Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
GONZALES V COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS
; November 9, 1967
DE LEON V ESGUERRA
; August 31, 1987
TOLENTINO V COMMISSION ON
SANTIAGO V COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS
DAVIDE; March 19, 1997
ELECTIONS
; October 16, 1971
PLANAS V COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
FACTS
At ty. Je su s De lf in fi le d to th e C OM EL EC a pe ti tio n to
amend the Constitution through a peoples initiative. In
his petition, he wanted to amend Sec 4 and 7 of Article
6, Sec 4 of Article 7 and Sec 8 of Article 10 in order to lift
the term lim its of all elective governmen t officials. He
asks the COMELEC to assist them in gathering the
sufficient number of signatures by setting up signature
stations all over the country, as required by COMELEC
Resolution No. 2300. The COMELEC took cognizance of
their petition and set the ca se up for hearin g. Senato r
Raul Roco then filed a motion to dismiss before the
COMELEC, stating that it was not the initiatory petition
properly cognizable before the COMELEC. Sen. Miriam
Defensor Santiago, on the other hand, filed a special civil
action for prohibition, sa ying that RA 6735 is deficient
insofar as the initiative for amending the Constitution is
concerned. She further alleges that what the petitioners
are willing to propose are not amendments, but
revisions. Thereafter, LABAN, DIK and MABINI filed their
motions for intervention, arguing on the same points.
ISSUES
1. W ON the cou rt can ta ke action of thi s case despite
there being a pending case before the COMELEC
2. WON RA 6735 is an adequate enabling law for
peoples initiative
3. WON the COMELEC resolution no. 2300 is valid
4 . W ON the COMEL EC acted wi thout jur isdi ction or in
grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin
petition
HELD
1 . Yes . C o m e l e c s f a i l u r e t o a c t o n r o co s m o t i o n t o
dismiss and its insistence to hold on to the petition
rendered ripe and viable the instant petition under sec 2
rule 65 of rules of court
- Case may be treated as a special civil action for
certiorari since delfin didnt come up with the minimum
number of signatures
- Court may brush aside technicalities in cases of
transcendental importance.
2. No. The law is inadequate.
- F i r st , i n Se c 2 of th e Act ( S ta te m e n t a n d Po l i c y) , i t
seems that the word Constitution was a delayed
afterthought. The word Constitution was neither
germane nor relevant to the said section. It only proves
that it is silent to amendments in the constitution.
- Second, in the Act does not provide for the contents of
a petition for initiative on the constitution.
- Third, there is no separate subtitle for initiative for the
Constitution.
- Therefore, it seems that the main thrust of the act is on
initiative and referendum of national and local laws. It
failed to provide for details in implementation of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
SEPARATE OPINION
PUNO [concur and dissent]
RA 6735 is not defective. The intent of the framers was
to provide for a law for initiative on amendments to the
Constitution. (he cited the sponsorship remarks of Roco)
VITUG
The COMELEC should have dismissed the petition, since
it did not have the required number of signatures.
PANGANIBAN
RA 6735 is not perfect but taken together with the
Constitution and COMELEC Res. No. 2300, it is sufficient
to implement Constitutional initiatives.
RESOLUTION
;
ESTRADA V DESIERTO
PUNO;
FACTS
- Nature:
Writ
of
Preliminary
Injunction
against
element of the government only and it was done intraconstitutionally because GMA swore to uphold or protect
the 1987 Constitution. Read it if u want a better
understanding. Also, the Court is interpreting ART II
sec 1, ART VII Sec 8 and ART VII Se c 11 in this case
so look at those provisions too.)
2. The Court held that resignation shall be determined
from the totality of prior, contemporaneous and
ISSUES
1. WON the petitions present a justiciable controversy
2. WON the petitioner resigned as president
3. WON the petitioner is only temporarily unable to act
as president
4 . W ON the p e ti ti on e r en jo ys i m mu ni t y fr om su i t ( an d
a s s u m i n g h e e n jo y s i m m u n i t y, th e ex te n t o f th e
immunity)
5. WON the prosecution of petitioner Estrada should be
enjoined due to prejudicial publicity.
HELD
1 . The Cour t sha ll con sider as ju sticiable the issue of
W ON t h e c h a n g e i n t h e p r e s i d e n c y w a s d o n e i n t h e
m an ne r pr e scr i be d b y th e 1 98 7 C on sti tu tio n . (In this
p ar t, th e p on en te di ffer en ti a te d ED SA I f ro m ED SA II
saying that EDSA I was a revolution, change of
presidency was done extra-constitutionally whereas
EDSA II was not a revolution, the change was done to an
GONZALES V NARVASA
GONZAGA-REYES; August 14, 2000
FACTS
- Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reform or
PCCR was created by then President Joseph Estrada on
N o v 2 6 , 1 9 9 8 b y v i r tu e o f E x e cu t i v e O r d e r N o . 4 3 i n
order to study and recommend proposed amendments
and/or revisions to the 1987 Constitution, and the
manner of implementing the same.
> The PCCR was instructed to complete its task on or
before June 30, 1999. On Feb 19, 1999, the President
i ssu e d Ex e cu ti v e O r d e r N o . 7 0 w h i ch e x te n d e d th e
time frame of the PCCRs work until Dec 31 1999.
> The PC C R su b mi tte d i ts r eco mm en da ti on s to th e
President on Dec 20, 1999 and was dissolved by the
President on the same day.
- Ramon Gonzales, in his capacity as citizen and
taxpayer, filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus,
assailing the constitutionality of the creation of the PCCR
on two grounds:
> i t is a p ub li c offi ce wh i ch o nl y th e le gi sl a tu re ca n
create by way of law
> by creating the PCCR, the President is intervening in
a p r o ce ss f r o m w h i ch h e i s t o ta l l y ex cl u d e d b y th e
Constitution, i.e. the amendment of the fundamental
charter.
- In this regard, Gonzales:
> seeks to enjoin the PCCR and the presidential
con sul tants, advisers and assi stan ts from acting as
such
> seeks to enjoin Exec Sec Ronaldo Zamora from
enforcing their advice and recommendations
> s e e k s t o e n j o i n t h e C o m m i s s i o n o n Au d i t f r o m
passin g in audi t expendi ture s for the PC CR and the
presidential consultants, advisers and assistants
> prays for an order compelling respondent Zamora to
furnish petitioner with information on certain matters.
STATE DEFINED
SOVEREIGNTY
AND
SOVEREIGN
IMMUNIT Y
ART II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
AND STATE POLICIES
Sec 1: The Philippines is a democratic and republican
state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates form them.
ART V SUFFRAGE
Sec 1: Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the
Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at
least 18 years of age, and who shall have resided in the
Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein
they propose to vote, for at least six months
immediately preceding the election.
No literacy,
p r o p e r t y, o r o t h e r s u b s t a n t i v e r e q u i r e m e n t s h a l l b e
imposed on the exercise of suffrage
Sec 2: The Congress shall provide a system for securing
the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system
for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the
disabled and illiterates to vote without the assistance of
other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote
under existing laws and such rules as the Commission on
Elections may promulgate to protect secrecy of the
ballot.
TANADA V ANGARA
PANGANIBAN; May 2, 1997
FACTS
- Petition for Certiorari
- DT I se cre tar y Ri zal i no N av ar ro si gne d the Fi na l Act
Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of
Multilateral Negotiations. (Final Act). By signing it, he
agreed on behalf of the Philippines
To su b m i t th e W TO a gr e e m e n t to
competent authorities for their approval
o
Adopt the ministerial declarations and
decisions
( Ba si ca l l y, the fi na l act ai m s to li be ra l i ze an d ex pa nd
world trade and strengthen the interrelationship
be tween trade and econo mic policie s affectin g gro wth
and development.)
- The presiden t then sent to the senate a letter whi ch
submits the Uruguay Round Final Act for their
concurrence
- Another letter was sent by the president. This time, he
sub m i ts th e Ur u gua y F i na l R ou nd Act, th e Agr ee me n t
Establishing the WTO, the Ministerial Declarations and
De ci sio n s an d th e U nd er stan di n g on Co m mi tm en ts in
Financial Services to the Senate for its concurrence.
- The Senate adopted Resolution number 97, which
e x p r e sse s th e i r co n cu r r e n ce i n th e r a t i f i ca ti o n o f th e
president of the Agreement Establishing the WTO.
- The President signed the Instrument of Ratification of
the Agreemen t Establ ishin g the W TO and the
a gr e e m e n ts a n d a s so c i a te d l e ga l i n s tr u m e n ts o f t h a t
agreement.
- The final act signed by Secretary Navarro, on the other
hand, embodies not only the W TO agreement but also
the ministerial declarations and decisions and the
understanding on commitments in financial services.
- Pe ti tio ne r s assa il th e con sti tu tio na l i ty o f th e tre a ty.
T h e y a l so cl ai m th a t sin ce the Sen a te on l y co n cu rr ed
with the WTO agreement and not on all the contents of
the Final act, they impliedly rejected the Final act.
o
ISSUES
1. WON the case is justiciable.
2. W ON the parity provision s and nationa l trea tmen t
c l a u se s i n t h e W T O a gr e e m e n t v i o l a t e s S e c . 1 9
Ar ti cle 2 , Se c. 10 an d 12 Ar ti cl e 12 of the
Constitution (economic nationalism clauses).
3. W ON th e W TO a gre e me n t u nd ul y l im i ts, re str i cts
and impairs legislative power of the Congress.
4. WON the WTO agreement intrudes on the power of
the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice and procedures.
5. W ON the concurring of the senate only in the WTO
agreement and not in the final act implies rejection
of the final act.
HELD
- Petition dismissed.
1. Yes.
- The judi ciar y has the duty and power to stri ke do wn
grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of government including Congress
2. No
- T he d ec la rat io n o f p rin c ip les a re no t in t en d e d to
be s e lf-ex ec uting, rather, the y a re jus t a id a nd
g u i d e s b y t h e j u d ic i a r y i n j u d i c i a l r e v i e w , a n d b y
- C o n c e p t o f a u t o - l im i t a t i o n : An y sta te m a y, b y i ts
consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its
sovereign rights. It is not precluded from allowing
another power to participate in the exercise of
jurisdictional right over certain portions of its territory. If
it does so, it by no means follows that such areas
become impressed with an alien character. They retain
their status as native soil . The y are sti ll sub je ct to i ts
authority. Its jurisdiction may be diminished, but it does
not disappear. So it is with the bases under lease to the
Ameri can armed force s by virtue of the mi litar y bases
agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be foreign
territory.
- Therefore, the Philippines jurisdictional rights
o ve r t h e b a s e s , c e rt a i n l y n o t e x c lu d in g t h e p ow e r
t o t a x , h a ve b e e n p r e s e r ve d . As t o c e r t a i n t a x
matters, an appropriate exemption was provided
for.
- Jud gme nt (7 conc ur, 2 co ncur in the resu lt , 1 d id
no t t ak e pa rt )
T h e d e c is io n o f t h e C o u rt o f Tax Ap p e a ls d e n yi n g
the refund of P2,979.00 as the income tax
pa id b y petit io ner is aff irme d.
REPUBLIC V SANDIGANBAYAN
CORONA; July 15, 2003
FACTS
- Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
- Dec 17 1991 , the Republ ic, th rough the Presidential
Commission on Good Government or PCGG, filed a
petition for forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan, entitled
Republic of the Philippines vs. Ferdinand E. - Marcos,
represented by his Estate/heirs and Imelda R. Marcos ,
2
pursuant to RA 1379 .
PCGG was created by virtue of
Executive Order No. 1 issued on Februar y 28,
1 98 6 b y th en Pr e sid en t Co ra zo n Aqu in o , a nd
was charged with the task of assisting the
President in the recovery of all ill-gotten
wealth accumulated by former President
F e r d i n a n d E . M a r c o s , h i s i m m e d i a t e f a m i l y,
relatives, subordina tes and close associate s,
whe ther loca ted in the Ph ilippine s or abroad,
in clu d in g the ta keov er o r se qu e stra ti on o f a ll
business enterprises and entities owned or
controlled by them during is administration,
directly or through nominees, by taking undue
a d v a n ta g e o f th e i r p u b l i c o ffi ce a n d /o r u si n g
their powers, authority, influence, connections
or relationship.
- In said case, petitioner Republic, represented by the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) sought:
2
An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor of the State Any Property To Have Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any
Public Officer or Employee and Providing For the Procedure Therefor.
a.
c.
RESOLUTION
CORONA; November 18, 2003
- SC: Respondents in their motions for reconsideration do
not raise any new matters for the Court to resolve.
I s s u m ma r y j u d g m e n t i n f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g s a
violation of due process?
- Respondents: RA 1379 is penal in substance and effect,
h e n ce th e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s a f e g u a r d s
enjoyed by accused.
- SC: Due process of law has two aspects: substantive
and procedural. There must be a compliance with both
substantive and procedural requirements in order that a
par ticu lar act ma y not be impugned as viola tive of the
due process clause.
GONZALES V MARCOS
FERNANDO; July 31, 1975
FACTS
- Gonzales assailed the validity of EO 30 as an
i m p e r m i ss i b l e e n cr o a ch m e n t b y t h e Pr e si d e n t o n th e
legislative prerogative
- EO 30 has the creation of a trust for the benefit of the
Filipino people under the name and style of the Cultural
Center of the Philippines to awaken our peoples
consciousness in the nations cultural heritage and
encourage its preservation, promotion and development
- In the Cour t of First Instance , stre ss wa s laid on the
funds administered by the Center as coming from
do na tio n s a nd co n tri bu ti on s an d n o t a si n gl e ce n tav o
raised by taxation
HELD
There was NO MAJORITY VOTE reached as the Justices
were equally divided at 7-7. The case was then
redeliberated upon, but the voting still remained the
same. Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED
pursuant to Rule 56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure.
- Those in favor of dismissing petition:
J. Kapunan, J. Davide Jr., J. Bellosillo, J. Quisumbing, J.
Santiago, J. Puno, J. Mendoza
- Those in favor of granting petition:
J. Panganiban, J. Vitug, J. Melo, J. Pardo, J. Buena, J.
Gonzaga-Reyes, J. De Leon
SEPARATE OPINIONS
PUNO [dismiss]
VITUG [grant]
KAPUNAN [dismiss]
MENDOZA [dismiss]
Militar y
Ba ses
Agreemen t
are
A u r o r a R a r a n g w a s a n e m p l o ye e i n t h e O f fi c e o f t h e
Provost Mar shal assigned as the merchandi se con trol
guard.
Wylie, as one of his duties, supervised the publication of
the Plan of the Da y a dail y publica tion that featured
among other s, an a ction line in quir y. On feb.3 ,1978 ,
an inquiry was published saying that confiscated goods
were being consumed/ used for personal benefit by the
mer chandise con trol in spector and tha t a cer tain
Auring was, in herself, a disgrace to the office. Rarang,
being the onl y person named Auring in the said office,
went to press an action for damages against W ylie and
Williams a n d t h e U S N a v a l B a s e . ( T h a t R a r a n g w a s
indeed the Auring mentioned in the inquiry was proven
by the apology letter issued by Wylie for the inadvertent
publication.)
She alleged that the article constituted false, injurious,
and malicious defamation and libel tending to impeach
her honesty, virtue and reputation exposing her to public
hatred, contempt and ridicule.
Defendants alleged that (1) defendants acted in
performance of their official functions as officers of the
U S Navy and are thus immune from sui t (2) U S Naval
Base is immune from suit being an instrumentality of the
US Government and (3) the RTC has no jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties involved.
Lo wer cou rt ruling: defendants pay damages becau se
acts we re n o t offi cia l a cts o f th e U S go ve rn me n t, b u t
personal and tortious acts (which are not included in the
rule that a sovereign country cant be sued wi thout its
consent). Suit against US Naval Base was dismissed.
T h e tr ad i ti on al ru le o f i m mu ni t y excep ts a Sta te f ro m
b e i n g su e d i n th e co u r ts of a n o th e r St a t e wi t h o u t i t s
consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence
of the principles of independence and equality of States.
Because the activities of states have multiplied, it has
been necessary to distinguish them between
sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and
private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis).
T h e r e su l t i s th a t Sta te i mm un i t y no w exten d s o nl y to
acts jure imperii.
T h e r e i s n o q u e s t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , th a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s
actively participated in screening the features and
a r ti c l e s i n t h e P OD a s p a r t o f th e i r o ffi ci a l f u n ct i o n s .
Under the rule that U.S. officials in the performance of
t h e i r o ff i c i a l f u n c t i o n s a r e i m m u n e f r o m su i t , th e n i t
should follow that the petitioners may not be held liable
for the questioned publication.
It is to be noted, however, that the petitioners were sued
in their personal capacities for their alleged tortious acts
in publishing a libelous article.
2. No.
Ratio Our laws and, we presu me, those of the United
S t a t e s d o n o t a l l o w th e c o m m i s s i o n o f c r i m e s i n t h e
n a m e o f o f fi c i a l d u t y. T h e g e n e r a l r u l e i s th a t p u b l i c
o ffi ci a l s ca n b e h e l d p e r so n a l l y a c co u n ta b l e f o r a ct s
claimed to have been performed in connection with
official duties where they have acted ultra vires or where
there is showing of bad faith. Immunity from suit cannot
in stitu tiona li ze irrespon sibil ity and non-accountab ili ty
nor grant a privile ged sta tu s not claimed b y any other
official of the Republic.
U n d e r Ar t. 2 1 7 6 o f th e ci v i l co d e , w h o e v e r b y a ct o r
omission, causes damage to another, there being fault
o r ne gl i gen ce i s ob li ge d to p a y f or the da ma ge d on e.
Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
c o n t r a c tu a l r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s , i s ca l l e d a
quasi-delict a n d i s go v e r n e d b y th e p r ov i s i o n s o f th i s
Chapter.
Indeed the imputation of theft contained in the POD
dated February 3, 1978 is a defamation against the
character and reputation of the private respondent.
Petitioner W ylie himself admitted that the Office of the
Provost Marshal explicitly recommended the deletion of
t h e n a m e Au r i n g i f t h e a r t i c l e w e r e p u b l i s h e d . T h e
p e ti t i o n e r s , h o w e v e r, w e r e n e g l i g e n t b e ca u se u n d e r
their direction they issued the publication without
deleting the name "Auring." Such act or omission is ultra
vires and cannot be part of official duty. It was a tortious
act which ridiculed the private respondent. The
petitioners, alone, in their personal capacities are liable
for the damages they caused the private respondent.
- The rule says that a state may not be sued without its
- Petition is granted, case against petitioners is
governmen tal activi tie s. The man tle of sta te im munity
consent, which clearly imports that it may be sued if it
dismissed.
cannot be extended to commercial, private and
consents.
G.R . No. 80258
proprietary acts.
- Consent may be express or implied.
- The court hesitates to make a conclusion because the
R e a so n i n g
- Express-embodied in a general or special law
record is too meager to indicate if the individual
- When JUSMAG took the services of Sacramento, it was
- Implied-when the state enters into a contract or it
petitioners were acting in the discharge of their official
performing a governmental function on behalf of the US
commences litigation
functions, or had actually exceeded their authority.
pursuant to the Military Assistance Agreement. The suit
- However, not all contracts operate as a waiver of non- Only after needed inquiry in the lower court shall have
is, in effect, one against the US and, considering that the
suabilitya distinction must be made between contracts
determined in what capacity the individual petitioners
US has not waived or consented to the suit, the
entered into in a states governmental and sovereign
were acting will the Court determine if the doctrine of
complaint cannot prosper.
capacity or private, proprietary and commercial capacity
state immunity is applicable.
- Immun ity of State from suit is one of the universal l y
- The latter implies waiver of non-suability, the former
- Petition is dismissed and the respondent court is
recognized principles of international law that the Phils.
does not.
directed to proceed with the hearing and decision.
Reco gni zes and adop ts as part of the la w of the land .
* If it is not proven that the acts were done by the
This is anchored on the principle of sovereign equality of
individual petitioners in the performance of their official
states (an equal has no power over an equal).
JUSMAG
PHILIPPINES
V.
NLRC
functions as officers or agents of the United States, then
D i scu ssi on
they may not invoke immunity form suit.
PUNO; December 15, 1994
- Historical Background of JUSMAG
- The doctrine of state immunity is also applicable
- wa s cr ea te d pu r su an t to th e M il i tar y Assi stan ce
to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts
FACTS
Agreement dated March 21, 1947 between the
allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their
- Florencio Sacramento was one of the 74 security
Philippines and the US; primary task was to advise
duties.
assistance support personnel (SASP) working at JUSMAG
a nd a ssi st the Ph i li pp i ne s o n ai r fo rce , a rm y a nd
- The fact tha t the acts were do ne b y the
Phils.; he had been with JUSMAG for more than 20yrs
naval matters
ind ivid ua l pet it io ners in the perf ormance of their
(1969-1992); was dismissed on April 27, 1992
- in 1991, US manifested its preparedness to provide
official functions as officers or agents of the
- He filed a complaint with the Dept. of Labor and
f un ds to cov er the sa la r ie s of SAS P an d se cu r i ty
Un ite d Sta tes is a mat ter of e vide nce, and charges
Employment (March 31, 1992) on the ground that he
guards, the rent of bldgs, and housing, and cost of
against them may not be dismissed just by mere
was illegally suspended and dismissed; asked for
utilities
assertion. If the individual petitioners are found liable for
reinstatement
- M e m o r a n d u m o f Ag r e e m e n t b e twee n AF P an d
personal torts in which the US itself is not involved, then
- JUSMAG filed a Motion to Dismiss invoking its
JUSMAG-Phils
they alone must satisfy the judgment.
immu nit y f rom suit as an agency of US; also alleged
- Salaries- for security guards and SASP
2) Ruling: (Application of ratio in the different cases)
lack of employer-employee relp and it has no juridical
- SAS P ar e em pl o ye e s of the AF P; un de r the
G.R . No. 76607
personality to sue and be sued
total operational control of the Chief JUSMAG- Barbershops subject of the concessions granted by US
- Labor Arbiter Daniel Cueto dismissed complaint for
Phils; AFP to assume the severance/retirement
are commercial enterprises operated by private persons.
want of jurisdiction
pay liability for all appointed SASP
The contracts being decidedly commercial, petitioners
- NLRC reversedJUSMAG had lost its right not to be
- It is apparent that when JUSMAG took the services
cannot plead any immunity.
sued based on: 1) estoppel- JUSMAG failed to refute the
of private respondent, it was performing a
- Petition is dismissed.
employer-employee relp under the control test and 2) it
governmental function on behalf of the US. Hence,
G.R . No. 79470
has waived its right to immunity from suit when it hired
the suit is, in effect, one against the US
- Restaurant services offered at the John Hay Air Station
Sacramentos services.
Government.
partake of the nature of a business enterprise
- NLRC relied on Harry Lyons vs. USA (US Govt
- In this jurisdiction, Immunity of State is a
undertaken by the US government in its proprietary
waived its immunity from suit by entering into a
universally
accepted
principle.
Immunity
is
capacity. Petitioners cannot invoke the doctrine of state
contract of stevedoring services, and thus, it
u nd er stoo d as th e ex em p ti on of th e sta te an d i ts
immunity to justify the dismissal of the damage suit
submitted itself to the jurisdiction of local courts)
organs from the judicial jurisdiction of another state.
against them.
- JUSMAG now contends that the NLRC committed
- A sta te ca nn o t b e sue d i n th e cou r ts o f a no the r
- However, notwithstanding these considerations,
g r a v e a b u se o f d i s cr e t i o n i n r e v e r s i n g t h e l a b o r
state, without its consent or waiver. An exception
complaint in the court below must still be dismissed.
arbiters decision, in saying that JUSMAG waived its
to the doctrine, however, was recognized in Santos,
Although suable, the petitioners are not liable because of
immunity from suit, in finding an employeret al vs. Santos, et al: the state itself may be sued,
the strength of evidence that they acted properly in
employee relp between JUSMAG and Sacramento,
even without its consent, because by entering into a
terminating Genove for his disgusting offense.
and in considering JUSMAG estopped from denying
co n tr a ct , t h e so v e r e i g n s ta t e h a s d e s ce n d e d th e
- Petition is granted, case against petitioners is
that respondent is its employee for failure to
l e v e l o f t h e ci ti ze n a n d i t s co n se n t t o b e su e d i s
dismissed.
present proof.
implied from the very act of entering into such
G.R . No. 80018
contract.
- Individually-named petitioners were acting in the
ISSUE
- it was in this light that the state immunity issue in
exercise of their official functions, and not in their
Is the Joint United States Military Assistance Group to the
Harry Lyons vs. USA was decided
private or unofficial capacity.
RP (JUSMAG-PHIL) immune from suit?
- Exc ep t io n e vo l ve d : existence of contract does
- It follows that for discharging their duties as agents of
not, per se, mean that sovereign states may, at all
the United States, they cannot be directly impleaded for
HELD
times, be sued in local courts.
acts imputable to their principal, which has not given its
Ratio As it stands now, the application of the doctrine of
consent to be sued.
immunity from suit has been restricted to sovereign or
HELD
No. Theres no grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio
1 . RA No. 4201 has alread y repealed Com monweal th
Act No. 103 , and under thi s law, i t is now the Cler k of
this Court that is at the same time the Ex-Officio Sheriff.
T herefore, the Clerk of th is Cour t has the autho rity to
issue writs of execution and notices
2. First, the tone in asserting this argument was even
irresolute. And 2 nd, the Peoples Homesite and Housing
PNB V CIR
FERNANDO; January 31, 1978
SSS v CA
MELENCIO-HERRERA; February 21. 1983
FACTS
- Petitioner PNB received a notice of garnishment which
w a s se r v e d u p o n i t s b r a n ch o n Q C b y a n a u t h o r i ze d
deputy sheriff of the court
*** What was sought to be garnished was the money of
the Peoples Homesite and Housing Corporation
d ep osi ted at th e p eti ti on e r s br an ch in QC i n or de r to
satisfy the decision of the respondent court
- P N B f i l e d a m o t i o n t o q u a sh t h e n o t i ce b a se d o n 2
grounds:
1. t h e a p p o i n t me n t o f r e s p o n d e n t Gi lb e r t L o re n zo
as authorized deput y sheriff to serve the writ of
execution was contrary to law
*** PNB contends that the service of notice by the
authorized deputy sheriff of this court contravenes Sec.
5
11 of Commonwealth Act No. 105
*** It argues that i t i s t h e s h e r i f f o f Q C a n d n o t t h e
C l e r k o f t h i s c o u r t w h o i s i t s E x - o f f i c i o S h e r i f f , that
has the authority to serve the notice of garnishment and
that the actual service of the latter officer of said notice
is therefore not in order
2. the funds subject of the character may be
public in character
- COIR denied PNBs motion to quash a notice of
garnishment
ISSUE
W ON an order of Cour t of Industr ial Rela tion s (COIR )
d en yi n g, fo r la ck of m er i t, pe ti tio ne r PN Bs mo ti on to
6
quash a notice of garnishment can be stigmatized as a
grave abuse of discretion.
5
All writs and processes issued by the court shall be served and executed
FACTS
- In March 1963, spouses David B. Cruz and Socorro
Cancio Cruz applied for and were granted a real estate
loan by the SSS with their residential lot located at
Lozada Street, Sto. Rosario, Pateros, Rizal covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2000 of the Register of
Deeds of Rizal its collateral. Pursuant to this real estate
loan said spouses executed on March 26, 1963 the
corresponding real estate mortgage originally in the
amount of P39,500.00 which was later increased to
P48,000.00 covering said property.
- On July 9, 1968, defendant SSS filed an application with
the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal for the foreclosure of the
real estate mortgage executed by the plaintiffs on the
ground, among others that the conditions of the
mortgage have been broken since October 1967 with the
default on the part of the mortgagor to pay in full the
installments then due and payable on the principal debt
and the interest thereon, and all of the monthly
installments due and payable thereafter up to the
present date. Notice of the Sheriff's Sale of the
mortgaged property was initially published in the Sunday
Chronicle in its issue of July 14, 1968 announcing the
sale at public auction of the said mortgaged property.
Despite plaintiffs letter to defendant demanding the
latter to withdraw foreclosure and discontinue the
publication of the notice of sale of their property
claiming that plaintiffs were up-to date in the payment of
their monthly amortizations, defendant SSS still went on
to publish second and third publications of foreclosure.
- On July 24, 1968, the plaintiff Cruz spouses instituted
before the Court of First Instance of Rizal an action for
damages and attorney's fees against the SSS and the
Provincial Sheriff of Rizal alleging, among other things,
that they had fully and religiously paid their monthly
amortizations and had not defaulted in any payment.
Trial Court rendered judgment against defendant SSS.
SEPARATE OPINION
MAKASIAR [dissent]
What was committed in this case was a tortious act
(grossly negligent bordering on malice or bad faith) of
the employees of the SSS in foreclosing the mortgage
of the wrong mortgage-debtor
SSS cannot be held liable for the damages caused by
the tortious acts of its employees in the performance
of their regular functions
SSS as a public instrumentality for social welfare is
immune from suit despite its Charter provision that it
can sue and be sued.
SSS exercises purely governmental functions and
cannot be sued without its consent for the tortious
acts of its personnel
GOVERNMENT
UNITED STATES V DORR
LADD; May 19, 1903
FACTS
The defendants, Fred Dorr et al., have been convicted
upon a complaint charging them with the offense of
w r i t i n g , p u b l i sh i n g , a n d c i r cu l a t i n g a s cu r r i l o u s l i b e l
against the Government of the United States or the
Insular Government of the Philippine Islands. The
complaint is based upon section 8 of Act No. 292 of the
Commission . The alleged libel was published as an 7
seeking to bring into disrepute by
e d i to r i a l i n th e i ssu e of M a n i l a F r e e d o m o f Ap r i l 6 ,
1902. Virulent attacks on the Civil Commission and its
7 Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish,
TERRITORY
PEOPLE
PREAMBLE
n a m e d i t K a l a ya a n a n d c o n s t i t u t e d i t a s a
AND STATE POLICIES
distinct and separate municipality of Palawan
Sec 15: The State shall protect and promote the right to
he al th of the pe op le a nd in sti l l he al th con scio u sn e ss
among them.
Sec 16: The State shall protect and advance the right of
the people to a balanced and healthful
- In th e 1 8 ce n tu r y, th e c o n c e p t w a s c i v i l th
- An in h a b i ta n t o f th e Ph ilip p in e s a n d a
Spanish subject on April 11, 1899.
- An inhabitant meant:
- A native born inhabitant
2. Ratio
FPJs citizenship issue (Voting 6 concur, 7
dissent, 1 abstention and 1 separate opinion)
- The distinctions between legitimacy and
il legitima cy shou ld onl y remain in the sphere of
c iv i l l a w a n d sh o u l d n o t u n d u l y i m p i n ge o n t h e
domain of political law.
- The 1935 Constitution confers citizenship to all
persons whose fathers are Filipino regardless of
w h e th e r su ch ch i l d r e n a r e l e g i t i m a te of
illegitimate.
R e a so n i n g
- Can FPJ be disqualified as a presidential candidate on
the ground that he materially misrepresented in his
certificate of candidacy that he was a natural-born
Filipino?
- Concept of citizenship
- Ar i s t o t l e d e s c r i b e d a c i t i z e n a s a m a n w h o
shared in the administration of justice and in the
holding of an office and the state would be
composed of such individuals in order to achieve
a self-sufficient existence.
- Citizenship deals with rights and entitlements on
the one hand and with concomitant obligations on
the other.
- Citizenship underwent changes in the 18 to 20 th
centuries.
- C i t i ze n sh i p i n th e Ph i l i p p i n e s f r o m th e S p a n i sh
times to the present
- During the Spanish period, no such term as
Philippine citizens, only Spanish subjects. In
church records, natives were identified as
indios.
- Spanish laws on citizenship included:
- Order de la Regencia of 1841
- Royal Decree of 23 August 1868 (defined
the politica l statu s of children born in the
Philippines)
- Ley Extranjera de Ultramar of 1870
- The 1876 Spanish Constitution was not
extended to the Philippines because the
colony was to be governed by special laws.
- Accor di n g to th e C iv il C od e of Spa in , the
following were Spanish citizens:
- Persons born in Spanish territory
- C h i l d r e n o f a Sp a n i sh f a th e r o r m o th e r
even if they were born outside Spain
Foreigners
who
have
obtained
naturalization papers
- Those who, without such papers, may
have become domiciled inhabitants of any
town of the Monarchy
- Article 10 of the Treaty of Paris stated that the
civil and political status of the native inhabitants
would be determined by the US Congress.
Spanish subjects and natives who choose to
remain in the territory may preserve their
allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making a
d ecl ar a tio n of the i r de ci si on wi th in a ye a r fr om
t h e d a t e o f t h e r a ti f i c a t i o n o f t h e t r e a t y. If n o
such declaration is made, their allegiance shall be
held renounced and they would have adopted the
nationality of the territory in which they reside.
- U p o n r a ti f i ca ti o n of th e tr e a t y, t h e n a ti v e
inhabitants of the Philippines became Spanish
subjects.
th
- They did not become American citizens but
were issued passports describing them to be
citi zens
of
the
SEPARATE OPINION
PUNO
Jurisdiction
- SC is unanimous on the issue of jurisdiction
DAVIDE
FACTS
- January 9, 2004 Fornier filed petition to disqualify FPJ
and to cancel his certificate of candidacy for the May 10
e le cti on s b ecau se of h e i s n o t a na tu ra l - bo rn F i li p in o
citizen
- J a n u a r y 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 C OM E L E C d i sm i s s e d t h e ca s e
d e c l a r i n g th a t i ts ju r i sd i c ti o n i s l i m i te d t o a l l m a tte r s
r e l a t i n g t o e l e c t i o n , r e t u r n s a n d q u a l i f i ca t i o n s o f a l l
e le ctiv e re gi on al , pr ovi n ci a l an d ci t y offi cia l s, bu t n ot
those of national officials like the president.
- but it has jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of
ci ti ze n sh ip of na tio na l o ffici al s un de r se c 7 8 o f
OE C o n p e ti t i o n s to d e n y d u e co u r se o r ca n ce l
cer tifi cates of candida cy on the ground of false
material representation.
- Findings:
- Fornier evidence is not substantial
- FPJ did not commit any falsehood in material
r ep re sen ta tio n wh en he sta te d tha t he i s a
natural-born Filipino citizen
- Tecson and Desiderio, Jr prayed special civil action of
ce r ti o r a r i u n d e r R 6 5 R o C t o ch a l l e n ge ju r i sd i c ti o n o f
COMELEC over the issue of FPJs citizenship. They claim
that only the Sc has jurisdiction (ArtVII S4, consti)
- January 29, 2004 - Velez filed petition with the ff issues:
- W h e t h e r C OM E L E C h a s j u r i sd i c t i o n o v e r t h e
petitions to deny due course or cancel certificated
of candidacy of Presidential candidates
- Whether SC has jurisdiction over the petitions of
Tecson, Velez and Fornier
- Whether FPJ is a Filipino citizen, and if so, if hes
a natural-born Filipino citizen
Jurisdiction
- Tecson and Velez petitions
- The provision in the constitution only refers to
past-election remedies, they should have resorted
t o p r e - e l e c ti o n r e m e d i e s i n th e O EC wh i ch a r e
implemented by the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
- Pre-election remedies are not within the
jurisdiction of the SC
- Under the OEC, COMELEC has original
jurisdiction to determine whether a candidate for
an elective office ineligible for the office for which
h e fi le d hi s cer ti fi ca te of ca nd id a cy b ecau se of
any of the recognized grounds for disqualification.
- Fornier petition
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
M a y c o u r t e x e r c is e j u d i c i a l p o w e r t o d is q u a l i f y a
candidate before the election?
- Court may not. It will wreck the constitutional right of
the people to choose their candidates.
Romualdez-Marcos v COMELEC
- Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, a retired member of
this Court, in his Separate Opinion said, In my view, the
issue in this case is whether the Commission on
Elections has the power to disqualify candidates on the
ground tha t the y la ck eli gi bili ty for the office to whi ch
they seek to be elected. I think that it has none and that
the qualifications of candidates may be questioned only
in the event they are elected, by filing a petition for quo
warranto o r a n e l e c t i o n p r o t e s t i n t h e a p p r o p r i a t e
forum.
- Ruling of COMELEC is the same as Mandoza opinion.
- Disqualifying respondent Poe will be viewed as directed
a g a i n s t th e m a s se s , a s i t u a t i o n n o t a l l o w e d b y t h e
Constitution. The SC may become like the Iranian
G u a r d i a n C o u n c i l .T h i s C o u r t, a s th e l a st gu a r d i a n o f
d e m o c r a c y, h a s t h e d u t y t o p r o t e c t t h e r i g h t o f o u r
nation to a genuine, free and fair election.
W h e t h e r t h e C OM E L E C c o m m i t t e d g ra ve a b u s e o f
discretion in dismissinG Forniers petition for
disqualification against respondent
petition: premature.
- Petitioners Tecson et al. and Velez claim that
the issue of FPJs qualification for the
Presidency may also be brought directly to this
Court on the basis of Section 1 of Article VIII of
the Constitution through a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, specially
considering that the instant case is one of
transcendental importance.
- a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Cour t is no t availab le wh ere
there is another plain , speed y and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
lawlike in this case: (to intervene in the
Petition for Disqualification)
- in determining whether procedural rules,
such as standing, should be relaxed on the
ground of transcendental importance, the
following should be considered: the lack of
any other party with a more direct and
sp e c i f i c i n te r e s t i n r a i si n g t h e qu e st i o n s
being
raised.
Considering
that
the
su b s t a n t i v e i s s u e s r a i se d b y p e t i t i o n e r s
Tecson et al. and Velez in G.R. Nos. 161434
a n d 1 6 1 6 3 4 , r e s p e c t i v e l y, a r e v i r t u a l l y
identical to those raised by petitioner
Fornier in G.R. No. 161824, this Court is not
convinced
that
the
transcendental
importance of the issues raised herein
justifies a direct resort to this Court under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court or the
exercise
of its
expanded
certiorari
jurisdiction under Sec. 1, Article VIII of the
Constitution.
- Petition in G.R. No. 161824
1) Jurisdiction:
- Petitions in G.R. Nos. 161464 and 161634
- Petitioners Tecson et al. and Velez assert that
this Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to
determine whether FPJ is qualified to be a
candidate for President: paragraph 7, Section 4
of Article VII of the Constitution:
- T h e Su p r e me C o u r t , s it t in g e n b a n c ,
s h a l l b e t h e s o le ju d g e o f a ll c o n t e s t s
relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the President or VicePresident, an d ma y p ro mu l ga te i ts ru le s
for the purpose.
- refers to this Courts jurisdiction over
electoral contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of the President,
and
not
to
the
qualifications
or
disqualifications
of
a
presidential
ca n d i d a te . F PJ i s
SEPARATE OPINION
HELD
1. Yes.
Ratio Two ways of acquiring Filipino citizenship
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
o
By birth natural born citizens
Additional Facts:
o
Naturalization Naturalized citizens (those
- In the 1995 local elections, Cruz filed his certificate of
who
become
Filipino
citizens
through
candidacy for Mayor declaring himself to be a
naturalization,
generally
under
the
naturalized Filipino citizen
Commonwealth Act no. 473. To be naturalized,
- Thereafter, Cru z ran for Congres, this time declaring
an applicant has to prove that he possesses all
himself as natural-born
the
qualifications
and
none
of
the
Petitioner
an d r espo nd en t p re se n t op po sin g
disqualifications
interpretation of the phrase from birth in Art IV, Sec 2
- 1987 Constitution only provides for 2 classes of
of the Consti
citizens:
- Pe ti ti on er av er s: me an s star ti n g fr om a de fi ni te
o
Natural born
point and must be continuous, constant and without
o
Naturalized
interruption
- Respondent contends: refers to the innate,
- F i li p in o ci ti ze n s wh o hav e l o st the i r ci ti ze n sh i p ma y
inherent and inborn characteristic of being a
reacqu ire i t by natu rali zation, repatria tion or by direct
natural-born
act of Congress.
- J. Sandoval-Gutierrez holds:
o
Natura li za tion mode for acqui si tion and
- Natural-born citizens are so by virtue of birth
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.
wi th ou t pe rfo rm i n g a n y acts. To r ep a tri a te , C ru z
o
Repatriation available for those who have
had to perform cer tain acts before he cou ld aga in
lost their citizenship due to desertion of the
become a Filipino citi zen. Therefore, he does not
armed forces, service in the armed forces
reaquire natural-born citizenship
of the allied forces in WW II, service in the
- The history of the Consti shows that the meaning
armed forces of the US at any other time,
and application of the requirement of being natural-
4.
YU V DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
PADILLA; January 24, 1989
FACTS
- Petition for Habeas Corpus
- 1971 Yu was issued a Portuguese passport in 1971
valid for 5 years & renewed for same period upon
presentment before Portuguese consular officer
- Feb. 10, 1978 He was naturalized as a Phil. citizen
- Apr i l 19 80 si gne d co m me r cia l d ocu me n ts i n Ho n g
Kong (Companies Registry of Tai Shun Estate, Ltd.) and
he declared his nationality as Portuguese
- July 21, 1981 He applied & was issued another
Portuguese passport in Tokyo. Passport will expire July
20, 1986.
Procedural Facts:
- July 4, 1988 He filed for a petition for habeas corpus.
He wa s detained becau se the Com mission on
Im m i gra ti on & D ep or ta tio n wa s pr oce ssin g h i s
deportation. CID claims that his acts are tantamount to
an express renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.
- July 20, 1988 oral arguments
- N o v. 1 0 , 1 9 8 8 S C r e s o l u t i o n d e n i e d p e t i t i o n f o r
habeas corpus & resolved issued on jurisdiction of CID
over naturalized Filipino citizen & validity of warrantless
arrest & detention. Yu filed MFR, denied w/finality. Filed
urgent motion for issuance of restraining order, denied.
- Dec. 5, 1988 Yu filed motion for clarification w/prayer
for restraining order.
- Dec. 7, 1988 SC issued TRO. CID ordered to cease &
desist from deporting Yu pending conclusion of hearings
before Board of Special Inquiry of CID.
- Dec. 13, 1988 Respondent commissioner filed motion
to lift TRO saying the commission already issued a
summary judgment of deportation against Yu on Dec. 2,
88.
- Dec. 13, 1988 Yu filed an urgent motion for release
from arbitrary detention. Opposed vigorously to lifting of
TRO.
- Yu ordered to explain why he should still be considered
a Phil citizen. He complied. His reply revealed
aforementioned substantive facts.
ISSUE
WON the acts of Yu constitute an express renunciation of
his Philippine citizenship.
HELD
SEPARATE OPINION
CRUZ [concur]
Yu h a s f a i l e d t o o v e r c o m e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t h e h a s
forfeited his status as naturalized Filipino by obtaining
Portuguese passport. Passports are generally issued only
to nationals. No proof of Yus unequivocal & deliberate
renunciation of Phi. Citizenship w/ full awareness of its
significance & consequences as provided for in CA No.
63. Commercial documents signed are not proof enough
of renunciation.
FERNAN [dissent]
Summary procedure & pieces of documentary evidence
are not enough to reach such decision. Evidence must
be clear & express w/o room for interference or
i m p l i ca ti o n . I n a d e p o r ta t i o n p r o ce e d i n g wh e r e a l i e n
claims citizenship w/substantial evidence, hes entitled
to have his status determined by judicial & not an
executive tribunal. He deserves a full-blown trial under
more rigid rules of evidence in a court proceeding. SC is
not a trier of facts.
GUTIERREZ [dissent]
S u m m a r y p r o ce d u r e wo u l d n o t su ff i ce . So m e th i n g a s
important as denaturalization should be filed &
prosecuted in proper trial court in accordance w/the due
process clause. When a person pleads vigorously that he
has not renounced his citizenship, he should at least be
given a full trial where his actions may be explored & the
facts full y ascerta ined. Dange rous pre cedent to allo w
administrative officials to rule that one has renounced
his citizenship based on informal evidence. Mere use of a
fo re i gn pa ssp or t i s no t ex pr ess re nu nci a tio n . H e ma y
have passport for other purposes (emplo yment,
convenience). Some high govt officials have done acts
w / c a r e m o r e i n d i ca ti v e o f e x p r e ss r e n u n ci a t i o n th a n
CORTES [dissent]
PEOPLE V AVENGOZA
RELOVA; December 7, 1982
FACTS
- Criminal Case; Appeal from Decision of CFI of
Camarines Sur
- Anselma Avengoza and husband Go Gam, a Chinese,
together with the formers mother Gavina Avengoza and
Rafaela Anfante are being charged with violation of the
Anti-Dummy Law on transactions for the spouses to own
agricultural lands in the Philippines.
- An s e l m a Av e n g o za , u p o n m a r r i a g e t o G o G a m ,
acquired Chinese citizenship
- Th e An ti- Dum m y L a w p rov id e s tha t on ly Filip ino
citizens may own local agricultural land.
- Pending litigation, Go Gam and Gavina passed away.
- Upon Go Gams passing, Anselma executed an oath of
alle gi ance to the R P and filed i t with the Offi ce of the
Municipal Treasurer for the purpose of reacquiring her
citizenship by repatriation, averring by reason whereof
tha t her cri minal liab ili ty is the reb y extin gui shed; and
that the issue of the criminal case is rendered moot and
academic
- Trial court dismissed case principally predicated on its
opinion that Anselma had validl y reacquired Philippine
citizenship
ISSUES
1. WON Anselma reacquired citizenship after executing
a n o a th o f a l l e g i a n c e t o t h e R P a n d f i l i n g i t w i t h th e
Municipal Treasurer
2. if so, WON such reacquisition of citizenship exempted
her from liability for the violation of the Anti-Dummy Law
HELD
1. No.
Ratio Mere taking of oath of allegiance insufficient for
reacquisition of Filipino citizenship. Would-be repatriate
should show conclusive proof that she has the
qualifications to be so repatriated. Anselma became an
alien by reason of her lawful marriage to a Chinese
citizen; however this does not necessarily mean that she
was a Filipino citizen prior to such marriage.
2. No.
Ratio Even had she been considered repatriated, like
an alien who became a naturalized Filipino citizen, her
repatriation will not exempt her from criminal liability for
violation of the Anti-Dummy Law.
JAO V REPUBLIC
VASQUEZ; March 29, 1983
FACTS
- Modesta Jao claims to be a Philippine citizen because
she was born of a Chinese father and an illiterate Filipina
mo ther who were no t legall y married . - She married a
Chinese man and therefore lost her Philippine citizenship
but he is now dead.
- Her handicapped mother erroneously registered her as
a n a l i e n a n d s h e w a s i s s u e d a n Al i e n C e r t i f i c a t e o f
Registration (ACR).
- She is claiming back her Phil. citizenship, by way of a
petition for repatriation filed in CFI of Davao.
- CFI issued an order declaring petitioner as judicially
repatriated, and ordered cancelled her ACR.
- Provincial Fiscal in behalf of the Republic, appealed the
case.
ISSUE
W ON the judicial decree by the RTC was necessary for
repatriation.
HELD
Ratio Proceed ings to declare a person as judi ciall y
r e p a t r i a t e d a r e a c o m p l e t e n u l l i t y. T h e r e i s n o l a w
requiring or authorizing that repatriation should be
effected by a judicial proceeding.
R e a so n i n g In Lim v. Republic, 37 SCRA 783, it was held
that there i s no proceedin g establ ished b y law or the
rules by which any person claiming to be a citizen may
get a declaration in a court of justice to that effect or in
regard to his citizenship. All that is needed for a female
citizen of the Phil. who lost her citizenship to an alien to
reacquire her Phil. citizen, upon the termination of her
martial status, is for her to take necessary oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Phil. and to register the
said oath in the proper civil registry.
D i sp o s i t i o n Decision appealed from is revoked and set
aside. 5 Justices concur.
O b i t e r Petitioners claim of Phil. citizenship prior to her
marriage for being allegedly an illegitimate child of a
Chinese father and a Filipina mother may not be
established in an action where the mother or her heirs
are not parties. It is the consistent rule in this jurisdiction
that Phil. citizenship may not be declared in a nonadversary suit where the persons whose rights are
affected by such a declaration are not parties, such as
an action for declaratory relief, petition for judicial
repatriation, or an action to cancel registration as an
alien.
VILLAVICENCIO V LUKBAN
MALCOLM; March 25, 1919
FACTS
Ratio The forcible taking, isolation, and transfer of the
- Manila Mayor, Ju sto Lukban, wa nting to exterm inate
women is constitutive of deprivation of freedom of
vice, ordered the closing of the citys red light district.
locomotion.
The brothels were closed and the workers (170 women)
R e a so n i n g The essential object and purpose of the writ
were rounded up and kept confined to their houses in
of habeas corpus is to inquire into all manner of
the distri ct by the poli ce for a little more than a week.
involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary and
On the night of Oct.25, 1918, the women were forcibly
to relieve a person from such restraint if it is illegal. Any
hustled aboard the steamers Corregidor and Negros and
restraint which will preclude freedom of action is
sent off to Davao to work as laborers without their
sufficient.
consent,
without
opportunity
to
consult
with
f ri en ds/fa m i l y or to d ef en d th ei r r i gh ts. The y r ea ch ed
2. 1st order: No. Respondents were not able to bring
Davao 4 da ys la ter and we re me t by Fran cisco Sa les,
governor of Davao and by hacendero Feliciano Yigo and
Rafael Castillo, etc.
- During their voyage, the womens relatives and friends
initiated an application for habeas corpus, alleging that
Ju sto Lu kb an , al on g wi th An to n H oh ma nn ( the po li ce
chief), and others deprived the women of their liberty.
The court awarded the writ of habeas corpus (w of hc)
ISSUES
1.
Re: the proper granting of the writ:
a. WON the petitioners had standing
b. WON the S.C. erred in assuming jurisdiction
c. W ON the women were actuall y restrained of their
liberty
2.
WON there was compliance with the court orders
3. On contempt of court
HELD
1a. Yes
Ratio W hen i t i s i s i mp o ssi b le f or a pa r ty to si gn a n
application for the w of hc, another person may submit it
in his/her behalf.
R e a so n i n g It wa s im po ssib l e fo r th e wo me n to h ave
si gned a petition for habeas corpus wi th the wa y their
expulsion was conducted. They were first isolated from
society and then shipped. It was consequently proper for
the writ to be submitted by persons in their behalf.
1b No
Ratio T h e w o f h c m a y b e g r a n t e d b y t h e S u p r e m e
Cour t or an y jud ge thereof enforcible an ywh ere in the
Philippines. The SC can decide upon where the writ shall
be made returnable to (whether before the SC or before
a lower court).
R e a so n i n g The CFI of Davao was not in session. The
case involves parties from different parts of the country.
Habeas Corpus was devised as a speedy and effectual
remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint.
1c. Yes
3.
Ratio O n l y L u k b a n i s g u i l t y o f c o n t e m p t . H i s
intentions were commendable, his methods were
unlawful. An office r s failure to produ ce the bod y of a
person in obedience to a writ of habeas corpus, when he
has power to do so, is contempt committed in the face of
the court.
R e a so n i n g He wa s pr im a ri l y r e sp on sib l e fo r se tti n g
forth this whole chain of events and had under his power
as head of the city government to facilitate the return of
the women to Manila but failed. The rest of the
respondents other than Lukban are not guilty of
contempt. Some were merely following the orders of
their superiors or merely fulfilling a duty. Another was
merely drawn into the case through miscommunication.
D i s p o s i t i o n No further action on the w of hc. Lukban
found in contempt of court and shall pay Php 100 within
5 days. Rest of respondents found not to be in contempt
of court.
KURODA JALANDONI
MORAN; March 26, 1949
FACTS
Kuroda, a high ranking Japanese army official is being
charged by the Military Commission with failure to
perform
duties
as
commander
in
preventing
crimes/atrocities against civilians, and POWs. In defense,
he is alleging that Executive Order No. 68 (EO68) which
established a Natl. War Crimes Office is unconstitutional
and that 2 prosecuting attorneys, Hussey and Port (both
American) have no authority to practice law in the
GONZALES V HECHANOVA
CONCEPCION; October 22, 1963
FACTS
- Respondent Exec. Sec. authorized importation of
foreign rice and created rice procurement committee.
Gonzales, a rice planter and President of Iloilo Palay and
Corn Planters Association, filed petition.
P r o ce d u r e Case is an original action for prohibition
with preliminary injunction to restrain implementation of
decision of Exec. Sec. to import rice. Respondents were
required to file answer and hearing was set.
- on WON respondents are acting without jurisdiction or
in excess of jurisdiction
Petitioners stand:
- Yes, bec. RA 3452 explicitly prohibits importation of
rice and corn by Rice and Corn Administration and any
other govt agency.
Respondents stand:
- Petitioner has no sufficient interest to file petition.
- Petitioner has not exhausted all administrative
remedies available before coming to court.
- Petitioners action is not sufficient and not governed
by RA 3452 because importation was authorized by
President as Commander in Chief for military stock pile
purposes. As such, Pres must prepare for threats
without waiting for any special authority.
- Also, they say its not under RA 3452 bec. the RAs
prohibit importation of rice and corn by government
agency and not the government itself.
- Even if the proposed importation violated the RAs, it
can still be permitted because it is for the benefit of the
people.
- The Phils is already under executive agreements with
contracts for purchase of rice with Vietnam and Burma.
In case of conflict between the RAs and the contracts,
the contracts should prevail because it came later.
These contracts have been consummated bec. the Phils.
has already paid.
ISSUE
WON respondents are acting without jurisdiction or in
excess of jurisdiction
HELD
- RA 3452 says that the govt policy is to purchase basic
foods directly from farmers in Phils. Petitioner has
sufficient interest.
- Case at bar involves question which is a purely legal
one. It falls under the exemption from the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies.
- The proposed importation is governed by RA 2207 and
RA 3452 bec it covers all importations of rice and corn
into the Phils.
- RA 2207 and 3452 also applies to importations of the
government itself bec. RA 2207 talks about imports
authorized by the President, by and on behalf of
government. RA 3452 also indicates that only private
parties may import rice under its provisions. These RAs
are only in addition to Commonwealth Act No. 138 which
says that in all purchases by govt, incl. those for armed
forces, preference is given to materials produced in the
Phils.
- The benefit of the people argument cant be
accepted because there is no local rice shortage. And
the importation is said to be for stockpile of Army, not
for the civilian population.
- The contracts w/ Vietnam and Burma are not executive
agreements. Even if they were, they are unlawful, being
against the RAs. The alleged consummation does not
render this case academic. The contracts may have
already been entered into and the payment may have
been made but the actual importation has not yet taken
place.
D i s p o s i t i o n - For lack of requisite majority, injunction
prayed for is DENIED.
- It is declared that Exec. Sec. has no power to authorize
importation in question and he exceeded jurisdiction in
granting authority. The importation is not sanctioned by
law and is contrary to its provisions.
FACTS
- The Constitution in 1935 mandated the policy of social
justice to "insure the well-being and economic security
of all the people," especially the, less privileged.
- In 1973, the new Constitution affirmed this goal adding
specifically that "the State shall regulate the acquisition,
o wn er shi p , u se , en jo yme n t a nd d ispo si ti on o f p ri va te
property and equitabl y diffuse property ownership and
profits. Significantly, there was also the specific
injunction to "formulate and implement an agrarian
reform program aimed at emancipating the tenant from
the bondage of the soil."
- The 1987 Constitution, besides echoing these
sentiments, also adopted one whole and separate Article
X I II o n So ci a l Ju st i ce a n d H u m a n R i g h t s. On e o f i t s
sections:
- SEC. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian
reform program founded on the right of farmers and
regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or
co l le cti ve l y th e l an ds th e y ti l l or, i n th e ca se o f o the r
farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof
To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the
just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such
priorities and reasonable retention limits as the
Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological,
developmental, or equity considerations and subject to
the payment of just compensation. In determining
retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives
for voluntary landsharing.
- R .A , N o . 3 8 4 4 , o th e r wi se kn o w n a s th e Ag r i cu l tu r a l
La nd R ef or m Co de , h ad a lr ea d y be en e na cte d b y the
Congress of the Philippines on August 8, 1963, in line
with the above-stated principles. This was substantially
s u p e r s e d e d a l m o s t a d e c a d e l a te r b y P.D . N o . 2 7 ,
which was promulgated on October 21, 1972, along with
martial law, to provide for the compulsory acquisition of
private lands for distribution among tenant-farmers and
to specify maximum retention limits for landowners.
- On July 17, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued
E. O . N o . 2 2 8 , declaring full land ownership in favor of
th e be ne fi cia ri e s of P.D . No . 2 7 an d p ro vi di n g f or the
valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree
as well as the manner of their payment.
This was
followed
on
July
22,
1987
by
Presidential
P r o c l a m a t i o n N o . 1 3 1 , i n sti tu ti n g a co mp re he n si ve
agra rian reform pro gram (CARP), and E . O . N o . 2 2 9 ,
providing the mechanics for its implementation.
- W ith its formal organi zation, the revived Congress of
the Philippines (formally convened on July 27, 1987) took
over legislative power from the President and started its
own deliberations, including extensive public hearings,
o n th e i m p r o v e m e n t o f t h e i n te r e s t s o f f a r m e r s . T h e
resul t, after almo st a ye ar of spiri ted debate , was the
enactment of R . A. N o . 6 6 5 7 , otherwise known as the
Comprehe ns i ve Agra ria n Re f orm Law of 19 88 ,
which President Aquino signed on June 10, 1988. This
t h e r i g h t s co n f e r r e d a n d t h e l i a b i l i t i e s i m p o s e d . T h e
argu ment that not onl y landowner s but al so owners of
E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 and R .A. 6657 con travene the
Con stitu tion on the ground s in ter alia of separa tion of
powers, due process, equal protection and the
constitutional limitation that no private property shall be
taken for public use without just compensation.
Sub issues
a. The determination of just compensation may be made
only by a court of justice and not by the President of the
Philippines.
b . The ju st co mp en sa tio n con te mp la te d b y th e Bi l l of
Rights is payable only in money or in cash but not in the
form of bonds or other things of value.
c . I n co n s i d e r i n g r e n ta l s a s a dv a n ce p a ym e n t o n th e
land, E.O. No. 228 deprives the petitioners of their
property rights as protected by due process.
d. The equal protection clause is violated when the
burden of solving the agrarian problems is placed on the
owners only of agricultural lands.
e. In declaring the beneficiaries under P.D. No. 27 to be
the owners of the lands occupied by them, E.O. No. 228
would be.
11
The power of eminent domain is one of the three inherent powers of the
State. It is the power to forcibly acquire private lands intended for public
use upon payment of just compensation to the owner. It is inherent
because it exists without need for legislation, i.e., even if it is not
sanctioned by any law or even the Constitution, the State may exercise it.
Why? Because these powers are necessary for a state to exist. The other
two are police power and taxation.
Frankly, I dont like the way this ponente argues. Hes like saying, now I
dont want to explain why. If you cant see the reasoning its your fault.
Anyway, were infallible remember? His next sentence: There is no need
to elaborate on this matter. Tsk
2.
ISSUES
1. WON Commonwealth Act No. 548 is unconstitutional
because it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative
power.
2.
WON the rules and regulations promulgated
constitute an unlawful interference with legitimate
business or trade and abridge the right to personal
liberty and freedom of locomotion.
3. WON the rules and regulations complained of infringe
the upon the constitutional precept regarding the
promotion of social justice to insure the well-being of all
the people.
HELD
1. No.T he Legislature cannot delegate power to make
law; but it can make a law to delegate a power to
determ ine some fact or state of things upon whi ch the
law makes, or intends to make, its own action depend.
R e a so n i n g
1.adherence to precedent
Rubi vs. Provincia l Board of Mindoro , Wayman vs.
So u th a r d i t wa s h e l d h e r e th a t d i scr e ti o n m a y b e
d el e ga te d to exe cu ti ve d ep ar tme n ts o r su bo rd i na te
officials the execution of certain acts, final on
questions of fact.
2.textual interpretation of Commonwealth Act No. 548
The provision that .the Director of Public Works, with
the approval of the Secretary of the Public Works and
Communications,
shall
promulgate
rules
and
r e gu l a t i o n s t o r e g u l a t e a n d c o n t r o l th e u se o f a n d
t r a f f i c o n n a t i o n a l r o a d s , i s a n ad ministra tive
function whi ch canno t be directl y discharged b y the
National Assembly.
3.practicality
T h e co m p l e x i t i e s o f m o d e r n g o v e r n m e n t s, th e
multiplication of the subjects of govtl regulations, and
the increased difficulty in administering the law give
rise to the adoption, within certain limits, the
d el e ga tio n of gre a ter po we r s b y th e l e gi sl a tiv e a nd
vesting a larger amount of discretion in administrative
and executive officials, not only in the execution of the
laws, but also in the promulgation of certain rules and
regulations.
2. No. The state may enact laws that may interfere with
personal libe rty, wi th property, and wi th business and
OPOSA V FACTORAN
DAVIDE; July 30, 1993
FACTS
- The overarching theme of the case deals with the
prevention the misappropriation or impairment of
Ph i li pp i ne ra in fo re sts a nd a rr e st the un ab a te d
hemorrha ge of the countr ys vita l life suppor t system s
and continued rape of Mother Earth.
- In 1 99 1 a ca se wa s fi le d b y mi no r s ( re pr e se n te d b y
3. Merits: WON the respondent judge committed grave
t h e i r p a r e n ts) a n d t h e Ph i l i p p i n e E co l o gi ca l N e t wo r k
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by
(PENI) against the then Secretary of the Department of
declaring the petitioners to have no legal right?
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Fulgencio
4. Whether or not granting the petition would violate the
Factoran, Jr. who was substituted by the new secretary,
non-impairment clause found in the Constitution?
A n g e l Al c a l a . T h e c o m p l a i n t w a s i n s t i t u t e d t o b e a
taxpayers class suit as it alleges that all citizens of the
HELD
Philippines are entitled to benefit, use and enjoyment of
1. Yes it is a class suit because the subject matter of the
the cou n tr ys vi r gin tr op i cal ra in fo re sts. Th e su i t a lso
complaint is of common and general interest to all
alleges that this suit represents people who are sharing
citizens of the Philippines and that it would be
t h e s a m e s e n t i m e n t to w a r d s t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f o u r
impracticable to bring them all to court. The plaintiffs in
natural resources (since not all of them could go before
this case are numerou s and representative enou gh to
the cou r t) . F ur th er m or e , th i s wa s a l so a sse r ted to be
ensure that all interests is protected.
representative of the current generation and generation
2.
Yes the y can , follo wing the concep t of
that are yet to be born.
intergenerational responsibility. Every generation has a
- The suit calls for two primary actions that orders the
r e sp o n si b i l i t y t o th e n e x t t o p r e se r v e th e r h yth m a n d
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and
(DENR), its agents, representatives, and those acting on
healthful environment.
its behalf to, 1. Cancel all existing timber license
3 . Yes r e s p o n d e n t j u d g e co m m i t t e d g r a v e a b u se o f
agree ments in the countr y and 2. to cea se and desist
di scre tion amoun tin g to lack of jur isdi ction becau se it
from receiving, accepting, processing, and renewing or
failed to recognize the legal right of the petitioners
approving new timber license agreements.
wh ich is the righ t to a balanced and healthful ecology
- The suit starts off with statement of facts regarding the
that is incorporated in the 1987 Constitution under
country, the countrys islands, its natural resources, and
Section 16 Article II.
scientific evidences pointing to the requirement for the
- Moreover, th is ri gh ts need not be wr itten in the
cou n tr y to ma in ta in a b al an ced a nd h ea l th fu l eco lo g y
Constitution for this deals with rights that are assumed
(54% should be use for forest cover and 46% for
from the very inception oh humankind. The reason why
agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial, and
it was written was because the framers feared that
other uses). They asserted that deforestation resulted in,
without a mandate as stated in the state policies future
a. water shortages b. salinization c. massive erosion and
gen er a tio n s wo u ld i nh er i t no th i n g to su stai n l if e . It is
loss of soil fertility d. extinction of some of the countries
clear then that there is a legal right for a balanced
flora and fauna e. disturbance and dislocation of
healthful ecology and the right to heal th. Given tha t i t
indigenous cultures f. siltation of rivers and seabed g.
could also be said that this right is further supported by
drought h. increasing velocity of typhoon winds i.
Executive Order No. 192 and the Administrative Code of
flooding of lowlands j. siltation and shortening of the life
1987 making the cause of action existent.
span of dams k. reduction of earths capacity to process
4 . N o i t d o e s n o t v i o l a te t h e n o n - i m p a i r m e n t c l a u s e
carbon dioxide.
because licenses are not contracts, properties or a
- Initially the petition was dismissed on the grounds of
property right that is protected by the due process
lack of cause of action, of being political question, and of
clause of the Constitution. As the court held in Tan v.
ca u s i n g th e i m p a i r m e n t o f co n tr a ct s. T h e p e ti ti o n e r s
Director of Forestr y, a l i c e n s e i s m e r e l y a p e r m i t o r
filed for certiorari hence this case. They contend that
privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful and is
there is a cause of action using articles 19, 20, and 21 of
not a contract. It is not irrevocable. The Chief Executive
the Civil Code (the right to a sound environment),
may validly amend, modify, replace, or rescind licenses
Section 4 of Executive Order No. 192 that calls for the
when national interests so require.
creation of the Department of Environment and Natural
Given that it is not a contract, the non-impairment
Resources (DENR) to safeguard the peoples right to a
clause cannot be invoked.
healthful environment, Section 3 of Presidential Decree
- Even if the licenses are contracts, the action stated in
No. 1151 ( Philippine Environmental Policy), and Section
the case still does not affect it given that no law or
16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution that recognizes the
action by the Chief Executive to amend, modify, replace,
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology.
or rescind licenses so it is could not as of the moment be
As well as the concept of generational genocide in
i n v o k e d . An d f u r t h e r m o r e , i f t h e r e w o u l d b e a l a w
Criminal Law and the concept of mans inalienable right
passed it would not be considered as a violation of the
to self-preservation and self-perpetuation in natural law.
n o n - i m p a i r m e n t cl a u s e a s t h e v e r y n a tu r e o f t h e l a w
deals with the exercising of the police power of the state
ISSUES
t o a dv a n ce t h e r i g h t o f t h e p e o p l e to a b a l a n ce d a n d
1. Locus Standi: WON the case is a class suit?
healthful ecology. The non-impairment clause yields to
2 . W ON m i n o r s ca n a sse r t th a t th e y r e p r e se n t o th e r
the police power of the state.
generations and those succeeding theirs?
SEPARATE OPINION
CARSON
MOIR
governor decide that some political enemy was a nonChristian, and that he would be safer on the reservation.
No matter what his education and culture, he could have
n o t r i a l , h e co u l d m a k e n o d e f e n se , th e j u d g e o f t h e
court might be in a distant province and not within
reach, and the provincial governor's fiat is final.
- There can be no denial that the Ifugaos are "nonChristians," or "wild tribes" and are in exactly the same
category as the Manguianes. If the Manguianes may be
so taken from their native habitat and reconcentrated on
a reservation-in effect an open air jail-then so may the
Ifugaos, so may the Tinguianes, who have made more
progress than the Ifugaos, and so may the Moros.
- I think this Court should declare that sections 2145 and
2759 of the Administrative Code of 1917 are
unconstitutional, null and void, and that the petitioners
a r e i l l e g a l l y r e s t r a i n e d o f t h e i r l i b e r t y, a n d t h a t th e y
have been denied the equal protection of the laws, and
order the respondents immediately to liberate all of the
petitioners.
PIT-OG V PEOPLE
FERNAN; October 11, 1990
FACTS
- Appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals
- There was a communal land in Laog, Mainit, Mt.
Province called the tayan. It was owned by the tomayan
group whose members were descendants of the original
o wner s thereof named Ja kot and Pang- o. One of the ir
d e s c e n d a n t s , Pe l - e y C u l l a l a d , w a s r e q u e s t e d b y t h e
tomayan t o a ct i n th e i r b e h a l f i n se l l i n g t h e 4 0 0 - s qm
r e s i d e n t i a l p o r t i o n o f t h e tayan, i n o r d e r t h a t t h e
tomayan w o u l d h a v e s o m e t h i n g t o b u t c h e r a n d e a t
during a celebration called ato. The sale was made in
consideration of P1,500 and was made in favor of
Edward Pasiteng, whose house had been built thereon. It
w a s a gr e e d t h a t t h e u n r e g i s t e r e d p r o p e r t y w o u l d b e
registered under Sec. 194 of the Revised Administrative
Code as amended by Act No. 3344. Besides Cullalad,
several members of the tomayan affixed their signatures
or thumb marks on the notarized deed of sale.
Thereafter, Pasiteng declared the property as his own for
taxation purposes and paid taxes thereon.
- In 1983, while Pasiteng was out hunting, Erkey Pit-og
( a ka M a r y P i t - o g) a n d h e r co m p a n i o n s d e s tr o ye d th e
fence erected by Pasiteng and cut down and took away
the sugarcane worth P1,000 and the banana fruits
valued at P100 found in the area. Pasiteng reported the
matter to the police. Three days later, the police filed a
complaint for theft against Erkey Pit-og in the Municipal
Trial Court of Bontoc.
- Pit-og pleaded not guilty of theft on the ground that the
t a ya n b e l o n ge d t o h e r, h e r f a th e r L o b ch o ke n b e i n g a
descendant Jakot. She did not declare the land for
taxation purposes because no one in the tomayan was
allo wed to declare the land as his o wn. However, an y
m em be r of the to m a ya n co u ld m a ke i mp r ov em en ts o n
t h e la n d a n d c la i m t h e m a s h is o wn . An yo n e wh o
abandoned the land would be succeeded only by other
members. No person outside the tomayan could succeed
to the cultivation of the tayan.
- Lobchoken, planted sugarcane in the tayan in Loag and
when he died, his widow Pidchoy and their children
continued cultivating the land. They also built a granary
thereon. The land was later given to Pit-og by Pidchoy
for cultivation. Thereafter, the family allowed Pasiteng to
b u i l d a h o u se b e h i n d th e p l a ce w h e r e P i t - o g a n d h e r
family used to have a house because Edward was
E r ke y' s u n c l e b e i n g t h e b r o th e r o f h e r f a th e r. E r k e y
planted the bananas and avocado trees in the area and
h arv este d the su ga r ca ne . No o ne ha d ever p rev en ted
her from cutting the sugarcane and the other plants.
T h e m u n i c i p a l t r i a l c o u r t d i s cr e d i t e d P i t - o g ' s s t o r y
emphasizing that her claim of continuous occupation and
p o s se s si o n o f th e l a n d w a s b a se l e ss a s sh e h a d "n o
papers to show" or prove such claim. It found that an
the elements of theft under Article 308 of the RPC were
present and accordingly rendered the judgment of
conviction.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision
of the lower courts with the following findings and
observations:
- P a si te n g s cl a i m of o wn e r sh i p i s d o cu m e n te d b y a
Deed of Conveyance, a public document which was
executed between him and the members of the tomayan
gro up . Th e val id i ty o f th i s p ub li c d ocu me n t h as n eve r
been questioned by any one of the previous owners
belonging to the to ma yan group. Furthermore , the tax
declarations in the name of and the realty tax payments
by, Pasiteng, although not conclusive proofs of
ownership, are, nevertheless, prima facie evidence of his
possession of the land in question. In contrast to these
documentary evidence, petitioner offers nothing better
t h a n h e r b a r e c l a i m . T h e p e r so n a l p r o p e r t y t a ke n b y
accused-petitioner not being hers but those of Pasiteng,
and she gained from the taking thereof without the
consent of the owner, accused-petitioner is guilty of the
crime of theft.
ISSUES
1. WON Pit-og had criminal intent in taking the
sugarcane and the bananas.
2. WON the present case is criminal or civil in nature.
HELD
1. Erkey Pit-og could not have had criminal intent
because she took the sugarcane and bananas believing
them to be her own.
- Ed wa rd Pa si te n g r el ie d h eav il y o n hi s d ocum en ta r y
ev id en ce to pr ove o wne r sh i p ove r the su gar can e a nd
bananas. A careful study of these documents, in
con junction wi th the testimonial evidence extant in the
record, however, discloses matters which put a cloud of
d o u b t u p o n P i t - o g s c u l p a b i l i t y. T h e d e e d o f s a l e
VALMONTE V BELMONTE, JR
CORTES; February 13, 1989
FACTS
- Petitioners are media practitioners who wish to confirm
repor ts tha t cer tain members of the Bata sang
Pambansa, including some members of the opposition,
w e r e g r a n te d c l e a n l o a n s f r o m t h e GS I S b e f o r e t h e
F e b r u a r y 1 9 8 6 e l e ct i o n s . P e t i t i o n e r Val m o n t e f i l e d a
special civil action for mandamus with preliminary
i n j u n c t i o n , p r a yi n g t h a t r e s p o n d e n t B e l m o n t e , i n h i s
capacity as GSIS General Manager, be directed to:
1 . F u r n i sh p e ti t i o n e r s w i t h a l i s t o f t h e n a m e s o f t h e
members of the defunct Batasang Pambansa who were
ISSUES
P r o ce d u r a l :
1 . W ON t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a s t h e p e r s o n a l i t y o r l e g a l
standing to file the instant petition; and
2. WON this Court is the proper court before which this
action may be filed.
Substantive:
1. WON this Court could require the PCGG to disclose to
the public the details of
any agreement, perfected or
not, with the Marcoses; and
2. W ON there exist any legal restraints against a
compromise agreement between the Marcoses
and the PCGG relative to the Marcoses illgotten wealth.
HELD
Procedural:
1. Yes. W hen the issue concerns a public right and the
object of mandamus is to obtain the enforcement of a
public duty, the people are regarded as the real parties
in interest; and because it is sufficient that petitioner is
a citizen and as such is interested in the execution of the
laws, he need not show that he has
any legal or
special interest in the result of the action.
2. Yes. Section 5, Article VIII of the Constitution expressly
confers upon the Supreme Court original
jurisdiction
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto and habeas corpus. The argument of
respondent that petitioner should have properly sought
relief before the Sandiganbayan in which enforcement of
t h e c o m p r o m i se a g r e e m e n t s w a s p e n d i n g r e s o l u t i o n
seems to have merit, if
petitioner was merely seeking
to enjoin the enforcement of the compromise and/or to
compel the PCGG
t o d i s cl o se to th e p u b l i c t h e
terms contained in said Agreements. However, petitioner
is here seeking the
public
di sclo sur e of al l
negotiations and agreement, be they ongoing or
p e r f e cte d , a n d d o cu m e n ts r e l a t e d o r r e l a t i n g to su ch
negotiations and agreement between the PCGG and the
Marcos heirs. In other words, the petition is not merely
c o n f i n e d t o t h e Ag r e e m e n t s t h a t h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n
drawn, but
likewise to any other ongoing or future
undertaking to wards any settlement on the alleged
Mar cos loo t. The core issue boils down to the preci se
in terpre tation, in ter ms of scope , of the twi n
constitutional
provisions on public transactions.
Substantive:
1 . Yes . T h e r e i s n o d o u b t t h a t t h e r e c o v e r y o f t h e
Marcoses alleged ill-gotten wealth is a matter of public
concern and imbued with public interest. Ill-gotten
wealth, by its very nature, assumes a public character.
The assets and properties referred to supposedly
originated from the government itself. To all intents and
purposes, therefore, they belong to the people.
Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution
that
transactions
contemplates
inclusion
of
negotiations leading to the consummation of a
transaction, it is incumbent upon the PCGG and its
c)
SEPARATE OPINION
PUNO [dissent]
- Most significant issue is whether the VFA violates Sec
25 Art XVIII of the Constitution (see requirements
above).
- POINT 1: Respondents claim that the requirements do
not apply as the VFA contemplates a temporary visit of
the troops, while the provision applies to a permanent
presence of foreign troops.
The said temporary nature of the VFA cannot stand.
Neither the VFA nor the Mutual Defense Treaty between
RP and US provides the slightest suggestion on the
duration of the visits. VFA does not provide for a specific
and limited period of effectivity.
- POINT 2: The requirement that it be recognized as a
treaty by the other contracting state is crystal clear and
was put there by the framers inorder not to repeat the
anomalous asymmetry of the 1947 Military bases
agreement where we recognized it as a treaty but the
US treated it as an executive agreement.
- The VFA is equivalent to a sole executive agreement in
the US. The Court will be standing on unstable ground if
it places a sole executive agreement like the VFA on the
same constitutional plateau as a treaty, as there are still
questions on the constitutional basis and legal effects of
sole executive agreements under the US law.
- With the cloud of uncertainty still hanging on the
exact legal force of sole executive agreements under the
US constitutional law, this Court must strike a blow for
the sovereignty of our country by drawing a bright line
between the dignity and status of a treaty in contrast
with a sole executive agreement. However we may wish
it, The VFA as a sole executive agreement cannot climb
to the same lofty height that the dignity of a treaty can
reach. Consequently, it falls short of the requirement set
by Sec 25 Art XVIII of the 1987 Constitution that the
agreement allowing the presence of foreign military
troops on Phil soil must be recognized as a treaty by the
other contracting state. I vote to grant the petitions.
p r e r o g a t i v e t o e n t e r i n to a l l k i n d s o f t r a n sa c t i o n s o r
contracts as may be necessary for the attainment of its
purposes and objectives." What the PCSO charter "seeks
to prohibit is that arrangement akin to a "joint venture"
or partnership where there is "community of interest in
the business, sharing of profits and losses, and a mutual
right of control," a characteristic which does not obtain
in a contract of lease." They further claim that the
establishment of the telecommunications system
stipu lated in the Con tract of Lease does not requ ire a
congressional franchise because PGMC will not operate a
public utility
- They also argue that the contract does not violate the
F o r e i g n I n v e s t m e n t Ac t o f 1 9 9 1 ; t h a t t h e Ar t i c l e s o f
I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f P G M C a u t h o r i ze i t to e n te r i n to t h e
Contract of Lease; and that the issues of "wisdom,
morality and propriety of acts of the executive
department are beyond the ambit of judicial review."
F i n a l l y, t h e y a l l e g e t h a t t h e p e ti t i o n e r s h a v e n o
standing to maintain the instant suit.
ISSUES
P r o ce d u r a l : WON the petitioners have locus standi.
S u b s t a n t i v e : WON the Contract of Lease is legal and
v a l i d i n l i g h t o f R A 116 9 a s a m e n d e d b y B P B l g . 4 2 ,
which prohibits PCSO from holding and conducting
lotteries "in collaboration, association, or joint venture
w i t h a n y p e r s o n , a s s o c i a t i o n , c o m p a n y, o r e n t i t y,
whether domestic or foreign."
HELD
1. T h e p r e l i m i n a r y i s s u e o n t h e locus standi o f t h e
petitioners should, indeed, be resolved in their favor. A
party's standing before this Court is a procedural
te c hn i ca l i ty wh i ch i t ma y, i n the ex er c i se o f i ts
d i scr e ti o n , se t a si d e i n vi e w o f th e i m p o r ta n ce o f th e
issues raised. In the landmark Emergency Powers Cases,
this Court brushed aside this technicality because "the
transcendental importance to the public of these cases
demand s tha t the y be settl ed promptl y and definitel y,
brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of procedure.'
- The Court found the instant petition to be of
transcendental
importance
to
the
public.
The
r a m i f i ca t i o n s of su ch i s su e s i m m e a su r a b l y a ffe c t t h e
so cia l , e co no m i c, a nd m or al we l l - be in g of the p eo pl e
even in the remotest baranga ys of the countr y and the
counter-productive and retrogressive effects of the
envisioned on-line lotter y system are as staggering as
th e bi l li on s in p eso s i t i s exp ecte d to ra i se . Th e l e gal
sta nd in g the n of the pe ti tio ne r s de se r ve s re co gn i ti on
and, in the exercise of its sound discretion, this Court
hereby brushes aside the procedural barrier which the
respondents tried to take advantage of
2 . Contra ct of Lease is void for bein g con trar y to law.
PGM C is no t o nl y a Le sso r, PC SO in th e le a st wi l l b e
con du cti n g lo tter i e s in co ll ab o ra ti on o r asso ci a tio n
and in the most in joint vernture with PGMC. The
manegerial and technical expertise of PGMC are
i n d e s p e n si b l e t o t h e o p e r a ti o n o f th e o n - l i n e l o t t e r y
- PGMC is plainly a partner of PCSO in violation of the law
system, whereas PCSO only has its franchise to offer.
no ma tter how the assistan ce is ca lled or the contract
- By the exception explicitly made in paragraph B,
denominated.
Section 1 of its charter, the PCSO cannot share its
franchise with another by way of collaboration,
PADILLA [concurring]
association or joint venture. Neither can it assign,
- Contract of Lease between PCSO and PGMC is a joint
transfer, or lease such franchise.
venture because each part contributes its share in the
- It is a settled rule that "in all grants by the government
enterprise project. PGMC contributes the facilities,
to individual s or corpora tion s of ri gh ts, privile ge s and
technology and expertise, while PCSO contributes the
f r a n c h i s e s , t h e w o r d s a r e to b e t a ke n m o s t s tr o n g l y
market through the dealers and in the totality the mass
against the grantee .... [o]ne who claims a franchise or
of Filipino gambling elements. PGMC will get its 4.9% of
privilege in derogation of the common rights of the
gross receipts; the residue of the whole exercise will go
p ub li c mu st p rov e hi s ti tl e the re to b y a gra n t wh i ch i s
to PCSO, this is a joint venture plain and simple.
clearly and definitely expressed, and he cannot enlarge
i t b y e qu i v o ca l o r d o u b tf u l p r ov i si o n s o r b y p r o b a b l e
MELO [dissenting]
i n f e r e n ce s. W ha te v e r i s n o t u n e qu i v o ca l l y gr a n te d i s
- This case does not involve a challenge on the validity of
withheld. Nothing passes by mere implication."
a statute nor an attempt to restrain expenditure of
- W he th e r t h e co n t r a c t i n q u e s ti o n i s o n e of l e a se o r
p u b l i c f u n d s. T h e co n tr a ct i n v o lv e s s tr i c tl y co r p o r a te
whether the PGMC is merely an independent contractor
money.
sh ou l d no t b e de ci de d o n t h e ba s i s of t he title or
- By considering this case as a taxpayer's suit could not
designation o f t h e c o n t r a c t b u t b y t h e i n t e n t o f t h e
cure the lack of locus standi on the part of the
parties, which may be gathered from the provisions of
p e ti t i o n e r s . T h e co n t r a c t d o e s n o t i n v o l v e a n i l l e g a l
the contract itself. Animus hominis est anima scripti. The
disbursement of public funds. No public fund raised by
intention of the party is the soul of the instrument.
taxation is involved.
- A careful analysis and evaluation of the provisions of
the
contract
and
a
consideration
of
the
contemporaneous acts of the PCSO and PGMC
PUNO [dissenting]
indubitabl y disclose that the contract is not in reality a
- C o u r t s a r e n e i th e r f r e e to d e ci d e a l l ki n d s o f ca se s
contract of lease under whi ch the PGM C is merel y an
dumped in to the ir laps nor are the y free to open the ir
independent contractor for a piece of work, but one
doors to all parties or entities claiming a grievance.
where the statutorily proscribed collaboration or
- It is clear that the requirement of locus standi has not
association, in the least, or joint venture , a t th e mo st,
been jettisoned by the Constitution for it still commands
exists between the contracting parties.
c o u r t s i n n o u n c e r t a i n t e r m s t o s e t t l e on l y a ctua l
(C o l l a b o r a t i o n i s d e f i n e d a s t h e a c t s o f w o r k i n g
controversies involving rights which are legally
together in a joint project. A s s o ci a t i o n means the act
demandable and enforceable/
o f a n u m b e r o f p e r s o n s i n u n i t i n g t o g e t h e r f o r so m e
- Rationale for the standard of locus standi is to assure a
special purpose or business. Jo i n t v e n t u r e is defined as
vigorous adversary presentation of the case, and
an association of persons or companies jointly
perhaps more importantly to warrant the judiciary's
undertaking some commercial enterprise; g e n e r a l l y a l l
overruling
the determ ination
of
a
coordinate,
contribute assets and share risks. )
democratically elected organ of government.
- The contemporaneous acts of the PCSO and the PGMC
reveal that the PCSO had neither funds of its own nor the
KILOSBAYAN, INC., ET AL. VS. MORATO
expertise to operate and manage an on-line lottery
MENDOZA; July 17, 1995
system, and that although it wished to have the system,
it would have it "at no expense or risks to the
FACTS
government." Because of these serious constraints and
- As a r e su l t o f o u r d e ci sio n in G .R . No . 113 3 7 5
unwillingness to bear expenses and assume risks, the
(Kilosbayan, Incorporated v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110
PCSO wa s candid enough to state in its RF P that it is
(1994) invalidating the Contract of Lease between the
seeking for "a suitable contractor which shall build, at its
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and the
o wn ex pe nse , a ll th e fa ci l i tie s ne ed ed to op er a te an d
Philipp ine Gam ing Management Corp. (PGMC ) on the
maintain" the system; exclusively bear "all capital,
ground that it had been made in violation of the charter
operating expenses and expansion expenses and risks."
of the PCSO, the parties entered into negotiations for a
new agreement that would be "consistent with the
SEPARATE OPINION
latter's [PCSO] charter . . . and conformable to this
Honorable Court's aforesaid Decision."
- On January 25, 1195 the parties signed an Equipment
CRUZ [concurring]
Lease Agr eement (thereaf ter ca lled EL A) whe reb y the
j u d gm e n t i s n o t d e p e n d e n t u p o n i t s f i n a l i t y. T h e f i r st
j u d g m e n t i s g e n e r a l l y, i f n o t u n i v e r sa l l y, n o t f i n a l , I t
relates entirely to questions of law, and is confined in its
q u e s t i o n s o f l a w, a n d i s c o n f i n e d i n i t s o p e r a t i o n t o
subsequent proceedings in the same case . . . ."
(Municipality of Daet v. Court of Appeals, 93 SCRA 503,
521 (1979) )
- It follows that since the present case is not the same
one litigated by he parties before in G.R. No. 113375,
the ruling there cannot in any sense be regarded as "the
law of this case." The parties are the same but the cases
are not.
- Nor is inquiry into petitioners; right to maintain this suit
foreclosed by the related doctrine of "conclusiveness of
judgment." According to the doctrine, an issue actually
and directly passed upon the and determined in a former
s u i t c a n n o t a ga i n b e d r a w n i n q u e s t i o n i n a n y f u tu r e
action between the same parties involving a different of
action. (Pealosa v. Tuason , 22 Phil. 303, 313 (1912);
Heirs of Roxas v. Galido, 108. 582 (1960))
- I t h a s b e e n h e l d t h a t th e r u l e o n co n cl u s i v e n e ss o f
judgment or preclusion of issues or collateral estoppel
does not appl y to is sues of la w, at leas t when
substantially unrelated claims are involved. (Montana v.
United States, 440 U.S. 147, 162, 59 L. Ed. 2d 210 , 222
(1979); BATOR, MELTZER, MISHKIN AND SHAPIRO, THE
FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 1058, n. 2
(3rd Ed., 1988)) Following this ruling it was held in
Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 92 L. Ed. 898
(1947) that where a taxpayer assigned to his wife
interest in a patent in 1928 and in a suit it was
determined that the money paid to his wife for the years
1929-1931 under the 1928 assignment was not part of
his taxable income, this determination is not preclusive
in a second action for collection of taxes on amounts to
h i s w i f e u n d e r a n o th e r d e e d o f a s si g n m e n t f o r o t h e r
years (1937 to 1941). For income tax purposes what is
decided with respect to one contract is not conclusive as
to any other contract which was not then in issue,
however similar or identical it may be. The rule on
co ll a ter al estop pe l . i t wa s h el d , "m u st b e co nf in ed to
situations where the matter raised in the second suit is
i d e n ti ca l i n a l l r e sp e ct s w i th t h a t d e ci d e d i n th e f i r st
preceding and where the controlling facts and applicable
legal rules remain unchanged." (333 U.S. at 599-600, 92
L. Ed. at 907) Consequently, "if the relevant facts in the
two cases are separate even though they may be similar
or identical, collateral estoppel does not govern the legal
issues which occur in the second case. Thus the second
p r o ce e d i n g m a y i n v o l v e a n i n str u m e n t o r tr a n sa c ti o n
identical with but in a form separable form, the one dealt
wi th in the first proceedin g. In tha t si tua tion a cour t i s
free in the second proceeding to make an independent
examination of the legal matters at issue. . . ." (333 U.S.
at 601, 92 L. Ed. at 908)
SEPARATE OPINION
FELICIANO [dissent]
PADILLA [concur]
- I jo i n th e m a jo r i t y i n v o ti n g fo r th e d i sm i ssa l o f t h e
petition in this case. It is the duty of the Supreme Court
to apply the laws enacted by Congress and approved by
the President, (unless they are violative of the
Constitution) even if such laws run counter to a
Member's personal conviction that gambling should be
totally prohibited by law.
- In my separate concurring opinion in the first lotto case
(G.R. No. 113375), expressed the view that the rule on
locus standi, being merely a procedural rule, should be
r el ax ed , a s the i ssue th en wa s of pa ra mo un t na tio na l
interest and importance, namely, the legality of a lease
contract into by PCSO with PGMC whereb y the former
sought an "on-line high-tech" lottery, undeniably a form
of ga mb l in g, the te r m s of wh i ch cl ea r l y p oi n te d to an
"association, collaboration or joint venture" with PGMC.
REGALADO [dissent]
h o l d i n g of th i s h i gh e st C o u r t o n a sp e c i f i c i ssu e w a s
handed do wn in an original action for ce rtiorari , i t has
the same binding effect as it would have had if
promulgated in a case on appeal, Furthermore, since in
our jurisdiction an original action for certiorari to control
and set aside a grave abuse of official discretion can be
c o m m e n c e d i n t h e Su p r e m e C o u r t i t s e l f , i t w o u l d b e
absurd that for its ruling therein to constitute the law of
the case, there must first be a remand to a lower court
w h i c h n a t u r a l l y co u l d n o t b e t h e c o u r t o f o r i g i n f r o m
which the postulated second appeal should be taken.
2 . Ob v i o u sl y r e a l i zi n g t h a t co n t i n u e d r e l i a n ce o n th e
l o cu s sta nd i b ar to pe ti tio ne r 's su i t i s n o t an i ro n cl ad
gu ar an t y a ga i n st i t, th e m a jor i t y po si ti on ha s ta ke n a
d i ffe r e n t ta ck . I t n o w i nv o ke d th e co n ce p t of a n d th e
rule s on a ri gh t of action in ordinar y civil action s and,
prescinding from its previous positions, insists that what
i s suppo sedl y de termina tive
of the issue of
representation is contract law and not constitutional law.
On the predicate that petitioners are not parties to the
co n tr a ct , p r i m a r i l y o r su b s i d i a r i l y, th e y th e n a r e r e a l
p ar tie s in i n te re st, a nd fo r la ck of cau se of acti on on
their part they have no right of action. Ergo, they, cannot
maintain the present petition.
A s a m a t t e r o f a co n v e n ti o n a l r u l e o f p r o c e d u r e , t h e
syllogism of the majority can claim the merit of logic but,
even so, only on assumed premises. More importantly,
h o w e v e r, th e b l e m i s h i n i t s n e w b l u e p r i n t i s t h a t t h e
d e f e n se o f l a c k o f a r i g h t o f a c t i o n i s e ff e c t i v e l y th e
same as lack of locus standi, that is, the absence of the
remedial right to sue. As the commentators of Castille
would sa y, the objection under the new terminology is
"lo mismo perro con distinto collar." That re-christened
ground, as we shall later see, has already been
foreclosed by the judgment of the Court in the first lotto
case.
It is true that a right of action is the right or standing to
enforce a cause of action. For its purposes, the majority
u r ge s th e a d o p t i o n o f t h e st a n d a r d co n ce p t of a r e a l
party in interest based on his possession of a cause of
action. It could not have failed to perceive, but
none theless refuses to con cede, that the con cept of a
cau se of action in public intere st case s should no t be
straitjacketed within its usual narrow confines in private
interest litigations.
Thus, adverting again to American jurisprudence, there
i s the caveat that "the adop tion of provision requirin g
t h a t a n a c t i o n b e p r o se c u t e d i n t h e n a m e o f t h e r e a l
party in interest does not solve all questions as to the
p ro pe r pe r so n or p er so n s to i nsti tu te sui t, a l th ou gh i t
o b v i o u sl y si m p l i f i e s p r o ce d u r e s i n a ct i o n s a t l a w. . .
There is no clearly defined rule by which one may
determine who is or is not real party in interest, nor has
there been found any concise definition of the term. Who
is the real party in interest depends on the peculiar facts
of each separate case, and one may be a party in
DAVIDE [dissent]
hereby brushes aside the procedural barrier which the
- I register a dissenting vote.
respondents tried to take advantage of.
- I am disturbed by the sudden reversal of our rulings in
- In th i s con cu rr i n g o pi ni on , Mr. Ju sti ce F lo r en ti no P.
Kilosbayan, Inc., et al. vs. Guingona, et al. 1 referred to
Feliciano further showed substantive grounds or
as the first lotto case) regarding the application or
co n sid er a tio n s of im po r tan ce wh i ch stre n gth en ed th e
interp reta tion of the excep tion clau se in para graph B,
le gal stand ing of the peti tioner s to bring and mainta in
Section 1 of the Charter of the PCSO (R.A. No. 1169), as
the action, namely: (a) the public character of the funds
a m e n d e d b y B .P. Bl g. 4 4 2 , a n d o n th e i ssu e of l o cu s
or other assets involved in the contract of lease; (b) the
standi of the petitioners to question the contract of lease
presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional
involving the on-line lottery system entered into
or legal provision by the public respondent agency; (c)
between the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office
the lack of any other party with a more direct and
(PCSO) and the Philippine Gaming Management
specified interest in raising the questions involved
Corporation (PGMC). Such reversal upsets the salutary
therein; and (d) the wide range of impact of the contract
doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, and stare
of lease and of its implementation.
decisis. It puts to jeopardy the faith and confidence of
O n l y l a s t 6 Ap r i l 1 9 9 5 , i n t h e d e c i s i o n i n Tat a d v s .
the p eo pl e , spe cia l l y the la w ye r s an d li ti ga n ts, i n the
Garcia, 3 this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Camilo
ce r ta i n l y a n d s ta b i l i t y o f th e p r o n o u n ce m e n t s o f th i s
D. Quiason who had joined in the dissenting opinions in
Court. It opens the floodgates to endless litigations for
the first lotto case the petitioners, locus standi therein,
re-examina tion of su ch pronouncemen ts and wea kens
invoked and applied the ruling on locus standi in the first
this Court's judicial and moral authority to demand from
lotto case. He stated:
lower courts obedience thereto and to impse sanctions
The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are to allow
for their opposite conduct.
t a x p a ye r s t o q u e s t i o n c o n t r a c t s e n t e r e d i n t o b y t h e
- It must be noted that the decision in the first lotto case
national government or government-owned or controlled
was unconditionally accepted by the PCSO and the
corporations allegedly in contravention of the law
PGMC, as can be gleaned from their separate
(Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110 [1994] and
manifestations that they would not ask for its
to disallow the same when only municipal contracts are
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n b u t w o u l d , i n s t e a d , n e go t i a te a n e w
involved (Bugna y Construction and Development
equipment lease agreement consistent with the decision
Corporation v. Laron, 176 SCRA 240 [1989].
and the PCSO's charter and that they would furnish the
For as long as the ruling in Kilosbayan on locus standi is
Court a copy of the new agreement. The decision has,
n o t r e v e r s e d , w e h a v e n o ch o i ce b u t t o f o l l o w i t a n d
thus, become final on 23 May 1994. 2
uphold the legal standing of petitioners as taxpayers to
- As the writer of the said decision and as the author of
institute the present action.
the exception to paragraph B, Section 1 of R.A. No.
- Mr. Justi ce San tia go M . Kapunan , who had also
116 9 , a s a m e n d e d , I ca n n o t a c ce p t th e s tr a i n e d a n d
di ssen ted in the fi rst lo tto ca se o n th e i ssu e of l ocu s
ten uo u s ar gu me n ts a dd uced i n the m a jo ri t y op in io n i t
standi; unqualifiedly concurred with the majority opinion
justly the reversal of our rulings in the first lotto case.
in Tatad. Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, the writer of
W hile there are exceptions to the aforementioned
the ponencia in this case, also invoked the locus standi
doctrines and I am not inexorably opposed to upsetting
ruling in the first lotto ca se to deny legal standin g to
prior
decisions
if
warranted
by overwhelm ing
Tatad, et al. He said:
considerations of justice and irresistible desire to rectify
- Nor do petitioners have standing to bring this suit as
a n e r r o r, n o n e o f su ch co n si d e r a ti o n s a n d n o th i n g of
citizens. In the cases in which citizens were authorized to
substance or weight can bring this case within any of the
su e , th i s C o u r t f o u n d s ta n d i n g b e ca u se i t th o u gh th e
exceptions.
constitutional claims pressed for decision to be of
- In the said case, we sustained the locus standi of the
"transcendental importance," as in fact it subsequently
petitioners, and in no uncertain terms declared:
granted relief to petitioners by invalidating the
We find the instant petition to be of transcendental
challenged statutes or governmental actions. Thus in the
i m p o r t a n ce t o t h e p u b l i c . T h e i s su e s i t r a i s e d a r e o f
Lotto case [Kilosbayan, Inc. vs. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110
paramount public interest and of a category even higher
(1994)] relief by the majority for upholding petitioner's
than those involved in many of the aforecited cases. The
standing, thi s Cour t too k into accoun t the "para mount
r a m i f i ca t i o n s of su ch i s su e s i m m e a su r a b l y a ffe c t t h e
public interest" involved which "immeasurably affect[ed]
so cia l , e co no m i c, a nd m or al we l l - be in g of the p eo pl e
the social, economic, and moral well-being of the
even in the remotest baranga ys of the countr y and the
people . . . and the counter-productive and retrogressive
counter-productive and retrogressive effects of the
effects of the envisioned on-line lottery system."
envisioned on-line lottery system are as staggering as
Accord ingl y, the Court invalida ted the contract for the
the bil lions of peso s it is expected to raise . The legal
operation of the lottery.
stan di n g th an of th e p eti ti on er s d ese rv es r eco gn i tio n
- Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa and Associate Justice
and, in the exercise of its sound discretion, this Court
Abdulwahid A Bidin, Jose A.R. Melo, Reynato S. Puno,
Jose C. Vitug, and Ricardo J. Francisco, joined him in his
a s so c i a t i o n , c o m p a n y o r e n ti t y. An d , th e c o n t r a c t i n
qu e stio n i s n ot di ffer en t f ro m or u nr el a te d to the fi rst
nullified contract, for it in nothing but a substitute for the
latter. Respondent Morato was even candid enough to
admit that no new and separate public bidding was
conducted for the ELA in question because the PCSO was
of the belief that the public bidding for the nullified
contract was sufficient.
Its reliance on the ruling in Montana vs. United States 8
that preclusion or collateral estoppel does not apply to
i s s u e s o f l a w, a t l e a s t w h e n s u b s t a n t i a l l y u n r e l a t e d
cl a i m s a r e i n v o l v e d , i s m i sp l a ce d . F o r o n e th i n g , t h e
qu e st i o n o f th e p e t i t i o n e r s ' l e ga l s ta n d i n g i n th e f i r s t
lotto case and in this case is one and the same issue of
law. For another, these cases involve the same and not
substantially unrelated subject matter, viz., the second
contract between the PCSO and the PGMC on the
operation of the on-line lottery system.
The majority opinion likewise failed to consider that in
the very authority it cited regarding the exception to the
r u l e o f i s s u e p r e c l u s i o n ( Tes t a m e n t o f t h e L a w, 2 d
Judgments $ 28), the second illustration stated therein is
subject to this NOTE: "The doctrine of the stare decisis
may lead the court to refuse to reconsider the question
of sovereign immunity," which simpl y means that stare
decisis is an effective bar to a re-examination of a prior
judgment.
The doctrine of stare decisis embodies the legal maxim
that a principle or rule of law which has been established
by the decision of a court of controlling jurisdiction will
be followed in other cases involving a similar situation. It
i s founded on the necessity for secu ring cer tain ty and
stability in the law and does not require identity or
privity of parties. 9 This is explicitly fleshed out in Article
8 of the Civil Code which provides that decisions
applying or interpreting the laws or the constitution shall
form part of the legal system. Such decisions "assume
the same authority as the statute itself and, until
authoritatively abandoned, necessarily become, to the
extent that they are applicable, the criteria which must
control the actuations not only of those called upon to
aside thereby but also of those in duty bound to enforce
o b e d i e n ce th e r e to . " 1 0 Ab a n d o n m e n t th e r e o f m u st b e
based only on strong and compelling reasons - which I
do not find in this case - otherwise, the becoming virtue
of predictabiity which is expected from this Court would
be immeasurably affected and the public's confidence in
the stability of its solemn pronouncements diminished.
The doctrine of res judicata also bars a relitigation of the
issue of locus standi and a re-examination of the
application or interpretation of the exception clause in
paragraph B, Section 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as amended.
Section 49 (b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on effects of
judgment expressly provides:
(b)In all other cases the judgment or order is, with
r espe ct to the m a tter ca se s the ju d gm en t or o rd er i s,
w i t h r e sp e c t t o t h e m a t t e r d i r e c t l y a d j u d g e d o r a s t o
other matter that could have been parties and their
FACTS
- A peti tion to annul and set aside the deci sion of the
Board of Investments ( BOI) / Depar tmen t of Trade and
Industry approving the transfer of site of the proposed
p e tr o ch em i cal pl an t f ro m Ba ta an to Ba ta n ga s a nd the
sh i f t o f f e e d sto ck fo r th a t p l a n t f r o m n a p h th a o n l y to
naphtha and/or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).
- P.D. No. 1803 reserved 576 hectares of public domain
in Lamao, Libay, Bataan for the Petrochemical Industrial
Zone under the administration, management and
ownership of the Philippine National Oil Company
(PNOC).
- Taiwanese investors in a petrochemical project formed
the Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC) and applied
with BOI for registration as a new domestic producer of
petrochemicals. It specified Bataan as plant site, and one
of the terms and conditions for registration was the use
of naphtha cracker and naphtha as feedstock for fuel for
its plant, which was to be a joint venture with PNOC. BPC
was issued a certificate of registration on Feb. 24, 1988.
- BPC was given pioneer status ands accorded fiscal and
other incentives, like, (1) exemption from taxes on raw
m a te r i a l s, ( 2 ) e l i m i n a t i n g th e 4 8 % a d v a l o r e m t ax o n
naphtha if and when it is used as raw materials for the
petrochemical plant.
- In February 1989, A.T. Chong, Chairman of USI Far East
Corporation, the major investor in BPC expressed to DTI
Secretary his desire to amend the original registration
certification of its project by changing the job site from
Bataan to Batangas because of the insurgency and
unstable labor situation in Bataan and the presence in
Batangas of a huge LPG depot owned by Philippine Shell
Corporation. Other requested amendments are as
follows: (1) increasing the investment amount from $220
m i l l i o n to $ 3 2 0 m i l l i o n ; ( 2 ) i n cr e a si n g t h e p r o d u ct i o n
capa ci ty of i ts naph tha cracker, polyth ylene plant and
po l yp ro p yl en e p la n t; ( 3) cha n gi n g th e fe ed sto ck fro m
naphtha only to naphtha and/or LPG.
- On May 25, 1989, BOI approved the revision sta tin g
that, The BOI recognizes and respects the principle that
the final choice is still with the proponent who would in
the final analysis provide the funding or risk capital for
the project.
- In the petition entitled Congressman Enrique T. Garcia
v. The Board of Investments, this court ordered BOI as
follows: (1) to publish the amended application for
registration of the Bataan Petrochemical Corporation, (2)
to allo w the petitioner to have access to its records on
the original and amended applications for registration,
a s a p e tr o ch e m i c a l m a n u f a c tu r e r, o f t h e r e sp o n d e n t
Bataan Petrochemical Corporation, excluding, however,
privileged papers containing its trade secrets and other
business and financial information, (3) to set for hearing
the petitioners opposition to the amended application in
order that he may present at such hearing all the
evidence in his possession in support of his opposition to
the transfer of the site of the BPC petrochemical plant to
Batangas.
- Garcia filed motion for reconsideration asking the Court
to rule on whe ther or not the investor given the ini tia l
indu cements and other cir cumstan ces su rrounding i ts
first choice of plant site may change simpl y because it
h a s th e f i n a l ch o i ce o n th e m a tt e r. T h e C o u r t m e r e l y
ruled that the petitioner appears to have lost interest in
the case by his failure to appear in the hearing that was
set by BOI.
- A m o t i o n f o r r e co n si d e r a t i o n o f sa i d r e so l u ti o n wa s
filed , asking tha t the Court resolve wh ether or not the
foreign investor has the right of final choice of plant site;
that the non-attendance of the petitioner at the hearing
was because the decision was not yet final and
executor y, and therefore petitioner has not waived his
right. Court resolution stated that BOI, not the investor
has final choice on the matter and tha t even a cho ice
approved by BOI may not be final for supervening
circumstances and changes in the conditions of a place
m a y d i c ta t e a co r r e sp o n d i n g ch a n g e i n th e ch o i ce of
plant site in order that the project will not fail. However,
petition was denied.
SEPARATE OPINION
GRINO-AQUINO [dissenting]
MELENCIO-HERRERA [dissenting]
ISSUES
Procedural
COMMITTEE
1. WON the Bicameral Conference Committee has
PADILLA; November 20, 1991
strictl y complied with the rules of both houses thereb y
re ma in i n g wi thi n the ju ri sd i ctio n co nf er re d u po n i t b y
FACTS
congress.
- Pe ti tio n fo r p ro hi b i tio n to rev ie w the de ci si on o f th e
2. W ON the Bicameral Conference Committee violated
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
Article VI Sec 26 that states that no amendment would
- 7/30/1987: RP, represented by the Presidential
be done after three readings.
Commission on Good Government (PCGG), filed w/ the
3. WON there was a violation of the Origination Clause
Sandiganbayan the civil case no. 0035, RP vs. Benjamin
as stated in Art VI Sec 24.
Kokoy Romualdez, et al.
Substantive
-The comp laint alleges that defendants Ben jam in and
4. WON there was undue delegation to the President and
Juliette Romualdez took advantage of their relationship
Secretary of Finance.
w/ Defendants Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos to engage
5. WON a VAT law such as that of RA 9337 is in violation
in schemes to enrich themselves at the expense of the
o f t h e C o n s ti tu t i o n a l p r o v i si o n Ar t VI Se c 2 8 ( 1 ) th a t
Plaintiff and the Filipino People, among others:
requires taxation to be uniform, equitable and that the
-o b ta in i n g con tr o l ove r Me ra l co , Ben gu e t M in in g C o .,
Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
Shell, PCI Bank, etc., selling interests to PNI Holdings,
Inc. (corporators, Bengzon Law Offices), the concealment
HELD
of the assets sub ject to the comp laint from the PCGG
1. The Supreme Court decided that it would not rule on
under the veil of corporate identity, etc.
the violation of the senate and house rules unless there
8/2-6/1988: reports circulate of the sale of the
is a showing that it is in clear violation of a constitutional
Romualdez companies for 5M (far below market value)
provision or of the rights of private individuals. (favorite
without PCGG approval to the Ricardo Lopa Group,
ratio )
owned by Pres. Aquinos brother-in-law, Ricardo Lopa
2 . No, because the amendment rule refers onl y to the
Sen. Enrile called upon the Senate to investigate a
pr oced u re to b e fol lo wed b y e ach ho use of C on gr e ss
possible violation of S5 of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and
with regard to bills in each of the said respective houses
Corrupt Practices Act w/c p ro hi bi ts an y re la ti ve of the
before the bill i s tran smi tted to the othe r house for its
rd
President by affinity or consanguinity up to the 3 civil
concurrence and amendment.
degree, to intervene in any transaction w/ the
3. No, the Senate within the said provision only proposed
government
amendments after the House Bills were approved. The
- the m a tter wa s r ef er re d to th e Sen a te Co m mi tte e o n
Bill still originated through the House of Representatives.
Accountability
of
Public
Officers
(Blue
Ribbon
4. No, because the President is just executing the law
Committee)
and is still working within the standard and policy of the
-the Committee subpoenaed the petitioners and Ricardo
law. The Secretar y of Finance is also not given undue
L op a to te sti f y on wha t the y kno w a bo ut th e sal e of
d el e ga tio n as he i s co n sid er ed a s a n a l te r e go of the
the 36 Romualdez corporations
president thus following the same logic, he is only
-at the hearing, Lopa and Bengzon declined to testif y,
executing the law.
the former invoking the due proce ss clause , and both
5. While the VAT is currently not yet progressive it still is
averring that such testimonies would unduly prejudice
directed towards a goal of a progressive taxation.
the defendants of civil case no.0035
-petitioners thus filed the present petition for prohibition,
SEPARATE OPINION
praying for a temporary restraining order and/or
in jun ctive rel ief, claimin g that the Com mittee acted in
excess of its jurisdiction and legislative purpose
PANGANIBAN
-the Committee claims that the Court cannot enjoin the
Congress or its committees from making inquiries in aid
Sections 1, 2, and 3 of RA 9337 is unconstitutional as 1)
of legislation, under the doctrine of separation of powers
the increase of tax rates on domestic, resident foreign
(quoting Angara v. Comelec)
and nonresident foreign corporations, 2) the increase of
-the Court finds this contention untenable and is of the
tax cre d i t a gai n st tax es du e f ro m no nr esi de n t fo re i gn
view that it has the jurisdiction to delimit constitutional
co r p o r a ti o n s o n i n te r co r p o r a te d i v i d e n d s , a n d 3 ) th e
R e : W O N t h e B l u e R i b b o n C o m m i t t e e s i n q u i r y i s
in aid of legislation.
-the power of Congress to conduct investigations is
inherent and needs no textual granteven so, it is
expressly granted by A6 S21.
Barsky v. US: the possibility that invalid as well as valid
le gi sl a tio n mi gh t en su e fr om a n in qu ir y do es n o t li m i t
the power of inquiry
U S v. Deu tch : C o n g r e s s h a s t h e r i g h t t o s e c u r e
information in order to determine WON to legislate on a
particular subject matter on w/c it is w/in its
constitutional powers to act.
U S v. Or man : wh er e the i nf or ma ti on so u gh t con cer n s
w h a t C o n gr e s s ca n l e gi sl a te , a l e g i t i m a t e l e g i s l a t i v e
purpose must be presumed.
-the requirement that an inquiry be in aid of legislation
is easier to establish here where Congress legislative
Re: WON the inq uir y vio lates the pet it io ners right
to due process.
-t h e p e t i t i o n e r s a r e n o t f a c i n g c r i m i n a l c h a r g e s ; a s
ordinary witnesses, they may only invoke the right
against self-incrimination only when such a question is
posed, and cannot refuse taking the witness stand
outright.
SENATE V ERMITA
CARPIO-MORALES;
FACTS
- this is a consolidation of various petitions for certiorari
and prohibition challenging the constitutionality of E.O.
no. 46415 issued Sept. 28, 2005
GUINGONA V CARAGUE
GANCAYCO; April 22, 1991
FACTS
- T h e 1 9 9 0 b u d g e t c o n s i s t e d o f P 9 8 .4 B i n a u to m a t i c
appropria tion (86.8 goin g to debt servi ce) and P155 .3
f r o m th e G e n e r a l Ap p r o p r i a t io n s Ac t o r a t o t a l o f
P233.5B; only P27B was allotted for DECS. Petitioners, as
members of the Senate, question the constitutionality of
the automatic appropriation for debt service in the said
budget as provided for by Presidential Decrees 81, 117,
and 1967.
- Petitioners allege that the allotted budget runs contrary
to Sec. 5(5), Art. XIV of the Constitution. And as provided
by Art. 7 of the Civil Code, when statutes run contrary to
the Constitution, it shall be void.
- They further contend that the Presidential Decrees are
n o lo n ge r o pe ra tiv e si n ce th e y b ecam e functus oficio
after President Marcos was ousted. With a new congress
replacing the one man-legislature, new legislation
regarding appropriation should be passed. Current
appropriation, operating on no laws therefore, would be
unenforceable.
- Moreover, the y contend that assuming arguendo that
the said decrees did not expire with the ouster of
M ar co s, af ter ad op tio n of the 1 98 7 Co nsti tu ti on , sa id
decrees were inconsistent with Sec. 24, Article VI of the
Constitution which stated that:
Sec. 24.
All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills,
bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills
of local application, and private bills shall
originate
exclusively
in
the
House
of
Representatives, but the Senate may propose or
concur with amendments.
whereby bills have to be approved by the President, then
a l a w m u st b e p a s se d b y C o n gr e ss t o a u th o r i ze sa i d
automatic appropriation. Further, petitioners state said
d e c r e e s v i o l a te Se c t i o n 2 9 ( 1 ) o f Ar t i c l e V I o f th e
Constitution which provides as follows
Sec. 29(1).
No money shall be paid out of the
Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation
made by law.
T hey asse rt that there must be defini tene ss, cer tain ty
a n d e xa c tn e ss i n a n a p p r o p r i a ti o n , o th e r w i s e i t i s a n
undue delegation of legislative power to the President
who determines in advance the amount appropriated for
the debt service.
- SolGen argues, on the other hand, that automatic
appropriation provides flexibility: ". . . First, for example,
it enables the Government to take advantage of a
favorable turn of market conditions by redeeming high
in terest se curi tie s and borrowin g a t lower ra tes, or to
s h i f t f r o m sh o r t - t e r m to l o n g - te r m i n s t r u m e n t s , o r to
enter into arrangements that could lighten our
outstanding debt burden debt-to-equity, debt-to-asset,
d e b t - to - d e b t o r o th e r su c h s c h e m e s . S e c o n d , t h e
automatic appropriation obviates the serious difficulties
in deb t servicin g arisin g from an y devia tion from what
has been previously programmed. The annual debt
service estimates, which are usually made one year in
advance, are based on a mathematical set or matrix or,
in layman's parlance, `basket' of foreign exchange and
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
ASSOCIATION V ENRIQUEZ
QUIASON; August 19, 1994
FACTS
- House Bill No. 10900, the General Appropriation Bill of
1994 (GAB of 1994), was passed and approved by both
houses of Congress on December 17, 1993.
- On December 30, 1993, the President signed the bill
i n to la w, an d d ecl ar ed th e sa m e to hav e be co me
Republic Act No. 7663 16, the General Appropriation Act
(GAA) of 1994. On the same day, the President delivered
his Presidential Veto Message, specifying the provisions
of the bil l he vetoed and on wh ich he impo sed cer tain
conditions. No step was taken in either House of
Congress to override the vetoes.
18 Article XIV Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution states that: "T he State
shall assign the highest budget ary priorit y t o education and ensure that
teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents
t hrough adequate remuneration and ot her means of job sat isfact ion and
fulfillment."
19 "N o la w shal l be pass ed aut h orizin g an y t ransf er of ap propr iat io ns;
however, the President, the President of the Senat e, t he S peak er of t he
House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the
h e a d s o f C o n s t i t u t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n s m a y, b y l a w, b e a u t h o r i z e d t o
augment any it em in the general appropriations law for t heir respect ive
offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations."
ISSUE
W ON ve to of the special provision of Article 48 of the
GAA of 1994 in the appropriation for debt service
wi thou t vetoing the entire P86.3 B for said purpose is
unconstitutional
Or, simply put: WON the President exceeded the itemveto power accorded by the Constitution 20
ISSUES
1. WON the veto for revolving funds of State Universities
and Colleges (SUCs) is unconstitutional
2. WON the veto of the provision in the appropriation for
the Department of Public Works and Highways on 70%
(administrative) / 30% (contract) ratio for road
maintenance is unconstitutional
3. WON the veto of the provision on purchase of
HELD
An y p rov i si on wh i ch d oe s n ot re la te to a n y p ar ti cul ar
item, or which extends in its operation beyond an item of
appropriation,
is
considered
an
inappropriate
provision 21 w h i c h c a n b e v e t o e d s e p a r a t e l y f r o m a n
item.
R e a so n i n g : The issue, according to the ponencia is a
m e r e r e h a s h o f t h e o n e p u t t o r e s t i n Gonzales v.
Macaraig, Jr. Hen ce, it used thi s case as precedent. It
also cited another case, Henry v. Edwards to support its
ratio. Citing Gonzales: As the Constitution is explicit that
the provision which Congress can include in an
6.
WON
the
Presidents
directive
that
the
A F P, t h e s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n c a n n o t b e v e t o e d b y t h e
implementation of the Special Provision to the item on
President without also vetoing the said item.
the CAFGU's shall be subject to prior Presidential
4. No. Any provision blocking an administrative action in
approval is tantamount to an administrative embargo of
implementing a law or requiring legislative approval of
the con gre ssional wil l to imp lement the Con stitu tion 's
executive acts must be incorporated in a separate and
command
to
dissolve
the
CAFGU's,
therefore
substantive bill. Therefore, being "inappropriate"
unconstitutional (Issue on Impoundment 22)
provisions, Special Provisions Nos. 2 and 3 were properly
D e ci si on
1. No. There was no undue discrimination when the
President vetoed said special provisions.
2 . Yes . T h e S p e c i a l P r o v i s i o n i n q u e s t i o n i s n o t a n
in ap pr op r ia te p rov isi on wh i ch can b e th e sub je ct of a
veto. It is not alien to the appropriation for road
maintenance, and on the other hand, it specifies how the
said item shall be expended - 70% by administrative and
30% by contract.
3. Yes. Being directly related to and inseparable from the
a p p r o p r i a ti o n i te m o n p u r ch a se s o f m e d i ci n e s b y th e
vetoed.
5. No. The Special Provision, which allows the Chief of
Staff to use savings to augment the pension fund for the
AF P being managed b y the AFP Re tiremen t and
Separation Benefits System is violative of Sections
25(5)25 and 29(1) 26 of the Article VI of the Constitution.
o f th e G ov e r n o r 's ( Pr e si d e n t s) i te m ve to p o we r ov e r
general appropriation bills.
separately.
7. No. By setting guidelines or conditions in his veto, the
President is simply exercising his constitutional duty to
implement the laws faithfully.
D e ci si on
Yes. The President vetoed the entire paragraph 1 of the
Special Provision of the item on debt service, including
th e pr ovi so s tha t th e a pp ro pr ia ti on a u th or i zed i n sa i d
i t e m " s h a l l b e u se d f o r p a ym e n t o f t h e p r i n c i p a l a n d
interest of foreign and domestic indebtedness" and that
"in no case shall this fund be used to pay for the
liabilities of the Central Bank Board of Liquidators." The
said provisos, being appropriate provisions since the y
germane to and have a direct connection with the item
on debt service, cannot be vetoed separately. Hence the
item veto of said provisions is void.
22 This is the first case before this Court where the power of the President
20 A r t i c l e V I S e c t i o n 2 7 ( 2 ) o f t h e 1 9 8 7 C o n s t i t u t i o n s t a t e s t h a t : T h e
President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an
appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but veto shall mot affect the item or
items to which he does not object.
21 A lso included in t he cat egory of inappropriat e prov isions which are
intended to amend our laws, because clearly these laws have no place in an
appropriations bill, and therefore unconstitutional.
t o i m p o u n d i s p u t i n i s s u e . I mp ou ndment r e f e r s t o a r e f u s a l b y t h e
President, for whatever reason, to spend funds made available by Congress.
It is the failure to spend or obligate budget authorit y of any type (Notes:
Impoundment of Funds, Harvard Law Review)
23 Note that this ratio is also applied in issue [6] aside from the ratio which I
formulated there. This can be implied from, Again we state: a provision in
an ap p ro p r ia t i o n s ac t c a nn o t be u s ed t o re p e al or a me n d o t h er l a w s.
Hence, this is an inappropriate provision which can be vetoed separately.
24 Notes: Impoundment of Funds, Harvard Law Review; Notes: Presidential
Impoundment Constitutional Theories and Political Realities, Georgetown
L a w J o u r n a l ; N o t e s P r o t e c t i n g t h e F i s c : E x e c u t iv e I mp o u n d m e n t a n d
Congressional Power, Yale Law Journal
D i sp o s i t i v e
Petitions DISMISSED, except with respect with respect to
[1] G.R. Nos. 113105 and 113766 onl y insofar as the y
pray for the annulment of the veto of the special
provision on debt service specifying that the fund
therein appropriated "shall be used for payment of the
prin cipal and in terest of foreign and domestic
indebtedness" prohibiting the use of the said funds "to
pay for the liabilities of the Central Bank Board of
Liquidators", and [2] G.R. No. 113888 only insofar as it
p r a y s f o r t h e a n n u l m e n t o f t h e v e t o o f : ( a ) t h e 2 nd
paragraph of Special Provision No. 2 of the item of
appropriation for the DPW H; and (b) Special Provision
SEPARATE OPINION
PADILLA [concur and dissent]
-
VITUG [concur]
- I cannot debate the fact that the members of Congress,
more than the President and his colleagues, would have
the best feel on the needs of their own respective
constituents. It is not objectionable for Congress, by law,
to appropriate funds for such specific projects as it may
b e m i n d e d ; t o g i v e t h a t a u t h o r i t y, h o w e v e r , t o t h e
individual members of Congress in whatever guise, I am
afraid, would be constitutionally impermissible.
GONZALES V MACARAIG
MELENCIO-HERRERA; November 19, 1990
FACTS
- T h e S e n a te q u e s t i o n e d t h e co n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e
Presidential veto of special and general provisions,
particularly Sec. 55 of the General Appropriations Bill for
1989
- T h e p e ti ti o n e r s c l a i m t h e y h a v e l o cu s s ta n d i o n t h e
ground of:
- being member and ex-officio members of the Finance
Committee
- substantial taxpaers whose vital interests might be
affected
- The respondents in this case are member of the
C ab in e t wh o a re sue d in th ei r o ffi ci a l ca pa ci t y for th e
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e Ge n e r a l Ap p r o p r i a ti o n s Ac t o f
1989
- Dece mber 16, 1988 - The House of Represen ta tives
passed HB 19186 (GA Bill for 1989)
- eliminated/decreased items included in the proposed
Budget of the President
- presented to President for approval
- December 29, 1988 - The bill was signed into law
(became RA 6688)
- The President vetoed 7 special provisions and Sec.
55
- Februar y 2, 1989- Senate expressed through Senate
Resolution No. 381 that the veto of Sec. 55 was
unconstitutional
3 ) T h e p o w e r o f th e p r e si d e n t t o a u g m e n t i te m s i n
- April 11, 1989 - Petition for prohibition/mandamus was
a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r t h e e x e cu t i v e b r a n ch e s a l r e a d y
filed
provided for in Budget Law (specifically Sec. 44 and 45
- assailed the legality of veto of Sec. 55
of PD 1177 as amended by RA 6670)
- enjoined the implementation of RA 6688
4) The President is empowered to veto provisions of
- No restraining order was implemented by the
other distinct and severable parts.
Supreme Court
- September 7, 1989 - Court resolved to give due course
ISSUES
to the petition
1. WON the issue is justiciable
- Jan. 17, 1990 - Motion for Leave to File and to Admit
2. WON the veto by the President of Sec. 55 of the 1989
Supplementary Petition which raised the same issue as
App ro pr i a tio n s Bi l l an d i ts co un te rp ar t Se c. 1 6 o f th e
the original petition (questioning the presidential veto)
1990 Appropriations Bill is unconstitutional and without
- The vetoed provisions include:
effect
- Sec. 55 of the Appropriations Act of 1989 - an item
submi tted b y the Pre siden t whi ch has been reduced
HELD
by Congress cannot be restored/increased. An item is
1. The issue is justiciable, not political.
deemed disapproved if there is no corresponding
a) There is an actual case or justiciable controversy
appropriation in the Act.
between the Senate and the Executive that the
- Sec. 16 of the Appropriations Act of 1990 - similar to
Supreme Court may take cognizance of. The Demetria
Sec. 55 of the 1989 Appropriations Act except that this
v. Alba case declared that the Supreme Court has the
was lumped together with the use of savings
du t y to d ecl ar e acts of a gov er nm en t br an ch vo id i f
- The basic difference between both provisions is that
beyond that branch's powers
in the 1989 Appropriations Act, the "use of savings" is
b) Judicial arbitration needed because the petitioners
in Se ction 12, apar t from Se ction 55 wh ereas in the
stress the imperative need for definitive ruling by the
1 9 9 0 \ Ap p r o p r i a t i o n s Act , "u se of sa v i n gs " a n d t h e
Court
vetoed provision are both in Sec. 16
c) The petitioners have locus standi because the suit is
- The reason for the veto:
a taxpayer's suit. The Sanidad ruling (the Court may
- Violates Art. 6, Sec 25(5)
or may not entertain a taxpayer's suit) and the
- Nullifies the constitutional and statutory authroity of
Tolentino v.
COMELEC ruling (members of the
the President, the Senate President, Speaker of the
Senate have personality when a Constitutional issue is
House of Representatives, Chief Justice of the
raised) were used. This is also not the first time
Supreme Court and the Heads of Con-Coms to
that the veto power was discussed.
augment any item in the General Appropriations law
i) Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice - Court upheld the
- I f a l l o w e d , th e P r e s i d e n t a n d th e o t h e r
veto but reversed by the US Supreme Court because
ab ove me n ti on ed offi cia l s can no t au gme n t a n y i te m
of the Appropriations Bill was not involved.
and appropria tion from their savin gs even if specia l
ii) Bolinao Electronics v. Valencia - rejected the veto
circumstances like calamity
in an Appropriations Bill
- Petitioners' arguments:
2. NO the veto by the President of Sec. 55 of the 1989
1) The president's line veto power regarding the
Ap pr op r ia ti on s Bi l l a nd i ts cou n ter pa r t Se c. 16 of the
ap pr op ri a tio n s b il l i s l im i ted to i te m /s a nd d oe s no t
1990 Appropriations Bill is constitutional
cover provisions and therefore exceeded her authority
*The extent of item veto power still includes the vetoing
(Sections 55 and 16 are provisions)
of provisions.
2) When the president objects to provisions of an
- Art. 6 Sec. 27 - Veto power of the President
a p p r o p r i a t i o n b i l l , i t i s n o t p o s si b l e t o ex e r c i se t h e
Paragraph 1 - general veto power of the President and
item veto power but should veto the whole bill as well
if exercised would veto the entire bill
3) The item veto power does not carry with it the
Paragraph 2 - the item-veto of line-vbeto allows a veto
power to strike out conditions or restrictions for that
over a particular item in an appropriations, revenue or
would be legislation already (violative of separation of
tariff bill. The president may not veto less than all of
powers)
an item (no authority to veto part of an item and
4) Power of augmen ta tion in Ar ti cle 6 , Se c. 25(5) is
approve the remaining portion of that item).
provided by law so Congress has prerogative to
- Original l y referred to ve to of i tem s of appropria tion s
impose restrictions in the exercise of that power
bills in the Organic Act of Aug. 29, 1916
- SolGen's arguments:
- 1 9 3 5 C o n st i tu ti o n , Ar t. 6 , Se c 11( 2 ) - T h e v e to w a s
1) The issue is a political question and the petitioners
more expansive since it included provisions and items in
have a political remedy which is to
override the
revenue and tariff bills
veto.
- 1973 Constitution - more compact version and refers to
2) Sec. 53 is a rider which is extraneous to the
the Prime Minister as the only official who has the power
Appropriations Act and should merit a veto.
- 1987 Constitution - verbatim reproduction of 1973
ATITIW V ZAMORA
TINGA; September 30, 2005
FACTS
- This is a petition for prohibition, mandamus, and
declaratory relief as taxpayers, seeking the declaration
of nullity of paragraph 1 of the Special Provisions of RA
HELD
1. NO the assailed Special Provisions in RA 8760 is not a
rider TF it is constitutional
a. A rider is a provisions which is alien to or not germane
to th e su b je ct of th e b il l i n wh i ch i t is in co rp o ra ted . 2
provisions of the Constitution prohibit them: Art VI: Sec
BONDOC V PINEDA
GRINO-AQUINO; September 26, 1991
FACTS
- In the local and congressional elections held on May 11,
1 9 8 7 , M a r ci a n o M . Pi n e d a o f th e L a b a n n g
Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) and Dr. Emigdio A. Bondoc
of the Nacionalista Party (NP) were rival candidates for
the position of Representative for the Fourth District of
the province of Pampanga.
- On May 19, 1987, Pineda was proclaimed winner in the
election with a lead of 3,300 votes. In due time, Bondoc
filed a protest (HRET Case No. 25) in the House of
R e p r e se n ta t i v e s El e ct o r a l Tri b u n a l ( H R ET ) wh i ch i s
compo sed of (9) membe rs: 3 Justi ces of the Supreme
Court and 6 members of the House of Representatives
chosen on the basis of proportional representation from
t h e p o l i t i c a l p a r ti e s a n d t h e p a r t i e s o r o r ga n i za t i o n s
registered under the party-list system represented
therein (Sec. 17, Art. VI, 1987 Constitution) as follows:
AMEURFINA M. HERRERA
Chairman
Associate Justice, SC
ISAGANI A. CRUZ
Member
Associate Justice, SC
FLORENTINO P. FELICIANO
Member
Associate Justice, SC
HONORATO Y. AQUINO
Member
Cong, 1st Dist., Benguet, LDP
DAVID A. PONCE DE LEON
Member
Cong, 1st Dist., Palawan, LDP
SIMEON E. GARCIA, JR.
Member
Cong 2nd Dist., Nueva Ecija, LDP
SEPARATE OPINION
PADILLA [dissent]
27
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from
his receipt of a copy thereof.
C OM E L E C . T h e p o we r to a p p r o p r i a te i s th e so l e a n d
the appointment in view of derogatory information which
consent of the CA may the person assume office. As with
exclusive prerogative of the legislative body, the
he had received.
ad interim appointments, the appointment takes effect
exercise of which may not be compelled through a
at once. The appointment is effective until disapproval
petition for mandamus.
ISSUES
b y the CA o r un ti l the n ext ad jou r nm en t in C on gr e ss.
4.Art. VIII, Sec. 5(2) in the 1973 Constitution does not
1.
WON the filing of a motion for reconsideration
There must either be a rejection by the CA or
apply to the Interim Batasang Pambansa
nonaction on its part.
wi th the Commission on Appointments (CA), without
- T h e c i te d p r o v i s i o n o f t h e 1 9 7 3 C o n s t i t u t i o n i s n o t
being acted on, suffices to set at naught a
intended to apply to the Interim Batasang Pambansa.
2. The insistence of respondent that the question
confirmation duly made of an ad interim appointment.
- The strongest reason for this is the fact that the Interim
involved is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court is
2.W ON the issue is a justiciable question, wi th the CA
Batasang Pambansa was to be composed by the
untenable. It would extend the boundaries of the political
being an independent organ of the Constitution.
delegates to the Constitutional Convention, as well as
question doctrine beyond its legitimate limits. The courts
the then incumbent President and Vice-President, and
a re cal l ed u po n to se e to i t tha t pr iv a te r i gh ts a re n ot
HELD
the members or the Senate and House of
invaded.
Representatives
of
Congress
under
the
1935
1.
A s p e r Al t a r e j o s v. M o l o , t h e c o n f i r m a t i o n
- Although the CA is not a power in our tripartite system
Constitution. W ith such number of representatives
stands; it must be given force and effect.
of government, it is to all intents and purposes, like the
representing each congressional district, or a province,
Ratio Petitioner buttresses his plea for prohibition on
Electoral Tribunals, when acting within the limits of its
not to mention the Senators, there was felt absolutely no
the ground that the letter of then Senator Ganzon, even
a u th o r i t y, a n i n d e p e n d e n t o r ga n . It s a ctu a ti o n i n th e
need for filling vacancies occurring in the Interim
on the assumption that it was a motion to reconsider an
exercise of its power to approve appointment submitted
Na tional Asse mbl y, con sider ing the uncer tain ty of the
appointment duly confirmed, was without force and
to it by the President of the Philippines is exempt from
duration of its existence.
effect as it was not approved by the body as a whole.
judicial supervision and interference, except on a clear
- The provision is intended to apply to the regular
R e a so n i n g
sh o wi n g of su ch ar bi tr ar y an d i mp ro vi de n t u se o f th e
Batasang
Pambansa,
because
a
province
or
a. The controll ing principle is supplied b y Alta rejos v.
powers as will constitute a denial of due process.
representative
district
would
have
only
one
Molo, which interpreted Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n s a i d b o d y. T h e n e e d t o f i l l u p t h e
the Commission on Appointments, which reads:
AVELINO V CUENCO
In ter i m Ba ta sa n g Pa m ba n sa i s n ei the r i mp er a tiv e no r
Resolution of the Commission on any appointment may
u r g e n t , a s t h e r e w o u l d a l w a ys b e a d e q u a t e
be reconsidered on motion by a member presented not
PER CURIAM; March 4, 1949
representation for every province which forms only part
more than one (1) day after their approval. If a majority
of a certain region, specially considering that the Body is
of the members present concur to grant a
RESOLUTION on Original action in the SC
only transitory in character.
r e co n si d e r a ti o n , t h e a p p o i n t m e n t m a y b e l a i d o n th e
- T h a t th e p r o v i si o n i s f o u n d i n t h e m a i n b o d y o f th e
table, this shall be a final disposition of such a motion.
FACTS
Constitution and not in included in Transitory Provisions
H o ld in g o f t h e C o u rt w a s t h a t t h e me re f il in g o f a
- Summary: The Avelino I case illustrates judicial review
adds to the intention that the provision applies only to
re c o n s id e ra t io n d i d n o t h a ve t h e e f f e c t o f s e t t in g
of internal affairs of the legislature. The Court refused to
the regular, and not interim, Batasang Pambansa.
aside a confirmation. In the case, Aldeguers
look into the legality of the election of a Senate
(respondent in Altarejos case) theory would give to the
President, in view of the separation of powers, the
D e ci si on Petition dismissed.
mere filing o f a m o ti o n f o r r e co n s i d e r a t i o n th e e ffe ct
p o l i t i ca l n a tu r e o f t h e co n t r o v e r s y a n d t h e S e n a t e s
which it would have if the motion approved, and hence,
constitutional power to elect its own president
would dispense with the necessity of such approval, for
Before the opening of a morning session of the Senate,
PACETE V SECRETARY OF COMMISSION
w h i c h t h e co n cu r r e n c e o f a m a j o r i t y o f t h e m e m b e r s
Senators Lorenzo Taada and Prospero Sanidad
FERNANDO; July 23, 1971
present is necessary. This is inconsistent with Rule 21 of
prepared a resolution enumerating charges 30 against the
the Revised Rules of the Commission.
then Senate President Jose Avelino. AVELINO presided
FACTS
In case of an adjournment s ine die the period
the session and called the meeting in order, and except
Felizardo S. Pacete alleged that he was appointed by the
f o r f i li n g t h e mo t io n f o r re c o n s i d e r a t i o n h a vi n g
for a senator who was confined in a hospital and another
then President of the Philippines on August 31, 1964 as
expired, under Section 22, then the motion for
who is in the United States, all the Senators were
Municipal Judge of Pigcawayan, Cotabato. He assumed
reconsideration not having been acted upon is
present.31
office on September 11, 1964 and discharged his duties
not approved and therefore, has no effect
- TAADA sought to be recognized, but AVELINO and his
as such. As his appointment was made during recess of
whatsoe ve r.
followers prevented TAADA from delivering his
Congress, it was submitted to the Commission on
What is decisive is that a confirmation duly made is not
privilege speech. A commotion later ensued, upon which
Appointments at its next session in 1965. Appointment
n u l l i f i e d si m p l y b y a m o ti o n o f r e co n s i d e r a t i o n b e i n g
AVE L I N O a n d 9 o th e r s e n a t o r s l e f t th e s e s si o n h a l l .
was unanimously confirmed on May 20, 1965 (with
filed, without its being voted upon and approved.
Subsequentl y, the Senate President Pro-tempore took
Senate President and Chairman of Commission on
b. The President shall have the power to make
the Chair and proceeded with the session. The remaining
A p p o i n t m e n t s F e r d i n a n d M a r co s ev e n se n d i n g h i m a
a p p o i n tm e n ts d u r i n g th e r e ce ss of th e C o n g r e s s, b u t
congratulator y telegram). Nine months after his
such appointments shall be effective only until
30 BRYAN SJ: A m o n g w h i c h w e r e a d v o c a c y o f t h e g r a f t a n d
confirmation, on February 7, 1966, the then Secretary of
disapproval by the CA or until the next adjournment of
co rru p ti o n i n th e g o vern men t (p arti cu l arl y tho s e co mmi tted b y th e
Justice advised petitioner to vacate his position as
Congress.
L i b e r a l P a r t y, t o w h i c h AV E L I N O w a s a m e m b e r ) ; q u e s t i o n a b l e
municipal judge. Petitioner was informed that on May 21,
- A d i s ti n ct i o n i s m a d e b e tw e e n th e ex e r ci se o f su ch
possession of ch ecks to taling more th an P500, 000 after AVE LI NOs
1965, Senator Rodolfo Ganzon (a member of the
C o m m i s si o n o n Ap p o i n tm e n ts ) wr o te to i ts C h a i r m a n
stating that he was filing a motion for reconsideration of
SEPARATE OPINION
PERFECTO [dissent]
- There was illegal adjournment of the morning session.
The power to adjourn is one of the exclusive
prerogatives of a legislative chamber. It cannot be
exercised by any single individual, without usurpation of
the collective prerogatives. The functions of the Senate
and its opportunity to transact official business cannot
b e le ft to th e d iscre ti on of a si n gle in di vi du al wi tho u t
jeopardi zin g the high purpose s for wh ich a le gi slative
deliberative body is established in a democratic social
order.
