Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FOR AUGUST 26
Lambino v. COMELEC (2006) Carpio, J.
Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado, together with
6,327,952 registered voters (petitioners) vs. COMELEC
(respondent)
Special Civil Actions in the SC. Certiorari
Consolidated petitions on the COMELEC resolution denying
due course to an initiative petition to amend the 1987
constitution.
Facts:
(2006)
- Feb 15: Petitioners Lambino and Aumentado (Lambino
Group) gathered signatures for an initiative petition to amend
the 1987 constitution proposing changes that will shift the
present Bicameral-Presidential system to a UnicameralParliamentary form of government.
- Aug 25: Pursuant to the Initiative and Referendum Act (RA
6735),
Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a
plebiscite for ratification of their initiative petition. Their
initiative petition was supported by the 6,327,952 individuals
constituting at least 12% of all registered voters with each
legislative district represented by at least 3%, as required by
RA 6735.
- Aug 30: Lambino Group filed an Amended petition with the
COMELEC indicating modifications in the Transitory provisions
of their initiative.
- Aug 31: COMELEC, in its Resolution, denied Lambino
Groups petition for lack of an
enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the
Constitution.
- The following petitions were filed:
Lambino Group filed for Certiorari and mandamus to set aside
the COMELEC resolution and compel the COMELEC to give
due course to their initiative petition. They argue that the
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion since
Santiago is not a binding precedent. Alternatively, Santiago is
binding only to the parties to that case and that their petition
deserves cognizance as an expression of the will of the
sovereign people
a. In his Comment to the petition, Solicitor
General urged the court to grant their
petition despite the Santiago ruling. He
proposed that the Court treat RA 6735 and
its implementing rules as temporary devises
to implement the system of initiative
b. Various groups and individuals sought
intervention, filing pleadings supporting or
opposing the Lambino Groups petition.
2. Binay group prayed that the Court require respondent
COMELEC to show cause why they should not be cited in
1.
1.
Ratio:
The initiative petition does not comply with Sec. 2, Article XVII
of the Constitution on Direct proposal by the people
An amendment is directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition only if
the people sign on a petition that contains the full
text of the proposed amendments.
A signature requirement would be meaningless if
the person supplying the signature had not first
seen what it is he or she is signing.
Although the Constitution does not expressly
require the inclusion of the full text of the
proposed amendments, the deliberations of the
constitutional framers clearly show their intent to
adopt relevant American jurisprudence on
peoples initiative.
The proponents bear the burden of proving that
they complied with the constitutional
requirements in gathering the signatures.
There is logrolling when the initiative petition
incorporates an unrelated subject matter in the
same petition. Proposed Section 4(4) providing
that the interim parliament shall convene to
propose amendments/revisions of this
constitution within 45 days from ratification is a
subject matter totally unrelated to the shift from
the Bicameral-Presidential to the UnicameralParliamentary system.
1a. The initiative violates Sec. 2, Article XVII of the Constitution
disallowing Revision through initiatives
The Constitutional framers intended, and wrote, a
clear distinction between amendment and
revision of the Constitution.
o Only Congress or a constitutional
convention may propose revisions
whereas a peoples initiative may
propose only amendments.
Non v. Danes II
Non vs Danes II - The case is a petition for certiorari with
prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction.
Facts:
The petitioners, students in private respondent Mabini
Colleges, Inc. in Daet, Camarines Norte, were not allowed to
re-enroll by the school for the academic year 1988-1989 for
leading or participating in student mass actions against the
school in the preceding semester. Petitioners filed a petition in
the court a quo seeking their readmission or re-enrollment to
the school, but the trial court dismissed the petition in an order
dated August 8, 1988. A motion for reconsideration was filed,
but this was denied by the trial court on February 24, 1989.
Hence, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari with
prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction.
Issue:
WON the ruling in the Alcuaz vs. PSBA gives the right to
Mabini College to deny re-enrollment of students. NO
WON Mabini College is free to admit or not admit the
petitioners for re-enrollment in view of the academic freedom
enjoyed by the school in accordance with the Supreme Court
rulings in the cases of Garcia vs. Faculty [Admission
Committee] (G.R. No. 40779, November 28, 1975) and
Tangonon vs. Pano, et al. (L-45157, June 27, 1985) NO
WON the students were given due process. NO
WON the academic deficiencies of the students warrant their
non-readmission. NO
Ratio:
Students should not be denied their constitutional and statutory
right to education, and there is such denial when students are
expelled or barred from enrollment for the exercise of their
right to free speech and peaceable assembly and/or subjected
to disciplinary action without abiding with the requirements of
due process.
Held:
SUBSTANTIVE
The petition is GRANTED. The orders of respondent judge
dated August 8, 1988 and February 24, 1989 are hereby
ANNULLED. Respondent Mabini College is ORDERED to
readmit and to allow the re- enrollment of petitioners, if they
are still so minded, without prejudice to its taking the
appropriate action as to petitioners Ariel Non, Joselito Villalon,
George (Jorge) Dayaon and Daniel Torres, if it is shown by
their records (Form 137) that they have failed to satisfy the
school's prescribed academic standards.
Oposa v. Factoran (1993)
Special Civil Action for Certiorari of the dismissal order of
the RTC.
FACTS:
Petitioners Oposa et al. are minors represented and joined by
their respective parents as well as the Philippine Ecological
Network, Inc (PENI), a non-profit organization, who filed in the
Regional Trial Court a taxpayers class suit praying that a
judgement be rendered ordering the original respondent,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary
Factoran, and people acting on his behalf to:
1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the country;
2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
renewing, or approving new timber license agreements.
Factoran filed an order of Motion to dismiss based on 1)
plaintiffs having no cause of action and 2) the issue raised is a
political question which properly pertains to the legislative or
executive branches of government. The Regional Trial Court
(RTC) granted said motion.
The plaintiffs are now filing this complaint with the Supreme
Court on the ground that the RTC judge gravely abused his
discretion with the dismissing the original action.
Factoran would be replaced by new DENR secretary Angel C.
Alcala.
Article VIII, Section 1 provides that the courts have the duty to
determine when there is grave abuse of discretion on the part
of other branches of government (judicial review) so the
Supreme Court is not only limited to political questions.
However, even in this case, this situation is about the
enforcement of a legal right already formulated and expressed
in legislation.
3. Whether the rescinding of Timber License Agreements
(TLA) would violate the non-impairment of contracts
clause of the 1987 constitution?
A license is not a contract but a privilege which can be revoked
when the public interest dictates. It is pointed out in Section 20
of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705) Provided , that
when the national interest so requires, the President may
amend, modify, replace or rescind any contract, concession,
permit, licenses, or any other form of privilege granted herein.
Even assuming that license was a contract, it is understood
that the freedom of contract is not absolute and must yield to
the police power of the State which may be used for the
purpose of advancing the right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology.
HELD:
ISSUES:
PROCEDURAL
Held:
Regional Trial Courts Order to Clean Up and Rehabilitate
Manila Bay
On September 13, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision in favor
of respondents. Finding merit in the complaint, the Court
ordered defendant-government agencies, jointly and solidarily,
to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore its waters
to SB classification to make it fit for swimming, skin-diving and
other forms of contact recreation.
To attain this, defendant-agencies, with defendant DENR as
the lead agency, are directed, within six (6) months from
receipt hereof, to act and perform their respective duties by
devising a consolidated, coordinated and concerted scheme of
action for the rehabilitation and restoration of the bay.
Imbong v. Ochoa [uploaded]
b. par. 4.5 of Budget Circular no. 16, dated Nov. 28, 1998
(see below)
c. Sec. 12 of RA 6758, Salary Standardization Law, which
includes all allowances in the standardized salary rates,
subject to certain exceptions.
Issues:
1. WON disallowance is unconstitutional as per Secs. 9-10,
Art. II of the Constitution - NO
2. WON BFAR Usec had authority to approve the allowance NO
3. WON the allowance is in conformity with RA 6758 - NO
4. WON the petitioner exhausted all administrative remedies NO
Ratio:
1. Secs. 9-10, Art II of the Constitution are not self-executory
and are merely statement of principles and policies. Legislative
enactment is required for them to take effect.
2. Sec. 4.5 of Budget Circular 16 states:
All agencies are hereby prohibited from granting any food, rice,
gift checks, or any other form of incentives/allowances except
those authorized via Administrative Order by the Office of the
President.
Since no Admin. Order was issued by the Office of the
President, the Food Basket allowance is not valid.
2.
WON the 111,415 PTIC shares to First Pacific violates
the constitutional limit on foreign ownership of a public utility;
-YES. Since the 40% foreign equity limit was exceeded, the
voting interests of foreigners would be substantial enough.
Moreover, Filipinos hold less than 60 percent of the voting
stock and earn less than 60 percent of the dividends of PLDT.
By virtue of the intent of the provision, there is a violation of
Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution.
3.
WON petitioner has locus standi
-YES. Petitioner Wilson Gamboa, a stockholder of PLDT, has
the right to question the subject sale, which he claims to violate
the nationality requirement prescribed in Section 11, Article XII
of the Constitution. (Dissenting J. Velasco, Jr.: petitioner has
no locus standi because he is neither a shareholder of PTIC
nor of First Pacific)
HELD:
SC PARTLY GRANTED the petition. Respondent Chairperson
of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is
DIRECTED to apply the definition of the term capital in
determining the extent of allowable foreign ownership in
respondent PLDT, and if there is a violation, to impose the
appropriate sanctions under the law.
Heirs of Wilson P. Gamboa v. Teves Resolution
Case:
This resolves the motions for reconsideration of the 28 June
2011 Decision filed by (1) the Philippine Stock Exchange's
(PSE) President, (2) Manuel V. Pangilinan
(3) Napoleon L. Nazareno and ( 4) the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC)
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) initially filed a motion
for reconsideration on behalf of the SEC, assailing the 28 June
2011 Decision. However, it subsequently filed a Consolidated
Comment on behalf of the State,declaring expressly that it
agrees with the Court's definition of the term "capital" in
Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution. During the Oral
Arguments on 26 June 2012, the OSG reiterated its position
consistent with the Court's 28 June 2011 Decision.1
Facts:
In 1928, the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company
(PLDT) was granted a franchise to engage in the business of
telecommunications. Telecommunications is a nationalized
area of activity where a corporation engaged therein must
have 60% of its capital be owned by Filipinos as provided for
by Section 11, Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony) of
the 1987 Constitution:
Section 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of
authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be
granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations
or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines, at
least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such
citizens
Agan v. PIATCO
An instant petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised
Rules of Court seeking to prohibit the Manila International
Airport Authority (MIAA) and the Department of Transportation
and Communications (DOTC) and its Secretary from
implementing the following agreements executed by the
Philippine Government through the DOTC and the MIAA and
the Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO)
Facts:
DOTC asked for the services of ADP to study the possible
developments for the planned new terminal of NAIA on August
1989. On 1993, six we'll-known businessmen formed the
AEDC and met with FVR to discuss the possibility of investing
in the construction and operation of a NAIA 3. On October
1994, AEDC submitted an unsolicited proposal to the
government under a build-operate and transfer arrangement
pursuant to RA 6957 and RA 7718 (BOT Law). On June 7, 14,
and 21, 1996, DOTC/MIAA caused the publication in two daily
newspapers of an invitation for competitive or comparative
proposals on AEDCs unsolicited proposal, in accordance with
Sec. 4-A of RA 6957. June 20, 1996, PBAC Bulletin No. 1 was
issued, postponing the availment of the Bid Documents and
the submission of the comparative bid proposals. August 16,
1996, the PBAC issued PBAC Bulletin No. 3 amending the Bid
Documents. September 24, 1996, the PBAC prequalified the
Paircargo Consortium. September 26, 1996, AEDC informed
the PBAC in writing of its reservations as regards the
Paircargo Consortium, which include:
a. The lack of corporate approvals and financial capability of
PAIRCARGO;
b. The lack of corporate approvals and financial capability of
PAGS;
c. The prohibition imposed by RA 337, as amended (the
General Banking Act) on the amount that Security Bank could
legally invest in the project.
d. The inclusion of Siemens as a contractor of the
PAIRCARGO Joint Venture, for prequalification purposes; and
e. The appointment of Lufthansa as the facility operator, in
view of the Philippine requirement in the operation of a public
utility.
October 2, 1996, informing AEDC that it had considered the
issues raised by the latter, and that based on the documents
submitted by Paircargo and the established pre-qualification
criteria, the PBAC had found that the challenger, Paircargo,
had pre-qualified to undertake the project. October 16, 1996,
Both proponents offered to build the NAIA Passenger Terminal
III for at least $350 million at no cost to the government and to
Summary of Proceedings:
Court of Tax Appeals - Petition for Review Partially Granted.
Assessment for deficiency withholding taxes on the
honorarium and per diems of petitioners Board of Directors,
security and janitorial services, commissions and legal and
professional fees are hereby CANCELLED . However the
assessments for deficiency withholding taxes on interests are
hereby affirmed. Petitioner is ordered to pay 1,280,145.89 and
1,357,881.14.
Facts:
Petitioner Dumaguete Cathedral Credit Cooperative (DCCCO)
is a credit cooperative duly registered with and regulated by
the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA). On November
2001, Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued Letters of
Authority authorizing BIR officers to examine petititioners
d. With these reasons, there is doubt whether the antiwiretapping act was actually violated.
The press statements of Sec. Gonzales and the NTC are also
examples of prior retraint, which has to be justified under the
clear and present danger test as well. As demonstrated, the
government failed the clear and present danger test.
Held:
Petition is granted. Official statements made by respondents
warning the media against airing the Garci tapes are nullified
because they constitute unconsitutional prior restraint on the
exercise of freedom of speech and the press.
Notes:
Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded preferred
status because it the basis upon which all other freedoms can
be exercised. It is necessary in a constitutional democracy
such as ours, because only when people have access to
information can they make enlightened judgments. Its scope is
given the broadest scope and widest latitude. It is not confined
to any particular field of human interest, or the expression of
ideas of the majority.
It is, however, not absolute. There are three tests to
determine the validity of restraints to the freedom of
speech and of the press (individually or in combination):
a. Dangerous tendency doctrine - permits limitation when a
rational connection between speech restrained and danger
contemplated is established.
b. Balancing of interests - balance of social values and
individual interests must be attained
c. Clear and present danger - speech may be restrained is
there is a substantial danger that the government has a right to
prevent. These dangers must be 1) substantive; 2) extremely
serious; 3) the degree of their imminence must be high.
The SC has generally adhered to the clear and present danger
test.
There are four aspects of freedom of the press:
a. Freedom from prior restraint - Prior restraint refers to official
governmental
restriction in advance
of publication or
dissemination. It is the
freedom from
government
censorship, whatever
the form of censorship.
Ratio:
***To be found in the separate opinions***
Ruling:
The voting resulted in a deadlock of 7-7, with 7 voting to
dismiss and 7 voting to grant the petition. Upon redeliberation,
the voting remained the same. Pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7
of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition was Dismissed.
Justice Puno: Separate Opinion (For Dismissal)
Issue:
1. WON the questioned sections of the IPRA are
unconstitutional. NO (except for a certain portion that is)
Facts/Ratio:
- Sections 7(b) and 57 of the law simply give due respect to the
IPs who, as actual occupants of the land wherein the natural
resources lie, have traditionally utilized these resources for
their subsistence and survival.
Ruling:
Sustained all challenged provisions of the IPRA with the
exception of Section 1, Part II, Rule III of the Implementing
Rules for going beyond the parameters of Section 7(b) and
contravening Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
FACTS:
Notes:
Source
Provision/Doctrine
Sec. 40 Act. No. 82 (municipal code)-The power of municipal
councils
Act No. 1309 Amends said section above- 1. To authorize the
municipal president to require able-bodied male residents of
Summary of Proceedings:
RTC- dismissed petition for declaratory relief and ordered the
denial of motion for reconsideration
SC- petitioner filed for review of the RTC decision
Facts:
Mr. Eustaquio Cesa (officer-in-charge, office of the
treasurer of Cebu City) demanded payment for realty
taxes on lands belonging to petitioner MCIAA.
Petitioner was compelled to pay its tax account
under protest and thereafter filed a petition for
Declaratory Relief with the RTC, invoking:
o Sec. 14 of RA6958 or its Charter which exempts
it from payment of realty taxes
o Sec. 133 of RA7160 or Local Government Code
(LGC) which provides that the taxing powers of
local government units do not extend to the taxes
or fees of any kind on an agency or instrumentality
of the national government.
- Petitioner insisted that while it is indeed a
government-controlled corporation, it stands on the
same footing as an agency or instrumentality of the
national government by the nature of its powers and
functions under RA6958, specifically:
To efficiently operate and
manage the Mactan-Cebu
International Airport
To carry out the government
policies of promoting and
developing the Central Visayas
and Mindanao regions as
centers of international trade
and tourism, and accelerating
the development of the means
of transportation and
communication in the country
As an attached agency of the
Department of Transportation
and Communication
The trial court ruled in favor of respondent citys
refusal to cancel petitioners realty tax account on the
ground that MCIAA is a government-controlled corporation
performing proprietary functions whose tax exemption
privilege has been withdrawn by virtue of Sec. 193 and
Sec. 234 of the LGC withdrawing tax exemptions granted
to all natural or juridical persons including governmentowned or controlled corporations.
Issue: WON The respondent judge erred in (a) failing to rule
that the petitioner is vested with government powers and
functions which place it in the same category as an
instrumentality or agency of the governmnet thereby (a) ruling
that petitioner is liable to pay real property taxes to the city of
Cebu NO
Ratio:
Notwithstanding Sec. 133 of the LGC, Sec. 232 therein
provides that cities may impose real property tax subject to
exemptions stipulated in Sec. 234 such as real property owned
by the Republic of the Philippines or any of its political
subdivisions except when the beneficial use thereof has been
granted, for consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person.
