Narratives

Constitutional Law II
Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola 2005 Shared under Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAli e !"0 #hili$$ines license"

Some %i&hts %eserved"

'able o( Contents

#AS)I *#hili$$ine Association o( Service )+$orters Inc, v" -rilon *G% L-./05.1 !0 2une /0.., 3 / Sison v" Ancheta *G% L-504!/1 25 2ul5 /0.4, 3 / #eo$le v" 6ernande7 *G% L-8025-281 /. 2ul5 /058, 3 2 #eo$le v" Isinain *G% L-2.591 2. :ebruar5 /050, 3 ! Chave7 v" #CGG *G% /!09/81 0 -ecember /00., 3 4 Nune7 v" Sandi&anba5an *G% L-505./-508/91 !0 2anuar5 /0.2, 3 5 Lacson v" )+ecutive Secretar5 *G% /2.0081 20 2anuar5 /000, 3 8 Soriano v" Court o( A$$eals *G% /2!0!81 4 March /000, 3 . ;NI-< v" Comelec *G% 585/51 ! A$ril /0./, 3 0 Ceni7a v" Comelec *G% L-52!041 2. 2anuar5 /0.0, 3 0 #hili$$ine 2ud&es Association *G% /05!9/1 // November /00!, 3 /0 <livare7 v" Sandi&anba5an *G% //.5!!1 4 <ctober /005, 3 /2 'iu v" Court o( A$$eals *G% /294/01 20 2anuar5 /000, 3 /! International School Alliance o( )ducators =ISA)> vs" ?uisumbin& *G% /2..451 / 2une 2000, 3 /4 #hili$$ine %ural )lectric Coo$erative Association Inc" =#6IL%)CA>1 et" al" vs" Secretar5 o( -e$artment o( Interior and Local Government =-ILG> *G% /4!0981 /0 2une 200!, """/5

This collection contains fifteen (15) cases summarized in this format by Michael Vernon M. Guerrero (as a senior law student) during the First emester! school year "##5$"##% in the &olitical 'aw (e)iew class under *ean Mariano Magsalin +r. at the ,rellano -ni)ersity chool of 'aw (,- '). .om/iled as &*F! e/tember "#1". 0erne Guerrero entered ,- ' in +une "##" and e)entually graduated from ,- ' in "##%. 1e /assed the &hili//ine bar e2aminations immediately after (,/ril "##3).

berne&uerrero"word$ress"com

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

96 PASEI [Philippine Association of Service Exporters Inc] v. Drilon [GR L- !9" # $% &'ne !9 ] En Banc, Sarmiento (J): 12 concur, 2 on leave (acts) The Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI) is a firm "engaged principally in the recr itment of !ilipino "or#ers, male and female, for overseas placement." It challenged the $onstit tional validity of %&'E(s %epartment &rder ) (series of )*++), in the character of ", idelines ,overning the Temporary S spension of %eployment of !ilipino %omestic and -o sehold .or#ers," in a petition for certiorari and prohi/ition. The meas re is assailed ()) for "discrimination against males or females0" that it "does not apply to all !ilipino "or#ers / t only to domestic helpers and females "ith similar s#ills0" (1) for /eing violative of the right to travel, and (2) for /eing an invalid exercise of the la"ma#ing po"er, police po"er /eing legislative, and not exec tive, in character. PASEI also invo#ed Section 2 of Article 3III of the $onstit tion providing for "or#er participation "in policy and decision4ma#ing processes affecting their rights and /enefits as may /e provided /y la" as %epartment &rder 5o. ), as contended, "as passed in the a/sence of prior cons ltations. It also claimed that it violated the $harter6s non4impairment cla se, in addition to the "great and irrepara/le in7 ry" that PASEI mem/ers face sho ld the &rder /e f rther enforced. &n 18 9ay )*++, the Solicitor ,eneral, on /ehalf of the Secretary of 'a/or and Administrator of the P&EA, filed a $omment informing the $o rt that on + 9arch )*++, the 'a/or Secretary lifted the deployment /an in the states of Ira:, ;ordan, <atar, $anada, -ong#ong, =nited States, Italy, 5or"ay, A stria, and S"it>erland. In s /mitting the validity of the challenged "g idelines," the Solicitor ,eneral invo#es the police po"er of the Philippine State. Iss'e) .hether %epartment &rder ) nd ly discriminates against "omen. *el+) %epartment &rder ) applies only to "female contract "or#ers," / t it does not there/y ma#e an nd e discrimination /et"een the sexes. ?E: ality /efore the la"" nder the $onstit tion does not import a perfect identity of rights among all men and "omen. It admits of classifications, provided that ()) s ch classifications rest on s /stantial distinctions0 (1) they are germane to the p rposes of the la"0 (2) they are not confined to existing conditions0 and (@) they apply e: ally to all mem/ers of the same class. The classification made A the preference for female "or#ers A rests on s /stantial distinctions. The sordid tales of maltreatment s ffered /y migrant !ilipina "or#ers, even rape and vario s forms of tort re, confirmed /y testimonies of ret rning "or#ers, are compelling motives for rgent ,overnment action. As precisely the careta#er of $onstit tional rights, the $o rt is called pon to protect victims of exploitation. In f lfilling that d ty, the $o rt s stains the ,overnment6s efforts. There is no evidence that, except perhaps for isolated instances, !ilipino men a/road have /een afflicted "ith an identical predicament. %iscrimination in this case is 7 stified. ! rther, the imp gned g idelines are applica/le to all female domestic overseas "or#ers, not all !ilipina "or#ers. -ad the /an /een given niversal applica/ility, then it "o ld have /een nreasona/le and ar/itrary, d e to the fact that not all of them are similarly circ mstanced. .hat the $onstit tion prohi/its is the singling o t of a select person or gro p of persons "ithin an existing class, to the pre7 dice of s ch a person or gro p or res lting in an nfair advantage to another person or gro p of persons. .here the classification is /ased on s ch distinctions that ma#e a real difference as infancy, sex, and stage of civili>ation of minority gro ps, the /etter r le is to recogni>e its validity only if the yo ng, the "omen, and the c lt ral minorities are singled o t for favora/le treatment. 9, Sison v. Ancheta [GR L-"9-$!# ." &'l/ !9 -] En Banc, Fernando (J): 9 concur, 2 concur in result, 1 concur in separate opinion, 1 took no part (acts) Antero 9. Sison ;r., as taxpayer, alleges that Section ) of BP )28 (allegedly modifying Section 1) of the )*CC 5ational Internal Deven e $ode, "hich provides for rates of tax on citi>ens or residents on EaF taxa/le compensation income, E/F taxa/le net income, EcF royalties, pri>es, and other "innings, EdF interest from /an# deposits and yield or any other monetary /enefit from deposit s /stit tes and from tr st f nd and similar arrangements, EeF dividends and share of individ al partner in the net profits of taxa/le partnership, EfF
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 1 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

ad7 sted gross income. ) nd ly discriminated against him /y the imposition of higher rates of tax pon his income arising from the exercise of his profession vis4a4vis those "hich are imposed pon fixed income or salaried individ al taxpayers. -e characteri>es the a/ove section as ar/itrary amo nting to class legislation, oppressive and capricio s in character0 that there is a transgression of /oth the e: al protection and d e process cla ses of the $onstit tion as "ell as of the r le re: iring niformity in taxation. Iss'e) .hether professionals and / sinessmen, li#e Sison, are nd ly discriminated for not /eing entitled to ded ctions for income tax p rposes. *el+) The r le of taxation shall /e niform and e: ita/le. This re: irement is met "hen the tax operates "ith the same force and effect in every place "here the s /7ect may /e fo nd. The r le of niformity does not call for perfect niformity or perfect e: ality, /eca se this is hardly attaina/le. Taxpayers may /e classified into different categories. It is eno gh that the classification m st rest pon s /stantial distinctions that ma#e real differences. In the case of the gross income taxation em/odied in BP )28, the discerni/le /asis of classification is the s scepti/ility of the income to the application of generali>ed r les removing all ded cti/le items for all taxpayers "ithin the class and fixing a set of red ced tax rates to /e applied to all of them. Taxpayers "ho are recipients of compensation income are set apart as a class. As there is practically no overhead expense, these taxpayers are not entitled to ma#e ded ctions for income tax p rposes /eca se they are in the same sit ation more or less. &n the other hand, in the case of professionals in the practice of their calling and / sinessmen, there is no niformity in the costs or expenses necessary to prod ce their income. It "o ld not /e 7 st then to disregard the disparities /y giving all of them >ero ded ction and indiscriminately impose on all ali#e the same tax rates on the /asis of gross income. There is ample 7 stification to adopt the gross system of income taxation to compensation income, "hile contin ing the system of net income taxation as regards professional and / siness income. 9 People v. *ernan+e0 [GR L-6%."-.6# ! &'l/ !9"6] Resolution En Banc, Concepcion (J): concur, 1 concurs in result (acts) ()) Amado G. -ernande> alias Gictor alias Soliman alias Amado alias AG- alias Gictor Soliman, (1) , illermo $apadocia alias - an Bantiling alias $ap alias ,. $apadocia, (2) 9ariano P. Balgos alias Ba#al alias Tony $ollantes alias Bonifacio, (@) Alfredo Sa lo alias Elias alias !red alias A.B.S. alias A.B., (8) Andres Baisa, ;r. alias Ben alias Andy (H) ,enaro de la $r > alias ,on>alo alias ,orio alias Arong, (C) A: ilino B nsol alias Anong, (+) Adriano Samson alias %anoy, (*) ; an ;. $r > alias ;ohnny 1, alias ;essie .ilson alias .illiam, ()I) ;aco/o Espino, ())) Amado Dacanday, ()1) !ermin Dodillas, and ()2) ; lian ' manog alias 9an e, "ere acc sed of the crime of re/ellion "ith m ltiple m rder, arsons and ro//eries. The prosec tion maintained that -ernande> is charged "ith re/ellion complexed "ith m rders, arsons and ro//eries, for "hich the capital p nishment may /e imposed. The defense contends, among other things, that re/ellion can not /e complexed "ith m rder, arson, or ro//ery. The lo"er co rt sentenced -ernande> merely to life imprisonment. A petition for /ail "as filed /y Amado -ernande> on 1+ %ecem/er )*82, "hich "as denied /y a resol tion of the S preme $o rt dated 1 !e/r ary )*8@. A similar petition for /ail "as filed /y -ernande> on 1H ; ne )*8@ and rene"ed on 11 %ecem/er )*88. Iss'e) .hether -ernande> is entitled to right to /ail. *el+) Inasm ch as the acts specified in Article )28 of the Devised Penal $ode constit te one single crime, it follo"s necessarily that said acts offer no occasion for the application of Article @+, "hich re: ires therefor the commission of, at least, t"o crimes. -ence, the S preme co rt has never in the past convicted any person of the "complex crime of re/ellion "ith m rder". .hat is more, it appears that in every one of the cases of re/ellion p /lished in the Philippine Deports (=S vs. 'agnason, 2 Phil. @C10 =S vs. Baldello, 2 Phil. 8I*, =S vs. Ayala, H Phil. )8)0 'eag e vs. People, C2 Phil. )88), the defendants therein "ere convicted of simple re/ellion, altho gh they had #illed several persons, sometimes peace officers. The ingredients of a crime form
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 2 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

