PACIFIC STEAM LAUNDRY, INC. v LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 608 SCRA 442 CARPIO, J.

18 December 2009

Facts: Petitioner Pacific Steam Laundry, Inc. (petitioner) is a company engaged in the business of laundry services. On 5 September 2001, the Environmental Quality Management Division of Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) conducted wastewater sampling of petitioners effluent which showed non-compliance. After a series of subsequent water sampling, PSL still failed to conform to the regulatory standards. Another wastewater sampling which was conducted on 5 June 2002, in response to the 17 May 2002 request for re-sampling received by LLDA, finally showed compliance with the effluent standard in all parameters. On 16 September 2002, LLDA issued an Order to Pay indicating therein that the penalty should be imposed from the date of initial sampling to the date the request for re-sampling was received by the Authority. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the LLDA denied.

Issue: WON the grant of implied power to LLDA to impose penalties violate the rule on nondelegation of legislative powers.

Ruling: LLDAs power to impose fines is not unrestricted. It was only after the investigation finding the petitioner failing to meet the established water and effluent quality standards that the LLDA imposed the penalty of P 1,000.00 per day. The P 1,000 penalty per day is in accordance with the amount of penalty prescribed under PD 984.

LUIS K. LOKIN, JR. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. Nos. 179431-32 BERSAMIN, J. 22 June 2010

FACTS: The Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) was one of the organized groups duly registered under the party-list system of representation that manifested their intent to participate in the May 14, 2007 synchronized national and local elections. CIBAC, through its president, Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva, submitted a list of five nominees from which its representatives would be chosen should CIBAC obtain the required number of qualifying votes of which, the petitioner is the second nominee. Prior to the elections, however, CIBAC filed a certificate of nomination, substitution and amendment of the list of nominees whereby it withdrew the nominations of three of its nominees including Lokin and substituted Armi Jane R. Borje as one of the nominees. On June 26, 2007, CIBAC, supposedly through its counsel, filed with the COMELEC en banc sitting as the National Board of Canvassers a motion seeking the proclamation of Lokin as its second nominee. The COMELEC resolved the matter declaring the validity of the withdrawal of the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang and the substitution of Borje as the third nominee. Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales was sworn in being the second nominee. ISSUE: Whether or not Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 is unconstitutional and violates the PartyList System Act. RULING: The legislative power of the Government is vested exclusively in the Legislature in accordance with the doctrine of separation of powers. As a general rule, the Legislature cannot surrender or abdicate its legislative power, for doing so will be unconstitutional. Although the power to make laws cannot be delegated by the Legislature to any other authority, a power that is not legislative in character may be delegated. The COMELEC, despite its role as the implementing arm of the Government in the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, has neither the authority nor the license to expand, extend, or add anything to the law it seeks to implement thereby. The IRRs the COMELEC issues for that purpose should always accord with the law to be implemented, and should not override, supplant, or modify the law. It is basic that the IRRs should remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out. Indeed, administrative IRRs adopted by a particular department of the Government under legislative authority must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying the laws general provisions into effect. The law itself cannot be expanded by such IRRs, because an administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.

ARTURO M. TOLENTINO and ARTURO C. MOJICA vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, SENATOR RALPH G. RECTO and SENATOR GREGORIO B. HONASAN G.R. No. 148334 Carpio, J. 21 January 2004

FACTS: Shortly after her succession to the Presidency in January 2001, President Gloria MacapagalArroyo nominated then Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. (Senator Guingona) as Vice-President which the Congress confirmed. The Senate, on 8 February 2001, then passed Resolution No. 84 certifying to the existence of a vacancy in the Senate. Resolution No. 84 called on COMELEC to fill the vacancy through a special election to be held simultaneously with the regular elections on 14 May 2001. The Resolution further provided that the Senatorial candidate garnering the 13th highest number of votes shall serve only for the unexpired term of former Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., which ends on 30 June 2004. On 5 June 2001, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 01-005 provisionally proclaiming 13 candidates as the elected Senators with the 13th Senator filling the unexpired term of Senator Guingona. Petitioners Arturo Tolentino and Arturo Mojica, as voters and taxpayers, filed the instant petition for prohibition, seeking to enjoin COMELEC from proclaiming with finality the candidate for Senator receiving the 13th highest number of votes as the winner in the special election for a single three-year term seat.

ISSUE: Whether or not a special election to fill a vacant three-year term Senate seat was validly held on 14 May 2001.

RULING: A special election to fill a vacant three-year term Senate seat was validly held on 14 May 2001. Although COMELEC DID NOT COMPLY w/ the requirements of RA 6645, either strictly or substantially, it does NOT invalidate the special election. Section 2 of R.A. No. 6645 as amended by R.A. 7166 provides that the Commission on Elections shall fix the date of the special election, which shall not be earlier than forty-five (45) days nor later than ninety (90) days from the date of such resolution or communication, stating among other things the office or offices to be voted for: Provided, however, That if within the said period a general election is scheduled to be held, the special election shall be held simultaneously with such general election.

ANTERO J. POBRE vs. Sen. MIRIAM DEFENSOR- SANTIAGO A.C. No. 7399 VELASCO, JR., J. 25 August 2009

FACTS: Petitioner Antero Pobre invites the Courts attention though the sworn letter/complaint dated 22 December 2006, with enclosures, pertaining to the statements of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago which reflected a total disrespect on the part of the speaker towards then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the other members of the Court and constituted direct contempt of court. The petitioner too sought disbarment and other disciplinary actions against the lady Senator. The respondent, however, invoked Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution explaining that those statements were covered by the constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity, being part of a speech she delivered in the discharge of her duty as member of Congress or its committee.

ISSUE:

RULING: