STATCON Assigned Cases - Dem Salazar

Ordillo vs. COMELEC

Facts: On January 30, 1990, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6766 An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region, the people of the provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Abra and KalingaApayaoand the city of Baguio cast their votes in a plebiscite. On February 14, 1990, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 2259 stating that the Organic Act for the Region has been approved and/or ratified by majority of votes cast only in the province of Ifugao. Secretary of Justice issued a memorandum for the President reiterating COMELEC resolution, stating that Ifugao being the only province which voted favorably - then. Alone, legally and validly constitutes CAR. March 8, 1990, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6681 setting elections In CAR of Ifugao on first Monday of March 1991. Even before COMELEC resolution, Executive Secretary issued February 5, 1990 a memorandum granting authority to wind up the affairs of the Cordillera Executive Board and Cordillera Regional Assembly created under Executive Order No. 220. March 30, 1990, President issued Administrative Order No. 160 declaring among others that the Cordillera Executive Board and Cordillera Regional Assembly and all offices under Executive Order No. 220 were abolished in view of the ratification of Organic Act. Petitioners: there can be no valid Cordillera Autonomous Region in only one province as the Constitution and the Republic Act No. 6766 require that the said Region be composed of more than one constituent unit. Petitioners therefore pray that the Court: a) declare null and void COMELEC resolution No. 2259, the memorandum of the Secretary of Justice, Administrative Order No. 160, and Republic Act No. 6861, and prohibit and restrain the respondents from implementing the same and spending public funds for the purpose. b) declare Executive Order No. 220 constituting the Cordillera Executive Board and the Cordillera Regional assembly and other offices to be still in force and effect until another organic law for the Autonomous Region shall have been enacted by Congress and the same is duly ratified by the voters in the constituent units. Issue: WON the province of Ifugao, being the only province which voted favorably for the Cordillera Autonomous Region can, alone, legally and validly constitute such region. Held:

The sole province of Ifugao cannot validly constitute the Cordillera Autonomous Region. a) The keyword in Article X, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution - provinces, cities, municipalities and geographical areas connote the region is to be made up more than one constituent unit. The term region used in its ordinary sense means. (rule in statutory construction must be applied here: the language of the Constitution, as much as possible should be understood in the sense it has in common use ad that the words used in Constitutional provisions are to be give their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed.) b) The entirety of Republic Act No. 6766 creating Cordillera Autonomous Region is infused with provisions which rule against the sole province of Ifugao constituting the region. - It can be gleaned that Congress never intended that a single province may constitute the autonomous region. - If this were so, we would be faced with the absurd situation of having two sets of officials: a set of provincial officials and another set of regional officials exercising their executive and legislative powers over exactly the same small area. - Thus, to contemplate the situation envisioned by the COMELEC would not only violate the letter and intent of the Constitution and the Republic Act. No. 6766 but would be impractical and illogical.

Page 1

STATCON Assigned Cases - Dem Salazar

Legaspi vs. Minister of Finance
Facts: Valentino L. Legaspi, incumbent member of the interim Batasang Pambansa, praying that the SC declare PD 1840 unconstitutional. The said PD was issued in accordance with the legislative powers granted on the President in Amendment No. 6 of the Constitution pursuant to Proclamation No. 1595. Petitioner claims that the said amendment is not one of the powers granted the President by the Constitution as amended in the plebiscite of April 7, 1981. Amendment N. 6 Whenever in the judgment of the President, there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof, or whenever the interim Batasang Pambansa of the regular National Assembly fails or is unable to act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action, he may in order to meet the exigency, issue the necessary decrees, orders, or letters of instruction, which shall form part of the law of the land. Issues: WON PD 1840 is unconstitutional? WON Amendment No. 6 is unaffected by the April 7, 1981 amendment? WON the term incumbent president is the person referred to as President in Amendment No. 6? Held: PD 1940 is constitutional. Amendment No. 6 is unaffected. The 1981 plebiscite does not repeal such amendment by omission. Since it was not voted on, it would be unfair to the people to repeal it just because it was not included as one of the questions in the plebiscite. The term incumbent President does not apply to Amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 6 uses the term President and not incumbent. Therefore, it refers to all future presidents. Page 2 The phrase President (Prime Minister) does not limit Amendment No. 6. When the two offices are separated and held by separate people, the power originally for the Prime Minister is transferred to the President. The power in Amendment No. 6 was meant for the executive official, which in this case is the President.

Aquino vs. COMELEC

Facts: On January 21, 1975, a petition for prohibition was filed to seek the nullification of some Presidential Decrees. The first ground upon which the petition is predicated states that Marcos does not hold any legal office nor possess any lawful authority under either the 1935 Constitution or the 1973 Constitution and therefore has no authority to issue the questioned proclamations, decrees and orders. This challenges the title of the incumbent President to the office of the Presidency and therefore is in the nature of a quo warranto proceedings, the appropriate action by which the title of a public officer can be questioned before the courts. Only the Solicitor General or the person who asserts title to the same office can legally file such a quo warranto petition. The petitioners, however, do not claim such right to the office and not one of them is the incumbent Solicitor General.

