CASES IN POLITICAL LAW 1

(listed by Dean MarlonfritzB. Broto)

CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES
De Leon v. ESGUERRA
The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that
date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been
superseded. (Effectivity is immediately upon ratification)
Gonzales v. COMELEC
Nature of power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments
thereto: not inherent power of Congress but of the people; constituent power
of Congress
Tolentino v. COMELEC
The condition and limitation that all the amendments to be proposed by the
same convention must be submitted in a single election or plebiscite.
Imbong v. COMELEC
Competence of Congress acting as Constituent Assembly: Authority to call
constitutional convention as Constituent Assembly in enacting implementing
details.
Sanidad v. COMELEC
-Presidential exercise of legislative powers (and proposing amendments) is
valid in martial law.
-Amending process is a sovereign act, although the authority to institute the
same and the procedure to be followed reside somehow in a particular body
(Pres. Marcos).
Santiago v. COMELEC
The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution
through the system of initiative would remain entombed in a cold niche until
Congress provides for its implementation. Section 2 of Article XVII is not selfexecuting.
Lambino v. COMELEC
Essence of people's initiative: (1) people must author; (2) they must sign the
proposal; (3) proposal is embodied in petition
CONCEPT OF STATE
Bacani vs NACOCO
The mere fact that the Government happens to be a major stockholder of a
corporation does not make it a public corporation.
1

Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions.

PVTA vs CIR
Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions obsolete.
Government has to provide for general welfare.
Gov. of the Phil. Islands vs. Monte de Piedad
Doctrine of Parens Patriae (state as guardian of the people)
Transfer of sovereignty; effect on laws:
- abrogation of laws in conflict with the political character of the substituted
sovereign (political law).
- great body of municipal law regarding private and domestic rights continue
in force until abrogated or changed by new ruler.
Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh
Continuity of Law: Law, once established, continues until changed by some
competent legislative power (not changed by mere change of sovereignty)
All acts and proceedings of the 3 gov. depts. of a de facto government are
good and valid.
Kinds of De facto government:
(1) de facto proper government obtained by force or voice of the majority
(2) paramount force by military forces who invade the territory
(3) independent government established by inhabitants through insurrection
Republic of the Philippines (during Japanese occupation) was a de facto
government.
People vs Gozo
Principle of Auto-limitation: Extent of Philippine sovereignty over American
bases Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the
bases as part of the Philippine territory.
Laurel vs Misa
Nature of Allegiance to sovereign: Absolute and permanent
Effect of enemy occupation: sovereignty of the government not transferred
to occupier
Ruffy v Chief of Staff
The rule that laws of political nature or affecting political relations are
considered superseded or held in abeyance during the military occupation, is
intended for the governing of the civil inhabitants of the occupied territory and
not for the enemies in arms.
STATE IMMUNITY
Sanders v Veridiano
Mere allegation that a government functionary is being sued in his personal
capacity will not automatically remove him from the protection of the laws of
public officers and doctrine of state immunity
2

Doctrine of state immunity applicable also to other states.

Republic v Sandoval
State cannot be held liable for the deaths that followed the incident; liability
should fall on the public officers who committed acts beyond their authority
3 instances when suit is proper:
1. when sued by its name
2. when unincorporated government agency is sued
3. when the suit is against a government employee but liability belongs
to the government
Festejo v Fernando
Officer or employee committing the tort is personally liable and maybe sued
as any other citizen and held answerable for whatever injury
USA vs Guinto
-

A state may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can
thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it
enters into business contracts.
Veterans Manpower vs CA

The state is deemed to have given tacitly its consent to be sued when it
enters into a contract. However, it does not apply where the contract relates
to the exercise of its sovereign functions.
The Merritt vs Govt of the Phil

By consenting to be sued, a state simply waives its immunity from suit. It

does not thereby concede its liability to the plaintiff, or create any cause of
action in his favor, or extend its liability to any cause not previously
recognized. It merely gives remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability and
submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose any
lawful defense.
Amigable vs. Cuenca
The government, when it takes away a property from a private land owner for
public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or
negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the
government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental immunity
from suit. This doctrine cannot be used in perpetrating injustice to a citizen.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

When the state files an action, it divests itself of the sovereign character and
shed its immunity form suit, descending to the level of an ordinary litigant.

Republic vs. Feliciano

- failure to allege in the complaint the existence of consent by the State is a
fatal defect (construction must be strict against conferment of waiver
- Immunity may be invoked by the courts at any point/stage of the
proceedings.
USA vs. Ruiz
Restrictive Application of State Immunity to foreign states: States may be sued
when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign
sovereign.
The Holy See v Rosario, Jr.
Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic
envoy is granted immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the
receiving state over any real action relating to private immovable property
situated in the territory of the receiving state which the envoy holds on behalf
of the sending state for the purposes of the mission
Republic vs. Villasor
- Judgment against the State cannot be enforced by execution. It may limit
claimants action only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the
state of execution. Power of courts end when judgment is rendered. [suability
vs. liability]
- Functions and public services cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted
by the disruption of public funds.
Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC
-

Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its
non-suability. Distinction must still be made between one which is executed in
the exercise of its sovereign function and another which is done in the
proprietary capacity.
State gives consent upon moneyed claim arising from contract.
PNB vs. Pabalan

State immunity from suit cannot be validly invoked with regard to funds of
public corporations.
[suable corporations] Public funds of corporations which can sue and be sued
are not exempt from gaarnishment.
Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan

The character of an incorporated agency allows it to sue and be sued without

qualification
4

Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Assoc.

-

Acceptance of outside work and payment of overtime compensation does not

make work of Bureau of Printing proprietary.
Non-suability of the State is available to the agency even if it is shown that it
is engaged not only in governmental functions but also, incidentally, in
proprietary enterprises (unincorporated agency).
Mobil Phils. Exploration, Inc. vs. CA
If an agencys function is deemed proprietary, if such is a necessary incident
of the primary and gov. function of such agency, such agency is not suable
(for an unincorporated agency only).
Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Court of Appeals
- Not all government entities whether corporate or not are immune from suits.
Immunity from suits is determined by the character of the objects for which
the entity was organized.
- Suits against State agencies with relation to matters in which they have
assumed to act in private or non-governmental capacity, and various suits
against certain corporations created by the State to engage In matters
partaking more of the nature of ordinary business are not regarded as suits
against the State.
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme
The test of liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the driver
acting in behalf of the municipality is performing governmental or proprietary
functions. It has already been remarked that municipal corporations are suable
because their charters grant them the competence to sue and be sued.
Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts committed by them in the
discharge of governmental functions and can be held answerable only if it can
be shown that they were acting in a proprietary capacity. In permitting such
entities to be sued, the state merely gives the claimants the right to show the
defendant was not acting in its governmental capacity when the injury was
inflicted or that the case comes under the exceptions recognized by law.
Failing this, the claimants cannot recover.
Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez
Municipal funds in possession of municipal and provincial treasurers are public
funds exempt from execution. Municipal funds are held in trust for the people
intended and used for the accomplishments of the purposes for which
municipal corporations are created and that to subject said properties and
public funds to execution would materially impede, even defeat and in some
instance destroy said purposes.
Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals
When a municipality fails or refuses without justifiable reason to effect
payment of a final money judgment rendered against it, the claimant may
avail of the remedy of mandamus in order to compel the enactment and
approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance and the corresponding
5

disbursement of municipal funds.

Fundamental Principles and State Policies
Section 1
Villavicencio v. Lukban:
Mayors act is unconstitutional. It was not authorized by any law or ordinance.
Our government is a government of laws and not of men.
Section 2
Kuroda v. Jalandoni:
The Philippines can adopt the rules and regulations laid down on the Hague
and Geneva Conventions notwithstanding that it is not a signatory thereto. It
embodied generally accepted principles of international law binding upon all
states.
Agustin v. Edu:
Legislative enactment is not necessary in order to authorize the issuance of
LOI prescribing the use of triangular reflectorized early warning devices. This is
also an illustration of generally accepted principles of international law (Pacta
sunt servanda).
Ichong v. Hernandez:
The Retail Trade Nationalization Law is not unconstitutional because it was
passed in the exercise of the police power which cannot be bargained away
through the medium of a treaty.
Gonzales v. Hechanova:
Prevalence of National or Municipal law over International law: Constitution
authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the
fundamental law, but also when it runs counter to an act of Congress.
In re Garcia
A treaty cannot modify regulations governing admission to Philippine bar (that
would be an encroachment upon Supreme Court by the Executive)
Section 3
IBP vs. Zamora
The deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the civilian
6

