Professional Documents
Culture Documents
775
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
776
constituted on December 30, 1961 were de jure bodies and the Members
thereof were de jure officers.
Same; Same; Effect of failure of Congress to discharge mandatory duty.
—Neither our political law, in general, nor our law on public officers in
particular, supports the view that failure to discharge a mandatory duty,
whatever it may be, would automatically result in the forfeiture of an office,
in the absence of a statute to this effect.
Sayne; Same; Same; Provisions of Election Law relative to election of
members of Congress in 1965 not repealed.—The provision of our Election
Law relative to the election of members of Congress in 1965 were not
repealed in consequence of the failure of said body to make an
apportionment within three years after the census of 1960. Inasmuch as the
general elections in 1965 were presumably held in conformity with said
Election Law and the legal provisions creating Congress with a House of
Representatives composed of members elected by qualified voters of
representative districts as they existed at the time of said elections remained
in force, we cannot see how said Members of the House of Representatives
can be regarded as de facto officers owing to the failure of their
predecessors in office to make a reapportionment within the period
aforementioned.
Same; De facto doctrine; Reason therefor.—The main reason for the
existence of the de facto doctrine is that public interest demands that acts of
persons holding, under color of title, an office created by a valid statute be,
likewise, deemed valid insofar as the public—as distinguished from the
officer in question—is concerned. Indeed, otherwise those dealing with
777
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
it would be an indirect inquiry into the title to the office; and (2) the acts of
a de facto officer, if within the competence of his office, are valid, insofar as
the public is concerned.
Same; Construction of terms; Meaning of the term “or”.—The term
“or” has, oftentimes, been held to mean “and” or vice-versa, when the spirit
or context of the law warrants it.
Same; Power of Congress to approve resolutions amending the
Constitution.—There is nothing in the Constitution or in the history thereof
that would negate the authority of different Congresses to approve the
contested resolutions, or of the same Congress to pass the same in different
sessions or different days of the same Congressional session. Neither has
any plausible reason been advanced to justify the denial of authority to
adopt said resolutions on the same day.
Same; Meaning of term “election” in Art. XI, Constitution,—There is
in this provision nothing to indicate that the “election” therein referred to is
a “special, not a general election.” The circumstance that the previous
amendments to the Constitution had been submitted to the people for
ratification in special elections merely shows that Congress deemed it best
to do so under the circumstances then obtaining. It does not negate its
authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in general
elections.
Same; Legislation cannot be nullified for failure of certain sectors to
discuss it sufficiently.—A legislation cannot be nullified by reason of the
failure of certain sectors of the community to discuss it sufficiently. Its
constitutionality or unconstitutionally depends upon no other factor than
those existing at the time of the enactment thereof, unaffected by the acts or
omissions of law enforcing to agencies, particularly those that take place
subsequently to the passage or approval of the law.
Same; Public knowledge of proposed amendments.—A con-
778
siderable portion of the people may not know how over 160 of the proposed
maximum of representative districts are actually apportioned by RBH No. 1
among the provinces in the Philippines. It is not improbable, however, that
they are not interested in the details of the apportionment, or that a careful
reading thereof may tend, in their simple minds, to impair a clear vision
thereof. Upon the other hand, those who are more sophisticated may
enlighten themselves sufficiently by reading the copies of the proposed
amendments posted in public places, the copies kept in the polling places
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
and the text of the contested resolutions, as printed in full on the back of the
ballots they will use.
Same; Judicial power to nullify executive or legislative acts, not
violative of principle of separation of powers.—The system of checks and
balances underlying the judicial power to strike down acts of the Executive
or of Congress transcending the confines set forth in the fundamental law is
not in derogation of powers, pursuant to which each department is supreme
within its own sphere.
Same; Determination of conditions for submission of amendments to
people purely legislative.—The determination of the conditions under which
the proposed amendments shall be submitted to the people is concededly a
matter which falls within the legislative sphere.
