$
113219$August$ was$filed$under$the$RTC$of$Rizal.$ may$be$brought$to$the$ $
14,$1995$ Supreme$Court$ Held:$NO,$hiring$and$firing$of$employees$in$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
Pg(663( on$certiorari&by$the$party$ the$GOCCs$are$governed$by$the$provisions$of$
within$thirty$days$from$ the$Civil$Service$Law$and$Rules$and$
receipt$of$a$copy$thereof.( Regulations.$
$
R:$MOWAD$is$a$quasiepublic$corporation$
created$pursuant$to$PD$198$(Provincial$Water$
Utilities$Act$of$1973.$
(In$Davao&City&Water&District&v.&Civil&Service&
Commissions,$the$Court$enbanc$ruled$that$
employees$of$GOCCs$with$original$charter$fall$
under$the$jurisdiction$of$the$Civil$Service$
Commission.$
The$case$to$nullify$the$order$of$the$ ISSUE(1:(Whether$or$not$the$Guiani$resolution$
Commission$on$Elections$(Comelec),$ is$valid$and$may$be$promulgated$
First$Division,$giving$notice$to$the$ $
parties$of$the$promulgation$of$ Held:$NO.$The$resolution$is$void.$
the$resolution$on$the$case(entitled$ $
Jose$T.$Ramirez,$Protestee,$versus$ “Section$7.$Each$commission$ Ratio:$
D. AMBIL(V.(
Ruperto$A.$Ambil,$Jr.,$and$to$prohibit$ shall$xxx$$ A$final$decision$or$resolution$becomes$
COMELEC$
the$respondent$Commission$on$ Unless$otherwise$provided$ binding$only$after$it$is$promulgated$and$not$
Election$from$promulgating$the$so$ by$this$constitution(or(by(law,$ before.$Accordingly,$one$who$is$no$longer$a$
$
called$“Guiani$ponencia.”& any$decision,$order,$or$ruling$ member$of$the$Commission$at$the$time$the$
G.R.$No.$
Guiani( $ of$each$commission(may$be$ final$decision$or$resolution$is$promulgated$
143398,$
Resolution( Petitioner$Ruperto$A.$Ambil,$Jr.$and$ brought$to$the$Supreme$ cannot$validly$take$part$in$the$resolution$or$
October$25,$
respondent$Jose$T.$Ramirez$were$ Court$on$certiorari$by$the$ decision.$Much$more$could$he$be$the$
2000$
candidates$for$the$position$of$ aggrieved$party$within$thirty$ ponente$of$the$resolution$or$decision.$The$
$
Governor,$Eastern$Samar,$during$the$ days$from$receipt$of$a$copy$ resolution$or$decision$of$the$Division$must$be$
$
May$11,$1998$elections.$On$May$16,$ thereof.”$ signed$by$a$majority$of$its$members$and$duly$
Pg$664$
1998,$the$Provincial$Board$of$ $ promulgated.$
Canvassers$proclaimed$Ruperto$A.$ $
Ambil,$Jr.$as$the$duly$elected$ Commissioner$Guiani$might$have$signed$a$
Governor,$Eastern$Samar.$ draft$ponencia$prior$to$his$retirement$from$
$ office,$but$when$he$vacated$his$office$without$
June$4,$1998!$respondent$Ramirez$ the$final$decision$or$resolution$having$been$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
who$obtained$the$second$highest$ promulgated,$his$vote$was$automatically$
number$of$votes,$filed$with$the$ invalidated.$
Comelec,$an$election$ $
protest$challenging$the$results.$
$
January$27,$2000!Commissioner$
Japal$M.$Guiani$prepared$and$signed$
a$proposed$resolution$in$the$case.$
$
February$15,$2000!$Commissioner$
Guiani$retired$from$the$service.$On$
March$3,$2000,$the$President$of$the$
Philippines$appointed$Commissioner$
Rufino$S.$Javier$to$the$seat$vacated$
by$Commissioner$Guiani.$
Commissioner$Javier$assumed$office$
on$April$4,$2000.$
$
February$24,$2000!$petitioner$Ambil$
and$respondent$Ramirez$received$a$
purported$resolution$promulgated$
on$February$14,$2000,$signed$by$
Commissioner$Guiani$and$Tancangco,$
with$Commissioner$Desamito$
dissenting$(Guiani$Resolution).$
E. DUMAYAS,( $ $ I:(W/N$the$resolution$is$valid$
JR.(V.( $ $ Held:$YES.$The$resolution$remains$valid.$
(
COMELEC( $ $ (
(
&(BERNAL( History:$$Petitioner$Dumayas,$Jr.$and$ $ Ratio:$
Effect(of(
G.R.$Nos.$ respondent$Bernal,$Jr.$were$rival$ $ In$Jamil&v.&COMELEC,$the$Court$held$that$a$
Retirement(
141952e53$ candidates$for$the$position$of$mayor$ $ decision$becomes$binding$only$after$its$
of(Gorospe(
April$20,$2001$ in$Carles,$Iloilo$last$11$May$1998$ Section$7$ promulgation.$If$at$the$time$it$is$promulgated,$
and(Guiani(
( synchronized$elections.$ a$judge$or$member$of$the$collegiate$court$
Pg(664( $ who$had$earlier$signed$or$registered$his$vote$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
( March$13,$2000!$Bernal,$Jr.$was$ has$vacated$office,$his$vote$on$the$decision$
proclaimed$by$the$newlyeconstituted$ must$automatically$be$withdrawn$or$
Municipal$Board$of$Canvassers$as$the$ cancelled.$Accordingly,$the$votes$of$
dulyeelected$Mayor$of$the$ Commissioners$Gorospe$and$Guiani$should$
Municipality$of$Carles,$thereby$ merely$be$considered$as$withdrawn$for$the$
unseating$Dumayas.$ reason$that$their$retirement$preceded$the$
$ resolution’s$promulgation.$The$effect$of$their$
*$*$*$*$*$ withdrawal$would$be$as$if$they$had$not$signed$
In$view$of$the$retirement$of$ the$resolution$at$all$and$only$the$votes$would$
Commissioners$Gorospe$and$Guiani$ be$properly$considered$for$the$purpose$of$
before$the$date$of$the$promulgation$ deciding$the$controversy.$
of$the$assailed$resolution$on$March$ However,$unless$the$withdrawal$of$the$votes$
2,$2000.$ would$materially$affect$the$result$insofar$as$
$ votes$for$or$against$a$party$is$concerned,$we$
$There$arose$the$question$on$ find$no$reason$for$declaring$the$decision$a$
whether$the$said$resolution$should$ nullity.$$
be$deemed$null$and$void$for$being$ The$defect$cited$by$petitioner$does$not$affect$
violative$of$Article$IXeA,$Section$7$of$ the$substance$or$validity$of$respondent$
the$1987$Constitution.$ Commission’s$disposition$of$the$controversy.$
$ The$nullification$of$the$challenged$resolution$
would$merely$prolong$the$proceedings$
unnecessarily.(
(
Section(8.(Each(Commission(shall(perform(such(other(functions(as(may(be(provided(by(law.(
(
(
$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
(
A.(CIVIL(SERVICE(COMMISSION(
(
Section(1.((
(1)(The(civil(service(shall(be(administered(by(the(Civil(Service(Commission(composed(of(a(Chairman(and(two(Commissioners(who(shall(be(naturalIborn(
citizens(of(the(Philippines(and,(at(the(time(of(their(appointment,(at(least(thirtyIfive(years(of(age,(with(proven(capacity(for(public(administration,(and(
must(not(have(been(candidates(for(any(elective(position(in(the(elections(immediately(preceding(their(appointment.(
(2)(The(Chairman(and(the(Commissioners(shall(be(appointed(by(the(President(with(the(consent(of(the(Commission(on(Appointments(for(a(term(of(
seven(years(without(reappointment.(Of(those(first(appointed,(the(Chairman(shall(hold(office(for(seven(years,(a(Commissioner(for(five(years,(and(
another(Commissioner(for(three(years,(without(reappointment.(Appointment(to(any(vacancy(shall(be(only(for(the(unexpired(term(of(the(predecessor.(
In(no(case(shall(any(Member(be(appointed(or(designated(in(a(temporary(or(acting(capacity.(
(
Provision/s(
June$11,$1993!$the$President$ The$term$of$office$of$ ISSUE:$Whether$or$not$the$5TyearTterm$of$office$
appointed$Atty.$Thelma$P.$Gaminde$ the$Chairman$and$ of$Atty.$Thelma$P.$Gaminde,$as$Commissioner,$
Commissioner,$Civil$Service$ members$of$the$CSC:$ Civil$Service$Commission,$expired$on$February$
Commission,$for$a$term$ $ 02,$1999,$as$stated$in$the$appointment$paper,$
expiring$February$02,$1999.$This$ “Section$1$(2).$$xxx$$Of$ or$on$February$02,$2000,$as$claimed$by$her.$
terminal$date$is$specified$in$her$ those$first$appointed,$ $
A. GAMINDE(V.(
appointment$paper.$$$ the$Chairman$shall$hold$ HELD:$Her$term$expired$on$February(2,(1999$
COA(
$ office$for$seven$years,$ but$still$entitled$to$receive$her$salary$and$other$
GR.$No.$140335$ 5IYEAR(TERM(
September$07,$1993!$the$ a$Commissioner$for$ emoluments$for$actual$service$rendered$until$
December$13,$ OF(GAMINDE(
Commission$on$Appointments$ five(years,$and$another$ February$2,$2000.$
2000$ AS(CSC(
confirmed$the$appointment.$$She$ Commissioner$for$ $
$ COMMISSIONER(
accepted$the$appointment$and$ three$years,(without( RATIO:$$The$letter$dated$April$07,$1998,$of$
$
assumed$office$on$June$22,$1993$for$ reappointment.$$xxx$ Deputy$Executive$Secretary$Renato$C.$
Pg(665I669(
a$term$expiring$on$February$02,$ Corona$clarifying$that$her$term$would$expire$on$
1999.$$ February$02,$2000,$was$in$ERROR.$$What$was$
$ submitted$to$the$Commission$on$Appointments$
February$24,$1998!$The$Chief$ was$a$nomination$for$a$term$expiring$on$
Presidential$Legal$Counsel,$in$a$letter$ February$02,$1999.$$
dated$April$07,$1998$opined$that$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
Gaminde’s$term$of$office$would$
expire$on$February$02,$2000,$not$on$
February$02,$1999.$
$
March$24,$1999!$CSC$Resident$
Auditor$Flovitas$U.$Felipe$issued$
notice$of$disallowance,$disallowing$in$
audit$the$salaries$and$emoluments$
of$Gaminde$effective$February$02,$
1999.$
(
Section(2.((
(1)(The(civil(service(embraces(all(branches,(subdivisions,(instrumentalities,(and(agencies(of(the(Government,(including(governmentIowned(or(
controlled(corporations(with(original(charters.(
(2)(Appointments(in(the(civil(service(shall(be(made(only(according(to(merit(and(fitness(to(be(determined,(as(far(as(practicable,(and,(except(to(positions(
which(are(policyIdetermining,(primarily(confidential,(or(highly(technical,(by(competitive(examination.(
(3)(No(officer(or(employee(of(the(civil(service(shall(be(removed(or(suspended(except(for(cause(provided(by(law.(
(4)(No(officer(or(employee(in(the(civil(service(shall(engage,(directly(or(indirectly,(in(any(electioneering(or(partisan(political(campaign.(
(5)(The(right(to(selfIorganization(shall(not(be(denied(to(government(employees.(
(6)(Temporary(employees(of(the(Government(shall(be(given(such(protection(as(may(be(provided(by(law.(
(
Provision/s(
Petitioner$Jose$T.$Almonte,$as$ $ ISSUE:$Whether$or$not$the$petitioner,$Economic$
Commissioner$of$Economic$ SECTION$2.$$$$(1)$The$ Intelligence$Investigation$Bureau$(EIIB),$is$
A. EIIB(V.(CA(&( Intelligence$and$Investigation$ civil$service$embraces$ embraced$by$the$Civil$Service.$
CSC( Bureau$(EIIB),$failed$to$submit$all$ all$branches,$ $
( appointments$of$EIIB$as$required$by$ subdivisions,$ HELD:$Yes,$EIIB$is$a$government$agency$under$
CSC(covers(
G.R.$No.$129133$ CSC.$ instrumentalities,$and$ the$Department$of$Finance,$which$is$within$the$
EIIB(
November$25,$1998$ $ agencies(of(the( ambit$of$the$Civil$Service$Law$as$pursuant$to$
( He$invoked$PD$No.$1458$and$LOI$No.$ Government,$including$ Sec.$2$(1),$Art.$IXTB$of$the$Constitution.$
Pg(670I671$ 71$exempting$the$EIIB$from$the$ governmentTowned$or$ $
coverage$of$civil$service$rules$and$ controlled$corporations$ RATIO:$The$PD$1458$and$LOI$No.$71$being$
regulations$on$appointments$and$ with$original$charters.$ invoked$by$the$petitioner$had$no$merit.$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
other$personnel$actions.$$ $ "$Such$provision$provide$for$the$exemption$of$
$ $ petitioner$EIIB$only$from(Civil(Service(Rules(and(
CSC$adjudge$Almonte$guilty$of$ $ Regulations(relative(to(appointments(and(
indirect$contempt$with$penalty$of$
LOI$No.$71,$$the$ other(personnel(actions,$but$not$from$the$Civil$
fine$P1,000.00$each$day$of$his$failure$
Implementing$Rules$of$ Service$Law$or$Civil$Service$Rules$and$
to$comply$with$the$CSC$Order$which$
P.D.$No.$1458,$reads:$ Regulations$relative$to$any$other$matter.$
shall$be$deducted$from$his$salary.$$
$ $
$ “10.$$It$is$further$ “$...$[R]espondent$CSC’s$act$of$requiring$
Dissatisfied$therewith,$petitioner$
directed$that$personnel$ petitioner$EIIB$to$submit$to$it$all$appointments$
went$to$the$Court$of$Appeals$but$his$
of$the$BII$shall$be$ in$the$Bureau,$for$appropriate$action,$is$part$of$
Petition$for$Certiorari$was$ exempt$from$OCPC$ its$administrative$function$as$the$central$
dismissed.$$ and$Civil$Service$Rules$ personnel$agency$of$the$government.”$
and$
Regulations$relative$to$
appointments$and$
other$personnel$
actions;$xxx$"$
Respondent$Salas$was$appointed$by$ DOCTRINE/S:$ ISSUE:$Whether$or$not$$respondent$Salas$is$a$
the$PAGCOR$Chairman$as$Internal$ $ confidential$employee$$
Security$Staff$(ISS)$member$but$was$ Confidential$Position$ $
terminated$due$to$loss$of$ Indicator$according$to$ HELD:$NO,$taking$into$consideration$the$nature$
confidence$on$him$after$he$engaged$ Civil$Service$Act$of$ of$his$functions,$his$organizational$ranking$and$
in$proxy$betting.$Later$on,$ 1959:$ his$compensation$level,$it$is$obviously$beyond$
B. CSC(&(PAGCOR( Petitioners$contended$that$ $ debate$that$private$respondent$cannot$be$
(
v.(SALAS( respondent$Salas$was$not$dismissed$ 1. when$the$ considered$a$confidential$employee.$$
CONFIDENTIAL(
G.R.$No.$123708$ from$the$service$but,$instead,$his$ President$has$ $
EMPLOYEE(
June$19,$1997$ term$of$office$had$expired.$ declared$the$ RATIO:$$
$
PP(671I675$ $ position$to$be$ (1986$Constitutional$Commission$Delibaration)$
The$Court$of$Appeals$rendered$its$ primarily$ MR.$FOZ:$Which$department$of$government$
decision$that$herein$respondent$ confidential;$and,$$ has$the$power$or$authority$to$determine$
Salas$is$not$a$confidential$employee;$ $in$the$absence$of$such$ whether$a$position$is$policyTdetermining$or$
hence,$he$may$not$be$dismissed$on$ declaration,$when$by$ primarily$confidential$or$highly$technical?$
the$ground$of$loss$of$confidence.$It$ the$nature$of$the$ $
likewise$held$that$Section$16$of$ functions$of$the$office$ FR.$BERNAS:$The$initial$decision$is$made$by$the$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
Presidential$Decree$No.$1869$has$ there$exists$"close$ legislative$body$or$by$the$executive$
been$superseded$and$repealed$by$ intimacy"$between$the$ department,$but$the$final(decision(is(done(by(
Section$2(1),$Article$IXTB$of$the$1987$ appointee$and$ the(court.$The$Supreme$Court$has$constantly$
Constitution.$ appointing$power$ held$that$whether$or$not$a$position$is$policyT
$ which$insures$xxx$ determining,$primarily$confidential$or$highly$
Petitioners$seek$to$nullify$the$ freedom$from$ technical,$it$is$determined$not$by$the$title$but$
decision$of$the$Court$of$Appeals$ misgivings$of$betrayals$ by$the$nature$of$the$task$that$is$entrusted$to$it.$$
ordering$the$reinstatement$of$ of$personal$trust$$ $
herein$private$respondent$Rafael$M.$ $ Several$factors$lead$to$the$conclusion$that$
Salas$with$full$back$wages$for$having$ In$other$words:$ private$respondent$does$not$enjoy$such$"close$
been$illegally$dismissed$by$the$ FR.$BERNAS.$xxx$It$is$ intimacy"$with$the$appointing$authority$of$
PAGCOR,$but$without$prejudice$to$ not$enough$that$the$ PAGCOR$such$as$having$routinary$security$staff$
the$filing$of$administrative$charges$ law$calls$it$primarily$ functions,$being$lowest$in$the$chain$of$
against$him$if$warranted.$ confidential$to$make$it$ command,$and$for$receiving$the$bottom$level$
such;$it$is$the$nature$of$ salary$of$P2,200.00$a$month.$
the$duties$which$makes$
a$position$primarily$
confidential.$
The$NAPOLCOM$was$originally$ Section$2$(3)$$$$No$ ISSUE:$Whether$or$not$Republic(Act(No.(8551$
created$under$Republic$Act$No.$ officer$or$employee$of$ (RA(8551),$otherwise$known$as$the$"Philippine$
6975.$It$was$later$amended$by$RA$ the$civil$service$shall$be$ National$Police$Reform$and$Reorganization$Act$
8551.$$ removed$or$suspended$ of$1998$is$UNCONSTITUTIONAL$
$ except$for$cause$ $
RA$8551$declared$that$the$terms$of$ provided$by$law.$ HELD:$$YES,$but$only$to$the$extent$of$declaring$
the$current$Commissioners$were$ $ section(8(of(RA(8551$unconstitutional$for$being$
C. CANONIZADO(
NAPOLCOM( deemed$as$expired$upon$its$ Section$8$of$RA$8551:$ in$violation$of$the$petitioners’$right$to$security$
V.(AGUIRRE(
reorganization( effectivity$even$though$the$ Upon$the$effectivity$of$ of$tenure.$
Pg(675I679(
petitioners’$terms$had$not$yet$ this$Act,$the$terms$of$ $
actually$expired.$$ office$of$the$current$ RATIO:$It$is$exceedingly$apparent$to$this$Court$
$ Commissioners$are$ that$RA(8551$effected$a$reorganization$of$the$
Petitioners$argue$that$their$removal$ deemed$expired$which$ PNP,$not$of$the$NAPOLCOM.$They$are$two$
from$office$by$virtue$of$section$8$of$ shall$constitute$a$bar$to$ separate$and$distinct$bodies,$with$one$having$
RA$8551$violates$their$security$of$ their$reappointment$or$ supervision$and$control$over$the$other.$In$fact,$
tenure.$ an$extension$of$their$ the$basic$structure$of$the$NAPOLCOM$has$been$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
terms$in$the$ preserved$by$the$amendatory$law.$$
Commission$except$xxx$ $
$ No$bona$fide$reorganization$of$the$NAPOLCOM$
having$been$mandated$by$Congress,$RA$8551,$
insofar$as$it$declares$the$terms$of$office$of$the$
incumbent$Commissioners,$petitioners$herein,$
as$expired$and$resulting$in$their$removal$from$
office,$removes$civil$service$employees$from$
office$without$legal$cause$and$must$therefore$
be$struck$down$for$being$constitutionally$
infirm.$$
$
CA$granted$the$petition$of$Dr.$ Bentain(doctrine:$ ISSUE:$Whether$or$not$the$reassignment$of$
Bienvenido$Icasiano$to$prohibit$the$ "Security$of$tenure$is$a$ private$respondent$from$School$Division$
implementation$of$his$reassignment$ fundamental$and$ Superintendent$of$Quezon$City$to$Vocational$
from$Schools$Division$ constitutionally$ School$Superintendent$of$MIST$is$violative$of$
( Superintendent,$Division$of$City$ guaranteed$feature$of$ his$security$of$tenure?$YES$
$ ( Schools,$Quezon$City,$to$Vocational$ our$civil$service.$The$ $
$ ( Schools$Superintendent$of$the$ mantle$of$its$ RATIO:$
$ ( Marikina$Institute$of$Science$and$ protection$extends$not$ The$Court$upholds$the$finding$of$the$
$ ( Technology$pursuant$to$the$ only$to$employees$ respondent$court$that$the$reassignment$of$
$ Prohibited( Memorandum$of$Secretary$Ricardo$ removed$without$ petitioner$to$MIST$"appears$to$be$indefinite".$$$
$ indefinite( T.$Gloria$to$the$President$of$the$ cause$but$also$to$cases$ $
D. SEC.(RICARDO( Reassignment( Philippines$for$lack$of$indication$that$ of$unconsented$ Besides,$there$is$nothing$in$the$said$
GLORIA((DECS)( ( it$is$only$temporary$and$thereby,$ transfers$which$are$ Memorandum$to$show$that$the$reassignment$
V.(CA$ ( violative$of$his$right$to$security$of$ tantamount$to$illegal$ of$private$respondent$is$temporary$or$would$
G.R.$No.$119903$ ( tenure.$ removals$$ only$last$until$a$permanent$replacement$is$
August$15,$2000$ Security(of( $ $ found$as$no$period$is$specified$or$fixed.$
Pg$679T680$ Tenure( Petitioners$contend$that$the$ While$a$temporary$
violation( doctrine$enunciated$in$Bentain$vs.$ transfer$or$assignment$
Court$of$AppealsTT$that$"a$ of$personnel$is$
reassignment$that$is$indefinite$and$ permissible$even$
results$in$a$reduction$in$rank,$status$ without$the$
and$salary,$is$in$effect,$a$ employee’s$prior$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
constructive$removal$from$the$ consent,$it$cannot$be$
service"$TT$does$not$apply$in$the$ done$when$the$
present$case$for$the$reassignment$in$ transfer$is$a$
question$was$merely$temporary,$ preliminary$step$
lasting$only$until$the$appointment$of$ toward$his$removal,$or$
a$new$Vocational$School$ is$a$scheme$to$lure$him$
Superintendent$of$MIST.$ away$from$his$
permanent$position,$or$
designed$to$indirectly$
terminate$his$service,$
or$force$his$
resignation.$Such$a$
transfer$would$in$effect$
circumvent$the$
provision$which$
safeguards$the$tenure$
of$office$of$those$who$
are$in$the$Civil$Service”$
Former$President$Corazon$C.$ Section$2$(3)$$$$No$ ISSUE:$Whether$or$not$EO$Nos.$191$and$223$
Aquino,$issued$EO$No.$ officer$or$employee$of$ should$be$annulled$as$they$are$unconstitutional$
127$establishing$the$Economic$ the$civil$service$shall$be$ for$being$violative$of$Section(2(3),(Article(IXIB$$
E. BUKLOD(NG( Intelligence$and$Investigation$ removed$or$suspended$ $
KAWANING( Bureau$(EIIB)$as$part$of$the$ except$for$cause$ HELD:$NO,$there$is$no$such$thing$as$absolute$
EIIB(V.( structural$organization$of$the$ provided$by$law.$ right$to$hold$office$except$constitutional$offices$
EXECUTIVE( Ministry$of$Finance.$ with$special$immunity$
Valid(
SECRETARY( $ $
Abolition(of(
ROLANDO( 11$years$after,$President$Joseph$ RATIO:$Justice$Sarmiento$in$Dario$v.$Mison:$
EIIB(
ZAMORA( Estrada$issued$EO$No.$191$which$ xxx$As$a$general$rule,$a$reorganization$is$carried$
GR(142801I802( ordered$the$deactivation$of$EIIB$and$ out$in$“good$faith”$if$it$is$for$the$purpose$of$
July(10,(2001( the$transfer$of$its$functions$to$the$ economy$or$to$make$bureaucracy$more$
Pg(680( Bureau$of$Customs$and$the$National$ efficient.((In(that(event,(no(dismissal((in(case(of(
Bureau$of$Investigation.$ dismissal)(or(separation(actually(occurs(
$ because(the(position(itself(ceases(to(exist.((And$
3$months$later,$$ERAP$issued$EO$No.$ in$that$case,$security$of$tenure$would$not$be$a$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
223$providing$that$all$EIIB$personnel$ Chinese$wall.$$Be$that$as$it$may,$if$the$
occupying$positions$specified$ ‘abolition,’$which$is$nothing$else$but$a$
therein$shall$be$deemed$separated$ separation$or$removal,$is$done$for$political$
from$the$service$effective$April$30,$ reasons$or$purposely$to$defeat$security$of$
2000,$pursuant$to$a$bona$ tenure,$otherwise$not$in$good$faith,$no$valid$
fide$reorganization$resulting$to$ ‘abolition’$takes$and$whatever$‘abolition’$is$
abolition,$redundancy,$merger,$ done,$is$void$ab$initio.$$There$is$an$invalid$
division,$or$consolidation$of$ ‘abolition’$as$where$there$is$merely$a$change$of$
positions.$ nomenclature$of$positions,$or$where$claims$of$
$ economy$are$belied$by$the$existence$of$ample$
Petition$to$nullify$Executive$Order$ funds.$
No.$191$and$Executive$Order$No.$ $
223$on$the$ground$that$they$were$
issued$by$the$Office$of$the$President$
with$grave$abuse$of$discretion$and$
in$violation$of$their$constitutional$
right$to$security$of$tenure.$
