CASE 1

On November 11, 1931, Act No. 3846 (An Act Providing for the Regulation of Radio Stations and
Radio Communications in the Philippines and for Other Purposes) was enacted.
"Sec. 1. No person, firm, company, association, or corporation shall
construct, install, establish, or operate a radio transmitting station, or a radio
receiving station used for commercial purposes, or a radio broadcasting station,
without having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Congress of the
Philippines. . ."
In 1974, based on the premises below, PD 576-A (Regulating the Ownership and Operation of Radio
and Television Stations and for other Purposes) was issued.
"WHEREAS, it has been observed that some public utilities, especially radio
and television stations, have a tendency toward monopoly in ownership and
operation to such an extent that a region or section of the country may be covered
by any number of such broadcast stations, all or most of which are owned, operated
or managed by one person or corporation;
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREAS, on account of the limited number of frequencies available for
broadcasting in the Philippines, it is necessary to regulate the ownership and
operation of radio and television stations and provide measures that would
enhance quality and viability in broadcasting and help serve the public
interests; . . ."
PD576-A sets forth the following pertinent provisions on franchise of radio and television
broadcasting systems:
"Sec. 1. No radio station or television channel may obtain a franchise unless
it has sufficient capital on the basis of equity for its operation for at least one year,
including purchase of equipment.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 6. All franchises, grants, licenses, permits, certificates or other forms of
authority to operate radio or television broadcasting systems shall terminate on
December 31, 1981. Thereafter, irrespective of any franchise, grant, license, permit,
certificate or other forms of authority to operate granted by any office, agency or
person, no radio or television station shall be authorized to operate without the
authority of the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications or their successors who have the right and authority to assign to
qualified parties frequencies, channels or other means of identifying broadcasting
system; Provided, however, that any conflict over, or disagreement with a decision
of the aforementioned authorities may be appealed finally to the Office of the
President within fifteen days from the date the decision is received by the party in
interest."
In 1979, EO 546 was issued, integrating the Board of Communications and the Telecommunications
Control Bureau into the NTC. Among the powers vested in the NTC are the following:
 "a. Issue Certificate of Public Convenience for the operation of
communication utilities and services, radio communications systems, wire or
wireless telephone or telegraph system, radio and television broadcasting system
and other similar public utilities;
xxx xxx xxx
c. Grant permits for the use of radio frequencies for wireless telephone and
telegraph systems and radio communication systems including amateur radio
stations and radio and television broadcasting systems; . . . "

In 1965, Congress enacted RA 4551, giving dela Cruz a 50-year franchise. In 1969, the franchise was
transferred to WAV through Congress' Concurrent Resolution No. 58. WAV then engaged in the
installation and operation of several radio stations around the country. Upon termination of WAV’
franchise on December 31, 1981 pursuant to PD 576-A, it continued operating its radio stations under
permits granted by the NTC.
On December 20, 1994, WAV filed with Congress an application for a franchise. Pending its approval,
the NTC issued to WAV a temporary permit dated July 7, 1995 to operate a television
station via Channel 100 of the UHF Band from June 29, 1995 to June 28, 1997. In 1996, the NTC
authorized WAV to increase the power output of Channel 100 from 1.0 kw to 25 kw after finding it
financially and technically capable; it also granted WAV a permit to purchase radio
transmitters/transceivers for use in its TV Channel 100 broadcasting. Shortly before the expiration
of its temporary permit, petitioner applied for its renewal on May 14, 1997.
On October 28, 1997, Congress replied to NTC’s inquiry regarding the franchise application of WAV.
It certified that WAV’ franchise application was not deliberated on by the 9th Congress because WAV
failed to submit the required supporting documents. In the next Congress, WAV did not re-file its
application.
On November 17, 1997, the NTC wrote to WAV ordering it to submit a new congressional franchise
for the operation of its 7 radio stations and informing it that pending compliance, its application for
temporary permits to operate these radio stations would be held in abeyance. WAV failed to comply
with the franchise requirement.
Despite the absence of a congressional franchise, NTC notified WAV on January 19, 1998 that its May
14, 1997 application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate television Channel 100 was
approved and would be released upon payment of the prescribed fee of P3,600.00. After paying said
amount, however, NTC refused to release to WAV its renewed permit. Instead, NTC commenced
against WAV Admin Case No. 98-009 based on the November 17, 1997 letter. On February 26, 1998,
NTC issued an Order directing WAV to show cause why its assigned frequency, TV Channel 100,
should not be recalled for lack of the required congressional franchise. WAV was also directed to
cease and desist from operating Channel 100 unless subsequently authorized by the NTC.
On January 13, 1999, NTC rendered a decision on Admin Case No. 98-009 against WAV. Because of
“lack of a legal personality to justify the issuance of any permit or license to WAV,” it not having a
valid legislative franchise, NTC recalled the assignment to WAV of Channel 100; denied WAV’
application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate Channel 100; and ordered WAV to cease
and desist from further operating Channel 100.
Does WAV require a congressional franchise to operate a radio station? How about a
television broadcasting system?
 CASE 2

