Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

Marcos V Manglapus - G.R. No.

88211 October 27, 1989 Facts President Corazon Aquino did not allow the remains of former president Ferdinand Marcos to be brought back to the Philippines when he died in the interest of the state. The Court upheld her decision in finding that there has been no grave abuse of discretion on her part. Imelda Marcos in her motion for reconsideration, contends among others that the President has no power to bar a Filipino from his own country; if she has, she had exercised it arbitrarily. Issue: WON the president has the power to prohibit the Marcoses from coming back? SC Ruling: The Court denied the motion in ruling that the executive power is vested in the President. From this grant of executive power, residual powers which are necessary for her to comply with her duties under the Constitution flows. The powers of the president are not limited to those that are expressly stated in the Constitution. And as a President, it is her duty to protect and promote the interest and welfare of the people, the very reason why she barred the return of the remains of Mr. Marcos Tolentino v secretary of finance - G.R. No. 115455 October 30, 1995 Facts: Arturo Tolentino and the other petitioners in this consolidated case assail the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7716, otherwise known as the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law on the contention that it violated Sec 24 of Article VI of the Constitution which states in part All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills xxx shall exclusively originate in the House of Representatives xxx. According to them, said violation was committed when the Senate submitted its own version of the bill and disregarded that of the House. They further contend that the conference committee violated the constitutional policy of full public disclosure and the people's right to know when it met for two days in executive session. Issue: WON Ra 7716 is unconstitutional? WON the constitutional policy of full public disclosure and the people's right to know was violated by the Conference Committee?

SC Ruling: The court upheld the constitutionality of Ra 7716 for the reason that Article VI Sec 24 provides that the Senate may propose or concur with amendments on the bills which are supposed to originate from the House. In this light, the Senate may propose an entirely new bill different from what the House has presented. However, the Senate cannot enact revenue measures without the bill originating from the House. They have to wait until a bill from the House is submitted to them before they can act on it, otherwise such revenue measure will not be acted upon. On the issue of the conference committee, the Court said that the Philippine Congress has not adopted a rule prescribing open hearings for conference committees. It also acknowledged the powers of the said committee which can change the clause of the bills or even change the whole bill itself. Senate of the Philippines V Eduardo Ermita GR 169777, April 20, 2006 Facts: The Committee of the Senate issued invitations to several officials of the Executive Department and officials of the AFP as resource speakers in a public hearing on the railway project of the North Rail Project and regarding the privilege speeches of several senators about the election fraud, in aid of legislation, respectively. A day before the scheduled hearing, the President issued EO 464 which imposed that all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government and the officers of AFP & PNP among others shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress. In line with the said EO, Secretary Ermita issued a letter of regrets in response to the invitations for several persons who were invited by the Senate. Hence, the present petition against the constitutionality of EO 464 on the ground that it violates the provision of Article VI Sec 21 of the constitution on inquiries in aid of legislation among others. Issue: WON E0 464 is unconstitutional? SC Ruling: The court declared Section 2 (b) and Section 3 invalid while upholding the validity of the rest of EO 464. The court emphasized the difference between Sec 21 and Sec 22 of Article VI of the constitution. The former pertains to inquiries in aid of legislation, the object of which is to get information in aid of pending or future legislations and for that matter, attendance is required that if one refuses to participate, may be held for contempt. On the other hand, Sec 22 pertains to the question hour, the objective of which is to to obtain information from the executive heads in pursuit of Congress oversight function and therefore, attendance is not mandatory. When Congress exercises its power of inquiry in aid of legislation, the executive heads may only be exempted through a valid claim of privilege either by the President or the Executive Secretary. Such claim must also be expressed, and not implied for it to be valid.