Issue: Issue: what does the term incumbent president in sec. 3 of Article 17 of the 1973 Constitution refer to?

Held: History shows that at that time the term of President Marcos was to terminate on December 30, 1973, the new constitution was approved on November 30, 1972 still during his incumbency and as being the only incumbent president at the time of the approval it just

STATCON Assigned Cases - Dem Salazar

means that the term incumbent president refers to Mr. Marcos. Justice Antonio concurring opinion states: the only rational way to ascertain the meaning and intent is to read its language in connection with the known conditions of affairs out of which the occasion for its adoption had arisen and then construe it. Furthermore, petitioners do not have the personality to file suit. On the issue at bar, the SC affirmed the validity of Martial Law Proclamation No. 1081 issued on September 22, 1972 by President Marcos because there was no arbitrariness in the issuance of said proclamation pursuant to the 1935 Constitution; that the factual bases had not disappeared but had even been exacerbated; that the question as to the validity of the Martial Law proclamation has been foreclosed by Section 3(2) of Article XVII of the 1973 Constitution. Under the (1973) Constitution, the President, if he so desires; can continue in office beyond 1973. While his term of office under the 1935 Constitution should have terminated on December 30, 1973, by the general referendum of July 27-28, 1973, the sovereign people expressly authorized him to continue in office even beyond 1973 under the 1973 Constitution (which was validly ratified on January 17, 1973 by the sovereign people) in order to finish the reforms he initiated under Martial Law. Constitution, namely: (i) The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet under Sec 3, par. (2), Article 7; and (ii) the Secretary of Justice is an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Sec 8 (1), Article 8. Issue: Whether or not EO 284, which authorizes a cabinet member, undersecretary and assistant secretary to hold not more than two positions in the government and GOCCs and to receive corresponding compensation therefore, violates Sec. 13, Art. 7 of the 1987 Constitution.

Held:

Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary

Facts: On 25 July 1987, Cory issued EO 284 which allows members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other government offices or positions in addition to their primary positions subject to limitations set therein. The Civil Liberties Union contended this EO averring that such law is unconstitutional. The constitutionality of EO 284 is being challenged by Civil Liberties Union on the principal submission that it adds exceptions to Sec 13, Art 7 other than those provided in the Constitution; CLU avers that by virtue of the phrase unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, the only exceptions against holding any other office or employment in Government are those provided in the Page 3

Executive Order No. 284 is hereby declared null and void. Before the adoption of the constitutional provision, there was a proliferation of newlycreated agencies, instrumentalities and GOCCs created by PDs and other modes of presidential issuances where Cabinet members, their deputies or assistants were designated to head or sit as members of the board with the corresponding salaries, emoluments, per diems, allowances and other prerequisites of office. On its face, the language of Sec 13 Art. 7 is prohibitory so that it must be understood as intended to be a positive and unequivocal negation of the privilege of holding multiple government offices or employment. Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.

Luz Farms vs. Sec of Dar

Facts:

STATCON Assigned Cases - Dem Salazar

On June 10, 1988, the President of the Philippines approved R.A. No. 6657, which includes the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage. On January 2, 1989, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform promulgated the Guidelines and Procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing as embodied in Sections 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657. Luz Farms, petitioner in this case, is a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business and together with others in the same business allegedly stands to be adversely affected by the enforcement of Section 3(b), Section 11, Section 13, Section 16(d) and 17 and Section 32 of R.A. No. 6657 otherwise known as Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and of the Guidelines and Procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing under R.A. No. 6657 promulgated on January 2, 1989 and the Rules and Regulations Implementing Section 11 thereof as promulgated by the DAR on January 9, 1989. Hence, this petition praying that aforesaid laws, guidelines and rules be declared unconstitutional. Meanwhile, it is also prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction or restraining order be issued enjoining public respondents from enforcing the same, insofar as they are made to apply to Luz Farms and other livestock and poultry raisers. This Court in its Resolution dated July 4, 1939 resolved to deny, among others, Luz Farms' prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction in its Manifestation dated May 26, and 31, 1989. activities are made to be covered by the agrarian reform program of the State. Transcript of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of agriculture clearly shows that it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionallymandated agrarian reform program of the Government. Agricultural lands do not include commercial, industrial, and residential lands.

Issue: Whether or not the term agriculture as used in the Constitution embraces raising livestock, poultry and swine. Held: It is evident in the foregoing discussion that Sec 2 of RA 6657 which includes private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising in the definition of commercial farms is INVALID, to the extent of the aforecited agro-industrial Page 4