You are on page 1of 10

SPRINGER ET AL. vs. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 5. NCC officers are not gov’t officers.

Thus, this does not belong to Governor
AGONCILLO vs. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS General’s asserted power of appointing persons to public office.
Certiorari to the Philippine Supreme Court [May 14, 1928] 6. Philippine statutes involved have received implied sanction of Congress &
should not be disturbed (Clinton vs. Englebrecht) – Meaning: since US
FACTS: Congress did not nullify these statutes, we can imply that they are valid &
 National Coal Company (NCC): created by Act 2706 approved March 10, 1917 upheld by US Congress. During this time, laws enacted by Phil Legislature
w/subsequent amendments. Voting power of all stocks owned by PI gov’t shall were subj to review of US Congress.
be vested exclusively in a committee composed of the Gov Gen, Senate Pres,  Respondents contend:
and House Speaker. 1. Statutes stripped Gov Gen all supervision/control over the NCC & NB and
 National Bank (NB): created by Act 2612 approved Feb. 4, 1916 w/subsequent vested direction of mgt & operation of such in Congress thru the majority.
amendments. Phil. gov’t owns 97,332 out of the 100,000 shares. Remainder Stripping gov gen of his powers violates Sec. 22 of the Organic Act w/c
held by private persons. Originally, voting power was vested exclusively on Gov provides that all exec functions must be under the Gov Gen or w/in one of
Gen. However, by amendment, such power was transferred to the Board of the exec. Depts. under his supervision & control.
Control composed of Gov Gen, Senate Pres, and House Speaker. Power to 2. Selection & removal of managing directors & officers, and direction of
appoint bank Pres & VP, removed from Gov Gen too. Directors to decide such operation are not legislative functions. No making/repealing of laws or
among themselves. Directors will also vote for a gen mgr subject to advice & anything incidental to such is involved.
consent of Board of Control. 3. Relation of PI gov’t to these corp. (proprietary/sovereign) and functions
 The Boards of Control of both the NCC & NB appointed one director each performed by these corp. (governmental or private business) are
without Gov Gen’s participation. Philippine government instituted proceedings immaterial. Gov Gen, and not legislative body, has power to perform
quo warranto against the petitioners claiming that formulation of these bodies administrative or executive functions in all instances mentioned.
invaded the Governor-General’s appointing power. Philippine SC ordered the 4. If Board of Control post is different from Gov Gen, Senate Pres. Or House
ouster of the two as directors of the aforementioned institutions. Thus, Speaker positions, then selection of representative is an exec act. And if
petitioners brought this appeal to the US SC. functions to be performed are exec or administrative in charac, selection is
 Petitioners contend: likewise not legislative.
1. Voting power of the NCC’s government-owned stock is not an office. 5. Congress cannot make appointments to exec/administrative positions & it
Alleged invasion of Gov Gen’s general power of appointing persons to may not confer executive or administrative functions on legislative officials.
public office are beside the point. (Sheboyan County vs. Parker) 6. Inaction of US Congress is of no consequence. It is invalid because it is in
2. Phil Legislature shares general legislative powers exercised by States & conflict w/ the Organic Act. Its invalidity does not depend on Congress
Territories. Congress can create corporations to attain objects w/in its reiteration.
powers & provide for organization & mgt of such corp., including conferring
voting power of corporate stock. Granting this voting power to parties other ISSUE: WON voting power in the government-owned stock belongs to Congress.
than the executive officers of the gov’t has been done in the cases of the
Smithsonian Institution & National Home for Disabled Soldiers. HELD: NO. It’s an executive rather than a legislative function. Phil SC affirmed.
3. Congress likewise uses privately owned stock companies to attain its Since Congress has not yet decided as to whether such power should be exercised
objectives using an extra-governmental means (California vs. Pacific R.R. by the Gov Gen or by any of the exec depts., power will be vested on Gov Gen.
Co.). Such corporations exercise some executive functions if allowed to do
so by Congress. However even if they are used as instruments of Congress, RATIO:
they often retain the stock-voting power. (Meaning: Congress doesn’t 1. Take note that legislature similarly devolved voting power in at least 4 other
transfer such powers to the executive and instead confides such to the corps: Nat’l Petroleum Co., Nat’l Dev’t Co., Nat’l Cement Co., Nat’l Iron Co.
private stockowners.) Government ownership is insufficient to blur proof that Congress has been taking direct control over nationally
corporate lines that separate corporations from the gov’t that created them organized/controlled stock corp. accdg to Sol Gen.
(Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank). Corporate lines are blurred 2. Organic Act follows established rule of American Consti – dividing gov’t into 3
simply because these corporations are granted governmental privileges & separate departments:
protection. But in terms of management, these corp. are still considered as a. Executive power on executive officer/Gov Gen (Sec. 21). Among executive
separate entities (Russel Motor Car Co. vs. US) functions mentioned: gen supervision of gov’t depts. and bureaus (Sec.
4. Even if voting-power should remain with the government, it should still be 22), faithful execution of laws, etc.
within the powers of the legislative officers to do so. Sec. 3, Art. 4 of the b. Legislative power on Phil Legislature (Sec. 8). Among its duties are: to
Consti provides that the Pres or heads of exec depts only enjoy powers to increase no. or abolish exec depts. or make changes in names & duties as
use or dispose public property if allowed by Congress. Powers of Congress it may seem fit, provide for appointment & removal of heads of exec depts.
in caring for gov’t properties are plenary w/c includes power of direction. by Gov Gen. (Sec. 22)
Exec depts. are mere agents or instrumentalities of Congress limited to c. Sec. 26 recognizes SC & CFIs.
performing detail of such care.
