Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan and Zaldivar vs. Hon.

Raul Gonzalez,
claiming to be and acting as Tanodbayan-Ombudsman under the 1987 Constitution Nature: Petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to review the decision of the Sandiganbayan Facts: • Enrique Zaldivar, governor of the province of Antique • Sought to restrain the Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan Raul Gonzalez • From proceeding with the prosecution and hearing of criminal cases filed against him • On the ground that said cases were filed by the Tanodbayan. • The 1987 Consti provided that it is only the Ombudsman who has the authority to file cases with the Sandiganbayan. Issue: WON Tanodbayan had authority to file those cases for Sandiganbayan to prosecute and hear. Held: NO Ratio: 1. Under the 1987 Consti, the Ombudsman (distinguished from Tanodbayan) is charged with the duty to: Section 13, par 1: Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.

2.

The Tanodbayan of the 1973 Consti became the Office of the Special prosecutor that shall continue to function and exercise it powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under the Consti. (article 11, section 7) Thus, beginning on February 2, 1987, the authority to conduct preliminary investigations and direct the filing of criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan was vested on the Ombudsman. The Tanodbayan is now the subordinate of the Sandiganbayan and it can investigate and prosecute cases only upon the latter’s authority or orders.

3.

4.

Office of the Tanodbayan: created by PB 1607 GRANTED; GONZALEZ ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS AND FILING CRIMNIAL CASES WITH THE SANDIGANBAYAN OR OTHERWISE EXERCISNG THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Inting vs. Tanodbayan (1980 case)
Nature: Petition fro certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction and restraining order Facts: 1. Inting filed complaints for perjury at the City Fiscal of Davao’s office, against Angelina S. Salcedo (in latter’s personal data sheets, she indicated that she completed the 1year Secretarial Science course at USC in Cebu although she never enrolled in, and neither did she complete the course) Salcedo is an appurtenant of the judicial staff of the City Court of Davao 2. City Fiscal of Davao thru Special Counsel Rodrigo R. Duterte conducted preliminary investigation. 3. found prima facie case for perjury and filed 3 separate counts of perjury under article 183 of RPC 4. Salcedo interposed appeal to the ministry of Justice. 5. Ministry of Justice forwarded records to Tanodbayan, pursuant to Section 10 (f) of the PD No. 1630, which vests on the latter the power to file and prosecute offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to their office. 6. Tanodbayan Vicente Ericta reversed decision of City Fiscal.

7.

directed city fiscal to move for dismissal of the 3 criminal cases for perjury against Salcedo

Powers of Tanodbayan: PD 1603 Section 10 (a) he may investigate, on complaint by any person or on his own motion or initiative, any administrative act whether amounting to any criminal offense or not of any administrative agency including any GOCC. Issue: WON Tanodbayan has jurisdiction and authority to review and nullify the resolutions of
the City Fiscal of Davao (f) he may file and prosecute civil and administrative cases involving graft and corrupt practices and Held: Yes Ratio: to their office. 1. Tanodbayan has authority to file and prosecute Salcedo’s case even if it does not involve graft and corrupt offices because it falls under such other offenses covered by section 10 (f) of PD 1630 2. Act of perjury was in relation to Salcedo’s office. Section 18 of PD 1630 gives Tanodbayan authority to conduct investigations and file case for such occurrence. 3. Tanodbayan therefore had authority to nullify and review resolutions of the City Fiscal of Davao as the case involved the actions of a government official related to his office. PETITION DISMISSED.

such other offenses committed by public officers and employees, including those in GOCC, in relation

Orap, Vicente vs. Sandiganbayan represented by Justices Manuel Pamaran, Fernandez, and Escareal (1985 case)
Nature: Petition for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of the Sandiganbayan Facts: • Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor Rodolfo Aquino • Charged Vicente Orap, presiding judge of the Municipal Court of Mangatarem, Pangasinan • With violation of Section 39e) of Rep Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act • Juan Sison, then Chief Special prosecutor of the Tanodbayan approved information and the latter was docketed as Crim. Cases Nos. SB-020, 021, 022. • Clerk of Court, Melanio Fernandez was also charged. • Orap contended that Tanodbayan had no power to conduct preliminary investigations, file infos, and prosecute criminal cases against judges and their appurtenant judicial staff. Alleged crime of Orap: took sums of money from several persons in connection with the case of People vs. Pepito Iglesias, for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide, serious physical injuries and damage to property Issue WON Tanodbayan has authority to conduct preliminary investigation of the complaint Held/Ratio NO. As Ombudsman, his investigatory powers are limited to complaints initiated against offices and personnel of administrative agencies as defined in Section 9(a) of PD 1607. YES. As prosecutor, the authority of the Tanodbayan is plenary and without exceptions. Section 17 of PD 1607 empowers special prosecutors exclusive authority to conduct preliminary investigation of all cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.

WON Tanodbayan had authority to corresponding information before Sandiganbayan and prosecute the same

file the

Section 19 gave the Office of the Chief Special Prosecutor power to investigate employees and officials who act in a manner warranting criminal or disciplinary action

PETITION DISMISSED. Tanodbayan has jurisdiction to investigate and file information. Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction to prosecute defined under section 4 of PD 1606. Nixon: PRESIDENCY In the White House, the contradictions in Nixon were most obvious. He could be bold, yet also cautious; effective, yet often inept. Working closely with his national security advisor (later, secretary of state), Henry KISSINGER, he forsook the anti-Communist policies that he had supported throughout most of his career in favor of DETENTE with the USSR and rapprochement with the Communist government of China. In 1969 he began the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) with the Soviet Union. In February 1972 he made a historic trip to Beijing--where he was received by Mao Zedong--thus reversing the U.S. policy of not recognizing the Communist government. In 1973, after 4 years of waging war in Vietnam-including heavy bombing raids on North Vietnam (1972) and the invasion (1970) of Cambodia-the administration managed to arrange a cease-fire that would last long enough to permit U.S. withdrawal from the Indochinese war zone. After the Arab-Israel War in 1973, the efforts of Henry Kissinger led to a cease-fire and troop disengagement in the Middle East. Domestically, under the banner of "A New Federalism," Nixon attempted to shift important elements of governmental power and responsibility back to state and local governments. He cut back and opposed federal welfare services, proposed antibusing legislation, and used wage-and-price controls to fight inflation. A combination of domestic and international developments, notably the quintupling of oil prices by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1973, led to the economic recession of 1974-75. In 1972, Nixon swept to an overwhelming victory in the presidential election against his Democratic challenger Sen. George S. MCGOVERN--but, ironically, the seeds of political collapse had already been sown. During the campaign, a group of burglars working for the Committee to Re-elect the President broke into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate office-apartment complex in Washington, D.C., apparently in search of political intelligence. Attempts by the White House to stop or frustrate the ensuing investigations ultimately failed when Nixon's own White House tape recordings revealed that the president and his assistants had engaged in an obstruction of justice. In the meantime he had been forced to drop Vice-President Spiro T. AGNEW, who resigned in October 1973 after he was charged with corruption that began during his tenure as Baltimore County executive. As the revelations of wrongdoing piled up, Nixon became preoccupied with preserving his presidency. He jettisoned top assistants in the White House and fired Special Prosecutor Archibald COX. After the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, required that he supply Cox's successor, Leon JAWORSKI, with tape recordings of conversations with his advisors, the House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend (July 27-30, 1974) approval by the full House of three articles of impeachment against the president. On Aug. 9, 1974, Nixon resigned his office and was succeeded by Vice-President Gerald R. FORD, whom he had selected to replace Agnew. A month after Nixon's resignation, Ford pardoned him for any crimes he might have committed as president. Nixon accepted the pardon but insisted that his mistakes had been personal and political, not criminal. Watergate Watergate is the popular name for the political scandal and constitutional crisis that began with the arrest (June 17, 1972) of five burglars who broke into Democratic National Committee

headquarters at the Watergate office building in Washington, D.C. It ended with the resignation (Aug. 9, 1974) of President Richard M. NIXON. The burglars and two co-plotters--G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt--were indicted (September 1972) on charges of burglary, conspiracy, and wiretapping. Four months later, they were convicted and sentenced to prison terms by District Court Judge John J. Sirica, who was convinced that pertinent details had not been unveiled during the trial and proffered leniency in exchange for further information. As it became increasingly evident that the Watergate burglars were tied closely to the Central Intelligence Agency and the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP), some of Nixon's aides began talking to federal prosecutors. The defection of aides such as Jeb Stuart Magruder, assistant to CRP director John N. MITCHELL, quickly implicated others in Nixon's inner circle. The Senate established (February 1973) an investigative committee headed by Sen. Sam ERVIN, Jr., to look into the growing scandal. Amid increasing disclosures of White House involvement in the Watergate break-in and its aftermath, Nixon announced the resignations of John Ehrlichman and H. R. Haldeman, two of his closest advisors, and the dismissal of his counsel John W. Dean III. Growing suspicion of presidential involvement in the scandal resulted in an intensification of the investigation. Leaders in this inquiry included Judge Sirica, reporters for the Washington Post, the Ervin committee, and Archibald COX, who was sworn in as special prosecutor in May 1973. Dean told the Ervin committee in June that Nixon had known of the cover-up. A month later, former White House staff member Alexander Butterfield revealed that Nixon had secretly tape-recorded conversations in his offices. Both Cox and the Ervin committee began efforts to obtain selected tapes. Nixon, citing EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, refused to relinquish them and tried to have Cox fired. On Oct. 20, 1973, Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson, refusing to dismiss Cox, resigned in protest. His deputy, William Ruckelshaus, also refused and was fired. Nixon's solicitor general, Robert H. Bork, who was next in command, then fired Cox. The "Saturday night massacre," as the events of that evening became known, heightened suspicions that Nixon had much to hide. Leon Jaworski, who replaced Cox as special prosecutor on November 1, continued to press for the tapes. On Mar. 1, 1974, a federal grand jury indicted seven men, including Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Mitchell, and White House special counsel Charles Colson, for conspiracy to obstruct justice. At the same time, the House Judiciary Committee began investigating the Watergate affair and related matters. The president released (April 30) edited transcripts--containing suspicious gaps--of Watergaterelated Oval Office conversations. Not satisfied, Judge Sirica subpoenaed additional tapes. When Nixon refused, the case moved to the Supreme Court, which ruled (July 24) against him by an 8-0 vote. The Court conceded that a president could withhold national security material but insisted that Watergate was a criminal matter (see UNITED STATES V. RICHARD M. NIXON). On July 27-30, the House Judiciary Committee, whose public hearings had disclosed evidence of illegal White House activities, recommended that Nixon be impeached on three charges: obstruction of justice, abuse of presidential powers, and trying to impede the impeachment process by defying committee subpoenas. The committee rejected two other possible counts: Nixon's unauthorized, secret bombing of Cambodia in 1969 and his use of public funds to improve his private property. A beleaguered President Nixon released three tapes to the public on Aug. 5, 1974. One revealed that he had taken steps to thwart the FBI's inquiry into the Watergate burglary. The tape made it clear that Nixon had been involved actively in the cover-up from its beginnings. These disclosures destroyed the president's remaining congressional support. With House impeachment inevitable and Senate conviction probable, Richard Nixon became (Aug. 9, 1974) the first U.S. chief executive to resign.

Clinton vs. Jones
Nature: Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit

Facts: • • • • • •

May 8, 1991, during an official conference at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas where Clinton was governor. Danny Ferguson, former Arkansas State Police, persuaded her to leave her desk (registration) and to visit the Governor in a business suite at the hotel. There, Clinton allegedly made abhorrent sexual advances that she vehemently rejected. Subsequently, her superiors at work shanged her duties to ounish her for rejecting those advances. Jones sought actual damamges of $75,000 and punitive damages of $100,000 Clinton filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of presidential immunity.

Issue: WON Clinton could claim presidential immunity for unofficial acts performed before he became president of the USA. Held: NO Ratio: 1. Presidential immunity can only be claimed if the President was performing an official act. 2. Allowing the trial to proceed will not prejudice the function of the President. a. His testimonies for discovery and for use at trial may be taken at the White House b. Such shall be acquired at a time that will accommodate his busy schedule c. The President may choose not to be present at the trial. 3. The President cannot claim immunity from suits for money damages because in this particular case, the suit did not arise out of his official act. 4. Immunities are grounded in the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it. 5. Delaying the trial would increase the danger of prejudice resulting from the loss of evidence, including the inability off witnesses to recall specific facts, or the possible death of a party. The Federal District Court has jurisdiction to decide this case. Like every other citizen who properly invokes that jurisdiction, respondent has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims. Accordingly, the judgment of the COA is affirmed. Contents of Jones’ complaint: 1. Clinton deprived her of rights protected by the Constitution. 2. Clinton and Ferguson engaged in a conspiracy to violate her federal rights. 3. state common-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress 4. for defamation, embracing both the comments allegedly made to the press by Ferguson and the statements of petitioner’s agents.

