D.
SEPARATION OF POWERS AND
CHECK & BALANCES
ENDENCIA VS. DAVID
FACTS
This is a joint appeal from the decision of
the Court of First Instance in Manila
declaring section 13 of RA No. 590
unconstitutional and ordering the
appellant Saturnino David as Collector
of Internal Revenue to refund to Justice
Pastor Endencia and to Justice Fernando
Jugo the income tax collected on their
salary. When the SC held in the Perfecto
case that judicial officers exempt from
salary tax because the collection thereof
was a decrease or diminution of their
salaries which is prohibited by the
Constitution, the Congress thereafter
promulgated RA No. 590, authorizing
and legalizing the collection of income
tax on the salaries of judicial officers.
ISSUE
Whether or not Section 13 of RA 590 is
constitutional
Facts:
Petitioner Ople prays that we invalidate
Administrative Order No. 308 entitled
"Adoption of a National Computerized
Identification Reference System" on two
important constitutional grounds, viz:
one, it is a usurpation of the power of
Congress to... legislate, and two, it
impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's
protected zone of privacy. We grant the
petition for the rights sought to be
vindicated by the petitioner need
stronger barriers against further erosion.
A.O. No. 308 was issued by President
Fidel V. Ramos on December 12, 1996
HELD
When it is clear that a statute transgresses
the authority vested in the legislature by
the Constitution, it is the duly of the
courts to declare the act unconstitutional.
Section 13, RA No. 590 is a clear example
of interpretation or ascertainment of the
meaning of the phrase found in section 9,
Art. VIII of the Constitution which refers
to the salaries of judicial officers. This act
interpreting the Constitution or any part
thereof by the Legislature is an invasion
of the well-defined and established
province and jurisdiction of the
Judiciary. The Legislature may not
legally provide therein that a statue be
interpreted in such a way that it may not
violate a Constitutional prohibition, thus
the unconstitutionality of Section 13 of
RA No. 590
BLAS F. OPLE v. RUBEN D. TORRES
GR No. 127685, 1998-07-23 (
A.O. No. 308 was published in four
newspapers of general circulation on
January 22, 1997 and January 23, 1997.
On January 24, 1997, petitioner filed the
instant petition against respondents,
then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres
and the heads of the government
agencies, who as... members of the Inter-
Agency Coordinating Committee, are
charged with the implementation of A.O.
No. 308. On April 8, 1997, we issued a
temporary restraining order enjoining its
implementation.
Petitioner contends:
"A. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED
IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE C. THE FUNDS NECESSARY FOR
SYSTEM REQUIRES A LEGISLATIVE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
ACT. THE ISSUANCE OF A.O. NO. 308 IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SYSTEM MAY BE SOURCED FROM
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES IS, THE BUDGETS OF THE CONCERNED
THEREFORE, AN AGENCIES;
UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION
OF THE D. A.O. NO. 308 [1996] PROTECTS
AN INDIVIDUAL'S INTEREST IN
LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF THE PRIVACY.[3]
CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES.
Issues:
B. THE APPROPRIATION OF Petitioner's sedulous concern for the
PUBLIC FUNDS BY THE PRESIDENT Executive not to trespass on the
FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A.O. lawmaking domain of Congress is
NO. 308 IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL understandable
USURPATION OF THE EXCLUSIVE
RIGHT OF CONGRESS TO Petitioner claims that A.O. No. 308 is not
APPROPRIATE PUBLIC FUNDS FOR a mere administrative order but a law
EXPENDITURE. and hence, beyond the power of the
President to issue. He alleges that A.O.
C. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A.O. No. 308 establishes a system of
NO. 308 INSIDIOUSLY LAYS THE identification that is all-encompassing
GROUNDWORK FOR A SYSTEM in... scope, affects the life and liberty of
WHICH WILL VIOLATE THE BILL OF every Filipino citizen and foreign
RIGHTS ENSHRINED IN THE resident, and more particularly, violates
CONSTITUTION." their right to privacy.

Respondents counter-argue: Assuming, arguendo, that A.O. No. 308

need not be the subject of a law, still it
A. THE INSTANT PETITION IS NOT cannot pass constitutional muster as an
A JUSTICIABLE CASE AS WOULD administrative legislation because
WARRANT A JUDICIAL REVIEW; facially it violates the right to privacy.