779
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
780
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
781
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
782
uniform past practices. The Constitution has been amended thrice—in 1939,
1940 and 1947. In each case the amendments were embodied in resolutions
adopted by the Legislature, which thereafter fixed the dates at which the
proposed amendments were to be ratified or rejected. These plebiscites have
been referred to either as an “election” or “general election.” At no time,
however, was the vote for amendments of the Constitution held
simultaneously with the election of officials, national or local.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. No. 28196:
Ramon A. Gonzales in his own behalf.
Juan T. David as amicus curiae
Solicitor General for respondents. No. 28224:
Salvador Araneta for petitioner.
Solicitor General for respondent.
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
The main facts are not disputed. On March 16, 1967, the Senate and
the House of Representatives passed the following resolutions:
784
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
1 Urging the latter to refrain from implementing Republic Act No. 4913 and from
submitting to a plebiscite in the general elections to be held on November 14, 1967,
the Constitutional amendments proposed in the aforementioned R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3.
2 Dated October 30, 1967.
785
JURISDICTION
4
As early as Angara vs. Electoral Commission, this Court—speaking
through one of the leading members of the Constitutional
Convention and a respected professor of Constitutional Law, Dr.
Jose P. Laurel—declared that “the judicial department is the only
constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the
proper allocation of powers between the several departments and
among the integral or constituent units thereof.”
5
It is true that in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, this Court
_______________
3 78 Phil. 1.
4 63 Phil. 139, 157.
5 Supra.
786
________________
6 81 Phil. 818.
7 L-2851, March 4 and 14, 1949.
8 L-10520, February 28, 1957.
9 1-18684, September 14, 1961.
10 Section 1, Art. VI, Constitution of the Philippines.
11 Section 1, Art. II, Constitution of the Philippines.
787
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
authority does not emanate from the Constitution—they are the very
source of all powers of government, including the Constitution itself.
Since, when proposing, as a constituent assembly, amendments to
the Constitution, the members of Congress derive their authority
from the Fundamental Law, it follows, necessarily, that they do not
have the final say on whether or not their acts are within or beyond
constitutional limits. Otherwise, they could brush aside and set the
same at naught, contrary to the basic tenet that ours is a government
of laws, not of men, and to the rigid nature of our Constitution. Such
rigidity is stressed by the fact that,
14
the Constitution expressly
confers upon the15 Supreme Court, the power to declare a treaty
unconstitutional, despite the eminently political character of treaty-
making power.
In short, the issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress—
acting as a constituent assembly—violates the Constitution
essentially justiciable, not political, and, hence, subject to judicial
review, and, to the extent that this view 16may be inconsistent with the
stand taken in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, the latter should be deemed
modified accordingly. The Members of the Court are unanimous on
this point.
THE MERITS
_______________
788
789
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 15/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
inhabitants, but each province shall have at least one Member. The Congress
shall by law make an apportionment within three years after the return of
every enumeration, and not otherwise. Until such apportionment shall have
been made, the House of Representatives shall have the same number of
Members as that fixed by law for the National Assembly, who shall be
elected by the qualified electors from the present Assembly districts. Each
representative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous and
compact territory.”
______________
790
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 16/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
The provision does not support the view that, upon the expiration of
the period to make the apportionment, a Congress which fails to
make it is dissolved or becomes illegal. On the contrary, it implies
necessarily that Congress shall continue to function with the
representative districts existing at the time of the expiration of said
period.
It is argued that the above-quoted provision refers only to the
elections held in 1935. This theory assumes that an apportionment
had to be made necessarily before the first elections to be held after
the inauguration
19
of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, or in
1938. The assumption, is, however, unwarranted, for there had
been no enumeration in 1935, and nobody could foretell when it
would be made. Those who drafted and adopted the
________________
791
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 17/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
792
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 18/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
______________
793
______________
21 Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez and De los Angeles, 37 Phil, p. 192; Nacionalista
Party vs. De Vera, 35 Phil., 126: Codilla vs. Martinez, L-14569, November 23, 1960.
