Phil Society v.
COA  Estrada gave 15M to OSFRI for renovation
Facts
 Petitioner (Phil Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals)
o Incorporated as a juridical entity
o Formed by virtue ACT NO. 1285 on Jan 19, 1905 by PH Commission
o Objective is to enforce laws relating to animal cruelty and promotion of
animal welfare
 Phil society filed for certiorari and prohibition against COA on Dec 1, 2003
o COA says they should be subject to audit survey
o Petitioner says it’s a private entity
Issue
 Whether the petitioner is a private corp.? YES
Rationale
 Charter tests cannot be applied because it is from the 1935 Consti
o 30 years after said society was incorporated
o No general law on formation and organization of private corps. Nor a
restriction on the liegisalature to create private corps.
 Charter tests are tests to determine whether corp is gov or controlled by gov in
nature
 Petitioner is a quasi-public corp.
o Expressing public interest but is a private corp.
o These are private crops. That render public service, supply public wants,
or charitable objectives
o A species of private corp. wherein they are organized for the gain and
benefit of its members and are required by law to discharge actions
which will benefit the public
 Not subject to control or supervision by any agency of the state
o Not gov rep. which sits on the board of trustees
 Employees are covered by SSS and not GSIS (Gov insurance System)
 Renders periodic reports to the civil governor whose powers are now on the pres.
o However, this requirement is for all corps. In order for the state to see if
they are acting according to the powers and functions conferred by it
DISPOSITION
 Petition granted
 Petitioner is private and subject to the securities and exchange commission
Serana v. Sandiganbayan
Facts
 Hannah Serana (petitioner) was a senior and scholar in UP Cebu
o Appointed by Estrada to serve one year as student regent of UP (2000)
o Discussed the renovation of Vinzons hall annex in UPD
o On sept, she and her relatives registered in SEC the Office of the student
regent foundation inc.
o Renovation did not push through
 She got two new houses and honda car
 Kristine Bugayong (next student regent) and Christine de Guzman (KASAMA of
UP) filed malversation of funds and property with the ombudsman who found
probable cause
 Serana is accused of malversation of funds from pres. With her brother
 Serena moved to quash saying SB has jurisdiction
o She is merely a student regent representing the people
o She was under ex officio capacity and did not have salary
o No power to receive the funds
 Ombudsman and sandiganbayan
o She is under the board of regents therefore she has general powers of
admin and corporate powers of uni like receiving sums given by law to
the uni
ISSUE
 Whether the SB committed grave abuse in discretion in not quashing the info
because of not having jurisdiction over serena? YES
o SB has jurisdiction over public officers
o Serena is a public officer
o Public officers are not only salary grade but also “other officers” who by
express provision are placed in PD 1606 (pres., directors, trustees of
state uni) the BOR acts like a board of trustees
o The offense was committed while exercising gov functions
DISPOSITION
 Petition is denied due to lack of merit
Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon
FACTS
 Co Kim Cham filed a petition for mandamus praying that Arsenio Dizon, the
respondent judge of the CFI be ordered to continue hearing on his pending civil
case which were under the Japanese occupation
o Judge Dizon refused because General Douglas MacArthur has
invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings and judgements of the
court of the Ph
o Lower courts have no jurisdiction to continue judicial proceedings
pending under the Japanese occupation
ISSUES
1. Whether the judicial acts and proceedings of the court existing in the Philippines
under the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines
were good and valid and remained so even after the liberation or reoccupation of
the Philippines by the United States and Filipino forces? YES
 a. The gov of Ph executive Commissions and republic of ph during the
Japanese military occupation being de facto gov, it necessarily follows
that the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts are good and valid by
virtue of principle of postliminy.
2. Whether the proclamation issued General Douglas MacArthur, Commander in
Chief of the United States Army, in which he declared "that all laws, regulations
and processes of any of the government in the Philippines than that of the said
Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in areas of the
Philippines free of enemy occupation and control," has invalidated all judgements
and judicial acts and proceedings of the said courts.
a. the well known principles of international law say the all judgments and
proceedings which are not of a political complexion of the de facto gov
during the Japanese military occupation are valid and remained valid
even after
b. general mac arthur said that “any processes of other goc” meant to refer
to judicial processes in violation of principles of international law
3. If the said judicial acts and proceedings have not been invalidated by said
proclamation, whether the present courts of the Commonwealth, which were the
same court existing prior to, and continued during, the Japanese military occupation
of the Philippines, may continue those proceedings pending in said courts at the
time the Philippines were reoccupied and liberated by the United States and Filipino
forces, and the Commonwealth of the Philippines were reestablished in the Islands.
a. The authority of local civil and judicial admin is suspended
i. But the invader doesn’t usually take the admin of justice into
his own hands but continues the ordirnary courts and
tribunals the laws of which the country has enjoined
DISPOSITION
Writ of mandamus is issued ordering the judge of the court of first instance in manila to
continue final judgment on the proceedings in civil case no. 3012
Letter of AJ Puno
Facts
 Reynato Puno was first appointed as AJ of the CA in 1980
 On 1983, the CA was reorganized and became the intermediate appellate court
pursuant to BP Blg.129
 On 1984, deputy minister of justice
o Ceased to be a member of the judiciary
 After 1986 revolution, reorganization of gov.
o Screening committee for the reorganization of intermediate appellate
court justices and lower courts recommended the return of petitioner as
AJ of the new AJ
o Ranked 11
 When the appointments were signed by pres. Aquino in went down to rank 26
o Puno wrote a letter seeking correction of seniority ranking
o Court en banc granted Puno’s request
o Then a MR was filed by AJ campos Jr. and Javellana who are affected
by the ordered correction
 Said that puno had no claim to reappointment because courts
previously appointed ceased to exist at the date of his last
appointment
ISSUE
 Whether the Ph was under a mere continuation of the old gov, existing before the
promulgation of E.O. 33? NO
o CA and intermediate appellate court existing prior to EO 33 phased out
as part of the abolishment by the 1987 revolution
o Now it is entirely new
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
FACTS
 AFP board issued resolution on its findings and recommendation on the on
unexplained wealth of Major General Ramas
 MG Ramas has 2 houses in QC and Ceby – value of QC is at Php 700k
 Raiding team confiscated military equipment, comm. Equipment, and money (Php
2,870,000 and $50k) from Elizabeth Dimaano (mistress of Ramas)
o Money was never declared in the SALNs of Ramas
 Ramas additionally had Php 104,134.60 of unexplained wealth in his SALNs
 Aug 1 – the PCGG (pres. Covention on good gov) filed a petition for forfeiture
under RA 1379 against Ramas
 When Ramas was commanding general until 1986, Dimaano worked under his
office as a clerk typist
 As a close associate of Marcos, the amended complaint alleged that he took
advantage of his position in order to acquire funds, assets and property manifestly
out of proportion
 Both ramas and dimaano filed answers denying the accusation
 The sandiganbayan arrived at a resolution:
o The PCGG are not in accordance the rulings of the SC in the Cruz Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan and Republic v. Mirgrino
o No prelim investigations were held with Ramas and Dimaano
o The evidence against Ramas does not arrive at a prima facie against him
o There was an illegal search and seizure of items
ISSUES
1. Whether the revolutionary gov was bound to the bill of rights of the 1973 constitution  Whether the application of Municipal Ordinance No. 14 is in accordance with Art.
during the interregnum? (immediately before the adoption of the Provisional Code) II Sec. 1 of the 1987 consti? YES
a. Bill of rights were not operative under the 1973 consti BUT they rule that the o The claims that they don’t a need a building permit is fruitless
protection of individuals under the International Covenant on Civil and o The authority of local governments are wide, well-nigh all embracing,
Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights remained in covering every aspect of public health, public morals, public safety and
effect during the interregnum. the well being and good order of the community.
b. Sequestration was therefore not necessarily prohibited because no one could o Mentioned jurisprudence: People v. Fajardo
not invoke exclusionary right under the bill of rights because there was no  Attempted to secure permits of construction of house
such thing as the bill of rights.  The mayor of Camarines Sur would not allow the
2. Whether the protection accorded to individuals under the international covenant on civil construction of the house because it will violate the ordinance
and political rights and the universal declaration of human rights remained in effect passed in the locality
during the interregnum?  But a typhoon destroyed their previous home so Fajardo
a. The people still enjoyed the bill of rights of the 1973 consti eventually constructed a new one
b. It installed itself as a de jure gov and cimplied to the covenant and the o Gozo’s claims that it does not apply to the locality of house
declaration which the PH is a signatory of  False because PH gov did not give up its sovereignity in
c. Covenant naval bases
i. Each state shall recognized the right in the present covenant  Did not also completely give up its jurisdiction over the
ii. SPECIFIC ART. 17 offenses committed therein
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful
interference with his privacy, family, home or DISPOSITION
correspondence Found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in violation of Municipal Order no. 14 and sentenced to
d. Declaration ART. 17 pay fine of 200 pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of solvency and should demolish
i. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property said house
DISPOSITIVE ART 1. SEC. 2
Centriorari is dismissed! Tanada v. Angara
Republic v. Gozo FACTS
 World Trade Org (WTO) was created out of a multilateral treaty.
FACTS o Regulates trade among nations
 Gozo bought a house and lot inside the US Naval Reservation within the territorial
 reduction of tariffs and barriers to propel trade towards trade
jurisdiction of Olongapo City
liberalization and economic globalization
 Demolished the pre-existing house and built a new one without a building permit
 Was first named International Trade Org (ITO)
 Was advised by her neighbors and Ernesto Valle (assistant of in the Mayor’s office) o Planned to play a big role in economic recovery by fostering
that it is not needed
international trade and preventing unilateral protectionist policy
 She was later on charged for violation of Municipal Ordinance no. 14 of 1964
 ITO was not ratified at first
 Trial in city court of Olongapo and was guilty o Only World Bank and IMF helped international economy
o Sentenced to 1 month imprisonment
 Rizalina Navarro, secretary of DTI, signed the Final Act
o And pay costs
o Agrees to WTO agreement
 Appealed to Court of First Instance in Zambales
 Petitioners contend that it is in conflict with the provisions of our consti because it
o Guilty
is an assault on the sovereign powers of PH
o Sentence to pay 200 pesos?? o Allowing foreign market to invade our market
o Demolish newly built building o Put local market at a disadvantage
 Went to CA  Court resolved to give due course of petition and requested Hon. Lilia Bautista,
o Questioned validity of such ordinance in view that her lot was inside a U.N. PH Ambassador submitted Bautista Paper
foreign naval base o Provides a historical background summary of agreements
o Making the ordinance non-applicable daw o court said it would reconsider
ISSUES ISSUE
  Whether the WTO agreements are binding YES
o The consti adopts the generally accepted rinciples of international law as
law of the land, and adheres to policy of peace, equality, justice,
freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations.
o A treaty is not a mere obligation but creates legally binding obligations
DISPOSITION
Petition is dismissed due to lack of merit
BAYAN v. ZAMORA
FACTS
 PH and US entered into a military bases agreement (Mar. 14, 1947)
o To strengthen military forces
o And foster relationship between nations
 Aug 30, 1951 countries entered into a mutual defense treaty
 Nearing the end of original treaty parties wanted to extend it
 Sept 16, 1991 the senate rejected the proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship,
Cooperation and Security
 Thus the two nations drafted the VFA (Visiting Forces Agreement)
o Was approved by pres. Fidel ramos
o Signed by Sec. Siazon and US ambassador Thomas Hubbard
 Pres. Estrada ratifies the VFA through the Sec. of Foreign Affairs on Oct 5, 1998
 Senate referred the VFA to its committee on foreign relations and national defense
and security for approval
 The committees submitted proposed senate resolution no. 443 recomending
concurrence of the senate to the vfa and creation of a legislative oversight
committee to verse its implementation
 Resolution was approved by senate
o Renamed senate resolution no. 18
 June 1999 VFA was enabled
ISSUES
 Does the president have the power to ratify the VFA? YES
o Ratification is an executive act undertaken by the head of the state or
gov through which formal acceptance of the treaty is proclaimed
o Senate is there to give or withhold its or consent or concurrence to the
ratification
 Is the VFA binding to the PH? YES
o According to art. 2 sec. 2 all treaties entered are binding
o Executive agreements in international law are binding
*interpreting whether or not the US recognizes the VFA as a treaty
- it was enough to take note of the letter of hubbard ot the PH
- Assurance as a letter is enough to substantiate a treaty among countries
DIPOSITION
Petitions are dismissed
Saguisag v. Ochoa
FACTS
 When the PH was about to gain independence , the US wanted to omaintain military
bases and armed forces in the country
o Enacted Hare-Hawes Cutting act of 1993
 Required the PH to recognize the right of US to maintain
their military bases
 PH legislature rejected it and created the Tydings McDuffie Act (TMA) or the PH
Independence Act of 1934
o US will surrender to the PH all military and other reservations
o Except naval bases and refueling stations
o US would proclaim withdrawal and surrender the sovereignity of the
islands to new go of the PH
o Led to the creation of the 1935 Consti
 At the height of the world war II, they wanted to renegotiate the agreements in the
TMA
o The countries entered into the Treaty of General Relations in 1946
 US surrendered all control and sovereignity over the PH
except military bases
 When the PH gained their independence, the two countries entered into their first
military arrangement, the 1947 Military Bases Agreement (MBA)
o Senate first approved making the terms of agreement…
 23 US military bases
 99 years or until 2046
o However some amendments were made
 Only 44 years instead
 Now only up til 1991
 17 military bases
 In 1951, the PH entered into the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) to strengthen their
defense and security relationship
o The treaty…allows for mutual assistance in maintaining and developing
their individuals and collective capacities to resist and armed attack
o Also provides for their mutual self-defense in case of an armed attack
against either one of the countries
o One attack on the country is also an attack on the other
o The expiration of 1947 MBA in 1991 there was no formal agreement to
replace it
o This arrangement revived through the signing of the first Visiting Forces
Agreement (VFA) IN 1999
 Affirmation of the obligations of the existing MDT
 Talks about the entry and departure of the US
personnel, their activities, criminal and
disciplinary jurisdiction
 Crim laws will not apply on the foreigners
working in these military bases
o PH and US also signed off on VFA II which this time regulated the
treatment of PH military and civilian personnel in the US
o 2002, the two parties entered into the mutual logistics support agreement
in accordance with previous agreements
 o Sec. of national defense and US ambassador in the PH signed the
Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA)
o Negotiations on this agreement were not transmitted to the senate as the
executive understood that it was no longer necessary
 Only pres. Pnoy signed on it because they thought it was no
longer necessary to go throught the legislative
o EDCA authorizes all military forces to have access to and conduct
activities within “agreed locations”
o Two petitions for centriorari were filed questioning the constitutionality
of EDCA
 EDCA should have be signed ina form of a treaty and not an
exec. Agreement
o Nov. 2015 the senators adopted senate resolution no. 105
 Senators have a “strong sense” that for EDCA to become
valid it should have been concurred by the Senate first before
the Pres. ratification
ISSUES
 Whether the president may enter into an executive agreement on foreign military
bases, troops or facilities? YES
o Art. 7 Sec. 21 says that “no treaty or international agreement shall be
valid and effective unless concurred in by at least 2/3 of all members of
senate
o Art. 27 sec. 25 says that upon the expiration of the 1947 MBA in 1991,
“foregin military bases, troops or facilities shall not be allowed in the
PH except under a treaty duly concurred by the senate
o When it requires the approval of the legislative branch
o President has the inherent power to enter into agreements with other
states including the choice to enter into binding exec. agreements
o Exec. Agreements are products of executive actions alone
o Duty to condust foreign relations
 Whether the executive dept. violated art. 2 sec. 2 by entering EDCA in the form of
an executive agreement? NO
o The consti declares that international law has the force of a domestic law
or commonly known as the doctrine of incorporation
 Principle of incorporation only applies to customary law and
to treaties which have become part of customary law
 Treaties only become part of PH law through
ratification
 Difference between a treaty and an agreement in domestic law
o Treaty
 2/3 of senate
 Before president ratifies
 Both international and municipal law
o Executive agreements
 Are intended to implement a treaty already enforced or to
determine the details of implementation
 Valid and binding even without senate concurrence
 Must be traceable to an authorization from the consti, statutes
or treaties implement a previous treaty and myst only adjust
implementation details
 Treaties are superior
o Difference between MDT/VFA and EDCA
 (1) EDCA allows temporary stationing on rotational bases of
US personnel and contractors in facilities
 Still owned by the PH and also VFA allows
construction
 (2) EDCA allows positioning of military material also VFA
 (3) VFA contemplates the entry of troops for training
exercises while EDA allows the use of our territory for
launching military operations
 Combat related actitivites are agreed also by
VFA/MDT
 (4) new concepts in EDCA such as:
 Contractors
 Prepositioning
 Operational control
 But court said the terms and agreement for
implementation need not be found in the mother
treaty
 (5) EDCA contains restrictions on jurisdiction of courts, local
autonomy and taxation
DISPOSITION
Petition is dismissed!
Motion for reconsideration is denied!
BAYAN v. ROMULO
Offenses:
1.
Facts
 Rome statute establishes international criminal court
o The power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious
crimes of international concern and shall be complementary to the
national criminal jurisdictions
 Signed but is still subject to ratification
 92/139 have ratifies but PH remains
 RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement then is the issue at hand and how it relates to the
current Rome Statute
o Approved by DFA secretary
o Some issues it expressly provides that the signing of the agreement
gravely abuses discretion as it goes against the original rome statute
Issue
 Whether the RP-US Agreement is void ab initio for contracting obligations which
are immoral or at variance with the universally recognized principles of
international law
o Art. 2 sec. 2
 “adopting generally accepted principles of international law
and international jurisprudence and taking it as part of the
law of the land”
 Whether the agreement is valid, binding and effective without 2/3 of all members of
the state voting in concurrence to it
o Rules of Vienna convention on the law of treaties
 An international agreement concluded between states in
written form and governed by international law
 International agreements need legislative concurrence after
ratification
o Petitioners hold that the allowing US to be protected from ICC weakens
the Rome Statute
 But the PH is only a signatory state
 Not a state-party
 State parties are the ones legally obliged to follow the entire
treaty in good faith
 RP still has jurisdiction to prosecute or to accede to the ICC
 “policey of policy of cooperation and amity with all nations
 Act of sheding off some sovereignity is not
unconsti
KURODA V. JALANDONI
FACTS
 Shigenori kuroda commanding general of the japanese imperial forces
o Highest ranking officer back then
 Charged before a military commission for his brutal atrocities against noncombatant
civilians and prisoners during the war
 Kuroda says he cannot be held liable because a) EO 68 (created national war crimes
office and prescribed rules on the trial of war crimes) is illegal on the grounds that it
violated
o The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy and
adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of
the nation
o Also the local laws because PH is not a signatory of the Hague
Convention on Rules and Regulations covering land warfare
 Commission did not have jurisdiction to put him on trial
 Also argued b) the participation of two American lawyers (Melville hussy and
Robert port) in behalf of the US were not authorized by SC
o Attorneys were also not qualified to practice law in the PH
ISSUE
 Whether EO 68 was unconsti? NO
o Established a national war crimes office prescribing the rules and
regulations governing the trial of accused war crimials
 Issued on July 29, 1947 by pres. Manuel Roxas
 In accordance with the generally accepted principles of
international law including the hague convention and the
Geneva convention as well as significant precedents of
international jurisprudence established by the UN.
o Pres. roxas’ promylgation of EO 68 (an exercise by the president of his
power as commander-in-chief of AFP aka his emergency powers) is
valid and consti.
o Citing the case of yamashita vs. styer
 The court ruled that although there was a cessation in the
hostilities of the war, it is still the duty of the president to
create a military commission for the trial and punishment of
war criminals
o Kuroda argued that military commission had no jurisdiction to try his
case because PH was not a signatory to the conventions
o However both us and japan signed these conventions
o Crimes were committed under PH but PH was under the US
o So we are equally bound to honor rights brought about by these
conventions
o Even after PH was declared independent, does not release us from the
obligations that we are under
o The change in the form of government does not affect the prosecution of
such crimes
 Committed against filipino people
o Even if PH not signatory
 Rules and principles were part of wholly based on the
generally accepted principles of international law, which
according to our consti is part of the law of the nation
DISPOSITION
Petition is denied with costs
Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
FACTS
 Petition for review filed by deutsche
 According to the national internal revenue code (NIRC) of 1997
o Deutsche remmitted to the respondent Php 67,688,553.51
o 15% bank profit remittance tax (BPRT) on its regular banking unti
(RBT) net income to Deutsche Bank Germany
 Deutsche believed they paid too much
o Filed with the BIR Large Taxpayers Assessment and Investigation
Division
o Claimed for a refund
o Php 22,562,851.17
 Also requested the International Tax Affairs Division (ITAD) a confirmation of its
entitlement to the preferential tax rate under of 10% under the RP-Germany Tax
Treaty
o Was taxed 15% but they claim it only should have been 10%
 Inaction by BIR
 Petitioner filed for a petition for review under the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)
 o Refund or tax credit certificate over the excess BPRT payment o Kalayaan
 CTA denied  Feb 2001, CBK borrowed money from…
o Violated RMO No. 1-2000, application for tax treaty relief was not filed o Industrial Bank of Japan (RP-Japan tax treaty)
with ITAD prior to the payment of the BPRT o Fortis-Netherlands
o OR prior to its availment of 10% preferential tax rate under the RP- o Raifessen Bank (RP-Austria Tax treaty)
Germany Tax Treaty provision o Fortis-Beligium (RP-Belgium Tax treaty)
 Violating the 15-day period mandate o Mizuho Bank (RP-Japan tax treaty)
 Mirant (PH) Operations Corp v. CIR  Remitted interest payments from May 2001-2003
o CTA ruled that before one gets benefits of tax treaty, the latter should  CBK withheld final taxes and paid same to the revenue district office no. 55 of the
first invoke the provisions of the tax treaty and prove they indeed apply Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
to the corporation o 15% for Fortis-Belgium, Fortis-Netherland, Raifessen Bank
o 20% for Industrial Bank of Japan and Mizuho Bank
ISSUE  Petitioners say preferential tax should only be 10% according to tax treaties
 Whether the failure to strictly comply with RMO no. 1-2000 will deprive the  Petitions for review were filed to cta
persons or corporations of the benefit of the tax treaty? NO o Seeking refund of excess withholding tax
o Bound by our adherence to the general principle that international law as
o Consolidated into one
part of the law of the land
 Based on pacta sunt servanda – treaties must be done in good  CTA First division ruling
faith o Granted petitions
o Tax treaties are entered in order to reconcile the national fiscal o Ordered to refund Php 15,672,958.42
legislations of the contracting parties o Treaties were applicable
o In turn avoids double taxation  CIR filed motion to reconsider
 Double taxation is the imposition of comparable taxes in two  CTA ammended decision to Php 14,835,720.39
or more states on the same taxpayer in respect of the same o That CBK Power failed to obtain International Tax Affairs Division
subject matter for identical periods (ITAD) ruling with respect to its transactions with Fortis-netherland
o Tax treaties encourage free flow of goods and services and movement of o Adopted ruling of migrant v. CIR
capital o ITAD ruling must be obtained prior to preferential tax rate
o BIR must not impose additional requirements that would negate the  CBK moved for reconsideration
availment of the reliefs provided by international agreement o Final solution of migrant was just a minute resolution
o RP-Germany Tax treay does not pre-reqs o Motion was denied for lack of merit
o RMO-No. 1-2000 has no deprivation if one does not comply with 15-  CBK elevated to CTA court en banc for review – if ITAD is required
day rule  CIR also filed for admin remedies also claims that CBK did not file within the
o Since this only ad admin matter prescriptive period
 It could be remedied by imposing penalties or fine but not  Petitions subsequently consolidated
denial of entitlement  CTA en banc affirmed the ruling of the CTA First divisions that an application is
o Mirant case cannot bind needed with ITAD for RMO 1-2000.
 Difference in parties, taxes, taxable periods and treaties  CTA En banc declared mirant without binding effect
 CTA En banc further held that the petitions for review were filed within the 2 year
DIPOSITION prescriptive period
Petition granted! CTA en banc decision was reversed. Respondent had to give refund or tax  Proper for CBK power to have filed said petitions without awaiting the final
credit cert. resolution of its admin claims for refund before the BIR
 CBK power’s motion for partial reconsideration and the CIR’S motion for
CBK Power v. CIR reconsideration of the foregoing decision were both denied for lack of merit
FACTS ISSUES
 CBK engages in development and operation of the hydroelectric power-generating  Whether the BIR may add a requirement that is not found in the income tax treaties
plants in Laguna signed by PH before a taxpayer can avail of preferential tax rates under said
o Caligaraya treaties? (G.R. Nos. 193383-84)
o Botocan
 o From deutsche v. CIR, the court emphasized that the obligation to
comply with a tax treaty must take precendence over the objective of
RMO No. 1-2000
o Non-compliance with tax treaties has negative implications on
international relations
 Discourages foreign investor
o BUT CBK Power could not have applied for a tax treaty relief 15 days
prior to its payment of the final withholding tax on the interest paid to its
lenders because it erroneously paid tax on the basis of a regular tax rate
as prescribed by the NIRC
 And not on preferential tax rate provided by treaties
o Prior application requirement under RM No. 1-2000 then becomes
illogical
 Requirement in not found in all applicable tax treaties
DISPOSITION
 CBK Power’s petition is granted
 Court en banc made a reversible error
Lim v. Exec. Secretary
FACTS
 AF of US arrived in the PH for joint military exercise “Balikatan 02-1” in
Mindanao
o Pursuant to the mutual defense treaty
 Lim and Escando filed a suit assailing constitutionality of the joint exercise
 Several days later the senate conducted a hearing on the supplementary means of
interpretation on Balikatan exercises
o Involve an examination of the test which is presumed to verbalize the
parties’ intentions
 VP Guigona Secretary of foreign affairs presented the draft terms of reference
o Approved 5 days later
ISSUE
 Whether the balikatan 02-1 exercises are consti? YES
o Consti because the terms of reference (which governs over it) falls
within the context of the vfa
 Vfa permits US personnel to engage on an impermanent
basis, in activities, which was left undefined
o According to the Vienna convention on the law of treaties which
contains proviso governing interpretation of international agreements
 General rule of interpretation and supplementary means of
interpretation must involve an examination of the test which
 is supposed to verbalize intentions
o Court interpreated that “activities” ws left ambiguous
 To give leeway in negotiations between parties
o Falls under the vfa provision – combat-related activities only
o Neither mdt or vfa allow the PH to engage in an offensive war in ph
territory
 In coinsideration of art. 2 of the charter of the UN
 All members shall refrain from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity/political
independence of any state or any matter
inconsistent with the purposes of the UN
o MDT and VFA must also be read in context of the 1987 Consti
 Art. 2 sec. 2,7,8 – key provisions in extent to which foreign
military troops are allowed in PH
 Regulates the foreign relations powers of the chief executive
when it provides that “no treaty or international agreement
shall be valid and effective unless concurred by 2/3 of senate
 Transitory provision
 Betray a marked antipathy towards military
presense in the country or foreign ingluence in
general
 Foreign troops are allowed to enter the PH only
by way of direct exception
DISPOSITION
Petitions and petition-in-intervention are dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new
petition sufficient in form and substance in the proper RTC
No locus standi
Centriorari and prohibition are improper remedies, insufficient facts, premature since the
alleged violation is speculative and that the petition is for declatory relief
MIJARES v. RANADA
FACTS
 10 Filipino Petitioners who suffered under marcos regime, filed petition against the
estate of marcos with the US District court of Hawaii
 Plaintiffs brought action on their own behalf and also behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals
o Citizens of PH
o Heirs
o Who were also subject to human rights abuses under the marcos time
 Alien tort act was invoked as basis of the US District Court’s jurisdiction over the
complaint
o Involved a suit by aliens for tortious violations of international law
 Alien tort act – treats human rights abuses as abuses against “the law of nations”
o Thus jurisdiction can be attained even if you are an alien
 US District Court rendered a final judgment awarding the plaintiff class
$1,954,005,859.00
o Affirmed by the US CA or the 9th circuit
 Petitioners submit that their action is incapable of pecuniary estimation as the
subject matter of the suit is the enforcement of a foreign judgment and not an action
for the collection of a sum of money or recovery of damages
 A filing fee of Php 472M would negate and render useless the liberal construction
ordained by sec. 6 rule 1 of civil procedure – inexpensive disposition
 Judge ranada ruled that the subject matter was capable of pecuniary estimation
 o Cause it involved a judgment rendered by a foreign court
o Ordering the payment of sums of money allowing for easy determination
of the value of foreign judgment
ISSUE
 Whether the US judgment is enforceable here in the PH? YES
o Foreign judgments fall under the generally accepted principles of
international law
o By virtue of incorporation are part of the law of our land even it they are
not derived from treaty obligations
o The impossibility an action for enforcement of a foreign judgment in this
country merely due to incorrect filing fees is counter to the generally
accepted principles of international law
o Enforcement of foreign judgment
 General right recognized within our body laws and affirmed
in our consti
 To seek recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments
 Also a right to defense against such enforcement on the
ground of
 want of jurisdiction,
 want of notice to the party
 collision
 Fraud
 Clear mistake of law or fact
DISPOSITION
Petition granted
PHARMACEUTICAL V. Duque III
FACTS
 EO No. 51 was issued by President Cory Aquino by virtue of the legislative powers
that were vested upon her during the 1986 freedom constitution
 One of the preambular clauses of the milk code
o The law seeks to give effect to art. 11 of the international code of
marketing of breastmilk substitutes
o Adopted by the world health assembly in 1981
 1982-2006 WHA adopted several resolutions to that breastfeeding should be
supported, promoted and protected
o Should ensure that formula are not permitted same nutrition and health
claims
 PH ratified the international convention on rights of the child in 1990
o Art. 24 of convention provides that state parties should take appropriate
measures to diminish infant and child mortality
o Ensure that all segments of society are informed of the advantages of
breastfeeding
 May 15 – DOH issued herein assailed admin order no. 2006-0012 or the revised
implementing rules and regulations of EO No. 51 (RIRR) which was to take effect
on July 7, 2006
 June 28, 2006 – pharma, representing its members that are manufacturers of
breastmilk substitute, filed the present petition for centriorari and prohibition with
prayers for issuance of a TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction
ISSUE
 Whether the international instruments (ICBMS and WHA resolutions) adverted to
by respondents are part of the law of the land?
o The international instruments that do have specific provisions regarding
breastmilk substitutes are the ICBMS and various WHA resolution
o Only the ICBMS became part of the law of the land because of
TRANSFORMATION by local legislation in the Milk Code EO No. 51
o WHA resolutions may constitute “soft law” or non-binding norms,
principles and practices that influence state behavior
o Treaties become part of the law of the land through transformation
pursuant to art. 7 sec. 21 of the consti
o Treaties and conventional international law must go through a process
prescribed by the consti for it to be transformed into municipal law that
can be applied to domestic conflicts
o ICBMS & WHA
 Not treaties as they have not been concurred by 2/3 of senate
 As required by sec. 21 art. 7 of the 1987 consti
o IMBS which was adopted by the WHA in 1981 was transformed ino
domestic law through local legislation – Milk Code
 Milk code has the force and effect of law in this jurisdiction
and not the ICMBS
o WHA being “soft law” include recommendations which are generally
not binding, but they “carry moral and political weight as they constitute
the judgment on a health issues of the collective membership of the
highest international body in the field of health
o Unlike the ICMBS – whereby legislature enacted most of the provisions
into law which is the Milk cODE
o WHA Resolutions, specifically providing for exclusive breastfeeding
from 0-6 months, continued up to 24 months (changed to 24 mos. For
domestic law
 And absolutely prohibiting ads and promos of breastmilk
substitutes have not been adopted as a domestic law
DISPOSITION
PETITION PARTIALLY GRANTED.
IBP v. ZAMORA
FACTS
 Growing crime rate
o Pres. Estrada gave verbal directive to the PNP and Marines to conduct
joint visibility patrols to prevent and suppress crimes
o Tasked to implement and execute order
 Sec. of National Defense
 Chief of Staff of AFP
 Chief of Staff of PNP
  Sec. of the Interior and Local Gov o Police forces are tasked (to the soldiers)
 Letter of instruction 02/2000 (LOI)  To brief and orient patrol procedures
 “Task force tulungan” was released by PNP o Real authority is not chief of staff of AFP but with the head of civilian
o Selected areas of deployment institution, the PNP
 Monumento Circle o None of the marines were incorporated or enlisted as members of the
 North Edsa (SM City) PNP
 Araneta Shopping Center  Thus no appointment to civilian position to speak of
 Greenhills o PH experience reveals that it is not averse to request assistance from
 SM Megamall military in the implementation and execution of certain traditionally
 Makati Commercial Center “civil” functions
 LRT/MRT Stations  Ex. Red cros
 NAIA and Domestic Airport.  Elections
 IBP questioned necessity of calling for marines  Disaster response
 Filed pettion to annul LOI 02/2000
 And to declare the deployment of the marines, unconsti on the ground that KOR V. DMCI
o A) there was no emergency situation in metro manila which would
justify such deployment (violates art. 2 sec. 3) FACTS
o B) deployment constitutes an insidious incursion by the military in a  DMCI acquired property near taft
civilian function of the gov (violates art. 16 sec. 5) o To build a 49 storey condo
o C) deployment creates a dangerous tendency to rely on the military to o Basement
perform civilian function of the gov o 2 penthouse level
 Making military more powerful than it should be  Acquired building permits despite initial suspensions due to the development plans
 IBP asserts that by law the deployment of the marines, the civilan task of law of the building which will result in the obstruction of JR’s monument
enforcement is militarized in violation of sec. 3 art. 2 o Ruin the line of sight of the Rizal Shrine from roxas boulevard vantage
point
ISSUE  KOR (non-sec & non-profit) filed a TRO and a permanent injunction against Torre
 Whether the deployment of the marines violate the civilian supremacy clause nor de Manila
does it infringe the civilian character of the police force? NO o a) building was a nuisance per se and that desecrated the rizal monument
o The deployment of the marines does not constitute a breach of the by overshadowing entire monument
civilian supremacy clause o b) it was against guidelines set by national historical commission of the
o Selected areas of deployment PH (NHCP)
 Monumento Circle o c) that the construction of the building was against commitments under
 North Edsa (SM City) the Venice Charter
 Araneta Shopping Center
 Greenhills ISSUE
 SM Megamall  Whether or not TDM violated the country’s commitment under the venice charter?
 Makati Commercial Center NO
 LRT/MRT Stations o It is merely a codification of guiding principles
 NAIA and Domestic Airport. o For the preservation and restoration of ancient monuments, sites,
o Calling of marine in this case constitutes permissible use of military buildings
assets for civilian law enforcement o Each state to remain responsible for applying the plan within framework
o Limited participation of the marines is evident in the provisions of LOI of its own culture and traditions
itself o Venice charter is not a treaty and cannot become enforceable as law as it
 Sufficiently provides the meters and bounds of the marines’ is mere guidelines
authority
 Local police forces are the ones in charge of the visibility
patrols at all times, the real authority belonging to the PNP
o Metro manila police chief is the overall leader of the PNP-philippines
marines joint visibility patrols
 o Made mandatory that health providers must provide info on such
 Methods
 Supplies
Roe vs. Wade  Services
 schools providing reproductive health education
FACTS o it is an enhance measure to fortify and make effective current laws on
 Jane Roe contraception, women’s health and population control
o Single pregnant woman  After the Pres.’s approval of the legislation, challengers from various sectors filed
o Resides in Dallas, Texas separate petitions against the RH Law.
o Class action suit challenging consti of Texas abortion laws  Petition for centriorari and prohibition, filed by spouses atty. James M. Imbong and
 Texas statutes Lovely-Ann C. Imbong
o Life in imminent danger can have an abortion  Mar 15, 2013 – RH Implementing Rules and Regulations for enforcement of RH
o Roe is not Law took effect
 Statutes are vague abridged her right to personal privacy  Mar 1, 2013 – court issued a status quo ante order, enjoining the effects of the
o Issues regarding one’s body is a private matter and should not be implementations for a period of 120 days
meddled by the state  SQAO further extended until further orders of the court on Jul. 16 2013
 Joining case suit is a license physician
o James Hubert halford ISSUES
o As a doctor – unable to determine whether those who seek ab ortion  Whether RH Law in unconsti? YES
o from him fall within or outside the provisions stated in Texas statute  Whether RH law violates the right to life?
 Doe couple o Imbong says it violates Art. 2, Sec. 12
o Childless o Access to abortifacients/abortives which effectively sanctions abortion
o Mrs. Doe suffering from “neural-chemical disorder”  4(A) considers contraceptives that prevent the fertilized
o Wants a capable doctor ovum to be implanted in the mother womb as an abortifacient
 Law sanctioned contraceptives that teake effect after
fertilization and before implantations, contrary to the intent
ISSUES
of the framers of consti
 Whether or not a woman’s right to privacy as protected by the constitution includes
o Framers of the consti
the right to abort her child? YES
 Art. 2, Sec. 12
o Right to privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision
 Moment of fertilization – when the ovum is
whether or not to terminate her pregnancy
fertilized by the sperm (zygote)
o State would be denying this choice altogether is apprarent
 Conception is reckoned from fertilization – the beginning of
o Maternity may impose upon a stressful time in a woman’s life
human life
o Psychological harm imminent  1) fertilized ovum takes nutrients
o Additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may  2) as it takes in the nutrients, it grows from within
be involved  3) it multiplies itself at a geometric rate in
 Is the fetus considered a person? continuous process – cell division
o US consti is silent in regards to the unborn  At that point the ovum has life
o “person” the term is only applicable after birth  Philippine Medical Association released a paper on the RH
bill
Imbong v. Ochoa  “human beings begin immediately at fertilization”
an objective scientific fact
FACTS  “unborn”
 Dec. 21, 2012 RA 10354  Fertilized ovum
o Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health At of 2012 (RH Law)  Framers intend to provide equal protection to both
was enacted by congress the mother and unborn child from the earliest
o Law seeks to provide filipinos, especially the poor and marginalized, opportunity of life
access and info to full range of modern family planning methods  But framers did not intend to ban all contraceptives
 RH Law
  Only the ones sought to be banned are those that
kill or destroy the fertilized ovum
 The ones which prevent the union of pserm and
ovum are deemed non-abortive and thus
permissible
 There is no unborn yet
 The court thus cannot subscribe to the theory of implantation
– which says human life begins when the fetus is implanted
at the uterine wall
 But drugs relating to the prevention of the implanting the
fetus to the uterine wall are proscribed as they are considered
abortifacients
o RH law itself mandates that protection be afforded from the moment of
fertilization
 Because it knows that abortion is a crime in the Revised
Penal Code
o However, court agrees with ALFI that the authors of RH-IRR gravely
abused their office redefining the meaning of abortifacient
 3.01(a) defines abortifacient as those that primarily induce
abortion or prevent implanatation
 (j) Allows contraceptives that prevent pregnancy but does not
primarily destroy a fertilized ovum
o THUS, section 3.01 (a) and (j) are unconsti!
 Must be struck down
 Qualifier “primarily” will lead to the approval of
contraceptives that may harm or destroy life of the unborn
 May allow abortifacients
o Contraceptives which should be allowed in the market are contraceptives
that do not primarily or secondarily cause abortion
OPINIONS
 Brion CON
o Principle of double effect
 Where both the life of the mother and child are endangered, a
doctor is morally obliged to save both lives
 If medically impossible, he can favor one provided that no
direct harm is intended to the other
 Doctor not guilty of abortion
 Some abortifacient drugs are necessary to save the life of the
mother
 Del Castillo CON
o Abortion cannot be justified
 A wrong cannot be righted by another wrong
 No one should be deprived of human life without due process
 Fetus must be presumed innocent unless proven guilty
Wisconsin v. Yoder
FACTS
 Respondents were part of the old order amish religion and the conservative amish
Mennonite church
 Jonas Yoder and Wallace miller
o Convicted for violating Wisconsin’s compulsory school attendance law
 Requires a child’s school attendance until age 16
 Amish people declined sending their children to public or private school after they
had graduated from 8th grade
 But evidence show that amish people continue providing informal education to their
children
o Designed to prepare them for life in the rural amish community
 Also, respondents sincerely believed that high school attendance was contrary to the
amish religion and way of life
o It would endanger their own salvation
 Appealed for exemption from compulsory education under the cases of these
religious convictions
 Values learned at home would surpass worldly knowledge taught in school
ISSUES
 Whether the compulsory school attendance law violated the amish community’s
rights under the free exercise clause of the first amendment? YES
o The state’s interest in universal education is not totally free from a
balancing process when it impinges on other fundamental rights like
 Traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious
upbringing of child
o Amish community attests that if the state would impose such
compulsory education consequences are
 Destruction and harm of the amish community
 Destroy the amish way of succeeding their HS aged to
productive members of their own community
 Destroy their way of life
o Incumbent on the state to show with more particularity how its
admittedly strong interest in compulsory education would be adversely
affected by granting an exemption to the amish
o State’s claim that it is empowered as parens patriae (right of the state to
protect individuals), to extend the benefit of secondary education to
children, regardless of the wished of their parents cannot be sustained
against a free exercise claim of this nature
Garcia v. Drilon
 Mar. 2004, Congress enacted RA 9262
o Defines and criminalizes acts of violence against women and their
children perpetrated by women’s intimate partners
 Couple have 3 children together
 Rosalie Garcia (respondent) filed for herself and children a TPO against husband
Jesus Garcia
o Pursuant to RA 9262
 Husband would forbid her to pray and isolated her from friends
 Husband had an affair
 He also hit Jo-Anne (oldest child) on the chest and slapped her many times
 Rosalie attempted suicide
 Jesus did not bring her to the hospital
  Jesus warned Rosalie that if she goes on the legal battle with him, she would not get
a single centavo
 Jesus controls family business involving mostly construction of deep wells
 After Rosalie confronted him about affair, Jesus forbade her to hold office
o No access to info on business
 Rosalie claimed to be a victim of abuse
o Physical
o psychological
o Emotional
o Economic
o As a result of marital infidelity on the part of the petitioner (Jesus)
o With threats of deprivation of custody of children and financial support
 RTC of Bacolod found reasonable ground to believe that an imminent danger of
violence exists
o TPO granted
o Effective 30 days
 Jesus filed before the CA petition for prohibition with prayer for injunction and
TRO, questioning consti of RA9262
o For violating due process and equal protection clause
o And validity of TPO for being an unwanted product of an invalid law
 CA issued TRO on the enforcement of the TPO but however, denied the petition
forfailure to raise the issue of consti in his pleadings before the trial court
 Petition for prohibition to annul protection orders issued by trail court constitutes
collateral attack on said law
 Jesus assails the consti of the said law as being violative of the equal protection
o Claims that since RA 9262 is intended to prevent a criminalize spousal
and child abuse
o But it can be committed by either husband or wife
o Gender alone is not enough basis to deprive husband of remedies under
the law
ISSUES
 Whether the CA committed serious error in failing to conclude that RA9262 is
discriminatory, unjust, and violative od the equal protection clause?
o In senate deliberation of RA 9262
 Issue od equality was already discussed
 Senate believes if we broaden the scope to men, assuming
they can abused, then it would not equalize the already
difficult situation for womean
 No matter how empowered women are, we are not given
equal opportunities especially in the domestic environment
where the macho Filipino man would always feel that he is
strong, more superior to women
o Congress has made its chouse and it is not the court’s prerogative to
supplant this judgment
o May be perceived as erroneous
 But the remedy is only by amending it or repeal
o Principle of separation of powers, it is the legislative that determines the
necessity, adequacy and wisdom of the law
o Judiciary only steps in when it violates consti
o None was sufficiently shown in this case
o Guaranty or equal protection does not mean a guaranty of equality in the
application of the laws upon all citizens of the state
o Not a requirement in order to avoid the constitutional prohibition against
inequality, that every man, woman, and child should be affected alike by
a statue
o Base from research from UN and PH Comissions on women
 Historical evidence of a “gender based violence”
 where societal norms and traditions dictate people to think
mean are to take dominant roles while women are
subordinate
o additionally, women are the usual victims of violence
o when bill was presented
 DSWD found that female violence comprise more than 90%
of all forms of abuse and violence
 More than 90% were committed by the women’s intimate
partners
DISPOSITION
Instant petition for review for centriorari is denied
Opposa v. Factoran
FACTS
 Principal petitioners are all minors
o Makati RTC branch 55
 Duly represented by their respective parents
 Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network Inc.
(PENI)
o A domestic
o Non-stock
o Non-profit corp.
o Organized for the purpose of inter alia (among other things) concerted
action geared for the protection of our environment and natural
resources
 Original defendant was Hon. Fulgencio S. Factoran Jr.
o Then by Sec. of DENR
 Replaced by Hon. Angel Alcantara
 Minors assert they represent their generation and succeeding generations will suffer
if destruction of environment continues
 Complaint was instituted as a class
o Plaintiffs are all citizens of the PH
 Taxpayers
 Citizens
 Entitled to the full benefit use and enjoyment of the natural
resource treasure that is the country’s VIRGIN TROPICAL
RANIFORESTS
 o Petitioners – according to scientific studies, in order for the PH to have
balances and healthful ecology
 54% should be left for the forest to cover
 46% residential, agri, industrial, commercial
o Disturbance of this balance has led to calamities
o 25 years ago PH had 16 M hectarres of rainforests – 53% of landmass
o Today, 850k hectares are left – 2.8% of landmass
o Records reveal that DENR granted Timber Lease Agreement (TLA) to
cut 3.89M hectares for commercial logging purposes
o If present rate continues, the country would be deprived of its rainforest
resources by the end of the decade (1990)
o Judge issues an order granting the petition to dismiss
 1) the defendants have no cause of action
 2) it raises a political question
 3) ending the TLA is prohibited by the consti
o Petitioners raised to SC
 EO No. 192 (Law Creating DENR) SEC. 4
 To safeguard people’s right to a healthful
environment
 Mentioned article 2, sec. 16 of consti
 shall protect and advance the right of the people to a
balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm
and harmony of nature
o Respondent say it’s a political question
o And right to forum such an issue is the legislature and ask a legislature
to sponsor a bill
o Court discussed civil case no. 90-888 as class suit
 Asserting their right for inter-generational justice and inter-
generational responsibility against the DENR to cease TLA
 Represent their generation
 And those who succeed them
 Intergenerational responsibility
 Man should utilize its resources with the utmost
respect to those who will succeed them
 Preserve them the right for the full enjoyment of
the environment
ISSUE
 Whether the petitioners have a valid cuse of action to assail the TLA based on Art.
2, Sec. 16 of the consti? YES
o Intergenerational responsibility
 They represent their generation and generations who are not
yet born
 Given locus standi
o Petitioners proven themselves as adequate enough to assert their rights
for a clean environment
o Art. 2, sec. 16 – right to a balanced and healthful ecology
 Not under bill of rights but that doesn’t mean it is less
important
 Does not mean it is not a right which is relevant
o The said right to ecology is said to exist even before the inception of
humanity as it is in the natural law
o Right to a balanced ecology include the duty to protect it from further
damage
 Multiples mechanism in order to protect the environment
(DENR)
o The petitioner’s right to a balanced and healthful environment is as clear
as DENR’s duty to protect the advance said right
 EO 192 PH Environment Code – conservation, management,
development and proper use of country’s environment and
natural resources
 Granting the TLAs would go against this right
DISPOSITION
Petition is granted!
Arigo v. Swift
FACTS
 Petitioner Arigo
o Vicar apostolic of Puerto princesa
o Petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan
o TPO under Rule 7 of AM No. 09-6-8-SC
 Dec 2012 – US embassy of the PH requested for a diplomatic clearance for the USS
Guardian
o Avenger-class mine counter measure ship of the US navy
o To enter and exit territorial waters of the PH
o And to arrive at the port of Subic bay for purpose of routine
replenishment, maintenance and crew liberty
 Jan 2013 – vessel arrived from japan
 A week after it left for Makassar, Indonesia
 While transiting the Sulu Sea it ran aground and damaged the Tubbataha Reefs
o Permission to pass internal water to get to subic
o Not approval to a pass the same waters on their way out
 US Vice Admiral Swift and US Amba Thomas expressed regret fro damages
 March 2013 – the US Navy team finished removing the last piece of grounded ship
from reef
 April 2013 – petitioners filed a case claiming that the grounding and salvaging and
post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian cause and continue to cause
environmental damage in…
o Palawan
o Antique
o Aklan
 Damages violate their consti rights to to a balanced and healthful ecology
o Also seek a directive from this court for the institution of civil, admin ,
criminal suits for acts committed in violation of environmental laws and
regulations
 Petitioners cite the US respondents to have violated RA 10067
o Unauthorized entry, destroying of resources and etc.
  Also invoked certain provision of the VFA to be nullifies for being unconsti o Angelo Reyes
 Sec. of DOE (energy)
ISSUES o Jose Atienza
 Whether the petitioners have locus standi to file the present petition? YES  Sec. of DENR & JAPEX (japan petroleum exploration co.)
o Locus standi rules has been relaxed for non-trad plaintiffs like ordinary  2002 – gov of the PH, acting through DOE, entered into a geophysical survey and
citzens when public interest requires exploration contract-102 with JAPEX
o Especially when it’s a transcednetal matter o Involved surface geology
o Oppose v. factoran o sample analysis
 Recognized the public right of citisens to a balanced and o reprocessing of seismic and magnetic data
healthful ecology  2004 – contract was converted into SC-46 for the exploration, development and
 Intergenerational responsibility production of petroleum resources in the Tañon straight
 Whether the court can order the parties to compensate the petitioner on the damages  2007 – DENR-EMB Region 7 granted an environmental compliance cert. (ECC) for
that they are claiming as citizens? NO the offshore exploration project
o Court can grant reliefs of order to protect, preserve, rehabilitate and  Months later, JAPEX began to drill an exploratory well near Pinamungajan town
restore the environment as in accordance the writ of kalikasan  December of that year 2 petitions were filed concerning unconsti of SC-46
 But is already moot since the clean up already finished when  Petitioners protested the adverse ecological impact of JAPEX’s oil exploration
the case was decided activities in the Tañon Strait
o The award of damages to individual petitioners are acceded and referred o Decrease of fish catch since JAPEX’s seismic survey
to the executive dept.  Petitioners also allege that JAPEX failed to conduct public consultations and
o US and PH gov both expressed readiness to negotiate matter of discussion with the fisherfolks and other stakeholders
compensation o Pre-req before issuance of ECC
o Conduct of foreign relations is within the exec. And legislative powers  Petitioners allege that seismic surveys and drilling have barred them from entering
and not of the judiciary and fishing in said area
 Respondents say that they have no locus standi
DIPOSITION o Argue constitutionality of SC-46 and validity of ECC
Writ of kalikasan is DENIED
ISSUE
Mainly because the salvage operations have been done already. Nothing to be ordered because
 Whether resident marine mammals and stewards have locus standi to file the
the deed is done.
present petition? YES
o Resident marine mammals, through the stewards, “claim” that they have
Resident Marine Mammals of the protected seascape Tañon strait v. Reyes
the legal standing to file the petition because they stand to be benefited
FACTS or injured by judgment in suit
o Citing oposa v. factoran, jr. they have the right to sue for the
 1st case
o Petitioners performance of international and municipal laws created in their favor
and benefit
 Whales
o Public respondents say that the resident marine mammals have no
 Dolphins
 Porpoises standing
 Other cetacean species  Sec. 1, rule 3 of the rules of court requires parties be either
 Which inhabit the waters in and around the Tañon straight natural or juridical persons
o Joined by Ramos and Eisma-osorio  Stewards aren’t the ones injured in this case – no standing
 GMA also cannot be petitioner – no proof that she
 Steward who empathize and seek for their protection
disapproved their acts entering in to SC-46
o Also impleaded as an unwilling co-petitioner is former pres. GMA
o Environmental cases have been given a liberalized approach
 2nd case
o Court passed the landmark rules and procedure for environmental cases
o The petitioners are the central visayas fisherfolk development center
 Allows filipinos to represent others to enforce rights or
(FIDEC)
obligations under environmental laws
o Non-stock, non-profit
DISPOSITION
o NGO established for marginal fisherfolks in region 7 Petitions both granted!
 Main respondent in both petitions are SC-46 is null and void!

Paje v. Casino
Facts
 Feb 2006 – Subic Bay metropolitan authority (SBMA) and Taiwan Cogenerations
Corp. (TCC) entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU)
o Expressing intention to build a coal-fired power plant in subic bay
 July 2006 – TCC assigned all right and interests under the MOU to Redondo
Peninsula Energy Inc. (RP Energy)
o PH corp of building, owning and operating power plants
 DENR issued an ECC (environmental compliance cert.) to RP Energy in favor of
construction of power plant
 Changes in design
o RP Energy requested that the ECC be amended a total of 3 times
o All granted by DENR
 June 2010- RP Energy and SBMA entered into a lease and development agreement
(LDA) over a 380k sqm land to be used for building and operating coal-fired plant
o City of Olongapo opposed
o Also province of zamabales
 July 2012 – Hon. Casino filed before the SC a petition for writ of kalikasan against
RP Energy, SBMA and Paje as Sec. of DENR
 Casino argues that the operation of the power plant would cause environmental
damage and pollution
o Also affect residents of bataan and Zambales
 SC issued writ of kalikasan and referred case to CA
 CA decision
o Denying the privilege of writ of kalikasan
 The writ is part part 3 of the rules of procedure for
environmental cases
 Sec1 of rule 7
 Nature of the writ. — The writ is a remedy
available to a natural or juridical person, entity
authorized by law, people's organization, non-
governmental organization, or any public interest
group accredited by or registered with any
government agency, on behalf of persons whose
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is violated, or threatened with violation
by an unlawful act or omission of a public official
or employee, or private individual or entity,
involving environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces.
 Write categorized as a special civil action and thus had
extraordinary remedy
 Aims to provide judicial relief from violations of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology
 To provide a stronger defense for environmental right
through judicial efforts
o Denied application for an environment protection order
o Invalidated the ECC and its amendments for failure to comply with
certain rules
ISSUES
 Whether or not petition to write of kalikasan should be granted? NO
o Casino group failed to prove that its consti right to a balanced and
healthful ecology was violated
 3 witnesses presented by the casino group are not experts on
tech or on environmental matters
 Palatino: freelance writer nor turned congressman
 Hermoso: BS sociology grad and a business
director
 Lacbain: accounting graduate with master in
public ad
o All 4 will be caused by the project are expressively addressed in
Environmental management plan (EMP)
 Alleged thermal pollution of coastal waters
 Air pollution due to dust and combustion gases
 Water pollution from toxic coal combustion waste
 Acid deposition in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems
o EMP is a section that details prevention, mitigation and compensation,
contingency and monitoring measures to enhance positive impacts
o ECC makes sure that RP Energy strictly complies with and implements
its approved EMP
o Requisites for sec. 1 of rules 7 of writ
 There is an actual or threatened violation of the consti right to
a balanced and healthful ecology
 The actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee or private
individual or entity
 Actual or threatened violation involves or will lead to an
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the
life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces
DIPOSITION
Petition for writ of kalikasan is denied for insufficiency of evidence
West Tower v. FPIC (First Phil Industrial Corp)
FACTS
 First PIC own 2 pipelines
o ONE White oil pipeline (WOPL)
o TWO Black Oil Pipeline (BOPL)
 o Both transport petroleum products from batangas to metro manila and
other near provinces
 May 2010 – leakage from one of the pipeline was suspected by resident of the West
tower condo
o Located in Makati
o They started to smell gas in the condo
 Leak worsened eventually causing them to evacuate premises
 After investigation of the university of the PH -National institute of geological
sciences (UP-NIGS)
o Through invitation of the city of Makati
o It was found that there was a leak in FPIC’s WOPL
o 86 meter from west tower
 FPIC admitted that the leak was from WOPL
o Which was already closed on oct 24 2010
o Company denied any liability
o Stating that lead was due to construction activities on the roads
surrounding west tower
 West tower filed a petition
o Issuance of writ of kalikasan
o On behalf of residents
o In representation of barangay bangkal, Makati
 FPIC submitted required DOE cert.
 West tower says that the tests done and preventive systems installed by FPIC were
insufficient
 and that the DOE was biased and incapable of determining WOPL’s structural
integrity
 DOE submitted a letter recommending aactivities and timetable for the resumption
of WOPLS operations
o Incorporating help from MMDA and DPWH
ISSUES
 Whether a permanent environmental protection order should be issued to direct the
respondent to perform or to desist from performing acts in order to protect,
preserve, and rehabilitate the affected environment? NO
o Court adopts the activities and measure prescribed in the DOE letter
dates aug 5, 2014
o To be compiled with by FPIC as condition for the resumption of
commercial operations of WOPL
o The determination whether the operations of WOPL will continue is
based on the results of the test DOE will conduct
 DOE is capable in determining structural integrity of pipeline
 Has also invited other admin agencies to help
o Precautionary principle does not apply as there is already a direct link
between cause and effect of the damage with dull scientific certainty
o Mere short-form integrity audit of the DOE is not sufficient in
dismissing the TEPO
o Only after an extensive determination by the DOE of the pipeline’S
actual physical state that the factual issues on the WOPL’s viability can
be settled
 Whether FGC and the directory and officers of FPIC and FGC may be held liable
under the environmental protection order? NO
o FGC is not liable under TEPO
o Without prejudice to the to the outcome of civil and crim complaint
o Writ of kalikasan, the court cannot frant the award of a damaged to
individual petitioners
DISPOSITION
Motion for partial reconsideration denied
Motion for reconsideration with motion for clarification is partly granted
CA Report and recommendations are adopted with modifications
 DOE ordered to oversee the strict implementation of preparatory tests and other
inspectors
 FPIC directed to undertake and continue the remediation, rehabilitation and
restoration of the affected barangay environment by complying with the measures
and directives of DENR
International service for the acquisition of agric-biotech applications (ISAAA) vs.
greenpeace south east asia
FACTS
 Pursuant to the Memorandum of Undertaking (MOU) entered into by the UPLBFI
and ISAAA and University of the PH Mindanao Foundation inc. (UPMFI)
o Parties will conduct field trials for “bioengineered eggplants”
o Pest-resistant eggplants were incorporated with bacillus thuringiensis to
produce a protein Cyrl Ac which is toxic to the target insect pests
 National Committee on biosafety of the PH (NCBP)isssues a cert. of completion of
contained experiment stating that
o Biosafety measure have been complied with
 Upon issuance of biosafety permits, the field testing in BT Talong commences in
o Kabacan, Noth Cotabato
o Sta. Maria, Pangasinan
o Pili, Camarines Sur
o Bago Oshiro, Davao
o Laguna Bay
 Greenpeace alleges that BT Talong field trials violate consti right to health and a
balanced ecology considering that subject crop is presumed harmful to human
health and the environment
 Also field trials do not comply with sec. 26 and 27 of LGC
o Because 10 households were not aware in these trials
 CA granted petition and directed the permanented cessation and desistance of the
BT Talong trials
ISSUE
 Whether the BT Talong trials violate sec. 16, Art 2 of consti? YES
o Applied precautionary principle
  Applicability
 when there is a lack of full scientific certainty in
establishing a causal link between human activity
and environmental effects, the court shall apply
this
 Right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology shall
be given the benefit of the doubt
 Standard of application
 1) threats to human life or health
 2) inequity to present or future generations
 3) prejudice to the environment without legal
consideration of the environmental rights of those
affected
o Precautionary principle finds direct application in the evaluation of
evidence in cases before the courts
 May construe a set of facts as warranting either judicial
action or inaction
 With goal of preserving and protecting environment
o Precautionary should be treated as principle of last resort
o Application of regular rules of evidence would cause in an inequitable
result for the environmental plaintiff
 Uncertainty
 The possibility of irreversible harm
 Possibility of serious harm coincide
 Case for precautionary principle is strongest!
o Court find all 3 conditions present in this case ^
o Eggplants are a staple vegetable
 Grown by small scale farmers
 Poor and marginalized
o Goal of increasing crop yields to raise farm incomes is laudable
 Scientific studies revealed uncertainties due to unfulfilled
economic benefits from BT crops and plants
 Adverse effects on the environment associated with the use
of GM techonology in agri
 Serious health hazards from consumption of GM foods
o For a country with rich biodiversity
 Unforeseen consequences of contamination and genetic
pollution would be disastrous
o Must be stressed that DAO 08-2002 ans related DA orders are not the
only legal bases for regulating field trials of GM plants and plant
products
o EO 514 establishing the national biosafety framework (NBF) clearly
provides that the NBF shall apply to the development, adoption and
implementation of all biosafety policies, measures and guidelines
o In making biosafety decisions concerning the research, development,
handling and use, transboundary movement, release into the
environment and management of regulated articles
o NBF requires the use of precaution
 Risk assessment
 Public participation
 Non-implementation of the NBF in the crucial stages of risk assessment and public
consultation
o including the determination of the applicability of the EIS requirements
to GMO field testing
o are compelling reasons for the application of the precautionary principle
 There exists a preponderance of evidence that the release of GMOs into the
environment threatens to damage our ecosystems and not just the field trial sites
o And eventually the health of our people once the BT Talongs are
consumed as food
LNL Archipelago Minerals Inc. v. Agham Party List
Facts
 LNL Archipelago Minerals Inc. (LAMI) is an operator of a mining claim in Sta.
Cruz, Zambales
 Project to build a private, non-commercial, port
o Infrastructure for a mining company to ship out ores and other minerals
extracted from the mines
o Making mining more economically feasible
 LAMI secured necessary documents and permits from:
o ECC (Environmental compliance certificate) issued by DENR
o DENR provisional foreshore lease agreement with LAMI
o Clearance to develop a port, permit to construct a port , special permit to
operate a beaching facility from the Philippine ports authority (PPA)
o Tree cutting permit/ cert/ from the community environment and natural
resources office (CENR) of the DENR
 Mayor marty did not support operations
o Directed LAMI to stop operations
 Rep. Dan Fernandez – member of the committee on ecology of the house of rep.
passed
o HR 117 “Resolution Directing the committee on ecology to conduct an
inquiry, in aid of legislation, on the implementation of RA No. 7942,
otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995
o Particularly on the adverse effect of mining
 Committee on ecology conducted an ocular
o LAMI port site and other adjacent ports
 DENR-PENRO (Provincial environment and natural resources office) conducted an
ECC to monitor LAMI’s property
o Found some violations
 DENR-EMB ascertained violations:
o 1) non-submission of reports
o 2) levelling of the elevated portion of the area
 LAMI signified its compliance
 PENRO Zambales conducted an investigation whether mitigating measures done by
LAMI were sufficient
 Found that no grave environmental damage
 o Lifted cease and desist order o 3) competent authorities prove that there is no mountain
 Prompted Agham party through Angelo Plamores to file writ of kalikasan against  Palmones admitted he was not competent to prove there was
o LAMI a mountain
o DENR o 4) a- CA didn’t provide any bases to (fact or law) to support the reversal
o PPA of its decision
o Zamabales Police Provincial Office (ZPPO)  Agham did not give new evidence to refute LAMI claims
 Claimed they violated o B – agham’s assertion that there is a mountain if false
o 1) sec. 68 of PD No. 705 – cutting, gathering or collecting timber or o C – contrary to agham’s claims, ECC was resinstated after their
other forest products without license as ammneded by EO No. 277 compliance with requirements
o 2) section 57 – expenditure for community development and science and o D – leveling of land is proven by competent authority (DENR composite
mining technology team) no detrimental impact on environment
o 3) section 69 – environmental protection of Philippine mining act of
1995 or RA 7924 DISPOSITION
 LAMI filed its verified return  REVERSE AND SET ASIDE
 DENR, PPA, ZPPO filed their pre-trial briefs with CA  DENY WRIT OF KALIKASAN
 CA decided in favor of the petitioner
o LAMI authorized to cut down trees Requisites of writ:
1. Actual/threatened violation of consti right to balanced and healthful ecology
o Followed proper guidelines in the permit
2. Actual/threatened violation arising from an unlawful act or omission of a public
 Denied issuance of writ of kalikasan by agham official or employee or individual or entities
o No flattening of mountain if there was no mountain to begin with 3. Actual/threatened violations involves an environmental damage of such magnitude
 After multiple MRs to prejudice, life, health and property of inhabitants in two or more cities
o CA reversed decision
o Set aside earlier decision Garcia v. Board of investments
o Granted writ of kalikasan
o Hence this petition Facts
 Case is continuation of second case where SC ruled that the “investor has no right
ISSUES of final choice”
 Whether Agham can avail of the remedy of writ of kalikasan? If they flattened any  Court resolution in first case is important
mountain and caused environmental damage of such magnitude to prejudice life, o Ruling right to final choice of investor
health and property of inhabitants or two or more provinces? NO  SC ruled the investor should recognize sovereign power of
o 1) Agham failed to comply requisites for writ  state through the BOI
 No proper justification of their allegations o Approves and disapproves in whether a project feasible
o Not able to prove they violated provisions cited o Thus, investor has NO right to final choice under Omnibus Investments
 Sec. 68 Code and the Consti
 LAMI had tree cutting permit  Under PD 1803
 Properly followed procedures in the permit o 576 hectares of land in Bataan were reserved for petrochemical
 Also passed evaluation conducted after issuance industrial zone
of permit o Under the ownership of Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC)
 Sec. 57 & 69  Bataan Refining Corporation (BRC) – gov controlled corp in bataan produces 60%
 Talks about mining acitivty in port site of naphta
 LAMI is not even conducting this  Taiwanese investors formed Bataan Petrochemical Corp (BPC)
 Misapplied! o Wanted to be a new producers of petrochemicals
o 2) Flattening mountain  BPC went to BOI to register for cert in those terms….
 Did not cite any law against this o Bataan being petrochemical site
o Did not present proof how residents of Zambables will incure danger in o Use of naphta as fuel for petrochemical plant
leveling of land  BPC received cert. of registration from the BOI
 Which affects either health, life or property  Incentives given
o No grave threats to surrounding vicinities o Tax exemptions
 o A bill that petitioner introduced eliminating 48% ad valorem tax on  Located in bataan and can
naphta when used as fuel for petrochemical plant be oused as fuel source
 HOWEVER, BPC changed their minds  LPG in batangas is scarce
o Moved the pltant to batangas  Can barely adapt to needs
o Insurgency and unstable labor situation of the people there
o Also switched to liquified petroleum gas (LPG) as fuel since available in
batangas by Shell DISPOSITION
Petition is granted, BOI approving amendment is null and void!
 BPC requested approval:
o Increased investment - $320 to $220M
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro
o Transfer from bataan to batangas
o Change from naphta to LPG Facts
 BOI approved despite opposition from petitioners  An application of habeas corpus in favor of Rubi and other Manguianes of the
o Pres. aquino province of Mindoro
o Senate  Provincial officials have illegally deprived Manguianes of their liberty
o House of rep  Rubi and co. are said to be held on the reservation established at Tigbao, Mindoro –
 Vice chair BOI Alcantara said against will
o BOI could only recommend where it should be located  Dabalos, another person, said to be held under custody of the provincial’s sheriff
o Recognizes the principle that the final choice is with the proponent who o In prison at Calapan
would provide the funding or risk capital for project o For running away from the reservation
ISSUES  Provincials gov. in pursuant to admin code of 1917, sec. 2145 adopted resolution
 Whether BOI committed grave abuse of discretion in yielding to wishes of no. 25
investor? YES o Administrative Code of 1917. SEC. 2145. Establishment of non-
o Art. 12 sec. 1 Christian upon sites selected by provincial governor. — With the prior
 Concerns full efficient use of national resources by foreign approval of the Department Head, the provincial governor of any
and national enterprise province in which non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized,
o Sec. 19 Art. 2 when such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order,
 Mandates the development of national economy controlled to direct such inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on
by filipinos and not foreign investors unoccupied public lands to be selected by him an approved by the
o Foreign investments should be in support of our national interest which provincial board.
is represented by the Gov o 800 hectares of public land on Naujan Lake selected as a site for
o In this case…. permanent settlement of Maguianes in Mindoro
 State surrenders power to make company abide by its first o In the same year, provincial gov. issued EO No. 2
choice (bataan)  Ordering all Manguianes to move to designated site
 Which is a choice free from any suspicion of  Failure to do so is imprisonment
unscrupulous machination and
 a choice which is undoubtedly in the best interest ISSUES
of filipinos  Whether section 2145 of the Admin code of 1917 an unlawful delegation of
 thus BOI committed grave abuse of discretion in its decision legislative power by the legislature to provincial officials and a dept. head? NO –
to let the investor decide despite the overwhelming evidence LAWFUL
of the foreign investor’s mistake o Court agrees that the prohibition to delegate legislative power should be
 mistakes investor protected
o bataan is already a petrochemical zone o In this case, two acts concerning delegation
– thus no insurgency in justifying  1) delegation of power to make the law INVALID
move from it  2) Delegation of authority to its execution VALID
o BRC – gov owned  (Co v. Comm’rs. Clinton Country)
 Already produces 60% of o Based from decisions, delegation is a necessity for governance
the national output of o Legislature merely conferred to the provincial gov. the necessary
naphta discretionary authority to the execution of law
  Exception to general rule
o Immemorial practice
 Sanctions and permits the central legislative body to delegate
legislative powers to local authorities
o Provincial gov. and provincial board are the better judges on which
course would be taken for the interest of law
 Due to proximity
o This presents an except to the non-delegability of the legislative power
to the executive
 Provincial gov. has been granted quasi-legislative powers for
better execution of art. 2145 of the admin code
*real legislative power! Not derivative.
*when LGU acts on local matters they have the power to legislate (making it real legislative
power)
SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) v. Interport
FACTS
 Interport Resources Corp. (IRC) approved an agreement between Ganda Holdings
Berhab (GHB) – Westmont group of companies
o To acquire their Ganda Energy Holdings Inc. (GEHI)
o 97% complete
 IRC will issue 55% of its expanded capital stock
 GHB will help IRC acquire 67% of the capital stock of Philippine Racing Club
(PCRI)
o Arranging a loan from an international source
 1994 of August IRC said they issued a press release of approval of its agreements
 SEC says they did not receive
 SEC says IRC failed to report its business developments
o Directors heavily traded IRC stocks given the material of its information
 SEC conducted a hearing and found out that IRC and its directors violated the Rules
of Material Facts and Sec. 30 and 36 of revised securities act.
 Allegation that GHB and that some of its directors, respondents herein, heavily
traded IRC share utilizing this material insider info
 Interport filed omnibus motion
o SEC had no authority to investigate
o Since the power is within the prosecution and enforcement dept. of SEC
 SEC continued to create special panel to investigate the case despite the issuance of
respondent of injunction
 Injunction granted by CA
 SEC filed motion for leave to quash SEC Omnibus to continue investigation
 Court stated that there were implementing rules and regulations regarding
disclosure
o Insider training
o Provisions of revised securities acts
 Also no statutory authority for SEC to file a suit
o This will be violation of the respondents’ right to due process and equal
protection
 While pending, RA 8799 (Securities regulation code) took effect on aug 8, 2000
o Repealed Sec 8 of PD 902-A which created the PED
o Took place of revised securities act
ISSUE
 Whether the CA erred when it ruled that there is no statutory authority for petitioner
to file any suit against respondent with respect to sec. 30 and 36 of revised
securities act? YES
o Court rules that no implementing rules were needed to render effective
sec. 8, 30 and 36
o Nor was PED Rules of practice and procedure invalid prior to the
enactment of the Securities Regulations Code
 For failure to provide parties with the right to cross-examine
the witnesses presented against them
o Thus, respondents may be investigated by the appropriate authority
 Under proper rules of procedure of the securities regulations
code for violations of sec. 8, 30 and 36 of the revised
securities act
o Provisions are legal and binding even without constitutional or statutory
infirmity
o Presumption of validity of laws is based on the doctrine of separation of
powers
 To respect acts of each dept.
 Is impracticable for law makers to provide general
regulations for various details of management
 Court does not discern any vagueness or ambiguity in sec 30
and 36 of revised securities act
o Broadness of anti-fraud provisions is to embrace the infinite variety of
deceptive conduct
o Sec 30 and 36
 Enacted to promote full disclosure in the securities market
 Prevent unscrupulous individuals
 By their positions obtain on-public info and taking advantage
of an uniformed public
o No individual would invest in a market which can be manipulated by a
limited number of corporate insiders
 Stunt growth of securities market
o Thus sec 30 prevents unfair use of non-public info in the securities
transactions
o Sec 36 allowed SEC to monitor the transactions entered into by
corporate officers and director as regards the securities of their
companies
Completeness – “the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the
legislature such that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing he will have to do is to enforce
it.”
Sufficiency – “adequate guidelines and limitations must be mandated in the law to determine
the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.”
Agustin v. Edu
FACTS
 Pres. Marcos issues letter of instruction no.229
o Directing all owners, users or driver of vehicles shall have at all times in
their motor vehicles at least 1 pair of early warning device (early
warning device EWD)
 Vienna convention on road safety
 Statistics
o LOI (Letter of Instruction) also states that whenever a motor is stalled or
park for at least 30 mins or more in any street, highway, limited access
roads
 Owner should use the warning device
 Installed at least 4m away to the front and rear of the vehicle
o Land transportation Commission (LTC) responsible of issuing the
EWDs
 Charge not more than 15% of the acquisition cost
 Also promulgate rules and regulations implementing the
order
 Amended by LOI 479 allowing the LTC to promulgate rules
that will effectively implement this order
o LTC Commissioner Edu issues Memorandum Circular No. 32
implementing the use of EWDs
 Stated that they may come from whatever source
 Should substantially complied with the EWD specifications
 Also provide serially numbered stickers to ensure that every
vehicle has been equipped with an EWD
 In this case, petitioner Agustin is the owner of a Volkswagen beetle car, model
13035
o Equipped with blinking lights in the front and rear
o He believes it can already serve as an early warning device
 He argues that the LOI violates the delegation of police power
o Also that they are oppressive
 Further alleges that will make manufacturers and dealers instant millionaires at the
expense of car owners
o Charging Php 56-72 per set EWDs
 Respondents invoked Calalang v. Williams, Morfe v. Mutuc, and Edu, Ericta in
rebutting the charge that there was no undue delegation power
 Reference also to 1968 Vienna conventions of the UN on road traffic, road signs
and signals which the PH was signatory and ratified
ISSUES
 Whether there was undue delegation of legislative power? NO
o Invoking Edu v. Ericta
 Must be standard test that will be followed to ensure that
there is no undue delegation of power
 Standard defines – legislative policy…
 Marks its limits
 Maps out its boundaries
 Specifies the public agency to apply it
o Calalang v. Williams
 Identified police power with the state authority to enact
legislation that may interfere with personal liverty and
property in order to promotoe the genral welfare
o Morfe v. mutuc
 Police power insures peace and safety
o Thus, the exec and admin office designated may in pursuance of the
above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and regulations
o Cannot be held that rules implemented by the LTC are undue
delegations of legislative powers because LOI 220 and the Vienna
convention recommendations ensures public safety
o Admin order of LTO was also done in compliance of a fundamental
policy laid by the legislature (public safety)
o They also lay down supplemental rules and regulations
 You may source the EWDs from other places and serial
stickers
DISPOSITION
Petition is dismissed, restraining order is lifted
Araneta v. Gatmaitan
Facts
 San Miguel bay
o Located between Camirines Sur & Camirines Norte
o Considered the most important fishing area in pacific side of bicol
region
 In 1950, trawl operators from Malabon, navotas and other places migrated to said
region for the purpose of using trawl to fish in said Bay
 Trawl cause depletion of marine resources
 General clamor
 Pres. Magsaysay issued EO 22 prohibiting the use of trawls in the San Miguel Bay
o EO 22 was amended by EO 66
 Answer to a resolution of the provincial board of camirines
sur
 Allow trawls during typhoon season
o EO 66 was amended by EO 80
 Revived EO 22
 Absolutely prohibiting trawls
 A group of other trawl operators filed a complaint for injunction with the Court of
First Instance of Manila
o Writ of preliminary injunction
 o Restrain Sec. of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Director of
Fisheries from enforcing the executive orders and to declare such null
and void
 Sec. and director claimed exec orders were valid
 Trial court declared exec orders invalid
o Said only legislative enactment allowed
o Not an executive proclamation can ban trawlers from San Mig Bay
ISSUES
 Whether the EO 22, 60 and 80 were valid for the issuance thereof was not in th
exercise of legislative powers unduly delegated to the Pres.? YES
o Exec orders were valid
o SC held distinction between
 1) delegation of power to legislate
 Make laws
 Cannot be done
 2) conferring authority as to the execution of the law
 Authority exercised in pursuance of the law
 Valid
 Cannot be objected
o From the provisions of the fisheries act
 1) It authorized the sec. of agriculture and natural resources
to provide regulations as may be deemed necessary to be
imposed on the use of any fishing net or fishing device for
the protection of fish fry or fish eggs
 2) Declared it unlawful to disturb, drive away or take
therefrom any fish fry or fish eggs
o Fisheries act is complete in itself
 Leaving the promulgations of rules and regulations with the
Sec. of agri and natural resources to effectuate the legislative
intent
o To protect fish fry, the congress wanted to prohibit the use of fish nets or
fishing devices like a trawl which endangers or depletes sea food supply
DISPOSITION
Court declared EO 22, 66, 80 series of 1954 as valid!
Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB)
Facts
 Assailing consti of sec 36 of RA 9165
o Comprehensive dangerous drugs act of 2002
o COMELEC Resolution 6486
o Require mandatory drug testing of:
 candidate for public office (appointment or election)
 students of secondary and tertiary schools
 officers of public and private officers
 those charged with criminal offenses
 Sen. Pimentel a candidate for re-election assails the said requirements imposed by
RA9165 and COMELEC resolution 6486
o Imposes an added requirement to run for a position in the senate
o Contrary in sec. 3 art. 6 of consti
 States the requirements needed in order to run for a position
in the senate
o Also said that there is nothing in the consti that provides for authority of
the congress or COMELEC to add a qualification to people wanting to
run for senate
 Petition of SJS assails conti of paragraphs C,D,F,G of sec. 36 of RA9165
o Gives the schools and employers the power to determine how the drug
testing will be performed
o This can be used to harass certain personalities
o Also a person’s consti right against unreasonable searched is violated
 Atty. Laserna’s petition states that C,D,F,G od sec. 36 of RA9165 are unconsti
because violates
o Right to privacy
o Right against unreasonable search and seizure
o Right against self-incrimination
 Also said it is contrary to due process and equal protection
ISSUES
 Whether RA 9165 is unconsti as they constitute undue delegation of legislative
power when they give unbridled delegation of legislative power to schools and
employers to determine the manner of drug testing? NO
o For students and employers – sec. 36 expressly provides (complete in
itself) how drug testing should be conducted
 Enumerates persons who shall undergo drug testing
o Students
 In accordance with school rules as contained in the student
handbook
 With notice to parents
o Officers/employees
 Takes into account the company’s work rules
o Random procedure shall be observed
o Safeguards against misusing and compromising the confidentiality of the
test results are established
o SEC. 94 of RA9165 charged the DDB to issue, in consultation with the
DOH, DILG, DepEd and DOLE the IRR necessary to enforce the law
o Participation of schools and offices in drug testing scheme shall always
be subject to the IRR of RA 9165
Disini v. Sec. of Justice
FACTS
 Consolidated petitions seek to declare several provisions of RA 10175 (Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012) unconsti and void
 Cybercrime law aims to regulate access to and use of the cyberspace
o A person can connect to internet to:
 1) access virtual libraries and encyclopedia for all kinds of
info
  2) post billboard like notices or messaged for the general
public or for special audiences like associates, classmates or
friends and read posting about them
 3) advertise and promote goods or services and make
purchases and payments
 4) inquire and do business with institutional entities like gov
agencies, banks, etc
 5) communicate in writing or by voice with any person
through his e-mail address or telephone
 However, the system could not filter out a number of persons of ill will who would
want to use cyberspace technology for mischiefs and crimes
o Ex. Ruining someone’s rep, bully the latter by posting defamatory
statements against him so people can read
o Ex. Theft by hacking into credit card
o Ex. Illicit trafficking of sex or porn
o Ex. Wreaking havoc to computer systems of highly useful institutions
 Thus the gov has the duty and right to prevent these tomfooleries from happening
and punish perpetrators
o Created Cybercrime Prevention Act
 Petitioners claims that the means adopted by such law for regulating undesirable
cyberspace activities violate certain consti rights
 Gov asserts that law just wants to put order into cyberspace activities, punish
wrongdoings and prevent hurtful attacks on system
 Court extended the original 120-day TRO that it earlier issued enjoining respondent
gov agencies from implementing the cybercrime law until further orders
ISSUE
 Whether Sec. 19 of the Cybercrime Act violates consti guarantees of freedom of
expression and unreasonable searches and seizures?
o Sec. 19 – restricting or blocking access to computer data
 When a computer data is prima facie found to be in violation
of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an orders to
restrict or black access to such computer data
o Computer data may refer to entire programs or lines of code including
malware and other files that contains texts, images, audio or video
recordings
 Indisputable that these data produced or created by their
authors or writers constitute personal property
 Thus protected from unreasonable searches and seizures
 Whether while stores in their personal computers or in the
service provider systems
o Sec. 2 Art. 3 of Consti
 Provides that the right to be secured in one’s papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable
 States that no search warrant shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determines personally by the judge
 The gov, in effect seizes and places the comp data under its
control and disposition without a warrant
 DOJ order cannot substitutes for judicial search warrant
o Content of computer data can also constitute speech
 In such case, Sec, 19 operates as a restriction on the freedom
of expression over cyberspace
 Certainly not all forms of speech are protected
o Legislature may, within consti bounds, declare certain kinds of
expression as illegal
o But for an executive officer to seize content alleged to be unprotected
without any judicial warrant, is not enough for hom to be of the opinion
that such content violates some law
 For to do so, would make him judhge, jury and executioner
all together
o Not only does Sec. 19 preclude any judicial intervention but it also
disregards jurisprudential guideline established to determine the validity
of restrictions on speech
o Restrainats on free speech are generally evaluated on one of or a
combination of 3 tests:
 The dangerous tendency doctrine
 The balancing of interest test
 The clear and present danger rule
o Sec. 19 however merely requires that the data to be blocked be found
prima facie in violation of any provision of the cybercrime law
 Thus, it doesn’t take into consideration any of the 3 tests
mentioned
DISPOSITION
Sec. 19 of the same Act that authorizes the DOJ to restrict or block access to suspend
Computer Data void for being unonsti
ISSUE
 Whether Sec. 24 and 26A is an invalid delegation of the power of the congress?
o Petitioners contend that congress invalidly delegated its power when it
gave the Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) the
power to formulate a national cyber security plan without any sufficient
standards or parameters for it to follow
o 2 tests:
 Completeness test – a law is complete when it sets forth
therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented
by the delegate. When the law leaves the hands of the
legislature, all that is left to do by the delegate is enforce it
 Sufficient standard test – lays down a sufficient standard
when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law
to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and
prevent the delegation from running riot
o Court held that the cybercrime law is complete in itself when it directed
the ICC to formulate and implement a national cyber security plan
o Also gave sufficient standard for the CICC to follow when it provided
for the definition of cyber security
 Cyber security – refers to the collection of tools, policies, risk
management approaches, actions, training, best practices,
 assurance and technologies that can be used to protect cyber  Petitioner – QC PTCA Federation filed the present petition in the belief that the
environment and organization and user’s assets above-quoted provision
o Definition serves as parameters within which the CICC should work in o undermine the independence of PTAs and PTCAs
formulating the cyber security plan o amend the constitutions and by-laws of existing PTAs and PTCAs
o The formulation of the cyber security plan is consistent with the policy o violate its consti rights to organize and to due process as well as other
of the law to prevent and combat such cyber offenses by facilitating their existing laws
detection, investigation and prosecution at both the domestic and
international levels, and by providing arrangements for fast and reliable ISSUES
international cooperation  Whether the DepEd acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
o Policy is clearly adopted in the interest of law and order, which has been excess of jurisdiction in issuing DepEd No. 54? NO
considered a sufficient standard o Legislative powers have been viewed as non-delegable powers
o The portion is valid and consti! o In recognition of the exigencies that contemporary governance must
address, legal system has recognized the validity of “subordinate
Quezon City PTCA vs. DepEd legislation”
 Or the rule-making power of agencies tasked with the
FACTS: administration of government
 Petition for centriorari and prohibition o Admin agencies are not given unfettered power to promulgate rules
o Praying that respondent, DepEd’s Department Order No. 54 be nullified o Gerochi v. DepEd
for being unconstitutional and contrary to law  2 requisites must be satisfied un order for the rule making
o Writ for prohibition permanently enjoining the DepEd and all persons power delegated to admin agaencies be considered valid:
acting on its behalf from enforcing the assailed Department Order be  1) the completeness test
issued o A law is complete when it sets forth
 June 1, 2009 – DepEd former Sec. Lapus issued Dept. Order No. 54 therein the policy to be executed,
o Entitled revised guidelines governing parents-teachers associations carried out or implemented by the
(PTAs) at the school level delegate
 Dept. Order sought to address limitations of guidelines  2) sufficient standard test
o DO No. 23 o Lays down sufficient standard when it
 Issued in response to increasing reports of malpractices by provides adequate guidelines or
officers or members of PTAs limitations in the law to map out the
 Such as boundaries of the delegate’s authority
 Officers absconding with contributions and and prevent the delegation from
membership fees running riot
 Non-disclosure of the status of funds & non- o To be sufficient, the standard must
submission of financial statements specify
 Misuse of funds  the limits to the delegate’s
 DO 54 provides authority
o Approval of the school head as a pre-req for PTAs to be organized  identify the conditions
o Terms of office and manner of election of a PTA’s board of directors under which it is
o Cessation of recognition of existing parents-teachers community implemented
associations (PTCAs) and of their federations effective school year o Both The Education Act of 1982 and the Admin Code provide for the
2009-2010 rule-making power of the secretaries heading the departments that
 DO gave them until June 30, 2009 to dissolve compromise the executive branch of gov
 Wind up their activities o Education act provides for regulations of PTAs
 Submit financial reports  Depends on the DepEd how regulation will take place
 Turn over all documents to school heads and schools division  Through this rule-making power that Sec. Lapus issued DO
surperintendents No. 54
o Also provides for the recognition and monitoring of PTAs as well as  Thus no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
activities that are prohibited excess of jurisdiction in the issuance of DO No. 54
DISPOSITION
The petition is dismissed
People v. Rosenthal
FACTS
 Rosenthal and Osemna are owners of ORO Oil Company
o Built to mine, refine, market, buy and sell
 Petroleum
 natural gas
 other oil products
 found guilty for selling their assets based on non-tangible assets
 assets they sold were speculative – based on future gains
 violation of sec. 2 and 5 of act no. 2581
 Sec. 2
o any person, partnership and business that plans to sell speculative
securities are required to file to the Insular Treasurer various documents
o and a tax of Php 20
 Sec .5
o If the Insular Treasurer is satisfied with the showing of documents of the
mentioned agents he will issue a cert that will alow its business and
agents to sell the speculative securities
 Insular treasurer may rescind such cert for public interest and that the said
 That said rescinded business may fil a motion to appeal within 30 days to the sec. of
finance
 Rosenthal argued that Act 2581 is unconsti
o No standard or rule is fixed in the Act which can guide said officials in
determining the cases in which a certificate of permit ought to be issued
 Legislative powers being unduly delegated to the Insular Treasurer Act No. 2581 is
unconsti
ISSUES
 Whether there is undue delegation of power to the Internal Treasurer? NO
o The court held that the standards set by. Sec. 2 and 5 are sufficient to
determine the mandate of Insular Treasurer
o Act 2181 narrates a clear decision process
o The power to rescind or the issuance of cancellation, the court believes
that “public interest” construed at the face of mandate of Insular
Treasurer is clear as it pertains to action against fly-by-night securities
seller, fraudulent exploiters and etc.
o No ambiguity and the discretion is already clear
o Act anyways allows checks and balance through an appeal to the Sec. of
Finance in case of cancellation
o Theory of separation of powers (between exec. And legislative) is
designed by its originators to secure action and at the same time to
forestall over action which necessarily results from undue concentration
of powers and obtain efficiency and prevent depotism
o Art. 2851 was established to narrow the range of governmental action
and makes it subject to control by certain legal devices
o Delegatus non potest delegare
 Made to adapt itself to the complexities of modern gov,
giving rise to the adoption, within certain limits, of the
principle of “subordinate legislation” in practically all
modern governments
 Difficulty lies in fixing the limit and extent of the authority
 Each cases needs to decided according to its peculiar
environment
Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA (Philippine Overseas Employment Administration)
FACTS
 Philippine Overseas Employment Association was created under EO 797
o Vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction to cases pertaining to
overseas workers
o Issues about money, contracts, benefits, death, etc.
 Vitaliano Saco, chief officer of M/V Eastern Polaris
o Killed in an accident in Tokyo
 Widow filed a case using EO 797 to claim benefits
 Eastern Shipping Lines argued that the complaint was not cognizable by the POEA
but by Social Security System
o Should have been filed against State Insurance Fund
 POEA still assumed jurisdiction
 After considering position papers of the parties, POEA ruled in favor of Kathleen
Saco
 The awards consisted under Memorandum Circular No. 2of the POEA
o 180k as death benefits
o 12k for burial expenses
ISSUE
 Whether the POEA has jurisdiction over the case? YES
o National legislature has the need to permit admin agencies to implement
general rules of provisions by “filling in” the details which the Congress
may not have the opportunity or competence to provide
o Legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be
delegated
o What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be
enforced
o Not what the law shall be
 This prerogative cannot be surrendered by the legislature to
the delegate
o 2 accepted tests to determine valid delegation of legislative power
 Completeness test – the law must be complete in all its terms
and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when
it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is to
enforce it
 Sufficient standard test – there must be adequate guidelines
or stations in the law to map out boundaries of the delegate’s
authority and prevent the delegation from running riot
 o Memorandum Circular Order No. 2  Sec (a) & (f) are sufficient standards that set the payment
 Became effective Feb 1, 1984 needed by the applicant – Php 25 and objective of law
 Prescribed a standard contract to be adopted by both foreign o Sec. 7
and domestic shipping companies in the hiring of Filipino  Medical college may admit any student who has not been
seamen for overseas employment convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction of any
offense involving moral turpiture
DISPOSITION  Needs to present
Petition dismissed  A record of completion of bachelor’s degree in
science or arts
Tablarin v. Gutierrez  A cert. of eligibility for entrance to a medical
school from the Board of Medical Education
FACTS  A cert. of good moral character issued by two
 Petitioners sought to be enrolled for school year 1987-1988 in a medical school former professors in college of liberal arts
o Didn’t reach NMAT (National Medical Admissions Test)  Birth cert.
 Required for them to take as mandated by the Board of
Medical Education DIPOSITION
 Petitioners assail RA 2382 (as amended in Medical Act of 1959) Petition for centriorari is dismissed!
o Act that created the Board of Medical Education Respondent trial court denying the writ f preliminary injunction is affirmed!
o Providing standardization and regulation of medical education by
 a) determining and prescribing requirements for admission Viola v. Alunan
into a recognized college of medicine
 f) accepting applications for cert. of admission and collecting FACTS
Php 25 from each applicant  Petition for prohibition challenging the validity of Art. 3 Sec. 1-2
 MECS Order No. 52 is and order by the Minister of Educations, Culture and Sports  Mr. Viola filed a case against DILG Sec. Alunan
o Establishing a uniform test, NMAT o For implementation and promulgation of Art. 3 sec. 1-2- of the Revised
o Additional requirement for issuance of a cert. of eligibility for admission Implementing Rules and Regulations of general elections of the liga ng
into the medical schools in PH mga barangay or (League of Barangay or Barangay Capt. Of PH)
 Petitioners assail it’s constitutionality o Allows the election of 1ST, 2ND, 3rd VP in the liga ng mga barangay
 Respondents conducted the NMAT for the school year 1987-1988 o Under sec. 1 local liga chapters:
o Hence petitioner instituted this present petition  The municipal, city, metropolitan and provincial chapters
shall directly elect the following officers and directors to
ISSUE constitute their respective Board of Directors namely
 Whether RA 2382 is consti? YES  President
o The principle of non-delegation of legislative power must be applied in  Exec. VP
respect to statutes  FVP
 Like Medical Act. 1959  SVP
 Deals with complex and technical subject  3rd VP
o With the growing complexities of modern life and increased difficult to  5 Directors
administering the laws, there is a growing tendency towards the o Sec. 2 National Liga
delegation of greater power by the legislature  National liga shall directly elect the following officers and
o Explained by Mr. Justice Fernando in Edu v. Ericta directors namely
 In the Reflector Law, the main objective only was public  Pres.
safety  Exec. VP
 Standard need not be spelled out specifically as they may be  FVP
implied from the policy and purpose of the act as a whole  SVP
o In this case, it was stated in the Medical Act as Sec. 1 that the objective  3rd VP
of the act is  Sec Gen
 Provide for and to govern a standardization and regulation of  Auditor
medical education
 5 directors
 o Art. 3 Sec. 1-2 violate the LGC Sec. 493 that limits the elective positions
only to those of the president, VP and 5 members of the board of
directors
o Said additional positions was actually an effect of a decision made in
Barangay National Assembly
 Placed in the consti and by-laws on 1994
ISSUE
 Whether Sec. 1-2 of the revised implementing rules and guideline are vaild? YES
o Given that the president with his power of executive can create, abolish
and merge offices in the executive department for the fulfillment of his
executory duty
o The court also recognizes the power of the LGC in fixing their own
admin offices in the barangay
o Creation of additional offices is sanctioned by the LGC as it states
 Sec. 493 of the LGC
 Requires and not merely authorizes the board of directors to
create such other positions at it may deem necessary for the
management of the chapter
 LGC fixes the standard since the purpose is the delivery of government services to
the local districts
 Said services will not be possible if there are missing positions that would make the
liga not as efficient as expected
 Seen as a sufficient standard to allow the legislature to delegate power to such local
government unit in order for it to choose well its officers
 Also to make positions it knows best more than anyone else that would make the
purpose of liga met
 Barangay National Assembly is participated by the Pambansang Katip ng mga
Barangay is authorized by the Congress to create by-laws and the Consti of said
barangay rules and regulations
 Also passes a sufficient standard to promulgate rules and regulations about the
creation of additional positions
DISSENTING
 Davide says there is a lack of legal basis for the creation of said positions
 1st
o Questions authority of Barangay Assembly in creating additional
positions
o Only positions provided for
 P
 VP
 5 board of directors
o Board is task in employing people in appointive offices
DISPOSITION
Petition for prohibition is dismissed for lack of merit
Abakada v. Ermita
 RA 9337 or the VAT Reform Act
o Law that came because of the amounting budget deficits that is coupled
by the realization of shortages in allocation in key areas of gov
 Heath
 Education
o Sourced from 3 consolidated bills
 Upon passing as a law, was immediately issued a TRO
o Confusions in its implementation
 Confusion came when sectors are claiming that RA 9337 gives 10% additional
expenses to their products
o But it clarified that there were exceptions and that implementation varies
from industry to industry
o RA 9337 interacts in different ways to other existing laws and that the
exceptions to some laws should suffice enough not to exceed or even
reach the said 10% increase
 Petitioners contend that Sec 4,5 and 6 of the RA 9337 amend section 106, 107 and
108 of the National Internal Rev Code
o Sec. 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties
o Sec. 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation goods
o Sec. 6 imposes 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of
properties
 Said provision also grants the president , upon recommendation of Sec. of Finance
to increase tha tax to 12% as long as certain set of conditions are set
o 1) national deficit as a percentage of GDP from last year exceeds by 1
and ½
o 2) that the VAT as percentage of GDP increases beyond 2 and 4/5%
from previous year
 They contend that the sec. of Finance does not have clear prerogatives on how he
could determine the increase of tax also
ISSUE
 Whether RA 9337’s grating of stand-by authority in abeyance of Sec. of Finance’s
decision is an undue delegation of power of taxation that the legislative has and the
President is deprived? NO
o Court recognizes that the legislative under Sec 28(2) of Art. 6 has clear
mandate to authorize the Pres
 To fix, within specified limits or impose tariff rates, import
and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues and other dues
or imposts within the framework of the national development
program of the gov
o Petitioners argue since VAT is a tax on sale, barter or exchanghe of
goods and properties, the said VAT is in no way come into purview of
those mentioned
o Sec. of finance is an alter ego, the Pres. in total determines the tax
o General rule – exception in delegation of legislative powers is subject to
the following recognized limitations
 Delegation of tariff powers to president under consti
 Delegation of emergency powers to president under consti
 Delegation to the people at large
  Delegation to local gov
 Delegation to admin bodies
o This case is not a delegation of legislative power but more of an
ascertainment of facts
o The power to impose the 12% VAT is contingent of set specifies facts or
conditions that are outside the control of the exec.
o The use of the word “shall” also should be noted as the word is a
legislative order that binds the president to enact the said increase of
12% VAT in accordance to the order of legislative if certain conditions
are met
o Shall removes the doubt in power of the president to impose taxes at his
own discretion
o Also sec. of finance acts as an agent of legislative that has the mandate
to confirm the facts by the use of data and analysis
Beltran v. Sec. of Health
FACTS
 RA 1517 is the original bill that seek to enable physicians of blood banks and blood
laboratories in the Philippines to conduct operations under the supervision of
Bureau of Research and Laboratories (BRL)
 Due to the 1980’s financial crisis, BRL’s regulatory powers have crippled
 1994 – the New Tropical Medicine Foundation
o with assistance of the US Agency for International Development
(USAID)
o Released its final report of a study on the PH blood banking system
entitled “Project to Evaluate the Safety of the PH Blood Banking
System”
o Revealed that in the blood untis collected in 1992
 64.4% were supplied by commercial blood banks
 14.5% by the Philippine National Red Cross
 13.7% by government hospital-based blood banks
 7.4% by private hospital-based blood banks
 These show that the PH heavily relied on commercial sources of blood
 Also blood sold by persons to blood commercial banks are three times more likely
to have any of the 4 tested infections or blood transfusion transmissible diseases,
namely:
o Malaria
o Syphilis
o Heap B
o Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)
o …than those donated to PNRC
 Blood bank donors are paid donors around Php50-150
 RA 7719 of National Blood Services Act of 1994 was then enacted into law on
April 1994
o Seeks to provide an adequate supply of safe blood
o By promoting voluntary blood donation
o by regulating blood banks in the country
 one of its provisions in phasing out of commercial blood banks within 2 years from
its effectivity
o to safeguard the public since these blood banks operate on profit and
may not need to impose strict rules on acquiring donors and entices the
poor
o the same scheme worked in national use of kidney
 petitioners assailed that phasing out was undue delegation of power
ISSUE
 Whether RA 7719 is an undue delegation of power? NO
o Test determine undue delegation is to inquire in the use of terms and that
if the law sets a standard
o RA 7719 is complete in itself
 Clear from provisions of the Act that the legislature intended
primarily to safeguard the health of the people and has
mandated several measures to attain this objective
 One of this is the phase out
 The law has provided a sufficient standard for the guidance
of the secretary of health in carrying out its provisions
 Promotion of public health by providing a safe
and adequate supply of blood through voluntary
blood donation
 By its provisions, - it has conferred the power and
authority to the Sec. of Health as to tis executions
o To be exercised under the law
o Sec. of Health under RA 7719 has be given broad powers to execute the
provisions of said Act
o Sec. 23 of Admin Order No. 9
 Provides that the phase-out period of commercial blood
banks shall be extended for another 2 years until May 1998
 Based on result of a careful study and review of the blood
supply and demand of public safety
o Court says that even though there is discretions in the extension date,
that the delegation of legislative power is within the capability of the
agency to determine the law and not in said provision
 Which the provisions says it is only to execute a clearly set
standard of phasing out blood banks
Abakada v. Prusima
FACTS
 RA 9335 (Attrition Act of 2005) is an act that aims to optimize revenue generation
of BIR (Bureau of Internal Revenue) and BOC (Bureau of Custom)
o By providing an incentive fund system to the officials and members who
are employed 6 months and beyond
 Petitioners assert that the law unduly delegated the power to fix revenue targets to
the President
o It lacks a sufficient standard on that matter
  While section 7 b and c of RA 9225 provides that BIR and BOC officials may be
dismissed from the service if their revenue collections fall short of the target by
at least 7.5%
o The law however does not fix the revenue targets to be achieved
 Instead, the fixing revenue targets has been delegated to the President without
sufficient standards
 Therefore it will be easy for the President to fix an unrealistic and unattainable
target in order to dismiss BIR or BOC personnel
ISSUE
 Whether RA 9335 is consti? YES
o A law sets out sufficient standards when it provides adequate boundaries
to map out the delegate’s authority and prevent them from having too
much freedom
o Said RA does not unduly delegate power as contained in its provisions
are clearly set out guidelines of enforcing the RA 9335
o Sec. 2 contains that purpose of the said RA which is to increase revenue
generation
o Sec. 4 gives the source of the fund which comes from the excess of BIR
and the BOC’s revenue target determined by the Development Budget
and Coordinating Committee
o Revenue estimates are the expected revenue collection for a given fiscal
year determines by the Budget Expenditure Sources of Financing
(BESF)
o Sec. 7 clearly maps out how an official may be removed from civil
service by falling short of target collection and only achieves 7.5%
 Also subject to civil service law and has to undergo due
process
o Reason for this standard is because the lack of collection is similar to
incompetency and grounds for disciplinary action
o Even in dismissal, there is also a sufficient standard text
DISPOSITION
Petition is dismissed! TRO is lifted
Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas
FACTS
 Petitioners assail the consti of Resolution No. 94-3710 of the Civil Service
Commission (CSC)
 Petitioner is the director of OPIA (Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit) – Mr.
Fernandez and Ms. De Lima – the director of Office of Personnel Relations (OPR)
 Under the resolution, CSC has the power to
o 1) re-arrange some of admin units within the Commission
o 2) merge the 3 offices namely OCSS (Office of Career Standards and
Systems), OPIA (Office of Personal Inspection and Audit), and OPR
(Office of Personal Relations) the new section – to form – RDO
(Research and Development Office)
o 3) re-allocate certain function and carrying with it the transder of the
budget earmarked for such function
 Also meant transferring the personnel, records, fixtures and equipment accordingly
 The petitioner questions the undue delegation of power that the CSC purportedly
has in reassigning personnel as they claim that legislative only has the power to
dissolve public offices
ISSUE
 Whether the Civil Service Commission had legal authority to issue Resolution No.
94-3710 to the extent to merge OCSS, OPIA an OPR to form RDO? YES
o An examination of Admin Code 1987 shows that OPIA and OPR are
under the CSC
 Resolution allowed CSC to merge the OPIA, OPR, OCSS
into RDO (Research and Development Office)
o Admin Code also provides that changes can be done it done if the
necessity rises
 Thus in this case there is necessity to streamline services that compelled the
rearrangement of offices
 Also, Mr. Fernandes was transferred to Region 5 Legaspi City to replace the
director as he is not only expert in regional matters but also the ex-director will
abscond the position as he is under investigation
 Same with Ms. De Lima as she is transferred to Region 3 San Fernando, Pampanga
as her services in public sector union is necessary
 The court even compares that the Commission has the power to re-arrange the
offices similar to the powers exercised by the COMELEC and office of the
President
 The requirement is that it follows Sec. 17
o Organizational structure – each office of the Commission shall be
headed by a director with as least 1 assistant director, and may have such
divisions as are necessary to carry out their respective functions
o As an independent consti body, the commission may affect chances in
the organization as the need arises
Chiongbian v. Orbos
FACTS
 RA 6734 is the Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao that
calls for a plebiscite to create the autonomous region
 The province of Lanao del Sur, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi and Maguindanao voted in favor
 Said provinces created Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)
 Those who did not vote no according to Art. 19 Sec. 13 RA 6734 “shall remain in
the existing admin regions; provided, however, the that the President may, by admin
determination, merge the existing regions
 The issues then came up when Pres. Aquino issued EO 429 “Providing for the
Reorganization of the Admin Regions in Mindanao”
o Was amended by EO 439 that seeks to reorganize the admin regions in
Muslim Mindanao
ISSUE
  Whether the power to “merge” admin regions is legislative in character, as
petitioners contend, or whether it is executive in characters, as respondents claim it
is, and, in any event, whether Art. 19 Sec. 13 is invalid because ti contains no
standard to guide the President’s discretion? NO
o President has the power to merge
o By virtue of RA 5435 it authorizes the president with the help of
Commission on Reogranization to reorganize the different executive
depts., bureaus, offices, agencies and instrumentalities of gov, including
financial institutions and corporations owned by it.
o Purpose was to promote simplicity and efficiency
o Power of reorganization is still vested on the president
o ARMM merely followed the pattern set in previous legislation
o Choice of president is logical because the creation of admin regions are
for the purpose of admin and direction of executive department which
the law requires to have regional offices
o RA 5435 is there to promote simplicity, economy, and efficiency in the
gov
 to enable to pursue programs consistent with national goals
for accelerated social and economic development
 to improve the service in the transaction of public businesses
DISPOSITION
Petitions are dismissed for lack of merit!
Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Exec. Secretary
FACTS
 EO 12 was a charter creating the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC)
o Under Arroyo
o Commission had power to investigate or hear admin cases for graft and
corruption against presidential appointees (such as Pichay)
o Also can submit reports and recommendations to President
 EO 13 abolished the PAGC
o Transferred all its functions to the Office of Deputy Executive Sec. for
Legal Affairs (ODESLA)
o Particularly to its newly-established investigative and adjudicatory
division (IAD) under Pres. PNoy
 ODESLA was already existing even before abolishment of PAGC
 April 6 2011 – Finance Sec. Purisma files complaint of affidavit for grave
misconduct before the IAD-ODESLA against Pichay as Chairman of Board of
Trustees of Local Water Utilities Admin (LWUA)
 Complaint arose from LWUA’s purchase of 445,377 shares of stocks of Express
Savings Bank, Inc.
 April 14, 2011 – Pichay received an order requiring him and his co-respondents to
submit their respective written explanations under oath
 Pichay filed Motion to DISMISS Ex Abundante Ad Cautelam (with extreme
caution)
 Manifested a case involving the same transaction and charge of grave misconduct
was already pending before the Office of the Ombudsman
 Alleging that no other plain and speedy remedy is available to him, petitioner
results to the instant petition which assails the constitutionality of the process by
which IAD-ODESLA was reorganized
ISSUES
 Whether the President has continuing authority to reorganize the Exec. Dept under
EO 292? YES
o Sec 31 of EO 292 (Admin Code of 1987) vests in the President the
continuing authority to reorganize the offices under him in order to
achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency
o Authority or reorganization in any branch of exec. Dept is an express
grant by the legislature
 May transfer the function of other depts or agencies to the
office of the President
o Sec 31 (1)
 Allows reorganization by way of abolishing and transferring
if the office falls within the Office of the President Proper
o Sec 31 (2 &3)
 Merely allows the transferring of functions and no
abolishment if the office is outside of the office of the
President Proper
 PAGC and ODESLA were both places under the Office of
the President Proper
o Thus reorganization by way of abolishing and transferring is allowable
under Sec. 31 (1) of EO 292
 Properly within the prerogative of the President under Sec 31
(1) of EO 292
 Whether the Reorganization entailed the creation of a new, separate and distinct
office? NO
o Abolition of PAGC did not require the creation of a new, separate and
distinct office
o Merely transferred its functions to the ODESLA
 An existing office within the office of the President Proper
 Whether there is usurpation of the legislative power to appropriate public funds?
NO
o Sec 78 RA 9970 (General Appropriations Act of 2010) recognizes the
President’s power to reorganize the executive offices under him which is
“even to the extent of modifying and realigning appropriations for that
purpose”
o Although no specific earmarked budget of IAD-ODESLA, the President
can allocate the budget given by Congress to his office
o Simply allocating funds therefore no usurpation of legislative’s power
DISPOSITION
Petition DISMISSED!
