Case Digest: Tobias v.

Abalos
G.R.No. L-114785 PONENTE: BIDIN, J. 08 December 1994

FACTS:

Prior to Republic Act No., 7675 also known as An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong, Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to only one legislative district. A plebiscite was held for the people of Mandaluyong whether or not they approved of the said conversion. The plebiscite was only 14.41% of the said conversion. Nevertheless, 18,621 voted yes whereas 7, 911 voted no. ISSUE: Whether or not the ratification of RA7675 was unconstitutional citing Article VI, Sections 5(1), 4 and 26(1) HELD/RULING: For the purposes of discussion, lets breakdown all of the claimed violations to the 1987 Constitution. Section 26(1). Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. The creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and distinct from the subject of its conversion. Moreover, a liberal construction of the one-title-one-subject rule has been liberally adopted by the court as to not impede legislation (Lidasan v. Comelec). Sec. 5(1). The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations. The Constitution clearly provides that the House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250 members, unless otherwise provided by law. The emphasis on the latter clause indicates that the number of the House of Representatives may be increased, if mandated via a legislative enactment. Therefore, the increase in congressional representation is not unconstitutional. Sec. 5(4). Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standard provided in this section. The argument on the violation of the above provision is absurd since it was the Congress itself which drafted, deliberated upon and enacted the assailed law. The petition is thereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.
1

G.R. No. L-26979: Government vs MiltonSpringer Executive Power Act 2705 created the National Coal Company. It was amended by Act 2822 which provided that the officers of NCC may be voted upon by a select committee comprising of the senate president, house speaker and the governor general [as ex officio officers]. The GG excepted and he issued EO 37 which declared the amendments introduced by Act 2822 as null and void. The GG then ordered that he have the sole power to appoint pursuant to his appointing power as provided in the Administrative Code. The voting committee however ignored the EO and proceeded to the election w/o the GG and they elected Springer et al as officers of the NCC. The government then filed suit. ISSUE: Whether or not the amendments introduced by Act 2822 is constitutional. HELD: Section 22 of the Organic Act, "That all executive functions of the government must be directly under the Governor-General or within one of the executive departments under the supervision and control of the Governor-General." The Philippine Legislature, as we have seen is authorized to create corporations and offices. The Legislature has lawfully provided for the creation of NCC, but has unlawfully provided for two of its members to sit in the committee for the same is considered as a public office. Hence, section 4 of Act No. 2705, as amended by section 2 of Act No. 2822, as purports to vest the voting power of the government-owned stock in the National Coal Company in the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, is unconstitutional and void. DISSENTING OPINION: (Avancea CJ, Villamor & Villareal JJ) The only prohibition to the appointment of members of the Philippine Legislature to executive public offices is that contained in section 18 of the Jones Law, which says that "No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he may have been elected, be eligible to any office the election to which is vested in the Legislature, nor shall be appointed to any office of trust or profit which shall have been created or the emoluments of which shall have been increased during such term." The present Speaker of the House of Representatives is clearly not within said prohibition, as Act No. 2705 creating said committee was enacted in 1917, before his term of office began in 1922; so the now President of the Senate, for which the said Act was passed during his term of office, that term had already expired in 1922, and he is not serving another term (1922-1928).

Therefore, the Philippine Legislature may not only create the voting committee but designate the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as ex-officio members of said committee, always granting, for the sake of argument, that membership therein is a public office.

The minority averred that: 1. That the National Coal Company is not an agency or instrumentality of the Government of the Philippine Islands.

2. That the Government of the Philippine Islands, as mere corporator, if it had to vote its own stock would have to do so in the capacity of a private citizen, and not in its sovereign capacity. 3. That the voting committee in exercising the power delegated to it does so in the same capacity as its principal. 4. That the voting of the stock of the Government is a private act, and the committee in doing so performs a private function, and therefore membership therein is a private and not a public office. 5. That membership in the voting committee being a private position and not a public office, the designation by the Philippine Legislature of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as ex-officio members thereof was not an encroachment upon the power of supervision and control over all executive functions of the Government vested in the Governor-General. 6. That even granting that membership in said committee is a public office, still the Philippine Legislature has the power to designate the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as ex-officio members of said committee, by virtue of the residuum of power placed in its hands by the Congress of the United States. 7. That whether we consider the delegation of the voting power as for public or private purposes, the Governor-General alone cannot exercise that power as it requires discretion and judgment, and at least a majority must concur. 8. That, finally, the Congress of the United States by its reserved power and authority to annul any law of the Philippine Legislature, has by its silence impliedly ratified Act No. 2705, as amended by Act No. 2822. NOTE: The Administrative Code provides the following: "In addition to his general supervisory authority, the Governor-General shall have such specific powers and duties as are expressly conferred or imposed on him by law and also, in particular, the powers and duties set forth," including th special powers and duties "(a) To nominate and appoint officials, conformably to law, to positions in the service of the Government of the Philippine Islands. (b) To remove officials from office conformably to law and to declare vacant the offices held by such removed officials. For disloyalty to the Government of the United States, the Governor-General may at any time remove a person from any position of trust or authority under the Government of the Philippine Islands." (Sec. 64 [a], [b].) The Administrative Code lists the officers appointable by the Governor-General. (Sec. 66.)