Some constitutions provide for such division expressly, while some, like the  March 1921 all the judges of first instance were called to Manila by the
Organic Act implies such. Division means one department can’t exercise Secretary of Justice to participate in a “drawing of lots” for judicial districts.
functions reserved another department unless otherwise expressly provided or  Members of the Philippine Bar challenged the constitutionality of Act. No.
incidental to powers conferred. 2941. Section 1 of this act amended section 148 of the Administrative
3. Legislative powers is authority to make laws but not to enforce them or appoint Code. Sec. 1 provides: Unless otherwise provided, on March 15, 1921 and
agents to enforce such since this is an exec function. They can only do so if every five years thereafter, the judges of first instance with the same
such is expressly granted or incidental to their powers. Act of vesting voting salaries shall exchange judicial districts, and the same shall be done by
power on the Board of Control is neither legislative nor incidental to Congress’ auxiliary judges as to the respective groups of judicial districts in which
legislative functions. It is not judicial either. Left w/no choice, then, it’s a task of they shall serve during the ensuing 5-year period. The exchange of
the executive dept. These corp. are owned by the gov’t thus sovereign or districts or groups of judicial districts shall be determined by lot between
proprietary functions are immaterial. Both functions are done in their the judges affected, observing the following rule, which shall be
governmental capacity. And in dealing w/properties of gov’t Congress is mandatory: no judge shall continue to serve in the district or group in
supposed to make rules & not execute them. Thus, it cannot appoint which he has been serving during the last five years.
managers/directors because such is an exec function. These directors are public  The petitioner in this case a judge of first instance of the City of Manila.
agents exercising exec functions thus beyond Congress’ appointing power.
Similar to what the Court held in Stockman vs. Leddy, Congress here has made Issue: WON the provision of Act. No. 2941, which determines the judicial districts
an executive agent to carry out the law it has made. This is an attempt to by lots, is unconstitutional.
confer executive power on its members. Such is invalid because it violated the
tripartite division of the governmental powers. Held: No
4. In cases such as the Smithsonian Institution mentioned above, Congress has
uniformly recognized exec authority in their mgt & provided in express terms Ratio:
that shares shall be voted by an exec officer & did not grant such power to  An act of the Philippine Legislature which has not been expressly
mems of Congress. Besides, these are very rare instances involving institutions disapproved by Congress is valid unless the subject-matter has been
w/peculiar characters. covered by Congressional legislation, or its enactment forbidden by some
5. The Organic Act in the Gov. General in fact vests powers asserted by Congress. provision of the organic law.
See Sec. 22 provisions. Sec. 21 enumerates instances when Gov Gen can make  Organic Act vests upon the supreme executive power in the Governor-
appointments. However, given the general grant stated in Sec. 22, we can infer General. He has the authority to appoint and commission officers and the
that enumeration was not intended to be exclusive. Philippine Senate has the authority to reject or confirm appointments made
6. Inaction of US Congress does not mean it was approved by that body. Long by the Governor-General. It is specifically stated that the judges of the
acquiescence of Congress may mean that law is valid or properly constructed Courts of First Instance shall be appointed by the Governor-General, by
but it doesn’t confirm legislature’s power to enact it. Inference will not lie where and with the advice and consent of the Philippine Senate.
law is clearly void for violating the Organic Act. Approval needs requires  Appointment to office is intrinsically an executive act involving the exercise
something more than such inaction. of discretion.
 Judges of first instance are selected for positions on the bench, the
Holmes, Dissent; Brandeis concurs: Divisions in Consti are not clear-cut. There appointments so made are for specific office (oath of office specifically
will always be penumbras. He outlined instances wherein the departments indicates the jurisdiction of the judge. Example ninth judicial district).
transgressed upon functions of the other departments such as Courts exercise They hold these positions of judges of first instance for definite districts
lawmaking by regulating processes or the President changing tariffs or the Congress until they either resign, reach the age of retirement, or are removed
delegating powers masked as quasi-judicial/executive/legislative tasks. Difficult to through impeachment proceedings.
carryout distinctions with mathematical precision. Sec. 22 is not applicable. Private  If judicial districts are determined by lot then either of the two
corporations are involved & as such, they do not perform functions of the contingencies must happen.
government, regardless of who owned the stock. Congress has incorporated these o Would go to another district than that to which he was appointed,
corporations & thus, they fall w/in legislative control. If Congress act in the pursuant to the certification of the Secretary of Justice – violates
Smithsonian Institution was legitimate, this should be legitimized too. the law
o Go to a new district pursuant to a new appointment by the
Reynolds, Dissent: Opinion goes beyond the necessities of the case. Sec. 22, if Governor-General by and with advice advice and consent of the
read in the light of all the circumstances & considering language employed if enough Philippine Senate – violate the law (instead of an exercise of
to overthrow challenged legislation. judgement they would only be required to perform a ministerial
Concepcion vs. Paredes [December 23, 1921]  Nature of indirect removals which would conceivably be in derogation of
Original Action in the Supreme Court. Prohibition. the powers conferred by the fundamental law on the Supreme Court and

the Governor-General, and selection by chance for new districts to which HELD: RA No 972 is unconstitutional, and therefore, void and w/o any for nor effect
the judges have never been appointed. except for the part in Art 1 re 1953-55 examinations, which shall continue in effect.