- There is no provision in the present rules of the Senate
which expressly or impliedly authorizes an adjournment
without the consent of the body or one which authorizes
t h e p r e s i d i n g o f f i c e r t o d e c r e e mo tu propio said
ISSUES
adjournment, and the sound parliamentary practice and
1. WON SC will assume jurisdiction over this case
experience in this countr y and in the Uni ted State s of
2. WON election of Cuenco as Senate President is valid
America, upon which ours is patterned, would not
authorize the existence of such a provision.
HELD
- AVE L I N O a l l e g e s th a t h e o r d e r e d th e a d jo u r n m e n t
1. The Court has resolved (7-4 vote) to assume
because the motion of a senator to said effect was
ju r i sd i c ti o n o v e r th e ca se i n th e l i gh t o f su b se qu e n t
properly made and met with no objection. The evidence,
events which justify its intervention.
however, fails to support AVELINOs claim. The
2. Partly for the reasons stated in the first resolution of
circumstances lead us to the conclusion that illegal
this Court and partly upon the grounds stated by Feria
a d j o u r n m e n t a n d t h e w a l k o u t o f AVE L I N O a n d h i s
[and] Perfecto, JJ. in their separate opinions, to declare
s u p p o r t e r s f r o m t h e se s s i o n h a l l h a d th e p u r p o se o f
that there was a quorum at the session where CUENCO
defeating or, at least, delaying, action on the proposed
was elected acting Senate President. Chief Justice
investigation of the charges against AVELINO and of his
[Moran] agrees with the result of the majority's
i mp ed i n g o uste r, b y th e de ci si ve vo te s of CU EN C O's
pr on ou nce me n t o n th e quo r um , i t a pp ea ri n g f ro m th e
group.
e v i d e n ce th a t a n y n e w se s s i o n w i t h a q u o r u m w o u l d
- The rump session (i.e. the session after the AVELINO
result in CUENCO's election as Senate President, and
group walkout) had no valid quorum to transact
that the CUENCO group has been trying to satisfy [the
business. T h e C o n st i t u t i o n p r o v i d e s: A m a jo r i t y o f
co n sti tu tio na l ] fo rm al i sm b y issu in g co mp ul so r y
each House shall constitute a quorum to do business
processes against senators of the AVELINO group, but to
[cf A r t . V I , S e c . 1 6 ( 2 ) , 1 9 8 7 C o n s t ] . T h e m a j o r i t y
n o a va i l , b e ca u se o f th e l a tte r ' s p e r s i s te n t e ffo r t s to
m e n t i o n e d i n t h e p r o v i si o n ca n n o t b e o t h e r t h a n t h e
block all avenues to constitutional processes. For this
majority of the actual members of the Senate. The words
reason, [the Chief Ju stice ] believes that the CU ENC O
" e a ch H o u s e " i n t h e a b o v e p r o v i s i o n r e f e r to th e f u l l
group has done enough to satisf y the re qui rements of
membership of each chamber of Congress. The Senate is
the Constitution and that the majority's ruling is in
composed of 24 Senators, and a majority of them cannot
conformity with substantial justice and with the
be less than 13. 12 is only half of 24. Nowhere and at no
requirements of public interest.
t i m e h a s o n e - h a l f e v e r b e e n t h e m a j o r i t y. M a j o r i t y
De ci sio n The judgment of the Court is, therefore, that
necessarily has to be more than one-half.
CUENCO has been legally elected as Senate President
and the petition is dismissed.
FERIA [concur]
SEPARATE OPINION
FERIA [concur]
I ma in ta in m y op in io n tha t th er e wa s a qu o ru m i n th e
( ru mp ) se ssio n . Amo n g o the r s, th e am en dm en t of the
quorum provision from "the majority of all the members
o f t h e N a t i o n a l As s e m b l y c o n s t i t u t e a q u o r u m t o d o
business," into "a majority of each House shall constitute
a quo ru m to d o b usi ne ss," sho ws the in ten ti on o f th e
framers of the Constitution to base the majority, not on
the number fixed or provided for in the Constitution, but
o n a c tu a l m e m b e r s o r i n c u m b e n t s , a n d th i s m u s t b e
limited to actual members who are not incapacitated to
discharge their duties by reason of death, incapacity, or
absence from the jurisdiction of the House or for other
causes which make attendance of the member
con cerned impo ssib le, even throu gh coercive proce ss
which each House is empowered to issue to compel its
members to attend the session in order to constitute a
quorum.
PERFECTO [concur]
OSMENA V PENDATUN
BENGZON; October 28, 1960
1 .W O N th e C o n s t i t u t i o n g i v e s m e m b e r s o f C o n g r e s s
complete parliamentary immunity for words spoken in
the House
2.W ON the Speech of Osmea constituted unrul y
behavior for which he could be punished
3.W ON Osmea can be held to answer for or be
censured by the House, given that other business had
intervened after gave the speech in question
4 .W ON the House has the po wer to su spend its
members
FACTS
- On June 23, 1960, Congressman Sergio Osmea, Jr., in
a privilege speech delivered before the House, made the
serious imputations of bribery against the President. The
House of Representatives, through Resolution No. 59,
created a special committee of 15 members to
investigate the truth of the charges against the
HELD
President. It summoned Osmea to appear before it to
1. NO. Section 15, Article VI of our Constitution which
substantiate his charges.
provide s tha t "for any speech or debate" in Con gress,
- On July 14, 1960, Osmea filed with the Supreme Court
the Senators or Members of the House of
a petition for "declarator y relief, certiorari and
Represen tatives "shal l not be questioned in an y other
prohibition
with
preliminary
injunction"
against
p la ce ." Thi s se ctio n wa s ta ken or i s a co p y of se c. 6 ,
Congressman Salipada Pendatun and the fourteen other
clause I of Art. 1 of the Constitution of the United States,
members of the Special Committee. He asked that said
wh er ei n the pr ovi sio n h as a l wa ys b ee n u nd er stoo d to
r e so l u t i o n b e a n n u l l e d a n d th a t sa i d m e m b e r s o f th e
mean that a l t h o u g h e x e m p t f r o m p r o s e c u t i o n o r
special committee be enjoined from proceeding in
civil actions for their words uttered in Congress,
accordance with it, particularl y the portion authori zing
t h e m e m b e r s o f C o n g r e s s m a y, n e v e r t h e l e s s , b e
them to require him to substantiate his charges against
questioned in Congress itself .
the President, with the admonition that if he failed to do
- Ou r C o n st i tu ti o n e n sh r i n e s p a r l i a m e n ta r y i m m u n i t y
so, he must show cause why the House should not
which is a fundamental privilege cherished in every
punish him. Osmea alleged: (1) the Constitution gave
legislative assembly of the democratic world. It
him complete parliamentary immunity, and so, for words
gu ar an te e s th e l e gi sla to r co mp le te fr ee do m o f
spoken in the House, he ought not to be questioned; (2)
ex pr essi on wi tho u t fe ar of b ei n g m ad e re sp on si bl e i n
that his speech constituted no disorderly behaviour for
crim inal or civil actions before the cou rts or an y o ther
which he could be punished; and (3) supposing he could
forum outside of the Congressional Hall. But it does not
be questioned and disciplined therefor, the House took
p r o te ct h i m f r o m r e sp o n si b i l i t y b e f o r e th e l e gi sl a t i v e
up other business, and Rule XVII, sec. 7 of the Rules of
body itself whenever his words and conduct are
the House provides that if other business has intervened
co n s i d e r e d b y t h e l a t t e r d i s o r d e r l y o r u n b e c o m i n g a
after the Member had uttered obnoxious words in
member thereof.
debate, he shall not be held to answer therefor nor be
2 . YE S . T h e H o u s e i s t h e j u d g e o f w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s
subject to censure by the House
disorderly behavior, not only because the Constitution
- Aware of the petition, the special committee continued
has conferred jurisdiction upon it, but also because the
to perform its task, and after giving Osmena a chance to
matter depends mainly on factual circumstances of
defend him self , submi tted i ts repor t on Jul y 18, 1960 ,
which the House knows best but which can not be
fi nd in g sa i d co n gre ssm an gu i l ty o f se ri ou s di so r de rl y
depicted in black and white for presentation to, and
behavior. Acting on such report, the House approved on
adjudication by the Courts. For one thing, if this Court
the same day-before closing i ts se ssion -House
a s s u m e d t h e p o w e r t o d e te r m i n e w h e t h e r O s m e a ' s
Resolution No. 175, declaring him guilty as
conduct constituted disorderly behavior, it would thereby
recommended, and suspending him from office for
have assumed appellate jur isdi ction, whi ch the
fifteen months.
Constitution never intended to confer upon a coordinate
- Thereafter, Osmea too k the additiona l posi tion that
branch of the Government. The theory of separation of
t h e H o u s e h a s n o p o w e r, u n d e r t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , t o
powers fastidiously observed by this Court, demands in
suspend one of its members.
such situation a prudent refusal to interfere. Each
- On July 19, 1960, the respondents filed their answer,
department, it has been said, has exclusive cognizance
challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the
of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its
petition, defended the power of Congress to discipline its
own sphere.
m e m b e r s w i t h su s p e n si o n , u p h e l d H o u s e R e s o l u t i o n
- "T he Le gi slative po wer of the Phil ippine Con gre ss i s
No. .175 and then invited attention to the fact that
plenary, subject only to such limitations as are found in
Congress having ended its session on July 18, 1960, the
the Republic's Constitution. So that any power deemed
Commi ttee-who se member s are the so le respondentsto b e l e gi sl a t i v e b y u sa g e o r tr a d i t i o n , i s n e ce ssa r i l y
had thereby ceased to exist.
p o s s e s se d b y t h e P h i l i p p i n e C o n g r e s s , u n l e s s th e
Constitution provides otherwise." (Vera vs. Avelino, 77
ISSUES
Phil., 192, 212.)
ASTORGA V VILLEGAS
MAKALINTAL; April 30, 1974
FACTS
- Original Action in the SC. Mandamus, injunction and/or
prohibition with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory
injunction
- H B No . 9 26 6 wa s f il ed a nd wa s p assed on the th ir d
r ea di n g wi th ou t a me nd me n ts in th e Ho use of
R ep re sen ta tiv es (H oR ) . It wa s re fe rr ed to the Sen a te
C om m i ttee on Pro vi nce s a nd Mu ni ci pa l Gov er nm en ts
and Cities headed by Sen. Roxas. Sen. Roxas suggested
a m in or am en dm en t on H B 92 66 . H o wev e r, th i s
recommendation was not acted upon by the Senate
during its second hearing, and instead, approved in toto
Sen. Tolentinos substantial amendment on the section
definig the powers and duties of the VM.
- After that the Secretary of the Senate sent a letter to
the HoR that HB. No. 9266 had been passed by the
Senate with amendments. However, the attached
amendments were not Sen. Tolentinos but Sen.
Roxasamendments. The HoR signified its approval of HB
No. 9266 (with Roxas amendment) and printed copies of
it which were certified and attested by the Secretary of
the HoR, the Speaker of the HoR, the Secretary of the
Senate, and the Senate President. The Secretary of the
House transmitted 4 copies of the bill to the President of
th e Phi l ip p in e s, wh o a ffixe d h i s si gna tu re s b y wa y of
32
approval enacted the bill into R.A. No. 4065
32 An Act Defining the Powers, Rights and Duties of the Vice-Mayor of the
1.
the
issue
2.
1.
a n o r d i n a n ce th e r e to h a d b e e n p a sse d b y a v o te f o r
three-four ths of all the members of the Senate and of
the House of Representatives pursuant to Article XV of
the Constitution, saying that it involved a political
question (enrolled bill doctrine) which is not in the
province of the judiciary.
- using J. Bengzons separate opinion in the same case, J.
Makalintal said that the case at bar is justiciable since
enrolled copy of the resolution and the legislative
journals are conclusive upon the courts based on Section
313 of Act 190, as amended by Act. No. 2210 as proof of
due
enactment
of
provisions
of
acts.
- basis of the enrolled bill theory: respect due to coequal
and independent departments which requires the judicial
department to accept, as having passed the Congress,
all bills authenticated by it.
2.
Ratio NO. The final passage of the bill ends the
lawmaking process and the certification/attestation of
the bill is only a mode of authentication devised by the
Congress which does not add the validity of the bill nor
cure any defect already present upon it.
O b i t e r effects of Attestation of the bill: just a mode of
authentication; signify the Chief Executive that the bill
being presented to him has been duly approved by
Congress and is ready for his approval or disapproval
3.
Ratio YES. If atte sta tion is absen t and is no t
mandated in the Constitution for the validity of a
statute, the courts may resort to the journals and
other records of Congress for proof of its due
enactment.
Obiter Attestation b y the presid ing officer s is no t
mandated in the Constitution as a proof of due
enactment of a bill, but requires a Journal of the
Co n gre ss p ro ce ed i n gs [co mp a ri son of Co nsti tu ti on s:
1935 consti vs 1987 Consti: Sec 10(4) = Art VI, sec 26
(2); Sec. 21(2) = Art VI, sec 27(1)]
4.
Ratio N O . G i v e n t h a t ( 1 ) t h e C o u r t c o u l d
resolve the issue regarding the enrolled bill doctrine,
(2) that the Court could use the attestation of the
presiding officers of Congress and, in the absence of
the latter, the records of the proceedings of the
Co n gre ss e n te re d i n to th e Jo u rn al s of Co n gr e ss a s
proof of the due enactment of RA 4065 since the law is
rd
deemed enacted after the passage of the bill in the 3
readin g and the attestation of the presiding office rs
j u s t se r v e a s a m o d e o f a u th e n ti ca t i n g th e b i l l , ( 3 )
that, upon referring to the journal entries of the
proceed ings of congre ss, the Court discovered tha t
substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced
to the HB but were not incorporated in the printed text
which was signed by the President of the Philippines,
and (4) that the President of the Philippines and of the
S e n a te a l r e a d y w i th d r e w th e i r si g n a t u r e s , t h e n R A
4065 was not duly enacted and therefore did not
become a law.
MARTINEZ V MORFE
FERNANDO; March 24, 1972
FACTS
- Petitioners Manuel Martinez and Fernando Bautista, Sr.
were dele ga tes of the 1971 Con stitu tiona l Convention
facing criminal prosecution
o Martine z was charged wi th falsification of a public
docu ment for stating under oath in his cer tifi cate of
can d id a cy f or d el e ga te to th e Co nsti tu ti on al
Convention that he was born on June 20, 1945, when
in truth he was born on June 20, 1946
o Bautista was accused of violating Section 51 of the
Revised Election Code in that he gave and distributed
f r e e o f c h a r g e , f o o d , d r i n k s , a n d ci g a r e t t e s a t t w o
public meetings
- Both wanted the respective warrants of arrest issued
against them to be quashed, by virtue of the
parliamentary immunity they enjoy as delegates,
traceable to Section 15 Article VI of the Constitution as
construed together with Article 145 of the Revised Penal
Code
ISSUES
1. WON the petitioners are immune from arrest
2. WON Section 15 Article VI of the Constitution should
be con strued together with Ar ti cle 145 of the Revised
Penal Code, thereby expanding congressional immunity
HELD
1. No. Parliamentary immunity does not cover criminal
arrests.
U n d e r S e c t i o n 1 5 o f R e p u b l i c Ac t N o . 6 1 3 2 ,
otherwise known as the 1971 Constitutional
Convention Act, delegates are entitled to the
parliamentary immunities of a senator or a
representative.
Article VI Se ction 15 of the Consti tution provides:
The Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives shall in all cases except treason,
f e l o n y, a n d b r e a c h o f p e a c e , b e p r i v i l e g e d f r o m
arrest during their attendance at the sessions of the
C on gr e ss, a nd in go i n g to a nd r e tu rn i n g f ro m th e
sa m e ; a n d f o r a n y sp e e ch o d e b a te th e r e i n , th e y
shall not be questioned in any other place.
Im m un i ty fr om ar re st d oe s n o t cov er an y
prosecution for treason, felony and breach of peace
o T re a so n - l e v yi n g w a r a ga i n s t t h e R e p u b l i c a n d
adhering to enemies and giving them aid and
comfort
o Felony-an act or omission punishable by law
ARNAULT V NAZARENO
OZAETA; July 18, 1950
FACTS
- This refers to two land deals entered into by the
Philippine government as follows:
1. BUENAVISTA ESTATE
- The Phi lippine government leased from San Juan de
Dios Hospital for twenty five years the Buenavista estate
and had an option to purchase the same for P 3.0
ISSUES
million. This purchase option was exercised by the then
1. WON the executive orders are null and void upon the
occupation republic by tendering the owner the sum of P
ground that Section 68 of RAC, which was the basis of
3 .0 m i l l i o n a n d , o n i t s r e j e c t i o n , d e p o si t i n g th e s a i d
the EOs has been impliedly repealed by RA 2730.
funds in Court on June 21, 1944 together with the
2. WON the power of the President to create
accrued rentals of P 324,000.
municipalities under RAC amount to an undue delegation
- S a n Ju a n d e D i o s o n Ju n e 2 9 , 1 9 4 6 so l d t h i s sa m e
of legislative power.
property to Ernest H. Burt, an non-resident American for
P 5,000,000 wi th the initial downpa yment of P 10,000
HELD
wi th the b al an ce pa ya b le u nd er ve r y favo ra bl e ter m s.
1. Yes. RA 2370s denial of the presidential authority to
Burt was unable to comply with the terms agreed.
create a new barrio implies a negation of the bigger
2. TAMBOBONG ESTATE
power to create municipalities, each of which consists of
- On May of 1946, the same Burt purchase from
several barrios.
Philippine Trust Corporation, the Tambobong estate for P
2. Yes. The authority to create municipal corporations is
1 .2 m i l l i o n w i t h a d o w n p a ym e n t o f P 1 0 ,0 0 0 . 0 0 a n d
essentially legislative in nature. There could only be a
terms which are as generuous as those from San Juan de
due delegation of legislative power if the law is (a)
D i o s. T h e r e wa s h o we v e r n o o th e r p a ym e n t r e ce i v e d
from Burt.
- The Philippine government, through the Rural Progress
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a c q u i r e d t h i s sa m e p r o p e r t y f r o m i t s
original owner for the sum of P 750,000 and
subsequently instituted a notarial demand upon Burt for
the resolution and cancellation of his contract of
p u r ch a se w i t h P h i l i p p i n e Tru st f o r n o n p a ym e n t . Th e
Court of First Instance in this case ordered the
cancellation of Burts title and the issuance of a new one
under the name of Rural Progress Administration.
- For one reason or another, despite the fact the
Phi l ip p in e gov er nm en t al re ad y o wn ed b o th th e ab ove
e sta te , i t a gai n b ou gh t the sa me fro m Bur t fo r a to ta l
consideration of P 5,000,000 (P 4.5 million for
Buenavista and P 500,000 for Tambobong). The
government paid initially P 1,000,000 for Buenavista and
the full amount of P 500,000 for the Tambobong estate
through two corporations acting as Burts attorneys-infact. These two we re represen ted in the tra saction b y
one and the same person, Jean L. Arnault.
- It was also brought out that the Rural Progress
Admini stration was headed a t tha t time b y the Justi ce
se cr e ta r y w h o w a s a t th e sa m e t i m e C h a i r m a n o f t h e
Ph i l i p p i n e N a ti o n a l Ba n k , t h e i n s ti tu t i o n th a t l e n t th e
funds to Rural Progress.
- The transactions resulted into a public outcry which led
into the Philippine Senate adopting Resolution 8 which
created a special committee to investigate the
Buenavista and Tambobong Estates deal.
- The committee was tasked, among others, with
determining:
a. the validity, honesty, propriety of the purchase
b. the fairness of the purchase price
c. the parties involved/responsible for the deal
- During the public hearings of the Committee, various
witnesses were called. Among them and apparently the
m o st imp or tan t wa s Jea n Arn au lt, th e p er so n wh o
represented Burt in the transactions.
- During the said hearin g, Arnaul t confir med receivin g
the money from the government and withdrawing, in
cash, P 440,000 which he gave to someone on
instruction of Burt. When asked to identify the person he
gave the mone y to, he replied that he did not know his
name despite the fact that he met the person on many
occasions. W hen pressed to answer, he also said that
answering the question might incriminate him. Based on
this refusal, the senate approved a resolution on May 15,
1950 arraigning him for contempt and subsequently
found him guilty of the charge. He was committed to the
custody of the Senate Sergeant at arms until he reveals
the name of the person he gave the money to. The
Senate adjourned three days later. The work of the
Committee however was extended via Resolution 16.
- Arnault filed an original action for the issuance of a writ
of Habeas Corpus with the Supreme Court to obtain his
release cited the following grounds:
MILLER V MARDO
BARRERA; July 31, 1961
FACTS
- These are different cases taken together as they
present only one identical question
- 1 case: Manuel Gonzales filed complaint against Bill st
ISSUES
1. WON Reorganization Plan 20-A, prepared and
submitted under the authority of RA 997 as amended by
RA 1241, is valid, insofar as it confers jurisdiction to the
Regional Offices of the Department of Labor to decide on
clai ms of laborers for wa ge s, overtime and separa tion
pay, etc.
2. WON Reorganization Plan 20-A was validly passed by
Congress
HELD
1. No it is not valid.
- W hi l e t h e R e o r g a n i za t i o n C o m m i ss i o n co u l d cr e a te
function s, it referred merel y to administra tive and not
ju d i c i a l f u n ct i o n s su ch a s d e ci d i n g o n m o n e y cl a i m s.
Judicial power rests exclusively on the judiciary
- W hi l e l e gi sl a tu r e m a y co n f e r a d m i n i st r a t i v e b o a r d s
quasi-judicial powers, it must be incident to the exercise
of administrative dunctions
- Conferment of quasi-judicial functions cannot be
implied from a mere grant of power to create functions
in connection with reorganization of the Executive
2. No it was not validly passed by Congress
- A law is not passed by mere silence or non-action of
Congress even if it be stated in Sec 6(a) of RA 997
It is contrary to well-settled and well-understood
parliamentary law- that two houses are to hold separate
sessions for their deliberations and the determination of
the one upon a proposed law is to be submitted to the
separate determination of the other.
TANADA V TUVERA
ESCOLIN; April 24, 1985
FACTS
- Petition to review the decision of the Executive
Assistant to the President.
- Invoking the peoples right to be informed on matters
of public concern, a right recognized in Section 6, Article
IV of th e 1 97 3 con sti tu ti on , pe ti tio ne r s see k a wr i t of
mandamus
publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official
Gazette, of various presidential decrees, letters of
instruction s, gene ral orders, pro clama tion s, executive
orders, letter of implementation and administrative
orders. The respondents would have this case dismissed
on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality
to bring this petition. Petitioners maintain that since the
su b je ct of
object is to compel public duty, they need not show any
specific interest. Respondents further contend that
publication in the OG is not a sine qua non requirement
f o r th e e ffe c ti v i t y of l a ws wh e r e th e l a w s t h e m se lv e s
provide for their own effectivity dates.
ISSUE
TANADA V TUVERA
CRUZ; December 29, 1986
FACTS
- In the decision of this case on April 24, 1985, the Court
a ffi r m e d th e n e ce ssi t y f o r th e p u b l i ca t i o n o f so m e o f
th e se d ecre e s, d ecl ar i n g i n the d i sp o si ti ve p or tio n as
follows:
"WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to
publish to the Official Gazette all unpublished
p r e s i d e n t i a l i ssu a n ce s w h i ch a r e o f ge n e r a l
application, and unless so published, they shall have
no binding force and effect."
- This is a motion for reconsideration/clarification of the
first decision, specifically, on the following questions:
ISSUES
1. What is meant by "law of public nature" or "general
applicability"?
2. Must a distinction be made between laws of general
applicability and laws which are not?
3. What is meant by "publication"?
33
This was the manner in which the General Appropriations Act for FY
De ci sio n
judgment MODIED in the sense that the
supervision fees payable under Republic Act No. 3792
should be computed upon present values of properly and
equipment in use; the appealed resolution of the Public
Serviice Commission is AFFIRMED
HELD
ISSUE
- W he th e r o r n o t th e P C A ca n r e n o u n ce th e p o we r to
regulate implicit in the law creating it for that is what the
resolution in question actually is.
HELD
- The power given to the PCA to formulate and adopt a
general program of devt for the coconut and other
palms oil industry is not a roving commission to adopt
any program deemed necessary to promote the devt of
the coconut and other palm oils industry, but one to be
exercised in the context of the regulatory structure.
R e a so n i n g
- PCA was originally created by PD232 on June 30, 1973
to ta ke ove r th e p o we r s a nd fu ncti on s of th e C ocon u t
Coordinating Council, the Phil. Coco Admin, and the Phil.
Coco Research Institute
- B y PD1468 on June 11, 1978, it was made an
independent public corp...charged with carrying out
States policy to promote the rapid integrated devt and
gr o wth of th e co co a nd o th e r pa lm oi l in du str y a nd to
ensure that the coco farmers become direct participants
and beneficiaries through a regulatory scheme set up by
law
- Au g.28, 1982 by EO826 govt temporari l y prohib ited
the opening of new coco processing plants and on Dec.6
phased out some of the existing ones--- because of
SEPARATE OPINION
ROMERO [dissent]
- The resolution deregulating the coco industry is a valid
exercise of delegated legislation. Such resolution is in
h ar mo n y wi th th e ob je cti ve s so u gh to b e a ch i ev ed b y
t h e l a w s r e ga r d i n g th e co co i n d u s tr y, p a r ti cu l a r l y to
promote accelerated growth and devt of the coco
industr y and the rapid integrated devt and growth of
the coconut industry
- The time has come for admin policies and regulations
to adapt to ever-changing business needs rather than to
accommodate traditional acts of the legislature
- Trimming do wn an admin a gencys functions of
registration is not an abdication of the power to regulate
but is regulation itself
SANTIAGO V GUINGONA
PANGANIBAN; November 18, 1998
FACTS
- On July 27, 1998, the Senate of the Philippines
con ve ne d f or the fi rst re gu la r se ssi on of th e e lev en th
Congress. Elections for the officers of the Senate were
held on the same day with Fernan and Tatad nominated
to the position of Senate President. Fernan was declared
the duly elected President of the Senate. The following
we r e li ke wi se e le cted : Sen a to r Op le a s p re sid en t pr o
tempore, and Sen. Drilon as majority leader.
- Senator Tatad manifested that he was assuming the
position of minority leader, with the agreement of
Senator Santiago. He explained that those who had
voted for Senator Fernan comprised the "majority," while
onl y those who had voted for him, the losing nominee,
belonged to the "minority."
- On July 30, 1998, the majority leader informed the body
th a t h e wa s in r ece ip t of a l e tter si gn ed b y th e se ve n
Lakas-NUCD-UMDP senators, stating that they had
e l e cte d Se n a t o r Gu i n g o n a a s th e m i n o r i t y l e a d e r. B y
virtue thereof, the Senate President formally recognized
Senator Guingona as the minority leader of the Senate.
- O n J u l y 3 1 , 1 9 9 8 , S e n a t o r s S a n t i a g o a n d Tat a d
instituted an original petition for quo warranto to seek
the ouster of Senator Guingona as minority leader of the
S e n a t e a n d t h e d e c l a r a t i o n o f S e n a t o r Tat a d a s t h e
ri gh tful minori ty leader. The y alle ge tha t Senator
G u i n g o n a h a d b e e n u su r p i n g , u n l a w f u l l y h o l d i n g a n d
e x e r c i s i n g t h e p o s i t i o n o f S e n a t e m i n o r i t y l e a d e r, a
position that, according to them, rightfully belonged to
Senator Tatad.
and verification o f t h e i d e n t i t y a n d a d d r e s s e s o f
prepaid SIM card customers
2. Require all respective prepaid SIM card dealers to
comply with MC
3. Deny acceptance to the networks those customers
u sin g stol en ce l l ph on e un i ts o r ce l l p h o n e u n i ts
registered to somebody else when properly
informed of all information relative to the stolen cell
phone units
4. Share all necessary info of stolen cell phone units to
all other CMT SO in order to prevent their use
5. Require all existing prepaid SIM card customers to
HELD
O b i t e r Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative
or
rule-making
powers
and
quasi-judicial
or
administrative adjudicatory powers.
Qu as i- le g is la t i ve p ow e r i s t h e p o w e r t o m a k e
r ul e s an d re gu la ti on s, wh i ch sho u ld b e wi th in th e
scope of the statutory authority granted by the
l e g i s l a t u r e t o s u c h a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y. T h e
regulations must be germane to the purposes of the
la w, an d no t i n co n tr ad i c t i on t o t h e s t an da rd s
prescribed by law.
register and present valid identification cards.
- October 6, 2000
NTC issued anothe r
Quasi-judicial power i s ex e r c i se d b y a n
Memorandum addressed to all PTEs, which was
administrative agency when it performs in a judicial
fo r s t ri c t c om p l i a n c e .
manner an act which is essentially of an executive
1. All prepaid cards and all SIM packs used by
nature, where the power to act in such a manner is
sub scr ibers of prepaid card s sold on Oct. 7, 2000
incidental to or reasonably necessary for the
and beyond shall be valid for at least 2 years from
performance of the administrative duty entrusted to
date of first use.
it.
2. The billing unit shall be on a 6sec pulse effective
October 7, 2000.
1. Yes.
- P r o ce d u r e
Ratio
In cases assailing the validity of a rule or
O c t o b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 0 I S L A C O M a n d P I LT E L f i l e d r e gu l a t i o n i s su e d b y a n a d m i n i st r a t i v e a ge n c y i n th e
against the NTC an action for Declaration of
performance of its QUASI- LEGISL ATIVE function , the
Nullity of MC (the Billing Circular) and of the
regular courts have jurisdiction. The power of JUDICIAL
O c t . 6 M e m o r a n d u m , with prayer for injunction and
REVIEW is vested in the courts by the Constitution. The
TRO in the RTC-QC on the grounds thatDoctrine of Primary Jurisdiction is only applicable when
a . NT C h as no ju r i sd i ctio n to r e gu l a te th e sal e of
the administrative agency is exercising its QUASIconsumer goods since such jurisdiction belongs to
JUDICIAL function.
the DTI under the Consumer Act of the Phils
- Ar t . V I I I S e c . 1 1 9 8 7 C o n s t i : Judicial power includes
b. MC is oppressive and violative of the Due Process
the duty of the courts of justice to determine whether or
Clause (deprivation of property)
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the
c. MC will result in the impairment of the viability of
part of any branch or instrumentality of the govt.
prepaid service by undul y prolonging the
- Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction: The courts will not
expiration of prepaid SIM and call cards
determ ine a controversy involving a que stion wh ich is
d . R e q u i r e m e n ts of i d e n ti f i ca ti o n of p r e p a i d ca r d
within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior
buyers and call balance announcement are
to the resolution of that question by the administrative
unreasonable
tri bu na l , whe r e the qu e stio n d em an ds th e exe r ci se of
so u n d a d m i n i st r a t i v e d i scr e ti o n r e qu i r i n g th e sp e ci a l
G L O B E a n d S M A R T f i l e d a j o i n t M o t i o n t o Ad m i t
knowledge, experience and services of the admin.
Complaint-in-Intervention
tribunal to determine technical matters of fact.
October 27, 2000 RTC issued TRO enjoining NTC 2. No.
f rom implement ing MC
Ratio In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a
Nov em be r 2 0, 20 00 RT C de ni ed NT C s m o ti on to
rule issued by an administrative agency, in exercise of
dismiss for lack of merit. Injunction is granted, pending
its QUASI-LEGISLATIVE powers, a party need not exhaust
finality of the decision of the case.
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s b e f o r e g o i n g to co u r t . Only
judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies
certiorari
October 9, 2001 C A g r a n t e d N T C s p e t i t i o n f o r
made in the exerci se of their quasi -judi cial function i s
and prohibition .
subject to the exhaustion doctrine (Assoc. of Phil.
January 10, 2002 Motions for Reconsideration were
Coconut Desiccators v. PHILCOA).
denied by CA
- Even if the Doctrine on Exhau stion of Adm inistra tive
Remedie s is appli cable , record s sho w that peti tione rs
ISSUES
have complied with such requirement:
1. WON the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to hear
- During deliberation stages of MC, petitioners registered
this case
their protests and submitted proposed schemes for the
2 . W ON the D o ctri ne on Ex ha u stio n of Ad m in i stra ti ve
Billing Circular.
Remedies is applicable
- Af t e r i s su a n ce o f M C , p e ti ti o n e r s w r o te su cce ssi v e
letters asking for the suspension and reconsideration of
the MC.
- Su ch le tte r s we re no t a cte d u po n a nd i nste ad , NT C
issued 10/06/00 Memorandum. This was taken by
petitioners as a clear denial of their requests.
D e ci si on C on sol i da ted pe ti tio n s ar e GR ANT ED . The
decision of CA and its Resolution are reversed. The case
i s R EM AN D ED to the RT C- QC for con ti nu a tio n of the
proceedings.
ISSUES
1. W O N t h e P r e s i d e n t h a s t h e p o w e r u n d e r t h e
Constitution to bar the Marcoses from returning to the
Philippines.
2 . W ON t h e P r e s i d e n t a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y o r w i t h g r a v e
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the
Marco ses to the Philipp ines pose s a seriou s th reat to
nationa l intere st and we lfare and decided to bar their
return.
HELD
1. Yes. Although the 1987 Constitution imposes
l i m i t a t i o n s o n th e ex e r ci se o f specific p o w e r s o f t h e
P r e s i d e n t , i t m a i n t a i n s i n t a c t w h a t i s tr a d i t i o n a l l y
co n sid er ed a s wi th i n the scop e of exe cu ti ve po we r.
Corollarily, the powers of the President cannot be said to
be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the
Consti tution. In o ther wo rds, executive po wer is more
than the sum of the specific powers so enumerated.
- The request/demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to
re turn to the Ph ilippine s canno t be considered in li gh t
solely of the constitutional provision guaranteeing liberty
of abode and the right to travel, subject to certain
exceptions, or of case law which clearly never
co n te m p l a te d si t u a t i o n s e v e n r e m o te l y si m i l a r to th e
present one. It must be treated as a matter that is
appropriately addressed to those residual unstated
powers of the President which are implicit and
correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office
to safeguard and protect general welfare.
GUTIERREZ [dissent]
The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law may be impaired only upon
lawful order of the court, not of an executive officer, not
even the President. I do not think that we should
differen tia te the right to re turn home from the ri gh t to
go abroad or to move around in the Philippines. If at all,
t h e r i g h t to co m e h o m e m u s t b e more preferred than
any other aspect of the right to travel.
CRUZ [dissent]
Marcos is entitled to the same right to travel and liberty
of abode that Aquino then invoked.
PARAS [dissent]
The former President, as a Filipino citizen, has the right
to return to his own country, except only if prevented by
the demands of national safety and national security.
ESTRADA V DESIERTO
PUNO;
(SEE DIGEST UNDER REMAKING THE
CONSTITUTION)
VILLENA V SECRETARY OF INTERIOR
LAUREL; April 21, 1939
FACTS
- Jose D. Villena, then Mayor of Makati, sought to restrain
th e Se cr e tar y o f th e In te r io r ( SI) a nd h is a ge n ts f ro m
proceeding with the investigation against him until this
case was settled by the SC.
- Upon the request of the SI, the Division of Investigation
of the Department of Justice conducted an inquiry into
the conduct of Villena. He was found to have committed
b r i b e r y, e x t o r t i o n , m a l i c i o u s a b u s e o f a u t h o r i t y a n d
unauthorized practice of the law profession.
- Feb. 8, 1939 ~ SI recommended to the President that
Villena be suspended so as to prevent the coercion of
wi tne sse s. The Pre sid en t ve rb al l y gra n ted the
recommendation on the same day.
- F e b . 9 ,1 9 3 9 ~ SI su sp e n d e d Vi l l e n a f r o m o ffi ce a n d
i n str u ct e d th e P r o v i n ci a l Go v e r n o r o f R i za l to a d v i se
Villena of his suspension.
- Feb. 13,1939~SI wrote Villena specifying the charges
against him and notifying him that Emiliano Anonas was
the special investigator of the case.
- F e b . 1 7 , 1 9 3 9 ~ t h e d a t e s e t b y An o n a s w h e n t h e
formal investigation would begin. But eventually
p ostp on ed to M ar ch 28 ,19 39 d ue to sev er al i nci de n ts
and postponements.
- Hence, this petition for Prelim In junction. Villena
contends that:
> SI has no jurisdiction or authority to suspend him, to
file administrative charges against him, and to decide
the merits of the charges because the power to
suspend, to try and punish municipal elective officials
is lodged in some other agencies of the government.
> SIs acts are null and void because:
+ SI usurped the power given by the Constitution to
the President when SI suspended him (Villena).
+ SI must exercise the power to supervise in
accordance with the provisions of law and the
provisions of law governing the trials and charges of
against elective municipal officials are those
contained in sec. 2188 of the Administrative Code
as amended.
+ SI is exercising an arbitrary power by converting
himself into a complainant and at the same time the
judge of the charges he filed against him.
+ SIs action didnt follow the procedure under Sec.
2188 of the AC, which requires that a complaint be
3 . T h e M i n i n g Ac t s p e a k s o f f i n d i n g s o f f a c t s o f t h e
D i r e ct o r o f M i n e s wh e n a ffi r m e d b y th e Se c r e ta r y o f
Agriculture and Natural Resources being final and
conclusive, in which case the aggrieved party may file a
writ
acts of the N PA (its infiltration of several mass-based
2. WON the Proclamation was valid/ constitutional. WON
organizations, various killings and bombings, encounters
it complied with ART III Section 1 par 14 34 and ART VII
w i t h t h e m i l i t a r y, e t c ) a n d t h e t h r e a t i t p o s e s t o t h e
Section 10 par 2 35 of the Constitution?
public safety. According to intelligence reports, the CPP
LANSANG V GARCIA
CONCEPCION; December 11, 1971
FACTS:
- 8 consolidated petitions of writ of habeas corpus.
Other petitions:
L-33965 Arienda vs Sec of National Defense
L-33973 David vs Garcia
L-33982 Prudente v Yan, Garcia
L-34004 Tomas vs Garcia
L-34013 Rimando vs Garcia
L-34039 De Castro vs Rabago
L-34265 Oreta vs Garcia
L-34339 Olivar vs Garcia
- August 21, 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing. 8 persons
died, several injured
- August 23, 1971- President Marcos issued Proclamation
No. 889 suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, by virtue of the powers vested upon the
President by ART VII Section 10 of the 1935 Constitution.
His reason was that lawless elements have created a
state of lawlessness and disorder affecting public safety
and the security of the State and that public safety
requires immediate and effective action
- Several people were apprehended and detained
including the petitioners on reasonable belief that they
had participated in the crime of insurrection or
rebellion.
- Au gu st 3 0, 19 71 Pro cla m a tio n 88 9- A a me nd ed
Proclamation 889.
- Sep tember 18 and 25 , October 4, 1971 -Proclamations 889-B, 889-C and 889-D lifted the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
i n so m e pr ovi n ce s, su b- p rov in ce s, ci tie s, EXC EPT in
Bataan, Benguet, Bulacan, Camarines Sur, Ifugao,
I s a b e l a , L a g u n a , L a n a o , N o r t h a n d S o u t h C o ta b a t o ,
Nueva Ecija, Nueva Viscaya, Pampanga, Quezon, Rizal,
Tarlac, Zambales, Aurora, Quirino, and 18 cities
including Manila.
ISSUES
a n d i t s f r o n t o r ga n i za t i o n s a r e c a p a b l e o f p r e p a r i n g
powerful explosive, and that there was a plan of a series
o f a s sa s s i n a t i o n s , ki d n a p p i n g s , m a s s d e s tr u c t i o n o f
property, etc.
HELD
3 . N O . T h e P r e s i d e n t d i d n o t a c t a r b i t r a r i l y. H e h a d
1 . YE S . U p o n d e l i b e r a ti o n , th e C o u r t a b a n d o n e d th e
p o s s e s s i o n o f i n t e l l i g e n ce r e p o r t s , h e c o n s u l t e d h i s
doctrine in Barcelon v Baker and Montenegro v
advisers, and had reason to feel that the situation was
Castaeda (determination by the President of existence
critical. The suspension of the privilege of the writ in the
of any of the grounds prescribed by the Constitution for
e n ti r e P h i l i p p i n e s w a s ju st i f i e d a s h e co u l d n o t h a v e
the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus should be
ascertained the places to be excluded at the time of the
conclusive upon the courts. The President, wi th all the
proclamation, and he gradually lifted the suspension.
intelligence sources was in a better position than the SC
4. Some petitioners were already released and with
to ascertain the real state of peace and order). The grant
respect to them, the issue is moot and academic . As to
of power to suspend the privilege is neither absolute no
p e t i t i o n e r s D a v i d , F e l i p e , O l i v a r, d e l o s R e y e s , d e l
unqualified. The authority to suspend the privilege of the
Rosario and Sison, still under detention, they have been
writ is circumcised, confined, restricted (more so
cha r ged with viola tio n of the An ti- Su bv er sio n Act/
be ca u se i t i s sta te d i n th e n e ga tiv e shall not be
accused of o vert acts co vere d by the PN 889. The PN
except), and like the limitations and restrictions
889 being valid, their release may not be ordered by the
i m p o se d u p o n th e l e gi sl a ti v e d e p a r tm e n t, a d h e r e n ce
SC, but the CFI is directed to act with utmost dispatch in
t h e r e to a n d co m p l i a n ce th e r e w i t h m a y, w i t h i n p r o p e r
conducting the preliminary investigation of the charges
bounds, be inquired into by courts of justice.
and to issue corresponding warrants of arrest if probable
- The Executive is vested with the power to suspend the
cause is found or otherwise , to order their release.
privilege of the writ, and the Executive is supreme within
De ci sio n Pre siden t did not act arbitra ril y. PN 889 not
its own sphere, however, the separation of powers goes
u n co n s ti tu ti o n a l . P e t i t i o n s L 3 3 9 6 4 , L 3 3 9 6 5 , L 3 3 9 8 2 ,
hand in hand with the system of checks and balances.
L34004, L34013 , L34039, L34265 dismissed. CFI to
The authority to determine whether or not the Executive
con du ct inv esti ga ti on an d i ssue wa r r an ts of ar re st o r
acted wi thin the sphere allotted to him is vested in the
order of release as to petitioners still under detention.
Judiciary.
All concur. Fernando dissents only as to the fourth issue.
2. YES.
a. Proclamation 889, as amended by Proclamation 889SEPARATE OPINION
A , d e c l a r e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n u p r i si n g - - l a w l e s s
elements xxx joined and banded their forces together for
the avowed purpose of staging, undertaking, waging and
are actually engaged in an armed insurrection and
rebellion xxx
b. The 2 conditions for a valid suspension a) there must
be invasion, insurrection, or rebellion or imminent
dan ger the reof and b) publi c safety must re quire the
aforementioned suspension are PRESENT.
st
c. The 1
condi tion can be attested throu gh
jurisprudence (there were a lot of cases already
34
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except
in cases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, when the public safety
requires it, in any way of which events the same may be suspended
wherever during such period the necessity for such suspension shall exist.
35 The President shall be commander-in-chief of all armed forces of the
Philippines, and, whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion,
insurrection, or rebellion. In case of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or
imminent danger thereof when the public safety requires it, he may
suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines
or any part thereof under martial law.
FERNANDO [dissent]
- I find i t diffi cult to accept the con clu sion tha t the six
petitioners still under detention should be set free.
- The petitioners ought not to be further deprived of their
liberty in the absence of a warrant of arrest for whatever
offense the y may be held to answer, to be issued by a
judge after a finding of probable cause. That is to comply
with
the
constitutional
requirement
against
unreasonable search and seizure.
- To keep them in confinement after ordinary processes
of the law are to be availed of is to ignore the safeguard
of the Bill of Rights that no person shall be held to
answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
FACTS
- September 21, 1972, President Ferdinand E. Marcos
si gn ed Pr o cla ma ti on No . 1 08 1 , pr ocl ai m in g a sta te of
Martial Law in the Philippines
- September 22, 1972, General Order No. 2 was signed
by the President which provided an order to the
Se cre ta r y of Na ti on al De fe nse to ar re st an d ta ke i n to
custody the individuals named in the list for being
participants in the conspiracy to seize political and state
po wer in the countr y and to ta ke over the governmen t
by force
- Secretary of National Defense, Juan Ponce Enrile,
immediately effected the arrest of the herein petitioners
- Petitioners sought relief from Court, filing petitions for
habeas corpus
- Respondents filed their Return to Writ and Answer to
the Petition and prayed that the petition be dismissed
- P e n d i n g r e so l u t i o n o f th e se Pe ti ti o n s, p e ti ti o n e r s,
except for two (Sen. Benigno Aquino, Jr. and Sen. Jose
Diokno), were released from custody on different dates
under a Conditional Release
- December 28, 1973, Diokno filed a Motion to Withdraw
Petition, imputing dela y in the dispo sition of his ca se,
a n d a s sev e r a ti n g t h a t b e ca u se o f th e d e c i si o n of th e
C o u r t i n th e R a ti f i ca t i o n C a se s a n d th e a c ti o n of th e
Member s of the Cour t in ta kin g an oath to suppor t the
New Constitution, he cannot reasonabl y expect to get
justice in this case
- The respondents opposed the motion on the grounds
th a t the re is a p ub li c in ter e st i n the d eci sio n of the se
cases and that the reasons given for the motion to
withdraw are untrue, unfair and contemptuous.
- The Court denied Dioknos motion with a vote of 5 to 7
- Makalinta l, Zaldivar, Fernando, Tee hankee,
M u o z - Pa lm a , Aq u i n o a n d B a rr e d o vo t e d t o g ra n t
D iokn o s mot io n to w ithd raw petition
ISSUES
1 . W ON t h e C o u r t h a s j u r i sd i ct i o n to i n qu i r e i n to t h e
constitutional sufficiency of the proclamation of martial
law
2. W ON Proclamation No. 1081 is valid given then the
circumstances required by the Constitution for the
proclamation of a state of martial law
3. WON petitioners were illegally detained entitling them
the relief of habeas corpus
HELD
All pe titions dismi ssed excep t tho se wh ich have been
previously withdrawn by the respective petitioners with
the approval of this Court.
M a k a s ia r, Es g u e r ra , F e rn a n d e z , M u o z Pa l ma a n d
Aquino, JJ., concur.
