Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS EMPLOYEES’ virtue of Resolution No. A98-062 dated 17 November 1998,
ASSOCIATION (CHREA) VS. COMMISSION ON HUMAN the CHR “collapsed” the vacant positions in the body to
RIGHTS provide additional source of funding for said staffing
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004, July 21, 2006. modification. Among the positions collapsed were: one
(CRUZ) Attorney III, four Attorney IV, one Chemist III, three Special
Investigator I, one Clerk III, and one accounting Clerk II.
DOCTRINE:
A proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate The CHR forwarded said staffing modification and upgrading
danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act scheme to the Department of Budget and Management
complained of. [DBM] with a request for its approval, but the DBM secretary
Benjamin Diokno denied the request on the following
The 1987 Constitution expressly and unambiguously grants grounds:
fiscal autonomy only to the Judiciary, the constitutional It involved the elevation of the field units from
commissions, and the Office of the Ombudsman; CHR is not divisions to services.
one of them. In the absence of a specific provision of law which
may be used as a legal basis to elevate the level of
FACTS: divisions to a bureau or regional office, and the
services to offices, such scheme should be denied.
On 14 February 1998, Congress passed Republic Act No. Pursuant to Section 78 of the General Provisions of the
8522, otherwise known as the General Appropriations Act of General Appropriations Act (GAA) FY 1998, no
1998. It provided for Special Provisions Applicable to All organizational unit or changes in key positions shall be
Constitutional Offices Enjoying Fiscal Autonomy. The last authorized unless provided by law or directed by the
portion of Article XXXIII covers the appropriations of the CHR. President, thus, the creation of a Finance Management
Office and a Public Affairs Office cannot be given
On the strength of these special provisions, CHR promulgated favorable recommendation.
Resolution No. A98-047 on 04 September 1998, adopting an
Moreover, as provided under Section 2 of RA No. 6758,
upgrading and reclassification scheme among selected
otherwise known as the Compensation Standardization
positions in the Commission. Annexed to said resolution is
Law, the Department of Budget and Management is
the proposed creation of ten additional plantilla positions,
directed to establish and administer a unified
namely: one Director IV position, with Salary Grade 28 for the
compensation and position classification system in the
Caraga Regional Office, four Security Officer II with Salary
government. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of
Grade 15, and five Process Servers, with Salary Grade 5
Victorina Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119155,
under the Office of the Commissioners.
dated January 30, 1996, that DBM the sole power and
On 19 October 1998, CHR issued Resolution No. A98-055
discretion to administer the compensation and position
providing for the upgrading or raising of salary grade of the
classification system of the National Government.
several positions in the Commission. To support the
Being a member of the fiscal autonomy group does not
implementation of such scheme, the CHR, in the same
resolution, authorized the augmentation of a commensurate vest the agency with the authority to reclassify,
amount generated from savings under Personnel Services. By upgrade, and create positions without approval of the
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
DBM. While the members of the Group are authorized for Reconsideration.
to formulate and implement the organizational
structures of their respective offices and determine the CONTENTION:
compensation of their personnel, such authority is not
absolute and must be exercised within the parameters ** Supreme Court erred when it ruled that there is no legal
of the Unified Position Classification and Compensation basis to support the contention that the CHR enjoys fiscal
System established under RA 6758 more popularly autonomy.
known as the Compensation Standardization Law. We ** Supreme Court erred in stating that the special provision
therefore reiterate our previous stand on the matter. of the RA No. 8522 did not specifically mention CHR as
among those offices to which the special provision to
In light of the DBM’s disapproval of the proposed personnel formulate and implement organizational structures apply, but
modification scheme, the CSC-National Capital Region Office, merely states its coverage to include constitutional
through a memorandum dated 29 March 1999 recommended commissions and offices enjoying fiscal autonomy;
to the CSC-Central Office that the subject appointments be ** Supreme Court erred when it ruled that the CHR although
rejected owing to the DBM’s disapproval of the plantilla admittedly a constitutional creation is nonetheless not
reclassification. included in the genus of the offices accorded fiscal autonomy
by constitutional or legislative fiat.
Meanwhile, the officers of petitioner Commission on Human ** Supreme Court erred in deciding to reinstate the ruling
Rights Employees’ Association [CHREA], in representation of dated 29 march 1999 of the civil service commission –
the rank and file employees of the CHR, requested the CSC- national capital region;
Central office to affirm the recommendation of the CSC- ** Supreme Court erred in deciding to disallow the
Regional Office. CHREA stood its ground in saying that the Commission On Human Rights Resolution No. A98-047 dated
DBM is the only agency with appropriate authority mandated September 04, 1998, Resolution No. A98-055 dated 19
by law to evaluate and approve matters of reclassification october 1998 and Resolution No. A98-062 dated 17
and upgrading, as well as creation of positions. November 1998 without the approval of the department of
budget and management.
The CSC-Central Office denied CHREA’s request in a
Resolution dated 16 December 1999, and reversed the ISSUES:
recommendation of the CSC-Regional Office that the 1. WON CHREA has the capacity to sue and/or the proper
upgrading scheme be censured. Petitioner CHREA elevated party
the matter to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals 2. WON CHR is one of the constitutional bodies clothed
affirmed the pronouncement of the CSC-Central Office and with fiscal autonomy
upheld the validity of the upgrading, retitling, and 3. WON approval of DBM is a condition precedent to the
reclassification scheme in the CHR on the justification that approval of the scheme
such action is within the ambit of CHR’s fiscal autonomy.
HELD:
Petitioner elevated its case to the Supreme Court and 1. YES.
successfully obtained the favorable action in its Decision On petitioner's personality to bring this suit, we held in a
dated 25 November 2004. Respondent then filed its Motion multitude of cases that a proper party is one who has
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an Commission on Audit. The mandate for the creation of
injury as a result of the act complained of. 13 Here, the respondent is found in Section 17 of Article XIII of
petitioner, which consists of rank and file employees of the 1987 Constitution on Human Rights. Thus, the
respondent CHR, protests that the upgrading and respondent cannot invoke provisions under Article IX of
collapsing of positions benefited only a select few in the the 1987 Constitution on constitutional commissions
upper level positions in the Commission resulting to the for its benefit. It must be able to present constitutional
demoralization of the rank and file employees. This and/or statutory basis particularly pertaining to it to
sufficiently meets the injury test. Indeed, the CHR's support its claim of fiscal autonomy. The 1987
upgrading scheme, if found to be valid, potentially entails Constitution extends to respondent a certain degree of
eating up the Commission's savings or that portion of its fiscal autonomy through the privilege of having its
budgetary pie otherwise allocated for Personnel Services, approved annual appropriations released automatically
from which the benefits of the employees, including those and regularly. However, it withholds from respondent
in the rank and file, are derived. fiscal autonomy, in its broad or extensive sense, as
granted to the Judiciary, constitutional commissions,
Further, the personality of petitioner to file this case was and the Office of the Ombudsman.
recognized by the CSC when it took cognizance of the
CHREA's request to affirm the recommendation of the CSC- The 1987 Constitution recognizes the fiscal autonomy of the
National Capital Region Office. CHREA's personality to bring Judiciary in Article VIII, Section 3. Constitutional commissions
the suit was a non-issue in the Court of Appeals when it are granted fiscal autonomy by the 1987 Constitution in
passed upon the merits of this case. Thus, neither should our Article IX, Part A, Section 5, a provision applied in common to
hands be tied by this technical concern. Indeed, it is settled all constitutional commissions. The Office of the Ombudsman
jurisprudence that an issue that was neither raised in the enjoys fiscal autonomy by virtue of Article XI, Section 14, of
complaint nor in the court below cannot be raised for the first the 1987 Constitution.
time on appeal, as to do so would be offensive to the basic
rules of fair play, justice, and due process. Each of the afore-quoted provisions consists of two sentences
stating that: (1) The government entity shall enjoy fiscal
2. NO. The 1987 Constitution expressly and autonomy; and (2) its approved annual appropriation shall be
unambiguously grants fiscal autonomy only to the automatically and regularly released. The respondent
Judiciary, the constitutional commissions, and the anchors its claim to fiscal autonomy on the fourth paragraph
Office of the Ombudsman. As already settled in the of Article XIII, Section 17, which provides that the approved
assailed Decision of this Court, the creation of annual appropriations of the Commission shall be
respondent may be constitutionally mandated, but it is automatically and regularly released.
not, in the strict sense, a constitutional commission.