Petitioners exemption from tax granted in Sec. 14 of ita
transfer of the lands, among other things, to the petitioner and
not just the transfer of the beneficial use thereof. The transfer
is an absolute conveyance of the ownership thereof because
the petitioners authorized capital stock consists of, inter alia,
the value of such real estate owned and/or administered by the
airports.
2.
The petitioner is a taxable person.
It was only exempted from the payment of real
property taxes. The grant of the privilege only in
respect to realty tax is conclusive proof of the
legislative intent to make it a taxable person
subject to all taxes, except real property tax.
Held: Petition denied. Judgment and order affirmed.
Notes:
1. Since taxation is a destructive power which interferes
with the personal and property rights of the people and
takes from them a portion of their property for the support
of the government, tax statutes must be construed strictly
against the government and liberally in favor of the
taxpayer.
2. But since taxes are what we pay for civilized society,
or are the lifeblood of the nation, the law frowns against
exemptions from taxation and statutes granting tax
exemptions are thus construed strictissimi juris (of the
strictest right or law) against the taxpayer and liberally in
favor of the taxing authority. Therefore the exemption
may be withdrawn at the pleasure of the taxing authority,
the only exception being where the exemption was
granted to private parties based on material consideration
of a material nature, which then becomes contractual and
thus covered by the non-impairment clause of the
constitution.
3. The power to tax is primarily vested in the Congress
but in our jurisdiction, it may be exercised by local
legislative bodies, no longer merely by virtue of a valid
delegation but pursuant to direct authority conferred by the
Constitution.
4. Sec. 28(1) Art VI The rule of taxation shall be
uniform and equitable and Congress shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation
5. Sec. 14 of RA6958 or its Charter Tax Exemptions.
The authority shall be exempt from realty taxes
imposed by the National Government or any of its political
subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities . . .
6. Sec. 133 of RA7160 or Local Government Code
(LGC) Common Limitations on the Taxing Powers of Local
Issue:
1.
WON the CA erred in denying the plea for tax refund
or tax credits on the ground of prescription, despite
petitioners reliance on RMC No. 7-85, changing the
prescriptive period of two years to ten years
1.1.
It did NOT
Ratio:
-
Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Commissioner v. Court of Appeals
Commissioner v. CA
Summary of Proceedings:
CA: Respondent commissioner of internal revenue is
enjoined from collecting the deficiency tax assessment
made and issued petitioner in relation to the
implementation of RMC NO. 37-93
Supreme Court: Judgment affirmed
Facts:
1.RA 7654 was enacted by Congress on June 10, 1993 and
took effect July 3, 1993.It amended partly Sec. 142 (c) of the
NIRC
2.Fortune Tobacco manufactured the following cigarettes
brands:Hope, More and Champion. Prior to RA 7654, these 3
brands were considered local brands subjected to an ad
valorem tax of 20 to 45%. Applying the amendment and
nothing else, (seefootnote below) the 3 brands should fall
under Sec 142 (c) (2)NIRC and be taxed at 20 to 45%.
3.However, on July 1, 1993, petitioner Commissioner of
InternalRevenue issued
Revenue Memorandum Circular37-93 which reclassified the 3
brands as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign
brand subject to the 55% ad valorem
tax. There classification was before RA 7654 took effect.
FACTS:
-Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of Sec. 34 of RA
9136, known as EPIRA (Electric Power Industry Reform Act of
2001), imposing the Universal Charge, and Rule 18 of
EPIRAs IRR which seeks to implement said imposition.
- Petitioners prayed that the consumers be refunded of
the said Universal Charge
- TRO be issued directing Department of Energy (and
the other respondents) to refrain from implementing,
charging, and collecting the Universal Charge
- Petitioners contend that:
the universal charge provided for has the
characteristics of a tax, which is strictly a legislative
function; to delegate it to the executive/administrative
agency like ERC is unconstitutional
ERC is empowered to approve where the funds
collected should be used
the imposition of the Universal Charge on all endusers is oppressive, confiscatory, and amounts to
taxation without representation
-Respondents contend that:
there is no undue delegation of legislative power to
ERC since it merely exercised its discretion as to the
execution and implementation of the provisions of
EPIRA
the Universal Charge is not a tax because it is levied
for a specific regulatory purpose, which is to ensure
the viability of the countrys electric power industry
Universal Charge is not oppressive because it is
within the States police power.
* Congress enacted EPIRA on June 8, 2001; it took effect on
June 26, 2001
ISSUES
1. WON the Universal Charge imposed under Sec 34 of EPIRA
is a tax -NO.
2. WON there is undue delegation of legislative power to tax
on the part of the ERC -NO
3. (procedural) WON petitioners violated the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts - YES
RATIO:
1.
The Universal Charge is deemed as an exercise of
police power. Regulation is the primary purpose, as
seen in Section 2 of EPIRA; generation of revenue is
not the primary purpose. Moreover, it is a wellestablished doctrine that taxing power may be used
as an implement of police power (Valmonte v Energy
Regulatory Board and Gaston v Republic Planters
Bank)
2.
In the face of increasing complexity of modern life,
delegation of legislative power to various specialized
3.
HELD
DISMISSED for lack of merit
Notes
-Power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited in
its range. it is based on the principle that taxes are the
lifeblood of the government. Power of tax emanates from
necessity because government cannot fulfill its mandate
without taxes
Tax- If generation of revenue is the primary purpose and
regulation is merely incidental, the imposition is a tax
- Sec. 34. Universal Charge - Within one year from the
effectivity of this Act, a universal charge to be determined,
fixed and approved by the ERC, shall be imposed on all
electricity end-users for the following purposes:
(a) Payment for the stranded debts in excess of the
amount assumed by the National Government and
stranded contract costs of NPC as well as qualified
stranded contract costs of distribution utilities
resulting from the restructuring of the industry;
(b) Missionary electrification;
(c) The equalization of the taxes and royalties applied to
indigenous or renewable sources of energy vis-a-vis
imported energy fuels;
(d) An environmental charge equivalent to one fourth of
one centavo per kilowatt-hour (P0.0025/kWh), which
shall accrue to an environmental fund to be used
solely for watershed rehabilitation and management.
Said fund shall be managed by NPC under existing
arrangements
(e) A charge to account for all forms of cross-subsidies
for a period not exceeding 3 years
-Section 2 (EPIRA) Declaration of Policy (***excerpts***)
(a) To ensure and accelerate the total electrification of
the country
(b) To ensure the quality, reliability, security, and
affordability of the supply of electric power
3.
Eminent Domain
Eslaban, Jr. v. De Onorio
Eslaban, Jr. vs Vda. De Onorio
Mendoza, J.
This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 26, Surallah, South Cotabato, ordering the
National Irrigation Administration (NIA for brevity) to pay
respondent the amount of P107,517.60 as just compensation
for the taking of the latters property.
Facts:
Respondent Clarita Vda. de Enorio is the owner of a lot in
Barangay M. Roxas, Sto. Nio, South Cotabato with an area of
39,512 square meters. On October 6, 1981, Santiago Eslaban,
Jr., Project Manager of the NIA, approved the construction of
the main irrigation canal of the NIA on the said lot, affecting a
24,660 square meter portion thereof. Respondents husband
agreed to the construction of the NIA canal provided that they
be paid by the government for the area taken after the
processing of documents by the Commission on Audit. In
1983, a Right-of-Way agreement was executed between
respondent and the NIA. The NIA then paid respondent the
amount of P4,180.00 as Right-of-Way damages. Respondent
subsequently executed an Affidavit of Waiver of Rights and
Fees whereby she waived any compensation for damages to
crops and improvements which she suffered as a result of the
construction of a right-of-way on her property. The same year,
petitioner offered respondent the sum of P35,000.00 by way of
amicable settlement pursuant to Executive Order No. 1035,
18. The respondent demanded payment for the taking of the
property but the petitioner refused. The respondent filed a
complaint before the RTC. RTC ordered the petitioner to pay.
CA affirmed the RTC decision. Hence the petition.
Issue:
WON THE PETITION IS DISMISSIBLE FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5, RULE 7
OF THE REVISED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. YES
The petition for review was filed by Santiago Eslaban, Jr., in
his capacity as Project Manager of the NIA. However, the
verification and certification against forum-shopping were
signed by Cesar E. Gonzales, the administrator of the agency.
The real party-in-interest is the NIA, which is a body corporate.
Without being duly authorized by resolution of the board of the
corporation, neither Santiago Eslaban, Jr. nor Cesar E.
Gonzales could sign the certificate against forum-shopping
accompanying the petition for review. Hence, on this ground
alone, the petition should be dismissed.
WON LAND GRANTED BY VIRTUE OF A HOMESTEAD
PATENT AND SUBSEQUENTLY REGISTERED UNDER
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1529 CEASES TO BE PART OF
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. NO
Whenever public lands are alienated, granted or conveyed to
applicants thereof, and the deed grant or instrument of
2.
ISSUE:
WON the State can be sued for recovery and possession of a
parcel of land-NO
RATIO:
A suit against the State, under settled jurisprudence is not
permitted,except upon a showing that the State has consented
to be sued, either expressly or by implication through the use
of statutory language too plain to be misinterpreted. It may be
invoked by the courts sua sponte(describes an act of authority
taken without formal prompting from another party) at any
stage of the proceedings. Waiver of immunity, being a
derogation of sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly, but must
be construed in strictissimi juris (of strictest right).Moreover,
the Proclamation is not a legislative act. The consent of the
State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority.
Waiver of State immunity can only be made by an act of the
legislative body.
Antecedent Facts:
January 15 1987: Dialogue between the members of the
militant Kilusang Magbubukid sa Pilipinas (KMP) and the
Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) officials began. The
farmers demanded, among others, giving free lands to
farmers, zero retention of lands by landlords and stop
amortizations of land payments.
January 20 1987: KMPs National President Jaime Tadeo met
with MAR Minister Heherson Alvarez and demanded that the
minimum comprehensive land reform be granted immediately.
January 21 1987: Tadeo and his leaders vehemently
countered the ministers advice to wait for the ratification of the
1987 Constitution and just allow the government to implement
its comprehensive land reform program.
January 22 1987 (Mendiola Massacre): Tadeos group instead
decided to March to Malacanang to air their demands. At
around 4:30pm, a clash occurred between the marchers and
the anti-riot squad which left, among the marchers, 12 dead
and dozens injured.
Facts:
Immediately after the incident, President Aquino issued
Administrative Order No. 11 which created the Citizens
Mendiola Commission. The Commission was created precisely
for the purpose of conducting an investigation of the disorder,
deaths and casualties that took place on January 22.
On February 27, the Commission recommended that:
o The NBI undertake investigations regarding
the identities of those who actually fired their
guns that resulted in the death/injury of the
victims.
o All commissioned officers who were armed
during the incident be prosecuted for
violation of par 4(g) of Sec 13 BP Blg 880
(Public Assembly Act of 1985)
o The prosecution of the marchers for carrying
deadly or offensive weapons
o Jaime Tadeo be prosecuted both for violation
of par (a) Sec 13 BP Blg 880 for holding the
rally without a permit, and Art 142 of RPC for
inciting to sedition
o Specific officers be administratively liable
o The deceased and wounded victims be
compensated by the government.
After the non-delivery of their compensation, petitioners (heirs
of the deceased and those injured) instituted an action for
damages against the Republic of the Philippines, together with
the military officers, and personnel involved in the Mendiola
incident.
Ratio:
1. Art XVI Sec 3 expressly provides for the principle of
immunity of the government from suit. It is based on:
a. The very essence of sovereignty
b. The ground that there can be no legal right
as against the authority that makes the law
on which the right depends
c. Public policypublic service would be
hindered, and the public endangered, if the
sovereign authority could be subjected to
law suits at the instance of every citizen
The case does not qualify as a suit against the State. A suit
against the State is proper when:
a. The republic is sued by name
In this case, the ultimate liability does
not pertain to the government. The
functions of the military officers/personnel
ceased to be official the moment they
exceeded their authority (commission of
prohibited acts).
b. The suit is against an unincorporated
government agency
c. The suit is on its face against a government
officer but the case is such that ultimate
liability will belong not to the officer but to the
government.
State immunity cannot be invoked by (a)
the military officers to release them from
liability and (b) the heirs and victims to
demand indemnification from the
government
Liability should fall on the named
defendants in the lower court, herein
public officials
Facts:
Issue:
1.
WON the CA erred in upholding the denial of
petitioners motion to dismiss.
1.1.
No, it did NOT
Ratio:
- The judicial review of alleged grave abuse of
discretion in their official capacity on the part of
government officials amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction of authority is guaranteed in the
constitution
- it is proper that they are impleaded as
defendant or respondent in an appropriate
suit
- As to the DOH, the defense of immunity from suit will
not avail
- Section 1, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court
state that preliminary injunction may be
Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Farolan v. Court of Tax Appeals
Farolan v Court of Tax Appeals (1993)
(Farolan (Commissioner of Customs) petitioner ; Bagong
Buhay Trading and CTA- respondent)
Petition for Review on Certiorari
FACTS
The vessel Pacific Hawk arrived at the port of Manila carrying,
among others, 80 bales of screen net that was consigned to
Bagong Buhay Trading.
3.
taxation.
HELD:
Court of Tax Appeals AFFIRMED
Notes:
Sec. 2530.
Property Subject to Forfeiture Under Tariff
and Customs Law. Any vehicle, vessel or aircraft, cargo,
article and other objects shall, under the following conditions
be subjected to forfeiture:
m.
Any article sought to be imported or exported.
(3)
On the strength of a false declaration or affidavit or
affidavit executed by the owner, importer, exporter or
consignee concerning the importation of such article;
(4)
On the strength of a false invoice or other document
executed by the owner, importer, exporter or consignee
concerning the importation or exportation of such article; and.
(5)
Through any other practice or device contrary
to law by means of which such articles was entered through a
custom-house to the prejudice of government.
Lansang v. Court of Appeals
Lansang vs CA
Quisumbing, J.
This is petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals,
which set aside the ruling of the Regional Trial Court, Manila,
Branch 8, and ordered petitioner Amado J. Lansang to pay
private respondent Jose Iglesias P50,000.00 in moral
damages, P10,000.00 in exemplary damages and P5,000.00
in attorney's fees.
Facts:
Private respondents were allegedly given office and library
space as well as kiosks area selling food and drinks. With the
change of government after the EDSA Revolution, the new
Chairman of the NPDC, herein petitioner, sought to clean up
Rizal Park. In a written notice dated February 23, 1988 and
received by private respondents on February 29, 1988,
petitioner terminated the so-called verbal agreement with GABI
and demanded that the latter vacate the premises and the
kiosks it ran privately within the public park. In another notice
dated March 5, 1988, respondents were given until March 8,
1988 to vacate. Iglesias, the GABI president, signed the notice
but claims that he was deceived into signing it. On the day of
the supposed eviction, GABI filed an action for damages and
injunction in the Regional Trial Court against petitioner. RTC
issued a TRO. The TRO expired and GABI was evicted. RTC
dismissed GABI's action for damages so the latter appealed.
CA found petitioner liable for damages.
Issue:
Summary of Proceedings:
Regional Labor Arbitration Branch of Cagayan de Oro:
a. DA jointly and severally liable with Sultan Security Agency
for the payment of money claims; and since there was no
appeal, the judgment became final and executory; therefore,
Labor Arbiter:
b. Issued writ of execution commanding the City Sheriff to
practically seize vehicles belonging to DA
Ratio:
1. The State may give its consent to be sued expressly or
impliedly. In this case, both were given:
Issues:
1. WON DA impliedly waived its immunity from suit - YES BUT
THINGS
2. WON writ of execution should be quashed - YES
ISSUE:
1. WON the Sandiganbayan, Second Division, gravely
abused its discretion in holding that the PCGG is at
fault for not paying the membership dues on the 227
sequestered NOGCCI shares of stock, which led to
the foreclosure thereof.
a.
No, it did NOT
2. WON the PCGG can invoke the doctrine of State
Immunity from Suit.
.
No, it can NOT
RATIO:
1. No grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Sandiganbayan
a.
One of the PCGGs functions as receiver of the
sequestered shares of stock is to pay outstanding debts
b.
this is acknowledged by the PCGG
i.
it contends however that membership dues for a golf
should not be considered as outstanding debt
ii.
also claims to have exercised due diligence to
prevent the loss of the shares through delinquency sale
1. as seen by its filing of an
injunctive suit to enjoin the
foreclosure sale
a.
the Court finds however that it is a case of too little,
too late
c.
PCGG should have acted as a responsible father in
preserving the value of the shares of stock
.
as such, it was duty-bound to adopt timely measures
to obviate the loss of those shares, which form part of such
duty and due diligence
d.
Also, since the PCGGs fiscal agents sat on the board
that approved the policy changes, they in fact had a direct
hand in the loss of the shares through delinquency
e.
Court held that the Sandiganbayan resolutions did no
more than direct PCGG to comply with its part of the bargain
under the Compromise Agreement, which it freely entered into
.
thus, no grave abuse of discretion of the
Sandiganbayan
2. PCGG cannot invoke state immunity from suit
.
one of the exceptions to the state immunity principle
is when the government itself is the suitor
.
when the state itself is no less than the plaintiff in the
main case, immunity from suit cannot be effectively invoked
i.
when the State, through its duly authorized officers,
takes the initiative in a suit against a private party, it thereby
descends to the level of a private individual and thus opens
itself to whatever counterclaims or defenses the latter may
have against it
a.
In fact, by entering the Compromise Agreement,
Republic thereby stripped itself of its immunity from suit and
placed itself on the same level of its adversary
.
the State may be sued even without its express
consent, precisely because by entering into a contract the
sovereign descends to the level of the citizen
i.
Its consent to be sued is implied from the very act of
entering into such agreement, breach of which on its part gives
the corresponding right to the other party to the agreement
RULING:
The instant petition is DISMISSED.
Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping Co. (1954) Paras, C.J.
Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila
FACTS:
ISSUE:
a.
.
RATIO:
1. The counterclaim is not barred by prior judgment
a.
