A.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

Iron and Steel Authority vs. CA, GR No. 102976 (1995)

Facts:
● ISA was established to develop and promote the iron and steel industry in the Phils. One
of its powers is to initiate expropriation of land. In one of its major projects, a certain
land was reserved for the expansion project pursuant to the proclamation. However,
certain portions of the land was occupied by Ma. Cristina Fertilizer Corporation. With
this, the NSC was ordered to negotiate and compensate the said corporation.
Unfortunately, the NSC and the corporation did not reach an agreement.

● The LOI issued to NSC mentioned that failure to reach an agreement in sixty days, the
NSC should file an expropriation proceeding.

● While the proceeding was on-going, the term of NSC has expired along the way. MCFC
argued that the ISA has no power to expropriate the land. The trial court then dismissed
the case.

● The ISA filed a motion to reconsider, where it has been denied again by the trial court.

● The ISA also filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, where their appeal has been
answered. The CA affirmed the dismissal.

Issue:
● Whether or not the Republic of the Phils. is entitled to be substituted for ISA, following
the ISA’s term expiration. YES.

Ruling:
● “ISA is a non-incorporated agency or instrumentality of the Republic, its powers, duties,
functions, assets and liabilities are properly regarded as folded back into the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines and hence assumed once again by the
Republic, no special statutory provision having been shown to have mandated
succession thereto by some other entity or agency of the Republic.”

● “REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the case is REMANDED to the court a quo which shall
allow the substitution of the Republic of the Philippines for petitioner Iron and Steel
Authority and for further proceedings consistent with this Decision. No pronouncement
as to costs.
In Re: Rodolfo U. Manzano, A.M. No. 88-71861-RTC (1988)
Facts, Issue, and Ruling:
● Hon. Manzano requested for a resolution regarding his appointment as a member of the
Committee on Justice. The Court denied his request, with the reason that a judge cannot
be designated in a quasi-judicial or administrative function. Majority of the justices also
found it unconstitutional. [Section 12, Article 8 of the Constitution]

● Request was DENIED.

● “Doctrine of Separation of Powers” mentioned

● However, there were few justices who dissented with the decision.

B. DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS

Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685 (1998)

Facts:
● Former President Manuel L. Quezon wanted to mandate everyone to have a nationalized
id.

● With this, Senator Ople filed for a petition, stating that it is unconstitutional.
● First, because instead of protecting people's privacy, it violates it.
● Second, the appropriation of funding is also unconstitutional usurpation of the exclusive
right of Congress of the Republic of the Phils.
● And lastly, the establishment of NCIR System is an unconstitutional usurpation of the
legislative powers of the Congress of the Republic of the Phils.

● Respondents argue that:

● The instant petition is not a justiciable case as would warrant a judicial review.
● A.O. No. 308 was issued within the executive and administrative powers of the President
without encroaching on the legislative power of Congress.
● It protects an individual’s interest in privacy.

Issue: Whether or not A.O. No. 308 is unconstitutional. YES, unconstitutional.

Ruling:
Petition was GRANTED. A.O. No. 308 was declared void and unconstitutional.

● “The ripeness for adjudication of the petition at bar is not affected by the fact that the
implementing rules of A.O. No. 308 has yet to be promulgated.”
● “His action is not premature because the rules yet to be promulgated cannot cure its
fatal defects.”
 ● “Moreover, the respondents themselves have started the implementation of A.O. No. 308
without waiting for the rules.”
● “All signals from the respondents show their unswerving will to implement A.O. No. 308
and we need not wait for the formality of the rules to pass judgment on its
constitutionality. In this light, the dissenters' insistence that we tighten the rule on
standing is not a commendable stance as its result would be to throttle an important
constitutional principle and a fundamental right.

● What kind of biometric system to use was not specified.

● More prone to “fishing expeditions” of information.

*Planas v. Gil, 67 Phil. 62

Facts:
● “basta ung main idea lang is wala naman sanang mali ung petitioner kasi may freedom
of speech sya to criticize the gov't. kaso ang mali nya is nagbintang sya na may
commission of fraud tapos ayaw nya humarap sa investigation na inimpose sa kanya”
● The President wanted to investigate further so a letter was sent through the executive
secretary.
● The petitioner attended but she wanted the investigation to cease. She questioned the
power to investigate.

Issue:
● Whether or not the respondent has jurisdiction to investigate her.
● Whether or not the President can delegate his power to Sec. Vargas, to the
Commissioner of Civil Service, or any other person.
● Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to review the order of the Chief Executive

Ruling:
● Petition was DISMISSED.