See, also. State vs. Carrol, 38 Conn. 499; Wilcox vs. Smith, 5 Wendell [N.Y.] 231; 21
Am. Dec, 213; Sheehan's Case, 122 Mass., 445; 23 Am. Rep., 323.
22 Torres vs. Ribo, 81 Phil. 50.
23 Nacionalista Party vs. De Vera, supra.
24 People vs. Rogelio Gabitanan, 43 O.G. 3211.
25 53 Phil. 866.
794
Alternatives Available
to Congress
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 20/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
26 50 Am. Jur., Sec. 282, pp. 267-268, citing Heckathorn v. Heckathorn, 284 Mich.
677, 280 NW 79, citing RCL; Robson v. Cantwell, 143 SC 104, 141 SE 180, citing
RCL; Geiger v. Kobilka, 26 Wash 171, 66 P 423, Am. St. Rep. 733 and many others.
795
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 21/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
796
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 22/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
797
798
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 23/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
We are not prepared to say that the foregoing measures are palpably
inadequate to comply with the constitutional requirement that
proposals for amendment be “submitted to the people for their
ratification,” and that said measures are manifestly insufficient, from
a constitutional viewpoint, to inform the people of the amendment
sought to be made.
These were substantially the same means availed of to inform the
people of the subject submitted to them for ratification, from the
original Constitution down to the Parity Amendment. Thus, referring
to the original Constitution, Section 1 of Act No. 4200, provides:
799
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 24/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
800
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 25/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
The main difference between the present situation and that obtaining
in connection with the former proposals does not arise from the law
enacted therefor. The difference springs from the circumstance that
the major political parties had taken sides on previous amendments
to the Constitution—except, perhaps, the woman’s suffrage—and,
consequently, debated thereon at some length before the plebiscite
took place. Upon the other hand, said political parties have not
seemingly made an issue on the amendments now being contested
and have, accordingly, refrained from discussing the same in the
current political campaign. Such debates or polemics as may have
taken place—on a rather limited scale—on the latest proposals for
amendment, have been due principally to the initiative of a few civic
organizations and some militant members of our citizenry who have
voiced their opinion thereon. A legislation cannot, however, be
nullified by reason of the failure of certain sectors of the community
to discuss it sufficiently. Its constitutionality or unconstitutionally
depends upon no other factors than those existing at the time of the
enactment thereof, unaffected by the acts or omissions of law
enforcing agencies, particularly those that take place subsequently to
the passage or approval of the law.
Referring particularly to the contested proposals for amendment,
the sufficiency or insufficiency, from a constitutional angle, of the
submission thereof for ratification to the people on November 14,
1967, depends—in the view of those who concur in this opinion, and
who, insofar as this phase of the case, constitute the minority—upon
whether the provisions of Republic Act No. 4913 are such as to
fairly apprise the people of the gist, the main idea or the substance of
said proposals, which is—under R. B. H. No. 1—the increase of the
maximum number of seats in the House of Representatives, from
120 to 180, and—under R. B. H. No. 3—the authority given to the
members of Congress to run for delegates to the Constitutional
Convention and, if elected thereto,
801
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 26/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
802
803
“SEC. 4. The ballots which shall be used in the election for the approval
of said amendments shall be printed in English and Pilipino and shall be in
the size and form prescribed by the Commission on Elections: Provided,
however, That at the back of said ballot there shall be printed in full
Resolutions of both Houses of Congress Numbered One and Three, both
adopted on March sixteen, nineteen hundred and sixty-seven, proposing the
amendments: Provided, further. That the questionnaire appearing on the face
of the ballot shall be as follows:
Are you in favor of the proposed amendment to Section five of Article
VI of our Constitution printed at the back of this ballot?