As stated earlier, the courts dismissal of the
complaint in intervention did not pre-judge the question
involved between the plaintiff and the defendant in that case
b.
Also, said order preserved its right as against the
intervenor
i.
seen in Rule 30, Section 2, of the Rules of Court
1. if a counterclaim has
been pleaded by a
defendant prior to the
service upon him of the
plaintiffs motion to
dismiss, the action shall
not be dismissed against
the defendants objection
unless the counterclaim
can remain pending for
independent adjudication
by the court
2. GRP cannot invoke state immunity from suit
.
Untenable, because by filing its complaint in
intervention the Government in effect waived its right of
nonsuability
.
The immunity of the state from suits does not deprive
it of the right to sue private parties in its own courts. The state
as plaintiff may avail itself of the different forms of actions open
to private litigants. In short, by taking the initiative in an action
against a private party, the state surrenders its privileged
position and comes down to the level of the defendant. The
latter automatically acquires, within certain limits, the right to
set up whatever claims and other defenses he might have
against the state.
RULING:
Order reversed, and case remanded
c.
Ratio:
The OSG is mandated to act as the law office of the
government, its agencies, instrumentalities, officials and
agents in any litigation or proceeding requiring the services of
a lawyer in accordance to Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III,
Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987 (EO 292). With
respect to government-owned or controlled corporations
(GOCCs), the OSG shall act as counsel only when authorized
by the President or by the head of the office concerned.
In the case at bar, respondent state college is classified under
the Code as a chartered institution, not a GOCC. Therefore,
the proper statutory counsel of respondent state college is the
OSG, not a private lawyer.
The Solicitor General cannot refuse to represent the
government, its agencies, instrumentalities, officials and
agents without a just and valid reason. Unlike a practicing
lawyer who has the right to decline employment, a fiscal or
prosecutor, or the Solicitor General in the case at bar, cannot
refuse to perform his functions without violating his oath of
office. Actions filed in the name of the Republic that are not
initiated by the OSG will be summarily dismissed.
**The intent of the lawmaker was to give the designated
official, the Solicitor General, the unequivocal mandate to
appear for the government in legal proceedings. Spread out in
the laws creating the office is the discernible intent which may
be gathered from the term shall, which is invariably
employed, from Executive Order No. 292 (1987).
Decision:
-the petition is DENIED. This case is REMANDED to the trial
court for trial anew, with the Office of the Solicitor General
appearing as counsel for respondent Quirino State College
NOTES:
1.
Section 35, Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of
Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the
Administrative Code of 1987, provides:
The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the
Government of the Philippines, its agencies and
instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation,
proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of
lawyers. When authorized by the President or head of the
office concerned, it shall also represent government owned or
controlled corporations. The Office of the Solicitor General
shall constitute the law office of the Government and, as such,
shall discharge duties requiring the services of lawyers.
2.) Chartered institution- refers to any agency organized or
operating under a special charter, and vested by law with
functions relating to specific constitutional policies or
objectives. This term includes the state universities and
colleges and the monetary authority of the State.
3.) A government-owned or controlled corporation - refers
to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation,
vested with functions relating to public needs whether
governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the
Government directly or through its instrumentalities either
wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock
corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of
its capital stock: Provided, That government-owned or
Issues:
1) Did the petitioner violate the hierarchy of courts rule; if so,
should the instant petition be dismissed on this ground? - NO
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for
certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas
corpus. It was pursuant to this original jurisdiction that the
petitioner filed the present petition. The present petition is of
this nature; its subject matter and the nature of the issues
raised - among them, whether legislative reapportionment
involves a division of Cagayan de Oro City as a local
government unit - are reasons enough for considering it an
exception to the principle of hierarchy of courts.
2) Does R.A. No. 9371 involve the division and conversion of
a local government unit which has a plebiscite requirement? NO
Legislative apportionment is defined by Black's Law Dictionary
as the determination of the number of representatives which a
State, county or other subdivision may send to a legislative
body. It is the allocation of seats in a legislative body in
proportion to the population; the drawing of voting district lines
so as to equalize population and voting power among the
districts. Reapportionment, on the other hand, is the
realignment or change in legislative districts brought about by
changes in population and mandated by the constitutional
requirement of equality of representation.
The Constitution and the Local Government Code expressly
require a plebiscite to carry out any creation, division, merger,
abolition or alteration of boundary of a local government unit
such as provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays. In
contrast, no plebiscite requirement exists under the
apportionment or reapportionment provision which applies to
legislative districts.
The framers also make it clear that political parties may join,
expecially minor political parties (Comm. Tadeo in response to
Comm. Monsod), and that major political parties can
participate through their sectoral wings (Comms. Tadeo and
Villacorta, in response to Comm. Monsod).
The Court, though, qualifies this participation, by limiting it to
political parties that do not field candidates for legislative
district elections, or, if they have candidates for the legislative
district elections, only their sectoral wings may participate in
the party-list elections.
Thus, the prohibition is BANAT is partially abandoned.
The new parameters laid down by the Court are as follows:
a. The groups that may participate in the party-list system are:
i. National parties or organizations;
ii. Regional parties or organiations; and
iii. Sectoral parties or organizations.
b. National and regional parties or organizations do not have
to organize along sectoral lines, or represent the marginalized
and underrepresented sectors.
c. Political parties can participate in the party-list elections as
long as they do not participate in the legislative district
elections, or, in the event that they do, through their sectoral
wings.
d. Sectoral parties/organizations may either be economically
marginalized or underrepreented, or lacking in well-defined
political constituencies.
e. A majority of the members of sectoral parties that represent
the marginalized and underrepresented sectors must also
belong to such sectors. Their nominees, meanwhile, may be
those that:
i. belong to the marginalized or underrepresented sector;
and/or
ii. have a track record of the advocacy for the sector
f. Qualified party-lists may not be disqualified if some of their
nominees are disqualified, provided that at least one of their
nominees is qualified.
2. The COMELEC merely followed the previous rulings of the
Court. They dud not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Held:
All 54 petitions remanded to COMELEC to determine if they
qualify under the new guidelines.
BANAT v. COMELECJR
BANAT vs COMELEC Carpio, J.
Petition for certiorari and mandamus
Facts:
On 27 June 2002, Barangay Association for National
Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) filed a Petition to
Held:
The Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the petition. We SET
ASIDE the Resolution of the COMELEC dated 3 August 2007
in NBC No. 07-041 (PL) as well as the Resolution dated 9 July
2007 in NBC No. 07-60. We declare unconstitutional the two
percent threshold in the distribution of additional party-list
seats. The allocation of additional seats under the Party-List
System shall be in accordance with the procedure used in
Table 3 of this Decision. Major political parties are disallowed
from participating in party-list elections. This Decision is
immediately executory. No pronouncement as to costs.
Notes:
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution provides:
Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be
composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members,
unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from
legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities,
and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the
number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a
uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by
law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per
centum of the total number of representatives including those
under the party-list. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated
to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law,
by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such
other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious
sector.
Issues:
1. How many party-list representatives should there be for the
2007 elections? - 54 SINCE THE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS
WERE REDUCED TO 219
2. Is it okay to exceed the 250-member limit provided for in the
Constitution? - YES, NUNG 1995 PA
3. Does 'additional seats' mean 2nd or 3rd seats of parties that
have guaranteed seats (more than 2% of total votes), or all
remaining available seats? - THE REMAINING SEATS AFTER
THE ALLOCATION OF GUARANTEED SEATS
4. Is there no more minimum vote requirement to qualify as a
party-list representative? - NONE, THE 2% THRESHOLD HAS
BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
5. Is the filing up of all party-list seats now mandatory? - IT
DEPENDS ON HOW MANY PARTY-LISTS PARTICIPATE IN
THE ELECTIONS
6. Does this new formula violate the absolute proportionality
required by the 1987 Constitution? - NO, THAT IS FOR
LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS ONLY
Ratio:
1+2. Section 5(b) allows the House of Representatives to
exceed the 250-limit through legislation. They can do this
through piecemeal legislation, or through a general law
increasing the number of representatives in the House. Since
the enactment of the 1987 Constitution, Congress has created
addition legislative districts which elect representatives of their
own; thereby, increasing the number of representatives.
5. It would still depend on the number of participating partylists, because too few participating party-lists may make the
filing up of seats mathematically impossible because of the
three-seat cap.
6. Sec. 5(1), Art VI states that
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
Election
Regular Election
Special Election
3.
a.
b.
ISSUE:
Can the petitioners validly invoke parliamentary immunity to
quash the warrants of arrest? NO
RATIO:
RULING:
Petitions DENIED
NOTES:
Art VI, Sec. 15 of the 1935 Constitution
The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives
shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the
peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the
session of the Congress, and in going to and returning from
the same; and for any speech or debate therein, they shall not
be questioned in any other place.
Art 145 of the Revised Penal Code
Violation of parliamentary immunity. The penalty of prision
mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall use force,
intimidation, threats, or fraud to prevent any member of the
National Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) from
attending the meetings of the Assembly (Congress) or of any
of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, from
expressing his opinions or casting his vote; and the penalty of
prision correccional shall be imposed upon any public officer or
employee who shall, while the Assembly (Congress) is in
regular or special session, arrest or search any member
thereof, except in case such member has committed a crime
punishable under this Code by a penalty higher than prision
mayor.
ISSUE:
RULING:
Does membership in Congress exempt an accused
from statutes and rules which apply to validly
incarcerated persons in general? NO
RATIO:
Petition DENIED
NOTES:
Art VI Sec 11 1987 Constitution
Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more
than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while
the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned
nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate
in the Congress or in any committee thereof.
Art VI Sec 16 (2)
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do
business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day
and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such
manner, and under such penalties, as such House may
provide.
Trillanes, IV v. Pimentel, Sr.
Trillanes IV v Pimentel Sr. (2008)
Antonio Trillanes petitioner ; Hon. Oscar Pimentel, Sr., in his
capacity as presiding judge rtc Makati, et al. - respondents
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in SC. Certiorari, Prohibition,
Mandamus
FACTS:
Ratio:
1. Art VI, Sec 15 of the 1935 Constitution states that members
of Congress shall not be questioned in any other place than
Congress for any speech or debate therein. Speech or
debate therein refers to:
a. Utterances made by Congressmen in the
performance of their official functions,
such as (i) speeches delivered,
statements made, or votes cast in the
halls of Congress while the same is in
session and (ii) bills introduced in
Congress whether or not in session
b. Other acts performed by Congressmen
(either in Congress or outside the premises
housing its offices) in the official discharge
of their duties as members of Congress
or as officer of any committee thereof
(duly authorized to perform such functions
as such at the time of the performance of the
acts in question)
The publication in this case does not belong to this category
because Congress was not in session at the time of the
publication. In causing it to be published, he was not
performing his official duty either as a member of Congress or
as an officer of any committee thereof.
2. The letter in question explicitly indicates that the petitioners
might be absolutely unaware of the alleged operational plans,
and that they might be merely unwitting tools of the planners.
Such statement is not derogatory to the plaintiffs insofar as
entitling them to damages, given that they are in fact
subordinates of the alleged planners who are high-ranking
officers of the AFP (i.e. Secretary of National Defense and the
Chief of Staff). Logically, when they alleged that such
statement was false, .they cannot mean that they were aware
of or knowingly involved in the plan.
Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago
Pobre vs Defensor-Santiago Velasco, Jr. J.
Facts:
On December 22, 2006, Anter J. Pobre filed a letter of
complaint on Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago regarding an
excerpt of her speech in the Senate. In her comment on the
complaint dated April 25, 2007, Senator Santiago, through
counsel, does not deny making the aforequoted statements.
She, however, explained that those statements were covered
by the constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity,
being part of a speech she delivered in the discharge of her
duty as member of Congress or its committee.
Issue:
WON Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago is liable for her
actions.-NO
Under Art VI, Sec. 11 of the Constitution, "a Senator or
Member of the House of Representative shall, in all offenses
punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be
privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No
-it was the Congress, not the President who appointed the
mayor to the subject posts
3.
Sec. 261, par (g) of the omnibus Election Code
-the appointment of Gordon was within the prohibited 45-day
period prior to the 1992 elections
ISSUE
WON proviso in Sec. 13 par 9d) of RA 7227 violates the
constitutional proscription against appointment or designation
of elective officials to other government posts - YES
RATIO
1) Section 7 1st par. Art. IX-B, 1987 Consti: No elective official
shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity
to any public office or position during his tenure.
- it is obvious that the proviso contravenes this part of the 1987
Constitution as the section clearly expresses the policy against
the concentration of several public positions in one person, so
that the public officer may serve full time with dedication and
thus be efficient in the delivery of public services
-intent of framers: difference between appointive and elective
officials. First paragraph of Section 7 talks about an elective
official, where the provision is more stringent in not providing
any exception to the rule against appointment or designation.
The second paragraph talks about appointive officials who may
be authorized in holding multiple offices when allowed by law
or by the primary functions of his position. Given this, the
Congress intended the posts to be appointive, thus nibbling in
the bud the argument that they are ex officio
2) Sec. 16, Art. VII Consti: The President shall appoint all other
officers of the Government whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be
authorized by law to appoint
- Use of the word shall shows intent to make SBMA appointive
and not adjunct to the post of mayor
3) It is manifestly an abuse of congressional authority to
prescribe qualifications where only one (Mayor of Olongapo
City), and no other, can qualify. Consequently, as long as he is
an incumbent, an elective official remains ineligible for
appointment to another public office.
HELD
INVALID; NULL AND VOID
NOTES
-Sec 94 of LGC cannot prevail over the fundamental law of the
land
-appointment is the designation of a person, by the person or
persons having authority therefor, to discharge the duties of
some office or trust
Liban v. Gordon
Petitioners: Dante Liban, Reynaldo Bernardo and Salvador
Viari
Respondent: Richard DICK Gordon
Intervenor: Philippine National Red Cross
G.R. No. 175352 January 18, 2011
Nature of petition:
Motion for clarification and/or for reconsideration of a decision
of the Supreme Court (Gordon)
Motion for partial reconsideration of a decision of the Supreme
Court (PNRC)
Ponente: Justice Leonardo-Decastro
Facts:
1. SC formerly decided on July 15, 2009 that Gordon did not
forfeit his Senate seat with his acceptance of the chairmanship
of the PNRC board of governors. It was ruled by the Court that
the office of the PNRC Chairman is not a government office or
an office in a government-owned or controlled corporation for
purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution but it also ruled that the PNRC Charter was void
and that should it desire, to register under the SEC as a private
corporation.
Dicks issues:
1. The issue of constitutionality of RA 95 (PNRC creation and
charter) was not raised by the parties; the Court went beyond
the case in deciding such issue
2. Since the court decided that petitioners did not have
standing in their petition, its pronouncement on the validity of
RA 95 is obiter due to it being a non-issue
PNRCs issues:
1. Decision made by SC (striking down PNRC charter)
deprived PNRC its right to due process since RA 95 was a
non-issue in the case and that PNRC was not a party in the
case
2. Current charter of PNRC is not RA 95 but rather PD 1264
which is not an act passed by Congress
3. PNRCs structure is sui generis (unique and one of a kind).
Its different because it is a neutral entity that performs
humanitarian functions that is an auxiliary to the government
despite being independent from it.
Ratio:
1. Constitutionality of RA 95- It was not the lis mota of the
case so it should not have been touched. However, it is seen
by the various instances in history that PNRC charter has been
amended numerous times and this is considered as
recognition that PNRC is not a private corporation that falls
under the constitutional ban (PNRC Charter was amended
several times, particularly on June 11, 1953, August 16, 1971,
December 15, 1977, and October 1, 1979, by virtue of R.A.
No. 855, R.A. No. 6373, P.D. No. 1264, and P.D. No.1643,
respectively).
2. SUI GENERIS- Argument has merit due to PNRC being
made in adherence to the Geneva Convention. The provisions
of R.A. No. 95, as amended by R.A. Nos. 855 and 6373, and
further amended by P.D. Nos. 1264 and 1643, show the
historical background and legal basis of the creation of the
PNRC by legislative fiat, as a voluntary organization impressed
with public interest. The PNRC has worked closely with ICRC
in humanitarian missions since 1982. National Societies such
as the PNRC act as auxiliaries to the public authorities of their
own countries in the humanitarian field and provide a range of
services including disaster relief and health and social
programs. PNRC is then a national society as stated by the
right to privacy
4.
e. Duty to disclose
Internal Government of Congress
a.
Election of Officers
Santiago v.Guingona
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago and Senator Francisco S.
Tatad, petitioners vs. Senator Teofisto T. Guingona Jr. and
Senator Marcelo B. Fernan, respondents.
Special civil action in the Supreme Court. QUO WARRANTO.
Facts:
After the 1998 elections, the largest party Laban ng Masang
Pilipino (LAMP) was who had 10 seats, Lakas-National Union
of Christian Democrats-United Muslim Democrats of the
Philippines (LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP) who had 7 seats, and four
smaller parties who had 1 seat for a total of 23 senators as
Senator GMA was elected Vice President. There was an
election of officers in the Senate and two people vied for
Senate Presidency: Marcelo Fernan and petitioner Francisco
Tatad. By a vote of 20-2, Senator Fernan won the Senate
presidency.
Senator Tatad then manifested, that with the agreement of
Senator Santiago, allegedly the only other member of the
minority, he was assuming the position of minority leader as he
explain those who voted for Fernan comprised the majority and
those who voted for him the losing nominee belonged to the
minority. However senators belonging to Lakas-NUCD-UMDP
numbering 7 and thus also a minority had chosen
respondent Senator Guingona as the minority leader. No
consensus on the matter was arrived at. The Senate President
confirmed Senator Guingona as minority leader after receiving
a letter from Lakas stating that they had elected Senator
Guingona.
Senators Santiago and Tatad instituted an original petition for
quo warranto under rule 66 section 5 rules of court seeking
ouster of senator Teofisto Guingona Jr. as a minority leader of
the senate and declarion of Senator Tatad as rightful minority
leader. Court asked for comments from respondents and
Solicitor General.