The essence of privacy is the "right to be
B. A.O. NO. 308 [1996] WAS ISSUED let alone.
WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS OF THE Indeed, if we extend our judicial gaze we
PRESIDENT WITHOUT will find that the right of privacy is
ENCROACHING ON THE recognized and enshrined in several
LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF provisions of our Constitution.[33] It is
CONGRESS; expressly recognized in Section 3(1) of
the Bill of Rights:
"Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication
and correspondence shall be inviolable
except upon lawful order of the court, or
when public safety or order requires
otherwise as prescribed by law."
Other facets of the right to privacy are
protected in various provisions of the Bill
of Rights, viz:[34]
"Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of
life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws.
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever nature and for
any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to... be
determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized.
x ...
x x.
Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of
changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired
except upon lawful order of the court.
Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of
national security, public safety, or public
health, as... may be provided by law.
x ...
x x.
Sec. 8. The right of the people, including
those employed in the public and private
sectors, to form unions, associations, or
societies for purposes not contrary to law
shall not be abridged.
Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to
be a witness against himself."
Ruling:
The right to privacy is one of the most
threatened rights of man living in a mass
society. The threats emanate from
various sources-- governments,
journalists, employers, social scientists,
etc.[88] In the case at bar, the threat
comes from the executive... branch of
government which by issuing A.O. No.
308 pressures the people to surrender
their privacy by giving information
about themselves on the pretext that it
will facilitate delivery of basic services.
Given the record-keeping power of the
computer, only the indifferent will... fail
to perceive the danger that A.O. No. 308
gives the government the power to
compile a devastating dossier against
unsuspecting citizens
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is
granted and Administrative Order No.
308 entitled "Adoption of a National
Computerized Identification Reference
System" declared null and void for being
unconstitutional.
Principles:
right to privacy, which the revered Mr.
Justice Brandeis considered as "the most
comprehensive of rights and the right
most valued by civilized... men
The line that delineates Legislative and
Executive power is not indistinct.
Legislative power is "the authority,
under the Constitution, to make laws,
and to alter and repeal them."[8] The
Constitution, as the will of the people in
their... original, sovereign and unlimited
capacity, has vested this power in the
Congress of the Philippines.[9] The grant
of legislative power to Congress is broad,
general and comprehensive.[10] The
legislative body possesses plenary
power... for all purposes of civil
government.[11] Any power, deemed to
be legislative by usage and tradition, is
necessarily possessed by Congress,
unless the Constitution has lodged it
elsewhere.[12] In fine, except as limited
by the
Constitution, either expressly or
impliedly, legislative power embraces all
subjects and extends to matters of
general concern or common interest.[13]
While Congress is vested with the power
to enact laws, the President executes the
laws.[14] The executive power is vested
in the President.[15] It is generally
defined as the power to enforce and
administer the... laws.[16] It is the power
of carrying the laws into practical
operation and enforcing their due
observance.[17]
As head of the Executive Department,
the President is the Chief Executive. He
represents the government as a whole
and sees to it that all laws are enforced by
the officials and employees of his
department.[18] He has control over the
executive department,... bureaus and
offices. This means that he has the
authority to assume directly the
functions of the executive department,
bureau and office, or interfere with the
discretion of its officials.[19] Corollary to
the power of control, the President also
has the... duty of supervising the
enforcement of laws for the maintenance
of general peace and public order. Thus,
he is granted administrative power over
bureaus and offices under his control to
enable him to discharge his duties
effectively.[20]
Administrative power is concerned with
the work of applying policies and
enforcing orders as determined by
proper governmental organs.[21] It
enables the President to fix a uniform
standard of administrative efficiency and
check the official conduct of his...
agents.[22] To this end, he can issue
administrative orders, rules and
regulations.
Prescinding from these precepts, we hold
that A.O. No. 308 involves a subject that
is not appropriate to be covered by an
administrative order. An administrative
order is:
"Sec. 3. Administrative Orders.-- Acts of
the President which relate to particular
aspects of governmental operation in
pursuance of his duties as administrative
head shall be promulgated in
administrative orders.
