JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT (DIGESTED CASES) JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 1. SANTIAGO V. BAUTISTA FACTS: Teodoro Santiago, Jr.

was a graduating student at Sero Elementary School in Cotabato City. Prior to the end of the school year, the said school constituted a Committee on the ating of Students for !onor com"osed of teachers of the said school for the "ur"ose of selecting the honor students of its graduating class. The abo#e$named committee deliberated and ad%udged Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr. as the third honor, the first and second "lace being obtained by his two other classmates, Socoro &edina and Patricia 'i(gat. Three days before the date of graduation, the third "lacer Teodoro Santiago, Jr., re"resented by his mother and with his father as counsel, sought the in#alidation of the ran)ing of honor students by instituting an action for certiorari, in%unction and damages in the Court of *irst +nstance of Cotabato against the abo#e$named committee members along with the ,istrict Su"er#isor and the -cademic Su"er#isor of the "lace. The com"laint alleges gra#e abuse of discretions and irregularities in the selection of honor students in the said school such as the following. /a0the "lacing of Patricia 'i(gat in the second "lace instead of him when in fact he had been a consistent honor student and the former had ne#er been his close ri#al before e1ce"t in 2rade 3 wherein she ran)ed third4 /b0the tutorial gi#en by their teacher in English to the first honor during summer #acation4 /c0the illegal constitution of the said committee as the same was com"osed of all the 2rade 3+ teachers only, in #iolation of the Ser#ice &anual for Teachers of the 5ureau of Public Schools which "ro#ides that the committee to select the honor students should be com"osed of all teachers in 2rades 3 and 3+4 /d0the changing of the final ratings on their grading sheets4 /e0 that "etitioner "ersonally a""ealed the matter to the School Princi"al, to the ,istrict Su"er#isor, and to the -cademic Su"er#isor, but said officials "assed the buc) to each other to delay his grie#ances, and as to a""eal to higher authorities will be too late, there is no other s"eedy and ade6uate remedy under the circumstances. es"ondents mo#ed for the dismissal of the case on the grounds /70 that the action for certiorari was im"ro"er, and /80 that e#en assuming the "ro"riety of the action, the 6uestion brought before the court had already become academic. The motion to dismiss was granted. ISSUE: 9hether or not the action for certiorari filed by "etitioner is "ro"er. RULING: The action for certiorari is not "ro"er. Certiorari is a s"ecial ci#il action instituted against any tribunal, board, or officer e1ercising %udicial functions /Section 7, ule :;0. - %udicial function is an act "erformed by #irtue of %udicial "owers4 the

e1ercise of a %udicial function is the doing of something in the nature of the action of the court /<= C.J. 77>80. +n order that a s"ecial ci#il action of certiorari may be in#o)ed in this %urisdiction the following circumstances must e1ist. /70 that there must be a s"ecific contro#ersy in#ol#ing rights of "ersons or "ro"erty and said contro#ersy is brought before a tribunal, board or officer for hearing and determination of their res"ecti#e rights and obligations. +t is e#ident that the so called committee on the rating of students for honor whose actions are 6uestioned in this case e1ercised neither %udicial nor 6uasi$%udicial functions in the "erformance of its assigned tas). 5efore tribunal, board or officer may e1ercise %udicial or 6uasi %udicial acts, it must be clothed with "ower and authority to determine what the law is and thereu"on ad%udicate the res"ecti#e rights of the contending "arties. +n the instant case, there is nothing on record about any rule of law which "ro#ides that when teachers sit down to assess the indi#idual merits of their "u"ils for "ur"oses of rating them for honors, such function in#ol#es the determination of what the law is and that they are therefore automatically #ested with %udicial or 6uasi %udicial functions. 2. DAZA V. SINGSON Tribunal and its Composition The 'aban ng ,emo)rati)ong Pili"ino /',P0 was reorgani?ed resulting to a "olitical realignment in the lower house. ',P also changed its re"resentation in the Commission on -""ointments. They withdrew the seat occu"ied by ,a?a /',P member0 and ga#e it to the new ',P member. Thereafter the chamber elected a new set of re"resentati#es in the Cowhich consisted of the original members e1ce"t ,a?a who was re"laced by Singson. ,a?a 6uestioned such re"lacement. ISSUE: 9hether or not a change resulting from a "olitical realignment #alidly changes the com"osition of the Commission on -""ointments. HELD: -s "ro#ided in the constitution, @there should be a Commission on -""ointments consisting of twel#e Senators and twel#e members of the !ouse of e"resentati#es elected by each !ouse res"ecti#ely on the basis of "ro"ortional re"resentationA of the "olitical "arties therein, this necessarily connotes the authority of each house of Congress to see to it that the re6uirement is duly com"lied with. Therefore, it may ta)e a""ro"riate measures, not only u"on the initial organi?ation of the Commission but also subse6uently thereto BCT the court. 3. MANTRUSTE SYSTEMS V. CA FACTS: &S+ entered into an D+nterim 'ease -greementE with ,5P in -ugust 8:, 7F>: regarding the 5ay #iew !otel Pro"erties for a minimum term of < months until the "ro"erties are sold by ,5P. +n ,ecember 7F>: Proclamation GH ordered dis"ositionI"ri#ati?ation of some 2o#ernment "ro"erties including the 5ay #iew

!otel, the dis"osition of which is transferred from ,5P to -sset Pri#ati?ation Trust /-PT0. &S+ was latter notified that the lease will be terminated to effect the dis"osition. &S+ sent a letter notifying -PT that the Pro"erty will be a#ailable after <H days from Se"tember 7>, 7F>;.Cctober ;, 7F>;, -PT sent a letter to &S+ that they are gi#en another <H days from Cctober 7>, 7F>; to wind u" the affairs for a smooth transition. !owe#er, on Cctober 88, 7F>;, &S+ sent a letter to -PT stating that in their o"inion, ha#ing leased the "ro"erty for more than 7 year the agreement is long term in character and &S+ ha#e ac6uired "reference in buying the "ro"erty, while em"hasi?ing that &S+ has a legal lien on the "ro"erty because of its ad#ances for the hotel o"erations and re"airs which amounted to P78 &illion. -PT answered &S+ saying that there was no agreement to that effect. The bidding too) "lace on Bo#ember =, 7F>;, but &S+ did not "artici"ate. &a)ati$-gro Trading and 'a *ili"ina Jy 2ongco Cor"oration were awarded the "ro"erty as the highest bidder for P>G &illion. Bo#ember 88, 7F>; &S+ filed a com"laint with in%unction on awarding and transfer of the "ro"erty to the winning bidders. Trial court granted, but the C- re#ersed the trial court. ISSUE: 9hether &S+ as lessee has a right to retain the "ro"erty "ending reimbursement of its e1"ensesK HELD: Bo, &S+ as lessee has no right to retain the "ro"erty "ending reimbursement. &S+ being a lessee )now that the "ossession of the "ro"erty was tem"orary thereby introducing im"ro#ements and re"airs by its own ris). &S+ cannot be considered a builder in good faith for that matter because he ne#er "ossessed or occu"ied the said "ro"erty as owner. 9hile &S+Ls right to be reimbursed cannot be denied, it does not ha#e any right of retention. The lease agreement also does not gi#e any "referential right to "urchase the "ro"erty in 6uestion, unless it was clearly sti"ulated. +n this case, no such sti"ulation was made and &S+s un%ustified failure to bid in the "ublic bidding for the !otel may only be attributed or blamed to &S+. 4. MALAGA V. PENACHAOS *-CTS. The +loilo State College of *isheries /+SCC*0 through its Pre$6ualifications, 5ids and -wards Committee /P5-C0 caused the "ublication in the Bo#ember 8G, 8: and 8>, 7F>> issues of the 9estern 3isayas ,aily an +n#itation to 5id for the construction of a &icro 'aboratory 5uilding at +SCC*. The notice announced that the last day for the submission of "re$6ualification re6uirements was on ,ecember 8, 7F>>, and that the bids would be recei#ed and o"ened on ,ecember 78, 7F>> at < oMcloc) in the afternoon. Petitioners &alaga and Ba%arro, doing business under the name of 5E Construction and 5est 5uilt

Construction, res"ecti#ely, submitted their "re$ 6ualification documents at two oMcloc) in the afternoon of ,ecember 8, 7F>>. Petitioner Ccceana submitted his own P E$C7 on ,ecember G, 7F>>. -ll three of them were not allowed to "artici"ate in the bidding as their documents were considered late. Cn ,ecember 78, 7F>>, the "etitioners filed a com"laint with the +loilo TC against the officers of P5-C for their refusal without %ust cause to acce"t them resulting to their non$inclusion in the list of "re$ 6ualified bidders. They sought to the resetting of the ,ecember 78, 7F>> bidding and the acce"tance of their documents. They also as)ed that if the bidding had already been conducted, the defendants be directed not to award the "ro%ect "ending resolution of their com"laint. Cn the same date, Judge 'eba6uin issued a restraining order "rohibiting P5-C from conducting the bidding and award the "ro%ect. The defendants filed a motion to lift the restraining order on the ground that the court is "rohibited from issuing such order, "reliminary in%unction and "reliminary mandatory in%unction in go#ernment infrastructure "ro%ect under Sec. 7 of P.,. 7>7>. They also contended that the "reliminary in%unction had become moot and academic as it was ser#ed after the bidding had been awarded and closed. Cn January 8, 7F>F, the trial court lifted the restraining order and denied the "etition for "reliminary in%unction. +t declared that the building sought to be constructed at the +SCC* was an infrastructure "ro%ect of the go#ernment falling within the co#erage of the sub%ect law. ISSUE: 9hether or not +SCC* is a go#ernment instrumentality sub%ect to the "ro#isions of P, 7>7>K RULING: The 7F>; -dministrati#e Code defines a go#ernment instrumentality as follows. +nstrumentality refers to any agency of the Bational 2o#ernment, not integrated within the de"artment framewor), #ested with s"ecial functions or %urisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all cor"orate "owers, administering s"ecial funds, and en%oying o"erational autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions, and go#ernment$owned or controlled cor"orations. /Sec. 8 /G0 +ntroductory Pro#isions0. The same Code describes a chartered institution thus. Chartered institution $ refers to any agency organi?ed or o"erating under a s"ecial charter, and #ested by law with functions relating to s"ecific constitutional "olicies or ob%ecti#es. This term includes the state uni#ersities and colleges, and the

monetary authority of the state. /Sec. 8 /780 +ntroductory Pro#isions0. +t is clear from the abo#e definitions that +SCC* is a chartered institution and is therefore co#ered by P.,. 7>7>. There are also indications in its charter that +SCC* is a go#ernment instrumentality. *irst, it was created in "ursuance of the integrated fisheries de#elo"ment "olicy of the State, a "riority "rogram of the go#ernment to effect the socio$economic life of the nation. Second, the Treasurer of the e"ublic of the Phili""ines shall also be the e1$officio Treasurer of the state college with its accounts and e1"enses to be audited by the Commission on -udit or its duly authori?ed re"resentati#e. Third, heads of bureaus and offices of the Bational 2o#ernment are authori?ed to loan or transfer to it, u"on re6uest of the "resident of the state college, such a""aratus, e6ui"ment, or su""lies and e#en the ser#ices of such em"loyees as can be s"ared without serious detriment to "ublic ser#ice. 'astly, an additional amount of P7.G& had been a""ro"riated out of the funds of the Bational Treasury and it was also decreed in its charter that the funds and maintenance of the state college would henceforth be included in the 2eneral -""ro"riations 'aw. Be#ertheless, it does not automatically follow that +SCC* is co#ered by the "rohibition in the said decree as there are irregularities "resent surrounding the transaction that %ustified the in%unction issued as regards to the bidding and the award of the "ro%ect /citing the case of ,atiles #s. Sucaldito0. . PACU V. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION Political Law Civic Efficiency The "etitioning colleges and uni#ersities re6uest that -ct Bo. 8;H: as amended by -ct Bo. <H;G and Commonwealth -ct Bo. 7>H be declared unconstitutional, because. -.0 They de"ri#e owners of schools and colleges as well as teachers and "arents of liberty and "ro"erty without due "rocess of law4 5.0 They de"ri#e "arents of their natural right and duty to rear their children for ci#ic efficiency4 and C.0 Their "ro#isions conferring on the Secretary of Education unlimited "ower and discretion to "rescribe rules and standards constitute an unlawful delegation of legislati#e "ower. Petitioners com"lain that before o"ening a school the owner must secure a "ermit from the Secretary of Education. Petitioners reason out, @this section lea#es e#erything to the uncontrolled discretion of the Secretary of Education or his de"artment. The Secretary of Education is gi#en the "ower to fi1 the standard. +n "lain language, the statute turns o#er to the Secretary of Education the e1clusi#e authority of the legislature to formulate standard . . .A -lso, the te1tboo)s to be used in the "ri#ate schools recogni?ed or authori?ed by the go#ernment shall be submitted to the 5oard /5oard of Te1tboo)s0 which shall ha#e the "ower to "rohibit the use of any of said te1tboo)s which it may find to be against the law or to offend the dignity and

honor of the go#ernment and "eo"le of the Phili""ines, or which it may find to be against the general "olicies of the go#ernment, or which it may deem "edagogically unsuitable. HELD: Petitioners do not show how these standards ha#e in%ured any of them or interfered with their o"eration. 9herefore, no reason e1ists for them to assail neither the #alidity of the "ower nor the e1ercise of the "ower by the Secretary of Education. Bo %usticiable contro#ersy has been "resented to us. 9e are not informed that the 5oard on Te1tboo)s has "rohibited this or that te1t, or that the "etitioners refused or intend to refuse to submit some te1tboo)s, and are in danger of losing substantial "ri#ileges or rights for so refusing. !. MARIANO V. COMELEC FACTS:Juanito &ariano, a resident of &a)ati, along with residents of Taguig suing as ta1"ayers, assail Sections 8, G7 and G8 of .-. Bo. ;>G= /@-n -ct Con#erting the &unici"ality of &a)ati into a !ighly Jrbani?ed City to be )nown as the City of &a)atiA0. -nother "etition which contends the unconstitutionality of .-. Bo. ;>G= was also filed by John !. Csmena as a senator, ta1"ayer and concerned citi?en. ISSUES: 9hether Section 8 of .-. Bo. ;>G= delineated the land areas of the "ro"osed city of &a)ati #iolating sections ; and =GH of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code on s"ecifying metes and bounds with technical descri"tions 9hether Section G7, -rticle N of .-. Bo. ;>G= collides with Section >, -rticle N and Section ;, -rticle 3+ of the Constitution stressing that they new cityOs ac6uisition of a new cor"orate e1istence will allow the incumbent mayor to e1tend his term to more than two e1ecuti#e terms as allowed by the Constitution 9hether the addition of another legislati#e district in &a)ati is unconstitutional as the rea""ortionment cannot be made by a s"ecial law HELD"RULING: Section 8 of .-. Bo. ;>G= states that.

Sec. 8. The City of &a)ati. P The &unici"ality of &a)ati shall be con#erted into a highly urbani?ed city to be )nown as the City of &a)ati, hereinafter referred to as the City, which shall com"rise the "resent territory of the &unici"ality of &a)ati in &etro"olitan &anila -rea o#er which it has %urisdiction bounded on the northeast by Pasig i#er and beyond by the City of &andaluyong and the &unici"ality of Pasig4 on the southeast by the munici"alities of Pateros and Taguig4 on the southwest by the City of Pasay and the &unici"ality

of Taguig4 and, on the northwest, by the City of &anila. Em"hasis has been "ro#ided in the "ro#ision under dis"ute. Said delineation did not change e#en by an inch the land area "re#iously co#ered by &a)ati as a munici"ality. +t must be noted that the re6uirement of metes and bounds was meant merely as a tool in the establishment of '2Js. +t is not an end in itself. *urthermore, at the time of consideration or .-. Bo. ;>G=, the territorial dis"ute between the munici"alities of &a)ati and Taguig o#er *ort 5onifacio was under court litigation. Cut of becoming a sense of res"ect to co$e6ual de"artment of go#ernment, legislators felt that the dis"ute should be left to the courts to decide. Section G7 of .-. Bo. ;>G= "ro#ides that.

&oreo#er, only &ariano among the "etitioners is a resident of Taguig and are not the "ro"er "arties to raise this abstract issue.

Section G/70, -rticle 3+ of the Constitution clearly "ro#ides that the Congress may be com"rised of not more than two hundred fifty members, unless otherwise "ro#ided by law. -s thus worded, the Constitution did not "reclude Congress from increasing its membershi" by "assing a law, other than a general rea""ortionment of the law. #. MACASIANO V. NHA ESC'JT+CB

Sec. G7. Cfficials of the City of &a)ati. P The re"resent electi#e officials of the &unici"ality of &a)ati shall continue as the officials of the City of &a)ati and shall e1ercise their "owers and functions until such time that a new election is held and the duly elected officials shall ha#e already 6ualified and assume their offices. Pro#ided, The new city will ac6uire a new cor"orate e1istence. The a""ointi#e officials and em"loyees of the City shall li)ewise continues e1ercising their functions and duties and they shall be automatically absorbed by the city go#ernment of the City of &a)ati. Section >, -rticle N and section ;, -rticle 3+ of the Constitution "ro#ide the following. Sec. >. The term of office of electi#e local officials, e1ce"t barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years and no such official shall ser#e for more than three consecuti#e terms. 3oluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interru"tion in the continuity of his ser#ice for the full term for which he was elected. Sec. ;. The &embers of the !ouse of e"resentati#es shall be elected for a term of three years which shall begin, unless otherwise "ro#ided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June ne1t following their election. Bo &ember of the !ouse of e"resentati#es shall ser#e for more than three consecuti#e terms. 3oluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interru"tion in the continuity of his ser#ice for the full term for which he was elected. This challenge on the contro#ersy cannot be entertained as the "remise on the issue is on the occurrence of many contingent e#ents. Considering that these e#ents may or may not ha""en, "etitioners merely "ose a hy"othetical issue which has yet to ri"en to an actual case or contro#ersy.

DAVIDE$ JR.$ J.: Petitioner see)s to ha#e this Court declare as unconstitutional Sections 8> and == of e"ublic -ct Bo. ;8;F, otherwise )nown as the Jrban ,e#elo"ment and !ousing -ct of 7FF8. !e "redicates his locust standi on his being a consultant of the ,e"artment of Public 9or)s and !ighways /,P9!0 "ursuant to a Contract of Consultancy on C"eration for emo#al of Cbstructions and Encroachments on Pro"erties of Public ,omain /e1ecuted immediately after his retirement on 8 January 7FF8 from the Phili""ine Bational Police0 and his being a ta1"ayer. -s to the first, he alleges that said Sections 8> and == Qcontain the seeds of a ri"ening contro#ersy that ser#e as drawbac)Q to his Qtas)s and duties regarding demolition of illegal structuresQ4 because of the said sections, he Qis unable to continue the demolition of illegal structures which he assiduously and faithfully carried out in the "ast.Q 1 -s a ta1"ayer, he alleges that Qhe has a direct interest in seeing to it that "ublic funds are "ro"erly and lawfully disbursed.Q 2 e"ublic -ct Bo. ;8;F was a""ro#ed on 8= &arch 7FF8 and "ublished in the = &ay 7FF8 issue of the Cfficial 2a?ette. 3 The challenged "ro#isions therein read as follows. SEC. 8>. Eviction and Demolition. P E#iction or demolition as a "ractice shall be discouraged. E#iction or demolition, howe#er, may be allowed under the following situations. /a0 9hen "ersons or entities occu"y danger areas such as esteros, railroad trac)s, garbage dum"s, ri#erban)s, shorlines, waterways, and other "ublic "laces such as sidewal)s, roads, "ar)s and "laygrounds4

/b0 9hen go#ernment infrastructure "ro%ects with a#ailable funding are about to be im"lemented4 or /c0 9hen there is a court order for e#iction and demolition. +n the e1ecution of e#iction or demolition orders in#ol#ing under"ri#ileged and homeless citi?ens, the following shall be mandatory. /70 Botice u"on the affected "ersons or entities at least thirty /<H0 days "rior to the date of e#iction or demolition4 /80 -de6uate consultations on the matter of resettlement with the duly designated re"resentati#es of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in the areas where they are to be relocated4 /<0 Presence of local go#ernment officials or their re"resentati#es during e#iction or demolition4 /=0 Pro"er identification of all "ersons ta)ing "art in the demolition4 /G0 E1ecution of e#iction or demolition only during regular office hours from &ondays to *ridays and during good weather, unless the affected families consent otherwise4 /:0 no use of hea#y e6ui"ment for demolition e1ce"t for structures that are "ermanent and of concrete materials4 /;0 Pro"er uniforms for members of the Phili""ine Bational Police who shall occu"y the first line of law enforcement and obser#e "ro"er disturbance control "rocedures4 and />0 -de6uate relocation, whether tem"orary or "ermanent. Provided, however, That in cases of e#iction and demolition "ursuant to a court order in#ol#ing under"ri#ileged and homeless citi?ens, relocations shall be underta)en by the local go#ernment unit concerned and the Bational !ousing -uthority with the assistance of other go#ernment agencies within forty$fi#e/=G0 days from ser#ice of notice of final %udgment by the court, after which "eriod the said order shall be e1ecuted. Provided, further, That should relocation not be "ossible

within the said "eriod financial assistance in the amount e6ui#alent to the "re#ailing minimum daily wage multi"lied by si1ty /:H0 days shall be e1tended to the affected families by the local go#ernment concerned. The ,e"artment of the +nterior and 'ocal 2o#ernment and the !ousing and Jrban ,e#elo"ment Coordinating Council shall %ointly "romulgate the necessary rules and regulations to carry out the abo#e "ro#ision. 111 111 111 Sec. ==. Moratorium on Eviction and Demolition. P There shall be a moratorium on the e#iction of all "rogram beneficiaries and on the demolition of their houses or dwelling units for a "eriod of three /<0 years from the effecti#ity of this -ct. Provided, That the moratorium shall not a""ly to those "ersons who ha#e constructed their structures after the effecti#ity of this -ct and for cases enumerated in Section 8> hereof. Petitioner maintains that the said "ro#isions are unconstitutional because. /a0 They de"ri#e the go#ernment, and more so, "ri#ate "ro"erty owners of their "ro"erty without due "rocess of law and without com"ensation4 /b0 They reward, instead of "unish, what this !onorable Court has categorically declared as unlawful acts4 /c0 They #iolate the "rohibition against legislation thatQ ta)es away oneMs "ro"erty to be gi#en to "lain interlo"ers4 /d0 They swee" o#erbroadly o#er legitimate concerns of the "olice "ower of the State4 and /e0 They encroach u"on the %udicial "ower to its #alid %udgments and orders. 4 Cn 7H ,ecember 7FF8, we re6uired the res"ondents to comment on the "etition. +n its Comment filed on 7G January 7FF<, res"ondent Bational &a""ing and esource +nformation -uthority alleges that the im"lementation of the assailed sections of the -ct

does not belong to or fall within its %urisdiction. +t disagrees with the "etitionerMs stand that the said sections are unconstitutional and a#ers that Section 8> merely "ro#ides for the Qhumanitarian a""roachQ towards less "ri#ileged, citi?ens and does not in fact "rohibit but merelydiscourages e#iction or demolition, while Section == only co#ers "rogram beneficiaries. Cn 7G January 7FF<, the ealty Cwners -ssociation of the Phili""ines, +nc. filed a motion to inter#ene ! alleging that it has a legal interest in the success of the "etition and is in full accord with it. This Court re6uired the "arties to comment thereon. Cn 7: *ebruary 7FF<, the Cffice of the 2o#ernment Cor"orate /C2CC0 filed a comment # for the res"ondent Bational !ousing -uthority /B!-0 informing this Court that Qin a letter of res"ondent B!- addressed to the office of the undersigned counsel, dated 8F January 7FF<, . . ., the former categorically e1"ressed as its official stand on the instant "etition that Sections 8> and == of e"ublic -ct Bo. ;8;F are indeed unconstitutional,Q and that Qafter a circums"ect e#aluation of "etition. 9e find no cogent reason not to su""ort the "osition heretofore ta)en by res"ondent B!-.Q Said office then "rays that the instant "etition be gi#en due course. Cn 7= &ay 7FF<, the Solicitor 2eneral filed his Comment to the "etition. !e maintains that, the instant "etition is de#oid of merit for non$com"liance with the essential re6uisites for the e1ercise of %udicial re#iew in cases in#ol#ing the constitutionality of a law. !e contends that there is no actual case or contro#ersy with litigants asserting ad#erse legal rights or interests, that the "etitioner merely as)s for an ad#isory o"inion, that the "etitioner is not the "ro"er "arty to 6uestion the -ct as he does not state that he has "ro"erty Qbeing s6uatted u"onQ and that there is no showing that the 6uestion of constitutionality is the #ery lis mota "resented. !e argues that Sections 8> and == of the -ct are not constitutionality infirm. J" to this time, no comment has been submitted by the "arties on the motion to inter#ene. Considering, howe#er, that the issues are clear and sim"le enough, this Court dis"enses with the need for a comment on the said motion, denies the same and, after deliberating on the issues said and the arguments adduced by the "arties in the "etition and comments, declares this "etition to be without merit. +t is a rule firmly entrenched in our %uris"rudence that the constitutionality of an act of the legislature will not be determined by the courts unless that, 6uestion is "ro"erly raised and "resented in a""ro"riate cases and is necessary to a determination of the case, i e., the issue of constitutionality must be #ery lis mota "resented. % To reiterate, the essential

re6uisites for a successful %udicial in6uiry into the constitutionality of a law are. /a0 the e1istence of an actual case or contro#ersy in#ol#ing a conflict of legal rights susce"tible of %udicial determination, /b0 the constitutional 6uestion must be raised by a "ro"er "ro"erty, /c0 the constitutional 6uestion must be raised at the o""ortunity, and /d0 the resolution of the constitutional 6uestion must be necessary to the decision of the case. & - "ro"er "arty is one who has sustained or is in danger of sustaining an immediate in%ury as a result of the acts or measures com"lained of. 1' +t is easily discernible in the instant case that the first two /80 fundamental re6uisites are absent. There is no actual contro#ersy. &oreo#er, "etitioner does not claim that, in either or both of the ca"acities in which he is filing the "etition, he has been actually "re#ented from "erforming his duties as a consultant and e1ercising his rights as a "ro"erty owner because of the assertion by other "arties of any benefit under the challenged sections of the said -ct. Judicial re#iew cannot be e1ercised in vacuo. Judicial "ower is the Qright to determine actual contro#ersies arising between ad#erse litigants.Q 11 +n reality, his "etition is one for declaratory relief as he "rays therein that, Qhis rights as well as those of "ri#ate landowners be clearly defined and his duties under the Constitution and the "ertinent laws be dearly stated with res"ect to the demolition of illegal structures on "ublic and "ri#ate lands.Q 12 E#en so, it is still not #iable since among the essential re6uisites of a "etition for declaratory relief are contro#ersy, /a0 there must be a %usticiable contro#ersy,/b0the contro#ersy must be between "ersons whose interests are ad#erse and /c0 the "arty see)ing declaratory relief must ha#e a legal interest in the contro#ersy. 13 *urthermore, an action for declaratory relief does not fall within the original %urisdiction of the Su"reme Court e#en if only 6uestions of law are in#ol#ed. 14True, we ha#e said that such a "etition may be treated as one for "rohibition 1 or mandamus 1! if it has far reaching im"lications and raises 6uestions that need to be resol#ed4 but the e1ercise of such discretion "resu""oses, at the outset, that the "etition is otherwise #iable or meritorious. The "etitioner is not li)ewise a Q"ro"er "arty.Q -s a consultant of the ,P9! under the QContract for Consultancy . . .,Q he is not #ested with any authority to demolish obstructions and encroachments on "ro"erties of the "ublic domain, much less on "ri#ate lands. The consultancy contract limits his duties to the following. Q/a0 to organi?e and train selected ,P9! "ersonnel for the different Engineering ,istricts in the BC in the techni6ues and methods of remo#ingIdemolishing illegal structuresIstalls, etc. as well as in crowd control, self$defense and security "rocedures . . .4 /b0 to "ro#ide ad#ice to the Secretary and other ,P9! officials regarding "rioriti?ation of areas to be cleared of obstructions and encroachments4 /c0 to conduct field ins"ection

from time to time of areas recommend for clearing4 /d0 to "ro#ide ad#ice in de#elo"ing a""ro"riate standards and techni6ues in cost effecti#e im"lementation of the remo#al and demolition of obstructions and encroachments . . .4 and /e0 to de#elo" o"erational "rocedures that will institutionali?e demolition "rocesses.Q 1# &oreo#er, the consultancy contract e1"ired on <7 ,ecember 7FF8 and the "etitioner has not manifested that he obtained a renewal or e1tension thereof. Bor does the "etitioner claim that he is an owner of an urban "ro"erty whose en%oyment and use would be affected by the challenged "ro#isions of .-. Bo. ;8;F. -lthough the "etitioner li)ewise anchors his locus standi on the fact that he is a ta1"ayer, it does not mean, howe#er, that in each and e#ery instance where such a ground is in#o)ed, this Court is left with no alternati#e e1ce"t to hear the "arties. +n Tan vs Macapagal, 1% we clarified that Qas far as a ta1"ayerMs suit s concerned, this Court is not de#oid of the discretion as to whether or not it should be entertained.Q 9e do not, as well, find an indubitable ground for the constitutional challenge. -s this Court said through &r. Justice +sagani -. Cru? in !arcia vs E"ecutive #ecretary. 1& Cn the merits, 9e find that the constitutional challenge must be re%ected for failure to show that there is an indubitable ground for it, not to say e#en a necessity to resol#e it. The "olicy of the courts is to a#oid ruling on constitutional 6uestions and to "resume that the acts of the "olitical de"artments are #alid in the absence of a clear and unmista)able showing to the contrary. To doubt is to sustain. This "resum"tion is based on the doctrine of se"aration of "owers which en%oins u"on each de"artment a becoming res"ect for the acts of the other de"artments. The theory is that as the %oint act of Congress and the President of the Phili""ines, a law has been carefully studied and determined to be in accordance with the fundamental law before it was finally enacted. 9e cannot end this resolution without a few words on the comment of the C2CC for "ublic res"ondent Bational !ousing -uthority wherein the C2CC merely ado"ted the stand of the officer$in$charge of the 'egal ,e"artment of the said -uthority that the challenged sections of .-. Bo. ;8;F are unconstitutional. Cn its own, the C2CC did not e#en attem"t to reason out why this "etition should be

