Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 75

1.#People#v.#Cayat!

#
FACTS:#
On! January! 25,! 1937,! the! accused,! Cayat,! a! member! of! the! non;
Christian! tribes! of! Baguio,! Benguet,! Mountain! Province,! was!
found!by!Court!of!First!Instance!guilty!of!violating!Act!No.!1639:!
SEC.!2.!It!shall!be!unlawful!for!any!native!of!the!Philippine!
Islands!who!is!a!member!of!a!non;Christian!tribe...to!buy,!
receive,! have! in! his! possession,! or! drink! any! ardent!
spirits,!ale,!beer,!wine,!or!intoxicating!liquors!of!any!kind,!
other! than! the! so;called! native! wines! and! liquors! which!
the! members! of! such! tribes! have! been! accustomed!
themselves! to! make! prior! to! the! passage! of! this! Act,! ...it!
shall! be! the! duty! of! any! police! officer! or! other! duly!
authorized! agent! of! the! Insular! or! any! provincial,!
municipal! or! township! government! to! seize! and!
forthwith! destroy! any! such! liquors! found! unlawfully! in!
the!possession!of!any!member!of!a!non;Christian!tribe.!
SEC.!3.!Any!person!violating!the!provisions!of!section!one!
or! section! two! of! this! Act! shall,! upon! conviction! thereof,!
be!punishable!for!each!offense!by!a!fine!of!not!exceeding!
two! hundred! pesos! or! by! imprisonment! for! a! term! not!
exceeding!six!months,!in!the!discretion!of!the!court!
During! the! trial,! the! accused! admitted! the! facts! but! pleaded! not!
guilty.!He!was!sentenced!to!pay!pay!a!fine!of!fifty!pesos!or!suffer!
subsidiary!imprisonment!in!case!of!insolvency.!!
The!accused!challenges!the!constitutionality!of!the!act!for!it!is!in!
violation!of!due!process!clause!and!equal!protection!clause!of!the!
Constitution.! During! the! Spanish! occupation,! the! Spanish!
government! Spanish! Government! aimed! to! civilize! these! less!
fortunate! people! living! "in! the! obscurity! of! ignorance"! and! to!

accord! them! the! "the! moral! and! material! advantages"! of!


community! life! and! the! "protection! and! vigilance! afforded! them!
by! the! same! laws."! Moreover,! President! McKinley,! during!
American! regime,! advised! that! the! Philippine! Commission!
should! adopt! the! same! course! followed! by! Congress! in!
permitting!the!tribes!of!our!North!American!Indians!to!maintain!
their! tribal! organization! and! government...! however,! be!
subjected! to! wise! and! firm! regulation;! and,! without! undue! or!
petty!interference,!constant!and!active!effort!should!be!exercised!
to!prevent!barbarous!practices!and!introduce!civilized!customs.!
#
ISSUE:!
Whether! Act! No.! 1639! is! discriminatory! and! denies! the! equal!
protection!of!the!laws!!
#
HELD:!
No.! Act! No.! 1639! was! passed! to! secure! peace! and! harmony!
among! the! non;Christian! tribes! (has! low! grade! of! civilization).!
For! a! legislation! not! to! violate! equal! protection! of! laws,! it! must!
be!based!on!a!reasonable!classification!!
!
1.!must!rest!on!substantial!distinctions!
!
The! said! Act! was! not! based! on! accident! of! birth! or!
parentage! but! upon! the! degree! of! civilization! and! culture.! The!
classification!rests!on!real!and!substantial,!not!merely!imaginary!
or!whimsical,!distinctions.!
!
!

2.!must!be!germane!to!the!purposes!of!the!law!
There!has!been!a!growing!number!of!lawlessness!and!crimes!due!
to! free! use! of! highly! intoxicating! liquors! so! the! Act! aimed! to!
insure!peace!and!harmony!among!non;Christian!tribes.!
!
3.!not!be!limited!to!existing!conditions!only!
The! Act! is! intended! to! apply! for! all! times! as! long! as! those!
conditions!exist!to!insure!their!protection!and!security.!
!
4.!must!apply!equally!to!all!members!of!the!same!class!
It!is!not!against!a!certain!number!on!non;Christians!by!reason!of!
their!degree!of!culture!
!
The!Court!adds!that!it!is!also!not!violative!of!due!process!of!law.!
Hearing! and! notice! are! not! always! necessary! where! much! must!
be!left!to!the!discretion!of!the!administrative!officials!in!applying!
a! law! to! particular! cases.! Due! process! of! law! means! simply:! (1)!
that!there!shall!be!a!law!prescribed!in!harmony!with!the!general!
powers!of!the!legislative!department!of!the!government;!(2)!that!
it!shall!be!reasonable!in!its!operation;!(3)!that!it!shall!be!enforced!
according! to! the! regular! methods! of! procedure! prescribed;! and!
(4)!that!it!shall!be!applicable!alike!to!all!citizens!of!the!state!or!to!
all!of!the!class.!!
!
2.#Ichong#v.#Hernandez#
#
#
#
#

3.#Villegas#v.#Hiu#Chiong#Tsai#Pao#Ho#
!
FACTS:#
Hiu!Chiong!Tsai!Pao!Ho!brought!to!the!Court!of!First!Instance!of!
Manila!a!suit!assailing!Ordinance!No.!6537!as!null!and!void.!The!
ordinance! signed! by! Mayor! Villegas! required! that! aliens! must!
first!secure!a!permit!from!the!Mayor!of!Manila!and!pay!a!fine!of!
Php! 50! before! being! employed! or! engaging! in! any! trade! in!
Manila.!Herein!respondent,!Hiu!Chiong!Tsai!Pao!Ho,!assailed!that!
the! ordinance! was! arbitrary,! oppressive! and! unreasonable,! thus!
depriving! aliens! of! their! rights! to! life,! liberty,! and! property.! As!
such,! he! contended! that! it! violated! the! due! process! and! equal!
protection! clauses! of! the! Constitution.! Furthermore,! he! also!
raised!the!issue!of!the!ordinance!being!discriminatory,!as!well!as!
violative!of!both!the!rule!of!uniformity!in!taxation!and!delegation!
of! legislative! powers.! The! CFI! of! Manila,! through! Judge! Arca,!
declared! Ordinance! No.! 6537! null! and! void.! Thus,! herein!
petitioner!Mayor!Villegas!filed!the!present!petition!for!review!on!
certiorari! with! the! Supreme! Court,! assailing! the! error! of! Judge!
Arca.!!
!
Petitioner! Mayor! Villegas! argued! that! the! ordinance! is! not! a! tax!
or! revenue! measure! but! merely! an! exercise! of! police! power,!
because!such!ordinance!is!only!a!regulatory!measure.!
!
ISSUES:#
1.! W/N! the! judge! committed! an! error! of! law! in! ruling! that! the!
ordinance!violated!the!rule!
of!uniformity!of!taxation!
2.! W/N! the! judge! committed! an! error! of! law! in! ruling! that! the!
ordinance!violated!the!
principle!against!undue!designation!of!legislative!power!
3.! W/N! the! judge! committed! error! of! law! in! ruling! that! the!

ordinance!violated!the!due!
process!and!equal!protection!clauses!of!the!Constitution!
!
HELD:#
1.!NO,!there!is!no!error!in!ruling!that!the!ordinance!violated!the!
uniformity!of!taxation!rule.!Although!it!can!serve!as!a!regulatory!
measure,! there! is! no! justification! as! to! why! Php! 50! must! be!
imposed! upon! aliens.! The! requirement! of! Php! 50! therefore! is!
obviously!to!raise!money!under!the!guise!of!regulation.!Because!
its!aim!is!to!raise!money,!it!is!oppressive!and!violates!uniformity!
in! taxation! because! it! fails! to! consider! the! different! situations!
among!individual!aliens!who!are!required!to!pay!it.!The!Php!50!is!
imposed! on! aliens! whether! he! is! a! big! executive! or! a! lowly!
employee,!whether!part!time!or!full!time,!casual!or!permanent.!
!
2.! NO,! the! judge! did! not! commit! an! error! in! ruling! that! the!
ordinance! was! an! undue! designation! of! legislative! power.! The!
ordinance!did!not!state!any!policy!or!standard!that!would!guide!
the! mayor! in! approving! or! disapproving! the! permits! that! the!
aliens!need!to!acquire.!It!also!serves!no!purpose!to!be!attained!by!
requiring! the! permit.! Given! that! there! are! no! guides,! limits,! and!
standards! set! forth! in! the! ordinance,! it! gives! the! mayor!
unrestricted!and!arbitrary!power!to!grant!or!deny!the!issuance!of!
such! permits.! The! ordinance! is! thus! invalid! because! it! is! an!
undefined!and!unlimited!delegation!of!power.!
!
3.! NO,! the! judge! did! not! commit! an! error! in! ruling! that! the!
ordinance!violated!the!due!process!and!equal!protection!clauses!
of!the!Constitution.!Allowing!the!Mayor!of!Manila!to!withhold!or!
refuse!the!permits!to!aliens!before!they!can!be!employed!is!
equal! to! denying! him! that! basic! right! to! engage! in! a! means! of!
livelihood.!Even!if!he!is!a!foreigner,!he!cannot!be!deprived!of!life!
without!due!process!of!law!once!he!is!admitted!to!the!Philippine!

territory.! The! guarantee! against! deprivation! of! life! without! due!


process! of! law! carries! with! it! the! guarantee! to! a! means! of!
livelihood.! Due! process! and! the! equal! protection! clause! is!
available!for!all!persons,!both!citizens!and!aliens.!
!
WHEREFORE,! the! petition! is! denied! and! the! decision! appealed!
from!is!affirmed.!
!
Separate#Opinion:#Teehankee,#J.#concurring:#
Philippine! nationalization! laws! recognize! the! right! of! aliens! to!
employment!in!the!country!(with!certain!exceptions!for!specific!
fields).! As! stated! in! the! case! of! Phil.! Coop! Livestock! Assn! vs.!
Earnshaw,! whenever! the! national! government! adopts! a! policy,!
the!municipality!has!no!authority!to!nullify!and!set!the!action!of!
the! superior! authority! to! nothing.! For! the! foreigners! who! have!
been! lawfully! admitted! here,! no! act! of! subordinate! or! local!
governments! and! officials! can! run! contrary! to! the! views! and!
decisions! of! the! Chief! of! State! himself.! Our! national! policies! are!
binding! on! local! governments! when! they! involve! foreign!
relations.!
!
4.#Dumlao#v.#COMELEC#
#
5.#Goesart#v.#Cleary#
#
FACTS:!
#
A! law! under! the! Michigan! system! aimed! to! control! the!
sale! of! liquor! required! bartenders! to! be! licensed! in! all! cities!
having! a! population! of! 50,000! or! more.! Furthermore,! no! female!
may!acquire!such!license!unless!she!is!a!wife!or!daughter!of!the!
male!owner!of!a!licensed!liquor!establishment.!The!District!Court!
of!three!judges!denied!an!injunction!to!restrain!the!enforcement!
of! this! law.! The! issue! here! is! that! Michigan! should! not! forbid!

females! from! being! bartenders! but! make! exceptions! for! those!


who! are! daughters! or! wives! of! the! owner! of! liquor!
establishments.!
!
ISSUE:!
1.! Whether! the! classification! the! State! has! made! between! wives!
and!daughters!of!owners!of!liquor!establishments!and!wives!and!
daughters!of!non;!owners!of!liquor!establishments!is!valid.!
!
HELD:!
1.!Yes.!
!
The!US!Supreme!Court!held!that!the!law!is!valid!because!
its!sole!purpose!is!to!prevent!prostitution!through!masquerading!
as!bartenders.!It!further!explains!that!it!is!the!daughter!or!wife!of!
an! owner! of! a! liquor! establishment,! there! is! greater! certainty!
that! the! bartender! is! not! engaged! in! prostitution.! Michigan! did!
not!violate!its!duty!to!afford!equal!protection!for!the!citizens.!The!
legislature! made! this! law! with! basis! regarding! social! and! moral!
values!that!the!State!tries!to!uphold.!
!
6.#Ormoc#Sugar#Co.,#Inc.#v.#Treasurer#of#Ormoc#City#
#
7.#Basco#v.#PAGCOR#!
!
FACTS:#
PAGCOR!was!created!by!virtue!of!PD!1067;A!and!was!granted!a!
franchise! in! order! to! establish,! operate! and! maintain! gambling!
casinos!on!land!or!water!within!the!territorial!jurisdiction!of!the!
Philippines.!On!July!11,!1983,!PD!1869!created!PAGCOR!to!enable!
the! government! to! regulate! and! centralize! all! games! of! chance!
authorized!by!existing!franchise!or!permitted!by!law.!
Petitioners! in! this! case! assert! that! the! PD! 1869! is! null! and! void!
for!being!contrary!to!morals!and!public!order!and!is!violative!of!

the! equal! protection! clause! and! local! autonomy! as! well! as! state!
policies!under!the!constitution.!
!
ISSUES:#
Procedural!
1.! Whether! or! not! petitioners,! as! taxpayers! and! practicing!
lawyers!can!question!and!seek!
annulment!of!PD!1869.!
!
Substantive!
1.!Whether!or!not!PD!1869!is!valid!exercise!of!police!power.!
2.! Whether! or! not! PD! 1869! is! violative! of! the! principle! of! local!
autonomy.!
3.!Whether!or!not!PD!1869!violates!the!equal!protection!clause.!
4.! Whether! or! not! PD! 1869! violates! the! state! policies! in! the!
Constitution.!
!
HELD:#
Procedural!
1.!YES.!The!court!has!held!that!in!considering!the!importance!of!
the!law!to!the!public!in!this!case!and!in!determining!whether!or!
not! the! other! branches! of! government! have! kept! themselves!
within!the!limits!of!the!Constitution.!The!court!has!brushed!aside!
technicalities! of! procedure! and! has! take! cognizance! of! the!
Petition.!
!
Substantive!
1.!YES.!The!court!has!defined!Police!power!as!the!state!authority!
to! enact! legislation! that! may! interfere! with! personal! liberty! or!
property! in! order! to! promote! general! welfare.! This! court! has!
ruled!that!the!as!PD!1869!was!enacted!to!regulate!and!centralize!
all! games! of! chances.! Moreover,! the! creation! of! PAGCOR! has!
provided!funds!for!social!impact!projects!and!subjected!gambling!

to! close! scrutiny,! regulation,! supervision! and! control! of! the!


Government.! Thus,! it! has! been! held! that! the! enactment! of! PD!
1869!is!a!valid!exercise!of!Police!Power.!
!
2.! NO.! The! court! has! held! that! according! to! the! doctrine! of!
Supremacy,!there!was!no!waiver!of!rights!by!the!City!of!Manila!to!
impose! taxes.! The! court! has! held! that! as! a! mere! Municipal!
Corporation,!the!City!of!Manila!has!no!inherent!right.!Therefore,!
its! power! to! tax! must! yield! to! a! legislative! act! passed! upon! the!
state! itself,! which! has! the! inherent! power! to! tax.! Moreover,! the!
court! has! held! that! local! government! have! no! power! to! tax!
instrumentalities!of!the!National!Government!which!has!original!
charter! as! its! operation! might! be! burdened,! impeded! or!
subjected!to!control!by!mere!local!government.!
!
The! court! also! has! stated! that! the! principle! of! Local! Autonomy!
simply!means!decentralization!of!powers.!However,!as!to!what!
state!powers!should!be!decentralized!and!what!may!be!delegated!
to!local!government!units!is!a!matter!of!state!policy.!Thus,!it!has!
ruled!that!the!principle!is!called!to!be!a!political!question.!
!
3.!NO.!The!court!finds!no!valid!ground!to!sustain!the!contention!
of! the! petitioners! that! the! PD! 1869! has! legalized! PAGCOR;
conducted!gambling!and!most!gambling!are!outlawed.!The!court!
clarified! that! the! clause! does! not! preclude! classification! of!
individuals! who! may! be! accorded! different! treatment! under! the!
law! for! as! long! as! the! classification! is! not! unreasonable! or!
arbitrary.! Moreover,! the! equal! protection! clause! does! not!
prohibit! the! Legislature! from! establishing! classes! of! individuals!
upon!which!different!rules!shall!operate.!
!
4.!NO.!The!court!has!held!that!these!policies!are!not!self;
executing!thus!a!law!must!be!made!by!Congress!in!order!to!

execute!such!policy.!
!
8.#Republic#v.#Sandiganbayan#
#
9.#Binay#v.#Domingo#
#
10.#NPC#v.#De#Guzman#
#
FACTS:!
#
On! January! 2,! 1991,! RA! 6975,! otherwise! known! as! "An!
Act! Establishing! the! Philippine! National! Police! Under! a!
Reorganized!Department!of!the!Interior!and!Local!Government"!
took!effect.!Section!39!of!RA!6975!provides!for!the!uniform!and!
compulsory! retirement! upon! reaching! the! age! of! 56! provided!
that,!in!case!of!any!officer!with!the!rank!of!chief!superintendent,!
director! or! deputy! director! general,! the! Commission! may! allow!
his!retention!in!the!service!for!an!unextendible!period!of!one!(1)!
year.!!
Based! on! Section! 39,! RA! 6975,! NPC! sent! notices! of!
retirement! to! the! respondents,! who! are! part! of! the! Philippine!
Constabulary!(PC)!and!have!reached!the!age!of!56.!As!a!response,!
the! respondents! filed! a! complaint! and! argued! that! Section! 39!
cannot! be! applied! to! them! because! they! are! under! Section! 89!
which! states! that:! Any! provision! hereof! to! the! contrary!
notwithstanding,! and! within! the! transition! period! of! four! (4)!
years!following!the!effectivity!of!this!Act,!the!following!members!
of! the! INP! shall! be! considered! compulsorily! retired:! (a)! Those!
who! shall! attain! the! age! of! sixty! (60)! on! the! first! year! of! the!
effectivity!of!this!Act;!(b)!Those!who!shall!attain!the!age!of!fifty;
nine! (59)! on! the! second! year! of! the! effectivity! of! this! Act;! (c)!
Those! who! shall! attain! the! age! of! fifty;eight! (58)! on! the! third!
year!of!the!effectivity!of!this!Act;!(d)!Those!who!shall!attain!the!
age!of!fifty;seven!(57)!on!the!fourth!year!of!the!effectivity!of!this!

Act.!The!respondents!argue!that!INP!includes!former!members!of!
the!PC!and!the!local!police!force!who!were!earlier!constituted!as!
the! INP! by! virtue! of! PD! 765! in! 1975! while! the! petitioners!
contend!that!Section!89!only!applies!to!local!police!force!and!the!
AFP! Law! set! the! retirement! for! PC! members! at! 56.! Judge! de!
Guzman! ruled! in! favor! of! the! members! of! the! PC.! Then,!
petitioners!filed!the!instant!petition!on!October!8,!1992!seeking!
the! reversal! of! the! above! judgment! and! opined! that! RA! 6975!
distinguishes!INP!from!PC!based!on!sections!23!and!85.!!
!
ISSUE:!
1. Whether!or!not!RA!6975!distinguishes!INP!from!PC!
2. And!if!they!are!different,!whether!or!not!the!classification!
is!valid!
!
HELD:!
1. The!respondents!are!not!considered!part!of!the!INP.!The!
court! said! that! from! a! careful! perusal! of! the! provisions!
mentioned! by! the! petitioners! and! from! examination! of!
the! records! of! the! Bicameral! Conference! Committee,! it!
appears! therefore! that! the! use! of! the! term! INP! is! not!
synonymous! with! the! PC.! Had! it! been! otherwise,! the!
statute! could! have! just! made! a! uniform! reference! to! the!
members!of!the!whole!PNP!for!retirement!purposes!and!
not!just!the!INP.!The!law!itself!distinguishes!INP!from!the!
PC! and! it! cannot! be! construed! that! "INP"! as! used! in! Sec.!
89!includes!the!members!of!the!PC.!
!
2. The! classification! is! valid! and! it! conformed! to! the!
requirements! of! a! reasonable! and! valid! classification!
which! are:! (1)! It! must! be! based! upon! substantial!

distinctions;!(2)!It!must!be!germane!to!the!purpose!of!the!
law;!(3)!It!must!not!be!limited!to!existing!conditions!only;!
(4)! It! must! apply! equally! to! all! members! of! the! same!
class.!
The!classification!is!based!upon!substantial!distinctions.!The!PC,!
before!the!effectivity!of!RA!6975,!were!already!retirable!at!age!56!
while!the!local!police!force!were!retirable!at!60,!and!governed!by!
different!laws.!The!distinction!is!relevant!for!the!purpose!of!the!
statute,!which!is!to!enable!the!local!police!force!to!plan!for!their!
retirement!which!would!be!earlier!than!usual!because!of!the!new!
law.!Section!89!is!merely!transitory,!remedial!in!nature,!and!loses!
its! force! and! effect! once! the! four;year! transitory! period! has!
elapsed.!Finally,!it!applies!not!only!to!some!but!to!all!local!police!
officers!
#
#
11.#Tolentino#v.#Secretary#of#Finance#
#
FACTS:#
Ten! motions! for! reconsideration! were! filed! by! several!
petitioners!in!this!case,!assailing!the!constitutionality!of!R.A.!No.!
7716! or! the! Expanded! Value;Added! Tax! (EVAT)! Law.! The!
petitioners!were!contending!that!the!EVAT!Law!did!not!originate!
exclusively!in!the!House!of!Representatives!(HOR),!although!they!
admit! that! H.! No.! 11197! was! filed! in! the! (HOR),! with! three!
readings!and!thereafter!sent!it!to!the!Senate.!They!claim!that!the!
Senate!did!not!comply!with!the!requirement!of!second!and!third!
readings,! but! instead! the! Senate! referred! it! to! the! Senate! Ways!
and! Means! Committee! after! the! first! reading,! even! without!
emergency,!since!for!them!the!countrys!"growing!budget!deficit"!
is! not! an! emergency.! Furthermore,! they! assert! that! on! May! 24,!
1994,! the! Senate! passed! its! own! version,! instead! of! just!

amending! H.! No.! 11197! by! striking! out! the! text! of! the! bill! and!
substituting!it!with!the!text!of!S.!No.!1630.!Also,!they!assume!that!
S.! No.! 1630! is! an!independent! and! distinct! bill.! Petitioners! aver!
too! that! because! the! President! separately! certified! these!
measures,!his!certification!was!ineffectual!and!void.!!
The! petitioners! also! allege! that,! in! violation! of! the!
constitutional! policy! of! full! public! disclosure! and! the! people's!
right! to! know,! the! Conference! Committee! met! for! two! days! in!
executive! session! with! only! the! conferees! present.! Another!
violation!was!that!this!law!did!not!have!one!subject,!as!required,!
since! the! amendment! of! Philippine! Airlines! franchise! by! the!
withdrawal!of!its!exemption!from!the!VAT!is!not!expressed!in!the!
title! of! the! law.! PPI,! another! petitioner! claim,! that! by! removing!
the!exemption!of!the!press!from!the!VAT!while!maintaining!those!
granted! to! others,! the! law! discriminates! against! the! press.!
Petitioner! CREBA! asserts! that! R.A.! No.! 7716! a)! impairs! the!
obligations!of!contracts,!b)!grants!exemption!without!reasonable!
basis!c)!violates!the!uniformity!and!equality!rule!of!taxation!and!
d)! regressive.! Petitioner! Cooperative! Union! of! the! Philippines!
(CUP)! contend! that! to! subject! cooperatives! to! the! VAT! would!
therefore! be! to! infringe! a! constitutional! policy,! since! the!
Constitution!embodies!provisions!on!cooperatives.!
#
ISSUES:#
1.! Whether! or! not! the! EVAT! Law! originated! exclusively! in! the!
House!of!Representatives.!!
2.! Whether! or! not! S.! No.! 1630! (Senate! EVAT! Bill)! was!
independent! and! distinct! bill! from! H.! No.! 11197! (House! EVAT!
Bill).!!
3.! Whether! or! not! the! Senate! was! required! to! pass! the! S.! No.!
1630!in!three!readings!before!referring!it!to!the!Senate!Ways!and!
Means!Committee.!!

4.! Whether! or! not! the! Presidents! certification! was! void! for!
separately!certifying!the!bills.!
5.! Whether! or! not! the! Conference! Committee! violated! the!
peoples! right! to! full! public! disclosure! when! the! Conference!
Committee!met!with!only!the!conferees!present.!!
6.! Whether! or! not! the! EVAT! Law! embraced! more! than! one!
subject.!!
7.! Whether! or! not! the! EVAT! Law! discriminated! the! press! by!
removing! the! exemption! of! the! press! from! the! VAT,! while!
maintaining!those!granted!to!others.!!
8.! Whether! or! not! the! EVAT! Law! impairs! the! obligations! of!
contracts!
9.! Whether! or! not! the! EVAT! Law! grants! exemption! without!
reasonable!basis.!!
10.! Whether! or! not! the! EVAT! Law! violates! the! uniformity! and!
equality!rule!of!taxation.!
11.! Whether! or! not! the! EVAT! Law! is! regressive,! thus,! violating!
the!Constitutions!mandate!for!progressive!system!of!taxation.!
12.!Whether!or!not!the!EVAT!Law!violates!a!constitutional!policy!
on!cooperatives!and!violates!their!right!to!equal!protection.!!
!
HELD:#
1.#No.##
The! Senate! has! the! power! to! propose! or! concur! with!
amendments!without!restriction.!In!other!words,!the!Senate!can!
practically! re;write! a! bill! required! to! come! from! the! House! and!
leave!only!a!trace!of!the!original!bill.!What!the!1987!Constitution!
simply!mandates!in!Art.!6,!Sec.!24!is!that!all!money!bills,!bills!of!
local! application,! and! private! bills! must! originate! exclusively! in!
the! House! of! Representatives,! but! the! Senate! may! concur! with!
amendments!or!even!propose!an!entirely!new!bill!as!a!substitute!
measure.!
2.#No.##

S.!No.!1630!is! a! mere! amendment! of! H.!No.!11197.!


Several! provisions! of! S.! No.! 1630! prove! that! they! are! just! mere!
amendments!of!the!provisions!of!H.!No.!11197.!!
3.#No.##
!
Since! the! Senate! bill! was! a! mere! amendment! of! H.! No.!
11197,! it! did! not! have! to! pass! the! Senate! on! second! and! three!
readings;!it!was!enough!that!after!it!was!passed!on!first!reading!it!
was! referred! to! the! Senate! Committee! on! Ways! and! Means.!
Neither! was! it! required! that! S.! No.! 1630! be! passed! by! the! HOR!
before! the! two! bills! could! be! referred! to! the! Conference!
Committee.! Also,! the! members! of! the! Senate! believed! that! the!
countrys! growing! budget! deficit! was! an! emergency,! because!
they!responded!to!the!call!of!the!President!by!voting!on!the!bill!
on! second! and! third! readings! on! the! same! day.! And,! the! court!
decided! to! respect! this! act! of! a! co;equal! department,! in! the!
absence! of! a! clear! showing! of! grave! abuse! of! discretion! on! its!
part.!!
4.#No.#
It!is!enough!that!he!certifies!the!bill,!which,!at!the!time!he!
makes!the!certification,!is!under!consideration.!!
5.#No.#
The! conferees! themselves! took! notes! of! their!
proceedings,! therefore,! there! is! no! basis! for! the! petitioners! to!
claim! that! they! violated! the! peoples! right! to! full! public!
disclosure.! The! public's! right! to! know! was! fully! served! because!
the! Conference! Committee! submitted! a! report! showing! the!
changes! made! on! the! differing! versions! of! the! House! and! the!
Senate.! Furthermore,! the! conference! committee! may! insert! new!
provisions,! as! long! as! these! are! germane! to! the! subject! of! the!
conference!
6.#No.##
!
The!Congress!by!stating!that!it!seeks!to!Restructure!the!
Value;Added! Tax! (VAT)! System! by! Widening! its! Tax! Base! and!

Enhancing!its!Administration,!and!for!these!Purposes!Amending!
and! Repealing! the! Relevant! Provisions! of! the! National! Internal!
Revenue! Code! ,! as! Amended! for! Other! Purposes,! it! clearly!
expressed! its! intention! to! amend! any! provision! of! the! NIRC!
which!stands!in!the!way!of!accomplishing!the!purpose!of!the!law.!!
7.#No.#
Generally,!the!press!is!not!exempt!from!the!taxing!power!
of! the! State! and! that! what! the! constitutional! guarantee! of! free!
press! prohibits! are! laws,! which! single! out! the! press! or! target! a!
group! belonging! to! the! press.! Since! the! law! granted! the! press! a!
privilege,!the!law!could!take!back!the!privilege!anytime!without!
offense!to!the!Constitution.!!
8.#No.##
Even! though! such! taxation! may! affect! particular!
contracts,! as! it! may! increase! the! debt! of! one! person! and! lessen!
the!security!of!another,!or!may!impose!additional!burdens!upon!
one!class!and!release!the!burdens!of!another,!still!the!tax!must!be!
paid!unless!prohibited!by!the!Constitution,!nor!can!it!be!said!that!
it!impairs!the!obligation!of!any!existing!contract!in!its!true!legal!
sense.!
9.#No.##
It! is! next! pointed! out! that! while! R.A.! No.! 7716! exempts!
such!transactions!as!the!sale!of!agricultural!products,!food!items,!
petroleum,! and! medical! and! veterinary! services,! it! grants! no!
exemption!on!the!sale!of!real!property!which!is!equally!essential.!
The! sale! of! real! property! for! socialized! and! low;cost! housing! is!
exempted! from! the! tax,! but! CREBA! claims! that! real! estate!
transactions! of! "the! less! poor,"!i.e.,! the! middle! class,! who! are!
equally! homeless,! should! likewise! be! exempted.! But! the! Court!
ruled! that! the! sale! of! food! items,! petroleum,! medical! and!
veterinary! services,! etc.! was! already! exempt! under! NIRC! before!
the!enactment!of!R.A.!No.!7716.!There!is!a!difference!between!the!
"homeless! poor"! and! the! "homeless! less! poor,! because! the!

second! group! or! middle! class! can! afford! to! rent! house;! they! are!
differently!situated!in!life.!The!State!has!inherent!power!to!select!
the!subjects!of!taxation,!and!that!inequalities!which!result!from!a!
singling! out! of! one! particular! class! for! taxation,! or! exemption!
infringe!no!constitutional!limitation.!!
10.#No.#
Equality!and!uniformity!of!taxation!means!that!all!taxable!
articles! or! kinds! of! property! of! the! same! class! be! taxed! at! the!
same! rate.! The! taxing! power! has! the! authority! to! make!
reasonable! and! natural! classifications! for! purposes! of! taxation.!
And,!it!was!held!in!Kapatiran!ng!Naglilingkod!sa!Pamahalaan!ng!
Pilipinas,! Inc.!v.!Tan! that! VAT! is! not! oppressive,! discriminatory,!
unjust! and! regressive! and! does! not! violate! the! uniformity! and!
equitable!rule!in!taxation.!!
11.#No.##
The! Constitution! does! not! entirely! prohibit! the!
imposition!of!indirect!taxes!which,!like!the!VAT!and!sales!taxes,!
are!regressive.!The!mandate!of!the!Constitution!to!the!Congress!
is! not! to!prescribe,! but! to!evolve,! a! progressive! tax! system.!
Indirect! taxes! should! be!minimized!but! not!avoided!entirely.! In!
the! case! of! the! VAT,! the! law! minimizes! the! regressive! effects! of!
this!imposition!by!providing!for!zero!rating!and!exemptions.!!
12.#No##
Petitioner! is! saying! that! under! the! Constitution!
cooperatives!are!exempt!from!taxation.!But!the!Constitution!does!
not! really! require! that! cooperatives! be! granted! tax! exemptions.!
In! fact,! it! is! contrary! to! the! Constitution! where! charitable!
institutions,!churches!and!parsonages,!and!non;stock,!non;profit!
educational!institutions.!!
Furthermore,!cooperatives!were!not!denied!of!their!right!
to!equal!protection!of!the!law,!in!exempting!electric!cooperatives!
from! the! VAT,! since! the! classification! was! due! to! the! need! to!

provide!cheaper!electric!power!to!more!people,!thereby,!making!
the!classification!reasonable.!!
!
!
12.#Himagan#v.#People#
FACTS:#
!
Petitioner! Ishmael! Himagan! was! a! policeman! who! was!
assigned! with! the! medical! company! of! the! Philippine! National!
Police!Regional!Headquarters!at!Camp!Catitigan,!Davao!City,!was!
charged!with!murder!of!Banjamin!Machitar!Jr.!and!the!attempted!
murder! of! Bernabe! Machitar.! The! Regional! Trial! court! of! Davao!
City! issued! a! preventive! suspension! order! on! September! 16,!
1992! against! Himagan! pursuant! to! Section! 47,! R.A.! 6975,!
otherwise! known! as! Department! of! Interior! and! Local!
Government!Act!of!1990,!which!provides!that,!Upon!the!filing!of!
a! complaint! or! information! sufficient! in! form! and! substance!
against! a! member! of! the! PNP! for! grave! felonies! where! the!
penalty!imposed!by!law!is!six!(6)!years!and!one!(1)!day!or!more,!
the$ court$ shall$ immediately$ suspend$ the$ accused$ from$ office$ until$
the$ case$ is$ terminated.$ Such! case! shall! be! subject! to! continuous!
trial! and! shall! be! terminated! within! ninety! (90)! days! from!
arraignment! of! the! accused.! On! October! 11,! 1993,!! petitioner!
filed! a! motion! to! lift! the! order! for! his! suspension, relying! on!
Section! 42! of! P.D.! 807! of! the! Civil! Service! Decree,! which! states!
that,! When! the! administrative! case! against! the! officer! or!
employee!under!preventive!suspension!is!not!finally!decided!by!
the! disciplining! authority! within! the! period! of! ninety! (90)! days!
after! the! date! of! suspension! of! the! respondent! who! is! not! a!
presidential! appointee,! the! respondent! shall! be! automatically!
reinstated!in!the!service.!He!argues!that!it!would!be!a!violation!
of! constitutional! right! to! equal! protection! of! laws! if! the!
preventive!suspension!is!imposed!for!more!than!90!days.!!