supremacy clause. The calling of the marines in this case constitutes

permissible use of military asset for civilian law enforcement. x x x The limited
participation of the Marines is evident in the provisions of the Letter of
Instruction (LOI) itself, which sufficiently provides the metes and bounds of the
Marines authority. It is noteworthy that the local police forces are the ones
charge of the visibility patrols at all times, the real authority belonging to the
PNP. In fact, the Metro Manila Police Chief is the overall leader of the PNPMarines joint visibility patrols. Under the LOI, the police forces are tasked to
brief or orient the soldiers on police patrol procedures. It is their responsibility
to direct and manage the deployment of the marines. It is, likewise, their duty
to provide the necessary equipment to the Marines and render logistic support
to these soldiers. In view of the foregoing, it cannot be properly argued that
military authority is supreme over civilian authority. It is worth mentioning that
military assistance to civilian authorities in various forms persists in Philippine
jurisdiction. The Philippine experience reveals that it is not averse to
requesting the assistance of the military in the implementation and execution
of certain traditionally civil functions. x x x Some of the multifarious
activities wherein military aid has been rendered, exemplifying the activities
that bring both the civilian and the military together in a relationship of
cooperation are:
1. Elections;
2. Administration of the Philippine National Red Cross;
3. Relief and rescue operations during calamities and disasters;
4. Amateur sports promotion and development;
5. Development of the culture and the arts;
6. Conservation of the natural resources;
7. Implementation of the agrarian reform program;
8. Enforcement of customs laws;
9. Composite civilian-military law enforcement activities;
10. Conduct of licensure examinations;
11. Conduct of nationwide test for elementary and high school students;
12. Anti-drug enforcement activities;
13. Sanitary inspections;
14. Conduct of census work;
15. Administration of the Civil Aeronautic Board;
16. Assistance in installation of weather forecasting devices;
17. Peace and order policy formulation in local government units.
This unquestionably constitutes a gloss on executive power resulting from a
systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of
Congress
and, yet, never before questioned. What we have here is a mutual support and
cooperation between the military and civilian authorities, not derogation of
civilian
supremacy.
Section 4
People vs. Lagman
- Case at bar: accused is prosecuted for failure to register for military service
under the National Defense Act
- SC upheld the National Defense Act. To leave an organization of an army to
the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the Government
excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein.
7

Section 5
Chavez vs. Romulo
Right to bear arms: It is statutory and not a constitutional right. The license to
carry a firearm is neither a property nor a property right. Neither does it create
a vested right. Even if it were a property right, it cannot be considered
absolute as to be placed beyond the reach of police power. The maintenance
of peace and order, and the protection of the people against violence are
constitutional duties of the State, and the right to bear firearm is to be
construed in connection and in harmony with these constitutional duties.
Section 6
Aglipay vs. Ruiz
-There is no violation of the principle of the separation of church and state. The
issuance and sale of the stamps in question may be said to be linked with an
event of a religious character, but the resulting propaganda, if any, received
by the Catholic Church, was not the aim and purpose of the government. The
idea behind the issuance of the postage stamps was to attract tourists to our
country and not primarily the religious event.
- What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty , not mere religious
toleration. However, religious freedom is not inhibition of profound reverence
for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs.
Austria vs. NLRC
An ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between the church and its
members and relates to matter of faith, religious doctrines, worship and
governance of the congregation. Examples of these affairs in which the State
cannot meddle are proceedings for excommunication, ordination of religious
ministers, administration of sacraments, and other activities to which is
attached religious significance. In this case, what is involved is the relationship
of the church as an employer and the minister as an employee. It is purely
secular and has no relation whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or
doctrine of the church.
Section 10
Calalang vs. Williams
-Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor
anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and
economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively
secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the
promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of
measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent
elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social
equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community,
constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extraconstitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all
governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
8

Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity

of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the
protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a
combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the
fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health,
comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to
the greatest number.
Almeda vs. CA
-There exists a tenants right of redemption in sugar and coconut lands.
Pursuant to Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963, it recognizes share
tenancy in sugar lands which is in consonance with the States promotion of
social justice wherein it may regulate the acquisition, ownership, use,
enjoyment and disposition of private property, and equitably diffuse
propertyownership and profits.
Ondoy .vs. Ignacio
-The principle of social justice applied in this case is a matter of protection, not
equality. The Court recognized the right of the petitioner to the claim of
compensation because her son was shown to have died while in the actual
performance of his work. To strengthen the constitutional scheme of social
justice and protection to labor, The Court made mention that as between a
laborer, usually poor and unlettered, and the employer, who has resources to
secure able legal advice, the law has reason to demand from the latter the
stricter compliance.
Salonga vs. Farrales
-The plea of social justice of the plaintiff cannot be considered because it was
shown that no contract, either to sell or of sale, was ever perfected between
him and the defendant. It must be remembered that social justice cannot be
invoked to trample on the rights of property owners who under our
Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection. The social justice
consecrated in our Constitution was not intended to take away rights from a
person and give them to another who is not entitled thereto.
Section 12
Meyer vs. Nebraska
It is incompetent for the government to prohibit the teaching of a foreign
language to students. There is nothing harmful in the language that will impair
the upbringing of the child.
Pierce vs. Society of Sisters
State may not require children to attend only public schools. The child is not a
creature of the State.
Virtuouso vs. Municipal Judge
9

Youthful Offender: A person charged with an offense but found to be a youthful

offender could be provisionally released on recognizance at courts decision.
Section 14
PT&T Co. vs. NLRC
the SC held that the petitioners policy of not accepting or considering as
disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage, runs afoul
of the test of, and the right against, discrimination, which is guaranteed all
women workers under the Constitution. While a requirement that a woman
employee must remain unmarried may be justified as a bona fide
occupational qualification where the particular requirements of the job would
demand the same, discrimination against married women cannot be adopted
by the employer as a general principle.
Section 16
Oposa vs. Factoran
[Intergenerational Responsibility / Intergenerational Justice] the 34 minors duly
joined by their respective parents pleading the cause of inter-generational
responsibility and inter-generational justice, had a valid cause of action in
questioning the grant of Timber Licensing Agreements (TLAs) for commercial
logging purposes. The minors filed the action for themselves as representing
their generation as well as generations yet unborn. The SC, on the basis of
Section 16, Article II linked with the right to health, recognized a right to a
balanced and healthful ecology and the correlative duty to refrain from
impairing the environment.
LLDA v. CA
The immediate response to the demands of necessities of protecting vital
public interests gives vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in the
Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the 1987 Constitution. Article II,
Section 16. As a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person, it carries
the correlative duty of non-impairment. This is but the consonance with the
declared policy of the state to protect and promote the right to health of the
people and instill health consciousness among them.
C&M Timber Corporation vs. Alcala
On the issue that the total log ban is a new policy which should be applied
prospectively and not affect the rights of petitioner vested under the Timber
Licensing Agreement (TLA), the Sc held that this is not a new policy but a
mere reiteration of the policy of conservation and protection the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology.
Section 17
10

PRC vs. De Guzman

while it is true that the SC has upheld the constitutional right of every citizen
to select a profession or course of study subject to fair, reasonable, and
equitable admission and academic requirements, the exercise of this right may
be regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health,
morals, peace, education, order, safety and general welfare. Thus, persons
who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or
technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite
to engaging in their chosen careers. This regulation assumes particular
pertinence in the field of medicine, in order to protect the public from the
potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance.
PMMS, Inc. vs. CA
the Court said that the requirement that a school must first obtain government
authorization before operating is based on the State policy that educational
programs and/or operations shall be of good quality and, therefore, shall at
least satisfy minimum standards with respect to curricula, teaching staff,
physical plant and facilities and administrative and management viability.
Section 18
Bernardo vs. NLRC
The SC held that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that
qualified disabled persons be granted the same terms and conditions of
employment as qualified able bodied employees; thus, once hey have attained
the status of regular workers, they should be accorded all the benefits granted
by law, notwithstanding written or verbal contracts to the contrary. This
treatment is rooted not merely in charity or accommodation, but in justice for
all.
Section 19
Garcia vs. BOI
BOI committed grave abuse of discretion because it repudiates the
independent policy of government to run its affairs the way it deems best for
the national interest.
Every provision of the Constitution on the national economy and patrimony is
infused with the spirit of national interest. The non-alienation of national
resources, the State full control over the development and utilization of
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country and
the regulation of foreign investment in accordance to national goals and
priorities are too explicit not to be noticed and understood.
Section 20
Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs. PCA,
The SC said that although the Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a
policy, it nevertheless reserves to the Government the power to intervene
11

whenever necessary for the promotion of the general welfare as reflected in

Sections 6 & 19 of Article XII.
Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs. Fertilizer and
Pesticide
Authority, and Pharmaceutical and Health
Care Association of the Philippines vs. Sec. Duque III
Despite the fact that our present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a
policy, it nevertheless reserves to the Government the power to intervene
whenever necessary to promote the general welfare. Free enterprise does not
call for removal of protective regulations. It must be clearly explained and
proven by competent evidence just exactly how such protective regulation
would result in the restraint of trade.
Section 21
ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL. vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN
REFORM
Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forcibly
acquire private lands intended for public use upon payment of just
compensation to the owner. Private rights must yield to the irresistible
demands of the public interest on the time-honored justification, as in the case
of the policed power, that the welfare of the people is the supreme law.
Section 25
BASCO VS PAGCOR
Local Autonomy under 1987 Constitution simply means the decentralization
and does not make the local governments sovereign within the State or an
imperium imperio.
LIMBONA VS MANGELIN
Decentralization of administration is merely delegation of administrative
powers to the LGUs in order to broaden the base of governmental power.
Decentralization of power is the abdication by the national government
powers.
Section 26
Pamatong vs. COMELEC
- There is no constitutional right to run for or hold public office and,
particularly, to seek the presidency. What is recognized is merely a privilege
subject to limitations imposed by law. Section 26, Article II of the Constitution
neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an
enforceable right. There is nothing in the plain language of the provision which
suggests such a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort. The "equal
access" provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the Constitution, entitled
12