 Organic law would require selection for judicial positions by the Governor-
General with the assent of the Philippine Senate. Chance has been RATIO:
substituted for executive judgement. 1) In admitting 810 candidates in mass who were admitted were inadequately
 It is not within the power of the Philippine Legislature to enact laws which prepared to practice law and failed the bar exams in 1946-1952, the Court is
either expressly or impliedly diminish the authority conferred by an Act of obliged to perform something contrary to reason and in an arbitrary manner. It
Congress on the Chief Executive and a branch of the Legislature. is clearly an encroachment on SC’s constitutional responsibility. Furthermore, it
 Power of appointment and confirmation vested by the Organic Act in the is contrary to public interest because it qualifies ill-prepared law graduates
governor-general and the Philippine Senate is usurped by a lottery of for the practice of the profession. The legal profession is entrusted w/ the
judicial offices every five years. protection of property, life, honor and civil liberties. Public interest demands of
it adequate preparation and efficiency. Admitting the subject law graduates
In re: Albino Cunanan, et al. would create a serious social danger.
Original action in the SC (1954)
2) In effect, it is a judgment revoking the resolution of the Court on the petitions
FACTS (Diokno, J.): of the candidates, w/o first checking their respective examination papers.
→ June 1953: RA No 972, “Bar Flunkers Act of 1953”, became law. It states that Although the Court can revise or reconsider the resolution, RA No 972 is still
any bar candidate who obtained a general average of : violative of the Constitution.
• 70% after July 4, 1946 to Aug 1951 3) Congress has exceeded its legislative power limited to repeal, alter and
• 71% in 1952 supplement the rules on admission to the Bar. The rules set by Congress
• 72% in 1953 through RA No 972 will only be considered by the Court as permissive in
• 73% in 1954 character, as minimum norms towards that end in the admission, suspension,
• 74% in 1955 disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers to the Bar, inasmuch as a good bar
w/o obtaining a grade below 50% in any subject shall be allowed to take and assists immensely in the daily performance of judicial functions and is essential
subscribe the corresponding oath of office as member of the Phil Bar provided that to a worthy administration of justice. SC had the primary and inherent
any exact ½ of more of a fraction shall be considered as 1.00 and included as part prerogative to render the ultimate decision and authority on who may be
of the next whole number (rounded off in short). admitted and may continue in the practice of law. However, the powers of
→ Unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a few percentage lower than these coordinate and independent branches are not repugnant when exercised
those admitted to the Bar have brought this case to Court believing themselves w/in their proper constitutional limits but rather complementary to each other
as fully qualified to practice law. in attaining the establishment of a Bar that would respond to the increasing and
→ In reviewing the many cases for reconsideration, the Court shall apply equally exacting necessities of the administration of justice.
to all concerned whether they have filed petitions in Court or not RA No 972, if 4) The pretended classification of candidates, which RA No 972 makes, is arbitrary,
declared valid. The total number of candidates benefited will be 1,094, of w/c contrary to facts and does not justify the admission to the Bar of law students
only 604 have filed petitions. inadequately prepared. It is a class legislation for there is no actual nor
→ This law has no precedent in its favor. SC could not find a case in w/c the reasonable basis to classify unsuccessful bar candidates by years nor to exclude
those of other years. A classification to be valid must rest upon material
validity of a similar law had been sustained except for US case State v. Cooper1
differences between the person included in it and those excluded. It must also
and England case State v. Cannon2.
be based upon substantial distinctions and founded upon pertinent and real
ISSUE: WON RA No 972 is unconstitutional
5) Art 2 of RA No 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what the
Consti enjoins, and thus being inseparable from the provisions of Art 1, the
entire law is void.
State v. Cooper: SC held that in intending to make the college diploma a competent evidence of the legal 6) The part in Art 1 that states all candidates who in the examinations of 1953-55
attainments of the applicant and nothing else, the Legislature did not take away from the Court its obtained a general average of 71.5% or more, without having a grade below
jurisdiction over the question of admission. It simply prescribed what shall be competent evidence in 50% in any subject are considered as having passed shall continue to take
certain cases upon that question. effect inasmuch as 8 votes were lacking to declare the part a nullity.
State v. Cannon: The Legislature may constitutionally prescribe the qualifications for admission to the
bar however such legislative qualifications do not constitute the ultimate qualifications deemed necessary NOTES:
for the proper administration of judicial functions. There is no legislative power to compel courts to admit Laws are unconstitutional on the ff grounds:
to their bars persons deemed by them unfit to exercise the prerogatives of an attorney at law. Moreover, it 1) when they are not w/in the legislative powers of Congress to enact or in excess
is clear that licensing of an attorney is and always has been a purely judicial function, no matter where the of its powers
power to determine the qualifications may reside.
2) because they create or establish arbitrary methods or forms that infringe Respondents refuse to issue the required export license on the ground that
constitutional principles the exportation of shoes from the Philippines is forbidden by EO No. 192
3) when their purposes or effects violate the Consti and its basic principles. (aims to control exports from the Philippines)
RA No. 972 suffers from all these fatal defects. o L-3054: Petitioner, as a tax-payer, an elector, and president of the
Nacionalista Party, applies for a writ of prohibition to restrain the Treasurer
Labrador, J., concurring and dissenting: of the Philippines from disbursing E.O. No. 225 (appropriates funds for the
The right to admit members to the Bar is and always has been the exclusive operation of the Philippine Government during the period from July 1, 1949
privilege of the Court in the principle of separation of powers. The discretion used is to June 30, 1950, and for other purposes)
judicial in its exercise as distinguished from the congressional power to promulgate o L-3056: petitioner, with reference to EO No. 226 (appropriates P6M to
rules that regulate admission. RA No. 972 in toto should be declared defray the expenses in connection with, and incidental to, the hold lug of
unconstitutional because it is an undue interference w/ the power of the Court to the national elections to be held in Nov. 1949), asks this Court to prevent
admit members thereof, and because it is discriminatory. "the respondents from disbursing, spending or otherwise disposing of that
amount or any part of it."