It must be in harmony with the law and
should be for the sole purpose of
implementing the law and carrying out
the legislative... policy
KILUSANG MAYO UNO vs. THE
DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NEDA
G.R. No. 167798, APRIL 19, 2006
FACTS:
President Arroyo issued EO 420
directing a unified ID system among the
various government agencies and
GOCCs for the purpose of having a
uniform ID for all government agencies.
Kilusang Mayo Uno and others assailed
this EO for being a “usurpation of
legislative powers by the president” and
it infringes the citizens’ right to privacy.
ISSUE:
Whether or not: EO 420 on Unified ID
System among government agencies
infringes on the citizens right to privacy.
(Executive Order 420 of April 13, 2005
was issued for the adoption of a unified
multi-purpose identification (ID) system
for the government)
RULING: No. All these years, the GSIS,
SSS, LTO, Philhealth and other
government entities have been issuing
ID cards in the performance of their
governmental functions. There have
been no complaints from citizens that the
ID cards of these government entities
violate their right to privacy, and in the
collection and recording of personal
identification data. Moreover, EO 420
applies only to government entities that
already maintain ID systems and issue
ID cards pursuant to their regular
functions under existing laws. EO 420
does not grant such government entities
any power that they do not already
possess under existing laws.
U.S. v. Nixon (1974)
History of the Case
Seven men involved in the Watergate
break-in, a break-in of the Democratic
National Committee's headquarters
located in the Watergate complex, were
indicted by a federal grand jury.
President Richard Nixon was named by
the grand jury as an unindicted co-
conspirator. Archibald Cox, who had
been appointed as special prosecutor to
investigate the Watergate affair, obtained
a subpoena that required President
Nixon to deliver to the district court tape
recordings of his meetings with various
assistants. The president released certain
edited versions of the tapes to the public,
but refused to yield the full transcripts to
the district court. Both Cox and the
president filed special petitions to have
the issue heard immediately by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Summary of Arguments
President Nixon argued that the courts
lacked the power to compel production
of the tapes. He asserted that because the
dispute was between the president and
the special prosecutor, it was purely an
executive branch conflict not subject to
judicial resolution. He also argued that it
was for the president, not the courts, to
ascertain the scope of the executive
privilege. Finally, President Nixon
contended that even if the Court were the
proper branch to decide the scope of the
privilege, the need for executive
confidentiality justified the application
of the privilege in this case.
The government contended that even if
the Court were to acknowledge the
existence of an executive privilege, the
need for evidence in this criminal trial
outweighed that privilege.
Decision: The Supreme Court, in an
opinion written by Chief Justice Burger,
held that the tapes had to be turned over
to the district court for an in-chambers
inspection by the judge. Chief Justice
Burger argued that this controversy was
appropriately before the Court, rather
than within the president's discretion,
because "it is the duty of the courts to say
what the law is." Here, the position of
special prosecutor had been intended to
be highly independent, thus the Court
was justified in resolving the conflict
between Cox and the president. Chief
Justice Burger asserted that the executive
privilege flows from the Constitution
and the Court is the ultimate interpreter
of that Constitution; consequently, it was
for the Court and not the president to
define the scope of the privilege. He then
determined that the privilege was merely
presumptive, rather than absolute; thus,
it might be overcome in certain cases by
the "legitimate needs of the judicial
process." Chief Justice Burger then
proceeded to balance the interests of the
president and the prosecution. He began
by noting that the president's right to
secrecy was different from that of an
ordinary individual: "A President and
those who assist him must be free to
explore alternatives in the process of
shaping policies and making decisions
and to do so in a way many would be
unwilling to express except privately."
Nonetheless, Cox had proven that the
tapes were relevant to the government's
case and "[t]he need to develop all
relevant facts in the adversary system is
both fundamental and comprehensive."
Chief Justice Burger asserted that the
claim of privilege did not rest on the
ground that the tapes contained military
or diplomatic secrets; thus, it was
appropriate to subordinate the privilege
to the search for truth in a criminal trial.
He was quick to note that this decision
was based on a unique set of facts. The
president had asserted only a
"generalized interest in confidentiality,"
while the specific need for relevant
evidence in a criminal trial is a
requirement of the Fifth Amendment's
guarantee of due process.
