Name: July 12, 2013 Friday TITLE: CEBU

Jabe

Tecson

Gica

EBRALINAG VS. DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF

CITATI N: 2!1 "C#A !$% &ATE: &ECE'(E# 2%, 1%%!

FACT": Two special civil actions for certiorari, Mandamus and Prohibition were filed and consolidated for raising same issue. Petitioners allege that the public respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. Respondents ordered expulsion of ! "S and #S students of $anta%an, Pinamungajan, &aracar, Taburan and 'sturias in &ebu. Public school authorities expelled these students for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the (Panatang Ma)aba%an* re+uired b% R' ,- .. The% are /ehovah0s 1itnesses believing that b% doing these is religious worship2devotion a)in to idolatr% against their teachings. The% contend that to compel transcends constitutional limits and invades protection against official control and religious freedom. The respondents relied on the precedence of #erona et al v. Secretar% of 3ducation. #erona doctrine provides that we are a s%stem of separation of the church and state and the flag is devoid of religious significance and it doesn0t involve an% religious ceremon%. The freedom of religious belief guaranteed b% the &onstitution does not mean exception from non4discriminator% laws li)e the saluting of flag and singing national anthem. This exemption disrupts school discipline and demorali5es the teachings of civic consciousness and duties of citi5enship. I"")E: 1hether or not the freedom of religion has been violated6 T*E C )#T+" #)LING: 7reedom of religion is a fundamental right of highest priorit%. The - fold aspect of right to religious worship is8 ,.9 7reedom to believe which is an absolute act within the realm of thought. -.9 7reedom to act on one0s belief regulated and translated to external acts.

The onl% limitation to religious freedom is the existence of grave and present danger to public safet%, morals, health and interests where State has right to prevent.

The expulsion of the petitioners from the school is not justified. The :; %r old previous #3R<=' decision of expelling and dismissing students and teachers who refuse to obe% R' ,- . is violates exercise of freedom of speech and religious profession and worship. /ehovah0s 1itnesses ma% be exempted from observing the flag ceremon% but this right does not give them the right to disrupt such ceremonies. >n the case at bar, the Students expelled were onl% standing +uietl% during ceremonies. $% observing the ceremonies +uietl%, it doesn0t present an% danger so evil and imminent to justif% their expulsion. 1hat the petitioner0s re+uest is the exemption from flag ceremonies and not exclusion from public schools. The expulsion of the students b% reason of their religious beliefs is also a violation of a citi5en0s right to free education. The non4 observance of the flag ceremon% does not totall% constitute ignorance of patriotism and civic consciousness. ?ove for countr% and admiration for national heroes, civic consciousness and form of government are part of the school curricula. Therefore, expulsion due to religious beliefs is unjustified. The petition for &ertiorari and Prohibition was granted and the expulsion was annulled.

TITLE: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND HSBC VS, J "E O. VERA CITATI N: $! -*IL !$ G,#, N , L./!$0! &ATE: N 1E'(E# 1$, 1%32
FACT": Petitioners herein, the People of the Philippine and the "ong)ong and Shanghai $an)ing &orporation, are respectivel% the plaintiff and the offended part%, and the respondent herein Mariano &u @njieng is one of the defendants, in the criminal case entitled (The People of the Philippine >slands vs. Mariano &u @njieng, et al.*, &ourt of 7irst >nstance of Manila, on /anuar% !, ,A:B, rendered a judgment of conviction sentencing the defendant Mariano &u @njieng to indeterminate penalt%. The instant proceedings have to do with the application for probation filed b% the herein respondent Mariano &u @njieng, before the trial court, under the provisions of 'ct =o. B--, of the defunct Philippine ?egislature. The &7> of Manila, /udge Pedro Tuason presiding, referred the application for probation of the >nsular Probation <ffice which recommended denial of the same. /une ,!, ,A:C. Thereafter, the &ourt of 7irst >nstance of Manila, seventh branch, /udge /ose <. Vera presiding, set the petition for hearing. 7iscal of the &it% of Manila filed an opposition to the granting of probation to the herein respondent Mariano &u @njieng. The private prosecution also filed an opposition, alleging, among other things, that 'ct =o. B--,, assuming that it has not been repealed b% section - of 'rticle DV of the &onstitution, is nevertheless violative of section ,, subsection E,9, 'rticle >>> of the &onstitution guaranteeing e+ual protection of the laws for the reason that its applicabilit% is not uniform throughout the >slands Ein that Philippine ?egislature is made to appl% onl% to the provinces of the PhilippinesF it nowhere states that it is to be made applicable to chartered cities li)e the &it% of Manila9 and because section of the said 'ct endows

the provincial boards with the power to ma)e said law effective or otherwise in their respective or otherwise in their respective provinces. I"")E: 1hether or not 'ct no. B--, constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power6

T*E C )#T+" #)LING: "ec3ion 11 o4 Ac3 No, /221 constitutes an improper and unlawful delegation of legislative authorit% to the provincial boards and is, for this reason, unconstitutional and void. The power to ma)e laws G the legislative power G is vested in a bicameral ?egislature b% the /ones ?aw Esec. ,-9 and in a unicameral =ational 'ssembl% b% the &onstitution E'ct. V>, sec. ,, &onstitution of the Philippines9. The Philippine ?egislature or the =ational 'ssembl% ma% not escape its duties and responsibilities b% delegating that power to an% other bod% or authorit%. The rule, however, which forbids the delegation of legislative power is not absolute and inflexible. >t admits of exceptions. The case before us does not fall under an% of the exceptions. The challenged section of 'ct =o. B--, in section ,, which reads as follows8 This 'ct shall appl% onl% in those provinces in which the respective provincial boards have provided for the salar% of a probation officer at rates not lower than those now provided for provincial fiscals. Said probation officer shall be appointed b% the Secretar% of /ustice and shall be subject to the direction of the Probation <ffice. >n testing whether a statute constitute an undue delegation of legislative power or not, it is usual to in+uire whether the statute was complete in all its terms and provisions when it left the hands of the legislature so that nothing was left to the judgment of an% other appointee or delegate of the legislature. 7or the purpose of Probation 'ct, the provincial boards ma% be regarded as administrative bodies endowed with power to determine when the 'ct should ta)e

effect in their respective provinces. The% are the agents or delegates of the legislature in this respect. The rules governing delegation of legislative power to administrative and executive officers are applicable or are at least indicative of the rule which should be here adopted. 'n examination of a variet% of cases on delegation of power to administrative bodies will show that the ratio decidendi is at variance but, it can be broadl% asserted that the rationale revolves around the presence or absence of a standard or rule of action G or the sufficienc% thereof G in the statute, to aid the delegate in exercising the granted discretion. >n some cases, it is held that the standard is sufficientF in others that is insufficientF and in still others that it is entirel% lac)ing. 's a rule, an act of the legislature is incomplete and hence invalid if it does not la% down an% rule or definite standard b% which the administrative officer or board ma% be guided in the exercise of the discretionar% powers delegated to it.

>n the case at bar, what rules are to guide the provincial boards in the exercise of their discretionar% power to determine whether or not the Probation 'ct shall appl% in their respective provinces6 1hat standards are fixed b% the 'ct6 1e do not find an% and none has been pointed to us b% the respondents. The probation 'ct does not, b% the force of an% of its provisions, fix and impose upon the provincial boards an% standard or guide in the exercise of their discretionar% power. 1hat is granted, if we ma% use the language of /ustice &ardo5o in the recent case of Schecter, supra, is a (roving commission* which enables the provincial boards to exercise arbitrar% discretion. $% section ,, if the 'ct, the legislature does not seemingl% on its own authorit% extend the benefits of the Probation 'ct to the provinces but in realit% leaves the entire matter for the various provincial boards to determine. >n other words, the provincial boards of the various provinces are to determine for themselves, whether the Probation ?aw shall appl% to their provinces or not at all. The applicabilit% and application of the Probation 'ct are entirel% placed in the hands of the provincial boards. >f the provincial board does not wish to have the 'ct applied in its province, all that it has to do is to decline to appropriate the needed amount for the salar% of a probation officer. The plain language of the 'ct is not susceptible of an% other interpretation. This, to our minds, is a virtual surrender of legislative power to the provincial boards.

TITLE:

THE UNITED STATES VS. ANG TANG HO

CITATI N: /3 -*IL 1 G,#, N , 12122 &ATE: FE(#)A#5 22, 1%22

FACT": <n the :;th of /ul% ,A,A, the Philippine ?egislature Eduring special session9 passed and approved 'ct =o. -! ! entitled 'n 'ct Penali5ing the Monopol% and "oarding of Rice, Pala% and &orn. The said act under extraordinar% circumstances authori5es the #overnor #eneral to issue the necessar% Rules and Regulations in regulating the distribution of such products. 1ith the consent of the &ouncil of State, temporar% rules and emergenc% measures for carr%ing out the purpose of this 'ct, to wit8 Ea9 To prevent the monopol% and hoarding of, and speculation in, pala%, rice or corn. Eb9 To establish and maintain a government control of the distribution or sale of the commodities referred to or have such distribution or sale made b% the #overnment itself.