Paras, J., dissenting:  As petitioners fail to assailing the constitutionally of Act No. 671 in their oral
The reasonableness of RA no 972 was determined by Congress through public argument and memorandum (they rest their case chiefly on the proposition that
hearings and the Act reflects good legislative judgment derived from the facts and the CA No. 671 has ceased to have any force and effect), constitutionality of
circumstances then brought out. Congress then, representing the people who said act will be taken for granted.
elected them, should be more qualified to make an appraisal. RA No 972 should be  Act No. 671, enacted by the National Assembly, is an act declaring a state of
accepted for it is an expression of the will of the people through their duly elected total emergency as a result of war between the United States and other
representatives. countries of Europe and Asia, which involves the Philippines and authorizing the
president to promulgate rules and regulations to meet such emergency,
ARANETA v. DINGLASAN pursuant to Art. VI, sec. 26, of the Constitution. The problem is, CA No. 671
84 Phil. 368 (1949) does not in term fix the duration of its effectiveness

G.R. No. L-2044: J. ANTONIO ARANETA, petitioner, vs. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, Issue: WON CA No. 671 has ceased to have any force and effect
Judge of First Instance of Manila, and JOSE P. BENGZON, Fiscal of
City of Manila, respondents. Held and Ratio
G.R. No. L-2756: J. ANTONIO ARANETA and GREGORIO VILLAMOR,  YES. Art. VI of the Constitution provides that any law passed by virtue thereof
petitioners, vs. EUGENIO ANGELES, Fiscal of City of Manila, should be "for a limited period." "Limited period" as used in the Constitution
respondent. means restrictive in duration. Emergency, in order to justify the delegation of
G.R. No. L-3054: EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, Sr., por si y como Presidente del emergency powers, must be temporary or it can not be said to be an
Partido Nacionalista, recurrente, vs. EL TESORERO DE FILIPINAS, emergency.
recurrido (eyng?).  It is to be presumed that CA No. 671 was approved with this limitation in view
G.R. No. L-3055: LEON MA. GURRERO, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER as the opposite would make the law repugnant to the Constitution, and contrary
OF CUSTOMS and THE ADMINISTRATOR, SUGAR QUOTA OFFICE, to the principle that the legislature is deemed to have full knowledge of the
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, respondents. constitutional scope of its powers. The assertion that new legislation is needed
G.R. No. L-3056: ANTONIO BARREDO, in his own behalf and on behalf of all to repeal the act would not be in harmony with the Constitution either.
taxpayers similarly situated, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON  Moreover, the fact that Sec. 4, CA No. 471 (which stipulates that "the rules and
ELECTIONS, THE AUDITOR GENERAL and THE INSULAR TREASURER regulations promulgated thereunder shall be in full force and effect until the
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. Congress of the Philippines shall otherwise provide") is silent regarding the
repeal of the authority itself, in the face of the express provision for the repeal of
Facts: the rules and regulations issued in pursuance of it only means that the National
 As the issue is of transcendental importance, technicalities or procedure, Assembly believed that there was no necessity to provide for a provision
particularly petitioners’ personality or sufficiency of interest and the question regarding the repeal of the authority itself. There would be no point in repealing
whether prohibition lies, was brushed aside. or annulling the rules and regulations promulgated under a law if the law itself
 Petitions challenge the validity of executive orders of the President issued in was to remain in force, since, in that case, the President could not only make
virtue of the Emergency Powers Act (CA No. 671) new rules and regulations but he could restore the ones already annulled by the
o L-2044 and L-2756: Petitioner is under prosecution in the Manila, CFI for legislature.
violation of provisions of EO No. 62 (regulates rentals for houses and lots  It would anomalous to have two legislative bodies (Legislative and Executive)
for residential buildings) and prays for the issuance of the writ of prohibition operating over the same field, legislating concurrently and simultaneously,
to the judge and the city fiscal. mutually nullifying each other's actions. Even if the emergency powers of the
o L-3055: Leon Ma. Guerrero seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the President, as suggested, be suspended while Congress was in session and be
respondents to permit the exportation of shoes by the petitioner. revived after each adjournment, the anomaly would not be limited. Congress by
a 2/3 vote could repeal executive orders promulgated by the President during than the rules and regulations. The design to provide for the automatic repeal of
congressional recess, and the President in turn could treat in the same manner, those rules and regulations necessarily was predicated on the consciousness of a
between sessions of Congress, laws enacted by the latter. prior or at best simultaneous repeal of their source.
 Aside from these anomalies, Sec. 3—which provides that the President shall as  The question whether war, in law or in fact, continues, is irrelevant. If we were
soon as practicable upon the convening of the Congress report thereto all the to that actual hostilities between the original belligerents are still raging, the
rules and regulations promulgated by him under the powers herein granted— elusion would not be altered.
implies that there was to be only one meeting of Congress at which the  In the light of the conditions surrounding the approval of the Emergency Power
President was to give an account of his trusteeship. Act, we are of the opinion that the "state of total emergency as a result of war"
 Moreover, Pres. Quezon, who called the National Assembly to a special session, envisaged in the preamble referred to the impending invasion and occupation of
who recommended the enactment of the Emergency Powers Act, if indeed he the Philippines by the enemy and the consequent total disorganization of the
was not its author, and who was the very President to be entrusted with its Government, principally the impossibility for the National Assembly to act. The
execution, stated in his autobiography, that CA No. 671 was only "for a certain state of affairs was one which called for immediate action and with which the
period" and "would become invalid unless reenacted." These connote automatic National Assembly would not be able to cope. The war itself and its attendant
extinction of the law upon the conclusion of a certain period. A new legislation chaos and calamities could not have necessitated the delegation had the
was necessary to keep alive (not to repeal) the law after the expiration of that National Assembly been in a position to operate.
period.  A Note on the System of Separation of Powers: The Constitution has set up
 What then was the contemplated period? Pres. Quezon said he issued the call for this form of government, with all its defects and shortcomings, in preference to
a special session of the National Assembly "when it became evident that we the commingling of powers in one man or group of men. The Filipino people by
were completely helpless against air attack, and that it was most unlikely the adopting parliamentary government have given notice that they share the faith
Philippine Legislature would hold its next regular session which was to open on of other democracy-loving people in this system, with all its faults, as the ideal.