granted or denied. +t has ob#iously treated this case without the circums"ection and seriousness e1"ected of it es"ecially in the light of the functions, duties and res"onsibilities of the B!- under the challenged -ct. The C2CC should not ha#e cursorily ado"ted the o"inion of the officer$in$charge who acted on his own and who, a""arently, did not e#en refer his o"inion to the 5oard of ,irectors of the B!-. 9herefore, for lac) of merit, the instant "etition is ,+S&+SSE, with costs against the "etitioner. SC C ,E E,. %. JOYA V. PCGG F()*+: Cn F -ugust 7FFH, &ateo -.T. Ca"aras, then Chairman of PC22, wrote then President Cora?on C. -6uino, re6uesting her for authority to sign the "ro"osed Consignment -greement between the e"ublic of the Phili""ines through PC22 and Christie, &anson and 9oods +nternational, +nc concerning the scheduled sale on 77 January 7FF7 of eighty$two0 Cld &asters Paintings and anti6ue sil#erware sei?ed from &alaca(ang and the &etro"olitan &useum of &anila alleged to be "art of the ill$gotten wealth of the late President &arcos, his relati#es and cronies. Cn 7= -ugust 7FFH, then President -6uino, through former E1ecuti#e Secretary Catalino &acaraig, Jr., authori?ed Chairman Ca"aras to sign the Consignment -greement allowing ChristieMs of Bew Ror) to auction off the sub%ect art "ieces for and in behalf of the e"ublic of the Phili""ines. Cn 7G -ugust 7FFH, PC22, through Chairman Ca"aras, re"resenting the 2o#ernment of the e"ublic of the Phili""ines, signed the Consignment -greement with ChristieMs of Bew Ror). -ccording to the agreement, PC22 shall consign to C! +ST+EMS for sale at "ublic auction the eighty$two Cld &asters Paintings then found at the &etro"olitan &useum of &anila as well as the sil#erware contained in se#enty$one cartons in the custody of the Central 5an) of the Phili""ines, and such other "ro"erty as may subse6uently be identified by PC22 and acce"ted by C! +ST+EMS to be sub%ect to the "ro#isions of the agreement. Cn 8: Cctober 7FFH, the Commission on -udit through then Chairman Eufemio C. ,omingo submitted to President -6uino the audit findings and obser#ations of CC- on the Consignment -greement of 7G -ugust 7FFH to the effect that. the authority of former PC22 Chairman Ca"aras to enter into the Consignment -greement was of doubtful legality4 the contract was highly disad#antageous to the go#ernment4 PC22 had a "oor trac) record in asset dis"osal by auction in the J.S.4 and, the assets sub%ect of auction were historical relics and had cultural significance, hence, their dis"osal was "rohibited by law. -fter the oral arguments of the "arties on F January 7FF7, we issued immediately our resolution denying the a""lication for "reliminary in%unction to restrain

the scheduled sale of the artwor)s on the ground that "etitioners had not "resented a clear legal right to a restraining order and that "ro"er "arties had not been im"leaded. Cn 77 January 7FF7, the sale at "ublic auction "roceeded as scheduled and the "roceeds of S7<,<H8,:H=.>: were turned o#er to the 5ureau of Treasury. I++,-: 9hether or not "etitioners ha#e legal standing. 9hether or not the Cld &asters Paintings and anti6ue sil#erware are embraced in the "hrase Qcultural treasure of the nationQ. 9hether or not the "aintings and sil#erware are "ro"erties of "ublic dominion on which can be dis"osed of through the %oint concurrence of the President and Congress. 9hether or not PC22 has com"lied with the due "rocess clause and other statutory re6uirements for the e1"ortation and sale of the sub%ect items. 9hether or not the "etition has become moot and academic, and if so, whether the abo#e +ssue warrant resolution from this Court. H-./: This is "remised on Sec. 8, ule <, of the ules of Court which "ro#ides that e#ery action must be "rosecuted and defended in the name of the real "arty$in$interest, and that all "ersons ha#ing interest in the sub%ect of the action and in obtaining the relief demanded shall be %oined as "laintiffs. The Court will e1ercise its "ower of %udicial re#iew only if the case is brought before it by a "arty who has the legal standing to raise the constitutional or legal 6uestion. Q'egal standingQ means a "ersonal and substantial interest in the case such that the "arty has sustained or will sustain direct in%ury as a result of the go#ernmental act that is being challenged. The term QinterestQ is material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the 6uestion in#ol#ed, or a mere incidental interest. &oreo#er, the interest of the "arty "laintiff must be "ersonal and not one based on a desire to #indicate the constitutional right of some third and related "arty. There are certain instances howe#er when this Court has allowed e1ce"tions to the rule on legal standing, as when a citi?en brings a case for mandamus to "rocure the enforcement of a "ublic duty for the fulfillment of a "ublic right recogni?ed by the Constitution, and when a ta1"ayer 6uestions the #alidity of a go#ernmental act authori?ing the disbursement of "ublic funds. PetitionersM arguments are de#oid of merit. They lac) basis in fact and in law. The ownershi" of these "aintings legally belongs to the foundation or

cor"oration or the members thereof, although the "ublic has been gi#en the o""ortunity to #iew and a""reciate these "aintings when they were "laced on e1hibit. The confiscation of these "ro"erties by the -6uino administration howe#er should not be understood to mean that the ownershi" of these "aintings has automatically "assed on the go#ernment without com"lying with constitutional and statutory re6uirements of due "rocess and %ust com"ensation. +f these "ro"erties were already ac6uired by the go#ernment, any constitutional or statutory defect in their ac6uisition and their subse6uent dis"osition must be raised only by the "ro"er "arties the true owners thereof whose authority to reco#er emanates from their "ro"rietary rights which are "rotected by statutes and the Constitution. !a#ing failed to show that they are the legal owners of the artwor)s or that the #alued "ieces ha#e become "ublicly owned, "etitioners do not "ossess any clear legal right whatsoe#er to 6uestion their alleged unauthori?ed dis"osition. Beither can this "etition be allowed as a ta1"ayerMs suit. Cb#iously, "etitioners are not challenging any e1"enditure in#ol#ing "ublic funds but the dis"osition of what they allege to be "ublic "ro"erties. +t is worthy to note that "etitioners admit that the "aintings and anti6ue sil#erware were ac6uired from "ri#ate sources and not with "ublic money. -nent the second re6uisite of actual contro#ersy, "etitioners argue that this case should be resol#ed by this Court as an e1ce"tion to the rule on moot and academic cases4 that although the sale of the "aintings and sil#er has long been consummated and the "ossibility of retrie#ing the treasure tro#e is nil, yet the no#elty and im"ortance of the +ssue raised by the "etition deser#e this CourtMs attention. They submit that the resolution by the Court of the +ssue in this case will establish future guiding "rinci"les and doctrines on the "reser#ation of the nationMs "riceless artistic and cultural "ossessions for the benefit of the "ublic as a whole. *or a court to e1ercise its "ower of ad%udication, there must be an actual case of contro#ersy P one which in#ol#es a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of o""osite legal claims susce"tible of %udicial resolution4 the case must not be moot or academic or based on e1tra$legal or other similar considerations not cogni?able by a court of %ustice. - case becomes moot and academic when its "ur"ose has become stale, such as the case before us. Since the "ur"ose of this "etition for "rohibition is to en%oin res"ondent "ublic officials from holding the auction sale of the artwor)s on a "articular date P 77 January 7FF7 P which is long "ast, the +ssue raised in the "etition ha#e become moot and academic. The cultural "ro"erties of the nation which shall be under the "rotection of the state are classified as the Qim"ortant cultural "ro"ertiesQ and the Qnational

cultural treasures.Q Cn the other hand, a Qnational cultural treasuresQ is a uni6ue ob%ect found locally, "ossessing outstanding historical, cultural, artistic andIor scientific #alue which is highly significant and im"ortant to this country and nation. This Court ta)es note of the certification issued by the ,irector of the &useum that the +talian "aintings and sil#erware sub%ect of this "etition do not constitute "rotected cultural "ro"erties and are not among those listed in the Cultural Pro"erties egister of the Bational &useum. 9!E E*C E, for lac) of merit, the "etition for "rohibition and mandamus is ,+S&+SSE,. &. LEGASPI V. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION F()*+: $Ci#il Ser#ice Commission denied 3alentin 'egas"iOs /"etitioner0 re6uest for information on the ci#il ser#ice eligibilities of 8 "eo"le em"loyed as sanitarians, Julian Sibonghanoy and &ariano -gas, in the !ealth ,e"artment in Cebu. $Petitioner claims that his right to information is guaranteed by the Constitution "rays for the issuance of the e1traordinary writ of mandamus to com"el the res"ondent Commission to disclose said information. $the Solicitor 2eneral challenges the "etitionerOs standing to sue u"on the ground that the latter does not "ossess any legal right to be informed of the ci#il ser#ices eligibilities of the go#ernment em"loyees concerned. $Sol2en further argues that there is no ministerial duty on the "art of the Commission to furnish the "etitioner with the information he see)s. I++,-: 9CB the "etitioner has legal to access go#ernment records to #alidate the ci#il ser#ice eligibilities of the !ealth ,e"artment em"loyees. H-./: Ci#il Ser#ice Commission is ordered to o"en its register of eligible for the "osition of sanitarian, and to confirm or deny, the ci#il ser#ice eligibility of Julian Sibonghanoy and &ariano -gas, for said "osition in the !ealth ,e"artment of Cebu City, as re6uested by the "etitioner 3alentin '. 'egas"i. R(*01: The "etitioner, being a citi?en who, as such is clothed with "ersonality to see) redress for the alleged obstruction of the e1ercise of the "ublic right. 9e find no cogent reason to deny his standing to bring the "resent suit. +n recogni?ing the "eo"leMs right to be informed, both the 7F;< Constitution and the Bew Charter e1"ressly mandate the duty of the State and its agents to afford access to official records, documents, "a"ers and in addition, go#ernment research data used as basis for "olicy de#elo"ment, sub%ect to such limitations as may be "ro#ided by law.while the manner of e1amining "ublic records may be sub%ect

to reasonable regulation by the go#ernment agency in custody thereof, the duty to disclose the information of "ublic concern, and to afford access to "ublic records cannot be discretionary on the "art of said agencies. Certainly, its "erformance cannot be made contingent u"on the discretion of such agencies. Ctherwise, the en%oyment of the constitutional right may be rendered nugatory by any whimsical e1ercise of agency discretion. The constitutional duty, not being discretionary, its "erformance may be com"elled by a writ of mandamus in a "ro"er case. 5ut the constitutional guarantee to information on matters of "ublic concern is not absolute. +t does not o"en e#ery door to any and all information. Jnder the Constitution, access to official records, "a"ers, etc., are Qsub%ect to limitations as may be "ro#ided by lawQ /-rt. +++, Sec. ;, second sentence0. The law may therefore e1em"t certain ty"es of information from "ublic scrutiny, such as those affecting national security. +t follows that, in e#ery case, the a#ailability of access to a "articular "ublic record must be circumscribed by the nature of the information sought, i.e., /a0 being of "ublic concern or one that in#ol#es "ublic interest, and, /b0 not being e1em"ted by law from the o"eration of the constitutional guarantee. case of denial of access, the go#ernment agency has the burden of showing that the information re6uested is not of "ublic concern, or, if it is of "ublic concern, that the same has been e1em"ted by law from the o"eration of the guarantee. 1'. DUMALAO V. COMELEC F()*+: Petitioner Patricio ,umlao, is a former 2o#ernor of Bue#a 3i?caya, who has filed his certificate of candidacy for said "osition of 2o#ernor in the forthcoming elections of January <H, 7F>H. Petitioner ,umlao s"ecifically 6uestions the constitutionality of section = of 5atas Pambansa 5lg. G8 as discriminatory and contrary to the e6ual "rotection and due "rocess guarantees of the Constitution which "ro#ides that @T.-ny retired electi#e "ro#incial city or munici"al official who has recei#ed "ayment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the law and who shall ha#e been :G years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he see)s to be elected shall not be 6ualified to run for the same electi#e local office from which he has retired.A !e li)ewise alleges that the "ro#ision is directed insidiously against him, and is based on @"urely arbitrary grounds, therefore, class legislation. I++,-: 9hether or not 7st "aragra"h of section = of 5P 88 is #alid. H-./: +n the case of a :G$year old electi#e local official, who has retired from a "ro#incial, city or munici"al office, there is reason to dis6ualify him from running for the same office from which he had retired, as "ro#ided for in the challenged "ro#ision. The need for new blood assumes rele#ance. The tiredness of the retiree for go#ernment wor) is

"resent, and what is em"hatically significant is that the retired em"loyee has already declared himself tired and una#ailable for the same go#ernment wor), but, which, by #irtue of a change of mind, he would li)e to assume again. +t is for this #ery reason that ine6uality will neither result from the a""lication of the challenged "ro#ision. Just as that "ro#ision does not deny e6ual "rotection, neither does it "ermit of such denial.

The e6ual "rotection clause does not forbid all legal classification. 9hat is "roscribes is a classification which is arbitrary and unreasonable. That constitutional guarantee is not #iolated by a reasonable classification based u"on substantial distinctions, where the classification is germane to the "ur"ose of the low and a""lies to all those belonging to the same class. 9!E E*C E, the first "aragra"h of section = of 5atas Pambansa 5ilang G8 is hereby declared #alid.

11. BUGNAY CONSTRUCTION V. LARON F()*+: 7. - lease contract between the City of ,agu"an and P U & -gro was e1ecuted for the use of a city lot called the &agsaysay &ar)et -rea. Subse6uently, the City filed a case to rescind the contract due to the failure of PU& to com"ly with the lease contract conditions. 8. Thereafter, the City issued a resolution granting the lease of said lot to the "etitioner 5ugnay CCnstruction for the establishment of a &agsaysay &ar)et building. -s a result, res"ondent a#an?o filed a ta1"ayerMs suit against the City assailing the #alidity of the lease contract between the "etitioner and the city. a#an?o was the counsel of PU& -gro in the earlier case. I++,-: 9hether or not the res"ondent is the real "arty in interest H-./: BC. 7. The Court held that the res"ondent has no standing to file the case. There was no disbursement of "ublic funds in#ol#ed in this case since it is the "etitioner, a "ri#ate "arty which will fund the "lanned construction of the mar)et building. 12. 2ILOSBAYAN V. GUINGONA JR. FACTS: Pursuant to Section 7 of the charter of the PCSC / .-. Bo. 77:F, as amended by 5.P. 5lg. =80 which grants it the authority to hold and conduct @charity swee"sta)es races, lotteries and other similar acti#ities,A the PCSC decided to establish an on$line lottery system for the "ur"ose of increasing its re#enue base and di#ersifying its sources of funds. Sometime before &arch 7FF<, after learning that the PCSC was interested in o"erating an on$line lottery system, the 5er%aya 2rou" 5erhad, @a multinational com"any and one of the ten largest "ublic com"anies in &alaysia,A @became interested to offer its ser#ices and resources to PCSC.A -s an initial ste", 5er%aya 2rou" 5erhad /through its indi#idual nominees0 organi?ed with some *ili"ino in#estors in &arch 7FF< a Phili""ine cor"oration )nown as the

Phili""ine 2aming &anagement Cor"oration /P2&C0, which @was intended to be the medium through which the technical and management ser#ices re6uired for the "ro%ect would be offered and deli#ered to PCSC.A 5efore -ugust 7FF<, the PCSC formally issued a e6uest for Pro"osal / *P0 for the 'ease Contract of an on$line lottery system for the PCSC. Cn 7G -ugust 7FF<, P2&C submitted its bid to the PCSC. Cn 87 Cctober 7FF<, the Cffice of the President announced that it had gi#en the res"ondent P2&C the go$signal to o"erate the countryOs on$line lottery system and that the corres"onding im"lementing contract would be submitted not later than > Bo#ember 7FF< @for final clearance and a""ro#al by the Chief E1ecuti#e.A Cn = Bo#ember 7FF<, V+'CS5-R-B sent an o"en letter to President *idel 3. amos strongly o""osing the setting u" of the on$line lottery system on the basis of serious moral and ethical considerations. Considering the denial by the Cffice of the President of its "rotest and the statement of -ssistant E1ecuti#e Secretary enato Corona that @only a court in%unction can sto" &alaca(ang,A and the imminent im"lementation of the Contract of 'ease in *ebruary 7FF=, V+'CS5-R-B, with its co$"etitioners, filed on 8> January 7FF= this "etition. Petitioner claims that it is a non$stoc) domestic cor"oration com"osed of ci#ic$s"irited citi?ens, "astors, "riests, nuns, and lay leaders. The rest of the "etitioners, e1ce"t Senators *reddie 9ebb and 9igberto Ta(ada and e"resentati#e Jo)er P. -rroyo, are suing in their ca"acities as members of the 5oard of Trustees of V+'CS5-R-B and as ta1"ayers and concerned citi?ens. Senators 9ebb and Ta(ada and e"resentati#e -rroyo are suing in their ca"acities as members of Congress and as ta1"ayers and concerned citi?ens of the Phili""ines. The "ublic res"ondents, meanwhile allege that the "etitioners ha#e no standing to maintain the instant suit, citing the CourtOs resolution in 3almonte #s. Phili""ine Charity Swee"sta)es Cffice. ISSUES: 7. 9hether or not the "etitioners ha#e locus standi 8. 9hether or the Contract of 'ease in the light of Section 7 of .-. Bo. 77:F, as amended by 5.P. 5lg. =8, which "rohibits the PCSC from holding and conducting lotteries @in collaboration, association or %oint #enture with any "erson, association, com"any

or entity, whether domestic or foreign.A is legal and #alid. HELD: 9e find the instant "etition to be of transcendental im"ortance to the "ublic. The ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect the social, economic, and moral well$being of the "eo"le e#en in the remotest barangays of the country and the counter$"roducti#e and retrogressi#e effects of the en#isioned on$line lottery system are as staggering as the billions in "esos it is e1"ected to raise. The legal standing then of the "etitioners deser#es recognition and, in the e1ercise of its sound discretion, this Court hereby brushes aside the "rocedural barrier which the res"ondents tried to ta)e ad#antage of. The language of Section 7 of .-. Bo. 77:F is indis"utably clear. The PCSC cannot share its franchise with another by way of collaboration, association or %oint #enture. Beither can it assign, transfer, or lease such franchise. 9hether the contract in 6uestion is one of lease or whether the P2&C is merely an inde"endent contractor should not be decided on the basis of the title or designation of the contract but by the intent of the "arties, which may be gathered from the "ro#isions of the contract itself. -nimus hominis est anima scri"ti. The intention of the "arty is the soul of the instrument. Jndoubtedly, from the #ery ince"tion, the PCSC and the P2&C mutually understood that any arrangement between them would necessarily lea#e to the P2&C the technical, o"erations, and management as"ects of the on$line lottery system while the PSCC would, "rimarily, "ro#ide the franchise. The so$called Contract of 'ease is not, therefore, what it "ur"orts to be. 9o#en therein are "ro#isions which negate its title and betray the true intention of the "arties to be in or to ha#e a %oint #enture for a "eriod of eight years in the o"eration and maintenance of the on$ line lottery system. 9e thus declare that the challenged Contract of 'ease #iolates the e1ce"tion "ro#ided for in "aragra"h 5, Section 7 of .-. Bo. 77:F, as amended by 5.P. 5lg. =8, and is, therefore, in#alid for being contrary to law. This conclusion renders unnecessary further discussion on the other issues raised by the "etitioners. 13. PHILCONSA (PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION) V. ENRI3UEZ CONSTRUCTION

Congress "resented the said bill to the President for consideration and a""ro#al. Cn ,ecember <H, 7FF<, the President signed the bill into law, and declared the same to ha#e become e"ublic -ct BC. ;::<, entitled @-B -CT -PP CP +-T+B2 *JB,S *C T!E CPE -T+CB C* T!E 2C3E B&EBT C* T!E P!+'+PP+BES * C& J-BJ- R CBE TC ,ECE&5E T!+ TR CBE, B+BETEEB !JB, E, -B, B+BETR$*CJ , -B, *C CT!E PJ PCSESA /2-- of 7FF=0. Cn the same day, the President deli#ered his Presidential 3eto &essage, s"ecifying the "ro#isions of the bill he #etoed and on which he im"osed certain conditions, as follows. 7. Pro#ision on ,ebt Ceiling, on the ground that @this debt reduction scheme cannot be #alidly done through the 7FF= 2--.A -nd that @a""ro"riations for "ayment of "ublic debt, whether foreign or domestic, are automatically a""ro"riated "ursuant to the *oreign 5orrowing -ct and Section <7 of P.,. Bo. 77;; as reiterated under Section 8:, Cha"ter =, 5oo) 3+ of E.C. Bo. 8F8, the -dministrati#e Code of 7F>;. 8. S"ecial "ro#isions which authori?e the use of income and the creation, o"eration and maintenance of re#ol#ing funds in the a""ro"riation for State Jni#ersities and Colleges /SJCOs0, <. Pro#ision on ;HW /administrati#e0I<HW /contract0 ratio for road maintenance. =. S"ecial "ro#ision on the "urchase by the -*P of medicines in com"liance with the 2enerics ,rugs 'aw / .-. Bo. ::;G0. G. The President #etoed the underlined "ro#iso in the a""ro"riation for the moderni?ation of the -*P of the S"ecial Pro#ision Bo. 8 on the @Jse of *und,A which re6uires the "rior a""ro#al of the Congress for the release of the corres"onding moderni?ation funds, as well as the entire S"ecial Pro#ision Bo. < on the @S"ecific ProhibitionA which states that the said &oderni?ation *und @shall not be used for "ayment of si1 /:0 additional S$877 Trainer "lanes, 7> S*$8:H Trainer "lanes and 7GH armored "ersonnel carriersA G. Bew "ro#ision authori?ing the Chief of Staff to use sa#ings in the -*P to augment "ension and gratuity funds. ;. Conditions on the a""ro"riation for the Su"reme Court, Cmbudsman, CC-, and C! , the Congress ISSUES: 7. 9hether or not the "etitioners ha#e locus standi 8. 9hether or not the conditions im"osed by the President in the items of the 2-- of 7FF=. /a0 for the Su"reme Court, /b0 Commission on -udit /CC-0, /c0 Cmbudsman, /d0 Commission on !uman ights, /C! 0, /e0 Citi?en -rmed *orces 2eogra"hical Jnits /C-*2JOS0 and /f0 State Jni#ersities and Colleges /SJCOs0 are constitutional <. 9hether or not the #eto of the s"ecial "ro#ision in the a""ro"riation for debt ser#ice and the automatic a""ro"riation of funds therefore is constitutional. HELD: 'ocus Standi 9e rule that a member of the Senate, and of the !ouse of e"resentati#es for that matter, has the legal standing to 6uestion the #alidity of a

FACTS: !ouse 5ill Bo. 7HFHH, the 2eneral -""ro"riation 5ill of 7FF= /2-5 of 7FF=0, was "assed and a""ro#ed by both houses of Congress on ,ecember 7;, 7FF<. -s "assed, it im"osed conditions and limitations on certain items of a""ro"riations in the "ro"osed budget "re#iously submitted by the President. +t also authori?ed members of Congress to "ro"ose and identify "ro%ects in the @"or) barrelsA allotted to them and to realign their res"ecti#e o"erating budgets. Pursuant to the "rocedure on the "assage and enactment of bills as "rescribed by the Constitution,

"residential #eto or a condition im"osed on an item in an a""ro"riation bill. To the e1tent the "owers of Congress are im"aired, so is the "ower of each member thereof, since his office confers a right to "artici"ate in the e1ercise of the "owers of that institution /Coleman #. &iller, <H; J.S. =<< X7F<FY4 !olt?man #. Schlesinger, =>= *. 8d 7<H; X7F;<Y0. 3eto of the Pro#isions The #eto "ower, while e1ercisable by the President, is actually a "art of the legislati#e "rocess /&emorandum of Justice +rene Cortes as -micus Curiae, "". <$;0. There is, therefore, sound basis to indulge in the "resum"tion of #alidity of a #eto. The burden shifts on those 6uestioning the #alidity thereof to show that its use is a #iolation of the Constitution. The #etoed "ro#ision on the debt ser#icing is clearly an attem"t to re"eal Section <7 of P.,. Bo. 77;; /*oreign 5orrowing -ct0 and E.C. Bo. 8F8, and to re#erse the debt "ayment "olicy. -s held by the court in 2on?ales, the re"eal of these laws should be done in a se"arate law, not in the a""ro"riations law. +n the #eto of the "ro#ision relating to SJCs, there was no undue discrimination when the President #etoed said s"ecial "ro#isions while allowing similar "ro#isions in other go#ernment agencies. +f some go#ernment agencies were allowed to use their income and maintain a re#ol#ing fund for that "ur"ose, it is because these agencies ha#e been en%oying such "ri#ilege before by #irtue of the s"ecial laws authori?ing such "ractices as e1ce"tions to the @one$fund "olicyA /e.g., .-. Bo. =:7> for the Bational Stud *arm, P.,. Bo. FH8$- for the Securities and E1change Commission4 E.C. Bo. <GF for the ,e"artment of 5udget and &anagementOs Procurement Ser#ice0. The #eto of the second "aragra"h of S"ecial Pro#ision Bo. 8 of the item for the ,P9! is unconstitutional. The S"ecial Pro#ision in 6uestion is not an ina""ro"riate "ro#ision which can be the sub%ect of a #eto. +t is not alien to the a""ro"riation for road maintenance, and on the other hand, it s"ecifies how the said item shall be e1"ended P ;HW by administrati#e and <HW by contract. The S"ecial Pro#ision which re6uires that all "urchases of medicines by the -*P should strictly com"ly with the formulary embodied in the Bational ,rug Policy of the ,e"artment of !ealth is an @a""ro"riateA "ro#ision. 5eing directly related to and inse"arable from the a""ro"riation item on "urchases of medicines by the -*P, the s"ecial "ro#ision cannot be #etoed by the President without also #etoing the said item /5olinao Electronics Cor"oration #. 3alencia, 77 SC - =>: X7F:=Y0. The re6uirement in S"ecial Pro#ision Bo. 8 on the @use of *undA for the -*P moderni?ation "rogram that the President must submit all "urchases of military e6ui"ment to Congress for its a""ro#al, is an e1ercise of the @congressional or legislati#e #eto.A !owe#er the case at bench is not the "ro"er occasion to resol#e the issues of the #alidity of the legislati#e #eto as "ro#ided in S"ecial Pro#isions Bos. 8 and < because the issues at hand can be dis"osed

of on other grounds. Therefore, being @ina""ro"riateA "ro#isions, S"ecial Pro#isions Bos. 8 and < were "ro"erly #etoed. *urthermore, S"ecial Pro#ision Bo. <, "rohibiting the use of the &oderni?ation fund for "ayment of the trainer "lanes and armored "ersonnel carriers, which ha#e been contracted for by the -*P, is #iolati#e of the Constitutional "rohibition on the "assage of laws that im"air the obligation of contracts /-rt. +++, Sec. 7H0, more so, contracts entered into by the 2o#ernment itself. The #eto of said s"ecial "ro#ision is therefore #alid. The S"ecial Pro#ision, which allows the Chief of Staff to use sa#ings to augment the "ension fund for the -*P being managed by the -*P etirement and Se"aration 5enefits System is #iolati#e of Sections 8G/G0 and 8F/70 of the -rticle 3+ of the Constitution. egarding the deacti#ation of C-*2JS, we do not find anything in the language used in the challenged S"ecial Pro#ision that would im"ly that Congress intended to deny to the President the right to defer or reduce the s"ending, much less to deacti#ate 77,HHH C-*2J members all at once in 7FF=. 5ut e#en if such is the intention, the a""ro"riation law is not the "ro"er #ehicle for such "ur"ose. Such intention must be embodied and manifested in another law considering that it abrades the "owers of the Commander$in$Chief and there are e1isting laws on the creation of the C-*2JOs to be amended. Cn the conditions im"osed by the President on certain "ro#isions relating to a""ro"riations to the Su"reme Court, constitutional commissions, the B!and the ,P9!, there is less basis to com"lain when the President said that the e1"enditures shall be sub%ect to guidelines he will issue. Jntil the guidelines are issued, it cannot be determined whether they are "ro"er or ina""ro"riate. Jnder the *aithful E1ecution Clause, the President has the "ower to ta)e @necessary and "ro"er ste"sA to carry into e1ecution the law /Schwart?, Cn Constitutional 'aw, ". 7=; X7F;;Y0. These ste"s are the ones to be embodied in the guidelines. 14. TATAD V. GARCIA JR. FACTS: ,CTC "lanned to construct a light railway transit line along Edsa. E,S- ' T Cor"oration, 'td., a foreign cor"oration was awarded the contract to build, lease and transfer the said light railway. The said award was 6uestioned by the "etitioners on the basis that a foreign cor"oration cannot own the E,S- ' T +++, a "ublic utility as it #iolates the Constitution. ISSUE: 9hether or not an owner and lessor of the facilities used by a "ublic utility constitute a "ublic utilityK HELD: E,S- ' T Cor"oration, 'td. +s admittedly a foreign cor"oration @duly incor"orated and e1isting under the laws of !ong VongA. !owe#er, there is no dis"ute that once the E,S- ' T +++ is constructed, the "ri#ate res"ondent, as lessor, will turn it o#er to