Ec9 To fix, from time to time the +uantities of pala% rice, or corn that a compan% or individual ma% ac+uire, and the maximum sale price that the industrial or merchant ma% demand. S3&. -. >t shall be unlawful to destro%, limit, prevent or in an% other manner obstruct the production or milling of pala%, rice or corn for the purpose of raising the prices thereofF to corner or hoard said products as defined in section three of this 'ctF . . . Section : defines what shall constitute a monopol% or hoarding of pala%, rice or corn within the meaning of this 'ct, but does not specif% the price of rice or define an% basic for fixing the price. S3&. B. The violations of an% of the provisions of this 'ct or of the regulations, orders and decrees promulgated in accordance therewith shall be punished b% a fine of not more than five thousands pesos, or b% imprisonment for not more than two %ears, or both, in the discretion of the court8 Provided, That in the case of companies or corporations the manager or administrator shall be criminall% liable. S3&. C. 't an% time that the #overnor4#eneral, with the consent of the &ouncil of State, shall consider that the public interest re+uires the application of the provisions of this 'ct, he shall so declare b% proclamation, and an% provisions of other laws inconsistent herewith shall from then on be temporaril% suspended.

Pursuant to this 'ct, on the , st of 'ugust ,A,A, the #overnor #eneral issued 3xecutive <rder .: which was published on the -; th of 'ugust ,A,A. The said 3xecutive <rder fixed the price at which rice should be sold. <n the other hand, 'ng Tang "o, a rice dealer, voluntaril%, criminall% and illegall% sold a ganta of rice to Pedro Trinidad at the price of eight% centavos. The said amount was wa% higher than that prescribed b% the 3xecutive <rder. The sale was done on the
th

of

'ugust ,A,A. <n ;! 'ugust ,A,A, he was charged in violation of the said 3xecutive <rder. "e was found guilt% as charged and was sentenced to . months imprisonment plus a P.;;.;; fine. "e appealed the sentence countering that there is an undue delegation of power to the #overnor #eneral. I"")E: 1hether or not 'ct =o. -! ! constitutes undue delegation of legislative power6

T*E C )#T+" #)LING: This +uestion involves an anal%sis and construction of 'ct =o. -! !, in so far as it authori5es the #overnor4#eneral to fix the price at which rice should be sold. >t will be noted that section , authori5es the #overnor4#eneral, with the consent of the &ouncil of State, for an% cause resulting in an extraordinar% rise in the price of pala%, rice or corn, to issue and promulgate temporar% rules and emergenc% measures for carr%ing out the purposes of the 'ct. $% its ver% terms, the promulgation of temporar% rules and emergenc% measures is left to the discretion of the #overnor4#eneral. The ?egislature does not underta)e to specif% or define under what conditions or for what reasons the #overnor4#eneral shall issue the proclamation, but sa%s that it ma% be issued (for an% cause,* and leaves the +uestion as to what is (an% cause* to the discretion of the #overnor4#eneral. The 'ct also sa%s8 (7or an% cause, conditions arise resulting in an extraordinar% rise in the price of pala%, rice or corn.* The ?egislature does not specif% or define what is (an extraordinar% rise.* That is also left to the discretion of the #overnor4#eneral. The 'ct also sa%s that the #overnor4#eneral, (with the consent of the &ouncil of State,* is authori5ed to issue and promulgate (temporar% rules and emergenc% measures for carr%ing out the purposes of this 'ct.* >t does not specif% or define what is a temporar% rule or an emergenc% measure, or how long such temporar% rules or emergenc% measures shall remain in force and effect, or when the% shall ta)e effect. That is to sa%, the ?egislature itself has not in an% manner specified or defined an% basis for the order, but has left it to the sole judgment and discretion of the #overnor4#eneral to sa% what is or what is not (a cause,* and what is or what is not (an extraordinar% rise in the price of rice,* and as to what is a temporar% rule or an emergenc% measure for the carr%ing out the purposes of the 'ct.

@nder this state of facts, if the law is valid and the #overnor4#eneral issues a proclamation fixing the minimum price at which rice should be sold, an% dealer who, with or without notice, sells rice at a higher price, is a criminal. There ma% not have been an% cause, and the price ma% not have been extraordinar%, and there ma% not have been an emergenc%, but, if the #overnor4 #eneral found the existence of such facts and issued a proclamation, and rice is sold at an% higher price, the seller commits a crime.

' law must be complete, in all its terms and provisions, when it leaves the legislative branch of the government, and nothing must be left to the judgment of the electors or other appointee or delegate of the legislature, so that, in form and substance, it is a law in all its details in presenti, but which ma% be left to ta)e effect in futuro, if necessar%, upon the ascertainment of an% prescribed fact or event. The law sa%s that the #overnor4#eneral ma% fix (the maximum sale price that the industrial or merchant ma% demand.* The law is a general law and not a local or special law. The proclamation underta)es to fix one price for rice in Manila and other and different prices in other and different provinces in the Philippine >slands, and delegates the power to determine the other and different prices to provincial treasurers and their deputies. "ere, then, %ou would have a delegation of legislative power to the #overnor4#eneral, and a delegation b% him of that power to provincial treasurers and their deputies, who (are hereb% directed to communicate with, and execute all instructions emanating from the Hirector of &ommerce and >ndustr%, for the most effective and proper enforcement of the above regulations in their respective localities.* The issuance of the proclamation b% the #overnor4#eneral was the exercise of the delegation of a delegated power, and was even a sub delegation of that power. 1hen 'ct =o. -! ! is anal%5ed, it is the violation of the proclamation of the #overnor4#eneral which constitutes the crime. 1ithout that proclamation, it was no crime to sell rice at an% price. >n other words, the ?egislature left it to the sole discretion of the #overnor4#eneral to sa% what was and what was not (an% cause* for enforcing the act, and what was and what was not (an extraordinar% rise in the price of pala%, rice or corn,* and under certain undefined conditions to fix the price at which rice should be sold, without regard to grade or +ualit%, also to sa% whether a proclamation should be issued, if so, when, and whether or not the law should be enforced, how long it should be enforced, and when the law should be suspended.

The ?egislature did not specif% or define what was (an% cause,* or what was (an extraordinar% rise in the price of rice, pala% or corn,* =either did it specif% or define the conditions upon which the proclamation should be issued. >n the absence of the

proclamation no crime was committed. The alleged sale was made a crime, if at all, because the #overnor4#eneral issued the proclamation. The act or proclamation does not sa% an%thing about the different grades or +ualities of rice, and the defendant is charged with the sale (of one ganta of rice at the price of eight% centavos EP;.!;9 which is a price greater than that fixed b% 3xecutive order =o. .:.* 'ct =o. -! !, in so far as it underta)es to authori5e the #overnor4#eneral in his discretion to issue a proclamation, fixing the price of rice, and to ma)e the sale of rice in violation of the price of rice, and to ma)e the sale of rice in violation of the proclamation a crime, is unconstitutional and void.

TITLE:

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES VS, POEA

CITATI N: 1$$ "C#A !33 G,#, N , 2$$33 &ATE: CT (E# 10, 1%00
FACT": The private respondent in this case was awarded the sum of P,A-,;;;.;; b% the Philippine <verseas 3mplo%ment 'dministration EP<3'9 for the death of her husband. The decision is challenged b% the petitioner on the principal ground that the P<3' had no jurisdiction over the case as the husband was not an overseas wor)er. Vitaliano Saco was &hief <fficer of the M2V 3astern Polaris when he was )illed in an accident in To)%o, /apan, March ,., ,A!.. "is widow sued for damages under 3xecutive <rder =o. CAC and Memorandum &ircular =o. - of the P<3'. The petitioner, as owner of the vessel, argued that the complaint was cogni5able not b% the P<3' but b% the Social Securit% S%stem and should have been filed against the State >nsurance 7und. The P<3' nevertheless assumed jurisdiction and after considering the position papers of the parties ruled in favor of the complainant. The award consisted of P,!;,;;;.;; as death benefits and P,-,;;;.;; for burial expenses. The petitioner immediatel% came to this &ourt, prompting the Solicitor #eneral to move for dismissal on the ground of non4exhaustion of administrative remedies. <rdinaril%, the decisions of the P<3' should first be appealed to the =ational ?abor Relations &ommission, on the theor% inter alia that the agenc% should be given an opportunit% to correct the errors, if an%, of its subordinates. This case comes under one of the exceptions, however, as the +uestions the petitioner is raising are essentiall% +uestions of law. Moreover, the private respondent himself has not objected to the petitionerIs direct resort to this &ourt, observing that the usual procedure would dela% the disposition of the case to her prejudice. The Philippine <verseas 3mplo%ment 'dministration was created under 3xecutive <rder =o. CAC, promulgated on Ma% ,, ,A!-, to promote and monitor the overseas emplo%ment of 7ilipinos and to protect their rights. >t replaced the =ational Seamen $oard created earlier under 'rticle -; of the ?abor &ode in ,ACB. @nder Section BEa9 of the said executive order, the P<3' is vested with Joriginal and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases, including mone% claims, involving emplo%ee4emplo%er relations arising out of or b% virtue of an% law or contract involving 7ilipino contract wor)ers, including seamen.J These cases, according to the ,A!. Rules and Regulations on <verseas 3mplo%ment issued b% the P<3', include Jclaims for death, disabilit% and other benefitsJ arising out of such emplo%ment.