Arroyo v. DOJ
FACTS
  Aug 2011 – COMELEC and DOJ issued JO No 001-2011
o Creating a Joint Committee (JC) and Fact-Finding Team (FFT) on the
2004 and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud and manipulation cases
 Oct 2011 – Senator Pimentel filed a Complaint Affidavit for Electoral Sabotage
against petitions and twelve other john does and jane does
 OCT 2011 – FFT: manipulation of results for 2007 senatorial elections in N and S
Cotabato and Maguindanao was perpetrated
o Recommendation of FFT:
 Abalos be subjected to preliminary investigation for results
in N and S Cotabato
 GMA and Abalos for Maguindanao
 M. Arroyo for further investigation
 JC subpoena against petitioners
 Nov 2011 – M. Arroyo filed a Motion to Defer Proceedings before JC
o GMA filed an Omnibus Motion Ad Cautelam before the JC to require
Pimentel to furnish her with documents referred to in his complaint-
affidavit
o And for the production of election documents as basis for the charge of
electoral sabotage
o GMA prayed to be allowed to file a CA within 10 days from receipt of
documents
 Nov 2011
o JC denied motions
o GMA – MR
 Nov 2011
o GMA filed for OM Ad Cautelam before the RTC to defer issuance of
warrant of arrest and a hold departure order
o GMA filed to COMELEC Motion to Vacate Ad Cautelam praying its
resolution be null and void
o RTC issued warrant of arrest
o GMA arraigned and pled not guilty
o GMA NOW under hospital arrest
 Sept 2012
o Petition dismissed
o FFT’s IR dated Oct 20, 2011 – valid
o Rules of procedure on the conduct of preliminary investigation on the
alleged election fraud in 2004 and 2007 National election =
INEFFECTIVE for lack of Publication
o Conduct of the prelim investigation = valid
o Crim cases of GMA and Abalos are to proceed with dispatch
ISSUES
 Does the COMELEC have the exclusive power to investigate and prosecute cases
of violations of election laws? NO
o The DOJ also has jurisdiction in the investigation and prosecution
o Consti of Sec 43 of RA 9369 or Omnibus Election Code (OEC)
 Exclusive power to investigate and prosecute cases to the
COMELEC
 But framers of the consti did not have the intention
 OEC can be amended by RA 9369 Sec 43 it being a
legislative enactment
 Is the creation of the Joint Committee repugnant to the concept of concurrent
jurisdiction? NO
o There is no prohibition on simultaneous exercise of power between two
coordinate bodies
o What is prohibited is where on files a complaint to a body for
investigation does the same for another body
o Subsequent jurisdiction is not allowed
 First shall take cognizance
o Problem of subsequent jurisdiction is not present because the COMELC
and DOJ agreed that they would exercise on concurrent jurisdiction
DISPOSITION
MR are DENIED for lack of merit
La Suerte v. CA
FACTS
 Involves 6 consolidated cases involving La Suerte Cigar & Cigarette Factory (La
Suerte), Sterling Tobacco Corp. and Fortune Tobacco Corp.
 Involve taxability of stemmed leaf tobacco
o Imported and locally purchased by cig manufacturers
o Used as raw material in making cigs
 National Revenue Code of 1997 (NIRC 1997)
o Before it was amended through RA 10351 (Sin Tax Law)
o Stemmed leaf tobacco is subject to an excise tax of Php 0.75 for each kg
 NIRC 1997 provides that stemmed leaf tobacco
o “leaf tobacco which has had the steam or midrib removed” – may be
sold in bulk as raw material by one maunfactuer directly to another
without payment of the tax
o Under such conditions prescribed in the rules and regulations prescribed
by the Sec. of Finance
 CASES AGAINST LA SUERTE
o 1) La Suerte is being held liable for deficiency specific tax on its
purchase of imported and locally produced stemmed leaf tobacco
 Also sale of stemmed leaf tobacco to Associated Anglo-
American Tobacco Corp. (AATC)
 From Jan 1 1986 – June 30, 1989
o 2)CIR appealed on decision of CTA
 That ordered the refund of specific taxes paid by La Suerte
on its importation of stemmed leaf tobacco in April 1995
o 3) Liable for deficiency specific tax on its local and imported purchases
of stemmed leaf tobacco
 Also those it sold from June 1989- Nov 1990
o 4) Liable for deficiency specific tax on its importation of stemmed leaf
tobacco in March 1995
 CASE AGAINST STERLING
 o Liable to pay deficiency excise taxes on its importation and local
purchases of stemmed leaf tobacco from Now 1986 – June 1989
 CASE AGAINST FORTUNE
o CIR appealed on ruling that Fortune Tobacco Corp (Fortune) was not
obliged to pay the excise tax on its importation of stemmed leaf tobacco
for the periods from
 Jan 1986 – June 1989
 July 1989 – Nov 1990
ISSUE
 Whether stemmed leaf tobacco is taxable? YES
o It is subject to excuse tax as specifically stated in Sec. 141
 Deemed as partially prepared tobacco
o Removal of the stem or midrib from the leaf tobacco makes the resulting
stemmed leaf tobacco a prepared or partially prepared tobacco
o According to La Suete’s own illustration of how the stemmed leaf
tobacco comes about
 The whole leaf tobacco breaks into pieces
 After the stems or midribs are removed – tobacco is threshed
(cut by machine into fine narrow strips)
 Undergoes a process of redrying
 These shows that stemmed leaf tobacco is a partially
prepared tobacco
o Distinction can be seen in RR NO. 17-67
 Defines stemmed leaves as handstripped tobacco
 Clean
 Good
 Partially broken leaf only
 Free from mold and dust
o With regard to importing of the said leaves, RR V-39 is the governing
regulation
 Specifically states when intermanufacture transfer is allowed
o When are manufacturers exempt from tax?
 1) transfer shall be under an official L-7 invoice
 which shall be entered the exact weight of the
tobacco at the time of its removal
 2) entry shall be made in the L-7 register in the place
provided on the page for removals
 3) corresponding debit entry shall be made in the L-7 register
book of the factory receiving the tobacco under the
 heading
 “refuse, received from the factory and etc.”
 Date of receipt
 Assessment and invoice numbers
 Name and address of the consignor from in which
received
 the weight of the of the tobacco
o This exemption however, does not include IMPORTATIONS, which La
Suerte conducted
o Another contention of petitioners is double taxation
o No offense in the consti of double taxations since it occurs only when
 Both taxes must be imposed on the same property or subject
matter
 for the same purpose
 by the same taxing authority
 Within the same jurisdiction or taxing district
 During the same taxing period
 They must be of the same kind or character of tax
o Excise taxes are essentially taxes on property because they are levied on
certain specified goods or articles manufactured or produced in the PH
 For domestic sale or consumption of for any other disposition
 And on goods imported
o In this case, no double taxations in the prohibited sense
 Because the specific tax is imposed by explicit provisions of
the Tax Code on two different articles or products
 1) stemmed leaf tobacco
 2) cigar or cig
People v. Vera
FACTS
 Cu Unjieng was convicted by trial court in Manila
 Filed for MR and 4 successive motions for new trial
o They were denied
 Sought to have the case elevated on centriorari to the SC of the US
o Petition denied
 Subsequently filed by Cu Unjieng to the SC of PH for leave to file a
second alternative motion for reconsideration or new trial
o Denied
 Thereafter remanded the case to the court of origin for execution of the
judgment
 Instant proceedings concern the application for probation filed by Cu
Unjieng
o Under Act No. 1221 (Probation Act)
o Cu Unjieng says he is innocent and a person of good conduct
therefore he deserves probation
 CFI of Manila, Judge Tuason referred the application for the probation
of the Insular Probation Office
o Recommended denial of the same
 CFI of Manila, 7th branch Judge Vera then set the petition for hearing on
April 5, 1937
 Fiscal of Manila filed opposition to grating the probation
 Private prosecutor, HSBC, filed an opposition on unconsti on Act. No.
4221
o Undue delegation of legislative power to the provincial
boards of several provinces
o Art. 6 Sec. 1
 o Act endows the provincial boards with power to make said
law effective or not in their respective provinces
ISSUE
 Whether the Act. No. 4221 constitutes an undue delegation of power (consti or
unconst)? YES – UNCONSTI
o Act. No. 4221 Sec. 11
 Shall only apply in provinces which the respective provincial
boards have provided for the salary of a probation officer at
rates not lower than those now provided for provincial fiscals
 Said probations officer shall be appointed by the Sec. of
Justice
 Shall be subject to the discretion of the Probation Office
o When testing if a statute constitutes undue delegation
o Usual to inquire whether it is complete in all its terms and provisions
when it left the hands of the legislature so that nothing was left to the
judgment of any other delegate of legislature
o Problem is the probation act does not fix and impose upon the provincial
boards any standard or guide in the exercise of their discretionary power
o Provincial boards can decide whether to apply the act in any situation
since there are no guidelines
 If they don’t want to apply, all they have to do is not grant
the amount of the salary needed for the probation officer
DISPOSITION
Act. No. 4221 is declared unconsti and void! Writ of prohibition is granted.
US v. Barrias
FACTS
 CIF of Manila charged Barrias with violation of paragraph 70 and 83 of circular no.
397
 Par. 70
o No heavily loaded casco, lighter or other similar craft shall be permitted
to move in the Pasig River without being towed by steam or moved by
other adequate power
 Par. 83
o Violation of any part of foregoing regulations, persons offending shall
be liable to a fine of not less than Php 5 and not more than Php 500 in
the discretion of court
 Counsel of Barrias attacked validity of par. 70 on 2 grounds
o 1) unauthorized by sec. 19 of Act. No. 355
o 2) if the acts of the PH Commission bear the interpretation of
authorizing the Collector to promulgate such a law – then they are void
 Undue delegation of legislative power
 Sections 1,2 & 3 of Act. No. 1136
o Collector of Customs is authorized to license craft enaged in the
lighterage or other exclusivity harbor business of the ports of the Islands
o With exceptions…all vessels engaged in lightering (loading ship) are
required to be so licensed. Sec. 5 and 8
 Sec. 5
 Collector of customs of the PH is authorized,
empowered and directed to promptly male and
publish suitable rules and regulations to carry this
law into effect and to regulate the business herein
licensed
 Sec. 8
 Any person who shall violate the provisions od
this Act, or of any rule or regulation made and
issued by the Collector of Customs for the PH,
under and by authority of this Act, shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon
conviction shall be punished by imprisonment
 Not more than 6 months or by a fine not more
than $100 or by BOTH – at discretion of Court
 Provided that violations of law may be punished
either by the method prescribed in section 7 or by
that prescribed in this section or BOTH
ISSUE
 Whether the Insular Collector of Customs has the power to promulgate penalties
different from the ones imposed by Congress? NO
o Pursuant to Sec. 8 of Act No. 1136 – Act that gives authrotiy to
Collector of Customs to license lighterage and give punishment)
 Already a penalty provided for violators of the act stating:
 Sec. 8 - Any person who shall violate the
provisions od this Act, or of any rule or regulation
made and issued by the Collector of Customs for
the PH, under and by authority of this Act, shall
be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon
conviction shall be punished by imprisonment
 Not more than 6 months or by a fine not more
than $100 or by BOTH – at discretion of Court
 Provided that violations of law may be punished
either by the method prescribed in section 7 or by
that prescribed in this section or BOTH
o Although the congress delegated the Collector of Customs to license
lighterage
o Did not authorize it to change the penalties imposed by it
o Case is similar to The Board of Harbor Commissioners of the Port of
Eureka v. Excelsior Redwood Company
 Rules that harbor commissioners cannot impose a penalty
under statues authorizing them to do so
 “legislature could delegate to the plaintiff the authrotiy to
make rules and regulations…the penalty for the violation of
such rules and regulations is a matter purely in the hands of
the legislature”
 o Thus such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be
performed by the delegate by the instrumentality of his own judgment
acting immediately upon the matter of legislation and not through the
intervening mind of another
o Collector cannot exercise power exclusively lodged in congress
o Thus barrias should be penalized in accordance to the penalty being
imposed by act. No. 1136
o SC determine that the proper fine is $25
DISPOSITION
CIF convicts the defendant of a violation of Acts No. 355 & 1235 is hereby REVOKED and is
hereby convicted of a misdemeanor and punished by a fine of 25 dollars
US v. Panlilio
FACTS
 Feb 22, 1913 – Panlilio was notified in writing
o By a duly authorized agent of the Director of Agri
o All his carabaos in barrio of Masamat, municipal of Mexico, Pampang
o Exposed to the disease commonly known a rinderpest
o Said carabaos were declared under quarantine
 Kept in a corral designated by an agent of the Bureau of Agri
 Were to remain there until release by further order of the
Director of Agri
o Despite this, Panilili illegally ordered his servants and agents to take the
carabaos from the corral, where they were quarantined
o And to drive them from one place to another in his hacienda
 For the purpose of working them as if they are not
quarantined
o CFI convicted defendant of a violation of Act. No. 1760
 Relating to the quarantining of animals suffering from
dangerous communicable or contagious diseases
 Sentencing him to pay a fine of Php 40
 With subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolcency
 To pay costs of trial
o Accused does not think he violated therefore he says he cannot be
punished
ISSUE
 Whether RA 1760 has been contravened? NO
o RA 1760 provides in Sec. 3, 4 and 5 that:
 Sec 3 – it would be unlawful for a person to ship or bring
animal suffering from infected into PH
 Sec. 4 – unlawful to transport suffering animals from one
island, province, municipality, township or settlement to
another or expose them to highway
 Sec. 5 – unlawful to take an animal from the locality that the
Sec. of the Interior declares. Except when there is a
certificate procured from the Dept of Agri
o Thus petitioner did not violate ay as the animals are in hacienda and
being worked with
o Par. 7 – a quarantined set of animals shall be provided by the owner and
if he fails, the Dept. of Agri shall furnish the supplies needed anc chagre
them from the owner
o Act done by petitioner is not punishable and not a penal law since:
 Sec. 6: c) to require that animals which are suffering from
dangerous communicable diseases or have and for such time
as may be deemed to be placed in quarantine at such place
and for such time as may be deemed by him necessary to
prevent the spread of disease
 Sec. 8 – anyone who violates the provisions of this Act shall
be convicted of not more than one thousand pesos or by
imprisonment of six months
o Nowhere in the law is the violation of orders of the Bureau of Agri
prohibited or made unlawful
 Nor Is there punishment for the violation thereof
o Palilio’s action still constitutes a violation of the Penal Code
o Bureau of Agri had ordered quarantine for respondent’s carabaos, which
had been executed and completed
 Respondent’s order broke quarantine
 Considered a violation of Art. 581 of the Penal Code
 “any person who shall violate the regulations, ordinances or
proclamations issued with reference to epidemic disease
among animals are penalized”
DISPOSITION
Accused is convicted of violation of article 581 par. 2 of the Penal Code.
Sentenced to pay fine of 14 pesetas and censure with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and costs of this appeal
People v. Maceren
FACTS
 Jose Buenaventura
 Godofredo Reyes
 Benjamin Reyes
 Nazario Aquino
 Carlito del Rosario
o Charged by a constabulary investigator in the municipal court of Sta.
Cruz, Laguna
o Violated Fishereies Admin Order no. 84-1
 Alleged in the complaint that the 5 accused resorted to electro fishing in the waters
of Barrio San Pablo Norte, Sta. Cruz
o Using a somewhat webbed copper wire on the tip
o Or other end of a bamboo pole with electric wire attachment which was
attached to the dynamo direct and with the use of these devices or
equipment catch fish thru electric current
 o These destroy any aquatic animals within its cuffed reach - detriment
and prejudice of the populace
 Trial court dismissed the case as under Sec. 11, the law only punishes
o “the use of any obnoxious or poisonous substance” in fishing
 Thus fisheries law does not expressly punish electro fishing
 Sec. of Agri and Natural Resources did not want to adhere to the silence of the law
o Upon recommendation of the Commisioner of Fisheries
o Promulgated Fisheries Admin Order No. 84 (62 O.G. 1224)
 Prohibiting electro fishing in all PH waters
ISSUE
 Whether electro fishing in fresh water is punished by Admin Order No. 84-1 and
Admin Order No. 84? NO
o Opinion that the Sec. of Agri and Natural Resources & Commissioner of
Fisheries exceeded their authority in issuing Fisheries Admin Orders
Nos. 84 and 84-1
 That these orders are not warranted under the Fisheries
Commission – RA 3512
o Reason is that Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit electro fishing
o Since it is not banned – the Sec of Agri and Natural Resources &
Commisioner of Fisheries are powerless to penalize it
o Admin Orders Nos. 84 and 84-1 are devoid of any legal basis
o An examination of the rule-making power of executive officials and
admin agencies – Sec. of Agri and Natural Resources under the Fisheries
Law sustains the view that he exceeded his authority in penalizing
electro fishing by means of an admin order
o Although admin officials are given rule-making power, their powers it
limited only to those that are germane to the defects and purposed of the
law
 It should conform to the standards that the law prescribes
 By such regulations because the law itself cannot be extended
DISPOSITION
CFI’s decision of June 9, 1970 is set aside for lack of appellate jurisdiction and the order of
dismissal rendered by the MTC of Sta. Cruz Laguna is affirmed
***ART. 6 SEC. 5
Atong Paglaum overruled Ang Bagon Bayani
Veteran’s Federation Party v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Sec. 5 provides for the number of members in the HOR
o Also 20% allocation for the party-list rep
 Determination of winners follow RA7941 with the following requirements:
o 20% allocation of seats for party-list
o 2% threshold for min for a seat
o 3 seat limit per party-list
o Appropriation of seats are computed via proportional representation base
on the number it garners vis-à-vis other winners
 June 26, 1998
o COMELEC en banc proclaimed only 13 party-list reps from 12 parties
and orgs
 Had obtained at least 2% total number of votes cast for the
party-list system
 Petitioner APEC on the other hand obtained 5.5% of the votes thus entitling them to
have 2 reps while the rest are given only 1
 July 6, 1998 – PAGASA (People’s Progressive Alliance for Peace and Good
Government towards Alleviation of Poverty and Social Advancement)
o Filed a motion to proclaim the full number of representatives under the
consti
o Claimed that the clause of 20% allocation is mandatory under the Consti
o 13 winners is therefore a contravention to the consti
o PAG-ASA claims that RA 7941 2% threshold defeats the purpose of the
consti
 This was assailed by the original 13 winners who managed to secure at least the 2%
threshold
 They claim that RA 7941 clearly prohibits those who did not fulfill the threshold to
be not declares as winner
 Thus, the COMELEC should provide additional seats instead, not exceeding 2, for
each of those who garnered the 2% threshold in proportion to the number of votes
cast for the winning parties
 RA 7941 also limits a party-list to only 3 seats for their reps
 Case was brought to COMELEC, through a judgment en banc
o 3 concurring
o 2 dissenting
o Court upheld original decision with no changes
o Also without expressly declaring the 2% threshold as invalid or void
o Therefore case was brought to SC
ISSUE
 Is the 20% allocation for party-list reps mentioned in sec. 5 of art. 6 mandatory or is
it merely a ceiling? Other words, should the 20% allocation for the party-list solons
be filled up completely all the time? NO
o No it does not have to be mandatory
o Formula for the number of seats given to the party-list rep is…
 No. of reps / .80 (# reserved for local reps) x .20 = no. of
party list rep.
 Court states that the consti does not require all the allocated
seats to be occupied
 If RA 7941 is read together with Sec. 5 of Art. 6
 Clearly shows the intent of Congress to provide a
ceiling for party-lists seats in Congress
 Are the 2% threshold requirement and the 3-seat limit provided in Sec. 11(b) of RA
7941 consti? YES
o 2% threshold is mandatory
o It shows that the said party-list has a significant number of support to
warrant a seat in the house
o Mr. Monsod said that in the last election – around 20M voted and 20%
of that is 400k voters
 Shows the party represents a significant number of Filipinos
 Prevents nuisance that represent/accountable to little to no
one
o True even if petitioner contends that it would be mathematically
impossible to fill up 20% threshold by strictly implementing 2% rule
 Court also not interest in finding the fault in the wisdom of
the law
o 3 seat per party is only there because it helps in opening up the political
system to a pluralistic society
 Through a multiparty system
 System will enable sectoral groups, or maybe regional groups
to earn their seats among the 50
o HOW TO CALCULATE SEATS
 1) Rank all orgs from highest to lowest number of votes
(only those who reached 2% are qualified)
 2) Determine the number of seats of the party that achieved
the highest number of votes (first party)
 3) Determine the number of seats the other parties are
entitled to
o Additional seats will be dependent on the proportion of its votes relative
to that of the first party whose number of seats has already been
predetermined – thus second party should be given less
 No. of votes of 1st party/votes for party-list system =
proportion of votes of first party relative to total votes
o Formula for additional seats for party-list system
 No. of additional for concerned party/total no. of votes of
first party x additional seat allocated to first party
o Using the formula APEC got the highest votes with 503,487
 Called first party
o Total number of voters is 9,155,309
o SC said that in computing for the percentage is 6% is the bench mark
that the court will only recognize
o So if they get exactly 6% after rounding off the total votes
 They will get max 3 seats
o Since 3 seats is the max seat number a party-list could acquire under the
law
 No. of votes of first partry/votes for party-list system =
proportion of first party relative of total votes
 = 5.5%
o THUS, given that APEC garnered 5.5% it would only be entitled to 1
additional seat
 Only 2 total seats
o First seat is within the 2% they garnered from the 5.5%
 The other if from the remaining 2%
o But since it did not reach 6% then it will not receive the max 3 seats
o Thus logically the other party-lists will not exceed 2 seats as the highest
ranking party-list did not attain such
o So in computing additional seats of the second highest party: ABA,
which garnered 321,646, there is a different formula to use!!!
 No. of additional for concerned party (second highest)/total
no. of votes of first party x additional seats allocated to first
party
 .64 x 1 = 64%
rd
o 3 highest ALAGAD with 312,500
 312,500 / 503,487 = .62 x 1=62%
o NOTE!!!!! (1) We use a different formula since if we use the same
formula as the one we used for first party, it will be against the principle
of proportional representation
 Since for example the 1st party got 20% of total votes and got
3 seats, it is unfair that the second party only got 6% of the
total votes to get also 3 seats
o (2) Using the different formula, wherein we use the first party the
denominator, we now look at the quotient
 Rule is if the quotient is AT LEAST = 1.0 then the party list
is entitled to 1 additional seat
 2.0 – entitled to 2 additional seats
o THUS, ABA & ALAGAD did not get additional seats since they are less
than 1.0
 However, Veterans Federation Party still was not allowed to run because the Court
voted 8-7 in disallowing major political parties to run in party-list directly or
indirectly
Phil. Guardians Brotherhood Inc. (PGBI) v. Commission on Elections
FACTS
 For the upcoming May 2010 elections
o COMELEC issued resolution no. 8679
o Delisting several party-list groups or orgs from the list of registered
sectoral parties, orgs or coalitions of the party-list system
 Delisted PGBI according to Sec. 4 of RA 7941 which states that COMELEC may
remove any party if
o 1) fail to participate in the last 2 preceding elections OR
o 2) fail to obtain at least 2% of the votes cast under the party-list systems
in the 2 preceding elections for the constituency in which it has
registered
 PGBI failed to get 2% of the vote cast in 2004 and it did not participate in the 2007
election
 PGBI filed its opposition to their removal
 Also a petition for their accreditation as a party-list org under the Party – List
System Act
 PGBI argues that the resolution negates sec. 4 of RA7942
o Party may choose whether to participate in the next succeeding election
o PGBI filed their non-participation in 2007 within the time period allotted
of 90 days
  Assert that Minero cannot apply because
o Factual milieu of the cited case is removed from PGBI
o Minero, prior to delisting was afforded the opportunity to be heard
o While PGBI and the 25 others similarly affected by Resolution No. 8679
were not
 Assert that this is a denial of equal protection of the laws
 COMELEC denied PGBI’s motion
o A request for deferment of participation in the elections does not exempt
them from registering again
o MINERO ruling is on point
 Also failed to get 2% of votes in 2001
 Did not participate in 2004 elections
 PGBI appealed for reconsideration of the dismissal
o Asserted that based on deliberations of the Senate, Sec. of RA 7941 are
two separate ground for delisting
o Thus cannot be combined
ISSUE
ISSUE
 Whether there is a legal basis for delisting PGBI? NO
o PGBI did not fall under either of the grounds for a party lists’ delistment
 Only failed to obtain a 2% in 2004
 And did not participate in 2007
o The words OR means that these cannot be combined and must be treated
separately
o Minero cannot stand as the ruling
 Minero only failed to participate in the 2004 elections, which
was also counted as its failure to attain 2% of the votes
 Two scenarios must be treated separately (legislative’s intent)
o What should be held is the Court’s decision in Banat where it partly
invalidated the 2% rules
 A party-list may be not able to garner 2% of the votes cast
but may still qualify for a seat in HOR during its second
round of seat allocations
o Disqualification should now necessarily be read to apply to party-list
groups or orgs that did not qualify for a seat in the 2 preceding elections
for the constituency which it registered
DISPOSITION
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we GRANT the petition and accordingly ANNUL
COMELEC Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009 insofar as the petitioner PGBI is
concerned, and the Resolution dated December 9, 2009 which denied PGBI's motion for
reconsideration in SPP No. 09-004 (MP). PGBI is qualified to be voted upon as a party-list
group or organization in the coming May 2010 elections.
BANAT v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT)
o Filed before the National Board of Canvassers (NBC)
o Petition to proclaim the full number of party-list reps provided by the
Consti as 20% of the HOR
o And that 2% rule should be harmonized with the Consti mandate of 20%
 Believed that Sec. 11 of RA7941
o Which prescribes the 2% threshold votes should be harmonized with
Sec. 5 Art. 6 of the consti
o And Sec. 12 of the same RA7941 that it should be applicable only to the
first party-list rep seats to be allotted on the basis of their initial/first
ranking
o Limit of 3 per party will still apply
 COMELEC rules it as moot and academic as it was already resolved in case of
Veterans
 BANAT is filing for reconsideration
 COMELEC promulgated a resolution
o Proclaiming 13 parties as winners in the party-list elections in May 2007
 Is the 2% threshold and “qualifier” votes prescribed by the same Sec. 11(b) of RA
7941 consti? BUT if unconsti, how will the party-list reps be allocated? YES
UNCONSTI!!!!
o Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher criticize both
 1) the COMELEC’s orginal 2-4-6 formula
 2) the Veterans formula for systematically preventing all the
party-list seats from being filled up
o Claim that both formulas do not factor in the total number of seats
allotted for the entire Party-list system
o Bayan Muna, Abono, and A Teacher reject the 3-seat cap
 BUT accept the 2% threshold
o Looking at RA7941 – Second Clause of Sec. 11(b) of RA 7941 provides
that
 “those garnering more than 2% of the votes shall be entitled
to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes
 This is where it contradicts Veterans – “in proportion to their
total number of votes”
 Interpretation is “to be in proportion to the votes of the first
party”
o Interpretation is contrary to the express language of RA 7941
o THUS, in computing the allocation of additional seats, continued
operation of the 2% threshold for the distribution of additional seats is
unconsti
o 2% threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the max
number of available party-list seats when the number of available
party-list seats exceeds 50
o Continued operation of the 2% threshold in the distribution of the
additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that
20% of the members of the HOR shall consisted of party-list reps
o Court strikes down the 2% threshold only in the relation to the
distribution of additional seats
o To arrive at additional number of seats
  Divide the number of votes garnered by each party by
15,950,900 (total no. of votes cast for party-list candidate)
 Two steps in the second round seat allocation
 1) % is multiplied by remaining no. of seats – 38
o 38 came from difference between 55
(max seats) and 17 (guaranteed seats
of the 2%)
o Whole integer of the product of
percentage and of the remaining
available seats correspond to a party’s
share in remaining available seats
 2) assign one party-list seat to each of the parties
next in rank until all available seats are
completely distributed
o Distributed remaining 38 seats in
second rounds
o Finally we apply the 3-seat cap to
determine the number of seats each
qualified party-list candidate is entitled
 Does the Consti prohibit the major political parties from participating in the party-
list elections? If not, can the major political parties be barred from participating in
the party-list elections? NO
o No but the ruling will remain the same
 Consti does not prohibit nor does RA 7941
o Framers of the consti intended the major political parties to participate in
party-list lections through sectoral wings
 “party” that participates as either a “political party or a
sectoral party”
o Excluding major political parties in party-list elections is manifestly
against the Consti and RA7941
o BUT in the 8-7 vote in Veterans
 Court decided to continue rulings in disallowing major
political parties from participating in the party-list elections,
directly or indirectly
 Tho can still organize youth or fisherfolk groups under the
purview of being a sectoral rep
Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction by petitioners
o Against resolutions of the Commission on Elections
 Refusal of COMELEC to accredit Ang Ladlad as party-list org
o Org incorporated in 2003
o Composed of men and women who identify themselves as members of
the LGBT community
 First applied for accreditation in 2006 but was denied by COMELEC
o Cause of the org not having a substantial membership base
 In 2009, applied again for accreditation
o Argued that LGBT community is a marginalized and under-represented
sector that is disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and
gender identity
o LGBTs are victims of discrimination and violence
o Negative perceptions force them to hide sexual orientation
 Claimed they have complied with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by this Court
 COMELEC dismissed the petition on moral grounds
o Cause the org is said to tolerate immorality which offense religious
beliefs being org that advocates for sexual immorality (relationships
between lesbian and gays who are of age)
 COMELEC also says that granting this petition would mean exposing the youth to
an environment that does not conform to the teachings of their faith
 Claim Ang Ladlad collides with the Civil Code and RPC
o Since laws are deemed incorporated in every contract, permit, license,
relationship or accreditation
o Provisions of such code need to be complied with as a requirement
 Ang Ladlad filed for reconsideration
o Was voted to uphold first resolution
 Ang Ladlad filed this petition praying that the Court annul the assailed resolution
and to direct the COMELEC to grant Ang Ladlad’s application for accreditation
ISSUE
 Whether the COMELEC should approve the accreditation of Ang Ladlad as a party-
list? YES
o Court said that such sectors specifically enumerated by the law that may
be registered under the party-list system is not exclusive
 Labor
 Peasant
 Fisheries
 Overseas workers
 Youth
 Women
 Etc.
o Crucial element is if the org complies with the requirements of the consti
and RA7941
o COMELEC argued that Ang Ladlad made false statements in its petition
when it alleged its national existence was a new one and cannot be found
as a ground for denial of the accreditation mentioned in the assailed
resolutions for they only claimed that Ang Ladlad was “untruthful for
they violated and failed to comply with laws, rules and regulations
relating to the elections”
o Also, Ang Ladlad never claimed to exist in each province but only
claimed to have an estimate
 670k persons
 16,100 affiliates
 4,044 members in its electronic discussion group
o Court found Ang Ladlad to have complied with the legal requirements
for accreditation
 o COMELEC only questioned their issues regarding the immorality of
said org
o Consti provides that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment
of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
 Gov should have neutrality with religious matters
o Court said COMELEC was in grave violation of the non-establishment
clause when it used the Bible and the Koran to justify its decision to
deny Ang Ladlad’s petition
o Assailed resolutions should depend on whether the COMELEC is able to
advance some justification for its rulings beyond mere conformity to
religious doctrine
o Citing Estrada v. Escrito
 That reliance of the gov in religious beliefs in formulating
public policies and morals would bring about public policies
and morals that would require conformity to religious
programs or agenda that would compel non-believers to
conform to these said religious beliefs
o The claim of possible danger to the youth
 PH has not criminalized homosexual conduct
 COMELEC failed to explain what specific societal ills they
are preventing
o Reference to purported violations of the penal and civil laws are flimsy
o LGBT should be allowed to participate on the same basis as other
marginalized and under-represented sectors
 Political groups should not be hindered just because it wants
to publicly talk about controversial issues
DISPOSITION
Petition is GRANTED!
Magdalo v. Comelec
FACTS
 Magadalo Para sa Pagbabago (MAGDALO)
o Headed by Sen. Trillanes and Sec. Gen. Acedillo seek to register and be
accredited by the COMELEC as a regional party
o Their registration was denied due to the oakwood incident
 300 armed military men took the Oakwood Premier
Apartments (now Ascott) hostage to show the Filipino people
the alleged corruption of the Arroyo Admin
 Denial was based on the fact that no group can be registered and accredited as a
party-list group if they commit acts of violence in the pursuance of their goals as
stated in Art. 6 Sec 5 & BP 881
 COMELEC saw event as enough evidence to deny MAGDALO of registration
 MAGDALO then issues the current petition on the ff. grounds
o COMELEC resolutions were not based on the record or evidence
presented
o Resolutions preempted the decision of the trial courts of the Criminal
cases filed against those who were involved in the incident
o MAGDALO has expressly renounced its use of force, violence, and
other unlawful means
ISSUE
 Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in basing its
determination on pure conjectures instead of on the evidence on record? NO
o The COMELEC has a consti and statutory mandate to ascertain the
eligibility of parties and organizations to participate in electoral contests
o On the other hand RA 7941
 Party-list system Act defines a party-list system as a
mechanism of proportional representation in the election of
representatives to the HOR from national, regional and
sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof
registered with the COMELEC
o Thus, to join electoral contests, a party or organization must undergo the
two-step process to registration and accreditation
 1) Registration is the act that bestows juridical personality for
purposed of our election laws
 2) Accreditation on the other hand, relates to the privileged
participation that our elections law grant to qualified
registered parties
o Given the statutory and constitutional authority of the COMELEC to
ascertain the eligibility of parties or organizations seeking registration
and accreditation – question is now is whether its exercise of this
discretion was so whimsical as to amount to lack of jurisdiction
o In view of the facts, COMELEC issued its assailed Resolutions
o COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion
DISPOSITION
Petition is DISMISSED. COMELEC resolutions are AFFIRMED.
Dayao v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Individual petitioners are dealer of different brands of liquified petroleum gas
(LPG)
 Federation of Philippine Industries Inc. (FPII) is an association comprised of
entities engaged in various industries in the country
 Private respondent LPG Marketers Association Inc. (LPGMA) is a non-stock, non-
profit association of consumers and small players in the LPG and energy sector
o Who banded together in order to provide
o quality,
o safe
o and reasonably-priced gas and oil products
 May 2009 – LPGMA sought to advance its cause by seeking party-list accreditation
o To participate in May 2010 elections
 LPGMA claimed that it has special interest in the LPG industry
 Said one of its programs is the promotion of fair trade practices and prevention of
re-entry of cartels and monopolies
 o By pursuing initial gains of oil deregulation
o And vigilant advocacy for the curtailment of bureaucratic and regulatory
procedures
 After being approved by the COMELEC
o There was a complaint for the cancellation of LPGMA’s registration as a
party-list org
 LPGMA is said to not represent a marginalized sector of the society because its
incorporators, officers and members are not marginalized or underrepresented
citizens
o Are actually marketers and independent re-fillers of LPG
o Control 45% of the national LPG retail market
 COMELEC dismissed the petition claiming that the petitioner should have raised
the issue when LPGMA’s party-list registration was publicized
ISSUE
 Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion? YES
o Sec. 6 – Refusal/cancellation of registration
o COMELEC may, upon verified complaint of any interested party
 Refuse or cancel after due notice and hearing, the registration
of any national, regional, sec party/org/coalition
o On any of the ff grounds:
 1) it is a religious sect or denomination, organization or
association organized for religious purposes
 2) advocated violence or unlawful means to seek its goal
 3) a foreign party or org
 4) receiving support from any foreign gov, political party
foundation, or, whether directly or through any of its officers
or members or through thirs parties
 5) violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations
relating to elections
 6) declares untruthful statements in its petition
 7) Has ceased to exist for at least 1 year or…
 8) fails to participate in the last 2 preceding elections or fails
to obtain at least 2% of the votes cast under the party-list
system in the 2 preceding elections for the constituency in
which it has registered
o Sec. 6 does not require that an opposition to the petition for registration
be previously intervened so that a complaint for cancellation can be
entertained
o Cancellation takes place after the fact of registration when an inquiry is
done by the COMELEC
o Resolution approving LPGMA’s registration did not create a
indefeasible right to its accreditation
o Neither did it grant finality to the factual findings of COMELEC on the
qualifications
o Accreditation is a privileged that can be revoked
o Under Par 5 of Sec. 6 of RA7941
 A party-list may be disqualified on the ground that its
officers and members do not belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented sector
 Allegation against LPGMA is within the ambit of the
aforementioned law
o COMELEC thus committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the
complaint for cancellation of LPGMA’s accreditation
o The ordinary course of procedure
 Complaint should be remanded to the COMELEC
 Considering that COMELEC did not proceed to make
proximate determination of the present circumstances of
LPGMA’s qualifications
o However COMELEC en banc decided the case in a recent decision
 COMELEC was determined that factual circumstances of
LPGMA meet the qualifications imposed by law on party-list
o Useless if to remand the complaint to the COMELEC for it to determine
anew the present state of LPGMA’s qualifications
Atong Palaum et. al.
FACTS
 Issue started when 52 party-list groups and orgs filed separate petitions totaling 54
to the SC
o Trying to reverse various resolutions by the COMELEC disqualifying
them from the May 2013 party-list race
 COMELEC in its assailed resolutions of 2012 ruled that these party-list groups and
orgs failed to represent a “marginalized and underrepresented sector”
o Their nominees do not come from the “marginalized and
underrepresented sector”
o Some orgs or groups are not truly representative of the sector they intend
to represent
 In Omnibus Resolution dated Oct 11, 2012 – Atong Paaglaum Inc. had its
accreditation and registration cancelled because its nominees do not belong to the
sectors which the party represents
 Atong Paglam failed to file its statement of contributions and expenditures for the
2010 elections
ISSUE
 Whether the criteria for participating in the party-list system laid down in Ang
Bagong Bayani and Barangay Asscoiation for National Advancement and
Transparency (BANAT) v. COMELEC should be applied by the COMELEC in the
coming May 2013 party-list elections? NO
o In the discussion of Mr. Monsod with other framers, it was clarified that
political parties such as Social Democrats may field a candidate under
the legislative districts and the party-list system
o Allowed under the party-list system: “for as long as they field candidates
who come from the different marginalized sectors that we shall
designate in this consti”
o Indisputable intent of framers to include in the party-list system both
sectoral and non-sectoral parties
 Sec 5(1) of Art. 6
 “A party-list system of registered, national, regional and
sectoral parties or orgs
 The commas after the words “national” and “regional”,
separate them from sectoral parties
 Thus, national and regional parties or orgs are different from
sectoral parties or orgs
 National and regional need not be organized along
sectoral lines and need not represent any
particular sector
 The intent as seen in its express working cannot be disputed:
 The party-list system is not for sectoral parties
only but also for non-sectoral parties
 RA 7941 does not require national and regional parties or
orgs to represent the “marginalized and underrepresented”
sectors
o In sec. 5 of RA7941… includes sectors such as
 Labor
 Peasant
 Fisherfolk
 Urban poor
 Indigenous
 Elderly
 Handicapped
 Etc.
o Sectors mentioned are not necessarily “marginalized and
underrepresented”
o But they may “lack well-defined political constituencies”
 Thus they can organize themselves into sectoral parties in
advocacy of the special interest and concerns of their
respective sectors
o This Court cannot legislate the exclusion of major political parties from
the party-list elections in patent violation of the consti and law
o However, we cannot also fault the COMELEC for following prevailing
jurisprudence in disqualifying petitioners
o We cannot say they committed grave abuse of discretion however for the
coming 2013 party-list elections
 We must now impose the party-list system actually
envisioned and authorized under the 1987 consti and RA7941
o In this case, parties under the national, regional and sectoral groups or
orgs were disqualified by the COMELEC because they do not represent
the “marginalized and underrepresented” sector
o There were also those disqualified because their nominees for not
belonging to the sectors they represent
 Although they may have a track record of advocacy for their
sectors
o Some were also disqualified because one or more of its nominees failed
to qualify, even if the party has at least one remaining qualified nominee
o Court believes that all were done CONTRARY to the consti and RA
7941
Abang Lingkod v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Petition for centriorari assailing the resolution of the COMELEC
o Resolution cancelled the registration as a party-list group of ABANG
LINGKOD
 Abang Lingkod is a sectoral org that represents the interests of peasant farmers and
fisherfolks
 Showed intent to participate in the May 2013 elections however
o But COMELEC Resolution No. 9513 required participants to undergo
summary evidentiary hearing to determine if the partylist groups are still
in compliance with the requirements under RA 7941
o Guidelines set in the case of Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v.
COMELEC
 Abang Lingkod complied and submitted their documents in compliance with
RA7941
 COMELEC said that party-list still failed to show in their track record that they are
uplifting the cause of the marginalized and underrepresented
 Also Submitted photoshopped photos as evidence
 Abang Lingkod alleged that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it
cancelled its registration
 Atong Panglaum, Inc. v. COMELEC
o Laid down new parameters in screening parties or orgs who want to join
party-list elections
 1) 3 different groups may participate in the party-list system:
national parties or orgs, regional parties or orgs, sectoral
parties or orgs
 2) national and regional parties do not need to organize along
the sectoral lines and do not need to represent any
“marginalized and underrepresented” sector
 3) political parties can participate in party-list elections if
they register under the party-list system and do not field
candidates in the legislative district elections. A political
party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in
legislative district elections can participate in party-list
elections only through its sectoral wings that can separately
register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by
itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a
political party through a coalition
 4) sectoral parties may either be “marginalized and
underrepresented” or those lacking in “well-defined political
constituencies”. It is enough that their principal advocacy
pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector.
The sectors that are “marginalized and underrepresented”
 include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas
workers. The sectors that lack well-defined political
constituencies” include professionals, the elderly, women and
the youth.
 5) a majority of the members of the sectoral parties or orgs
that represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” must
belong to the “marginalized and underrepresented” sector
they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of
sectoral parties or orgs that lack “well-defined political
constituencies” must belong to the sector they represent. The
nominees of sectoral parties or orgs that represent the
“marginalized and underrepresented”, or that represent those
who lack “well-defined political constituencies”, either must
belong to their respective sectors, or must have a track record
of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of
national and regional parties or orgs must be bono-fied
members of such parties or orgs.
 6) national, regional and sectoral parties shall not be
disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified,
provided that they have at least 1 who is qualified
ISSUE
 Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it cancelled the Abang
Lingkod’s registration under the party-list system? YES
o COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it cancelled the party-
list’s registration
o ABANG LINGKOD’s registration was cancelled on the ground that it
failed to show evidence that in its track record the said that they
represented the marginalized and the underrepresented
o Under RA 7941
 Did not require party list groups to submit proof of their track
record
 Sec. 5 – only requires attaching the party-list’s consti, by-
laws, platform or program of government, list of officers,
coalition agreement and other relevant info as the
COMELEC may require
 ^not the same with track record
 Since national and regional parties are not required to submit
a track record
 Unfair to parties signing up as a sectoral
organization because they would have an
additional requirement
o COMELEC cancelled the registration of ABANG LINGKOD solely on
the ground of its lack of track record
 Because falsely submitted digitally altered photos
 And the issue whether the existence of the party-list is a
genuine representation of the farmer and fisherfolks was not
raised
o The validity of the said party-list was already evident when it registered
as a party-list group
 And was able to obtain a seat in the HOR for getting
sufficient number of votes in May 2013 elections
o Case of photoshopped photos
 Court does not tolerate such act but since a track record is no
longer a requirement, this act cannot be used to deny a party-
list’s registration because it is no longer material
 Does not affect qualification
o Court also does not agree that the misrepresentation of the nominees of
the party-list shall disqualify the party-list because 3/5 nominees are
farmers by occupation (#6 of parameters)
 national, regional and sectoral parties shall not be
disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified,
provided that they have at least 1 who is qualified
DISPOSITION
Petition is granted!
Lico v. LINGKOD
FACTS
 Case talks about the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over the expulsion of a sitting party-
list rep from the HOR and from his party-list org
 Party list involved is the Adhikaing Tinataguyod ng Kooperatiba (Ating Koop)
o Its highest policy-making body is the National Convention
o When it is not in session, Central Committee takes over
o Party-list involves 2 rival factions
 Atty. Isidro Lico
 Amparo Rimas
 Ating Koop filed its Manifestation of Intent to Participate in the Partylist System
of Rep for the May 10, 2010 elections
o Lico was filed as first nominee to represent partylist
 Ating Koop earned a seat in the HOR
o Lico took his oath and assumed office
 Several months prior to its proclamation as one of the winning party-list orgs, Ating
Koop issued Central Committee Resolution 2010-01
o Which incorporated a term-sharing agreement signed by its nominees
o Under the agreement, petitioner Lico was to serve as the party-list rep
for the 1st year of the 3-year term
 In its 2nd national convention, Ating Koop introduced amendments to its
constitution and by-laws
o The central committee will still be composed of 15 reps but 5 must come
from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao
o Amendments also mandated the holding of an election of Central
Committee members w/in 6 months after the Second National
Convention
o Thus, the 3-year term of the incumbent (Interim Central Committee)
members of the central committee – ICC was dominated by Rimas
Group
 After Lico’s 1 year in office
 o ICC expelled him from Ating Koop for
 Disloyalty – cited Lico’s refusal to honor the term-sharing
agreement as factual basis for disloyalty and as a cause for
his expulsion
 Malversation
 Graft and corruption
 Dec 2011- Lico filed an MR with the ICC
o But was denied Dec 29, 2011
 Dec 19 – held a special meeting in Cebu while waiting for response of ICC on MR
 Jan 21, 2012 – Rimas group held a meeting in Paranaque where they elected and
appointed a new set of officers
 May 16, 2012 – Rimas group filed a petition to COMELEC against Lico claiming
that their group should be the one to represent Ating Koop instead of Lico
 COMELEC’s resolution:
o 1) Dismissed the petition to expel Lico from the HOR
 COMELEC en banc had no jurisdiction to expel Lico from
the HOR
 His expulsion from the party-list affected his qualification as
a member of the House
 Thus, it should have been HOR electoral tribunal that had
jurisdiction over petition
o 2) Upheld the expulsion of Lico from ATING KOOP party-list
 COMELEC was not in a position to substitute its judgment
for that of the party-list with respect to the cause of Lico’s
expulsion
o 3) Upheld the ATING KOOP party-list represented by its president,
Rimas
 Paranaque Convention was in accordance with the amended
by-laws and constitution of the party list and there was no
showing that there was a valid call for the Cebu meeting or
that a minimum of 100 attended
ISSUE
 Whether the expulsion of a member of the HOR from his party-list org was within
the jurisdiction of COMELEC?
o Although COMELEC correctly dismissed the petition to expel Lico
from the HOR because it is beyond its jurisdiction
o COMELEC nevertheless!!!!!!! proceeded to rule upon the validity of the
expulsion from Ating Koop
 A matter beyond its purview
o COMELEC characterized the petition for expulsion of Lico as a
disqualification case
 And dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction
 Insofar as it relates to the question of unseating petitioner
Lico from the HOR
o However, under the Consti, the HOR Electoral Tribunal has jurisdiction
to resolve questions on the qualifications of Congress
o In case of party-list reps, HOR Electoral Tribunals acquires jurisdiction
over a disqualification case upon:
 1) Proclamation of the winning party list
 2) Oath of the nominee
 3) Assumption of office as member of the HOR
o All of the above requisites have been met in this case
 Hence, it is the HOR Electoral Tribunal and not the
COMELEC that has jurisdiction over the disqualification
case
o Despite the ruling that HOR Electoral Tribunal has jurisdiction over the
disqualification case
 Court finds that there is no legal basis for COMELEC’s
upholding the validty of the expulsion of LICO from Ating
Koop party-list group
o Jurisdiction of the HOR Electoral Tribunal is exclusive
 Given full authority to hear and decide cases on any matter
touching on the validity of the title of the proclaimed winner
o COMELEC cannot justify its resolution in upholding the validity of
Lico’s expulsion from the party list by relying on the rule that
COMELEC can decide intra-party matters as an incident of its
constitutionality granted powers and functions
o Such rule was laid down in Lokin v. COMELEC
 BUT it cannot be appropriately applied in this case because
the former involved NOMINEES
 While present case involves INCUMBENT MEMBERS OF
THE CONGRESS
o Thus, the issue is removed from the jurisdiction of COMELEC
o Since the validity of Lico’s expulsion from the party-list is integral to
the issue of his qualifications to sit in congress, COMELEC cannot pass
upon such issue because the HOR Electoral Tribunal is the sole judge of
all contests when it comes to qualifications of the members of the HOR
DISPOSITION
Petition is granted! Rimas RULES
Tobias v. Abalos
FACTS
 Petitioners (as taxpayers and residents) assail the constitutionality of RA 7675
o “An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a highly
urbanized City”
o To be known as City of Mandaluyong
 Before this, San Juan belonged to only one legislative district
 Hon. Ronaldo Zamora
o Incumbent congressional rep. of this legislative district
o Sponsored the bill which eventually became RA 7675
o Pres. Ramos signed RA 7675 into law on Feb 9, 1994
 A plebiscite was held on April 1994
o People were asked whether they approved of the conversion of the
municipality of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city
 Turnout of plebiscite was only 14.4% of the voting population
  18,621 voted “yes”
 7,911 voted “no”
 Given the results RA 7675 was deemed ratified and in effect
ISSUE
 Is RA7675 unconsti due to the fact that it violates Art. 6, Sec. 5(1) and (4) of the
Consti as to the number of members of the Congress to 250 and reappropriating the
legislative districts? NO
o Petitioners argue that the division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into
separate congressional districts under Sec. 49 of the assailed law has
resulted in an increase in the composition of the HOR
 Beyond that provided in Art. 6, Sec. 5(1) of the Consti
 Sec. 5(1) – The HOR shall be composed of not more than
250 members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be
elected from the legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in
accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants…
o This section shows that the present limit of the 250 members is not
absolute
o Consti clearly provides that the HOR shall be composed of not more
than 250 members
 “unless otherwise provided by law”
o Latter clause states the composition of congress may be increased if
congress itself so mandates through a legislative enactment
o Therefore, the increase if congress itself so mandates through a
legislative enactment
o Increase in congressional representation mandated by RA 7675 is consti
o Par. (4) was also overruled as it was the Congress itself which drafted
the bill reapportioning the legislative district
DISPOSITION
Petition is DISMISSED! For lack of merit
Mariano v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Petitioners are assailing RA 7854
o “An Act converting the Municipality of Makati into a highly Urbanized
City to be known as the City of Makati
o Attempts to create another legislative district in Makati
 Petitioners believe that:
o 1) reapportionment cannot be made by a special law
o 2) Makati’s population in the 1990 census stands only 450k
 Petitioner contend that it is unconsti
ISSUE
 Whether RA 7854 is unconsti? NO
o Issues have been laid to rest in Tobias v. Abalod
 Ruled that reapportionment of legislative districts may be
made through a special law
 Such as in the charter of a new city
o The consti clearly provides that Congress shall be composed of not more
than 250 members UNLESS otherwise fixed by law
o Consti did not preclude Congress from increasing its membership by
passing a law, other than a general reapportionment of the law
o Exactly what was done by Congress in enacting RA 7854 and providing
for an increase in Makati’s legislative district
o To hold that reapportionment can only be made through a general
apportionment law, with a review of all the legislative districts allotted
to each LGU nationwide
 This would create an inequitable situation where a new city
or province created by Congress will be denied legislative
representation for an indeterminate period of time
o Such act would deprive the sovereignty granted to the people by
depriving them or suspending their creation pending the determination
o Population of Makati stand at only 450k
o Sec. 5(3) of Art. 6 provides that a city with a population of at least 250k
shall at least have 1 rep
o Even granting that the population of Makati as of the 1990 census stood
at 450k
o Its legislative district may still be increased since it has met the MIN
population requirement of 250k
o Sec. 3 of the ordinance appended to the consti provides that a city whose
population has increased to more than 250k shall be entitled to at least
one congressional rep
Sema v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Province of Maguindanao is part of ARMM
 Cotabato City is part of the province of Maguindanao but it is not part of ARMM
because Cotabato City voted against its inclusion in a plebiscite held in 1989
 Maguindanao has 2 legislative districts
o 1st district comprises of Cotabato City and 8 other municipalities
o RA 9054 was passed amending ARMM’s Organic Act and vesting it
with power to create provinces, municipalities, cities and barangays
 Pursuant to this law, the ARMM Regional Assembly created Shariff Kabunsuan
o Muslim Mindanao Authority (MMA) Act 201
o Comprised of the municipalities of the 1st district of Maguindanao with
the exception of Cotabato City
 For the purpose of the 2007 elections
o COMELEC initially stated that the 1st district is now only made of
Cotabato City because of MMA 201
 But it later amended this stating that status quo should be retained however just for
the purposes of the elections, the 1st district should be called Shariff Kabunsuan
with Cotabato City due to the fact that they are still awaiting decisive declarations
from Congress as to Cotabato’s status as a legislative district
  Sema was a congressional candidate for the legislative district of S. Kabunsuan with
Cotabato (1st district)
o Later, Sema was contending that Cotabato City should be a separate
legislative district
o And that votes therefrom should be excluded in the voting
o This is probably because her rival Dilangalen was from there and
Dilangalen was winning
o She contended that under the Consti, upon the creation of province (S.
Kabunsuan)
 That the province automatically gains legislative
representation
 And since S. Kabunsuan excludes Cotabato city in effect,
Cotabato is being deprived of a representative in the HOR
o COMELEC maintained that the legislative district is still there and that
regardless of S. Kabunsuan being created
 The legislative district is not affected and so is its
representation
ISSUE
 Whether Sec. 19, Art. 6 of RA 9054, delegating to the ARMM Regional Assembly
the power to create provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays is consti? NO
o RA 9054 is unconsti
o The creation of local gov units is governed by Sec. 10 Art. 10 of the
Consti
o Thus, the creation of the four gov units…
 Province
 City
 Municipality
 Barangay
o Must comply with 3 conditions
 1) the creation of a local gov unit must follow the criteria
fixed in the Local Gov Code
 2) such creation must not conflict with any provision of the
consti
 3) there must be a plebiscite in the political units affected
o There is no express provision or an express grant of authority in the
consti for congress to delegate to regional or local legislative bodies the
power to create local gov units such as done in Muslim Mindanao
Autonomy Act 201
o However, under its plenary legislative powers
 Congress can delegate to local legislative bodies the power to
create LGU
 Subject to reasonable standards
 And provided no conflict arises with any provision of the
consti
o Congress has delegated to provincial boards and cities & municipal
councils the power to create barangays within their jurisdiction
 Subject to compliance with the criteria established in the
Local Gov Code
 And the plebiscite requirement in Sec. 10 Art. 10 of the
Consti
o Thus, ARMM cannot validly create Shariff Kabunsuan province
o In said district, Cotabato did not meet the population requirement (250k)
 So Sema’s contention is untenable
o However, ARMM cannot validly create the province of S. Kabunsuan
without first creating a legislative district
 But this can never be legally possible because the creation of
legislative districts is vested solely in Congress
o At most, ARMM can create barangays not cities or provinces
Montejo v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Petitioner First District Rep. Cerilo Roy G. Montejo pleads for the annulment of
Sec. 1 of Resolution No. 2736
o Redistricting certain municipalities in leyte
o Saying it violates the principle of equality of representation
 Leyte with cities of Tacloban and Ormoc is composed of 5 districts
o 3rd district is composed of
 Almeria
 Biliran
 Cabucgayan
 Caibiran
 Biliran
o Located in 3rd district
o Was made its sub-province by virtue of Sec.1 RA 2141
 Conversion of Biliran into a regular province was approved by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite
o On 1992
 As a consequence of the conversion, eight municipalities of the 3rd district
composed the new province of Biliran
 Further consequence was to reduce the 3rd district to 5 municipalities with a total
population of 146k
 To remedy, petitioner seeks to transfer the municipality of Tolosa from his district
to the second district of the province
 But intervenor Second district rep: Sergio Apostol opposed the inclusion of said
municipality in his district on two grounds
o COMELEC has no jurisdiction to promulgate Resolution No. 2736
o assuming it has jurisdiction, said Resolution is in accord with the Consti
 In order to solve the inequality in the distribution of inhabitants, voters and
municipalities in province of Leyte
o COMELEC held consultation meetings with the incumbent reps of the
province
o And other interested parties
 Dec 1994 – it promulgated the assailed resolution where among the others it
transferred the municipality of Capoocan of the 2nd district
o And the municipality of Palompon of the 4th district to the 3rd district of
Leyte
  The composition of the 1st district which includes the municipality of Tolosa and the
composition of the 5th district were not disturbed
ISSUES
 Whether the unprecedented exercise by the COMELEC of the legislative power of
redistricting and reapportionment and promulgation of Sec. 1 of Resolution No.
2736 is valid? NO
o COMELEC acted beyond the Consti mandate by redistricting and
reapportioning
o Deliberations of the members of the Consti Commission
 Which includes then Commissioner Davide Jr.
 Shows that COMELEC was denied rhe major power of
legislative apportionment
o In fact, in the first elections after enactment of 1987 Consti
 It was the Commission itself who did the reapportionment of
the legislative districts
o Afterwards, this power was given to Congress for the s ucceeding
elections
o Also, then respondent COMELEC relied on the Ordinance appended to
the 1987 consti as the source of its power of redistricting which is
traditionally regarded as part of the power to make laws
o Ordinance states:
 Sec. 2 – Commission on Elections is hereby empowered to
make minor adjustments to the reapportionment herein made
 Sec. 3 – Any province that may hereafter be created …the
number of members apportioned to the province out of which
such new province was created or where the city, whose
population has so increased, in geographically located shall
be correspondingly adjusted by the Commission on Elections
but such adjustment shall not be made within 120 days before
elections
o Minor adjustments do not involve change in the allocations per district
 Which is a substantive adjustment
 Examples are
 Error in the correct name of particular
municipality
 Or when a municipality in between which is still
in the territory of one assigned district is forgotten
o Sec. 3 of Ordinance did not give the COMELEC any authority to
transfer municipalities from one legislative district to another
 Consistent with the limits of its power to only make minor
adjustments
 Power granted by Sec. 3 to the respondent is to adjust the
number of members, NOT municipalities
DISPOSITION
The transfer of the municipality of Capoocan od the 2nd district and the municipality
of Palompon of the 4th district to the 3rd district of the province of Leyte is
ANNULED and set aside.
Also DENY the petition praying for the transfer of the municipality Tolosa from the
1st district to the 2nd district of the province of Leyte.
Herrera v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Issue started when 2 new municipalities are being added to Guimaras
 Creation of the new municipalities prompted Guimaras to split into 2
separate provincial districts
 Splitting was done through Resolution No. 2950 as it also allotted 8
Sanggu seats to Guimaras
 Petitioners question the apportionment of the districts given that there is
an unfair division created when
o 1st district only has a population of 56,218
o Compared to 2nd district has 70,252
 Because of the division, the 2nd district has 5 seats compared to 1st’s seats
 Petitioners say they want a complete 1 to 1 ratio split giving both 63k
inhabitants
 And equal 3 seats in Sanggu Panlalawigan
ISSUE
 Did COMELEC act with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed resolution
that redistricted Guimaras? NO
o The assertions are untenable since under RA 7166
 Municipalities belonging to each district must be compact,
contiguous and adjacent
o Contiguous and adjacent mean adjoining nearby, abutting, having a
common border, connected and/or touching along boundaries often for
considerable distances
o Thus, COMELEC adjusted the districts in accordance with RA 7166
o Map of Guimaras shows that the municipalities grouped together are
contiguous or adjacent
Samson v. Aguirre
FACTS
 Petitioner asserts that certifications of income, population and land area were not
presented to Congress
o During the deliberations that led to the passage of RA 8535
o Act Creating the City of Novaliches
o Also the petitioner asserts that there was no certification attesting that
the creation of Novaliches as a city will not adversely affect the mother
city of Quezon City
 In terms of income, population and land area
ISSUE
 Whether RA 8535 is unconsti? NO
o Court establishes that in the case of Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope
Workers’ Union
  It ruled that all presumptions are indulged in favor of
constitutionality
 Person who attacks a statute must prove beyond reasonable
doubt the statute’s invalidity because of its contravention of
the consti
o The Court is not also to judge the invalidity of a statute base on the fact
that it may be hard to its citizens
 Because the Court cannot decideo n wisdom, justice, policy
or expediency of the statute as it is in the purview of the
legislators
o So, in this case, the passing of RA 8535 enjoys presumption of
constitutionality
o Requisites for the creation of Local Gov
 Placed in Sec. 7 of the Local Gov Code of 1991
 This is interpreted in the rules and regulations implementing
the code in Art. 11
o Code of 1991 is the general rule
o The Latter expounds the former by detailing the agencies involved and
the numerical requirements set by LGC
o Rules are…
 1) INCOME
 Must be sufficient as stated in Art. 7
 Interpreted in Art. 11 as an average income of not
less than 20 M for the immediately preceding 2
consecutive years based on 1991 constant prices
as verified by the DOF
 2) POPULATION
 Total number of inhabitants as defined in Art. 7
 Interpreted in Art. 11 – it means it be not less than
150,000 as certified by the NSO
 3) LAND AREA
 Must be contiguous and at least 100km as
certified by the Land Management Bureau of the
Dept of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR)
 BUT!!!! The territory need not be contiguous if it
is comprised by 2 or more islands OR is separated
by a chartered city or cities which do not
contribute to the income of the province according
to Art. 7 & 11
 Art. 11 expounds this by stating that the land area
will not apply if the city is composed of 1 or more
islands
o NOTE!!!! The newly created city shall not reduce the land area,
population and income of the originals LGU or LGUs at the time of said
creation to less than the prescribed minimum requirements
o All expenses will be paid for by the ones petitioning its creation
o In this case, petitioners did not present any proof but only allegations
that no certificates were submitted to the House Committee on Local
Gov
o Also, during the hearings, resource persons from NSO, Bureau of Local
Gov and Finance, Land Bureau management and Dept of Budget and
Management were present
 Agencies attested that Novaliches achieved the requisites:
 Income: 26 M preceding 2 years
 Population: around 347k
 Land area was not considered: since under Art. 11
of rules and regulations implementing the code,
the petitioner need only to comply with income,
population OR land area
o Despite the fact that other agencies like DBM, DILG, and Finance
Officials showed official statistics and reference material, the Court
holds that their official statements could serve the same purpose
contemplated by law requiring certificates
o These agencies’ affirmations as well as their oath as witnesses in open
session either in Senate or HOR give greater solemnity than the
certificate submitted
o Petitioner alleged that the respondents failed to submit written
certifications
 Cause certifications are required by the Implementing Rules
and Regulations that are attached to the petition when one
attempts to create a new city
 Then these are submitted to interested municipalties or
barangays to Congress in a form of a resolution
o Court does not take cognizance of this fact since the petitioner failed to
manifest the petition that was allegedly deprived of written certifications
o RA 8535 also failed to submit the seat of gov of the proposed city
o However, this issue cannot be the basis of the law’s invalidity
 Given that Sec. 12 of LGC provides that gov centers where
offices, agencies, or branches of National Gov, Local Gov, or
GOCCs can suffice as substitute of seat of gov
o Adverse effect also to QC is unlikely as the public meetings that were
held included the executive head of QC (Mel Mathay)
 He did not even raise any negative concerns of the creation of
Novaliches
o This shows the RA 8535’s validity
 Also given that even in the plebiscite there were also no
concerns raised
o Court also believes that even though certificates are there to inform the
concerned barangays, the fact that the said creation of Novaliches was
heavily publicized in mass media shows that QC was also informed of
the matter
Aldaba v. COMELEC
FACTS
  Petitioners assail RA 9591 that creates a legislative district for the city of Malolos
Bulacan
o Violates the minimum population requirement
o At least 250,000 residents for the creation of legislative district in a city
 Before May 2009 – Bulacan was represented in Congress through 4 legislative
districts
 On May 1 2009 – RA 9591 lapsed into law
o Amended Malolos’ City Charter by creating a separate legislative
district for the city
 At the time, legislative bills for RA 9591 were filed in Congress in 2007
o House Bill No. 3693 (converted to House Bill No. 3693) and Senate Bill
No. 1986
o Population was only 223,069
 Population of Malolos City on May 1 2009 is a contested fact
o BUT there is no dispute that House Bill No. 3693 relied on an undated
certification issued by a Regional Director of the NSO
o This certification said that the projected population of the Municipality
of Malolos will be 254,030 by the year 2010
o Using population growth rate 3.78 between 1995-2000
ISSUE
 Whether RA 9591 is violative of Art. 6 Sec. 5 of the Consti? YES
o Consti requires that a city must have the population of 250,00
 For a city to have a legislative district
o Real issue is whether the City of Malolos has a population of at least
250,000 (whether actual or projected)
 To create a legislative district in time of the May 10, 2010
elections
o If not, then RA 921 creating a legislative district in Malolos is unconsti
o Certification of Regional Director Miranda
 which is based on demographic projections, is without legal
effect
 Because it has no basis and no authority to issue the
certification
o The certification is also void because based on its own growth rate
assumption
 The population of Malolos will still be less than 250,000 in
the year 2010
o Also, intercensal demographic projections cannot be made of the entire
year
o It specifically says that a city whose population has increased to 250,000
is entitled to have a legislative district only in the immediately following
election after the attainment of the 250,000 population
o 1) Certifications on demographic projects can be issued
 ONLY if such projections are declared official by the NSO
o 2) Certifications based on demographic projections can be issued only
by the NSO Administrator or his designated certifying officer
o 3) Intercensal population projections must be as of the middle of every
year
 As this is in accordance to EO 135
DISPOSITION
Petition is granted! RA 9591 is deemed unconsti
Aquino v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Petitioners are Sen. Benigno Aquino and Mayor Jesse Robredo
 Case is a petition for certriorari
o Seeking nullification as unconsti RA 9716
o Act reapportions the first and second legislative district of Camarines
Sur
 And thereby creating a new legislative district from such
reapportionment
 Prior to the RA, Province of Camarines Sur was divided into 4 legislative districts
 Following the RA, the 1st and 2nd districts were reconfigured to create an additional
legislative district
 Primary contention of the petitioners is that the RA runs afoul of the explicit
constitutional standard that requires a minimum population of 250,000 for the
creation of a legislative district
o They argue that if the RA is applied, the first district will only have a
population of 176,383
o Standard of a population of 250,000 is based on Art. 6 Sec. 5 Par. 3
 Thus petitioner says that the minimum requirement of 250,000 must be present in
the new district as well as in the original districts
 They claim that the framers’ intention was to base the number “250k” on the
population estimate of 55 million Filipinos and on the initial 200 seats of the HOR
o 55M/200 = roughly 250,000 population
 Respondents raised the issue of locus standi
o BUT Court ruled that the case at bar is of transcendental importance
ISSUE
 Is population an indispensable requirement to the creation/reapportionment of
legislative districts? NO Is RA 9716 consti? YES
o No, there is no specific provision in the Consti that fixes 250,000 min
population that must compose a district
o Petition’s assailed that part of the consti that requires a “250,000
minimum population that petitioner’s rely on can be entitled to a
representative, but not so for a province.”
o Mariano Jr, v. COMELEC was interpreted to means that the application
of the 250,000 requirement only applies to its initial legislative district
o Meaning, when you create a subsequent district, there is no need to meet
the same requirement
o Looking into Sec. 416 of the Local Gov Code
 Provides requisites for the creation of a province
 States that an average annual income of Php 20M and either
of the requisites of the contiguous territory or a population
should present
  Makes the population requirement an alternative
addition to the indispensable income requirement
o It was noted that during the deliberations other considerations such as
 Dialects spoken
 Size of the original groupings
 Natural division of municipalities
 Balancing of the districts were considered more than the
population
o Bagabuyo v. COMELEC
 The Court states that all the Consti requires is that every
legislative district should comprise as far as practicable,
contiguous, compact and adjacent territory
DISPOSITION
Petition is dismissed. RA 9716 is valid.
Navarro v. Ermita
FACTS
 RA 9355 – An Act Creating the Province of Dinagat Islands
o Established in Oct 2006
o After holding a plebiscite granting of approval of its mother province
Surigao del Norte
o And establishing interim officials
 May 2007 – Province of Dinagat elected their new set of provincial officials
 Navarro, et. al. filed a motion to declare the creation of province of Dinagat as
invalid
 Feb 10, 2010 – Petitioners succeeded in having RA 9355 declared unconsti
o Court reasoned that RA 9355 failed to comply with the requirements of
land area
o Since it only is 802.12 sq. km. but requirement is 2,000 km
o Population is only 106,951 but requirement is 250,000
 Decision also declared Art. 9(2) of the Local Gov Code Implementing Rules and
Regulations as null and void
o Because “the land area requirement shall not apply where the proposed
province is composed of 1 or more islands”
 Held that the said provision is beyond the ambit of Art. 461 of the LGC in as much
as such exemption is not expressly stated in the law
 Thus the petitioners as politicians and other interveners such as COMELEC
o Aimed to resolve the matter as their position will be very much affected
 Considering that the decision, if final on time of elections, will revert Dinagat back
to a district in Surigao del Norte
 If not, then they will consider Dinagat as a separate province with an electable
governor, HOR, and etc.
 BUT if the decision is reversed, after elections the elections will become null and
void
ISSUE
 Whether LGC-IRR Article 9(2) and RA9355 valid? YES Is provision on land area
exemption on LGC-IRR valid? YES Should all requisites provided by the LGC for
the creation of a province present? NO
o Must be considered that the creation of Local Gov Units are borne out of
the necessity to facilitate growth and provide efficient admin of gov
services
 Which are the thrusts of the framers of the LGC
o Citing the debates during the construction of the Code
o Delegates declare that only the income requirement for the creation of
Provinces is of primordial importance
 Because it is the prime measurement for economic viability
for LGU
o Revealed that the land and population requirements for provinces were
secondary importance to the framers of the LGC
 Because a province is primarily created for the purposes of
efficient delivery of public goods
o In the LGC, the Income requirement must be coupled with either the
 Land OR
 Populations requirements
o Court noted that the land area requirement for barangays is not present
o While the LGC provides 3 indiciators of economic viability :
 Income
 Population
 Land Area
o Indeed an oversight on the part of the creators of the LGC
 BUT was corrected by the LGC-IRR
 By providing for the inclusion of exemption of the land area
requirements of provinces
o Sec. 25 of Art. 2
 Mandates that local autonomy of local gov
o That pursuant to Sec. 533 of the LGC
 The President can convene an oversight committee
 Which shall facilitate the creation of Implementing Rules and
Regulations
o Also, a strict interpretation of the Code provides a very restrictive
requirement in creating a LGU
 Which would countermand on the very essence of the local
autonomy and decentralization that the LGC espouses
o Citing the Bicameral Conference Committee meeting on the creation of
the LFC-IRR, it was the intent of the creators of the Code to manifest
local development through devolution
o Further, it was shown that there was absurdity in the proposition that the
land are requirement must be present in cases of provincials units which
are composed of island groups
o Oversight Committee
 Composing of 3 members each from both Houses of
Congress
 The legislative intent of the creators of the LGC
was not misappropriated
 o Reviewing the deliberations during the drafting of the LGC
 Justifies the said legislative intent of the congress
 Undoubtable that the intent really is devolution and local
growth
 Ratio legis est anima (spirit rather than the letter of the law)
o RA 9355 was favorable in both Houses of Congress
o The approval on the creation of Dinagat Islands justify that Congress
indeed wanted to exempt island groups from territorial requirement
o Looking at the case, Dinagat Islands at present justifies its creation
 Showing its capability to provide efficient governmental
services
DISEENTING OPINION
 Carpio dissents because the case creates a precedent which will justify the
proliferation of multiple LGUs
 Laments that the LGC requires that 2/3 min requirements should be met to create a
province
 Dinagat only satisfies one requirement
o Income = 82M
o Population = 106,951
o Land Area = 802.12
o At the time of creation
 Sec 461 of the LGC.
o Dinagat cannot qualify as a province
 1) No exception was provided by the law
o Thus no exception should be provided by the rules
o Carpio dissents on LGC-IRR as being ultra vires in nature
o Only courts can interpret the law
o Executive’s part to execute it
o Congressional Oversight committees have no power to create IRRs as it
is merely an executive function
 2) the population requirement of 250,000 is mandatory by virtue of proportional
representation
o Because when congress creates a province, it also creates one legislative
district
o Thus only logical that the province must also comply with the 250,00
inhabitant requirement
 To treat land are as substitution for the population requirement is abhorrent to the
consti requirements of proportional representation
 This alternatively posed by the LGC destroys the supremacy of the consti
o Which made a statute prevail over the consti
 Thus, Congress cannot substitute the 250,000 inhabitants requirement for the Land
Area requirement
o Promotes the idea that a rep from Dinagat Islands
 Representing 120,813 inhabitants in contrast to a
representative in the legislative district in Metro manila with
250,00 inhabitants
 Justifies the idea that Dinagat has more voting and legislative
power in comparison from a citizen from Metro Manila
 3) quasi-malapportionment laws like RA 9355 fosters entrenchment of political
dynasties and corruption
o The precedent provides an idea for political dynasties to divide and
conquer thousands of islands in order to create bailiwicks and fortifying
parton-clients
 4) in treating a group of islands as exempted in the LGC
o Wreaks havoc to the just budgetary system in place
o Computation of the Internal Rev allotment are as follows:
 50% population
 25% land area
 25% equal sharing
o Counting Dinagat Islands’ nearby maritime waters as part of its territory
 It invites the recomputation of the IRA of other provinces
composed of islands or provinces with enclosed bodies of
water
o Geography thus became an arbitrary measurement on allocation of
resources, not the population itself
 5) the consti and the LGC are normative guidelines
o No amount of poetry can hide the amount of judicial legislation done by
the Court
Bagabuyo v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Cagayan de Oro’s then Congressman Jaraula filed and sponsored House Bill No.
5859
o An Act Providing for the Apportionment of the Lone Legislative District
of the City of Cagayan de Oro
o This became RA 9371
o Increased CDO’s legislative district from one district to two districts
 For the May 2007 elections, CDO’s voters would be classified belonging either in
the 1st or 2nd district
o Depending on the voter’s place of residence
 Constituents of each district would elect their own rep to Congress
o As well as 8 members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod
 March 2007 – COMELEC en banc promulgated Resolution No. 7837
o Implementing RA No. 9371
 Petition Bagabuyo filed the present petition against the COMELEC
o Argued for the nullification of RA 9371 and Resolution 7837
 Because the COMELEC cannot implement RA without
providing first the rules, regulations and guidelines for the
conduct of a plebiscite
 Necessary action in a division or conversion of LGU
 Thus Bagabuyo prayed for an order directing the respondent to revert back to a
single legislative district of CDO
 Since the Court didn’t grant petitioner’s TRO
  May 2007 national and local elections proceeded with RA 9371 and Resolution
7837
 COMELEC argued:
o 1) petitioners did not respect the hierarchy or courts
o 2) RA 9371 merely increased the rep of CDO in the HOR and
Sangguniang Panglungsod
o 3) the criteria established under Sec. 10 of Art 10 only apply when there
is creation, diversion, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of
boundaries of a province, city, municipality or barangay
 In this case there is none
o 4) the plebiscite is not required since RA 9371 did not bring change in
CDO’s territory, population, and income classification
 Bagabuyo says:
o 1) The Court has jurisdiction over the case because of the importance of
issues raised
o 2) CDO’s reapportionment falls within the meaning of creation, division,
merger, abolition, or substantial alteration under Sec. 10 of Art. 10
o 3) Voter’s sovereign power was arbitrarily reduced by at least half
ISSUE
 Whether a plebiscite was required in the case at bar? NO
o Bagabuyo insists that RA 9371 converts and divides CDO as an LGU
 Thus the need for plebiscite
o Court however held that this claim is without merit
o Under both Art. 6 Sec. 5 (rules on legislative apportionment) and Art. 10
Sec. 10 (requirement of plebiscite for creation, division, merger,
abolition or alteration of boundary of LGUs)
 Authority is vested in the Legislature
 Undertaking apportionment and reapportionment of the two
articles is the requirement of a plebiscite
o Consti and Local Gov Code expressly require a plebiscite to carry out
any creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration of boundary of an
LGU
 BUT there is none for apportionment or reapportionment
provisions
o The legislative district may be called as a political unit
 Because it is the basis for the election of a member of the
HOR and member of the local legislative body
 BUT it does not mean it is a political subdivision wherein
functions of gov are carried
 It is rep unit and on-corporate unit that merely delineates the
areas occupied by the people who will choose a rep in their
national affairs
o A plebiscite is not required because a legislative district does not have
its own chief executive and its own legal personality
o LGU on the other hand
 Are political and corporate units
 They are territorial and political subdivisions of the state with
a legal personality
o Consti saw it fit to expressly secure the consent of the people affected
(plebiscite)
 By the creation, divisions, merger, abolition or alteration of
boundaries
o Historically, legislative apportionment does not mean and imply a
division of an LGU
o RA 9731 is purely reapportionment legislation
o CDO politically remains a single unit and its admin is not divided along
territorial lines
o The effects is merely to enhance voter representation by giving each city
voter more and greater way both in Congress and Sanggu Panglungsod
o By having 2 legislative districts, CDO now has 2 congressmen and 6
councilors
 Providing twice the number of congressmen speaking and
voting in the halls of Congress
DISPOSITION
Petition dismissed for lack of merit!
Bengson v. Cruz
FACTS
 Citizenship of respondent Cruz is the issue in this case
o In view of consti requirement that “no person shall be a member of the
HOR unless he is a natural-born citizen”
 Cruz was born in San Clemente, Tarlac
o April 27, 1960
o To Fil parent
o Makes him a natural-born citizen of the PH
 Fundamental law during this time is the 1935 Consti
 Cruz enlisted in the United Stated Marine Corps
o Took an oath of allegiance to the US
o WITHOUT the consent of the PH
 Consequence of this act is the loss of Fil citizenship
 Because under the Commonwealth Act. No. 63, Sec. 1(4)
o A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by, among others, “rendering
service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign
country”
 PH citizenship was erased by his naturalization as a US citizen on June 1990
o Connection with his service in US Marine Corps
 March 1994 – Cruz reacquired his PH citizenship through repatriation under the RA
2630
 He ran for and was elected as the Rep of the 2nd district of Pangasinan in May 1998
o Won against petitioner Bengson III
 Thus, Begson III filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam with HOR Electoral
Tribunal
o Claiming that Cruz was not qualified to become a member of the HOR
o Since he is not a natural-born citizen
 o As required in Art. 6 Sec. 6 of Consti
 March 2000 – HOR Electoral Tribunal dismissed petition
o Declaring respondent Cruz the duly elected Rep of the 2nd district of
Pangasinan in the 1998 elections
 HOR Electoral Tribunal also denied Bengson’s MR
 Thus, Bengson filed the present petition of centriorari
 Assailed the HOR Electoral Tribunal’s decision on the grounds that
o 1) HOR Electoral Tribunal committed serious errors and grave abuse of
discretion
 Amounting to excess of jurisdiction when it ruled that private
respondent is a natural-born citizen of the PH
 Despite the fact that he ceased being such in view of the loss
and renunciation of such citizenship on his part
o 2) HOR Electoral Tribunal committed serious errors and grave abuse of
discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction
 When it covered private respondent as a citizen of the PH
 Despite the fact that he did not validly acquire his PH
citizenship
o 3) Assuming that private respondent’s acquisition of PH citizenship was
invalid
 The HOR Electoral Tribunal committed serious errors and
grave abuse of discretion, amounting to excess of jurisdiction
 When it dismissed the petition despite the fact that such
reacquisition could not legally and constitutionally restore his
natural-born status
 Bengson asserts that Cruz may no longer be considered a natural-born Filipino
o Since he lost his PH citizenship when he swore allegiance to the US
o And had to reacquire the same by repatriation
 Bengson insists that Art. 4 Sec. 2 expressy states that natural-born citizens are those
who are citizens from birth without having to perform any act to reacquire or
perfect such citizenship
 Cruz contends that he reacquired his stats as a natural-born citizen when he was
repatriated
o Since the phrase “from birth” in Art. 4 Sec. 2 refers to the innate,
inherent and inborn characteristic of being a natural-born citizen
ISSUE
 Whether Cruz, natural-born Filipino who became an American citizen, can still be
considered a natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of PH citizenship? YES
o 2 ways of acquiring citizenship
 1) by birth: natural born citizen
 2) by naturaliztion: naturalized citizen
o The Court DISMISSED the petition on grounds that Filipino citizens
who have lost their citizenship may reacquire the same in the manner
provided by law
o CA No. 63 enumerates the 3 modes by which the PH citizenship may be
reacquired by a former citizen
 Naturalization
 Repatriation
 Direct act of congress
o Cruz’s case falls under repatriation because of people who lost their
citizenship to
 1) desertion of armed forces
 2) service in the armed forces of the allied forces in World
War II
 3) service in the Armed Forces of the US at any other time
 4) marriage of Fil woman to an alien
 5) political and economic necessity
o Repatriation simply consists of the oath taking of allegiance to the PH
and registering said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place where
the person concerned resides or last resided
o Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality
DISPOSITION
Petition is hereby dismissed!
Aquino v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Agapito Aquino filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Rep for the
new 2nd legislative district of Makati
 Provided in his certificate that he has resided for 10 months in Makati
 Move Makati, a duly registered political party
 AND! Mateo Bedon – chairman of the LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Barangay Cembo
o Filed a petition to disqualify Aquino on the ground that
o He lacked the residence qualification as a candidate for Congressman
o Under Sec. of Art. 6 requires that the candidate should be resident for a
period not less than 1 year immediately preceding the May 1995
elections
 On May 8, 1995 – elections were held and Aquino garnered 38,547 votes against
another candidate
o Agusto Syjuco: obtained 35,910
 However, his victory was suspended by COMELEC due to the case
 COMELEC en banc issued a resolution reversing the resolution of the second
division dated May 6, 1995
o Declared Aquino ineligible and thus disqualified as a candidate for the
Office of Rep of the 2nd legislative district of Makati
 Aquino claims that COMELEC lost its jurisdiction on May 8,1995, election day
o That the original jurisdiction is in the HOR Electoral Tribunal
o Thus, COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
ISSUE
 Whether the COMELEC’s finding of non-compliance with the residency
requirement of 1 year against the petitioner is contrary to evidence and to applicable
laws and jurisprudence? NO
o Not only residence BUT domicile (a place of habitual residence) of
candidate must be proved
 o Thus the consti provision that requires that a candidate must “reside” in
the PH for a certain time pertains to domicile
o COMELEC found the following pieces of evidence to prove his
residence is not in Makati:
 1) Certificate of Candidacy for May 11, 1992 elections
indicated the he was a resident of San Jose, Conception
Tarlac for 52 years
 His certificate indicated that he was also a
registered voter of the same district
 2) his birth certificate places conception, Tarlac as the
birthplace of both his parents
 3) he has a 2 year lease agreement of a condo in Makati
instead of Buying one (shows lack of intention to have
permanent residence)
o COMELEC says that one cannot claim that he changed his domicile
since changing domicile is hard
 And absence of any proof, given the facts does not help the
case of Mr. Aquino
ISSUE
o Also, the claim that it’s hard to establish the self in a newly created
district is absurd since newly created districts did not present themselves
out of thin air so residence is still important
o COMELEC says that residence is an aspect required since it allows the
voters to exclude those who are not sensitive to the needs of the
community
 And prevents those who only want to take advantage of
circumstances in a certain locality
Marcos v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Petitioner Imelda Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the position
of Representative of the 1st district of Leyte with the Provincial Election Supervisor
 Providing the following info:
o Residence of constituency where I seek to be elected immediately
preceding the lection: ___ year and 7 months
 Private Respondent: Montejo, incumbent Rep of the 1st district of Leyte
o And a candidate for same position
o Filed a petition with the COMELEC for the disqualification of Imelda
Marcos
o On the grounds that she does not meet the consti requirement for
residency
 Specifically being a resident for a period not less than 1 year
immediately preceding the day of elections
 9 days after the deadline for filing the COC
o Imelda Marcos amended/corrected her COC
o Changing her entry from “7 months” to “since childhood”
 Provincial Election Supervisor denied acceptance of the amended COC with the
COMELEC’s head office in Intramuros
o And also her answer to Montejo’s petition
 In her Answer, she stated that her entry of 7 months in her original COC was an
honest misinterpretation
 She has always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile
o She thought that what was asked from her was her “actual and physical”
presence in Tolosa
o Not residence of origin or domicile in the 1st Legislative District
 COMELEC’s 2nd en banc cancelled Imelda’s original COC and disqualified her to
run for the position
 May 11, 1995 – COMELEC issued a resolution
o Allowing the petitioner’s proclamation of Imelda be suspended in the
event that she obtains the highest number of votes
 Imelda won the elections
o Obtained 70,471
o Montejo only got 36,833
 Montejo argued that Imelda had abandoned her domicile in Tacloban when she left
the place in 1952
 Did Imelda Marcos meet the 1-year residency requirement of Art. 6, Sec. 6? YES
o She did meet the requirement
o The fact of residence
 Not a statement in a COC which ought to be decisive in
determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the
consti’s residency qualification requirement
o The said statement only becomes material when there is or appears to be
a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform or hide a fact
 Which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible
o The Court gives credit that Imelda committed an honest mistake in
jotting down the word “seven” for residency qualification requirement
 Prompted to write down the period of her actual stay in
Tolosa, Leyte instead of her period of residence in the 1st
district
 Which was since childhood
o An individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and
maintained residence in different places
 Absence from legal residence or domicile to pursue
profession, to study or to do other things od temporary nature
does not constitute loss of residence
o Imelda held various residence for different purposes during the past 4
decades
o None of these purposes unequivocally point to an intention to abandon
her domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte
o Though born in Manila, Imelda as a minor followed the domicile od her
parents in Tacloban
 She grew up and reached her adulthood in Tacloban
 Even though she moved residences after 1952
 She kept her close ties to her domicile of origin
 Did Imelda Marcos lose her domicile of origin? NO
o A minor follows the domicile of his parents
 o As domicile, once acquired is retained until a new one is gained
o A domicile or origin is not easily lost
o To successfully effect a chance of domicile, one must demonstrate:
 1) an actual removal or actual change of domicile
 2) a bona fied intention of abandoning the former place of
residence and establishing a new one and;
 3) Acts which correspond with the purpose
o The presumption that the wife automatically gains the husband’s
domicile by operation of law upon marriage cannot be inferred from the
use of the term “residence”
 In Art. 110 of the Civil Code
 Code is one area where the two concepts are well delineated
o Even assuming that Imelda acquired her husband’s domicile after their
marriage
 Acquired a right to choose a new one after Marcos’ death
o Imelda’s acts following her return to the country clearly indicate that she
not only impliedly but expressly chose her domicile of origin as her
domicile
DISPOSITION
Petitioner possesses the necessary residence qualifications to run for a seat in the HOR 1st
district of Leyte
Domino v. COMELEC
FACTS
 March 25, 1998 – Juan Domino filed his COC for the position of Rep of the Lone
Legislative District of Sarangani
 He certified that he had resided in Sarangani for 1 year and 2 months preceding the
election
 On March 30, 1998 – private respondents filed with the COMELEC a petition to
deny due course to or Cancel COC of Domino
o Claiming he is not a resident nor a registered voter of Sarangani
 Domino maintained that he complied with the 1 year residence requirement
o And that he has been residing in Sarangani since Jan 1997
o Presented his lease of a house and lot in Sarangani
o Also various affidavits
 May 1998 – COMELEC 2ND division declared Domino disqualified
o Because he did not comply with the 1 year residence requirement
o COMELEC cancelled his COC
 On the day of the elections
o COMELEC released Omnibus Resolution No. 3046
o Ordering that the votes casted for DOMINO be counted but to suspend
the declaration of victory
o Because the Resolution hasn’t come final yet
 Domino won
o But was not declared such because of his disqualification
 Domino filed a motion for reconsideration
o Denied by the COMELEC en banc
o Thus present petition
 Lucille Chiobian-Solon was allowed by the Court to intervene
o Filed a motion for leave to intervene
o In her comment in the intervention
 Asking the Court to uphold Domino’s disqualification
ISSUE
 Whether Domino has resided in Sarangani for at least 1 year immediately preceding
May 11, 1998 elections? NO
o Concept of “residence” & “domicile”
 Claim that is doctrinally settled that residence and domicile
mean the same thing in election laws
o Residence
 Used in law to prescribe the qualification for suffrage and for
elective office
 Same as domicile
 Is a question of intention and circumstance
o Intentions means that a person has the desire to stay in one place
o Circumstance should be considered in the following rules:
 1) that a man must have residence or domicile somewhere
 2) that this domicile/residence remains until a new one is
required
 3) that a man can have but one residence or domicile at a
time
o To successfully change a domicile, the ff elements must be complied
with:
 1) the purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must
be for an indefinite period of time
 2) that the change in residence is voluntary
 3) new residence or domicile must be actual
o General rule to establish new domcile are:
 1) physical presence in the locality involved
 2) the intention to adopt it as a domicle must be concurred
o Based on records, petitioner has gone through 3 different domiciles
 Candon, Ilocos Sur
 Quezon City – Ayala Heights
 As proven by COC as the rep of the 3rd district of
QC
 Sarangani province
 Claiming he effectively abandoned Quezon City
o Proof of successful change in domicile he says is his physical presence
in Sarangani
 Established by the lease of house and lot in province acquired
sometime in Jan 1997
o BUT the Court contends that this physical presence in Sarangani
established by a lease is not sufficient proof of domicile
o Residence – simply require bodily presence
o Domicile – requires one to actually declare one’s intent to make a
location his permanent home
  In the rule: there should be physical presence AND intention
o Court holds that the lease contract, though it may manifest one’s
intention
 Does not prove that there is permanence in staying in the new
domicile and abandoning the old
o The Court held that presenting the date of contract of lease of a house
and lot in Sarangani (Jan 15, 1997)
 Does not prove the abandonment of his domicile in QC
 THUS Domino cannot be said to have complied with the 1
year residency period
o Holds that there is a lack intention to abandon domicile in QC
 Domino’s act of registering as a voter in one of the precincts
in QC
 The fact that he continuously voted in a particular local city
is a strong indication in being able to determine one’s
domicile
DISPOSITION
Petition is DISMISSED!
Perez v. COMELEC
FACTS
 March 1998 – private respondent Rodolfo Aguinaldo filed his COC for rep of the
3rd district of Cagayan for May 1998 elections
 4 days later, Perez, as a voter and citizen
o Filed in the COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of private
respondent as a candidate
o On the ground that he has not been a resident of the district for at least 1
year immediately before the day of the elections under Art. 6 Sec. 6
 To support his claim
o Perez alleged that Aquinaldo filed an application for the transfer of his
registration as a voter in Gattaran, Cagayan (1st district) to Tuguegarao
3rd district only on Dec. 17, 1997
o Hasn’t reached 1 year residency
o But the said application was approved only on Jan 7, 1998
 If the final judgment of Perez’ election protests against Aguinaldo be pending even
after the election
o And if at the same time Aguinaldo be victorious on said election
o Perez contend that the proclamation be suspended
 In Aguinaldo’s answer, he claimed that while being a resident of Cattaran, Cagayan
in 1990 he transferred his residence to Tuguegarao, Cagayan
o By renting an apartment at Magallanes St. Tuguegarao
o In order to his mistress from public view
o Because at that time he was still married to his wife
o This fact was used by respondent at his defense in terms of the residency
rule
 May 10 - COMELEC dismissed the petition for disqualification
 Aguinaldo then won the elections
 4 days later Perez contended that elected respondent did not satisfy the requisite
residency
o COMELEC rejected
 Perez says that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that
the private respondent has been a resident in of Tuguegarao since July 1990
o When he rented an apartment to hide his mistress
o Says domicile would be where his legitimate family resides and not
where he and his mistress resides
 Also says that Aguinaldo could not have changed his residence to Tuguegagrao in
1990
o Considering that his COCs for governor of Cagayan in 1988, 1992 and
1995
 Aguinaldo asks that the petition be dismissed
o Argues that after his proclamation and his assumption of office
o COMELEC lost jurisdiction to pass upon his qualification for the office
of Rep
 Argues further that this case should have been filed with the HOR Electoral
Tribunal and not through COMELEC
ISSUE
 Whether respondent violated the residency rule of Art. 6 Sec. 6?
o COMELEC found that private respondent changed his residence
from Gattaran to Tuguegarao (capital of Cagayan) in July 1990 on
the basis of:
 1) the affidavit of Engineer Alfredo Ablaza, owner of
the residential apartment in Tuguegarao (13-E
Magallanes St. Tuguegarao, Cagayan)
 2) private respondent leased a residential apartment at
Kamias St. Tanza Tuguegarao, Cagayan
 From July 1995 – June 1996
o The fact that a person is registered as a voter in one district is not
proof that he is not domiciled in another
o Registration of a voter in a place other than his residence of origin
is not sufficient to consider him to have abandoned his residence
o His COC for provincial governor in Cagayn in the elections of
1988,1992 and 1995, Aguinaldo stated that he was a resident of
Tuguegarao
o Aguinaldo thus has been a resident for 8 years thus he did not
violate Art. 6 Sec. 6 of the Consti
DISPOSITION
Petition is DISMISSED!
Fernandez v. HOR Electoral Tribunal
FACTS
 Petition for certiorari and prohibition involving the decision of the HOR Electoral
Tribunal in the case of Vicente v. Fernandez for quo warranto
 Questioning the decision which declared him ineligible for his office as HOR
  Fernandez was running for 1st legislative district of Laguna in the May 14 2007
elections
 His COC states that his address is Sta. Rosa City, Laguna
 Vicente filed a petition to deny due course/cancel COC before the office of the
provincial election supervisor of Laguna
o On the grounds of misrepresentation of info in the Petitioner’s residence
in the COC
 Private respondent used as evidence the COCs filed by petitioner in his past
elections
o Declared Pagsanjan Laguna as his address
o 4th legislative district of the province of Laguna
 This was transferred to the COMELEC under SPA No. 07-046
o But dismissed due to lack of merit
 After Fernandez won the election
o Vincente filed a petition for quo warranto to the HOR Electoral Tribunal
o On the grounds that the petitioner lacked the required 1 year residence
requirement in Art. 6 Sec. 6 of the Consti
 Vicente has testimonies from witnesses:
o Atty. Tiampong who stated that Petitioner’s residence is in Cabuyao
o Balibago Health Workers who stated that Fernandes was rarely there in
Sta. Rosa
o A lawyer who notarized the contract of lease between petitioner and
Asuncion the lessor
 Petitioner presented residents from
o Villa Toleda who testified that they see his family residing there
o Asuncion testified that he indeed the lessee of property in Sta. Rosa
Laguna
o Joseph, Homeowner Association president of Cabuyao Laguna trstifies
that petitioner did not reside in Cabuyao since 2006
o Petitioner stated that he has been residing there before 2005 and that he
had businesses there since 2001
 HOR Electoral Tribunal ruled in favor of Vicente thus issuing said decision above
ISSUE
 Whether petitioner sufficiently complied with the 1year requirement to be a
member of the HOR, as provided in the Consti? YES
o Vicente hardly proves that petitioner failed to comply with the 1 year
residency requirement in the consti
o Evidence has to be clearly shown that there is violation of the Consti on
the part of the accused
o Burden of proof that has to be overcome by the accuser that shows
clearly that the accused did not reside there for 1 year
o In his case, Vicente’s evidence are only documents such as COCs from
1998, 2001, 2004 and his driver’s license in 2005
o However, Fernandez claims that he has been a resident of Sta. Rosa
since Feb 2006
 Which is after these documents were made
o Fernandez also has his own evidence to support his claim that his new
domicile as of 2006 is in Sta. Rosa
 Certification from Home Owners in Sta. Rosa
 Children’s attendance in schools in Sta. Rosa since 2005
 DTI of business issued in petitioner’s name and his wife in
Sta. Rosa since 2003
o Thus, Fernandez has shown that he not only physically resides there but
he has vested ties in staying in Sta. Rosa and has intention to stay
o Fernandez does not necessarily have to own the property he stays in to
be considered eligible
 Law only states residence of 1 year
o THUS, Petitioner could be a “stranger” to Sta. Rosa which he sought to
represent
DISPOSITION
Petition is granted!
Tagolino v. HRET
FACTS
 Richard Gomez filed his COC with COMELEC of the congressional office as rep of
4th district of Leyte under the Liberal Party
 Mr. Juntilla though alleged that Mr. Gomez was actually a resident of San Juan
Manila
o And failed to meet the 1 year residency under Art. 6 Sec. 6
o He was disqualified
 Wife, Lucy Torres-Gomez filed her COC with a certificate of nomination and
acceptance to be Liberal Party’s substitute candidate
 Substitution is acceptable since according to the COMELEC
o A cancellation does not cancel the COC of the party
o Still has the discretion to change their composition
 COMELEC Resolution approved the substitution
 On May 10, 2010
o Named of Richard was not removed from the ballots
o Soon after Lucy Torres won
o Petitioner was placed in 3rd in votes in their district
 Lucy contends that she continued to maintain residency in Ormoc City
o Where she was born and raised
o Despite her marriage to Richard Gomez
 Tagolino also assail HRET case no. 10-031 which declared the validity of
respondent Lucy Torres-Gomez’ substitution as the Liberal Party’s replacement
candidate
o For the position of Leyte rep in lieu of R ichard
 Thus, the controversy lies in HRET’s decision to accept the substitution of Richard
Gomes by Lucy Gomez
o Even if she fails to meet the 1 year residency
 Also a controversy whether the HRET abused its discretion in agreeing with
COMELEC en banc’s decision
 o Where it states that one who is disqualified under Sec. 68 is still
technically a candidate
ISSUE
 Whether the substitution of respondent is valid? NO
o COMELEC was right in interpreting the law since a candidate
disqualified under Sec. 68 of Omnibus Election Code can be validly
substituted pursuant to Sec. 71
o Because he remains a candidate until disqualified
o BUT!!!! A person whose COC itself has been denied due course or
cancelled under Sec. 78 cannot be substituted because he is not
considered a candidate
 In a way there would be no candidate to speak of under a
denial of due course to and/or cancellation of a COC case
 Then there would be no candidate to be substituted
o Art. 68 talks about qualifications and disqualification
o Art. 78 talks about misrepresentation within a COC that renders it void
 Under this, the lack of COC because it is void ab initio may
not be ground for substitution
o BUT!!!! In this case, the confusion stemmed from the decision of
COMELEC that used the word “disqualified”
 And that his COC was not denied
o COMELEC 1st division has “disqualified”/ technically cancelled Richard
Gomez’ COC because he doesn’t have 1 year residency in 4th district of
Leyte in which he is running for congressman
o Because of the wording, COMELEC en banc allowed Lucy Torres’
substitution under Ormoc 4th district
o THUS, COMELEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion
 The fact that they granted the petition of substitution without
qualification
o SC said that HRET has exclusive jurisdiction and can opt or not to make
a ruling based on COMELEC’s decision
o BUT!!!! It also erred when it adopted the ruling of COMELEC
 HRET cannot be faulted because it merely adopted
COMELEC’s decision
o SC ruled that there can be no substitution on the grounds that the 1st
division had cancelled Gomez’s COC
 Because of failure to meet requirements
 No substitution is allowed
o HRET also committed an abuse of discretion by adopting the
COMELEC ruling
DISPOSITION
Petition is granted!
Reyes v. COMELEC
FACT
 Private respondent Tan filed before the COMELEC a petition to cancel the COC of
Reyes
o On the ground that it contained material misrepresentation
 In the COC, it was stated that
o 1) she is a resident of Brgy. Lupac , Boac, Marinduque when actually
she is a resident of Bauan, Batangas
 Which is the residence of her husband
 And at the same time she is also a resident of 135 J.P Rizal
Brgy. Milagrosa, QC
 As admitted in the directory of congressional spouses of the
HOR
o 2) that she is not a permanent resident of another country when she is a
permanent resident or an immigrant of the US
o 3) that she is a Filipino citizen when she is actually an American citizen
 Her COC was then cancelled
 Petitioner here then is assailing the resolution of COMELEC
o Ordering the cancellation of her COC
o For the position of rep of the district of Marinduque
 She also claims she is a Filipino but of American descent
 During the pendency of her MR
o On May 18, 2003 petitioner was proclaimed winner of the elections
 On the same day petitioner took her oath
o COMELEC made the cancellation of the COC final and executory
ISSUE
 Whether petitioner fulfills the 1 year residency requirement? NO
o Regarding the petitioner’s nationality
 Reyes countered the evidence presented by Tan
 That she is a not a permanent resident or citizen of the US
o Court believes that since the petitioner is a holder of a US passport
 Her status is a “balikbayan”
o Burden proof shifted to the petitioner
o Aside from the allegation that she is a bare natural born citizen
 Petitioner submitted no proof to support such contention
o Petitioner also did not prove that she took an oath of allegiance in
compliance with RA 9225
 Which will restore her natural born status
o In the issue of residency
 From finding that Reyes lost her natural-born status
 We quote with approval the ruling of the COMELEC 1st
division that petitioner cannot be considered a resident of
Marinduque:
 Only proof presented by petitioner to show that she has met
the one-year residency requirement of the law and never
abanoned her domicile of origin in Baoc, Marinduque is her
claim that she served as provincial administrator of the
province from Jan 18, 2011 to July 13, 2011
 BUT!!!! This fact alone is not sufficient to prove her 1-year
residency
  Reyes never regained her domicile in Marinduque
as she remains to be an American citizen
 No amount of her stay in the said locality can
substitute the fact that she has not abandoned her
domicile of choice in the US
Lucero v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Lucero lost to Ong by 204 votes in the 1992 elections
o For the position of Rep of the 2nd legislative district of northern Samar
 Lucero had a tally of 24,068 votes
 While Ong topped the former with 24,272 votes
 Tally however, did not include the results of the ff:
o 1) precinct no. 7 – ineligible
o 2) precinct no. 13 – snatched ballots; no election held
o 3) precinct no. 16 – missing election returns
 In light of the failure, Lucero moved for the COMELEC to suspend the
proclamation of Ong
o And to hold a special election for precinct no. 13
 Acting on Lucero’s urgent manifestation
o COMELEC directed the provincial board of canvassers (PBC) to desist
from reconvening until further orders
 Ong moved to lift the suspension in which Lucero opposed
 COMELEC en band issued resolution ordering the provincial election supervision
(PES) of northern Samar to bring the ballot boxes from precinct 7 and 16 to Silvino
Lobos (Election Registrar) to the Commission
o Wherein the keys thereof shall be turned over to the PES by the
municipal treasurer
 PES shall in turn give the keys for each ballot boxes to duly authorized reps of
Lucero and Ong
 Court issued a TRO against the implementation of the above-mentioned resolution
o And ordered the COMELEC to cease and desist from the implementing
the same
 HOWEVER!!!! Acting on MRs filed by the COMELEC and Lucero
o The Court modified its decision and instead ordered to re-raffle the case
to COMELEC
 In 1994, COMELEC en banc issued the assailed resolution ordering A:
o 1) re-tabulation of the votes including results of Precinct 16 and the
“COMELEC copy” of the results of Precinct 7
o 2) a pescial election for Precinct 13
o 3) a recount of Precinct 7 conditioned upon results of Preinct 13
 Lucero and Ong both contested the resolution
 Lucero asserted that the counts of ballots in Precinct 7 must ne unconditional
because the elections returns are invalid
 On the other hand. Ong contests that COMELEC has no authority to order the
correction and to call for a special election
o Almost 2 years after regular election
 Thus this petition
ISSUE
 Whether the count of precinct 7 must come before the holding of special election of
precinct 13? YES
o Requirements for holding a special election
 Failure of election
 Effect of failure of election in the results of the election
o Thus it is necessary to know the total number of votes and the difference
before it could be determined if a special election is necessary
 In after including the count of precinct 7
 The difference in the votes are less than 213,
which is the total number of voters in precinct 13
 Then a special election is deemed to be necessary
because its failure then would have an effect in
the results of the election
o The “COMELEC-copy” which the authenticity is doubted
 Cannot be used
 A count is in order to determine the real results in precinct 7
 Whether a special election could be held 1 yr and 10 months after the regular
election?
o Requirements in fixing the date of the special election
 Not later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause of the
postponement or suspension of the election or the failure to
elect
 Reasonably close to the date of the election held, suspended
or which resulted in the failure to elect
o Delay was primarily caused by the legal skirmishes and maneuvers of
the petitioners
o Thus!!! The holding of the special election after almost 2 years may still
be deemed to be reasonably close to the date of the election not held
o The requirement that “special elections should not be later than 30 days
after the cessation of CAUSE and reasonable close to date cancelled”
was satisfied
 As the cause was due to legal skirmishes and it hasn’t ceased
yet
o Constitutional and statutory prescription are inapplicable to special
elections which may be called under Sec. 6 of the Omnibus Election
Code
DISPOSITION
Ong’s petition is DENIED!
People v. Jalosjos
FACTS
 Jalosjos is a full-fledged member of Congress who is confined at the national
penitentiary
o While his conviction for statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness is
pending appeal
  Accused – appellant filed a motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the
duties of a congressman
o Including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings
o Despite his having been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable
offense
 On the basis of popular sovereignty and the need for his
constituents to be represented
ISSUE
 Does membership in Congress exempt an accused from statutes and rules which
apply to validly incarcerated persons in general? NO
o Petitioner declares that the 1st district of Zamboanga chose him as their
rep
 And having been re-elected, he has the duty to perform of a
congressman
o Adds that it cannot be defeated by insuperable procedural restraints
arising from pending criminal cases
o Election is the expression of the sovereign power of the people
o In the exercise of suffrage, a free people expects to achieve the
continuity of gov and the perpetuation of its benefits
o HOWEVER! The privileges and rights arising from having been elected
may be enlarged or restricted by law
 All officials are subject to the majesty of law
 Privileges should be granted by law not inferred from the
duties of a position
o The higher the rank the higher the requirement of obedience should be
rather than exemption
o Immunity from arrest of senators and congressmen are granted in a
restrictive sense and cannot be extended to mean otherwise as provided
by law as follow:
 1935 Consti: Sec. 15 The senators and members of HOR
shall in all cases except treason, felony and breach of the
peace be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the
sessions of Congress, and in going to and returning from the
same.
o In this case, the court believes that this provision only applies to civil
arrest that is contrary to the present case of a criminal nature
o Neither could he invoke the following:
 Art. 8 Sec. 9
 A member of the BP shall, in all offenses
punishable by not more than 6 years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest during
his attendance at its sessions and in going to and
returning from the same
 This also applicable since there was no mention of immunity
for crimes of more than 6 years, which the petitioner is
currently burdening
o Petitioner agrees that under Sec. 16 (2) of Art. 6
 States that a majority of each House shall constitute a
quorum to do business, but a smaller number may ajourn
from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent
members in such manner and under such penalties, as such
House may provide
o This reason cannot also be countenanced as the petitioner has not given
any reason why he should be exempted from the operation of Sec. 11
Art. 6
 Members of Congress cannot compel absent members to
attend sessions if the reason for the absence is a legitimate
one
o Reason for confining someone is to protect society
 Also done for the administration of justice
o Also apparent that when the warrant of arrest was served
 He fled and did not heed to the calls of his colleagues in
HOR
o The court anyway has granted him provisional leave to attend hearings
in the House Committee on Ethics regarding the case of his suspensions
 Like when he needed to go to the dentist
 Was even chartered unto a plane to register as a voter in
Dapitan
o The claim of his constituents not being represented could not be
countenanced
o When the voters of his district elected the accused-appellant to congress
 FIRST!!!!! They did so with full awareness of the limitations
on his freedom of action
 They had knowledge that he can only do so much
with the confines of prison
 SECOND!!!! He still has the capacity to discharge his duty
while confined
 Still maintains an office in Congress that still
works and fulfills his mandate through the help of
his hired employees
 Receives benefits and salary and has filed bills
and resolutions as well
 Performance of legislations as the highest hierarchy of gov
 Petitioner is only 1 within 250 HOR and 24 senate
members of the Congress
 Physical absence does not prevent members of the
Congress from functioning properly
 Hierarchy also is based on the exigencies of gov
 The court cannot also validate inequality since it
believes that there should be equal treatment for
people who are similarly situated
DISPOSITION
Instant motion is DENIED!
Trillanes v. Pimentel

FACTS
 Aftermath of the Oakwood incident
 Petitioner Trillanes was charged with coup d’eta
o Defined in Art. 134-A of the Revised Penal Code
 4 years later, Trillanes who was remained in detention threw his hat in the political
area and won a seat in Senate
o 6 year term starting on June 30, 2007
 In order to fully comply with his obligations in his election as an elected senator
o Trillanes filed an “Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to be allowed to
attend senate sessions and related requests”
o Requests basically allow the petitioner to fulfill his duties and
obligations as a senator
o While inside the detention facility for crimes committed in the Oakwood
mutiny
 Petitions were denied
 Thus present petition for certriorari to set aside the 2 orders of the trial court
o And for prohibition and mandamus to:
 1) enjoin respondents from banning the senate staff, resource
persons and guests from meeting with him or transacting
business with him in his capacity as senator; and
 2) direct respondents to allow him access to the senate staff,
resource persons and guests and permit him to attend all
sessions and official functions of the senate. Petitioner
preliminarily prayed for the maintenance of the status quo
ante of having been able to convene his starr, resource
persons and guests at the Marine Brig
 Petitioner’s MR hinges on the doctrine that public official cannot be removed from
administrative misconduct committed during a prior term
o since his re-election to office operates as a condonation of the officer’s
previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him
therefor
ISSUE
 Whether or not the petitioner’s stated doctrine (Doctrine of Condonation) (People v.