Castro, J., in a separate opinion, explains his reasons
for his concurrence in the dismissal of all the petitions.
F e rn a n d o , J . , c o n c u r s a n d d i s s e n t s i n a s e p a r a t e
opinion.
SEPARATE OPINION
CASTRO [justiciable]
- cited Lansang vs. Garcia where the Court asserted the
power to inquire into the existence of the factual bases
for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus in order to determine the sufficiency thereof.
- The judicial department can determine the existence of
conditions for the exercise of the Presidents powers and
i s n o t b o u n d b y th e r e c i ta l s o f h i s p r o cl a m a ti o n . Bu t
wh e th e r i n th e ci r cu m st a n ce s o b ta i n i n g p u b l i c sa f e t y
r e qu i re s th e su sp en sio n of the pr ivi le ge of th e wr i t of
habeas corpus or the proclamation of martial law is
i ni ti a ll y for the Pre sid en t to de cid e . Th e Pr e sid en ts
findings as to necessity is persuasive upon the courts.
FERNANDO [justiciable]
- The action taken by any or both the political branches
whether in the form of a legislative act or an executive
order could be tested in court. Where private rights are
affected, the judiciary has the duty to look into its
validity. A showing that plenary power is granted either
department of government may not be and obstacle to
judi cial inqu ir y. Its improvident exerci se or the abuse
t h e r e o f m a y g i v e r i s e t o a j u s t i c i a b l e c o n t r o v e r s y.
N e ce ssar i l y the n , i t b eco me s th e re spo n si b il i t y of th e
courts to ascertain whether the two coordinate branches
have adhered to the manda te of the fundamenta l law.
The question thus posed is judicial rather than political.
- The range of permi ssible in quir y to be condu cted by
the Court is necessarily limited to the ascertainment of
w h e th e r o r n o t su ch a su sp e n si o n , i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e
cr e d i b l e i n f o r m a ti o n f u r n i sh e d b y th e Pr e si d e n t , wa s
arbi trar y. The question before the jud icia r y i s not the
correctness but the reasonableness of the action taken.
- R e f e r r e d t o La nsan g vs. Ga r cia w h e r e t h e C o u r t
sustained the presidential proclamation suspending the
privile ge of the wri t of habeas corpu s as there was no
showing of arbitrariness in the exercise of a prerogative
belonging to the executive, the judiciar y merely acting
a s a ch e c k o n t h e e x e r c i s e o f su c h a u t h o r i t y. C h i e f
Justice Concepcion in his opinion: In the exercise of such
authority, the function of the Court is merel y to check,
n o t to su p p l a n t th e Ex e cu ti v e , o r to a s ce r ta i n m e r e l y
whether he has gone beyond the constitutional limits of
TEEHANKEE [justiciable]
"it has the authority to inquire into the existence of said
factual bases [stated in the proclamation suspending the
p r i v i l e g e o f t h e w r i t o f h a b e a s co r p u s o r p l a c i n g t h e
country under martial law as the case may be, since the
re quire ments for the exerci se of these po wer s are the
same and are provided in the very same clause] in order
to determ ine the con stitutional suffi cien cy thereof."32
T h e C o u r t s tr e sse d th e r e i n t h a t "i n d e e d , t h e gr a n t of
power to suspend the privilege is neither absolute nor
unqualified. The authority conferred upon by the
Constitution, both under the Bill of Rights and under the
Execu tive Depar tmen t, is li mited and conditional . The
precept in the Bill of Rights establishes a general rule, as
well as an exception thereto. What is more, it postulates
the former in the negative, evidently to stress its
importance, by providing that '(t)he privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus shall not be suspended x x x.' It is only
by way of exception that it permits the suspension of the
privilege 'in cases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion'or under Art. VII of the Constitution, 'imminent danger
t h e r e o f - ' w h e n t h e p u b l i c sa f e t y r e q u i r e s i t , i n a n y o f
w h i c h e v e n t s t h e s a m e m a y b e s u sp e n d e d w h e r e v e r
durin g su ch period the necessi ty for su ch su spension
shall exist.' Far from being full and plenary, the authority
to suspend the privilege of the wr it i s thus
circumscribed, confined and restricted, not onl y by the
prescribed setting or the conditions essential to its
existen ce, but also , as regard s the time when and the
place where it may be exercised. These factors and the
aforementioned setting or conditions mark, establish and
d e f i n e th e ex te n t, th e co n f i n e s a n d th e l i m i t s o f sa i d
p o w e r, b e yo n d w h i c h i t d o e s n o t e x i s t . An d , l i k e t h e
limitations and restrictions imposed by the Fundamental
Law upon the legislative department, adherence thereto
and compliance therewith may, within proper bounds, be
i n qu i r e d i n to b y th e co u r ts o f j u s ti ce . O th e r w i se , t h e
explicit constitutional provisions thereon would be
m e a n i n g l e s s . S u r e l y, t h e f r a m e s o f o u r C o n s t i t u t i o n
could no t have intended to en gage in such a wasteful
exercise in futility."
CASTRO [valid]
- Our Constitution authorizes the proclamation of martial
law in cases not only of actual invasion, insurrection or
rebellion but also of imminent danger thereof.
- The so called open court theory does not apply to the
Philippine situation because our 1935 and 1973
C o n s t i t u t i o n s e x p r e s s l y a u t h o r i ze t h e d e c l a r a t i o n o f
martial law even where the danger to public safety
arises merely from the imminence of invasion,
in surrection , or rebell ion. Moreover, the theor y is too
simplistic for our day, what with the universally
reco gn i zed in sidiou s nature of Commun ist subversion
and its overt operations
FERNANDO [valid]
W hile i t is beyond que stion tha t the 1973 Constitution
s ti p u l a te s, i n a tr a n si to r y p r o v i si o n , th a t: Al l
proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts
promulgated, issued, or done by the incumbent
President shall be part of the law of the land, and shall
remain valid, lega l, binding, and effective even afte r
lifting of martial law or the ratification of this
Constitution, unless modified, revoked, or superseded by
subsequent proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions,
or other acts of the incumbent President, or unless
expressly and explicitly modified or repealed by the
regular National Assembly.
TEEH ANKEE [no pronouncement]
BARREDO [valid]
The proclamation had merely put the Constitution in a
state of anesthesia, since a major surgery is needed to
save the nations life.
MUNOZ-PALMA [valid]
T he extreme measure taken b y the Presiden t to place
the entire country under martial law was necessary. The
President's action was neither capricious nor arbitrary.
An arbitrary act is one that arises from an unrestrained
exercise of the will, caprice, or personal preference of
th e acto r, on e wh ich is n ot fou nd ed o n a fa ir or
s u b s t a n t i a l r e a so n , i s w i t h o u t a d e qu a t e d e t e r m i n i n g
principle, nonrational, and solely dependent on the
a c t o r ' s w i l l . S u c h i s n o t t h e ca s e w i t h th e a c t o f t h e
President, because the proclamation of martial law was
the result of conditions and events, not of his own
making, which undoubtedly endangered the public
saf e ty a nd le d hi m to con clu de th a t th e si tu a tio n wa s
cr i t i c a l e n o u g h t o w a r r a n t t h e e x e r c i se o f h i s p o we r
under the Constitution to proclaim martial law
CASTRO [legal]
- Given the validi ty of the proclama tion of martial la w,
the arrest and detention of those reasonably believed to
be engaged in the disorder or in fomenting it is well nigh
beyond questioning.
- In the cases at bar, the respondents have justified the
arrest and detention of the petitioners on the ground of
reasonable belief in their complicity in the rebellion and
insurrection.
E x c e p t D i o k n o a n d Aq u i n o , a l l t h e
petitioners have been released from custody, although
subject to defined restrictions regarding personal
movement and expression of vie ws. As the dan ger to
public safety has not abated, I cannot say that the
c o n t i n u e d d e t e n t i o n o f D i o k n o a n d Aq u i n o a n d t h e
restrictions on the personal freedoms of the other
petitioners are arbitrary, just as I am not prepared to say
that the continued imposition of martial rule is
unjustified.
BARREDO [legal]
- The imposition of martial law automatically carries with
it the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus in any event, the Presidential order of arrest and
d e te n tio n ca nn o t b e assai l ed a s d ep riv a ti on of li be r ty
without due process.
- The primary and fundamental purpose of martial law is
to maintain order and to insure the success of the battle
against the enemy by the most expeditious and efficient
means without loss of time and with the minimum effort.
ANTONIO [legal]
MUNOZ-PALMA
[not
legal,
the
proclamation of martial law did not
carry with it the automatic suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus]
- First, from the very nature of the writ of habeas corpus
which as stressed in the early portion of this Opinion is a
"writ of liberty" and the "most important and most
i m m e d i a t e l y a v a i l a b l e s a f e g u a r d o f th a t l i b e r t y " , th e
privilege of the writ cannot be suspended by mere
implication. The Bill of Rights (Art. III, Sec. 1(14), 1935
Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 15, 1973 Constitution)
categorically states that the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus shall not be suspended except for causes
therein specified, and the proclamation of martial law is
not one of those enumerated.
- Se co n d , th e so - ca l l e d C o m m a n d e r - i n - C h i e f cl a u se ,
either under Art. VII, Sec. 10(2), 1935 Constitution, or
Art. IX, Sec. 12, 1973 Constitution, provides specifically
for three different modes of executive action in times of
emergency, and one mode does not necessarily
e n c o m p a s s t h e o t h e r, v i z , ( a ) c a l l i n g o u t t h e a r m e d
f o r c e s t o p r e v e n t o r s u p p r e s s l a w l e s sn e s s , e t c . , ( b )
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
and (c) placing the country or a part thereof under
martial law. In the latter two instances even if the causes
IBP V ZAMORA
KAPUNAN; August 15, 2000
FACTS
- In vi e w o f th e al ar m in g i ncre a se in vi ol en t cr i me s in
Metro Manila, President Estrada, in a verbal directive,
ordered the PNP and the Marines to conduct joint
visibility patrols for the purpose of crime prevention and
suppression.
- The Secretary of National Defense, the Chief of Staff of
the AFP, the Chief of Staff of the PNP and the Secretary
o f th e I n te r i o r a n d L o ca l G o v e r n m e n t w e r e ta s ke d to
execute and implement the said order.
- The PNP Chief, through Police Superintendent Edgar
Aglipay, formulated L e t t e r o f I n s t r u c t i o n 0 2 / 2 0 0 0 ,
which contains the ff:
> Pu rp o se : fo r th e su pp r e ssi on of cr i me pr eve nti on
and other serious threats to national security
> Situation: Criminal incidents in Metro Manila have
been perpetrated not onl y by ordinar y crim inals but
also by organized syndicates whose members include
active and former police/military personnel. The police
visibility patrol in urban areas will reduce the
i n ci d e n ce of cr i m e s sp e ci a l l y t h o se p e r p e tr a te d b y
active or former police/military personnel.
> Mission: sustained street patrolling to minimi ze or
eradi cate all forms of high-profile crime s especiall y
those perpetrated by organized crime syndicates
who se members include those that are we ll- trained ,
d i sci p l i n e d a n d we l l - a r m e d a c ti v e o r f o r m e r
PNP/military personnel
> Concept in Joint Visibility Patrol Operations:
a.Conducted jointly by the National Capital
Region Police Office and the Philippine Marines
to curb criminality in Metro Manila and to
preserve the internal security of the state
against insurgents and other serious threat to
n a ti o n a l se cu r i t y, a l th o u g h th e p r i m a r y
responsibility over Internal Security Operations
still rest upon the AFP.
undertaking
independent
resolution
without
expressing lack of the respect due coordinate
branches of government; or an unusual need for
questioning adherence to a political decision already
made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from
multifarious pronouncements by various departments
on the one question
Ratio 3: When the grant of power is qualified, conditional
or subject to limitations, the issue of whether the
prescribed qualifications or conditions have been met or
t h e l i m i ta ti o n s r e sp e c te d , i s ju st i c i a b l e th e p r o b l e m
being one of legality or validity.
Ratio 4: When political questions are involved, the
C on sti tu tio n l im i ts th e d eter m in a tio n a s to wh e th e r or
not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official
whose action is being questioned.
- grave abuse of di scre tion : capr iciou s or whim si cal
ex er ci se o f ju d gm en t tha t is pa te n t a nd gr o ss as to
amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at
a l l i n c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f l a w, a s w h e r e t h e p o w e r i s
exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by
reason of passion or hostility
- There is no evidence to support the asser tion that
there exi st no justif ica tion for call ing out the armed
forces. Likewise, there is no evidence to support the
proposition that grave abuse was committed because
the power to call was exercised in such a manner as to
violate the constitutional provision on civilian
supremacy over the military.
There is a clear textual commitment under Art. VII, Sec.
18, par. 1 of the Constitution to bestow on the President
full discretionary power to call out the armed forces and
to determine the necessity for the exercise of such
power The full discretionar y power of the President to
determine the factual basis for the exercise of the
calling out power is also implied and further reinforced
in the rest of the said provision.
- Congress may revoke proclamation of martial law or
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and the Court
may review the sufficiency of the factual basis thereof.
There is no such equivalent provision dealing with the
revocation or review of the Presidents action to call
out the armed forces
- Expre ssio unius est exclusio alter ius. W here the
terms are expressly limited to certain matters, it may
not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to
other matters.
- F r. Be r n a s: g r a d u a te d p o we r o f th e P r e s i d e n t a s
Com mander-in- Chief; when he exerci ses this lesser
power of calling on the armed forces, when he says it
i s n e c e s sa r y, h i s j u d g m e n t c a n n o t b e r e v i e w e d b y
anybody
- Beside s the absence of textual standa rds that the
Court may use to judge necessity, information
necessary to arrive at such judgment might also prove
unmanageable for the courts. On the other hand, the
t h e i r a u th o r i t y f r o m t h e f u n d a m e n ta l l a w a n d th e y d o
not have the final say on whether their acts are within or
beyond constitutional limits
- (Tolentino v. Comelec) Acts of a constitutional
convention called for the purpose of proposing
amendments to the Constitution are at par wi th acts of
Congress acting as a constituent assembly
- In sum, this Court brushed aside the political question
d o c tr i n e a n d a s su m e d j u r i sd i ct i o n w h e n e v e r i t f o u n d
constitutionally-imposed limits on the exercise of powers
conferred upon the Legislature
- The Court hewed to the same line as regards the
exercise of Executive Power
- (Severino v. Governor-General) When the Legislature
c o n f e r r e d u p o n t h e G o v e r n o r - Ge n e r a l p o w e r s a n d
duties, it did so for the reason that he was in a better
p osi ti on to kno w th e ne ed s of the co un tr y tha n a n y
other member of the executive department, and with
full confidence that he will perform such duties as his
judgment dictates
- (Abueva v. Wood) Under the principle of separation
of powers, it ruled that it was not intended by the
Constitution that one branch of government could
e n c r o a ch u p o n t h e f i e l d o f d u t y o f t h e o t h e r. E a ch
department has an exclusive field within which it can
perform its part within certain discretionary limits.
- (Forbes v. Tiaco) The Presidents inherent power to
deport undesirable aliens is universally denominated
as political, and this power continues to exist for the
preservation of peace and domestic tranquility of the
nation
- (Manalang v. Quitoriano) The appointing power is the
exclusive prerogative of the President upon which no
limitations may be imposed by Congress except those
resulting from the need of securing concurrence of the
Commission on Appointments and from the exercise of
the limited legislative power to prescribe qualifications
to the given appointive office
- (Untal v. Chief of Staff, AFP) As Commander-in-Chief
of the Armed Forces, the President has the power to
determine whether war, in the legal sense, still
continues or has terminated. It is within the province
of the political department and not the judicial
department of government to determine when war is
at the end
- (Montenegro v. Castaneda) The authority to decide
whether the exigency has arisen requiring the
suspension of the privilege belongs to the President
and his decision is final and conclusive on the courts.
- ( La nsan g v. Ga r cia ) T he su spe n sio n of the wr i t of
habeas corpus was not a political question. The power
to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
nei ther absolute nor unqua lified because the
Constitution sets limits on the exercise of executive
discretion on the matter. These limits are: (1) that the
privilege must not be suspended except only in cases
of invasion, insurrection or rebellion or imminent
danger thereof; and (2) when the public safety
VITUG
The act of the President in simply calling on the armed
forces of the Phil ippines, an execu tive prero gative, to
assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols in the metropolis,
does not constitute grave abuse of discretion that would
n o w wa r ra n t a n exer ci se b y th e Sup re m e Co ur t of i ts
extr ao rd in a r y p o wer a s so env isio ne d b y the
fundamental law.
DAVID V MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; May 3, 2006
FACTS
th
- On February 24, 2006, as the nation celebrated the 20
Anniversary of the Edsa People Power I, President Arroyo
issued PP 1017 declaring a state of national emergency,
thus:
NOW, THEREFOR E, I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,
President of the Republic of the Phil ippines and
Com mander-in- Chief of the Armed For ces of the
Philipp ines, b y virtue of the powe rs vested upon
m e b y Se ction 18 , Ar ticle 7 of the Ph ilipp ine
Constitution which states that: The President. . .
whenever it becomes necessary, . . . may call out
(the) armed forces to prevent or suppress. .
ch a i n o f c o m m a n d . H e i m m e d i a te l y t o o k cu s t o d y o f
B/Gen. Lim and directed Col. Querubin to return to the
Philippine Marines Headquarters in Fort Bonifacio.
Earlier, the CPP-NPA called for intensification of
political and revolutionary work within the military and
the police establishments in order to forge alliances with
its members and key officials. NPA spokesman Gregorio
U p o n t h e a d v i c e o f h e r s e c u r i t y, P r e s i d e n t A r r o y o
d e c i d e d n o t t o a t t e n d t h e Al u m n i H o m e c o m i n g . T h e
next day, at the height of the celebration, a bomb was
found and detonated at the PMA parade ground.
On February 21, 2006, Lt. San Juan was
recaptured in a communist safehouse in Batangas
province. Found in his possession were two (2) flash
disks containing minutes of the meetings between
members of the Magdalo Group and the National
Peoples Ar m y (N PA), a tape re corder, audio ca sse tte
car tr idges, diske ttes, and copie s of subversive
documents. [7] Prior to his arrest, Lt. San Juan announced
4[15] of Article II, (b) Sections 1,[16] 2,[17] and 4[18] of Article
III, (c) Section 23[19] of Article VI, and (d) Section 17[20]
P N P - S p e c i a l Ac t i o n F o r c e w e r e p l a n n i n g t o d e f e c t .
Thus, he immediately ordered SAF Commanding General
Marcelino Franco, Jr. to disavow any defection. The
la tter promptl y obeyed and issued a publi c statement:
A l l S A F u n i t s a r e u n d e r t h e e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l o f
responsible and trustworthy officers with proven
peoples right to
grievances.
H o w e v e r, t h e y f a i l e d t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e C h i e f
Justices very statement that an otherwise moot case
ma y still be decided provided the party raising it in a
proper case has been and/or continues to be prejudiced
or d am a ge d a s a di re ct re su l t of i ts i ssu an ce . T h e
free
expression
and
redress
of
ISSUES
Procedural
1.
W ON the moot and academic principle
precludes the Court from taking cognizance of
the cases
2. WON petitioners in 1 7 1 4 8 5 (Escudero et al.),
G . R . N o s . 1 7 1 4 0 0 (ALGI), 1 7 1 4 8 3 (KMU et
basis of PP 1017
4. WON PP 1017
unconstitutional
st a n d i n g i s go v e r n e d b y th e r e a l - p a r ti e s- i n i n te r e s t
rule as contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, as amended. It provides that every
and
G.O.
No.
are
a. Facial Challenge
b. Constitutional Basis
c. As Applied Challenge
HELD
Procedural
1. NO. Courts wil l decide ca ses, o ther wi se moo t and
academic, if: first, t h e r e i s a g r a v e v i o l a t i o n o f t h e
Constitution; [31] second, the exceptional character of the
R e a so n i n g
- Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic,
if: first, there is a grave violation of the Constitution; [31]
second, the exceptional chara cter of the si tuation and
the paramount public interest is involved; [32] third, when
- Al l t h e f o r e g o i n g e x c e p t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t h e r e a n d
justif y th is Cour ts assump tion of ju ri sdiction over the
instant petitions. Petitioners alleged that the issuance of
PP 1017 and G.O. No. 5 violates the Constitution. There
i s n o que sti on th a t the issue s be in g ra ised affe ct the
publics interest, involving as they do the peoples basic
rights to freedom of expression, of assembly and of the
press. Moreover, the Court has the duty to formulate
guiding and controlling constitutional precepts, doctrines
or rules. It has the symbolic function of educating the
b e n ch a n d t h e b a r, a n d i n th e p r e se n t p e ti t i o n s , t h e
mi litar y and the police , on the exten t of the prote ction
g i v e n b y c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e s . [35]
An d l a st l y,
o ffi ci a l a ct i o n co m p l a i n e d o f i n f r i n ge s u p o n th e i r
that her prerogatives as a lawmaker have been impaired
prerogatives as legislators.
by PP 1017 and G.O. No . 5.
Her clai m tha t she i s a
- N o w, th e ap pl i ca ti on of th e a bov e p ri n cip le s to th e
media personality will not likewise aid her because there
present petitions.
was no showing that the enforcement of these issuances
- The locus standi of petitioners in G . R . N o . 1 7 1 3 9 6 ,
prevented her from pursuing her occupation. Her
parti cular l y David and Llamas, i s beyond doubt. The
submission that she has pending electoral protest before
same holds true with petitioners in G . R . N o . 1 7 1 4 0 9 ,
t h e P r e s i d e n t i a l E l e c t o r a l T ri b u n a l i s l i k e w i s e o f n o
Cacho-Olivares and Tribune Publ ishin g Co. Inc. They
relevance. She has not sufficiently shown that PP 1017
alleged direct injury resulting from illegal arrest and
wi l l affe ct the pr ocee di n gs or r esu l t of h er ca se . Bu t
unlawful search committed by police operatives
considering once more the transcendental importance of
pursuant to PP 1017. Rightly so, the Solicitor General
the i ssue i nvo lv ed , th i s Co ur t ma y r el ax the sta nd in g
does not question their legal standing.
rules.
- In G . R . N o . 1 7 1 4 8 5 , the opposition Congressmen
- It mu st alwa ys be borne in mind tha t the que stion of
and
rebellion
are
considered
harmful
and
constitutionally unprotected conduct.
- Second, facia l invalida tion of la ws is con sidered as
Embedded
in
the
traditional
rules
governing
constitutional adjudication is the principle that a person
to whom a law may be applied will not be heard to
challenge a law on the ground that it may conceivably
be applied uncon stitutionall y to o thers, i .e., i n o t h e r
situations not before the Court. [108]
co n st i t u te s th e ex e cu t i v e b r a n ch a n d a n yth i n g wh i ch
i m p a i r s h i s u s e f u l n e s s i n t h e d i s ch a r g e o f t h e m a n y
g r e a t a n d i m p o r t a n t d u ti e s i m p o se d u p o n h i m b y th e
C o n st i tu ti o n n e ce s sa r i l y i m p a i r s th e o p e r a ti o n of th e
G o v e r n m e n t . H o w e v e r, t h i s d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t t h e
President is not accountable to anyone. Like any other
official, he remains accountable to the people [68] but he
instance that the assailed law may be valid; and that (3)
the Court has no other alternative remedies available.
to e s ta b l i sh t h a t m e n of co m m o n i n te l l i ge n ce ca n n o t
understand the meaning and application of PP 1017.
Substantive
- Under the void-for-vagueness doctrine, a law shall be
b. Constitutional Basis. The authority of the President
3. The Presidents calling-out power is a discretionary
facially invalid only if men of common intelligence must
to ex er ci se h i s ca l l in g ou t p o wer to sup p re ss l a wl e ss
power solely vested in his wisdom. However, this does
n e c e s sa r i l y g u e s s a t i t s m e a n i n g a n d d i ff e r a s t o i t s
vio le n ce sha l l n ot be de em ed to i n cl ud e the po we r to
not prevent an examination of whether such
application.
a u th o r i ze : ( a ) a r r e s t s a n d s e i zu r e s w i t h o u t j u d i ci a l
power
was
exercised
within
permissible
R e a so n i n g
warrants; (b) ban on public assemblies; (c) take-over of
constitutional limits or whether it was exercised in
P e t i t i o n e r s c o n t e n d t h a t P P 1 0 1 7 i s v o i d o n i t s f a ce
news media and agencies and press censorship; and (d)
a ma nn e r c on s t itu t in g g ra ve ab u se o f d isc ret io n .
because of its overbreadth. They claim that its
issuance of Presidential Decrees, as these powers can be
T h is ru li n g is ba se d on Se ctio n 1 , Ar ti cl e VI II of 19 87
enforcement encroached on both unprotected and
exercised by the President as Commander-in-Chief only
Constitution which fortifies the authority of the courts to
pr o te cted righ ts un de r Se ction 4, Ar ticle III of th e
where there is a valid declaration of Martial Law or
d e te r m i n e i n a n a p p r o p r i a te a c ti o n th e v a l i d i t y o f th e
Constitution and sent a chilling effect to the citizens.
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
acts of the political departments.
Under the new
- A f a ci a l r e v i e w o f P P 1 0 1 7 , u si n g th e o v e r b r e a d th
- The take care power of the President, which includes
definition of judicial power, the courts are authorized not
doctrine, is uncalled for. F i r s t a n d f o r e m o s t , th e
t h e p o w e r t o e n f o r c e o b e d i e n ce o f l a w s sh a l l n o t b e
only to settle actual controversies involving rights
overbreadth doctrine is an analytical tool developed for
deemed to include calling the military to enforce or
which are legally demandable and enforceable, but also
testing on their faces statutes in free speech cases.
i m p l e m e n t ce r t a i n l a w s , su c h a s cu s t o m s l a w s , l a w s
t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e r e h a s b e e n a
A plain reading of PP 1017 shows that it is not primarily
governing family and property relations, laws on
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
directed to speech or even speech-related conduct. It is
obligations and contracts and the like.
excess of juris dic tion on the part of an y b ranch or
actually a call upon the AFP to prevent or suppress all
- The ordinance power of the President shall not include
in s t ru me n ta lit y o f th e g o ve rn me n t . The latter part
forms of lawless violence. In United States v. Salerno,
the po wer to make de crees wi th the same for ce and
of the authority represents a broadening of judicial
[104] t h e U S S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t w e h a v e n o t
effect as those issued by President Marcos.
power to enable the courts of justice to review what was
before a forbidden terri tor y,
to wi t, the discretion of
t h e p o l i t i c a l d e p a r tm e n t s o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t . [81]
It
speaks of judicial prerogative not only in terms of power
but also of duty.[82]
- Ho wever, judi cial inqu ir y can go n o f ur th e r than to
sa ti sf y the Court not th a t the Pre sid en ts d eci sio n i s
re c o g n i z e d a n o ve r b r e a d t h d o c t r i n e o u t s i d e t h e
lim ite d c o nt ex t o f th e F irs t Ame n d me nt ( f re e d o m
of speech). Moreover, the overbreadth doctrine is not
in tended for testin g the validity of a law tha t reflects
legitimate state interest in maintaining comprehensive
control over harmful, constitutionally unprotected
condu ct. Undoubtedl y, lawle ss violence , in surrection
e x e r c i s e o f a n a w e s o m e p o w e r . O bv i o u sl y, su ch
Proclamation cannot be deemed harmless, without legal
significance, or not written, as in the case of Sanlakas.
R e a so n i n g
Calling-out Power
- The Constitution grants the President, as Commanderin-Chief, a sequence of graduated powers. These are:
the calling-out power, the power to suspend the privilege
of the wri t of habeas corpus, and the power to declare
Martial Law. The only criterion for the exercise of the
calling-out power is that whenever it becomes
necessary, t h e Pr e si d e n t m a y ca l l t h e a r m e d f o r ce s
to p re ve nt o r supp ress law less vio lence, in vas io n
o r re b e l l i o n . C o n si d e r i n g th e ci r cu m s ta n ce s t h e n
prevailing, President Arroyo found it necessary to issue
PP 1017.
Owing to her Offices vast intelligence
n e tw o r k , sh e i s i n th e b e st p o si t i o n to d e te r m i n e th e
actual condition of the country.
- Under the call ing-ou t power, the Pre sident ma y
s u m m o n th e a r m e d f o r ce s t o a i d h i m i n s u p p r e s s i n g
l aw le ss vi o l en ce , i n va s i o n an d r eb e l l i o n . This
involves ordinary police action. But every act that goes
beyond the Presidents calling-out power is considered
illegal or ultra vires. For this reason, a President must be
can be done.
Its use for any other purpose is a
- T he a ss a ile d P P 10 17 is u nc o ns t it ut io n a l in s of a r
p erv er sio n of i ts n a tu re a nd scop e , a nd an y a ct d on e
a s it g ra n t s P re s id e n t Ar r o yo t h e a u t h o ri t y t o
con trar y to its command is ultra vires. Specifically, (a)
p ro mu lg at e de c ree s . Legislative power is peculiarly
arrests and seizures without judicial warrants; (b) ban on
within the province of the Legislature. Section 1, Article
public assemblies; (c) take-over of news media and
VI ca te go r i ca l l y sta te s tha t [ t ] h e l e g i s l a t i ve p o w e r
a g e n c i e s a n d p r e s s c e n s o r sh i p ; a n d ( d ) i s s u a n ce o f
sh a ll b e ve s t ed in th e C o ng re ss o f t he Ph i lip p in es
Presidential Decrees, are powers which can be exercised
which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
by the Pre sident as Commander -in- Chief only where
Representatives . To be sure, neither Martial Law nor
there is a valid declaration of Martial Law or suspension
a state of rebellion nor a state of emergency can justify
of the writ of habeas corpus.
P r e s i d e n t Ar r o y o s e x e r c i s e o f l e g i s l a t i v e p o w e r b y
- Based on the above disqui sition, it is clea r tha t PP
issuing decrees.
1017 is not a declaration of Martial Law. I t is m e re l y
an exercise of President Arroyos calling-out
Can President Arroyo enforce obedience to all decrees
power for the armed forces to assist her in preventing
and laws through the military?
or suppressing lawless violence.
- As this Court stated earlier, President Arroyo has no
authority to enact decrees. It follows that these decrees
Ta ke C a re Po we r
are void and, therefore, cannot be enforced. W ith
- The second provision of PP 1017 pertains to the power
respect to laws, she cannot call the military to enforce
o f t h e Pr e si d e n t to e n su r e th a t th e l a w s b e f a i th f u l l y
or implement certain laws, such as customs laws, laws
executed. This is based on Section 17, Article VII which
governing family and property relations, laws on
reads:
ob li ga ti on s an d con tr a cts a nd the l i ke . Sh e ca n o nl y
SEC. 17. The President shall have control of all the
o r d e r t h e m i l i t a r y, u n d e r P P 1 0 1 7 , t o e n f o r c e l a w s
executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He
pertinent to its duty to suppress lawless violence .
shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
executed.
P o w e r t o Tak e O v e r
- As t h e E x e c u t i v e i n w h o m t h e e x e c u t i v e p o w e r i s
The pertinent provision of PP 1017
vested,[115] th e p r i m a r y f u n c ti o n o f th e P r e s i d e n t i s to
states:
x x x a n d t o e n f o r ce o b e d i e n ce t o a l l
the laws and to all decrees, orders, and
regulations
promulgated
by
me
pe rson a ll y or u po n m y d ir e ctio n ; and
a s p r o v i d e d i n S e c t i o n 1 7 , Ar t i c l e
XII of the Constitution do hereby
declare
a
state
of
national
eme rge nc y.
- The import of this provision is that President Arro yo,
during the state of national emergency under PP 1017,
can call the military not only to enforce obedience to all
the laws and to all decrees x x x but also to act
pursuant to the provision of Section 17, Article XII which
reads:
Sec. 17. In ti me s of n a ti on a l
e me r gen c y, whe n the pu bl i c in te re st
so requires, the State may, during the
emergency and under reasonable
terms prescribed by it, temporarily
opportunit y
for abuse in the manner of
arrest without warrants, breaking into offices and
- But what made it doubly worse for petitioners David et
application.[136] The validity of a statute or ordinance is
residen ces, taking over the media enterp rise s,
al. is that not onl y wa s the ir right aga inst warran tle ss
to be determined from its general purpose and its
efficiency to accomplish the end desired, n o t f r o m i t s
effects in a pa rticular case .[137] PP 1017 is merely an
i n v o ca t i o n o f th e P r e si d e n t s ca l l i n g - o u t p o w e r. I t s
general purpose is to command the AFP to suppress all
forms of lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. It had
accomplished the end desired which prompted President
Arroyo to issue PP 1021. But there is nothing in PP 1017
allo wing the police , expre ssl y or implied l y, to conduct
illegal arrest, search or violate the citizens constitutional
rights.
- N o w, m a y th i s C ou r t a d jud ge a l a w o r or di na n ce
Sec. 5. A r r e s t w i t h o u t w a r r a n t ; w h e n l a w f u l . -
acts of terrorism.
- The absence of a law defining acts of terrorism may
result in abuse and oppression on the part of the police
or military.
- So far, the word terrorism appears only once in our
criminal laws, i.e., in P.D. No. 1835 dated Januar y 16,
1 98 1 en acted b y Pr e sid en t Ma rco s d ur in g the M ar ti al
Law regime.
- P.D . No . 1835 wa s repealed b y E.O. No . 167 (whi ch
In
this
connection,
Chief
Justice
Artemio
V.
- In ciden tall y, during the oral argu ments, the Soli ci tor
- Pres designated petitioner Mary Concepcion Bautista
General admitted that the search of the Tribunes offices
as Acting Chair of CHR, who took oath of office before CJ
and the seizure of its materials for publication and other
Fernan. She discharged functions/duties of Chair of CHR.
papers are illegal; and that the same are inadmissible
Bautista rcvd letter fr Sec of Commission on
for any purpose,
Appointments requesting her to submit info and docs in
- T h e C o u r t h a s p a s se d u p o n t h e co n s t i tu t i o n a l i t y o f
connection w/ her confirmation as Chair of CHR.
these issuances. Suffice it to reiterate that PP 1017 is
- Secretary again wrote to Bautista to request her
limited to the calling out by the President of the military
presence at a meeting to deliberate on her appointment.
t o p r e v e n t o r su p p r e s s l a w l e s s v i o l e n c e , i n v a s i o n o r
Bautista wrote to Chair of Commission on
rebellion. When in implementing its provisions, pursuant
A p p o i n t m e n t s , s a yi n g w h y s h e c o n s i d e r e d C o m m o n
to G.O. No. 5, the military and the police committed acts
Ap p o i n tm e n ts a s h a v i n g n o j u r i sd i ct i o n to r e v i e w h e r
which violate the citizens rights under the Constitution,
appointment.
this Court has to declare such acts unconstitutional and
illegal.
- A s c o n v e y e d i n a l e t t e r t o t h e E x e c S e c r e t a r y,
C om m i ssio n on Ap po i n tme n ts d isap p rov ed Ba u ti sta s
ad interim appointment as Chair.
- Bautistas motion for reconsideration was denied.
- A Manila Standard news item reported that Pres
d e s i g n a te d M a l l i l l i n a s Ac t i n g C h a i r o f C H R p e n d i n g
resolution of Bautistas case.
- Bau ti sta filed thi s petition w/ prayer for issuance of
restraining order to enjoin Commission of Appointments
not to proceed w/ deliberation on her appointment.
- Bautista filed amended petition for restraining order
imp leading Malli llin as respondent. She also filed exparte motion to stop Mallillin fr exercising fcns of Chair
and fr demanding courtesy resignations fr officers.
- Court issued TRO regarding Mallillin but not regarding
Commission on Appointments, being instrumentality of
coequal branch.
Bautista was extended by Pres to permanent
appointment as Chair on Dec 17, 1988.
This
appointment was for Pres solely to make.
ISSUES
1. WON appointment by Pres of Chair of Commission on
Human Rights is to be w/ or w/o confirmation of
Commission on Appointments
2 . W ON P r e s c o u l d e x t e n d a n o th e r a p p o i n t m e n t t o
petitioner on Jan 14, 1989 an ad interin appointment or
any other kind of appointment to same office of Chair of
CHR that called for confirmation by Commission on
Appointments.
3 . W ON in appoin tments so lel y for Pres to make , the
Pres can voluntarily submit such appointment to
Commission on Appointment for confirmation.
4. WON the petition has become moot and academic.
HELD
1. NO
- CHR Chair position is not among positions mentioned
in Sec 16 Art 12 of Consti. Therefore, appointment must
be w/o review of Commission on Appointments.
- Unlike Chair/Members of CSC, COMELEC and CoA, the
position of CHR Chair does not have express provision
that appointment should be with consent of Commission
on Appointments.
- Sec 2(c) of EO 163 says CHR Chair is among those w/c
Pres is authorized by law to appoint.
2. NO
- Bautistas appointment on Dec 17, 1988 as Chair was
a completed act on the part of the Pres.
- No new appointment could be made to position
alread y filled b y a previousl y comp leted appointmen t,
accepted by appointee through qualification and
assumption of duties.
Even if Pres could submit to Commission on
Appointments an appointment that belongs solely to her,
still, there was no vacancy on Jan 14 1989.
Nor can respondents contend that the new
appointment on Jan 14 was an ad interim appointment
bec it does not apply to appointments solely for Pres to
SARMIENTO V MISON
PADILLA; December 17, 1987
FACTS
- Petitioners Sarmiento and Arcilla who are taxpayers,
lawyers, members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, and Constitutional Law professors seeks to
SEPARATE OPINION
CRUZ [dissent]
There is a need to look at the provision in its entirety.
The focus of the records was merely on the first
sen ten ce of the provi sion and the no t on the follo win g
sentences. Those are crucial given that the position in
question falls under the latter. Also, the records of the
Constitutional Commission are merely extrinsic aids and
are at best persuasive only and not necessarily
c o n c l u si v e . I n a d d i ti o n , s t r i c t l y i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e t h i r d
sentence may create an absurdity for it gives Congress
the discretion of not creating a law that would give the
President the power to appoint those who are lower in
r a n k . An i r o n y a r i se s w h e n t h o s e i n a l o w e r p o si t i o n
r e qu i r e t h e a p p r o v a l o f t h e C o m m i s si o n
on
A p p o i n t m e n t s w h i l e th o se wh o a r e h i g h e r i n p o si ti o n
would not.
PIMENTEL V ERMITA
CARPIO; October 13, 2005
FACTS
- 7/26/2004: Congress commenced their regular session
- 8/25/2004: The Com mission on Appoin tmen ts
(composed of members of Congress) was constituted
+ m e a n w h i l e , GM A i ssu e d a p p o i n t m e n t s
to
respondents as acting secretaries of their respective
departments:
MATIBAG V BENIPAYO
CARPIO; April 2, 2002
FACTS
- The Case: Petition for Prohibition w/ prayer for a writ of
prelim injunction and TRO. Petitioner questions the
appoin tmen t and the ri gh t of respondents to remain in
office as Chairman and Commissioners of the COMELEC
- On Feb.2, 1999, Petitioner Ma. Angelina Matibag was
appointed by the COMELEC en banc as Acting Director
IV o f th e Edu ca tio n an d In fo r ma ti on D ep t. ( EID) , he r
R e s p o n d e n t s Ar g u m e n t :
appointment was renewed on Feb 15, 2000 in a
-responden ts assert that GM A can i ssue such
Temporary capacity and renewed yet again on Feb 15,
appointments for the reason that no law prohibits it
2001 in the same Temporary capacity.
S 1 6 C h 5 T 1 B 3 , E O 2 9 2 : The Pres. shall exercise the
- O n M a r c h 2 2 , 2 0 0 1 P G M A a p p o i n t e d a d i n te r i m ,
power to appoint such officials as provided bythe law
respondents Alfredo Benipayo as COMELEC Chairman
S 1 7 C h 5 T 1 B 3 , E O 2 9 2 : the Pr e s. m a y ap po in t an
and Resurreccion Borra, and Florentino Tuason as
officer already in service or any other competent person
COMELEC commissioners respectively, for a term of 7
years, expiring on Feb. 2, 2008. They took their oaths
ISSUE
and assumed their positions with the President
W O N G M As a p p o i n t m e n t o f r e s p o n d e n t s a s a c t i n g
submitting their ad interim appointments to the
secretaries w/o the consent of the Commission of
C o m m i s s i o n o n Ap p o i n t m e n t s o n M a y 2 2 , 2 0 0 1 f o r
Appoin tmen ts whi le Con gre ss is in session is
confirmation. The Commission on Appointments,
unconstitutional
however, did not act on their appointments.
- O n J u n e 1 , 2 0 0 1 , P G M A r e n e w e d t h e i r ad i n te ri m
appointments with the term and the expiration
remaining the same (for 7 years and expiring on Feb 2,
HELD
2008). The new appointees took oath a 2 nd time and the
- the court held that the President may make such
sa m e wa s tr a n sm i tt e d t o t h e C o m m i s si o n o n
appointments, as the law expressly provides it
A p p o i n t m e n t s f o r co n f i r m a t i o n o n Ju n e 5 , 2 0 0 1 . T h e
S 1 7 C h 5 T it l e 1 B o o k 3 , E O 2 9 2 : the President
Congress adjourned before the Commission could act on
ma y te mp or a ri l y d esi gn a te an offi cer al re ad y i n th e
th e ap po in tm en ts re su l tin g i n th e r en e wal of th e ir ad
government service or any other competent person to
interim appointments by the President for the 3 rd time on
perform the function of an office in the executive
June 8, 2001.
branch
i n c u m b e n t . Bu t su c h i s n o t th e m e a n i n g n o r t h e u s e
intended in the context of Phil. law. Ad interim is used to
d e n o te t h e m a n n e r i n w h i ch sa i d a p p o i n t m e n t s w e r e
made, that is, done by the President, in the meantime,
while the body, which is originally vested with the power
or appointment, is unable to act.
- Although the 1935 Consti did not have the provi sion
prohibiting temporary or acting appointments, this Court
then decided such an appointment in Nacionalista Party
v Bautista as unconstitutional declaring that, It would
be more in keeping with the intent, purpose and aim of
the framers of the Constitution to appoint a permanent
Commissioner than to designate one to act temporarily.
Likewise, In Br i l l a n te s v Yor a c, d e c i d e d u n d e r t h e
present Constitution, this Court struck down as
unconstitutional the designation by then Pres. Aquino of
Haydee Yorac as Acting Chairperson of the COMELEC.
- Art. IX-A 1 should be harmonized with Art. VII 16. for
to hold that the independence of the COMELEC requires
t h e C o m m i ss i o n o n Ap p o i n t m e n t s to f i r st co n f i r m ad
interim appointments before the appointees can assume
o ff i ce w i l l n e g a te th e P r e si d e n t s p o w e r to m a ke ad
interim appointments.
- The original draft of Art. VII 16 did not provide for ad
interim a p p o i n t m e n t s , h o w e v e r, i t w a s r e i n s t a t e d to
avoid interruptions in vital govt services that would
result from prolonged vacancies in govt offices. The ad
interim a p p o i n t m e n t h a s s i n c e b e e n p r a c t i c e d b y
Presidents Aquino, Ramos and Estrada.
2. Justiciability of the case: The Court determined the
ju st i c i a b i l i t y o f th e ca se b y ta ck l i n g th e r e qu i si te s of
ju d i c i a l r e v i e w r a i se d b y th e r e sp o n d e n ts wh i ch th e y
claimed to be lacking (actual case/controversy was not
raised)
> personal and substantial interest of the party
Petitioner has a personal and material stake in the
resolution of the case. If Benipayos appointment is
unlawful, petitioner s reassignment is without legal
basis; if it is lawful, then she has no cause to
co mplain provided tha t i t wa s done in accordance
with the Civil Service Law. Because of her personal
and material stake in the resolution of the
constitutionality of respondents assumption of
office, she has locus standi to raise it as a
constitutional issue
> exerci se of judi cial revie w mu st be pleaded a t the
earliest opportunity
It is not the date of filing of the petition that
d e te r m i n e s wh e th e r th e co n st i t u t i o n a l i s su e w a s
r a i s e d a t t h e e a r l i e s t o p p o r t u n i t y. T h e e a r l i e s t
opportunity to raise a constitutional issue is to raise
i t i n th e p l e a d i n g s b e f o r e a co m p e t e n t co u r t th a t
can resolve the same, such that, if it is not raised in
the pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial,
and if not considered at the trial, it cannot be
considered on appeal.
Petitioner questioned the constitutionality of the ad
i n te r i m a p p o i n tm e n t s w h e n sh e f i l e d h e r p e ti ti o n
SEPARATE OPINION
PANGANIBAN
- I n d u b i t a b l y, f o r m e r P r e s i d e n t Aq u i n o s d e ci s i o n t o
honor outstanding debts of the Republic was purely an
executive call; hence, beyond judicial scrutiny. For this
reason, neither can respondents be faulted for
i m p l e m e n t i n g th e Pr o gr a m ex e cu te d p u r su a n t to th a t
constitutional executive policy.
- Also, that petitioners question the legality of several
foreign loans necessitates a review of the assailed
contracts. Because the petitioners failed to substantiate
th e ch a r ge s, th e a r gu m e n t ca n n o t b e a d d r e s se d . A
determination of the validity of such allegations requires
a review of factual matters. The Supreme Court is not a
trier or facts. The proper action for petitioners is to file
their petition in the lower courts, which had concurrent
jurisdiction over the subject matter and which are better
equipped to conduct a firsthand examination of factual
evidence in support of their allegations.
This
notwithstanding, there is nothing in this decision to
preclude the Department of Justice or the Office of the
Ombudsman from initiating an investigation of the
alleged fraudulent loans. Suppletorily, probable cause
must be shown in order that prosecution may be brought
to bear.
I t w o u ld b e s el f- d e fe a t i n g i n t h e ex t re m e i f th e
legislation intended to cope wi th the grave so cial and
economic problems of the present and foreseeable
future would founder on the rock of an unduly restrictive
and decidedl y unrealisti c meanin g to be affixed to the
doctrine of non-delegation.
