1.

Govt v Springer (Legislative Power)

FACTS:

 The National Coal Company is a government corporation created by the Legislature through Act
2705 as amended by Act 2822
 Congress legislated that a committee composed of the Gov-General, Senate President and
Speaker of the House have the exclusive voting power which also makes appointments to key
positions
 The Gov-General issued EO 37 which cited the opinion of the Judge Advocate General of the US
Army and of the Acting Attorney-General of the United States that Congress creating a voting
committee or board control in a government owned corporation is null
 In a special meeting of stockholders when the election for directors happened, the Gov-General
asserted his executive power to appoint while the SP and SoH also asserted that they have the
majority decision as part of the board
 The Quo Warranto in this case is against the 3 directors whom the Congress voted for which the
Gov-General did not agree

ISSUE:

Whether or not Congress has the right to appoint officials in a government owned corporation

RATIO:

 It is legislative power which has been vested in the Philippine Legislature. What is legislative
power? Judge Cooley says he understands it "to be the authority, under the constitution, to
make laws, and to alter and repeal them." Those matters which the constitution specifically
confides to the executive "the legislature cannot directly or indirectly take from his control.”
 The power of appointment can hardly be considered a legislative power. Appointments may be
made by the Legislature of the courts, but when so made be taken as an incident to the
discharge of functions properly within their respective spheres.
 The right to appoint to office has been confided, with certain well defined exceptions, by the
Government of the United States to the executive branch of the government which it has set up
in the Philippines.

RULING:

 Membership in the Committee created by Acts Nos. 2705 and 2822 is an office.
 The Philippine Legislature, as we have seen is authorized to create corporations and offices. The
Legislature has lawfully provided for a National Coal Company, but has unlawfully provided for
two of its members to sit in the committee.
 Acts 2705 and 2822 are unconstitutional and void, and quo warranto ousting the 3 directors is
affirmed
 2. Springer v Phil Islands (Legislative Power)

FACTS:

 The camp of the ousted director claimed that National Coal is not an office but a public property
so they invoked § 3 of Art. IV of the Constitution saying that neither the President nor the heads
of any of the executive departments have any powers in respect to the use or disposal of public
property apart from those given them by Congress
 They also assert that officers of the National Coal Company are not officers of the Philippine
Government and the fact that the voting power of the government-owned stock is to be
exercised for the purpose, inter alia, of selecting such officers, does not make that voting power
a part of the Governor-General's asserted power of appointing persons to public office.
 Lastly, they positioned that the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands has no general power
of appointing persons to public office and the alleged "offices" herein involved would not be
within the powers of appointment specifically given to him under the Autonomy Act.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the proprietary nature of the government act in appointing officers in a government-
owned private corporation rests on Congress.

RATIO:

 As a general rule inherent in the American constitutional system, that, unless otherwise
expressly provided or incidental to the powers conferred, the legislature cannot exercise either
executive or judicial power; the executive cannot exercise either legislative or judicial power;
the judiciary cannot exercise either executive or legislative power.
 Legislative power, as distinguished from executive power, is the authority to make laws, but not
to enforce them or appoint the agents charged with the duty of such enforcement. The latter
are executive functions.
 Not having the power of appointment, unless expressly granted or incidental to its powers, the
legislature cannot engraft executive duties upon a legislative office, since that would be to usurp
the power of appointment by indirection.
 There is nothing in the Organic Act, or in the nature of the legislative power conferred by it, to
suggest that the legislature in acting in respect of the proprietary rights of the government may
disregard the limitation that it must exercise legislative and not executive functions. It must deal
with the property of the government by making rules, and not by executing them.

RULING:

 Here the members of the legislature who constitute a majority of the "board" and "committee,"
respectively, are not charged with the perf6rmance of any legislative functions or with the doing
of anything which is in aid of the performance of any such functions by the legislature. Putting
aside for the moment the question whether the duties devolved upon these members are
vested by the Organic Act in the Governor-General, it is clear that they are not legislative in
character, and still more clear that they are not judicial.
 Assuming that the duty of managing this property, namely, the government-owned shares of
stock in these corporations, is not sovereign but proprietary in its nature, the conclusion must
 be the same. The property is owned by the government, and the government in dealing with it
whether in its quasi-sovereign or its proprietary capacity nevertheless acts in its governmental
capacity.
 Whether the members of the "board" or the "committee" are public officers in a strict sense we
do not find it necessary to determine. They are public agents at least, charged with the exercise
of executive functions and, therefore, beyond the appointing power of the legislature.
 Previous ruling is affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion of J. Holmes:

(1) separation of powers doctrine cannot be invoked as there are times there are delegations and
overlaps;

(2) legislature has the power to incorporate and National Coal being a private corp, does not act in an
exec capacity when doing private corporation activities such as voting; thus,

(3) that legislature’s power to incorporate has the residual matter that falls within legislative control
(voting/appointing)

3. Aldaba v Comelec (Membership)

FACTS:

 Petitioners, taxpayers, registered voters and residents of Malolos City, filed this petition
contending that RA 9591 is unconstitutional for failing to meet the minimum population
threshold of 250,000 for a city to merit representation in Congress as provided for under Section
5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the 1987
Constitution
 The certification of population based on demographic projections used as basis of the act was
not certified by NSO and was issued by the NSO Regional Director, who was not the authorized
person to issue such official certification on population.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Malolos can be granted cityhood based on population requirements.

RATIO:

 Executive Order No. 135 provides for the requirements in population certification:
 First, certifications on demographic projections can be issued only if such projections are
declared official by the National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB). Second, certifications
based on demographic projections can be issued only by the NSO Administrator or his
designated certifying officer. Third, intercensal population projections must be as of the middle
of every year.

RULING:
The Certification of Regional Director Miranda does not state that the demographic projections he
certified have been declared official by the NSCB. The records of this case do not also show that the
Certification of Regional Director Miranda is based on demographic projections declared official by the
NSCB. The Certification, which states that the population of Malolos "will be 254,030 by the year 2010,"
violates the requirement that intercensal demographic projections shall be "as of the middle of every
year." In addition, there is no showing that Regional Director Miranda has been designated by the NSO
Administrator as a certifying officer for demographic projections in Region III. In the absence of such
official designation, only the certification of the NSO Administrator can be given credence by this Court.

Also, the 2007 Census places the population of Malolos at 223,069 as of 1 August 2007.9 Based on a
growth rate of 3.78%, the population of Malolos will grow to only 248,365 as of 1 August 2010. Even if
the growth rate is compounded yearly, the population of Malolos of 223,069 as of 1 August 2007 will
grow to only 249,333 as of 1 August 2010.