Jalosjos) is applicable in this case? NO
o Assertion is unavailing
o Case against petitioner is not administrative in nature
o No “prior term” to speak of
o In a number of cases, the Court categorically held that the doctrine of
condonation does not apply to criminal cases
o Election, or more preciscely re-elections does not obliterate a criminal
charge
o Petitioner’s victory only signifies pertinently that when the voters
elected him to the senate
 They did so with full awareness of the limitations on his
freedom of action
 He could only accomplish so much within the confines of
prison
o There are 250 people in congress!
o His physically appearance will not hold the Congress back from
functioning properly
Jimenez v. Cabangbang
FACTS
 Ordinary civil action
 Originally instituted in the Court of First Instance of Rizal
 For recovery of Jimenez, Albert and Lukban
o Of several sums of money by way of damages
o For the publication of an allegedly libelous letter by Cabangbang
 Cabangbang assails that what he did was not libelous
o Even if it were the letter is under privileged communication
 Motion was originally granted by lower court
 Plaintiffs brought present appeal for an order of dismissal
 At the time of publication, Cabangbang was a member of the HOR
o And chairman of its committee on National Defense
 According to Art. 6 of Sec. 15
o The senators and members of HOR shall in all cases except treason,
felony and breach of peace, be privileged from arrest… and for any
speech of debate therein, they shall not be questioned in any other place
 Letter published by Cabangbang contained 3 operational plans by some ambitious
AFP officers with the aid of some civilian strategists
o 1) Sec. of defense Jesus Vargas used money of the people in campaign
for communism
o 2) involved a plan to hold a coup d’etat with the goal of putting Vargas
as president
o 3) lastly it was a plan to assuage the President and the public with a
loyalty parade
 In connection with which Gen. Arellano delivered a speech
challenging the congress in an effort to rally the officers and
men of AFP plus gain civilian support
 Cabangbang’s letter mentioned the names of Jimenez et. al. as subordinates to the
planners behind alleged operation
o Letter was said to have been published in newspapers in general
circulation
 Jimenez sued Cabangbang for libel and is seeking financial compensation
 Cabanbang as member of the HOR
o Moved to dismiss case
o On the grounds that the letter was a privileged form of communication
o And it was not libelous
ISSUE
 Whether the letter was covered under the privilege communication rule? NO
o Publication does not fall within the purview of the phrase “speech or
debate”
 Mentioned in Art. 6 Sec. 15
  Because said expressions refers to utterances made by
congressmen in the performance of their official functions
 Such as speeches delivered… in the halls of Congress while
it is in session
o Letter was done when Congress was not in session
 Nor was it published in performance of his duty
o BUT, the letter is not sufficient to support plaintiff’s action for damages
o Although Cabangbang says that Jimenez et. al. were planners
handpicked by Vargas
o He also mentions that the petitioners might be absolutely unaware of the
alleged operational plans
 That they were merely tools of the planners
o Court does not think this is derogatory to the plaintiffs to the point of
entitling them to recover damages
 Cause they really part of the armed forces
 And under the control of the Sec. of national defense
o The letter merely suggested that the group defined as planner’s include
these 2 high ranking officials
o This assertion by the petitioners is not enough to claim for damages
Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago
FACTS
 Antero Pobre sent the Court a sworn letter/complaint in order to shed light into the
following excerpts of Senator Defensor-Santiago’s speech delivered on the Senate
 “I spit in the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the SC, I
am no longer interested in the position of if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I
would rather be in another environment but not in the SC of idiots.”
 According to Pobre, the statements generates disrespect towards the members of the
SC
o And constituted contempt of court
 He seeks the Court the disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary actions be
taken against Defensor-Santiago
 Santiago then issued a comment saying that she does not deny making the quoted
statement
o However, she explained that the statements she made were covered by
the consti provision on parliamentary immunity
o Being part of a speech she delivered in the discharge of her duty as
member of Congress or its committee
o Purpose of her was to bring out in the open controversial anomalies in
governance with a view to future remedial legislation and to expose the
unjust acts by the Judicial Bar Council
ISSUE
 Whether the statements made by Sen. Defensor-Santiago is subject for disbarment
or disciplinary action? NO
o As mentioned in her comment, Sen. Santiago’s claims of immunity were
based on the provisions of Art. 6 Sec. 11
o “a senator or member of the HOR, shall in all offenses punishable by not
more than 6 years imprisonment, privileges from arrest while the
Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor held liable in
any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any
committee thereof”
o Court based its ruling in prior jurisprudence such as Osmena v. Pendatun
 To enable and encourage legislators to discharge his public
trust with firmness and success
o In addition, the Court said that legislators are immune from deterrents to
the uninhibited discharge of their public duties
 Not for their private indulgence but for the public good
DISPOSITION
Letter-complaint is DISMISSED!
Dante v. Gordon
FACTS
 Officers of the Board of Directors of the QC Red Cross filed a petition to declare
Richard Gordon as having forfeited his seat in the senate
o When during his incumbency as senator, he accepted the chairmanship
of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC)
 SEC. 13
o No senator or member of the HOR may hold any other office or
employment in the Gov during his term without forfeiting his seat
 Petitioners cited the following cases
o Comporedondo v. National Labor Relations Commission
 Held that PNRC is a gov owned or controlled corp
o Flores v. Drillon
 Held that incumbent national legislators lose their posts upon
appointment to another office
 Gordon asserts that petitioners have no standing to file this petition
o Which appears to be an action for quo warranto
 Petitioners claim to be entitled to a public office usurped or unlawfully held by
another may bring an action of quo warranto
o BUT, if it is then the action is already barred by prescription
o Action should be commenced within 1 year after the cause of the public
officer’s forfeiture
 BUT!!!! Gordon has been working as a Red Cross volunteer for the past 40 years
and was already chairman when elected senator (2004)
 Even if present petition is treated as a taxpayer’s suit
o Petitioners cannot be allowed to raise a consti question in the absence of
any claim that they suffered some actual damage or threatened injury as
a result of the allegedly illegal act of respondent
 Also claims that if the petition is treated as one of declaratory relief
o SC would have no jurisdiction since this lies with the RTC
 Petitioners reply that their petition is neither an action for quo warranto nor an
action for declaratory relief
 Present petition is a taxpayer’s suit questioning the unlawful disbursement of funds
 o Considering that the respondent has been drawing his salaries and other
compensation as a senator even if be has no longer entitled to his office
 They point out that the SC has jurisdiction since the petition involves a legal or
consti issue which is of transcendental importance
ISSUE
 Whether Gordon’s position as PNRC head violates Art. 6 Sec. 13 of consti? NO
o PH established the PNRC as a voluntary org
o For the purpose contemplated in the Geneva Red Cross convention
o PNRC is a member of national society of the international red cross and
red crescent movement
 Guided by its fundamental principles
o THUS, PNRC must uphold such principles meaning it should remain
autonomous, neutral and independent in relation to the state
o Sec. 11 of the charters of PNRC states that:
 PNRC shall be financed primarily by contributions obtained
through solicitation campaigns throughout the year
 Which shall be organized by the board of governors and
conducted by the chapters in their respective jurisdiction
o PNRC’s funding is not from the gov
o Regarding the management, Sec. 6 states that:
 A board of governors composed of 30 members, 6 of whom
shall be appointed by the President of the PH, 18 shall be
elected by chapter delegates in biennial conventions and the
remaining 6 shall be selected. Y the 24 members of the board
already chosen
o Could be seen that part of the board are private sector individuals
 In this case, Gordon was elected by a private sector-
controlled PNRC Board 4/5ths of whom are private sectore
member of the PNRC
o Court rules that the President cannot reverse or modify the decisions or
actions of the PNRC Board
o Neither can the president reverse or modify decisions of the PNRC
chariman
o What the case of Camporedondo v. NLRC failed to consider is in Sec.
2(13) of the introductory provisions of the admin code of 1987
 In which it required the GOCC must be owned by the gov in
cases of stock corp at least 51%
o It was shown that most of the Board are private secotr individuals
 Thus it is not a GOCC
 Gordon can legally hold office as chairman of PNRC and a
senator
Puyat v. De Guzman
FACTS
 Election for the 11 directors of the International Pipe Industries Corp. (IPI)
 After directors were voted
o Board was divided on whether there was proper counting of votes
 Group was aplit
o Those in favor of Eustaquio T.C. Acero’s contention
 No proper voting
o In favor of Eugenio J. Puyat
 Contested Acero’s allegation
 Acero group filed a case at the SEC (Security and Exchange Council)
 De Guzman was the Commissioner of the SEC
 Estanislao Fernandez, member of the interim BP
o Entered as counsel for Acero in the SEC
o Puyat group rejected
o Puyat assailing the order of the SEC granting assemblyman Fernandez
leave to intervene in the SEC case
o According to Puyat, this is unconsti because no assmeblyman may
appear as counsel
o Because Fernandez is a member of the interim BP
 Soon after, Fernandez bought 10 shares of stock in IPI
o Upon request from Acero to qualify him to run for election as director
 NOW! Fernandez filed an urgent motion for intervention as owner of the shares
o Fernandez said he did not violate the consti
o Since he had legal interest on the case of Acero group
 Fernandez uses the fact that he bought 10 shared of IPI for Php 200
o Also! He was voted as director of IPI in an election of board members
 Court en banc issued TRO enjoining SEC
o To allow the intervention of Fernandez
ISSUE
 Whether assemblyman Fernandez, as a then stockholder of IPI may intervene in the
SEC case without violating the consti? NO
o Fernandez cannot be said to be appearing as a counsel seeing that he has
already purchased 10 shares of IPI
 Thus joining the cause of the private respondents Acero
o HOWEVER! Because of circumstances like the purchasing of Php 200
worth or stock in IPI
 Representing only 10 shares of the 262,843 outstanding
shares
 And ONLY acquiring them after the fact that he was
prohibited to appear as counsel because of oncsti violation
o Led to believe that there was a violation
o Court believes that there is an indirect “appearance as counsel before…
any admin body”
 Clear circumvention of the consti prohibition
 Using the stock acquired as rationale of being a director for
the admin body
o Intervention would enable Fernandez to appear actively in proceedings
 If done then it would make the consti provision ineffective
o If all other assemblymen would want to influence admin bodies they
would do so just by acquiring minimal participation
 Consti prohibits this

DISPOSITION
TRO made permanent! Cannot intervene!
Baguilat Jr. v. Speaker Alvarez
ISSUE
FACTS
 Petition for mandamus by Rep. Baguilat
 Petition alleges that prior to the opening of the 17th Congress
o Several news articles surfaced about Rep. Suarez’s announcement that
he sought the adoption or anointment of President Duterte’s admin
o As the “minority leader”
 To lead a cooperative minority in the HOR
 He reportedly encamped himself in Davao after the May 2016 elections
o To get endorsement of Pres. Duterte and the majority partisans
 Petition further claims that to ensure Rep. Suarez’s election as the minority leader
o Supermajority leader of the HOR
o Allegedly lent Suarez some of its members to pretend to have
membership in the minority
o And after that, vote for the minority leader – Suarez
 Floor leader Rep. Fariñas and Rep. Atienza elicited that
o 1) All those who vote for the winning speaker shall belong to the
majority and those who vote for the other candidates belong to the
minority
o 2) those who abstain shall be party of minority
o 3) minority leader shall be elected by the members of the minority
 In the votes
o Alvarez: 252 votes
o Rep. Baguilat: 8 votes
o Suarez: 7 votes
o Alvarez new Speaker of the House
 Baguilat hoped that as “long standing tradition” of the HOR
o Candidate who garnered 2nd highest will be Minority leader
o So he will supposed leader
o Despite follow ups! Baguilat was never proclaimed leader of the
minority
 Aug 2016: One of the people who abstained: Rep. Abayon
o That those who did not vote for the Speaker Alvarez convened and
elected Rep. Suarez as minority leader
 Rep. Fariñas (now floor leader) to recognize Rep. Suarez as Minority Leader
 HOWEVER! Petitioners contend that
o a) Rep. Suarez was a member of the Majority as he voted for Speaker
Alvarez
 Transfer to minority was irregular
o b) that the people who abstained, which constituted the bulk of Rep.
Suarez’ votes are supposed to be considered independent members of
the house
 also irregularly part of the minority
 OVERRULED! Making Suarez leader
 Baguilat assails
o Long-standing tradition in the House where candidate who garnered the
2nd highest number of votes should be Minority leader
 Whether the respondents may be compelled via writ of mandamus to recognize a)
Rep. Baguilat as minority leader and b) petitioners as the only legitimate members
of the HOR minority? NO
o Court finds that petitioners have no clear legal right to reliefs sought
o Records disclose that prior to Speakership elections
 Then acting floor Rep. Fariñas responded to a parliamentary
inquiry from Rep. Atienza
 As to who would elected the Minority Leader of the HOR
o Thereafter the election of the Speaker of the House proceeded without
any objection from any member of Congress including petitioners
 Reflected in journal No. 1
o During his privilege speech (full day after proceedings completed and
commenced)
 Rep. Lagmas questioned Rep. Fariñas’ interpretation of the
Rule 19
 Aside from the belated timing of Rep. Lagman’s query, Rep.
Suarez points out that the Journal of the previous session
does not indicate any motion made, seconded and carried out
to correct the entry in the Journal of the previous session
(July 25, 2016)
o THUS! Without contention the House adopted the remarks of Fariãs
o Sec. 16 (1) of Art. 6
 Senate shall elect its President and HOR, its Speaker, by a
majority vote of all its respective member. Each house shall
choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.
o Consti is explicit on the matter of electing house speaker but silent on
the selection of other officers
o General rule – court has no authority to interfere and unilaterally intrude
into that exclusive realm, without running afoul of Consti principles that
it is bound to protect and uphold. Constitutional respect and a becoming
regard for the sovereign acts of a coequal branch prevents the Court
from prying into the internal working of the HOR.
o BUT! There is an exception!
 The Court in taking jurisdiction over petitions questioning an
act of the political departments of gov, will not review the
wisdom, merits or propriety of such action
 HOWEVER! Strike it down on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion
o As may be gleaned from circumstances as to how the House had
conducted the questioned proceedings and its apparent deviation from its
traditional rules
 Hard-pressed to find any grave abuse of discretion
DISPOSITION  Feria
Petition is dismissed for lack of merit!  Pablo
 Bengzon
Avelino v. Cuenco o 12 constitues a quorum in the said case
o Normally 13 would be number of majority in the senate
FACTS  BUT since senator confessor was out of the country
 During the senate session, Sen. Tañada requested the right to speak on the next  There was a change to the number of majority
session day o Justices said:
o To formulate charges against Senate Pres. Avelino  When the consti declares that a majority of each house shall
 Request approved constitute a quorum
 Next session: Avelino delayed his appearance to the Senate session  The house does not mean all members
o AND Read the last resolution slowly and carefully  Even majority of members constitute the house
 To avoid formal charges against Avelino  A difference between a majority of “all members of the
o Senators who are in support of Avelino formed a conspiracy to delay the house” and a majority of “the house:
senate session  Latter requires less
o By requesting a roll call and reading of minutes o Thus! Absolute majority (12) of all members of the senate less one (13),
o Some vehemently condemn this as a procedural matter to be skipped constitutes consti majority of the senate for the purpose of a quorum
 While Avelino was presiding, Tañada repeatedly stood up to claim his right to o Even if the 12 did not constitute the quorum
deliver his speech  They could still have ordered the arrest of one
o BUT was rejected by Avelino  At least of absent members
o And continually ignored him  If one had been arrested, there would be no doubt quorum
o Also threatened that he would order arrest of any senator who would then
speak without being acknowledge by him  AND Senator Cuenco would have been elected
just the same inasmuch as there would be 11 for
 Senator David
Cuenco
o Supporter of Avelino
 1 against and 1 abstained
o Motioned for adjournment
o The 4 justices see that the practical situation here is to agree with the
 BUT! Sen. Cuenco! Stated his opposition for adjournment newly appointed senate president
o Suggested that in order to decide, they should be voted upon by  Because even though the other 11 members would be present
members  Still be a 12-11 favor of Cuenco
 SUDDENLY! Avelino banged gavel o Also! The election of the senate President greatly rest upon the will of
o Walked out along with supporters the majority
 Sen. Arranz who was Senate President pro tempore took the chair  Thus if they wanted to, they could just change the senate
o Proceeded in the session president again!
 Arranz then suggested that Cuenco preside over the session
o Took chair upon unanimous support DISPOSITION
 Sen. Tañada finally gave privilege speech Petition dismissed!
 After, Arranz against occupied the chair and introduced RA 67
o Declaring the vacant position of Senate President Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the PH
o And designating Cuenco as acting president of senate
 Sen. Cuenco took the oath and the next day was recognized by the president FACTS
 Avelino asks the court to declare him as the rightful senate president and oust  Case started with RA 6734
respondent o Organic Act of ARMM
o Amended by RA 9054
ISSUE  Mandated the holding of elections on the second Monday of
 Whether the court has jurisdiction over the case, was there a quorum in the second Sept
session of the senate? YES  Before Sept 2001 elections started
o According to 4 justices o It was moved to Nov 26, 2001
 Paras o Through RA 9140
  4 years later
o Congress enacted RA 9333
o Finally fixing the date of regular elections
o Now held on the second Monday of Aug 2005
o Making it permanent every 3 years
 HOWEVER! House Bill 4146 moved to change it to the second Monday of May
2013
o And every 3 years after
 House bill aimed to synchronize the date of elections with national elections
 Said bill provided interim officials appointed by the president to act as officer for
the meantime
 Bill was approved by congress and senate passed its own version
o Same provision with some modifications
 HOR adopted version of senate
o Formed RA 10153
 BUT! RA 9140, 9333, AND 10153 laws that amended RA 9054 all failed to
comply with the twin requirements of Sec. 1 and 3 of RA 9054
o 1) Approval of 2/3 vote of members of the HOR and the senate
separately
o 2) submission of the voted bill to ARMM plebiscite
 Petitioner says there was no plebiscite
 But HOR passed 2/3 requirement
 Senate failed by 2 votes to reach 2/3
 Sec. 1
o Organic act may be revised by the congress upon 2/3 votes of by HOR
and senate separately
 Sec. 3
o Any amendment to the organic act shall become effected only when
approved by the majority of the vote cast in a plebiscite…
ISSUE
 Whether the passage of RA 10153 requires a super majority vote and plebiscite?
NO
o RA 9333 is consti
o Ra 10153 is partly unconsti
o Synchronization of ARMM’s date of election is consti
 BUT extension of the office and appointment of officers
while the election is pending in unconsti
o BUT! Appointment of ARMM governor under the supervision of the
president is allowed under the circumstances present
o Petitioners say that the congress erred in complying with the rules of the
house by failing to have the bill read on 3 separate days and comply with
the distribution of printed copies in final form under sec. 26, art. 6
o Sec. 26, Art. 6
 No bill shall be passed unless there were 3 readings
 Printed copies in final form
 EXCEPT when the president certifies to the necessity of its
immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency
o Although president said bill was urgent!
 Congress still failed to follow the required days and
dispensing of copies to the house
o Emergency posed also by the president claiming that
 There is a need to protect the ARMM’s autonomy by
institutionalizing mechanisms for electoral reform does not
satisfy the calamity or emergency requisite
o HOWEVER! Court believes that the argument of petitioner does not
have merit
o Case is similar to Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance
 Noncompliance with the emergency or calamity requisite
purportedly shown by the president
o Court ruled given that both house of congress had opportunity to review
it
o Shows that there was no contention or hazard in the consti right that the
Congress saw in the use of emergency powers, the Court shall not strike
down the use of emergency powers
o Congress managed to review the use of emergency powers and found no
problems similar to Tolentino
o Petitioners assail the RA 9333 AND 10153 did not follow the twin
requirements set by RA 9054 which it amended
 1) 2/3 vote
 2) plebiscite
o Sec. 7 of RA 9054 only speaks of “the first regular elections”
 Left open the determination of the next election in ARMM
o Only in RA 9333 and 10153 that determination of succeeding regular
elections were mentioned
o THUS! Court ruled that the RA 9333 and 10153 are stand alone statutes
that do not amend any provision of RA 9054
o Both merely filed the void in RA 9054
o Requirements of 2/3 is placed in RA 9054 that in order to amend the
organic act, there must be a 2/3 votes to amend such law
o Petitioners question that when the bill was passed
 Only a majority of the house were present
 Thus it is repugnant to the aim of said section 16(2) when it
requires the 2/3 votes and not a majority only for a quorum
o Sec. 16(2) of Art. 6 of the consti provides that a jority of each house
shall constitute a quorum to do business
 Means the house can amend, repeal and create bills and
resolutions upon the majority vote of a quorum
o Only in cases where the consti prescribes a qualified or supermajority in
specific cases the contention could be recognized
o Given that 143 are present
 72 votes suffices
o For senate it is 7 of 23 members
 ALSO if there is irreconcilable difference in RA 9054 and
the provision provided by the consti in the majority number
for a quorum, the consti prevails
o Sec. 1 of RA 9054 of Congress runs afoul to Congress’ power
  Baring it to pass irrepealable laws is transgressed in this case
o Said section has set a very high threshold for amending it, making it
difficult to repeal it that is contrary to the power of congress
o THUS! Could be seen that the rationale of the law set by framers is
based on the idea that it is difficult to gather all reps every session and
allows the existence of a majority for a quorum
o Court cannot take cognizance of the arguments that a high threshold is
set to protect the rights of ARMM given that is shackles the autonomy
of congress or national gov
Arroyo v. Devenecia
FACTS
 Case started when RA 8240 is still in the stage of it becoming a law
 During the bicameral conference committee
o The HOR and senate aim to create a compromise between contested
parts of RA 8240
o Originally came from the HOR
 During Rep. Sarmiento’s interpellation
o Rep. Arroyo moved to adjourn the bicameral conference due to lack of
quorum
o Was ensued by the chair, who was headed by deputy speaker Daza to do
a roll cal
 After roll call, realized that there is a quorum, and the interpellation proceeded
 During the interpellation of Mr. Albano, he said that
o “I move that we now approve and ratify the conference committee
report”
 Responden by Deputy Speaker Mr. Daza
o “Any objection to the motion”
 Mr. Arroyo on the other hand said
o “what is that, Mr. Speaker?”
 Deputy Speaker Daza said
o “there being none, approved”
 Mr. Arroyo then said
o Wait a minute, Mr. Speaker. I stood up. I want to know what is the
question that the chair asked the distinguished sponsor
 Session was suspended for 1 minute
 When it was resumed, Mr. Albano moved to adjourn the meeting to next week
 HOWEVER! The bill was deemed certified
o Bill was signed by speaker of the HOR & Pres. of Senate
o Certified by both secretaries of both houses of congress as having been
finally passed the HOR and senate
 The enrolled bill )a bill that was certified by both houses proving it had undergone
proper procedure) was signed into law by Pres. Ramos
 Petitioner then moves to declare RA 8240 to be null and void since it violated the
rules of the house
o These rules embody the consti mandate in Art. 6 of 16(3)
 That each house may determine the rules of its proceedings
and that consequently violation of the house rules is a
violation of the consti itself
 Contend that the cert. of speaker De Venecia that the law was properly passed is
false and spurious
ISSUE
 Whether the court has jurisdiction over the matter? NO
o Clear from the facts that what is alleged to have been violated in the
enactment of RA 8240 are merely internal rules of procedure of the
House
o Rather than consti requirements for the enactment of a law (Art. 6, 26-
27)
o Petitioners do not claim that there was no quorum but only that, ny some
maneuver allegedly in violation of the rules of the House
 Rep. Arroyo was effectively prevented from questioning the
presence of the quorum
o Referring to cases here and abroad showed how the court is always
denied to interfere in the process of law-making within the HOR
 In the absence of showing that there was a violation of a
consti provision or the rights of private individuals
o In Osemna v. Pendatun
 Rules that parliamentary rules are merely procedural and
with their observance, the courts have no concern
 Rules are subject to the whims of the house so they can
change, modify or waive the rules entirely
 Also! “mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will
not invalidate the action when the requisite number of
members have agreed to a particular measure”
o Case at hand, there was no private right that was violated but only those
persons who raise the issue to the Court instead of clarifying such acts to
the house itself
o Court believes that it has no power to intervene in the house no more
than the house to the court
 in compliance to separation of powers
Osmeña v. Pendatun
FACTS
 May 1960 – Hon. Sergio Osmeña Jr. and members of the 2nd district of cebu took
the floor of the chamber of HOR
o For 1 hour of privilege speech
o Entitled “A Message to Garcia”
 During the speech, Osmeña besmirched the president with allegations of bribery
and corruption in his admin
 Claimed that:
o hearing ugly reports that under your unpopular admin the free things
they used to get from the gov are not for sale at premium prices…
o pardons are for sale…
 o the culptir can always be bailed out forever from jail as long as he can
come across with a handsome dole…kind of justice that your admin is
dispensing
 HOR aimed to resolve matter
o Since assault was on the “dignity and prestige of the Office of the Pres.”
 Visible sovereignty of the PH people
 Issued subpoena to Osmeña and provide the evidence
o Such as witness and pertinent paper regarding his allegations
o Failure to do so will warrant punishment
 Osmeña did not produce the said evidence but claimed
o 1) he has parliamentary immunity for speeches in house
o 2) his words contain no actionable conduct
o 3) after his speech the house moved on with another business
 which in Rule 27 of Sec. 7 of the Rules of House provides
“that is other business has intervened after the member had
uttered obnoxious words in debate, he shall not be held to
answer nor be subject to censure by the house”
 During this time, the HOR issued resolution 59
o Created special committee of 15 members appointed by the speaker in
order to investigate the truth of the charges against the president made
by Osmeña
 During investigation, the HOR continued to perform its task since the legislative
session will imminently be adjourned
 July 1960, HOR issued Resolution 174
o Declaring Hon. Osmeña guilty and suspending him from office for 15
months
ISSUE
 Whether the honorable Sergio Osemña Jr. is liable for this conduct despite his
immunity? NO
o Consti says parliamentary immunity is a fundamental privilege
o Its purpose is to allow the rep to discharge his duty with firmness and
success
o HOWEVER! Does not protect him from responsibility before the
legislative body itself whenever his words and conduct are considered
by the latter disorderly or unbecoming a member
o In the US, unparliamentary conduct have been censured or committed to
prison
o PH senate in April 1949
 Suspended a senator for 1 year
o Rules of PH HOR provide that the parliamentary practices of the
Congress of the US shall apply in supplementary manner to its
proceedings
o Regarding to contention that the house already moved on to take another
business
 the court believes that “the rules adopted by deliberative
bodies are subject to revocation modification or waiver at the
pleasure of the body adopting them”
o Parliamentary rules are only procedural
 Courts have no concern
o Mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate the
action when the requisite number of members have agreed to a particular
measure
o THUS! Mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not
invalidate the action
 When the requisite number of members have agreed to a
particular measure
o In this case, there no reason for the petitioner to deny his attack on the
executive constitute disorderly conduct
 Under rules of house
o Court believes that the determination of rules that are punishable within
the house depend of the house itself
 Because matter depends mainly on factual circumstances of
which the hours knows best
o Where the state senate is given the power to expel a member, the courts
will not review its action even if it is an unfair decision
o Legislative body must be the sole judge of the exigency which may
justify and require its exercise
o In Alejandrino case as precedent by petitioner is not warranted
 Sen. Alejandrino was suspended by office for 12 months
because he had assaulted another member of that body for
certain phrases uttered
o In this case, despite cognizance of separation of powers
 State reinstated him!
o HOWEVER! The case at hand is different since Sen. Alejandrino is a an
appointed member of the governor general from the Jones Law
 Under jones law – governor general is empowered to appoint
without consent of the senate and without restriction as to
residence senators who will, in his opinion, best represent the
12th district”
 Thus his removal will contravene jones law
o Legislative power of the PH congress is plenary, subject only to such
limitation as are found in the republic’s consti
o So that any power deemed to be legislative by usage or tradition is
possessed by the PH congress
 Unless consti provides otherwise!
Santiago v. Sandiganbayan
FACTS
 Complaints were filed by a group of employees of the Commission of Immigration
and Deportation (CID)
o Against Santiago
o Who was then commissioner for alleged violation of the Anti-graft &
corrupt practices act RA 3019
 Sandiganbayan petitioner indicted
o 1) Oct 17, 1988: With evident bad faith and manifest partiality in her
exercise as commissioner of the CID
  A public office
 Willfully accepted the application for legalization of the stay
of over 20 aliens who arrived in the country after Jan 1, 1984
in violation of EO 324
 This prohibits the legalization of said disqualified aliens
knowing fully well that said aliens are disqualified
o 2) these aliens’ stay in the PH was unlawfully legalized by Santiago
 Case was later assumed by the Ombudsman
o Petitioner was then found guilty
o Of unlawfully legalizing the stay of Chinese aliens
 Petitioner posted bail without need for physical appearance
o She claimed that she was recuperating from a vehicular accident
 Senator filed for prohibition of pending criminal case against her (libel and
violation of PD 46)
o AND! Also to defer her arraignment
 Court issued TRO
o HOWEVER! In the wake of media reports, the petitioner announced her
intention to accept fellowship from Harvard Uni
 Knowing that petitioner had pending cases
o Sandiganbayan issued an order to prevent her from leaving the country
o The court enjoined the senator not to go
 On Jan 1996: The court resolved the case, suspending the accused from her position
as Senator
o And from any other gov position she may be holding at present or in the
future
 Suspensions shall be for 90 days only
 Hence this petition!
ISSUE
 Does the sandiganbayan have authority to decree a 90 day preventive suspension on
Miriam Defensor-Santiago, a senator, from any gov position, and furnishing a copy
thereof to the senate of the PH for implementation of the suspension order? YES
o Each house may determine the
 Rules of is proceedings
 Punish its members for disorderly behavior
 With concurrence of 2/3 votes, it can also suspend or expel
members
o A penalty of suspension shall not exceed 60 days
o Authority of the sandiganbayan to order the preventive suspension of an
incumbent public official charged with violation of the provisions of RA
3019 has both legal and jurispridential support
 This is Seen in Sec. 13 of RA 3019 on suspension and loss of
benefits
o And in the case of Segovia v. Sandiganbayan
 Stated that the provision of suspensions pendente lite applies
to all persons indicted upon a valid information under the act
 Whether they be appointive or elective officials
 Or permanent or temporary employees
 Or also pertaining to the career or non-career service
o It is the ministerial duty of the court to issue an order of suspension upon
determination of the validity of the info filed before it
o In issuing preventive suspension of petitioner, the sandiganbayan merely
adhered to the clear and unequivocal mandate of the law
o Order suspension prescribed by RA 3019 is distinct from the power of
congress to discipline its own ranks under the consti
o Art. 8 Sec. 1 empowers the court to act not only in the settlement of
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable
 But also in the determination of whether there has been grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of gov
o RA 3019 does not exclude from its coverage the members of Congress
 Thus the Sandiganbayan did not err in thus assailed
preventive suspensions order
US v. Pons
FACTS
 April 1925: Pons et. al are apprentices in a drug smuggling business
o Smuggling drugs from Manila from Spain by steamer Lopez y Lopes
o Placed the drugs inside wine barrels
 Opium were placed in 520 tins
o Containing 125kg of opium
o Value Php 62,400
 They concealed the same after said opium had been imported
o Knowing that the said drug has been unlawfully brought
o Illegaly introducing into the PH islands from a foreign country
 Lasarte was not found by authorities
 Pons and Beliso were apprehended and convicted for their crimes
o Both appealed
 Beliso dropped the case and thus his verdict was rendered final
 BUT Pons is continuing his appeal! Case at bar NOW
 Pons assails that the Act sine Act 2381
o Which he must be punished if found guilty was passed on Mar 1, 1914
o BUT the last day of special session of the PH Legislature for 1914 was
on Feb 28, 1914
o THUS Act 2381 is null and void
ISSUE
 Whether the courts may go behind the legislative journals for the purpose of
determining the date of adjournment of the legislature? NO
o Courts have 2 choices in determining the state of the adjournment of the
Ph legislature
 1) extraneous evidence
 2) by taking judicial notice of the legislative journals
o It is stated in the case that the validity of the Act is not otherwise
questioned
 o Vital question is the date of adjournment of legislature
o Court rules that it will not go behind the legislative journals
 Will not take in extraneous evidence like the claim of Pons’
counsel saying that the public knows for a fact that the
Assembly’s clocked was stopped on Feb 28, 1914 midnight
o Court rules that it will take judicial notice of the legislative journals
 Which show yes, the PH legislature did adjourn at 12
midnight on Feb 28, 1914
o HOWEVER! Court believes that the validity of the act is assumed to
have been signed before this date
 Even though petitioners assail otherwise
 Validity of the act is not questioned by the court
o Only contended that the said journals are conclusive on the court and to
question is its truthfulness would be to violate both the letter and the
pirit of the organic laws
 By which the gov came into existence
o Pon’s witnesses cannot be given due weight against the conclusiveness
of the journals which is an act of the legislature
o Also! SC passed upon the conclusiveness of the enrolled bill in this
particular case
Casco Phil Commercial Co. v. Gimenez
FACTS
 Casco Phil Chemical Co. Inc. was engaged in the production of synthetic resin
gules
o Used primarily in the production of plywood
 Main components of glue are “urea and formaldehyde:
o Both being imported abroad
 Pursuant to RA 2609 Foreign Margin Fee Law
o Central Bank issued circulars fixing the uniform margin fee of 25% on
foreign exchange transactions
o Also issued memorandum establishing the procedure for the application
for exemption from the payment of said fee
 Petitioners paid the required margin fee with their 2 import transactions
 In both their transactions through RA 2609
o They wanted to avails the exemption from the payment of said fee
 Petitioners filed a refund request to the central bank
o Central bank issued vouchers
o BUT was not accepted by the auditor of the bank
 Refusal was affirmed by the auditor general
o It was based on the separate information of “urea and formaldehyde” is
not in accord with the provisions of RA 2609
o Because section 2 of RA 2609 clearly provides “urea formaldehyde” and
not “urea & formaldehyde”
 Petitioner says that the term “urea formaldehyde” appearing in this provision should
be construed as “urea & formaldehyde”
 Petitioner says that Congress intended to exempt “urea” & “formaldehyde”
separately as essential elements in the manufacture of the synthetic resin glue
WHICH is called urea formaldehyde
ISSUE
 Whether urea and formaldehyde are exempt from payment of margin fee or only
urea formaldehyde is? NO
o What is allowed is urea formaldehyde
 NOT urea and formaldehyde
 Both are different
o National institute of science and technology defines urea formaldehyde
as the synthetic resin formed as a condensation product from definite
proportions of “urea and formaldehyde” under certain conditions
relating to temperature, acidity and time of reaction
 when applied to water solution and extended with
inexpensive fillers constitutes are fairly low cost adhesive for
use in the manufacture of plywood
o Urea formaldehyde is a finished product
 Distinct from urea & formaldehyde
o In the enrolled bill, it really uses the term “urea formaldehyde”
 Conclusive upon courts as regard the concept of measure
passed by congress and approved by the president
o If there has been a mistake in printing in the bill before it was certified
by the officers of congress and approved by the executive
 On which the court cannot speculate without jeopardizing the
principle of separation of powers
o THUS! Remedy is by amendment or curative legislation not by jusidical
decree
Astorga v. Villegas
FACTS
 Controversy revolves around the passing of House Bill No. 9266
o Became RA 4065: An Act defining the powers, rights and duties of the
Vice-Mayor of the city of manila
o Furthermore amending for the purpose sections 10 and 11 of RA 409,
otherwise known as revised charter of the city of manila
 March 1964 – House Bill 9266 (bill for local application was filed in the HOR)
o Was passed on the 3rd reading without amendments on April 1964
o Bill was referred to the senate committee on provinces and municipal
gov and cities head
 By Sen. Gerardo Roxas
o Committee recommended approval w/ minor amendment by Roxas
 Bill was discussed on the floor of the senate on the 2nd reading on the May 1964
o Substantial amendments to sec. 1 were introduced by Sen. Tolentino
o Were approved in toto by Senate
 HOWEVER!!! The amendment by Roxas did not appeared in the journal of the
Senate as having been acted upon
  Sec of Senate sent a letter to the HOR that House Bill 9266 had been passed by the  Although they are silent as to whether the journals may still
Senate with amendments be resorted to if the attestation of the presiding officers is
o Attached to the letter was a certification of the amendment present
o Which was the one recommended by Roxas and not Tolentino o Petitioner’s argument that the attestation of the presiding officers of
amendments congress is conclusive proof of a bill’s due enactment
o Tolentino amendments were the ones actually approved by the Senate  In respect of co-equal department of the gov
 Sen. Tolentino issued a press statement that enrolled copy signed into law by the  The senate president declared his signature on the bill to be
president was a wrong version of the bill actually passed by the senate invalid
o Because it did not embody his amendments  And issued a subsequent clarification that the invalidation of
 Senate president sent a letter to the president explaining that he considered his his signature meant that the bill he had signed had never been
signature on the enrolled bill as invalid of no effect approved by the senate
o ALSO! Signatures of presiding officer in the bill are merely a mode of
 Clarifying further in another letter
o The bill on which his signature appeared had never been approved by authentication to signify that the bill was approved by the congress and
is ready to approved or rejected
the senate
o Consti does not express that signatures are mandatory such that their
o Thus! The fact that he and the senate secretary has signed it did not
absence would render a bill invalid
make the bill a valid enactment
o In the case of the Senate president declaring his signature to be invalid
 President sent a message to the presiding officers of both houses that he was
 Thus ultimately rendering the bill invalid is inconclusive
officially withdrawing his signature on the House Bill 9266
o As far as congress is concerned there is nothing sacrosanct in the
o Adding that it would be untenable and against public policy to convert
certification made by the presiding officer
into law what was not actually approved by the 2 houses of congress
 Merely a mode of authentication
 Mayor villegas issued circulars to disregard the provision of RA 4065
o Law making process end when the bill is approved by both houses
 Vice-mayor Astorga filed a petition to compel respondents to comply with the
 Certification does not add to the validity of the bill
provisions of RA 4065
o In other words!!! What matter is the approval of the congress and not the
 Respondents say that the so-called RA 4065 never became law since it was not the
signatures of the presiding officers that is essential
bill actually passed by the senate
o Absence of attestation will not affect validity of statute
o And that the entries in the journal of that body and not the enrolled bill
o Since there is no enrolled bill
itself should be decisive in the resolution of the issue
 What evidence is there to determine whether the bill has been
duly enacted?
ISSUE
 Thus the entries in the journal should be consulted
 Whether the courts can look at the journals of the Congress? YES
o Under specific facts, this Court resorted to the Senate journal for the
o While the majority of the court in the case applied the enrolled bill
purpose of deciding on the ISSUE
doctrine
o Journal discloses that substantial and lengthy amednments were
 It still cannot be truly said that the question has been laid to
introduced on the floor
rest and that decision forms binding precedent
 And approved by the Senate but were not incorporated in the
o “enrolled bill” was relied upon merely to bolster the ruling on the
printed text sent to the president and signed by him
jurisdictional question the reasoning of which “if a political question
o This court is not asked to incorporate such amendments into the alleged
conclusively binds the judges out of respect to political depts, a duly
law
certified law or resolution also binds the judges under the enrolled bill
 Admittedly is a risky undertaking
born of that respect
 But to declare that the bill was not duly enacted and therefore
o Enrolled bill theory is based mainly on the respect due to coequal and
did not become law
independent depts
 Requires the judicial dept to accept as having passed
Abakada v. Ermita
congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated
o Thus in other cases! If the attestation is absent and the same is not
FACTS
required for the validity of a stature, the courts may resort to the journals
 RA 9337 or the VAT Reform Act is a law that came about because of the
and other records of congress for proof of its due enactment
amounting budget deficits
 this was the logical conlusion reached in a number of
o Is coupled by the realization of shortages in allocation in key areas of
decisions
gov like health and education
 o Is sourced from consolidating 3 bills
 Upon passing as a law
o Immediately issued a TRO by the court because of the confusion in its
implementation
 Confusion came when sectors are claiming that the said RA gives 10% additional
expense to their products
o When in fact it was clarifies that there were exceptions
o And that implementation varies for each industry since the RA interacts
in different ways to other existing laws
o Exceptions to some laws should suffice enough not to exceed or even
reach the said 10% increase in prices
 HOWEVER! Upon looking at the provisions of the law, the petitioners contend that
Sec. 4,5,6 of RA 9337
o AMEND Sec. 106, 107 & 108 of the National Internal Rev Code
 Sec. 4 imposes a 10% VAT sale of goods and properties
 Sec. 5 imposess on importation of goods
 Sec. 6 imposes on sales of services and use or lease of properties
 Said provision also grants the president to increase the tax to 12% effective 2006 as
long as certain set of condition are set
o Upon recommendation of Sec. of Finance
o Conditions are:
 1) if the national deficit as a percentage of the GDP from lat
year exceeds by 1 and ½
 2) that the VAT as percentage of GDP increases beyond 2
and 4/5% from the previous year
 They contend that Sec. of Finance does not have clear prerogatives on how he could
determine the increase of tax also
ISSUE
 Whether RA 9337’s granting of stand-by authority in abeyance of Sec. of Finance’s
decision is an undue delegation of power of taxation that the legislative has and the
President deprived? NO
o Bicameral conference committee acted within its jurisdiction as created
by both houses
o Court reiterated that the irregularities assailed by petitioners mostly
involved the internal rules of Congress
 So the court is not the proper forum for their enforcement
o Parliamentary rules are merely procedural and with their observance, the
courts have no concern
 They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body
o Mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate the
action when the requisite number of members have agrees to a particular
measure
o On the changes and deleted provisions
 The court said that congress is the best judge of how it should
conduct its own business and in the most orderly manner
 It formulates its own rules for its proceddings and the
discipline of its members
o Court already made the pronouncement that
 If a change is desired in the practice it must be sought in
Congress since this question is not covered by any
constitutional provision but is only an internal rules of each
house
o NEVERTHELESS, no irregularities tainted the proceedings od the
bicameral conference committees
 Court deems it necessary to dwell on the issue
o Court knew there were disagreements
o All the changes made by the bicameral conference committee were
obsolete to subject of the provisions referred to it for reconciliation
o THUS! The court does not see any grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the bicameral conference
committee (BCC)
o BCC needs to settle difference between the disagreeing provisions
o “settle” is like reconcile, so it can…
 1) adopt specific provision of either house or senate bill
 2) decide that neither provisions would be carried into the
final form
 3) try to arrive at a compromise between the disagreeing
provisions
o Stand-by authority is a compromise to try to bridge the difference in the
rate of VAT proposed by the 2 houses
o It explained all the other amendments too
 BUT point is all changes were obsolete to subject of
provisions referred to it for reconciliation
 Thus no abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction
o Court recognized the long-standing legislative practice of giving BCC
ample latitude for compromising difference between the senate and the
house
Angara v. Electoral Commission
FACTS
 In the elections of Sept 1935
o Angara and respondent, Ynsua et. al were candidates
o Voted for the position of member of the National Assembly
o For the f1st district of the province of Tayabas
 Oct 1935 – Angara was proclaimed as member-elect of the national Assembly for
the said district
 Nov 1935 – Angara took his oath
 Dec 1935 – National Assembly in session assembled
o Passed Resolution No. 8
o Confirming the election of the members of the National Assembly
against whom no protest had thus far been filed
 Dec 8, 1935 – Ynsua filed before the Electoral Commission (EC) a motion of
protest against the election of Angara
 Dec 9, 1935 – EC adopted a resolution
 o Par. 6 of which fixed date as the last day for the filing of protests against
the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National
Assembly
o Not withstanding the previous conformation made by the National
Assembly
 Angara filed a motion to dismiss arguing that by virtue of the National Assembly
o Ynsua can no longer protest
 Ynsua argued back by claiming that EC proclamation governs
o And that the EC can take cognizance of election protests
o And that EC cannot be subject to a writ of prohibition from the SC
 Petitioner here then wants to prohibit the EC (respondent) from taking further
cognizance of the protest filed by Ynsua
o Protest against the election of the petitioner as member of the National
Assembly
 For the 1st assembly district of Tayabas
 Controversy lies on the jurisdiction of the SC over the EC and the subject matter of
controversy
ISSUE
 Whether the SC has jurisdiction over the EC and the subject matter of the
controversy upon the foregoing related facts? YES
o SC has jurisdiction over the EC
o ALSO has jurisdiction on the subject matter of the present controversy
for the purpose of determining the character, scope and extent of the
consti grant to the EC
 As “sole-judge” of all contests relating to the election, returns
and qualification of members of the National Assembly
o EC did not exceed its jurisdiction
 Was created by the Consti as an instrumentality of the
Legislative dept
 With the jursidictions to decide all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of the members of the
National Assembly
o THUS, entertaining the protest of Ynsua
 Must conform to their own prescribed rules
 And National Assembly cannot divest them of any such
powers
o EC is and independent consti creation
 With specific power and functions to execute and perform
 Closer for purposes of classification to the legislative than to
any of the other 2 departments of the gov
o EC is also sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and
qualification of members of the National Assembly
o BUT with regards to the EC, the consti invests in it the necessary
authority in the performance and execution of the limited and specific
functions assigned to it by the consti
o Although it is not part of tripartite systems, it is still acting within the
limits of its authority
 An independent organ
o Power vested in EC is complete and unimpaired
 As if originally in the legislature
o Express lodging of that power in the EC is an implied denial of the
exercise of that power by the National Assembly
DISPOSITION
Petition is denied!
Reyes v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Private respondent Tan filed before the COMELEC a petition to cancel the COC of
Reyes
o On the ground that it contained material misrepresentation
 In the COC, it was stated that
o 1) she is a resident of Brgy. Lupac , Boac, Marinduque when actually
she is a resident of Bauan, Batangas
 Which is the residence of her husband
 And at the same time she is also a resident of 135 J.P Rizal
Brgy. Milagrosa, QC
 As admitted in the directory of congressional spouses of the
HOR
o 2) that she is not a permanent resident of another country when she is a
permanent resident or an immigrant of the US
o 3) that she is a Filipino citizen when she is actually an American citizen
 Her COC was then cancelled
 Petitioner here then is assailing the resolution of COMELEC
o Ordering the cancellation of her COC
o For the position of rep of the district of Marinduque
 She also claims she is a Filipino but of American descent
 During the pendency of her MR
o On May 18, 2003 petitioner was proclaimed winner of the elections
 On the same day petitioner took her oath
o COMELEC made the cancellation of the COC final and executory
ISSUE
 Whether COMELEC has jurisdiction over petitioner? YES
o Only after a candidate has become a member of the HOR can the HRET
have jurisdiction
o Petitioner is not considered a member of the HOR yet because she has
not yet assumed office
 Consti provides that a person assumed office at noon on the
30th day of June
o Oath of the office the petitioner presented is not valid
o She took her oath on June 5
 Not the one prescribed in the consti
 Same case even if official oath-taking has taken place before
the speaker of the HOR and in open sessions
 o Petitioner is in error when she posits that at present it is the HRET which
has exclusive jurisdiction over her qualifications as a member of the
HOR
o COMELEC never order her proclamation as the rightful winner
o On and after May 14, 2013, there was nothing left for the COMELEC to
do to decide the case
 Decisions sealed the proceedings in the COMELEC
regarding petitioner’s ineligibility as a candidate for Rep of
Marinduque
 Decisions gave way to bar the petitioner’s proclamation
 Bar remained when no restraining order was obtained by
petitioner from the SC within 5 days from May 14
o When petitioner finally went to the SC on June 10 2013 questioning the
COMELEC first division ruling and MAY 14, 2013 decision
 Her baseless proclamation on May 18 did not by fact of
promulgation alone become valid and legal
o A decision favorable to her by the SC regarding the decision of the
COMELEC En banc on her COC was needed to authorize proclamation
with the SC decision basis
Vera v. Avelino
FACTS
 Because of certain terrorism and violence in the Pampanga, Nueva Ecija and Tarlac
o Voting in regions did not relect the true and free expression of the
popular will
 Senate convened in 1946 ordering that petitioners Vera, Diokno and Romero
o Who had been included among the 16 candidates for denator receiving
the highest number of votes proclaimed by the COMELEC
o Shall not be sworn
o Nor seated as members of the Senate
o This was called Pendatun Resolution
 Petitioners are praying to annul the Pendatun resolution submitted by the Senate to
postpone their admittance to the to Senate
o And compel respondents to permit them to occupy their seats and
exercise senatorial prerogatives
ISSUE
 Whether the Alejandrin Doctrine is still applicable and whether the facts disclose
any featues justifying departure therefrom? YES
o The doctruin started when Sen. Alejandrino assaulted a fellow-member
in the Senate
o He was suspended
o Thus he filed a case to court asking to nullify the decision
o Court said they cannot sinde the expulsion of the member of legislative
is a performance of a duty purely legislative in their character
 Thus it pertains to their legislative functions and only they
have exclusive control over
Guerrero v. COMELEC
o Legislative has the power to set their own standards and rules pertaining
to conduct of officials
o This doctrine maintained the separation of powers between branches
o Under the principles eneciated in the Alejandrino case
 Court could not order one branch of the legislature to
reinstate a member
 To do so would establish judicial predominance
 Upsets check and balance between gov
 Whether the Senate has the power to suspend or postpone the admittance of
candidates? YES
o Even before the organization of the commonwealth and promulgation od
consti
 Each house of the PH exercised the power to defer oath-
taking of any member against whom there was protest to
 Whenever it its discretion such suspensions was necessary
before the the final decision of the contest
o Discussions in consti convention showed that instead of transferring to
the EC all powers of the House or Senate as the sole judge of the
election, returns and qualification of the members of the national
assembly
 EC as only given jurisdiction over all contests realting to
elections
 Misconstrued to think they also have power to determine
election of members who have not been protested
o Amendment now says
 EC shall be the sole judge of the election, returns and
qualifications of the members of the national assembly
o HOWEVER! Another amendment was passed wherein the phrase in all
cases contesting the election was added to limit the EC only to
contests…now reads:
 There shall be an EC… shall be sole judge of all constests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
members of the assembly
o Change was necessary since for example a man elected to be
congressman who previously served 10 years in Bilibid for estafa
 He had no opponent this no protest was filed
 Thus the EC would have no jurisdiction over him because
there is no election contest
o Given that not all the powers regarding the election, returns and
qualification of members was withdrawn by the consti from congress
 Even petitioners agreed that the power to defer oath-taking,
until the contests is adjudged does not to belong to the EC
 The House or Senate still retains such authority
o It must be observed that when a member of the House raises a question
as to the qualifications of another, an “election contest” does not ensue
o This court must enforce the consti directive – must not question nor
permit respondents to be questioned here in connection with their votes

FACTS
 Petition filed by respondent herein Guillermo Ruiz to disqualify Rodolfo Farñas
o As candidate for the elective office of Congressman
o In the 1st district of Ilocos Norte
o During the ma11 1998 election
 In the 2nd division of the COMELEC
o Ruiz sought to perpetually disqualify respondent Fariñas as a candidate
for the position of Congressman
 Ruiz says that Farñas had been campaigning as a candidate for Congressman in the
may 1998 nelections
o Despite his failure to file said Cert.
o Violated Sec. 73 of the Omnibus Election Code
 Ruiz asked COMELEC to declare Fariñas asa nuisance candidate
o Pursuant to Sec. 69 of the Omnibus Election Code
o And to disqualify him from running in the May 1998 elections as well as
future polls
 On May 8, 1998 – Fariñas filed his COC with the Comelec
o Substituting candidate Chevylle Fariñas
o Who withdrew on April 1998
 On May 10 – 2nd division of the COMELEC decided to dismiss the case on Fariñas
 In dismissing Ruiz’ petition
o 2nd division states that there is none in the records to consider respondent
an official candidate to speak of without filing of said certificate
o Hence, there is no COC to be cancelled and no candidate to disqualify
 On May 11 – the elctions pushed through
 Post-election tally of votes in Ilocos Norte showed that Fariñas got a total of 56,369
votes
o Highest number of votes
 Fariñas was proclaimed as winner
o Ruiz filed MR
o Contending that Fariñas could not validly substitute for Chevylle V.
Fariñas
o Since Chevylle was not an official candidate of the Lakas ng Makabayan
Masang Pilipino (LAMMP)
o BUT was an independent candidate
 Another person cannot substitute for an independent candidate
 Fariñas’ certificate of candidacy claiming to be the official candidate of LAMMP
o Was defective according to Ruiz
 June 3, 1998 – Fariñas took his oath of office as a member of the HOR
ISSUE
 Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion? NO
o No grave abuse discretion when it held that its jurisdiction had ceased
with the assumption of office of respondent Fariñas as Rep of the 1st
district of Ilocos Norte
o While the COMELEC is given the power to decide whether a candidate
is valid or invalid a COC
 Its refusal to exercise that power following the proclamation
and assumption of the position by Fariñas is a recognition of
the jurisdictional boundaries separating the Comelec and the
HRET
o Under ART. 6 Sec 17
 The HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all
contests relative to the election relative to the election,
returns, and qualifications of members of the HOR
 THUS! Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken
his oath, and assumed office as a member of the HOR,
COMELEC’s jurisdiction over elections contests relating to
his election, returns and qualifications ends
 HRET’s own jurisdiction begins
o THUS! The COMELEC’s decision to discontinue exercising jurisdiction
over the case is justifiable
o HOWEVER! Petitioner believes that when it comes to matters of consti
requirement for elections, the HRET has no power and qualification in
Art. 6 Sec. 17 is limited to those not included in the consti
 This contention lacks cogency
o Word “qualification” cannot be read as qualified by the term
“constitutional”
o Ubi lex non distintguit noc nos distinguire debemos = where the law
does not distinguish, the courts should not distinguish
 There should be no distinction when none is indicated
o Petitioner also avers that since the candidate did not fulfill the
requirements for elections, his proclamation is not valid
 Void ab initio
o In an electoral contest where the validity of the proclamation of a
winning candidate who has taken hi oath of office and assumed his post
as Congressman is raised
 Issue is best addressed to the HRET
o Reason for this ruling is self-evident
 For it avoids duplicity of proceedings and a clash of
jurisdiction between consti bodies
 With due regard to the people’s mandate
o If respondent Fariñas can validly substitute by Chevylle Fariñas whether
respondent became a legitimate candidate
 The decision should be referred to the EC
Abayon v. HRET
FACTS
 Petitioner Abayon is the first nominee of the Aangat Tayo party-list org
o Won a seat in the HOR
o 2007 elections
 Respondents Lucaban Jr., Ronyl Dela Cruz and Augustin Doroga
o All registered voters
o Filed a petition for quo warranto with respondent HRET
o Against Aangat Tayo and its nominee, petitioner Abayon
  They claimed that Aangat Tayo was eligible for part-list seat in the HOR since it
did not represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors
 Respondent Lucaban and the others with him further pointed out that petitioner
Abayon herself was not qualified to sit in the House as a party-list nominee
o Since she did not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors
o She being the wife of an incumbent congressional district rep
 She moreover lost her her bid as party-list rep of the party-list org called An Waray
in the immediately preceding elections of may 10 2004
 In another case! Petitioner Palparan Jr. is the first nominee of the Bantay party-liust
group that won a seat in the 2007 elections for the members of the HOR
o Respondents Lesaca Jr., Palabay, Reyes jr., Cadapan, Flores and Ustarez
are members of some other party-list groups
 Shortly after the elections, respondent Lesaca and the others with him filed with
respondent HRET a petition for quo warranto against Bantay and its nominee,
petitioner Palparan
 Lesaca and the others alleged that Palparan was inelligable to sit in the HoR as
party-list nominess because he did not belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors that Bantay represented
o Which are the victims of communisit rebels, civilian armed forced
geographical units (CAFGUs), former rebels, and security guards
 Lesaca and the others said the Palparan committed gross human rights violations
against marginalized and underrepresented sectors and organizations
ISSUE
 Whether respondent HRET has jurisdiction over the question of qualifcations of
petitioners Abayon and Palparan as nominees of Aangat Tayo and Bantay party-list
orgs, respectively who took the seats at the HoR that such orgs won in the 2007?
YES
o HRET has jurisdiction
o Petitioners Abayon and Palparan assert that they were not elected into
office but were chosen by their respective orgs under their internal rules,
the HRET has no jurisdiction to inquire into and adjudicate their
qualifications as nominees
o Petitioner says Abayon such authority belongs to the COMELEC which
already upheld her qualification as nominee of Aangat Tayo for the
women sector
o The members of the HOR are of 2 kinds:
 1) members who shall be elected from legislative districts
 2) those who shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or orgs
o From the Consti’s point of view, it is the party-list reps who are
“elected” into office, not their parties or orgs
 HOWEVER! Through that peculiar party-list system that
Congress by law established where the voteers cast their
votes for the orgs or parties to which such party-list reps
belong
o Thus they come into the purview of Sec. 17 Art 6
 Provides that the HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to, among other things, the qualifications of the
members of the HOR
o Since, party list nominees are “elected members”
o Member of marginalized: the COMELEC seems to believe when it
resolved the challenge to petitioner Abayon, that it has no power to do
so as an incident of its authority to approve the registration of party-list
organizations
 BUT! The court need not resolve this question since it is not
raised here and has not been argues by the parties
Abbas v. SET
FACTS
 On Oct 1987, the petitioners filed before the respondent Tribunal an election contest
docketed as SET Case No. 002-87
o Against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition who were proclaimed
senators-elect in May 1987 congressional elections by the COMELEC
 On Nov 1987 – the petitioners with the exception of Sen. Estrada but including Sen.
Enrile ( he has been designated Member of the Tribunal replacing Sen. Estrada, the
latter being affiliated with the Liberal Party and resigned as the opposition’s rep in
the tribunal)
o Filed with the respondent Tribunal Motion for disqualification of
inhibition of the Senators-Members thereof from the hearing and
resolution of SET Case No. 002-87
o On the ground that all of them are interested parties to said case as
respondents therein
 Soon after Senator Rene Saguisag, Vicente Paterno and Ponce Enrile inhibited
themselves from the case
 Petitioner contend that the case be decided out of public policy, necessity and due
process
 Respondent tried to amend the Tribunal’s rules of procedure so as to permit the
contest being decided by only 3 members of tribunal coming from the Senate
 Respondent came up with a provisio wherein
o The proposed amendment ot he tribunal’s rules
 Requiring the concurrence of 5 members for that adoption of
resolutions of whatever nature is a provisio that where more
than 4 members are disqualified, the reamning members shall
constitute a quorum if not less than 3 including 1 justice
 AND may adopt resolutions by majority vote with no
abstentations
 Petitioner thus questions the amendment to the senate electoral tribunal as unconsti
ISSUE
 Whether the provision regarding Senators should be strictly followed? YES
o Consti states that a tribunal to be staffed by both justices of the SC and
members of the senate
 o Consti intended that BOTH those judicial and legislative components
commonly share the duty and authority of deciding all constests relating
to the election, returns and qualifications of Senators
o Consti provision clearly mandates the participation in the same process
of decision of a rep of the SC
o The fact that the proportion of senators of justices in the prescribed
membership of the senate electoral tribunal is 2 – 1
 An unmistakable indication that the legislative component
cannot be totally excluded from participation in the
resolution of senatorial elections contests
 Without doing violence to the spirit and intent of Consti
o Given that the present case would leave where the duty of such
judgment is only within the SET
 It would result in the Tribunal having no alternative but to
abandon a duty that no other court or body can perform
 But which it cannot lawfully discharge if shorn of the
participation of its entire membership of senators
o court believes that the overriding consideration that the tribunal be not
prevented from discharging a duty
 which it alone has the power to perform
o THUS! The court dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit
 Affirmed the decision of the Tribunal to not let senator-
members to inhibit or disqualify himself
 Rather!!!! Just let him refrain from participating in the
resolution of a case
 Where he would feel that his personal interests or
biases would stand in the way of an objective and
impartial judgement
o What the court is merely saying is that in the light of the Consti
 SET cannot legally function as such, absent its entire
membership of senators
 AND that no amendment of its rules can confer on the 3
justices-members alone the power of valid adjudication of a
senatorial election contest
Bondoc v. Pineda
FACTS
 In the local and congressional elections held on May 11, 1987
o Marciano Pineda of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP)
o AND! Dr. Emigdio Bondoc of the Nacionalista Party (NP) were rival
candidates
o For the position of Rep for thr 4th district of Pampanga
 On May 19, 1987 – Pineda was proclaimed winner in the election
 Bondoc filed for protest to HRET
 By Oct 1990 – a decision had been reached
o Which Bondoc won over Pineda by a margin of 23 votes
 At that point, LDP members in the tribunal insisted on a reappreciastion and
recount of the ballots cast in some precincts
o As some were not counted yet
o This!!!!! Resulted into showing that Bondoc won by 107 votes in
another retally
 Congressman Camasura
o Member of HRET and LDP partymate
o Revealed to his chief: Congressman Conjuangco Jr. (LDP SecGen), not
only the final tally in the Bondoc case but also that he voted for Bondoc
 Who was a rival party member
o He said that he always honors the voice of the ballot which angered
members of LDP upon hearing such report
 On the eve of the promulgation of the Bondoc decision
o Had already expelled Cong. Casamura and Cong. Bautista from the LDP
for having allegedly helped to organize the Partido Pilipino of Danding
Cojuangco
o AND!!! For allegedly having invited the LDP members in Davao del Sur
to join said political party
 Shows complete betrayal to the cause and objectives and
loyalty to LDP
 LDP also sent a letter to HOR to rescind the election of LDP Cong. Casamura to the
HRET
o Casamura was removed by HRET’s chairwoman Justice Herrera
ISSUE
 Whether HRET committed a grave abuse of discretion? YES
o Tribunal was created to function as a nonpartisan court although 2/3 of
its members are politicians
o Purpose of the consti convention creating the EC was to
 Provide an independent and impartial tribunal for the
determination of contests to legislative office
 Devoid of partisan consideration
 To transfer to that tribunal all the powers previously
exercised by the legislature in matter pertaining to contested
elections of its members
o Independence of HRET would be a farce if the HOR or the majority
party may shuffle and manipulate the political components of the EC to
serve the interests of the party in power
 Would diminish HRET as a tool
o Resolution of the HOR on removing Cong. Camasura from the HRET
for disloyalty to the LDP because he cast his vote in favor of the
Nacionalista Party’s candidate
o Bondoc is a clear impairment of the consti prerogative of the HRET to
be the sole judge of the election contest between Pineda and Bondoc
o HRET members must discharge their function with complete
detachment, impartiality and independence
 Eve independence to the political party they belong to
o THUS!!! Disloyalty to party and breach or party discipline are not valid
grounds for the expulsion of a member of the tribunal
o In expelling a Cong. Casamura from the HRET for having cast a
conscience vote in favor of Bondoc
  Based strictly on the result of the examination and
appreciation of the ballots and the recount of the votes by the
tribunal
o HOR committed grave abuse of discretion, injustice and violation of the
Consti
o Its resolution of expulsion against Cong. Casamura is null and void!
Lerias v. HRET
FACTS
 Rosette Lerias filed her certificate of candidacy as official candidate of UPP-KBL
for the position of Rep for the district of Southern Leyte
 Roger Mercado (respondent) was the admin candidate for the same position
 During the canvassing of votes of the Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBC)
o NOT including the ballots from Libagon
 Which has been questioned by Mercado on the frounf that
allegedly it had been tampered with
 Petitioner and respondent got the 2 highest votes:
o Mercado: 34,422
o Lerias: 34,128
 HOWEVER! When it came to including the votes from Libagon
o Results differed
o Mercado was the one who had 35,793
o Lerias only 35,939
 BUT!!! PBC rules that their copy of the certificate of cancass contained erasures,
alterations!
o Cannot be used as basis of the canvass
 PBC simply rejected the explanation of the members of the municipal board of
canvassers of Libagon
o That said the corrections were made to correct honest clerical mistakes
which did not affect the integrity of the certificate and said corrections
were made in the presence of the watched of all 9 candidated for the
position
 Including those of Mercado who offered no objection
 Lerias made an appeal to Comelec asking that the copy of the certificate of canvass
for Libagon be used by PBC counsel
o Since both Lerias and Mercado agreed to use the COMELEC copy of
the said certificate as long as it is real
 AT THE END! Lerias only got 1,411 votes
o Less than that stated in the copy of PBC
 Lerias filed for a petition to COMELEC reconsideration at first!!!!
o Then after it was denied
o Filed another case of annulment of proclamation
 Respondent tired to reply by asserting Lerias used fraudulent means in elections
o BUT before initial hearing, there were unidentifies armed men who went
to the municipal building of Libagon
o They raided and stole ballot boxed which ontained copies of the election
returns
o Remaining boxes were gathered by an HRET rep
 During the case trial in HRET
o Lerias presented original copies of the certificate of canvass of the
municipal and provincial board
 Election returns showed that she got a total of 1,811 votes
 Mercado showed a photocopy of the canvass which was different from the original
 HRET rejected the election returns presented by Lerias
 There were doubts on the authenticity of the election returns given that the original
copies were produced after the raid
 HOWEVER!!!!! After another investigation and presentation of evidence it was
declared that Lerias was the winner
 HRET majority however rejered the election returns of Lerias and sustained the
certificate of canvass
ISSUE
 Whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion? YES
o In an election constest, the best evidence are ballots
o BUT! In the case where the abllot are not available
 The election returns would be the best evidence
o THUS! COMELEC and HRET must exercise extreme caution in
rejecting returns
 May do so only upon exhaustive investigation as to the
authenticity of the said document
o THUS! Under the best evidence rule
 There can be no evidence of a writing, the contents of which
are the subject of inquiry, other than the orig writing itself
o It would appear!!! That the court sustained the use of COMELEC’s copy
of the certificate of canvass instead of the copy of the provincial board
of canvassers only to establish prima facie the winner
 Without prejudice to a more judicious and unhurried
determination in an election protests
 AND! Because Lerias’ through counsel had previously
agreed conditionally and qualifiedly to it tentative use for
pre-proclamation proceedings
o Decision of this court was merely an affirmance of the action of the
COMELEC
 It cannot be relied upon as a final adjudication on the issue of
the genuiness and authenticity of the said certificate of
canvass
o BESIDES! The use of the said Comelec copy of the certificate of
canvass by the boards of canvassers did not foreclose the right of Lerias
to prove that the votes attributed to have been received by her as stated
in said certificate of canvassis not correct
o Acceptance of a certificate of canvass as genuined for purposed of
canvass simply means that said certificate is authentic fothe determing
the prima facie winner
o BUT!!!! The very purpose of an elction is to establish who is the actual
winner!
 o Court then declaresthat petitioner Rosette Lerias is elected rep of the the
district of Southern leyte
Daza v. Singson
FACTS
 After elections the HOR proportionally apportioned its 12 seats in the Commission
on Appointments (CoA) among several political parties represented in that chamber
o In accordance to Art. 6 Sec. 18
 One of the appointed members is Raul Daza
o Rep of the Liberal party (LP)
 Spet 16, 1988 – there came a political realignment where 24 members of the liberal
Party joined Laban Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP)
o Left the Liberal Party with only 17 members
 HOR revised its rep and removed Hon. Daza
o Placed Hon. Singson in accordance to proportional rep of the political
parties
 Daza then contends that he cannot be removed from COA because his appointment
is permanent under the doctrine in Cunanan v. Tan
o In that case, the petitioner claims that the appointment is political in
nature and is not within the power of the HOR
 Similarly the petitioner avers that the case is not within the jurisdiction of the Court
as it is political in nature
ISSUE
 Whether the issue is a political question? NO
o Tanada v. Cuenco it was held:
 The term political question connotes in legal parlance what it
means in ordinary language is a question of policy
o Refers to those questions which, under the consti, are to be decided by
the people in their soverieng capacity
 OR in regard to which full discretionary authortiy has been
delegated to the legislature of executive branch of the Gov
 It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom
o Court has competence to act on the matter at bar
 Our finding is that what is before us is not a discretionary act
of the HOR that may not be reviewed by us because it is
political in nature
 What is involved here is the legality NOT wisdom
o Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable
 To determine whether there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on th
party of any branch or instrumentality of the Gov
o In this case, it is a legal question on whether there is a proper
appointment in COA of officials based on the requirement of
proportional rep
 Then the court has jurisdiction
 Whether there is valid reorganization of the COA? YES
o Same disposition was made in Cunanan v. Tan
 As it likewise involved the manner or legality of the
organization of the commission on appointments
 Not the wisdom or discretion of the house in the coise of its
reps
o In this case!!! 25 members of the nacionalista party members defected
from their party and formed the “allied majority”
 Because od their discontent over the leadership of the House
o Court held in said case that there is no need to readjust the COA of
nacionalista
 Since it viewed the allied majority as merely temporary
combination of nacionalista defectos
o Court also claims that the defectors had not disaffiliated from their party
and permanently the new political group
 Officialy they were still members of the nacionalista party
o The reorganization of the Commissionon Appountments was invalid
 Because it was not based on the proportional rep of the
political parties in the HOR
 As required by the consti
o In present case, the petitioner used the Cunanan case to say that changes
in COA that results from political realignments are acceptable as long as
they permanent
o THUS! Petitioner contends that the Court should not take cognizance of
the LDP
 As it yet to achieve a permanent status
 Said that the change of heart of congressman are not
permanent in nature
 It may drastically change as much as it was born in the first
place
o That is why it is still justifies for him to hold the position in COA
 UNLESS! That LDP has proven that there is permanence in
their political party by showing that there is stability
o He avers that even if LDP has mamanged to register themselves as a
political party, there is no showing of it aging
 Then NOT qualified
o The court resolves that the issue is in favor of the authority of the HOR
to change its rep in the Commission on Appointments to reflect at any
time the chanhes that may transpure in the political alignments of its
membership
 Undertood that such changes must be permanent and do not
include temporary alliances
 Not involving severance of loyalties and shifts or allegiance
Coseteng v. Mitra Jr.
FACTS
 The congressional elections of May 1987 resulted in the election to the HOR of the
candidates of diverse political parties such as the
 o PDP-Laban, Lakas ng Bansa (LB)
o Liberal Party (LP)
o NP-Unido
o Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan (KBL )
o Panaghiusa, Kababaihan Para sa Inang Bayan (KAIBA)
o Some independents
 Petitioner Coseteng was the only candidate elected under the banner of KAIBA
 AFTER elections for the majority floor leaders
o The house elected their members for the Commission on Apppointments
(COA)
 After electing the 11 memebers the house elected minority floor leader: Hon. Ablan
Jr.
o KBL as the 12th member of the COA
o Representing the coalesced minority in the house
 A year later, the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP)
o Was organized as a political party
 As 159/202 members of the HOR formally affiliated with the LDP
o Thus!!! The need also to changesthe COA to reflect the proportional
representation
 Petitioner Coseteng wrote a letter to Speaker Ramon Mitra requesting that a rep of
KAIBA
o She be appointed as a member of the COA and HRET
 Her petition was supported by 9 congressman that vouched for her
 HOWEVER!!!! When COA was changed to conform to political alignments
o Cong, Ablan (KBL)
o Was retained as the 12th member representing the House minority
ISSUE
 Whether the members of the House in the Commission on Appointments were
chosen on the basis of proportional rep from the political parties therein as provided
in Sec. 18 Art. 6 of the 1987 Consti? YES
o There is no political question
o Even if there is, the court could rule upon it is it’s a matter of grave
abuse of discretion
o Petioner was dismissed for lack of merit because the revision in house
rep in COA was based on proportional rep
o The composition of the House membership shows that there are 160
LDP members in the House
 Comprising 79% of the House membership
o This granted them a rounded-up 10 seats in the CA and left the
remaining 2 to LP and KBL as the next largest parties
o KAIBA!!!! Being an apparent member of the coalesced majority
 Is bound by the majority choices
 Even if KAIBA were an oposition party, its lone member
Coseteng represents .4% or less than 1% of the house
membership
 HENCE!!!! Does not entitles her a seat in the 12 house seats
in CA
o Her endorsements from 9 other congressmen are inconsequential
because they are not members of her party
 AND they signed identical endrosements for her rival Cong.
Verano-Yap
Senate v. Ermita
FACTS
 Inquiries and investigations in aid of legislation
o Calls for the attendance of officials and employees of the executive dept,
bureaus and offices including those employed in the GOCCs, AFP and
the PNP
 On Sept 21-23, 2005 – the senate called for the attendance of various executive
officials as resource in a public hearing on the railway project of North Luzon
Railways Corp Group (North Rail Project)
o To help in investigating in alleged overpricing and other unlawful
provisions of the contract covered in the said project
 Senate also issued invitations through the senate committee on national defense and
security for some officials of the AFP
o To be resource speakers in aid of legislation inquiring on the “Gloriagate
Scandal” and the alleged wiretapping of the president of the PH
o Garci tapes
 Gen. Senga sent a letter in sept 27 to postpone the said hearing
 Exec. Ermita requested the same since he needs time to review issues on the
meeting
 Sept 28, 2005 – president issued EO 464
o Ensuring the observance of the principles of separation of powers
o Adherence to the rule on executive privilege and respect for the rights of
public officials appearing in legislative inquiries in aid of legislation
under the consti
o It prohibits dept. heads, senior officials of exec. Dept who in the
judgment of the dept. heads are covered by executive privilege
o Also generals and flag officers of the AFP and PNP officers and etc.
o And such other officers as may be determined the president, from
appearing in such hearings conducted by congress without first securing
the president’s approval
 After the issuance of the EO Gen Senga refused to go to the investigation due to
their non-acquisition of consent necessary for such congressional investigation
 For Col. Balutan and Brig. Gen Gudani who pushed through with the event
o Were severely reprimanded by President Arroyo for defying the EO 464
o She removed them from their position and were made to face court
martial proceedings
 For the North Rail transport investigation, Exec. Sec. Ermita and other members did
not push through with the investigation
ISSUE
 Whether EO 464 contravenes the power of inquiry of Congress?
o Sec 1 is valid but Sec. 2 and 3 of EO 464 are unconsti
o In Arnault v. Nazareno – when congress was still unicameral, the  And the members of the SC in due respect to their equal
congress asked for the attendance of Mr. Arnault for some anomalous power
purchase of the Buenavista and Tambobong Estates by the Rural o Sec 1 of EO 464 invokes the Art. 6 Sec. 22 of the Consti
progress admin  Grants them a power to inquire not for the purposes of “in aid
o He refused to go of legislation”
o Court held that the power of inquiry with process to enforce it – is an o Sec 1 in view of its specific reference to sec 22 of Art. 6
essential and appropriate auxillary to the legislative function  The absence of any reference to inquiries in aid of legislation
o Often, voluntary info are inaccurate or incomplete that is why must be construed as limited in its application to appearances
compulsion is necessary of dept heads in the question hour contemplated in the
o Congress has the power to investigate the operations of the executive provision of said sec 22
branch  Reading is dictated by the basic rule on construction
 So it would be incongruous to hold that it does not have the o Sec 3 requires all officials in sec 2(b) to secure the consent of the
same power to its executive officials who are tasked to do president prior appearing to the congress
executive operations  Claims that various officials who in the judgment of the
o The concern about legislative’s power to abuse such rights is diminished heads of offices designated in the same section are covered
by the safeguards that it has set within itself in conducting such by the executive privilege
investigation  Includes the officers that may be determined by the president
o As section 21 states, rights of the people investigated are to be respected o Determination of this matter is based on the idea of being covered by the
o The invitation also specifically states who are the person concerned and executive privilege
the subject matter of the inquiry  Which means that it is up to the president to determine who
o Investigation of said persons are also under the rules of conduct made by is the person who has info worthy of being covered by the
congress executive privilege
 Published before hand o BUT in the letter given by Exec. Sec. Ermita
o Finally they are remediable before the court and proceedings thereto are  He does not specify under what subject does the executive
accorded judicial sanction privilege is considered that is whether the secret that is kept
o Executive privilege: compared to sec 21 however, sec 22 of article 6 is is for whether military, diplomatic etc. purposes
 THUS congress needs to know why such invocation are
called the “question hour”
proper and deprives of the congress of its processes to
 22 in comparison to 21 grants the congress the power to
investigate
inquire in pursuit of its oversight functions
o There must be formal claims since an improper claim is like no claim at
o Usually the question here is how officials are implementing certain
all
statutes, which makes them in the said investigation report to the
o Although there is no need for the claimant of executive privilege to give
legislative
o This practice is unusual since executive departments should only report such particularity of the confidential documents since it would be
counterintuitive to its purpose
to the executive for their functions
o Thus the claim of the privilege under sec 3 of EO 464 in relation to 2(b)
o Called the question hour!!!!
is invalid as it only requires that there be consent without the necessity
 How the officials are implementing certain statutes
of a rationale on why it must be considered as confidential
 Which makes them in the certain investigation report to the
o BUT 2(a) as it simply enumerates the ones covered in sec 2 is valid
legislative
 Unusual since they only report to the executive
Gudani v. Senga
for their functions
o In cases of question hour, the exectutive officer may refuse to go and
FACTS
this rationale is based on the separation of powers
 Senator Biazon invited several senior officers of the AFP to appear at a public
 Given such inquiry is not in aid of legislation
hearing before the senate committee on national defense and security scheduled on
 Does not contravene the legislative powers of congress
sept 25
o Under sec 22, executive heads are exempt from the question hour by
 Hearing was scheduled after topics concerning the conduct of the 2004 elections
validly claiming privilege but not because of their position
emerged in the public eye
 Though only officer exempted by position is the president
(except in impeachment cases)
 o Like allegations of massive cheating and the surfacing of copies of an o Final judicial orders have the force of the law of the land which the
audio excerpt purportedly of a phone conversation between president president has the duty to faitfully execute
arroyo and COMELEC commissioner Virgilio garcillano (Garci tapes) o SC ruled in Senate v. Ermita that the president may not issue a blanket
 During the 2004 elections, petitioner Gen. Gudani had been designated as requirement of the prior consent on executive officials summoned by the
commander legislature to attend a congressional hearing
o Co-petitioner Col. Balutan a member of Joint Task force Ranao by the  Court recognized the considerable limitations on executive
AFP Southern Command privilege and affirmed that the privilege must be formally
 Joint task force was tasked with the maintenance of peace and order during the invoked on the specified grounds
2004 elections in the provinces of Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur o However the ability of the president to prevent military officers from
 Gen. Gudani, Col. Balutan and AFP Chief of staff lieutenant general generoso testifying before congress does not turn on executive privilege but on the
senga were among the several AFP officers who received a letter invitation from chief executive’s power as commander-in-chief to control that actions
Sen. Biazon to attend the 28 sept hearing and speech of member of the armed forces
 On sept 26 the office of the chief of staff of the AFP issued memorandum directing o President’s prerogatives as commander-in-chief are not hampered by the
Gudani and Balutan to attend the 28 Spet 2005 meeting same limitations as in executive privilege
 Gen Senga wrote a letter to Sen Biazon requesting the postponement of the hearing o At the same time, the refusal of the president to allow members of the
scheduled for the following day military to appear before the congress is still subject to judicial relief
 On the evening of 27 Sept of 2005 o The consti itself recognizes as one of the legislature’s function is the
o A message was transmitted to the PMA Superintendent from the office conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation
of Gen. Senga o Inasmuch as it is ill-advised for congress to interfere with the president’s
o PGMA, No AFP personnel shall appear before any congressional or power as commander-in-chief
senate hearing without her approval  Similarly detrimental for the president to unduly interfere
 Next day before hearing, Gen. Senga called commodore Tolentino on the latter’s with the congress’s right to conduct legislative inquiries
cell phone and asked to talk to Gen. Gudani o The impasse did not come to pass in this petition
o Gudani refused  Since petitioners testifies anyways despite the presidential
 In response Gen. Senga instructed Tolentino to inform Gen. Gudani that it was an prohibition
order yet Gudani still refused to take Gen. Senga’s call o BUT the court is aware that with its pronouncement today that the
 A few hours after Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan had concluded their testimony president has the right to require prior consent from members of the
o The office of Gen. Senga issued a statement which noted that the two armed forces, the clash that may actualize
had appeared before the senate committee in spite of the fact that a o Duty falls on the shoulders of the president as commnander-in-chief
guidance has been given that a presidential approval  To authorize the appearance of the military officers before
 The two were held to have disobeyed a legal order in violation of articled of war 65 congress
o Willfully disobeyeing superior officer o Even if the president has earlier disagreed with the notion of officers
o Hence they will be subjected to general court martial proceedings appearing before legislature to testify the chief executive is nonetheless
obliged to comply with the final orders of the courts
ISSUE
Neg O. II Elec. Coop v. Sanggu Panglungsod
 Whether the president has the authority to issue an order to the members of the AFP
preventing them from testifying before a legislative inquiry? YES
FACTS
o SC holds that the President has consti authority to do so by virtue of her
 IN 1985, Sanggu Panglungsod (SP) of Dumaguete sought to conduct an
power as commander-in-chief
investigation in connection with pending legislation related to the operations of
o And that as a consequence a military officer who defied such injunction
public utilities
is liable under military justice
 Invited in the hearing were the heads of NORECO II (Negros Oriental II Electric
o Any chamber of congress which seeks the appearance before it of a
Coop, Inc.)
military officer against the consent of the President has adequate o Namely Paterio Torres and Arturo Umbac
remedies under law to compel such attendance
o Inquiry was to focus on the alleged installation and use by the petitioner
o Any military official whom congress summons to testify before it may
NORECO II of inefficient power line that city
be compelled to do so by the president
 Torres and Umbac refused to appear before the SP
 If the president is not inclined
o AND alleged respondent SP of Dumaguete is bereft of the power to
 President may be commanded by judicial order to compel the
attendance of the military officer compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses
 o Nor do they have the power to order the arrest of witnesses who fail to
obey its subpoena
 Further argued that assuming the power to compel the attendance and testimony of
witnesses to be lodged in said body,
o it cannot be exercised in the investigation of matters affecting the terms
and conditions of the franchise granted to NORECO II which are beyond
the jurisdiction of the SP
 Petitioners also claim that the SP does not have the power to order the arrest of
witnesses who fail to obey its subpoena
ISSUE
 Whether LGUs can issue contempt? NO
o SP of Dumaguete possess delegated legislative power
o In the same way, they are treated similar to congress
o In this case, although the consti does not expressly vest congress with
the power to punish non-members for legislative contempt
o The power has nevertheless been invoked by the legislative body as
means of preserving its authority and dignity
 in the same way as courts wield inherent power to enforce
authority and preserve their integrity
o In the case of Arnault v. Nazareno, when the witness called by congress
refused to reveal the person he gave the 440k of money in question
 Senate filed a contempt case
 Court said….the power of inquiry is an eseential legislative
function
 A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in
the absence of info respecting the conditions which the
legislation is intended to affect or change
 And where the legislative body does not itself possess the
requisite info – which is not infrequently true – recourse must
be had to others who possess it
o Experience has shown that mere requests for such info are more often
unavailing
 Also that info which is volunteered is not always accurate or
complete
 So some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is
needed
o The power to punish uncooperative witnesses must be considered
implied or incidental to the exercise of legislative power
o The lack of power to punish its witnesses is also in line with the consti’s
demand for its branches of gov to hold full and complete power
o How could the authority and power become cokplete if for every act of
refusal or defiance – the legislative body must resort to the judicial
department for the appropriate remedy because it is powerless in itself to
punish or deal
o HOWEVER! The same cannot be said to local legislative bodies
 To begin with, there is no express provision either in the
1973 consti or in the LGU
 The power to subpoena witnesses and the power to punish
non-members for contempt
o Also! The power to issue a subpoena is judicial in character
o To allow local legislative bodies or admin agencies to exercise these
powers without express statutory basis would run afoul of the doctrine
of separation of powers
Standard v. Senate
FACTS
 On Feb 1 2005 – Sen. Enrile delivered a privilege speech entitles “arrogance of
wealth”
o Before the senate based on a letter from Atty. Bocobo denouncing
petitioner standard chartered bank (SCB) for selling the unregistered
foreign securities
 in violation of the securities regulation code RA 8799 and
urging the senate to immediately conduct an inquiry in aid of
legislation to prevent the occurrence of a similar fraudulent
activity in the future
 The speech was referred to the senate committee
 Respondent set the initial hearing to investigate in aid of legislation the subject
matter
 The committee invited petitioners to attend the hearing
o Requesting them to submit their written position paper
 Petitioners stressed that there were cases pending in court allegedly involving the
same issues subject of the legislative inquiry
o Thus posing a challenge to the jurisdiction of respondent to continue
with the inquiry
 On the Feb 28, 2005 – respondent commenced the investigation
o Sen. Enrile moved that subpoena be issued to those who did not attend
the hearing
o And that senate request to issue a hold-departure order
 Against them and/or include them in the Bureau’s watch list
 Respondent then proceeded with the investigation proper
o Towards the end of the hearing, petitioners made an opening statement
that brought to the attention of the committee the lack of proper
authorization from affected clients
o For the bank to make disclosures of their accounts and the lack of copies
of the accusing documents mentioned in Senator Enrile’s privilege
speech
o And reiterated that there pending court cases
 Regarding the alleged sale in the Philippines by SCB of
unregistered foreign securities
o Feb 28, 2005 – hearing was adjourned without the setting of the next
hearing date
o However! Petitioners were later served by respondent with subpoena ad
testificandum and duces tecum to compel them to attend and testify at
the next hearing
o Thus this petition!!!!
 FACTS
ISSUE
 Whether the committee acted without jurisdiction and/or acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in conducting an investigation,
purportedly in aid of legislation but in reality probing into the issue of whether the
standard chartered bank had sold unregistered foreign securities in the Philippines?
NO
o In Bengzon Jr. v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is misplaced as the
investigation would not pre-emptively encroach on the power of the
courts to have jurisdiction over the case
o It is true that in bengzon, the court declared that the issue to be
investigated was one over which jurisdiction had already been acquired
by the sandiganbayan
o AND to allow the senate blue ribbon committee to investigate the matter
would create the possibility of conflicting judgments
o HOWEVER, a closer look at the Bengzon shows the difference
o Central to the courts ruling in Bengzon was that the senate blue ribbon
committee was without any consti mooring to conduct the legislative
investigation
o Courts found that the intended inquiry was not in aid in legislation
o Court found that the speech of Senator Enrile
 Which sought such investigation contained no suggestion of
any contemplated legislation
o Merely called upon the senate to look into possible violations of sec 5
RA 3019
o Thus the court held that the requested probe failed to comply with a
ISSUE
fundamental requirement of sec 21, art. 6
o Unfortunately for the petitioners this distinguishing factual milieu in
Bengzon does not obtain in the instant case
o PS Resolution No, 166 contains the purpose of the investigation which
are
 1) securities regulation code seem to be inadequate in
preventing the sale of unregistered securirites and in
effectively enforcing the registration rules intended to protect
the investing public from fraudulent practices
 2) regulatory intervention by the SEC and BSP likewise
appears inadequate in preventing the conduct of proscribed
activities in a manner that would protect the investing public
 3) there is a need for remedial legislation to address the
situation, having in mind the imposition of proportionate
penalties to offending entitles and their directors, officiers
and reps among other additional regulatory measures
o Thus the said purposes are the purpose of the investigation that would
help in aiding a new legislation to solve the aforementioned
o Thus erroneous to claim that just because a case was filed in a court, the
congress loses its powers to conduct an investigation in aid of legislation
De La Paz v. Senate
 Gen. De La Paz
o Senior officer of the PNP
o Headed a delegation of 8 to attend an Interpol GA
 He was supposed to reitre in 3 days after the GA
 De La Paz was apprehended for carrying with him 105k euros
o Also carrying 45k euros
 Failed to declare in writing that he is carrying such an amount
o A violation against the UN convention against corruption and UN
convention against transnational organized crime
 He and his group were later released but the euros were confiscated by the Russians
 When he arrived in the PH, he was issued a subpoena by the senate committee on
foreign relations
o For the investigation it was to conduct involving the Moscow incident
o But De La Pz said they had no jurisdiction
 De La Paz has no jurisdiction because it does not involve state to state relations
o Provided in par. 12, sec. 13 rule 10 of the senate rules and procedure
 They also claim that respondent committee violated the same senate rules when it
issued the warrant of arrest without the required signature of the majority of the
members of respondent committee
 Also they also sail the same rules because they were not published as required by
the consti
o Thus cannot be used as the basis of any investigation inlvifing them
o In relation to Moscow incident
 Whether the investigation was done pursuant to a legislation? YES
o Moscow incident could create rippled in the relations between PH and
Russia
o De La Paz went to Moscow in an official capacity as a member of the
PH delegation to the Interpol conference
 In St. Petersburg
 Carrying a huge amount of “public” money ostensibly to
cover the expenses to be incurred
o Failure to comply with immigration and currency laws
 Russian gov confiscated it
 Detained them
o Incident affects PH international obligations
o Judicial notice of the fact that the PH is a state-party to the UN
Convention Against Corruption and the UN Convention against
transnational organized crime
o 2 conventions contain provisions dealing with the movement of
considerable foreign currency across borders
o Moscow incident would reflect on our country’s complioance with the
obligations required of state-parties
 Under the conventions
o Respondent committee then can properly inquire into this matter
  Particularly as to the source and purpose of the funds  Is not longer sub judice or “before a court of judge for
discovered in Moscow as this would involve PH consideration” because the case was decided already
commitments under these conventions o En Banc Resolution July 1, 2008
 Denied with finality the motion of Chavez
Romero v. Estrada  The petitioner in Chavez for reconsideration of the decisions
of the court dates Aug 15, 2007
FACTS  Thus it will not avail petitioners any to invoke sub judice
 Petitioner Reghis Romero II effect of Chavez and resist, on that ground, the assailed
o Owner of the R-II Builders Inc. congressional invitations and subpoenas
o Received from the committee an invitation o Sub judice issues has been rendered moot and academic by the
o Asks him to attend an investigation: supervening issuance of the en banc resolution July I, 2008
 Liability for plunder for the former President Ramos and o Even assuming hypothetically that Chavez is still pending final
others for the illegal investment of OWWA funds in the adjudication
smokey mountain project  Such circumstance would not bar the continuance of the
 Causing a loss to OWWA of Php 550.85 M committee investigation as long as it is carried out for a
 ALSO!!!! Inquiry in aid of legislation on the alleged OWWA legislative purpose
loss of Php 480 M to focus on the culpability of then o A legislative investigation in aid of legislation and court proccedings has
president Fidel Ramos, Wilhelm Soriano (OWWA Admin) diff purposed
and Romero (R-II Builders owner) o Courts conduct proceedings has diff purposed
 Investigator is Jinggoy Estrada  Like adjudicative procedutres to settle, through the
 Inquiry is intended to aid the senate in the review  application of a law
o And possible amendments to the pertinent provisions of RA 8042  Actual controversies arising between adverse litigants and
(Migrant Workers Act) involving demandable rights
o And to craft much needed legislation stated in subject matter o Inquiries in aid of legislation are inter alia
 Petitioner requested to be excused from appearing and testifying before the  Undertaken as tool to enable the legislative body to gather
committee info
o Request was denied  And thus legislate wisely and effectively
 Romero appeared in the investigation  And to determine whether there is a need to improve existing
 Two days after he filed a manifestation with urgent plea for a TRO alleging among laws or enact new or remedial legislation
others that:  BUT the inquiry need not result in any potential legislation
o 1) he answered questions concerning the investments of OWWA funds o In Arnault v. Nazareno
in the smokey mountain project and how much of OWWA’s original  Power of inquiry – with process to enforce it is an essential
investment had already been pain and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function
o 2) when Senator Estrada called on Atty. Chavez as resource person  A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in
the absence of info respecting the conditions which the
 Chavez spoked of the facts and issues he raised with the court
legislation is intended to affect or change
in Chavez v. National Housing Authority
 And where the legislative body does not itself possess the
 None were related to the subject in inquiry
requisite info
o 3) when senator estrada adjourned the investigation
 Not infrequently true – recourse must be had to
 He asked petitioners Romero II and Canlas to return at the
others who possess it
resumption of the investigation
o Thus!!!! As long as the consti rights of witnesses will be respected by
ISSUE respondent senate committees
 It is their duty to cooperate with them in their efforts to
 Whether the legislative in inquiry when it raised a question pertaining to a case in
obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action
Chavez v. National Housing Authority is sub judice (meaning that: “restricts
o Obligation of ever citizen is to respond to subpoena to respect the
comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial proceedings to avoid prejudging the
issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the admin of justice)? NO dignity of the congress and its committees
o Chavez v. NHA  And to testify fully with respect to matters within the realm
of proper investigation
 Assuming for argument that it involves issues subject of the
respondent committee’s assailed investigation
Garcillano v. House

FACTS
 2007 election the conversation of President Arroyo and petitioner Garcillano
(COMELEC regional director)
o Regarding Arroyo’s desire to have a favourable outcome in terms of his
senatoriables
o Conversation was recorded and played during the HOR investigation
 Petition was filed paying that such playing of the illegally seized communication
was in violation of RA 4200 or the anti-wiretapping law
 Also a petition for injunction prays that the senate committee be prevented from
further conducting such investigation
o For the basic reason that there was no proper publication of the senate
rules
o Unlawfully seizing documents
ISSUE
 Whether there was proper publication of rules as to empower the senate to further
proceed with their investigation? NO
o Senate cannot be allowed to continue with the conduct of the questioned
legislative inquiry without duly published rules of procedure
 Clear derogation of the consti requirement (Sec 21 Art. 6)
o Requisite of the publication of the rules is intended to satisfy the basic
requirements of due process
o Publication is needed for it will be injustice to punish or otherwise
burden a citizen for the transgression of law which he had no notice of
o Publication is set forth in Article 2 of civil code
o Respondents justify their non-observance of the consti mandate by
publication arguing that the rules have never been amended since 1995
 They are published also in a booklet form available to anyone
for free and accessible to the public at the senate’s internet
web page
o Court does not agree
 Absence of any amendment to the rules cannot justify the
senate’s defiance of the clear and unambiguous language of
sec. 21 art. 6
o Organic law instructs that senate may have inquiries in aid of legislation
only in accordance with duly published rules of procedure
 Does not make a distinction whether or not thse rules have
undergone amendments or revision
o Consti mandate to publish the said rules prevails over any custom or
tradition followed by senate
o Invocation by the respondents of the provisions of RA 8792
 Electronic Commerce Act of 2000
 Support their claim on valid publication on the internet
 All the more incorrect
o Because RA 8792 considers an electornic data message or an electronice
document as the functional equivalent of a written document only for
evidentiary purposes
 Law only recognizes the admissibility in evidence of
electronic data messages and/or electronic documents
 Not a medium for publishing laws
o Allegedly published such rules through their web page
 Only viewed as a matter evidence
 Still does not conforme witht what the consti propounded
o High court granted the petition for injunction preventing the senate to
conduct such inquiry in aid of legislation
o Therefore! Respondent senate committees therefore could not in
violation of the consti use its unpublished rules in the legislative inquiry
subject of these consolidated cases
o Conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation by the senate has to be derred
until it shall have caused the publication of the rules
 It can only do so in accordance with its duly published rules
of procedure rules of procedure
Neri v. Senate
 DOTC entered into a contract with ZTE
o For the supply of equipment and services for national broadband
network (NBN)
 Amounting to 329M usd OR 16 billion pesos
 In response to the alleged anomalies in the project
o Various resolutions which invoke the power to conduct investigation in
aid of legislation were introduced in the senate
 During the investigation Jose de Venecia III testifies that the NBN-ZTE broadband
deal had been pushed by high-ranking executive officials and instead of build-
operate transfer (BOT)
o Converted to goverment to government project
 Neri was summoned to appear and testify
o Only Sept 26 he testifies before the committees for 11 hours
o Revealed that Benjamin Abalos (COMELEC) bribed him 200 M to push
the project
 When Neri was asked about the project himself
o Invoked executive privilege
o Refused to answer the questions:
 1) whether or not Pres. Arroyo followed up the project
 2) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it
 3) whether or not she directed him to approve
 Respondent committee issued a subpoena ad tetifacnadum requiring him to appear
o Neri did not appear before the committee
o Thus a show cause letter to explain why Neri would not be cited for
contempt was issued
 Bautista (counsel of Neri) replied that he did not want to disrespect and snob them
o He said everything during the 11 hours interrogation that did not involve
the topics which exercise executive privilege
 Stated also in the letter was
o 1) his non-appearance was upon the order of the president
o 2) his conversations with the Pres dealth with delicate sensitive materials
concerning national security and diplomatic relations
 o 3) that questions be furnished in advance so that he may adequately
perepare for hearing
 Committees found the explanations unsatisfactory
o Without responding to his request for advance notices on matters that
still need clarifiying
o They issued an order citing him of contempt
 On the same day Neri moved for the reconsideration
ISSUE
 Whether there is a recognized presumptive presidential communications privilege in
our legal system? YES
o Revocation of EO 464 in the case of Senate v. Ermita does not in any
way diminish the concept of executive privilege
o Claim of executive privilege is recognized in cases
 Where the subject of inquiry relates to a power textually
committed by the consti to the president
 Mitlary and foreign relations
o Under our consti, the president is the repository of the commander-in-
chief
 With appointing, pardoning and diplomatic powera
o Consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers
 Info relating to these powers may enjoy greater
confidentiality that others
o Several jurisprudence provide the following elements of presidential
communications privilege before its exercise can be said valid
 1) protected communication must relate to a quintessential
and non-delegable presidential power
 In this case, the subject matter which is foregin loans that the
president will acquire for the project is a power non-
delegabole that only the president himself can exercise
 Fact that president has to secure the prior concurrence of the
monetary board
 Shall submit to the congress a complete report of
its deisions before contracting or guaranteering
o Using the 3 elements, the court is convinces that the communications
foregin loans
elicited by the 3 questions are covered by the presidential
 It still does not diminish the executive nature of
communications privilege
the power
 This is only a reflection of separation of powers but allows
checks and balances
 Cause it is is important matter
 President’s power to contract foreign loans on
behlf of the PH
 Check and balance is similar to President’s power to veto a
law
 2) the communication is limited only by the doctrine of
operational proximity
 Limites the power of presidential communications privilege
 Prevents the president from simply making every
communication done by his executive a privilege
 Thus preventing people to scrutinize the
communication
 Tests is that only communications at that level are close
enough to the president to be relevatory of his deliberations
or to a risk to the candor of advisers
 In this case since the communication is between the president
and his cabinet adviser
 Could be seen that the communication is within
the close proximity of the president
 To determine who is within operational proximity we use the
organizational test
 Laid down in judicial watch inc. v. DOJ
 The main consideration is to limit the availability of
executive privilege only to officials who stand proximate to
the President
 Not only be reason of their function but also by reason of
their positions in the executive’s organizational structure
 Thus the respondent committee’s fear that the scope of
privilege would be uneccessarily expanded with the use of
the operational proximity tests if unfounded
 3) president’s claim of executive privilege is not merely
based on a generalized interest and like contains an important
and compelling need to be kept confidential
 Easy to discern the danger that foes with the disclosure of the
president’s communication with her advisor
 NBN Project involves a foreign country as a party to the
agreement
 Whatever the president says about the agreement -
particularly while official negotiations are ongoing
 Are matters which China will surely view with
particular interest
 There is danger is such kind of exposure
 Could adversely affect our diplomatic and
economic relations with China
 1st – communications relate to quitessentual and non-
delegable power” of the president
 Power to enter into an executive agreement with
other countries
 Without the concurrence of senate
 Traditionally recognized
 2nd – the communications are received by a close advisor of
the president
 Under the operational proximity test
 Petitioner is a close advisory being a member of
cabinet
 3rd – no adequate showing of a compelling need that would
justify the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability
 of the info elsewhere by an appropriate investigating
authority
Arnault v. Nazareno
FACTS
 Case arose from the legislative inquiry into the acquisition by the PH gov of the
Buenavista and Tambobong estates sometime in 1949
 Among the witnesses called to be examine by the special committee created by a
senate resolution was Jean Arnault
o Lawyer who delivered a partial of the purchase price to a rep of the
vendor-petitioner was the attorney in -fact Ernest Burt
o In the negotiations for the purchase of the Buenavista (Php 4.5M) and
Tambobong Estate (Php 500k) estates
 Turned out that the gov did not hav e to pay a single centavo for the Tambobong
estate
o Already owned by virtue of a deed of sale from PH trust company
o By virtue of the recessions of contract through which Ernest Burt had an
interest estate
 An intriguing question which the committee sought to resolve was that involved in
the apparent irregularity of the gov’s paying
o To Burt of a total sum of Php 1.5M for his alleged interest of only Php
20k in the two estates
o He seemed to have forfeited anyways long before oct 1949
 Committee sought to determine who were responsible for and who benefited from
the transaction at the expense of the gov
 Arnault testifies 2 checks payable to Burt aggregating Php 1.5M were delivered to
him
o On that same occasion he draw on said account two checks
 1) 500k which he transferred to the account of the associated
agencies inc. with PNB
 2) Another for the Php 440k payable to cash which he
himself cashed
 Senate adopted Resolution No. 8
o Creating a special committee to determine the validity of the purchase
and whether price paid was fair
 During the investigation
o Arnault refused to reveal the identity of said rep
o Also invoked his consti right against self-incriminations
 Senate adopted a resolution committing Arnault to the custody of the Sergeant-at-
arms and imprisoned
o Until he shall habe purged the contempt by revealing to the senate…the
name of the person to whom he gave the Php 440k as well as answer
other pertinent questions in connection therewith
 Arnault petitioned for a writ of Habea Corpus
ISSUE
 Whether the senate or HoR has the power to punish a person not a member of the
house with contempt? YES
o Once inquiry is admitted to be within the jurisdiction of a legislative
body to make
 the investigating committee has the power to require a
witness to answer any question pertinent to course to his
consti right against self-incrimination
o Inquiry must be material or necessary to the exercise of a power in it
vested by the consti
 Like to legislate or to expel a member
 Every question which investigator is empowered to coerce a
witness to answer must be material or pertinent to that
inquiry
o A witness may not be coerced to answer a question that obviously has no
relation to the subject of the inquiry
o The fact that the legislative body has the power to make the inquiry
would not preclude judicial intervention to correct a clear abuse of
discretion in the exercise of that power
o What is requires is that it has to be pertinent to the matter under inquiry
o Self-incirmination issue as against witness’s inconsistent and unjustified
claim to a consti right
 Is his clear duty as a citizen to give frank, sincere and truthful
testimony before a competent authority
o State has the right to exact fulfillment of a citizen’s obligation
 Consistent of course with his right under the consti
o Not necessary for the legislative body to show that every question
propounded to a witness is material to any proposed or possible
legislation
o Resolution of commitment here in question was adopted by the senate
 A continuing body and which does not cease exist upon the
periodical dissolution of the congress or of the HOR
o No limit as to time to the senate’s power to punish for contempt in case
where the power may constitutionally be exerted as in the present case
o Power subsists as long as the senate
 Continuing body
 Persists in performing the particular legislative function
involved
Sabio v. Gordon
FACTS
 Senate Resolution No. 455 directed an inquiry in aid of legislation
o On anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines Overseas
Telecommunications Corp. (POTC)
o Philippines Communications Satellite Corp (PHILCOMSAT) and
PHILCOMSAT Holding Corp. (PHC)
o Due to alleged improprieties in their operations by their respective board
of directors
 Chairman Sabio declined the invitiation because of a prior commitment
o At the same time invoked Sec. 4(b) of EO 1:
  No member or staff of the commission shall be required to
testify or produce evidence in any judicial, legislative or
admin proceeding concerning matters within its official
cognizance
ISSUE
 Whether Sec. 4(b) of EO 1 limits the power of legislative inquiry by exempting all
PCGG members or staff from testifying in any judicial, legislative or admin
proceedings in so far as it repeals the 1987 consti? NO
o Considering the settled jurisprudence, court finds section 4(b) directly
repugnant with the consti
o Sec 4(b) exempts the PCGG members and staff from the Congress’
power of inquiry
 Cannot be countenance
o Nowhere in the consti is any provision granting such exemption
o Congress’ power of inquiry encompasses everything that concerns the
admin of existing laws
 As well as proposed or possibly needed statuses
 Even extends to gov agencies created by congress and
officers whose positions are within the power of congress to
regulate and abolish
 PCGG belongs to this class
o A mere provision of law cannot pose a limitation to the broad power of
congress
 In the absence of any consti basis
o Sec. 4(b) being in the nature of an immunity is inconsistent with the
principle of public accountability
 Places the PCGG members and staff beyond the reach of
courts, congress and other admin bodies
o Instead of encouraging public accountability, the same provision only
institutionalizes irresponsibility and non-accountability
o Sec 4(b) limits or obstructs the power of congress to secure from PCGG
members and stadd informations and other data in aid of its power to
legislate
o In summary
 A statute may be declared unconsti because it is not within
the legislative power to enact
 Or it creates or establishes methods or forms that infringe
consti principles
 Its purpose or effect violates the consti or its basic principles
o As shows in the above discussion
 4(b) is inconsistent with
 Art. 6 Sec. 21 (power of inquiry)
 Art. 9 Sec. 1 (principle of public accountability)
 Art. 2 Sec. 28 (policy of full public disclosure)
 Art. 3 Sec. 7 (right to public info)
o Clear import of this provision is that all existing laws, executive orders,
proclamations, LOI and other executive issuance inconsistent or
repugnant to the consti are repealed
o Sec 4(b) of EO 1 is declared repealed by the 1987 consti
o Senate committee’s power of inquiry relatife to senate resolution 455 is
upheld
Balag v. Senate
FACTS
 Horacio Castillo
o 1st year law student
o Died allegedly due to hazing conducted by the Aegis Juris frat
 Sen. Zubiri condemned the death of Horacio III
o Directed the appropriate senate committee to conduct an investigation in
aid of legislation
o To hold those responsible accountable
 Petitioner did not attend hearing
o But John Solano (member), Atty. Nilo Divina (dean) and Arthur Capili
(fauclty sec)
o Attended the hearing and were questioned by the senate committee
members
 On the same day, parents of Horacio III filed a criminal complaint for murder and
violation of Sec 4 of RA 8049
o Before the department of justice against several members of the AJ frat
o Including petitioner
 On oc 11 – Petitioner attended the senate hearing
 Grace Poe asked the petitioner if he was the president of AJ Frat
o He refused to answer
o Invoked his right against self-incirmination
o Asked twice and resuded to answer both
 She manifested that petitioner’s signature appeared on the app for recognition of the
AJ frat and on rohanizational sheet
o Indicating he was president
 Petitioner against invoked his right against self-incrimination
 Sen. Poe moved to cite him in contempt
o Seconded by Sen. Villanueva and Zubiri
 Sen. Lacson ruled that the motion was properly seconded
 Senate Sergeants-at-arms was ordered to place petitioner in detention after the
committee hearing
 Motion of Poe and seconded by Villanueva and Zubiri
o Committee cites Balag in contempt
o Ordered arrest and detained at the office of the sergeant-at-arms until
such time he gives his true testimony
o Otherwise purges himself in contempt
 Petitioner argues that the legislative inquiry conducted was not in aid of legislations
o Aid of prosecution
o Emphasized the transcripts during the committee hearing were used in
the criminal complaint filed against him
o Bolsters that the said hearing were in aid of prosecution
 Insists that senate hearings would violate his right to due process
 o Would pre-empt the findings of the DOJ with respect to the criminal
complaint filed against him
 Balag also asserts that he properly invoked his right against self-incrimination
o Questions were incriminating
o Because it involves an element of the crime of hazing
 Petitioner prays for the issuance of TRO and/or writ or preliminary injunction
o Because senate illegally enforced the transscripts of said hearing and
contempt order
o Caused grave and irreparable injury as he was deprived of his liberty
without due process of law
 Contends that respondents did not exercise their power of contempt judiciously with
restraint
 Respondents contend that he admitted that he was ammeber of the frat but still
refused to say whether he was president
o Only saying that he is already studying in another school
o Senate held him in contempt
o Many documents supporting he was president
ISSUES
 Whether respondent sentate committees acted with grave abuse of discretion in
conducting the legislative inquiry and citing the petitioner in contempt? NO
o Did not act with grave abuse of discretion in conducting the legislative
inquiry
o Case is an actual controversy and not that of a judicial controversy
 Actual controversies are outside the jurisdiction of the courts
 Therefore allows the congress to have jursidictions with the
said case
o Court has already ordered the release from detainment of Balag
 Making the case moot and academic
o Petitioner is no longer under authority of senate
o However!!!!! Ruling goes on to expound on the procedure and
limitations of the tie period of detainment od a person cited in contempt
under the senate
o Court finds geuine necessity to place a limitation on the period of
imprisonment
 That may be imposed by the senate pursuant to its inherent
power of contempt
 During the inquiries in aid of legislation
o Sec 21 Art 6
 Congress, in conducting inquiries in aid of legislation must
respect the rights or persons appearing in or affected therein
o Recognized that the senate’s inherent power of contempt is of utmost
importance
o Legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of
info respecting the conditions which the legislations are intended to
affect or change
o Presumption they will not gravely abuse its power of contempt
 Stilla lingering and unavoildable possibility of indefinite
imprisonment of witnesses
 As loing as there is no specific period of detention
 Not contemplated by the consti
o Court finds that there is no more justiciable controversy regarding
respondents’ exercise of their consti power to conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation
 Their powers to contempt and the validity of petitioner’s
detention
o Petitioner is moot and academic
o Court can assume jurisdiction over a case that has been rendered moot
and academic when any of the following instances are present
 1) grave consti violations
 2) exceptionsl character of the case
 3) paramount public interest
 4) case presents an opportunity to guide the bench, the bar
and the public
 5) case is capable of repletion yet evading review
o Court still finds necessity to place a limitation on the period of
impricsonment that may be imposed by the senate
 Its inherent power of contempt during inquiries in aid of
legislation
 Sec. 21 Art. 6 of the consti
 States that congress in conducting inquiries in aid
of legislation must respect the rights of persons
appearing in or affected therein
o Issue must be thresdhed out as the senate’s exercise of its power of
contempt without a definite period is capable of repetition
o Moreover, the indefinite detention of persons cited in contempt impairs
their consti right to livery
 Paramount public interest requires court to determine such
issue to ensure that the consti rights of the persons appearing
before the legislative inquiry of the senate are protectd
o Period od imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt by the
senate during inquiries in aid of elgsialtion should only last until the
termination of the legislative inquiry
 Under which said power is invoked
 Since senate has no time limit when it comes to the
punishment of a person that is cited in contempt
o Interests of the senate and the witnesses appearing in its legislative
inquiry are balanced
o Senate can continuously and effectively exercise its power of contept
during the legislative inquiry against recalcitrant witnesses
 Even during recess
o Such power can be exercised by the senate immediately when the
witness performs a contemptuous act
 Subject to its own rules and the consti rights of the said
witness
Senate v. Ermita
FACTS
 Inquiries and investigations in aid of legislation
o Calls for the attendance of officials and employees of the executive dept,
bureaus and offices including those employed in the GOCCs, AFP and
the PNP
 On Sept 21-23, 2005 – the senate called for the attendance of various executive
officials as resource in a public hearing on the railway project of North Luzon
Railways Corp Group (North Rail Project)
o To help in investigating in alleged overpricing and other unlawful
provisions of the contract covered in the said project
 Senate also issued invitations through the senate committee on national defense and
security for some officials of the AFP
o To be resource speakers in aid of legislation inquiring on the “Gloriagate
Scandal” and the alleged wiretapping of the president of the PH
o Garci tapes
 Gen. Senga sent a letter in sept 27 to postpone the said hearing
 Exec. Ermita requested the same since he needs time to review issues on the
meeting
 Sept 28, 2005 – president issued EO 464
o Ensuring the observance of the principles of separation of powers
o Adherence to the rule on executive privilege and respect for the rights of
public officials appearing in legislative inquiries in aid of legislation
under the consti
o It prohibits dept. heads, senior officials of exec. Dept who in the
judgment of the dept. heads are covered by executive privilege
o Also generals and flag officers of the AFP and PNP officers and etc.
o And such other officers as may be determined the president, from
appearing in such hearings conducted by congress without first securing
the president’s approval
 After the issuance of the EO Gen Senga refused to go to the investigation due to
their non-acquisition of consent necessary for such congressional investigation
 For Col. Balutan and Brig. Gen Gudani who pushed through with the event
o Were severely reprimanded by President Arroyo for defying the EO 464
o She removed them from their position and were made to face court
martial proceedings
 For the North Rail transport investigation, Exec. Sec. Ermita and other members did
not push through with the investigation
ISSUE
 What is the difference of Sec. 21 and 22 of Art 6?
o Sec 22 is called the question hour
o Grants the power to inquire in pursuit of its oversight functions
 As compared to those made in legislation (sec 21)
o The question here is how officials are implementing certain
statures
 Makes them in the said investigation report to the
legislative
o Practice is unsual since supposedly, executive detps should only
report to the executive for their functions
o In these cases, the executive officer may refuse to go and this
rationale is based on the separation of powers
 Given such inquiry is not in aid of legislation
 Does not contravene the legislative powers of congress
o Under sec 22
 Executive heads are exempt from the question hour by
validly claiming privilege
 But not because of their position
o Though!!!! The only officers exempted by position is the president
 Except in impeachment cases
 And members of SC
 Due respect to equal power
o Sec 1 of EO 464 invokes Art. 6 Sec. 22 of the consti
 Grants them power to inquire and not for purposes of in
aid of legislation
o The absence of any reference to inquiries in aid og legislation must
be construed as limited in its application to appearances of dept
heads in the question hour
 Reading is dictated by the basic rule of construction
o Sec 3 requires all officials in Sec 2(b) to secure the consent of the
president prior appearing to the congress
 Claims that various official who in the judgment of the
heads of offices designated in the same section are
covered by executive privilege
 Includes officers that may be determined by the
president
o Determination of this matter is based on the idea of being covered
by the “executive privilege”
 Which means that is it up to the president to determine
who is the person who has information worthy of being
covered by the executive privilege
o In the letter given by Sec. Ermita he does not specify
o Executive privilege is whether the secret that is kept is whether for
military, diplomatic or other purposes
o Congress needs to know why such invocation claim is like now
claim at all
o Although!!!! There is no need for the claimant of executive
privilehe to give such particularity of the confidential documents
 Since it would be countertuitive to its purpose
o THUS! The claim of privilege under sec 3 of EO 464 in relation to
2(b) is invalid
 It only requires that there be consent without a rationale
 Why it must be confidential
o Frustrates the power of inquiry of congress
o Section 2(a) is valid because it simply enumerates the ones covered
in sec 2

Sanlakas v. Exec. Sec.