The creation of respondent may be constitutionally As compared to Article VIII, Section 3; Article IX, Part A,
mandated, but it is not, in the strict sense, a Section 5; and Article XI, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution
constitutional commission. Article IX of the 1987 on the Judiciary, the constitutional commissions, and the
Constitution, plainly entitled “Constitutional Office of the Ombudsman, respectively, Article XIII, Section
Commissions,” identifies only the Civil Service 17(4) on the Commission of Human Rights (CHR) evidently
Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the does not contain the first sentence on the express grant of
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
fiscal autonomy, and reproduces only the second sentence Regardless of whether or not respondent enjoys fiscal
on the automatic and regular release of its approved annual autonomy, this Court shares the stance of the DBM that the
appropriations. grant of fiscal autonomy notwithstanding, all government
offices must, all the same, kowtow to the Salary
Fiscal Autonomy defined. It means independence or Standardization Law.
freedom regarding financial matters from outside control and
is characterized by self direction or self determination. It The Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The
does not mean mere automatic and regular release of assailed Decision of this Court dated 25 November 2004 is
approved appropriations to agencies vested with such power hereby MODIFIED, declaring the respondent CHR as a
in a very real sense, the fiscal autonomy contemplated in the constitutional body enjoying limited fiscal autonomy, in the
constitution is enjoyed even before and, with more reasons, sense that it is entitled to the automatic and regular release
after the release of the appropriations. Fiscal autonomy of its approved annual appropriations; nonetheless, it is still
encompasses, among others, budget preparation and required to conform to the Salary Standardization Law.
implementation, flexibility in fund utilization of approved Accordingly, its entire reclassification scheme remains
appropriations, use of savings and disposition of receipts. subject to the approval of the DBM.
This Court concludes that the 1987 Constitution extends to GALICIO VS. AQUINO ET AL.
respondent a certain degree of fiscal autonomy through the G.R. No. 193978, February 28, 2012.
privilege of having its approved annual appropriations
released automatically and regularly. However, it withholds DOCTRINE:
from respondent fiscal autonomy, in its broad or extensive Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal
sense, as granted to the Judiciary, constitutional and substantial interest in a case such that the party has
commissions, and the Office of the Ombudsman. Operative sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
herein is the rule of statutory construction, expressio unius governmental act that is being challenged.
est exclusio alterius, wherein the express mention of one
person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all A moot case is “one that ceases to present a justiciable
others. The rule proceeds from the premise that the controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a
legislature (or in this case, the ConCom) would not have declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.
made specific enumerations in a statute (or the Constitution)
had the intention not been to restrict its meaning and to EO 7 is constitutional. The question as to constitutionality of
confine its terms to those expressly mentioned. EO 7 serves no useful purpose since such issue is moot in its
face in light of the enactment of R.A. No. 10149.
3. YES. This Court staunchly holds that as prescinding
from the legal and jurisprudential yardsticks discussed FACTS:
in length in the assailed Decision, the imprimatur of The petitioner is a Filipino citizen and an employee of the
the DBM must first be sought prior to implementation Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth). He is
of any reclassification or upgrading of positions in currently holding the position of Court Attorney IV and is
government. assigned at the PhilHealth Regional Office CARAGA.
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
On July 26, 2010, Pres. Aquino made public in his first State and granting new or additional benefits and allowances to
of the Nation Address the alleged excessive allowances, their employees.
bonuses and other benefits of Officers and Members of the
Board of Directors of the Manila Waterworks and Sewerage CONTENTIONS:
System – a government owned and controlled corporation
(GOCC) which has been unable to meet its standing **The petitioner claims that as a PhilHealth employee, he is
obligations. Subsequently, the Senate of the Philippines affected by the implementation of EO 7, which was issued
(Senate) conducted an inquiry in aid of legislation on the with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
reported excessive salaries, allowances, and other benefits of jurisdiction. He contended that:
GOCCs and government financial institutions (GFIs). 1. EO 7 is null and void for lack of legal basis. PD 985 is
not applicable as its basis because the GOCCs were
Based on its findings that “officials and governing boards of subsequently granted the power to fix compensation
various [GOCCs] and [GFIs] x x x have been granting long after such power has been revoked by PD 1597
themselves unwarranted allowances, bonuses, incentives, and RA 6758. GOCCs do not need to have its
stock options, and other benefits [as well as other] irregular compensation plans, rates and policies reviewed by
and abusive practices,” the Senate issued Senate Resolution the DBM and approved by the President because PD
No. 17 “urging the President to order the immediate 1597 requires only the GOCCs to report to the
suspension of the unusually large and apparently excessive President their plans and rates but the same does not
allowances, bonuses, incentives and other perks of members give the President the power of control over the fiscal
of the governing boards of [GOCCs] and [GFIs]. power of the GOCCs. JR No. 4, Series of 2009 is not
applicable as legal basis because it had not ripened
Heeding the call of Congress, Pres. Aquino, on September 8, into law.
2010, issued EO 7, entitled “Directing the Rationalization of 2. EO 7 is invalid for divesting the Board of Directors of
the Compensation and Position Classification System in the the GOCCs of their power to fix the compensation, a
[GOCCs] and [GFIs], and for Other Purposes.” EO 7 provided power which is a legislative grant and which could not
for the guiding principles and framework to establish a fixed be revoked or modified by an executive fiat.
compensation and position classification system for GOCCs 3. EO 7 is by substance a law which is a derogation of
and GFIs. It ordered (1) a moratorium on the increases in the congressional prerogative and is therefore
salaries and other forms of compensation, except salary unconstitutional.
adjustments under EO 8011 and EO 900, of all GOCC and GFI 4. The acts of suspending and imposing moratorium are
employees for an indefinite period to be set by the President, ultra vires acts because JR No. 4 does not expressly
and (2) a suspension of all allowances, bonuses and authorize the President to exercise such powers.
incentives of members of the Board of Directors/Trustees 5. EO 7 is an invalid issuance because it has no sufficient
until December 31, 2010. standards and is therefore arbitrary, unreasonable and
a violaton of substantive due process.
It took effect on September 25, 2010 and precluded the 6. EO 7 involves the determination and discretion as to
Board of Directors, Trustees and/or Officers of GOCCs from what the law shall be and is therefore invalid for its
granting and releasing bonuses and allowances to members usurpation of legislative power.
of the board of directors, and from increasing salary rates of 7. Consistent with the decision of the SC in Pimentel vs
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
Aguirre Case, EO 7 is only directory and not HELD:
mandatory.