Issues:
Does the Court have Jurisdiction over the petition? YES
Petitioners principally invoke Avelino v. Cuenco 11 in arguing
that this Court has jurisdiction to settle the issue of who is the
lawful Senate minority leader. They submit that the definitions
of "majority" and "minority" involve an interpretation of the
Constitution, specifically Section 16 (1), Article VI thereof,
stating that "[t]he Senate shall elect its President and the
House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all
its respective Members."
Respondents and the solicitor general, in their separate
Comments, contend in common that the issue of who is the
lawful Senate minority leader is an internal matter pertaining
exclusively to the domain of the legislature, over which the
Court cannot exercise jurisdiction without transgressing the
3.
Was Respondent Guingona usurping unlawfully
holding and exercising the position of Senate minority Leader?
- NO
4.
Did Respondent Fernan act with grave abuse of
discretion in recognizing Respondent Guingona as the minority
leader? - NO
The all-embracing and plenary power and duty of the Court "to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government" is
restricted only by the definition and confines of the term "grave
abuse of discretion."
By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious or
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross
as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal
to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
ISSUES:
HELD:
Petition DISMISSED.
b. Quorum
Avelino v. Cuenco
Petitioner Jose Avelino vs. Mariano J. Cuenco
Petition for QUO WARRANTO.
FACTS:
Senator Lorenzo Tanadare request to speak at the next
Senate Session to formulate charges against then Senate
President and now petitioner Jose Avelino. Before the opening
of said session, Senator Tanada and Senator Sanidad filed a
resolution with the Secretary of the Senate a resolution
(Resolution No. 67) enumerating said charges against then
Senate President and ordering the investigation thereof.
During said session, petitioner Avelino showed up late (11:35
am) though quorum was achieved at appointed time (10:00
am). Numerous delaying tactics concerning roll call and
reading of minutes were used to delay Senator Tanadas
privilege speech. At this point, disorderly conduct occurred in
the gallery and Senator David moved to adjourn the session
(allegedly as part of a preconcerted plan) which was
vehemently opposed by other Senators. After this point when a
vote whether to adjourn session was motioned, Jose Avelino
and 7 other Senators walked out of the session.
The remaining Senators then moved for Cuenco to preside
over the Session. Tanada would then deliver his privilege
speech.
Senator Sanidad introduced Resolution No. 67, entitled
"Resolution declaring vacant the position of the President of
the Senate and designated the Honorable Mariano Jesus
Cuenco Acting President of the Senate." Put to a vote, the said
resolution was unanimously approved.
Senator Cuenco took the oath.The next day the President of
the Philippines recognized the respondent as acting president
of the Philippines Senate.
Powers of Congress
a.
General plenary powers
Arnault v. Nazareno
Arnault v Nazareno
July 18, 1950
Ozaeta, J.:
Facts:
1. The controversy arose out of the Governments purchase of
2 estates. Petitioner was the attorney in-fact of Ernest H. Burt
1.
b. Legislative power
substantive imitations
Facts:
President issued EO 438, which levied an additional duty of
5% ad valorem on all imported articles. This was subsequently
increased to 9% by EO 443.
EO 475 reduced the rate to 5%, except in the cases of
crude oil and other oil products, which continued to be
subject to the additional duty of 9% ad valorem.
A week after receiving the Tariff Commissions Report on
Special Duty on Crude Oil and Oil Products, the President
issued EO 478, which levied an additional special duty of
P0.95 per liter of crude oil and P1.00 per liter of imported
oil products.
In the case at bar, petitioner assails the validity of EOs 475
and 478 because they are violative of:
a. Section 24, Art VI of the 1987 Constitution:
all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of
local application, and private bills shall originate
exclusively in the House of Representatives, but
the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments.
b. Section 401 of the Tariff and Customs Code
which authorizes the President to increase,
reduce or remove tariff duties or to impose
additional duties only when necessary to protect
local industries or products but not for the
purpose of raising additional revenue for the
government.
Issues:
1. WON the President may assume the authority of Congress to
enact revenue bills by issuing EOs 475 and 478. YES
2. WON the President is authorized to act under the Tariff and
Customs Code only to protect local industries or products for
the sake of the national economy, general welfare and/or
national security. NO
Ratio:
1. The President may increase tariff rates when authorized by
Congress.
Section 28(2), Article VI of Constitution
expressly permits Congress to authorize the
President, subject to such limitations and
restrictions as Congress may impose, to fix
within specific limits tariff rates and other
duties or imposts.
In promulgating the assailed Executive Orders,
the President invoked Sections 104 and
401 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the
Philippines.
o Sec 104: The rates of duty herein
provided or subsequently
fixedmay be revised by the
President upon recommendation of
the National Economic and
Development Authority
o Sec 401(a): In the interest of
national economy, general welfare
and/or national securitythe
-
Facts:
Petitioners, in a petition for mandamus, sought to compel
Manila Mayor Atienza to implement Ordinance 8027, which
reclassifies the area of the Pandacan oil depots from Industrial
II to Commercial I. This means that the oil depots and
terminals have to cease and desist from their operations, and
relocate somewhere else.
8027
Reclassifies Pandacan oil
depot area from Industrial
II to Commercial I
Compels oil companies
to vacate the area in 6
months
There was also express intent on the part of the framers of the
law to keep both 8027 and 8119 in effect, as shown by the
following statement from Member Garcia, taken from the
minutes of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, during the first
reading of 8119:
xxx So wala po kaming binago na taliwas o nailagay na taliwas
doon sa ordinansang ipinasa ninyo (referring to 8119), ni-lift
lang po [yung definitions] from Ordinance 8027
In addition, 8027 is a special law, reclassifying the Pandacan
oil depot area specifically, while 8119 is a general law that
states the land use plan for all of Manila. Generalia specialibus
non derogant - a general law does not nullify a specific/special
law.
Thus, 8027 was NOT impliedly repealed by 8119.
4. WON Ordinance 8027 is constitutional and valid - YES
For an ordinance to be valid, it must conform to the following
substantive requirements:
a. it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
b. it must not be unfair or oppressive;
c. it must not be partial or discriminatory;
d. it must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
e. must be general and consistent with public policy; and
f. must not be unreasonable
a, e, f. WON Ordinance 8027 is a valid exercise of police
power - YES
For an exercise of police power to be valid, there must be a
concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method.
The lawful subject here is the protection of the areas around
the Pandancan oil depots from possible terrorist attacks, taking
into account 9/11 and the vulnerability of the position of the oil
depots. Under the general welfare clause of the LGC, the
Legislative Investigations
Arnault v. Nazareno 87 Phil 29
July 18, 1950
Ozaeta, J.:
Facts:
1. The controversy arose out of the Governments purchase of
2 estates. Petitioner was the attorney in-fact of Ernest H. Burt
in the negotiations for the purchase of the Buenavista and
Tambobong Estates by the Government of the Philippines. The
purchase was effected and the price paid for both estates was
Summary of Proceedings:
RTC - Detention and confinement of Arnault by Senate illegal
Facts:
- May 15, 1950 - Arnault imprisoned for contempt by
Resolution 17 because he did not want to divulge the identity
of the person to whom he gave Php440 000, which was
payment for the sale of Buenavista and Tambobong Estate
(BTE).
Flashback:
- Arnault was the attorney in fact of Ernest Burt, owner of BTE.
- BTE sold to govt, Senate wants to know if the deal was
'honest, valid, and proper,' and if the price was 'fair and just.'
- Arnault asked to whom he gave the Php440 000
- Arnault did not want to talk so he was imprisoned.
Moving on:
- December 1951 - Arnault executes an affidavit, saying that
he gave the money to Jess D. Santos
- Senate calls Arnault back to ask him about Jess D. Santos
- November 6, 1952 - Senate issues Resolution 114, which
basically states that they did not believe Arnault, and that he
should remain in prison because of his 'insolent and
contumacious defiance of the legitimate authority of the
Senate,' which renders him 'unworthy of mercy.' Thus, he has
not purged himself of the contempt.
- Arnault was not happy, he filed a habeas corpus case in the
RTC and WON
Arnault's arguments:
- the maximum penalty for contempt of 6 mos. arresto mayor
has been servedl therefore, he must be released.
- He has purged himself of the charges by disclosing that he
gave the money to Jess D. Santos
- Senate is not justified in saying that he lied
- the legislative purpose has been accomplished; thus, Arnault
must be released
Issues:
1. WON the Senate believed Arnault - NO
2. WON the Senate's disbelief justifies the continued detention
of Arnault - YES
3. WON maximum penalty for arresto mayor has been
exceeded - NO
Ratio:
1. It is clear that the Senate did not believe Arnault and the
RTC committed the error of assuming that it has the power to
reveiw the findings of the Senate.
The legislature is given a wide discretion in exercising the
prerogatives of legislation, and the judiciary cannot interfere in
the said process, as such would be tantamount to the violation
of separation of powers.
The only thing that the Court can guarantee Arnault is that due
process be accorded to him. In this case, it was, so the duty of
the Court is done.
2. The Senate has the power to detain a witness for contempt
if he refuses to answer a question ertinent to legislative inquiry
by reason of its coercive power. The requirement is that such
act obstructs the legislature from the performance of its duties.
As long as the act done is committed in the course of the
legislative process, the legislature's authority and its course of
action should be supreme.
Petitioner Arnault was found by the Senate to have withheld
the identity of the receiver of the Php440 000 arrogantly and
contumaciously. The Court cannot question such finding. Thus,
he cannot be released on account of a false statement as this
is a repetition of the contempt that he committed when he was
first imprisoned. He cannot purge himself from contempt by
committing contempt again.
3. Res. 114 was passed on November 6, 1952. Arnault's
petition was submitted on March 3, 1953. That's 5 months, not
6 months. So penalty has not yet been exceeded.
Held:
RTC decision reversed. Order to allow petitioner to give bail
null and void. Petitioner re-committed to custody of respondent
Director of Prisons
Notes:
Res. 114 if considered coercive; thus, it is improper for the
courts to declare the continued imprisonment of Arnault as
abuse of legislative power,
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee (1991) Padilla,
J.
Petition for prohibtion to review the decision of the Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RATIO:
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED
NOTES:
1.
2.
3.
1.
Legislative Investigations
Arnault v. Nazareno 87 Phil 29
July 18, 1950
Ozaeta, J.
Facts:
1. The controversy arose out of the Governments purchase of
2 estates. Petitioner was the attorney in-fact of Ernest H. Burt
in the negotiations for the purchase of the Buenavista and
Tambobong Estates by the Government of the Philippines. The
purchase was effected and the price paid for both estates was
P5,000,000. The Senate adopted Resolution No. 8 creating a
Special Committee to determine the validity of the purchase
and whether the price paid was fair and just. During the said
Facts:
- May 15, 1950 - Arnault imprisoned for contempt by
Resolution 17 because he did not want to divulge the identity
of the person to whom he gave Php440 000, which was
payment for the sale of Buenavista and Tambobong Estate
(BTE).
Flashback:
- Arnault was the attorney in fact of Ernest Burt, owner of BTE.
- BTE sold to govt, Senate wants to know if the deal was
'honest, valid, and proper,' and if the price was 'fair and just.'
- Arnault asked to whom he gave the Php440 000
- Arnault did not want to talk so he was imprisoned.
Moving on:
- December 1951 - Arnault executes an affidavit, saying that
he gave the money to Jess D. Santos
- Senate calls Arnault back to ask him about Jess D. Santos
- November 6, 1952 - Senate issues Resolution 114, which
basically states that they did not believe Arnault, and that he
should remain in prison because of his 'insolent and
contumacious defiance of the legitimate authority of the
Senate,' which renders him 'unworthy of mercy.' Thus, he has
not purged himself of the contempt.
- Arnault was not happy, he filed a habeas corpus case in the
RTC and WON
Arnault's arguments:
- the maximum penalty for contempt of 6 mos. arresto mayor
has been servedl therefore, he must be released.
- He has purged himself of the charges by disclosing that he
gave the money to Jess D. Santos
- Senate is not justified in saying that he lied
- the legislative purpose has been accomplished; thus, Arnault
must be released
Issues:
1. WON the Senate believed Arnault - NO
2. WON the Senate's disbelief justifies the continued detention
of Arnault - YES
3. WON maximum penalty for arresto mayor has been
exceeded - NO
Ratio:
1. It is clear that the Senate did not believe Arnault and the
RTC committed the error of assuming that it has the power to
reveiw the findings of the Senate.
The legislature is given a wide discretion in exercising the
prerogatives of legislation, and the judiciary cannot interfere in
the said process, as such would be tantamount to the violation
of separation of powers.
The only thing that the Court can guarantee Arnault is that due
process be accorded to him. In this case, it was, so the duty of
the Court is done.
ISSUE:
RATIO:
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED
Senate v. Executive Secretary
Senate v Executive Secretary (2006)
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court. Certiorari
and Prohibition.
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by FRANKLIN
M. DRILON, in his capacity as Senate President, JUAN M.
FLAVIER, in his capacity as Senate President Pro Tempore,
FRANCIS N. PANGILINAN, in his capacity as Majority Leader,
AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., in his capacity as Minority
Leader, SENATORS RODOLFO G. BIAZON, COMPAERA
PIA S. CAYETANO, JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA, LUISA
1.
2.
3.
1.
i. as to title
Review BANAT Partylist v. COMELEC
BANAT vs COMELEC Carpio, J.
Petition for certiorari and mandamus
Facts:
On 27 June 2002, Barangay Association for National
Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) filed a Petition to
Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List Representatives
Provided by the Constitution, before the National Board of
Canvassers (NBC). BANAT filed its petition because the
Chairman and the Members of the COMELEC have recently
been quoted in the national papers that the COMELEC is duty
bound to and shall implement the Veterans ruling, that is,
would apply the Panganiban formula in allocating party-list
seats. There were no intervenors in BANATs petition before
the NBC. On May 14, 2007 elections included the elections for
the party-list representatives. The COMELEC counted
15,950,900 votes cast for 93 parties under the Party-List
System. On 9 July 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the NBC,
promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-60. NBC Resolution No.
07-60 proclaimed thirteen (13) parties as winners in the partylist elections, namely: Buhay Hayaan Yumabong (BUHAY),
Bayan Muna, Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC),
Gabrielas Women Party (Gabriela), Association of Philippine
Electric Cooperatives (APEC), A Teacher, Akbayan! Citizens
Action Party (AKBAYAN), Alagad, Luzon Farmers Party
(BUTIL), Cooperative-Natco Network Party (COOP-NATCCO),
Anak Pawis, Alliance of Rural Concerns (ARC), and Abono.
BANAT filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing
the ruling in NBC Resolution No. 07-88. On 9 July 2007, Bayan
Muna, Abono, and A Teacher asked the COMELEC, acting as
NBC, to reconsider its decision to use the Veterans formula as
stated in its NBC Resolution No. 07-60 because the Veterans
formula is violative of the Constitution and of Republic Act No.
7941 (R.A. No. 7941). On the same day, the COMELEC
denied reconsideration during the proceedings of the
NBC. Aside from the thirteen party-list organizations
proclaimed on 9 July 2007, the COMELEC proclaimed three
other party-list organizations as qualified parties entitled to one
guaranteed seat under the Party-List System: Agricultural
Sector Alliance of the Philippines, Inc. (AGAP), Anak
Mindanao (AMIN), and An Waray.
Issue:
Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives in
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or merely
a ceiling?
It is a ceiling. The combined number of all party-list
congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total
membership of the House of Representatives, including those
elected under the party list.
Is the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941
constitutional? -YES
Each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it
actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that
is, one qualifying and two additional seats. The additional
seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed
in proportion to their total number of votes." The three-seat
Ratio:
1. Constitutional provision- contains dual limitations upon
legislative power. First is that Congress is to refrain from
conglomeration of heterogeneous subjects. Second is that the
title of the bill is to be couched in a language sufficient to notify
the legislators and the public and those concerned of the
import of the single subject.
2. The subject of the statute must be "expressed in the
title" of the bill- Constitution does not require the Congress to
read the entire text of the bill during its reading. However, this
constitutional requirement breathes the spirit of command and
is imperative for Congress to follow. It suffices if the title should
serve the purpose of the constitutional demand that it inform
the legislators, the persons interested in the subject of the bill,
and the public, of the nature, scope and consequences of the
proposed law and its operation. The substance shall be
prioritized over the form of the title.
3. Title of the bill- The title is misleading because it does not
inform the members of the Congress the gravity of the bill. In
enacting the bill, the creation of Dianaton would dismember 2
municipalities in Cotabato by taking away some of their
barrios. It did not inform the members of the Congress, the
public and the residents of the changes that would be made.
The Court then rules that due to this RA 4790 is null and
void.
4. Principle of a portion of the statue being deemed as
unconstitutional, the remainder is understood as
constitutional and still upheld- This is the general rule
however it is imperative that the remainder must be
separable from the unconstitutional portion. It should be
fair to presume that the Legislative would still enact the bill
without the unconstitutional provisions. That 9 out of the 21
barrios would have remained and the seat of the municipality
would then be reconsidered for it was located in a barrio of
Cotabato shows that the bill would not have stood without the
unconstitutional provision. It is then considered as indivisible
thus null and void in totality.
SC Ruling: RA 4790 is null and void in totality
ii. Requirements as to certain laws
1. appropriation laws
Guingona v. Carague
Facts:
Petitioner Senators Teofisto Guingona and Aquino Pimentel
question the automatic appropriation for debt service in the
1990 budget.
The 1990 budget consists of P98.4 Billion in automatic
appropriation (with P86.8 Billion for debt service) and P155.3
Billion appropriated under Republic Act No. 6831, otherwise
known as the General Appropriations Act, or a total of P233.5
Billion, while the appropriations for the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports amount to P27,017,813,000.00.
HELD:
Petition DISMISSED.