In Re. Raul M. Gonzalez
Nature: In re 1st Indorsement from Honorable Raul M. Gonzalez dated March 16, 1988 requesting Hon. Judge Marcelo Fernan to Comment on an Anonymous Letter-Complaint Facts: An anonymous letter by Concerned Employees of the Supreme Court was addressed to Hon. Raul Gonzalez. Contents of the letter: • charges of disbarment brought by Mr. Miguel Cuenco against Justice Marcelo Fernan • a request for Mr. Raul M. Gonzalez as Tanodbayan/Special Prosecutor to do something about the case February 12, 1988 The Court directed the Clerk of Court to furnish Mr. Gonzalez a copy of a resolution. Contents of the resolution: • dismiss the charges made by Cuenco against Fernan

2. sworn to before Notary Public Atty. • The letter alleged that Desierto has an illegitimate daughter with Teresita Alferez by the name of Desiree. Raul Gonzalez and Mr. 1995: letter by Cpt. Nature: Facts: • November 18. when tenure is terminated by impeachment. administratively (by disbarment proceedings) • for any wrong or misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate proceedings The Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Resolution upon Hon. impeachment under sections 2 and 3 of article 11 of 1987 Consti 2. Jarque. Miguel Cuenco. To grant a complaint for disbarment of a Member of the Court during the Member’s incumbency would circumvent the constitutional mandate that Members of the Court may be removed from office only by impeachment and conviction of certain offenses listed in Article 11 (2) of Consti o culpable violation of the Constitution o treason o bribery o graft o corruption o high crimes o betrayal of public trust 2. Jose Rene N.• require Cuenco to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with for making such unfounded accusations Issue: WON a member of the Supreme Court can be charged with disbarment during his incumbency Held: NO Ratio: Article 8. Even if the letter-complaint had succeeded in making out such a prima facie case. • • Proper remedy for offending members of the SC who are members of the Philippine bar: 1. he may be held liable to answer wither: a. criminally or b. the Court would still have to dismiss the complaints. section7. 1. section2 provide: That members of the Supreme Court who are members of the Philippine bar may be removed from office only by impeachment. unknown and unnamed sources. Held: NO Ratio: 1. Issue: WON the Court can make out a prima facie case for disbarment against Desierto based on such letter-complaint. or any penalty service of which would amount to removal from office. par 1 and article 9. In re Jarque . Such public officer cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any other court with any offense which carries with it a penalty of removal from office. Aida Balbastro: complaint of disbarment against Ombudsman Aniano Desierto for “immorality and involvement in various illegal and immoral activities. The letter made very general allegations made y other.

and without a definite date of repayment. Such rule is based not only upon respect of for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Consti to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Such public officer cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any other court with any offense which carries with it a penalty of removal from office. he may be held liable to answer wither: a. administratively (by disbarment proceedings) • for any wrong or misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate proceedings Ocampo. section7. What did they do? Marino Ocampo III. criminally or b. Mariano Un Ocampo III and his sons Mariano Ocampo IV be dismissed and that corresponding motions to withdraw them be filed with the Sandiganbayan. Ratio: 1. under terms and conditions grossly disadvantageous to the government the same being interest-free. impeachment under sections 2 and 3 of article 11 of 1987 Consti 4. IV vs.Article 8. or any penalty service of which would amount to removal from office. Ombudsman Nature: Petition for review of the memorandum of the Ombudsman Facts: • November 27 1991: The Ombudsman issued a memorandum to the Office of the Special Prosecutor disapproving the recommendation of the special prosecutors (Roger Berbano. loaned amount of money out of the National Aid for LG funds of Tarlac to the New Territory Manufacturing Inc (then IMCOR) of which the son was incorporator and stockholder. and Rodolfo Reynoso) that the criminal cases filed against Gov. section2 provide: That members of the Supreme Court who are members of the Philippine bar may be removed from office only by impeachment. Sr. 3. The Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the Ombudsman to determine the specificity and adequacy of the averments of the offense charged. par 1 and article 9. in connivance with his son. • • Proper remedy for offending members of the SC who are members of the Philippine bar: 3. Inc. His actions were neither whimsical nor capricious because he sincerely believed that there is sufficient evidence to indict both accused. Issue: WON the Ombudsman has authority to order for the investigation to proceed despite the recommendations of the special prosecutors to dismiss the same Held: Yes. . governor of Tarlac and president-chairman of the BOT of the Lingkod Tarlac Foundation. To grant a complaint for disbarment of a Member of the Court during the Member’s incumbency would circumvent the constitutional mandate that Members of the Court may be removed from office only by impeachment and conviction of certain offenses listed in Article 11 (2) of Consti o culpable violation of the Constitution o treason o bribery o graft o corruption o high crimes o betrayal of public trust 4. 2. when tenure is terminated by impeachment. without collateral.

4. Aklan • Private respondents then filed complaint and charged petitioner with violation of • Paragraph (h) of section 3 of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) as amended. except in the following instances: 1. members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Aklan Events: September 2. Desierto Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Prohibition Facts: Petitioner: Municipal Mayor of Aklan Respondents: Mars Regalado and Harry Abayon. • SB doubted whether NW can participate in the bidding September 19. where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by lust for vengeance 10. when necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions. preliminary injunction to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners. where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution 9. Venus vs. he allowed a portion of the lots to be used as garage for the municipality’s fire truck and for the municipality’s mushroom culture laboratory Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Kalibo. when double jeopardy is clearly apparent 7. when there is clearly no prima facie case against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied 11. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas: • dismissed the complaint on the ground that there existed no case for violation of paragraph (h) of section 3 of RA 3019 as amended . or regulation 6. 1988: petitioner went to manila at his personal expense and participated in the bidding. 3. to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused. 2. 1988: petitioner proceeded to Manila and submitted to Wenceslao Buenaventura.3. During his term. Manager of the BOL and offered to buy the lot on a government-to-government basis at a price mutually acceptable to the parties September 8. either through preliminary or final injunction or a writ of prohibition. He submitted the highest bid and thus the property was sold to him and a deed of absolute sale was executed. Antonio Tabang. But take note: once a case has been filed with the Sandiganbayan. 1988: • offer was rejected. as regards the municipality’s participation in a public bidding. ] • Petitioner returned to New Washington and submitted to treasurer his voucher for transpo expenses • Asked Atty. Director and gen. when the acts of the office are without or in excess of authority 5. when there is a pre-judicial question which is sub-judice. provincial auditor. such court will have full control of the case so much that the information may not be dismissed without approval of the said court. 1988: Resolution 19 was passed authorizing petitioner to negotiate and enter into a contract with the Board of Liquidators in the Acquisition of the Garcia-Diapo Enterprise September 6. where the prosecution is under an invalid law. ordinance. where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense 8. Additional info: Criminal prosecutions may not be restrained.

and par. 2. • • • Petitioner claimed that such repairs and works should be exempted from the payment of customs duty under Par 200. • Petitioner paid said amount under protest. section 11 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909. The Sandiganbayan was willing to accept and adopt the final resolution of the Officer of the Special Prosecutor and Ombudsman on the issue of whether of not the offense charged was in fact committed by the petitioner Crim. kallos recommended Ines’ resolution • Special prosecutor Leonardo Tamayo concurred • Ombudsman Desierto approved. • Info was filed with Sandiganbayan • Petitioner filed a motion for recon with Victor Pascual. 348. The Sandiganbayan allowed petitioner to file motion to reconsider the adverse resolution of Special Prosecutor Ines. agent and operator of steamship Venus. Thru this. Office of Special Prosecutor Officer III Orlando Ines: • found reasonable ground to charge Eriberto Venus of the violation • Deputy Special Prosecutor Robert E. used in the coastwise trade of the Philippine Islands • They acquired services in Hong Kong for the repair and reconstruction of the ship (repair and overhaul of the thrust shaft and boilers) • There were no adequate facilities in the Philippines to achieve such purpose. • Upon Venus’ return to the Philippines. • The Insular Collector of Customs asked petitioners to pay customs duty payable on such repairs and reconstruction work.Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez: • disapproved resolution • marginal note: to consider possible liability of petitioner for a violation of mentioned act since there is pervading showing of bad faith on the part of petitioner in maneuvering to acquire for himself a piece of property which he himself knew to be badly needed by the municipality Reraffled to Graft Investigation Officer I Carla Tanco of Office of Deputy Ombudsman: • found prima facie evidence to proceed against petitioner • Deputy Ombudsman of Visayas approved. Sandiganbayan thus deferred to the authority of the Ombudsman to reinvestigate the case and further assess or re-examine the facts. . Ynchausti & Co. After hearing the Internal Collector of Customs sustained the protest and ordered the refund of the money through a warrant for Auditor Wright to sign in approval. Special Prosecutor (found out that petitioner had not violated said act and then recommended that the case be dismissed) • Ombudsman disapproved Issue: WON the Ombudsman can reinvestigate a case already filed with the Sandiganbayan Held: Yes Ratio: 1. section 8. Wright: Auditor of the Philippine Islands Ynchausti & Co: agent and operator of Venus: used in the coastwise trade of the Phil Islands Facts: • Ynchausti & Co. vs Wright Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court Ben F. case dismissed: lack of reasonable ground to believe that petitioner violated said act. 3.

Since it was found out that such repairs were needed and that the Tariff law does exempt them from customs duty. It was then necessary to find out if the 3 requisites needed to compel COA to countersign warrant for refund were present in the case at bar. 357 as amended by Act No. Held: YES Ratio: The duty to countersign the warrant in this case is simply ministerial and it is not up to the discretion of the Auditor to decide otherwise. 1. Act of Congress of 1901 as amended by Act No. Issue: WON countersignature of the COA may be compelled if it can be shown that: 1) the warrant has been legally drawn by the officer authorized by law to do so 2) and appropriation to which the warrant may be applied exists by virtue of law 3) an unexpended balance of the amount appropriated is available. WON Venus and the repairs it undertook were exempted from customs duty YES. 1515 provides: • that to meet refunds of customs duties or taxes • erroneously and illegally collected • by the Philippine Government. Representatives from several Philippine firms testified that the nature of the repair and overhaul needed by Venus could not be done in the Philippines due to lack of needed facilities.• Wright refused to sign such. • Countersigning of COA of a warrant • 3. • The Collector of Customs was given the authority to investigate WON such repairs undertaken by the operators of Venus were necessary and such would exempt them from customs duty. • • 2. Act No. WON mandamus is the proper remedy . the Collector of Customs was authorized by law to issue a warrant to be countersigned by the COA so that the petitioners can be refunded for the amount paid. • permanent annual appropriations are provided YES. 2872 of the Philippine Legislature provides that repairs made in foreign countries to vessels shall be subject to provisions in par 348 of the Tariff law if it could be shown that: • such repairs can only be done • in a foreign country • reasonably • economically • and within reasonable time YES. Requisite WON warrant has been legally drawn by the officer authorized by law to do so Status YES. WON the law provides appropriations for the asked refund 4.

(discretionary power. or the Secretary of the dept was not consulted 2. which. • • • It was not effected in accordance with the requirements of EO No. 16 No public bidding had been held Auditor-General. However when the treasury warrant was sent to the Auditor general. petitioner supplied and delivered meat to Bureau of Prisons. Subsequently. as opposed to Wright case where the countersigning was a ministerial duty) YES. WON Auditor General has the right and power to judge the merits and legality of any contract entered into by the Commonwealth of the Philippines through the Purchasing Agent Held/Ratio YES. • Petitioner asked Purchasing Agent that the price for the meat he offered to supply for government be raised by 1 and ½ cents also. • • • • • CE Unson. or extravagant. are irregular. Secretary of Justice. technical adviser to the President and Acting Purchasing Agent Granted request with the approval of Undersecretary of Finance Guillermo Gomez. • Subsequently. in his opinion.• • legally executed Is a ministerial function of the Insular Auditor The writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel an official to perform and official duty Matute vs. excessive. Petitioner wanted court to compel auditor general to sign and consequently cash in due amount. unnecessary. • Auditor General had to find out WON disbursement was illegal. Issues 1. boneless) • For the entire month of January 1937. 1936: Matute entered into a contract with the Commonwealth of the Philippines • Through its Purchasing Agent • With the consent and approval of it Secretary of Finance • To supply government with fresh meat (hindquarters and brisket. the City of Manila raised the fees in the municipal slaughterhouse from 2 to 3 and ½ cents per kilo. Hernandez Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court Jaime Hernandez: Auditor General of the Commonwealth of the Philippines Facts: • December 24. Section 2 of Article 10: • Auditor General has the duty to bring to the attention of the proper administrative officers expenditure of funds or property. he refused to countersign it. WON the raise of prices in the City of Manila was illegal and void .

saying they are now willing to match the Malaysian firm’s bid. Facts: • Governor of Central bank. Manila Prince then wrote a cheque as bid security. Petitioner was retained not by the government of the Philippines but by the CB. Miguel Cuaderno asked petitioner • To cooperate with the legal counsel of CB • In defending CB and its Monetary Board in Civil Case 41226 • Filed against them by one R.• Approval of the President was not obtained Guevara vs. the Auditor General has the duty to disburse said amounts. Since under the law. a Filipino firm. 1283 of the Monetary Board recognized the designation and provided that the Governor arrange with Guevara the amount of fee which the latter will charge the CB for handling the said cases. Manila Prince Hotel v. • Accordingly. Manila Prince wrote GSIS to enjoin it from awarding the sale to Renong. Marino Corpus. Gimenez Pedro Gimenez: Auditor General of the Philippines Ismael Mathay: Auditor of the Central Bank Guillermo Guevara: petitioner Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. a Malaysian firm and (2) Manila Prince Hotel Corporation. Issues / Held / Ratio: . Manila Prince offered a bid P2. if issued by the proper officer of said agency of the Government. which has a personality distinct and separate from that of the govt 2. which the GSIS refused to accept. Pending confirmation of Renong Berhad as the winner.40 lower than Renong Berhad’s (bidding was on a price per share basis). Mandamus. which vests on the Solicitor General the power to employ special counsel Held: NO Ratio: 1. He did not appear in the case as representative of the Solicitor General Issue: WON Auditor General may now be compelled to pass in audit and approve the payment of the amounts claimed by the petitioner Held: YES Ratio: The Auditor General has the duty to approve and pass in audit the voucher for said disbursements. GSIS Facts: In view of the government’s efforts at privatization. the Governor of the CB with its Monetary may employ special legal counsel and approve payments for his services. petitioner entered his appearance as counsel for the respondents. • Resolution No. GSIS sold its Manila Hotel shares (51%) at a bidding where only two parties participated: (1) Renong Berhad . Issue: WON CB’s governor’s designation of Guevara was a violation of Section 1664 of the Revised Administrative Code.

The GSIS act only grants per diems to trustees on a daily basis. The Consti. to accept matching bid of Manila Prince Peralta v. privileges. WON 51% of the controlling shares does not involve patrimony No. the Consti would always require legislation before any of its provisions could be considered binding. Otherwise. its acts are considered “State action” (1) when they involve the performance of a public function. WON the Constitutional provision on preferring qualified Filipinos in the granting of concessions. not the GSIS No. Such per diems are then considered as reimbursements or the amount they spend to fulfill their duties. of which the Manila Hotel has been a symbol. Imperial . and (3) when government authorized action. therefore they are actions of the State covered by the Constitution. which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. Tanada v. controls the land and the hotel. and rights involving the national patrimony and economy is selfexecuting Yes. 2. ** Order of Auditor General affirmed. GSIS activity has requisites (2) and (3). Whoever controls the shares. Note: Court upheld nationalism and non-material values over foreign investment ** GSIS ordered to cease from selling to Renong Berhad. Although the GSIS possesses a distinct and separate personality. cannot be held subordinate and cannot be paralyzed by a need for legislative acts. WON action is addressed against the State. Mathay Facts: Petitioner is a trustee of the GSIS. cost of living allowance and incentive bonus should be deducted from his retirement gratuity in view of the Constitutional provision that no employee of the government may receive additional or double compensation.1. cost of living allowance and incentive bonus are covered by the Constitutuional prohibiton Held: Yes. Allowances given to Peralta in this case. “National patrimony” also includes cultural heritage. 3. the latter is supreme. Between the GSIS act and the Constitution. (2) when the government is responsible for the action. however are not considered reimbursements and may not be granted. WON “national patrimony” involved only public lands and natural resources No. lost my digest Republic v. Cuenco – sorry. Issue: WON petitioner’s Christmas bonus. The Auditor General said his Christmas bonus. 4. Ratio: The law is clear.

