Memorize:

1. Article 4 Civil Code of the Philippines

Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.

A retroactive statute operates as of a time prior to its enactment. It therefore

operates backwards in that it changes the law from what it was.
Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of
a felony, who is not a habitual criminal

2. Article 6 Section 1 Philippine Constitution (1987)

The Legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall
consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to
the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.

3. Article 6 Section 26 (2) Philippine Constitution

Every bill by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in
the title thereof

No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed 3 readings on
separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its
Members 3 days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency.

Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment shall be allowed, and the vote shall be
taken immediately, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.

4. Article 2 Civil Code of the Philippines

Laws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion of their publication in the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is
otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect 1 year after such publication.

LIBARNES v. EXEC. SEC. OF ZAMBOANGA CITY

Facts: Lucio Libarnes was appointed as Chief of Police of Zamboanga by the
President of the PH. Mayor of Zamboanga, Tomas Ferrer, informed Libarnes that
his services as Chief of Police was terminated and required him to turn over his
duties to Major Miguel Apostol. Libarnes initiated the present action to nullify the
designation of Apostol and that he is entitled to hold office until removed for
cause and “after due process”. Defendants say the designation is valid pursuant to
a Commonwealth Act that reads that the President may appoint and remove at
pleasure appointive officials which also includes the Chief of Police and argued that
Sec 5 of RA no. 2259 is inapplicable because Libarnes has not been removed from
office but his term of office has merely expired. It is claimed that the contents of
the provision are alien to the subject of its title and that the provision is
unconstitutional.

It is urged in Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2259 - "all other officials now
appointed by the President of the Philippines may not be removed from office
except for cause" is violative of the constitutional injunction that "no bill which
may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be
expressed in the title of the bill", that of RA No. 2259 being:

AN ACT MAKING ELECTIVE THE OFFICES OF MAYOR, VICE-MAYOR AND

COUNCILORS IN CHARTERED CITIES, REGULATING THE ELECTION IN SUCH
CITIES AND FIXING THE SALARIES AND TENURE OF SUCH OFFICERS.

Issue: WON Sec 5 of RA 2259 is unconstitutional – NO

Ruling: As stated in an explanatory note from Inchong v. Hernandez, the purpose of

the subject of a bill to be embraced in its title is to apprize the legislators of the
purposes, nature and scope of the provision to prevent matters that have not
received notice, action and study of the legislators or the public. In the case, the
provision was debated upon the floor of Congress whose members were aware of
its existence. It cannot be claimed that the legislators have not apprised of the
nature of the law. Therefore, the provision in Sec 5 of RA 2259 is valid and
constitutional.

ARROYO v. VENECIA
Facts: During a conference to discuss the disagreeing provisions (of a RA
regarding sin taxes on beer and cigarettes) of the House and Senate of the bill, when
the petitioner was asking the Speaker a question, the speaker approved the bill
and when the petitioner tried to clarify, the session was suspended by the
speaker. On the same day, the bill was signed and certified. Petitioners
challenged the validity of RA 8240 imposing sin taxes on the sale of beer and
cigarettes. Petitioners are members of the HoR, charging the respondents for
violating the rules of the house which they claim are “constitutionally mandated”
so their violation is tantamount to the violation of the constitution. Petitioner’s
principal argument is that RA 8240 is null and void due to it being passed in
violation of the rules of the House.

Rules of the house violated (claimed by petitioner): the chair did not call for the yeas
and nays but simply asked for its approval by motion in order to prevent the petitioner
from questioning the presence of a quorum, the chair ignores the petitioner’s question,
the chair refused to recognize the petitioner and proceeded to act on a motion, the chair
suspended the session without first ruling on petitioner’s question
Issue: WON the HoR committed grave abuse of discretion in enacting RA 8240 and
WON this makes RA 8240 unconstitutional - NO

Ruling: What is alleged to have been violated in the enactment of the RA are merely
internal rules of procedure rather than constitutional requirements for the
enactment of a law. The matter concerns internal procedure of the house with which the
court should not be concerned. According to Chief Justice Fernando: Rules are
hardly permanent in character and they are procedural and the courts have no
concern with their observance. They may even be waived or disregarded by the
legislative body. Mere failure to conform to them does not have the effect of
nullifying the act taken if the requisite number of members have agreed to a
particular measure. The suggestion made in this case is the petitioners may seek
the enactment of a new law or the repeal or amendment of RA 8240. In the
absence of anything contrary the court must assume that the congress or any
House acted in the good faith belief that its conduct was permitted by its rules.
The court finds no ground for holding that congress committed grave abuse of discretion
in enacting the said RA. The case is dismissed.

