Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gabriels Syllabus)
ARTICLE VI LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 1
*Republic Act No. 6735 (system of Initiative &
Referendum)
Section 5
1. Tobias vs. Abalos
2. Mariano Jr. vs. Comelec
3. Montejo vs. Comelec
4. Aguino vs. Comelec
5. Veteran Federation Party vs. Comelec
6. BANAT vs. Comelec
7. Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs.
Comelec
8. Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. COmelec
9. Palparan vs. HRET
*Republic Act No. 7941 (Party List System)
Section 6
10. Romualdez-Marcos vs. Comelec
11. Aquino vs. Comelec
12. Co. vs. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal
Section 7
13. Dimaporo vs. Mitra
Section 11
14. Jimenez vs. Cabangbang
15. Osmea vs. Pendatun
16. Pobre vs. Defensor-Santiago
Section 13
17. Zandueta vs. De la Costa
Section 14
18. Puyat vs. De Guzamn
Section 16
19. Santiago vs. Guingona
20. Avelino vs. Cuenco
21. Arroyo vs. De Venecia
22. Osmea vs. Pendatun
23. Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan
24. Paredes Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan
25. De Venecia vs. Sandiganbayan
26. US vs. Pons
27. Casco Philippine Chemical Co. vs. Gimenez
28. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado
Section 17
29. Robles vs. House of representatives
Electoral Tribunal
30. Angara vs. Electoral Commission
31. Lazatin vs. House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal
32. Abbas vs. Senate Electoral Tribunal
of
representatives
Section 18
37. Daza vs. Singson
38. Coseteng vs. mitra
39. Guingona vs. Gonzales
Section 21
40. Bengzon
vs.
senate
Blue
Ribbon
Committee
41. Arnault vs. Nazareno
42. Senate vs. Ermita
43. Gudani vs. Senga
44. In re Petition For Issuance of Writ of Habeas
Corpus of Camilo L. Sabio
45. Neri
vs.
Senate
Committee
on
Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations
46. Garciliiano vs. house of Representatives
Section 22
47. Senate vs. Ermita
Section 24
48. Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance
49. Alvarez vs. Gungona
Section 25
50. Garcia vs. Mata
51. Demetria vs. Alba
52. Philconsa vs. Enriquez
Section 26
53. Philconsa vs. Gimenez
54. Tio vs. Videogram Regulatory Board
55. Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado
56. Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance
57. Tan vs. Del Rosario
58. Tobias vs. Abalos
59. ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita
Section 27
60. Gonzales vs. Macaraig
61. Bengzon vs. Drilon
62. Philconsa vs. Enriquez
Section 28
63. Kapatiran
ng
mga
Naglilingkod
Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas vs. Tan
64. Lung Center vs. Quezon City
65. Province of Abra vs. Hernando
66. Abra Valley College vs. Aquino
sa
Section 29
25
Section 30
72. First lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals
73. Diaz vs. Court of Appeals
Section 32
74. Subic Bay
COMELEC
Metropolitan
Authority
vs.
SECTION 1
Republic Act No. 6735
1989
August 4,
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
503,487
5.5%
Rene M. Silos
Melvyn
D.
Eballe
2. ABA
321,646
3.51%
Leonardo
Q.
Montemayor
3. ALAGAD
312,500
3.41%
Diogenes
Osabel
S.
4.VETERANS
FEDERATION 304,802
Eduardo
Pilapil
P.
3.33%
5. PROMDI
255,184
2.79%
6. AKO
239,042
2.61%
Ariel A. Zartiga
7. NCSCFO
238,303
2.60%
Gorgonio
Unde
P.
8. ABANSE! 235,548
PINAY
2.57%
Patricia
Sarenas
M.
9. AKBAYAN
232,376
2.54%
Loreta Ann
Rosales
P.
10. BUTIL
215,643
2.36%
Benjamin
Cruz
A.
11.
SANLAKAS
194,617
2.13%
Renato
Magtubo
B.
12.
COOP- 189,802
NATCCO
2.07%
Cresente
Paez
C.
40
41
ISSUE/S:
1. Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list
representatives mentioned in Section 5 (2),
Article VI of the Constitution, mandatory or is it
merely a ceiling? In other words, should the
twenty percent allocation for party-list solons
be filled up completely and all the time?
2. Are the two percent threshold requirement
and the three-seat limit provided in Section 11
(b) of RA 7941 constitutional?
3. If the answer to Issue 2 is in the affirmative,
how should the additional seats of a qualified
party be determined?
HELD:
The 20% allocation is merely a ceiling.
The pertinent provision15 of the Constitution on
the
composition
of
the
House
of
Representatives reads as follows:
"Sec. 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
42
43
503,48
7
5.73
2. ABA
321,64
6
3.66
3. ALAGAD
312,50
0
3.55
4.
VETERANS
FEDERATIO
N
304,80
2
3.47
5. PROMDI
255,18
4
2.90
44
239,04
2
2.72
7. NCSCFO
238,30
3
2.71
8. ABANSE! 235,54
PINAY
8
2.68
9. AKBAYAN 232,37
6
2.64
10. BUTIL
215,64
3
2.45
11.
SANLAKAS
194,61
7
2.21
2.16
13.
COCOFED
2.12
186,38
8
Total
3,429,3 13
32
7
52
38
However, since Section 11 of RA 7941
sets a limit of three (3) seats for each party,
those obtaining more than the limit will have
to give up their excess seats. Under our
present set of facts, the thirteen qualified
parties will each be entitled to three seats,
resulting in an overall total of 39. Note that like
the previous proposal, the Niemeyer formula
would violate the principle of "proportional
representation," a basic tenet of our party-list
system.
The Niemeyer formula, while no doubt
suitable for Germany, finds no application in
the Philippine setting, because of our threeseat limit and the non-mandatory character of
the twenty percent allocation. True, both our
Congress and the Bundestag have threshold
requirements -- two percent for us and five for
them. There are marked differences between
the two models, however. As ably pointed out
by private respondents,26 one half of the
German Parliament is filled up by party-list
members. More important, there are no seat
limitations, because German law discourages
the proliferation of small parties. In contrast,
RA 7941, as already mentioned, imposes a
three-seat limit to encourage the promotion of
the multiparty system. This major statutory
difference makes the Niemeyer formula
completely inapplicable to the Philippines.
Just as one cannot grow Washington
apples in the Philippines or Guimaras mangoes
in the Arctic because of fundamental
environmental differences, neither can the
Niemeyer formula be transplanted in toto here
45
46
Additional
seats
for
concerned
party
Total
No.
of
votes
for
party-list
system
No.
of
additional
seats
=
x allocated
to
No. of votes of
the
first
first party
party
Total
No.
of
for party list
system
In simplified form, it is written as follows:
No.
of
Additional
No. of votes of
additional
seats
concerned party
seats
for
=
x allocated
concerned
No. of votes of
to
party
first party
the
first
party
Thus, in the case of ABA, the additional
number of seats it would be entitled to is
computed as follows:
No. of votes
Additional
of ABA
No.
of
seats
additional
for
= No. of vites x seats
concerned
of
allocated to
party (ABA)
first
party
the first party
(APEC)
Substituting actual values would result in the
following equation:
Additional
= 321,64 x 1 .64 or 0 additional
seats
6
= seat,
since
for
rounding off is not
concerned
party (ABA)
503,48
7
to be applied
1. APEC
503,487
5.50%
2. ABA
321,646
3.51%
321,646 / 1
503,487 *
1 = 0.64
3.
ALAGAD
312,500
3.41%
312,500 / 1
503,487 *
1 = 0.62
4.
VETERAN
S
FEDERATI
ON
304,802
3.33%
304,802 / 1
503,487 *
1 = 0.61
5.
PROMDI
255,184
2.79%
255,184 / 1
503,487 *
1 = 0.51
6. AKO
239,042
2.61%
239,042 / 1
503,487 *
1 = 0.47
7. NCSFO
238,303
2.60%
238,303 / 1
503,487 *
1 = 0.47
8.
ABANSE!
235,548
2.57%
321,646 / 1
503,487 *
1 = 0.47
9.
AKBAYAN!
232,376
2.54%
232,376 / 1
503,487 *
1 = 0.46
10. BUTIL
215,643
2.36%
215,643 /
503,487 *
1 = 0.43
1
11.
SANLAKA
S
194,617
2.13%
194,617 / 1
503,487 *
1 = 0.39
2.07%
189,802 / 1
503,487 *
1 = 0.38
13.
COCOFED
2.04%
186,388 / 1
503,487 *
1 = 0.37
PINAY
186,388
47
RULING: The court maintains a Philippinestyle party-list election has at least four
inviolable parameters as clearly stated in
Veterans. For easy reference, these are:
First, the twenty percent allocation
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;
Second, the two percent threshold
only those parties garnering a minimum of two
percent of the total valid votes cast for the
party-list system are qualified to have a seat
in the House of Representatives;
Third, the three-seat limit 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;
Fourth, proportional representation
the additional seats which a qualified party is
entitled to shall be computed in proportion to
their total number of votes.
From the first formula in Veterans, thus:
48
Number
of
seats
.20 available to
party-list
representatives
.80
This
formula
allows
for
the
corresponding increase in the number of seats
available
for
party-list
representatives
whenever a legislative district is created by
law. Since the 14th Congress of the Philippines
has 220 district representatives, there are 55
seats available to party-list representatives.
220
x .20 = 55
.80
After prescribing the ratio of the
number of party-list representatives to the
total
number
of
representatives,
the
Constitution left the manner of allocating the
seats available to party-list representatives to
the wisdom of the legislature.
Allocation
of
Seats
Representatives:
for
Party-List
49
50
BUHAY
1,169,
234
48
KALAHI
88,868
BAYAN
MUNA
979,03 49
9
APOI
79,386
CIBAC
755,68 50
6
BP
78,541
GABRIEL 621,17 51
A
1
AHONBA 78,424
YAN
APEC
619,65 52
7
BIGKIS
77,327
A
TEACHE
R
490,37 53
9
PMAP
75,200
AKBAYA
N
466,11 54
2
AKAPIN
74,686
ALAGAD 423,14 55
9
PBA
71,544
COOPNATCCO
409,88 56
3
GRECON
62,220
10
BUTIL
409,16 57
0
BTM
60,993
11
BATAS
385,81 58
0
A SMILE
58,717
12
ARC
374,28 59
8
NELFFI
57,872
13
ANAKPA
WIS
370,26 60
1
AKSA
57,012
14
ABONO
339,99 61
0
BAGO
55,846
15
AMIN
338,18 62
5
BANDILA 54,751
16
AGAP
328,72 63
4
AHON
54,522
17
AN
WARAY
321,50 64
3
ASAHAN
MO
51,722
18
YACAP
310,88 65
9
AGBIAG!
50,837
19
FPJPM
300,92 66
3
SPI
50,478
20
UNI-MAD 245,38 67
2
BAHANDI 46,612
ABS
235,08 68
6
ADD
45,624
43
ASSALA
M
110,44 90
0
BUKLOD
FILIPINA
8,915
22
KAKUSA
228,99 69
9
AMANG
43,062
44
DIWA
107,02 91
1
LYPAD
8,471
23
KABATAA 228,63 70
N
7
ABAY
PARAK
42,282
45
ANC
99,636 92
AA8,406
KASOSYO
24
ABA-AKO 218,81 71
8
BABAE
KA
36,512
46
SANLAK
AS
97,375 93
KASAPI
6,221
25
ALIF
217,82 72
2
SB
34,835
47
ABC
90,058
TOTAL
15,950,
900
26
SENIOR
CITIZEN
S
213,05 73
8
ASAP
34,098
27
AT
197,87 74
2
PEP
33,938
28
VFP
196,26 75
6
ABA
33,903
ILONGGO
29
ANAD
188,52 76
1
VENDOR
S
33,691
30
BANAT
177,02 77
8
ADDTRIBAL
32,896
31
ANG
170,53 78
KASANG 1
GA
ALMANA
32,255
32
BANTAY
AANGAT
KA
PILIPINO
29,130
33
ABAKAD 166,74 80
A
7
AAPS
26,271
34
1-UTAK
164,98 81
0
HAPI
25,781
35
TUCP
162,64 82
7
AAWAS
22,946
36
37
169,80 79
1
COCOFE 155,92 83
D
0
SM
AGHAM
146,03 84
2
AG
141,81 85
7
AGING
PINOY
16,729
BUHAY
1,169,23 7.33%
4
BAYAN
MUNA
979,039 6.14%
CIBAC
755,686 4.74%
GABRIELA
621,171 3.89%
APEC
619,657 3.88%
A
TEACHER
490,379 3.07%
AKBAYAN
466,112 2.92%
ALAGAD
423,149 2.65%
COOPNATCCO
409,883 2.57%
10
BUTIL
409,160 2.57%
16,916
ANAK
39
ABANSE! 130,35 86
PINAY
6
APO
16,421
40
PM
119,05 87
4
BIYAYAN
G BUKID
16,241
41
AVE
110,76 88
9
ATS
14,161
110,73 89
2
UMDJ
SUARA
1
20,744
38
42
9,445
51
BATAS
385,810 2.42%
12
ARC
374,288 2.35%
13
14
ABONO
339,990 2.13%
15
AMIN
338,185 2.12%
16
AGAP
328,724 2.06%
17
Total
17
18
YACAP
310,889 1.95%
19
FPJPM
300,923 1.89%
20
UNI-MAD
245,382 1.54%
52
Rank
Party
Votes
Garn
ered
over
Total
Votes Votes
Garne for
red
Party
List,
in %
(A)
Guara
nteed
Seat
(First
Round
)
(B)
Additi (B)
onal
plus
Seats (C),
in
whol
e
(Seco inte
nd
gers
Roun
d)
(C)
(D)
Appl
ying
the
thre
e
seat
cap
(E)
AKBAY
AN
466,1 2.92
12
%
1.11
N.A.