part and parcel thereof, and, hence, are a/sor/ed /y the same and cannot /e p nished either separately therefrom or /y the application of Article @+ of the Devised Penal $ode. The la" p nishing re/ellion (Article )28, Devised Penal $ode) specifically mentions the act of engaging in "ar and committing serio s violence among its essential elements, th s clearly indicating that everything done in the prosec tion of said "ar, as a means necessary therefor, is em/raced therein. 5ational, as "ell as international, la"s and 7 rispr dence over"helmingly favor the proposition that common crimes, perpetrated in f rtherance of a political offense, are divested of their character as "common" offenses and ass me the political complexion of the main crime of "hich they are mere ingredients, and, conse: ently, cannot /e p nished separately from the principal offense, or complexed "ith the same, to 7 stify the imposition of a graver penalty. The policy of o r stat tes on re/ellion is to consider all acts committed in f rtherance thereof as constit ting only one crime, p nisha/le "ith one single penalty. ! rther, the settled policy of o r la"s on re/ellion, since the /eginning of the cent ry, has /een one of decided leniency, in comparison "ith the la"s enforce d ring the Spanish regime. Altho gh the ,overnment has, for the past 8 or H years, adopted a more vigoro s co rse of action in the apprehension of violators of said la" and in their prosec tion the esta/lished policy of the State, as regards the p nishment of the c lprits has remained nchanged since )*21. ! rthermore, to deny /ail it is not eno gh that the evidence of g ilt is strong0 it m st also appear that in case of conviction the defendant6s criminal lia/ility "o ld pro/a/ly call for a capital p nishment. Th s, in concl sion, nder the allegations of the amended information against -ernande>, the m rders, arsons and ro//eries descri/ed therein are mere ingredients of the crime of re/ellion allegedly committed /y said defendants, as means "necessary" for the perpetration of said offense of re/ellion0 that the crime charged in the amended information is, therefore, simple re/ellion, not the complex crime of re/ellion "ith m ltiple m rder, arsons and ro//eries0 that the maxim m penalty imposa/le nder s ch charge cannot exceed )1 years of prision mayor and a fine of P1I,III0 and that, in conformity "ith the policy of the S preme $o rt in dealing "ith acc sed persons amena/le to a similar p nishment, said defendant may /e allo"ed /ail. 99 People v. Isinain [GR L-. ",# . (e1r'ar/ !9"%] Second !ivision, Ben"#on (J): $ concur (acts) In the morning of C 9arch )*@C, =r/ano $r >, the encargado of the cocon t grove of Art ro E sta: io in 'at an and Balagtasan, $ity of Jam/oanga, "as informed /y one of the g ards that there "ere 2 persons stealing cocon ts in the said plantation. $r > called Ernesto !argas, E sta: io(s tr c# driver, and accompanied /y some la/orers, proceeded to the plantation. There the gro p sa" 2 persons, chopping cocon ts. .hen they approached, the trespassers started to r n a"ay, / t $r > fired a shot into the air, and one stopped and "as apprehended. -e t rned o t to /e 9oro Isnain, "ho, pon investigation /y the precinct commander of the police station ('t. B coy) ac#no"ledged his c lpa/ility, as#ed for pardon and identified his confederates as 9oros Addi and A#i# ("ho are still at large). Before the 7 stice of the peace he pleaded g ilty to the charge. -o"ever, in the $o rt of !irst Instance ($!I), he changed his mind. -e admitted he had /een arrested d ring the raid, / t s /mitted the flimsy exc se that he had merely gone to the place /eca se he "as thirsty, and confessed that he 7oined the other t"o thieves in order to drin# cocon t "ater. -is attorney de officio raised the constit tionality of Article 2)I of the Devised Penal $ode, as it allegedly p nishes the larceny of s ch prod cts (the stealing of cocon ts) more heavily than the ta#ing a"ay of similar prod ce (rice and s gar) and there/y denies 9oro Isinain e: al protection of the la"s. Iss'e) .hether the harsher penalties in the theft of cocon ts over other o/7ects of theft renders the penal la" contrary to the constit tional g aranty on e: al protection of the la". *el+) 5o. Altho gh the constit tional g aranty re: ires the treatment ali#e, in the same place and nder li#e circ mstances and conditions, of all persons s /7ected to state legislation0 a state, as a part of its police po"er, may exercise a large meas re of discretion, "itho t violating the e: al protection g aranty, in creating and defining criminal offenses, and may ma#e classifications as to persons amena/le to p nishment, so long as the classifications are reasona/le and the legislation /ears e: ally on all in the same class, and, "here a
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 3 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

reasona/le classification is made as /et"een persons or corporations, the persons or corporations in each class may /e dealt "ith in a manner different from that employed "ith regard to the persons or corporations in other classes. -erein, on the theft of cocon ts, the p rpose of the heavier penalty is to enco rage and protect the development of the cocon t ind stry as one of the so rces of the national economy. =nli#e rice and s gar cane farms "here the range of vision is no/str cted, cocon t groves can not /e efficiently "atched /eca se of the nat re of the gro"th of cocon t trees0 and "itho t a special meas re to protect this #ind of property, it "ill /e the favorite resort of thieves. There is therefore, some reason for the special treatment accorded the ind stry and as it can not /e said that the classification is entirely "itho t /asis. !%% 2have0 v. P2GG [GR !$%,!6# 9 Dece31er !99 ] First !ivision, %an"ani&an (J): ' concur (acts) !rancisco I. $have>, as "taxpayer, citi>en and former government official "ho initiated the prosec tion of the 9arcoses and their cronies "ho committed nmitigated pl nder of the p /lic treas ry and the systematic s /7 gation of the co ntry6s economy," alleges that "hat impelled him to /ring the action "ere several ne"s reports /annered in a n m/er of /roadsheets sometime in Septem/er )**C referring to ()) the alleged discovery of /illions of dollars of 9arcos assets deposited in vario s coded acco nts in S"iss /an#s0 and (1) the reported exec tion of a compromise, /et"een the government (thro gh P$,,) and the 9arcos heirs, on ho" to split or share these assets. $have>, invo#ing his constit tional right to information and the correlative d ty of the state to disclose p /licly all its transactions involving the national interest, demands that the Presidential $ommission on ,ood ,overnment (P$,,) ma#e p /lic any and all negotiations and agreements pertaining to P$,,6s tas# of recovering the 9arcoses6 ill4gotten "ealth. -e claimed that any compromise on the alleged /illions of ill4gotten "ealth involves an iss e of "paramo nt p /lic interest," since it has a "de/ilitating effect on the co ntry6s economy" that "o ld /e greatly pre7 dicial to the national interest of the !ilipino people. P$,, claimed $have>(s action is premat re as he has not as#ed the P$,, to disclose the negotiations and agreements and that the proposed terms of the Agreements have not /ecome effective and /inding. They f rther aver that the 9arcos heirs have s /mitted the s /7ect Agreements to the Sandigan/ayan for its approval, "hich the Dep /lic has opposed as it has not /een ratified nor s /mitted to the President for approval0 and that the 9arcos heirs have failed to comply "ith the nderta#ings, partic larly the collation and s /mission of an inventory of their assets. &n )* A g st )**+, ,loria, $elnan, Scarlet and Teresa, all s rnamed ;opson, filed /efore the $o rt a 9otion for Intervention, attaching thereto their Petition in Intervention. They aver that they are "among the )I,III claimants "hose right to claim from the 9arcos !amily andKor the 9arcos Estate is recogni>ed /y the decision in In re Estate of !erdinand 9arcos, - man Dights 'itigation, 9aximo -ilao, et al., $lass Plaintiffs 5o. *14)881H, = .S. $o rt of Appeals for the *th $irc it =S App. 'exis )@C*H, ; ne )H, )**@ and the %ecision of the S"iss S preme $o rt of %ecem/er )I, )**C"0 and as s ch, they claim to have personal and direct interest in the s /7ect matter of the case, since a distri/ tion or disposition of the 9arcos properties may adversely affect their legitimate claims. In a min te Desol tion iss ed on 1@ A g st )**+, the $o rt granted their motion to intervene. Iss'e) .hether the civil and criminal lia/ilities of the 9arcoses may /e compromised, as em/odied in the ,eneral and S pplemental Agreements /et"een the P$,, and the 9arcoses. *el+) In general, the la" enco rages compromises in civil cases, except "ith regard to the follo"ing mattersL ()) the civil stat s of persons, (1) the validity of a marriage or a legal separation, (2) any gro nd for legal separation, (@) f t re s pport, (8) the 7 risdiction of co rts, and (H) f t re legitime. And li#e any other contract, the terms and conditions of a compromise m st not /e contrary to la", morals, good c stoms, p /lic policy or p /lic order. A compromise is /inding and has the force of la" /et"een the parties, nless the consent of a party is vitiated A s ch as /y mista#e, fra d, violence, intimidation or nd e infl ence A or "hen there is forgery, or if the terms of the settlement are so palpa/ly nconsciona/le. In the latter instances, the agreement may /e invalidated /y the co rts. In the a/sence of an express prohi/ition, the r le on compromises in civil actions nder the $ivil $ode is applica/le to P$,, cases. S ch principle is p rs ant to
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 4 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