,CTC as lessee, for the latter to o"erate the system and "ay rentals for the said use. 9hat "ri#ate res"ondent owns are the rail trac)s, rolling stoc)s, rail stations, terminals and the "ower "lant, not a "ublic utility. 9hile a franchise is needed to o"erate these facilities to ser#e the "ublic, they do not themsel#es constitute a "ublic utility. 9hat constitutes a "ublic utility in not their ownershi" but their use to ser#e the "ublic. The Constitution, in no uncertain terms, re6uires a franchise for the o"eration of a "ublic utility. !owe#er, it does not re6uire a franchise before one can own the facilities needed to o"erate a "ublic utility so long as it does not o"erate them to ser#e the "ublic. +n law, there is a clear distinction between the @o"erationA of a "ublic utility and the ownershi" of the facilities and the e6ui"ment used to ser#e the "ublic. 1 . OPOSA V. FACTORAN FACTS: Princi"al "etitioners, are all minors duly re"resented and %oined by their res"ecti#e "arents. +m"leaded as an additional "laintiff is the Phili""ine Ecological Betwor), +nc. /PEB+0, a domestic, non$ stoc) and non$"rofit cor"oration organi?ed for the "ur"ose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action geared for the "rotection of our en#ironment and natural resources. The original defendant was the !onorable *ulgencio S. *actoran, Jr., then Secretary of the ,e"artment of En#ironment and Batural esources /,EB 0. !is substitution in this "etition by the new Secretary, the !onorable -ngel C. -lcala, was subse6uently ordered u"on "ro"er motion by the "etitioners. The com"laint was instituted as a ta1"ayersM class suit and alleges that the "laintiffs Qare all citi?ens of the e"ublic of the Phili""ines, ta1"ayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and en%oyment of the natural resource treasure that is the countryMs #irgin tro"ical forests.Q The same was filed for themsel#es and others who are e6ually concerned about the "reser#ation of said resource but are Qso numerous that it is im"racticable to bring them all before the Court.Q Cn 88 June 7FFH, the original defendant, Secretary *actoran, Jr., filed a &otion to ,ismiss the com"laint based on two grounds, namely. the "laintiffs ha#e no cause of action against him and, the issue raised by the "laintiffs is a "olitical 6uestion which "ro"erly "ertains to the legislati#e or e1ecuti#e branches of 2o#ernment. +n their 78 July 7FFH C""osition to the &otion, the "etitioners maintain that, the com"laint shows a clear and unmista)able cause of action, the motion is dilatory and the action "resents a %usticiable 6uestion as it in#ol#es the defendantMs abuse of discretion. Cn 7> July 7FF7, res"ondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss. +n the said order, not only was the defendantMs claim

that the com"laint states no cause of action against him and that it raises a "olitical 6uestion sustained, the res"ondent Judge further ruled that the granting of the relief "rayed for would result in the im"airment of contracts which is "rohibited by the fundamental law of the land. Plaintiffs thus filed the instant s"ecial ci#il action for certiorari under ule :G of the e#ised ules of Court and as) this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that the res"ondent Judge gra#ely abused his discretion in dismissing the action. -gain, the "arents of the "laintiffs$minors not only re"resent their children, but ha#e also %oined the latter in this case. Petitioners contend that the com"laint clearly and unmista)ably states a cause of action as it contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound en#ironment based on -rticles 7F, 8H and 87 of the Ci#il Code /!uman elations0, Section = of E1ecuti#e Crder /E.C.0 Bo. 7F8 creating the ,EB , Section < of Presidential ,ecree /P.,.0 Bo. 77G7 /Phili""ine En#ironmental Policy0, Section 7:, -rticle ++ of the 7F>; Constitution recogni?ing the right of the "eo"le to a balanced and healthful ecology, the conce"t of generational genocide in Criminal 'aw and the conce"t of manMs inalienable right to self$ "reser#ation and self$"er"etuation embodied in natural law. Petitioners li)ewise rely on the res"ondentMs correlati#e obligation "er Section = of E.C. Bo. 7F8, to safeguard the "eo"leMs right to a healthful en#ironment. +t is further claimed that the issue of the res"ondent SecretaryMs alleged gra#e abuse of discretion in granting Timber 'icense -greements /T'-s0 to co#er more areas for logging than what is a#ailable in#ol#es a %udicial 6uestion. -nent the in#ocation by the res"ondent Judge of the ConstitutionMs non$im"airment clause, "etitioners maintain that the same does not a""ly in this case because T'-s are not contracts. They li)ewise submit that e#en if T'-s may be considered "rotected by the said clause, it is well settled that they may still be re#o)ed by the State when the "ublic interest so re6uires. ISSUE: 9hether or not the "etitioners ha#e locus standi. 9hether or not the "etiton is in a form of a class suit. 9hether or not the T'-Os can be out rightly cancelled. 9hether or not the "etition should be dismissed. HELD: -s to the matter of the cancellation of the T'-s, res"ondents submit that the same cannot be done by the State without due "rocess of law. Cnce issued, a T'- remains effecti#e for a certain "eriod of time P usually for twenty$fi#e /8G0 years. ,uring its

effecti#ity, the same can neither be re#ised nor cancelled unless the holder has been found, after due notice and hearing, to ha#e #iolated the terms of the agreement or other forestry laws and regulations. PetitionersM "ro"osition to ha#e all the T'-s indiscriminately cancelled without the re6uisite hearing would be #iolati#e of the re6uirements of due "rocess. The sub%ect matter of the com"laint is of common and general interest not %ust to se#eral, but to all citi?ens of the Phili""ines. Conse6uently, since the "arties are so numerous, it, becomes im"racticable, if not totally im"ossible, to bring all of them before the court. The "laintiffs therein are numerous and re"resentati#e enough to ensure the full "rotection of all concerned interests. !ence, all the re6uisites for the filing of a #alid class suit under Section 78, ule < of the e#ised ules of Court are "resent both in the said ci#il case and in the instant "etition, the latter being but an incident to the former. Petitioners minors assert that they re"resent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. Their "ersonality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the conce"t of intergenerational res"onsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Bature means the created world in its entirety. E#ery generation has a res"onsibility to the ne1t to "reser#e that rhythm and harmony for the full en%oyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. The minorsM assertion of their right to a sound en#ironment constitutes, at the same time, the "erformance of their obligation to ensure the "rotection of that right for the generations to come. The com"laint focuses on one s"ecific fundamental legal right the right to a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nationMs constitutional history, is solemnly incor"orated in the fundamental law. Section 7:, -rticle ++ of the 7F>; Constitution. 9hile the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the ,eclaration of Princi"les and State Policies and not under the 5ill of ights, it does not follow that it is less im"ortant than any of the ci#il and "olitical rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self$ "reser#ation and self$"er"etuation P a"tly and fittingly stressed by the "etitioners the ad#ancement of which may e#en be said to "redate all go#ernments and constitutions. -s a matter of fact, these basic rights need not e#en be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to e1ist from the ince"tion of human)ind. +f they are now e1"licitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well$founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state "olicies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing im"ortance and im"osing u"on the state a

solemn obligation to "reser#e the first and "rotect and ad#ance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the "resent generation, but also for those to come generations which stand to inherit nothing but "arched earth inca"able of sustaining life. Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the right to health, as well as the other related "ro#isions of the Constitution concerning the conser#ation, de#elo"ment and utili?ation of the countryMs natural resources, then President Cora?on C. -6uino "romulgated on 7H June 7F>; E.C. Bo. 7F8, Section = of which e1"ressly mandates that the ,e"artment of En#ironment and Batural esources Qshall be the "rimary go#ernment agency res"onsible for the conser#ation, management, de#elo"ment and "ro"er use of the countryMs en#ironment and natural resources, s"ecifically forest and gra?ing lands, mineral, resources, including those in reser#ation and watershed areas, and lands of the "ublic domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural resources as may be "ro#ided for by law in order to ensure e6uitable sharing of the benefits deri#ed therefrom for the welfare of the "resent and future generations of *ili"inos.Q Section < thereof ma)es the following statement of "olicy. The abo#e "ro#ision stresses Qthe necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and "rotecting and enhancing the 6uality of the en#ironment.Q Section 8 of the same Title, on the other hand, s"ecifically s"ea)s of the mandate of the ,EB 4 howe#er, it ma)es "articular reference to the fact of the agencyMs being sub%ect to law and higher authority. +t may, howe#er, be recalled that e#en before the ratification of the 7F>; Constitution, s"ecific statutes already "aid s"ecial attention to the Qen#ironmental rightQ of the "resent and future generations. Cn : June 7F;;, P.,. Bo. 77G7 and P.,. Bo. 77G8 were issued. Thus, the right of the "etitioners to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear as the ,EB Ms duty under its mandate and by #irtue of its "owers and functions under E.C. Bo. 7F8 and the -dministrati#e Code of 7F>; to "rotect and ad#ance the said right. - denial or #iolation of that right by the other who has the correlati#e duty or obligation to res"ect or "rotect the same gi#es rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that the granting of the T'-s, which they claim was done with gra#e abuse of discretion, #iolated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology4 hence, the full "rotection thereof re6uires that no further T'-s should be renewed or granted. +t is settled in this %urisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that the com"laint fails to state a cause of action4 the 6uestion submitted to the court for resolution in#ol#es the sufficiency of the

facts alleged in the com"laint itself. Bo other matter should be considered4 furthermore, the truth of falsity of the said allegations is beside the "oint for the truth thereof is deemed hy"othetically admitted. Policy formulation or determination by the e1ecuti#e or legislati#e branches of 2o#ernment is not s6uarely "ut in issue. 9hat is "rinci"ally in#ol#ed is the enforcement of a right #is$a$#is "olicies already formulated and e1"ressed in legislation. +t must, nonetheless, be em"hasi?ed that the "olitical 6uestion doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the e1ercise of %udicial "ower or the im"enetrable shield that "rotects e1ecuti#e and legislati#e actions from %udicial in6uiry or re#iew. +n the second "lace, e#en if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the instant case does not in#ol#e a law or e#en an e1ecuti#e issuance declaring the cancellation or modification of e1isting timber licenses. !ence, the non$im"airment clause cannot as yet be in#o)ed. Be#ertheless, granting further that a law has actually been "assed mandating cancellations or modifications, the same cannot still be stigmati?ed as a #iolation of the non$ im"airment clause. This is because by its #ery nature and "ur"ose, such as law could ha#e only been "assed in the e1ercise of the "olice "ower of the state for the "ur"ose of ad#ancing the right of the "eo"le to a balanced and healthful ecology, "romoting their health and enhancing the general welfare. *inally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non$im"airment clause could a""ly with res"ect to the "rayer to en%oin the res"ondent Secretary from recei#ing, acce"ting, "rocessing, renewing or a""ro#ing new timber licenses for, sa#e in cases of renewal, no contract would ha#e as of yet e1isted in the other instances. &oreo#er, with res"ect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a matter of right. Petition is hereby 2 -BTE,, and the challenged Crder of res"ondent Judge of 7> July 7FF7 dismissing Ci#il Case Bo. FH$;;; is hereby set aside. The "etitioners may therefore amend their com"laint to im"lead as defendants the holders or grantees of the 6uestioned timber license agreements. 1!. 2ILOSBYAN V. MORATO FACTS: +n Jan. 8G, 7FFG, PCSC and P2&C signed an E6ui"ment 'ease -greement /E'-0 wherein P2&C leased online lottery e6ui"ment and accessories to PCSC. / ental of =.<W of the gross amount of tic)et or at least P<G,HHH "er terminal annually0. <HW of the net recei"ts is allotted to charity. Term of lease is for > years. PCSC is to em"loy its own "ersonnel and res"onsible for the facilities. J"on the e1"iration of lease, PCSC may "urchase the e6ui"ment for P8G million. *eb. 87, 7FFG. - "etition was filed to declare E'- in#alid because it is the same as the Contract of 'ease PetitionerMs Contention. E'- was same to the

Contract of 'ease.. +t is still #iolati#e of PCSCMs charter. +t is #iolati#e of the law regarding "ublic bidding. +t #iolates Sec. 8/80 of -rt. F$, of the 7F>; Constitution. Standing can no longer be 6uestioned because it has become the law of the case es"ondentMs re"ly. E'- is different from the Contract of 'ease. There is no bidding re6uired. The "ower to determine if E'- is ad#antageous is #ested in the 5oard of ,irectors of PCSC. PCSC does not ha#e funds. Petitioners see) to further their moral crusade. Petitioners do not ha#e a legal standing because they were not "arties to the contract ISSUES: standingK 9hether or not the "etitioners ha#e

HELD: BC. ST- E ,EC+S+S cannot a""ly. The "re#ious ruling sustaining the standing of the "etitioners is a de"arture from the settled rulings on real "arties in interest because no constitutional issues were actually in#ol#ed. '-9 C* T!E C-SE cannot also a""ly. Since the "resent case is not the same one litigated by the"arties before in Vilosbayan #s. 2uingona, Jr., the ruling cannot be in any sense be regarded as the law of this case. The "arties are the same but the cases are not. J'E CB CCBC'JS+3EBESS cannot still a""ly. -n issue actually and directly "assed u"on and determine in a former suit cannot again be drawn in 6uestion in any future action between the same "arties in#ol#ing a different cause of action. 5ut the rule does not a""ly to issues of law at least when substantially unrelated claims are in#ol#ed. 9hen the second "roceeding in#ol#es an instrument or transaction identical with, but in a form se"arable from the one dealt with in the first "roceeding, the Court is free in the second "roceeding to ma)e an inde"endent e1amination of the legal matters at issue. Since E'- is a different contract, the "re#ious decision does not "reclude determination of the "etitionerMs standing. ST-B,+B2 is a conce"t in constitutional law and here no constitutional 6uestion is actually in#ol#ed. The more a""ro"riate issue is whether the "etitioners are E-' P- T+ES in +BTE EST. 1#. LOZADA V. COMELEC Political 'aw Z 3acancy in the 'egislature 'o?ada together with +got filed a "etition for mandamus com"elling the CC&E'EC to hold an election to fill the #acancies in the +nterim 5atasang Pambansa /+5P0. They anchor their contention on Sec G /80, -rt > of the 7F;< Constitution which "ro#ides. @+n case a #acancy arises in the 5atasang Pambansa eighteen months or more before a regular election, the Commission on Election shall call a s"ecial election to be held within si1ty /:H0 days after the #acancy occurs to elect the &ember to ser#e the une1"ired term.A CC&E'EC o""oses the "etition alleging, substantially, that 70 "etitioners lac) standing to file the instant "etition for they are not the "ro"er "arties to institute the action4 80 this Court has no %urisdiction to entertain this "etition4 and <0 Section G/80, -rticle 3+++ of the 7F;<

Constitution does not a""ly to the +nterim 5atasan Pambansa. ISSUE: 9hether or not the SC can com"el CC&E'EC to hold a s"ecial election to fill #acancies in the legislature. HELD. The SCOs %urisdiction o#er the CC&E'EC is only to re#iew by certiorari the latterOs decision, orders or rulings. This is as clearly "ro#ided in -rticle N++$C, Section 77 of the Bew Constitution which reads. @-ny decision, order, or ruling of the Commission may be brought to the Su"reme Court on certiorari by the aggrie#ed "arty within thirty days from his recei"t of a co"y thereof.A There is in this case no decision, order or ruling of the CC&E'EC which is sought to be re#iewed by this Court under its certiorari %urisdiction as "ro#ided for in the afore6uoted "ro#ision, which is the only )nown "ro#ision conferring %urisdiction or authority on the Su"reme Court o#er the CC&E'EC. +t is ob#ious that the holding of s"ecial elections in se#eral regional districts where #acancies e1ist, would entail huge e1"enditure of money. Cnly the 5atasang Pambansa /5P0 can ma)e the necessary a""ro"riation for the "ur"ose, and this "ower of the 5P may neither be sub%ect to mandamus by the courts much less may CC&E'EC com"el the 5P to e1ercise its "ower of a""ro"riation. *rom the role 5P has to "lay in the holding of s"ecial elections, which is to a""ro"riate the funds for the e1"enses thereof, it would seem that the initiati#e on the matter must come from the 5P, not the CC&E'EC, e#en when the #acancies would occur in the regular not +5P. The "ower to a""ro"riate is the sole and e1clusi#e "rerogati#e of the legislati#e body, the e1ercise of which may not be com"elled through a "etition for mandamus. 9hat is more, the "ro#ision of Section G/80, -rticle 3+++ of the Constitution was intended to a""ly to #acancies in the regular Bational -ssembly, now 5P, not to the +5P. 1%. ATTY. LOZANO V. SPEA2ER NOGRALES FACTS: The two "etitions, filed by their res"ecti#e "etitioners in their ca"acities as concerned citi?ens and ta1"ayers, "rayed for the nullification of !ouse esolution Bo. 77HF entitled - esolution Calling u"on the &embers of Congress to Con#ene for the Pur"ose of Considering Pro"osals to -mend or e#ise the Constitution, J"on a Three$fourths 3ote of -ll the &embers of Congress. 5oth "etitions see) to trigger a %usticiable contro#ersy that would warrant a definiti#e inter"retation by the Court of Section 7, -rticle N3++, which "ro#ides for the "rocedure for amending or re#ising the Constitution. The "etitioners alleged that ! 77HF is unconstitutional for de#iation from the "rescribed "rocedures to amend the Constitution by e1cluding the Senate of the Phili""ines from the com"lete "rocess of "ro"osing amendments to the Constitution and for lac) of thorough debates and consultations. ISSUE: 9hether or not the Congress committed a #iolation in "romulgating the ! 77HF.

HELD: Bo, the !ouse that the Congress ought to con#ene into a Constituent -ssembly and ado"t some ules for "ro"osing changes to the charter. The !ouse has said it would forward !. es.77HF to the Senate for its a""ro#al and ado"tion and the "ossible "romulgation of a Joint and Concurrent esolution con#ening the Congress into a Constituent -ssembly. Petitioners ha#e not sufficiently "ro#en any ad#erse in%ury or hardshi" from the act com"lained of. !ouse esolution Bo. 77HF only resol#ed that the !ouse of e"resentati#es shall con#ene at a future time for the "ur"ose of "ro"osing amendments or re#isions to the Constitution. Bo actual con#ention has yet trans"ired and no rules of "rocedure ha#e yet been ado"ted. Bo "ro"osal has yet been made, and hence, no usur"ation of "ower or gross abuse of discretion has yet ta)en "lace. !ouse esolution Bo. 77HF in#ol#es a 6uintessential e1am"le of an uncertain contingent future e#ent that may not occur as antici"ated, or indeed may not occur at all. The !ouse has not yet "erformed a "ositi#e act that would warrant an inter#ention from this Court. Judicial re#iew is e1ercised only to remedy a "articular and concrete in%ury. The "etitions were dismissed. 1&. LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES V. COMELEC ACTION: These are consolidated "etitions for "rohibition with "rayer for the issuance of a writ of "reliminary in%unction or tem"orary restraining order filed by the 'eague of Cities of the Phili""ines, City of +loilo, City of Calbayog, and Jerry P. Tre(as assailing the constitutionality of the sub%ect Cityhood 'aws and en%oining the Commission on Elections /CC&E'EC0 and res"ondent munici"alities from conducting "lebiscites "ursuant to the Cityhood 'aws. FACT: ,uring the 77th Congress, Congress enacted into law << bills con#erting << munici"alities into cities. !owe#er, Congress did not act on bills con#erting 8= other munici"alities into cities. ,uring the 78th Congress, Congress enacted into law e"ublic -ct Bo. FHHF / - FHHF0, which too) effect on <H June 8HH7. - FHHF amended Section =GH of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code by increasing the annual income re6uirement for con#ersion of a munici"ality into a city from P8H million to P7HH million. The rationale for the amendment was to restrain, in the words of Senator -6uilino Pimentel, @the mad rushA of munici"alities to con#ert into cities solely to secure a larger share in the +nternal e#enue -llotment des"ite the fact that they are inca"able of fiscal inde"endence. -fter the effecti#ity of - FHHF, the !ouse of e"resentati#es of the 78th Congress ado"ted Joint esolution Bo. 8F, which sought to e1em"t from the P7HH million income re6uirement in - FHHF the 8= munici"alities whose cityhood bills were not a""ro#ed in the 77th Congress. !owe#er, the 78th

Congress ended without the Senate a""ro#ing Joint esolution Bo. 8F. ,uring the 7<th Congress, the !ouse of e"resentati#es re$ado"ted Joint esolution Bo. 8F as Joint esolution Bo. 7 and forwarded it to the Senate for a""ro#al. !owe#er, the Senate again failed to a""ro#e the Joint esolution. *ollowing the ad#ice of Senator -6uilino Pimentel, 7: munici"alities filed, through their res"ecti#e s"onsors, indi#idual cityhood bills. The 7: cityhood bills contained a common "ro#ision e1em"ting all the 7: munici"alities from the P7HH million income re6uirement in - FHHF. Cn 88 ,ecember 8HH:, the !ouse of e"resentati#es a""ro#ed the cityhood bills. The Senate also a""ro#ed the cityhood bills in *ebruary 8HH;, e1ce"t that of Baga, Cebu which was "assed on ; June 8HH;. The cityhood bills la"sed into law /Cityhood 'aws0 on #arious dates from &arch to July 8HH; without the PresidentOs signature. The Cityhood 'aws direct the CC&E'EC to hold "lebiscites to determine whether the #oters in each res"ondent munici"ality a""ro#e of the con#ersion of their munici"ality into a city. Petitioners filed the "resent "etitions to declare the Cityhood 'aws unconstitutional for #iolation of Section 7H, -rticle N of the Constitution, as well as for #iolation of the e6ual "rotection clause. Petitioners also lament that the wholesale con#ersion of munici"alities into cities will reduce the share of e1isting cities in the +nternal e#enue -llotment because more cities will share the same amount of internal re#enue set aside for all cities under Section 8>G of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code. ISSUE: The "etitions raise the following fundamental issues. 7. 9hether the Cityhood 'aws #iolate Section 7H, -rticle N of the Constitution4 and 8. 9hether the Cityhood 'aws #iolate the e6ual "rotection clause. HELD: 9e grant the "etitions. The Cityhood 'aws #iolate Sections : and 7H, -rticle N of the Constitution, and are thus unconstitutional. *irst, a""lying the P7HH million income re6uirement in - FHHF to the "resent case is a "ros"ecti#e, not a retroacti#e a""lication, because - FHHF too) effect in 8HH7 while the cityhood bills became law more than fi#e years later. Second, the Constitution re6uires that Congress shall "rescribe all the criteria for the creation of a city in the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code and not in any other law, including the Cityhood 'aws. Third, the Cityhood 'aws #iolate Section :, -rticle N of the Constitution because they "re#ent a fair and %ust distribution of the national ta1es to local go#ernment units. *ourth, the criteria "rescribed in Section =GH of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code, as amended by - FHHF, for con#erting a munici"ality into a city are clear, "lain and unambiguous, needing no resort to any statutory construction.

*ifth, the intent of members of the 77th Congress to e1em"t certain munici"alities from the co#erage of - FHHF remained an intent and was ne#er written into Section =GH of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code. Si1th, the deliberations of the 77th or 78th Congress on una""ro#ed bills or resolutions are not e1trinsic aids in inter"reting a law "assed in the 7<th Congress. Se#enth, e#en if the e1em"tion in the Cityhood 'aws were written in Section =GH of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code, the e1em"tion would still be unconstitutional for #iolation of the e6ual "rotection clause. 2'. VENANCIO INONOG VS JUDGE FRANCISCO IBAY The "resent administrati#e case stemmed from the Sinum"aang SalaysayX7Y of 3enancio P. +nonog, filed with the Cffice of the Court -dministrator /CC-0 on -"ril 8:, 8HHG, charging Judge *rancisco 5. +bay of the egional Trial Court / TC0, 5ranch 7<G, &a)ati City with gross abuse of authority. The com"laint in#ol#ed an incident in the &a)ati City !all basement "ar)ing lot for which res"ondent %udge cited com"lainant in contem"t of court because com"lainant "ar)ed his su"eriorOs #ehicle at the "ar)ing s"ace reser#ed for res"ondent %udge. es"ondent %udge initiated the "roceeding for indirect contem"t by issuing an order dated &arch 7>, 8HHG in Criminal Case Bos. H8$7<8H, H8$<H=:, H8$<7:>$:F, and H<$<F8$<F<, entitled Peo"le #. 2lenn *ernande?, et al., directing the com"lainant to show cause why he should not be "unished for contem"t. The said order read. C ,E *or intentionally "ar)ing car with "late no. 9,! >H= at the "ar)ing s"ace reser#ed for the undersigned Presiding Judge, thereby causing the delay in the "romulgation of the ,ecisions in the abo#e$entitled cases dri#er 5utch +nonog, cIo Permit ,i#ision, this City, is hereby ordered to a""ear before this Court at 7H.<H -.&., &arch 7>, 8HHG and show cause why he should not be cited for Contem"t for delaying the administration of %ustice. SC C ,E E,. &a)ati City, 7> &arch 8HHG. That same day, res"ondent %udge issued another order, finding com"lainant guilty of contem"t. To 6uote from the second order. C ,E *or failure to a""ear of res"ondent 3enancio +nonog alias 5utch +nonog at todayOs hearing and show cause why he should not be cited for contem"t, the Court finds him 2J+'TR C* CCBTE&PT C* CCJ T, and hereby sentences him to suffer im"risonment for

a "eriod of fi#e /G0 days and to "ay a fined XsicY of P7,HHH.HH. 'et a warrant issue for his arrest furnishing co"ies thereof to the ,irector 2eneral Phili""ine Bational Police, the ,irector of the Bational 5ureau of +n#estigation, and the Station Commander of &a)ati Police Station. SC C ,E E,. &a)ati City, 7> &arch 8HHG. follow. The rele#ant facts, culled from the records,

Com"lainant alleged that he is the security$dri#er of the Chief of the 5usiness Permit ,i#ision of &a)ati City. -ccording to com"lainant, at around 7.HH a.m. of &arch 7>, 8HHG, he "ar)ed the #ehicle that he dri#es for his boss in a #acant "ar)ing s"ace at the basement of the &a)ati City !all because the slot where he usually "ar)ed was already occu"ied. -t the time, the "ar)ing slots at the basement of the &a)ati City !all were indicated only by numbers and not by names of officials to whom they were assigned. Thereafter, com"lainant notified his su"erior that he will not be re"orting for wor) for the rest of that day, &arch 7>, 8HHG, because he was not feeling well. Thus, he left the #ehicle in the said basement "ar)ing area and went home to Tanay, i?al. 'ater that morning, com"lainant recei#ed a call from his brother, also an em"loyee of the City 2o#ernment of &a)ati, informing him that he should a""ear before the sala of res"ondent %udge at 7H.<H a.m. to e1"lainIshow cause why he should not be cited for contem"t of court for "ar)ing his #ehicle at the s"ace reser#ed for res"ondent %udge. !e was informed that the res"ondent %udge blamed the usur"ation of the said "ar)ing s"ace for the delay in the "romulgation of the decision in Criminal Case Bos. H8$7<8H, H8$<H=:, H8$<7:>$:F, and H<$<F8$<F< scheduled at >.HH a.m. of &arch 7>, 8HHG because the latter had a hard time loo)ing for another "ar)ing s"ace. Com"lainant was also informed that if he failed to a""ear at the hearing, a warrant for his arrest will be issued. Com"lainant immediately left his home in Tanay to go to &a)ati City !all e#en though he was not feeling well. !owe#er, due to the distance in#ol#ed and the time consumed by using #arious modes of "ublic trans"ortation, he arri#ed there only at around 7.HH ".m. !e found out that by then he had already been ad%udged guilty of contem"t of court by res"ondent %udge for delaying in the administration of %ustice. !e was sentenced to suffer im"risonment for fi#e /G0 days and to "ay a fine of one thousand "esos /P7,HHH.HH0. - warrant for his arrest was also issued. X8Y