PAP is the umbrella organization of various groups rendering pilotage service in the different ports
of the Philippines. It services foreign and domestic shipping companies, including the members of
AIL. On March 1, 1985, PPA issued PPA Administrative Order (AO) No. 03-85.
"Section 16. Payment of Pilotage Service Fees — Any vessel which employs
a Harbor Pilot shall pay the pilotage fees prescribed in this Order and shall comply
with the following conditions:
xxx xxx xxx
"c) When pilotage service is rendered at any port between 1800H to 1600H,
Sundays or Holidays, an additional charge of one hundred (100%) percent turnover
the regular pilotage fees shall be paid by vessels engaged in foreign trade, and fifty
(50%) percentum by coastwise vessels. This additional charge or premium fee for
nighttime pilotage service shall likewise be paid when the pilotage service is
commenced before and terminated after sunrise.
"Provided, however, that no premium fee shall be considered for service
rendered after 1800H if it shall be proven that the service can be undertaken before
such hours after the one (1) hour grace period, as provided in paragraph (d) of this
section, has expired." (emphasis supplied)
On February 3, 1986, in response to the clamor of harbor pilots for the rationalization of pilotage fees,
President Marcos issued EO 1088 providing for uniform and modified rates for pilotage services
rendered in all Philippine ports. It fixes the rate of pilotage fees on the basis of the "vessel's
tonnage" and provides that the "rate for docking and undocking anchorage, conduction and shifting
and other related special services is equal to 100%," thus:
"SECTION 1. The following shall be the rate of pilotage fees or charges based
on tonnage for services rendered to both foreign and coastwise vessels;

For Foreign Vessels Rate in US $

or its Peso
Equivalent
Less than 500GT $30.00
500GT to 2,500GT 43.33
2,500GT to 5,000GT 71.33
5,000GT to 10,000GT 133.67
10,000GT to 15,000GT 181.67
15,000GT to 20,000GT 247.00
20,000GT to 30,000GT 300.00
30,000GT to 40,000GT 416.67
40,000GT to 60,000GT 483.33
60,000GT to 80,000GT 550.00
80,000GT to 100,000GT 616.67
100,000GT to 120,000GT 666.67
120,000GT to 130,000GT 716.67
130,000GT to 140,000GT 766.67

"Over 140,000 gross tonnage $0.05 or its peso equivalent every excess
tonnage. Rate for docking and undocking anchorage, conduction and shifting and
 other related special services is equal to 100%. Pilotage services shall be compulsory
in government and private wharves or piers,

For Coastwise Vessels: Regular

100 and under 500 gross tons P41.70
500 and under 600 gross tons 55.60
600 and under 1,000 gross tons 69.60
1,000 and under 3,000 gross tons 139.20
3,000 and under 5,000 gross tons 300.00
5,000 and over gross tons