- Also quo tin g Professor Jaffe: The occasions for
d e l e g a t i n g p o w e r to a d m i n i s tr a ti v e o ffi ce s [c o u l d b e ]
co m p a s s e d b y a s i n g l e g e n e r a l i za t i o n . T h u s : Po w e r
sho u ld b e de le ga ted wh e re th er e i s a gre e me n t tha t a
t a s k m u s t b e p e r f o r m e d a n d i t c a n n o t b e e ff e c t i v e l y
performed by the legislature without the assistance of a
delegate or without an expenditure of time so great as
to l e a d t o th e n e gl e ct of e qu a l l y i m p o r t a n t b u si n e s s.
Delegation is most commonly indicated where the
relations to be regulated are highly technical or where
their regulation requires a course of continuous
decision.
37
AYTONA V CASTILLO
BENGZON; January 19, 1962
Article VII on the presidency starts with this provision: "T he President
shall be the head of state and chief executive of the Republic of the
Philippines." Its last section is an even more emphatic affirmation that it is a
p re s i de n t i a l s yst e m t ha t o b t a i ns i n o ur gov er n me nt . T hu s: " Al l p o w er s
vested in the President of the Philippines under the 1935 Constitution and
t he laws of the land which are not herein provided for or conferred upon
any official shall be deemed and are hereby vested in the President unless
the Batasang Pambansa provides otherwise."
FACTS
b y C o n gr e s s i f th e co u r t s w e r e t o ex e r c i se p r o b a ti o n
powers in the future.
- Riggs v US: the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fourth
Circuit held that the constitutionality of Probation Act of
March 4, 1925 have been sustained by the Circuit Court
of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit (7 F. [2d], 590), and the
same was held in no manner to encroach upon the
pardoning power of the President.
- 1916: US SC, in plain and unequivocal language,
pointed to Congress as possessing the requisite power to
enact probation laws. A federal probation law was
actually enacted in 1925. The constitutionality of the Act
has been assumed by the US SC in 1928 and
consistently sustained by the inferior federal courts in a
number of earlier cases. The Philippine Legislature, like
t h e U S C o n g r e s s , m a y l e ga l l y e n a c t a p r o b a ti o n l a w
under its broad power to fix the punishment of any and
all penal offenses. Indeed, the Philippine Legislature has
defined all crimes and fixed the penalties for their
violation. Invariably, the legislature has demonstrated
the desire to vest in the cour ts -- parti cularl y the tria l
courts -- large discretion in imposing the penalties which
the law prescribes in particular cases. It is believed that
justice can best be served by vesting this power in the
cou r ts, th e y b ei n g i n a p osi ti on to b est de ter m in e the
penalties which an individual convict, peculiarly
ci r cu m s ta n ce d , sh o u l d su ffe r. < R e v i se d P e n a l C o d e ,
In d e te r m i n a te S e n t e n ce L a w,
Parole Act, Juvenile
Delinquency Law, (Adult) Probation Law, etc show the
intention of the legislature to humanize the penal
laws.>
- Some US cases hold it unlawful for the legislature to
vest in the courts the power to suspend the operation of
a se n te n ce d , b y p r o b a t i o n o r o t h e r w i s e , a s t o d o s o
would encroach upon the pardoning power of the
executive. Other cases, however, hold contra. Phil SC
e le cts to fol lo w th e lo n g ca ten a of au tho ri ti e s h ol di n g
that the courts may be legally authorized by the
legislature to suspend sentence by the establishment of
a system of probation however characterized.
- Probation and pardon are not coterminous; nor are they
the same. They are actually district and different from
each other, both in origin and in nature. Probation, the
p o wer to su sp en d sen ten ce , wa s al wa ys a p ar t of th e
judicial power. It simply postpones the judgment of the
court temporarily or indefinitely, but the conviction and
liability following it, and the civil disabilities, remain and
become operative when judgment is rendered. The
pow er to g ra nt re p rie ves an d p a rd o n s , on the other
hand , wa s al wa ys a par t of the ex ecu tiv e power. A
pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the
o f fe n s e a n d t h e g u i l t o f t h e o f fe n d e r. I t r e l e a se s t h e
punishment, and blots out of existence the guilt, so that
in the eye of the law, the offender is as innocent as if he
had never committed the offense. It removes the
penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil
rights. It makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives
him a new credit and capacity.
TORRES V GONZALES
FELICIANO; July 23, 1987
FACTS
- an original petition for habeas corpus filed on behalf of
petitioner Wilfredo S. Torres, presently confined at the
National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa.
- Some ti me before 1979 , Torres wa s convicted b y the
CFI of Manila of the crime of estafa (two counts) and was
sentenced to an aggregate prison term of from (11) yrs,
(10) mos and (22) days to (38) yrs, (9) mos. and (1) day,
and to pa y an indemn ity of P127 ,728.75. These
convictions were affirmed by the CA. The maximum
sentence would expire on 2 Nov 2000.
- On 18 April 1979, a conditional pardon was granted by
t h e Pr e si d e n t o n co n d i ti o n t h a t p e ti ti o n e r w o u l d "n o t
a gain violate any of the penal laws of the Phi lippine s.
Should this condition be violated, he will be proceeded
a ga i n s t i n th e m a n n e r p r e s c r i b e d b y l a w." P e t i t i o n e r
accepted the conditional pardon and was consequently
released from confinement.
- O n 2 1 M a y 1 9 8 6 , t h e B o a r d o f Pa r d o n s a n d Pa r o l e
resolved to recommend to the President the cancellation
o f th e co nd i ti on al pa rd on gr an ted to th e p eti ti on er. In
making its recommendation, the Board relied upon the
decisions of this Court in Tesoro vs. Director of Prisons
and E sp u e l a s u s . P r o v i n ci a l War d e n o f Bo h o l .
The
peti tioner had been char ged wi th 20 coun ts of estafa ,
which were then pending trial before the RTC, and
convicted by the RTC of the crime of sedition, which was
then pending appeal before the IAC. Many other charges
have been brought against the petitioner, although some
have been identified as dismissed.
- On 4 June 1986 , the re spondent Minister of Justi ce
wrote to the President informing her of the Resolution of
the Board recommending cancellation of the conditional
pardon previously granted to petitioner.
- On 8 S e p t e m b e r 1 9 8 6 , th e P r e si d e n t c a n c e l l e d th e
conditional pardon of the petitioner.
- On 10 October 1986, the respondent Minister of Justice
issued "by authority of the President" an Order of Arrest
a n d R e co m m i t m e n t a ga i n st p e ti ti o n e r. T h e p e ti ti o n e r
was accordingly arrested and confined in Muntinlupa to
serve the unexpired portion of his sentence.
- Pe ti ti o n e r n o w i m p u gn s th e va l i d i t y o f t h e Or d e r of
A r r e s t a n d R e co m m i tm e n t. H e cl a i m s t h a t h e d i d n o t
v i o l a te h i s co n d i ti o n a l p a r d o n si n ce h e h a s n o t b e e n
co nv icte d b y fi na l jud gm e n t. Pe ti ti on er al so co n te nd s
that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before
he was arrested and recommitted to prison, and
accordin gl y cla ims he has been deprived of his ri ghts
under the due process clause of the Constitution.
ISSUE
WON conviction of a crime by final judgment of a court is
necessary before the petitioner can be validly rearrested
and recommitted for violation of the terms of his
conditional pardon and accordingly to serve the balance
of his original sentence.
HELD
- Tesoro vs. Director of Prisons . - It wa s h e l d t h a t th e
de termina tion if the parole had been brea ched rested
exclusively in the sound ju dgment of the GovGen and
tha t su ch determ ination wo uld not be revie wed b y the
courts. As Tesoro had consented to place his liberty on
parole upon the judgment of the power that had granted
it, the Court held that "he [could not] invoke the aid of
the courts, however erroneous the findings may be upon
wh i ch h is re co m mi tm en t wa s o rd er ed ." Tesor o h ad in
effect a greed tha t the GovGen 's deter mination (ra ther
than that of the regular courts of law) that he had
breached one of the conditions of his parole by
committing adultery while he was conditionally at
liberty, was binding and conclusive upon him.
- Sales vs. Director of Prisons - The executive clemency
i s exten de d u po n th e co nd i ti on s n am ed i n i t, a nd i t i s
accepted upon those conditions. The governor may
wi t h d r a w h i s gr a ce i n a ce r ta i n co n ti n ge n c y, a n d th e
governor shall himself determine when that contingency
has arisen. It is as if the convict, with full competency to
bind himself in the premises, had expressly contracted
and agreed that, whenever the governor should
conclude that he had violated the conditions of his
parole, an executive order for his arrest and
remandment to prison should at once issue, and be
conclusive upon him.
- Espuelas vs. Provincial Warden of Bohol - The Court
reaffirmed the Tesoro and Sales rulings. "Due process is
not necessarily judicial The appellee had had his day in
court and been afforded the opportunity to defend
himself during his trial for the crime of inciting to
sedition with which he was charged, that brought about
or resulted in his conviction, sentence and confinement
in the penitentiary. When he was conditionally pardoned
it was a generous exercise by the Chief Executive of his
con stitutional prero gative. The accep tan ce thereof b y
the convict or prisoner carrie[d] with it the authority or
power of the Executive to determine whether a condition
or conditions of the pardon has or have been violated To
no other department of the Government [has] such
power been entrusted."
SEPARATE OPINION
CRUZ [dissent]
- As many as such charges may be, none of them so far
has resulted in a final conviction, without which he
cannot be recommitted under the condition of his
pardon.
BARRIOQUINTO V FERNANDEZ
FERIA; January 21, 1949
FACTS
Jim en e z a nd Bar r io qu in to we r e cha r ged wi th m ur de r.
Jimene z was sentenced to life imprisonment, while
Barrioquintos trial was delayed because he was arrested
l a te r tha n Ji me ne z. Bo th su bm i tte d the ir ca se s to the
Guerilla Amnesty Commission pursuant to Proclamation
No. 838 which the said commission remanded to the CFI
ISSUE
WON confession to the crime is necessary to be entitled
to the benefits of Proclamation No. 8 (grant of amnesty)
HELD
- In order to entitle a person to the benefits of the
Amne sty Proclamation of September 7 , 1946, i t is not
nece ssar y tha t he should admit havin g com mitted the
cr i m in al act or o ffen se wi th wh i ch he i s ch a r ged , an d
allege the amnesty as a defense. For whether or not he
admits or confesses having committed the offense with
which he is charged, the Commissions should conduct
summary hearing of the witnesses both for the
complainants and the accused, on whether he has
committed the offense in furtherance of the resistance
t o t h e e n e m y, o r a g a i n s t p e r s o n s a i d i n g i n t h e w a r
38 P rocl amat io n No. 8 (disp osit iv e): I, Man uel Roxas, P resid ent of t he
P hilippines, in accordance wit h t he prov isions of Article V II, sect ion 10,
paragraph 6 of the Constitution, do hereby declare and proclaim an
amnesty in favor of all persons who committed any act penalized under the
Revised Penal Code in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy or against
persons aiding in the war effort of t he enemy, and commit ted during t he
period from December 8, 1941 to the date when each particular area of the
Philippines was actually liberated from the enemy control and occupation.
This amnesty shall not apply to crimes against chastity or to acts
committed from purely personal motives.
SEPARATE OPINION
PERFECTO [concur]
MONSANTO V FACTORAN
FERNAN; February 9, 1989
FACTS
In a d e ci si o n r e n d e r e d o n M a r ch 2 5 , 1 9 8 3 , t h e
Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner Salvacion A.
Monsanto (then assistant treasurer of Calbayog City) and
three other accused, of the complex crime of estafa thru
falsification of public documents and sentenced them to
imprisonment and payment of fine. Petitioner appealed
her conviction to the SC which affirmed the same. She
filed a motion for reconsideration, but while the motion
was pending, she was extended absolute pardon on
TUASON [dissent]
December 17, 1984 by then President Marcos, which she
accepted on December 21, 1984. By reason of said
- As to the determ ination of the pretended right of the
pardon, petitioner wrote Calbayog City Treasurer
defendants, to the benefits of amnesty, the two orders of
requesting that she be reinstated to her former post. The
the Commission are decisions on the merits, definite and
Finance Ministry ruled that petitioner may be reinstated
final as far as the Commi ssion is con cerned . The fact
to her position without the necessity of a new
that the defendants denied having committed the crime
appointment not earlier than the date she was extended
imputed to them was cited by the Commission as ground
the abso lute pardon, but she still has to pa y. Seeking
f or its decision to turn down their application. That
reconsideration, petitioner wrote the Ministry stressing
circumstance was not given as ground for refusal to act.
that the full pardon bestowed on her has wiped out the
T he Com mission has thus ampl y performed the duties
crime which implies that her service in the government
required of it by the Amnesty Proclamation in both the
has never been interrup ted , and therefore the date of
matters of investigating and deciding.
her reinstatement should correspond to the date of her
The
Amnesty
Commissions
are
executive
preventive suspension which is August 1, 1982.
to
instrumentalities acting for and in behalf of the
Petitioner contended that:
President. They are not courts; they are not performing
she is entitled to backpay for the entire period of
judicial functions, and this Court has no appellate
her suspension.
jurisdiction over their actuations, orders or decisions.
she should not be re quired to pa y the
- Mandamus is ordinarily a remedy for official inaction.
proportionate share of the amount of P4,892.50.
(Guanio vs. Fernandez) - The Court can order the
C om m i ssio n to act bu t i t ca n no t te l l the C om m i ssio n
ISSUES
how to act. How or for whom a case should be decided is
1. WON a public officer, who has been granted an
a matter of judgment which courts have no jurisdiction
absolu te pardon by the Chief Executive, i s enti tled to
to control or review. The writ of mandamus will not issue
reinstatement to her former position wi thout need of a
to control or review the exercise of discretion of a public
new appointment.
officer where the law imposes upon a public officer the
2. W ON petitioner is still liable to pay civil indemnities
right and the duty to exercise judgment. In reference to
notwithstanding pardon.
any matter in which he is required to act, it is his
judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the
HELD
court. (Blanco vs. Board of Medical Examiners)
1. Ratio
Pardon is defined as an act of grace,
- Am n e s t y p r e s u p p o s e s t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a c r i m e .
proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution
W h e n a n a c c u s e d s a ys t h a t h e h a s n o t c o m m i t t e d a
of the laws, which exempts the individual, on whom it is
crime he cannot have any use for amnesty. It is also selfb e s t o w e d , f r o m t h e p u n i sh m e n t th e l a w i n f l i c t s f o r a
evident that where the Amnesty Proclamation imposes
crime he has committed. It is the private, though official
certain conditions, it is incumbent upon the accused to
a ct of th e ex ecu tiv e ma gi str a te xxx a nd no t
prove the existen ce of those conditions. A petition for
communicated officially to the Court. This was
a m n e s t y i s i n th e n a t u r e o f a p l e a o f c o n f e s s i o n a n d
governed by the 1973 Constitution.
R e a so n i n g
- People v. Lising
xxx acquittal, not absolute pardon, of a former
public officer is the only ground for reinstatement to
hi s former posi tion and entitlement to pa ym ent of
hi s salarie s, benefits and emoluments due to him
during the period of his suspension pendent elite.
In fact, in such a situation, the former public
official must secure a reappointment before he can
reassume his former position. xxx
- T h e p e n a l t y o f prision mayor carries the accessory
p e n a l t i e s o f t e m p o r a r y a b so l u te d i s q u a l i f i ca t i o n a n d
perpetual special disqualification from the right of
suffr a ge , e nf or ce ab l e du ri n g th e ter m o f th e pr in ci pa l
pe na l ty. Tem po ra r y a bsol u te di squ al i fi ca tio n ba r s the
convict from public office or employment, such
disqualification to last during the term of the sentence.
- In the present case, it is not material when the pardon
was bestowed, wh ether before or after the conviction ,
for the result would still be the same. Having accepted
the pardon, pet it io ner is de e me d to have
aban done d her appeal and her unreversed
convic tion b y the Sandiganba ya n assumed the
c h a ra c t e r o f f in a li t y. Pa rd o n i mp l ie s g u il t . It does
no t erase the fact of the co mmi ssion of the crime and
t h e c o n v i c t i o n t h e r e o f , a s o p p o s e d t o t h e Ex Parte
Ga rl an d , Pe l ob el l o , a nd Cr i stob al ca se s. It inv olv es
forgiveness, and not forgetfulness.
- W hi le the C ou r t i s p re pa re d to co n ce de th a t p ar do n
may remit all the penal consequences of a criminal
i n d i c tm e n t i f o n l y to g i v e a m e a n i n g t o th e f i a t th a t a
pardon, being a presidential prerogative, should not be
circumscribed by legislative action, we do not subscribe
the fictitious belief that pardon blots out the guilt of
an individual and that once he is absolved, he should be
treated as if he were innocent. P a r d o n c a n n o t m a s k
the acts constituting the crime.
- Public offices are intended primarily for the
collective protection, safet y and benefit of the
common good. They cannot be compromised to
fa vor private interests. A pardon, albeit full and
p l e n a r y, c a n n o t p r e c l u d e t h e a p p o i n t i n g p o w e r
f r o m r e f u s i n g a p p o i n t m e n t t o a n yo n e d e e m e d t o
be of bad character.
2 . As f or the exem p tio n fr om th e pa ym e n t of the ci vi l
indemnity, the Court cannot oblige her. Civil liability is
governed by RPC, and subsists notwithstanding service
of sentence, or for any reason the sentence is not served
by pardon, amnesty or commutation of sentence.
D e ci si on
T h e a s sa i l e d r e so l u ti o n o f f o r m e r D e p u t y
Executive Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. is
affirmed.
1 . Pe ti tioner is not automa ti call y reinstated, and mu st
apply for appointment to her former position.
2 . Pe ti ti on er is no t e nti tl ed to a n y ba ckp a y, a nd mu st
pay the proportionate share of the amount of P4,892.50.
MACAGA-AN V PEOPLE
FELICIANO; July 39, 1987
FACTS
- The 22 petitioners include municipal treasurers of
various municipalities of Lanao del Norte and Lanao del
Sur, and the Officer-in-Charge of the Provincial
T re a s u r e r ' s O f f i c e o f L a n a o d e l S u r, a s w e l l a s t h e
Provincial Auditor and the Assistant Provincial Auditor of
Lanao del Sur. Petitioners were charged and convicted in
33 ca ses for estafa throu gh falsifica tion of public and
commercial documents (Article 315, in relation to Article
17 1, Revised Penal Code) in a decision of the
Sandiganbayan promulgated on 15 July 1981. The total
amount of Government funds (treasury warrants)
involved was somewhat over P2.7 million.
- T h e p e ti ti o n e r s s ta te th a t t h e y a p p l i e d fo r a m n e s t y
through the 3rd and 11th Amnesty Commission (sic) of
Lanao del Sur and Marawi City and that on 2 Februar y
1985, they were granted conditional amnesty by the said
Commission, subject to the approval or final action of the
President of the Philippines pursuant to P.D. No. 1082,
dated 2 February 1977. The Amnesty Commission, the
petitioners continue, endorsed the amnesty applications
of the petitioners to the President, recommending
approval thereof or grant of executive clemency to the
pe titioners. The petitioners' amne sty appli cations are
said to have been submitted to the Office of the
P r e s i d e n t b y t h e t h e n P r e s i d e n t i a l As s i s t a n t V i c t o r
Nituda. Former Governor Mohammed Ali Dimaporo, the
petitioners further state, made written representations
d a te d 27 Jan ua r y 19 86 wi th for me r Pr e sid en t Ma rco s
concerning the petitioners' applications during a political
rally of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan on 22 January
1986 . Mr. Marco s apparen tly wrote on the upper
righthand corner of former Governor Dimaporo's letter
the followin g: "Approved " and si gned the same wi th a
partly illegible date. The petitioners state, finall y, that
th e or i gin a l co p ie s o f th e am ne st y pa pe rs we re i n the
possession of then Presidential Adviser Joaquin Venus
and were lost or destro yed at Malacaang "durin g the
February 1986 bloodless military revolution" and could
not now be located.
- The respondent court held that the benefits of amnesty
were never available to the petitioners under P.D. No.
1182 as amended by PD 1429. They further contend that
the applicab le law to them i s PD 1082, whi ch gr anted
amnesty to those resisting the duly constituted
authorities in several parts of Mindanao.
ISSUE
WON President Marcos grant of amnesty to the
petitioners is in accordance with law.
HELD
C o m mi s s i o n e r, a s s e e n i n S e c 5 2 [which is the
r e p e a l i n g c l a u s e o f t h e I m m i g r a t i o n Ac t , w h i c h
expressly exempted Sec 69 of Act 2711
ISSUES
1. WON the case is justiciable
2 . W ON the Para gr aph 1 of Se ction 44 of Presidential
Decree No. 1177 is unconstitutional
HELD
1. YES
- The court cited Ecelio Javier v. COMELEC where it said
that: This Court will not disregard and in effect condone
w r o n g o n th e s i m p l i s t i c a n d to l e r a n t p r e te x t th a t t h e
case has become moot and academic.
- As regards taxpayers suit, this Court enjoys that open
discretion to entertain the same or not
- W her e th e l e g i sl a tu r e o r t h e ex e cu ti v e b r a n ch a c ts
beyond the scope of its constitutional powers, it
b eco me s th e du t y o f th e ju di ci ar y to d ecl ar e wh a t th e
other branches of the government had assumed to do,
as void. This is the essence of judicial power conferred
by the Constitution in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law.
2. YES. Paragraph 1of Section 44 of Presidential Decree
No. 1177, being repugnant to Section 16(5) Article VIII of
the 1973 Constitution, is null and void.
- Pa ra gr ap h 1 of Se ctio n 44 p rov id e s: T he Pre si de n t
shall have the authority to transfer any fund,
a p p r o p r i a te d f o r th e d i ffe r e n t d e p a r tm e n ts , b u r e a u s,
offices and agencies of the Executive Department, which
are included in the General Appropriations Act, to any
program, project or activity of any department, bureau,
or office included in the General Appropriations Act or
approved after its enactment.
- Section 16(5) Article VIII reads as follows: No law shall
b e pa sse d au tho ri zi n g a n y tra n sf er o f a pp ro pr ia ti on s,
however, the President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of
constitutional commissions may by law be authorized to
augment any item in the general appropriations law for
their respe ctive offices from savin gs in other item s of
their respective appropriations.
- Prohibition to transfer was explicit and categorical
- For flexibility, the Constitution provided a leeway
- T h e p u r p o se a n d c o n d i t i o n f o r w h i c h f u n d s m a y b e
transferred were specified
- P a r a g r a p h 1 o f S e c ti o n 4 4 u n d u l y ov e r - e x te n d s th e
p ri vi le ge gr a n te d u nd er Se ctio n 1 6( 5) , a nd e mp o wer s
the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one
department, bureau, office or agency of the Executive
Department, which are included in the General
Appropriations Act, to any program, project or activity of
any department, bureau, or office included in the
General Appropriations Act or approved after its
enactment, without regard to W ON the funds to be
transferred are savings, or W ON the transfer is for the
purpose of augmenting the item to which the transfer is
to be made
- It completely disregards the standards set in the
fundamental law, amounting to an undue delegation of
legislative power
DE LA LLANA V ALBA
FERNANDO; March 12, 1982
FACTS
- The National Assembly enacted the Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, en titled "An Act Reorgani zing the Judiciar y,
Appropriating Funds Therefor and for other Purposes".
BP 129 manda tes that Justi ces and Jud ge s of inferior
co ur ts fr om th e Co ur t of Ap pe al s to mu ni cip a l co u r ts,
e x ce p t t h e o c c u p a n t s o f th e S a n d i g a n b a ya n a n d t h e
Cour t of Tax Appeals, unle ss appoin ted to the inferior
co u r ts e st a b l i sh e d b y su ch Ac t, w o u l d b e co n si d e r e d
separated from the Judiciary. The intent of this Act is to
a tta in (1) more efficiency in the di sposal of ca ses, (2)
improvement in the quality of justice dispensed
by the court, (3) democratization of social and economic
opportunities and the substantiation of the true meaning
of
social
justice.
- P r o ce d u r e De La Llana,a judge, together with other
petitioners filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief and/or
Prohibition, seeking to enjoin respondent Minister of the
B u d g e t , r e sp o n d e n t C h a i r m a n o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n o n
Audit, and respondent Minister of Justice from taking any
action
implementing
BP
129.
ISSUES
1.WON the petitioners have legal standing.
2.On Constitutionality of BP 129
a . W ON t h e r e w a s l a ck of g o o d f a i th o n th e p a r t o f
Legislature in its enactment.
b. WON the abolition of an office by the Legislature is
valid.
c. W ON the provision of BP 129 (re gard ing fixin g of
compensation and allowances of members of Judiciary
by the Executive) constitutes an undue delegation of
legislative power.
d. W ON BP 129 is violative of the security of tenure
(Art. X Sec 7 of 1973 Constitution) enjoyed by
incumbent justices and judges and the Supreme
Court's power to discipline and remove judges.
HELD
1.YES. The petitioners, being members of the bar and
officers of the court and taxpayers, have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has
sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its
enforcement.
2.a. NO. The Legislature, after careful study and
evalua tion of the judi cial system in the coun tr y, found
out that institutional reforms is both pressing and
urgent.
b. YES. The abolition of an office,if within the
co m p e te n ce o f a l e gi ti m a te b o d y a n d i f d o n e i n g o o d
faith suffers from no infirmity.
R e a so n i n g
0 adherence to precedent (in Bendanillo Sr. v. Provincial
BENGZON V DRILON
HELD
GARCIA V MACARAEG
- The President did not veto items but provisions of the
BARREDO;
May 31, 1971
law in the GAA.
- While veto power is generally all or nothing,
vetoing the entire bill or none at all, it does not
FACTS
hold when it comes to appropriation, revenue or
- Administrative complaint filed by Paz M. Garcia against
tariff bills.
Hon. Catalino Macaraig, Jr., Judge of the CFI of Laguna
o The Constitution has a item veto power to avoid
Branch VI, now Undersecretary of Justice, in his former
inexpedient riders being attached to an
capacity as judge, for alleged "dishonesty, violation of
indispensable
appropriation
or
revenue
his oath of office as judge ... gross incompetence,
measure; only a particular item or items may be
violation of Republic Act 296 or the Judiciary Act of 1948,
vetoed
as amended, (particularly) Sections 5, 55 and 58 thereof.
o Item in a bill refers to the particulars, the
- Judge Macaraig took his oath as Judge of the CFI of
details, the distinct and severable parts; it is a
Laguna and San Pablo City with station at Calamba on
s p e c i f i c a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f m o n e y, n o t s o m e
June 29, 1970. The court, being one of the 112 ne wl y
general provision of law, which happens to be
created CFI branches, had to be organized from scratch.
put into an appropriation bill
After consultations with the officials of the province of
o The President did not veto the general fund
La gun a , the mu ni ci pa l i ty of C al am ba a nd th e
adjustment of 500M, to meet certain obligations
Department of Justice, he decided to accept the offer of
WHICH is an ITEM.
the Calamba Municipal Government to supply the space
o What she vetoed were provisions methods for the courtroom and offices of the court, to utilize the
financial assistance promised by the Laguna provincial
and systems placed by Congress to insure that
government for the purchase of the necessary supplies
obligations would be paid when they fell due
materials and to rely on the national government for
o Thus, augmentation of specific appropriations and
the equipment needed by the court (Under Section 190
found inadequate to pay retirement benefits is
of the Revised Administrative Code, all these items must
a provision and not an item
be furnished by the provincial government The provincial
o Actually, what she reall y vetoed were RA1797
o f f i c i a l s o f L a g u n a , h o w e v e r, i n f o r m e d h i m t h a t t h e
and the Resolution of the SC dated Nov 1991.
province was not in a position to do so).
WHICH SHE CANNOT VETO.
- As to the space requirements of the court, the
- T he re pe al i n g d ecre e s ( PD6 44 ) o f M ar co s re ta kin g
Municipal Mayor of Calamba assured him that the court
away the automatic readjustment for the judiciary never
could be accommodated in the west wing of the
became valid law because it was never published,
Calamba municipal building as soon as the office of the
pursuant to the Tanada v Tuvera doctrine; RA 1797 was
municipal treasurer and his personnel are transferred to
never repealed and there was no need for an HB in 1990
another location. When the projected transfer of the
to restore it so even the presidents veto of the HB does
municipal treasurer's office was about to be effected, the
n o t e v e n h a v e a n y e ff e c t i n t h e c o n t i n u i n g
treasurer and several municipal councilors objected. The
implementation of the law
municipal mayor then requested Macaraig to look over
- T h e Ve t o b y t h e p r e s i d e n t t r e n c h e s u p o n t h e
some of the office spaces for rent in Calamba, with the
constitutional grant of fiscal autonomy to the
commitment that the municipal government will
Judiciary
shoulder the payment of the rentals. Respondent's first
o Guaranty of full flexibility to allocate and utilize
choice was the second floor of the Republic Bank branch
their resou rce s wi th the wisdom and dispa tch
in Calamba, but the negotiations failed when the owner
that their needs require
of the building refused to reduce the rent to P300 a
o Power to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates
month . The nex t sui table spa ce sele cted by Macara ig
o f co mp en sa tio n no t ex ce ed in g h i gh e st r a te s
was the second floor of the Laguna Development Bank.
authorized by law
Af t e r a m o n th 's n e go ti a ti o n s, th e m u n i ci p a l i t y f i n a l l y
o Veto is tantamount to dictating to the judiciary
signed a lease agreement with the owner on October 26,
how its funds should be utilized
1 9 7 0 . An o t h e r m o n t h p a s s e d b e f o r e t h e m u n i c i p a l
- The Justices have a right to their pensions pursuant to
government could release the amount necessary for the
RA1797
i m p r o v e m e n t s t o c o n v e r t th e s p a c e t h a t w a s r e n t e d ,
which was a big hall without partitions, into a courtroom
SEPARATE OPINION
FERNANDO [concur]
- Respondent Judge Macaraig should not be held in any
wise accountable. No taint of bad faith can be attached
to his conduct. What he was required to do was in
accordance with the practice heretofore followed by the
Department of Justice. He is, under the statute in force,
under the administrative supervision of its head. Nor can
the good fai th of Secretar y of Justi ce Abad San to s be
h e f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n th e t r i b a l co u r t o f t h e M a e n g
Tribe. (The disputed land is located in Villaviciosa, Abra)
The tribal court decided in favor of Quema. But as the
spouses did not immediately vacate the land, they
rece ived a warnin g order from the Cordil lera Peop les
L i b e r a t i o n Ar m y ( C P L A ) . P e t i t i o n e r s f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n
alleging
that
respondent
Cordillera
Bodong
is,
Administrations decision is void for lack of judicial power
or jurisdiction. Respondent contends the Supreme Court
has no jurisdiction over tribal courts because they are
not part of the judicial system.
ISSUE
W ON a triba l cou rt of the Cordil lera Bodong
Administration can render a valid and executory decision
HELD
NO. Decision of tribal court is annulled for lack of
jurisdiction. The creation of the Cordillera Autonomous
Region was rejected in a plebiscite by the provinces and
cities of the Cordillera Region hence the Cordillera
B o d o n g Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n , t h e i n d i g e n o u s a n d s p e c i a l
courts for the indigenous cultural communities and the
CPLA as a regional command of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines do not legally exist. The Maeng Tribal Court
not being constituted into an indigenous court, it is but
an ordinary tribal court existing under the customs and
traditions of an indigenous cultural community. Such
tribal courts are not part of the Philippine Judicial
System which consists of the Supreme Court and
the lower courts which have been established by
l a w. T h e y d o n o t p o s se s s j u d i c i a l p o w e r.
t e r m i n a l a n d t h a t o p e r a ti o n o f su c h w o u l d a d v e r s e l y
affect and prejudice its members (reason in p.226-227).
- Case was raffled and was presided by Judge Bayhon.
Court issued a restraining order. In due course, on
October 1, 1993, lower court issued a preliminary
injunction upon the filing of MPSI of an injunction bond.
- PPA and MAFSICOR filed before the SC a petition for
certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for an issuance of
a TRO and/or preliminary injunction. Petition impleaded
Jud ge Verd ia no as a p ub li c r espo nd en t. Pe ti ti on a l so
prayed Judges Mabunay and Bayhon be administratively
dealt with for disregarding Circular No. 13-93.
- Pursuant to Sec. 9(1) of B.P. 29, SC referred case to
Court of Appeals.
- October 13, 1993, CA issued a writ of preliminary
injunction finding that MPSI has exclusive stevedoring
ri gh ts at the Sou th Harbor and tha t the operation of a
floating grains terminal by MAFSICOR would overlap on
the rights of MPSI. On the applicability of PD 1818 and
Circular No. 13-93, court stated that what is being
stopped temporarily is private respondents operation of
the floating bulk terminal facility that would lessen
MPSIs stevedoring services as it infringes on the latters
contractual right.
- MAFSICOR filed a motion for reconsideration but was
denied.
- On June 8, 1994, CA decided that writ of preliminary
injunction is made permanent and that Judge Bayhon be
p e r m a n e n t l y e n j o i n e d f r o m i s su i n g i n j u n c t i v e o r d e r s
during the trial of the case in the court.
- Thus, CA affir med the exclusivity of the stevedoring
con tra ct in favor of M PSI. Tha t being so, it precluded
i n f r i n g e m e n t o f t h e P PA- M P S I c o n t r a c t b y t h e P PAMAFSICOR contract. CA explained that the floating grains
t e r m i n a l i s s i m p l y a m e c h a n i ze d u n l o a d i n g o f g r a i n s
car go fr om the vessel to th e b ar ge or o the r tra n sp o r t
facilities. And also that what is solely done by stevedores
i s sub sti tu ted b y m a ch in e s com p le me n ted b y n ee de d
stevedores. With respect to the supplemental agreement
which states that stevedores would be hired by
MAFSICOR from OT SI, court stated that it was just an
ad ju stment in order not to viola te PPA- MPSI con tract.
And that MAFSICOR can legally excuse themselves from
the contract because OTSI already assigned its
s t e v e d o r i n g s e r v i c e s t o M P S I . As r e g a r d s t o f o r u m
sh o p p i n g a l l e g a t i o n o f M AF SI C O R ( f i l i n g o f se p a r a te
petitions by MPSI, KAMADA and Chamber), court said
that there was no forum shopp ing because peti tioner s
had separate and distinct legal personalities. There also
was no proof that they confabulated to forum-shop. On
the applicability of PD 1818, CA affirmed its Oct.13
ruling.
- P PA a n d M A F S I C O R f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r r e v i e w o n
ce r ti o r a r i a l l e gi n g th a t C o u r t o f Ap p e a l s d e c i si o n : a )
violates PD 1818 and Circular No. 13-93, the
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e o f se p a r a t i o n o f j u d i c i a l a n d
executive powers and prescription against forum
shopping, b) supplants the discretion of the trial court to
me r e l y e n t a i l s t h e m e c h a n i z a t i o n o f s t e ve d o r i n g ,
it was considered b y the PPA, in the exercise of its
d i s c r e t i o n , a s n e c e s s a r y t o i m p r o ve t h e s e r v i c e s
ISSUE
rendered in the South Harbor in the meantime
WON PD 1818 applicable to the case
that no land-based
bulk terminal
is yet
operational.
HELD
- There are actually instances when PD 1818 should not
YES
find application. These are a) where there is clear and
Ratio no court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction
grave abuse of discretion b) where the effect of the nonto issue any restraining order, preliminary injunction, or
issuance of an injunction or a restraining order would be
preliminary mandatory injunction in any case, dispute or
to stave off implementation of a government project.
con troversy involving an infrastructure project
I n t h i s c a se t h e o p e r a ti o n o f a f l o a ti n g b u l k te r m i n a l
including among others public utilities for the
would augment and improve the over-all operations at
transport of goods or commodities, stevedoring
the port of Manila and/or stevedoring services awarded
a n d a r r a s tr e co n tr a ct s, to prohibit any person or
to MPSI.
pe rson s, en ti ty o r gov er nm en t offi ce fr om p ro ce ed i n g
- Another contention against the applicability of PD 1818
with the operation of such public utility
is that MAFSICOR is a private entity. Such contention
- C l e a r l y, th e p r o h i b i t i o n i n P D 1 8 1 8 d o e s n o t co v e r
b e t r a ys a f a i l u r e t o c o m p r e h e n d th e f u n c t i o n s o f th e
in fr astr u ctur e al on e . It in clu de s am on g o the r s
PPA. One of the duties of the PPA is to provide services
stevedoring service s. The law being clear, there i s no
(whether on its own, by contract or otherwise) within the
room for interpre ta tion or con struction . A verbis legis
Port Districts to make or enter contracts of any kind or
non est recendum ( f r o m th e w o r d s o f a s ta tu t e th e r e
nature to enable it to dischar ge i ts function s under i ts
should be no departure).
decree.
- PD 1818 applies in controversies involving facts or the
- Section 1 of PD 1818 clearly states that an injunction
exercise of discretion in technical cases. It is founded
ma y n o t be i ssu ed to pr eve nt an y pe r so n or p er so n s,
on the principle that to allo w courts to determine such
entity or government official from undertaking the
m a t t e r s w o u l d d i s t u r b th e s m o o t h f u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e
prote cted activi ties enumera ted. The prohib ition
administrative machinery.
therefore applies regardless of whether or not the entity
- In Republic v. Capulong discretion was defined as a
or person being enjoined is a public or private person or
p o w e r o r r i g h t co n f e r r e d u p o n t h e m b y l a w o f a c t i n g
en tity, provided that the purpo se of the law to protect
officially under certain circumstances, uncontrolled by
e sse n tia l go ve rn me n t p ro je cts in p ur su i t o f e co no m i c
the judgment or conscience of others.
development is attained.
- Entering into a contract for the operation af a floating
- court did not resolve main issues offered (such as the
gra ins termina l notwi th standing the existence of othe r
e x c l u s i v i t y o f t h e P PA- M P S I c o n t r a c t ) f o r r e so l u t i o n
stevedoring contracts pertaining to the South Harbor is
therein which necessitates trial on merits. However court
undoubtedly an exercise of the discretion on the part of
took note of the allegations against two judges
the PPA. No other persons or agencies are in a better
De ci sio n Petition on certiorari granted decision of the
position to gauge the need for the floating terminal than
CA is reversed and set aside.
t h e PPA; ce r t a in l y n o t t h e co u r ts . Co u r ts h av e n o
brooding of such administrative agencies (Hon. Reinerio
IN RE: VALENZUELA AND VALLARTA
R e ye s e t a l v. H on D or o te o C an eb a et al ) . cou r ts wi l l
intervene only to ascertain whether a branch or
NARVASA; November 9, 1998
instrumentality of the Government has transgressed its
constitutional boundaries (Bureau Veritas v. Office of the
FACTS
President). Under the separation of powers, the courts
- The Resolution of the Court En Banc, handed down on
m a y n o t t r e a d i n t o m a t te r s r e q u i r i n g t h e e x e r c i se o f
May 14, 1998, sets out the relevant facts.
discretion of a functionary or office in the executive and
- Referred to the Court En Banc by the Chief Justice are
legislative branches, unless it is clearly shown that the
the appointments signed by the President under date of
government official or office abused his or its discretion.
March 30, 1998 of Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon.
In this case there is no showing that the PPA
Placido B. Vallarta as Judges of the Regional Trial Court
a bu se d it s d isc re t io n in e nt e rin g in t o th e c on t rac t
of Branch 62, Bago City and of Branch 24, Cabanatuan
with
MAFSICOR.
Judge
Veridiano
correctly
City, respectively.
concluded that there is no provision for the
- received at the Chief Justice's chambers on May 12,
putting up of a floating grains terminal in the PPA1998
MPS A contract. Al l it co vers are the general
- view by Senior Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado,
s e r v i c e s o f s t e ve d o r i n g . W h i l e t h e o p e r a t i o n o f a
Consul tan t of the Council, wh o had been a member of
f loat in g gra ins terminal ma y be cons id ere d as part
the Committee of the Executive Department and of the
and parcel of stevedoring as such operation
Committee on the Judicial Department of the 1986
TANO V SOCRATES
DAVIDE; August 21, 1997
FACTS
- special civil action for certiorari and prohibition praying
to:
1. declare as unconstitutional:
(a) Ordinance No. 15-92, dated 15 December 1992,
of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto Princesa
(b) Office Order No . 23, Serie s of 1993, dated 22
January 1993, issued by Acting City Mayor Amado L.
Lucero of Puerto Princesa City; and
(c) Re solution No . 33, Ordinan ce No. 2, Se ries of
1993, dated 19 February 1993, of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Palawan;
2. enjoin the enforcement thereof; and
3. restrain respondents Provincial and City Prosecutors
of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City and Judges of the
Regional Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts
in Palawan from assuming jurisdiction over and
hearing cases concerning the violation of the
Ordinances and of the Office Order.
- Ordinance No. 15-92
- took effect on January 1, 1993
- entitled: "AN ORDINANCE BANNING THE SHIPMENT
OF ALL LIVE FISH AND LOBSTER OUTSIDE PUERTO
PRINCESA CITY FROM JANUARY 1, 1993 TO JANUARY 1,
1998 AND PROVIDING EXEMPTIONS, PENALTIES AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES THEREOF,"
- Purpose: to effectively free our water from Cyanide
and other Obnoxious substance
- unlawful for any person, business enterprise,
company to ship out from Puerto Princesa City to any
point of destina tion ei ther via aircraf t or seacraft of
any live fish (all alive, breathing not necessarily
moving, used for foor and for aquarium purposes) and
lobster except SEA BASS (apahap), CATFISH (hitohito), MUDFISH (dalag), AND MILKFISH FRIES.
- Penalty: fine of not more than P5,000.00,
imprisonment of not more than 12 mos and/or
cancellation of their permit to do business in the City
of Puerto Princesa
- Offi ce Or d e r N o . 2 3 , Se r i e s of 1 9 9 3
- pursuant to City Ordinance No. PD426-14-74
( re qu i re me n t o f m a yo r s p er mi t) an d Or di na n ce No .
15-92 (banning of shipment of live fish and lobster),
authorized and directed to check or conduct
necessary inspections on cargoes containing live fish
and lobster to ascertain whether the shipper
possessed the required Mayor's Permit issued by this
Office and the shipment is covered by invoice or
clearance issued by the local office of the Bureau of
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
- Resolution No. 33
- prohibi ts catchin g, gatherin g, possessing, buyin g,
se l l i n g , a n d sh i p m e n t o f l i v e m a r i n e co r a l d we l l i n g
aquatic organisms coming from Palawan waters
(mameng, suno, panther/senorita, taklobo, mother of
pearl , giant clam s, ti ge r prawn, loba/green grouper,
tropical aquarium fishes) for a period of five years
- WHEREAS
- studies disclose only 5% of the corals of Palawan
remain to be in excellent condition
41
39
and Art
39
Art XII Sec 2 (2): The State shall protect the nations marine wealth in its
arch ipe lag ic wat ers, t errit ori al sea, an d exclus iv e eco nomic zon e, and
reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
( 3) T he C o ng r es s ma y, b y l a w, al l o w s ma l l- s ca l e ut i li za t i on of na t u r a l
reso urces b y F ili pin o cit izens, as w ell as co oper at iv e f ish f ar min g, w it h
priority to subsistence fishermen and fisherworks in rivers, lakes, bays and
lagoons.
40 A r t X I I I S e c 2 : T h e p r o m o t i o n o f s o c i a l j u s t i c e s h a l l i n c l u d e t h e
commit ment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of
initiative and self-reliance.
41 Art XIII Sec 7: The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen,
especially of local communit ies, t o the pref erent ial use of t he communal
marine and f ishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide
support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research,
adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other
s e r v i c e s . T h e St a t e s h a l l a l s o p r o t e c t , d ev e l o p , a n d c o n s e r v e s u c h
resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of
subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fisherworks shall receive a
just share form their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.
t h e p e ti ti o n e r s d i d n o t p r e se n t cl e a r, co n v i n ci n g a n d
unequivocal evidence to overthrow this assumption.
R e a so n i n g
Peralta v COMELEC
- p r e su m p t i o n o f co n st i t u t i o n a l i t y of l a ws i n cl u d i n g
o r d i n a n ce s o f L GU s a n d to ov e r th r o w th i s
p r e su m p ti o n , i t m u s t b e sh o wn b e yo n d r e a so n a b l e
doubt.