I"")E: 1hether or not the issuance of Memorandum &ircular =o. - is a violation of non4 delegation of powers6

T*E C )#T+" #)LING: The Supreme &ourt held that there was valid delegation of powers. >n +uestioning the validit% of the memorandum circular, 3astern Shipping ?ines contended that P<3' was given no authorit% to promulgate the regulation, and even with such authori5ation, the regulation represents an exercise of legislative discretion which, under the principle, is not subject to delegation.

>t is true that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated. 1hat can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law ma% be enforced, not what the law shall be. The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative of the legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered b% the legislature to the delegate. There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power, vi5, the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. @nder the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the onl% thing he will have to do is to enforce it. @nder the sufficient standard test, there must be ade+uate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate0s authorit% and prevent the delegation from running riot. $oth tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authorit% to the delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power exception. The reason is the increasing complexit% of the tas) of government and the growing inabilit% of the legislature to cope directl% with the m%riad problems demanding its attention. The growth of societ% has ramified its activities and created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the legislature cannot be expected to reasonabl% essentiall% legislative. The delegation of legislative power has become the rule and its non4delegation the

comprehend. Speciali5ation even in legislation has become necessar%. Too man% of the problems attendant upon present4da% underta)ings, the legislature ma% not have the competence to provide the re+uired direct and efficacious, not to sa%, specific solutions. These solutions ma%, however, be expected from its delegates, who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields.

The reasons given above for the delegation of legislative powers in general are particularl% applicable to administrative bodies. 1ith the proliferation of speciali5ed activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more and more necessar% to entrust to administrative agencies the authorit% to issue rules to carr% out the general provisions of the statute. This is called the (power of subordinate legislation.* 1ith this power, administrative bodies ma% implement the broad policies laid down in statute b% (filling in* the details which the &ongress ma% not have the opportunit% or competence to provide. Memorandum &ircular =o. - is one such administrative regulation.

TITLE: ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (FORMERLY AASJAS 6 VS. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA CITATI N: G,#, N , 1$00!$ &ATE: "E-TE'(E# 1, 200!
FACT": Motions for Reconsideration filed b% petitioners, '$'K'H' #uro part% ?ist <fficer and et al., insist that the bicameral conference committee should not have acted on the no pass4on provisions since there is no disagreement between "ouse $ill =os. :C;. and :... in one hand, and Senate $ill =o. ,A.; on the other, with regard to the no pass4on provision for the sale of service for power generation because both the Senate and the "ouse were in agreement that. The V'T burden for the sale of such service shall not be passed on to the end4consumer. 's to the no pass4on provision for sale of petroleum products, petitioners argue that the presence of such a no pass4on provision in the "ouse version and the absence thereof in the Senate $ill means there is no conflict because a "ouse provision cannot be in conflict with something that does not exist. 3scudero, et. al., also contend that Republic 'ct =o. A::C grossl% violates the constitutional imperative on exclusive origin of revenue bills under Section -B of 'rticle V> of the &onstitution when the Senate introduced amendments not connected with V'T. Petitioners 3scudero, et al., also reiterate that R.'. =o. A::C stand4 b% authorit% to the 3xecutive to increase the V'T rate, especiall% on account of the recommendator% power granted to the Secretar% of 7inance, constitutes undue delegation of legislative power. The% submit that the recommendator% power given to the Secretar% of 7inance with regard to the occurrence of either of two events using the #ross Homestic Product E#HP9 as a benchmar) necessaril% and inherentl% re+uired extended anal%sis and evaluation, as well as polic% ma)ing. Petitioners also reiterate their argument that the input tax is a propert% or a propert% right.Petitioners also contend that even if

the right to credit the input V'T is merel% a statutor% privilege, it has alread% evolved into a vested right that the State cannot remove. I"")E: 1hether or not the R.'. =o. A::C or the Vat Reform 'ct is constitutional6

T*E C )#T+" #)LING: The &ourt is not persuaded. Ar3icle 1I, "ec3ion 2/ of the &onstitution provides that 'll appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authori5ing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusivel% in the "ouse of Representatives, but the Senate ma% propose or concur with amendments.

The &ourt reiterates that in ma)ing his recommendation to the President on the existence of either of the two conditions, the Secretar% of 7inance is not acting as the alter ego of the President or even her subordinate. "e is acting as the agent of the legislative department, to determine and declare the event upon which its expressed will is to ta)e effect. The Secretar% of 7inance becomes the means or tool b% which legislative polic% is determined and implemented, considering that he possesses all the facilities to gather data and information and has a much broader perspective to properl% evaluate them. "is function is to gather and collate statistical data and other pertinent information and verif% if an% of the two conditions laid out b% &ongress is present. >n the same breath, the &ourt reiterates its finding that it is not a propert% or a propert% right, and a V'T4registered person entitlement to the creditable input tax is a mere statutor% privilege. 's the &ourt stated in its Hecision, the right to credit the input tax is a mere creation of law. More importantl%, the assailed provisions of R.'. =o. A::C alread% involve legislative polic% and wisdom. So long as there is a public end for which R.'. =o. A::C was passed, the means through which such end shall be accomplished is for the legislature to choose so long as it is within constitutional bounds.

The Motions for Reconsideration were &ENIE& 7IT* FINALIT5. The temporar% restraining order issued b% the &ourt was LIFTE&.

TITLE: EMMANUEL PELAEZ VS. THE AUDITOR GENERAL CITATI N: G,#, N , L.2302! &ECE'(E# 2/, 1%$!
Fac3s: This is a special civil action for a writ of prohibition with preliminar% injunction instituted b% 3mmanuel Pelae5, as Vice President of the Philippines and as taxpa%er, against the 'uditor #eneral, to restrain him, as well as his representatives and agents, from passing in audit an% expenditure of public funds in implementation of the 3<s issued b% the President creating :: municipalities and2or an% disbursement b% said municipalities. Huring the period from September B to <ctober -A, ,A B the President of the Philippines, purporting to act pursuant to Section ! of the Revised 'dministrative to ,-AF creating thirt%4 &ode, issued 3xecutive <rders =os. A: to ,-,, ,-B and ,-

&ATE:

three E::9 municipalities enumerated in the margin. , Soon after the date last mentioned, or on =ovember ,;, ,A B petitioner 3mmanuel Pelae5, as Vice President of the Philippines and as taxpa%er, instituted the present special civil action, for a writ of prohibition with preliminar% injunction, against the 'uditor #eneral, to restrain him, as well as his representatives and agents, from passing in audit an% expenditure of public funds in implementation of said executive orders and2or an% disbursement b% said municipalities.

Petitioner alleges that said executive orders are null and void, upon the ground that said Section ! has been impliedl% repealed b% Republic 'ct =o. -:C; and constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. Respondent maintains the contrar% view and avers that the present action is premature and that not all proper parties G referring to the officials of the new political subdivisions in +uestion G have been impleaded. Subse+uentl%, the ma%ors of several municipalities adversel% affected b% the aforementioned executive orders G because the latter have ta)en awa% from the former the barrios composing the new political subdivisions G intervened in the case. >n ,A B, the President, pursuant to Section ! of the Revised 'dministrative &ode to ,-AF creating thirt%4three

issued 3xecutive <rders =os. A: to ,-,, ,-B and ,-

E::9 municipalities .Petitioner alleges that said executive orders are null and void on the ground that the said Section ! has been impliedl% repealed b% Republic 'ct =o. -:C; and constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. 1hen R' -:C; EThe $arrio &harter9 provides that barrios ma% Jnot be created or their boundaries altered nor their names changedJ except b% 'ct of &ongress or of the corresponding provincial board Jupon petition of a majorit% of the voters in the areas affectedJ and the Jrecommendation of the council of the municipalit% or municipalities.

Section

! of R'&, which said 3<s are based, provides that the President ma%

define or divide the boundar% or boundaries of an% province, sub4province, municipalit%, municipal district as the public welfare ma% re+uire provided, that the authori5ation of the &ongress of the Philippines shall first be obtained. Petitioner argues that the President under the new law cannot create a barrio, how much more of a municipalit% which is composed of several barrios. Respondent answered that a new municipalit% can be created without creating new barrios, such as, b% placing old barrios under the jurisdiction of the new municipalit%. This answer however overloo)s on the main import of the petitioners0 argument, which +uestions the President0s authorit% to create municipalities. Respondent alleges that the power of the President to create municipalities under this section does not amount to an undue delegation of legislative power, rel%ing upon Municipalit% of &ardona vs. Municipalit% of $inaLgonan.