the o/7ectives of Exec tive &rder (E&) )@, partic larly the 7 st and expeditio s recovery of ill4gotten "ealth, so that it may /e sed to hasten economic recovery. -o"ever, any compromise relating to the civil lia/ility arising from an offense does not a tomatically terminate the criminal proceeding against or exting ish the criminal lia/ility of the malefactor. .hile a compromise in civil s its is expressly a thori>ed /y la", there is no similar general sanction as regards criminal lia/ility. The a thority m st /e specifically conferred. The po"er to grant criminal imm nity "as conferred on P$,, /y Section 8 of E& )@, as amended /y E& )@4A. !rom the "ording of the la", ho"ever, it can /e easily ded ced that the person referred to is a "itness in the proceeding, not the principal respondent, defendant or acc sed. -erein, the ,eneral and S pplemental Agreements /et"een the P$,, and the 9arcos heirs have serio s legal fla"s. !irst, the Agreements do not conform to the a/ove re: irements of E& )@ and )@4A. $riminal imm nity nder Section 8 cannot /e granted to the 9arcoses, "ho are the principal defendants in the spate of ill4gotten "ealth cases pending /efore the Sandigan/ayan. Second, nder Item 1 of the ,eneral Agreement, the P$,, commits to exempt from all forms of taxes the properties to /e retained /y the 9arcos heirs. This is a clear violation of the $onstit tion. The po"er to tax and to grant tax exemptions is vested in the $ongress and, to a certain extent, in the local legislative /odies. The P$,, has a/sol tely no po"er to grant tax exemptions, even nder the cover of its a thority to compromise ill4gotten "ealth cases. Third, the government /inds itself to ca se the dismissal of all cases against the 9arcos heirs, pending /efore the Sandigan/ayan and other co rts. This is a direct encroachment on 7 dicial po"ers, partic larly in regard to criminal 7 risdiction. &nce a case has /een filed /efore a co rt of competent 7 risdiction, the matter of its dismissal or p rs ance lies "ithin the f ll discretion and control of the 7 dge, once 7 risdiction is ac: ired /y the trial co rt. The P$,,, as the government prosec tor of ill4gotten "ealth cases, cannot g arantee the dismissal of all s ch criminal cases against the 9arcoses pending in the co rts, for said dismissal is not "ithin its sole po"er and discretion. !o rth, the government also "aives all claims and co nterclaims, ""hether past, present, or f t re, mat red or inchoate," against the 9arcoses. Again, this all4encompassing stip lation is contrary to la". =nder the $ivil $ode, an action for f t re fra d may not /e "aived. The stip lation in the Agreement does not specify the exact scope of f t re claims against the 9arcoses that the government there/y relin: ishes. This is a palpa/le violation of the d e process and e: al protection g arantees of the $onstit tion. It effectively ensconces the 9arcoses /eyond the reach of the la". It also sets a dangero s precedent for p /lic acco nta/ility. It is a virt al "arrant for p /lic officials to amass p /lic f nds illegally, since there is an open option to compromise their lia/ility in exchange for only a portion of their ill4gotten "ealth. !ifth, the Agreements do not provide for a definite or determina/le period "ithin "hich the parties shall f lfill their respective prestations. It may ta#e a lifetime /efore the 9arcoses s /mit an inventory of their total assets. Sixth, the Agreements do not state "ith specificity the standards for determining "hich assets shall /e forfeited /y the government and "hich shall /e retained /y the 9arcoses. .hile the S pplemental Agreement provides that the 9arcoses shall /e entitled to 18M of the N28H million S"iss deposits (less government recovery expenses), s ch sharing arrangement pertains only to the said deposits. 5o similar splitting scheme is defined "ith respect to the other properties. 5either is there, any"here in the Agreements, a statement of the /asis for the 184C8 percent sharing ratio. !inally, the a/sence of then President Damos6 approval of the principal Agreement, and express condition therein, renders the compromise incomplete and nenforcea/le. 5evertheless, even if s ch approval "ere o/tained, the Agreements "o ld still not /e valid. !%! 4'ne0 v. San+i5an1a/an [GR L-"%" !-"%6!,# $% &an'ar/ !9 .] En Banc, Fernando (J): ( concur, 2 took no part) (acts) Information "ere filed against D fino G. 5 ne> /efore Sandigan/ayan on 1) !e/r ary and 1H 9arch )*C* for the crime of estafa thro gh falsification of p /lic and commercial doc ments committed in connivance "ith his co4acc sed, all p /lic officials, in several cases. Thereafter, on )8 9ay, pon /eing arraigned, he filed a motion to : ash on constit tional and 7 ridical gro nds. A "ee# later, the Sandigan/ayan denied the motion. A motion for reconsideration "as filed a day later, and "as li#e"ise denied. 5 ne> filed a petition for certiorari and prohi/ition "ith the S preme $o rt, claiming that Presidential %ecree )@+H, "hich created the Sandigan/ayan, is violative of the d e process, e: al protection, and ex post facto cla ses of the
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 5 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

$onstit tion. Iss'e) .hether the trial of the acc sed, a p /lic official, /y the Sandigan/ayan nd ly discriminates against the acc sed, in light of the difference of the proced res (especially appellate) in the Sandigan/ayan vis4a4vis reg lar co rts. *el+) The $onstit tion provided for / t did not create a special $o rt, the Sandigan/ayan, "ith "7 risdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corr pt practices and s ch other offenses committed /y p /lic officers and employees, incl ding those in government4o"ned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may /e determined /y la"." It came into existence "ith the iss ance in )*C+ of a Presidential %ecree. $lassification m st /e /ased on s /stantial distinctions "hich ma#e real differences0 it m st /e germane to the p rposes of the la"0 it m st not /e limited to existing conditions only, and m st apply e: ally to each mem/er of the class. The constit tion specifically ma#es mention of the creation of a special co rt, the Sandigan/ayan, precisely in response to a pro/lem, i.e. dishonesty in the p /lic service, the rgency of "hich cannot /e denied. It follo"s that those "ho may thereafter /e tried /y s ch co rt o ght to have /een a"are as far /ac# as )C ;an ary )*C2, "hen the present $onstit tion came into force, that a different proced re for the acc sed therein, "hether petitioner is a private citi>en or a p /lic official, is not necessarily offensive to the e: al protection cla se of the $onstit tion. ! rther, the omission of the $o rt of Appeals as intermediate tri/ nal does not deprive protection of li/erty. The innocence or g ilt of an acc sed in the Sandigan/ayan is passed pon /y 247 dge co rt of its division. 9oreover, a nanimo s vote is re: ired, failing "hich "the Presiding ; stice shall designate t"o other 7 stices from among the mem/ers of the $o rt to sit temporarily "ith them, forming a division of five 7 stices, and the conc rrence of a ma7ority of s ch division shall /e necessary for rendering 7 dgment." If convicted, the Sandigan/ayan en /anc has the d ty if he see#s a revie" to see "hether any error of la" "as committed to 7 stify a reversal of the 7 dgment. !%. Lacson v. Exec'tive Secretar/ [GR !. %96# .% &an'ar/ !999] En Banc, *artine# (J): 1 concur (acts) &n )+ 9ay )**8, )) persons /elieved to /e mem/ers of the O ratong Baleleng gang "ere slain along $ommon"ealth Aven e in < e>on $ity /y elements of the Anti4Ban# Do//ery and Intelligence Tas# ,ro p (ABDIT,) headed /y P5P $hief S perintendent ;e"el $anson. The ABDIT, "as composed of police officers from the Traffic 9anagement $ommand (T9$) led /y Senior S perintendent !rancisco J /ia, ;r.0 PA$$ Tas# !orce -a/agat (PA$$4T!-) headed /y $hief S perintendent Panfilo 9. 'acson0 $entral Police %istrict $ommand ($P%$) led /y $hief S perintendent Dicardo de 'eon0 and the $riminal Investigation $ommand ($I$) headed /y $hief S perintendent Domeo Acop. Acting on a media expose of SP&1 Ed ardo delos Deyes, a mem/er of the $I$, alleged that "hat act ally transpired "as a s mmary exec tion and not a shoot4o t /et"een the O ratong Baleleng gang mem/ers and the ABDIT,. &m/ dsman Aniano %esierto formed a panel of investigators headed /y the %ep ty &m/ dsman for 9ilitary Affairs, Bienvenido Blancaflor, to investigate the incident. This panel later a/solved from any criminal lia/ility all the P5P officers and personnel allegedly involved in the )+ 9ay )**8 incident, "ith a finding that the said incident "as a legitimate police operation. -o"ever, a revie" /oard led /y &verall %ep ty &m/ dsman !rancisco Gilla modified the Blancaflor panel6s finding and recommended the indictment for m ltiple m rder against 1H acc sed, incl ding 'acson, J /ia, and Acop. This recommendation "as approved /y the &m/ dsman, except for the "ithdra"al of the charges against $hief S pt. Dicardo de 'eon. &n 1 5ovem/er )**8, 'acson "as among those charged as principal in )) informations for m rder /efore the Sandigan/ayan6s Second %ivision, "hile Acop and J /ia "ere among those charged in the same informations as accessories after4the4fact. =pon motion /y all the acc sed in the )) informations, the Sandigan/ayan allo"ed them to file a motion for reconsideration of the &m/ dsman6s action. After cond cting a reinvestigation, the &m/ dsman filed on ) 9arch )**H, )) amended informations /efore the Sandigan/ayan, "herein 'acson "as charged only as an accessory, together "ith Acop and J /ia and others. &ne of the acc sed "as dropped from the case. &n 84H 9arch )**H, all the acc sed filed separate motions : estioning the 7 risdiction of the Sandigan/ayan,
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 6 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