Chief Justice Burger noted that in
conducting the inspection of the
president's tapes, "the District Court has
a very heavy responsibility to see to it
that Presidential conversations . . . are
accorded that high degree of respect due
the President of the United States." Even
under the circumstances, President
Nixon's communications were to receive
"the greatest protection consistent with
the fair administration of justice."
Aftermath: Twelve days after the
decision, the president made an abridged
transcript of the tapes available to the
public. Fifteen days after the decision,
President Nixon resigned. Significance:
While the outcome of the case was
unfavorable to President Nixon, United
States v. Nixon expanded the power of
the presidency. This was the first time the
Supreme Court acknowledged that an
executive privilege exists; the decision
thus resolved decades of controversy
over the constitutionality of that
privilege
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES V.
ERMITA, 488 SCRA 1
ISSUE: Is Section 3 of E.O. 464, which
requires all the public officials,
enumerated in Section 2(b) to secure the
consent of the President prior to
appearing before either house of
Congress, valid and constitutional?
FACTS: In the exercise of its legislative
power, the Senate of the Philippines,
through its various Senate Committees,
conducts inquiries or investigations in
aid of legislation. The Committee of the
Senate issued invitations to various
officials of the Executive Department for
them to appear as resource speakers in a
public hearing on the railway project,
others on the issues of massive election
fraud in the Philippine elections, wire
tapping, and the role of military in the so-
called “Gloriagate Scandal”. Said
officials were not able to attend due to
lack of consent from the President as
provided by E.O. 464, Section 3 which
requires all the public officials
enumerated in Section 2(b) to secure the
consent of the President prior to
appearing before either house of
Congress
DECISION: Partly Granted
RATIO DECIDENDI: No. The
enumeration in Section 2 (b) of E.O. 464
is broad and is covered by the executive
privilege. The doctrine of executive
privilege is premised on the fact that
certain information must, as a matter of
necessity, be kept confidential in pursuit
of the public interest. The privilege
being, by definition, an exemption from
the obligation to disclose information, in
this case to Congress, the necessity must
be of such high degree as to outweigh the
public interest in enforcing that
obligation in a particular case.
ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES
SILVERIO V. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES (CASE DIGEST)
G.R. No. 174689
October 22, 2007
TOPIC: Change of Name, Sex Change
FACTS:
Silverio field a petition for the change of
his first name “Rommel Jacinto” to
“Mely” and his sex from male to female
in his birth certificate in the RTC of
Manila, for reason of his sex
reassignment. He alleged that he is a
male transsexual, he is anatomically male
but thinks and acts like a female. The
RTC ruled in his favour, saying that it is
in consonance with the principle of
justice and equality. The Republic,
through the OSG, filed a petition for
certiorari in the CA, alleging that there is
no law allowing change of name by
reason of sex alteration. Petitioner filed a
reconsideration but was denied. Hence,
this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not a change in the
“name” and “sex” entries in birth
certificates are allowed by reason of sex
reassignment.
RULING:
No. A change of name is a privilege and
not a right. It may be allowed in cases
where the name is ridiculous, tainted
with dishonour, or difficult to
pronounce or write; a nickname is
habitually used; or if the change will
avoid confusion. The petitioner’s basis of
the change of his name is that he intends
his first name compatible with the sex he
thought he transformed himself into thru
surgery. The Court says that his true
name does not prejudice him at all, and
no law allows the change of entry in the
birth certificate as to sex on the ground of
sex reassignment. The petition was
denied.
OFFICE OF COURT
ADMINISTRATOR VS. REYES
Summary:
Mr. Rene De Guzman, herein private
respondent and clerk of RTC Nueva
Ecija was in charge of the preparation
and transmission of records on appeal.
In numerous occasions, Judge Sta.
Romana would remind him of his work,
even personally confronting him.
Despite Judge Sta. Romana’s reminders,
De Guzman failed to deliver his tasks.
This prompted Judge Sta. Romana to
have De Guzman undergo a drug test, to
which he was found positive of using
marijuana and shabu. De Guzman was
then directed by the Court to submit a
comment, but failed to do so.
The Court ruled that De Guzman was
indeed adept at ignoring the Court’s
directives. Such failure to comply
betrays and is disrespectful of the lawful
order and directive of the Court.