Cn &arch 87, 8HHG, com"lainant through counsel filed an Jrgent &otion for econsideration andIor to 'ift Crder of -rrest, but said motion was denied. Subse6uently, com"lainant filed an -mended Jrgent &otion for econsideration andIor To 'ift the Crder of -rrest, attaching "roof of "ayment of the fine in the amount of one thousand "esos /P7,HHH.HH0. +n his motions, com"lainant e1"lained that he did not )now that the "ar)ing s"ace was reser#ed for the res"ondent %udge. !e also begged for forgi#eness and "romised not to re"eat the incident. -cting on the said amended motion, res"ondent %udge issued an Crder dated &arch <H, 8HHG finding com"lainantOs e1"lanation to be unsatisfactory. !owe#er, res"ondent %udge modified his "re#ious order by deleting the sentence for im"risonment for fi#e /G0 days but the fine of P7,HHH.HH was increased to P8,HHH.HH, with a stern warning that a re"etition of the same offense will be dealt with more se#erely. +n com"liance, com"lainant "aid the additional amount of P7,HHH.HH as fine. -ggrie#ed by the said orders of res"ondent %udge, com"lainant filed the instant administrati#e com"laint. +n his Comment dated June 7H, 8HHG, res"ondent %udge e1"lained that on &arch 7>, 8HHG, he "roceeded to the court at around ;.HH a.m. to finali?e the decision in Criminal Case Bos. H8$7<8H, H8$<H=:, H8$<7:>$:F and H<$<F8$<F<, all entitled Peo"le #. 2lenn *ernande?, et al., which were to be "romulgated on the first hour of the same day. J"on reaching his "ar)ing slot, he found com"lainantOs #ehicle "ar)ed there. -s a result, he had a hard time loo)ing for his own "ar)ing s"ace. !ence, the "romulgation of the decision was delayed. -ccording to res"ondent %udge, com"lainant )new that the "ar)ing slot was reser#ed for him because it bore his name. !e em"hasi?ed that "rior to the incident, he already had his name indicated at the said slot "recisely because there had been "re#ious occasions when other #ehicles would occu"y his "ar)ing s"ace and he had been forced to "ar) at the "ublic "ar)ing area. es"ondent %udge added that he ordered the com"lainant to a""ear before him for the hearing at 7H.<H a.m. of &arch 7>, 8HHG, but, com"lainant refused, thus, he declared him in contem"t of court. es"ondent %udge also a#erred that he neither too) ad#antage nor e1ercised arbitrarily the "ower of the court as in fact, com"lainant was gi#en a chance to be re"resented by a counsel of his own choice and was gi#en an o""ortunity to e1"lain his "osition which the latter seriously considered. es"ondent %udge e1"lained that his acts were brought about by his dee" concern with the dis"osition of the cases assigned to him within the "rescribed "eriod. To accom"lish this, he came to office at ;.HH a.m. and wor)ed on his cases not only

in his office, but e#en at home. es"ondent %udge mentioned that he was able to dis"ose <=F cases lea#ing only 7;7 cases "ending as of ,ecember <7, 8HH=. !e "ointed out that he was able to further reduce his doc)et to 8< ci#il cases and 8F criminal cases as of &ay <7, 8HHG. Thus, he ran)ed <rd among %udges in the TC, &a)ati with res"ect to dis"osition of cases. es"ondent %udge added that "etty disturbances, li)e the incident in#ol#ed in the instant administrati#e com"laint, were annoying to him since they interfered in the "erformance of his %udicial function. Be#ertheless, he did not lose his ob%ecti#ity, "robity, e6uanimity, integrity and im"artiality and reacted to these incidents within the limits and boundaries of the law and %ustice. Cn Bo#ember 7G, 8HHG, the CC- made the following e#aluation and recommendation. E3-'J-T+CB. This administrati#e com"laint came about when Judge *rancisco 5. +bay cited com"lainant in contem"t of court sim"ly because the latter "ar)ed his #ehicle at the "ar)ing s"ace ser#ed for him. +n the e1ercise of his contem"t "ower, not only did res"ondent deny the com"lainant his right to be heard but also con#icted him in contem"t of court based on a #ery loose and flimsy reason. Contem"t of court has been defined as a defiance of the authority, %ustice or dignity of the court4 such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disres"ect or to interfere with or "re%udice "arties litigant or their witnesses during litigation /!alili #s. Court of +ndustrial elations, 7<: SC - G;0. Jnder the ules of Court, contem"t is classified into direct and indirect. ,irect contem"t, which is summary, is committed in the "resence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interru"t the "roceedings before the same, including disres"ect toward the court, offensi#e "ersonalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affida#it or de"osition when lawfully re6uired to do so /Section 7, ule ;70. +ndirect contem"t, on the other hand, is not committed in the "resence of the court and can be "unished only after notice and hearing /[arate #. 5alderian, <8F SC - GG>0. Jndoubtedly, Judge +bay cited the com"lainant for indirect contem"t of court since the sub%ect incident trans"ired not in the courtOs "resence. +n the instant case, there was no defiance of authority on the "art of the com"lainant when he "ar)ed his #ehicle at the s"ot reser#ed for the res"ondent %udge. The incident is too flimsy to be a basis of a contem"t "roceedings. -t most, the act resulted to a minor incon#enience on the "art of the res"ondent but it was unli)ely that it delayed the administration of %ustice. 5esides, it was not shown

that com"lainant "ar)ed his #ehicle at the s"ot intentionally to show disres"ect to Judge +bay. es"ondent Judge +bay acted "reci"itously in citing com"lainant in contem"t of court in a manner which ob#iously smac)s of retaliation rather than u"holding of the courtOs honor. 111 111 111

-ssuming, without conceding, that the com"lainant had committed indirect contem"t of court, he was nonetheless entitled to be charged in writing and gi#en an o""ortunity to be heard by himself or counsel. Section <, ule ;7 of the ules of Court s"ecifically outlines the "rocedural re6uisites before a "erson may be "unished for indirect contem"t, thus. /70 a com"laint in writing which may either be a motion for contem"t filed by a "arty or an order issued by the court re6uiring a "erson to a""ear and e1"lain his conduct4 and, /80 an o""ortunity for the "erson charged to a""ear and e1"lain his conduct /Pacuribot #. 'im, Jr., 8;G SC - G=<0. Proceedings against "ersons charged with contem"t of court are commonly treated as criminal in nature, thus this mode of "rocedure should be strictly followed. ecords failed to show that com"lainant was "ro"erly notified of Judge +bayOs order directing the former to a""ear and e1"lain why he should not be cited in contem"t of court. The hearing was set at 7H.<H -.&. or only about two and a half hours after res"ondent %udge found that his "ar)ing s"ace was occu"ied. The lac) of notice accounts for the com"lainantOs failure to a""ear at the hearing. 3erily, com"lainant was not gi#en a reasonable o""ortunity to be heard and submit e#idence in su""ort of his defense. 111 111 111

ECC&&EB,-T+CB. +n #iew of the foregoing, it is res"ectfully submitted to the !onorable Court our recommendations that this instant +.P.+. be E,CCVETE, as a regular administrati#e matter and Judge *rancisco 5. +bay, egional Trial Court, 5ranch <G, &a)ati City, be "enali?ed to "ay a *+BE in the amount of *i#e Thousand Pesos /PG,HHH.HH0 with a STE B 9- B+B2 that a re"etition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more se#erely. The Court agrees with the findings of the CC- but deems it "ro"er to im"ose a "enalty different from the CC-Os recommendation. ule ;7 of the ules of Court "rescribes the rules and "rocedure for indirect contem"t. Sections < and = of the said rule read as follows. SEC. <. +ndirect contem"t to be "unished after charge and hearing.P-fter a charge in writing has been filed, and an o""ortunity gi#en to the res"ondent to comment thereon within such "eriod as may be fi1ed by the court and to be heard by

himself or counsel, a "erson guilty of any of the following acts may be "unished for indirect contem"t. /a0 &isbeha#ior of an officer of a court in the "erformance of his official duties or in his official transactions4 /b0 ,isobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, "rocess, order, or %udgment of a court, including the act of a "erson who, after being dis"ossessed or e%ected from any real "ro"erty by the %udgment or "rocess of any court of com"etent %urisdiction, enters or attem"ts or induces another to enter into or u"on such real "ro"erty, for the "ur"ose of e1ecuting acts of ownershi" or "ossession, or in any manner disturbs the "ossession gi#en to the "erson ad%udged to be entitled thereto4 /c0 -ny abuse of or any unlawful interference with the "rocesses or "roceedings of a court not constituting direct contem"t under section 7 of this ule4 /d0 -ny im"ro"er conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to im"ede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of %ustice4 /e0 -ssuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority4 /f0 *ailure to obey a sub"oena duly ser#ed4 /g0 The rescue, or attem"ted rescue, of a "erson or "ro"erty in the custody of an officer by #irtue of an order or "rocess of a court held by him. 111 111 111 SEC. =. !ow "roceedings commenced.PProceedings for indirect contem"t may be initiated motu "ro"rio by the court against which the contem"t was committed by an order or any other formal charge re6uiring the res"ondent to show cause why he should not be "unished for contem"t. 111 111 111 The "hrase @im"ro"er conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to im"ede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of %usticeA is so broad and general that it encom"asses wide s"ectrum of acts that could constitute indirect contem"t. !owe#er, the act of com"lainant in "ar)ing his car in a slot allegedly reser#ed for res"ondent %udge does not fall under this category. There was no showing that he acted with malice andIor bad faith or that he was im"ro"erly moti#ated to delay the "roceedings of the court by ma)ing use of the "ar)ing slot su""osedly reser#ed for res"ondent %udge. 9e cannot also say that the said act of com"lainant constitutes disres"ect to the dignity of the court. +n sum, the incident is too flimsy and inconse6uential to be the basis of an indirect contem"t "roceeding.

+n 'u Rm #. &ahinay,X<Y we held that an act, to be considered contem"tuous, must be clearly contrary or "rohibited by the order of the Court. - "erson cannot, for disobedience, be "unished for contem"t unless the act which is forbidden or re6uired to be done is clearly and e1actly defined, so that there can be no reasonable doubt or uncertainty as to what s"ecific act or thing is forbidden or re6uired. !ere, the act of com"lainant is not contrary or clearly "rohibited by an order of the court. The "ower to "unish for contem"t is inherent in all courts so as to "reser#e order in %udicial "roceedings as well as to u"hold the administration of %ustice. The courts must e1ercise the "ower of contem"t for "ur"oses that are im"ersonal because that "ower is intended as a safeguard not for the %udges but for the functions they e1ercise. Thus, %udges ha#e, time and again, been en%oined to e1ercise their contem"t "ower %udiciously, s"aringly, with utmost restraint and with the end in #iew of utili?ing the same for correction and "reser#ation of the dignity of the court, not for retaliation or #indication.X=Y es"ondent %udgeOs act of unceremoniously citing com"lainant in contem"t is a clear e#idence of his un%ustified use of the authority #ested u"on him by law. 5esides "ossessing the re6uisite learning in the law, a magistrate must e1hibit that hallmar) of %udicial tem"erament of utmost sobriety and self$restraint which are indis"ensable 6ualities of e#ery %udge.XGY es"ondent %udge himself has characteri?ed this incident as a @"etty disturbanceA and he should not ha#e allowed himself to be annoyed to a "oint that he would e#en waste #aluable court time and resources on a tri#ial matter. -s for the a""ro"riate "enalty to be im"osed, we note that this is not the first time res"ondent %udge was charged with gra#e abuse of authority in connection with his misuse of his contem"t "ower. +n -.&. Bo. TJ$H:$7F;8 entitled Panaligan #. +bay,X:Y the Court in its ,ecision dated June 87, 8HH: resol#ed to im"ose a fine of PG,HHH.HH on res"ondent %udge for im"ro"erly citing therein com"lainant for contem"t and ordering his detention without sufficient legal basis. !e was warned not to re"eat the same or similar offense, lest a more se#ere "enalty shall be im"osed. +n &acrohon #. +bay,X;Y res"ondent %udge was also found guilty of the same offense and ordered to "ay a fine of P8G,HHH.HH. +n the recent case of Bu(e? #. +bay,X>Y which in#ol#ed a #ery similar incident regarding inad#ertent usur"ation of res"ondent %udgeOs "ar)ing slot, the Court li)ewise found res"ondent %udge guilty of gra#e abuse of authority for citing com"lainant therein in contem"t of court without legal basis. +n Bu(e?, we ordered res"ondent %udge to "ay a fine in the amount of P=H,HHH.HH to be deducted from his retirement benefits, since said res"ondent %udge o"ted to a#ail of C"tional etirement under .-. Bo. F7H /as amended by .-. Bo. GHFG and P.,. Bo. 7=<>0 effecti#e -ugust 7>, 8HH;.

Considering that this is not the first time that res"ondent %udge committed the same offense and in Bu(e?, which had similar factual antecedents as the case at bar, the Court already saw fit to im"ose u"on him a fine in the amount of P=H,HHH.HH, it is "ro"er to im"ose on him the same "enalty in this case. 9!E E*C E, in #iew of the foregoing, res"ondent Judge *rancisco 5. +bay is found guilty of gra#e abuse of authority. !e is ordered to "ay a *+BE of *orty Thousand Pesos /P=H,HHH.HH0 to be deducted from his retirement benefits. 21. BIRAOGO V. COMMISSION OF 2'1' FACTS: President 5enigni Simeon -6uino +++ signed E1ecuti#e Crder Bo. 7 establishing the Phili""ine Truth Commission of 8H7H /Truth Commission0. The Phili""ine Truth Commission /PTC0 is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Cffice of the President with the "rimary tas) to in#estigate re"orts of graft and corru"tion committed by third$le#el "ublic officers and em"loyees, their co$"rinci"als, accom"lices and accessories during the "re#ious administration, and thereafter to submit its finding and recommendations to the President, Congress and the Cmbudsman. Though it has been described as an @inde"endent collegial body,A it is essentially an entity within the Cffice of the President Pro"er and sub%ect to his control. To accom"lish its tas), the PTC shall ha#e all the "owers of an in#estigati#e body under Section <;, Cha"ter F, 5oo) + of the -dministrati#e Code of 7F>;. +t is not, howe#er, a 6uasi$%udicial body as it cannot ad%udicate, arbitrate, resol#e, settle, or render awards in dis"utes between contending "arties. -ll it can do is gather, collect and assess e#idence of graft and corru"tion and ma)e recommendations. +t may ha#e sub"oena "owers but it has no "ower to cite "eo"le in contem"t, much less order their arrest. -lthough it is a fact$finding body, it cannot determine from such facts if "robable cause e1ists as to warrant the filing of an information in our courts of law. Beedless to state, it cannot im"ose criminal, ci#il or administrati#e "enalties or sanctions. Truth commissions ha#e been described as bodies that share the following characteristics. /70 they e1amine only "ast e#ents4 /80 they in#estigate "atterns of abuse committed o#er a "eriod of time, as o""osed to a "articular e#ent4 /<0 they are tem"orary bodies that finish their wor) with the submission of a re"ort containing conclusions and recommendations4 and /=0 they are officially sanctioned, authori?ed or em"owered by the State. CommissionOs members are usually em"owered to conduct research, su""ort #ictims, and "ro"ose "olicy recommendations to "re#ent recurrence of crimes. Through their in#estigations, the commissions may aim to disco#er and learn more PHILIPPINE TRUTH

about "ast abuses, or formally ac)nowledge them. They may aim to "re"are the way for "rosecutions and recommend institutional reforms. Thus, their main goals range from retribution to reconciliation. ISSUE: 9hether or not the "etitioners ha#e the legal standing to file their res"ecti#e "etitions and 6uestion E1ecuti#e Crder Bo. 7 HELD:Res. Petitioners$legislatorsOs "etition "rimarily in#o)es usur"ation of the "ower of the Congress as a body to which they belong as members. This certainly %ustifies their resol#e to ta)e the cudgels for Congress as an institution and "resent the com"laints on the usur"ation of their "ower and rights as members of the legislature before the Court. To the e1tent the "owers of Congress are im"aired, so is the "ower of each member thereof, since his office confers a right to "artici"ate in the e1ercise of the "owers of that institution. -n act of the E1ecuti#e which in%ures the institution of Congress causes a deri#ati#e but nonetheless substantial in%ury, which can be 6uestioned by a member of Congress. +n such a case, any member of Congress can ha#e a resort to the courts. +ndeed, legislators ha#e a legal standing to see to it that the "rerogati#e, "owers and "ri#ileges #ested by the Constitution in their office remain in#iolate. Thus, they are allowed to 6uestion the #alidity of any official action which, to their mind, infringes on their "rerogati#es as legislators. 9ith regard to 5iraogo, the CS2 argues that, as a ta1"ayer, he has no standing to 6uestion the creation of the PTC and the budget for its o"erations. +t em"hasi?es that the funds to be used for the creation and o"eration of the commission are to be ta)en from those funds already a""ro"riated by Congress. Thus, the allocation and disbursement of funds for the commission will not entail congressional action but will sim"ly be an e1ercise of the PresidentOs "ower o#er contingent funds. -s correctly "ointed out by the CS2, 5iraogo has not shown that he sustained, or is in danger of sustaining, any "ersonal and direct in%ury attributable to the im"lementation of E1ecuti#e Crder Bo. 7. Bowhere in his "etition is an assertion of a clear right that may %ustify his clamor for the Court to e1ercise %udicial "ower and to wield the a1e o#er "residential issuances in defense of the Constitution. The Court, howe#er, finds reason in 5iraogoOs assertion that the "etition co#ers matters of transcendental im"ortance to %ustify the e1ercise of %urisdiction by the Court. There are constitutional issues in the "etition which deser#e the attention of this Court in #iew of their seriousness, no#elty and weight as "recedents. 9here the issues are of transcendental and "aramount im"ortance not only to the "ublic but also to the 5ench and the 5ar, they

should be resol#ed for the guidance of all. The Court ta)es cogni?ance of the "etition not due to o#erwhelming "olitical undertones that clothe the issue in the eyes of the "ublic, but because the Court stands firm in its oath to "erform its constitutional duty to settle legal contro#ersies with o#erreaching significance to society. ISSUE: 9hether or not E1ecuti#e Crder Bo. 7 #iolates the "rinci"le of se"aration of "owers by usur"ing the "owers of Congress to create and to a""ro"riate funds for "ublic offices, agencies and commissions4 ,oes the creation of the PTC fall within the ambit of the "ower to reorgani?e as e1"ressed in Section <7 of the e#ised -dministrati#e CodeK ISSUE: Section <7 of the e#ised -dministrati#e Code contem"lates @reorgani?ationA as limited by the following functional and structural lines. /70 restructuring the internal organi?ation of the Cffice of the President Pro"er by abolishing, consolidating or merging units thereof or transferring functions from one unit to another4 /80 transferring any function under the Cffice of the President to any other ,e"artmentI-gency or #ice #ersa4 or /<0 transferring any agency under the Cffice of the President to any other ,e"artmentI-gency or #ice #ersa. Clearly, the "ro#ision refers to reduction of "ersonnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. These "oint to situations where a body or an office is already e1istent but a modification or alteration thereof has to be effected. The creation of an office is nowhere mentioned, much less en#isioned in said "ro#ision. -ccordingly, the answer to the 6uestion is in the negati#e. To say that the PTC is borne out of a restructuring of the Cffice of the President under Section <7 is a mis"laced su""osition, e#en in the "lainest meaning attributable to the term @restructureAZ an @alteration of an e1isting structure.A E#idently, the PTC was not "art of the structure of the Cffice of the President "rior to the enactment of E1ecuti#e Crder Bo. 7. The President, sub%ect to the "olicy in the E1ecuti#e Cffice and in order to achie#e sim"licity, economy and efficiency, shall ha#e the continuing authority to reorgani?e the administrati#e structure of the Cffice of the President. *or this "ur"ose, he may transfer the functions of other ,e"artments or -gencies to the Cffice of the President. eorgani?ation in#ol#es the reduction of "ersonnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. +t ta)es "lace when there is an alteration of the e1isting structure of go#ernment offices or units therein, including the lines of control, authority and res"onsibility between them. +n the same #ein, the creation of the PTC is not %ustified by the PresidentOs "ower of control. Control is essentially the "ower to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the "erformance of his duties and to substitute the %udgment of the former with that of the latter.

Clearly, the "ower of control is entirely different from the "ower to create "ublic offices. The former is inherent in the E1ecuti#e, while the latter finds basis from either a #alid delegation from Congress, or his inherent duty to faithfully e1ecute the laws. The creation of the PTC finds %ustification under Section 7;, -rticle 3++ of the Constitution, im"osing u"on the President the duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully e1ecuted. Section 7; reads. Section 7;. The President shall ha#e control of all the e1ecuti#e de"artments, bureaus, and offices. !e shall ensure that the laws be faithfully e1ecuted. The PresidentOs "ower to conduct in#estigations to aid him in ensuring the faithful e1ecution of laws Z in this case, fundamental laws on "ublic accountability and trans"arency Z is inherent in the PresidentOs "owers as the Chief E1ecuti#e. That the authority of the President to conduct in#estigations and to create bodies to e1ecute this "ower is not e1"licitly mentioned in the Constitution or in statutes does not mean that he is bereft of such authority. The "owers of the President are not limited to those s"ecific "owers under the Constitution. Cne of the recogni?ed "owers of the President granted "ursuant to this constitutionally$mandated duty is the "ower to create ad hoc committees. This flows from the ob#ious need to ascertain facts and determine if laws ha#e been faithfully e1ecuted. The "ur"ose of allowing ad hoc in#estigating bodies to e1ist is to allow an in6uiry into matters which the President is entitled to )now so that he can be "ro"erly ad#ised and guided in the "erformance of his duties relati#e to the e1ecution and enforcement of the laws of the land. There being no changes in the go#ernment structure, the Court is not inclined to declare such e1ecuti#e "ower as non$ e1istent %ust because the direction of the "olitical winds ha#e changed. Cn the charge that E1ecuti#e Crder Bo. 7 transgresses the "ower of Congress to a""ro"riate funds for the o"eration of a "ublic office, suffice it to say that there will be no a""ro"riation but only an allotment or allocations of e1isting funds already a""ro"riated. -ccordingly, there is no usur"ation on the "art of the E1ecuti#e of the "ower of Congress to a""ro"riate funds. *urther, there is no need to s"ecify the amount to be earmar)ed for the o"eration of the commission because, in the words of the Solicitor 2eneral, whate#er funds the Congress has "ro#ided for the Cffice of the President will be the #ery source of the funds for the commission. &oreo#er, since the amount that would be allocated to the PTC shall be sub%ect to e1isting auditing rules and regulations, there is no im"ro"riety in the funding. ISSUE:

whether or not E1ecuti#e Crder Bo. 7 su""lants the "owers of the Cmbudsman and the ,CJ HELD: The PresidentOs "ower to conduct in#estigations to ensure that laws are faithfully e1ecuted is well recogni?ed. -s the Chief E1ecuti#e, the "resident re"resents the go#ernment as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and em"loyees of his de"artment. !e has the authority to directly assume the functions of the e1ecuti#e de"artment. +n#o)ing this authority, the President constituted the PTC to "rimarily in#estigate re"orts of graft and corru"tion and to recommend the a""ro"riate action. Bo 6uasi$%udicial "owers ha#e been #ested in the said body as it cannot ad%udicate rights of "ersons who come before it. \uasi$%udicial "owers in#ol#e the "ower to hear and determine 6uestions of fact to which the legislati#e "olicy is to a""ly and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. +n sim"ler terms, %udicial discretion is in#ol#ed in the e1ercise of these 6uasi$%udicial "ower, such that it is e1clusi#ely #ested in the %udiciary and must be clearly authori?ed by the legislature in the case of administrati#e agencies. *act$finding is not ad%udication and it cannot be li)ened to the %udicial function of a court of %ustice, or e#en a 6uasi$%udicial agency or office. The function of recei#ing e#idence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a contro#ersy is not a %udicial function. To be considered as such, the act of recei#ing e#idence and arri#ing at factual conclusions in a contro#ersy must be accom"anied by the authority of a""lying the law to the factual conclusions to the end that the contro#ersy may be decided or resol#ed authoritati#ely, finally and definiti#ely, sub%ect to a""eals or modes of re#iew as may be "ro#ided by law. E#en res"ondents themsel#es admit that the commission is bereft of any 6uasi$%udicial "ower. Contrary to "etitionersO a""rehension, the PTC will not su""lant the Cmbudsman or the ,CJ or erode their res"ecti#e "owers. +f at all, the in#estigati#e function of the commission will com"lement those of the two offices. The recommendation to "rosecute is but a conse6uence of the o#erall tas) of the commission to conduct a fact$finding in#estigation. The actual "rosecution of sus"ected offenders, much less ad%udication on the merits of the charges against them, is certainly not a function gi#en to the commission. The "hrase, @when in the course of its in#estigation,A under Section 8/g0, highlights this fact and gi#es credence to a contrary inter"retation from that of the "etitioners. The function of determining "robable cause for the filing of the a""ro"riate com"laints before the courts remains to be with the ,CJ and the Cmbudsman.

-t any rate, the CmbudsmanOs "ower to in#estigate under .-. Bo. :;;H is not e1clusi#e but is shared with other similarly authori?ed go#ernment agencies such as the PC22 and %udges of munici"al trial courts and munici"al circuit trial courts. The "ower to conduct "reliminary in#estigation on charges against "ublic em"loyees and officials is li)ewise concurrently shared with the ,e"artment of Justice. ,es"ite the "assage of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code in 7FF7, the Cmbudsman retains concurrent %urisdiction with the Cffice of the President and the local Sanggunians to in#estigate com"laints against local electi#e officials. -lso, E1ecuti#e Crder Bo. 7 cannot contra#ene the "ower of the Cmbudsman to in#estigate criminal cases under Section 7G /70 of .-. Bo. :;;H, which states. /70 +n#estigate and "rosecute on its own or on com"laint by any "erson, any act or omission of any "ublic officer or em"loyee, office or agency, when such act or omission a""ears to be illegal, un%ust, im"ro"er or inefficient. +t has "rimary %urisdiction o#er cases cogni?able by the Sandiganbayan and, in the e1ercise of its "rimary %urisdiction, it may ta)e o#er, at any stage, from any in#estigatory agency of go#ernment, the in#estigation of such cases. The act of in#estigation by the Cmbudsman as enunciated abo#e contem"lates the conduct of a "reliminary in#estigation or the determination of the e1istence of "robable cause. This is categorically out of the PTCOs s"here of functions. +ts "ower to in#estigate is limited to obtaining facts so that it can ad#ise and guide the President in the "erformance of his duties relati#e to the e1ecution and enforcement of the laws of the land. +n this regard, the PTC commits no act of usur"ation of the CmbudsmanOs "rimordial duties. The same holds true with res"ect to the ,CJ. +ts authority under Section < /80, Cha"ter 7, Title +++, 5oo) +3 in the e#ised -dministrati#e Code is by no means e1clusi#e and, thus, can be shared with a body li)ewise tas)ed to in#estigate the commission of crimes. *inally, nowhere in E1ecuti#e Crder Bo. 7 can it be inferred that the findings of the PTC are to be accorded conclusi#eness. +ts findings would, at best, be recommendatory in nature. -nd being so, the Cmbudsman and the ,CJ ha#e a wider degree of latitude to decide whether or not to re%ect the recommendation. These offices, therefore, are not de"ri#ed of their mandated duties but will instead be aided by the re"orts of the PTC for "ossible indictments for #iolations of graft laws. ISSUE: whether or not E1ecuti#e Crder Bo. 7 #iolates the e6ual "rotection clause

HELD: -lthough the "ur"ose of the Truth Commission falls within the in#estigati#e "ower of the President, the Court finds difficulty in u"holding the constitutionality of E1ecuti#e Crder Bo. 7 in #iew of its a""arent transgression of the e6ual "rotection clause enshrined in Section 7, -rticle +++ /5ill of ights0 of the 7F>; Constitution. E6ual "rotection sim"ly re6uires that all "ersons or things similarly situated should be treated ali)e, both as to rights conferred and res"onsibilities im"osed. +t re6uires "ublic bodies and institutions to treat similarly situated indi#iduals in a similar manner. The "ur"ose of the e6ual "rotection clause is to secure e#ery "erson within a stateOs %urisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the e1"ress terms of a statue or by its im"ro"er e1ecution through the stateOs duly constituted authorities. +n other words, the conce"t of e6ual %ustice under the law re6uires the state to go#ern im"artially, and it may not draw distinctions between indi#iduals solely on differences that are irrele#ant to a legitimate go#ernmental ob%ecti#e. The e6ual "rotection clause is aimed at all official state actions, not %ust those of the legislature. +ts inhibitions co#er all the de"artments of the go#ernment including the "olitical and e1ecuti#e de"artments, and e1tend to all actions of a state denying e6ual "rotection of the laws, through whate#er agency or whate#er guise is ta)en. +t, howe#er, does not re6uire the uni#ersal a""lication of the laws to all "ersons or things without distinction. 9hat it sim"ly re6uires is e6uality among e6uals as determined according to a #alid classification. +ndeed, the e6ual "rotection clause "ermits classification. Such classification, howe#er, to be #alid must "ass the test ofreasonableness. The test has four re6uisites. /70 The classification rests on substantial distinctions4 /80 +t is germane to the "ur"ose of the law4 /<0 +t is not limited to e1isting conditions only4 and /=0 +t a""lies e6ually to all members of the same class. Su"erficial differences do not ma)e for a #alid classification. *or a classification to meet the re6uirements of constitutionality, it must include or embrace all "ersons who naturally belong to the class. The classification will be regarded as in#alid if all the members of the class are not similarly treated, both as to rights conferred and obligations im"osed. +t is not necessary that the classification be made with absolute symmetry, in the sense that the members of the class should "ossess the same characteristics in e6ual degree. Substantial similarity will suffice4 and as long as this is achie#ed, all those co#ered by the classification are to be treated e6ually. The mere fact that an indi#idual belonging to a class differs from the other members, as long as that class is

substantially distinguishable from all others, does not %ustify the non$a""lication of the law to him. The classification must not be based on e1isting circumstances only, or so constituted as to "reclude addition to the number included in the class. +t must be of such a nature as to embrace all those who may thereafter be in similar circumstances and conditions. +t must not lea#e out or @underincludeA those that should otherwise fall into a certain classification. The e6ual "rotection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows classification. Classification in law, as in the other de"artments of )nowledge or "ractice, is the grou"ing of things in s"eculation or "ractice because they agree with one another in certain "articulars. - law is not in#alid because of sim"le ine6uality. The #ery idea of classification is that of ine6uality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of ine6uality in no manner determines the matter of constitutionality. -ll that is re6uired of a #alid classification is that it be reasonable, which means that the classification should be based on substantial distinctions which ma)e for real differences, that it must be germane to the "ur"ose of the law4 that it must not be limited to e1isting conditions only4 and that it must a""ly e6ually to each member of the class. This Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or distinction is based on a reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not "al"ably arbitrary. -""lying these "rece"ts to this case, E1ecuti#e Crder Bo. 7 should be struc) down as #iolati#e of the e6ual "rotection clause. The clear mandate of the en#isioned truth commission is to in#estigate and find out the truth concerning the re"orted cases of graft and corru"tion during the "re#ious administration only. The intent to single out the "re#ious administration is "lain, "atent and manifest. &ention of it has been made in at least three "ortions of the 6uestioned e1ecuti#e order. S"ecifically, these are. 9!E E-S, there is a need for a se"arate body dedicated solely to in#estigating and finding out the truth concerning the re"orted cases of graft and corru"tion during the "re#ious administration, and which will recommend the "rosecution of the offenders and secure %ustice for all4 SECT+CB 7. Creation of a Commission. Z There is hereby created the P!+'+PP+BE T JT! CC&&+SS+CB, hereinafter referred to as the @CC&&+SS+CB,A which shall "rimarily see) and find the truth on, and toward this end, in#estigate re"orts of graft and corru"tion of such scale and magnitude that shoc) and offend the moral and ethical sensibilities of the "eo"le, committed by "ublic officers and em"loyees, their co$"rinci"als, accom"lices and accessories from the "ri#ate sector, if any, during the "re#ious administration4 and thereafter recommend the a""ro"riate action or measure to be ta)en thereon to

ensure that the full measure of %ustice shall be ser#ed without fear or fa#or. SECT+CB 8. Powers and *unctions. Z The Commission, which shall ha#e all the "owers of an in#estigati#e body under Section <;, Cha"ter F, 5oo) + of the -dministrati#e Code of 7F>;, is "rimarily tas)ed to conduct a thorough fact$finding in#estigation of re"orted cases of graft and corru"tion referred to in Section 7, in#ol#ing third le#el "ublic officers and higher, their co$"rinci"als, accom"lices and accessories from the "ri#ate sector, if any, during the "re#ious administration and thereafter submit its finding and recommendations to the President, Congress and the Cmbudsman. XEm"hases su""liedY +n this regard, it must be borne in mind that the -rroyo administration is but %ust a member of a class, that is, a class of "ast administrations. +t is not a class of its own. Bot to include "ast administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the e6ual "rotection clause cannot sanction. Such discriminating differentiation clearly re#erberates to label the commission as a #ehicle for #indicti#eness and selecti#e retribution. The re"orts of wides"read corru"tion in the -rroyo administration cannot be ta)en as basis for distinguishing said administration from earlier administrations which were also blemished by similar wides"read re"orts of im"ro"riety. They are not inherent in, and do not inure solely to, the -rroyo administration. E1ecuti#e Crder Bo. 7 suffers from arbitrary classification. The PTC, to be true to its mandate of searching for the truth, must not e1clude the other "ast administrations. The PTC must, at least, ha#e the authority to in#estigate all "ast administrations. 9hile reasonable "rioriti?ation is "ermitted, it should not be arbitrary lest it be struc) down for being unconstitutional. 22. ATTY. ROMULO MACALINTAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL V. PRES.