January 1, 1942." From that, the conferring of enormous powers upon the The point is, under this framework of government, legislation is preserved for
President was decided upon with specific view to the inability of the National Congress all the time, not expecting periods of crisis no matter how serious. The
Assembly to meet, as no other factor than this inability could have motivated truth is that under our concept of constitutional government, in times of extreme
the delegation of powers so vast as to amount to an abdication by the National perils more than in normal circumstances "the various branches, executive,
Assembly of its authority. legislative, and judicial," given the ability to act, are called upon "to the duties
 HELD: Thus, the Court held that the period contemplated from the foregoing was and discharge the responsibilities committed to them respectively." (Thus, the
a period coextensive with the inability of Congress to function, a period ending President should not retain his extraordinary powers as long as turmoil and
with the convening of that body. Particularly, CA No. 671 became inoperative other ills directly or indirectly traceable to the late war harass the Philippines)
when Congress met, not in the first special session where the Congress may
"consider general legislation or only such as he (President) may designate." (Art. Votes:
VI(9), Constitution) but in regular session on May 25, 1946 where the power  MORAN, C. J., concurring
Congress to legislate is not circumscribed except by the limitations imposed by  PARAS, J., concurring
the organic law. The Court further held that EO Nos. 62, 192, 225 and 226 were  MONTEMAYOR, J., concurring and dissenting
issued without authority of law (because they were issued when CA No. 671 was  TORRES, J., concurring
not in full force and effect).  REYES, J., concurring and dissenting:
 Having arrived at this conclusion, the Court need not decide the question as to  PADILLA, J., concurring and dissenting
which department of government is authorized to inquire whether the  BENGZON, J., dissenting:
contingency on which the law is predicated still exists. The right of one or
another department to declare the emergency terminated is not in issue. For lack of the required number of votes, judgment was not obtained. However,
 What the Court in this case did is to find out the will of legislature and, once after rehearing, the required number of votes was had, by resolution of September
found, to apply it. Of course, the function of interpreting statutes in proper 16, 1949, which follows.
cases, as in this, will not be denied the courts as their constitutional prerogative
and duty. RESOLUTION: MORAN, C. J.:
 No legal principle can be found to support the proposition that the Chief Issues:
Executive has the exclusive authority to say that war has not ended, and may 1. WON Mr. Justice Padilla is qualified to act in these cases
act on the strength of his opinion and findings in contravention of the law as the Yes. A litigant…cannot be permitted to speculate upon the action of the court
courts have construed it. and raise an objection of this sort after decision has been rendered.
 Another peg to the ratio decidendi (naks! Method ang dating! Haha!) Acts Nos. Furthermore, the fact that Justice Padilla, while Secretary of Justice, had advised
600 and 620 even imparts by express provision that the rules and regulations to the President on the question of emergency powers, does not disqualify him to
be eventually made in pursuance of Acts Nos. 600 and 620, were to be good act in these cases, for he cannot be considered as having acted previously in
only up to the corresponding dates of adjournment of the following sessions of these actions as counsel of any of the parties. The President is not here a party.
the Legislature, "unless sooner amended or repealed by the National Assembly."
From this the idea was fixed that the Acts themselves would lapse not latter
2. WON the vote cast by the late Mr. Justice Perfecto before his death may  The rule, under sec. 9 of RA No. 296 and Art. VIII(10), Consti, that 8
be counted in their favor Justices are necessary to pronounce a judgment on the nullity of these Eos
Under Rule 53(1) in connection with Rule 58(1) of the Rules of Court, one who is does not apply because the executive orders in question, even if issued
not a member of the court at the time an adjudication is made cannot take part within the powers validly vested in the Chief Executive, are not laws,
in the adjudication. As a case can be adjudicated only by means of a decision although they may have the force of law, in exactly the same manner as the
and a decision of this Court, to be of value and binding force, must be in writing judgments of this Court, municipal ordinances and ordinary executive orders
duly signed and promulgated or delivered to the Clerk of Court for filing and cannot be considered as laws, even if they have the force of law. Under Art.
publication (Art. VIII(11&12), Consti; RA No. 296(21); Rule 53(7) ROC), one VI(26), Consti, the only power which, in times of war or other national
who is no longer a member of this Court at the time a decision is signed and emergency, may be vested by Congress in the President, is the power "to
promulgated, cannot validly take part in that decision. Thus, the vote cast by promulgate rules and regulations to carry out a declared national policy."