1. NO. Petitioner lacks locus standi.
**As defense of respondents, the following are procedural
defects as grounds for the dismissal of the petition: In the present case, we are not convinced that the
1. the petitioner lacks locus standi; petitioner has demonstrated that he has a personal
2. the petitioner failed to attach a board resolution or stake or material interest in the outcome of the case
secretary’s certificate authorizing him to question EO 7 because his interest, if any, is speculative and based
in behalf of PhilHealth; on a mere expectancy. In this case, the curtailment of
3. the petitioner’s signature does not indicate his PTR future increases in his salaries and other benefits
Number, Mandatory Continuing Legal Education cannot but be characterized as contingent events or
(MCLE) Compliance Number and Integrated Bar of the expectancies. To be sure, he has no vested rights to
Philippines (IBP) Number; salary increases and, therefore, the absence of such
4. the jurat of the Verification and Certification of Non- right deprives the petitioner of legal standing to assail
Forum Shopping failed to indicate a valid identification EO 7. We note that while the petition raises vital
card as provided under A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC; constitutional and statutory questions concerning the
5. the President should be dropped as a party respondent power of the President to fix the compensation
as he is immune from suit; and packages of GOCCs and GFIs with possible implications
6. certiorari is not applicable to this case. on their officials and employees, the same cannot
7. They claim that the President exercises control over “infuse” or give the petitioner locus standi under the
the governing boards of the GOCCs and GFIs; thus, he transcendental importance or paramount public
can fix their compensation packages. In addition, EO interest doctrine.
7 was issued in accordance with law for the purpose of
controlling the grant of excessive salaries, allowances, Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal
incentives and other benefits to GOCC and GFI and substantial interest in a case such that the party has
employees. They also advocate the validity of Joint sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the
Resolution (J.R.) No. 4, which they point to as the governmental act that is being challenged. The gist of the
authority for issuing EO 7. question on standing is whether a party alleges such
personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure
Meanwhile, on June 6, 2011, Congress enacted Republic Act that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation
(R.A.) No. 10149,[15] otherwise known as the “GOCC of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of
Governance Act of 2011.” Section 11 of RA 10149 expressly difficult constitutional questions.” This requirement of
authorizes the President to fix the compensation framework standing relates to the constitutional mandate that this Court
of GOCCs and GFIs. settle only actual cases or controversies.
1. Whether or not the provisions of the constitution is In self-executing constitutional provisions, the
self-executing legislature may still enact legislation to facilitate the
2. Whether or not the shares of Manila Hotel is part of the exercise of powers directly granted by the constitution,
national national economy and patrimony covered by further the operation of such a provision, prescribe a
the protective mantle of the Constitution. practice to be used for its enforcement, provide a
3. Whether GSIS is included in the term “State,” hence, convenient remedy for the protection of the rights
mandated to implement section 10, paragraph 2 of secured or the determination thereof, or place
Article XII of the Constitution reasonable safeguards around the exercise of the
4. Whether or not the Filipino First policy should be right. The mere fact that legislation may supplement
applied and add to or prescribe a penalty for the violation of a
self-executing constitutional provision does not render
HELD: such a provision ineffective in the absence of such
1. YES. The prevailing view is that in case of doubt, the legislation. The omission from a constitution of any
Constitution should be considered self-executing rather express provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or
than non-self-executing unless the contrary is clearly liability is not necessarily an indication that it was not
intended. intended to be self-executing. The rule is that a self-
executing provision of the constitution does not
A provision which is complete in itself and becomes necessarily exhaust legislative power on the subject,
operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling but any legislation must be in harmony with the
legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by constitution, further the exercise of constitutional right
means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or and make it more available. Subsequent legislation
protected, is self-executing. A constitutional provision however does not necessarily mean that the subject
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
constitutional provision is not, by itself, fully In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony
enforceable. pertains to heritage. When the Constitution speaks of
national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural
Unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution could
necessary to enforce a constitutional mandate, the have very well used the term natural resources, but
presumption now is that all provisions of the also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos.
constitution are self-executing.
(2) Manila Hotel has become a landmark - a living
Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a testimonial of Philippine heritage. While it was
mandatory, positive command which is complete in itself and restrictively an American hotel when it first opened
which needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or in 1912, it immediately evolved to be truly Filipino.
rules for its enforcement. From its very words the provision Formerly a concourse for the elite, it has since then
does not require any legislation to put it in operation. It is become the venue of various significant events
per se judicially enforceable. When our Constitution which have shaped Philippine history. It was called
mandates that [i]n the grant of rights, privileges, and the Cultural Center of the 1930’s. It was the site of
concessions covering national economy and patrimony, the the festivities during the inauguration of the
State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just Philippine Commonwealth. Dubbed as the Official
that - qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. And when our Guest House of the Philippine Government it plays
Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified host to dignitaries and official visitors who are
circumstances an action may be maintained to enforce such accorded the traditional Philippine hospitality.
right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation on the (3) For more than eight (8) decades Manila Hotel has
subject; consequently, if there is no statute especially bore mute witness to the triumphs and failures,
enacted to enforce such constitutional right, such right loves and frustrations of the Filipinos; its existence
enforces itself by its own inherent potency and puissance, is impressed with public interest; its own historicity
and from which all legislations must take their bearings. associated with our struggle for sovereignty,
Where there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus ibi independence and nationhood. Verily, Manila Hotel
remedium. has become part of our national economy and
patrimony. For sure, 51% of the equity of the MHC
2. YES. As regards our national patrimony, a member of comes within the purview of the constitutional
the 1986 Constitutional Commission explained shelter for it comprises the majority and controlling
(1) The patrimony of the Nation that should be stock, so that anyone who acquires or owns the
conserved and developed refers not only to our rich 51% will have actual control and management of
natural resources but also to the cultural heritage the hotel. In this instance, 51% of the MHC cannot
of our race. It also refers to our intelligence in arts, be disassociated from the hotel and the land on
sciences and letters. Therefore, we should develop which the hotel edifice stands.
not only our lands, forests, mines and other natural
resources but also the mental ability or faculty of NOTE: The term “qualified Filipinos” simply means that
our people. preference shall be given to those citizens who can make a
viable contribution to the common good, because of credible
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
competence and efficiency. It certainly does NOT mandate distinct from the government are considered “state
the pampering and preferential treatment to Filipino citizens action” covered by the Constitution (1) when the
or organizations that are incompetent or inefficient, since activity it engages in is a “public function;” (2) when
such an indiscriminate preference would be the government is so significantly involved with the
counterproductive and inimical to the common good. private actor as to make the government responsible
for his action; and, (3) when the government has
In the granting of economic rights, privileges, and approved or authorized the action. It is evident that
concessions, when a choice has to be made between a the act of respondent GSIS in selling 51% of its share
“qualified foreigner” and a “qualified Filipino,” the latter shall in respondent MHC comes under the second and third
be chosen over the former.” categories of “state action.” Without doubt therefore
the transaction, although entered into by respondent
Lastly, the word qualified is also determinable. Petitioner GSIS, is in fact a transaction of the State and therefore
was so considered by respondent GSIS and selected as one of subject to the constitutional command.
the qualified bidders. It was pre-qualified by respondent GSIS
in accordance with its own guidelines so that the sole 4. YES. The Manila Hotel or, for that matter, 51% of the
inference here is that petitioner has been found to be MHC, is not just any commodity to be sold to the
possessed of proven management expertise in the hotel highest bidder solely for the sake of privatization. The
industry, or it has significant equity ownership in another patrimony of the Nation that should be conserved and
hotel company, or it has an overall management and developed refers not only to our rich natural resources
marketing proficiency to successfully operate the Manila but also to the cultural heritage of our race. It also
Hotel. refers to our intelligence in arts, sciences and letters.