Also. only two of the three Comelec seats at that time were occupied. Lopez Vito. Vera died. The rules laid down are: 1. All initial appointments should start at the same date and. the first vacancy occurred when Chairman Vito died. Vicente Vera. In 1945. member. resignation or death creates a vacancy in the office. Quo warranto dismissed. These were: 1. when CA 567 was implemented. who shall serve for three years until 1948 In 1947. with vacancies occurring only once every three years. 2. disability or resignation shall be filled only for the unexpired term of the successor. Francisco Enage. In 1951. which was vacated by his promotion to Chairmanship upon Vito’s death. He was succeeded by Member Vera as Comelec chairman. Vacancies because of death. The Court ruled that to do otherwise would be to violate the rotational cycle devised by the framers of the Constitution to ensure the continuity of the policies of the Comelec. Lopez Vito died. safeguarding against undue influence by the executive on the independent body. . a four-year administration may not appoint more than one member of the Comelec at a time. Respondent Perez was appointed to fill in Vera’s position. member. Ordinarily. In 1949. ** Imperial’s term ends in 1959. who shall serve for nine years until 1954 2. Lopez Vito was first appointed to the Comelec. chairman. He was succeeded by respondent Imperial as Comelec Chairman. the following occupied the seats during these times: 1941 Chairman Member Member Vito Term ends 1950 Enage Term ends 1947 vacant Term ends 1944 1945 Vito Term ends 1950 Enage Term ends 1947 Vera Term ends 1953 1947 Vera Term ends 1950 Perez Term ends 1956 Rovira Term ends 1953 1950 Imperial Term ends 1959 Perez Term ends 1956 vacant Term ends 1962 ** In 1947. the first set of Comelec commissioners were appointed. Member Enage retired. By this time.Facts: In 1941. According to the SC. Perez in 1956. who shall serve for six years until 1951 3. The second vacancy occurred when Enage retired. Issue: WON Imperial and Perez are legally continuing office as Chairman and Member of Comelec respectively Held: Yes Ratio: The Court counted the respondent’s terms of office from 1941. completing the organization of the Comelec. But the Court said that Constitutional Commissions like the Comelec are exceptions to the rule. saying that anyone who succeeds as a member has to deal with a shortened tenure.

1949 elections on two grounds: 1. the older de Vera should be disqualified. This does not warrant the interpretation that members may not be reappointed when they have not served the full term. 2. De Vera’s appointment as Chairman is void ab initio. The Rules of Court. Following Rules of Court. administrative body over which the Supreme Court has jurisdiction only to the extent that it may review the Comelec’s decisions. The Comelec. similar to those rules that guide the Supreme Court in filling out vacancies. Issues / Held / Ratio: (1) WON the Rules of Court applies to the Comelec No. sought to disqualify Comelec chairman Vicente de Vera from taking part in the Comelec deliberations concerning the Nov. once appointed. although it exercises primarily executive functions. would violate the security of tenure and independence of its members. may not be reappointed to the Commission regardless of tenure. De Vera. Imperial held that any person. PNB . Teodoro de Vera. ** Petition dismissed Note: De Vera inhibited himself from the deliberations. The lack of laws. ** Appointment held to be unconstitutional.Note: Republic v. The discretion in filling out a vacancy in its chairmanship shall belong to the commission itself. (2) WON a person who has not served for the full term of nine years in the Comelec may be reappointed Yes. Yorac Facts: Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Yorac’s appointment as Acting Chairman of the Comelec by then President Aquino. because he had already served as member of Comelec prior to his term as Chairman. In such cases. The older De Vera should be able to inhibit himself solely on the basis of ethics. Assuming the Comelec adopted the ROC suppletorily. applies only to judicial bodies under its general power of supervision. promulgated by the Supreme Court. Nacionalista Party v. he was not entitled to any reappointment. The phrase “may not be reappointed” is a continuation of the phrase “who shall serve office for a term of nine years”. Issue: WON constitutional Held: No Ratio: 1. they may be reappointed provided that (1) the appointment does not preclude the appointment of a new member and (2) a term does not exceed nine years in all. The Comelec is an independent. De Vera Facts: The petitioners. Under the Constitution. was a Liberal Party senatorial candidate during said elections. which held that reappointment is valid so long as the person to be reappointed has not yet served the full term of nine years. without prejudice to members of the Comelec re-electing Yorac or somebody else until a new Chairman is appointed by the President. ordinances or rulings on certiorari. it does not have the power to adopt rules on the disqualification of its members because the Constitution provides that its members may only be removed through impeachment. Otherwise appointments revocable at will. Brillantes v. members of the Nacionalista Party. Yorac’s appointment is Besa vs. Nacionalista Party v. shall not diminish the commission’s discretion. Compare this with an earlier case. 2. De Vera’s son. is an independent constitutional body and is not under the control of the President.

a case that could be subject to judicial review without prejudice to the powers of CSC to have the final say to cases involving its employees and officers. By virtue of a resolution by PNB president Roberto Benedicto. Mison Mison: Commissioner of Customs Dario: Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs Nature: • March 25. Certiorari. Mison issued a memorandum for employees where the latter shall be: o Informed of their reappointment. • • • 1. rules.• Nature: Original Petition in the Supreme Court. Dario was one of the many whose services were terminated subject to normal clearances and possible receipt of retirement benefits under existing laws. This was proof that such separations were not made to improve the bureaucracy and make them more efficient. or o Offered another position in the same department or agency o Informed of their termination As a result. Aquino promulgated Proclamation No. NO change in the staffing pattern prescribed by Section 34 of EO 127 was made even after Mison took office. Petition Dismissed. 1988. 3 • • . Conrado Medina took over his position. Reorganization Program. and quo warranto Facts: • • • • Tomas Besa was appointed Chief Legal Counsel with the rank of Vice President of PNB. Court also ruled that the position of Chief Legal Counsel is primarily confidential and secondarily technical. January 6. AND PROVIDING FOR AN ORDERLY TRNASITION TO A GOVERNMENT UNDER NEW CONSTITUTION” EO 127. without change in salary and other privileges Issue: WON Besa’s transfer was illegal Held: NO Ratio: 1. Under Section 16 of Article 18: Transitory Provisions of the Constitution. 1053: by BOD: shifted Besa to Office of President as Consultant on Legal Matters. Reyes says tenure of confidential officers ends upon loss of confidence. and regulations. Dario invoked security of tenure. “DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT THE REFORMS MANDATED BY THE PEOPLE. 2. The position of Chief Legal Counsel was a highly confidential position and such position’s term depends upon the will of the appointing power. PNB justified by saying that: o The position of Chief Legal Counsel carries a special confidential relationship of lawyer and client and thus they have the prerogative to designate or change its lawyer o The transfer was made by the Board in the exercise of its powers. 4. prohibition. was also issued. the Civil Service Commission reinstated hundreds of employees who were separated by Mison. According to Chief Justice. PROTECTING THEIR BASIC RIGHTS. Was there a valid reorganization in the Bureau of Customs occurring at that time which would validate Dario’s and several others’ separation from office? NO. a primarily confidential officer cannot be removed. Several acts and rules were issued to comply with the proclamation. Dario vs. His term merely expires according to nature of job. 3. Mison charged the CSC with grave abuse of discretion. Removal without just cause as a defense applies only to officers and employees enjoying a fixed term. 1986. Mison separated 394 Customs personnel but replaced them with 522. Hereafter. It also applies to separations as results of reorganization after the ratification of the Consti. Issues: Is it constitutional to separate career civil service employees not for cause but as a result of the reorganization pursuant to Proclamation 3 dated March 25m 1986? Yes. ADOPTING A PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION. 2. he became Consultant on Legal Matters. upon recommendation of the PNB president • • • • Resolution No.

also included in section 16 that all employees of the casinos and related services shall be classified as confidential appointees. However. Salas Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the COA. REASON FOR STRIKE: SSS failed to act on union’s demands which included among many other things. subject to any legislation that may be enacted by Congress. SSS vs. Held: NO • • • • • Ratio: EO No. 180 implemented the Consti guarantee of the right of govt employees to organize. Salas claimed that he was not a confidential employee of PAGCOR and thus should not be dismissed on the ground of loss of confidence. • The Public Sector Labor Management. • • Strikers refused. the implementation of the provisions of the old SSS-SSSEA CBD on check-off of union dues. upon report of the strike. COA decision affirmed. Could Mison remove Cesar Dario from office? No. under the Consti and the Admin Code. Mison did not follow procedures laid down by EO 127 regarding lay-offs. which would otherwise place him under the category of a confidential employee. Court will have the final say as to whether position is confidential or not. Civil Service Commission vs. ordered strikers to return to work. He does not enjoy primarily close intimacy that characterizes a confidential employee. classification of confidential employees depends on the nature of their work. Reinstated to positions. Issue: WON the employees of SSS have the right to strike. However. Labo ‘tong digest na ‘to. • • • • • Facts: PAGCOR Chairman appointed Salas as Internal Security Staff member and Assigned him to the casino at the Manila Pavilion Hotel. Such mentioned legislation was Memorandum Circular 6 by CSC which provided that ‘prior to the enactment by Congress of applicable laws concerning strike by government employees…enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions. Salas not reinstated. December 3.(Section 2(2) of Article 9-B). CA Nature: Petition for review of the decision of the COA Facts: June 9. all govt officers and employees from staging .• • It was also a defiance of President’s directive to halt further lay-offs as a consequence of reorganization. The Intelligence Division of PAGCOR reported that Salas was engaged in proxy betting. 1987: officers and members allegedly staged an illegal strike • and barricaded the entrances to the SSS Building • preventing non-striking employees from reporting for work and • SSS members from transacting business with the SSS. Court found that Salas did not enjoy ‘close intimacy’ with PAGCOR. Don’t depend on this. • His compensation level belongs to Pay Class 2 relative to the highest. Pay Class 12. 3. 1991: the BOD of PAGCOR terminated his employment allegedly for loss of confidence. Ratio: PD No 1869. section 14 thereof also provided that the Civil Service Law and rules governing concerted activities and strikes in the govt service shall be observed. Issue: WON Salas was a confidential employee Held: NO 1. which created PAGCOR. He does not even directly report to the Office of the Chairman but to the Area Supervisor who in turn implements the directives of the Branch Chief Security Officer. Dario was a presidential appointee and thus Mison had no authority to terminate Dario.

Exercising his power of control by modifying the acts of the respondents who granted incentive benefits to their employees without appropriate clearance from Office of the President. 180) However. • • • • Issue: WON ADEPT members were covered by RA 6971 or the Productivity Incentives Act. ADEPT not given incentives. it was discovered that the ballots were not properly printed and such was the cause of the wrong readings. it has not been granted by law the authority to issue writs of injunction in labor disputes within its jurisidiction.strikes. 1998: Atty. and Regulations. authorized the grant of productivity incentive benefits for the year 1992 in the maximum amount of 1000 * return/refund of the excess within a period of 6 months to commence 15 days after issuance of order AO 268: enjoins the grant of productivity incentive benefits without prior approval of the president * Productivity incentive benefits in a maximum amount equivalent to 30 percent of his 1 month basic salary but not less than 2000. It is already within the scope of the incentives award system under Section 1. 8436 prescribing the adoption of an automated election system. pursuant to EO 292. Alcala Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Tolentino reported to COMELEC Main and the latter issued Minute Resolution No. No need for refund coz there was no bad faith. Ratio: It is the Public Sector Labor Management that has jurisdiction over unresolved labor disputes involving government employees. is a government-owned and controlled corporation with original charter subject to Civil Service Law. Loong vs. • • . ADEPT members were granted incentive bonus for 1992 pursuant to RA 6971 or the Productivity Incentives Act of 1990. otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987 and the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292. Rules. Corporate Auditor disallowed the act as it was a violation of Admin Order 29. employer of ADEPT members. mass leaves. Issue: WON RTC has jurisdiction over the case and to issue a writ of injunction enjoining the continuance of the strike. demonstrations. walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service. not the Commission has the power to fix incentives. 98-1796 laying down rules for manual count Private resondent Tan was proclaimed governor-elect of Sulu on the basis of the manual count. President. ADEPT questioned this action. Nothing was wrong with the machines. Part of control power of President. No. 29 and 268 Other petitioners granted incentives. • • Issue: WON AO 29 and AO 268 are violative of EO 292 and hence null and void. Jr. PTA. Certiorari and Prohibition • Facts: Petitioners were paid incentive benefits for the year 1992. Certiorari Facts: • Pursuant to RA No. May 12. was informed by some election inspectors and watchers of discrepancies between votes cast and the election returns for the mayoralty candidates in the Municipality of Pata. 981747 ordering a manual count but only in the municipality of Pata and the subsequent MR No. • NO. (thru EO No. • Constitutionality and Validity of Administrative Order No. AO 29: Ramos. Rule 10 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing EO 292 issued by the Civil Service Commission. Held: YES. Upon submission of problem to the technical experts of COMELEC. Tolentino. 1998 regular elections in the ARMM was decided upon with the aid of counting machines. as they are not covered by RA 5971 COMELEC Blaquera vs. the May 11. COMELEC 305 SCRA 832 NATURE: Special Civil Action in the SC.

and recall. in the case at bar. d) in other municipalities. even the military and police authorities unanimously recommended manual counting g) petitioner Loong was not denied due process. submit written reports. ballots contained the wrong sequence code e) failures automated of Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a special election can only be held if there is a failure of election such that no election occurs because of force majeure. Assuming manual count is illegal. plebiscite.• Petitioners resolutions. RA 8436 only provided that in case of breakdowns in one machine. there was nothing wrong with the machines but with the ballots. NO. WON COMELEC committed GAD amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering the manual count. capricious. They were given chance to oppose manual counting. h) Automated counting could not push through. Factual Bases: a) automated machines failed to read correctly the ballots in Pata (mayoralty candidate Anton Burahan got 0 votes even if Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors and others said they voted for him) b) another got 100% of the votes c) technical experts confirmed that the problem was caused by the improperly printed ballots 3. other machines from other municipalities may be used. . terrorism. WON a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of ROC is the right remedy to invalidate the disputed COMELEC resolutions Held/Ratio YES. referendum. Article 9(A) of Consti “unless provided by this Consti or by law. escort and observe manual counting. questioned validity of counting post tension f) created election Issues 1. However. any decision. and decision of the COMELEC rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. rulings. or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the SC on certiorari by the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of copy thereof” The petition for certiorari was the proper remedy for questions regarding FINAL orders. initiative. 2. The order for a manual count was not arbitrary. i) Under Section 2(1) of Article 9 C: COMELEC is given the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. WON it is proper to call for a special election for the position of governor of Sulu NO. Section 7. order. or whimsical.