"Declaration of Principles and State Policies." The provisions under the Article
are generally considered not self-executing, and there is no plausible reason
for according a different treatment to the "equal access" provision. Like the
rest of the policies enumerated in Article II, the provision does not contain any
judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for
legislative or executive action. The disregard of the provision does not give
rise to any cause of action before the courts.
Section 30
Legspi vs CSC
The constitutional right to information on matters of public concern is selfexecuting without the need for any ancillary act of legislation.
Valmonte vs de Villa
The constitutional right to information is limited on matters of public concern
and is further subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. However,
although citizens are afforded the right to information, the Constitution does
not accord them the right to compel the custodians of official records to
prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to acquire
information of public concern.
Aquino-Sarmiento vs Morato
- When a committee or board is created as public in its very existence and
character such as the MTRCB, there can be no valid claim to privacy. Here,
decisions of Board and individual voting slips are public in character.
SEPARATION OF POWERS
In re Manzano
- Members of the SC and other courts shall not be designated to any agency
performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
- The committee performs administrative function* which under Section 12,
Article VIII of the Constitution prohibits members of the SC and other courts
established by law to be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions. To quote CJ Fernando in Garcia vs. Macaraig, he said
that while the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory not to be
enforced with pedantic rigor, the practical demands of government precluding
its doctrine application, it cannot justify a member of the judiciary being
required to assume a position or perform a duty non-judicial in character.
Administrative functions are those which involves the regulation and control
the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the
promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the
legislative or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the
organic law of its existence.
Angara vs. Electoral Commission
13

- Separation of powers as actual division than obtained through express

provision
- Judiciary is the only Constitutional Arbiter to allocate Constitutional
Boundaries
- Judicial Supremacy = supremacy of the Constitution asserted by the judiciary
(not supremacy of the judiciary itself)
- Judicial Review is limited to Actual Litigation. Judiciary does not pass upon
questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of litigation.
- The Electoral Commission is an independent, impartial, and non-partisan
tribunal. The sole power to determine contests regarding the elections,
returns, and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly has been
transferred in totality to the Electoral Commission. Its power is clear,
complete, and exclusive.
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
- Legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be
delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law
may be enforced.
- Completeness test and Sufficient Standard Test:
Completeness Test = complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves
the legislature such that what is left is merely its enforcement.
Sufficient Standard Test = adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map
out the boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation
from running riot.
- Subordinate Legislation = delegated power to issue rules to carry out the
general provision of the statute. (Administrative bodies implement the broad
policies by promulgating their supplementary regulations.)
Casibang vs. Aquino
- Political Question = question of policy; question to be decided by the people
in their sovereign capacity or full discretionary authority
- Justiciable Question = implies a given right, legally demandable and
enforceable; an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy, granted
or sanctioned by law for said breach of right.
Sanidad v. COMELEC
On whether the case is justiciable. Political questions are associated with
the wisdom of the legality of a particular act. Where the vortex of the
controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that matter is
definitely justiciable or non-political. If the Constitution provides how it may be
amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution, can declare
whether the procedure followed or the authority assumed was valid or not.
On whether the President may propose Constitutional amendments
If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of
the interim Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the
function of that Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution, which
is but an adjunct, although peculiar, to its gross legislative power.
(Note that at the time Prez. Marcos had legislative powers and there was no
legislative department at the time)
14

Daza v. Singson
Where the legality or validity of the act is in question and not the wisdom of
the act, the Court may take jurisdiction and decide on the acts validity. Even
in political questions the Court may take jurisdiction under the expanded
judicial power extended to it by Art 8 Sec. 1 of the Constitution.
(Judicial power includes the duty to
rights which are legally demandable
whether or not there has been a grave
or excess of jurisdiction on the part
Government.)

settle actual controversies involving

and enforceable, and to determine
abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of any branch or instrumentality of

Delegation of Powers
Garcia v. Exec. Secretary
The Congress may authorize the President to fix tariff rates and duties subject
to such limitations and restrictions that they may impose. This is expressly
provided for in Art 6, Sec 28 par 2 of the Constitution.
Araneta v. Dinglasan
The delegation of emergency powers by Congress to the President may be
limited by Congress subject to restrictions it may provide. Congress may
withdraw the delegated power at any time. In this case, the emergency power
was withdrawn at the time Congress became able to exercise its legislative
duties again.
Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA
The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all three branches of
government specifically in the case of the legislative. What can be delegated
is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced and not what the
law shall be since the ascertainment of the latter subject is within the
prerogative and determination of the legislature. Delegation of legislative
power is permitted and valid provided that is passes the two accepted testscompleteness test and the sufficient standard test. The reason for such
delegation is the increasing complexity of the task of the government and the
growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems
demanding its attention.
Rodriguez v. Gella
Act No. 671 was expressly in pursuance of the constitutional limitation of the
delegation of emergency powers. It is presumed that the National Assembly
intended it to be for a limited period. Executive Orders Nos. 545 and 546,
which was anchored to the said Act are declared null and void and the
respondents are ordered to desist from appropriating, releasing and allotting
expending funds set aside therein.
15

People v. Vera
Act No. 4221 is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative power. The
powers of the government are distributed among three coordinate and
substantially independent organs: the legislative, the executive and the
judicial. Each of the departments of the government derives its authority from
the Constitution.
US vs. Ang Tang Ho
If the act within itself does not define a crime and is not complete, legislative
act remains to be done to make it a law or a crime, the doing of which is
vested in the Gov, generally, the act is a delegation of legislative power, and is
thus unconstitutional and void.
Ynot vs. IAC
There is no standard that the officials must observe in determining to whom to
distribute the confiscated carabaos and carabeef. There is thus an invalid
delegation of legislatie power.
Tablarin vs. Gutierez
Because the necessity standards are set forth in the statute (RA No. 2383),
providing for standardization and regulation of education, delegation is valid.
Pelaez vs. Auditor General
The two tests (Completeness test and Sufficient Standard test) must be
applied together.
Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita
Where the effectivity of the law is made dependent on the verification by the
executive of the existence of certain conditions, the verification is delegated to
the executive. (This is an example of contingent legislation - a valid delegation
of law execution).
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 5
Tobias v. Abalos
The creation of a new congressional district is but a natural consequence of a
municipalitys conversion into a city. The Constitution provides that a city
should have a population of at least 250,000 and is entitled to at least 1
representative.
Mariano Jr. v. Comelec
As decided in Tobias v. Abalos, the Constitution provides that the compositions
of the House should not be more than 250 members, unless otherwise
provided by law. The natural result in the creation of a new legislative from a
special law whose purpose is to convert a municipality into a city is sanctioned
by the Constitution.
16

Montejo v. Comelec
The Comelec has no power to reapportion districts but only to make minor
adjustments.
Republic Act No. 7941 An act providing for the election of the party-list
representatives through the party-list system and appropriating funds
therefrom.
Section 13
Zandueta vs. De la Costa
When a judge of first instance, presiding over a branch of a Court of First
Instance of a judicial district by virtue of a legal and valid appointment,
accepts another appointment to preside over the same branch of the same
Court of First Instance, in addition of another Court of First Instance to the old
one, enters into the discharge of the functions of his new office and receives
the corresponding salary, he abandons his old office and cannot claim to be
entitled to repossess it or question the constitutionality of the law by virtue of
which his new appointment has been issued; and, said new appointment
having been disapproved by the Commission on Appointments of the National
Assembly, neither can he claim to continue occupying the office conferred
upon him by said new appointment, having ipso jure ceased in the discharge
of the functions thereof.
Section 14
Puyat vs. De Guzman
No Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall appear as counsel before any
court without appellate jurisdiction, before any court in any civil case wherein
the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof is the
adverse party, or in any criminal case wherein any officer or employee of the
Government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office,or
before any administrative body.
Neither shall he, directly or indirectly be interested financially in any contract
with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or
any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including any governmentowned or controlled corporation, during his term of office.
He shall not accept employment to intervene in any cause or matter where he
may be called to act on account of his office.
Section 16
Santiago vs. Guingona, Jr.
Where no provision of the Constitution, the laws or even the rules of the
Senate has been clearly shown to have been violated, disregarded or
overlooked, grave abuse of discretion cannot be imputed to Senate officials for
acts done within their competence and authority.
17

