CARLOS CUNANAN vs. JORGE TAN, JR.

G.R. No. L-19721             May 10, 1962

PER CURIAM:

FACTS:

Petitioner Carlos Cunanan was extended an ad interim appointed by the President as acting Deputy
Administrator of the Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
He qualified and assumed the duties and functions of said office. However, six (6) Senators and
seven (7) members of the House of Representatives, purporting to act as the Commission on
Appointments, rejected said ad interim appointment. Respondent Jorge Tan, Jr. was designated by
the President as Acting Deputy Administrator of the Reforestation Administration, Department of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, and performed the function of said office without the consent of
petitioner herein. Petitioner commenced the present quo warranto proceeding against respondent,
contending that the latter's designation is invalid, the office of Deputy Administrator of the
Reforestation Administration, Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, not being vacant
when he was designated thereto, because the aforesaid rejection of petitioner's ad
interim appointment is invalid for several reasons.

ISSUE:

WON the appointment of Jorge Tan Jr. is valid

RULING:

No. The determination of this issue depends upon: (1) the legality of the resolution of the House of
Representatives declaring the seats of its twelve (12) members in the Commission on Appointments
vacant; and (2) the legality of the action of the House of Representatives in reconstituting the
membership of the Commission on Appointments for said House. With respect to the first question,
we hold that the same should be resolved in the negative. The Commission on Appointments is it
creature of the Constitution. Although its membership is confined to members of Congress, said
Commission is independent of Congress. The powers of the Commission do not come from
Congress, but emanate directly from the Constitution. Hence, it is not an agent of Congress. In fact,
the functions of the Commissioner are purely executive in nature. In order that the members of the
Commission could properly discharge their duties as such, it is essential that their tenure therein be
provided with a certain measure of stability to insure the necessary freedom of action. The resolution
of the second question is in the negative too. A shifting of votes at a given time, even if due to
arrangements of a more or less temporary nature, like the one that has led to the formation of the
so-called "Allied Majority", does not suffice to authorize a reorganization of the membership of the
Commission for said House. Otherwise, the Commission on Appointments may have to be
reorganized as often as votes shift from one side to another in the House. The framers of our
Constitution could not have intended to thus place a constitutional organ, like the Commission on
Appointments, at the mercy of each House of Congress. Therefore, the designation of respondent
Jorge Tan, Jr. when said office was not vacant, is null and void.
PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, ENRIQUE L. LOCSIN AND MANUEL D. ANDAL
vs.
SENATE OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SERVICES,
HON. SEN. RICHARD GORDON AND HON. SEN. JUAN PONCE ENRILE

G.R. No. 180308               June 19, 2012

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

FACTS:

The Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) is a wholly-owned subsidiary

of the Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), a government-sequestered
organization in which the Republic of the Philippines holds a 35% interest in shares of stocks.
Petitioner PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC), meanwhile, is a private corporation duly
organized and existing under Philippine laws and a holding company whose main operation is
collecting the money market interest income of PHILCOMSAT. By virtue of its interests in both
PHILCOMSAT and POTC, the government has, likewise, substantial interest in PHC.

In view of the losses that the government continued to incur and in order to protect its interests in
POTC, PHILCOMSAT and PHC, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago introduced Proposed Senate
Resolution (PSR) No. 455 directing the conduct of an inquiry, in aid of legislation, on the anomalous
losses incurred by POTC, PHILCOMSAT and PHC and the mismanagement committed by their
respective board of directors. After due proceedings, the respondents Senate Committees found
overwhelming mismanagement by the PCGG and its nominees over POTC, PHILCOMSAT and
PHC, and that PCGG was negligent in performing its mandate to preserve the government's
interests in the said corporations. In sum, Committee Report No. 312 recommended, inter alia, the
privatization and transfer of the jurisdiction over the shares of the government in POTC and
PHILCOMSAT to the Privatization Management Office (PMO) under the Department of Finance
(DOF) and the replacement of government nominees as directors of POTC and PHILCOMSAT.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether the respondent Senate committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in
excess of jurisdiction in approving Committee Resolution No. 312?

RULING:

No, , the respondents Senate Committees cannot be said to have acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction when it submitted Committee
Resolution No . 312, given its constitutional mandate to conduct legislative inquiries. Nor can
the respondent Senate be faulted for doing so on the very same day that the assailed
resolution was submitted. The wide latitude given to Congress with respect to these
legislative inquiries has long been settled, in the consolidated cases of In the Matter of the
Petition for Habeas Corpus of Camilo L. Sabio,  which cited Article VI, Section 21 of the
Constitution, as follows:

"The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
 procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be
respected."

The Court explained that such conferral of the legislative power of inquiry upon any
committee of Congress, in this case the respondents Senate Committees, must carry with it
all powers necessary and proper for its effective discharge.

ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY represented herein by its Chair, DANTON REMOTO
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. 190582               April 8, 2010

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS:

Ang Ladlad is an organization composed of men and women who identify themselves as lesbians,
gays, bisexuals, or trans-gendered individuals (LGBTs) incorporated in 2003. Ang Ladlad first
applied for registration with the COMELEC in 2006. The application for accreditation was denied on
the ground that the organization had no substantial membership base. In 2009, Ang Ladlad again
filed a Petition for registration with the COMELEC upon which it was dismissed on moral grounds.
COMELEC cited certain biblical and quranic passages in their decision. It also stated that since their
ways are immoral and contrary to public policy, they are considered nuissance. In fact, their acts are
even punishable under the Revised Penal Code in its Article 201.

Before the COMELEC, petitioner argued that the LGBT community is a marginalized and under-
represented sector that is particularly disadvantaged because of their sexual orientation and gender
identity; that LGBTs are victims of exclusion, discrimination, and violence; that because of negative
societal attitudes, LGBTs are constrained to hide their sexual orientation; and that Ang
Ladlad complied with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by this Court in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW
Labor Party v. Commission on Elections. Ang Ladlad laid out its national membership base
consisting of individual members and organizational supporters, and outlined its platform of
governance.

ISSUES:

(1) WON Respondent violated the Non-establishment clause of the Constitution

(2) Whether or not Ang Ladlad LGBT Party qualifies for registration as party-list

RULING:

(1) Yes, Comelec’s citation of the Bible and the Koran in denying petitioner’s application was a
violation of the non-establishment clause laid down in Article 3 section 5 of the Constitution.
The proscription by law relative to acts against morality must be for a secular purpose (that
is, the conduct prohibited or sought to be repressed is “detrimental or dangerous to those
conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society"), rather than
out of religious conformity. The Comelec failed to substantiate their allegation that allowing
registration to Ladlad would be detrimental to society.
(2) Yes, it has complied with the requirements of the Constitution and Republic Act No. 7941.
Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that "[n]o law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." At bottom, what our non-
establishment clause calls for is "government neutrality in religious matters."
The denial of Ang Ladlad’s registration on purely moral grounds amounts more to a
statement of dislike and disapproval of homosexuals, rather than a tool to further any
substantial public interest.
Despite the absolutism of Article III, Section 1 of our Constitution, which provides "nor shall
any person be denied equal protection of the laws," courts have never interpreted the
provision as an absolute prohibition on classification. Hence, laws of general application
should apply with equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to participate in the party-list
system on the same basis as other marginalized and under-represented sectors.
Under our system of laws, every group has the right to promote its agenda and attempt to
persuade society of the validity of its position through normal democratic means (freedom of
expression and association).
The decision is fully in accord with our international obligations to protect and promote
human rights. In particular, we explicitly recognize the principle of non-discrimination as it
relates to the right to electoral participation, enunciated in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).