Subsistence or Marginal Fishermen
- There is no showing that any of the petitioners
humankind
Sec 16 LGC
- right of people to a balanced and healthful ecology
Realization
of
the
General
Welfare
Clause,
De ci sio n Petition dismissed for lack of merit and TRO
released to the LGUs subject to the IRR
Decentralization and Exercise of Police Power
lifted
(Implementing Rules and Regulations) prescribed by
Sec 5(c) LGC
Vot i n g 10 concur, 4 dissent, 1 on leave
the Oversight Committee
- general welfare provisions of the LGC shall be
Internal Revenue Allotment shall be released
liberally interpreted to give more powers to the LGU in
SEPARATE OPINION
directly by the DBM to the LGUs concerned
a cce l er a tin g econ o mi c dev el op me n t a nd up gr ad in g
- OCD Resolutions Oversight Committee allocated
the quality of life
Php5B as follows:
Fishery Laws
MENDOZA [concur]
Php2B in accordance with formula sharing scheme
- th a t L GU m a y e nf o r ce u n d e r Se c 1 7 i n m u n i ci p a l
prescribed under LGC of 1991
water include
- fully concurs with the decision
P h p 2 B a l l o ca te d w i t h a m o d i f i e d C OD E F sh a r i n g
- PD 704
- two important points: uphold presumption of validity of
scheme
- PD 1015 closed season
the ordinances in view of total absence of evidence that
- PD 12 19 expl or a tio n , ex pl oi ta tio n , u ti li za tio n ,
un de rm in e the ir fa ctua l b asis AND ne ed no t a llo w
Php1B to be earmarked to support local affirmative
conservation of coral resources
shortcircuiting of the normal process of adjudication on
action projects and other priority initiatives;
- PD 5474 unlawful to catch, sell, etc. ipon during
the mere plea that unless we take cognizance of
proposals were to be submitted by the LGUs to the
closed season
peti tion s li ke thi s, by-passin g the tr ial cour ts, alleged
Ove r si gh t Co m mi tte e sub je ct to i ts a pp rov al ( OC
- PD 6451 prohibits and punishes electrofishing
violations of constitutional rights will be left unprotected,
prescribed a Criteria for Eligibility)
Memorandum of Agreement (1994)
when the matter can be very well be looked into by trial
- G A A o f 2 0 0 0 Also contained a proviso earmarking
- between Dept of Agriculture and DILG
courts and in fact it should be brought there
Php5B of the IRA for the LGSEF (similar to GAA of 1999)
- issuance of permits to construct fish cages, gather
Php3 .5B shared b y the LGUs using a percentagea quarium fishes, gathe r kapi s shell s, ga ther /culture
BELLOSILLO [dissent]
sharing formula agreed upon by the various
shelled mollusks, establish seaweed farms, establish
Leagues of LGUs
culture pearls, transports fish and fishery products and
- Lack of authority of Sangguniang Panlungsod of Puerto
Php1.5B to be earmarked for projects, which are to
establishment of closed season
Princesa to enact Ordinance 15 Series of 1992 because
be endorsed to and approved by the Oversight
RA 7611 Strategic Environment Plan for Palawan Act
supposed to be within the jurisdiction and respoinsibility
Committee
comprehensive
framework
for
sustainable
of BFAR (Fisheries and Aquatic Resources) under PD 704
- G AA o f 2 00 1 GAA of 2000 was deemed re-enacted
development of Pala wan co mpatible with prote cting
otherwise known as Fisheries Act of 1975 TF
and OC allocated Php5B LGSEF as follows:
and enhancing the natural resources and endangered
unenforceable for lack of approval by the Secretary of
Php3B according to the modified codal formula
environment of the province which shall serve to guide
DNR (Natl Res)
Php1.9B is earmarked for priority projects
the local government of Pala wan nd the government
Php100M for capability building fund subject to OCs
agencies
concerned
in
the
formulation
and
approval
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of p l a n s , p r o g r a m s a n d p r o je ct s
PROVINCE OF BATANGAS V ROMULO
- Procedure
affecting Palawan
CALLEJO; May 30, 2004
Province
of Batangas, re pr e se n te d b y
Gov.
Principal Objectives of Ordinances
MANDANAS
filed
a
petition
for
CERTIORARI,
1) establish closed season for the species covered in
FACTS
PROHIBITION,
and
MANDAMUS
to
declare
as
the said ordinances for a period of five years
- EO 4 8 issued by Pres. Estrada on 12/07/98 entitled
unconstitutional the assailed provisos in GAA of 99, 00,
2) to protect the corals in the marine waters of Puerto
Establishing a Program for Devolution Adjustment and
01 and OCD Resolutions and was issued against Exec.
Princesa and Palawan from further destruction due to
Equalization:
Sec . R OMUL O (Chairman of Oversight Commi ttee on
illegal fishing activities
Devolution), Sec . B ON C OD IN ( D e p t . o f B u d g e t a n d
Jurisdiction of BFAR or LGU
D e vo lu t ion Ad ju s t me n t a nd Eq u a liza t io n Fu n d Mngmt.), and Sec. LINA (DILG)
- Bellosillo: Lack of authority of Sangguniang Panlungsod
was created
- Petitioners grounds
of Puerto Princesa to enact Ordinance 15 Series of 1992
DBM was directed to set aside an amount to be
Violative of Sec.6 Art.10 of 1987 Consti (just share
because supposed to be within the jurisdiction and
de termined b y the Over sight Commi ttee based on
must be automatically released to the LGUs)
respoinsibility of BFAR (Fisheries and Aquatic Resources)
appraisal surveys by DILG
Vesting the Oversight Committee with authority in
under PD 704 otherwise known as Fisheries Act of 1975
O versight Committee (which was constituted
d e te rm i ni n g di str ib u tio n an d re le a se o f L GSEF i s
TF unenforceable for lack of approval by the Secretary of
under Local Govt Code of 1991) has been tasked to
contrary to the principle of local autonomy
DNR (Natl Res)
issue implementing rules and regulations governing
Improper sharing scheme (provisos modified
- Majority: BFAR jurisdiction over management,
equitable allocation and distribution of the said fund
sec.285 of LGC) resulting to an illegal amendment
con servation , development, etc not all- encompassin g;
to the LGUs
by the Executive branch of substantive law
excludes municipal waters; BFAR no longer under DNR,
- G AA of 1999 In this General Appropriations Act, the
now under DoA TF incorrect to challenge that ordinances
program was renamed as Local Govt Service
ISSUES
unenforceable because no approval of Sec of DENR but
Equalization Fund (LGSEF)
Procedural
of Sec of DoA instead; BUT this can be dispensed with
Php96.78B was the allotted share of the LGUs in the
1. WON petitioner has legal standing
b e ca u se o f R e p e a l i n g C l a u s o f L GC i n so f a r a s th o se
IR taxes
2 . W ON p e t i t i o n i n v o l v e s f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n s p r o p e r l y
provisions are inconsistent and power to enact
by lower courts
o r d i n a n ce s t o e n h a n ce r i gh t o f p e o p l e to a b a l a n ce d
Special Provisions included t h a t t h e a m o u n t o f cognizable
3. WON petition has been rendered moot and academic
ecology contained in the General Welfare Clause in the
Php5B shall be earmarked for LGSEF, and it shall be
Substantive
LGC
TORRALBA V MUNICIPALITY
MELENCIO-HERRERA; January 29, 1987
FACTS
- Residents and taxpayers of Butuan City with Torralba,
a member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of the same
city contend that Batas Pambansa (BP) 56, creating the
M u n i ci p a l i t y o f S i b a ga t, Pr o v i n ce of Agu sa n d e l Su r,
v i o l a te d Se c. 3 , Ar t. 11 of th e 1 9 7 3 C o n st i tu ti o n : No
province , ci ty, municipa lity, or barrio ma y be created,
divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially
altered, except in accordance with the criteria
established in the Local Government Code, and subject
to the approval by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite in the unit or units affected. Petitioners argue
t h a t u n d e r t h e s a i d p r o v i s i o n , t h e L o ca l G o v e r n m e n t
Code must first be enacted to determine the criteria of
the creation, division, merger, abolition, or substantial
alteration of the boundary of any province, municipality,
or barrio; and that since no Local Government Code had
as yet been enacted as of the date BP 56 was passed,
t h a n t w o ye a r s a n d d e s p i t e E . O . N o . 2 2 0 , t h e
The CAR is a mere transitory coordinating agency
autonomous region in the Cordilleras is still to be
that would prepare the stage for political
created. Events have shown that petitioners' fear
autonomy for the Cordilleras. It fills in the
that E.O. No. 220 was a "shortcut" for the creation
resulting gap in the process of transforming a
of the autonomous region in the Cordilleras was
group of adja cent terri toria l and political
totally unfounded.
subdivisions
already
enjoying
local
or
2. It did not create a new territorial and political
administrative autonomy into an autonomous
subdivision or merge existing ones into a larger
region vested with political autonomy.
subdivision.
De ci sio n
Petition to declare EO No. 220 as
- The CAR is not a public corporation or a territorial and
unconstitutional is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
political subdivision. It does not have a separate juridical
Vo t i n g All 15 justices concurred with J. Gutierrez, Jr.
personality, unlike provinces, cities and municipalities.
concurring in the result since for him the issue has
o Neither is it vested with the powers that are
become moot and academic because Republic Acts No.
normally granted to public corporations, e.g. the
6658 and No. 6766 superseded the assailed EO already.
power to sue and be sued, the power to own and
dispose of property, the power to create its own
ORDILLO V COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
sources of revenue, etc.
o As stated earlier, the CAR was created primarily
GUTIERREZ; December 4, 1990
to coordinate the planning and implementation of
programs and services in the covered areas.
FACTS
- Considering the control and supervision exercised by
- January 30, 1990, pursuant to Republic Act No. 6766
the President over the CAR and the offices created under
e n t i t l e d A n Ac t P r o v i d i n g f o r a n O r g a n i c Ac t f o r t h e
E.O. No. 220, and considering further the indispensable
Co rd ille ra Au to no m ou s Re gio n , the pe op le of the
participation of the line departments of the National
provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Abra
G o v e r n m e n t , t h e C AR m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d m o r e t h a n
an d Ka l in ga - Apa yao an d th e ci ty of Ba gu io ca st th ei r
anything else as a regional coordinating agency of the
votes in a plebiscite.
National
Government,
similar
to
the
regional
- R esu l ts of p le bi sci te : a pp rov ed b y ma jo r i ty of 5 ,8 89
development counci ls whi ch the Pre sident ma y create
votes in Ifugao, rejected by 148,676 in the rest provinces
under the Constitution (Art. X, see. 14).
and city. The province of Ifugao makes up only 11% of
o These
councils
are
"composed
of
local
total population, and as such has the second smallest
government
officials,
regional
heads
of
number of inhabitants, of the abovementioned areas.
depar tments and othe r governmen t office s, and
- February 14, 1990, COMELEC issued Resolution No.
representatives
from
non-governmental
2 2 5 9 s ta t i n g th a t t h e Or ga n i c Ac t fo r th e R e g i o n h a s
o r ga n i za ti on s wi thi n the re gi on f or p ur po se s o f
been approved and/or ratified by majority of votes cast
administrative decentralization to strengthen the
only in the province of Ifugao. Secretary of Justice also
au tonom y of the units therein and to acce lerate
issued a memorandum for the President reiterating
the economic and social growth and development
COM EL EC resolu tion , stating tha t Ifugao bein g the
of the units in the region."
o n l y p r o v i n c e w h i c h v o t e d f a v o r a b l y t h e n . Al o n e ,
3. The creation of autonomous regions in Muslim
legally and validly constitutes CAR.
Mindanao and the Cordilleras, which is peculiar to the
- Ma r ch 8 , 1 99 0 , Co n gre ss e ba cted R ep ub l i c Act N o .
1 98 7 Co nsti tu ti on , co n te m pl a te s the gr an t of po li ti ca l
6861 setting elections in CAR of Ifugao on first Monday
autonomy and not just administrative autonomy to these
of March 1991.
re gion s. Thus, the provision in the Consti tution for an
- Even before COMELEC resolution, Executive Secretary
autonomous regional government with a basic structure
issued February 5, 1990 a memorandum granting
consisting of an executive department and a legislative
authority to wind up the affairs of the Cordillera
assembl y and special courts with personal, family and
Execu tive Board and Cordi llera Regional Assemb l y
property law jurisdiction in each of the autonomous
created under Executive Order No. 220.
regions [Art. X, sec. 18].
- March 30, 1990, President issued Administrative Order
- The concept of local autonomy:
No. 160 declaring among others that the Cordillera
It must be clarified that the constitutional
Executive Board and Cordillera Regional Assembly and
guarantee of lo cal autono m y in the Consti tution
all offices under Executive Order No. 220 were abolished
[Art. X, sec. 2] refers to the administrative
in view of the ratification of Organic Act.
a u to n o m y of l o ca l go v e r n m e n t u n i ts o r, ca s t i n
- Petitioners: there can be no valid Cordillera
more technical language, the decentralization of
Autonomous Region in only one province as the
government authority [Villegas v. Subido, G.R. No.
Constitution and Republic Act No. 6766 require that the
L31004, January 8, 1971, 37 SCRA 11.]
said Region be composed of more than one constituent
unit.
- Petitioners therefore pray that the court:
a l l o wa n ce f r o m th e l o ca l f u n d s o f t h e M u n i c i p a l i t y of
Naujan starting 1984.
- March 15 , 1993- the Sangguniang Ba yan of Naujan,
through Resolu tion No. 057 , sought the opinion of the
P r o v i n c i a l Au d i t o r a n d t h e P r o v i n c i a l Bu d g e t O f fi c e r
r e ga r d i n g a n y b u d ge t a r y l i m i t a t i o n o n t h e g r a n t o f a
monthly allowance by the municipality to petitioner
judge.
- M a y 7 , 1 9 9 3 - th e S a n g g u n i a n g B a ya n u n a n i m o u s l y
approved Resolution 101, increasing petitioner judges
monthly allowance starting May 1993.
- Februar y, 17 , 1994- Provincial Audi tor Salvacion M .
D a l i s a y se n t a l e t te r t o t h e M u n i c i p a l M a yo r a n d t h e
Sangguniang Bayan of Naujan directing them to stop the
p a ym e n t o f th e m o n th l y a l l o w a n ce a n d t o r e qu i r e th e
immediate refund of the amounts previously paid. Her
directive was based on the following:
1.Section 36, RA No.7645, General Appropriations
Act of 1993
2.National Compensation Circular No. 67 of the
Department of Budget and Management
- Pe ti ti on er Jud ge ap pe al ed to C om m i ssi on on Au d i t,
Regional Director upheld opinion of Provincial Auditor
D a l i sa y a n d a d d e d th a t R e so l u t i o n N o . 1 0 1 S e r i e s o f
1 9 9 3 o f t h e S a n g g u n i a n g B a ya n o f N a u j a n f a i l e d t o
comply with Section 3 of the Local Budge Circular No. 53
outlining the conditions for the grant of the allowances
to jud ge s and other national officials or emplo yee s by
the local government units.
- Petitioner judge appealed the unfavorable resolution of
the Regional Director to the Commission on Audit.
- September 14, 1999- Commission on Audit issued its
decision affirming Resolution of the Regional Director.
1.the main issue is whether or not the municipality
can validly provide RATA to its municipal judge
2.Section 36 of RA 7645 states:
- Pa yable from the programmed/appropriated
amount and others from personal services savings
o f th e r e sp e ct i v e o ffi ce s wh e r e th e o ffi ci a l s o r
employees draw their salaries;
- Not exceeding the rates prescribed by the Annual
General Appropriations Act;
- Officials/amployees on detail with other offices or
assigned to serve other offices or agencies shall
be paid from their parent agencies
- No one shall be allowed to collect RATA from more
than one source.
2.The municipal government may provide additional
allowances and other benefits to judges and other
national government officials or employees
assigned or stationed in the municipality,
p r o v i d e d , th a t t h e f i n a n c e s o f t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y
allow the grant thereof pursuant to Section 447,
Par. 1 RA 7160, and provided further that similar
allo wances/additional compensation are not
granted by the national government to the
official/employee
assigned
to
the
local
FRANCISCO V NAGMAMALASAKIT NA
MGA MANANANGGOL NG MGA
MANGAGAWANG PILIPINO, INC.
CARPIO-MORALES; November 10, 2003
FACTS
- Art 11, Sec 8 Constitution Congress shall promulgate
i ts r u l e s o n i m p e a ch m e n t to e ffe c ti v e l y ca r r y o u t th e
purpose of this Section.
- N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 1 - 1 2 C o n g r e s s o f t h e H o u s e o f th
R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a d o p te d a n d a p p r o v e d th e R u l e s o f
Procedure
in
Impeachment
Proceedings
(House
Impeachment Rules) superseding the Rules approved by
11 Congress th
> Section 16. Impeachment Proceedings Deemed
Initiated. In ca ses where a Member of the House
files a verified complaint of impeachment or a citizen
files a verified complaint that is endorsed by a
Member of the House through a resolution of
endorsement against an impeachable officer,
ISSUES
1. WON issue is justiciable
2 . W ON Rule s of Pro cedure for Impea chmen t
Proceedings adopted by 12 Congress is constitutional th
and second impeachment complaint is valid
HELD
1. Justiciable. The Constitution did not intend to leave
the matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of
Congress. Instead, it provided for judicially discoverable
standards for determining the validity of the exercise of
such discretion through power of judicial review.
o Lo cu s sta nd i - C ase i s of tr an scen de n ta l p ub i c
importance.
o Ripe for adjudication - the second complaint had
been filed and the 2001 rules had been
promulgated and enforced.
p u b l i c r e sp o n d e n t a s t h e go v e r n m e n t a ge n c y ta ske d
more than thir ty days; or fine in an amount exceeding
with the duty to enforce the constitutional and statutory
- Although I completely agree with the result and
thirty days salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer,
provisions on the civil service.
likewise with the wisdom in which the issues relating to
r e m o v a l o r d i s m i s sa l f r o m o ffi ce . Th e d e ci si o n o f th e
- S u b s e q u e n t l y, t h e C o u r t o f Ap p e a l s r e v e r s e d t h e
nepotism are threshed out in the majority opinion, I do
disciplining authority is even final and not appealable to
decision of the Civil Service Commission and held
not agree with the majority opinion stating that the Civil
the Civil Service Commission in cases where the penalty
respondent not guilty of nepotism. Who now may appeal
Service Commission may appeal a judgment of
imposed is suspension for not more than thirty days or
t h e d e ci si o n o f th e C o u r t o f Ap p e a l s t o th e S u p r e m e
exoneration in an administrative case involving
f i n e i n a n a m o u n t n o t e x c e e d i n g t h i r t y d a y s s a l a r y.
Court? Certainly not the respondent, who was declared
n e p o t i s m . An d M r. J u s t i ce P u n o w o u l d g o f u r th e r b y
A p p e a l i n ca s e s a l l o w e d b y l a w m u s t b e f i l e d w i t h i n
not guilty of the charge. Nor the complainant George P.
allowing even a private complainant and by
fifteen days from receipt of the decision.
Su an , who wa s m er el y a wi tne ss f or the go ve rn me n t.
implication, a complainant office, to appeal a decision
- It is my submission that the prerogative to now
Consequently, the Civil Service Commission has become
e x o n e r a ti n g o r a b so l v i n g a c i v i l se r v i ce e m p l o ye e o f
determine whether this practice of disallowing appeals in
the party adversely affected by such ruling, which
charges against, or even imposing a penalty upon him.
cases of exoneration should still continue or not,
seriously prejudices the civil service system. Hence, as
This totally contravenes our well-settled ruling in several
exclusively belongs to Legislature. The Court cannot and
a n a ggri ev ed p ar t y, i t ma y a pp ea l the d eci sio n of the
cases.
should not arrogate this policy-making power of
Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. By this ruling,
- The Court of Appeals exonerated respondent Dacoycoy
Congress unto itself, not even in the guise of the
we now expressly abandon and overrule extant
of the charge of nepotism. From such adverse
exercise of its expanded power of judicial review under
jurisprudence that "the phrase party adversely
d e c i s i o n , t h e C i v i l Se r v i ce C o m m i s s i o n , t h r o u g h i t s
the 1987 Constitution. Only Congress has authority to
affected by the decision refers to the government
Office for Legal Affairs, interposed the present appeal by
remed y inadequacies in the wisdom of a law, should it
employee against whom the administrative case is filed
wa y of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
f in d an y, e sp e ci a ll y whe n the def in i te in ten ti on of th e
for the purpose of disciplinary action which may take the
of the Rules of Court. Under existing laws and
ex isti n g la w wa s to d i sa l lo w the Sta te to ap pe al f ro m
form of suspension, demotion in rank or salary, transfer,
jurisprudence this is not allowed, so this Court ruled in
judgments of exoneration. An y attempt by the Court to
removal or dismissal from office" and not included are
the above-cited cases. If this point is not stressed by the
transgress this most basic principle in the separation of
"cases where the penalty imposed is suspension for not
Court, the present decision might be misconstrued as a
powers between these two branches of government
more then thirty (30) days or fine in an amount not
watering down of the settled doctrine.
would to my mind, result in the abhorrent act of judicial
exceeding thirty days salary" or "when the respondent is
- It is axiomatic that the right to appeal is merely a
legislation.
exonerated of the charges, there is no occasion for
s t a t u t o r y p r i v i l e g e a n d m a y b e e x e r ci s e d o n l y i n t h e
- Effective June 1, 1995, Revised Administrative Circular
appeal." In other words, w e o ve rru le p rio r d ec is io ns
manner and in accordance with the provision of law.
No. 1-95 ordained that, appeals from awards, judgments
holding that the Civil Service Law "does not
- A cursory reading of P.D. 807, otherwise known as The
o r f i n a l o r d e r s o r r e so l u t i o n s o f o r a u th o r i ze d b y a n y
contemplate a review of decisions exonerating
Philippine Civil Service Law shows that said law does
quasi-judicial agency (which includes the Civil Service
officers
or
emplo yees
from
admin ist rat ive
not contemplate a review of decisions exonerating
Commission) in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
charges."
officers or employees from administrative charges.
functions shall be taken by filing a verified petition for
- The Court of Appeals reliance on Debulgado vs. Civil
- Section 37 paragraph (a) thereof, provides:
review with the Court of Appeals. Although in general,
Service Commission, to support its ruling is misplaced.
- "The Commission shall decide upon appeal all
appeal by certiorari f r o m a j u d gm e n t o r f i n a l o r d e r o r
The issues in Debulgado are whether a promotional
administrative
disciplinary
cases
involving
the
r e so l u t i o n o f t h e C o u r t o f Ap p e a l s m a y b e f i l e d v i a a
appointment is covered by the prohibition against
imposition of a penalty of suspension for more that thirty
verified petition for review on certiorari with this Court
nepotism or the prohibition applies only to original
days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days salary,
(where pure questions of law, distinctly set forth therein,
appointments to the civil service, and whether the
demotion in rank or salar y or transfer, removal or
may be duly raised), an appeal involving a judgment or
Commission had gravely abused its discretion in
dismissal from office."
f in a l o r d e r o f t h e Co u r t o f Ap p e a l s e xo n e r a tin g a
recalling and disapproving the promotional appointment
- Said provision must be read together with Section 39
government employee in an administrative case, in
g i v e n to p e t i t i o n e r a f t e r th e C o m m i s si o n h a d e a r l i e r
p a r a g r a p h ( a ) o f P.D . 8 0 5 ( s h o u l d b e 8 0 7 ) w h i c h
p a r t i cu l a r, f a l l s w i t h i n th e a m b i t o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f
approved that appointment. Debulgado never even
contemplates:
Section 39, paragraph (a) of Presidential Decree No. 807.
impliedly limited the coverage of the ban on nepotism to
"Appeals, where allowable, shall be made by
It is elementary that a special law such as Presidential
only the appointing or recommending authority for
the party adversely affected by the decision."
Decree No. 807 takes precedence over general rules of
appointing a relative. Precisely, in Debulgado, the Court
- The phrase "party adversely affected by the decision"
p r o ce d u r e su ch a s R u l e 4 5 o f t h e R u l e s of C o u r t. N o
emphasized that Section 59 "means exactly what it says
r ef er s to the gov er nm en t e mp lo yee a ga in st wh om th e
appeal may, therefore, be taken under Rule 45.
in plain and ordinary language: x x x The public policy
administrative case is filed for the purpose of disciplinary
- Moreover, it i s reco gni zed in our ju ri sdiction that an
embodied in Section 59 is clearly fundamental in
action which may take the form of suspension, demotion
administrative case which could result in the revocation
i m p o r t a n ce , a n d t h e C o u r t h a d n e i th e r a u th o r i t y n o r
i n ra nk or sal a r y, tra n sf er, r em ov al o r di smi ssa l fr om
of license, or similar sanctions like dismissal from office,
inclination to dilute that important public policy by
office. The remedy of appeal may be availed of only in a
con stitute s a proceedin g whi ch par take s of a cr iminal
introducing a qualification here or a distinction there."
case where the respondent is found guilty of the charges
nature. Being such, provisions of law pertaining thereto
D e ci si on
P e t i t i o n g r a n t e d . T h e C o u r t o f Ap p e a l s '
against him. But when the respondent is exonerated of
must perforce be con strued strictl y a gainst the Sta te,
d e c i s i o n i s r e v e r s e d a n d t h e r e so l u t i o n s o f t h e C i v i l
said char ge s, as in the case , the re is no occasion for
just as penal laws are strictly construed strictly against
Service Commission are revived and affirmed.
appeal.
the State. Any ambiguity, should there be any, must be
- Based on the above provision of law, appeal to the Civil
resolved in favor of the respondent in the administrative
SEPARATE OPINION
Service Commission in an administrative case is
case. The term "party adversely affected" should not be
extended to the party adversely affected by the
construed as to include the State in administrative
decision, that is, the person or the respondent employee
charges involving nepotism.
MELO [dissent and concur]
who has been meted out the penalty of suspension for
- To allow appeals from decisions, be they exonerative or
PUNO [concur]
-
Appeal
to the
Civil
Service
Commission
in
an
- S i m i l a r l y, t h e d o c t r i n e b a r r i n g a p p e a l c a n n o t b e
justified by the provision limiting the jurisdiction of the
Civil Service Commission to review decisions involving:
(1) suspension for more than thirty (30) days; (2) fine in
an amount exceeding thirty (30) days salary; (3)
demotion in rank or salary; and (4) transfer, removal or
d i sm i s s a l f r o m o f fi c e . Ag a i n , t h e r e i s n o th i n g i n th i s
provision indicating legislative intent to bar appeal from
decisions exonerating a government official or employee
f ro m ne po ti sm . Sta tu tor y p re clu si on o f a pp ea l s i s the
ex ce p tio n ra the r tha n the ru le , for a s stre ssed b y M r.
Justice Douglas, "tolerance of judicial review has been
more and more the rule against the claim of
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n a l i t y." Yet t h e c a s e s o f Paredes,
M e n d e z a n d M a g p a l e pr eci sel y ba rr ed a ll ap pe al s
despite lack of an explicit, positive provision in the Civil
Service Law.
- Moreover, the case at bar involves the right of a party
a d v e r se l y a ffe ct e d to r e so r t to ju d ic ia l re view . This
ca se does no t involve the appella te jur isdi ction of the
Civil Service Commission, i.e., whether or not it has the
po wer to review a decision exonera ting a governmen t
official from a charge of nepotism. The facts show that it
was the Civil Service Commission that at the first
instance found Dacoyco y guilty of nepotism. It was
Dacoycoy who appealed the decision of the Civil Service
Commission to our regular court, more exactly, the Court
of Appeals pursuant to the Rules of Court. As Dacoycoy
only impleaded Suan as respondent, the Court of
Appeals ordered that the Civil Service Commission
should also be impleaded as party respondent. The
C ou r t of App ea l s the n r eve rsed th e C om m i ssi on as i t
c l e a r e d D a c o yc o y f r o m t h e c h a r g e o f n e p o ti s m . T h e
question therefore is whether or not this Court is
p re clu de d fr om r evi e wi n g th e de ci si on of th e C ou r t of
Appeals on a petition for certiorari under Rule 45. Again,
I submit that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this
review. Indeed, under the Constitution, the jurisdiction of
this Court has even been expanded "to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
th e pa rt of any branch or instrumentality of
g o ve rn men t ." The question is not our lack of
j u r i s d i c t i o n b u t t h e p r u d e n t i a l e x e r c i s e o f p o w e r. I n
certiorari cases alleging grave abuse of discretion, our
given task is to determine how much is too much of an
abuse.
- To m y mind, it i s also of de minimis importance that
the petition of thus Court was filed by the Civil Service
Commission. The records will reveal that Suan, the
original complainant, wrote to the Civil Service
Commission urging it to make the appeal ostensibly for
lack of means. But even without Suan, I s u b m i t t h a t
the nature of the issue in the case at bar and its
impact on the effectiveness of government give
the Civil Service Commission the standing to
p u r s u e t h is a p p e a l . T h e i s s u e i n t h e c a se a t b a r i s
basical l y a le gal one , i.e ., the proper interpre ta tion of
ISSUE
WON De Torres automatic separation from civil service
was valid
CANONIZADO V AGUIRRE
GONZAGA-REYES; January 25, 2000
FACTS
- PET IT IT ON to declare RA 8851 (R A 8551)
unconstitutional
- th e N a ti o n a l Po l i ce C o m m i ssi o n ( N A PO L C OM ) w a s
originally created under RA 6975 entitled An Act
E s t a b l i s h i n g T h e Ph i l i p p i n e N a t i o n a l P o l i ce U n d e r A
R e o r g a n i z e d D e p a r t m e n t O f T h e I n t e r i o r An d L o c a l
Government, And For other Purposes.
- under RA 6975, petitioners Alexis Canonizado, Edgar
Torres, Rogelio Pureza, and respondents Jose Adiong and
Dula
Torres
were
appointed
as
NAPOLCOM
commissioners on Jan. 1991 for six year terms
- 3/6/1998: RA 8551, aka the Philippine National Police
R e f o r m a n d R e o r ga n i za t i o n Ac t o f 1 9 9 8 to o k e ffe ct ,
declaring the terms of the current commissioners
expired
- the petitioners question the constitutionality of S4 of
R A 8 5 5 1 w h i ch a m e n d s S1 3 o f R A 6 9 7 5 , a l te r i n g th e
composition of NAPOLCOM as well as S8, which removes
them from office and allegedly violates their security of
tenure.
- as members of the civil service, the petitioners cannot
be removed from office except for causes provided by
law, that is, with legal cause and not merely for reasons
deemed fit by the appointing power
- the creation or abolition of public offices is primarily a
legislative function; Congress may abolish any office w/o
impairing the officer s right to continue in his position.
This power may be exercised for reasons such as a lack
FACTS
- The Case: Special civil action of certiorari seeking to
ISSUES
annul and set aside two decisions of the Commission
1 . W O N t h e r e w a s a b o n a f i d e reorgani za tion of
on Audit (COA)
NAPOLCOM
- On June 11, 1993, Petitioner Thelma P. Gaminde was
2 . W ON the re wa s a val id ab ol i tio n of the p e ti ti on er s
a pp oi n te d a s a d i n te r i m C o m m i s s i o n e r o f t h e C i v i l
offices
Service Commission (CSC) by then Pres. Ramos for a
ter m ex pi ri n g F eb . 2 , 19 99 . Sh e assu me d offi ce af te r
HELD
taking her oath and her appointment was confirmed by
1. NO. Under RA 6975, the NAPOLCOM was described as
Congress.
a collegial body w/in the DILG, and under RA 8551 it
- Before the end of her term, or on Feb. 24, 1998,
was defined as an agency attached to the Department
petitioner sought clarification from the Office of the Pres.
for policy and program coordination. This increase in
as to the expiry date of her term of office. In reply, the
the agencys autonomy does not result in the creation of
Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (now Associate Justice)
an entirely new office. S4 of RA 8551amends the
Corona, in a letter, opined that petitioner s term would
NAPOLCOMs composition by adding the PNP Chief as an
ex pi re o n Fe b . 2 , 20 00 n ot on Fe b . 2 , 1 99 9. She th u s
ex -o ffi ci o m em be r, re qu ir i n g th e me mb er s h ip o f 3
r em ai ne d i n offi ce af te r F eb . 0 2 , 19 99 , r el yi n g o n th e
civilian commissioners, a fourth commissioner from the
said advisory opinion.
law enforcement sector and at least one female
- O n F e b . 0 4 , 1 9 9 9 , C S C C h a i r m a n Al m a D e L e o n ,
commissioner. Such changes are trivial and do not affect
requested opinion from the COA on whether petitioner
the nature of the NAPOLCOM; in fact, the powers and
and her co- term inous staff shou ld continue to be paid
duties of NAPOLCOM remain unchanged. Reorganization
their salaries notwithstanding the fact that their
only takes place when there is an alteration of the
appointment had already expired. COA General Counsel
existing structure of the office including lines of control
issued an opinion that the petitioner s appointment had
and authority and may involve a reduction of personnel
indeed expired.
o r ab ol i tio n of offi ce s if d on e i n goo d fa i th (e co no m i c
- CSC Residen t Audi tor issued a no tice disallo wing in
purposes, bureaucratic efficiency, etc.) Despite the new
audit the salaries and emoluments pertaining to
law, NAPOLCOM continues to exercise substantially the
petitioner and her staff, a decision which petitioner
same administrative, supervisory, rule-making, advisory
a p p e a l e d t o t h e C O A en banc. T h e a p p e a l w a s
and adjudicatory functions.
dismissed, COA affirmed the disallowance, and held that
2. NO. Respondents stress that S8 of RA 8551 discloses
the issue of petitioners term of office may be addressed
le gi sla tive inten t to abolish N APOLCOM pursuan t to a
by mere reference to her appointment paper which had
bona fide reorganization. As held in UP Board of Regents
Feb. 02, 1999 as expiration date. COA also stated that
v. Rasul, the removal of an incumbent is not justified if
the Commission is bereft of power to recognize an
the functions of the old and new positions are the same,
extension of her term, not even with the implied
that is, if there is no true reorganization. The court finds
acquiescence of the Office of the President. Petitioner
that RA 8551 does not expressly abolish the petitioners
moved for reconsideration, she was again denied; hence
positions upon examination of the changes introduced
this petition.
by the new law. In the event of a reorganization done in
go o d fa i th , n o d i sm i ssa l a ct u a l l y o ccu r s b e ca u se th e
ISSUE
office itself ceases to exist. If the abolition merely seeks
W O N p e t i t i o n e r A t t y. G a m i n d e s t e r m o f o f f i c e , a s
to enact a change of nomenclature or attempt to
CSCommissioner, expired on Feb. 2, 1999 or on Feb. 2,
circumvent the constitutional security of tenure of civil
2000
service personnel, then the abolition is void a b initio. In
the case at bar, no bona fide reorganization had been
HELD
mandated by congress; hence, petitioners were removed
It expired on Feb. 2, 1999. For Commissioners (5 year
from office with no legal cause, making S8 of RA 8551
term) the count is:
unconstitutional, and entitling them to immediate
Feb.02,
1987---Feb.02,
1992---Feb.02,
1999--reinstatement.
Feb.02, 2006
De ci sio n -Petition GRANTED, but only to the extent of
Ratio T he ap pr op r ia te star ti n g po in t o f th e ter m s o f
declaring S8 of RA 8551 unconstitutional for violating the
office of the first appointees to the Constitutional
petitioners rights to security of tenure. Petitioners are
Com mission s under the 1987 Consti tution must be on
entitled to reinstatement.
Feb. 02, 1987, the date of the adoption of the 1987
Constitution in order to maintain the regular interval of
vacancy every 2 years consistent in the previous
G AMINDE V COMMISSION ON AUDIT
appointment intervals.
R e a so n i n g
- The term of office of the Chairman and members of the
Civil Service Commission is prescribed in the 1987
Constitution under Art IX-B Sec. 1(2). The 1973
C o n s t i t u t i o n i n tr o d u ce d t h e f i r s t s ys t e m o f a r e gu l a r
rotation or cycle in the membership of the CSC (Art. XII
Sec. 1(1), 1973 Consti). It was a copy of the
Constitutional prescription in the amended 1935
Constitution of a rotational system for the appointment
o f th e C h a i r m a n a n d m e m b e r s of th e C o m m i ssi o n o n
Elections (Art. X Sec. 1, 1935 Consti, as amended).
- In Republic v Imperial, it was said that the operation of
the rotational plan requires two conditions: (1) that the
terms of the first (3) Commissioners should star t on a
common date , and, (2) that any vacancy due to death,
resignation or disability before the expiration of the term
should only be filled only for the unexpired balance of
the term.
- C o n se q u e n t l y, t h e t e r m s o f t h e f i r s t C h a i r m a n a n d
Commissioners of the Constitutional Commissions under
the 1987 Constitution must s t a r t o n a c o m m o n d a te ,
irre spective of the varia tions in the dates of
appoin tmen ts and qualifi cations of the appointee s , in
order that the expirations of the firs terms of 7, 5 and 3
years should lead to the regular recurrence of the 2-year
interval between the expiration of the terms.
- In the law of public officers, term of office is
distinguished from tenure of the incumbent. The term
m ea n s the ti m e du ri n g wh i ch the offi ce r m a y cla i m to
hold office as of right, and fixes the interval after which
the several incumbents shall succeed one another. The
tenure represents the term during which the incumbent
actually holds the office. The term of office is not
a ffecte d b y th e h ol d- ove r. The ten u re m a y be sho r ter
than the term for reasons within or beyond the power of
the incumbent.
- Al thou gh Ar t. XVIII Se c. 15 provides that incumbent
members of the Constitutional Commissions shall
con tinue in office for one yea r after the ratifi cation of
this Constitution, unless the y are soone r removed for
cause or become incapacitated to discharge the duties
of their office or appoin ted to a ne w te rm, what it
con temp late s is tenure not te rm. The term unless
i mp or ts an ex ce p tio n to the ge ne ra l r ul e . C le a rl y, the
transitory provisions mean that the incumbent members
of the Con sti Commi ssions sha ll con tinue for 1 year
after ratification of the Consti under their existing
appointments at the discretion of the appointing power
who may cut short their tenure by reasons the reasons
stated therein. However, they do not affect the term of
office fixed in Art. IX, providing for a 7-5-3 yr rotational
st
interval for the 1 appointees.
D e ci si on
Ter m o f o f f i c e e x p i r e d o n F e b . 2 , 1 9 9 9 .
However, petitioner served as de facto officer in good
faith until Feb. 2, 2000 and thus entitled to receive her
salary and other emoluments for actual service
rendered. COA decision disallowing salaries/emoluments
is reversed.
Dissents:
-the term of peti tione r expired on Feb . 2, 2000 not on
Feb. 2, 1999 as explained in ponencia.
-the term of the first set of CSCommissioners appointed
under the 1987 Constitution commenced on the Feb. 2,
1988 not on the date of its ratification on Feb. 2, 1987.
Concurs:
-that the sala ries and emolu ments whi ch peti tione r as
CSCommissioner received after Feb. 2, 1999 should not
be disallowed by COA.
BLAQUERA V ALCALA
PURISIMA; September 11, 1998
FACTS
- G.R . No s. 109406, 110642, 111494, and 112056 are
ca ses for certiorari a n d p r o h i b i ti o n , ch a l l e n g i n g th e
constitutionality and validity of AO 29 and 268
- P e t i t i o n e r s a r e o f f i c i a l s a n d e m p l o ye e s o f s e v e r a l
government departmen ts and agen cies who were paid
incentive benefits for the year 1992, pursuant to EO 292
o the r wi se kn o wn a s the Ad m in i stra ti ve Co de o f 1 98 7 ,
and the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292.
- In 1993, then President Ramos issued AO 29 authorized
the grant of productivity incentive benefits for the year
1 9 9 2 i n t h e m a x i m u m a m o u n t o f P1 ,00 0 .00 a nd
r ei te ra ti n g th e pr oh ib i ti on u nd er Se cti on 7 of AO 2 68
( i ssu e d b y Pr e si d e n t Aq u i n o ) , e n j o i n i n g sa i d gr a n ts
without prior approval of the President. Section 4 of AO
29 directed all departments, offices and agencies which
au thori zed payment of C Y 1992 Produ ctivity In centive
Bonus in excess of the amount authorized under Section
1 hereof to immediatel y cause the return/refund of the
e x ce s s . I n co m p l i a n c e t h e r e w i t h , t h e h e a d s o f th e
departments or agencies of the government concerned,
who are the herein Respondents, caused the deduction
from petitioners salaries or allowances of the amounts
needed to cover the alleged overpayments.
- To p r e v e n t t h e R e s p o n d e n t s f r o m m a k i n g f u r t h e r
deductions from their salaries or allowances, the
Petitioners have come before this Court to seek relief.
- I n G . R . N o . 119 5 9 7 , t h e f a c t s a r e d i ff e r e n t b u t t h e
petition poses a common issue with the other
consolidated cases. The Petitioner, Association of
Dedicated Employees of the Philippine Tourism Authority
(ADEPT), is an association of employees of the
Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) who were granted
ISSUES
1. WON with regard to G.R. No. 119597, Incentives under
RA 6971 are applicable to ADEPT employees
2. W ON AO 29 a nd 26 8 (b ei n g Pr e si de n tia l
pronouncements) are violative of the provisions of EO
292 (being a law passed by the legislature), and hence
null and void, and WON AO 29 and 268 unlawfully usurp
the Consti tutional au thority gran ted sole l y to the Civil
Service Commission
3. W ON the forced refund of incentive pay is an
unconstitutional impairment of a contractual obligation
4. WON assuming arguendo that the grant of incentives
was invalid, the same should be the personal liability of
officials directly responsible therefore in accordance with
section 9 of AO 268
HELD
1. There are generally two types of GOCCs:
1. Those
incorporated
under
the
general
corporation law. Employees of this type have
the r i gh t to b ar ga in ( col l e ctive l y) , str i ke , an d
o th e r s u ch r e m e d i e s a v a i l a b l e t o w o r ke r s o f
private corporations. Functions are mainly
proprietary.
2. Those with special charter (a.k.a. original
charter), which are subject to Civil Service
La ws, h ave no ri gh t to ba r gai n ( co l le cti ve l y) .
Incorporated in pursuance of a State Policy.
- Only GOCCs incorporated under the general
corporation law, and thus performing proprietary
functions, are included under the coverage of RA 6791.
GOCCs created in pursuance of a policy of the state and
those whose officers and employees are covered by the
Civil Service are expressly excluded.
- The legislative intent to place only GOCCs performing
proprietary functions under the coverage of RA 6971 is
also gleanable from the other provisions of the law
making reference to remedies available only to laborers
akin to the private sector.
- Also, pursuant to EO 292 or the Administrative Code of
1987, which provides for the establishment of
D e p a r tm e n t o r Ag e n c y Em p l o ye e S u g g e s ti o n s a n d
I n c e n t i v e s Aw a r d S y s t e m s f o r G O C C s w i t h o r i g i n a l
charters, it is thus evident that the PTA is already within
the scope of an incentives award system.
2. In accordance with EO 292, the functions of the Civil
Ser vi ce Co mm i ssio n h ave be en de ce n tra l i ze d to the
offices and agencies where such functions can be
effectively performed; specifically, the implementation
o f t h e E m p l o y e e S u g g e s t i o n s a n d I n c e n t i v e Aw a r d
System ahs been decentralized to the President or to the
h e a d o f e a ch d e p a r t m e n t o r a ge n c y ( a s h i s / h e r a l t e r
ego).
- T h e P r e s i d e n t i s t h e h e a d o f g o v e r n m e n t . H i s /h e r
p o w e r i n cl u d e s c o n t r o l o v e r e x e c u t i v e d e p a r t m e n t s .
Con trol mean s the powe r to al ter what a subordina te
officer had done in the performance of his duties and to
s u b s t i t u t e t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e f o r m e r f o r t h a t o f th e
latter. In issuing AO 29 limiting the amount of benefits,
enjoining heads of departments from granting benefits
wi thou t prior approval from him/her, and directin g the
refund of an y exce ss over the prescribed amoun t, the
President was just exercising his power of control over
ex ecu tiv e d ep ar tme n ts. Sp e ci fi ca ll y, se e in g tha t th e
incentives program was producing demoralization
instead of the original goal of encouragement, owing to
the fact that employees not receiving the incentives felt
s l i g h t e d a n d u n d e r a p p r e ci a te d , th e P r e s i d e n t m e r e l y
exercised his power of control by modifying the acts of
the respondents who granted incentive benefits without
appropriate clearance from the Office of the President.
- Nei ther can it be said that the President encroached
upon the authori ty of the Civil Servi ce Commi ssion to
gr an t be ne fi ts to go ve rn me n t e mp lo yee s. AO 2 9 an d
268 did not revoke, but rather only regulated, the grant
and amount of incentives.
3. Not all contracts entered into by the government will
operate as a waiver of its non-suability; distinction must
b e m a d e b e t w e e n i t s so v e r e i g n a n d p r o p r i e t a r y a ct s.
The acts involved in this case are governmental.
Besides, incentive pay is in the nature of a bonus, which
is not a demandable or enforceable obligation.
4. Absent a showing of bad faith, public officers are not
personally liable for damages resulting form the
performance of official duties.
D e ci si on In upholding the Constitutionality of AO 268
and 29, the Court reiterates the doctrine that in
in terpre tin g sta tutes, tha t whi ch wil l avoid a findin g of
unconstitutionality is to be preferred.
Considering, however, that all the parties here acted in
good faith, the Court cannot countenance the refund of
the incentives which amount the petitioners have
already received, as a corollary, further deductions from
salaries are thus enjoined.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
LIGA NG MGA BARANGAY V
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
PADILLA; May 5, 1994
- 18 Ap r il 19 94 : Pe ti ti on er L i ga N g M ga Ba ra n ga y, a n
o r ga n i za ti o n o f b a r a n g a ys , r e p r e se n t e d b y p e t i t i o n e r
Alex David (as taxpayer and as president and secretarygeneral of the organization) filed this petition for
prohibition, with prayer for a temporary restraining
order.
- 22 April 1994: Another petition raising the same issues
were filed.
- Petitioners question what they perceive as the
t h r e a te n e d i l l e g a l t r a n sf e r, d i sb u r se m e n t , a n d u se of
p ub li c fun ds in a ma nn er con tr a r y to the C on sti tu tio n
and the law relative to the conduct of the forthcoming
barangay elections. They claim that in the General
Appropriations Act (GAA) of 1994, only P137,878,000.00
were appropriated by the Congress for the holding of the
said elections. The petitioners claim that by early 1994,
Congress itself has made the assessment that the
money is insufficient to defray cost of holding the
e le cti on s. Pe ti ti on e r s al le ge th a t i n or de r to au gm en t
said amount, respondents have threatened and are
about to transfer/re-allocate certain moneys to be
sourced from the executive and legislative branches of
government to COMELEC, which in turn will use it to fund
the ele ctions: [a ] P180M from the appropr iation of the
D I L G , [b ] P 1 6 0 M f r o m t h e C o u n t r ys i d e D e v e l o p m e n t
Fund; P70M from the Senate; P30M from the HReps; and
[c] P43M from the Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA) of
Provinces, Cities and Municipalities ( Note: T h is is th e
scheme that is being assailed in the issue of this case)
- 21 April 1994: Court resolved to require respondents to
submit comment on the petition within the nonexistentiable period of 5 days
- 2 6 Ap r i l 1 9 9 4 : R e s p o n d e n t s t h r o u g h t h e S o l i c i t o r
General filed their comment. They claim that petitioners
acted solely on the basis of reports made in the
newspaper ( Baran ga y Po ll Funds Found article from
the M an il a Bu l le ti n) a nd d id n ot bo th e r to co nf i rm th e
veracity of article. They also claim that said reports were
mere unofficial proposal s/su gge stions made in the
process of searching for funds. COMELEC further alleges
that that it intends to fund the barangay elections from
the money allotted by Congress for the purpose and
from its own savings resulting from unused funds. The
Solicitor General supports the stand of the respondents,
a s i t is a c co r d in g t o Se c. 2 5 ( 5 ) , Ar ti cle V I of th e
Constitution and Sectoons 17 (Use of Savings) and 19
(Meaning of Savings and Appropriations) of the GAA for
Fiscal Year 1994.