1980: Sanchez filed petition to declare null and void the elctions due to alleged large-scale terrorism COMELEC denied petition. as the case may be. Plea for special election should be submitted to COMELEC not to the SC. the President/PM may appoint the municipal officials of San Fernando. YE. (section 4 of RA No. People 120 SCRA 760 Issues Held/Ratio WON COMELEC has YES: Section 175 of 1978 . Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of the resolution of the Sandiganbayan Facts: • Defeated mayoral candidate of the Nacionalista party. Section 5 of Batasan Pambansa Bilang 52. Pampanga Armando Biliwang: Kilusang Bagong Lipunan candidate Biliwang was proclaimed winner by Municipal Board of Canvassers February 1. on the basis of a verified petition and after due notice and hearing. COMELEC 114 SCRA 454 Nature: Petitions for certiorari to review the resolution of the COMELEC Facts: • • • • • January 30. WON COMELEC has authority to call for a special election • • • • Section 8 of Election Code of 1978 similarly provides. terrorism. orderly. or other analogous cases. and honest elections. filed a complaint with the COMELEC charging De Jesus vs. 7166) Only a special election only for the position of governor would be discriminatory and will violate equal protection of laws of other candidates for other positions. popular will was prejudiced. and after due notice and hearing order the suspension of the proclamation of a candidate-elect or annul any proclamation…” part of its main objective to insure free. Ananias Hibo.fraud. force majeure and other analogous cases…the COMELEC shall. COMELEC decides en banc by a majority vote of its members. • Since the submission of returns were vitiated by postelection terrorism. call for the holding or continuation of the elections as soon as practicable” • Sanchez vs. Sanchez moved for recon. motu proprio or upon written petition. 1980 local elections Virgilio Sanchez: Nacionalista Party candidate for Municipal Mayor of San Fernando. 1980 elections To certify to the President/ Prime Minister and the Batasan Pambansa the failure of election in San Fernando so that remedial legislation may be enacted and that pending such enactment. Special elctions shall be called by the Commission for the purpose of filling a vacancy or a newly created elective position. COMELEC issued resolution which said read: o o Annulment and setting aside the proclamation of winners of the January 30. power to annul an entire municipal election on the ground of postelection terrorism Election Code “It may. COMELEC reversed decision. loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or records. “in case of violence.

1984. Asiatic Steel to manufacture and supply COMELEC ballot decide all election offenses without qualification boxes as to the status of the accused. have the power to conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code and to prosecute the same. info was filed before the Sandiganbayan. Issue: WON 2nd Division of COMELEC had jurisdiction and authority to proclaim Pacificador the winner in election. • • • • What were the violations? 1. The Commission may avail of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government. Section 184 of the Election Cod also gave to the CFI the authority to hear and National Shipyards and Steel Corp. Acme Steel. Javier: more popular support • Arturo Pacificador: nominee of KBL May 13. Copy of complaint—Ministry of Justice--Provincial Fiscal of Sorsogon for investigation Asst.• • • Rogelio de Jesus.” Purpose: to ensure the most careful consideration of such cases *PD No. 1296: pre-proclamation controversy Guevara vs. Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction Facts: • Jose Guevara published in the Sunday Times an article entitled “Ballot Boxes Contract Hit. registered persons in order that they may vote on election day 2. then COMELEC registrar of Casiguran. • COMELEC ordered him to show just cause why he should not be punished for contempt. Fiscals Manuel Genova and Delfin Tarog of the Tanodbayan conducted the investigation and issued a resolution Finding the existence of prima facie case against petitioner for violation of section 89 and subsections of Section 178 of Election Code of 1978. Had the employee not been an officer of the COMELEC. on June 7. Javier vs. Held: NO Ratio: Section 3 of Article 12-C: “All election cases may be heard and decided y division except contest involving members of the Batasang Pambansa. which shall be heard and decided en banc. and try election offenses committed by a public officer in relation to his office. regular courts would have jurisdiction. • COMELEC claimed that such article would undermine the exclusive constitutional function of Commission and its Chairman Domingo Imperial and member Sixto Brilliantes in the admin of all laws relative to the conduct of elections. 1984: eve of elections: Pacificador and his men allegedly ambushed and killed several followers of Javier • • Javier then questioned the canvass of elections but complaints were dismissed. COMELEC 144 SCRA 194 Nature: Petition to review the decision of the COMELEC Issues here were rendered moot and academic. second division of COMELEC. 532 Issue: Who has the power to investigate. However. Pacificador was proclaimed winner. With violation of 1978 Election Code. 727 instead of 10.COMELEC and CFI or the Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan? Held: COMELEC Section 2 of Article 12© of 1973 Consti: COMELEC has power to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections Section 182 of 1978 Election Code: The Commission shall. Facts: Candidates in Antique for the Batasan Pambansa in May 1984 elections • Evelio B. prosecute. thru its duly authorized legal officer. ordered the board to immediately convene and to proclaim the winner without prejudice to the outcome of the case before the Commission. 1606 gives Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over crimes or offenses committed by public officers…In relation to their office. COMELEC cancelled contract with ACME as the latter failed to sign contract within designated time . Section 4 of PD No. COMELEC 104 Phil 269 Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. Pending petition. After approval by Tanodbayan. tampered reports on number of voters: 10. Petitioner question jurisdiction of Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan over the case.

Resolution content: let them return (no implication of not allowing president to bar return. HRET 283 SCRA 520 Nature: Special Civil Action in the SC. This is a petition for the court to order respondents to issue travel documents to Marcoses and to enjoin the implementation of President’s decision to bar their return to Philippines. ballot shall not be considered invalid. YES Sub-issues: Do the Marcoses have right to return to the Philippines? JUSTICIABLE QUESTION. It was a ministerial duty. that the May 8. Sec 4 and 5: The President has obligation to protect the people. • Petitioners said the absence of the signature of the chairman of BEI deemed ballots void. PRESIDENT HAS POWER TO DECIDE. • Libanan prayed for HRET to issue an order to annul election and proclamation of Ramirez and thereafter so proclaim him as duly elected Rep of Samar. Article 2. It merely renders BEI Chairman accountable for such failure. House Resolution 1342 even recognized power of President to bar the return. (Section 24 of RA 7166) Authenticating marks may be any of the following: a) COMELEC watermark Issue: WON Cory had constitutional authority to prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. COURT HAS AUTHORITY. Issue WON president has power to bar Marcoses’ return Held/ Ratio YES. However. Declaration of threat had factual bases: • Marcoses were driven out of the country for WON president acted arbitrarily in determining the their return poses a threat to national interest and welfare .b) Signature or initials or thumbprint of Chairman of BEI c) Presence of red and blue fibers Issue: WON COMELEC had jurisdiction and authority to investigate and punish petitioner for contempt in connection with the alleged publication Held: NO Ratio: • The controversy arose from the ministerial act of the Commission in requisitioning for the necessary ballot boxes in connection with the elctions. Issue: WON HRET committed GAD in ruling that the absence of the signature of the Chairman of the BEI in the ballots did not render the ballots spurious Held: NO Failure of the BEI to sign the ballot shall constitute an election offense. Marcoses wanted to return to the Philippines were barred from doing so. promote their welfare and advance the national interest. NO. Certiorari Facts: • May 28. the but the the the the • • Libanan vs. it could not exercise power to punish contempt as postulated in the law. Manglapus Nature: Petition for mandamus and prohibition Facts: During the term of Cory Aquino. • HRET said ballots had the required COMELEC watermarks and were thus valid. Such being the case. Is that a threat to national security? POLITICAL. 115 elections were marred by massive electoral irregularities perpetrated by Ramirez and his followers. Courts and the Constitution Marcos vs. among other things. for such power is inherently judicial in nature. IX. it did not exercise any judicial function. 1997: HRET affirmed proclamation of Jose Tan Ramirez as duly elected rep of Eastern Samar over Marcelino Libanan • Libanan filed an election protest before HRET claiming.

a commission was one such right. commissions were to be granted for them. Adamas nominated the petitioners to the Senate and got their consent and advice. or inferior court • To fo some particular duty therein specified. The legal remedy for appeals differs. • Which apperta ins to their office and duty • And which the court has previou sly determi ned to be conson ant to right and justice • In all cases where a party has a right to have anythin g done • And has no other specific means of compell ing its perfor mance. the same were refused of them. • Writ of 3. can be issued to any court appointed. Whether Madbury has a right to the commission he demands • • • • • Issue 1. Such commissions were signed by the President and affixed. 2. corporation. Secretary of State Nature: Facts: • The late president of the USA. They were to serve as justices of peace of the Columbia. The Secretary of State has two capacities: as an agent of the President. YES. when petitioners asked for their commissions from the Secretary of State.• stealing millions from country’s treasury. by Madison. he would not be . with the seal of the United States. WON in the present case. James Madison. Petitioners wanted court to order Madison to deliver the commissions. The President signed Madbury’s commission and the Secretary of State had affixed the seal of the US to it. However. James Madison vs. Whether the Supreme Court can award the writ of mandamus in any case Held/Ratio NO. YES. Mr. or persons holding office. • The writ of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law. Their return would have posed violence against State. his appointment was deemed independent of the executive. as Secretary of State. At this stage. Together with their appointment. Healso now had legal rights arising from his appointment. under the he authority of the United States. the court may award a mandamus: to require any person.

HELD: YES Ratio: • National patrimony includes not only rich natural resources but also cultural heritage and mental ability or faculty of our people. trustee of the GSIS. In the execution of which he is independent of all control. Article 12 of the 1987 Consti and claimed that • since the Manila Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation. • Such amounts were not passed in audit . The fixing of a seal to the commissions was one of his ministerial duties together with his job as recorder of the deeds of land. • • • Manila Prince Hotel vs. it has become part of the national patrimony • MHC i part of the Phils’ tourism industry and thus is part of the national economy contemplated in section 10 of Article 12. incentive bonus.mandamus to James Madison. Renong Berhad. Such practice gives life and meaning to section 10 of article 12. 336. he is liable to a mandamus. But that of laws. Manila Hotel is also part of the national economy. Secretary of State liable to a mandamus. which owns the Manila Hotel. This was done and the petitioners outbid the Malaysian firm the second time around. and of commissions. the Filipino will have to be allowed to match the bid of the foreign entity. and Christmas bonus. Petitioners herein invoke the Filipino First policy in their bid to acquire 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation. of the GSIS bid. Prohibition and Mandamus Facts: Controversy arose when GSIS in it privatization program decided to sell thru public bidding 30% to 51% of the outstanding shares of the MHC. As such. Issue: WON petitioners have right to 51% of the shares of Manila Hotel over the supposed winner. Mathay Nature: Appeal from a decision of the Auditor General Facts: Pedro Peralta. Renong Berhad. was granted: • optional retirement gratuity of Php 40. he has duties assigned him by law.07 covering amounts cost of living allowances. It is then accorded the Constitutional protection provided for in Section 10 of Article 12. GSIS Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. As a ministerial officer of the US. When a foreign firm offers the highest bid to grants and privileges covering national economy. • Malabo ‘tong digest na ‘to kaya basahin nyo ulit ang case. letters patent. They also invoked Sec 10. Respondents maintain that FPP is not a self-executing policy but requires implementing legislation. to all intents and purposes. a Malaysian firm won the bid. • Peralta vs. Court ruled that Manila Hotel is part of our national patrimony as it has always been mute witness to the history of this nation (naks!).

The spirit behind the requirement of proportional representation in the Electoral Tribunal was to ensure impartiality in the decisions of elections. Guingona Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Lopez. Issue: WON Court has jurisdiction over the question of the composition of the Senate House Tribunal Held: YES Ratio: The case is a question of whether or not there was a violation of Section 17. WON the Court has jurisdiction over the petition Held: Yes the court has jurisdiction. There was only one member from the minority party. upon the nomination of Primicias. non-use or forfeiture • of its rights and privileges Issues: 1. Senator Santiago and Senator Tatad alleged that Guingona had been usurping. senator Guingona was voted and formally recognized as minority leader of the Senate. a position that. 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. Quo Warranto Facts: Based on the votes of seven lakas-NUCDUMDP senators. three of whom shall be justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice. the Senate composition at that time made it impossible for such requirement to be met. elected Delgado and Cuenco from the Nacionalista Party exceeding the maximum 3 seats given to the party with the largest number of votes in the Senate. and himself for the Electoral Tribunal position. Cuenco Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. This petition for quo warranto under Rule 66. To give 5 seats to the Nacionalista party would defeat the spirit of the law. according to them belonged to Senator Tatad. unlawfully holding and exercising the position of Senate minority leader. Rules of Court. In the case at bar. Additional bonuses by way of an incentive are part of the constitutional ban against officials receiving additional or double compensation. Santiago clearly claimed that there was a violation of Sec 16(1) Article 6 of the Constitution in the process of selecting a minority leader 2. It is a wellsettled doctrine that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations of the complaint or the petition. Tañada vs. Ratio: Although the Consti provision required 9 members for the Electoral Tribunal. Article 6 of the Constitution “ Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of 9 members. the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Reps.” Issue: WON the selection and election of Delgado and Cuenco was a violation of the Constitution Held: YES Quo Warranto: • an action for the usurpation of office or franchise or against a corporation • for violation of its charter or for misuse. Santiago vs. Law simply states that the senate president will be voted by a majority of the members. Section 5. sought to ouster Guingona as minority leader of the Senate and the declaration of Tatad as the rightful minority leader. the Senate. results. Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction Facts: In the selection of Members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. and qualifications of the members of either house. Primicias had already nominated Laurel. WON there was an actual violation of the Consti Held: The court ruled that no violation of the Constitution occurred.• Auditor General Mathay holds that such amounts should be deducted from Peralta’s gratuity Issue: WON Peralta was entitled those mentioned separate amounts which were non-deductible from the amount he already received from GSIS as trustee Held: NO Ratio: Under the GSIS act Peralta was only entitle 25 pesos for each day of actual attendance in session. Senator Tañada. that is more than . as the case may be.

