You are on page 1of 7

SEMA VS COMELEC Voting 8-6, the Supreme Court held that only Congress can create provinces and cities

because the creation of such necessarily includes the creation of legislative districts and that Congress exercises these powers through a law that the Congress itself enacts and not through a law that a regional or local legislative body enacts. It thus declared unconstitutional the grant to the Regional Assembly of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) of the power to create provinces and cities by Congress under RA 9054. Consequently the Court voided Muslim Mindanao Autonomy (MMA) Act No. 201 passed by the aforesaid Regional Assembly creating the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan out of certain municipalities in the First District of the Province of Maguindanao. PUYAT VS DE GUZMAN PROVISION: Art. VI Sec. 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 governmentowned 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 in account of his office. FACTS: In an election for the 11 Directors of the International Pipe Industries Corp., the Puyat Group won 6 seats to gain control of the Board of management of the Company. The Acero Group, which won only 5 seats, questioned the said election in a quo warranto proceeding filed with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) where they claimed that the stockholder’s votes were not properly counted. In the said case, Assemblyman Estanislao Fernandez, then member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa, orally entered his appearance as counsel for respondent Acero to which the Puyat Group objected on Constitutional grounds, thus discouraging the Assemblyman from further appearing therein as counsel. Subsequently however, the Assemblyman acquired P200.00 worth of stock in the subject company representing 10 shares out of 262, 843 outstanding shares. On the basis of which, he filed an urgent Motion for Intervention in the SEC Case raising real interest therein. The respondent Associate Commissioner of SEC granted the leave to intervene on the basis of Atty. Fernandez’ ownership of 10 shares. Hence this petition. ISSUE: WON Assemblyman Atty. Fernandez circumvented the constitutional prohibition against appearance as counsel before an administrative body HELD: YES, Atty. Fernandez cannot appear as counsel. He acquired the 10 shares after the fact that he entered his appearance as counsel so he could intervene.

and from time to time publish the same. its addition violates Article VI Sec 26(2) of the Constitution. These measures withdraw the franking privilege from the Supreme Court.PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS PRADO PROVISION: Art. and the Land Registration Commission and its Register of Deeds. PD 1882. 4200. But occasionally a conference committee produces unexpected results. in its judgment. results beyond its mandte. and printed copies of the bill were not distributed among the members before its passage. along with certain other government officers. requiring that amendment to any bill when the House and the Senate shall have differences thereon may be settled by a conference committee of both chambers. They stress that Sec. ISSUE: WON the passage of RA 7354 did not comply with the required readings in both Houses of Congress. FACTS: The main target of this petition is Sec. 35 of RA 7354. While it is true that a conference committee is the mechanism for compromising differences between the Senate and the House. and the yeas and nays on any question shall. Even where the conference committee is not by rule limited in its jurisdiction. Metropolitan Trial courts. excepting such parts as may. The petition assails the constitutionality of RA 7354. it is not limited in its jurisdiction to this question. The petitioners maintain that the second paragraph of Sec. 74 of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 720 or of House Bill No. Its broader function is described: “ A conference committee may deal generally with the subject matter or it may be limited to resolving the precise differences between the Houses. and PD 26 was not included in the original version of Senate Bill No. Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings. Court of Appeals. be entered in the journal. as implemented by the Philippine Postal Corporation through its Circular No. These excursions occur even .O 207. at the request of one fifth (1/5) of the Members present. Petitioners are members of the lower courts who feel that their official functions as judges will be prejudiced by the abovenamed measures. 35 covering the repeal of the franking privilege from the petitioners and this Court under E. affect national security. Municipal Trial courts. legislative custom severely limits the freedom with which new subject matter can be inserted into the conference bill. HELD: The contention is unacceptable. The petitioners also invoke Sec. 16 (4) Each House shall also keep a Journal of its proceedings. 92-98. 35 was never a subject of any disagreement between both Houses and so the second paragraph could not have been validly added as an amendment. As this paragraph appeared only in the Conference Committee Report. VI Sec. Regional Trial Courts.