I"")E: 1hether or not the President has the legislative authorit% to issue the 3xecutive <rders creating municipalities6

T*E C )#T+" #)LING:

"ec3ion 10 816 o4 Ar3icle 1II of our fundamental law ordains8 The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, or offices, exercise general supervision over all local governments as ma% be provided b% law, and ta)e care that the laws be faithfull% executed. The power of control under this provision implies the right of the President to interfere in the exercise of such discretion as ma% be vested b% law in the officers of the executive departments, bureaus, or offices of the national government, as well as to act in lieu of such officers. This power is denied b% the &onstitution to the 3xecutive, insofar as local governments are concerned. 1ith respect to the latter, the fundamental law permits him to wield no more authorit% than that of chec)ing whether said local governments or the officers thereof perform their duties as provided b% statutor% enactments. "ence, the President cannot interfere with local governments, so long as the same or its officers act within the scope of their authorit%. "e ma% not enact an ordinance which the municipal council has failed or refused to pass, even if it had thereb% violated a dut% imposed thereto b% law, although he ma% see to it that the corresponding provincial officials ta)e appropriate disciplinar% action therefore. =either ma% he vote, set aside or annul an ordinance passed b% said council within the scope of its jurisdiction, no matter how patentl% unwise it ma% be.

"e ma% not even suspend an elective official of a regular municipalit% or ta)e an% disciplinar% action against him, except on appeal from a decision of the corresponding provincial board. @pon the other hand if the President could create a municipalit%, he could, in effect, remove an% of its officials, b% creating a new municipalit% and including therein the barrio in which the official concerned resides, for his office would thereb% become vacant. Thus, b% merel% brandishing the power to create a new municipalit% Eif he had it9, without actuall% creating it, he could compel local officials to submit to his dictation, thereb%, in effect, exercising over them the power of control denied to him b% the &onstitution. Then, also, the power of control of the President over executive departments, bureaus or offices implies no more than the authorit% to assume directl% the functions thereof or to interfere in the exercise of discretion b% its officials. Manifestl%, such control does not include the authorit% either to abolish an executive department or bureau, or to create a new one. 's a conse+uence, the

alleged power of the President to create municipal corporations would necessaril% connote the exercise b% him of an authorit% even greater than that of control which he has over the executive departments, bureaus or offices. >n other words, Section ! of the Revised 'dministrative &ode does not merel% fail to compl% with the constitutional mandate above +uoted. >nstead of giving the President less power over local governments than that vested in him over the executive departments, bureaus or offices, it reverses the process and does the exact opposite, b% conferring upon him more power over municipal corporations than that which he has over said executive departments, bureaus or offices. The 3xecutive <rders in +uestion were declared null and void ab initio and the respondent permanentl% restrained from passing in audit an% expenditure of public funds in implementation of said 3xecutive <rders or an% disbursement b% the municipalities above referred to.

TITLE: ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST VS. PURISIMA CITATI N: G,#, N , 1$$21! &ATE: A)G)"T 1/, 2000
Fac3s: This petition for prohibition, see)s to prevent respondents from implementing and enforcing Republic 'ct ER'9 A::.- E'ttrition 'ct of -;;.9. R' A::. was enacted to optimi5e the revenue4generation capabilit% and collection of the $ureau of >nternal Revenue E$>R9 and the $ureau of &ustoms E$<&9. The law intends to encourage $>R and $<& officials and emplo%ees to exceed their revenue targets b% providing a

s%stem of rewards and sanctions through the creation of Rewards and >ncentives 7und E7und9 and a Revenue Performance 3valuation $oard E$oard9. >t covers all officials and emplo%ees of the $>R and the $<& with at least six months of service, regardless of emplo%ment status-. Petitioners, invo)ing their right as taxpa%ers filed this petition challenging the constitutionalit% of R' A::., a tax reform legislation. The% contend that, b% establishing a s%stem of rewards and incentives, the law JtransformMsN the officials and emplo%ees of the $>R and the $<& into mercenaries and bount% huntersJ as the% will do their best onl% in consideration of such rewards. Petitioners also assail the creation of a congressional oversight committee on the ground that it violates the doctrine of separation of powers , for it permits legislative participation in the implementation and enforcement of the law. I"")E: 1hether or not the joint congressional committee is valid and constitutional6 T*E C )#+" #)LING: =o. >t is unconstitutional. >n the case of Macalintal, in the discussion of /. Puno, the power of oversight embraces all activities underta)en b% &ongress to enhance its understanding of and influence over the implementation of legislation it has enacted. &learl%, oversight concerns post4enactment measures underta)en b% &ongress8 Ea9 to monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives, Eb9 to determine whether agenciesare properl% administered, Ec9 to eliminate executive waste and dishonest%, Ed9 to prevent executive usurpation of legislative authorit%, and Ed9 to assess executive conformit% with the congressional perception of public interest

The power of oversight has been held to be intrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself and integral to the chec)s and balances inherent in a democratic s%stem of government. 1ith this bac)drop, it is clear that congressional oversight is not unconstitutional per e, meaning, it neither necessaril% constitutes an encroachment on the executive power to implement laws nor undermines

the constitutional separation of powers. Rather, it is integral to the chec)s and balances inherent in a democratic s%stem of government. >t ma% in fact even enhance the separation of powers as it prevents the over4accumulation of power in the executive branch. "owever, to forestall the danger of congressional encroachment Jbe%ond the legislative sphere,J the &onstitution imposes two basic and related constraints on &ongress. 'n% action or step be%ond that will undermine the separation of powers guaranteed b% the &onstitution. ?egislative vetoes fall in this class , ?egislative veto is a statutor% provision re+uiring the President or an administrative agenc% to present the proposed implementing rules and regulations of a law to &ongress which, b% itself or through a committee formed b% it, retains a JrightJ or JpowerJ to approve or disapprove such regulations before the% ta)e effect. 's such, a legislative veto in the form of a congressional oversight committee is in the form of an inward4turning delegation designed to attach a congressional leash Eother than through scrutin% and investigation9 to an agenc% to which &ongress has b% law initiall% delegated broad powers. >t radicall% changes the design or structure of the &onstitutionIs diagram of power as it entrusts to &ongress a direct role in enforcing, appl%ing or implementing its own laws. The petition was -A#TIALL5 G#ANTE&, Section ,- of R' A::. creating a /oint &ongressional <versight &ommittee to approve the implementing rules and regulations of the law was declared )NC N"TIT)TI NAL and therefore N)LL and 1 I&, The constitutionalit% of the remaining provisions of R' A::. was )-*EL&. Pursuant to Section ,: of R' A::., the rest of the provisions remain in force and effect.

TITLE:

MACIAS VS. COMELEC

CITATI N: 32 "C#A 1 G,#, L.10$0/ &ATE: "E-TE'(E# 1/, 1%$1

FACT": Petitioners re+uest that respondent officials be prevented from implementing Republic 'ct :;B; that apportions representative districts in this countr%. >t is unconstitutional and void, the% allege, because8 Ea9 it was passed b% the "ouse of Representatives without printed final copies of the bill having been furnished the Members at least three calendar da%s prior to its passageF Eb9 it was approved more than three %ears after the return of the last census of our populationF and Ec9 it apportioned districts without regard to the number of inhabitants of the several provinces. 'dmitting some allegations but den%ing others, the respondents aver the% were merel% compl%ing with their duties under the statute, which the% presume and allege to be constitutional. The respondent =ational Treasurer further avers that petitioners have no personalit% to bring this actionF that a dul% certified cop% of the law creates the presumption of its having been passed in accordance with the re+uirements of the &onstitution Edistribution of printed bills included9F that the Hirector of the &ensus submitted an official report on the population of the Philippines in =ovember, ,A ;, which report became the basis of the billF and that the 'ct complies with the principle of proportional representation prescribed b% the &onstitution. Petitioners are four members of the "ouse of Representatives from =egros <riental, Misamis <riental, and $ulacan, and the provincial governor of =egros <riental. The% bring this action in behalf of themselves and of other residents of their provinces. The% allege, and this &ourt finds, that their provinces had been discriminated against b% Republic 'ct :;B;, because the% were given less representative districts than the number of their inhabitants re+uired or justified8 Misamis <riental having :!C,!:A inhabitants, was given one district onl%, whereas &avite with :CA,A;inhabitants, was given two districtsF =egros <riental and $ulacan with .A!,C!: and ..C, A, respectivel%, were allotted - representative districts each, whereas 'lba% with .,.,A , was assigned : districts. Petitioners presented certificates of the Secretar% of the "ouse of Representatives to show that no printed cop% had been distributed three da%s before passage of the bill Eon Ma% ,;, ,A ,9 and that no certificate of urgenc% b% the President had been received in the "ouse.