Petitioner argues that PET is unconstitutional on the ground that Sec =, -rt 3++ of the Constitution does not "ro#ide for the creation of the PET, and it #iolates Sec 78, -rt 3+++ of the Constitution. The Solicitor 2eneral maintains that the constitution of the PET is on firm footing on the basis of the grant of authority to the Su"reme Court to be the sole %udge of all election contests for the President or 3ice$President under "ar ;, Sec =, -rt 3++ of the Constitution. ISSUE: 9hether or not PET is constitutional. 9hether or not PET e1ercises 6uasi$%udicial "ower. HELD: Res. The e1"licit reference of the &embers of the Constitutional Commission to a Presidential Electoral Tribunal, with *r. Joa6uin 5ernas categorically declaring that in crafting the last "aragra"h of Sec. =, -rt 3++ of the 7F>; Constitution, they @constitutionali?ed what was statutory.A Judicial "ower granted to the Su"reme Court by the same Constitution is "lenary. -nd under the doctrine of necessary im"lication, the additional %urisdiction bestowed by the last "aragra"h of Section =, -rticle 3++ of the Constitution to decide "residential and #ice$"residential elections contests includes the means necessary to carry it into effect. Bo. The traditional grant of %udicial "ower is found in Section 7, -rticle 3+++ of the Constitution which "ro#ides that the "ower @shall be #ested in one Su"reme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.A The set u" embodied in the Constitution and statutes characteri?e the resolution of electoral contests as essentially an e1ercise of %udicial "ower. 9hen the Su"reme Court, as PET, resol#es a "residential or #ice$"residential election contest, it "erforms what is essentially a %udicial "ower. The CC&E'EC, ! ET and SET are not, strictly and literally s"ea)ing, courts of law. -lthough not courts of law, they are, nonetheless, em"owered to resol#e election contests which in#ol#e, in essence, an e1ercise of %udicial "ower, because of the e1"licit constitutional em"owerment found in Section 8/80, -rticle +N$C /for the CC&E'EC0 and Section 7;, -rticle 3+ /for the Senate and !ouse Electoral Tribunals0 of the Constitution. SECTION 3 23. BENGZON V. DRILON FACTS: Cn 7G Jan 7FF8, some "ro#isions of the S"ecial Pro#ision for the Su"reme Court and the 'ower CourtOs 2eneral -""ro"riations were #etoed by the President because a resolution by the Court "ro#iding for a""ro"riations for retired %ustices has been enacted. The #etoed bill "ro#ided for the increase of the "ensions of the retired %ustices of the

FACTS: Par ;, Sec =, -rt 3++ of the 7F>; Constitution "ro#ides. @The Su"reme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole %udge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and 6ualifications of the President or 3ice$President, and may "romulgate its rules for the "ur"ose.A Sec 78, -rt. 3+++ of the Constitution "ro#ides. The &embers of the Su"reme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency "erforming 6uasi$%udicial or administrati#e functions. The case at bar is a motion for reconsideration filed by "etitioner of the SCOs decision dismissing the formerOs "etition and declaring the establishment of the res"ondent PET as constitutional.

Su"reme Court, and the Court of -""eals as well as members of the Constitutional Commission. ISSUE: 9hether or not the #eto of the President on that "ortion of the 2eneral -""ro"riations bill is constitutional. HELD: The Justices of the Court ha#e #ested rights to the accrued "ension that is due to them in accordance to e"ublic -ct 7;F;. The "resident has no "ower to set aside and o#erride the decision of the Su"reme Court neither does the "resident ha#e the "ower to enact or amend statutes "romulgated by her "redecessors much less to the re"eal of e1isting laws. The #eto is unconstitutional since the "ower of the "resident to disa""ro#e any item or items in the a""ro"riations bill does not grant the authority to #eto "art of an item and to a""ro#e the remaining "ortion of said item. SECTION 4 24. LIM2ET2AI SONS MILLING INC. V. COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: Cn June 8<, 7F>>, Pedro e#illa, Jr., a licensed real estatebro)er was gi#en formal authority by 5P+ to sell the lot for P7,HHH.HH "er s6uare meter. The owners of the Phili""ine emnants concurred this arrangement. 5ro)er e#illa contacted -lfonso 'im of "etitioner com"any who agreed to buy the land. Cn July F, 7F>>, e#illa formally informed 5P+ that he had "rocured a buyer, herein "etitioner. Cn July 77, 7F>>, "etitionerMs officials, -lfonso 'im and -lbino 'im)et)ai, went to 5P+ to confirm the sale. 3ice$President &erlin -lbano and -sst. 3ice$President -romin entertained them. The "arties agreed that the lot would be sold at P7,HHH.HH "ers6uare meter to be "aid in cash. The authority to sell was on a first come, first ser#ed and non$e1clusi#e basis4 there is no dis"ute o#er "etitionerMs being the first comer and the buyer to be first ser#ed. -lfonso 'im then as)ed if it was "ossible to "ay on terms. The ban) officials stated that there was no harm in trying to as) for "ayment on terms because in "re#ious transactions, the same had been allowed. +t was the understanding, howe#er, that should the term "ayment be disa""ro#ed, then the "rice shall be "aid in cash. Two or three days later, "etitioner learned that its offer to "ay on terms had been fro?en. -lfonso 'im went to 5P+ on July 7>, 7F>> and tendered the full "ayment of P<<,HG:,HHH.HH to -lbano. The "ayment was refused because -lbano stated that the authority to sell that "articular "iece of "ro"erty in Pasig had been withdrawn from his unit. The same chec) was tendered to 5P+ 3ice$ President Belson 5ona who also refused to recei#e "ayment. -n action for s"ecific "erformance with damages was thereu"on filed on -ugust 8G, 7F>> by "etitioner against 5P+. +n the course of the trial, 5P+ informed the trial court that it had sold the "ro"erty under litigation to B5S on July 7=, 7F>F.

ISSUE: 9hether or not such contract is co#ered by the statute of frauds. HELD: +n the case at bench, the allegation that there was no concurrence of the offer and the acce"tance u"on the cause of the contract is belied by the testimony of the #ery 5P+ official with whom the contract was "erfected. -romin and -lbano concluded the sale for 5P+. The fact that the deed of sale still had to be signed and notari?ed does not mean that no contract had already been "erfected. sale of land is #alid regardless of the form it may ha#e been entered into. The re6uisite form under -rticle 7=G> of the Ci#il Code is merely for greater efficacy or con#enience and the failure to com"ly does not affect the #alidity and binding effect of the act between "arties. Therefore, such contract that was made constituted fraud and is co#ered by the statute of frauds. 5P+ should be held liable and can be sued for damages SECTION 24. DRILON V. LIM FACTS: Pursuant to Section 7>; of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code, the Secretary of Justice had, on a""eal to him of four oil com"anies and a ta1"ayer, declared Crdinance Bo. ;;F=, otherwise )nown as the &anila e#enue Code, null and #oid for non$com"liance with the "rescribed "rocedure in the enactment of ta1 ordinances and for containing certain "ro#isions contrary to law and "ublic "olicy. +n a "etition for certiorari filed by the City of &anila, the egional Trial Court of &anila re#o)ed the SecretaryOs resolution and sustained the ordinance, holding inter alia that the "rocedural re6uirements had been obser#ed. &ore im"ortantly, it declared Section 7>; of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code as unconstitutional because of its #esture in the Secretary of Justice of the "ower of control o#er local go#ernments in #iolation of the "olicy of local autonomy mandated in the Constitution and of the s"ecific "ro#ision therein conferring on the President of the Phili""ines only the "ower of su"er#ision o#er local go#ernments. The court cited the familiar distinction between control and su"er#ision, the first being @the "ower of an officer to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the "erformance of his duties and to substitute the %udgment of the former for the latter,A while the second is @the "ower of a su"erior officer to see to it that lower officers "erform their functions is accordance with law.A ISSUES: The issues in this case are /70 whether or not Section 7>; of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code is unconstitutional4 and /80 whether or not the Secretary of Justice can e1ercise control, rather than su"er#ision, o#er the local go#ernment

HELD: The %udgment of the lower court is re#ersed in so far as its declaration that Section 7>; of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code is unconstitutional but affirmed the said lower courtOs finding that the "rocedural re6uirements in the enactment of the &anila e#enue Code ha#e been obser#ed. Section 7>; authori?es the Secretary of Justice to re#iew only the constitutionality or legality of the ta1 ordinance and, if warranted, to re#o)e it on either or both of these grounds. 9hen he alters or modifies or sets aside a ta1 ordinance, he is not also "ermitted to substitute his own %udgment for the %udgment of the local go#ernment that enacted the measure. Secretary ,rilon did set aside the &anila e#enue Code, but he did not re"lace it with his own #ersion of what the Code should be. -n officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. +t they are not followed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re$done by his subordinate or he may e#en decide to do it himself. Su"er#ision does not co#er such authority. The su"er#isor or su"erintendent merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor does he ha#e the discretion to modify or re"lace them. +n the o"inion of the Court, Secretary ,rilon did "recisely this, and no more nor less than this, and so "erformed an act not of control but of mere su"er#ision. egarding the issue on the non$com"liance with the "rescribed "rocedure in the enactment of the &anila e#enue Code, the Court carefully e1amined e#ery e1hibit and agree with the trial court that the "rocedural re6uirements ha#e indeed been obser#ed. The only e1ce"tions are the "osting of the ordinance as a""ro#ed but this omission does not affect its #alidity, considering that its "ublication in three successi#e issues of a news"a"er of general circulation will satisfy due "rocess. 2 . LARRANAGA V. COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: Petitioner 'arranaga was charged with two counts of )idna""ing and serious illegal detention before the TC of Cebu City. !e was arrested and was detained without the filing of the necessary +nformation and warrant of arrest. The "etitioner alleged that he must be released and be sub%ect to a "reliminary in#estigation. !owe#er "ending the resolution of the Court for the "etition for certiorari, "rohibition and mandamus with writs of "reliminary "rohibitory and mandatory in%unction filed by the "etitioner, TC %udge issued a warrant of arrest directed to the "etitioner. ISSUE: 7. 9hether "etitioner is entitled to a regular "reliminary in#estigation. 8.9hether "etitioner should be released from detention "ending the in#estigation.

HELD: 7.Res. Cur ruling is not altered by the fact that "etitioner has been arraigned on Cctober 7=, 7FF;. The rule is that the right to "reliminary in#estigation is wai#ed when the accused fails to in#o)e it before or at the time of entering a "lea at arraignment. Petitioner, in this case, has been acti#ely and consistently demanding a regular "reliminary in#estigation e#en before he was charged in court. -lso, "etitioner refused to enter a "lea during the arraignment because there was a "ending case in this Court regarding his right to a#ail of a regular "reliminary in#estigation. Clearly, the acts of "etitioner and his counsel are inconsistent with a wai#er. Preliminary in#estigation is "art of "rocedural due "rocess. +t cannot be wai#ed unless the wai#er a""ears to be clear and informed. 8.Bo. The filing of charges and the issuance of the warrant of arrest against a "erson in#alidly detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least deny him the right to be released because of such defect. The original warrantless arrest of the "etitioner was doubtless illegal. Be#ertheless, the egional Trial Court lawfully ac6uired %urisdiction o#er the "erson of the "etitioner by #irtue of the warrant of arrest it issued on -ugust 8:, 7FF<against him and the other accused in connection with the ra"e$slay cases. +t was belated, to be sure, but it was nonetheless legal. 2!. FIRST LEPANTO CERAMICS INC. V. COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: 7. Petitioner assailed the conflicting "ro#isions of 5.P. 78F, EC 88: /-rt. >80 and a circular, 7$F7 issued by the Su"reme Court which deals with the %urisdiction of courts for a""eal of cases decided by 6uasi$%udicial agencies such as the 5oard of +n#estments /5C+0. 8. 5C+ granted "etitioner *irst 'e"anto Ceramics, +nc.Ms a""lication to amend its 5C+ certificate of registration by changing the sco"e of its registered "roduct from Qgla?ed floor tilesQ to Qceramic tiles.Q C""ositor &ariwasa filed a motion for reconsideration of the said 5C+ decision while o""ositor *il$!is"ano Ceramics, +nc. did not mo#e to reconsider the same nor a""eal therefrom. Soon rebuffed in its bid for reconsideration, &ariwasa filed a "etition for re#iew with C-. =. C- tem"orarily restrained the 5C+ from im"lementing its decision. The T C la"sed by its own terms twenty /8H0 days after its issuance, without res"ondent court issuing any "reliminary in%unction. G. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss and to lift the restraining order contending that C- does not ha#e %urisdiction o#er the 5C+ case, since the same is e1clusi#ely #ested with the Su"reme Court "ursuant

to -rticle >8 of the Cmnibus +n#estments Code of 7F>;. :. Petitioner argued that the Judiciary eorgani?ation -ct of 7F>H or 5.P. 78F and Circular 7$F7, QPrescribing the ules 2o#erning -""eals to the Court of -""eals from a *inal Crder or ,ecision of the Court of Ta1 -""eals and \uasi$Judicial -genciesQ cannot be the basis of &ariwasaMs a""eal to res"ondent court because the "rocedure for a""eal laid down therein runs contrary to -rticle >8 of E.C. 88:, which "ro#ides that a""eals from decisions or orders of the 5C+ shall be filed directly with the Su"reme Court. ;. 9hile &ariwasa maintains that whate#er inconsistency there may ha#e been between 5.P. 78F and -rticle >8 of E.C. 88: on the 6uestion of #enue for a""eal, has already been resol#ed by Circular 7$ F7 of the Su"reme Court, which was "romulgated on *ebruary 8;, 7FF7 or four /=0 years after E.C. 88: was enacted. ISSUE: 9hether or not the Court of -""eals has %urisdiction o#er the case HELD: RES. Circular 7$F7 effecti#ely re"ealed or su"erseded -rticle >8 of E.C. 88: insofar as the manner and method of enforcing the right to a""eal from decisions of the 5C+ are concerned. -""eals from decisions of the 5C+, which by statute was "re#iously allowed to be filed directly with the Su"reme Court, should now be brought to the Court of -""eals. 2#. ARUELO V. COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: -ruelo claims that in election contests, the CC&E'EC ules of Procedure gi#es the res"ondent therein only fi#e days from recei"t of summons within which to file his answer to the "etition /Part 3+, ule <G, Sec. ;0 and that this fi#e$day "eriod had la"sed when 2atchalian filed his answer. -ccording to him, the filing of motions to dismiss and motions for bill of "articulars is "rohibited by Section 7, ule 7<, Part +++ of the CC&E'EC ules of Procedure4 hence, the filing of said "leadings did not sus"end the running of the fi#e$day "eriod, or gi#e 2atchalian a new fi#e$day "eriod to file his answer. ISSUE: whether the trial court committed gra#e abuse of discretion amounting to lac) or e1cess of %urisdiction when it allowed res"ondent 2atchalian to file his "leading beyond the fi#e$day "eriod "rescribed in Section 7, ule 7<, Part +++ of the CC&E'EC ules of Procedure HELD:

Bo. Petitioner filed the election "rotest with the egional Trial Court, whose "roceedings are go#erned by the e#ised ules of Court. Section 7, ule 7<, Part +++ of the CC&E'EC ules of Procedure is not a""licable to "roceedings before the regular courts. -s e1"ressly mandated by Section 8, ule 7, Part + of the CC&E'EC ules of Procedure, the filing of motions to dismiss and bill of "articulars, shall a""ly only to "roceedings brought before the CC&E'EC. Section 8, ule 7, Part + "ro#ides. Sec. 8. -""licability P These rules, e1ce"t Part 3+, shall a""ly to all actions and "roceedings brought before the Commission. Part 3+ shall a""ly to election contests and 6uo warranto cases cogni?able by courts of general or limited %urisdiction. +t must be noted that nowhere in Part 3+ of the CC&E'EC ules of Procedure is it "ro#ided that motions to dismiss and bill of "articulars are not allowed in election "rotests or 6uo warranto cases "ending before the regular courts. Constitutionally s"ea)ing, the CC&E'EC cannot ado"t a rule "rohibiting the filing of certain "leadings in the regular courts. The "ower to "romulgate rules concerning "leadings, "ractice and "rocedure in all courts is #ested on the Su"reme Court /Constitution, -rt 3+++, Sec. G XGY0. 2%. JAVELLANA VS. DILG FACTS: This "etition for re#iew on certiorari in#ol#es the right of a "ublic official to engage inthe "ractice of his "rofession while em"loyed in the 2o#ernment. -ttorney Erwin 5. Ja#ellanawas an elected City Councilor of 5ago City, Begros Cccidental. City Engineer Ernesto C.,i#inagracia filed -dministrati#e Case Bo. C$7H$FH against Ja#ellana for. /70 #iolation of ,e"artment of 'ocal 2o#ernment /,'20 &emorandum Circular Bo. >H$<> dated June 7H, 7F>Hin relation to ,'2 &emorandum Circular Bo. ;=$ G> and of Section ;, "aragra"h b, Bo. 8 of e"ublic -ct Bo. :;7<, otherwise )nown as the QCode of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Cfficials and Em"loyees,Q and /80 for o""ression, misconduct and abuse of authority.,i#inagraciaMs com"laint alleged that Ja#ellana, an incumbent member of the City Council or Sanggunian Panglungsod of 5ago City, and a lawyer by "rofession, has continuously engaged inthe "ractice of law without securing authority for that "ur"ose from the egional ,irector,,e"artment of 'ocal 2o#ernment, as re6uired by ,'2 &emorandum Circular Bo. >H$<> inrelation to ,'2 &emorandum Circular Bo. ;=$G> of the same de"artment.Cn the other hand, Ja#ellana filed a &otion to ,ismiss the administrati#e case againsthim on the ground mainly that ,'2 &emorandum Circulars Bos. >H$<> and FH$>7 areunconstitutional because the Su"reme Court has the sole and e1clusi#e authority to regulate the "ractice of law.

HELD: PetitionerMs contention that Section FH of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code of 7FF7 and ,'2&emorandum Circular Bo. FH$>7 #iolate -rticle 3+++, Section G of the Constitution iscom"letely off tangent. Beither the statute nor the circular trenches u"on the Su"reme CourtMs "ower and authority to "rescribe rules on the "ractice of law. The 'ocal 2o#ernment Code and,'2 &emorandum Circular Bo. FH$>7 sim"ly "rescribe rules of conduct for "ublic officials toa#oid conflicts of interest between the discharge of their "ublic duties and the "ri#ate "ractice of their "rofession, in those instances where the law allows it.Section FH of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code does not discriminate against lawyers anddoctors. +t a""lies to all "ro#incial and munici"al officials in the "rofessions or engaged in anyoccu"ation. Section FH e1"licitly "ro#ides that sanggunian members Qmay "ractice their "rofessions, engage in any occu"ation, or teach in schools e1"ect during session hours.Q +f thereare some "rohibitions that a""ly "articularly to lawyers, it is because of all the "rofessions, the "ractice of law is more li)ely than others to relate to, or affect, the area of "ublic ser#ice. 2&. PETITION FOR RECOGNITION OF THE E4EMPTION OF THE GSIS FROM PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES$ AM NO. '%525'15' &ay the legislature e1em"t the 2o#ernment Ser#ice +nsurance System /2S+S0 from legal fees im"osed by the Court on go#ernment$owned and controlled cor"orations and local go#ernment unitsK This is the central issue in this administrati#e matter. The 2S+S see)s e1em"tion from the "ayment of legal fees im"osed on go#ernment$owned or controlled cor"orations under Section 88,X7Y ule 7=7 /'egal *ees0 of the ules of Court. The said "ro#ision states. SEC. 88. 2o#ernment e1em"t. Z The e"ublic of the Phili""ines, its agencies and instrumentalities are e1em"t from "aying the legal fees "ro#ided in this ule. 'ocal go#ernment cor"orations andgo#ernment$owned or controlled cor"orations with or without inde"endent charter are not e1em"t from "aying such fees. !owe#er, all court actions, criminal or ci#il, instituted at the instance of the "ro#incial, city or munici"al treasurer or assessor under Sec. 8>H of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code of 7FF7 shall be e1em"t from the "ayment of court and sheriffOs fees. /em"hasis su""lied0 The 2S+S anchors its "etition on Section <F of its charter, -X8Y >8F7 /The 2S+S -ct of 7FF;0. SEC. <F. E1em"tion from Ta1, 'egal Process and 'ien. Z +t is hereby declared to be the "olicy of the State that the actuarial sol#ency of the funds of the 2S+S shall be "reser#ed and maintained at all times and that contribution rates necessary to sustain the benefits under this -ct shall be )e"t as low as

"ossible in order not to burden the members of the 2S+S and their em"loyers.Ta1es im"osed on the 2S+S tend to im"air the actuarial sol#ency of its funds and increase the contribution rate necessary to sustain the benefits of this -ct. -ccordingly, notwithstanding any laws to the contrary, the 2S+S, its assets, re#enues including accruals thereto, and benefits "aid, shall be e1em"t from all ta1es, assessments, fees, charges or duties of all )inds. These e1em"tions shall continue unless e1"ressly and s"ecifically re#o)ed and any assessment against the 2S+S as of the a""ro#al of this -ct are hereby considered "aid. Conse6uently, all laws, ordinances, regulations, issuances, o"inions or %uris"rudence contrary to or in derogation of this "ro#ision are hereby deemed re"ealed, su"erseded and rendered ineffecti#e and without legal force and effect. &oreo#er, these e1em"tions shall not be affected by subse6uent laws to the contrary unless this section is e1"ressly, s"ecifically and categorically re#o)ed or re"ealed by law and a "ro#ision is enacted to substitute or re"lace the e1em"tion referred to herein as an essential factor to maintain and "rotect the sol#ency of the fund, notwithstanding and inde"endently of the guaranty of the national go#ernment to secure such sol#ency or liability. The funds andIor the "ro"erties referred to herein as well as the benefits, sums or monies corres"onding to the benefits under this -ct shall be e1em"t from attachment, garnishment, e1ecution, le#y or other "rocesses issued by the courts, 6uasi$%udicial agencies or administrati#e bodies including Commission on -udit /CC-0 disallowances and from all financial obligations of the members, including his "ecuniary accountability arising from or caused or occasioned by his e1ercise or "erformance of his official functions or duties, or incurred relati#e to or in connection with his "osition or wor) e1ce"t when his monetary liability, contractual or otherwise, is in fa#our of the 2S+S. /em"hasis su""lied0 The 2S+S then a#ers that courts still assess and collect legal fees in actions and "roceedings instituted by the 2S+S notwithstanding its e1em"tion from ta1es, assessments, fees, charges, or duties of all )inds under Section <F. *or this reason, the 2S+S urges this Court to recogni?e its e1em"tion from "ayment of legal fees. -ccording to the 2S+S, the "ur"ose of its e1em"tion is to "reser#e and maintain the actuarial sol#ency of its funds and to )ee" the contribution rates necessary to sustain the benefits "ro#ided by - >8F7 as low as "ossible. 'i)e the terms @ta1es,A @assessments,A @charges,A and @duties,A the term @feesA is used in the law in its generic and ordinary sense as any form of go#ernment im"osition. The word @fees,A defined as @chargeXsY fi1ed by law for ser#ices of "ublic officers or for the use of a "ri#ilege under control of go#ernment,A is 6ualified by the "hrase @of all )inds.AX<Y !ence, it includes the legal

fees "rescribed by this Court under &oreo#er, no distinction should be made the )ind of fees im"osed on the 2S+S or ability to "ay because the law itself distinguish based on those matters.

ule 7=7. based on the 2S+SO does not

acted u"on by the Cler) of Court, as E1$Cfficio Sheriff, without the corres"onding filing fee ha#ing been "aid and the recei"t thereof attached to the re6uestI"etition as "ro#ided for in Sec. ;/c0, of ule 7=7 of the ules of Court. <. Bo certificate of sale shall be issued in fa#or of the highest bidder until all fees "ro#ided for in the aforementioned sections and "aragra"h < of Section F /+0 of ule 7=7 of the ules of Court shall ha#e been "aid. The sheriff shall attach to the records of the case a certified co"y of the Cfficial ecei"t XC. .Y of the "ayment of the fees and shall note the C. . number in the du"licate of the Certificate of Sale attached to the records of the case. &oreo#er, to settle any 6ueries as to the status of e1em"tion from "ayment of doc)et and legal fees of go#ernment entities, Section 87, ule 7=7 of the ules of Court e1"licitly "ro#ides. SEC. 87. 2o#ernment e1em"t. Z The e"ublic of the Phili""ines, its agencies and instrumentalities are e1em"t from "aying the legal fees "ro#ided in this ule. 'ocal go#ernments and go#ernment$owned or controlled cor"orations with or without inde"endent charters are not e1em"t from "aying such fees.X77Y 111 111 111 The CS2 contends that there is nothing in Section <F of - >8F7 that e1em"ts the 2S+S from fees im"osed by the Court in connection with %udicial "roceedings. The e1em"tion of the 2S+S from @ta1es, assessments, fees, charges or duties of all )indsA is necessarily confined to those that do not in#ol#e "leading, "ractice and "rocedure. ule 7=7 has been "romulgated by the Court "ursuant to its e1clusi#e rule$ma)ing "ower under Section G/G0, -rticle 3+++ of the Constitution. Thus, it may not be amended or re"ealed by Congress. Cn this CourtOs order,X78Y the Cffice of the Chief -ttorney /CC-T0 submitted a re"ort and recommendationX7<Y on the "etition of the 2S+S and the comment of the CS2 thereon. -ccording to the CC-T, the claim of the 2S+S for e1em"tion from the "ayment of legal fees has no legal basis. ead in its "ro"er and full conte1t, Section <F intends to "reser#e the actuarial sol#ency of 2S+S funds by e1em"ting the 2S+S from go#ernment im"ositions through ta1es. 'egal fees im"osed under ule 7=7 are not ta1es. The CC-T further "osits that the 2S+S could not ha#e been e1em"ted by Congress from the "ayment of legal fees. Ctherwise, Congress would ha#e encroached on the rule$ma)ing "ower of this Court. -ccording to the CC-T, this is the second time that the 2S+S is see)ing e1em"tion from "aying legal fees.X7=Y The CC-T also "oints out that there are other go#ernment$owned or controlled cor"orations