ALAGA
D
423,1 2.65
49
%
1.01
N.A.
COOPNATCC
O
409,8 2.57
83
%
N.A.
10
BUTIL
409,1 2.57
60
%
N.A.
11
BATAS
385,8 2.42
10
%
N.A.
12
ARC
374,2 2.35
88
%
N.A.
13
ANAKP
AWIS
370,2 2.32
61
%
N.A.
14
N.A.
15
AMIN
338,1 2.12
85
%
N.A.
16
AGAP
328,7 2.06
24
%
N.A.
17
AN
321,5 2.02
WARAY 03
%
N.A.
18
YACAP
310,8 1.95
89
%
N.A.
19
FPJPM
300,9 1.89
23
%
N.A.
20
UNIMAD
245,3 1.54
82
%
N.A.
21
ABS
235,0 1.47
86
%
N.A.
22
KAKUS
A
228,9 1.44
99
%
N.A.
23
KABAT
AAN
228,6 1.43
37
%
N.A.
24
ABAAKO
218,8 1.37
18
%
N.A.
25
ALIF
217,8 1.37
22
%
N.A.
26
SENIO
R
CITIZE
NS
213,0 1.34
58
%
N.A.
91<!-[if
supportFo
otnotes]->[31]<!-[endif]-->
BUHAY
1,169 7.33
,234
%
2.79
N.A.
BAYAN
MUNA
979,0 6.14
39
%
2.33
N.A.
CIBAC
755,6 4.74
86
%
1.80
N.A.
27
AT
197,8 1.24
72
%
N.A.
GABRI
ELA
621,1 3.89
71
%
1.48
N.A.
28
VFP
196,2 1.23
66
%
N.A.
APEC
619,6 3.88
57
%
1.48
N.A.
29
ANAD
188,5 1.18
21
%
N.A.
A
490,3 3.07
Teache 79
%
r
1.17
N.A.
30
BANAT
177,0 1.11
28
%
N.A.
31
ANG
170,5 1.07
N.A.
53
Applying
the procedure
of seat
allocation as illustrated in Table 3 above, there
are 55 party-list representatives from the 36
winning party-list organizations. All 55
available party-list seats are filled. The
additional seats allocated to the parties with
sufficient number of votes for one whole seat,
in no case to exceed a total of three seats for
each party, are shown in column (D).
Participation of Major Political Parties in PartyList Elections
The Constitutional Commission adopted
a multi-party system that allowed all political
parties to participate in the party-list elections.
The deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission clearly bear this out, thus:
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I just
want to say that we suggested or proposed the
party list system because we wanted to open
up the political system to a pluralistic society
through a multiparty system. x x x We are for
opening up the system, and we would like very
much for the sectors to be there. That is why
one of the ways to do that is to put a ceiling on
the number of representatives from any single
party that can sit within the 50 allocated under
the party list system. x x x.
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, the
candidacy for the 198 seats is not limited to
political parties. My question is this: Are we
going to classify for example Christian
Democrats and Social Democrats as political
parties? Can they run under the party list
concept or must they be under the district
legislation side of it only?
MR. VILLACORTA. In reply to that query,
I think these parties that the Commissioner
mentioned can field candidates for the Senate
as well as for the House of Representatives.
Likewise, they can also field sectoral
candidates for the 20 percent or 30 percent,
whichever is adopted, of the seats that we are
allocating under the party list system.
54
KASAN
GGA
31
32
BANTA
Y
169,8 1.06
01
%
N.A.
33
ABAKA
DA
166,7 1.05
47
%
N.A.
34
N.A.
35
TUCP
162,6 1.02
47
%
N.A.
36
N.A.
Total
17
55
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
HELD:
1. As we explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, the
enumeration
of marginalized and
underrepresented sectors is not exclusive. The crucial
element is not whether a sector is specifically
enumerated, but whether a particular organization
complies with the requirements of the Constitution
and RA 7941. This argument that petitioner made
untruthful statements in its petition when it
alleged its national existence is a new one;
previously, the COMELEC claimed that petitioner
was not being truthful when it said that it or any
of its nominees/party-list representatives have not
violated or failed to comply with laws, rules, or
regulations relating to the elections. Nowhere was
this ground for denial of petitioners accreditation
mentioned or even alluded to in the Assailed
Resolutions. This, in itself, is quite curious,
considering that the reports of petitioners alleged
non-existence were already available to the
COMELEC prior to the issuance of the First Assailed
Resolution. At best, this is irregular procedure; at
worst, a belated afterthought, a change in
respondents theory, and a serious violation of
petitioners right to procedural due process.
Nonetheless, we find that there has been
no misrepresentation. A cursory perusal of Ang
Ladlads initial petition shows that it never claimed
to exist in each province of the Philippines. Rather,
petitioner alleged that the LGBT community in the
Philippines was estimated to constitute at least
670,000 persons; that it had 16,100 affiliates and
members around the country, and 4,044 members
in its electronic discussion group. Since the
COMELEC only searched for the names ANG
LADLAD LGBT or LADLAD LGBT, it is no surprise
that they found that petitioner had no presence in
any of these regions. In fact, if COMELECs findings
are to be believed, petitioner does not even exist
in Quezon City, which is registered as Ang Ladlads
principal place of business.
Against this backdrop, we find that Ang
Ladlad
has
sufficiently
demonstrated
its
compliance with the legal requirements for
accreditation. Indeed, aside from COMELECs
moral objection and the belated allegation of nonexistence, nowhere in the records has the
respondent ever found/ruled that Ang Ladlad is
not qualified to register as a party-list organization
under any of the requisites under RA 7941 or the
guidelines in Ang Bagong Bayani. The difference,
COMELEC claims, lies in Ang Ladlads morality, or
lack thereof.
2. Our Constitution provides in Article III,
Section 5 that [n]o law shall be made
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not petitioner was a resident, for
election purposes, of the First District of Leyte
for a period of one year at the time of the May
9, 1995 elections.
2. a) Prior to the elections
Whether or not the COMELEC properly
exercised its jurisdiction in disqualifying
petitioner outside the period mandated by the
Omnibus Election Code for disqualification
cases under Article 78 of the said Code.
b) After the Elections
Whether or not the House of Representatives
Electoral
Tribunal
assumed
exclusive
jurisdiction over the question of petitioner's
qualifications after the May 8, 1995 elections.
HELD:
While the COMELEC seems to be in
agreement with the general proposition that
for the purposes of election law, residence is
synonymous with domicile, the Resolution
reveals a tendency to substitute or mistake the
concept of domicile for actual residence, a
conception not intended for the purpose of
determining a candidate's qualifications for
election to the House of Representatives as
required by the 1987 Constitution. As it were,
residence, for the purpose of meeting the
qualification for an elective position, has a
settled meaning in our jurisdiction.
Article 50 of the Civil Code decrees that
"[f]or the exercise of civil rights and the
fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of
natural persons is their place of habitual
residence." In Ong vs. Republic this court took
the concept of domicile to mean an
individual's "permanent home", "a place to
which, whenever absent for business or for
pleasure, one intends to return, and depends
on facts and circumstances in the sense that
they disclose intent." Based on the foregoing,
domicile includes the twin elements of "the
fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed
place" and animus manendi, or the intention of
returning there permanently.
Residence, in its ordinary conception,
implies the factual relationship of an individual
to a certain place. It is the physical presence of
a person in a given area, community or
country. The essential distinction between
residence and domicile in law is that residence
involves the intent to leave when the purpose
for which the resident has taken up his abode
ends. One may seek a place for purposes such
as pleasure, business, or health. If a person's
intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
HELD:
ON THE ISSUE OF CITIZENSHIP
The
pertinent
portions
of
the
Constitution found in Article IV read:
SECTION 1, the following are citizens of
the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the
Philippines at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are
citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973,
of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
85
86
What
was
the
basis
for
the
Constitutional Convention's declaring Emil Ong
a natural born citizen?
Under the Philippine Bill of 1902,
inhabitants of the Philippines who were
Spanish subjects on the 11th day of April 1899
and then residing in said islands and their
children born subsequent thereto were
conferred the status of a Filipino citizen.
Was the grandfather of the private
respondent a Spanish subject?
Article 17 of the Civil Code of Spain
enumerates those who were considered
Spanish Subjects, viz:
ARTICLE 17. The following are Spaniards:
1. Persons born in Spanish territory.
2. Children born of a Spanish father or mother,
even though they were born out of Spain.
3. Foreigners who may have obtained
naturalization papers.
4. Those without such papers, who may have
acquired domicile in any town in the Monarchy.
(Emphasis supplied)
The domicile of a natural person is the
place of his habitual residence. This domicile,
once established is considered to continue and
will not be deemed lost until a new one is
established.
As earlier stated, Ong Te became a
permanent resident of Laoang, Samar around
1895. Correspondingly, a certificate of
residence was then issued to him by virtue of
his being a resident of Laoang, Samar.
The domicile that Ong Te established in
1895 continued until April 11, 1899; it even
went beyond the turn of the 19th century. It is
also in this place were Ong Te set-up his
business and acquired his real property.
As concluded by the Constitutional
Convention, Ong Te falls within the meaning of
sub-paragraph 4 of Article 17 of the Civil Code
of Spain.
Although Ong Te made brief visits to
China, he, nevertheless, always returned to
the Philippines. The fact that he died in China,
during one of his visits in said country, was of
no moment. This will not change the fact that
he already had his domicile fixed in the
Philippines and pursuant to the Civil Code of
Spain, he had become a Spanish subject.
If Ong Te became a Spanish subject by
virtue of having established his domicile in a
town
under
the
Monarchy
of
Spain,
necessarily, Ong Te was also an inhabitant of
the Philippines for an inhabitant has been
defined as one who has actual fixed residence
in a place; one who has a domicile in a place.
(Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Vol. II) A priori, there
87
88
89
SECTION 7
MOHAMMAD ALI DIMAPORO, vs. HON.
RAMON V. MITRA, JR., Speaker, House of
Representatives, and (Hon. QUIRINO D.
ABAD SANTOS, JR.) HON. CAMILO L.
SABIO
Secretary,
House
of
representatives,
G.R. No. 96859 October 15, 1991
DAVIDE, JR., J.
FACTS: Petitioner Mohamad Ali Dimaporo was
elected Representative for the Second
Legislative District of Lanao del Sur during the
1987 congressional elections. He took his oath
of office on 9 January 1987 and thereafter
performed the duties and enjoyed the rights
and privileges pertaining thereto.
On 15 January 1990, petitioner filed
with the Commission on Elections a Certificate
of Candidacy for the position of Regional
Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao. The election was scheduled for 17
February 1990.
Upon
being
informed
of
this
development by the Commission on Elections,
respondents Speaker and Secretary of the
House of Representatives excluded petitioner's
name from the Roll of Members of the House
of Representatives pursuant to Section 67,
Article IX of the Omnibus Election Code.
Having lost in the autonomous region
elections, petitioner, in a letter dated 28 June
1990 and addressed to respondent Speaker,
expressed his intention "to resume performing
my duties and functions as elected Member of
Congress." The record does not indicate what
action was taken on this communication, but it
is apparent that petitioner failed in his bid to
regain his seat in Congress since this petition
praying for such relief was subsequently filed
on 31 January 1991.
In this petition, it is alleged that
following the dropping of his name from the
Roll, petitioner was excluded from all
proceedings of the House of Representatives;
he was not paid the emoluments due his
office; his staff was dismissed and disbanded;
and his office suites were occupied by other
On
the
contrary,
the
Constitutional
Commission only reaffirmed the grounds
previously found in the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions and deliberately omitted the
ground provided in Section 67, Article IX of B.P.
Blg. 881.
On the premise that the provision of
law relied upon by respondents in excluding
him from the Roll of Members is contrary to
the
present
Constitution,
petitioner
consequently concludes that respondents
acted without authority. He further maintains
that respondents' so-called "administrative
act" of striking out his name is ineffective in
terminating his term as Congressman. Neither
can it be justified as an interpretation of the
Constitutional
provision
on
voluntary
renunciation of office as only the courts may
interpret laws. Moreover, he claims that he
cannot be said to have forfeited his seat as it
is only when a congressman holds another
office or employment that forfeiture is
decreed. Filing a certificate of candidacy is not
equivalent to holding another office or
employment.