The respondents claim in their defense that a statute ma% not be nullified upon evidence of failure to print, because Jit is conclusivel% presumed that the details of legislative procedure leading to the enrollment that are prescribed b% the &onstitution have been complied with b% the ?egislature.J The% further claim that the certificates of the Secretar% of the "ouse are inadmissible, in view of the conclusive Eenrolled4bill9 presumption, which in several instances have been applied b% the courts. >n further support of their contention, Sec. :,:E-9 of 'ct ,A; might be cited. The respondents aver the% were merel% compl%ing with their duties under the statute, which the% presume and allege to be constitutional. Respondent =ational Treasurer further avers that petitioners have no personalit% to bring this actionF that a dul% certified cop% of the law creates the presumption of its having been passed in accordance with the re+uirements of the &onstitution Edistribution of printed bills included9F that the Hirector of the &ensus submitted an official report on the population of the Philippines in =ovember ,A ;, which report became the basis of the billF and that the 'ct complies with the principle of proportional representation prescribed b% the &onstitution. I"")E: 1hether or not R' :;B; violates the principle of proportional representative stipulated in the &onstitution6

T*E C )#T+" #)LING: Republic 'ct =o. :;B; that gave provinces with less number of inhabitants more representative districts than those with bigger population is declared invalid because it violates the principle of proportional representation prescribed b% the &onstitution. The &onstitution directs that the one hundred twent% Members of the "ouse of Representatives Jshall be apportioned among the several provinces as nearl% as ma% be according to the number of their respective inhabitants.J'fter hearing the parties and considering their memoranda, The &ourt issued are solution, stating that R' :;B; violates the &onstitution in several wa%s namel%8Ea9 it gave &ebu seven members, while Ri5al with a bigger number of inhabitants got four onl%F Eb9 it

gave Manila four members, while &otabato with a bigger population got three onl% JThe constitutionalit% of a statute forming a delegate district or apportioning delegates for the house of delegates is a judicial +uestion for the courts, although the statute is an exercise of political power.J

TITLE: BARANGAY ASSOCIATION FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT (BANAT! VS. COMELEC CITATI N: G,#, N , 12%221 &ATE: A-#IL 21, 200%
FACT":

$aranga% 'ssociation for =ational 'dvancement and Transparenc% E$'='T9 filed before the &ommission on 3lections E&<M3?3&9 a petition to proclaim the full number of part% list representatives provided b% the &onstitution. "owever, the recommendation of the head of the legal group of &<M3?3&0s national board of canvassers to declare the petition moot and academic was approved b% the &<M3?3& en banc, and declared further in a resolution that the winning part% list will be resolved using the Veterans ruling. $'='T then filed a petition before the S& assailing said resolution of the &<M3?3&.
I"")E": 1hether or not the -;O allocation for part%4list representatives provided in Sec . E-9, 'rt V> of the &onstitution mandator% or is it merel% a ceiling6 1hether or not the -O threshold and (+ualifier* votes prescribed b% the same Sec ,, Eb9 of R' CAB, constitutional6 1hether or not the &onstitution prohibit major political parties from participating in the part%4list elections6 >f not, can major political parties participate in the part%4list elections6

T*E C )#T+" #)LING:

=either the &onstitution nor R' CAB, mandates the filling up of the entire -;O allocation of part%4list representatives found in the &onstitution. The &onstitution, in paragraph ,, Sec . of 'rt V>, left the determination of the number of the members of the "ouse of Representatives to &ongress. The -;O allocation of part%4list representatives is merel% a ceilingF part%4list representatives cannot be more then -;O of the members of the "ouse of Representatives.

=o. 1e rule that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Sec ,,Eb9 of R' CAB, is unconstitutional.

This &ourt finds that the two percent threshold ma)es it mathematicall% impossible to achieve the maximum number of available part%4list seats when the available part%4list seat exceeds .;.

The continued operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that -;O of the members of the "ouse of Representatives shall consist of part%4 list representatives. 1e therefore stri)e down the two percent threshold onl% in relation to the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Sec ,, Eb9 of R' CAB,. The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Sec . E-9, 'rt V> of the &onstitution and prevents the attainment of (the4broadest possible representation of part%, sectoral or group interests in the "ouse of Representatives.* =o. =either the &onstitution nor R' CAB, prohibits major political parties from participating in the part%4list s%stem. <n the contrar%, the framers of the &onstitution clearl% intended the major political parties to participate in part%4list elections through their sectoral wings. "owever, b% vote of !4C, the &ourt decided to continue the ruling in Veterans disallowing major political parties from participating in the part%4list elections, directl% or indirectl%.

TITLE:

AKO BICOL" ET AL VS. COMELEC

CITATI N: G,#, N , 2032$$ &ATE: A-#IL 2, 2013

FACT": Pursuant to the provisions of Republic 'ct =o. CAB, ER.'. =o. CAB,9 and &<M3?3& Resolution =os. A: and A.:,, approximatel% -!; groups and organi5ations registered and manifested their desire to participate in the ,: Ma% -;,: part%4list elections. n a Resolution dated . Hecember -;,-, the &<M3?3& 3n $anc affirmed the &<M3?3& Second Hivision0s resolution to grant Partido ng $a%an ng $ida0s EP$$9 registration and accreditation as a political part% in the =ational &apital Region. "owever, P$$ was denied participation in the ,: Ma% -;,: part%4list elections because P$$ does not represent an% Jmarginali5ed and underrepresentedJ sectorF P$$ failed to appl% for registration as a part%4list groupF and P$$ failed to establish its trac) record as an organi5ation that see)s to uplift the lives of the Jmarginali5ed and underrepresented.J These ,: petitioners E'S>=, Manila Teachers, '?'43", ,'''P, 'K>=, ''$, '>, '?<=', '?'M, K'?>K'S'=, #@'RH/'=, PPP, and P$$9 were not able to secure a mandator% injunction from this &ourt. The &<M3?3&, on C /anuar% -;,: issued Resolution =o. A ;B,, and excluded the names of these ,: petitioners in the printing of the official ballot for the ,: Ma% -;,: part%4list elections. Pursuant to paragraph - of Resolution =o. A.,:, the &<M3?3& 3n $anc scheduled summar% evidentiar% hearings to determine whether the groups and organi5ations

that filed manifestations of intent to participate in the ,: Ma% -;,: part%4list elections have continuall% complied with the re+uirements of R.'. =o. CAB, and 'ng $agong $a%ani4<71 ?abor Part% v. &<M3?3& E'ng $agong $a%ani9. Petitioners pra%ed for the issuance of a temporar% restraining order and2or writ of preliminar% injunction. This &ourt issued Status Puo 'nte <rders in all petitions. I"")E": 1hether or not the &<M3?3& committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac) or excess of jurisdiction6 1hether or not the criteria for participating in the part%4list s%stem laid down in 'ng $agong $a%ani and BANAT should be applied b% the &<M3?3& in the coming ,: Ma% -;,: part%4list elections6

T*E C )#T+" #)LING: >t was held that the &<M3?3& did not commit grave abuse of discretion in following prevailing decisions of this &ourt in dis+ualif%ing petitioners from participating in the coming ,: Ma% -;,: part%4list elections. "owever, since the &ourt adopts in this Hecision new parameters in the +ualification of national, regional, and sectoral parties under the part%4list s%stem, thereb% abandoning the rulings in the decisions applied b% the &<M3?3& in dis+ualif%ing petitioners, we remand to the &<M3?3& all the present petitions for the &<M3?3& to determine who are +ualified to register under the part%4list s%stem, and to participate in the coming ,: Ma% -;,: part%4list elections, under the new parameters prescribed in this Hecision. The ,A!C &onstitution provides the basis for the part%4list s%stem of representation. Simpl% put, the part%4list s%stem is intended to democrati5e political power b% giving political parties that cannot win in legislative district elections a chance to win seats in the "ouse of Representatives. The voter elects two representatives in the "ouse of Representatives8 one for his or her legislative district and another for his or her part%4list group or organi5ation of choice. The ,A!C &onstitution provides8 "ec3ion !, Ar3icle 1I

E,9 The "ouse of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fift% members, unless otherwise fixed b% 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 b% law, shall be elected through a part%4list s%stem of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organi5ations. E-9 The part%4list representatives shall constitute twent% per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the part% list. 7or three consecutive terms after the ratification of this &onstitution, one4half of the seats allocated to part%4list representatives shall be filled, as provided b% law, b% selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, %outh, and such other sectors as ma% be provided b% law, except the religious sector.

"ec3ions 2 and 0, Ar3icle I9.C Sec. C. =o votes cast in favor of a political part%, organi5ation, or coalition shall be valid, except for those registered under the part%4list s%stem as provided in this &onstitution. Sec. !. Political parties, or organi5ations or coalitions registered under the part%4list s%stem, shall not be represented in the voters0 registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other similar bodies. "owever, the% shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law. &ommissioner &hristian S. Monsod, the main sponsor of the part%4list s%stem, stressed that J3:e ;ar3y.lis3 sys3em is no3 synonymous <i3: 3:a3 o4 3:e sec3oral re;resen3a3ion.J The constitutional provisions on the part%4list s%stem should be read in light of the following discussion among its framers8

TITLE:

MARCOS VS. COMELEC

CITATI N: G,#, N , 11%%2$ &ATE: "E-TE'(E# 10, 1%%!