Avelino vs. Cuenco

The constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own president
should not be interfered with, nor taken over, by the judiciary.
When the constitution declares that a majority of each House shall
constitute a quorum, it does not mean all of its members. Majority of all the
members constitute the House. Hence, 12 senators who unanimously voted
constitute a majority of 23 senators (10 walked out, 1 out of the country).
OSMEA VS. PENDATUN
The House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior as conferred
upon by the Constitution.
Also, Congress has the inherent legislative
prerogative of suspension.
PAREDES, JR. VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Sandiganbayan has the authority to suspend a district representative in
violation of the Anti-Graft Law as it is being imposed on the representative
NOT as a member of the House.
U.S. VS PONS
The Court may not go beyond the the recitals of the legislative journals for the
purpose of determining the date of adjournment when such journal are clear
and explicit. To inquire the veracity of journals, when they are clear and
explicit, would be to violate both the letter and spirit of the laws, to invade the
coordinate and independent department of the government and to interfere
with the legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature.
CASCO PHIL CHEMICAL CO VS GIMENEZ
Enrolled bill doctrine- the term urea formaldehyde is conclusive upon the
courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by the Congress and
approved by the President.
Section 18
Daza vs Singson
- The sense of the Constitution is that the membership in the COA must always
reflect political alignments and must adjust to changes. Nowhere, however, in
the Constitution require that the party must be a registered party.
Coseteng vs Mitra
- Endorsement of other representatives (in COA) cannot be counted in favor of
a representative if they do not belong to the latter's party.
Guingona vs Gonzales
- Full complement of 12 seats in COA is not mandatory
Rounding out 0.5 to 1 is unconstitutional as it would deprive other parties of
seats in COA.
18

Sec. 21:
Bengzon vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
- Investigation was not in aid of legislation where it merely aims at
determining whether a law is violated. To allow such investigation is to violate
separation of powers.
Arnault vs Nazareno
- Power of Investigation includes power to punish a contumacious witness for
contempt. Experience has shown that mere requests for information are
frequently unavailing.
- In aid of legislation - not difficult to satisfy. Necessity or lack of necessity
for legislative action is determined by the sum total of information to be
gathered as a result of investigation, and not by a fraction of such information
elicited from single question. It is sufficient that the question is germane to the
subject matter of inquiry. There is no need for it to be directly related or
connected to possible legislation.
Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability
- Exception to legislative inquiry: Executive Privilege (which is extended to all
close advisors of the President)
- It is wrong for Senate to punish one for contempt where executive privilege is
properly invoked.
- Senate's mistakes in the case at bar: (1) invitations to Neri did not include
possible statute; (2) contempt order lacks required # of votes; (3) Senate did
not first rule on the claim of executive privilege and instead dismissed Neri's
explanation; (4) rules of procedure on inquiries in aid of legislation not duly
published.
Sec. 21 and 22:
Senate vs Ermita
- When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are
implementing the statutes, it is not imperative.
- The oversight function of Congress may be facilitated by compulsory
process only to the extent that it is performed in pursuit of legislation.
- Appearance of department heads in question hour is discretionary.
- When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for the
department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of
privilege.
- EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE privilege based on doctrine of separation of powers,
exempting executive from disclosure requirements where such exemption is
necessary to the discharge of highly important executive responsibilities. It
covers categories of information not of persons.
Sec. 24:
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance
- The phrase originate exclusively does not refer to the appropriations law
but to the appropriations bill. It is sufficient that the House of Rep. initiated the
passage of the bill.
19

Alvarez vs Guingona
- A bill of local application, such as one asking for the conversion of a
municipality into a city, is deemed to have originated from the House provided
that the bill of the House was filed prior to the filing of the bill in the Senate
even if, in the end, the Senate approved its own version.
- The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the
bill does not contravene the constitutional requirement as long as the Senate
does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill.
Sec. 25:
Garcia vs Mata
- RIDER a provision not related to the appropriation act (is prohibited)
Demetria vs Alba
- transfer of appropriations prohibited
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- The list of those who may be authorized to transfer funds is exclusive.
- Case at bar: Congressmen are allowed to determine the necessity of
realignment, but House Speaker or Senate Pres. will have to approve the
realignment before items are realigned.
- Case at bar: Chief of Staff may not be give authority to realign
appropriations.
Sec. 26:
Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board
- Imposition of tax is sufficiently related to the regulation of video industry
where the title is comprehensive enough to include such subject (taxation)
related to the general purpose (creation of Videogram Board)
Phil. Judges Assoc. vs Prado
- Repeal/Withdrawal of franking privilege is germane to the object of the title,
which is to create postal service system. Hence, the same is embraced in the
title/
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26 (1)]
- Withdrawing tax exemptions granted before is embraced in the subject of the
title which is to widen the tax base
Tan vs Del Rosario
- 3 purposes of Sec. 3(1), Art. VI:
(a) to prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation
(b) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of
provisions which might be overlooked
(c) to fairly apprise the people of the subjects of legislation
Tobias vs Abalos
- Provision providing for a separate legislative district is germane to the
subject of the bill creating the City of Mandaluyong
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26 (2)]
- IF it is only the printing that is being dispensed by presidential certification,
the time saved would be so negligible as to be of any use in ensuring
immediate enactment. (Printing and Readings on separate days both
20

dispensable by pres. certification)

- Where no Senators controverted the reality of the factual basis of
certification, growing budget deficit may be considered as basis for
presidential certification. Senators, in responding to the call of the Pres. by
voting on the bill, manifested their belief in the urgent need for certification of
the bill.
Sec. 27:
Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance
- It is within the power of a conference committee to include in its report an
entirely new provision not found in either House Bill or Senate Bill.
(Amendment in the nature of substitution is warranted as long as amendment
is germane to the subject matter of the bill)
- to disregard the enrolled bill is to disregard the respect due the other 2
departments.
Gonzales vs Macaraig
- President can veto an item
- Doctrine of inappropriate provisions a provision that is constitutionally
inappropriate may be singled out for veto if it is not an appropriation or
revenue item. An inappropriate provision in an appropriations bill is an item in
itself.
Bengzon vs Drilon
- President's power to veto an item does not grant authority to veto part of an
item (or provisions).
- President cannot veto a law or repeal a law.
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- Provisions that are germane to the specific appropriations cannot be vetoed.
- Requirement of Congressional approval for release of funds for modernization
of AFP can be incorporated in separate bill and hence inappropriate. It was
properly vetoed.
- Executive Impoundment refusal of the President to spend funds already
allocated by Congress for a specific purpose (the duty to implement the law
includes the duty to desist from implementing it when implementation would
prejudice public interest). The Court, however, did not rule on this issue, and
rather declared the provision concerning benefits of CAFGUs as an
inappropriate provision.
Sec. 28:
Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pilipinas vs Tan
- a tax is considered uniform when it operates with the same force and effect
in every place where the subject may be found.
Province of Abra vs Judge Hernando
Abra Valley College vs Aquino
- Where a lot is not used exclusively for educational purpose, it may be taxed
if the use is not incidental to the attainment of main purpose.
Tan vs Del Rosario
21

- Uniformity of taxation means:

(a) standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary
(b) categorization is germane to achieve legislative purpose
(c) law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future
conditions
(d) classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same
class
Sec. 29:
Pascual vs Sec. of Public Works
- Appropriation for a road owned by a private individual is invalid because it is
not for a public purpose. Subsequent donation did not validate the law
because validity of a statute depends upon the power of Congress at the time
of its approval and not upon subsequent events.
Aglipay vs Ruiz
- Appropriation for special stamp issue is valid as it is not specifically made to
benefit a religious denomination but for a public purpose. The benefit acquired
by the Church is incidental only.
Guingona vs Carague
- The Automatic Reappropriation Law for servicing foreign debts is valid
because the amount is fixed by the parameters of the law itself which requires
the simple act of looking into the books of Treasure (the amount is
determinable).
- Budgetary process:
(a) budget preparation
(b) legislative authorization
(c) budget execution
(d) budget accountability
Osmena vs Orbos
- Increase of petroleum prices to resolve the Terminal Fund Balance deficit is
valid as it was a valid exercise of police power.
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- Pork barrel provisions in the annual budget allowing members of Congress to
perform executive function of spending money appropriated are not in
violation of separation of powers because Congress itself had specified the
uses of the fund and the power given was merely recommendatory to the
President who could approve or disapprove the recommendation.
Sec. 30:
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs CA
- B.P. Blg. 129 granting exclusive appellate jurisdiction to CA over the decisions
of quasi-judicial bodies is not superseded by Omnibus Investments Code of
1987 providing that decisions of BOI are appealable to SC because advice and
concurrence of SC was not sought.
Diaz vs CA
- Sec. 10 of EO No. 170 stating a party adversely affected by a decision of
ERB may file a petition with SC was superseded by the Constitution stating
22