Chona$Dimayuga$was$appointed$(by$ CSC$Memorandum$ ISSUE(1:$Can$Dimayuga$claim$security$of$
DPWH$Secretary$Jose$de$Jesus)$as$ Circular$21.$Section$4:$ tenure?$!$NO$
Executive$Director$II$of$the$Toll$ Incumbents$of$ $
Regulatory$Board$(TRB).$As$the$ positions$which$are$ RATIO:(Petitioner$was$appointed$in$a$
highestTranking$working$official,$she$ declared$to$be$CES$ permanent$capacity$to$the$position$of$Executive$
had$powers$of$control$and$ positions$for$the$first$ Director$II$of$TRB$in$1992,$at$which$time$said$
supervision$over$3$divisions:$Finance$ time$pursuant$to$this$ position$was$not$included$in$the$CES.$The$
F. DIMAYUGA(V.(
and$Administrative,$Technical,$ resolution$who$hold$ subsequent$inclusion$of$her$position$under$the$
BENEDICTO(II( Security(of(
Engineering.$She$also$oversaw$ permanent$ CES$did$not$automatically$qualify$her$for$that$
( Tenure(
projects$and$participated$in$ appointment$thereto$ position$as$she$lacked$eligibility$as$she$was$not$
PP(683I686(
negotiations.$At$that$time,$however,$ shall$remain$under$ a$CESO.$Without$the$required$eligibility$
such$position$was$still$not$part$of$ permanent$status$in$ required,$she$could$not$hold$on$to$her$office$
the$career$executive$service$(CES).$ their$respective$ permanently.$She$could$only$occupy$said$
Therefore,$she$occupied$the$position$ positions.$However,$ position$until$the$appointing$authority$replaced$
although$she$was$not$a$career$ upon$promotion$or$ her$with$someone$eligible.$$
executive$service$officer$(CESO).$ transfer$to$other$CES$ $
On$May$31,$1994,$the$Civil$Service$ positions,$these$ ISSUE(2:$Can$petitioner$claim$proprietary$right$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
Commission$(CSC)$issued$ incumbents$shall$be$ to$her$post$as$Executive$Director$II$of$TRB?$!$
Memorandum$Circular$no.$21.$(see$ under$temporary$ NO.$
right$column)$ status$in$said$positions$ $
Petitioner$alleges$that$during$her$ until$they$qualify.$$ RATIO:(This$would$encroach$upon$the$executive$
tenure,$she$became$the$subject$of$ powers$of$the$President$and$run$counter$to$the$
several$administrative$and$criminal$ wide$latitude$given$to$the$appointing$authority$
complaints$designed$to$coerce$her$ or$to$the$President.$
removal.$Two$consecutive$90Tday$
suspension$orders$were$issued$upon$
petitioner,$first$by$DPWH$sec$Vigilar$
and$then$by$Exec$Sec$Aguirre.$
Petitioner$assumed$duties$after$
expiration$of$the$second$suspension.$
However,$on$the$following$day,$
Vigilar$issued$Department$Order$no$
85$which$put$petitioner$as$
‘temporarily$detailed’$at$the$Office$
of$the$Secretary$of$the$DPWH.$
Dimayuga$filed$a$leave$of$absence$as$
a$gesture$of$protest,$rather$than$
assume$a$position$which$she$
considered$as$a$demotion.$$
While$Dimayuga$was$on$leave,$
President$Estrada$appointed$
respondent$Benedicto$II$in$her$stead$
as$Executive$Director$II$of$the$Board.$
Petitioner$then$filed$a$petition$for$
quo$warranto$before$the$court$of$
appeals.$Apellate$court$rendered$the$
assailed$decision$dismissing$the$
petitioner’s$suit.$$
G. MIRANDA(V.( Mayor$Jose$Miranda$was$suspended$ ( ISSUE:$Can$the$appointees$be$terminated$from$
6Imonth(
CARREON(( from$office.$Vice$Mayor$Amelita$ service$on$the$ground$that$they$are$wanting$in$
period(
PP(686I690( Navarro$took$over$as$Acting$Mayor.$ their$performance$before$the$6$month$period?$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
Acting$Mayor$Amelita$Navarro$then$ !$NO$
appointed$the$respondents$to$ $
various$city$government$positions$ RATIO:(The$Revised$Administrative$Code$states$
(City$of$Santiago).$$Such$ that$such$appointees$can$be$dismissed$before$
appointments$were$with$permanent$ the$6Tmonth$period$on$two$grounds:$(1)$
status$and$the$Civil$Service$ unsatisfactory$conduct$or$(2)$want$of$capacity$
Commission$(CSC)$approved$the$ must$be$present.$BUT(IN(THIS(CASE,(the$mayor$
appointments.$Upon$reassumption$ just$recently$reassumed$office$and$it$was$
of$office,$Miranda$formed$a$3Tman$ improbable$the$he$can$accurately$gauge$the$
special$performance$audit$team$ performance$of$the$employees$in$such$short$
(Bayaua,$Martinez,$Santos)$to$ time$(3$months).$Enough$time$must$be$given$to$
conduct$a$personnel$evaluation$ gauge$the$performance$of$an$employee.$
audit$of$those$appointed$by$ Also,$the$Mayor$has$no$standing$to$file$such$
Navarro.$Their$report$stated$that$the$ petition$since$assuming$that$there$was$an$
appointees$were$wanting$in$their$ evaluation$on$the$employees,$such$evaluation$
performance.$Miranda$thereafter$ must$be$done$by$their$immediate$supervisors$
issued$an$order$for$their$dismissal$ and$not$by$those$appointed$by$Miranda.$
on$the$ground$that$they$performed$ Lastly,$assuming$that$there$was$an$evaluation,$
poorly$during$their$probation$ the$dismissal$of$the$employees$was$still$invalid$
period.$Respondents$allege$that$ since$they$were$not$informed$of$their$poor$
they$can$only$be$dismissed$after$the$ performance$before$their$termination,$which$
expiration$of$the$6Tmonth$period$for$ the$law$requires.$Due$notice$is$required$by$law$
the$employees$under$probation$and$ not$later$than$the$4th$month$of$the$rating$
that$their$rights$to$due$process$were$ period.$Respondents$assert$that$they$did$not$
violated$since$they$deny$that$an$ receive$any$due$notice$prior$to$their$dismissal$
evaluation$on$their$performance$ and$so$such$dismissal$is$invalid.$
was$conducted.$
Robles$was$elected$chairperson$of$ ( ISSUE:(Did$Robles$violate$the$constitutional$
BUHAY,$a$partyTlist$group$registered$ prohibition$of$electioneering?$NO$
H. SEÑERES(V.(
with$COMELEC.$The$constitution$of$ $
COMELEC(&(
( BUHAY$provides$for$a$3Tyear$term$ RATIO:(Electioneering$is$defined$as$an$act$
ROBLES(
for$all$its$party$officers,$without$reT designed$to$promote$the$election$or$defeat$of$a$
PP(690(
election.$BUHAY$participated$in$the$ particular$candidate/s$to$a$public$office$which$
2001$and$2004$elections$with$Robles$ includes:$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
as$president.$ forming$of$organizations$to$solicit$votes$
On$March$2007,$Robles$signed$a$ interviews$for$or$against$election$of$a$candidate$
certificate$of$nomination$for$2007,$ publishing$to$support$a$candidate$
and$Hans$Señeres$(holding$that$he$is$ directly$or$indirectly$soliciting$votes$
an$acting$president$and$secretary$ If$the$foregoing$are$performed$only$to$enhance$
general$of$BUHAY)$also$filed$a$ the$chances$of$aspirants$for$nominations$for$
certificate$of$nomination.$$ candidacy$to$public$office$by$a$political$party,$
Señeres$contends$that$Robles,$being$ agreement$or$coalition,$it$is$not$electioneering.$
BUHAY$president$and$nominating$ Also,$public$expression$or$opinions$in$a$
officer$as$well$as$Administrator$of$ forthcoming$election$or$criticisms$against$
the$LRTA$(Light$Rail$Transit$ probable$candidates$nominated$shall$not$be$
Authority),$was$engaging$in$ part$of$electioneering.$
electioneering$or$partisan$political$ Robles’$act$did$not$fall$under$the$mentioned$
campaign,$which$the$constitution$ circumstances$and$even$if$it$did,$it$only$served$
prohibits.$It$is$prohibited$in$the$ to$enhance$the$chances$of$aspirants$for$
constitution$for$any$officer$or$ nominations$for$candidacy$to$a$public$office$by$
employee$in$the$CSC$to$directly$or$ a$political$party.$Therefore,$it$is$not$considered$
indirectly$be$engaged$in$ electioneering.$
electioneering$or$partisan$political$ $
campaign.$
COMPETITIVE(AND(NONICOMPETITIVE(POSITIONS(
The$coverage$by$the$civil$service$of$ ( (
governmentTowned$or$controlled$
corporations$varies$in$the$1987$
Constitution$and$1973$Constitution.$
1973$Constitution:$$“The$civil$service$
A. NASECO(V.( embraces$every$branch,$agency,$
Original(
NLRC( subdivision,$and$instrumentality$of$
Charter(
Pg(692( the$Government,$including$every$
corporation.”$
1987$Constitution:$“The$civil$service$
embraces$all$branches,$and$agencies$
of$the$government,$including$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
corporations$with$original$charter.”$
The$purpose$“with$original$charter”$
is$to$indicate$that$government$
corporations$such$as$the$GSIS$and$
SSS,$which$have$original$charters,$
fall$within$the$ambit$of$the$civil$
service.$However,$corporations$
which$are$subsidiaries$of$these$
chartered$agencies$such$as$the$
Philippine$Airlines,$Manila$Hotel$and$
Hyatt$are$excluded$from$the$
coverage$of$the$civil$service.$$
The$term$“original$charters”$means$
they$were$created$by$law,$by$an$act$
of$Congress,$or$by$special$law$and$
NOT$under$the$general$law.$
The$NASECO$is$a$governmentT
owned$or$controlled$corporation$
without$original$charter$since$it$is$
the$1987$Constitution$that$governs$
the$instant$case.$
Then$Mayor$Marcial$Samson$issued$ Section$5(f),$RA$#$2260$ ISSUE:(Is$Administrative$Order$#$3$legal?$NO$
Administrative$Order$No.$3,$ (Civil$Service$Act$of$ $
whereby$said$mayor$summarily$ 1959)$ RATIO:(The$positions$Secretary$to$the$Mayor$
terminated$the$services$of$the$ The$position$of$ and$Assistant$Secretary$to$the$Mayor$are$two$
private$respondent$Feliciano$Talens$ secretaries$to$city$ separate$and$distinct$positions.$One$is$of$higher$
Non(
B. SAMSON(V.(CA( who$then$held$the$position$of$ mayors$is$declared$ category$and$rank.$The$Secretary$must$possess$
competitive(
PP(693( Assistant$Secretary$to$the$Mayor,$on$ nonTcompetitive.$ the$confidence$of$the$mayor,$however,$the$
job$T$$
the$ground$of$‘lack$and$loss$of$ Assistant$Secretary,$being$of$lower$rank,$need$
confidence’.$He$then$appointed$ not$carry$such$requisite.$Also,$the$assistant$
Hermogenes$Liwag,$a$coTpetitioner$ secretary$differs$in$function$from$the$secretary.$
of$this$case,$in$place$of$Talens.$ The$assistant$merely$‘aids’$with$the$duties$and$
Samson$cites$section$5$of$RA$2260,$ responsibilities$of$the$secretary.$$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
which$he$interpreted$as$including$
assistant$secretaries$to$the$mayor,$
as$support.$Petitioner$argues$that$an$
assistant$secretary$is$also$a$
secretary$and$is$thus$comprised$
within$the$general$term$‘secretaries’$
in$the$mentioned$provision.$
The$termination$of$officials$and$ Nothing$mentioned,$ NOTE:((
employees$of$their$position$can$be$ but$this$could$be$ $
justified$on$the$ground$of$loss$of$ applicable:$ These$positions$are$primarily$confidential:$
confidence.$ $ Provincial$attorney$
$ Article(IX(B.(Sec.(2.( City$legal$officer$
According$to$the$Law(of(Public( (2)$Appointments$in$ $
Term(of(office(
Officers,$such$cessation$from$office$ the$civil$service$shall$be$ The$positions$of$the$legal$staff$are$NOT$
(
C. HERNANDEZ(V.( involves$no(removal$from$office,$but$ made$only$according$to$ primarily$confidential.$
Law(of(Public(
VILLEGAS( merely$the$expiration$of$the$term$of$ merit$and$fitness$to$be$
Officers(
14$SCRA$544$(1965)$ office.$$These$are$two$different$ determined,$as$far$as$
(
PP(693( causes$for$the$termination$of$official$ practicable,$and,$
Removal(vs.(
relations.$ except$as$to$positions$
Expiration(
The$point$is$that$as$long$as$ which$are$policyT
confidence$in$such$officials$endures$ determining,$primarily$
and$is$shown$not$to$have$been$lost,$ confidential,$or$highly$
the$incumbent$is$entitled$to$ technical,$by$
continue$in$office.$ competitive$
examination.$
$ Nothing$mentioned,$ ISSUE:(Whether$or$not$petitioner$Achacoso$can$
A$permanent$appointment$can$be$ but$this$could$be$ claim$to$have$been$permanently$appointed$and$
D. ACHACOSO(V.( issued$only$to$a$person$who$is$ applicable:$ can$therefore$enjoy$security$of$tenure$as$a$
MACARAIG( Permanent(vs.( eligible$and$has$met$all$the$ $ career$official.$
( Temporary( requirements$for$such$position.$$ Article(IX(B.(Sec.(2.( $
G.R.$No.$93023$ appointments( Petitioner$Achacoso$did$not.$$At$ (2)$Appointments$in$ HELD:$No.$
March$13,$1991( best,$his$appointment$can$only$be$ the$civil$service$shall$be$ $
regarded$as$temporary$and$ made$only$according$to$ RATIO:$
according$to$jurisprudence,$can$ merit$and$fitness$to$be$ He$was$not$eligible$and$did$not$meet$all$the$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
therefore$be$withdrawn$at$a$ determined,$as$far$as$ requirements$for$a$permanent$appointment.$$
moment’s$notice.$ practicable,$and,$ At$best,$his$was$only$temporary.$
$ except$as$to$positions$
The$mere$fact$that$a$position$ which$are$policyT
belongs$to$the$Career$Service$does$ determining,$primarily$
not$automatically$mean$he$can$ confidential,$or$highly$
enjoy$security$of$tenure$even$if$he$ technical,$by$
did$not$possess$the$required$ competitive$
qualifications.$$$ examination.$
$
A$person$who$does$not$have$such$
qualifications$for$the$position$
cannot$be$appointed$to$it$in$the$first$
place.$$As$an$exception,$he$could,$
but$only$to$the$extent$to$an$acting$
capacity$in$the$absence$of$those$
truly$qualified.$$Such$appointment$
cannot$be$regarded$as$permanent.$
$
The$purpose$of$an$acting$or$
temporary$appointment$is$to$
prevent$a$hiatus$in$the$discharge$of$
official$functions$by$authorizing$a$
person$to$do$such$while$pending$the$
selection$of$a$permanent$appointee.$$
Such$acting/temporary$appointment$
is$accepted$with$the$understanding$
that$he$may$be$called$to$surrender$
his$office$upon$the$order$of$the$
appointing$authority.$
E. BRIONES(V.( Abolition(of( This$is$an$action$for$mandamus$with$ Nothing$mentioned,$ ISSUE:(Whether$or$not$the$petitioners$may$
OSMENA( positions( damages$to$declare$the$termination$ but$this$could$be$ keep$their$offices$in$the$City$Mayor’s$Office$
104$Phil.$588$ ( of$the$petitioners’$petitions$void$and$ applicable:$ and/or$the$Municipal$Board.(
(1988)( ( to$order$respondent$City$Mayor$to$ $ $
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
City(Mayor( reinstate$them$to$their$former$ Article(IX(B.(Sec.(2.( HELD:$Yes.$
( positions.$ (3)$No$officer$or$ $
( $ employee$of$the$civil$ RATIO:(
Honorable( February$14,$1956$!$The$Municipal( service$shall$be$ The$reasons$given$for$such$abolition$(“economy$
civil(service( Board$through$Resolution$No.$187$ removed$or$suspended$ and$efficiency”)$are$untrue,$which$are$only$
employees( approved$Ordinance$No.$192,$which$ except$for$cause$ pretenses$for$the$removal$without$cause$of$the$
should(not(be( abolished(a(total(of(32(positions$(15$ provided$by$law.$ said$appellees.$$Such$violated$the$Civil$Service$
sacrificed(due( positions$in$the$City$Mayor’s$office$+$ tenures.$
to(political( 17$positions$in$the$Office$of$the$ $
intrigues( Municipal$Board).$$Among$the$ Since$the$time$of$the$Commonwealth$and$
positions$abolished$were$those$ before$the$war,$the$appellees$have$shown$
occupied$by$the$petitioners.$ efficiency$in$their$services,$attested$by$repeated$
$ increases$in$salary.$$One$of$the$petitioners$was$
February$23,$1956$!$Pursuant$to$ even$recently$proclaimed$“Model$Employee”.$$
said$Ordiance,$the$City$Major$ Before$this$issue,$the$appellees$had$created$for$
notified$the$petitioners$of$such$ the$same$City$Major$35$new$positions,$calling$
changes,$“effective$at$the$close$of$ for$an$outlay$of$P68k$per$year.$$The$excuse$of$
business$hours$on$March$15,$1956.”$ promoting$efficiency$and$economy$is$
$ unimpressive.$
In$reply$thereto,$the$petitioners$filed$ $
their$letters:$ Respect$must$be$given$to$Civil$Service$
Acknowledging$the$receipt$of$the$ employees,$like$these$petitioners$who$have$
City$Mayor’s$letters$of$separation$ rendered$long$and$honorable$services,$and$
Protesting$the$abolition$of$their$ should$not$be$sacrificed$in$favor$of$nonTeligibles$
offices$ given$positions$of$recent$creation,$nor$should$
Informing$him$that$they$will$not$ they$be$left$at$the$mercy$of$political$changes.$
relinquish$their$positions$“unless$
otherwise$determined$by$higher$
competent$authorities$or$courts.”$
$
The$City$Mayor$persisted$in$such$
termination,$adding$that$the$City(
Treasurer(and(City(Auditor(refused$
to$pay$the$petitioners’$salaries.$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
$
Petitioners$filed$petitions$for:$
Reinstatement$
Back$salaries$
Moral$damages$
Attorney’s$fees$
Petitioners$!$They$basically$contest$ Article(IX(B.(Sec.(2.( ISSUE:(Whether$or$not$there$was$an$express$or$
the$constitutionality$of$RA(6715,$ $ implied$abolition$in$RA$6715$of$the$petitioners’$
which$declares(vacant$“all$such$ (1)$The$civil$service$ petitions.(
positions$under$the$present$National$ embraces$all$branches,$ $
Labor$Relations$Commissions:$ subdivisions,$ HELD:$There$was$no$express$abolition.$
Commissioners$ instrumentalities,$and$ $
Executive$Labor$Arbiters$ agencies$of$the$ RATIO:(
Labor$Arbiters.$ Government,$including$ There$were$no$essential$inconsistencies$
$ governmentTowned$or$ observed$in$the$relevant$provisions$of$RA$6715$
Respondents$!$ controlled$corporations$ upon$the$changes$effected$on$the$nature,$
Such$positions$are$considered$ with$original$charters.$ compositions,$powers,$duties,$and$functions$of$
F. MAYOR(V.( effectively$separated$from$the$ $ the$Commission$and$the$Commissioners,$the$
MACARAIG( RA(6715( service,$including$the$Commission’s:$ (3)$No$officer$or$ Executive$Director,$the$Deputy$Executive$
( ( Executive$Director$and$ employee$of$the$civil$ Director,$and$the$Labor$Arbiters$under$the$prior$
( Abolition(of( Deputy$Executive$Director.$ service$shall$be$ legislation.$
G.R.$No.$87211$ offices( This$caused$the$appointment$of$ removed$or$suspended$ $
March$5,$1991( other$persons$to$new$positions$in$ except$for$cause$ So,(if(justification(must(be(sought(for(such(
the$National$Labor$Relations$ provided$by$law.$ abolition,(it(must(be(an(implied(one(that(
Commission,$specified$in$RA$6715:$ attests(to(the(irreconcilable(inconsistency(
Chairman$ between(the(nature,(duties,(and(functions(of(
Commissioners$ the(petitioners’(offices(under(the(old(rules(and(
Executive$Clerk$ those(corresponding(thereto(under(the(new(
Deputy$Executive$Clerk$ law.(
Labor$Arbiters$ (
The$respondents$justified$that$the$ *$$$*$$$*$$$*$$$*$
old$positions$were$declared$vacant$ $
because$of$the$need$to$ Security$of$tenure$is$a$protected$right$under$the$
professionalize$the$higher$levels$of$ Constitution,$pursuant$to$Article(IX(B,(Sec.(2(3).$$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
officialdom$and$to$upgrade$their$ The$petitioners,$then,$may$avail$of$this,$as$they$
qualifications,$ranks$and$salaries,$or$ fall$within$the$concept$of$“an$officer$or$
emoluments.$ employee$in$the$civil$service,”$pursuant$to$
$ Article(IX(B,(Sec.((2)1.$$None$of$the$positions$
Because$the$Constitution$(1)$does$ mentioned$could$be$deemed$to$be$serving$at$
not$ordain$the$abolition$of$the$ the$pleasure$of$the$President$because$they$had$
petitioners’$positions,$(2)$their$ a$right$to$remain$in$office$until$the$expiration$of$
removal$from$their$offices,$(3)$and$ the$terms$for$which$they$had$been$appointed.$
that$there$is$no$claim$that$the$ $
petitioners’$separation$from$the$ A$recognized$cause$for$removal$or$termination$
service$is$due$to$a$cause$other$than$ of$employment$of$a$Government$employee$is$
RA$6716$!$In(order(that(the( the$abolition(by(law$of$his$office,$which$may$be$
petitioners’(removal(from(their( due$to:$
positions(may(be(defended(or( Reorganization$by$reason$of$economy$or$for$
sustained,(the(issue(should(be( removal$of$redundancy$
Whether(or(not(RA(6715(has( A$clear$and$explicit$constitutional$mandate.$
worked(on(such(an(abolition(of(the( $
petitioners’(offices,(whether( Abolition$of$an$office$is$not$the$same$as$the$
express(or(implied.$ declaration$that$the$office$is$vacant.$$Such$
$ would$constitute$on$its$face,$an$infringement$of$
the$constitutional$guarantee$of$security$of$
tenure$as$provided$for$in$Article(IX(B,(Sec.(2(3).$
Petitioner$seeks$reinstatement$to$ $ ISSUE:(Whether$or$not$Binamira’s$appointment$
the$office$of$General$Manager$(GM)$ $ was$valid$and$that$he$could$enjoy$security$of$
of$the$Philippine$Tourism$Authority$ $ tenure$as$General$Manager$of$the$Philippine$
G. BINAMIRA(V.(
(PTA)$from$which$he$claims$to$have$ $ Tourism$Authority.(
GARRUCHO(JR.(
been$removed$without$just$cause$in$ $ $
$ Appointment(
violation$of$his$security$of$tenure.$ $ HELD:$No.$
$ vs.(
$ Presidential$Decree$ $
$ Designation(
April$7,$1986$!$Jose(Gonzales,(the( 564.$Sec.$23TA.$ RATIO:(
G.R.$No.$92008$
Minister(of(Tourism,$designated$ $ The$petitioner$was$not$appointed$by$the$
July$30,$1990(
Petitioner$Binamira$as$GM$of$the$ General$Manager$–$ President$of$the$Philippines$but$was$only$
PTA$through$a$Memorandum.$$ Appointment$and$ designated$by$the$Minister$of$Tourism.$
Petitioner$then$assumed$office$on$ Tenure.$$The$General$ $
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
the$same$date.$ Manager$shall$be$ Appointment$involves$the$exercise$of$
$ appointed$by$the$ discretion,$and$this$cannot$be$delegated.$$
Binamira$claims$that$since$assuming$ President$of$the$ Legally$speaking,$it$was$impossible$for$Minister$
office,$he$had$discharged$the$duties$ Philippines$and$shall$ Gonzales$to$act$as$an$alter$ego$of$the$President,$
of$PTA$GM$and$Vice$Chair$of$its$ serve$for$a$term$of$six$ even$if$Gonzales$happened$to$be$a$member$of$
Board$of$Directors,$and$had$been$ (6)$years$unless$sooner$ the$President’s$Cabinet.$$The$power$to$appoint$
acknowledged$as$such$by$various$ removed$for$cause;$ the$GM$of$the$PTA$rested$solely$on$the$
government$offices,$including$the$ Provided,$That$upon$ President$of$the$Philippines.$$At$best,$Binamira’s$
Office$of$the$President.$ the$expiration$of$his$ appointment$was$only$a$temporary$or$acting$
$ term,$he$shall$serve$as$ appointment$that$could$be$legally$withdrawn$at$
January$2,$1990$!$Binamira$ such$until$his$successor$ pleasure,$as$in$fact$it$was.$$Thus,$he$cannot$