Belgica v. Ochoa ( one in aleitheia reviewer can help)
Belgica v. Executive Secretary Ochoa (2013)
l
Subject:
Justiciable Controversy, Ripeness for Adjudication,
Political Question, Locus Standi, Res Judicata, Stare
Decisis, Pork Barrel, Congressional Pork Barrel,
Presidential Pork Barrel, Mandamus, Right to
Information, SARO, Operative Fact Doctrine
Facts:
Before the Court are consolidated petitions, taken under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, all of which assail the
constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System. Pork Barrel
refers to an appropriation of government spending meant
for localized projects and secured
solely or primarily to bring money to a representative's
district. In the Philippines, the pork barrel has been
commonly referred to as lump-sum, discretionary funds of
Members of the Legislature, although, its usage would
evolve in reference to certain funds of the President such
as the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund.
The Malampaya Funds was a special fund created under
PD 910 issued by then President Ferdinand E.
Marcos for the development of indigenous energy
resources vital to economic growth.
The Presidential Social Fund is sourced from the share of
the government in the aggregate gross earnings of
PAGCOR through which the President provides direct
assistance to priority programs and projects not funded
under the regular budget.
In 1996, an anonymous source later identified as Former
Marikina City Romeo Candazo revealed that huge sums of
government money went into the pockets of legislators as
kickbacks. in 2004, several concerned citizens sought the
nullification of the PDAF for being unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, for lack of any pertinent evidentiary
support that illegal misuse of PDAF in the form of
kickbacks has become a common exercise of
unscrupulous Members of Congress, the petition was
dismissed.
In July 2013, NBI began its probe into allegations that the
government has been defrauded of some P10Billion over
the past 10 years by a syndicate using funds from the
pork barrel of lawmakers and various government
agencies for scores of ghost projects. The investigation
was spawned by sworn affidavits of six whistle-blowers
who declared that JLN Corporation (stands for Janet Lim
Napoles) had facilitated the swindling of billions of pesos
from the public coffers for ghost projects using no
fewer than 20 dummy
In August 2013, the Commission on Audit released report
revealing substantial irregularities in the disbursement
and utilization of PDAF by the Congressmen during the
Arroyo administration.
Committee;
b) The portion of the last paragraph of Section 17.1, to wit:
only upon review and approval of the Joint Congressional
Oversight
Committee;
c) The second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 19, to
wit: The Implementing Rules and Regulations shall be
submitted to the
Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created by virtue of
this Act for prior approval; and
d) The second sentence in the second paragraph of Section
25, to wit: It shall review, revise, amend and approve the
Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated by the
Commission of the same law; for being repugnant to Section
1, Article IX-A of the Constitution mandating the independence
of constitutional commission, such as COMELEC.
2. The constitutionality of Section 18.5 of R.A. No. 9189 is
UPHELD with respect only to the authority given to the
COMELEC to proclaim the winning candidates for the
Senators and party-list representatives but not as to the power
to canvass the votes and proclaim the winning candidates for
President and Vice-President which is lodged with Congress
under Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution.
3. Constitutionality of Section 5 (D) is upheld.
Puno
country, signed
by the
chairperson or
acting
chairperson and
the Speaker or
acting Speaker
o thirds (2/3) of all
its members
constituting a
quorum, punish
for contempt any
person who:
o refuses, after
being duly
summoned, to
obey such
summons without
legal excuse
o refuses to be
sworn or placed
under affirmation
o refuses to answer
any relevant
inquiry
o refuses to
produce any
books, papers,
documents or
records that are
relevant to the
inquiry and are in
his/her
possession;
o acts in a
disrespectful
manner towards
any member of
the Committee or
commits
misbehavior in
the presence of
the committee
o unduly interferes
in the conduct of
proceedings
during meetings
Legislative supervision
allows Congress to
scrutinize the exercise of
delegated law-making
authority, and permits
Congress to retain part of
that delegated authority
the two previous powers
look into past executive
Petitioner's contentions
- Respondent has no jurisdiction or authority to suspend, or
charge petitioner, at the same time, decide for himself the
merits of the charges
- Because the power to suspend, try and punish municipal
officials is lodged in some other agency of the government
- Acts of respondent are null and void because:
- in suspending petitioner, respondent exercised control over
local government. That power was taken away from the
President by the Constitution.
- power of supervision by respondent must be exercised in
accordance with the provisions of law.
- Respondent is exercising an arbitrary power by being a
complainant and at the same time judge of the charges against
petitioner
- Action of respondent is not based in any sworn statement of
any private person.
Ratio:
1. Section 79(c) of the Administrative Code provides:
Issues:
1. WON the respondent Secretary has legal authority to order
an investigation, by a special investigator appointed by himself
- YES
2. WON respondent Secretary has legal authority to suspend
petitioner - YES
Held:
Petition dismissed. Costs against the petitioner.
Notes:
Sec 2188 of the Revised Administrative Code - empowers
the provincial governor to 'receive and investigate complaints
made under oath against municipal officers for neglect of duty,
oppression, corruption or other form of maladministration of
office',
Sec 37, Act No. 4007: the provisions of the existing law to
the contrary notwithstanding, that whenever a specific power,
authority, duty, function, or activity is entrusted to a chief of
bureau, office, division or service, the same shall be
understood as also conferred upon the proper Department
Head who shall have authority to act directly in pursuance
thereof, or to review, modify or revoke any decision or action of
said chief of bureau, office, division or service
The Court dismissed the petition on the ground that
respondents acts are also the acts of the President, as the
President did not disapprove them. As regards the contentions
of the Sol Gen:
Contention 2: Sec 2188 of the Administrative Code, must be
read in accordance with Sec. 37 of Act 4007 (Reorganization
Law of 1932)
ISSUE:
RATIO:
The Court said that upholding such contention would make the
power of the Secretary of the Interior too broad, as to encroach
upon the exclusive powers of municipal mayors. Court does
not have experience in answering the question, and the
Constitution itself recognizes the right of local self-government,
no matter how limited.
Contention 3: Since respondent has authority to investigate
petitioner, he should also be vested with authority to
accomplish the purpose of the investigation (i.e. the
suspension of the petitioner)
The Court said that this is a point that it does not have to
decide.
RULING:
Petition Denied
NOTES:
Par 7, Sec 4, Art VII of the 1987 Constitution provides: The
Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of
the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules
for the purpose.
Sec 12, Art. VIII of the Constitution provides: The Members of
the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall
not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions.
Pormento v. Estrada
Ratio:
1. Legislative power is the authority to make laws, and
to alter and repeal them. Any power, deemed to be
legislative by usage and traiddition, is necessarily
possessed by Congress, unless the Constitution has
lodged in elsewhere. In fine, except as limited by the
Constitution, either expressly or impliedly, legislative
power embraces all subjects and extends to matters
of general concern or common interest.
2.
The executive power, generally defined as the power to
enforce and administer the laws, is vested in the President. As
the Chief Executive, he represents the government as a
whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the
officials and employees of his department. He has the
power of control, or authority to assume directly the functions
of the executive department, bureau and office, or interfere
with the discretion of its officials. Corollary to the power of
control, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and
offices under his control to enable him to discharge his duties
effectively. Administrative power is concerned with the work of
applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper
governmental organs. It enables the President to fix a uniform
standard of administrative efficiency and check the official
conduct of his agents. To this end, he can issue administrative
orders, rules and regulations
It cannot be argued that A.O. 308 merely implements the
Administrative Code of 1987, which is a general law that
covers the internal administration of government and the
effects of the functions performed by administrative officials on
private individuals or parties outside government. An
administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President
which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation
of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should
be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying
out the legislative policy. In the case at bar, A.O. 308 redefines
parameters of basic rights of our citizenry vis-a-vis the State
and requires adjustment of various contending state policies
(national security, extent of privacy interest against dossiergathering by government, the choice of policies). Such subject
should be covered by law.
Administrative legislation must be restricted in its scope and
application. Regulations are not supposed to be a substitute
for the general policy-making that Congress enacts in the form
of a public law. Authority to prescribe riles and regulations is
not an independent source of power to make laws.
(ratio not comprehensive since were discussing executive)
2.
The essence of privacy is the right to be left alone.
Right to privacy requires that the law be narrowly focused and
Notes:
Sec. 10(1), Art VII, 1935 Constitution
The President shall have control of all executive departments,
bureaus or offices, exercise general provision over all local
governments as may be provided by law, and take care that
the laws be faithfully executed.
ISSUE
WON EO 13 is unconstitutional given the following allegations
- NO
RATIO
1.
The President has Continuing Authority to Reorganize
the Executive Department under E.O. 292. Clearly, the
abolition of the PAGC and the transfer of its functions to a
division specially created within the ODESLA is properly within
the prerogative of the President under his continuing
"delegated legislative authority to reorganize" his own office
pursuant to E.O. 292.
2.
However, the President's power to reorganize the Office
of the President under Section 31 (2) and (3) of EO 292 should
be distinguished from his power to reorganize the Office of the
President Proper.
Under Section 31 (1) of EO 292, the President can
reorganize the Office of the President Proper by
abolishing, consolidating or merging units, or by
transferring functions from one unit to another. In
contrast
under Section 31 (2) and (3) of EO 292, the
President's power to reorganize offices outside the
Office of the President Proper but still within the
Office of the President is limited to merely transferring
functions or agencies from the Office of the President
to Departments or Agencies, and vice versa.
3.
The Reorganization Did not Entail the Creation of a
New, Separate and Distinct Office. The abolition of the PAGC
did not require the creation of a new, additional and distinct
office as the duties and functions that pertained to the defunct
anti-graft body were simply transferred to the ODESLA, which
is an existing office within the Office of the President Proper.
So, in other words, it is merely a reorganization, an
alteration of administrative structure, which is within the
ambit of EO 292. Besides, the reorganization was done in
good faith
4.
The IAD-ODESLA cannot try and resolve cases, its
authority being limited to the conduct of investigations,
preparation of reports and submission of recommendations.
E.O. 13 explicitly states that the IAD-ODESLA shall perform
powers, functions and duties of PAGC.
the IAD-ODESLA is a fact-finding and
recommendatory body to the President, not having
the power to settle controversies and adjudicate
cases. Fact-finding is not adjudication and it cannot
be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice,
or even a quasi-judicial agency or office.
5.
The power to issue EO 13 is in accordance with the
Presidents function as Chief Executive , where he is granted
full control over the Executive department to ensure
enforcement of laws.
Article VII, Section 17 provides: The President shall have
control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices.
He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
HELD
Petition DISMISSED
NOTES
EO 292, Sec. 31 (aka Administrative Code of 1987): President
has the continuing authority to reorganize the offices
under him in order to achieve simplicity, economy and
efficiency. These include the ability to:
(1)Restructure the internal organization of the Office of the
President Proper, including the immediate Offices, the
Presidential Special Assistants/Advisers System and the
Common Staff Support System, by abolishing, consolidating,
or merging units thereof or transferring functions from one unit
to another;
(2)Transfer any function under the Office of the President to
any other Department or Agency as well as transfer functions
to the Office of the President from other Departments and
Agencies; and
(3)Transfer any agency under the Office of the President to
any other Department or Agency as well as transfer agencies
to the Office of the President from other departments or
agencies.
Carolina P. Araullo v. Pres. Benigno Aquino Araullo vs
Aquino
Araullo: Chairperson Bagong Alyansa Makabayan, Aquino:
President of Philippines
Bersamin 2013
History:
On September 25, 2013, Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada
delivered a privilege speech in the Senate of the Philippines to
reveal that some Senators, including himself, had been allotted
an additional P50 Million each as "incentive" for voting in favor
of the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.
For resolution are the consolidated petitions assailing the
constitutionality of the Disbursement Acceleration
Program(DAP), National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 541, and
related issuances of the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) implementing the DAP.
The DBM listed the following as the legal bases for the DAPs
use of savings, namely:
(1) Section 25(5), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which
granted to the President the authority to augment an item for
his office in the general appropriations law;
(2) Section 49 (Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes)
and Section 38 (Suspension of Expenditure Appropriations),
Chapter 5, Book VI of Executive Order (EO) No. 292
(Administrative Code of 1987); and
(3) the General Appropriations Acts (GAAs) of 2011, 2012 and
2013, particularly their provisions on the (a) use of savings; (b)
meanings of savings and augmentation; and (c) priority in the
use of savings.
As for the use of unprogrammed funds under the DAP, the
DBM cited as legal bases the special provisions on
Luzon Tollways.
- PD 1894, issued on 22 December 1983, amended PD 1113
to include in CDCPs franchise the Metro Manila Expressway.
- Sometime between 1978 and 1981, Basay Mining
Corporation (Basay Mining), an affiliate of CDCP, obtained
loans from Marubeni Corporation of Japan (Marubeni)
amounting to 5,460,000,000 yen and US$5 million.
- A CDCP official issued letters of guarantee for the loans,
committing CDCP to pay solidarily for the full amount of the
5,460,000,000 yen loan and to the extent of P20 million for the
US$5 million loan. However, there was no CDCP Board
Resolution authorizing the issuance of the letters of guarantee.
- In 1983, CDCP changed its corporate name to PNCC.
- Meanwhile, the Marubeni loans to CDCP Mining remained
unpaid. On 20 October 2000, during the short-lived Estrada
Administration, the PNCC Board of Directors(PNCC Board)
passed Board Resolution No. BD-092-2000 admitting PNCCs
liability to Marubeni for P10,743,103,388 as of 30 September
1999.
- 3 months after admitting liability, Marubeni assigned its entire
credit to Radstock for US$2 million or less than P100 million.
Radstock immediately sent a notice and demand letter to
PNCC.
- On 15 January 2001, Radstock filed an action for collection
and damages against PNCC before the Regional Trial Court of
Mandaluyong City.
- The trial court ordered PNCCs bank accounts garnished and
several of its real properties attached.
- PNCC filed motions to dismiss and reconsider but were
denied by RTC and CA.
- On June 19, 2001, the PNCC Board, under a new President
and Chairman, revoked Board Resolution No. BD-099-2000.
- RTC ruled in favor of Radstock and ordered PNCC to pay
P13 Billion including interest.
- PNCC appealed to the CA and it issued a TRO.
- On 17 August 2006, PNCC and Radstock entered into the
Compromise Agreement where they agreed to reduce PNCCs
liability to Radstock, supposedly from P17,040,843,968, to
P6,185,000,000.
- On 25 January 2007, the Court of Appeals approved the
Compromise Agreement.
- STRADEC moved for reconsideration of the 25 January
2007 Decision. STRADEC alleged that it has a claim against
PNCC as a bidder of the National Governments shares,
receivables, securities and interests in PNCC.
- The Court of Appeals treated STRADECs motion for
reconsideration as a motion for intervention and denied it in its
31 May 2007 Resolution. STRADEC filed a motion for review.
- On 13 January 2009, the Court held oral arguments on the
following issues:
1. Does the Compromise Agreement violate public policy?
2. Does the subject matter involve an assumption by the
government of a private entitys obligation in violation of the
law and/or the Constitution? Is the PNCC Board Resolution of
20 October 2000 defective or illegal?
3. Is the Compromise Agreement viable in the light of the nonrenewal of PNCCs franchise by Congress and its inclusion of
should still be read in harmony with Sec. 16, Art VII of the 1987
Constitution.
Held:
Petition dismissed. Appointment constitutional.
Cruz, dissenting:
In view of 'express enumeration of the subjects excludes
others not enumerated (expressio unius est exclusio alterius),'
the first sentence is the only necessary sentence, and the
other two are superfluous. There must be some reason why
there are two more sentences.
Cruz reading: Everyone mentioned in Sec. 16, Art VII is
subject to the confirmation of the Commission on
Appointments because the next two are continuations of the
conditions mentioned in the first, except those 'officers lower in
rank' when Congress provides a law that bestows their
authority on the President alone.
Manalo v. Sistoza
GR. No. 107369 August 11, 1999
Petitioner: Jesulito Manalo
Respondent: Pedro Sistoza, etc. and Salvador Enriquez II (
Secretary of Budget and Management)
Ponente: J. Purisima
Special civil action for Prohibition
Facts:
1. President Corazon Aquino signed RA 6975 (Creation of
DILG) on December 13, 1990. Certain provision concerning
the powers, functions and term of office of the PNP chief plus
the appointment of its members and officers were noted,
specifically Sections 26 and 31. In accordance to the law, the
President, through Exec. Sec. Franklin Drilon, 15 police
officers (the respondents) and appointed them positions in the
PNP with ranks of Chief Superintendent and Director. The
appointments were made in a permanent capacity. Without
having their names submitted to the Commission on
Appointments for confirmation, the officers took their oath of
office and assumed their post. The DBM authorized
disbursements for their salaries and emoluments.
Issue:
1. Respondent officers assumed their office despite failing to
secure the required confirmation from CoA thus are acting
without or in excess of their jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion considering that RA 6975 is a valid law that requires
confirmation of appointments of officers of rank of senior
superintendents or higher by the CoA and that the PNP is akin
to AFP where the Constitution requires confirmation by CoA
2. Respondent Secretary, in allowing disbursements in favor of
the officers, is acting without or in excess of jurisdiction or in
grave abuse of discretion
Ratio:
1. Power of Appointment- vested in the Chief Executive
under Section 16 Art VII of the Constitution. History has
shown that presidential appointment when left unchecked
leads to abuse of power. If appointment was left to consent of
CoA, the commission became a venue for horse-trading and
malpractices. The intent of the framers is only to subject
HELD:
Petitions granted and will take effect 15 days after entry of
final judgement
Facts:
- September 22, 2005 - Sen. Rodolfo Biazon invited several
senior officials of the AFP to appear in a public hearing before
the Senate Committee on National Defense re: allegations of
fraud in the conduct of the 2004 elections (this is the height of
the Hello Garci scandal)
- Petitioners Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan were in charge of
the peace and order in Lanao del Norte+Sur
- September 23, 2005 - Gen. Senga replied that he cannot
come, but he will be sending other officials.
- September 26, 2005 - Memo issued in behalf of Gen. Senga,
directing petitioners to attend the Senate hearing
- September 27, 2005 - Gen. Senga wrote a letter to Sen.