asserting that nder the amended informations, the cases fall "ithin the 7 risdiction of the DT$ p rs ant to Section 1 (paragraphs a and c) of Dep /lic Act (DA) C*C8. They contend that the said la" limited the 7 risdiction of the Sandigan/ayan to cases "here one or more of the " principal acc sed" are government officials "ith Salary ,rade (S,) 1C or higher, or P5P officials "ith the ran# of $hief S perintendent (Brigadier ,eneral) or higher. The highest ran#ing principal acc sed in the amended informations has the ran# of only a $hief Inspector, and none has the e: ivalent of at least S, 1C. &n + 9ay )**H, a resol tion penned /y ; stice %emetrio , "ith ; stices 'agman and de 'eon conc rring, and ; stices Bala7adia and ,architorena dissenting, the Sandigan/ayan admitted the amended information and ordered the cases transferred to the < e>on $ity DT$ "hich has original and excl sive 7 risdiction nder Dep /lic Act, as none of the principal acc sed has the ran# of $hief S perintendent or higher. &n )C 9ay )**H, the &ffice of the Special Prosec tor moved for a reconsideration, insisting that the cases sho ld remain "ith the Sandigan/ayan. .hile motions for reconsideration "ere pending resol tion, and even /efore the iss e of 7 risdiction cropped p "ith the filing of the amended informations on ) 9arch )**H, -B 11** and -B )I*@ (sponsored /y Depresentatives Edcel $. 'agman and 5eptali 9. ,on>ales II, respectively), as "ell as SB +@@ (sponsored /y Senator 5eptali ,on>ales), "ere introd ced in $ongress, definingKexpanding the 7 risdiction of the Sandigan/ayan /y deleting the "ord "principal" from the phrase "principal acc sed" in Section 1 (paragraphs a and c) of DA C*C8. These /ills "ere consolidated and later approved into la" as DA +1@* /y the President of the Philippines on 8 !e/r ary )**C. &n 8 9arch )**C, the Sandigan/ayan prom lgated a Desol tion denying the motion for reconsideration of the Special Prosec tor, r ling that it "stands pat in its resol tion dated + 9ay )**H. &n the same day, the Sandigan/ayan iss ed an Addend m to its 8 9arch )**C Desol tion granting the Special Prosec tor(s motion for reconsideration in light of the enactment of DA +1@*, admitting the amended information, and retaining 7 risdiction to try and decide the cases. 'acson, th s, : estions the constit tionality of Section @ of DA +1@*, incl ding Section C thereof "hich provides that the said la" "shall apply to all cases pending in any co rt over "hich trial has not /eg n as of the approval hereof." Iss'e) .hether 'acson and his co4acc sed "ere placed nder a different category from those sit ated similarly to them, in light of the amendments nder Dep /lic Act +1@*. *el+) The classification /et"een those pending cases involving the concerned p /lic officials "hose trial has not yet commenced and "hose cases co ld have /een affected /y the amendments of the Sandigan/ayan 7 risdiction nder DA +1@*, as against those cases "here trial had already started as of the approval of the la", rests on s /stantial distinction that ma#es real differences. In the first instance, evidence against them "ere not yet presented, "hereas in the latter the parties had already s /mitted their respective proofs, examined "itnesses and presented doc ments. Since it is "ithin the po"er of $ongress to define the 7 risdiction of co rts s /7ect to the constit tional limitations, it can /e reasona/ly anticipated that an alteration of that 7 risdiction "o ld necessarily affect pending cases, "hich is "hy it has to provide for a remedy in the form of a transitory provision. Sections @ and C does not place 'acson and intervenors nder a different category from those similarly sit ated as them. Precisely, paragraph a of Section @ provides that it shall apply to "all cases involving" certain p /lic officials and, nder the transitory provision in Section C, to "all cases pending in any co rt." -o"ever, to fall nder the excl sive original 7 risdiction of the Sandigan/ayan, the follo"ing re: isites m st conc rL ()) the offense committed is a violation of (a) D.A. 2I)*, as amended (the Anti4,raft and $orr pt Practices Act), (/) D.A. )2C* (the la" on ill4gotten "ealth), (c) $hapter II, Section 1, Title GII, Boo# II of the Devised Penal $ode (the la" on /ri/ery), (d) Exec tive &rder 5os. ), 1, )@, and )@4A, iss ed in )*+H (se: estration cases), or (e) other offenses or felonies "hether simple or complexed "ith other crimes0 (1) the offender committing the offenses in items (a), (/), (c) and (e) is a p /lic official or employee holding any of the positions en merated in paragraph a of Section @0 and (2) the offense committed is in relation to the office. Specifically, an offense is said to have /een committed in relation to the office if it (the offense) is "intimately connected" "ith the office of the offender and perpetrated "hile he "as in the performance of his official f nctions. This intimate relation /et"een the offense charged and the discharge of official d ties "m st /e alleged in the information.P -erein, the amended informations
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 7 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

are "anting of specific fact al averments to sho" the intimate relationKconnection /et"een the offense charged and the discharge of official f nction of the offenders. 9ere allegation in the amended information that the offense "as committed /y the acc sed p /lic officer "in relation to his office" is not s fficient. That phrase is merely a concl sion of la", not a fact al averment that "o ld sho" the close intimacy /et"een the offense charged and the discharge of the acc sed6s official d ties. !or fail re to sho" in the amended informations that the charge of m rder "as intimately connected "ith the discharge of official f nctions of the acc sed P5P officers, the offense charged in the s /7ect criminal cases is plain m rder and, therefore, "ithin the excl sive original 7 risdiction of the DT$, not the Sandigan/ayan. !%$ Soriano v. 2o'rt of Appeals [GR !.$9$6# - 6arch !999] Second !ivision, +uisum&in" (J): concur (acts) &n C %ecem/er )**2, Donald Soriano "as convicted of the crime of Dec#less Impr dence res lting to homicide, serio s physical in7 ries and damage to property. &n + 9arch )**@, his application for pro/ation "as granted /y the trial co rt, "hich imposed pon him terms and conditions ()) to meet his family responsi/ilities, (1) to devote himself to a specific employment and not to change employment "itho t prior notice to the s pervising officer0 andKor to p rs e a prescri/ed sec lar st dy or vocational training, and (2) to indemnify the heirs of the victim Isidrino %al yong in the amo nt of P*+,8HI.II as ordered /y the $o rt. &n 1H April )**@, Assistant Prosec tor Ben7amin A. !adera filed a motion to cancel Soriano6s pro/ation d e to his fail re to satisfy his civil lia/ility to the heirs of the victim, and a s pplemental motion alleging Soriano6s commission of another crime for "hich at that time he "as a"aiting arraignment. The Jam/ales Parole and Pro/ation &ffice filed a comment recommending that Soriano /e allo"ed to contin e "ith his pro/ation and that he /e re: ired instead to s /mit a program of payment of his civil lia/ility. &n 1I ; ne )**@, the trial co rt denied the prosec tor6s motion and directed Soriano to s /mit a program of payment of the civil lia/ility imposed pon him. Thereafter, pro/ation officer 5elda %a 9aycong received information that Soriano6s father, "ho o"ned the vehicle involved in the accident "hich #illed %al yong, received P)H,8II.II as ins rance payment. Said amo nt "as not t rned over to the heirs of %al yong. %a 9aycong considered this a violation of the terms and conditions of the pro/ation, and th s, s /mitted a manifestation to the trial co rt praying that Soriano /e made to explain his non4compliance "ith the co rt6s order of 1I ; ne )**@, or that he /e cited for contempt for s ch non4compliance. The trial co rt granted %a 9aycong(s prayers in its )8 A g st )**@ order, and ordered the Soriano once again to s /mit his program of payment. Soriano instead filed a motion for reconsideration explaining that he did not receive any notice of the order dated 1I ; ne )**@., as his co nsel failed to notify Soriano after he received a copy of said order on 12 ; ne )**@. &n @ &cto/er )**@, the trial co rt iss ed an order declaring Soriano in contempt of co rt for his fail re to comply "ith its orders of 1I ; ne )**@ and )8 A g st )**@, and revo#ed the grant of pro/ation to Soriano and ordered that he /e arrested to serve the sentence originally imposed pon him. Soriano filed a special civil action for certiorari "ith the $o rt of Appeals. The appellate co rt dismissed the petition, holding that Soriano6s "st //orn n"illingness" to comply "ith the orders of the trial co rt "sho"s his ref sal to reform himself and to correct a "rong." Soriano(s motion for reconsideration "as li#e"ise denied /y the appellate co rt. Soriano filed the petition for revie" "ith the S preme $o rt. Iss'e) .hether the re: irement to pay indemnity to the victim(s heirs, in light of the convict(s application for pro/ation, is violative of the e: al protection cla se of the $onstit tion. *el+) The re: irement to pay indemnity to the victim6s heirs is not violative of the e: al protection cla se of the $onstit tion. Soriano6s application for pro/ation had already /een granted. Satisfaction of his civil lia/ility "as not made a re: irement /efore he co ld avail of pro/ation, / t "as a condition for his contin ed en7oyment of the same. The trial co rt co ld not have done a"ay "ith imposing payment of civil lia/ility as a condition for pro/ation. This is not an ar/itrary imposition / t one re: ired /y la". It is a conse: ence of Soriano6s having /een convicted of a crime, and petitioner is /o nd to satisfy this o/ligation regardless of "hether or not he is placed nder pro/ation. There is no reason "hy Soriano cannot comply "ith a simple
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 8 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