Romualdez-Marcos V COMELEC 248 SCRA 300 Facts: Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte. Montejo, the incumbent representative of the said district filed for a petition of cancellation and disqualification on the ground that Mrs. Marcos lacked the constitutional residency requirement. COMELEC cancelled her certificate of candidacy based on that contention. Issue: WON Mrs Marcos has fulfilled the residency requirement mandated by the constitution to validate her candidacy? SC Ruling: The Court reversed the COMELECs ruling and upheld the validity of Mrs. Marcos election. Domicile refers to a "permanent home", "a place to which, whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return, while residence refers to the physical presence of a person in a given area or place. Domicile is permanent while residence is temporary. However, for purposes of election law, residence is synonymous with domicile. Domicile is not lost even if one has lived and maintained in several residences. While Mrs. Marcos held several residences for the past four decades, it is clear that she did not intend to abandon her original domicile in Tacloban. For domicle to be lost, there must be: 1. An actual removal or an actual change of domicile; 2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one; and 3. Acts which correspond with the purpose. Also, her marriage with former president marcos does not affect her residence because the concept of residence and domicile in the civil code is different. Both domicile and residence only refer to the actual residence. With all the foregoing, it was established that Mrs Marcos is qualified for the candidacy. Osmena v Pendatun 109 Phil 863 Facts: Congressman Osmena, in one of his privilege speeches, made serious allegations against President Garcia regarding bribery. As a result, a resolution by the members of the house was

released that led to an investigation on his conduct and was later on found to be guilty of serious disorderly behaviour. Osmena contends that due to his parliamentary immunity, he cannot be held against the words he spoke during his speech. Hence, the present petition. Issue: WON there has been an infringement of Osmenas parliamentary immunity? WON the HOR can SC Ruling: Osmenas petitions were dismissed by the Court. Section 15, Article VI of our Constitution
provides that the Senators or Members of the House of Representative shall not be questioned in any other place for any speech or debate in Congress which implies that they may be questioned in Congress. Parliamentary immunity is guaranteed to every member of the congress, however whether or not such speeches constitute a disorderly conduct, the Congress itself is the body to decide because the Constitution has granted such power to it. It is therefore not within the province of the courts to rule on that matter. Ang Bagong Bayani v COMELEC June 26, 2001 Facts: Ang Bagong Bayani & Bayan Muna assail COMELEC Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 to disqualify 154 parties registered under the party list on the ground that the party list system is for the marginalized and underrepresented sectors only. Issue: WON the partylist system is exclusive to the marginalized and underrepresented? SC Ruling: The Court ruled that the petitioners contention were partly meritorious and therefore REMANDED the case back to the Comelec, and DIRECTED to conduct hearings on the qualifications of the party-list participants in question. The constitutional provisions on the party list system is not self-executory. The enabling law is RA 7941 which states in its declaration of policies that in promotion of the states policy of proportional representation, the party list system is reserved to groups or organizations which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors to to become members of the house of representatives. The intention of the
Constitution is to give genuine power to the people, which includes enabling them to become lawmakers themselves.

Casco Philippine Chemical Co V Gimenez Facts:


Republic Act No. 2609,was issued on July 1, 1959 which fixed a uniform margin fee of 25% on foreign exchange transactions. The petitioner bought foreign exchange for the importation of urea and formaldehyde and paid the margin fees. Before such purchases were made, Resolution No. 1529 of the Monetary Board of Central Bank of the Philippines was issued which states that the importation of urea formaldehyde is exempt from said fee. The petitioner, anchored on such resolution, is asking for a refund for the fees he paid but the request for payment was disapproved by the Auditor General. Issue: Whether or not urea and formaldehyde are exempted from the payment of the margin fees?

SC Ruling: The SC upheld the decision of the Auditor General in denying the petitioners request for refund for the payment of the margin fees. Sec 2 of RA 2609 exempts urea formaldehyde from the fees and not urea & formaldehyde which are two different things, the former is a finished product while the latter are raw materials. Also, the contention of the petitioner that the Congress intended to exempt urea & formaldehyde is devoid of merit because t he enrolled bill doctrine prevails. Since the enrolled bill has the words urea formaldehyde it shall be understood that it does not mean the separate articles which the petitioners are contending. If there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill, only the legislature can correct such and not the courts. Romulo Neri V Senate Committee on Public Accountability, et al GR No 180643 Facts:

