This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Prof A. Muyot
Joya v PCGG Dean Jose Joya et al, petitioners v. Presidential Commission of Good Governance (PCGG) et al, respondents Doctrine: ―legal standing‖ is a personal and substantial interest in the case; person/s shall have sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged; material and direct interest Nature: Special Civil Action for Prohibition and Manadamus Date: 1993 August 24 Ponente: Bellosillo Short Version: The petitioners, for the second time, pray for the writs of prohibition and mandamus to be issued against the PCGG for the auction of 82 Old Masters paintings and 71 cartons of silverware seized from the Malacañang and Metropolitan Museum, perceived to be part of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, last 11 January 1991. Facts: 1) 1990 August 9, then-PCCG Chairman Caparas wrote then-Pres. Aquino to request for her authority to sign the proposed Consignment Agreement between RP and Christie’s. 2) 1990 August 14, then-Executive Sec Macaraig Jr. authorized the Agreement. 3) 1990 August 15, Caparas signed the Agreement, January 11, 1991 being the date of auction 4) 1990 October 26, the COA submitted to the Pres the audit observations re the pieces for auction— alleging that they were ―historical relics and had cultural significance‖ and that the auction would be disadvantageous for the government. 5) 1990 November 15, Gabriel Casal of the National Museum issued a certification that the items did not fall within the classification of protected cultural properties and part of the Filipino Heritage. 6) 1991 January 7, petitioners file this original petition. 7) 1991 January 9, Resolution denying the application for preliminary injunction because the petitioners failed to present a clear legal right to a restraining order, and proper parties has not been impleaded. 8) 1991 January 11, the auction proceeded. With the proceeds turned over to the Bureau of Treasury. 9) Petitioners filed another motion in 1991 February 5. Issue/s: Whether the petitioners have legal standing, as citizens, taxpayers and concerned artists
Held: No, the petitioners failed to prove that they had ―legal standing‖ (a personal and substantial interest in the case; sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged; material and personal interest) As citizens: the paintings were donated by private persons to the Metropolitan Museum of Manila Foundation, to which the ownership of the paintings legally belong; the confiscation did not mean acquisition of ownership. The petitioners failed to show that they are the legal owners of the artworks or the valued pieced have become publicly owned. As taxpayers, the governmental acts being questioned must involve disbursement of public funds; the items in question were acquired not with public money. Since the auction ―had long been over‖ the case in question has become moot and academic. Decision: petition for prohibition and mandamus is DISMISSED.
Agan v PIATCO Demosthenes P. Agan, Jr. et al, petitioners, v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc., et al, respondents. Doctrine: loss of livelihood is a direct and personal interest Nature: Special Civil Action - Prohibition Date: 2003 May 5 Ponente: Puno Short Version: The petitioners (a mix of employees and service providers of NAIA Terminal I and II), which stand to lose their livelihood with the implementation of 1997 Concession Agreement, Amended and Restated Concession Agreement (ARCA) and Supplements, seeks to prohibit PIATCO, MIAA and DOTC in the implementation of said agreements. Facts: 1) 1989 August, DOTC engaged Aeroport de Paris (ADP) to conduct a comprehensive study of the NAIA to determine whether the present airport can cope with the traffic development up to the year 2010. 2) ADP submits its Draft Final Report to the DOTC on December 1989. 3) 1994 October 5, Asia’s Emerging Dragons Corp. (AEDC) submitted an unsolicited proposal to the Government through DOTC/MIAA for the
Doctrine: ―proper party‖ is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of joannfdm . the Amended and Restated Concession Agreement and its Supplements are set aside for being NULL AND VOID. respondent. 12) Government and PIATCO signed three Supplements to the ARCA dated 27 Aug 1999. and Security Bank Corp. the workers of the international airline service providers filed a petition for Prohibition. CHR Employees Association v CHR Commission on Human Rights Employees’ Association (CHREA). Paircargo Consortium incorporated into PIATCO. 3) No. 4) No. and the assumption by the Government of the liabilities of PIATCO in the event of the latter’s default thereof. Section 17 of the Constitution. ARCA. Direct government guarantee is not allowed by the BOT Law (RA7718). the 1997 Concession Agreement contained provisions that substantially depart from the draft Concession Agreement included in the Bid Documents. PBAC notified AEDC that Paircargo.. the Paircargo Consortium (composed of People’s Air Cargo and Warehousing Co. 6) 1996 September 20. represented by its President Marcial Sanchez Jr. The Court grants standing in matters raising serious legal questions with impact on public interest. Inc. with the existing contracts and agreements of MIAA will not be carried over to the NAIA IPT III. petitioners. the petitioners stand to lose employment—a property right which is ―zealously protected‖ by the Constitution. Commission on Human Rights.. the 1997 Concession Agreement and the ARCA grant PIATCO the exclusive right to operate a commercial international passenger terminal within the Island of Luzon. 