order to f rnish the trial co rt "ith a program of payment of his civil lia/ility. -e may, indeed, /e poor, / t this is precisely the reason "hy the trial co rt gave him the chance to ma#e his o"n program of payment. Ono"ing his o"n financial condition, he is in the /est position to form late a program of payment that fits his needs and capacity. Soriano(s ref sal to comply "ith orders cannot /e anything / t deli/erate. -e has ref sed to comply "ith the trial co rt6s directive, /y : estioning instead the constit tionality of the re: irement imposed and harping on his alleged poverty as the reason for his fail re to comply. Since pro/ation is not an a/sol te right, and that it is a mere privilege "hose grant rests pon the discretion of the trial co rt. Its grant is s /7ect to certain terms and conditions that may /e imposed /y the trial co rt. -aving the po"er to grant pro/ation, it follo"s that the trial co rt also has the po"er to order its revocation in a proper case and nder appropriate circ mstances. !%- 74ID8 v. 2o3elec [GR "6"!"# $ April !9 !] En Banc, Barredo (J): ' concur, 1 concur in result, 1 took no part, 1 on o,,icial leave (acts) =5I%& IS a political organi>ation or aggr pation campaigning for "5&" votes to the amendments to the $onstit tion of the Philippines of )*C2 proposed /y the Batasang Pam/ansa. $omelec iss ed 2 resol tions all dated 8 9arch )*+) (Desol tion )@HC providing for D les and Deg lations for "e: al opport nity" on p /lic disc ssions and de/ates on the ple/iscite : estions to /e s /mitted to the people on C April )*+)0 Desol tion )@H+ providing "e: al time on the se of the /roadcast media Eradio and televisionF in the ple/iscite campaign"0 and Desol tion )@H* providing for "e: al space on the se of the print media in the )*+) ple/iscite of C April )*+)".) =5I%& addressed a letter to $omelec on )I 9arch )*+) to grant it the same opport nity as given President 9arcos, "ho "as campaigning for QRESP. It also re: ested radio and television coverage for its Pla>a 9iranda meeting on a letter dated )C 9arch )*+). $omelec iss ed a resol tion on )+ 9arch)*+) denying the re: est of =5I%&0 stating that 9arcos cond ct his p long4p long in light of the official government thr st to amend the constit tion and in his capacity as PresidentKPrime 9inister and not as head of any political party to "hich the =5I%& or any of its leaders does not have the same constit tional prerogatives vested in the PresidentKPrime 9inister, as s ch, it has no right to "demand" e: al coverage /y media accorded President 9arcos. =5I%& sent a letter serving as its motion for reconsideration. The $omelec denied the letter4motion for lac# of merit in its resol tion of 11 9arch )*+). =5I%& appealed to the S preme $o rt. Iss'e) .hether the opposition sho ld /e given the same opport nity and facilities given to the President to comm nicate and dialog e "ith the people on matters affecting the plan of government or of p /lic interest. *el+) It is ndenia/le and / t nat ral that the head of state of every co ntry in the "orld m st, from the very nat re of his position, /e accorded certain privileges not e: ally availa/le to those "ho are opposed to him in the sense that, since the head of state has the grave and tremendo s responsi/ility of planning and implementing the plan of government itself, either /y virt e of the pop lar mandate given to him nder the corresponding provisions of the $onstit tion and the la"s or any other d ly recogni>ed grant of po"er and a thority, the opposition cannot /e placed at par "ith him, since logically the opposition can only fiscali>e the administration and p nct ali>e its errors and shortcomings to the end that "hen the d ly sched led time for the people to exercise their inaliena/le po"er to ma#e a /etter choice, the opposition may have the chance to ma#e them accept the alternative they can offer. Therefore, "hen the head of state is afforded the opport nity or "hen he feels it inc m/ent pon him to comm nicate and dialog e "ith the people on any matter affecting the plan of government or any other matter of p /lic interest, no office or entity of the government is o/liged to give the opposition the same facilities /y "hich its contrary vie"s may /e ventilated. !%" 2eni0a v. 2o3elec [GR L-".$%-# . &an'ar/ !9 %] En Banc, Concepcion Jr) (J): 1- concur, 1 took no part

Constitutional Law II, 2005 (

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

(acts) &n 11 %ecem/er )*C*, the Interim Batasang Pam/ansa enacted Batas Pam/ansa 8) providing for local elections on 2I ;an ary )*+I. To implement this Act, $omelec adopted Desol tion )@1), excl ding )+ cities (incl ding $e/ and 9anda e) from participating in the election of provincial officials. Beca se of its income, the $ity of $e/ is classified as a highly r/ani>ed city and the voters thereof cannot ta#e part in the election of the elective provincial officials of the province of $e/ , altho gh the $harter of $e/ $ity allo"s the : alified voters of the city to vote in the election of the provincial officials of the Province of $e/ . The $ity of 9anda e is classified as a component city. B t the registered voters of the city cannot vote for the provincial elective officials /eca se its $harter expressly provides that the registered voters of the city cannot participate in the election of the provincial officials of the Province of $e/ , except to /e a candidate therefor. Damon B. $eni>a, !ederico $. $a/ilao ;r., 5elso ;. Dosal and Ale7andro D. Alins g filed the petition for prohi/ition and mandam s "ith a prayer for a "rit of preliminary in7 nction, as taxpayers and registered voters in the $ities of $e/ and 9anda e. They vigoro sly assail Section 2 of BP 8), "hich ses the ann al income of a given city as the /asis for classification of "hether or not a partic lar city is a highly r/ani>ed city "hose voters may not participate in the election of provincial officials of the province "here the city is geographically located0 and DA 88)* ($harter of 9anda e $ity), "hich "ent into effect "itho t the /enefit of ratification /y the residents of 9anda e in a ple/iscite or referend m. They prayed that a restraining order to temporarily prohi/it the election for Provincial ,overnor and elective provincial officials in $e/ , prohi/iting the 5ational Treas rer to release p /lic f nds and the $ommission on A dit ($&A) to pass in a dit said f nds in connection "ith and for the p rpose of holding the local elections0 and after hearing render Section 2 of BP ++8 void, as "ell as Section *H, Article 3GIII of DA 88)* ($harter of 9anda e). Iss'e) .hether the excl sion of inha/itants of highly r/ani>ed cities and component cities from electing provincial government officials violate the e: al protection of la". *el+) The e: al protection of the la" contemplates e: ality in the en7oyment of similar rights and privileges granted /y la". It "o ld have /een discriminatory and a denial of the e: al protection of the la" if the stat te prohi/ited an individ al or gro p of voters in the city from voting for provincial officials "hile granting it to another individ al or gro p of voters in the same city. The classification of cities into highly r/ani>ed cities and component cities on the /asis of their reg lar ann al income is /ased pon s /stantial distinction. The reven e of a city "o ld sho" "hether or not it is capa/le of existence and development as a relatively independent social, economic, and political nit. It "o ld also sho" "hether the city has s fficient economic or ind strial activity as to "arrant its independence from the province "here it is geographically sit ated. $ities "ith smaller income need the contin ed s pport of the provincial government th s 7 stifying the contin ed participation of the voters in the election of provincial officials in some instances. These cities /eing independent of the province in the administration of their affairs leaves the provincial government "itho t governmental s pervision over highly r/ani>ed cities. S ch /eing the case, it is / t 7 st and proper to limit the selection and election of the provincial officials to the voters of the province "hose interests are vitally affected and excl de therefrom the voters of highly r/ani>ed cities. ! rther, express provisions in $harter of a $ity may excl de registered voters of the city from voting for the provincial officials of the province. The practice of allo"ing voters in one component city to vote for provincial officials and denying the same privilege to voters in another component city is a matter of legislative discretion "hich violates neither the $onstit tion nor the voter6s right of s ffrage. !%6 Philippine &'+5es Association [GR !%"$,!# !! 4ove31er !99$] En Banc, Cru# (J): 12 concur, 1 on leave (acts) The Philippine ; dges Association (d ly represented /y its President, Bernardo P. A/esamis, Gice4 President for 'egal Affairs 9ariano 9. =mali, %irector for Pasig, 9a#ati and Pasay, 9etro 9anila Alfredo $. !lores, and $hairman of the $ommittee on 'egal Aid, ;es s ,. Bersamira, Presiding ; dges of the Degional Trial $o rt, Branch +8, < e>on $ity and Branches )HI, )HC and )HH, Pasig, 9etro 9anila, respectively)0 the 5ational $onfederation of the ; dges Association of the Philippines (composed of the 9etropolitan Trial
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 10 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