FACTS
 Case has its origins in the oakwood incident of rebeliion between 3 junior
officers of the AFP demanded the resignation of the president and other
executive officials
o Because of the worsening corruption
 President proclamation 427 and general order 4
o To suppress such rebellion
o Petitioners assert that the issuance of the respective proclamation
order 427 and GO 4 is unconsti
 Said that Sec 18 of Art. 8 of consti in so far does not authorize a declaration of
a state of rebellion
 Also contend that the presidential issuances cannot be construed as an
exercise of emergency powers as the congress has not delegated any power to
the president
 It was unwarranted and abuse of power to exercise martial law
ISSUE
 Whether the procalamation calling the state of rebellion is proper? YES
o Based on consti
 President is granted a sequence to graduated powers
 Calling out power, power to suspend and the privilege of the
write of habeas corpus and power to declare martial law
o Consti requires the concurrence of 2 conditions
 1) an actual invasion or rebellion
 2) that public safety rewuires the exercise of such power
o Article not only vests to the president the commander-in-chief power but
also with executive powers
o President’s authrotiy to declare a state of rebellion springs in the main
from the commander-in-chief powers
o Solgen points out Sec. 4, Chap 2 Book 3 (Office of the president) of the
revised admin code of 1987
 Provision states that the president’s proclamation gives
notice to the nation that such state exists
 And that AFP may be called upon to prevent or suppress it
o Mere declaration of states of rebellion cannot dinish or ciolate conti
protected rights
 Purely executive powers vested on the president by sec. 1 and
18 Art. 8
 Opposed to the delegated legislative powers contemplated by
Sec 23 (2) of Article 6
Ampatuan v. Hon. DILG Sec. Puno
FACTS
 Day after the infamous Ampatuan massacre happened
o President Arroyo issued procalamation 1946
o Placing provinces of Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and Cotabato city
under a state of emergency
o Directed the AFP and PNP to undertake measures as may be allowed by
the consti
 To prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence in
the said areas
o 3 days later – Pres Arroyo issued Admin Order 273
 Transferes the supervision of the ARMM from the office of
the president to the DILG
 Word “transfer” was then changed to “delegate” because
some of issues raised over terminology
 Amended by AO 273-A
o Petitioner contends that President unlawfully exercised emergency
powers when she ordered the deployment of AFP and PNP personnel in
the places mentioned in the proclamation
o Such deployment is NOT by itseld an exercise of emergency powers
 As understood under Sec 23(2) Art. 6
o Also claim that the issuance of the AO273/273-A enro ached the
autonomy of ARMM as a local gov unit
o Petition of prohinition under rule 65 of the rules of court
ISSUE
 Whether the procalamation 1946 and AO 273 and 273-a violate the principle of
local autonomy under Sec 16 Article 10 of the consti and Sec 1 Art. 5 of the
expanded ARMM organic act? NO
o DILG sec did not take over control of the powers of the arm
o After law enforcement agent took respondent governor of ARMM into
custody for alleged complicity in the Maguindanao massacre
o ARMM vice-gov, petitioner Adiog
 Assumed the vacated post
 Persuant to the rule on succession found in Art. 7 Sec. 12 of
RA 9054
o Acting Governor Adiong named the then Speaker of the ARMM
Regional assembly
o Peitioner Sahali-Generale
 Aciting ARMM vice-gov
o In short, DILG Sec. did not take over the admin or operations of the
ARMM
 Whether President Arroyo invalidly exercised emergency powers when she called
out the AFP and the PNP to prevent and suppress al incidents of lawless ciolence in
Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, and Cotabato City? NO
o President did not proclaim national emergency
 Only a state of emergency in the 3 places mentioned
o She did not act pursuant to any law enacted by congress
 That authorized her to exercise extraordinary powers
o Calling out of the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence
in such places is a power that the consti directly vests in the president
 Stated in Sec 18 of Art. 7
 o Thus!!!!! Did not need a congressional authority to exercise the same
Lagman v. Medialdea
FACTS
 President Duterte issued Proclamation 216 suspending the writ of habeas corpus
o Declaring martial law in the whole of Mindanao
o After the start of the marawi siege by rebel group Maute
 President following the timeline set in Sec 18 Art. 8 of the Consti
o Submitted to the congress a written report of the factual basis of the
proclamation
 Rep from the executive dept, military and police authorities
o Conducted briefing with the senate and the HOR
 Senate along with the lower house expressed full support of the proclamation
finding no reason to revoke proclamation
 Judiciary have the power to review and strike down the presidents proclamation
when appropriate proceeding exist filed by any citizen with regards to the
 factual basis
 3 petitions were submitted and consolidated seeking to nullify Proclamation 216
 1) Lagman Petition
o No factual basis for the proclamation because there is no rebellion in
Mindanao
o Arguing that terrorism is not rebellion
o No factual basis for the proclamation because the president’s report
contained “false, inaccurate, contrived, and hyperbolic account”
o No factual basis for the proclamation because the report included
previous events dating back to 2016
o No factual basis because the military was able to prevent any plans of
the Abu Sayaff and the Maute in invading Marawi and other parts of
Mindanao
 MILF was absent
 ISIS group contained only a small number
 2) Cullamat Petition
o No factual basis that warrants a threat to public safety making the
proclamation baseless and unconsti
 3) Mohammed Petition
o The declaration of martial law should be a last resort
o Arguing that the president should first call out the military
o Suspend the writ of habeas corpus and then declare Martial law
ISSUE
 Whether nullifying Proclamation No. 216 will have a) an effect of recalling
the proclamation no. 55 or b) nullify acts of president in calling out armed
forces to quell lawless violence in Marawi and other parts of the Mindanao
region? NO
o Court’s ruling will not affect Duterte’s declaration of a state of
national emergency
 Proclamation No. 55
o President may exercise the power to call out the AFP
 Independently of power to suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus and declare martial law
o Separate proceedings have to be done to review calling out and
declaration of martial law
o Nullification of proclamation no. 216 would not result in
nullification of acts of the president
 Because of “operative fact doctrine”
o In this doctrine, an unconsti statute is recognized as an operative
fact
 Before it was declared unconsti
 Whether or not there were sufficient factual basis for the proclamation of
martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus? YES
o Petitioners insist that the uprising does not constitute rebellion in
the absence of the requisite
 Of removal from allegiance to the Philippines gov of a
territory of the Philippines
 Contention lacks merit
o The facts which were reviewed by the court were the
 Damage caused by the Maute group in certain
establishments
 Hoisting of the ISIS flag in several areas
 Capability and extensive network of Maute Group to
cause damage to other parts of Mindanao
 Aim of establishing a DAESH wilayat in Mindanao
o In the proclamation no. 216
 President concluded that the Maute group is “openly
attempting to remove from allegiance to the PH gov”
 “lawless armed groups” constituted for the prupose of
removing Mindanao
 To establish an Islamic state
o Picking up of arms threatened public safety
o President deduced from the facts that there was an armed public
uprising
 Purpose of which was to remove allegiance to PH gov a
portion of its territory
o President believe probable cause to rebellion
o Lagman petition states that there is counter-evidence to show that
the declaration is predicate on false facts – not persuade
 All were derived from unverified news articles
 Court ruled as hearsay twice removed
o Parameters for review
 1) actual invasion or rebellion
 2) public safety requires the exercise of such power
 According to the penal code rebellion
 1) public uprising
 2) taking of arms against gov
o Purpose of uprising - Remove from the allegiance to the gov or its
laws
  Territory of the PH islands or any part thereof
 Any body of land, naval or other armed forced
 Depriving chief executive or legislature – wholly or
partially of any of their powers and prerogatives
o Burden of proof is on the president
o Threshold hold of evidence – probable cause
 Whether public safety requires the declaration of martial law and the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of
Mindanao? YES
o President noted that acts of violence perpetrated by the abu sayaf
group and maute group were directed not only against gov forced
and establishments
 But also against civilians and their properties
o Requisite of declaration of martial law has been complied with
 It guarantees the security of the country and promotes
public safety
o For the whole of Mindanao, Sec 18 Art. 7
 States that the President may place the PH or any part
thereof in martial law
o One requisite is rebellion
 Crime of masses or multitudes
 Involving crowd action that cannot be confined within
predetermined bounds
 Involves many acts…a vast movement of men and a
complex of net of intrigues and plots
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance
FACTS
 Motions seeking reconsideration
o For the decision of dismissing the petitions filed in these cases for the
declaration of unconsti of RA 7716
o Also known as the expanded value-added tax law
 Petitioners claim that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in the HOR
o As required by Sec 24 Art 6
 Petitioners admit that H. No. 11197 was filed in the HOR
o Where it passes 3 readings
o Also admit that afterward that it was sent to the senate
o After first reading it was referred to the senate ways and means
committee
 They were contending that senate did not pass it on the 2nd and 3rd readings
 Instead senate passed its own version
o S. No. 1630
 Tolentino says that senate committee should have struck out the text of the bill to
amend H. No. 11197
o Substitute it with the text of S. No. 1630
o Thus the bill remains a house bill and the senate version just becomes
the text of the house bill
 SO! They believe that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in the HOR
o Because it is a consolidation of 2 bills
 The verb “shall originate” is qualified in the PH consti by the word “exclusively”
o And the phrase “as on other bills” in the American version is omitted
 Thus according to them that to be considered as having originated in the House
o RA 7716 must retain essence of H. No. 11197
ISSUE
 Whether Sec. 24 Art. 6 of the consti was violated? NO
o Not in the law that the revenue bill should exclusively originate in the
HOR
o A bill originating from the HOR may undergo such extensive changes in
the senate
 Result may be rewriting of the whole
 Possibility of a 3rd version by the conference committee may
even occur
o What is important is that a result of the senate action
 Distinct bill may be produced
o The fact that they are assailing that it should be the same as the house
bill
 Would deny the senate’s power not only to concur with
amendments but also to propose amendments
o Violate the coequality of legislative power of the 2 houses of congress
 In fact make the house superior to the senate
o Consti only means that it must come from the House because they are
more sensitive to the local needs and problems
o Senators are expected to have a national perspective
o Consti does not prohibit filing in the senate of a sub bill
 In anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the house
 So long as it is withheld pending receipt of the house bill
o THUS! Since revenue bills are required to originate from the House
 Senate cannot enact rev measures of its own without such
bills
o After a rev bill is passed and sent over to it by the house
 Senate can pass its own version on the same matter
o Senate can rewrite a bill required to come from the house and leave only
a trace of the original bill
Pascual v. Sec. of Public Works
FACTS
 1953 RA 920 was passed
 Law appropriated Php 85,000 for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension
and improvement of
o Pasig feeder road terminals
 Pascual – governor of Rizal
o Assailed validity of law
o Claimed that the appropriation was actually going to be used for private
use for the terminals sought to be improved were part of Antonio
subdivision
 Subdivision is owned by Sen. Zulueta
 o Member of the same senate that passed and approved the same RA
 Claimed that Zulueta misrepresented in Congress the fact that he owns those
terminals
o And that his property would be unlawfully enriched at the expense of
taxpayers
o If said RA would be upheld
 Pascual prayed that the Sec. of public Works be restrained from releasing funds for
such purpose
 Zulueta maybe as an afterthought
o Donated the said property to the city of pasig
ISSUE
 Whether the appropriation of Php 85,000 for the construction of the feeder roads is
valid? NO
o General rules that the legislature is without power to appropriate public
revenue for anything but a public purpose
o Essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which must
determine its validity as justifying a tax
 Not the magnitude of the interest to be affected
 Nor degree to which the general advantage of the community
o Results from the promotion of private interest or private enterprises
 Does not justify their aid by the use of public money
o Donation to the gov over 5 months after approval and effectivity of said
act made according to the petition
 For the purpose of giving a “semblance legality”
 Did not cure its basic defect
o SC ruled that said donation violated the provision of our fundamental
law
 Prohibiting members of congress from being directly or
indirectly financially interest in any contract with the gov
 Thus it is unconsti
o The construction of the projected feeder roads in question with public
funds would greatly enhance or increase the value of the subdivision
 Aside from relieving him from the burden of constructing his
subdivision streets or roads at his own expense
o Donation of the property to the gov to make the property public does not
cure the consti defect
 Fact that the law was passed when the said property was still
a private property cannot be ignored
o The rule that the taxing power must be exercised for public purposes and
not for the advantage of private individuals
o Result is that said appropriation sought a private purpose
 Thus null and void
Garcia v. Mata
FACTS
 July 11, 1956 – date when RA 1600 took effect
o Petitioner had an accumulated active commissioned service of 10 years
5 months and 5 days in the AFP
o Eusebio Garcia was a reserve officer in active duty with AFP
 Until his revision to inactive status on Nov 15 1960
 Pursuant to the provision of RA 2332
 In 1969 – He brought an action to compel the Sec of National Defense and Chief of
Staff of the AFP to reinstate him in the active commissioned service of the AFP
o Readjust his rank as Captain
o Pay all the emoluments and allowances due to home from the time of his
reversion to inactive status
 He claims that his reversion to inactive status is in violation of the par. 11 of the
special provision
o Which prohibits the reversion to inactive status of reserve officers on
active duty with at least 10 years of accumulated active commissioned
service
 Respondents say the said provision has no relevance or pertinence whatsoever to
the budget in question
o Or to any appropriation item contained therein
 Proscribed by Art. 6 Sec. 19 Par. 2 of the 1935 consti
o No provision shall be embraced in the general appropriation bill
o Unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein
o Any such provision shall be limited in its operation to such
appropriation
ISSUE
 Whether the subject provision contained in an act is embraced in the subject and is
properly connected therewith, the subject to be considered is the one expressed in
the title of the act? NO
o RA 1600 appropriated money for the operation of the gov for the fiscal
year 1956-1957
o Par. 11 refers to the fundamental gov policy matters of the calling to
active duty and reversion to inactive status to reserve officers in the AFP
o Paragraph in question violated Art. 6 Sec. 21 Par 1 of 1935 consti
 Provided that no bill which may be enacted into law shall
embrace more than 1 subject
 Which shall be expressed in the title of the bill
o Consti requirement nullified and rendered inoperative any provision
contained in the body of an act
 That was not fairly included in the subject expressed in the
title
 Or not germane to the subject
o Consti provision was intended to preclude the insertion of riders in
legislation
 Rider – a provision not germane to the subject matter of the
bill
o But if a provision in the body of the act is not fairly included in this
restricted subject
  Like the provision relating to the policy matters of calling to
active duty and reversion to inactive duty of reserve officers
of the AFP
 Provision is inoperative
o Par. 11 is unconsti and inoperative
o Petition denied
o Confers no right and affords no protection
Farinas v. Exec. Secretary
FACTS
 RA 9006 – An Act to Enhance the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and
credible elections through fair election practices
o Consolidation of the following bills originating from HOR and senate
o 1) HB No. 9000 known as Omnibus Election Code
o 2) SB No. 1742 with the same title as RA 9006
 Sec. 14 of the RA 9006 repeals Sec. 67 of the OEC
o Repealing clause: sec 67 and 85 of the OEC (BP 881) and sections 10
and 11 of RA 6646 are hereby repealed
 Sec. 67 – Candidates holding elective office: any elective official, whether national
or local, running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a
permanent capacity, except for the President and VP, shall be considered ipso facto
resigned from his office upon the filing of this COC
 With the repeal, all elective officials are now placed on equal footing as they are
allowed to finish their respective terms even if they run for any officer
o Whether presidency, v-presidency or other elective positions
o Other than the one they are holding in a permanent capacity
 Petitioners allege that sec 14 of RA 9006
o Insofar as it repeals sec 67 of OEC
o Is unconsti for being in violation of Sec 26 (1) of Art. 6
ISSUE
 Whether sec 14 of RA 9006 is unconsti? NO
o Title is so broad that it encompasses all the processes involved in an
election exercise
 Including the filing of COC by elective officials
o Argue that the repeal of Sec 67 is germane to the general subject of
Repealing Act 9006
 As expressed in its title
 It eliminates the effect of prematurely terminating the term of
an elective official by his filing of a COC for an office other
than the on which he is permanently holding
 Such that he is no longer considered ipso facto resigned
therefrom
o Legislature is not required to make the title of the act a complete index
of its contents
o Sec 14 of Rep. Act 9006 is not a rider
 Court is convinced that the title and the objectives of RA
9006 are comprehensive enough to include the repeal of Sec
67 of OEC
o To require that the said repeal of Sec 67 of the code be expressed in the
title is to insist that the title be a complete index of its content
o Legislators considered Sec 67 of the OEC as a form of harassment or
discrimination
o Some sectors of society and in gov believes that the repeal of sec 67 is
bad policy as it would encourage political adventurism
 But policy matters are not the concern of the court
o Gov policy is within the exclusive dominion of the political branches of
the gov
Belgica v. Ochoa
FACTS
 Petitioners are assailing the consti of the park barrel system
o Refers to an appropriation of gov spending meant for localized projects
and secured solely or primarily to bring money to a rep’s district
 Pork barrel is a lump-sum, discretionary funds of members of the legislature
o Its usage would evolve in reference to certain funds of the president such
as the malampaya funds and presidential social fund
 Malampaya was a special fund creater under PD 910
o Issued by Marco
o For the development of indigenous energy resources vital to economic
growth
 Presidential social fund is sourced from the share of the gov in the aggregate gross
earnings of PAGCOR
o Through which the president provides direct assistance to priority
programs and projects not funded under the regular budget
 In 1996 – an anonymous source letter identified as former Marikina City Romeo
Cadazo was revealed that huge sums of gov money went into the pockets of
legislators as kickbacks
 2004 – citizens sought nullification of PDAF
o For being unconsti
 For lack of evidentiary support that illegal misuse of PDAF in the form of
kickbacks has become a common exercise of unscrupulous member of congress
o Petition was dismissed
 July 2013 – NBI began its probe into allegations
o That the gov defrauded 10B over the past 10 years
o By a syndicate using funds from the pork barrel of lawmakers and
various gov agencies for scores of ghost projects
 Investigation was spawned by sworn affidavits of 6 whistle-blowers
o Declared JLN Corp (Janet Lim Napoles) had facilitated the swindling of
billions of pesos from the public coffers for ghost projects
o Using around 20 dummy ngos for an entire decade
 Aug 2013 – COA released report revealing substantial irregularities in the
disbursement and utilization of PDAF
 o By congressmen during the Arroyo admin
 Various Infrastructures including Local Projects (VILP)
o By the DBM application and implementation of the projects by the
appropriate implementing agencies and the several GOCCs
 As for the pork barrel, whistle blowers alleged that at Php 900M from royalties in
the operation of malampaya gas project off Palawan province intended for agrarian
reform beneficiaries has gone into a dummy NGO
 Spurred in large part by the findings contained in the COA report and Napoles
controversy
o Several petitions were lodged before the court similarly seeking that the
pork barrel system be declared unconsti
 Office of ombudsman charged 5 lawmakers for plunder and 3 for malversation,
direct bribery and violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act
o Also included are the lawmakers’ chief of staff or rep
ISSUE
 Whether the pork barrel system violates Art 6 Sec 25(4)? YES
o THUS! It is unconsti
o Special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is
intended
o The pork barrel system violates this because it allows public officers to
determine the purpose for these funds
o It is up to them to choose when these funds may be appropriated to any
project
 It is left to their discretion for what purpose thse funds will
be sued for
Demetria v. Alba
FACTS
 Clear conflict between Par 1 of Sec 44 of PD 1177 “Budget Reform Decree of
1977”
o President shall have the authority to transfer any fund, appropriated for
the different depts, bureaus, offices and agencies of the exec dept
o Which are included in the general appropriations act
o To any program, project or activity of any dept, bureau or office
included in the general appropriations act or approved after its
enactment
 Prohibition to transfer an appropriation for one item to another was explicit and
categorical under the 1973 consti
 The purpose and conditions for which funds may be transferred were specified
o Transfer may be allowed for the purpose of augmenting an item
o And such transfer may be made only if there are savings from another
item in the appropriation of the gov branch or consti body
 Fails to specify the objectives and purposes for which the proposed transfer of funds
are to be made
o Allows the president to override the safeguards form and procedure
prescribed by the consti
o Amounts to undue delegation of legislative powers to the executive
o Excess in authority and jurisdiction of the president
 Petitioners assailed consti of Par 1 of sec. 44 of PD 1177
ISSUE
 Whether sec. 44 (1) of PD 1177 is unconsti? YES
o Par 1 of Sec 44 of PD 1177 unduly over extends the privilege granted
under said sec 16(5)
o PD 1177 opens the floodgates of enactment of unfunded appropriations
 Results in uncontrolled executive expenditures
 Diffuses accountability for budgetary performance
 Entranches the pork barrel system
 Ruling party may expand public money not on the
basis of development priorities but on political
and personal expediency
o Not acting within their “sphere of responsibility”
o Nation has not even recovered from the economic destitution brought by
Marcos
o Provision which allows even the slightest possibility of a repetition of
this sad experience cannot remain written in our statute books
o The claim that the decree was valid under the 1973 consti cannot be
countenanced
 Prohibition to transfer an appropriation from one item to
another was explicit and categorial under the 1973 consti
 Leeway was limited
 Purpose and conditions for which funds may be transferred
were specified
o Transfer may be allowed for the purpose of augmenting an item
 Such transfer may be made only if there are savings from
another item in the appropriation of the gov branch or consti
body
o Sec 44 (1) of PD 1177
 Empowers the president to indiscriminately transfer funds
from one dept, bureau, office of the exec dept to any
program, project or activity of any dept or office included in
the general appropriations act
 Or approved after its enactment
 Whether or not the funds to be transferred are actually
savings in the item from which the same are to be taken
 Whether the transfer for the purpose of augmenting the item
to which said transfer is to be made
o Consti infirmities render the provision in question null and void
Liga v. COMELEC
FACTS
  Early 1994 – congress itself had made an assessment that the Php 137,878,000 that
were appropriated by the congress
o For the holding of the 1994 barangay elections in the general
appropriation act of 1994
o Would be insufficient to defray the cost of holding the said elections
 In order to augment the said appropriated amount
o Petitioners allege that the respondents have threatened and are about to
effect a transfer or reallocation of the following amounts
o To be sourced from the executive and legislative branches of the gov to
respondent COMELEC
o According to the news item entitled “barangay poll funds found”
 1) Php 180,000,000 from the appropriation of the DILG
 2) Php 100,000,000 from the countryside development fund;
Php 70,000,000 from the senate and Php 30,000,000 from
House
 3) Php 43,000,000 from the internal revenue allotments of
provinces, cities and municipalities
 Petitioners raise the issue on the ground that to effect the transfer of funds would be
in direct contravention of Sec 25(5) Art. 6 of consti
 Respondents argue the said reports were mere unofficial proposals or suggestions
made in the process of searching for funds for the said elections
o Which were later discarded by the proponents themselves
 COMELEC alleges that it intends to fund the forthcoming barangay elections from
o 1) Php 137.878M appropriated by congress for the said elections
o 2) from COMELEC’s own savings
 Resulting from unused funds originally intended for the
conduct and supervision of elections and other political
exercises
o 3) possibly from a portion of its modernization programs
 Amount of more than 500M
o 4) fund of LGU
ISSUE
 Whether COMELEC is indeed officially initiating the alleged transfer of funds for
the barangay elections? NO
o If the public respondents are attempting to effect the transfer of funds
 Would be in direct contravention of Sec 25(5) Art. 6
o The court dismissed the petition due to lack of merit
o The threat to pursue the scheme existed only in newspaper reports
 Could have misled the general public
o Court acknowledges that petitioners have displayed vigilance and acted
with the best intentions when they filed the present petitions
 However! It would have been more prudent for them to have
first obtained an official statement or at least confirmation
from respondent as to the veracity of the reports contained in
the said news item
 Could have been quoted out of context
 Or abbreviated to meet the day’s deadline
Sanchez v. COA
FACTS
 In 1991 – Congress passed RA 7180
o General Appropriations Act of 1992
 Law provided an appropriation for the DILG under the Title 8
o Set aside 75M for the DILG’s Capability Building Program
 Atty. Mendoza – project director of Ad Hoc Task Force
o Inter-agency coordination to implement local autonomy
o Informed then deputy executive sec Dionisio de la Serna
 Proposal to constitute and implement a “shamrock” type task
force to implement local autonomy institutionalized under the
LGC 1991
 Proposal was accepted by the deputy executive secretary
o Attested by then DILG Sec Cesar N. Sarino
o One of the petitioners
o Who issued a memorandum for the transfer and remittance to the office
of the president of the sum of Php 300K for the operational expenses of
the task force
 Additional cash advance of Php 300k was requested
 Upon post-audit conducted by dept auditor Iluminada M.V. Fabroa
o Amounts were disallowed
ISSUE
 Whether there is legal basis for the transfer of funds of the capability building
programs fun appropriated in the 1992 general appropriation act from the DILG to
the office of the president? NO
o 2 essential requisites in order that a transfer of appropriation with the
corresponding fund may legally be effected
 1) there must be savings in the programmed appropriation of
the transferring agency
 2) must but an existing item, project or activity with an
appropriation in the receiving agency to which the savings
will be transferred
o Actual savings is a sine qua non to a valid transfer of funds from one
gov agency to another
 Existing and not theoretical
o In Philconsa v. Enriquez
 Declared that the senate president and the speaker of the
house shall approve realignment of savings
 HOWEVER! Before giving their stamp of approval, these
two need to see to it that
 1) funds to be realigned or transferred are actually
savings in the items or expenditures from which
the same are to be taken
 2) transfer or realignment is for the purpose of
augmenting the items of expenditure to which said
transfer or realignment is to be made
 Records show unmistakably point to the reality that there
were no savings at the time of the questioned transfer
  Records show that there were 2 deposits (Jan 1 1992 & Apr
28 1992)
 Money could not have been deposited because the 1992 GAA
took effect only on Jan 1 1992 or 30 days before
 No savings could have existed in such a short
amount of time
o Regards to the requirement that there be an item to be augmented – also
sine qua non
 There was no item for augmentation in the appropriation for
the office of the president at the time of the transfers in
question
o Augmentation denotes than an appropriation was determine to be
deficient after the implementation of the project or activity
Belgica v. Ochoa
FACTS
 Petitioners are assailing the consti of the park barrel system
o Refers to an appropriation of gov spending meant for localized projects
and secured solely or primarily to bring money to a rep’s district
 Pork barrel is a lump-sum, discretionary funds of members of the legislature
o Its usage would evolve in reference to certain funds of the president such
as the malampaya funds and presidential social fund
 Malampaya was a special fund creater under PD 910
o Issued by Marco
o For the development of indigenous energy resources vital to economic
growth
 Presidential social fund is sourced from the share of the gov in the aggregate gross
earnings of PAGCOR
o Through which the president provides direct assistance to priority
programs and projects not funded under the regular budget
 In 1996 – an anonymous source letter indentified as former Marikina City Romeo
Cadazo was revealed that huge sums og gov money went into the pockets of
legislators as kickbacks
 2004 – citizens sought nullification of PDAF
o For being unconsti
 For lack of evidentiary support that illegal misuse of PDAF in the form of
kickbacks has become a common exercise of unscrupulous member of congress
o Petition was dismissed
 July 2013 – NBI began its probe into allegations
o That the gov defrauded 10B over the past 10 years
o By a syndicate using funds from the pork barrel of lawmakers and
various gov agencies for scores of ghost projects
 Investigation was spawned by sworn affidavits of 6 whistle-blowers
o Declared JLN Corp (Janet Lim Napoles) had facilitated the swindling of
billions of pesos from the public coffers for ghost projects
o Using around 20 dummy ngos for an entire decade
 Aug 2013 – COA released report revealing substantial irregularities in the
disbursement and utilization of PDAF
o By congressmen during the Arroyo admin
 Various Infrastructures including Local Projects (VILP)
o By the DBM application and implementation of the projects by the
appropriate implementing agencies and the several GOCCs
 As for the pork barrel, whistle blowers alleged that at Php 900M from royalties in
the operation of malampaya gas project off Palawan province intended for agrarian
reform beneficiaries has gone into a dummy NGO
 Spurred in large part by the findings contained in the COA report and Napoles
controversy
o Several petitions were lodged before the court similarly seeking that the
pork barrel system be declared unconsti
 Office of ombudsman charged 5 lawmakers for plunder and 3 for malversation,
direct bribery and violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act
o Also included are the lawmakers’ chief of staff or rep
ISSUES
 Whether the pork barrel violates Art. 6 Sec 25 (5) of the consti? YES
o Sec 25(4) Art 6 requires that the “special appropriations bill shall specify
the purpose for which it is intended
 And shall be supported by funds actually available as
certified by the national treasurer or to be raised by a
corresponding revenue proposal therein
o Sec 25(6) Art 6requires that said funds “shall be disbursed only for
public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to
such guidelines as may be prescribed by law
o Under the 2013 PDAF article
 Amount of Php 24.79 B only appears as a collective
allocation limit since the said amount would be further
divided among individual legislators
 Then they would receive personal lump-sum allocations after
the GGA
 Effectively appropriate PDAF funds based on
their own discretion
o These appropriations are made only after the GAA is passed
 Means that the actual items of PDAF appropriation would not
have been written in to the general appropriations bill
o The lumpsum amount of Php 24.79B would be treated as a mere funding
source allotted for multiple pruposes of psending
o Setup connotes that the appropriation law leaves the actual amounts and
purposes of the appropriation for further determination
o Does not readily indicate a discernible item
Araullo v. Pres Aquino
FACTS
 Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)
o Under President Aquino’s leadership of Sec. Abad
 o Response to sluggish economic growth
 DAP allowed the executive to allocate public funds pooled from unreleased
appropriations from
o Personnel services
o Unprogrammed funds
o Carry-over appropriations from the previous year
o Budget from slow-moving items
o Projects that had been realigned to support faster disbursing projects of
its various agencies
 In the guise of the president exercising his consti authority
 Under Sec 5 (5) of Art 6
 To transfer funds out of savings to augment the
appropriations made by officers
 Within exec branch of gov
 HOWEVER! Challenges gave been proven to be more complicated as allegations
on transferring these funds outside the exec branch have been made
 MAIN ISSUE! DAP initially surface when Sec. Jinggoy Estrada delivered his
privilege speech in the senate
o Saying that some senators including himself have been allotted an
additional budget of Php 50M
o Came from the DAP
o Said sum was given upon request of a letter
o Also said that this was not the first time disbursements were made
 He explained that funds from DAP were usually taken from
o 1) unreleased appropriations under personnel services
o 2) unprogrammed funds
o 3) carry-over appropriations unreleased from previous year
o 4) budgets for slow-moving items or projects that has been realigned to
support faster-disbursing projects
 DBM soon came out to claim in its website that the DAP releases had been sourced
from savings generated by the gov
o And from unprogrammed funds
 Savings had been derived from
o 1) pooling of unreleased appropriations
o 2) withdrawal of unobligated allotments for slow moving-programs and
projects that had been earlier released to the agencies of the national gov
ISSUE
 Whether the DAP, NCB No. 541 and all other executive issuances allegedly
implementing the DAP violate Sec. 25 (5) Art. 6? YES
o Sec 25(5) Art 6 is used to keep a hold on the exercise of the power to
transfer funds appropriated by congress, president and other high
officials
o Could be seen that the funding of current activities, projects and
programs
 The general rule should still be that the budgetary amount
contained in the appropriations bill is the extent congress will
determine as sufficient for the budgetary allocation for the
proponent agency
 EXCEPTION!!! Is found in Sec 25(5) Art 6
 Bears emphasizing that the exception in favor of
high officials named in Sec 25(5) Art 6 are
exclusive
 Thus president has power to transfer funds
o HOWEVER! Transfer of appropriated funds to be valid under Sec 25(5)
must be upon a concurrence of the following requisites
 1) there is a law authorizing the president, pres of the senate
and speaker of the HOR, chief justice and the heads of the
consti commissions to transfer funds within their respective
offices
 2) funds to be transferred are savings generated from the
appropriations for their respective offices
 3) purpose of the transfer is to augment an item in the general
appropriations law for their respective offices
o 1st requisite – GAAs of 2011 and 2010 lacked valid provisions to
authorize transfers of funds under the DAP
 Thus transfers were unconsti
 GAAs should expressly authorize the transfer of funds
o In the 2011 GAA, the provision that gave the president and the other
high officials the authority to transfer was Sec 59
 Use of savings people in high powers are authorized to
augment any item in this Act from savings in other items of
their respective appropriations
o Provision was reproduced in 2012 under sec 53
o BUT the provisions of the GAAs of 2011 and 2012 were textually
unfaithful to the consti for not carrying the phrase “for their respective
offices”
 Allows transfers of funds within their offices only
 Provisions carried the phrase “to augment any item in this
act”
o 2011 and 2012 GAAs allows the transfer of funds from savings to
augment any item in the GAAs even if the item belonged to an office
outside the executive
o 2011 and 2012 GAAs did contravene the consti
o The aforequoted provisions cannot be used to claim authority to transfer
appropriations from exec to another branch or to a consti commission
o Congress eventually changed the provision in 2013 GAA to be consti
o 2nd requisite
 No savings from which funds could be sourced for the DAP
 Confusion with the words “savings”
o Petitioners say that there could be savings only when the program,
activity or project (PAP)
 Were actually implemented and completed
 Or finally discontinued or abandoned
o Insist that savings could not be realized with certainty in the middle of
fiscal year
  That the funds from “slow-moving” PAPs could not be
considered as savings because such PAPs had not actually
been abandoned or discontinued yet
o Belgica argues that savings should be understood to refer to the excess
money after the items that needed to be funded have been funded
 Or those that needed to be pain have been paid
 In pursuant to the budget
o Definition of the petitioner is meritous since it believes that the re-
allocation of money before the executive agency uses it is an act that is
tantamount to the president transgressing the power of the legislative to
determine where the funds should go
o To be called saving it should either be:
 1) still available after the completion or final discontinuance
or abandonment of the work, activity or purpose for which
the appropriation is authorized
 2) from the appropriations balances arising from unpaid
compensation and related costs pertaining to vacant positions
and leaves of absence without pay
 3) from appropriations balances realized from the
implementation of measures resulting in improved systems
and efficiencies and thus enabled agendees to meet and
deliver the required or planned targets, programs and services
approved in this act at a lesser cost
o DBM declares that part of the savings brought under the DAP came
from “pooling of unreleased appropriations such as unreleased personnel
services appropriations which will lapse at the end of the year,
unreleased appropriations of slow moving projects and discontinued
projects per zero-based budgeting findings”
o Unreleased means they were not yet allotted
 not yet ripened into savings
o Unobligated allotments on the other hand!
 Were encompassed by the first part of the definition of
“savings” in the GAA
 As portions or balances of any programmed appropriations in
this act free from any obligations or encumberance
o HOWEVER NBC no. 542 (authority of DB, to withdraw unobligated
allotments)
 Did not set clear terms the criteria for the withdrawal of
unobligated allotments
 Only specified that the withdrawal of unobligated allotments
will be for those “slow-moving projects” in order to fund
priority or fast-moving projects
o Problem is that such withdrawn money does not satisfy the category of
being a saving since it is not technically considered as abandoned
o 3rd requisite is violated when funds from savings were transferred under
the DAP to augment deficient items not provided in the GAA
o Under the law, an appropriation for any PAP must first be determined to
be deficient before it could be augmented from savings
 Was not the case here
 One of the projects funded by DAP: Disaster Risk, Exposure,
Assessment and Mitigation (DREAM) project under the dept
of science and technology (DOST)
 It covered the amount of Php1.6B – which was originally to
be just Php 537M
 Amoutn exceeded since the president added other expenses
namely the funding of “personnel services and capital
outlays”
 Clear that the president added other expenses through DAP
that allowed him to substitute and transgress the decision of
the legislative to not fund such project
o Also 3rd requisite is further violated when the president initiated cross-
border augmentations from savings
 Under the consti the augmentation of funds should be limited
to the respective offices
 Means each office head is likited only to his office like the
president to the exec
o Violation in this case happened when the executive authorized the
funding of 43 M of the HOR e-library in 2010
o Second instance is when the exec authorized the release of funds to the
commission on audit when it requested help in funding its IT
development for good governance programs
Cordero v. Cabantuando
FACTS
 Cordero is the trial lawyer of the tenancy counsel unit of the agricultural tenancy
commission of the department of justice
o Later appeared as the counsel of the indigent tenant Salazar who filed a
case against landlord Sta. Romana
o In order to reinstate and reliquidate past harvests
 Sta. Romana filed a motion to disqualify Cordero as counsel for Salazar
o Invoked Sec 54 Ra 1199
o Agricultural Tenancy Act of the PH
o States that Sec 54: Rep by counsel – in all cases wherein a tenant cannot
afford to be represented by counsel it shall be the duty of the public
defender of the department of labor to represent him
 Upon proper notification by the party concerned
 Or the the court of competent jurisdiction shall assign or
appoint counsel de officio for the indigent tenant
 Cordero appealed
 RA 2262 or An Act Amending Certain Sections of RA 1199 was passed
o Law amended the previous law and now allows trial lawyers from the
TCU to represent indigent tenants
 Cordero filed a manifestation averring that by virtue of the amendment the issue has
now become moot and academic
 Judge Cabatuando countered that the provision is not embraced in the title
 Objection of respondent to the presumed consti of these sections
o Is that section 19 of RA 2263 authorizing the sec of justice acting
through a tenancy mediation division, to carry out a national
 enforcement program including the mediation of tenancy disputes is not
expressed in the title of the bill
o As required by sec 21 (1) of Art 6
ISSUE
 Whether Sec 19 and 20 of RA 2263 is unconsti because the consti provision that no
bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall
be expressed in the title of the bill? NO
o Sections are consti
o SC held that the consti requirement in question is satisfied in all parts of
the law are related
 And are germane to the subject matter expressed in the title
of the bill
o The consti requirement is complied with as long as the law has a single
general subject
 Which is the Agricultural Tenancy Act
 Amendatory provisions, no matter how diverse they may be
 So long as they are consistent with the general subject
 Will be regarded as valid
o Provisions of sec 19 and 20 of RA 2263 are germane to and reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the one general subject –
agricultural tenancy
o To declare these sections void would in effect upset the transfer of duty
of representing indigent tenants from the public defenders of the dept of
Labor to the trial attorney in the mediation division of the agri tenancy
commission of the dept of justice
o A nullification would do harm to the intention of congress to consolidate
the function of enforcing our tenancy laws in the dept of justice
Philconsa v. Gimenez
FACTS
 RA 3836 is the law that allows an officer of Congress and an elective officer of
either House to retire regardless of age
 HOWEVER! To be eligible for retirement
o The officer must have served for at least 12 years as senator or
congressman
o For an elective officer – he must have served for the at least 12 years
 Not less than 4 years must have been rendered as such
elective officer
 Gratuity payable by the employer or office concerned is equivalent to 1 year’s
salary for every 4 years of service of gov
o This is exempt from taxations
o Not liable to attachment or execution
o Not refundable in case of reinstatement or re-election of the retiree
 PhilConsa assails the consti of ra 3836
o That allows retirement gratuity and commutation of vacation and sick
leave to senators and reps and to elective officials of congress
 Gimenez asserts that the bill does not express the gratuities of senators and HOR
ISSUE
 Whether RA 3836 is consti? YES
o Observed that under RA 3836
 Amending first paragraph of sec 12 subsection C of
commonwealth act 186
 Amended by RA 660 and 3096
o Retirement benefits are granted to members of the gov service insurance
system who have rendered at least 20 years of service regardless of age
 Paragraph is related and germane to the subject of
commonwealth act no. 186
o HOWEVER! Par 8 of RA 3836 refers to members of congress and to
elective officers thereof
 Who are not members of the gov service insurance system
(GSIS)
o THUS to provide retirement benefits for these officials
 Related to subject matter which is not germane to
commonwealth act no. 186
o In other words, this portion of the amendment is not related in any
manner to the subject of commonwealth Act 186
 (retirement benefits of members of congress and elected
officers such as the secretary and sergeant at arms for each
house)
 Is not related in any manner to the subject of commonwealth
act 186
 Establishing the gov service insurance system
 Which provides for both retirement and insurance benefits to
its members
o Thus! RA 3836 violates 3 consti provisions
 1) the prohibition regarding increase in salaries of members
of congress
 2) equal protection clause
 3) the prohibition that the title of a bill shall not embrace
more than 1 subject
Alalayan v. NPC
FACTS
 RA 3043 is an amendatory act empowering national power corp
o In any contract of the supply of electric power to a franchise holder
o Receiving at least 50% of its electric power and energy from it to require
as a condition that such franchise holder shall not realize a net profit
more than 12% annually of its investments plus two month operating
expenses
 NPC needs to renew all existing contracts with franchise holders for the supply of
electric power and energy
o So that the provisions of the act could be given effect
 Alalayan and PH Power Development Co. are re-suppliers of power produced by
NAPOCOR
 o They assail the consti of the power vested in NPC under RA 3034
o And aver that the Sec 3 is a rider in only meant to increase the capital
stock of NAPOCOR
ISSUE
 Whether Sec 3 of RA 3034 is consti? YES
o Riders are provisions which are not germane to the purposes of a
specific bill
 Known as inappropriate provisions
o Benefit of having no bill which may be enacted into law that embrace
more than one subject shall be expressed in its title
 Aimed against the the evils of omnibus bills and log-rolling
legislations
 Also unconsidered enactments
o The consti does not require congress to employ in the title of an
enactment language of such precision as to mirror or catalogue all the
contents and minute details
o Suffices if the title should serve the purpose of the consti demand that it
inform…
 The legislators
 The persons interested in the subject of the bill
 The public
 …of the nature scope and consequences of the proposed law
and its operation
o This is to prevent surprise or fraud upon legislators
o In this case it is entitled: “an act to further amend commonwealth act
numbered 120 as amended by RA 2641
o SINCE no showing that Sec 3 of RA 3043 is unconsti
 Decision of the lower court, dismissing petitions is affirmed
 Consts against petitioner Alalayan
Insular lumber Company v. CTA
FACTS
 Petitioner is a corp organized and existing under the laws of New York
o Duly authorized to do business in the PH as a licensed forest
concessionaire
 They purchase manufactured oil and motor fuel which it used in the operation of its
forest concession on which specific tax was paid
 ILC filed a claim for refund of Php 19k representing 25% of the specific tax paid
o On the manufactured oil and fuel used in its operations
o Pursuant to the provisions of sec 5 RA 1435
o An Act to provide means for increasing the Highway Special Fund
 Sec 5 – whenever any oils mentioned above are used by miners or forest
concessionaires in their operations
o 25% of the specific tax paid thereon shall be refunded by the CIR
o Upon submission of proof of actual use of oils and under similar
conditions enumerated in subparagraph 1 and 2 of sec 2
o Amending sec 142 of the NIRC
 Commissioner of Internal Rev on the other contends that privilege of partial tax
refund granted by Sec 5 to those using oil in the operation of forest and mining
concessions is limited to a period of 5 years
o From June 14 1956 (date of effectivity)
 Oil used in such concessions after June 14 1961 are subject to the full tax prescribed
in Sec 142 of NIRC
ISSUE
 Whether sec 5 of RA 1435 is unconsti? NO
o First assignment of error
 Commissioner contends the first proviso in Sec 5 of RA 1435
is unconsti
 Anchored his argument on Art 6 Sec 21(1) of the 1935
consti, now Sec 26
 Court finds no merit in the argument
 RA 1435 deals with only 1 subject and proclaims just one policy
o Namely necessity for increasing the Highway Special Fund through the
imposition of an increased specific tax on manufactured oils
 Sec 5 of the law is in effect a partial exemption from the imposed increased tax
o The part which has reference to specific tax on oil and fuel is not a
deviation from the general subject of the law
 Primary purpose of the consti provision is to prohibit duplicity in legislation the
title of which might completely fail to apprise the legislators or the public of the
nature, scope and consequences of the law or is operation
 This does not seem to this Court to have been ignored in the passage of RA 1435
o Since as the records of its proceedings bear out a full debate on precisely
the issue of whether its title reflects its complete subject was held by
congress which passed it
o Also in deciding the consti of a statue alleged to be defectively titles
 Every presumption favors its validity
o True republic in cases presenting other consti issues, courts avoid
declaring an act unconsti
o When there is doubt as to insufficiency of title
 Legislation should be sustained
o In this case, Court does not have any doubt
Tio v. Videogram Regulatory boards
FACTS
 Tio on his own behalf and purportedly on behalf of other videogram operators
adversely affected assails the consti of PD 1987
o An Act creating the videogram regulatory board
o With broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry
 Petitioner assails the following section as violating the one-subject-one-bill rule
 Sec 10 – tax on sale, lease or disposition of videograms
o Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary
o The province shall collect a tax of 30% of the purchase price or rental
rate
  For every sale, lease or disposition of a videogram containing
a reproduction of any motion picture or audiovisual program
o 50% shall accrue to the province
o And 50% shall accrue to the municipality where the tax is collected
 Provided that in metropolitan manila, the tax shall be shared equally by city/mun
and the metropolitan manila commission
ISSUE
 Whether PD 1987 is unconsti due to the tax provision? NO
o Foregoing provision is allied and germane to
o And is reasonably necessary for accomplishment of the general object of
the decree
 Which is the regulation of the video industry through the
videogram regulatory board
o Tax provision is not inconsistent nor foreign to the general subject of the
title
o As a tool for regulation it is simply one of the regulatory and control
mechanisms scattered through the decrees
o Express purpose of the decree to include taxation of the video industry
in order to regulate and rationalize the heretofore uncontrolled
distribution of videograms is evident
 From preambles 2 (taxation of videogram) and 5 (use of tax
money for regulation of videogram)
o These preambles explain motives of the law maker in presenting the
measure
o Titles of the decree is the creation of the videogram regulatory board
 Comprehensive enough to include the purposes expressed in
its preamble
 Reasonably covers all its provisions
o Unnecessary to express all those objectives in the title
o An act having a single general subject indicated in the title
 May contain any number of provisions
 No matter how diverse
 As long as they are consistent to the general subject
 May be considered in the furtherance of such subject by
providing for the method and means of carrying out the
general object
o Claim that Sec 10 is a rider has no merit
Phil Judges Assn. v. Prado
FACTS
 RA 7354 is entitled “An Act Creating the PH Postal Corp, defining its powers,
functions and responsibilities, providing for regulation of the industry and for other
purposes connected therewith”
 Petitioners are assailing Sec 35
 This withdraw the franking privilege from the SC, CA, WTC, MTC, MNTC and the
land registration Commission along with other gov offices
 Petitioner says
o 1) title embraces more than 1 subject
o 2) it did not pass the required readings in both houses and printed copies
of the bill in its final form were not distributed among members before
its passage
o 3) it’s discriminatory and encroaches on the independence of the
judiciary
 Petitioner stated that the covering repeal of the franking privilege from the
petitioners and this court under EO 207, PD 1882, PD 126 were not included in the
original version of the SB 720 or of HB 4200
o Violates Art 6 Sec 26
 Also stress that Sec 35 of the assailed act was not a subject of any disagreement
between the houses and so the 2nd paragraph could not have been validly added as
an amendment
ISSUE
 Whether RA 7354 embraces more than 1 subject? NO
o It is a repealing statute
o Contention is untenable
o Title of the bill is not required to be an index to the body of the act
 Or to be comprehensive as to cover every single detail of the
measure
o If the title fairly indicates the general subject and reasonably covers all
the provisions of the act
 Not calculated to mislead legislature or people
o Details of a legislative act need not be specifically stated in its title
 But matters germane to the subject as expressed it the titles
 May properly be included in the act
o Reason is that where a statute repeals a former law
 Such repeal is the effect
 Not the subject of the stature
 It is the subject and not the effect of a law which is required
to be briefly expressed in its title
o RA 7374 Sec 3 (d) – to ensure that sufficient revenues are generated by
and within the industry to finance the overall cost of providing the
varied range of postal delivery and messengerial services as well as the
expansion and continuous upgrading of service standards by the same
o Court is convinced that the withdrawal of the franking privilege from
some agencies is germane to the accomplishment of the principal
objective of RA 7354
 Which is the creation of a more efficient and effective postal
service system
o Sec 35 did not have to be expressly included in the title of the said law
Nazareth v. Villar
FACTS
 Congress enacted RA 8439
o To address the policy of the state to provide a program for human
resources development in science and technology
 o In order to achieve and maintain the necessary reservoir of talent and
manpower
 Would sustain the drive for total science and techonology
mastery
 Sec 7 of RA 8439 grants the following additional allowances and benefits to the
covered officials and employees of the dost
 Funds shall be appropriated from GAA of the year
 Nazareth released the Magna Carta for covered officials and employees
o Covering CY 1998
o Despite absence of specific appropriation in GAA
 Subsequently COA issued several notice of disallowance disapproving payment of
Magna Carta benefits
 Provision for use of savings of GAA was vetoed by the President
 DOST Sec. Uriarte Jr. requested from the office of the president for authority to
utilize DOST’s savings to pay the Magna Carta benefits which exec sec. Zamora
approved
 Nazareth thereafter lodged an appeal with COA urging the lifting of disallowances
of the magna carta benefits for CY 1998-2001
 Her appeals was anchored by memorandum from exec sec Zamora
ISSUE
 Whether the act of Exec. Sec. Zamora is valid?
o Art 6 Sec 25 (5) – no law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations
o HOWEVER! The president, pres of the senate, speaker of the house, CJ
and heads of consti commissions may be authorized to augment any item
in general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in
other items of their respective appropriations
o In the funding of current activities, projects and programs
 General rule should still be that the budgetary amount
contained in the appropriations bill is the extent Congress
will determine as sufficient for the budgetary allocation for
the proponent agency
o Only exception is found in Sec 25 (5) Art 6 of the consti
 This provision leaves no room for the petitioner’s posture
 Which we should not dispose of as untenable
o Bears emphasizing that the exception in favor of the high officials
named in Sec 25(5) Art 6
 Limiting the authority to transfer savings only to augment
another item in the GAA is strictly but reasonably construed
as exclusive
Abakada v. Ermita
FACTS
 RA 9337 or the VAT Reform Act is a law that came about because of the
amounting budget deficits
o Is coupled by the realization of shortages in allocation in key areas of
gov like health and education
o Is sourced from consolidating 3 bills
 Upon passing as a law
o Immediately issued a TRO by the court because of the confusion in its
implementation
 Confusion came when sectors are claiming that the said RA gives 10% additional
expense to their products
o When in fact it was clarifies that there were exceptions
o And that implementation varies for each industry since the RA interacts
in different ways to other existing laws
o Exceptions to some laws should suffice enough not to exceed or even
reach the said 10% increase in prices
 HOWEVER! Upon looking at the provisions of the law, the petitioners contend that
Sec. 4,5,6 of RA 9337
o AMEND Sec. 106, 107 & 108 of the National Internal Rev Code
 Sec. 4 imposes a 10% VAT sale of goods and properties
 Sec. 5 imposes on importation of goods
 Sec. 6 imposes on sales of services and use or lease of properties
 Said provision also grants the president to increase the tax to 12% effective 2006 as
long as certain set of condition are set
o Upon recommendation of Sec. of Finance
o Conditions are:
 1) if the national deficit as a percentage of the GDP from last
year exceeds by 1 and ½
 2) that the VAT as percentage of GDP increases beyond 2
and 4/5% from the previous year
 They contend that Sec. of Finance does not have clear prerogatives on how he could
determine the increase of tax also
ISSUE
 Whether the bicam conference committee exceeded its authority? NO
o Pursuant to this inherent consti power to promulgate and implement its
own rules of procedure
 The respective rules of each house of congress provided for
the creation of a BCC
o In Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance
 Court already made the pronouncement that is a change is
desired in the practice of the BCC it must be sought in the
congress since this question is not covered by any consti
provision but is only an internal rule of each house
o To reconcile or harmonize disagreeing provisions the BCC may
 1) adopt the specific provisions of either HB or SB
 2) decide that neither provisions in the SB would be carried
into the final form of the bill
 3) try to arrive at a compromise between the disagreeing
provisions
o 1) with the disagreement on the rate of VAT
  It would appear from the conference committee report that
the BCC tried to bridge the gap in the difference between the
10% VAT rate proposed by the senate
 And the various rates with 12% as the highest VAT rate
proposed by the House
 Compromise with the present 10% VAT rate would be
retained until certain conditions arise
 Value added tax collection as a percentage of
GDP of the previous year exceeds 2 4/5 %
 Or National gov defict as a percentage of GDP of
the previous year exceeds 1 ½ %
o 2) regard to the disagreement on whether only the VAT imposed on
electricity generation, transmission and distribution companies should
not be passed on to consumers
 BCC chose to settle such disagreement by altogether deleting
from its report any no pass-on provision
o 3) regard to the amount of input tax to be credited against output tax
 BCC came to a compromise on the percentage rate of the
limitation or cap on such input tax credit
 But the change introduced by the BCC was totally within the
intent of both houses to put a cap on input tax that may be
 At the end of the day, any taxable quarte the output tax
exceeds the input tax, the excess shall be paid by the VAT-
registered person
 If the other way around, excess shall be carried over to the
succeeding quarter
 Provided that the input tax inclusive of input VAT carried
over from the previous quarter that may be credited in every
quarter shall not exceed 70% of the output VAT
 HOWEVER! Any input tax attributed to 0 rated
sales by a VAT-registered person may at his
option be refunded or credited against other
internal revenue taxes
 4) amendments to NIRC provisions on taxes other than the
value-added tax proposed in SB 1950
 Since said provisions were among those referred
to it
 Conference committee had to act on the same and
it basically adopted the version of the senate
o Thus! All changes made by the BCC were germane to subjects of the
provisions referred to it for reconciliation
o Court does not see any grave abuse of discretion
 Amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction committed by BCC
CIR v. CTA
FACTS
 Manila Golf & Country Club petitioned to the CIR that they should be exempted
from the 20% caretarer’s ttax
o Was vetoed by Pres. Marcos
 Contested law is HB 17839
o Became RA 6110
o But when Marcos signed the act, he noted down that pursuant to the Sec
20-3 Art 6 of the Consti
 Vetoed the following item:
o Sec 37 – a new section is hereby inserted between sections 191 and 192
o To be known as sec 191 – A
 (3) On proprietors or operators of restuarants, refreshment
parlors bar, cafes and other eating places which are
maintained within the premises or compound of {hotel,
motel, resthouse] – part removed by Marcos – cockpit, race
track, jai-alai, cabaret, night or day club or which are
accessible to ppatrons or by means of a connecting door or
passageway, 20% of their gross receipts
 Burden of petition will be shifted to the consuming public
 The development of hotels are essential to our tourist industry
o They may be restrained considering that a big portion of hotel earning
comes from food sale
 Since the Manila Hotel operates restaurants in its premises – it is liable to pay the
tax provided in Par (1) Sec 206 of the Tax Code
 RA 6110 took effect on Spet 1, 1969
 Petitioners assessed the club fixed taxes and operators of golf links and restaurants
and also percentage tax
o For its sale of food and liquor and wines
o Period covering Sept 1969 – dec 1970
o Amount of Php 32,504
 Case was tried and denied
 Brought up to CTA
 CTA agreed with Manila Golf and Country Club
o It held that when the president is granted the right to veto
o It would be the whole section and not just parts of it
 THUS! CTA ruled that the club need not pay taxes
 CIR argues that the veto of Marcos was only for words (hotel, motel and
resthouses)
 Manila Golf is not included in the vetoed item thus should be liable
ISSUE
 Whether the vetoing powers of the president is for an item or a whole section of the
act? ITEM!
o Already ruled that the presidential veto referred merely to inclusion of
hotels, motels and resthouses in the 20% caretarer’s tax
o Not to whole section
o CTA argued that president could not veto words or phrases but only an
entire item
o Item does not mean entire section
o ITEM – subject of the tax or tax rate
o Sc ruled that if Marcos had the power to veto entire section then it would
be useless when he chooses what sections to veto
 o Has the choice to approve or disapprove items!
Gonzales v. Macaraig
FACTS
 Dec 1988 – congress passed HB 19186
o General appropriations bill for fiscal year 1989
 Eliminated certain items included in the proposed budget by the president
 President signed the bill into law
o Declared the same to have become RA 6688
 In the process, 7 special provisions and sec. 55
o A general provision
o Were vetoed
 Senate expressed its resolve in Resolutions 381
o Declaring that the veto of Sec 55 is unconsti
 Sec 55 states
o Prohibition against the restoration or increase of recommended
appropriations disapproves and reduced by congress
o No item of the appropriations recommended by the president in the
budget submitted to congress
 Pursuant to Art 7 Sec 22 of the consti
 Which has been disapproved or reduced in this act shall be
restored or increased by the use of appropriations authorized
for other purposed by augmentation
o An item of appropriation for any purpose recommended by the president
in the budget shall be deemed to have been disapproved by congress
 If not corresponding appropriation of the specific purpose is
provided in this act
 Reasons for the veto is:
o Provision violates sec 25(5) of Art 6
o Unwanted consequence of this provision is the inability of the president,
pres of senate, speaker of house and CJ of the SC
 And heads of the consti commissions
o To augment any items of appropriation of their respective offices from
savings in other items of their respective appropriations even in cases of
calamity
 Or in the event of urgent need to accelerate the
implementations of essential public services and
infrastructure projects
 Augmented by the fact that a careful review of the legislative action on the budget
as submitted show that in almost all cases
o The budgets of agencies as recommended by the president
o As well as those of the senate, hours and consti commissions have been
reduced
ISSUE
 Whether the veto by the president of Sec 55 of GAB of FY 1989 and Sec 16 of
GAB for FY 1990 is unconsti? NO
o It is consti
o Par 2 is what is referred to as the item-veto power or the line-veto power
 Allows the exercise of the veto over a particular item
 Or items in appropriation, revenue or tariff bill
o President may not veto less than all of an item of an appropriations bill
o Thus the power given to the executive to disapprove any item or items in
an appropriations bill
 Does not grant the authority to veto a part of an item and to
approve the remaining portion of the same item
o This interpretation urged by petitioners that the president may not veto a
provision without vetoing the entire bill
 Not only disregards the basic principle that a distinct part of a
bill may be the subject of a separate veto
 But also overlooks the consti mandate that any provision in
the general appropriations bill shall relate specifically to
some particular appropriation
 And any such provision shall be limited in its operation to the
appropriations to which it relates
o Explicit is the requirement that a provision in the appropriations bill
should relate specifically to some “particular appropriations”
 Challenged provisions fall short of this requirement
o 1ST – vetoed “provisions” do not relate to any particular or distinctive
appropriations
 They apply generally to all items disapproved or reduced by
congress in the appropriations bill
o To determine if it is related to the said appropriation
 Not enough that a provision be related to the institution or
agency to which funds are appropriated
 Conditions and limitations properly included in an
appropriation bill must be exhibit such a connexity with
money items of appropriation that the logically belong in a
schedule of expenditures
 Ultimate test is one of appropriateness
o nd
2 – the disapproved or reduced items are nowhere to be found on the
face of the bill
 To discover, resort will have to be made to the original
recommendations made by the president
 And to the source indicated by petitioners themselves
o 3rd – vetoed sections are more of an expression of congressional policy
in respect of augmentation from savings rather than a budgetary
appropriation
 Legislature cannot by location of a bill give it immunity from
executive veto
 Nor can it circumvent the veto power over substantive
legislation by drafting general law measures so that they
appear to be true conditions or limitations on an item of
appropriation
 If not! Legislature would be permitted to impair the consti
responsibilities and functions of a co-equal branch of gov
o According to court – presidential power to veto is not an invasion of
legislative since it is limited by law
 o Purpose and conditions for which funds may be transferred were
specified
 Transfer may be allowed for the purpose of augmenting an
item
 Such transfer may be made only if there are savings from
another item in the appropriation of the gov branch or consti
body
o Exercise of such authority in respect of disapproved or reduced items by
no means vests in the executive the power to rewrite the entire budget
o Petitioners contend the leeway granted being delimited to transfers
within the dept
 The sourcing only to come from savings
o Sec 44 of PD 1177
 Budget Reform Decree of 1977
 Grants the authority to augment any appropriation of the exec
dept in the GAA
 From savings in the appropriations of another dept
o President under Sec. 45 has the authority to use savings in
appropriations to cover deficits
 Sec 12 of GAA of 1989 grants president similar powers
o If!!! By the later enactments of Sec 55 (FY ’89) and Sec 16 (FY ’90)
 Congress as petitioners argue intended to amend or repeal PD
1177
o Constitutionality of the assailed presidential veto is upheld
 Petition is dismissed
PhilConsa v. Enriquez
FACTS
 HB 10900, Gen App Bill of 1994 was passed and approved by both houses of
congress
o It imposed conditions and limitations on certain items of appropriations
in the proposed budget
o Previously submitted by the president
o Authorized members of Congress to propose and identify projects in the
“pork barrels” allotted to them
 And to realign their respective operating budgets
 Pursuant to the procedure on the passage and enactment of bills as prescribed by the
consti
o Congress presented the said bill to the president for consideration and
approval
 President signed the bill into law
o Declared the same to have become RA 7663
o An Act Appropriating funds for the operation of the gov of the PH from
January 1 to dec 31 1994
 On the same day, president delivered his presidential veto message
o Specifying the provisions of the bill he vetoed
 Focus is the vetoed provision regarding “inappropriate provision is the DEBT
CEILING”
 Special provision on debt ceiling
o Congress provided for a debt-ceiling
o Was vetoed by the president w/o vetoing the entire appropriation for
debt service
o Which is Php 86 B appropriation for debt
 Rationale is the Foreign Borrowing Act PD 1177
o Use of fund
o `the appropriation authorized shall be used for the payment of principal
and interest of foreign and domestic indebtedness
o Provided that any payment in excess of the amount appropriated shall be
subject to the approval of the president of the PH
 With concurrence of the congress
o Provided further that in no case shall this fund be used to pay for the
liabilities of the central bank board of liquidators
ISSUE
 Whether the veto of the president on special provisions of article of the GAA 1994
is unconsti? YES
o Veto is void
o Apparent that the special provision applicable to the appropriation for
debt service insofar as it refers to funds in excess of the amount
appropriated in the bill
 Is an inappropriate provision
 Referring to funds other than Php 86 B appropriated in the
GAA 1991
o Vetoed provision is clearly an attempt to repeal Sec 32 PD 1177 and EO
292
 And to reverse the debt payment policy
o The Court in Gonzales
 Repeal of these laws should be done in a separate law
 Not in the appropriations law
o It follows that any provision which does not relate to any particular item
 Or extends in its operations beyond an item of appropriation
 Is considered “an inappropriate provision”
 Which can be vetoed separately from an item
o Court also held that “inappropriate provision” are unconsti
 And provisions which are intended to amend other laws
because clearly these kinds of laws have no place in an
appropriations bill
o Just as the president may not use his item-veto to usurp consti powers
conferred on the legislature
 Neither can the legislature deprive the chief exec officer by
including in a GAB matter more properly enacted in separate
legislation
o Power to veto bills of general legislation cannot be abridged by the
careful placement of such measures in a GAB
 Forcing the chief exec to choose between approving
unacceptable substantive legislation or vetoing “items” of
expenditures essential to the operation of gov
 o Legislature cannot by location of a bill give it immunity from exec veto
 Otherwise, legislature would be permitted to impair the
consti responsibilities and functions of a co-equal branch of
gov in contravention of the separation of powers doctrine
o The vetoed provision on the debt servicing is clearly an attempt to repeal
Sec 31 of PD 1177 and EO 292
 AND to reverse debt payment policy
o As held in the court by Gonzales v. Macaraig
 Repeal of these laws should be done in a separate law
 Not in the appropriations law
Belgica v. Ochoa
FACTS
 Petitioners are assailing the consti of the pork barrel system
o Refers to an appropriation of gov spending meant for localized projects
and secured solely or primarily to bring money to a rep’s district
 Pork barrel is a lump-sum, discretionary funds of members of the legislature
o Its usage would evolve in reference to certain funds of the president such
as the malampaya funds and presidential social fund
 Malampaya was a special fund creater under PD 910
o Issued by Marco
o For the development of indigenous energy resources vital to economic
growth
 Presidential social fund is sourced from the share of the gov in the aggregate gross
earnings of PAGCOR
o Through which the president provides direct assistance to priority
programs and projects not funded under the regular budget
 In 1996 – an anonymous source letter indentified as former Marikina City Romeo
Cadazo was revealed that huge sums og gov money went into the pockets of
legislators as kickbacks
 2004 – citizens sought nullification of PDAF
o For being unconsti
 For lack of evidentiary support that illegal misuse of PDAF in the form of
kickbacks has become a common exercise of unscrupulouse member of congress
o Petition was dismissed
 July 2013 – NBI began its probe into allegations
o That the gov defrauded 10B over the past 10 years
o By a syndicate using funds from the pork barrel of lawmakers and
various gov agencies for scores of ghost projects
 Investigation was spawned by sworn affidavits of 6 whistle-blowers
o Declared JLN Corp (Janet Lim Napoles) had facilitated the swindling of
billions of pesos from the public coffers for ghost projects
o Using around 20 dummy ngos for an entire decade
 Aug 2013 – COA released report revealing substantial irregularities in the
disbursement and utilization of PDAF
o By congressmen during the Arroyo admin
 Various Infrastructures including Local Projects (VILP)
o By the DBM application and implementation of the projects by the
appropriate implementing agencies and the several GOCCs
 As for the pork barrel, whistle blowers alleged that at Php 900M from royalties in
the operation of malampaya gas project off Palawan province intended for agrarian
reform beneficiaries has gone into a dummy NGO
 Spurred in large part by the findings contained in the COA report and Napoles
controversy
o Several petitions were lodged before the court similarly seeking that the
pork barrel system be declared unconsti
 Office of ombudsman charged 5 lawmakers for plunder and 3 for malversation,
direct bribery and violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act
o Also included are the lawmakers’ chief of staff or rep
CIR v. Lingayen Gulf
FACTS
 Lingayen Gulf operates an electric power plant in the municipalities of
o Lingayen
o Binmaley
o In pangasinan
o Pursuant to the municipal franchise granted to it by. Their municipal
council under Resolution 14 and 25
 Sec 10 of their franchise states that
o It shall pay quarterly into the provincial treasury of Pangasinan
o 1% if its gross earnings for the first 20 years
o And 2% for the remaining 15 years
 BIR made an assessment and found out that a total of Php 19k from 1946-1954
o Respondent’s deficiency in paying the said franchise taxes and
surcharges
o Applying the franchise tax of 5%
 As prescribed in sec 259 of the NRC
o As opposed to the lower rates for municipal franchises
 Lingayen requested a reinvestigation
o Saying that instead of deficiency taxes
o They overpaid the franchise tax
 Request was denied by CIR
 Private respondent requested for a reinvestigation
o Was denied of the private respondent’s request for reinvestigation and
reiterated the demand for payment of the same
 While the case is on appeal
o RA 3843 was passed
o Granting Lingayen a legislative franchise for the operation of electric
light , heat and power systems
o In the same municipalities in Pangasinan
 Lingayen shall pay only a 2% franchise tax quarterly to the provincial treasury of
Pangasinan in lieu of any other tax levied
 Expressly exempted and effective further upon the date the original franchise was
granted
 o No other tax than the 2% can be collected
 The date the original franchise was granted
 No other tax than the 2% can be collected
o Because this will be in lieu of any and all taxes and/or licenses of any
kind, nature or description levied, established or collected by any
authority whatsoever
 Respondent court ruled that the provisions of RA 3843
o Should apply
o And accordingly dismissed the claim of the CIR
 RULING is not the subject of the petition at bar
ISSUE
 Whether Sec 4 of RA 3843 is unconsti for being violative of the uniformity and
equality of taxation clause of the consti? NO
o RA 3843 is considered consti
o Uniformity means that all property belonging in the same class shall be
taxed alike
o Legislature has authority to grant exemptions
 Never been a breach of the equal protection clause
o Lingayen’s power plant was considered to be under a different class than
those taxed by 5% (under Act 667)
 But under the one taxed by 2%
 A class created by RA 3636
o True that the private respondents municipal franchises were obtained
under Act 667 of the OH commission
 But these original franchises have been replaced by a new
legislative franchise
 RA 3843
o Correctly held by respondent court
 The latter was granted subject to the terms and conditions
established in Act 3636
o These conditions identify the private respondent’s power plant as falling
within that class of power plants
 Created by Act 3636
 As amended
o Benefits of the tax reduction provided by law apply to the respondent’s
power plant and others circumscribed within this class
o RA 3843 merely moved the Lingayen’s power plant from its old
classification to the new class
 Only affected the transfer of a taxable property from one
class to another
o 5% tax was never intended to have universal application
o Sec 259 of the tax code allowed for less than 5%
 More than 5% was not allowed
o Given its validlity, should the said law be applied restroactively so as to
render uncollectible the taxes in question which were assessed before its
enactment?
o Question of whether a statute operates retrospectively or only
prospectively depends on the legislative intent
o In this case, Act 3843 provided that “effective upon the date the original
franchise was granted,
 No other tax and/or licenses other than the franchise tax of
2% on the gross receipts shall be collected
 Any provision to the contrary notwithstanding
o RA 3843 therefore specifically provided for the retroactive effect of the
law
o Legislative intent was to fix it at 2%
 Courts cannot contest
o Appealed decision of the CTA is affirmed
Abra Valley College v. Aquino
FACTS
 Petitioner seeks to annul the notice of seizure and the notice of sale of its lot and
building in Bangued Abra
o For non-payment of real estate taxes and penalties amounting to Php 5k
 These wre issued for the satisfaction of the taxes, putting up the lot and building for
public auction
 Dr. Millare, the mayor, gave highest bid of Php 6k
 Trial court found that
o 1) the school is recognized by the gov and is offering primary, high
school and college courses and has a school population of more than 1k
students all in all
o 2) it is located right in the heart of the town of Bangued, a few meters
from the plaza and about 120 m from the Court of fist instance building
o 3) elementary pupils are housed in 2-storey building across the street
o 4) the high school and college students are housed in the main building
o 5) director with his family is in the second floor of the main building
o 6) that the annual gross income of the school reaches more than 1k
 Trial court disagreed for the grant of exemption of taxes because of the residential
use of the director of the 2nd floor
o Thus this petition
 Petitioner contends that the primary use of the lot and building for educational
purposes
o And not for incidental use
o Determines exemption from the property taxes under Art 6 Sec 25 of the
1935 consti
o And commonwealth act 470
 Otherwise known as the assessment law
o Both state that all lands and buildings and improvements used
exclusively for religious charitable, scientific or educational purposed
are exempted from real property tax
 Respondents added that other than the fact that the 2nd floor is being used for
residential purposes
o Ground floor is being used for commercial purposes
o Rented out to northern marketing corp
ISSUE
  Whether the lot and building in question are used exclusively for educational
purposes? NO
o Test of exemption from taxation is the use of the property for purposes
mentioned in the consti
o Exemption in favor of property used exclusively for charitable or
educational purposes is not limited to property actually indispensable
 But also extends to facilities which are incidental to and
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of said
purposes
o Although this is the proper interpretation
 The use of the school building or lot for commercial purposes
is neither contemplated by law nor by jurisprudence
o There is justification for the use of the second floor as a residence of the
director
 Complimentary to the primary purpose which is for
education
 BUT! The use of the ground floor for commercial purposes
cannot be considered incidental
o Court agrees with the trial court that the school building and lot should
be taxed
 Not because of the residential purpose of the second floor
 But because of the commercial purpose of the ground floor
o Since only a portion of the school is being used for commercial purposes
 Half of the assessed tax must be returned to the school
involved
John Hay’s People’s Alternative Coalition v. Lim
FACTS
 A petition for
o Prohibition
o Mandamus
o Declaratory relief
 With prayer for a TRO
o Regarding the constitutionality of Pres proclamation 420
 Creating and designating a protion of the area covered by the
former Camp John Hay as THE JOHN HAY
 Special economic zone pursuant to RA 7227
 RA 7227 granted the Subic EZ incentives ranging from tax and duty -free
importations
o Exemption of businesses from local and national taxes
o To other hallmarks of a liberalized financial and business climate
 RA 7227 also created BCDA
 BCDA entered into memorandum of agreement and escrow agreement with private
respondents Tuntext (B.V.I) Co. Ltd. (TUNTEX) and Asiaworld Internationale
Group Inc. (ASIAWORLD)
o Private crops registered under the laws of the British Virgin Islands
o Preparatory to the formation of a joint venture for the development of
Poro Point in La Union and Camp John Hay
 As premier tourist destinations and recreation centers
 4 months later – BCDA, TUNTEX and ASIAWORLD executed an joint venture
agreement whereby they bound themselves to put a joint venture company
o Know an Baguio International Development and Management Corp
o Which would lease areas within Camp John Hay and Poro Point
 For the purpose of turning such places into principal tourist
and recreation sports
 Envisioned under their memorandum of agreement
 Baguio City gov meanwhile passed a number of resolutions in response to the
actions taken by the BCDA as owner and admin of Camp John Hay
 Sanggu passed a resolution requesting the mayor to order the determination of
realty taxes
o Which may otherwise be collected from real properties of Camp John
Hay
 Resolution was intended to intelligently guide the sanggu in determining its
position on whether Camp John Hay be declared a SEZ
o Being of the view that such declaration would exempt the camp’s
property and economic activity from local and national taxation
 Sanggu passed Resolution 255
o Seeking and supporting subject to its concurrence the issuance of then
Pres Ramos os a presidential proclamation (Proclamation 420)
o Declaring an area 288.1 hectares of the camp as a SEZ in accordance
with the provisions of RA 7227
 Issuance of Procalamtion 420 spawned the present petition
o Challenging its consti and validity
o Also legality of the memorandum of agreement and joint venture
agreement
o Between public respondent BCDA and private respondents TUNTEXT
& ASIAWORLD
 Petitioners allege as grounds for the allowance of the petition the following:
o Proclamation 420 insofar as it grants tax exemptions is invalid and
illegal
o Unconsti exercise by the president of a power granted only to the
legislature
ISSUE
 Whether tax exemptions and other financial incentives granted to the Subic EZ
under Sec 12 of RA 7227 (Bases Conversion and Dev Act) are applicable to the
John Hay EZ? NO
o Second sentence of Sec 3 of proclamation 420 is declared null and void
o Incentives under RA 7227 are exclusive only to the Subic SEZ
o THUS! Extension of the same to John Hay SEZ finds no support
 Neither does the same grant of privileges to the John Hay
SEZ find support in the other laws specified under Sec 3 of
Proclamations 420
o The legislature unless limited by a provision of the consti
 Has full power to exempt any person or corporation or class
of property from taxation
 Its power to exempt being as broad as it power to tax
 o In maintaining the validity of proclamation 420
 Respondents contend that by extending to the John Hay SEZ
economic incentives similar to those enjoyed by the Subic
SEZ
 Which was established under RA 7227
 Proclamation is merely implementing the legislative intent of
said law to turn the US military bases into hubs of business
activity or investment
o They underscore the point that the gov’s policy of bases conversion
cannot be achieved without extending the same tax exemptions granted
by RA 7227 to Subic SEZ to other SEZs
o Tax exemption cannot be implied
 Must be categorically and unmistakably expressed
Lung Center v. OC
FACTS
 Petitioner is a non-stock, non-profit entity which owns a parcel of land in QC
 Erected in the middle of the lot is hospital known as the Lung Center of the PH
 Ground floor is being leased to a canteen
o Medical profs who use the same as their private clinincs
o Also to other parties
 Right portion of the lost is being leased for commercial purposes to the Elliptical
Orchids and Garden Center
 Petitioner accepts paying and non-paying patients
 Also renders medical services to out-patients
o Both paying and none
 Petitioner also receives annual subsidies from the gov
 Petitioner filed a claim for exemption on its averment that it is a charitable
institution with a min of 60% of its hospital beds exclusively used for charity
patients
o And that major thrust of its hospital operation is to serve charity patients
 City assessor denied the claim
 When appealed to QC-local board of assessment
o Same was dismissed
 Appeal to the Central Board of Assessment Appeals affirmed the local board’s
decision
o Finding that Lung Center of the PH is not a charitable institution
o Its properties were not actually, directly and exclusively used for
charitable purposes
 Thus the present petition for review with averments that the Lung Center of the PH
is a charitable institution under Sec 28(3) Art 6
ISSUE
 Is the Lung Center of the PH a charitable institution within the context of the consti
and this exempt from real property tax? PARTLY NO
o Court held that the petitioner is indeed a charitable institution based on
its charter and articles of incorporation
o General principle
 A charitable institution does not lose its character as such
 And its exemption from taxes simply because it derives
income from paying patients
 Whether out-patient or confined in a hospital
 Or receives subsidies from the gov
o So long as the money received is devoted or used altogether to the
charitable object which it is intended to achieve
 And no money is accepted to the private benefit of the
persons managing or operating the institution
 Thus it is a charitable institution
o In this case, petitioner adduced substantial evidence that it spend its
income
 Including the subsidies from the gov for 1991 & 1991
 For its patients and for the operation of the hospital
o Even incurred a net loss in 1991 & 1991 from its operations
o Despite this, the court held that the portions of real property that are
leased to private entities are not exempt from real property taxes
 These are not actually, directly or exclusively used for
charitable purposes
o While portions of the hospital are used for treatment of patients and the
dispensation of medical services to them
 Other portions are being leased to private individuals and
enterprises
o The portions occupied by the hospital used for its patients are exempt
from real property taxes
 While those leased to private entities are not exempt
o Under the PD 1823
 Petitioner is entitled to receive donations
o Petitioner does not lose its character as a charitable institution simply
because the gift or donation is in the form of subsidies granted by the
gov
o Sec 2 of PD 1823
 States that petitioner shall be exempt from income and gift
taxes
 Same further deductible in full for the purpose of determining
the maximum deductible amount under Sec 30 par (h) of the
National Internal Rev Code
o Lung Center of the PH shall be exempt from the payment of taxes,
charges and fees imposed by the Gov or any political subdivision or
instrumentality
 With respect to equipment purchases made by or for Lung
Center
o Clear that the petitioner is not exempted from any property tax for its
real properties and buildings
o On the other hand!!! Sec 28(3), Art 6 covers only property taxes which
means that the institution itself is not exempted rather
 Only those lands, buildings and improvements actually,
directly and exclusively used for charitable purposes
 o Petitioner failed to discharge its burden to prove that the entirety of its
real properly is actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable
purposes
o Portions of the hospital are used for the treatment of patients and the
dispensations of medical services to them
 Other portions are being leased to private individuals for their
clinics and a canteen
o Also a portion of the land is being leased to a private individual for her
business enterprise under the business name
 Elliptical orchids and garden center
o Indeed the petitioner’s evidence shows that it collected Php 1M as
rentals in 1991
 And Php 1M for 1992 from said lessees
CIR v. DLSU
FACTS
 BIR issued to DLSU Letter of authority (LOA) 2794
o Authorizing its revenue of officers to examine the latter’s books of
accounts and other accounting records for all internal rev taxes
o For the period fiscal year ending 2003 and unverified prior years
 BIR then issued a preliminary assessment notice to DLSU
 BIR through a formal letter of demand assessed DLSU the following deficiency
o 1) income tax on renal earnings from restaurants/canteens and
bookstores operating within the campus
o 2) value-added tax on business income
o 3) documentary stamp tax (DST) on loans and lease contracts
 BIR demanded the payment of Php 17M inclusive of surcharge interest
o And penalty for taxable years 2001-2003
 DLSU protested the assessment
 Commissioner failed to act on the protest
o Thus DLSU filed a petition for review with the CTA division
o In which DLSU raised Art 14 Sec 493) of the consti
 Exempts non-stock , non-profit educational institutions’ rev
and asset used only for educational purposes from taxes and
duties
 CTA then partially granted DLSU’s petition for review
o Wherein the loan taxes of DLSU (1B) was cancelled
o BUT DLSU was still required to pay deficiency income tax ,VAT and its
leases with DST
o Plus 25% surcharge for the years 2001-03
 Amount totaling to around 18 M pesos
 Along with 20% delinquency tax
 Both parties filed for a MR
o But CIR’s motion was dnied
o DLSU’s ruling the in the CTA was upheld
 CIR then appealed to the CTA en banc arguing that DLSU’s use of its rev and
assets for non-educational or commercial purposes removed these tiems from the
exemption coverage under the consti
 HOWEVER! DLSU presented documentary evidence that its rental income was
used exclusively for educational purposes
 CTA then in view of the evidence
o Reduced DLSU’s tax deficiencies to around 5M
 DLSU was not satisfied
o Filed before the CTA en banc a petition for review
o On the grounds that the entire assessment should have been cancelled
o Because it was based on an invalid LOA
o Assuming LOA was valid, CTA division should still have concelled the
entire assessment
 Because DLSU submitted evidence similar to those
submitted by Ateneo in a separate case
 CTA cancelled Ateneo’s tax assessment
o CTA erred in finding that a portion of DLSU’s rental income was not
proved to have been used actually, directly and exclusively for
educational purposes
ISSUE
 Whether DLSU’s income and revenues were used actually, directly and exclusively
for educational purposes are exempt from duties and taxes? YES
o Income, revs and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions
used actually, directly and exclusively for education purposes are
exempt from taxes and duties
o Art 14 Sec 4 (3)
o Proprietary educational institutions including those cooperatively owned
 May likewise be entitles to such exemptions
 Subject to the limitations provided by law including
restrictions on dividends and provisions for reinvestment
o Non-stock, non-profit and proprietary educational institutions are 2 types
of institutions contemplated in this provision
o DLSU falls under non-stock, non-profit educational institutions
 CIR agrees
o BUT! There are also conditions to avail of the exemption set forth in this
provision
o For a non-stock, non-profit educational institution to avail of the
exemption
 Revenue and assets must be used actually, directly and
exclusively for educational purposes
o Tax exemptions may also be granted to proprietary institutions but these
exemptions are subject to limitations imposed by congress
o Under the Tax Code Sec 27
 A proprietary educational institution is entitled only to the
reduced rate of 10% corporate income tax
 Only applicable if
 1) proprietary educational institution is non-profit
  2) its gross income from unrelated trade, business
or activity does not exceed 50% of its total gross
income
o HOWEVER! In the tax code, a non-stock and non-profit educational
institution is expressly exempted by the income of whatever kind and
character of the foregoing organizations from any of their properties,
real or personal
 Or from any of their activities conducted for profit regardless
of the disposition made of such income shall be subject to tax
imposed under this Code
o CIR claims that even if these are used for educational purposes
 Still subject to tax under Sec 30 of Tax Code
o Precedent adopted was YMCA
 Term educational institution under Art 14 Sec 4(3) of the
consti
 Referds to school system/formal education
 Includes college or an establishment
 Refers to the hierarchically structured and chronoligcally
graded learnings organized and provided by the formal
school system
o Requisites for availing tax exemption under Art 14 Sec 4 (3) are:
 1) taxpayer falls under the classification non-stock, non-
profit educational institution
 2) income it seeks to be exempted from taxation is used
actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes
o Last paragraph of Sec 30 of the tax code was declared without force and
effect
 With respect to non-stock , non-profit educational institutions
o Tax-exemption constitutionally granted to non-stock non-profit
educational institutions is not subject to limitations imposed by law
o Income and revenues of DLSU that were proven to have been used
actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes are exempt
from duties and taxes
Guingona v. Carague
FACTS
 Under RA 4860 – President is authorized to obtain foreign loans and credit for
financing approved economic development purposes or projects
o Or for relending to private purposes
 PD 81 Sec 7 amending 4860
o Provides that all rev realized from the projects financed by such loans
after deducting the actual and necessary operating and maintenance
expenses is appropriated for servicing the foreign debts
 PD 1177 Sec 31 Automatic appropriations
o All expenditures for… principal and interest on public debt are
automatically appropriated except as issued in the form of regular
budgetary
 PD 1967 Sec 1
o Hereby appropriated out of any funds in the national treasury not
otherwise appropriated, such amounts as may be necessary to effect
payments on foreign or domestic loans
 All PD’s were issued to amend the provisions of the act
o Regarding the payment of debt service
 Marcos admin incurred big amounts of debt which are stiull unpaid even after
presidency
 Pres. Cory Aquino submitted to the Congress the Budget of Expenditures and
Sources of Financing for the Fiscal Year 1990
 1990 budget provided Php 86.8 B for debt service out of the Php 98.4 B on
automatic appropriations
o And Php 27 B for Dept of Education, Culture and Sports
 Automatic appropriations is authorized by presidential decrees for the republic of
the PH to make prompt payment or advances for all loans to protect and maintain
the credit standing of the country
 Presidential decrees do not state specific amounts to be paid
o Amounts nevertheless are made certain by the legislative parameters
provided in the decrees
o That is to pay the principal, interest, taxes and other normal banking
charges
 On loans, credit or indebtedness
 Or on bonds, debtures, securities or other evidences of
indebtedness sold in international market incurred by virtue
of law, as when they all become due
 Petitioner believes the said decrees are inconsistent with Art 6 Sec 24 & 27 of the
consti
ISSUE
 Whether the decree of automatic debt servicing is unconsti? NO
o Transitory provision of the consti has precisely been adopted by its
framers to preserve the social order
 So that legislation by the then president Marcos may be
recognized
o Automatic appropriations provide the flexibility for the effective
execution of debt management policies
o Absent an automatic clause
 If the PH gov has to await and depend upon congressional
action
 By the time this comes, it may no longer be responsive to the
intended conditions
 And result to delayed payments and arranges may
have supervened
 Which would worsen our debt service-to-total
expenditure ratio in the budget due to penalties
and/or demand for immediate payment even
before due dates
o Court maintains that lawful authorizations or appropriations constituted
in RA 4860
 Unless repealed or amended
 o Whether the country should honor its international debt, more
specifically the enormous amount that has been incurred by the past
admin
 Is more of a political decision for congress and the executive
to determine in the exercise of their wisdom and sound
discretion
o Not violative of Sec 29 Art 6
 No provision in our consti that provides or prescribes any
particular form of words in which an authorization or
appropriation by Congress
 Except that it be “made by law”
o Appropriation may be made impliedly
 Past but subsisting legislations
o Expressly for the current fiscal year
 Enactment of laws
o Congressional authorization may be embodied in annual laws
 GAA
 Special provisions of laws of general or special application
 Which appropriate public funds for specific public purposes
 Such as decrees
o Appropriation measure is sufficient if the legislative intention clearly
and certainly appeared from the language employed
 Whether in the past or at present
Philippine Coconut v. Republic
FACTS
 Pre-martial law
 RA 6260 was enacted creating the Coconut Investment Company (CIC)
o To admin the Coconut Investment Fund (CIF)
 Fund was to be sourced from a 55 cents levy on the sale of every 100kg of copra
(dried coconut kernels)
 Of the .55 levy of which the corpa seller was issued COCOFUND receipts
o Php .02 was placed at the disposition of the COCOFED
o National association of Coconut producers declared by the PH Coconut
Admin (PCA) as having largest membership
 Martial law
 Marcos issued PDs which were designed to improve the coconut industry
 PDs were some of the issuances on the coco levy
o Its collection and utilization
o How the proceeds of the levy will be managed and by whom
o And the purpose it was supposed to serve
 PD 276 established the Coconut Consumers Stabilization Fund (CCSF) and
declared the proceeds of the CCSF levy as trust fund
o Which will be used to subsidize the sale of coconut-based products
o Thus stabilizing the price of edible oil
 PD 582 created the Coconut Industry Development Fund (CDIF)
o To finance the operation of a hybrid coconut seed farm
 PD 755
 Sec 1 of which states that it is policy or objective of the state to provide readily
available credit facilities to coconut farmers at preferential interest rates
 Sec 2 states that PCA was authorized to use the levy funds for the acquisition of a
commercial bank and deposit subsequent levy collections in said bank, interest fee
and withdrawable only when the bank has attained a level of sufficiency in its
capital
 PD 961 (5)
o EXEMPTIONS – Coconut consumers stabilization funds and the
Coconut Industry Dev Fund as well as all disbursements of said funds
for the benefit of the coconut farmers as authorized shall not be
construed or interpreted under any law or regulations
o As special fiduciary funds or as part of the general funds of the national
gov within the contemplations of PD 711
o Nor as subsidy, donation, levy, gov funded investment or gov share
within the contemplation of PD 898
o The intention being that said fund and the disbursements thereof as
herein authorized for the benefit of the coconut framers shall be owned
by them in their own private capacities
 PD 1468
 Exemptions – CCSF and CIDF as well as all disbursement as herein authorized
shall not be construed under any law or regulation
o As special fiduciary funds
o Or as part of the general funds of the national gov within the
contemplation of PD 711
o Nor as a subsidy, donation, levy gov funded investment or gov share
within the contemplation of PD 898
o Intention being that said fund and the disbursements thereof as herein
authorized for the benefit of the coconut framers shall be owned by them
in their private capacities
 PCA was charged with the duty of collecting and administering the fund
o PCA also had its share of the coconut levy
 Through the years – a part of the coconut levy funds went directly or indirectly to
various projects or was converted into different assets or investments…of relevance
to case were
o 1) the acquisition of the UCPB
o 2) UCPB’s acquisition of a large block of SMC shared
 Letter of instruction 926 made reference to the creation of other coco levy funds
o Of the Coconut Investment Fund
o LOI authorizes the UCPB to invest through CIF the finds in the private
corporations
 Sandiganbayan found that the PCA appropriated, out of its own fund, an amount for
the purchase of 72.2% equity even though it would later reimburse itself from the
coconut levy fund
ISSUE
 Whether Sec 1 of the presidential decree 755 and article 3 sec 5 of PD 961 and art
33, sec 5 of PD 1468 are unconsti?
o Court ruled that Sec 1 and 2 of PD 755 are unconsti
o Above-stated provisions are undue delegations of legislative power
  Because the law does not satisfy the two tests for the validity
of a delegation of legislative power
o Courts rulings in COCOFED v. PCGG and republic v. sandiganbayan as
law of the case are speciously invoked
o SC also held that in the petitioners attempt to prevent the ruling on the
constitutionality of the PD 755, 961, 1468
 Petitioners are wrong
o They snuck in their argument that the SC has in 3 separate instances
 Upheld the validity and negated the republics challenged to
constitutionality
 Of said laws imposing different coco levies and prescribing
the uses of the fund collected
o Court inserted definition of law of the case as the opinion delivered on a
former appeal
o The principle means that question of law that have been previously
raised and disposed of in the proceedings shall be controlling in
succeeding instances where the same legal questions is raised
 Provided that the facts on which the legal issue was
predicated continue to be the facts of the case
o Thus law of the case cannot be invoked by the petitioners
o Petitioners cited COCOFED v. PCGG
 Issue of this cited case turns on the legality of the transfer of
the shares of the stock bought with the coconut levy funds to
coconut framers
o This must be distinguished with the issues in the instant case of whether
PD 755 violated Sec 29 (3) of Art 6 of the consti
 As well as whether PD 755 constitutes undue delegation of
legislative power
o Coconut levy funds are special public funds of the gov
 Simply put, coconut levies are public funds
 In the ruling of the republic v. cocofed case
 It was discussed that they are not only affected
with public interest
 But they are prima facie public funds
 Court is categorical in saying the coco levies are
special funds by the laws that establish them
 PD 1234 expressly stated this and that they are to be remitted
the treasury in the general fund of the state
o Coconut levy funds are in the nature of taxes and can only be used for
public purpose – consequently they cannot be used to purchase shares of
stocks to be given for free to private individuals
 It was discussed by the SC that the coconut levy was imposed
in the exercise of the state’s inherent power of taxation
 Thus! As they are of the nature of taxes, they are
contributions of individuals taken by the state by virtue of its
sovereignty for all public needs
 They stress that this is clearly for public purpose and to
protect the coconut industry
 Even if its id for a special purpose – it is still public in
character
o Art 3 of Sec 5 PD 961 and PD 1468 violate Art 9 (d)(2) of the consti
 The provision of the sec 5 explicitly takes away the coconut
levy funds from its very nature as public funds
 It privatized revenues derived from the coco levy
 Violated the provisions of Art 9 d Sec 2
 Which defines the powers and functions of COA
 Responsibility of state audit is vested on COA
 An independent and supreme state auditor ad
cannot be undermined by any law
 COA has jurisdiction over the coco levy funds because it is
special public funds and as mandated by the parameters set
forth in the mentioned provisions
First Lepanto Ceramics v. CA
FACTS
 First Lepanto Ceramics Inc (FLCI) assailed the conflicting provisions of BP 129
o Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
o EO 226 – Omnibus Investments Code of 1987
o SC Circular No. 1-91
o Deals with the jurisdiction of CA of cases decided by quasi-judicial
agencies
o Such as BOI
 BOI granted FLCI’s app to amend its BOI cert of registration
o By changing the scope of its registered product from “glazed floor tiles”
to “ceramic tiles”
 Respondent Mariwasa Manufacturing filed a MR of the BOI decision
o While FLCI did not move to reconsider the same nor appeal
 Mariwasa filed a petition for review with CA
 CA required the BOI and FLCI to comment of Mariwasa’s petition
o And show why no injunction should be issued
 CA temporarily restrained BOI from implementing the decision
 TRO lapsed by its own terms for 20 days
o Without CA issuing any prelim injunction
 FLCI filed a motion to dismiss petition
o And lift restraining order
o On the ground that the CA has no appellate jurisdiction over BOI Case
o Same being exclusively vested with the SC
 CA denied FLCI’s motion to dismiss
 FLCI then argued that BP 129 and Circular 1-91
o Cannot be the basis of Mariwasa’s appeal to CA
o Because the procedure for appeal runs contrary to Art 82 of EO 226
 Which provides that appeals from decisions or orders of the
BOI shall be filed directly with the SC
 Mariwasa maintains that whatever “obvious inconsistency” or “irreconcilable
repugnancy” there may have been between BP 129 & Art 83 of EO 226
 o On the question of venue for appeal has already been resolved by
Circular 1-91 of the SC
o Was promulgated four years after EO 226 was enacted
ISSUE
 Was the Court correct in sustaining the appellate jurisdictions of the CA in
decisions from the BOI? YES
o Present Consti provided that no law shall be passed increasing the
appellate jurisdiction of the SC
 As provided in this consti without its advice or concurrence
o Thus the section Omnibus Investment Code of 1987 pertaining to the
increase of the SC’s jurisdiction should not be acknowledged unless the
SC allows it so
o SC rules there is no reason why decisions and final orders of BOI must
be directly appealed to this Court
o Noted in the main decision in this case – the purposes of BP 129 is to
provide uniform appeals to the CA from the decisions and final orders of
all quasi-judicial agencies
 With the exception only of those issued under the Labor
Code and those rendered by the Central Board of Assessment
Appeals
o EO 226 was also promulgated after the 1987 consti took effect Feb 2,
1987
o THUS!!! Art 82 of the EO 226
 Which provides for increasing the appellate jurisdiction of
the SC is invalid!!!!
 Therefore never became effective for the concurrence of the
court was not sought in its enactment
o THUS!!! Omnibus Investments Code of 1981 as amended still stands
o Exclusive jurisdiction on appeals from decisions of the BOI belongs to
the CA
SBMA v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Congress enacted RA 7227
o Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992
o Created the Subic Economic Zone
 Also created SBMA to implement the declared national policy of converting the
Subic military reservation into alternative productive uses to govern aforesaid
 American navy turned over the Subic military reservation to the PH gov
 Immediately, petitioner commenced the implementation of its task
o Particularly the preservation of the sea-ports, airport, buildings, houses
and other installations left by the American navy
 Sanggu Bayan of Morong Bataan passed Pambayang Kapasyahan Bilang 10, Serye
1993
o Expressing therein its absolute concurrence as required by said Sec 12 of
RA 7227
o To join the Subic Special Economic Zone and submittee such to the
Office of the president
 Respondents Garcia filed a petition with the Sanggu Bayan of Morong to annul
Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg 10 Serye 1993
 Sanggu Bayan ng Morong acted upon the petition by promulgating Pambayang
Kapasyahan Blg. 18 Serye 1993
o Requesting Congress of the PH to amend certain provisions of RA 7227
o Respondents were not satisfied so they resorted to their power initiative
under LGC OF 1991
o COMELEC denied the petition for local initiative on the ground that the
subject thereof was merely a resolution and not an ordinance
o President issued proclamation No. 532 defining metes and bounds of the
SSEZ (Subic Special Economic Zone)
 Including therein the portion of the former naval base within
the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of Morong
o Respondent COMELEC issued resolution No. 2845 and 2848
 Adopting a “Calendar of Activities of local referendum and
providing for the “rules and guidelines to govern the conduct
of the referendum
o SBMA instituted a petition for certiorari contesting the validity of the
resolutions no. 2848
 Alleging that public respondent is intent on proceedings with
a local initiative that proposes an amendment of a national
law
o Petition prayed for the following
 1) to nullify Pambayang Kapasyang Blg. 10 for Morong to
join the Subic Special Economic Zone
 2) to allow Morong to join provided conditions are met
ISSUE
 Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating
Resolution 2848 which governs the conduct of the referendum proposing to annul
or repeal Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10? YES
o COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
o Process started by private respondents was an initiative
 But respondent COMELEC made preparations for a
referendum only
o In the body of the resolution as reproduced in the footnote below
 Word “referendum” is repeated at least 27 times
 But “initiative” is not mentioned at all
o COMELEC labelled the exercise as a “referendum:
o Counting of votes was entrusted to a “referendum committee”
 Documents were called “referendum returns”
 The canvassers, “referendum board of canvassers” and the
ballots themselves bore the description “referendum:
o Not once was the word initiative used in the said body of Resolution No.