that jurisdiction of SC cannot be made to increase without its advice and

concurrence.
Sec. 32:
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs COMELEC
- Initiative is entirely the work of electorate; the process of law-making by the
people themselves
- Referendum consists merely of the electorate approving or rejecting what
has been drawn up or enacted by a legislative body.
- Case at bar: COMELEC erred in implementing a Resolution when respondents
filed petition for Initiative and not Referendum.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Sec. 1:
Marcos vs Manglapus
- The President has residual powers. The President is more than the sum of
specific powers enumerated in the Constitution.
- What is not part of the legislative and judicial departments is deemed part of
the executive.
- The 1987 Constitution provided for a limitation of specific powers of the
President, particularly those relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but not
a diminution of the general grant of executive power.
Soliven vs Makasiar
- The privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of Presidential
duties free from any hindrance or distraction considering that being the Chief
Executive demands undivided attention.
- The privilege pertains to the President by virtue of the office and may be
invoked only by the holder of the office. There is nothing which prohibits the
President to waive this privilege.
Estrada vs Desierto
- A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit (immunity is only
during the tenure)
- Even a sitting President is not immune from suit for non-official acts or from
wrongdoing. (Public office is a public trust. The rule is that unlawful acts of
public officials are not acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not
acting as such but stands in the same footing as any other trespasser.)
Sec. 13:
Doromal vs Sandiganbayan
- Sec Sec. 13, Art. VII is applicable in a case where the accused has not signed
any document of any bid of the family corporation of which he is a member,
submitted to any government department.
- Case at bar: Petitioner has at least an indirect interest with the transaction
with DECS and NMYC.
Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary
- EO No. 284 is unconstitutional insofar it allows a member of the Cabinet to
23

hold not more than two positions in the government. (Respondent's contention
that Sec. 7, Art. IX-B is an exception would defeat the obvious legislative intent
which is to prohibit cabinet members from holding multiple offices.)
Aytona vs Castillo
- As a rule, once an appointment is issued, it cannot be reconsidered where
the appointee has qualified. Exception: ad interim appointments issued in the
last hours of an outgoing Chief Executive (midnight appointments made for
buying votes).
In re Valenzuela and Vallarta
- Sec. 15 (President shall not make appointments within 2 months prior to the
next Presidential election) is applicable to the members of the Judiciary.
- This sort of appointment is made for partisan considerations.
De Castro vs. JBC
Sec. 16:
Binamira vs Garrucho
- Appointment or designation involves exercise of discretion which cannot be
delegated. Even if it be assumed that the power could be exercised by Minister
of Tourism, it could be recalled by the President.
- Designation is considered only an acting or temporary appointment, which
does not confer security of tenure.
Sarmiento vs Mison
- 4 groups of officers whom the President shall appoint:
(a) heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or
naval captain, and other whose appointments are vested in him in this
Constitution
(b) all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law
(c) those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint
(d) officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law
vest in the President alone.
- Case at bar: Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment of
Commissioner of Bureau of Customs because a bureau head is not among
those within the first group of appointments where consent of COA is required.
Bautista vs Salonga
- Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment of Chairman of
Commission of Human Rights because such appointment is not vested in the
President in the Constitution. The President appoints Chairman of CHR
pursuant to EO 163 (CHR Chairman is thus within the 3rd group of officers)
Quintos-Deles vs Commission of Appointments
- The appointment of Sectoral Representatives requires confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments. The seats reserved for sectoral representatives
may be filled by appointment by the President by express provision of Sec.7,
Article XVIII of the Constitution (hence, sectoral representatives are within the
1st group of officers)
- Exceptions to those officers within the 1st group: (1) Ombudsman and his
deputies, and (2) members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts.
24

Calderon vs Carale
- Confirmation by COA is required only for presidential appointees that are
within the 1st group of officers as mentioned in Sarmiento vs Mison.
- Congress may not expand the list of appointments needing confirmation.
- Case at bar: RA 6715, which requires the COA confirmation in appointments
of NLRC Chairman and Commissioners, transgresses Sec. 16, Art. VII. The
appointments of NLRC Chairman and Commissioners do not need COA
confirmation because they fall under the 3rd group of officers.
Tarrosa vs Singson
- affirmed the ruling in Calderon vs Carale
- Case at bar: Appointment of Central Bank Governor does not need COA
confirmation.
Flores vs Drilon
- A law which limits the President to only one appointee is an encroachment to
the prerogative of the President because appointment involves discretion to
choose who to appoint.
Luego vs Civil Service Commission
- CSC is without authority to revoke an appointment because of its belief that
another person was better qualified, which is an encroachment on the
discretion vested solely in the appointing authority.
- The permanent appointment made by the appointing authority may not be
reversed by CSC and call it temporary.
Pobre vs Mendieta
- The vacancy in the position of Chairman of the Professional Regulation
Commission cannot be filled by the Senior Associate Commissioner by
operation of law (or by succession) because it will deprive the President of the
power to appoint the Chairman.
Sec. 17
Drilon vs Lim
- Distinction between power and control:
An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. if they are
not followed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re-done by his
subordinate or he may even decide to do it by himself.
Supervision does not cover such authority. The supervisor merely sees to it
that rules are followed, but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor does
he have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed,
he may order the work done or re-done but only to conform to the prescribed
rules. He may not prescribe his own manner except to see to it that the rules
are followed.
(Note) Power of control pertains to power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify,
or set aside what a subordinate has done in the performance of his duties and
to substitute his judgment to that of the former [Mondano vs Silvosa]
Villena vs Secretary of the Interior
- Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (alter ego principle) -acts of the
Secretaries of Executive Departments, when performed and promulgated in
the regular course of business or unless disapproved or reprobated by the
Chief Executive, are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive
- Case at bar: Secretary of the Interior is invested with the authority to order
25

the investigation of the charges against the petitioner and to appoint a special
investigator for that purpose.
Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs Pano
- Department heads are President's men of confidence. His is the power to
appoint them; his, too, is the privilege to dismiss them at pleasure. Normally,
he controls and directs their acts. Implicit then is his authority to go over,
confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by his department secretaries.
- Case at bar: The President, through his Executive Secretary, may undo an act
of the Director of Lands
City of Iligan vs Director of Lands
- The President has the power to grant portions of public domain to any
government entity like the City of Iligan because he has control over the
Director of Lands, who has direct executive control in the lease, sale or any
form of concession or disposition of the land of public domain.
Gascon vs Arroyo
- Case at bar: Executive Secretary has the power and authority to enter into
the Agreement to Arbitrate with the ABS CBN as he acted for and in behalf of
the President when he signed it.
Kilusan Bayan vs Dominguez
- An administrative officer has only such powers as are expressly granted to
him and those necessarily implied in the exercise thereof. These powers
should not be extended by implication beyond what may be necessary for
their just and reasonable execution.
Angangco vs Castillo
- The power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint, but not with regard
to those officers or employees who belong to the classified service for as to
them the inherent power cannot be exercised
NAMARCO vs Arca
- Executive power of control extends to government-owned corporations.
Sec. 18:
Guazon vs De Villa
- The President has the power to ordain saturation drives. There is nothing in
the Constitution which denies the authority of the Chief Exec. to order police
actions to stop unabated criminality, rising lawlessness, and alarming
communist activities.
Ruffy vs Chief of Staff
- Courts martial are simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided
by the Congress for the President as Commander in chief to aid him in
properly commanding the army and navy and enforcing discipline therein and
utilize under his order those of his authorized military representatives.
Olaguer vs Military Commission No. 34
- Due process of law demands that in all criminal prosecutions the accused be
entitled to a trial. The trial contemplated by the due process clause is trial by
judicial process. Military Commissions are not courts within the Philippine
judicial system. Judicial power is vested only in the courts. Military
commissions pertain to the executive department and are instrumentalities of
26

the President as commander-in-chief to aid him in enforcing discipline in the

armed forces.
Quilona vs General Court Martial
Gudani vs Senga
- The President has constitutional authority to prevent a member of the armed
forces from testifying before a legislative inquiry, by virtue of her power as
commander-in-chief, and that as a consequence, a military officer who defies
such injunction is liable under military justice. At the same time, the Court also
holds that any chamber of Congress which seeks the appearance befoe it of a
military officer against the consent of the President has adequate remedies
under law to compel such attendance. Any military officer whom the Congress
summons to testify before it may be compelled to do so by the President. If
the President is not so inclined, the President may be commanded by judicial
order to compel the attendance of the military officer. Final judicial orders
have the force of the law of the land which the President has the duty to
faithfully execute.
Sec. 19:
Torres vs Gonzales
- A judicial pronouncement is not necessary in determining whether the
conditions in the pardon are violated. The determination of whether there is a
violations of the conditions rests exclusively in the sound judgment of the
President.
Monsanto vs Factoran
- Pardon implies guilt. While it relieves the party pardoned from all punitive
consequences of his criminal act, it relieves him from nothing more. It does
not, therefore, restore a convicted felon to public office forfeited by reason of
conviction.
People vs Salle, Jr.
- Pardon may be granted only by final judgment. Where the judgment of
conviction is still pending appeal, executive clemency may not yet be granted.
Before an appellant may be granted pardon, he must first ask for the
withdrawal of his appeal.
Garcia vs COA
- President's grant of executive clemency to a person dismissed from his office
pursuant to an administrative case (but where the latter has been acquitted in
a criminal case based on the same facts alleged in the criminal case) entitles
the latter to automatic reinstatement and backwages.
Sabello vs DECS
- Pardon (in a criminal case) frees the individual from all the penalties and
disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. Although such pardon may
restore a person's eligibility to public office, it does not entitle him to
automatic reinstatement. He should apply for reappointment to said office.
- [Compare with Garcia vs COA]
Llamas vs Orbos
- In granting the power of executive clemency, the Constitution does not
distinguish between criminal and administrative cases.
27