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 28/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
804
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 29/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
It is the glory of our institutions that they are founded upon law, that
no one can exercise any authority over the rights and interests of
others except pursuant to and
805
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 30/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
______________
806
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 31/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
807
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 32/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
_______________
808
1 and 3 already did that. If, on the other hand, it means, or also
means, to provide for how, when, and by what means the
amendments shall be submitted to the people for approval, then it
does,
A careful reading of Sec. 1, Art. XV shows that the first sense is
the one intended. Said Section has two sentences: in the first, it
requires the 3/4 voting in joint session, for Congress to “propose
amendments”. And then in the second sentence, it provides that
“such amendments xxx shall be submitted to the people for their
ratification”. This clearly indicates that by the term “propose
amendments” in the first sentence is meant to frame the substance or
the content or the WHAT-element of the amendments; for it is this
and this alone that is submitted to the people for their ratification.
The details of when the election shall be held for approval or
rejection of the proposed amendments, or the manner of holding it,
are not submitted for ratification to form part of the Constitution.
Stated differently, the plain language of Section 1, Art. XV, shows
that the act of proposing amendments is distinct from—albeit related
to—that of submitting the amendments to the people for their
ratification ; and that the 3/4 voting requirement applies only to the
first step, not to the second one.
It follows that the submission of proposed amendments can be
done thru an ordinary statute passed by Congress. The Constitution
does not expressly state by whom the submission shall be
undertaken; the rule is that a power not lodged elsewhere under the
Constitution is deemed to reside with the legislative body, under the
doctrine of residuary powers. Congress therefore validly enacted
Republic Act 4913 to fix the details of the date and manner of
submitting the proposed amendments to the people for their
ratification. Since it does not “propose amendments” in the sense
referred to by Sec. 1, Art. XV of the Constitution, but merely
provides for how and when the amendments, already proposed, are
going to be voted upon, the same does not need the 3/4 vote in joint
session required in Sec. 1, Art. XV of the Constitution. Furthermore,
Republic Act 4913 is an appropriation measure.
809
810
ing of the provisions were also to be printed on the ballot. The same
however is a matter of policy. As long as the method adopted
provides sufficiently reasonable chance to intelligently vote on the
amendments, and I think it does in this case, it is not constitutionally
defective.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 34/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
811
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 35/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
______________
812
_______________
813
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 37/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Right at the outset, the writer expresses his deep appreciation to Mr.
Justice Calixto O. Zaldivar and Mr. Justice Fred Ruiz Castro for
their invaluable contribution to the substance and form of the
opinion which follows.
Directly under attack in this, a petition for prohibition, is the
constitutionality of Republic Act 4913, approved on June 17, 1967.
This Act seeks to implement Resolutions 1 and 3 adopted by the
Senate and the House of Representatives on March 16, 1967 with
the end in view of amending vital portions of the Constitution.
Since the problem here presented has its roots in the resolutions
aforesaid of both houses of Congress, it may just as well be that we
recite in brief the salient features thereof. Resolution No. 1 increases
the membership of the House of Representatives from 120 to 180
members, and immediately apportions 160 seats. A companion
resolution is Resolution No. 3 which permits Senators and
Congressmen—without forfeiting their seats in Congress
________________
814
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 38/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
and Three, both adopted on March sixteen, nineteen hundred and sixty-
seven, shall be submitted to the people for approval at the general election
which shall be held on November fourteen, nineteen hundred and sixty-
seven, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”
Republic Act 4913 projects the basic angle of the problem thrust
upon us—the manner in which the amendments proposed by
Congress just adverted to are to be brought to the people’s attention.
First, to the controlling constitutional precept. In order that
proposed amendments to the Constitution may become effective,
Section 1, Article XV thereof commands that such amendments
must be “approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at
which the amendments
________________
1 The text of the law reads: “He (Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives) may, however, be a Member of a Constitutional Convention.”
815
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 39/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
will soon take place. They probably would ask: Why the hurry?
These ponderables require the people’s close scrutiny.
2. With these as backdrop, we perforce go into the philosophy
behind the constitutional directive that constitutional amendments be
submitted to the people for their ratification.