$o rt ; dges Association represented /y its President, Deinato < ilala of the 9 nicipal Trial $irc it $o rt, 9anila)0 and the 9 nicipal ; dges 'eag e of the Philippines (represented /y its President, Tomas ,. Talavera)0 /y themselves and in /ehalf of all the ; dges of the Degional Trial and Shari6a $o rts, 9etropolitan Trial $o rts and 9 nicipal $o rts thro gho t the $o ntry, filed the petition assailing the constit tionality of Dep /lic Act C28@ (An Act $reating the Philippine Postal $orporation, %efining its Po"er, ! nctions and Desponsi/ilities, Providing for Deg lation of the Ind stry and for &ther P rposes $onnected There"ith), as implemented /y the Philippine Postal $orporation thro gh its $irc lar *141+, on the gro nds thatL ()) its title em/races more than one s /7ect and does not express its p rposes0 (1) it did not pass the re: ired readings in /oth -o ses of $ongress and printed copies of the /ill in its final form "ere not distri/ ted among the mem/ers /efore its passage0 and (2) it is discriminatory and encroaches on the independence of the ; diciary0 contending that their official f nctions as 7 dges "ill /e pre7 diced /y the "ithdra"al of fran#ing privilege. The 5ational 'and Degistration A thority (5'DA) has ta#en common ca se "ith them insofar as its o"n activities, s ch as the sending of re: isite notices in registration cases, affect 7 dicial proceedings. &n its motion, it has /een allo"ed to intervene. Iss'e) .hether the "ithdra"al of the fran#ing privilege of the ; diciary violates the e: al protection cla se of the $onstit tion. *el+) The e: al protection of the la"s is em/raced in the concept of d e process, as every nfair discrimination offends the re: irements of 7 stice and fair play. It has nonetheless /een em/odied in a separate cla se in Article III Sec. ), of the $onstit tion to provide for a more specific g aranty against any form of nd e favoritism or hostility from the government. Ar/itrariness in general may /e challenged on the /asis of the d e process cla se. B t if the partic lar act assailed parta#es of an n"arranted partiality or pre7 dice, the sharper "eapon to c t it do"n is the e: al protection cla se. E: al protection simply re: ires that all persons or things similarly sit ated sho ld /e treated ali#e, /oth as to rights conferred and responsi/ilities imposed. Similar s /7ects, in other "ords, sho ld not /e treated differently, so as to give nd e favor to some and n7 stly discriminate against others. The e: al protection cla se does not re: ire the niversal application of the la"s on all persons or things "itho t distinction. .hat the cla se re: ires is e: ality among e: als as determined according to a valid classification. By classification is meant the gro ping of persons or things similar to each other in certain partic lars and different from all others in these same partic lars. The "ithdra"al of fran#ing privilege from the ; diciary "o ld f rther deepen the pro/lem in the delay in the administration of 7 stice. The $o rt are dependent on the postal service for comm nicating "ith la"yers and litigants as part of the 7 dicial process. It sho ld not /e hard to imagine the increased diffic lties of o r co rts if they have to affix a p rchased stamp to every process they send in the discharge of their 7 dicial f nctions, considering that the ; diciary has the lo"est appropriation in the national / dget compared to the 'egislative and Exec tive %epartments (.+@M of P2I* /illion / dgeted for )**2). The repealing cla se is a discriminatory provision that denied the ; diciary the e: al protection of the la"s g aranteed for all persons or things similarly sit ated. The distinction made /y the la" is s perficial. It is not /ased on s /stantial distinctions that ma#e real differences /et"een the ; diciary and the grantees of the fran#ing privilege (The President of the Philippines0 the Gice President of the Philippines0 Senators and 9em/ers of the -o se of Depresentatives0 the $ommission on Elections0 former Presidents of the Philippines0 "ido"s of former Presidents of the Philippines0 the 5ational $ens s and Statistics &ffice0 and the general p /lic in the filing of complaints against p /lic offices or officers). In l mping the ; diciary "ith the other offices (the &ffice of Ad lt Ed cation0 the Instit te of 5ational 'ang age0 the Telecomm nications &ffice0 the Philippine %eposit Ins rance $orporation0 the 5ational -istorical $ommission0 the Armed !orces of the Philippines0 the Armed !orces of the Philippines 'adies Steering $ommittee0 the $ity and Provincial Prosec tors0 the Tanod/ayan or the &ffice of Special Prosec tor0 the Oa/ataang Barangay0 the $ommission on the !ilipino 'ang age0 the Provincial and $ity Assessors0 and the 5ational $o ncil for the .elfare of %isa/led Persons.) from "hich the fran#ing privilege has /een "ithdra"n, Section 28 has placed the co rts of 7 stice in a category to "hich it does not /elong. If it recogni>es the need of the President of the Philippines and the mem/ers of $ongress for the fran#ing privilege, there is no reason "hy it sho ld not recogni>e a
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 11 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

similar and in fact greater need on the part of the ; diciary for s ch privilege. !%, 8livare0 v. San+i5an1a/an [GR !! "$$# - 8cto1er !99"] Second !ivision, Re"alado (J): ' concur, 1 on leave) (acts) &n )8 %ecem/er )**1, Baclaran $redit $ooperative, Inc. (B$$I), thro gh its /oard mem/er Doger de 'eon, charged ParaSa: e 9ayor %r. Pa/lo D. &livare> "ith Giolation of the Anti4,raft and $orr pt Practices Act for nreasona/ly ref sing to iss e a mayor6s permit despite re: est and follo"4 ps to implement ParaSa: e Sangg niang Bayan Desol tion C@@, (series of )**1) "hich &livare> himself approved on H &cto/er )**1. Desol tion C@@ a thori>ed B$$I to set p a night man fact rer6s fair d ring the $hristmas fiesta cele/ration of and at Baclaran for HI days from )) 5ovem/er )**1 to )8 !e/r ary )**2 for "hich they "ill se a portion of the service road of Doxas Bo levard. Allegedly, B$$I exerted all possi/le efforts to sec re the necessary permit / t &livare> simply ref sed to iss e the same nless B$$I gives money to the latter. Attached to B$$I(s Deply4Affidavit "as a copy of Exec tive &rder dated 12 5ovem/er )**1 iss ed /y &livare> granting a gro p of Baclaran4/ased organi>ationsKassociations of vendors the holding of "$hristmas Agro4Ind strial !air Sa Baclaran" from 1+ 5ovem/er )**1 to 1+ !e/r ary )**2 sing certain portions of the 5ational and 'ocal ,overnment DoadsKStreets in Baclaran for f nd raising. ,raft Investigation &fficer (,I&) III Dingpis cond cted a preliminary investigation and iss ed on 11 Septem/er )**2 a resol tion recommending the prosec tion of &livare> for violation of Section 2(f) of Dep /lic Act (DA) 2I)*, as amended. &n )H !e/r ary )**@, the information "as filed against &livares ($riminal $ase 1I11H). &n )C ;an ary )**@, &livare> filed a 9otion for Deconsideration andKor Deinvestigation allegedly to rectify error of la" and on gro nd of ne"ly discovered evidence. The motion "as granted on 1@ ;an ary )**@. &n * !e/r ary )**2, &m/ dsman disapproved the recommendation to "ithdra" the information as &livare> does not ref te the allegation and that /ad faith is evident "ith his persistent ref sal to iss e permit. &n )+ !e/r ary )**@, &livare> vol ntarily s rrendered and posted a cash /ail /ond "ith the Sandigan/ayan for his temporary release. &n 1) !e/r ary )**@, &livare> filed an &mni/ s 9otion for a re4examination and re4 assessment of the prosec tion6s report and doc mentary evidence "ith a vie" to set aside the determination of the existence of pro/a/le ca se and ltimately the dismissal of the case0 "hich "as denied /y the Sandigan/ayan on 2 9arch )**@ in &pen $o rt. In vie" of &livare>6s ref sal to enter any plea, the co rt ordered a plea of "not g ilty" entered into his record. &n + 9arch )**@, the prosec tion filed a 9otion to s spend Acc sed Pendente 'ite. &n 9arch *, )@ and )8, )**@, &livare> filed a 9otion to Set Aside Plea and To Ded ce %enial &rder Into .riting (.ith Entry of Appearance), S pplemental 9otion to Set Aside Plea and &pposition to 9otion to S spend Acc sed and S pplemental Pleading "ith Additional &pposition to 9otion to S spend Acc sed0 "hich "ere denied /y the Sandigan/ayan on @ April )**@. The Sandigan/ayan, ho"ever, set aside the proceedings cond cted on 2 9arch )**@ incl ding &livare>6s arraignment th s revo#ing the plea of "not g ilty" entered in his record in the interest of 7 stice and to avoid f rther delay in the prompt ad7 dication of the case d e to technicalities. &n 1I April )**@, &livare> filed a motion for reconsideration "hich "as granted on )8 9ay )**@. $onse: ently, the case "as remanded to the &ffice of the &m/ dsman for another reinvestigation to /e terminated "ithin 2I days from notice. The reinvestigation "as reassigned to SP& III Angel $. 9ayoralgo "ho on 2 5ovem/er )**@, recommended the dismissal of the case. &n * %ecem/er )**@, %SP ;ose de ,. !errer reversed the recommendation, finding &livare> lia/le /y giving n"arranted /enefit thr manifest partiality to another gro p on the flimsy reason that complainant failed to apply for a / siness permit. The &m/ dsman approved the reversal and on 1C %ecem/er )**@ directed the prosec tion to proceed nder the existing information. &n )2 ;an ary )**8, &livare> filed a 9otion for Iss ance of S /poena % ces Tec m and Ad Testificand m to %SP ;ose de ,. !errer, SP& III Doger Ber/ano, Sr., and SP& III Angel 9ayoralgo, ;r. and on )H ;an ary )**8, &livare> filed a 9otion to Stri#e & t andKor Devie" Des lt of Deinvestigation. The latter motion "as denied /y Sandigan/ayan. &livare> filed the petition for certiorari and prohi/ition. Iss'e) .hether &livare> exhi/ited partiality in the denial of K inaction over B$$I(s application for license.