In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony
3. YES. It is undisputed that the sale of 51% of the MHC pertains to heritage. When the Constitution speaks of
could only be carried out with the prior approval of the national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural
State acting through respondent Committee on resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution could
Privatization. As correctly pointed out by Fr. Joaquin G. have very well used the term natural resources, but
Bernas, S.J., this fact alone makes the sale of the also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos.
assets of respondents GSIS and MHC a “state action.”
When the Constitution addresses the State it refers not The Filipino First Policy enshrined in the 1987
only to the people but also to the government as Constitution, i.e., in the grant of rights, privileges, and
elements of the State. Accordingly, a constitutional concessions covering the national economy and
mandate directed to the State is correspondingly patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified
directed to the three (3) branches of government. In Filipinos is invoked by petitioner in its bid to acquire
this case the subject constitutional injunction is 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation
addressed among others to the Executive Department (MHC) which owns the historic Manila Hotel. Opposing,
and respondent GSIS, a government instrumentality respondents maintain that the provision is not self-
deriving its authority from the State. executing but requires an implementing legislation for
its enforcement. Corollarily, they ask whether the 51%
In constitutional jurisprudence, the acts of persons shares form part of the national economy and
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
patrimony covered by the protective mantle of the offer its services and resources to PCSO. As an initial step,
Constitution. Berjaya Group Berhad organized with some Filipino investors
a Philippine corporation known as the Philippine Gaming
In the present case, it should be stressed that while the Management Corporation (PGMC), which was intended to be
Malaysian firm offered the higher bid it is not yet the winning the medium through which the technical and management
bidder. The bidding rules expressly provide that the highest services required for the project would be offered and
bidder shall only be declared the winning bidder after it has delivered to PCSO. Considering the Constitution’s citizenship
negotiated and executed the necessary contracts, and requirement, the PGMC claims that the Berjaya Group
secured the requisite approvals. Since the Filipino First Policy undertook to reduce its equity stakes in PGMC to 40% by
provision of the Constitution bestows preference on qualified selling 35% out of the original 75% foreign stockholdings to
Filipinos the mere tending of the highest bid is not an local investors.
assurance that the highest bidder will be declared the
winning bidder. Resultantly, respondents are not bound to Office of the President announced that it had given the
make the award yet, nor are they under obligation to enter respondent PGMC the go-signal to operate the country's on-
into one with the highest bidder. For in choosing the awardee line lottery system and that the corresponding implementing
respondents are mandated to abide by the dictates of the contract would be submitted thereafter. KILOSBAYAN sent an
1987 Constitution the provisions of which are presumed to be open letter to Presidential Ramos strongly opposing the
known to all the bidders and other interested parties. setting up to the on-line lottery system on the basis of
serious moral and ethical considerations. Nevertheless, an
GSIS was directed to cease and desist from selling the shares agreement denominated as "Contract of Lease" was finally
of Manila Hotel Corporation and to accept the matching bid of executed by respondent PCSO and respondent PGMC. The
petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation to purchase the President, per the press statement issued by the Office of the
subject shares. President, approved it on 20 December 1993.
KILOSBAYAN ET AL. VS. GUINGONA ET AL. KILOSBAYAN, a non-stock domestic corporation composed of
G.R. No. 113375 May 5, 1994 civic-spirited citizens, pastors, priests, nuns, and lay leaders
GATACELO who are committed to the cause of truth, justice, and
national renewal, along with Senators Webb and Tañada and
DOCTRINE: Representative Joker Arroyo acting in their capacities as
A party's standing before this Court is a procedural members of Congress and as taxpayers and concerned
technicality which it may, in the exercise of its discretion, set citizens of the Philippines, want to nullify the said contract.
aside in view of the importance of the issues raised. They claim that the Office of the President, acting through
Executive Secretary Guingona and/or Assistant Executive
FACTS: Secretary for Legal Affairs Corona, and the PCSO gravely
PCSO decided to establish an on- line lottery system for the abused their discretion and/or functions tantamount to lack
purpose of increasing its revenue base and diversifying its of jurisdiction and/or authority in respectively. Moreover, they
sources of funds. After learning of the same, the Berjaya alleged that PCSO is prohibited from holding and conducting
Group Berhad, a multinational company and one of the ten lotteries "in collaboration, association or joint venture with
largest public companies in Malaysia, became interested to any person, association, company or entity" pursuant to its
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
charter, a Congressional franchise is required before any immediate injury as a result of the acts or measures
person may be allowed to establish and operate said complained of. And even if, strictly speaking, they are not
telecommunications system, among others. covered by the definition, it is still within the wide discretion
of the Court to waive the requirement and so remove the
Meanwhile, PGMC asserts that it is merely an independent impediment to its addressing and resolving the serious
contractor for a piece of work, (i.e., the building and constitutional questions raised.
maintenance of a lottery system to be used by PCSO in the
operation of its lottery franchise) and not a co-operator of the In the first Emergency Powers Cases, ordinary citizens and
lottery franchise with PCSO, nor is PCSO sharing its franchise, taxpayers were allowed to question the constitutionality of
'in collaboration, association or joint venture' with PGMC; and several executive orders issued by President Quirino although
that the petitioners do not appear to have the legal standing they were invoking only an indirect and general interest
or real interest in the subject contract and in obtaining the shared in common with the public. The Court dismissed the
reliefs sought. Guingona, Corona, and PCSO assert similar objective that they were not proper parties and ruled that the
counter-arguments. transcendental importance to the public of these cases
demands that they be settled promptly and definitely,
brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure. We
ISSUE: have since then applied this exception in many other cases.
WON petitioners have locus standi.
Likewise, SC finds the instant petition to be of transcendental
HELD: importance to the public. The issues it raised are of
Yes. A party's standing before this Court is a procedural paramount public interest. The ramifications of such issues
technicality which it may, in the exercise of its discretion, set immeasurably affect the social, economic, and moral well-
aside in view of the importance of the issues raised. In the being of the people even in the remotest barangays of the
landmark Emergency Powers Cases, this Court brushed country and the counter-productive and retrogressive effects
aside this technicality because the transcendental of the envisioned on-line lottery system are as staggering as
importance to the public of these cases demands that they the billions in pesos it is expected to raise. The legal standing
be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we then of the petitioners deserves recognition and, in the
must, technicalities of procedure. Insofar as taxpayers' suits exercise of its sound discretion, this Court hereby brushes
are concerned, this Court had declared that it is not devoid of aside the procedural barrier which the respondents tried to
discretion as to whether or not it should be entertained, or take advantage of.
that it enjoys an open discretion to entertain the same or not.
