1.

CHAVEZ VS JBC
-Verba Legis non est recedendum
WHETHER the JBC’s practice of having one member from senate and house of representative making 8
members instead of 7 is constitutional as provided by Article 7 Section 8 of the Consti
Francisco Chavez- questioned the Section 8 Article 7 of 1987 Constitution-allowing more than one
member of the congress to sit in the Judicial Bar Council (JBC)
-Fransisco Escudero-Senator and Neil Tupas-Congressman sitting as representative of congress
SIMULTANOEUSLY having ½ votes each.
-Petition is granted and thereby declared that the current number of the JBC is unconstitutional –hence,
Motion for Reconsideration of JBC.
SUPREME COURT
-Reconstitute itself that only ONE member of the congress SHALL BE MEMBER of JBC “a representative of
congress” should be construe as having only one and understood as its plain meaning. As a bicameral
system of legislature “congress” refers to both houses.
PETITION DISMISSED

2. OCEANA VS COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COA, NATIONAL TREASURER)

-Constitutional Amendments
-Petitioners Samuel Occena and Ramon A. Gonzales, both members of the Philippine Bar - suing as
taxpayers.
-this is a two prohibition proceedings against the validity of three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions
WHETHER the 1973 Constitution is the FUNDAMENTAL LAW
-What is the power of the Interim Batasang Pambansa to propose amendments and how may it be
exercised? More specifically as to the latter, what is the extent of the changes that may be introduced,
the number of votes necessary for the validity of a proposal, and the standard required for a proper
submission?
SUPREME COURT
-The provision in the 1976 Amendments explicitly states “The Interim Batasang Pambansa shall have the
same powers and its Members shall have the same functions, responsibilities, rights, privileges, and
disqualifications as the interim National Assembly and the regular National Assembly and the Members
thereof.”
-In 1973 constitution took force and effect with such pronouncement form SC with recognition of cardinal
postulate it must be respected and obeyed, therefore it is the fundamental law.
-Interim Batasang Pambansa has the power and privilege to propose amendments.
-sitting as a constituent body it can propose amendments where in capacity only ½ vote is needed.
PETITION DISMISSED

3. ABAKADA guro partylist vs ERMITA

-Separation of powers, Equal protection clause, Undue Delegation
-Petitioners challenges the constitutionality of RA 9335- Attribution Act of 2005 “to optimize the revenue-
generation capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs
(BOC)”
SUPREME COURT
1. Actual Case and Ripeness- the challenge is not ripe for adjudication. A question is ripe for adjudication
when the govtmtl act being challenged has a direct adverse effect to the individual challenging it. No
factual and legal basis were provided by the petitioners as to RA 9335 “makes officials and employees of
both BIR and BOC into mercenaries and bounty hunters” hence, the contention are just merely
speculations.
2. Equal Protection Clause- No, it is not violative, because there is a clear distinction between the members
or employees of BOC and BIR or BOC and BIR itself between other institutions. EPC allows classification –
germane to the purpose of the law
-must not be limited to certain conditions only
-must apply equally to each member of the class
BOC and BIR under RA 9335 are subject to revenue generation capability and collection, because it is their
sole functions provided by the law, and therefore a valid classification under EPC. Indubitably, such
substantial distinction is germane and intimately related to the purpose of the law.
3. Undue delegation- completeness and sufficient standard test- RA 9335 adequately the policy and
standards to guide the president in fixing revenue targets and implementing agencies in Sec. 2.
Declaration of Policy
-Section 7 suffices specific limitations of the authority and identifies its conditions
PETITION IS Partially granted, JOOC- unconstitutional Remaining provisions- constitutional and upheld

4. TOLENTINO VS SEC OF FINANCE

-Power of the Senate to propose amendments to revenue bills
-motion for reconsideration prior to the decision declaring the unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 7716,
otherwise known as the “Expanded Value-Added Tax Law”- is an act that seeks to widen the tax base of
the existing VAT system and enhance its administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Code.
- Tolentino contends that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively from the House of Representatives but is
a mere consolidation of HB. No. 11197 and SB. No. 1630 and it did not pass three readings on separate
days on the Senate thus violating Article VI, Sections 24 and 26(2) of the Constitution.
They contend that Senate bill is distinct and independent from of bill and cannot enact the said bill without
a house bill.
SUPREME COURT
-No. The phrase “originate exclusively” refers to the revenue bill and not to the revenue law. It is sufficient
that the House of Representatives initiated the passage of the bill which may undergo extensive changes
in the Senate.
-The enactment of the Senate bill has not been the first instance where the senate, it its exercise of power
to propose amendments on a bill passed its own version.
-Even if the constitutional provision states that “ a bill must originate exclusively on the house of
representatives” it also adds “but the senate may then propose an entirely new bill as a substitute
measure”.
SB. No. 1630, having been certified as urgent by the President need not meet the requirement not only
of printing but also of reading the bill on separate days.
Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED

5. KILUSANG MAYO VS DIRECTOR GENERAL

Executive Orders
-April 13, 2005, President GMA issued Executive Order 420 -requiring all government agencies and
government-owned corporations to streamline and harmonize their Identification Systems.
-The purpose of the uniform ID data collection and ID format are to reduce costs, achieve efficiency and
reliability and ensure compatibility and provide convenience to the people served by government entities.
WHETHER OR NOT
Petitioners challenges the constitutionality of EO 420 on grounds that
-usurpation of legislative functions by the executive branch of the government.
-that EO420 infringes on the citizen’s rights to privacy.
SUPREME COURT
Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter or repeal them. In issuing EO 420, the President
did not make, alter or repeal any law but merely implemented and executed existing laws. EO 420 reduces
costs, as well as insures efficiency, reliability, compatibility and user-friendliness in the implementation of
current ID systems of government entities under existing laws. Thus, EO 420 is simply an executive
issuance and not an act of legislation act is purely an admistrative matter and the issuance of EO 420 does
not constitute usurpation of legislative power.
-The President’s constitutional power of control is self-executing and does not need any implementing
legislation.
PETITION IS DISMISSED EO 420 is VALID.

6. SMART COMMUNICATIONS VS NTL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP

-Quasi Legislative and Quasi Judicial Powers. Exhausion of Administrative Remedies.
-National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued a Memorandum Circulars on the billing of
telecommunications services and on measures in minimizing, if not eliminating, the incidence of stealing
of cellular phone unit.
-Petitioners Isla Communications Co., Inc. (IslaCom) and Pilipino Telephone Corporation (PilTel)- filed an
action for the declaration of nullity of the memorandum circulars, alleging that NTC has no jurisdiction to
regulate the sale of consumer goods as stated in the subject memorandum circulars. Contending that:
Such jurisdiction belongs to the DTI under the Consumer Acts of the Philippines.
Soon thereafter, Globe Telecom, Inc. and Smart Communications, Inc. filed a joint motion for leave to
intervene and to admit complaint-in-intervention. This was granted by the RTC
-A motion to dismiss was filed by the NTC.
The RTC denied the motion to dismiss but on certiorari,
-The CA reversed RTC. - Hence, this INSTANT PETITION FOR REVIEW of the petitioners
SUPREME COURT:
-Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or rule-making powers and quasi-judicial or
administrative adjudicatory powers. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power is the power to make rules
and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute
and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers.
-should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the administrative
agency.
-that the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law, and be not in contradiction to,
but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by law.
-must conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling statute in order for such rule or
regulation to be valid.
The petitioners averred that the Circular contravened Civil Code provisions on sales and violated the
constitutional prohibition against the deprivation of property without due process of law and contradicts
to a fundamental law.
-The NTC circular was issued pursuant to its quasi-legislative or rule-making power. Hence, the action
must be filed directly with the regular courts without requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies.
-Where the act of administrative agency was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function, exhaustion
of administrative remedy is required, before going to court.
-The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only where the administrative agency exercises its quasi-
judicial or adjudicatory function. Thus, in cases involving specialized disputes, the same must be referred
to an administrative agency of special competence pursuant to it. This doctrine of primary jurisdiction
applies where the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, has been
placed within the special competence of an administrative body. In such case, the judicial process is
suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view.
PETITITION IS THEREBY GRANTED

7. EASTERN SHIPPING LINES VS POEA

-Non Delegation of Legislative Power. “Power of Subordinate Legislation”
-Vitaliano Saco, the Chief Officer of a ship, killed in an accident in Tokyo, Japan.
-widow filed a complaint for damages against the Eastern Shipping Lines with the POEA, based on
Memorandum Circular No. 2 issued by the latter which stipulated death benefits and burial expenses for
the family of an overseas worker.
-Petitioner Eastern Shipping Lines questioned the validity of the Memorandum Circular.
Its argument that it has been denied due process because the same POEA that issued Memorandum
Circular No. 2 has also sustained and applied it is an uninformed criticism of administrative law itself.
-And that POEA should take cognizance but SSS
WHETHER the issuance of Memorandum Circular No. 2 is a violation of non-delegation of power
SUPREME COURT:
No.- there was a valid delegation of powers
-completeness test -the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature
such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it.
Sufficiency test- there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of
the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.
Power of Subordinate Legislation- National legislature has found it more necessary to entrust to
administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. With
this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by "filling in'
the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide.
-Supplementary Regulations- regulations have the force and effect of law.
-POEA as an Administrative agency is vested with two basic powers, the quasi-legislative and the quasi-
judicial. The first enables them to promulgate implementing rules and regulations, and the second enables
them to interpret and apply such regulations.
PETITION IS DISMISSED