Furthermore, this contumacious
conduct of refusing to abide by the
lawful directives issued by the Court has
likewise been considered as an utter lack
of interest to remain with, if not
contempt of, the system. As to De
Guzman’s drug use, the Chemistry
Report is found to be substantial
evidence. As dispensers of justice, all
members and employees of the
Judiciary are expected to adhere strictly
to the laws of the land, one of which is
RA No. 9165 which prohibits the use of
dangerous drugs.
Doctrine:
A resolution of the Supreme Court
should not be construed as a mere
request, and should be complied with
promptly and completely. Such failure
to comply betrays, not only a
recalcitrant streak in character, but also
disrespect for the lawful order and
directive of the Court.
Facts:
Mr. Rene De Guzman (private
respondent), clerk of RTC Nueva
Ecija, was in charge of the preparation
and transmission of the records on
appeal.
• Judge Sta. Romana would often
remind him about the transmittal
of records of the appealed
cases for more than a dozen
times, even personally
confronting De Guzman
 • De Guzman would often dismiss
the subject in ridicule and with
empty assurance that the task is
done
May 24, 2004 – the attitude of De
Guzman seemingly bordering on the
irrational prompted Judge Sta. Romana
to have De Guzman undergo a drug test
• The examination yielded
positive for marijuana and
Methamphetamine (shabu), both
dangerous drugs
• De Guzman was required on
September 2007 to submit a
Comment, but failed to do so
De Guzman complied with the Court’s
directive only on March 2008, to which
he claims that he failed to receive a copy
of the September 2007 resolution; the
Court then referred De Guzman’s letter
to the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA)
The OCA recommended that the instant
matter be re-docketed as a regular
administrative case and that De
Guzman be found guilty of gross
misconduct and accordingly be
dismissed
• De Guzman was again required
by the Court to submit a
Comment, but he ignored the
directive which amounted to his
waiver of submitting a Comment
Issues Ratio:
WoN De Guzman is guilty of gross
misconduct and has already forfeited
his privilege of being an employee of the
Court - YES. De Guzman is adept at
ignoring the Court’s directives. In fine,
the Court agree with the OCA that by
his repeated and contumacious conduct
of disrespecting the Court's directives
makes him guilty of gross misconduct.
There have been numerous times in the
past wherein De Guzman was required
by the Supreme Court to transmit
records, submit affidavits and replies,
but ultimately failed to do so. The Court
is firm at this juncture, not to tolerate
such disrespectful behavior.
Office of the Court Administrator vs.
Clerk of Court Ganzan
A resolution of the Supreme Court
should not be construed as a mere
request, and should be complied with
promptly and completely.
• Such failure to comply betrays,
not only a recalcitrant streak in
character, but also disrespect for
the lawful order and directive of
the Court.
• Furthermore, this contumacious
conduct of refusing to abide by
the lawful directives issued by
the Court has likewise been
considered as an utter lack of
interest to remain with, if not
contempt of, the system.
• Ganzan's transgression is
highlighted even more by the fact
that she is an employee of the
Judiciary, who, more than an
ordinary citizen, should be aware
of her duty to obey the orders and
 processes of the Supreme Court
without delay.
On De Guzman’s use of illegal drugs
The Court has already upheld the
validity and constitutionality of
the mandatory but random drug
testing of officers and employees of both
public and private offices
• Government officials and
employees like their counterparts
in the private sector are to be held
with a high standard of ethics in
their service. They are required to
be accountable at all times and to
serve with utmost responsibility
and efficiency.
In this case, De Guzman never
challenged the authenticity of the
Chemistry Report to which he was
found positive of using marijuana and
shabu.
• This finding constitutes more
than substantial evidence, which
is what is required in
administrative proceedings
The Court being a temple of justice has
the basic duty and responsibility of
dispensing justice. As dispensers of
justice, all members and employees of
the Judiciary are expected to adhere
strictly to the laws of the land, one of
which is Republic Act No. 9165 which
prohibits the use of dangerous drugs.
De Guzman’s use of prohibited drugs
has greatly affected his efficiency in the
performance of his functions à
numerous cases were found to be
“sleeping” in his drawer
Dispositive:
ACCORDINGLY, Rene de Guzman,
Clerk, Regional Trial Court of Guimba,
Nueva Ecija, Branch 31, is
hereby DISMISSED from the service
with forfeiture of all retirement benefits,
except accrued leave credits, and
disqualification from reinstatement or
appointment to any public office,
including government-owned or
controlled corporations.