Biazon, requesting him to move the meeting to the 29th,
because other officers were attending 'urgent operational
matters,' even as petitioners were on their way from Baguio to
Manila
- September 27, 2005, 10:10 PM - a message was transmitted
to the PMA Superintendent (petitioners were stationed at the
PMA) from the office of Gen. Senga, viz:
PER INSTRUCTION OF HER EXCELLENCY PGMA, NO AFP
PERSONNEL SHALL APPEAR BEFORE ANY
CONGRESSIONAL OR SENATE HEARING WITHOUT HER
APPROVAL. INFORM BGEN FRANCISCO F GUDANI AFP
AND LTC ALEXANDER BALUTAN PA (GSC)
ACCORDINGLY. (the Order)
- September 28, 2005 - Gen. Gudani wrote to Sen. Biazon that
no AFP officer has been granted permission by the President
to appear before the Senate. Petitioners testified anyway
- On the same day, PGMA issued EO 464 (Executive privilege
things. Recall: Senate v. Ermita. Declared partly
unconstitutional)
- Also on the same day, the office of Gen. Senga issued a
statement saying that Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan shall be
subjected to General Court Martial for disobeying orders from
the Commander-in-Chief.
- September 30, 2005 - petitioners were directed to appear
before the Office of the Provost Marshal General (OPMG) for
investigation on October 3.
- October 3, 2005 - Petitioners invoke their right to remain
silent
- October 4, 2005 - Gen. Gudani is compulsorily retired from
military service
- October 6, 2005 - OPMG recommended that petitioners be
charged with Art. of War 65, on willfully disobeying a superior
officer, in relation o Art. of War 97, on conduct prejudicial to the
good order and military discipline.
Petitioners seek:
- the order of PGMA preventing AFP officers to testify before
the Senate without her prior approval be declared
unconstitutional
- the charges against them be quashed
- respondents+successors-in-interest be permanently enjoined
from proceeding against them
Petitioners argue:
- there was a violation of the principle of separation of powers,
as the Order interferes with the power of the Senate to conduct
investigations in aid of legislation.
- the Order was a 'gag order;' therefore, it was a violation of the
public's constitutional right to information and transparency in
matters of public concern
- there was no law to prevent them from testifying in Senate
- Gen. Gudani is no longer subject to military jurisdiction as he
is retired, and as per the Art. 2, Title I, Arts. of War, the
persons subject to military law are those in the active service
of the AFP
Issues:
1. WON the semi-unconstitutionality of EO 464 (as per Senate
v. Ermita) affects the case at bar - NO
2. WON Gen. Gudani's violation of the Order could lead to
investigation for court-martial - YES
3. WON the Order violated the separation of powers as the
President interfered with the Senate's powers to conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation - NO
4. WON Gen. Gudani is still subject to military jurisdiction YES
Ratio:
1. Petitioners were charged not with the violation of EO 464,
but with the violation of the direct order of Gen. Senga, from
PGMA, not to appear in the Senate hearing. Senate v. Ermita
is about the nature of executive privilege, while the case at bar
deals with the commander-in-chief powers of the President.
The commander-in-chief powers of the President are not
encumbered by the same degree of restriction as that of
executive privilege.
2. The ability of the President falls under her commander-inchief powers, stated in Sec. 18, Art VII of the Constitution.
As commander-in-chief of the military, she has absolute
authority over persons and actions of the members of the
armed forces, and such powers include the ability of the
President to restrict the travel, movement, and speech of
military officers. (There are limitations to this power,
though, found in Sec. 5, Art XVI)
Also, individual rights in the military can be curtailed in a
certain decree, as the effectiveness of the military depends
largely on the discipline instilled among its ranks. Soldiers and
officers are not free to ignore the lawful orders of their
superiors, just because they think these orders to be unlawful.
In addition, Kapunan, Jr. v. De Villa is an ample precedent in
holding that the freedom of military officers to speak out on
certain matters can be restricted by a superior officer. In
Kapunan, it was Kapunan who was placed in house arrest by
Pres. FVR and was prevented from giving interviews to the
press.
The Pres did not act arbitrarily in issuing Proc. No. 889, as
amended, and that accordingly, the same is not
unconstitutional
Notes:
Burgos v. Macapagal-Arroyo
Burgos v Macapagal-Arroyo (2010)
Edita Burgos petitioner
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, GEN. HERMOGENES
ESPERON, JR., LT. GEN. ROMEO P. TOLENTINO, MAJ.
GEN. JUANITO GOMEZ, MAJ. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, LT.
COL. NOEL CLEMENT, LT. COL. MELQUIADES FELICIANO,
and DIRECTOR GENERAL OSCAR CALDERON
respondents
PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI OF THE
DECISION OF CA
FACTS
-April 28, 2007,1PM: Jonas Joseph T. Burgos a farmer
advocate and a member of Kilusang Magbubukid sa
Bulacan was forcibly taken and abducted by a group of four
(4) men and a woman from the extension portion of Hapag
Kainan Restaurant in Ever Gotesco Mall, Commonwealth
Avenue, Quezon City. A security guard took note of the
incident and got the plate number of the vehicle used to take
Burgos away.
- Because of the incident, the petitioner (the mother of Joseph
Burgos), held a press conference and announced that her son
Jonas was missing. It was discovered that plate number TAB
194 was registered to a 1991 Isuzu XLT vehicle owned by a
certain Mauro B. Mudlong, who was arrested because said
vehicle transported timber without license. However, right after
the conference, the plate number of the vehicle went missing,
and the engine and other spare parts were cannibalized.
- the petitioner testified before the CA that the police was able
to generate cartographic sketches of two (one male and one
female) of the abductors of Jonas based on its interview of
eyewitnesses; however, nothing came out of the information
given by State Prosecutor Velasco because he was pulled out
from the investigation by the DOJ Secretary, and that the
police, particularly P/Supt. Jonnel C. Estomo, failed to
investigate and act upon these leads.
- Aug. 29, 2007: the Philippine National Police-Criminal
Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) presented
certain people to prove the point/theory that NPAs were
accountable for the incident
CA: Motion to declare respondents in contempt denied;
moreover, petition for habeas corpus and contempt as
against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo must be
dropped since she enjoys the privilege of immunity from
suit. The CA ruled that the Presidents immunity from suit
is a settled doctrine citing David v. Arroyo. (the only takeoff
point from president as the commander in chief)
ISSUE
Whether the PNP-CIDG and others failed to conduct an
exhaustive investigation on the matter in due diligence of their
duties - YES
RATIO
From the records, we note that there are very significant
lapses in the handling of the investigation. no significant follow
through was also made by the PNP-CIDG in ascertaining the
identities of the cartographic sketches of two of the abductors
despite the evidentiary leads provided by State Prosecutor
Velasco of the DOJ. Notably, the PNP-CIDG, as the lead
investigating agency in the present case, did not appear to
have lifted a finger to pursue these aspects of the case. Based
on these considerations, we conclude that further investigation
and monitoring should be undertaken.
HELD
WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice and for the foregoing
reasons, the Court RESOLVES to:
(1) DIRECT the Commission on Human Rights to conduct
appropriate investigative proceedings, including field
investigations acting as the Courts directly commissioned
agency for purposes of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo - with
the tasks of: (a) ascertaining the identities of the cartographic
sketches of two of the abductors as well as their whereabouts;
(b) determining based on records, past and present, the
identities and locations of the persons identified by State
Prosecutor Velasco alleged to be involved in the abduction of
Jonas namely: T/Sgt. Jason Roxas (Philippine Army), Cpl.
Facts:
-On May 1, 2001, President GMA issued proclamation no. 38
declaring that there was a state of rebellion in the NCR. She
also issued general order no. 1 directing the AFP and PNP to
suppress the rebellion.
-Warrantless arrests were effected.
-4 petitions were filed before the SC.
-First was GR No. 147780. It was for prohibition, injunction,
mandamus, and habeas corpus filed by Panfilo Lacson,
Michael Ray Aquino and Cezae Mancao.
-Second was GR No. 147781. It was for mandamus and/or
review for factual basis for the suspension of writ of habeas
corpus with prayer for TRO filed by Miriam Defensor-Santiago.
-Third was GR No. 147799. It was for prohibition and injunction
and/or restraining order filed by Ronaldo Lumbao.
-Fourth was GR No. 147810. It was for certiorari and
prohibition filed by Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino.
-All of the petitions assail the declaration of state rebellion and
the Warrantless arrests.
-On May 6, 2006, President GMA lifted the declaration of state
of rebellion.
-The petitions have been rendered moot and academic.
Issue:
WON Petitioners' prayers are proper. -NO
-As to petitioners' claim that the proclamation of a "state of
rebellion" is being used by the authorities to justify warrantless
arrests, the Secretary of Justice denies that it has missued a
particular order to arrest specific persons in connection with
the "rebellion."
-In quelling or suppressing the rebellion, the authorities may
only resort to warrantless arrests of persons suspected of
rebellion, as provided under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules
of Court, if the circumstances so warrant. The warrantless
arrest feared by petitioners is, thus, not based on the
declaration of a "state of rebellion."
-In the first two petitions, their contentions that they are under
imminent danger of being arrested without warrant do not
justify their resort to the extraordinary remedies of mandamus
and prohibition, since a individual subjected to warrantless
arrest is not without adequate remedies in the ordinary course
of law. They may also ask for a preliminary investigation under
Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Also, a person subject of a
warrantless arrest must be delivered to the proper judicial
authorities within the periods provided in Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, otherwise the arresting officer could be
held liable for delay in the delivery of detained persons.
-In the first petition, they pray that the "appropriate court before
whom the informations against petitioners are filed be directed
to desist from arraigning and proceeding with the trial of the
case, until the instant petition is finally resolved." This relief is
clearly premature considering that as of this date, no
complaints or charges have been filed against any of the
petitioners for any crime. Petitioners' allegations ex abundante
ad cautelam in support of their application for the issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus, it is manifest that the writ is not called
Held:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitions are hereby
DISMISSED. However, in G.R. No. 147780, 147781, and
147799, respondents, consistent and congruent with their
undertaking earlier adverted to, together with their agents,
representatives, and all persons acting for and in their behalf,
are hereby enjoined from arresting petitioners therein without
the required judicial warrant for all acts committed in relation to
or in connection with the may 1, 2001 siege of Malacaang.
Sanlakas v. Angelo Reyes
G.R. No. 159085, 159103, 159185, 159196 February 3, 2004
Petitioner:
Aquilino Pimentel
Respondent: ExeSec. Alberto Romulo, SecDef Angelo Reyes,
SecJus Simeon Datumanong, Gen. Narciso Abaya,
Hermogenes Ebdane, Joey Lina Jr.
Ponente: Justice Tinga
Facts:
1. Around 300 junior officers and enlisted men from the AFP
took control of the Oakwood Premiere apartments in Makati
City during the early hours of July 27, 2003. The soldiers
demanded the resignation of the President, Sec. of Defense
and Chief of PNP.
-
-
ISSUES:
Procedural
1. WON the issuance of PP1021 renders the petitions
moot and academic NO
2. WON petitioners in 171485 (Escudero, et al.), 171400
(Alternative Law Groups, Inc.), 171483 (KMU, et al),
SECTION 23. x x x (2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by
law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may
prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy.
Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the
next adjournment thereof.
The President did not proclaim a national emergency, only a state of emergency in the three places
mentioned. And she did not act pursuant to any law enacted by Congress that authorized her to
exercise extraordinary powers. The calling out of the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence in such places is a power that the Constitution directly vests in the President. She did not
need a congressional authority to exercise the same.
3.
Whether or not the President had factual bases for her actions. - YES
The Presidents call on the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence springs from the
power vested in her under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, which provides.
Facts:
On November 24, 2009, the day after the gruesome massacre
of 57 men and women, including some news reporters, then
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation 1946,
placing the Provinces of Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat
and the City of Cotabato under a state of emergency. She
directed the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the
Philippine National Police (PNP) to undertake such measures
as may be allowed by the Constitution and by law to prevent
and suppress all incidents of lawless violence in the named
places.
Three days later or on November 27, President Arroyo also
issued Administrative Order 273 (AO 273) transferring
supervision of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM) from the Office of the President to the Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG). But, due to issues
raised over the terminology used in AO 273, the President
issued Administrative Order 273-A (AO 273-A) amending the
former, by delegating instead of transferring supervision of
the ARMM to the DILG.[
SECTION 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. x x x
While it is true that the Court may inquire into the factual bases for the Presidents exercise of the
above power, it would generally defer to her judgment on the matter. The imminence of violence
and anarchy at the time the President issued Proclamation 1946 was too grave to ignore and she
had to act to prevent further bloodshed and hostilities in the places mentioned.
Since petitioners are not able to demonstrate that the proclamation of state of emergency in the
subject places and the calling out of the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence
there have clearly no factual bases, the Court must respect the Presidents actions
HELD:
Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
Claiming that the Presidents issuances encroached on the ARMMs autonomy, petitioners Datu
Zaldy Uy Ampatuan, Ansaruddin Adiong, and Regie Sahali-Generale, all ARMM officials, filed this
petition for prohibition under Rule 65. They alleged that the proclamation and the orders
empowered the DILG Secretary to take over ARMMs operations and seize the regional
governments powers, in violation of the principle of local autonomy under Republic Act 9054 (also
known as the Expanded ARMM Act) and the Constitution. The President gave the DILG Secretary
the power to exercise, not merely administrative supervision, but control over the ARMM since the
latter could suspend ARMM officials and replace them.
1.
Whether or not Proclamation 1946 and AOs 273 and 273-A violate the principle of local
autonomy under Section 16, Article X of the Constitution, and Section 1, Article - NO
viii. Treaty-making
The DILG Secretary did not take over control of the powers of the ARMM. After law enforcement
agents took respondent Governor of ARMM into custody for alleged complicity in the Maguindanao
massacre, the ARMM Vice-Governor, petitioner Ansaruddin Adiong, assumed the vacated post on
December 10, 2009
2.
Executive Agreements
Bayan v. Executive Secretary. See J. Punos dissenting
opinion
Whether or not President Arroyo invalidly exercised emergency powers when she called out
the AFP and the PNP to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence in Maguindanao,
Sultan Kudarat, and Cotabato City; - NO
Negotiate
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP, supra (see aleitheia
reviewer)
Petitioners contend that the President unlawfully exercised emergency powers when she ordered
the deployment of AFP and PNP personnel in the places mentioned in the proclamation. But such
deployment is not by itself an exercise of emergency powers as understood under Section 23 (2),
Article VI of the Constitution, which provides:
d. Residual Power
Marcos v. Manglapus
Marcos vs. Manglapus (1989)
RESOLUTION of Motion for Reconsideration of SC Decision
Facts:
- (September 15 1989) SC by a vote of 8 to 7 dismissed the
petition after finding that the President did not act arbitrarily or
with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of
former President Marcos and his family at the present time and
under present circumstances pose a threat to national interest
and welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines
- (September 28 1989) Marcos died in Honolulu Hawaii.
Thereafter, President Aquino issued a statement barring the
return of Marcos remains and the other petitioners to the
Philippines.
- (October 2 1989) Petitioners filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, arguing:
1.To bar Marcos and his familys return is to deny
them the inherent right of citizens to return to their
county of birth and the protection of the Constitution
and all of the right guaranteed to Filipinos thereunder
2. President has no power to bar a Filipino from his
own country; if she has, she had exercised it
arbitrarily
3. There is no basis for barring the return of the family
of former President Marcos
Issues:
1. WON the Court should reconsider its decision NO
Ratio:
The burden is upon the movants to show that there are
compelling reasons to reconsider the decision of the Court. In
this motion, petitioners have not established compelling
reasons to warrant a reconsideration. Marcos death has not
changed the factual scenario under which the Courts decision
was rendered. The threats to the government, to which the
Marcoses return has been viewed to provide a catalytic effect,
have not been shown to have been ceased.
The President has unstated residual powers which are
implied from the grant of executive power and which are
necessary for her to comply with her duties under the
Constitution. The powers of the president are not limited to
what are expressly enumerated in the Constitution. (See
Notes for US citations) One of the presidents duties is to
protect and promote the interest and welfare of the people. Her
decision to bar the return of the Marcoses at the present time
and under present circumstances is in compliance with this
bounden duty.
Held: Motion for reconsideration denied for lack of merit.
Notes:
- US president also has residual powers. Alexander Hamilton
said: [t]he [article II] enumeration [in sections 2 and 3] ought
therefore to be considered, as intended merely to specify the
principal articles implied in the definition of execution power;
leaving the rest to flow from the general grant of that power,
interpreted in conformity with other parts of the Constitution . . .
o W/N she directed him to approve the project after being told
about the bribe
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
III.
IV.
nixons administration
produced significant
developments: privilege was
invoked not for the protection
of national security interests,
foreign policy decision-making
or military secrets as in the
past, but rather to keep under
wraps politically damaging
and personally embarrasing
information
iii.
scope, kinds and context
of executive privilege
at least four kinds in the US:
military and state secrets,
presidential communications,
deliberative process, and law
enforcement privileges
Presidential Communications Privilege and
Philippine Jurisprudence
Test and Procedure to Determine the Validity
of the Invocation of Exeuctive Privilege Covering
Presidential Communications in a Legislative
Inquiry
a. U.S. v. Nixon
i.
Background proceedings
ii.
Rationale of presidential
communications privilege
1. Public interest in candor or
candid opinions in
presidential decisionmaking
2. Separation of powers
iii.
Scope of the presidential
communications privilege
iv.
Qualified Presumption in
Favor of the Presidential
Communications Privilege
v.
Deomonstrable Specific
Ned for Disclosure will overcome
the qualified presumption
1. Evidentiary standard of
need
2. Demonstrable specific
need for disclosure to be
balanced with the claim of
privilege using the function
impairment test
vi.
In camera determination of
information to be disclosed
b. Resolving the case at bar with the aid of
U.S. v. Nixon and other cases
i.