14) 2003 March 6. 2 which approved the NAIA IPT III project. had pre-qualified. PIATCO has to have at least P2B at the time the bid is submitted. The Constitution strictly regulates monopolies (Article XII. PIATCO informed the Court that PIATCO commenced arbitration proceedings before the International Court of Arbitration pursuant to Sec 10. These changes are: modification on the public utility revenues and non-public utility revenues that may be collected by PIATCO. the Government and PIATCO signed the 1997 Concession Agreement. The HOR. because PIATCO failed to satisfy the required ―financial capability to undertake the project in the minimum amount of 30% of the project cost. 10) 1997 July 9. the Government and PIATCO signed ARCA. 8) 1997 February 27. the DOTC issued the notice of award for the project to PIATCO. Sec 10. 13) 2002 Sept 17. Muyot development of NAIA Terminal III under a BOT agreement. 7) 1996 October 2. and Supplements are valid? Held: 1) Yes.02 of the ARCA. July 12. v. Inc. Other petitioners followed filing.‖ Since the project cost was estimated to be around P9B. 2) Yes. and 22 June 2001. The financial prejudice brought about by the PIATCO contracts is legitimate interests sufficient to confer legal standing. the rule of hierarchy of courts may be relaxed in exceptional circumstances in cases of transcendental importance for the speedy disposition of the instant cases. 9) 1997 April 1. Air and Grounds Services. the NEDA passed Board Resolution No. 4) 1996 February 13. Phil. The interest of justice would be best served if the case is adjudicated in a single and complete proceeding. DOTC submitted the concession agreement for the second-pass approval of the NEDA-ICC. Issue/s: 1) Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing 2) Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction citing the alleged violation of the rule on hierarchy of courts and the ICC arbitration proceedings 3) Whether Paircargo Consortium was a valid bidder 4) Whether or not the 1997 Concession Agreement. 5) 1996 July 23. Decision: The 1997 Concession Agreement.E2015 Constitutional Law 1 Prof A. the Prequalification Bids and Awards Committee invited all bidders to a pre-bid conference on Jul 29. PIATCO cannot obligate the Government to pay ―reasonable cost‖ upon takeover pursuant to Article XII. citizens and taxpayers have standing because the contracts compel the Government and/or the HOR to appropriate funds necessary to comply with the provisions therein.) submitted their competitive proposal to the PBAC... 4 Sept 2000. Second pre-bid confe was held on August 29. Section 19) The Supplements being accessory contracts to ARCA are likewise null and void.02 of the ARCA which enables PIATCO to file in ICA binds only the parties to the ARCA and not the petitioners. 11) 1998 November 26.
in his capacity as Executive Secretary. or of paramount public interest Nature: Special Civil Action . petitioners. As a rule.Certiorari Date: 2005 January 18 Ponente: Chico-Nazario Short Version: AIWA. The same office denied CHREA’s motion for recon on 2000 June 9. CSC-NCR Mar 29 1999 ruling REINSTATED. Patricia Sto. an issue neither raised in the complaint nor in court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. 2) Respondents allege that: a) the petition does not pose an actual case or controversy as petitioner failed to cite how EO 185 has prejudiced or threatened to prejudice their rights and existence as labor unions and as taxpayers.‖ 2) CHR Chairperson and Commissioners promulgated a Resolution dated 1998 Sept 4 adopting an updating and reclassification scheme among selected positions in the Commission. v. Muyot Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals Date: 2004 November 25 Ponente: Chico-Nazario Short Version: The CHREA assails the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals granting the CHR the authority to reclassify and upgrade its personnel positions without the approval of the DBM.‖ 4) 1999 March 29. 3) The DBM denied the request saying that: ―…fiscal autonomy does not vest the agency with the authority to reclassify. 6) The Court of Appeals likewise rendered the same judgment as that of CSC-Central Office because the CHR has fiscal autonomy. given that the CHR has not recognized in writing or formal record that CHREA is a bona fide organization of its employees 2) Whether or not the CHR can upgrade and reclassify its employees without DBM approval Held: 1) Yes. in her capacity as Secretary of Labor and Employment. the CHR is not a Constitutional Commission. CHREA. consisting of rank and file employees of the CHR. should follow the Salary Standardization Law and require DBM approval for all reclassification and upgrading of personnel positions. respondents. and Hon. and is not imbued with fiscal autonomy. from which the benefits of the said employees are derived. state that ―the Constitutional Commissions and Offices enjoying fiscal autonomy are authorized to formulate and implement the organizational structure of their respective offices. when it took cognizance of the former’s request. and the Court of Appeals. and as such. Doctrine: the rule on standing a matter of procedure. not even in their capacity as taxpayers because labor unions are exempt from paying taxes. 