8177: lethal injection as the method for the imposition of death penalty Issues Held/Ratio . Nowhere in the law does it say that those who didn’t vote for the person who won the position of senate president immediately form part of the minority. (b) violation of our international treaty obligations. Petition dismissed as no violation of constitution manifested by alleged usurpation was established. WON Fernan erred in recognizing Tatad as minority leader 3 and 4: held: as for issues 3 and 4. Echegaray vs. unlawfully holding and exercising the position of minority leader 4. 8177 and its implementing rules do not pass constitutional muster for: (a) violation of the constitutional proscription against cruel. Petitioner now files this case with the following contentions: • that R.one-half. No. the court ruled that it no longer had jurisdiction on the matter as it was an issue of discipline to be resolved by the senate as an independent body.A. Secretary of Justice Nature: Facts: On • • • June 25. and (d) being discriminatory. 1996: Leo Echagaray was convicted For raping his 10 year old daughter of his common law wife And was given the death penalty. WON Guingona was guilty of usurping. The consideration of who comprises the minority is for the legislature to decide upon. RA no. (c) being an undue delegation of legislative power. degrading or inhuman punishment. 3.

section 2) The Philippines did not sign nor ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. all involved personal shall be trained in the task so as to avoid inflicting unnecessary pain. 8177 is invalid for being discriminatory and contrary to law. 2 Section 19 of Article 3: “The employment of physical. Where there is conflict between an implementing law and a congressional statute. • 2. • No legal impediment exists for the convict to have access to the contents of the manual. • Section 19: Execution Procedure delegates the making of the Lethal Injection Manual solely to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections but does not include the Secretary of Justice’s authority or mode of approval or review for such manual. the statute must remain. Of RA 8177 requires that prior to the execution. International Convention on Civil and Political Rights recognizes that capital punishment is an allowable limitation on the right to life but should be limited to most serious crimes (Article 6. WON section 19 of the rules and regulations to implement RA No. It is a form of delegation of legislative authority to administrative bodies. Under the Administrative Code of 1987. • Second paragraph of section 19 requires the confidentiality of the contents of the manual even with respect to convict and to the public at large. (Suspension of the Execution of the Death Sentence) . • The Secretary of Justice is thus tasked to supervise the Director of the Bureau of Corrections in promulgating the Lethal Injection Manual in consultation with the DOH YES.WON lethal injection violates Section 19. 8177 is undue delegation of legislative power to the Secretary of Justice and the Director of Bureau of Corrections NO. the Bureau of Corrections which drafted the details for the lethal injection execution is a constituent unit of the Department of Justice tasked to take charge of the administration of the correctional system. • Although the Director of Prisons is not a trained phlebotomist. • 4. The pain experienced in lethal injection is only incidental to the execution not its main feature. No. The Consti protects convicts only from punishment which are inherently cruel and degrading. psychological. WON RA no. Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty. • 2nd paragraph violates Section 7 of Article 3 of Consti: the right of people to information on matters of public concern. 5. 8177 is invalid. Article 3 of the Constitution Par. YES. section 1 of the third par. * Section 17 provides suspension of death penalty for 3 years for pregnant women. WON Section 17 of the Rules and Regulations to Implement R.” 1. or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.A. WON reimposition of the death penalty violates international treaty obligations NO • • 3. This is a violation of Article 83 of the RPC which only suspends execution to a year. NO.

8240. 1965 general elections. The alleged violations were merely that of internal rules of procedure of the House rather than constitutional requirements for the enactment of the law. What happened? Representative Arroyo approved the conference committee report with Arroyo’s pending question of the presence of a quorom. No 7198 are conclusive of its due enactment. that Chair must restate the motion and conduct nominal voting. 7198 was approved was not a unique one • Local Government Code of 1991 was approved in the same manner • The Consti does not require that yeas and nays be taken every time the House has to vote except: a) upon the last and 3rd reading of bill b) at the request of 1/5 of the members c) in repassing a bill over the veto of the President 3.Respondents are hereby enjoined from enforcing and implementing Republic Act No. • The manner by which House No. Arroyo waived his objection when session reconvened. Lopez vs. Certiorari and prohibition Certiorari: to annul or modify the proceedings of any tribunal. 2. the signing of H. 4. CASE OF PARTIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY Arroyo vs. RA 8240: amends certain provisions of the National Internal revenue Code by imposing so-called sin taxes (actually specific taxes) on the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes. Roxas Nature: Prohibition with preliminary injunction Facts: • • • On the November 9. . (it was necessary to find out if Congress acted in GAOD to determine Court’s jurisdiction on the case) Held: NO Ratio: 1. Issue: WON Congress committed a grave abuse of discretion in enacting RA No. Rep. revised and/or corrected in accordance with this Decision. 8177 until the aforesaid Sections 17 and 19 of the Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act No. Facts: • • • Petitioners wanted RA 8240 to be declared null and void because it was passed in violation of the rules of the house that these rules embody the Consti mandate (Section 16 par 3 of Article 6) ‘that each House may determine the rules of its proceedings and that a violation of the rules is a violation of the Consti itself. board. De Venecia Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Congress elected Fernando Lopez Vice President of the Philippines For getting more votes than respondent Gerardo Roxas. or officer exercising judicial function without or excess of its jurisdiction or with GAOD as the law requires. Under the enroleed bill doctrine. Besides: • no rule of the House of Representatives was cited which specifically requires that in cases involving approval of a conference committee report. The Courts cannot declare an act of legislature void on account of noncompliance of rules of procedure. 8177 are appropriately amended.

Issue: WON a Judge of First Instance may be made a judge of another district without his consent Held: NO Ratio: Section 155 of the Administrative Code provides: • Judges of First Instance are appointed judges of the first instance to specific judicial districts. pass upon the validity of each ballot or determine whether the same shall be counted. or are removed through impeachment. • • Until they retire. or reflect the true results of the elections in the areas covered by each. WON it is illegal to allow members of the Supreme Court to sit in the Presidential Electoral Tribunal as this would be a violation of the separation of powers. HELD: NO RATIO: a) the power to judge to judge matters concerning the election. in the first place. 1920: He was appointed Judge of the 21st Judicial District. in the affirmative. They can only serve as temporary judges in other districts to try land registration cases or when assigned to vacation duty. is "unconstitutional". 1914: Andres Borromeo was took office as Judge of the 24th Judicial District • Feburay 25. creating said Tribunal. 1793. WON RA No. which Congress has no power to do. 1966. to recount the ballots cast. and. Mariano Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court Facts: July 1. "all proceedings taken by it are a nullity. 2. appointed by the Governor General 2. the Presidential Electoral Tribunal has the judicial power to determine whether or not said duly certified election returns have been irregularly made or tampered with. judges of first instance are: 1. • * Appointment to another district does not automatically create a vacancy in the former district because • only until the judge appointed to another district gives his consent can there be a vacancy Additional Facts: During this period. if not. Roxas filed a petition at the Presidential Electoral Tribunal contesting the victory of Lopez. 1793 is inconsistent with the Constitution because the latter does not provide for election protests involving the office of the President and the vice president as this would prejudice the tenure of the president and the vice president HELD: NO RATIO: A protest regarding the validity of the victory of a presidential or vice presidential candidate does not in any way prejudice his tenure. 396 (an obsolete law!) .• • • January 5. to serve until they reach the age of 65 years 3. is a question of the validity of such person’s authority to be president or vice president. The protest. resign. in whose favor." Issues: 1. If it is discovered that such candidate won because of tampered ballots and the like. and. Petitioner contended that Presidential Electoral Tribunal should not be allowed to hear the case because Republic Act No. commissioned to a specific district Act NO. Borromeo vs. incidentally thereto. and. and that. • Fermin Mariano took his place even if he consistently refused to accept the appointment to the 21st Judicial District. returns and qualifications…is essentially judicial b) Upon the other hand. then his victory would be invalid.

Presidential appointee to the position of Chairman of the Property requisition Committee disapproved the purchase and installation of such apparatus. Contempt. Dacanay.L. RATIO: • Allowing the Property Requisition Committee (which was a creation of the Executive) and the Auditor General to prevent the purchase of such materials would be a violation to the doctrine of separation of powers. • • • • • • Issue: WON the Property requisition Committee and the Auditor General had the authority to disapprove such purchase and refuse to release funds for such purchase respectively. The Supreme Court does not fall under any of those classifications. 1949: C. 1949. ISSUE: WON SC’s decision to hold Sotto in contempt of Court was a violation of his freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution HELD: NO. he also: .• • Allowed the transfer of judges to different districts by order of the Civil Governor with the consent of the Commission Repealed by Act No 2347: Judiciary Reorganization Act and Admin Acts of 1916 and 1917 • • Legislative and executive branches are barred from interfering with the powers of the courts to adjudicate cases and to administer justice And from interfering in the said branch’s acquisition of books. RATIO: • Sotto’s statement threatened the stability of the judicial system and created the possibility of the furthering people’s mistrust in the SC’s capability to administer justice. Sotto refused. HELD: NO. Radiowealth Inc. and bureaus. 53) which he authored. and other material necessary to the convenient transaction of the judicial body’s business. were of urgent character and necessary to public Service. took the matter up to the Auditor General. he would not have been held in contempt of court. • Had he only criticized or commented on the correctness or wrongness of the decision in good faith. January 10. Radiowealth Inc. office equipment. Facts: • • SC held Angel Pazaro in contempt of court for refusing to divulge the source of a news published in his paper. SC required Sotto to appear in court to answer to questions regarding the statement as he would be punished for contempt of court. offices. Sotto issued written statement declaring the SC’s mistake in deciding the mentioned case as a result of misinterpretation of the Press Freedom Law (Republic Act No. # Administrative Code allows the supervision of the Bureau of Supplies on matters regarding supplies but only for departments. Agregado Nature: petition to review by certiorari a decision of the Auditor General Facts: • January 7. he further suggested a complete reorganization of the Supreme Court. Atty. • However. In the same statement. vs. The Auditor General also disapproved the issuance of the amount for payment as this was a violation of section 2044 of the Revised Administrative Code because such purchase was not due to an emergency pertaining to life and property. the Clerk of the Supreme Court certified the purchase of Webster teletalk and Webster Telephone Speakers for the Supreme Court. As a result. In re Sotto: Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court.

Its so-called judicial functions in settling conflicts or doubts from the Register of Deeds is only incidental to its administrative function DISMISSED. • Similar grants are also given to: a) Judicial Superintendent of the Department of Justice b) Assistant Solicitors General. PETITION DENIED . However. section 2 of the 1935 Consti provided that the laws of the Phil Islands in force at the time of the adoption of the Consti were to continue in force until the inauguration of the Commonwealth • Issue: WON the Commissioner of Land Registration may only be investigated by the Supreme Court. Tehankee Nature: Petition for a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction to restrain the Secretary of Justice from investigating the official actuations of the Commissioner of Land Registration. HELD: NO RATIO: • Republic Act No. Act 1151 and Appropriation Laws) of the rank and privileges of a Judge of the Court of First Instance. A consul is not entitled to privileges and immunities of an ambassador or minister. other public ministers. Such grant only applies to judicial bodies. Schneckenburger vs. CFI Manila has authority to try case. and consuls to the SC. Commissioner of Land Registration is not a District Judge nor any member of the judiciary. 1968. Original jurisdiction is not equal to exclusive jurisdiction. Teehankee. Prohibition: Facts: • • • Petitioner was an honorary consul of Uruguay at Manila. such grant does not include exemption from investigation except with confernment of SC. Phil Consti conferred original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors. Was charged with the crime of falsification of private documents. 4. suspended Noblejas due to gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to public interest. 2. emoluments and privileges as those of a Judge of the Court of First Instance. Claimed diplomatic immunity based on: Issue: WON an honorary consul has diplomatic immunity from SC jurisdiction to try his case. Article 15. 1151 which created the position of Commissioner of Land Registration entitled him to entitled to the same compensation.a) intimidated members of the court with the presentation of a bill to reorganize the Supreme Court b) called for the changing of the members of the SC which he labeled as incompetent and narrow minded c) embarrassed or obstructed the administration of justices • • • Noblejas vs. with the authority of the President. Moran Nature: Original Action in the SC. He is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is accredited. HELD: NO Ratio: 1. seven in number c) City Fiscal of Quezon City d) Securities and Exchange Commissioner 3. consolidation and consolidation-subdivision plans covering areas greatly in excess of the areas covered by the original titles March 17. in view of the conferment upon him by the Statutes heretofore mentioned (Rep. and to declare inoperative his suspension by the Executive Secretary pending investigation Facts: • • • Secretary of Justice Teehanke required in Noblejas as Commissioner of Land Registration to explain why the no disciplinary action should b taken against Noblejas for approving or recommending approval of subdivision.

Justices of the SC are required to be at least 40 years old and • Have served for 10 years or more as judge of a court or record or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines NO. 682) was questioned in this case. NO. Certiorari. even only as a designee 3. • No temporary composition of the Supreme Court is allowed in the Constitution • Section 14 of said act does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of appointment such that members of the SC must be appointed by the President with the consent of the COA. requirement: section 6. Issue 1. or Cadastral Judge is valid and that the mentioned judges can ‘sit temporarily’ as justice of the Supreme Court to complete the quorum in cases where a justice may not sit and vote when the accused is a person who held office or position under either or both the Phil ExeCom or the Phil Rep or any B. WON section 14’s approval of a judge of FI. Rilloraza Nature: Original Action in the SC. article 8 a) should have practiced law for a period of not less that five years or have held during a like period within the Philippines an officer requiring a lawyer’s diploma • However. instrumentality and/or agency thereof. • Disqualification by virtue of membership in either or both the Philippine ExeCom and the Phil republic or any branch. WON Congress had power to add to the preexisting grounds of disqualification of a Justice of the Supreme Court Held/Ratio NO. 1935 Consti!! Facts: The constitutionality of Section 14 of the People’s Court Act (CA Act No.Vargas vs. WON a person may act as a Justice of the Supreme Court who has not been duly appointed by the President and confirmed by the COA. 2. • Judges of mentioned courts only have the ff. is not mandated in the Consti • ALL members of the Supreme Court cannot be deprived of the authority over criminal cases where the penalty may be death or life imprisonment (treason has such penalty) • Deprivation of a judge’s authority is deprivation of judicial power.I. Judgeat-large of FI. A thereof .