!
ISSUE:#
!
Whether! or! not! preventive! suspension! of! more! than! 90!
days! is! a! violation! of! constitutional! right! to! equal! protection! of!
laws!of!the!petitioner!
!
HELD:#
#
No.!
!
First,! Section! 42! of! PD! 807! or! the! Civil! Service! Law!
cannot!be!applied!in!this!matter!because!it!refers!to!the!lifting!of!
preventive! suspension! in! pending! administrative! investigation,!
not!in!criminal!cases!such!as!this.!The!applicable!provision!in!this!
case! is! the! one! provided! in! Sec.! 47! of! R.A.! 6975,! that! is,! the!
suspension! where! the! penalty! imposed! by! law! exceeds! six! (6)!
years!shall!continue!until!the!case!is!terminated.!The!language!of!
this! provision! is! clear,! plain! and! free! from! ambiguity.! Petitioner!
is! charged! with! murder! ! a! grave! offense! with! a! penalty! of! six!
years!and!one!day!or!more!!under!the!Revised!Penal!Code!and!it!
is! undisputed! that! he! falls! squarely! under! Sec.! 47! of! R.A.! 6975,!
which! categorically! states! that! his! suspension$ shall$ last$ until$ the$
case$is$terminated.!The!second!sentence!of!the!same!Section!deals!
with! the! time! frame! within! which! the! trial! should! be! finished:!
that! the! trial! must! be! terminated! within! ninety! (90)! days! from!
arraignment!does!not!qualify!or!limit!the!first!sentence.!The!two!
can!stand!independently!of!each!other.!
The! reason! why! members! of! the! PNP! are! treated!
differently! from! the! other! classes! of! persons! charged! criminally!
or! administratively! insofar! as! the! application! of! the! rule! on!
preventive! suspension! is! concerned! is! that! policemen! carry!
weapons!and!the!badge!of!the!law!which!can!be!used!to!harass!or!
intimidate! witnesses! against! them,! as! succinctly! brought! out! in!
the! legislative! discussions.! If! a! suspended! policeman! criminally!
charged!with!a!serious!offense!is!reinstated!to!his!post!while!his!

case! is! pending,! his! victim! and! the! witnesses! against! him! are!
obviously! exposed! to! constant! threat! and! thus! easily! cowed! to!
silence! by! the! mere! fact! that! the! accused! is! in! uniform! and!
armed.!!
The!equal!protection!clause!exists!to!prevent!undue!favor!
or! privilege.! It! is! intended! to! eliminate! discrimination! and!
oppression!based!on!inequality.!Recognizing!the!existence!of!real!
differences! among! men,! the! equal! protection! clause! does! not!
demand! absolute! equality.! It! merely! requires! that! all! persons!
!
shall! be! treated! alike,! under! like! circumstances! and! conditions!
both!as!to!the!privileges!conferred!and!liabilities!enforced. Thus,!
the! equal! protection! clause! does! not! absolutely! forbid!
classifications,!such!as!the!one!which!exists!in!the!instant!case.!If!!
!
the!classification!is!based!on!(1)!real!and!substantial!differences;
(2)!germane!to!the!purpose!of!the!law; (3)!applies!to!all!members!
of! the! same!
! class;! and! (4)! applies! to! current! as! well! as! future!
conditions, the! classification! may! not! be! impugned! as! violating!
the!Constitutions!equal!protection!guarantee.!!
!
!
13.#Almonte#v.#Vasquez#
#
FACTS:#
!
The!case!is!about!a!petition!for!certiorari,!prohibition!and!
mandamus! to! annul! the! subpoena! and! orders! issued! by!
respondent! Ombudsman,! requiring! petitioners! Nerio! Regalado!
and! Elisa! Rivera! as! chief! accountant! and! record! custiodian!
respectively!of!Economic!Intelligence!Investigation!Bureau(EIIB)!
to! produce! documents! relating! to! all! documents! relating! to!
Personal!Services!Funds!for!the!year!1988!and!all!evidence,!such!
as!vouchers!(salary)!for!the!whole!plantilla!of!EIIB!for!1988"!and!
to!enjoin!him!from!enforcing!his!orders.!
!

!
The!subpoena!for!production!of!evidence!ordered!by!the!
Ombudsman! was! due! to! an! investigation! brought! about! by! an!
anonymous! letter! alleging! that! funds! representing! savings! from!
unfilled!positions!in!the!EIIB!have!been!illegally!disbursed.!!
!
!
The!letter!contains!information!stating!that!the!petitioner!
Villamor!Perez,!Chief!of!budget!and!fiscal!management!divison!of!
the!EIIB!was!the!mastermind!of!the!illegal!disbursement!scheme!
consisting!of!salaries,!high!calibered!firearms,!a!87!maxima!to!be!
used! by! the! petitioner! commissioner! Almonte! and! other!
disbursments!to!reduce!suspicion!from!media!and!the!like.!!
!
!
In! petitioner! commissioner! Almontes! comment! on! the!
letter,! he! denies! such! claims! and! moves! to! dismiss! such!
complaint!and!that!the!case!be!closed.!Petitioner!Perez!similarly!
denies! such! allegations.! The! Graft! Investigation! officer! of! the!
Ombudsman,! Jose! Sano,! denied! the! credibility! of! the! comments!
of! petitioners! due! to! lack! of! evidence! and! being! based! on!
generalizations.! He! therefore! asked! to! conduct! a! preliminary!
investigation! and! in! the! meantime,! issued! a! subpoena! to! Perez!
and! Almonte! to! produce! affidavits! of! their! witnesses! and! a!
subpoena!duces!tecum!ordered!to!Chief!of!accounting!of!EIIB!to!!
produce!evidence!on!related!documents!to!the!issue!at!hand.!!!
!
!
Petitioners! moved! to! quash! subpoena! and! subpoena!
duces! tecum(production! of! evidence)! ! and! in! June! 15,! 1990,!
respondent!Ombudsman!granted!motion!to!quash!subpoena!but!
not! subpoena! duces! tecum! because! it! was! directed! not! to! Perez!
or! Almonte! but! to! the! accounting! officer! Nerio! Regalado.! In!
addition,!petitioner!Elisa!Rivera,!Chief!of!Records!was!ordered!to!
produce! all! documents! related! to! Personel! Service! funds! for!
1988.!Petitioners!motion!for!reconsideration!is!denied!hence!this!
present!petition.!!

!
ISSUE:#
1. Whether! issuance! of! subpoena! duces! tecum,! due! to! the!
unverified! complaint! would! violate! petitioners! right! to!
equal!protection!of!the!law.!
!
!
!
!
HELD:#
1. NO.! Petitioners! contend! that! only! verified! complaints! or!
sworn! statements! wherein! identities! are! fully! disclosed!
are! admissible! to! suffice! to! start! an! investigation! and!
given!that!the!letter!was!anonymous,!they!alleged!that!it!
is!not!admissible.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
! On! the! contrary,! It! is! stated! in! Art.! XI! Sec.! 12! of! the!
Constitution! that! complaints! can! be! filed! in! any! form! and!
manner! against! public! officials! therefore! it! is! admissible.!
The! Ombudsman! is! different! from! other! investigatory!
agencies! because! those! subject! to! its! jurisdiction! are! public!
officials! who! due! to! their! position! and! influence,! can! quash,!
delay!or!dismiss!investigations!held!against!them.!The!special!
power! of! the! Ombudsman! therefore,! is! a! remedy! to! people!
who! have! no! influence! or! knowledge! on! the! proper! judicial!
proceedings.!!
!
!
14.#Lim#v.#Pacquing#
#
FACTS:#
The! case! revolves! around! Ordinance! No.! 7065! that! authorized!
the! Mayor! of! the! City! of! Manila! to! grant! a! franchise! to! the!
Associated! Development! Corporation! for! the! corporation! to! be!

able!to!establish,!maintain!and!operate!a!jai;alai!in!the!said!city.!
This! ordinance! was! made! before! the! enactment! of! the! Martial!
Law.!!
!
During! the! Martial! Law,! Former! President! Marcos! issued!
Presidential! Decree! No.! 771! revoking! the! powers! of! the! Local!
Government! to! grant! permits! and! cancelled! all! existing! jai;alai!
franchises.! Corazon! Aquino! repealed! this! decree! after! the! EDSA!
Revolution.! The! respondent! then! filed! a! petition! for! mandamus!
and!specific!performance!compelling!the!Mayor!to!issue!a!permit!
or! license! in! favor! of! Associated! Development! Corporation! to!
which!RTC!granted.!
!
The!City!of!Manila!filed!an!action!to!annul!the!franchise!of!private!
respondent!claiming!that!private!respondent!had!abandoned!its!
franchise! granted! under! Ordinance! No.! 7065! and! that! said!
ordinance! had! been! repealed! by! P.D.! No.! 771.! Also,! the!
petitioners!claim!that!the!trial!court!had!traduced!the!law!when!
it!made!it!appear!in!its!decision!that!Ordinance!No.!7065!was!still!
in!full!force!and!effect.!
!
The! respondents,! on! the! other! hand,! squarely! assail! the!
constitutionality! of! PD! No.! 771! as! violative! of! the! equal!
protection! and! non;impairment! clauses! of! the! Constitution.! In!
this!connection,!counsel!for!ADC!contends!that!this!Court!should!
really!rule!on!the!validity!of!PD!No.!771!to!be!able!to!determine!
whether!ADC!continues!to!possess!a!valid!franchise.!
!
ISSUES:#
1. Whether!or!not!PD!771!is!violative!of!the!equal!protection!and!
non!impairment!clauses!of!the!constitution?#
#
#

HELD:#
1. NO.!PD!771!is!not!unconstitutional.!
!
On! the! alleged! violation! of! the! non;impairment! and! equal!
protection!clauses!of!the!Constitution,!it!should!be!remembered!
that! a! franchise! is! not! in! the! strict! sense! a! simple! contract! but!
rather! it! is! more! importantly,! a! mere! privilege! especially! in!
matters! which! are! within! the! government's! power! to! regulate!
and!even!prohibit!through!the!exercise!of!the!police!power.!Thus,!
a! gambling! franchise! is! always! subject! to! the! exercise! of! police!
power!for!the!public!welfare.!!
!
Furthermore,!there!was!no!violation!by!PD!No.!771!of!the!equal!
protection! clause! since! the! decree! revoked! all! franchises! issued!
by! local! governments! without! qualification! or! exception.! ADC!
cannot! allege! violation! of! the! equal! protection! clause! simply!
because! it! was! the! only! one! affected! by! the! decree,! for! as!
correctly! pointed! out! by! the! government,! ADC! was! not! singled!
out!when!all!jai;alai!franchises!were!revoked.!
!
#
15.#Conference#of#Maritime#Manning#v.#POEA!
!
!
FACTS:#
Conference! of! Maritime! Manning! Agencies! and! its! co;
petitioners,!all!licensed!manning!agencies!which!hire!and!recruit!
Filipino! seamen! for! foreign! shipowner! principals! asked! for! the!
annulment!of!Resolution!No.!01,!series!of!1994!of!the!Governing!
Board! of! the! Philippine! Overseas! Employment! Administration!
(POEA)!and!POEA!Memorandum!Circular!No.!05.!This!Resolution!
increased! the! compensation! and! benefits! received! in! case! of!
death!during!the!term!of!the!seamens!contract!to!$50,000,!with!
an! additional! grant! of! $7,000! for! each! child! below! 21! provided!

the! number! does! not! exceed! 4.! The! said! compensation! would!
also! be! doubled! in! case! the! death! occurred! during! warlike!
activity.! This! increase,! according! to! the! resolution,! was! created!
because! the! minimum! compensation! in! the! current! POEA!
Standard! Employment! Contract! for! seafarers! was! found! to! be!
below! international! standards! and! those! given! to! unionized!
seafarers.! The! POEA! Memorandum! Circular! No.! 05! served! to!
inform!petitioners!of!this!increase.!
Petitioners! protested! this,! saying,! among! others,! the! said!
issuances!also!violated!the!equal!protection!and!non;impairment!
of! obligation! of! contracts! clauses! of! the! Constitution! because!
only! foreign! shipowners! and! principals! employing! Filipino!
seamen! would! be! affected.! POEAs! issuances,! they! claimed!
discriminated! against! foreign! shipowners! and! principals!
employing! Filipino! seamen! over! foreign! employers! employing!
overseas!Filipinos!who!are!not!seamen.!!
In!
their!
comment,!
POEA!
stated!
that!
the!
resolution/memorandum! were! both! done! in! a! valid! exercise! of!
their!rule;making!authority!and!that!the!said!increase!in!rates!of!
compensation! and! other! benefits! were! made! following!
consultations!with!shipowners!and!the!private!sector.!!
!
ISSUE:#
Whether! the! resolution! and! memorandum! circular! violate!
the!equal!protection!and!contract!clauses!of!the!Constitution.!
!
HELD:#
NO.!
The!guaranty!of!equal!protection!of!the!laws!is!not!violated!
by! legislation! based! on! reasonable! classification.! For!
classification! to! be! reasonable,$ 1)$ must$ rest$ on$ substantial$
distinctions;$ (2)$ must$ be$ germane$ to$ the$ purpose$ of$ the$ law;$ (3)$
must$not$be$limited$to$existing$conditions$only;$and$(4)$must$apply$

equally$ to$ all$ members$ of$ the$ same$ class.! Clearly,! there! are!
differences!between!land;based!and!sea;based!Filipino!overseas!
workers! in! terms! of! among! other! things,! work! environment,!
safety,! dangers! and! risks! to! life! and! limb,! and! accessibility! to!
social,! civic,! and! spiritual! activities.! Thus,! classification! is!
permissible.!
It!does!not!violate!the!contract!clause!either.!The!POEA!was!
enacted!to!further!implement!the!social!justice!provisions!of!the!
Constitution.! Such! provisions! revolve! on! the! promotion! of!
general! welfare.! It! is! based! on! the! recognition! of! the! need! for!
interdependence!among!various!sectors!of!society!and!the!equal!
protection!that!should!be!accorded!to!all.!!
The!freedom!to!contract!is!not!absolute!as!it!is!subject!to!the!
police!power!of!the!state!and!changing!regulations!as!the!general!
welfare! of! society! may! require.! The! Civil! Code! itself! states! that!
labor! contracts! are! subject! to! police! power! because! they! are!
impressed! with! public! interest.! Since! the! challenged! documents!
were! created! by! virtue! of! the! States! police! power! as! an!
implementation! of! EO! No.! 797,! they! cannot! be! held!
unconstitutional! for! violating! the! contract! clause.! To! declare!
otherwise! would! subordinate! police! power! to! the! contract!
clause.!Petition!DISMISSED.!!
!
16.#Regala#v.#Sandiganbayan#
!
17.#Sison#v.#Ancheta#
#
FACTS:#
!
!
Petitioner! as! taxpayer! alleges! that! BP! Blg.! 135! is!
constitutionally! infirm! for! transgressing! both! the! equal!
protection!clause!and!the!due!process!clause!of!the!Constitution.!
By! said! law,! "he! would! be! unduly! discriminated! against! by! the!

imposition! of! higher! rates! of! tax! upon! his! income! arising! from!
the!exercise!of!his!profession!vis;a;vis!those!which!are!imposed!
upon!fixed!income!or!salaried!individual!taxpayers.!
#
ISSUES:#
!
1.
Whether!or!not!the!imposition!of!a!higher!tax!rate!on!
taxable! net! income! derived! from! business! or!
profession! than! on! compensation! is! constitutionally!
infirm?!
!
HELD:#
!
1.
No.!!The!power!to!tax,!moreover,!to!borrow!from!Justice!
Malcolm,!"is!an!attribute!of!sovereignty.!It!is!the!strongest!of!all!
the! powers! of! government."! It! is,! of! course,! to! be! admitted! that!
for!all!its!plenitude,!the!power!to!tax!is!not!unconfined.!There!are!
restrictions.! The! Constitution! sets! forth! such! limits.! ! Adversely!
affecting! as! it! does! properly! rights,! both! the! due! process! and!
equal!protection!clauses!may!properly!be!invoked,!all!petitioner!
does,!to!invalidate!in!appropriate!cases!a!revenue!measure.!
!
!
Moreover,! a! mere! allegation! of! arbitrariness! does! not!
suffice.! There! must! be! a! factual! foundation! of! such!
unconstitutional! taint.! Considering! that! petitioner! here! would!
condemn!such!a!provision!as!void!or!its!face,!he!has!not!made!out!
a!case.!This!is!merely!to!adhere!to!the!authoritative!doctrine!that!
were! the! due! process! and! equal! protection! clauses! are! invoked,!
considering! that! they! are! not! fixed! rules! but! rather! broad!
standards,! there! is! a! need! for! of! such! persuasive! character! as!
would! lead! to! such! a! conclusion.! Absent! such! a! showing,! the!
presumption!of!validity!must!prevail.!
!

!
As! for! equal! protection,! what! misled! petitioner! is! his!
failure! to! take! into! consideration! the! distinction! between! a! tax!
rate! and! a! tax! base.! There! is! no! legal! objection! to! a! broader! tax!
base!or!taxable!income!by!eliminating!all!deductible!items!and!at!
the!same!time!reducing!the!applicable!tax!rate.!Taxpayers!may!be!
classified! into! different! categories.! To! repeat,! it! is! enough! that!
the! classification! must! rest! upon! substantial! distinctions! that!
make! real! differences.! In! the! case! of! the! gross! income! taxation!
embodied!in!BP!Blg.!135,!the,!discernible!basis!of!classification!is!
the!susceptibility!of!the!income!to!the!application!of!generalized!
rules! removing! all! deductible! items! for! all! taxpayers! within! the!
class! and! fixing! a! set! of! reduced! tax! rates! to! be! applied! to! all! of!
them.!Taxpayers!who!are!recipients!of!compensation!income!are!
set!apart!as!a!class.!As!there!is!practically!no!overhead!expense,!
these!taxpayers!are!e!not!entitled!to!make!deductions!for!income!
tax!purposes!because!they!are!in!the!same!situation!more!or!less.!
On!the!other!hand,!in!the!case!of!professionals!in!the!practice!of!
their!calling!and!businessmen,!there!is!no!uniformity!in!the!costs!
or!expenses!necessary!to!produce!their!income.!It!would!not!be!
just! then! to! disregard! the! disparities! by! giving! all! of! them! zero!
deduction!and!indiscriminately!impose!on!all!alike!the!same!tax!
rates!on!the!basis!of!gross!income.!
!
!
Nothing!can!be!clearer,!therefore,!than!that!the!petition!is!
without! merit,! considering! the! (1)! lack! of! factual! foundation! to!
show! the! arbitrary! character! of! the! assailed! provision;! (2)! the!
force! of! controlling! doctrines! on! due! process,! equal! protection,!
and! uniformity! in! taxation! and! (3)! the! reasonableness! of! the!
distinction! between! compensation! and! taxable! net! income! of!
professionals! and! businessman! certainly! not! a! suspect!
classification.!
!
!

18.#Marcos#v.#CA#
#
FACTS:#
!
!On! October! 21,! 1983,! pursuant! to! Monetary! Board!
Resolution! Nos.! 1632! and! 1718,! the! Central! Bank! of! the!
Philippines! issued! Circular! No.! 960,! which,! in! Section! 4,!
prohibited! residents,! firms,! associations! or! corporations! from!
maintaining! foreign! exchange! accounts! abroad! without! first!
being! authorized! by! the! CB.! Section! 10! of! the! same! circular!
further! required! all! residents! who! habitually! earn! or! receive!
foreign! exchange! from! invisibles! locally! or! from! abroad! to!
submit! reports! of! such! earnings! or! receipts! in! prescribed! form!
with!the!proper!CB!department!and!to!register!with!the!Foreign!
Exchange!Department!of!the!CB!within!90!days!from!October!21,!
1983.!Violation!of!the!provisions!of!the!circular!is!punishable!as!a!
criminal! offense! under! Section! 34! of! R.A.! No.! 265,! as! amended!
(the!Central!Bank!Act).!!
!
Six! years! after! the! EDSA! Revolution,! Imelda! Marcos! and!
some! of! her! cronies! were! charged! with! allegedly! opening! and!
maintaining! foreign! exchange! accounts! on! various! dates! from!
1968! to! 1991! without! prior! authorization! from! the! CB! in! 8!
identically! worded! informations,! in! violation! of! Section! 4! of!
Circular! No.! 960.! Furthermore,! 5! informations! were! also! filed!
against! Marcos! for! violation! of! Section! 10! of! the! Circular,! for!
failing! to! submit! a! report! to! the! CB! as! required! of! her! earnings!
and!investments!from!abroad,!which!were!said!to!total!15!million!
U.S.!dollars,!and!were!held!by!custodian!managers!in!banks!such!
as! Banque! Paribas! in! Switzerland.! Further! informations! were!
filed! regarding! the! same! violations,! totaling! to! 33! consolidated!
cases.!
!
During!the!pendency!of!these!cases,!CB!Circular!No.!1318!
(Revised!Manual!of!Rules!and!Regulations!Governing!Non;Trade!
Foreign! Exchange! Transactions)! and! CB! Circular! No.! 1353!

(Further! Liberalizing! Foreign! Exchange! Regulations)! dated!


August! 24,! 1992! were! issued! by! the! CB.! CB! Circular! No.! 1318!
repeals! insofar! as! inconsistent! therewith! all! existing! provisions!
of!CB!Circular!No.!960,!among!other!circulars,!while!CB!Circular!
No.! 1353! repeals! all! the! provisions! of! Chapter! X! of! CB! Circular!
No.! 1318! only! insofar! as! they! are! inconsistent! therewith.! Both!
circulars,!however,!contain!saving!clauses!which!similarly!stated:$
Provided,$ however,$ that$ regulations,$ violations$ of$ which$ are$ the$
subject$ of$ pending$ actions$ or$ investigations,$ shall$ not$ be$
considered$ repealed$ insofar$ as$ such$ pending$ actions$ or$
investigations$ are$ concerned,$ it$ being$ understood$ that$ as$ to$ such$
pending$ actions$ or$ investigations,$ the$ regulations$ existing$ at$ the$
time$the$cause$of$action$accrued$shall$govern.!
!
Invoking! the! repeals,! Marcos! filed! a! Motion! to! Quash! on!
May!23,!1994,!seeking!the!dismissal!of!all!cases!against!her.!She!
further!claimed!that!the!saving!clauses!in!CB!Circular!Nos.!1318!
and!1315!are!invalid,!as!they!violated!the!equal!protection!clause!
of! the! Constitution,! the! saving! clauses! having! been! designed!
solely,! she! claimed,! to! preserve! the! criminal! cases! against! her!
and!her!co;accused.!
!
ISSUES:##
1. Whether! or! not! the! saving! clause! in! CB! Circular! Nos.!
1318! and! 1315! are! a! violation! of! the! equal! protection!
clause!
!
HELD:#
1. No.!
The! Court! ruled! that! Marcos! lamentations! that! the!
aforementioned! provisions! were! discriminatory! because! they!
were!aimed!at!her!and!her!co;accused!were!not!legal!arguments,!
as! they! constituted! unwarranted! conjectures! that! were! not!
supported! by! proof! and! relied! purely! on! the! text! alone.!

However,! should! she! nonetheless! desire! to! pursue! such!


objection,! she! may! always! adduce! additional! evidence! at! the!
trial! of! these! cases! since! that! is! the! proper! stage! therefor,! and!
not!at!their!present!posture.!!
The! Court! also! provided! reasoning! for! the! existence! of! the!
saving!clauses,!stating!that!this!was!aimed!not!at!Marcos!herself!
but! at! anyone! who! has! violated! the! Monetary! Board! issuances,!
as!there!is!a!need!to!continue!the!prosecution!of!those!who!had!
already!committed!acts!of!monetary!destabilization.!
The! Court! further! chastised! Marcos! for! employing! various!
delaying! tactics! and! indefinitely! sidelining! the! main! cases!
against! her,! regarding! her! violation! of! Circular! No.! 960,! and!
stated! that! Marcos! should! now! have! the! opportunity! to! prove!
her! defenses! on! the! merits! of! her! cause! rather! than! through!
these!attempts!to!stray!from!the!main!case.!!
Thus,!the!Court!denied!the!petition.!
!
19.#Nolasco#v.#COMELEC#
#
FACTS:#
!
8!May!1995:!Elections!for!mayor!of!Meycauayan,!Bulacan.!!
Vying! for! the! position! were! a! Florentino! P.! Blanco! and! an!
Eduardo! A.! Alarilla.! ! Blanco! won! by! approximately! 6,000! more!
votes!to!Alarilla.!!Edgardo!Nolasco!was!elected!Vice;Mayor!with!
35,240!votes.!!
!
!
9!May!1995:!Alarilla!filed!with!the!COMELEC!a!petition!to!
disqualify! Blanco! by! the! fact! that! Blanco! maintained! a! private!
army! at! his! (Blancos)! residence.! ! It! was! filed! that! the! PNP!
Intelligence! Command,! the! Criminal! Investigation! Service! (CIS)!
and! the! Bulacan! Provincial! Command,! backed! up! by! the! PNP!
Specal! Action! Force,! accompanied! by! mediamen! raided! the!
abode!of!Blanco!and!arrested!six!(6)!men!found!carrying!various!

high!powered!firearms!without!any!license!or!authority.!!During!
the!search,!members!of!the!composite!team!saw!other!suspicious!
items! and! filed! for! a! second! search! warrant! that! was!
subsequently! granted! them.! ! The! second! raid! yielded! Php!
10,000,000!in!cash!that!was!suspected!to!be!bribe!money!for!the!
voters,! watchers! and! other! volunteers! involved! in! the! Mayoral!
Elections.! ! It! was! then! found! that! during! the! said! elections,! an!
alarming!amount!of!vote;buying!had!been!perpetrated!as!well!as!
the!use!of!flying!voters!and!other!forgery.!!Also!discovered!were!
a! second! set! of! firearms! and! ammunition! used! to! terrorize! the!
population!into!submitting!to!Blancos!cheating!schemes.!
!
!
Being! clear! violations! of! the! Omnibus! election! Code,! the!
COMELEC! granted! the! motion! to! suspend! proclamation.!!
Canvassing!was!ordered!to!be!continued!but!results!were!not!to!
be!released!to!the!public.!!In!response,!Blanco!filed!for!a!Motion$
to$Lift$or$Set$Aside$the$Order!suspending!his!proclamation.!
!
!
On! 30! May! 1995,! the! COMELEC! heard! the! petition! to!
disqualify!Blanco.!!Position!papers!were!submitted!and!Blancos!
response!to!Alarillas!postion!paper!was!noted.!
!
!
On!14!August!1995,!the!COMELEC!disqualified!Blanco!on!
the! ground! of! vote;buying! to! which! Blanco! filed! for!
reconsideration.!!Vice;mayor!Nolasco!then!intervenes!and!moves!
that! he! be! made! mayor! in! the! absence! of! a! determined! mayor.!!
Both!motions!were!denied.!!
!
ISSUES:#
In!the!case!of!Blanco:!!
1. W/N!the!COMELEC!upheld!the!validity!of!the!suspending!
of! proclamation! of! Blanco! as! winning! candidate! for!
Mayor! of! Meycauayan! without! the! benefit! of! any! notice!

2.
3.

4.
5.

or! hearing! in! gross! palpable! violation! of! Blancos!


constitutional!right!to!due!process!of!law!
W/N! the! COMELEC! violated! Blancos! right! to! equal!
protection! of! the! laws! by! setting! him! apart! from! other!
respondents!facing!similar!disqualification!suits!
W/N! the! COMELEC! erred! in! deciding! Blancos!
disqualification!in!a!Summary!Proceeding!rather!than!the!
full;dress!hearing!proper!to!a!case!involving!vote;buying,!
terrorism!and!other!similar!acts!
W/N! the! declaration! of! Blancos! involvement! in! vote;
buying! without! the! minumum! quantum! of! proof! is! a!
violation!of!Section!28!of!R.A.!6646!
(Electoral! issue)! W/N! the! proclamation! of! the! second!
placer! to! be! the! duly! elected! Mayor! of! Meycauayan,!
Bulacan! is! gross! violation! and! utter! disregard! of! the!
doctrine! laid! down! in! the! case! of! LABO$ v.$ COMELEC!
reitereated!in!Aquino$v.$Syjuco!

!
In!the!case!of!Nolasco:!
6. (Electoral! issue)! W/N! Nolasco! ought! to! be! declared! as!
Mayor! in! view! of! Blancos! disqualification! citing! Section!
44! of! the! Local! Government! Code! of! 1991! and! the!
decision!in!Labo$v.$COMELEC$
#
HELD:#
1. NO!
!
Blanco! was! given! all! the! opportunity! to! prove! that!
the! evidence! on! his! disqualification! was! not! strong.! ! On!
may! 25,! 1995,! he! filed! a! Motion! to! Lift! or! Set! Aside! the!
Order! suspending! his! proclamation.! ! Later! he! filed! his!
answer! to! the! petition! to! disqualify! him! which! the!
COMELEC! properly! heard.! ! Blanco! likewise! sent! a!
response! to! the! position! paper! of! Alarilla! and! COMELEC!

considered! both! parties! arguments! in! the! case! and! only!


then!affirmed!the!disqualification.!
!
2. NO!
!
The! supposed! handling! of! the! COMELEC! Law!
Department! for! cases! involving! vote;buying! and! the! like!
is! up! to! the! discretion! of! the! COMELEC! as! stated! in! Sec.!
28!of!of!R.A.!66461.!!In!the!other!instances!refered!to!by!
Blanco,! the! cases! were! assigned! to! the! Law! Dept.! in! an!
effort! to! address! the! proliferation! of! disqualification!
cases! at! that! time.! ! At! the! moment! of! Blancos! case!
however,! COMELEC! found! themselves! free! to! handle! his!
case!directly.!
3. NO!
!
In!Section!4!of!the!COMELECs!Rules!of!Procedure,!it!
is!expressedly!provided!that!petitions!for!disqualification!
shall!be!heard!summarily!after!due!notice.!!Vote;buying!
has!its!criminal!and!electoral!aspects.!!Its!criminal!aspect!
cannot! be! subject! of! a! summary! hearing.! ! However,! its!
electoral! aspect! to! ascertain! whether! the! offernder!
should! be! disqualified! from! office! can! be! determined! in!
an! administrative! proceeding! that! is! summary! in!
character.!
!
4. NO!
!
A! studied! reading! of! the! affidavits! and! sworn!
statements! presented! as! evidence! against! Blanco! were!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!Sec.! 28.! Prosecution! of! Vote;Buying! and! Vote;selling.! ! The!
presentation! of! a! complaintshall! be! sufficient! basis! for! an!
investigation!ti!be!immediately!conducted$by$the$Commission,$directly$or$
through$ its$ duly$ authorized$ legal$ officers! under! Section! 68! or! Section!
265!of!said!Batas!Pambansa!Blg.!881.!(emphasis!supplied)!

very! much! legitimate.! ! There! were! statements! coming!


from! individuals! closely! associated! or! related! to! Blanco!
such! as! Blancos! political! leaders! and! his! private!
secretary!and!also!affidavits!rich!in!detail!which!would!be!
highly! impossible! to! be! mere! products! of! hearsay.! ! Also,!
the! case! against! Blanco! is! further! strengthened! by! the!
material! evidence! such! as! the! Movement! for! Tinoy!
Blanco!cards!used!to!facilitate!the!vote;buying!as!well!as!
pay!envelops!intended!for!the!bribery!of!suspected!flying!
voters.! Noted! as! well! are! various! admissions! of! certain!
individuals!to!had!received!money!to!vote!for!Blanco!and!
the! apprending! of! two! persons! who! were! attempting! to!
vote! for! Blanco! though! not! being! registered! voters! of!
Meycauayan.! ! These! all! stand! to! carry! more! evidentiary!
weight!than!the!negative!statements!of!the!accused!who!
provided! little! to! no! evidence! to! denounce! the! charge!
against!him.!
!
5. YES!
! Our!case!law!is!not!settled!that!in!mayoralty!election,!
the!candidate!who!obtained!the!secon!highest!number!of!
botes,! in! this! case! Alarilla,! cannot! be! proclaimed! winner!
in!case!the!winning!candidate!is!disqualified!as!reiterated!
in! the! ruling! of! Reyes$ v.$ COMELEC.! ! ! To! simplistically!
assume! that! the! second! placer! would! have! received! the!
other!votes!would!be!to!substitute!our!judgement!for!the!
mind!of!the!voter.!
!
6. YES!
! Art.!83!of!the!Rules!and!Regulations!Implementing,!the!
Local! Government! Code! of! 1991! provides! that! if! a!
permanent! vacancy! occurs! in! the! office! of! the! governor!
or! mayor,$ the! vice! governeor! or! vice$ mayor$ concerned$

shall$ ipso$ facto$ become$ the$ governor$ or$ mayor! ! ! The!


court!affirms!that!Edgardo!C.!Nolasco!be!made!Mayor!of!
Meycauayan,! Bulacan! in! view! of! the! disqualification! of!
Florentino!P.!Blanco.!
#
#
20.#Phil#Judges#Association#v.#Prado!
!
FACTS:#
Section! 35! or! the! repealing! clause! of! RA! No.! 7354! as!
implemented! by! the! Philippine! Postal! Corporation! withdraws!
the!franking!privilege!of!the!Supreme!Court,!the!Court!of!Appeals,!
the! Regional! Trial! Courts,! the! Metropolitan! Trial! Courts,! the!
Municipal! Trial! Courts,! and! the! Land! Registration! Commission!
and!its!Registers!of!Deeds,!along!with!certain!government!offices.!
While!withdrawn!from!the!Judiciary,!it!is!retained!for!others!less!
deserving! the! President,! Vice! President,! Members! of! Congress,!
the! Commission! on! Elections,! former! Presidents,! the! National!
Census! and! Statistics! Office,! and! the! general! public! in! filing!
complaints!against!public!offices!and!officers.!
!
Herein!petitioners!are!members!of!the!lower!courts!who!
feel! that! their! official! functions! as! judges! will! be! prejudiced! by!
the!said!measure.!
#
ISSUES:#
1. Whether! its! title! embraces! more! than! one! subject! and!
does!not!express!its!purposes!
2. Whether! it! did! not! pass! the! required! readings! in! both!
Houses! of! Congress! and! printed! copies! of! the! bill! in! its!
final! form! were! not! distributed! among! the! members!
before!its!passage!
3. Whether! it! is! discriminatory! and! encroaches! on! the!
independence!of!the!Judiciary!

#
HELD:#
1. No.!
The!title!is!not!required!to!be!an!index!to!the!body!of!the!act!
or!to!be!as!comprehensive!as!to!cover!every!single!detail.!There!
is! sufficient! compliance! when! the! title! indicates! the! general!
subject,! reasonably! covers! all! the! provisions,! and! is! not!
calculated!to!mislead!the!legislature!or!the!people.!
The!withdrawal!of!the!franking!privileges!is!also!germane!to!
the!objective!of!the!law,!which!is!the!creation!of!a!more!efficient!
and!effective!postal!system.!
!
2. No.!
Under! the! doctrine! of! separation! of! powers,! the! Court! may!
not!inquire!beyond!the!certification!of!approval!of!a!bill!from!the!
presiding! officers! of! Congress.! Both! the! enrolled! bill! and!
legislative! journals! certify! that! the! measure! was! duly! enacted!
thus,!we!decline!to!look!into!the!charges.!
!
3. Yes.!
Equal! protection! requires! all! persons! or! things! similarly!
situation!should!be!treated!alike,!both!as!to!rights!conferred!and!
responsibilities! imposed.! It! does! not! require! the! universal!
application! of! the! laws! without! distinction.! However,! it! seems!
that! not! enough! attention! was! given! in! the! classification! and!
unwitting! withdrawal! of! the! franking! privilege! from! the!
Judiciary.!!
We! cannot! understand! why,! of! all! the! departments,! it! is!
the!Judiciary!that!has!been!denied!the!franking!privilege!as!there!
is!no!denying!that!the!Judiciary!is!the!major!branch!that!actually!
needs! the! privilege.! Respondents! point! to! the! considerable!
volume!of!mail!from!the!Judiciary!and!the!corresponding!loss!of!
revenues!as!reason!for!the!withdrawal.!However,!if!the!problem!

is! the! loss! of! revenues,! the! remedy! is! to! withdraw! it! altogether!
from!all!agencies,!including!those!who!do!not!need!it.!!
While! the! Philippine! Postal! Corporation! was! created!
primarily! for! private! gain,! it! cannot! excuse! itself! from! functions!
for! the! benefit! of! the! public.! Among! its! services! should! be! free!
carriage! of! mail! for! certain! government! offices! that! need! the!
privilege! in! the! discharge! of! their! public! functions.! Also,! the!
Corporation! is! capitalized! at! P10! billion,! 55%! of! which! is!
supplied!by!the!Government.!It!is!thus!unlikely!that!the!retention!
of!the!franking!privilege!of!the!Judiciary!will!cripple!it.!
With! the! Judiciary! being! faulted! for! the! delay! in! the!
administration! of! justice,! the! withdrawal! of! the! privilege! will!
only! further! this! problem.! The! Judiciary! has! the! lowest!
appropriation!in!the!national!budget!compared!to!the!Legislative!
and! Executive! need! to! affix! purchased! stamps! to! ever! process!
they! send! will! cause! increased! difficulties! in! performing! their!
functions.!
The! repealing! clause! is! a! discriminatory! provision! that!
denies! the! Judiciary! the! equal! protection! guaranteed! for! all!
persons!or!things!similarly!situated.!We!thus!partially!grant!this!
petition!and!restore!the!franking!privilege!of!the!Supreme!Court,!
Court! of! Appeals,! Regional! Trial! Courts,! Municipal! Trial! Courts,!
and! the! National! land! Registration! Authority! and! its! Registry! of!
Deeds.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
#
#

21.#Olivarez#v.#Sandiganbayan#
#
FACTS:#
#
The! case! at! bar! is! an! original! action! for! certiorari! and!
prohibition!seeking!to!annul!the!following;!(1)!February!9,!1994!
resolution! reversing! a! recommendation! to! dismiss! the! case!
against!petitioner,!(2)!December!9,!1994!Resolution!reversing!a!
recommendation! to! withdraw! the! case! against! petitioner,! (3)!
January! 16,! 1995! Resolution! denying! petitioners! Motion! to!
Strike!Out!and/or!Review!Result!of!Reinvestigation!conducted!by!
the!Office!of!the!Ombudsman.!The!petitioner!is!Paraaque!Mayor!
Pablo!R.!Olivarez!(Petitioner)!while!the!respondents!are!officials!
under! the! Hon.! Sandiganbayan! and! Hon.! Ombudsman!
(Respondents).! The! subject! of! the! Violation! f! the! Anti;Graft! and!
Corrupt!Practices!Act!case!filed!by!the!Office!of!the!Ombudsman!
is!the!Petitioners!refusal!to!issue!a!mayors!permit!to!implement!
Paraaque! Sangguniang! Bayan! Resloution! No.! 744,! series! of!
1992,! which! authorizes! BCCI! to! exclusively! hold! a!
manufacturers! fair! during! the! Christmas! Fiesta! celebration! for!
60! days,! which! would! use! portions! of! Roxas! Boulevard.! It! is!
important! to! note! that! said! Resolution! was! approved! by! the!
Petitioner! himself.! In! filing! the! complaint,! BCCI! attached! a!
number! of! letters! related! to! the! request! of! the! mayors! permit!
and! said! Resolution! No.! 744.! It! was! found! that,! while! BCCI! was!
denied!a!mayors!permit!and!in!effect!denied!the!implementation!
of! Resolution! No.! 744,! Petitioner! issued! an! executive! order!
allowing! an! unidentified! group! to! operate! a! night! fair,! causing!
injury! to! BCCI.! After! filing! with! the! Office! of! the! Ombudsman,!
Special! Prosecutors! were! for! and! against! the! filing! of!
information,! as! there! was! debate! as! to! sufficiency! of! evidence.!
The! Ombudsman! eventually,! by! a! marginal! note,! approved! the!
filing! of! information! on! January! 9,! 1995! without! another!
preliminary! investigation.! Petitioners! Motion! to! Strike! Out!

and/or! Review! Result! of! Reinvestigation! was! denied! by! the!