3) Petitioners affirm their locus standi as they are suing for and in behalf of their members and the employees of NLRC who have pending cases for dismissal. Alberto Romulo. can be relaxed in cases when the matter is of transcendental importance. 2) No. Congress passed RA 8522. stood to lose directly because the reclassification scheme entails eating up the Commission’s savings allocated for Personnel Services. b) the petitioners have no locus standi. in Article XXXIII. joannfdm . GA Act of 1998 which. Hon. as labor unions representing its members and as taxpayers. Issue/s: 1) Whether or not the petitioners have locus standi. The Court finds their petition lacking in merit as to the requisite of legal standing. of overarching significance to society.E2015 Constitutional Law 1 Prof A. Decision: Petition is GRANTED. Facts: 1) EO 185 is released on 2003 March 10. hence. CSC-NCR Office recommended to the CSC-Central Office that the subject appointments be rejected. upgrade and create positions without approval of the DBM. The personality of CHREA was a non-issue with CSC. seeing the CHR as a constitutional commission imbued with fiscal autonomy. 5) CSC-Central Office denied CHREA’s request in 1999 Dec 16. Facts: 1) 1998 February 14. Automotive Industry Workers Alliance v Romulo Automotive Industry Workers Alliance (AIWA) and its Affiliated Unions. c) the administrative supervision granted by the Labor Code to the NLRC Chairman over the NLRC does not place them beyond the President’s broader power of control and supervision. assails the constitutionality of EO 185 (conferring upon the Secretary of Labor and Employment the duties of the NLRC Chairperson). Tomas. the CA Decision and Resolution are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Facts: 1) 1973 November. 2) Petitioners argue that since the matter concerns a public right and its object is to compel the Chavez v PEA and Amari Francisco I. reverse. Hon. letters of instructions. performance of a public duty. Facts: 1) Respondents allege that the petitioners have no legal standing because they are not ―aggrieved parties‖ citing Section 3. or modify decisions of the NLRC. petitioners. petitioners have not shown that they have sustained or in danger of sustaining any personal injury attributable to the enactment of EO 185. as taxpayer.E2015 Constitutional Law 1 Prof A. 2) The answer will have to wait until the proper party in a proper case assails its validity. Tañada et al. respondents. Tañada v Tuvera Lorenzo M. as a taxpayer. petitioner. respondents. petitions to compel PEA to disclose all facts on PEA’s then on-going renegotiations with AMARI to reclaim portions of Manila Bay. The issue raised is not enough to make the Court waive the procedural issue of standing as the grant of authority to the Secretary of Labor and Employment is limited to the departments to which it is addressed. Article IV of the 1973 Constitution). Public Estates Authority and Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation. the right sought to be enforced by petitioners is a public right recognized by the Constitution. Juan C. Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 . it would be difficult to conceive of any other person to initiate the same. The publication of all presidential issuances ―of a public nature‖ or ―of general applicability‖ is a requirement of due process. it cannot be said that EO 185 will prejudice their rights and interests considering that the scope of authority conferred upon the Secretary of Labor does not extend to the power to review. Tuvera et al. proclamations. Commissioner of Public Highways and Construction and Development Corporation of the Philippines entered into a contract to reclaim certain foreshore and offshore areas of joannfdm . Chavez.―shall‖ Decision: The Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application. the people have no means of knowing what presidential decrees have actually been promulgated. v. Decision: Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. mandamus involves the enforcement of constitutional rights which are matters of transcendental public importance Nature: Special Civil Action . v. they shall have no binding force and effect. without publication. letter of implementation and administrative orders invoking the people’s right to be informed on matters of public concern (Section 6. executive orders. Issue/s: 1) Whether or not the petitioners have legal standing 2) Whether or not the publication in the Official Gazette a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws Held: 1) Yes.Mandamus Date: 2002 July 9 Ponente: Carpio Short Version: The petitioner. Doctrine: invoking a public right accords to a citizen legal standing Nature: Petition to review the decision of the Executive Assistant to the President Date: 1985 April 24 Ponente: Escolin Short Version: Petitioner. It is administrative in nature. If petitioners were not allowed to institute this proceeding. Doctrine: citizen has standing to bring this taxpayer’s suit because the petition seeks to compel PEA to comply with its constitutional duties. general orders. petitioners have not established disbursement of public funds in contravention of law or the Constitution. Muyot Issue/s: 1) Whether or not the petitioners have standing 2) Whether or not EO 185 is valid and constitutional Held: 1) No. they need not show any specific interest. As taxpayers. 2) Yes. seeks to compel the Respondents to publish and/or cause for publication in the Official Gazette various presidential decrees. As labor unions. and unless so published.