1970: a group of armed persons descended on barrio Ora Cento. transfer was no longer to be heard of. Petitioners filed this case to set aside decision of respondent judge and to try the cases at either San Fernando or Baguio City. La Union o To hold special term in o Ilocos Sur o From and after July 1. not ordered judges to transfer cases. 5179 request for change of venue from SC should have been done at the very inception of the cases. Act No. Ilocos Sur and set fire to various houses. Secretary of Justice authorized. Gutierrez Nature: Petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary injunction to annul and set aside an order of the CFI. 1970 Secretary of Justice issued Administrative Order No. La siyang violation actually) . 1970: Provincial Fiscals and prosecutors from the DOJ filed: • Criminal Case 47-V for arson with homicide • Criminal Case 48-V for arson • Charged 17 of the respondents with 82 others who conspired in the act • Trial was set for July 27-29. No. (Although in this case.People vs. Order Nos. 5179 creating that Circuit Criminal Court did not and does not authorize the Secretary of Justice to transfer thereto specified and individual cases. Issue: WON the Secretary of Justice has the power to determine what court should hear specific cases Held: NO Ratio: • • violated doctrine for the separation of powers Republic Act. • they also went to Ora Este and burned houses also killing a woman named Vicenta Balboa June 10. 1970 June 15. 226 o Authorize Judge Mario Gutierrez o To transfer the cases to o The Circuit Criminal Court o In the interest of justice and o Pursuant to Rep. 1970: • Secretary of Justice issued Administrative Order No. 221 o Authorized Judge Lino Añover o Of the Circuit Criminal Court of the 2nd Judicial District o Of San Fernando. Bantay. Facts: May 22. 1970: • June 22. Ilocos Sur. At 5179 o As implement by Ad. 258 and 274 of DOJ June 18. • Under Section 4 of Rep. • respondent judge refused to transfer the case and reasoned out that since the accused had already pleaded. 1970: prosecution sought to move trial of case to Circuit Criminal Court to ensure security of witnesses and personal safety.

It was a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court. Marcos enacted Republic Act 6397 providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar and Appropriating Funds therefor. witnesses said they were willing to testify as long as the proceedings would not be in Ilocos. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law. Inadequate preparation is not a valid excuse for flunking the bar and is an arbitrary classification of people taking the bar. Writs of certiorari and mandamus prayed for are GRANTED. Article 2 of Republic Act No. said section has 5 exceptions: a) piracy b) extra-territorial offenses contemplated in Article 2 c) continuing offenses d) criminal and civil actions arising from written defamation e) where the application of general rule would prevent a fair and impartial inquiry into the actual facts of the case In re Cunanan Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court Facts: Republic Act No. 972 popularly known as the ‘Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953’ was enacted on June 21. Purpose of the law: to overcome insufficiency of reading materials and the inadequacy of the preparation of these students when they took the bar (after the war daw kasi) Issue: WON Republic Act No. I the case at bar. Inadequately prepared students should not be lawyers in the first place. It is the job of the Supreme Court to render ultimate decision as to who is fit to practice law. Ratio: 1. 972 was unconstitutional Held: YES. 3277) Integration mean the official unification of the entire lawyer population of the Philippines. 1946 shall be deemed to have passed in such subject or subjects and such grade or grades shall be included in computing the passing general average that said candidate may obtain in any subsequent examinations that he may take. (Senator Pablo Angeles David authored the bill) As a result. 3. . 1953 without executive approval. and supplement the rules on admission to Bar. (source of law: House Bill No. 2. 094 unsuccessful bar candidates were to be benefited by the act. In re IBP Facts: On September 17. • requires membership • and financial support • aimed to make the law profession more efficient and effective. Added info: Section 14(a) of Rule 110 of Revised Rules of Court: criminal cases should be tried in the places where they were committed However. 1971.• The change of venue in trying cases is in the interest of truth of justice. 4. 972: An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from Nineteen Hundred and Forty-Six Up to and Including Nineteen Hundred and Fifty-Five Section 1: passing rate became 70 percent Section 2” any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75 per cent in any subject in any bar examination after July 4th. Republic Act No. 1. Legislature exceed in its power to repeal. alter.

45 per cent of lawyers also approved integration 2. practice. WON Court has power to integrate the Philippine Bar Held/Ratio YES. Issue 1. Section 3. • Lansang vs. it was reasoned out that such amount would only be incidental to its purpose. 889 violated par. The State may only ‘discipline’ the bar if it poses a fee that results to an unconstitutional burden. Petitioners sought for writs of habeas corpus after being arrested without a warrant therefore and detained. Marcos issued Proclamation No.Issues 1. However. 96. 1971 elections. and procedure in all courts and the admission to the practice of law. Marcos declared that the ‘enemy groups’ had already entered into the conspiracy and have in fact joined together to engage in armed insurrection and rebellion. The Plaza Miranda incident was only one .tingnan niyo na lang org Majority of local associations of lawyers have already approved of the bar. Integration in other countries has resulted to: • improved discipline among members • more meaningful participation of lawyers hay marami pala. 889-A. WON Court should ordain the integration of the Bar at this time. suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. 889. section 10 of article 7 of Consti Held/Ratio No. On the question of compelled payment of fee. Under Article 8. Eight persons were killed and many were injured. The ACT neither confers a new power or restricts Court’s inherent power but is a mere legislative declaration that integration will promote public interest. Petitioners initially contended that the proclamation was made based solely on the idea that there was a conspiracy and intent to rise in arms among several groups in the country. As a result. YES. court held that with the modifications thru Proclamation No. Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is already a member. 1971 at Plaza Miranda where the Liberal Party of the Philippines was holding a public meeting for the presentation of its candidates for the November 8. Garcia Nature: Facts: Two hand grenade explosions occurred on August 21. 4 section 1 of article 3 and par 2. YES. On the question of compelled membership. They questioned the validity of Proclamation No.. 889. WON integration is constitutional a) compelling membership: constitutional? b) Membership fee: constitutional? 3. WON Proclamation No. the SC has the power ‘ to promulgate rules concerning pleading.

or rebellion or imminent danger therof YES. COA must confirm 3. WON there was invasion. . MERALCO. nomination by President 2. bombings of the COMELEC building. They have been charged for a violation of the Anti-Subversion Act and were then covered by the proclamation. Lacson neither accepted nomination nor assumed Tarlac office. 1946: Comm on Appointments confirmed appointment August 10. there was no vacancy. 1949: President nominated Lacson to post of provincial fiscal of Tarlac upon recommendation of Secretary of Justice Romero was nominated for Negros Oriental.among the many violent incidences that brought forth such proclamation. insurrection. what are the steps for the aah… appointment of fiscal? 1. acceptance thereof by the appointee manifested thru his assumption of office Issues 1. Romero Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court Facts: July 25. President had in his possession records of killings of several government officials by the CPP. YES. and others. the Auditor and Alfabeto. WON public safety required the suspension of the privilege 3. These groups believe that force and violence are indispensable to the attainment of their goal. YES. Agabin question: Ahh. the President can: 1) call out the armed forces 2) suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus 3) put Philippines or any part therof under martial law Lacson vs. 1949: both nominations were confirmed by COA. 2. WON COA’s appointment of Lacson to Tarlac created a vacancy in the Negros fiscal office Held/Ratio NO. to make nomination valid and permanent. Since Lacson declined to accept the nomination. WON petitioners are covered by said proclamation as amended IN case of invasion. 1946: Antonio Lacson was appointed by President as provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental August 6. insurrection or rebellion. The existence of the CPP and the NPA were clear proof of the state of rebellion and insurrection of the country. May 19. the Treasurer refused to give Lacson salary because they already believed Romero to be the provincial fiscal. 1946: took oath May 17. However after said event: • • Romero appeared in Negros Courts as prov fiscal Paguia.

1962. Dr. Silvosa. 35 yrs old on day of election. NO. immoral conduct What is the Civil Service Commission? • a vigorous and non-partisan instrument for development of an honest and efficient civil service • Chairman. the respondent shall be reinstated in the service. natural born citizens. Executive Secretary Nature: Original Petition in the Supreme Court. The reason for such act was the need to investigate on his acts of dishonesty and other violations of the RPC (administrative cases). 177 section 8 classifies provincial fiscals as person embraced in unclassified civil service. 1962.’ Section 671 of RAC as amended by Commonwealth Act No. Held/Ratio: YES The provision only provides for officers and employees. He did not even accept nomination. did not run for office in elections immdtly preceding appointment Question to Sir: Had the transfer really constituted a promotion. Juan Salcedo Jr. Paulino Garcia. the last day of his 60 day suspension despite the fact that investigation was still no over b) the court to declare Salcedo guilty of unlawfully holding the position of Chairman Issue: WON Section 35 of Civil Service Act applied to Garcia. Section 686 of RAC: falsification of DTR Section 687: political activity and contribution to political fund drunkenness. a presidential appointee. (gov of Surigao) Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. Final Decision: Lacson is provincial fiscal of Negros Oriental Anu-ano ba causes for a civil service officer’s removal from office? 1. WON President can remove at any time.2. he shall be restored to his position with full pay for the period of suspension. can it be said that it was valid? Garcia vs. 3. Salcedo asked to vacate. Mondano. However. Quo Warranto and prohibition with preliminary injunction. WON nomination and confirmation of Lacson to Tarlac served as removal of Lacson from office 3. al. Section 35 of Civil Service Act: Lifting the preventive Suspension Pending Administrative Investigation. No specific mention of WON that official is a presidential appointee. The suspension is not meant to be a penalty for the crime. 2. 2 commissioners. IF the respondent officer or employee is exonerated. Petitioner wanted: a) to be reinstated to his position after April 19. Jose VS. Article 12 section 4 provides that ‘no officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended for causes provided by law. Facts: On February 18. It is assumed that the cases of all civil service officers would pass through the Commissioner of Civil Service for scrutiny and investigation. Prohibition and Preliminary Injunction . It is an administrative disciplinary action. It is not necessary that the Commissioner of Civil Service would eventually decide the case. gambling. no reason was presented as to why Lacson was to be removed. Effect: Garcia reinstated. was then appointed as Acting Chairman. et.When the admin case against the officer of employee under preventive suspension is not finally decided by the Commissioner of Civil Service within a period of 60 days after the date of suspension. a fiscal he himself appointed to office YES. presidential appointee for the position of Chairman of the National Science Development Board was subjected to a preventive suspension of 60 days by the Executive Secretary.

the other four remained officers of the Bolo Area of the 6th Military Division. Chief of Staff Nature: Original Action in the SC. necessary for However. and Adres Fortus allegedly killed Lt. On May 12. 8 suspended Mondano and investigation commenced. investigations were still ongoing and no order for deportation was yet made. 1952. corruption. by order of President. However. declared illegal No 398. Surigao Admin Order NO. 1936) created the Deportation Board to conduct investigations. series of 1951: Qua Chee Gan vs. Col Jurado. Dominador Adeva. by Commissioner of Immigration. Decision: E. Upon fixing of bonds. Garcia.O. or other form of maladministration of office. conducted by said executive or his authorized agent. Bolo Battalion. series of 1951). in the case at bar. The crimes: • purchasing $130. Section 69 of Act NO. 2711 of RAC: No alien can be deported by prexy EXCEPT upon prior investigation. Manila Facts: CFI denied petition for writs of habeas corpus and/or prohibition. pursuant to Section 69 of the RAC 2. Prudente Francisco. They also sought for the records of their cases’ proceedings to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.O. At the time of the time.000 with license from Central Bank and remitted it to Hong Kong • attempted bribery of Phil and US officials (Chief of the Intelligence Division of the CB and member of US Air Force) In effect Deportation Board issued a warrant of arrest for petitioner (E. Deportation Board Nature: Appeal from the decision of CFI. No 398.Facts: At the endorsement to the provincial governor of Surigao. blackmarketing of US dollars hoarding or Ruffy vs. Special Prosecutor Emilio L. of the Deportation may be effected in 2 ways: 1. and conviction by final judgment of any crime of moral turpitude. certiorari. 2. Mondano was mayor of Mainit. The provincial fiscal himself could not file a complaint of rape without sworn statement of offended party. after due investigation. the Assistant Executive Secretary requested for immediate investigation of Jose Mondano’s acts of rape and concubinage. upon recommendation by the Board of Commissioners under Section 37 of Commonwealth Act No. oppression. Prexy (Quezon. Ruffy was already relieved of his assignment as Commanding Officer. Prohibition Facts: Ramon Ruffy. Petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial of the Philippine Army over the case. Decision: Investigation unauthorized. May 29. Galang charged petitioner before the Deportation Board. petitioner was temporarily set free. Jose L. was illegal and ground upon contemplated. 613 Crime was an act profiteering. Arrest would have been deportation to take effect. WON President has authority to deport aliens Held: Yes. Issues: . Issue: WON said investigation was valid Held/Ratio: No Section 2188 of RAC: provincial governor is authorized to receive and investigate complaints made under oath against municipal officers for neglect of duty. Issues: 1. and mandamus for his case. which such action is * In effect. WON Deportation Board also has authority to file warrants of arrest Yes but only after investigation has resulted to the actual order of deportation.

Jalandoni Nature: Original Action in the SC.O.1. The Japanese occupation did not invalidate the existence of the Philippine Army and the status of officers drafted to carry out military activities. 1947 Held/Ratio YES. Prohibition Facts: Shigenori Kuroda. • • • Issues WON E. No 68 was constitutional established a National War Crimes Office prescribed rules and regulations governing the trial of accused war criminals issued by President on July 29. independent of legislation. WON Supreme Court had power of judicial review over the case held: NO “Court Martials are agencies of executive character and one of the authorities for the ordering of courts martial has been held to be attached to the constitutional functions of the President as Commander-in-chief.” Kuroda vs. Adeva. These officers did not cease in their active duty during the occupation. • who is now charged before a Military Commission • convened by the Chief of Staff of the AFP with • having unlawfully disregarded and failed • to discharge his duties as such commander • to control the operations of members of his command. 2.O. • Section 3 of Article 2 provides: The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. No 68 the participation of Melville Hussey and Robert Port in the proceedings of the case • . and Fortus were still officers of the Bolo Area deriving authority from the General Headquarters of the 6th Military Division when they killed Jurado. WON petitioners were under jurisdiction of General Court Martial of the Philippine Army Held: YES Garcia. formerly Liuetentant General of the Japanese Imperial Army and Commanding General of the Japanse Imperial Forces in the Philippines during the period covering 1943 and 1944. and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation. • permitting them to commit brutal crimes against civilians and prisoners of the Imperial Japanese Forces • in violation of the law and customs of war • • Issues: 1. Part of President’s power as Commander-in-Chief to consummate Petitioner questions: the constitutionality of E. Francisco.