Sec. 18:
Constantino, Jr. vs Cuisia
- The debt-relief contracts, providing for buy-back and bond-conversion
schemes, entered into pursuant to Financing Program are not beyond the
powers granted to the President under Sec. 20, Art. VII. The only restriction
that the Constitution provides, aside from the prior concurrence of the
Monetary Board, is that loans must be subject to limitations provided by law.
Accordingly, the contention that buy-back and bond-conversion schemes are
neither loans nor guarantees, and hence beyond the Presidents power to
execute, are without merit.
Sec. 21:
Commissioner of Customs vs Eastern Sea Trading (1961)
- The concurrence of the House of Congress is required by our fundamental
law in the making of treaties which are however distinct and different from
executive agreements which may be validly entered without such
concurrence.
Pimentel, Jr. vs Exec. Sec.
- The power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to concurrence of the
Senate. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its
consent or concurrence to the ratification. Hence, it is within the authority of
the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or having secured its
consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. This discretion to ratify lies within
the President's competence alone.
- 4 steps in treaty-making process:
(a) negotiation
(b) signing of the treaty (simply a means of authenticating the instrument
and a symbol of good faith)
(c) ratification (formal act by which a statute confirms and accepts the
provisions of a treaty)
(d) exchange of instruments of ratification
- In the case at bar, the treaty was merely signed.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Sec. 1:
Santiago vs Bautista
- The courts may not exercise judicial power when there is no applicable law.
- Case at bar: An award of honors to a student by a board of teachers may not
be reversed by a court where the awards are governed by no applicable law.
Daza v Singson
- Even if the issue presented was political in nature, the Court is still not be
precluded from resolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon it
that now covers, in proper cases, even the political question.
- That where serious constitutional questions are involved, "the transcendental
importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled
promptly and definitely brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of
28

procedure."
Mantruste Systems v Court of Appeals
- There can be no justification for judicial interference in the business of an
administrative agency, except when it violates a citizen's constitutional rights,
or commits a grave abuse of discretion, or acts in excess of, or without
jurisdiction.
- Courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the Asset Privatization
Trust (administrative body), nor block, by an injunction, the discharge of its
functions and the implementation of its decisions in connection with the
acquisition, sale or disposition of assets transferred to it.
Malaga v Penachos, Jr.
- It was previously declared the prohibition pertained to the issuance of
injunctions or restraining orders by courts against administrative acts in
controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in technical cases.
The Court observed that to allow the courts to judge these matters would
disturb the smooth functioning of the administrative machinery. On issues
definitely outside of this dimension and involving questions of law, courts
could not be prevented by any law (in this case, P.D. No. 605) from exercising
their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.
PACU v Secretary of Education
- Judicial power is limited to the decision of actual cases and controversies.
(Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education might under the law
withdraw the permit of one of petitioners does not constitute a justiciable
controversy.)
- Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly
interest therein however intellectually solid the problem may be. This is
especially true where the issues "reach constitutional dimensions, for then
there comes into play regard for the court's duty to avoid decision of
constitutional issues unless avoidance becomes evasion.
Mariano, Jr. v COMELEC
- Considering that those contingencies mentioned by the petitioners may or
may not happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to
ripen to an actual case or controversy. Petitioners who are residents of Taguig
(except Mariano) are not also the proper parties to raise this abstract issue
(city of Makati is involved). Worse, they raise this futuristic issue in a petition
for declaratory relief over which this Court has no jurisdiction.
Macasiano v National Housing Authority
-It is a rule firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that the constitutionality of
an act of the legislature will not be determined by the courts unless that
question is properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and is
necessary to a determination of the case.
J. Joya v PCGG
29

- The rule is settled that no question involving the constitutionality or validity

of a law or governmental act may be heard and decided by the court unless
there is compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry, namely: that
the question must be raised by the proper party; that there must be an actual
case or controversy; that the question must be raised at the earliest possible
opportunity; and, that the decision on the constitutional or legal question must
be necessary to the determination of the case itself. But the most important
are the first two (2) requisites.
- Not every action filed by a taxpayer can qualify to challenge the legality of
official acts done by the government. A taxpayer's suit can prosper only if the
governmental acts being questioned involve disbursement of public funds
upon the theory that the expenditure of public funds by an officer of the state
for the purpose of administering an unconstitutional act constitutes a
misapplication of such funds, which may be enjoined at the request of a
taxpayer.
Legaspi v Civil Service Commission
- It becomes apparent that when a Mandamus proceeding involves the
assertion of a public right, the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by
the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part of the general
"public" which possesses the right.
-"Public" is a comprehensive, all-inclusive term. Properly construed, it
embraces every person.
Dumlao v COMELEC
- For one, there is a misjoinder of parties and actions. One petitioner does not
join other petitioners in the burden of their complaint, nor do the latter join the
former in his. They, respectively, contest completely different statutory
provisions.
- For another, there are standards that have to be followed in the exercise of
the function of judicial review, namely: (1) the existence of an appropriate
case; (2) an interest personal and substantial by the party raising the
constitutional question; (3) the plea that the function be exercised at the
earliest opportunity; and (4) the necessity that the constitutional question be
passed upon in order to decide the case.
Bugnay Const. and Devt. Corp. v Laron
- The doctrine holds that only when the act complained of directly involves an
illegal disbursement of public funds raised by taxation will the taxpayer's suit
be allowed. The essence of a taxpayer's right to institute such an action
hinges on the existence of that requisite pecuniary or monetary interest.
- It is not enough that the taxpayer-plaintiff sufficiently show that he would be
benefited or injured by the judgment or entitled to the avails of the suit as a
real party in interest.
Kilosbayan v Guingona, Jr.
30

- A party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which it may,

in the exercise of its discretion, set aside in view of the importance of the
issues raised.
- In line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary taxpayers,
members of Congress, and even association of planters, and non-profit civic
organizations were allowed to initiate and prosecute actions before this Court
to question the constitutionality or validity of laws, acts, decisions, rulings, or
orders of various government agencies or instrumentalities.
PHILCONSA v Enriquez
- The Senators have legal standing to question the validity of the veto. When a
veto was made in excess of the authority of the President, it impermissibily
intrudes into the domain of the Legislature. A member of Congress can
question an act of the Executive which injures Congress as an institution.
Tatad v Garcia, Jr.
-The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are to allow taxpayers to question
contracts entered into by the national government or government-owned or
controlled corporations allegedly in contravention of the law and to disallow
the same when only municipal contracts are involved (just like in Bugnay case
since no public money was involved).
Oposa v Factoran, Jr.
- CLASS SUIT: The subject matter of the complaint is of common and general
interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently,
since the parties are so numerous, it becomes impracticable, if not totally
impossible, to bring all of them before the court.
- Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be
based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to
a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.
- Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve
that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful
ecology. Put a little differently, the minors` assertion of their right to a sound
environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation
to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.
Lozada v COMELEC
- As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the instant petition, for nowhere
therein is it alleged that tax money is being illegally spent. It is only when an
act complained of, which may include a legislative enactment or statute,
involves the illegal expenditure of public money that the so-called taxpayer
suit may be allowed.
- The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a
statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he
has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement.
Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of
a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of
judicial resolution. When the asserted harm is a "generalized grievance"
shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that
31

harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.

Kilosbayan v Morato
- The voting on petitioners' standing in the previous case was a narrow one,
seven (7) members sustaining petitioners' standing and six (6) denying
petitioners' right to bring the suit. The majority was thus a tenuous one that is
not likely to be maintained in any subsequent litigation. In addition, there have
been charges in the membership of the Court, with the retirement of Justice
Cruz and Bidin and the appointment of the writer of this opinion and Justice
Francisco. Given this fact it is hardly tenable to insist on the maintenance of
the ruling as to petitioners' standing.
SECTION 3
Bengzon v Lim
- What is fiscal autonomy? It contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to
allocate and utilize their resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their
needs require. It recognizes the power and authority to levy, assess and
collect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the highest rates
authorized by law for compensation and play plans of the government and
allocate and disburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by
them in the course of the discharge of their functions. Fiscal autonomy means
freedom from outside control.
- The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must
have the independence and flexibility needed in the discharge of their
constitutional duties. The imposition of restrictions and constraints on the
manner the independent constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds
appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative
not only of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards
the Supreme Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which
the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based
SECTION 4
Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v Court of Appeals, et.al.
- Reorganization is purely an internal matter of the Court to which petitioner
certainly has no business at all.
- The Court with its new membership is not obliged to follow blindly a decision
upholding a party's case when, after its re-examination, the same calls for a
rectification.
SECTION 5
Drilon v Lim
- The Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over final
judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality
or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation
32

is in question.
- In the exercise of this jurisdiction, lower courts are advised to act with the
utmost circumspection, bearing in mind the consequences of a declaration of
unconstitutionality upon the stability of laws, no less than on the doctrine of
separation of powers. As the questioned act is usually the handiwork of the
legislative or the executive departments, or both, it will be prudent for such
courts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to defer to the higher judgment of
this Court in the consideration of its validity, which is better determined after a
thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with the concurrence of the
majority of those who participated in its discussion.
Larranaga v Court of Appeals
(Transfer the venue of the preliminary investigation from Cebu City to Manila
because of the extensive coverage of the proceedings by the Cebu media
which allegedly influenced the people's perception of petitioner's character
and guilt.)
- The Court recognizes that pervasive and prejudicial publicity under certain
circumstances can deprive an accused of his due process right to fair trial. It
was previously held that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity there must
be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not
simply that they might be, by the barrage in publicity.
- In the case at bar, nothing in the records shows that the tone and content of
the publicity that attended the investigation of petitioners fatally infected the
fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel.
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v Court of Appeals
- It is intended to give the Supreme Court a measure of control over cases
paced under its appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate enactment of
legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate
enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction can unnecessarily
burden the Court and thereby undermine its essential function of expounding
the law in its most profound national aspects.
Aruelo v Court of Appeals
- Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC can not adopt a rule prohibiting the
filing of certain pleadings in the regular courts. The power to promulgate rules
concerning pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts is vested on the
Supreme Court.
Javellana v DILG
(Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG Memorandum
Circular No. 90-81 does not violate Article VIII. Section 5 of the Constitution.
Neither the statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court's power
and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law.)
- The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply
prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest
between the discharge of their public duties and the private practice of their
profession, in those instances where the law allows it.
33