90
91
92
93
94
SECTION 11
NICANOR T. JIMENEZ, ET AL.,
BARTOLOME CABANGBANG,
G.R. No. L-15905 August 3, 1966
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
vs.
95
96
HELD:
No. Section 15, Article VI of our
Constitution provides that "for any speech or
debate" in Congress, the Senators or Members
of the House of Representative "shall not be
questioned in any other place." This section
was taken or is a copy of sec. 6, clause 1 of
Art. 1 of the Constitution of the United States.
In that country, the provision has always been
97
98
99
100
ANTERO
POBRE
vs.
SEN.
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
AC No. 7399 August 25, 2009
J. Velasco Jr
MIRIAM
101
102
103
SECTION 13
FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, vs. SIXTO DE LA
COSTA
G.R. No. L-46267 November 28, 1938
VILLA-REAL, J.:
FACTS:
Prior to the promulgation of
Commonwealth Act No. 145, the petitioner, the
Honorable Francisco Zandueta was discharging
the office of judge of first instance, Ninth
Judicial District, comprising solely the City of
Manila, and was presiding over the Fifth
Branch of the Court of First Instance of said
city, by virtue of an ad interim appointment
issued by the President of the Philippines in his
favor on June 2, 1936, and confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments of the National
Assembly on September 8th of the same year.
On November 7, 1936, the date on
which Commonwealth Act No. 145, otherwise
known as the Judicial Reorganization Law, took
effect, the petitioner received from the
President of the Commonwealth a new ad
interim appointment as judge of first instance,
this time of the Fourth Judicial District, with
authority to preside over the Courts of First
Instance of Manila and Palawan, issued in
accordance with said Act. As the National
Assembly adjourned on November 20, 1937,
without its Commission on Appointments
having acted on said ad interim appointment,
another ad interim appointment to the same
office was issued in favor of said petitioner,
pursuant to which he took a new oath on
November 22, 1937, before discharging the
duties thereof. After his appointment and
qualification as judge of first instance of the
Fourth Judicial District, the petitioner, acting as
executive judge, performed several executive
acts, some of which consist in the designation
of the assistant clerk of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, Ladislao Pasicolan, as
administrative officer, under the orders of the
petitioner, as executive judge of said court, to
take charge of all matters pertaining to the
Court of First Instance of Palawan, which are
handled by said execute judge in Manila
(Exhibit 2); in the appointment of attorney
Rufo M. San Juan as notary public for the
Province of Palawan, said appointment to
expire on December 31, 1938 (Exhibit 3); in
HELD: Yes.
The rule of equity, sanctioned by
jurisprudence, is that when a public official
voluntarily accepts an appointment to an office
newly created or reorganized by law, which
new office is incompatible with the one
104
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
FACTS:
a) May 14,1979. An election for the
eleven Directors of the International Pipe
Industries
Corporation
(IPI)
a
private
corporation, was held. Those in charge ruled
that the following were elected as Directors:
Eugenio J. Puyat Eustaquio T.C. Acero
Erwin
L.
Chiongbian
R.
G.
Vildzius
Edgardo
P.
Reyes
Enrique
M.
Belo
Antonio
G.
Puyat
Servillano
Dolina
Jaime
R.
Blanco
Juanito
Mercado
Rafael R. Recto
Those named on the left list may be
called the Puyat Group; those on the right, the
Acero Group. Thus, the Puyat Group would be
in control of the Board and of the management
of IPI.
b) May 25, 1979. The Acero Group
instituted at the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) quo warranto proceedings,
docketed as Case No. 1747 (the SEC Case),
questioning the election of May 14, 1979. The
Acero Group claimed that the stockholders'
votes were not properly counted.
c) May 25-31, 1979. The Puyat Group
claims that at conferences of the parties with
respondent SEC Commissioner de Guzman,
Justice Estanislao A. Fernandez, then a
member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa,
orally entered his appearance as counsel for
respondent Acero to which the Puyat Group
objected on Constitutional grounds. Section
11, Article VIII, of the 1973 Constitution, then
in force, provided that no Assemblyman could
"appear
as
counsel
before
...
any
administrative body", and SEC was an
administrative body. Incidentally, the same
prohibition was maintained by the April 7,
1981 plebiscite. The cited Constitutional
prohibition
being
clear,
Assemblyman
Fernandez did not continue his appearance for
respondent Acero.
d) May 31, 1979. When the SEC Case
was called, it turned out that:
(i) On May 15, 1979, Assemblyman
Estanislao A. Fernandez had purchased from
Augusto A. Morales ten (10) shares of stock of
IPI for P200.00 upon request of respondent
Acero to qualify him to run for election as a
Director.
(ii) The deed of sale, however, was
notarized only on May 30, 1979 and was
sought to be registered on said date.
(iii) On May 31, 1979, the day following
the notarization of Assemblyman Fernandez'
purchase, the latter had filed an Urgent Motion
105
SECTION 14
106
ISSUES:
(1) Does the Court have jurisdiction over the
petition?
(2) In recognizing Respondent Guingona as the
Senate minority leader, did the Senate or
its officials, particularly Senate President
Fernan, violate the Constitution or the
laws?
(3) Was Respondent Guingona usurping,
unlawfully holding and exercising the
position of Senate minority leader?
(4) Did Respondent Fernan act with grave
abuse
of
discretion
in
recognizing
Respondent Guingona as the minority
leader?
HELD: After a close perusal of the pleadings
and a careful deliberation on the arguments,
pro and con, the Court finds that no
constitutional or legal infirmity or grave abuse
of discretion attended the recognition of and
the assumption into office by Respondent
Guingona as the Senate minority leader.
NOTE: The principle of separation of powers
ordains that each of the three great branches
of government has exclusive cognizance of
and is supreme in matters falling within its
own
constitutionally
allocated
sphere.
Constitutional respect and a becoming regard
for the sovereign acts, of a coequal branch
prevents this Court from prying into the
internal workings of the Senate. Where no
provision of the Constitution or the laws or
even the Rules of the Senate is clearly shown
to have been violated, disregarded or
overlooked, grave abuse of discretion cannot
be imputed to Senate officials for acts done
within their competence and authority. This
Court will be neither a tyrant nor a wimp;
rather, it will remain steadfast and judicious in
upholding the rule and majesty of the law.
(1) Yes.
First Issue: The Court's Jurisdiction
In the regular course, the regional trial
courts and this Court have concurrent
jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for
quo warranto (as well as certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus), and a basic deference to the
hierarchy of courts impels a filing of such
petitions in the lower tribunals. However, for
special and important reasons or for
exceptional and compelling circumstances, as
in the present case, this Court has allowed
exceptions to this doctrine. In fact, original
107
108
109
110
of
their
(2) No.
Second
Issue:
Violation
of
the
Constitution
Petitioners answer the above question
in the affirmative. They contend that the
constitutional provision requiring the election
of the Senate President "by majority vote of all
members" carries with it a judicial duty to
determine the concepts of "majority" and
"minority," as well as who may elect a minority
leader. They argue that "majority" in the
aforequoted constitutional provision refers to
that group of senators who (1) voted for the
winning Senate President and (2) accepted
committee chairmanships. Accordingly, those
who voted for the losing nominee and
accepted no such chairmanships comprise the
minority, to whom the right to determine the
minority leader belongs. As a result,
petitioners assert, Respondent Guingona
cannot be the legitimate minority leader, since
he voted for Respondent Fernan as Senate
President. Furthermore, the members of the
Lakas-NUCD-UMDP cannot choose the minority
leader, because they did not belong to the
minority, having voted for Fernan and
accepted committee chairmanships.
We
believe,
however,
that
the
interpretation proposed by petitioners finds no
clear support from the Constitution, the laws,
the Rules of the Senate or even from practices
of the Upper House.
The term "majority" has been judicially
defined a number of times. When referring to a
certain number out of a total or aggregate, it
simply "means the number greater than half or
more than half of any total." The plain and
unambiguous
words
of
the
subject
constitutional clause simply mean that the
Senate President must obtain the votes of
more than one half of all the senators. Not by
any construal does it thereby delineate who
comprise the "majority," much less the
"minority," in the said body. And there is no
showing that the framers of our Constitution
had in mind other than the usual meanings of
these terms.
In effect, while the Constitution
mandates that the President of the Senate
must be elected by a number constituting
more than one half of all the members thereof,
it does not provide that the members who will
not vote for him shall ipso facto constitute the
"minority," who could thereby elect the
minority leader. Verily, no law or regulation
111
112
113
114
ISSUE:
(1) Does the Court have jurisdiction over the
subject-matter?
(2) If it is has, were resolution Nos. 68 and 67
validly approved?
(3) Should the petition be granted?
HELD:
(1) No, in view of the separation of powers, the
political nature of the controversy (Alejandrino
vs. Quezon, 46 Phil., 83; Vera vs. Avelino, 77
Phil., 192; Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil., 1)
and the constitutional grant to the Senate of
the power to elect its own president, which
power should not be interfered with, nor taken
over, by the judiciary. We refused to take
cognizance of the Vera case even if the rights
of the electors of the suspended senators were
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
MIRIAM
DEFENSOR
SANTIAGO
SANDIGANBAYAN ET. AL.,
G.R. No. 128055 April 18, 2001
VITUG, J.:
vs.
129
130
131
132
133
CEFERINO
S.
PAREDES,
JR.
MANSUETO
J.
HONRADA
SANDIGANBAYAN ET. AL..
G.R. No. 108251 January 31, 1996
MENDOZA, J.:
and
vs.
134
135
ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not petitioners constitutional
right to due process was violated at various
stages of the preliminary investigation?
(2) Whether or not the prosecutors closed their
eyes to the fact that in filing the cases
private respondent Teofilo Gelacio engaged
in forum-shopping?
(3) Whether or not the cases were filed for
political harassment and there is in fact no
prima facie evidence to hold them
answerable for falsification of public
documents?
HELD:
(1) No. Anent the first ground, petitioners
contend that the filing of charges against them
was not recommended by the prosecutor who
conducted the preliminary investigation, but
by another one who, it is alleged, had no part
at all in the investigation.
Petitioners' contention has no basis in
fact. It appears that the preliminary
investigation of the complaint filed by Gelacio
was initially conducted by Public Prosecutor
Axalan who had been deputized to assist the
Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao in the
investigation of graft cases. Axalan prepared a
resolution. The records do not show what his
recommendation was. What is clear, however,
is that no action had been taken on his
recommendation in view of the fact that Atty.
Sansaet retracted an earlier statement he had
given to the effect that petitioner Paredes, Jr.
had been arraigned in Criminal Case No. 1393
before the case was dismissed. Atty. Sansaet
now claimed that no arraignment had been
held after all. This new development required
the reopening of the investigation (in fact
Paredes, Jr. and Honrada were required to
comment on the retraction), the reevaluation
of the evidence, and the preparation of a new
resolution. Gay Maggie Balajadia-Violan, Graft
Investigation Officer II of the Office of the
Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, was
designated to conduct the investigation and
prepare a report, which she did.
Violan's recommendation was indorsed
by Deputy Ombudsman Cesar Nitorreda to
136
137
138
139
140
CEFERINO
PAREDES
SANDIGANBAYAN
JR.
VS
vs.
141
142
143
144
145
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the title of R.A. No. 7354
embraces more than one subject and does
not express its purposes?
(2) Whether or not R.A. No. 7354 did not pass
the required readings in both Houses of
Congress and printed copies of the bill in
146
147
(2) No.
The petitioners maintain that the
second paragraph of Sec. 35 covering the
repeal of the franking privilege from the
petitioners and this Court under E.O. 207, PD
1882 and PD 26 was not included in the
148
(3) Yes.
The third and most serious challenge of
the petitioners is based on the equal
protection clause. It is alleged that R.A. No.
149
150
151
SECTION 17
REP. VIRGILIO P. ROBLES vs. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
and ROMEO L. SANTOS
G.R. No. 86647 February 5, 1990
MEDIALDEA, J.:
152
153
154
155
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction
over the Electoral Commission and the
subject matter of the controversy.
(2) Whether or not the Electoral Commission
acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction
in assuming to the cognizance of the
protest filed the election of the herein
petitioner notwithstanding the previous
confirmation of such election by resolution
of the National Assembly.
HELD:
(1) Yes. The separation of powers is a
fundamental principle in our system of
government. It obtains not through express
provision but by actual division in our
Constitution.
Each
department
of
the
government has exclusive cognizance of
matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
DR.
EMIGDIO
A.
BONDOC
vs.