FACT": >melda, a little over ! %ears old, in or about ,A:!, established her domicile in Tacloban, ?e%te where she studied and graduated high school in the "ol% >nfant 'cadem% from ,A:! to ,ABA. She then pursued her college degree, education, in St. Paul0s &ollege now Hivine 1ord @niversit% also in Tacloban. Subse+uentl%, she taught in ?e%te &hinese School still in Tacloban. She went to manila during ,A.- to wor) with her cousin, the late spea)er Haniel Romualde5 in his office in the "ouse of Representatives. >n ,A.B, she married late President 7erdinand Marcos when he was still a &ongressman of >locos =orte and was registered there as a voter. 1hen Pres. Marcos was elected as Senator in ,A.A, the% lived together in San /uan, Ri5al where she registered as a voter. >n ,A ., when Marcos won presidenc%, the% lived

in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in San Miguel Manila. She served as member of the $atasang Pambansa and #overnor of Metro Manila during ,AC!. >melda Romualde54Marcos was running for the position of Representative of the 7irst Histrict of ?e%te for the ,AA. 3lections. &irilo Ro% Montejo, the incumbent Representative of the 7irst Histrict of ?e%te and also a candidate for the same position, filed a (Petition for &ancellation and His+ualificationJ with the &ommission on 3lections alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional re+uirement for residenc%. The petitioner, in an honest misrepresentation, wrote seven months under residenc%, which she sought to rectif% b% adding the words Jsince childhoodJ in her 'mended2&orrected &ertificate of &andidac% filed on March -A, ,AA. and that Jshe has alwa%s maintained Tacloban &it% as her domicile or residence. She arrived at the seven months residenc% due to the fact that she became a resident of the Municipalit% of Tolosa in said months.

I"")E: 1hether petitioner has satisfied the ,%ear residenc% re+uirement to be eligible in running as representative of the 7irst Histrict of ?e%te6

T*E C )#T+" #)LING: Residence is used s%non%mousl% with domicile for election purposes. The court are in favor of a conclusion supporting petitoner0s claim of legal residence or domicile in the 7irst Histrict of ?e%te despite her own declaration of C months residenc% in the district for the following reasons8

,. ' minor follows domicile of her parents. Tacloban became >melda0s domicile of origin b% operation of law when her father brought them to ?e%teF -. Homicile of origin is onl% lost when there is actual removal or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a new one, and acts which correspond with the purpose. >n the absence and concurrence of all these, domicile of origin should be deemed to continue. :. ' wife does not automaticall% gain the husband0s domicile because the term (residence* in &ivil ?aw does not mean the same thing in Political ?aw. 1hen

>melda married late President Marcos in ,A.B, she )ept her domicile of origin and merel% gained a new home and not domicilium necessarium. B. 'ssuming that >melda gained a new domicile after her marriage and ac+uired right to choose a new one onl% after the death of Pres. Marcos, her actions upon returning to the countr% clearl% indicated that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of choice. To add, petitioner even obtained her residence certificate in ,AA- in Tacloban, ?e%te while living in her brother0s house, an act, which supports the domiciliar% intention clearl% manifested. She even )ept close ties b% establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating her birthda%s and other important milestones. "aving determined that petitioner possesses the necessar% residence +ualifications to run for a seat in the "ouse of Representatives in the 7irst Histrict of ?e%te, the &<M3?3&Is +uestioned Resolutions dated 'pril -B, Ma% C, Ma% ,,, and Ma% -., ,AA. are hereb% S3T 'S>H3. Respondent &<M3?3& is hereb% directed to order the Provincial $oard of &anvassers to proclaim petitioner as the dul% elected Representative of the 7irst Histrict of ?e%te.

TITLE:

A#UINO VS. COMELEC

CITATI N: G,#, N , 1202$! &ATE: "E-TE'(E# 10, 1%%!

FACT": <n -; March ,AA., 'gapito '. '+uino, the petitioner, filed his &ertificate of &andidac% for the position of Representative for the new Eremember8 newl% created9

Second ?egislative Histrict of Ma)ati &it%. >n his certificate of candidac%, '+uino stated that he was a resident of the aforementioned district E-!B 'mapola &or. 'dalla Sts., Palm Village, Ma)ati9 for ,; months. Move Ma)ati, a registered political part%, and Mateo $edon, &hairman of ?'K'S4 =@&H4@MHP of $aranga% &embo, Ma)ati &it%, filed a petition to dis+ualif% '+uino on the ground that the latter lac)ed the residence +ualification as a candidate for congressman which under Section , 'rticle V> of the ,A!C &onstitution, should be for a period not less than one %ear preceding the EMa% !, ,AA.9 da% of the election. 7aced with a petition for dis+ualification, '+uino amended the entr% on his residenc% in his certificate of candidac% to , %ear and ,: da%s. The &ommission on 3lections passed a resolution that dismissed the petition on Ma% 'ugusto S%juco with :.,A,; votes. Move Ma)ati filed a motion of reconsideration with the &omelec, to which, on Ma% ,., the latter acted with an order suspending the proclamation of '+uino until the &ommission resolved the issue. <n - /une, the &ommission on 3lections found '+uino ineligible and dis+ualified for the elective office for lac) of constitutional +ualification of residence. '+uino then filed a Petition of &ertiorari assailing the Ma% ,. and /une - orders. I"")E": 1hether or not (residenc%* in the certificate of candidac% actuall% connotes (domicile* to warrant the dis+ualification of '+uino from the position in the electoral district6 1hether or not it is proven that '+uino has established domicile of choice and not just residence Enot in the sense of the &<&9in the district he was running in.6 T*E C )#T+" #)LING: The term (residence* has alwa%s been understood as s%non%mous with (domicile* not onl% under the previous constitutions but also under the ,A!C &onstitution. &ommission The &ourt cited wherein the this deliberations principle of the was &onstitutional applied. and allowed '+uino to run in the election of ! Ma%. '+uino, with :!,.BC votes, won against

The framers intended the word (residence* to have the same meaning of domicile. The place (where a part% actuall% or constructivel% has his permanent home,* where he, no matter where he ma% be found at an% given time, eventuall% intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which the &onstitution refers when it spea)s of residence for the purposes of election law. The purpose is to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions and needs of the communit% from ta)ing advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that communit% for electoral gain. 1hile there is nothing wrong with the purpose of establishing residence in a given area for meeting election law re+uirements, this defeats the essence of representation, which is to place through assent of voters those most cogni5ant and sensitive to the needs of a particular district, if a candidate falls short of the period of residenc% mandated b% law for him to +ualif%. '+uino has not established domicile of choice in the district he was running in. The S& agreed with the &omelec0s contention that '+uino should prove that he established a domicile of choice and not just residence. The &onstitution re+uires a person running for a post in the "R one %ear of residenc% prior to the elections in the district in which he see)s election to. '+uino0s certificate of candidac% in a previous EMa% ,,, ,AA-9 election indicates that he was a resident and a registered voter of San /ose, &oncepcion, Tarlac for more than .- %ears prior to that election. "is birth certificate indicated that &onception as his birthplace and his &<& also showed him to be a registered voter of the same district. Thus his domicile of origin Eobviousl%, choice as well9 up to the filing of his &<& was in &onception, Tarlac. '+uino0s connection to the new Second Histrict of Ma)ati &it% is an alleged lease agreement of a condominium unit in the area. The intention not to establish a permanent home in Ma)ati &it% is evident in his leasing a condominium unit instead of bu%ing one. The short length of time he claims to be a resident of Ma)ati Eand the fact of his stated domicile in Tarlac and his claims of other residences in Metro Manila9 indicate that his sole purpose in transferring his ph%sical residence is not to ac+uire a new, residence or domicile but onl% to +ualif% as a candidate for Representative of the Second Histrict of Ma)ati &it%. '+uino0s assertion that he has transferred his domicile from Tarlac to Ma)ati is a bare assertion which is hardl% supported b% the facts in the case at

bench. To successfull% effect a change of domicile, petitioner must prove an actual removal or an actual change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose.

'+uino was thus rightfull% dis+ualified b% the &ommission on 3lections due to his lac) of one %ear residence in the district. >nstant petition dismissed. <rder restraining respondent &omelec from proclaiming the candidate garnering the next highest number of votes in the congressional elections of Second district of Ma)ati &it% made permanent.

TITLE:

SEMA VS. COMELEC

CITATI N: G,#, N , 122!%2 &ATE: J)L5 1$, 2000

FACT": The Province of Maguindanao is part of 'RMM. &otabato &it% is part of the province of Maguindanao but it is not part or 'RMM because &otabato &it% voted against its inclusion in a plebiscite held in ,A!A. Maguindanao has two legislative districts. The ,st legislative district comprises of &otabato &it% and ! other municipalities. ' law ER' A;.B9 was passed amending 'RMM0s <rganic 'ct and vesting it with power to create provinces, municipalities, cities and baranga%s. Pursuant to this law, the 'RMM Regional 'ssembl% created Shariff Kabunsuan EMuslim Mindanao 'utonom% 'ct -;,9 which comprised of the municipalities of the , st district of Maguindanao with the exception of &otabato &it%. 7or the purposes of the -;;C elections, &<M3?3& initiall% stated that the , st district is now onl% made of &otabato &it% Ebecause of MM' -;,9. $ut it later amended this stating that status +uo should be retained however just for the purposes of the elections, the first district should be called Shariff Kabunsuan with &otabato &it% Q this is also while awaiting a decisive declaration from &ongress as to &otabato0s status as a legislative district Eor part of an%9. Sema was a congressional candidate for the legislative district of S. Kabunsuan with &otabato E,st district9. ?ater, Sema was contending that &otabato &it% should be a separate legislative district and that votes therefrom should be excluded in the voting Eprobabl% because her rival Hilangalen was from there and H was winning Q in fact he won9. She contended that under the &onstitution, upon creation of a province ES. Kabunsuan9, that province automaticall% gains legislative representation and since S. Kabunsuan excludes &otabato &it% Q so in effect &otabato is being deprived of a representative in the "<R. &<M3?3& maintained that the legislative district is still there and that regardless of S. Kabunsuan being created, the legislative district is not affected and so is its representation.