Justice Perfecto, who died and ceased to be a member of the SC on Aug. 17, Consequently, the EOs issued by the President in his exercise of emergency
‘49, cannot be counted as the decision was released for publication on Aug. 26, powers, may be considered only as rules and regulations and not subject to
‘49. Moreover, his successor, Mr. Justice Torres, has been allowed by this Court the 2/3 vote rule. Note that in the previous drafts of Art. VIII(10), "executive
to take part in the decision on the question of emergency powers because of order" and "regulation" were included in the vote of 2/3 rule. But "executive
lack of majority on that question. And Mr. Justice Torres is not bound to follow order" and "regulations" were later deleted from the final draft.
any opinion previously held by Mr. Justice Perfecto on that matter. There is no
law or rule providing that a successor is a mere executor of his predecessor's CONCLUSION IN THE RESOLUTION: The EOs promulgated by the President
will. under CA 671 before the date of the adjournment of the regular session of the
Congress in 1946 (May 25, 1946) are valid, because said Act was then still in force;
3. WON opinion of Chief Justice be counted as a vote for the nullity of EO but the EOs promulgated after the said date are null and void, because CA No. 671
Nos. 225 and 226. had already ceased to be in force in so far as the delegation of powers was
 The Court had made the Chief Justice make a statement regarding the issue. concerned. Therefore, are null and void (1) EO No. 192 promulgated on Dec. 24,
The Chief Justice explained that he voted for a deferment of judgment in 1948; (2) EO No. 225 dated June 15, 1949; and (3) EO No. 226 promulgated on
these two cases because of two circumstances then present, namely, (1) the June 15, 1949
need of sustaining the two executive orders on appropriations as the life-line
of government and (2) the fact that a special session of Congress was to be
held in a few days. A deferment of judgment struck him then as wise since
judicial statesmanship, not judicial supremacy, was needed.
 But now that the holding of a special session of Congress for the purpose of
remedying the nullity of these executive orders appears remote and
uncertain, he claims to be compelled to concur with the decision penned by
Justice Tuason declaring nullity of EO Nos. 225 and 226.
 While in voting for a temporary deferment of the judgment, the Chief Justice
was moved by the belief that the positive compliance with the Constitution
by the other branches of the Government would be effected, and indefinite
deferment will produce the opposite result because it would legitimize a
prolonged or permanent evasion of our organic law. Executive orders which
are repugnant to the Constitution, would be given permanent life, opening
the way to practices which may undermine our constitutional structure.
 Such harmful consequences which would come to pass should the said
executive orders be immediately declared null and void have not disappeared
by reason of the fact that a special session of the Congress is remote and
uncertain. But the remedy now lies in Chief Executive and of Congress, for
the Constitution vests in the former the power to call a special session should
the need for one arise, and in the latter, the power to pass a valid
appropriation act.
 Democracy is on trial in the Philippines, and surely it will emerge victorious
as a permanent way of life in this country, if each of the great branches of
the Government, within its own allocated spear, complies with its own
constitutional duty, uncompromisingly and regardless of difficulties.
 With the votes of the Chief Justice, Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Tuason and
Montemayor, there is a sufficient majority to declare EO Nos. 225 and 226
null and void.
ZABALLERO vs. National Housing Authority (October 29, 1987)
Topic: Executive Intrusion into Judicial Domain
• Apr 7 ’82 DECISION: NHA ordered to pay just compensation; value set at
(*PDs on determination of just compensation intrude into judicial function of P7.75/sq.m.
determining just compensation)
1. WON it was proper for the trial court to order partial and/or provisional
Appeal by certiorari to review the decision and resolution of CA.
payment of just compensation before trial court on the merits have begun
2. WON the Government by itself or through its authorized agencies may be
compelled to pay by way of just compensation for properties expropriated,
• 1977: NHA instituted separate complaints for expropriation of sugarcane lands an amount greatly in excess of the limits prescribed by PD 76, as amended
in Dasmarinas, Cavite belonging to Zaballeros. by Sec. 92 of PD 464 and further amended by PDs 794, 1224, 1259 and
1533 (Note: case didn’t state what these PDs are, basta para sa
• Stated public purpose of expropriation: expansion of the Dasmarinas
determination of just compensation)
Resettlement Project to accommodate the squatters who were relocated from
the Metropolitan Manila area HELD:
• 1st complaint: called for expropriation of Lot 6450, which NHA alleged to have 1. YES
an assessed value of P31,670; thus, on the basis of this valuation, the RATIO:
reasonable provisional value of the property is P79,170 as assessor’s market • The only reason why the RTC had to touch and intrude into the issue of just
value based on PD 76. compensation was for the purpose of determining WON the claimed partial
payment is reasonable.
• 1st complaint alleged that NHA deposited with PNB P446,770 which included the
P31,670 representing the assessed value above.
• In fixing the price of the expropriated property per sq.m the RTC did so for the
• RTC issued writ of possession by NHA of Lot 6450. purpose of determining the amount of provisional payment and not for the
purpose of finally adjudicating the question on just compensation. This being
• 2nd complaint: involves Lot 6448-E of Zaballeros. The complaint included a the case, there is no need for a pre-trial before the trial court could ascertain
statement that P8,350 was deposited by plaintiff NHA with PNB. Writ of the provisional value of the land.
possession also granted. • More so, that during the hearings on the motion for partial payment, the parties
• 3rd complaint: involves Lots 6198-A and 6199. Complaint alleged that the were given the opportunity to adduce evidence as to the fair market value of
the property. The trial court, therefore had ample basis for determining the
reasonable provisional value is P152,777.24 as assessor’s market value by PD
provisional value of the land.
• RP vs. Pasicolan: Court recognized the collection made by the landowner of the
• Zaballeros (landowners) concede to NHA’s right to expropriate and agreed to
amount deposited on the provisional payment of the expropriated lots.
the immediate voluntary delivery of land under expropriation subject to
• Purpose of preliminary deposit: double purpose of a prepayment upon the value
payment of just compensation.
of the property, if finally expropriated; and as an indemnity against damage in
• NHA took over possession and use of the Zaballero properties.
the eventuality that the proceedings should fail of consummation.