REPRESENTATIVES MARCIANO M. PINEDA
ET. AL.,
G.R. No. 97710 September 26, 1991
GRIO-AQUIO, J.:
170
171
ISSUES:
(1) May the House of Representatives, at the
request of the dominant political party
therein, change that party's representation
in the House Electoral Tribunal to thwart
the promulgation of a decision freely
reached by the tribunal in an election
contest pending therein?
(2) May the Supreme Court review and annul
that action of the House?
(3) Whether or not the Resolution of the House
of
Representatives
violates
the
independence of the HRET?
(4) Whether or not disloyalty to party is a valid
cause for termination of membership in the
HRET?
(5) Whether
or
not
the
expulsion
of
Congressman Camasura violates his right
to security of tenure?
HELD:
(1) Section 17, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution supplies the answer to that
question. It provides:
Section 17. The Senate
and
the
House
of
Representatives
shall
each
have an Electoral Tribunal
which shall be the sole judge of
all contests relating to the
election,
returns
and
qualifications
of
their
respective
members,
Each
Electoral Tribunal shall be
composed of nine Members,
three of whom shall be Justices
of the Supreme Court to be
designated
by
the
Chief
Justice, and the remaining six
shall be Members of the
Senate
or
House
of
Representatives, as the case
may be, who shall be chosen
on the basis of proportional
representation
from
the
political parties and the parties
or organizations
registered
under the party list system
represented therein. The senior
Justice in the Electoral Tribunal
shall be its Chairman.
Section 17 reechoes Section 11, Article
VI of the 1935 Constitution, except the
provision on the representation of the main
172
173
174
disqualifying
Melchor
Chavez,
private
respondent therein, from running for the Office
of Senator in the May 11, 1992 elections.
The above-mentioned resolution was
received by respondent Comelec on May 6,
1992. On the same day, petitioner filed an
urgent motion with the Comelec praying that it
(1) disseminate through the fastest available
means this Court's Resolution dated May 5,
1992 to all regional election directors,
provincial election supervisors, city and
municipal election registrars, boards of
election inspectors, the six (6) accredited
political parties and the general public; and (2)
order said election officials to delete the name
of Melchor Chavez as printed in the certified
list of candidates tally sheets, election returns
and "to count all votes cast for the disqualified
Melchor Chavez in favor of Francisco I.
Chavez . . . ."
On May 8, 1992, the Comelec issued
Res. No. 92-1322 which resolved to delete the
name of Melchor Chavez from the list of
qualified candidates. However, it failed to
order the crediting of all "Chavez" votes in
favor of petitioner as well as the cancellation
of Melchor Chavez' name in the list of qualified
candidates.
According to petitioner, the Comelec
failed to perform its mandatory function under
Sec. 7, RA 7166 which states that if a
candidate has been disqualified, it shall be the
duty of the Commission to instruct without
delay the deletion of the name of said
candidate.
Thus, the name of Melchor Chavez
remained undeleted in the list of qualified
candidates on election day.
Confusion arose, allegedly nationwide,
as the "Chavez" votes were either declared
stray or invalidated by the Boards of Election
Inspectors (BEIs).
On May 11, 1992, Commissioner Rama
of respondent Comelec issued a directive over
radio and TV ordering all "Chavez" votes to be
credited in favor of petitioner. Petitioner
contends
that
the
radio
and
TV
announcements did not reach the BEI at the
170,354 precincts nationwide. As a result,
"Chavez" votes were not credited in favor of
petitioner.
On May 12, 1992, Comelec issued
another Resolution directing all municipal and
city election registrars throughout the country
to examine the minutes of voting submitted by
the BEIs and to credit all the "Chavez" votes,
which have been declared stray or invalidated
by the BEIs, in favor of petitioner.
175
176
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the SC can review the
alleged inaction of respondent Comelec in
ordering the deletion of Melchor Chavez's
name in the list of qualified candidates?
(2) Whether or not petitioner has a cause of
action against respondent COMELEC?
HELD: The petition is devoid of any merit.
(1) No. The alleged inaction of respondent
Comelec in ordering the deletion of Melchor
Chavez's name in the list of qualified
candidates does not call for the exercise of the
Court's function of judicial review. This Court
can review the decisions or orders of the
Comelec only in cases of grave abuse of
discretion committed by it in the discharge of
its quasi-judicial powers and not those arising
from the exercise of its administrative
functions. Respondent Commission's alleged
failure to implement its own resolution is
undoubtedly administrative in nature, hence,
beyond
judicial
interference.
Moreover,
respondent Comelec has in fact, on May 6,
1992 to be exact, ordered the deletion of
Melchor Chavez's name not only on the official
list of candidates, but also on the election
returns, tally sheet and certificate of canvass.
Hence, petitioner's allegation that respondent
Comelec failed to implement Res. No. 92-132
does not hold water. Be that as it may, there
are other compelling reasons why the instant
petition is bound to fail.
(2) No. A simple reading of the petition would
readily show that petitioner has no cause of
action, the controversy presented being one in
the nature of a pre-proclamation controversy.
While the Commission has exclusive
jurisdiction
over
pre-proclamation
177
178
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."
On March 3, 1995, the Party-List
System Act took effect. The Act sought to
"promote proportional representation in the
election of representatives, to the House of
Representatives through a party-list system of
registered national, regional and sectoral
parties or organizations or coalitions thereof,
which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties, and who lack welldefined political constituencies but who could
contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the
nation as a whole, to become members of the
House of Representatives.
In 1998, in accordance with the PartyList System Act, national elections were held
which included, for the first time, the election
through popular vote of party-list groups and
organizations whose nominees would become
members of the House. Proclaimed winners
were 14 party-list representatives from 13
organizations, including petitioners from partylist groups Association of Philippine Electric
179
180
181
182
FACTS:
These two cases are about the
authority of the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET) to pass upon the
eligibilities of the nominees of the party-list
groups that won seats in the lower house of
Congress.
In G.R. 189466, petitioner Daryl Grace
J. Abayon is the first nominee of the Aangat
Tayo party-list organization that won a seat in
the House of Representatives during the 2007
elections.
Respondents Perfecto C. Lucaban, Jr.,
Ronyl S. Dela Cruz, and Agustin C. Doroga, all
registered voters, filed a petition for quo
warranto with respondent HRET against
Aangat Tayo and its nominee, petitioner
Abayon, in HRET Case 07-041. They claimed
that Aangat Tayo was not eligible for a partylist seat in the House of Representatives, since
it did not represent the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors.
Respondent Lucaban and the others
with him further pointed out that petitioner
Abayon herself was not qualified to sit in the
House as a party-list nominee since she did
not
belong
to
the
marginalized
and
183
HELD: Yes.
Petitioners Abayon and Palparan have a
common theory: Republic Act (R.A.) 7941, the
Party-List System Act, vests in the COMELEC
the authority to determine which parties or
organizations have the qualifications to seek
party-list seats in the House of Representatives
during the elections. Indeed, the HRET
dismissed the petitions for quo warranto filed
with
it
insofar
as
they
sought
the
disqualifications of Aangat Tayo and Bantay.
Since petitioners Abayon and Palparan were
not elected into office but were chosen by their
respective organizations under their internal
rules, the HRET has no jurisdiction to inquire
into and adjudicate their qualifications as
nominees.
184
185
FACTS:
After
the
1987
congressional
elections, the House of Representatives
proportionally apportioned its twelve seats in
the Commission on Appointments among the
several political parties represented in that
chamber, including the Lakas ng Bansa, the
PDP-Laban, the NP-Unido, the Liberal Party,
and the KBL, in accordance with Article VI,
Section 18, of the Constitution. Petitioner Raul
A. Daza was among those chosen and was
listed as a representative of the Liberal Party.
On September 16, 1988, the Laban ng
Demokratikong Pilipino was reorganized,
resulting in a political realignment in the
186
SECTION 18
REP. RAUL A. DAZA
vs. REP. LUIS C.
SINGSON and HON. RAOUL V. VICTORINO
IN THE LATTER'S CAPACITY AS SECRETARY
OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS
G.R. No. 86344 December 21, 1989
CRUZ, J.:
HELD:
(1) No. Contrary to the respondent's
assertion, the Court has the competence to act
on the matter at bar. Our finding is that what is
before us is not a discretionary act of the
House of Representatives that may not be
reviewed by us because it is political in nature.
What is involved here is the legality, not the
wisdom, of the act of that chamber in
removing the petitioner from the Commission
on Appointments. That is not a political
question because, as Chief Justice Concepcion
explained in Tanada v. Cuenco:
... the term "political
question" connotes, in legal
parlance, what it means in
ordinary parlance, namely, a
question of policy. In other
words, ... it refers "to those
questions which, under the
Constitution, are to be decided
by
the
people
in
their
sovereign capacity,
or in
regard
to
which
full
discretionary
authority
has
been
delegated
to
the
Legislature or executive branch
of the Government." It is
concerned
with
issues
dependent upon the wisdom,
187
ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not the question raised by the
petitioner is political in nature?
(2) Whether or not the respondent he has
been improperly impleaded, the real party
respondent
being
the
House
of
Representatives
which
changed
its
representation in the Commission on
Appointments and removed the petitioner.?
(3) Whether or not the LDP is not entitled to a
seat in the Commission on Appointments
because it does not suffice the qualification
of being a political party.
188
189
not
provided
the
permanent
political
realignment
to
justify
the
questioned
reorganization.
On November 23, 1989, however, that
argument boomeranged against the petitioner.
On that date, the Commission on Elections in
an en banc resolution affirmed the resolution of
its First Division dated August 28, 1989,
granting the petition of the LDP for registration
as a political party. This has taken the wind out
of the sails of the petitioner, so to speak, and
he must now limp to shore as best he can.
The petitioner's contention that, even if
registered, the party must still pass the test of
time to prove its permanence is not
acceptable. Under this theory, a registered
party obtaining the majority of the seats in the
House of Representatives (or the Senate)
would still not be entitled to representation in
the Commission on Appointments as long as it
was organized only recently and has not yet
"aged." The Liberal Party itself would fall in
such a category. That party was created in
December 1945 by a faction of the
Nacionalista Party that seceded therefrom to
support Manuel A. Roxas's bid for the
Presidency of the Philippines in the election
held on April 23, 1946. The Liberal Party won.
At that time it was only four months old. Yet no
question was raised as to its right to be
represented
in
the
Commission
on
Appointments and in the Electoral Tribunals by
virtue of its status as the majority party in both
chambers of the Congress.
The LDP has been in existence for more
than one year now. It now has 157 members in
the House of Representatives and 6 members
in the Senate. Its titular head is no less than
the President of the Philippines and its
President is Senator Neptali A. Gonzales, who
took over recently from Speaker Ramon V.
Mitra. It is true that there have been, and there
still are, some internal disagreements among
its members, but these are to be expected in
any political organization, especially if it is
democratic in structure. In fact even the
monolithic Communist Party in a number of
socialist
states
has
undergone
similar
dissension, and even upheavals. But it surely
cannot be considered still temporary because
of such discord.
If the petitioner's argument were to be
pursued, the 157 members of the LDP in the
House of Representatives would have to be
denied representation in the Commission on
Appointments and, for that matter, also the
Electoral Tribunal. By the same token, the KBL,
which the petitioner says is now "history only,"
190
191
192
193
this
body
its
additional
representatives.
The proposed compromise above stated
was a temporary arrangement and, inspite of
the objections of Senator Guingona and
Osmea, to enable the Commission on
Appointments to be organized by the election
of its members, it was approved. The elected
members consisted of eight LDP, one LP-PDPLABAN, two NPC and one LAKAS-NUCD.
On September 23, 1992, Senator
Teofisto Guingona. Jr., in his behalf and in
behalf of Lakas-National Union of Christian
Democrats (LAKAS-NUCD), filed a petition for
the issuance of a writ of prohibition to prohibit
the respondent Senate President Neptali
Gonzales, as ex-officio Chairman of the
Commission
on
Appointments,
from
recognizing the membership of Senators
Alberto Romulo as the eight senator elected by
the LDP, and Wigberto E. Taada, as the lone
member representing the LP-PDP-LABAN, in the
Commission on Appointments, on the ground
that the proposed compromise of Senator
Tolentino was violative of the rule of
proportional representation, and that it is the
right of the minority political parties in the
Senate, consistent with the Constitution, to
combine their fractional representation in the
Commission on Appointments to complete one
seat therein, and to decide who, among the
senators in their ranks, shall be additionally
nominated and elected thereto.
Based
on
the
mathematical
computation of proportional representation of
the various political parties with elected
senators in the Senate, each of these political
parties is entitled to a fractional membership in
the Commission on Appointments as stated in
the first paragraph of this decision. Each
political party has a claim to an extra half seat,
and the election of respondents Senator
Romulo and Senator Taada to the Commission
on Appointments by the LDP majority is
precisely questioned by the petitioners
because, according to them, it unduly
increased the membership of LDP and LP-PDPLABAN in the commission and reduced the
membership of the LAKAS-NUCD and NPC
correspondingly. In view of the conflicting
claims of each of the political parties/coalition
duly represented in the Senate to a fractional
membership
in
the
Commission
on
Appointments, the election of respondents
Senator Romulo and Senator Taada has
become
controversial
and
its
validity
questionable. Hence, this petition. It has been
established that the legality of filling up the
194
Commission
on
Appointments
and
the
allocation of its membership, as follows:
Sec. 18. There shall be
a
Commission
on
Appointments consisting of the
President of the Senate as exofficio
Chairman,
twelve
members of the House of
Representatives, elected by
each house on the basis of
proportional
representation
from the political parties or
organizations registered under
the
party
list
system
represented
therein.
The
Chairman of the Commission
shall not vote except in case of
a tie. The Commission shall act
on all appointments submitted
to it within the session days of
the
Congress
from
their
submission of all the members.
(Emphasis supplied.)
It is an established fact to which all the
parties
agree
that
the
mathematical
representation of each of the political parties
represented in the Senate is as follows:
LDP
7.5 members
NPC
2.5 members
LAKAS-NUCD
1.5 members
LP-PDP-LABAN
.5 members
It is also a fact accepted by all such
parties that each of them entitled to a
fractional membership on the basis of the rule
on proportional representation of each of the
political parties. A literal interpretation of
Section 18 of Article VI of the Constitution
leads to no other manner of application than as
above. The problem is what to do with the
fraction of .5 or 1/2 to which each of the
parties is entitled. The LDP majority in the
Senate converted a fractional half membership
into a whole membership of one senator by
adding one half or .5 to 7.5 to be able to elect
Senator Romulo. In so doing one other party's
fractional membership was correspondingly
reduced leaving the latter's representation in
the Commission on Appointments to less than
their proportional representation in the Senate.
This is clearly a violation of Section 18 because
it is no longer in compliance with its mandate
that membership in the Commission be based
on the proportional representation of the
political parties. The election of Senator
Romulo gave more representation to the LDP
and reduced the representation of one political
party either the LAKAS-NUCD or the NPC.
195
HELD:
(1) There is no doubt that the issues involved
herein are constitutional in nature and are of
vital importance to our nation. They involve the
interpretation of Section 18, Article VI of the
Constitution which creates a Commission on
Appointments. Where constitutional issues are
properly raised in the context of the alleged
facts, procedural questions acquire a relatively
minor significance and the "transcendental
importance to the public of the case demands
that they be settled promptly and definitely
brushing aside . . . technicalities of procedure".
For the purpose of resolving the case at
bar, the instant petition may be regarded as
one of prohibition
wherein the Senate is
claimed to have acted without or in excess of
its jurisdiction when it designated respondent
Senator Romulo as eighth member of the
Commission
on
Appointments,
upon
nomination by the LDP, and respondent
Senator
Taada
as
LP
nominee,
notwithstanding, that, in both instance, LDP
and LP are each entitled only to "half a
member". In the alternative, the petition may
be regarded as one for mandamus, in which it
is claimed that the LAKAS-NUCD and NPC were
unlawfully excluded from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which each is
entitled. Considering the importance of the
case at bar and in keeping with the Court's
duty under the Constitution to keep the other
branches of the government within the limits of
the Constitution and the laws of the land, this
Court has decided to brush aside legal
technicalities of procedure and take cognizance
of this case.
elected
on
the
basis
of
proportional
representation of the resulting fractional
membership of the political parties represented
therein. To disturb the resulting fractional
membership of the political parties in the
Commission on Appointments by adding
together two halves to make a whole is a
breach
of
the
rule
on
proportional
representation because it will give the LDP an
added member in the Commission by utilizing
the fractional membership of the minority
political party, who is deprived of half a
representation.
The provision of Section 18 on
proportional representation is mandatory in
character and does not leave any discretion to
the majority party in the Senate to disobey or
disregard
the
rule
on
proportional
representation; otherwise, the party with a
majority representation in the Senate or the
House of Representatives can by sheer force of
number impose its will on the hapless minority.
By requiring a proportional representation in
the Commission on Appointments, Section 18
in effect works as a check on the majority party
in the Senate and helps to maintain the
balance of power. No party can claim more
than what it is entitled to under such rule. To
allow it to elect more than its proportional
share of members is to confer upon such a
party a greater share in the membership in the
Commission on Appointments and more power
to impose its will on the minority, who by the
same token, suffers a diminution of its rightful
membership in the Commission.
Section 18, also assures representation
in the Commission on Appointments of any
political party who succeeds in electing
members to the Senate, provided that the
number of senators so elected enables it to put
a representative in the Commission on
Appointments. Drawing from the ruling in the
case of Coseteng vs. Mitra, Jr., a political party
must have at least two senators in the Senate
to be able to have a representatives in the
Commission on Appointments, so that any
number less than 2 will not entitle such a party
a membership in the Commission on
Appointments. This applies to the respondent
Senator Taada.
We lay down the following guidelines
accordingly:
1) In the Senate, political party or
coalition must have at least two duly elected
senators for every seat in the Commission on
Appointments.
2) Where there are more than two
political parties represented in the Senate, a
196
197
SECTION 21
198
199
The
rights
of
persons
appearing in or affected by
such
inquiries
shall
be
respected.
The power of both houses of Congress
to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not,
therefore, absolute or unlimited. Its exercise is
circumscribed by the afore-quoted provision of
the Constitution. Thus, as provided therein, the
investigation must be "in aid of legislation in
accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure" and that "the rights of persons
appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall
be respected." It follows then that the rights of
persons under the Bill of Rights must be
respected, including the right to due process
and the right not to be compelled to testify
against one's self.
The power to conduct formal inquiries
or investigations in specifically provided for in
Sec. 1 of the Senate Rules of Procedure
Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation. Such
inquiries may refer to the implementation or
re-examination of any law or in connection
with any proposed legislation or the
formulation of future legislation. They may also
extend to any and all matters vested by the
Constitution in Congress and/or in the Seante
alone.
As held in Jean L. Arnault vs. Leon
Nazareno, et al., 16 the inquiry, to be within
the jurisdiction of the legislative body making
it, must be material or necessary to the
exervise of a power in it vested by the
Constitution, such as to legislate or to expel a
member.
Under Sec. 4 of the aforementioned
Rules, the Senate may refer to any committee
or committees any speech or resolution filed
by any Senator which in its judgment requires
an appropriate inquiry in aid of legislation. In
order therefore to ascertain the character or
nature of an inquiry, resort must be had to the
speech or resolution under which such an
inquiry is proposed to be made.
A perusal of the speech of Senator
Enrile reveals that he (Senator Enrile) made a
statement which was published in various
newspapers on 2 September 1988 accusing
Mr. Ricardo "Baby" Lopa of "having taken over
the FMMC Group of Companies." As a
consequence thereof, Mr. Lopa wrote a letter
to Senator Enrile on 4 September 1988
categorically denying that he had "taken over
" the FMMC Group of Companies; that former
PCGG
Chairman
Ramon
Diaz
himself
categorically stated in a telecast interview by
Mr. Luis Beltran on Channel 7 on 31 August
200
201
202
203
204
Legislative,
Executive, and Judicial. The legislative power is
vested in the Congress, which consists of the
Senate and the House of Representatives.
(Section 1, Article VI.) Each house may
determine the rules of its proceedings, punish
its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with
the concurrence of two-thirds of all its
Members, expel a Member. (Section 10, Article
VI.) The judicial power is vested in the
Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as
may be established by law. (Section 1, Article
VIII.) Like the Constitution of the United States,
ours does not contain an express provision
empowering either of the two Houses of
Congress to punish nonmembers for contempt.
It may also be noted that whereas in the
United States the legislative power is shared
by and between the Congress of the United
States, on the one hand, and the respective
legislatures of the different States, on the
205
206
its
constitutional
powers.
(Emphasis supplied.)
It may be contended that the
determination of the parties responsible for
the deal is incumbent upon the judicial rather
than upon the legislative branch. But we think
there is no basis in fact or in law for such
assumption. The petitioner has not challenged
the validity of Senate Resolution No. 8, and
that
resolution
expressly
requires
the
committee
to
determine
the
parties
responsible for the deal. We are bound to
presume that the Senate has acted in the due
performance of its constitutional function in
instituting the inquiry, if the act is capable of
being so construed. On the other hand, there
is no suggestion that the judiciary has
instituted an inquiry to determine the parties
responsible
for
the
deal.
Under
the
circumstances of the case, it appearing that
the questioned transaction was affected by the
head of the Department of Justice himself, it is
not reasonable to expect that the Fiscal or the
Court of First Instance of Manila will take the
initiative to investigate and prosecute the
parties responsible for the deal until and
unless the Senate shall determined those
parties are and shall taken such measures as
may be within its competence to take the
redress the wrong that may have been
committed against the people as a result of
the transaction. As we have said, the
transaction involved no less than P5,000,000
of public funds. That certainly is a matter of a
public concern which it is the duty of the
constitutional guardian of the treasury to
investigate.
If the subject of investigation before the
committee is within the range of legitimate
legislative inquiry and the proposed testimony
of the witness called relates to that subject,
obedience, to its process may be enforced by
the committee by imprisonment. (Sullivan vs.
Hill, 73 W. Va., 49; 79 S.E., 670; 40 Ann. Cas.
[1916 B.], 1115.)
The decision in the case of Kilbourn vs.
Thompson, 26 L. ed., 377, relied upon by the
petitioner, is not applicable here. In that case
the inquiry instituted by the House of
Representatives of the United States related to
a private real-estate pool or partnership in the
District of Columbia. Jay Cook and Company
had had an interest in the pool but become
bankrupts, and their estate was in course of
administration in a federal bankruptcy court in
Pennsylvania. The United States was one of
their creditors. The trustee in the bankruptcy
proceeding had effected a settlement of the
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
Executive privilege
The phrase "executive privilege" is not
new in this jurisdiction. It has been used even
prior to the promulgation of the 1986
Constitution.63 Being of American origin, it is
best understood in light of how it has been
defined and used in the legal literature of the
United States.
Schwartz defines executive privilege as
"the power of the Government to withhold
information from the public, the courts, and
the Congress."64 Similarly, Rozell defines it as
"the right of the President and high-level
executive
branch
officers
to
withhold
information from Congress, the courts, and
ultimately the public."65
220
Court
meant
Presidential
conversations,
correspondences, and discussions in closeddoor Cabinet meetings. It also held that
information on military and diplomatic secrets
and those affecting national security, and
information on investigations of crimes by law
enforcement agencies before the prosecution
of the accused were exempted from the right
to information.
From the above discussion on the
meaning and scope of executive privilege,
both in the United States and in this
jurisdiction, a clear principle emerges.
Executive privilege, whether asserted against
Congress, the courts, or the public, is
recognized only in relation to certain types of
information of a sensitive character. While
executive privilege is a constitutional concept,
a claim thereof may be valid or not depending
on the ground invoked to justify it and the
context in which it is made. Noticeably absent
is any recognition that executive officials are
exempt from the duty to disclose information
by the mere fact of being executive officials.
Indeed, the extraordinary character of the
exemptions indicates that the presumption
inclines heavily against executive secrecy and
in favor of disclosure.
221
Validity of Section 1
Section 1 is similar to Section 3 in that
both require the officials covered by them to
secure the consent of the President prior to
appearing
before
Congress.
There
are
significant differences between the two
provisions, however, which constrain this Court
to discuss the validity of these provisions
separately.
Section 1 specifically applies to
department heads. It does not, unlike Section
3, require a prior determination by any official
whether they are covered by E.O. 464. The
President herself has, through the challenged
order, made the determination that they are.
Further, unlike also Section 3, the coverage of
department heads under Section 1 is not made
to depend on the department heads
possession of any information which might be
covered by executive privilege. In fact, in
marked contrast to Section 3 vis--vis Section
2, there is no reference to executive privilege
at all. Rather, the required prior consent under
Section 1 is grounded on Article VI, Section 22
of the Constitution on what has been referred
to as the question hour.
SECTION 22. The heads of departments
may upon their own initiative, with the consent
of the President, or upon the request of either
222
223
224
reversed
such
determination.
Such
declaration, however, even without mentioning
the term "executive privilege," amounts to an
implied claim that the information is being
withheld by the executive branch, by authority
of the President, on the basis of executive
privilege. Verily, there is an implied claim of
privilege.
The letter dated September 28, 2005 of
respondent Executive Secretary Ermita to
Senate President Drilon illustrates the implied
nature of the claim of privilege authorized by
E.O. 464. It reads:
In connection with the inquiry to be
conducted by the Committee of the Whole
regarding the Northrail Project of the North
Luzon Railways Corporation on 29 September
2005 at 10:00 a.m., please be informed that
officials of the Executive Department invited to
appear at the meeting will not be able to
attend the same without the consent of the
President, pursuant to Executive Order No. 464
(s. 2005), entitled "Ensuring Observance Of
The Principle Of Separation Of Powers,
Adherence To The Rule On Executive Privilege
And Respect For The Rights Of Public Officials
Appearing In Legislative Inquiries In Aid Of
Legislation Under The Constitution, And For
Other Purposes". Said officials have not
secured the required consent from the
President. (Underscoring supplied)
The letter does not explicitly invoke
executive privilege or that the matter on which
these officials are being requested to be
resource persons falls under the recognized
grounds of the privilege to justify their
absence. Nor does it expressly state that in
view of the lack of consent from the President
under E.O. 464, they cannot attend the
hearing.
Significant premises in this letter,
however, are left unstated, deliberately or not.
The letter assumes that the invited officials are
covered by E.O. 464. As explained earlier,
however, to be covered by the order means
that a determination has been made, by the
designated head of office or the President, that
the invited official possesses information that
is covered by executive privilege. Thus,
although it is not stated in the letter that such
determination has been made, the same must
be deemed implied. Respecting the statement
that the invited officials have not secured the
consent of the President, it only means that
the President has not reversed the standing
prohibition against their appearance before
Congress.
225
226
whole
procedure.101
(Emphasis
and
underscoring supplied)
Due respect for a co-equal branch of
government, moreover, demands no less than
a claim of privilege clearly stating the grounds
therefor. Apropos is the following ruling in
McPhaul v. U.S:102
We think the Courts decision in United
States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 70 S. Ct. 724, is
highly relevant to these questions. For it is as
true here as it was there, that if (petitioner)
had legitimate reasons for failing to produce
the records of the association, a decent
respect for the House of Representatives, by
whose authority the subpoenas issued, would
have required that (he) state (his) reasons for
noncompliance upon the return of the writ.
Such a statement would have given the
Subcommittee an opportunity to avoid the
blocking of its inquiry by taking other
appropriate steps to obtain the records. To
deny the Committee the opportunity to
consider the objection or remedy is in itself a
contempt of its authority and an obstruction of
its processes. His failure to make any such
statement was "a patent evasion of the duty of
one summoned to produce papers before a
congressional committee[, and] cannot be
condoned." (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied; citations omitted)
Upon the other hand, Congress must
not require the executive to state the reasons
for the claim with such particularity as to
compel disclosure of the information which the
privilege is meant to protect. 103 A useful
analogy in determining the requisite degree of
particularity would be the privilege against
self-incrimination. Thus, Hoffman v. U.S.104
declares:
The witness is not exonerated from
answering merely because he declares that in
so doing he would incriminate himself his
say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of
incrimination. It is for the court to say whether
his silence is justified, and to require him to
answer if it clearly appears to the court that
he is mistaken. However, if the witness, upon
interposing his claim, were required to prove
the hazard in the sense in which a claim is
usually required to be established in court, he
would be compelled to surrender the very
protection which the privilege is designed to
guarantee. To sustain the privilege, it need
only be evident from the implications of the
question, in the setting in which it is asked,
that a responsive answer to the question or an
explanation of why it cannot be answered
might be dangerous because injurious
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
Ribbon
Committee
from
requiring
the
petitioners in Bengzon from testifying and
producing evidence before the committee,
holding that the inquiry in question did not
involve any intended legislation.
Senate affirmed both the Arnault and
Bengzon rulings. It elucidated on the
constitutional scope and limitations on the
constitutional power of congressional inquiry.
Thus:
As discussed in Arnault, the power of
inquiry, "with process to enforce it," is
grounded on the necessity of information in
the legislative process. If the information
possessed by executive officials on the
operation of their offices is necessary for wise
legislation on that subject, by parity of
reasoning, Congress has the right to that
information and the power to compel the
disclosure thereof.
As
evidenced
by
the
American
experience during the so-called "McCarthy
era", however, the right of Congress to
conduct inquirites in aid of legislation is, in
theory, no less susceptible to abuse than
executive or judicial power. It may thus be
subjected to judicial review pursuant to the
Courts certiorari powers under Section 1,
Article VIII of the Constitution.
For one, as noted in Bengzon v. Senate
Blue Ribbon Committee, the inquiry itself
might not properly be in aid of legislation, and
thus beyond the constitutional power of
Congress. Such inquiry could not usurp judicial
functions. Parenthetically, one possible way for
Congress to avoid such result as occurred in
Bengzon is to indicate in its invitations to the
public officials concerned, or to any person for
that matter, the possible needed statute which
prompted the need for the inquiry. Given such
statement in its invitations, along with the
usual indication of the subject of inquiry and
the questions relative to and in furtherance
thereof, there would be less room for
speculation on the part of the person invited
on whether the inquiry is in aid of legislation.
Section
21,
Article
VI
likewise
establishes critical safeguards that proscribe
the legislative power of inquiry. The provision
requires that the inquiry be done in
accordance with the Senate or Houses duly
published rules of procedure, necessarily
implying the constitutional infirmity of an
inquiry conducted without duly published rules
of procedure. Section 21 also mandates that
the rights of persons appearing in or affected
by such inquiries be respected, an imposition
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
ISSUES:
First, are the communications elicited by the
subject three (3) questions covered by
executive privilege?
And second, did respondent Committees
commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing
the contempt Order?
244
OF
245
246
247
248
ISSUES:
1. Whether E.O. 464 contravenes the power of
inquiry vested in Congress;
2. Whether E.O. 464 violates the right of the
people to information on matters of public
concern; and
3. Whether respondents have committed
grave abuse of discretion when they
implemented E.O. 464 prior to its publication
in a newspaper of general circulation.
HELD:
Congress has a right to information
from the executive branch whenever it is
sought in aid of legislation. If the executive
branch withholds such information on the
ground that it is privileged, it must so assert it
and state the reason therefor and why it must
be respected.
The infirm provisions of E.O. 464,
however, allow the executive branch to evade
congressional requests for information without
need of clearly asserting a right to do so
and/or proffering its reasons therefor. By the
mere expedient of invoking said provisions,
the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in
aid of legislation is frustrated. That is
impermissible. Resort to any means then by
which officials of the executive branch could
refuse to divulge information cannot be
presumed valid. Otherwise, we shall not have
merely nullified the power of our legislature to
inquire into the operations of government, but
we shall have given up something of much
greater value our right as a people to take
part in government.
Sections 2(b) and 3 of Executive Order
No.
464
(series
of
2005),
"Ensuring
Observance of the Principle of Separation of
Powers,
Adherence
to
the
Rule
on
ExecutivePrivilege and Respect for the Rights
of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative
Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the
Constitution, and For Other Purposes," are
declared VOID. Sections 1 and 2(a) are,
however, VALID.
SECTION 24
249
250
251
252
253
254
SENATOR
HEHERSON
T.
ALVAREZ,
SENATOR JOSE D. LINA, JR., MR. NICASIO
B. BAUTISTA, MR. JESUS P. GONZAGA, MR.
SOLOMON D. MAYLEM, LEONORA C.
MEDINA, CASIANO S. ALIPON vs. HON.
TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. , et al.
G.R. No. 118303 January 31, 1996
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
FACTS: Indeed, in this Petition for Prohibition
with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order
and
Preliminary
Prohibitory
Injunction,
petitioners assail the validity of Republic Act
No. 7720, entitled, "An Act Converting the
Municipality of Santiago, Isabela into an
Independent Component City to be known as
the City of Santiago," mainly because the Act
allegedly did not originate exclusively in the
House of Representatives as mandated by
Section 24, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
Also,
petitioners claim that
the
Municipality of Santiago has not met the
minimum average annual income required
under Section 450 of the Local Government
Code of 1991 in order to be converted into a
component city.
Undisputed is the following chronicle of the
metamorphosis of House Bill No. 8817 into
Republic Act No. 7720:
On April 18, 1993, HB No. 8817,
entitled "An Act Converting the Municipality of
Santiago into an Independent Component City
to be known as the City of Santiago," was filed
in the House of Representatives with
Representative Antonio Abaya as principal
author.
Other
sponsors
included
Representatives
Ciriaco
Alfelor,
Rodolfo
Albano, Santiago Respicio and Faustino Dy. The
bill was referred to the House Committee on
Local Government and the House Committee
on Appropriations on May 5, 1993. On May 19,
1993, June 1, 1993, November 28, 1993, and
December 1, 1993, public hearings on HB No.
8817 were conducted by the House Committee
on
Local
Government.
The
committee
submitted to the House a favorable report,
with amendments, on December 9, 1993.
On December 13, 1993, HB No. 8817
was passed by the House of Representatives
local
255
256
257
HELD: No.
A perusal of the challenged
provision of R.A. 1600 fails to disclose its
relevance or relation to any appropriation item
therein, or to the Appropriation Act as a whole.
From the very first clause of paragraph 11
itself, which reads,
After the approval of this Act, and when
there is no emergency, no reserve
officer of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines may be called to a tour of
active duty for more than two years
during any period of five consecutive
years:
the incongruity and irrelevancy are already
evident. While R.A. 1600 appropriated money
258
259
260
FACTS:
House Bill No. 10900, the General
Appropriation Bill of 1994 (GAB of 1994), was
passed and approved by both houses of
Congress on December 17, 1993. As passed, it
imposed conditions and limitations on certain
items of appropriations in the proposed budget
previously submitted by the President. It also
authorized members of Congress to propose
and identify projects in the "pork barrels"
allotted to them and to realign their respective
operating budgets.
Pursuant to the procedure on the
passage and enactment of bills as prescribed
by the Constitution, Congress presented the
said bill to the President for consideration and
approval. On December 30, 1993, the
President signed the bill into law, and declared
the same to have become Republic Act No.
7663, entitled "AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS
FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO
DECEMBER THIRTY ONE, NINETEEN HUNDRED
AND
NINETY-FOUR,
AND
FOR
OTHER
PURPOSES" (GAA of 1994). On the same day,
261
the
vetoing
of
some
HELD:
1. Countrywide Development Fund
Article XLI of the GAA of 1994 sets up a
Countrywide
Development
Fund
of
P2,977,000,000.00
to
"be
used
for
infrastructure, purchase of ambulances and
computers and other priority projects and
activities and credit facilities to qualified
beneficiaries." Said Article provides:
Petitioners claim that the power given
to the members of Congress to propose and
identify the projects and activities to be funded
by the Countrywide Development Fund is an
encroachment by the legislature on executive
power, since said power in an appropriation
act in implementation of a law. They argue
that the proposal and identification of the
projects do not involve the making of laws or
the repeal and amendment thereof, the only
function given to the Congress by the
Constitution
Under the Constitution, the spending
power called by James Madison as "the power
of the purse," belongs to Congress, subject
only to the veto power of the President. The
President may propose the budget, but still the
final say on the matter of appropriations is
lodged in the Congress.
The power of appropriation carries with
it the power to specify the project or activity to
be funded under the appropriation law. It can
be as detailed and as broad as Congress wants
it to be.
The Countrywide Development Fund is
explicit that it shall be used "for infrastructure,
purchase of ambulances and computers and
other priority projects and activities and credit
facilities to qualified beneficiaries . . ." It was
Congress itself that determined the purposes
for the appropriation.
Executive
function
under
the
Countrywide Development Fund involves
implementation of the priority projects
specified in the law. The authority given to the
members of Congress is only to propose and
identify projects to be implemented by the
President. Under Article XLI of the GAA of
1994, the President must perforce examine
whether the proposals submitted by the
members of Congress fall within the specific
items of expenditures for which the Fund was
set up, and if qualified, he next determines
whether they are in line with other projects
planned for the locality. Thereafter, if the
proposed projects qualify for funding under the
Funds, it is the President who shall implement
them.
In
short,
the
proposals
and
identifications made by the members of
Congress are merely recommendatory.
The Countrywide Development Fund
attempts to make equal the unequal. It is also
a recognition that individual members of
Congress, far more than the President and
their congressional colleagues are likely to be
knowledgeable about the needs of their
respective constituents and the priority to be
given each project.
2. Realignment of Operating Expenses
Under the GAA of 1994, the appropriation for
the Senate is P472,000,000.00 of which
P464,447,000.00 is appropriated for current
operating
expenditures,
while
the
appropriation for the House of Representatives
is
P1,171,924,000.00
of
which
P1,165,297,000.00 is appropriated for current
operating expenditures.
Petitioners assail the special provision
allowing a member of Congress to realign his
allocation for operational expenses to any
other expense category claiming that this
practice is prohibited by Section 25(5), Article
VI of the Constitution. The proviso of said
Article of the Constitution grants the President
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives the power to augment items
in an appropriation act for their respective
offices from savings in other items of their
appropriations, whenever there is a law
authorizing such augmentation.
The special provision on realignment of the
operating expenses of members of Congress is
authorized by Section 16 of the General
Provisions of the GAA of 1994.
Petitioners argue that the Senate
President and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, but not the individual
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
No.
1987
as
HELD: No.
1. The Constitutional requirement that "every
bill shall embrace only one subject which shall
be expressed in the title thereof" is sufficiently
complied with if the title be comprehensive
enough to include the general purpose which a
statute seeks to achieve. It is not necessary
that the title express each and every end that
the statute wishes to accomplish. The
requirement is satisfied if all the parts of the
statute are related, and are germane to the
subject matter expressed in the title, or as
long as they are not inconsistent with or
foreign to the general subject and title.
