CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

Case Digests Milagros Isabel Velasco

MINIMUM REPRESENTATION:
Mariano v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 118577 March 7, 1995
Puno, J.

PETITIONERS:Juanito Mariano, Jr., Ligaya S. Bautista, Teresita Tibay, Camilo Santos, Frankie
Cruz, Ricardo Pascual, Teresita Abang, Valentina Pitalvero, Rufino Caldoza,
Florante Alba, and Perfecto Alba.
(Of the petitioners, only Mariano, Jr., is a resident of Makati. The others are
residents of Ibayo Ususan, Taguig, Metro Manila, suing as tax payers).

RESPONDENTS: The Commission On Elections, The Municipality Of Makati, Hon. Jejomar
Binay, The Municipal Treasurer, And Sangguniang Bayan Of Makati

FACTS:
G.R. No. 118577 involves a petition for prohibition and declaratory relief.

Two petitions are filed assailing certain provisions of RA 7854, An Act Converting the Municipality of
Makati into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati, as unconstitutional.

Section 52 of RA 7854 is said to be unconstitutional for it increased the legislative district of Makati only
by special law in violation of Art. VI, Sec. 5(4) requiring a general reapportionment law to be passed by
Congress within 3 years following the return of every census. Also, the addition of another
legislative district in Makati is not in accord with Sec. 5(3), Art. VI of the Constitution for as of
the 1990 census, the population of Makati stands at only 450,000.

Issue:

Whether the assailed provision contravenes Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution

Held:

No. Reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a special law, such as in the
charter of a new city. The Constitution

clearly provides that Congress shall be composed of not
more than two hundred fifty (250) members, unless otherwise fixed by law. As thus worded, the
Constitution did not preclude Congress from increasing its membership by passing a law, other
than a general reapportionment of the law. This is its exactly what was done by Congress in
enacting R.A. No. 7854 and providing for an increase in Makatis legislative district.

Petitioner cannot insist that the addition of another legislative district in Makati is not
in accord with Sec. 5(3), Art. VI of the Constitution for as of the 1990 census, the population
of Makati stands at only 450,000. Said section provides that a city with a population of at least
250,000 shall have at least one representative. Even granting that the population of Makati as of
the 1990 census stood at 450,000, its legislative district may still be increased since it has met
the minimum population requirement of 250,000.






CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Case Digests Milagros Isabel Velasco
AUTOMATIC APPROPRIATION OF DEBT PAYMENTS NEED NOT TO PASS THROUGH CONGRESS

Guingona vs. Carague
G.R. No. 94571 April 22, 1991
GANCAYCO, J.


PETITIONERS: Teofisto Guingona, Jr. and Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., members of the Senate
(as Senators, they may raise the issue of unconstitutionality& as taxpayers, they have personal
interest in restraining unlawful expenditure of public funds)

RESPONDENTS: Guillermo Carague, Secretary of Dept. of Budget and Management; Rozalina
Cajucom, National Treasurer; and Commission on Audit

FACTS:
This is a case of first impression whereby petitioners question the constitutionality of the automatic appropriation
for debt service in the 1990 budget.
Petitioners questioned the constitutionality of Presidential Decree Nos. 81 (which amends RA4860,
Foreign Borrowing Act), 1177 (entitled Revising the Budget Process in Order to Institutionalize the
Budgetary Innovations of the New Society) and 1967 (An Act Strengthening the Guarantee and Payment
Positions of the Rep. of the Phil. On Its Contingent Liabilities Arising out of Relent and Guaranteed Loans
by Appropriating Funds for the Purpose), which provided for the automatic appropriation for the payment of
public debts, on the ground that all appropriation measures must be passed by Congress and approved by
the President.