2848
o Yet this exercise is unquestionably an initiative
o In initiative and referendum
  COMELEC exercises admin and supervision of the process
itself
o These law making powers belong to the people; hence the respondent
Commission cannot control or change the substance or the content of
legislation
 Whether the questioned local initiative covers a subject within the powers of the
people of Morong to enact whether such initiative “seeks the amendment of a
national law”? YES
o The local inititative is not ultra vires because the municipal resolution is
still in the proposal stage and not yet an approved law
o Should the people reject it
 Then there would be nothing to contest and to adjudicate
o Only when the people have voted for it and it had become an approved
ordinance or resolution that rights and obligation can be enforced or
implemented thereunder
o At this point, it is merely a proposal and the writ or prohibition cannot
issue upon a mere conjecture or possibilitu
o Consti speaking – courts may decide only actual controversies
 Not hypothetical questions or cases
o In this case it is quite clear that the Court has authority to review
Comelec Resolution 2848 to determine the commission of grave abuse
of discretion
o HOWEVER! It does not have the same authority in regard to the
proposed initiative since it has not been promulgated or approved
 Or passed upon by any “branch or instrumentaikty”
 Or lower court
o Commission on Elections itself has made no reviewable
pronouncements about the issues brought by the pleadings
o COMELEC simply included verbatim the proposal in its questioned
Resolution 2848
o THUS! No decision or action made by a branch, instrumentality or court
 Which this court could take cognizance of and acquire
jurisdiction over, in the exercise of its review powers
Defensor- Santiago v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Atty. Delfin filed with COMELEC
o A “Petition to Amend the consti to Lift Term limits of elective officials
by people’s initiative”
o COMELEC, upon it’s approval
 1) set the time and dates for signature gathering all over the
country
 2) caused the necessary publication of the said petition in
papers of general circulation
 3) instructed local elections registrars to assist petitioners and
volunteers in establishing signing stations
o Santiago et. al filed a special civil action for prohibition against the
Delfin Petition (private respondent)
o Santiago argues that
 1) consti provision on people’s initiative to amend the consti
can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress
and no such law has yet been passed by Congress
 2) RA 6753 indeed provides for 3 systems of initiative
namely, initiative on the consti, on statutes and on local
legislation
o Two latter forms of initiative were specifically provided for in the
Subtitle 2 and 3
 But no provisions were specifically made for initiatives on
the consti
o This omission indicated that the matter of people’s inititative to amend
the consti was left to some future law
 As pointed out by former Senator Tolentino
ISSUE
 Whether RA 6735 was intended to include initiative on amendments to the consti
and if so whether the act as worded, adequately covers such initiative?
o RA 6375 intended to include the system of initiative on amendments to
the consti
 BUT is INADEQUATE to cover that system
o Right of the people to directly propose amendments to the consti through
the system of initiative is recognized under Art. 17 Sec 2 of the consti
 But it cannot be exercised if the Congress does not provide
for its implementation since it is not self-executory
o Procedures and details on how the right is to be carried out are left to the
legislature
o RA 6735 was intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the
consti
 BUT it didn not fully comply with the duty of the Congress
to “provide for the implementation of the right”
o SEC 2 of RA 6735 does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the
consti which provides
 Power of the people under a system of initiative and
referendum to directly propose, enact, approve or reject in
whole or in part, the consti, laws and ordinances or
resolutions passed by any legislative body upon compliance
with the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed,
recognized and guaranteed
o The word consti was not germane to said section
 Exclusively related to initiative and referendum on national
laws, local laws, ordinances and resolutions
o Section is silent as to amendments to the consti
o Initiative on the consti is confined only to proposals to amend
o Under the consti the people are not accorded the power to “directly
propose, enact, approve or reject” the consti through the system of
initiative
 Can only do so with respect to laws, ordinances and
resolutions
 o Details on the implementation of the system of initiatie on amendments
to the consti were also not provided for
o While the act provides subtitiles for national initiative and referendum
and for local initiative and referendum
 No subtitle is provided for initiative on the consti
o Silence simply means that the main thrust of the Act is initiative and
referendum on national and local laws
o If congress intended RA 6735 to full provide for the implementation of
the initiative on amendments to the consti, it could have provided for a
subtitle therefor
o RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and
conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the consti is concerned
Lambino v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Group of Raul Lambino and Erico Aumentado “Lambino Group” commenced
gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 consti
 Lambino filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify
their initiative petition
o Under Sec 5(b) and (c)
o And Sec 7 of RA 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act
 Proposed changes under the petition will shift the present Bicam-Presidential
system to a unicameral-parliamentary form of gov
 Lambino Group claims that
o 1) their petition had support of 6M individuals constituting at least 12%
of all registered voters
 Each legislative district represented by at least 13% of its
registered voters
o 2) COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3
M individuals
 HOWEVER! COMELEC denied due course to the petition for lack of an enabling
law governing initiative petitions to amend the consti
o Pursuant to the SC’s ruling in Santiago v. Commission on Elections
 Lambino Group elevated the matter to the SC
o Also threw out petition
 In this case, Lambino’s petition
o There’s not a single word, phrase or sentence of text of the proposed
changes in the signature sheet state that the text of the proposed changes
is attached to it
 Signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people approve a shift from the
bicam-president to the unicameral-parliamentary system of gov
 The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the proposed changes
before they are asked to sign the signature sheet
o This omission is fatal
ISSUE
 Whether the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies with Sec 2 Art 17 of the
Consti on amendments to the consti through a people’s initiative? NO
o Sec 2 Art 17 of the consti is the governing provision that allows a
people’s initiative to propose amendments to the consti
o While this provisions does not expressly state that the petitoon must set
forth the full text of the proposed amendments…
o The deliberations of the framers of our consti clearly show that
 1) the framers intended to adopt the relevant American
jurisprudence on peoples initiative
 2) and the people must first see the full text of the proposed
amendments before they sign
 And that people must sign on a petition containing
such full text
o Essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition”
 Is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the
people
o This means two essential elements must be present
o 1st: people must author and thus sign the entire proposal
 No agent or rep may sign on their behalf
o 2nd: an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a
petition
o These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed
amendments is first shown to the people who express their assent
 By signing such complete proposal in a petition
o Full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face
of the petition or attached to it
o If attached – petition must state the fact of such attachment
o This is an assurance that every one of the several millions of signatories
to the petition had seen the fill text of the proposed amendments before
 Not after signing
o An initiative signer must be informed at the time of signing of the nature
and effect of that which is proposed
 Failure to do so is deceptive and misleading which renders
the initiative void
o An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first
showing to the people the full text of the proposed amendments is most
likely a deception
 And can operate as a gigantic fraud on the people
o That’s why the consti requires that an initiative must be directly
proposed by the people in a petition
 Meaning that the people must sign on a petition that contains
the full text of the proposed amendments
o Amending the nation’s fundamental law
 The writing of the text of the proposed amendments cannot
be hidden from the people under a general of special power
of attorney to unamaned, faceless and unelected individuals
o Petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer must be
informed at the time of the signing of the nature and effect
 Failure to do so is deceptive and misleading
 Renders the initiative void
o Thus the initiative violates Sec 3 Art 17 of the Consti
 Disallowing revision through initiatives
o Art 17 of the Consti speaks of 3 modes of amending the consti
 1st mode: Congress upon ¾ths vote of all its members
 2nd mode: consti convention
 3rd mode: people’s initiative
o Sec 1 of Art 17 refers to the 1st and 2nd modes
 Applies to “any amendments to or revision of this consti”
o In contrast Sec 2 of Art 17
 Referring to the 3rd mode applies only to amendments to this
consti
o This distinctions was intentional as shown by the deliberations of the
consti commission
o A people’s initiative to change the consti applied only to an amendment
of the consti
 And not to its revision
o In contrast, Congress or a consti convention can propose both
amendments and revisions to the Consti
o Lambino Group’s initiative constitute an amendment or revision of the
consti
o By any legal test and under any jurisdiction
 A shift from a bicam-presidential to a unicameral-
parliamentary system
 Involving the abolition of the Office of the President
 And the abolition of the one chamber of Congress is beyong
doubt a revision, not a mere amendment
o Courts no longer recognize the distinction between an amendment and a
revision of a consti
o Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the
consti
 Like altering the principle of separation of powers of the
system of checks and balances
o There is also a revision if the changes alters the substantial entirety of
the consti
 As when the change affects substantial provisions of the
consti
o On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds,
reduces or deletes without altering the basic principle involved
o Revision generally affects several provisions of the consti
 While amendment generally affects only the specific
provision being amended
o In this case the proposed changes were from a bicam-presidential to a
unicam-parliamentarism
o The change is so great that the executive and the legislative branch
would be merged
 This is revision of the consti
o These changes affect the structure of the gov or the system of checks and
balances among the 3 branches
o THUS! It is a revision not an amendment
o Art 6 and 7 would cease to exist
Marcos v. Manglapus
FACTS
 After the people power rev – presidency of Cory Aquino was met with problems
that besieged her
o Such as the failed Manila Hotel Coup
 By political leaders of Mr. Marcos
o Takeover of Channel 7 by Marcos Loyalits
o Military coup attempt by Honasan
o And communist insurgency
 Mr. Marcos in his deathbed
o Signified his wish to return to the PH to die
 BUT Cory barred his return
 Petitioners believe that the right of Marcos to return is guaranteed by the bill of
rights
 Sec 1
o No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process
 Sec 6
o Liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed
by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court
 Petitioners further assert that under international law
o The right of Mr. Marcos and his fam to return to the PH is guaranteed
o Universal declaration of human rights provides
 Art 13
 1) everyone has the right to freedom of movement
 2) everyone has the right to leave any country including his
own and return to his country
 Likewise the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights
o Ratified by the PH
o Art 12 – liberty of movement, free to leave any country, right to enter
his own country
 Petitioners finally contend that the president is without power to impair the liberty
to abode of the marcoses
o Because only the court may do so
o Within the limits prescribed by law
 Nor may the president impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her
to do so
 Advance the view that before the right to travel may be impaired by any authority
or agency of the gov
o There must be legislation to that effect
 Respondents on the other hand argue for the primacy of the right of the state to
national security over individual rights
o They cite art 2 Sec 4-5
  Respondents also point out that the decision to ban Mr. Marcos and family from
returning to the PH for reasons of national security and public safety has
international precedents
o From other dictators
 Respondents believe that the right to return to one’s country is not among the rights
specifically guaranteed in the bill of rights
o Which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel
o But it is our well-considered view that the ight to return may be
considered as a generally accepted of international law
o And under our consti is part of the law of the land
 HOWEVER! It is distinct and separate from the right to travel and enjoys a
different protection under the international covenant of civil and political rights
o Against being arbitrarily deprived
ISSUE
 Does the president have the power to bar the return of former president Marcos and
fam the PH? YES
o Before going into other matters, the right to return and right to travel are
two separate and distinct things
o Right to return is covered by territorial rules covered by the country’s
respective border laws
 Is bound to limitations of national security
o Right to travel is one that pertains to freedom of movement
o In this case Marcos has the right to travel to any country however his
right to return to the PH is prohibited
o Residual powers of the president is in Art 7 sec 1
o HOWEVER! It does not define what is meant by executive power
o In other articles it is admitted that there are samples of what the
president’s power is
 It seems that the consti did not specify what the powers of the
president are
o Court believes that we could not narrowly construe the president to
someone who simply executed laws
 Neither can we also limit his power to the ones enumerated
within the consti
o Executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated
by the consti
o Additionally – it seems that whatever power inherent in the gov that is
neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive
o Springer v. gov of the PH islands
 When the issue of determining members of the legislature
who constitute a majority of the board and committee but are
not doing their legislative performance it was held that:
 Clear they are not legislative in character
 Still more clear not judicial
 The fact that they do not fall within the authority of either of
these two constitutes logical ground for concluding that they
do fall within that of the remaining one among which the
powers of gov are divided
o In exercising the said executive power, president is guided by the consti
o Present case – art 4 sec 4 &5 seem applicable
 Prime duty of the gov is to serve and protect the people
 Maintenance of powers and order, protection life
 Promotions of the general welfare are essential for the
enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy
o Issue at hand requires that the president balance the general welfare and
the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals
o Power involved is the president’s residual power to protect the general
welfare of the people
o Could also be construed to mean the president’s duty to take care that
the laws are fruitfully executed
o Also as commander-in-chief – duty to protect the peace
 Not limited merely to exercising the commander-in-chief
powers in times of emergency or to leading he state against
external and internal threats
o President is not only clothes with extraordinary powers in times of
emergency
 Also tasked with attending day-to-day problems of maintain
peace and order
o President indeed has the power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the
PH
 Exemplified further by the fact that despite the congress did
not insist to pass its resolution
 Which was signed by 103 of its members
 To allow the marcoses to return to the PH in order to
exemplify PH’s collective adherence to uncompromising
respect for human rights under the consti and laws
 Resolution does not question the president’s power to bar the
Marcoses from returning to the PH
 Rather it appeaks to the President’s sense of
compassion to allow a man to come home to die
in his country
o Power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the PH should be treated as
a matter that is appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers
of the president
 Correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to
safeguard and protect general welfare
o Such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a braoder
discretion on the part of the president
Marcos v. Manglapus MR
FACTS
 MR was filed by petitioners
 President has no power to bar a filipino from his own country
o If she has, she had exercised it arbitrarily
ISSUE
  President has unstated residual powers which are implied from the grant of
executive power
o Which are necessary for her to comply with her duties under the consti
 Powers of the president are not limited to what are expressly enumerated in the
article on the executive dept
o And in scattered provisions of the consti
 Neither can we subscribe to the view that a recognition of the president’s implied or
residual powers is tantamount to setting the stage for another dictatorship
 Despite petitioner’s strained analogy
o Residual powers of the president under the consti should not be confused
with the power of the president under the 1973 consti to legislate
pursuant to amendment no. 6
 Amendment no. 6 refers to a grant to the president the specific power of legislation
 Thus it cannot be said that the residual powers of the president cannot be used to
legislate and as a form of abuse
Webb v. de Leon
FACTS
 Hubert Webb and 8 other people charged with the crime of rape with homicide
o Of Carmela Vizconde, her mother and sister
 Principal witness was Jessica Alfaro
 DOJ issued the assailed resolution finding probable cause
 Information was filed against petitioners through DOJ Order No. 223
o Warrants of arrest issued by Judge Tolentino
 Jessica Alfaro was not included in the information based on RA 6981
o (Witness Protection, Security & Benefit Programs)
o Mandates non-inclusion of state witness in criminal complaint and
grants immunity from prosecution
 Grants the DOJ the power to determine who can qualify to said programs & become
immune from suit
ISSUE
 Whether the grant of State witness to Jessica Alfaro which would grant her non-
inclusion in the case is an intrusion to judicial power? NO
o Non-inclusion of Alfaro is anchored on RA 6981
 An Act Providing for a Witness Protection Security and
Benefit Program and for other purposes
o Alfaro qualified under Sec 10
 Any person who has participated in a commission of a crime
and desires to a witness of the state
 Can apply and if qualified as determined in this act and by
the dept
 Shall be admitted into the program whenever the following
circumstances are present:
 1) the offense in to which his testimony will be
used is a grave felony as defined under the RPC
 2) there is absolute necessity for his testimony
 3) there is no other direct evidence available for
the proper prosecution of the offense committed
 4) his testimony can be substantially corroborated
on its material points
 5) he does not appear to be most guilty
 6) he has not at anytime been convicted of any
crime involving moral turpitude
 Because Alfaro qualified for Sec 10 she is entitled to Sec 12
or the effects of it
 SEC 12 – Effect of Admission of state witness
into the program
 The certification of admission into the program by
the department shall be given full faith and credit
by the provincial or city prosecutor
 Who is required not to include the witness in the
criminal complaint or info
 And if included to petition the court for his
discharged in order that he can be utilized as a
state witness
 Court shall order the discharge and exclusion of
the said accused from the info
o Admission into the program shall entitle such state witness to immunity
from criminal prosecution for the offense or offense in which his
testimony will be given
o Validity of these provisions is challenged by petitioner Webb
o Urges that the constitute an intrusion into judicial prerogative for is only
the court which has the power
 Under the rule on criminal procedure to discharge an accused
as a state witness
o Prosecution of crimes pertain to the exec dept of gov
 Whose principal power and responsibility is to see that our
laws are faithfully executed
o A necessary component of this power to execute our laws is the right to
prosecute their violators
o Right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide range of discretion
 Whether, what and whom to charge the exercise of which
depends on a smorgasbord of factos which are best
appreciated by prosecutors
o Court holds that it is not constitutionally impermissible for Congress to
enact RA 6981
 Vesting in the DOJ the power to determine who can qualify
as a witness in the program
 And who shall be granted immunity from prosecution
o Sec 9 of Rule 119 – related to Art. 7 Sec 1
 Does not support the proposition that the power to choose
who shall be a state witness is an inherent judicial
prerogative
 Under this provision – the state is given the power to
discharge a state witness only because it has already acquired
 jurisdiction but not a recognition of an inherent judicial
function
Djumatan v. Dominguez
FACTS
 Bernard Banez is the husband of Marina Cabael
o Went to Indonesia as a contract worker
o Converted to Islam
 He married Djumatan in accordance with Islamic Rites as his second wife
 Petitioner and her 2 childresm with Banez arrived in Manila as the “guests” of
Banez
 Banez made it appear that he was just a friend of the family of Djumantan
o Was merely repaying the hospitality extended to him during his stay in
Indonesia
 As “guests”, petitioner and her 2 children lived in the house Banez
 Petitioner her children were admitted to the PH as temporary visitors
o Under Sec 9(a) of the Immigration Act of 1940
 Cabael discovered the true relationship of her husband and petitioner
 Immigration status of petitioner was changed from temporary visitor to a permanent
resident
o Under Sec 13(a) of the same law
 Petitioner was issued an alien certificate of registration
 Banez’ eldest son Leonardo filed a letter of complaint with the Ombudsman
o Who subsequently referred the letter to the Commission on Immigration
and Deportation (CID)
 In the latter is says petitioner was detained at the CID detention cell
 CID issued an order revoking the status of permanent resident given to petitioner
o Board found that 2nd marriage irregular
o Not in accordance with PH laws
 No basis for giving her the status of permanent residence
o Since her marriage with a filipino citizen was not valid
ISSUE
 Whether the executive has the power of deportation? YES
o Right of the president to expel or deport alien whose presence is deemed
inimical to public interest
 Is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and
prevent their entry into the country
o This right is based on the fact that since the aliens are not part of the
nation
o Their admission into the territory is a matter of pure permission as
simple tolerance
 Creates no obligation on the part of the gov to permit them to
stay
o Interest which an alien has in being admitted into or allowed to continue
to reside in the country
 Is protected only so far as Congress may choose to protect it
o There is no law guaranteeing alien married to Filipino citizens
 Right to be admitted
 Much less given permanent residency
o Not mandatory for the CID to admit any alien who applies for a visitor’s
visa
o Once admitted – alien has no right to an indefinite stay
o Entry of aliens into the country and their admission as immigrants is not
a matter of right
 Even if they are legally married to Fil
o Alien’s admission is a matter of pure permission
 Not as a matter of right
o Likewise an alien does not possess right to an indefinite stay
o Congress may impose a limitation of time for the deportation of alien
from the country
o Immigration Act of 1940 provides that the deportation of an alien has a
prescriptive period of 5 years after the cause for deportation arises
Pontejos v. Ombudsman
FACTS
 Consti and the Ombudsman Act of 1989 have endowed the Office of the
Ombudsman (OMB)
o With a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutorial powers
o Virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention
o In order to insulate it from outside pressure and improper influence
 Unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion
o Judgments and orders of the OMB shall not be reversed, modified or
interfered with by this Court
 Sometimes in 1998 – Restituto Aquino filed an affidavit/complaint before the
Ombudsman
o Against Emmanuel Pointejos (arbiter)
o Wilfredo Imperial (regional director)
o Carmencita Atos (legal staff)
o And all of them officials of the Housing and land Use regulatory board
 Aquino accused Pontejos and Atos of conspiring to exact money in exchange for a
favorable decision
o Of a case against Roderick Ngo
o Then pending in the HLURB
 He further averred that Pontejos acted as his counsel during the time when the latter
was the hearing officer of the case
 Atos also allegedly received Php 10k in check
o Which was part of the consideration for favorable decision
 Imperial was implicated as an alleged accomplice
 Prelim investigation found probable cause against Pontejos for the crimes of estafa,
direct bribery and illegal practice
o Of profession in violation RA 6713
 Criminal cases of estafa and bribery against Pontejos were filed before the RTC of
QC
 o Before this, Atos was extended immunity as a state witness by the
Ombudsman Desierto
 Overall Deputy Ombudsman ruled that Atos should be extended immunity from
criminal prosecution and discharged as state witness
 According to him
o Atos was merely a subordinate who could have acted only upon the
prodding of Pontejos
 Also her testimony was necessary to build a case against Pontejos
 Pontejos motioned for reinvestigation to be conducted by the City Prosecutor
o Without remanding the case ot the Ombudsman
 Asst. City Prosecutor after conducting the reinvestigation
o Recommended to amend the info and include Atos as accused reasoning
that the power to grant immunity pertains solely to the courts
o Not the prosecution which can only recommend
 Overall Deputy Ombudsman disapproves the prosecutor’s report
ISSUE
 Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
or excess of jurisdiction when it granted an immunity to Ms. Atos to become state
witness on almost the same date the affidavit was executed and submitted? NO
o Decision on whether to prosecute and whom to indict is executive in
character
o It is the prosecution that could essentially determine the strength of
pursuing a case against an accused
o Prosecutional powers include the discretion of granting immunity
 To an accused in exchange for testimony against another
o Mapa v. Sandiganbayan
 Decision to grant immunity from prosecution forms a
constituent part of the prosecution process
o Is essentially a tactical decision to forego prosecution of a person for
gov to achieve a higher objective
o A deliberate renunciation of the right of the state to prosecute all who
appear to be guilty of having committed a crime
o Its justification lies in the particular need of the state to obtain the
conviction of the more guilty criminals
 Who otherwise will probably elude the long arm of the law
o Power to prosecute includes the right to determine who shall be
prosecuted
 And the right to decide whom not to prosecute
o Court has previously upheld the discretion of the DOJ, COMELEC, and
the PCGG
 To grant immunity from prosecution on the basis of the
respective laws that vested them with such power
o OMB was also vested with the power to grant immunity from
prosecution
o Power is placed in Sec 17 of Rules of Court
 Discharge of accused to be state witness
 When 2 or more persons jointly charged with the
commission of the any offense
 The oucrt may direct one or more of the accused to be
discharged with their consent
 So that they may witnesses for the state when after requiring
the prosecution to present evidence and the sworn statement
of each proposed state witness at a hearing in support of the
discharge
 Court is satisfied that: there is absolutely necessity for the
testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested
 1) there is another direct evidence available for
the proper prosecution of the offense committed
except the testimony of said accused
 2) the testimony of said accused can be
substantially corroborated in its material points
 3) said accused does not appear to be the most
guilty
 4) said accused has not at any time been convicted
of any offense involving moral turpitude
o Court has already held that this provision is applicable only to cases
already filed in court
o Trial court is given the power to discharge an accused as a state witness
 Only because it has already acquired jurisdiction over the
crime and the accused
o Given that the power to grant immunity is executive
 The fact that an individual has not been previously charged
or included in information does not prevent the prosecution
from utilizing said person as a witness
Banda v. Ermita
FACTS
 NPO (National printing Office) was formed on July 1987
o During the term of pres. Aquino
o By EO 285
 Sec 6 provides the exclusive printing jurisidiction over the ff:
o 1) printing, binding and distribution of all standard and accountable
forms of national, provincial, city and municipal gov, including gov
crops
o 2) printing of official ballots
o 3) printing of public documents
 Official Gazette
 GAA
 PH reports
 Dev info materials of the PH Info Agency
 Office may also accept other gov printing jobs
o Including gov publications
o Aside from thise metioned
o But not in an exclusive basis
 Details of the org, powers, functions, authorities, and related management aspect of
the office shall be provided in the implementing details
 o Which shall be prepared and promulgated in accordance with Sec 2 of
this EO
 Pres Arroyo issued the assailed EO 378
o Amending Sec 6 of EO 285
o Removing the exclusive jurisdiction of PO over printing services
requirements of gov agencies and instrumentalities
 Sec 1: states that ti shall have to compete with the private sector, except in printing
of election paraphernalia
 Sec 2: gov agencies/instrumentalities may source printing services outside NPO
provided that:
o Printing services to be provided by the private sector is superior in
quality and at a lower cost than what is offered by NPO
o Private printing provider is flexible in terms of meeting the target
completion time of the gov agency
 Sec 3: in the exercise of its functions, the amount to be appropriated for the
programs, projects and activities of the NPO in GAA shall be limited to its income
without additional financial support from the gov
 Pursuant to EO 378
o Gov agencies and instrumentalities are allowed to source their printing
services from the private sector
o Through competitive bidding
 Subject to the condition that the services offered by the
private supplier be of superior quality
 And lower in cost compared to NPO
 EO 378 also limited NPO’s appropriation in the GAA to its income
 Perceiving EO 378 as a threat to their security of tenure as employees of the NPO
o Petitioners now challenge its consti contending that
 1) it is beyond the executive powers of the president Arroyo
to amend or repeal EO 285 issued by the former Pres Aquino
 When the latter still exercised legislative powers
 2) EO 378 violates petitioners’ security of tenure
 Because it paves the way for the gradual abolition
of the NPO
ISSUE
 Whether EO 378 is consti? YES
o Settled principle in jurisprudence that the president has the power to
recognize the offices and agencies in the executive dept
 In line with the president’s consti granted power of control
over executive offices
 And by virtue of previous delegation of legislative power
 To reorganize executive offices under existing statutes
o Admin Code of 1987 gives the president continuing authority to
reorganize and redefine the functions of the office of the president
o Sec 31of the Code
 Continuing authority of the president to reorganize his office
 President subject to the policy in the EO
 And in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency
shall have continuing authority to reorganize the admin
structure of the office of the president
o For this purpose he may take any of the following actions
 1) restructure the internal organization of the office of the
president proper
 Including immediate offices
 President special assistants/ advisers system
 And common staff support system
 By abolishing, consolidating or merging units
thereof or transferring functions from one unit to
another
 2) transfer any function under the office of the president to
any other dept or agency as well as transfer functions to the
office of the president from other depts and agencies
 3) transfer any agency under the office of the president to any
other dept or agency
 As well as transfer agencies to the office of the
president from other depts or agencies
o Canonizado v. Aguirre
 Ruled that reorganization involves the reduction of
personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by
reason of economy or redundancy of functions
 Takes place when there is an alteration of the existing
structure of gov offices or units
 Including the line of control, authority and responsibility
between them
o Power of the president to reorganize even executive offices already
funded by the said appropriations act
 Including the power to implement structural, functional and
operational adjustments
 In the executive bureaucracy and in so doing, modify or
realign appropriations funds as may be necessary under such
reorganization
o Recent case Tondo Medical Center Employees Assoc. v. CA
 A Structural and functional reorganization of the dept of
health under an executive order
 Principle that the power of the president to reorganize
agencies under the executive dept by executive or admin
order is consti and statutorily recognized
o Case at bar – Sec 31 quoted above authorities
 1) restructure the internal org of the office of the president
proper
 Including the immediate offices
 President special assistant
 Common staff support system
 By abolishing, consolidating or merging units
thereof or transferring functions from one unti to
another
  2) to transfer functions or offices from the office of the
president to any other dept or agency in the executive branch
and vice versa
 Concomitant to such power to abolish, merge or
consolidate offices in the office of the president
proper
 And to transfer functions/offices not only among
the offices in the office of the president proper
 But also rest of the office of the president and the
exec branch
o In this case, there was neither an abolition of the NPO nor a removal of
any of its functions to be transferred to another agency
o Under the assailed EO 378, NPO remains the main printing arm of the
gov for all kinds of gov forms
 And publications but in the interest of greater economy and
encouraging efficiency and profitability
 It must now compete with the private sector for certain gov
printing jobs
 With exception of election paraphernalia
 Remain the exclusive responsibility of the NPO
o There was a mere alteration of the main function of the NPO by limiting
the exclusivity of its printing responsibility to election forms
o To be clear!!! This delegated legislative power to reorganize pertain
only to the office of the president and the depts, offices and agencies of
the executive branch
 Does not include the judiciary, legislature or the consti-
created or mandated bodies
o Dario v. Mizon
 Reorganizations in this jurisdiction have been regarded as
valid
 Provided they are pursued in good faith
Laurel v. Garcia
FACTS
 2 petitions for prohibition seeking to enjoin respondens, reps and agents
o Proceeding with the bidding of the land at Roppongi Tokyo
o Court granted a TRO
 2 petitions were consildated when the memoranda of the parties in the Laurel case
were deliberated upon
 Subject property is 1 of the 4 properties in Japan acquired by the PH gov
o Under the Reparations Agreement entered in to with Japan
o Other lots
 Nampeidai propery which is being used as PH Embassy
Chancery
 Kobe Property Commercial Property which is being used as a
warehouse and parking lot for consulate staff
 Kobe Residential Property – residential lot which is now
vacant
 Properties and capital good ans services procured from the Japanese gov for
national dev projects are part of the indeminification to the Filipino
o For their losses in life and property and their sufferin g
o During WWII
 Reparations Agreement provides that reparations valued at 550 M dollars would be
payable of reparations and dev loans
o Procurements are divided into those for use by the gov sector
o And those for the private in projects as the then National Economic
Council shall determine
 Those intended for the private sector shall be made available by sale to Filipino
citizens
o Or to 100% Filipino-owned entities in national dev projects
 The Roppongi property was acquired from the Japanese gov
o Listed unfer the heading “gov sector”
o Through Reparations Contract No 300
 Roppongi property consists of the land and building
o For the Chancery of the PH Embassy
o It became the site of the PH embassy until the latter was transferred to
Nampeidai
 When Roppongi building needed major repairs
 Due to the gov’s failure to provide funfs, the Roppongi property has remained
undeveloped since that time
 Proposal was presented to Pres. Cory Aquino
o By former Ambassador to Japan Mr. Valdez
o To make the property the subject of a lease agreement with a Japanese
firm
 Kajima Corp
o Shall construct 2 buildings in Roppongi
 1 in Napedidai
 1 renovation in the present PH Chancery Nampeidai
 The consideration of the construction would be the lease to the foreign corp of 1 of
the buildings to be constructed in Roppongi
o 2 of the buildings in Nampedidai
o Other building in Roppongi shall then be used as the PH Embassy
Chnacery
 At the end of the lease period
o All 3 leased buildings shall be occupied and used by PH gov
 No change of ownership or title shall occur
 PH gov retains the title all throughout the lease period and after
 HOWEVER! The gov has not acted favorably on this proposal which is pending
approval and ratification between parties
 Instead Aquino created a committee to study the disposition/ utilization of PH
properties in Tokyo and Kobe
 President issued EO 296
o Entitling non-Filipino citizens or entities to avail of reparations’ capital
goods and services in the event of sale, lease or disposition
 4 properties in Japan including the Roppongi were specifically mentioned in the
first whereas clause
  Amisdt opposition by various sectors
o Executive branch of the gov has been pushing with the great vigor
o Its decision to sell the reparations properties starting with the Roppingi
lot
 Property has twice been set for bidding at a minimum floor price of 225M dollars
 1st bidding was a fail since only 1 bidder qualifies
 2nd bidding has not yet materialized
 Last bidding was restrained by this court
o Rules on bidding changed such that $225 M floor price became merely a
suggested floor price
ISSUE
 Is the Roppongi property public? YES
o Its nature is dictated by the terms of the Reparations Agreement
o And the contract procurement between PH and Japan
o Art. 420 of the Civil Code – public properties are
 Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals,
rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the
state
 Those which belong to the state without being for
public use and are intended for some public service or
for the dev of the national wealth
o Roppongi is correctly satisfied under her
o Intention to use Roppongi property for public service and to make
it patrimonial property under Art 422
 Must be definite abandonment
 Cannot be inferred from the non-use alone especially if
the non-use was attributable
 Will but to a lack of financial support to repair and
improve the property
o EO 296 does not indicate that these properties have lost their
public character
o Merely intends to make the properties available to foreigners and
not to Filipinos alone in case of a sale, lease or other disposition
o Eliminates the restriction under RA 1789 that reparations goods
may be sold only to FIL and 100% FIL-owned entities
o EO 296 is based on the wrong premise that Roppongi and the other
3 were converted into alienable real properties
o Under RA 1789
 Only the private sector properties can be sold to end-
users who must be FIL or entities owned by FIL
o This nationality provision which was amended by EO 296
o Under CARP
 It did not withdraw the Roppongi property from being
classified
 As one of the public dominion when it mentions PH
properties abroad
 SEC 63 – Refers to properties which are alienable and
not to those reserved for public user or service
o RA 6657 does not authorize the Exec dpet to sell the Roppongi
property
 Merely enumerated possible sources of future funding
to augment the Agrarian Refform Fund
o Petitioners says that Japanese law and not our Civil Code apply
 Whether the Chief Exec, her officers and agents have the authority and
jurisdiction to sell the Roppongi property? NO
o Subsequent approval by Aquino of the recommendation by the
investigating committee to sell the Roppongi property was
premature
o The approval does not have the force and effect of law since the
President already lsot legislative powers
o If Roppongi is no long public dominion
 Another obstacle for the sale
 Under SEC 79 of revised Admin Code of 1917
 Instrument conveying the title to real estate
or to any other property
 The value of which is in excess of 100k
pesos
 Respective Dpet sec shall prepare the
necessary papers
o Shall be submitted to the
Congress for approval
o Sec 48 of Admin Code
 Not for the Preaident to convery valuable real property
of the gov on his or her own sole will
 Any such conveyance must be authorized and approved
by a law enacted by the congress
 Requires executive and legislative concurrence
o An earlier and separate case questioning the property sale of
Roppongi in Ojeda case
 They clarified the question is whether the President has
the power to allocate the proceeds of the Roppongi
property to finance CARP
o Whether or not it will be sold both President and Congress must
concur
o Considering the properties’ importance and value, the laws on
conversion and disposition of property of public dominion must be
faithfully followed
Review Center v. Ermita
FACTS
 Professional Regulation Commission (RPC) conducted the Nursing Board
Examinations nationwide
 June 2006 licensure applicants wrote the PRC to report that handwritten copies of 2
sets of examinations were circulated during the examination period
o Among the examines reviewing at the RA Gapuz Review Center and
Inress Review Center
  George Cordero – Inress Reviwe Center’s President was then the incumbent
President of the PH nurses Assoc
 Examinees were provided with a list of 500 questions and answers in two of the
examinations’ 5 subject
o Psych Nursing
o Medical Surguical Nursing
 PRC later admitted the leakage and traced it to 2 board of nursing members
 June 2006 – PRC released results of the Nursing Boards
 CA restrained the PRC from proceeding with the oath-taking of the successful
examinees
 GMA ordered for a re-examinations
o Issued EO 566 which authorized the CHED to supervise the
establhsment and operation of all review centers
 CHED Chariman Puno approved memorandum order No. 49 IRR
 Review Center Assoc. of the PH – an org of independent review centers
o Asked the CHED to amend id not withdraw the IRR arguing among
other things that giving permits to operate to Higher Institutions will
 Whether EO 566 is an unconsti exercise of the executive of legislative power as it
abolish independent review center
expands the CHED’s jurisdiction and whether the RIRR is an invalid exercise of the
 CHED Chairman Puno however believed that suspending the implemention of the
executive’s rule-making power? YES
IRR would be inconsistent with the mandate of EO 566
 Dialogue between the petitioner and CHED took place
 Revised IRR was approved
 Petitioner filed before the CHED
o A petition to clarify/amend RIRR praying to exclude independent review
center from the coverage of the CHED
 In 2007 CHED Chairman Neri responded to the petitioner that: to exclude the
operation of independent review center from the ocverage of CHED would
contradict EO 566
 To tie up with HEI is to be partners with them
ISSUE
 Does CHED have jurisdiction over review centers? NO
o Sec 3 – Creation of Commission of higher edu
 Commission shall be independent and separate from DECS
(Education , culture and Sports)
 Coverage shall be both public and private institutions of
higher edu
 Also degree-granting programs in all post-secondary edu
institutions, public and private
o Higher-education is defined as “education beyond the secondary level
o RIRR define a review center as
 Center operated and owned by a duly authorized entity
pursuant to these rules intending to offer to the public and/or
to specialized groups whether for a fee or for free a program
of course of study
 Intended to refresh and enhance the knowledge and
competencies and skills of reviewees obtained in the formal
school setting in preparation for the licensure examinations
 Given by PRC
o Similar enities
 Other review centers providing review or tutorial services in
areas not covered by licensure examinations given by the
professional regulations commission including but not
limited to college entrance exams , civil service, tutorial
services
o Scopes of the EO 566 and the RIRR clearly expand CHED’s coverage
under RA 7722
o CHED’s coverage is limited to public and private institutions of higher
edu and degree-granting programs in all public and private post-
secondary edu institutions
o EO 566 directed the CHED to formulate a framework for the regulation
of review center and similar entities
 A review center is not an institution of higher learning as
contemplated in RA 722
 Does not odder degree-granting program that would put it
under the jurisdiction of the CHED
o Under Sec 20 of residual powers – unless congress provided otherwise,
the president shall exercise such other powers and function vested in the
president
o Which are provided for under the laws and which are not specifically
enumerated above
o Or which are not delegate by the president in accordance to the law
o Provision clearly states that the exercise of the president’s other powers
and function has to be provided under the law
 No law granting the president the power to amend the
functions of CHED
 President may not amend RA 7722 through an EO without
prior legislation granting her such power
 President has no inherent or delegated legislative power to
amend the functions of CHED
o President has no control over the executive dept, bureaus, and offices
 Thus granted admin power over bureaus and offices under his
control to enable him to dishcagre his duties effectively
o Admin power is concerned with the work of applying policies and
enforcing orders as determines by proper gov organs
o Just like AO 308 in Ople v. Torres, EO 566 in this case is not supported
by an enabling law
 Since EO 566 is an invalid exercise of legislative power
 RIRR is also invalied exercide of CHED’s quasi-legislative
power
o Admin agencies exercise their quasi-legislative power through the
promulgation or rules and regs
o CHED may only exercise its rule-making power within the confines of
its jurisdiction under RA 7722
 o RIRR convers review center and similar entitites which are neither
institutions of higher edu nor institutions offering degree-granting
programs
o HOWEVER! There is a chance that the president may still exercise its
power to control PRC
 Under Sec 5 of RA 8981, PRC is mandated to establish and
maintain a high standard of admission to the practice of all
professions
 And at all times ensure and safeguard the integrity of all
licensure examinations
 SEC 7 of RA 8981 states that PRC shall adopt measures to
preserve the integrity and inviolability of licensure
examinations
o HOWEVER! Enumeration of the PRC’s powers under Sec 7€ includes
among others the fixing of dates and places of the examinations
 And the appointment of supervisors and watches
o Power to preserve the integrity and inviolability of licensure
examinations should be read together with these functions
 These powers of PRC have nothing to do at all with the
regulation of review centers
Biraogo v. Truth Commission
FACTS
 Presidential truth commission (PTC) is a mere ad hoc body
o Formed under the office of the pres
o Primary task to investigate reports of graft and corruption committed by
the 3rd level public offivers and employees, their co-principals,
accomplices and accessories during the previous admin
o And to submit its finding and recommendation to the president, congress
and the ombudsman
 PTC has all the powers of an investigative body
 BUT it is not a quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle
or render awards in disputes between contending parties
 All it can do is gather, collect and assess evidence of graft and corruption and make
recommendations
 May have sunpoeana powers but it has no power to cite people in contempt – or
arrest
 Fact finding body though it cannot determine from such facts if probable cause
exists
o As to warrant the filing of info in our courts of law
 Commission’s members are usually empowered to conduct research, support
victims and propose policy recommendations to prevent recurrence of crimes
 Through their investigations, the commissions may aim to discover and learn more
about past abuses, or formally acknowledge them
 Aim to prepare the way for prosecutions and recommend institutional reforms
 Their main goals ranger from retribution to reconiliations
 Biarogo assails EO 1 of being violative of the legislative power of congress
o Under Sec 1 Art 6 of the consti
o It usurps the consti authority of the legislature to create a public office
and to appropriate funds therefor
ISSUE
 Does the creation of the PTC fall within the ambit of the power to reorganize as
expressed in Sec 31 of the revised admin code? NO
o Sec 31 contemplates “reorganization” as limited by the following
functional and structural lines
 1) restructuring the internal org of the office of the president
proper by abolishing, consolidating or merging units thereof
or transferring functions from one unit to another
 2) transferring any function under the office of the president
to any other dept/agency or vice versa
 3) transferring any agency under the office of the president to
any other dept/agency or vice versa
o Provision refers to reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or
abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions
o These point to situations where a body or an office is already existent
but a modification or alteration thereof has to be effected
o Creation of an office is nowhere mentioned
o Answer to the question is in the negative
o To say that the PTC is borne out of a restructuring of the office of the
president under Sec 31 is a misplaced supposition
 Even in the plainest meaning attributable to the term
restructure – an alteration of an existing structure
 PTC was not part of the structure of the office of the
president prior to the enactment of EO 1
o The power of control (meaning reorganize govt) is entirely different
from the power to create public offices
 Former is inherent in the executive
 Latter finds basis from either valid delegation from congress
or his inherent duty to faithfully execute the law
o So is there valid delegation?
 OSG contends that the power of the president to create
offices is in PD 1416 as amended by PD 1772
 Should be considered void given that it was masde as a law
in transition to a parliamentary govt
 Cannot be held true to the current context with the
promulgation of the 1987 consti
o Has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the govt that is
neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive
o Executive is given leeway in ensuring that our laws are faithfull
executed
 As states that powers of the president are not limited to those
specific powers in the consti
o One of the recognized powers of the president granted pursuant to this
consti-mandated duty is the power to create ad hoc committees
 Flows from obvious need to ascertain facts
 Determine if laws have been faithfully executed
 o Should be stressed that the purpose of allowing ad hoc investigating
bodies to exist is to allow an inquiry into matters which the president is
entitles to know
 So that he can properly be advised
 And be guided in the performance of his duties relative to the
execution and enforcement of the laws of the land
o Thus no usurpation on the part of the executive of the power of congress
to appropriate funds
 Whether the president has transgressed the power of judiciary since the power
vested in the truth commission to investigate seems like judicial function? NO
o Legal meaning of investigate is essentially the same – to follow up step
by step by patient inquiry or observation
o To trace or track, to search into; to examine and inquire into with care
and accuracy
o To find out by careful inquisition
o To settle in the exercise of judicial authority to determine finally
o Fact finding is not adjudication and it cannot be likened to the judicial
function of a court of justive
 Or even a quasi-judicial agency
o Function of receiving evidence and ascertaining the facts of controversy
is not a judicial function
o The act of receiving evidence and arriving at factual conclusions in a
controversy must be accompanies by the authority of applying the law to
the factual conculusion to thend that the controversy may be decided or
resolved authoritatively
 Finally and definitively
 Subject to appeals or modes of review as may be provided by
law
o Contrary to petitioners’ apprehension, the PTC will not supplant the
Ombudsman or the DOJ or erode their respective powers
 Investigative function will complement those of the two
offices
o Ombudsman’s power to investigate under the RA 6770 is not exclusive
 But shared with other similarly authorized govt agencies such
ash PCGG
 And judges of municipal trial courts and municipal circuit
trial courts
o Power to conduct prelim investigation on charges against public
employees and officials is likewise concurrently shared with the DOJ
o Nowhere in EO 1 can it be inferred that the findings of the PTC are ot
accorded conclusiveness
 Whether EO 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause? –
clear mandate of truth commission is to investigate and find out the trsuth
concerning the reported cases of gradt and corruption during the previous admin
only - the intent to single out the previous admin is plain, patent and manifest?
YES
o Arroyo admin is just a member of a class
 Class of past admins
o Not to include past admins similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness
which the equal protection clause cannot sanction
o Discriminating differentiation clearly reverberates to label the
commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and select retribution
o Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification
o EO 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection clause
o Clear mandate of truth commission is to investigate and find out the
truth concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption
 During the previous admin only
o The intent to single out the previous admin is plain, patent and manifest
US v. Nixon
FACTS
 Case follows the events of the Watergate break-in during Nixon’s term of
presidency
 Members of CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect that President) broke into Watergate
o Where the democrats’ officer but were caught
 One of the conspirators claimed that the Nixon admin knew about the plan
beforehand while Nixon denied any knowledge
 Conspirator’s statement was corroborated by a White House official who claimed
that there were recordings of the President and his men about the plan
 This was what was being subpoeanaed
 Grandy jury of the US indicted seven individuals for conspiracy to defraud the US
o And to obstruct justice
o Also named the President as an unindicted co-conspirator
 Before the trial – special prosecutor issued a subpoena for certain tapes and papers
between the President and the others ahead of trial
 President’s counsel filed a motion to quash the subpoena invoking a formal claim of
privilege
 District court concluded that the presumptive privilege was overcome by the
Special Prosecutor’s demonstrations of need
o Sufficiently compelling to warrant judicial examination in chambers
 President contended that the issue between him and the Special Prosecutor was
intra-executive
o And that the judiciary cannot review the President’s assertion of
executive privilege because of the doctrine of separation of powers
 Subpoena is challenged on the ground that the requirements under Rule 17c are not
satisfied
 Also the president’s counsel argues that it demands “confidential conversations
between a President and his close advisors that it would inconsistent with the public
interest to produce
 President’s counsel as we have noted reads the Consti as providing an absolute
privilege of confidentiality for all Presidential communications
 Argue on 2 grounds
o 1) the valid need for protection of communications between high gov
officials and those who advice and assist them in performance of their
manifold duties
 o 2) the doctrine of separations of powers
ISSUE
 Whether Nixon’s executive privilege is absolute? NO
o Nixon must hand over the tapes
o Court ruled that the president’s claim was too general
o No claim that the subpoenaed documents were military, diplomatic or
national security secrets
 And no showing why an in-camera inspection could not be
obliged with
o Unqualified privilege cannot prevail over a criminal prosecution
o Presidential communication is protected, however when the
communication is not of a governmental nature
 And there is public interest in those communications
 Then the immunity granted by the consti does not exist
o Right to hold justice
 Due process
 Right to face adversaries
Almonte v. Vazquez
FACTS
 Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to annul the subpoena duces
tecum and orders issued by respondent Ombudsman
 This requires petitioners Nerio Regado and Rivero
o Chief accountant and custodian
o Of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Board (EIIB)
o To produce all documents to personal services funds of the year 1988
o And all evidence, such as vouchers (salary) for the whole plantilla of
EIIB for 1988
o And to enjoin him from enforcing his orders
 Was issued in connection with his investigation of an anonymous letter from an
employee of EIIB and a concerned citizen
 Letter alleged that the funds representing savings from unfilled positions in the
EIIB had been illegally disbursed
o EIIB has a syndicate headed by the Chief of Budget Division (Perez)
o Who is manipulating funds and also the brain of the so called ghost
agents
o Or the emergency intelligence agents (EIA)
o With commissioner of EIIB having the largest share
o From the salary of differential last Oct 1988
 All the money for the whole plantilla were released
 Millions were saved and converted to ghost agents of EIA
o Chief Budget Division possesses high caliber firearms
 Mini UZI
 2 pieces 45 cal. Pistol
 Armalite rifle
 Issued by the Asst. Commissioner wherein he is not an agent
of EIIB and authorized as such
o Almost all EIIB agents collect payroll from the big time smuggler
syndicate monthly and brokers every week for them not to be
apprehended
o Commissioner allocates funds coming from the intelligence funds to the
media to sustain their good image of the bureau
 Almonte and Perez deny allegations
o Says the only funds released to the EIIB by the DBM were those
corresponding to 947 plantilla positions which are filed
o Also denied that there were ghost agents in the EIIB
 Saño – graft investigation officer of the Ombudsman’s office
o Found the defense unsatisfactory
o Being unverified and plying only on generalization without meeting
specifically the points raised by complainant as constitutive of the
alleged anomalies
o Thus he asked for authority to conduct a preliminary investigation
 Pursuant he issued
o Subpoena to Almonte and Perez requiring them to submit their counter-
affidavits and the affidavits of their witnesses
o Subpoenas to the Chief of the EIIB’s accounting division ordering him
to bring all documents relating to personal services funds for 1988
o And all evidence such as vouchers for the whole plantilla of EIIB of
1988
 Petitioners moved to quash both subpoenas
o Ombudsman granted it since there were no affidavits filed yet against
the petitiioners
 But he denied their motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum
 Ruled that the petitioner were not being forced to produce evidence agasint
themselves
o Since the subpoena duces tecum was directed to the chief accountant
o Petitioner Nerio Rogado
 Petitioners moved for MR
o Saying that Rogado and Rivera were EIIB employees under their
supervision
o And that the Ombudsman was doing indirectly what he could not do
directly
 Compelling them to produce evidence against themselves
 Petitioner’s motion was denied
o Thus this petition questions the said decisions of the respondent
 Issue here is the power of the Ombudsman to obtain evidence in connection with an
investigation conducted by it – in the claim of privilege of any agency of the gov
 Petitioners argue that the disclosure of the documents in question is resisted on the
ground that
o Knowledge of EIIB’s documents relative to its personal services funds
and it plantilla
o Will necessarily lead to knowledge of its operations, movements,
targets, strategies and tactics
o And the whole of its being, and this could destroy the EIIB
  Petitioners do not question the power of the Ombudsman to issued a subpoena
duces tecum nor the relevancy or materiality of the documents required to be
produced
o To the pending investigation in the Ombudsman’s office
 The focus of the discussion should be on the gov’s claim on privilege
ISSUE
 Whether or not the documents in question are classifies and therefor beyond the
reach of public respondent’s subpoena duces tecum? NO
o Court recognized the privilege based on state secrets
o HOWEVER! There have been no claims that military or diplomatic
secrets will be disclosed by the production of records pertaining to the
personnel of the EIIB
 Nor is there a law which considers personnel records of the
EIIB as classified info
o A gov privilege against disclosure recognized with respect to state
secrets covering military, diplomatic and similar matters
 Based on public interest of such paramount importance as in
and of itself transcending the individual interests of a private
citizen
 Even though as a consequence the plaintiff cannot enforce his
legal rights
o Gov privilege may be invoked when there is a reasonable danger that
compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters
 In the interest of national security should not be divulged
o SC provided US v. Nixon as an example
 Court recognized the right of the president to the
confidentiality of his converations which it likened to judicial
deliberations
o Where the claim of confidentiality does not rest on the need to protect
military, diplomatic or other national security
 But on a general public interest in the confidentiality of his
conversations
o Courts have decline to find in the consti absolute privilege of the
president against subpoena considered essential to the enforcement of
crim laws
o In this case there is no claim that military or diplomatic secrets will be
disclosed by the production of records pertaining to the personnel of the
EIIB
 Main function of EIIB is the gathering and evaluations of
intelligence reports and info regarding
 Illegal acitivities affecting the national economy
 Like economic sabotage, smuggling tax evasion
and dollar salting
o While in the cases which involve state secrets, it may be sufficient to
determine from the circumstances of the case that there is reasonable
danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters
 Without compelling production, no similar excuse can be
made for a privilege resting on other considerations
o Also no law or reg which consider the personal records of the EIIB as
classified info
 COA Circular No. 88-293 which petitioners invoke – is that
there is adequate safeguard against misuse of public funds
 Provides that the only item of expenditure which should be
treated strictly confidential is that which refers to
 The purchase of info and payment of rewards
o COA circular and statues and regs invoked by the petitioners claim that
the records are confidential in nature
o By denying that there were savings made from certain items in the
agency and alleging that the DBM had released the EIIB only the
allocations needed for the 947 personnel reaitned after its reorganization
 Petitioners in effect invited inquiry into the veracity of their
claim
o Reasonable records should be maintained and kept for inspection of the
chairman, Commission on audit or duly authorized personnel
o All other expenditures are to be considered unclassified supported by
invoices, receipts and other documents
 Thus subject to reasonable inquiry by the chairman or his
duly authorized rep
o It should be noted that the regulation requires that “reasonable records”
be kept justifying the confidential or privileged character of the info
relating to informers
o No such reasonable records in this case to substitute for the records
claimed to be confidential
o No express statutory grant of privilege
 Only purchase of into and rewards are privileged under COA
Circular No. 88-293
o EIIB has duty to account for use of public funds
o Needs for documents of the Ombudsman clearly outweigh the claim of
confidentiality of the petitioners
o Ombudsman is investigating a complaint that several iterms in the EIIB
were filled by fictitious persons
 And that the allotments for these tiems in 1988 were used for
illegal purposes
o Plantilla and other personnel records are relevant to his investigation
o He and his deputies are designated by the consti
 Requires to act promptly on complaints ain any form or
manner against public officials or employees of the gov or
any subdivision and etc.
o Compelling reason for the claim of privilege asserted in 1988
 7 years have passed since such assertion
 And reasons may have weakend or ceased
o Agents whose identities could not then be revealed may have ceased
from the service of the EIIB
 While the covert missions to which they might have been
deployed might either have been accomplished or abandoned
o Duty of the OMB to investigate the matter remains
 o Court adds that even If the subpoenaed documents are treated
aspresumptively privileged
 This decision would only justify ordering their inspection in
camera
 But not their nonproduction
o The court provided for guidelines to impart a fair investigation
 Examination of records in this case should be made in strict
confidence by the OMB himself
o Reference may be made to the documents in any decision or order which
OMB may render or issue but only to the extent that ti will not reveal
covert activities of the agency
 There must be a scrupulous protection of the documents
delivered
Senate v. Ermita
FACTS
 Inquiries and investigations in aid of legislation
o Calls for the attendance of officials and employees of the executive dept,
bureaus and offices including those employed in the GOCCs, AFP and
the PNP
 On Sept 21-23, 2005 – the senate called for the attendance of various executive
officials as resource in a public hearing on the railway project of North Luzon
Railways Corp Group (North Rail Project)
o To help in investigating in alleged overpricing and other unlawful
provisions of the contract covered in the said project
 Senate also issued invitations through the senate committee on national defense and
security for some officials of the AFP
o To be resource speakers in aid of legislation inquiring on the “Gloriagate
Scandal” and the alleged wiretapping of the president of the PH
o Garci tapes
 Gen. Senga sent a letter in sept 27 to postpone the said hearing
 Exec. Ermita requested the same since he needs time to review issues on the
meeting
 Sept 28, 2005 – president issued EO 464
o Ensuring the observance of the principles of separation of powers
o Adherence to the rule on executive privilege and respect for the rights of
public officials appearing in legislative inquiries in aid of legislation
under the consti
o It prohibits dept. heads, senior officials of exec. Dept who in the
judgment of the dept. heads are covered by executive privilege
o Also generals and flag officers of the AFP and PNP officers and etc.
o And such other officers as may be determined the president, from
appearing in such hearings conducted by congress without first securing
the president’s approval
 After the issuance of the EO Gen Senga refused to go to the investigation due to
their non-acquisition of consent necessary for such congressional investigation
 For Col. Balutan and Brig. Gen Gudani who pushed through with the event
o Were severely reprimanded by President Arroyo for defying the EO 464
o She removed them from their position and were made to face court
martial proceedings
 For the North Rail transport investigation, Exec. Sec. Ermita and other members did
not push through with the investigation
ISSUE
 Whether EO 464 contravenes the power of inquiry of congress therefore unconsti?
YES
o Sec 1 is valid but Sec 2 and 3 of EO 464 are unconsti
o Congress power of inquiry is expressly recognized in Sec 21 of Art 6
o Compared to section 21 however, sec 22 of Art 6 is called the question
hour
o 22 in comparison to 21 grants the congress the power to inquire in
pursuit of its oversight functions (22)
 Compared to those made in legislation (21)
o Usually the question here is how officials are implementing certain
statutes
 Which makes them in the said investigation reports to the
legislative
o Practice is unusual since supposedly
 Exec depts should only report to the exec for their functions
o Called the question hour
o Grants the power to inquire in pursuit of its oversight functions
 As compared to those made in legislation (sec 21)
o The question here is how officials are implementing certain statures
 Makes them in the said investigation report to the legislative
o Practice is unsual since supposedly, executive detps should only report
to the executive for their functions
o In these cases, the executive officer may refuse to go and this rationale is
based on the separation of powers
 Given such inquiry is not in aid of legislation
 Does not contravene the legislative powers of congress
o Under sec 22
 Executive heads are exempt from the question hour by
validly claiming privilege
 But not because of their position
o Though!!!! The only officers exempted by position is the president
 Except in impeachment cases
 And members of SC
 Due respect to equal power
o Sec 1 of EO 464 invokes Art. 6 Sec. 22 of the consti
 Grants them power to inquire and not for purposes of in aid
of legislation
o The absence of any reference to inquiries in aid of legislation must be
construed as limited in its application to appearances of dept heads in the
question hour
 Reading is dictated by the basic rule of construction
o Sec 3 requires all officials in Sec 2(b) to secure the consent of the
president prior appearing to the congress
  Claims that various official who in the judgment of the heads
of offices designated in the same section are covered by
executive privilege
 Includes officers that may be determined by the president
o Determination of this matter is based on the idea of being covered by the
“executive privilege”
 Which means that is it up to the president to determine who
is the person who has information worthy of being covered
by the executive privilege
o In the letter given by Sec. Ermita he does not specify
o Executive privilege is whether the secret that is kept is whether for
military, diplomatic or other purposes
o Congress needs to know why such invocation claim is like now claim at
all
o Although!!!! There is no need for the claimant of executive privilehe to
give such particularity of the confidential documents
 Since it would be countertuitive to its purpose
o THUS! The claim of privilege under sec 3 of EO 464 in relation to 2(b)
is invalid
 It only requires that there be consent without a rationale
 Why it must be confidential
o Frustrates the power of inquiry of congress
o Section 2(a) is valid because it simply enumerates the ones covered in
sec 2
Neri v. Senate
 DOTC entered into a contract with ZTE
o For the supply of equipment and services for national broadband
network (NBN)
 Amounting to 329M usd OR 16 billion pesos
 In response to the alleged anomalies in the project
o Various resolutions which invoke the power to conduct investigation in
aid of legislation were introduced in the senate
 During the investigation Jose de Venecia III testifies that the NBN-ZTE broadband
deal had been pushed by high-ranking executive officials and instead of build-
operate transfer (BOT)
o Converted to government to government project
 Neri was summoned to appear and testify
o Only Sept 26 he testifies before the committees for 11 hours
o Revealed that Benjamin Abalos (COMELEC) bribed him 200 M to push
the project
 When Neri was asked about the project himself
o Invoked executive privilege
o Refused to answer the questions:
 1) whether or not Pres. Arroyo followed up the project
 2) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it
 3) whether or not she directed him to approve
 Respondent committee issued a subpoena ad tetifacnadum requiring him to appear
o Neri did not appear before the committee
o Thus a show cause letter to explain why Neri would not be cited for
contempt was issued
 Bautista (counsel of Neri) replied that he did not want to disrespect and snob them
o He said everything during the 11 hours interrogation that did not involve
the topics which exercise executive privilege
 Stated also in the letter was
o 1) his non-appearance was upon the order of the president
o 2) his conversations with the Pres dealth with delicate sensitive materials
concerning national security and diplomatic relations
o 3) that questions be furnished in advance so that he may adequately
perepare for hearing
 Committees found the explanations unsatisfactory
o Without responding to his request for advance notices on matters that
still need clarifiying
o They issued an order citing him of contempt
 On the same day Neri moved for the reconsideration
ISSUE
 Whether there is a recognized presumptive presidential communications privilege in
our legal system? YES
o Revocation of EO 464 in the case of Senate v. Ermita does not in any
way diminish the concept of executive privilege
o Claim of executive privilege is recognized in cases
 Where the subject of inquiry relates to a power textually
committed by the consti to the president
 Mitlary and foreign relations
o Under our consti, the president is the repository of the commander-in-
chief
 With appointing, pardoning and diplomatic powers
o Consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers
 Info relating to these powers may enjoy greater
confidentiality that others
o Several jurisprudence provide the following elements of presidential
communications privilege before its exercise can be said valid
 1) protected communication must relate to a quintessential
and non-delegable presidential power
 In this case, the subject matter which is foregin loans that the
president will acquire for the project is a power non-
delegabole that only the president himself can exercise
 Fact that president has to secure the prior concurrence of the
monetary board
 Shall submit to the congress a complete report of
its deisions before contracting or guaranteering
foregin loans
 It still does not diminish the executive nature of
the power
 This is only a reflection of separation of powers but allows
checks and balances
 Cause it is is important matter
  President’s power to contract foreign loans on
behlf of the PH
 Check and balance is similar to President’s power to veto a
law
 2) the communication is limited only by the doctrine of
operational proximity
 Limites the power of presidential communications privilege
 Prevents the president from simply making every
communication done by his executive a privilege
 Thus preventing people to scrutinize the
communication
 Tests is that only communications at that level are close
enough to the president to be relevatory of his deliberations
or to a risk to the candor of advisers
 In this case since the communication is between the president
and his cabinet adviser
 Could be seen that the communication is within
the close proximity of the president
 To determine who is within operational proximity we use the
organizational test
 Laid down in judicial watch inc. v. DOJ
 The main consideration is to limit the availability of
executive privilege only to officials who stand proximate to
the President
 Not only be reason of their function but also by reason of
their positions in the executive’s organizational structure
 Thus the respondent committee’s fear that the scope of
privilege would be uneccessarily expanded with the use of
the operational proximity tests if unfounded
 3) president’s claim of executive privilege is not merely
based on a generalized interest and like contains an important
and compelling need to be kept confidential
 Easy to discern the danger that foes with the disclosure of the
president’s communication with her advisor
 NBN Project involves a foreign country as a party to the
agreement
 Whatever the president says about the agreement -
particularly while official negotiations are ongoing
 Are matters which China will surely view with
particular interest
 There is danger is such kind of exposure
 Could adversely affect our diplomatic and
economic relations with China
o Using the 3 elements, the court is convinces that the communications
elicited by the 3 questions are covered by the presidential
communications privilege
 1st – communications relate to quitessentual and non-
delegable power” of the president
 Power to enter into an executive agreement with
other countries
 Without the concurrence of senate
 Traditionally recognized
 2nd – the communications are received by a close advisor of
the president
 Under the operational proximity test
 Petitioner is a close advisory being a member of
cabinet
 3rd – no adequate showing of a compelling need that would
justify the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability
of the info elsewhere by an appropriate investigating
authority
Akbayan v. Aquino
FACTS
 2002 – Pres. Arroyo proposed to Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi the creation of a
working group study
o To study the feasibility of an economic partnership with Japan
 Same year – working group on Japan Philippine Economic Partnership Agreement
(JPEPA)
o First bilateral free trade agreement to be entered into by the PH with
another country
 Petitioners Congressman Tañada and Aguja filed HR 551
o Directing the House Committee on Gloablization to conduct an inquiry
in aid of legislation on bilateral trade
o And investment agreements the PH gov has been negotiating
o Included the JPEPA
 House Committee requested that DTI Undersecretary Aquino furnish them a copy
of JPEPA’s latest draft
o But Aquino denied
 Aquino replies that a copy would be provided once the negotiations have been
completed
o And a thorough legal review of the proposed agreement has been
conducted
 The Committee has not been secured a copy of the JPEPA’s full text
o And attachments
o And annexes
o Despite its many requests
 AKBAYAN et al filed a petition to the Court to restrain respondents from
concluding the JPEPA negotiations until they have been furnished with documents
 2006 – full text of the JPEPA signed by PM Koizumi and Pres. Arroyo was posted
on the DTI website
o And was made accessible to public
 Despite its accessibility, petitioner still reiterated their petition that they be
furnished with
o 1) copies of the initial offers of the JPEPA
o 2) final text of the JPEPA prior to signing by the President
 Respondents allege that petitioners’ request must be demied because the JPEPA
documents or the matters sough involves diplomatic negotiation
 o Then in progress which comes within the coverage of executive
privilege
 Petitioners assert that the gov’s refusal to disclose the documents violates their right
to info on matter of public concern
ISSUE
 Whether the gov validly invoked executive privilege in the JPEPA documents and
negotiations? YES
o Court rules that the gov’s claim of executive privilege is valid despite
petitioners’ assertion of their right to info
 Since diplomatic negotiation have ling been recognized as
privilege
o HOWEVER! Such privilege is only presumptive
o 1) JPEPA is of public concern
 To be covered by the right to info, the infot souch must meet
the threshold requirement that it be a matter of public
concern
 JPEPA is an international agreement
 Evident that the PH and Japanese offers submitted
during the negotiation towards its executions are
matters of public concern
 HOWEVER! Court holds a specific showing of need of such
info is not a relevant consideration
 But only whether the same is a matter of public
concern
 BUT when executive privilege is invoked, the right to public
info does not extend to matters covered as privilege info does
not extend to matters covered as privileged info
 And the party demanding the info must now show that there
is specific shoing of need
o 2) Senate v. Ermita – Court held that claim of executive privilege is
valid depending on the ground invoked to justify it
 And the context in which it is made
 Recognizing a type of into as privilege does not mean that it
will be considered privileged in all instances
 Only after a consideration of the context in which the claim is
made may it be determined if there is a public interest
 That calls for the disclosure of the desired info
 Strong enough to overcome its traditionally
privileged status
 Citing US v. Curtis – the Court ruled that the President is the
sole organ of the nation in its negotiations with foreign
countries
 Where he alone has the power to speak or listen as
a rep with foreign countries
 Where he alone has the power to speak or listen as
rep of the nation
 He makes treaties with the advice and consent of
the senate
o BUT in negotiations
o Congress cannot intrude
 Which means that the privilege for diplomatic
negotiations may be invoked not only against the
citizens’ demands for info
o But also in the context of legislative
investigations
 In this case, the ground respondents invoked pertains to
diplomatic negotiations then in progress
 While JPEPA’s final text may not be perpetually
kept confidential – the offers exchanged by parties
during the negotiations continue to be privileges
even after the JPEPA was published
 Because it is reasonable to conclude that the
Japanese rep submitted their officers with the
understanding that the matters would be
historically confidential
 THUS! Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of the
PH to deal not only with Japan but with other foreign govs in
future negotiations
 If PH offers in treaty should open to public
scrutiny, future PH reps would be discourages
from frankly expressing their views during
negotiations
o 3) executive privilege applies to all stages of the negotiation process
 Chavez v. PCGG – the SC stated that the consti right to info
includes official information on on-going negotiations before
a final contract
 HOWEVER! The info must constitute definite gov
propositions and should not cover recognized exception like
privileges info, military and diplomatic secrests
 And similar matters affecting national security and public
order
 THUS! Diplomatic negotiations fall under the recognized
exceptions
o 4) no sufficient public interest to overcome the claim of privilege
 2 kinds of public interest
 1) in favor of keeping info confidential
 2) in favor of disclosure
 US v. Nixon – the Court ruled that privileges info may not be
confidential if another gov institution shows a strong
showing of need that is respondibilities cannot be fulfilled
without access to records the president’s deliberations
 Deliberative process privilege is a qualified privilege
 Can only be overcome by a sufficient showing of
need
 Determining need – the court must undertake fresh balancing
of comepeting interest
  Considering factors such as the relevance of the
evidence
 Availability of other evidence
 Seriousness of the litigation
 Role of the gov
 Possibility of future timidity by gov employees
 Since JPEPA’s text has already been published, petitioner’s
failed to present a sufficient showing of need to convince the
Court that they will not be able to meaningfully exercise their
right to participate in decision making
 Unless the initial offers are also published
 Nature of diplomacy requires the centralization of authority
and is inherently confidential in nature
 Privilege accorded to diplomatic negotiations followed as a
logical consequence of the privileged character of the
deliberative process
 No showing that the public interest in disclosure overcame
the interest in confidentiality
 Petition dismissed
Soliven v. Makasiar
FACTS
 3 consolidated cases there were 3 issues raised
o 1) whether petitioners were denied due process when info for libel were
filed against them
 Finding of existence of a prima facie case was still under
review by the Secretary of Justice and President
o 2) whether the consti rights of petitioner Luis Beltran were violated
when Judge Makasiar issued a warrant for his arrest without personally
examining Beltran and witnesses to determine probable cause
o 3) whether the president Aquino under the Consti may initiate criminal
proceedings against the petitioners through the filing of a complaint-
affidavit
 Petitioner Beltran contends that if criminal proceedings ensue by virtue of the
President’s filing of the complaint-affidavit, then she may have to be a witness for
the prosecution
o Brings her under the trial court’s jurisdiction
o Thus! It would indirectly defeat her privilege from immunity from suit
o This would expose President Aquino to possible contempt of court or
perjury
ISSUE
 Whether the President, under the Consti, may initiate criminal proceedings against
the petitioners through the filing of a complaint affidavit? YES
o Rationale for the grant to the President of privilege of immunity from
suit it to assure the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free
from any hindrance or distraction
o Considering that the Chief exec is a job that aside from requiring all of
the office – holder’s time
 Also demands undivided attention
o HOWEVER! This privilege of immunity from suit may be invoked only
by the holder of the office of the pres
 Not by any other person in her behalf
o Thus an accused in a crim case, in which the President is the
complainant
 Cannot raise the privilege as a defense to prevent crim
proceedings against the accused
o Nothing in our laws prevent the President from waiving the privilege
o THUS! The president may shed the protection afforded by the privilege
and submit to the court’s jurisdiction
o Choice of whether to exercise the privilege or waive it is solely the
President’s prerogative
Clinton v. Jones
FACTS
 Before William Clinton was electd as the president of the US in 1992
o He was reelected in 1996 as governor of Arkansas in 1991
o Term of office for Presidency expired in 2001
 Respondent Paula Jones was an employee of the Arkansas Industrial Dev
Commission
 Events of this case occurred during an official conference on May 1991
o Where petitioner acting as governor delivered a speech
 Respondent alleged that Ferguson persuaded her to go visit petitioner in a business
suite
o Where he made sexual advances
o Which she rejected
 She also claimed that after the petitioner won the presidency
o Ferguson made unwanted remarks to a reporter which implied that she
accepted Clinton’s proposals
 THUS! The complaints and claims for damages against Clinton and Ferguson
 Clinton filed a motion to dismiss with the District Court
o On the grounds of the Presidential Immunity
o Was denied by the district court
o And ordered the trial to be paused but investifation should continue
 Both parties appealed to the CA
o BUT it affirmed the decision of the Disctrict court
o The majority party said that the trial should continue only after the
president left the office
o Thus petition for certiorari
ISSUE
 Is there temporary immunity from suit from acts which occurred before the
President took office? PARTLY
o Petitioners argue that the consti gives the president temporary imunity
from suit
 From acts which occurred before he took office
 o Argument is bereft of merit and is not supported by precedent
o Generally, immunity from suit for money damages is only applicable to
official acts
 Not applicable to act which are unofficial
o To be covered by immunity from suit – the action must be related
closely to official conduct
 Which are acts in the performance of particular functions of
his office
o Official acts of the president may be disciplined through impeachment
 But for his purely private acts totally unrelated to his office –
not immune from such suits
 Is the action against the president violative of the principle of separation of powers?
o Petitioner argues that his trial should only be postponed because he
occupies a unique office
 With powers and responsibilities so vast and important
 That he must devote his time and attention to his public
duties
o This argument cannot be sustained since it does not necessarily follow
that if this proceeding was allowed to proceed
 It would constitute a violation of the separations of powers
o In this case the judiciary is not tasked to perform a task which is
“executive” in nature
o The acts to be litigated upon are limited to the unofficial conduct of the
president
o Federal court is just exercising its function to deliver justice
o Argument that it will unduly burden the president is untenable because
sitting presidents have responded to court orders
 To provide info or testimonies
 And it has not affected their duties
Gloria v. CA for appeal haaaaa
FACTS
 Petitioner (private respondent) in this case Dr. Icasanio was appointed schools
division superintendent
o Division of city schools, QC
o By Pres. Cory Aquino
 Respondent sec Ricardo Gloria (DECS) recommended to the president of the PH
that the petitioner be reassigned as superintendednt of the MIST (Marikina Institute
of Science and Teach)
o To fill up vacuum created by the retirement of its superintended
o Mr. Bannaoag F. Lauro
 President approved the recommendation of Sec Gloria
 Petitioner (Dr. Icasanio) requested respondent Sec Gloria to reconsider the
reassignment
o Gloria denied
 Petitioner prepared a letter dates Oct 18, 1994 to the President of the PH
o Asking for a reconsideration of his assignment
o And furnished a copy of the same to the DECS
 HOWEVER! He subsequently changed his mind and refrained from filing the letter
with the office of the president
 Petitioner filed instant petition
o CA denied his TRO
o Restrained Gloria from implementing reassignment
 Petitioner filed a petition to CA wherein they adjudged that the reassignment of the
petitioner is declared to be violative of the petitioner’s right to security of tenure
o Respondents are prohibited from implementing the same
 Gloria and co are seeking relief now!
ISSUE
 Whether the Respondent CA has allowed itself to be instrumental in private
respondent’s circumvention of the presidential immunity from suit by giving due
course and granting reliefs prayed for in a suit purportedly filed against petitioners
but actually questioning an act of the president? NO
o Petitioners theorize that the present petition for prohibition is improper
because the same attacks an act of the president
o Violation of the doctrine of presidential immunity from suit
o Petitioners’ contention is untenable for the simple reason that the
petition is directed against petitioners
 And not against president
o Questioned acts are those of the petitioners and not of the president
o EVEN IF presidential decisions may be questioned before the courts
 Where there is grave abuse of discretion
 Or that the President acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction
o Petitioners themselves admitted that their questioned act constituted a
ministerial duty
 Such that they could be subject to charges of insubordination
 If they did not comply with the presidential order
o What is more, where an an admin dept acts with grave abuse of
discretion
 Which is equivalent to a capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgement
 Or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
manner
 There is justification for the courts to set aside the admin
determination thus reached
 Petition is denied
Estrada v. Desierto
FACTS
 From the beginning of his term petitioner was plagued by a lot of problems
o Slowly but surely eroded his popularity
 Sharp descent from power started on oct 200
 Ilocos Sur Gov – Chavit Singson
o Longtime friends
 o Went on air and accused petitioner, family and his friends of receiving
millions of pesos from jueteng lords
 Expose ignited rage
 Next day, Senator Guingona then Senate Minority Leader
o Took the floor and delivered a privileges speech entitled “I Accuse”
 He accused petitioner of receiving Php 220 M in jueteng money from Gov Singson
 Also charged that the petitioner took from Gov Singson Php 70 M on excise tax on
cigarettes intended for Ilocos Sur
 Privilege Speech was referred by then Senate President Drilon
o To the Blue Ribbon Committee
o Then headed by Senator Aquilino Pimentel
o And committee on Justice (headed by Senator Caytento)
o For join investigation
 Calls for resignations of the petitioner filled the air
 After several resignations, on dec 7 the impeachment trial started
 Dramatic point of the December hearings was the testimony of Clarissa Ocampo,
senior vp of Equitable-PCI Bank
 She testifies that she was one foot away from petitioner Estrada
o When he affixed the signature “Jose Velarde” on documents involving
Php 500M investment agreement with their bank
 Jan 16 – when by a vote of 11-10 the senator-judges ruled against the opening of
the second envelop which allegedly contained evidence showing that petitioner held
Php 3.3 B in a secret bank account under the name “Jose Velarde”
 Public and private prosecutors walked out in protest of the ruling
 Sen. Pimentel resigned as senate pres
 Ruling made at 10pm was met by a spontaneous outburst of anger
 By midnight, people assembled at the EDSA Shrine
o Speeches were delivered against the petitioner and 11 senators
 Gen. Reyes declared that “on behalf of your Armed Forces, the 130,000 strong
members of the Armed Forces are withdrawing support to this gov
 Chief Justice Davide administered the oath to respondent Arroyo as president
 Petitioner and his family left Malacañang Palace
 After Arroyo’s induction, she placed several members in her cabinet
o Elected a new VP
o And the house secured their support to the newly elected President
 Several cases previously filed against Estrada in the Office of the OMB were set in
motion
o 1) OMB Case filed by Ramon Gonzales for bribery, graft and corruption
 Petitioner filed with a petition for prohibition with a prayer of prelim injunction
 Sought to enjoin the respondent OMB from “conducting any further proceedings in
specific cases or in any other crim complaint
o Until the term of the petitioner as president is over and only if legally
warranted
 Thru another counsel, petitioner filed for a quo warranto
 Prayed for judgment “confirming petitioner to be the lawful and incumbent
president temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his office
o And declaring respondent to have taken her oath as and to be holding the
office of the president only in an acting capacity pursuant to the
provisions of the consti
 While the MR he contends that Sec 11 of Art 7 was misinterpreted by the Court
o And that Congress can only decide the issue of inability when there is a
variance of opinion between majority of the Cabinet and the President
 Also argues that declaration of incapacity is needed and it should not be implied
 Petitioner Estrada makes then 2 submissions
o 1) cases filed against him before the respondent OMB should be
prohibited because he has not been convicted in the impeachment
proceedings against him
o 2) he still enjoys immunity from all kinds of suit whether crim or civil as
president
ISSUE
 Whether the petitioner resigned as President? YES
o Issue brings the meaning of Sec 8, Art 7 of the consti
o A factual question and its elements are beyond quibble
 There must be an intent to resign and the intent must be
coupled by acts of relinquishment
o Whether or not petitioner resigned has to be determine from his acts and
omissions by the totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts
and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue
o Using the totality test – we hold that petitioner resigned as president
o In an article of the Philippine Daily Inquirer entitles the Angara Diary
wherein it revealed that “state of mind” of the President in the last days
of his office
 He reported to Angara that he would call for snap elections
o Proposal for a snap election for president in May where he would not be
a candidate is an indicium that petitioner has intended to give up the
presidency even at that time
o Also when offered a graceful exit – petitioner expressed no objection to
the suggestion for a graceful and dignified exit
 But said he would never leave the country
o Resignation of the petitioner was implied
 Several negotiations about his terms for resignation
o Thus the hold on the resignation of the petitioner cannot be doubted
 Was confirmed by his leaving of Malacañang
o In the press release containing the final statement
 1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as
president despite the reservation about its legality
 2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace, seat of the
presidency for the sake of peace and in order to begin the
healing process of our nation
 He did not say he was leaving the palace due to
any kind of inability and that the was going to re-
assume the presidency as soon as the disability
disappears
  3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity
to serve them
 Was referring to the past opportunity given him to
serve the people as president
 4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge
that may come ahead in the same service of our country
 Petitioner’s reference is to a future challenge after
occupying the office of the president which he has
given up
 5) he called on his supporters to join him in promotion of a
constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity
 National spirit of reconciliation and solidarity
could not be attained if he did not give up
presidency
 Press release was petitioner’s valedictory, his final
act of farewell
 Presidency is now in the past tense
o HOWEVER! It is urged that the petitioner did not resign but only took a
temporary leave of absence due to his inability to govern
 In support of this, the letter the petitioner sent to the Senate
Pres. Pimentel and Speaker Fuentabella is cited
o Letter said that by provisions of Sec 2 of Art 2
 He is transmitting this declaration that he is unable to
exercise the powers and duties of his office
 By operation of law the VP will be acting as president
o Letter is a mystery
o HOWEVER! Letter cannot negate the resignation of the petitioner
o It was prepared before the press release of the petitioner clearly showing
his resignation from the presidency
 Then the resignation must prevail as a later act
o HOWEVER! If it was prepared after the press release, still it commands
scant legal significance
o Petitioner’s resignation from the presidency cannot be subject of a
changing caprice
 Nor of a whimsical will especially if the resignationa is the
result of his repudiation by the people
o After the petitioner contended that as a matter of fact he did not resign
 Also argues that he could not resign as a matter of law
 Relies on Sec 12 of RA 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
 Allegedly prohibits resignation
o SEC 12 – No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire pending
an investigation, criminal or administrative or pending a prosecution
against him, for any offense under the Act or under the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code or bribery
o Intent of the law ought to be obvious
 To prevent the act of resignation or retirement from being
used by a public official as protective shield to stop the
investigation of a pending criminal or admin case
 And to prevent his prosecution under the Anti Graft Law or
prosecution for bribery under the RPC
o HOWEVER! Said cases filed against the petitioner cannot be considered
as pending for the OMB lacked jurisdiction to act on them
o Sec 12 of RA 3019 cannot be invoked by the petitioner for it
contemplates of cases whose investigation or prosecution do not suffer
from any insuperable legal obstacle
 Like the immunity from suit of a sitting president
o Also the exact nature of an impeachment proceedings is debatable
o BUT! Even assuming that it is an admin proceeding, it cannot be
considered pending at the time petitioner resigned because the process
already broke down
 When majority of the senator-judges voted against the
opening of the second envelope
 Public and private prosecutors walked out, the public
prosecutors filed their manifestation of Withdrawal of
appearance
 Proceedings were postponed indefinitely
o In effect no impeachment case pending against the petitioner when he
resigned
 Whether the petitioner enjoys immunity from suit? Assuming he enjoys immunity,
the extent of the immunity. NO
o Court believes that since the impeachment court is not functus officio is
untenable for petitioner to demand that he should first be impeached
 And then convicted before he can be prosecuted
o The plea if granted would put a perpetual bar against his prosecution
o Such a submission has nothing to comment itself for it will place him in
a better situation that a non-stting president who has not been subjected
to impeachment proceedings
 And yet can be the object of a crim prosecution
o Cases filed against the petitioner Estrada are criminal in character
 Involve plunder, bribery and graft and corruption
o These crimes cannot carry death penalty and be covered by the allege
mantle of immunity of a non-sitting president
o Petitioner cannot cite any decision of this Court licensing the President
to commit crim acts and wrapping him with post-tenure immunity from
liability
o Will be anomalous to hold that immunity is an inoculation from liability
for unlawful acts and omissions
o US v. Nixon
 Nixon sitting president concluded that when the ground for
asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use
in a crim trial is based only on the generalized interest in
confidentiality
 It cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due
process of law in fair admin of crim justice
o Nixon v. Fitzgerald
 US SC held that the immunity of the President from civil
damages covers only “official acts”
 o US SC recently has the occasion to reiterate this doctrine in the case of
Clinton v. Jones
 It held that the US president’s immunity from suits for
money damages arising out of their official acts is
inapplicable to unofficial conduct
o There are more reasons not to be sympathetic to appeals to stretch the
scope of executive immunity in our jurisdiction
o On of the great themes of the 1987 consti is that public office is public
trust
o There are more reasons not to be sympathetic to appeals to stretch the
scope of executive immunity in our jurisdiction
o One of the great themes of the 1987 consti is that public office is a
public trust
David v. Arroyo
FACTS
 th
As the nation celebrated the 20 anniversary of the Edsa People Power I
o President Arroyo issued PP 1017
o And GO No. 6 to implement it
 During the state of national emergency, protesters were arrested and warrantless
searches were conducted in the office of the Daily Tribune and Malaya
 Reasons that the President stated for declaring the general order to implement the
PP were that over the past several months
o Elements in political opposition have conspired with extreme leftists
represented by NDF-CCP-NPA
o And military adventurists
 This presented a clear danger to the president as political opposition tried to oust
her and take over the gov
 SolGen defended the basis of President Arroyo for declaring PP 1017
o Was that the intent of the consti was to give the president the fill
discretionary powers in determining the necessity to call out the AFP
 Notwithstanding the SG’s contentions
o Magdalo group instigated the Oakwood mutiny and wearing of red
bands on their arms to show disgust
 Simultaneously, Oplan Hackle I (plans of bombings and attacks on the PMA alumni
homecoming in Baguio
o Where President was invited
o Plans were discovered
 Next morning, after the discovery of the plan, a bomb was discovered in the campus
 Also, info was intercepted by PNP Chief Arturo Lomibao
o Regarding PNP-SAF members that are planning to defect from the
Arroyo admin
o Along with Congressman Peping Cojuangco – who planned out moves
to bring down said admin
 A large number of soldiers joined the rallies as critical mass and armed components
to anti-arroyo protests
 Another factual bases after the issuance of the PP and GO was the bombings of
telephone communication towers and cell sites
o In Bulacan and bataan
 These events shows a clear and present critical situation
o Leading the president to cancel all events related to EDSA People Power
I
 Exec sec. Mike Arroyo declared that warrantless arrest and takeover of facilities can
be implemented
 Randy David – journalist and UP Prof
o Due to the mistake of fact that he was a participant in the street rallies
 Also! Cong. Crispin Beltran – rep of Anakpawis
 Following facilities were taken over:
o Seizure of daily tribune
o Malaya and Abante (local news publications)
 Was done according to the PNP to shows a strong presence to tell media outlets not
to connive or help out rebels to take down the gov
ISSUE
 Whether there is legal standing to sue president as respondent? NO
o States that incidentally it is not proper to implead President Arroyo as
respondent
o Settled is the doctrine that the President
 During his tenure of office or actual incumbency
 May not be sued in any civil or criminal case
 There is no need to provide for it in the consti or law
o It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the president
 If he can dragged in to court litigations while srrving
o Also it is important that she be freed from any form of harassment,
hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance
of his official duties and functions
o Unlike the legislative and judicial branch – only one constitutes the exec
branch and anything which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the
many great and important duties imposed upon him by the consti
 Necessarily impairs the operation of the gov
o HOWEVER! This does not mean that the President is not accountable to
anyone
 Like any other official she remains accountable to the people
but she may be removed from office only in the mode
provided by law
 That is by impeachmeant
Poe v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Grace Poe filed the action to contest the COMELEC’s decision to deny her bid for
presidency during the 2016 election on account of citizenship issues
o Regarding her status as a foundling
o And a former citizen if the US
 Poe was found and abandoned as a newborn infant in the Parish Church of Jaro
Iloilo by Edgardo Militar
 Edgardo passed on custody to his relatives Emiliano and his wife
 o Who then registered the child with the civil registrar of Iloilo
 Foundling certificate of live birth identified the child as Mary Grave Natividad
Contreras Militar
 Fernando Poe Jr. and Suan Roces adopted petitioner when she turned 5 years old
o With MTC of San Juan
o Changing her name to Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe
 At 18, Poe registered as a voter with the local COMELEC office in San Juan
 And was issued a Philippines passport by the DFA in 1988
 Poe initially pursued a degree from UP but transferred to Boston College
o Major in Polsci
 She married Teodoro Llamanzares
o Dual citizen based in the US
 Couple moved to the us
 Poe gave birth to her eldest son Brian in the states
 While her youngest daughters were both born in the PH
 In 2001 – Poe became a naturalized American citizen
o Obtained a US passport
 3 years later – she returned to the PH to support her father’s candidacy for president
during the 2004 elections
o But flew back to the US flowing the end of the race
 FPJ’s deteriorating health and eventual death incited his daughter to return
 After the death of her father – she and her husband decided to move and reside
permanently in the PH in early 2005
 Petitioner took her oath of allegiance to the ph in pursuant of RA 9225
 Later filing a sworn petition with the Bureau of Immigration to reacquire PH
citizenship together with petitions for derivative citizenship on behalf of her 3
minor children
 BI approved the petitions and declared she has reacquired her citizenship
 Poe registered as a voter of San Juan and secured a new passport
 During the Aquino admin – President appointed Poe as the chairperson of the
Movie and Television Review and Classification Board
 Before assuming office, petitioner executed an “Affidavit of Renunciation of
Allegiance to the US and renunciation of American Citizenship”
o Before a notary republic
 Took her oath in the BI and then ceased using her American passport
 In 2012- petitioner entered the senatorial race, submitting to COMELEC, her COC
o She stated that her period of residence in the PH before May 13 2013,
was 6 years and 6 months
o Was proclaimed Senator
 In 2015 – filed her COC for presidency
o Declaring that she was a natural born citizen and that her residence in
the PH up to the day before May 9, 2016 would be 10 years and 11
months counted from May 24, 2005
 Poe’s submission and entry into the presidential elections sparked a series of
petitioner against her eligibility as a candidate
o Cases attacking the issue of her natural-born citizenship
o In light of her origins as a foundling
o And her former identity as naturalized American citizen
 COMELEC’s resolution promulgated that petitioner is
o 1) not a natural-born citizen
o 2) failed to meet the 10 year residency requirement
o 3) she committed material misrep in her CoC
 COMELEC concluded that she was not qualified to run for presidency
ISSUES
 Are foundlings considered citizens?
o Impossible to know her blood relationship
o COMELEC said to burden of proof shifts to her
 Also useless because completely impossible to prove
o Petitioner presented censure statistics in Iloilo from 1960-1970 (PSA)
number of filipinos compared to the number of foreigners in the
province
o Implied that there is a 99% probability she was born of filipino parents
o Citizenship of a foundling were protected with some standards from
international law and local statutes
o Last 3 consti’s lacked any express intention or language that would deny
foundlings their status
 Consti guarantees equal protection of laws
o Bill of rights contradict any intent to discriminate against founldings
onaccount of their unfortunate status and circumstances of birth
o Foundlings are citizens under international law
o Intercountry Adoption Act of 1995 and Domestic Adoption Act of 1998
rules on adoption all expressly refer to Filipino children
 Is Poe a natural-born citizen?
o COMELEC rules that Poe’s repatriation in July under the provisions of
RA 9225 did not result in the acquisition of natural born citizenship
o The claim however, contradicts jurisprudence
 RA 9225’s identity as repatriation statute that has been
described as such in several cases
o Repatriation of the former Filipino law will allows him to recover the
same status of citizenship that was lost at the time Filipino citizenship
was renounced
o Thus making it known that he natural born citizen status was restored
 Whether Poe’s COC should be canceled on the ground that she committed
misrepresentations regarding her period of residence and citizenship?
o Poe contends that her legal adoption by FPJ and Susan roces had the
effect of severing all legal ties with her biological parents
 Meaning she entitles to identify her adopted parents in the
COC
o Poe committed false material misrepresentation when she stated in her
COC that she has and until May 9, 2016 been a resident of the PH for 10
years and 11 mos
o Completely true!!!!
o Refers to May 25, 2005 as the date of referece from which to begin
countring the ten-year residency requirement
o Poe gave proof that her family abandoned American domicile
 o Proof included email correspondence with a freight company
 And the Philippine Bureau of Animal Industry
 School records of children showing enrollment in PH schools
 Tax indeitification
 Condo and parking slot title
o Proof shows that she substantially complied with the doctrinal requisites
of a new domicile
 1) residence in a nw locality
 2) Intention to remain there
 3) intention to abandon the old domicile
o COMELEC said her claim of residence was false because she indicated
in her 2012 COC when she ran for senator
 She lived in the country for 6 years and 6 months
o If this info was true then Poe would be ineligible
o Poe said that she misunderstood the date required in the 2013 COC
 As the day she submitted that COC in 2012 meaning that she
made the mistake of not providing her period of residence as
of May 13, 2013
o Poe made an honest mistake
o Petition granted!
Funa v. Exec Sec
FACTS
 Petitioner alleges that Pres. Arroyo appointed Mar 1, 2010 Agra as the Acting Sec
of Justice
o Following resignation by Agnes VST Devanadera
o In order to vie for a congressional seat in Quezon Province
 Mar 5, 2010 – President Arroyo designated Agra as the acting solicitor general in a
concurrent capacity
 Petitioner is assailing that Agra’s concurrent appointments or designations
o Claiming it to be prohibited under Sec 13. Art 7 of the 1987 Consti
 Despite Agra forwarding a different set of facts
o The Court said that notwithstanding the conflict in the version of the
parties
o The fact that Agra has admitted to holding two offices concurrently in
acting capacities is settled
 Which is sufficient for purpose of resolving the consti
question that petitioner raises herein
ISSUE
 Did the designation of Agra as the acting Sec or Justice concurrently with his
position of acting solgen, violate the consti prohibition against dual or multiple
offices for the members of the cabinet and their deputies and assistants? YES
o Void and was is in violation of the consti prohibition under Sec 13 Art 7
of the 1987 consti
o In ascertaining the unconsti of Agra’s concurrent designation as cting
DOJ Sec. and Acting Solgen the Court centered the decision in the
correct application and Sec 13 Art 7
 And the relevant and complementing provision of Sec 7 par 2
Art 9-B of the consti
o In this case Civil Liberties Unnion while discussing intent of the framers
 In other words, Section 7, Article IX-B is meant to lay down
the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive
public officials and employees, while Section 13, Article VII
is meant to be the exception applicable only to the President,
the Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies
and assistants.
o Being designated as the acting DOJ Sec concurrently with this position
Solgen
 Agra was undoubtedly covered by Sec 13 Art 7
 Prohibits members of the Cabinet to hold any other office or
employment during their tenure unless provided in the consti
o Agra could not validly hold any other office or employment
 Whether in permamnent or temporary acting as sol gen
o In Public Interest Center Inc v. Elma said there are 2 exceptions
 1) those provided under the consti (Sec 3 Art 7)
 2) posts occupied by exec officials specified in Sec 13 Art 7
wihtout additional compensation in ex officio capacities
o Decision in Public Interest Center adverted to the resolution issued in
Civil Liberties
 The Court held that the phrase the members of the cabinet
and their deputies or assistants found in Sec 13 Art 7 referred
only to the heads of various exec depts, undersec and
assistant sec
 Did not extend to other public officials given the rank of sec,
undersec or assistant sec
o To be noted that Agra’s designation as Acting DOJ Sec was not in aex
officio capacity
 By which he would have been authorized to concurrently
hold the two positions due to the holding of one office being
the consequence of holding the other
 The provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 regarding
the powers and functions of the Department of Justice (DOJ)
and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) show that one
position was not derived from the other. The powers of and
functions of the OSG are neither required by the primary
functions nor included by the powers of the DOJ, and vice
versa
o OSG while attached to the DOJ is not a constituent unit of the latter
 OSG is regarded as an independent and autonomous body
o Enactment of RA 9417, Solgen is now vested with a cabinet rank within
the purview of Sec 7 Art 9-B of the consti
 His concurrent designation is still subject to the conditions of
the consti provision
o Furthermore his tenure as acting DOJ is de facto in character
 Thus receiving emoluments for actual services rendered
 And this official functions therein is binfing and effective as
it he was legally appointed and qualified for the office
 o Annuls and voids designation!
Pimentel v. Join Committee
FACTS
 Petitioner Pimentel Jr. seeks judgment declaring null and void the continued
existence of the joint Committee of Congress (Joint Committee)
o To determine the authenticity and due execution of the certificated of
canvass and prelim canvass
o Votes cast in for the pres and vp candidates in the May 10 2004
elections
o Following adjournment of Congress sine die (with reference to
adjourned proceedings with no appointed date of resumption on June 1,
2004
 Petitioner argues that with the adjournment of the 12th congress’s last session
o Its term expired and all pending proceedings and matters are terminated
upon such expiration
 Petitioner’s claim that his arguments are buttressed by legislative procedure,
precedent or practice as borne out by the rules of both Houses
o Is directly contradicted by Sec 42 of rules 15 of the rules adopted by
senate
o Of which he is an incumbent member
 Section clearly provides that the senate shall convene in joint session during any
voluntary or compulsory recess to canvass the votes for president and vp
o Not later than 30 days after the day of the elections in accordance with
sec 4 art 7 of the consti
 Citing also Sec 15 of Art 6
o Congress shall convene once every year on the 4th monday of July for its
regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law and shall continue
to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until 30
days before the opening of its next regular session
o Exclusive of Saturdays and Sundays and legal holidays
o President may call a special session at any time
ISSUE
 Whether the continued existence of the board of canvassers is consti? YES
o Term of the present 12th congress did not terminate and expire upon the
adjournment sine die of the regular session of the both houses on June
11, 2004
o Sec 15 Art. 7 of the consti cited by petitioner does not pertain to the term
of congress
 But to its regular annual legislative sessions and the
mandatory 30-day recess before the opening of its next reg
session
 (subject to the power of the president to call a special session
at nay time)
o The legislative functions of the 12th congress may have come to a close
upon the final adjournment of its regular seesions on June 11, 2004
 But this does not affect its non-legislative functions
 Such as that of being the National Board of Canvassers
o In fact, the joint public session of both Houses of Congress covened by
express directive of Sec 4 Art. 7 of the consti to canvass the votes for
 And to proclaim the newly elected president an vp has not,
and cannot adjourn sine die until it has accomplished its
constitutionally mandated tasks
o For only when a board of canvassers has completed its function is it
rendered functus officio (expiration of office because of accomplishment
of task)
o Its membership may change, but it retains its authority as a board until it
has accomplished its purposes
o Since the 12th congress has not yet completed its non-legislative duty to
canvass the votes and proclaim the duly elected president and vp
 Its existence as the national board of canvassers as well as
that of the joint committee to which it referred the prelim
tasks of authenticating and canvassing the certs of canvass
 Has not become functus officio
o Despite the adjournment sine die of congress
 No legal impediment to the joint committee completing the
tasks assigned to it
 And transmitting its report for the approval of the joint public
session of both houses of congress
 Which may reconvene without need of call by the rpesident
to a special session
o Petition dismissed
Lopez v. Senate
FACTS
 Case is a petition for prohibition seeking to nullify Sec 13 of Rule 8 of the rules of
the joint public session of congress
o In the creation of a joint committee which shall preliminary canvass the
votes of the candidates for the 2004 presidential and vp elections
ISSUE
 Whether the creation of the joint committee constitutes a delegation of legislative
authority and deprives petitioner of his rights as member of congress? NO
o No undue delegation in the creation of joint committee
 And it does not encroach on the excluded members of the
congress’ duties
 Due to the fact that decisions and final report of the same
committee must first be ratifies by the joint session of both
houses
 Voting separately
o It is merely a recommendatory report and must be submitted to both
houses for approval

Davide’s opinion (concur/dissent)
 He opines that the Petitioner’s contention that the creation of a joint committee is an
abdication of the congress’ consti duty is untenable
 Congress can be left to its own devices in determining its own rules and reg
 Canvassing rules is left entirely up to the determination of both houses and that the
committee’s report is merely recommendatory in nature
o Still left to both houses to individually ratify the report
 Duty to delegate to the joint committee is to determine the legitimacy and
authenticity of the canvass
 Furthermore, congress did not delegate the task to any other body
o Entirely left to the congress as to what manner will it canvass the votes
o As long as it is ratifies by both houses in a joint session
Tecson v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Dec 31, 2003- Ronal Allan Kelly Poe (FPJ) filed his candidacy for president in the
2004 PH elections
o Under Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (NKP)
 In COC, he represented himself as a “natural-born citizen” of the PH
 On separate occasions, petitioners initiated actions to the COMELEC
o One of which is the SPA No. 04-003 seeking to disqualify FPJ and to
deny course or to cancel his COC
o On the thesis that FPJ made a material misrepresentation by claiming
that he is a natural-born Filipino
o Procedure is pursuant to the Omnibus election code
 Petitioners are contending that since his mother Bessie Kelly Poe
o Is an American
 His father – Allan Poe is a Spanish national
o Then FPJ cannot be natural-born fil citizen
 Furthermore, for the sake of argument, even if Allan Poer were a fil citizen
o Being an illegitamte child of an alien mother
o Could not have acquired his father’s citizenship
 After presentation of several documentary evidences by both parties and hearing by
the COMELEC
o The petition to disqualify FPJ was denied for lack of merit
 Case was raised to the SC as special civil action
o To disqualify FPJ’s presidential candidacy
o And to question COMELEC’s jurisdiction on the petition
 Was alleged in the complaint that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by
acting on the petition for disqualification when it did not have proper jurisdiction to
do so
 Petitioners are invoking the provision from Art 7 Sec 4 of the 1987 consti
o Says that “the supreme court sitting en banc shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the
president or vp
o And may promulgate its rules for the purpose
 Further invoked by the said parties in congruence with RA 1793, the presidential
electoral tribunal should have been the only body exclusively mandated to take
cognizance of such contests
ISSUE
 Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction to decide on the disqualification petitioner
against the candidacy of FPJ? YES
o COMELEC has jurisdiction to hear and decide on the disqualification
petition
o Would be in accordance with Omnibus Election Code
 Enumerating the limits and powers of the COMELEC
o The invoked Consti provision categorically speak of the jurisdiction of
the PET (or SC en banc) over contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualification of the “president or vp”
 And not the candidates for such positions
o It can be implied from this that the PET will only have jurisdiction to
hear disqualification cases if the accused is already sitting as president or
vp
 And not as mare candidates
o Ordinary used of the word “contest” would characterize it in reference to
a post-election scenario
o Election contests consist of either an election protests or a quo warrant
 Although 2 distinct rememdies
 Would have one objective of dislodging the winning
candidate from office
o The recipient of such disqualification cases must have been in office
already
 Not just a candidate
o Careful reading of the states rules in the rules of presidential electoral
tribunal
 Filed in the PET are only post-election actions and this
excludes cases questioning the qualifications of a candidate
for the presidency or vice presidency before the elections are
held
 Whether FPJ is a natural-born filipino? YES
o FPJ can be presumed to be a natural-born filipino
 Evidenced by his paternal lineage in relation to the 1935
consti and PH Bill of 1902
o It has been said that he is a natural son
 Whether legitimate or illegitmate of Bessie Kelly Poe
 And Allan Poe is presumably a filipino citizen
o Is because Allan Poe’s father – Lorenzo Poe, then a Spanish national,
living in the PH in the late 1800’s to early 1900’s
 Presumed to have been granted Fil citizenship by the Jones
Law
 Granted such citizenship to Spanish subjects residing in the
PH islands during the 1899
o Was presumed to be part of the en mass filipinization that happened by
virtue of such law
  In relation to the treaty of paris agreement between the US
and Spain
 When Spain acceded the governance of PH
o In accordance then with the governing citizenship laws at that time
 Allan Poe would have also acquired Fil citizenship
 Because Lorenzo Poe was granted fil citiznehsip
because of the treaty
o 1935 consti states those whose fathers are filipino would also be
filipinos
 It is corollary that FPJ can be presumed to be natural-born
citizen
o HOWEVER!!! While the totality of evidence cannot conclusively
establish that FPJ is a natural born citizen of the PH
 Evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor
enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of having made
a material misrepresentation in his COC in violation of the
Omnibus Election Code
o Resolves to dismiss!!
Macalintal v. PET
FACTS
 Atty. Romulo Macalintal filed an undesignated petition to assail the
constitutionality of the PET
o Under the ground that it violates Sec 4 of Art 7
 While Macalintal recognizes the SC’s authority to promulgate its rules for the
purpose
o He argues that the creation of a separate tribunal, complemented by a
budget allocation, a seal, and a set of personnel and confidential
employees is unconsti
 Macalintal also argues that bases on the decision in Buac v. COMELEC
o Declared that constest involving the president the vp fall within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the PET
o In the exercise of quasi-judicial power
o Contravenes with Sec 12 of Art 7 – prohibits members of the SC and
other courts to perform quasi-judicial or admin functions
ISSUE
 Whether the consti of the PET composed of members of the SC is unconsti as it
violates Sec 4 of Art 7 and Sec 12 of Art 8? NO
o Sec 4 of Art 7 is an innovation of the 1987 consti
o Overarching framework was affirmed in Tecson v. COMELEC
 Declared that the SC has orginal jurisdiction to decide
presidential and vp election protests
 While concurrently acting as an independent ET
o On its face, the contentious consti provision does not specify the
establishment of the PET
o HOWEVER! Sec 4 of Art 7 must be read with other related provision of
the consti
 Such as the parallel provisions on the ET of the Senate and
the House
o Contrary to Macalintal’s assetion the SC dismissed
Estrada v. Disierto
FACTS
 From the beginning of his term petitioner was plagued by a lot of problems
o Slowly but surely eroded his popularity
 Sharp descent from power started on oct 200
 Ilocos Sur Gov – Chavit Singson
o Longtime friends
o Went on air and accused petitioner, family and his friends of receiving
millions of pesos from jueteng lords
 Expose ignited rage
 Next day, Senator Guingona then Senate Minority Leader
o Took the floor and delivered a privileges speech entitled “I Accuse”
 He accused petitioner of receiving Php 220 M in jueteng money from Gov Singson
 Also charged that the petitioner took from Gov Singson Php 70 M on excise tax on
cigarettes intended for Ilocos Sur
 Privilege Speech was referred by then Senate President Drilon
o To the Blue Ribbon Committee
o Then headed by Senator Aquilino Pimentel
o And committee on Justice (headed by Senator Caytento)
o For join investigation
 Calls for resignations of the petitioner filled the air
 After several resignations, on dec 7 the impeachment trial started
 Dramatic point of the December hearings was the testimony of Clarissa Ocampo,
senior vp of Equitable-PCI Bank
 She testifies that she was one foot away from petitioner Estrada
o When he affixed the signature “Jose Velarde” on documents involving
Php 500M investment agreement with their bank
 Jan 16 – when by a vote of 11-10 the senator-judges ruled against the opening of
the second envelop which allegedly contained evidence showing that petitioner held
Php 3.3 B in a secret bank account under the name “Jose Velarde”
 Public and private prosecutors walked out in protest of the ruling
 Sen. Pimentel resigned as senate pres
 Ruling made at 10pm was met by a spontaneous outburst of anger
 By midnight, people assembled at the EDSA Shrine
o Speeches were delivered against the petitioner and 11 senators
 Gen. Reyes declared that “on behalf of your Armed Forces, the 130,000 strong
members of the Armed Forces are withdrawing support to this gov
 Chief Justice Davide administered the oath to respondent Arroyo as president
 Petitioner and his family left Malacañang Palace
 After Arroyo’s induction, she placed several members in her cabinet
o Elected a new VP
o And the house secured their support to the newly elected President
 Several cases previously filed against Estrada in the Office of the OMB were set in
motion
 o 1) OMB Case filed by Ramon Gonzales for bribery, graft and corruption
 Petitioner filed with a petition for prohibition with a prayer of prelim injunction
 Sought to enjoin the respondent OMB from “conducting any further proceedings in
specific cases or in any other crim complaint
o Until the term of the petitioner as president is over and only if legally
warranted
 Thru another counsel, petitioner filed for a quo warranto
 Prayed for judgment “confirming petitioner to be the lawful and incumbent
president temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his office
o And declaring respondent to have taken her oath as and to be holding the
office of the president only in an acting capacity pursuant to the
provisions of the consti
 While the MR he contends that Sec 11 of Art 7 was misinterpreted by the Court
o And that Congress can only decide the issue of inability when there is a
variance of opinion between majority of the Cabinet and the President
 Also argues that declaration of incapacity is needed and it should not be implied
 Petitioner Estrada makes then 2 submissions
o 1) cases filed against him before the respondent OMB should be
prohibited because he has not been convicted in the impeachment
proceedings against him
o 2) he still enjoys immunity from all kinds of suit whether crim or civil as
president
ISSUE
 Whether the petitioner resigned as President? YES
o Issue brings the meaning of Sec 8, Art 7 of the consti
o A factual question and it elements are beyond quibble
 There must be an intent to resign and the intent must be
coupled by acts of relingquisment
o Whether or not petitioner resigned has to be determine from his acts and
omissions by the totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts
and circumstantial evidence bearing a material relevance on the issue
o Using the totality test – we hold that petitioner resigned as president
o In an article of the Philippine Daily Inquirer entitles the Angara Diary
wherein it revealed that “state of mind” of the President in the last days
of his office
 He reported to Angara that he would call for snap elections
o Proposal for a snap election for president in May where he would not be
a candidate is an indicium that petitioner has intended to give up the
presidency even at that time
o Also when offered a graceful exit – petitioner expressed no objection to
the suggestion for a graceful and dignified exit
 But said he would never leave the country
o Resignation of the petitioner was implied
 Several negotiations about his terms for resignation
o Thus the hold on the resignation of the petitioner cannot be doubted
 Was confirmed by his leaving of Malacañang
o In the press release containing the final statement
 1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as
president despite the reservation about its legality
 2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace, seat of the
presidency for the sake of peace and in order to begin the
healing process of our nation
 He did not say he was leaving the palace due to
any kind of inability and that the was going to re-
assume the presidency as soon as the disability
disappears
 3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity
to serve them
 Was referring to the past opportunity given him to
serve the people as president
 4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge
that may come ahead in the same service of our country
 Petitioner’s reference is to a future challenge after
occupying the office of the president which he has
given up
 5) he called on his supporters to join him in promotion of a
constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity
 National spirit of reconciliation and solidarity
could not be attained if he did not give up
presidency
 Press release was petitioner’s valedictory, his final
act of farewell
 Presidency is now in the past tense
o HOWEVER! It is urged that the petitioner did not resign but only took a
temporary leave of absence due to his inability to govern
 In support of this, the letter the petitioner sent to the Senate
Pres. Pimentel and Speaker Fuentabella is cited
o Letter said that by provisions of Sec 2 of Art 2
 He is transmitting this declaration that he is unable to
exercise the powers and duties of his office
 By operation of law the VP will be acting as president
o Letter is a mystery
o HOWEVER! Letter cannot negate the resignation of the petitioner
o It was prepared before the press release of the petitioner clearly showing
his resignation from the presidency
 Then the resignation must prevail as a later act
o HOWEVER! If it was prepared after the press release, still it commands
scant legal significance
o Petitioner’s resignation from the presidency cannot be subject of a
changing caprice
 Nor of a whimsical will especially if the resignationa is the
result of his repudiation by the people
o After the petitioner contended that as a matter of fact he did not resign
 Also argues that he could not resign as a matter of law
 Relies on Sec 12 of RA 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
 Allegedly prohibits resignation
 o SEC 12 – No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire pending
an investigation, criminal or administrative or pending a prosecution
against him, for any offense under the Act or under the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code or bribery
o Intent of the law ought to be obvious
 To prevent the act of resignation or retirement from being
used by a public official as protective shield to stop the
investigation of a pending criminal or admin case
 And to prevent his prosecution under the Anti Graft Law or
prosecution for bribery under the RPC
o HOWEVER! Said cases filed against the petitioner cannot be considrerd
as pending for the OMB lacked jurisdiction to act on them
o Sec 12 of RA 3019 cannot be invoked by the petitioner for it
contemplates of cases whose investigation or prosecution do not sufer
from any insuperable legal obstacle
 Like the immunity from suit of a sitting president
o Also the exact nature of an impeachment proceedings is debatable
o BUT! Even assuming that it is an admi proceeding, it cannot be
considered pending at the time petitioner resigned because the process
already broke down
 When majority of the senator-judges voted against the
opening of the second envelope
 Public and private prosecutors walked out, the public
prosecutors filed their manifestation of Withdrawal of
appearance
 Proceedings were postponed indefinitely
o In effect no impeachment case pending against the petitioner when he
resigned
 Whether the petitioner enjoys immunity from suit? Assuming he enjoys immunity,
the extent of the immunity. NO
o Court believes that since the impeachment court is not functus officio is
untenable for petitioner to demand that he should first be impeached
 And then convicted before he can be prosecuted
o The plea if granted would put a perpetual bar against his prosecution
o Such a submission has nothing to comment itself for it will place him in
a better situation that a non-stting president who has not been subjected
to impeachment proceedings
 And yet can be the object of a crim prosecution
o Cases filed against the petitioner Estrada are criminal in character
 Involve plunder, bribery and graft and corruption
o These crimes cannot carry death penalty and be covered by the allege
mantle of immunity of a non-sitting president
o Petitioner cannot cite any decision of this Court licensing the President
to commit crim acts and wrapping him with post-tenure immunity from
liability
o Will be anomalous to hold that immunity is an inoculation from liability
for unlawful acts and omissions
o US v. Nixon
 Nixon sitting president concluded that when the ground for
asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use
in a crim trial is based only on the generalized interest in
confidentiality
 It cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due
process of law in fair admin of crim justice
o Nixon v. Fitzgerald
 US SC held that the immunity of the President from civil
damages covers only “official acts”
o US SC recently has the occasion to reiterate this doctrine in the case of
Clinton v. Jones
 It held that the US president’s immunity from suits for
money damages arising out of their official acts is
inapplicable to unofficial conduct
o There are more reasons not to be sympathetic to appeals to stretch the
scope of executive immunity in our jurisdiction
o On of the great themes of the 1987 consti is that public office is public
trust
o There are more reasons not to be sympathetic to appeals to stretch the
scope of executive immunity in our jurisdiction
o One of the great themes of the 1987 consti is that public office is a
public trust
Rafael v. Embroidery & Apparel Control Board
FACTS
 Petitioner who was engaged in the manufacture of embroidery and apparel products
for the purpose of exportation
o Using imported raw material and doing business under the style “El
Barato Alce Company”
o Was authorized by the Collector of Customs
 Pursuant to the provisions of the tariff and customs code
o To operate a manufacturing bonded warehouse located at:
 Santolan
 Tenejeros
 Malabon
 Rizal
o Known as Manufacturing Bonded Warehouse No. 88
 Petitioner imported raw material exempt from duty and proceed to manufacture
them into finished products for export
 RA 3137 – the law created the Embroidery and Apparel Control and Inspection
Board (EACIB)
 SEC 2 said the board should be composed of
o 1) a rep from Bureau of Customs to act as Chairman to be designated by
the Secretary of Finance
o 2) a rep from the Central Bank to be designated by its Governor
o 3) a rep from the Department of Commerce and Industry to be
designated by the Secretary the same
o 4) a rep from National Economic Council
 o 5) a rep from the private sector coming from the Assoc of Embroidery
and Apparel Exporter of the PH
 EACIB made certain assessments against Cecilio Rafael
o But he refused to comply
 Rafael sued EACIB and averred that RA 3137 is unconsti
o While Congress may create an office, it cannot specify who shall be
appointed therein
o Members can only be appointed by the president in accordance with Art
7 Sec 10 of the consti
 Questioning of the petitioner of the mentioned provision points that the congress
may create an office
o It cannot specify who shall be appointed therein
o Members of the board can only be appointed by the president in
accordance with Art 7 Sec sub-section 3 of the consti
 Since the act prescribes that the chairman and members of the board should come
from specified offices
o It is equivalent to a declaration by congress as to who should be
appointed
o Infringing the consti power of the president to make appointments
ISSUE
 Whether RA 3137 Sec 2 is consti? YES
o Permanent injunction by court a quo is set aside
o Costs against petitioner appellant
 Making it a valid law
o Arrangement envisioned in sec 2 is not violative of the established
doctrine that “the appointing power is the exclusive prerogative of the
President, upon which no limitations maybe imposed by congree
 Except those resulting from the need of securing the
concurrence of the commission on appointment
 And from exercise of the limited power to prescribe the
qualification to a given appointive office”
o No new appointments were made
 They were merely designated new duties as ex-officio
member in addition to their original duties
 Thus it does not infringe upon the appointing power of the
president
o It is significant that Congress took care to specify that the reps should
come from the
 Bureau of Customs
 Central Bank
 Dept of Commerce
 Industry and National Economic Council
o Obvious reason must be because these depts and bureaus perform
functions which have direct relation to the importation of raw material
 Manufacture thereof into embroidery and apparel products
and their subsequent exportation abroad
o An examination of sec 2 of the questioned statute reveals that for the
chairman and members of the board to qualify
 They need only be designated by the respective dept heads
 Thus making the claims of the petitioner erroneous
o With the exception of the rep from the private sector
 They sit ex-officio
o In order to be designated they must already be holding positions in the
offices mentioned in the law
o No new appointments are necessary
o This is as it should be because merely perform duties in the board
 In addition to those they already perform under their original
appointments
CLU v. Exec Sec
FACTS
 2 petitions consolidated that both seek a declaration of the unconsti of EO 284
o Issued by President Corazon Aquino
 Petitioners assail consti of Sec 1-3 of the EO
o Which allows the members of the Cabinet their undersecretaries and
assistant secretaries to hold other gov offices or positions in addition to
their primary positions
 Contrary to the limitation imposed by Sec 13 Art 7 of the consti
o States that President, VP, Cabinet and their deputies and assistants shalls
not undless otherwise provided in this consti hold any other office or
employment during their tenure
 Anti-graft league of the PH further seeks the issuance of the extraordinary writs of
prohibition and mandamus and TRO directing public respondents to:
o 1) cease and desist from holding in addition to their primary positions,
dual or multiple positions other than those authorized by the 1987 consti
and from receiving any salaries, allowances and other forms of
privileges appurtenant to their questioned positions
o 2) return, reimburse or refund any amounts or benefits received form
such positions
 ALP further questioned Sec of Justice Sedfey Ordonez’s issuance of Opinion 73
where he construed Sec 13 of Art 7 in relation to Sec 7 par 2 of Art 9-B
o Declaring that cabinet members, their deputies (undersecretaries) and
assistant secretaries may hold other public office
 1) when directly provided for in the consti
 2) if allowed by law
 3) if allowed by primary functions of their respective
positions
 Petitioner objects to both the DOJ opinion 73 and EO 284 as they allegedly
“lumped together” Sec 13 Art. 7
o And the general provision in another article Sec 7 par 2 of Art 9-B
which each are arguably addressed to a distinct and separate group of
public officers
o One the president and her official family and the other public servants in
general
 Petitioners insist that the exception in Sec 13 of Art 7 must be expressly provided in
the consti
ISSUE
 Does the prohibition in Sec 13, Art 7 of the 1987 consti insofar as cabinet members,
their deputies or assistant are concerned admit of the broad exceptions made for
appointive official in general under Sec 7 par 2 Art 9-B? NO
o Although Sec 7, Art 9-B already contains a blanket prohibition against
holding of multiple offices or employment
 In the gov subsuming both election and appointive public
officials
 Art 7 specifically prohibiting the president, VP, members of
the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants from holding any
other office or employment during their tenure
 Unless otherwise provided in the consti
o Intent of the framers of the consti was to impose a stricter prohibition on
the president
 And his official family in so far as holding other offices or
employment in the gov or elsewhere is concerned
o According to commissioner Foz, 1986 consti commission was to be
stricter with president and his official family
 Because they exercise more powers and therefore more
checks and restraints on them are called for because there is
more possibility of abuse in their case
o Sec 7 Art 9-B is meant to lay down the general rule applicable to all
elective and appointive public official and meployees
 While sec 13 Art 7 is meant to be the exception only to the
president, VP, cabinet and their deputies and assistants
o Qualifying phrase unless otherwise provided in this consti in Sec 13 Art
7 cannot possibly refer to the broad exceptions provided under Sec 7 Art
9-B of the 1987 consti
o Phrase must be given a literal interpretation to refer only to those
particular instances cited in the consti
 1) VP being appointed as a member of the cabinet or acting
as president in instances cited under Sec 7 par 2 and 3 Art. 7
 2) secretary of justice being ex-officio member of the JBC
(sec 8 Art. 3)
o Ex-officio: prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices or
employment under sec 13 Art. 7 must not however be construed as
applying to post occupied by the executive officials specified therein
 Without addition compensation in an ex-officio capacity
 As provided by law and as required by the primary functions
of said official’s office
 They do not compromise any other office
o Ex officio- mean from office by virtue of office.