complained$that$his$resignation$was$ shall$have$been$ claim$security$of$tenure.$
demanded$by$respondent$Garrucho$ appointed$and$ $
as$the$new$Secretary(of(Tourism.$ qualified.$(As$amended$ Moreover,$In$the$case$of$Villena$v.$Secretary$of$
$ by$PD$1400.)$ Interior,$it$was$discussed$that$the$acts$of$the$
January$4,$1990$!$President$ Department$Head$were$acts$of$the$President$of$
Corazon$Aquino$sent$a$ the$Philippines$when$“performed$and$
Memorandum$to$respondent$ promulgated$in$the$regular$course$of$business,”$
Garrucho$saying$that$petitioner$ which$was$true$of$the$designation$made$by$
Binamira$(GM$of$the$PTA)$was$not$ Minister$Gonzales$of$Binamira.$$However,$such$
designated$by$the$President$(as$ doctrine$also$adds$that$such$act$will$only$
required$by$PD(564,$which$created$ remain$valid$“if$not$disapproved$or$reprobated$
the$Philippine$Tourism$Authority),$ by$the$Chief$Executive,”$as$what$happened$in$
but$only$by$the$Secretary$of$ this$case.$
Tourism.$$As$such,$Binamira’s$ $
designation$was$invalid.$$The$ *$$$*$$$*$$$*$$$*$
President$then$designated$Garrucho$ $
as$GM$until$she$could$appoint$a$ Appointment$!$Is$the$selection,$by$the$
person$to$hold$such$office$in$a$ authority$vested$with$power,$of$an$individual$
permanent$capacity.$ who$is$to$exercise$the$functions$of$a$given$
$ office.$$Such$completion$of$appointment$results$
Garrucho$then$took$over$Binamira’s$ in$security$of$tenure.$
postion$as$GM$of$the$PTA.$$Binamira$ $
then$filed$this$action$against$ Designation$!$The$imposition$by$law$of$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
Garrucho$to$question$his$title.$$ additional$duties$on$an$incumbent$official.$$
Binamira$further$impleaded$a$ Such$appointee$serves$only$for$a$temporary$
certain$Jose(Capistrano(as(an( capacity$and$may$be$replaced$at$will$by$the$
additional(respondent,$alleging$that$ appointing$authority.$$There$is$no$security$of$
on$April$6,$1990,$President$Aquino$ tenure.$
appointed$him$as$the$GM$of$the$ $
PTA.$ (Examples$of$designation$!$(1)$The$Secretary$of$
Tourism$was$designated$Chairman$of$the$Board$
of$Directors$of$the$Philippine$Tourism$Authority,$
(2)$Three$justices$of$the$SC$may$be$enjoined$by$
the$CJ$to$sit$in$the$Electoral$Tribunals$while$in$
office.)$
( Section$9(h)$of$Article$V$ ISSUE(1:(Whether$or$not$the$CSC$is$authorized$
of$the$Civil$Service$ to$disapprove$a$permanent$appointment$on$the$
Decree.$Approve$all$ ground$that$another$person$is$better$qualified$
appointments,$ than$the$appointee$and$order$his$
whether$original$or$ replacement!NO.*It*was*not*for*the*CSC*to*
promotional,$to$ reverse*him*and*call*the*appointment*
positions$in$the$civil$ temporary.$
H. LUEGO(V.(CSC( service…$ (
( RATIO:$The$appointment$of$the$petitioner$is$not$
143(SCRA(327(( temporary$but$permanent$and$was$therefore$
(1986)( protected$by$the$Constitution.$$
Limits(of(CSC(
( The$CSC$is$not$empowered$to$determine$the$
( kind$or$nature$of$the$appointment$extended$by$
p.(699( the$appointing$officer,$its$authority$being$
( limited$to$approving$or$reviewing$the$
appointment$in$the$light$of$the$requirements$of$
the$Civil$Service$Law.$$
A$full$reading$of$Section$9(h)$of$the$Civil$Service$
Decree$will$make$it$clear$that$all$the$CSC$is$
actually$allowed$to$do$is$check$whether$or$not$
the$appointee$possesses$the$appropriate$civil$
service$eligibility$or$the$required$qualifications.(
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
Petitioner,$Narciso$Y.$Santiago,$Jr.,$ Section$4,$CSC$ ISSUE(1:($Whether$or$not$the$CSC$is$authorized$
with$the$rank$of$Collector$of$ Resolution$No.$83T843.$ to$disapprove$a$permanent$appointment$on$the$
Customs$I,$was$appointed$by$then$ An$employee$who$ ground$that$there$is$another$nextTinTrank!NO.*
Customs$Commissioner$ holds$a$nextTinTrank$ The*CSC*does*not*have*authority.$
WigbertoTañada$as$Collector$of$ position$who$is$ (
Customs$III.$However,$private$ deemed$the$most$ RATIO:$One$who$is$nextTinTrank$is$entitled$to$
respondent$Leonardo$A.$Jose,$with$ competent$and$ preferential$consideration$for$promotion$to$the$
the$rank$of$Collector$of$Customs$II,$ qualified…$However,$ higher$vacancy$but$it$does$not$necessarily$
filed$a$protest$before$the$Merit$ the$appointing$ follow$that$he$and$no$one$else$can$be$
Systems$Promotion$Board$against$ authority$may$promote$ appointed.$The$rule$neither$grants$a$vested$
I. SANTIAGO(JR.(
Santiago’s$promotional$ an$employee$who$is$ right$to$the$holder$nor$imposes$a$ministerial$
V.(CSC(
appointment$on$the$ground$that$he$ not$nextTinTrank$but$ duty$on$the$appointing$authority$to$promote$
178(SCRA(733(
Limits(of(CSC( was$next$in$rank$to$the$position$in$ who$possesses$ such$person$to$the$next$higher$position.$As$
(1989)(
question.$The$appointment$of$ superior$ provided$for$in$Section$4$of$CSC$Resolution$No.$
(
Santiago$was$revoked$by$the$Merit$ qualifications…$ 83T843,$the$appointing$authority$has$the$power$
p.(700(
Systems$Board$and$affirmed$by$the$ to$promote$an$employee$not$nextTinTrank.$$
CSC.$ The$power$to$appoint$is$a$matter$of$discretion.$
Hence,$the$instant$petition$for$ The$appointing$power$has$a$wide$latitude$of$
certiorari.$ choice$as$to$who$is$best$qualified$for$the$
position.$To$apply$the$nextTinTrank$rule$
peremptorily$would$impose$a$rigid$formula$on$
the$appointing$power$contrary$to$the$policy$of$
the$law$that$among$those$qualified$and$eligible,$
the$appointing$authority$is$granted$discretion$
and$prerogative.$
J. ASTRAQUILLO( The$decision$deals$with$five$cases.$ $ ISSUE:$Whether$or$not$the$petitioners$were$
ET.(AL.(V.( The$cases$have$been$consolidated$ nonTcareer$officers$and$whose$service$as$
MANGLAPUS( NonIcareer( and$jointly$considered$because$they$ Philippine$diplomats$was$under$the$pleasure$of$
$ Service( all$turn$upon$a$common$legal$issue,$ the$president.$
G.R.(No.(88183,( ( i.e.,$the$validity$of$the$termination,$ $
October(3,(1990( Foreign( by$authority$of$the$President$of$the$ HELD:(YES.$Petitioners$were$nonTcareer$officers$
( Service( Philippines,$of$the$petitioners’$ who$serve$at$the$pleasure$of$the$President.$
( appointments$as$“political”$or$“nonT $
p.(702( career”$members$of$the$country’s$ RATIO:$A$perusal$of$the$provisions$of$Section$5,$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
Foreign$Service$–$whether$or$not$ P.D.$No.$807$shows$that$the$three$petitioners$
their$service$as$Philippine$diplomats$ pertained$to$the$NonTCareer$Service.$Their$
was$under$the$circumstances,$at$the$ appointments$to$the$Foreign$Service$were$
pleasure$of$the$president,$ made$on”$bases$other$than$those$of$the$usual$
terminable$without$cause$or$need$of$ test$of$merit$and$fitness$utilized$for$the$career$
investigation.$ service;”$their$entrance$was$not$“based$on$
Astraquillo$was$appointed$by$the$ merit$and$fitness$determined$by$competitive$
President$as$Ambassador$ examinations,$or$based$on$highly$technical$
Extraordinary$and$Plenipotentiary$ qualifications.”$This$being$so,$their$“tenure$
and$Chief$of$Mission$(II)$to$the$UAE.$ (was)$coterminous$with$that$of$the$appointing$
His$service$was$terminated$“by$ authority$or$subject$to$his$pleasures.”$
authority$of$the$President”$3$years$
later.$
Giang$was$appointed$as$Ambassador$
Extraodirnary$and$Plenipotentiary$
and$Chief$of$Mission$(Class$I)$to$
Kuwait.$His$service$was$terminated$
“by$authority$of$the$President”$also$
3$years$later.$
Melchor,$Jr.$was$appointed$as$
Ambassador$Extraordinary$and$
Plenipotentiary$and$whose$service$
was$also$terminated$after$3$years.$
$
An$issue$is$raised$on$whether$the$ $ ISSUE(1:($Whether$or$not$the$SSS$employees$
Regional$Trial$Court$can$enjoin$the$ have$the$right$to$strike!NO.*The*SSS,*like*all*
Social$Security$System$Employees$ government*employees,*are*prohibited*from*
K. SSS(V.(CA(
Association$(SSSEA)$from$striking$ staging*strikes.$
175(SCRA(686(
and$order$the$striking$employees$to$ $
(1989)( Strike(
return$to$work.$Collaterally,$it$is$ RATIO:$At$present,$in$the$absence$of$any$
(
whether$or$not$employees$of$the$ legislation$allowing$government$employees$to$
p.(704(
SSS$have$the$right$to$strike.$ strike,$recognizing$their$right$to$do$so,$or$
regulating$the$exercise$of$the$right,$they$are$
prohibited$from$striking,$by$express$provision$of$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
Memorandum$Circular$No.$6$and$as$implied$in$
E.O.$No.$180.$$
Are(employees(of(the(SSS(covered(by(the(
prohibition(against(strikes?(
Considering$that$under$the$1987$Constitution$
the$civil$service$embraces$all$branches,$
subdivisions,$instrumentalities,$and$agencies$of$
the$Government,$including$governmentTowned$
or$controlled$corporations$with$original$
charters”$and$that$the$SSS$is$one$such$
governmentTcontrolled$corporation$with$an$
original$charter,$having$been$created$under$R.A.$
No.$1161,$its$employees$are$part$of$the$civil$
service.$
$
CSC$revoked$the$appointment$of$ $ ISSUE(1:(Whether$or$not$the$CSC$committed$
petitioner$Victor$A.$Aquino$as$Supply$ grave$abuse$of$discretion$in$revoking$the$
Officer$I$in$the$DECS$Division$of$San$ appointment$of$petitioner!NO.*It*merely*
Pablo$City$as$it$found$private$ restored*the*appointment*of*private*
respondent$Leonarda$de$la$Paz$ respondent*who*was*first*appointed*to*the*
better$qualified.$ contested*position.*$
$ (
In$assailing$the$revocation$of$his$ RATIO:$Petitioner$reliance$in$the$rulings$in$the$
L. AQUINO(V.(CSC(
appointment,$petitioner$invoked$the$ two$cases$did$not$hold$as$the$situation$is$
GR(92403( Security(of(
ruling$of$the$Court$in$the$case$of$ different$in$the$instant$case,$where$the$CSC$
April(22,(1992( tenure(
Santiago$v.$Civil$Service$Commission$ revoked$the$appointment$of$petitioner$
PP(706I707(
and$Galura$v.$Civil$Service$ principally$because$the$right$to$security$of$
Commissionthat$the$CSC$has$no$ tenure$of$the$prior$appointee,$private$
authority$to$revoke$an$appointment$ respondent,$to$the$contested$position$had$
on$the$ground$that$another$person$ already$attached.$CSC$did$not$direct$the$new$
is$more$qualified$for$a$particular$ appointment$of$a$substitute$of$its$choice.$It$
position$for$that$would$have$ merely$restored$the$appointment$of$private$
constituted$an$encroachment$on$the$ respondent.$
discretion$vested$solely$in$the$ It$is$wellTsettled$that$once$an$appointment$is$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
appointing$authority.$ issued$and$the$moment$the$appointee$assumes$
a$position$in$the$civil$service$under$a$completed$
appointment,$he$acquires$a$legal$a$legal$right$to$
the$position$which$is$not$only$protected$by$
statute$but$also$of$the$Constitution.$$
When$the$appointing$power$has$once$acted$and$
the$appointee$has$accepted$the$office$and$done$
what$is$required$of$him$upon$its$acceptance,$his$
title$to$the$office$becomes$complete,$and$he$
can$then$be$removed$only$in$the$regular$way.$(
Sept.$17,$1981!$Manuel$S.$Pineda$ Sec.$66.$Candidates$ ISSUE:(Whether$or$not(Pineda(should$be$
was$employed$with$the$Philippine$ holding$appointive$ considered$ipso$facto$resigned$upon$the$filing$
National$Oil$Co.TEnergy$ office$or$position.$—$ of$his$Certificate$of$Candidacy$in$November,$
Development$Corp.$(PNOCTEDC)$as$ Any$person$holding$a$ 1987,$in$accordance$with$Section$66$of$the$
Geothermal$Construction$Secretary$ public$appointive$office$ Omnibus$Election$Code?$
$ or$position,$including$ (
June$1988!$Pineda$took$his$oath$of$ active$members$of$the$ HELD:(YES,(OEC$applies$to$all$employees$of$
office$in$as$councilorTelect$of$the$ Armed$Forces$of$the$ GOCCs.(
Municipality$of$Kananga,$Leyte$and$ Philippines,$and$ (
continued$working$for$PNOCTEDC.$ officers$and$employees$ RATIO:$In$the$language$of$Section$2$(1),$Article$
M. PNOC(V.(NLRC( $ in$governmentTowned$ IX$thereof,$is$the$proposition$that$governmentT
Secc.(66(OEC:(
GR(100947( January$26,$1989!$the$PNOCTEDC,$ or$controlled$ owned$or$controlled$corporations$without$
Ipso(Facto(
May(31,(1993( through$Marcelino$Tongco,$notified$ corporations,$shall$be$ original$charter$do$not$fall$under$the$Civil$
resignation(
PP(707I708( Manuel$S.$Pineda$in$writing$that$his$ considered$ipso$ Service$Law$but$under$the$Labor$Code.$
employment$was$being$terminated$ facto$resigned$from$his$ $
pursuant$to$Section$66$of$the$ office$upon$the$filing$of$ However,$Sec.$66$of$the$OEC$has$a$general$
Omnibus$Election$Code,$effective$ his$certificate$of$ application$to$all$the$employees$even$if$they$do$
upon$receipt$of$notice$ candidacy.$ not$fall$under$the$Civil$Service$Law.$$
$ $ $
December$28,$1990!$Labor$Arbiter$ Section$2$(1),$Article$IX$ In$other$words,$Section$66$constitutes$a$just$
Araceli$H.$Maraya$rendered$a$ of$the$1987$ cause$for$termination$of$employment$in$
declaring$Manuel$S.$Pineda's$ Constitution:$The$civil$ addition$to$those$set$forth$in$the$Labor$Code.$
dismissal$from$the$service$illegal,$ service$embraces$all$
and$ordering$his$reinstatement$to$ branches,$subdivisions,$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
his$former$position$without$loss$of$ instrumentalities,$and$
seniority$rights$and$payment$of$full$ agencies$of$the$
back$wages$corresponding$to$the$ Government,$including$
period$from$his$illegal$dismissal$up$ governmentTowned$or$
to$the$time$of$actual$reinstatement.$$ controlled$corporations$
with$original$charters.$
$
CSC$appointed$appellants$Juanito$ Doctrine:$ ISSUE:(Whether$or$not$the$Civil$Service$
Junsay$and$Benjamin$Villegas$as$ CSC$is$actually$allowed$ Commission$is$authorized$to$disapprove$a$
Terminal$Supervisor$replacing$ to$do$is$check$whether$ permanent$appointment$on$the$ground$that$
Renato$Lapinid$and$Antonio$Dulfo$ or$not$the$appointee$ another$person$is$better$qualified$than$the$
N. LAPINID(V.(CSC( because$the$former$acquired$higher$ possesses$the$ appointee$and,$on$the$basis$of$this$finding,$
GR(96298( grade$in$the$comparative$evaluation$ appropriate$civil$ order$his$replacement$by$the$latter?$
Limits(of(CSC(
May(14,1991( over$the$latter.$ service$eligibility$or$the$ $
PP(708I709$ required$qualifications.$$ Held:$NO,$the$Civil$Service$Commission$cannot$
And$to$disapprove$only$ disallow$an$appointment$because$it$believes$
when$such$ another$person$is$better$qualified$and$much$
requirements$are$not$ less$can$it$direct$the$appointment$of$its$own$
met.$$ choice.(
(
Section(3.(The(Civil(Service(Commission,(as(the(central(personnel(agency(of(the(Government,(shall(establish(a(career(service(and(adopt(measures(to(
promote(morale,(efficiency,(integrity,(responsiveness,(progressiveness,(and(courtesy(in(the(civil(service.(It(shall(strengthen(the(merit(and(rewards(
system,(integrate(all(human(resources(development(programs(for(all(levels(and(ranks,(and(institutionalize(a(management(climate(conducive(to(public(
accountability.(It(shall(submit(to(the(President(and(the(Congress(an(annual(report(on(its(personnel(programs.(
(
Section(4.(All(public(officers(and(employees(shall(take(an(oath(or(affirmation(to(uphold(and(defend(this(Constitution.(
(
Section(5.(The(Congress(shall(provide(for(the(standardization(of(compensation(of(government(officials(and(employees,(including(those(in(governmentI
owned(or(controlled(corporations(with(original(charters,(taking(into(account(the(nature(of(the(responsibilities(pertaining(to,(and(the(qualifications(
required(for,(their(positions.(
(
Section(6.(No(candidate(who(has(lost(in(any(election(shall,(within(one(year(after(such(election,(be(appointed(to(any(office(in(the(Government(or(any(
GovernmentIowned(or(controlled(corporations(or(in(any(of(their(subsidiaries.(
(
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
Section(7.(No(elective(official(shall(be(eligible(for(appointment(or(designation(in(any(capacity(to(any(public(office(or(position(during(his(tenure.(
(
Unless(otherwise(allowed(by(law(or(by(the(primary(functions(of(his(position,(no(appointive(official(shall(hold(any(other(office(or(employment(in(the(
Government(or(any(subdivision,(agency(or(instrumentality(thereof,(including(GovernmentIowned(or(controlled(corporations(or(their(subsidiaries.(
(
Section(8.(No(elective(or(appointive(public(officer(or(employee(shall(receive(additional,(double,(or(indirect(compensation,(unless(specifically(
authorized(by(law,(nor(accept(without(the(consent(of(the(Congress,(any(present,(emolument,(office,(or(title(of(any(kind(from(any(foreign(government.(
(
Pensions(or(gratuities(shall(not(be(considered(as(additional,(double,(or(indirect(compensation.(
(
Provision/s(
( $ $ $ $
( $ $ $ $
( $ $ $ $
( $ $ $ $
( $ $ $ $
( $ $ $ $
( $ $ $ $
( $ $ $ $
( $ $ $ $
( $ $ $ $
( $ $ $ $
( $ $ $ $
( $ $ $ $
( $ $ $ $
(
(
(
$
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
(
D.(THE(COMMISSION(ON(AUDIT(
(
Section(2.((
(1)( The( Commission( on( Audit( shall( have( the( power,( authority,( and( duty( to( examine,( audit,( and( settle( all( accounts( pertaining( to( the( revenue( and(
receipts(of,(and(expenditures(or(uses(of(funds(and(property,(owned(or(held(in(trust(by,(or(pertaining(to,(the(Government,(or(any(of(its(subdivisions,(
agencies,( or( instrumentalities,( including( governmentOowned( or( controlled( corporations( with( original( charters,( and( on( a( postO( audit( basis:( (a)(
constitutional(bodies,(commissions(and(offices(that(have(been(granted(fiscal(autonomy(under(this(Constitution;((b)(autonomous(state(colleges(and(
universities;((c)(other(governmentOowned(or(controlled(corporations(and(their(subsidiaries;(and((d)(such(nonOgovernmental(entities(receiving(subsidy(
or(equity,(directly(or(indirectly,(from(or(through(the(Government,(which(are(required(by(law(or(the(granting(institution(to(submit(to(such(audit(as(a(
condition(of(subsidy(or(equity.(However,(where(the(internal(control(system(of(the(audited(agencies(is(inadequate,(the(Commission(may(adopt(such(
measures,(including(temporary(or(special(preOaudit,(as(are(necessary(and(appropriate(to(correct(the(deficiencies.(It(shall(keep(the(general(accounts(of(
the(Government(and,(for(such(period(as(may(be(provided(by(law,(preserve(the(vouchers(and(other(supporting(papers(pertaining(thereto.(
(
(2)(The(Commission(shall(have(exclusive(authority,(subject(to(the(limitations(in(this(Article,(to(define(the(scope(of(its(audit(and(examination,(establish(
the(techniques(and(methods(required(therefor,(and(promulgate(accounting(and(auditing(rules(and(regulations,(including(those(for(the(prevention(and(
disallowance(of(irregular,(unnecessary,(excessive,(extravagant,(or(unconscionable(expenditures(or(uses(of(government(funds(and(properties.(
(
Provision/s(
Petitioner,)Atty.)Praxedio)P.) Sec.)2.)(1))The) W/N)the)disallowance)is)a)usurpation)of)a)
Dingcong,)was)the)former)Acting) Commission)on)Audit) management)function)and)an)impairment)of)
Regional)Director)of)Regional)Office) shall)have)the)power,) contract.)
No.)VI)of)the)Bureau)of)Treasury)in) authority,)and)duty)to) Held:)No,)it)is)a)valid)exercise)of)functions.)
A.DINGCONG(V.( Power(to( Iloilo)City)while)Guingona)was)the) examine,)audit,)and) Ratio:)Not)only)is)the)Commission)on)Audit)
GUINGONA(JR.( review(&( Chairman)of)COA.) settle)all)accounts) (COA))vested)with)the)power)and)authority,)but)
162(SCRA(782( evaluate( On)three)occasions,)petitioner,)after) pertaining)to)the) it)is)also)charged)with)the)duty,)to)examine,)
(1988)( contracts( public)bidding,)contracted,) revenue)and)receipts) audit)and)settle)all)accounts)pertaining)to)...)the)
PP(761( “pakyao”( admittedly)on)an)"emergency)labor) of,)and)expenditures)or) expenditures)or)uses)of)funds)...)owned)...)by,)or)
basis,")the)services)of)one)Rameses) uses)of)funds)and) pertaining)to,)the)Government)or)any)of)its)
Layson,)a)private)carpenter)and) property,)owned)or) subdivisions,)agencies,)or)instrumentalities.)
electrician)on)"pakyao")basis)for)the) held)in)trust)by,)or) In)the)exercise)of)its)jurisdiction,)it)determines)
renovation)and)improvement)of)his) pertaining)to,)the) whether)or)not)the)fiscal)responsibility)that)rests)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
office)for)giving)the)lowest)bid.) Government,)or)any)of) directly)with)the)head)of)the)government)
COA)reduced)the)daily)rate)of)the) its)subdivisions,) agency)has)been)properly)and)effectively)
carpenter)from)P40)to)P25)for)being) agencies,)or) discharged,)and)whether)or)not)there)has)been)
excessive)and)so)Dingcong)was)not) instrumentalities,) loss)or)wastage)of)government)resources.)
reimbursed.) including)governmentV
owned)or)controlled)
corporations)with)
original)charters(
The)phrase)"public)
auction")or)"public)
bidding")imports)a)sale)
In)the)petition)for)review)in)G.R.)No.)
to)the)highest)bidder)
85285,)petitioner)seeks)to)set)aside)
with)absolute)freedom)
the)letterVdirective)of)the)
for)competitive) W/N))COA)committed)a)grave)abuse)of)
respondent)Commission)on)Audit)
bidding.)(Competitive) discretion)when)it)ruled)that)there)was)a)failure)
(COA)for)brevity))disapproving)the)
bidding)requires)that) of)bidding)
result)of)the)public)bidding)held)by)
there)be)at)least)two) Held:)No,)the)agreement)shall)be)null)and)void.)
the)Philippine)National)Oil)Company)
(2))bidders)who)shall) Rather)than)condemn)the)COA)as)petitioner)
(PNOC)for)brevity))of)the)sale)of)its)
B.(DANVILLE( compete)with)each) proposes,)the)COA)should)be)commended)for)its)
tankerVvessel)"T/T)Andres)Bonifacio")
MARITIME,(INC.( other)on)an)equal) zeal)and)care)in)insuring)that)the)disposition)of)
on)the)ground)that)only)one)bidder)
V.(COA( Bidding( footing)for)winning)the) the)subject)vessel)would)be)in)a)manner)most)
submitted)a)bid)and)to)direct)COA)to)
175(SCRA(701( Public(Auction( award.)If)there)is)only) advantageous)to)the)government.)A)rebidding)
approve)the)said)sale.)