Lawyers appearing in Military Commission need not be lawyers qualified to practice law in the Philippines.O. Jr. Petition for prohibition with a prayer for a write of preliminary injunction for Case Nos. 2000 Plunder.• • unfinished aspect of war. OMB 0-00-1756: November 28. Inc. al. al. namely. PD 46. the trial and punishment of war criminals. until his term as President is over : (February 5. indirect bribery. graft and corruption OMB 0-00-1758: Ernesto B. plunder. it would still have been valid becoz said E. 2. perjury. 2000 OMB 0-00-1757: Leonard de Vera. a signatory country. illegal use of public funds and property.R. plunder. 2000 Plunder. graft and corruption OMB 0-00-1754: OMB 0-00-1755: November 24. PD 1829. Francisco. serious misconduct Malversation of public funds. 2001) Court G. Although Philippines was not a signatory of the Hague Convention. was pursuant to the general application of national policy against war. Romeo Capulong. bribery. violation of PD 1602. . • • Estrada vs. graft and corruption. et. Gonzales Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption Graft Free Philippines Foundation. WON 2 American attorneys. October 23. the crime was committed when we were under the US. 146710-15 OMB 0-00-1629: Ramon A. Desierto Facts: Cases at bar: 1. and RA 7080 December 4. 2000 November 17. 2000 Bribery and graft and corruption Plunder. forfeiture. Bribery. forfeiture. Hussey and Port can participate in the case even if they were not qualified to practice law in the Philippines under Rules of Court YES. etc. No. Had we not been under US. et. Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by special law not Rules of Court.

Negotiations soon followed. Quo Warranto: confirm him as lawful and incumbent President of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge his duties. 5 day transition period after resignation b. Totality test: Was there intent to resign? Was the intent coupled with acts of relinquishment? Based on Angara diary. Estrada himself requested that they help each other to ensure a peaceful and orderly transfer of power. WON Estrada resigned as President (section 8. WON Estrada is only temporarily unable to act as President  NO. • • • 2. agreement to open 2nd envelope to clear petitioner’s name No argument as to whether or not the terms of negotiations implied willingness to resign was made by petitioner. guarantee of safety of petitioner and family c. Such action poses legal questions as to the constitutional validity of her presidency. (February 6. Article 8 Consti: but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government • EDSA 2 is intra constitutional. 146738 Issue 1. 2001) Court GR No. If 1 is yes. 3. . The issues for resolution require proper interpretation of certain provisions in the Consti. Estrada resigned. Section 1. The walk out aborted the impeachment trial. Court no longer has power of judicial review on legislative branch’s act of recognizing legitimacy of Arroyo government. No need for impeachment in order allow suits to be filed against him. intent to resign was implied. The issues call for a ruling on the scope of presidential immunity from suit. WON whether Estrada is immune from criminal prosecution NO. If not.2. The terms of the negotiations included: a. They also involve interpretation of petitioner’s right against prejudicial publicity. Article 7) YES. WON the petitions present a justiciable controversy Held/Ratio YES. Congress had already declared support for Gloria as President. Arroyo swore under 1987 Consti. WON conviction in the impeachment proceedings is a condition precedent for the criminal prosecution of Estrada. Here.

Feb. NO. NO. 2001=Senate Resolution No. the petitions of Joseph Ejercito Estrada challenging the respondent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as the de jure 14th President of the Republic are DISMISSED.) • marines under the leadership of the Metro Manila Police Chief • even equipment of Marines: from PNP 2. or rebellion. Petitioner does not possess requisites of standing to raise the issues in the petition. WON President’s action of deployment is subject to judicial review 3. Such deployment was to be temporary. Zamora Nature: Special Action for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for issuance of a temp. anti-drug enforcement activities etc. 7. restraining order Petitioner sought to nullify order of Pres. Article 7) to prevent or suppress lawless violence. 83Recognizing that the Impeachment Court is Functus Officio No post-tenure immunity for cases like plunder. Estrada commanding the deployment of the Phil. Publicity per se does not create bias. Characteristic of deployment: • permissible use of military assets for civilian law enforcement (done in elections. 4. IN VIEW WHEREOF. There is not enough evidence to warrant this Court to enjoin the prelim investigation of the petitioner by the respondent Ombudsman. Article 7 of Consti Powers as Commander-in-Chief Issue: WON such order was constitutional Issue 1. bribery. administration of Red Cross. invasion. WON petitioner has legal standing Held: YES Held/ Ratio NO. Invoked: Section 18. graft and corruption NO. Marines to join PNP in visibility patrols around metropolis. WON the prosecution of Estrada should be enjoined on the ground of prejudicial publicity IBP vs. The National President signed the petition without a formal board resolution authorizing hi to file action. IBP has failed to present a specific and substantial interest in the resolution of the case. WON the act violates the constitutional provisions on civilian supremacy over the military and the civilian character of PNP . Deployment of military personnel falls under the Commander-in-Chief powers of president (Section 18.

Issues: 1.s 22. • Their return would have posed violence against State.Marcos vs. 66. Salvador vs. Sustenance fishermen complained about the operations alleging that those operations depleted the resources of that marine area. WON President has authority to issue E.s 22. 66. President issued E. Gatmaitan Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. WON president acted arbitrarily in determining the their return poses a threat to national interest and welfare Araneta. Declaration of threat had factual bases: • Marcoses were driven out of the country for stealing millions from country’s treasury. Sec 4 and 5: The President has obligation to protect the people.O. COURT HAS Is that a threat to national security? POLITICAL. Resolution content: let them return (no implication of not allowing president to bar return. Dept of Agriculture and Natural Resources is . promote their welfare and advance the national interest.O. NO. YES Sub-issues: Do the Marcoses have right to return to the Philippines? AUTHORITY. Issue: WON Cory had constitutional authority to prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. Prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction. and 80 Held/Ratio YES. This is a petition for the court to order the respondents to issue travel documents to the Marcoses and to enjoin the implementation of the President’s decision to bar their return to the Philippines. In effect. Issue WON president has power to bar Marcoses’ return Held/ Ratio YES. Article 2. Facts: San Miguel Bay became the center for the dispute over trawl fishing. PRESIDENT HAS POWER TO DECIDE. Section 10(1) of Article 7 of Consti gives president control over executive departments. the Marcoses wanted to return to the Philippines but were barred from doing so. House Resolution 1342 even recognized power of President to bar the return. Manglapus Nature: Petition for mandamus and prohibition Facts: During the term of Cory Aquino. and 80 which had the effect of prohibiting trawl fishing in the said area. JUSTICIABLE QUESTION.

471 intended to prohibit devices like trawl nets that deplete food supply from sea and it authorized Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources who in turn is under supervision of President. 1961 (when Macapagal was proclaimed by Congress).2. WON it was undue delegation of powers to President subject to the general supervision and control of Pres.s were valid 3. 2 all ad interim appointments made by Garcia after December 13. Commission on Appointments was not in session After proclamation. Castillo. By Commonwealth Act No. Facts: December 29. VALID and issued with authority of law NO. Such appointments obstruct political policies of successor POI: The President has authority to issue ad interim appointments if: a. Aytona. Mison (Comm of the Bureau of Customs) Nature: Petition for prohibition Facts: Petitioners sought to prohibit in their appointed jobs: Salvador Mison: Office of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs Guillermo Carague: Secretary of the Department of Budget Petitioners alleged that those appointments were void by reason of its not having been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. 4003 of Legislature as amd. Act no. 1961: Macapagal assumed presidential position December 31. • • • • Malacañan submitted appointments on the same day they were issued. Teka…may right be prexy to appoint? OO NAMAN . Ulpiano vs. there are vacancies b. Garcia’s administration was caretaker administration. WON E. January 1.O. Dominador vs. Prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction. Andres Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. 1961: Garcia appointed Dominador Aytona as ad interim Governor of the Central Bank Aytona takes oath December 30. 1962: Macapagal appointed Andres Castillo for CB position Issue: WON Aytona’s appointment was valid HELD: No. 1961: Macapagal issued Administrative Order No. the appointees have been approved by Commission on Appointments (by way of advice) Sarmiento.

officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone * The first groups requires consent and confirmation by COA (by virtue of statutory construction) Issue: WON Commission appointments to be valid. or office included in the General Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment. Demetria vs.. ambassadors. however. 1177 is unconstitutional and void. the President. Alba Nature: Petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction to review the constitutionality of the first paragraph of Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. which are included in the General Appropriation Act. Article 7 of 1987 Consti: “The President shall nominate. all other officers of the govt whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law c.Section 16. project or activity of any department. and the heads of constitutional commission 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. the Speaker. Vs. and other officers whose appointment are vested in him in this Consti b. P.D. Such transfer may be made if there are savings. 1177 is unconstitutional. No. bureaus. appoint …” Who can the President appoint? a. The second sentence of provision says: He shall also appoint… No explicit reference to the need of COA’s consent was then mentioned. those whom the president may be authorized by law to appoint d. members of the National Assembly/Batasan Pambansa questioned the constitutionality of the presidential decree. • • • • President could only transfer funds to augment an item. offices and agencies of the Executive Department. 1177 paragraph 1 of Section 44: The President shall have the authority to transfer any fund. 1177 (Budget reform Decree of 1977) Facts: Petitioners. officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain. Article 8 of 1973 Consti: No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations. Appointments valid. Held: on Appointments’confirmation was required for mentioned presidential No. PD 1177 overextends powers of President. bureau. Only the first group of appointees requires explicitly the need for consent and confirmation. to any program. Section 16 (5). the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. heads of exe depts. and with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Allowed him to indiscriminately transfer funds from one dept to another. Held: PD No. appropriated for the different departments. . other public ministers and consuls. • authorizes illegal transfer of public money • does not specify purpose and objective of proposed transfer of funds • allows president to override the safeguards in approving appropriations • undue delegation of legislative powers to executive • such transfers are without or excess or their jurisdiction Issue: WON PD No. the Prime Minister.

on constitutional grounds. then Secretary of the Dept of Trade and Industry signed the Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations (Final Act) Petitioners sought: 1. for the nullification. While the Consti mandates economic nationalism. of the concurrence (Senate Resolution No. for the prohibition of its implementation Issues 1. Petitioners alleged that WTO agreement violated the Consti mandate to ‘develop a selfreliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos (Sec 19. Art 12). WON WTO agreement violated Consti mandate on economic nationalism . and locally produced goods (Section 12. WTO provided: * protection for weak economies thru oneon-one negotiations with developed 2. WON Court has jurisdiction Held/Ratio YES. domestic materials. 97) of the Philippine Senate in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing the WTO 2. Art 2) xxx to give preference to qualified Filipinos (Sec 10. • Consti does not rule out foreign competition. Angara Nature: Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court.Tañada vs. Art 12) and to promote the preferential use of Filipino labor. it also: • recognizes the need for business exchange with the world • exchanges need to be based on equality and reciprocity • Consti is only against unfair foreign competition. NO. Certiorari Facts: Respondent Rizalino Navarro.

It’s’ like historical kasi so medyo fun siya. No. institutions and general supervision of LGs as prov. Prohibition with preliminary injunction Facts: Emmanuel Pelaez. Auditor General Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. By law. which grants the prexy control over exe. branches and units (e.O. 3. E. 2370.s declared NULL and Void.Oo nga. di ba iba naman ung pinag-usapan ng dalawang laws? As in barrios and municipalities? . from passing in audit any expenditure of public funds in the implementation of the ff. • By surrendering state power. It is only administrative in as much as it allows the adoption of means and way to carry into effect the law creating the said municipalities. Admin.Admin.g. against the auditor general and his reps and agents.O.” Teka. he is in effect submitting local officials to submit to his dictation. Admin Code must be deemed repealed by the subsequent adoption of the 1935 Consti. 68 of Rev. lalo na kaya ang municipalities which are made up of barrios. May opinions pa. “ Barrios shall not be created or their boundaries altered nor their names changed except under the provisions of this Act or by Act of Congress.O. nations reap greater benefits which are results of the provisions of international law Constitutional! Emmanuel Pelaez vs.3. 121. E. Code. Code had already been repealed by Section 3 of Republic Act. This only grants him the authority to check whether the offices are performing their duties as provided by law. Section 10 (1) of Article VII of Consti. something denied of him by consti. Issue: WON the president has authority to create new municipalities Held: The court granted the petition on ff grounds: 1. Pero ang logic kasi dito. Act 2370).O. WON WTO Agreement unduly limits legislative power (a provision in the agreement says that Congress could not pass laws for national interest and general welfare if it were inconsistent with agreement) countries YES but that is not unconstitutional per se. E. Basahin nyo na lang. Sec.grants prexy control over exe. (boink. Nos 126-129 ( creating 33 municipalities) Section 68 of Rev. for a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction. 124. Admin Code -grants the prexy the power to create municipalities with the necessary stipulations provided by the legislative branch Pelaez maintained that section 68 of the Rev. the prexy did more than that. The creation of municipalities is not an administrative function but one. By creating new municipalities. • Treaties do limit absoluteness of sovereignty. E. (Section 3 of rep. orders from the prexy which the latter claimed as pursuant to Sec. which is essentially and eminently legislative in character. In the case at bar.O. vice president of the Phils. instituted this special civil. E. municipalities) but not the power to create or abolish new ones (this one’s legislative) 2.)  . exe. 68 of the Rev. Nos 93-21. barrios make up municipalities and because the president is not granted the power to create barrios.

Antonio Barredo E. Eulogio Rodriguez. and 226 were null and void.s in question: 62. Guerrero E. 192. as soon as this meeting occurs. Act. Sr (pres. Eugenio Angeles Nature: Prohibition and Mandamus Facts: Maraming kaso pala ‘to. 671 became inoperative. ______________________________________________ People and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp vs.O. 225. Of Nacionalista party) E. 225. 4. Kakastress. 192. 62 E. No 671. NO. null and void because Emergency Powers Act 1. 671) have ceased to exist. No 226.O. given nec. 62-regulates rentals for houses and lots for residential buildings Prays of writ of prohibition to judge and fiscal 2. 62.O. of the Phils. Of the Sugar Quota Office and the Commissioner of Customs to permit the exportation of shoes 3. Stipulations only in time of war or other national emergency.appropriates funds for the operation of the Gov. No.O.J.000.” (in effect. And authorizing the president to promulgate rules and regulations to meet such emergency. No. issued without authority of law as they were issued after May 25.O. Bakit legal ‘to despite sepation of powers? Section 26 of article 6 in the Consti: the Congress may grant the prexy te power to promulgate rules and reg. 225. 226 Basic premise of the petitioners: such E.O. No. Legal Basis: Act No. Issue: WON the E. Antonio Araneta vs Fiscal of Manila.aims to control exports from the Phils.O.000 to defray expenses in connection with and incidental to the holding of elections to be held in Nov.O.s are (Commonwelath Act NO. 1949 Asks court to prevent respondents from disbursing such amount E. judge ad interim of the CFI of Manila . J.O. Held: The court held that E.s included in the case at bar are null and void. Jose O. 671 Section 3: limits the emergency powers of prexy to the time the legislature was prevented from holdings sessions due to enemy action or other causes brought on by war “ the prexy shall as soon as practicable upon the convening of the Congress of the Phils report thereto all the rules and regulations promulgated by him under the powers herein granted. Leon Ma. ( pertinent to case at bar: forbids export of shoes) Seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Admin. An act declaring a state of total emergency as a result of war involving the Phils. the emergency powers or the prexy are deemed inoperative unless reenacted with authority from legislature) mas makapal pa ung pages for opinions compared to pages for the court’s decision. To carry out declared natl policy. 192.O. Applies for writ of prohibition to restrain the treasurer of the Phils from disbursing money under this E. 1946 when Congress first met ion regular session and Act no.appropriates Php 6. Antonio Araneta under prosecution for the violation of E.s Nos. Vera.