 An act done in an official character or as a consequence of
office and without any other appointment or authority that
that conferred by the office
o EO 248 is unconsti
De la Cruz v. COA
FACTS
 Following the ruling the SC in Civil Liberties Union and Anti-Graft League of the
PH Inc.
o Declared EO 284 unconsti insofar as it allowed Cabinet members, their
deputies and assistants to hold other offices
o And to receive compensation for it
o COA issued a notice of disallowance
 Notice ordered the refund of the compensation already received by the said officers
in the EO
o And disallowed the giving of compensation or renumeration to them
 In pursuant to the assailed notice
o NHA Resident Auditor Vasquez issued a notice of disallowance to
cabinet member who were ex-officio members of the NHA board of
directors and their respective alternate who actually received payment
 Petitioner who were board members of the NHA, then chairman Dela Serna
o Appealed the notice by citing the resolution of the SC en banc in the
Civil Liberties Union case
 He contended that the SC made the clarification that the multiple position rule
(what was allowed by the EO 284 but declared unconsti by SC)
o Doesn’t cover appointive official whose rank is lower than Assistant Sec
 Therefore alternates who are ranked lower than the Assitant Sec should not be
covered by the notice of disallowance
 COA denied their appeal holding that the alternates are reps of the cabinet members
o Are agents of the cabinet members
 What the principals are prohibited from, their agents are too
 Since it was constitutionality prohibited that the cabinet members cannot hold other
offices
o And receive compensation from it
o Their alternates are prohibited as well
 Thus present petition
ISSUE
 Whether the notice of disallowance issued by COA is valid? YES
o PD 757 which created the NHA mandated through Sec 7 the following
Cabinet Sec to sit as members of the NHA Board
 1) Sec of Public Works, Transpo and Communication
 2) Director General of the National Economic and Dev
Authority
 3) Sec of Finance
 4) Sec of Labor
 5) Sec of Industry
 6) Exec Sec
 7) Gen Manager of the NHA
o While the petitioners are not themselves these people listed above
 They are considered their alternate
 Means that their acts shall be considered the acts of their
principals
 o Given this SC made use of their interpretation of the prohibition of Sec
13 Art 7 in Civil Liberties Union case
o SC held that the consti prohibition that Cabinet members, their deputies
and assistants cannot hold other offices and receive compensation for it
 Should be understood as NOT including “posts occupied by
the exec officials without additional compensation
 In an ex-officio capacity as provided by law
 And as required by the primary functions of said officials
o Because the “any other office: phrase in Sec 13 Art 7 are the imposition
of additional duties and functions of the said officials
 NOT the posts occupied by the exec official without
additional compensation
 In an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as required
by the primary functions of said officials
o Ex-officio means “from the office; by virtue of office”
 Refers to an authority derived from official character merely
not expressly conferred upon the individual character but
rather annexed to the official position
o Since ex-officio position of the Exec Sec are merely part of their
prcinipal office or position
 Therefore cannot receive any added compensation for their
services there
 Technically they are already paid
o Following this the petitioner who are alternate of the exec sec
 Cannot also receive additional compensation because to do
so would give the petitioner who are merely agents
 A better right than their principals
Funa v. Ermita
FACTS
 PGMA appointed Maria Bautista as Undersec of DOTC
o Replacing Agustin Bengzon
 Bautista was designated as USEC for Maritime Transport of DOTC under special
order No. 2006-171
 MARINA (Maritime Industry Authority) Admin Vicente Suazo resigned and
Bautista was designated as OIC
o Office of the Admin, MARINA, in concurrent capacity as DOTC
 Funa in his capacity as taxpayers, concerned citizen and lawyer filed an instant
petition challenging the consti of Bautista’s appointment
o Which is proscibred by the prohibition of the president, VP, cabinet and
their deputies and assistants
o To hold any office or employment
 Bautista was appointed Admin of MARINA and assumed her duties and
responsibilities in Feb
 Funa argues that Bautista’s positions as DOTC USEC and MARINA OIC is in
violation of Sec 13 Art 7 of the consti
o As explained Civil Liberties Union v. Exec Sec
o Public Interest Center v. Elma
 In the case above, said prohibition does not apply to positions held in ex-officio
o And that MARINA admin is not ex-officio to the post of DOTC USEC
o As can be seen from PD 474 ammended by EO 125-A
 In the Admin Code of 1987 there were no provisions of ex-officio roles for USEC’s
of DOTC
 Funa further contends that even if appointment as OIC of MARINA is temporary
o Sec 13 Art 7 does not enumerate temporariness as an exception thereto
 Since temporariness has no max duration it could last for months or years
o in effect would circumvent the prohibition
 Proper procedure should have been first the resignation as USEC in order for her to
be qualified as Admin of MARINA
 Second he contends that there would conflict of interest as MARINA admin and
DOTC USEC as there would be no more checking and counter checking of powers
 LASLTY! He contends that there is a possibility that this may become moot trhu
the resignation but a decision should still be made to prevent similar future cases of
this to happen
 Respondents argue mostly on the procedural aspects
o Such as it being Moot and acedmine
o Due to Bautista’s resignation as USEC
 Also that Funa lacks locus standi
 Substantive issue – they claim that this was valid because Bautista did not receive
extra compensation from the act and merely held the position for 4 months before
relinquishing her post as USEC
 Also contend that MARINA Admin recommendations go to MARINA board and
not the DOTC USEC
o Thus no incompatibility among the offices
ISSUE
 Whether the designation of Bautista as OIC of MARINA concurrent with the
position of DOTC USED for Maritime Transport, violated the consti provision
against offices for Cabinet members and their deputies and assistants? YES
o Sec 13 – president, vp and members of the cabinet and their deputies or
assistants shal not unless provided by this consti hold any other office or
employment during their tenure
o Shall not directly or indirectly practice any other profession, participate
in business or be financially interest in any contract with or in. any
franchise or special privilege granted by the gov
 Or any agency or subdivision
 Including GOCCs
o Shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office
o On the other hand Sec par 2 Art 9-B reads
 Unless otherwise allowed by law or primary functions of his
position no appoijntive official shall hold any other office or
employment in the Gov or any agency or instrumentality
 Including GOCCs
o Civil liberties Union a consti challenged was brought to nullify EO 284
issued by Cory Aquino
 Limited members of the cabinet USEC’s and ASEC’s to 2
appointed positions
  Was struck down as unconsti as it actually allowed multiple
spoitions in direct contravention of Sec 13 Art 7
o Unlike in Sec 13 of Art 6 prohibiting senators and members of the HoR
which prohibits them for holding any other office or employment in the
gov
 Sec 13 Art 7 states that the president and his official family
cannot hold any other office
o Intent of the consti to treat the president and his official family as a a
class by itself
 And to impose stricter prohibitions
o In the ConCom deliberations it was mentioned that
 We actually have to be stricter with the president and the
members of the cabinet because they exercise more powers
 Therefore more checks and restraints on them are called for
because there is more possibility of abuse in their case
o Thus members of the cabinet, deputies and assistants may only hold
other offices if expressly authorized by the consti
o Sec 7 Art 9-B is meant to lay down the general rule applicable to all
elective and appointive public officials and employees
 While Sec 13 of Art 7 is meant to be the exception applicable
only to the president, vp, members of the cabinet their
deputies and assistants
o Bautista cannot invoke Sec 7 Art 9 since there should be a stricter
standard towards her position as USEC of DOTC
o MARINA was created by PD 474 by Marcos and its admin is a
appointed position
 Qualifications include adequate rraining and experience in
economics,tech and finance, law. Management and public
utility
 Or in other phases or aspects of the maritime industry
o Court finds it hard to believe that the designation as OIC of MARINA
was merely an imposition of additional duties related to her primary
position as used
o Temporary appointment is also not allowed
Funa v. Exec Sec
FACTS
 Petitioner alleges that Pres. Arroyo appointed Mar 1, 2010 Agra as the Acting Sec
of Justice
o Following resignation by Agnes VST Devanadera
o In order to vie for a congressional seat in Quezon Province
 Mar 5, 2010 – President Arroyo designated Agra as the acting solicitor general in a
concurrent capacity
 Petitioner is assailing that Agra’s concurrent appointments or designations
o Claiming it to be prohibited under Sec 13. Art 7 of the 1987 Consti
 That during the pendency of the suit
o President Benigno Aquino appointed Atty. Cadiz as solgen
o And Cadiz assumed Solgen on Aug 5, 2010
 Despite Agra forwarding a different set of facts
o The Court said that notwithstanding the conflict in the version of the
parties
o The fact that Agra has admitted to holdin two offices concurrently in
acting capacities is settled
 Which is sufficient for purpose of resolving the consti
question that petitioner raises herein
ISSUE
 Did the designation of Agra as the acting Sec or Justice concurrently with his
position of acting solgen, violate the consti prohibition against dual or multiple
offices for the members of the cabinet and their deputies and assistants? YES
o Void and was is in violation of the consti prohibition under Sec 13 Art 7
of the 1987 consti
o In ascertaining the unconsti of Agra’s concurrent designation as cting
DOJ Sec. and Acting Solgen the Court centered the decision in the
correct application and Sec 13 Art 7
 And the relevant and complementing provision of Sec 7 par 2
Art 9-B of the consti
o In this case Civil Liberties Unnion while discussing intent of the framers
 In other words, Section 7, Article IX-B is meant to lay down
the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive
public officials and employees, while Section 13, Article VII
is meant to be the exception applicable only to the President,
the Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies
and assistants.
o Being designated as the acting DOJ Sec concurrently with this position
Solgen
 Agra was undoubtedly covered by Sec 13 Art 7
 Prohibits members of the Cabinet to hold any other office or
employment during their tenure unless provided in the consti
o Agra could not validly hold any other office or employment
 Whether in permamnent or temporary acting as sol gen
o In Public Interest Center Inc v. Elma said there are 2 exceptions
 1) those provided under the consti (Sec 3 Art 7)
 2) posts occupied by exec officials specified in Sec 13 Art 7
wihtout additional compensation in ex officio capacities
o Decision in Public Interest Center adverted to the resolution issued in
Civil Liberties
 The Court held that the phrase the members of the cabinet
and their deputies or assistants found in Sec 13 Art 7 referred
only to the heads of various exec depts, undersec and
assistant sec
 Did not extend to other public officials given the rank of sec,
undersec or assistant sec
o To be noted that Agra’s designation as Acting DOJ Sec was not in aex
officio capacity
  By which he would have been authorized to concurrently
hold the two positions due to the holding of one office being
the consequence of holding the other
 The provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 regarding
the powers and functions of the Department of Justice (DOJ)
and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) show that one
position was not derived from the other. The powers of and
functions of the OSG are neither required by the primary
functions nor included by the powers of the DOJ, and vice
versa
o OSG while attached to the DOJ is not a constituent unit of the latter
 OSG is regarded as an independent and autonomous body
o Enactment of RA 9417, Solgen is now vested with a cabinet rank within
the purview of Sec 7 Art 9-B of the consti
 His concurrent designation is still subject to the conditions of
the consti provision
o Furthermore his tenure as acting DOJ is de facto in character
 Thus receiving emoluments for actual services rendered
 And this official functions therein is binfing and effective as
it he was legally appointed and qualified for the office
o Annuls and voids designation!
Espiritu v. Lutgarda
FACTS
 Case is seeking to set aside the decision of CA which reinstated the order of Sec of
Agrarian Reform Roberto Pagdanganan approving petitioner’s app for exemption
 1978 – City council of Angeles Pampanga enacted Zoning ordinance No. 13
o Classified the areas in Brgy. Margot and Brgy. Sapang Bato Angeles
City as agri land
 Respondent Lutgarda del Rosario requested the City Zoning admin to exempt from
zoning classification Lot No. 854 & 855 in said barangays
 Request was approved and lots were allegedly reclassifies as non-agri or industrial
lots
 After the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law was enacted
 Lutgarda sought to exempt Lots 854 and 855 from the CARP coverage
 Agrarian Reform Sec. Pagdanganan issued an order which granted the exemption
o Said that lands classified as non-agri before CARP enactment are
beyond its coverage
 Farmers in the said lot
o Led by Remigio Espiritu
o Filed an MR
o SAID that in accordance to zoning ordinance No. 13 the lands were
classified as agri not industrial
o Landholdings were within the agri zone
 No zoning ordinance that reclassified the said area in other
uses
 Motion was granted
 Earlier order of Sec. Pagdanganan was revoked by the new Sec. Pangandaman
 Del Rosario contended and argued that
o 1) she was denied of due process when the order of Sec. Pangandaman
was erroneously sent to another address
 Not Lutgarda’s home address
o 2) decision of Deputy Exec Sec. Gaite dismissing Del Roasio’s appeal
was void
 Because Gaite had been appointed to the SEC
 2 months prior to the rendering of the decision
 CA granted the petition
o Del Rosario was not allowed due process
 Was prevented from participating in the proceedings prior to
the issuance of the new order from new Sec. Pangandaman
o Decision of Gaite was void for violating Art 7 Sec 13 of the consti
 Respondents Espiritu filed for MR
o BUT denied
o Thus this petition
 Petitioner
o Lutgarda was not denied due process as she was able to actively
participate in proceedings before the Dept of Agrarian Reform and
Office of the Pres
o Lutgarda even presented proof that Gaite was not authorized to sign then
decision – shows that she allowed to present her side – DUE PROCESS
 Respondent
o CA did not commit any reversible error in its decision
o She was deprived of due process when the order of the new sec
Pangandaman was sent to the wrong address
o ALSO! Gaite’s decision was void because he was appointed to another
office (SEC) which is not allowed in Art 7 Sec 13
ISSUE
 Whether CA correctly set aside the order of Sec. Pangandaman and the decision of
Deputy Sec. Gaite and resinstated the order of Sec. Pagdanagan? NO
o Ruling of the CA was erroneous
o Respondent was not deprived of due process
o Lutagrda was able to file an MR for Sec. Pangandaman’s order
 Albeit beyong the allowable period to file
o While Lutagarda was prevented from filing a timely MR
 Would be erroneous to conclude that she was completely
denied of opportunity to be heard
o In the admin proceedings, procedural due process include
 1) right to actual notice of proceedings
 2) real opportunity to be heard
 3) tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and
impartiality
  4) finding by said tribunal supported by substantial evidence
submitted for consideration
o When Lutgarda filed an MR, she was able to completely present her
arguments
o She was given a fair opportunity to present her side
 No deprivation of due process
 Whether Deputy Sec Gaite’s decision should be considered valid? YES
o Gaite’s decision is presumed valid, effective and binding
o Alleged that he was appointed SEC Commissioner in March 2009
 And that he had lost his authority when he rendered the
decision 2 months later in May 2009
o BUT! He can be considered a de facto officer at the time he rendered
such decision
o Funa v. Agra – Agra was a de facto officer therefore his acts were just as
valid for all piurposes as those of a de jure officer
o De Facto officer – one who deprives his appointment from one having
colourable authority to appoint
 If the office is an appointive office and whose appointment is
valid on its face
o Thus! All acts of Agra as acting Sec of Justice is presumed valid,
binding and effective
 As if he was the officer legally appointed for the said office
o This qualification is necessary to protect the sanctity of the dealings by
the public with persons whose ostensible authority emanates from the
state
o Assuming Gaite was a de facto officer of the office of the president
 Any decision he renders during his time is presumed valid,
binding and effective
o Gaite as a public officer also enjoys presumption of regularity
o Petition is granted!
Doromal v. Sandiganbayan
FACTS
 Special prosecution officer II Caoili conducted a prelim investigation of the charge
against the petitioner – Doromal
 Doromal was a former Commissioner of the presidential Commission on Good Gov
(PCGG)
o For violation of the Anti-graft and corrupt practices act RA 3019
o Sec 3(h) in connection with his shareholdings and position as president
and director of the Doromal International Trading Corp (DITC)
o Which submitted his bids to supply Php 61M worth of electronic,
electrical automotive, mechanical and ariconditioning equipment to the
DECS (Dept of education, culture and sports) and the National
Manpower Youth counsil (NMYC)
 Caoili filed in Sandiganbayan an info against the petitioner
 He alleged that Doromal willfully and unlawfully had direct and indirect financial
interest in the DITC
o An entity which transacted or entered into a business transaction or
contract with the DECS and NMYC
 Both agencies of the gov which business, contracts or
transactions he is prohibited by law and the consti from
having any interest
 Doromal filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in this court
o Questioning the jurisdiction of the Tanodbayan to file the info without
the approval of the OMB
o After the effectivity of the consti
 Subsequently the special prosecutor sought clearance from the OMB to refile it
 OMB Vasquez granted clearance but advised that some changes be made in the info
filed
 Complying with the memorandum, new info duly approved by the OMB was filed
in the Sandiganbayan
o Alleging that the accused Doromal willfully and unlawfully participate
in a business through DITC
o A family corp of which he is the president
o And which company participated in the biddings conducted by the
DECS and the NMYC
o Which act is prohibited bythe consti
 Petitioner filed a motion to quash the info
o 1) invalid because there has been no prelim investigation
o 2) defective because the facts alleged do not constitute the offense
charged
 Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash
 Special prosecutor filed a motion to suspend accused pendente lite
o Pursuant to Sec 13 of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices RA 3019
 President had earlier approved Doromal’s app for indefinite leave of abcense as
PCGG commissioner
o Effective immediately and until final decision of the Court in
petitioner’s case
 The sandiganbayan ordered his suspension pendente lite from his position as PCGG
Commissioner
o And from any other office he may be holding
 MR of that order was also denied by the cOURT
 THUS this petition for certiorari and prohibition alleging that the Sandiganbayan
gravely abused its discretion
o 1) in denying the petitioner’s motion to quash the info in the crim case
o 2) in suspending the petitioner from the office despite the president’s
having previously approved his indefinite leave of absence until final
decision in this case
 Petitioner contends that as the prelim investigation that was conducted prior to the
filing of the original info in one crim case was nullified by this court
 o Another prelim investigation should have been conducted before the
new info in the other crim case was filed against him
 Denial of right to such investigation allegedly violates his right to due process and
constitutes a ground to quash the info
 Public respondent argues that another prelim investigation is unnecessary because
both old and new info involve the same subject matter
o Violation of Sec 3(h) of RA 3019
o In relation to Sec 13 Art 7 of the consti
 Petitioner allegedly waived the second prelim investigation by his failure to comply
with the Court’s order directing him to submit a statement of new or additional facts
o Duly supported by photo copies of documents which he would present
o Should a new prelim investigation be ordered
ISSUE
 Whether the prohibition under Art 7 Sec 13 of participation in a contract with the
gov include holding another office/employment in a fami corp and on this ground
and whether Doromal should be charged for violating Art 7 Sec 13? YES
o No merit in petitioner’s insistence that the info should be quashed
because the special prosecutor admitted in the Sandiganbayan
 That he does not possess any document signed to the DECS
by the petitioner
 After he became a PCGG Commissioner
o That admission allegedly belied the averment in the info that the
petitioner participated in the business of the DITC
 In which he is prohibited by the consti
o Sandiganbayan in its order for Aug 19, 1988 correctly observed that the
presence of a signed document bearing the signature of accused
Dorormal as part of the application to bid is not a sine qua non for OMB
 Indicated in his memorandum to the special prosecutor that
the petitioner can rightfully be charged with aving
participated in a business
 Which act is prohibited by Sec 13 Art 7 of the consti
 Because DITC remained a family corp in which Doromal has
at least an indirect interest
o Sec 13 Art 7 provides that the president, vp and members of cabinet and
deputies and assistants shall not during their tenure, directly or indirectly
participate in any business
o Consti ban to similar to the prohibition in the civil service law that
pursuit of private business without the permission required by civil
service rules and regs
 Shall be ground for disciplinary action against any officer or
employee of the civil service
De Castro v. JBC
FACTS
 Case started with the compulsory retirement of CJ Reynato Puno May 17, 2010
o Occurs just seven days after the coming presidential election on May 10,
2010
 Under Sec 4(1) in relation Sec 9 Art 8 – vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from
the occurrence thereof from a list of at least 3 nominees prepared by the JBC
 HOWEVER! Sec 15 of Art 7 of the consti bans the President from appointing 2
months immediately before the next presidential elections and up the end of his
term
 Jan 18, 2010 meeting en banc – JBC passed a resolution that opened the position of
CJ for app or recommendation
 JBC automatically considered for the position of CJ senior AJs
o Carpio
o Corona
o Conchita Carpio Morales
o Velasco jr.
o Nachura
 HOWEVER! Last 2 decline their nomination through letters
 OSG extends that the incumbent president may appoint the next CJ
o Because the prohibition under Sec 15 Art 7 of the consti does not apply
to appointment in the SC
 Argues that any vacany in the SC must be filled within 90 days from is occurrence
 In their deliberations, on the mandatory period for the appointment of SC Justices
o Framers neither mentioned nor referred to the ban against midnight
appointment
 Or it effects on such period
o Had the framers intended the prohibition to apply to SC appointments
 Could have easily expressly stated so in the consti
 Explains why the prohibition found in Art 7 was not written
in Art 8
o Framers also incorporated in Art 8 ample restriction of limirtaion on the
Presidents power to appoint members of the SC
 To ensure independence from political vicissitudes and its
insulation from political pressure
 Such as stringent qualification for the positions
 Establishment of the JBC
 Specified period within which the president shall appoint a
SC justice
ISSUE
 Whether the President can appoint a SC Justice? YES
o 2 consti provisions are seemingly in conflict
o First! Sec 15 of Art 7
 2 months immediately before the nest presidential elections
and up to the end of his term, a president shall not make
appointments
  Except temporary appointments to exec positions when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or
endanger public safety
o The other! Sec 4(1) Art 8
 SC shall be composed of a CJ and 14 AJs
 May sit en banc or in its discretion in division of 3, 5, or 7
 Any vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from the
occurrence thereof
o Art 7 is devoted to the exec dept
 Lists powers vested by the consti in the president
o Presidential power of appointment is dealt with in Sec 14, 15 and 16
o Art 8 is defines the duties and qualifciations of members of the SC
o Sec 4(1) and Sec of 9 are provisions specifically provding for
appintmemnt of SC
o Court believes that had the framers of the cosnti intended to extend the
prohibition contained in Sec 15 At 7
 Could have explicitly done so
 As being equally applicable to the appointment of members
of the SC in Art 8
o Such specification was not done only reveals that the prohibition against
the president making appointments within 2 months before the next
presidential elections and up to the end of the president’s term
 Does not refer to the members of the SC
o Valenzuela came to hold that the prohibition covered even judicial
appointments
 It cannot be disputed that the Valenzuela dictum did not
consider the intent of the consti commission
o The exchanges during deliberations show that the filling of a vacancy in
the SC within the 90 day period was a true mandate for the president
o Usage in Sec 4(1) Art 8 of the word shall an imperative, operating to
impose a duty that may be enforced should not be disregarded
o Thus!!! Sec 4(1) imposes on the president the imperative duty to make
an appointment of a member of the SC within 90 days
 Did not consider that Sec 4(1) Art 8 is independent of other
provision
 Reverse Valenzuela
o SECOND! Sec 15 of Art 7 does not apply as well to all other
appointment in the judiciary
 No question that one of the reasons underlying the adoption
of Sec as part of Art 8 was made in order to eliminate
midnight appointments
 Of the outgoing chief as a form of vote buying
o It is proper then to assume that the framred did not need to extend the
prohibition to appointment in the judiciary
 Because their establishment of the JBC
 And their subjecting the nomination and screening of
candidates for judicial positions to the unhurried and
deliberate prior process of the JBC ensured that there would
no longer be midnight appointments to the judiciary
o Lastly! Sec 14 and 15 and 16 are obviously of the same character
 They affect the power of the president to appoint
o The fact that Sec 14 and 16 refer only to appointment within the exec
dept renders conclusive that sec 15 also applies only to exec dept
o Conclusion is consistent with the rule that every part of the statutes must
be interpreted with reference to the context
o That every part must be considered together with the other parts and
kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment
Gov v. Springer
FACTS
 Original action for quo warranto against 3 directors
o Springer
o Costas
o Anselmo
 Of the national Coal company who were elected to their positions by the legislative
members of the committee
o Created by acts 2705 and 2822
 This is to test the validity of the part of Sec4 of Act No. 2705
o Amended by Sec 2 of Act 2822
o Provides that the voting power of all such stock owned by the gov shall
be vested exclusively in a committee consisting
 Gov-gen
 President of the senate
 Speaker of the house
 Case involved national Coal Company
o Created by the legislature under the Corp Law
 Gov eventually became the owner of more than 99% of the 30k outstanding shares
of stocks
o 19 shares are with private citizens
 Govgen promulgated EO 37
o Made on the account of the invalidity of the portions of the acts creating
the voting committee or board of control the govgen
o Exercise exclusively the duties and powers assumed by the voting
committee or board of control
 After a special meeting of the stockholders of the National Coal Co.
o Called for the purpose of electing directors and other business matters
 Senate president and speaker invited govgen
o Govgen had a rep go for him
 Through his rep, Govgen objected to the asserted powers of the president of the
senate and Speaker of the house
 Speaker and Senate pres voted for:
o Barretto
o Springer
o Costas
 o Hilario ISSUE
o Ingersoll
 Gov-gen votes for:  Does the president have the power to appoint OICs? YES
o Agcaoili o Court held that the power of the president to appoint in this case was
o Ingersoll within the scope of Art 7 Sec 16
o Heath o Court distinguished 2 groups in determining the positions that the
o Salvador President can appoint
o Lagdameo  FIRST! Includes the heads of exec depts, amba, other public
 Chair declared the ballots of Speaker and Senate Pres as the directors of the ministers and consuls, officers of the Armed Forces
company  And other officers whose appointments were
 Springer, Costas and Anselmo were not favor by Govgen vested in the President by the consti
 Organic Law said that no dept shall legally exercise any of the powers of any other  SECOND! President can appoint are all other officers of the
dept gov whose appointments are not otherwise provided and
o Vests the supreme exec power of the gov-gen those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint
o Serves as the catch all provision for the president’s power to appoint
o Petitioners also assert that the president’s power to appoint OICs
ISSUE
violates Sec 16 Art 10 of consti
o Court ruled that there is incompatibility between the president’s power
 Whether the legislative dept has the power to appoint public officers into officer? of supervision over local gov and autonomous regions
NO  And the power to appoint OICs under RA 10153
o Power of appointment lies with the exec o Held that nothing in the provisions states that the president has the
o He should have complete control of instrumentalities and gov owned power to recall the appointments that were made
agencies o Stated that once the MAY 2013 elections end
o House may elect  Elected officials will replace the OICs
 Sergeant at arms
 Officer
Velicaria Garafil v. office of the President
 Clerk
 Other officer
 2 resident commissioners FACTS
o Power to nominate and appoint still lies with the exec
o Myers v. US
 Seek the reversal of the separate decisions of the CA that dismissed their petitions
 House creates offices
and upheld the consti of EO 2 filed by Atty. Velicaria-Garafil is petition for review
 No power designating the man to fill the office
on certiorari assailing the decision of the CA
o 3 directors are ousted!
o Case filed by Atty. Venturanza is a petition for certiorari assailing the
decision and resolution
Datu Kida v. Senate o Case filed by Villanueva and Rosquita is a petition for certiorari seeking
to nullify the decision of CA
 Villanueva and Rosquita filed a petition in intervention in
FACTS
the consolidated cases before the CA
o A Petition for Review on certiorari assailing the decision of the CA and
 Case is a MR assailing the decision made by the SC in the consti of RA 10153 resolution of the CA
o Law which aims to reset the regular elections for the ARMM elections  Prior to the conduct of May 2010 elections – then PGMA issued more than 800
o From Aug 2011 to May 2013 appointments to various positions in several gov offices
o To coincide with the national and local elections of our country and  The ban on midnight appointments in Sec 15 Art 7 of the 1987 consti reads:
allowed the president’s power to appoint OICs to temporarily assume o 2 months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to
the positions upon expiration of the terms of the elected officials the end of his term, a president or acting president shall not make
 SC previously held that said law was consti appointments except temporary appointments to executive positions
o Thus this MR
 when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or
endanger public safety
 For purposed of the 2010 elections
o March 10 2010 was the cut-off date for valid appointments
o Next day was the start of the ban on midnight appointments
 Sec 15 Art 7 of the consti recognizes as an exception to the ban on midnight
appointments
o Only temporary appointments to exec positions when continued therein
will prejudice public service or endanger public safety
o None of the petitioners claim that their appointments fall under this
exception
 Issuance of EO 2 – June 30 2010 President Aquino took his oath of office as
president of the PH
o July 30 2010 President Aquino issued EO 2 recalling, withdrawing and
revoking appointments issued by president Macapagal-Arroyo
o Which violated the consti ban on midnight appointments
 EO 2 defined midnight appointments as
o Following appointments made by the former president and other
appointing authorities in depts, agencies, offices and instrumentalities
o Including gov-owned or controlled corps shall be considered as
midnight appointments
 Those made on or after Mar 11, 2010 including all appointments bearing dates
prior to March 11 2010 where the appointee has accepted or taken oath and
assumed office on or after March 11
o Except temporary appointments in the exec positions when continued
vacancies will prejudice public service or endanger public safety as may
be determined by the appointing authority
 Solgen Cadiz instructed a Senior Assistant Solgen to inform the officers and
employees affected by EO 2
o That they were terminated from service effective the next day
 Effect of the issuance of EO 2
o GR with Atty. Velicaria-Garafil who was appointed state solicitor II at
the OSG, as petitioner
o GR with Atty. Venuranza who was appointed Prosecutor IV (City
prosecutor) of quezon city, as petitioner
o GR with Villanueva who was appointed admin for Visayas of board of
Admin of the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) and Rosquita
who was appointed Comissioner of the National Commission of
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), as petitioners
o GR with Atty. Tamondong who was appointed member of the Board of
directors of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SMBA), as
petitioner
 All petitions question the consti of EO 2 for being
inconsistent with Sec 15 Art 7 of the consti
 All of the petitioner question the consti of EO 2 for being inconsistent with Sec 15
Art 7 of the consti
ISSUES
 Do the petitioners’ appointments violate Sec 15 of Art. 7? YES
o This ponencia and the dissent both agree that the facts in all these cases
how that none of the petitioners have shown that their appointment paper
and transmittal letters haven been issued and release before the ban
o Dates of receipt by Malacanang Records Office, which in these cases are
the only reliable evidence of actual transmittal of the appointment papers
by GMA
 Are dates clearly falling during the appointment ban
o This ponencia and the dissent both agree that all the appointments in
these cases are midnight appointments in violation of Sec 15 Art 7 of the
1987 consti
 Is EO 2 consti? YES
o Aytona v. Castillo is the basis for Sec 15 Art 7
o They defined midnight or last minute appointments of PH jurisprudence
 Carlos P. Garcia submitted on dec 29 his last day in office
 350 appointments including that of Aytona for
Central Bank Gov
 President Diosdado Macapagal assumed office on Dec 30
and on Dec 31, Admin No 2 recalling, withdrawing, and
cancelling all appointments made by the President Garcia
after Dec 13 1961 (proclamation date)
 President Macapagal appointed Castillo as Central Bank Gov
on Jan 1 1962
o Court dismissed Aytona’s quo warranto proceedings against Castillo
 Upheld admin order No. 2’s cancellation of the midnight or
last minute appointments
o During the delibs for the consti – consti commissioner, now retired CJ
Davide, referred to this Court’s ruling in Aytona
 Stated that his proposal seeks to prevent a president whose
term is about to end
 From preempting his successor by appointing his own people
to sensitive positions
o 1986 consti commission put a definite period or an empirical value on
Aytona’s intangible stratagem to beat the deadline and also on the act of
preempting the president’s successor
 Shows a lack of good faith, morality and propriety
 Subject to only 1 exception, appointments made during this
period are thus automatically prohibited under the consti,
regardless of the appointee’s qualifications or even of the
president’s motives
 Period of prohibited appointment covers 2 months before the
elections until the end of the president’s term
 Period for prohibited appointments covers 2 months before
the elections
 Until the end of the president’s term
 For an appointment to be valid, it must be made outside of
the prohibited period or falling that, fall under the specified
exception
o Following elements should always concur in the making of a valid
appointment (complete and effective)
 1) authority to appoint and evidence of the exercise of the
authority
 2) transmittal of the appointment paper and evidence of the
transmittal
 3) a vacant position at the time of appointment
 4) receipt of the appointment paper and acceptance of the
appointment by the appointee who possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications
o Concurrence of all these elements should always apply, regardless of
when the appointment is made
 Whether outside or just before or during the appointment ban
o These steps in the appointment process should always occur and operate
as a single process
o No valid appointment if the process lacks even one step
 Unlike the dissent’s proposal
 There is no need to further distinguish between an effective
and ineffective appointment when an appointment is valid
o President’ exercise of his power to appoint officials is provided for in
the consti and laws
o Discretion is an integral part in the exercise of the power of appointment
 Considering that appointment calls for a selection –
appointing power necessarily exercises a discretion
o Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynical case
 Power to appoint is in essense discretionary
 Appointing power has the right of choise which he may
exercise freely according to his judgment
 Deciding for himself who is best qualified among those who
have the necessary qualifications and eligibilities
 A prerog of the appointing power
o Not enough that the president signs the appointment paper
o There should be evidence that the president intended the appointment
paper to be issued
o It could happen that an appointment paper may be dated and signed by
the president months before the appointment ban
 But never left his locked drawer for the entirety of his term
o Release of the appointment paper through the MRO is an equivocal act
that signifies the president’s intent of its issuance
o MRO was created by MEMO order No. 1 series of 1958
 Governing the org and functions of the EO and general
matter of procedure
 Initially called the records division, MRO function as an
admin unit of the EO
o For purposes of verification of the appointment paper’s existence and
authenticity
 Appointment paper must be the security marks
 And must be accompanied by a transmittal letter from the
MRO
o MRO’s exercise of its mandate does not prohibit the president or the
exec sec from giving the appointment paper directly to the appointee
o HOWEVER! A problem may rise if an appointment paper is not coursed
through the MRO and the appointment paper is lost or the appointment
is questioned
o Appointee would then have to prove that the appointment paper was
directly given to him
o Testimony of Ellenite Gabunton (division chief of File Maintenance and
Retrieval division of the MRO) supports Dimaandal’s counsel’s
manifestation that the transmittal of petitiners’ appointment papers is
questionable
 TESTIMONIES!
o 1) Velicaria-Garafil who was appointed as state Solicitor II of the office
of the solgen, was her appointment paper released through the MRO
 NO
 Her appointment paper with its sorrespondeing transmittal
letter was merely turned over to the MRO
 Transmittal letter that was turned over to the MRO was
already stamped released by the office of the exec sec BUT
the date and time as to when it was actually received were
unusually left blank
o What is you basis?
 Transmittal letter and appointment paper turned over to the
MRO
o 2) In Tamondong, who was appointed as member of the Board of
Directors of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, was her appointment
paper released through the MRO?
 NO
 His appointment paper with its correspondeing transmittal
letter was merely turned over to the MRO
 Transmittal letter that was turned over to the MRO was
already stamped “released” by the office of the exec sec BUT
the date and time as to when ti was actually received were
unusually left blank
o What is you basis?
 Transmittal letter and appointment paper turned over to the
MRO
o 3) In Resquita – who was appointed as Commissioner of the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples, representing Region 1 and the
cordilleras, was her appointment paper released thru the MRO?
 NO
 His appointment paper with its correspondeing transmittal
letter was merely turned over to the MRO
 Transmittal letter that was turned over to the MRO was
already stamped “released” by the office of the exec sec BUT
the date and time as to when ti was actually received were
unusually left blank
o What is you basis?
 Transmittal letter and appointment paper turned over to the
MRO
 o 4) In the case of Villanueva who was appointed as admin for Visayas of
the Cooperative Dev Authority was her appointment paper released
through the MRO?
 NO
 His appointment paper with its correspondeing transmittal
letter was merely turned over to the MRO
 Transmittal letter that was turned over to the MRO was
already stamped “released” by the office of the exec sec BUT
the date and time as to when ti was actually received were
unusually left blank
o An appointment can be made only to a vacant office
o Incumbent must first be legally removed or his appointment validly
terminated before on could be validly installed to succeed him
o EO 2 is valid and consti!
Pimentel v. Ermita
FACTS
 PGMA appointed respondents as secretaries of their depts
 Respondents took oath and assume duties as acting secretaries
 Petitioners as senators filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for
the issuance of a writ prelim injunction
o To declare unconsti the appointments
 Congress adjourned
 PGMA issued ad interim appointments to respondents as secretaries of the depts to
which they were previously appointed in acting capacity
ISSUE
 Whether PGMA’s appointment of the respondents as acting secs without consent of
the COA while Congress is in session is unconsti? NO
o Power to appoint is essentially exec in nature
o Legislature may not interfere with the exercise of this exec power
 Except in those instances when the consti expressly allows it
to interfere
o Limitations on exec power to appoint are against legislature
o Legislature has the power to prescribe qualifications to an appointive
office
o Congress cannot appoint nor impose on the president to point a
particular person in office
o COA is composed of members of Congress
 Exercise of its powers is executive and not legislative
o COA does not legislate when it exercises its power to give or withhold
consent to presidential appointments
o Petitioners claims that PGMA shouldn’t have appointed acting secs
because according to sec 10 of chap 2 book 4 of the exec order 292
 Undersecs are the only ones allowed to be acting secs when
there is vacancy
o Petitioners further claim that while congress is in session
 Consent is needed from the COA
 Before appointing someone to a vacant position
o Respondents through Sec 16 Art 7 of the 1987 CONSTI
 Maintain that the president can issue appointments in an
acting capacity to dept secs
 Without consent of the COA
 Even while house is in session
o Sec 16 – power to appoint: president shall exercise the power to appoint
such officials as provided for in the consti and laws
o Sec 17 – power to issue temporary designation
 1) president may temporarily designate an officer already in
the gov service or any other competent person to perform the
functions of an office the exec branch
 Appointments to which is vested in him by law
when
 1) officer regularly appointed to the office is
unable to perform his duties by reason of illness,
absence or any other cause
 2) exists vacancy
 2) person designated shall receive the compensation attached
to the positions unless he is already in the gov service in
which case he shall receive only such additional
compensation as with his existing salary shall not exceed the
salary authorized by law for the position filled
 Compensation hereby authorized shall be paint out of the
funds appropriated for the office or agency concerned
 3) no case shall a temporary designation exceed 1 year
o Essence of an appointment in an acting capacity is its temporary nature
 In case of vacancy occupied by an alter ego of the pres
 Pres must necessarily appoint an alter ego of her choice as
acting sec before the permanent appointee of her choice
could assume office
 o Alter ego holds a position of great trust and confidence
o Congress through law cannot impose on the president who her alter ego
should be
ISSUE
o Office of a dept sec may be vacant while congress is in session
o President may appoint his alter ego
 Whether permanent or temporary
 While house is in session
o Sec 17 Chap 5 Title 1 Book 3 of EO 292 states that the president may
even appoint in an acting capacity a person not yet in the gov service
 As long as the president deems that person competent
o Petitioners claims that the issuance of appointments is susceptible to
abuse
 But law states that acting appointments cannot exceed 1 year
which prevents abuses in appointments
o Ad interim appointments must be distinguished from appointments in an
acting capacity
 Both of them are effective upon acceptance
 But ad interim appointments are extended only during a
recess of congress
 Acting appointments may be extended any time there is a
vacancy
o Ad interim appointments are submitted to the COA for confirmation or
rejection
 Acting appointments are not submitted to the COA
o Acting appointments are a way of temporarily filling important offices
 If abused they can also be a way of circumventing the need
for confirmation by the COA
o Court finds no abuse in the present case
o Absence of abuse is readily apparent from PGMA issuance of ad interim
appointments to respondents
 Immediately upon the recess of Congress way before the
lapse of 1 year
o Petition dismissed!
Sarmiento III v. Mison
FACTS
 Pres. Cory Aquino appointed Mison as Commission of the Bureau of Customs
 Petitioners Sarmiento II and Arcialla in their capacity as taxpayers, lawyers and
members of the IBP
o Filed a petition for prohibition seeking to enjoin Mison from performing
the functions of the Office of the Commissioner for the Bureau of
Customs
o And Guillermo Carague as sec dept of budget
o From disbursing payments for mison’s salaries and emoluments
 Contend that the appointment of mison was not confirmed by the COA
o Should be unconsti
 Does the presidential appointment for the position of Commissioner of the Bureau
of Customs needs confirmation from the COA? NO
o Sec 16 Art 7 of the consti
 President shall nominate and with the consent of the COA
appoint head of the exec depts, amba, other public minsters
and consuls, or officers of the armed forced from the rank of
colonel or naval captain, other office are vested in him in this
consti
 He shall also appoint all other officers of the gov whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law and those
whom he may be authorized by law to appoint
 Congress, may by law, vest the appointment of other officers
lower in rank in the president alone. Court or in the heads of
the depts, agencies, commissions or boards
 President shall have the power to make appointments during
the recess of the congress
 Whether voluntary or compulsory
 But such appointments shall be effective only
until disapproval by the commission of
appointments or until the next adjournment of the
congress
o Provision has provided 4 groups of officers whom the president shall
appoint
 1) heads of exec depts, amba, other public ministers and
consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel
or naval capts, and other officers whose appointments are
vested in him in this consti
 2) all other officers of the gov whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law
 3) those whom the president may be authorized by law to
appoint
 4) officers lower in rank whose appointments the congress
may by law vest in the president alone
o First group of officers is clearly appointed with the consent of the
commission on appointments
o Appointments of such officers are initiated by nomination and if the
nomination is confirmed by the commission on appointments
 The president appoints
o Following the rule of consti and statutory construction that an express
enumeration of subjects excludes others not enumerated
 Would follow that only those appointment to positions
expressly stated in the first group require the consent of the
commission on appointments
o Comparing the current provisions of Sec 16 Art 7 to the counterpart
provision in the 1935 consti
  Latter provided that almost all presidential appointments
would require the confirmation of COA
o 1973 consti counterpart provision provided the president the absolute
power of appointment without confirmation from the COA at all
o 2 extreme provisions, 1987 consti provided that the first group above
would need confirmation
 But the rest would no longer need it
o Conclusion is supported by the consti deliberations where it showed that
this clearly what they intended
o Because of this! There are officers whose appointments require no
confirmation
 Even if such officers may be higher rank in compared to
some officers whose appointments have to confirmed
o Court held that the meaning of the word “also” in the provision should
be used in the context of the second sentence
 Rather that the different language in 2 sentences proximate to
each other underscore a difference in message conveyed and
perception established
o Because the paragraph has 2 sentence it means that the message/intent of
the 1st sentence should not be applied to the second sentence
o Power to appoint is fundamentally exec or presidential in character
o Limitations on or qualifcations of such power should be strictly
construed against them and such limitations must be clearly stated
o 3rd sentence of the provision
 Congress may by law vest the appointment of other offices
lower in rank in the president alone, in the courts or in the
heads of the dept, agencies, commissions or boards
o Court held that the use of the word alone after the word president is a
slip or lapus in draftsmanship
o Words alone appears to be redundant in the light of the second sentence
of Sec 16 Art 7
o Redundancy cannot prevail over the clear and positive intent of the
framres of the consti that presidential appointments
 Except those mentioned in the first sentence of sec 16 Art 7
 Are not subject to confirmation by the COA
o Position of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customers is not of those
within the first group of appointments
o Thus the president acted within her consti authority and power in
appointing respondent Mison
 Without submitting his nomination to the COA for
confirmation
Bautista v. Salonga
 President Cory Aquino appointed Bautista first as an ad interim Chairman of the
CHR
 Appointment became final on Aug 27 1987 when Pres Cory made her permanently
in charge
 Bautista then took her oath of office and proceeded to function as the chairman of
the CHR
o Assuming all the rights and duties
 Keep in mind that the position of chairman of CHR is not expressly mentioned in
the first sentence of Sec 16 Art 7
o Thus can be made without review or particiaption of COA
 Not specifically provided unlike chairman and members of the Civil Service
commission, COMELEC and COA
 COA then asked for certain info and documents as requirements for her
confirmation as the chairman
 She proceeded to send a letter stating that COA has no jurisdiction over her
 Then she is removed as Pres. Cory appoints Mallilin as acting chariman of the CHR
pending resolution of said case
ISSUE
 Whether president’s appointment of Bautista was consti? YES
o It is within the ambit of the president to appoint the chairman of the
CHR as according not to the first but second sentence of Sec 16 Art 7
o President has already appointed her and she has already taken oath in the
office
 Thus is the sitting chair of the CHR already
o Bautista has qualified for the said position already and said act of the
president was completed once she took her oath
 Already a completed act
 Whether Bautista’s appointment is subject to COA? NO
o Not subject because the president has already completed the act of
appointment
o President may voluntarily allow COA to review appointments she makes
 But in specific situation the appointment has already taken
place
 And bautista is the sitting chair already
o Constitutionally this is a legal action as it is under the second sentence
of appointing powers given to the president which do not need COA’s
approval
o She is the lawful chariman of the CHR
 There was no vacancy thus the ad interim appointment
cannot stand as it can only be done in instances of vacancy
o Respondent Mallilin also contends that EO 163-A takes into effect as the
president has power to remove Bautista at her own pleasure
 Thus the entire petition has become moot and academic
o Court holds that this argument is false
 As it is akin to saying that it isn’t right for the sole reason
that the lights are on and the drapes are drawn
o Tenure should not be confused with term of office
 Official term of office a chairman would have 7 years
without reappointment and the EO speaks of the tenure which
is at the pleasure of the president
 o Court says that this cannot be correct as they cannot allow a chariman
vested with delicate and vtial functions of investigation violations of
human rights
 To simply be dependent on the president’s choices
o Court says that Bautista is the lawful incumbent as she was not removed
for a cause
o She must be specifically removed by the those with jurisdiction
 Like sandiganbayan and she must be afforded due process
thus cannot be removed by means done in this case
o Petition granted and Bautista as the dully appointed chariman of CHR
Quintos-Deles v. CA
FACTS
 Petitioner and 3 others were appointed sectoral reps by the president pursuant to Art
7 Sec 16 par 2 and Art 18 Sec 7
 Exec sec Macaraig Jr. transmitted by letter the appointment for the said sectoral
reps to Speaker Mitra Jr.
 In the letter the president appointed
o Teresita Quintos-Deles – women
o Ignatius Lopez – youth
o Bartolome Arteche – peasant
o Rey Teyes – urban poor
 The mentioned sec reps were scheduled to take their oaths before the speaker Mitra
Jr. at the session hall of congress
o After the order of business
 HOWEVER! Petitioner and the 3 other sec reps appointees were not able to take
their oaths and discharge their duties as members of congress
o Due to the opposition of some congressmen-members of the coa
o Who insisted that sec reps must first be confirmed by the respondent
commission before they could take their oaths or assume office as
members of the house
 This opposition compelled speaker Mitra Jr. to suspend the oath-taking of the 4 sec
reps
 In the meeting of the committee of the consti commissions and offices of the COA
o Chaired by Sen. Angara
o Committee ruled against the position of petitioner Deles
ISSUE
 Whether the consti requires the appointment of sec reps to the House to be
confirmed by the COA? YES
o In Sarmiento v. Mison – SC interpreted Sec 16 Art 7 of the consti to
mean that only appointments to office mentioned in the first sentence of
the said section 16 require confirmation by the COA
o Readily apparent that under the provisions of the 1987 consti
o 4 groups of officers whom the president shall appoint
 1) heads of exec depts
 Amba
 Consuls
 Other public ministers
 Armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval
capt
 Other officers whose appointments are vested in
him in this consti
 2) all other officers of the gov whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law
 3) those whom the president may be authorized by law to
appoint
 4) officers lower in rank whose appointments the congress
may by law vest in the president alone
o First group of officers clearly appointed with the consent of the COA
o Appointments of such officers are initiated by nomination
 If nominations are confirmed by the COA
 President appoints
Pobre v. Mendieta
FACTS
 Consolidation of 2 cases annulling the appointment extended by Pres Cory to the
petitioner Pobre
o Pobre was commission/chairman of the professional regulation
commission (PRC)
 Before the appointment, petitioner was the second associate commission of the PRC
 Respondent was the Senior Associate Commission
 Although respondent has a higher position
o Pres Cory appointed pobre as the new PRC Commission
 Mendieta then filed for a petition of declaratory relief
o Alleging that under Sec 2 of PD 223
o He as a senior association commission
o Was legally entitled to succeed as chairman of the PRC
 Petition was denied as petitioner has already been appointed
o And took office
 Mendieta filed for a petition for quo warranto against Pobre
 Pobre disputed Mendieta’s claim on the ground that the consti has vested
appointment powers on the president of the PH
 Judge Somera rendered a decision in favor of Mendieta
o Stating that the clear intent of Sec 2 PD 223 is to systematically provide
a law allowing succession to the office of the commissioner
 Pobre then went to SC for relief
ISSUE
 Whether a proper reading of Sec 2 PD 223 would deem Pobre’s appointment as
PRC Chairman as unconsti? NO
o Court looked in to the provision of the consti that vested appointment
powers on the president of the PH to decide on this issue
o Sec 10 Art 7 of the 1973 consti was the source of the authority in issuing
PD 223
o According to the consti – president was has power to appoint the heads
of bureaus and offices
o With this, the chairman of the PRC is the head of an office
o Sec 10 Art 7 consti was then modified by Sec 16 Art 7 of the present
consti
o Provision empowers the president to appoint those whom he may be
authorized by law to appoint
o Court does not agree with Judge Somera’s opinion that the filling up of
the vacancy for the unexpired portion of the term only
 Refers to the portion of the terms of the successor rather than
the unexpired portion of the Chairman’s term
o Court holds that the succession clause operates only when there is an
unexpired term of the Chairman
o Otherwise if the Chairman’s term had expired or has been fully served ,
the vacancy must be filled by appointment of a new chairman by the
president
o Petition for certiorari is granted!
Flores v. Drilon
FACTS
 Constitutionality of Sec 13 par (d) of RA 7227 BCDA of 1992
o States that for the first year of its operations from the effectivity of this
act
o The mayor of the city of Olongapo shall be appointed as the chairman
and chief exec officer of the Subic Authority
o Is being challenged to prevent useless and unnecessary expenditure of
public funds for the existence of the Subic bay Metropolitan Authority
 Which Richard Gordon mayor of Olongapo City was
appointed as chairman and chief exec officer
 Petitioners maintain that par (d) violates the consti provisions of Sec 7 Art 9-B
o Because mayor of Olongapo is an elective official and the subject posts
are public offices
o Sec 16 of Art 7 of the consti because it was the Congress through the
provision who appointed the mayor not the president
o And Sec 261 par (g) of the Omnibus Election Code since the
appointment on April 3, 1992 was within the prohibited 45 days period
prior to the May 1, 1992 elections
ISSUE
 Whether the provision in Sec 13 par(d) of RA 7227 violates the consti proscription
against appointment or designation of elective officials to other gov posts? YES
o Sec 7 of Art 9-B of the consti expressly states the prohibition against the
concentration of several public positions in one person so that public
officer can serve full-time with dedication and be efficient in providing
services
o A public officer is a full-time job
o In civil liberties union – public officers should be allowed to attend to
their duties and responsibilities without the distraction of other gov
duties or employments
o Basic idea in the 1st par of Sec 7 is to prevent an elective official from
working for his appointment in an exec position and thus neglect his
constituents
o THUS! Sec 13 par (d) which directs the president to appoint an elective
official to another gov post contravenes Sec 7 Art 9-B
o While, Sec 94 of the LGC permits the appointment of a local elective
official to another post if so allowed by law or by primary functions of
his office
 It does not determine the consti of the assailed provision
since a legislative act cannot prevail over the consti
o In Sec 7 Art 9-B the 2nd paragraph authorizes the holding of multiple
offices by an appointive official when allowed by law or by the primary
functions of his position
 While the 1st paragraph does not provide any exception to the
rule against appointment or designation of an elective official
to another post except as provided by the consti
o This distinction was purposely drawn by the drafters of the consti
o Exemption is allowed to appointive officials when allowed by law or by
primary functions of his position
 While the first paragraph does not provide any exception to
the rules against appointment or designation of an elective
officials to another post
 Except as provided by the consti
o This distinction was purposely drawn by the drafter of the consti
o Exemption is allowed to appointive officials in the 2nd par CANNOT be
extended to elective officials
o 1st – elective 2nd – appointive
o Also! Congress did not contemplate making the subject SBMA posts as
ex officio or automatically attached to the office of the mayor of
Olongapo City
 Without need for appointment
o The use of shall be appointed shows that the intent was to make the
SBMA posts appointive and not merely adjunct to the post of mayor of
Olongapo
o Senators would not have been concerned with the effects of Sec 7 since
they considered the posts as appointive NOT ex officio
 o There was legislative encroachment on the appointing authority of the
president
 Assailed provision itself vests upon the president the power
to appoint
 But he has not choice under the law but to appoint the mayor
as chairman and chief exec officer
o Appointment involves an exercise of discretion of whom to appoint
o Choice of appointee is a fundamental component of the appointing
power
o Congress may not abuse such power as to divest the appointing
authority, directly or indicrectly
 Of his discretion to pick his own choice
o Also when! qualifcations can only be met by one person
 Then the enactment eliminates the discretion of president
o It is an abuse of congressional authority to prescribe qualification which
only one person is eligible for
o Thus!!! The assailed section limits the appointing power of the president
 By limiting it only one eligible mayor of Olongapo
o Important element of choice is not present and is against the nature of
appointment
o An official will have to resign in order to cast off the consti prohibition
against him before he can appointed
 As long as he is incumbent, he is ineligible for appointment
o Thus! Gordon is ineligible for appointment to the position of chairman
of the board and chief exec officer
o He may be considered a de facto officer of the SBMA
o All allowances and other emoluments may be kept by him
o Appointment is invalid and par (d) of RA 7227 is unconsti!
Rufino v. Endriga
FACTS
 Issued EO 30 creating the CCP as a trust governed by a board of trustees of 7
members to preserve and promote PH culture
 On Oct 5, or soon after the declaration of Martial Law
o President Marcos issued PD 15 – the CCP’s charter
o Converted the CCP under EO 30 into a non-municipal public corp free
from the pressure of influence of politics
 PD 15 increased the members of CCP’s Board from 7 to 9 trustees
 Later, EO 1058 issued on Oct 10, increased it to 11
 After the people power revolution, Pres. Cory asked for the courtesy resignations of
ISSUE
then incumbent CCP trustees and appointed new trustees to the board
 During the term of Fidel Ramos, CCP board included
o Endriga
o Lagdameo
o Sison
o Potenciano
o Fernandez
o Cabili
o Mañosa
 President Estrada appointed 7 new trustees to the CCP Board for a term of 4 years
o To replace the Endriga group
o As well as 2 other incumbent trustees
 7 new trustees were
o 1) Rufino – president v. Endriga
o 2) Tantoco – member v. Fernandez
o 3) and 5 more others
 Except for Tantoco, the Rufino group took their respective oaths of office and
assumed the performance of their duties
 The Endriga group filed a petition for quo warranto before this Court
o Questioning President Estrada’s appointment of 7 new members to the
CCP board
 Endriga group alleged that under Sec 6(b) of PD 15
o Vacancies in the CCP Board shall be filled by elections by a vote of a
majority of the trustees held at the next regular meeting
 In case only 1 trustee survives the vacancies shall be filled by the surviving trustee
acting in consultation with the ranking officers of the CCP
 They claimed that it is only when CCP Board is entirely vacant may the president
fill such vacancies acting in consultation with the ranking officers of the CCP
 Endriga groups asserted that when former president Estrada appointed the Rufino
group
o Only 1 seat was vacant due to the expiration of Mañosa’s term
 CCP Board then had 10 incumbent trustees because of the appointment
 Endriga group refused to accept that the CCP was under the supervision and control
of the president
o Cited Sec 3 of PD 15 which states that the CCP shall enjoy autonomy of
policy and operation
 In their MR, Rufino group asserted that the law could only delegate to the CCP
Board the power to appoint officers lower in rank than the trustees of the board
 Law may not validly confer on the CCP trustees the authority to appoint or elect
their fellow trustees
o The latter would be officers of equal rank and not lower rank
 Sec 6(b) of PD 15 authorizing the CCP trustees to elect their fellow trustees should
de declared unconsti
o Being repugnant to Sec 16 Art 7
o Consti allowing the appointment only of officers lower in rank than the
appointing power
 Whether Sec 6(b) of PD 15 is unconsti considering that it is an invalid delegation of
the president’s appointing power under the consti? YES
o Sec 6(b) and (c) of PD 15 is thus irreconcilably inconsistent with Sec 16
Art 7
o Does not matter that Sec 6(b) of PD 15 empowers the remaining trustees
to elect and not appoint their fellow trustees for the effect is the same
 Which is to fill vacancies in the CCP Board
o As statute cannot circumvent the consti limitations on the power to
appoint by filling vacancies in a public office through election by the co-
workers in that office
o Such manner of filling vacancies in a public office has no consti basis
o FURTHER! Sec 6(b) and (c) of PD 15 makes the CCP trustees every
time a new president assumes office
o In this case, the incumbent President appointed the Endriga group as
trustees
 While the remaining CCP trustees elected the same Endriga
group to the same positions
o This has been the modus vivendi in filling vacancies in the CCP Board
 Allowing the president to appoint and CCP board to elect the
trustees
o In effect, there are two appointing powers over the same set of officers
in the exec branch
o Each appointing power insists on exercising its own power
 Even if the two powers are irreconcilable
o Court must put an end to this recurring anomaly
o Another consti impediment to the implementation of Sec 6(b) and (c) of
PD 15
o Under our system of gov, all exec depts, bureaus and offices are under
the control of the president of the PH
 Under Sec 17 Art 7
o CCP does not fall under the legislative or Judicial branches of gov
o CCP is also not one of the independent consti bodies
o Neither is it a quasi-judicial body nor an LGU
o THUS! CCP must fall under the exec branch
o Under the revised admin code of 1987
 Any agency not placed by law or order creating them under
specific dept falls under the office of the president
o Since the president exercises control over all the exec dept, bureaus and
offices
 President necessarily exercises control over the CCP which is
an office in the exec branch
o In mandating that the president shall have control of all exec offices
 Sec 17 Art 7 does not exempt any exec office such as the
CCP
o Legislature cannot validly enact a law that puts a gov office in the exec
branch outside the control of the president
 In guise of insulating that office from politics or making it
independent
o If the office is part of the exec branch
 It must remain subject to the control of the president
o Sec 6(b) and (c) of PD 15 which authorizes the trustees of the CCP
Board to fill vacancies in the board
 Runs afoul with the president’s power of control
 Under Sec 17 Art 7 of the consti
Calderon v. Carale
FACTS
 Based on the cases: Sarmiento; Bautista; and Quintos Deles the following doctrines
have been set
 1) confirmation by the Commission on Appointments (CA) is requires only for
presidential appointees mentioned in the 1st sentence of Sec 16 Art 7
o Including those officers whodse appointments are expressly vested by
the consti itself in the president
o Like sectoral reps, to congress and members of the consti commissions
of audit, civil service and election
 2) confirmation of CA is required only for presidential appointees mentioned in the
1st sentence of Sec 6 Art 7
o Including those officers whose appointments are expressly vested by the
consti itself in the president
o Like sectoral reps to congress and members of the consti commissions
of audit, civil service and election
o In Mison. It was also held that when Congress creates inferior offices
but omits to provide for appointment thereto or provides in an unconsti
manner of such appointments
 the officers are considered as among those whose
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law
 RA 6715 (Herrera-Veloso Law) amending the Labor Code (PD 442) was approved
 Provides in Sec 13 the following
o The chairman, the division presideing commissioner and other
commissioner shall all be appointed by the president
o Subject to the confirmation by the CA
o Appointments to any vacancy shall come from the nominees of the
sector which nominated the predecessor
o The executive labor arbiters and labor arbiters shall also be appointed by
the president upon recommendation of the sec of labor and employment
 And shall be subject to the Civil Service Law, rules and reg
 Pursuant to said law (RA 6715), President Aquino appointed the chairman and
commissioner of the NLRC
 This petition then questions the consti of the said appointments since the solgen
contends that RA 6715 which amended the Labor Code
o Transgresses Sec 16 Art 7, by expanding the confirmation powers of the
CA without consti basis
 Mison and Bautista laid the issue to rest since the Solgen had it been the intention to
allow congress to expand the list of officers whose appointments must be confirmed
by the ca
 o The consti would have said so by adding the phrase “and other officers
requires by law” at the end of the first sentence, or the phrase with the
consent of the CA
o At the ends of the second sentence of the said article
 Evidently our consti has significantly omitted to provide for such additions
ISSUE
 Whether the Congress may by law require confirmation by CA of appointments
extended by the president to gov officers additional to those expressly mentioned in
the 1st sentence of Sec 16 Art 7whose appointments require conformation by the
CA? NO
o There are 4 groups of officers whom the Pres shall appoint:
 1) heads ot exec depts, amba, other public ministers &
consuls, officers for the armed forces from the rank or
colonel or naval capt & other officers whose appointment are
vested in him in this consti
 2) all other officers of the govt whose appointment are not
otherwise provided for by law
 3) those whom the pres may be authorized by law to appoint
 4) officers lower in rank whose appointments the congress
may be law vest in the pres. alone
o In the case of Mison, there were 2 major changes proposed and approved
by the commission in Sec 16 of Art 7
 1) the exclusion of the appointments of heads of bureaus
from the requirement of confirmation by the CA
 2) Exclusion of appointments made under the second
sentence of the section from the same requirement
o Second sentence of Sec 16 Art 7 refers to all other officers of the gov
whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law
 And those whom the president may be authorized by law to
appoint
o Indubitably, the NLRC Chairman and commissioners fall within the
second sentence of Sec 16 Art 7
 More specifically under the 3rd groups of appointees referred
to in Mison
 Those whom the President may be authorized by law to
appoint
o Thus! It is unconsti for RA 6715 to require the confirmation of the CA
for the appointments of respondents Chairman and Members of the
NLRC because
 1) it amends by legislation the first sentence of Sec 16 Art 7
of the consti
 By adding thereto appointments requiring
confirmation by the CA
 2) It amends by legislation the second sentence of Sec 16 Art
7 of the consti
 By imposing the confirmation of the CA on
appointments which are otherwise entrusted only
with the President
o Sec 16 Art 7 was deliberately intended by the framers to be a departure
from the system embodied in the 1935 consti
 Where the CA exercised the power of confirmation over
almost all presidential appointments
 Leading to many cases of abuse of such power of
confirmation
Tarrosa v. Singson
FACTS
 Respondent – Gabriel Singson was appointed by the president (Fidel Ramos) on
July 1993 as governor of the Central Bank of the PH
 Petitioners as taxpayers filed a prohibition against the said appointment on the ff
grounds
o That the appointment is null and void by virtue of the respective RA
which established Bangko Sentral as Central Monetary Authority of the
PH
 Sec 6 of RA 7653 provides: the composition of the monetary board – the powers
and functions of the Bangko Sentral shall be exercsided by the Bangko Sentral
Monetary Board hereafter referred to as the Monetary Board
o Composed of 7 members appointed by the president of the PH for a term
of 6 years
 7 members are:
o Governor of the Bangko Sentral who shall be the chairman of the
monetary boards
 Shall be the head of a dept and his appointment shall be
subject to confirmation by the CA
 Whenever the governor is unable to attend a meeting of the
board, he shall designate a deputy gov to act as his alternate
 Provided that in such event the Monetary Board shall
designate one of its members as acting Chairman
o Also! The respondents claim that Bangko Sentral has its very own
budget which is not subject to the provisions of the GAA
ISSUE
 Whether the appointment as gov of the Bangko Snetral requires the confirmation of
CA? NO
o Court dismissed the petition for quo warranto mainly by technicality
o Court ruled that such special civil action can only be commenced by the
Solgen or by a person claiming to be entitled to a public office or
position unlawfully held or exercised by another
 o This is established in the mentioned cases- Sevilla v. CA and Greene v.
Knox
 Court aims to steer clear from situations which would
encourage every disgruntled citizen to resort to courts which
could potentially affect the efficient operation of the gov
body
o HOWEVER! In relation to the consti – the court also cited Calderon v.
Carale
o In this case, SC ruled that the Congress cannot expand the confirmation
powers of the CA
o This was not expressly mentioned in the 1st sentence of Sec 16 of Art 7
of the consti
o Petition denied!
Pimentel v. Ermita
FACTS
 PGMA appointed respondents as secretaries of their depts
 Respondents took oath and assume duties as acting secretaries
 Petitioners as senators filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for
the issuance of a write prelim injunction
o To declare unconsti the appointments
 Congress adjourned
 PGMA issued ad interim appointments to respondents as secretaries of the depts to
which they were previously appointed in acting capacity
ISSUE
 Is President Arroyo’s appointment of respondents as acting secs without the consent
of the commission on appointments while congress is in session consti? YES
o The power to appoint is essentially exec in nature
 Legislaltive may not interfere with the exercise of this exec
power
 Except in those instances when the consti
expressly allows it to interfere
o Limitations on the exec power to appoint are construed strictly against
the legislature
 The scope of the legislature’s interference in the exec’s
power to appoint is limited to the power to prescribe the
qualification to an appointive office
o Congress cannot appoint a person to an office in the guise of prescribing
qualifcations to that office
o Neither may congress impose on the president the duty to appoint any
particular person to an office
o HOWEVER! Even if the CA is composed of members of Congress
 The exercise of its powers is executive and not legislative
o The commission on appointments does not legislate when it exercises its
power to give or withhold consent to presidential appointments
o Petitioners contend that President Arroyo should not have appointed
respondents as acting secs because in case of a vacancy in the Office of
a sec
 Only the undersecretary who can designated as acting secs
o The essence of an appointment in an acting capacity is its temporary
nature
o It is a stop-gap measure intended to fill an office for a limited time until
the appointment of a permanent occupant to the office
o In case of vacancy in an office occupied by an alter ego of the President
 Such as the office of a dept sec
 The president must necessarily appoint an alter ego of her
choice as acting sec before the permanent appointee of her
choice could assume office
o Congress through law cannot impose on the president the obligation to
appoint automatically the undersec as her temporary alter ego
 An alter ego whether temporary or permanent holds a
position of great trust and confidence
o Congress in guise of prescribing qualification to an office cannot impose
on the President who her alter ego should be
o The office of a dept sec may become vacant while Congress is in session
o Since a dept sec is the alter ego of the President
 The acting appointee to the office must necessarily have the
president’s confidence
o THUS! By the very nature of the office of a dept sec
 The president must appoint in an acting capacity a person of
her choice even while Congress is in session
o That person may or may not be the permanent appointee
 But practical reasons may make it expedient that the acting
appointee will also be the permanent appointee
o Law expressly allows the president to make such acting appointment
o Sec 17 Chap 5 Title 1 Book 3 of the EO 292 states that the president
may temporarily designate an officer already in the gov service or any
 other competent person to perform the functions of an office in the exec
branch
o THUS! The president may even appoint in an acting capacity a person
not yet in the gov service
 As long as the president deems that person competent
o Petitioners claim that the issuance of appointments in an acting capacity
is susceptible to abuse
o Petitioner fail to consider that acting appointments cannot exceed 1 year
as expressly provided in Sec 17(3) Chap 5 Title 1 Book 3 of EO 292
o Law has incorporated this safeguard to prevent abuses
 Like the use of acting appointments as a way to circumvent
confirmation by the commission on appointments
o Ad-interim appointment must be distinguished from appointments in an
acting capacity
o Both of them are effective upon acceptance
o BUT ad-interim appointments are extended only during a recess of
Congress
 Whereas acting apppointments may be extended any time
there is a vacancy
o Moreover! Ad-interim appintments are submitted to the Commission on
Appointments for confirmation or rejection
 Acting appointments are not submitted to the commission on
appointments
o Acting appointments are a way of temporarily filling important offices
 But if abused they can also be a way of circumventing the
need for confirmation by the commission of appointments
Lacson – Magallanes v. Pano
FACTS
 Jose Pano was a permittee and actual occupant of a pastural land
o In Tamlangon Municipality of Bansalan Province of Davao
 He later ceded his rights and interest to a portion of the pastural land to Lacson-
Magallanes Co. Inc.
o Later officially released from the forest zone and pasture land
o And declare agri land
 Jose Pano and 19 others applied for the purchase of 90 hectares of the released area
 Lacson-Magallanes in turn filed its own sales app covering the entire released area
o Which was protested by Pano upon the averment that they are actual
occupants of the part thereof covered by their own sales app
 HOWEVER! Director of Lands and Sec of Agri and Natural Resources ruled in
favor of Lacson-Magallnes
 THUS! Pano appealed to the president
 Exec Sec Juan Pajo by authority of the President decided the controversy modified
the decision of the director of lands as affirmed by the sec of agri and natural
resrouces
o 1) declared that it would be for the public interest that appellants who
are mostly landless farmer who depend on the land for their existence
 Be allocated that portion on which they have made
improvements and…
o 2) directed that the controverted land should be subdivided into lots of
convenient sizes and allocated to actual occupants
 Without prejudice to the corporation’s right to reimbursement
for the cost of surveying this portion
 May be well to state at this point that the decision just
mentioned signed by the exec sec was planted upon the facts
as found in said decision
 Lacson-magallanes took the foregoing decision to the Court of first instance praying
that Judgment be rendered declaring:
o 1) that the decision of the Sec of Agri and Natural Resources has full
force and effect and
o 2) the decision of the exec sec is contrary to law and of no legal force
and effect
ISSUE
 Whether the exec sec acting by authority of the president, reverse a decision of the
director of lands that had been by the sec of agri and natural resources? YES
o Lacson-Magallanes argue that
 1) Sec 4 of Commonwealth Act 141: the precept is that
decision of the director of lands as to questions of facts shall
be conclusive when approved by the sec of agri and natural
resources
 Plaintiff’s trenchment claim is that this statute is
controlling not only upon courts but also upon the
president
 2) the decision of the exec sec herein is an undue delegation
of power
 3) the exec sec is equal in rank to the other dept heads
o Court rules that the president’s duty to execute the law is constituting
origin as well as his control of all exec depts
 President has the power to control and direct their acts
 He has implicit authority to go over, confirm, modify or
reverse the action taken by his dept secs
o May be stated that the right to appeal to the president reposes upon the
president’s power of control over the exec dept
 The power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set
aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance
of his duties
 And to substitute the judgment of the former for that of latter
o Correct to say that consti powers there are which the President must
exercise in person
o Not as correct is to say that the cief exec may not delegate to his exec
secs acts which the consti does not comman the her perform in person
 o Office of the exec sec is an auxiliary unit which assists the president
o Rule which has thus gained recognition is that under our consti set up
the exec sec who acts for and in behalf and by authority of the president
 Has an undisputed jurisdiction to affirm, modify or even
reverse any order that the sec of agri and natural resources
including the director of lands may issue
o Exec sec acts by authority of the president his decision is that of the
president’s
o Such decision is to be given full faith and credit by our courts
o The assumed authority of the exec sec is to be accepted
o For only the president may rightfully say that the exec sec is not
authorized to do so
o Thus!!!! Unless the action taken is disapproved or reprobated by the
chief exec
 That remains the act of the chief exec
 And cannot be successfully assailed
o No such disapproval or reprobation is even intimated in the record of
this case
o Judgment under review is affirmed
Ang-Angco v. Castillo
FACTS
 Pepsi-Cola Far East Trade dev co. had a problem of withdrawing their commodities
consisting of 1,188 units of pepsi-cola concentrates
o Which were not covered by an y central bank release cert. and were
imported without any dollar allocation or remittance of foreign exchange
 After failing thus far in all their attempts, the counsel of Pepsi-Cola turned to
Collector of Customs Isidro Ang-Angco
o In an attempt to secure from him the immediate release of the
concentrates
 Mr. Ang-angco seeing perhaps that the importation did not carry any release cert.
from the Central Bank
o Advised the counsel to try to secure the necessary release cert from the
No-Dollar Import office
 That had jurisdiction over the case
 HOWEVER! No-Dollar Import Office wrote a letter to petitioner
o And said that it did not have authority to do what petitioner wanted
 After! Sec of Finance Hernandez having be contacted by telephone
o Collector of Customs Ang-angco read to him the letter after which the
sec verbally expressed his approval of the release on the basis of said
cert
 Collector Ang-angco while still in doubt as to the propriety of the action suggested
o Finally authorized the release of the concentrates upon payment of the
corresponding duties, custom charges, fees and taxes
 Customs Manahan learned of the release he filed in and admin complaint
o Against Collector of Customs Ang-Angco
 During the pendency of petitioner’s admin case
o Exec sec Castillo by authority of the president
o Rendered a decision on the case on Feb 12
o Finding Ang-Angco guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service
o And considering him resigned effective from the date of notice
 With prejudice to resinstatement in the Bureau of Customs
 After exhausting all the admin remedies available to him to secure his reinstatement
to the office from which he was removed
o Without any valid cause
o Or in violation of his right to due process of law
o Collector Ang-Angco filed before this court
 Petitioner contends that there was a violation of due process
o And that only the CSC has the power to remove officers and administer
administrative cases
 Respondent contend that whether the officer or employees concerned are
presidential appointees or belong to the classified service
o If they are all officers and employees in the exec dept
o They all come under the control of the president and therefore his power
of removal may be exercised over them directly without distinction
ISSUE
 Is the President empowered by any other law to remove officer and employees in
the classified civil service? NO
o Sec 64 (b) of the revised admin code contains the power of the president
 To remove officials from office conformably to law to
declare vacant the offices held by such removed officials
 For disloyalty to the (US) RP, (Govgen) President of the PH
may at any time remove a person from any position of trsut
or authority under the gov of the PH
o Conformably to law is significant
 Shows that the President does not have blanket authority to
remove any officer or employee of the gov
 But his power must still be subject to the law that
passed byt the legislative body
o Since CSC has such law which govern action to be taken against officer
and employees in classified civil service
 It should be then stated that the law is binding upon President
o Sec (D) of the revised admin code: Power to Appoint and remove
 The dept heads, the recommendation of the chief of the
Bureau of office concerned
 Shall appoint all subordinate officers and employees
appointment is not expressly vested by law in the (Gov gen)
president of the PH
 And may remove or punish them except as especially
provided otherwise in accordance the Civil Service Law
 o In accordance with the Civil Service is also significant so we may say
that even granting for admin purposes
 President of PH is considered as the Dept Head of the Civil
Service Commission
 His power to remove is still subject to the Civil Service Act
of 1959
o In Hebron v. Reyes it was stated that the President has the power of an
officer to alter or modify or nullity or set aside what subordinate officer
had done in the performance of his duties
 And to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the
latter
 To distinguish it from the power of general supervision over
municipal gov
 But the decision does not go to the does not go to
the extent of including the power to remove an
officer or employee in the exec dept (power over
acts and not person itself)
o President’s control over the exec dept only refers to matter of general
policy
o Term policy means a settled or definite course or method adopted and
followed by a gov body or individual
 And it cannot be said that the removal of an inferior officer
comes within the meaning of control over a specific policy of
gov
o THUS! The CSC is gen the power over the President primarily to give
stability to the tenure of office of those who belong to the classifies
service
o To hold that civil service officials hold their office at the will of the
appointing power subject to removal or forced transfer at any time
 Would demoralize and undermine and eventually destroy the
whole Civil Service System and structure
o System will devolve Jacksonian Spoils system under which a victorious
Chief Exec
Villaluz v. Zaldivar
FACTS
 Letter dated Jan 28 1960 addressed to the President by cong. Joaquin R. Roces
o As chairman of the committee on Good Gov of the House of Rep
o Latter informed the Acting Assistant Exec Sec Quimson of the findings
made by his committee
o Concerning alleged gross mismanagement and inefficiency committed
by petitioner in the Motor vehicles
o Summed up in the letter as:
 1) malpractice in office resulting in huge losses to the gov
 2) failure to correct inadequate controls or intentional
toleration of the same, facilitating thereby the commission of
graft and corruption
 3) negligence to remedy unsatisfactory accounting that as a
result of said findings
 Cong. Roces recommended the replacement of petitioner
o And of his assistant Chief Aurelio de Leon as well as the complete
revamp of the offices coming under the Motor Vehicles office
 After the investigation, the said committee submitted its report to the President
o Who thereafter issued admin order No. 332 decree in the removal from
office of petitioner
o That as a result of petitioner’s removal
 After having been officially notified of his removal
o Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and/or reinstatement
o When this was denied
o He filed the instant petition before this court
 Respondent also averred that the President, contrary to petitioner’s claim
o Has jurisdiction to investigate and remove him since he is a presidential
appointee who belongs to the non-competitive or unclassified service
under Sec 5 RA 2260
ISSUE
 Whether Villaluz is under the jurisdiction of the president to be removed
considering that he is an appointtee of the president? YES
o There is merit in the claim that petitioner (being a presidential
appointee)
 Belongs to the non-competitive or unclassified service of the
gov
o And is such he can only be investigated and removed from office after
due hearing
 The president under the principle that the power to remove is
inherent in the power to appoint
 Clearly implied from Sec 5 of RA 2260
o Reiterating Ang-angco, the president may extend the power to
investigate, suspend or remove officers and employees who belong to
the exec dept
 If they are presidential appointees or do not belong to the
classified service for such can be justifies under the principle
 That the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint
(Lacson v. Romero)
 But not with regard to those officers or employees who
belong to the classified service for as to them that inherent
power cannot be exercised
o Consequently, as a corollary to the foregoing ruling, we may state that
the Commissioner of Civil Service is without jurisdiction to hear and
decide the admin charges filed against petitioner
  Because the authority of said Commissioner to pass upon
question of suspension, separation or removal can only be
exercised with reference to permanent officials and
employees in the classified service to which classification
petitioner does not belong
o Therefore! No error of procedure committed by respondents
 Insofar as the investigation and disciplinary action taken
against petitioner is concerned
 Even if he is under the control and supervision of the Dept of
Public Works
 In view of the reason we have already states that he is a
presidential appointee who comes exhaustively under the
jurisdiction of the president
o With regard to the claim that the admin proceedings conducted against
petitioner
 Which led to his separation are illegal simply because the
charges preferred against him by Cong. Rocess
 Were not sworn to as required by Sec 72 od RA 2260
 This much we can say said proceedings having been
commences against petitioner upon the authority of the chief
exec
 Who was his immediate admin head
 The same may be commenced by him motu propio without
previous verified complaint pursuant to EO 370 series of
1914
o Pertinent provisions of which are is follows:
 1) admin proceedings may be commenced by a gov officer or
employee by the head or chief of the bureau or office
concerned motu propio or upon complaint of any person
 Which shall be subscribed under oath by the
complainant
 Provided that is a complaint is not or cannot be
sworn to by the complainant, the head or chief of
the bureau or office concerned may in his
discretion take action thereon if the public interest
or the special circumstances of the case so warrant
Joson v. Torres
FACTS
 Respondent Torres filed a complaint against Petitioner Gov Joson before the office
of the president
o For barging violently into the session hall of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
o With the company of armed men
 The case was endorsed to the DILG
 Petitioner was declared in default and ordered the petitioner 60-day preventive
suyspension for failure to file an answer after 3 extensions
 Petitioner later filed a “Motion to Conduct Formal Investigation” DILG denied the
motion declaring that the submission of positions papers substantially complies
with the requirements of procedural due process in admin proceedings
 Later the exec sec by authority of the president
o Adopted the findings and recommendation of the DILG Sec
 Former imposed on petitioner the penalty of suspension from office for 6 months
without pay
 Petitioner argues that there is an undue delegation of power to the DILG
o And that his motion shouldn’t be dismissed because of the submission of
position papers
ISSUE
 Whether the resolution of DILG Sec is invalid on the ground of undue delegation
that it is the President who is the Disciplining Authority not the Sec of DILG? NO
o DILG’s delegation of power is valid
o President remains the disciplining authority
o What is delegated is the power to investigate
 Not the power to discipline
o The power to discipline evidently includes the power to investigate
o As the disciplining authority, the president has the power derived from
the constitution itself to investigate complaints against local gov
officials
o AO No. 23 HOWEVER! Delegates the power to investigate to the DILG
or a special investigating committee
 As may be constituted by the disciplining authority
o NOT undue delegation contrary to petitioner’s claim
o Under the doctrine of qualified political agency…
 Which recognizes the establishment of a single exec
 All exec and admin orgs are adjuncts of the exec depts
 The heads of various exec depts are assistants and agents of
the chief exec
 And except in cases where the chief exec is required by the
consti or law
 To act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand
that he act personally
 The multifarious exec and admin functions of the chief exec
are performed by and through the exec depts
 And the acts of the secs of such depts performed and
promulgated in the regular course of business
 Unless disapproved or reprobated by chief exec
presumptively the acts of the chief exec
o This doctrine is corollary to the control power of the President provided
in the consti
o Control is said to be the very heart of the power of the presidency
o As head of the exec dept
  The president however may delegate some of his powers to
the Cabinet members except when he is required by the
consti to act in person
 Or the exigencies of the situation demand that he acts
personally
o Members of the Cabinet may act for and in behalf of the president in
certain matters because the president cannot be expected to exercise his
control powers personally all the time
o Each head of a dept is and must be the President’s alter ego
 In the matter of that dept where the President is requires by
law to exercise authority
KMU KILUSANG MAYO UNO, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS- v.
Dir. Gen of NEDA
FACTS
 Case at bar, the petitioners seek the nullification of EO 420
o On the ground that it is unconsti
 EO 420 was issued by President Arroyo
o Requiring all gov agencies and gov owned and controlled corps to
streamline and harmonize their indentification systems and authorizing
for such purpose the director-general, national economic and dev’t
authority to implement the same and for other purposes
 Data to be collected
o Limits the data to be collected and recorded under the uniform ID
system to only 14 specific items
 Name
 Address
 Sex
 Pic
 Signature
 Birthday
 Place of birth
 Marital status
 Name of parents
 Height
 Weight
 2 index fingers and 2 thumbmarks
 Any prominent distinguishing features like mole or other
 TIN
 Under EO 420 the president directs all gov agencies and gov owned and controlled
corps to adopt a uniform data collection
o And format for their existing identification systems
 Petitioners A contend that EO 420 is unconsti because it is an usurpation of
legislative functions by the exec dept
o And it infringes on the citizen’s right to privacy
 Petitioners B alleges that EO 420 is void because it is contrary to law
o Against the decision in Ople v. Torres and violates Social Security Act
of 1997
o Usurped the legislative power of Congress and its implementation will
use public funds not appropriated by Congress for that purpose
o Violates the right to privacy
o Issued without public hearing
o Violates EPC
ISSUE
 Whether EO 420 is an usurpation of legislative power by the President? NO
o Sec 2 of EO 420 – its coverage applies only to gov entities that issue ID
cards as part of their functions under existing laws
o Even prior to EO 420, these gov’t entities have already been issusing ID
cards such as GSIS, SSS, Philhealth, Mayor’s office, LTO, PRC and etc.
o In sec 1 – the purposes of the uniform ID data collection and ID format
are to reduce costs, achieve efficiency and provide convenience to the
people
o Sec 3 – it limits the data to be collected to only 14 specific items which
are the usual data required for personal identification by gov entities
 And even by private secotr
 Contrary EO 420 will reduce the data required in the
databases of the gov entities
 Thus they cannot collect or record data other than the 14
items stated
o A unified ID system can be achieved in either of the 2 ways
 1) heads of the gov entities can enter into a memorandum of
agreement making their systems uniform
 2) president can direct the exec dept to adopt a uniform ID
collection via an exec or admin order
 According to Sec 17 Art 7 provides that the
President shall have control of all exec depts,
bureaus, and offices
 Same section also mandates the President to
ensure that the laws be faithfully executed
o Limitation: only to the exec branch of gov and does not extend to the
judiciary or to the COMELEC
 THUS! EO 420 does not establish a national ID system
because legislation will be necessary in order to be
compulsory for all branches of the gov
 Also the reason why EO 420 does NOT establish a national
ID card system because it does not compel ALL citizens to
have an ID card
o President has not usurped legislative power in issuing EO 420 because it
is only an exercise of exec power
 President’s consti power of control over the exec dept
o EO 420 is also in compliance by the President of the consti duty to
ensure that the laws are faithfully executed
 o Legislative power is the authority to make, alter or repeal laws and the
President merely implemented
 And executed existing laws so EO 420 is simply an executive
issuance and not an act of legislation
o Petition dismissed!
Drilon v. Lim
FACTS
 Principal issue in this case is the consti of Sec 187of the LGC reading as follows:
 Procedure for approval and effectivity of tax ordinances and revenue measures
mandatory public hearings
o The procedure for approval of local tax ordinance and revenue measures
shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code
o Provided that public hearings shall be conducted for the purpose prior to
the enactment thereof
o Any questions on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or
revenues measures may be raised on appeal within 30 days from the
effectivity thereof to the sec of justice who shall render a decision within
60 days from the date or receipt of the appeal
o Provided that such appeal shall not have the effect of suspending the
effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment of the tax, fee
or charge levied therein
o Provided finally that within 30 days after receipt of the decision or the
lapse of the 60 day period without the Sec of Justice acting upon the
appeal, the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with court
of competent jurisdiction
 Pursuant thereto the Sec of Justice had on appeal to him of 4 oil companies and a
taxpayer
o Declared Ordinance No. 7794 otherwise known as the Manila Revenue
Code null and void
o For non-compliance with the prescribed procedure in the enactment of
tax ordinances and for containing certain provisions contrary to law and
public policy
 Judge Palattao of the Manila RTC declared Sec 187 of the LGC unconsti insofar as
it empowered the Sec Justice to review tax ordinances and inferentially to annul
them
 His conclusion was that the challenged section gave to the Sec the power of control
and not of supervision only as vested by the consti in the president
 This was in his view, a violation not only of Art 10 specifically Sec 4 and of Sec 5
on the taxing powers of local govs and the policy of local autonomy in general
 Sec 187 authorizes the Sec of Justice to review only the constitutionality or legality
of the tax ordinance
o And if warranted to revoke it on either or both of these grounds
 When he alters or modifies or sets aside a tax ordinance, he is not also permitted to
substitute his own judgment of the local gov that enacted the measure
ISSUE
 Whether Sec 187 of the Local Gov Code is unconsti? NO
o Sec Drilon did not set aside the Manila Rev Code but he did not replace
it with his own version of what the Code should be
o He did not pronounce the ordinance unwise or unreasonable as a basis
for its annulment
o He did not say that in his judgment it was a bad law
o What he found only was that it was illegal
o All he did in reviewing the said measure was determine if the petitioners
were performing their functions in accordance with law
 That is with the prescribed procedure for the enactment of tax
ordinances and the grant of powers to the city gov under
LGC
o That was an act not of control but of mere supervision
o The supervisor or superintendent merely sees to it that the rules are
followed
 But he himself does not lay down such rules
 Nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them
o If the rules are not observed he may order the work done or re-done but
only to conform to the prescribed rules
o He may not prescribe his own manner for the doing of the act
o He has no judgment on this matter except to see to it that the rules are
followed
o In the opinion of the Court, Sec Drilon did precisely this and no more
nor less than this and so performed an act not of control but of mere
supervision
o Reversing judgment!!!
National Artist for Lit Virgilio Almario v. Exec Sec
FACTS
 President Marcos Proclamation 1001 which created the category of Award and
Declaration of National Artists
o Which would be awarded to Filipino who have made distinct
contribution to the arts and letters
 Fernando Amorsolo was the first national artist
 Proclamation 114 was then issued which amended Proclamation 1001
o And provided for the creation of a National Artists Awards Committee
o Composed of the members of the Board of Trustees of the CCP
 Committee was tasked to draft rules to guide its delibs in the choice of National
Artists
 In 1992, RA 7356 created the National Commission for Culture and Arts (NCCA)
o Which mandate was for the development, promotion and preservation of
the Filipino culture and arts and the Filipino Heritage
 o And one of the specific tasks of NCCA is to extend recognition through
awards and grants to artists and cultural groups
o In connection with this the NCCA is vested with the power to advise the
President on matters pertaining to culture and arts
 Since both BoT of the CCP and the NCCA were tasked with development and
protection of Filipino culture and arts
o They teamed up to administer the National Artists Award wherein which
they promulgated the rule for delibs and selection
 Controversy starts when the petitioners allege that on Jan 30 2007, the NCCA and
CCP had a meeting to evaluate the 2009 order of National Artists and the convening
of the National Artist Award Secretariat
 They submitted a letter of recommendation to the President
o Mr. Manuel Conde – Film and Broadcast Arts
o Dr. Ramon Santos – Music
o Mr. Lazaro Francisco – literature
o Mr. Federico Aguila-Alcuaz – visual arts
 Meanwhile the respondents contend that the letter was received by the office of the
president committee on honors
o But then they also received nominations from various sectors, cultural
groups and individuals endorsing private respondents Cedile, Guidote-
Alvarez, Carlo Magno Jose Caparas, Francisco Manosa, and Jose
Moreno
 The committee on honors submitted a memorandum to the President GMA
recommending the conferment of the order of the national artisits on the 4
recommendees of the NCCA and CCP boards and of private respondents from the
other sectors
 Proclamations were issued declaring Conde, Francisco, Aguila-Alcuaz (NCCA and
CCP recommendations) along with Guidote-Alvarez, Capars, Manosa and Moreno
(private sector recommendations) as national artists
 Petitioners (NCCA) instituted this petition praying that the order of National Artist
be conferred to Dr. Ramon Santos
o And the order of conferment to the private sector recommendations be
rendered in grave abuse of discretion saying that GMA gravely abused
his discretion in disregarding the results of the screening of the NCCA
and CCP
o And substituting her own choices for the conferment of the order of
National Artist
 They argue that the president’s discretion to name National Artists is not absolute
but limited in a manner that it cannot be exercised absent or against the
recommendation of the NCCA and CCP
ISSUE
 Whether the president gravely abused her discretion in disregarding the
recommendations by the NCCA and CCP? YES
o Powers of the NCCA and CCP with respect to the conferment of the
order of national artists is clear
o They jointly administer the said award and upon their recommendation
or advice
 The president confers the order of National Artists
o Power to recommend is persuasive but not binding upon the party to
whom it is made
o President may or may not adopt the recommendations of the board so
their recommendation is subject to the President’s discretion
 But nevertheless the recommendation is not meaningless nor
is the President’s discretion absolute
o Since this discusses discretion the question now is whether it is a
transgression of Sec 17 Art 7 of the cONSTI
 Specifically the faithful execution clause “he shall ensure that
the law be faithfully executed”
o In this case his discretion is with regard to the conferment of the Order
of National Artist
 Which should be done in accordance with the faithful
execution of relevant laws
o Faithful execution clause enforces the principle that non one, not even
the president is above the law
o The law here is with regard to PD 208 Proclamation 1144 and RA 7356
 Which granted them the power to administer the conferment
of the order of National Artist
 And to draft the rules to guide its delibs in the choice of
National Artists
o Both NCCA and CCP have been given the mandate to extend
recognition of artistic achievement through awards, grants and services
 And to advise the President on matters pertaining to culture
and the arts
 Including the creation of a special award
 Committee on honor meanwhile shall serve as a screening committee to ensure that
nominations received from various awards committees meet 2 tests
o 1) not tainted with abuse of discretion in the nomination
o 2) nominations is in good standing
 Should these nominations meet the criteria a recommendation to the president of the
conferment shall be made
 Committee on Honor’s authority is limited to determining whether the nomination
was in good standing
o And if it was not tainted with abuse of discretion
 Discretion of the president in the matter of the order of National Artists should be
confined to the names submitted to him/her by the NCCA and the CCP boards
 President could not have considered the artists endorsed by the various private
sectors
o As they were not amongst those recommended by the NCCA and the
CCP boards
 Petition partly granted! Following are invalid and set aside.
Ocampo v. Enriquez
FACTS
 During the 2016 Presidential Election campaign period, then candidate Duterte
publicly announced the he would allow the burial of Marcos at the Libingan ng
Mga Bayani
 In compliance with the verbal order of President Elect Duterte to implement his
campaign promise
o Sec of National Defense Lorenzana issued to the Chief of Stadd of the
AFP, General Visaya
o A memorandum regarding the planning and pres to facilitate the
interment of Marcos at the LNMB
 AFP Rear Admiral Enriquez issued directives to the Philippine Army General to
provide services, honors and other courtesies for Marcos’ interment at LNMB
o Necessary military honors accorded for a president will also be provided
 Dissatisfies with the issuance, several parties filed petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus
 They argued among other that the interment of Marcos’ remains at LNMB violated
various laws
o And the consti for Marcos’ burial in the LNMB would have an effect of
not just rewriting history as the Fil people’s act of revolting against an
authoritarian ruler
o But also condone the abuses committed during the martial alw
 Hence violating the spirit of the 1987 consti
 Post-dictatorship charter
 Human rights consti
 To support their case they invoked Sec 2,11,13,23,26,27 and 28 of Art 2 among
other provisions of the Consti
 Following petitioners assailed the issuance
o 1) Ocampo et al. as human rights advocates/violation victims
o 2) Saguisag Sr. and his son as members of the Bar and human rights
lawyers
o 3) Lagman as a house rep
o 4) Pargas-Rosales as former chairperson of the CHR and other as vistims
of human rights violations during Marcos’ martial law regime
o 5) Alvarez a former senator who fought to oust Marcos
o 6) Baniaga et. al. as concerned Fil citisens and taxpayers
o 7) Latiph as former chairperson of Regional Human Rights Commission,
ARMM
o 8) De Lima as a member of the Senate
ISSUE
 Whether the assailed memorandum and directive violate the consti, particularly Sec
2,11,13,23,26, 27 and 28 of Art 2? NO
o Issuance did not violate the consti as the office of the Solgen logically
reasoned out
 While the Consti is a product of our collective history as a
people
 Its entirety should not be interprested as providing guiding
principles to just about anything remotely related to the
Martiral Law period
 Such as the proposed Marcos burial at the LNMB
o In Tanada v. Angara – the court already ruled that the provisions in Art 2
OF THE CONSTI ARE NOT SELF-EXECUTING
o Its very title is a declaration of principles and state policies
o The counterpart of this artile in the 1935 consti is called the basic
political creed of the nation by Sinco
o These principles in Art 2 are not intended to be self-executing principles
ready for enforcement through the courts
o They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its
powers of judicial review
 And by the legislature in its enactment of laws
o As held in the leading case of Kilosbayan incrop. Vs. Morato, the
principles and state policies enumerate in Art 2 are not self-executing
provisions
 The disregard of which can give rise to a cause of action in
the courts
o They do not embody judicially enforceable consti rights but guidelines
for legislation
o Moreover, the court held in Basco v. Pagcor that broad consti principles
need legislative enactments to implement them
o Reasons for denying a cause of action an elled infringement of broad
consti princioples are sourced from basic consideration of due process
 And lack of judicial authority to wade into the uncharted
ocean of social and economic making
o President Duterte acted within bounds of the law and jurisprudence
o Petition dismissed
Lansang v. Garcia
FACTS
 Case involves the Plaza Miranda bombing incident on Aug 1971
o Where in the middle of the public meeting conducted by the Liberal
Party
o Two hand grenades were thrown at the platform where the candidates of
LP for the 1971 general elections were held
 8 persons were killed and many more sustained serious injuries which could have
been fatal had it not been for the timely med assistance
 President Marcos issued Proclamation 889 in response to the lawless elements
o Which suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus of the
persons presently detained
 o As well as others who may be thereafter similarly detained for the
crimes of insurrection or rebellion
 Petitions for writ of habeas corpus were then filed by persons who were arrested
without warrant
o And then detained upon the authority of said proclamation
 These petitions assailed the validity of the proclamation and their detention
 Respondents filed their returns stating that the continued detention is justified
pursuant to the proclamation
o That there is a state of insurrection or rebellion
o And that the public safety and security required the suspensions of the
privilege
 President Marcos issued Proclamation 889-A amending the previous proclamation
 It was further amended of Sept 1971 this time lifting the suspension in some of the
provinces and cities
ISSUES
 Was the proclamation formally valid? YES
o Petitioners question the formal validity of the original proclamation that
it did not comply with the pertinent conti provisions
 Namely Par 14 Sec 1 Art 1 and par 2 Sec 10 Art 7 of the
consti
o They maintained that Proclamation 889 did not declare the existence of
actual invasion, insurrection or rebellion or imminent danger therof
o This contention was predicated on its first whereas clause
 Stating lawless elements had entered into a conspiracy
 And have in fact joined and banded their forces together with
the avowed purpose of actually staging, undertaking and
waging an armed insurrection and rebellion
o The actuality so alleged refers to the existence of a conspiracy and the
intent to rise in arms
 Not of an uprising that constitutes the essence of a rebellion
or insurrection
o Court held that regardless of the merit of the said contention
 It has been rendered moot and academic by Proclamation
889-A
 Which reads: lawless elements has entred into a conspiracy
and have in fact joined and banded their forces together with
the avowed purpose of actually staging, undertaking, waging
 And are actually engaged in an armed insurrection
and rebellion
o In other words arpart from adverting to the existence of actually
conspiracy and of the intent to rise in arms to overthrow the gov
 Proclamation 889-A asserts that the lawless elements are
actually engaged in an armed insurrection and rebellion to
accomplish their purpose
o Proclamation 899-A has superseded the original proclamation and that
the flaws attributed there to are purely formal in nature
 Are the findings of the executive as to the basis for suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus conclusive upon the Court? NO
o Pursurant to the consti, 2 conditions must concur for the valid exercise
of the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ
 1) must be an invasion, insurrection or rebellion or imminent
danger
 2) public safety must require the suspension of the privilege
o Court held that it has authority to inquire into the existence of said
factual basis in order to determine the consti sufficiency
o Art 7 of the consti vests in the exec the power to suspend the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus under specified conditions
o What goes hand in hanf with the system of checks and balances under
which the exec is supreme
 As regards the suspensions of the privilege
 But only if and when he acts within the sphere allotted to him
by the Basic Law
 And the authority to determine whether he as so acted is
vested in the judicial depts
 Which in this respect in consti supreme
o Function of the court is merely to check the exec or to ascertain merely
whether he had gone beyond the consti limits of his jurisdiction
o It is neither to exercise the power vestedin him not to determine the
wisdom of his act
o Petitioners contend that public safety did not require the suspension of
the privilege based on the following grounds
 That there is no rebellion
 That prior to and at the time suspension of the privilege – the
gov has been functioning normally
 That no untoward incident has actually taken place after Aug
21 1971
 That the president’s alleged apprehension is non-existent and
unjustifies
 That the communist forces in the PH are too small and weak
to jeopardize the public safety
o Court however stated that the existence of rebellion is obvious
o Alleged absence of untoward incident after Aug 21 is attributable to the
logical effect of the suspension of the privilege of the writ
 To compel those connected with the rebellion or insurrection
to into hiding
o Records also show that the president had received intelligence info that
there was a July-Aug plan involving a wave of assassinations,
kidnappings, terrorism and mass destruction of property
 And an extraordinary occurrence would signal the beginning
of said event
o Moreover, the serious condition of peace and order situation in
Mindanao and the expansion of CCP activities from central Luzon to
other parts of the country
 Required the armed forces to be spread
 o Based on such date, the Court held that the exec did not act arbitrarily or
gravely abused its discretion when the President concluded that public
safety and national security required the suspension of the privilege of
the writ
o Petition dismissed!
David v. Arroyo
FACTS
 As the nation celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Edsa People Power I
o President Arroyo issued PP 1017
o And GO No. 6 to implement it
 During the state of national emergency, protesters were arrested and warrantless
searches were conducted in the office of the Daily Tribune and Malaya
 Reasons that the President stated for declaring the general order to implement the
PP were that over the past several months
o Elements in political opposition have conspired with extreme leftists
represented by NDF-CCP-NPA
o And military adventurists
 This presented a clear danger to the president as political opposition tried to oust
her and take over the gov
 SolGen defended the basis of President Arroyo for declaring PP 1017
o Was that the intent of the consti was to give the president the fill
discretionary powers in determining the necessity to call out the AFP
 Notwithstanding the SG’s contentions
o Magdalo group instigated the Oakwood mutiny and wearing of red
bands on their arms to show disgust
 Simultaneously, Oplan Hackle I (plans of bombings and attacks on the PMA alumni
homecoming in Baguio
o Where President was invited
o Plans were discovered
 Next morning, after the discovery of the plan, a bomb was discovered in the campus
 Also, info was intercepted by PNP Chief Arturo Lomibao
o Regarding PNP-SAF members that are planning to defect from the
Arroyo admin
o Along with Congressman Peping Cojuangco – who planned out moves
to bring down said admin
 A large number of soldiers joined the rallies as critical mass and armed components
to anti-arroyo protests
 Another factual bases after the issuance of the PP and GO was the bombings of
telephone communication towers and cell sites
o In Bulacan and bataan
 These events shows a clear and present critical situation
o Leading the president to cancel all events related to EDSA People Power
I o
 Exec sec. Mike Arroyo declared that warrantless arrest and takeover of facilities can
be implemented
 Randy David – journalist and UP Prof
o Due to the mistake of fact that he was a participant in the street rallies
 Also! Cong. Crispin Beltran – rep of Anakpawis
 Following facilities were taken over:
o Seizure of daily tribune
o Malaya and Abante (local news publications)
 Was done according to the PNP to shows a strong presence to tell media outlets not
to connive or help out rebels to take down the gov
ISSUE
Ampatuan v. DILG Sec Puno
FACTS
 A day after the Maguindanao Massacre (57 men and women died)
 President Arroyo issued proclamation 1946
 Proclamation placed the provinces of Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat and
Cotabato city under a state of emergency
 President directed the AFP and the PNP to undertake such measures allowed by the
consti
o And by law to prevent and suppress all incident of lawless violence
 President issued Admin Order 273 transferring supervision of the autonomous
region of Muslim Mindanao from the office of the president to the dept of interior
and local gov (DILG)
 President issued AO273-A amending A0273 changing the term transferring to
delegated
 Petitioners, ARMM official (Ampatuan, Adiong and Sahali-Generale) allege that
proclamation 1946 and AO 273 & 273-A empowered the DILG sec control over the
ARMM officials
o Since it could suspend them and would be inviolation of the principle of
local autonomy under the expanded ARMM act
 Petitioners also claim that there is no factual basis for declaring a state of
emergency in Sultan Kudarat and Cotabato
o Since no critical incidents occurred in those areas
 The deployment of troop and take-over of ARMM is in invalid exercise of the
presiden’ts emergency power
ISSUE
 Did President Arroyo invalidly exercise emergency powers when she called out the
AFP and the PNP to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence in
Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and Cotabato? NO
o Deployment is not an exercise of emergency power as contemplated in
Sec 23(2) of Art 6
 Looks at it at a national level
o The president only proclaimed the 3 places in state of emergency and
not a state of national emergency
Calling out powers to prevent or suppress lawless violence is a power
that is directly vested to the president
  Did the president have factual basis for her actions?
o President called on the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence
 This power comes from Art 7 Sec 18
o President shall be th commander-in-chief of all armed forced of the PH
 And whenever it becomes necessary he may call out such
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion
o Court may inquire into the factual basis but would generally defer to the
judgment of the president
o Petitioners failed to show that the declaration of a state of emergency
and the calling out powers had no factual basis
o OSG provided the factual basis for the president’s decision
o There is imminent violence and anarchy at the time of the proclamation
o To pacify the peoples fear the president had to take preventive action
o She has to control the proliferation of loose firearms and dismantle the
armed groups
o Since the petitioners were unable to prove that there is no factual basis
 Court must respect the president’s decision
o Petition dismissed!