A constitutional amendment is not a temporary expedient. Unlike
a statute which may suffer amendments three or more times in the
same year, it is intended to stand the test of time. It is an expression
of the people’s sovereign will.
________________
2 Italics supplied.
816
817
“x x x The great men who builded the structure of our state in this respect
had the mental vision of a good Constitution voiced by Judge Cooley, who
has said ‘A good Constitution should be beyond the reach of temporary
excitement and popular caprice or passion. It is needed for stability and
steadiness; it must yield to the thought of the people; not to the whim of the
people, or the thought evolved the excitement or hot blood, but the sober
second thought, which alone, if the government is to be safe, can be allowed
efficiency, xxx Changes in government are to be feared unless the benefit is
certain. As Montaign says: ‘All great mutations shake and disorder a state.
Good does not necessarily succeed 3 evil; another evil may succeed and a
worse.’ Am. Law Rev. 1889, p. 311”
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 41/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
818
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 42/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
819
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 43/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
_________________
821
For the reasons given, our vote is that Republic Act 4913 must be
stricken down as in violation of the Constitution.
opinion.
Dizon, Angeles, Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur with the
above opinion.
822
ANNOTATION
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 45/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
_______________
1 Tañada vs. Cuenco, L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957; Mabanag, et al. v. Lopez Vito, et al.,
L-1123, Mar. 5, 1947; Climaco, et al. v. Macadaeg, et al., L-19440 & L-19447, Apr.
18, 1962.
2 Morfe v. Mutuc, L-20387, Jan. 31, 1968; Sumulong v. Commission on Elections,
et al., 73 Phil. 288 (1941); Avelino v. Cuenco, L-2821, Mar. 4 & 14, 1949; Cf. also
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Concepcion (now Chief Justice) in Aytona v. Castillo,
et al., L-19313, Jan. 20, 1962.
3 Gonzales v. Hechanova, L-21897, Oct. 22, 1963; Arnault v. Nazareno, L-3920
(1950).
4 Mabanag, et al. v. Lopez Vito, supra. As distinguished from the judicial, the
legislative and executive departments are spoken of as the political departments of
Government because in very many cases their action is necessarily dictated by
consideration of public or political policy (Tañada v. Cuenco, supra).
5 Concurring Opinion of Justice Feria in Mabanag, et al. v. Lopez Vito, Id.
6 Tañada v. Cuenco, Id.; In re McConnaleghy, 119 N. W. 408.
823
_______________
7 Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, et al., L-17144, Oct. 28, 1960, citing Clifford v. French,
146 Cal. 604, 69 L.R.A. 556.
8 Severino v. Governor-General, 16 Phil. 366 (1910), citing Hawkins v. Governor,
1 Ark. 570, 33 Am. Dec. 346.
9 Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 157.
10 Tanada v. Cuenco, Id.
11 Id. See also Lacson v. Roque, L-6225 (1953); Jover v. Borra, L-6782, Jul. 25,
1953.
12 Concurring Opinion of Justice Feria in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, supra.
824
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 47/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
________________
825
is not a question for the courts to determine that is question for the
legislature to determine. The Courts may or may not agree with the
legislature upon the wisdom or necessity of the law. Their
disagreement, however, furnishes no basis for pronouncing a statute
illegal. If the particular statute is within the constitutional power of
the legislature to enact, whether the courts agree 18
or not in the
wisdom of its enactment, is a matter of no concern . The
_________________
not give the Senate the power it then exercised—the power of suspension for one
year. Whereas now, the Congress has the inherent legislative prerogative of
suspension which the Constitution did not impair. Cf. Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, Id.
Further, under our Constitution Senators and Congressmen are elective, not
appointive officials.
In the Vera case, the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to set aside the Pendatun
resolution ordering that petitioners Vera, Diokno and Romero shall not be seated as
members of the Senate, the same matter being a political question. Here the Supreme
Court declared that "the judiciary is not the repository of remedies for all political or
social evils."