. Antonio Zulueta filed a petition for prohibition. LTFRB. respondents. then Pres Marcos created PEA through PD 1084. 4) 1990 December 14. Hon.E2015 Constitutional Law 1 Prof A. circulars and/or orders of the DOTC and LTFRB regarding fare rate fixing. 4) 1988 January. Decision: Petition is GRANTED. has to disclose all the facts regarding re-negotiations invoking Sec. improve. the petition seeks to compel PEA to comply with its constitutional duties: right to information on matters of public concern and the constitutional provision intended to insure the equitable distribution of alienable lands of the public domain among Filipino citizens. 90-395 to LTFRB allowing provincial bus operators to charge passengers rates within a range of 15% above and 15% below the LTFRB official rate for one year. contending that the government stands to lose billions of pesos in the sale by PEA of the reclaimed lands to AMARI. and the Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines. v. Through PD 1085. the Court is not the trier of facts. 28. and that the sale of lands of public domain is a violation of Section 3. Facts: 1) 1990 June 26. and seeks to nullify the JVA. PBOAP filed an application for a fare rate increase with the minimum-maximum scheme. Muyot Manila Bay plus Phases I and II of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road. Amended JVA is NULL and VOID ab initio. LTF upheld the legality of JVA. PEA entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with AMARI to develop the Freedom Islands. 5) 1992 March 30. granting and transferring to PEA the land reclaimed under the MCCRRP ―Freedom Islands‖ 5) 1995 April 25. yet to be classified lands of public domain to a private corporation) it is of no necessity. 92-587 defining the policy framework for the regulation of transport services. The Court dismissed the petition for unwarranted disregard of judicial hierarchy. and c) the JVA is illegal. 2) 1990 July 24. LTFRB granted the fare rate increase. then DOTC Sec Orbos issued Memorandum Circular No. b) the certificate of titles re Freedom Islands are void. the petition raises matters of transcendental importance to the public. and since the Amended JVA is null and void ab initio (because it transfers unreclaimed. petitioner. Garcia. Article XII. 8) 1997 December. to reclaim land. 2) No. Jr. 11) 1998 April 27. then Pres Marcos issued a Memorandum directing PEA to amend its contract with CDCP—all future works in MCCRRP shall be funded and owned by PEA. 7) Senate files its report re the PEA-Amari JVA on 1997 Sept 16: a) PEA seeks to transfer to AMARI reclaimed lands which are public domain and have yet to be classified as alienable. lease and sell any and all kinds of lands. then Pres Estrada approved the JVA on May 28. Article II. joannfdm . 3) 1990 December 5. then Pres Aquino issued Special Patent 3517. Doctrine: Nature: Petition for certiorari Date: 1994 December 23 Ponente: Kapunan Short Version: The petitioners assail the constitutionality of certain memoranda. acquire. 3) 1981 December. LTFRB Chairperson Fernando found that the fare range scheme is ―not legally feasible‖ citing Sec 16(c) of the Public Service Act. and Sec. then DOTC Sec Prado issued Department Order No. 1995 June 8 then Pres Ramos approved the JVA. Petitioner filed instant petition. PDI and Today published reports that on-going negotiations between PEA and AMARI were underway. Article III of the Constitution. PEA and AMARI signed Amended JVA. KMU Labor Center v Garcia Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center. Issue/s: 1) Whether or not the petitioner has locus standi to bring this suit 2) Whether the Court is the proper forum for raising the issue of whether the Amended JVA is grossly disadvantageous to the Government Held: 1) Yes. Jesus B. 7. additional reclamation of 250 hectares of submerged areas. Also. and thus. ordered by then Pres Ramos 10) 1998 April 13. 12) 1999 March 30. and to develop. 6) 1995 April 28. the Board of Directors of PEA confirmed the JVA. as per Senate Committee report. 9) 1998 April. then Pres Ramos created a Legal Task Force to look into the JVA. the lands reclaimed in the Manila Bay under the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road and Reclamation Project will be transferred to PEA. 2) 1977 February.
whose members avail of the public transport. conditional or subject to limitations. Issue/s: 1) Whether or not the petitioner has legal standing 2) Whether or not the aforementioned act of the Pres is subject to judicial review 3) Whether or not the Pres ―calling out‖ of the armed forces to assist the PNP violates the constitutional provisions on civilian supremacy over the military and civilian character of the PNP Held: 1) No. 7) 1993 February 17. SM North. petitioners. Decision: Petition is DISMISSED. highly speculative. MCC. DOTC Sec Garcia. PBOAP announced a fare increase of 20% of the existing fares to be effective on 1994 Mar 16. are directly affected by the burdensome cost of arbitrary increase in passenger fares. Jr. 2) The Pres confirmed this directive in a Memorandum dated 24 January 2000. is justiciable—the problem being one of legality or validity. Panfilo Lacson. as the official organization of Filipino lawyers tasked with the bounden duty to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution. Edgar Aglipay. 92-009 promulgating the guidelines for the implementation of DOTC DO No. when the grant of power is qualified. uncertain. Gen. Muyot 6) 1992 October 8. 3) No. Greenhills. LTFRB dismissed the petition for lack of merit on Mar 24. it is the unclouded intent of the Constitution to vest upon the President full discretion to call forth the military to prevent or suppress lawless violence. Inc. assails the constitutionality of the order of Pres Estrada commanding the deployment of the Marines to join the PNP in visibility patrols around the metropolis. Angelo Reyes. Decision: Petition is GRANTED. Gen. TRO made PERMANENT. joannfdm . Zamora. the IBP filed the instant petition to annul LOI 02/2000. the power of fixing rates of public services is a power delegated by the Legislature to the LTFRB. not its wisdom. Facts: 1) In view of the alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila. the issue of whether the prescribed qualifications or conditions have been met or the limitations respected. LRT/MRT stations. Memos are hereby DECLARED contrary to law. KMY filed a petition before LTFRB opposing the adjustment of bus fares. Further delegation constitutes a negation of duty. 92-587. 8) 1994 March. novelty and weight as precedents. 2) No. LTFRB issued MC No. 3) Selected areas of deployment are: Monumento Circle. Short Version: The Petitioner. rather than later 2) Yes. invasion or rebellion. the President. Ronaldo B. the aforementioned standing is insufficient. This Court is ―ready to brush aside this barren procedural infirmity‖ in view of transcendental importance of the issues. v.. Araneta Shopping Center. SM Megamall. respondents. issued a Memorandum to the LTFRB suggesting swift action in the implementation of rules and procedures as to DO No. but the Court has the discretion to take cognizance of a suit in view of the seriousness. 9) March 16. respondents. 92-587. further delegation of that power by the LTFRB to the provincial bus operators is illegal and invalid because what has been delegated cannot be delegated (Potestas delegate non delegari potest). Prohibition Date: 2000 August 15 Ponente: Kapunan Executive Secretary v CA The Executive Secretary et al. 4) 2000 January 17.). ordered the PNP and Marines to conduct joint visibility patrols called Task Force Tulungan. IBP v Zamora Integrated Bar of the Philippines. and Gen. Nature: Special civil action – Certiorari. Doctrine: The mere invocation by the IBP of its duty to preserve the rule of law is not sufficient to clothe it with standing—this is too general an interest. NAIA and MIA. too vague. Issue/s: 1) Whether or not the petitioner has standing 2) Whether or not the fare range scheme approved by the DOTC and LTFRB is valid Held: 1) Yes Petitioners. Hon. standing needs to be specific and substantial. Hon.E2015 Constitutional Law 1 Prof A. in a verbal directive. Court of Appeals and Asian Recruitment Council Philippine Chapter (ARCO-Phil. petitioner. v. but the Court relaxes the rules on standing to resolve the issue now.