(1989)( one)participating) removes)any)suspicion)that)may)arise)out)of)the)
Petitioner's)argues)that)the)COA)was)
PP(763O764( bidder,)the)bidding)is) sale)of)the)vessel)to)petitioner)under)present)
in)grave)error)in)its)perception)that)
nonVcompetitive)and,) circumstances.)
when)there)is)only)one)actual)bid)
hence,)falls)short)of)the) The)Court)holds)that)a)second)public)bidding)is)
submitted)there)is)consequently)no)
requirement.)) ordained)so)that)all)government)transactions)
competition)and)thus)there)is)a)
Jurisdiction:)RTC)court) would)be)competitive)and)above)board.)
"failure)of)bidding.")The)fact)that)it)
has)no)jurisdiction)to) )
was)only)petitioner)which)submitted)
review)a)decision)of)
a)bid)does)not)affect)the)validity)of)
the)COA)under)the)
the)bidding)conducted.))
Constitution.)This)is)a)
matter)within)the)
exclusive)jurisdiction)of)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
the)Supreme)Court.)(
W/N)there)is)an)encroachment)of)the)
Petitioner)filed)an)action)for)
constitutional)prerogatives)of)Auditor)General)
certiorari)and)prohibition)assailed)
by)the)inquiry)of)the)fiscal)to)determine)w/n)
the)jurisdiction)of)Benjamin)Aquino,)
criminal)liability)is)incurred)for)any)anomaly)
then)Provincial)Fiscal)of)Rizal,)to)
discovered)in)the)course)of)his)audit?)
conduct)the)preliminary)
Held:)YES,)it)is)included)in)the)task)of)the)
C.(RAMOS(V.( investigation)of)the)alleged)
Auditor( Auditor)General)“to)bring)the)proper)
AQUINO( commission)of)malversation)through)
General(in( administrative)officer)expenditures)of)funds)or)
39(SCRA(256( falsification)of)commercial) (
Criminal( property)which,)in)his)opinion,)are)irregular,)
(1971)( documents,)imputed)by)the)Auditor)
Prosecution( unnecessary,)excessive,)or)extravagant”)
PP(764O766( General.)
Ratio:)CJ)Concepcion:)“As)a)matter)of)general)
Arguments)of)Edilberto)Ramos:)the)
rule,)the)writ)of)prohibition)will)not)issue)to)
ascertainment)of)whether)a)crime)
retrain)criminal)prosecution.”)
committed)and)by)who)is)a)not)a)
Besides,)the)Auditor)General)will)not)participate)
constitutional)power)vested)in)the)
in)the)investigation)to)determine)w/n)criminal)
Auditor)General.))
prosecution)should)be)instituted.)
Petitioner)contends)that)he)could)
not)be)held)
liable)on)the)audit)disallowances) W/N)petitioner)is)an)accountable)officer)in)
because)he) relation)to)Sec.)2,)Art.)9VD)of)the)Constitution)
was)not)an)accountable)officer) and)thus)is)held)liable)on)the)audit)
within)the) disallowances.)!)YES)
D.(MAMARIL(V.( meaning)of)Sec.)101)of)PD)1445) Ratio:)YES.)State)audit)is)not)limited)to)the)
Accountable(
DOMINGO( since:)) ( auditing)of)the)accountable)officers)and)the)
officer(
PP767( ) settlement)of)accounts,)but)includes)accounting)
1.)his)work)was)purely)clerical,)) functions)and)the)adoption)in)the)audited)
2.)he)did)not)come)into)possession) agencies)of)internal)controls)to)see)to)it,)among)
of)any)money)or)property)for)which) other)matters,)that)the)correct)fees)and)
he)is)now)asked)to)pay,)and) penalties)due)to)the)government)are)collected.)
3.)He)did)not)act)in)bad)faith)or)with)
gross)negligence.)
E.(SAMBELI(V.( Public) The)case)at)bar)speaks)of)the)validity) Article)9D,)Sec.)2(1).) ISSUE:)WON)the)ruling)of)the)COA)was)valid.)
PROVINCE(OF( expenditure)of) of)a)COA)ruling)denying)the) The)COA)is)vested)with) HELD:)Yes.)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
ISABELA( funds) petitioner’s)claim)that)said) the)power)and) RATIO:)Pursuant)to)Art.)9D,)Sec.)2(1V2),)the)COA)
( Commission)should)authorize)the) authority,)but)it)is)also) has)the)power,)authority,)and)duty)to)examine,)
GR(No.(92279( payment)between)a)transaction)the) charged)with)the)duty) audit,)and)settle)all)accounts)pertaining)to)the)
June(18,(1992( petitioners)made)with)the)Province) to)examine,)audit,)and) expenditure)or)use)of)funds)in)the)government)
of)Isabela)concerning)a)contract)of) settle)accounts) or)any)of)its)subdivisions,)agencies,)or)
sale.))) pertaining)to)xxx)the) instrumentalities.))The)COA)is)vested)with)the)
) expenditure)or)uses)of) right)to)put)a)stop)to)improper)or)wasteful)
Petitioners)contend)that)the) funds)xxx)owned)by)or) spending)of)public)funds,)immoral)use)of)
contract)of)sale)has)not)been) pertaining)to,)the) government)property)for)being)highly)irregular,)
perfected)between)the)Province)of) Government)or)any)of) unnecessary,)or)scandalously)excessive)or)
Isabela)and)petitioner,)but)delivery) its)subdivisions,) extravagant,)it)being)offensive)to)the)will)of)the)
has)been)made)by)it)with)the) agencies,)or) sovereign)people.)
corresponding)partial)payment)by) instrumentalities.) This)Commission)determines)whether)or)not)the)
the)Province)of)Isabela.))Thus,) Article)9D,)Sec.)2(2).) fiscal)responsibility)that)rests)with)the)head)of)
petitioners)allege)that)it)is)the)duty) The)Commission)shall) the)government)agency)has)been)properly)and)
of)COA)to)authorize)the)payment)of) have)exclusive) effective)discharged.))It)is)also)empowered)to)
the)balance)because)to)act) authority,)subject)to) review)and)evaluate)contracts,)and)after)an)
otherwise)will)constitute)an) the)limitations)in)this) audit)has)been)made,)its)auditors)issue)a)
impairment)of)contract.) Article,)to)define)the) certificate)of)settlement)to)each)officer)whose)
scope)of)its)audit)and) account)has)been)audited)and)settled)in)whole)
examination,)establish) or)in)part,)stating)the)balances)found)and)
the)techniques)and) certified,)and)the)charges)or)differences)arising)
methods)required) from)the)settlement)by)reason)of)disallowances,)
therefor,)and) charges,)or)suspensions.)
promulgate)accounting)
and)auditing)rules)and)
regulations,)including)
those)for)the)
prevention)and)
disallowance)of)
irregular,)unnecessary,)
excessive,)extravagant,)
or)unconscionable)
expenditures)or)uses)of)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
government)funds)and)
properties.)
)
F.(OSMEÑA(V.( 1985)!)The)City)of)Cebu)decided)to) Art.)9VA,)Sec.)7.)Unless) ISSUE:)WON)the)decision)of)COA)invalidating)the)
COA( construct)a)modern)abattoir) otherwise)provided)by) contract)between)the)City)of)Cebu)and)HFCCI)
( (slaughterhouse.)) this)Constitution)or)by) was)void)because)the)contract)had)already)been)
GR(No.(98355( April)30,)1985)!)City)Treasurer,) law,)any)decision,) executed)and)fulfilled.)
March(2,(1994) Ricardo)Pestano,)issued)a)certificate) order,)or)ruling)of)each) HELD:)No,)such)decision)is)valid.)
of)availability)of)funds)in)the)amount) Commission)may)be) RATIO:)The)COA)has)the)power)to)do)such)
of)P5.4M.))After)a)public)bidding,)H.) brought)to)the) pursuant)to)Art.)9VD,)Sec.)2(1).)
Franco)Construction)Company,)Inc.) Supreme)Court)on) Moreover,)the)Auditing)Code)of)the)PH)also)
(HFCCI))got)the)deal.))Thus,)the)City) certiorari)by)the) states)that)no)contract)involving)the)
of)Cebu,)through)its)Mayor,)Ronald) aggrieved)party)within) expenditure)of)public)funds)shall)be)entered)
Duterte,)entered)intro)a)contract) thirty)days)from)receipt) into)unless:)
Abattoir(
with)HFCCI.) of)a)copy)thereof.) There)is)an)appropriation,))
Contract(
March)13,)1986)!)Sen.)John) ) The)proper)accounting)official)shall)have)
(
Osmeña,)then)OfficerVInVCharge)of) Article)9VD,)Sec.)2(1).) certified)to)the)officer)entering)into)the)
Compromise(
the)City)of)Cebu,)ordered)the) The)COA)is)vested)with) obligation)that)funds)have)been)duly)
Agreement(
suspension)of)the)project)and)review) the)power)and) appropriated)for)the)purpose,)and)
(
of)the)contract)by)COA.))He)also) authority,)but)it)is)also) The)amount)necessary)to)cover)the)contract)for)
Auditing(Code(
asked)that)HFCCI)account)for)the) charged)with)the)duty) the)current)year)is)available)for)expenditure.)
of(the(
value)of)their)progress,)for)which) to)examine,)audit,)and) The)contract)entered)into)by)former)City)of)
Philippines((PD(
they)said)that)P2.1M)was)the)value) settle)accounts) Cebu)Mayor)Duterte)was)void)from)the)very)
1445)(
of)they)work)they)had)accomplished) pertaining)to)xxx)the) beginning)since)the)agreed)cost)for)the)project)
so)far.) expenditure)or)uses)of) (P8.37M))was)way)beyond)the)appropriated)
May)21,)1987)!)After)HFCCI)was) funds)xxx)owned)by)or) amount)of)P5.4M,)as)certified)by)the)City)
unable)to)collect)the)amount)after)so) pertaining)to,)the) Treasurer.))Hence,)the)contract)was)properly)
many)demands,)said)company) Government)or)any)of) declared)void)and)unforceable)in)COA’s)2nd)
instituted)a)civil)action)against)the) its)subdivisions,) Indorsement,)dated)September)4,)1986.)
City)of)Cebu)for)recovery)of) agencies,)or) )
investment)and)damages.) instrumentalities.)
June)5,)1987)!)The)City)of)Cebu) )
basically)said)that)the)contract)it) )
entered)with)HFCCI)was)null)and)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
void)as)declared)by)COA)in)its)2nd)
Indorsement)dated)September)4,)
1986.))Therefore,)the)officer/s)who)
entered)into)the)contract)are)liable)
for)whatever)amount)is)due)the)
company.)
December)15,)1988)!)The)City)
Mayor,)now)Tomas)Osmeña,)entered)
into)a)compromise)agreement)
approved)by)the)court,)to)the)effect)
that)as)a)full)and)final)settlement)for)
HFCCI,)it)will)only)pay)the)company)
P1.5)M.)
March)3,)1989)!)Thus,)the)
Provincial)Deputy)Sheriff,)RTC,)
Branch)5,)of)Cebu)City,)was)ordered)
to)serve)a)writ)of)execution)against)
the)City)of)Cebu)through)its)Mayor.))
The)amounts)of)P1.5)M)and)P15k,)as)
lawul)fees,)were)garnished)from)the)
City’s)funds)from)PNB.)
May)2,)1989)!)The)COA)ruled)that)
the)contract)for)the)construction)of)
the)Cebu)City)Abattoir)was)declared)
void)in)a)2nd)Indorsement.))Since)
there)was)no)appeal,)the)decision)
became)final.)
Consequently,)if)a)compromise)is)
based)upon)an)antecedent)claim,)
which)is)illegal,)the)compromise)may)
be)considered)invalid)on)the)ground)
of)illegality)as)well)as)lack)of)
consideration.))Besides,)pursuant)to)
Art.)9VA,)Sec)7,)the)contract)is)a)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
circumvention)of)such)provision.))
Petitioner’s)(Osmeña))request)for)
reconsideration)was)denied)in)COA’s)
5th)Indorsement.))Hence,)this)
petition)with)the)ff:)grounds:)
The)decision)in)the)2nd)Indorsement)
is)null)and)void)for)having)been)
made)without,)in)excess)of)
jurisdiction)or)with)grave)abuse)of)
discretion;)
That)Public)Respondent’s)decision)
has)never)become)final)for)the)
abovementioned)reasons,)as)well.)
Transportation) This)petition)seeks)to)set)aside)the) Article)12VD,)Sec.)2(1),) ISSUE:)WON)the)COA)committed)grave)abuse)of)
allowance) Decision)of)COA)which)denied)due) 1973)Constitution.)The) discretion)amounting)to)lack)of)jurisdiction)
) course)to)the)appeal)of)petitioner) Commission)on)Audit) when)COA)denied)due)course)to)the)appeal)of)
P1,250) Bustamante)from)the)disallowance) shall)have)the)following) the)petitioner)from)the)disallowance)of)his)
by)Regional)Auditor)Martha) powers)and)functions:) transportation)allowance.)
Caburian)of)petitioner’s)claim)for) )(1))Examine,)audit,)and) HELD:)No,)COA)did)not)commit)such)in)denying)
transportation)allowance)covering) settle,)in)accordance) the)appeal.)
G.(BUSTAMANTE( the)month)of)January)1989)in)the) with)law)and) RATIO:)The)discretion)exercised)in)the)denial)of)
V.(COA( amount)of)P1,250.) regulations,)all) the)appeal)is)within)the)power)o)the)COA,)
( Petitioner)Bustamante)is)the) accounts)pertaining)to) pursuant)to)Art.)12VD,)Sec.)2(1))of)the)1973)
GR(No.(103309( Regional)Legal)Counsel)of)the) the)revenues)and) Constitution)and)in)Circular)No.)75V6)(Sec.14,)PD)
( National)Power)Corporation)(NPC)) receipts)of,)and) 733))which)regulated)the)use)of)government)
November(27,( for)the)Northern)Luzon)Region) expenditures)or)uses)of) motor)vehicles,)aircrafts,)and)watercrafts.)
1992( Center)covering)the)provinces)of) funds)and)property,) The)petitioner)cannot)say)that)NPC)was)not)
Rizal)up)to)Batanes.))He)was)issued)a) owned)or)held)in)trust) under)the)corporations/offices)covered)by)PD)
government)vehicle.))Pursuant)to) by,)or)pertaining)to,)the) 733)because)it)is)clear)that)the)circular)is)
NPC)Policy,)he)was)given)monthly) Government,)or)any)of) addressed)to)managing)heads)of)GovernmentV
transportation)allowances)in) its)subdivisions,) owned)or)Controlled)Corporations,)the)NPC)
addition)to)the)use)of)the) agencies,)or) being)held)under)such)categories.)
government)vehicle.) instrumentalities,) The)petitioner’s)contention)that)the)COA)
On)May)1990,)the)petitioner) including)governmentV usurped)the)statutory)functions)of)the)NPC)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
received)an)Auditor’s)Notice)to) owned)and)controlled) Board)of)Directors,)also)cannot)be)sustained)
Person)Liable)from)respondent) corporations;)keep)the) because)that)would)lead)to)the)absurd)
Caburian)disallowing)the)P1,250) general)accounts)of)the) conclusion)that)a)mere)Board)of)Directors)of)a)
transportation)allowance.) government)and,)for) governmentVowned)and)controlled)corporation,)
The)petitioner)moved)for) such)period)as)may)be) by)issuing)a)resolution,)can)contravene)a)
reconsideration)by)way)of)letter)to) provided)by)law,) constitutional)provision.))Doing)otherwise)would)
Caburian,)but)the)latter)denied)such) preserve)the)vouchers) be)rendering)useless)this)Constitutional)Body,)
motion.))Petitioner)then)appealed) pertaining)thereto;)and) which)has)been)tasked)to)be)vigilant)and)
this)denial)to)the)COA)at)Quezon) promulgate)accounting) conscientious)in)safeguarding)the)proper)use)of)
City,)which)denied)it,)as)well.) and)auditing)rules)and) the)government’s,)and)ultimately,)the)people’s)
Thus,)this)petition.) regulations)including) property.)
those)for)the) The)use)of)government)motor)vehicle)and)the)
prevention)of)irregular,) claim)for)transportation)allowance)are)mutually)
unnecessary,)excessive,) exclusive.))Therefore,)the)P1,250)transportation)
or)extravagant) allowance)was)disallowed.)
expenditures)or)use)of)
funds)and)property.)
P.D.)733,)Sec.)14.))
VI.)Prohibition)Against)
Use)of)Government)
Vehicles)by)Officials)
provided)with)
transportation)
allowance.))“No)official)
who)has)been)
furnished)motor)
transportation)
allowance)by)any)
government)
corporations)or)other)
office)shall)be)allowed)
to)use)motor)vehicle)
transportation)
operated)and)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
maintained)from)funds)
appropriated)in)the)
aboveVcited)Decree.”)
Decisions)by) Under)the)1973)and)1987) VV) ISSUE:)WON)Nepomuceno’s)5th)Indorsement)can)
acting)chairmen) Constitutions,)the)COA)is)a)collegial) be)considered)as)a)decision)of)the)COA.)
have)no) body.))It)must)resolve)cases) HELD:)No.)
authority)=)void) presented)to)it)as)such.))Its)General) RATIO:)A)soVcalled)decision)by)authority)of)the)
ab#initio) Counsel)cannot)act)for)the) acting)chairman)is)“substantially)void)ab#initio,”)
H.(OROCIO(V.(
Commission)for)he)is)not)even)a) because)it)was)rendered)without)jurisdiction.))It)
COA(
Commissioner)thereof.))He)can)only) had)an)essential,)inherent)defect,)that)could)not)
(
offer)legal)advice)or)render)an) cured)or)waived.”)(See)Mison#v.#COA))
GR(No.(75959(
opinion)in)order)to)aid)the)COA)in) (Instead,#what#Mr.#Nepomuceno#should#have#
August(31,(1992(
the)resolution)of)a)case)or)a)legal) done#was#to#render#the#opinion#sought#for#in#the#
question.) preceding#4th#Indorsement#of#respondent#Ursal,#
and#submit#the#same#to#the#Commission#for#the#
latter’s#guidance#in#resolving#the#motion#for#
reconsideration.))
This)is)a)petition)erroneously) Par.)1,)Section)2,) ISSUE(1:(Whether)or)not)the)COA)has)the)
brought)under)Rule)44)of)the)Rules) Article)IX,)D)of)the)1987) authority)to)disallow)irregular,)unnecessary,)
of)Court)questioning)the)authority)of) Constitution.)The) excessive,)extravagant,)or)unconscionable)
the)Commission)on)Audit)(COA))in) Commission)on)Audit) expenditures,)or)use)of)government)funds)and)
disallowing)petitioner’s)claims)for) shall)have)the)power,) properties)!YES.)
I.(CALTEX( reimbursement)from)the)Oil)Price) authority,)and)duty)to) ! Ratio)1:))
PHILIPPINES(VS.( Stabilization)Fund)(OPSF))and) examine,)audit,)and) o The)audit)power)of)the)Auditor)General)
COA( seeking)the)reversal)of)said) settle)all)accounts) under)the)1935)Constitution)and)the)
G.R.(No.(92585,( Reimbursement( Commission’s)decision)denying)its) pertaining)to)the) Commission)on)Audit)under)the)1973)
May(8,(1992( claims)for)recovery)of)financing) revenue)and)receipts) Constitution)authorized)them)to)disallow)
p.(772( charges)from)the)Fund)and) of,)and)expenditures)or) illegal)expenditures)of)funds)or)uses)of)funds)
( reimbursement)of)under)recovery) uses)of)funds)and) and)property.)Our)present)Constitution,)as)
arising)from)sales)to)the)National) property…)) seen)in)Par.)1,)Section)2,)Article)IX,)D,)
Power)Corporation,)Atlas) ) retained)that)same)power)and)authority)
Consolidated)Mining)and) further)strengthened)by)the)definition)of)the)
Development)Corporation)(ATLAS)) COA’s)general)jurisdiction)in)Section)26)of)the)
and)Marcopper)Mining)Corporation) Government)Auditing)Code)of)the)Philippines)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
(MARCOPPER),)preventing)it)from) and)Administrative)Code)of)1987.)(
exercising)the)right)to)offset) o The)same)view)was)expressed)by)one)of)the)
remittances)against)its) Commissioners)of)the)1986)Constitutional)
reimbursement)visVàVvis)the)OPSF) Commission,)Fr.)Joaquin)G.)Bernas.(
and)disallowing)its)claims)which)are)
still)pending)resolution)before)the)
Office)of)Energy)Affairs)(OEA))and)
the)Department)of)Finance)(DOF).))
Due)to)importance)of)the)issues)
raised,)the)error)in)the)designation)
of)the)remedy)pursued)was)excused.)
The)National)Power)Corporation) ) ISSUE(1:(Whether)or)not,)under)COA)Resolution)
(NPC))entered)into)a)service)contract) No.)86V255,)the)phrase)“handling)of)legal)cases”)
with)Atty.)Benemerito)A.)Satorre.) should)be)construed)to)mean)as)conduct)of)
Satorre)was)able)to)render)legal) cases)or)handling)of)court)cases)or)litigation)and)
services,)however,)on)12)January) not)to)other)legal)matters,)such)as)legal)
1995,)Unit)Auditor)Alexander)A.)Tan,) documentation,)negotiations,)counseling)or)
NPCVVRC,)Cebu)City,)issued)Notice)of) right)of)way)matters)!NO#
Disallowance)for)the)payment)of)the) ! Ratio)1:))
services)rendered)by)Atty.)Satorre) o Contrary)to)view)espoused)by)petitioner,)the)
J.(POLLOSO(VS.( for)the)period)covering)March)to) prohibition)covers)the)hiring)of)private)
GANGAN(&(COA( December)1995)on)the)ground)that) lawyers)to)render)and)form)of)legal)service.)It)
Payment(of(
G.R.(No.(140563,( it)violated)COA)Circular)No.)86V255.) makes)no)distinction)as)to)whether)or)not)the)
legal(services(
July(14,(2000( Professional)fees)were)then)charged) legal)services)to)be)performed)involve)actual)
p.(774( to)officials)of)the)NPC,)including) legal)controversy)or)court)litigation.(
herein)petitioner.)) ISSUE(2:(Whether)or)not)the)petitioner)is)correct)
Petitioner)initially)filed)motions)for) in)saying)that)the)service)contract)in)question)
reconsideration)to)the)Unit)Auditor) falls)outside)the)ambit)of)the)circular)as)what)is)
and)the)COA)Regional)Director.) being)curtailed)is)the)payment)of)retainer)fees)
However,)both)were)denied)and)the) and)not)the)payment)of)fees)for)legal)services)
prior)decision)holding)petitioner) actually)rendered)!NO.#
liable)for)said)fees)was)affirmed.) ! Ratio)2:))
Hence,)before)the)Court)is)a)petition) o To)give)such)a)technical)interpretation)to)the)
for)review)from)the)decision)of)the) term)“retainer)fees”)would)go)against)the)
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
Commission)on)Audit)(COA),)dated) purpose)of)the)circular)and)render)the)same)
28)September)1999)of)herein) ineffectual.(
petitioner)Dante)M.)Polloso,)from) ISSUE(3:()Whether)or)not)the)Circular)is)
the)disallowance)by)the)COA)Unit) unconstitutional)for)being)an)invalid)restriction)
Auditor)of)the)amount)of) to)the)practice)of)the)law)profession!NO.#
P283,763.39)representing)payment) ! Ratio)3:))
of)legal)services)rendered)by)Atty.) o The)questioned)COA)circular)simply)sets)forth)
Benemerito)A.)Satorre)to)the) the)prerequisites)for)a)government)agency)
National)Power)Corporation)(NPC).) instrumentality)ion)hiring)a)private)lawyer,)
) which)are)reasonable)safeguards)to)prevent)
irregular,)unnecessary,)excessive,)
extravagant)or)unconscionable)expenditures)
or)uses)of)government)funds)and)properties.(
THE(COURT(DISMISSED(THE(PETITION.(
This)is)a)petition)for)review)on) Sec.)2,)Article)IXVD)of) ISSUE(1:(Whether)or)not)COA)has)the)sole)and)
certiorari)of)the)letterVdecision)of) the)1987)Constitution.)) exclusive)power)to)examine)and)audit)
the)Chairman)of)the)Commission)on) (1))The)Commission)on) government)banks)so)as)to)prohibit)concurrent)
Audit)(COA))and)the)letterVdecision) Audit)shall)have)the) audit)by)private)external)auditors)under)any)
of)the)COA)en)banc,)prohibiting)the) power,)authority,)and) circumstance!NO.#
Development)Bank)of)the)Philippines) duty)to)examine,)audit,) ! Ratio)1:))
(DBP))from)hiring)a)private)external) and)settle)all) o A)perusal)of)the)records)of)the)1986)
auditor.)This)petition)raises)a) accounts…) Constitutional)Commission)would)reveal)that)
K.(KBP(VS.(COA( question)of)first)impression,)whether) (2))The)Commission) the)framers)of)the)Constitution)intended)that)
G.R.(No.(88435,( or)not)the)constitutional)power)of) shall)have)exclusive) COA)be)not)granted)exclusive)jurisdiction)
Disallowance(
January(16,(2002( the)COA)to)examine)and)audit)the) authority,)subject)to) over)the)auditing)of)any)government)
p.777( DBP)is)exclusive)and)precludes)a) the)limitations)in)this) department,)agency,)or)instrumentality.)They)
concurrent)audit)of)the)DBP)by)a) Article,)to)define)the) were)fully)aware)of)the)need)to)allow)
private)external)auditor.) scope)of)its)audit)and) independent)private)audit)of)certain)
examination,)establish) government)agencies)in)addition)to)the)COA)
techniques…) audit,)as)when)there)is)a)private)investment)
Sec.)20,)Article)XII)of) in)a)governmentVcontrolled)corporation,)or)
the)1987)Constitution.) when)a)government)corporation)is)privatized)
The)Congress)shall) or)publicly)listed,)or(as(in(the(case(at(bar(
establish)an) when(the(government(borrows(money(from(
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
independent)central) abroad.(
monetary)authority,) o There)is)another)constitutional)barrier)to)the)
the)members)of)whose) COA’s)insistence)of)exclusive)power)to)
governing)board)must) examine)and)audit)all)government)agencies.)
be)naturalVborn)Filipino) The)COA’s)claim)clashes)directly)with)the)
citizens,)of)known) Central)Bank’s)constitutional)power)of)
probity,)integrity,)and) “supervision”)over)banks)under)Section)20,)
patriotism,)the) Article)XII)of)the)Constitution.)The)COA)and)
majority)of)whom)shall) the)Central)Bank)have)concurrent)
come)from)the)private) jurisdiction,)under)the)Constitution,)to)
sector…) examine)and)audit)government)banks.)