Several cases were cited to bolster this claim, and one of RE: COA OPINION ON THE COMPUTATION OF THE
those was from Association of Small Landowners in the APPRAISED VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES PURCHASED BY
Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform. It declared: THE RETIRED CHIEF/ ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE
SUPREME COURT
With particular regard to the requirement of proper party as A.M. NO. 11-7-10-SC JULY 31, 2012
applied in the cases before us, we hold that the same is
satisfied by the petitioners and intervenors because each of DOCTRINE:
them has sustained or is in danger of sustaining an Any kind of interference on how these retirement privileges
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
and benefits are exercised and availed of, not only violates autonomy.
the fiscal autonomy and independence of the Judiciary, but
also encroaches upon the constitutional duty and privilege of HELD:
the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court En Banc to manage Yes. The COA’s authority to conduct post-audit examinations
the Judiciary’s own affairs. on constitutional bodies granted fiscal autonomy is provided
under Section 2(1), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution. This
FACTS: authority, however, must be read not only in light of the
Office of the General Counsel of the Commission on Audit Court’s fiscal autonomy, but also in relation with the
(COA) found that an underpayment amounting to constitutional provisions on judicial independence and the
P221,021.50 resulted when five retired Supreme Court existing jurisprudence and Court rulings on these matters.
justices purchased from the Supreme Court the personal The concept of the independence of the three branches of
properties assigned to them during their incumbency in the government extends from the notion that the powers of
Court. The COA attributed this underpayment to the use by government must be divided to avoid concentration of these
the Property Division of the Supreme Court of the wrong powers in any one branch; the division, it is hoped, would
formula in computing the appraisal value of the purchased avoid any single branch from lording its power over the other
vehicles. According to the COA, the Property Division branches or the citizenry. To achieve this purpose, the divided
erroneously appraised the subject motor vehicles by applying power must be wielded by co-equal branches of government
Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG) Joint Resolution that are equally capable of independent action in exercising
No. 35 and its guidelines, in compliance with the Resolution their respective mandates; lack of independence would result
of the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 03-12-01, when it should in the inability of one branch of government to check the
have applied the formula found in COA Memorandum No. 98- arbitrary or self-interest assertions of another or others.
569-A4. Thus, judicial independence can be “broken down into two
distinct concepts: decisional independence and institutional
Atty. Candelaria, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief independence.” Decisional independence “refers to a judge’s
Administrative Officer, recommended that the Court advise ability to render decisions free from political or popular
the COA to respect the in-house computation based on the influence based solely on the individual facts and applicable
CFAG formula, noting that this was the first time that the COA law.”On the other hand, institutional independence
questioned the authority of the Court in using CFAG Joint “describes the separation of the judicial branch from the
Resolution No. 35 and its guidelines in the appraisal and executive and legislative branches of government.”
disposal of government property since these were issued in
1997. As a matter of fact, in two previous instances involving While, as a general proposition, the authority of legislatures
two retired Court of Appeals Associate Justices, the COA to control the purse in the first instance is unquestioned, any
upheld the in-house appraisal of government property using form of interference by the Legislative or the Executive on
the formula found in the CFAG guidelines. More importantly, the Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy amounts to an improper check
the Constitution itself grants the Judiciary fiscal autonomy in on a co-equal branch of government. If the judicial branch is
the handling of its budget and resources. to perform its primary function of adjudication, it must be
able to command adequate resources for that purpose. This
ISSUE: authority to exercise (or to compel the exercise of) legislative
WON COA’s interference, in this case, violates the judiciary’s power over the national purse (which at first blush appears to
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
be a violation of concepts of separateness and an invasion of availed of, not only violates the fiscal autonomy and
legislative autonomy) is necessary to maintain judicial independence of the Judiciary, but also encroaches upon the
independence and is expressly provided for by the constitutional duty and privilege of the Chief Justice and the
Constitution through the grant of fiscal autonomy under Supreme Court En Banc to manage the Judiciary’s own
Section 3, Article VIII. affairs.
The Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy is realized through the SANIDAD VS. COMELEC
actions of the Chief Justice, as its head, and of the Supreme G.R. NO. L-44640 OCTOBER 12, 1976
Court En Banc, in the exercise of administrative control and
supervision of the courts and its personnel. As the Court En DOCTRINE:
Banc’s Resolution reflects, the fiscal autonomy of the The amending process both as to proposal and ratification
Judiciary serves as the basis in allowing the sale of the raises a judicial question.
Judiciary’s properties to retiring Justices of the Supreme Court
and the appellate courts. The Judiciary has full flexibility to FACTS:
allocate and utilize (its) resources with the wisdom and President Marcos issued PD. No. 991 calling for a national
dispatch that (its) needs require. referendum on October 16, 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies
("barangays") to resolve, among other things, the issues of
By way of a long standing tradition, partly based on the martial law, the assembly, its replacement, the powers of
intention to reward long and faithful service, the sale to the such replacement, the period of its existence, the length of
retired Justices of specifically designated properties that they the period for tile exercise by the President of his present
used during their incumbency has been recognized both as a powers. Thereafter, the President issued PD No. 1031,
privilege and a benefit. This has become an established amending PD No. 991, by providing for the manner of voting
practice within the Judiciary that even the COA has previously and canvass of votes in "barangays" (Citizens Assemblies)
recognized. The En Banc Resolution also deems the grant of applicable to the national referendum-plebiscite of October
the privilege as a form of additional retirement benefit that 16, 1976.
the Court can grant its officials and employees in the exercise Soon, the President issued PD No. 1033, stating the questions
of its power of administrative supervision. Under this to be submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on
administrative authority, the Court has the power to October 16, 1976. The Decree recites in its "whereas" clauses
administer the Judiciary’s internal affairs, and this includes that the people's continued opposition to the convening of
the authority to handle and manage the retirement the National Assembly evinces their desire to have such body
applications and entitlements of its personnel as provided by abolished and replaced thru a constitutional amendment,
law and by its own grants. providing for a legislative body, which will be submitted
directly to the people in the referendum-plebiscite of October
In the context of the grant now in issue, the use of the 16. The questions ask, to wit: (1) Do you want martial law to
formula provided in CFAG Joint Resolution No. 35 is a part of be continued? (2) Whether or not you want martial law to be
the Court’s exercise of its discretionary authority to continued, do you approve the following amendments to the
determine the manner the granted retirement privileges and Constitution? For the purpose of the second question, the
benefits can be availed of. Any kind of interference on how referendum shall have the effect of a plebiscite within the
these retirement privileges and benefits are exercised and contemplation of Section 2 of Article XVI of the Constitution.
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
And some of the proposed amendments were: 1) In lieu of the Constitution.3
the interim National Assembly, an interim Batasang
Pambansa shall be established; 2) Batasang Pambansa shall Still another petition for Prohibition with Preliminary
have the same powers and its members shall have the same Injunction was filed on October 5, 1976 by RAUL M.
functions, responsibilities, rights, privileges, and GONZALES, his son RAUL, JR., and ALFREDO SALAPANTAN,
disqualifications as the interim National Assembly and the docketed as L- 44714, to restrain the implementation of
regular National Assembly and the members thereof; 3) The Presidential Decrees relative to the forthcoming Referendum-
incumbent President shall convene the interim Batasang Plebiscite of October 16.
Pambansa and preside over its sessions until the Speaker
shall have been elected. The incumbent President shall be These last petitioners argue that even granting him
the Prime Minister and he shall continue to exercise all his legislative powers under Martial Law, the incumbent
powers even after the interim Batasang Pambansa is President cannot act as a constituent assembly to propose
organized and ready to discharge its functions...; and among amendments to the Constitution; a referendum-plebiscite is
others. untenable under the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973; the
submission of the proposed amendments in such a short
Pablo and Pablito Sanidad, father and son, commenced a suit period of time for deliberation renders the plebiscite a nullity;
for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin to lift Martial Law, the President need not consult the people
the Commission on Elections from holding and conducting via referendum; and allowing 15-.year olds to vote would
the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16. They contend that amount to an amendment of the Constitution, which confines
under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, there is no grant to the right of suffrage to those citizens of the Philippines 18
the incumbent President to exercise the constituent power to years of age and above.
propose amendments to the new Constitution. As a
consequence, the Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has We find the petitions in the three entitled cases to be devoid
no constitutional or legal basis. of merit.