"SEC. 2. With respect to foreign vessels, payment of pilotage services shall

be made in dollars or in pesos at the prevailing exchange rate."
In addition, EO 1088 contains a repealing clause stating that all orders, letters of instruction, rules,
regulations and issuances inconsistent with it are repealed or amended accordingly.
Pursuant to EO 1088, PPA issued PPA Resolution No. 1486 dated May 22, 1995, disallowing the
overtime premium or charge collected by Harbor Pilots under Section 16(c) of PPA Administrative
Order No. 03-85, for services rendered during holidays;
On the basis of PPA Resolution No. 1486, AIL refused to pay PAP's claims for nighttime and overtime
pay. This constrained the latter to declare May 19, 1996 as the cut-off date for shipowners and agents
to pay the said claims, otherwise, its harbor pilots would not render pilotage services and would work
only from sunrise to sundown.
1. Did EO 1088 repeal the provisions of AO 15-65 and PPA AO 03-85 on payment of additional
pay for holidays work and premium pay for nighttime service?
2. Should the rates, as fixed in the schedule of fees based on tonnage in EO 1088, be imposed on
every pilotage movement?
PAP:
1. EO 1088 does not repeal the provisions of PPA AO No. 03-85 on nighttime and overtime pay.
2. The rate of pilotage fees fixed by EO 1088, though based on tonnage, is to be imposed on
"every pilotage maneuver" and not on the "entire package of pilotage services." A contrary
argument would place the harbor pilots on a worse position than prior to the enactment of
EO 1088.
AIL:
1. There exists an actual inconsistency between the two orders, thus, EO 1088 should be
construed as an implied repeal of PPA AO No. 03-85 provisions on nighttime and overtime
pay.
2. The rate of pilotage fees under EO 1088 applies to the "entire package of pilotage services"
for three reasons: (1) under Section 1 of EO 1088, the rate of pilotage fees is based on "vessel's
tonnage"; (2) the use of the words "and" and "is" in the provision — "rate for
docking and undocking anchorage, conduction, and shifting, and other related special
services is equal to 100%" — means that all the enumerated pilotage services may not, absent
any contract increasing it, exceed 100% of the rate schedule; and (3) since the object of the
law is to standardize the pilotage services in all Philippine ports, it follows that the intent of
EO 1088 is to treat the package of pilotage services as a whole.
 CASE 3

The provincial governor of the province of Calibu, as chairman of the local school board,
under Section 98 of the Local Government Code, appointed classroom teachers who have no items in
the DECS plantilla to handle extension classes that would accommodate students in the public schools.
In the audit of accounts conducted by the COA for the period January to June 1998, it appeared that
the salaries and personnel-related benefits of the teachers appointed by the province for the
extension classes were charged against the provincial SEF. Likewise charged to the SEF were college
scholarship grants of the province. Consequently, COA issued Notices of Suspension to the province
of Calibu, saying that disbursements for the salaries of teachers and scholarship grants are not
chargeable to the provincial SEF.
The Special Education Fund was created by virtue of RA 5447, which took effect on January 1,
1969. Pursuant thereto, PD 464, also known as the Real Property Tax Code, imposed an annual tax of
1% on real property which shall accrue to the SEF.
Under RA 5447, the SEF may be expended exclusively for the following activities of the DECS —
(a) the organization and operation of such number of extension classes as may be needed to
accommodate all children of school age desiring to enter Grade I, including the creation
of positions of classroom teachers, head teachers and principals for such extension
classes . . . ;
xxx
(c) the payment and adjustment of salaries of public school teachers under and by virtue of
Republic Act Numbered Five Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Eight and all the benefits in
favor of public school teachers provided under Republic Act Numbered Four Thousand
Six Hundred Seventy;
xxx
(j) the granting of government scholarships to poor but deserving students under Republic Act
Numbered Four Thousand Ninety; and
xxx

The Local Government Code took effect 1991.

SEC. 235. Additional Levy on Real Property for the Special Education Fund (SEF). — A
province or city or a municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area, may levy and collect
an annual tax of one percent (1%) on the assessed value of real property which shall be in
addition to the basic real property tax. The proceeds thereof shall exclusively accrue to the
Special Education Fund (SEF).
SEC. 272. Application of Proceeds of the Additional One Percent SEF Tax. — The proceeds
from the additional one percent (1%) tax on real property accruing to the SEF shall be
automatically released to the local school boards: Provided, That, in case of provinces, the
proceeds shall be divided equally between the provincial and municipal school
boards: Provided, however, That the proceeds shall be allocated for the operation and
maintenance of public schools, construction and repair of school buildings, facilities and
equipment, educational research, purchase of books and periodicals, and sports development
as determined and approved by the local school board. (Italics supplied)
SEC. 100. Meeting and Quorum; Budget
xxx xxx xxx
(c) The annual school board budget shall give priority to the following:
 (1) Construction, repair, and maintenance of school buildings and other facilities of
public elementary and secondary schools;
(2) Establishment and maintenance of extension classes where necessary; and
(3) Sports activities at the division, district, municipal, and barangay levels.