The rule also is that the constitutional
requirement as to the title of a bill should not
be so narrowly construed as to cripple or
impede the power of legislation. It should be
given
practical
rather
than
technical
construction.
Tested by the foregoing criteria,
petitioner's contention that the tax provision of
the DECREE is a rider is without merit. That
section reads, inter alia:
Section 10. Tax on Sale, Lease or
Disposition
of
Videograms.
271
272
Defining
its
Powers,
Functions
and
Responsibilities, Providing for Regulation of the
Industry and for Other Purposes Connected
Therewith."
The
petitioners'
contention
is
untenable. We do not agree that the title of the
challenged act violates the Constitution. The
title of the bill is not required to be an index to
the body of the act, or to be as comprehensive
as to cover every single detail of the measure.
This is particularly true of the repealing
clause, on which Cooley writes: "The repeal of
a statute on a given subject is properly
connected with the subject matter of a new
statute on the same subject; and therefore a
repealing section in the new statute is valid,
notwithstanding that the title is silent on the
subject. It would be difficult to conceive of a
matter more germane to an act and to the
object to be accomplished thereby than the
repeal of previous legislations connected
therewith."
We are convinced that the withdrawal
of the franking privilege from some agencies is
germane to the accomplishment of the
principal objective of R.A. No. 7354, which is
the creation of a more efficient and effective
postal service system. Our ruling is that, by
virtue of its nature as a repealing clause,
Section 35 did not have to be expressly
included in the title of the said law.
II
The petitioners maintain that the
second paragraph of Sec. 35 covering the
repeal of the franking privilege from the
petitioners and this Court under E.O. 207, PD
1882 and PD 26 was not included in the
original version of Senate Bill No. 720 or House
Bill No. 4200. As this paragraph appeared only
in the Conference Committee Report, its
addition, violates Article VI, Sec. 26(2) of the
Constitution. The petitioners also invoke Sec.
74 of the
Rules
of the
House
of
Representatives, requiring that amendment to
any bill when the House and the Senate shall
have differences thereon may be settled by a
conference committee of both chambers. They
stress that Sec. 35 was never a subject of any
disagreement between both Houses and so the
second paragraph could not have been validly
added as an amendment.
These argument are unacceptable.
While it is true that a conference
committee is the mechanism for compromising
differences between the Senate and the
House, it is not limited in its jurisdiction to this
273
274
HELD: No.
G.R. No. 109289
Petitioner contends that the title of
House Bill No. 34314, progenitor of Republic
Act No. 7496, is a misnomer or, at least,
deficient for being merely entitled, "Simplified
Net Income Taxation Scheme for the SelfEmployed and Professionals Engaged in the
Practice of their Profession".
The full text of the title actually reads:
An Act Adopting the Simplified
Net Income Taxation Scheme For
The
Self-Employed
and
Professionals Engaged In The
Practice of Their Profession,
Amending Sections 21 and 29 of
the National Internal Revenue
Code, as Amended.
It would be difficult to accept
petitioner's view that the amendatory law
should be considered as having now adopted
a gross income, instead of as having still
retained the net income, taxation scheme. The
allowance for deductible items, it is true, may
have significantly been reduced by the
questioned law in comparison with that which
has prevailed prior to the amendment;
limiting, however, allowable deductions from
gross income is neither discordant with, nor
opposed to, the net income tax concept. The
fact of the matter is still that various
deductions,
which
are
by
no
means
inconsequential, continue to be well provided
under the new law.
Article VI, Section 26(1), of the
Constitution has been envisioned so as (a) to
prevent log-rolling legislation intended to unite
the members of the legislature who favor any
one of unrelated subjects in support of the
whole act, (b) to avoid surprises or even fraud
upon the legislature, and (c) to fairly apprise
the people, through such publications of its
proceedings as are usually made, of the
subjects of legislation. 1 The above objectives
of the fundamental law appear to us to have
been sufficiently met. Anything else would be
to require a virtual compendium of the law
which could not have been the intendment of
the constitutional mandate.
Petitioner intimates that Republic Act
No. 7496 desecrates the constitutional
requirement that taxation "shall be uniform
and equitable" in that the law would now
attempt to tax single proprietorships and
professionals differently from the manner it
imposes the tax on corporations and
partnerships. The contention clearly forgets,
however, that such a system of income
taxation has long been the prevailing rule even
prior to Republic Act No. 7496. Uniformity of
taxation, like the kindred concept of equal
protection, merely requires that all subjects or
objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to be
treated alike both in privileges and liabilities.
275
276
277
278
Before
R.A.
No.
9337
took
effect,
petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al.,
filed a petition for prohibition on May 27, 2005.
They question the constitutionality of Sections
4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections
106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National
Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Section 4
imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and
properties, Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on
importation of goods, and Section 6 imposes a
10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease
of properties. These questioned provisions
contain a uniform proviso authorizing the
President, upon recommendation of the
Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to
12%, effective January 1, 2006, after any of
the following conditions have been satisfied, to
wit:
. . . That the President, upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Finance,
shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate
of value-added tax to twelve percent (12%),
after any of the following conditions has been
satisfied:
(i) Value-added tax collection as a percentage
of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the
previous year exceeds two and four-fifth
percent (2 4/5%); or
(ii) National government deficit as a
percentage of GDP of the previous year
exceeds one and one-half percent (1 %).
Petitioners argue that the law is
unconstitutional,
as
it
constitutes
abandonment by Congress of its exclusive
authority to fix the rate of taxes under Article
VI, Section 28(2) of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution.
G.R. No. 168207
On June 9, 2005, Sen. Aquilino Q.
Pimentel,
Jr., et
al.,
filed
a
petition
for certiorari likewise
assailing
the
constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A.
No. 9337. Petitioners also contend that the
increase in the VAT rate to 12% contingent on
any of the two conditions being satisfied
violates the due process clause as it imposes
an unfair and additional tax burden on the
people, in that: (1) the 12% increase is
ambiguous because it does not state if the
rate would be returned to the original 10% if
the conditions are no longer satisfied; (2) the
rate is unfair and unreasonable, as the people
are unsure of the applicable VAT rate from year
to year; and (3) the increase in the VAT rate,
which is supposed to be an incentive to the
President to raise the VAT collection to at least
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
II
There
is
a
matter
of
greater
consequence arising from this petition. The
attempt to use the veto power to set aside a
Resolution of this Court and to deprive retirees
of benefits given them by Rep. Act No. 1797
trenches upon the constitutional grant of fiscal
autonomy to the Judiciary.
Sec. 3, Art. VIII mandates that:
Sec. 3 The Judiciary shall enjoy
fiscal autonomy. Appropriations
for the Judiciary may not be
reduced by the legislature below
the amount appropriated for the
290
291
ISSUE:
whether
provisions was valid
the
vetoing
of
some
HELD:
1. Countrywide Development Fund
Article XLI of the GAA of 1994 sets up a
Countrywide
Development
Fund
of
P2,977,000,000.00
to
"be
used
for
infrastructure, purchase of ambulances and
computers and other priority projects and
activities and credit facilities to qualified
beneficiaries." Said Article provides:
Petitioners claim that the power given
to the members of Congress to propose and
identify the projects and activities to be funded
by the Countrywide Development Fund is an
encroachment by the legislature on executive
power, since said power in an appropriation
act in implementation of a law. They argue
that the proposal and identification of the
projects do not involve the making of laws or
the repeal and amendment thereof, the only
function given to the Congress by the
Constitution
Under the Constitution, the spending
power called by James Madison as "the power
of the purse," belongs to Congress, subject
only to the veto power of the President. The
President may propose the budget, but still the
final say on the matter of appropriations is
lodged in the Congress.
The power of appropriation carries with
it the power to specify the project or activity to
be funded under the appropriation law. It can
292
293
294
295
296
or
not
EO
273
is
297
298
299
ISSUE:
(a) whether the petitioner is a charitable
institution within the context of Presidential
Decree No. 1823 and the 1973 and 1987
Constitutions and Section 234 (b) of Republic
Act No. 7160; and -Yes.
(b) whether the real properties of the
petitioner are exempt from real property taxes.
No.
300
HELD: No.
1. Respondent Judge would not have erred so
grievously had he merely compared the
provisions of the present Constitution with that
appearing in the 1935 Charter on the tax
exemption
of
"lands,
buildings,
and
improvements." There is a marked difference.
Under the 1935 Constitution: "Cemeteries,
churches, and parsonages or convents
appurtenant thereto, and all lands, buildings,
and improvements used exclusively for
religious, charitable, or educational purposes
shall be exempt from taxation." The present
Constitution added "charitable institutions,
mosques, and non-profit cemeteries" and
required that for the exemption of ":lands,
buildings, and improvements," they should not
only be "exclusively" but also "actually and
"directly" used for religious or charitable
301
302
303
SECTION 29
WENCESLAO PASCUAL, in his official
capacity as Provincial Governor of Rizal,
vs. THE SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS
AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.,
G.R. No. L-10405 December 29, 1960
CONCEPCION, J.:
FACTS: At the outset, it should be noted that
we are concerned with a decision granting the
aforementioned motions to dismiss, which as
much, are deemed to have admitted
hypothetically the allegations of fact made in
the petition of appellant herein. According to
said petition, respondent Zulueta is the owner
of several parcels of residential land situated
in Pasig, Rizal, and known as the Antonio
Subdivision, certain portions of which had
been reserved for the projected feeder roads
aforementioned, which, admittedly, were
private property of said respondent when
Republic
Act
No.
920,
appropriating
P85,000.00
for
the
"construction,
reconstruction,
repair,
extension
and
improvement" of said roads, was passed by
Congress, as well as when it was approved by
the President on June 20, 1953. The petition
further alleges that the construction of said
roads,
to
be
undertaken
with
the
aforementioned appropriation of P85,000.00,
would have the effect of relieving respondent
304
FACTS:
The petitioner, Mons. Gregorio
Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine
Independent Church, seeks the issuance from
this court of a writ of prohibition to prevent the
respondent Director of Posts from issuing and
selling postage stamps commemorative of the
Thirty-third International Eucharistic Congress.
In May, 1936, the Director of Posts
announced in the dailies of Manila that he
would order the issues of postage stamps
commemorating the celebration in the City of
Manila of the Thirty-third international
Eucharistic Congress, organized by the Roman
Catholic Church. The petitioner, in the
fulfillment of what he considers to be a civic
duty, requested Vicente Sotto, Esq., member
of the Philippine Bar, to denounce the matter
to the President of the Philippines. In spite of
the protest of the petitioner's attorney, the
respondent publicly announced having sent to
the United States the designs of the postage
stamps for printing as follows: "In the center is
chalice, with grape vine and stalks of wheat as
border design. The stamps are blue, green,
brown, cardinal red, violet and orange, 1 inch
by 1,094 inches. The denominations are for 2,
6, 16, 20, 36 and 50 centavos." The said
stamps were actually issued and sold though
the greater part thereof, to this day, remains
unsold. The further sale of the stamps is
sought to be prevented by the petitioner
herein.
The more important question raised
refers to the alleged violation of the
Constitution by the respondent in issuing and
selling postage stamps commemorative of the
Thirty-third International Eucharistic Congress.
ISSUE: whether this action of the respondent
is violative of the provisions of section 23,
subsection 3, Article VI, of the Constitution
HELD: No. Section 23, subsection 3, Article VI,
of the Constitution of the Philippines provides:
No public money or property shall ever be
appropriated, applied, or used, directly or
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of
any sect, church, denomination, secretarian,
institution, or system of religion, or for the use,
benefit, or support of any priest, preacher,
minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary
as such, except when such priest, preacher,
minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed
forces or to any penal institution, orphanage,
or leprosarium.
Religious freedom, as a constitutional
mandate is not inhibition of profound
reverence for religion and is not denial of its
305
AN
ACT
APPROPRIATING THE SUM OF
SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS AND
MAKING THE SAME AVAILABLE
OUT OF ANY FUNDS IN THE
INSULAR
TREASURY
NOT
OTHERWISE APPROPRIATED FOR
THE COST OF PLATES AND
PRINTING OF POSTAGE STAMPS
WITH NEW DESIGNS, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
It will be seen that the Act appropriates
the sum of sixty thousand pesos for the costs
of plates and printing of postage stamps with
new designs and other expenses incident
thereto, and authorizes the Director of Posts,
with the approval of the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications, to dispose of the
amount appropriated in the manner indicated
and
"as
often
as
may
be
deemed
advantageous to the Government".
Act No. 4052 contemplates no religious
purpose in view. What it gives the Director of
Posts is the discretionary power to determine
when the issuance of special postage stamps
would be "advantageous to the Government."