I"")E: 1hether or not R' A;.B is unconstitutional6 1hether or not 'RMM can create validl% ?#@s6

T*E C )#T+" #)LING: R' A;.B is unconstitutional. The creation of local government units is governed b% "ec3ion 10, Ar3icle 9 of the &onstitution, which provides8 Sec. ,;. =o province, cit%, municipalit%, or baranga% ma% be created, divided, merged, abolished or its boundar% substantiall% altered except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code and subject to approval b% a majorit% of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units directl% affected. Thus, the creation of an% of the four local government units province, cit%, municipalit% or baranga% must compl% with three conditions. 7irst, the creation of a local government unit must follow the criteria fixed in the ?ocal #overnment &ode. Second, such creation must not conflict with an% provision of the &onstitution. Third, there must be a plebiscite in the political units affected. There is neither an express prohibition nor an express grant of authorit% in the &onstitution for &ongress to delegate to regional or local legislative bodies the power to create local government units. "owever, under its plenar% legislative powers, &ongress can delegate to local legislative bodies the power to create local government units, subject to reasonable standards and provided no conflict arises with an% provision of the &onstitution. >n fact, &ongress has delegated to provincial boards, and cit% and municipal councils, the power to create baranga%s within their jurisdiction, subject to compliance with the criteria established in the ?ocal #overnment &ode, and the plebiscite re+uirement in Section ,;, 'rticle D of the &onstitution. "ence, 'RMM cannot validl% create Shariff Kabunsuan province. =ote that in order to create a cit% there must be at least a population of at least -.;), and that a province, once created, should have at least one representative in the "<R. =ote further that in order to have a legislative district, there must at least be -.;) Epopulation9 in said district. &otabato &it% did not meet the population re+uirement so Sema0s contention is untenable. <n the other hand, 'RMM cannot

validl% create the province of S. Kabunsuan without first creating a legislative district. $ut this can never be legall% possible because the creation of legislative districts is vested solel% in &ongress. 't most, what 'RMM can create are baranga%s not cities and provinces.

TITLE:

AVELINO VS. CUENCO

CITATI N: 03 -*IL 12 &ATE: CT (E# 20, 1%$0

FACT": <n ,! 7eb ,ABA, Senator TaLada invo)ed his right to spea) on the senate floor to formulate charges against the then Senate President 'velino. "e re+uest to do so on the next session E-, 7eb ,ABA9. <n the next session however, 'velino dela%ed the opening of the session for about two hours. @pon insistent demand b% TaLada, &uenco and Sanidad and others, 'velino was forced to open session. "e however, together with his allies initiated all dilator% and dela%ing tactics to forestall Ta =ada from delivering his piece. Motions being raised b% Ta =ada et al were being bloc)ed b% 'velino and his allies and the% even ruled Ta =ada and Sanidad, among others, as being out of order. 'velino0s camp then moved to adjourn the session due to the disorder. Sanidad however countered and the% re+uested the said adjournment to be placed in voting. 'velino just banged his gavel and he hurriedl% left his chair and he was immediatel% followed b% his followers. Senator &abili then stood up, and as)ed that it be made of record G it was so made G that the deliberate abandonment of the &hair b% the 'velino, made it incumbent upon Senate President Pro4tempore 'rran5 and the remaining members of the Senate to continue the session in order not to paral%5e the functions of the Senate. Tanada was subse+uentl% recogni5ed to deliver his speech. ?ater, 'rran5 %ielded to Sanidad0s Resolution E=o. !9 that &uenco be elected as the Senate President. This was unanimousl% approved and was even recogni5ed b% the President of the Philippines the following da%. &uenco too) his oath of office

thereafter. 'velino then filed a +uo warranto proceeding before the S& to declare him as the rightful Senate President. I"")E: 1hether or not the Supreme &ourt can ta)e cogni5ance of the case6 T*E C )#T+" #)LING: $% a vote of to B, the Supreme &ourt held that the% cannot ta)e cogni5ance of the

case. This is in view of the separation of powers, the political nature of the controvers% and the constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own president, which power should not be interfered with, nor ta)en over, b% the judiciar%.

The S& should abstain in this case because the selection of the presiding officer affects onl% the Senators themselves who are at libert% at an% time to choose their officers, change or reinstate them. 'n%wa%, if, as the petition must impl% to be acceptable, the majorit% of the Senators want petitioner to preside, his remed% lies in the Senate Session "all G not in the Supreme &ourt. Supposed the S& can ta)e cogni5ance of the case, what will be the resolution6 There is unanimit% in the view that the session under Senator 'rran5 was a continuation of the morning session and that a minorit% of ten senators E'velino et al9 ma% not, b% leaving the "all, prevent the other E&uenco et al9 twelve senators from passing a resolution that met with their unanimous endorsement. The answer might be different had the resolution been approved onl% b% ten or less. Two senators were not present that time. Sen. Soto was in a hospital while Sen. &onfesor was in the @S'. The second session is a continuation of the morning session as evidenced b% the minutes entered into the journal. There were -: senators considered to be in session that time Eincluding Soto, excluding &onfesor9. "ence, twelve senators constitute a majorit% of the Senate of twent% three senators. 1hen the &onstitution declares that a majorit% of (each "ouse* shall constitute a +uorum, (the "ouse* does not mean (all* the members. 3ven a majorit% of all the members constitute (the "ouse*.

There is a difference between a majorit% of (all the members of the "ouse* and a majorit% of (the "ouse*, the latter re+uiring less number than the first. Therefore an absolute majorit% E,-9 of all the members of the Senate less one E-:9, constitutes constitutional majorit% of the Senate for the purpose of a +uorum. 7urthermore, even if the twelve did not constitute a +uorum, the% could have ordered the arrest of one, at least, of the absent membersF if one had been so arrested, there would be no doubt Puorum then, and Senator &uenco would have been elected just the same inasmuch as there would be eleven for &uenco, one against and one abstained. 'velino and his group E,, senators in all9 insist that the Supreme &ourt ta)e

cogni5ance of the case and that the% are willing to bind themselves to the decision of the S& whether it be right or wrong. 'velino contends that there is no constitutional +uorum when &uenco was elected president. There are -B senators in all. Two are absentee senatorsF one being confined and the other abroad but this does not change the number of senators nor does it change the majorit% which if mathematicall% construed is R S ,F in this case ,- Ehalf of -B9 plus , or ,: =<T ,-. There being onl% ,- senators when &uenco was elected unanimousl% there was no +uorum.

The Supreme &ourt, b% a vote of seven resolved to assume jurisdiction over the case in the light of subse+uent events which justif% its intervention. The &hief /ustice agrees with the result of the majorit%0s pronouncement on the +uorum upon the ground that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the constitutional re+uirement in that regard has become a mere formalism, it appearing from the evidence that an% new session with a +uorum would result in &uenco0s election as Senate President, and that the &uenco group, ta)ing cue from the dissenting opinions, has been tr%ing to satisf% such formalism b% issuing compulsor% processes against senators of the 'velino group, but to no avail, because of the 'velino0s persistent efforts to bloc) all avenues to constitutional processes. 7or this reason, the S& believes that the &uenco group has done enough to satisf% the re+uirements of the &onstitution and that the majorit%0s ruling is in conformit% with substantial justice and with the re+uirements of public interest. Therefore &uenco has been legall% elected as Senate President and the petition was dismissed.

TITLE:

OSME$A VS, PENDATUM

CITATI N: 10% -*IL 0$3 G,#, No, L.121// &ATE: c3ober 20, 1%$0
FACT": <n /ul% ,B, ,A ;, &ongressman Sergio <smeLa, /r., submitted to the Supreme &ourt a verified petition for Jdeclarator% relief, certiorari and prohibition with preliminar% injunctionJ against &ongressman Salapida K. Pendatun and fourteen other congressmen in their capacit% as members of the Special &ommittee created b% "ouse Resolution =o. .A. "e as)ed for annulment of such Resolution on the ground of infringenment of his parliamentar% immunit%F he also as)ed, principall%, that said members of the special committee be enjoined from proceeding in accordance with it, particularl% the portion authori5ing them to re+uire him to substantiate his charges against the

President with the admonition that if he failed to do so, he must show cause wh% the "ouse should not punish him. The petition attached a cop% of "ouse Resolution =o. .A, where it was stated that Sergio <smeLa, /r., made a privilege speech entitled a Message to #arcia. There, he claimed to have been hearing of ugl% reports that the government has been selling (free things* at premium prices. "e also claimed that even pardons are for sale regardless of the gravit% of the case. The resolution stated that these charges, if made maliciousl% or rec)lessl% and without basis in truth, would constitute a serious assault upon the dignit% of the presidential office and would expose it to contempt and disrepute. The resolution formed a special committee of fifteen Members to investigate the truth of the charges against the President of the Philippines made b% <smeLa, /r. >t was authori5ed to summon him to appear before it to substantiate his charges, as well as to re+uire the attendance of witnesses and2or the production of pertinent papers before it, and if he fails to do so he would be re+uired to show cause wh% he should not be punished b% the "ouse. The special committee shall submit to the "ouse a report of its findings before the adjournment of the present special session of the &ongress of the Philippines. >n support of his re+uest, <smeLa alleged that the Resolution violated his constitutional absolute parliamentar% immunit% for speeches delivered in the "ouseF second, his words constituted no actionable conductF and third, after his allegedl% objectionable speech and words, the "ouse too) up other business, and Rule DV>>, sec. C of the Rules of "ouse provides that if other business has intervened after the member had uttered obnoxious words in debate, he shall not be held to answer therefor nor be subject to censure b% the "ouse.