(1) Yes. The statements she made tend to create a general discontent, and hatred
among the people against their government. The interest of the public service requires that
these charges be investigated, so that, if found untrue and made without justifiable motives, the
party making them may be proceeded against in accordance with section 2440, in connection
with section 2078, of the Revised Administrative Code. This is essential to render effective the
authority vested in the President by the Constitution to “take care the laws be faithfully
executed”(Sec 11, par 1, Art. VII).
 (a) Yes. The president can delegate his power. Article VII of the Constitution begins in its
section 1 with the declaration that “The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the
Philippines.” All executive authority is thus vested in him. The Constitution grants him the power
to exercise general supervision over all local governments and take care of the laws to be
faithfully executed, and authorizes him to order an investigation of the act or conduct of any
public servants.

(2) No. The Court has no jurisdiction to review the order of the Chief Executive under the
doctrine of separation of powers. However, the Court may inquire or question the validity or
constitutionality of the acts of the Chief Executive when his acts are properly challenged in an
appropriate legal proceeding. In other words, the Constitution made the Court to allocate
constitutional boundaries. *https://batasfilipinas.com/case-digest-carmen-planas-v-jose-gil/

*Biraogo vs. Truth Commission, G.R. No. 192935 (2010)

Facts:

“the creation of the truth commission under the office of the president to investigate graft and
corruption practices during the past administration”

Issue: Whether or not EO No. 1 is unconstitutional. YES, unconstitutional.

“issue dito is the mandate of the commission kasi it was created solely to investigate ung mga
graft and corruption allegations ng arroyo administration only, in violation of the equal
protection clause”

Ruling:
Petition was GRANTED. EO No. 1 was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
*https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2017/05/biraogo-v-truth-commission-gr-no-192935.htm
l

*Ocampo v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973 (2016)

Facts:
● During the campaign period for the 2016 Presidential Election, then candidate Rodrigo R.
Duterte publicly announced that he would allow the burial former President Ferdinand E.
Marcos at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani ("LNMB"). Duterte won the May 9, 2016 elections.

● On August 7, 2016, Defense Secretary Delfin N. Lorenzana issued a Memorandum to AFP

Chief of Staff General Ricardo R. Visaya regarding the interment of former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani.
 ● On August 9, 2016, AFP Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez issued a directive to the
Philippine Army on the Funeral Honors and Service for President Marcos.

● Dissatisfied with the foregoing issuance, the petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition and Petition for Mandamus and Prohibition with the Court.

Issue:
● Whether respondents Defense Secretary and AFP Rear Admiral committed grave abuse
of discretion when they issued the assailed memorandum and directive in compliance
with the verbal order of President Duterte to implement his election campaign promise
to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB?

● Whether the issuance and implementation of the assailed memorandum and directive
violated the Constitution, and domestic and international laws?

● Whether historical facts, laws enacted to recover ill-gotten wealth from the Marcoses
and their cronies, and the pronouncements of the Court on the Marcos regime have
nullified his entitlement as a soldier and former President to interment at the LNMB?

● Whether the Marcos family is deemed to have waived the burial of the remains of former
President Marcos at the LNMB after they entered into an agreement with the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines as to the conditions and procedures by
which his remains shall be brought back to and interred in the Philippines?

Ruling:
● Petition was DENIED.
AFP regulation, Consti yung powers ng president (veteran, former president, chief executive
etc)
“In sum, there is no clear constitutional or legal basis to hold that there was a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction which would justify the Court to interpose
its authority to check and override an act entrusted to the judgment of another branch.”
“There are certain things that are better left for history - not this Court - to adjudge. The Court
could only do so much in accordance with the clearly established rules and principles. Beyond
that, it is ultimately for the people themselves, as the sovereign, to decide, a task that may
require the better perspective that the passage of time provides. In the meantime, the country
must mov'e on and let this issue rest.”

*https://www.docenajularbal.com/post/marcosburial
 C. ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES OR AGENCIES

Boy Scouts of the Philippines vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 177131 (2011)
Facts:
● BSP claims that they are not part of COA’s audit jurisdiction, since they are a public
corporation. However, COA claims that BSP is a public corporation and a government
agency.

● BSP argues that its assets came from the Boy Scouts of America and not from the Phil.
government. Even the BSP’s funds are not derived from any government grant. While
COA has not alleged that BSP’s assets and funds are from any agency of the
government, they argue that BSP is a government agency. Given that the purpose of BSP
is to foster public virtues of citizenship and patriotism, and the general improvement of
the moral spirit and fiber of youth.

● The BSP continues to state that being a public corporation is not the determining factor
of COA’s jurisdiction.

● COA claims that there is no violation of the constitution with the creation or declaration
of the BSP as a government institution.

Issue:
● Whether or not the BSP falls under COA’s audit jurisdiction. YES.

Ruling:
● BSP is a public corporation and is subject to COA’s audit jurisdiction.