However,)despite)this)concurrent)jurisdiction,)
the)COA’s)audit)still)prevails)over)that)of)the)
Central)Bank.(
Salvador)Parreño)(petitioner))served) ) ISSUE(1:()Whether)or)not)COA)has)jurisdiction)to)
in)the)Armed)Forces)of)the) rule)on)the)constitutionality)of)Section)27)of)PD)
Philippines)(AFP))for)32)years.)On)5) 1638)!NO.#
January)1982,)petitioner)retired) ! Ratio)1:))
from)the)Philippine)Constabulary) o Petitioner)filed)his)money)claim)before)the)
with)the)rank)of)2nd)Lieutenant.) COA.)A)money)claim)is)“a)demand)for)
Petitioner)availed,)and)received) payment)of)a)sum)of)money,)reimbursement)
payment,)of)a)lump)sum)pension) or)compensation)arising)from)law)or)contract)
L.(PARREÑO(VS.(
equivalent)to)three)years)pay.)In) due)from)or)owing)to)a)government)agency.”)
COA(
1985,)petitioner)started)receiving)his) Under)Commonwealth)Act)No.)327,)as)
G.R.(No.(162224,( Pension(
monthly)pension)amounting)to) amended)by)Presidential)Decree)No.)1445,)
June(7,(2007(
P13,680.) money)claims)against)the)government)shall)
p.(781(
Petitioner)migrated)to)Hawaii)and) be)filed)before)the)COA.(
became)a)naturalized)American) o The)jurisdiction)of)the)COA)over)money)
citizen.)In)January)2001,)the)AFP) claims)against)the)government)does)not)
stopped)petitioner’s)monthly) include)the)power)to)rule)on)the)
pension)in)accordance)with)Section) constitutionality)or)validity)of)laws.)(
27)of)Presidential)Decree)No.)1638,) (
as)amended)by)Presidential)Decree)
No.)1650.))
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
PD)1638,)as)amended,)provides)that)
a)retiree)who)loses)his)Filipino)
citizenship)shall)be)removed)from)
the)retired)list)and)his)retirement)
benefits)terminated)upon)loss)of)
Filipino)citizenship.)Petitioner)
requested)for)reconsideration)but)
the)Judge)Advocate)General)of)the)
AFP)denied)the)request.)
Petitioner)filed)a)claim)before)the)
COA)for)the)continuance)of)his)
monthly)pension.)COA)denied)
petitioner’s)claim)for)lack)of)
jurisdiction.)
(
(
!
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

CONSTITUTIONAL*LAW*1* * FR.*JOAQUIN*BERNAS,*S.J.**
ARTICLE(X:(LOCAL(GOVERNMENT(
(
Section(8.(The(term(of(office(of(elective(local(officials,(except(barangay(officials,(which(shall(be(determined(by(law,(shall(be(three(years(and(no(such(
official(shall(serve(for(more(than(three(consecutive(terms.(Voluntary(renunciation(of(the(office(for(any(length(of(time(shall(not(be(considered(as(an(
interruption(in(the(continuity(of(his(service(for(the(full(term(for(which(he(was(elected.(
(
Applicable/Violated(
Cases( Keywords( Facts( Issue/s(&(Ratio(
Provision/s(
January'18,'1988,June'30,'1992'!' W/N(Capco’s(succession(to(the(office(of(mayor(
Term'of'''private'respondent'Jose'T.' by(operation(of(law(for(the(remainder(of(the(
Capco'as'vice,mayor'of'Pateros' term(is(counted(in(the(threeWterm(limit?(
' Held&'Ratio:'No,'because'he'was'not'elected'to'
September'2,'1989!'Capco'became' the'office'of'the'mayor'in'the'first'term'but'
mayor,'by'operation'of'law,'upon' simply'found'him'thrust'into'it'by'operation'of'
the'death'of'the'incumbent,'Cesar' law.''Neither'had'he'served'the'full'term'
Borja.'' because'he'only'continued'the'service,'
' interrupted'by'the'death,'of'the'deceased'
A. BORJA(
May'11,'1992,'June'30,'1995'!' SEC.'8.''The'term'of'office'of' mayor.'
JR.(V.(
Capco'ran'and'was'elected'mayor.' elective'local'officials,'except' Additional'Info:'Unlike'in'the'case'of'a'member'
COMELE Succession(is(
' barangay'officials,'which' of'the'House'of'Representatives'who'succeeds'
C(&( not(counted(in(
May'8,'1995,'June'30,'1998!'Capco' shall'be'determined'by'law,' another,'the'vice,mayor'succeeds'to'the'mayor,
CAPCO( the(3Wterm(
was'reelected'mayor.' shall'be'three'years'and'no' ship'by'operation'of'law.'But'the'
GR(133495( limit(of(
' such'official'shall'serve'for' Representative'is'elected'to'fill'the'vacancy.''In'
Sept.(3,( mayors(
March'27,'1998!'Capco'filed'a' more'than'three'consecutive' a'real'sense,'therefore,'such'Representative'
1998(
certificate'of'candidacy'for'mayor'of' terms.( serves'a'term'for'which'he'was'elected.''As'the'
PP((822W826(
Pateros'for'May'11,'1998'elections.''' purpose'of'the'constitutional'provision'is'to'
' limit'the'right'to'be'elected'and'to'serve'in'
Petitioner'Benjamin'U.'Borja,'Jr.,' Congress,'his'service'of'the'unexpired'term'is'
who'was'also'a'candidate'for'mayor,' rightly'counted'as'his'first'term.''Therefore,'the'
sought'Capco’s'disqualification.'' theory'contention'of'the'petitioner'about'Sec.'8'
COMELEC'disqualified'Capco'but' is'applicable'to'HoR'members'and'not'to'a'vice,
reversed'its'decision.' mayor'who'succeeds'the'mayor,'who'dies,'
' resigns,'becomes'incapacitated'or'removed'
May'11,'1998'elections!'Capco'won' from'office.''
so'Borja'now'prays'to'set'aside'the'
reversal'of'COMELEC’'decision'to'let'
Capco'run.(
ALEX'L.'DAVID,'in'his'own'behalf'as' How'long'is'the'term'of'
Barangay'Chairman'of'Barangay'77,' office'of'barangay'officials?'
Zone'7,'Kalookan'City'and'as' !'3'YEARS'as'provided'
President'of'the'LIGA'NG'MGA' under'the'Local'Government'
BARANGAY'SA'PILIPINAS.' Code.'
The'two'petitions'before'us'raise'a' Under'Sec.'43,c'of'RA'7160,' W/N'the'3,year'term'is'repugnant'to'the'
common'question:'How'long'is'the' the'term'of'office'of' constitution?'
term'of'office'of'barangay'chairmen' barangay'officials'was'fixed' Held'&'Ratio:'NO,'the'Constitution'did'not'
B. DAVID(
and'other'barangay'officials'who' at'"three'(3)'years'which' expressly'prohibit'Congress'from'fixing'any'
V.(
Determining( were'elected'to'their'respective' shall'begin'after'the'regular' term'of'office'for'barangay'officials.'
COMELE
the(term(of( offices'on'the'second'Monday'of' election'of'barangay'officials' MR.'NOLLEDO.'One'clarificatory'question,'
C(
Barangay( May'1994?'' on'the'second'Monday'of' Madam'President.'What'will'the'term'of'the'
GR(127116(
Officials( Is'it'three'years,'as'provided'by'RA' May'1994."'This'provision'is' office'of'barangay'officials'be'as'provided'for?'
April(8,(1997(
7160'(the'Local'Government'Code)' clearly'inconsistent'with'and' MR.'DAVIDE.'As'may'be'determined'by'law.'
PP(827W828(
or'five'years,'as'contained'in'RA' repugnant'to'Sec.'1'of'RA' MR.'NOLLEDO.'As'provided'for'in'the'Local'
6679?'' 6679'which'states'that'such' Government'Code?'
Contending'that'their'term'is'five' "term'shall'be'for'five' MR.'DAVIDE.'Yes'
years,'petitioners'ask'this'Court'to' years."''
order'the'cancellation'of'the' The'rationale'is'simple:'a'
scheduled'barangay'election'this' later'law'repeals'an'earlier'
coming'May'12,'1997'and'to'reset'it' one'because'it'is'the'later'
to'the'second'Monday'of'May,'1999.( legislative'will.'
(
Section(9.(Legislative(bodies(of(local(governments(shall(have(sectoral(representation(as(may(be(prescribed(by(law.(
(
Provision/s(
A. SUPANG Validity(of( Petitioner'Johnny'D.'Supangan,'Jr.,' Section'9'Article'X'of'the' W/N(the(designations/appointments(made(by(
AN,(JR.( appointments( was'elected'KB'Provincial'Federation' 1973'Constitution'mandates' respondent(Secretary(is(unlawful(and(
V.( made(by(the( President'of'the'province'of' that'legislative'bodies'of' unconstitutional?(
SANTOS( Secretary(DLG( Pangasinan'in'1985.' local'governments'shall'have' Under'the'Local'Government'Code'(BP'337),'the'

GR(84663( of(members/( On'November'25,'1985,'petitioner' sectoral'representation'as' power'to'appoint'sectoral'representatives'is'
August(24,( sectoral( was'appointed'by'then'President' may'be'prescribed'by'law.' conferred'upon'the'President'of'the'Philippines.'
1990( representative Marcos'as'member'of'the' ' But'the'Secretary'of'Local'Government'may,'by'
s( Sangguniang'Panlalawigan'of'the' B.P.'Blg.'337'is'still'operative,' authority'of'the'President'inform'the'sectoral'
' province'of'Pangasinan'representing' even'after'the'ratification'of' representatives'of'their'appointments.'
the'youth'sector.'' the'1987'Constitution—' Otherwise'stated,'it'is'actually'the'President'
August'8,'1988!'respondent' Sec.'3.'All'existing'laws,' who'has'made'the'appointments'in'the'cases'
Marissa'Domantay'presented'to'the' decrees,'executive'orders,' involved'herein,'and'the'Secretary'of'Local'
Presiding'Officer'a'letter'written'by' proclamations,'letters'of' Government'is'only'the'transmitter'or'
respondent'Secretary'Luis'T.'Santos' instructions'and'other' communicator'of'said'appointments.'
advising'the'Sangguniang' executive'issuances'not' HOWEVER,'there'cannot'be'any'appointment'
Panlalawigan'that'respondent' inconsistent'with'this' without'enabling'law,'the(B.P.(337(particularly(
"Marissa'Domantay'has'been'named' Constitution'shall'remain' secs.(146(and(173.'
as'member'thereof'to'replace' operative'until'amended,' B.P.'Blg.'337'explicitly'requires'that'before'the'
Johnny'D.'Supangan,'Jr."'' repealed'or'revoked.' President'(or'the'Secretary'of'the'Department'
Claiming'that'Sec.'Santos'has'no' ' of'Local'Government)'may'appoint'members'of'
legal'authority'to'designate'private' the'local'legislative'bodies'to'represent'the'
respondent'Marissa'Domantay'as' Industrial'and'Agricultural'Labor'Sectors,'
member'of'the'Sangguniang' On'the'question'of'qualification'of'the'
Panlalawigan'representing'the'youth' appointee,'We'ruled'in'the'cases'of(Ignacio(v.(
sector'because'' Banate,(Jr.(and(Reyes(v.(Ferrer((supra)(that'the'
(a)'respondent'Marissa'Domantay' appointee'to'the'Sanggunian'who'sits'there'as'a'
has'never'been'elected'as'KB' representative'must'meet'the'qualifications'
Provincial'Federation'President'of' required'by'law'for'the'position.'
Pangasinan,'a'basic'qualification'for' As'to'representatives'of'the'youth'sector,'
appointment'as'member' Association'of'Barangay'Councils'and'Kabataang'
representing'the'youth'sector,'and'' Barangay'Federation,'Sec.'3'par.'I'of'B.P.'Blg.'51'
(b)'respondent'Secretary'of'Dept.'of' and'Sec.'173'par.'1'of'B.P.'Blg.'337'(both'earlier'
Local'Government'has'no'legal' quoted)'require'that'they'must'have'been'
authority'in'issuing'his'letter'dated' presidents'or'officers'of'said'sector'or'barangay.'
August'3,'1988'because'the'term'of'
office'of'petitioner'Johnny'D.'
Supangan,'Jr.'has'not'yet'expired'nor'
his'successor,'if'any,'been'
elected/appointed'and'qualified.'
Held:'(The'appointment'of'
respondent'Marissa'Domantay'as'
member'of'the'Sangguniang'
Panlalawigan'of'Pangasinan'
representing'the'youth'sector'is'
declared'null'and'void,'and'
petitioner'Johnny'Supangan,'Jr.'is'
ordered'reinstated.(
(
Section(10.(No(province,(city,(municipality,(or(barangay(may(be(created,(divided,(merged,(abolished,(or(its(boundary(substantially(altered,(except(in(
accordance(with(the(criteria(established(in(the(local(government(code(and(subject(to(approval(by(a(majority(of(the(votes(cast(in(a(plebiscite(in(the(
political(units(directly(affected.(
(
Provision/s(
Local(Government(Code((( W/N'Batas'Pambansa'Blg.'885'is'
December'3,'1985!'Batas' SEC.(197.(Requisites(for( unconstitutional?'
Pambansa'Blg.'885,An'Act'Creating'a' Creation.'A'province'may'be' HELD:'YES,'therefore,'the'proclamation'of'the'
New'Province'in'the'Island'of'Negros' created'if'it'has' new'province'of'Negros'del'Norte,'as'well'as'
( to'be'known'as'the'Province'of' territory'of'at'3,'500'square' the'appointment'of'the'officials'thereof'is'also'
A. TAN(V.(
( Negros'del'Norte.'' kilometers' declared'null'and'void.'
COMELE
( December'23,'1985!''TAN'and' population'of'at'least' With'constitutional'infirmity'attaching'to'the'
C(
Void(creation( other'residents'of'the'Province'of' 500,000'persons' subject'Batas'Pambansa'Big.'885'and'also'
142(SCRA(
of(New( Negros'Occidental'filed'a'case'for' average'estimated'annual' because'the'creation'of'the'new'province'of'
727((July(11,(
Province(of( Prohibition'for'the'purpose'of' income,'as'certified'by'the' Negros'del'Norte'is'not'in'accordance'with'the'
1986(
Negros(del( stopping'the'respondent' Ministry'of'Finance,'of'not' criteria'established'in'the'Local'Government'
PP(833W839(
Norte(( Commission'on'Elections'from' less'than'10M'pesos'for'the' Code,'the'factual'and'legal'basis'for'the'creation'
conducting'the'plebiscite'which'was' last'3'consecutive'years,' of'such'new'province'which'should'justify'the'
scheduled'to'be'implemented'on' Its'creation'shall'not'reduce' holding'of'another'plebiscite'does'not'exist.'
January'3,'1986.' the'population'and'income' "'This'created'province'does'not'even'satisfy'
of'the'mother'province'or' the'area'requirement'prescribed'in'Section'197'
provinces'at'the'time'of'said' of'the'Local'Government'Code.'
creation'to'less'than'the'
minimum'requirements'
under'this'section.'The'
territory'need'not'be'
contiguous'if'it'comprises'
two'or'more'islands.'Xxx'
Article(XI,(Section(3(of(the(
Constitution:(
SEC.'3.'No'province,'city,'
municipality'or'barrio'may'
be'created,'divided,'merged'
abolished,'or'its'boundary'
substantially'altered,'except'
in'accordance'with'the'
criteria'established'in'the'
local'government'code,'and'
subject'to'the'approval'by'a'
majority'of'the'votes'in'a'
plebiscite'in'the'unit'or'units'
affected.'
B. ROY( Subject:'The'Creation'of'Municipality' Rationale(behind(the( W/N'the'petitioner'can'conduct'a'new'
PADILLA( of'Tulay,Na,Lupa'in'the'Province'of' deletion'of'the'phrase'"unit' plebiscite?'
Jr.( Camarines'Norte' or"'in'Section'10,'Article'X'of' Held:'NO.'Therefore,'COMELEC'did'not'commit'
(Govern December'15,'1991!'Result'of'the' the'1987'Constitution' a'grave'abuse'of'discretion'for'declaring'the'
or(of( plebiscite'throughout'the' Mr.'Davide:'I(would(object.(I( result'of'the'plebiscite'valid.'
Camarin The( Municipality'of'Labo:'only'2,890' precisely(asked(for(the( It'stands'to'reason'that'when'the'law'states'
es( participants(in( votes'favored'its'creation'while' deletion(of(the(words("unit( that'the'plebiscite'shall'be'conducted'"in'the'
Norte)( a(plebiscite(( 3,439'voters'voted'against'the' or"(because(in(the(plebiscite( political'units'directly'affected,"'it'means'that'
V.( creation'of'the'Municipality'of'Tulay, to(be(conducted,(it(must( residents'of'the'political'entity'who'would'be'
COMELE Na,Lupa.'' involve(all(the(units( economically'dislocated'by'the'separation'of'a'
C( The'governor'of'Camarines'Norte' affected.(If(it(is(the(creation( portion'thereof'have'a'right'to'vote'in'said'
( seeks'to'set'aside'the'plebiscite' of(a(barangay(plebiscite( plebiscite.'Evidently,'what'is'contemplated'by'
GR( conducted'and'prays'that'a'new' because(it(is(affected.'It( the'phase'"political'units'directly'affected,"'is'
103328( plebiscite'be'undertaken'as'provided' would(mean(a(loss(of(a( the'plurality'of'political'units'which'would'

October(19,( by'RA'7155'because'it'was'a' territory.((Emphasis'supplied)' participate'in'the'plebiscite.'Logically,'those'to'
1992( complete'failure.'Also,'the'results' ( be'included'in'such'political'areas'are'the'
( obtained'were'invalid'and'illegal' inhabitants'of'the'12'barangays'of'the'proposed'
839W842( because'the'plebiscite,'as'mandated' Municipality'of'Tulay,Na,Lupa'as'well'as'those'
by'COMELEC'Resolution'No.'2312' living'in'the'parent'Municipality'of'Labo,'
should'have'been'conducted'only'in' Camarines'Norte'
the'political'unit'or'units'
affected,'i.e.'the'12'barangays'
comprising'the'new'Municipality'of'
Tulay,Na,Lupa.'
Petitioner'stresses'that'the'plebiscite'
should'not'have'included'the'
remaining'area'of'the'mother'unit'of'
the'Municipality'of'Labo,'Camarines'
Norte.'
Cases'filed'by'League'of'Cities'of'the'
Intent'of'increasing'the'
Philippines'(LCP),'City'of'Iloilo,'City'of'
income'requirement:'
Calbayog,'and'Jerry'P.'Treñas,'
The'purpose'of'the' W/N'the'cityhood'laws'violate'(1)'Sec.'10.'Art.'X'
assailing'the'constitutionality'of'the'
enactment'of'R.A.'No'9009' of'the'Constitution?'
sixteen'(16)'laws'each'converting'the'
C. LEAGUE( was'merely'to'stop'the'“mad' NO,'16'municipalities'are'exempted'from'the'
municipality'covered'thereby'into'a'
OF( rush'of'municipalities' amendments'in'the'LGC.'
component'city'(Cityhood'Laws).'
CITIES(V.( wanting'to'be'converted'into' Congress'intended'that'those'with'pending'
Before'Senate'Bill'No.'2157,'now'
COMELE ( cities”'and'the'apprehension' cityhood'bills'during'the'11th'Congress'would'
R.A.'No.'9009,'was'introduced'by'
C( 16(Cityhood( that'before'long'the'country' not'be'covered'by'the'new'and'higher'income'
Senator'Aquilino'Pimentel,'there'
GR(176951( Laws( will'be'a'country'of'cities'and' requirement'of'P100'million'imposed'by'R.A.'
were'57'bills'filed'for'conversion'of'
December( without'municipalities.''It' No.'9009.''When'the'LGC'was'amended'by'R.A.'
57'municipalities'into'component'
21,(2009( should'be'pointed'out'that' No.'9009,'the'amendment'carried'with'it'both'
cities.'''
842W853( the'imposition'of'the'P100' the'letter'and'the'intent'of'the'law,'and'such'
During'the'11th'Congress'(June'
million'average'annual' were'incorporated'in'the'LGC'by'which'the'
1998,June'2001),'33'of'these'bills'
income'requirements'for'the' compliance'of'the'Cityhood'Laws'was'gauged.'
were'enacted'into'law,'while'24'
creation'of'component'cities'
remained'as'pending'bills.''Among'
was'arbitrarily'made.'
these'24'were'the'16'municipalities'
that'were'converted'into'component'
cities'through'the'Cityhood'Laws.'
Section(11.(The(Congress(may,(by(law,(create(special(metropolitan(political(subdivisions,(subject(to(a(plebiscite(as(set(forth(in(Section(10(hereof.(The(
component(cities(and(municipalities(shall(retain(their(basic(autonomy(and(shall(be(entitled(to(their(own(local(executive(and(legislative(assemblies.(
The(jurisdiction(of(the(metropolitan(authority(that(will(thereby(be(created(shall(be(limited(to(basic(services(requiring(coordination.(
(
Provision/s(
January'2,'1996!'Respondent' HAS'THE'METROPOLITAN'MANILA'
prayed'for'the'issuance'of'a' DEVELOPMENT'AUTHORITY'(MMDA)'THE'
temporary'restraining'order'and' MANDATE'TO'OPEN'NEPTUNE'STREET'TO'
preliminary'injunction'enjoining'the' PUBLIC'TRAFFIC'PURSUANT'TO'ITS'
opening'of'Neptune'Street'and' REGULATORY'AND'POLICE'POWERS?'
prohibiting'the'demolition'of'the' Held:'NO,'MMDA'is'not'a'local'government'unit'
perimeter'wall.'The'trial'court'issued' or'a'public'corporation'endowed'with'legislative'
a'temporary'restraining'order'the' power.'
A. MMDA( following'day.' Under'the'1987'Constitution,'the'local'
V.(BELW January'23,'1996!'The'appellate' government'units'became'primarily'responsible'
"Section(11.'xxx'The'
AIR( court'conducted'an'ocular'inspection' for'the'governance'of'their'respective'political'
jurisdiction'of'the'
VILLAGE( of'Neptune'Street]'and'on'February' subdivisions.''
LIMITS(OF( metropolitan'authority'that'
ASSOC( 13,'1996,'it'issued'a'writ'of' The'MMA’s'jurisdiction'was'limited'to'
MMDA( will'thereby'be'created'shall'
GR(135962(( preliminary'injunction'enjoining'the' addressing'common'problems'involving'basic'
be'limited'to'basic'services'
March(27,( implementation'of'the'MMDA’s' services'that'transcended'local'boundaries.'It'
requiring'coordination."(
2000( proposed'action.'' did'not'have'legislative'power.'Its'power'was'
853W858( January'28,'1997!the'appellate' merely'to'provide'the'local'government'units'
court'rendered'a'Decision'on'the' technical'assistance'in'the'preparation'of'local'
merits'of'the'case'finding'that'the' development'plans.'Any'semblance'of'
MMDA'has'no'authority'to'order'the' legislative'power'it'had'was'confined'to'a'
opening'of'Neptune'Street,'a'private' "review'[of]'legislation'proposed'by'the'local'
subdivision'road'and'cause'the' legislative'assemblies'to'ensure'consistency'
demolition'of'its'perimeter'walls.'It' among'local'governments'and'with'the'
held'that'the'authority'is'lodged'in' comprehensive'development'plan'of'Metro'
the'City'Council'of'Makati'by' Manila,"'and'to'"advise'the'local'governments'
ordinance.'' accordingly.'