Kulayan v. Tan
FACTS
 3 members of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) were
kidnapped by 3 armed men
o Who were confirmed as members of the Abu Sayaf group (ASG)
 Due to the said kidnapping of
o Notter
o Vagni
o Lacaba
o Who were all members of the ICRC
 The Sulu Crisis management
o Headed by Governor Mahail
o Subsequently created the Civilian Emergency Forces
 Embodied in the memorandum of understanding
o Are the intents and purposes of the said creation which was for the main
purpose of the prevailing situation in Sulu
o As well as the willingness of the civilian supported to offer their services
to rescue the hostages
 Puno (sec of DILG) confirmed that the gov troops have already cornered the said
military group
o But was forced to pull back due to the threat of the ASG of beheading
one of its hostages
 This instance triggered Gov. Tan to issue proclamation No. 1 Series of 2009
o Declaring a state of emergency in the province
o Due to the terrorist act of kidnapping of the ASG
o And the need of the carrying out of emergency measures
 The proclamation included the setting up of checkpoints and chokepoints, general
searches and seizures and other public safety measures
 Due to the implementation of the said proclamation several alleged ASG supports
were held under the custody of the local gov
o This petition filed by respondents Kulayan, Tulawei, Mohammad Yusop
Ismi, Awadi and Jadjuli
ISSUE
 Whether there was a grave abuse of discretion resulting to excess in jurisdiction on
the part of the governor in enacting the proclamation to declare a state of
emergency in his territory? YES
o Court ruled in favor of petitioners primarily due to the consti grant to the
president who is the ONLY authority to exercise emergency powers
o Court said – citing Villena v. Sec of Interior that there is only on an exec
and commander in chief
o That the exec powers shall be vested upon
o The court considered the President as the nation’s supreme military
leader
o While the president is still a civilian Art 2 of Sec 3 of the consti
 Mandates that civilian authority is at all times supreme over
the military
 Making the civilian president the nation’s supreme military
leader
o Considering the claims of the respondents, the court answered the issued
in reference to the provisions of the LGC
o Provincial Gov according to the Court
 Does not have the same powers of the president
 Resulting to an excess of his authority as a governor
o Also the court contended that Art 465 of the LGC could not be applied
since the kidnapping incident is not in the ambit of the definition of
calamities and disasters
 Which was provided in the above-mentioned provision
o The intent behind the powers granted under 465 of the LGC is fiscal,
economical and admin in nature
o To clarify, a local chief exec or at the case at bad the Gov
 May however exercise his supervision only over the local
police
o This authority however shall be limited to those undertakings
operational in nature
Lagman v. Medialdea
Diego v. People
FACTS
 Petitioner San Diego has been and accountant of Obando Fisherman’s Multi-
purpose cooperative inc. (cooperative)
 She is in charge of accounting all business transactions and performed functions of
cashier, teller, granted loans and id check discounting and trading
 She recorded and reported cash in bank transactions and summarized them
o Entrusted with pre-signed checks and authorized to fill in the details
 Petitioner acted as a cashier when Teresita Gonzales was on maternity leave
 And acted as a teller when Ocampo was on her honeymoon
 On both occasions, she had complete access to the cash vaults and filing cabinet of
the cooperative
o Where its documents were kept
 Petitioner stopped reporting for work
 Correa, the GM of the cooperative asked Dimapilis, the bookkeeper, to prepare
bank book balance on cash transactions
o During the day in order to establish the accountability of San Diego
o By comparing the cash position she prepared against the balances of the
bank
 They reconciled the cash positions with the bank balances and found a discrepancy
amounting to PHP 6M
o San Diego’s report Php 9M while the audited figure was Php 3M
o The savings account passbooks and bank statements were missing
o Criminal charges were then filed against San Diego for qualified theft
o RTC sentenced her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for 40
years without pardon
 With accessory penalties of death under Art 40 fo the RPC
 And to indemnify the Cooperative in the amount of Php 6 M
o Petitioner filed her appeal with the SC
o Appeal was transmitted to the CA for indeterminate review
o CA then affirmed the decision of the RTC
o CA modified that petitioner indemnify the cooperative in the amount of
Php 2M
o Peititoner filed a petition for review seeking to set aside the decision and
resolution of the CA
 Which affirmed the decision of the RTC
o San Diego mainly alleged that there is failure to prove her guilts beyond
reasonable doubt
ISSUE
 Whether the RTC can impose a penalty which would preclude pardon? NO
o Sentenced the petitioner reclusion perpetua without pardon
o Court cannot impose a penalty that would limit the power of the
president
o The exercise of the pardoning power is discretionary in the president
 And may not be controlled by the legislature or reversed by
the court
 Except when it contravenes the limitations set forth by the
consti
o Thus in this case, the Court held that the penalty of reclusion perpetua
for 40 years without pardon imposed by the lower court and affirmed by
the CA
 Must be modified for such penalty would be a limitation on
the part of the power of the president
o Petition denied but affirmed modification!
Llamas v. Orbos
FACTS
 Petitioner maintains that sometimes in Aug 1988, respondent governor, his official
capacity as Governor of Tarlac, entered into and executed a loan agreement with
Lingkod Tarlac Foundation Inc.
o A non-stock and non-profit org headed by the governor himself as
chariman
o Controlled by his brother-in-law as exec director, trustee and sec
 That the loan was never authorized and approved by the Provincial Board in direct
contravention of the provisions of the LGC
o That the said loan agreement was never authorized and approved by the
Provincial Board
 In direct contravention of the provisions of the LGC
 That the said agreement is wholly one-sided in favor of the
Foundation
 And grossly inimical to the interest of the Provincial
Government
 Because it did not provide for interest or for any type security
 And it did not provide for suretyship and comptrollership or
audit to control the safe disbursement of said loan
 That a total amount of Php 20 M was disbursed to the
aforesaid foundation
 Sec. of Local Gov rendered a decision
 Governor Mariano Un Ocampo III is found guilty
 Feb 26, public respondent exec sec issued a resolution dismissing respondent
governor’s appeal
o And affirming the Sept 21, 1990 DLG decision
 Petitioner took his oath of office as acting governor
 Under the admin suspension order, petitioner had up to may 31, 1991 as acting gov
 On the same date, respondent governor moved for a reconsideration of exec sec’s
resolution
o To which petitioner filed an opposition
 After serving 60 days of his suspension
o And that the public respondent believing that the governor wanted to
accelerate the development
 o And there was no direct benefit to him the loans that were given out,
public respondent issued Governor Mariano Un Ocampo III is granted
exec clemency
o His 90 days suspension is reduced to the period already served
 Petitioner’s main argument is that the president may grant exec clemency only in
crim cases based on Art 7 Sec 19 of the consti
o Only after conviction by final judgement
ISSUE
 Whether pardon is applicable to admin cases? YES
o SEC 63: Preventive suspension
 1) Preventive suspension may be imposed by the minister of
local government if the respondent is a provincial or city
official
 2) preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after
the issued are joined when there is reasonable ground to
believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts
complained of, when the evidence of culpability is strong,
when the gravity of the offense warrants, or when the
continuance in the office of the respondent could influence
the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity the
records and other evidence
 In all cases, preventive suspension shall not extend beyond
60 days after the start of said suspension
 3) at the expiration of 60 days, the suspended official shall be
deemed reinstated in office without prejudice to the
continuation the proceedings against him until his
termination
o The issue on jursidictions while it is true that courts cannot inquire into
the manner in which the president’s discretionary powers are exercised
or into the wisdom for its exercise
 It is also a settled rule that when the issue involved concerns
the validity of such discretionary powers
 Or whether said powers are within the limits prescribed by
the consti
 We will not decline to exercise our power of judicial review
o According to the petitioner, the qualifying phrase after conviction by
final judgment
 Applies solely to crim case and no other law allows the grant
of exec clemency or pardon to anyone who was been
convicted in ad admin case
 Allegedly because the word conviction refers only to crim
cases
o Statutory construction rule if the law does not distinguish, so we must
not distinguish
o The consti does not distinguish between which cases exec clemency may
be exercised by the president
 With the sole exclusion of impeachment cases
o By the same token, if exec clemency may be exercised only in crim
cases
 It would indeed by unnecessary to provide for the exclusion
of impeachment cases from the coverage of Art 7 Sec 19
o It is our considered view that if the President can grant reprieves,
commutations and pardons,
 And remit fines and forfeitures in crim cases
 With much more reason can she grant exec clemency in
admin cases which are clearly less serious than crim cases
o Other laws also attest to the President’s power of exec clemency – under
Sec 43. Of PD 807 in meritorious cases the president may commute or
remove admin penalties or disabilities issued upon officers and
employees
 In disciplinary cases subject to such terms and conditions as
he may impose the interest of the service
o It is evident from the intent of the consti commission that the president’s
exec clemency powers may be not limited in term of coverage except as
already provided in the consti
o In admin cases, compared to crim
 The quantum of evidence required is mere substantial
evidence to support a decision
 Not to mention that as to the admissibility of evidence, admin
bodies are not bound by the technical and rigid rules of
admissibility prescibred by crim cases
o It will thus be unjust and unfair for those found guilt administratively of
some charge if the same effects of pardon or exec clemency cannot be
extended to them
o To stress however that when we say the president can grant exec
clemency in the admin cases
 We refer only to all admin cases in the exec branch not in the
judicial or legislative branches of the gov
Torres v. Cristobal
FACTS
 Petitioner was convicted of the estafa
o Sentenced to prison
 President granted the petitioner a conditional pardon
o To not against violate any of the penal laws of the PH
 Board of Pardons and Parole would recommend to the President the cancellation of
the parole after finding out the at petitioner had been charged with the ff
o 1) 20 counts of estafa on 2 dates
o 2) previously convicted of sedition
o 3) committed estafa, other forms of swindling, grave threats, grave
coercion, illegal possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives,
malicious mischief, violation of BP Blg. 22
  And violation of PD 772 (interfering with police functions)
for the past 20 years
 Order of arrest was made and petitioner was sent to the National Penitentiary in
Muntinlupa
 Petitioner is now questioning the validity of the order
o Claiming that he did not violate the conditions since a final judgment of
the crimes he was charged was yet to be made
ISSUE
 Whether a conviction by final judgment of a court is necessary before the petitioner
can be validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms of his
conditional pardon? NO
o This issue has been resolved 3 times prior to the case at bar
o The rulings of Tesoro v. Director of Prisons, Sales v. Director of Prisons
and Espuelas v. Provincial Warden of Bohol can be summarized
o 1) grant of pardon and determination of the terms and conditions of a
conditional pardon are purely exec
 Not subject to judicial scrutiny
o 2) determination of the occurrence of a breach of a condition of a pardon
and the proper consequences of such breach may be either a purely exec
act, not subject to judicial scrutiny under sec 64 of the revised admin
code
 Or it may be a judicial act consisting of trial for and
conviction of violation of a conditional pardon under Art 159
of the revised penal code
 Where the president opts to proceed under Sec 64(i) of the
revised admin code
 a judicial pronouncement of guilt of a subsequent crime is no
longer necessary
o 3) because due process in not semper et unique judicial process
 And because the conditionally pardoned convict had already
been accorded judicial due process in his trial and
convictions for the offense for which he was conditionally
pardoned
 Sec 64(i) of the revised admin code is not violative of the due
process clause
People v. Casido
FACTS
 In 1992, President Ramos constituted the Presidential Committee of the grant of
Bail, Release or Pardon
o To establish guidelines for the grant of bail, release or pardon of persons
detained or convicted of crimes against national security and public
order and violation of the articles of war
 The president later amended the guidelines and incorporated that those charged or
convicted of common crimes
o Provided that they establish sufficient evidence that they committed any
of the crimes enumerated in the guidelines
o They may apples for bail, release or pardon under the guidelines
 In an effort to seek their release at the earliest possible time, Casido and Alcorin
o Members of the NPA who killed Victoriano Mapa due to their poitical
beliefs
o Filed apps for pardon before the PCGBRP
o And apps for amnesty with the National Amnesty Commission pursuant
to the contention that amnesty, unlike pardon may be granted before or
after the institution of the crim prosecution
 Subsequently they were granted conditional pardon
 HOWEVER! PCGBRP failed to verify if the accused had withdrawn their appeal
 Thus in 1996, the Court resolved to declare that the conditional pardon was void for
having been extended during pendency of their appeal or before the conviction of
final judgment
 HOWEVER! Prior to said resolution, NAC favorably acted on Casio and Alcorin’s
apps for amnesty
 Thus this petition
ISSUE
 Whether the grant of amnesty is valid and thus the released the accused is justified?
YES
o Court ruled amnesty was valid
o Casido and Alcorin were validly released
o Pardon in this case was void for having been extended during the
pendency of the appeal or before conviction by final judgment
 In violation of the 1st par of Sec 19 art 7
o The grant of amnesty for which Casido and Alcorin voluntarily applied
for under Proclamation 347
 Which created NAC was valid
o Such proclamation was concurred by both houses of Congress
o Court resolved that the released of the accused appellants Casio and
Alcorin was valid solely on the ground of amnesty granted to them
o This case is dismissed with costs de officio
Cristobal v. Labrador
FACTS
 The Court of First Instance of Rizal found Santo, respondent, guilty of estafa
 He was confined in the provincial jail of Pasig
o And the paid the corresponding costs of trial
 Santos continued to be a registered elector in the municipality of Malabon Rizal
 o And was for the period comprised between 1934 and 1937 seated as the
municipal president of that municipality
 Commonwealth Act 357, known as the election code
o Was approved by the national assembly sec 94 par b
o Of which disqualifies the respondent from voting for having been
declared by final judgment guilty of any crime against property
 In view of this provision, the respondent forthwith applied to his excellency, the
president for an absolute pardon
 President granted said petition restoring the respondent to his “full civil and
political rights, except that with respect to the right to hold public office or
employment , he will be eligible for appointment only to positions which are
clerical or manual in nature and involving no money or property responsibility
 Petitioner, Cristobal filed a petition for the exclusion of the name of Santos from
the list of voters since he was already disqualified by CA 357
 He contends that because of legislative action of CA 357, said person cannot be
granted by President pardon in terms of political rights
ISSUE
 Whether the pardoning power exercised here would amount to an unlawful exercise
of the President of a legislative function? NO
o Should be observed that there are 2 limitation upon the exercise of the
consti prerog of the president
 1) that the power be exercised after conviction
 2) that such power does not extend to cases of impeachment
o Subject to the limitation imposed by the consti
 The pardoning power cannot be restricted or controlled by
legislative action
o It must remain where the sovereign authority has placed it and must be
exercised by the highest authority to whom it is entrusted
o An absolute pardon not only blots out the crime committed but removes
all disabilities resulting from the conviction
o In this case, the disability is the result of the conviction without which
there would be no basis for disqualification from voting
o Imprisonment is not the only punishment which the law imposes upon
those who violates its command
o There are accessory and resultant disabilities
 And the pardoning power likewise extends to such left of the
consequences of convictions
o While the pardon extended to respondent Santos is conditional in the
sense that he will be eligible for appointment only to position which are
clerical or manual in nature involving no money or property
responsibility
 It is absolute insofar as it restores the respondent to full civil
and political rights
o The suggestion that the disqualification imposed in the election does not
fall within the purview of the pardoning power of the chied exec
 Would lead to the impairment of his pardoning power
 Not contemplated in the consti
 And would lead furthermore to the result that there would be
no way of restoring the political privilege in a case of this
nature except through legislative action
Monsanto v. Factoran
FACTS
 In 1983, Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner Monsanto
o Who was then treasurer of Calbayog City, Samar
o Along with 3 others of the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of
public documents
 They were sentenced to imprisonment of 4 years, 2 months and 1 days of prision
correctional as min
o And 10 years and 1 day of prison mayor as mayor as max
o And to pay a fine od Php 3,500
 They were also ordered to pay an indemnity of Php 4, 892.50
o Representing the balance of amount defrauded to the gov
o Such costs are paid proportionately
 While Monsanto moved for reconsideration to the SC
o President Marcos extended an absolute pardon
 Monsanto accepted the pardon
 By reason of pardon, Monsanto requested to the Calbayog city treasurer that she be
restored to her former post since it was still vacant
 Monsanto’s request was referred to the ministry of finance
 Ministry then ruled that Monsanto be reinstated to her position without necessity of
a new appointment
o Not earlier than the date she was extended the absolute pardon
 HOWEVER! She was still directed to pay indemnity of Php 4k
 Thus she moved for an MR
 When the ministry of finance referred Monsanto’s letter to the office of the
president
o The office thru deputy exec Factoran jr. held that Monsanto is not
entitled to an automatic reinstatement
 Instead! Monsanto must secure an appointment to her former position
 She was also still civilly liable to pay the indemnity
 Thus Monsanto filed a petition to the SC
ISSUE
 Whether Monsanto’s conviction was final? YES
o 1981 amendments to the 1973 consti deleted the earlier rule that
clemency could only be extended upon final conviction, implying that
clemency could be given even before conviction
o However! In 1987 consti restored the former limitation
  Clemency can only be given after final conviction
o However it is not material when the pardon was bestowed to Monsanto
 For the result would be the same
o Having accepted the pardon, Monsanto is deemd to have abandoned her
appeal
 And her unreversed conviction by the Sandiganbayan became
final
 Whether Monsato is entitled to be reinstated to the position of assistant treasurer?
NO
o Monsanto argues that she was pardoned before the finality of judgment
o Thus the accessory penalty for forfeiture of office
 Which accompanied the principal penalty did not attach and
that her employment status remained suspended
o Thus Marcos’ pardon had the effect of acquitting her since there was no
offense to speak of
o HOWEVER! It must be remembered that Monsanto was convicted and
sentence to imprisonment of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision
correctional as min
 To 10 days and 1 day or prision mayor as max
 And to pay a fine of Php 3.5k
o The penalty of prision mayor carries the accessory penalties of
temporary absolute disqualification and perpetual special
disqualification
 From the right of suffrage, enforceable during the term of the
principal penalty
o Temporary absolute disqualification bars her from public office or
employment
o Even if Mosanto is pardoned, the accessory penalties remain unless
expressly remitted by the pardon
o Penalty of prision correccional carries suspension from office as
accessory penalty
o Pardon implies guilts
o It involves forgiveness and not forgetfulness
o Pardon also looks to the future and it no retrospective
o Thus even if Monsanto was pardoned
 She is not entitled to receive backpay for lost earnings and
benefits
o While a pardon may remit all the penal consequences of a crim
indictment
 A pardon should not be circumscribed by legislative action
o The court does not subscribe to the belief that pardon blots out an
individual’s guilt and treats the pardoned as if he is innocent
o Thus!!! Pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted felon to public
office
 Necessarily relinquished or forfeited by reason of conviction
if such pardon restore his eligibility for appointment to that
office
o Since public office is a public trust
 It cannot be compromised to favor private interests
o A pardon even if full and plenary cannot preclude the appointing power
 From refusing appointment to anyone deemed to be of bad
moral character
o In Monsanto’s case – absolute disqualification or ineligibility from
public office forms part of the punishment prescribed by the revised
penal code for estafa
 Through falsification of public documents
o Although she is yet qualified for public office
 She has to apply for reappointment to the said public office
which she lost by reason of conviction
o The pardon only removed her disqualification from holding public
appointment
 But she still has to undergo the usual procedure for a new
appointment
o Petition dismissed!
Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Sandiganbayan convicted former president Estrada for the crime of plunder
 HOWEVER! Then president GMA using her power exec clemency, pardoned
Estrada
 In the text of pardon – states that “he is hereby restored to his civil and political
rights”
 This pardon was received and accepted by Estrada
 After 2 years, Estrada filed his COC for position of president
o This gave rise to many petitioners urging the COMELEC to deny and
cancel his COC
 HOWEVER! The COMELEC dismissed the petitions because the pardon granted to
Estrada restored his right to vote and be voted for in public office
 Estrada once again filed a COC for the position of Mayor in Manila
 Also gave rise to many petitions urging the COMELEC to deny and cancel his COC
o However! COMELEC dismissed the petitions because the pardon
granted to Estrada restored his right to vote and be voted for in public
office
 In 2012, Estrada once against he filed a COC for Manila
o Gave rise to the petition of Risos-Vidal against Estrada
 She alleged that Estrada is disqualified to run for office because he was convicted
of plunder
o And the penalty for it was reclusion perpetua with perpetual absolute
disqualification
 Risos-Vidal even cited Sec 40 og the LGC and Sec 12 of the Omnibus election code
o Which states that those who have been convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude are disqualified to run for office
o Unless they were given pardon or amnesty by the chief exec
 While the case was pending in court
 o Estrada was elected as the mayor of Manila
 Lim then motioned to intervene also alleging that the pardon given to Estrada failed
to expressly remit his perpetual absolute disqualification
o Because it was not stated in the pardon letter
 Risos-Vidal also cited Art 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code
o Saying that such provisions clearly mandates that for the pardon to also
extinguish the accessory penalties
o It must expressly state which civil and political rights are restored
 According to the respondents , the grant of pardon restored his right to run for any
public office
o Because it was expressly stated in the pardon couched in the terms “civil
and political rights”
 They also argued that the factual findings of public respondent COMELEC were
binding
 Also said that the revised penal code cannot abridge or diminish the pardoning
power of the president expressly granted by the consti
ISSUE
 Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling that former
president Estrada is qualified to vote and be voted in public office as a result of the
pardon granted to him by former president Arroyo?
o In Sec 19 Art 7 of the 1987 consti, specifically gives the president the
power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons and remit fines and
forfeitures
 After the conviction by final judgment
o Also stated in that provisions that he can grant amnesty with the
concurrence of a majority of all the members of Congress
o Sec 5 Art 9-C states that the president cannot exercise his exec clemency
for violations of elections laws, rules and regulations
 Without favorable recommendation from the COMELEC
o ALSO! According to jurisprudence, the Court has always regarded the
exercise of pardoning power as fully discretionary on the President
 And cannot be interfered with by the legislative branch or
judicial branch of gov
o Art 36 and 41 of the RPC should be interpreted as to not abridge or
diminish the exclusive power of the president
 To pardon persons convicted of violating penal statutes
o It should be interpreted in a way that will give full effect to the power of
the president to grant exec clemency
o Petitioners interpretation of the said provisions defeats or unduly
restricts the power of the president
o The court is satisfied that the phrase in the pardon letter substantially
complied with the requirement of expressly restoring Estrada’s right to
vote
 And right to be voted by the phrase is hereby restores to his
civil and political rights
o To justify that the term civil and political rights covers the right to be
voted and the right to vote
 The court cited Sec.5 of RA 9225
 ALSO cited the International Covenant on Civil and Political
rights
o Petition for certiorari and petition in intervention are dismissed
Hontiveros v. Baraquel
Landbank v. Atlanta
FACTS
 LBP went into a loan agreement with international bank for reconstruction and
development (IBRD)
o For the implementation of IBRD’s “support for strategic local dev and
investment project”
 One of the conditions of the agreement is that LBP must have a subsidiary loan
agreement (SLA) with 2 local gov units
 LBP later entered into an SLA with the City gov of Iligan to finance the dev and
expansion of the city’s water supply system
 SLA expressly states it will follow the procurement guidelines provided by the
IBRD
 Through the city’s Bidding and Awards Committee (BAC) – they conducted a
public bidding for the supply and delivery of various pipes and fittings
 First bidding was deemed a failure due to the IBRD’s non concurrence with the Bid
Evaluation Report
 Second attempt Atlanta Inc, one of the bidders, called the attention of the BAC by
claiming that they are not conforming with the 3rd edition of the PH Bidding
documents for the procurement of goods (PBDs)
o As prescribed by the gov procurement policy board (GPPB)
o And the IRR RA 9184
 BAC countered by stating that the project is not covered by RA 9184 or by the
GPPB since it was from the loan agreement between LBP and IBRD
 Manila RTC ruling
o Court declared that the bidding was null and void
o City gov of Iligan cannot claim exemption by virtue of the loan
agreement from IBRD
o Because it was LBP not the city gov which was a party to the agreement
ISSUE
 Whether the Manila RTC has jurisdiction over the instant prohibition case and the
issuance of the writ prayed for? NO
o Manila RTC should not have issued the write of prohibition because it is
already deemed beyond the bounds of its territorial jurisdiction
 o Considered null and void
 Whether the SLA between the LandBank and city of Iligan is an exec agreement
similar to the loan agreement 4833-PH such that I should be deemed exempted from
the application of RA 9184? YES
o Loan agreement 4833-PH expressly provided that the procurement of the
goods to be financed from the loan proceeds hall be in accordance with
the IBRD guidelines
o Provisions of schedule 4 and that the accessory SLA contract merely
follows its principal’s terms and conditions
o The procedure for competitive public bidding under RA 9184
 Finds no app to the procurement of good for Iligan city water
supply system dev and expansion proj
o Validity of similar stipulations in foreign loan agreements requiring the
observance of IBRD procurement guideline in the procurement process
had been previously upheld by the court
o SLA cannot be treated as a separate and independent contract
 Instead it is one that is in conjunction or of relation in
occurrence with loan agreement 4833-PH
o Must be treated similarly to the principal contract that it is attached to
with the reasoning that the SLA, as a supplement, cannot even exist
independently from the loan agreement (principal)
o Manila RTC was reversed and set aside
Gonzales v. Hechanova
FACTS
 Exec Sec. Hechanova authorized the importation of 67k tons of foreign rice to be
purchased from private sources
o And created a rice procurement committee to implement the importation
 Gonzales – a rice planter – and president of the Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters
Assoc whose members are engaged in production of rice and corn
o Filed this petition claiming in making/allowing the importation for rice
 Hechanova et al are acting without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction because
RA 3451 (amending RA 2207) explicitly prohibits importation of rice and corn
o By the rice and corn admin or any other gov agency
 Hechanova et al argued that the proposed importation is not governed by RA
3452/2207
o But was authorized by the President as Commander-in-chief for military
stock pile purposes
o In exercise of his alleged authority under Sec 2 of Commonwealth Act 1
 In cases of necessity, the President or his subordinate may take such preventive
measure for the restoration of good order and maintenance of peace
 As commander-in-chief, the president is duty bound to prepare for the challenge of
threat of war or emergency
o Without waiting for any special authority
 Philippines has already entered into 2 contract for the purchase of rice
o One with Vietnam
o And with Burma
 These constitute valid executive agreement under international law
 They are binding and effective upon signing thereof by the parties’ reps
 In case of conflict between RA 2270 & 3452 and the contracts
o The contracts should prevail because the conflict must be resolves in
favor of the one which is latest in point of time
ISSUE
 Are the contracts to import valid exec agreements? NO
o Court not satisfied that the status of said tracts as alleged exec
agreements has been sufficiently established
o The parties to said contracts do not seem to have regarded the same as
exec agreements
o But even assuming that said contract may properly be considered as exec
agreements
 The same are unlawful and null and void from a consti
viewpoint
 Said agreements being inconsistent with the provision of RA
2207 and 3452
o Although the president may, under the American consti system enter
into exec agreements with previous legislative authority
 He may not by exec agreement enter into a transaction which
is prohibited by statutes enacted prior
o Under the consti, the main function of the exec is to enforce laws
enacted by congress
o Exec may not interfere in the performance of the legislative powers of
the latter
 Except in the exercise of his veto power
o He may not defeat legislative enactments that have acquired the status of
law
 By indirectly repealing that same through an exec agreement
 Providing for the performance of the very act prohibited by
said laws
o The American theory to the effect that in the event of conflict between a
treaty and a statute
 The one which is latest in point of time shall prevail
 In not applicable to the case at bar for respondents not only
admit but also insist that the contracts adverted to are not
treaties
o Said theory may be justified upon the ground that treaties to which the
US is a signatory require advice and consent of its Senate
 And thus a branch of the legislative dept
o No such justification can be given as regard to exec agreements not
authorized by previous legislation
 Without completely upsetting the principle of separation of
powers
  And systems of checks and balances which are fundamental
in our consti set up and that of the US
 Can congress void international agreements? YES
o Consti of the PH has clearly settled it in the affirmative
o Providing Sec 2 of Art 8 that the SC may not be deprived of its
jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirms on appeals,
certiorari or write of error as the law or the rules of court may provide
final judgments and decrees of inferior courts
o 1) all cases in which the consti or validity of any treaty, law ordinance or
exec order or reg is in question
o In other words our consti authorizes the nullification of a treaty not only
when it conflict with the fundamental law
o But also when it runs counter to an act of Congress
Vinuya v. Romulo
FACTS
 Vinuya et. al were all members of the Malaya Lolas Org
o Established for the purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape by
Japanese military forces in the PH during WWII
 Petitioner argues that
o 1) the general waiver of claims made by the PH gov in the Treaty of
Peace with Japan is void
o 2) they claim that the comfort women system established by Japan
o And the brutal rape and enslavement of petitioners constituted a crime
against humanity, sexual slavery and torture
o 3) they allege that the prohibition against these international crimes is
jus cogens norms
o From which no derogation is possible
o As such as in waiving the claims of Filipina comfort women and failing
to espouse their complaints against japan
o The PH gov is in breach of its legal obligation not to afford impunity for
crimes against humanity
o 4) Petitioner assert that the PH gov’s acceptance of the apologies made
by Japan as well as funds from the Asian Women’s Fund (AWF) were
contrary to international law
 Exec Sec Romulo et. al. maintain that
o 1) all claims of the PH and its national relative to the war were dealt
with in San Fo peace treaty of 1951 and the bilateral reparations
agreement of 1956
o 2) in addition, RES argue that the apologies made by Japan have been
satisfactory
o 3) that Japan had addressed the individual claims of women through
atonement money paid by the AWF
ISSUE
 Whether Romulo is ultra vires in refusing to espouse the claims of the PET for the
crimes against humanity and war crimes committed against them and can the Court
compel respondent Romulo to espouse petitioner’s claims for official apology and
other forms of reparation against Japan before the ICJ and other tribunals? NO
o Issue is political in nature
o It is not within SC power to order the exec dept to take up the
petitioner’s cause
o SC only had power in this regard is to urge and exhort the exec dept to
take up petitioner’s cause
o Jurisdiction over such issues of international scope lies with the exec
dept
 Particularly the chief exec
o As a general principle where such extraordinary length of time has
lapsed between the treaty’s conclusion and our consideration
 The exec must be given ample discretion to assess the foreign
policy consideration of espousing a claim against japan
 From the standpoint of both interests of the petitioners and
those of the Republic
 And decide on that basis if apologies are sufficient
 And whether further steps are appropriate or necessary
o The president is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations
 And its sole rep with foreign relations (US v. Curtis-Wright)
o Also the president who possesses the most comprehensive and most
confidential info
 About foreign countries for our diplomatic and consular
officials regularly brief him on meaningful events all over the
world
o He also has unli access to ultra-sensitive military intelligence date
o The presidential role in foreign affairs is dominant and the President is
traditionally accorded a wider degree of discretion in conduct of foreign
affairs
o In the international sphere, the only means avialble for individuals to
bring a claim within the intertional legal system has been when the
individual is able to persuade a gov to bring a claim on the individual’s
behalf (traditionally)
o Even then it is not the individual’s rights that are being asserted
 But rather the state’s own rights
o The term erga omnes (in relation to everyone) in international law been
used as a legal term describing obligations owed by states
 Towards the community of states as a whole
o Such obligations derive for example in contemporary international law
 From the outlawing of acts of aggression
 And of genocide as also from the principles and rules
concerning the basic rights of the human person
 Including protection from slavery and racial discrimination
o In international law, term jus cogens means compelling law
 Refers to norms that command peremptory authority
 Superseding conflicting treaties and custom
 o Jus cogens norms are considered peremptory in the sense that they are
mandatory
 Do not admit derogation and can be modified only be general
international norms of equivalent authority
Marbury v. Madison
FACTS
 Presidential elections of 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated federalist John Adams
 Despite the fact that elections was decided on Feb 17, 1801, Jefferson did not take
office until Mar 4
 John as outgoing president remained until then
o Federalist-controlled 6th congress also remained in power during this
time
 During the lame-duck session, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801
o Established 10 new district courts
o Expanded the number of circuit courts from 3-6
o Added additional judges to each circuit
o Gave the president the authority to appoint Federal judges and justices of
the peace
o Reduced the number of SC justices from 6-5
 Effective upon the next vacancy in the Court
 Just before Adam’s term ended – Adams appointed 16 federalist circuit judges and
42 federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801
o These midnight judges included William Marbury, an ardent Federalist
 Following day, the appointments were approved en masse by the senate
o To be completed, these commissions had to be delivered to those
appointed
o The task fell to john marshall who even though recently appointed chief
justice of the US, continued as acting Sec of state at president Adam’s
personal request
 Majority of the commissions were delivered, they could not be delivered before
Adam’s term as president expired
 It was assumed that the new sec of state, Madison would deliver the appointment
since the function was routine in nature
 HOWEVER! Jefferson upon swearing in as president
o Ordered Levi Lincoln (acting sec of state until Madison could assume
the post)
o NOT to deliver the remaining appointments
 Without the commissions, the appointees were unable to assume the offices and
duties to which they had been appointed
 Jefferson’s opinion, the undelivered commissions not having been delivered on time
were void
 Newly sworn in democratic republican 7th congress immediately set about voiding
the judiciary act of 1801
o With their own judiciary act of 1802
o Which reversed the act so that the judicial branch once again operated
under the dictates of the original Judiciary Act of 1789
 In replaced the Court’s 2 annual sessions with one session to begin on the first
Monday in feb
o And cancelled the SC term schedule for June of the year
o Seeking to delay a ruling on the consti of the repeal act until months
after the new judicial system was in operation
 This is a case for mandamus seeking to compel Madison to deliver to Marbury his
commission as justice of the peace
ISSUE
 Is the it the duty of the judicial dept to say what the law is and those who apply the
rule to aprticular cases must of necessity expound and interpret that rule… if 2 laws
conflict with each other, the court must decide on the operation of each
 from what I know, there are 2 laws in conflict -judiciary act 1789
(allows sc to review writs) -consti art III (disallowing court to review
writs) SC’s job is to uphold consti. therefore they adopted what the
consti said even though mandamus is the right remedy.
Santiago v. Bautista
FACTS
 Santiago was a Grade 6 pupil at the Sero Elementary School in Cotabato City
o Santiago was ranked as the 3rd honor in his class (1964-65)
o First honor was Socorro Medina, 2nd – Lingat
 The committee was composed of the school principal – Mrs. Lorena as chairman
o And Juanita Bautista et al as members
 Graduation was set BUT 3 days before grad Santiago the 3rd placer
o Rep by mother and father as counsel
o Sought the invalidation of the ranking of honor students
 They filed this before the Cotabato CFI
o Against Bautista et al – the district supervisor and academic supervisor
for grave abyse of diuscretion
 The alleged the ff
o Santiago had been consistent honor pupirl from grade 1-5 fo the Sero
School
 While Longat had never been close a close rival except in
grade 5 where she ranked 3rd
o Santiago had been prejudiced
 his closes rival benefitting because Medina was coached
during the summer by their teacher
 who became their teacher in English
 o that the committee was illegally constitutes being in violation of the
Service manual for Teachers for the Bureau of Public Schools
 since it is composed of grade 6 teachers only
o that the committee members exercised GAD and irregularities such as
changing of the final ratings on the grading sheets of Medina and Lingat
 and aomse teachers giving Santiago a stating grade of 75
o that there was a unanimous agreement and understanding among the
committee members to insult and prejudice the second and third honors
by rating Medina with a perf score
o words first place in Santiago’s cert were erased and replaced with the
words second place
o Santiago personally appealed the matter to the School Principal to the
district supervisor and academic supervisor
 But said officials passed the buck to each other to delay the
grievances
 So there is no other speedy and adequate remedy
 They want the court to award mental and moral damages for 10k to set aside the
final list of honor students in garde 6 for that school year
o To enjoin the teachers part of the committee from officially and formally
publishing and proclaiming the honor pupils
 Injunction was denied in the May 20 order by the court because the grad was
already set for May 21 that their case has no cause of action
o This denial was based on Santiago’s failure to attach a cert true copy of
the judgment or order complained of
 And pleadings which are relevant
o Court also held that admin remedies were neglected as Santiago did not
show that he formally availed of and exhausted the admin remedied of
the Deped
o That there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the teachers
 Bautista et al also maintained that the CFI did not err in dismissing the case
o And argue that the committee on the ratings of student for honors whose
actions are being assailed by Santiago is not the tribunal board
exercising judicial functions
o Against which an action for certiorari may lie under rule 65
ISSUE
 Was it proper for Santiago to seek judicial intervention to review the Committee’s
honor list? NO
o Certiorari – special civil action instituted against any tribunal, board or
officer exercising judicial function
o Judicial function – act performed by virtue of judicial powers
o Doing something in the nature of the action of the court
o For certiorari to be invoked
 1) there must be specific controversy involving rights of
persons or property; the said controversy is brought before
the tribunal, board or officer for hearing and determination of
their respective rights and obligations
 2) the tribunal, board or officer must pertain to that branch of
the sovereign power which belong to the judiciary or at least
which does not belonging to exec or legislative
o The nature of the act to be performed rather than of the office, board,
body which performs it – that determines whether it is the discharge of a
judicial or quasi-judicial function
o Not essential that the proceedings should be strictly and technically
judicial
 In the sense in which that word is sued when applied to
courts of justice
 But it is sufficient it they are quasi-judicial
o It is enough if the officers act judicially in making their decision
o State v. Dunn – exercise of judicial functions may involve the
performance of legislative or admin duties
o Performance of admin and ministerial duties may in a measure involve
the exercise of judicial functions
 It may be generally said that the exercise of judicial functions
is to determine what the law is
 What the legal rights of the parties are
 With respect to a matter in controversy
 And whenever an officer is clothed with that authority and
undertakes to determine those questions – he act judicially
o The committee on the rating of students for honor exercised neither
judicial nor quasi-judicial functions
 From the description judicial or quasi act needs to have a law that gives rise to some
specific rights of persons or property
o Under which adverse claims to such rights are made
o And the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought in turn
o Before thr tribunal, board of officer clothes with powers and authority to
determine what that law is
o And adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties
 However!!! There is nothing on record about any rule of law that provides that
when teachers do not assess the individual merits of their pupil for purposed of
rating them for honors
o Such function involves the determination of what the law is and that
they are therefore automatically vested with judicial/quasi
 Santiago did not even apprise the Court for the pertinent provisions of the service
manual of teachers for public schools allegedly violated
Radiowealth v. Agregado
FACTS
 The clerk of the SC certified urgent the purchase of a Webster Teletalk and 6
webster telephone speakers
 These are set to be installed on the second and third floor of the Malacnang palace
annex
o Houses the SC
  These were said to be of urgent character and necessary to public service
 C.L. Dacanay, Chairman of the Property requisition committee, disapproved the
purchase and installation for allegedly being contrary to EO 302
o And the policy on discontinuing open market purchases
 It was also alleged that it violated the requirements of EO 298
 Radiowealth Inc., the vendor of the said equipment and accessories went to the
auditor-general (now Com of Audit)
o To seek approval of the payments for the purchase and installation
 It was not acted upon
 They refused to sign the warrant of payment for such transaction
 Auditor General handed to the CJ the said documents submitted by radiowealth
with comments including
o 1) it was mentioned to be purchased due to emergency yet you do not
have evidence showing such urgency
o 2) it is within my prerog to conduct audit on your office that is why were
are acting on this
o 3) EO 302 constitutes admin regs or emergency purchases of supplied
for the national Gov
 Includes the SC
ISSUE
 Whether the SC can make the said purchases without prior approval from the exec
dept? YES
o SC can make purchases
o Province of Tarlac v. Gale
 In a conflict between a judge of first instance and provincial
officers
 Over the disposition of the courthouse and other equipment
 The Court held that the provincial officers must furnish the
court such fixture, funrnitutre and equipment that are
necessary for proper admin of justice
o And if they refuse – Court would have the power to purchase them
directly
o Contrary to the respondents’ theory
 The prerogs of this court which the consti secures against
interference includes not only the powers to adjudicated
causes
 But all things that are reasonably necessary for the admin of
justice
o We believe it is within its power free from encroachment by the exec to
acquire books and other office equipment
 Reasonably needed to the convenient transaction of its
business
o These implied, inherent, powers are as essential to the existence of the
court as the powers specifically granted
o Without the power to provide itself with appropriate instruments for the
performance of its duties
 The express powers with which the consti endows it would
become useless
o Court could not maintain its independence and dignity as the consti
intends if the exec personally or through the subordinated officials could
determine for the court
 What it should or use in the discharge of its functions
 And when and how it should obtain them
o The admin code being invoked speaks of depts, bureaus and offices
 They do not speak of the legislature or the sc
 And it is the understanding that they were not intended to
embrace either of these branches of the gov
o Take the word dept in these sections to mean the several divisions
among which are distributed the functions and duties devolving upon the
chief exec
o SC is neither a dept, a bureau nor an office
 Within the meaning of the said sections
 This is a strict construction
o Consti provisions cited themselves define the limits of the auditor
general’s powers
 And the consti provides a remedy against his actions when
they transcend those bounds
o Auditor-general’s decisions in cases affecting an exec dept, bureau,
office or officer
 Are repealable to the president
 And in those affecting the rights of the of private citizens to
the SC
o Auditor General’s authority to audit disapprove this court’s expenditures
has to be limited to the conditions prescribed by the consti
 Or statute
 Which did not invade the court’s independence
o Exec and admin orders and regs promulgated by officers who have no
jurisdiction or validity to the auditor gen’s decision
o In the absence of express and valid legislation (one which does not
unreasonably infringe upon the legitimate prerogs of the SC)
 The auditor gen may not question the court’s expenditures
except when they are in the words of the organic law
 Irregular, unnecessary, excessive and extravagantn
o Outside these exceptions his duty to approve the payments is mandatory
 And even when the objection is that the expenditures are
irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant hid decisions
are not final
o Petition is granted
In re: Laureta
FACTS
  This is a per curiam resolution in the matter of proceedings for disciplinary action
against Atty. Laureta
o And of contempt proceedings against Maravilla-Illustra (in Eva
Maravilla Illustre v. Immediate Appelate Court)
 Illustre sent letters to justices Narvasa et. all and the al the members of the first
division of the SC
o That carried a threat to effect a change of Court’s adverse resolution in
her case
 She claimed the minute-resolution on her case was railroaded with such hurry
unequaled in the history of the SC
o That have gone beyond the limits of legal and judicial ethics
 Part of the letter says:
o There is nothing final in this world. Assure you that this case is far from
finished by a long shot
o We shall act and bring this case before another forum where the
members of the court can no longer deny our action
o With minute resolutions that are not only unjust but are knowingly and
deliberately promulgated
o Understand that were pursuing other remedied
o We wish to avoid doing injustice to anyone particularly the members of
the first division
o Providing that they had no hand in the resolution in question
o We are requesting you to inform us your participation in the
promulgation of these resolutions in question
o If we do not hear from you in a week then we will consider your silence
that you supported the dismissal of our petition
 Ilustre further claimed that the court acted unjustly when the Justice Yap failed to
inhibit himself from participating
o When in fact he is a law partner of the defense counsel Atty. Ordonez
 The court en banc reviewed the history of the case and found no reason to take
action
o Stating that Justice Yap inhibited himself from the case and was only
designated as chariman of first division
o After the resolution of dismissal was issued
 Petitioner against addressed letter to the Justices Narvasa et al with a warning of
exposing the case to another forum of justice
o To which she made true by filing and affidavit complaint to tanodbayan
(OMB)
 Atty. Laureta himself reportedly circulated copied of the complaint to the press
o Without any copy furnished by the court nor the justices charged
o It was mde to appear that the jutsitce were charged with graft and
corruption
 Now the SC is charging Ilustre with contempt and holding Laureta admin liable
 Ilustra dn Laureta claim that the letters were private comm
o And they did not intend to dishonor the court
ISSUE
 Was there vindictive reprisal on the part of the SC?
o SC’s authority and duty to act to preserve its honor from attack by an
irate lawyer mouthed by his client is clear and non-vindictive
o Court is not convinced that Atty. Laureta had nothing to do with Ilustre’s
letters to the individual justices
 Nor with the complaint filed before the Tanodbayan
o Remarks like undue and powerful influence by Atty. Ordonex and
Justice Yap
o Distortion of act repeated by Atty. Laureta his several pleadings
 Echoed in the letter to the justices as well as in the complaint
and motion of reconsideration before the Tanodbayan
 Reveal the not too hidden hand of Atty. Laureta
o Foregoing is bolstered by the reports received by members of the Court
 That copies of the complaint filed with the Tanodbayan were
distributed to the editors of the metropolitan newspapers in
envelopes
 Bearing the name or respondent Laureta
 Who was heard over the radio speaking on the
same complaint
o Canong 16 of the canons of legal ethics – a lawyers should restrain client
for things which he wouldn’t do as well
 With reference to conducts in court, judicial officers, jurors,
witnessed and suitors
 If a client persisits in such wrongdoing the lawyer should
terminate their relation
o The theory that only SC may pass upon the justness of its decisions is
not a display of arrogance but an implementation of the rule on
separation of powers
 CJ’s statement of the supremacy of the SC’s judicial power is
by no means a display of arrogance
 As per respodnet’s contention
 BUT! A restatement of the fundamental principle of
separtions of powers and checks and balances under a
republican for of gov such as our
 That the 3 coequal branches of gov are each supreme and
independent
 Neither one can interfere
o Litigants cannot be allowed to claim that members of the SC acted in
bad faith
o To allow this would be to destroy the authenticity, integrity and
conclusiveness of such acts and resolutions
o To allow such attacks would destroy separation of powers and
undermine the role of the SC as the final arbiter of all justiciable
disputes
o Said letter are techinicaly consirederd pleadings
 Not submitted in the main petition had been finally resolved
does not detract from the gravity of the contempt committed
o The consti right of freedom of speech or right to privacy annot be used
as a shield for contemptuous act against the cout
 o A lawyer commits an act unbecoming of an officer of the court where he
dangles threats of bringing SC resolutions to the proper forum
 Challenging the integrity of the CA and SC
 And assisting or not preventing his client from making
contemptuous statements
ISSUE
In Re Borromeo
 Whether Borromeo is liable for contempt of the court?
FACTS
 Respondent in this case, Borromeo is not a lawyer
o But has read law books
o And come to possess some superficial awareness of a few substantive
legal principles and procedural rules
 With nothing more than this smattering of learning
o Respondent had for some 16 years now
o Been instituting and prosecuting legal proceedings in various courts
o Dogmatically pontificating on errors supposedly committed by the
courts
o Including the SC
 Case 1: involving Traders Royal Bank
o Borromeo appears to have dealt with was the Traders Royal Bank
o He got a loan from it in the sum of 45k
o He secured by a real estate mortgage created over 2 parcels of land
 Owned by Borromeo-Thakuria (sister) and Lavarino
o Borromeo obtained a second loan from TRB in amount of 10k
 This time giving as security a mortgage over a parcel of land
 Owned by heirs Vicente Borromeo
o Authority to mortgage these 3 lots was vested in him by a special power
of attorney executed by their respective owners
 Case 2: involving united coconut planters bank (UCPB)
o Borromeo (with a certain Mecader) also borrowed money from UCPB
o And executed a real estate mortgage to secure repayment
o Mortgage was constituted over a 122 sqm commercial lot covered in
Borromeo’s name
o Same lot was afterwards sold by Borromeo to Lao
 With a stipulation for its repurchase (pacto de racto) by him
o Sale was made without knowledge and consent of UCPB
 Case 3: involving Security Bank and Trust Co. (SBTC)
o Banking institution which Borromeo engaged in running court battles
was the Security Bank & Trust Co.
o Borromeo had obtained 5 loan in the aggregate sum of 189K
 Consolidated in a single promissory note
o To secure payment, Summa Insurance Corp issued a performance bond
which set a limit of 200k
 On its liability there under
o As in the case of his obligation to Traders Royal Bank and UCPB
 Borromeo failed to discharge his contractual obligations
o SBTC brought an action in the Cebu City RTC against Borromeo and
Summa for collection
o SC ruled Borromeo is guilt of contempt for abuse of and interference with
judicial rules and processes, gross disrespect to courts and judges
 And improper conduct directly impeding, obstructing and
degrading the admin of justice
o SC found that Borromeo had stubbornly litigated unmeritorious cases
o Stubbornly closed his eyes to may rulings that were rendered adversely to him
o These rulings had become final and executory
o Nonetheless he unreasonably insisted on his own interpretation of the rules
that were founded on his personal reading of the consti and the law
o SC also found that Borromeo
 1) insulted the judges and court officers
 2) overloaded the courts
 3) tried the patience of the court that have had to act on his
repetitious and largely unfounded complaints
o SC held that he wasted the time of the courts of his adversaries
 Of the judges and court employees who have had the bad luck of
having to act on his unmeritorious cases
o Despite his attention being called many times to error of his theories
 He has persisted in ventilating in various proceedings
 Causing much loss of time
 Annoyance and vexation to the courts
 Court employees and parties involved
o Borromeo claims that the CJ and other members of the court should inhibit
themselves since they cannot be the accused and the judge at the same time
 This case should be heard by an impartial and independent body
o SC held that even without the power of a public prosecutor, the power or duty
of the court to institute a charge for contempt against itself is essential to the
preservation of its dignity
 and the of the respect due it from litigants and lawyer and the
public
o if it was required that judges filed complaints to the prosecutor for contempt
against them
 courts would be inferior to prosecuting officers and would be
impotent to perform their functions
 and absolute independence
o institution of charges by the prosecuting officer is not necessary to hold
persons guilty of civil or crim contempt amenable to trial and punishment by
the court
o All that the law requires is that thre be charge in writing filed in court and an
opportunity to the person charged to be head by himself or counsel
o Fiscal judge or a private person may take charge
 o Borromeo also contend that Atty. Legaspi of IBP Cebu chapter is not verified
nor signed by members of said IBP Ceu chapter
o SC held this to be vague unspecific and sweeping
o SC held that this contention was superficial philosophising that deserved no
serious treatment
o Borromeo even contended that what he said was exercising his freedom of
speech and expression and making public official accountable
o SC held that the consti rights invoked have no justification for repetitious
litigation of the same causes and issues
 For insulting lawyers, judges, court employees and other persons
for abusing the processes and ruled of the court
 Wasting their time and bringing them into disrepute and disrespect
Echegaray v. Sec of Justice
FACTS
 For resolution are public respondents’ urgent motion for reconsideration of the resolution
of this Court
o Temporarily restraining the execution of petitioner and supplemental motion
to urgent MR
 Sec of Justice contends that the decision having been final and executory
o Its execution enters the exclusive ambit of the exec authority and that issuing
that TRO trenches that authority
 Also the respondents contend that the SC in issuing the TRO has transcended its power of
judicial review
 And at that moment, supervening events transpired to the effect that the repeal or
modification of the law imposing death penalty has become nil
o 1) public pronouncement of the Pres. Estrada that hell veto any law imposing
the death penalty involving heinous crimes
o 2) resolution of Cong. Golez et al that they are against the repeal of the law
o 3) the fact that Senator Roco’s resolution to repeal the law only bears his
signature and that for Senator Pimentel
 Congress also issued House Resolution 629 which states that the Congress moves to
reject to review RA 7695
o And urges the President to exhaust all means to immediately implement the
death penalty
ISSUE
 Did the Court lose it jurisdiction over the case and hence can no longer restrain the
exec of final judgment? NO
o Rule on finality of judgment cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction to
execute and enforce the same judgment
o To quote retired Justice Quiason: by finality of judgment, what the court
loses is its jurisdiction to amend, modify or alter the same
o There is a difference between the jurisdiction of the court to execute it
its judgment and its jurisdictions to amend, modify or alter the same
o The former continues even after the judgment has become final for the
purpose of enforcement of judgment
o The latter terminate when the judgment becomes final
o In this case the Court does not change its decision
o The postponement of the date of execution can be requested
o A well known-principle that notwithstanding the order of exec
 And the exec nature thereof on the date set or at the proper
time
 The date therefore can be postponed even in death sentences
o 3 ways for postponement can be ordered
 1) by command of the king
 2) by discretion of the court
 3) mandate of law
o Court can order the postponement if a circumstance arises that ought to
delay the exec
 And there is an imperative duty to investigate the emergency
and to order a postponement
o Power to control the exec of its decision is an essential aspect of
jurisidiction
o It cannot be the subject of substantial subtraction for our consti
 Vest the entirety judicial power on SC
 And in the lower courts
o Most important part of a litigation is the process of execution of
decisions where supervening events may change the circumstance of the
parties
 And compel the courts to intervene and adjust the rights of
litigants to prevent unfairness
o Courts have the inherent, necessary and incidental power to control and
supervise the process of execution of their decisions
In Re Letter of UP Law Faculty
FACTS
 Court seeks to dispose of the ff
o 1) MR filed by respondent UP law profs Catinding and Laforteza
o 2) manifestation filed by respondents Dean Leonen and Prof Te
 Essentially the professors Catinding and Laforteza’s main contention is that the
Court erred in finding the respondents to have breached their ethical obligations
without given them the benefit of due process which is guaranteed in an indirect
contempt proceedings
 They claim that even if the case is docketed as an admin matter
o The proceedings is still premised on a finding of indirect contempt
therefore they should have been given the right to due process
ISSUE
 Whether the Court erred in finding the UP Law profs to have breached their ethical
obligations without giving them the safeguard of due process in an indirect
contempt proceeding?
o Petitioners support their claim that the court made a finding that the
respondents are guilty indirect contempt from
 1) the mention of it in the show cause resolution of in re
Kelly
 A case which involved a contempt charge
 2) references to the respondents’ contumacious language and
several authorities which dealth with contempt proceedings
in Mar 8 decision
o SC holds that the argument is shallow
o Even if contumacious speech and conduct directed against members of
the Court done by any person
 Member of the bar or not
 Can be considered as indirect contempt
 SC holds that Prof Catinding and laforteza failed to take into
consideration what established jurisprudence says
 That any incident involving contumacious speech and
conduct directed against a member of the bar made by a
lawyer may be punishable… either as contempt or an ethical
violation or both – discretion of the Court
o Salcedo v. Hernandez where the court found the concerned lawyer guilty
of contempt and admin liabilities
o Because of this, 2 separate penalties were imposed upon him
o A find for the contempt charge and reprimand for the admin liability
failure to observe proper respect to the court
o In re Atty. Almacen where the court only gave Almacen an admin
sanction even if the proceeding was disciplinary
 And the court adverted to a few principles and authorities
involving contempt proceedings
o Same in In Re Sotto where the court found Sotto liable for contempt and
fined him an amount of 1k
o Action of the court did not turn into a disciplinary proceeding even if
they made references to Sotto’s failure to observe his ethical duties as
lawyer
o Zaldivar v. Sandigan even if the Court found the respondent’s act to
constitute both contempt and gross misconduct as a member of the Bar
 Was only found administratively sanction with an indefinite
suspension from the practice of law
o Given these jurisprudence a SC wants to ephasive that ti is not unusal for
the Court to cite authorities on bar discipline in contempt cases against
lawyers and vice versa
o The mere citation or discussion in the orders or decision in admin case
of jurisprudence involving contempt proceedings doesn’t transform a
disciplinary proceedings to contempt proceedings
o If the Court wanted to cite them for contempt of court
 They would have initiated such a proceedings in accordance
with rules of court
 But they did not
o SC holds that the claim of petitioners that they are being cited for
indirect contempt under the show cause resolution holds no weight
o Court resolves to deny the MR
Pichay v. office of deputy exec sec
FACTS
 EO 12 was a charter creating the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC)
o Under Arroyo
o Commission had power to investigate or hear admin cases for graft and
corruption against presidential appointees (such as Pichay)
o Also can submit reports and recommendations to President
 EO 13 abolished the PAGC
o Transferred all its functions to the Office of Deputy Executive Sec. for
Legal Affairs (ODESLA)
o Particularly to its newly-established investigative and adjudicatory
division (IAD) under Pres. PNoy
 ODESLA was already existing even before abolishment of PAGC
 April 6 2011 – Finance Sec. Purisma files complaint of affidavit for grave
misconduct before the IAD-ODESLA against Pichay as Chairman of Board of
Trustees of Local Water Utilities Admin (LWUA)
 Complaint arose from LWUA’s purchase of 445,377 shares of stocks of Express
Savings Bank, Inc.
 April 14, 2011 – Pichay received an order requiring him and his co-respondents to
submit their respective written explanations under oath
 Pichay filed Motion to DISMISS Ex Abundante Ad Cautelam (with extreme
caution)
 Manifested a case involving the same transaction and charge of grave misconduct
was already pending before the Office of the Ombudsman
 Alleging that no other plain and speedy remedy is available to him, petitioner
results to the instant petition which assails the constitutionality of the process by
which IAD-ODESLA was reorganized
ISSUE
 Whether EO 13 is unconsti for usurping the power of Congress to delegate quasi-
judicial powers to admin agencies? NO
o Petitioner contends that IAD-ODESLA was illegally vested with judicial
powers through an express grant by the legislature
 And that the name of the IAD itself clearly shows that it
wields quasi-judicial powers
o IAD-ODESLA is only a fact-finding and recommendatory body to the
President
 It does not have the power to settle controversies and
adjudicate cases
o Even if the word adjudicatory appears part of its appellation
  It cannot try and resolve cases because its function shall only
perform powers, functions and duties of the PAGC
 Which is only to investigate or hear admin cases or
complaints against all presidential appointees in the gov
 And to submit its report and recommendations to the
President
 As sates in EO 12
o Biarogo v. PH truth commission
 Fact-finding is not adjudiciation
 Function of receiving evidence and ascertaining the facts of a
controversy is not a judicial function
 To be considered as such the act of receiving evidence and
arriving at factual conclusions in a controversy must be
accompanied by the authority of applying the law to the
factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be
decided or determines authoritatively, finally, definitely
 Whether EO 13 enroaches upon the power of the OMB? NO
o IAD-ODESLA did not encroach upon the OMB’s primary jurisdiction
when it took cognizance of the complaint affidavit filed against him
o Notwithstanding the earlier filing of a criminal and admin cases
involving the same charges and allegations before the office of the OMB
o The primary jurisdiction of the OMB to investigate and prosecute cases
refers to crim cases cognizable by the Sandig
 And not to admin cases
o It is only in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction that the OMB may, at
any time, take over the investigation being conducted by another
investigatory agency
o Since the case filed before the IAD-ODESLA is an admin disciplinary
case for grave misconduct
 Pichay may not invoke the primary jurisdiction of the OMB
to prevent the IAD-ODESLA from proceeding with its
investigation
o Also the OMB’s authority to investigate appointive and elective officials
is not exclusive
 It can be shared with other admin agencies
o While the OMB determines the existence of probable cause and the
adjudication of the merits of a crim accusation
 IAD-ODESLA investigates and ascertains the facts
 Whose determinations and recommendations remain so until
acted upon by the president
o Thus there is not usurpation of the OMB’s consti duties
Tan v. Matsuura
FACTS
ISSUE
 Petitioner Tan filed a complaint-affidavit with the office of the city prosecutor
(OCP) of Makati City
o Charging respondents Matsuura, Atty, Tanjutco and Atty. Cua
o Crime of falsification under the RPC
 Respondents were alleged to have stolen certain company properties
o Including a signed deed of trust
o Deed was alleged to be blank as to the date, number of shares and the
item witness
 Petitioner Tan alleged that the pre-signed blank deed was filled with the ff info
o 28.5 k shares
o Signature of Matuura and Camba
o Atty. Cua notarized
 Tan alleged that such info were inserted without his consent and authority
 Matsura denied the charges alleging that the filing of the complaint was in response
to an intracorp dispute
o Involving Tan
o And after Matsuura obtained a favorable resolution in a complaint for
estafa against Tan
 Matsuura further alleged that the subject deed of trust was petitioner’s offer to
compromise the intracorp dispute
 OCP issued a resolution dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause
o Against Matsuura and Tanjutco
o And that the element of damage was not shown to them
 Complaint against Atty. Cua was also dismissed as Tan failed to overturn the
presumption of regularity attached to the notary’s public’s performance for her
official duty
 Petitioner Tan’s MR was denied prompting him to file a petition for review with the
DOJ
 Sec of Justice Datumanong denied the petition
o And held that no evidence was shown that the info stated above were
merely inserted by respondents
 HOWEVER! Acting SOJ Guiterrz granted petitioner Tan’s MR
o And found probable cause to indict respondents
 Respondents filed another MR but DOJ Usec Pineda affirmed the finding of
probable cause against respondents Matsuura and Atty, Tanjutco
 Usec Pineda however directed the exclusion of respondent Atty. Cua who was
considrerd exercising due diligence as a notary public
 Tan filed another partial MR and DOJ again resintated the inclusion of Atyy, Cyua
in info
 Unfavorfable SOJ resolutions prompted the respondents to file petitions for
certiorari before the CA
 CA granted the petition filed by respondent Matsuura questioning the resolution of
the SOJ
 Held that the elemnets of the crime, actual participation of respondents was not
sufficiently alleged
o And the element of damage was not sufficiently shown
  Did the CA err in taking cognizance of the 2 petitions filed before it, assuming the
role of a reviewing authority of the SOJ? NO
o SC held that courts possess the power to review the finding of
prosecutors in prelim investigation
o Petitioner tan contends that the CA could not have taken cognizance of
the petitions for certiorari filed by the respondents
 Because crim proceedings shall not be restrained once
probable cause has been determines
 And the corresponding info has been filed in courts
o Court held that although the determination of probable cause is
essentially an exec function that is lodged with the public prosecutor and
SOJ
 It is equally settled that the courts retain the power to review
findings of prosecutors in prelim investigation in a mere few
exceptional cases showing grave abuse of discretion
o Courts should not shirk from exercising their power when the
circumstances warrant to determine whether prosecutors’ findings are
supported by the facts or by the law
o Courts do not act as prosecutors but as organs of the judiciary that are
exercising their mandate under the consti
 Relevant statues and remedial rules to settle cases and
controversies
o In this case, CA’s exercise of its power to review was also the proper
and most prudent course to take after the SOJ has successively issued
several resolutions with varying findings of act and conclusions of law
 On the existence of probable cause
o Although by itself such circumstance was not indicative of grave abuse
of discretion
 There was a clear issue on the SOJ’s appreciation of facts
which commanded a review by the Court
Garcia v. Drilon
FACTS
 Mar. 2004, Congress enacted RA 9262
o Defines and criminalizes acts of violence against women and their
children perpetrated by women’s intimate partners
 Couple have 3 children together
 Rosalie Garcia (respondent) filed for herself and children a TPO against husband
Jesus Garcia
o Pursuant to RA 9262
 Husband would forbid her to pray and isolated her from friends
 Husband had an affair
 He also hit Jo-Anne (oldest child) on the chest and slapped her many times
 Rosalie attempted suicide
 Jesus did not bring her to the hospital
 Jesus warned Rosalie that if she goes on the legal battle with him, she would not get
a single centavo
 Jesus controls family business involving mostly construction of deep wells
 After Rosalie confronted him about affair, Jesus forbade her to hold office
o No access to info on business
 Rosalie claimed to be a victim of abuse
o Physical
o psychological
o Emotional
o Economic
o As a result of marital infidelity on the part of the petitioner (Jesus)
o With threats of deprivation of custody of children and financial support
 RTC of Bacolod found reasonable ground to believe that an imminent danger of
violence exists
o TPO granted
o Effective 30 days
 Jesus filed before the CA petition for prohibition with prayer for injunction and
TRO, questioning consti of RA9262
o For violating due process and equal protection clause
o And validity of TPO for being an unwanted product of an invalid law
 CA issued TRO on the enforcement of the TPO but however, denied the petition
forfailure to raise the issue of consti in his pleadings before the trial court
 Petition for prohibition to annul protection orders issued by trail court constitutes
collateral attack on said law
 Jesus assails the consti of the said law as being violative of the equal protection
o Claims that since RA 9262 is intended to prevent a criminalize spousal
and child abuse
o But it can be committed by either husband or wife
o Gender alone is not enough basis to deprive husband of remedies under
the law
City Manila v. Grecia-Cuerdo
FACTS
 Petition City of Manila, through its treasurer, petitioner Toledo, assessed taxes for
the taxable for period from January to December 2002 against the private
respondents
 In addition to the taxes purportedly due from private respondents pursuant to Sec
14-17 of the revised rev code of Manila
o Said assessment covered the local the business taxes private respondents
were constrined to pay the 19M assessment under protest
 Private respondents filed before the RTC Pasay the complaint denominated as one
for Refund or Recovery of illegaly or erroneously – collected local business tax,
prohibition with prayer to issue TRO
o And write of prelim injunction
 RTC granted private respondents’ application for a writ of prelim injunction
 Petitioners filed an MR but the RTC denied
 Petitioners then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA
 o BUT CA dismissed petitioners’ petition for certiorari holding that it has
no jurisdiction over the said petition
 CA riled that since appellate jurisdiction over private respondents’ complaint for tax
refund
o Which was filed with the RTC is vested in the CTA
o Pursuant to its expanded jurisdiction under RA 9282
o It follows that a petition for certiorari seeking nullification of an
interlocutory order issued in the said case should likewise be filed with
the CTA
 Petitioners filed a MR but the CA denied it in its Resolution hence this petition
ISSUE
 Does the CTA have jurisdiction over a special civil action for certiorari assailing an
interlocutory order (injunction) issued by the RTC in a local tax case? YES
o RA 9282 does not contain a categorical statement which vests to the
CTA jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari on order by the RTC on
local tax cases
 The grant of the appellate jurisdiction on local tax cases leads
to an assumption that the law intended to transfer also such
power as is deemed necessary if not indispensable in aid of
such appellate jurisdiction
o Court has held as early as the case of JM Tuason & Co; Inc. v. Jaramillo
 That is a case may be appealed to a particular court or
judicial tribunal or body
 Then the said court or judicial tribunal or body has
jurisdiction to issue to extraordinary writ of certiorari in aid
of is appellate jursiidction
 Principle was affirmed in De Jesus v. CA – where the court
stated that a court may issue a writ of certiorari in aid of its
appellate jurisdiction if said court has jurisdiction to review
by appeal or writ of error
 The final orders or decisions of the lower court
o Court pointed out that to confer the power over certiorari petitions to the
CA
 Would create a split-jurisidction situation which is
anathemna to the orderly admin of justice
o Thus the power of the CTA to rule on petitions for certiorari on
interlocutory orders issued by the RTC in local tax cases in included
 In the powers granted by the consti
 As well as inherent in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
In Re: Show Cause order
FACTS
 Code of prof resposisibility
 New code of judicial conduct
 Quo warranto
 Sereno
 Not immune from emotion – party litigant
 Sub judice rule
ISSUE
 Whether she violated the 2 codes? YES
Noblejas v. Tehankee
FACTS
 Petitioner Noblejas is the duly appointed, confirmed and qualified Commissioner of
Land Registration – a position created by RA 1151
 Sec 2 RA 1151: Commissioner is declared entitled to the same compensation,
emoluments and privileges as those of a Judge Court of First Instance
 Appropriation laws in the item setting forth the salary of said officer used the ff
expression
o One land registration commissioner with the rank and privileges of
district judge – Php 19k
 Respondent Sec of Justice wrote Noblejas a letter requiring him to explain in
writing why no disciplinary action should be taken against Noblejas for approving
or recommending approval of subdivision, consolidation and consolidated-
subdivision plans covering areas greatly in excess of the areas covered by the orig
titles
 Noblejas answered and apprised the SOJ that as he enjoyed the rank, privileges
emoluments and compensation of judge of CFI
o He could only suspended and investigated in the same manner as a judge
of CFI
o THEREFORE! The papers relative to his case should be submitted to the
SC
o For action comformably to Sec 67 of the Judiciary Act and revised rule
140 of the rules of court
 Noblejas received a communication signed the exec sec
o By authority of the president whereby based on finding that a prima
facie cases excists against you for gross negligence and conduct
prejudicial to the public interest
o Noblejas was hereby suspended upon receipt hereof pending
investigation of the above charges
 Noblejas applied to the SC reiterating the contention he made to the SOJ in his
letter
 Respondent admit that fact but denied that Nobeljas as land Registration
Commissioner
o Exercises judicial functions or that he may be considered a judge of first
instance
o Within the purview of the judiciary act and revised rules court 140
o That the function of investigating charges against public officer is admin
or exec in nature
o That the legislature may not charge the judiciary with non-judicial with
non-judicial functions or duties except when reasonably incidental
 To the fulfillment of judicial duties
 As it would be in violation of the principles of the sepration
of powers
ISSUE
 Can the commissioner of land registration only be investigation, suspension, or
removal of judges specifically recites that
o No district judge shall be separated or removed from the office by the
president of the PH
o UNLESS sufficient cause shall exist in the judgment of the SC
o It is nowhere claimed much less shown that the Commissioner of Land
registration is a district judge
 Or infact a member of the judiciary at all
o Noblejas argues that the grant of privileges of a Judge of First Instance
 Includes by implication the right to be investigated only by
SC and to be suspended or removed upon its
recommendation
o SC – to accept this would necessarily result in the same right being
possessed by a variety of exec official upon whom the legislature had
indiscriminately conferred the same privileges
o These include
 Judicial superintedened of the DOJ
 Assistant Solgen (7 of them)
 City fiscal of QC and Manila
 SEC Commisioner
o To adopt Noblejas’ theory would mean placing upon the SC the duty of
investigating and discplining all these officials
 Whose functions are plainly exec
 And the consequent cutrialment by mere implication from the
legislative grant
 Of the president’s power to discipline and remove admin
officials who are presidential appointees
 And which the consti expressly placed under the president’s
supervision and control
o Noblejas’ stand would also lead to the conclusion that the Solgen,
another appointee of the president
 Could not be removed by the latter
 Since the Appropriation Acts confer upon the Solgen the rank
and privileges of Justice of CA
 AND these justices are only removalble by the legislature
through the process of impeachment
o SC such unusal corollaries could not have been intended by the
legislature when it granted these exec officials the rank and privileges of
judges of first instance
o Conclusion is buffered by the fact that the Judges of the Court of
Agrarian Relations and CTA are ot be removed from office of rht same
causes and in the same manner provided by law for judges of first
instance
 Or members of the judiciary or appellate rank
 According to the organic statutes of these bodies
o Legislature can make the suspension or removal procedure prescribed
for judges of first instance applicable to other officers
 Provision to that effect is made in plain and unequivocal
language
o If the legislature intended to include the right to be investigated by the
SC
 And to be suspended or removed only upon recommendation
of that Court in the general grant of privileges
 Such grant would unconsti for violation of the separation of
powers
o In re Richardson: there is not inherent power in the exec or legislature to
charge the judiciary with admin functions except when reasonably
incidental tot eh fulfillment of judicial duties
o Federal Radio v. GE: judiciary cannot exercise or participate in the
exercise of functions which are essentially legislative or admin
o Noblejas seeks to differentiate his case from that of the other exec
officials by claiming that under Sec 4 of RA 1151
 He is endowed with judicial functions
o But even granting that the resolution of consultants by the Register of
Deeds should constitute a judicial or quasi-judicial function
 Analysis of the powers and duties of the Land Registration
Commissioner under RA 1151 Sec 3 AND 4
 Will shows that the resolution of consultants are but a
minimal portion of his admin or exec functions and merely
incidental to the latter
Director of Prisons v. Ang Cho Kio
FACTS
 Ang Chio Kio aka Ang Ming Huy was charged, tried and convicted for various
offenses that resulted in penalties of over 45 years imprisonment
o Indemity
o Moral damages
o As well as life imprisonment
 After serving 6 and a half years of his sentence the president granted him
conditional pardon by the President
o If he would leave the country and never come back
o Which Ang duly accepted and left for Taipeh on July 28, 2959
 Ang Chio Kio under the alias Ang Ming Huy on a flights which was destined for
Honolulu
o Arrived in Manila as a stopover
o And was supposed to get on a flight leaving in 72 hrs
 While he was staying at the El Presidente Hotel
o He contacted some of his friends who convinced him to stay in the
country longer
o And so they went to the Bureau of Immigration to request for a 14 day
extension to stay in the PH
 Mariano Cristi an inspector of Bureau recognized Ang Ming Huy as the Ang Cho
Kio
o Who was deported years before
o Which resulted in the latter’s arrest
 The exec sec under the authority of the president
 o Ordered him to be recommitted to prison and serve the rest of his
sentence
 Ang filed motion for reconsideration with the exec sec who didn’t act on it
 He later filed with the CFI of Rizal for a writ of habeas corpus which was dimissed
 He appealed to the CA, which affirmed the decision of the CFI
o But added in the opinion thereof that the although the exec sec exercised
his power of recommitment
o An action which is exec in nature and cannot interfered with such
o The majority is in the belief that Ang should be sent out at once from the
country and he be allowed to leave prison under guard when he has
booked an outward flight at the Manila International Airport
ISSUE
 Did the CA erred in making a recommendation to allow respondent Ang Chio Kio
to leave the country on the first available flight? YES
o The issue that was brought before the CA was whether the CFI erred in
dismissing the petition of Ang for a write habeas corpus and not his
sentence
 Which was already been final and in fact a portion of which
had already been served
o The recommitment of the respondent was done through the valid
exercise by the president of his power pursuant to the Revised Admin
Code
 Which means that nation was a valid exercise of exec power
 Which the Court may not interfere no matter how erroneous
the decision appeard to be
o The recommendatory power of the Courts in this jurisdiction is limited
to the situations mentioned in Art 5 of the Revised Penal Code
o Said provision does not empower the Court ot suggest to the President or
to express an opinion that would reflect on the wisdom or propriety of
the action of the Chief Exec or matter purely political in nature
o It would be to violate the principle of speations of powers for the
judiciary to interfer or attempt to influence the exercise by the chief exec
of the political powers of his office
o Although the majority opinion may be considred as the private opinion
of the justices of the court
 It would still be better practice if they kept the material of the
opinion limited to the relevant question brough upon them to
decide
o Otherwise it would in some circumstance be tantamount to question the
wisdom and morality of the laws
 Which the courts should not be concerned with
o Petition is still dismissed because only 5 are in the opinion that the
aforementioned opinion of the CA
o Be deleted because 2 are of a different opinion and 3 did not take part
People v. Corpuz
FACTS
 According to private complaint Tongcoy, he and petitioner Corpuz met as the
Admiral Royale Casino in Olongapo City sometime in 1990
 Private complaint Tongcoy was then engaged in a business of lending money to
casino players
o Corpuz hears that Tongcoy has some jewelries for sale
 Corpuz approached Tongcoy and offered to sell the said jewelries on a commission
basis
 Tongcoy agreed and turned over to the petitioner the ff items with a total value of
98k pesos
o 18k diamond ring for men
o Women’s bracelet
o A men’s necklace
o Men’s bracelet
 According to Tongcoy, Corpuz signed a receipt
o They both agreed that the petitioner shall remit the proceeds of sales or
if unsold to return the same within a period of 60 days
 Period expired without the petitioner remitting the proceeds of sale or returning the
unsold jewelries
 Private complaint was able to meet the petitioner
o And the latter promised that he will pay for the value of items entrusted
to him
 Private complaint then filed against petitioner the crime of estafa
 Petitioner Corpuz ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY
 Defense presented the lone testimony of the petitioner
o Petitioner and private complainant were collecting agents of Antoniio
Balajadia
o Who is engaged in loaning business
o Petitioner denied having transacted any business with private
complainant
o Petitioner admitted of obtaining a loan from Balajadia for which he
signed a blank receipt
o Petitioner claimed that the same receipt then dated was used as evidence
against him for the supposed agreement to sell the jewelries
 Which he never saw
o RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the estafa under
article 315 par 1
o Case was elevated to the CA
 Petition denied
 CA modified penalty
ISSUE
 Whether there is a perceived injustice brought about by the range of penalties
(excessive fines) that the courts continue to impose against property committed
today – specially in estafa?
o Legislative pegged these penalties to the value of money and property in
1932 when the RPC was enacted
o Seems to be perceived injustice brought about by the ranges of penalties
that the Court continues to impose on crime against property committed
today
  Based on the amount of damage measured by the value of
money in 1932
o The court however cannot modify the range of penalties because that
would constitute juridical legislation
o HOWEVER! This does not render the whole situation without remedy
o Framers of the RPC anticipated this matter by including Art 5
 Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be
repressed but which are not covered by the law andin cases of
excessive penalties
o Dean Jose Diokno said that the incremental penalty rule provided in Art
135 (estafa) violated the EPC
 And is cruel and unusual punishment
o EPC REQS
 Classification rests on substantial distinctions - violate
 Germane to the purpose of law - violate
 Not limited to existing conditions only - violate
 Applies equally to all members of the same class
o According to the court the only remedy is through legislation
o Court merely applies the law
 Shall not usurp legislative power
SBMA v. COMELEC
FACTS
 Congress enacted RA 7227
o Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992
o Created the Subic Economic Zone
 Also created SBMA to implement the declared national policy of converting the
Subic military reservation into alternative productive uses to govern aforesaid
 American navy turned over the Subic military reservation to the PH gov
 Immediately, petitioner commenced the implementation of its task
o Particularly the preservation of the sea-ports, airport, buildings, houses
and other installations left by the American navy
 Sanggu Bayan of Morong Bataan passed Pambayang Kapasyahan Bilang 10, Serye
1993
o Expressing therein its absolute concurrence as required by said Sec 12 of
RA 7227
o To join the Subic Special Economic Zone and submittee such to the
Office of the president
 Respondents Garcia filed a petition with the Sanggu Bayan of Morong to annul
Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg 10 Serye 1993
 Sanggu Bayan ng Morong acted upon the petition by promulgating Pambayang
Kapasyahan Blg. 18 Serye 1993
o Requesting Congress of the PH to amend certain provisions of RA 7227
o Respondents were not satisfied so they resorted to their power initiative
under LGC OF 1991
o COMELEC denied the petition for local initiative on the ground that the
subject thereof was merely a resolution and not an ordinance
o President issued proclamation No. 532 defining metes and bounds of the
SSEZ (Subic Special Economic Zone)
 Including therein the portion of the former naval base within
the territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of Morong
o Respondent COMELEC issued resolution No. 2845 and 2848
 Adopting a “Calendar of Activities of local referendum and
providing for the “rules and guidelines to govern the conduct
of the referendum
o SBMA instituted a petition for certiorari contesting the validity of the
resolutions no. 2848
 Alleging that public respondent is intent on proceedings with
a local initiative that proposes an amendment of a national
law
o Petition prayed for the following
 1) to nullify Pambayang Kapasyang Blg. 10 for Morong to
join the Subic Special Economic Zone
 2) to allow Morong to join provided conditions are met
ISSUE
 Whether the Court could exercise its review power over the matter? NO
o Court remanded the matter to COMELEC
o Petitioner maintains that the proposition sought to be submitted in the
plebiscite is ultra vires
 Or beyond the powers of the Sanggu Bayan to enact
 Stressing that under the LGC, local initative shall cover only
such subjects or matters as are within the legal powers of the
sanggus to enact
o After the Sanggu Bayan of Morong and the other municipalaites
concerned gave their resolutions of concurrence
 And by reason of which the SSEZ had been created
 Whose metes and bounds had already been delineate by
proclamation 532
 Issued on in accordance with Sec 12 RA 7227
o The power to withdraw such concurrence or to substitute a conditional
concurrence is no longer within the authority of the Municioal Council
of Morong to legislate
o Petitioner insists the creation of SSEZ is not fait accomplu for the
ebenfit of the entire nation
o Morong cannot unlitateallywithdraw its concurrence or impose new
conditions for such concurrence
 As this would effectively render nugatory the creation by
national law of the SSEC
 And would deprive the entire nation of the benefits to be
derived therefrom
o Once created, SSEZ has ceased to be a local concern
o Has become a national proj
o On the other hand, respondent Garcia counters that such argument is
premature because at this point – resolution is just a proposal
 o If the people should reject it during the referendum, there the is nothing
illegal to declare
o Court agrees with respondent Garcia indeed
o It is not yet an approved law
o Merely a proposal and the write or prohibition cannot issue upon a mere
conjecture or possibility
o Consti speaking, Court may decide only actual controversies
 Not hypothetical questions
o In this case, Court has authority to review COMELEC Resolution to
determine the commission of grave abuse of discretion
o HOWVEVER! It does not have the same authority in regard to the
proposed initiative since it has not been promulfated or passed upin by
an branch or lower court
o COMELEC itself has made no reviewable pronouncements about the
issued brought by the pleadings
o COMELEC simply included verbatim the proposal in its questioned
Resolution
o There is realy not decision or action made by a branch, instrumentailiy
or court
 Which this court could take cognizance od and acquire
jurisdiction over
 In the exercise of its review power
In Re Save SC
FACTS
 Case involves the proposed bills abolishing the judiciary dev fund and replacing it
with judiciary support fund
 In the proposed bull, funds collected from the proposed JSF shall be remitted to the
national treasury
o And congress shall determine how the funds will be used
 Rolly mijares filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in order to compel this
court to exercise its judicial independence
 Mijares wrote a letter addressed to the CJ and the AJ saying
o 1) he is fil citizen and concerned taxpayer
o 2) concerned about the threats against the judiciary after this court
promulgaed the cases of PDAF
o 3) implied that certain acts of members of Congress and president after
the cases were promulgated show a threat to judicial independence
 Ex, Ilocos Norte Rep Farinas filed HB 4690 – requires this
court to remit its JDF collection to the national treasury
 Ilocos rep Tupas filed HB 4738 – Act creating the JSF under
national treasury
 President Benigno Aquino III, addressed the nation re – DAP
decision urging the SC to review their decision and consider
the issued he raised in his nationawide address
 Mijares points out that Congress is exercising its power in an arbitrary and
desportic manner
o By reason of passion or personal hostility by abolishing the JDF of the
SC
 Mijares prays that the cour revoke and expunge whatever irreconcilable
contravention of existing laws affecting the judicial indpenedence and fiscal
autonomy as mandate under the consti to better serve public interest
o And gen welfare of the people
ISSUE
 Did Mijares show sufficient grounds for this court to grant the petition and issue a
writ of mandamus? NO
o Judiciary is mandated to interpret laws
o It cannot speculate on the consti of a BILL that Congress may or may
not pass
o No rights arise from the a bill
 Because a bill is not a law
o Power of judicial review like all powers granted by the consti
 Is subject to certain requirements before the Court may take
cognizance of the case
 1) actual controversy which is ripe for determinations NOT
conjectural or anticipatory
 Otherwise it will just be an advisory opinion
 2) standing to the question the validity of the subject act or
issuance; otherwise states he must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or
will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement
 3) consti issued must be raised at the earliest opportunity
 4) consti issue must be the lis mota of the case
o Case lacks the first 2 reqs
 A bill is still to be passed into law
 Thus ther is not actual case of controvery because Congress
may still pass or not pass the bill into law
 Mijares has no standing or locus standi
 For private suit, standing is governed by the real parties in
interest rule
 RPI is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the
judgment or the party benefited by the avails of the suit
 Public suit – in this case – the direct injury test was used
 A person who impugns the validity of the statutes must have
a personal and substantial interest in the case – such that he
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result
o Case also did not present any transcendental importance
o Thus the court refused to take cognizance of the case
 Can the Court compel Congress via a writ of mandamus in this case? NO
o Act sought to be enjoined must be ministerial act
 Does not entail the exercise of judgment and performed in
compliance with law
o Legislation is not a ministerial act
o An act is ministerial when it does not require the exercise of judgment
 And the act is performed in compliance with a legal mandate
 o In a petition for mandamus, the burden of proof is on petitioner to show
that one is entitled to the performance of a legal right
 And that respondent has a corresponding duty to erpform the
act
 Mandamus will not lie to compel an official to do anything
which is not his duty to do or which it is his duty not to do
 Or to give to the applicant anything to which he is not
entitled by law
Tano v. Socrates
FACTS
 Petition shall be treated as a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition
 2 sets of petitioners in this case
o 1) Tano et. al
o 2) group of fishermen and the airline shipper assoc
 Both are attacking the ordinance which prohibits the shipment of live fish
o And live marine coral dwelling aquatic organism
 This was done to effectively free the Puerto Princesa sea waters from cyanide and
other obnoxious substance
 There is an imperative and urgent need to protect and preserve the existence of the
corals
o And allow it to reinvigorate and regenerate
 Tano et. al wants to prevent the prosecution, trial and determination of the crim
cases
o Until the consti or legality of the ordinance they allegedly violated shall
have been resolved
 This special civil action for certiorari must fail on the ground of prematurity
o No cause of action
 No showing the petitioner as the accused in the crim cases
o Have filed motions to quash the info
 If the petitioners did file motions to quash
o And the same was denied – remedy is not certiorari
o But for the aggrieved party to go to trial without prejudice to reiterating
special defenses involved
 If after trial in the merits of adverse decision is rendered
o To appeal in the manner authorized by law
 Petitioners did not go through proper court process
 Second set of petitioners merely claim that being fishermen or marine merchants
o They would be adversely affected by the ordinances
 Instant petition is for declaratory relief
o For a declaration that the ordinance in question are null and unconsti
 Their petition must likewise fail
o Court is not possessed of orig jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory
relief
o Even if only question of law are involved
o It being settled that the SC merely exercises appellate jurisdiction over
such petitions
 Court finds contentions baseless
o Petitioners don’t suffer any infirmity
ISSUE
 Whether the petitioners disregarded the hierarchy of courts? YES
o No special and important reason or exception or compelling
circumstance has been adduced
 Why direct recourse to the SC should be allowed
o While the SC has concurrent jurisdiction with RTC and the CA to ssiue
writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto anf habeas
corpus and injunction
 Concurrence gives petitioners no unrestricted freedom of
choice of court forum
o Held in People v. Cuaresma
 Hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals
 And should also serve as a general determinant of the
appropriate forum for petitions for extraordinary writs
o A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates
that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level
courts should be filed with RTC
 Not successful then CA
o Direct invocation is only allowed when there are special and important
reasons, clearly and specifically set out in the petition
Malaga v. Penachos
FACTS
 Iloilo state college of fisheries (ISCOF) through its Pre-qualifcation, bids and
awards committee (PBAC) cause the publication in the Western Visayas Daily
o An invitation to Bid for the construction of the Micro Lab Building at
ISCOF
 Notice announced
o Last day for the submission of pre-qualifcation reqs (PRE C-1) on Dec 2
o Bids would be received and opened on Dec 12
 Petitioners Malaga and Najarro respectively doing business under the name of the
B.E. Construction and Best Built Construction submitted their PRE C-1 at 2pm of
Dec 2
 While petitioner Occeña – doing budiness under the The Firm Jose Occeña
o Submitted his own PRE-C1 on Dec 5
 All 3 of them were not allowed to participate in the bidding
o Because their documents were considered late
o Having been submitted after the cut-off time of 10 am of Dec 2
 RTC! Plaintiffs claimed that although they had submitted their PRE-C1 on time
o PBAC refused without just cause to accept them
o Thus could not secure the needed plans and other documents
o Unable to participate in scheduled bidding
 In their prayer they sought the resetting of the Dec 12 bidding and the acceptance of
their PRE-C1 documents
o Also asked that id bidding has already been conducted
o Defendants be directed not to award the project pending the resolution of
their complaint
  On the same date Judge Lebaquin issued a restraining order prohibiting PBAC from
conducting the bidding and awarding the project
 4 days later – Penanchos and friends filed a motion to left the restraining order on
the ground that the Court was prohibited from issued restraining orders, prelim
injunctions and prelim mandatory injunctions by PD 1818
o Court shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or other
natural resource dev project of the gov, or any public utility operated by
the gov
 Penanchos et al also questioned the propriety of the issuance of the prelim
injunction
o Since restraining order was received late
o After the bidding had been conducted and closed at
o Said injunction had become moot and academic
 Petitioners Malaga in their opposition to the motion argued against the applicability
of PD 1818 saying that
o While ISCOF was a state college – it had its own charter and separate
existence and was not part of the national gov or of any local political
subdivision
o Even if PD 1818 were applicable – the prohibition presumed a valid and
legal gov project
o Filipinas Marble Corp v. IAC
 Court allowed the issuance of a writ of prelim injunction
despite a similar prohibition
 The gov however is bound by basic principles of fairness and
decency under the due process clauses of the Bill of Rights
 PD 385 was never meant to protect officials of gov-lending
institutions who take over the management of a borrower
corp
 Led that corp to bankruptcy through mismanagement or
misapp of its funds
 After ruining it use the mandatory provisions of the decree to
avoid the consequences of their misleads
 Trial court lifted TRO and denied the petition for prelim injunction
o 1) The building sought to be construed at the ISCOF was an
infrastructure project of the gov falling within the coverage of PD 1818
o 2) were it not, the petition for the issuance of a write of prelim injunction
would still fail because the sheriff’s return showed that PBAC was
served a copy of the restraining order
 After the bidding sought to be restrained had already been
held
o 3) members of the PBAC could not be restrained from awarding the
project because the authority to so was lodged in the President of the
ISCOF – who was not party in this case
ISSUE
 Does PD 1818 which prohibits any court from issuing injunction in cases involving
infrastructure projects of the gov, apply in this case? YES
o BUT prohibition only applied to admin acts in the controversies
involving facts
 Or the exercise of discretion in technical cases not to
questions of law
o 1987 admin code defined a gov instrumentality as – any agency of the
national gov not integreated within the dept framework, vested with
special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all
corporate powers, administering special funds and enjoying operational
autonomy, usually through a charte
o Chartered institution – any agency operating under a special charter and
vested by law with functions relating to specific consti policies or
objectives
 Includes state u and colleges
 And monetary authority of state
o ISCOF is a chartered institution – thus covered by PD 1818
o Also indications it is the gov instrumentality
 1) created in pursuance of the integrated fisheries dev policy
of the state, a priority program of the gov of effect the socio-
economic life of the nation
 2) treasurer of the PH also be the ex-officio treasurer of the
state college
 3) heads of bureaus and offices on the national gov are
authorized to loan or transfer to I
 Upon request of the president of the state college,
such apparatus, equipment or supplied
 4) an additional amount of Php 1.5M had been appropriated
out of the funds of the National Tresury
 Has also been decreed in its charter that the funds
and maintenance of the state college would be
included in the gen app law
o Does not automatically follow that ISCOF is covered by the prohibition
in the said decree
o Dalties v. Sucaldito – prohibition pertained to the issaucne of injunctions
or restrsining order by courts
 Against admin acts in controversies on involving facts or the
exercise of discretion in technical cases
 Court observed that to allow the courts to judge these matter
would disturb the smooth functioning of the admin
machinery
 Justice Padilla made it clear that on issues definitely outside
of this dimension, involfing questions of law, courts could
not be prevented by PD 605 from exercising their power to
restrain or prohibit admin acts
 See no reason why this ruling cannot be applied
o 2 sets of irregulatires that jusitified injunction of the bidding by PBAC
 1) PBAC sets deadlines for the filing of the PRE-C1 and the
opening of bids and then changed these deadlines without
prior notice to prospective participants
 2) PBAC required to issue to pre-qualified applicants the
plans, specifications and proposal book forms for the project
to be bid 30 days before the date of bidding if the estimate
project cost was between 1M – 5M
 o Present controversy did not arise from the discretionary acts of the
admin body nor does it involve merely technical matter
 What is involved here is non-compliance with the procedural
rules on bidding which requires strict observance
 Purpose of the PD 1594
 To secure competitive bidding
 To preven favoritism, collusion and fraud in the
award of these contracts to the detriment of the
public
 Purpose was defeated by the irregularities
committed by PBAC
o In this case, ti was the lack of the proper notice regarding the pre-
qualification requirement and the bidding that caused the elimination of
petitiioners BE and best built
o Was not because of their expired licenses as private respondents now
claim
o Plans and speciifcations which are the contractors’ guife to an intelligent
bid were not issued on time
 Defeating the guaranty that contractors be placed on equal
footing when they submit their bids
o PD 1818 was not intended to shield from judicial scrutinu irregularities
committed by admin agencies such as the anomalies above described
o The challenged restraining order was not improperly issued by the
respondent judge
 And the write of prelim injunction should not have been
denied
o Note however that the subject project has already been 100% completed
as the engineering standard
o Fait accomplice has made the petition for a writ of prelim injunction
moot and academic
De Castro v. JBC
FACTS
 Case started with the compulsory retirement of CJ Reynato Puno May 17, 2010
o Occurs just seven days after the coming presidential election on May 10,
2010
 Under Sec 4(1) in relation Sec 9 Art 8 – vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from
the occurrence thereof from a list of at least 3 nominees prepared by the JBC
 HOWEVER! Sec 15 of Art 7 of the consti bans the President from appointing 2
months immediately before the next presidential elections and up the end of his
term
 Jan 18, 2010 meeting en banc – JBC passed a resolution that opened the position of
CJ for app or recommendation
 JBC automatically considered for the position of CJ senior AJs
o Carpio
o Corona
o Conchita Carpio Morales
o Velasco jr.
o Nachura
 HOWEVER! Last 2 decline their nomination through letters
 OSG extends that the incumbent president may appoint the next CJ
o Because the prohibition under Sec 15 Art 7 of the consti does not apply
to appointment in the SC
 Argues that any vacany in the SC must be filled within 90 days from is occurrence
 In their deliberations, on the mandatory period for the appointment of SC Justices
o Framers neither mentioned nor referred to the ban against midnight
appointment
 Or it effects on such period
o Had the framers intended the prohibition to apply to SC appointments
 Could have easily expressly stated so in the consti
 Explains why the prohibition found in Art 7 was not written
in Art 8
o Framers also incorporated in Art 8 ample restriction of limirtaion on the
Presidents power to appoint members of the SC
 To ensure independence from political vicissitudes and its
insulation from political pressure
 Such as stringent qualification for the positions
 Establishment of the JBC
 Specified period within which the president shall appoint a
SC justice
ISSUE
 Whether the President can appoint a SC Justice? YES
o 2 consti provisions are seemingly in conflict
o First! Sec 15 of Art 7
 2 months immediately before the nest presidential elections
and up to the end of his term, a president shall not make
appointments
 Except temporary appointments to exec positions when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or
endanger public safety
o The other! Sec 4(1) Art 8
 SC shall be composed of a CJ and 14 AJs
 May sit en banc or in its discretion in division of 3, 5, or 7
 Any vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from the
occurrence thereof
o Art 7 is devoted to the exec dept
 Lists powers vested by the consti in the president
o Presidential power of appointment is dealt with in Sec 14, 15 and 16
o Art 8 is defines the duties and qualifciations of members of the SC
o Sec 4(1) and Sec of 9 are provisions specifically provding for
appintmemnt of SC
o Court believes that had the framers of the cosnti intended to extend the
prohibition contained in Sec 15 At 7
  Could have explicitly done so
 As being equally applicable to the appointment of members
of the SC in Art 8
o Such specification was not done only reveals that the prohibition against
the president making appointments within 2 months before the next
presidential elections and up to the end of the president’s term
 Does not refer to the members of the SC
o Valenzuela came to hold that the prohibition covered even judicial
appointments
 It cannot be disputed that the Valenzuela dictum did not
consider the intent of the consti commission
o The exchanges during deliberations show that the filling of a vacancy in
the SC within the 90 day period was a true mandate for the president
o Usage in Sec 4(1) Art 8 of the word shall an imperative, operating to
impose a duty that may be enforced should not be disregarded
o Thus!!! Sec 4(1) imposes on the president the imperative duty to make
an appointment of a member of the SC within 90 days
 Did not consider that Sec 4(1) Art 8 is independent of other
provision
 Reverse Valenzuela
o SECOND! Sec 15 of Art 7 does not apply as well to all other
appointment in the judiciary
 No question that one of the reasons underlying the adoption
of Sec as part of Art 8 was made in order to eliminate
midnight appointments
 Of the outgoing chief as a form of vote buying
o It is proper then to assume that the framred did not need to extend the
prohibition to appointment in the judiciary
 Because their establishment of the JBC
 And their subjecting the nomination and screening of
candidates for judicial positions to the unhurried and
deliberate prior process of the JBC ensured that there would
no longer be midnight appointments to the judiciary
o Lastly! Sec 14 and 15 and 16 are obviously of the same character
 They affect the power of the president to appoint
o The fact that Sec 14 and 16 refer only to appointment within the exec
dept renders conclusive that sec 15 also applies only to exec dept
o Conclusion is consistent with the rule that every part of the statutes must
be interpreted with reference to the context
o That every part must be considered together with the other parts and
kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment
Fortich v. Corona
FACTS
 Resolves the pending incidents, respondents’ and intervenors’ separate motions for
reconsideration of our Resolution
o As well as their motions to refer this case to this Court en banc
 Respondents question: SC resolution wherein the members voted 2-2 on separate
MR of an earlier decision
o Did not effectively resolve the MRs and such MRs should have been
referred to the SC sittin en banc pursuant to Sec 4(3) of Art 8
 Also question SC noted without action their second MR on the ground that a second
MR is forbidden motion
 Respondents argue in their MR, both respondents and intervenors pray that this case
be referred to this court en banc
o They contend that in as much as their earlier motions for reconsideration
were resolved (vote of 2-2)
 The required number to carry a decision – 3- was not met
 Rely on Art 8 Sec 4(3)
ISSUE
 Should the MR have been referred to the SC en banc? NO
o Consti provision reveal the intention of the framers to draw a distinction
between cases
 Cases – decided
 Matters (involving motions) – resolved
o Rule also applies to other provisions of the consti where these words
appear
o Given this rule, it is clear that only cases are referred to court en banc for
decision whenever the required number of votes is not obtained
o The rule does not apply where the required 3 votes is not obtained in the
resolution of the MR
o Second sentence speaks of cases and not matter
o Art 8 Sec 4(3) pertains to the disposition of cases by a division
o Tie in voting – no decision
o But if the case has already been decided by the division and the losing
party file a MR
 Failure of the division to resolve the motion because of a tie
in the voting does not leave the case undecided
 Still a decision must stand in view of the failure
o Results in a tie – MR is lost
 Assailed decision is not reconsidered and must therefore be
deemed affirmed
o Petitioners argue that the issued submitted in their separate motions are
of first impression
o SC says they are not
 Whether the power of the local gov units to reclassify lands is
subject to the approval of the DAR is no longer novel
 This having been decided by this court in case of Province of
Camarines Surt et. al v. CA
 Held that local gov units need not obtain the
approval of the DAR to convert ore calssify lands
from agri to non-agri sue
o Petitioners say that resolution did not dispose of the earlier MRs
o SC this argument is flawed since the decision specifically stated that the
2nd division deicison was arrived at by unanimous vote of all 5
memebers that the matters raised were not new
  And do not deserve considerataion by the Court en banc
Republic v. Garcia
FACTS
 Civil case was a petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties with a
verified urgent ex-parte app for the issuance of a writ or prelim attachment
o Filed by the Republic of the PH
o Against Maj. Gen, Carlos F. Garcia, wife and children in the
SB( Sandigan)
 Praying for the issuance of a writ of prelim attachment
o Republic maintained that as a sovereign political entity – it was exempt
from filing the required attachment bond
 Sandig issued resolution ordering the issuance of a writ of prelim attachment
o Against properties of the Garcias upon filing by the PH of a 1M
attachment bond
 Republic posted the required attachment bond to avoid any delay in the issuance of
the writ
o As well as to promptly protect and secure its claim
 Republic filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the resolution
o Claiming that it was exempt from filing an attachment bond and praying
for the release
 Sandig ruled that there was nothing in the rules of court that exempted the Republic
from filing an attachment bond
 It reexamined the case of Tolentino v. Carlos which was invoked by the Republic to
justify its claimed exemption
ISSUE
 Did the Sandig commit grave abuse of discretion when it rejected the Republic’s
claim of exemption from the filing of an attachment bond? YES
o Rules of court provides that before a writ of attachment may issue
 A bond must first be filed to answer for all costs which may
be adjudge to the adverse party
 And for damages he may sustain by reason of the attachment
 But this rule does not cover the state
o Tolentino – court declared that the states was represented by the gov
 Is exempt from filing an attachment bond on the theory that it
is always solvent
 State is always solvent it was not bound to post the required
bond and the respondent judge did not exceed jurisdiction
o Issuance of a writ of prelim attachment is conditioned on the filing of a
bond
 Unless the applicant is the state
 Here it is excused
o Sandig erred when it disregarded the foregoing presumption
 Amounted to grave abuse of discretion
 When an act is done contrary to the consti
 It was contrary to Tolentino case
o Sandig declared that the case of Tolentino needed to be reexamined in
the light of the changes that the rule on attachment had undergone
through the years
o Art 8 Sec493) only this court sitting en banc may modify or reverse a
doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered
en banc or in division
 Any court the Sandig included which renders a decision in
violation of this consti precept exceeds its jurisdiction
o THUS! Sandig could not have validly reexamines much less reversed
the case of Tolentino
 It acted ultra vires and committed grave abuse
o Revisions of the rules of court on attachments – pertaining to the filing
of an attachment bond if not quash the case of Tolentino
o The gov is exempt from filing an attachment bond
o Spouses Badillo is also applicable
 Court declared that when the state litigiated, it is not required
to put up a bond for damages or even an appeal bond because
it is presumed solvent
Republic v. Sereno
PACU v. Sec of Edu
FACTS
 PH Assoc of Colleges and Uni (PACU) were assailing the consti of Act 7606
o Act Making the Inspection and Recognition of Private Schools and
Colleges Obligatory for the Sec of Public Instruction
 Petitioner claims that the said Act deprives the owner of the school and colleges
also teacher and parents of liberty and property
o Without due process of law
o Deprives parents of their natural rights and duty to rear their children for
civic efficiency
o And the provision conferred on the Sec of Edu unlimited powers and
discretion to prescribe rules and standard constitute towards unlawful
delegation of legislative powers
 Gov’s legal rep, Solgen, point out that none of the petitioners have cause to present
his issue
o Because all of them have permits to operate
o And they are all currently operating at the time of the case
 In the eyes of the law, they have suffered no wrong – this there is no form of relief
that they seek
ISSUE
 Whether the petitioners have locus standi in this case? NO
o Solgen pointed out that the petitioners have no cause of action to present
this
 Because all of them have permits to operate
 And are actually operating by virtue of their permits
o Petitioners also do not assert that the respondent Sec of Edu has
threatened to revoke their permits
o An established principle that to entitles a private person immeditaly in
danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action
  It is not sufficient that he has merely a general right to invoke
the judicial power to determine the validity of exec or
legislative action
 He must show that he has sustained or is interest common to
all members of the public
o Petition denied
Tan v. Macapagal
FACTS
 Petitioners were assailing the validity of the Laurel-Leido Resolution which dealt
with the range of authority of the 1971 consti convention
 Petitioners assailed the power of the 1971 consti convention in considering,
discussing, and adopting proposal which seek to revise the present conti
o Through the adoption of a form of gov other than the form now
 Petitioners claim that the convention was merely empowered to propose
improvement to the present consti
o Without altering the general plan laid down
 Petitioners’ arguments mainly relied on secondary authority, Am Jur
 Petition was denied
ISSUE
 Whether the court may rule on the validity of the assailed resolution? NO
o 1) Locus standi
 Person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a
personal and substantial interest in the case
 Such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a
result of the enforcement
 Mabanag v. Vito and Tolentino v. Comelec, petitioners were
senators
 In this case, petitioners cannot be heard to assert that they do
qualify under such category
 For taxpayers to be given locus standi, the issue must be the
expenditure of public funds by an officers of the state for the
purpose of administering an unconsti act
 Which would constitute a misapp of such funds
 Petitioners have cause for legitimate resentment as such suit
could be distinguished from the present
o 2) Separation of powers
 Calls for the other depts being left alone to discharge their
duties as they see fit
 Req that something had by then been accomplished or
performed by either branch before a court may come into the
pic
 Court may pass on the validity of what was done only when
properly challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding
 Judiciary must leave it free to fulfill its responsibility
according to its rights
o 3) Proposed amendments is still unacted on
 Only after it had made concrete what the convention intends
to submit for ratification may the appropriate case be
instituted
Suplico v. NEDA
FACTS
 3 consolidated cases
o 1) production of the cert of true scope of the contract covering the ZTE-
DOTC NBN Proj
o 2) discontinuance of the ZTE-DOTC NBN Proj
o 3) compel the gov agencies to comply with the public bidding for the
national broadband network
 OSG was informed by the legal service of the DOTC, through an indorsement letter
o That the PH gov decided to discontue the proj
 OSG sent a manifestation and motion to the SC for the present case to be dismissed
 Rolex Suplico opposed OSG’s motion – said that:
o 1) notes of the meeting between PGMA and CHN Pres Hu Jintao were
not attached to the motion
 Depriving Suplico et al of the opportunity to comment
o 2) verbal endorsement is not sufficient basis to conclude that the ZTE-
NBN deal has been scrapped
o 3) endorsement is self-serving without the note to support its allegations
o 4) assuming that some aspects of the case was already moot, SC may
still take cognizance
 Citing Gonzales v. Chavez, Rufino V. Endriga and Alunan III v. Mirasol
o Stated that despite their mootness, the SC took cognizance of these cases
o And ruled on their merits because the SC symbolic function of educating
the bench
o And the bar by formulating guiding and controlling principles, precepts,
doctrines and rules
 Other petitioners such as Amsterdam Holdings and Nathaniel Sauz also contended
that the case should not be dismissed because of the transcendental importance
issues raised in the petition
o That included the president’s use of the power to borrow money
 SC ordered the OSG comment on the oppositions
 OSG reiterated its initial argument that the case is moot and there must be an actual
case or controversy which involves a conflict of legal rights
 OSG claims that since the project ceased to exist – case dismissed
ISSUE
 Was the case moot? YES
o Court held the pontificating on the issues which no longer legitimately
constitute an actual case or controversy will do more harm than good to
the nation
o Judicial power presupposes actual controversies
 The very antithesis of mootness in the absence of actual
justiciable controversies
 Court opts to refrain from deciding moot issues
o Telecommunications Holdings v. Santiago
  Petitioners are seeking the reinstatement of the writ of
injunction to prevent the concerned parties from pushing
through transactions with Qualcomm Inc.