2. Yes. The amending process both as to proposal and What is in the heels of the Court is not the wisdom of
ratification raises a judicial question. Under the terms the act of the incumbent President in proposing
of the 1973 Constitution, the power to propose amendments to the Constitution, but his constitutional
amendments to the constitution resides in the interim authority to perform such act or to assume the power
National Assembly in the period of transition (See. 15, of a constituent assembly. Whether the amending
Transitory provisions). After that period, and the process confers on the President that power to propose
regular National Assembly in its active session, the amendments is therefore a downright justiciable
power to propose amendments becomes ipso facto the question. Should the contrary be found, the actuation
prerogative of the regular National Assembly (Sec. 1, of the President would merely be a brutum fulmen
pars. 1 and 2 of Art. XVI, 1973 constitution). The [empty threat]. If the Constitution provides how it may
normal course has not been followed. Rather than be amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that
calling the National Assembly to constitute itself into a Constitution, can declare whether the procedure
constituent assembly, the incumbent President followed or the authority assumed was valid or not.
undertook the proposal of amendments and submitted
the proposed amendments thru Presidential Decree
3. Yes. There are two periods contemplated in the
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
constitutional life of the nation, i.e., period of normalcy has converted his office into a constituent assembly of
and period of transition. In times of normally, the that nature normally constituted by the legislature.
amending process may be initiated by the proposals of Rather, with the interim National Assembly not
the (1) regular National Assembly upon a vote of three- convened and only the Presidency and the Supreme
fourths of all its members; or (2) by a Constitutional Court in operation, the urges of absolute necessity
Convention called by a vote of two-thirds of all the render it imperative upon the President to act as agent
Members of the National Assembly. However the for and in behalf of the people to propose amendments
calling of a Constitutional Convention may be to the Constitution. Parenthetically, by its very
submitted to the electorate in an election voted upon constitution, the Supreme Court possesses no capacity
by a majority vote of all the members of the National to propose amendments without constitutional
Assembly. In times of transition, amendments may be infractions. For the President to shy away from that
proposed by a majority vote of all the Members of the actuality and decline to undertake the amending
National Assembly upon special call by the interim process would leave the governmental machineries at
Prime Minister. a stalemate or create in the powers of the State a
destructive vacuum, thereby impeding the objective of
The power then to legislate is constitutionally a crisis government "to end the crisis and restore
consigned to the interim National Assembly during the normal times." In these parlous times, that Presidential
transition period. However, the initial convening of that initiative to reduce into concrete forms the constant
Assembly is a matter fully addressed to the judgment voices of the people reigns supreme. After all,
of the incumbent President. And, in the exercise of that constituent assemblies or constitutional conventions,
judgment, the President opted to defer convening of like the President now, are mere agents of the people.
that body in utter recognition of the people's
preference. Likewise, in the period of transition, the LAMP vs. SEC. OF DBM
power to propose amendments to the Constitution lies G.R. No. 164987 April 24, 2012
in the interim National Assembly upon special call by LAZARO
the President (See. 15 of the Transitory Provisions).
Again, harking to the dictates of the sovereign will, the DOCTRINE:
President decided not to call the interim National In order for a court to exercise the power of judicial review,
Assembly. Would it then be within the bounds of the the four requisites must be present.
Constitution and of law for the President to assume
that constituent power of the interim Assembly vis-a- FACTS:
vis his assumption of that body's legislative functions? The GAA of 2004 provides, among others, the use and
The answer is yes. If the President has been release of priority development assistance fund in the
legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the amount of ₱8,327,000,000.00. According to LAMP (LAWYERS
interim Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot AGAINST MONOPOLY AND POVERTY), the General
validly discharge the function of that Assembly to Appropriations Act of 2004 (GAA) is silent and, therefore,
propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but prohibits an automatic or direct allocation of lump sums to
adjunct, although peculiar, to its gross legislative individual senators and congressmen for the funding of
power. This, of course, is not to say that the President projects. It does not empower individual Members of
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
Congress to propose, select and identify programs and raised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of
projects to be funded out of PDAF. “In previous GAAs, said constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. In our
allocation and identification of projects were the main jurisdiction, the issue of ripeness is generally treated in terms
features of the ‘pork barrel’ system technically known as of actual injury to the plaintiff. Hence, a question is ripe for
Countrywide Development Fund (CDF). Nothing of the sort is adjudication when the act being challenged has had a direct
now seen in the present law (R.A. No. 9206 of CY 2004). “The adverse effect on the individual challenging it.
omission of the PDAF provision to specify sums as
‘allocations’ to individual Members of Congress is a ‘casus In this case, the petitioner contested the implementation of
omissus’ signifying an omission intentionally made by an alleged unconstitutional statute, as citizens and
Congress that this Court is forbidden to supply.” Hence, LAMP taxpayers. According to LAMP, the practice of direct
is of the conclusion that “the pork barrel has become legally allocation and release of funds to the Members of Congress
defunct under the present state of GAA 2004.” and the authority given to them to propose and select
projects is the core of the law’s flawed execution resulting in
Respondents contend that the petition miserably lacks legal a serious constitutional transgression involving the
and factual grounds. Without probative value, media reports expenditure of public funds. Undeniably, as taxpayers, LAMP
cited by the petitioner deserve scant consideration especially would somehow be adversely affected by this. A finding of
the accusation that corrupt legislators have allegedly unconstitutionality would necessarily be tantamount to a
proposed cuts or slashes from their pork barrel. Hence, the misapplication of public funds which, in turn, cause injury or
Court should decline the petitioner’s plea to take judicial hardship to taxpayers. This affords “ripeness” to the present
notice of the supposed iniquity of PDAF because there is no controversy.
concrete proof that PDAF, in the guise of “pork barrel,” is a
source of “dirty money” for unscrupulous lawmakers and Anent locus standi, “the rule is that the person who impugns
other officials who tend to misuse their allocations. the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial
interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will
ISSUE: sustained, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. The
WON the mandatory requisites for the exercise of judicial gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges
review are met in this case. “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as
to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
RULING: presentation of issues upon which the court so largely
Yes. depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.”