Petitioner'MMDA'claims'that'it'has'
the'authority'to'open'Neptune'
Street'to'public'traffic'because'it'is'
an'agent'of'the'state'endowed'with'
police'power'in'the'delivery'of'basic'
services'in'Metro'Manila.'One'of'
these'basic'services'is'traffic'
management'which'involves'the'
regulation'of'the'use'of'
thoroughfares'to'insure'the'safety,'
convenience'and'welfare'of'the'
general'public.'
(
Section( 12.( Cities( that( are( highly( urbanized,( as( determined( by( law,( and( component( cities( whose( charters( prohibit( their( voters( from( voting( for(
provincial(elective(officials,(shall(be(independent(of(the(province.(The(voters(of(component(cities(within(a(province,(whose(charters(contain(no(such(
prohibition,(shall(not(be(deprived(of(their(right(to(vote(for(elective(provincial(officials.(
(
Provision/s(
A'case'to'detremine'who'is'the' Sec.'12.'Cities'that'are'highly' 1. The'fact'that'the'candidate'who'obtained'
rightful'governor'of'the'province'of' urbanized,'as'determined'by' the'highest'number'of'votes'is'later'
Leyte'' law,'and'component'cities' declared'to'be'disqualified'or'not'eligible'
A. ABELLA(
1)'petitioner'Adelina'Larrazabal'(G.R.' whose'charters'prohibit'their' for'the'office'to'which'he'was'elected'does'
V.(
No.'100739)'who'obtained'the' voters'from'voting'for' not'necessarily'entitle'the'candidate'who'
COMELE
highest'number'of'votes'in'the'local' provincial'elective'officials,' obtained'the'second'highest'number'of'
C( Interpretation(
elections'of'February'1,'1988'and' shall'be'independent'of'the' votes'to'be'declared'the'winner'of'the'
GR(100710( of(Section(12((
was'proclaimed'as'the'duly'elected' province.'The'voters'of' elective'office.'!'Because'he'was'not'the'
September(
governor'but'who'was'later'declared' component'cities'within'a' choice'of'the'people'
3,(1991(
by'the'Commission'on'Elections' province,'whose'charters' '
858W860(
(COMELEC)'"...'to'lack'both' contain'no'such'prohibition,' 2. Section'12,'Article'X'of'the'Constitution'is'
residence'and'registration' shall'not'be'deprived'of'their' explicit'that'aside'from'highly,urbanized'
qualifications'for'the'position'of' right'to'vote'for'elective' cities,'component'cities'whose'charters'
Governor'of'Leyte'as'provided'by' provincial'officials.' prohibit'their'voters'from'voting'for'

Art.'X,'Section'12,'Philippine' ' provincial'elective'officials'are'independent'
Constitution'and'is'hereby' ' of'the'province.'Necessarily,'component'
disqualified'as'such'Governor";'' Section'89'of'Republic'Act' cities'like'Ormoc'City'whose'charters'
2)'petitioner'Benjamin'Abella'(G.R.' No.'179'creating'the'City'of' prohibit'their'voters'from'voting'for'
No.'100710),'who'obtained'the' Ormoc'provides:' provincial'elective'officials'are'treated'like'
second'highest'number'of'votes'for' Election'of'provincial' highly'urbanized'cities'which'are'outside'
the'position'of'governor'but'was'not' governor'and'members'of' the'supervisory'power'of'the'province'to'
allowed'by'the'COMELEC'to'be' the'Provincial'Board'of'the' which'they'are'geographically'attached.'
proclaimed'as'governor'after'the' members'of'the'Provincial' This'independence'from'the'province'
disqualification'of'Larrazabal;'or'' Board'of'the'Province'of' carries'with'it'the'prohibition'or'mandate'
3)'Leopoldo'E.'Petilla,'the'vice, Leyte'—'The'qualified'voters' directed'to'their'registered'voters'not'to'
governor'of'the'province'of'Leyte.' of'Ormoc'City'shall'not'be' vote'and'be'voted'for'the'provincial'elective'
The'position'of'petitioners'was'that' qualified'and'entitled'to'vote' offices.''
respondent'Larrazabal'is'neither'a' in'the'election'of'the' '
resident'nor'a'registered'voter'of' provincial'governor'and'the' 3. Section'89'of'Republic'Act'179,'
Kananga,'Leyte'as'she'claimed'but'a' members'of'the'provincial' independent'of'the'constitutional'provision,'
resident'and'registered'voter'of' board'of'the'Province'of' prohibits'registered'voters'of'Ormoc'City'
Ormoc'City,'a'component'city'of'the' Leyte.' from'voting'and'being'voted'for'elective'
province'of'Leyte'but'independent'of' ' offices'in'the'province'of'Leyte.'We'agree'
the'province'pursuant'to'Section'12,' with'the'COMELECen'banc'that'"the'phrase'
Article'X'of'the'Constitution'thereby' 'shall'not'be'qualified'and'entitled'to'vote'in'
disqualifying'her'for'the'position'of' the'election'of'the'provincial'governor'and'
governor'of'Leyte.'' the'members'of'the'provincial'board'of'the'
Larrazabal'poses'an'alternative' Province'of'Leyte''connotes'two'
position'that'her'being'a'registered' prohibitions'—'one,'from'running'for'and'
voter'in'Ormoc'City'was'no' the'second,'from'voting'for'any'provincial'
impediment'to'her'candidacy'for'the' elective'official."'
position'of'governor'of'the'province'
of'Leyte.'
COMELEC'found'that'petitioner'
Larrazabal'was'neither'a'resident'of'
Kananga,'Leyte'nor'a'registered'
voter'thereat.'With'these'findings,'
the'COMELEC'disqualified'the'
petitioner'as'governor'of'the'
province'of'Leyte.'
AUTONOMOUS(REGIONS(
(
Section( 18.( The( Congress( shall( enact( an( organic( act( for( each( autonomous( region( with( the( assistance( and( participation( of( the( regional( consultative(
commission(composed(of(representatives(appointed(by(the(President(from(a(list(of(nominees(from(multiWsectoral(bodies.(The(organic(act(shall(define(
the(basic(structure(of(government(for(the(region(consisting(of(the(executive(department(and(legislative(assembly,(both(of(which(shall(be(elective(and(
representative( of( the( constituent( political( units.( The( organic( acts( shall( likewise( provide( for( special( courts( with( personal,( family,( and( property( law(
jurisdiction(consistent(with(the(provisions(of(this(Constitution(and(national(laws.(
(
The(creation(of(the(autonomous(region(shall(be(effective(when(approved(by(majority(of(the(votes(cast(by(the(constituent(units(in(a(plebiscite(called(
for(the(purpose,(provided(that(only(provinces,(cities,(and(geographic(areas(voting(favorably(in(such(plebiscite(shall(be(included(in(the(autonomous(
region.(
(
Provision/s(
A. ABBAS(
V.(
COMELE
C( ( ( ( (
179(SCRA(
287((1989)(
861W866(
B. CORDILL
ERA(
REGION
AL(
ASSEMB ( ( ( (
LY(V.(
COMELE
C(
GR(93054(
December(4,(
1990(
866W867(
C. LEONOR(
V.(
CORDILL
ERA(
BODON
G( ( ( ( (
ADMIN(
GR(92649(
February(14,(
1991(
867W868(
(
Section(20.(Within(its(territorial(jurisdiction(and(subject(to(the(provisions(of(this(Constitution(and(national(laws,(the(organic(act(of(autonomous(
regions(shall(provide(for(legislative(powers(over:(((
(1)(Administrative(organization;((
(2)(Creation(of(sources(of(revenues;((
(3)(Ancestral(domain(and(natural(resources;((
(4)(Personal,(family,(and(property(relations;((
(5)(Regional(urban(and(rural(planning(development;((
(6)(Economic,(social,(and(tourism(development;((
(7)(Educational(policies;((
(8)(Preservation(and(development(of(the(cultural(heritage;(and((
(9)(Such(other(matters(as(may(be(authorized(by(law(for(the(promotion(of(the(general(welfare(of(the(people(of(the(region.(
(
Provision/s(
A. PANDI(
V.(CA((
( ( ( (
(
GR(
116850(
April(11,(
2002(
(
869(
(
*
ARTICLE(XI:(ACCOUNTABILITY(OF(PUBLIC(OFFICERS(
Case( Keywords( Facts( Applicable/Violated(Provision/s( Issue/s(&(Ratio(

Hipolito'v.' A'deputy' A'deputy'sheriff'may'be'properly' Art.'13,'Sec.'1'of'the'1973' 33'
Mergas' sheriff'may' punished'by'this'tribunal'for'an'action' Constitution.'Public'office'is'a'
' be'punished' committed'in'violation'of'the'Rules'of' public'trust.''Public'officers'and'
AM'No.'P3903412' for' Court,'and'which'impedes'and'detracts' employees'shall'serve'with'the'
' moonlighting' form'a'fair'and'just'administration'of' highest'degree'of'responsibility,'
March'11,'1991' justice.'(Bareno'v.'Cabauatan'151'SCRA' integrity,'loyalty,'efficiency,'and'
293,'1987)' shall'remain'accountable'to'the'
' people.'
A'deputy'sheriff'is'an'officer'of'the' '
court'whose'duties'form'an'integral' (This&was&reiterated&emphatically&
part'in'the'administration'of'justice.'' in&Art.&11,&Sec.&1&of&the&1987&
Such'penalty'imposed'on'him'may'be' Constitution,&with&the&addition&of&
short'of'dismissal'or'suspension'from' another&clause&about&acting&with&
office.' patriotism&and&justice,&and&
' leading&modest&lives.)'
While'“moonlighting”'is'not'normally' '
considered'a'serious'misconduct,'it' Art.'11,'Sec.'1'of'the'1987'
amounts'to'a'wrongdoing'in'office.''By' Constitution.'Public'office'is'a'
virtue'of'one’s'office,'one'is'bound'to' public'trust.''Public'officers'and'
the'discharge'of'his'duties,'observing' employees'must'at'all'times'be'
prudence,'caution,'and'attention.' accountable'to'the'people,'serve'
(Peñalosa'v.'Viscara,'Jr.'84'SCRA'298,' them'with'utmost'responsibility,'
1978)' integrity,'loyalty,'and'efficiency,'
' act&with&patriotism&and&justice,&
Public'service'requires'utmost'integrity' and&lead&modest&lives.'
and'discipline,'observing'the'highest'
sense'of'honesty'and'integrity.''Such'
standards'are'found'in'both'the'1973'
(Art.'13,'Sec.'5)'and'the'1987'(Art.'11,'
Sec.'1)'Constitutions.'
*
Romulo'v.' The'Court' Does'the'Court'have'jurisdiction'to' 33' ISSUE:'WON'the'Court'has'jurisdiction'
Yñiguez' may'not' order'the'Committee'on'Justice,' for'such'recall'of'documents'on'
' review'the' Human'Rights,'and'Good'Government' impeachment,'and'if'such'were'
141'SCRA'263' Batasan’s' (CJHRGG)'to'recall'from'the'Archives' granted,'may'order'the'Batasan'to'
(1986)' decisions' and'report'out'the'resolution'and' conduct'a'trial'based'on'such'
complaint'for'impeachment?'Assuming' information.'
such'resolution'and'complaint'for' '
impeachment'are'recalled'from'the' HELD:'No.'
archives,'can'the'Court'order'the' '
Batasan'to'conduct'a'trial'on'the' RATIO:'When'the'Batasan'denied'the'
charges'contained'in'said'documents?' motion'of'a'certain'MP'Ramon'Mitra'
for'the'recall'from'the'Archives'of'
Resolution'No.'644'and'the'complaint'
for'impeachment,'it'therefore'
confirmed'the'action'of'the'CJHRGG.'
'
A'dismissal'by'the'Batasan'itself'as'a'
body'of'the'resolution'and'complaint'
for'impeachment'renders'irrelevant'
under'what'authority'the'CJHRGG'had'
acted.''The'dismissal'of'a'majority'of'
the'members'of'the'Batasan'of'the'
impeachment'proceedings'is'an'act'of'
the'Batasan'as'a'body'in'the'exercise'
of'such'powers'given'to'it'by'the'
Constitution,'which'is'beyond'the'
power'of'this'Court'to'review.''This'
Court'cannot'compel'the'Batasan'to'
conduct'such'trial'prayed'for'by'the'
petitioners.'
In'Re'Gonzales' 2'Principles'of' Important'principles'of'constitutional' All&from&the&1987&Consti.' (Secondary&case&mentioned&in&this&
' Constitutional' law:' ' case&in&applicatio&of&such&Principles&of&
160'SCRA'771' Law' A'public'officer'who'under'the' Art.'8,'Sec.'1(2).' Constitutional&Law&mentioned)&
(1988)' ' Constitution'is'required'to'be'a' xxx''no'person'may'be'appointed' '
*
Officers'who' Member'of'the'PH'Bar'as'a' judge'thereof'unless'he'is'a' ISSUE:'WON'the'complaint'for'
are'members' qualification'for'the'office'held'by'him' citizen'of'the'Philippines'and'a' disbarment'should'be'dismissed.'
of'the'PH'Bar' and'who'may'removed'form'office'only' member'of'the'Philippine'Bar.' '
as'a' by'impeachment'cannot'be'charged' ' HELD:'Yes.'
qualification' with'disbarment'during'his' ' '
for'their' incumbency.' Art.'11(2).' HELD:'Members'of'the'SC'must'be'
office'may' During'the'incumbency'of'such'public' xxx'the'Ombudsman'may'be' members'of'the'PH'Bar'and'may'be'
not'be' officer'cannot'be'criminally'charged' removed'from'office'on' removed'from'office'only'by'
charged'with' before'the'Sandiganbayan'or'any'other' impeachment'for,'and'conviction' impeachment,'pursuant'to'Art.'8,'Sec.'
disbarment' court'with'any'offense'or'penalty' of,'culpable'violation'of'the' 1(2).''To'grant'such'complaint'for'
during'their' service,'which'would'result'in'his' Constitution,'treason,'bribery,' disbarment'would'be'to'circumvent'
incumbency,' removal'from'office.' graft'and'corruption,'other'high' this'constitutional'mandate,'and'also'
nor'be' crimes,'or'betrayal'of'public' that'of'Art.'11(2),'which'lists'down'
criminally' trust.'xxx' certain'offenses'for'which'such'
charged'that' ' officers'may'be'convicted'of.'
would'result' Art.'11(8).' '
in'removal' The'Ombudsman'and'his' The'same'situation'exists'with'the'ff.'
from'office' Deputies'xxx'members'of'the' who'are'all'constitutionally'required'
Philippine'Bar'xxx' to'be'members'of'the'PH'Bar:'
' The'Ombudsman'and'his'deputies''
Art.'93C(131).' Art.'11(8)'in'relation'to'Art.'11(2)'
There'shall'be'a'Commission'on' A'majority'of'the'members'of'the'
Elections'composed'of'a' COMELEC'
Chairman'and'six'Commissioners' Art.'93C'in'relation'to'Art.'11(2)'
xxx''a'majority'thereof,'including' Members'of'the'COA'who'are'not'
the'Chairman,'shall'be'members' certified'public'accountants'
of'the'Philippine'Bar'who'have' Art.'93D'
been'engaged'in'the'practice'of' '
law'for'at'least'ten'years.' '
'
Art.'93D(131).'
There'shall'be'a'Commission'on'
Audit'composed'of'a'Chairman'
and'two'Commissioners,'xxx'
*
members'of'the'Philippine'Bar'
who'have'been'engaged'in'the'
practice'of'law'for'at'least'ten'
years'xxx'
Francisco,'et'al.'v.' ' ' ' '
House'Speaker,'
et.'al.'
'
GR'No.'160261'
'
November'10,'
2003'
Nuñez'v.' The'existence' In'categorical'and'explicit'language,' Art.'13,'Sec.'5'of'the'1973' 33'
Sandiganbayan' of'a'special' the'Constitution'provided'for'but'did' Constitution.''The'Batasang'
' Court' not'create'a'special'Court.'See'Article' Pambansa'shall'create'a'special'
111'SCRA'433' 13,'Sec.'5'of'the'1973'Constitution.'' court,'to'be'known'as'
(1982)' Such'special'Court'came'into'existence' Sandiganbayan,'which'shall'have'
with'the'issuance'in'1978'of'a' jurisdiction'over'criminal'and'civil'
Presidential'Decree.' cases'involving'graft'and'corrupt'
practices'and'such'other'offenses'
committed'by'public'officers'and'
employees,'including'those'in'
government3owned'or'controlled'
corporations,'in'relation'to'their'
office'as'may'be'determined'by'
law.'
'
MAYOR'LECAROZ' Grave' Ponente:'Reolva,'J.' Section'5,'Article'XIII'of'the'1973' ISSUE(1:(Whether'the'offense'for'
VS.' coercion' October'21,'1980!Petitioner'was' Constitution.'' which'he'was'charged'is'not'related'
SANDIGANBAYAN' charged'with'the'crime'of'grave' The'National'Assembly'shall' to'his'office'as'mayor'!NO.$He$could$
128'SCRA'324' coercion'in'an'information'filed'before' create'a'special'court,'to'be' not$have$accomplished$the$crimes$for$
(1984)' the'respondent'court.'' known'as'Sandiganbayan,'which' which$he$was$charged$were$it$not$for$
p.'888' Petitioner''filed'a'motion'to'quash'the' shall'have'jurisdiction'over' his$position$as$mayor.'
' information.'Respondent'court'denied' criminal'and'civil'cases'involving' ! Ratio'1:''
*
such'motion.'Thus,'the'present'petition' graft'and'corrupt'practices'and' o If'petitioner'were'not'the'mayor'
for'certiorari.'' such'other'offenses'committed' he'would'not'have'allegedly'
by'public'officers'and' directed'the'policemen'and'the'
employees…'' latter'would'not'have'followed'his'
' orders'and'instructions'to'sell'
Pedro'Par’s'gasoline'and'padlock'
the'station.'The'fact'that'he'was'
mayor'did'not'vest'him'with'the'
legal'authority'to'take'over'the'
operations'and'control'of'
complainant’s'gasoline'station.'
ISSUE(2:('Whether'the'Sandiganbayan'
has'jurisdiction'over'his'case'!YES.$
As$clearly$stated$in$Sec.$5,$Article$XIII$
of$the$1973$Constitution.$'
! Ratio'2:'
o It'is'clear'form'Sec.'5,'Article'XIII'of'
the'1973'Constitution'that'
respondent'court'has'jurisdictional'
competence'not'only'over'criminal'
and'civil'cases'involving'graft'and'
corrupt'practices'committed'by'
public'officers'and'employees'but'
also'over'other'crimes'committed'
by'them'in'relation'to'their'office,'
though'not'involving'graft'and'
corrupt'practices,'as'may'be'
determined'by'law.''
ISSUE(3:(Whether'Section'4(c)of'PD'
1486'as'amended,'is'violative'of'the'
provision'of'Section'5,'Article'XIII'of'
the'1973'Constitution'because'it'
enlarges'what'the'latter'limited'
!NO.$It$is$duly$authorized$by$the$
*
Constitutional$provision$itself.'
! Ratio'3:'
o The'said'constitutional'provision'
delegates'to'the'lawmaking'body'
the'determination'of'such'“other'
offenses”'committed'by'public'
officers'over'which'the'
Sandiganbayan'shall'have'
jurisdiction.'Accordingly,'PD'1846,'
which'provides'that'“other'crimes'
or'offenses'committed'by'public'
officees'or'employees,'including'
those'employed'in'government3
owened'or'controlled'corporation,'
in'relation'to'their'office,”''was'
enacted'while'the'President'was'
exercising'legislative'powers.'The'
Court'will'not'review'questions'of'
legislative'policy.'
'
ZALDIVAR'VS.' Tanodbayan' PER'CURIAM' Sec.'7,'Article'XI'of'the'1987' ISSUE(1:(Whether'the'Tanodbayan'is'
SANDIGANBAYAN' In'a'petition'for'certiorari,'prohibition,' Constitution.' without'authority'to'file'the'case'
160'SCRA'843' and'mandamus,'petitioner'Enrique'A.' The'existing'Tanodbayan'shall' against'petitioner'Zaldivar'and'other'
(1988)' Zaldivar,'governor'of'the'province'of' hereafter'be'known'as'the'Office' similar'cases'!YES.$The$Tanodbayan$
p.'890' Antique,'sought'to'restrain'the' of'the'Special'Prosecutor.'It'shall' does$not$have$authority.'
Sandiganbayan'and'Tanodbayan'Raul' continue'to'function'and'exercise' ! Ratio'1:''
Gonzalez'from'proceeding'with'the' its'powers'as'now'or'hereafter' o Under'the'1987'Constitution,'the'
prosecution'and'hearing'of'criminal' may'be'provided'by'law,'except' Ombudsman'(as'distinguished'
cases'filed'against'him'on'the'ground' those'conferred'on'the'Office'of' from'the'incumbent'Tanodbayan)'
that'said'cases'were'filed'by'said' the'Ombudsman'created'under' is'charged'with'the'duty'to:'
Tanodbayan'without'legal'and' this'Consitution.''' “investigate'on'its'own,'or'on'
constitutional'authority,'since'under' complaint'by'any'person,'any'act'
the'1987'Constitution'which'took' or'omission'of'any'public'official,'
effect'on'February'2,'1987,'it'is'only' employee,'office'or'agency,'when'
*
the'Ombudsman'(not'the'present'or' such'act'or'omission'appears'to'be'
incumbent'Tanodbayan)'who'has'the' illegal,'unjust,'improper,'or'
authority'to'file'cases'with'the' inefficient.”'And'under'Sec.'7,'
Sandiganbayan.'' Article'XI'of'the'1987'Constitution,'
the'incumbent'Tanodbayan'(called'
Special'Prosecutor'under'the'1987'
Constitution'and'who'is'supposed'
to'retain'powers'and'duties'NOT'
GIVEN'to'the'Ombudsman)'is'
clearly'without'authority'to'
conduct'preliminary'investigation'
and'to'direct'the'filing'of'criminal'
cases'with'the'Sandiganbayan,'
except'upon'orders'of'the'
Ombudsman.'
BIR'VS' Pending' Ponente:'De'Leon,'Jr.,'J.' ' ISSUE(1:(Whether'or'not'the'
OMBUDSMAN' action' Petitioner'BIR'insists'that'the' Ombudsman'is'precluded'from'
G.R.'No.'115103,' investigative'power'of'the'Ombudsman' conducting'its'own'investigation'
April'11,'2002' is'not'unbridled.'Particularly'on'the' without'a'pending'action.'!NO.$As$
p.'890' issue'of'tax'refunds,'the'BIR'maintains' may$be$seen$in$the$1987$
that'the'Ombudsman'could'not'validly' Constitution,$there$is$no$such$
exercise'its'power'to'investigate'only' prohibition.'
when'there'exists'an'appropriate'case' ! Ratio'1:''
and'subject'to'the'limitations'provided' o No'less'than'the'1987'Constitution'
by'law.'' enjoins'that'the'“Ombudsman'and'
' his'Deputies,'as'protectors'of'the'
people,'shall'act'promptly'on'
complaints'filed'in'any'form'or'
manner'against'public'officials'or'
employees'of'the'government,'or'
any'subdivision,'agency'or'
instrumentality'thereof,'including'
government3owned'or'controlled'
corporations,'and'shall,'in'
*
appropriate'case,'notify'the'
complainants'of'the'action'taken'
and'the'result'thereof.'(
o Clearly,'there'is'no'requirement'of'
a'pending'action'before'the'
Ombudsman'could'wield'it'
investigative'power.'The'
Ombudsman'could'resort'toits'
investigative'prerogative'on'its'
own'or'upon'complaint'filed'in'any'
form'or'manner.'(
LAUREL'VS.' National' Petitioner,'as'Chairman'of'the' ' ISSUE(1:(Whether'the'petitioner,'as'
DESIERTO' Centennial' Commission'for'the'National' Chairman'of'the'Committee'for'the'
G.R.'No.'145368,' Celebrations' Centennial'Celebration,'assails'the' National'Centennial'Celebrations'is'a'
April'12,'2002' jurisdiction'of'the'Ombudsman'on'the' public'officer'!YES.$The$position$of$
p.'891' ground'that'he'isnot'a'public'officer.' Chairman$of$the$NCC$is$a$public$
Neither'the'Constitution'nor'the' office.'