Added info: definitions Pardon: an act of grace. The constitutionality of Act 4221 is challenged on 3 grounds: 1. No. affected by it. So malamang Mariano did sumthin bad against Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corps. Certiorari and prohibition Facts: Petitioners pray for the issuance of the writs of certiorari and of prohibition so that the CFI of Manila may not entertain further the application for probation of Mariano Cu Unjieng. the exception to that general rule applies to cranial cases wherein the question may be raised for the first time at any stage of proceedings either in the trail court or on appeal if it is nec. Di nga tlga ‘to pwede di ba?) 3. WON the constitutionality of Act. law which binds and directs judges.) Issue: 1. Act 4221 may delay or modify such decision by virtue of the authority vested by legislature on it.prescribes in detailed manner the procedure for granting probation to accused persons after their conviction has become final and before they have served their sentence Held: the constitutional issue has been sufficiently presented not only in the Sc but also in the trial court. a substitution of a less penalty for the one originally imposed Reprieve or respite: withholding of sentence for an interval of time 2. Because Act 4221 is improper and is an unlawful delegation of leg. Duh nito ah. it is deemed unconstitutional and void. to pay costs and with reservation of civil action to Hongkong and Shanghai Banks. In effect. 2. Writ of prohibtion is granted. Executive pardon is against the crim. a remission of guilt. Basta crim. a forgiveness of offense Commutation: a remission of a part of the punishment. Judge Vera however declined to pass upon the question on the ground that the private prosecutor had no authority to raise the question because his rights were not affected by the statute. the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity.Probation Act . US vs.Nature: Original Action in the Supreme Court. However. Case ‘to. Wait… ano ba ‘tong case ni Mariano Cu Unjieng? Ahmm. (grabe. sooner or later. the latter would be committed to prison in accordance with the final judgment of conviction rendered by court. Decisions of the judicial bodies are deemed final. affect them (huh? Intindihan nyo ba?) Possible Sir Agabin Question: But was it right to raise the issue of constitutionality only after the proceedings of the case? Shouldn’t they have done that before? Possible Answer: In most cases. Power. the constitutionality of any statute is relevant to every person who will be. ANG TANG HO Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Manila . thus have every right to raise the question of constitutionality of such statute which may. It is a purely judicial act which does not exempt probationer from the entire punishment which the law inflicts. it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power (the court ruled in the affirmative. Final Conviction: indeterminate penalty ranging from 4 years and two months of prision correctional to 8 years of prision mayor. WON said act is constitutional. to the decision of the case. it encroaches upon the pardoning power of the executive (probation is different from pardon. it denies equal protection of laws Act 4221 is unconstitutional and void. di ko yata nadiscover kung ano ginawa niya. Simply stated. if issue 1 is in the affirmative. sooner or later. 4221 has been properly raised in these proceedings • Act 4221. The People of the Philippines.

and corn under extraordinary circumstances…yada yada yada.O. and Minister of Justice from taking any action in implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 1919. which was later amended by E. the Governor-General issued a proclamtion fixing the price at which rice should be sold (E.O. and Good Govt. Act No. . 2868 An act penalizing the monopoly and hoarding of.O. No.) Gualberto J. 42…sponsored by Chairman of the Committee on Justice. 129: An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary. Manuel Alba. They are not devoid of any personal and substantial interest over the issue of the constitutionality of the statute in dispute.O. No. On August 1. Issue: WON E.O. Minister of Budget Nature: Petition directly filed with the Supreme Court for the adjudication of the Constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. N0. rice. the law is simply a response to the need for institutional reforms which would result in: a. Chairman of the Commission on Audit. City Court of Olongapo) vs. On August 7. Such specific stipulations are for the legislature to decide. more efficiency in the disposal of cases b.80/ganta). Ang Tang Ho was charged and subsequently found gulity with a violation of the mentioned proclamation for selling rice at an excessive price ( . 129 Issue: WON Batas Pambansa Blg. (basahin niyo ung orig to get the full idea of what the act was all about. 53). improvement of quality of justice 2. 1. It does not however grant the Governor General the power to fix the prices of rice without justifiable cause. and speculation in. 2868 is a general rule regarding the regulation of palay. 1980. De La Llana (judge Brnach 2. 129 is unconstitutional Held: The court’s opinion was: Batas Pambansa Blg. and corn sales. * Cabinet Bill no. 1919. Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes.Facts: Act No. 53 is constitutional and valid. 3. rice. 1980. palay. arbitrariness of Batas Pambansa Blg. On August 8. No 53 is unconstitutional and void. Human Rights. 129 Petitioners did not take notice of context of the promulgation of such statute. 619-A dated September 5. lack of standing of petitioners? Judge de la Llana and the other petitioners are members of the bar. Held: The court ruled that E. 129 Facts: Batas Pambansa Blg. Petitioners sought to enjoin Minister of Budget. a Presidential Committee on Judicial reorganization was organized thru an E. 129 is not unconstitutional.

1981-lifted martial law) divest Military Commission No. modifications of court jurisdictions * Batas Pambansa Blg. 2) conspiracy to assassinate Marcoses. • • Decision: Military Commission NO. 129 also results in the abolition of certain inferior courts in the process of modifying court jurisdictions. 34 violated due process of law (unconstitutional) YES. Provided by legislature for the President as Commander-in-Chief To aid him in properly commanding the army and navy and enforcing discipline therein Case at bar involves criminal offenses. July 30. • • • • • Military Tribunals are executive institutions. and Corpus. 34 Facts: • • • May 30. 34 to try the case.c. and inciting to rebellion Petitioners claimed that: • military commissions cannot try civilians for offenses committed during martial law • the proceedings of Military Commission No. proceedings have to be done in those places except when the offenses are merely administrative in nature 2. 2045 (January 17. 1980: amended charges to: 1) unlawful possession of explosives and incendiary devices. Olaguer vs. However. 5) arson of 9 buildings 6) attempted murder of Messrs. Valencia. 34: unconstitutional Execution of petitioners permanently suspended . Only judiciary can interpret what constitutes criminal offense Besides. this is not a violation of powers since such abolitions will be done in good faith and for the attainment of a better judicial system as was the intended purpose of the statue in the first place. WON military commissions can try civilians for offenses committed during martial law when civil courts were open Held/Ratio NO. 34 violated due process of law Issues 1. Military Commission No. 885-Revised Anti-Subversion Law) upon the recommendation of the respondent Judge Advocate General (Gen. Roño. violated Section 18. Tangco. and Generals Espino and Ver 7) conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion. 1980: petitioners were charged for subversion (PD No. Proclamation No. Hamilton Dimaya) and the approval of the respondent Minister of National Defense (Juan Ponce Enrile) Respondent Chief of Staff of AFP (General Romeo Espino) created the Military Commission No. Leonardo Perez. 34 of its ‘supposed’ authority to try civilians. 34 Nature: Petitions for certiorari and prohibition to review the order of the Military Commission No. 3) conspiracy to assassinate Messrs. Article 7: state of martial does not suspend Consti nor shall it supplant functioning of civil courts to military tribunals (gist lang ‘to) so long as civil courts are open. WON Military Commission NO.

• HOWEVER.aah. prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction Facts: • • • Commissioner of Customs Manuel Manahan filed an administrative complaint against Collector of Customs Ang-Angco.does the President have aah. officials cannot be arbitrarily removed from office by heads (section 4. as Department Head of the Civil Service Commission. investigation was still ongoing. Wait…ano case ni Ang-Angco?? He authorized the release of Pepsi-Cola’s 1. He did that under the verbal expression of approval of release by Secretary of Finance Hernandez. For grave neglect of duty and observance of a conduct prejudicial to the interest of the customs service IN RESPONSE TO THAT: • President Magsaysay created a committee to investigate on Ang-Angco’s case.Ang-Angco vs. he did not issue approval because he said Collector of Customs had no jurisdiction over case. Castillo Nature: Original Petition in the SC.the power to remove anybody from office? Yes. whose decision shall be final (Section 18. it also provides that the removal should be pursuant to Civil Service Act of 1959 AND • • Civil Service Act of 1959 provides that officers and employees who belong to the classified service (Collector of Customs is an example) shall be tried by the Commissioner of Civil Service or the Civil Service Board of Appeals. Issue: WON Executive Secretary.. with authority from President. Decision: Ang-Angco reinstated to position. • Executive Secretary Castillo. Certiorari. article 12 of Consti). • Section 79 of RAC provides an implied vested power on President. • Rendered final judgment on Ang-Angco’s case finding the latter • GUILTY of conduct prejudicial to the best interst of the customs service • And considered him resigned from the position. • After Magsaysay’s death. Republic Act 2260) But. to quote a friend: what an orgasmic piece of legislation) AND President’s control is only refers to matters of general policy: means a settled or definite course or method adopted and followed by govt Also...188 units of concentrates which were held by customs for lack of dollar allocation or remittance to foreign exchange. Initially. (grabe ang galing ng logic ng decision na ‘to. with authority from President can render final judgment on an administrative case without submitting such direct action to the Commissioner of Civil Service and remove official from office Held: NO Ratio: Under Section 16(i) of the Civil Service Act of 1959: • • the Commissioner of Civil Service has original and exclusive jurisdiction to decided administrative cases of all officers and employees in the classified service limitation to that provision: the Commissioner’s decision may be appealed to the Civil Service Board of Appeals. • At the time of Magsaysay’s death. .

this lasts until end of term of sentence.Monsanto vs. • it does not provide the right of the extraditee to demand from the Secretary of Justice copies of the extradition request from US while the request is still undergoing evaluation 2. Factoran said reappointment was necessary. Decision: Not reinstated to office. 3. WHY?? Because pardon is not necessarily a declaration that no crime was committed. Temporary absolute disqualification bars convict from public office. 1069 (RP-US Extradition Treaty) provides the time when an extraditee shall be furnished a copy of the petition for extradition. Marcos granted petitioner absolute pardon. Factoran Nature: Petition to review the resolution of the Deputy Executive Secretary Facts: • • • THEN: • • • • petitioner appealed and filed a motion of reconsideration upon court’s decision to affirm prior ruling of conviction. Ratio: • • • • • The petitioner was convicted by Sandiganbayan of estafa has an accessory penalty of temporary absolute disqualification. No backpays or paybacks ba tama na term? Secretary of Justice vs. March 25. then Deputy Executive Secretary. Held: NO. COURT SAID: . Pardon excuses one from serving the punishment of the crime but does not dissolve the crime itself. The effect of Marcos’ pardon was simply to remove principal penalty BUT NOT the accessory penalty UNLESS the pardon expressly provides that accessory penalties are to be removed also. is entitled to reinstatement to her former position without need of a new appointment Held: NO. Lantion Nature: Petition for… Facts: Issue: WON private respondent Mark Jimenez is entitled to the due process right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. Who has been granted an absolute pardon by the Chief executive. Ratio: 1. 1983: Sandiganbayan convicted Salvacion Mosanto (then assistant treasurer of Calbayog City) And three other accused Of the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents Issue: WON a public officer. Petitioner then asked for reinstatement to her position but was denied by Fulgenio Factoran. PD No. giving the private respondent copy of the request might serve as notice to flee Private respondent assailed that an extradition proceeding is like a criminal proceeding and thus he has the right to a notice and a hearing HOWEVER. During the pendency of the motion.

bombings of the COMELEC building. YES. 889 violated par. section 10 of article 7 of Consti Held/Ratio No. Was provisional arrest a threat to his liberty? No. However. Lansang vs. YES. The existence of the CPP and the NPA were clear proof of the state of rebellion and insurrection of the country. 889-A.a. 1971 at Plaza Miranda where the Liberal Party of the Philippines was holding a public meeting for the presentation of its candidates for the November 8. 4 section 1 of article 3 and par 2. Garcia Nature: Facts: Two hand grenade explosions occurred on August 21. REVERSED. insurrection. Eight persons were killed and many were injured. crim is full blown c. court held that with the modifications thru Proclamation No. These groups believe that force and violence are indispensable to the attainment of their goal. 1971 elections. In the case at bar. Provisional arrest happens only upon receipt of request for extradition. extradition: president has final discretion to extradite him THUS: • due process safeguards do not necessarily apply to the former 4. WON Proclamation No. Petitioners sought for writs of habeas corpus after being arrested without a warrant therefore and detained. It was only issued upon filing of the petition for extradition. Decision: no need to provide copies. Petitioners initially contended that the proclamation was made based solely on the idea that there was a conspiracy and intent to rise in arms among several groups in the country. suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Marcos declared that the ‘enemy groups’ had already entered into the conspiracy and have in fact joined together to engage in armed insurrection and rebellion. Issue 1. They questioned the validity of Proclamation No. or rebellion or imminent danger therof WON public safety required the suspension of the privilege . extradition proceedings do not involve determination of guilt b. extradition process was still at evaluation level. As a result. Threat to respondent’s liberty was hypothetical. 889. 2. The Plaza Miranda incident was only one among the many violent incidences that brought forth such proclamation. Was warrant of arrest for the temporary detention a threat to his liberty? No. 889. WON there was invasion. US had not requested for that arrest 5. Marcos issued Proclamation No. President had in his possession records of killings of several government officials by the CPP. extradition is summary in nature.

YES. IN case of invasion. WON petitioners are covered by said proclamation as amended MERALCO. the President can: 1) call out the armed forces 2) suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus 3) put Philippines or any part therof under martial law . and others. They have been charged for a violation of the Anti-Subversion Act and were then covered by the proclamation.3. insurrection or rebellion.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful