#10

ALVAREZ V. GUINGONA – G.R. NO. 118303 – 252 SCRA 695

Facts:

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. Meanwhile, a
counterpart of HB No. 8817, Senate Bill No. 1243, was filed in the Senate. On March 22, 1994, the House of
Representatives, upon being apprised of the action of the Senate, approved the amendments proposed by the Senate.

Issue:

Does the passing of SB No. 1243, the Senate’s own version of HB No. 8817, into Republic Act No. 7720 be said to
have originated in the House of Representatives as required?

Held:

Yes. Although a bill of local application should originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, the claim of
petitioners that Republic Act No. 7720 did not originate exclusively in the House of Representatives because a bill of
the same import, SB No. 1243, was passed in the Senate, is untenable because it cannot be denied that HB No. 8817
was filed in the House of Representatives first before SB No. 1243 was filed in the Senate.

The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, does not contravene
the constitutional requirement that a bill of local application should originate in the House of Representatives, for as
long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill.

#11

CASE DIGEST : Legaspi Vs Civil Serv. Comm.

G.R. No. L-72119 May 29, 1987 VALENTIN L. LEGASPI, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.

FACTS : The fundamental right of the people to information on matters of public concern is invoked in this special civil action
for mandamus instituted by petitioner Valentin L. Legaspi against the Civil Service Commission. The respondent had earlier denied
Legaspi's request for information on the civil service eligibilities of certain persons employed as sanitarians in the Health
Department of Cebu City. These government employees, Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas, had allegedly represented
themselves as civil service eligibles who passed the civil service examinations for sanitarians.

ISSUE :
WON the petitioner has legal to access government records to validate the civil service eligibilities of the Health Department
employees

HELD : The constitutional guarantee to information on matters of public concern is not absolute. It does not open every door to
any and all information. Under the Constitution, access to official records, papers, etc., are "subject to limitations as may be
provided by law" The law may therefore exempt certain types of information from public scrutiny, such as those affecting national
security It follows that, in every case, the availability of access to a particular public record must be circumscribed by the nature of
the information sought, i.e., (a) being of public concern or one that involves public interest, and, (b) not being exempted by law
from the operation of the constitutional guarantee. The threshold question is, therefore, whether or not the information sought is of
public interest or public concern. This question is first addressed to the government agency having custody of the desired
information. However, as already discussed, this does not give the agency concerned any discretion to grant or deny access. In case
of denial of access, the government agency has the burden of showing that the information requested is not of public concern, or,
if it is of public concern, that the same has been exempted by law from the operation of the guarantee. To hold otherwise will serve
to dilute the constitutional right. As aptly observed, ". . . the government is in an advantageous position to marshall and interpret
arguments against release . . ." (87 Harvard Law Review 1511 [1974]). To safeguard the constitutional right, every denial of access
by the government agency concerned is subject to review by the courts, and in the proper case, access may be compelled by a writ
of Mandamus Public office being a public trust it is the legitimate concern of citizens to ensure that government positions requiring
civil service eligibility are occupied only by persons who are eligibles. Public officers are at all times accountable to the people
even as to their eligibilities for their respective positions. In the instant, case while refusing to confirm or deny the claims of
eligibility, the respondent has failed to cite any provision in the Civil Service Law which would limit the petitioner's right to know
who are, and who are not, civil service eligibles. We take judicial notice of the fact that the names of those who pass the civil
service examinations, as in bar examinations and licensure examinations for various professions, are released to the public. Hence,
there is nothing secret about one's civil service eligibility, if actually possessed. Petitioner's request is, therefore, neither unusual
nor unreasonable. And when, as in this case, the government employees concerned claim to be civil service eligibles, the public,
through any citizen, has a right to verify their professed eligibilities from the Civil Service Commission. The civil service eligibility
of a sanitarian being of public concern, and in the absence of express limitations under the law upon access to the register of civil
service eligibles for said position, the duty of the respondent Commission to confirm or deny the civil service eligibility of any
person occupying the position becomes imperative. Mandamus, therefore lies

#12

EDU VS ERICTA
Posted by kaye lee on 2:56 PM

G.R. No. L-32096 October 24, 1970 En Banc [Non-delegation of power; police power]

FACTS:
Judge Ericta and Teddy C. Galo filed suit for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction assailing the validity
of enactment of the Reflector as well as Admin Order No. 2 implementing it, as an invalid exercise of the police power
for being violative of the due process clause. Galo followed with a manifestation that in the event that Judge would
uphold said statute constitutional, A.O. No. 2 of the Land Transportation Commissioner, implementing such legislation
be nullified as an undue exercise of legislative power.

ISSUE: Whether Reflector Law and Administrative Order is constitutional and valid.

RULING:

Yes. Reflector Law is enacted under the police power in order to promote public safety and order.

Justice Laurel identified police power with state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or
property in order to promote the general welfare. Persons and property could thus "be subjected to all kinds of restraints
and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state." The police power is thus a
dynamic agency, suitably vague and far from precisely defined, rooted in the conception that men in organizing the
state and imposing upon its government limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable
an individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures calculated
to insure communal peace, safety, good order, and welfare.

The same lack of success marks the effort of respondent Galo to impugn the validity of Administrative Order No. 2
issued by petitioner in his official capacity, duly approved by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, for
being contrary to the principle of non-delegation of legislative power. Such administrative order, which took effect on
April 17, 1970, has a provision on reflectors in effect reproducing what was set forth in the Act.

It is a fundamental principle flowing from the doctrine of separation of powers that Congress may not delegate its
legislative power to the two other branches of the government, subject to the exception that local governments may
over local affairs participate in its exercise. What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make
laws and to alter and repeal them; the test is the completeness of the statute in all its term and provisions when it leaves
the hands of the legislature. To determine whether or not there is an undue delegation of legislative power the inquiry
must be directed to the scope and definiteness of the measure enacted. The legislature does not abdicate its functions
when it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority.

It bears repeating that the Reflector Law construed together with the Land Transportation Code. Republic Act No. 4136,
of which it is an amendment, leaves no doubt as to the stress and emphasis on public safety which is the prime
consideration in statutes of this character. There is likewise a categorical affirmation of the power of petitioner as Land
Transportation Commissioner to promulgate rules and regulations to give life to and translate into actuality such
fundamental purpose. His power is clear. There has been no abuse. His Administrative Order No. 2 can easily survive
the attack, far-from-formidable, launched against it by respondent Galo.