Javier v.

COMELEC 144 SCRA 194

Facts:
Javier and Pacificador, private respondent, were candidates in Antique for the Batasang Pambansa in the May 1984 Elections. On the eve of the election, petitioners followers were ambushed and killed allegedly by Pacificadors men. Respondent was sued for murder charges but the voters were intimidated and supported Pacificador. Petitioner then went to Comelec and questioned the canvass of the election returns but was dismissed and respondent was proclaimed as the winner by the Second Division of the Commission. Thus, this petition as the Constitution requires such proclamation to be decided en banc.

Moot and Academic

The case is still being considered in by the Court when of February 11, 1986, Javier was gunned down. The EDSA Revolution toppled the Marcos regime and his government with him. Pacificador had gone into hiding. The Batasang Pambansa was abolished and with such the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent.

Supreme Court Conscience of the Government The dispute had disappeared but it nevertheless cries out to be resolved. Justice demanded to be acted upon. Hence, the Court continued on. Issue: Was the Second Division of the Commission of Elections authorized to promulgate its decision proclaiming Pacificador the winner in the election?

Article XII-C of the 1973 Constitution

SECTION 2. The Commission on Elections shall have the following powers and functions :

(2) Be the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all members of the Batasang Pambansa and elective provincial and city officials.
SECTION 3. The Commission on Elections may sit en banc or in three divisions. All election cases may be heard and decided by divisions, except contests involving Members of the Batasang Pambansa, which shall be heard and decided en banc. Unless otherwise provided by law, all election cases shall be decided within ninety days from the date of their submission for decision.

Ruling:
Article XII-C Sec. 2 and Sec. 3 of the 1973 Constitution was primarily interpreted to divide the electoral process into the pre-proclamation stage and the post-proclamation stage and to provide for a separate jurisdiction for each stage, considering the first administrative and the second judicial. The Supreme Court reversed this decision as the Constitution does not distinguish such stages and falls under the jurisdiction of the Comelec en banc.

Demetria v. Alba 148 SCRA 208

Facts: Concerned citizens and members of the Batasang Pambansa presented a petition questioning the constitutionality of PD 1177 known as the Budget Reform Decree of 1977, which allows the President to transfer funds of the Executive Department to any organization or activity included in the General Appropriations Act.

Locus Standi
In questioning the constitutionality of a statute, the general rule is that not only persons individually affected, but also taxpayers have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditures of moneys raised by taxation and may therefore question the constitutionality of statutes requiring expenditure of public moneys.

Moot and Academic

The change of government supplied a change in the Constitution, thus would render the case moot and academic. The Supreme Court though, took note of the fact that the new Constitution carried verbatim the Section pursuant to PD 1177 which is the statute in question which is Section 24[5], Article VI in the present Constitution.

Section 16[5], Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution

No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations, however, the President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of constitutional commissions may by law be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.

Sec 44 Par 1 of PD 1177

"The President shall have the authority to transfer any fund, appropriated for the different departments, bureaus, offices and agencies of the Executive Department, which are included in the General Appropriations Act, to any program, project or activity of any department, bureau, or office included in the General Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment."

Ruling:
Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of PD 1177 overextends the privilege granted under said Section 16[5]. It empowers the President to indiscriminately transfer funds without regard as to whether or not the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item from which the same are to be taken, or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made. It does not only completely disregard the standards set in the fundamental law, thereby amounting to an undue delegation of legislative powers, but likewise goes beyond the tenor [intention] thereof. Indeed, such constitutional infirmities render the provision in question null and void.