Of course, the phrase "advantageous to the
Government" does not authorize the violation
of the Constitution. It does not authorize the
appropriation, use or application of public
money or property for the use, benefit or
support of a particular sect or church. In the
present case, however, the issuance of the
postage stamps in question by the Director of
Posts and the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications was not inspired by any
sectarian denomination. The stamps were not
issue and sold for the benefit of the Roman
Catholic Church. Nor were money derived from
the sale of the stamps given to that church. On
the contrary, it appears from the latter of the
Director of Posts that the only purpose in
issuing and selling the stamps was "to
advertise the Philippines and attract more
tourist to this country." The officials concerned
merely, took advantage of an event
considered of international importance "to give
publicity to the Philippines and its people". It
is significant to note that the stamps as
306
TEOFISTO
T.
GUINGONA,
JR.
and
AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., vs. HON.
GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as
Secretary, Budget & Management, HON.
ROZALINA S. CAJUCOM in her capacity as
National Treasurer and COMMISSION ON
AUDIT
G.R. No. 94571 April 22, 1991
FACTS: This is a case of first impression
whereby
petitioners
question
the
constitutionality of 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.
The said automatic appropriation for
debt service is authorized by P.D. No. 81,
entitled "Amending Certain Provisions of
Republic Act Numbered Four Thousand Eight
Hundred Sixty, as Amended (Re: Foreign
Borrowing Act)," by P.D. No. 1177, entitled
"Revising the Budget Process in Order to
Institutionalize the Budgetary Innovations of
the New Society," and by P.D. No. 1967,
entitled "An Act Strenghthening the Guarantee
and Payment Positions of the Republic of the
307
308
c. government-owned or controlled
corporations and/or financial institutions and
guaranteed by the Republic of the Philippines;
d. other public or private institutions
and guaranteed by government-owned or
controlled corporations and/or government
financial institutions.
Sec. 2. All repayments made by
borrower institutions on the loans for whose
account advances were made by the National
Treasury will revert to the General Fund.
Sec. 3. In the event that any borrower
institution is unable to settle the advances
made out of the appropriation provided
therein, the Treasurer of the Philippines shall
make the proper recommendation to the
Minister of Finance on whether such advances
shall be treated as equity or subsidy of the
National Government to the institution
concerned, which shall be considered in the
budgetary program of the Government.
In the "Budget of Expenditures and
Sources of Financing Fiscal Year 1990," which
accompanied
her
budget
message
to
Congress, the President of the Philippines,
Corazon C. Aquino, stated:
The P233.5 billion budget proposed for fiscal
year 1990 will require P132.1 billion of new
programmed appropriations out of a total
P155.3 billion in new legislative authorization
from Congress. The rest of the budget,
totalling P101.4 billion, will be sourced from
existing appropriations: P98.4 billion from
Automatic Appropriations and P3.0 billion from
Continuing Appropriations (Fig. 4).
And according to Figure 4, . . ., P86.8
billion out of the P98.4 Billion are programmed
for debt service. In other words, the President
had, on her own, determined and set aside the
said amount of P98.4 Billion with the rest of
the appropriations of P155.3 Billion to be
determined and fixed by Congress, which is
now Rep. Act 6831. 9
Petitioners
argue
that
the
said
automatic appropriations under the aforesaid
decrees of then President Marcos became
functus oficio when he was ousted in February,
1986; that upon the expiration of the one-man
legislature in the person of President Marcos,
the legislative power was restored to Congress
on February 2, 1987 when the Constitution
was ratified by the people; that there is a need
for a new legislation by Congress providing for
automatic appropriation, but Congress, up to
the present, has not approved any such law;
and thus the said P86.8 Billion automatic
appropriation in the 1990 budget is an
309
310
311
312
313
314
ISSUES:
Whether or not the "TRUST ACCOUNT"
in the books of account of the Ministry of
Energy (now, the Office of Energy Affairs),
created pursuant to 8, paragraph 1, of P.D.
No. 1956, as amended, "said creation of a trust
fund being contrary to Section 29 (3), Article VI
of the . . Constitution.
Whether or not Sec. 8, paragraph 1 (c) of P.D.
No. 1956, as amended by Executive Order No.
137 is unconstitutional for being an undue and
invalid delegation of legislative power to the
Energy Regulatory Board; and
Whether or not the reimbursements to
oil companies, paid out of the Oil Price
Stabilization Fund, provided under Sec. 8,
paragraph 2 (2) of P. D. 1956, as amended is
valid.
HELD:
FIRST ISSUE
It thus appears that the challenge
posed by the petitioner is premised primarily
on the view that the powers granted to the
ERB under P.D. 1956, as amended, partake of
the nature of the taxation power of the State.
The Solicitor General observes that the
"argument rests on the assumption that the
OPSF is a form of revenue measure drawing
from a special tax to be expended for a special
purpose." The petitioner's perceptions are, in
the Court's view, not quite correct.
To address this critical misgiving in the position
of the petitioner on these issues, the Court
recalls its holding in Valmonte v. Energy
Regulatory Board, et al.
The foregoing arguments suggest the
presence of misconceptions about the nature
and functions of the OPSF. The OPSF is a "Trust
Account" which was established "for the
purpose of minimizing the frequent price
changes brought about by exchange rate
adjustment and/or changes in world market
prices of crude oil and imported petroleum
products." Under P.D. No. 1956, as amended
by Executive Order No. 137 dated 27 February
1987, this Trust Account may be funded from
any of the following sources:
a) Any increase in the tax collection
from ad valorem tax or customs duty imposed
on petroleum products subject to tax under
this Decree arising from exchange rate
adjustment, as may be determined by the
Minister of Finance in consultation with the
Board of Energy;
315
SECOND ISSUE:
With regard to the alleged undue
delegation of legislative power, the Court finds
that the provision conferring the authority
upon the ERB to impose additional amounts on
petroleum products provides a sufficient
standard by which the authority must be
exercised. In addition to the general policy of
the law to protect the local consumer by
stabilizing and subsidizing domestic pump
rates, 8(c) of P.D. 1956 expressly authorizes
the ERB to impose additional amounts to
augment the resources of the Fund.
What petitioner would wish is the fixing
of some definite, quantitative restriction, or "a
specific limit on how much to tax." The Court is
cited to this requirement by the petitioner on
the premise that what is involved here is the
power of taxation; but as already discussed,
this is not the case. What is here involved is
not so much the power of taxation as police
power. Although the provision authorizing the
ERB to impose additional amounts could be
construed to refer to the power of taxation, it
cannot be overlooked that the overriding
THIRD ISSUE:
In relation to the third question
respecting the illegality of the reimbursements
to oil companies, paid out of the Oil Price
Stabilization Fund, because allegedly in
contravention of 8, paragraph 2 (2) of P.D.
1956, amended 23 the Court finds favour
for the petitioner.
The petition assails the payment of certain
items or accounts in favor of the petroleum
companies (i.e., inventory losses, financing
charges, fuel oil sales to the National Power
Corporation, etc.) because not authorized by
law. Petitioner contends that "these claims are
not embraced in the enumeration in 8 of P.D.
1956 . . since none of them was incurred 'as a
result of the reduction of domestic prices of
petroleum products,'" 24 and since these
items are reimbursements for which the OPSF
should not have responded, the amount of the
P12.877 billion deficit "should be reduced by
P5,277.2 million." 25 It is argued "that under
the principle of ejusdem generis . . . the term
'other factors' (as used in 8 of P.D. 1956) . .
can only include such 'other factors' which
necessarily result in the reduction of domestic
prices of petroleum products." 26
The Solicitor General, for his part,
contends that "(t)o place said (term) within the
restrictive confines of the rule of ejusdem
generis would reduce (E.O. 137) to a
meaningless provision."
This Court, in Caltex Philippines, Inc. v. The
Honorable Commissioner on Audit, et al., 27
passed upon the application of ejusdem
generis to paragraph 2 of 8 of P.D. 1956, viz.:
The rule of ejusdem generis states that
"[w]here words follow an enumeration of
persons or things, by words of a particular and
specific meaning, such general words are not
to be construed in their widest extent, but are
held to be as applying only to persons or
things of the same kind or class as those
specifically mentioned." 28 A reading of
subparagraphs (i) and (ii) easily discloses that
they do not have a common characteristic. The
first relates to price reduction as directed by
the Board of Energy while the second refers to
reduction in internal ad valorem taxes.
Therefore, subparagraph (iii) cannot be limited
by the enumeration in these subparagraphs.
What should be considered for purposes of
determining
the
"other
factors"
in
subparagraph (iii) is the first sentence of
paragraph (2) of the Section which explicitly
allows the cost underrecovery only if such
316
317
318
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Presidents exercise of veto
power in some of the provisions of the General
Appropriations Act of 1994 unconstitutional.
HELD:
G.R. No. 113105
1. Countrywide Development Fund
Article XLI of the GAA of 1994 sets up a
Countrywide
Development
Fund
of
P2,977,000,000.00
to
"be
used
for
infrastructure, purchase of ambulances and
computers and other priority projects and
activities and credit facilities to qualified
beneficiaries.
Petitioners claim that the power given
to the members of Congress to propose and
identify the projects and activities to be funded
by the Countrywide Development Fund is an
encroachment by the legislature on executive
power, since said power in an appropriation
act in implementation of a law.
They argue
that the proposal and identification of the
projects do not involve the making of laws or
the repeal and amendment thereof, the only
function given to the Congress by the
Constitution.
Under the Constitution, the spending power
called by James Madison as "the power of the
purse," belongs to Congress, subject only to
the veto power of the President. The President
may propose the budget, but still the final say
on the matter of appropriations is lodged in
the Congress.
The power of appropriation carries with
it the power to specify the project or activity to
be funded under the appropriation law. It can
be as detailed and as broad as Congress wants
it to be.
The Countrywide Development Fund is explicit
that it shall be used "for infrastructure,
purchase of ambulances and computers and
other priority projects and activities and credit
facilities to qualified beneficiaries . . ." It was
Congress itself that determined the purposes
for the appropriation.
Executive function under the Countrywide
Development Fund involves implementation of
the priority projects specified in the law.
The authority given to the members of
Congress is only to propose and identify
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
SECTION 30
FIRST LEPANTO CERAMICS, INC., vs. THE
COURT OF APPEALS and MARIWASA
MANUFACTURING, INC.,
G.R. No. 110571 March 10, 1994
FACTS: A thorough scrutiny of the conflicting
provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129,
otherwise
known
as
the
"Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980," Executive Order
No. 226, also known as the Omnibus
Investments Code of 1987 and Supreme Court
Circular No. 1-91 is, thus, called for.
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
HELD
FIRST ISSUE: Bar by Final Judgment
Respondent Garcia contends that this
Court had already ruled with finality in Enrique
T. Garcia, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et
al. on "the very issue raised in (the) petition:
whether or not there can be an initiative by
the people of Morong, Bataan on the subject
proposition the very same proposition, it
bears emphasizing, the submission of which to
the people of Morong, Bataan is now sought to
be enjoined by petitioner .
We disagree. The only issue resolved in the
earlier Garcia case is whether a municipal
resolution as contra-distinguished from an
ordinance may be the proper subject of an
initiative and/or referendum.
We quote
from our said Decision:
Local
initiative is the legal process
whereby the registered voters of
a local government until may
directly propose, enact, or
amend any ordinance."
We reject respondents'
narrow and literal reading of the
above provision for it will collide
with the Constitution and will
subvert the intent of the
lawmakers in enacting the
provisions
of
the
Local
Government
of
1991
on
initiative and referendum.
The Constitution clearly includes not
only ordinance but resolutions as appropriate
subjects of a local initiative. Section 32 of
Article VI provides in luminous language: "The
Congress shall, as early as possible, provide
for a system of initiative and referendum, and
the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people
can directly propose and enact laws or
approve or reject any act or law or part thereof
passed by the Congress, or local legislative
body . . .". An act includes a resolution. Black
defines an act as "an expression of will or
purpose . . . it may denote something done . . .
as a legislature, including not merely physical
acts, but also decrees, edicts, laws, judgments,
resolves, awards, and determinations . . .". It is
basic that a law should be construed in
harmony with and not in violation of the
Constitution. In line with this postulate, we
held in In Re Guarina that "if there is doubt or
uncertainty as to the meaning of the
legislative, if the words or provisions are
obscure, or if the enactment is fairly
susceptible of two or more constructions, that
interpretation will be adopted which will avoid
the effect of unconstitutionality, even though it
337
ISSUES:
(1) Whether this petition "seeks to overturn a
decision/judgment which has long become
final and executory"; namely, G.R. No. 111230,
Enrique Garcia, et al. vs. Commission on
Elections, et al.;
(2)
Whether
the
respondent
Comelec
committed grave abuse of discretion in
promulgating and implementing its Resolution
No. 2848 which "govern(s) the conduct of the
referendum proposing to annul or repeal
Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 of
the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan;"
and
(3) Whether the questioned local initiative
covers a subject within the powers of the
people of Morong to enact; i.e., whether such
initiative "seeks the amendment of a national
law."
338
339
340
341