EUGENIO VS DRILON
-On May 10, 1972, private respondent purchased on installment basis from petitioner and his co-
owner/developer Fermin Salazar, two lots in the E & S Delta Village in Quezon City.
-Acting on complaints for non-development docketed as NHA Cases Nos. 2619 and 2620 filed by the Delta
Village Homeowners’ Association, Inc., the National Housing Authority (NHA) rendered a resolution on
January 17, 1979 inter alia ordering petitioner to cease and desist from making further sales of lots in said
village or in any project owned by him.
-Private respondent filed with the Office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) of the Human
Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC), a complaint (Case No. 80-589) against petitioner and spouses
Rodolfo and Adelina Relevo alleging that, in view of the above NHA resolution, he suspended payment of
his amortization, but that petitioner resold one of the two lots to the said spouses Relevo, in whose favor
title to the said property was registered. Private respondent further alleged that he suspended his
payments because of petitioner’s failure to develop the village. On October 11, 1983, the OAALA rendered
a decision upholding the right of petitioner to cancel the contract with private respondent and dismissed
private respondent’s complaint. The Commission Proper of the HSRC reversed the OAALA and, applying
P.D. 957
ISSUE
Whether or not the HSRC committed an error in reversing the decision of OAALA with the basis of P.D.
957
SUPREME COURT:
The petition is dismissed and deemed P.D. 957 to apply retrospectively
The court used the basis of the intent of the law, as called from its preamble and from the situation,
circumstances and conditions it sought to remedy, must be enforced. On this point, a leading authority
on statutory construction stressed. The court decided to construe P.D 957 by looking into the true intent
of the legislature. The legislative intent must have been to remedy the alarming situation by having P.D.
957 operate retrospectively even upon contracts already in existence at the time of its enactment.

TANADA VS TUVERA
The petitioner filed a petition for mandamus against multiple Presidential Decrees, Letter of Instructions,
General Orders, Executive Orders, Letter of Implementation, and Administrative Orders for violating Sec.
6 of Art. IV of the 1973 Constitution and Art. 2 of the Civil Code where it states that laws to be valid and
enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated.
-Petitioner filed the petition for mandamus to compel the respondents to publish the said laws to make
it effective. Petitioner contends that the “Unless it is otherwise provided” relates to the date of the
effectivity and not to the choice to publish said Presidential Issuances.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the aforementioned Presidential Issuances should be published before gaining its
effectivy
SUPREME COURT
The court deemed that the presidential issuances of general application, which have not been published,
shall have no force and effect. In the spirit of transparency, the court affirmed the argument of the
petitioner that the “Unless it is otherwise provided” relates to the date of the effectivity rather than the
publication of the said law because a person should be able to know what the law prohibits him to do.

ANTONIO VS MIRANDA
-The parties in this case were rival candidates for the Punong Barangay of Barangay Ilaya, Las Piñas City,
Metro Manila.
After the board of canvassers proclaimed protestee-appellant Rustico Antonio, protestant-appellee
Vicente T. Miranda, Jr. filed an election protest docketed as Election Protest Case No. 97-0017 against
Antonio before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Piñas City.
The court then ruled Vicente Miranda as the duly elected Barangay Chairman of Barangay Ilaya, Las Piñas
City, Metro Manila. Antonio filed a Notice of Appeal with the trial court on 27 March 1998 or nine (9) days
after receipt thereof. Meanwhile, Miranda moved to execute the trial court's decision. Antonio then
received a notice from the Commission on Elections saying that he failed to perfect his appeal within the
five (5) days period prescribed for perfecting his appeal, as he filed his Notice of Appeal only on March 27,
1998 or nine (9) days after receipt of the decision sought to be appealed.
The Period aforestated is jurisdictional and failure of the protestee to perfect his appeal within the said
period deprives the Commission of its appellate jurisdiction. Antonio asserts that Section 9 of Republic
Act 6679 and Section 252 of the Omnibus Election Code providing for a ten-day period to appeal prevails
over the provisions of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Petitioner submits that the dispositive portion in
the Flores case only declared unconstitutional that portion of Section 9 of Republic Act 6679 providing for
appeal to the Regional Trial Court but not the ten (10) day period of appeal.
ISSUES
Whether or not COMELEC committed a grave abuse of discretion for affirming the decision of the MTC
and dismissing the petition for review of Antonio on the basis that he did not file his petition for review
on time.