COA:
LGC repealed RA 5447. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The following are not authorized as lawful
expenditures of SEF under the Local Government Code.
1. Salaries
2. Personnel-related benefits
3. Scholarship grants

Is COA correct?
 CASE 4

Lot 6 of the Tondo Foreshore Land was sold by Land Tenure Administration to Arboleda under RA
1597. For many years, realty taxes on the lot had not been paid both before and after the death of
Arboleda. Thus, on August 26, 1980, the City Treasurer of Manila auctioned the lot for sale due to tax
delinquency, under PD 464. Spouses Cirilo purchased the lot at a public auction and were issued a
TCT. On April 25, 1984, Spouses Cirilo sold the property to Spouses Ester, who also refunded the
amount equivalent to the delinquent taxes paid and other expenses entailed. Spouses Ester thus
became the owners of the lot, evinced by TCT No. 1234.
The Auroras are heirs of Arboleda. On March 5, 1991, Aurora filed for declaration of co-ownership
and partition against Spouses Ester.
Aurora:
We are co-owners of the lot with Spouses Ester. Repurchase by the latter of the lot redounded to our
benefit, considering that the conditions of transfer in the deed of sale executed between Arboleda
and the Land Tenure Administration provided:
"2. . . . Every conveyance shall be subject to repurchase by the original
purchaser or his legal (heirs) within a period of five years from the date of the
conveyance;
xxx xxx xxx
5. That this contract shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators,
successors, and assigns of the respective parties thereof; and
6. That the condition contained in paragraph 2 hereof shall be annotated as
encumbrance on the certificate of title to be issued in favor of the VENDEE and/or his
successor-in-interest."
The condition has basis in Section 4 of RA 1597, the law governing the subdivision of the Tondo
Foreshore Lands from which the subject property emanated:
"SECTION 4. Lands acquired under this Act shall not, except in favor of the
Government or any of its branches or institutions, or legally constituted banking
corporations, be subject to encumbrance or alienation within 15 years after the date
of the issuance of the transfer certificate of title to the purchaser, nor shall they
become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of
said period; Provided, however, that such lands may be mortgaged even before said
period has expired.
Every conveyance shall be subject to repurchase by the original purchaser
or his legal heirs within a period of 5 years from the date of conveyance."
Since Ester repurchased the property from the Cirilo spouses well within the five-year period
specified in the deed of sale and in Section 4 of RA 1597, they are deemed to have redeemed the
property for all the co-owners, ourselves included.
Ester:
The last paragraph of Section 4 of RA 1597, substantially reproduced in the deed of sale between the
Land Tenure Administration and Arboleda, does not apply to the facts and circumstances in this case.
Rather, it is Section 78 of PD 464 which is applicable. This Section provides for a one-year
redemption period for properties foreclosed due to tax delinquency:
"SECTION 78. Redemption of real property after sale. — Within the term of
one year from the date of the registration of the sale of the property, the delinquent
taxpayer or his representative, or in his absence, any person holding a lien or claim
over the property, shall have the right to redeem the same by paying the provincial
or city treasurer or his deputy the total amount of taxes and penalties due up to the
date of redemption, the costs of sale and the interest at the rate of twenty per
centum on the purchase price, and such payment shall invalidate the sale certificate
issued to the purchaser and shall entitle the person making the same to a certificate
from the provincial or city treasurer or his deputy, stating that he had redeemed
the property.
xxx xxx xxx"
Thus, the repurchase of the property beyond the one-year redemption period under PD 464 was
outside the ambit of a redemption of foreclosed property, hence, not for the benefit of all co-owners.
Section 4 of RA 1597 does not apply to the present case because it refers to an alienation outside the
purview of foreclosure due to tax delinquency. Section 4 refers to a voluntary alienation, conveyance
and encumbrance made in favor of the government, its agencies and instrumentalities within 15
years from the date the certificate of title was issued to the purchaser. These conveyances are subject
to repurchase within five years from the date of conveyance. In contrast, the conveyance involved in
this case is an involuntary conveyance, not covered by Section 4.
Also, RA 1597 is a special law enacted to apply to the Tondo Foreshore Lands. PD 464 is likewise a
special law governing the collection of real property tax, regardless of whether the owner acquired
the property from a private person or from a government entity. No distinction whatsoever is found
in the decree on the nature and source of the tax delinquent property, whether express or implied.
Section 4 of RA 1597 has been expressly repealed and abrogated by PD 464, by virtue of the following
provision:
"SECTION 111. Repealing Clause. — Commonwealth Act Numbered Four
Hundred Seventy, as amended; the pertinent provisions of the charters of all cities;
Section two thousand ninety-two of the Revised Administrative Code; and all acts,
laws or decrees or parts of acts, laws or decrees inconsistent with the provisions of
this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly."
Consequently, Section 4 of RA 1597, being inconsistent with Section 78 of PD 464, was abrogated
and repealed by the latter law, which took effect later on June 1, 1974.