Like almost all powers conferred by the Constitution, the In public suits, the plaintiff, representing the general public,
power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) asserts a “public right” in assailing an allegedly illegal official
there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the action. The plaintiff may be a person who is affected no
exercise of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act differently from any other person, and could be suing as a
must have the standing to question the validity of the subject “stranger,” or as a “citizen” or “taxpayer.” Thus, taxpayers
act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal have been allowed to sue where there is a claim that public
and substantial interest in the case such that he has funds are illegally disbursed or that public money is being
sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its deflected to any improper purpose, or that public funds are
enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
unconstitutional law. Of greater import than the damage
caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal DOCTRINE:
wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential
enforcement of an invalid statute. Here, the sufficient interest terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to
preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by the Constitution is concerned.
taxation required in taxpayers’ suits is established. Thus, in
the claim that PDAF funds have been illegally disbursed and FACTS:
wasted through the enforcement of an invalid or Private respondent Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with public
unconstitutional law, LAMP should be allowed to sue. respondent COMELEC a "Petition to Amend the Constitution,
Taxpayers have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative"
expenditures of moneys raised by taxation and may (hereafter, Delfin Petition). The Delfin Petition alleged, among
therefore question the constitutionality of statutes requiring others, that the provisions sought to be amended are
expenditure of public moneys. Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and
Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution. Attached to the
Lastly, the Court is of the view that the petition poses issues petition is a copy of a "Petition for Initiative on the 1987
impressed with paramount public interest. The ramification of Constitution" embodying the proposed amendments which
issues involving the unconstitutional spending of PDAF consist in the deletion from the aforecited sections of the
deserves the consideration of the Court, warranting the provisions concerning term limits, and with the following
assumption of jurisdiction over the petition. proposition: “DO YOU APPROVE OF LIFTING THE TERM LIMITS
OF ALL ELECTIVE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AMENDING FOR
(ADDITIONAL INFO) THE PURPOSE SECTIONS 4 AND 7 OF ARTICLE VI, SECTION 4
The petition was dismissed by the court. The petition is OF ARTICLE VII, AND SECTION 8 OF ARTICLE X OF THE 1987
seriously wanting in establishing that individual Members of PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION?” After complying with the order
Congress receive and thereafter spend funds out of PDAF. of the COMELEC, the petition was set for hearing. After
Although the possibility of this unscrupulous practice cannot hearing their arguments, the COMELEC directed Delfin and
be entirely discounted, surmises and conjectures are not the oppositors to file their "memoranda and/or
sufficient bases for the Court to strike down the practice for oppositions/memoranda" within five days. The petitioners
being offensive to the Constitution. Moreover, the authority herein (Santiago, Padilla, Ongpin) filed a special civil action
granted the Members of Congress to propose and select for prohibition for the ff. reasons: (1) The constitutional
projects was already upheld in Philconsa case. This remains provision on people's initiative to amend the Constitution can
as valid case law. The Court sees no need to review or only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No
reverse the standing pronouncements in the said case. So such law has been passed; (2) It is true that R.A. No. 6735
long as there is no showing of a direct participation of provides for three systems of initiative, namely, initiative on
legislators in the actual spending of the budget, the the Constitution, on statutes, and on local legislation.
constitutional boundaries between the Executive and the However, it failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the
Legislative in the budgetary process remain intact. Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative, which are
specifically provided for in Subtitle II and Subtitle III; (3)
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC Republic Act No. 6735 provides for the effectivity of the law
G.R. No. 127325 March 19, 1997 after publication in print media. This indicates that the Act
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
covers only laws and not constitutional amendments because propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part,
the latter take effect only upon ratification and not after the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by
publication; (4) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 adopted to any legislative body upon compliance with the requirements
govern "the conduct of initiative on the Constitution and of this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed.
initiative and referendum on national and local laws, is ultra (Emphasis supplied).
vires insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution
is concerned, since the COMELEC has no power to provide The inclusion of the word "Constitution" therein was a
rules and regulations for the exercise of the right of initiative delayed afterthought. That word is neither germane nor
to amend the Constitution. Only Congress is authorized by relevant to said section, which exclusively relates to initiative
the Constitution to pass the implementing law; (5) The and referendum on national laws and local laws, ordinances,
people's initiative is limited to amendments to the and resolutions. That section is silent as to amendments on
Constitution, not to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of the Constitution. As pointed out earlier, initiative on the
term limits constitutes a revision and is, therefore, outside Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND.
the power of the people's initiative; (6) Finally, Congress has The people are not accorded the power to "directly
not yet appropriated funds for people's initiative; neither the propose, enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part,
COMELEC nor any other government department, agency, or the Constitution" through the system of initiative.
office has realigned funds for the purpose. They can only do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or
resolutions."
ISSUE:
WON RA 6735 is sufficient insofar as initiative on Second, unlike in the case of the other systems of initiative,
amendments to the Constitution is concerned. the Act does not provide for the contents of a petition for
initiative on the Constitution. Section 5, paragraph (c)
RULING: requires, among other things, statement of the proposed law
No. sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or
Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution provides for the repealed, as the case may be. It does not include, as among
exercise of the right of the people to propose amendments to the contents of the petition, the provisions of the Constitution
the Constitution through initiative.The Congress shall provide sought to be amended, in the case of initiative on the
for the implementation of the exercise of this right. This Constitution.
provision is not self-executory. The Court agrees that R.A. No.
6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative Third, while the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative
to propose amendments to the Constitution. However, it is and Referendum (Subtitle II) and for Local Initiative and
not in full compliance with the power and duty of Congress to Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitle is provided for initiative
"provide for the implementation of the exercise of the right.” on the Constitution. This conspicuous silence as to the latter
First, contrary to the assertion of public respondent simply means that the main thrust of the Act is initiative and
COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act does not suggest an initiative referendum on national and local laws. If Congress intended
on amendments to the Constitution. The said section reads: R.A. No. 6735 to fully provide for the implementation of the
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have
Sec. 2. Statement and Policy. — The power of the people provided for a subtitle therefor, considering that in the order
under a system of initiative and referendum to directly of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Victor Burns Lovely, Jr., a Philippine-born American citizen
Constitution is far more important than the initiative on from Los Angeles, California, almost killed himself and injured
national and local laws. It is "national initiative," if what is his younger brother, Romeo, as a result of the explosion of a
proposed to be adopted or enacted is a national law, or a law small bomb inside his room at the YMCA building in Manila.
which only Congress can pass. It is "local initiative" if what is Found in Lovely's possession by police and military
proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law, ordinance, or authorities were several pictures taken sometime in May,
resolution which only the legislative bodies of the 1980 at the birthday party of former Congressman Raul Daza
governments of the autonomous regions, provinces, cities, held at the latter's residence in a Los Angeles suburb.
municipalities, and barangays can pass. Hence, to complete Petitioner Jovito R. Salonga and his wife were among those
the classification under subtitles there should have been a whose likenesses appeared in the group pictures together
subtitle on initiative on amendments to the Constitution. As with other guests, including Lovely. Mr. Lovely and his two
to initiative on amendments to the Constitution, R.A. No. brothers, Romeo and Baltazar Lovely were charged with
6735, in all of its twenty-three sections, merely (a) mentions, subversion, illegal possession of explosives, and damage to
the word "Constitution" in Section 2; (b) defines "initiative on property. On September 20, 1980, the President's
the Constitution" and includes it in the enumeration of the anniversary television radio press conference was broadcast.
three systems of initiative in Section 3; (c) speaks of The younger brother of Victor Lovely, Romeo, was presented
"plebiscite" as the process by which the proposition in an during the conference. In his interview, Romeo stated that he
initiative on the Constitution may be approved or rejected by had driven his elder brother, Victor, to the petitioner's house
the people; (d) reiterates the constitutional requirements as in Greenhills on two occasions. The first time was on August
to the number of voters who should sign the petition; and (e) 20, 1980. Romeo stated that Victor did not bring any bag
provides for the date of effectivity of the approved with him on that day when he went to the petitioner's
proposition. There was, therefore, an obvious downgrading of residence and did not carry a bag when he left. The second
the more important or the paramount system of initiative. time was in the afternoon of August 31, 1980 when he
RA. No. 6735 thus delivered a humiliating blow to the system brought Victor only to the gate of the petitioner's house.