Procedure to follow when
diplomatic, military and national
security secrets privilege is invoked
In US case, there must be a
formal claim of privilege
V.
whether contemporaneous
disclosure or open
deliberation, which has a
greater chilling effect on
rendering candid opinions, as
opposed to subsequent
disclosure; (2) level of detail,
whether full texts or whole
conversations or summaries;
(3) audience, whether the
general public or a select few;
(4) certainty of disclosure,
whether the information is
made public as a matter of
course or upon request as
considered by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Nixon v.
Administrator of General
Services;(5) frequency of
disclosure as considered by
the U.S. Supreme Court in
U.S. v. Nixon and Cheney v.
U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia;
Type of information
iii.
Determining specific need
of respondent senate committees
for the withheld information to
overcome the qualifed presumption
1. Evidentiary standard of
need
2. Balancing the conflicting
constitutional functions of
the President and the
Senate using the function
impairment test
c. Presidential communications privilege and
wrongdoing
d. Negotiations and accommodations
Validity of the order of arrest
ISSUE
1.
WON lower courts can examine constitutional questions
YES
a.
WON judicial power authorizes exercise of declaring a
provision unconstitutional - YES
2.
WON EO No. 626-A is unconstitutional YES
a.
WON said EO violates due process requirement YES
b. WON said EO is not a valid exercise of police power YES
RATIO
1.
While lower courts should observe a becoming modesty
in examining constitutional questions, they are nonetheless not
prevented from resolving the same whenever warranted,
subject only to review by the highest tribunal. We have
jurisdiction under the Constitution to "review, revise, reverse,
modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or rules of
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
1. Congressional Power over the Jurisdiction of the
SC
1. En banc vs Division
o Manotok v. Barque, G.R. Nos. 162335 and 162605,
December 8, 2008
Manotok v Barque (2008)
FACTS
Homer L. Barque, Sr. (Barque, Sr.) represented by
Teresita Barque-Hernandez filed a petition for administrative
reconstitution of the original copy of TCT No. 210177 of the
Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. TCT No. 210177 was
allegedly destroyed when a fire gutted the Quezon City Hall on
11 June 1988. In support of the petition, Barque, Sr. submitted
the owners duplicate certificate of title, Real Estate Tax
Receipts and Tax Declaration.
Atty. Bustos denied the petition for administrative
reconstitution of TCT No. 210177 on the following grounds:
1. Lots 823-A and 823-B, Fls-3168-D, containing areas of
171,473 Sq. Mtrs. and 171,472, respectively, covered by TCT
No. 210177, appear to duplicate Lot 823 Piedad Estate,
containing an area of 342,945 Sq. Mtrs., covered by TCT No.
372302 registered in the name of Severino M. Manotok, et al.,
reconstituted under Adm. Reconstitution No. Q-213 dated
February 01, 1991;
2. The submitted plan Fls-3168-D is a spurious document as
categorically stated by Engineer Privadi J.G. Dalire, Chief,
Geodetic Surveys Division, Lands Management Bureau, in his
letter dated February 19, 1997.13
Facts:
-These cases trace their genesis to the controversy that has
arise from the forthcoming compulsory retirement of Chief
Justice Puno on May 17, 2010, or seven days after the
presidential election. Under Section 4(1), in relation to Section
9, Article VIII, that vacancy shall be filled within ninety days
from the occurrence thereof from a list of at least three
nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every
vacancy."
-Conformably with its existing practice, the JBC automatically
considered for the position of Chief Justice the five most
senior of the Associate Justices of the Court, namely:
Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio; Associate Justice Renato
C. Corona; Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales;
Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.; and Associate
Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura. However, the last two
declined their nomination through letters dated January 18,
2010 and January 25, 2010, respectively.
-Candidates who accepted their nominations without
conditions were Associate Justice Renato C. Corona;
Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro; Associate
Justice Arturo D. Brion; and Associate Justice Edilberto G.
Sandoval (Sandiganbayan). Candidates who accepted their
nominations with conditions were Associate Justice Antonio T.
Carpio and Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales.
-The JBC resolved to proceed to the next step of announcing
the names of the following candidates to invite the public to file
their sworn complaint, written report, or opposition, if any, not
later than February 22, 2010, to wit: Associate Justice Carpio,
Associate Justice Corona, Associate Justice Carpio Morales,
Associate Justice Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice
Brion, and Associate Justice Sandoval.
-Petitioners Arturo M. De Castro and John G. Peralta
respectively commenced G.R. No. 191002 and G.R. No.
191149 as special civil actions for certiorari and mandamus,
praying that the JBC be compelled to submit to the incumbent
President the list of at least three nominees for the position of
the next Chief Justice.
-In G.R. No. 191032, Jaime N. Soriano, via his petition for
prohibition, proposes to prevent the JBC from conducting its
search, selection and nomination proceedings for the position
of Chief Justice.
-In G.R. No. 191057, a special civil action for mandamus, the
Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) wants the
JBC to submit its list of nominees for the position of Chief
Justice to be vacated by Chief Justice Puno upon his
retirement on May 17, 2010, because the incumbent President
is not covered by the prohibition that applies only to
appointments in the Executive Department.
-In Administrative Matter No. 10-2-5-SC, petitioner Estelito M.
Mendoza, a former Solicitor General, seeks a ruling from the
Court for the guidance of the JBC on whether Section 15,
Article VII applies to appointments to the Judiciary.
-In G.R. No. 191342, which the Court consolidated on March 9,
2010 with the petitions earlier filed, petitioners Amador Z.
Tolentino, Jr. and Roland B. Inting, Integrated Bar of the
petition does not allege that the JBC has performed a specific
act susceptible to correction for being illegal or
unconstitutional; and that the Mendoza petition asks the Court
to issue an advisory ruling, not to exercise its power of
supervision to correct a wrong act by the JBC, but to declare
the state of the law in the absence of an actual case or
controversy.
We hold that the petitions set forth an actual case or
controversy that is ripe for judicial determination. The reality is
that the JBC already commenced the proceedings for the
selection of the nominees to be included in a short list to be
submitted to the President for consideration of which of them
will succeed Chief Justice Puno as the next Chief Justice.
Although the position is not yet vacant, the fact that the JBC
began the process of nomination pursuant to its rules and
practices, although it has yet to decide whether to submit the
list of nominees to the incumbent outgoing President or to the
next President, makes the situation ripe for judicial
determination, because the next steps are the public interview
of the candidates, the preparation of the short list of
candidates, and the interview of constitutional experts, as may
be needed."
We need not await the occurrence of the vacancy by May 17,
2010 in order for the principal issue to ripe for judicial
determination by the Court. It is enough that one alleges
conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but
seemingly proscribed by the Constitution. A reasonable
certainty of the occurrence of the perceived threat to a
constitutional interest is sufficient to afford a basis for bringing
a challenge, provided the Court has sufficient facts before it to
enable it to intelligently adjudicate the issues.
Two constitutional provisions are seemingly in conflict
The first, Section 15, Article VII (Executive Department),
provides:
Section 15. Two months immediately before the next
presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a
President or Acting President shall not make appointments,
except temporary appointments to executive positions when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or
endanger public safety.
The other, Section 4 (1), Article VIII (Judicial Department),
states:
Section 4. (1). The Supreme Court shall be composed of a
Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en
banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven
Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from
the occurrence thereof.
In the consolidated petitions, the petitioners, with the exception
of Soriano, Tolentino and Inting, submit that the incumbent
President can appoint the successor of Chief Justice Puno
upon his retirement on May 17, 2010, on the ground that the
prohibition against presidential appointments under Section 15,
Article VII does not extend to appointments in the Judiciary.
The Court agrees with the submission. The records of the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission reveal that the
framers devoted time to meticulously drafting, styling, and
arranging the Constitution. The arrangement was a true
Decision:
WHEREFORE, the Court:
1. Dismisses the petitions for certiorari and mandamus in G.R.
No. 191002 and G.R. No. 191149, and the petition for
mandamus in G.R. No. 191057 for being premature;
2. Dismisses the petitions for prohibition in G.R. No. 191032
and G.R. No. 191342 for lack of merit; and
3. Grants the petition in A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC and,accordingly,
directs the Judicial and Bar Council:
(a) To resume its proceedings for the nomination of candidates
to fill the vacancy to be created by the compulsory retirement
of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno by May 17, 2010;
(b) To prepare the short list of nominees for the position of
ChiefJustice;
(c) To submit to the incumbent President the short list of
nominees for the position of Chief Justice on or before May 17,
2010; and
(d) To continue its proceedings for the nomination of
candidates to fill other vacancies in the Judiciary and submit to
the President the short list of nominees corresponding thereto
in accordance with this decision.
SO ORDERED.
De Castro vs JBC (April 20, 2010) Bersamin, J.
RESOLUTION
We deny the motions for reconsideration for lack of merit, for
all the matters being thereby raised and argued, not being
new, have all been resolved by the decision of March 17,
2010.
The Court clarified the ff.
First: Most of the movants contend that the principle of stare
decisis is controlling, and accordingly insist that the Court has
erred in disobeying or abandoning Valenzuela.
The Court, as the highest court of the land, may be guided but
is not controlled by precedent. Thus, the Court, especially with
a new membership, is not obliged to follow blindly a particular
decision that it determines, after re-examination, to call for a
rectification. The adherence to precedents is strict and rigid in
a common-law setting like the United Kingdom, where judges
make law as binding as an Act of Parliament. But ours is not a
common-law system; hence, judicial precedents are not
always strictly and rigidly followed. A judicial pronouncement in
an earlier decision may be followed as a precedent in a
subsequent case only when its reasoning and justification are
relevant, and the court in the latter case accepts such
reasoning and justification to be applicable to the case. The
application of the precedent is for the sake of convenience and
stability.
Second: Some intervenors are grossly misleading the public by
their insistence that the Constitutional Commission extended to
RATIO:
HELD:
Petition GRANTED. Ombudsman directed to dismiss
complaints and to refer said complaint to supreme court for
appropriate action.
July 14, 2000 - SP Formaran filed a motion for inhibition for Judge
Muro to inhibit himself from further handling the case.
July 18, 2000 the motion was heard and submitted for
resolution. SP Formaran was informed that the staff of CA
Justice Demetria called and that the Justice wanted to speak
with him. Later in the afternoon, Justice Demetria, Go Teng
Kok and his lawyer Atty. Reinerio Paas (which is also a close
friend of the Justice) went to SP Formarans office at the DOJ.
Go Teng Kok pleaded with Formaran to withdraw his motion to
inhibit Judge Muro as this would delay the case and that a new
judge might convict his friend, accused Yu Yuk Lai. Justice
Demetria asked about the status of the case and asked him if
he could help Go Teng Kok.
On the same day (3pm), CSP Zuno received a call from Justice
Demetria who requested him to instruct SP Formaran to
withdraw the motion for inhibition of Judge Muro so that the
Judge could already issue an order.
Justice Demetria reasoned out that it was purely accidental that he
saw Go Teng Kok at the DOJ because his primary reason was
to visit old friends. Also, he merely requested SP Formaran to
do something to help Go Teng Kok about the case without
specifying what kind of help. And He denied the call he had
with CSP Zuno.
Issue/s:
WoN respondent Justice Demetria interceded in
behalf of suspected drug queen Yu Yuk Lai in violation of Rule
2.04, Canon 2, Code of Judicial Conduct8. YES
Ratio:
Decision:
Justice Demetrio G. Demetria is GUILTY of violating Rule 2.04 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct. He is ordered DISMISSED from
the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to
his appointment or reappointment to any government office,
agency, instrumentality, including any government owned or
controlled corporation or institution.
ii.
the broad exceptions provided under Section 7, Article IXB of the 1987 Constitution. To do so would make the
intent of the framers in ensuring that the President and
official family would have stricter prohibitions void.
4. Prohibition under Section 13, Article 7- The prohibition against
holding dual or multiple offices or employment under
Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution must not be
construed as applying to posts occupied by the Executive
officials specified therein without additional compensation
in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as
required by the primary functions of said officials' office.
The reason is that these posts do no comprise "any other
office" within the contemplation of the constitutional prohibition
but are properly an imposition of additional duties and
functions on said officials. (Officials only allowed to hold
other offices only if said offices are closely related to and
are required by the officials primary function without
additional
compensation.
Think
Secretary
of
Transportations and Communications as Chairman of
Light Rail Transit Authority).
5.Ex-officio- the prohibition under Section 13, Article VII is not to be
interpreted as covering positions held without additional
compensation in ex-officio capacities as provided by law and
as required by the primary functions of the concerned official's
office. The term ex-officio means "from office; by virtue of
office." It refers to an "authority derived from official
character merely, not expressly conferred upon the
individual character, but rather annexed to the official
position." Ex-officio denotes an "act done in an official
character, or as a consequence of office, and without any other
appointment or authority than that conferred by the office." An
ex-officio member of a board is one who is a member by
virtue of his title to a certain office, and without further
warrant or appointment. (This shit just means ex-officio is
good and constitutional and other appointments and stuff
is bad and unconstitutional).
SC Decision: EO 284 is unconstitutional, all sitting cabinet
members are to vacate their positions outside of their
primary function.
Note: EO 284 is unconstitutional because it allows increased
number of positions to be held by cabinet members
compared to what the Constitution allows.
Civil Service Commission members are allowed to
o Flores v. Drilon, supra.
Flores v Drilon (1993)
*Franklin Drilon and Richard Gordon as respondents
SPECIAL ACTION in the SC. Prohibition
FACTS
The case is about the unconstitutionality of Sec. 13 par (d) of RA
7227, also known as the Bases Conversion and Development
Act of 1992, under which respondent Mayor Gordon of
Olongapo City was appointed Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of Subic Bay metropolitan Authority (SBMA). It is said
that the said proviso infringes on the following constitutional
provisions:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
(Land Title Abstract and Trust Co. v. Dworken), (State ex. rel.
Mckittrick v..C.S. Dudley and Co.): The practice of law is not
limited to the conduct of cases in court. A person is also
considered to be in the practice of law when he in a
representative capacity, engages in the business of advising
clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged
performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for
that purpose.
Philippine Lawyers Association v.Agrava: The practice of law is not
limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court. In general,
all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters
connected with the law incorporation services, where the work
done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of
the legal effect of facts and conditions, constitute as practice of
law.
Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 [1953 ed.]: Practice of law
under modern conditions embraces conveyancing, the giving
of legal advice on a large variety of subjects, and the
preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an
extensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs.
Although these transactions may have no direct connection
with court proceedings, they are always subject to become
involved in litigation.
Barr v Cardell: One may be a practicing attorney in following any
line of employment in the profession. If what he does exacts
knowledge of the law and is of a kind usual for attorneys
engaging in the active practice of their profession, and he
follows some one or more lines of employment such as this he
is a practicing attorney at law within the meaning of the statute.
111 ALR 23: 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 knowledge or skill.
(2) Excerpts from the record:
To avoid any misunderstanding which would result in excluding
members of the Bar who are now employed in the COA or
Commission on Audit, we would like to make the clarification
that this provision on qualifications regarding members of the
Bar does not necessarily refer or involve actual practice of law
outside the COA We have to interpret this to mean that as long
as the lawyers who are employed in the COA are using their
legal knowledge or legal talent in their respective work within
COA, then they are qualified to be considered for appointment
as members or commissioners, even chairman, of the
Commission on Audit.
MR. OPLE. Is he, in effect, saying that service in the COA by a
lawyer is equivalent to the requirement of a law practice that is
set forth in the Article on the Commission on Audit?
MR. FOZ. We must consider the fact that the work of COA,
although it is auditing, will necessarily involve legal work; it will
involve legal work. And, therefore, lawyers who are employed
in COA now would have the necessary qualifications in
accordance with the Provision on qualifications under our
seven years, two Members for five years, and the last
Members for three years, without reappointment. Appointment
to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the
predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or
designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
Anent Justice Teodoro Padilla's separate opinion, suffice it to say
that his definition of the practice of law is the traditional or
stereotyped notion of law practice, as distinguished from the
modern concept of the practice of law, which modern
connotation is exactly what was intended by the eminent
framers of the 1987 Constitution. Moreover, Justice Padilla's
definition would require generally a habitual law practice,
perhaps practiced two or three times a week and would outlaw
say, law practice once or twice a year for ten consecutive
years. Clearly, this is far from the constitutional intent.
HELD
Petition DISMISSED
NOTES
(1) If the Commission on Appointments rejects a nominee by the
President, may the Supreme Court reverse the Commission,
and thus in effect confirm the appointment? Clearly, the
answer is in the negative.
(2) In the same vein, may the Court reject the nominee, whom the
Commission has confirmed? NO
(3) If the United States Senate (which is the confirming body in the
U.S. Congress) decides to confirma Presidential nominee, it
would be incredible that the U.S. Supreme Court would still
reverse the U.S. Senate.
E. Local Government
Legaspi v. City of Cebu, G.R. No. 159110,
December 10, 2013, Bersamin, J.
FACTS:
On January 27, 1997 the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
the City of Cebu enacted Ordinance No. 1664 to
authorize the traffic enforcers of Cebu City to
immobilize any motor vehicle violating the parking
restrictions and prohibitions defined in Ordinance
No. 801 (Traffic Code of Cebu City).1
o
The Jabans, Jr. and Sr., and Legaspi both brought suit
against the City regarding the ordinance. All had
been affected by it, since all had cars that were
clamped in different instances. (Refer to case,
details dont seem pertinent)
The cases were consolidated before Branch 58 of the
RTC, which, after trial, rendered on January 22,
1999 its decision declaring Ordinance No. 1664 as
null and void
On June 16, 2003, the CA promulgated its assailed
decision,17overturning the RTCand declaring
Ordinance No. 1664 valid
Presumption of regularity
The determination of sufficiency of
form and exponent of the express grant of rulemaking power in the HOR
the Impeachment Rules are clear in
echoing the constitutional requirements and
providing that there must be a verified complaint
or resolution, and that the substance
requirement is met if there is a recital of facts
constituting
the
offense
charged
and
determinative of the jurisdiction of the
committee
The Constitution itself did not
provide for a specific method of promulgating the
Rules.
impeachment is primarily for the
protection of the people as a body politic, and
not for the punishment of the offender
3. THE ONE-YEAR BAR RULE
(P): start of the one-year bar from
the filing of the first impeachment complaint
against her on July 22, 2010 or four days before
the opening on July 26, 2010 of the 15th
Congress. She posits that within one year from
July 22, 2010, no second impeachment
complaint may be accepted and referred to
public respondent.