Which of the two laws should apply insofar as the redemption period of the property is
concerned?
Is Section 4 of RA 1597 already repealed by Section 78 of PD 464, such that the latter provision
governs the redemption period?
 CASE 5

Constitutionality of certain provisions of RA 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003)
Does Section 5(d) of RA 9189 allowing the registration of voters who are immigrants or
permanent residents in other countries by their mere act of executing an affidavit expressing
their intention to return to the Philippines, violate the residency requirement in Section 1 of
Article V of the Constitution?
RA 9189 provides:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. — It is the prime duty of the State to provide a system
of honest and orderly overseas absentee voting that upholds the secrecy and
sanctity of the ballot. Towards this end, the State ensures equal opportunity to
all qualified citizens of the Philippines abroad in the exercise of this fundamental
right.

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. — For purposes of this Act:

a) "Absentee Voting" refers to the process by which qualified citizens of the
Philippines abroad, exercise their right to vote;
xxx
f) "Overseas Absentee Voter" refers to a citizen of the Philippines who is qualified to
register and vote under this Act, not otherwise disqualified by law, who is abroad
on the day of elections.

SEC. 4. Coverage. — All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are not otherwise
disqualified by law, at least eighteen (18) years of age on the day of elections, may
vote for president, vice-president, senators and party-list representatives. (Italics
supplied)

Sec. 5. Disqualifications. — The following shall be disqualified from voting under

this Act:
xxx xxx xxx
d) An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host
country, unless he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for the
purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical
permanent residence in the Philippines not later than three (3) years from approval
of his/her registration under this Act. Such affidavit shall also state that he/she has
not applied for citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall be cause for
the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent resident from the National
Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent disqualification to vote in
absentia.

Sections 1 and 2, Article V of the Constitution read:

SEC. 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have
resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they
 propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No
literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the
exercise of suffrage.
SEC. 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity
of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.

Macky argues:
Section 5(d) is unconstitutional because it violates Section 1, Article V of the Constitution which
requires that the voter must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place
where he proposes to vote for at least six months immediately preceding an election. Section 1,
Article V of the Constitution does not allow provisional registration or a promise by a voter to
perform a condition to be qualified to vote in a political exercise. The legislature should not be
allowed to circumvent the requirement of the Constitution on the right of suffrage by providing a
condition thereon which in effect amends or alters the aforesaid residence requirement to qualify a
Filipino abroad to vote. The right of suffrage should not be granted to anyone who, on the date of the
election, does not possess the qualifications provided for by Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.
OSG:
There is absence of clear and unmistakable showing that said provision of law is repugnant to the
Constitution. All laws are presumed to be constitutional; by the doctrine of separation of powers, a
department of government owes a becoming respect for the acts of the other two departments; all
laws are presumed to have adhered to constitutional limitations; the legislature intended to enact a
valid, sensible, and just law.

Rule.