Sandiganbayan.!
!
ISSUES:#
#
1.! Whether! or! not! the! Office! of! the! Ombudsman! may!
review! recommendations! of! government! prosecutors! through! a!
marginal!note!without!another!preliminary!investigation!
!
#
HELD:!
!
The!Court!found!that!it!is!within!the!discretionary!power!
of! the! Office! of! the! Ombudsman! to! sustain! an! information!
through! a! marginal! note! without! the! need! for! another!
preliminary! investigation.! Though! government! prosecutors! may!
give! recommendations! concerning! the! filing! of! a! case! against!
public! officials! with! the! requirement! of! a! preliminary!
investigation,! the! decision! of! the! Office! of! the! Ombudsman! by! a!
marginal!note!does!not!give!it!the!character!of!arbitrariness.!Such!
decision!is!in!fact!based!on!the!preliminary!investigation!used!as!
basis! for! such! recommendations,! and! would! not! require! a! new!
investigation.!To!require!such!for!every!recommendation!would!
unduly! burden! the! Office,! and! prevent! it! from! carrying! out! its!
constitutional!mandate.!And!given!the!facts!of!the!case!found!in!
the! preliminary! investigation,! there! is! sufficient! probable! cause!
to!file!the!information.!The!fact!that!Resolution!No.!744!already!
authorized! BCCI! to! operate! the! night! fair,! and! was! approved! by!
Petitioner,!gives!rise!to!a!reasonable!presumption!that!there!was!
bad!faith!in!Petitioners!refusal!to!implement!Resolution!No.!744.!
Thus,!the!petition!is!dismissed!for!lack!of!merit.!
#
#
#
#

22.#GMC#v.#Torres#
#
FACTS:!
!
On! May! 1,! 1989,! the! NCR! Department! of! Labor! and!
Employment! issued! an! Alien! Employment! Permit! to! Earl!
Timothy! Cone,! a! U.S.! citizen,! as! sports! consultant! and! assistant!
coach! for! petitioner! General! Milling! Corporation! (GMC).!
Subsequently! GMC! and! Cone! entered! into! a! contract! of!
employment! whereby! the! latter! would! coach! GMCs! basketball!
team.! On! January! 15,! 1990! the! Board! of! Special! Inquiry! of! the!
Commission! on! Immigration! and! Deportation! approved! Cones!
application! for! a! change! of! admission! status! from! temporary!
visitor!to!prearranged!employee.!GMC!then!requested!renewal!of!
Cones! alien! employment! permit,! and! that! they! be! allowed! to!
employ! Cone! as! a! full;fledged! coach.! DOLE! Regional! Director!
Luna!Piezas!granted!the!request.!!
!
!
Private!respondent!Basketball!Coaches!Association!of!the!
Philippines! (BCAP)! appealed! the! issuance! of! the! alien!
employment! permit! to! respondent! Secretary! of! Labor! who,! on!
April! 23,! 1990,! issued! a! decision! ordering! the! cancelation! of!
petitioner! Cones! employment! permit! on! the! ground! that! there!
was!no!showing!that!there!is!no!person!in!the!Philippines!who!is!
competent,!able,!and!willing!to!perform!the!services!required!nor!
that!the!hiring!of!petitioner!Cone!would!redound!to!the!national!
interest.! The! Secretary! of! Labor! then! cancelled! Cones!
employment!permit.!
!
ISSUE:!
1.!
Whether! or! not! respondent! Secretary! of! Labor! gravely!
abused! his! discretion! when! he! revoked! petitioner! Cones! alien!
employment! permit! and! violated! the! equal! protection! clause! of!
the!Constitution.!!

!
HELD:!
1.!
NO.!
!
!
Petitioners! contention! that! comparison! can! be! made! to!
Norman!Black!is!untenable.!The!latter!is!a!long;time!resident!of!
the!country!and!is!not!subject!to!provisions!of!Article!40!of!the!
Labor! Code! which! apply! to! non;resident! aliens.! Under! Article!
40,! an! employer! seeking! employment! of! an! alien! must! first!
obtain! an! employment! permit! from! the! Department! of! Labor.!
This! permit! may! be! issued! to! a! non;resident! alien! or! to! the!
applicant! employer! after! a! determination! of! the! non;availability!
of!a!person!in!the!Philippines!who!is!competent,!able,!and!wiling!
at! the! time! of! application! to! perform! the! services! for! which! the!
alien!is!desired.!!
#
#
23.#Segovia#v.#Sandiganbayan#
#
FACTS:!#
!
Petitioners! Perla! Segovia,! Reynaldo! Santiago,! and! SM!
Pangilinan! all! hold! executive! positions! in! the! National! Power!
Corporation!(NPC).!They!were!accused!of!violating!the!Anti;Graft!
and! Corrupt! Practices! Act! or! RA! 3019! when! they,! as! part! of! the!
Contracts! Committee! for! NPCs! "Mindanao! Grid! LDC! &!
SCADA/EMS! System! Operation! Control! Center! and! Facilities!
Project",! conducted! a! bidding! for! the! project.! The! Contracts!
Committee,!after!conducting!the!bid,!disqualified!the!lowest!and!
second! lowest! bidders,! Joint! Venture! and! Urban! respectively,!
because! they! got! verification! from! the! Philippine! Contractors!
Accreditation!Board!that!both!contractors!were!downgraded!;;!
making! them! ineligible! as! bidders.! The! Contracts! Committee!
declared! the! bidding! a! failure! and! directed! a! re;bidding.! It! was!

approved!by!the!NPC!Board.!However,!the!project!was!eventually!
cancelled!for!reasons!not!appearing!on!record.!
!
Feeling!aggrieved!by!the!turn!of!events,!Urban!filed!a!case!
with! the! Office! of! the! Ombudsman! against! the! Chairman! and!
members!of!the!Board!of!NPC!and!the!members!of!the!Contracts!
Committee.!Urban!alleged!that!NPC!and!the!Contracts!Committee!
favored!Joint!Venture!by!allowing!it!to!participate!despite!being!
not! qualified.! Urban! insisted! that! the! NPC! was! poised! to! award!
the!contract!already!to!Joint!Venture!had!it!not!protested!against!
it! which! led! to! Joint! Ventures! post;disqualification.! Urban,!
being!the!second!lowest!bidder!and!next!in!line!to!the!award,!was!
not! recognized! because! the! NPC! Board! declared! a! failure! of!
bidding! and! canceled! the! project.! Urban! argued! that! these! acts!
constitute!a!violation!of!RA!3019.!!
!
Investigations! were! made! and! eventually,! the! case! was!
forwarded!to!the!Sandiganbayan.!Sandiganbayan!handed!down!a!
Resolution! suspending! them! for! 90! days! and! held! that! the!
suspension! was! mandated! by! law! upon! finding! that! proper!
preliminary! investigation! was! conducted! and! the! information!
found!were!valid.!The!petitioners!moved!for!reconsideration!but!
it! was! denied.! Hence,! they! elevated! the! case! to! the! Supreme!
Court.!
!
!
ISSUE:#
!
Whether! or! not! it! is! mandatory! or! discretionary! for!
Sandiganbayan! to! place! under! preventive! suspension! public!
officers!who!stand!accused!before!it!pursuant!to!Section!13!of!RA!
3019!or!the!Anti;Graft!and!Corrupt!Practices!Act.!!
!
HELD/RATIO:#
!
!Yes.! In! promulgating! those! resolutions,! the!
Sandiganbayan! adhered! to! the! clear! command! of! the! law! and!
sustained! its! authority! to! decree! suspension! of! public! officials!

and! employees! who! are! under! trial.! The! Court! has! repeatedly!
upheld! the! validity! of! Section! 13,! R.A.! 3019! which! provides! for!
the!preventive!suspension!of!public!officers.!As!ruled!in!Bayot$v.$
Sandiganbayan,! preventive! suspension! is! not! penal! in! character!
but! merely! a! preventive! measure! before! its! final! judgment.! The!
purpose! of! suspension! is! to! prevent! the! accused! public! officer!
from!frustrating!or!hampering!his!prosecution!by!intimidating!or!
influencing!witnesses!or!tampering!with!documentary!evidence,!
or! from! committing! further! acts! of! malfeasance! while! in! office.!
The! preventive! suspension! is! not! violative! of! the! Constitution!
because!it!is!not!a!penalty.!Persons!under!preventive!suspension!
are! still! presumed! innocent! because! their! culpability! has! yet! to!
be! proven.! However,! the! preventive! suspension! should! not! be!
indefinite.! In! consonance! with! Section! 52! of! the! Administrative!
Code!of!1987,!the!maximum!period!for!preventive!suspension!is!
90!days.!The!Sandiganbayan!abided!by!this!rule.!
The! Court! upholds! the! Sandiganbayans! decision! in!
ordering! preventive! suspension! for! 90! days! and! recognizes! the!
validity!of!the!information!against!petitioners.!
Wherefore,!Petition!is!DISMISSED.!
#
24.#Chavez#v.#PCGG#
#
FACTS:#
!
On! December! 28,! 1993,! the! PCGG! entered! into! a!
compromise! agreement! with! Marcos! heirs! in! order! to! facilitate!
PCGGs! task! of! recovering! the! Marcos! ill;gotten! wealth.! The!
agreement! contained! stipulations! as! to! the! creation! of! an!
inventory! of! the! Marcos! properties,! and! from! this! inventory!
PCGG! would! decide! which! ones! would! be! ceded! to! PCGG! and!
which!ones!would!be!retained!by!the!Marcoses.!It!also!provided!
that! the! Marcoses! net! assets! would! be! exempt! from! taxes.!
Further,!the!agreement!provided!that!the!disclosed!assets!would!

not! be! used! against! the! Marcoses! in! any! criminal,! civil,!
administrative! or! tax! case,! in! return! the! PCGG! would! be! able! to!
freely!withdraw!from!any!of!the!Marcos!accounts!in!the!presence!
of!any!authorized!representative!of!the!Marcos!estate.!!!!
!
Petitioner!Francisco!I.!Chavez,!as!citizen,!taxpayer,!and!as!
a! former! government! official! who! had! initiated! the! prosecution!
of! the! Marcoses! and! their! cronies,! sought! to! prohibit! the! PCGG!
from! entering! into! the! said! compromise! agreement! and! to!
compel! the! PCGG! to! make! public! all! the! negotiations! and!
agreements,! whether! ongoing! or! perfected,! and! all! pertinent!
documents! relating! to! such! PCGG! negotiations! with! the! Marcos!
heirs.!!
!
On! August! 19,! 1998! the! Jopsons! filed! a! Motion! for!
Intervention! being! among! the! 10,000! claimants! whose! right! to!
claim! from! the! Marcos! Family! and/or! the! Marcos! Estate! is!
recognized! by! the! decision! in! In$ re$ Estate$ of$ Ferdinand$ Marcos,$
Human$ Rights$ Litigation,$ Maximo$ Hilao,$ et$ al.,$ Class$ Plaintiffs$ No.$
92S15526,$ U.S.$ Court$ of$ Appeals$for$ the$ 9th$ Circuit$$ US$ App.$ Lexis$
14796,$ June$ 16,$ 1994$ and! the! Decision! of! the! Swiss! Supreme!
Court! of! December! 10,! 1997.!As! such,! they! claim! to! have!
personal! and! direct! interest! in! the! subject! matter! of! the! instant!
case,!since!a!distribution!or!disposition!of!the!Marcos!properties!
may!adversely!affect!their!legitimate!claims.!
!
ISSUES:##
1. Procedural!
a. Whether! the! petitioner! has! legal! standing! to! file!
the!petition.!
2. Substantive!
a. Whether!the!Court!could!require!PCGG!to!disclose!
to! the! public! the! details! of! any! agreement!
whether! ongoing! or! perfected! with! the! Marcos!
heirs.!!

b. Whether!there!are!any!legal!restraints!against!the!
compromise! agreement! between! PCGG! and! the!
Marcos! heirs! relative! to! the! Marcoses! ill;gotten!
wealth.!!
i. As!regards!the!immunity!granted!
ii. As!regards!the!tax!exemption!granted!
HELD:#
1. Procedural!
a. Yes,! the! petitioner! has! legal! standing.! Access! to!
public! documents! and! records! is! a! public! right!
and! the! real! parties! in! interest! are! the! people!
themselves.! Regardless,! the! issue! of! Petitioner!
Chavezs! legal! standing! is! rendered! moot! by! the!
intervention!of!the!Jopsons.!!
!
2. Substantive!
a. Yes,! the! PCGGs! task! of! recovering! the! Marcoses!
ill;gotten!wealth!is!a!matter!of!public!concern!and!
imbued!with!public!interest!and!ill;gotten!wealth!
by! its! very! nature! assumes! a! public! character,!
thus! the! Court! could! require! PCGG! to! disclose!
details! of! the! agreement! between! PCGG! and! the!
Marcoses.! As! regards! the! ongoing! negotiations!
based! on! the! deliberations! of! the! Constitutional!
Commission,!the!constitutional!provision!likewise!
guarantees! access! to! information! regarding!
ongoing$ negotiations! or! proposals! prior! to! the!
final! agreement.! There! is! a! need,! of! course,! to!
observe! the! same! restrictions! on! disclosure! of!
information! in! general,! such! as! on! matters!
involving! national! security,! diplomatic! or! foreign!
relations,! intelligence! and! other! classified!
information.!!!

!
b. Yes,! there! are! legal! restraints! against! the!
compromise!agreement.!
i. As! regards! the! criminal! immunity!
provided! for! in! the! agreement! the! PCGG!
relied! on! Section! 5! of! EO! No.! 14,! as!
amended!by!EO!No.!14;A,!which!provides:!
!
SECTION! 5.!! The! Presidential!
Commission! on! Good! Government! is!
authorized!to!grant!immunity!from!criminal!
prosecution! to! any! person! who! provides!
information!or!testifies!in!any!investigation!
conducted!by!such!Commission!to!establish!
the! unlawful! manner! in! which! any!
respondent,! defendant! or! accused! has!
acquired! or! accumulated! the! property! or!
properties! in! question! in! any! case! where!
such! information! or! testimony! is! necessary!
to!ascertain!or!prove!the!latters!guilt!or!his!
civil! liability.!! The! immunity! thereby!
granted! shall! be! continued! to! protect! the!
witness!who!repeats!such!testimony!before!
the! Sandiganbayan! when! required! to! do! so!
by!the!latter!or!by!the!Commission.!
!
The! court! held! that! such! immunity!
cannot! be! granted! to! the! Marcoses! as! the!
above! mentioned! provision! provides! for!
immunity! of! witnesses,! and! the! Marcoses!
are!the!principal!defendants!in!the!cases!for!
ill;gotten! wealth! pending! before! the!
Sandiganbayan.!!

!
ii. As! regards! the! tax! exemptions! provided!
for! in! the! agreement,! the! Court! held! that!
the! PCGG! has! absolutely! no! power! to!
grant! tax! exemptions,! even! under! the!
cover! of! its! authority! to! compromise! ill;
gotten! wealth! cases.! Any! special! grant! of!
tax!exemption!in!favor!only!of!the!Marcos!
heirs! will! constitute! class! legislation,!
which! runs! counter! to! the! equal!
protection!clause!of!the!Constitution.!!
!
!
25.#Telebap#v.#COMELEC#
#
FACTS:!
!
Petitioners! TELEBAP! and! GMA! Network! assail! the!
validity!of!Section!92!of!BP!Blg!881,!which!states!that:!
Sec.!92.!Comelec!time.!!The!commission!shall!procure!
radio!and!television!time!to!be!known!as!"Comelec!Time"!
which! shall! be! allocated! equally! and! impartially! among!
the! candidates! within! the! area! of! coverage! of! all! radio!
and!television!stations.!For!this!purpose,!the!franchise!of!
all!radio!broadcasting!and!television!stations!are! hereby!
amended!so!as!to!provide!radio!or!television!time,!free!of!
charge,!during!the!period!of!the!campaign.!
Petitioner! GMA! alleges! that! said! provision! 1)! takes!
property! without! due! process! of! law! and! without! just!
compensation;! 2)! denies! radio! and! TV! broadcast! companies! the!
equal! protection! of! the! laws;! and! 3)! it! is! in! excess! of! the! power!
given!to!the!COMELEC!to!supervise!or!regulate!the!operation!of!
media! of! communication! or! information! during! the! period! of!
election.!TELEBAP!was!declared!to!be!without!standing,!but!the!

Court! proceeded! with! the! case! because! GMA! Network! has! the!
requisite! standing! to! bring! the! constitutional! challenge.! It! also!
alleges! that! the! primary! source! of! revenue! of! the! radio! and!
television!stations!is!the!sale!of!air!time!to!advertisers,!and!that!
to!require!these!stations!to!provide!free!air!time!is!to!authorize!
a! taking! which! is! not! a! de$ minimis! temporary! limitation! or!
restraint!upon!the!use!of!private!property.!
!
ISSUE:!
1.!Whether!requiring!respondent!GMA!to!provide!free!air!time!in!
connection! during! the! period! of! the! election! constitutes! a!
deprivation!of!their!constitutional!right!to!property!without!due!
process!of!law.!
!
HELD:!
1.!!
No.!
!
The! Court! already! pointed! out! in! Osmea! v! COMELEC!
that! Section! 92! of! BP! Blg! 881! is! part! of! a! regulatory! scheme!
designed! to! equalize! the! opportunity! of! candidates! in! an!
election! in! regard! to! the! use! of! mass! media! for! political!
campaigns.!According!to!the!Court,!All!broadcasting!is!licensed!
by!the!government.!.!.!A!franchise!is!thus!a!privilege!subject!...!to!
amended![sic]!by!Congress!in!accordance!with!the!constitutional!
provision! that! any! such! franchise! or! right! granted! .! .! .! shall! be!
subject!to!amendment,!alteration!or!repeal!by!the!Congress!when!
the!common!good!so!requires.!!
Provisions! requiring! broadcast! stations! to! provide!
COMELEC! Time! free! of! charge! have! been! present! since! the!
Election! Code! of! 1971,! carried! over! to! the! 1978! Election! Code,!
and! currently! embodied! in! Section! 92! of! BP! Blg! 881.! The! Court!
even! stated! that! Until! the! present! case! was! brought,! such!
provisions! had! not! been! thought! of! as! taking! property! without!
just!compensation.!!

Article! XII,! Section! 11! of! the! Constitution! authorize! the!


amendment! of! franchises! for! the! common! good.! It! benefits! the!
candidates!and!the!public!moreso,!especially!the!voters,!who!will!
be!fully!informed!of!the!issues!in!an!election!thanks!to!COMELEC!
Time.! What! is! paramount! here! is! the! right! of! the! viewers! and!
listeners!and!not!the!right!of!the!broadcasters.!
!
Radio! and! television! broadcasting! companies! do! not!
own! the! airwaves! and! frequencies! through! which! they! transmit!
broadcast! signals! and! images.! They! are! merely! given! the!
temporary! privilege! of! using! them.! Since! a! franchise! is! a! mere!
privilege,! the! exercise! of! the! privilege! may! reasonably! be!
burdened!with!the!performance!by!the!grantee!of!some!form!of!
public! service.! The! license! to! operate! broadcast! stations! is! a!
privilege!granted!by!the!State.!In!doing!so,!it!spends!considerable!
public! funds! in! licensing! and! supervising! such! stations,! so! it! is!
not! unreasonable! that! it! also! has! the! power! to! require! the!
licensees!to!render!public!service!by!giving!free!air!time.!!
Because!radio!and!television!broadcasting!companies!do!
not! own! the! airwaves,! no! private! property! is! taken! by! the!
requirement!that!they!provide!air!time!to!the!COMELEC.!
!
!
26.#Tiu#v.#Court#of#Appeals!
!
FACTS:#
R.A.! 7227,! An! Act! Accelerating! the! Conversion! of! Military!
Reservations! Into! Other! Productive! Uses,! Creating! the! Bases!
Conversion! and! Development! Authority! for! this! Purpose,!
Providing! Funds! Therefor! and! for! Other! Purposes,! had! been!
created!on!March!13,!1992.!The!former!base!of!Subic!was!one!of!
the!areas!that!fit!the!classification!presented!by!the!Republic!Act,!
and!was!converted!into!a!Special!Economic!Zone.!
!

Under! said! R.A.,! tax! incentives! were! granted! to! the! businesses!
found! within! the! SEZ.! Duty;free! importation! was! also!
established,! and! exchange! controls! were! done! without.! On! June!
10l!1993,!President!Fidel!Ramos!issued!Executive!Order!No.!97,!
which! clarified! several! of! the! provision! that! had! been! first!
released!in!R.A.!7227.!Tax!incentives!and!duty;free!importations!
were!now!limited!to!raw!materials,!capital!goods!and!equipment!
brought! in! by! businesses! into! the! Subic! SEZ.! Others,! instead! of!
paying! the! local! and! nation! taxes! with! the! exception! of! the!
import! taxes! and! duties,! would! have! to! pay! the! tax! Specified! in!
Section!12!if!R.A.!No.!7227.!
!
On!June!19,!1993,!E.O.!No.!970;A!was!issued,!specifying!the!area!
where! the! tax! and! duty;free! privileges! were! operative.! Only! the!
fenced;in! former! Subic! Naval! Base! fell! under! the! complete! tax!
and! duty;free! area,! as! stated! in! Section! 1.1! of! the! Executive!
Order.!
!
The! petitioners! challenge! EO! 97;A! as! violating! their! rights! to!
equal!protection!under!law.!Their!claim!that!the!area!specified!in!
the!assailed!Executive!Order!was!far!too!restrictive,!and!that!the!
limitation! of! the! tax! incentives! presents! a! flaw! in! the!
constitutionality!of!the!law!in!itself.!This!case!was!brought!to!the!
Court!of!Appeals,!which!dismissed!their!petitioner.!!
!
The! appellate! court! concluded! that! such! being! the! case,!
petitioners! could! not! claim! that! EO! 97;A! is! unconstitutional,!
while!at!the!same!time!maintaining!the!validity!of!R.A.!7227.!The!
Court!of!Appeals!also!explained!that!the!law!had!been!specific!in!

its!language,!and!that!the!intention!behind!it!was!that!the!Subic!
Special!Economic!Zone!was!only!to!include!a!secured!area.!This!
area!did!not!include!the!entirety!of!Olongapo!City,!nor!the!other!
areas! (Municipality! of! Subic,! Zambales,! other! areas! once!
occupied!by!the!Subic!Naval!Base).!
!
Hence,!the!petitioners!brought!the!case!to!the!Court,!impleading!
review!of!the!matter!under!Rule!45!of!the!Rules!of!Court..!
#
ISSUES:#
1. Whether!or!not!Executive!Order!No.!97;A!has!provisions!
that!violates!the!right!to!equal!protection!in!as!much!as!it!
confines!the!effects!of!R.A.!7227!within!a!secured!area!of!
the! Subic! Special! Economic! Zone,! and! excludes! the!
residents!of!zone!outside!of!the!said!area.!
#
HELD:#
1. No.!
!
The! fundamental! Right! to! Equal! Protection,! as! defined! in! the!
Constitution,! is! not! absolute.! Classification! of! groupings! or!
subject! matter,! is! necessary! in! order! that! a! more! equitable!
process! of! determination! is! undertaken! by! the! law.!
Classifications,! in! order! for! them! to! be! valid,! must! fulfill! several!
requirements.! The! must! rest! on! substantial! distinction,! be!
germane! to! the! purpose! of! the! law,! not! be! limited! to! existing!
conditions! only,! and! apply! equally! to! all! members! of! the! same!
class.!
!
In!the!case!at!bar,!the!assailed!Executive!Order!was!ruled!to!be!a!
valid! classification.! The! objectives! of! R.A.! 7227! to! establish! a!
venue! that! encourages! investment! therefore,! differentiates! it!

from!other!locales.!The!clear!distinction!of!Subic!Naval!Base!area!
as!a!Special!Economic!Zone,!protects!its!status!as!such.!As!in!the!
case! of! Inchong$ v.$ Hernandez,! cited! in! this! case,! sets! the!
precedence! in! jurisprudence! that! states! that! that! equal!
protection! does! not! demand! absolute! equality! among! residents.!
It!does,!however,!state!that!equal!protection!merely!requires!that!
all! persons! be! treated! alike,! under! similar! circumstances! and!
conditions.!
!
Equal! protection! is! not! synonymous! with! territorial! uniformity!
of! laws.! As! long! as! actual! and! material! differences! between! the!
areas!in!question!exist,!no!constitutional!right!is!violated!by!the!
implementation!of!the!Executive!Order.!
!
!!
27.#Lacson#v.#Executive#Secretary#
#
FACTS:#
#
The!constitutionality!of!Sections!4!and!7!of!Republic!Act!
No.! 8249,! which! further! defines! the! jurisdiction! of! the!
Sandiganbayan! is! what! is! being! assailed! in! this! case.! Petitioner!
Panfilo! Lacson,! joining! petitioner;intervenors! Acop! and! Zubia,!
also! seeks! to! prevent! the! Sandiganbayan! from! proceeding! with!
the!trial!for!multiple!murders!against!them!on!the!ground!of!lack!
of!jurisdiction.!
!
!
On!May!18,!1995,!11!persons!believed!to!be!members!of!
the!Kuratong!Baleleng!gang,!an!organized!crime!syndicate,!were!
slain! along! Commonwealth! Avenue! by! herein! petitioners.! SPO2!
Eduardo! delos! Reyes,! in! a! media! expose,! revealed! that! what!
actually!transpired!on!May!18,!1995!was!a!summary!execution!of!
the!gang!and!not!a!shoot!out.!!
!

!
Overall!
Deputy!
Ombudsman!
Francisco!
Villa!
recommended! the! indictment! for! multiple! murder! against! 26!
respondents,!including!herein!petitioners!and!intervenors.!After!
amending! informations! before! the! Sandiganbayan,! petitioner!
Lacson,! together! with! Acop! and! Zubia! were! charged! only! as!
accessories!to!murder.!!
!
!
The! case! was! filed! before! the! Sandiganbayan! but! was!
then! remanded! to! the! RTC! after! petitioners! filed! a! motion!
questioning! the! jurisdiction! of! the! Sandiganbayan! (whose!
jurisdiction! is! limited! to! cases! where! one! or! more! of! the!
principal!accused!are!government!officials!with!salary!grade!27!
or! higher! or! with! the! rank! of! Chief! Superintendent! or! higher).!
The!Special!Prosecutor!filed!a!motion!for!reconsideration,!which!
was! later! granted! considering! the! pertinent! provisions! of! the!
new!law!(RA!8249)!that!was!passed!some!time!while!the!motion!
for! reconsideration! has! not! yet! been! decided.! Petitioners! now!
question! the! constitutionality! of! RA! 8249! for! expanding! the!
jurisdiction! of! the! Sandiganbayan,! for! being! a! class! legislation,!
and!an!ex!post!facto!law.!
!
ISSUE:#
1. Whether! RA! 8249! violates! the! petitioners! right! to!
equal!protection!of!law.!
2. Whether!the!Sandiganbayan!has!jurisdiction!over!the!
case.!
!
HELD:#
1. NO.!
!
The! guaranty! of! equal! protection! of! the! laws! is!
not! violated! by! a! legislation! based! on! reasonable!
classification.! The! classification! is! reasonable! and! not!

arbitrary! when! there! is! concurrence! of! four! elements,!


namely:!(1)!it!must!rest!on!substantial!distinction;!(2)!it!
must! be! germane! to! the! purpose! of! the! law;! (3)! it! must!
not! be! limited! to! existing! conditions! only;! (4)! it! must!
apply! equally! to! all! members! of! the! same! class.! All!
elements!are!present!in!Section!4!of!RA!8249.!!!
!
Contrary! to! petitioners! and! intervenors!
arguments,!the!law!is!not!particularly!directed!only!to!the!
Kuratong! Baleleng! cases,! by! covering! only! cases! in! the!
Sandiganbayan.! It! affects! all! cases! in! any! court! as!
provided! by! the! transitory! provisions! and! it! just! so!
happens! that! the! Kuratong! Baleleng! cases! are! one! of!
those!affected!by!the!law.!!
#
2. NO.!
!
It! is! the! Regional! Trial! Court! and! not! the!
Sandiganbayan!that!has!jurisdiction!over!the!case.!
!
Jurisdiction! of! a! court! is! defined! in! the!
Constitution! or! statute.! The! elements! of! that! definition!
must! appear! in! the! complaint! or! information! so! as! to!
ascertain!which!court!has!jurisdiction!over!a!case.!Hence,!
the! elementary! rule! that! the! jurisdiction! of! a! court! is!
determined! by! the! allegations! in! the! complaint! and! not!
by!the!evidence!presented!by!the!parties!in!a!trial.!
!
The! governing! provision! on! the! jurisdictional!
offense! is! paragraph! (b)! Section! 4! of! RA! 8249,! which!
pertains! to! the! Sandiganbayans! exclusive! original!
jurisdiction! in! all! cases! involving! violations! of! the! Anti;
Graft!and!Corrupt!Practices!Act!and!the!RPC:!

!
!other! offenses! or! felonies! whether! simple! or!
complexed! with! other! crimes! committed! by! the!
public! officials! and! employees! mentioned! in!
subsection! (a)! Section! 4! RA! 8249! in! relation! to!
their!office.!
!
!
!
follows:!
!
!

The! relevant! provisions! of! subsection! (a)! are! as!

!
(1)! Officials! of! the! executive! branch! occupying!
the! positions! of! regional! director! and! higher,!
otherwise! classified! as! Grade! "27"! and! higher,! of!
the! Compensation! and! Position! Classification! Act!
of! 1989! (Republic! Act! No.! 6758),! specifically!
including:!
;xxx;xxx;!
(e)! Officers! of! the! Philippines! National! Police!
while! occupying! the! position! of! provincial$
director$ and! those! holding! the! rank! of! senior!
superintendent$or$higher.!
;xxx;xxx;!
In!cases!where!none!of!the!accused!are!occupying!
positions! corresponding! to! salary! grade! 27! or!
higheras! prescribed! in! the! said! Republic! Act!
6758,! or! military! and! PNP! officers! mentioned!
above,!exclusive!original!jurisdiction!thereof!shall!
be!vested!in!the!proper!regional!trial!court!
!
In! People! vs.! Montejo,! it! has! been! held! that! an!
offense!is!said!to!have!been!committed!in!relation!to!the!
office!if!it!is!initimately!connected!with!the!office!of!the!
offender! and! perpetrated! while! he! was! in! the!

performance! of! his! official! functions.! This! intimate!


relation! between! the! offense! charged! and! the! discharge!
of!official!duties!must!be!alleged!in!the!information.!!
!
Applying! these! legal! principles! and! doctrines! to!
the! present! case,! the! court! finds! that! information! for!
murder! against! the! petitioner! and! intervenors! are!
wanting! of! specific! factual! averments! to! show! the!
intimate! relation/connection! between! the! offense!
charged!and!the!discharge!of!official!function.!Therefore,!
the! case! does! not! fall! under! the! exclusive! jurisdiction! of!
the!Sandiganbayan!but!of!the!Regional!Trial!Court.!!
#
28.#Soriano#v.#Court#of#Appeals#
#
FACTS:#
This!is!a!petition!for!review!on!certiorari!of!the!decision!of!the!CA!
in! which! it! upheld! the! trial! courts! order! holding! petitioner! in!
contempt! and! revoking! his! probation.! Ronald! Soriano! was!
convicted! of! the! crime! of! Reckless! Imprudence! resulting! to!
homicide,!serious!physical!injuries,!and!damages!to!property!on!
December!7,!1993.!His!application!for!probation!was!granted!on!
March!8,!1994!under!the!condition!that!he!is!to!meet!his!family!
responsibilities,!devote!to!an!employ,!and!indemnify!the!heirs!of!
the!victim,!Isidrino!Daluyong!the!amount!of!Php98,560.!On!April,!
Asst.! Prosecutor! Benjamin! Fadera! filed! a! motion! to! cancel!
Sorianos! probation! due! to! failure! to! satisfy! the! civil! liability! to!
heirs! of! the! victim,! which! was! denied.! Instead,! Soriano! was!
ordered! to! submit! a! program! of! payment! of! the! civil! liability!
imposed! on! him.! However,! probation! office! Nelda! Da! Maycong!
received!information!that!Sorianos!father!received!money!from!
the! insurance! of! the! vehicle! involved! in! the! accident;! yet,! the!
same! was! not! turned! over! to! the! Daluyongs.! Da! Maycong! asked!

for! Soriano! to! explain,! lest! he! be! cited! in! contempt.! While! the!
counsel! received! the! notice! of! the! order,! the! counsel! failed! to!
notify! the! petition! and! thus! Soriano! was! held! in! contempt! and!
they! also! revoked! his! grant! of! probation.! Petitioner! then! filed! a!
special!civil!action!for!certiorari,!claiming!that!respondent!judge!
committed!grave!abuse!of!discretion!for!revoking!his!probation.!
However,!the!same!was!dismissed.!
!
ISSUE:!
1.! Whether! or! not! the! revocation! of! petitioners! probation! was!
lawful!and!proper.!
!
HELD:##
The! revocation! was! lawful! and! proper.! Petitioners! refusal! to!
comply!with!the!court!orders!was!deliberate,!despite!claims!that!
they!were!not.!Instead!of!complying!with!the!directive,!he!instead!
questioned! the! constitutionality! of! the! order! and! harped! his!
alleged! poverty! as! failure! to! comply.! The! requirement! for! civil!
liability! is! not! violative! to! the! equal! protection! clause! of! the!
Constitution,! as! the! payment! of! such! is! not! made! a! condition!
precedent! to! probation.! One! can! assert! of! having! been! denied!
equal!protection!when!payment!was!made!a!condition!precedent!
to!probation.!In!this!case,!the!petitioners!application!had!already!
been! granted.! This! was! not! an! arbitrary! imposition! but! one!
required!by!law,!as!a!consequence!for!having!been!convicted!of!a!
crime.!He!may!indeed!be!poor!but!furnishing!the!trial!court!with!
program! of! payment! for! his! civil! liability! would! allow! him! to!
formulate! a! program! that! meets! his! needs! and! capacity.!
Regrettably,! he! has! squandered! the! opportunity! granted! to! him!
to! remain! outside! prison! bars! and! must! not! suffer! the!
consequences!for!his!violations.!Wherefore,!the!petition!is!denied!
and!the!assailed!decision!of!the!CA,!affirmed.!
!
!