Romulo Neri appeared before the Senate Committeesand testified on matters

concerning the NBN project which was given by the DOTC to ZTE. He disclosed an information that then ("COMELEC") Chairman Benjamin Abalos offered him P200 Million for him to approve the NBN Project, which he confided to PGMA and was told by her not to accept the bribe. The respondents further questioned Neri and asked some questions that would relate PGMA with the alleged bribery incident. Neri refused to answer and invoked executive privilege. After such session, the respondent committees required Neri to come back for another hearing and upon receipt, Neri replied and requested that he may be informed of the subject and the questions to be asked, but no response was solicited. Secretary Ermita sent a letter to the respondent committees to do away with the hearing, invoking executive privilege. They cited the petitioner for contempt for failing to arrive at the scheduled hearing / deliberation. Issue: WON the respondent committees has committed grave abuse of discretion in putting Neri into contempt? SC Ruling: The Court held that there exists a presumption of presidential communications privilege for its importance in the operation of the government and that it is founded on the separation of powers under the Constitution. Neri, through the letter sent by Executive Secretary should be exempted from such questions as raised by the respondent committee by virtue of the executive privilege which was rooted on the threat that it might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the Peoples Republic of China. The executive privilege was validly claimed, leaving no reason for the committees to be held Neri in contempt. They had acted with grave abuse of discretion when upon knowledge of the claim for executive privilege, they still cited him for

contempt. Laslty, for a proceeding to be regarded as one which is in aid of legislation, the intention of which must be clear in the letters issued. In the present case, there was no mention of any possible or pending legislation that needs Neris answers, rather they just seem to find the truth behind the bribery issue an action which is outside the functions of the legislative department.

BENGZON V DRILON 208 SCRA 133 Facts:


Republic Act No. 910 as amended by Republic Act No. 1797 prescribed the adjustment of retirement pensions for retired justices of the SC and CA. PD 644 was thought to have repealed RA 1797 but was later on found out that PD

644 never became a valid law for lack of publication. Without such knowledge, the Congress passed a bill that ought to re-enact RA 1797 but was vetoed by the President. As a recourse, the petitioners assail the validity of PD 644 in the SC and was proven that it was indeed an invalid law and a resolution was released directing that their monthly pensions be adjusted and paid on the basis of
RA 1797. Pursuant to the resolution, the Congress included such appropriation in the General Appropriations Acts of 1992. The president vetoed some portion the Gen Approp Act of 1992. Issue: WON the presidents veto on the Gen Approp Act of 1992 valid? SC Ruling: PD 644 never became a valid law, therefore it never repealed RA 1797. HB16297 which attempted to re-enact RA 1797 in the absence of knowing that the latter was still valid, turned out to be superfluous, and it follows that the Presidents veto on the said bill was again, ineffective. Ra 1797 remained in force, and when the President vetoed some portions of the General Appropriations Act of 1992 which relates to those that were guaranteed by RA 1797, she is in fact trying to veto RA 1797 which was beyond the power of the Executive. Also, although the president has the power to veto items in the appropriations bill, she is not allowed to veto provisions thereof which she did when she vetoed the portion which were appropriated pursuant to the provisions of RA 1797 The Court declared the veto invalid and unconstitutional.

Estrada v desierto; Estrada v macapagal arroyo Facts: On Nov 20, 2000 the Senate formally opened the impeachment trial of Estrada. Throughout the proceedings, several
exposes were released by witnesses against the petitioner. On January 16, 2001 11 senators voted not to open the controversial second envelope which was believed to contain evidences on the alleged Jose Velarde accounts which were attributed to Mr. Estrada. This triggered that EDSA II and on January 20, 2001 Gloria Macapagal Arroyo took her oath of office as President. Mr. Estrada contends the GMA is just an Acting President because he has not renounced his position. He further contends that he is immune from the criminal liabilities imputed on him. Issue: WON GMA has become a legitimate president after Estradas ouster from office? WON Mr. Estrada is immune from suit?

SC Ruling: The Court upheld the legitimacy of GMAs presidency. Estrada has clearly resigned from his position as the president basing from the totality of prior, contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence. In his letter dated 20 Jan 2001, it shows his intention of leaving the post of Presidency. It was evident when he asked his supporters and followers to join him in to promoting of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.GMA was acknowledged by the Congress which were evident in the resolutions they passed. The Court ruled it is wrong to assume that he cannot be prosecuted for the reason that he must first be convicted in the impeachment proceedings, the immunity extends only during his incumbency. He therefore can be prosecuted for the criminal offenses he was charged with.