SECTION 6
Maceda v Vasquez
- In the absence of any administrative action taken against a person by the
Court with regard to his certificates of service, the investigation being
conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court's power of
administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the
doctrine of separation of powers.
- Where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises
from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said
complaint and refer the same to the Court for determination whether said
Judge or court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative
duties.
Raquiza v Judge Castaneda, Jr.
- The rules even in an administrative case demands that if the respondent
Judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the
evidence presented against him should be competent and derived from direct
knowledge. The judiciary, to which respondent belongs, no less demands that
before its member could be faulted, it should be only after due investigation
and based on competent proofs, no less. This is all the more so when as in this
case the charges are penal in nature.
('Misconduct' also implies 'a wrongful intention and not a mere error of
judgment. It results that even if respondent were not correct in his legal
conclusions, his judicial actuations cannot be regarded as grave misconduct,
unless the contrary sufficiently appears.)
SECTION 10
Nitafan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- The clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was to delete the proposed
express grant of exemption from payment of income tax to members of the
Judiciary, so as to "give substance to equality among the three branches of
Government.
SECTION 11
De La Llana v Alba
-Judiciary Act does not violate judicial security of tenure. This Court is
empowered "to discipline judges of inferior courts and, by a vote of at least
eight members, order their dismissal." Thus, it possesses the competence to
remove judges. Under the Judiciary Act, it was the President who was vested
with such power. Removal is, of course, to be distinguished from termination
by virtue of the abolition of the office. There can be no tenure to a nonexistent office. After the abolition, there is in law no occupant. In case of
removal, there is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose his
position. It is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the question
of any impairment of security of tenure does not arise. Nonetheless, for the
incumbents of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of separation. As to
its effect, no distinction exists between removal and the abolition of the office.
34

Realistically, it is devoid of significance. He ceases to be a member of the

judiciary.
People v Gacott, Jr.
- To require the entire Court to deliberate upon and participate in all
administrative matters or cases regardless of the sanctions, imposable or
imposed, would result in a congested docket and undue delay in the
adjudication of cases in the Court, especially in administrative matters, since
even cases involving the penalty of reprimand would require action by the
Court en banc.
- Yet, although as thus demonstrated, only cases involving dismissal of judges
of lower courts are specifically required to be decided by the Court en banc, in
cognizance of the need for a thorough and judicious evaluation of serious
charges against members of the judiciary, it is only when the penalty imposed
does not exceed suspension of more than one year or a fine of P10,000.00, or
both, that the administrative matter may be decided in division.
SECTION 12
In Re: Manzano
- As incumbent RTC Judges, they form part of the structure of government.
Their integrity and performance in the adjudication of cases contribute to the
solidity of such structure. As public officials, they are trustees of an orderly
society. Even as non-members of Provincial/City Committees on Justice, RTC
judges should render assistance to said Committees to help promote the
landable purposes for which they exist, but only when such assistance may be
reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their judicial duties.
SECTION 14
Nicos Industrial Corp v Court of Appeals
- The Court is not duty bound to render signed decisions all the time. It has
ample discretion to formulate decisions and/or minute resolutions, provided a
legal basis is given, depending on its evaluation of a case.
- As it is settled that an order dismissing a case for insufficient evidence is a
judgment on the merits, it is imperative that it be a reasoned decision clearly
and distinctly stating therein the facts and the law on which it is based.
Mendoza v CFI
- What is expected of the judiciary "is that the decision rendered makes clear
why either party prevailed under the applicable law to the facts as
established. Nor is there any regid formula as to the language to be employed
to satisfy the requirement of clarity and distinctness. The discretion of the
particular judge in this respect, while not unlimited, is necessarily broad. There
is no sacramental form of words which he must use upon pain of being
considered as having failed to abide by what the Constitution directs."
- The provision has been held to refer only to decisions of the merits and not
to orders of the trial court resolving incidental matters such as the one at bar.
(content of the resolution: incident in the prosecution of petitioner)
35

Borromeo v Court of Appeals

- The Court reminds all lower courts, lawyers, and litigants that it disposes of
the bulk of its cases by minute resolutions and decrees them as final and
executory, as where a case is patently without merit, where the issues raised
are factual in nature, where the decision appealed from is supported by
substantial evidence and is in accord with the facts of the case and the
applicable laws, where it is clear from the records that the petition is filed
merely to forestall the early execution of judgment and for non-compliance
with the rules. The resolution denying due course or dismissing the petition
always gives the legal basis.
- When the Court, after deliberating on a petition and any subsequent
pleadings, manifestations, comments, or motions decides to deny due course
to the petition and states that the questions raised are factual or no reversible
error in the respondent court's decision is shown or for some other legal basis
stated in the resolution, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional
requirement.
- Minute resolutions need not be signed by the members of the Court who took
part in the deliberations of a case nor do they require the certification of the
Chief Justice.
Komatsu Industries (Phils.) Inc v Court of Appeals
- It has long been settled that this Court has discretion to decide whether a
"minute resolution" should be used in lieu of a full-blown decision in any
particular case and that a minute Resolution of dismissal of a Petition for
Review on Certiorari constitutes an adjudication on the merits of the
controversy or subject matter of the Petition. It has been stressed by the Court
that the grant of due course to a Petition for Review is "not a matter of right,
but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully explain the
Court's denial. For one thing, the facts and law are already mentioned in the
Court of Appeals' opinion."
Prudential Bank v Castro
- The Constitutional mandate that "no . . . motion for reconsideration of a
decision of the court shall be . . . denied without stating the legal basis
therefor" is inapplicable in administrative cases. And even if it were, said
Resolution stated the legal basis for the denial and, therefore, adhered
faithfully to the Constitutional requirement. "Lack of merit," which was one of
the grounds for denial, is a legal basis.
-(certification issue) The requirement of a certification refers to decisions to
judicial cases and not to administrative cases. Besides, since the decision was
a per curiam decision, a formal certification is not required.
Oil and Natural Gas Commission v Court of Appeals
- The constitutional mandate that no decision shall be rendered by any court
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
which it is based does not preclude the validity of "memorandum decisions"
36

which adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained
in the decisions of inferior tribunals.
SECTION 14 (not 16)
Valdez v Court of Appeals
- The (lower) court statement in the decision that a party has proven his case
while the other has not, is not the findings of facts contemplated by the
Constitution and the rules to be clearly and distinctly stated.
- This Court has said again and again that it is not a trier of facts and that it
relies, on the factual findings of the lower court and the appellate court which
are conclusive.
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
A. COMMON PROVISIONS
Aruelo v. CA
The rule of the Commission should prevail if the proceeding is before a
Commission. But if the proceeding is before a court, the Rules of Court
prevails. (Sec. 6)
Cua v. Comelec
The 2-1 decision rendered by the First Division was a valid decision under
Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution. (Sec.7)
Vital-Gozon v. CA
Execution of the Civil Service Commission's decision should have been ordered
and effected by the Commission itself, when de la Fuente filed a motion
therefor. It declined to do so, however, on the alleged ground, as de la Fuente
claims he was told, that it "had no coercive powers
unlike a court
to
enforce its final decisions/resolutions." That proposition, communicated to de
la Fuente, of the Commission's supposed lack of coercive power to enforce its
final judgments, is incorrect. It is inconsistent with previous acts of the
Commission of actually directing execution of its decisions and resolutions,
which this Court has sanctioned in several cases; and it is not in truth a correct
assessment of its powers under the Constitution and the relevant laws
Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer
While it may be true that the lower court has the jurisdiction over
controversies dealing with the COMELEC's award of contracts, the same being
purely administrative and civil in nature, nevertheless, herein petitioner has no
cause of action on the basis of the allegations of its complaint.
"The Commission on Elections shall have exclusive charge of the enforcement
and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections and shall
exercise all other functions which may be conferred upon it by law. It shall
decide, save those involving the right to vote, all administrative questions
affecting elections, including the determination of the number of location of
polling places, and the appointment of election inspectors and of other
election officials . . . The decisions, orders and rulings of the Commission shall
37

be subject to review by the Supreme Court."