 Given that Qualcomm is no longer interested in pursuing the
contracts
 There is not actual relief to which the petitioners would be
entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the
petition
o SC held to rule on the case would be indulging in a theoretical exercise
that has no practical worth in view of the supervening event
o Sec 1 Rule 129 – it is mandatory and the court has no alternative but to
take judicial notice of the official acts of the president
o Provided in the said rule that the court shall take judicial notice of the
foregoing facts without introduction of evidence
o Court considered the the act of cancellation by president Arroyo of the
proposed ZTE-NBN Proj during the meeting with the chinese president
as an official act of the exec dept
 Court must take judicial notice of such official act without
need of evidence
o Judicial notice – when mandatory - a court shall take judicial notice
without introduction of evidence of the existence and territorial extent of
states
 Their political history, forms of gov and symbols of
nationality
 The law of nations, admirality and maritime courts of the
worls and their seals
 Political consti and history of the PH
 The official acts of the legislative, exec and judicial depts of
the PH – laws of nature, the measure of time and
geographical divisions
o Petitions dismissed
Concepcion v. COMELEC
FACTS
 This is a petition for certiorari filed by petitioners Concepcion seeking to set aside
respondent COMELEC’s en banc resolution
 NAMFREL, citizen’s arm, had filed a petition for accreditation to conduct the
operation quick count with the COMELEC
 Petitioner Concepcion was one of the signatories of the NAMFREL petition in his
capacity as the national chairman of NAMFREL
 COMELEC promulgated resolution 7798
o Basically prohibits barangay official, employees and tanods from being
appointed as chairman or member of board of election inspectors (BEIs)
o Or as official watcher in May 14, 2007 elections
 COMELEC conditionally granted NAMFREL’s petition for accreditation through
the Resolution
 Conditions must be fulfilled by NAMFREL before its accreditation will take legal
effect
o Is that Concepcion must first be removed as a member and as the
national chairman of NAMFREL
o For the reason being that he is also the barangay chairman of forbes park
o Prohibited by Resolution 7798
 In this case, Concepcion filed this petition in his personal capacity to assail the said
resolution
o As it required the petitioner’s resignation from NAMFREL as a pre-
condition for its accreditation to take effect
ISSUE
 Whether petitioner Concepcion has the req of personality to file the present petition
for certiorari before the Court? NO
o SC ruled that petitioner Concepcion has no personality or interest to file
for certiorari
 Because he does not fall under the ambit of an aggrieved
party
o This req is found in Sec 1 Rule 65 – an aggrieved party by any act of
tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction
 Or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess jurisdiction
 May file a petition for certiorari
o It is one who has a party to the orig proceedings that gave rise to the orig
action for certiorari under Rule 65
o In this case, Concepcion was not a party to the orig proceedings because
only NAMFREL was the direct party in the COMELEC’s resolution
o Tang v. CA
 Court ruled that the term person aggrieved is not to be
construed to mean that any person who feels injured by the
lower court’s decision
 Can question the said court’s disposition via certiorari
 The person aggrieved is one who was a party in the orig
proceedings before the lower court
 Can therefore avail of certiorari
 Dismissed for violation of rules of court
Pascual v. Sec. of Public Works
FACTS
 1953 RA 920 was passed
 Law appropriated Php 85,000 for the construction, reconstruction, repair, extension
and improvement of
o Pasig feeder road terminals
 Pascual – governor of Rizal
o Assailed validity of law
o Claimed that the appropriation was actually going to be used for private
use for the terminals sought to be improved were part of Antonio
subdivision
 Subdivision is owned by Sen. Zulueta
 o Member of the same senate that passed and approved the same RA
 Claimed that Zulueta misrepresented in Congress the fact that he owns those
terminals
o And that his property would be unlawfully enriched at the expense of
taxpayers
o If said RA would be upheld
 Pascual prayed that the Sec. of public Works be restrained from releasing funds for
such purpose
 Zulueta maybe as an afterthought
o Donated the said property to the city of pasig
ISSUE
 Whether Pascual as provincial gov of Rizal has legal standing to sue? YES
o Respodnent’s contention is consistent with the nature of the gov
established under the consti of the PH
 AND the system of checks and balances underlying our
political structure
o Refuted by the decisions of this court invalidating legislative enactments
deemed violative of the consti or organic laws
o Validity of a statute may be contested only by one will sustain a direct
injury in consequence of its enforcement
o Yet there are many decisions nullifying at the instance of taxpayers,
laws providing for he disbursement of public funds
 Upon the theory that the expenditure of public funds by an
officer of that state for the purpose of administering an
unconsti act constitutes a misapp for such funds
 Which may be enjoined at the request of the taxpayer
o Relation between the people of PH and its taxpayers and the PH is not
identical to that obtaining between the people and taxpayers of the US
and its fed gov
o Closer from our viewpoint to that existing between the people and
taxpayers of each state and gov
 Except that authority of the republic over the people is more
fully direct than that of the states of the union
 Insofar as the simple and unitary type of our national gov is
not subject to limitations analogous to those imposed by the
Fed consti of the US
o Petitioner is not merely a taxpayer
 Provincial gov
 Most populated subdivision
 Taxpayers bear a substantial portion of the burden of taxation
in the PH
o Decision appealed is reverse and records are remanded to the lower
court
Galicto v. Aquino
FACTS
 President Aquino issued EO 7
 It ordered a moratorium on the increases in the salaries and other forms of
compensation of al GOCC and GFI employees
o For an indefinite period to be set by the President
o AND a suspension of all allowances, bonuses and incentives of members
of the board of directors/trustees
 Petitioner claims that as a PhilHealth employees, he is affected by the
implementation of EO 7
o Which was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction
 Respondents contended that there were several procedural defects which served as
ground for the dismissal of the petition
o Among these were lack of locus standi
o Certiorari is not applicable
ISSUE
 Whether certiorari is the proper remedy in this case? NO
o Petitions for certiorari and prohibition are availed of to question,
judicial, quasi-judicial or mandatory act
o Thus a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the rules of court
filed with the RTC is the proper recourse to assail the validity of EO 7
o Court mentioned that the liberal party in permitting parties to bring a suit
and transcendental doctrine cannot trump blatant disregard of procedural
rules
 Whether petitioner has locus standi? NO
o Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and
substantial interest in a case
o Such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result
of the gov act that is being challenged
o Real interest is meant a present substantial interest as distinguished from
a mere expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential
interest
 Petitioner has no vested rights to salary increases
o Thus the absence of such right deprives the petitioner of legal standing
to assail EO 7
o Petition dismissed

Legaspi v. CSC
FACTS
 A special civil action for mandamus is filed by petitioner Legaspi against the civil
service commission
 Respondent had earlier denied Legaspi’s request for info on the civil service
eligibilities
o Of Juan Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas which allegedly represented
themselves as civil service eligible who passed the civil service
examinations for sanitarians in the Health Dept of Cebu
 Petitioner invoked his right to be informed for the eligibilities of said persons is
guaranteed by the consti
o And that he has another plain speedy and adequate remedy to acquire the
info
 He prays for issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus to compel the
respondent Commission to disclose said info
 Solgen challenges the petitioner’s standing to sue upon the ground that the latter
does not possess any clear legal right to be informed of the civil service eligibilities
of the gov employees concerned
 He calls attention to the alleged failure of the petitioner to show his actual interest
in securing this particular info
 Further argues that there is no ministerial duty on the part of the commission to
furnish the petitioner with the info he seeks
ISSUE
 Whether petitioner has locus standi to file suit? YES
o Petitioner has actual interest in the matter at hand
o He anchored his case upon the right of the people to info on matters of
public concern
 By very nature is a public right
o Court ruled that when a mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of
a public right
 The req of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that
the petitioner is a citizen
 Part of the general public which possesses the right
 Whether petitioner has the right for info sought? YES
o Consti expressly mandates the duty of the state and its agents to afford
access to official records, documents, paper and in addition, gov
research data used as basis for policy dev
 Subject to such limitations as may be provided by law
o The guarantee has been further enhanced with the adoption of a policy
of full public disclosure
 This time subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law
in Art 2 Sec 28
o While gov agencies in custody of public records may imposed
reasonable regulations on the manner in which the right to info may be
exercised by the public
 The former are without discretion in refusing disclosure of or
access to info of public concern
o HOWEVER! The consti guarantee to info on matter of public concern is
not absolute
o Follows that in every case, the availability of access to particular public
record must be circumscribed by the nature of the info sought
 1) being of public concern or one that involves public interest
 2) not being exempted by law from the operation of the
consti guarantee
o Info sought by the petitioner in this case is the truth of the claim of
certain gov employees
 That that they are civil service eligible for the positions to
which they were appointed
o Consti expressly declare as a state policy that
 Appointments in the civil service shall be made only
according to merit and fitness to be determined as far as
practicable
 And except as to positions which are policy determining,
primarily confidential or highly technical by competitive
examination
o Public office being a public trust Consti Art 9 Sec 1 – is the legitimate
concern of the citizens to ensure that gov positions req civil service
eligibility are occupied only by persons who are eligible
o Public officers are at all times accountable to the people even as to their
eligibilities for their respective positions
o CSC also failed to cite any provision in the civil service law which
would limit the petitioner’s right to know those who are civil service
eligible
o CSC is ordered to open its register of eligibility
Joya v. PCGG
FACTS
 Chairman Caparas of the PCGG requested Pres Cory to sign the proposed
Consignment Agreement between the PH through the PCGG and Christie, Manson
and Woods international
 Agreement is about the scheduled sale to Christie’s old masters paintings and
antiques silverware seized from the Malacanang
o And the metropolitan museum Manila alleged to be part of the ill gotten
wealth of Marcos
 Pres Cory through exec sec Macaraig authorized Caparas to sign the agreement
o PCGG through Caparas, repping the PH, signed the agreement
 COA submitted to President Cory the audit findings of COA on the consignment
agreement
o 1) authority of former PCGG chairman Caparas to enter into the
consignment agreement was of doubtful legality
o 2) the contract was highly disadvantageous to the gov
o 3) PCGG had a poor track record in asset disposal by auction in the US
o 4) the assets subjected of auction were historical relics and had cultural
significance
 Their disposal was prohibited by law
 National Museum Cassal issued a cert that the items subject of the consignment
agreement
o Did not fall within the classification of protected cultural properties and
did not specifically qualify as part of the Filipino cultural heritage
 This petition was filed raising the ff issues
o 1) whether petitioners have legal standing to file the instant petition
o 2) whether the Old master paintings and antique silverware are
embraced in the phrase
 Cultural treasure of the nation which is under the protection
of the state pursuant to the 1987 consti
 Or cultural properties contemplated under RA 4846,
otherwise known as the The Cultural Properties Preservation
and Protection Act
o 3) whether the paintings and silverware are properties of public
dominion on which can be disposed of through the join concurrence of
the president and congress
o 4) whether the respondent, PCGG has the jurisdiction and authority to
enter into an agreement with Christie’s of New York for the sale of the
artworks
o 5) whether PCGG has complied with the due process clause and other
statutory reqs for the exportation and sale of the subject items
o 6) whether the petition has become moot and academic and if so,
whether the above issued warrant resolution from this Court
 Court denied the petition on the ground that petitioners had not presented a clear
legal right to a restraining order and that proper parties had not been impleaded
 The sale at public auction proceeded as scheduled and the proceeds of $13M were
turned over to the Bureau of Treasury
 Upon motion of the petitioners, Macaraig Jr. in his capacity as former exec sec,
incumbent exec sec, and chairman Caparas were impleaded as additional
correspondents
ISSUE
 Whether the instant petition complies with the legal reqs for this Court to exercise
its power of judicial review over this case? NO
o Court emphasized that no question involving the consti or validity of a
law or gov act may be heard and decided by the court
 Unless the ff reqs for judicial inquiry are present
o 1) that the question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity
o 2) the decisions on the consti or legal question must be necessary to the
determination of the case itself
o FIRST REQ! Court emphasized that it will exercise its power of judicial
review only if the case is brought before it by a party who has the legal
standing to raise the consti or legal question
 Legal standing – a personal and substantial interest in the
case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct
injury as a result of the gov act that is being challenged
 Interest is material interest in issue and to be affected by the
decree
 In this case the court rules that the ownership of the paintings
legally belongs to the Metropolitan Museum of Manila
 And that the silverware are personal gifts received by the
Marcoses during their silver anniversary
 The confiscation of these properties did not transfer
ownership to the Gov
 Thus having failed to show that they are the legal owners of
the artworks or that the valued pieces have become publicly
owned
 Petitioners do not possess any clear right whatsoever to
question their alleged unauthorized disposition
 In Legaspi v. CSC
 Court laid down the rule that a writ of mandamus
may be issued to a citizen only when the public
right to be enforced and the duty of the state are
set forth in the consti
 In this case, petitioners are not after the fulfillment of a
positive duty required of respondent officials under the consti
 What they seek is the enjoining of an official act because it is
constitutionally informed
 Petitioner’s claim for the continued enjoyment by the public
of the artworks is at most a privilege and is unenforceable as
a consti right in this action of mandamus
 Neither can this petition be allowed as a taxpayer’s suit
 It can only proper if the gov acts being questioned
involve public funds but the disposition of what
the alleged to be public prop
o SECOND REQ!!!! of actual controversy – court ruled that for it to
exercise its power of adjudication there must be an actual case of
controversy
  Actual controversy – involves a conflict of legal rights, an
assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial
resolution
 The case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-
legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court
of justice
 Case becomes moot and academic when its purpose has
become stale
 Since the purpose of this petition for prohibition is to enjoin
respondent public officials from holding the auction sale of
artworks on a particular date
 Which is long past – the petition has become moot and
academic
o Court emphasized that it has the discretion to take cognizance of a suit
which does satisfy the reqs of an actual case or legal standing when
paramount public interest is involved
o HOWEVER!!! There is no such justification in the petition at bar to
warrant the relaxation of the rule
o Thus!! Since the petition does not comply with the legal reqs for judicial
review
 Court cannot take cognizance of the suit
o In Sec 2 of RA 4846, as amended by PD 374, the cultural properties of
the nation which shall be under the protection of the state are classified
as the important cultural props
o And the national cultural treasures
o Important cultural props – cultural properties which have been singled
out from among the innumerable cultural properties as having exception
historical cultural significance to the PH
 BUT are not sufficiently outstanding to merit the
classification of national cultural treasures
o National cultural treasures – is a unique object found locally, possessing
outstanding historical, cultural, artistic or scientific value which is
highly significant and important to this country and nation
o Court agreed with the cert issued by the director of the museum that the
Italian paintings and silverware subject of this petition do not constitute
protected cultural properties
 And are not among those listed in the cultural prop register of
the national museum
o It is the director of the museum who is authorized to undertake the
inventory, registration, designation or classification
 With the aid of competent experts of important cultural
properties
 And national cultural treasures
o Thus findings of admin official and agencies who have acquired
expertise because their jurisdictions is confined to specific matter are
generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such
findings are supported by substantial evidence
o Petition dismissed
Board of Optometry v. Hon. Colet
FACTS
 RA 8050 (Revised Optometry Law) was passed by congress through a bicam
conference committee
 Respondents argue that the law violates the principle against undue delegation of
legislative power
o It employs vague ambiguous terms and other grounds
 They prayed that after hearing an order to be issued granting a prelim injunction
o To forbid the petitioners to enforce RA 8050
 Respondent judge then issued a TRO leading to the present petition
o Where petitioners are questioning the grant of the TRO
o Claiming that no proper ground exists as to the issuance of the writ
 Petitioners claim that respondents do not have legal standing to file the suit
 At the hearing, parties indicated their intention to present witnesses
o But the trial court found it to not be conducive to the summary
procedure
o And so they directed the parties to submit their other arguments in
writing after which the writ would be deemed submitted for resolution
 Trial court issued a resolution granting the writ of prelim injunction
o Stating that there are rights affected
o And that implementation of the law would violate the said rights
 Petitioners then filed this special civil action praying for a writ of prelim injunction
or TRO claiming that
o Respondent judge committed GADALEJ (grave abuse of discretion)
when it found that respondents have standing
o Respondent judge committed GADALEJ when it decrees that prima
facie evidence of unconsti exists, especially since it’s based on mere
allegations
ISSUE
 Do the respondents have locus standi? NO
o Private respondents are not registered assoc
 Since only natural or juridical persons are allowed to have
standing
o Respondents are deemed not to have the capacity to bring suit
 Whether there was valid cause of action for either declaratory relief or prohibition?
NO
o Court cannot take cognizance of the case because it is not yet ripe for
judicial adjudication
o There is not actual case or controversy because the civil case is for
declaratory relief
o Given that one of the reqs of declaratory relief is that issue is ripe for
judicial determinations
 Missing
 Writ should not have been issued
o Respondent judge should have acted with utmost circumspection
 It should have deferred to the Court the consideration of the
validity of the assailed law
 o Petition granted and the first TRO is annulled
Tondo Medical v. CA
FACTS
 A petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the CA which denied the petition
to nullify
o Health Sector Reform Agenda (HSRA) PH of the DOH
o EO 102 “redirecting the functions and operations of the DOH”
 Issued by Estrada
 HSRA – launched by DOH
o Reform agenda which provided for 5 general areas of reform namely
o 1) provide fiscal autonomy to gov hospitals
 Gov hops are allowed to collect a socialized user fees so that
they can reduce the dependence on direct subsidies from the
gov
o 2) secure funding for priority public health programs
o 3) promotes the dev of local health systems and ensure its effective
performance
o 4) strengthen the capacities of health regulatory agencies
o 5) expand the coverage of the national health insurance program (NHIP)
 Petitioners are questioning the first one on fiscal autonomy
o Particularly the collection of socialized user fees and corporate
restructuring of gov hospitals
o Petitioners are also assailing the issuance of 2 admin orders (AOs) by
the DOH called – guidelines and procedure in the implementation of the
corporate restructuring of selected DOH hospitals to achieve fiscal
autonomy and managerial flexibility to stay by Jan 2001
o And the other admin order called – policies and guidelines on the private
practice of medial and paramedical professionals in gov health facilities
o On grounds that they impose an added burden to indigent Fils who
cannot afford to pay for meds and medical services
 This is tantamount to making FREE meds and medical services inaccessible to
economically disadvantaged Fils
 They claim HSRA is void for violating the consti
 EO 102 – enacted pursuant to the LGC Sec 17 which provided for the devolution to
the LGUs of basic services and facilities
o Provided for the change in roles, functions and org processes of the
DOH
 Under this, the DOH refocused its mandate from being the sole provider of health
services to being a provider of specific health services and technical assistance
o As a result of the devolution of basic services to LGUs
 Petitioners say that a law like EO 102 should be enacted by Congress
 EO is void because it’s issued in excess of the president’s authority
 Implementation and rationalization and streamlining plan (RSP) is not in
accordance with the law
o Because it was allegedly implemented even before the DBM approved
 Also the office of the pres should have issued an AO to carry out the streamlining
o But it didin’t
 Some petitioners assailed EO 102 on the ground that they were likely to lose their
jobs
o They would suffer inconvenience of travelling a longer distance to get to
their new place of work
 Additional arguments include – that they would suffer diminution of compensation
o Assigned to positions for which they were neither qualified nor suited
o New employees were hired by DOH for positions that were not qualified
for
o DOH employees were deployed or transferred during the 3-month period
before national and local elections in violation of RA 7305 magna carta
for public health workers Sec 2
o Petitioner failed to specify the names of the DOH employees were likely
to suffer the abovementioned consequences
 CA denied the petition due to procedural defects namely
o 1) petitioners failed to show capacity or authority to sign the cert of non-
forum shopping and the verification
o 2) petitioners failed to show any particularized interest for bringing the
suit nor any personal injury sustained or were in the immediate danger
of sustaining
o 3) petition brought before the SC was filed out of time or beyond 60
days from the time of reorganization methods were implemented
o 4) certiorari, prohibition and mandamus will not lie where the president
 In issuing the assailed EO was not acting as a tribunal, board
or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions
 CA’s ruling on the substantive issue is that
o HSRA cannot be declared void for violating Sec 5,8,10,11,13,15,18 of
Art 2
 Which directly or indirectly pertain to the duty of the state to
protect and promote the peoples right to health and well-
being
o It reasoned that the aforementioned provisions of the consti are nor self-
executing
 Not judicially enforceable consti rights and can only provide
guidelines for legislation
o Petitioners assertion that EO 102 is detrimental to the health of the
people cannot be made a justiciable issue
o Question of whether the HSRA will bring about the dev or disintegration
of the health sector is within the realm of the political dept
o President was empowered ot issue EO 102
 In accordance with Sec 17 Art 7 of the consti
o DOH did not implement the EO 102 in bad faith or with grave abuse of
discretion as the DOH issued a dept circular which created the different
committees tasked with the implementation of the RSP
 Only after both the DBM and the presidential committee on
effective governance (PCEG) approved the RSP
 Petitioner filed MR with CA but denied
 Thus this petition
ISSUE
 Whether the petitioners had the requisite standing to assail the validity of EO 2 even
though it is acase od transcendtal importance? NO
o None of the circumstances are applicable since none of the petitioners
were removed from public service
 Nor did they identify any action taken by the DOH that
would unquestionable result in their dismissal
o Persons vinolved are not identifies details of their appointments and
trasnfers
 Such as position, salary grade, and the date they were
appointed
 Are ot given
 And the circumstances that attended the alleged violations
are not specified
o There are jurisprudence that upheld the standing of citizens who filed
suits
 Wherein transcendental importance of the consti question
justified the granting of the relief
o HOWEVER! Petitioners must be able to asset subsntatial interest
 It requires tghat they can show that they personally suffered
some actual or threatened injury
 As a result of the allegedly illegal conduct of the gov
o Consti questions which are of transcendental importance cannot be
invoked
 Where party’s substantive claim is without merit
Anak Mindanao v. Exec Sec Ermita
FACTS
 EO 364 transforms the dept of argi reform into the dept of land and reform
o And placed the presidential commission for the urban poor (PCUP)
under the supervision and control of the dept of land reform
 PCUP chairman to be the ex officio undersec for Urban Land Reform
 EO 379 makes the national commission on indigenous peoples (NCIP) an attached
agency of the dept of land reform
 Petitioners contend that the issuances violate
o 1) separation of powers
 Congress powers is impaired
 DAR, PCUP, NCIP were created by statutes and can only be
reorganized by statutes
 Not by EOs
o 2) Constitutional scheme and policies for agrarian reform, urban land
reform, indigenous people’s rights and ancestral domain
 New framework is fundamentally incoherent in view of
widely different contexts
o 3) constitutional right to effective and reasonable participation in
decision-making including through adequate consultation
 Renaming of DAR moot and academic because agency reverted back to its old
name through EO 456
ISSUE
 Whether placing the PCUP and NCIP under DAR or as an attached agency is
consti? YES
o Manalo Descendants Org inc has no legal standing (vague
propositions)
o But Anak Mindanao has legal standing (congress to maintain
powers)
o EOs can reorganize DAR, PCUP, and NCIP
o Consti confers the power of control of exec depts in the president
o Admin code expressly grants the authority to the president to
reorganize
o Admin code has 3 admin relationships
 1) supervision and control
 2) admin supervision
 3) attachment (larger measure of independence)
o By making NCIP an attchament
 President recognized its independence
o Consti did not identify composition of the Cabinet
o Law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality
 No showing of how reorganization will hamper rights
and privileges
 No showing that the president altered NCIP’s
jurisdiction and adjudicatory functions of the NCIP
concerning disputes involving IP’s rights
o Other arguments are political questions
o Courts have no judicial power to review cases involving political
questions and as a rule, will desist from taking cognizance of
speculative or hypothetical cases, advisory opinions and cases that
have become moot
o Petition dismissed, issuances are consti
Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes
FACTS
 1st case
o Petitioners
 Whales
 Dolphins
 Porpoises
 Other cetacean species
 Which inhabit the waters in and around the Tañon straight
o Joined by Ramos and Eisma-osorio
 Steward who empathize and seek for their protection
o Also impleaded as an unwilling co-petitioner is former pres. GMA
 2nd case
o The petitioners are the central visayas fisherfolk development center
(FIDEC)
 o Non-stock, non-profit
o NGO established for marginal fisherfolks in region 7
 Main respondent in both petitions are
o Angelo Reyes
 Sec. of DOE (energy)
o Jose Atienza
 Sec. of DENR & JAPEX (japan petroleum exploration co.)
 2002 – gov of the PH, acting through DOE, entered into a geophysical survey and
exploration contract-102 with JAPEX
o Involved surface geology
o sample analysis
o reprocessing of seismic and magnetic data
 2004 – contract was converted into SC-46 for the exploration, development and
production of petroleum resources in the Tañon straight
 2007 – DENR-EMB Region 7 granted an environmental compliance cert. (ECC) for
the offshore exploration project
 Months later, JAPEX began to drill an exploratory well near Pinamungajan town
 December of that year 2 petitions were filed concerning unconsti of SC-46
 Petitioners protested the adverse ecological impact of JAPEX’s oil exploration
activities in the Tañon Strait
o Decrease of fish catch since JAPEX’s seismic survey
 Petitioners also allege that JAPEX failed to conduct public consultations and
discussion with the fisherfolks and other stakeholders
o Pre-req before issuance of ECC
 Petitioners allege that seismic surveys and drilling have barred them from entering
and fishing in said area
 Respondents say that they have no locus standi
o Argue constitutionality of SC-46 and validity of ECC
ISSUE
 Whether the petitioners have standing? YES
o Rules of Court demand that parties to a suit be either natural or juridical
persons or entities
o Court has passed rules of procedure for environmental cases which
allow for citizen suits
o The need to give resident marine mammals legal standing has been
eliminated
 As any Fil citizen as a steward of nature may bring a suit to
enforce environmental laws
o The stewards being parties to the case
 And having shown that there is a possible violation of laws
concerning the habitat of the resident marine mammals
 Are declared to possess locus standi
 Whether SC-46 violates the consti? YES
o Looking at the discussion of the consti convention, court has held that
service contracts for development of resources are not banned
 But given safeguards to ensure that they would not be abused
as during the martial law regime
 Safeguards are
 1) that the contract is crafted in accordance with a
general law that sets terms and conditions
 2) that the president is a signatory
 3) that within 30 days, the presidents hall report to
congress the execution of the contract
o PD87 (Oil Explorations and Dev Act of 1972) was never repealed and
remains a valid general law to fulfill the first safeguard
o But the president never signed the contract (only the DOE sec did)
 Which is an explicit requirement in the consti
 Whether the SC-46 violates other laws? YES
o Tanon Straight, pursuant to proclamation 1234 was declared a protected
area
 Under the NIPAS Act
 Which required an environmental impact assessment to be
undertaken in line with the environmental impact statement
system
 And an environmental compliance cert to be issued prior to
implementation of any activity
o Respondents admitted that they secured the ECC after initiating the
project
 Which is failure to complay with reqs
o Also the NIPAS Act requires that for the dev of resources in a protected
area
 There must be a specific law allowing such
 Not just a general law
o As there is no specific law authorizing such activity in Tanon Strait
 No energy resource exploitation may be done
International service for the acquisition of agric-biotech applications (ISAAA) vs.
greenpeace south east asia
FACTS
 Pursuant to the Memorandum of Undertaking (MOU) entered into by the UPLBFI
and ISAAA and University of the PH Mindanao Foundation inc. (UPMFI)
o Parties will conduct field trials for “bioengineered eggplants”
o Pest-resistant eggplants were incorporated with bacillus thuringiensis to
produce a protein Cyrl Ac which is toxic to the target insect pests
 National Committee on biosafety of the PH (NCBP)isssues a cert. of completion of
contained experiment stating that
o Biosafety measure have been complied with
 Upon issuance of biosafety permits, the field testing in BT Talong commences in
o Kabacan, Noth Cotabato
o Sta. Maria, Pangasinan
o Pili, Camarines Sur
o Bago Oshiro, Davao
o Laguna Bay
  Greenpeace alleges that BT Talong field trials violate consti right to health and a
balanced ecology considering that subject crop is presumed harmful to human
health and the environment
 Also field trials do not comply with sec. 26 and 27 of LGC
o Because 10 households were not aware in these trials
 CA granted petition and directed the permanented cessation and desistance of the
BT Talong trials
ISSUE
People v. Vera
FACTS
 Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted in a crim case filed against him by HSBC
 After several failed MRs
o He petitioned for probation
o Act 4221
 Hearing was set by Judge Vera for the Manila CFI
o But due to several delays
o The prosecution filed the present petition for certiorari before the SC
 Alleging that courts like the Manila CFI under Judge Vera
have no jurisdiction to place anyone under probation
 Because the probation Act only applies to provinces with
probation officers
 Prosecution alleged that Manila cannot grant probation because
o 1) it is not a province
o 2) it has no designated probation officer
 HSBC added that the Probation Act is unconsti
o 1) violating the consti guarantee of equal protection
o 2) being an undue delegation of legislative power in that there were no
guidelines to be followed by the provincial board
o 3) encroaching on the exec’s power to grant pardon
 SC eventually ruled that the Probation Act is unconsti
 Addressing the points made by HSBC
o It violated the EPC because it gave provinces the prerog of applying it
by either appointing a probation officer or not
 If the province were to decide not to appoint such an officer
 Then the accused within such province will be unduly
deprived of the law’s provisions
 The law was an undue delegation of legislative power provided that it would only
apply to provinces which had designated probation officers
o But it did not provide for a standard as to how provincial boards should
determine whether to apply it in their respective provinces
 HOWEVER! The law did not encroach on the exec’s power to pardon because the
probation is NOT the same as pardon
o And as such was well within the power of Congress to legislate
o Does not commute penalties, it only fixes them
 Cu Unjieng then gave notice of his intention to petition for certiorari before the US
SC
o This time praying that a supersedeas bond is a type of surety court
bond that is required in a court of law when a defendant wants to appeal
a ruling to a higher court while delaying the payment of a judgment.
o be fixed
o A surety paid by the appellant in order to stay executed during the
pendency of the appeal
 He argued that
o 1) it was mandatory for the Court to stay execution because certiorari
and prohibition are civil remedies
o 2) probation cannot be granted after he starts serving his sentence
o 3) the Probation Act was consti
 The prosecutors are thus estopped from questioning its
validity
 HOWEVER! This was addressed by the SC in the present petition
ISSUE
 Whether a supersedeas bond may be fixed in favor of Cu Unjieng? NO
o Appeal was taken from the judgment declaring the Probation Act as
unconsti
o Thus it cannot be anymore invoked seeing that there is nothing more to
be actively enforced
o Similarly, there is nothing upon which the supersedeas bond may
operate
o Sec 46 of the rules of court provides that a party in a civil case upon
whom a final judgment has been rendered who petitions for certiorari
before the US SC
 IF granted – will be granted to stay at most 10 days
 Within which he may provide a supersedeas bond to be fixed
by a US SC
o BUT this rule does not apply
 Only applies to civil cases
 However, the proceedings of this case were incident of a crim
case
o Final judgments cannot be overturned
o The supersedeas sought for is intended to operate on the decision and
judgment of the initial crim case
o The suspensive effect of supersedeas may only apply if the
corresponding judgment may still be put up for review
o Petition of stay of execution and the fixing of a supersedeas bond is
denied
Narra Nickel Mining v. Redmont
FACTS
 Redmont is a domestic corp interested in the mining and exploration of some areas
in Palawan
  Upon learning that those areas were covered by MPSA apps of other 3 (allegedly
fil) corps
o Narra
o Tesoro
o MacArthur
 It filed a petition before the Panel of Arbitrators of DENR
o Seeking to deny their permits on the ground that these corps are in
reality foreign-owned
 MBMI - a 100% canadian corp
o Owns 40% of the shares of PLMC
o PLMC owns 5,997 shares of Narra
o 40% of the shares of MMC – which owns 5,997 shares of MacArthur
o And 40% shares of SLMC
 Which in turn owns 5,997 shares of Tesoro
o Aside from the MPSA, the 3 corps also applied for FTAA with the
office of the pres
 In their answer, they countered that
o 1) liberal control test must be used in determining the nationality of a
corp
 As based on Sec 3 of the foreign investment
 Which as they claimed admits of corp layering schemes
o 2)the nationality question is no longer material because their subsequent
app for FTAA ( free trade area of the Americas)
ISSUE
 Whether the instant case is capable of repletion despite mootness? YES
o Although at POA level it was already established that the petitioners
through the FTAA already admitted that they do not have enough
funding to perform their activities
 And that they need support from foreign corp
 The claim of petitioners that the CA erred in not rendering
the instant case as moot is without merit
o A case is moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable
controversy by virtue of supervening events
 So that a declaration would be of no practical use
o Mootness principle however does accept certain exception and mere
raising an issue of mootness will not deter courts from trying cases
 When there is a valid decision to do so
o David v. Arroyo: provided 4 instances where the courts can decide an
otherwise moot case
 1) grave violation of the consti – in this case Sec 2 of Art 12
is violated by a foreign corp right through a myriad of crop
layering under diff filipino corps
 2) exceptional character of the situation and paramount
public interest is involved – this case, it undeniably affects
exploitation of our country’s national resources
 3) consti issue raised requires formulation of controlling
principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public
 4) case is capable of repetition yet evading review – in this
case the Canadian company, MBMI, can keep on utilizing
dummy fil corps through various schemes of crop layering
and conversion of apps to skirt the consti prohibition against
foreign mining in PH soil
Torrecampo v. Metropolitan Waterwork and Sewerage System
FACTS
 Brgy Captain Beda Torrecampo of Balara filed a petition for injunction
o On behalf of his barangay constituents
o And 8 million metro manila residents against MWSS
 Torrecmapo sought to enjoin respondents from implementing the C5 extension
project over lots owned by MWSS
 3 aqueducts which supply water to the residence 8M – will be as risk
 Atty. Villamor Jr. alleged that the project would result to grave injustice and
irreparable injury to the petitioner
o And the 8m residents
 He also raised that the consti right to health would be violated
o And that the petition was filed directly with the SC because lower courts
are prohibited from issuing restraining orders and injunctions against
gov infrastructure projects
o Pursuant to RA 8975 – An Act to ensure the expeditious implementation
and completion of gov infrastructure projects
 By prohibiting lower courts from issuing TROs, prelim
injunctions or prelim mandatory injunctions
 Providing penalties for violations
 Assistant sol gen Panga lead counsel for respondent DPWH
o Asserts that petitioner’s case does not fall under an exception cited in
RA 8975
o And thus should have followed the principle of hierarchy of courts
 Atty. Agra for respondent MWSS finds as premature the filing of the petition for
injunction
o There is no road expansion project to be implemented
o The project has yet to pass prior review by the MWSS
o Thus no justiciable controversy
 Through RA 6234 – MWSS explains its participation in the C5 road expansion proj
 MWSS explains they have jurisdiction, supervision and onctrol over all the
sewerage and waterworks systems located in metro manila, rizal and a portion of
Cavite
 MWSS issued board resolution no 2009-052 on March 12, 2009
o Allowed DPWH to use the 60-meter right of way for prelim studies of
the road expansion proj
 DPWH entered the right of way to conduct necessary studies for the project
 Court issued the Torrecampo is not entitles to an injunctions
 Thus! Torrecampo’s petition is denied
ISSUE
 Whether respondents should have been enjoined from commencing with and
implementing the C5 Road extension project along Tandang Sora road affecting
MWSS’ properties? NO
o Torrecampo is not entitled to an injunction
o Torrecampo seeks judicial review of a question of exec policy
 A matter outside the court’s jurisdiction
o Torrecampo failed to show that respondents committed grave abuse of
discretion that would warrant the exercise of this court’s extraordingary
certiorari power
o Torrecampo asserts that the right of 8m residents to clean and portable
water is greatly put at risk
 And alleges that he MWSS and the DPWH violate sec 16 Art
2 and Sec 6, Art 12 of the consti
 Should they choose to proceed with the C5 road extension
project
 Using the MWSS properties instead of the RIPADA area
o These issued however are dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a
particular measure
o Under the guise of the relative importance of the rights of a lesser
number of motorists
 To a wider road vis a vis the right of some 8m resident of
metro manila to clean and portable water
 Torrecampo wants this Court to determine whether tandang
sora area is a better alternative to the RIPADA area for the
C5 extension project
o Despite the definition of judicial power under Sec 1 Art 8
 An inquiry on issues raised by Torrecampo would delve into
matters that are exclusively within the wisdom of the exec
branch
o This was proven in the oral arguments where petitioner admitted not
addressing concerns
 To the sec of DPWH and the possibility of the project
continuing without the destruction of the aqueducts because
there are no plans yet to base their claim on
o The only thing that was approved by MWSS is the conduct of the study
for the project
 And the approval of said project is still dependent on MWSS
o Determination of where, as between two possible routes to construct a
road extension
 Is not within the province of the court
o Determination belong to the exec branch
o DPWH still has to conduct the proper study to determine whether a road
can be safely constructed on land beneath which runs the aqueducts
o Without such study, the MWSS, which owns the land
 Cannot decide whether to allow the DPWH to construct the
road
o Absent such DPWH study and MWSS decision
 No grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction can be alleged against or attributed to
respondents
 Warranting the exercise of this court’s extraordinary
certiorari power
o Petition denied
De Agbayani v. PNB
FACTS
 De Agbayani obtained a 450peso loan from PNB
o Maturing on July 19 1944
o Secured by a real estate agent
 Nov 1959, the balance due was 1294
 BUT on July 13 of the same year, PNB institutes an extra-judicial foreclosure of
proceedings in the office of the provincial sheriff of Pangasinan
o For the recovery of the balance of loan left unpaid
 De Agba countered this with his suit by alleging that the mortgage sought to be
foreclosed has already prescribed
o 15 years after the date of the loan’s maturity
 BUT PNB state that the defense of prescription would not be available if the period
from Mar 10, 1945 when EO 32 was issued to July 26 1948
o When the subsequent legislative act extending the period of moratorium
was declared invalid
o Were to be deducted from the computation of the time during which the
bank took no legal steps for the recovery of the loan
 HOWEVER! The lower court still favored De Agba
 SC was right therefore in rejecting the contention that on its face
o The Moratorium law was unconsti
o Amounting as it did to the impairment of the obligation of contracts
 As of the time of adjudication
o It was apparent that RA 342 could not survive the test of validity
 EO 32 should likewise be nullified
o That before the decision, they were not constitutionally infirm was
admitted expressly
ISSUE
 Whether the period of the effectivity of EO 32 and RA342 extending the
Moratorium Law before the same was declared invalid tolled the period of
prescription? YES
o An unconsti act, suffering from that infirmity cannot be the source of
any legal rights or duties
o Nor can it justify any official act taken under it
o Prior to the declaration of nullity such challenged legislative or exec act
must have been in force and had to be complied with
o This is so ad until after the judiciary declared its invalidity
 It is entitled to obedience and respect
o Such legislative act is in operation and presumed to be valid in all
respects
o It is now accepted as a doctrine that prior to its being nullified
 Its existence as a fact must be reckoned with
 Operative fact doctrine
o This is merely to reflect awareness that precisely because the judiciary is
the gov organ which has the final say on whether a legislative or exec
measure is valid
 A period of time may have elapsed before it can exercise the
power of judicial review that may lead to a declaration of
nullity
o It would be to deprive that law of its quality of fairness and justice then
 If there be recognition of what has been transpired prior to
such adjudication
o When EO 32 was issued in 1945 and when RA 342 was passed in 1948
 There was a factual justification for the moratorium
o PH was confronted with an emergency of impressive magnitude at the
time of the country’s liberation from the Japanese military forces in
1945
 Where the economy was really bad
o SC was right therefore in rejecting the contention that on its face
 The Moratorium law was unconsti
 Amounting as it did to the impairment of the obligation of
contracts
o Considering the circumstance confronting the legitimate gov upon its
return to the PH
 Such remedial device was needed and basely so
o An unyielding insistence then on the rights to property on the part of the
creditor was not likely to meet with judicial sympathy
o When the legislation was before this Court in 1953
 The question before it was its satisfying the rational basis
tests
 Not as of the time of its enactment but as of such date
o If then it were unreasonable
 The right to non-impariment of contractual obligations must
prevail over the assertion of community power to remedy an
existing evil
o SC was convinced that such indeed was the case
o As of the time of adjudication, it was apparent that RA 342 could not
survive the test of validity
o EO 32 should likewise be nullified
o That before the decision they were not constitutionally infirm was
admitted expressly
o There is more reason to yield assent to the now prevailing principle that
the existence of a statute or exec order prior to its being adjudged void
 Is an operative fact to which legal consequences are attached
o Because of judicial recognition that moratorium was valid
 Gov response to the plight of debtors who were war sufferers
 This court has made clear its view in a series of cases
impressive in their number and unanimity that during the
eight-year period that EO 32 and RA 342 were enforce
 Prescription did not run
o Error of the lower court in sustaining plaintiff’s suit is thus manifest
o From July 14, 1944, when her loan matured
 To July 13, 1959, when extra-judicial foreclosure
proceedings were started by appellant bank
 The time consumed is 6 days short of 14 years
o The prescriptive period was tolled however, from Mar 10, 1945
 The effectivity of EO 32 to may 18, 1953
o When resort was had extra-judically to the foreclosure of the mortgage
obligation
 There was time to spare before prescription could be availed
of as a defense
o Decision was revered and suit of plaintiff was dismissed
PH Coconut v. Republic
FACTS
 Pre-martial law
 RA 6260 was enacted creating the Coconut Investment Company (CIC)
o To admin the Coconut Investment Fund (CIF)
 Fund was to be sourced from a 55 cents levy on the sale of every 100kg of copra
(dried coconut kernels)
 Of the .55 levy of which the corpa seller was issued COCOFUND receipts
o Php .02 was placed at the disposition of the COCOFED
o National association of Coconut producers declared by the PH Coconut
Admin (PCA) as having largest membership
 Martial law
 Marcos issued PDs which were designed to improve the coconut industry
 PDs were some of the issuances on the coco levy
o Its collection and utilization
o How the proceeds of the levy will be managed and by whom
o And the purpose it was supposed to serve
 PD 276 established the Coconut Consumers Stabilization Fund (CCSF) and
declared the proceeds of the CCSF levy as trust fund
o Which will be used to subsidize the sale of coconut-based products
o Thus stabilizing the price of edible oil
 PD 582 created the Coconut Industry Development Fund (CDIF)
o To finance the operation of a hybrid coconut seed farm
 PD 755
 Sec 1 of which states that it is policy or objective of the state to provide readily
available credit facilities to coconut farmers at preferential interest rates
 Sec 2 states that PCA was authorized to use the levy funds for the acquisition of a
commercial bank and deposit subsequent levy collections in said bank, interest fee
and withdrawable only when the bank has attained a level of sufficiency in its
capital
 PD 961 (5)
o EXEMPTIONS – Coconut consumers stabilization funds and the
Coconut Industry Dev Fund as well as all disbursements of said funds
 for the benefit of the coconut farmers as authorized shall not be
construed or interpreted under any law or regulations
o As special fiduciary funds or as part of the general funds of the national
gov within the contemplations of PD 711
o Nor as subsidy, donation, levy, gov funded investment or gov share
within the contemplation of PD 898
o The intention being that said fund and the disbursements thereof as
herein authorized for the benefit of the coconut framers shall be owned
by them in their own private capacities
 PD 1468
 Exemptions – CCSF and CIDF as well as all disbursement as herein authorized
shall not be construed under any law or regulation
o As special fiduciary funds
o Or as part of the general funds of the national gov within the
contemplation of PD 711
o Nor as a subsidy, donation, levy gov funded investment or gov share
within the contemplation of PD 898
o Intention being that said fund and the disbursements thereof as herein
authorized for the benefit of the coconut framers shall be owned by them
in their private capacities
 PCA was charged with the duty of collecting and administering the fund
o PCA also had its share of the coconut levy
 Through the years – a part of the coconut levy funds went directly or indirectly to
various projects or was converted into different assets or investments…of relevance
to case were
o 1) the acquisition of the UCPB
o 2) UCPB’s acquisition of a large block of SMC shared
 Letter of instruction 926 made reference to the creation of other coco levy funds
o Of the Coconut Investment Fund
o LOI authorizes the UCPB to invest through CIF the finds in the private
corporations
 Sandiganbayan found that the PCA appropriated, out of its own fund, an amount for
the purchase of 72.2% equity even though it would later reimburse itself from the
coconut levy fund
ISSUE
 Whether the unconsti of PD 755 should retroact? YES
o SC held that the doctrine of operative fact cannot apply in the case
o As a general rule, statutes which are rendered unconsti cannot be source
of legal rights
 However, the doctrine of operative fact in which the effect of
the statute remains up until it is declared unconsti
o However! This exception cannot apply if it would be grossly unfair or
immoral as the doctrine of operative fact is based on fairness and equity
o In this case, equity and fairness cannot be appreciated to support the
petitioner’s claim
o If the unconsti of PD 755 will not retroact
 It will be unfair and immoral
o Because of the ff reasons
 1) it would be prejudicial to the other 4m farmers who
contributed to the fund but was not able to receive a share
 2) not all the shares were delivered and received by farmers
holding receipts for payment of coconut levy
 3) not all of the farmers were given receipt for the payment
of account levy as proof contribution
o The doctrine of operative fact should not apply and effect of the unconsti
shall retroact
Araullo v. Aquino
FACTS
 Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)
o Under President Aquino’s leadership of Sec. Abad
o Response to sluggish economic growth
 DAP allowed the executive to allocate public funds pooled from unreleased
appropriations from
o Personnel services
o Unprogrammed funds
o Carry-over appropriations from the previous year
o Budget from slow-moving items
o Projects that had been realigned to support faster disbursing projects of
its various agencies
 In the guise of the president exercising his consti authority
 Under Sec 5 (5) of Art 6
 To transfer funds out of savings to augment the
appropriations made by officers
 Within exec branch of gov
 HOWEVER! Challenges gave been proven to be more complicated as allegations
on transferring these funds outside the exec branch have been made
 MAIN ISSUE! DAP initially surface when Sec. Jinggoy Estrada delivered his
privilege speech in the senate
o Saying that some senators including himself have been allotted an
additional budget of Php 50M
o Came from the DAP
o Said sum was given upon request of a letter
o Also said that this was not the first time disbursements were made
 He explained that funds from DAP were usually taken from
o 1) unreleased appropriations under personnel services
o 2) unprogrammed funds
o 3) carry-over appropriations unreleased from previous year
o 4) budgets for slow-moving items or projects that has been realigned to
support faster-disbursing projects
 DBM soon came out to claim in its website that the DAP releases had been sourced
from savings generated by the gov
o And from unprogrammed funds
 Savings had been derived from
o 1) pooling of unreleased appropriations
 o 2) withdrawal of unobligated allotments for slow moving-programs and
projects that had been earlier released to the agencies of the national gov
CIR v. San Roque Power Corp
FACTS
 Consolidation of 3 cases
 1) CIR v. San Roque
o San roque is a domestic corp whose function is to design, construct,
erect and assemble power generating plants and related facilities
o Pursuant to and under contract with the gov or any of its subdivision,
instrumentality or policy
o San Roque entered into a power purchase agreement (PPA) with the
national power corp (NPC)
o To develop hydro-potential of the Lower Agnco River and generate
additional power and energy for the Luzon Power Grid
o By building the San Roque Multi Purpose Project
 Which comprises of the dam, spillway and power plant
 San roque allegedly incrurred excess input VAT in the
amount of Php 500m for taxable year 2001
o It then filed with BIR for a refund
o CIR’s inaction though prompted San Roque to file a petition for review
with CTA
 2) Taganito Mining v. CIR
o Tag Mining is a coprt whose business is to buy, sell or produce ores or
business related
o Tag filed all its monthly VAT declaration and quarterly VAT returns for
the period Jan 1, 2005
o Tag reported sero-rated sales amounting to php 1B
 Input VAT on its domestic purshacees and imporation of
capital goods amounting to Php 6M
o Tag filed for a tax credit.refund of it supposed input VAT amounting to
Php 8M
o As the statutory period within which to file a claim for refund for said
input VAT is about to lapse without action on the part of the CIR
 Tag filed the instant petition for review
 3) Philex Ming Corp v. CIR
o It is a corp engaged in the mining business
 Includes exploration and operation of mine properties and
commercial production and marketing mine products
o Philex filed its original VAT return for the 3rd quarter of taxable year
2005
 And amended VAT return for the same quarter
o Philex filed its claim for refund/tax credit of the amount of Php 23M
o Due to CIR’s failure to act on such claim
 Philex filed a petition for review
o CTA division ruled: Philex’s claim prescribed
 the 2 year prescriptive period specified applied not only to
the filing of the admin claim with the BIR
 but also to the filing of the judicial claim with CTA
MR!!!!!
FACTS
 San Roque prays that the rule established in 12 Feb 2013 decision be given only a
prospective effect
o Arguing that the manner by which the BIR and the CTA actually treated
the 120 + 30 day period constitutes an operative fact
o The effects and consequences of which cannot be erased or outdone
 The doctrine operative facts is an expression to the general rule
o Such that a judicial declaration of invalidity may not necessarily
oblierate all the effects and consequences of a void act prior to such
declaration
 CIR on the other hand, asserts that Tag’s judicial claim for tax credit or refund was
prematurely filed before the CTA and should be disallowed because BIR Ruling
was issued by deputy commissioner
o Not by commissioner of internal rev
ISSUE
 Whether respondent complied with the relevant provision of Tax Code, making
them eligible for the tax refund?
o Only Tag is eligible for tax refund
o Sec 112(a) - a company could apply for a refund to the CIR within 2
years
 After the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were
made
o Sec 112(d) – after the company submits all the complete documents, the
CIR has 120 days to render its decision
 Upon the decision of the CIR or if CIR does not render a
decision within the 120-day period
 The company has 30 days to appeal to the CTA
o San Roque filed within 13 days
 Violating the 120-day mandatory period prescribed in the tax
code
o Previous law, the mandatory period was only 60 days
o The Atla doctrine is inapplicable because it only rules on the 2 year
period for filing with the CIR
 Not the 120+30 day period for filing with the CTA
o Tag also violated the 120-day period
 But it can invoke the BIR Ruling DA-489-03 promulgated on
Dec 10,2003
 Which stated that taxpayer-claimant need not wait for the
lapse of 120-day period before it could seek judicial relief
with the CTA by way of petition for review
 Deemed that Tag filed on time
o Philex clearly violated the 2-year filing period under Sec 112(a)
o Last day when they validly file was on Aug 17, 2006
  It only filed on Oct 17,2007
 61 days later in filing its judicial claim
o Main diff between the ruling on San Roque and Tag was the fact that
San Roque filed before the promulgation of the BIR Ruling DA-489-03
o The ruling is in support of Sec 246 of the tax code which says that a
reversal of a BIR reg or ruling cannot adversely prejudice a taxpayer
who in good faith relied on the BIR reg or ruling prior to its reversal
o Thus! San Roque never had the benefit of doctrine of operative fact with
regard to the BIR Ruling because San Roque filed its judicial claim even
before the ruling was dated
o In the MR, court stated that the doctrine provides that until after the
judiciary declare a measure’s invalidity
 It is entitled to obedience and respect
o For operative fact to apply, there must be a legislative or exec measure
that in invalidated by the court
Kalipunan v. Robredo
FACTS
 Petitioners are occupying parcels of land owned by and located in San Juan,
Navotas and Quezon
 Petitioners received notices of eviction and demolition pursuant to Sec 28(a & b) of
RA 7279 in order to give way to the implementation and construction of
infrastructure proj
o In the areas illegally occupied by the petitioners
 Petitioners directly filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus before the Court
o Seeking to compel the public respondents to first secure an eviction or
demolition order from the court
o Prior to the implementation of Sec (a) and (b) of RA 7279
 Mayor of Navotas prays for the outright dismissal of the petition for its serious
procedural defects such as
o 1) petitioners ignoring the hierarchy of courts
o 2) incorrectly availing themselves of a petition for prohibition and
mandamus
o 3) failing to particularly state the grave abuse of discretion that the
Mayor of Navotas committed
o 4) not presenting any justifiable controversy since the Navotas had
already successfully evicted petitioners in San Roque
o 5) the petition was filed out of time
 Mayor argues that Sec 20 Art 13 of the 1987 consti allows evictions and
demolitions to be conducted even without a court order
o Provided that they are done in accordance with the law and in a just and
humane manner
 Mayor of San Juan similarly argues that the petitioners improperly availed
themselves of a petition for prohibition and mandamus before the Court
 She contends that she performed neither judicial nor ministerial functions in
implementing RA 7279
 She maintains that the petition is moot and academic because of the successful
eviction of some of the petitioners in Pinaglalabanan, Corazon de Jesus, San Juan
 RA 7279 already lays down the procedure in evicting informal settlers in a just and
humane manner
 Mayor of Quezon hold that the petitioners’ premature invocation of the Court’s
power of judicial preview
o And their violation of the hierarchy of courts are fatal to their cause of
action
 Sec of Interior and local gov and the gen manager of the national housing authority
adopt a position that the petition is procedurally infirm
 They argue that the liberty of abode is not illimitable and does not include the right
to encroach upon other person’s properties
 Also reiterate the Sec 28 of RA 7279 provides sufficient safeguard in ensuring that
evictions and demolitions are carried out in a just and humane manner
ISSUE
 Whether the petition should be dismissed for serious procedural defects? YES
o Petitioners violated the principle of hierarchy of courts
 Whether they correctly availed of themselves of a petition for prohibition and
mandamus? NO
o Petitioners seems to have forgotten that a writ of prohibition only lies
against tribunal, corp, board, officer of person’s exercise of judicial,
quasi-judicial or ministerial functions
o Court issues a writ of prohibition to afford the aggrieved party a relief
against the respondent’s usurpation of grave abuse of jurisdiction or
power
o Petition of madamus is merely directed against the tribunal, corp, board,
officer or person who unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station
 Or who unlawfully exclude another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled
o Par 1 Sec 28 of RA 7279 provides – eviction of demolition as a practice
shall be discouraged however may be allowed under the ff
 1) persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros,
railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines,
waterways and other public places such as sidewalk, roads,
parks and playground
 2) persons or entities occupy areas where gov infrastructure
proj with available funding are about to be implementated
 3) when there is court order
o Permissive word may implies that the public respondents have discretion
when their duty to execute evictions or demolitions should be performed
o The acts complained of are beyond the scope of a petition for prohibition
and mandamus
o Time when the public respondents shall carry out the evictions or
demolitions is merely discretionary – not ministerial, judicial or quasi
o Discretionary – if the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives
him the right to decide when the duty shall be performed
o Ministerial – one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state
of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of e legal
 authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon
the proprietary or impropriety of the act done
o Both involve a determination of what the law is
 And that the legal rights of the contending parties are
o Resolution of the consti of Sec 28 (a) and (b) of RA 7279 is not the list
mota of the case
 Even if this was treated as a petition for certiorari
 It must fail to show the essential reqs that would warrant the
court’s exercise of judicial review
o The issue is not the lis mota of this case
 Lis mota – the cause of suit or action
o It is rooted in the principle of separation of powers and is thus merely an
offshoot of the presumption of validity accorded the exec and legislative
acts
o Petitioner failed to substantiate their allegation that the public
respondents gravely abused their discretion in implementing Sec 28 (a)
and (b) of RA 7279
 They did not provide any basis to support their claim
ISSUE
o The court is not a trier of facts
 And this applies with greater force to Rule 65 petitions which
are original and independent actions
o Petition dismissed
Sameer v. Cabiles
FACTS
 Case is a petition for review of certiorari assailing the decision of the CA
o That partially affirmed the National Labor Relations Commissions
(NLRC) resolution declaring Cabiles’ dismissal illegal for its failure to
proves that were just causes for respondent’s terminations
o Directing petitioner to pay respondent’s 3 month salary equivalent to
New Taiwan Dollars 46,080
o And ordering them to reimburse the NT$3K withheld from respondent
and pay her NT$ 300 attorney’s fees
 Petitioner is a recruitment and placement agency
 Respondent applied for a quality control job in Taiwan
o Was accepted
 Respondent was asked to sign a 1 year employment contract for a monthly salary of
NT$15, 360
 Respondent alleged that petitioner required her to pay a placement fee Php 70k
 Respondent was deployed to work for Taiwan Wacoal Co.
o As a cutter
 Petitioner claims that Mr. Huwang from Wacoal
o Informed respondent without prior notice
o That she was terminated
o And that she should immediately report to their office to get her salary
and passport
o And was asked to prepare for immediate repatriation
 Respondent filed a complaint with the NLRC claiming that she was illegally
dismissed
o And determined Petitioner as the foreign principal
 Petitioner alleged the respondent’s termination was due to her insufficiency,
negligence in her duties
o And her failure to comply with the work reqs of her foreign employer
 Petitioner added that Wacoal’s accreditation with petitioner had already been
transferred to the Pacific Manpower & management services inc.
 Thus petitioner asserts that it was already substituted by pacific manpower
 Labor arbiter dismissed respondent’s complaint
o But respondent appealed to the NOLRC
 NLRC promulgated a resolution declaring that respondent was illegally dismissed
o And order petitioner to pay the award
 Sameer filed a petition for certiorari with the CA
o Assailing the decision of the NLRC
 CA affirmed NLRC
 Whether CA erred when it affirmed the ruling of the NLRC finding the respondent
illegally dismissed and warding her 3 months worth of salary, the reimbursement of
the cost of her repatriation and attorney’s fees despite the alleged existence of just
causes of termination? NO
o FIRST! Petitioner failed to show that there was just cause for causing
respondent’s termination
o PH follows the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of the place
hwere the contract is made)
o The contract was perfected in the PH – The labor code shall apply
o PH laws, OFW may only be terminated for a just or authorized cause
and after compliance with procedural due process reqs
o Petitioner’s allegation that respondent was inefficient in her work and
negligent constitutes just cause for termination
 But if only petitioner was to prove it
o To show that that the dismissal resulting from the inefficiency in work is
valid
 It must be shown that
 1) the employer has set standards of conduct and
workmanship against which the employee will be judged
 2) standards of conduct and workmanship must have been
communicated to the employees
 3) communication was made at a reasonable time prior to the
employee’s performance assessment
o In this case, petitioner merely alleged that respondent failed to comply
with her foreign employer’s work reqs
 And was inefficient
o No evidence was shown to support the allegations
o Petitioner did not even bother specify what reqs were not met
 What standards were violated
 Or what acts were inefficient
o SECOND! Petitioner failed to comply with due process reqs
 o A valid dismissal reqs both a valid cause and adherence to the valid
procedure of dismissal
o Following reqs must be complied with
 1) e ployer is required to give the charged employee at least 2
written notices before termination
 2) one of the notices must inform the employee of the
particular acts that may cause dismissal
 3) Other notice must inform the employee of the employer’s
decision
 4) employee must also be given an opportunity to be heard
o Petitioner did not comply with notices and hearing
o THIRD! Respondent having been illegally dismissed is entitled to
her salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract
 That was violated together with the attorney’s fees and
reimbursement of amounts withheld from her salary
o Under Sec 10 RA 8042 of the migrant workers and overseas filipino
act of 1995
 States that overseas worker who were terminated without
just cause shall be entitled to full reimbursement of his
placement fee with 12% per annum
 Plus his salaries for the unexpired term
 Whichever is less
o In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime services and marlow navigation
 This specific provision had been declared unconsti
 Entitling respondent to an award of her salary equivalent
to the unexpired term of her contract
o Regardless that for 3 months for every year of the unexpired term
 Whichever is less clause has been reinstated under RA
10022 in 2010
 It may not apply as it was promulgated in March 8 2010
 Which means that the resinstatement of the caluse under
RA 8042 was not yet in effect at the time of the
respondent’s termination from work in 1997
o FOURTH! Interest rate, BSP, which revised the interest rate for
loan or forbearance from 12%-6% in the absence of stipulation
applies in this case
o Circular applies for awards of salary for the unexpired portion of
the employment contract under RA 8042 because the law does not
provide for a specific interest rate that should apply
o FIFTH! With regard to the liabilities of Wacoal and petitioner
 As the employment agency that facilitated respondent’s
overseas employment
 It is not possible to determine whether there was indeed a
transfer of obligations from petitioner to pacific
o This should not be an obstacle for the respondent overseas worker to
proceed with the enforcement of this judgment
o Petition denied
Film Dev. v. Colon Heritage
FACTS
 Cebu passed city ordinance – revised omnibus tax ordinance of the city of cebu
o To pay an amusement tax equivalent to 30% of the gross receipts of
admission fees to the office of the city treasurer of cebu city
 Congress passed RA 9167 – created the Film Dev Council
 Sec 13 – amusement tax rewards
o Grade A film: 100% of amusement tax collected for the said film shall
be awarded to the producer
o Grade B film: 65% of the amusement tax collected shall be awarded to
the producer while the remaining 35% shall accrue to the funds of the
council
 Sec 14 – all revenue from the amusement tax on the graded film which may
otherwise accrue to the cities and municipalites shall be deducted and withheld by
the proprietors, operators or lesses of theaters or cinemas
o And remitted to the council which shall reward the corresponding
amusement tax to the producers of the graded film
 Petitioners sent demand letters for unpaid amusement tax due to producers of grade
A and B films to cinema proprietors in cebu
 Respodents refused to comply with the demand letter
o And sought for a declaratory relief
o Seeking to declare the RA 9167 invalid and unconsti
 RTC ruled that RA 9167 is unconsti even though its purpose is for the dev and
growth of the film industry because it violates the consti directive that taxes should
accrue exclusively ot he LGU concerned
 Cebu v. FDCP
o Sec 13 and 14 as violative of the consti
o Court concluded that the arrangement cannot be classified as a tax
exemption but is a confiscatory measure
o Congress went beyond its legislative authority
 Colon heritage v. FDCP
o Declared RA 9167 as unconst in its entirety
ISSUE
 Whether the doctrine of operative fact applies to the amounts already collected?
YES
o Assailed provision are in contravention of the consti command that taxes
levied by LGUs shall accrue exclusively to said LGU
 And is repugnant to the power of LGUs to apportion their
resources in line with their priorities
o The amusement tax reward is not a tax exemption
 The transfer of the amount to the film producers is actually a
monetary reward given to them for having produced a graded
film
 Exempting a person or entity from tax is to relieve or to
excuse that person or entity from the burden of the
imposition
o If it appears that the rest of the law if free from taint of unconsti
  Then it should remain in force and effect if said law contains
a separability clause
o Even with the removal of Sec 13 & 14 of the law, remaining provisions
can survive as they mandate other matters like
 1) cinema evaluation system
 2) incentive and reward system
o It is a settled rule that an unconsti act is not law
 It confers no rights
 Imposed no duties
 Affords no protection
 Creates no ffice
 It is an inoperative as if it has not been passed at all
o EXCEPTION! Doctrine of operative fact
 Nullifies the effects of an unconsti law or an exec act by
recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a
determination of unconsti is an operative fact
 And may have consewuences that cannot always
be ignored
 Hacienda Luisit v. PARC – a void act though in law a mere
scrap of paper nonetheless confers legitimacy upon past acts
or ommisions done in reliance thereof
o Application of the doctrine of operative fact in the case at bar is porper
so as not to penalize FDCP for having complied with the legislative
command of RA 9167 as well as the producers of graded films
 Who have already received their tax cut prior to this decision
for having produced top-quality films
o This doctrine equally applied to the non-remittance by proprietors since
the law produced legal effects prior to the declaration of the nullity of
Sec 13 and 14 in the instant petitions
o Petition partially granted
People v. Mateo
FACTS
 10 pieces of info, one for each count of rape
o Allegedly committed on 10 diff dates
 Except for the variance in dates, 10 info later docketed in RTC of Tarlac
 Uniformly read – the undersigned OIC Provincial Prosecutor upon prelim
investigation condutcted by the MTC
o Accuses Mateo of the crime of Rape as follows
o Mateo who is the guardian of the complaininig witness did then and
there unlawfully by means of forse and intimidation have carnal
knowledge with said Imelda Mateo in their house against her consent
 Trial ensued the ff a plea of not guilty entered by appellant to all the charges
o According to Imelda, born by Icban and Capulong
o Capulong and appellant started to live together without the benefit or
marriage
 When Imelda was only 2
o Imelda stayed with her mother and adopted Mateo’s surname
o Imelda recalled that each time the 10 rap incidents occurred her mother
was not home
o Imelda stated that all were committed in the same fashion
o She was penetrated inside the house
o Capulong, private complainant rose to testify in defense of her common-
law husband
o Capulong asserted that she had not at any time, prior to her departure for
Jeddah spent any night out of the house
 Also corroborated testimony for appellant
o Flores, neighbor, testified that she repaired the house of private
complainant to investgate rumors regarding a man seen entering the
Capulong resident se
o When she went she saw the complainanit and Navarro lying on the bed
 Mebracing each other
o Boito, fired of appellant, corroborated appellan’t alibi
o The brother testifies that while his mother was working overseas
 He arrived home from school and saw Navarro and private
complainant both naked on the bed
 Court found appellant guilty beyong reasonable doubt of 10 counts of rape
 Court has deemed it sufficient to convist an accused for rape solely on the basis of
the testimony of the victim
 However!!! During the presentation of testimonies – there were some discrepancies
in regarding the whereabouts of her mother Capulong on the dates of the incidents
 Not only did the account of Imelda contradict that of Capulong but that Imdela
herself would appear to have made irreconcilable statements
 It was argued that the appellant’s moral ascendancy over Imelda was enough to
intimidate her to suffer in silence
o It is improbable that a victim rape 10 times not to make a simple outcry
against her unarmed rapist when she had every opportunity to do so
 Solgen assails the factual findings of the trial court and recomments an acquittal of
appellant
 Records would disclose that the first half of the rial was conducted by Judge
Diamsay
 Judge Sundiam conducted the trial after and Judge Adriano heard it until the last
hearing
 Change of presiding judges would not invalidate proceedings
o It did deny to the deiciding magistrate the opportunity to observe in
entirety the demeanor of the witnesses
o Which woulc be vital to the decision making process
o Particularly where credibility would constitute a single issue
ISSUE
 Whether the case should be directly be forwarded to the SC by vurtue of express
provision in the consti on automatic appeal where penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetue, life imprisonment or death?
o SC has assumed direct appellate review over all crim cases in which the
penalty imposed I death, reclusion per and life imprisonment
o Practice finds justification in the consti
o Art 8 Sec 5 – SC ff powers
  (2) review, revise and reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
certiorari as the law or the rules of court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower costs
 (d) all crim cases, in wwhich the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua or higher
o Must be stressed however that the consti provisiom is not preclusive in
character
 And it does not necessarily prvent the court in the exercise of
its rule-making power, from adding an intermediate appeal or
review in favor of the accused
o During the delibs among the members, there has been a marked absence
of unanimity on the crucial point of guilt or innocence
o Some are conviced that he evidence would appear to be suficent to
convict
 Some would accept recommendation of the solgen
o Situations like this gives appreciation of primarily factual matters
 In this case it is the CA that had aptly been given the direct
mandate to review factual issues
o While the fundamental law requires a mandatory review by the SC
 Where the panlty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life inprison,
death
 However nowhere has it proscribed an intermediate review
o Court now deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a
review of the CA because the case is elevated to the SC
o Where life and liberty are at stake all possible venues to dermine his
guilt or innocence must be accorded
o Prior determination by the CA on the factual issued would minimize the
possibility of error of judgment
o CA should affirm the penalty of death/reclusion per/life imprison
 It could render judgment
 Refrain from entering the judgment and elevate the netire
records of the case to the SC for its final disposition
o Instant case is remanded to the CA
People v. Gutierrez
FACTS
 Petition for writ of certiorari and mandamus with prelim injunction
o Filed by the solgen and state prosecutors
o 1) to annul and set aside the order of Judge Gutierrez of the CFI of
Ilocos Sur, denying the prosecutions’ urgent motion to transfer crim
cases to circuit crim court of the second judicial district (people v.
Pilotin)
o 2) to direct the respondent Judge to effectuate such transfer
o 3) to restrain the trial of the cases aforesaid in the CFI of Ilocos Sur
sittinG in Vigan, capital of the province
 People v. Pilotin
o A group of armed person descended on the barrio Ora Cetner
o And set fire to various inhabited houses
o On the afternoon of the same day – Barrio Ora Esta of the same
province, several residences were burned by the group
 Resulting in the death of an old woman – Vicenta Balboa
 Accused Pilotin and Crisologo furnished bail voluntarily appeared before
respondent judge Gutierrez
o Were arraigned and pleaded not guilty
 AO 221 issued by SOJ – authorizing Judge Anover of CC with official stitation at
San Fernando La Union to hold a special term in Ilocos Sur
 AO 226 further issued by the same Sec 3 days after authorizing Judge Gutierrez to
transfer crim cases to the CCC
o And likewise denied that circumstance justifies any such transfer
 A transfer of the trial site can not be made because it is a long standing rule of Crim
procedure in these islands that one who commits a crime is amendable therefore
o Only in the jurisdiction where the crime is committed
 Witnesses are unwilling to testify in the CFI of the place of the crime because their
life and safety are at risk
ISSUE
 Whether courts can transfer trial of cases from one court to another of equal rank in
a neighboring site? YES
o Courts can by appropriate meands do all things necessary to preserve
and maintain ever quality needful to make the judiciary an effectice
institution of gov
o One of these ways is that of transferring the trial of cases from one court
to another of equal rank in a neighboring site
o ALSO! SC possessed inherent power and jursidction to decree that the
trial and dispositions of a case pending in a CFI be transferred to another
within the same district whenever
 1) interest of justice and truth demand
 2) serious and weighty reasons ot believe that a trial by the
court that originally had jurisdiction over the case should not
result in a fair anf impartial trial by the court that orginallys
had juridcition over the case should not result in a fair and
impartial trial leading to a miscarriage of justice
o In this case, there are sufficient reasons for transfer of hearing
o The fear thus expressed can not be considered fanciful and unfounded
when account is taken of the circumstances that the info filed in the CFI
of Ilocos Sur show that
 1) of the 100 armed participants in the burning of the houses
at barrios Ora Estate and Ora Centro, some of 82 are still
unidentied and at large
 2) that one of the accused Crisologo belongs to an influential
damily in theprovince, being the son of a Cong
 3) reluctant witnesses are themselves the complainants in the
crim cases and have reason to fear that attempts will be made
to silence them
 4) it not being shown that the exec branch is able or willing
to give these witnesses full security during the trial and for a
reasonable time thereafter
  5) that even if armed security escorts were to be provided
 The same would be no guarantee against the
possibility of murderous assault against the affiant
witnesses as recent events have proved
 6) constabulary reports show that between the time, no lees
thatn 78 mruders have been reported committed in said
province, only 21 were solved
 7) that he promotion and confirmation of respondent Judge
Gutierres from cleck of court to judge of CFI of the 2nd
judicial distrct was actively supported by Cong and Gov
Crisologo, parents oof sccued
o To compel the prosecution ot proceed to trail in a localit hwere its
witnessed will not at liberty to reveal what they know it make a mockery
of the judicial procees
 And to betray the very purpose for which courts have been
established
o Petition granted
Santero v. CFI-Cavite
FACTS
 Petitioners Princesita Santero-Morales, Federico Santero and Winy Santero are the
children begotten
o By the late Pablo Santero with Felicberta Pacursa while private
respondents Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel all surnamed
Santero are 4 fo the u7 children begotten by the same Pablo Santero with
Anselma Diaz
 Private respondents, through their guardian Diaz, filed a motion for allowance and
support from Evaristo
o The admin of Pablo Santero
 Petitioenrs argue that private respondents are not entitled to any allowance since
they have already attained majority age
o 2 are gainfully employed the one is married as provided for under Sec 3
Rule 83 of the rules of court
 Petitioners also allege that there was misrep on the part of the guardian in asking for
allowance sine the wards have already attained the age of majority – no longer
under guardianship
 Anselma admitted that some of her children are of age
o And not enrolled for the first semester due to lack of funds but will be
enrolled as soon as they are given the requested allowances
 CFI granted allowance to the respondents Php 2k
 Private respondents filed another motion for allwance with the respondent court to
incude Juanita, Estelita, Pedrito all surnamed Santero
o As children of the later Pablo Santero with Anselma Diaz
o Praying that an order be granted directing the administrator Evaristo
o To deliver the sum of Php 6k to each of the 7 children of Anselma Diaz
as their allowance from the estate of Pablo Santero
 CFI again granted the motion for the private respodents but petitioners asked the
court ot reconsider
 Petitioners argue that private respondents are not entitled to any allowance since
they have already attained majority age therefore are no longer under guardianship
ISSUE
 Whether the CFI acted with abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
granting the allowance to the respondents despite the fact that all of them are not
minors and all are gainfully employed with the exception of Miguel? NO
o Controlling provison of law is not rule 83 Sec 3 of the new rules of court
but Art 290-288 of the civil code
o Art 290! Support is everything that is indispensable for sustenance,
dwelling, clothing and medial attendance according to the social position
of the family
 Support also includes the education of the person entitled to
be supported until he completes his education or training
from some profession, trade, or vocation, even beyond the
age of majority
o Art 188!!!! From the common mass of property support shall be given to
the surviving spouse and to the children during the liquidation of the
inventoried property uand until what belongs to them is delivered
 But from this shall be deducted that amount received for
support which exceeds the fruits or rents pertaining to them
o The fact that private respondents are of age, gainfully employed or
married is of not moments and should not be regarded as the
determining factor of their right to allowance under Art 188
o While Rule 83 sec 3 limit allowances to the widow and minor or
incapacitiated children of the deceased
o Private repondents Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel all surnamed
Santero are entitled to allowances as advances from their shared in
theinheritance from their father Pablo Santero
o Since the provision of the civil code, substantive law, gives the
surviving spouse and the to the children the right to receive support
during the liquidation of the estate of the deceased
 Such right cannot be impaired by Rule 83 sec.3 of the rules
of court which is a procedural rule
o Petition dismissed!
Damasco v. Laqui
FACTS
 Damasco was charged with the crime of grave threats
 After trial, Judge Laqui found that the evidence presented did not establish the
crime of grave threats
o But only light threats
 Thus, Damasco was sentenced to pay a fine of Php 100 + costs
 Damasco filed a motion to rectify and set aside the decision of Judge lAQUI
o Contending that he cannot be convicted of light threats
o Which is necessarily included in grave threats charged in the info
o As the lighter offence (light threats) had already prescribed when the
info (for grave threats) was filed
  Prescriptive period: grave threats – 6 months
o Light threats – 2 months
o Date crime done: July 7, 1987
o Date info: sept 17 (lapse of 71 days)
o Date complaint: sept 7 (lapse of 61 days)
 MTC held that the principle that the allegation in the info confers jurisdiction and
that jurisdiction once acquired cannot be lost
o Since the court acquired jurisdiction to try the case because the info was
filed within the prescriptive period for the crim charged
o The same cannot be lost by prescription if after trial what has been
proven is merely light threats
 Office of the Solgen: allegiations in the info confer jurieiction upon the courts and
once acquired cannot be lost
 HOWEVER! This principle is not applicable in the case as what is being questioned
is not jurisdiction of the lower court
o But whether it was proper for the judge to still convict petitioner after
finding him guilty of the lesser offense of light threats
o But which has already prescribed
o Answer should be no
ISSUE
 Whether court had lost jurisdiction over the case? YES
o An accused has been found to have committed a lesser offence
includible within the graver offense charged
 Cannot be convicted of the lesser offense if it has already
prescribed (Francisco v. CA)
o To hold otherwise, according to the Court would be to circumvent Art
69 of the RPC
 Stating that prescription of a crim extinguished crim liability
 This the state loses the right to prosecute
o In line with Sec 8 Rule 117 of crim procedure – extinction of offense as
one of the exceptions to the general rule regarding the effects of a failure
to assert a ground of a motion to quash
 PH jurisprudent considers prescription of a crime or offense as a lost or waiver by
the state of its right to prosecute
 To give prescription another meaning would circumvent the consti mandate that the
SC has the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
the consti rights, pleadings, practice and procedure
o Such rules shall not however diminish, increase or modify substantive
rights
 Petition granted
Baguio Market Vendors v. Cabato-Cortes
FACTS
 Petitioner a credit coop, filed with the clerk of court of RTC of Baguio City a
petition to extra-judicially foreclose a mortgage
 Petitions for extra-judicial foreclosure are subject to legal fees based on the
value of the mortgagee’s claim
 Petitioner argued that it should be exempted from the payment pursusant to
Art 62(6) of RA 6938
o Which provides that coops are exempt from the payment of all
court and sheriff’s fees payable to the PH Gov
o In connection with all actions brought under this code
o Or where such action is brought by the coop dev authority before
the court to enforce the payment of obligations contracted in favor
of the coop
 RTC denied request citing Sec 22 of Rule 141 of the rules of court as
amended exempting from the rule’s covereage only the republic fo the PH, it’s
agencies and instrumentalities
o And certain suits of local gov unit
 Thus this petition
 Court;s Office of the Chief of Attorney Comment (OCAT)
o In fulfillment to SC’s requirement to comment
o OCAT opined that Sec 22, Rule 141 as mended prevails over Art
62(2) of RA 6938 because
o 1) the power to imposed judicial fees is eminently judicial
o 2) the 1987 consti indulated the court’s rule-making power from
congress’ interference by omitting in the 1987 consti the provision
in the 1973 consti allowing Cong to alter judicial rules
ISSUE
 Whether petitioner’s application for extra-judical foreclosure is exempt from legal
fees under Art 62(6) of RA 6938? NO
o Court held that Art 62(6) of RA 6938 doesn’t apply to petitioner’s
foreclosure proceeding because petitions for extrajudicial foreclosure are
outside of the ambit of Art 62(6) of RA 6938
o As pbserved in Echeragay, the 1987 consti took away the power of
Congress to repeal, alter or supplmenet rules concerning pleading and
practice and procedure
o Power to promulgate rules and pleading practice and procudre is not
longer shared by this court with congress
o Since the payment of legal fees is a vital componenet of the rules
promulgated by the court concerning, pleading practice and procuedure
 It can’t be validly annulled, changed or modified by congress
In Re Matter of clarification of exemption from payment of all court and sheriff’s fees for
coopereative duly registered in accordance with RA 9520
FACTS
 PHCCI requests the clarification of their exemption as coops from the payment of
court and sheriff’s fees
 PHCCI invokes Sec 6 Art 61 of the PH coop act of 2008
o Cooperatives shall be exempt from the pauyment of all court and
sheriff’s fees apayable to the PH gov
 PHCCI contends that despite this provision – it stillbeing asked to pay court fees
o The judge of the lower court did not want to clarify the rule himself and
referred it to the Court

ISSUE
 Whether cooperatives are exempt from the payment of court and sheriff’s fees? NO
o Under the consti – congress can no longer make or repeal the court’s
rules on pleading, practice and procedure
o This was done in order to promote the independent of the judiciary
 And an aspect of this indendpendce is fiscal autonomy
o Collection of legal fees constitutes a vital aspect of fiscal autonomy as it
is a source of the court’s financial resources
o Legal fees are composed of the judiciary dev fund and the special
allowance for the judiciary fund
 These funds both guarantee the independence of the judiciary
o Moreover the doctrine of separation of powers created a wall between
the 3 branches of gov
 Which keeps the power to promulgate rules on pleading,
practice and procedure with the Court alone
o Cong cannot carve out exemptions from these rules (including the rule
on payment of court fees) for anyone
o This! Coops can not longer invoke Sec 6 Art 61 of the coop code to seek
exemption from the payment of court and sheriff’s fees
In Re Cunanan
In Re Letter of UP law faculty
PNB v. Asuncion
FACTS
 Review of certiorari, alleging that the Court erred in dismissing the case against all
the defendants instead of dismissing against one who died
 PNB granted Fabar incorp various credit accommodation and advances by way of
insurance premiums
o With private respodents and Barredo
 Credit accomodations had outstanding balance of 8M
 Respodnents haven’t paid so PNB instituted a case for collection against all private
respondents
o This was filed in the CFI
 Before the CFI could decide one of the private respondents (Barredo) died
o CFI dismissed the entire case
o Since the present suit is for a money claim which does not survive the
death of the defendant
 Pursuant to the provision of Sec 6 Rule 86 of the revised rules of court which
provides:
o Where the obligation of the defendant is solidary with another debtor
o The claim shall be filed against the defendants as if he were the only
debtor
o Without prejudice to the right of the estate to recover contribution from
the other debtor
 The claim according to CFI can be filed with estate proceedings
ISSUE
 Whether CFI erred? NO
o Court’s reliance on Sec 6 Rule 86 of the rules of court was erroneous
o Nothing in the rules prevents a creditor from proceeding against the
surviving solidary debtors
o The provision only comes up with a procedure in enforcing collection in
the case the creditory chooses to pursue his claim against the state of the
dead solidary debtor
o Art 1216 of the new civil code is the applicable provision
 Gives the creditor the right to proceeds against
 Anyone of the solidary debtors or some or all of them
simultaneously
o In case of death, creditor may proceed against the surviving debtors
o In effect if you follow the rules of court over the new civil code
 Th SC’s rules of court will repeal the new civil code
o The 1973 consti Sec 5 Art 10 rules promulgated by the SC should not
diminish, increase or modfy substantive rights
o Cases against deceased are dismissed
People v. Lacson
FACTS
 Crim cases were filed against respondent and his co-accused for the shooting and
killing of 11 males
 Sec 8 Rule 117 of the revised rules of crim procedure which took effect on Dec 1,
2000
o Provisional dismissal – a case shall not be provisionally dismissed
except with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the
offended party
o For offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years, their
provisional dismissal shall become permanent 2 years after issuance of
the order without the case having been revived
 Court emphasized that the new rule fixes a time-bar penalize the state for its
inexcuseable delay in prosecuting cases already filed in court
 Court in its assailed resolution ruled that the provisional dismissal of the crim cases
were with express consent of the respondent because respondent’s filing for the
motion for judicial determination of probable cause
o And for examination of witnesses
o Is tantamount to his moving himself for the provisional dismissal
 Same resolution, the court held that there is still a need to determine whether the
requirements for the application of the new rule are attendant
ISSUE
 Whether the time-bar in the new rule should be applied retroactively?
o 2 reqs for the new rule to be applicable
 1) consent of respondent
 2) notice to offended party
o Respondent failed to prove that these wre present when the judge
dismissed the crim cases
 o Although the egenral rule is that procedural laws may be applied
retroactively
 The court had held in Tan jr. v. CA that a procedural law may
be applied retroactively if to do so would work injustice or
would involve intricate problems of due process
 Or impair the independent of the court
o Remedial legislation or procedural rule or doctrine of the court designed
to enhance and implement the consti rights of parties in crim
proceedings
 May be applied retroactively or prospectively depending
upon several factors
 Such as the history of the new rule, its purpose and effect
 And whether the restrospective application will further its
operation the particular conduct sought to be remedied
 And the effect threon in the admi ofjustice and of crim laws
in particular
o Time bar under the new rule was fixed by the court o excise the malaise
that plauged the admin of the crim justice system
 For the benefit of both the state and the accused
o To apply the time-bar retroactively so that the 2 year period commenced
to run on the day the public prosecutor received his copy of the dismissal
 Would leave the state with only 1 year and 3 months to
review the crim cases
 Which is short of the 2 year period fixed under the new rule
o A prospective application of the rule would be in consonance with the
intendment of the new rule in fixing the time bar
 And thus prevent injustice ot the state
o 2 year period fixed in the new rule is for the benefit of both the sate and
the accused
o It should not be made less effective or be reduced by an unjustifies
retroactive application
 Of the time bar merely to benefit the accused
o Although the crim cases, the accused is entitled to justice anf fairness, so
is the state
o Dimatulac v. Villon - court has emphasized that the judge’s action must
not impair the substantial rights of the accused nor the right of the state
and offended party
 To due process of law
o MR granted
Ampong v. CSC
FACTS
 A petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the CA
o Which affirmed the CSC’s exercise of admin jurisdiction over the
petitioner
 Decir took the professional board examination for teachers (PBET) on Nov 10,
1991
o And passed with a rating of 74.57%
 During the PBET examinations, Petitioner Ampong and the other person involved,
Junio-Decir were public school teachers
o Under the supervision of the DECS
 BUT petitioner eventually transferred to the RTC in Alabel Saranggani province as
court interpreter III
 Decir went to claim her PBET cert of eligibility
 But then the person processing it notice that Decir didn’t resemble the pic of the
examinee in the picture seat plan
 Upon further probing, was confirmed that it was petitioner Ampong who took and
passed the PBET under the name of Decir
 So, formal charges were filed against the 2 for dishonest, grave misconduct,
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
 Decir denied while Ampong admitted to her wrongdoing
o Confesser her guilt, waiver her right to avail herself services of counsel
 Ampong said she was forced because her husband’s cousin is the husband of decir
o So she was somewhow an immediate relative
 CSC found them guilty
 Peitioner moves for reconsidereation where she raised of rht first time the issue of
jurisdiction
 Petitioner’s arguments
o Exclusive authority to discipline employees of judiciary lies with the SC
o CSC acted with grave abuse of discretion cause she already assumed her
duty as a judicial employee
o When the case was instituted, CSC lost jurisdiction cause she was
transferred to the RTC
 But CSC denied the same
 Respodent’s arguments:
o Admin supervision v. admin jurisdiction – CSC does not have admin
supervision but holds concurrent jursiidction over them
o The fact hat court personnel are under the admin supervision of the SC
 Does not toally isolate them from the supervision of CS law
o All officials and employees in the judiciary is governed by the CS law
sEC 5(6) Art 8 of consti
 CA denied petitioner’s claim
 CA noted that petitioner never raised the issue of jursiidction before
o And that she willingly submitted to the latter’s jurisdiction when she
appeared, admitted her guilt and requested clemency
 CA said she is not estopped from questioning CSC’s jursidction
 CA still said though that when she committed acts in violation of the civil service
law
o CSC has admin jurisction over her
ISSUE
 Whether the CSC has admin jurisdction over an amployee of the judiciary for acts
committed while said employee was still with the exec or education dept? NO
o CSC has admin jursidction over the civil service
o Consti provides that SC is given exclusive admin supervision over all
courts and judicial personnel Art 8 sEC 6
 o So only the SC can oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s
compliance with all laws, rules and regs
o Admin jurisdiction over a court employees belong to the SC
 Regardless of whether the offense was committed before or
after employment in the judiciary
o Standard procedure was for CSC to bring its complaint against a judicial
employees before the office of the court admin - but it did not
o HOWEVER! Court is constrained to uplhold the ruling of the CSC
 Based on the principle of Estoppel
o Court decided that petitioner’s previous actions estopped her from
attacking the jursidiction of the CSC
o A party who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court or
tribunal exercising quasi-judical functions to secure an affirmative relief
may not afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape penalty
o Under the principle of estoppel – a party may not be permitted to adopt a
diff theory on appeal to impugn the court’s jurisdictions
o SC also ruled that petitioner’s confession of guilt stands
 In admin proceedings, no requirerment that assistance of
counsel should be present both in confessing and making of
the waiver of such assistance
o Petition denied
Maceda v. Vasquez
FACTS
 Public respondent Atty. Abejra of the PAO filed before the the office of the OMB a
complaint alleging that Maceda
o Who is the presiding judge of branch 12 of the RTC of Antique the
falsified the former’s cert service
o By certifying that all civil and crim cases submitted for determination
for aperiod of 90 days have been decided
o When in truth and in fact petitioner knew that no decision had been
rendered in 5 civil and 10 crim cases that have been submitted for
decision
 Abiera further alleged that petitioner similarly falsified his cert of service for a total
of 17 months
 Petitioner argues that he had been granted by this court an exrension of 90 days to
decide aforementioned cases
 Aside from that, he maintains that the OMB has no jurisdiction over said case
o Since the offense charged arose from the judges performance of his
official duties
o Which is under the control and supervision of the SC
 Moreover investigation is conducted by the OMB constitutes an encroachment into
the SC’s consti supervision over all inferior courts
ISSUE
 Whether the office of the OMB is conducting investigations has encroached
SC’s consti supervision over all inferior courts? YES
o Firstly, there is nothing in the decision in the case of that would
restrict it only to offenses committed by a judge unrelated to his
official duties
o A judge who falsifies his cert of service is administratively liable
to the SC for serious misconduct and inefficney under the rules of
court
 And criminally libale to the state under the rpc
o Art 8 Sec 6 of the present consti exclusively vests in the SC admin
supervision over all courts and court personnel
o By virture of this power, only the SC can oversee the judges’ and
court personnel’s compliance with all laws
 Take proper admin action against them in case of any
violations commutted
o No other branch of gov may intrsude into this power
 Without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of
powers
o The OMB should first refer the matter of the petitioner’s cert of
service to this court for determination whether such reflected the
true status of his pending case load
 Since it has the records to determine so
o OMB is to dismiss the complaint filed by public respondent
Chavez v. JBC
FACTS
 Congress from the moment of the creation of the JBC
o Designated one rep to sit in the JBC to act as one of the ex-officio
members
 1994 – the composition of the JBC was substantially altered
 Intead of having only 7 members and 8th member was added
o 2 reps og confress began sitting in the JBC
o 1 from house and 1 from senate
o With each having ½ vote
 JBC en banc in separate meetins held in 2000 and 2001 decided to allow the
reps from denate and hor 1 vote each
 The unexpected depature of CJ Puno and the nomination of former Solgen
Chavez as his potential successor triggered the filing of the present case
 Petitioner filed a petition to question the composition of the JBC
ISSUE
 Whether the current practice of the JBC perform its functions with 8 memebers, 2
from congress, runs counter to the letter and spirit of the consti? YES
o The use of singular latter “a” preceding rep of congress – unequivocal
and leaves no room for any othe construction
o It is indicative that the members of the consti convention intended to
designate only one rep to the JBC
o Under the maxinm noscitur a socilis – where a particular word or phrase
is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meaning
  Its correct construction may be made clear and specific by
considering the company of words in which it s founded or
with which it is associated
o Applying the foregoing principle, it becomes apparent that the word
“congress” is used in its generic sense
o No particular allusion is made on whether the senate or house is being
referred to
 But then in any case only a singular rep may be allowed
o Considering that the language of the subject privsion is plan and
unambiguous
 There is no need to resort to extrinsic aids
o Even if the court should proceed to look into the minds of the members
of the consti commission
 Undeniable from the records that ti was intended that the JBC
be composed of 7 memebrs only
o 7 member composition serves as a practical purpose
 To provide a solution should there be a stalemate in voting
o Underlying reason leads the court to conclude that a single vote may not
be divided into ½ between 2 reps of congress
o Respondent’s positions that the word congress should be read as
including the senate and the HOR
 Court health that in the case of JBC rep
 No mechanism is required between the senate and the HOR
in the screening the nomination of judicial officers
o Term Congress must be taken to mean the entire legislative dept
o Petition is granted
Jardeleza v. Soreno
FACTS
 Before the compulsory retirement of AJ Abad
o JBC announced the opening for application or recommendation for the
vacant position
 Petitioner, incumbent Sol Gen of the republic was nominated by Dean Concepcion
 CJ Sereno manifested that she would be invoking Sec 2 Rule 10 of Jbc
o Against petitioner
 Under the rule, the petitioner’s intergrity was questioned based on his ability to
discharge the duties of his office as show in a confidential legal memorandum over
his handling of an intentional arbitration case for the gov
 CJ Sereno included allegation of marital infidelity and insider trading as instances
which dispute petitieonr’s intergrity
 Petitioner was asked by the CJ if he wanted to defend himself against the
allegations to which the petitioner replied
o That he would defend himself provided that due process would be
observed
 Jardeleza’s request for dferment of the proceedings was denied
o And the JBC continued its deliberations and proceeded to vote for the
nominees to beincluded in the shortlist
 JBC released the shortlist which did not include Jardeleza
 Jardelza file the present petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to compel the
JBC to include him in the list of nominees for AJ
o CJ acted in grave abuse of discretion
o Depite getting sufficient number of votes to qualify
 However! By the time the petition was shceudled for deliberation by the court en
bacnh
o The shortlist had already been transmitted ot the office of the president
 Jardeleza’s petition
o CJ and JBC violated Jardeleza’s right to due process in the events
leading up to the shortlist
o JBC committed grave abuse of discretion
o Unlawful exclusion of the petitioner from the shortlist impairs the
president’s consti power to appoint
ISSUE
Villanueva v. JBC
FACTS
 Petitioner was appointed as the presiding judge of the municipal circuit trial court
(first level court)
 He applied then for the vacant position of presiding judge in RTC
 JBC’s office of recruitment, selection and nomination informed the petitioner that
he was not included in the list of candidates for thsaid dtations
o Due to the JBC’s long standing policy of opening the chance for
promotion to second level courts to
o Incumbent judges who have srved in their current position for at lead
five years
o And since petitioner has been a judge for more than a year, he was
excluded from the list
 Petitioner argues
o 1) the consti already prescribed the qualification of an RTC jusge
 And the JBC could add no more
o 2) JBC’s 5 year req violated the EPC and due process clause
o 3) violates the consti provision on social justice and humanr right for
equal opportunity of employment
o 4) the req of the prejuducature program mandated by RA 8557 should
not be merely directory and should be fully implemented
o 5) he has all the qualifications for the position
 10 years of practice of law
 JBC says
o 1) petition is procedurally infirm and that the assailed policy does not
violate the EPC and due process clauses
o 2) write of certiorari and prohibition cannot issue to prevent the JBC
from performing its principal functions unde the consti
 To recommend appointees to the judiciary because the JBC is
not a tribunal exercising judicial or qusi function
o 3) the remendy of mandamus and declaratory relief will not lie because
the petitioner has no clear legal right that needs to be protected
 o 4) EPC is not violated because the classification of lower court judges
who have served at least 5 years
 And those who have served less than 5 years is valid as it is
performance and experience based
o 5) no violation of due process as the policy is merely internal in nature
o Court upheld the repondent’s argumewnts but directed the JBC to
comply with publication req
ISSUE
 Whether the questioned policy infringes on the EPC? NO
o EPC of the consti does not req the universal application of the law to all
persons or things without distinction
o What it reqs is simply equality among equal as determine according to a
valid classification
o In issuing the assailed policy, JBC merely exercised its discretion in
accordance with the consti req and its rules that a member of the
judiciary must be proven competent, integrity, probity and independence
o Number of years of service provides a relevant basis to determine
proven competence which may be measured by experience, among other
factors
o Applicants are chosen based on an array of actors and are evaluated
based on their individual merits
 This it cannot be saif that the questioned policy was arbitray,
capricious or made without basis
o Classification created by the challenged policy satisfies the national
basis test
 Whether the assailed policy should be published in accordance with due process?
YES
o General rule of publication is indispensable in order that all statues
including admin rules that are intended to enforce or implement existing
laws, attain binding force and effect
o EXCEPTION!
 1) Interpretative regs
 2) merely internal in nature
 3) letter of instructiuons issued by admin superiors
concerning the rules or guideline to be followed by their
subordinated in the performance of their duties
 4) it seeks to implement a consti provision requiring proven
competence from members of the judiciary
o Nonetheless the JBC’s failure to publish the assailed policy had not
prejudiced the petitooner’s private interest
o JBC failed to implement the completion of the prejudicature program as
a req req for appointment
 In the judiciary under RA 8557
 This ground of the petition being unsubstantiated was
unfounded
o Petitioner argued but failed to established that the assailed policy
violated the consti provision under social justice and human rights or
equal opportunity of employment
o Petition dimissed!
Aguinaldo v. JBC
FACTS
 Case came about due to questions of leagality when 6 vancancies for AJ for Sandig
was opened
o And the JBC endorsed to the PH
o Nominees for the positions in 6 separate groups/clusters instead of single
list of all
 After the nOV 29, 2016 decision of the court en banc
o JBC successively filed a MR
o With motion for the inhibition of the ponente
o And a MR in intervention
 In its MR the JBC argues the ff:
o Merits of the case, the JBC asserts that in submitting 6 short lsits for 6
vacancies
 It was only acting in accordance with the clear and
unambiguous madate of Art 8 Sec 9 (3)
 For the JBC to submit a list for every vancancy
o To grant the motion for intervention of JBC AND
o For the inhibition of the ponente of the assailed decision
 The JBC in its latest motion insists on its legal interest, injury, and standing to
intervene in the present case
o As well as on timeliness of its motion for interventions
 Reasons for not immediately seeking to intervene
o 1) its individual members harbored doubts as to the validity of the
appointments of respondents Musngi and Econg as Sandig AJs
 JBC agreed that as a body in an executive session that it
would stay neutal and not take any legal position on the
consti of said appointments since it did not have any legal
interest in the offices of AJs of the Sandig
o 2) none of the parties prayed that the act of clustering by the JBC be
declared unconsti and
o 3) JBC believed that the Court would apply the doctinre of presumption
of regularity in the discharge by the JBC of its official functions
 And if the court would have been inclined to delve into the
validity of the act clustering by the JBC
 It would order the JBC to comments on the matter
 JBC maintains the ff
o It did not exceed its authority and it faithfully complied with the literal
language of Art 8 Sec 9 when it prepared 6 short lists for the 6
vancancies in Sandig
o Disputes the ponente’s observation that clustering is totally new practice
of the JBC
o That clustering is matter of legal and operationsl necessity for the JBC
o It did not encroach on the president’s power to appoint members of the
judiciary
o The need for the ponente to inhibit herself from the instant case
  Court en banc dismissed the petition and declares clustering unconsti
ISSUE
 Whether the Court erred in declaring the clustering of nominees by the JBC as
unconsti? NO
o Court rules that the clustering of nominees for the 6 vacancies in the
Sandig by the JBC impaired the president’s power to appoint members
of the judiciary
 And to determine the seniority of the newly-appointed
Sandigan AJs
o JBC acted beyong its consti mandate in clustering the nominees into 6
separate short lists and president aquino did not commits grave abuse of
discretion in disregarding the said clustering
o JBC impinged upon the President’s appointing power by
 The president’s option for every vacancy was limited to the
5-7 nominees in each luster
 Once the president had appointed a nominee from
one cluster
 Then he was proscribed from considering the
other nominee in the same cluster for the other
vacancies
 All the nominees applied for and were found to be qualified
 But JBC failed explain why one nominee should
be considered for appointment to the position
assigned to one specific cluster only
 Nominees’ chance for appointment was restricted to the
consideration of the one cluster in which they were included
 Even though they applied and were found to be
qualified
 By designating the numerial order of the vacancies, the JBC
established the senriority or order of preference
 Only rests on the president
o Clustering can be sued as a device to facor or prejudice a qualified
nominee
 A favored nominee can be included in acluster with not other
strong contender to ensure appointment
o No objective criteria or standards for clusterting
o Technically no clustering of nominee for first and second level trial
courts
 Constant referral by the JBC to separate shorts lists of
nominees for vacant judgeship posts in first and second level
trial courts as proof of previous clustering is lacking
 Short lists in such situations are not clustering as the
vacancies happened and were announced at diff times and
candidates applied for specific vacancies
o While clustering nominees was observed in the nominations for
vacancies in the ca
 It escaped scrutiny as the appointment to vacancies were not
challenged
 Court aobserved that the vacancies in CA were not all
simultaneous or closely successive
 Months apart
o Contrast to the 2 week interval between compulsory retirements of SC
AJ Perez and Brion
o Separate short lists for the current vacancies in the SC are not in issue in
this case
 But has been brought up by the JBC in its MR in intervention
o Thus! Court will refrain from making any pronouncements on the
separate shorts lists of nominees submitted by the JBC to president
Duterte
 As not to preempt the president’s decision on how to treat the
separate short lists of nominees for the 2 current
o Court only addressed the statements made by the JBC in relation to said
short lists by reciting some relevant historical facts
 Relating to the filling-up of previous vacancies in the SC
o JBC says it had no choise but to submit separate shortlist of nominee
because there were diff sets of applicants for each vacated seat
o Court ruled that the situation is the own doing of the JBC because it
issued 2 separate publication
 And that there had been no similar problems in the past
because the JBC jointly announced simultaneous or closely
successive vacancies in the SC in a single publication
o Designation b ythe JBC of numbers to the vacant Sandig AJ posts
encroaches on the president’s power to determine seniority
o Court also pointed out that the declaration that the clustering of
nominees by the JBC for the simultaneous vacancies that occurred by
the creation of 6 new positions of SJ of Sandig is unconsti
 Was only incidental to its ruling that president Aquino is not
bound by such clustering in aking his appointments to the
vacant posts
 Court did not require the JBC to do ore refrain from doing
something insofar as the issue of clustering of the nominees
to the then 6 vacant posts occurred
o Caguioa says that president did not commit an uncontsti act when he
disregarded the clustering done by the JBC
Nitafan v. CIR
FACTS
 Petitioner are RTC judges of branch 52, 12 and 53 in NCR
 They question the decution of withholding taxes to their salaries claiming that
o 1) payment of withholding taxes is a form of reducing the salaries of the
judges thus violating Art 8 Sec 10
o 2) the consti unlike the 1973 consti has no express prohibition in the
granting of immunity to judges from income taxes
 Thus the ruling in Perfector v. Meer and Edencia v. David
granting immunity to judges frompayment of income tax as
 payment of such is a form of decreasing their salaries will be
followed
ISSUE
 Whether the payment of withholding tax by judges violates Art 8 sec 10 which
prohibits the decrease in salary? NO
o Payment of tax is not what is prohibited
 It is plain that the consti authorizes congress to pass a law
fixing another rate of compensation of justices and judges
 But such rate must be higher than that which they are
receiving at the time of enactment
 Or if lower it would be applicable only to those appointed
after its approval
o It would be strained construction to read into the provision an exemption
from taxation in the light of the discussion in the consti commission
o With the foregoing interpretation the ruling that the imposition of
income tax upon the salary of judges is a dimunition
 Violated the consti
o Petition dismissed
Vargas v. Rillaroza
FACTS
 Petition assailed the consti of Sec 14 of the people’s court act upon a specific
ground
o It removes from office the members of the SC by means of a procedure
other than impeachment, contrary to the consti
 Says that an SC justice who held any office or position under the PH Exec
Commission or under gov may not sit na dvote in any case brought
o In which the accused is aperson who held any office of position under
either or both the PH Exec Commision or gov in any branch
instrumentality or agency
 If they can’t form a quorum, president may designate such member of judges of
first instace, judges at large of first instance or cadastral judges
o Having no disqualification to temporarily sit as justice
o Until a judgment in said case is reached
 Before this it was the duty of all members of the SC to sit in judgment of treason
cases
 Under sec 14 president may put a designee if the accused is under the spefiications
ISSUE
 Whether Sec 14 of the people’s court act is unconsti? YES
o Judges will be forced to stop holding office
o He will be stopped for fulfilling responsibilities
o A designed or temporary replacement is against that law because it is
only when the judge reaches the age of 70 or when he is incapacitated
can he stop holding responsibilities
o They enjoy uninterrupted security of tenure
People v. Gacott
FACTS
 Before the court are MRs of a decision fo the second division of the sc
o Annulled Judge Gascott’s order dismissing crim cases 11529 of the
court a quo
o And reprimanded nd charged him with a fine of Php 10l for gross
ignorance of the law
 Respondent judge furnished separate copies of his basic and supplemental motion to
the CJ, JBC, Solgen, bar confidant, IBP, deputies and OMB, SOJ
 He pleads for the reconsideration of his case since the decision will appear on his
personal records
o And foreclose any chance to aspire for promotion in the judicial dept
 From his initial exhibition of humility, respondent judge then begins to question
why he was not informed by the court that his case has been raflled to the second
division
 Respondent judge questioned the competence of the second division of this court to
administratively discipline him
 He invoked Sec 11 Art 8
o En banc shall have the power to discipline judges
o By vote of majority
 He claims that it is the court en banc who has jurisdiction over his case
 Since all the members of the court are aware of the submission of respondent judge
onthis point
o Through the copies of the motions which he furnished them
o And he insistentlu harps on consti grounds
o Court en banc resolved to accept this aspect of the case from the second
division
ISSUE
 Whether the second division of the SC is competent to administratively discipline
the respondent? YES
o Consti did not intend for all admin proceedings to be heard and decided
by the SC
o Current text of the cosnti clearly shows that there are actually 2
situations envisaged
 1) grant of disciplinary power to the court en banch
 2) confere admin disciplinary power only in certain cases
o In Bar matter 209 – the following are considered en banc cases
 Dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the judiciary
 Disbarment of a lawyer
 Either the suspension of any of them for aperiod of more than
1 year or a fine exceeding Php 10k or both
o To require the entire court to deliberate upon in all admin matters
regardless of sanctions would result in a congested docket and undue
delay in the adjudication of cases in court
 Especially in admin matters since even cases involving the
penalty of reprimand would require action by the court en
banc
 o This would subvert the consti injunction for the court to adopt a
systematic plan to expedite the decision or resolution of cases pening in
the SC or lower courts
 And the very purpose of authorizing the court to sit en banc
in divisions
o MR denied
Air France v. Carrascoso
FACTS
 Petitioner through its authorized agent issued the private respondent a first class
round trip airplane ticket from Manila to Rome
 Private respondent traveled first class from MNL to BKK
 However a manager of the petitioner forced the private respondent to vacat his seat
in favor of a white man
o Who had a netter right to the seat
 After the commotion, the private respodnet reluctantly gave up his seat
 CFI of MNL sentenced the petitionerto pay the private respondent 25k in moral
damages
o 10k in exemplary damages
o 393 in refun
o 3k in attorney’s fees and costs
 CA reduced the refund to 383
o Affirmed the decision with costs against the petitioner
 Review on certiorari
o Petitioner seeks for the review of all findings and allege tha appellate
court failed to make complete findings of fact on all the issues properly
laid before it
o And violated Art 7 Sec 14
ISSUE
 Whether appellate court failed to make complete findings of fact and violated Art 7
Sec 14? NO
o SC held that courts are not burdened with the obligation to specify in the
sentence every bit and piece of evidence presented by the parties
o Law provides that the decision must state the essential ultimate facts
upon which the court’s conclusion is drawn
o As long as the decision contains the necessary facts to warrant its
conclusion
 There is no error on the court
o Failure to make specific findings of facy on evidence presented by the
defense or specify the reasons for refusing to believe that contentions of
the appellant
 Is not sufficient to hold the contrary to the requirement of the
law and the consti
o It is presumed that official duties have been performed and the matters
within an issue in a case were laid before the court and passed upon by it
o Finding of fact – written styatement on the ultimate facts as found by the
court essential to support the decision and judgment rendered,
conclusion with respect to the determinative facts on issue
o Question of law – does not call for an examination of probative value of
the evidence presented by the parties
o Now Art 8!!!!! Okay
o Decision affirmed
Francisco v. Permskul
FACTS
 Petitioner leased his apartment in Makati to private respondent for 1 year
o With a rental of 3k a month
 Pursuant to the lease contract an amount of 9k was deposited by respondent to
petitioner to answer for unpaid rental or damage leased to the leased premises
 He vacated the property and requested refund of the deposit minus 1k representing
the rental for the additional 10 days of his occupancy
o After expiration of lease
o But petitioner rejected this because according to him, respondent still
owes him electricity and water bills plus more money for repainting of
leased premises
 Private respondent sued the MTC of Makati
o And a summary judgment was rendered in favor of respondent
o Not liable for repainting, only for electricity and water bills
o And ordered petitioner to pay 7k representing the balance of the deposit
after decuting said bills
 Plus attoneys fees
 Decision was appealed to the RTC
o Affirmed by Judge de la Rama
o Same was sustained by the CA
 Petitioner now assails memorandum decision in the SC for violation of Art 8 Sec 14
o No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing clearly
and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based
 Its purpose has been the same: to inform the person reading the decision and
especially the parties
o Of how it was reached by the court after consideration of the pertinent
facts
o And examination of the applicable laws
 Petitioner assails said memorandum for non-compliance with the law because it did
not have a full blown hearing on the merits by the appellate courts
 Romero v. CA
o Every decision or final resolution of a court in appealed cases shall
clearly and distinctly state the finsings of fact and the conclusion of law
ISSUE
 Whether memorandum decision has binding legal effect? YES
o Memorandum decisions are considered an acceptable method to
expedite cases for the courts of justice
 o Form of memorandum decisions to be submitted have not been
fixed/denied by law prior to this case
 Court’s interpretation to the one rendered by the RTC will
not retroactively apply
 But assailed memorandum is considred substantial in its
compliance with Sec 40 of BP 129
 Of direct availability and actual review of the
decision rendered by the METC judge
incorporated by reference in the memorandum
decision of the RTC judge
o Judgement made by METC complied with rule onsummary procedure
o It was a concise and well-written decision by judge Balita
o RTC Judge de la Rama adopted this by reference and found no cogent
reason to disturb the same
 But he also did not make his own statements
 And this was affirmed by CA
 (what was acrually reviewed was still the METC decision,
not the RTC’s so there was fear of lack of proper due process
by the appellate courts)
o Court reminds thought that from his case onwards
 It asks for the strict enforcement of Sec 14 Art 8 whenever
thre is any deviation from he form prescribed
Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
FACTS
 Petition for review filed by deutsche
 According to the national internal revenue code (NIRC) of 1997
o Deutsche remmitted to the respondent Php 67,688,553.51
o 15% bank profit remittance tax (BPRT) on its regular banking unti
(RBT) net income to Deutsche Bank Germany
 Deutsche believed they paid too much
o Filed with the BIR Large Taxpayers Assessment and Investigation
Division
o Claimed for a refund
o Php 22,562,851.17
 Also requested the International Tax Affairs Division (ITAD) a confirmation of its
entitlement to the preferential tax rate under of 10% under the RP-Germany Tax
Treaty
o Was taxed 15% but they claim it only should have been 10%
 Inaction by BIR
 Petitioner filed for a petition for review under the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)
o Refund or tax credit certificate over the excess BPRT payment
 CTA denied
o Violated RMO No. 1-2000, application for tax treaty relief was not filed
with ITAD prior to the payment of the BPRT
o OR prior to its availment of 10% preferential tax rate under the RP-
Germany Tax Treaty provision
 Violating the 15-day period mandate
 Mirant (PH) Operations Corp v. CIR
o CTA ruled that before one gets benefits of tax treaty, the latter should
first invoke the provisions of the tax treaty and prove they indeed apply
to the corporation
ISSUE
 Whether the failure to strictly comply with RMO no. 1-2000 will deprive the
persons or corporations of the benefit of the tax treaty? NO
o Bound by our adherence to the general principle that international law as
part of the law of the land
 Based on pacta sunt servanda – treaties must be done in good
faith
o Tax treaties are entered in order to reconcile the national fiscal
legislations of the contracting parties
o In turn avoids double taxation
 Double taxation is the imposition of comparable taxes in two
or more states on the same taxpayer in respect of the same
subject matter for identical periods
o Tax treaties encourage free flow of goods and services and movement of
capital
o BIR must not impose additional requirements that would negate the
availment of the reliefs provided by international agreement
o RP-Germany Tax treay does not pre-reqs
o RMO-No. 1-2000 has no deprivation if one does not comply with 15-
day rule
o Since this only a admin matter
 It could be remedied by imposing penalties or fine but not
denial of entitlement
o Mirant case cannot bind
 Difference in parties, taxes, taxable periods and treaties
DIPOSITION
Petition granted!
Salazar v. Marigome
FACTS
 Salazar charged Marigome, presiding Judge of RTC Bogo, Cebu with gross
ignorance of the law, bias, conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service and
rendering a decision violative of the COMEELC rules of procedure and the consti
in connection with election SPC case BOGO-00789
 Complainant’s claim, respodnet admitted in evidence uncertifies photocopies of the
contested ballots
o The orig copies of which were in the custody of the HRET
o Contrary to Sec 7 Rule 130 of the rules court
 Evidence admissible the orig document is a public record,
when the orig of a document is in the custody of public
officer or is recorded in a public office
 Its contents may be proved by a cert of copy issued by the
public officer in custody thereof
  Respondent considered the uncertified photocopies-exhibits for mancio in deciding
the case
 This the charge of gross ignorance of the law
 Salazar also accused judge Marigomen of partiality after he ordered his clerk of
court to coordinate with counsel for the protestee in the election case
o And to testify for her, despite the conjection of the protestant in relation
with the presentation of the plain photocopies of the contested ballots
 Judge Marigomen also allowed Atty. Roeles, co-counsel for the protestee, to testify
deport the protestant’s objectiuon
o On the ground that his testifying would be a violation of professional
ethics
o And despite Judge Marigomen’s ciation of authorities on the matter
 Salazar claims that Judge Marigomen violate the COMELEC rules of procedure as
well as the consti
o For not clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the law on which his
decision was based
 In his comment, Judge Marigomen proffers, that Salazar is not the real party in
interest
o Complaint is moot and academic as the election protests had been
decided on appeal by the COMELEC
o And if errors were committed, they pertain to the exercise of his
adjudicative functions which cannot be corrected through admi
proceedings
 Subsequently, the office of the court admin recommend that Judge Marigomen be
found guilty of
o Gross ignorance of the law and fined
o 2) bias and dishonesty amounting to gave misconduct and suspended 6
motnhs
 Thus this petition

ISSUE
 Whether the judge is guiltu of gross ignorance of the law, bias and dishonesty? YES
o Court finds the evaluations of the case by the OCA in order
o Judge Marigomen’s questioned acts do not conform to Canons 3 and 5
reagrding impartiality and equality of the new code of judidcal conduct
of the ph judiciary
o Respondent indeed committed falsehood as found by the OCA
o Judge Marigomen’s calim that he allowed the protestee’s counsel, Atty,
Roeles to testify over the objection of the protestant’s counsel because
the latter failed to submit a memorandum in support of the objection
 Is belied by the records of the case
o Thus! In a pleading captioned – manifestation II – the protestant’s
counsel submitted a memorandum of authorities on the matter
o Judge Marigomen also indeed failed to state his decision why he
invalidated 90 ballots in favor of the protestant
 And to specify the ballots being set aside
 Thereby violating the consti
o Judge is guilty!