The Supreme &ourt decided to hear the matter further, and re+uired respondents to answer, without issuing an% preliminar% injunction. The special committee continued to perform its tas), and after giving &ongressman <smeLa a chance to defend himself, found him guilt% of serious disorderl% behavior and acting on such report, the "ouse approved on the same da% "ouse Resolution =o. ,C., declaring him guilt% as recommended, and suspending him from office for fifteen months.

The respondents filed their answer where the% challenged the jurisdiction of this &ourt to entertain the petition, defended the power of &ongress to discipline its members with suspension and then invited attention to the fact that &ongress having ended its session, the &ommittee had thereb% ceased to exist. 'fter the new resolution, <smena added that the "ouse has no power under the &onstitution, to suspend one of its members.

I"")E: 1hether or not <smeLa can be held liable for his speech6

T*E C )#T+" #)LING: Tes. Petition was dismissed. "ec3ion 1!, Ar3icle 1I of our &onstitution provides that Jfor an% speech or debateJ in &ongress, the Senators or Members of the "ouse of Representative Jshall not be +uestioned in an% other place.J The provision has alwa%s been understood to mean that although exempt from prosecution or civil actions for their words uttered in &ongress, the members of &ongress ma%, nevertheless, be +uestioned in &ongress itself. 7urthermore, the Rules of the "ouse which petitioner himself has invo)ed ERule DV>>, sec. C9, recogni5e the "ouseIs power to hold a member responsible Jfor words spo)en in debate.J <ur &onstitution enshrines parliamentar% immunit% whose purpose Jis to enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and successJ for Jit is indispensabl% necessar% that he should enjo% the fullest libert% of speech, and that he should be protected from the resentment of ever% one it ma% offend.J >t guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before the courts or an% other forum outside of the &ongressional "all. $ut it does not protect him from responsibilit% before the legislative bod% itself whenever his words and conduct are considered b% the latter disorderl% or unbecoming a member.

7or unparliamentar% conduct, members of Parliament or of &ongress have been censured, committed to prison, and even expelled b% the votes of their colleagues. This was the traditional power of legislative assemblies to ta)e disciplinar% action against its members, including imprisonment, suspension or expulsion. 7or instance,

the Philippine Senate, in 'pril ,ABA, suspended a senator for one %ear. =eedless to add, the Rules of Philippine "ouse of Representatives provide that the parliamentar% practices of the &ongress of the @nited States shall appl% in a supplementar% manner to its proceedings. This brings up the third point of petitioner8 the "ouse ma% no longer ta)e action against him, because after his speech it had ta)en up other business. Respondents answer that Resolution =o. .A was unanimousl% approved b% the "ouse, that such approval amounted to a suspension of the "ouse Rules, which according to standard parliamentar% practice ma% done b% unanimous consent. #ranted that the "ouse ma% suspend the operation of its Rules, it ma% not, however, affect past acts or renew its rights to ta)e action which had alread% lapsed. The situation might thus be compared to laws extending the period of limitation of actions and ma)ing them applicable to actions that had lapsed. 't an% rate, courts are subject to revocation modification or waiver at the pleasure of the bod% adopting them. Mere failure to conform to parliamentar% usage will not invalidate the action ta)en b% a deliberative bod% when the re+uired number of members have agreed to a particular measure. The following is +uoted from a reported decision of the Supreme court of Tennessee8 The rule here invo)ed is one of parliamentar% procedure, and it is uniforml% held that it is within the power of all deliberative bodies to abolish, modif%, or waive their own rules of procedure, adopted for the orderl% con duct of business, and as securit% against hast% action. E&ertain 'merican cases9 >n the case of &ongressman Stanber% of <hio, who insulted the Spea)er, was censured b% the "ouse, despite the argument that other business had intervened after the objectionable remar)s. <n the +uestion whether deliver% of speeches attac)ing the &hief 3xecutive constitutes disorderl% conduct for which <smeLa ma% be disciplined, the court believed that the "ouse is the judge of what constitutes disorderl% behaviour, not onl% because the &onstitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it, but also because the matter depends mainl% on factual circumstances of which the "ouse )nows best but which cannot be depicted in blac) and white for presentation to, and adjudication b% the &ourts. 7or one thing, if this &ourt assumed the power to determine whether <smeLa conduct constituted disorderl% behaviour, it would thereb% have assumed appellate jurisdiction, which the &onstitution never intended to confer upon a coordinate branch of the #overnment.

This was due to the theor% of separation of powers fastidiousl% observed b% this. 3ach department, it has been said, had exclusive cogni5ance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere. E'ngara vs. 3lectoral &ommission.9 The general rule has been applied in other cases to cause the courts to refuse to intervene in what are exclusivel% legislative functions. Thus, where the stated Senate is given the power to example a member, the court will not review its action or revise even a most arbitrar% or unfair decision. &lifford vs. 7rench4 several senators who had been expelled b% the State Senate of &alifornia for having ta)en a bribe, filed mandamus proceeding to compel reinstatement, alleging the Senate had given them no hearing, nor a chance to ma)e defense, besides falsit% of the charges of briber%. The Supreme &ourt of &alifornia declined to interfere8 @nder our form of government, the judicial department has no power to revise even the most arbitrar% and unfair action of the legislative department, due to the &onstitution. 3ver% legislative bod% in which is vested the general legislative power of the state has the implied power to expel a member for an% cause which it ma% deem sufficient. >n "iss. vs. $arlett, it was said that this power is inherent in ever% legislative bod%F that it is necessar% to the to enable the bod% Ito perform its high functions, and is necessar% to the safet% of the stateF That it is a power of self4protection, and that the legislative bod% must necessaril% be the sole judge of the exigenc% which ma% justif% and re+uire its exercise. #iven the exercise of the power committed to it, the senate is supreme. 'n attempt b% this court to direct or control the legislature, or either house, in the exercise of the power, would be an attempt to exercise legislative functions, which it is expressl% forbidden to do. The &ourt merel% refuses to disregard the allocation of constitutional functions which it is our special dut% to maintain. >ndeed, in the interest of comit%, we found the "ouse of Representatives of the @nited States ta)ing the position upon at least two occasions. PetitionerIs principal argument against the "ouseIs power to suspend is the 'lejandrino precedent. >n ,A-B, Senator 'lejandrino was, b% resolution of Senate, suspended from office for ,- months because he had assaulted another member of that $od%. The Senator challenged the validit% of the resolution. 'lthough this &ourt

held that in view of the separation of powers, it had no jurisdiction to compel the Senate to reinstate petitioner, it nevertheless went on to sa% the Senate had no power to adopt the resolution because suspension for ,- months amounted to removal, and the /ones ?aw gave the Senate no power to remove an appointive member, li)e Senator 'lejandrino.

The /ones ?aw specificall% provided that Jeach house ma% punish its members for disorderl% behaviour, and, with the concurrence of two4thirds votes, expel an elective member. The /ones ?aw empowered the #overnor #eneral to appoint Senators. 'lejandrino was one. The opinion in that case stated that Jsuspension deprives the electoral district of representation without that district being afforded an% means b% which to fill that vacanc%.J $ut that remar) should be understood to refer particularl% to the appointive senator who was then the affected part%. =ow the &ongress has the full legislative powers and prerogatives of a sovereign nation, except as restricted b% the &onstitution. >n the 'lejandrino case, the &ourt reached the conclusion that the /ones ?aw did not give the Senate the power it then exercisedGthe power of suspension for one %ear. =ow. the &ongress has the inherent legislative prerogative of suspension which the &onstitution did not impair. The ?egislative power of the Philippine &ongress is plenar%, limited b% the RepublicIs &onstitution. So that an% power deemed to be legislative b% usage or tradition, is necessaril% possessed b% the Philippine &ongress, unless the &onstitution provides otherwise. >n an% event, petitionerIs argument as to the deprivation of the districtIs representation can not be weight%, becuase deliberative bodies have the power in proper cases, to commit one of their members to jail. =ow come +uestions of procedure and jurisdiction. The petition intended to prevent the Special &ommittee from acting tin pursuance of "ouse Resolution =o. .A. $ecause no preliminar% injunction had been issued, the &ommittee performed its tas), reported to the "ouse, and the latter approved the suspension order. The "ouse had closed it session, and the &ommittee has ceased to exist as such. >t would seem, therefore, the case should be dismissed for having become moot or academic. <f course, there is nothing to prevent petitioner from filing new pleadings. $ut the most probable outcome of such reformed suit, however, will be a pronouncement of lac) of jurisdiction.