16 Advincula v. Commission on Appointments, L-19823, Aug. 31, 1962.
17 Social Security System v. Bayona, L-13555, May 30, 1962.
18 Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936); U.S. v. Te Yu, 24 Phil. 1
(1912); Morfe v. Mutuc, et al., L20387, Jan. 31, 1968.
826
________________
827
_______________
828
______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 51/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
Appointments could not act, even if it wanted to, on said appointments. This question
was decided in the affirmative.
In declining to disregard the President's Administrative Order No. 2 (withdrawing
the ad interim appointments of the out-going President) in the Aytona case, the
Supreme Court considered the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the 350
appointments, of which therein petitioner Aytona were one, in the night of December
29, 1961, such as the “scramble” in Malacanang of candidates for positions trying to
get their written appointments or having such appointments changed to more
convenient places; the fact that such mass appointments were issued a few hours
before the inauguration of the new President. Thus, after observing that the
appointing President could not have exercised the care necessary to insure that said
appointments would be approved by “a Commission on Appointments different from
that existing at the time of the appoint
829
________________
ments,” the Supreme Court declared that such act lends “force to the contention
that these appointments fall beyond the intent and spirit of the constitutional provision
granting to the Executive authority to issue ad interim appointments.” Such
circumstances were therein found to fit the “exceptional circumstances justifying
revocation” of said appointments. But the Supreme Court, realizing the danger of
over-stretching the effect of that decision beyond the extreme and extraordinary
circumstances particularly attending the case, wisely stated that:
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 52/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
“The filling up of vacancies in important positions if few, and so spaced as to afford some
assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appointment and the
appointee's qualification, may undoubtedly be permitted.”
The case of Herrera v. Liwag, et al, L-20079, Sept. 30, 1963, comes squarely
within the above qualification in the Aytona ruling.
31 Gonzales v. Enrile, et al., L-22730, May 24, 1967.
32 55 O.G. 8641.
33 Rep. Act No. 2260, Sec. 29.
830
________________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 53/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
35 L-4221, 48 O.G. 3391 (1952). See Art. VII, Sec. 10 (2), Philippine Constitution.
36 Severino v. Governor-General, et al., 16 Phil. 366 (1910); Cf. also Sec. 22,
Revised Election Code, re “Call of Special Elections” by the President.
37 Abueva, et al. v. Wood, et al., 45 Phil. 612 (1924).
831
______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 54/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
832
________________
44 Macias v. Commission on Elections, et al., L-18684, Sept 14, 1961; Cf. Sec. 5,
Art. VI, Philippine Constitution
45 Ibid
833
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 55/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
______________
834
_______________
835
_______________
836
62
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 58/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
62
Validity of Executive Agreement.—Where the statute has
prescribed certain conditions before importation of rice could be
made by an agency or officer of the Executive Department, the
Court may rule on the question whether or not there was compliance
therewith; and, even if the cereal was imported for stock pile
purposes of the Philippine Army, the requisites for validity of the
importation must be complied with. Although the Chief Executive
may enter into executive agreements without previous legislative
authority, he may not enter into a transaction which is prohibited by
law enacted prior thereto. He may not defeat legislative enactments
that have acquired the status of laws, by indirectly repealing the
same through an executive63
agreement, providing for the very act
prohibited by said laws.
Recount of Votes Cast for President or Vice President.—Prior to
the approval of Republic Act No. 1793, a defeated candidate for
president or vice-president, who believed that he was the candidate
who obtained the largest number of votes for either office; despite
the proclamation by Congress of another candidate as the president-
elect or vice-president-elect, had no legal right to demand by
election protest a recount of the votes cast for the office concerned,
to establish his rights thereto. As a consequence, controversies or
disputes on this matter were not justi-
______________
837
66
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 59/60
2/18/22, 2:27 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 021
66
jurisdiction of an exclusive character. —Atty. DOMINGO .
LUCENARIO.
_______________
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017f0b806a446db1c682000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 60/60