31.#International#School#v.#Quisumbing#
#
FACTS:#
INTERNATIONAL! SCHOOL,! INC! (The! School),! is! a! domestic!
educational! institution! established! primarily! for! dependents! of!
foreign!diplomatic!personal!and!other!temporary!residents.!!
!
Pursuant! to! Presidential! Decree! 732,! to! enable! the! School! to!
continue! carrying! out! its! educational! program! and! improve! its!
own! teaching! and! management! personnel! selected! by! either!
locally! or! abroad,! from! Philippine! or! other! nationalities,! such!
personnel! being! exempt! from! otherwise! applicable! laws! and!
regulations! attending! their! employment,! except! laws! that! have!
been!or!will!be!enacted!for!the!protection!of!employees.!
!
Accordingly,! the! School! hires! two! kinds! of! employees:! foreign;
hires! and! local;hires.! ! For! an! employee! to! be! classified! as! a!
foreign! hire,! the! employee! should! be! have! a! domicile,) home)
economy,) and) economic) allegiance! other! than! the! Philippines!
and!if!he!or!she!was!hired)abroad)specifically)to)work)in)School)
and)the)School)was)responsible)for)bringing$him!or!her!in!the!
Philippines.!
!
INTERNATIONAL! SCHOOL! ALLIANCE! OF! EDUCATORS! (The!
Petitioner),!a!legitimate!labor!union!and!the!collective!bargaining!
representative!of!all!faculty!members!of!the!School,!contested!the!
difference) in) salary) rates) between) foreign) and) local8hires)
during! their! negotiations! for! a! new! Collective! Bargaining!
Agreement! with! the! School,! which! ended! with! a! deadlock!
between! the! parties.! ! In! addition! to! the! difference! in! salaries,!
foreign;hires!enjoy!the!following!benefits!that!the!local;hires!do!
not:!housing,$transportation,$shipping$costs,$taxes,$and$home$leave$
travel$allowance.#

)
The! Petitioner! then! filed! a! notice! of! strike.! The! Department! of!
Labor!and!Employment!(DOLE)!then!assumed!the!jurisdiction!of!
the! dispute! after! the! National! Conciliation! and! Mediation! Board!
failed!to!bring!the!parties!to!a!compromised.!!Acting!Secretary!of!
DOLE! (The! Respondent),! Cresecenciano! B.! Trajano,! denied! the!
petitioners!motion!for!reconsideration!in!an!Order!dated!March!
19,!1997,!which!then!prompted!the!latter!to!seek!relief!with!the!
Supreme!Court.!
!
The! Petitioner! claims! that! the! point;of;hire! classification!
employed! by! the! School! is! discriminatory! to! Filipinos! and! that!
the! grant! of! higher! salaries! to! foreign;hire! constitutes! racial!
discrimination.!!
!
The!Respondent!provided!the!following!findings!and!information!
in!its!Order:!
!
According!to!the!1992;1995!CBA!between!the!School!and!
the! Petitioner,! the! 25%! differential! is! reflective! of! the!
agreed! value! of! system! of! displacement! and! contracted!
status! of! the! Overseas! Recruited! Staffs! (OSRS)! as!
differentiated! from! the! tenured! status! of! Locally!
Recruited!Staffs!(LRS).!
!
The!compensation!package!given!to!local;hires!has!been!
shown! to! apply! to! all,! regardless! of! race.! ! There! are!
foreigners! who! were! hired! locally! and! paid! equally! as!
Filipino!local!hires.!!
!
The! Principle) of) Equal) Pay) for) Equal! work! does! not!
apply!in!the!present!case.!!The!international!character!of!
the! school! requires! hiring! of! foreign! personnel! to! deal!

with!different!nationalities!and!different!cultures,!among!
the!student!population.!!
!

The! existence! of! a! system! of! salaries! and! benefits!


accorded! to! foreign! hired! personnel! which! system! is!
universally! recognized.! We! agree! that! certain! amenities!
have! to! be! provided! to! these! people! in! order! to! entice!
them! to! render! their! services! in! the! Philippines! and! in!
the! process! remain! competitive! in! the! international!
market.!

Foreign!hires!have!limited!contract!of!employment!unlike!
the! local! hires! that! enjoy! the! security! of! tenure.!
Therefore,! to! apply! parity! in! wages! and! other! benefits!
would! also! require! parity! in! other! terms! and! conditions!
of!employment,!which!include!employment!contract.!

The!Union!(The!Petitioner)!cannot!also!invoke!the!equal!
protection! clause! to! justify! its! claim! of! parity.! It! is! an!
established! principle! of! constitutional! law! that! the!
guarantee! of! equal! protection! of! the! laws! is! not! violated!
by! legislation! or! private! covenants! based! on! reasonable!
classification.!!

!
A!classification!is!reasonable!if!it!is!based!on!substantial!
distinctions!and!applies!to!all!members!of!the!same!class.!
Verily,! there! is! a! substantial! distinction! between! foreign!
hires! and! local! hires,! the! former! enjoying! only! a! limited!
tenure,! having! no! amenities! of! their! own! in! the!
Philippines! and! have! to! be! given! a! good! compensation!
package! in! order! to! attract! them! to! join! the! teaching!
faculty!of!the!School.!
!

ISSUES:#
Whether!or!not!the!difference!in!salary!rates!between!foreign;
hires!and!local;hires!constitute!racial!discrimination!
!
HELD:#
The!Court!granted!the!petition.!!In!this!case,!we!find!the!point;of;
hire! classification! employed! by! respondent! School! to! justify! the!
distinction!in!the!salary!rates!of!foreign;!hires!and!local!hires!to!
be! an! invalid! classification.! There! is! no! reasonable! distinction!
between! the! services! rendered! by! foreign;hires! and! local;hires.!
The!practice!of!the!School!of!according!higher!salaries!to!foreign;
hires! contravenes! public! policy! and,! certainly,! does! not! deserve!
the!sympathy!of!this!Court.!
#
31.#De#Guzman#v.#COMELEC#
#
FACTS:#
!
The! case! at! bar! assails! validity! of! Sec.! 44! of! RA! 8189,! The$
Voters$Registration$Act$of$1996.!
Section!44!thereof!provides:!!
SEC.! 44.! Reassignment$of$Election$Officers.! ! No! Election! Officer!
shall!hold!office!in!a!particular!city!or!municipality!for!more!than!
four!(4)!years.!Any!election!officer!who,!either!at!the!time!of!the!
approval!of!this!Act!or!subsequent!thereto,!has!served!for!at!least!
four! (4)! years! in! a! particular! city! or! municipality! shall!
automatically!be!reassigned!by!the!Commission!to!a!new!station!
outside!the!original!congressional!district.!
The! COMELEC! issued! directives! reassigning! the!
petitioners! (City/Municipal! Election! Officers)! to! different!
stations.! Petitioners! contend! that! RA! 8189! singles! out! City! and!
Municipal! Election! Officers! of! the! COMELEC.! However,! there! is!
no! substantial! distinction! between! them! and! other! COMELEC!

officials,! and! therefore! there! is! no! valid! classification! to! justify!
the!objective!of!such!provision.!!
!
ISSUE:!
1.!
Whether! Section! 44! of! R.A.! 8189! violates! the! equal!
protection!clause!of!the!Constitution.!!
2.!
Whether! Section! 44! of! R.A.! 8189! violates! the!
constitutional! guarantee! on! security! of! tenure! of! civil! servants!
and!unduly!deprives!them!of!due!process!of!law.!
!
HELD:#
1.!
NO.#
#
The! equal! protection! clause! of! the! 1987! Constitution!
permits!a!valid!classification!under!the!following!conditions:!
!
1.!The!classification!must!rest!on!substantial!distinctions;!
!
2.! The! classification! must! be! germane! to! the! purpose! of!
the!law;!
!
3.! The! classification! must! not! be! limited! to! existing!
conditions!only;!and!
!
4.!The!classification!must!apply!equally!to!all!members!of!
the!same!class.!!
The!classification!under!Section!44!of!R.A.!8189!satisfies!
the! aforestated! requirements.! Lutz$ v.$ Araneta! held! that! the!
legislature! is! not! required! by! the! Constitution! to! adhere! to! a!
policy!of!all!or!none.!!
The! SC! held! that! in! this! case! the! policy! of! the! law! in!
singling!out!the!said!election!officers!is!to!ensure!the!impartiality!
of!election!officials!by!preventing!them!from!being!familiar!with!
the! residents! of! the! place! where! they! are! assigned.!
Underinclusiveness! is! not! an! argument! against! a! valid!
classification.!To!require!the!COMELEC!to!reassign!all!employees!
who! have! served! at! least! 4! years! would! entail! a! lot! of!
administrative!burden!on!the!part!of!the!COMELEC.!

!
!
2.!

NO.!
Guarantee! of! security! of! tenure! does! not! guarantee!
perpetual!employment.!It!merely!states!that!the!law!prohibits!an!
employee! to! be! dismissed! or! transferred! without! just! cause! or!
due! process.! The! Constitution! aims! to! prevent! arbitrary!
dismissal.! But! where! it! is! the! law;making! authority! itself! which!
furnishes!the!ground!for!the!transfer!of!a!class!or!employees,!no!
such! capriciousness! can! be! raised! for! so! long! as! the! remedy!
proposed!to!cure!a!perceived!evil!is!germane!to!the!purposes!of!
the!law.!!
!
Wherefore,! the! petition! is! DISMISSED;! and! the!
constitutionality!and!validity!of!Section!44!of!RA!8189!UPHELD.!
#
#
32.#Bayan#v.#Zamora#
#
FACTS:#
#
On!March!14,!1947,!the!Philippines!and!the!United!States!
of!America!forged!a!Military!Bases!Agreement!which!formalized,!
among!others,!the!use!of!installations!in!the!Philippine!territory!
by! United! States! military! personnel.! To! further! strengthen! their!
defense! and! security! relationship,! the! Philippines! and! the! US!
entered! into! a! Mutual! Defense! Treaty! on! August! 30,! 1951.! In!
view!of!the!expiration!of!the!RP;US!Military!Bases!Agreement!in!
1991,! both! countries! negotiated! for! a! possible! extension! of! the!
military!bases!agreement.!On!September!16,!1991,!the!RP!Senate!
rejected! the! proposed! RP;US! Treaty! of! Friendship,! Cooperation!
and! Security.! On! July! 18,! 1997,! the! US! Panel! met! with! the! RP!
Panel.! Both! discussed! the! possible! elements! of! the! Visiting!
Forces! Agreement! that! led! to! a! consolidated! draft! text.!
Thereafter,! President! Ramos! approved! the! VFA,! which! was!

signed! by! Secretary! Siazon! and! US! Ambassador! Hubbard! on!


February!10,!1998.!
!
On! October! 5,! 1998,! President! Estrada,! through! the!
Secretary! of! Foreign! Affairs,! ratified! the! VFA.! On! October! 6,! the!
President,! through! Executive! Secretary! Ronaldo! Zamora,!
officially! transmitted! to! the! Senate! of! the! Philippines! the!
Instrument! of! Ratification! for! the! concurrence! pursuant! to!
Section! 21,! Article! VII! of! the! Constitution.! On! May! 27,! 1999,! the!
Proposed! Senate! Resolution! No.! 443! recommending! he!
concurrence! of! the! Senate! to! the! VFA! was! approved.! On! June! 1,!
1999,! the! VFA! officially! entered! into! force! after! an! Exchange! of!
Notes!between!Secretary!Siazon!and!US!Ambassador!Hubbard.!
!
Via! the! consolidated! petitions! for! certiorari! and!
prohibition,!petitioners!assail!the!constitutionality!of!the!VFA.!
!
ISSUES:#
1.!Is!the!VFA!governed!by!the!provisions!of!Section!21,!Article!VII!
or!of!Sections!25,!Article!XVIII!of!the!Constitution?!
2.! Whether! or! not! the! President! acted! with! grave! abuse! of!
discretion.!
!
Held:#
1.!The!VFA!is!governed!by!Section!25,!Article!XVIII!
!
Petitioners! argue! that! Section! 25,! Article! XVIII! is!
applicable! considering! that! the! VFA! has! for! its! subject! the!
presence! of! foreign! military! troops! in! the! Philippines.!
Respondents!maintain!that!Section!21,!Article!VII!should!apply!as!
inasmuch! as! the! VFA! is! not! a! basing! arrangement! but! an!
agreement!which!involves!merely!the!temporary!visits!of!the!US!
personnel!engaged!in!joint!military!exercises.!
!
Section!21,!Article!VII!deals!with!treatise!or!international!
agreements!in!general,!in!which!case,!the!concurrence!of!at!least!
2/3! of! all! the! Members! of! the! Senate! is! required! to! make! the!

subject!treaty!or!agreement!valid!and!binding!on!the!part!of!the!
Philippines.! In! contrast,! Section! 25,! Article! XVIII! is! a! special!
provision! that! applies! to! treaties! which! involve! the! presence! of!
foreign! military! bases,! troops,! or! facilities! in! the! Philippines.!
Under!this!provision,!the!concurrence!of!the!Senate!is!only!one!of!
the! requisites! to! render! compliance! with! the! constitutional!
requirements.!
!
VFA! is! agreement! which! defines! the! treatment! of! US!
troops!and!personnel!visiting!the!Philippines.!It!provides!for!the!
guidelines! to! govern! such! visit! of! military! personnel.!
Undoubtedly,! Section! 25,! Article! XVIII,! which! specifically! deals!
with!treaties!involving!foreign!military!bases,!troops,!or!facilities,!
should! apply! in! the! instants! case.! It! is! a! principle! in! statutory!
construction! that! a! special! provision! or! prevails! over! a! general!
one.!
!
Moreover,! the! argument! that! Section! 25,! Article! XVIII! is!
inapplicable!to!mere!transient!agreements!for!reason!that!there!
is! no! permanent! placing! of! structure! is! baseless.! Section! 25,!
Article!XVIII!does!not!require!that!foreign!troops!or!facilities!be!
placed!permanently.!Also,!the!argument!that!said!provision!is!not!
controlling! since! no! foreign! military! bases,! but! merely! foreign!
troops! and! facilities,! are! involved! in! the! VFA! is! also! erroneous.!
The!provision!used!the!word!or!which!clearly!signifies!that!any!
of!the!three!alone!places!it!under!the!said!provision.!
!
Under! Section! 25,! Article! XVIII,! the! following! conditions!
must! concur:! (a)! it! must! be! a! treaty,! (b)! it! must! be! duly!
concurred!in!by!the!Senate!and!(c)!recognized!as!a!treaty!by!the!
other! country.! There! is! no! dispute! that! the! first! two! requisites!
are!present.!As!for!the!third!one,!the!court!is!of!firm!view!that!the!
phrase!recognized!as!a!treaty!means!that!the!other!contracting!
party! accepts! or! acknowledges! the! agreement! as! a! treaty.! It! is!
inconsequential! whether! the! US! treats! the! VFA! only! as! an!
executive! agreement! because! an! executive! agreement! under!

international!law!is!as!binding!as!a!treaty.!The!VFA!possesses!the!
elements! of! an! agreement! under! international! law,! the! said!
agreement! is! to! be! taken! equally! as! a! treaty.! Records! also! show!
that! the! US! government! has! fully! committed! to! living! up! to! the!
terms!of!the!VFA.!For!as!long!as!the!US!accepts!or!acknowledges!
it!as!a!treaty,!there!is!indeed!compliance!with!the!mandate!of!the!
Constitution.!
!
2.!No.!
!
By! constitutional! fiat! and! by! the! intrinsic! nature! of! his!
office,! the! President,! as! head! of! the! State,! is! the! sole! organ! and!
authority! in! the! external! affairs! of! the! country.! The! president! is!
the!chief!architect!of!the!nations!foreign!policy.!
!
As! regards! the! power! to! enter! into! treaties! and!
international!agreements,!the!Constitution!vests!the!same!in!the!
President,! subject! only! to! the! concurrence! of! the! Senate.! Thus,!
the! negotiation! of! the! VFA! and! its! ratification! are! exclusive! acts!
which! pertain! to! the! President,! in! the! lawful! exercise! of! his!
diplomatic!powers.!
!
The!President!in!ratifying!the!VFA!and!in!submitting!the!
same! to! the! Senate! acted! within! the! confines! and! limits! of! the!
powers! vested! in! him! by! the! Constitution.! Even! if! he! erred! in!
submitting! the! VFA! to! the! Senate! for! concurrence! under! the!
provisions! of! Section! 21! of! Article! VII! instead! of! Section! 25! of!
Article! XVIII,! he! did! it! in! the! honest! belief! that! the! VFA! falls!
within!the!ambit!of!Article!VII.!
!
!
33.#People#v.#Mercado#
#
FACTS:#
!
On! or! about! February! 9,! 1994,! accused! SPO2! Elpidio!
Mercado! and! SPO1! Aurelio! Acebron! abducted! one! Richard!

Buama,! 17! years! of! age,! from! the! Municipality! of! Pasig! and!
brought! him! to! a! safehouse! in! Tanay,! Rizal! aboard! a! red! car.! In!
the! safehouse,! the! two! accused! subjected! Buama! to! extreme!
physical!violence!and!thereafter,!with!abuse!of!physical!strength!
and! evident! premeditation,! hacked! and! clubbed! Buama! who!
sustained!mortal!wounds!which!caused!his!death.!
!
Both! accused! police! officers! pleaded! not! guilty.! Several!
witnesses! were! presented! by! the! prosecution! and! the! defense.!
The! trial! court! found! both! Mercado! and! Acebron! guilty! beyond!
reasonable! doubt! and! the! death! penalty! was! meted! out! to! the!
accused.! The! case! immediately! went! to! the! Supreme! Court! on!
appeal!since!the!penalty!was!death.!
!
In! a! Supplement! Brief! filed! by! collaborating! counsel! for!
accused;appellants,! the! question! on! the! constitutionality! of! RA!
7659! was! raised.! In! the! said! brief,! co;counsel! alleged,! among!
other!things,!that!the!said!law!impugns!the!constitutional!right!to!
equality! before! the! law.! They! cited! studies! here! and! abroad!
allegedly! showing! that! the! death! penalty! is! most! often! used!
against!the!poor.!
!
ISSUES:#
!
Whether! or! not! the! imposition! of! the! death! penalty!
violates! the! right! to! equal! protection! of! the! law! under! our!
Constitution.!
!
HELD:#
!
No,! the! death! penalty! does! not! violate! the! right! to! equal!
protection!of!the!law!under!our!Constitution.!
!
It! has! been! settled! in! jurisprudence,! particularly! in! the!
case! of! People$ v.$ Echegaray,! that! the! law! implementing! the!
imposition!of!the!death!penalty!is!constitutional!and!is!within!the!
power!of!the!State!to!protect!society!from!threatened!and!actual!
evil.! It! was! also! said! in! the! same! case! that! there! are! procedural!

and! substantive! safeguards! in! place! to! insure! its! correct!


application.!
!
During! the! congressional! deliberation! on! the! death!
penalty!bill,!Representative!Pablo!Garcia!pointed!out!that!
Section!1!of!Article!III!of!the!Constitution!
provides!that!no!person!shall!be!deprived!of!life,!
liberty!or!property!without!due!process!of!law.!In!
other! words,! the! accused! cannot! be! deprived! of!
his! life! without! due! process! of! law! nor! shall! any!
person!be!denied!the!equal!protection!of!the!laws.!
In!other!words,!the!laws!protect!the!rich!and!the!
poor,! the! lettered! and! the! unlettered.! That! is!
guaranteed!by!the!Constitution.!
!
Similarly,! in! People$ v.$ Mijano! where! the! accused;
appellant! also! argued! that! the! death! penalty! law! violates! the!
right!to!equal!protection!of!the!law!as!it!only!applies!to!the!poor,!
the!Supreme!Court!said!
The!equality!the!Constitution!guarantees!is!legal!
equality!or,!as!it!is!usually!put,!the!equality!of!all!persons!
before! the! law.! Under! this! guarantee,! each! individual! is!
dealt!with!as!an!equal!person!in!the!law,!which!does!not!
treat!the!person!differently!because!of!who!he!is!or!what!
he!is!or!what!he!possesses.!
Apparently,!as!it!should!be,!the!death!penalty!law!
makes! no! distinction.! It! applies! to! all! persons! and! to! all!
classes! of! persons! ;! rich! or! poor,! educated,! or!
uneducated,! religious! or! non;religious.! No! particular!
person! or! classes! of! persons! are! identified! by! the! law!
against! whom! the! death! penalty! shall! be! exclusively!
imposed.!
!
As! the! Supreme! Court! had! already! settled! the!
constitutionality! of! RA! 7659! and! found! no! merit! in! the!

arguments! of! the! accused;appellants,! the! decision! of! the! trial!


court!imposing!the!death!penalty!is!affirmed.!
!
!
34.#People#v.#Jalosjos#
#
FACTS:#
#
!
Romeo! Jalosjos,! a! full;fledged! member! of! the! Congress!
has! been! convicted! for! two! counts! of! statutory! rape! and! for! six!
acts!counts!of!lasciviousness!committed!against!Rosilyn!Delantar.!
Jalosjos,! pending! appeal,! is! not! confined! at! the! National!
Peitentiary.! The! motion! asks! that! Jalosjos! be! permitted! to! fully!
discharge! the! duties! of! a! Congressman,! including! attendance! at!
legislative! sessions! and! committee! meetings! despite! his! having!
been!convicted!of!a!non;bailable!offense.!
!
!
Jalosjos!alleges!that!his!re;election!being!an!expression!of!
poular!will!cannot!be!rendered!inutile!by!any!ruling!which!gives!
priority! to! any! right! or! state,! not! even! the! police! power! of! the!
State.! He! likewise! argues! that! to! bar! him! from! performing! his!
duties!amounts!to!his!suspension!or!removal!and!mocks!the!new!
mandate! of! the! people.! Moreover,! he! argues! that! he! has! always!
complied!with!the!conditions!and!restrictions!when!he!is!allowed!
to!leave!jail.!
!
ISSUE:##
#
Whether! membership! in! Congress! exempts! an! accused!
from! statutes! and! rules! which! apply! to! validly! incarcerated!
persons!in!general!
#
#
#

HELD:#No.#
#
The! privileges! and! rights! arising! from! having! been!
elected! may! be! enlarged! or! restricted! by! law.! All! top! officials! of!
Government! are! subject! to! the! majesty! of! law.! The! Constitution!
guarantees! that! all! persons! similarly! situated! shall! be! treated!
alike! both! in! rights! enjoyed! and! responsibilities! imposed.! The!
government! may! not! show! undue! favoritism! or! hostility,!
partiality,!or!prejudice!to!any!person.!
!
!
The! immunity! from! arrest! or! detention! of! members! of!
Congress! arises! from! a! provision! of! the! Constitution! but! the!
exemption! cannot! be! extended! beyond! the! ordinary! meaning! of!
its! terms;! it! cannot! be! extended! by! intendment,! implication! or!
equitable! considerations.! Because! of! the! broad! coverage! of!
felony!and!breach!of!the!peace!provided!in!Article!VI,!Section!15!
of! the! 1935! Constitution,! the! exemption! applied! only! to! civil!
arrests.!!
!
!
The! current! Constitution! broadened! the! privilege! of!
immunity! wherein! only! offenses! punishable! by! more! than! six!
years! imprisonment! are! not! included! in! the! immunity! from!
arrest.! The! present! Constitution! likewise! adheres! to! the! same!
restrictions! from! the! 1935! Constitution! minus! the! obligation! of!
Congress!to!surrender!the!subject!Congressman!to!the!custody!of!
law.! Jalosjos! has! not! given! any! reason! why! he! should! be!
exempted! from! the! operation! of! Section! 11,! Article! VI! of! the!
Constitution.! Members! of! Congress! cannot! compel! absent!
members! to! attend! sessions! if! the! reason! of! the! absence! is! a!
legitimate!one.!
!
!
When! Congressional! delegates! are! entitled! to! freedom!
from!arrest,!it!would!amount!to!the!creation!of!a!privileged!class,!
if! it! is! without! justification! of! reason,! if! notwithstanding! their!

liability! for# a# criminal# offense,! they! would! be! considered!


immune! during! their! attendance! in! Congress.! Should! an!
unfortunate!event!such!as!a!criminal!conviction!come!to!pass,# a#
Congressman# should# be# treated# like# any# other# citizen!
considering!the!public!interest!in!seeing!to!it!that!crimes!should!
not!go!unpunished.!
!
!
Furthermore,! in! the! same! way! preventive! suspension! is!
not! removal,! confinement! pending! appeal! is! not! removal.! The!
fact! remains! that! Jalosjos! is! still! a! congressman! unless! expelled!
by!Congress!or!otherwise!disqualified.!It!must!also!be!noted!that!
Jalosjos! has! been! discharging! his! mandate! as! congressman!
consistent!with!the!restraints!upon!one!who!is!under!detention.!
When!the!voters!of!his!district!re;elected!him!with!full!awareness!
of! his! conviction,! they! did! so! with! knowledge! of! the! limitations!
on! his! freedom! of! action,! of! his! capacity! to! achieve! only! such!
legislative!actions!which!he!could!accomplish!within!the!confines!
of!prison.!
!
!
In!fine,!the!Court!cannot!validate!badges!of!inequality!as!
the!necessities!imposed!by!public!welfare!may!justify!exercise!of!
government! authority! to! regulate.! Election# to# the# Congress# is#
not# a# reasonable# classification# in# criminal# law# enforcement!
because! the! functions! and! duties! of! office! are! not! substantial!
distinctions!which!merit!a!special!treatment.!Lawful# arrest# and#
confinement#apply#to#all#those#who#belong#to#the#same#class.!
#
36.#Lopez#v.#CA#
37.#Philreca#v.#Sec.#of#DILG#
#
#
#
#

38.#Farias#v.#Executive#Secretary#
#
FACTS:#
Two!petitions!were!filed!seeking!to!declare!Section!14!of!
R.A.! 9006! (Fair! Election! Act)! as! unconstitutional! as! it! expressly!
repeals! Section! 67! of! Batas! Pambansa! Blg.! 881! (The! Omnibus!
Election!Code).!!
Section!67!of!Batas!Pambansa!Blg.!881states:!!
Sec.! 67.! Candidates! holding! elective! office.! ! Any!
elective! official,! whether! national! or! local,!
running! for! any! office! other! than! the! one! which!
he!is!holding!in!a!permanent!capacity,!except!for!
President!and!Vice;President,!shall!be!considered!
ipso!facto!resigned!from!his!office!upon!the!filing!
of!his!certificate!of!candidacy.!
The! petitioners! assails! the! unconstitutionality! of! Section!
14! (RA! 9006)! for! violating! the! equal! protection! clause! of! the!
Philippine! Constitution! due! to! repealing! only! Section! 67! (BP!
881)!while!leaving!Section!66!(BP!881)!intact.!Section!66!states:!
Sec.! 66.! Candidates! holding! appointive! office! or!
position.! ! Any! person! holding! a! public!
appointive! office! or! position,! including! active!
members!of!the!Armed!Forces!of!the!Philippines,!
and! officers! and! employees! in! government;
owned! or! controlled! corporations,! shall! be!
considered! ipso! facto! resigned! from! his! office!
upon!the!filing!of!his!certificate!of!candidacy.!
The! Petitioners! contend! that! Section! 14! (RA! 9006)!
discriminates! against! appointive! officials.! ! By! the! repeal! of!
Section!67!(BP!881),!an!elective!official!who!runs!for!office!other!
than! the! one! which! he! is! holding! is! no! longer! considered! ipso$
facto!resigned!therefrom!upon!filing!his!certificate!of!candidacy.!!
Elective!officials!continue!in!public!office!even!as!they!campaign!

for! reelection! or! election! for! another! elective! position.! ! On! the!
other! hand,! Section! 66! (BP! 881)! has! been! retained;! thus,! the!
limitation! on! appointive! officials! remains! ;! they! are! still!
considered! ipso$facto! resigned! from! their! offices! upon! the! filing!
of!their!certificates!of!candidacy.!!
Petitioners!also!challenge!the!constitutionality!of!Section!
16! of! RA! 9006! which! provides! that! this! Act! shall! take! effect!
upon!its!approval!since!it!violated!the!due!process!clause!of!the!
Constitution!which!requires!publication!of!the!law.!!
The!petitioners!also!allege!that!RA!9006!violates!the!one!
title!one!subject!rule.!!
#
ISSUES:#
1. Whether! or! Not! R.A.! 9006! is! unconstitutional! because! it!
violates!the!equal!protection!clause.!
2. Whether! or! Not! R.A.! 9006! is! unconstitutional! because!
Sec.!16!(RA!9006)!violated!the!due!process!clause.!
3. Whether! or! Not! R.A.! 9006! violates! the! one! title! one!
subject!rule.!!
!
HELD:#
1. No.#The!equal!protection!clause!of!the!constitution!is!not!
absolute,! but! subject! to! reasonable! classification.! If! the!
groupings! are! characterized! by! substantial! distinctions!
that!make!real!differences,!one!class!may!be!treated!and!
regulated!differently!from!the!other.!!
!
Substantial! difference! exists! between! elective! and!
appointive! officials.! Elective! officials! occupy! their!
position! by! the! mandate! of! the! electorate! while!

appointive!officials!occupy!their!position!by!the!virtue!of!
their!designation!by!the!appointing!authority.!!
!
2. No.!Section!16!is!defective!but!this!defect!does!not!render!
the!entire!law!as!void.!
!
3. No.# R.A.!9006!is!not!a!rider.!The!title!of!the!act!does!not!
need! to! include! the! entire! law.! It! is! enough! that! it!
expresses!all!parts!of!the!act.!!
#
The!Court!hereby!dismiss!the!petition.!
!
39.#Dimaporo#v.#HRET#
#
40.#GSIS#v.#Montescarlos#
#
FACTS:#
#
72;year! old! Nicolas! Montesclaros! married! Milagros!
!
Orbiso! on! July! 10,! 1983! who! was! then! 43! years! old. Nicolas!
Montescarlos!applied!for!retirement!benefits!on!January!4,!1985!
! which! would! be! effective! on! February! 17,! 1985! ! and!
designated! his! wife! Milagros! as! his! sole! beneficiary.! GSIS!
approved! Nicolas! application! for! retirement! effective$ 17$
February$1984,!granting!a!lump!sum!payment!of!annuity!for!the!
first! five! years! and! a! monthly! annuity! thereafter.! When! Nicolas!
died!in!April!22,!1992,!Milagros!filed!for!a!claim!for!survivorship!
pension! but! GSIS! denied! the! claim! because! under! Section! 18! of!
PD! 1146,! the! surviving! spouse! has! no! right! to! survivorship!
pension!if!the!surviving!spouse!contracted!the!marriage!with!the!
pensioner! within!
three! years! before! the! pensioner! qualified! for!
!
the!pension. According!to!GSIS,!Nicolas!wed!Milagros!on!10!July!
1983,! less! than! one! year! from! his! date! of! retirement! on! 17$
February$1984.!Milagros!filed!with!the!trial!court!a!special!action!

for! declaratory! relief! and! the! trial! court! rendered! judgment!


declaring! Milagros!
eligible!
for! survivorship! pension! citing!
!
!
Articles! 115 and! 117 of! the! Family! Code! that! since! retirement!
benefits!are!property!the!pensioner!acquired!through!labor,!such!
benefits! are! conjugal! property.! The! Court! of! Appeals! affirmed!
this!judgment.!
ISSUE(S):#
1)
Whether! or! not! Section! 18! of! PD! 1146,! which! prohibits!
the! dependent! spouse! from! receiving! survivorship!
pension!if!such!dependent!spouse!married!the!pensioner!
within!three!years!before!the!pensioner!qualified!for!the!
pension,!violates!due!process!clause!
2)
Whether! or! not! Section! 18! of! PD! 1146! is! discriminatory!
and!denies!equal!protection!of!the!law!
!
HELD:#
1)!
Yes.!
!
A! pension! plan,! as! part! of! an! employees! retirement!
benefits,!is!a!contractual!or!vested!right!that!is!protected!by!the!
due! process! clause.! P.D! 1146! extends! survivorship! benefits! to!
the!surviving!and!qualified!beneficiaries!of!the!deceased!member!
or! pensioner! to! cushion! the! beneficiaries! against! the! adverse!
economic!effects!resulting!from!the!death!of!the!wage!earner!or!
pensioner.! In! denying! a! dependent! spouses! claim! for!
survivorship! pension! because! the! dependent! spouse! contracted!
marriage! to! the! pensioner! within! the! three;year! prohibited!
period! is! unduly! oppressive.! There! is! outright! confiscation! of!
benefits! due! the! surviving! spouse! without! giving! the! surviving!
spouse!an!opportunity!to!be!heard.!
!
!