The 2S+S argues that its e1em"tion from the "ayment of legal fees would not mean that - >8F7 is su"erior to the ules of Court. +t would merely show @deferenceA by the Court to the legislature as a co$e6ual branch.X=Y This deference will recogni?e the @com"elling and o#erridingA State interest in the "reser#ation of the actuarial sol#ency of the 2S+S for the benefit of its members.XGY The 2S+S further contends that the right of go#ernment wor)ers to social security is an as"ect of social %ustice. The right to social security is also guaranteed under -rticle 88 of the Jni#ersal ,eclaration of !uman ights and -rticle F of the +nternational Co#enant on Economic, Social and Cultural ights. The Court has the "ower to "romulgate rules concerning the "rotection and enforcement of constitutional rights, including the right to social security, but the 2S+S is not com"elling the Court to "romulgate such rules. The 2S+S is merely as)ing the Court to recogni?e and allow the e1ercise of the right of the 2S+S @to see) relief from the courts of %ustice sans "ayment of legal fees.AX:Y e6uired to comment on the 2S+SO "etition,X;Y the Cffice of the Solicitor 2eneral /CS20 maintains that the "etition should be denied.X>Y -ccording to the CS2, the issue of the 2S+SO e1em"tion from legal fees has been resol#ed by the issuance by then Court -dministrator Presbitero J. 3elasco, Jr.XFY of CC-X7HY Circular Bo. F<$8HH=. TC . -'' JJ,2ES, C'E VS C* CCJ T -B, CCJ T PE SCBBE' C* T!E &ET CPC'+T-B T +-' CCJ TS, &JB+C+P-' T +-' CCJ TS +B C+T+ES, &JB+C+P-' T +-' CCJ TS, &JB+C+P-' C+ CJ+T T +-' CCJ TS, S!- +O- C+ CJ+T CCJ TS SJ5JECT . E&+B,E CB T!E ST +CT C5SE 3-BCE C* -,&+B+ST -T+3E C+ CJ'- BC. <$ F> / e. Payment of ,oc)et and *iling *ees in E1tra$ Judicial *oreclosure04 SECT+CB 87, J'E 7=7 C* T!E J'ES C* CCJ T4 SECT+CB < C* P ES+,EBT+-' ,EC EE BC. <>G4 and -,&+B+ST -T+3E C+ CJ'BC. H;$FF / e. E1ercise of Jtmost Caution, Prudence, and Judiciousness in +ssuance of Tem"orary estraining Crders and 9rits of Preliminary +n%unctions0 Pursuant to the esolution of the Third ,i#ision of the Su"reme Court dated HG -"ril 8HH= and to gi#e notice to the concern raised by the X2S+SY to e1"edite e1tra%udicial foreclosure cases filed in court, we wish to remind all concerned XofY the "ertinent "ro#isions of -dministrati#e Circular Bo. <$F>, to wit. 8. Bo written re6uestI"etition for e1tra%udicial foreclosure of mortgages, real or chattel, shall be

and local go#ernment units which as)ed for e1em"tion from "aying legal fees citing "ro#isions in their res"ecti#e charters that are similar to Section <F of - >8F7.X7GY Thus, the CC-T recommends that the "etition of 2S+S be denied and the issue be settled once and for all for the guidance of the concerned "arties. *aced with the differing o"inions of the 2S+S, the CS2 and the CC-T, we now "roceed to "robe into the heart of this matter. may Congress e1em"t the 2S+S from the "ayment of legal feesK Bo. The 2S+S urges the Court to show deference to Congress by recogni?ing the e1em"tion of the 2S+S under Section <F of - >8F7 from legal fees im"osed under ule 7=7. Effecti#ely, the 2S+S wants this Court to recogni?e a "ower of Congress to re"eal, amend or modify a rule of "rocedure "romulgated by the Court. !owe#er, the Constitution and %uris"rudence do not sanction such #iew. ule 7=7 /on 'egal *ees0 of the ules of Court was "romulgated by this Court in the e1ercise of its rule$ ma)ing "owers under Section G/G0, -rticle 3+++ of the Constitution. Sec. G. The Su"reme Court shall ha#e the following "owers. 111 111 111 /G0 Promulgate rules concerning the "rotection and enforcement of constitutional rights, "leading, "ractice, and "rocedure in all courts, the admission to the "ractice of law, the +ntegrated 5ar, and legal assistance to the under"ri#ileged. Such rules shall "ro#ide a sim"lified and ine1"ensi#e "rocedure for the s"eedy dis"osition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substanti#e rights. ules of "rocedure of s"ecial courts and 6uasi$%udicial bodies shall remain effecti#e unless disa""ro#ed by the Su"reme Court. 111 111 1 1 1 /em"hasis su""lied0 The "ower to "romulgate rules concerning "leading, "ractice and "rocedure in all courts is a traditional "ower of this Court.X7:Y +t necessarily includes the "ower to address all 6uestions arising from or connected to the im"lementation of the said rules. The ules of Court was "romulgated in the e1ercise of the CourtOs rule$ma)ing "ower. +t is essentially "rocedural in nature as it does not create, diminish, increase or modify substanti#e rights. Corollarily, ule 7=7 is basically "rocedural. +t does not create or ta)e away a right but sim"ly o"erates as a means to im"lement an e1isting right. +n "articular, it functions to regulate the "rocedure of e1ercising a right of action and enforcing a cause of action.X7;Y +n "articular, it "ertains to the "rocedural re6uirement of "aying the "rescribed legal fees in the filing of a "leading or any a""lication that initiates an action or "roceeding.X7>Y

Clearly, therefore, the "ayment of legal fees under ule 7=7 of the ules of Court is an integral "art of the rules "romulgated by this Court "ursuant to its rule$ma)ing "ower under Section G/G0, -rticle 3+++ of the Constitution. +n "articular, it is "art of the rules concerning "leading, "ractice and "rocedure in courts. +ndeed, "ayment of legal /or doc)et0 fees is a %urisdictional re6uirement.X7FY +t is not sim"ly the filing of the com"laint or a""ro"riate initiatory "leading but the "ayment of the "rescribed doc)et fee that #ests a trial court with %urisdiction o#er the sub%ect$matter or nature of the action.X8HY -""ellate doc)et and other lawful fees are re6uired to be "aid within the same "eriod for ta)ing an a""eal.X87Y Payment of doc)et fees in full within the "rescribed "eriod is mandatory for the "erfection of an a""eal. X88Y 9ithout such "ayment, the a""ellate court does not ac6uire %urisdiction o#er the sub%ect matter of the action and the decision sought to be a""ealed from becomes final and e1ecutory.X8<Y -n interesting as"ect of legal fees is that which relates to indigent or "au"er litigants. +n "ro"er cases, courts may wai#e the collection of legal fees. This, the Court has allowed in Section 87, ule < and Section 7F, ule 7=7 of the ules of Court in recognition of the right of access to %ustice by the "oor under Section 77, -rticle +++ of the Constitution. X8=Y &indful that the rule with res"ect to indigent litigants should not be ironclad as it touches on the right of access to %ustice by the "oor,X8GY the Court ac)nowledged the e1em"tion from legal fees of indigent clients of the Public -ttorneyOs Cffice under Section 7:$, of the -dministrati#e Code of 7F>;, as amended by - F=H:.X8:Y This was not an abdication by the Court of its rule$ma)ing "ower but sim"ly a recognition of the limits of that "ower. +n "articular, it reflected a )een awareness that, in the e1ercise of its rule$ma)ing "ower, the Court may not dilute or defeat the right of access to %ustice of indigent litigants. The 2S+S cannot successfully in#o)e the right to social security of go#ernment em"loyees in su""ort of its "etition. +t is a cor"orate entity whose "ersonality is se"arate and distinct from that of its indi#idual members. The rights of its members are not its rights4 its rights, "owers and functions "ertain to it solely and are not shared by its members. +ts ca"acity to sue and bring actions under Section =7/g0 of - >8F7, the s"ecific "ower which in#ol#es the e1em"tion that it claims in this case, "ertains to it and not to its members. +ndeed, e#en the 2S+S ac)nowledges that, in claiming e1em"tion from the "ayment of legal fees, it is not as)ing that rules be made to enforce the right to social security of its members but that the Court recogni?e the alleged right of the 2S+S @to see) relief from the courts of %ustice sans "ayment of legal fees.AX8;Y !owe#er, the alleged right of the 2S+S does not e1ist. The "ayment of legal fees does not ta)e away the ca"acity of the 2S+S to sue. +t sim"ly o"erates as a means by which that ca"acity may be im"lemented.

Since the "ayment of legal fees is a #ital com"onent of the rules "romulgated by this Court concerning "leading, "ractice and "rocedure, it cannot be #alidly annulled, changed or modified by Congress. -s one of the safeguards of this CourtOs institutional inde"endence, the "ower to "romulgate rules of "leading, "ractice and "rocedure is now the CourtOs e1clusi#e domain. That "ower is no longer shared by this Court with Congress, much less with the E1ecuti#e.X8>Y S"ea)ing for the Court, then -ssociate Justice /now Chief Justice0 eynato S. Puno traced the history of the rule$ma)ing "ower of this Court and highlighted its e#olution and de#elo"ment in Echegaray #. Secretary of Justice.X8FY Jnder the 7F<G Constitution, the "ower of this Court to "romulgate rules concerning "leading, "ractice and "rocedure was granted but it a""eared to be co$ e1istent with legislati#e "ower for it was sub%ect to the "ower of Congress to re"eal, alter or su""lement. Thus, its Section 7<, -rticle 3+++ "ro#ides. Sec. 7<. The Su"reme Court shall ha#e the "ower to "romulgate rules concerning "leading, "ractice and "rocedure in all courts, and the admission to the "ractice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substanti#e rights. The e1isting laws on "leading, "ractice and "rocedure are hereby re"ealed as statutes, and are declared ules of Court, sub%ect to the "ower of the Su"reme Court to alter and modify the same. The Congress shall ha#e the "ower to re"eal, alter or su""lement the rules concerning "leading, "ractice and "rocedure, and the admission to the "ractice of law in the Phili""ines. The said "ower of Congress, howe#er, is not as absolute as it may a""ear on its surface. +n +n re Cunanan, Congress in the e1ercise of its "ower to amend rules of the Su"reme Court regarding admission to the "ractice of law, enacted the 5ar *lun)ers -ct of 7FG< which considered as a "assing grade, the a#erage of ;HW in the bar e1aminations after July =, 7F=: u" to -ugust 7FG7 and ;7W in the 7FG8 bar e1aminations. This Court struc) down the law as unconstitutional. +n his "onencia, &r. Justice ,io)no held that Q1 1 1 the dis"uted law is not a legislation4 it is a %udgment $ a %udgment "romulgated by this Court during the aforecited years affecting the bar candidates concerned4 and although this Court certainly can re#o)e these %udgments e#en now, for %ustifiable reasons, it is no less certain that only this Court, and not the legislati#e nor e1ecuti#e de"artment, that may do so. -ny attem"t on the "art of these de"artments would be a clear usur"ation of its function, as is the case with the law in 6uestion.Q The #enerable %urist further ruled. Q+t is ob#ious, therefore, that the ultimate "ower to grant license for the "ractice of law belongs e1clusi#ely to this Court, and the law "assed by

Congress on the matter is of "ermissi#e character, or as other authorities say, merely to fi1 the minimum conditions for the license.Q 5y its ruling, this Court 6ualified the absolutist tone of the "ower of Congress to Qre"eal, alter or su""lement the rules concerning "leading, "ractice and "rocedure, and the admission to the "ractice of law in the Phili""ines. The ruling of this Court in +n re Cunanan was not changed by the 7F;< Constitution. *or the 7F;< Constitution reiterated the "ower of this Court Qto "romulgate rules concerning "leading, "ractice and "rocedure in all courts, 1 1 1 which, howe#er, may be re"ealed, altered or su""lemented by the 5atasang Pambansa 1 1 1.Q &ore com"letely, Section G/80G of its -rticle N "ro#ided. 111 111 111

Sec. G. The Su"reme Court shall ha#e the following "owers. 111 111 111 /G0 Promulgate rules concerning "leading, "ractice, and "rocedure in all courts, the admission to the "ractice of law, and the integration of the 5ar, which, howe#er, may be re"ealed, altered, or su""lemented by the 5atasang Pambansa. Such rules shall "ro#ide a sim"lified and ine1"ensi#e "rocedure for the s"eedy dis"osition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substanti#e rights. 9ell worth noting is that the 7F;< Constitution further strengthened the inde"endence of the %udiciary by gi#ing to it the additional "ower to "romulgate rules go#erning the integration of the 5ar. The 7F>; Constitution molded an e#en stronger and more inde"endent %udiciary. -mong others, it enhanced the rule ma)ing "ower of this Court. +ts Section G/G0, -rticle 3+++ "ro#ides. 111 111 111 Section G. The Su"reme Court shall ha#e the following "owers. 111 111 111 /G0 Promulgate rules concerning the "rotection and enforcement of constitutional rights, "leading, "ractice and "rocedure in all courts, the admission to the "ractice of law, the +ntegrated 5ar, and legal assistance to the under"ri#ileged. Such rules shall "ro#ide a sim"lified and ine1"ensi#e "rocedure for the s"eedy dis"osition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substanti#e rights. ules of "rocedure of s"ecial courts and 6uasi$%udicial bodies shall remain effecti#e unless disa""ro#ed by the Su"reme Court. The rule ma)ing "ower of this Court was e1"anded. This Court for the first time was gi#en the "ower to "romulgate rules concerning the "rotection and

enforcement of constitutional rights. The Court was also granted for the first time the "ower to disa""ro#e rules of "rocedure of s"ecial courts and 6uasi$%udicial bodies. 5ut most im"ortantly, the 7F>; Constitution too) away the "ower of Congress to re"eal, alter, or su""lement rules concerning "leading, "ractice and "rocedure. +n fine, the "ower to "romulgate rules of "leading, "ractice and "rocedure is no longer shared by this Court with Congress, more so with the E1ecuti#e. The se"aration of "owers among the three co$e6ual branches of our go#ernment has erected an im"regnable wall that )ee"s the "ower to "romulgate rules of "leading, "ractice and "rocedure within the sole "ro#ince of this Court. The other branches tres"ass u"on this "rerogati#e if they enact laws or issue orders that effecti#ely re"eal, alter or modify any of the "rocedural rules "romulgated by this Court. 3iewed from this "ers"ecti#e, the claim of a legislati#e grant of e1em"tion from the "ayment of legal fees under Section <F of - >8F7 necessarily fails. Congress could not ha#e car#ed out an e1em"tion for the 2S+S from the "ayment of legal fees without transgressing another e6ually im"ortant institutional safeguard of the CourtOs inde"endence P fiscal autonomy.X<HY *iscal autonomy recogni?es the "ower and authority of the Court to le#y, assess and collect fees,X<7Y including legal fees. &oreo#er, legal fees under ule 7=7 ha#e two basic com"onents, the Judiciary ,e#elo"ment *und /J,*0 and the S"ecial -llowance for the Judiciary *und /S-J*0.X<8Y The laws which established the J,* and the S-J*X<<Y e1"ressly declare the identical "ur"ose of these funds to @guarantee the inde"endence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and "ublic "olicy.AX<=Y 'egal fees therefore do not only constitute a #ital source of the CourtOs financial resources but also com"rise an essential element of the CourtOs fiscal inde"endence. -ny e1em"tion from the "ayment of legal fees granted by Congress to go#ernment$ owned or controlled cor"orations and local go#ernment units will necessarily reduce the J,* and the S-J*. Jndoubtedly, such situation is constitutionally infirm for it im"airs the CourtOs guaranteed fiscal autonomy and erodes its inde"endence. 9!E E*C E, the "etition of the 2o#ernment Ser#ice +nsurance System for recognition of its e1em"tion from the "ayment of legal fees im"osed under Section 88 of ule 7=7 of the ules of Court on go#ernment$owned or controlled cor"orations and local go#ernment units is hereby ,EB+E,. The Cffice of the Court -dministrator is hereby directed to "rom"tly issue a circular to inform all courts in the Phili""ines of the im"ort of this resolution. SECTION !

3'. MACEDA VS VAS3UEZ FACTS: es"ondent Ba"oleon -biera of P-C filed a com"laint before the Cffice of the Cmbudsman against "etitioner TC Judge 5onifacio San? &aceda. es"ondent -biera alleged that "etitioner &aceda has falsified his certificate of ser#ice by certifying that all ci#il and criminal cases which ha#e been submitted for decision for a "eriod of FH days ha#e been determined and decided on or before January <7, 7F>F, when in truth and in fact, "etitioner &aceda )new that no decision had been rendered in G ci#il and 7H criminal cases that ha#e been submitted for decision. es"ondent -biera alleged that "etitioner &aceda falsified his certificates of ser#ice for 7; months. ISSUE: 9hether or not the in#estigation made by the Cmbudsman constitutes an encroachment into the SCOs constitutional duty of su"er#ision o#er all inferior courts HELD: - %udge who falsifies his certificate of ser#ice is administrati#ely liable to the SC for serious misconduct and under Sec. 7, ule 7=H of the ules of Court, and criminally liable to the State under the e#ised Penal Code for his felonious act. +n the absence of any administrati#e action ta)en against him by the Court with regard to his certificates of ser#ice, the in#estigation being conducted by the Cmbudsman encroaches into the CourtOs "ower of administrati#e su"er#ision o#er all courts and its "ersonnel, in #iolation of the doctrine of se"aration of "owers. -rt. 3+++, Sec. : of the Constitution e1clusi#ely #ests in the SC administrati#e su"er#ision o#er all courts and court "ersonnel, from the Presiding Justice of the C- down to the lowest munici"al trial court cler). 5y #irtue of this "ower, it is only the SC that can o#ersee the %udgesO and court "ersonnelOs com"liance with all laws, and ta)e the "ro"er administrati#e action against them if they commit any #iolation thereof. Bo other branch of go#ernment may intrude into this "ower, without running afoul of the doctrine of se"aration of "owers. 9here a criminal com"laint against a %udge or other court em"loyee arises from their administrati#e duties, the Cmbudsman must defer action on said com"laint and refer the same to the SC for determination whether said %udge or court em"loyee had acted within the sco"e of their administrati#e duties. 31. RA3UIZA V. JUDGE CASTANEDA JR. Petition to order the transfer of S"ecial Proceedings Bo. :>8= of the Court of *irst +nstance of Pam"anga /Testate Estate of the late ,on -lfonso Castell#i0 from the sala of res"ondent %udge, !on. &ariano Casta(eda to another branch and administrati#e com"laint against the same %udge for Q/70 #iolation of the -nti$2raft 'aw4 /80 rendering decision )nowing it

to be un%ust and illegal /<0 e1tortion by means of o""ression4 and /=0 bribery. -fter res"ondent %udge had filed his comment on said "etition and administrati#e com"laint, the Court resol#ed on -ugust <, 7F;: to refer the a administrati#e com"laint to Justice Jose 2. 5autista of the Court of -""eals for in#estigation, re"ort and recommendation. Jnder date of Se"tember 7, 7F;; and after duly hearing the "arties, Justice 5autista submitted the following re"ort. Com"lainant -ntonio 3. a6ui?a charges the dent !on. &ariano Casta(eda Jr., under four counts, namely. +. 3iolation of the -nti$2raft 'aw4 ++. ,ecision )nowing it to be un%ust and illegal4 +++. E1tortion by means of o""ression4 and +3. 5ribery. + P Jnder Count +. com"lainant charges res"ondent of gi#ing &rs. Bati#idad Castell#i a6ui?a and &rs. Bie#es Toledo$2o?un unwarranted benefits, ad#antage or "reference in #iolation of "aragra"h /e0, Section <, e"ublic -ct <H7F, otherwise )nown as the -nti$ 2raft 'aw. which reads. Sec. <. Corru"t "ractices of "ublic officers. +n addition to acts or omissions of "ublic officers already "enali?ed by e1isting law, the following shall constitute corru"t "ractices of any "ublic officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful. 111 111 111 /e0 Causing any undue in%ury to any "arty, including the 2o#ernment, or gi#ing any "ri#ate "arty unwarranted benefits, ad#antage or "reference in the discharge of hisofficial administrati#e or %udicial functions through manifest "artiality, res"ondent bad faith or gross ine1cusable negligence. This "ro#ision shall a""ly to officers and em"loyees of offices or go#ernment cor"orations charged with the grant of licenses or "ermits or other concessions. These two "arties according to com"lainant are not entitled to get any share from the second release of P7,HHH,HHH.HH for the Castell#i Estate and yet they were able to recei#e P8HH,HHH.HH and PGHH,HHH.HH, res"ecti#ely. Com"lainant further claims that &rs. a6ui?a has no more share or "artici"ation in the Castell#i Estate and in the case of &rs. 2o?un she has no right to be gi#en a share of the second release as it is intended solely for the a6ui?a children. Com"lainant also charges res"ondent under "aragra"h /f0, section < of e"ublic -ct <H7F which "ro#ides. /f0 Beglecting or refusing, after due demand or re6uest, without sufficient %ustification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter Pending before him for the "ur"ose of obtaining, directly or indirectly from any "erson interested in the matter some "ecuniary or material benefit or ad#antage, or for the "ur"ose of fa#oring his own interest or gi#ing undue ad#antage in fa#or of discriminating against any other interested "arty. in ha#ing allegedly neglected or refused after se#eral motions and oral demands, the release of the amount of P7,HHH,HHH.HH /Treasury 9arrant Bo. ,$ H=,8<7,F=>0 to the a6ui?a children thereby gi#ing

undue ad#antage to both &rs. a6ui?a and &rs. 2o?un discriminating against the a6ui?a children. ++ P Jnder Count ++, com"lainant charges res"ondent with a #iolation of -rticle 8H= of the e#ised Penal Code for )nowingly and deli#erately issuing his illegal orders of *ebruary 8G, and 8:, 7F;: allowing &rs. a6ui?a to obtain a loan of P8HH,HHH.HH from the Phili""ine 3eterans 5an) using the e6ui#alent amount in the second release of P7,HHH,HHH.HH de"osited in the ban) in the name of the Castell#i Estate as collateral. Com"lainant contends that res"ondent Judge )nows that &rs. a6ui?a has no more "artici"ation or interest in or any rights to the Castell#i Estate since according to the records in Ci#il Case Bo. 8;:7 entitled QPobre #s. Bati#idad Castell#i a6ui?a,Q both "arties agreed to gi#e all the "ro"erties sub%ect matter of the suit to the a6ui?a children. +++ P Jnder Count +++, com"lainant alleges that res"ondent committed attem"ted e1tortion by o""ression in that after &rs. a6ui?a got the total of P<<H,HHH.HH from the Phili""ine 3eterans 5an) in connection with the first release of P7,HHH,HHH.HH, he #isited the res"ondent Judge in his house as)ing that he would also release the balance of P<HH,HHH.HH to the a6ui?a children because "art of the money would be used by com"lainant in going to the Jnited States for his eye treatment4 and that res"ondent "romised to gi#e the necessary order the following day. Com"lainant went to Pam"anga the following morning "er ad#ice of res"ondent and saw the %udge in his "ri#ate chamber4 that the %udge in#ited com"lainant to a corner of the room and told him that he needed money, that ta)en abac) by such alleged act of graft and corru"tion, com"lainant shouted in a #ery loud #oice, QRou are corru"t.Q There is graft and corru"tion in this office and then left the room4 but that following the saying, Qa man in need is a beggarQ, com"lainant called the %udge a few days later and assistant. that they were reconciled but nonetheless. the res"ondent des"ite se#eral re6uests from -tty. Ru?on, counsel for the com"lainant, consistently failed to com"ly with his "romise that he would release money for the a6ui?a children4 that after the reconciliation, com"lainant #isited the res"ondent Judge in his house and the latter "romised to gi#e the order the following day4 that it was only after re"eated tri"s of -tty. Ru?on or his assistant. &r. 2racio ,acutan, to Pam"anga that the res"ondent Judge released the total amount of P<GH,HHH.HH to the a6ui?a children4 that as the a6ui?a children urgently needed some of the money for themsel#es, the balance was not enough anymore to finance the tri" of the com"lainant to the Jnited States4 hence, he as)ed again the President to release another P7,HHH,HHH.HH4 that the com"lainant brands the im"osition of this hardshi"s by res"ondent Judge, which is su""osedly a case of e1tortion by means of o""ression where res"ondent sub%ected com"lainant, his counsel -tty. Ru?on and his assistant 2racio ,acutan, had to shuttle e#eryday for a "eriod of about one month between &anila to Pam"anga to get the "romised order of release which ne#er came u" to the "resent.