• Parties, however, failed to agree on a mutually acceptable market value of the
• Considering that the owners do not dispute the right of NHA to expropriate, the
release of the amount deposited in favor of the Zaballeros served the purpose
• Zaballeros fuled motions for partial and/or provisional payment of the market
of a prepayment on the value of property pending the final determination of
value of the 228,113 square meters of sugar land expropriated.
just compensation by the trial court.
• NHA didn’t object to the partial/provisional payments, provided that these be
based on their (NHA’s) declaration as to the fair market value under PD 76 or • Case distinguished from RP vs. Guido: What the defendant-landowner in Guido
the assessor’s market value, whichever is lower, pursuant to PD 794. clamed was the payment of rentals due from some tenants on the ground that
the amount being collected represented the amount deposited by tenants.
• LOWER COURT: ordered PNB to deliver to defendants the sum of P446,770
Present case involved collection of the amount deposited by way of partial
deposited to it by NHA as partial/provisional payment of the properties and/or provisional payment of just compensation to which petitioners were
expropriated. Value is fixed at P7.75/sq.m undoubtedly entitled.
• CA reversed decision and ordered Zaballeros to return money to PNB (This is
the assailed decision) 2. YES
• Meanwhile, the 3 expropriation cases (3 complaints above) were consolidated RATIO:
after which trial court issued pre-trial order. • NHA posits that applying the provisions of PD 76 as amended, the just
• Trial Court rendered a final determination of the amount of just compensation compensation for the Zaballero properties should be P1.00/sq.m and not
in its April 7, 1982 decision. P7.75/sq.m as determined by RTC.
• Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Dulay declared the provisions of PD 76,
464, 794, and 1533 unconstitutional and void insofar as they pegged the basis
for determining just compensation to the fair market value declared by the
owner or administrator of the property, or the market value as determined by
the assessor, whichever is lower.
• The determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial
function. The executive or legislature may make the initial determinations but
when a party claims a violation of Const’l rights that private property may not
be taken for public use w/o just compensation, no statute, decree, or EO can
mandate that its own determination shall prevail over the court’s findings.
Much less can the courts be precluded from looking into the just-ness of the
decreed compensation.
• Trial court correctly applied the law on the matter of just compensation in
rendering the disputed decision of April 7, 1982.
• Trial Court: “…Meaning to be given the cited PDs should be that the rules
therein enumerated are intended merely to provide guidelines for the courts as
they go about their functions of determining just compensation. NHA, therefore
may not impute upon the presidency the unconstitutional intent of direct
executive determination of just compensation in the promulgation of the cited
decrees and as a delegate of presidential powers, the NHA certainly cannot rise
higher that its principal’s constitutional source of authority.
• In determining just compensation, Trial court considered the evidence
presented by the Zaballeros consisting of documents and the testimony of
Marina Reyes: 1) classification and use; 2) developmental costs for improving
land; 3) value declared by owners; 4) selling price of similar lands in the
vicinity; 5) reasonable “disturbance compensation” for the removal and/or
demolition of certain improvements on the land and for the value of the sugar
cane crops, trees, and other improvements thereon.

WHEREFORE: CA Decision SET ASIDE. RTC’s April 7, 1982 Decision AFFIRMED
(NHA ordered to pay just compensation at P7.75/sq.m deducting whatever partial or
provisional payment it has already given)
Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer 1. WON final determination of the constitutional validity of the President’s
(Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia order should be made in this case.
Circuit: Argued May 12-13, 1952 and Decided June 2, 1952) -YES. Prior cases in the Court have cast doubt on the right to recover in the Court of
Claims on account of properties unlawfully taken by government officials for public
Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court. use as these properties were alleged to have been. Thus, the Government’ claim
that: should the seizure ultimately be held unlawful, the companies could recover
Facts: full compensation in the Court of Claim for the unlawful taking; is not a viable
- In 1951, dispute arose between the steel companies and their employees over option for the companies. Furthermore, the seizure and government operation of
terms and conditions in their new collective bargaining agreement. the mills would be bound to result to numerous present and future damages. DC
- Long-continued conferences failed so in 1951, the employees’ representative, saw no reason to delay the decision on the constitutional validity of the orders. The
United Steelworkers of America, C.I.O., gave notice of an intention to strike Court agreed on this point and it added the question is ripe for determination based
when the existing bargaining agreements expired on December 31, 1951. on the facts presented by the parties.
- Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service then intervened in an effort to get labor
and management to agree. It failed.
- On December 22, 1951, the President referred the dispute to the Federal Wage 2. WON the President was acting within his constitutional power when he
issued an order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of
Stabilization Board to investigate and make recommendations for fair and equitable an operate most of the Nation’s steel mills (governmental seizure).
-NO. No statute expressly authorizes the President to take possession of the
terms of settlement. Its report resulted to no settlement. property he did in this case. Neither do any act of Congress gave such power to the

- On April 4, 1952, the Union gave notice of a nation-wide strike called to begin -Although there are two statutes (Selective Service Act of 1948; and Defense
at April 9. Production Act of 1950-issued for the Korean Conflict), which allow the
- After a few hours before the strike was to begin (set at 12:01 a.m.), President President both personal and real property under certain conditions, the Government
Harry S. Truman issued Executive Order 10340 on April 8, 1952. This was admits that these conditions were not met and that the Order was not rooted in
based on the President’s assessment that the proposed strike would jeopardize either statute.
national defense and that government seizure of the steel mills was necessary -Use of the seizure technique to solve labor disputes was not only
to assure the continued availability of steel. UNAUTHORIZED by any congressional enactment but Congress itself REFUSED to
- Said Order directed the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of most of adopt this method of settling labor disputes.