2)!
Yes.!
!
A! statute! based! on! reasonable! classification! does! not!
violate!the!constitutional!guaranty!of!the!equal!protection!of!the!
law.! The! requirements! for! a! valid! and! reasonable! classification!
are:!
1) It!must!rest!on!substantial!distinctions;!!
2) It!must!be!germane!to!the!purpose!of!the!law;!!
3) It!must!not!be!limited!to!existing!conditions!only;!and!!
4) It!must!apply!equally!to!all!members!of!the!same!class.!
Thus,!the!law!may!treat!and!regulate!one!class!differently!
from! another! class! provided! there! are! real! and! substantial!
differences!to!distinguish!one!class!from!another.!
The!abovementioned!provision!discriminates!against!the!
dependent! spouse! who! contracts! marriage! to! the! pensioner!
within!three!years!before!the!pensioner!qualified!for!the!pension.!
The! law! itself! does! not! provide! any! reason! or! purpose! why! it!
reckons! the! three;year! prohibition! from! the! date! the! pensioner!
qualified! for! pension! and! not! from! the! date! the! pensioner! died.!
Even! if! the! purpose! of! the! provision! is! to! prevent! sham!
marriages! contracted! for! monetary! gain! or! deathbed!
marriages,! there! was! no! reasonable! connection! between! the!
means! employed! and! the! purpose! intended.! Hence,! it! is!
discriminatory! and! arbitrary! and! Milagros! is! entitled! to! receive!
the!survivorship!pension.!
*In! the! Government! Insurance! Act! of! 1997! (RA! 8291),!
which! revised! PD! 1146,! this! provision! was! already! deleted! and!
the! surviving! spouse! who! married! the! member! immediately!
before! the! members! death! is! still! qualified! to! receive!
survivorship! pension! unless! proven! to! have! married! the!
pensioner!for!the!sole!reason!of!receiving!the!benefit.!
!
41.#In#re#Request#of#Assistant#Court#Administrators#
#

42.# Central# Bank# Employees# Association# v.# Bangko# Sentral#


ng#Pilipinas#
#
FACTS:#
!
Republic! Act! 7653! or! the! New! Central! Bank! Act! took!
effect! on! July! 3,! 1993,! thus! replacing! the! earlier! 1949! Central!
Bank! of! the! Philippines! by! the! Bangko! Sentral! ng! Pilipinas.! On!
June! 8,! 2001,! petitioner! Central! Bank! (now! BSP)! Employees!
Association!Inc.!filed!a!petition!against!the!Executive!Secretary!of!
the!Office!of!the!President!to!restrain!BSP!from!implementing!the!
last! proviso! in! Section! 15(i),! Article! II! of! the! said! RA! which!
pertains!to!the!establishment!of!a!Human!Resource!Management!
System!and!a!compensation!structure!as!part!of!the!authority!of!
the! Monetary! Board.! The! Association! alleges! that! the! proviso!
makes!an!unconstitutional!cut!between!two!classes!of!employees!
in! the! BSP,! particularly:! (1)! the! BSP! officers! or! those! exempted!
from! the! coverage! of! the! Salary! Standardization! Law! (SSL)!
(exempt! class);! and! (2)! the! rank;and;file! (Salary! Grade! [SG]! 19!
and!below),!or!those!not!exempted!from!the!coverage!of!the!SSL!
(non;exempt! class).! It! is! contended! that! this! classification! is! a!
classic!case!of!class!legislation,!allegedly!not!based!on!substantial!
distinctions!which!make!real!differences,!but!solely!on!the!SG!of!
the! BSP! personnels! position! as! Employees! whose! positions! fall!
under! SG! 19! and! below! shall! be! in! accordance! with! the! rates! in!
the! salary! standardization! act.! Petitioner! argues! that! the!
classifications!are!not!reasonable,!arbitrary!and!violate!the!equal!
protection!clause.!The!said!proviso!has!been!prejudicial!to!some!
2994! rank;! and! file! BSP! employees.! Respondent,! on! the! other!
hand,! claims! that! the! provision! does! not! violate! the! equal!
protection! clause,! provided! that! it! is! construed! together! with!
other! provisions! of! the! same! law! such! as! the! fiscal! and!
administrative! autonomy! of! the! Bangko! Sentral! and! the!
mandate!of!its!monetary!board.!!The!Solicitor!General,!as!counsel!

of! the! Executive! Secretary! defends! the! provision,! and! contends!


that! the! classification! of! employees! is! based! on! real! and! actual!
differentiation! and! it! adheres! to! the! policy! of! RA! 7653! to!
establish!professionalism!and!excellence!within!the!BSP!subject!
to!prevailing!laws!and!policies!of!the!government.!
!
This! case! for! prohibition! assails! the! constitutionality! of!
RA!7653.!!
!
ISSUE:#
1. Whether! or! not! the! contended! proviso! of! RA! 7653!
violates! the! equal! protection! clause! and! is! thus!
unconstitutional.!
!
HELD:#
1. Yes,!the!said!proviso!is!unconstitutional.!
While! R.A.! No.! 7653! started! as! a! valid! measure! well!
within!the!legislatures!power,!the!enactment!of!subsequent!laws!
exempting! all! rank;and;file! employees! of! other! GFIs! leeched! all!
validity! out! of! the! challenged! proviso! as! it! violates! the! equal!
protection!clause.!Because!it!operates!on!the!salary!grade!or!the!
officer!employee!status,!it!distinguishes!between!economic!class!
and!status!with!the!higher!salary!grade!recipients!are!of!greater!
benefit! above! the! law! than! those! of! mandated! by! the! Salary!
Standardization! Act.! Officers! of! the! BSP! receive! higher! wages!
that!those!of!rank;and;file!employees!because!the!former!are!not!
covered! by! the! salary! standardization! act! as! provided! by! the!
proviso.!!
Although!it!is!not!a!requirement!that!every!man,!woman!
and! child! should! be! affected! alike! by! a! statute! in! order! to! avoid!
the! constitutional! prohibition! against! inequality,! equality! of!
operation!of!statutes!does!not!mean!indiscriminate!operation!on!
persons! merely! as! such,! but! on! persons! according! to! the!
circumstances! surrounding! them.! It! guarantees! equality,! not!

identity! of! rights.! The! Constitution! does! not! require! that! things!
which!are!different!in!fact!be!treated!in!law!as!though!they!were!
the! same.! The! equal! protection! clause! does! not! forbid!
discrimination!as!to!things!that!are!different.!It!does!not!prohibit!
legislation! which! is! limited! either! in! the! object! to! which! it! is!
directed!or!by!the!territory!within!which!it!is!to!operate.!
However,!in!this!case,!the!distinction!made!by!the!law!is!
not! only! superficial,! but! also! arbitrary.! It! is! not! based! on!
substantial! distinctions! that! make! real! differences! between! the!
BSP!rank;and;!file!and!the!seven!other!GFIs.!
!
While! there! are! many! dissenting! opinions,! the! majority!
opinion! of! the! Justices! of! the! Court! declared! the! provision!
unconstitutional.!!!
!
#
43.#Mirasol#v.#DPWH#
#
FACTS:#
On!January!10,!2001,!the!petitioners!filed!before!the!trial!court!a!
Petition!for!Declaratory!Judgment!and!an!Application!for!TRO!on!
the! administrative! issuances! issued! by! the! DPWH! for! being!
inconsistent! with! RA! 2000.! After! the! case! hearing,! the! RTC!
rendered! a! decision! and! which! dismissed! the! petition! partly! by!
declaring! DO! 74,! DO! 215,! AO! 1,! and! Art.! II,! Sec.! 3(a)! of! the!
Revised! Rules! on! Limited! Access! Facilities! valid,! while! DO! 123!
was! declared! invalid! for! being! violative! of! the! equal! protection!
clause!of!the!constitution.!The!petitioners!then!filed!this!petition!
for! certiorari! with! the! Supreme! Court.! They! contended! that! the!
RTC! was! wrong! to! dismiss! the! earlier! petition! on! the! following!
grounds:!
a.!AO!1!states!that!it!is!unlawful!for!any!person!or!group!to!drive!
any! bike,! trike,! pedicab,! motorcycle! or! any! non;motorized!

vehicle!on!limited!access!highways!
b.!DO!74!declares!that!Balintawak!to!Tabang!Sections!of!the!NLEx!
and! the! Nichols! to! Alabang! Sections! of! the! SLEx! are! considered!
Limited! Access! Highways! that! are! subject! to! the! rules! and!
regulations! provided! by! the! DPWH! through! the! Toll! Regulatory!
Board.!This!was!done!through!Sec!3!of!RA!200!which!stated!that!
the! DPWC! (now! alleged! to! be! DPWH)! to! plan,! designate,!
establish,!regulate,!vacate,!alter,!improve,!maintain,!and!provide!
limited! access! facilities! for! public! use! wherever! it! is! of! the!
opinion!that!traffic!conditions,!present!or!future,!will!justify!such!
special!facilities.!
c.! DO! 215! also! declared! that! the! R;1! Expressway,! C;5! Link!
Expressway,! and! the! R;! 1! Extension! Expressway! Sections! of! the!
Manila! Cavite! Toll! Expressway! to! be! Limited! Access! Highways!
likewise! stating! that! the! DPWH! is! authorized! to! do! so! by! RA!
2000.!
!
ISSUES:#
1.!Whether!or!not!AO!1!and!DO!123!are!unconstitutional!because!
it! violates! petitioners! right! to! travel,! due! process,! and! equal!
protection!of!the!law.!
2.!Whether!or!not!AO!1!is!a!valid!exercise!of!police!power!
!
HELD:#
1.!NO!
DO! 123! is! void! because! DPWH! does! not! have! authority! or!
jurisdiction!to!promulgate!it.!The!DPWH!is!not!the!counterpart!of!
then! DPWC! which! was! authorized! to! promulgate! such! rules,!
rather,! it! is! the! DOTC! which! has! authority! to! do! so.! None! of! AO!
1s! rules! are! arbitrary! and! capricious.! Petitioners! are! not! being!
deprived!of!their!right!to!use!the!limited!access!highways,!rather,!
they!are!being!regulated!on!the!use!of!the!facility.!It!merely!states!
that! motorcycles,! bicycles,! tricycles,! pedicabs,! and! other!

nonmotorized! vehicles! are! barred! as! modes! of! travelling! along!


the! limited! access! highways.! There! are! other! more! practical!
alternatives! they! can! use! such! as! cars! or! riding! in! buses.! A! toll!
way! is! a! facilty! designed! to! promote! fast! access! to! specific!
destinations,!thus!its!use!should!be!regulated!and!precautionary!
measures!must!be!placed,!one!of!which!is!AO!1.!The!petitioners!
right! to! travel! means! the! right! to! move! from! one! place! to!
another,! contrary! to! their! contention.! They! are! still! free! to! use!
the! toll! way,! just! not! through! the! riding! of! motorcycles.! AO! 1!
doesnt! violate! equal! protection! of! the! law! because! it! does! not!
single! out! motorcycles,! nor! is! classification! by! itself! prohibited.!
Not! all! motorized! vehicles! are! the! same,! there! is! a! real! and!
substantial!difference!between!a!car!and!a!motorcycle.!
!
2.!YES!
With! regard! to! AO! 1s! validity! as! an! exercise! of! police! power,!
administrative! issuances! have! the! force! of! law! and! benefit! from!
the! presumption! of! validity! and! constitutionality,! similar! to!
statutes.! Also,! police! power! need! not! first! be! justified! by!
scientific!research.!The!only!requirement!is!to!ascertain!whether!
the!governments!act!is!reasonable!and!not!oppressive.!The!test!
of!constitutionality!is!based!on!whether!the!restriction!imposed!
is! reasonable,! not! whether! it! imposes! a! restriction.! It! was! a!
reasonable! restriction! because! it! regulated! the! use,! operation,!
and!maintenance!of!the!Limited!Access!Facilities.!The!reason!for!
its! issuance! is! for! the! general! welfare! and! safety! of! the! people,!
seeing! as! a! two;wheeled! vehicle! is! less! stable! and! easily!
overturned!compared!to!a!four;wheeled!one.!
#
#
#
#
#

44.#In#Request#of#ACA#
#
#
Facts:#
On!June!20,!1995,!the!Court!granted!to!the!SC,!Associate!
Clerk!of!Court!(ACC)!and!the!Division!Clerks!of!Court!(DCCs)!the!
rank,! salary! and! privileges! of! a! Presiding! Judge! of! the! Court! of!
Tax!Appeals!(CTA).!At!that!time,!the!qualifications!and!salary!of!
the! CTA! PJ! was! governed! by! Sec.! 1! RA! No.! 1125.! On! November!
11,!2003,!RA!No.!9227,!took!effect!which!granted!justices,!judges!
and!all!other!position!in!the!judiciary!with!the!equivalent!rank!of!
justices!of!CA!and!judges!of!RTC!additional!compensation!in!the!
form!of!special!allowances.!On!March!2,!2004,!Office!of!the!Court!
Administrator! (OCA)! filed! a! memorandum! stating! that! the!
language!of!the!statute!is!plain!and!free!form!ambiguity!and!must!
be! interpreted! literally.! The! statutes! title! and! its! provisions!
consistently! speak! only! of! justices,! judges,! positions! in! the!
judiciary!with!the!equivalent!rank!of!justices!of!CA!and!positions!
in! the! judiciary! with! the! equivalent! rank! of! judges! of! the! RTC.!
The! SC! ACC,! DCCs! and! ACAs,! have! the! equivalent! rank! of! the!
presiding! judge! of! the! CTA.! CA! DCCs! have! the! rank,! salary,! and!
privileges! of! a! Metropolitan! Trial! Court! (MeTC)! judge! only.! On!
April!23,!2004,!the!RA!No.!9282!became!effective,!which!granted!
the!expansion!of!the!Jurisdiction!of!the!CTA,!elevating!its!rank!to!
the! level! of! a! collegiate! court.! On! May! 6,! 2004,! several! ACAs!
sought! the! upgrading! of! their! salaries! and! privileges! to! those! of!
the! CTA! Presiding! Justice.! Atty.! Candelaria,! the! Deputy! Clerk! of!
Court!and!Chief!Administrative!Officer,!requests!a!clarification!of!
the!judicial!rank,!salary,!and!privileges!not!only!of!said!ACAs!but!
those!of!the!SC!ACC!and!DCCs!as!well!through!a!memorandum.!In!
its!memorandum,!the!Pffice!of!the!Chief!Attorney,!to!which!these!
requests!were!referred,!agrees!that!the!ACAs!cannot!be!given!the!
judicial!rank!of!the!CTA!Presiding!Justice!for!this!would!disturb!

the! hierarchy! of! positions! in! the! OCA.! Indeed,! to! do! so! would!
place! the! ACAs! at! par! with! their! superior,! the! Court!
Administrator.!
!
Issue#(Substantive#aspect):##
1) Whether! or! not! the! elevation! of! the! position! of! the! CTA!
Presiding!Judge!to!that!of!a!CA!Presiding!Justice!affects!other!
positions! vested! with! the! judicial! rank! of! a! CTA! Presiding!
Judge.!
2) Whether!or!not!Sec.!2!of!R.A.!9227!violates!equal!protection!
clause;! and! if! so,! are! the! ACAs! entitled! to! the! Special!
Allowance!granted!by!R.A.!No.!9227.!
Held:#!
1.) NO.!
From! the! statute! itself,! there! appears! no! intent! form! the!
Congress! to! amend! this! Courts! resolutions! conferring! judicial!
rank! or! those! subject! positions.! Clearly,! the! grant! of! the! rank! of!
the! CA! Presiding! Justice! to! th! CTA! Presiding! Justice! by! R.A.! No.!
9282!has!no!effect!on!positions!with!the!equivalent!rank!of!a!CTA!
PJ.! Moreover,! there! is! no! intent! to! benefit! the! CTA! Presiding!
Justice!and!the!CTA!Associate!Justices!as!a!class,!much!less!those!
granted!the!equivalent!rank!of!the!former!CTA!PJ.!The!increase!in!
rank,! salary,! and! privileges! of! the! CTA! Presiding! Justice! and!
Associate!Justices!is!merely!incidental!to!the!elevation!of!the!CTA!
in! the! judicial! hierarchy.! On! the! argument! that! there! are! no!
distinction! in! functions! between! DCA! and! ACA,! in! two! Court!
Office! Orders! issued! by! Court! Administrator! Presbitero! Velasco!
Jr.,! the! difference! is! apparent! in! terms! of! the! geographical!
coverage!of!their!functionsl!while!the!three!DCAs!finstions!cover!
entire! regions,! those! of! the! two! ACAs! are! limited! to! cities! and!

municipalities!in!the!NCR,!and!only!then,!in!assisting!capacity!to!
the! Court! Administrator.! Based! on! Sec.! 2! of! PD! 828,! and! this!
Courts! earlier! resolution,! the! distinction! between! the! two! in!
terms!of!benefit!is!also!manifested.!It!granted!the!DCA!the!same!
rank,! privileges,! and! compensation! as! those! of! an! Associate!
Justoce!of!the!CA!and!the!ACA!with!those!of!CTA!Presiding!Judge.!
There! is,! therefore,! no! reason! at! this! point! to! accord! ACAs! the!
same!judicial!rank!as!DCAs.!
!
!
2.) YES.!
It!is!violative!of!equal!protection!clause;!hence,!there!are!entitled!
to! special! allowance! by! extending! the! coverage! of! the! statute.!
Although,! these! positions! are! not! expressly! included! as! those!
that! are! granted! Special! Allowance,! they! must! be! accorded! the!
same! in! the! interest! of! equal! protections.! This! Court! fails! to! see!
any! reasonable! basis! for! the! exclusion! of! the! subject! positions!
from! the! coverage! of! R.A.! No.! 9227,! which! is! a! measure! to!
guarantee! the! independence! of! the! Judiciary! and! to! ensure!
impartial! administration! of! justice,! as! well! as! an! effective! and!
efficient! judicial! system! worthy! of! public! trust! and! confidence.!
The!obvious!intent!is!to!attract!qualified!citizens!to!serve!in!the!
highest! echelons! of! the! Judiciary.! The! law! no! doubt! covers! then!
CTA!Presiding!Judge,!as!well!as!MeTC!judges.!Notable,!however,!
the! classification! drawn! by! RA! No.! 9227! is! not! limited! to!
justices! ans! judges.! Rather,! the! classification! includes,! as! a!
rule,!those!with!the!equivalent!rank!in!the!judiciary!except!those!
with! the! equivalent! rank! of! the! CTA! Presiding! Judge! or! MeTC!
judges.! Although! holders! of! positions! with! equivalent! judicial!
rank! do! not! perform! the! same! functions! as! justices! and! judges,!
the! conferment! of! such! rank! is! recognition! of! the! substantial!
equality! in! the! roles! they! play! in! the! Judiciary! vis;;vis! justices!
and!judges.!By!excluding!positions!equivalent!in!rank!to!the!CTA!

Presiding!Judge!and!MeTC!judge,!the!classification!drawn!by!RA!
No.! 9227! does! not! include! all! those! identically! or! analogously!
situated.! Clearly,! there! is! no! problem! in! granting! the! ACC! and!
DCCs! of! the! CA! and! the! Executive! COCs! of! the! Sandiganbayan!
special! or! distortion! allowances! equivalent! to! that! of! MeTC!
judges.!Of!course,!as!a!matter!of!fairness,!policy!and!practicality,!
the!allowances!should!be!extended!only!to!officers!who!have!the!
qualification! of! an! MeTC! jusdge.! In! the! case! of! the! ACAs,! they!
cannot!be!accorded!an!allowance!equivalent!to!that!granted!the!
CA!Presiding!Justice,!for!that!is!also!the!allowance!to!be!received!
by! the! OCA! and! that! is! highers! that! what! the! DCAs! will! receive!
which!is!equivalent!to!the!allowance!of!an!Associate!Justice!of!the!
CA.!For!the!same!reason,!they!cannot!be!extended!the!allowance!
of! an! Associate! Justice! of! the! CA.! Under! the! circumstances,!
granting!the!ACAs!the!allowance!of!an!RTC!judge!with!the!highest!
earned!increment!would!be!fair!and!reasonable.!
#
45.#Dimayuga#v.#Ombudsman#
!
FACTS:#
Petitioners! Maria! Chona! Dimayuga,! Noel! Inumerable! and! Felipe!
Aguinaldo!were!employees!of!the!Traffic!Regulatory!Board!(TRB)!
of! the! Department! of! Public! Works! and! Highways! (DPWH).!
Dimayuga! used! to! be! TRBs! executive! director.! An! anonymous!
complaint!was!filed.!This!became!the!basis!for!the!Special!Audit!
Office! of! the! Commission! on! Audit! to! conduct! a! special! audit.!
Irregularities! were! uncovered! in! which! the! petitioners! were!
implicated.! While! their! case! was! on! appeal! with! the! COA,! the!
petitioners!were!charged!with!the!violation!of!the!Anti;Graft!Law!
or! RA! 3019! in! the! Office! of! the! Ombudsman.! They! argued! that!
because! their! appeal! has! not! yet! been! resolved,! the! SAO! report,!
which!is!the!basis!of!the!case!with!the!Ombudsman,!was!not!yet!
final.!

!
ISSUES:#
1.!Whether!the!investigation!of!charges!in!the!complaint!filed!by!
the! SAO;COA! against! he! petitioners! is! premature,! because! their!
appeal! from! the! findings! of! SAO;COA! is! still! pending! resolution!
before!the!commission!proper;!and!
!
2.! Whether! the! respondent! Ombudsman! violated! petitioners!
constitutional! right! to! equal! protection! of! the! laws! guaranteed!
under!Section!1!of!Article!II!of!the!Constitution,!in!not!affording!
petitioners! the! same! relief! it! afforded! to! the! public! official!
involved!in!COA!v.!Gabor,!supra.!
!
HELD:#
1.!NO,!the!complaint!is!not!premature.!The!Court!recognizes!the!
virtually! unlimited! investigatory! and! prosecutorial! powers!
granted! to! the! Ombudsman! by! the! Constitution! and! by! law.!
Further,!the!SAO;CAO!report!is!not!a!prerequisite!to!conducting!
the! Ombudsmans! preliminary! investigation.! Both! the!
Constitution! and! the! Ombudsman! Act! of! 1989! state! that! the!
Office! of! he! Ombudsman! may! undertake! an! investigation! on!
complaint!or!on!its!own!initiative.!
!
2.! NO,! the! petitioners! constitutional! right! to! equal! protection!
was! not! violated.! The! investigatory! powers! of! the! Office! of! the!
Ombudsman! are! virtually! plenary.! It! can! decide! how! best! to!
pursue! each! investigation.! Its! varying! treatment! of! similarly!
situated!investigations!cannot!by!itself!be!considered!a!violation!
of!any!of!the!parties!rights!to!the!equal!protection!of!laws.!
#
#
#
#

46.#Yrasuegui#v.#PAL#
#
FACTS:!
!
Yrasuegui! was! a! former! international! flight! steward! of!
Philippine! Airline,! Inc.! (PAL)! who! stands! five! feet! and! eight!
inches!with!a!large!body!frame.!As!provided!by!Cabin!and!Crew!
Administration!Manual!of!PAL,!the!ideal!weight!for!his!height!is!
166!pounds.!!
!
The!petitioner!has!a!recurring!weigh!problem!that!dates!
back!to!1984.!He!was!given!several!vacation!leaves!without!pay!
to!address!the!said!weight!problems!and!was!formally!requested!
to!trim!down!to!his!ideal!weight!and!report!for!weigh!checks!on!
several!dates.!However,!despite!of!losing!weights,!the!petitioner!
gradually! acquired! more! pounds! which! resulted! to! the! retainer!
of!his!off;duty!status.!
!
On! October! 17,! 1989,! PAL! Line! Administrator! Gloria!
Dizon! personally! visited! Yrasuegui! to! his! residence! to! check! on!
the! progress! of! his! effort! to! lose! weight.! After! the! visit,! the!
petitioner!made!a!commitment!to!reduce!weight!through!a!letter!
to!Cabin!Crew!Group!Manager!Augusto!Barrios.!However,!the!90;
days! given! to! him! to! reach! his! ideal! weight! had! lapsed! and! he!
remained! overweight.! The! petitioner! started! to! refuse! to! report!
for!weigh!check!over!which!he!was!reprimanded!and!was!asked!
to! explain! his! refusal! to! undergo! weight! checks.! With! the!
petitioners! failure! to! reach! the! ideal! weight! required! by! PAL,! a!
Notice! of! Administrative! Charge! for! violation! of! company!
standards! on! weight! requirements! was! given! against! the!
petitioner!on!which!he!was!given!10!days!to!file!his!answer!with!
evidence.!After!the!hearing,!the!petitioner!was!formally!informed!
by! PAL! that! due! to! his! inability! to! attain! the! ideal! weight! and!
considering! the! leniency! extended! to! him! for! attain! the!
prescribed!weight,!his!services!with!the!airlines!was!terminated!

effective! immediately.! In! response,! the! petitioner! filed! a!


complaints!for!illegal!dismissal!against!the!airlines.!
!
The! Labor! Arbiter,! NLRC,! and! CA! held! that! the! PAL!
weight! standard! for! its! employees! is! reasonable! and! the!
continuous!failure!of!the!petitioner!to!meet!the!weight!standards!
constitutes!for!the!dismissal!of!the!petitioner.!!
!
ISSUES:!
1. Whether! or! not! petitioners! obesity! can! be! a! ground! for!
dismissal!under!the!Labor!Code!
2. Whether!or!not!the!petitioner!was!unduly!discriminated!
against! when! he! was! dismissed! while! the! other!
overweight! cabin! stewards! were! given! either! flying!
duties!or!promoted.!
!
HELD:!
!
Yes.! The! obesity! of! the! petitioner! is! a! ground! for!
dismissal!under!the!Labor!Code.!The!employee!may!be!dismissed!
the! moment! he! is! unable! to! comply! with! his! ideal! weight!
prescribed!by!the!airlines!
!
As! to! the! second! issue,! the! highest! Court! ruled! that! the!
petitioner! failed! to! substantiate! his! claim! that! he! was!
discriminated! against! by! PAL.! As! pronounce! by! CA! and! the!
Supreme!Court,!the!element!of!discrimination!came!into!play!as!
secondary! position! to! escape! the! consequence! of! dismissal! that!
being! overweight! entailed.! The! petitioner! cannot! establish!
discrimination! by! simply! naming! the! cabin! stewards! who! are!
similarly! situated! with! him.! Substantial! evidence! must!
accompany!such!claim.!!
!
#
#
#

47.#SJS#v.#Atienza#
#
FACTS:##
This!is!a!motion!for!reconsideration!of!an!earlier!decision!on!the!
issue!of!oil!depots,!filed!by!petitioners.!Chevron,!Petron,!and!Shell!
collectively,! represented! by! the! Department! of! Energy! (DOE),!
filed! motions! for! leave! to! intervene! and! for! reconsideration! of!
the! earlier! decision.! The! original! petition! was! also! filed! by! said!
petitioners,!in!which,!the!sought!to!compel!Hon.!Jose!L.!Atienza,!
Jr.,! then! mayor! of! the! City! of! Manila,! to! enforce! Ordinance! No.!
8027,! which! called! for! the! reclassification! of! the! land! use! of! the!
Pandacan!terminals!of!the!city!from!Industrial!II!to!Commercial!I.!
Also! included! in! the! Ordinance! was! the! order! that! operators! of!
the! businesses! and! industries! affected! by! the! new! order! shall!
cease! and! desist! from! operating.! The! oil! companies! are! among!
those!affected!by!the!ordinance.!Consequently,!City!of!Manila!and!
the! DOE! entered! into! a! memorandum! of! understanding! (MOU)!
with!the!oil!companies,!which!was!hoped!to!harmonize!both!the!
government!and!the!oil!companies!interests.!The!oil!companies,!
prior! to! the! earlier! ruling,! filed! a! complaint! for! annulment! of!
Ordinance!8027,!and!the!RTC!ruled!in!SJSs!favor.!The!MOU!was!
initially!only!effective!for!six!months,!but!this!was!extended!and!
the! series! of! allowances! culminated! to! a! creation! of! Resolution!
No.! 97! which! authorized! the! mayor! of! Manila! to! issue! special!
business! permits! to! said! companies.! It! is! important! to! note! that!
the! oil! companies! have! been! sitting! on! the! Pandacan! area! since!
early! 1900s.! However,! since! after! the! war,! the! area! quickly!
became! inhabited! with! thousands! of! people.! Thus,! the! SJS!
contends!the!issuance!of!the!permits!to!the!oil!companies.!
!
ISSUE/s:##
1.! Whether! or! not! the! oil! companies! and! the! DOE! should! be!
allowed!to!intervene!in!this!case.!

2.!Whether!or!not!Ordinance!No.!8027!is!unconstitutional.!
!
HELD:#
1.! While! the! move! for! intervention! was! not! filed! on! time,! the!
Court!allowed!it!because!they!raised!and!presented!a!novel!issue!
that! was! not! considered! in! the! March! 7,! 2007! decision.! Their!
issue!is!that!they!need!to!spend!billions!of!pesos!if!compelled!to!
relocate!the!oil!depots!out!of!Manila.!
2.!Ordinance!No.!8027!is!constitutional!and!valid.!In!order!for!an!
ordinance! to! be! valid,! it! must! conform! to! the! following!
substantive!requirements:!
1) Must!not!contravene!the!Constitution!or!any!statute;!
2) Must!not!be!unfair!or!oppressive;!!
3) Must!not!be!partial!or!discriminatory;!!
4) Must!not!prohibit!but!may!regulate!trade;!!
5) Must!be!general!and!consistent!with!public!policy;!and,!
6) Must!not!be!unreasonable.!
The! enactment! of! Ordinance! No.! 8027! was! also! a! valid!
exercise!of!police!power,!as!the!same!may!be!delegated.!Further,!
the! Ordinance! had! the! concurrence! of! a! lawful! subject! and! a!
lawful! purpose,! as! it! was! enacted! under! the! general! welfare!
clause.! In! the! exercise! of! police! power,! property! rights! of!
individuals!may!be!subjected!to!restraints!and!burdens!in!order!
to! fulfill! the! objectives! of! the! government.! In! this! case,! the!
properties!of!the!oil!companies!and!other!businesses!situated!in!
the! affected! area! remain! theirs.! Only! their! use! is! restricted!
although! they! can! be! applied! to! other! profitable! uses! permitted!
in! the! commercial! zone.! The! motions! for! leave! was! granted! but!
motions!for!reconsideration!denied.!
#
#

48.#Gobenciong#v.#CA#
#
FACTS:!
Gobenciong!was!the!Administrative!Officer!IV!in!Eastern!
Visayas! Regional! Medical! Center! (EVRMC),! a! public! hospital!
in!Tacloban!City.! On! December! 3,! 1996,! EVRMC! planned! to! buy!
one! unit! of! hemoanalyzer! (or! particle! counter),! among! other!
items,!amounting!to!PhP!1,195,998.!
A!public!bidding!was!held,!where!Alvez!Commercial!Inc.,!
(Alvez)! won! and! subsequently! orderd! for! 2! nebulizers! and! 1!
hermonalyzer.!
As! hospital! documents! would! show,! the! nebulizers! and!
the!hemoanalyzer!appeared!to!have!been!delivered!on!December!
20,! 1996! and! accepted! by! Engr.! Jose! M.! Jocano,! Jr.! and! Supply!
Officer! III! Crisologo! R.! Babula,! per! Certification! of! Acceptance!
they!signed!to!attest!having!accepted!all!the!articles!delivered!by!
Alvez! per! Sales! Invoice! No.! 0786.! Similarly,! Babula! signed! Sales!
Invoice!No.!0786!to!acknowledge!receipt!in!good!condition!of!the!
articles!covered!thereby.!In!addition,!it!was!made!to!appear!in!a!
Commission! on! Audit! (COA)! Inspection! Report! that! Jocano! and!
Gobenciong!had!certified!as!correct!the!finding/recommendation!
that! the! two! nebulizers! and! the! hemoanalyzer! had! been!
inspected! as! to! quality! and! quantity! as! per! Sales! Invoice! No.!
0786.!
However,! the! hemonalyzer! was! never! delivered.! With!
this,! Dr.! Flora! dela! Pea,! Head! of! the! EVRMC! Laboratory! Unit,!
filed,! on! June! 20,! 1997,! an! administrative! complaint! before! the!
Office! of! the! Ombudsman;Visayas,! charging! Gobenciong,! Jocano,!
Babula,! and! three! other! EVRMC! officers! with! Falsification!of!
Public!Documents!and!Misconduct.!
On! August! 24,! 1998,! the! Deputy! Ombudsman;Visayas,!
upon!dela!Peas!motion,!issued!an!Order,!placing!all,!except!one,!

of!the!respondents!under!preventive!suspension!and!directed!the!
proper!DOH!officer!to!immediately!implement!the!Order.!!!
On! November! 12,! 1998,! Gobenciong! sought!
reconsideration! of! the! August! 24,! 1998! preventive! suspension!
order.!But!due!to!the!virtual!denial!of!his!plea!for!the!deferment!
of! his! preventive! suspension,! Gobenciong,! without! awaiting! the!
Office! of! the! Ombudsmans! action! on! his! motion! for!
reconsideration,!went!to!the!CA!on!a!petition!for!certiorari,!with!
a!plea!for!the!issuance!of!temporary!restraining!order!(TRO).!!
On! November! 19,! 1998,! the! CA! issued! a! TRO! enjoining!
then! Deputy! Ombudsman;Visayas! Arturo! Mojica! and! Arteche!
from!implementing!the!order!of!preventive!suspension.!As!later!
developments!would!show,!the!TRO,!while!duly!served,!evidently!
went! noticed! but! disregarded,! for! Gobenciong! failed! to! get! back!
to! his! work! or! get! his! salary! until! after! the! lapse! of! the!
suspension! period! in! May! 1999.!!This! turn! of! events! impelled!
Gobenciong! to! move! that! Arteche! and! Mojica! be! cited! in!
contempt.!The!CA,!however,!did!not!act!on!the!motion.!
On! November! 16,! 2000,! the! Office! of! the! Ombudsman;
Visayas,! through! Director! Virginia! P.! Santiago,! by! an!
Order,!directed! the! DOH! Regional! Office! No.! VIII! to! immediately!
implement! its! Decision! and! impose! the! penalties! decreed!
therein,! which,! in! the! case! of! Gobenciong,! was! one;year!
suspension!from!office!without!pay.!
On! December! 11,! 2000,! Gobenciong! moved!
that!Santiago!be! cited! in! contempt! of! court!for! issuing! the!
November! 16,! 2000! Order! despite! being! notified! of! his! appeal.!
Like! his! earlier! similar! motion,!this! motion!was!neither! denied!
nor!granted!by!the!CA.!
Long! after! the! issuance! of! the! Decision! dated! March! 21,!
2000,! the! CA,! on! November! 26,! 2002,! rendered! a! Decision,!
denying! Gobenciongs! petition! for! certiorari! assailing! the!
directive,! and! the! implementation! thereof,! for! the!!immediate!

execution! of! his! preventive! suspension.! Dispositively,! the! CA!


wrote:!
!!
The! CA! dismissed! Gobenciongs! petition! on! the! strength!
of!Section!24!in!relation!to!Sec.!27!of!Republic!Act!No.!(RA)!6770,!
otherwise!known!as!the!Ombudsman$Act$of$1989.!The!interplay!of!
both! sections! expressly! empowers! the! Ombudsman,! under!
defined! conditions,! to! preventively! suspend,! for! a! maximum!
period! of! six! months,! all! but! three! categories! of! public! officials!
and!employees!under!investigation!by!his!office!and!to!direct!the!
immediate! implementation! of! the! corresponding! suspension!
order.!
!!
Gobenciongs! motion! for! reconsideration! of! the! above!
decision!was!rejected!by!the!appellate!court!on!August!27,!2003.!
!!
On! April! 29,! 2005,! the! CA,! on! the! postulate! that! the!
disciplinary!authority!of!the!Office!of!the!Ombudsman!is!merely!
recommendatory,! rendered! its! Decision,! partially! granting! due!
course! to! Gobenciongs! appeal! and! effectively! modifying! the!
Decision!dated!March!21,!2000!of!the!Ombudsman.!The!decretal!
portion!of!the!CA!Decision!reads:!
!!!
Invoked! as! part! of! the!ratio$decidendi$of! the! CA! Decision!
was!Tapiador$v.$Office$of$the$Ombudsman,[20]!which! the! appellate!
court! viewed! as! declaring! that! the! disciplinary! power! of! the!
Ombudsman! in! administrative! cases! is! limited! only! to!
recommending! to! the! disciplining! authority! the! appropriate!
penalty!to!be!meted!out.!In!the!concrete,!as!gleaned!from!the!CA!
Decision,! this! means! that! the! Ombudsman! cannot! compel! the!
DOH! to! impose! the! penalty! recommended! in! its! underlying!
Decision!of!March!21,!2000.!
The! Office! of! the! Ombudsman,! ascribing! grave! abuse! of!
discretion! on! the! part! of! the! appellate! court,! assailed! the! above!
decision!through!a!Petition!for!Certiorari!under!Rule!65.!