+3 P -s to the fourth count, the com"lainant charges the res"ondent of bribery, in that Qhe /res"ondent0 gets bribe money from &rs. a6ui?a and surely from all other "arties4Q that on the first release of P7,HHH,HHH.HH, res"ondent Judge e1torted P;H,HHH.HH from &rs. a6ui?a out of the release of about P<<H,HHH.HH. +n his comment or answer to the charges, res"ondent alleged that those indictments are de#oid of factual andIor legal basis because. -s to Charge + /3iolation of -nti$2raft 'aw0 and ++ /)nowingly rendering un%ust and illegal %udgment0, res"ondent &rs. a6ui?a still has a share in the Castell#i Estate because by testamentary "ro#ision a""ro#ed by final %udgment, Bati#idad Castell#i a6ui?a as instituted heir, is entitled to 8I> share of the estate although one$half /7I80 of said 8I< had been transferred to her children by #irtue of a com"romise agreement submitted by Jrbane Pobre in Ci#il Case Bo. 8;:7 entitled Jrbano Pobre #s. Bati#idad Castell#i$ a6ui?a /E1hs. 8 U <, Crders of Judge !onorio omero dated &arch 8F, 7F;7 and &ay 8:, 7F;7 in S". Proc. Bo. :>8=0. Bote that a case for recon#eyance was filed by Bati#idad Castell#i a6ui?a /Ci#il Case Bo. <GHF of the Court of *irst +nstance of Pam"anga against her children. Said case is still "ending hearing and decision according to res"ondent. es"ondent a#ers that it was only after careful study of the records /7: big #olumes0 of S"ecial Proceeding Bo. :>8= that he granted on June 7F, 7F;G the motion of &rs. a6ui?a filed on January 8<, 7F;G for authority to obtain loan belie#ing that &rs. a6ui?a still has a share, interest and "artici"ation in the sub%ect estate. es"ondent also e1"lained that the testate estate of -lfonso Castell#i is still on li6uidation when the first release of 7 million was made by the go#ernment in "artial "ayment of the e1"ro"riated "ro"erty of the estate4 that as se#eral claim of creditors ha#e not been "aid, res"ondent was not inclined at the outset to allow any Cash release4 and that the second release of 7 million could not ha#e been intended solely for the a6ui?a children, much less for the use of the com"lainant in his tri" to the Jnited States for his eye treatment as claimed4 that the reason gi#en in com"lainantMs re6uest to the President dated ,ecember 8F, 7F;G for the release of the P7 million out of the P8,:HH,HHH.HH was that the money would be used Qin "atenting the Su"er$2as educer in all car manufacturing countries in the worldQ /E1h. G04 that com"lainantMs re"resentati#e ca"acity as attorney$in$fact of his children as well as the "ur"ose for see)ing the withdrawal of the entire second release of P7 million is 6uestionable because 'ily a6ui?a, one of the com"lainantMs children, denied ha#ing signed or granted any "ower of attorney /". <8, ollo04 that in #iew of the foregoing, res"ondent %udge could not "ro"erly be charged with ha#ing )nowingly rendered an un%ust %udgment or interlocutory order. -s to Charge +++ /+N0 by &eans of C""ression0. es"ondent states that the commission of attem"ted e1tortion against com"lainant is highly im"robable4

that com"lainant did not describe theM shouting s"reeM incident faithfully because. es"ondent does not a""ro#e of being a""roached in his house in connection with his official functions and without "romising com"lainant anything, ad#ised the latter to see res"ondent in his office4 that the following morning when com"lainant went to his court chamber, -tty. Celia &aca"agal and other lawyers and two or three of the courtMs "ersonnel were inside the chamber4 that com"lainant then "leaded for hel" that he would be able to go to the Jnited States for his eye treatment, saying that after all the first release was authori?ed by the President "recisely for that "ur"ose4 that com"lainant wanted in the corres"onding order to be issued by res"ondent that so much amount of his childrenMs shares in the second release should be s"ecifically ordered "aid or gi#en to com"lainant4 that in a nice way, res"ondent e1"lained to com"lainant of the unsettled claims of creditors of the late that e#en more com"lainant was not the mo#ant but his children and what his children would want to lend him is a matter between him and his children4 that com"lainant then re"lied, QJudge, if you would not gi#e me the small amount + need, + will be your number one enemy ... you chutQ4 that res"ondent stood u" to reach for his crutches /res"ondent then had swollen foot due to his arthritis0 and ordered M-rrest that manM but com"lainant had already left4 that com"lainantMs accusation is the height of absurdity since res"ondent would not be that stu"id and careless to choose his court chamber /barely 8$ 7I8 1 <$7I8 meters0 and in the "resence of many listeners and #iewers to attem"t an e1tortion against com"lainant, a man of )nown stature, an e1$ 2o#ernor. Congressman, Cabinet member and a delegate to the Constitutional Con#ention. -s to Charge +3 $ /5ribery0. P es"ondent e1"lains this is unthin)able because Petitioner should surely admit that &rs. a6ui?a is e#en hard to con#erse with. To tal) to her, one has to s"ea) loud or shout. She could much less be whis"ered to. This considering, one could not as) something from her without being heard. 9rite her a note, for e#idence in order to be caught This is absurd. that authority was gi#en &rs. a6ui?a only on June 7F, 7F;G almost G months of study of her motion filed on January 8<, 7F;G4 that the authority was for PGHH,HHH.HH, which was e#en reduced to only P<<<,HHH.HH or 7I< of P7,HHH,HHH.HH when such release was )nown. -s the letter com"laint and the answer or comment of res"ondent are both #erified, they were ado"ted as "art of the res"ecti#e e#idence of the "arties. They also introduced additional oral and documentary "roofs. 5esides com"lainant, his counsel -tty. &anuel Ruson and the latterMs assistant. 2racio ,acutan, testified. *or the res"ondent, -tty. Celia &aca"agal, -tty. 3icente Sicat and res"ondent Judge offered testimonial and documentary e#idence. -fter a careful study of all the e#idence on record, + find the charges not substantiated. There is factual and legal basis for res"ondentMs conclusion that &rs.

a6ui?a has still a share or "artici"ation in the Castell#i estate and that &rs. 2o?un has li)ewise a right to be gi#en a share of the second release. -s to the first /&rs. a6ui?a,M her right as instituted heir of 8I< of the estate is recogni?ed by final %udgment although by com"romise agreement, 7I8 was transferred by her to her children /E1h. 80. The a6ui?a children sought a reconsideration of the order of Judge omero /E1h. 80, but the motion was denied by the same Judge /E1h. <0. There a""ears no a""eal from said order. &oreo#er, the a6ui?a children subse6uently res"ected the remaining share of their mother by e1"ressly agreeing to her re6uest to the Phili""ine 3eterans 5an) "resident for additional loan /E1h. =0. +t is not also rebutted that se#eral claims chargeable against the estate has not been com"letely settled for which reason res"ondent at the outset refused to grant any release. !owe#er, for humanitarian considerations and ... mainly on the basis of the PresidentMs handwritten note on com"lainantMs letter, dated July 7:, 7F;G /E1h. >0, res"ondent authori?ed the withdrawal from the funds of the Castell#i Estate in the Phili""ines 3eterans 5an) deri#ed from the first release of P7 million, for the deli#ery to the a6ui?a children ,aisy, -ntonio. Jr.. 'e#y and ,ouglas, in the amount of P8=>,HHH.HH, and an additional amount of P8H,HHH.HH, under his orders, dated -ugust 8H, 7F;G and Bo#ember 8=, 7F;G res"ecti#ely4 and a se"arate amount of P:H,HHH.HH to com"lainantMs daughter 'ily a6ui?a /E1h. F and 7F04 and after the said a6ui?a children were granted their aforementioned shares, res"ondent ordered the immediate "ayment of &rs. a6ui?aMs loan by the said ban), in the amount of P<<H,HHH.HH4 7F P That under his letter, dated ,ecember 8F, 7F;G, /E1h. G0, com"lainant re6uested again the President to release P7 million from the funds of the Castell#i Estate to the a6ui?a children to be used by them in "atenting the Su"er$2as educer in all car manufacturing countries in the worldM, and after the President authori?ed the release of P+ million by the 2o#ernment sub%ect to the a#ailability of funds, the Treasurer of the Phili""ines, following the recommendation of the TJ-2 of the -*P, issued Treasury 9arrant Bo. ,$8>7$F=> for "ayment to the Castell#i Estate, which was actually released to the Phil. 3eterans 5an), by the -rmy, on *ebruary 77, 7F;:4 -s regards the "ayment to &aria Bie#es Toledo 2o?un it a""ears that of the three e1"ro"riated "ro"erties, one "arcel belongs to the Castell#i Estate while two "arcels are owned by &aria Bie#es Toledo, who at the time when "ayment was ordered, had not yet recei#ed any "artial "ayment and had filed a motion for e1ecution /Ci#il Case Bo. 7:8< or 2. . Bo. '$8H:8H0 "raying for "artial "ayment. -s res"ondent correctly argues, M... for reasons of %ustice and e6uity /he0 %ust followed the mandate of the Su"reme Court in 2. . Bo. '$8H:8H, -ugust 7G, 7F;=, for "ayment of the corres"onding %ust com"ensation to both owners of the "ro"erties condemned.M Thus, in sharing landowner &aria Bie#es Toledo 2o?un in the second

release, res"ondent had factual and legal basis and can hardly be branded as gi#ing Qunwarranted benefits, ad#antage or "referenceQ under "aragra"h /e0, section < of the -nti$2raft 'aw. Similarly, considering that &r. a6ui?a has a sham in the Castell#i estate which is still on li6uidation4 that the second release could not ha#e been intended solely for the a6ui?a children nor for com"lainantMs tri" to the Jnited States for his alleged eye treatment4 and that com"lainantMs authority to re"resent all his children had been 6uestioned by no less than one of his children, + find it hard to res"ondent Judge )nowing that they un%ust and illegal. elati#e to the charge of e1tortion by means of o""ression, the undersigned belie#es as more "robable the #ersion testified to by the res"ondent at the in#estigation as well as in his #erified comment. +ndeed, it would be stretching credibility to its b "oint to belie#e that in a small room /8$7I8 1 <$7I8 meters0 the res"ondent would ha#e thrown all "recautions to the winds and demand bribe money in the "resence of -tty. Celia &aca"agal, -tty. Sicat, -tty. Ru?on, *iscal &acalino, &essrs. Ralong and ,acutan$ Com"lainantMs #ersion cannot stand the test of common e1"erience and the ordinary instincts of human nature and therefore should be disbelie#ed. There is no e#idence "resented by com"lainant that when he #isited that res"ondent in the latterMs residence in \ue?on City, the res"ondent as)ed for money. There is more "ri#acy in res"ondentMs home rather than in his small office and yet res"ondent in a "lace of absolute "ri#acy ne#er as)ed or demanded for bribe money. Cne salient fact also denies the #eracity of the #ersion of the com"lainant relati#e to the Qshouting incident.Q +t is not denied that at the time the res"ondent could hardly stand and wal) without crutches. !e could not ha#e stood therefore on a corner of the court chamber during the incident. 9hat is more, as he was seated on a chair at the end of his des) to the right and that since com"lainant was only one meter away from him, the con#ersation naturally would ha#e been audible and the witnesses inside the court chamber ne#er testified that the res"ondent was as)ing money from the com"lainant. The e#idence also remains unrebutted that a few days after the said incident, the com"lainant a"ologi?ed to the res"ondent for what he had done. Cn to" of it all, it is difficult to belie#e that the res"ondent would ha#e committed e1tortion or attem"ted e1tortion against the com"lainant, who is re"utedly of high stature, not counting that he was a former "ro#incial go#ernor, congressman, cabinet member and delegate to the Constitutional Con#ention and it could ha#e ta)en so much ner#e and daring to do such an act. -s regards the fourth charge of bribery, com"lainant claims that &rs. a6ui?a had told him that out of the P<HH,HHH.HH she obtained as loan from the first release of P7 million, she ga#e P;H,HHH.HH to the res"ondent, the undersigned also finds that this charge was not substantiated. +n the first "lace, the

testimony is "urely hearsay. -s the com"lainant testified on cross$e1amination. \ Rour other charge is bribery. Rou mentioned that the Judge e1torted P;H,HHH from &rs. a6ui?a, what is your basis K - +t was told to me by &rs. a6ui?a. \ + thought you are a widowerK - + am se"arated from her, but she comes to the house #ery often. +B3EST+2-TC . &ay the +n#estigator in6uire, is that se"aration legal - + filed a di#orce in the States. 111 111 111 \ So you are not a widowerK - + am a widower. \ + cannot understand thatK - Res, + am married to another woman. \ Rou said you were told by &rs. a6ui?aK - She told me she "ractically s"ent 7I8 of what was gi#en to her. 111 111 111 \ So, your basis is what you got from &rs. a6ui?a - Res. \ Cf your own "ersonal )nowledge, you donMt )now thatK - + ha#e not seen &rs. a6ui?a gi#ing the money to him. /"". 7: 7;,7>, tsn., *eb. 8, 7F;;0 &rs. a6ui?a was not "resented to testify on the matter. The rules e#en in an administrati#e case demands that if the res"ondent Judge should be disci"lined for gra#e misconduct or any gra#er offense, the e#idence "resented against him should be com"etent and deri#ed from direct )nowledge. The %udiciary, to which res"ondent belongs, no less demands that before its member could be faulted, it should be only after due in#estigation and based on com"etent "roofs, no less. This is all the more so when as in this case the charges are "enal in nature. The ground for the remo#al of a %udicial officer should be established beyond reasonable doubt. Such is the rule where the charges on which the remo#al is sought is misconduct in office, willful neglect, corru"tion, incom"etency, etc. The general rules in regard to admissibility of e#idence in criminal trials a""ly /<< C.J. F=G, see. =;04 also Bational +ntelligence and Security -uthority /B+S-0 #s. &artine?, :8 SC =774 Castral #s. 5ullecer := SC - 8>F4 &el6uiades Jdani Jr. #s. Pagharion :G SC - G=F0 Parenthetically, under Count + and ++, MmisconductM also im"lies a wrongful intention and not a mere error of %udgmentM /5uena#entura #. !on. &ariano 3. 5enedicto, <> SC - ;70. +t results that e#en if res"ondent were not collect in his legal conclusions, his %udicial actuations cannot be regarded as gra#e misconduct, unless the contrary sufficiently a""ears. -nd undersigned finds, as abo#e discussed, that com"lainantMs e#idence is wanting in this res"ect. 9!E E*C E, it is res"ectfully recommended that the charges against the res"ondent be dismissed for lac) of merit. 9e ha#e re#iewed the record, including the "t of the testimonies of the witnesses and the other e#idence submitted by the "arties. -fter careful consideration thereof, 9e find the conclusions of fact and the

recommendations of the +n#estigator in the abo#e re"ort to be well ta)en and fully su". "orted by the e#idence on record. -CCC ,+B2'R, the abo#e$6uoted re"ort of Justice 5autista is a""ro#ed, the res"ondent %udge is e1onerated and the administrati#e case against him is dismissal The "etition to transfer S"ecial Proceedings Bo. :>8= to another %udge is denied. SECTION 1' 32. NITAFAN VS COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE FACTS: Bitafan and some others see) to "rohibit the C+ from ma)ing any deduction of withholding ta1es from their salaries or com"ensation for such would tantamount to a diminution of their salary, which is unconstitutional. Cn June ; 7F>;, the Court en banc had reaffirmed the directi#e of the Chief Justice. ISSUE: 9hether or not the members of the %udiciary are e1em"t from the "ayment of income ta1. HELD: 9hat is "ro#ided for by the constitution is that salaries of %udges may not be decreased during their continuance in office. They ha#e a fi1 salary which may not be sub%ect to the whims and ca"rices of congress. 5ut the salaries of the %udges shall be sub%ect to the general income ta1 as well as other members of the %udiciary. SECTION 11 DE LA LLANA V. ALBA Constitutional 'aw Z Political \uestion Z if there is no 6uestion of law in#ol#ed Z 5P 78F +n 7F>7, 5P 78F, entitled @-n -ct eorgani?ing the Judiciary, -""ro"riating *unds Therefor and for Cther Pur"osesA, was "assed. ,e la 'lana was assailing its #alidity because, first of all, he would be one of the %udges that would be remo#ed because of the reorgani?ation and second, he said such law would contra#ene the constitutional "ro#ision which "ro#ides the security of tenure of %udges of the courts, !e a#erred that only the SC can remo#e %udges BCT Congress. ISSUE: 9hether or not Judge ,e 'a 'lana can be #alidly remo#ed by the legislature by such statute /5P 78F0. HELD: The SC ruled the following way. @&oreo#er, this Court is em"owered @to disci"line %udges of inferior courts and, by a #ote of at least eight members, order their dismissal.A Thus it "ossesses the com"etence to remo#e %udges. Jnder the Judiciary -ct, it was the President who was #ested with such "ower. emo#al is, of course, to be distinguished from termination by #irtue of the abolition of the office. There can be no tenure to a non$e1istent office. -fter the abolition, there is in law no occu"ant. +n case of remo#al, there is an office with an occu"ant who would thereby lose his

"osition. +t is in that sense that from the stand"oint of strict law, the 6uestion of any im"airment of security of tenure does not arise. Bonetheless, for the incumbents of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of se"aration. -s to its effect, no distinction e1ists between remo#al and the abolition of the office. ealistically, it is de#oid of significance. !e ceases to be a member of the %udiciary. +n the im"lementation of the assailed legislation, therefore, it would be in accordance with acce"ted "rinci"les of constitutional construction that as far as incumbent %ustices and %udges are concerned, this Court be consulted and that its #iew be accorded the fullest consideration. Bo fear need be entertained that there is a failure to accord res"ect to the basic "rinci"le that this Court does not render ad#isory o"inions. Bo 6uestion of law is in#ol#ed. +f such were the case, certainly this Court could not ha#e its say "rior to the action ta)en by either of the two de"artments. E#en then, it could do so but only by way of deciding a case where the matter has been "ut in issue. Beither is there any intrusion into who shall be a""ointed to the #acant "ositions created by the reorgani?ation. That remains in the hands of the E1ecuti#e to whom it "ro"erly belongs. There is no de"arture therefore from the tried and tested ways of %udicial "ower. ather what is sought to be achie#ed by this liberal inter"retation is to "reclude any "lausibility to the charge that in the e1ercise of the conceded "ower of reorgani?ing the inferior courts, the "ower of remo#al of the "resent incumbents #ested in this Tribunal is ignored or disregarded. The challenged -ct would thus be free from any unconstitutional taint, e#en one not readily discernible e1ce"t to those "redis"osed to #iew it with distrust. &oreo#er, such a construction would be in accordance with the basic "rinci"le that in the choice of alternati#es between one which would sa#e and another which would in#alidate a statute, the former is to be "referred.A 34. PEOPLE V. JUDGE GACOTT JR. FACTS: *or failure to chec) the citations of the "rosecution, the order of res"ondent TC Judge Eusta6uio 2acott, Jr. dismissing a criminal case was annulled by the SC. The res"ondent %udge was also sanctioned with a re"rimand and a fine of P7H,HHH.HH for gross ignorance of the law. The %udgment was made by the Second ,i#ision of the SC. ISSUE: 9hether or not the Second ,i#ision of the SC has the com"etence to administrati#ely disci"line res"ondent %udge HELD: To su""ort the CourtOs ruling, Justice egalado relied on his recollection of a con#ersation with former Chief Justice oberto Conce"cion who was the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the 7F>: Constitutional Commission of which egalado was also a member.

The #ery te1t of the "resent Sec. 77, -rt. 3+++ of the Constitution clearly shows that there are actually two situations en#isaged therein. The first clause which states that @the SC en banc shall ha#e the "ower to disci"line %udges of lower courts,A is a declaration of the grant of that disci"linary "ower to, and the determination of the "rocedure in the e1ercise thereof by, the Court en banc. +t was not therein intended that all administrati#e disci"linary cases should be heard and decided by the whole Court since it would result in an absurdity. The second clause, which refers to the second situation contem"lated therein and is intentionally se"arated from the first by a comma, declares on the other hand that the Court en banc can @order their dismissal by a #ote of a ma%ority of the &embers who actually too) "art in the deliberations on the issues in the case and #oted therein.A +n this instance, the administrati#e case must be deliberated u"on and decided by the full Court itself. Pursuant to the first clause which confers administrati#e disci"linary "ower to the Court en banc, a decision en banc is needed only where the "enalty to be im"osed is the dismissal of a %udge, officer or em"loyee of the Judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the sus"ension of any of them for a "eriod of more than 7 year or a fine e1ceeding P7H, HHH.HH or both. +ndeed, to re6uire the entire Court to deliberate u"on and "artici"ate in all administrati#e matters or cases regardless of the sanctions, im"osable or im"osed, would result in a congested doc)et and undue delay in the ad%udication of cases in the Court, es"ecially in administrati#e matters, since e#en cases in#ol#ing the "enalty of re"rimand would re6uire action by the Court en banc. SECT+CB 78 3 . IN RE: MANZANO FACTS: Judge &an?ano filed a "etition allowing him to acce"t the a""ointment by +locos Sur 2o#ernor odolfo *arinas as the member of +locos Borte "ro#incial Committee on Justice created "ursuant to a Presidential Crder. !e "etitioned that his membershi" in the Committee will not in any way amount to an abandonment to his "resent "osition as E1ecuti#e Judge of 5ranch N+N, TC, 7st Judicial region and as a member of %udiciary. ISSUE: 9hat is an administrati#e agencyK 9here does it draw the line insofar as administrati#e functions are concernedK HELD: The "etition is denied. The Constitution "rohibits the designation of members of the Judiciary to any agency "erforming \uasi$Judicial or -dministrati#e functions /Sec.78, -rt.3+++, 7F>; Constitution0.

\uasi$Judicial has a fairly clear meaning and Judges can confidently refrain from "artici"ating in the wor) of any -dministrati#e -gency which ad%udicates dis"utes U contro#ersies in#ol#ing the rights of "arties within its %urisdiction. -dministrati#e functions are those which in#ol#e the regulation and control o#er the conduct U affairs of indi#iduals for their own welfare and the "romulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the "olicy of the 'egislature or such as are de#ol#ed u"on the administrati#e agency by the organic law of its e1istence. @-dministrati#e functionsA as used in Sec. 78 refers to the 2o#ernmentOs e1ecuti#e machinery and its "erformance of go#ernmental acts. +t refers to the management actions, determinations, and orders of e1ecuti#e officials as they administer the laws and try to ma)e go#ernment effecti#e. There is an element of "ositi#e action, of su"er#ision or control. +n the dissenting o"inion of Justice 2utierre?. -dministrati#e functions are those which in#ol#e the regulation and control o#er the conduct and affairs of indi#iduals for their own welfare and the "romulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the "olicy of the legislature or such as are de#ol#ed u"on the administrati#e agency by the organic law of its e1istence @we can readily see that membershi" in the Pro#incial or City Committee on Justice would not in#ol#e any regulation or control o#er the conduct and affairs of indi#iduals. Beither will the Committee on Justice "romulgate rules and regulations nor e1ercise any 6uasi$legislati#e functions. +ts wor) is "urely ad#isory. - member of the %udiciary %oining any study grou" which concentrates on the administration of %ustice as long as the grou" merely deliberates on "roblems in#ol#ing the s"eedy dis"osition of cases "articularly those in#ol#ing the "oor and needy litigants$or detainees, "ools the e1"ertise and e1"eriences of the members, and limits itself to recommendations which may be ado"ted or re%ected by those who ha#e the "ower to legislate or administer the "articular function in#ol#ed in their im"lementation. SECTION 14 3!. NICOS INDUSTRIAL CORP VS CA FACTS. ] Cn January 8=, 7F>H, B+CCS +ndustrial Cor"oration obtained a loan of P8,HHH,HHH.HHfrom "ri#ate res"ondent Jnited Coconut Planters 5an) and to secure "ayment thereof e1ecuted a real estate mortgage on two "arcels of land located at &arilao, 5ulacan ] Cn July 77, 7F><, the mortgage was foreclosed for non$"ayment of the loan, a sheriffMs sale was held without re$"ublication of the re6uired notices after the original date for the auction was changed without the )nowledge or consent of the mortgagor. JCP5

was the highest and lone bidder and the mortgaged lands were sold to it for P<,GG>,G=;.:=. ] Cn -ugust 8F, 7F><, JCP5 sold all its rights to the "ro"erties to "ri#ate res"ondent &anuel Co, who on the same day transferred them to 2olden Star +ndustrial Cor"oration, another "ri#ate res"ondent, a writ of "ossession was issued to it on Bo#ember =, 7F><. ] Cn Se"tember :, 7F>=, B+CCS and the other "etitioners, filed their action for Qannulmen tof sheriffMs sale, reco#ery of "ossession, and damages, with "rayer for the issuance of a "reliminary "rohibitory and mandatory in%unction.Q ] Cn -"ril <H, 7F>:, 2olden Star and E#angelista filed a ;$"age demurrer to the e#idence where they argued that the action was a deri#ati#e suit that came under the %urisdiction of the Securities and E1change Commission4 that the mortgage had been #alidly foreclosed4 that the sheriffMs sale had been held in accordance with -ct <7<G4 that the notices had been duly "ublished in a news"a"er of general circulation4 and that the o""osition to the writ of "ossession had not been filed on time. Bo o""osition to the demurrer ha#ing been submitted des"ite notice thereof to the "arties, Judge Bestor *. ,antes considered it submitted for resolution. ] The "etitioners claim that it is not a reasoned decision and does not clearly and distinctly e1"lain how it was reached by the trial court. They also stress that the sheriffMs sale was irregular because the notices thereof were "ublished in a news"a"er that did not ha#e general circulation and that the original date of the sheriffMs sale had been changed without its consent, the same ha#ing been allegedly gi#en by a "erson not authori?ed to re"resent B+CCS. Com"laint was dismissed. ] June :, 7F>:, the "etitioners com"laint was dismissed. ] - careful "erusal of the challenged order will show that the com"laint was dismissed not only for lac) of %urisdiction but also because of the insufficiency of the e#idence to "ro#e the in#alidity of the sheriffMs sale. egarding this second ground, all the trial court did was summarily conclude Qfrom the #ery e#idence adduced by the "laintiffQ that the sheriffMs sale Qwas in com"lete accord with the re6uirements of Section <, -ct <7<G.Q +t did not bother to discuss what that e#idence was or to e1"lain why it belie#ed that the legal re6uirements had been obser#ed. HELD: +t is a re6uirement of due "rocess that the "arties to a litigation be informed of how it was decided, with an e1"lanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. The losing "arty is entitled to )now why he lost, so he may a""eal to a higher court, if "ermitted, should he belie#e that the decision should be re#ersed

3#. 2OMATSU INDUSTRIES (PHILS.) INC. V. COURT OF APPEALS ISSUE: whether or not issuance of &inute esolutions is #alid under Section 7=, -rticle 3+++ of the Constitution HELD: @ esolutionsA are not @decisionsA within the abo#e constitutional re6uirements4 they merely hold that the "etition for re#iew should not be entertained. -nd the "etition to re#iew the decision of the Court of -""eals is not a matter of right but of sound %udicial discretion, hence there is no need to fully e1"lain the CourtOs denial since, for one thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of -""ealsO decision. The constitutional mandate is a""licable only in cases @submitted for decision,A i.e., gi#en due course and after the filing of briefs or memoranda andIor other "leadings, but not where the "etition is refused due course, with the resolution therefor stating the legal basis thereof. Thus, when the Su"reme Court, after deliberating on a "etition and subse6uent "leadings, decides to deny due course to the "etition and states that the 6uestions raised are factual or there is no re#ersible error in the res"ondent courtOs decision, there is sufficient com"liance with the constitutional re6uirement. 3%. PRUDENTIAL BAN2 V. CASTRO FACTS: The case at bar relates with the disbarment of -tty. 2recia /res"0. Contentions cIo es". ] CJ Claudio Teehan)ee should ha#e #oluntary inhibited himself from the "roceedings. CJ was "re%udicial against 2reciathat he rendered a decision against 2recia /disbarment0. ] The CourtOs decision #iolates the Constitution in that it lac)s certification by the CJ that the conclusions of the Court were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to a member for the writing of the o"inion of the Court. HELD: -s to CJ Teehan)eeOs #oluntary inhibition. Petition denied for lac) of legal and factual basis. -fter a member has gi#en an o"inion on the merits of a gi#en case, he may not be dis6ualified from "artici"ating in the "roceedings because a litigant cannot be "ermitted to s"eculate u"on the action of the Court and raise an ob%ection of this sort after decision has already been rendered. +t should be made of record that at no time during the deliberations on the case did the CJ show any ill will nor any sign of #indicti#eness much less any attem"t to e1act #engeance for "ast affront against 2recia.

-s to the lac) of certification. This re6uirement is only "resent in %udicial decisions, not in administrati#e cases, li)e a disbarment "roceeding. E#en if such certification were re6uired, it is beyond doubt that the conclusions of the Court in its decision were arri#ed at after consultation and deliberations and #oted attest to that. Per curiam decision Z o"inion of the court as a whole4 there is no "onente. *or cases where the court does not want to e1"ose the identity of the "onente. esolution # ,ecision esolution Z does not decide the case4 dilatory4 i.e. dismissal of a case for lac) of merit ,ecision Z when the court has gi#en due course4 must state facts and law.