Kilosbayan v Guingona Kilosbayan. 2) Mar 1993. which affirmed the RTC-QC decision that issued preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of RA 8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995). filed a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court with the RTC-QC to declare as unconstitutional some provisions of RA 8042. the Contract of Lease is not what it purports to be. CA dismissed the petition and affirming assailed order. Issue/s: 1) Whether or not respondents have locus standi 2) Whether or not the appellate court erred in affirming the RTC Decision that issued TRO Held: 1) Yes. 4) 1997 Dec 5. Facts: 1) PCSO decided to establish an on-line lottery system for the purpose of increasing its revenue base and diversifying its sources of funds. Facts: 1) RA 8042 took effect on 1995 July 15. set aside in view of the importance of the issues raised. PGMC submitted its bid to PCSO.‖ 6) The Contract of Lease was finally executed by the PCSO and PGMC. as amended by BP 42. as the Contract violates Sec. PCSO formally issued a Request for Proposal for the Lease of Contract of ―lotto‖ for the PCSO. the Court has always had a liberal policy on locus standing 2) Yes. under its Articles of Incorporation. Nature: Petition – certiorari – CA decision Date: 2004 May 25 Ponente: Callejo. entity or association on matters related to the manpower recruitment industry. respectively. 1 of RA 1169. 5) Dec 1. Writ of Preliminary Injunction issue by RTC-QC NULLIFIED. By Oct 21. v.E2015 Constitutional Law 1 Prof A. the respondent was organized ―to act as the representative of any individual. justice ad national renewal. then. injunction Date: 1994 May 5 Ponente: Davide Jr. Muyot Doctrine: An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct interest if its members are directly affected by the action. 4) Aug 15. assailed decision of CA is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. 1996 Apr 7. ARCO-Phil. ? Decision: Petition is GRANTED. The respondent. is the appropriate party to assert the rights of its members because it and its members are in every practical sense identical. the Pres approved it on Dec 20. 1 or RA 1169 as amended by BP 42. Nature: Special civil action – prohibition. on the ground that respondents has no locus standi. in the exercise of its discretion. Doctrine: A party’s standing before the court is a procedural technicality which it may. Sr.‖ taxpayers. Short Version: The petitioners seek for a reversal of the CA decision. joannfdm . respondents. 2) Yes. concerned citizens— seek to prohibit and restrain the implementation of ―Contract of Lease‖ executed by PCSCO and PGMC in connection with the on-line lottery system. Short Version: Petitioners—as an organization representing those ―who are committed to the cause of truth. members of the Congress. The challenged Contract of Lease is DECLARED contrary to law and invalid. 3) Aug 1993. et al. in cases of transcendental importance the Court brushes aside its technicality. the Office of the President had given the PGMC the go-signal to operate the country’s on-line lottery system. Held: 1) Yes. 2) 1995 July 17. company. Guingona Jr. it is a joint venture for a period of 8 years in the maintenance of the lotto Decision: Petition is GRANTED. 7) Kilosbayan filed instant petition on 1994 Jan 24. Berjaya Group Berhad organized with some Filipino investors the Philippine Gaming Management Corporation. Kilosbayan requested from Guingona copies of documents pertaining to the lottery award. 3) 1995 Aug 24. Issue/s: 1) Whether or not the petitioners have standing 2) Whether or not the Contract of Lease violates Sec. petitioners. RTC-QC issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of RA 8042.. Inc. and that the trial and appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion and erred. the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 8042 was published in Manila Bulletin. The latter said it will be provided ―before the end of the month. in issuing said order.
Prohibition Date: 2004 January 21 Ponente: Carpio Short Version: Petitioners. EO 172 was issued. Nature: Special civil action . Records do not show that PGMC is a foreign owned and controlled corporation. respondents. They stand neither to gain nor to lose economically by its enforcement. petitioners. Senators. petitioners. Decision: Petition is GRANTED. an additional P500M. the petitioners are allowed to sue when there is a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds 2) Yes. COMELEC adopted Resolution 020170. and 3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. Congress passed RA 8046 authorizing the COMELEC to use an automated election system in March 1996 elections in ARMM. 6074 declared NULL and VOID. none participated in the bidding. the Contract for the purchase of the defective machines and nonexistent software from a non-eligible bidder. Kilosbayan is not a private commission on audit. COMELEC awarded the project to MPC. Doctrine: The requisites for standing: 1) the party showed that s/he has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the illegal conduct of the government. assail the constitutionality of the special elections held last ITF v COMELEC Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines et al. they have not shown that elemental injury in fact will endow them with a standing to sue. 4) May 2001 elections completely manual. 8) May 2003 the petitioners contested the award. v. 7) Jan 28. and was given. Puno: Petitioners have failed to show standing. 8) Despite failing the technical evaluation done by the DOTC. as voters. COMECLEC. respondents. allege that the COMELEC’s award of contract to Mega Pacific Consortium is invalid mainly because it did not participate in the bidding for the 2004 poll automation project. a modernization program. As concerned citizens. 