INITIATIVE: Filing of impeachment
complaint coupled with Congress taking initial
action of said complaint (referral of the complaint
to the Committee on Justice)
IMPEACH: to file the case before the
Senate
Rationale of the one-year bar: that
the purpose of the one-year bar is two-fold: 1)to
prevent undue or too frequent harassment; and
2) to allow the legislature to do its principal task
[of] legislation,
that there should only be ONE CANDLE that
is kindled in a year, such that once the candle
starts burning, subsequent matchsticks can no
longer rekindle the candle. (Gutierrez vs. HOR,
2011)
- JAGB
About these ads
Share this:
TwitterFacebook
Related
Quick Facts and Doctrines (Congress)
In "Constitutional Law"
Valeroso v People
In "Criminal Law"
SYCIP JR. v. CA
In "Criminal Law"
Notes:
In G.R. No. 171396, petitioners Randolf S. David, et
al. assailed PP 1017 on the grounds that (1) it
encroaches on the emergency powers of Congress;
(2) it is a subterfuge to avoid the constitutional
requirements for the imposition of martial law; and
(3) it violates the constitutional guarantees of
freedom of the press, of speech and of assembly.
In G.R. No. 171409, petitioners Ninez Cacho-Olivares
and Tribune Publishing Co., Inc. challenged the
CIDGs act of raiding the Daily Tribune offices as a
clear case of censorship or prior restraint. They
also claimed that the term emergency refers only
to tsunami, typhoon, hurricane and similar
occurrences, hence, there is absolutely no
emergency that warrants the issuance of PP 1017.
In
Facts:
Governor-General
suspended the privilege of
the writ, pursuant to a
resolution of the Philippine
disorderly
conduct
for
assaulting another Senator.
Held: Suspension was illegal
because the Jones law does
not authorize the senate to
suspend
an
appointive
member. However, the SC
does not possess the power
of coercion to make the
Philippine Senate take any
particular action.
Philippine Legislature
or any branch thereof
cannot be directly
controlled
in
the
exercise
of
their
legislative powers by
any judicial process
o Other cases applying the political
question doctrine to the internal
affairs of the legislature:
Vera v Avelino (1946)
Mabanag v Lopez-Vito (1947)
Arnault v Balagtas (1955)
Osmena v Pendatun (1960)
o Avelino v Cuenco (1949)
Facts: Senate president Jose
Avelino, who was deposed
and replaced, questioned his
successors title claiming that
the latter had been elected
without a quorum.
Held: Petition was first
dismissed on the ground that
such was an internal matter
and not subject to judicial
review. On reconsideration,
Court held that it could
assume jurisdiction over the
controversy
in
light
of
subsequent events justifying
intervention among which
was the existence of a
quorum.
Petition
was
ultimately
dismissed
but
Court declared respondent
Cuenco as the legally elected
Senate President.
o Other cases wherein the Court
brushed aside the political question
doctrine and assumed jurisdiction
whenever it found constitutionallyimposed limits on the exercise of
powers
conferred
upon
the
legislature. The exercise of the
legislatures power is subject to
Judicial inquiry is
confined
to
the
question of whether
the President did not
act arbitrarily
o The issue of whether the Presidents
exercise of power was justiciable
divided the Court down the middle in
the following cases
Javellana
v
Executive
Secretary (1973)
Aquino, Jr. v Enrile (1973)
Garcia-Padilla v Enrile (1983):
held that the President must
be given absolute control in
times of war or national
emergency
Morales, Jr. v Enrile (1983;
promulgated six days after
Garcia-Padilla):
reiterated
Lansang
1987 Constitution Commission recognized 2
lessons from EDSA:
o the need to grant the Court the
express power to review the
exercise
of
the
powers
as
commander-in-chief by the President
and deny it of any discretion to
decline its exercise
o the need to compel the Court to be
pro-active
by
expanding
its
jurisdiction
o Thus, Art VIII, Sec 1: judicial power
includes the duty of the courtsto
determine whether or not there has
been a gave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of the government
It may be conceded that the
Presidents calling out power
may be a lesser power than
the power to suspend the
privilege of the writ and to
declare martial law but even
then, its exercise cannot be
left to the absolute discretion
of the Chief Executive.
The Court is charged with the special duty of
determining the limitations which the law places
upon all official action. The Court has the
responsibility being the ultimate interpreter of the
fundamental law.
o ITF v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 159139, January 13,
2004
been
Substantive:
3. WON Comelec gravely abused its discretion when it
awarded the contract to MPC - YES, YES, A
THOUSAND TIMES YES
Grave abuse of discretion is done when 1) an act
is done contrary to the Constitution; 2) an act is
executed
whimsically,
capriciously,
or
arbitrarily out of malice, ill will, or personal bias
Ratio:
1. The subject matter is a 'matter of public concern
and imbued with public interest.' It is of 'paramount
public interest' and 'transcendental importance.'
Comelec's failed bidding and questionable award of
contract would impact directly on the success or the
failure of the electoral process. The core of the
democratic process. The will of the people should
not be impaired! The ballot should be untainted!
2. Yep. Sec. 55 of RA 9184 (Govt Procurement
Reform Law) provides that the protest should go
first to the head of the procuring entity. May 29
letter is a protest. That is enough.
3.a. Comelec failed to establish the identity, existence,
and eligibility of MPC as a bidder
- Proofs of existence presented by MPC (see things
we need to know about MPC) not enough. That
letter is self-serving and uncorroborated. The
3.
RATIO
Torrecampo is not entitled to an injunction.
Torrecampo seeks judicial review of a question
of Executive policy, a matter outside this
Courts jurisdiction. Torrecampo failed to show
that respondents committed grave abuse of
discretion that would warrant the exercise of this
Courts extraordinary certiorari power.
In effect, Torrecampo wants the Court to determine
whether the Tandang Sora area is a better
alternative to the RIPADA area for the C-5 Road
Extension Project.
The determination of where, as between two possible
routes, to construct a road extension is obviously
not within the province of this Court. Such
determination belongs to the Executive branch.
HELD
Petition DENIED
o Planters Products Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation,
G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008
Planters Products Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation (2008)
Review on certiorari of the decision of CA
FACTS
Planters Products Inc. (PPI) and Fertiphil Corp
are engaged in the importation and distribution of
fertilizers, pesticides and agricultural chemicals.
President Marcos issued LOI no. 1465 which
provided for the imposition of a capital recovery
component (CRC) on the domestic sale of all
grades of fertilizers in the Philippines
However, after the 1986 EDSA Revolution, the
Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA), the body to
whom Fertiphil paid the capital contribution
component (worth P10 per bag) voluntarily stopped
the imposition of the P10 levy.
o Fertiphil demanded from PPI a refund of the
amounts it paid under LOI No. 1465, but PPI
refused to accede to the demand.
Fertiphil avers that LOI No. 1465 is
unconstitutional; FPA, through SG, countered that it
was a valid exercise of police power to ensure
stability in the fertilizer industry
RTC: ruled in favor of Fertiphil; CA affirmed
decision of RTC but deleted the award for
attorneys fees
ISSUE
1. WON Fertiphil has locus standi to question the
constitutionality of LOI no. 1465? YES
2.
WON constitutionality of said LOI may be
resolved by RTC YES
3. WON P10 levy is a valid exercise of power of
taxation / police power - NO
RATIO
1.
Notes:
-There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: (1)
by birth, and (2) by naturalization. These
ways of acquiring citizenship correspond to
the two kinds of citizens: the natural-born
citizen, and the naturalized citizen.
R.A. No. 2630:
Section 1. Any person who had lost his
Philippine citizenship by rendering service
to, or accepting commission in, the Armed
Forces of the United States, or after
separation from the Armed Forces of the
United States, acquired United States
citizenship, may reacquire Philippine
citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines and
registering the same with Local Civil
Registry in the place where he resides or
last resided in the Philippines.
The said oath of allegiance shall contain a
renunciation of any other citizenship. Having
thus taken the required oath of allegiance to
the Republic and having registered the
same in the Civil Registry of Magantarem,
Pangasinan in accordance with the afore
cited provision, respondent Cruz is deemed
to have recovered his original status as a
natural-born citizen, a status which he
acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino
father. It bears stressing that the act of
repatriation allows him to recover, or return
to, his original status before he lost his
Philippine citizenship.
o
o
o
Facts:
Petitioner Ernesto S. Mercado and private
respondent Eduardo B. Manzano were candidates
for vice mayor of the City of Makati in the May 11,
1998 elections.
A petition for disqualification was filed against
Manzano. A certain Ernesto Mamaril alleged that
private respondent was not a citizen of the
Philippines but of the United States. This resulted in
respondent Eduardo Manzanos proclamation as
vice mayor to be suspended.
COMELEC Second Division granted such petition
on the ground that he is a dual citizen and, under
40(d) of the Local Government Code, persons
with dual citizenship are disqualified from running
for any elective position.
Section 40 of the Local Government Code of 1991
(R.A. No. 7160), which declares as disqualified
from running for any elective local position: . . . (d)
Those with dual citizenship.
In his answer to the petition filed on April 27, 1998,
the respondent admitted that he is registered as a
foreigner with the Bureau of Immigration under
Alien Certificate of Registration No. B-31632 and
alleged that he is a Filipino citizen because he was
born in 1955 of a Filipino father and a Filipino
mother. He was born in the United States, San
Francisco, California, on September 14, 1955, and
is considered an American citizen under US
HELD:
Petition DISMISSED.
Issue:
Ratio:
1. Qualified citizens abroad- The essence of Ra
9189 is to enfranchise overseas qualified
Filipinos. R.A. No. 9189 was enacted in
obeisance to the mandate of the first paragraph
of Section 2, Article V of the Constitution that
Congress shall provide a system for voting by
qualified Filipinos abroad. It must be stressed
that Section 2 does not provide for the
parameters of the exercise of legislative
authority in enacting said law. Hence, in the
absence of restrictions, Congress is presumed
to have duly exercised its function as defined in
Article VI of the Constitution.
2. Residency and Domicile concerning the
affidavit- under election laws, both are used
synonymously
with
each
other.
The
requirement of an execution of an affidavit is
not an enabling or enfranchising act. It serves
as an explicit expression that the citizen is not
abandoning his domicile of origin. This
expression is based on the promise that they
would resume residency in the Philippines not
later than 3 years. Failure to do so would mean
perpetual disenfranchisement of the citizen.
3. Proclamation of winning candidates the phrase
is far too sweeping. Only Congress has the power
to proclaim the winner of the Presidential and Vice
Presidential Race. Sec. 18 of RA 9189 states that
Comelec may proclaim the winning candidates
however paragraph 4 of Section 4 of Article 7 of
Constitution states that Congress has the duty to
canvass the votes for presidential and vice
presidential position which means it also has the
duty to proclaim the winners.
4. Approval of Joint Congressional Oversight
Committee Under paragraph 1 section 2 of Article
9 of Constitution, Comelec alone has power to
formulate rules and regulations is implicit in its
power to implement regulations under the said
statute. Sec 17 states that voting by mail shall be
authorized by the Comelec in not more than 3
countries subject to the approval of the Joint
Congressional Oversight Committee . It is only the
Supreme Court may review Comelec rules and only
in cases of grave abuse of discretion. By vesting
itself with the powers to approve, review, amend,
and revise the IRR for The Overseas Absentee
Voting Act of 2003, Congress went beyond the
scope of its constitutional authority. Congress
trampled upon the constitutional mandate of
independence of the COMELEC.
SC Decision: the petition is partly GRANTED.
1. The following portions of R.A. No. 9189 are
declared VOID for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
Limitations:
o
must be in aid of its legislative functions
o
must be conducted in accordance with duly
published rules of procedure
o
persons appearing therein are afforded their
constitutional rights.
Powers:
o
issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum
to a witness in any part of the country, signed by
the chairperson or acting chairperson and the
Speaker or acting Speaker
o
thirds (2/3) of all its members constituting a
quorum, punish for contempt any person who:
o
refuses, after being duly summoned, to obey
such summons without legal excuse
o
refuses to be sworn or placed under
affirmation
o
refuses to answer any relevant inquiry
o
refuses to produce any books, papers,
documents or records that are relevant to the
inquiry and are in his/her possession;
o
acts in a disrespectful manner towards any
member of the Committee or commits misbehavior
in the presence of the committee
o
unduly interferes in the conduct of
proceedings during meetings
Legislative supervision
Accordingly,
COMELEC
issued
Resolution no. 3584 which denied the
request to conduct a 2 day additional
registration of new voters
ISSUES
1. WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in issuing COMELEC Resolution
no. 3584? NO
2. WON Court can compel COMELEC through
mandamus to conduct a special registration
of new voters - NO
RATIO
1. Right to suffrage is not absolute. It is
subject to substantive requirements, set
out in Section 1, Article V of the
Constitution,
and
procedural
requirements (i.e. process of registration),
under RA no. 8189 or the Voters
Registration Act of 1996. The act of
registration
is
one
indispensable
precondition to the right of suffrage. The
State, in the exercise of its police power,
may enact laws to safeguard and
regulate the act of voters registration for
the ultimate purpose of conducting
honest, orderly and peaceful elections.
NOTES
RA no. 8189 An act providing for a general
registration of voters, adopting a system of
continuing
registration,
prescribing
procedure thereof and authorizing the
appropriation of funds therefor
Section 1, Article V Consti: Suffrage may be
exercised by all citizens of the Philippines
not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at
least eighteen years of age, and who shall
have resided in the Philippines for at least 1
year and in the place wherein they propose
to vote for at least 6 months immediately
preceding the election. No literacy, property,
or other substantive requirement shall be
imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
Section 3(a) of RA 8189: Registration refers to
the act of accomplishing and filing of a
sworn application for registration by a
qualified voter before the election officer of
the city or municipality wherein he resides
and including the same in the book of
registered voters upon approval by the
Election Registration Board.
The law aids the vigilant and not those who
slumber on their rights.
FACTS:
Manuel Imbong and Raul Gonzales, filing
separate cases and both interested in
running as candidates for delegates to the
Constitutional Convention, question the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 6132, claiming
that it prejudices their rights as such
candidates.
March 16, 1967 - Congress, acting as a
Constituent Assembly, passed Res. No. 2
which called for a Constitutional Convention
which shall have two delegates from each
representative district.
June 17, 1969 - Congress passed
Resolution No. 4 amending Resolution No.
2 by providing that the convention shall be
composed of 320 delegates with at least
two delegates from each representative
district.
August 24, 1970 - Congress, acting as a
legislative body, enacted R.A. 6132,
implementing Res Nos. 2 and 4 and
expressly repealing R.A 4914 which
previously implemented Res. No. 2.
Gonzales assails the validity of Sections 2,
4, 5, and par. 1 of 8(a), and the entire law,
ISSUES:
1. Does the Congress have the right to call for
a constitutional convention and set the
parameters of such convention?
2. Are the provisions of R.A. 6132
constitutional?
RATIO:
1. The Congress has authority to call a
constitutional
convention
as
the
constituent assembly. The Congress
also has the authority to enact
implementing details, contained in Res.
Nos. 2 and 4 and R.A. 6132, since such
details are within the competence of the
Congress in exercise of its legislative
power.
Congress, when acting as a Constituent
Assembly pursuant to Article XV of the 1987
Constitution, has full and plenary authority
to propose Constitutional amendments or to
call a convention for the purpose, by a
three-fourths vote of each House in joint
session assembled, but voting separately.
2.
The provisions are constitutional. Sec. 4 of
R.A. 6132 is merely in application with Sec. 2 of
Art. XII of the Constitution and does not constitute a
denial of due process or equal protection of the law.
Sec. 2 also merely obeyed the intent of the
Congress in Res. Nos. 2 and 4 regarding the
apportionment of delegates. The challenged
disqualification of an elected delegate from running
for any public office in Sec. 5 is a valid limitation as
it is reasonable and not arbitrary. Lastly, par. 1 of
Sec. 8(a) which is both contested by the petitioners
is still valid as the restriction contained in the
section is so narrow that basic constitutional rights
remain substantially intact and inviolate thus the
limitation is a valid infringement of the constitutional
guarantees invoked by the petitioners.
HELD:
Petitions cannot be granted.
1.
2.
3.
1.
RATIO:
1. NO.
Justice Laurel: "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."
Pascual v. The Secretary of Public Works:
validity of a statute may be contested only by one
who will sustain a direct injury, in consequence of
its enforcement.
Taxpayers only have standing on laws providing for
the disbursement of public funds.
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."
2.NO.
At the time the case was filed the Con-Con has not
yet finalized any resolution that would radically alter
the 1935 constitution therefore not yet ripe for
judicial review. The case becomes ripe when the
Con-Con has actually does something already.
Then the court may actually inquire into the
jurisdiction of the body.
Separation of power departments should be left
alone to do duties as they see fit. The Executive
and the Legislature are not bound to ask for advice
in carrying out their duties, judiciary may not
interfere so that it may fulfill its duties well. The
court may not interfere until the proper time comes
ripeness
Facts:
-On September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E.
Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 991 calling
for a national referendum on October 16, 1976 for
the Citizens Assemblies ("barangays") to resolve
some issues.
-On September 22, 1976, the President issued
another related decree, Presidential Decree No.
Ratio:
1. Procedural (jurisdiction) - Only the intervenors
brought this issue up. Both the Chief Accountant
and Auditor of the Convention (respondents)
concede that SC has jurisdiction since it is a
justiciable issue rather than a political question.
Since the issue is about constitutionality, the SC