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 12 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

*el+) &livare>6s s spected partiality may /e gleaned from the fact that he iss ed a permit in favor of the nidentified Baclaran4/ased vendors6 associations /y the mere expedient of an exec tive order, "hereas so many re: irements "ere imposed on B$$I /efore it co ld /e granted the same permit. .orse, &livare> failed to sho", in apparent disregard of B$$I6s right to e: al protection, that B$$I and the nidentified Baclaran4 /ased vendors6 associations "ere not similarly sit ated as to give at least a sem/lance of legality to the apparent haste "ith "hich said exec tive order "as iss ed. It "o ld seem that if there "as any interest served /y s ch exec tive order, it "as that of &livare>. As the mayor of the m nicipality, the officials referred to "ere definitely nder his a thority and he "as not "itho t reco rse to ta#e appropriate action on the letter4 application of B$$I altho gh the same "as not strictly in accordance "ith normal proced re. There "as nothing to prevent him from referring said letter4application to the licensing department, / t "hich paradoxically he ref sed to do. .hether &livare> "as impelled /y any material interest or lterior motive may /e /eyond the $o rt for the moment since this is a matter of evidence, / t the environmental facts and circ mstances are s fficient to create a /elief in the mind of a reasona/le man that this "o ld not /e completely impro/a/le, a/sent co ntervailing clarification. 'astly, it may not /e amiss to add that &livare>, as a m nicipal mayor, is expressly a thori>ed and has the po"er to iss e permits and licenses for the holding of activities for any charita/le or "elfare p rpose, p rs ant to Section @@@ (/) (2) (iv and v) of the 'ocal ,overnment $ode of )**) (Dep /lic Act C)HI). -ence, he cannot really feign total lac# of a thority to act on the letter4application of B$$I. !% 9i' v. 2o'rt of Appeals [GR !.,-!%# .% &an'ar/ !999] En Banc, %an"ani&an (J): 1 concur

(acts) &n )2 9arch )**1, $ongress, "ith the approval of the President, passed into la" Dep /lic Act C11C ("An Act Accelerating the $onversion of 9ilitary Deservations Into &ther Prod ctive =ses, $reating the Bases $onversion and %evelopment A thority for this P rpose, Providing ! nds Therefor and for &ther P rposes.P). Section )1 thereof created the S /ic Special Economic Jone and granted thereto special privileges, s ch as tax exemptions and d ty4free importation of ra" materials, capital and e: ipment to / siness enterprises and residents located and residing in the said >ones. &n )I ; ne )**2, President Damos iss ed Exec tive &rder (E&) *C clarifying the application of the tax and d ty incentives. &n )* ; ne )**2, the President iss ed E& *C4A, specifying the area "ithin "hich the tax4and4d ty4free privilege "as operative (i.e. the sec red area consisting of the presently fenced4in former S /ic 5aval Base). &n 1H &cto/er )**@, $onrado '. Ti , ; an T. 9onteli/ano ;r. and Isagani 9. ; ngco challenged /efore the S preme $o rt the constit tionality of E& *C4A for allegedly /eing violative of their right to e: al protection of the la"s, inasm ch as the order granted tax and d ty incentives only to / sinesses and residents "ithin the "sec red area" of the S /ic Special Economic Jone and denying them to those "ho live "ithin the Jone / t o tside s ch "fenced4in" territory. In a Desol tion dated 1C ; ne )**8, the S preme $o rt referred the matter to the $o rt of Appeals, p rs ant to Devised Administrative $irc lar )4*8. Incidentally, on ) !e/r ary )**8, Proclamation 821 "as iss ed /y President Damos, delineating the exact metes and /o nds of the S /ic Special Economic and !ree Port Jone, p rs ant to Section )1 of DA C11C. The $o rt of Appeals denied the petition as there is no s /stantial difference /et"een the provisions of E& *C4A and Section )1 of DA C11C, holding that E& *C4A cannot /e claimed to /e nconstit tional "hile maintaining the validity of DA C11C0 that the intention of $ongress to confine the coverage of the SSEJ to the sec red area and not to incl de the entire &longapo $ity and other areas rely on the deli/erations in the Senate0 and that the limited application of the tax incentives is "ithin the prerogative of the legislat re, p rs ant to its "avo"ed p rpose Eof servingF some p /lic /enefit or interest. Ti , et. al.(s motion for reconsideration "as denied, and hence, they filed a petition for revie" "ith the S preme $o rt. Iss'e) .hether there "as a violation of the e: al protection of the la"s "hen E& *C4A granted tax and d ty incentives only to / sinesses and residents "ithin the "sec red area" of the S /ic Special Economic Jone and denied s ch to those "ho live "ithin the Jone / t o tside s ch "fenced4in" territory.

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 13 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

*el+) The E& *C4A is not violative of the e: al protection cla se0 neither is it discriminatory. The f ndamental right of e: al protection of the la"s is not a/sol te, / t is s /7ect to reasona/le classification. The classification occasioned /y E& *C4A "as not nreasona/le, capricio s or nfo nded. It "as /ased, rather, on fair and s /stantive considerations that "ere germane to the legislative p rpose. There are s /stantial differences /et"een the /ig investors "ho are /eing l red to esta/lish and operate their ind stries in the so4called "sec red area" and the present / siness operators o tside the area. &n the one hand, "e are tal#ing of /illion4peso investments and tho sands of ne" 7o/s, and on the other hand, definitely none of s ch magnit de. In the first, the economic impact "ill /e national0 in the second, only local. Even more important, at this time the / siness activities o tside the "sec red area" are not li#ely to have any impact in achieving the p rpose of the la", "hich is to t rn the former military /ase to prod ctive se for the /enefit of the Philippine economy. There is, then, hardly any reasona/le /asis to extend to them the /enefits and incentives accorded in DA C11C. Additionally, it "ill /e easier to manage and monitor the activities "ithin the "sec red area," "hich is already fenced off, to prevent "fra d lent importation of merchandise" or sm ggling. The classification applies e: ally to all the resident individ als and / sinesses "ithin the "sec red area." The residents, /eing in li#e circ mstances or contri/ ting directly to the achievement of the end p rpose of the la", are not categori>ed f rther. Instead, they are all similarly treated, /oth in privileges granted and in o/ligations re: ired. The e: al4protection g arantee does not re: ire territorial niformity of la"s. As long as there are act al and material differences /et"een territories, there is no violation of the constit tional cla se. -erein, anyone possessing the re: isite investment capital can al"ays avail of the same /enefits /y channeling his or her reso rces or / siness operations into the fenced4off free port >one. !%9 International School Alliance of E+'cators :ISAE; vs. <'is'31in5 [GR !. First !ivision, .apunan (J): 2 concur, 1 on o,,icial leave, 1 on leave -"# ! &'ne .%%%]

(acts) The International School, Inc., p rs ant to Presidential %ecree C21, is a domestic ed cational instit tion esta/lished primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. To ena/le the School to contin e carrying o t its ed cational program and improve its standard of instr ction, Section 1(c) of the same decree a thori>es the School to employ its o"n teaching and management personnel selected /y it either locally or a/road, from Philippine or other nationalities, s ch personnel /eing exempt from other"ise applica/le la"s and reg lations attending their employment, except la"s that have /een or "ill /e enacted for the protection of employees. Accordingly, the School hires /oth foreign and local teachers as mem/ers of its fac lty, classifying the same into t"oL ()) foreign4hires and (1) local4hires. The School employs fo r tests to determine "hether a fac lty mem/er sho ld /e classified as a foreign4hire or a local hire, i.e. (a) .hat is one6s domicileT (/) .here is one6s home economyT (c) To "hich co ntry does one o"e economic allegianceT (d) .as the individ al hired a/road specifically to "or# in the School and "as the School responsi/le for /ringing that individ al to the PhilippinesT The School grants foreign4hires certain /enefits not accorded local4hires. These incl de ho sing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes, and home leave travel allo"ance. !oreign4hires are also paid a salary rate 18M more than local4hires. The School 7 stifies the difference on t"o "significant economic disadvantages" foreign4hires have to end re, namelyL (a) the "dislocation factor" and (/) limited ten re. The compensation scheme is simply the School6s adaptive meas re to remain competitive on an international level in terms of attracting competent professionals in the field of international ed cation. The compensation pac#age given to local4hires has /een sho"n to apply to all, regardless of race. There are foreigners "ho have /een hired locally and "ho are paid e: ally as !ilipino local hires. .hen negotiations for a ne" collective /argaining agreement "ere held on ; ne )**8, the International School Alliance of Ed cators (ISAE), "a legitimate la/or nion and the collective /argaining representative of all fac lty mem/ers" of the School, contested the difference in salary rates /et"een foreign and local4hires. This iss e, as "ell as the : estion of "hether foreign4hires sho ld /e incl ded in the appropriate /argaining nit, event ally ca sed a deadloc# /et"een the parties. &n C Septem/er )**8, ISAE filed a notice of stri#e. The fail re of the 5ational $onciliation and 9ediation Board to /ring the parties to a compromise prompted the %epartment of 'a/or and Employment (%&'E) to ass me 7 risdiction over the disp te. &n )I ; ne )**H, the %&'E Acting Secretary, $rescenciano B. Tra7ano, iss ed
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 14 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