!!
On! the! other! hand,! Gobenciong! filed! his! Motion! for!
Partial! Reconsideration! of! the! Decision! dated! April! 29,!
2005,[22]!which! the! CA! denied! via! its! Resolution! dated! May! 29,!
2006.!!Thus,!the!instant!Petition!for!Review!on!Certiorari!filed!by!
Gobenciong.!
In! the! meantime,! on! January! 16,! 2005,! Gobenciong! retired! from!
the!service.!
!!
ISSUE:##
1. Whether! the! preventive! suspension! ordered! by! the!
Ombudsman!violates!the!equal!protection!clause.!
2. Whether!RA!6770,!on!the!ground!of!undue!delegation!of!
legislative! authority! and! under! the! equal! protection!
clause,! is! unconstitutional! insofar! as! it! grants! the!
Ombudsman! and! his! deputies! the! authority! to!
investigate,! prosecute! and! penalize! any! act! or! omission,!
administrative! or! otherwise,! of! any! public! officer! or!
employee,! or! to! take! over,! at! any! stage,! from! any!
investigatory!agency!of!Government,!the!investigation!of!
such!cases.!
!
HELD:##
1. NO.!
Gobenciong!parlays!the!theory!that!the!application!of!RA!
6770,! which! authorizes! the! Ombudsman! to! impose! a! six;month!
preventive! suspension,! instead! of! the! civil! service! provisions! of!
the!Administrative!Code,!which!limits!the!disciplining!authoritys!
prerogative! to! only! imposing! a! prevention! suspension! for! a!
period! not! exceeding! 90! days,! violates! the! equal! protection!
guarantee.!We!are!not!persuaded.!!!
The! equal! protection! clause! is! against! undue! favor! and!
individual! or! class! privilege,! as! well! as! hostile! discrimination;! it!
does! not! demand! absolute! equality.! The! fundamental! guarantee!

is! not! breached! by! a! law,! which! applies! only! to! those! persons!
falling! within! a! specified! class,! if! it! applies! alike! to! all! persons!
within!such!class,!and!provided!further!that!there!is!a!substantial!
distinction! between! those! who! fall! within! such! class! and! those!
who!do!not.!!
In!Miranda$ v.$ Sandiganbayan,! where! the! issue! of! equal!
protection! was! raised,! albeit! the! 60;day! preventive! suspension!
limit! under! the! Local! Government! Code! was! involved,! we! ruled!
against! any! violation! of! the! constitutional! proscription! against!
the!equal!protection!of!the!law,!thus:!
In! essence,! the! dissenting! opinion! avers! that! there! is! no!
substantial! distinction! between! preventive! suspensions! handed!
down! by! the!Ombudsman! and! those! imposed! by! executive!
officials.!!On!the!contrary,!there!is!a!world!of!difference!between!
them.!!The! Constitution! has! endowed! the!Ombudsman! with!
unique! safeguards! to! ensure! immunity! from! political!
pressure.!!Among! these! statutory! protections! are! fiscal!
autonomy,! fixed! term! of! office! and! classification! as! an!
impeachable!officer.!!!
Moreover,! there! are! stricter! safeguards! for! imposition!
of!preventive!suspension! by! the!Ombudsman.!!The!Ombudsman!
Act! of! 1989! requires! that! the!Ombudsman! determine:! (1)! that!
the!evidence!of!guilt!is!strong;!and!(2)!that!any!of!the!following!
circumstances!are!present:!(a)!the!charge!against!such!officer!or!
employee! involves! dishonesty,! oppression,! or! grave! misconduct!
or! neglect! in! the! performance! of! duty;! (b)! the! charges! would!
warrant! removal! from! the! service;! or! (c)! the! respondents!
continued!stay!in!office!may!prejudice!the!case!filed!against!him.!
!
2. NO.!
!!
The!framers!of!the!1987!Constitution!intended!the!office!
of!the!Ombudsman!to!be!strong!and!effective,!with!sufficient!bite!
and!muscle!to!enable!it!to!carry!out!its!mandate!as!protector!of!

the! people! against! the! inept,! abusive,! and! corrupt! in! the!
Government.! They,! however,! left! it! to! Congress! to! invest! the!
office!with!more!broad!powers!to!enforce!its!own!action.!And!so!
it!was!that!RA!6770!was!enacted!empowering,!under!Sec.!15(1)!
thereof,! the! Ombudsman! to! take! over,! at! any! stage,! from! any!
investigatory! agency! of! government,! the! investigation! of! cases!
[of!which!he!has!primary!jurisdiction].!
Clearly!then,!the!espoused!theory!of!undue!delegation!of!
authority!is!untenable.!For,!in!the!ultimate!analysis,!it!is!the!1987!
Constitution! no! less! which! granted! and! allowed! the! grant! by!
Congress! of! sweeping! prosecutorial,! investigatory,! and!
disciplinary!powers!to!the!Ombudsman.!
Gobenciongs! submission! about! the! Office! of! the!
Ombudsman! taking! over! the! case! from! the! DOH! strikes! us! as! a!
clear!case!of!a!misleading!afterthought.!For!the!fact!of!the!matter!
is!that!the!Deputy!Ombudsman;Visayas!did!not!wrest!jurisdiction!
from! the! DOH! over! the! administrative! aspect! of! this! ghost!
delivery! case.! Far! from! it.! The! records! tend! to! show! that! the!
Office! of! Ombudsman;Visayas! took! cognizance! of! and! assumed!
jurisdiction! when! dela! Pea! filed! her! complaint! for! falsification!
and! misconduct! against! Gobenciong! and! other! hospital! officials.!
This! was! four! months! before! the! DOH! formally! charged!
Gobenciong,! et! al.! on! October! 29,! 1997! with! an! offense! arising!
from! the! anomalous! procurement! of! a! hemoanalyzer.! The! mere!
filing! of! the! formal! charge,! without! more,! did! not! as! it! cannot!
oust! the! Office! of! the! Ombudsman! of! its! jurisdiction! over! the!
administrative!case.!!Jurisdiction,!once!it!attaches,!continues!until!
the!case!is!concluded.!!
!!
Moreover,! the! unconstitutionality! of! a! law! must! clearly!
be! demonstrated.! It! cannot! be! predicated! on! speculations! or!
hypothetical! fears! that! its! provisions! may! be! perverted! or! the!
powers!granted!abused.!All!powers!are!susceptible!to!misuse!and!
abuse,!but!that!is!hardly!a!reason!to!strike!down!the!law.!While!

the!Court!may!declare!a!law!or!portions!thereof!unconstitutional,!
it!is!imperative!that!the!petitioner!shows!a!clear!and!unequivocal!
breach! of! the! Constitution,! not! merely! a! doubtful! or!
argumentative! one.!And! it! is! basic! that! the! matter! of!
constitutionality! shall,! as! a! rule,! be! considered! if! it! is! the!lis$
mota!of! the! case! and! raised! and! argued! at! the! earliest!
opportunity.!Estarija$ v.$ Ranada$formulates! the! rule! in! the!
following!wise:!
When! the! issue! of! unconstitutionality! of! a! legislative! act!
is!raised,!the!Court!may!exercise!its!power!of!judicial!review!only!
if! the! following! requisites! are! present:!!(1)! an! actual! and!
appropriate! case! and! controversy;! (2)! a! person! and! substantial!
interest! of! the! party! raising! the! constitutional! question;! (3)! the!
exercise!of!judicial!review!is!pleaded!at!the!earliest!opportunity;!
and! (4)! the! constitutional! question! raised! is! the! very!lis$mota!of!
the!case.!
For! our! purpose,! only! the! third! requisite! is! in!
question.!!Unequivocally,! the! law! requires! that! the! question! of!
constitutionality! of! a! statute! must! be! raised! at! the! earliest!
opportunity.!!In!Matibag$ v.$ Benipayo,! we! held! that! the! earliest!
opportunity! to! raise! a! constitutional! issue! is! to! raise! it! in! the!
pleadings! before! a! competent! court! that! can! resolve! the! same,!
such!that,!if!it!was!not!raised!in!the!pleadings!before!a!competent!
court,!it!cannot!be!considered!at!the!trial,!and,!if!not!considered!
in!the!trial,!it!cannot!be!considered!on!appeal.!!
The! issue! of! constitutionality! was! not! raised! at! the!
earliest!possible!opportunity;!this!means!before!the!Office!of!the!
Ombudsman,!or!at!least!before!the!CA.!Withal,!it!cannot!now!be!
considered! in! Gobenciongs! petitions! for! review.! This! is! not! to!
say,!however,!that!what!Gobenciong!considers!as!a!question!of!a!
constitutional!nature!is!absolutely!necessary!to!the!disposition!of!
this!case.!!
#

#
49.#MIAA#v.#Olongapo#
#
FACTS!
OMSI! and! TCSI! were! contractors! engaged! to! perform!
janitorial! and! maintenance! services! in! the! Ninoy! Aquino!
International! Airport! (NAIA).! Antonio! P.! Gana,! General! Manager!
of! the! Manila! International! Airport! Authority! (MIAA),! informed!
OMSI!and!TCSI!that!their!contracts!would!no!longer!be!renewed!
after!their!expiry!in!October!of!1998,!and!a!new!contractor!would!
be! hired! through! negotiations.! Gana! relied! on! EO! No.! 903,!
authorising! awarding! of! contracts! via! negotiation,! and! EO! No.!
301,! granting! as! exception! to! the! need! for! public! auction!
situations! wherein! a! negotiation! would! be! beneficial! to! the!
government.!
OMSI!and!TCSI!expressed!to!Gana!their!concern!that!the!
right! to! equal! protection! was! being! violated! because! a! new!
contract! would! be! awarded! via! negotiation,! contrary! to! the!
current! practice! of! public! bidding.! The! MIAA! maintained! that!
negotiating! for! a! new! contract! would! be! beneficial! for! the!
government.!
On!October!26,!1998,!OMSI!filed!for!a!writ!of!preliminary!
injunction! enjoining! MIAA! from! proceeding! with! the!
negotiations.!TCSI!also!filed!against!Gana!and!Goodline!Staffers!&!
Allied! Services,! who! had! been! awarded! TCSIs! contract.! On!
November! 18,! 1998,! the! Pasay! City! RTC! granted! a! preliminary!
injunctive!writ!to!both!OMSI!and!TCSI.!
Without! filing! a! motion! for! reconsideration,! MIAA!
assailed!the!grant!of!the!writ!in!the!Court!of!Appeals.!Meanwhile,!
the! Pasay! RTC! was! continued! to! hear! TCSIs! case,! and! on!
February! 1,! 2001,! declared! MIAAs! contract! with! Goodline! null!
and! void,! and! ordered! the! holding! of! a! public! bidding! for! the!
service!contract.!It!ruled!that!TCSIs!right!to!equal!protection!was!

violated! by! MIAA,! and! that! Ganas! negotiations! were! in! grave!
abuse!of!discretion.!
Meanwhile,!MIAA!promised!to!pay!TCSIs!employees!who!
had! not! been! paid! on! time,! saying! that! it! had! not! paid! because!
TCSI! had! not! submitted! the! proper! billing! requirements! as!
stipulated! in! the! original! service! contract.! In! September! 2002,!
TCSI! sent! a! demand! letter! to! MIAA! for! the! satisfaction! of! its!
unpaid!bills.!Additionally,!TCSI!protested!MIAAs!requirements!in!
the!contract!as!having!caused!financial!loss!to!TCSI,!which!in!turn!
caused! them! to! fail! to! fulfill! the! requirements! of! their! service!
contract!with!MIAA,!making!them!liable!for!damages.!TCSI!urged!
MIAA! to! waive! the! damages,! because! its! own! non;payment! of!
TCSI!had!been!the!cause!of!the!same.!
On! October! 30,! 2002,! MIAA,! alleging! that! TCSIs!
manpower! was! insufficient! to! meet! the! obligations! upon! in! as!
per! the! service! contract,! informed! TCSI! that! it! would! be!
terminating! its! contract! with! them! ten! days! from! the! receipt! of!
notice.! TCSI! protested! the! termination! as! violative! of! the!
injunction! issued! by! the! Pasay! RTC.! MIAA! responded! denying!
such!violation,!saying!that!the!injunction!only!subsisted!from!the!
extension! of! the! contract! period! to! the! selection! of! a! new!
awardee!through!public!bidding.!Further!MIAA!alleges!that!their!
termination! of! the! contract! was! for! cause,! namely! the! non;
fulfilment! of! TCSI! of! the! services! it! was! to! provide! under! its!
contract.!
On! November! 25,! 2002,! TCSI! filed! with! the! Pasay! RTC! a!
petition! for! contempt,! seeking! to! have! MIAA! held! liable! for! a!
blatant! and! contumacious! violation! of! the! injunctive! writ!
issued!by!the!court,!and!seeking!to!hold!MIAA!liable!for!the!P18!
million!it!still!owed!TCSI.!MIAA!replied!that!it!could!not!pay!TCSI!
because! it! had! not! been! presented! with! the! appropriate!
documents!for!billing.!

On! January! 23,! 2003,! TCSI! again! filed! a! petition! for!


mandamus! with! damages! seeking! to! enforce! the! original! RTC!
injuction,! and! the! collection! of! the! due! payment! with! damages!
from!MIAA.!MIAA!then!filed!for!dismissal,!accusing!TCSI!of!forum!
shopping.! This! petition! was! denied,! stating! that! this! case! for!
damages! was! an! entirely! different! case! for! the! petition! for!
contempt!against!MIAA!for!its!alleged!violation!of!the!injunctive!
writ.!
#
ISSUE!
1. Whether! or! not! TCSI! and! OMSI! were! protected! in! the!
enforcement! of! their! contracts! by! the! subsistence! of! the!
preliminary!injunctions.!
2. Whether! or! not! the! exceptions! in! EO! 301! may! be!
construed!as!applying!to!service!contracts!as!well.!
3. Whether!or!not!TCSI!is!guilty!of!forum!shopping.!
#
HELD!
1. No.!

2.

Upon! the! expiry! of! their! service! contracts! on! October! 31,!
1998,! MIAA! did! not! renew! the! contracts! of! TCSI! and! OMSI.!
Therefore!it!must!be!held!that!they!had!already!lost!their!rights!
and! the! injunctions! issued! in! their! favour! were! irregular! and!
without!legal!basis.!Their!contracts!may!not!be!extended!by!the!
issuance! of! injunctive! writs,! because! the$ contract$ between$ the$
parties$ is$ the$ law$ between$ them;$ mutuality$ being$ an$ essential$
characteristic$ of$ contracts$ giving$ rise$ to$ reciprocal$ obligations.!
Therefore,!by!the!end!of!the!contract!of!service,!and!because!no!
contract! extension! was! agreed! the! courts! may! not! impose! upon!
the!parties!the!extension!of!a!contract,!because!it!would!amount!
to!a!violation!of!consent,!an!essential!requisite!of!contracts.!!

Therefore!the!court!reiterates!the!legal!need!for!competitive!
public!bidding!for!all!government!service!contracts.!This!may!not!
be!dispensed!with!except!in!very!specific!cases.!

No.!

Citing!Andres$v.$COA,!the!court!repeated!its!policy!on!EO!301,!
which! was! that! public! bidding! might! be! disposed! of! in! cases!
where! centralized$ administrative$ system$ is$ not$ at$ all$
facilitative$particularly$in$emergency$situations,$characterized$as$
it$ is$ by$ red$ tape$ and$ too$ much$ delay$ in$ the$ processing$ and$ final$
approval$of$the$required$transaction$or$activity! It! is! clear! that!
only! in! very! particular! cases! where! it! would! be! detrimental! to!
the! states! discharge! of! its! functions! that! the! requirement! of!
public!bidding!is!disposed!with.!!
In! Kilosbayan$ v.$ Morato,! the! court! ruled! that! the! exception!
including! purchase! of! supplies,! materials,! and! equipment! does!
not!cover!lease!agreements.!In!this!case,!the!court!expanded!this!
explanation,! ruling! that! service! contracts! are! likewise! not!
covered! in! the! above! exception.! Moreover,! in! Kilosbayan! the!
court!also!ruled!that!the!exception!was!an!exlusive!one,!meant!to!
change! the! system! of! administrative! response! to! emergency!
purchases.!

3.

Yes.!

The!second!and!third!cases!filed!by!TCSI!against!MIAA,!seeking!
for!a!contempt!ruling,!and!the!execution!of!the!injunctive!order!
issued!in!the!first!case,!are!materially!similar!because!they!
involve!the!ruling!in!the!first!case.!The!cause!of!actionthe!
violation!of!the!injunctive!writ!issued!by!the!Pasay!RTCare!
similar!enough!to!find!TCSI!guilty!of!forum!shopping.!
#
#

50.#Nicolas#v.#Romulo#
#
FACTS:!
!
Lance! Corporal! Daniel! Smith! (respondent)! is! a! member!
of! the! United! States! Armed! Forces.! He! was! charged! with! the!
crime!of!rape!committed!against!one!Suzette!S.!Nicolas,!a!Filipina,!
sometime! on! November! 1,! 2005! inside! the! Subic! Bay! Freeport!
Zone,!Olongapo!City.!
!
Pursuant! to! the! Visiting! Forces! Agreement! (VFA),! the!
United!States,!at!its!request,!was!granted!custody!of!Smith!while!
the!proceedings!were!pending.!On!December!4,!2006,!the!RTC!of!
Makati! rendered! its! decision,! finding! Smith! guilty! beyond!
reasonable!doubt.!Pursuant!to!Article!V,!paragraph!10!of!the!VFA,!
Smith! was! to! serve! his! sentence! in! the! facilities! that! shall! be!
agreed! upon,! thereafter,! by! appropriate! Philippine! and! US!
authorities.! Pending! such! agreement! on! facilities,! Smith! was!
thereby!temporarily!committed!to!the!Makati!City!Jail.!
!
On!December!29,!2006,!however,!Smith!was!taken!out!of!
the! Makati! jail! by! Philippine! law! enforcement! agents,!
purportedly!acting!under!order!of!the!Department!of!the!Interior!
and! Local! Government,! and! brought! to! a! facility! for! detention!
under!the!control!of!the!US!government.!Pursuant!to!the!Romulo;
Kenney! Agreements! (which,! in! turn,! were! entered! into! in!
accordance! with! the! VFA),! Smith! was! to! be! returned! to! the! US!
military!custody!and!detained!at!the!US!Embassy!in!Manila.!
!
ISSUES:!
1. Whether! or! not! the! VFA! is! void! and! unconstitutional! for!
not!being!recognized!as!a!treaty!by!the!US,!in!violation!of!
Section!25,!Article!XVIII!of!the!1987!Constitution.!
2. Assuming! that! the! VFA! is! valid,! whether! or! not! the!
transfer! of! custody! (Article! V,! VFA)! of! an! accused! to! a!
foreign!power!is!to!provide!a!different!rule!of!procedure!

or! that! accused,! thereby! violating! the! equal! protection!


clause!of!the!Constitution.!
!
HELD:!
1. No.!
Section!25,!Article!XVII!provides!that:!After!the!expiration!in!
1991! of! the! Agreement! between! the! Philippines! and! the! United!
States! of! America! concerning! Military! Bases,! foreign! military!
bases,!troops,!or!facilities!shall!not!be!allowed!in!the!Philippines!
except!under!a!treaty!duly!concurred!in!by!the!Senate!and,!when!
the!Congress!so!requires,!ratified!by!a!majority!of!the!votes!cast!
by!the!people!in!a!national!referendum!held!for!that!purpose,!and!
recognized!as!a!treaty!by!the!other!contracting!State.!!
In! Bayan$ vs.$ Zamora,! the! Supreme! Court! held! that! the! VFA!
was! duly! concurred! in! by! the! Philippine! Senate! and! has! been!
recognized! as! a! treaty! by! the! US.! The! fact! that! the! VFA! was! not!
submitted! for! advice! and! consent! of! the! US! Senate! does! not!
detract! from! its! status! as! a! binding! international! agreement! or!
treaty!recognized!by!the!US.!The!VFA!is!simply!an!implementing!
agreement! to! the! main! RP;US! Mutual! Defense! Treaty.! Thus,! it!
was!not!necessary!to!submit!the!VFA!to!the!US!Senate!for!advice!
and! consent,! but! merely! to! the! US! Congress! under! the! Case;
Zablocki! Act! within! 60! days! of! its! ratification.! As! the! US! has!
certified! that! it! recognizes! the! VFA! as! a! binding! international!
agreement,!there!is!substantial!compliance!with!the!provisions!of!
Section!25,!Article!XVIII.!
!
2.
No.!
The!VFA!being!a!valid!and!binding!agreement,!the!parties!are!
required! as! a! matter! of! international! law! to! abide! by! its! terms!
and!provisions,!including!the!provisions!on!Criminal!Jurisdiction!
embodied!in!Article!V!of!the!VFA.!

The!equal!protection!clause!is!not!violated!because!there!is!a!
substantial! basis! for! a! different! treatment! of! a! member! of! a!
foreign! military! armed! forces! allowed! to! enter! our! territory.! In!
the! realm! of! international! law,! foreign! armed! forces! allowed! to!
enter! ones! territory! are! generally! immune! from! local!
jurisdiction,!except!to!the!extent!agreed!upon!by!the!parties.!
Nothing! in! the! Constitution! prohibits! such! agreements!
recognizing! immunity! from! jurisdiction! in! relation! to! long;
recognized! subjects! of! such! immunity! (i.e.! Heads! of! State,!
diplomats).!!
Nevertheless,! the! Court! finds! that! there! is! a! different!
treatment! between! detention! (after! conviction)! and! custody!
(during!trial).!As!regard!the!former,!Article!V!of!the!VFA!provides!
not! only! that! detention! shall! be! carried! out! in! facilities! agreed!
upon!by!authorities!of!both!parties,!but!also!that!detention!shall!
be!by!Philippine!authorities.!
In! light! of! said! provisions,! the! Romulo;Kenney! Agreements!
providing! for! the! detention! of! Smith! in! the! US! Embassy! are!
contrary! to! the! express! stipulation! in! the! VFA! because! such!
detention!in!the!US!Embassy!is!not!by!Philippine!authorities.!
Thus,!the!Secretary!of!Foreign!Affairs!is!ordered!to!negotiate!
with!the!US!representatives!for!the!appropriate!agreement!on!
detention!facilities!under!Philippine!authorities!as!mandated!by!
Article!V!of!the!VFA.!
#
51.#Serrano#v.#Gallant#
#
52.#People#v.#Siton#
#
FACTS:#!
On! November! 18,! 2003,! respondents! Evangeline! Siton! and!
Krystel!Kate!Sagarano!were!charged!with!vagrancy!in!the!City!of!
Davao,! Philippines! pursuant! to! Article! 202! (2)! of! the! Revised!

Penal!Code!
!
Art.! 202.! Vagrants$and$prostitutes;$penalty.$! The! following! are!
vagrants:!!
1.!Any!person!having!no!apparent!means!of!subsistence,!who!has!
the!physical!ability!to!work!and!who!neglects!to!apply!himself!or!
herself!to!some!lawful!calling;!!
2.! Any! person! found! loitering! about! public! or! semi;public!
buildings!or!places!or!tramping!or!wandering!about!the!country!
or!the!streets!without!visible!means!of!support;!!
3.!Any!idle!or!dissolute!person!who!lodges!in!houses!of!ill!fame;!
ruffians! or! pimps! and! those! who! habitually! associate! with!
prostitutes;!!
4.!Any!person!who,!not!being!included!in!the!provisions!of!other!
articles!of!this!Code,!shall!be!found!loitering!in!any!inhabited!or!
uninhabited! place! belonging! to! another! without! any! lawful! or!
justifiable!purpose;!!
5.!Prostitutes.!!
For!the!purposes!of!this!article,!women!who,!for!money!or!profit,!
habitually! indulge! in! sexual! intercourse! or! lascivious! conduct,!
are!deemed!to!be!prostitutes...!!
According! to! the! affidavit! of! police! officer! who! arrested! them,!
SPO1!Jay!Plaza,!there!was!a!prior!surveillance!conducted!in!view!
of! the! reports! that! vagrants! and! prostitutes! proliferate! in! the!
place! where! the! two! accused! (among! other! women)! were!
wandering! and! in! the! wee! hours! of! night! and! soliciting! male!
customer.!!
Respondents! filed! Motions! to! Quash! on! the! ground! that! Article!
202!(2)!is!unconstitutional!for!being!vague!and!overbroad.!MTC!
denied!the!motion!and!upheld!that!the!police!power!of!the!State!
should! prevail! for! the! interest! of! the! greater! number! of! people.!
As! stated! by! Professor! Freund,! an! authority! on! police! power,!
police! power! is! the! the! power! of! promoting! public! welfare! by!

restraining! and! regulating! the! use! of! liberty! and! property."!


Respondents!then!moved!to!file!with!RTC!of!Davao!a!petition!for!
certiorari!and!prohibition!challenging!the!constitutionality!of!the!
anti;vagrancy!law!for!it!is!discriminatory,!vague,!and!violative!of!
equal! protection! clause! under! the! Constitution.! RTC! granted!
their! petition! thereby! also! declaring! the! unconstitutionality! of!
Article!202!(2)!!
#
ISSUE:##
Whether! Article! 202! (2)! or! Anti;Vagrancy! Law! is!
unconstitutional!for!being!(1)!violative!of!equal!protection!clause!
under!the!Constitution!(2)!void!for!vagueness.!!
#
HELD:#!
No.!Though!the!Courts!ruling!in!several!cases!such!as!in!Estrada$
v.$Sandiganbayan$that! the! overbreadth! and! vagueness! doctrines!
apply! only! to! free! speech! cases! and! not! to! penal! statutes,! in!
Spouses$Romualdez$v.$COMELEC,$the!Court!in!this!case!recognized!
the! application! of! the! void;for;vagueness! doctrine! to! criminal!
statutes! in! appropriate! cases.! It! is! the! task! of! the! Legislature! to!
inform!the!citizen!with!reasonable!precision!what!acts!it!intends!
to! prohibit! or! to! require.! On! the! other! hand,! the! arrest! should!
also! be! based! on! a! reasonable! ground,! that! is,! supported! by!
circumstances! sufficiently! strong! in! themselves! to! create! the!
probable!cause!of!guilt!of!the!person!to!be!arrested.!A!reasonable!
suspicion!must!be!founded!on!probable!cause,!coupled!with!good!
faith! of! the! peace! officers! making! the! arrest.! ! In! the! decision! of!
the! RTC,! it! asserts! the! unconstitutionality! of! Article! 202! (2)!
based!from!the!U.S.!Supreme!Courts!opinion!in!the!Papachristou!
v.!City!of!Jacksonville!case!regarding!vagrancy,!where!the!list!of!
crimes! is! so! all;inclusive! and! generalized! as! the! one! in! this!
ordinance,! those! convicted! may! be! punished! for! no! more! than!
vindicating!affronts!to!police!authority:!The!focus!is!not!on!the!

lack!of!notice!given!a!potential!offender,!but!on!the!effect!of!the!
unfettered! discretion! it! places! in! the! hands! of! the! Jacksonville!
police.! Anti;vagrancy! law! was! declared! unconstitutional!
because!such!activities!or!habits!as!nightwalking,!wandering!or!
strolling!around!without!any!lawful!purpose!or!object...which!are!
otherwise! common! and! normal,! were! declared! illegal! However!
the!Court!ruled!that!the!specific!acts!mentioned!were!not!found!
in!Article!202!(2).!!Unless!there!is!sufficient!proof!to!the!contrary,!
the!law!is!presumed!to!be!constitutional.!Article!202!(2)!does!not!
discriminate!against!the!poor!and!the!unemployed.!Offenders!of!
public!order!laws!are!punished!not!for!their!status,!as!for!being!
poor! or! unemployed,! but! for! conducting! themselves! under! such!
circumstances! as! to! endanger! the! public! peace! or! cause! alarm!
and! apprehension! in! the! community.! Art! 202! (2)! is! therefore!
constitutional.! The! police! power! of! the! State! vested! by! the!
Constitution! regulates! individual! conduct! for! the! promotion! of!
public!welfare.!
!
53.#League#of#Cities#v.#COMELEC#
#
FACTS:#
#
During! the! 11th! Congress,! 57! cityhood! bills! were! filed!
before! the! House! of! Representatives.! Of! the! 57,! 33! eventually!
became!laws!while!the!24!other!bills!were!not!acted!upon.!Then,!
there! was! an! amendment! to! the! Local! Government! Code! that!
sought! to! increase! the! income! requirement! to! qualify! for!
conversion!into!a!city!from!P20!million!average!annual!income!to!
P100!million!locally!generated!income.!This!was!signed!into!law!
in!the!long!run.!After!the!effectivity!of!RA!9009,!the!12!Congress!
sought!to!exempt!from!the!income!requirement!prescribed!in!RA!
9009! the! 24! municipalities! whose! conversions! into! cities! were!
not!acted!upon!during!the!previous!Congress.!The!13th!Congress!
also!expressed!the!same!wishes!by!adopting!the!joint!resolution.!!

!
Senator! Pimentel! suggested! the! filing! by! the! House! of!
Representatives! of! individual! bills! to! pave! the! way! for! the!
municipalities! to! become! cities! and! then! forwarding! them! to!
Senate!for!the!proper!action.!This!was!done!by!16!municipalities,!
and! common! to! all! 16! measures! was! a! provision! exempting! the!
municipality!covered!from!the!P100!million!income!requirement.!
Both! houses! of! Congress! had! approved! the! individual! cityhood!
bills,!all!of!which!eventually!lapsed!into!law!at!various!dates.!!
!
ISSUES:#
1. Whether!or!not!the!cityhood!laws!violate!Sec.!10!Art.!X!of!
the!Constitution!
2. Whether! or! not! the! Cityhood! laws! violate! the! equal!
protection!clause!
!
HELD:#
1. No.!
Petitioners!submit!that!Section!10!of!Art.!X!states!that!the!
creation! of! political! subdivisions! should! be! in! accordance!
with! the! criteria! established! in! the! local! government! code!
and!subject!to!approval!by!the!voters!of!the!unit!concerned.!
Therefore,! the! petitioners! state! that! the! criteria! must! be!
written!only!in!the!LGC!and!not!in!any!other!statute.!
It! should! be! noted! however,! that! the! code! similarly!
referred!to!in!the!1973!and!1987!constitutions!is!clearly!but!
a! law! that! Congress! enacted.! Necessarily,! since! Congress!
wields! the! vast! power! of! creating! political! subdivisions,!
surely!it!can!exercise!the!lesser!authority!of!requiring!a!set!of!
criteria! or! ascertainable! viabilities! ! of! their! creation.! Thus,!
the! only! conceivable! reason! why! the! Constitution! employs!
the!clause!in!accordance!with!the!criteria!established!in!the!
local! government! code! is! to! lay! stress! that! it! is! Congress!
alone!which!can!impose!the!criteria.!

A!Pimentel;Drilon!exchange!clearly!shows!the!legislative!
intentions! behind! RA! 9009.! (1)! that! then! pending! cityhood!
bills! would! be! outside! the! pale! of! the! minimum! income!
requirement!of!P100!million!(2)!RA!9009!would!not!have!any!
retroactive!effect!insofar!as!the!cityhood!bills!are!concerned.!
It!is!not!amiss!to!state!that!the!basis!for!the!inclusion!of!the!
exemption!clause!of!the!cityhood!laws!is!the!clear;cut!intent!
of!Congress!of!not!according!retroactive!effect!to!RA!9009.!!
Legislative! intent! is! part! and! parcel! of! the! law,! the!
controlling! factor! in! interpreting! a! statute.! In! construing! a!
statute,!the!proper!course!is!to!start!out!and!follow!the!true!
intent! of! the! Legislature! and! to! adopt! the! sense! that! best!
harmonizes! with! the! context! and! promotes! in! the! fullest!
manner!the!policy!and!objects!of!the!legislature.!The!intent!is!
the!essence!of!the!law!and!the!primary!rule!of!construction!is!
to!ascertain!and!give!effect!to!that!intent!although!it!may!not!
be!consistent!with!the!strict!letter!of!the!statute.!!
2. No.!
The! equal! protection! clause! does! not! preclude! the! state!
from! recognizing! and! acting! upon! factual! differences!
between! individuals! and! classes.! Classification! to! be!
reasonable,! must! (1)! rest! on! substantial! distinctions! (2)! be!
germane! to! the! purpose! of! the! law! (3)! not! be! limited! to!
existing! conditions! only! (4)! apply! equally! to! all! members! of!
the!same!class.!
The! favorable! treatment! accorded! the! 16! municipalities!
rests! on! substantial! distinction.! Looking! back,! we! note!
that! respondent! LGUs! had! pending! cityhood! bills! before!
the!passage!of!RA!9009,!and!that!is!the!tipping!difference.!!
They! were! qualified! cityhood! applicants! before! the!
enactment! of! RA! 9009.! Because! of! events! they! had!
absolutely!nothing!to!do!with,!a!spoiler!in!the!form!of!RA!
9009supervened.! Now,! then,! to! impose! on! them! the!

much! higher! income! requirement! after! what! they! have!


gone! through! would! indeed! appear! to! be! unfair.! The!
imperatives! of! fairness! dictate! that! should! be! given! a!
legal! remedy! by! which! they! would! be! allowed! to! prove!
that! they! have! all! the! necessary! qualifications! for! city!
status!using!the!criteria!set!forth!under!the!LGC!of!q1991!
prior!to!the!amendment!by!RA!9009.!
There! is! thus,! no! reason! why! an! exemption! from! the!
P100! million! requirement! cannot! be! given! to! the!
respondent! LGUs,! when! to! deny! them! the! same! rights!
and! privileges! accorded! to! the! 33! other! municipalities!
when,! at! the! outset! they! were! similarly! situated,! is!
tantamount!to!denying!the!former!the!protective!mantle!
of!the!equal!protection!clause.!!
#
#
54.#Quinto#v.#COMELEC#
!
FACTS:#
In! a! Motion! for! Reconsideration! applied! by! the! Comelec! on!
December!14,!2009,!it!was!decided!that!Section!4(a)!of!Comelec!
Resolution!8678,!which!was!based!on!the!second!provision!in!the!
third!paragraph!of!Section!13!of!Republic!Act!9369,!and!Section!
66! of! the! Omnibus! Election! Code,! were! actually! constitutional.!
The! provisions! in! question! have! to! do! with! the! restriction! on!
appointive! officials! in! engaging! in! partisan! political! activity.! It!
requires! that! once! an! incumbent! appointive! official! files! his!
certificate!of!candidacy,!he!is!deemed!ipso!facto!resigned!already.!
This! Motion! for! Reconsideration! of! the! Comelec! effectively!
reversed! the! December! 1,! 2009! decision! that! first! ruled! on! the!
unconstitutionality! of! the! previously! mentioned! provisions! for!
allegedly! violating! the! equal! protection! clause! of! the!
Constitution.! Herein! petitioners! Eleazar! Quinto! and! Gerino!