the steel mills and keep them running. The Secretary issued his own possessory -Under the Taft-Hartley Act, Congress rejected an amendment which would have
orders directing presidents of the seized companies to serve as operating managers authorized use of governmental seizures in cases of emergency. Congress
for the United States. thought that this method would interfere with the process of collective
- President sent two messages to Congress reporting his action. bargaining. The act did not provide for seizure under any circumstances. The plan
- Congress has taken no action. preferred mediation, conciliation, investigation by boards of inquiry and
-Companies brought proceedings against the Secretary in the District Court, public reports. If these failed, unions are free to strike after the employees’ secret
claiming that the seizure was not authorized by an act of Congress or by any vote on the acceptance of the employers’ final settlement offer.
constitutional provisions. United States asserted that the strike disrupting steel -The Order cannot be sustained by saying that the Presidential power can be
production even for a brief period would endanger the well-being and safety of the IMPLIED from the aggregate of his powers under the Constitution. The President’s
nation; considering that the President has the “inherent power” to support his power as Commander in Chief of the Armed forces cannot justify the ultimate power
actions as seen in the Constitution, historical precedents and court decisions. to take possession of private property in order to keep labor disputes from stopping
- Mill owners argue that the President’s order amounts to lawmaking, a legislative production. This is a job for the legislature.
function which the Constitution has expressly provided to the Congress and not to -Under the Constitution, the President’s power it to see that the laws are faithfully
the President. executed. President it LIMITED by the Constitution with his functions in the
- Government contends that the order was made on findings of the President that lawmaking process to the recommendation and veto of laws.
his action was necessary to avert a national catastrophe which would inevitable -Article I provides that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a
result from a stoppage of steel production. Congress of the United States” with the may “make all Laws which shall be
- It further adds that the President met this grave emergency using the aggregate necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers…”
of his constitutional powers as the Nation’s Chief Executive and the Commander in -The Order was in the form of a STATUTE setting the reasons why the President held
Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. certain policies while authorizing government officials to promulgate additional rules
-District Court held that decided against the government on all points and issued a and regulations to implement the policy.
preliminary injunction restraining the Secretary. -Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to make laws to regulate the
relationships between employers and employees.
Issues: -Historical events confirm the findings of this Court (did not expound on this).
Mr. Justice Clark, concurring in the judgment of the Court
Holding: Judgment of the DC is AFFIRMED.
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson, with whom Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice
Note: Copy of the Executive Order in page 589. Minton join, dissenting:
- Since Korea, the tremendous military demand for steel has far exceeded the
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, concurring:
- The main issue is the legality of Executive Order No. 10340. increases in productive capacity. The shortage of steel, even with the mills operating
-Body of enactments provided by Mr. Frankfurter (p. 615, tables covering several at full capacity, coupled with increased civilian purchasing power, presented grave
pages) show that Congress deemed seizure to be a drastic power that needs to
be carefully circumscribed. Thus, it was given only for a limited period (“sixty danger of disastrous inflation.
days, Mr. Justice Vinson says 80 days, after the restoration of productive efficiency)
or for a defined emergency (“time of war or when war is imminent”, needs of
“public safety”, “national security or defense” or “urgent and impending need”). -President has the duty to execute the foregoing legislative programs. Their
Also, executive action is subject to legislative conditions. successful execution depends upon continuing production of steel and stabilized
prices for steel. The proposed strike shutting down the entire basic steel industry
-Under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, Congress considered could further aggravate the situation. The President acted to avert a complete
governmental seizure as a protective measure and chose not to lodge this power shutdown of steel production. The Nation’s entire basis steel production would have
in the President. shut down completely if there had been no Government seizure.
-Congress acted on experience that industrial conflicts not of spontaneous -The Fifth Amendment (“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
generation thereby giving them ample opportunity to start the legislative process. just compensation”) is not a bar the President’s action since if the seizure is found
to be unlawful, the plaintiffs are assured of receiving the required just
- The Defense Production Act of 1950 which was used for the Korean conflict compensation.
cannot be used to justify the Order because the seizure power in the Act was -The whole of the “executive power” is vested in the President who is under duty to
withheld by the Act of 1947 and the Act of 1950 never suggested that in view of the “defend the Constitution of the United States.”
new events, the President can exercise the power of seizure. The need for new -The Constitution is a living document that is adaptable to new conditions.
legislations does not enact it. -Under the Taft-Hartley Act, subject only to an 80-day delay in cases strikes
imperiling the national health and safety, the President may appoint a board of
-Founders of this Nation rested the structure of our central government on the
inquiry to report the facts of the labor dispute. Upon receiving that report, the
system of checks and balances. It was a felt necessity.
President may direct the Attorney General to petition a DC to enjoin the strike.
-The accretion of dangerous power comes from the generative force of unchecked
disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of
-The powers of the President are nor particularized as are those of Congress. But
unenumerated powers do not mean undefined powers.

Mr. Justice Douglas, concurring:
-We cannot decide this case by determining which branch of government can deal
most expeditiously with the present crisis. The answer must depend on the
allocation of powers under the Constitution.
-Laws entail sanction – penalties for their violation. One type of sanction is fine and
imprisonment. Another is seizure of property. The determination of which should be
applied is under legislative power of the Federal Government in the Congress.
-Seizure of the plant is a taking in the constitutional sense which is legislative in
-Together with Black and Frankfurter, the power to execute the law starts and ends
with the laws Congress has enacted.

Mr. Justice Jackson, concurring in the judgment and opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Burton, concurring in both the opinion and judgment of the