HELD:

The argument of petitioners that the said presidential decrees did not meet the requirement and are therefore
inconsistent with Sections 24 and 27 of Article VI of the Constitution which requires, among others, that "all
appropriations . . . bills authorizing increase of public debt" must be passed by Congress and approved by the
President is untenable. Certainly, the framers of the Constitution did not contemplate that existing laws in the
statute books including existing presidential decrees appropriating public money are reduced to mere "bills" that
must again go through the legislative million. The only reasonable interpretation of said provisions of the
Constitution which refer to "bills" is that they mean appropriation measures still to be passed by Congress. If the
intention of the framers thereof were otherwise they should have expressed their decision in a more direct or
express manner.
-----
W/N PD81, PD1177 and PD1967 are still operative under the Constitution.
YES. Section 3, Article 18 of the Constitution recognizes that all existing decrees not inconsistent with the Constitution shall remain
operative under amended, repealed or revoked. Implied repeal and revocation is frowned upon.
PD 81 amends RA 4860, which authorizes the president to obtain foreign loans and credits and appropriates the necessary funds
therefore, by providing that funds are hereby appropriated from the National Treasury to cover any deficiency for debt servicing
PD1177 provides for the automatic appropriations for expenditures for, inter alia, principal and interests on public debt
PD1967 provides that there is hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the National Treasury, such amounts as may be
necessary to effect payments on foreign or domestic loans
Their purpose is to enable the government to make prompt payment and/or advances for all loans to protect and maintain the credit
standing of the country
Petitioners allege that said decrees became functus officio when Pres. Marcos was ousted because, with the expiration of the one-
man legislature, the legislative power was restored to Congress and that new legislation for automatic appropriations must come from
Congress.
The SC held that it could not have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution to require all existing laws to pass through
Congress again
The requirement of Sections 24 and 27, which requires appropriations and bills to originate from the House of Representatives and be
approved by the President, applies only to bills that are still to be passed by Congress
This is all the more true because of the political wisdom of automatic appropriations, which is to provide flexibility to the government
for effective execution of debt management policies.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Case Digests Milagros Isabel Velasco
UNIFORMITY (TAXATION)

CIR v. CA
G.R. No. 119761; August 29, 1996
VITUG, J.

PETITIONER: Commissioner of Internal Revenue
RESPONDENTS: Hon. Court Of Appeals, Hon. Court Of Tax Appeals And Fortune Tobacco
Corporation

FACTS:
Fortune Tobacco Corporation ("Fortune Tobacco"), engaged in the manufacture of different brands of
cigarettes, registered "Champion," "Hope," and "More" cigarettes. BIR classified them as foreign brands
since they were listed in the World Tobacco Directory as belonging to foreign companies. However,
Fortune changed the names of 'Hope' to 'Hope Luxury and 'More' to 'Premium More,' thereby removing
the said brands from the foreign brand category.

A 45% Ad Valorem taxes were imposed on these brands. Then Republic Act ("RA") No. 7654 was
enacted 55% for locally manufactured foreign brand while 45% for locally manufactured brands. 2
days before the effectivity of RA 7654, Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 37-93 ("RMC 37-93"), was
issued by the Commisioner saying since there is no showing who the real owner/s are of Champion,
Hope and More, it follows that the same shall be considered locally manufactured foreign brand for
purposes of determining the ad valorem tax - 55%. BIR sent via telefax a copy of RMC 37-93 to
Fortune Tobacco addressed to no one in particular. Then Fortune Tobacco received, by ordinary mail,
a certified xerox copy of RMC 37-93. CIR assessed Fortune Tobacco for ad valorem tax deficiency
amounting to P9, 598,334.00.

Respondent questioned the validity of RMC 37-93.

HELD:
RMC 37-93 might have likewise infringed on uniformity of taxation.
Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 1, of the 1987 Constitution mandates taxation to be uniform and
equitable. Uniformity requires that all subjects or objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to be treated
alike or put on equal footing both in privileges and liabilities. Thus, all taxable articles or kinds of
property of the same class must be taxed at the same rate and the tax must operate with the same
force and effect in every place where the subject may be found.
Apparently, RMC 37-93 would only apply to "Hope Luxury," "Premium More" and "Champion" cigarettes
and, unless petitioner would be willing to concede to the submission of private respondent that the
circular should, as in fact my esteemed colleague Mr. Justice Bellosillo so expresses in his separate
opinion, be considered adjudicatory in nature and thus violative of due process following the Ang Tibay
doctrine, the measure suffers from lack of uniformity of taxation. In its decision, the CTA has keenly
noted that other cigarettes bearing foreign brands have not been similarly included within the scope of
the circular.