2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action. Issue/s: 1) Whether or not petition have standing 2) Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it awarded to MPC the contract for nd the 2 phase of the comprehensive Automated Election System Held: 1) Yes.‖ Nature: Special civil action . and it executed. Petitioners are seeking the nullity of a contract not a law. COMELEC issued Invitation to Bid. Ralph Recto and Gregorio Honasan.5B to fund the AES project. their right to enact laws remains unimpaired and undiminished. as taxpayers. Doctrine: Petitioners legal standing is recognized following the liberal policy of this Court whenever a case involves ―an issue of overarching significance.E2015 Constitutional Law 1 Prof A. Congress passed RA 8436 authorizing the COMELEC to use an automated election system (AES) for May 11 1998 national or local elections. 6) 2003 Jan 24. As legislators. Tolentino v COMELEC (2004) Arturo M Tolentino et al. petitioners are pleading to be allowed to advocate constitutional rights of other persons who are not before the court. they still don’t have standing because the case does not involve any expenditure of public money on the part of PCSO. allocating P2. As taxpayers. COMELEC illegally made the award. COMELEC Resolution No. joannfdm . thus they are complete strangers to the contract. Commission on Elections et al. and yet none of the petitioners is a party to the contract. Facts: 1) 1995 June 7. They cannot simply advance a generic grievance in common with the people in general. COMELEC is further ORDERED to refrain from implementing any other contract or agreement entered into with regard to this project.certiorari Date: 2004 January 13 Ponente: Panganiban Short Version: Petitioners. Apr 15 2003. there can be no serious doubt that the issue at hand is a matter of transcendental importance—a just justification of the relaxation of the rule on legal standing. for the 2004 elections. as taxpayers. 5) 2002 Oct. sometime in May 2003. They still failed to demonstrate: 1) an injury in fact to himself and 2) the need to prevent the erosion of a preferred constitutional right of a third person. 2) Dec 22. Personal level. COMELEC asked for. Muyot Dissenting Opinion. v. 3) May 1998 COMELEC eventually decided against automation.
Umali was appointed by then Pres Ramos as Regional Director of BIR. respondents. The purported ambiguity of the Plunder Law is more imagined than real. Doctrine: The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity for it to be granted due course/process. 2) Feb 2001. Muyot May 14. COMELEC proclaimed 13 candidates. Makati: Mar 1994 – Aug 1994. She nominated then-Senator Guingona as VP. although the petitioners do not claim that COMELEC illegally disbursed the funds nor that they sustained a personal injury. Guingona Jr. Executive Secretary Teofisto T. Nature: Petition for review on certiorari CA decision Date: 1999 March 29 Ponente: Purisma Short Version: Petitioner. Congress confirmed the nomination on Feb 2001. Umali v Guingona Osmundo G. Facts: 1) Petitioner alleges that: the Plunder Law suffers from vagueness. petitioners file instant petition on grounds that COMELEC failed to notify the th electorate that the 13 Senate shall by filled in such manner. and that all candidates for Senators all ran for the 12 seats with 6yr-term. petitioner. Senate. called on the COMELEC to fill the vacancy through a special election to be held simultaneously with the regular elections on May 14 th 2001. 2004 with the ―normal‖ elections for the Senate seat vacated by VP Guingona. 2) Yes. Sen. COMELEC’s failure to notify the electorate and perform the subsequent preparations (like a separate ballot. it dispenses with the ―reasonable doubt‖ standard in criminal prosecutions. v. as to meaning. The Secretary of Finance. Pres Ramos received a confidential memorandum against petitioner for alleged Estrada v Sandiganbayan Joseph Ejercito Estrada. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines. the rule of standing is relaxed because the right invoked is the right of suffrage. and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Decision: We REMIND COMELEC. certified the vacancy. 2) Aug 1. 3) 2001 June 5. Nature: Petition to declare RA 7080 as amended by RA 7659 unconstitutional Date: 2001 November 19 Ponente: Bellosillo joannfdm . 13 highest vote-getter fills the vacancy for 3yrs only.. Recto files that he is not a proper party to the case th as he is the 12 Senator in the race. who was charged with malfeasance. assails the constitutionality of the Presidential Commission on Anti-Graft and Corruption in his motion for reconsideration dated 1995 Jan at the Regional Trial Court. Issue/s: 1) Whether or not the petitioners have standing 2) Whether or not the special election to fill said vacant seat was validly held on May 14 2001 Held: 1) Yes. Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. 4) June 20. petitioner. Manila: Nov 1993 – Marc 1994. Flexibility. misfeasance and nonfeasance as Regional Director for the BIR . PGMA rose to power. through Res. is permissible as long as the metes and bounds of the statute are clearly delineated. v. Issue/s: Whether or not the case merits a judicial review Held: No.E2015 Constitutional Law 1 Prof A. Chairman Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption. Umali. No. Doctrine: A facial challenge does not apply to penal statutes. Short Version: Petitioner assails the constitutionality of the Plunder Law for vagueness (the failure to define ―combination‖ and ―series‖ in the aforementioned Law) and overbroad. candidacy etc) for the special elections for the three-yr-termed Senator still does not make the special election invalid. respondents. DISMISS the petition for lack of merit. Facts: 1) 1993 Oct. Honasan. Facts: 1) Jan 2001. Decision: Plunder Law is CONSTITUTIONAL. the allegations that the Plunder Law is vague and overbroad do not justify a facial review of its validity. and it abolishes the element of mens rea. The case th concerns mainly the 13 Senator. 84.