3&. OIL AND NATURA2 GAS COMMISSION V. COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: This "roceeding in#ol#es the enforcement of a foreign %udgment rendered by the Ci#il Judge of ,ehra ,un, +ndia in fa#or of the "etitioner, against the "ri#ate res"ondent, P-C+*+C CE&EBT CC&P-BR, +BCC PC -TE,. The "etitioner is a foreign cor"oration owned and controlled by the 2o#ernment of +ndia while the "ri#ate res"ondent is a "ri#ate cor"oration duly organi?ed and e1isting under the laws of the Phili""ines. The conflict between the "etitioner and the "ri#ate res"ondent rooted from the failure of the res"ondent to deli#er =<,HHH metric tons of oil well cement to the "etitioner e#en it had already recei#ed "ayment and des"ite "etitionerOs se#eral demands. The "etitioner then informed the "ri#ate res"ondent that it was referring its claim to an arbitrator "ursuant to Clause 7: of their contract which sti"ulates that he #enue for arbitration shall be at ,ehra dun. The chosen arbitrator, one Shri B.B. &alhotra, resol#ed the dis"ute in fa#our of the "etitioner setting forth the arbitral award. To enable the "etitioner to e1ecute the abo#e award, it filed a Petition before the Court of the Ci#il Judge in ,ehra ,un. +ndia "raying that the decision of the arbitrator be made Qthe ule of CourtQ in +ndia. This was ob%ected by the res"ondent but foreign court refused to admit the "ri#ate res"ondentMs ob%ections for failure to "ay the re6uired filing fees. ,es"ite notice sent to the "ri#ate res"ondent of the foregoing order and se#eral demands by the "etitioner for com"liance therewith, the "ri#ate res"ondent refused to "ay the amount ad%udged by the foreign court as owing to the "etitioner. The "etitioner filed a com"laint with 5ranch <H of the egional Trial Court / TC0 of Surigao City for the enforcement of the aforementioned %udgment of the foreign court. The "ri#ate res"ondent mo#ed to dismiss the com"laint. TC dismissed the com"laint for lac) of a #alid cause of action. The "etitioner then

a""ealed to the res"ondent Court of -""eals which affirmed the dismissal of the com"laint. +n its decision, the a""ellate court concurred with the TCMs ruling that the arbitrator did not ha#e %urisdiction o#er the dis"ute between the "arties, thus, the foreign court could not #alidly ado"t the arbitratorMs award. The "etitioner filed this "etition for re#iew on certiorari, ISSUE: 9hether or not the arbitrator had %urisdiction o#er the dis"ute between the "etitioner and the "ri#ate res"ondent under Clause 7: of the contract. RULING: The constitutional mandate that no decision shall be rendered by any court without e1"ressing therein dearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based does not "reclude the #alidity of Qmemorandum decisionsQ which ado"t by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals. *urthermore, the recognition to be accorded a foreign %udgment is not necessarily affected by the fact that the "rocedure in the courts of the country in which such %udgment was rendered differs from that of the courts of the country in which the %udgment is relied on. +f the "rocedure in the foreign court mandates that an Crder of the Court becomes final and e1ecutory u"on failure to "ay the necessary doc)et fees, then the courts in this %urisdiction cannot in#alidate the order of the foreign court sim"ly because our rules "ro#ide otherwise. 9!E E*C E, the instant "etition is 2 -BTE,, and the assailed decision of the Court of -""eals sustaining the trial courtMs dismissal of the C+' -B, B-TJ -' 2-S CC&&+SS+CBMs com"laint before 5ranch <H of the TC of Surigao City is E3E SE,. 4'. ATTY ALICE ODCHIGUE5BONDOC VS. TAN TIONG BIO A2A HENRY TAN Tan Tiong 5io /res"ondent0 had fully "aid the installment "ayments of a :><$s6uare$meter lot in the &anila Southwoods esidential Estates, a "ro%ect of *il$Estate 2olf U ,e#elo"ment, +nc. /*il$Estate0 in Carmona, Ca#ite, but *il$Estate failed to deli#er to him the title co#ering the lot, des"ite re"eated demands. *il$Estate also failed to heed the demand for the refund of the "urchase "rice.X7Y es"ondent, later learning that the lot @soldA to him was ine1istent,X8Y filed a com"laint for Estafa against *il$ Estate officials including its Cor"orate Secretary -tty. -lice Cdchigue$5ondoc /"etitioner0 and other em"loyees.X<Y +n her Counter$-ffida#it, "etitioner alleged that, inter alia, 1111

G. + had no "artici"ation at all in the acts or transactions alleged in the Com"laint$-ffida#it. -s a Cor"orate Secretary, + ha#e ne#er been in#ol#ed in the management and day$to$day o"erations of X*il$ EstateY. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. ;. 1 1 1. X!erein res"ondentY alleges. @The letter showed that the re6uest was a""ro#ed by Xherein "etitionerY, "ro#ided that the transfer fee was "aid, and that there be "ayment of full down"ayment, with the balance "ayable in two years.A >0 The handwritten a""ro#al and endorsement, howe#er, are not mine. + ha#e ne#er transacted, either directly or indirectly, with &rs. Cna or Xherein res"ondentY. 1 1 1X=Y /em"hasis "artly in the original, "artly su""lied4 underscoring su""lied0 Cn the basis of "etitionerOs abo#e$6uoted allegations in her Counter$-ffida#it, res"ondent filed a com"laint for Per%ury against "etitioner, doc)eted as +.S. Bo. PS2 H<$H;$77>GG before the Pasig City ProsecutorOs Cffice, which dismissed it by esolution of June 7;, 8HH=XGY for insufficiency of e#idence, and denied res"ondentOs &otion for econsideration.X:Y Cn "etition for re#iew, the ,e"artment of Justice /,CJ0, by esolution of July 8H, 8HHG signed by the Chief State Prosecutor for the Secretary of Justice,X;Y motu "ro"rio dismissed the "etition on finding that there was no showing of any re#ersible error, following Section 78/c0 of ,e"artment Circular Bo. ;H dated July <, 8HHH /Bational Prosecution Ser#ice XBPSY ule on -""eal0. es"ondentOs motion for reconsideration ha#ing been deniedX>Y by esolution of January 8<, 8HH:, he filed a "etition for certiorari before the Court of -""eals which, by ,ecision of Se"tember G, 8HH>,XFY set aside the ,CJ SecretaryOs esolution, holding that it committed gra#e abuse of discretion in issuing its esolution dismissing res"ondentOs "etition for re#iew without therein e1"ressing clearly and distinctly the facts on which the dismissal was based, in #iolation of Section 7=, -rticle 3+++ of the Constitution.X7HY The a""ellate court went on to hold that the matter of dis"osing the "etition outright is clearly delineated, not under Section 78 but, under Section ; of the BPS ule on -""eal which categorically directs the Secretary to dismiss outright an a""eal or a "etition for re#iew filed after arraignment4 and that under Section ;, the Secretary may dismiss the "etition outright if he finds the same to be "atently without merit, or manifestly intended for delay, or when the issues raised are too unsubstantial to re6uire consideration.X77Y

PetitionerOs &otion for econsideration ha#ing been denied by the a""ellate court, she filed the "resent "etition for re#iew on certiorari. Petitioner asserts that the re6uirement in Section 7=, -rticle 3+++ of the Constitution a""lies only to decisions of @courts of %usticeAX78Y4 that, citing Solid !omes, +nc. #. 'aserna,X7<Y the constitutional "ro#ision does not e1tend to decisions or rulings of e1ecuti#e de"artments such as the ,CJ4 and that Section 78/c0 of the BPS ule on -""eal allows the ,CJ to dismiss a "etition for re#iew motu "ro"rio, and the use of the word @outrightA in the ,CJ esolution sim"ly means @altogether,A @entirelyA or @o"enly.AX7=Y +n his Comment, res"ondent counters that the constitutional re6uirement is not limited to courts, citing Presidential -d hoc *act$*inding Committee on 5ehest 'oans #. ,esierto,X7GY as it e1tends to 6uasi$ %udicial and administrati#e bodies, as well as to "reliminary in#estigations conducted by these tribunals. *urther, res"ondent, citing -dasa #. -balos,X7:Y argues that the ,CJ @muddledA the distinction between Sections ; and 78 of the BPS ule on -""eal and that an @outrightA dismissal is not allowed since the ,CJ must set the reasons why it finds no re#ersible errorX7;Y in an assailed resolution. The "etition is im"ressed with merit. - "reliminary in#estigation is not a 6uasi$%udicial "roceeding since @the "rosecutor in a "reliminary in#estigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.AX7>Y 1 1 1 X- "rosecutorY does not e1ercise ad%udication nor rule$ma)ing functions. Preliminary in#estigation is merely in6uisitorial, and is often the only means of disco#ering the "ersons who may be reasonably charged XofY a crime and to enable the X"rosecutorY to "re"are his com"laint or information. +t is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no "ur"ose e1ce"t that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is "robable cause to belie#e that the accused is guilty thereof. 9hile the X"rosecutorY ma)es that determination, he cannot be said to be acting as a 6uasi$court, for it is the courts, ultimately, that "ass %udgment on the accused, not the X"rosecutorY.X7FY /em"hasis and underscoring su""lied0 - "reliminary in#estigation thus "arta)es of an in#estigati#e or in6uisitorial "ower for the sole "ur"ose of obtaining information on what future action of a %udicial nature may be ta)en.X8HY 5alangauan #. Court of -""ealsX87Y in fact iterates that e#en the action of the Secretary of Justice in re#iewing a "rosecutorOs order or resolution #ia a""eal or "etition for re#iew cannot be considered a 6uasi$%udicial "roceeding since the @,CJ is not a 6uasi$%udicial body.AX88Y Section 7=, -rticle 3+++ of

the Constitution does not thus e1tend to resolutions issued by the ,CJ Secretary. es"ondent "osits, howe#er, that 5alangauan finds no a""lication in the "resent case for, as the Su"reme Court stated, the ,CJ @rectified the shortness of its first resolution by issuing a lengthier one when it resol#ed Xthe thereinY res"ondentXMsY . . . motion for reconsideration.AX8<Y es"ondentOs "osition fails. 9hether the ,CJ in 5alangauan issued an e1tended resolution in resol#ing the therein res"ondentOs motion for reconsideration is immaterial. The e1tended resolution did not detract from settling that the ,CJ is not a 6uasi$%udicial body. es"ondentOs citation of Presidential -d hoc *act$ *inding Committee on 5ehest 'oans is mis"laced as the Cmbudsman dismissed the therein sub%ect com"laint "rior to any "reliminary in#estigation. The Cmbudsman merely e#aluated the com"laint "ursuant to Section 8, ule ++ of the ules of Procedure of the Cffice of the Cmbudsman which reads. SEC. 8. E#aluation.ZJ"on e#aluating the com"laint, the in#estigating officer shall recommend whether it may be. a0 dismissed outright for want of "al"able merit4 b0 referred to res"ondent for comment4 c0 indorsed to the "ro"er go#ernment office or agency which has %urisdiction o#er the case4 d0 forwarded to the a""ro"riate officer or official for fact$finding in#estigation4 e0 referred for administrati#e ad%udication4 or f0 sub%ected to a "reliminary in#estigation. /em"hasis su""lied0 es"ecting the action of the Secretary of Justice on res"ondentOs "etition for re#iew under Section 78 of the BPS ule on -""eal, res"ondent "osits that @outrightA dismissal is not sanctioned thereunder but under Section ;. es"ondentOs "osition similarly fails. That the ,CJ Secretary used the word @outrightA in dismissing res"ondentOs "etition for re#iew under Section 78 of the ule which reads. SEC. 78. ,is"osition of the a""eal.ZThe Secretary may re#erse, affirm or modify the a""ealed resolution. !e may, motu "ro"rio or u"on motion, dismiss the "etition for re#iew on any of the following grounds. 1111 /a0 That there is no showing of any re#ersible error4

1 1 1 1 /italics in the original4 em"hasis and underscoring su""lied0 does not dent his action. To be sure, the word @outrightA was merely used in con%unction with the motu "ro"rio action. Section ; has an altogether different set of grounds for the outright dismissal of a "etition for re#iew. These are /a0 when the "etition is "atently without merit4 /b0 when the "etition is manifestly intended for delay4 /c0 when the issues raised therein are too unsubstantial to re6uire consideration4 and /d0 when the accused has already been arraigned in court.X8=Y 9hen the Secretary of Justice is con#inced that a "etition for re#iew does not suffer any of the infirmities laid down in Section ;, it can decide what action to ta)e /i.e., re#erse, modify, affirm or dismiss the a""eal altogether0, conformably with Section 78. +n other words, Sections ; and 78 are "art of a two$ ste" a""roach in the ,CJ SecretaryOs re#iew "ower. -s for res"ondentOs reliance on -dasa, it too fails for, unli)e in the case of -dasa, herein "etitioner has not been arraigned as in fact no +nformation has been filed against her. +n the absence of gra#e abuse of discretion on the "art of a "ublic "rosecutor who alone determines the sufficiency of e#idence that will establish "robable cause in filing a criminal information,X8GY courts will not interfere with his findings4 otherwise, courts would be swam"ed with "etitions to re#iew the e1ercise of discretion on his "art each time a criminal com"laint is dismissed or gi#en due course.X8:Y 9!E E*C E, the "etition for re#iew on certiorari is 2 -BTE,. The assailed ,ecision of the Court of -""eals is E3E SE, -B, SET -S+,E and the esolutions of July 8H, 8HHG and January 8<, 8HH: of the Secretary of Justice are E+BST-TE,. 41. VALDEZ VS CA

Santiago #s 5autista $ The courts may not e1ercise %udicial "ower when there is no a""licable law. $ Case at bar. -n award of honors to a student by a board of teachers may not be re#ersed by a court where the awards are go#erned by no a""licable law. ,a?a # Singson $ E#en if the issue "resented was "olitical in nature, the Court is still not be "recluded from resol#ing it under the e1"anded %urisdiction conferred u"on it that now co#ers, in "ro"er cases, e#en the "olitical 6uestion. $ That where serious constitutional 6uestions are in#ol#ed, Qthe transcendental im"ortance to the "ublic of these cases demands that they be settled "rom"tly and definitely brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of "rocedure.Q &antruste Systems # Court of -""eals $ There can be no %ustification for %udicial interference in the business of an administrati#e agency, e1ce"t when it #iolates a citi?enMs constitutional rights, or commits a gra#e abuse of discretion, or acts in e1cess of, or without %urisdiction. $ Courts may not substitute their %udgment for that of the -sset Pri#ati?ation Trust /administrati#e body0, nor bloc), by an in%unction, the discharge of its functions and the im"lementation of its decisions in connection with the ac6uisition, sale or dis"osition of assets transferred to it. &alaga # Penachos, Jr. $ +t was "re#iously declared the "rohibition "ertained to the issuance of in%unctions or restraining orders by courts against administrati#e acts in contro#ersies in#ol#ing facts or the e1ercise of discretion in technical cases. The Court obser#ed that to allow the courts to %udge these matters would disturb the smooth functioning of the administrati#e machinery. Cn issues definitely outside of this dimension and in#ol#ing 6uestions of law, courts could not be "re#ented by any law /in this case, P.,. Bo. :HG0 from e1ercising their "ower to restrain or "rohibit administrati#e acts. P-CJ # Secretary of Education $ Judicial "ower is limited to the decision of actual cases and contro#ersies. /&ere a""rehension that the Secretary of Education might under the law withdraw the "ermit of one of "etitioners does not constitute a %usticiable contro#ersy.0

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES Sec. 7.

$ Courts do not sit to ad%udicate mere academic 6uestions to satisfy scholarly interest therein howe#er intellectually solid the "roblem may be. This is es"ecially true where the issues Qreach constitutional dimensions, for then there comes into

"lay regard for the courtMs duty to a#oid decision of constitutional issues unless a#oidance becomes e#asion. &ariano, Jr. # CC&E'EC $ Considering that those contingencies mentioned by the "etitioners may or may not ha""en, "etitioners merely "ose a hy"othetical issue which has yet to ri"en to an actual case or contro#ersy. Petitioners who are residents of Taguig /e1ce"t &ariano0 are not also the "ro"er "arties to raise this abstract issue /city of &a)ati is in#ol#ed0. 9orse, they raise this futuristic issue in a "etition for declaratory relief o#er which this Court has no %urisdiction. &acasiano # Bational !ousing -uthority $+t is a rule firmly entrenched in our %uris"rudence that the constitutionality of an act of the legislature will not be determined by the courts unless that 6uestion is "ro"erly raised and "resented in a""ro"riate cases and is necessary to a determination of the case. J. Joya # PC22 $ The rule is settled that no 6uestion in#ol#ing the constitutionality or #alidity of a law or go#ernmental act may be heard and decided by the court unless there is com"liance with the legal re6uisites for %udicial in6uiry, namely. that the 6uestion must be raised by the "ro"er "arty4 that there must be an actual case or contro#ersy4 that the 6uestion must be raised at the earliest "ossible o""ortunity4 and, that the decision on the constitutional or legal 6uestion must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. 5ut the most im"ortant are the first two /80 re6uisites. $ Bot e#ery action filed by a ta1"ayer can 6ualify to challenge the legality of official acts done by the go#ernment. - ta1"ayerMs suit can "ros"er only if the go#ernmental acts being 6uestioned in#ol#e disbursement of "ublic funds u"on the theory that the e1"enditure of "ublic funds by an officer of the state for the "ur"ose of administering an unconstitutional act constitutes a misa""lication of such funds, which may be en%oined at the re6uest of a ta1"ayer. 'egas"i # Ci#il Ser#ice Commission $ +t becomes a""arent that when a &andamus "roceeding in#ol#es the assertion of a "ublic right, the re6uirement of "ersonal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the "etitioner is a citi?en, and therefore, "art of the general Q"ublicQ which "ossesses the right. $QPublicQ is a com"rehensi#e, all$inclusi#e term. Pro"erly construed, it embraces e#ery "erson.

,umlao # CC&E'EC $ *or one, there is a mis%oinder of "arties and actions. Cne "etitioner does not %oin other "etitioners in the burden of their com"laint, nor do the latter %oin the former in his. They, res"ecti#ely, contest com"letely different statutory "ro#isions. $ *or another, there are standards that ha#e to be followed in the e1ercise of the function of %udicial re#iew, namely. /70 the e1istence of an a""ro"riate case4 /80 an interest "ersonal and substantial by the "arty raising the constitutional 6uestion4 /<0 the "lea that the function be e1ercised at the earliest o""ortunity4 and /=0 the necessity that the constitutional 6uestion be "assed u"on in order to decide the case. 5ugnay Const. and ,e#Ot. Cor". # 'aron $ The doctrine holds that only when the act com"lained of directly in#ol#es an illegal disbursement of "ublic funds raised by ta1ation will the ta1"ayerMs suit be allowed. The essence of a ta1"ayerMs right to institute such an action hinges on the e1istence of that re6uisite "ecuniary or monetary interest. $ +t is not enough that the ta1"ayer$"laintiff sufficiently show that he would be benefited or in%ured by the %udgment or entitled to the a#ails of the suit as a real "arty in interest. Vilosbayan # 2uingona, Jr. $ - "artyMs standing before this Court is a "rocedural technicality which it may, in the e1ercise of its discretion, set aside in #iew of the im"ortance of the issues raised. $ +n line with the liberal "olicy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary ta1"ayers, members of Congress, and e#en association of "lanters, and non$"rofit ci#ic organi?ations were allowed to initiate and "rosecute actions before this Court to 6uestion the constitutionality or #alidity of laws, acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of #arious go#ernment agencies or instrumentalities. P!+'CCBS- # Enri6ue? $ The Senators ha#e legal standing to 6uestion the #alidity of the #eto. 9hen a #eto was made in e1cess of the authority of the President, it im"ermissibily intrudes into the domain of the 'egislature. member of Congress can 6uestion an act of the E1ecuti#e which in%ures Congress as an institution. Tatad # 2arcia, Jr. $The "re#ailing doctrines in ta1"ayerMs suits are to allow ta1"ayers to 6uestion contracts entered into by the national go#ernment or go#ernment$owned or

controlled cor"orations allegedly in contra#ention of the law and to disallow the same when only munici"al contracts are in#ol#ed /%ust li)e in 5ugnay case since no "ublic money was in#ol#ed0. C"osa # *actoran, Jr. $ C'-SS SJ+T. The sub%ect matter of the com"laint is of common and general interest not %ust to se#eral, but to all citi?ens of the Phili""ines. Conse6uently, since the "arties are so numerous, it becomes im"racticable, if not totally im"ossible, to bring all of them before the court. $ Their "ersonality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the conce"t of intergenerational res"onsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. $ Beedless to say, e#ery generation has a res"onsibility to the ne1t to "reser#e that rhythm and harmony for the full en%oyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors^ assertion of their right to a sound en#ironment constitutes, at the same time, the "erformance of their obligation to ensure the "rotection of that right for the generations to come. 'o?ada # CC&E'EC $ -s ta1"ayers, "etitioners may not file the instant "etition, for nowhere therein is it alleged that ta1 money is being illegally s"ent. +t is only when an act com"lained of, which may include a legislati#e enactment or statute, in#ol#es the illegal e1"enditure of "ublic money that the so$called ta1"ayer suit may be allowed. $ The unchallenged rule is that the "erson who im"ugns the #alidity of a statute must ha#e a "ersonal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct in%ury as a result of its enforcement. Concrete in%ury, whether actual or threatened, is that indis"ensable element of a dis"ute which ser#es in "art to cast it in a form traditionally ca"able of %udicial resolution. 9hen the asserted harm is a Qgenerali?ed grie#anceQ shared in substantially e6ual measure by all or a large class of citi?ens, that harm alone normally does not warrant e1ercise of %urisdiction.

on the maintenance of the ruling as to "etitionersM standing. SECT+CB < 5eng?on # 'im $ 9hat is fiscal autonomyK +t contem"lates a guarantee of full fle1ibility to allocate and utili?e their resources with the wisdom and dis"atch that their needs re6uire. +t recogni?es the "ower and authority to le#y, assess and collect fees, fi1 rates of com"ensation not e1ceeding the highest rates authori?ed by law for com"ensation and "lay "lans of the go#ernment and allocate and disburse such sums as may be "ro#ided by law or "rescribed by them in the course of the discharge of their functions. *iscal autonomy means freedom from outside control. $ The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Cmbudsman must ha#e the inde"endence and fle1ibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The im"osition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the inde"endent constitutional offices allocate and utili?e the funds a""ro"riated for their o"erations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and #iolati#e not only of the e1"ress mandate of the Constitution but es"ecially as regards the Su"reme Court, of the inde"endence and se"aration of "owers u"on which the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based SECT+CB = 'im)et)ai Sons &illing, +nc. # Court of -""eals, et.al. $ eorgani?ation is "urely an internal matter of the Court to which "etitioner certainly has no business at all. $ The Court with its new membershi" is not obliged to follow blindly a decision u"holding a "artyMs case when, after its re$e1amination, the same calls for a rectification. SECT+CB G ,rilon # 'im $ The Constitution #ests in the Su"reme Court a""ellate %urisdiction o#er final %udgments and orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or #alidity of any treaty, international or e1ecuti#e agreement, law, "residential decree, "roclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in 6uestion. $ +n the e1ercise of this %urisdiction, lower courts are ad#ised to act with the utmost circums"ection, bearing in mind the conse6uences of a declaration of unconstitutionality u"on the stability of laws, no less than on the doctrine of se"aration of "owers. -s the 6uestioned act is usually the handiwor) of the legislati#e or the e1ecuti#e de"artments, or both, it

Vilosbayan # &orato $ The #oting on "etitionersM standing in the "re#ious case was a narrow one, se#en /;0 members sustaining "etitionersM standing and si1 /:0 denying "etitionersM right to bring the suit. The ma%ority was thus a tenuous one that is not li)ely to be maintained in any subse6uent litigation. +n addition, there ha#e been charges in the membershi" of the Court, with the retirement of Justice Cru? and 5idin and the a""ointment of the writer of this o"inion and Justice *rancisco. 2i#en this fact it is hardly tenable to insist

will be "rudent for such courts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to defer to the higher %udgment of this Court in the consideration of its #alidity, which is better determined after a thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with the concurrence of the ma%ority of those who "artici"ated in its discussion. 'arranaga # Court of -""eals /Transfer the #enue of the "reliminary in#estigation from Cebu City to &anila because of the e1tensi#e co#erage of the "roceedings by the Cebu media which allegedly influenced the "eo"leMs "erce"tion of "etitionerMs character and guilt.0 $ The Court recogni?es that "er#asi#e and "re%udicial "ublicity under certain circumstances can de"ri#e an accused of his due "rocess right to fair trial. +t was "re#iously held that to warrant a finding of "re%udicial "ublicity there must be allegation and "roof that the %udges ha#e been unduly influenced, not sim"ly that they might be, by the barrage in "ublicity. $ +n the case at bar, nothing in the records shows that the tone and content of the "ublicity that attended the in#estigation of "etitioners fatally infected the fairness and im"artiality of the ,CJ Panel. *irst 'e"anto Ceramics, +nc. # Court of -""eals $ +t is intended to gi#e the Su"reme Court a measure of control o#er cases "aced under its a""ellate %urisdiction. *or the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its a""ellate %urisdiction. *or the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its a""ellate %urisdiction can unnecessarily burden the Court and thereby undermine its essential function of e1"ounding the law in its most "rofound national as"ects. -ruelo # Court of -""eals $ Constitutionally s"ea)ing, the CC&E'EC can not ado"t a rule "rohibiting the filing of certain "leadings in the regular courts. The "ower to "romulgate rules concerning "leadings, "ractice and "rocedure in all courts is #ested on the Su"reme Court. Ja#ellana # ,+'2 /Section FH of the 'ocal 2o#ernment Code of 7FF7 and ,'2 &emorandum Circular Bo. FH$>7 does not #iolate -rticle 3+++. Section G of the Constitution. Beither the statute nor the circular trenches u"on the Su"reme CourtMs "ower and authority to "rescribe rules on the "ractice of law.0 $ The 'ocal 2o#ernment Code and ,'2 &emorandum Circular Bo. FH$>7 sim"ly "rescribe rules of conduct for "ublic officials to a#oid conflicts of interest between the discharge of their "ublic duties and the "ri#ate "ractice of their "rofession, in those instances where the law allows it.

SECT+CB : &aceda # 3as6ue? $ +n the absence of any administrati#e action ta)en against a "erson by the Court with regard to his certificates of ser#ice, the in#estigation being conducted by the Cmbudsman encroaches into the CourtMs "ower of administrati#e su"er#ision o#er all courts and its "ersonnel, in #iolation of the doctrine of se"aration of "owers. $ 9here a criminal com"laint against a Judge or other court em"loyee arises from their administrati#e duties, the Cmbudsman must defer action on said com"laint and refer the same to the Court for determination whether said Judge or court em"loyee had acted within the sco"e of their administrati#e duties. a6ui?a # Judge Castaneda, Jr. $ The rules e#en in an administrati#e case demands that if the res"ondent Judge should be disci"lined for gra#e misconduct or any gra#er offense, the e#idence "resented against him should be com"etent and deri#ed from direct )nowledge. The %udiciary, to which res"ondent belongs, no less demands that before its member could be faulted, it should be only after due in#estigation and based on com"etent "roofs, no less. This is all the more so when as in this case the charges are "enal in nature. /M&isconductM also im"lies Ma wrongful intention and not a mere error of %udgment. +t results that e#en if res"ondent were not correct in his legal conclusions, his %udicial actuations cannot be regarded as gra#e misconduct, unless the contrary sufficiently a""ears.0 SECT+CB 7H Bitafan # Commissioner of +nternal e#enue

$ The clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was to delete the "ro"osed e1"ress grant of e1em"tion from "ayment of income ta1 to members of the Judiciary, so as to Qgi#e substance to e6uality among the three branches of 2o#ernment.A SECT+CB 77 ,e 'a 'lana # -lba $Judiciary -ct does not #iolate %udicial security of tenure. This Court is em"owered Qto disci"line %udges of inferior courts and, by a #ote of at least eight members, order their dismissal.Q Thus, it "ossesses the com"etence to remo#e %udges. Jnder the Judiciary -ct, it was the President who was #ested with such "ower. emo#al is, of course, to be distinguished from termination by #irtue of the abolition of the office. There can be no tenure to a non$e1istent office. -fter the abolition, there is in law no occu"ant. +n case of remo#al, there is an office

with an occu"ant who would thereby lose his "osition. +t is in that sense that from the stand"oint of strict law, the 6uestion of any im"airment of security of tenure does not arise. Bonetheless, for the incumbents of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of se"aration. -s to its effect, no distinction e1ists between remo#al and the abolition of the office. ealistically, it is de#oid of significance. !e ceases to be a member of the %udiciary. Peo"le # 2acott, Jr. $ To re6uire the entire Court to deliberate u"on and "artici"ate in all administrati#e matters or cases regardless of the sanctions, im"osable or im"osed, would result in a congested doc)et and undue delay in the ad%udication of cases in the Court, es"ecially in administrati#e matters, since e#en cases in#ol#ing the "enalty of re"rimand would re6uire action by the Court en banc. $ Ret, although as thus demonstrated, only cases in#ol#ing dismissal of %udges of lower courts are s"ecifically re6uired to be decided by the Court en banc, in cogni?ance of the need for a thorough and %udicious e#aluation of serious charges against members of the %udiciary, it is only when the "enalty im"osed does not e1ceed sus"ension of more than one year or a fine of P7H,HHH.HH, or both, that the administrati#e matter may be decided in di#ision. SECT+CB 78 +n e. &an?ano

$ 9hat is e1"ected of the %udiciary Qis that the decision rendered ma)es clear why either "arty "re#ailed under the a""licable law to the facts as established. Bor is there any regid formula as to the language to be em"loyed to satisfy the re6uirement of clarity and distinctness. The discretion of the "articular %udge in this res"ect, while not unlimited, is necessarily broad. There is no sacramental form of words which he must use u"on "ain of being considered as ha#ing failed to abide by what the Constitution directs.Q $ The "ro#ision has been held to refer only to decisions of the merits and not to orders of the trial court resol#ing incidental matters such as the one at bar. /content of the resolution. incident in the "rosecution of "etitioner0 5orromeo # Court of -""eals $ The Court reminds all lower courts, lawyers, and litigants that it dis"oses of the bul) of its cases by minute resolutions and decrees them as final and e1ecutory, as where a case is "atently without merit, where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the decision a""ealed from is su""orted by substantial e#idence and is in accord with the facts of the case and the a""licable laws, where it is clear from the records that the "etition is filed merely to forestall the early e1ecution of %udgment and for non$ com"liance with the rules. The resolution denying due course or dismissing the "etition always gi#es the legal basis. $ 9hen the Court, after deliberating on a "etition and any subse6uent "leadings, manifestations, comments, or motions decides to deny due course to the "etition and states that the 6uestions raised are factual or no re#ersible error in the res"ondent courtMs decision is shown or for some other legal basis stated in the resolution, there is sufficient com"liance with the constitutional re6uirement. $ &inute resolutions need not be signed by the members of the Court who too) "art in the deliberations of a case nor do they re6uire the certification of the Chief Justice. Vomatsu +ndustries /Phils.0 +nc # Court of -""eals $ +t has long been settled that this Court has discretion to decide whether a Qminute resolutionQ should be used in lieu of a full$blown decision in any "articular case and that a minute esolution of dismissal of a Petition for e#iew on Certiorari constitutes an ad%udication on the merits of the contro#ersy or sub%ect matter of the Petition. +t has been stressed by the Court that the grant of due course to a Petition for e#iew is Qnot a matter of right, but of sound %udicial discretion4 and so there is no need to fully e1"lain the CourtMs denial. *or one

$ -s incumbent TC Judges, they form "art of the structure of go#ernment. Their integrity and "erformance in the ad%udication of cases contribute to the solidity of such structure. -s "ublic officials, they are trustees of an orderly society. E#en as non$ members of Pro#incialICity Committees on Justice, TC %udges should render assistance to said Committees to hel" "romote the landable "ur"oses for which they e1ist, but only when such assistance may be reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their %udicial duties. SECT+CB 7= Bicos +ndustrial Cor" # Court of -""eals $ The Court is not duty bound to render signed decisions all the time. +t has am"le discretion to formulate decisions andIor minute resolutions, "ro#ided a legal basis is gi#en, de"ending on its e#aluation of a case. $ -s it is settled that an order dismissing a case for insufficient e#idence is a %udgment on the merits, it is im"erati#e that it be a reasoned decision clearly and distinctly stating therein the facts and the law on which it is based. &endo?a # C*+

thing, the facts and law are already mentioned in the Court of -""ealsM o"inion.Q Prudential 5an) # Castro $ The Constitutional mandate that Qno . . . motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be . . . denied without stating the legal basis thereforQ is ina""licable in administrati#e cases. -nd e#en if it were, said esolution stated the legal basis for the denial and, therefore, adhered faithfully to the Constitutional re6uirement. Q'ac) of merit,Q which was one of the grounds for denial, is a legal basis. $/certification issue0 The re6uirement of a certification refers to decisions to %udicial cases and not to administrati#e cases. 5esides, since the decision was a "er curiam decision, a formal certification is not re6uired. Cil and Batural 2as Commission # Court of -""eals $ The constitutional mandate that no decision shall be rendered by any court without e1"ressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based does not "reclude the #alidity of Qmemorandum decisionsQ which ado"t by reference the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals. SECT+CB 7= /not 7:0 3alde? # Court of -""eals $ The /lower0 court statement in the decision that a "arty has "ro#en his case while the other has not, is not the findings of facts contem"lated by the Constitution and the rules to be clearly and distinctly stated. $ This Court has said again and again that it is not a trier of facts and that it relies, on the factual findings of the lower court and the a""ellate court which are conclusi#e.