He took his oath of office on November 15. 1935. Chemical. Ramon V. is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature. being the only protest filed after the passage of resolution No. (Casco Phil. Prior to December 9. or on December 8. Mitra of the House of representatives as having been duly passed by bothe Houses of Congress. a defeated candidate. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL/ COMMISSION PROVISION: Art. Both the enrolled bill and the legislative journals certify that the measures were duly enacted and this court is bound by such official assurances from a coordinate department. But it is a body separate from and independent of the legislature. this Court declines to resolve the issues. This is symptomatic of the authoritarian power of conference committee. It is an independent organ. invested with the necessary authority in the performance and execution of the limited and specific function assigned to it by the Constitution. ANGARA VS. 1935 fixing said date as the last day for filing of protests against the election.where the rules impose strict limitations on the conference committee jurisdiction. Applying these principles. filed before the SC a ‘motion of protest. It was then presented to and approved by president Corazon C. Hence. On December 3. to which it owes. 1935. petitioner was proclaimed as member elect of National Assembly for the first district of the Province of Tayabas. 3 confirming the election of the members of the NA against whom no protest had thus far been filed. and this is as effective a . the NA passed a Resolution No. Thereafter. 8 asking for the nullification of petitioner’s election. respondent Ynsua. VI Sec 17. The motion hot dismiss the protest filed by the petitioner was denied by the SC. 1992. a becoming courtesy. returns and qualifications of members of the NA. notwithstanding the previous confirmation made by the NA. vs Gimenez) The journals themselves are also binding on the Supreme Court. It is closer to the legislative department than to any other. returns and qualifications of members of NA. the Electoral Commission adopted a resolution on December 9. Under the doctrine of separation of powers. ISSUE: What is the nature of the Electoral Commission? HELD: The EC is a constitutional creation. Aquino on April 3. The grant of power to the EC to judge all contests relating to the election. the Court may not inquire beyond the certification of the approval of a bill from the presiding officers of congress. this present petition for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to restrain and prohibit the SC from taking further cognizance of the protest filed before it. Co. The express lodging of that power to the EC is an implied denial of the exercise of that power by the NA. It is constituted by a majority of members of the legislature. It is a matter of record that the conference Committee report on the bill in question was returned to and duly approved by both the senate and the House of representatives. Sec 19 Composition and Functions of the Electional Tribunal FACTS: In the elections of September 17. the government. at the very least. On the other hand.

therefore. Value-added tax collection as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds 2 and 4/5%. or 2. effective January 1. 29 in order to afford said officials ample time and opportunity to study and prepare for the various issues so that they may better enlighten the Senate Committee on its investigations. VI Sec. 22 QUESTION HOUR FACTS: This case is regarding the railway project of the North Luzon Railways Corporation with the China National Machinery and Equipment Group as well as the Wiretapping activity of the ISAFP. The legislature has made the operation of the 12% rate effective January 1. Ermita sent a letter to Senate President Drilon. National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds 1 ½ % ISSUE: WON there is a valid delegation HELD: YES. It is a setteled rule of construction that where a general power is conferred or duty enjoined. No discretion would be exercised by the president. SENATE VS ERMITA PROVISION: Art. Sec. ABAKADA VS ERMITA PROVISION: Prohibition against Delegation of Legislative Powers FACTS: The CAT Reform Act states: That the President. every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred. contingent upon a specified fact or condition. In the absence of any further constitutional provision relating to the procedure to be followed in filing protests before the EC. It is simply a delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement and administration of the increase rate under the law is contingent. and the Fertilizer scam. upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance. requesting for a postponement of the hearing on Sept. 29. Before said date arrived. must be deemed by necessary implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral Commission. retuns and qualifications of members of the NA. It leaves the entire operation or nonoperation of the 12% rate upon factual mattes outside the control of the executive. 2006. . Senate refused the request. The issue is not a delegation of legislative power. shall. Exec. The Senate Committee sent invitations to various officials of the Executive Department and AFP officials for them to appear before Senate on Sept. 2005. 2006 raise the rate of the value-added tax to 12% after any of the following conditions has been satisfied: 1.restriction upon the legislative power as an express prohibition in the Constitution. the incidental power to promulgate such rules necessary for the proper exercise of its exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the election.