IBP V Zamora- 338 SCRA 81 Facts: The IBP assail the order of President Estrada in deploying the Marines to join the PNP in visibility patrols around Metro Manila on the contention that it violates the constitutional provisions on civilian supremacy over the military and the civilian character of the

PNP. Such order was intended to improve the peace and order situation in Metro Manila. Issue: WON the IBP has legal standing WON the factual determination of the necessity of calling the armed forces is entitled to judicial review SC Ruling The Court dismissed the petition. IBP is devoid of legal standing which is anchored only on its alleged responsibility to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution and has failed to present a specific and substantial interest

in the resolution of the case. However, due to the transcendental importance of the issue, the Court decided to hear the case. On the second issue, the calling out power of the president is a discretionary function vested in him by the constitution. the power to proclaim martial law and to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be revoked by congress and the sufficiency of the its factual basis be reviewed by the SC because it was expressly provided in Sec 18 Article VII,but the constitution has not provided such revocation and review powers when it
comes to the calling out power. Therefore, generally, the calling out power falls under the political question doctrine which is beyond the scope of the courts unless there is clear showing that such power was exercised with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction a burden which has to be proved by the petitioner. The IBP failed to show sufficient basis which resulted to the dismissal of this case.

Sarmiento V Mison G.R. No. 79974 December 17, 1987 Facts: The petitioners assail the constitutionality of Misons appointment as Commissioner of bureau of customs on the ground that it has not undergone confirmation by the commission on appointments. Issue: WON Misons appointment as Commissioner of bureau of customs is valid?

SC Ruling: The Court dismissed the petition in ruling that the according to Sec 16 Article VII of the Constitution, only those officers enumerated in the first sentence require the confirmation of the COA since it is expressly provided for in the provision. However, all other officers or persons not included in the enumeration in the first sentence may be appointed by the president without the confirmation of the COA. VILLENA V SECRETARY OF INTERIOR 67 phil 451 Facts: The Secretary of Interior requested for an investigation to be conducted on Villena, the Mayor of Makati and after which, results yield that the latter
committed bribery, extortion, malicious abuse of authority and unauthorized practice of the law profession. The Secretary of Interior recommended for Villenas suspension which was approved by the President. Villena assails the authority of the secretary of interior in suspending him Issue: WON the Secretary of Interior has authority order investigation and to suspend Mayor Villena? SC Ruling: The petition was denied. The Administrative Code provides that
the Department of the Interior has executive supervision over the administration of provinces, municipalities, chartered cities and other local political subdivisions. It is clear therefore that the secretary of interior may order the investigation. Although the Administrative Code grants the power to suspend to the provincial governor, this does not mean that the Secretary may not be able to exercise the same power. The President may himself, suspend the petitioner in virtue of his greater power of removal. Since the President has the authority to suspend the petitioner, the fact that he has approved the suspension recommendation of the secretary of interior goes to show that he has approved the latters decision.

Brillantes v yorac 192 scra 358 Facts: Sixto brillantes assail the validity of the Presidents act when she appointed Haydee Yorac as Acting Chairman of the Commission on Elections, in place of Chairman Hilario B. Davide on the
ground that it violates the independence of the said Commission. Issue: WON the designation of Haydee Yorac as Acting Chairman of COMELEC is violative of the constitution. SC Ruling: To Court declared the appointment by the President to Haydee Yorac as Acting Chairman of COMELEC to be unconstitutional. Article IX-C, Section 1(2) of the Constitution states that that "In no case shall any Member (of the Commission on Elections) be appointed or designated in a temporary or

Article IX-A, Section 1, of the Constitution emphasizes the independence of the Commission that although they are executive in nature, they are not under the control of the President of the Philippines.
acting capacity." Moreover,

The choice of a temporary chairman is in the discretion of the members and the president has no authority to meddle in their affairs by appointing an Acting Chairman.