MAMISCAL V. ABDULLAH
ISSUE: Whether or not Mamiscal had
validly effected a divorce from his wife is
a matter that must first be addressed by
the Shari'a Circuit Court which, under
the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the
Philippines (Muslim Code),enjoys
exclusive original jurisdiction
FACTS: Mamiscal and Adelaidah
decided to have divorce repudiated
Adelaidahs (talaq) embodied in an
agreement (kapasadan) but later on they
reconciled. Despite such, Adelaidah still
filed the Certificate of Divorce (COD)
with the office of Abdullah for
registration. Albeit the same was not
signed by Mamiscal it was annotated in
the certificate that it was executed in the
presence of two witnesses and in
accordance with Islamic Law. Abdullah
then issued the Certificate of Registration
of Divorce finalizing the same.
DECISION: WHEREFORE, the
administrative matter against Macalinog
S. Abdullah, Clerk of Court II, Shari'a
Circuit Court, Marawi City, for
partiality, violation of due process,
dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming a
court employee is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction, without prejudice. The
complaint of Baguan M. Mamiscal
against Macalinog S. Abdullah is hereby
REFERRED to the Office of the Mayor,
Marawi City and the Civil Service
Commission for appropriate action.
RATIO DECIDENDI: The Court ruled
that they do not have jurisdiction to
impose the proper disciplinary action
against civil registrars. Shari’a Circuit
Court which, under the Code of Muslim
Personal Laws of the Philippines
(Muslim Code) enjoys exclusive original
jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating
to divorce. The civil registrar is the
person charged by law for the recording
of vital events and other documents
affecting the civil status of persons. The
Civil Registry Law embraces all acts of
civil life affecting the status of persons
and is applicable to all persons residing
in the Philippines. The test of jurisdiction
is the nature of the offense and not the
personality of the offender. The fact that
the complaint charges Abdullah for
"conduct unbecoming of a court
employee" is of no moment. Well-settled
is the rule that what controls is not the
designation of the offense but the actual
facts recited in the complaint. Unless
jurisdiction has been conferred by some
legislative act, no court or tribunal can
act on a matter submitted to it.
Arroyo vs De Venecia G.R. No. 127255
August 14, 1997 Mendoza, J.:
(Topic: Separation of Powers)
Facts: This is a petition for certiorari
challenging the validity of RA 8242 (Tax
Reform Act) for being passed despite
violations of the internal rules of the
House of Representatives (HOR).
Petitioners, members of the HOR,
brought this suit against respondents De
Venecia (speaker of the House), et al, on
the ground that R.A. No. 8240 is null and
void because it was passed in violation of
the rules of the House; that these rules
embody the "constitutional mandate" in
Art. VI, Section 16(3) that "each House
may determine the rules of its
proceedings" and that, consequently,
violation of the House rules is a violation
of the Constitution itself. Petitioners
alleged that during the proceedings, he
was effectively prevented from
questioning the presence of a quorum
and that the session was hastily
adjourned, and the bill certified by
Speaker De Venecia to prevent petitioner
from formally challenging the existence
of a quorum and asking for a
reconsideration. Respondents' defense is
anchored on the principle of separation
of powers and the enrolled bill doctrine.
They argued that enforcement of the
rules cannot be sought in the courts
except insofar as they implement
constitutional requirements such as that
relating to three readings on separate
days before a bill may be passed.
Issue: Whether or not the Congress
committed a grave abuse of discretion in
enacting R.A. No. 8240.