Ombudsman'Act'of'1989'defines'who' ! Ratio'1:''
public'officers'are.'A'definition'of' o Petitioner'submits'that'some'of'
public'officers'cited'in'jurisprudence'is' the'characteristics,'as'provided'by'
that'provided'by'Mechem,'a' Mechem’s'definition,'are'not'
recognized'authority'on'the'subject.' present'in'the'position'of'NCC'
The'characteristics'of'a'public'office,' Chair,'namely:'(1)'the'delegation'
according'to'him,'include'the' of'sovereign'functions;'(2)'salary,'
delegation'of'sovereign'functions,'its' since'he'purportedly'did'not'
creation'by'law'and'not'by'contract,'an' receive'any'compensation;'and'(3)'
oath,'salary,'continuance'of'the' continuance,'the'tenure'of'the'
position,'scope'of'duties,'and'the' NCC'being'temporary.'The'Court'
designation'of'the'position'as'an'office.''' held'that'the'NCC'performs'
executive'functions.'A'perusal'of'
AO'225'and'EO'128'–'the'NCC’s'
sources'of'its'mandate'and'
functions'–'would'show'that'the'
NCC'was'precisely'created'to'
*
execute'and'carry'into'effect'
policies'and'objectives'mentioned'
in'the'two'executive'orders.'
Furthermore,'the'NCC'was'not'
without'a'role'in'the'country’s'
economic'development,'especially'
in'Central'Luzon.'Clearly,'the'NCC'
performs'sovereign'functions.'
o That'petitioner'allegedly'did'not'
receive'any'compensation'during'
his'tenure'is'of'little'consequence.'
The'salary'is'a'mere'incident'and'
forms'no'part'of'the'office.'Where'
a'salary'or'fees'is'annexed,'the'
office'provided'for'it'is'a'naked'or'
honorary'office,'and'is'supposed'to'
be'accepted'merely'for'the'public'
good.'Hence,'the'office'of'
petitioner'as'NCC'Chair'may'be'
characterized'as'an'honorary'
office.'It'is'a'public'office.''
AZARCON'VS.' Private' Ponente:'Panganiban,'J.' ' ISSUE(1:(Whether'the'Sanidganbayan'
SANDIGANBAYAN' individual' A'question'is'raised'on'whether'the' has'jurisdiction'over'the'accused'
G.R.'No.'116033,' Sandiganbayan'has'jurisdiction'over'a' private'individual'charged'as'principal'
February'26,' private'individual'who'is'charged'with' in'the'crime'of'malversation'of'public'
1997' malversation'of'public'funds'as'a' funds!NO.$His$liability$as$principal$is$
p.'893' principal'after'the'said'individual'had' not$included$in$the$list$of$instances$
been'designated'by'the'Bureau'of' where$the$Sandiganbayan$may$
Internal'Revenue'as'a'custodian'of' assume$jurisdiction$over$private$
detrained'property.'Did'such'accused' individuals.$'
become'a'public'officer'and'therefore' ! Ratio'1:''
subject'to'the'graft'court’s'jurisdiction' o Only'when'the'private'individual'is'
as'a'consequence'of'such'designation' charged'as'co3principal,'
by'the'BIR?' accomplice'or'accessory'of'a'public'
*
officer'or'employee'who'has'been'
charged'with'a'crime'within'its'
jurisdiction'may'the'
Sandiganbayan'assume'authority'
over'such'case.'(
'
*
ARTICLE(XII:(NATIONAL(ECONOMY(AND(PATRIMONY(
(
Section( 1.( The( goals( of( the( national( economy( are( a( more( equitable( distribution( of( opportunities,( income,( and( wealth;( a( sustained( increase( in( the(
amount(of(goods(and(services(produced(by(the(nation(for(the(benefit(of(the(people;(and(an(expanding(productivity(as(the(key(to(raising(the(quality(of(
life(for(all,(especially(the(underNprivileged.(
The(State(shall(promote(industrialization(and(full(employment(based(on(sound(agricultural(development(and(agrarian(reform,(through(industries(that(
make(full(and(efficient(use(of(human(and(natural(resources,(and(which(are(competitive(in(both(domestic(and(foreign(markets.(However,(the(State(
shall(protect(Filipino(enterprises(against(unfair(foreign(competition(and(trade(practices.(
(
In( the( pursuit( of( these( goals,( all( sectors( of( the( economy( and( all( regions( of( the( country( shall( be( given( optimum( opportunity( to( develop.( Private(
enterprises,(including(corporations,(cooperatives,(and(similar(collective(organizations,(shall(be(encouraged(to(broaden(the(base(of(their(ownership.(
(
(
Section(2.(All(lands(of(the(public(domain,(waters,(minerals,(coal,(petroleum,(and(other(mineral(oils,(all(forces(of(potential(energy,(fisheries,(forests(or(
timber,( wildlife,( flora( and( fauna,( and( other( natural( resources( are( owned( by( the( State.( With( the( exception( of( agricultural( lands,( all( other( natural(
resources(shall(not(be(alienated.(The(exploration,(development,(and(utilization(of(natural(resources(shall(be(under(the(full(control(and(supervision(of(
the(State.(The(State(may(directly(undertake(such(activities,(or(it(may(enter(into(coNproduction,(joint(venture,(or(productionNsharing(agreements(with(
Filipino(citizens,(or(corporations(or(associations(at(least(sixty(per(centum(of(whose(capital(is(owned(by(such(citizens.(Such(agreements(may(be(for(a(
period(not(exceeding(twentyNfive(years,(renewable(for(not(more(than(twentyNfive(years,(and(under(such(terms(and(conditions(as(may(be(provided(by(
law.(In(cases(of(water(rights(for(irrigation,(water(supply(fisheries,(or(industrial(uses(other(than(the(development(of(water(power,(beneficial(use(may(
be(the(measure(and(limit(of(the(grant.(
(
The( State( shall( protect( the( nation's( marine( wealth( in( its( archipelagic( waters,( territorial( sea,( and( exclusive( economic( zone,( and( reserve( its( use( and(
enjoyment(exclusively(to(Filipino(citizens.(
(
The(Congress(may,(by(law,(allow(smallNscale(utilization(of(natural(resources(by(Filipino(citizens,(as(well(as(cooperative(fish(farming,(with(priority(to(
subsistence(fishermen(and(fishN(workers(in(rivers,(lakes,(bays,(and(lagoons.(
(
The( President( may( enter( into( agreements( with( foreignNowned( corporations( involving( either( technical( or( financial( assistance( for( largeNscale(
exploration,(development,(and(utilization(of(minerals,(petroleum,(and(other(mineral(oils(according(to(the(general(terms(and(conditions(provided(by(
law,( based( on( real( contributions( to( the( economic( growth( and( general( welfare( of( the( country.( In( such( agreements,( the( State( shall( promote( the(
development(and(use(of(local(scientific(and(technical(resources.(
(
The(President(shall(notify(the(Congress(of(every(contract(entered(into(in(accordance(with(this(provision,(within(thirty(days(from(its(execution.(
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
(
Provision/s(
Petitioners!contest!the!validity!of!2! Art.(12,(Sec.(2(of(the( ISSUE:!Whether!or!not!Administrative!Orders!
Administrative(Orders((57(&(82)! 1987(Constitution:( 57!&!82!are!valid!and!do!not!contravene!
issued!by!the!Secretary!of!the!DENR! xxx!With!the!exception! Executive!Orders!211!and!279.!
to!carry!out!the!provisions!by!the! of!agricultural!lands,!all! !
President!in!the!lawful!exercise!of! other!natural!resources! HELD:!Yes.!
legislative!powers.! shall!not!be!alienated.! !
! The(exploration,( RATIO:(
Such!controversy!started!with!the! development,(and( (For%EO%211)%
changes!made!in!Art.(12,(Sec.(2,(of( utilization(of(natural( Presidential!Decree!463,!as!amended,!follows!
the(1987!Constitution!on!(1)!the! resources(shall(be( the!old!mining!laws!on!“license,!concession,!or!
A. MINERS( system(of(exploration,( under(the(full(control( lease,”!which!had!already!been!changed!in!Art.!
ASSOCIATION( development,(and(utilization(of(the( and(supervision(of(the( 12,!Sec.!2!of!the!1987!Constitution.!!As!such,!
V.(FACTORAN,( country’s(natural(resources,!and!(2)! State.(The(State(may( they!are!deemed!inoperative,!with!the!
Validity(of(AO’s(
Jr.( the!utilization(of(inalienable(lands( directly(undertake( exception!of!parts,!which!are!still!consistent!
57(&(82(
( of(public(domain(through(“license,( such(activities,(or(it( with!EO!211,!namely!the!provisions!which!deal!
because(they(
GR(98332( concession,(or(lease,”!the!practice! may(enter(into(coN with!all!other!areas!of!administration!and!
were(germane(
January(16,(1995( of!which!has!been!disallowed!in!the! production,(joint( management!of!mineral!lands.!
to(EO’s(211(&(
! 1987!Constitution.! venture,(or( !
279(
! ! productionNsharing( (For%EO%279)!
! July!1987!!!Former!President! agreements(with( There!is!no!clear!showing!that!the!Secretary!
949N956( Aquino,!in!the!exercise!of!her! Filipino(citizens,(or( has!abused!his!legislative!power.!!EO!279!
legislative!powers!under!the! corporations(or( authorizes!said!Secretary!to!promulgate!such!
Provisional!Constitution,! associations(at(least(60( supplementary!rules!and!regulations!as!may!be!
promulgated!Executive(Order(211! per(centum(of(whose( needed!to!effectively!implement!the!provisions!
(outlining!the!procedures!for! capital(is(owned(by( of!such!EO.!!Also,!the!subject!sought!to!be!
utilizing!mineral!resources!pursuant! such(citizens.(Such( governed!and!regulated!by!the!questioned!
to!the!1987!Constitution!in!order!to! agreements(may(be( AO’s!are!germane!to!EO279.!
ensure!the!continuity!of!mining! for(a(period(not( !
activities,!and!to!hasten!the! exceeding(twentyNfive( In#conclusion,#the#questioned#Administrative#
development!of!mineral!resources.)! years,(renewable(for( Orders#are#reasonably#directed#to#the#
and!Executive(Order(279!(giving!the! not(more(than(twentyN accomplishment#of#the#purposes#of#the#law#
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
Secretary!of!the!DENR!general! five(years,(and(under( under#which#they#were#issued#and#were#
supervision!over!matters!related!to! such(terms(and( intended#to#secure#the#paramount#interest#of#
the!production,!agreements!on!the! conditions(as(may( the#public,#their#economic#growth,#and#welfare.#
exploration,!development,!and! provided(by(law.!xxx! AO’s#57#and#82#must#be#sustained,#and#their#
utilization!of!mineral!resources.).! ! force#and#effect#upheld.#
! The(President(may(
To#implement!such!acts,!the! enter(into(agreements(
Secretary!of!the!DENR!promulgated! with(foreignNowned(
such!AO’s!57!and!82,!the!validity!of! corporations(involving(
which!are!being!challenged!by!the! either(technical(or(
petitioners.!!Such!AO’s!issued!by!the! financial(assistance(for(
Secretary!in!the!exercise!of!his!ruleZ largeNscale(
making!power!are!said!to!be!tainted! exploration,(
with!invalidity!because!they! development,(and(
contradict!EO’s!211!and!279,! utilization(of(minerals,(
because!AO’s!57!and!83!repeal!or! petroleum,(and(other(
abrogate!Presidential!Decree!463! mineral(oils(according(
and!other!mining!laws!already! to(the(general(terms(
acknowledged!as!the!principal!law! and(conditions(
under!EO’s!211!and!279.# provided(by(law,(
based(on(real(
contributions(to(the(
economic(growth(and(
general(welfare(of(the(
country.(In(such(
agreements,(the(State(
shall(promote(the(
development(and(use(
of(local(scientific(and(
technical(resources.(
!
B. REPUBLIC(V.( QUARRY/( ! Art.(18,(Sec.(3(of(the( ISSUE(1:!Whether!or!not!PD!463!is!valid?!
ROSEMOOR( MINING( ! 1987(Constitution.!!All! (Petitioners#contend#that#LO#33#contravenes#
( LICENSE( Petitioners!Pascual,!De!La!Concha,! existing!laws,!decrees,! Sec.#69#of#PD#463#because#it#exceeds#the#max#
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
( ( De!La!Concha,!and!De!Guzman,! executive!orders,! area#that#may#be#granted,#but#respondents#
( ( after!having!been!granted! proclamations,!letters! argue#that#the#license#was#validly#granted#
GR(149927( JURA(REGALIA( permission!to!prospect!for!marble! of!instructions,!and! because#it#was#covered#by#4#separate#
March(30,(2004( deposits!in!BiakZnaZBato,!discovered! other!executive! applications#for#areas#of#81#hectares#each.)#
( such!deposits!of!high!quality!and! issuances!not! !
( commercial!quantity,!and!sought!a! inconsistent!with!this! HELD:!Yes!
( license!to!exploit!said!marble! Constitution!shall! !
( deposits!with!the!permission!of!the! remain!operative!until! RATIO:(The!language!of!Sec.!69!of!PD!463!is!
956N960! Mines!and!Geosciences!Bureau.! amended,!repealed,!or! clear!that!a!quarry!license!should!cover!a!
! revoked.! maximum!of!100!hectares!in!any!given!
They!were!granted!License(No.(33( ! province.!!It!provides!neither!an!exception!nor!
(LO(33),!but!less!than!3!years!after! ! reference!to!the!number!of!applications!for!a!
the!continuous!operation!of!the!LO! ! license.!!Such!section!must!be!taken!to!mean!
33,!which!had!the!validity!of!25! ! exactly!what!it!says.!!When!the!law!is!clear,!
years,!such!LO!33!was!cancelled!by! Note:!A!mining!lease! plain,!and!free!from!ambiguity,!it!must!be!
DENR(Minister(Maceda!shortly! that!contravenes!a! given!its!literal!meaning!and!applied!without!
after!being!appointed!to!his!post!in! manZmade!provision!of! attempted!interpretation.!
a!letter!to!the!respondent! the!law!under!which!it! !
Rosemoor.! is!granted!is!void.!! !
! Being!a!mere!privilege,! ISSUE(2:!Whether!or!not!Proclamation!84!is!
Summary!of!Rulings!by!the!Trial! a!license!does!not!vest! valid(
Court!&!Court!of!Appeals! absolute!rights!in!the! !
LO!33!conferred!a!property(right! holder.!!Thus,!without! (Petitioners#argue#that#LO#33#was#validly#
which!must!be!protected!by!the! offending!the!due! declared#a#nullity#through#DENR#Minister#
Constitution! process!and!the!nonZ Maceda’s#decision#because#it#violated#PD#463.##
Such!right!was!violated!when!the! impairment!clauses!of! This#was#confirmed#by#Proclamation#84,#which#
license!was!cancelled(without( the!Constitution,!it!can! said#that#public#interest#would#be#served#by#
notice,!and!it!was!unjustified! be!revoked!by!the! returning#said#parcel#of#land#to#the#BiakUnaU
because!LO!33!was!embraced!by!4! State!in!the!public! Bato#National#Park.###
separate!applications,!which!did!not! interest.! #
exceed!the!limitation!imposed,!so! ! Respondents#argue#that#as#provided#for#PD#
such!LO!must!be!valid.!(Note:!The! ! 463,#their#right#to#due#process#was#violated#
previous!limit!embodied!in!PD!463! when#LO#33#was#cancelled#without#notice#and#
said!that!a!quarry!license!should!not! hearing,#also#saying#that#Proclamation#84#is#
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
cover!more!than!100!hectares,!but! not#valid#because#
since!the!license!in!question!was! It#violates#the#clause#on#nonUimpairment#of#
covered!by!4!separate!applications! contracts,#
indicating!81!hectares!each,!LO!33! It#is#an#ex!post!facto#law#and/or#bill#of#
did!not!violate!this!limitation.!! attainder,#and#
However,!it!must!be!noted!that!PD! It#was#issued#by#the#President#after#the#
43!was!appealed!by!RA!7942!(“The! effectivity#of#the#1987#Constitition.)#
Philippine!Mining!Act!of!1995”)! HELD:!Yes.!
which!increased!the!mining!areas! !
allowed!in!PD!463).! RATIO:(
! Granting!that!the!respondents’!license!was!
Proclamation(84,!which!cancelled! valid,!it!can!still!be!validly!revoved!by!the!State!
LO!33,!was!an!ex(post(facto(law,! in!the!exercise!of!police!power!in!accord!with!
violating!Art.!18,!Sec.!3!of!the!1987! jura#regalia,!which!reserves!to!the!State!
Constitution.! ownership!of!all!natural!resources.!!Thus,!
! Proclamation!84!does!not!violate!the!clause!on!
Under!the!clause!in!the!Constitution! nonZimpairment!of!contracts.!
dealing!with!the!nonNimpairment(of( !
obligations(and(contracts,!the! Proclamation!84!is!not!an!ex#post#facto!law!as!
respondents’!license!must!be! such!proclamation!does!not!fall!under!any!of!
respected!by!the!State.! the!instances!which!would!make!it!such!a!law,!
! and!that!said!proclamation!is!not!penal!in!
Hence,!this!petition.!! character,!and!thus!cannot!be!considered!as!an#
ex#post#facto#law.!!It!is!also!not!a!bill!of!
attainder.!
When!President!Aquino!issued!Proclamation!
84,!she!was!still!validly!exercising!legislative!
powers!under!the!Provisional!Constitution!of!
1986.!Hence,!her!issuance!of!said!proclamation!
is!valid!as!it!was!recognized!and!provided!for!in!
Art.!7,!Sec.!6,!of!the!1987!Constitution.!
C.(LA(BUGAL( Regalian( The!petition!assails!the! ! Issue(1:(Whether(or(not(EO(279(is(valid?(
B’LAAN(TRIBAL( Doctrine( constitutionality!of!Republic!Act!No.! 1. SEC.!2! !
ASSOC(V.(DENR( Prohibited( 7942,!otherwise!known!as!the! Paragraph!3! Held:!Yes,!E.O.!No.!279!is!an!effective,!and!a!
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
GR(127882( Service( PHILIPPINE!MINING!ACT!OF!1995,! ! validly!enacted,!statute.!
JANUARY(27,(2004( Contract( and!of!the!Financial!and!Technical! 2. CONCOM! !
961N992( VOID(FTAA( Assistance!Agreement!(FTAA)!and! discussion!on! Ratio!1:!While!the!effectivity!clause!of!E.O.!No.!
AGREEMENT( WMC!(Philippines),!Inc.!(WMCP),!a! the!Service! 279!does!not!require!its!publication,!it!is!not!a!
( corporation!organized!under! Contracts! ground!for!its!invalidation!since!the!EO!200,!in!
Philippine!laws.! dispute!! a!supplementary!manner,!provides!for!its!
! ! application.!!
Also!impleaded!is!private! MR.!TADEO.!Xxx! !
respondent!WMCP,!which!entered! Matapos!suriin!ang! At!the!time!President!Aquino!issued!E.O.!No.!
into!the!assailed!FTAA!with!the! kalagayan!ng!Pilipinas,! 279!on!July!25,!1987,!she!was!still!validly!
Philippine!Government.!WMCP!is! ang!saligang!suliranin,! exercising!legislative!powers!under!the!
owned!by!WMC!Resources! pangunahin!ang! Provisional!Constitution.!
International!Pty.,!Ltd.!(WMC),!"a! salitang! !
wholly!owned!subsidiary!of! "imperyalismo."!Ang( Issue(2:(Whether(or(not(WCMP(FTAA(is(
Western!Mining!Corporation! ibig(sabihin(nito(ay(ang( unconstitutional?(
Holdings!Limited,!a!publicly!listed! sistema(ng(lipunang( !
major!Australian!mining!and! pinaghaharian(ng( Held!2:!It!is!unconstitutional!and!void,!
exploration!company."! iilang(monopolyong( specifically:!
! kapitalista(at(ang( (1)!The!following!provisions!of!Republic!Act!No.!
Respondent!WMCP!subsequently! salitang( 7942:!The!proviso!in!Section!3!(aq);!Section!23;!
filed!a!Manifestation!dated! "imperyalismo"(ay( Section!33!to!41;!Section!56;!2nd!&!3rd!
September!25,!2002!alleging!that!on! buhay(na(buhay(sa( paragraphs!of!Section!81;!and!Section!90.!
January!23,!2001,!WMC!sold!all!its! National(Economy(and( (2)!All!provisions!of!Department!of!
shares!in!WMCP!to!Sagittarius! Patrimony(na(nating( Environment!and!Natural!Resources!
Mines,!Inc.!(Sagittarius),!a! ginawa.!xxx! Administrative!Order!96Z40,!s.!1996!which!are!
corporation!organized!under! Pangalawa,!naroroon! not!in!conformity!with!this!Decision,!and!
Philippine!laws.! pa!rin!ang!parity!rights,! (3)!The!Financial!and!Technical!Assistance!
! ang!service!contract,! Agreement!between!the!Government!of!the!
Petitioners!contend!that!E.O.!No.! ang!60Z40!equity!sa! Republic!of!the!Philippines!and!WMC!
279!did!not!take!effect!because!the! natural!resources.! Philippines,!Inc.!
supposed!date!of!its!effectivity! Habang!naghihirap!ang! !
came!after!President!Aquino!had! sambayanang!Pilipino,! Ratio!2:!
already!lost!her!legislative!powers! ginagalugad!naman!ng! Mr.!Tadeo’s!"!!The!idea!and!phrase!"service!
under!the!Provisional!Constitution.! mga!dayuhan!ang!ating! contracts"!has!been!deleted!in!the!1987!
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
! likas!na!yaman.!xxx!Ang! Constitution's!Article!on!National!Economy!and!
And!they!likewise!claim!that!the! solusyon!sa!suliranin! Patrimony!INTENTIONALLY.!Therefore,!the!
WMC!FTAA,!which!was!entered!into! ng!bansa!ay!dalawa! phrase!"agreements!.!.!.!involving!either!
pursuant!to!E.O.!No.!279,!violates! lamang:!ang! technical!or!financial!assistance"!does!not!
Section!2,!Article!XII!of!the! pagpapatupad!ng! include!"broad!number!of!possible!services"!as!
Constitution!because,!among!other! tunay!na!reporma!sa! contended!by!the!respondent.!
reasons:! lupa!at!ang!national! !
(1) It!allows!foreignZowned! industrialization.!Ito! Mr.!Villegas’!"!The!constitutional!provision!
companies!xxx!in!the! ang!tinatawag!naming! allowing!the!President!to!enter!into!FTAAs!with!
exploitation,!development,!and! pagsikat!ng!araw!sa! foreignZowned!corporations!is!an!exception!to!
utilization!of!minerals,! Silangan.!Ngunit(ang( the!rule!that!participation!in!the!nation's!
petroleum,!and!other!mineral! mga(landlords(and(big( natural!resources!is!reserved!exclusively!to!
oils,!and!even!permits!foreign! businessmen(at(ang( Filipinos.!Accordingly,!such!provision!must!be!
owned!companies!to!"operate! mga(komprador(ay( construed!strictly!against!their!enjoyment!by!
and!manage!mining!activities."! nagsasabi(na(ang(free( nonZFilipinos.!!
! trade(na(ito,(ang( !
(2)!It!allows!foreignZowned! kahulugan(para(sa( Mr.!Davide’s!"!The!intent!of!this!provision,!as!
companies!to!extend!both!technical! amin,(ay(ipinipilit(sa( well!as!other!provisions!on!foreign!
and!financial!assistance,!instead!of! ating(sambayanan(na( investments,!is!to!prevent!the!practice!
"either!technical!or!financial! ang(araw(ay(sisikat(sa( (prevalent!in!the!Marcos!government)!of!
assistance."! Kanluran.(Kailan(man( skirting!the!60/40!equation!using!the!cover!of!
hindi(puwedeng( service!contracts.!
sumikat(ang(araw(sa( !
Kanluran.!I!vote!no.(( Since!service!contracts!are!antithetical,!TFTA!
( would!also!run!counter!to!the!constitutional!
MR.!VILLEGAS.! provision!on!nationalization!or!Filipinization,!of!
Actually,!the!second( the!exploitation!of!our!natural!resources.!
provision(about(the( !
President(does(not( FTAA!contractor!warrants!that!it!"has!or!has!
permit(foreign( access!to!all!the!financing,!managerial,!and!
investors(to( technical!expertise.!.!.!."!!FTAA!contractor!is!
participate.!It!is!only! bound!to!provide!some!management!
technical!or!financial! assistance!!!assistance(that(has(been(
assistance!–!they!do! eliminated(by(the(present(Constitution!
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
not!own!anything!–!but! !
on!conditions!that( This!Court!finds!that!R.A.!No.!7942!is!invalid!
have(to(be(determined( insofar!as!said!Act!authorizes!service!contracts.!
by(law(with(the( Although!the!statute!employs!the!phrase!
concurrence(of( "financial!and!technical!agreements"!in!
Congress.!So,(it(is(very( accordance!with!the!1987!Constitution,!it!
restrictive.! actually!treats!these!agreements!as!service!
! contracts!that!grant!beneficial!ownership!to!
MR!DAVIDE:!It!is!not! foreign!contractors!contrary!to!the!
for!them!to!enjoy!our! fundamental!law.!
natural!resources.!
Madam!President,!our!
natural!resources!are!
depleting;!our!
population!is!
increasing!by!leaps!and!
bounds.!Fifty(years(
from(now,(if(we(will(
allow(these(aliens(to(
exploit(our(natural(
resources,(there(will(
be(no(more(natural(
resources(for(the(next(
generations(of(
Filipinos.!It!may!last!
long!if!we!will!begin!
now.!
( ( January!27,!2004!!the!Court!en! ! Issue!1:!Whether!or!not!the!alleged!invalidity!