OPLE v. TORRES
FACTS: An administrative order regarding the adoption of a national computerized
identification system was issued by President Fidel Ramos and published in 4
newspapers of general circulation. After a few days it was issued and published, the
petitioner (Blas Ople) filed a petition against the respondents, executive secretary
Ruben Torres and the heads of the government agencies, are charged with the
implementation of the said A.O. Petitioner contends that a national computerized
identification system requires a legislative act and the issuance of the president
is unconstitutional usurpation of the legislative powers of the congress of the
Philippines. Additionally, the petitioner contends that it intrudes on our citizenry’s
protected zone of privacy.

*usurpation - wrongfully seizing and holding (an office or powers) by force (especially
the seizure of a throne or supreme authority)

Issue:
(1) WON the issuance of the A.O. by the president is an unconstitutional usurpation of
the legislative powers of the congress of the Republic of the Philippines – Yes

(2) WON it intrudes the citizen’s right to privacy - Yes

Ruling:
(1) Legislative power, which is broad, general, and comprehensive, is vested on the
Congress. The Congress is vested with the power to enact laws while the executive
power of the President is to enforce and administer the laws. In this case, however,
the mentioned administrative order involves a subject that is not appropriate to be
covered by an administrative order. It establishes, for the first time, a national
computerized identification reference system which requires a delicate adjustment of
various contending state policies. if such interference were allowed, it will disturb
the balance and separation of powers. Petition is granted.

(2) A.O. No. 308 cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation
because facially it violates the right to privacy. The right to privacy is one of the most
threatened rights of man living in a mass society. 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.

GALICTO v. AQUINO
Facts: The petitioner, Jelbert Galicto, is a Filipino citizen and an employee of
PhilHealth as its Court Attorney in CARAGA (northeastern section of Mindanao).
President Benigno Aquino III issued EO 7. Paquito Ochoa, the incumbent Executive
Secretary at that time, and Florencio Abad, the incumbent secretary of DBM
(Department of Budget and Management), were tasked with the implementation. EO 7
established a fixed compensation and position classification system for GOCCs
(Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations) and GFIs (Government Financial
Institutions). This EO also ordered a moratorium (temporary prohibition) on the
increases in the salaries and other forms of compensation for an indefinite period
and it also ordered a suspension of all allowances, bonuses and incentives of the
members of the Board of Directors/Trustees.

The petitioner claims that as a PhilHealth employee, he is affected by the

implementation of EO 7 and that it was unconstitutional for having been issued
beyond the powers of the President and for being in breach of existing laws.

Respondents defend the validity of EO 7 and claimed that the President exercises
control over the governing boards of the GOCCs and GFIs and that it was issued
in accordance with the law. Therefore, the President can fix their compensation
packages. Petitioner The petitioner sought to nullify and enjoin (prohibit) the
implementation of the said EO.

Issue: WON the petitioner has a locus standi in bringing the petition before the court -
NO

Ruling:
"Locus standi” or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial
interest in a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as
a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. In the present case, the
petitioner has not demonstrated that he has a personal stake outcome of the case
because his interest is speculative and based on expectancy.

In this case, he has no vested rights to salary increases and, therefore, the
absence of such right deprives the petitioner of legal standing to assail EO 7. The
petition has been mooted by supervening events. Because of the transitory nature of
EO 7, it has been pointed out that the present case has already been rendered moot by
the enactment of R.A. No. 10149 amending the provisions in the charters of
GOCCs and GFIs empowering their board of directors/trustees to determine their own
compensation system, in favor of the grant of authority to the President to
perform this act. With the enactment of the GOCC Governance Act of 2011, the
President is now authorized to fix the compensation framework of GOCCs and
GFIs. DISMISSED.

TANADA v. TUVERA
Facts: Due process was invoked by the petitioners demanding the publication of a
number of presidential decrees to which have not been published as required by
law. The government argued using the phrase “unless it is otherwise provided”
maintaining that they declared the decrees were to become effective upon
approval. The petitioners suggest that there should be no distinction between laws of
general applicability and those which are not. Publication means complete
publication to which must be made in the Official Gazette.

Issue: WON publishing all laws in the Official Gazette should be required? - YES

Ruling: • The line in Article 2 of the Civil Code “unless it is otherwise provided”
pertains to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself.
Thus, publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its
discretion provide that the usual fifteen-day period shall be shortened or extended. •
Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun instead of skulking in
the shadows with their dark, deep secrets. Mysterious pronouncements and
rumored rules cannot be recognized as binding unless their existence and
contents are confirmed by a valid publication intended to make full disclosure
and give proper notice to the people. WHEREFORE, it is hereby declared that all
laws as above defined shall immediately, upon their approval, or as soon thereafter as
possible, be published in full in the Official Gazette, to become effective only after fifteen
days from their publication, or. On another date specified by the legislature, in
accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code.