Ruling: NO. In this case, no rights of CASE 2017-0028: REPRESENTATIVE
private individuals are involved but only TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR.,
those of a member who, instead of REPRESENTATIVE EDCEL C.
seeking redress in the House, chose to LAGMAN, REPRESENTATIVE RAUL
transfer the dispute to this Court. We A. DAZA, REPRESENTATIVE EDGAR
have no more power to look into the R. ERICE, REPRESENTATIVE
internal proceedings of a House than EMMANUEL A. BILLONES,
members of that House have to look over REPRESENTATIVE TOMASITO S.
our shoulders, as long as no violation of VILLARIN, and REPRESENTATIVE
constitutional provisions is shown. GARY C. ALEJANO, Petitioners, -
Petitioners must realize that each of the versus – SPEAKER PANTALEON D.
three departments of our government ALVAREZ, MAJORITY LEADER
has its separate sphere which the others RODOLFO C. FARINAS, and
may not invade without upsetting the REPRESENTATIVE DANILO E.
delicate balance on which our SUAREZ, Respondents (G.R. NO.
constitutional order rests. Due regard for 227757, 25 JULY 2017, PERLAS-
the working of our system of BERNABE, J.) (SUBJECT/S: WHEN
government, more than mere comity, WILL SUPREME COURT INTERFERE
compels reluctance on our part to enter WITH PROCEEDINGS OF
upon an inquiry into an alleged violation CONGRESS?)(BRIEF TITLE: REPR.
of the rules of the House. We must BAGUILAT JR ET AL VS. SPEAKER
accordingly decline the invitation to ALVAREZ ET AL)
exercise our power. It would be an
unwarranted invasion of the prerogative DISPOSITIVE:
of a coequal department for this Court
either to set aside a legislative action as “WHEREFORE, the petition is
void because the Court thinks the House DISMISSED.
has disregarded its own rules of
procedure, or to allow those defeated in SO ORDERED.”
the political arena to seek a rematch in
the judicial forum when petitioners can SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
find their remedy in that department
itself. WHEREFORE, the petition for WHAT IS THIS CASE ALL ABOUT?
certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED.
THIS CASE CONCERNS AN
INTERNAL MATTER OF A COEQUAL,
POLITICAL BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT WHICH, ABSENT
ANY SHOWING OF GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION, CANNOT BE
JUDICIALLY INTERFERED WITH.

However, as may be gleaned from the

circumstances as to how the House had
conducted the questioned proceedings
and its apparent deviation from its
traditional rules, the Court is hard-
pressed to find any attending grave
abuse of discretion which would warrant
its intrusion in this case. By and large,
this case concerns an internal matter of a
coequal, political branch of government
which, absent any showing of grave
abuse of discretion, cannot be judicially
interfered with. To rule otherwise would
not only embroil this Court in the realm
of politics, but also lead to its own breach
of the separation of powers doctrine.33
Verily, “[i]t would be an unwarranted
invasion of the prerogative of a coequal
department for this Court either to set
aside a legislative action as void [only]
because [it] thinks [that] the House has
disregarded its own rules of procedure,
or to allow those defeated in the political
arena to seek a rematch in the judicial
forum when petitioners can find their
remedy in that department itself.”
BUT CAN THE COURT STILL
INTERFERE WITH THE
PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS?
YES. THIS IS THE EXCEPTION. WHILE
THE COURT IN TAKING
JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONS
QUESTIONING AN ACT OF THE
POLITICAL DEPARTMENTS OF
GOVERNMENT, WILL NOT REVIEW
THE WISDOM, MERITS OR
PROPRIETY OF SUCH ACTION, IT
WILL, HOWEVER, STRIKE IT DOWN
ON THE GROUND OF GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION.
Of course, as in any general rule, there
lies an exception. While the Court in
taking jurisdiction over petitions
questioning an act of the political
departments of government, will not
review the wisdom, merits or propriety
of such action, it will, however, strike it
down on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion.29 This stems from the
expanded concept of judicial power,
which, under Section 1, Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution, expressly “includes
the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.”
Case law decrees that “[t]he foregoing
text emphasizes the judicial
department’s duty and power to strike
down grave abuse of discretion on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of
government including Congress. It is an
innovation in our political law. As
explained by former Chief Justice
Roberto Concepcion: 30
[T]he judiciary is the final arbiter on the
question of whether or not a branch of
government or any of its officials has
acted without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction or so capriciously as to
constitute an abuse of discretion
amounting to excess of jurisdiction. This
is not only a judicial power but a duty to
pass judgment on matters of this nature.
Accordingly, this Court “will not shirk,
digress from or abandon its sacred duty
and authority to uphold the Constitution
in matters that involve grave abuse of
discretion brought before it in
appropriate cases, committed by any
officer, agency, instrumentality or
department of the govemment.”