of initiative on amendments to the Constitution by merely Romeo did not enter the petitioner's residence. Neither did
paying it a reluctant lip service. 5 he return that day to pick up his brother. The next day,
newspapers came out with almost Identical headlines stating
SALONGA vs. PAÑO in effect that petitioner had been linked to the various
134 SCRA 438 G.R. No. L-59524 February 18, 1985 bombings in Metro Manila. Arrest, search, and seizure orders
(ASSOs) were issued against persons who were apparently
DOCTRINE: implicated by Victor Lovely in the series of bombings in Metro
The Court exercised the power of judicial review even if the Manila. One of them was herein petitioner. Elements of the
issue had become moot and academic since it has the duty military went to the hospital room of the petitioner at the
to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles, Manila Medical Center where he was confined due to his
precepts, doctrines, or rules. recurrent and chronic ailment of bronchial asthma and placed
him under arrest. The petitioner was transferred against his
FACTS: objections from his hospital arrest to an isolation room
A rash of bombings occurred in the Metro Manila area in the without windows in an army prison camp at Fort Bonifacio,
months of August, September and October of 1980. One Makati. The petitioner states that he was not informed why
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
he was transferred and detained, nor was he ever the respondent Judge to withdraw the draft ponencia from
investigated or questioned by any military or civil authority. circulating for concurrences and signatures and to place it
Subsequently, the petitioner was released for humanitarian once again in the Court's crowded agenda for further
reasons from military custody and placed "under house arrest deliberations.
in the custody of Mrs. Lydia Salonga" still without the benefit
of any investigation or charges. The counsel for petitioner Insofar as the absence of a prima facie case to warrant the
filed a motion to dismiss the charges against petitioner for filing of subversion charges is concerned, this decision has
failure of the prosecution to establish a prima facie case been rendered moot and academic by the action of the
against him. The respondent judge denied the motion. He prosecution. Recent developments in this case serve to focus
issued a resolution ordering the filing of an information for attention on a not too well known aspect of the Supreme
violation of the Revised Anti-Subversion Act, as amended, Court's functions.
against forty (40) people, including herein petitioner. The
resolutions of the respondent judge are now the subject of The setting aside or declaring void, in proper cases, of
the petition. It is the contention of the petitioner that no intrusions of State authority into areas reserved by the Bill of
prima facie case has been established by the prosecution to Rights for the individual as constitutionally protected spheres
justify the filing of an information against him. where even the awesome powers of Government may not
enter at will is not the totality of the Court's functions.
ISSUE:
WON the Court in this case may still exercise the power of The Court also has the duty to formulate guiding and
judicial review even if the issue has become moot and controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines, or
academic. rules. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and
bar on the extent of protection given by constitutional
RULING: guarantees. In this case, the respondents agree with the
Yes. Court’s earlier finding that the prosecution evidence
This case falls under the exception that the Court has the miserably fails to establish a prima facie case against the
duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional petitioner, either as a co-conspirator of a destabilization plan
principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules. The Court had to overthrow the government or as an officer or leader of any
already deliberated on this case, a consensus on the Court's subversive organization. They have taken the initiative of
judgment had been arrived at, and a draft ponencia was dropping the charges against the petitioner. The Court
circulating for concurrences and separate opinions, if any, reiterates the rule, however, that this Court will not
when on January 18, 1985, respondent Judge Rodolfo Ortiz validate the filing of an information based on the kind
granted the motion of respondent City Fiscal Sergio Apostol of evidence against the petitioner found in the
to drop the subversion case against the petitioner. Pursuant records.
to instructions of the Minister of Justice, the prosecution
restudied its evidence and decided to seek the exclusion of TANADA VS ANGARA
petitioner Jovito Salonga as one of the accused in the G.R. No. 118295. May 2, 1997.
information filed under the questioned resolution. MUÑEZ
2) A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a By way of summary, the following rules may be culled from
justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so the cases decided by this Court. Taxpayers, voters,
that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or concerned citizens, and legislators may be accorded standing
value. Generally, courts decline jurisdiction over such case or to sue, provided that the following requirements are met:
dismiss it on ground of mootness.
(1) the cases involve constitutional issues;
The "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula
that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a (2) for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal
case. Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is
if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; second, unconstitutional;
the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount
public interest is involved; third, when constitutional issue (3) for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in
raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the validity of the election law in question;
the bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is
capable of repetition yet evading review. (4) for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the
issues raised are of transcendental importance which must
All the foregoing exceptions are present here and justify this be settled early; and
Court’s assumption of jurisdiction over the instant petitions.
Petitioners alleged that the issuance of PP 1017 and G.O. No. (5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the official
5 violates the Constitution. There is no question that the action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as
issues being raised affect the public’s interest, involving as legislators.
they do the people’s basic rights to freedom of expression, of
assembly and of the press. Moreover, the Court has the duty It must always be borne in mind that the question of locus
to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional precepts, standi is but corollary to the bigger question of proper
doctrines or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating exercise of judicial power. This is the underlying legal tenet of
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
the "liberality doctrine" on legal standing. It cannot be Liberation Front. Two days later (December 6, 2009),
doubted that the validity of PP No. 1017 and G.O. No. 5 is a President Arroyo submitted her report to Congress in
judicial question which is of paramount importance to the accordance with Section 18, Article VII of the 1987
Filipino people. To paraphrase Justice Laurel, the whole of Constitution which required her, within 48 hours from the
Philippine society now waits with bated breath the ruling of proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege
this Court on this very critical matter. The petitions thus call of the writ of habeas corpus, to submit to that body a report
for the application of the "transcendental importance" of her action. On December 9, 2009 Congress, in joint
doctrine, a relaxation of the standing requirements for the session, convened pursuant to Section 18, Article VII of the
petitioners in the "PP 1017 cases." 1987 Constitution to review the validity of the President’s
action. However, two days later (December 12) before
Congress could even act on the issue, the President issued
FORTUN VS MACAPAGAL ARROYO Presidential Proclamation 1963, lifting martial law and
GR NO. 190293 MARCH 20, 2012 restoring the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in
MURILLO Maguindanao.
On November 23, 2009 heavily armed men, allegedly led by NO. Here, President Arroyo withdrew Proclamation 1959
the ruling Ampatuan family, gunned down and buried under before the joint houses of Congress, which had in fact
shoveled dirt 57 innocent civilians on a highway in convened, could act on the same. Consequently, the
Maguindanao. In response to this, President Arroyo issued petitions in these cases have become moot and the Court
Presidential Proclamation 1946 on November 24, declaring a has nothing to review. The lifting of martial law and
state of emergency in Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, and restoration of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in
Cotabato City to prevent and suppress similar lawless Maguindanao was a supervening event that removed any
violence. On December 4, 2009 President Arroyo issued justiciable controversy. The court dismissed the consolidated
Presidential Proclamation 1959 declaring martial law and petitions on the ground that the same have become moot
suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in that and academic.
province except for identified areas of the Moro Islamic
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS [1]: THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
P.S.
BAYAN VS SECRETARY ERMITA
There’s a lengthy dissenting opinion from Justice Antonio GR NO. 169838 APRIL 25, 2006
Carpio, which seems, personally, to be more sound and
logical. Basically, he argued that the case must not be DOCTRINE:
considered moot and academic just because the President In a judicial review, a proper party is one who has sustained
already lifted the proclamation before the Congress can even or is in imminent danger of sustaining injury as a result of the
have the chance to act on it. And I quote: act/law complained of.
CHRISTINE CRUZ, STEVEN GATACELO, LORALYN LAZARO, RAMON MUNEZ, ANGELO MURILLO A.Y. 2014-2015