Tolentino,! appointive! officials! who! are! interested! in! running!


during!the!2010!elections,!file!this!Motion!for!Reconsideration!of!
a! decision! of! the! Supreme! Court! in! the! hopes! that! the! said!
provisions! will! be! ruled! as! unconstitutional.! This! is! because!
petitioners! pray! they! will! be! able! to! file! their! certificate! of!
candidacy!without!being!ipso!facto!resigned.!The!main!argument!
of! the! petitioners! is! that! Section! 4(a)! violates! the! equal!
protection! clause,! discriminating! against! incumbent! appointive!
officials!vis;;vis!incumbent!elective!officials.!
!
ISSUES:#
1.!W/N!petitioners!have!legal!standing!to!file!the!case!
2.!W/N!Section!4(a)!of!Comelecs!Resolution!No.!8678,!as!well!as!
the!second!provision!in!the!third!paragraph!of!Section!13!of!RA!
9369!and!Section!66!of!Omnibus!Election!Code!are!constitutional!
!
HELD:#
1.! YES,! the! petitioners! have! legal! standing! to! file! the! case.! The!
petitioners!have!standing!because!they!are!also!qualified!voters.!
As! such,! the! restriction! on! the! candidacy! of! incumbent!
appointive! officials! will! affect! the! rights! of! voters! to! choose! the!
public!officials!whom!they!believe!are!qualified.!Also,!there!is!an!
actual!case!or!controversy!because!said!petitioners!will!file!their!
certificate! of! candidacies! for! the! 2010! elections,! and! the!
automatic!resignation!that!Section!4!(a)!of!Comelecs!Resolution!
No.! 8678! provides! is! a! very! real! obstacle;! it! is! nothing! merely!
imagined!or!hypothetical.!
!
2.! NO,! the! mentioned! resolution! and! provisions! in! the! law! are!
unconstitutional.! This! is! because! it! discriminates! against!
incumbent! appointive! officials! and! incumbent! elective! officials,!
thereby!violating!the!equal!protection!clause.!While!distinctions!
and!the!creation!of!classes!are!not!prohibited!by!the!Constitution,!

it! is! prohibited! when! there! is! no! logical! reason! for! the! differing!
classes! and! the! likewise! different! treatment! for! them.! The! evil!
sought!to!be!avoided!by!deeming!incumbent!appointive!officials!
as! ipso! facto! resigned! by! the! mere! filing! of! candidacy! will! still!
remain! even! if! the! laws! are! only! enforced! against! appointive!
officials! and! not! elective! officials.! The! elective! officials! may! still!
be!motivated!by!politics!and!use!their!governmental!positions!to!
promote! their! candidacies! instead! of! genuinely! caring! for! the!
publics! welfare.! The! evil! sought! to! be! avoided,! which! is! the!
neglect!of!ones!duties!due!to!the!election!campaigning,!remains!
even!with!the!resolution!and!provisions!enforced!only!upon!the!
appointive! officials.! The! differential! treatment! between!
appointive!and!elective!officials!is!not!justified.!
!
4! requisites! for! valid! classification! (which! thus! justifies!
differential!treatment):!
1.!Based!on!substantial!distinctions!
2.!Germane!to!purpose!of!law!
3.!Not!limited!to!only!the!existing!conditions!
4.!Apply!equally!to!all!members!of!the!same!class!!
!
Also,! instead! of! deeming! the! appointive! officials! as! ipso! facto!
resigned! the! moment! they! file! their! certificate! of! candidacies,!
they! should! be! considered! resigned! only! when! the! campaign!
period! (for! which! they! filed! their! candidacies)! officially! starts.!
Wherefore,! the! Court! rules! that! Section! 4(a)! of! Comelecs!
Resolution!No.!8678,!and!the!third!paragraph!of!Section!13!of!RA!
9369,! as! well! as! Section! 66! of! Omnibus! Election! Code! are!
declared!unconstitutional.!
!
!
!
!

55.#CREBA#v.#Romulo#
#
FACTS:#
#
Chamber!of!Real!Estate!and!Builders!Associations,!Inc.!is!
an! association! of! real! estate! developers! and! builders! in! the!
Philippines.! It! assails! the! validity! of! the! imposition! of! minimum!
corporate! income! tax! (MCIT)! on! corporations! and! creditable!
withholding! tax! (CWT)! on! sales! of! real! properties! classified! as!
ordinary! assets.! Section! 27(E)! of! RA! 8424! provides! for! the!
imposition! of! MCIT! on! domestic! corporations! and! is!
implemented! by! RR;9;98.! Petitioner! argues! that! the! MCIT!
violates!the!due!process!clause!because!it!levies!income!tax!even!
if!there!is!no!realized!gain.!
!
Furthermore,! petitioner! also! seeks! to! nullify! Sections!
1.57.2(J)!and!2.58.2!of!RR!2;98,!and!Section!4(a)(ii)!and!(c)(ii)!of!
RR! 7;2003,! all! of! which! prescribe! the! rules! and! procedures! for!
the! collection! of! CWT! for! two! reasons:! first,! they! ignore! the!
different! treatment! by! RA! 8424! of! ordinary! assets! and! capital!
assets,! and! second,! Secretary! of! Finance! has! no! authority! to!
collect! CWT.! Also,! petitioner! asserts! that! the! provisions! violate!
the! due! process! clause! because! the! government! collects! income!
tax!even!when!the!net!income!has!not!yet!been!determined.!
!
ISSUES:#
1.! Whether! or! not! the! imposition! of! the! MCIT! on! domestic!
corporations!is!unconstitutional.!
2.!Whether!or!not!the!imposition!of!CWT!on!income!from!sales!of!
real!properties!classified!as!ordinary!assets!under!RR!2;98,!RR!6;
2001!and!RR!7;2003,!is!unconstitutional.!
!
#
#
#

Held:#
1.!No!
!
Petitioner! claims! that! the! MCIT! is! unconstitutional! for!
being! highly! oppressive,! arbitrary! and! confiscatory! which!
amounts!to!deprivation!of!property!without!due!process!of!law.!
!
Taxes!are!the!lifeblood!of!the!government.!Without!taxes,!
the! government! can! neither! exist! nor! endure.! The! court! has!
previously! held! that! the! due! process! clause! may! properly! be!
invoked! to! invalidate,! in! appropriate! cases,! a! revenue! measure!
when! it! amounts! to! confiscation! of! property.! But,! the! court! also!
explained! that! it! will! not! strike! down! a! revenue! measure! as!
unconstitutional! on! the! mere! allegation! of! arbitrariness! by! the!
taxpayer.! There! is! a! need! for! factual! foundation! of! such!
persuasive!character.!
!
Certainly,!an!income!tax!is!arbitrary!and!confiscatory!if!it!
taxes!capital!because!capital!is!not!income.!However,!the!MCIT!is!
not! a! tax! on! capital! but! is! imposed! on! gross! income.! Statutes!
taxing! the! gross! income! of! particular! corporations! are! found! in!
many! jurisdictions.! Furthermore,! the! MCIT! is! not! an! additional!
tax!imposition.!It!is!imposed!in!lieu!of!the!normal!net!income!tax!
and!only!if!the!normal!income!tax!is!suspiciously!low.!American!
courts! have! emphasized! that! Congress! has! the! power! to!
condition,! limit,! or! deny! deductions! from! gross! income! in! order!
to!arrive!at!the!net!that!it!choses!to!tax.!Deductions!are!a!matter!
of!legislative!grace.!
!
The! petitioner! failed! to! support! its! allegation! that! the!
MCIT! is! arbitrary! and! confiscatory.! Taxation! is! necessarily!
burdensome! because,! by! its! nature,! it! adverse! affects! property!
rights.!
!
2.!No.!
!
Petitioner!avers!that!the!imposition!of!CWT!on!real!estate!
classified! as! ordinary! assets! deprives! its! members! of! their!

property! without! due! process! of! law! because! gain! is! never!
assured! by! mere! receipt! of! the! selling! price.! As! a! result,! the!
government! is! collecting! tax! from! net! income! not! yet! gained! or!
earned.!
!
The!CWT!is!creditable!against!the!tax!due!from!the!seller!
of!the!property!at!the!end!of!the!taxable!year.!The!seller!will!be!
able!to!claim!a!tax!refund!if!its!net!income!is!less!than!the!taxes!
withheld.! Nothing! is! taken! that! is! not! due! so! there! is! no!
confiscation!of!property.!Furthermore,!the!CWT!does!not!impose!
new! taxes! not! does! it! increase! taxes.! It! relates! entirely! to! the!
method!and!time!of!payment.!
!
The! petitioners! argument! that! taxpayers! have! to! wait!
years! and! may! result! to! litigation! before! they! are! granted! a!
refund! is! misleading.! The! practical! problems! encountered! in!
claiming! tax! do! not! affect! the! constitutionality! of! CWT! as! a!
method!of!collecting!tax.!
!
Also,! petitioners! concerns! about! the! possible! expenses!
and! pitfalls! of! the! trade! that! add! to! the! burden! of! the! realty!
industry!will!not!support!its!attack!on!the!constitutionality!of!the!
CWT.! These! matters! are! best! addressed! to! the! executive! and!
legislative!branches.!
!
On!the!issue!of!violation!of!equal!protection!(CWT!being!
levied!only!on!real!estate!corporations),!it!has!been!long!settled!
that! the! taxing! power! has! the! authority! to! make! reasonable!
classifications! for! purposes! of! taxation.! The! real! estate! industry!
is,! by! itself,! a! class! and! can! be! validly! treated! differently! from!
other!business!enterprises.!
!
!
56.#NPC#v.#Pinatubo#
#
FACTS:#
#
NPC! released! a! circular! setting! the! guidelines! in! the!

disposal!of!scrap!aluminum!conductor!steel;!reinforced!(ACSRs)!
to! decongest! and! maintain! good! housepeeking! in! NPC!
installations! and! further! generate! additional! income! for! NPC.!
Items! 3! and! 3.1! of! said! circular! provided! the! qualified! bidders!
are! partnerships! or! corporations! that! directly! use! aluminum! as!
raw! material! in! producing! finished! products! either! purely! or!
partly! our! of! aluminum.! Respondent! Pinatubo! Commercial! is! a!
trader! of! scrap! materials! including! copper,! aluminum,! steel! and!
other! ferrous! and! non;! ferrous! materials.! It! submitted! to! NPC! a!
pre;!qualification!form!and!was!denied!by!the!latter.#
!
Pinatubo! then! filed! before! the! RTC! assailing! the!
constitutionality! of! the! circular! stating! that! it! violates! the! due!
process! and! equal! protection! clauses! of! the! constitution.! It! also!
argued!that!said!circular!runs!counter!to!the!government!policy!
of!competitive!bidding.!The!RTC!ruled!in!favor!of!the!respondent!
which!brings!the!petitioners!to!question!the!decision!of!the!RTC!
and!bringing!this!case!before!the!Supreme!Court.#
#
ISSUES:#
1.!Whether!NPC!Circular!No.!99;75!must!be!published.!
2.!Whether!items!3!and!3.1!of!the!NPC!Circular:!
a)!Violated!the!equal!protection!clause!of!the!constitution!
b)!Restrained!free!trade!and!competition!
!
HELD:#
1.!No.!
!
The! law! states! that! statutes! of! general! application! must!
go! through! publication! first! before! it! can! be! enforced.! This,!
however,! does! not! include! interpretative! regulations! and! those!
merely! internal! in! nature.! In! this! case,! the! circular! is! merely!
internal! in! nature! in! that! it! was! a! directive! issued! by! the! NPC!
President! to! his! subordinates! for! the! regulation! and! efficient!
disposal!of!scrap!ACSRs!to!qualified!bidders.!The!circular!is!more!

of! a! set! of! guidelines! for! the! NPC! personnel! regarding! the!
bidding.!It!did!not!affect!the!rights!of!the!public!or!any!person!not!
involved!in!the!bidding!process.!
!
2.!!
!
a)!No.!
!
Bidding!is!basically!an!offer!to!enter!into!a!contract!with!
the! government.! The! government! agency! involved! in! such! has!
the! right! to! determine! its! recipients.! NPC! has! the! power! to!
provide!criteria!and!guidelines!for!its!prospective!bidders.!In!this!
case,! Pinatubo! has! no! demandable! right! to! be! a! part! of! the!
bidding!process!if!it!has!failed!to!meet!the!criteria!set!by!the!NPC.!
The! courts! cannot! interfere! with! NPC's! discretion! in! accepting!
and! rejecting! bids! unless! it! is! shown! that! such! is! exercised!
arbitrarily!or!fraudulently.!!
!
The! equal! protection! clause! basically! means! that! no!
person! or! class! of! persons! shall! be! deprived! of! the! same!
protection! of! laws! which! is! enjoyed! by! other! persons! or! other!
classes!in!the!same!place!and!in!like!circumstances.!A!legislation!
based! on! a! reasonable! classification! does! not! violate! the! equal!
protection!clause.!Items!3!and!3.1!were!reasonable!classifications!
intended!to!protect!the!integrity!of!the!government!property!and!
promote!RA!7832!which!penalizes!the!theft!of!ACSR!in!excess!of!
100!MCM.!Pinatubo!therefore!cannot!claim!similar!treatment!as!
direct!manufacturers.!
!
b)!No.!
!
RA! 9184! defines! bidding! as! a! method! of! procurement!
which!is!open!to!participation!by!any!interested!party!consisting!
of! processes! which! include! the! eligibility! screening! of!
prospective! bidders.! NPC! therefore! has! the! right! to! pre;!
disqualify!applicants!who!do!not!meet!its!set!qualifications.!The!

competitive! policy! thus! presupposes! this! eligibility! and!


qualification! of! applicants! so! as! not! to! defeat! the! principle! of!
responsible! and! qualified! bidders! can! bid! and! be! awarded!
government! contracts.! Our! free! enterprise! system! is! not! based!
on! a! pure! and! unadulterated! competition! market.! It! was! well!
within! the! authority! of! NPC! to! prescribe! conditions! in! order! to!
prevent!the!practice!of!trafficking!stolen!government!property.!
!
57.#Biraogo#v.#PTC#
58.#League#v.#COMELEC#
59.#PAGCOR#v.#BIR#
#
60.#Mendoza#v.#People#
#
FACTS:#
Romarico! J.! Mendoza! was! convicted! for! his! failure! to!
remit! the! Social! Security! Service! (SSS)! contributions! of! his!
employees! in! a! decision! dated! August! 3,! 2010! based! on! the!
following! considerations:!first,!the! remittance! of! employee!
contributions! to! the! SSS! is! mandatory! under!RA! No.! 8282;!
and!second,!the!failure!to!comply!with!a!special!law!being!malum!
prohibitum,!the!defenses!of!good!faith!and!lack!of!criminal!intent!
are!immaterial.!!
He! then! filed! a! motion! for! reconsideration! based! on! the!
following! grounds:! (1)! he! is! included! within! the! coverage! of!
Republic! Act! (RA)! No.! 9903! or! the! Social! Security! Condonation!
Law! of! 2009,! and! the! passage! of! which! constitutes! as! a!
supervening! event! in! his! case,! and! (2)! he! invokes! the! equal!
protection!clause.!!
RA! No.! 9903,! enacted! on! January! 7,! 2010,! mandates! the!
effective!withdrawal!of!all!pending!cases!against!employers!who!
would! remit! their! delinquent! contributions! to! the! SSS! within! a!
specified! period,! specifically! within! 6! months! after! the! laws!

effectivity.!Based!on!this,!the!petitioner!claims!that!in!view!of!RA!
No.! 9903! and! its! implementing! rules,! the! settlement! of! his!
delinquent!contributions!in!2007!entitles!him!to!an!acquittal.!In!
addition,! he! invokes! that! he! is! entitled! under! the! equal!
protection!clause!to!the!dismissal!of!the!case!against!him!since!he!
had!already!paid!the!subject!delinquent!contributions!due!to!the!
SSS! which! accepted! the! payment.! The! equal! protection! clause!
requires! that! similar! subjects! should! not! be! treated! differently,!
so! as! to! give! undue! favor! to! some! and! unjustly! discriminate!
against!others.!!!
#
ISSUE:#
#
Whether!Mendozas!motion!for!reconsideration!shall!be!
granted!on!the!basis!of!the!equal!protection!clause!
#
HELD:#
#
No,!RA!No.!9903!does!not!apply!to!him!or!to!others!in!the!
same! situation! because! the! intent! of! RA! 9903! is! to! grant!
condonation!only!to!employers!with!delinquent!contributions!or!
pending! cases! for! their! delinquencies!and!who! pay! their!
delinquencies! within! the! six! (6);month! period! set! by! the! law.!
Mendoza!clearly!did!not!pay!within!the!6;month!period!therefore!
he!is!not!within!the!purview!of!RA!9903.!!
!
The!Court,!in!Tolentino!v!Board!of!Accountancy,!says!that!
the! equal! protection! clause! simply! means! that! no! person! or!
class!of!persons!shall!be!denied!the!same!protection!of!the!laws!
which! is! enjoyed! by! other! persons! or! other! classes! in! the! same!
place!and!in!like!circumstances.!It!further!adds!that!the!guaranty!
of!the!equal!protection!of!the!laws!is!not!violated!by!a!legislation!
based! on! reasonable! classification.! And! the! classification,! to! be!
reasonable,!(1)!must!rest!on!substantial!distinctions;!(2)!must!be!
germane! to! the! purposes! of! the! law;! (3)! must! not! be! limited! to!

existing! conditions! only;! and! (4)! must! apply! equally! to! all!
members!of!the!same!class.!
!
In! this! case,! RA! 9903! creates! two! classifications! of!
employers!delinquent!in!remitting!the!SSS!contributions!of!their!
employees:! (1)! those! delinquent! employers! who! pay!within!the!
six! (6);month! period,! and! the! group! which! Mendoza! belongs! to!
namely,(2)! those! delinquent! employers! who! pay!outside!of! this!
availment! period.! The! difference! in! the! dates! of! payment! of!
delinquent! contributions! provides! a! substantial! distinction!
between! the! two! classes! of! employers! and! the! differentiation!
between!the!two!classes!of!employers!does!not!violate!the!equal!
protection!clause.!!
!
61.#Bureau#of#Customs#v.#Teves#
#
62.#Pichay#v.#Office#of#the#Deputy#Executive#Secretary#
#
FACTS:!
!
Then! President! Gloria! Macapagal;Arroyo! issued! EO! No.!
12,! creating! the! Presidential! Anti;Graft! Commission! (PAGC),!
vesting!it!with!the!power!to!investigate!and!hear!administrative!
cases! for! possible! graft! and! corruption,! among! others,! against!
presidential! appointees,! and! to! submit! its! report! and!
recommendations!to!the!President.!
!
Thereafter,! President! Benigno! Aquino! III! issued! EO! No.!
13,! abolishing! the! PAGC! and! transferring! its! powers! and!
functions! to! the! Office! of! the! Deputy! Executive! Secretary! for!
Legal! Affairs! (ODESLA),! particularly! its! Investigative! and!
Adjudicatory! Division! (IAD).! ODESLA! is! under! the! Office! of! the!
President.!
!
Finance! Secretary! Cesar! Purisima! filed! before! the! IAD;
ODESLA! a! complaint! affidavit! for! grave! misconduct! against!
petitioner! Prospero! Pichay,! Jr.,! Chairman! of! the! Board! of!

Trustees! of! the! Local! Water! Utilities! Administration! (LWUA),! as!


well! as! other! incumbent! members! of! the! LWUA! Board! of!
Trustees.!!
!
Petitioner! was! issued! an! Order! requiring! him! to! submit!
his! written! explanation! under! oath.! Nevertheless,! petitioner!
failed!to!file!said!explanation.!
!
Thereafter,! petitioner! filed! a! petition! for! certiorari! and!
prohibition,!assailing!the!constitutionality!of!EO!No.!13.!
!
ISSUES:!
1. Whether! or! not! EO! No.! 13! is! violative! of! the! equal!
protection! clause,! by! limiting! the! IAD;ODESLAs!
investigation! only! to! presidential! appointees! occupying!
upper;level!positions!of!the!government.!
2. Whether!or!not!EO!No.!13!is!violative!of!the!due!process!
clause,! specifically! when! the! IAD;ODESLA! took!
cognizance! of! the! administrative! complaint! against!
petitioner.!
!
HELD:!
1. No.!
The! equal! protection! clause! simply! requires! that,! in! the!
application! of! a! law,! all! persons! or! things! similarly! situated!
should! be! treated! alike,! both! as! to! rights! conferred! and!
responsibilities! imposed.! Indeed,! the! equal! protection! clause! is!
not! absolute;! substantial! distinctions! may! justify! reasonable!
classifications! between! subjects.! It! does! not! demand! absolute!
equality;! rather! it! merely! requires! that! all! persons! under! like!
circumstances!shall!be!treated!alike.!The!equal!protection!clause!
is! not! violated! when! a! law! applies! to! persons! falling! within! a!
specified!class,!for!as!long!as!it!applies!alike!to!all!persons!falling!
within! such! class,! and! reasonable! grounds! exist! for! making! a!

distinction! between! those! falling! within! the! ambit! of! such! class,!
and!those!who!do!not.!
The! Court! ruled! that! substantial! distinctions! between!
presidential! appointees! occupying! high;level! positions! and! non;
presidential!appointees!exist.!Moreover,!presidential!appointees!
are! under! the! direct! disciplining! power! of! the! President.! Thus,!
the!President!has!the!corollary!power!to!investigate!such!public!
officials!and!look!into!their!conduct!in!office.!Herein!petitioner!is!
a! presidential! appointee! occupying! the! high;level! position! of!
Chairman! of! the! LWUA.! Thus,! he! necessarily! comes! under! the!
disciplinary!authority!of!the!President,!who!has!the!right!to!order!
an! investigation! with! regard! to! alleged! graft! and! corruption!
complaints!against!petitioner.!
!
2.
No.!
In! administrative! proceedings,! the! filing! of! charges! and!
giving! of! reasonable! opportunity! for! the! person! charged! to! be!
heard! constitute! the! minimum! requirements! of! due! process.! As!
long! as! petitioner! was! given! the! opportunity! to! explain! his! side!
and!adduce!evidence,!the!due!process!clause!is!deemed!complied!
with.! What! the! Constitution! prohibits! is! an! absolute$ lack! of!
opportunity! to! be! heard.! In! this! case,! petitioner! was! issued! an!
Order!asking!him!to!explain!his!side,!with!respect!to!the!charges!
of! grave! misconduct! filed! by! Finance! Secretary! Purisima.!
Petitioners!own!failure!to!submit!his!explanation,!despite!notice,!
necessarily! defeats! his! claim! that! he! was! denied! due! process! of!
law.!
!
#
#
#
#
#

63.#Alvarez#v.#People#
#
FACTS:#
!
The!case!is!brought!by!a!motion!for!reconsideration!of!SC!
decision! dated! June! 29,! 2011! affirming! the! conviction! of!
petitioner! for! violation! of! RA! No.! 3019! (Anti;Graft! and! Corrupt!
Practices! Act).! The! petitioner! contends! that! bad! faith,! manifest!
partiality! and! gross! negligence! were! not! proven! and! that!
substantial! compliance! with! the! requirements! of! the! Build;
Operate;Transfer! (BOT)! Law! have! been! accomplished.! He! also!
contends! that! the! non;inclusion! of! all! the! other! members! of! the!
Sangguniang!Bayan!denied!him!the!equal!protection!of!laws.!!
!
!
!
In!reply,!the!Solicitor!General!filed!his!Comment!asserting!
that! petitioner! was! correctly! convicted! stressing! that! the!
requirements!of!the!BOT!law!and!its!IRR!have!not!been!followed!
in! the! bidding! and! awards! of! the! contract! to! Australian;
Professional,! Inc.! (API),! resulting! in! awarding! the! project! to! an!
unlicensed!and!financially!unqualified!contractor.!The!petitioner,!
even! if! assuming! that! he! did! not! act! in! bad! faith,! committed!
inexcusable! negligence! in! allowing! the! non;submission! of!
contractors! license! and! company! profile,! which! are! minimum!
legal! requirements! for! the! proper! evaluation! of! API! as! a! BOT!
proponent.!!
!
!
ISSUE:#
1. Whether! the! non;inclusion! of! other! supposed! guilty!
members!of!sangguniang!bayan!violates!the!right!of!equal!
protection!of!laws!of!the!petitioner!
!
!
!
!

HELD:#
1. NO.!!
!
!
!
The!non;inclusion!of!other!guilty!persons!is!irrelevant!to!
the! case! against! the! accused.! Petitioner! failed! to! show! a!
discriminatory! purpose! in! prosecuting! him! alone! despite! the!
findings! of! the! Sandiganbayan! on! the! conspiring! of! the!
Sanggunian!Bayan!in!petitioners!dealings!with!API.!
!
!
!
As! Stated! in! Santos! Vs.! People,! the! prosecution! of! one!
guilty! person! while! others! equally! guilty! are! not! prosecuted,!
however,! is! not,! by! itself,! a! denial! of! the! equal! protection! of! the!
laws.! There! must! be! evidence! of! clear! and! intentional!
discrimination!for!such!reasoning!to!be!permissible.!Even!if!there!
is!unequal!enforcement!of!the!law,!it!does!excuse!the!acquittal!of!
the! guilty! at! the! expense! of! society.! No! person! has! the! right! to!
demand! protection! of! the! law! in! the! commission! of! the! crime.!
There! being! no! proof! that! there! was! discrimination! in! the!
prosecution! of! the! petitioner! alone! in! the! instant! case,! the!
decision!of!the!court!must!be!sustained.!!
!
!
64.#Garcia#v.#People#
#
FACTS:#
Retired!Major!General!Carlos!F.!Garcia!was!tried!and!found!guilty!
by!the!military!courts!of!committing!acts!that!were!in!violation!of!
the! 96th! ! (conduct! unbecoming! an! officer! and! a! gentlemen)! and!
97th! (conduct! prejudicial! to! good! order! and! military! discipline)!
Article! of! War.! Pending! the! trial,! the! petitioner! had! served!
preventive! confinement! amounting! to! 6! years! and! 2! months.!
Also,! before! he! was! found! guilty,! he! had! turned! 56,! the! age! of!
compulsory!retirement!from!his!military!position.!

!
The! Office! of! the! President,! or! the! President! as! Commander;in;
Chief! of! the! AFP! and! acting! as! the! Confirming! Authority! under!
the!Articles!of!War,!confirmed!the!sentence!imposed!by!the!Court!
Martial! against! petitioner.! He! was! sentenced! to! 2! years! of!
imprisonment,! dishonorable! discharge! and! the! forfeiture! of! all!
pays!and!allowances.!
!
The!petitioner!contends!that!he!can!no!longer!be!imprisoned!as!
his!preventive!confinement!spans!more!than!his!2!year!sentence.!
Also,! he! raises! the! issue! of! the! jurisdiction! of! the! General! Court!
Martial! to! try! his! case.! According! to! him,! the! said! jurisdiction!
ceased! ipso! facto! upon! his! compulsory! retirement.! Thus,! he!
insists! that! the! Office! of! the! President! had! acted! without!
jurisdiction!in!issuing!the!confirmation!of!his!sentence.!
!
!
ISSUES:#
#
2. Whether! or! not! the! military! courts! had! jurisdiction! over! the!
case!upon!his!retirement?#
3. Whether!the!Office!of!the!President!acted!with!grave!abuse!of!
discretion,! amounting! to! lack! or! excess! of! jurisdiction,! in!
issuing!the!Confirmation!of!Sentence?#
#
HELD:#
!
2. YES.! Clearly,! from! the! time! the! violations! were! committed!
until! the! time! petitioner! was! arraigned,! the! General! Court!
Martial!had!jurisdiction!over!the!case.!Well;settled!is!the!rule!
that!jurisdiction!once!acquired!is!not!lost!upon!the!instance!of!
the!parties!but!continues!until!the!case!is!terminated.!

3. NO.!The!power!of!the!President!to!confirm,!mitigate!and!remit!
a! sentence! of! erring! military! personnel! is! a! clear! recognition!
of! the! superiority! of! civilian! authority! over! the! military.!
However,!although!the!law!(Articles!of!War),!which!conferred!
those!powers!to!the!President,!is!silent!as!to!the!deduction!of!
the!period!of!preventive!confinement!to!the!penalty!imposed,!
as! discussed! earlier,! such! is! also! the! right! of! an! accused!
provided!for!by!Article!29!of!the!RPC.!
!
The! OSG! maintains! that! military! commissions! or! tribunals! are!
not!courts!within!the!Philippine!judicial!system;!hence,!they!are!
not! expected! to! apply! criminal! law! concepts! in! their!
implementation! and! execution! of! decisions! involving! the!
discipline! of! military! personnel.! This! is! misleading.! This! Court!
finds! the! argument! raised! by! the! OSG! unmeritorious! and! finds!
logic!in!the!assertion!of!petitioner!that!Article!29!of!the!Revised!
Penal!Code!can!be!made!applicable!in!the!present!case.!
!
Notwithstanding!that!the!court;martial!is!only!an!instrumentality!
of!the!executive!power!having!no!relation!or!connection,!in!law,!
with!the!judicial!establishments!of!the!country,!it!is!yet,!so!far!as!
it!is!a!court!at!all,!and!within!its!field!of!action,!as!fully!a!court!of!
law! and! justice! as! is! any! civil! tribunal.! As! a! court! of! law,! it! is!
bound,!like!any!court,!by!the!fundamental!principles!of!law,!and,!
in!the!absence!of!special!provision!of!the!subject!in!the!military!
code,! it! observes! in! general! the! rules! of! evidence! as! adopted! in!
the! common;law! courts.! That! court;martial! cases! are! criminal!
cases! within! the! meaning! of! Section! 17,! Article! VI,! of! the!
Constitution! is! also! evident,! because! the! crimes! and!
misdemeanors!forbidden!or!punished!by!the!Articles!of!War!are!
offenses!against!the!Republic!of!the!Philippines.!
!

WHEREFORE,! the! Petition! for! Certiorari! dated! September! 29,!


2011! of! Major! General! Carlos! F.! Garcia,! AFP! (Ret.)! is! hereby!
DISMISSED.! However,! applying! the! provisions! of! Article! 29! of!
the!Revised!Penal!Code,!the!time!within!which!the!petitioner!was!
under!preventive!confinement!should!be!credited!to!the!sentence!
confirmed!by!the!Office!of!the!President,!subject!to!the!conditions!
set!forth!by!the!same!law.!
!
#
65.#Arroyo#v.#DOJ#
#
FACTS:#
Based! on! the! surfacing! of! new! evidence! and! witnesses!
alleging! massive! electoral! fraud! and! manipulation! of! election!
results! in! the! 2004! and! 2007! National! Elections,! COMELEC!
issued! Resolution! No.! 9266! on! August! 2,! 2011.! The! said!
resolution! approved! the! creation! of! a! Joint! Committee! with! the!
Department! of! Justice! (DOJ)! who! would! conduct! a! preliminary!
investigation!on!the!matter.!The!DOJ,!along!with!COMELEC,!then!
issued! Joint! Order! No.! 001;2011! creating! the! Joint! Committee!
(who! would! conduct! the! preliminary! investigation)! and! Fact!
Finding! Team! (who! would! collect! evidence! on! which! the! said!
preliminary! investigation! would! be! based! on),! composed! of!
officials!from!both!bodies.!!
The!Fact;Finding!Teams!Initial!Report!found!that!there!was!
indeed!manipulation!of!results!in!the!2007!elections!in!North!and!
South!Cotabato,!and!Maguindanao.!It!ordered!that!certain!people,!
including! petitioners! Abalos,! Jose! Miguel! Arroyo,! and! Gloria!
Macapagal;Arroyo! (GMA)! be! subjected! to! preliminary!
investigation! for! electoral! sabotage.! On! October! 17,! 2011,!
Senator! Aquilino! Pimentel! filed! a! Complaint! Affidavit! for!
Electoral! Sabotage! against! petitioners.! The! Joint! Committee!
issued! subpoenas! against! the! petitioners,! who! appeared! before!

them!through!counsel!in!the!preliminary!hearing!on!November!3,!
2011.!!
Petitioners!filed!petitions!of!prohibition!and!for!issuance!of!a!
Temporary! Restraining! Order/Writ! of! Preliminary! Injunction,!
alleging!that!the!creation!of!the!Joint!Panel!was!unconstitutional.!
Mike! Arroyo! also! filed! for! a! Motion! to! Defer! Proceedings,! while!
GMA!filed!a!motion!to!require!Senator!Pimentel!to!show!her!the!
documents!referred!in!his!complaint;affidavit,!and!Abalos!filed!a!
Motion!to!Suspend!Proceedings.!The!Joint!Committee!denied!the!
motions!of!the!petitioners.!Meanwhile,!the!COMELEC!adopted!the!
Joint! Resolution! created! by! the! Committee! with! some!
modifications,! such! as! that! the! investigation! against! Jose! Miguel!
Arroyo!be!dismissed!for!lack!of!probable!cause.!COMELECs!Law!
Department!filed!with!the!Pasay!City!RTC!an!information!against!
GMA,! Gov.! Andal! Ampatuan! Sr.,! and! Atty.! Lintang! H.! Bedol! for!
electoral! sabotage.! Although! the! file! a! motion! for! the! Joint!
Committee!to!resolve!her!motion!for!reconsideration!and!for!the!
resolution! to! be! declared! null! and! void,! a! warrant! of! arrest! was!
still!issued!by!the!said!RTC!and!served!to!GMA!on!the!same!day.!
Afterwards,!she!was!granted!bail.!!
Among! others,! petitioners! claimed! that! the! creation! of! the!
Joint!Committee!and!Fact;Finding!Team!violates!equal!protection!
clause! because! it! singled! out! the! Arroyo! administration.! They!
also! claimed! that! these! teams! are! similar! to! the! Truth!
Commission,! which! was! already! struck! down! for! violating! the!
equal! protection! clause.! Respondents! countered! this! by! saying!
that! the! wide! spectrum! the! investigation! covers! includes! more!
than!just!the!Arroyo!administration.!
Furthermore,!they!claimed!that!the!right!to!due!process!was!
violated!due!to!lack!of!impartiality.!The!Committee,!they!claimed,!
is! at! once! evidence;gathered,! prosecutor,! and! judge.!
Furthermore,! Sec.! De! Lima! and! COMELEC! Chairman! Brilliantes!
had! already! expressed! prejudgment! against! petitioners! in! the!

media.! Respondents,! on! the! other! hand,! refuted! this! by! saying!
that!petitioners!failed!to!show!evidence!of!such!prejudgment!and!
of!Sec.!De!Limas!intervention.!Furthermore,!they!stated!that!two!
teams!have!their!separate!mandates!and!cannot!be!taken!as!one.!!
ISSUES:#
Whether! the! Joint! Order! creating! a! Joint! DOJ;COMELEC!
Committee! and! Fact! Finding! Team! on! the! 2004! and! 2007!
National! Elections! is! unconstitutional! for! violating! the! equal!
protection!and!due!process!clauses!of!the!1987!Constitution.!
!
HELD:#
No.!
First,! it! did! not! violate! the! equal! protection! clause.! Unlike!
the! Truth! Commission,! who! was! created! to! investigate!
specifically!the!previous!administration,!the!Joint!Committee!was!
created!to!conduct!preliminary!investigation!of!election!offenses!
during! the! 2004! and! 2007! elections.! Not! all! respondents! were!
linked! to! GMA! as! there! were! public! officers! who! were!
investigated! for! the! performance! of! their! public! duties;! private!
individuals!were!investigated!as!well.!Equal!protection!does!not!
mean! absolute! equality,! but! that! all! persons! under! like!
circumstances!and!conditions!should!be!treated!the!same.!!
Second,!it!did!not!violate!the!due!process!clause.!There!was!
no! showing! that! the! statements! of! De! Lima! and! Brilliantes!
influenced!the!proceedings.!Moreover,!the!COMELEC!is!a!collegial!
body,!so!the!alleged!ideas!of!Brilliantes!cannot!be!seen!as!an!act!
of!the!body!itself.!Petitioners!likewise!presented!no!proof!of!bias!
shown!by!the!Joint!Committee.!The!Joint!Committee!and!the!Fact;
finding! Team! have! different! mandates,! so! it! is! improper! to! say!
that! there! is! only! one! body! which! acted! as! evidence;gathered,!
prosecutor!and!judge.!!
There!was!a!need!to!promulgate!the!committees!new!rules!
of! procedure! because! they! would! affect! the! public! in! the! sense!

that! it! restricted! the! rights! of! or! provided! remedies! to! the!
affected! parties.! Furthermore,! administrative! issuances! need!
promulgation! as! a! requirement! of! due! process.! However,! even!
though! these! Rules! were! not! published,! the! proceedings! of! the!
Joint!Committee!are!still!valid!because!they!were!done!according!
to!the!procedures!in!Rule!113!of!the!Rules!on!Criminal!Procedure!
and! the! 1993! Rules! of! Procedure.! More! importantly,! petitioners!
were!given!the!opportunity!to!be!heard.!They!were!given!a!copy!
of! the! complaint,! the! affidavits! and! supporting! documents;! they!
were! also! asked! to! submit! their! counter;affidavit! and! evidence.!
!
The! validity! of! the! Joint! Committee! and! the! preliminary!
investigation! was! upheld.! Petitions! were! DISMISSED! and! the!
proceedings!in!the!Pasay!City!RTC!were!allowed!to!proceed.!!
!
Separate#Concurring#and#Dissenting#Opinion:#Carpio,#J.#
There! was! no! violation! of! the! due! process! and! equal!
protection! clauses! in! the! creation! and! proceedings! of! the! Joint!
Committee!and!Fact!Finding!Team;!nor!was!GMA!denied!the!right!
to! be! heard.! The! preliminary! investigation! was! valid! as! it!
followed!the!Rules!on!Criminal!Procedure.!However,!the!rules!of!
the!procedure!adopted!by!the!Committee!need!not!be!published.!
Since! the! circular! containing! such! rules! was! merely! an! internal!
circular!between!the!DOJ!and!the!Office!of!the!Ombudsman,!it!did!
not! regulate! public! conduct! and! therefore! had! no! need! for!
publication.!
#
Dissenting#and#Concurring#Opinion:#Brion,#J.#
The! majoritys! resulting! conclusion! was! correct.! However,!
The!resolution!and!joint!order!creating!the!Joint!Committee!and!
Fact!Finding!Team!were!unconstitutional.!By!doing!so,!COMELEC!
unlawfully!ceded!its!decisional!independence!by!sharing!it!with!
the!DOJ;!an!agency!under!the!supervision,!control,!and!influence!
of! the! President! of! the! Philippines.! By! doing! so,! it! opened! the!

matter! up! for! possible! exploitation! and! influence! from! the!


Executive.!!
!
!
66.#Sto.#Tomas#v.#Paneda#
#
FACTS:#
!
These!consolidated!cases!pertain!to!the!constitutionality!
of! certain! provisions! of! Republic! Act! 8042,! otherwise! known! as!
the!Migrant!Workers!and!Overseas!Filipinos!Act!of!1995.!
On!June!7,!1995!Congress!enacted!Republic!Act!No.!8042!
or!the!Migrant!Workers!and!Overseas!Filipinos!Act!of!1995!that,!
for! among! other! purposes,! sets! the! Governments! policies! on!
overseas! employment! and! establishes! a! higher! standard! of!
protection! and! promotion! of! the! welfare! of! migrant! workers,!
their!families,!and!overseas!Filipinos!in!distress.!
!
Sections# 29# and# 30# of# the# Act# commanded# the#
Department# of# Labor# and# Employment# (DOLE)# to# begin#
deregulating# within# one# year# of# its# passage# the# business# of#
handling#the#recruitment#and#migration#of#overseas#Filipino#
workers# and# phase# out# within# five# years# the# regulatory#
functions# of# the# Philippine# Overseas# Employment#
Administration# (POEA).# The! respondents! filed! a! petition! to!
prohibit! the! DOLE! and! POEA! from! issuing! and! implementing!
rules! and! regulations! that! would! regulate! the! recruitment! and!
placement!of!OFWs!and!to!comply!with!the!provisions!of!Sec.!29!
and!30!of!R.A.!8042.!!
!
Section! 6! defines! the! crime! of! "illegal! recruitment"! and!
enumerates! the! acts! constituting! the! same.! Section! 7! provides!
the! penalties! for! prohibited! acts.! Section! 9! states! the! option! of!
the!victim!of!illegal!recruitment!where!to!file!the!criminal!case.!

Section! 6! was! assailed! as! void# since# the# definition# is#


vague# since# there# is# no# distinction# between# licensed# and#
nonelicensed# recruiters.!Section!7!was!assailed!void# since# the#
penalties#even#for#minor#violations#such#as#failure#to#render#
report#is#deemed#to#be#excessive.#Section#9#was#assailed#void#
since#the#provision#giving#the#victim#a#choice#between#filing#
the# case# either# in# the# place# where# the# victim# resides# or# the#
place# where# the# crime# was# committed# is# contrary# to# the#
Rules#of#Court#where#the#criminal#case#be#filed#where#any#of#
the#essential#elements#were#committed.##
#
Section#10#was#assailed#as#void#since#it#provides#that#
Corporate#Officers#and#Directors#of#a#company#found#to#be#in#
violation#of#R.A.#No.#8042#shall#be#themselves#be#jointly#and#
solidarily#liable#with#the#corporation#or#partnership#for#the#
aforesaid# claims# and# damages.# It# is# claimed# that# this#
automatic#liability#is#violative#of#due#process.##
#
ISSUES:#
4. Whether!or!not!Sections!29!and!30!are!valid.!
5. Whether!or!not!Sections!6,!7,!and!9!of!RA!8042!are!void.!
6. Whether!or!not!Section!10!is!void.!
HELD:#
1. It# issue# is# moot# and# academic.# During!the!pendency!of!
the! case,! R.A.! No.! 9422! (An! Act! to! Strengthen! the!
Regulatory! Functions! of! the! POEA)! was! passed! which!
repealed!Section!29!and!30!or!R.A.!No.!8042.!!
2. No.# Section# 6# is# not# void.# "Illegal! recruitment"! as!
defined! in! Section! 6! is! clear! and! unambiguous! and,!
contrary!to!the!RTCs!finding,!actually!makes!a!distinction!

between! licensed! and! non;licensed! recruiters.! By! its!


terms,! persons! who! engage! in! "canvassing,! enlisting,!
contracting,! transporting,! utilizing,! hiring,! or! procuring!
workers"!without!the!appropriate!government!license!or!
authority!are!guilty!of!illegal!recruitment!whether!or!not!
they! commit! the! wrongful! acts! enumerated! in! that!
section.!On!the!other!hand,!recruiters!who!engage!in!the!
canvassing,! enlisting,! etc.! of! OFWs,! although! with! the!
appropriate! government! license! or! authority,! are! guilty!
of! illegal! recruitment! only! if! they! commit! any! of! the!
wrongful!acts!enumerated!in!Section!6.!
!
No.#Section#7#is#not#void.!The!law!can!impose!such!grave!
penalties! upon! what! it! believed! were! specific! acts! that!
were!not!as!condemnable!as!the!others!in!the!lists.!
!
No.# Section# 9# is# not# void.!There!is!nothing!arbitrary!or!
unconstitutional! in! Congress! fixing! an! alternative! venue!
for! violations! of! Section! 6! of! R.A.! 8042! that! differs! from!
the! venue! established! by! the! Rules! on! Criminal!
Procedure.! Section! 15(a),! Rule! 110! allows! exception! to!
the!rule!especially!if!stated!by!a!law.!!
!
3. No.# Section# 10# is# valid.!Section!10!is!not!automatic.!To!
make! them! jointly! and! solidarily! liable! with! their!
company,! there! must! be! a! finding! that! they! were! remiss!
in! directing! the! affairs! of! that! company,! such! as!
sponsoring!or!tolerating!the!conduct!of!illegal!activities.!
#
67.# In# the# Matter# of# the# Brewing# Controversies# In# the#
Elections#of#the#IBP#
#
#

68.#Aquino#v.#Philippine#Ports#Authority#
#
FACTS:#
The! Congress! of! the! Philippines! passed! on! 21! August!
1989! R.A.! No.! 6758,! otherwise! known! as! the! Salary!
Standardization!Law,!which!became!effective!on!July!1,!1989.!!
Previously,! on! 31! August! 1979,! then! President! Marcos!
issued!Letter!of!Implementation!No.!97!(LOI!No.!97),!authorizing!
the! implementation! of! standard! compensation! position!
classification! plans! for! the! infrastructure/utilities! group! of!
government;owned! or! controlled! corporations.! On! the! basis!
thereof,! the! Philippine! Ports! Authority! (PPA)! issued!
Memorandum! Circular! No.! 57;87! dated! 1! October! 1987! which!
granted! to! its! officials! holding! managerial! and! supervisory!
positions! representation! and! transportation! allowance! (RATA)!
in!an!amount!equivalent!to!40%!of!their!basic!salary.!Thereafter,!
on! 23! October! 1989,! PPA! issued! Memorandum! Circular! No.! 36;
89,!which!extended!the!RATA!entitlement!to!its!Section!Chiefs!or!
heads! of! equivalent! units,! Terminal! Supervisors! and! senior!
personnel! at! the! rate! of! 20%! of! their! basic! pay.! And,! on! 14!
November! 1990,! PPA! issued! Memorandum! Circular! No.! 46;! 90,!
which! adjusted! effective! 1! January! 1990,! the! RATA! authorized!
under!Memorandum!Circular!No.!36;89,!from!20%!to!40%!based!
on!the!standardized!salary!rate.!
The! Commission! on! Audit! (COA)! Corporate! Auditor,!
however,! disallowed! in! post;audit! the! payment! of! the! RATA!
differentials.!It!likewise!disallowed!in!audit!the!grant!of!RATA!to!
PPA! Section! Chiefs! or! heads! of! equivalent! units,! Terminal!
Supervisors! and! senior! personnel! occupying! positions! with!
salary! grades! of! 17! and! above! who! were! appointed! after! the!
effectivity!of!R.A.!No.!6758.!!!
In! view! of! the! disallowances,! the! affected! PPA! officials,!
filed! a! petition! before! the! Supreme! Court! claiming! their!

entitlement! to! the! RATA! provided! for! under! LOI! No.! 97.! In! that!
case,!the!Supreme!Court!ruled!that!an!official!to!be!entitled!to!the!
continued!RATA!benefit!under!LOI!No.!97!must!be!an!incumbent!
as!of!1!July!1989!and!more!importantly,!was!receiving!the!RATA!
provided!by!LOI!No.!97!as!of!1!July!1989.!!
Thus,! in! the! PPA,! second! category! consists! of! officials!
who!were!not!incumbents!as!of!1!July!1989!or!were!appointed!or!
promoted! to! their! positions! only! after! 1! July! 1989.! The! second!
category! officials! therefore! receive! a! lesser! RATA! under! the!
General! Appropriations! Act! although! they! hold! the! same! rank,!
title! and! may! have! the! same! responsibilities! as! their!
counterparts!in!the!first!category.!!
!
On! July! 26,! 2000,! the! petitioners! in! this! case,! who! were!
second! category! officials,! filed! a! petition! for! Mandamus! and!
Prohibition,! claiming! anew! that! they! were! entitled! to! RATA! in!
the!amount!not!exceeding!40%!of!their!respective!basic!salaries.!
They!claimed!that!to!rule!otherwise!would!be!a!violation!of!their!
constitutional!right!to!equal!protection.!
!
!
ISSUES:##
1. Whether! or! not! the! PPA! in! denying! the! claim! of! the!
petitioners! for! 40%! RATA! has! committed! a! violation! of!
their!constitutional!right!to!equal!protection!!
!
HELD:#
1. No.!
The! Court! ruled! that! the! Constitution! does! not! require! that!
things!which!are!different!in!fact!be!treated!in!law!as!though!they!
were! the! same.! The! equal! protection! clause! does! not! prohibit!
discrimination!as!to!things!that!are!different.!It!does!not!prohibit!
legislation! which! is! limited! either! in! the! object! to! which! it! is!
directed!or!by!the!territory!within!which!it!is!to!operate.!!

The! equal! protection! of! the! laws! clause! of! the! Constitution!
allows! classification.! A! law! is! not! invalid! simply! because! of!
simple! inequality.! All! that! is! required! of! a! valid! classification! is!
that!it!be!reasonable,!which!means!that!the!classification!should!
be! based! on! substantial! distinctions! which! make! for! real!
differences,! that! it! must! be! germane! to! the! purpose! of! the! law;!
that!it!must!not!be!limited!to!existing!conditions!only;!and!that!it!
must!apply!equally!to!each!member!of!the!class.!
The! different! treatment! accorded! to! the! incumbents! as! of! 1!
July! 1989,! on! one! hand,! and! those! employees! hired! on! or! after!
the! said! date,! on! the! other,! with! respect! to! the! grant! of! non;
integrated!benefits!lay!in!the!fact!that!the!legislature!intended!to!
gradually! phase! out! the! said! benefits! without,! however,!
upsetting!its!policy!of!non;diminution!of!pay!and!benefits.!!
Therefore,!the!aforesaid!provision!does!not!infringe!the!equal!
protection!clause!of!the!Constitution!as!it!is!based!on!reasonable!
classification! intended! to! protect! the! rights! of! the! incumbents!
against!diminution!of!their!pay!and!benefits.!
Thus,!the!Court!denied!the!petition.!
#
69.#Garcia#v.#Drilon#
#
70.# National# Artist# For# Literature# Almario# v.# Executive#
Secretary#
#
FACTS:#
!
!On! May! 6,! 2009,! a! list! of! the! recommendation! of! the!
National! Commission! for! Culture! and! the! Arts! (NCCA)! Board! of!
Commissioners!and!the!Cultural!Center!of!the!Philippines!(CCP)!
Board! of! Trustees! for! the! Proclamation! of! Conde,! Santos,!
Francisco,! and! Aguilar;Alcuaz! for! the! 2009! Order! of! National!
Artists!was!sent!to!then!President!Arroyo.!Meanwhile,!the!Office!
of! the! President! allegedly! received! nominations! from! various!

sectors!strongly!endorsing!private!respondents!Guidote;Alvarez,!
Caparas,!Maosa,!and!Moreno.!Acting!on!the!recommendation!of!
the! Committee! of! Honors,! Conde,! Francisco,! Aguilar;Alcuaz,!
Guidote;Alvarez,!Caparas,!Maosa,!and!Moreno!were!declared!as!
National! Artists! in! Proclamations! 1823! to! 1829! and!
subsequently! announced! to! the! public! by! then! Executive!
Secretary!Ermita.!
!
Convinced! that! it! is! the! exclusive! province! of! the! NCCA!
Board!of!Commissioners!and!the!CCP!Board!of!Trustees!to!select!
and! set! the! standard! for! entry! into! the! select! group! of! National!
Artists,! petitioners! pray! for! the! conferment! of! the! Order! of!
National!Artists!on!Santos!and!the!enjoinment!of!the!conferment!
on! Guidote;Alvarez,! Caparas,! Maosa,! and! Moreno! for! having!
been!rendered!in!grave!abuse!of!discretion.!
#
ISSUES:#
1. Whether!the!petitioners!have!standing.!
2. Whether! the! remedies! in! the! present! action! for!
prohibition,! certiorari,! injunction,! restraining! order! and!
all!other!legal,!just!and!equitable!reliefs!for!are!proper.!
3. Whether!the!discretion!of!the!President!is!limited.!
!
HELD:#
4. Yes.!
The! petitioning! National! Artists! will! be! denied! the! privilege!
of! exclusive! membership! in! the! Order! of! National! Artists! as! a!
result! of! the! conferment! of! the! award! on! respondents! Guidote;
Alvarez,! Caparas,! Maosa,! and! Moreno.! Section! 2(a)! of! EO! No.!
236! states! that! the! Order! of! National! Artists! is! an! exclusive!
association! of! honored! individuals! and! to! ensure! this!
exclusivity,! a! rigid! nomination! and! screening! process! has! been!
established.! To! allow! the! discretion! and! authority! of! the!

President! to! confer! the! Order! without! regard! to! the! rigorous!
process!will!diminish,!if!not!negate,!this!exclusive!nature.!
While!petitioner!Abad!cannot!claim!entitlement!to!the!Order,!
he! is! entitled! to! equal! opportunity! to! vie! for! that! honor! thus,!
there!was!a!violation!of!his!right!to!equal!protection,!an!interest!
substantial!enough!to!confer!him!standing.!
Notwithstanding!the!lack!of!standing!of!the!other!concerned!
artists! and! academics! as! well! as! the! Concerned! Artists! of! the!
Philippines!in!their!claim!of!deep!concern!for!the!preservation!of!
the! countys! heritage! and! status! as! taxpayers,! the! Court! relaxes!
the! rules! on! standing! to! resolve! the! issue! as! it! is! of! paramount!
interest.!
!
5. Yes.!
While! the! remedies! of! prohibition! and! injunction! are!
preventive! and! cannot! be! availed! of! when! the! act! is! already!
fait! accompli,! the! Court! may! still! resolve! its! merits! for! the!
future! guidance! of! the! bench! and! bar! as! it! is! capable! of!
repetition,! yet! evading! review.! If! not! corrected,! it! may! give!
rise! to! mischief! and! dangerous! precedent! where! those! with!
power! could! avoid! judicial! intervention! and! review! by!
merely!speedily!completing!the!illegality.!
There! is! also! no! procedural! bar! to! pass! upon! a! petition!
for! certiorari! wherein! the! question! of! grave! abuse! of!
presidential! discretion! in! the! proclamations! of! respondents!
as!National!Artists!is!being!assailed.!!
6. Yes.!
While!the!President!has!the!option!to!adopt!or!not!adopt!
the! recommendation! of! the! NCAA! and! CCP! Boards,! this!
discretion!is!not!totally!unfettered!otherwise,!the!role!of!the!
Boards!will!be!meaningless.!The!power!of!the!president!must!
be!exercised!in!accordance!with!existing!laws!and!Section!17,!

Article!VII!of!the!Constitution!prescribes!faithful!execution!of!
the!laws!by!the!President.!!
There!is!grave!abuse!of!discretion!when!an!act!is!(1)!done!
contrary!to!the!Constitution,!the!law!or!jurisprudence!or!(2)!
executed! whimsically,! capriciously! or! arbitrarily,! out! of!
malice,!ill!will!or!personal!bias.!
EO! 236! prescribes! two! criteria! for! the! Committee! on!
Honors! of! having! no! abuse! of! discretion! in! making! the!
nomination! and! that! the! nominee! is! in! good! standing! in!
making! the! recommendation! to! the! President.! Pursuant! to!
these!two!criteria,!the!discretion!of!the!President!is!confined!
to! the! names! submitted! to! him! or! her! by! the! Boards.! Thus,!
she! could! not! have! considered! respondents! Guidote;Alvarez!
who! was! disqualified! to! be! nominated! for! being! the!
Executive!Director!of!the!NCAA,!Maosa!and!Caparas!who!did!
not!make!it!to!the!preliminary!shortlist!and!Moreno!who!was!
not!included!in!the!second!shortlist.!Otherwise,!not!only!will!
the! rigorous! selection! process! be! rendered! futile,! the!
respective!mandates!of!the!Boards!will!become!meaningless.!
Furthermore,!the!Guideless!expressly!provides!that!NCCA!
and!CCP!Board!members!and!consultants!and!NCCA!and!CCP!
officers! and! staff! are! automatically! disqualified! from! being!
nominated.! Guidote;Alvarez! could! not! have! even! been!
nominated! and! the! discretion! of! the! former! President! could!
not! have! extended! to! removing! a! legal! impediment! or!
overriding!this!legal!restriction.!!
There! was! a! violation! of! the! equal! protection! clause! of!
the!Constitution!when!the!former!President!gave!preferential!
treatment! to! the! respondents! and! the! conferment! of! the!
order!was!therefore!made!with!grave!abuse!of!discretion!and!
should!be!set!aside.!This!should!not,!however,!be!taken!as!a!
pronouncement!on!whether!they!are!worthy!to!be!conferred!

that!honor!as!only!the!President,!upon!the!advise!of!the!NCCA!
and!CCP!Boards,!may!determine!that.!!
As! regards! the! exclusion! of! Santos,! it! did! not! constitute!
grave! abuse! of! discretion.! It! is! within! the! power! of! the!
President! to! alter,! modify,! nullify,! or! set! aside! the!
recommendation!or!advice!and!to!proclaim!all,!some,!or!even!
none!of!the!recommendees!of!the!Boards,!without!having!to!
justify!his!or!her!action.!!
The! petition! is! thus! granted! in! part! and! the!
proclamations! of! the! respondents! as! National! Artists! are!
declared!invalid!and!set!aside.!
#
#
71.#LTFRB#v.#Stronghold#Insurance#
#
Facts:#
#
The! case! at! bar! seeks! to! review! the! Court! of! Appeals!
decision!annulling!a!government!bidding!to!accredit!providers!of!
accident! insurance! to! operators! of! passenger! public! utility!
vehicles.! The! petitioners! are! chairmen! and! members! of! the!
Special! Bids! and! Awards! Committee! and! the! Land!
Transportation! Franchising! and! Regulatory! Board! (Petitioner)!
while! the! respondent! is! Stronghold! Insurance! Company,! Inc.!
(Respondent).!The!subject!of!the!cases!arises!from!the!creation!of!
the! Passenger! Personal! Accident! Insurance! Program! (Program)!
which! will! accredit! two! groups! of! insurance! providers! through!
open! bidding.! In! 2005,! Universal! Transport! Solutions,! Inc.! was!
selected!as!one!of!the!two!groups,!the!lead!insurer!of!which!was!
Respondent.! Subsequent! to! the! selection,! the! accredited! group!
was!engaged!in!a!five;year!contract!with!the!LTFRB,!embodied!in!
a!Memorandum!of!Agreement!with!a!Matching!Clause,!providing!
that!in!subsequent!biddings!to!the!expiration!of!the!contract,!the!
prior! accredited! group! may! opt! to! match! the! bid! of! the! highest!

bid! to! be! accredited! again.! Before! the! Memorandum! of!


Agreement! expired,! the! LTFRB! opened! public! bidding! under!
Terms! of! Reference,! which! in! effect! added! a! third! reference,!
requiring! a! minimum! of! ten! (10)! members! and! the! lead! insurer!
capitalizing! PHP! 250! million,! in! contrast! to! the! first! and! second!
reference! which! may! be! aggregated.! Before! the! bidding! was!
complete,! Respondent! filed! for! a! writ! of! prohibition,! with! the!
contention! that! they! were! unjustly! disqualified! (Respondents!
group! only! consisted! of! six! members,! and! as! lead! insurer,! only!
had! PHP! 140! million,! falling! short! of! the! PHP! 250! million!
requirement),! as! the! third! reference! was! clearly! discriminatory!
against! those! similarly! situated.! The! Court! of! Appeals! found!
merit! in! Respondents! (Then! petitioner)! contention,! finding! the!
LTFRB!abused!its!discretion!in!implementing!the!third!reference.!
The!Court!of!Appeals!also!held!that!Respondent!had!the!right!to!
make!use!of!the!post;bid!Matching!Clause.!
!
Issues:#
#
1.!Whether!or!not!the!third!reference!implemented!by!the!
LTFRB!amounts!to!abuse!of!discretion!
!
Held:!
!
The! Court! found! that! the! Court! of! Appeals! erred! in!
affirming! Respondents! petition,! and! that! it! is! within! the!
discretionary! power! of! the! LTFRB! to! implement! the! third!
reference.!It!is!important!to!note!that!the!issuance!of!the!writ!of!
prohibition!not!only!requires!an!abuse!of!discretion,!but!a!grave!
abuse! of! discretion,! and! even! then! it! would! not! prosper! in! this!
case! as! there! was! in! fact! no! abuse! of! discretion.! The! Court!
acknowledges! that! it! is! within! the! powers! of! the! LTFRB! to!
determine! policies! best! suited! to! serve! the! publics! interest.! In!
this! case,! the! LTFRB! was! doing! its! duty! under! its! charter! to!
formulate,!promulgate,!administer,!implement!and!enforce!rules!

and! regulations! on! land! transportation! public! utilities.! Setting!


the!standard!for!insurance!of!public!utilities!serves!this!purpose,!
as!it!is!an!exercise!of!Police!Power!in!ensuring!financially!sound!
mandatory! insurance! for! the! public! welfare.! Additionally,! the!
Court! found! that! the! Matching! Clause! is! void! as! it! requires! the!
government! to! award! the! accreditation! by! right! of! first! refusal,!
which! defeats! the! purpose! of! a! public! bidding.! Thus! the! Court!
granted!the!petition!and!sets!aside!the!Court!of!Appeals!decision.!
#
72.#Imbong#v.#Ochoa#
#
73.#Spouses#Dacudao#v.#DOJ#
#
FACTS:!
!
The! petitioners! Augusto! G.! Dacudao! and! Ofelia! R.!
Dacudao,!residents!of!Davao!City,!were!among!the!investors!who!
Celso!G.!Delos!Angeles,!Jr.!and!his!associates!in!the!Legacy!Group!
of! Companies! allegedly! defrauded! through! a! buy! back!
agreement!that!earned!them!dishonored!check!payments.!After!
written! demands! for! the! return! of! their! investments! went!
unheeded,!the!spouses!Dacudao!initiated!a!number!of!charges!for!
syndicated! estafa! against! Delos! Angeles,! Jr.! in! the! Office! of! the!
City! Prosecutor! of! Davao! City.! Subsequently,! the! Secretary! of!
Justice! issued! DO! No.! 182! which! directed! all! Regional! State!
Prosecutors,! Provincial! Prosecutors,! and! City! Prosecutors! to!
forward! all! cases! already! filed! against! Delos! Angeles,! Jr.! to! the!
Secretariat! of! the! DOJ! Special! Panel! in! Manila! for! appropriate!
action.!Pursuant!to!the!order,!the!complaints!of!petitioners!were!
forwarded!to!the!Secretariat!of!the!Special!Panel.!!
!
The! petitioners! then! came! to! court! via! petition! for!
certiorari,! prohibition,! and! mandamus,! contending! the!
respondent! Secretary! of! Justice! committed! grave! abuse!

discretion!in!issuing!DO!No.!182,!which!they!claim!violated!their!
right! to! due! process,! equal! protection! of! the! laws,! and! speedy!
disposition! of! cases.! Petitioners! also! challenge! as!
unconstitutional! the! issuance! of! another! DOJ! Memorandum!
dated!March!2,!2009!exempting!from!the!coverage!of!DO!No.!182!
all! cases! for! syndicated! estafa! already! filed! and! ending! in! the!
Office!of!the!City!Prosecutor!of!Cagayan!de!Oro!City,!as!this!also!
violates!their!right!to!equal!protection!under!the!Constitution.!
!
ISSUES:!
1.!
Whether! or! not! the! Secretary! of! Justice! commited! grave!
abuse! of! discretion! in! issuing! DO! No.! 182! and! violated!
petitioners! right! to! due! process,! equal! protection! of! the! laws,!
and!speedy!disposition!of!cases.!
!
2.!
Whether!or!not!DO!No.!182!and!DOJ!Memorandum!dated!
March! 2,! 2009! violate! petitioners! constitutionally! guaranteed!
rights! by! exempting! from! coverage! of! DO! No.! 182! all! cases!
already! filed! in! the! Office! of! the! City! Prosecutor! of! Cagayan! de!
Oro!City.!
!
HELD:!
1.!
NO.!
!
!
The! petition! did! not! show! that! the! Secretary! of! Justice!
acted! without! or! in! excess! of! his! jurisdiction.! The! Secretary! of!
Justice!is!in!fact!not!exercising!judicial!or!quasi;judicial!functions!
as!the!issuances!were!intended!to!ensure!subordinates!efficiency!
in! the! conduct! of! the! preliminary! investigation! of! all! the! cases!
involving! the! Legacy! Group,! which! itself! is! not! a! quasi;judicial!
proceeding.! Nor! does! the! DOJ! exercise! quasi;judicial! function!
when!it!reviews!the!findings!of!a!public!prosecutor!on!the!finding!
of!probable!cause!in!any!case.!

!
!
Additionally,! DO! No.! 182! enjoyed! a! strong! presumption!
of!its!validity.!It!was!issued!pursuant!to!Department!Order!No.!84!
that! the! Secretary! of! Justice! promulgated! to! govern! the!
performance! of! the! mandate! of! the! DOJ! to! administer! the!
criminal! justice! system! in! accordance! with! the! accepted!
processes! thereof.! To! overcome! this! strong! presumption! of!
validity,! the! petitioners! must! prove! unconstitutionality! and!
invalidity! by! showing! that! DO! No.! 182! exceeded! the! bounds! of!
pertinent! laws.! This! was! not! done.! DO! No.! 182! did! not! deprive!
petitioners! in! any! degree! of! their! right! to! seek! redress! for! the!
wrong!done!the!by!the!Legacy!Group,!and!was!in!fact!designed!to!
assist!petitioners!and!others!like!them.!
!
!
DO! No.! 182! also! did! not! violate! petitioners! right! to!
speedy! disposition! of! cases.! Although! the! Constitution!
guarantees! such! right,! speedy! disposition! is! a! flexible! concept.!
To! properly! define! it,! the! facts! and! circumstances! surrounding!
each!case!must!be!evaluated!and!taken!into!account.!Violation!of!
this! right! occurs! when! proceedings! are! attended! by! vexatious,!
capricious,! and! oppressive! delays! or! when! unjustified!
postponements! happen.! The! consolidation! of! cases! against!
Delos! Angeles,! Jr.! was! ordered! to! obtain! expeditions! justice! for!
the!parties!with!the!least!cost!and!vexation!to!them.!!
!
2.!
NO.!
!
!
The! equal! protection! clause! of! the! Constitution! does! not!
require! the! universal! application! of! the! laws! to! all! persons! or!
things! without! distinction.! What! it! requires! simple! is! equality!
among!equals!as!determined!according!to!a!valid!classification.!If!
a!law!neither!burdens!a!fundamental!right!nor!targets!a!suspect!
class,! the! classification! stands! as! long! as! it! bears! a! rational!

relationship! to! some! legitimate! government! end.! In! issuing! DOJ!


Memorandum!dated!March!2,!2009!the!Secretary!of!Justice!took!
into! account! the! distance! between! CDO,! where! many!
complainants! against! Legacy! resided,! and! Manila,! where! the!
preliminary!investigations!would!be!conducted.!He!also!took!into!
account! that! cases! had! already! been! filed! in! the! CDO! City!
Prosecutors!Office!at!the!time!DO!No.!182!was!issued.!Given!the!
great!number!of!complainants!residing!in!CDO!City,!the!Secretary!
of! Justice! was! justified! in! excluding! the! cases! commenced! there!
from!the!ambit!of!DO!No.!182.!!
#
74.#Goldenway#v.#Equitable#
#
FACTS:!#
!
!The!case!is!a!petition!for!certiorari!that!seeks!to!reverse!
and! set! aside! the! Decision! of! Court! of! Appeals.! The! Court! of!
Appeals! upheld! the! Decision! of! the! Regional! Trial! Court! of!
Valenzuela!City!which!dismissed!the!Complaint!in!Civil!Case!No.!
295;V;01.!
!
On! November! 29,! 1985,! Goldenway! Merchandising!
executed! a! real! estate! mortgage! in! favor! of! Equitable! PCI! Bank!
over!its!real!properties!in!Valenzuela,!Bulacan.!It!secured!the!P!2!
Million! loan! granted! by! Equitable! to! Goldenway.! However,!
Goldenway!failed!to!settle!the!loan!which!led!to!the!extrajudicial!
foreclosure!of!the!mortgage!by!Equitable!on!December!13,!2000.!
The! mortgaged! properties! were! sold! for! P! 3.5! Million! to!
Equitable!during!a!public!auction.!A!Certificate!of!Sale!was!issued!
on!January!26,!2001!and!it!was!registered!in!February!16,!2001.!
Goldenways! counsel! tried! to! redeem! the! foreclosed!
properties!by!offering!a!check!worth!P!3.5!Million!however!they!
were! told! that! redemption! is! impossible! because! the! certificate!
of!sale!is!already!registered!under!Equitables!name.!Goldenway!
then! filed! a! Complaint! asserting! its! vested! right! of! redemption!

and!that!the!one;year!period!of!redemption!under!Act!No.!3135!
should! prevail! over! the! shorter! redemption! period! provided! in!
Republic! Act! No.! 8791! since! the! parties! have! expressly! agreed!
that!the!foreclosure!of!the!properties!will!be!in!accordance!with!
Act!No.!3135.!It!argued!that!applying!RA!No.!8791!would!impair!
the! obligation! of! contracts! and! violate! the! equal! protection!
clause!in!the!Constitution.!Goldenway!claimed!that!Equitable!did!
not! inform! them! of! the! assessment! and! fees! incurred! by! the!
latter!which!deprived!Goldenway!the!opportunity!to!exercise!its!
right!of!redemption!prior!to!the!registration!of!the!certificate!of!
sale.! Furthermore,! RA! No! 8791! is! a! general! banking! law! while!
Act! No.! 3135! is! a! special! law! on! real! estate! mortgage! and!
foreclosure,! thus,! the! petitioners! argue! that! the! latter! should!
prevail.!!
Equitable! answered! that! the! redemption! price! of! the!
properties! was! provided! in! RA! 8791! and! that! Goldenway! had!
ample! time! to! redeem! the! properties! from! the! time! it! received!
the!letter!of!demand!and!the!notice!of!sale!before!its!registration.!
Also,!section!47!of!RA!8791!entitled!The!General!Banking!Law!of!
2000!amended!Act!No.!3135.!!
!
RTC! dismissed! Goldenways! Complaint.! Goldenway!
appealed! to! CA! which! only! upheld! RTCs! decision.! Thus,! the!
Petition!for!Certiorari!before!the!Court.!
!
ISSUE:#
!
Whether! or! not! Act! 3135! which! provides! for! a! one;year!
redemption! period! should! apply! and! not! RA! 8791! which!
provides!for!a!shorter!period.!
!
HELD/RATIO:#
!
!The!Court!ruled!that!RA!8791!should!prevail.!

It!found!no!basis!on!Goldenways!contention!that!Section!
47!of!RA!No.!8791!violates!the!constitutional!proscription!against!
impairment! of! obligation! of! contract.! Impairment! is! anything!
that! diminishes! the! efficacy! of! the! contract.! There! is! an!
impairment!if!a!subsequent!law!changes!the!terms!of!a!contract!
between! the! parties,! imposes! new! conditions,! dispenses! with!
those! agreed! upon! or! withdraws! remedies! for! the! enforcement!
of! the! rights! of! the! parties.! Section! 47! did! not! divest! juridical!
persons! of! the! right! to! redeem! their! foreclosed! properties! but!
only!modified!the!time!for!the!exercise!of!such!right!by!reducing!
the!one;year!period!originally!provided!in!Act!No.!3135.!The!new!
redemption!period!commences!from!the!date!of!foreclosure!sale,!
and! expires! upon! registration! of! the! certificate! of! sale! or! three!
months!after!foreclosure,!whichever!is!earlier.!
There! is! likewise! no! retroactive! application! of! the! new!
redemption! period! because! Section! 47! exempts! from! its!
operation!those!properties!foreclosed!prior!to!its!effectivity!and!
whose!owners!shall!retain!their!redemption!rights!under!Act!No.!
3135.!
!
The! petitioners! contention! that! Section! 47! infringes! the!
equal! protection! clause! because! it! has! a! different! treatment!
towards!mortgagors/property!owners!who!are!juridical!persons!
is!not!meritorious.!!
The! equal! protection! clause,! although! against! undue!
favor!and!individual!or!class!privilege,!does!not!require!absolute!
equality.! It! merely! requires! that! all! persons! be! treated! alike!
under! like! conditions! both! as! to! privileges! conferred! and!
liabilities!imposed.!It!permits!reasonable!classification!especially!
if! the! classification! is! germane! to! the! purpose! of! the! law,!
concerns!all!members!of!the!class,!and!applies!equally!to!present!
and!future!conditions.!The!difference!in!the!treatment!of!juridical!
persons! and! natural! persons! was! based! on! the! nature! of! the!

properties!foreclosed!!if!for!residence,!the!more!liberal!one;year!
period!will!apply!while!for!industrial!or!commercial,!the!shorter!
term!is!deemed!necessary!to!reduce!the!period!of!uncertainty!in!
the! ownership! of! property! and! enable! mortgagee;banks! to!
dispose! sooner! of! these! acquired! assets.! Section! 47! aims! at!
ensuring!that!the!banks!will!remain!solvent!and!liquid,!thus,!the!
provision! amending! the! redemption! period! of! Act! No! 3135! was!
based!on!a!reasonable!classification!and!germane!to!the!purpose!
of!the!law.!
!
Also,! the! Court! held! that! the! right! of! redemption! is!
statutory!and!must!be!exercised!in!the!manner!prescribed!by!the!
statute! and! within! the! prescribed! time! limit.! Also,! it! has! to! give!
way! to! police! power! exercised! for! public! welfare.! Freedom! to!
contract!is!not!absolute;!all!contracts!and!all!rights!are!subject!to!
the!police!power!of!the!State.!The!right!granted!by!this!provision!
must!submit!to!the!demands!and!necessities!of!the!States!power!
of!regulation.!!!
!
Wherefore,!petition!for!certiorari!is!DENIED.!!
#