SUPREME COURT

The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.

On the previous case of Flores v COMELEC, the court deemed Sec. 9 of R.A. 6679 to be unconstitutional
as a whole. COMELEC did not commit a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction for sticking to the Sec. 252 of the Omnibus Election code. When the court deemed Sec. 9 of
R.A. 6679, even though the previous case of Flores v COMELEC had a problem with the venue of where
the petitioner filed the petition for review, the court removed the whole body of the section including the
dates for it is reliant to the part of the venue and the date cannot stand on its own.

PEOPLE VS YABUT
-Appellant, Yabut, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the crime of murder.
-On the 1st of August 1932, the appellant, Antonio Yabut, who was currently serving a prison sentence in
Bilibid Prison, killed Sabas Aseo, another person serving a prison sentence, by hitting him at the back of
the head with a wooden club. Yabut was already convicted twice of the crime of homicide and once of
serious physical injuries. Yabut pleaded not guilty on the basis that it was not him who attacked Aseo, but
was Villafuente who struck down Aseo.
ISSUE
Whether or not the lower court made an error in applying art. 160 of the Revised Penal Code
SUPREME COURT
The petition is sustained
The appellant places much stress upon the word "another" appearing in the English translation of the
headnote of article 160 and would have us accept his deduction from the headnote that article 160 is
applicable only when the new crime which is committed by a person already serving sentence is different
from the crime for which he is serving sentence. While we do not concede that the appellant is warranted
in drawing the deduction mentioned from the English translation of the caption of article 160, it is clear
that no such deduction could be drawn from the caption. The language is plain and unambiguous. There
is not the slightest intimation in the text of article 160 that said article applies only in cases where the new
offense is different in character from the former offense for which the defendant is serving the penalty.

FLORES VS COMELEC.
-On March 28, 1989, petitioner Roque Flores won the Sangguniang Barangay elections by receiving the
most number of votes for the position of Kagawad as per Sec. 5 of RA 6679, making him the Punong
Banrangay of Tayum, Abra. However, Nobelito Rapisora filed a petition to contest the election of the
petitioner in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tayum for having 2 stray votes that could have made him
the winner of the election. The MCTC then granted the petition of Rapisora, proclaiming him as the
Punong Barangay.
-Flores then filed a petition for review to the Commission on Elections but was then dismissed for they
did not have jurisdiction over the decision of the MCTC as per Sec. 9 of RA 6679.
ISSUES
Whether or not the decision of COMELEC to dismiss the petition for review and acknowledge the decision
of the MCTC valid
SUPREME COURT
COMELEC using the Sec. 9 of RA 6679 for dismissing the petition for review of the Barangay Tayum, Abra
is invalid. Article IX-C, Sec. 2(2) of the Constitution states that the Commission on Elections shall
“Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all
contests involving elective municipal officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction, or
involving elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction.” The MCTC being a court
that have limited jurisdiction, brings the duties for the review of the election to the COMELEC. Sec. 9 of
RA 6679 is then deemed Uncostitutional.

MECANO VS COMMISSION ON AUDIT

Antonio A. Mecano, through a petition for certiorari, seeks to nullify the decision of the Commission on
Audit embodied in its 7th Indorsement, dated January 16, 1992, denying his claim for reimbursement
under Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code (RAC), as amended, in the total amount of
P40,831.00.

TOLENTINO VS SEC OF FINANCE

-The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration for the dismissal of the petition to declare R.A. No.
7716 or the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law as unconstitutional. Petitioners contends that they enforced
Power of the Senate to propose amendments to revenue bills. Some of the petitioners (Tolentino,
Kilosbayan, Inc., Philippine Airlines (PAL), Roco, and Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association
(CREBA)) reiterate previous claims made by them that R.A. No. 7716 did not "originate exclusively" in the
House of Representatives as required by Art. VI, §24 of the Constitution.
-Petitioners admit that H. No. 11197 was filed in the House of Representatives where it passed three
readings and that afterward it was sent to the Senate where after first reading it was referred to the
Senate Ways and Means Committee, they complain that the Senate did not pass it on second and third
readings.