Mateo v. CA
The hiring and firing of employees of government-owned and controlled
corporations are governed by the provisions of the Civil Service Law and Rules
and Regulations.
SC Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95. Final resolutions of the Civil
Service Commission shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals. In any event,
whether under the old rule or the present rule, Regional Trial Courts have no
jurisdiction to entertain cases involving dismissal of officers and employees
covered by the Civil Service Law.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Section 2
TUPAS v. NHC
Civil service now covers only government-owned or controlled corporations
with original or legislative charters, that is those created by an act of Congress
or by special law, and not those incorporated under and pursuant to a general
legislation.
NHC is not covered by civil service so its employees undoubtedly have the
right to form unions or employees' organizations. The right to unionize or to
form organizations is now explicitly recognized and granted to employees in
both the governmental and the private sectors.
De los Santos v. Mallare
The office of city engineer is neither primarily confidential, policy-determining,
nor highly technical. These positions mentioned are excluded from the merit
system and dismissal at pleasure of officers and employees appointed therein
is allowed by the Constitution. Thus, the city engineer cannot be removed
without just cause.
Salazar v. Mathay
The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss
of confidence because their term of office lasts only as long as confidence in
them endures.
Corpus v. Cuaderno
Highly technical employees cannot be removed by reason of lack or loss of
confidence by the one making the appointment.
Luego v. Civil Service Commission
The CSC has no authority to disapprove or revoke a permanent appointment
on the ground that another person is better qualified than the appointee. The
CSC is not empowered to determine the kind or nature of the appointment
extended by the appointing officer, its authority being limited to approving or
reviewing the appointment in the light of the requirements of the Civil Service
Law. Approval is more appropriately called an attestation, that is, of the fact
that the appointee is qualified for the position to which he has been named.
38

Province of Camarines Sur v. CA

Lack of civil service eligibility makes an appointment temporary; thus, the
appointment is revocable at any time (without a fixed and definite term) or
dependent upon the pleasure of the appointing power. Obtaining the civil
service legibility later on does not ipso facto convert a temporary appointment
into a permanent one.
SSS Employees Association v. CA
The right of government employees to organize does not include the right to
strike.
Section 7
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary
While all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other
office or employment in the government during their tenure when such is
allowed by tlaw and the primary function of their office, Cabinet members,
their deputies, and assistants may only do so when expressly authorized by
the Constitution itself.
Flores v. Drilon
The proviso which states, Provided, however, that for the first year of its
operations from the effectivity of this Act, the mayor of the City of Olongapo
shall be appointed as the chairman and chief executive officer of the Subic
Authority, violates the constitutional prohibition against appointment or
designation of elective officials to other government posts.
Section 8
Quimson v. Ozaeta
The employment of a person as an agent collector is not itself unlawful
because there is no incompatibility between aid appointment and his
employment as Deputy Provincial Treasurer and Municipal Treasurer. There is
no legal objection to government official occupying two government offices
and performing functions to both as long as there is no incompatibility. The
Constitutional prohibition refers to double appointments and performance of
functions of more than one office.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Section 1
Cayetano v. Monsod
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To
engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics
of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind
of service which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal
39

knowledge or skill.
Brillantes v. Yorac
The President has no authority to make designation of a Comelec Chairman in
an Acting Capacity. The choice of temporary Chairman in the absence of the
regular chairman comes under the discretion of the Comelec. It cannot be
exercised by the President. A designation As Acting Chairman is by its very
terms essentially temporary and therefore revocable at will. No cause need be
established to justify its revocation.
Lindo v. Comelec
Comelecs statement that fake and spurious ballots may have been introduced
to increase the votes of protestant cannot be made a basis for denying the
execution pending appeal.
Section 3
Sarmiento vs. Comelec
Pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. 7166, it provides:
"All pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be deemed
terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved and the rulings
of the boards of canvassers concerned shall be deemed affirmed, without
prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest by the aggrieved party.
However, proceedings may continue when on the basis of the evidence thus
far presented, the Commission determines that the petition appears
meritorious and accordingly issues an order for the proceeding to continue or
when an appropriate order has been issued by the Supreme Court in a petition
for certiorari."
Reyes vs. RTC of Oriental Mindoro
All election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, must be decided
by the COMELEC in division. Should a party be dissatisfied with the decision,
he may file a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC en banc. It is,
therefore, the decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC en banc that, in
accordance with Art. IX, A, Section 7, "may be brought to the Supreme Court
on certiorari."
Section 4
National Press Club vs. Comelec
The Comelec has also been granted the right to supervise and regulate the
exercise by media practitioners themselves of their right to expression during
plebiscite periods. Media practitioners exercising their freedom of expression
during plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders nor the candidates.
In fact, there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite.
Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines vs GMA
40

It is argued that the power to supervise or regulate given to the COMELEC

under Art. IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution does not include the power to
prohibit. In the first place, what the COMELEC is authorized to supervise or
regulate by Art. IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution, among other things, is the
use by media of information of their franchises or permits, while what
Congress (not the COMELEC) prohibits is the sale or donation of print space or
air time for political ads. In other words, the object of supervision or regulation
is different from the object of the prohibition. It is another fallacy for
petitioners to contend that the power to regulate does not include the power
to prohibit. This may have force if the object of the power were the same.
Adiong vs. COMELEC
The posting of decals and stickers on cars, calesas, tricycles, pedicabs and
other moving vehicles needs the consent of the owner of the vehicle. Hence,
the preference of the citizen becomes crucial in this kind of election
propaganda not the financial resources of the candidate. Whether the
candidate is rich and, therefore, can afford to doleout more decals and stickers
or poor and without the means to spread out the number of decals and
stickers is not as important as the right of the owner to freely express his
choice and exercise his right of free speech. The owner can even prepare his
own decals or stickers for posting on his personal property. To strike down this
right and enjoin it is impermissible encroachment of his liberties.
Sanidad vs. COMELEC
Comelec spaces and Comelec radio time may provide a forum for expression
but they do not guarantee full dissemination of information to the public
concerned because they are limited to either specific portions in newspapers
or to specific radio or television times.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
SECTION 2
GUEVARA VS GIMENEZ
The Auditor-General has no madate to disapprove expenditures which in his
opinion are excessive and extravagant.
His authority is limited to the
auditing in expenditures of funds and properties. such function is limited to a
determination of whether there is a law appropriating funds for a given
purpose; whether a contract entered made by the proper officer has been
entered in conformity with the said appropriation law; whether the goods and
services covered by the said contract have been delivered or rendered in
pursuance thereof, as attested by the proper officer; and whether payment
therefore has been authorized by the officials of the corresponding
department or bureau. If these requirements have been fulfilled, it is the
ministerial duty of the Auditor General to approve and pass in audit the
voucher and treasury warrant for said payment. No discretion to disapprove
said payment on the ground that contract was unwise or unreasonable.
OROCIO VS COA
To

determine

whether

an

expenditure
41

of

government

agency

or

instrumentality is irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant and

unconscionable, the COA should not be bound by the opinion of the legal
counsel of a particular agency. Legal counsel can only offer legal advice.
OSMENA VS COA
A compromise agreement between a municipal corporation (Cebu City) and
the parents of victim (Spouses dela Cerna) was constitutional.
The
participation of the city in an amicable settlement and eventual execution of a
compromise is indubitable within the power and authority of a municipal
corporation.
Notably, the compromise agreement was submitted to its
legislative council, which approved it conformably with its established rules
and procedure.
SAMBELI VS PROVINCE OF ISABELA
COA has the regulatory power to ensure that government funds and properties
are fully protected and conserved and that irregular unnecessary, excessive,
or extravagant expenditures or uses of funds owned by, or pertaining to the
Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies of instrumentalities are
prevented.
BUSTAMANTE VS COA
Discretion exercised by COA in the denial of the appeal (on the decision of a
Regional Auditor) is within its power. Also, conclusions of a Board of Directors
of a government-owned and controlled corporation in safeguarding the proper
use of the governments and peoples property cannot prevail over the
constitutional mandate on COA.
SALIGUMBA VS COA
Supreme Courts power to review COA decisions refers to money matters and
not to administrative cases (rape case vs. auditing examiner-respondent)
involving the discipline of its personnel.
SECTION 3
PHIL AIRLINES VS COA (more on section 2)
COA has the exclusive authority, subject to limitations, to define the scope of
its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required
therefore. COA can adopt as its own, simply by reiteration or by reference,
without the necessity of repromulgation, already existing rules and
regulations.
It may also expand the coverage thereof to agencies or
instrumentalities under its audit jurisdiction. COA can advised PAL to desist
from bidding the its fuel upon expiration of contracts
BAGATSING VS COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION
COA, the agency that adopted the rules on bidding procedure to be followed
by government offices and corporations, upheld the legality of bidding
although there is only one offeror (2 were disqualified- bid below floor price
and technical reasons) since the COA Circular does not speak of accepted bids
but of offerors, without distinction as to whether they were disqualified. The
interpretation of an agency of its own rules should be given more weight than
42

the interpretation by the agency of the law it is merely tasked to administer.

43