a special civil action for certiorari will prosper only if a grave abuse of discretion is manifested. Dec 23. Decision: Petition is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. (in light of Rualo’s statement) Doctrine: The Court could not entertain questions on the invalidity of a statute where that issue was not specifically raised. CA reversed the Amended Decision. 14) 1998 Aug. neither asked clarificatory questions re the PCAGC and the documents presented. To justify its nullification there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. Issue/s: Whether or not the petitioner raised the issue of constitutionality with respect to the requisites of judicial review Held: No. RTC granted the petition and reversed the original Decision but still the petition appealed to CA. seeking judicial review at the earliest opportunity does not mean immediately elevating the matter to the Court. hearing commence. BIR Commissioner Rualo informed the Solicitor General that it is no longer interested in pursuing the case against Umali. Branch 53 (Caloocan). 5) Aug 30. Dir. Mandamus Date: 2004 June 15 Ponente: Quisumbing Short Version: The petitioners. and referred his case to PCAGC. Dy issued to Anita Chua a check amounting to P2. She was arraigned. PCAGC found a prima facie evidence to support 6 of the 12 charges against petitioner. Mangrobang. petitioner filed before the RTC Makati a petition for certiorari. and pleaded not guilty. Branch 54 (Navotas). Nature: Special civil action – Certiorari. petitioner. 6) Sept 23. in 2002 Oct. Pres issued AO No. insisted upon.000. Nor did the Court find the constitutional question the very lis mota presented in the controversy. 9) Dec 1. 10) 1995 Jan 10 petitioner filed a motion for recon assailing the constitutionality of PCAGC.5M despite well knowing that she has no sufficient funds with the drawee bank. 12) 1997 Apr. the petitioner failed to satisfy the third requisite—earliest opportunity—because he raised said question ―for the first time at such a late stage of the proceedings below. respondent. Gloria S. Ramizo. 4) Aug 25. Both of them being charged with the violation of said law. Issue/s: 1) Whether or not the petition for certiorari has merit 2) Whether or not all the requisites for judicial review have been met Held: 1) No. speculative or argumentative. 13) 1995 Jul. and the petitions are devoid of any attachments/copy of an order. Celetina C. it should have been immediately raised in the proceedings in the court below. 3) Aug 2. 11) 1995 Dec. The Honorable Ma. 152 dismissing petitioner from service. Presiding Judge. rules and regulations during his incumbency as Reg. and adequately argued. assail the constitutionality of BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law).‖ Decision: Court GRANTS this petition. Arceta issued to Oscar R Castro a check amounting to P740. The Honorable Edwin B. decision or resolution issued by the respondent judges so as to place them understandably within the ambit of Rule 65. v.E2015 Constitutional Law 1 Prof A. joannfdm . Dy. the petitioner moved for recon but was denied by Office of the Pres on Nov 28. motion for recon denied in Oct 1997. But the charges were dismissed in 1996 Nov by SPO II De Guzman. Ramos issued an Order for the preventive suspension of Umali. RTC dismissed the petition. Muyot violations of internal revenue laws. and not one that is doubtful. 152 LIFTED. respondent. 2) 2000 Jan 19. approved by Desierto. prohibition and injunction. Every law is presumed to be constitutional. AO No. petitioner. v. which was subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds. petitioner appeared with his counsel before the PCAGC. in two separate cases. 7) Oct 6. Arceta v Mangrobang Ofelia V Arceta. Presiding Judge. 8) Oct 24. Ombudsman found a probable cause against petitioner. no sufficient cause of action 2) No. Facts: 1) 1998 Sept 16. Prohibition.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.