( ( banc!promulgated!its!Decision! “Sec.!2.!!x!x!x!The! of!the!transfer!of!the!WMCP!shares!to!
( ( declaring!the!unconstitutionality!of! exploration,! Sagittarius!violates!the!fourth!paragraph!of!
( Meaning(of(Full( certain!provisions!of!RA!7942,!DAO! development!and! Section(2(of(Article(XII(of(the(Constitution?(
D.( Control(and( 96Z40,!as!well!as!of!the!entire!FTAA! utilization!of!natural! (
RECONSIDERATION(( Supervision( executed!between!the!government! resources!shall!be! Held!1:!NO,!it!is!clear!that!the!constitutional!
GR(127882( ( and!WMCP,!mainly!on!the!finding! under!the!full!control! principle!gives!preference!and!priority!to!
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
December(1,(2004( COURT( that!FTAAs(are(service(contracts( and!supervision!of!the! Filipinos!and!Filipino!corporations!in!the!
992N1017( REVERSED( prohibited(by(the(1987( State.!!The!State!may! development!of!our!natural!resources!
DECISIONS( Constitution.! directly!undertake!such! Ratio!1:!
! activities,!or!it!may! "!Nowhere!in!the!provision!is!there!any!
Subsequently,!respondents!filed! enter!into!coZ express!limitation!or!restriction!insofar!as!
separate!Motions!for! production,!joint! arrangements!other!than!the!three!
Reconsideration.!! venture,!or!productionZ aforementioned!contractual!schemes!are!
! sharing!agreements! concerned.!
Reasons:! with!Filipino!citizens,! !
o the!FTAA!is!to!be!implemented! or!corporations!or! Issue(2:(Whether(or(not(the(Court(Can(Still(
now!by!a!Filipino!corporation! associations!at!least! Decide(the(Case,(Even(Assuming(It(Is(Moot(
(Sagittarius),!it!is!no!longer! sixty!per!centum!of! !
possible!for!the!Court!to!declare! whose!capital!is!owned! Held!2:!YES,!the!Court!will!never!digress!from!
it!unconstitutional! by!such!citizens.!x!x!x.”! or!abandon!its!sacred!duty!and!authority!to!
! ! uphold!the!Constitution!in!matters!that!involve!
o that!a!Filipino!corporation!is!not! ! grave!abuse!of!discretion!brought!before!it!in!
allowed!by!the!Constitution!to! ! appropriate!cases,!committed!by!any!officer,!
enter!into!an!FTAA!with!the! ! agency,!instrumentality!or!department!of!the!
government! ! government!
! !
! Ratio!2:!Remember!the!Requisites!of!Judicial!
! review!in!Moot!cases!!
! o VIOLATION!OF!THE!CONSTITUTION:!Where!
! an!action!of!the!legislative!branch!is!
! seriously!alleged!to!have!infringed!the!
! Constitution,!it!becomes!not!only!the!right!
! but!in!fact!the!duty!of!the!judiciary!to!
! settle!the!dispute!
! o PARAMOUNT!PUBLIC!INTEREST!involved,!
! as!well!as!the!necessity!for!a!ruling!to!put!
! an!end!to!the!uncertainties!plaguing!the!
! mining!industry!
! o CAPABLE!OF!REPETITION,!YET!EVADING!
! REVIEW!
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
! o LIS!MOTA:!the!real!issue!in!this!case!is!
! whether!paragraph!4!of!Section!2!of!Article!
! XII!of!the!Constitution!is!contravened!by!
! RA!7942!and!DAO!96Z40,!not!whether!it!
! was!violated!by!specific!acts!implementing!
! RA!7942!and!DAO!96Z40!
! !
! Issue(3:(The(Meaning(of(“Agreements(
! Involving(
! Either(Technical(or(Financial(Assistance”(
! !
! Ratio!3:!The!intent!the!aboveZmentioned!
Definition!and! provision!is!to!put!in!place!safeguards!that!
Application! would!eliminate!or!minimize!the!abuses!
! prevalent!during!the!martial!law!regime.!!In!
“FULL!CONTROL!AND! brief,!they!were!going!to!permit!service!
SUPERVISION”!as! contracts!with!foreign!corporations!as!
utilized!in!Section!2!of! contractors,!but!with!safety!measures!to!
Article!XII!enables!the! prevent!abuses,!as!an!exception!to!the!general!
State!to:! norm!established!in!the!first!paragraph!of!
o direct,!restrain,! Section!2!of!Article!XII,!which!reserves!or!limits!
regulate!and! to!Filipino!citizens!and!corporations!at!least!60!
govern!the!affairs! percent!owned!by!such!citizens!the!
of!the!extractive! exploration,!development!and!utilization!of!
enterprises! mineral!or!petroleum!resources.!
! !
o regulate!the! The!agreements(involving(either(technical(or(
conduct!of! financial(assistance!referred!to!in!paragraph!4!
affairs!in!various! are!in!fact!service!contracts,!but!such!new!
enterprises!based! service(contracts(are(between(foreign(
on!industry! corporations(acting(as(contractors(on!the!one!
standards!and! hand,!and!on!the!other!hand!government!as!
similar!measures! principal!or!“owner”!(of!the!works),!whereby!
! the!foreign!contractor!provides!the!capital,!
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
o restrain!activities! technology!and!technical!knowZhow,!and!
deemed!not! managerial!expertise!in!the!creation!and!
desirable!or! operation!of!the!largeZscale!mining/extractive!
beneficial!to!the! enterprise,!and!government(through(its(
economic! agencies((DENR,(MGB)(actively(exercises(full(
development!and! control(and(supervision(over(the(entire(
general!welfare!of! enterprise.!
the!country! (
! Such!service!contracts!may!be!entered!
o conserve!the! into!only!with!respect!to!minerals,!petroleum!
environment!! and!other!mineral!oils.!!The!grant!of!such!
! service!contracts!is!subject!to!several!
o uplift!the!wellZ safeguards,!among!them:!!
being!of!the!local! (1)!That!the!service!contract!be!crafted!in!
affected! accordance!with!a!general!law!setting!standard!
communities! or!uniform!terms,!conditions!and!
requirements;!!
(2)!The!President!be!the!signatory!for!the!
government;!and!!
(3)!The!President!reports!the!executed!
agreement!to!Congress!within!thirty!days.!
!
COURT(REVERSALS:(
!
The(ff.(are(NOW(CONSTITUTIONAL(!
(1) Republic(Act(No.(7942((the(Philippine(
Mining(Law),((
Ratio!1:!The!Section!3(aq)!of!RA!7942!is!not!
unconstitutional!in!allowing!a!foreign!
contractor!to!apply!for!and!hold!an!exploration!
permit!.The!exploration!permit!issued!under!
Sections!3(aq),!20!and!23!of!RA!7942,!which!
allows!exploration!but!not!extraction,!serves!to!
protect!the!interests!and!rights!of!the!
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
exploration!permit!grantee!(and!wouldZbe!
contractor),!foreign!or!local.!!!
!
!
(2) (its(Implementing(Rules(and(Regulations(
contained(in(DENR(Administrative(Order(
(DAO)(No.(9640(NN(insofar(as(they(relate(to(
financial(and(technical(assistance(
agreements(referred(to(in(paragraph(4(of(
Section(2(of(Article(XII(of(the(Constitution;(
and((
Ratio:!DAO!96Z40!vest!in!government!more!
than!a!sufficient!degree!of!control!and!
supervision!over!the!conduct!of!mining!
operations!
!
(3) the(Financial(and(Technical(Assistance(
Agreement((FTAA)(dated(March(30,(1995(
executed(by(the(government(and(Western(
Mining(Corporation(Philippines(Inc.(
(WMCP)(
Ratio!3:!The!WMCP!FTAA!clauses!vest!the!State!
with!control!and!supervision!over!practically!all!
aspects!of!the!operations!of!the!FTAA!
contractor,!including!the!charging!of!preZ
operating!and!operating!expenses,!and!the!
disposition!of!mineral!products.!There!is!no!
abdication!of!State!Control.!
!
EXCEPT!Sections!7.8!and!7.9!of!the!subject!
FTAA!which!are!hereby!INVALIDATED!for!being!
contrary!to!public!policy!and!for!being!grossly!
disadvantageous!to!the!government.!
E.(PHILIPPINE( COMPROMISE( September!10,!1971!!the!National! ! Issue:(Whether(or(not(the(Compromise(
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
GEOTHERMALV.( AGREEMENT( Power!Corporation!(NAPOCOR)! ! Agreement(filed(by(PGI(and(NAPOCOR(is(a(
NAPOCOR(( IS( entered!into!a!service!contract!with! SECTION!2.!All!lands!of! valid(settlement?(
GR(144302( NOT(A( Philippine!Geothermal,!Inc.!(PGI),!a! the!public!domain,! (
May(27,(2004( BUSINESS(OF( corporation!organized!and!existing! waters,!minerals,!coal,! Held:(Denied,(CA’s(Decision(to(Dismiss(
1017N1019( THE(COURT( under!the!laws!of!California,!United! petroleum!and!other! UPHELD(
States!of!America,!for!the! mineral!oils,!all!forces! (
exploration!and!exploitation!of! of!potential!energy,! Ratio:((
geothermal!resources!covering!the! fisheries,!forests!or! It!is!beyond!its!jurisdiction!to!pass!upon!and!
Tiwi!and!MakZBan!Geothermal! timber,!wildlife,!flora! approve!the!Compromise!Agreement!of!the!
Fields.!Section!3.1!of!said!contract! and!fauna,!and!other! parties,!who!have,!as!therein!stated,!“agreed!
which!provides!that!it!shall!be! natural!resources!are! to!terminate!the!service!contract!subject!of!the!
renewed!for!another!25!years.! owned!by!the!state.! dispute,!in!favor!of”!a!series!of!agreements!
! With!the!exception!of! that!start!with!“Provisional,”!followed!by!
NPC,!however,!was!doubtful! agricultural!lands,!all! “Interim,”!then!“Transition,”!and!finally!
whether!a!renewal!would!be! other!natural!resources! “Geothermal!Resources!Sales!Contract!
constitutional!in!light!of!Section!2,! shall!not!be! (GRSC),”!the!forging!of!which!agreements!is!
Article!XII!of!the!1987!Constitution.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
alienated.!!The( intended!to!“effectively!erase!any!doubt!as!to!
!! exploration,( the!legality!of!the!compromise.”!
! development,(and(
July!8,!1996!!PGI!requested!for! utilization(of(natural(
arbitration!with!the!International! resources(shall(be(
Court!of!Arbitration!(ICA)!of!the! under(the(full(control(
International!Chamber!of! and(supervision(of(the(
Commerce!(ICC).! state.!!xxx!
!
March!6,!1997!!Quezon!City!RTC!
denied!the!motion!for!
reconsideration!of!the!PGI!to!
dismiss!the!petition!of!the!
NAPOCOR!on!the!ground!that!the!
legality!or!constitutionality!of!the!
renewal!of!the!service!contract!is!an!
issue!which!only!a!regular!court!of!
justice!may!resolve!or!settle!and!
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
NOT!ICA.!
!
Hence,!this!petition!for!review!
on!certiorari!seeking!to!set!aside!
and!nullify!the!decision!of!the!RTC.!
!
AT!THE!SIDE!BAR:!Thus![PGI]!and!
[NPC]!have!agreed!to!terminate!the!
Service!Contract!subject!matter!of!
the!dispute,!in!favor!of!a!new!
Geothermal!Sales!Contract!and!a!PD!
1442!Geothermal!Service!Contract,!
and!PGI!has!committed!to!form!a!
Philippine!company!for!the!
development!and!operation!of!the!
Tiwi!and!MakZBan!steamfields!(Sec.!
6.1!thereof)!on!a!goingZforward!
basis,!thereby!effectively!erasing!
any!doubt!as!to!the!legality!of!the!
compromise.!
!
March!24,!2000!!Court!of!Appeals!
dismissed!the!petition!of!PGI.!
(
Section(3.(Lands(of(the(public(domain(are(classified(into(agricultural,(forest(or(timber,(mineral(lands(and(national(parks.(Agricultural(lands(of(the(
public(domain(may(be(further(classified(by(law(according(to(the(uses(to(which(they(may(be(devoted.(Alienable(lands(of(the(public(domain(shall(be(
limited(to(agricultural(lands.(Private(corporations(or(associations(may(not(hold(such(alienable(lands(of(the(public(domain(except(by(lease,(for(a(period(
not(exceeding(twentyNfive(years,(renewable(for(not(more(than(twentyNfive(years,(and(not(to(exceed(one(thousand(hectares(in(area.(Citizens(of(the(
Philippines(may(lease(not(more(than(five(hundred(hectares,(or(acquire(not(more(than(twelve(hectares(thereof,(by(purchase,(homestead,(or(grant.(
(
Taking(into(account(the(requirements(of(conservation,(ecology,(and(development,(and(subject(to(the(requirements(of(agrarian(reform,(the(Congress(
shall(determine,(by(law,(the(size(of(lands(of(the(public(domain(which(may(be(acquired,(developed,(held,(or(leased(and(the(conditions(thereforE.(
(
(
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
Provision/s(
Republic(v.(CA( The!Regalian! These!cases!arose!from!the! Philippine(Bill(of(1902,( ISSUE:!Whether!or!not!Benguet!and!Atok!have!
( Doctrine!was! application!for!registration!of!a! Sec.(21.( exclusive!rights!to!the!property!in!question!by!
160!SCRA!228! incorrectly! parcel!of!land!filed!by!Jose!de!la! All!valuable!mineral! virtue!of!their!respective!mining!claims.!
(1988)! applied!in!the! Rosa!on!his!own!behalf!and!on! deposits!in!public!lands! !
! cases!at!bar! behalf!of!his!three!children,! in!the!philippine! HELD:!Yes.!
Victoria,!Benjamin!and!Eduardo.! Islands!both!surveyed! !
The!land,!situated!in!the!Benguet! and!unsurveyed!are! RATIO:(
Province,!was!divided!into!9!lots.!! hereby!declared!to!be! Yes,!because!such!property!rights!were!validly!
According!to!the!application,!Lots!1Z free!and!open!to! acquired!before!the!Constitution!of!1935!
5!were!sold!to!Jose!de!la!Rosa!and! exploration,! prohibited!the!alienation!of!all!lands!of!the!
Lots!6Z9!to!his!children!by!Mamaya! occupation!and! public!domain!except!agricultural!lands,!
Balbalio!and!Jaime!Alberto.! purchase!and!the!land! subject!to!vested!rights!existing!at!the!time!of!
! in!which!they!are! its!adoption.!The!land!was!not!and!could!not!
The!application!was!separately! found!to!occupation! have!been!transferred!to!the!private!
opposed!by:! and!purchase!by!the! respondents!by!virtue!of!acquisitive!
1. Benguet!Consolidated,!Inc.( citizens!of!the!United! prescription,!nor!could!its!use!be!shared!
2. Atok!Big!Wedge! States,!or!of!said! simultaneously!by!them!and!the!mining!
Corporation( islands.! companies!for!agricultural!and!mineral!
(
3. Republic(of(the(Philippines ! purposes.!
! Article(13,(Sec.(1.( !
In!support!of!the!application,! All!agricultural,!timber! *!!!*!!!*!
Balbalio!claimed!to!have!received! and!mineral!lands!of! !
Lots!1Z5!from!her!father!shortly! the!public!domain,! DEEPER(EXPLANATION(
after!the!Liberation.!She!testified! waters,!minerals,!coal,! The!subject!property!was!indeed!considered!
she!was!born!in!the!land,!which!was! petroleum!and!other! forest!land!and!included!in!the!Central!
possessed!by!her!parents!under! mineral!oils,!all!forces! Cordillera!Forest!Reserve,!but!this!did!not!
claim!of!ownership.! of!potential!energy!and! impair!the!rights!already!vested!in!Benguet!and!
! other!natural!resources! Atok!at!that!time.!The!June!Bug!mineral!claim!
Alberto!said!he!received!Lots!6Z9! of!the!Philipppines! of!Benguet!and!the!Fredia!and!Emma!mineral!
1961!from!his!mother!who!declared! belong!to!the!State,! claims!of!Atok!having!been!perfected!prior!to!
that!the!land!was!planted!by!Jaime! and!their!disposition,! the!approval!of!the!Constitution!of!the!
and!his!predecessorsZinZinterest.!! exploitation,! Philippines!of!1935,!they!were!removed!from!
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
She!was!corroborated!by!Felix! development,!or! the!public!domain!and!had!become!private!
Marcos,!67!years!old!at!the!time,! utilization!shall!be! properties!of!Benguet!and!Atok.!
who!recalled!the!earlier!possession! limited!to!citizens!of! !
of!the!land!by!Alberto's!father.! the!Philippines!or!to! Such!rights!were!not!affected!either!by!the!
! corporations!or! restriction!in!the!Commonwealth(Constitution!
Both!presented!tax!declarations!and! associations!at!least! according!to!Article(XIII,(Section(1,!thereof,!
tax!receipts!to!support!their! 60%!of!the!capital!of! which!was!implemented!by!Act(No.(4268.!
petitions.!!! which!is!owned!by!such! !
! citizens,!subject!to!any! The(perfection(of(the(mining(claim(converted(
Benguet!opposed!on!the!ground! existing!right,!grant,! the(property(to(mineral(land(and(under(the(
that!rom!the!date!of!its!purchase,! lease!or!concession!at! laws(then(in(force(removed(it(from(the(public(
Benguet!had!been!in!actual,! the!time!of!the! domain.(As(the(land(had(become(the(private(
continuous!and!exclusive! inauguration!of!the! property(of(the(locators,(they(had(the(right(to(
possession!of!the!land!in!concept!of! government! transfer(the(same,(as(they(did,(to(Benguet(and(
owner.! established!under!this! Atok.(
! Constitution.!Natural! !
Atok!alleged!the!lots!he!was! resources!with!the! The!Court!of!Appeals!correctly!observed!that!
claiming!were!covered!by!the!Emma! exception!of!public! such!private!property!was!subject!to!the!
and!Fredia!mineral!claims!located! agricultural!lands,!shall! "vicissitudes!of!ownership,"!or!by!acquisitive(
by!Harrison!and!Reynolds!in!the! not!be!alienated,!and! prescription.!
office!of!the!mining!recorder!of! no!license,!concession,! !
Baguio.!These!claims!were! or!lease!for!the! HOWEVER,!the!method!invoked!by!the!de!la!
purchased!from!these!locators!by! exploitation,! Rosas!is!not!available!in!the!case!at!bar,!for!two!
Atok,!which!has!since!then!been!in! development!or! reasons:!
open,!continuous!and!exclusive! utilization!of!any!of!the! 1. The!trial!court!found!that!the!evidence!
possession!of!the!said!lots.!(The! natural!resources!shall! of!open,!continuous,!adverse!and!
location!of!the!mineral!claims!was! be!granted!for!a!period! exclusive!possession!submitted!by!the!
made!in!accordance!with!Section(21( exceeding!25!years,! applicants!was!insufficient(to(support(
of(the(Philippine(Bill(of(1902.)! except!as!to!water! their(claim(of(ownership.!
! rights!for!irrigation,! 2. Even!if!it!were!assumed!that!the!
The!Bureau(of(Forestry( water!supply,!fisheries,! predecessorsZinZinterest!of!the!de!la!
Development(also!interposed!its! or!industrial!uses!other! Rosas!had!really!been!in!possession!of!
objection,!arguing!that!the!land! than!the!development! the!subject!property,!their!possession!
sought!to!be!registered!was! of!water!power,!in! was!not!in!the!concept!of!owner!of!
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
covered!by!the!Central(Cordillera( which!case!beneficial! the!mining#claim!but!of!the!property!
Forest(Reserve(under!Proclamation( use!may!be!the! as!agricultural#land,!which!it!was!not.!
No.(217.!Moreover,!by!reason!of!its! measure!and!the!limit! The(property(was(mineral(land,(and(
nature,!it!was!not!subject!to! of!the!grant.! they(were(claiming(it(as(agricultural(
alienation!under!the!Constitutions! ! land.((
of!1935!and!1973.! Act(No.(4268.( !
! Any!provision!of! The!Court!of!Appeals!justified!this!by!saying!
THE(RTC’S(DECISION( existing!laws,!executive! there!is!"no!conflict!of!interest"!between!the!
The!trial!court!denied!the! order,!proclamation!to! owners!of!the!surface!rights!and!the!owners!of!
application,!holding!that!the! the!contrary! the!subZsurface!rights.!This!is!rather!doctrine,!
applicants!had!failed!to!prove!their! notwithstanding,!all! for!it!is!a!wellZknown!principle!that!the!owner!
claim!of!possession!and!ownership! locations!of!mining! of!piece!of!land!has!rights!not!only!to!its!
of!the!land!sought!to!be!registered.! claim!made!prior!to! surface!but!also!to!everything!underneath!and!
! February!8,!1935! the!airspace!above!it!up!to!a!reasonable!
THE(CA’S(DECISION( within!lands!set!apart! height.!
The!applicants!appealed!to!the!CA,! as!forest!reserve!under! !
which!affirmed!the!surface!rights!of! Sec.!1826!of!the! HOWEVER,(this(Court(feels(that(the(rights(
the!de!la!Rosas!over!the!land!while! Revised!Administrative! over(the(land(are(indivisible(and(that(the(land(
reserving!the!subZsurface!rights!of! Code!which!would!be! itself(cannot(be(half(agricultural(and(half(
Benguet!and!Atok!by!virtue!of!their! valid!and!subsisting! mineral.(The(classification(must(be(
mining!claims.! location!except!to!the! categorical;(the(land(must(be(either(
! existence!of!said! completely(mineral(or(completely(agricultural.(
THE(SC(STEPS(IN( reserve!are!hereby! As!long!as!mining!operations!were!being!
Both!Benguet!and!Atok!have! declared!to!be!valid! undertaken!thereon,!or!underneath,!it!did!not!
appealed!to!this!Court,!invoking! and!subsisting! cease!to!be!so!and!become!agricultural,!even!if!
their!superior!right!of!ownership.! locations!as!of!the!date! only!partly!so,!because!it!was!enclosed!with!a!
The!Republic!has!also!appealed!and! of!their!respective! fence!and!was!cultivated!by!those!who!were!
reiterates!its!argument!that!neither! locations.! unlawfully!occupying!the!surface.!
the!private!respondents!nor!the! ! What!must!have!misled!the!respondent!court!
two!mining!companies!have!any! Commonwealth(Act( is!Commonwealth(Act(No.(137.!
valid!claim!to!the!land!because!it!is! No.(137:( !
not!alienable!and!registerable.! ! The(flaw(in(the(reasoning(of(the(CA(is(in(
! Sec.(3.!All!mineral! supposing(that(the(rights(over(the(land(could(
! lands!of!the!public! be(used(for(both(mining(and(nonNmining(
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
! domain!and!minerals! purposes(simultaneously.!!The!correct!
belong!to!the!State,! interpretation!is!that!once!minerals!are!
and!their!disposition,! discovered!in!the!land,!whatever!the!use!to!
exploitation,! which!it!is!being!devoted!at!the!time,!such!use!
development!or! may!be!discontinued!by!the!State!to!enable!it!
utilization,!shall!be! to!extract!the!minerals!therein!in!the!exercise!
limited!to!citizens!of! of!its!sovereign!prerogative.!The!land!is!thus!
the!Philippines,!or!to! converted!to!mineral!land!and!may!not!be!used!
corporations,!or! by!any!private!party,!including!the!registered!
associations,!at!least! owner!for!any!other!purpose!that!will!impede!
60%!of!the!capital!of! the!mining!operations!to!be!undertaken.!
which!is!owned!by!such! !
citizens,!subject!to!any! And(so,(the(decision(of(the(CA(! (SET(ASIDE(
existing!right,!grant,! and(that(of(the(RTC(! (REINSTATED.(
lease!or!concession!at! !
the!time!of!the! *!!!*!!!*!
inauguration!of! !
government! Creek(Mining(Corp.(Case!!!For!all!physical!
established!under!the! purposes!of!ownership,!the!owner!is!not!
Constitution.! required!to!secure!a!patent!as!long!as!he!
! complies!with!the!provisions!of!the!mining!
Sec.(4.!The!ownership! laws;!his!possessory!right,!for!all!practical!
of,!and!the!right!to!the! purposes!of!ownership,!is!as!good!as!though!
use!of!land!for! secured!by!patent.!
agricultural,!industrial,! !
commercial,!
residential,!or!for!any!
purpose!other!than!
mining!does!not!
include!the!ownership!
of,!nor!the!right!to!
extract!or!utilize,!the!
minerals!which!may!be!
found!on!or!under!the!
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

*
surface.!
!
Sec.(5.!The!ownership!
of,!and!the!right!to!
extract!and!utilize,!the!
minerals!included!
within!all!areas!for!
which!public!
agricultural!land!
patents!are!granted!
are!excluded!and!
excepted!from!all!such!
patents.!
!
Sec.(6.!The!ownership!
of,!and!the!right!to!
extract!and!utilize,!the!
minerals!included!
within!all!areas!for!
which!Torrens!titles!are!
granted!are!excluded!
and!excepted!from!all!
such!titles.!
!
(
┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻*

Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law 1 Reviewer PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(╯°□°）╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻

┻━┻ (°□°) ╯ ┻━┻