Petitioners contend that because of the transcendental importance of the issues raised in the petition. . the President issued EO 464. NEDA. 21 Function of Congress to concur in treaties Respondent avers that there is no more justiciable controversy with the ZTE National Broadband Network Project controversy for the Court to resolve. it would be inconsistent to hold that the power of inquiry does not extend to executive officials who are the most familiar with and informed on the executive operations. VALID. If the executive branch withholds such information on the ground that it is privileged.Congress undoubtedly has a right to information from the executive branch. the congress) it is only recognized in relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character. Sec(s) 1&2(a) ARE HOWEVER. 2008 PROVISION: Art. 2005. which among others. Suplico vs. attended the investigation. Despite the lack of consent. whenever it is sought in aid of legislation.O. to enter into foreign loan agreements. 464 VALID? . although there are exemptions to the power of inquiry which exemptions fall under the rubric of “executive privilege” (the power of the government to withhold info from the public. Gen. July 14. Sec(s) 2(b) &3 of E. Both faced court marshall for such attendance.On Sept. among others. where congress may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation . i. these petitions.e. . Hence. mandated that “all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before the Senate and that the executive and AFP officials would not be able to attend the meeting since the President has not yet given her consent.The power of congress to compel the appearance of exec officials under sec 21 and the lack of it under sec 22 find their basis in the principle of Separation of Powers. HELD: PETITIONS ARE PARTLY GRANTED. which. it cannot frustrate the power of congress to legislate by refusing to comply w/ its demands for info. While the exec branch is a co-equal branch of the legislature. GR 178830. VII Sec. ISSUE: IS E. and it is inclined heavily against secrecy and in favor of disclosure..21 of the Constitution. Col. it must so assert it and state the reason therefore and why it must be respected. among all the AFP officials invited. included the President’s use of the power to borrow.Since congress has authority to inquire into the operations of the executive branch. effective immediately.The congress has the power of inquiry that is expressly recognized by ART 6. the courts. Balutan and Brig. 28.O. . Gudani. 464 ARE DECLARED VOID. this Court should take cognizance of this case despite its apparent mootness.

For a court to exercise its power of adjudication. Comelec and Concepcion. Where there is no more live subject of controversy. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned. FACTS: Congress enacted RA 8436 authorizing COMELEC to use an automated election system for the process of voting. minister. or to any penal institution. or government orphanage or leprosarium. (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated. or employed. and an adjudication thereon would be of no practical use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest. 29 (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. for the use. paid. the Court generally opts to refrain from deciding moot issues. doctrines or rules for future guidance of both bench and bar. While there were occasions when the Court passed upon issues although supervening events had rendered those petitions moot and academic. or of any priest. except when such priest. minister. Brillantes vs. June 15. applied. the very antithesis of mootness. (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. the instant case does not fall under the exceptional cases. the Court ceases to have a reason to render any ruling or make any pronouncement. counting of votes and canvassing/consolidation the results of national and local elections. COMELEC subsequently approved Resolution 6712 adopting the . Where the issue has become moot and academic. if any. GR 163193. preacher. the Court was persuaded to resolve moot and academic issues to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles. preacher. the case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice. In the absence of actual justiciable controversies or disputes. directly or indirectly. the balance. sectarian institution. shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government.ISSUE: Is the “moot and academic” principle a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case? Judicial power presupposes actual controversies. however intellectually challenging. or dignitary as such. there must be an actual case or controversy – one which involves a conflict of legal rights. benefit. or support of any sect. denomination. 2004 PROVISION: Art. or other religious teacher. there is no justiciable controversy. precepts. In those cases. church. VI Sec. an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution. or system of religion. or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces.

Petitioners in this case questioned. ISSUE: Can the COMELEC conduct “unofficial” tabulation of presidential election results based on a copy of the election returns? RULING: No. the sole and exclusive authority of Congress to canvass the votes for the election of President and Vice-President. The assailed resolution usurps. the COMELEC is. 8436 as such tabulation is “unofficial. The contention of the COMELEC that its tabulation of votes is not prohibited by the Constitution and Rep. with more reason. Act No.policy that the precinct election results of each city and municipality shall be immediately transmitted electronically in advance to the COMELEC in Manila. prohibited from making an “unofficial” canvass of said votes . the Constitutionality of the quickcount as being pre-emptive of the authority vested in Congress to canvass the votes for the President and VicePresident under Article VII. among others. Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution.” is puerile and totally unacceptable. If the COMELEC is proscribed from conducting an official canvass of the votes cast for the President and Vice-President. under the guise of an “unofficial” tabulation of election results based on a copy of the election returns.