an &rder resolving the parity and representation iss es in favor of the School. Then %&'E Secretary 'eonardo A. < is m/ing s /se: ently denied ISAE6s motion for reconsideration in an &rder dated )* 9arch )**C. ISAE so ght relief from the S preme $o rt. Iss'e) .hether the School nd ly discriminated against the local4hires. *el+) That p /lic policy a/hors ine: ality and discrimination is /eyond contention. & r $onstit tion and la"s reflect the policy against these evils. The $onstit tion in the Article on Social ; stice and - man Dights exhorts $ongress to "give highest priority to the enactment of meas res that protect and enhance the right of all people to h man dignity, red ce social, economic, and political ine: alities." The very /road Article )* of the $ivil $ode re: ires every person, "in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his d ties, EtoF act "ith 7 stice, give everyone his d e, and o/serve honesty and good faith. International la", "hich springs from general principles of la", li#e"ise proscri/es discrimination. The =niversal %eclaration of - man Dights, the International $ovenant on Economic, Social, and $ lt ral Dights, the International $onvention on the Elimination of All !orms of Dacial %iscrimination, the $onvention against %iscrimination in Ed cation, the $onvention (5o. )))) $oncerning %iscrimination in Despect of Employment and &cc pation )H A all em/ody the general principle against discrimination, the very antithesis of fairness and 7 stice. The Philippines, thro gh its $onstit tion, has incorporated this principle as part of its national la"s. In the "or#place, "here the relations /et"een capital and la/or are often s#e"ed in favor of capital, ine: ality and discrimination /y the employer are all the more reprehensi/le. If an employer accords employees the same position and ran#, the pres mption is that these employees perform e: al "or#. This pres mption is /orne /y logic and h man experience. If the employer pays one employee less than the rest, it is not for that employee to explain "hy he receives less or "hy the others receive more. That "o ld /e adding ins lt to in7 ry. The employer has discriminated against that employee0 it is for the employer to explain "hy the employee is treated nfairly. -erein, the International School has failed to discharge this / rden. There is no evidence here that foreign4hires perform 18M more efficiently or effectively than the local4hires. Both gro ps have similar f nctions and responsi/ilities, "hich they perform nder similar "or#ing conditions. The School cannot invo#e the need to entice foreign4hires to leave their domicile to rationali>e the distinction in salary rates "itho t violating the principle of e: al "or# for e: al pay. The point4of4hire classification employed /y respondent School to 7 stify the distinction in the salary rates of foreign4hires and local hires to /e an invalid classification. There is no reasona/le distinction /et"een the services rendered /y foreign4hires and local4 hires. The practice of the School of according higher salaries to foreign4hires contravenes p /lic policy. !!% Philippine R'ral Electric 2ooperative Association Inc. :P*ILRE2A;# et. al. vs. Secretar/ of Depart3ent of Interior an+ Local Govern3ent :DILG; [GR !-$%,6# !% &'ne .%%$] En Banc, %uno (J): 1' concur (acts) =nder Presidential %ecree (P%) 1H*, as amended, or the 5ational Electrification Administration %ecree, it is the declared policy of the State to provide Qthe total electrification of the Philippines on an area coverage /asisP the same Q/eing vital to the people and the so nd development of the nation.P P rs ant to this policy, P% 1H* aims to Qpromote, enco rage and assist all p /lic service entities engaged in s pplying electric service, partic larly electric cooperativesP /y Qgiving every tena/le s pport and assistanceP to the electric cooperatives coming "ithin the p rvie" of the la". !rom )*C) to )*C+, in order to finance the electrification pro7ects envisioned /y P% 1H*, as amended, the Philippine ,overnment, acting thro gh the 5ational Economic $o ncil (no" 5ational Economic %evelopment A thority) and the 5EA (5ational Electrification Administration), entered into H loan agreements "ith the government of the =nited States of America thro gh the =nited States Agency for International %evelopment (=SAI%) "ith electric cooperatives, incl ding Ag san %el 5orte Electric $ooperative, Inc. (A5E$&)0 Iloilo I Electric $ooperative, Inc. (I'E$& I)0 and Isa/ela I Electric $ooperative, Inc. (ISE'$& I), as /eneficiaries. The H loan agreements involved a total amo nt of approximately =SN+H,III,III.II. These loan agreements are existing ntil today. The loan agreements contain similarly "orded provisions on the tax application of the loan and any property or
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 15 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

commodity ac: ired thro gh the proceeds of the loan. &n 12 9ay 1III, a class s it "as filed /y the Philippine D ral Electric $ooperatives Association, Inc. (P-I'DE$A)0 A5E$&, I'E$& I and ISE'$& I0 in their o"n /ehalf and in /ehalf of other electric cooperatives organi>ed and existing nder P% 1H*, against the Secretary of the %epartment of Interior and 'ocal ,overnment (%I',) and the Secretary of the %epartment of !inance, thro gh a petition for prohi/ition, contending that p rs ant to the provisions of P% 1H*, as amended, and the provision in the loan agreements, they are exempt from payment of local taxes, incl ding payment of real property tax. .ith the passage of the 'ocal ,overnment $ode, ho"ever, they allege that their tax exemptions have /een invalidly "ithdra"n, in violation of the e: al protection cla se and impairing the o/ligation of contracts /et"een the Philippine ,overnment and the =nited States ,overnment. Iss'e) .hether the 'ocal ,overnment $ode nd ly discriminated against electric cooperatives organi>ed and existing nder P% 1H*, in violation of the e: al protection cla se, /y providing a different tax treatment /et"een the former and cooperatives created nder DA H*2+. *el+) The e: al protection cla se nder the $onstit tion means that Qno person or class of persons shall /e deprived of the same protection of la"s "hich is en7oyed /y other persons or other classes in the same place and in li#e circ mstances.P Th s, the g aranty of the e: al protection of the la"s is not violated /y a la" /ased on reasona/le classification. $lassification, to /e reasona/le, m st ()) rest on s /stantial distinctions0 (1) /e germane to the p rposes of the la"0 (2) not /e limited to existing conditions only0 and (@) apply e: ally to all mem/ers of the same class. There is reasona/le classification nder the 'ocal ,overnment $ode to 7 stify the different tax treatment /et"een electric cooperatives covered /y P% 1H*, as amended, and electric cooperatives nder DA H*2+ ($ooperative $ode of the Philippines). !irst, no"here in P% 1H*, as amended, does it re: ire cooperatives to ma#e e: ita/le contri/ tions to capital. =nder the $ooperative $ode, the articles of cooperation of a cooperative applying for registration m st /e accompanied "ith the /onds of the acco nta/le officers and a s"orn statement of the treas rer elected /y the s /scri/ers sho"ing that at least 18M of the a thori>ed share capital has /een s /scri/ed and at least 18M of the total s /scription has /een paid and in no case shall the paid4 p share capital /e less than P1,III.II. Second, another principle adhered to /y the $ooperative $ode is the principle of s /sidiarity. P rs ant to this principle, the government may only engage in development activities "here cooperatives do not possess the capa/ility nor the reso rces to do so and only pon the re: est of s ch cooperatives. In contrast, P% 1H*, as amended /y P% )H@8, is replete "ith provisions "hich grant the 5EA, pon the happening of certain events, the po"er to control and ta#e over the management and operations of cooperatives registered nder it. The extent of government control over electric cooperatives covered /y P% 1H*, as amended, is largely a f nction of the role of the 5EA as a primary so rce of f nds of these electric cooperatives. It is crystal clear that 5EA inc rred loans from vario s so rces to finance the development and operations of the electric cooperatives. $onse: ently, amendments to P% 1H* "ere primarily geared to expand the po"ers of the 5EA over the electric cooperatives to ens re that loans granted to them "o ld /e repaid to the government. In contrast, cooperatives nder DA H*2+ are envisioned to /e self4s fficient and independent organi>ations "ith minimal government intervention or reg lation. 'astly, the transitory provisions of DA H*2+ are indicative of the recognition /y $ongress of the f ndamental distinctions /et"een electric cooperatives organi>ed nder P% 1H*, as amended, and cooperatives nder the ne" $ooperative $ode. Article )1+ of the $ooperative $ode provides that all cooperatives registered nder previo s la"s shall /e deemed registered "ith the $%A pon s /mission of certain re: irements "ithin one year. -o"ever, cooperatives created nder P% 1H*, as amended, are given three years "ithin "hich to : alify and register "ith the $%A, after "hich, provisions of P% )H@8 "hich expand the po"ers of the 5EA over electric cooperatives, "o ld no longer apply.

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 16 )