- Respondents also maintain that funds from LGUs may
also be used to help defray the cost of the forthcoming
barangay elections. They cite Opinion No. 51 of the
Secretary of Justice, dated 19 April 1994, which says that
under Sec. 50 of the Omnibus Election Code, LGUs are
required to appropriate funds for barangay elections
FACTS
- N a t u r e Petitions for prohibition to stop the threatened
illegal transfer, disbursement, and use of public funds in
ISSUE
WON the existence or lack of factual basis on WON the
impleaded
public
respondents
are
attempting,
or
Constitution
HELD
Any threat or attempt to pursue a transfer of funds
scheme that exists only in newspaper reports is not
suffi ci en t fa ctu a l ba si s to re nd er su ch sch em e b y the
COMELEC unconstitutional.
R e a so n i n g
1. [a] The threat to pursue the scheme, if ever there was
one, existed only in newspaper reports which could have
misled the general public, including the petitioners, into
believing that the same emanated from impeccable
sources. [b] Court acknowledges petitioners have
displayed vigilance and acted with the best of intentions,
but they should have first obtained an official statement
or at least confirmation from respondents as to the
veracity of the report instead of relying on the
newspaper article.
2. T h e c o u r t w e n t f u r t h e r i n s a y i n g a c t u a l l y, i n
affirming the arguments of the respondents that
consistent with Art. VI Sec. 25 (5) of the Constitution, the
following may be availed by the COMELEC to defray the
cost of the forthcoming barangay elections:
[a] Article IV of the Omnibus Election Code provides that
LGUs should appropriate funds for the barangay
elections. COMELEC may make arranges with local
governments to comply with this article pursuant to its
co n st i t u t i o n a l a u th o r i t y to e nf o r ce a n d a d m i n i s te r a l l
laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections.
COMELEC may also issue an appropriate directive for the
p r o v i n c e c i t y, o r m u n i c i p a l i t y t o a d v a n c e e l e c t i o n
expenses that are chargeable to it. Since the President
exercises general supervision of all local governments,
the COMELEC may course its directives to local
governments through the Office of the President and to
be imple mented by DIL G. ( Note: This is based on the
Opinion No. 51, s. 1994 of Sec. of Justice which was cited
as authority)
[b] Sections 17 and 19 of GAA for FY 1994 where it was
s ta te d th a t t h e H e a d s o f C o n s ti tu t i o n a l C o m m i s si o n s
under Article IX of the Constitutionare hereby
a u t h o r i ze d t o a u g m e n t a n y i t e m i n t h i s Ac t f o r t h e i r
respe ctive offices from savin gs in other item s of their
respective appropriations.
De ci sio n Petitions DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Vo t i n g 14 concur, no dissent.
FACTS
- RA 8436 prescribed the adoption of an automated
election system
> Was used in the May 11, 1998 regular elections in
the ARMM which includes Sulu
> Atty. Jose Tolentino was the head of the COMELEC
Task Force in Sulu
- Sulu voting readil y peaceful except that there wa s a
problem with the automated counting of votes
> Discrepancies were reported (May 12, 1998)
b e twee n the el ecti on re tu r n s an d th e vo te s ca st for
mayor in the muncipality of Pata (later on confirmed
when checked by Atty. Tolentino)
> The automated counting of ballots in Pata were
suspended and the problem was immediately
communicated to the COMELEC technical experts
> The problem was caused by the misalignment of the
ovals opposi te the names of candida tes in the loca l
ballots but nothing was wrong with the machines.
- Emergency meeting called by Atty. Tolentino
participated in by military police officials and local
ca n d i d a te s . Pe ti ti o n e r L o o n g wa s a m o n g th o se w h o
attended along with private respondent Tan.
> Discussed how ballots should be counted.
> Shift to manual coun t recommended by Brig. Gen.
Espinosa and Subala, PNP Director Alejandrino,
gubernatorial canddidates Tan and Tulawie and
congressinal candidate Tulawie
> Au to ma ted cou n t insisted by gubernatorial
candidates Loong and Jikiri. Written position papers
were required to be submitted.
> Local ballots in five municipalities were rejected by
automated machines (Talipao, Siasi, Tudanan, Tapul
a n d J o l o ) . B a l l o t s r e j e c t e d b e ca u se o f t h e w r o n g
sequence code.
> COMELEC issued Minute Resolution 98-1747
orderin g manual recoun t in Pa ta . By 12 midnight of
May 12, Atty. Tolentino had sent an en banc report to
th e C OM EL EC re om me nd i n g m an ua l r ecou n t i n th e
whole province of Sulu because it is possible that the
same problem would extend to other provinces in
Sulu.
> The COMELEC approved of Atty. Tolentino's
r e co m m e n d a t i o n w i t h th e fo l l o w i n g i m p l e m e n ta ti o n
procedures:
+ Counting machines from Jolo be transported to
Manila in the PICC to keep COMELEC away from
bloodshed between AFP and MNLF
+ Au t h o r i z e t h e o f f i c i a l t r a v e l o f t h e b o a r d o f
canvassers concerned for the conduct of the
automated and manual operations of the counting
of votes at PICC
+ To a u t h o r i z e t h e p r e s e n c e o f o n l y t h e d u l y
authorized representative of the political parties
concerned and the candidate watchers both
outside and inside the perimeters of the PICC
> May 15, 1998 COMELEC laid down rules for manual
highest votes.
ISSUES
1. WON petition for certiorari was appropriate remedy to
invalidate COMELEC resolutions
2. WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdisction in order manual count
a. Is there legal basis for manual count?
b. Are its factual bases reasonable?
c. Was there denial of due process when COMELEC
ordered manual count?
3 . W on i t i s p r o p e r to ca l l f o r sp e ci a l e l e c ti o n f o r th e
position of Sulu governor assuming the manual count is
illegal and result is unreliable.
HELD
1. Certiorari is the proper remedy according to Art. 9,
Sec. 7 of the Constitution
- Interpretation of RA 8436 must be made in relation the
C O M E L E C ' s b r o a d p o w e r i n Ar t . 9 , S e c t i o n 2 ( 1 ) t o
enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative
following grounds:
(1) COMELEC resolutions in question are
c o n t r a r y t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a n d t h e l a w, f o r
being unjust, unf air & inequitable. They violate
the basic principles of equalit y, good faith and
f ai r p l a y, & a r e n o t c o n d u c i v e t o i n s u r e f re e ,
orderly and honest elections;
(2) UNIDOs request/demand for equal broadcast
media of its public meeting/rally at Plaza
Miranda was arbitraril y denied. The cam paign
for NO votes should be granted the same right &
equal use of facilities granted Marcos campaign
for YES.
ISSUE
WON COMELEC
discretion
HELD
for being be yo nd wh at t he chart e r, t he la ws
and pertinent Comelec regulations contemplate,
acted
with
grave
abuse
of
3.
To g r a n t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o R T C w o u l d r e s u l t t o
jumbled justice. There would be confusion if plebiscite
con te st case s we re given to the RTC for what if the
plebiscite was a national one. Every RTC in the
Ph i li pp i ne s wo u ld hav e ju r i sd i cti on ov er n a ti on wid e
p le bi sci te , wh i ch r un s co n tra r y to th e pr in cip l e tha t
jurisdiction of an RTC is limited to their region.
4.The Consti gives jurisdiction of contests involving only
election of officers to the courts (part of judicial
f u n c ti o n ) o r t o a d m i n i st r a t iv e t r i b u n a l s ( ex e r ci s i n g
quasi-judicial power). As such, jurisdiction over
plebiscite contests is not vested on the courts.
5.T he Constitutional mandate to COMELEC to enforce
and administer laws and regulations relative to
co n d u ct o f p l e b i sc i te s ( a m o n g o th e r s) i n cl u d e s th e
power to ascertain the true results of such plebiscite.
I t i n cl u d e s th e p o we r t o d o a l l th a t i s n e ce s sa r y to
achieve honest and credible plebiscites.
*T he provision gran tin g C OM ELEC juri sdi ction over
contests re: elected officials is not limiting in the sense
that it only limits quasi-judicial power of COMELEC to
su ch ca se s . T h e p o we r to a s ce r ta i n t r u e r e su l ts i s
implicit in its power to enforce all laws relative to the
conduct of plebiscite.
6.COMELEC is best suited to have jurisdiction over such
cases because of their indisputable expertise in
election and related laws.
7.MFR of Cayetano filed out of time (filed 10 days, not
th e pr escr ib ed 5 d a ys, af te r r ece ip t of th e Or de r o r
Resolution of COMELEC).
D e ci si on COMELEC directed to reinstate the petition to
annul the results and decide it without delay.
SEPARATE OPINION
CARPIO-MORALES [dissent]
- Quasi-judicial function of COMELEC is limited to
contests involving election of regional, provincial, and
city officials (limited to what the provision in the Consti
said). As such, jurisdiction must be granted to the RTC,
since no other court or agency has jurisdiction over it.
- Presen t con test i s based on allegations of fraud and
i r r e gu l a r i ti e s, wh i ch i n v o l v e s a l e ga l qu e st i o n th a t i s
determinable by a judicial or quasi-judicial body.
- There is also the involvement of a demandable ri gh t
(right to a canvass free from fraud, anomalies, and
irregularities) which arose from their right to to vote in a
plebiscite.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
ALLIANCE OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS V
MINISTER OF LABOR
GUTIERREZ; August 3, 1983
FACTS
- Petitioner Alliance of Government Workers (AGW ) is a
re gi ste red labor federation wh ile the other pe titioner s
a re i ts a ffil i a te un io ns wi th m em be r s f ro m am on g th e
employees of the following offices, schools, or
g o v e r n m e n t - o wn e d o r co n t r o l l e d c o r p o r a t i o n s : P N B ,
MWSS, GSIS, SSS, PVTA, PNC, PUP. The workers in the
respondent institutions have not directly petitioned the
heads of their respective offices or their representatives
in the Batasang Pambansa. They have acted through a
labor federa tion and its affilia ted union s. The wor kers
a nd e mp lo yee s a re ta kin g co l le cti ve a ctio n thr ou gh a
l a b o r f e d e r a ti o n w h i ch u se s th e b a r g a i n i n g p o we r o f
organized labor to secure increased compensation for its
members.
- The petitioners contend that they should be included as
recipients of the P.D. 851 Christmas bonus which states:
SECTION 1.
All emplo yer s are hereby re quired to
pay all their employees receiving a
basic salary of not more than P 1000 a
month, regardless of the nature of
th
their employment, a 13 -month pay
n o t l a te r th a n D e ce m b e r 2 4 o f e v e r y
year.
SECTION 2.
Employers
already
paying
their
th
employees a 13 -month pay or its
equivalent are not covered by this
Decree.
- Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing
PD 851 provides:
Section 3. Employees covered. The Decree shall apply
to all employers except to:
b) The Government and any of its political
subdivisions, including government-owned and
controlled corporations, except those corporations
operating essentially as private subsidiaries of the
Government;
- The petitioners argue that regulations adopted under
legislative authority must be in harmony with the
provisions of the law and for the sole purpose of carrying
into effect its general provisions. A legislative act cannot
be amended by a rule and an administrative officer
(Minister of Labor) cannot change the law.
ISSUE
1. WON the Court has jurisdiction over the case;
46
CRISTOBAL V MELCHOR
MUNOZ-PALMA; July 29, 1977
FACTS
- Jo se C r i sto b a l wa s f o r m e r l y e m p l o ye d a s a p r i v a te
secretary in the President's Private Office in Malacaan,
having been appointed to that position on Jul y 1, 1961
wi th a salar y of P4 ,188.00 per annum. On the se cond
we e k o f Jan ua r y, 1 96 2 , the th en Exe cu tiv e Se cre ta r y
Amelito Mutuc, thru a letter, informed the plaintiff that
his services as private secretary in the President's
Private Office were terminated effective January 1, 1962.
A simila r letter was addressed by Se c. Mutu c to some
other employees in the Office of the President (OP). The
dismissed employees appealed to the President by
means of letters dated January 3, 1962 and January 26,
1962 for a reconsideration of their separation from the
service. In a letter dated February 21, 1962, their
r e qu e s t f o r r e co n si d e r a ti o n w a s d e n i e d b y S e cr e ta r y
Mutuc, acting 'by authority of the President'.
- On March 24 , 1962, five of the emplo yees who we re
separated (excluding Cristobal) filed a civil action before
the CFI of Manila against Secretary Mutuc and the Cash
Disbursing Officer of the OP praying for reinstatement
and the payment of their salaries effective as of January
1 , 1 96 2 . Fr o m a jud gm e n t d ism i ssin g the ir co mp l ai n t,
the said employees appealed to the Supreme Court
wh i ch r en de re d a d eci sio n p ro mu l ga ted o n Nov em be r
29, 1968 reversing the dismissal of their complaint and
declaring their removal from office as illegal and
con tr ar y to la w, an d o rd er in g the i r r ei n sta te me n t a nd
the payment of their salaries from January 1, 1962 up to
the date of their actual reinstatement.
- Sometime in May, 1962, when the civil action filed by
Raul Ingles, et al was still pending in the CFI of Manila,
t h e d i s m i s se d e m p l o ye e s w h o f i l e d s a i d a c t i o n w e r e
recalled to their positions in the OP, without prejudice to
45
continued
to
press
his
request
for
ACOLOLA V TANTUICO
SANTOS; June 27, 1978
FACTS
- N a t u r e ORIGINAL PETITION for certiorari, mandamus
with preliminary injunction.
- Petitioner Arturo A. Acolola was assigned as Provincial
Au d i to r of C a p i z o n Ap r i l 1 6 , 1 9 7 2 . S o m e t i m e b e f o r e
De cem be r 1 2, 19 72 , a n a dm in i str a tiv e co mp la i n t wa s
f i l e d a ga i n s t h i m ch a r gi n g h i m w i t h
various
irregularities in connection with the discharge of
h i s d u t i e s . The complaint was subsequently dismissed.
- On December 27, 1974 he was again administratively
c ha r ged wi t h o ff en se s r an gi n g f r om " misconduct,
neglect
of duty to i n c o m p e t e n c e
in the
p e r f o r m a n c e o f o f f i c i a l d u t i e s ," which charges were
likewise dismissed.
- On December 3, 1976, while petitioner was assigned as
Ac t i n g H i g hw a y E n g i n ee r i n g D is t r i ct Au d i t o r o f
Romblon, private respondent Ho ra c io A. M a rt in e z , a
co n tr a cto r o f P u b l i c W or ks P r o je ct i n th e p r o v i n ce o f
Romblon, filed another complaint against petitioner
charging him, this time, with
(1) Delaying action on payment of vouchers.
(2) Delaying action on request for inspection of
accomplished work:
(3 ) Re fu sa l to a ssi gn an a ud i to r 's r ep re sen ta tiv e to
check deliveries of materials at job sites at the time of
deliveries;
(4) Piecemeal suspension of vouchers:
(5) Demanding free transportation and meals when on
inspection
of
materials
delivered
or
work
accomplished, and
(6) Demanding P24,000 cost of plane fare for his twin
daughter's trip to the United States.
- Upon the recommendation of the Civil Security Office of
the Commi ssion on Aud it, an entrapment sche me wa s
devised and executed on December 15, 1976. Petitioner
was apprehended by the PC Provincial Command in the
act of receiving from complainant Horacio A. Martinez,
the amount of P2 ,000 .00 in mar ked P20 bil ls as bribe
m o n e y, w h i l e h e w a s a b o u t t o e n t e r h i s r o o m a t t h e
Seaside Hotel.
- On January 12, 1977, a formal administrative
c h a r g e was preferred against him. At the same time the
p r e v e n t i v e s u s p e n s i o n of peti tioner wa s ordered b y
the respondent pursuant to S e c t i o n 4 1 , P r e s i d e n t i a l
D e cr e e N o . 8 0 7 . Respondent, now petitioner, answered
the charge.
- On May 12, 1977, petitioner was s u m m a r i l y
d i sm i s s e d
from
the
se rv i ce ,
pursuant
to
P r e s i d e n t i a l D e c r e e N o . 8 0 7 , dated October 6, 1975.
P e t i t i o n e r ' s m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n p r a yi n g f o r a
formal investigation denied, appeals to Court, seeking:
(1) the review and reversal of the order of May 27, 1977
o f t h e Ac t i n g C h a i r m a n C o r m n i s s i o n o n Au d i t , ( H o n .
Francisco S. Tantuico Jr.) summarily dismissing him from
the service, on the grounds that respondent acted
wi thou t or in exce ss of his jur isdi ction and wi th gr ave
abuse of discretion and the said order is violative of his
con sti tu ti on al ri gh ts; an d ( 2) hi s r ei nsta te me n t to h is
former position. Petition was given due course,
respondents required to file their comments, TRO issued.
- On M ar ch 18 , 1 97 8 , the So l i ci to r Gen er a l fo r an d i n
behalf of respondent Tantuico, Chairman of COA, filed
th e re qu ir ed co m me n t a nd pr a ye d tha t th e p eti ti on b e
dismissed for lack of merit. Petitioner filed his rejoinder
(should be reply) to the said comment on April 20, 1978.
ISSUE
W ON the re spondent Chairman of the Com mission on
Au di t, cou ld su m ma r il y di smi ss pe ti tio ne r pu r su an t to
Presidential Decree No. 807.
HELD
Ratio Yes , t h e r e s p o n d e n t C h a i r m a n o f C O A c o u l d
summarily dismiss petitioner Pursuant to PD 807.
Section 40 of Presidential Decree No. 807 specificall y
provides:
"SEC. 40. Summary Proceedings.-No formal investigation
i s n ece ssa r y a nd the r e sp on de n t m a y be im m ed ia te l y
removed or dismissed if any of the following
circumstances is present:
(a) W hen the charge is se rious and the eviden ce of
guilt is strong.
(b) W hen the respondent is a recid ivist or has been
repeatedly charged and there is reasonable ground to
believe that he is guilty of the present charge.
(c) When the respondent is notoriously undesirable.
- Resort to summary proceedings by disciplining
authority shall be done with utmost objectivity and
i mp ar ti a li t y to the e nd tha t no i n ju sti ce i s co mm i tte d :
Provided, That removal or dismissal except those by the
President, himself, or upon his order, may be appealed
to the Commission."
- P e t i t i o n e r wa s ca u gh t r e d - h a n d e d b y a ge n ts o f t h e
Philippine Constabulary in the entrapment operations,
and the evidence against him was over whelming which
warranted his summary dismissal from the service under
PD 80 7. Th e ser i ou sne ss o f th e offe nse cha r ged , the
circumstances surrounding its commission and the
evidence of gui lt, bein g overwhelm ing and indubitab l y
strong, the interest of the public service demanded the
drastic remedy of summary dismissal, which respondent
Chairman of the Commission -on Audit judiciously took
against petitioner.
D e ci si on
Petition DISMISSEd for lack of merit. TRO
LIFTED and SET ASIDE.
Vo t i n g
4 concur: Fernando (Chairman), Barredo,
Antonio, and Aquino
1 on official leave: Concepcion Jr.
SANDIGANBAYAN
NUNEZ V SANDIGANBAYAN
FERNANDO; January 30, 1982
FACTS
- Petitioner Rufino Nuez was accused before the
Sandiganbayan of estafa through falsification of public
a n d co m m e r ci a l d o cu m e n t s co m m i t te d i n co n n i v a n ce
with his other co-accused, all public officials
- Informations were filed on February 21 and March 26,
1979
- On May 15, petitioner filed a motion to quash on
constitutional and jurisdictional grounds
- R espo nd en t co u r t d en ie d th e m o ti on , as we ll as th e
MFR
- Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
with the SC, assailing the validity of PD 1486, as
amended by PD 1606, creating the Sandiganbayan
ISSUE
W ON P r e s i d e n t i a l D e c r e e N o . 1 4 8 6 , a s a m e n d e d , i s
viola tive of the due process, equa l prote ction, and ex
post facto clauses of the Constitution
HELD
Petition dismissed. Petitioner has been unable to make a
case calling for the declaration of unconstitutionality of
Presidential Decree No. 1486, as amended by
Presidential Decree No. 1606.
Ratio
On the equal protection clause of the Constitution
- Petitioners premise is that the Sandiganbayan
proceedin gs viola tes peti tione r s righ t to equa l
protection because:
> Appeal, as a matter of right, became minimized into
a matter of discretion
> Appeal was limited to questions of law, excluding a
review of facts and trial evidence
> There is onl y one chan ce to appeal conviction, by
certiorari to the SC, instead of the traditional two
chances
while all other estafa indictees are entitled to appeal
as a matter of right covering questions of law and of
facts, and to two appellate courts (CA and SC)
- Classification satisfies the test announced by this court
in People v. Vera
> Must be based on substantial distinction
> Must be germane to the purposes of the law
> Must not be limited to existing conditions only and
must apply equally to each member of the class
- T h e C o n st i tu ti o n sp e ci f i ca l l y m a ke s m e n ti o n o f th e
creation of a special court, in response to problem,
namely, the dishonesty in the public service.
- Petitioners, should therefore have an ticipated that a
d i ffe r e n t p r o ce d u r e th a t w o u l d b e p r e s cr i b e d f o r th a t
ZALDIVAR V SANDIGANBAYAN
PER CURIAM; May 19, 1988
FACTS
GR Nos. 79690-707
- P e t i t i o n e r E n r i q u e A. Z a l d i v a r ( A n t i q u e G o v e r n o r )
sought to restrain the Sandiganbayan and Tanodbayan
Raul Gonzales from proceeding with the prosecution and
hearing of Criminal cases Nos. 12159 12161 and
12163-12177
- Petitioner alleged that said cases were filed by
Tanodba yan without legal and consti tu tional authori ty
since the 1987 Constitution conferred upon the
Ombudsman (not the present Tanodbayan) the authority
to file cases with the Sandiganbayan
GR No. 80578
- Petitioner Enrique Zaldivar, on substantially the same
grounds as first petition, sought to restrain Tanodbayan
Gonzales from conducting preliminary investigations and
filing similar cases with the Sandiganbayan
ISSUES
1, W ON the Tanodbayan, under the 1987 Constitution,
have the authority to conduct preliminary investigations
and direct the filing of cases with the Sandiganbayan
HELD
N O . T h e i n c u m b e n t Tan o d b a y a n , u n d e r t h e 1 9 8 7
Constitution is without authority to conduct preliminary
investigations and to direct the filing of criminal cases
with the Sandiganbayan
- T h e Tan o d b a ya n , u n d e r t h e 1 9 8 7 C o n st i t u t i o n , h a s
been transformed into the Office of the Special
Prosecutor which shall continue to function and exercise
its powers provided by law, EXCEPT those conferred on
t h e Offi ce o f th e O m b u d sm a n cr e a te d u n d e r th e sa m
Constitution (1987).
- The 1987 Constitution provides that the Ombu dsma n
a s d is t in g u is h e d f ro m t h e in c u mb e n t Tan o d b a ya n
has the duty to investigate on its own, or on complaint
by any person, any act or omission of any public official,
employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
- T h e S p e c i a l P r o s e c u t o r ( R a u l G o n za l e s ) i s t h u s a
subordina te of the Tanodba yan( Ombud sman) and can
investigate and prosecute cases only upon the latter s
authority or orders.
O b i t e r Raul Gonzales does not remain as Ombudsman
in as much as he has not been replaced because he has
never been the Ombudsman. The Office of the
Omb ud sm an i s a n e w cre a tio n un de r Ar ti cl e XI of th e
1987 constitution different from the Office of the
Tanodbayan created under PD 1607.
i n v e st m e n t s w i th i n i t s n a ti o n a l ju r i sd i c ti o n , a s i n th e
third paragraph, then a fortiori, by the same lo gi c, the
second paragraph can only be self-executing as it does
no t by i ts lan gua ge re quire any legislation in order to
give preference to qualified Filipinos in the grant of
rights, privileges and concessions covering the national
economy and patrimony. A constitutional provision may
be self-executing in one part and non-self-executing in
a n o t h e r. S e c . 1 0 , s e c o n d p a r., Ar t . X I I o f t h e 1 9 8 7
Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which is
complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines
or implementing laws or rules for its enforcement. From
its very words the provision does not require any
l e gi sla ti on to p u t i t i n op er ati on . It i s p er se ju d i ci a ll y
enforceable.
2. YES. In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term
pa trimon y perta ins to heritage. W hen the Constitution
spe a ks of n ati on al pa tr i mo n y, i t re fe rs no t o nl y to the
natural resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution
cou ld have ver y we ll used the ter m natura l resour ces,
but also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. Manila
Ho tel has become a landmark - a livin g testimon ial of
Philippine heritage. Its existence is impressed with public
interest; its own historicity associated with our struggle
for sovereignty, independence and nationhood. Veril y,
Manila Hotel has become part of our national economy
and patrimony.
3. YES. 51% of the equity of the MHC comes within the
purview of the constitutional shelter for it comprises the
majority and controlling stock, so that anyone who
acquires or owns the 51% will have actual control and
mana gemen t of the ho tel. In this instance , 51% of the
M H C ca n n o t b e d i sa s so ci a te d f r o m t h e h o te l a n d t h e
l a n d o n w h i ch th e h o te l e d i f i ce sta n d s. R e sp o n d e n ts
further argue that the constitutional provision is
addressed to the State, not to respondent GSIS which by
itself possesses a separate and distinct personality. In
constitutional jurisprudence, the acts of persons distinct
from the government are considered "state action"
covered by the Constitution (1) when the activity it
engages in is a "public function"; (2) when the
government is so significantly involved with the private
a c to r a s to m a ke th e g o v e r n m e n t r e sp o n si b l e f o r h i s
action; and, (3) when the government has approved or
authorized the action. It is evident that the act of
respondent GSIS in selling 51% of its share in
respondent MHC comes under the second and third
categories of "state action." Therefore the transaction,
although entered into by respondent GSIS, is in fact a
t r a n s a c t i o n o f t h e S t a te a n d t h e r e f o r e su b j e c t to th e
constitutional command.
4. YES. It should be stressed that while the Mala ysian
firm offered the higher bid it is not yet the winning
b i d d e r. T h e b i d d i n g r u l e s e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e t h a t th e
highest bidder shall only be declared the winning bidder
after it has negotiated and executed the necessary
contracts, and secured the requisite approvals. Since the
Filipino First Policy provision of the Constitution bestows
SEPARATE OPINION
PADILLA [concur]
- U n d e r t h e 1 9 8 7 C o n st i t u t i o n , "n a ti o n a l p a tr i m o n y"
consists of the natural resources provided by Almighty
God (Preamble) in our territory (Article 1) consisting of
land, sea, and air. The concept of national patrimony has
b e e n v i e we d a s r e f e r r i n g n o t o n l y to o u r r i ch n a tu r a l
resources but also to the cultural heritage of our race.
T h e M a n i l a H o te l i s v e r y m u ch a p a r t o f o u r n a ti o n a l
patrimony and, as such, deserves constitutional
p ro te ctio n as to who sh al l o wn i t an d b en ef i t fr om i ts
operation. This institution has played an important role
in our nation's history, having been the venue of many a
historical event, and serving as it did, and as it does, as
the Philippine Guest House for visiting foreign heads of
state, dignitaries, celebrities, and others.
- "Preference to qualified Filipinos," to be meaningful,
must refer not only to things that are peripheral,
co l l a t e r a l , o r ta n ge n ti a l . I t m u st to u ch a n d a ffe ct th e
very "heart of the existing order." In the field of public
b id di n g in the acqu i si tio n of thi n gs th a t p er tai n to the
national patrimony, preference to qualified Filipinos must
allow a qualified Filipino to match or equal the higher bid
of a non-Filipino; the preference shall not operate only
when the bids of the qualified Filipino and the nonFilipino are equal in which case, the award should
undisputedly be made to the qualified Filipino. The
Constitutional preference should give the qualified
Filipino an opportunity to match or equal the higher bid
of the non-Filipino bidder if the preference of the
qualified Filipino bidder is to be significant at all.
VITUG [separate]
- The provision in our fundamental law which provides
that "(i)n the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions
covering the national economy and patrimony, the State
shall give preference to qualified Filipinos" is selfexecutory. The provision does not need, although it can
obviously be amplified or regulated by, an enabling law
or a set of rules.
- The term "patrimony" does not merely refer to the
country's natural resources but also to its cultural
heritage. A "historical landmark, Manila Hotel has now
indeed become part of Philippine heritage.
- The act of the GSIS, a government entity which derives
its authority from the State, in selling 51% of its share in
MHC should be considered an act of the State subject to
the Constitutional mandate.
- On the piv o ta l i ssu e of the de gre e of "p re fe re n ce to
qualified Filipinos," the only meaningful preference
wo uld reall y be to allo w the qualified F ilipino to ma tch
MENDOZA
j udgme nt]
[se para te
opinion
in
the
TORRES [separate]
- H i s t o r y, c u l t u r e , h e r i t a g e , a n d t r a d i t i o n a r e n o t
legislated and is the product of events, customs, usages
and practices. It is actually a product of growth and
acceptance b y the col lective mores of a race. It is the
spirit and soul of a people. The Manila Hotel is part of our
history, culture and heritage. The Manila Hotel is witness
to historic events which shaped our history for almost 84
ye a r s . T h e h i s t o r y o f t h e M a n i l a H o te l s h o u l d n o t b e
placed in the auction block of a purely business
transaction, where profit subverts the cherished
historical values of our people.
PUNO [dissent]
- The vital issues can be summed up as follows:
1. W h e t h e r S e c . 1 0 , P a r . 2 o f A r t . X I I o f t h e
Con stitu tion is a self-executing provision and
does not need implementing legislation to carry
it into effect;
2.
A s s u m i n g S e c . 1 0 , P a r. 2 o f Ar t . X I I i s s e l f
- The third issue is whether the constitutional command
executing, whether the controlling shares of the
to the State includes the respondent GSIS. The GSIS is
Manila Hotel Corporation form part of our
not a pure private corporation. It is essentially a public
patrimony as a nation;
corporation created by Congress and granted an original
3. W hether GSIS is included in the term "State,"
charter to serve a public purpose. As a state-owned and
hence, mandated to implement Sec. 10, Par. 2
controlled corporation, it is skin-bound to adhere to the
of Art. XII of the Constitution;
policies spelled out in the Constitution especially those
4. Assuming GSIS is part of the State, whether it
designed to promote the general welfare of the people.
failed to give preference to petitioner, a
One of these policies is the Filipino First policy which the
qualified Filipino corporation, over and above
people elevated as a constitutional command.
R en on g Ber ha d , a fo re i gn co r po ra ti on , in th e
- To date, Congress has not enacted a law defining the
sale of the controlling shares of the Manila
degree of the preferential right. Consequently, we must
Hotel Corporation;
turn to the rules and regulations of respondents
5. Whether
petitioner
is
estopped
from
Committee on Privati zation and GSIS to determine the
question ing the sa le of the shares to Renon g
degree of preference that peti tioner is entitled to as a
Berhad, a foreign corporation.
qualified Filipino in the subject sale. A look at the rules
st
- 1 issue: courts as a rule consider the provisions of the
a n d r e g u l a t i o n s w i l l s h o w t h a t t h e y a r e si l e n t o n t h e
Constitution as self executing, rather than as requiring
degree of preferen tial ri gh t to be accorded a qualified
future legisla tion for their enforcemen t. If the y are no t
Filipino bidder. However, the y cannot be read to mean
treated as self- executing, the manda te of the
that they do not grant any degree of preference to
fundamental law ratified by the sovereign people can be
petitioner for Par. 2, Sec. 10, Art. XII of the Constitution is
easily ignored and nullified by Congress. Case law also
deemed part of said rules and regulations. I submit that
lays down the rule that a constitutional provision is not
the right of preference of petitioner arises only if it tied
self-executing where it merely announces a policy and
th e bi d of Re no n g Be rh ad . In tha t in stan ce , a ll th in gs
its language empowers the Legislature to prescribe the
stand equal, and petitioner, as a qualified Filipino bidder
mean s by whi ch the poli cy shall be carr ied into effect.
should be preferred. Under the rules, the right to match
The first paragraph of Section 10 is not self-executing.
the highest bid arises only "if for any reason, the highest
By its express text, there is a categorical command for
bidder cannot be awarded the block of shares" No reason
Congress to enact laws restricting foreign ownership in
has arisen that will prevent the award to Renong Berhad.
certain areas of investments in the country and to
It qualified as a bidder. It complied with the procedure of
encourage the formation and operation of wholly-owned
b i d d i n g . I t wa s d e cl a r e d a s th e h i gh e st b i d d e r b y th e
Filipino enterprises. The second and third paragraphs of
GSIS and the rules say this decision is final. It deserves
Section 10 are different. They are directed to the State
the a ward as a ma tter of right for the rules clearl y did
and not to Congress alone which is but one of the three
not give to the petitioner as a qualified Filipino the
great branches of our government. Their coverage is also
privilege to match the higher bid of a foreigner. What the
broader for they cover "the national economy and
rules did not grant, petitioner cannot demand.
patrimony" and "foreign investments within [the]
- Petitioner is estopped from assailing the winning bid of
n a ti on a l ju ri sd i ctio n " a nd n ot me re l y "ce r ta i n ar ea s o f
Renong Berhad. It knew that the rules and regulations do
investments." Their language does not suggest that any
not provide that qualified Filipino bidder can match the
of the State agency or instrumentality has the privilege
winning bid after submitting an inferior bid. It knew that
to hedge or to refuse its implementation for any reason
the bid was open to foreigners and that foreigners
wh a tso ev er. Th ei r du t y to i mp l em en t i s un co nd i ti on al
qualified even during the first bidding. Petitioner cannot
and it is now.
be allowed to obey the rules when it wins and disregard
- The second issue is whether the sale of a majority of
them when it loses.
the stocks of the Manila Hotel Corporation involves the
disposition of part of our national patrimony. The records
PANG ANIBAN [dissent]
of the Constitutional Commission show that the
Commissioners entertained the same view as to its
- The majority contends the Constitution should be
meaning.
According
to
Commissioner
Nolledo,
interpreted to mean that, after a bidding process is
"patrimony" refers not only to our rich natural resources
concluded, the losing Filipino bidder should be given the
but also to the cultural heritage of our race. The unique
right to equal the highest foreign bid, and thus to win. No
value of the Manila Hotel to our history and culture
statute empowers a losing Filipino bidder to increase his
canno t be viewed wi th a m yopic eye. The value of the
bid and equal that of the winning foreigner. In the
hotel goes beyond pesos and centavos. The Hotel may
absence of such empowering law, the majority's strained
not, as yet, have been declared a national cultural
interpretation,
I
respectfully
submit,
constitutes
treasure pursuant to Republic Act No. 4846 but that does
unadulterated judicial legislation, which makes bidding a
not exclude it from our national patrimony.
Consti into production-sharing agreements except smallscale mining leases and those pertaining to sand, gravel
and quarr y resour ces cover an area of 20 hectare s or
less. The latter laid down the Procedural Guidelines on
t h e Awa r d o f M i n e r a l P r o d u c t i o n S h a r i n g Ag r e e m e n t
Through Negotiation (MPSA).
- It is for these AOs that the MAP, Inc. filed the petition
- The y contend that:
o The issuance of the AOs was in excess of his rulemaking power under EO279
o The AOs violate the non-impa irmen t of contra ct
provision under Art 3, Sec 10 of the 1987 Consti
as
REPUBLIC V QUASHA
REYES; August 17, 1972
FACTS
- The case involves a judicial determination of the scope
and duration of the rights acquired by American citizens
an d co rp or a tio n s con tr ol l ed b y the m u nd er the Par i ty
Am en d me n t a pp en de d to th e Co n sti tu ti on as o f Se p t.
18, 1946
- William Quasha is an American citizen who
pu rcha sed a l an d in F or be s Par k o n Nov.26 ,19 54 . He
filed a petition on March 1968 where he averred the
acqu i si tio n of the sa id la nd ; th a t the R P cl ai m ed th a t
upon expiration of the Parity Amendment (PA) on July 3,
1974, rights acquired by US citizens shall cease; that this
claim affects his right and interest and that the
uncertainty as to the status of his property after the PA
e nd s r ed uce s the p ro pe r tys val ue an d pr ecl ud e s hi m
f r o m h a v i n g i m p r o v e m e n t s m a d e o n i t ; a n d s o he
c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e o w n e rs h ip o f p r o p e r t ie s d u r in g
the effectivit y of the PA continues despite its
terminat ion
- Sol.Gen. An tonio Barredo: land acquired by Quasha
i s p r i v a te a gr i . l a n d a n d t h a t th e a c qu i si ti o n v i o l a te d
Sec .5 Ar t . XII I of the Constitution which prohibits the
t r a n s f e r o f p r i v a t e a g r i cu l t u r a l l a n d t o n o n - F i l i p i n o s
except by hereditary succession ; and assuming validity
of acqu i si tio n , h i s ri gh ts acqu i re d thr ou gh th e PA wi l l
expire on July 3, 1974
- CFI: rendered decision in favor of plaintiff, holding that
acquisition was valid and he has a right to continue in
ownership of property even beyond July 1974.
Thus, this appeal.
ISSUES
1. W ON by virtue of the so-called PA to the Philippine
Constitution Quasha could validly acquire ownership of
the private residential land which is concededly
classified private agricultural land
2 . On t h e a ssu m p t i o n th a t Qu a sh a s p u r ch a se o f th e
private agricultural land is valid and constitutional, WON
his rights will expire on July 3, 1974
g o o d s a n d s e r v i c e s , i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . W ON E O 2 9 6
violate the following constitutional provisions:
a. constitutional mandate to conserve and develop the
national patrimony stated in the Preamble of the 1987
Constitution
b . r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e o w n e r sh i p a n d a c q u i si t i o n o f
alienable lands of the public domain to Filipino citizens
c. there is preference for Filipino citizens in the grant
o f r i g h t s , p r i v i l e g e s a n d c o n c e s s i o n s co v e r i n g t h e
national economy and patrimony
d. WON there is protection given to Filipino enterprises
against unfair competition and trade practices
e. WON there is guarantee of the right of the people to
information on all matters of public concern
f. W ON there is declaration of the state policy of full
publi c disclo sure of all tran saction s involvin g publi c
interest
HELD
1 . NO, the Roponggi proper ty is public domain. As
property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside
the commerce of man. It cannot be alienated. Its
ownership is a special collective ownership for general
use and enjoyment, an application to the satisfaction of
collective needs, and resides in the social group.
2. The Court does not ordinarily pass upon constitutional
questions unless these questions are properly raised in
appropriate cases and their resolution is necessary for
the determination of the case. The Court will not pass
upon a constitutional question although properly
presented by the record if the case can be disposed of
on some other ground such as the application of a
statute or general law.
D e ci si on Petitions are GRANTED. A writ of prohibition is
issued enjoining the respondents from proceeding with
the sale of the Roppongi property in Tokyo, Japan.
whatsoever
- the proposed creation by the admininstratix in favor of
the testator s wido w of a usufruct over 1/3 of the free
portion of the testators estate cannot be made where it
will run counter to the testators express will. The Court
erred for Marcelle who is entitled to of the estate en
pleno dominio as her legitime and which is more than
what she is given under the will is not entitled to have
a n y a d d i ti o n a l sh a r e i n th e e sta te . To gi v e M a r ce l l e
more than her legitime will run counter to the testator s
intention for as stated above his disposition even
impaired her legitime and tended to favor Wanda.
b. Vulgar substitutions are valid because dying before
the testator is not the only case where a vulgar
substitution can be made. Also, according to Art 859 CC,
cases also include refusal or incapacity to accept
inheritance therefore it is VALID.
BUT fideico mmi ssar y substi tu tion s are VOID becau se
Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horace Ramirez are not related
to W ande an d accor d in g to Ar t 86 3 CC , i t val id a te s a
f id ei com m i ssa r y su b sti tu ti on p rov id ed tha t su ch
substitution d o e s n o t g o b e y o n d o n e d e g r e e from the
47
Art 900 CC: If the only survivor is the widow or widower, she or he shall
be entitled to of the hereditary estate
48
h e i r o r i g i n a l l y i n st i tu te d . An o th e r i s t h a t th e r e i s n o
a b so lu te d u t y im p o se d o n W an d a to t r a n sm it th e
usufru ctua r y to the sub stitute s and in fact the apellee
agrees that the testator contradicts the establishment of
the f id ei com m i ssa r y sub sti tu tio n wh en he pe rm i ts th e
properties be subject to usufruct to be sold upon mutual
agreement of the usufructuaries and naked owners.
c. YES, usufruct of Wanda is VALID
49
- Art XIII
Se c 5 (1935): Save in ca ses of heredi tar y
succession, no private agricultural land shall be
t r a n sf e r r e d o r a s si gn e d ex ce p t to i n d i v i d u a l s ,
corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold
50
CRUZ V NCIP
PER CURIAM; December 20, 2000
(SEE DIGEST UNDER DOMINIUM AND
IMPERIUM)
LA BUGAL TRIBAL ASSOCIATION V
WESTERN MINING CORPORATION
PHILIPPINES
CARPIO-MORALES; January 29, 2004
FACTS
- Marivic M.V.F. Leonen, et. al for petitioners
- SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in Supreme Court. Mandamus
and Prohibition.
- Assailed is the constitutionality of RA 7942, otherwise
known as the PHILIPPINE MINING ACT OF 1995, along
49
[removed agricultural] l a n d s s h a l l b e t r a n s f e r r e d o r c o n v e y e d [ 1 9 3 5 :
assigned] except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain [removed in the Philippines].
w i th t h e Im p l e m e n t i n g R u l e s a n d R e gu l a t i o n s i ssu e d
pursuant thereto, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order 96-40,
and of the Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement
(FTAA) entered into on March 30, 1995 by the Republic
of the Philippines and Western Mining Corporation
(Philippines), Inc. (WMCP), a corporation organized under
Philippine laws.
- July 25, 1987 President Aquino issued EO 279
authorizing the DENR Secretary to accept, consider and
evaluate proposals from foreign-owned corporations or
foreign investors for contracts of agreements involving
ei ther te chni cal or financia l assistance for lar ge- sca le
ex pl or a tio n , d evel op me n t, an d u ti li za tio n of m in er a l s,
which, upon appropriate recommendation of the
Secre tar y, the Presiden t ma y execu te wi th the foreign
proponent. In entering into such proposals, the President
sh a l l co n si d e r th e r e a l co n t r i b u ti o n s to t h e e co n o m i c
gro wth and gene ral welfare of the coun tr y tha t wil l be
reali zed, as well as the development and use of lo cal
scientific and technical resources that will be promoted
by the proposed contract or agreement. Until Congress
shall determine otherwise, large-scale mining, for
purpose of this Section, shall mean those proposals for
con tra cts or a greemen ts for minera l re source s
e x p l o r a t i o n , d ev e l o p m e n t , a n d u ti l i za t i o n i n v o l v i n g a
co mm i tte d ca p i ta l i n a si n gl e mi n in g un i t p ro je ct o f a t
least Fifty Million Dollars in United States currency (US
$50,000,000.00).
- M ar ch 3 , 19 95 Pre sid en t Ra mo s ap pr ove d 7 94 2 to
g o v e r n t h e e x p l o r a t i o n , d e v e l o p m e n t , u t i l i za t i o n a n d
p ro ce ssi n g o f a ll mi ne ra l r e so ur ce s. R A 7 94 2 d ef in es
m o d e s o f m i n e r a l a g r e e m e n t s f o r m i n i n g o p e r a ti o n s,
outlines the procedure for filing and approval,
a s s i g n m e n t / t r a n sf e r, a n d w i t h d r a w a l , a n d f i x e s th e i r
terms. These also apply to FTAAs.
- The law also prescribes the contractors qualifications,
grants ce rta in rights su ch as timber, wa ter, easemen t
rights and right to possess explosives. Surface owners or
occupants are forbidden from preventing holders of
mining rights from entering private lands and concession
a r e a s . A p r o ce d u r e fo r se tt l e m e n t o f co n f l i ct s i s a l so
provided for.
- The Act restricts conditions for exploration, quarry and
other permits. It regulates the transport, sale and
processing of minerals, and promotes the development
of mining communities, science and mining technology,
and safety and environmental protection.
- The governments share in the agreements is spelled
out and allocated, taxes and fees are imposed,
incentives granted. Aside from penalizing certain acts,
the law likewise specifies grounds for the cancellation,
revocation and termination of agreements and permits.
- April 9, 1995 RA 7942 took effect.
- March 30, 1995 Shortl y before RA 7942 took effect,
the President entered into and FTAA with WMCP covering
99,387 hectares of land in South Cotabato, Sultan
Kudarat, Davao del Sur and North Cotabato.
It al lo ws fu ll y for ei gn o wn ed
co r p o r a ti o n s to e x p l o r e , d ev e l o p , u ti l i ze a n d
exploit mineral resources in a manner contrary
to Art. XII, sec. 2, par. 4, 1987 Constitution
- B e c a u s e o f t h i s , t h e D E N R S e c r e t a r y, b y O r d e r o f
December 18, 2001, approved the transfer and
registration of the subject FTAA from WMCP to
S a g i t t a r i u s . S a i d O r d e r , h o w e v e r, w a s a p p e a l e d b y
Lepanto Con solida ted Minin g Co . (Lepan to). Be cause
there is no final judgment yet, the case cannot be
considered moot.
ISSUES
1. WON case is justiciable
2. WON EO 279 took effect
3. WON the WMCP FTAA is constitutional
4. WON RA 7942 is constitutional
HELD
1. Case is justiciable.
Ratio In cases involving constitutional questions, the
Court is not concerned with whether petitioners are real
p a r ti e s i n i n t e r e s t , b u t w i t h w h e t h e r th e y h a v e l e g a l
standing.
- Petitioners traverse a wi de ran ge of sector s. Among
t h e m a r e L a Bu ga l B L a a n Tri b a l Ass o ci a ti o n , I n c ., a
farmers and indigenous peoples cooperative organized
under Philippine laws representing a community actually
affected by the mining activities of WMCP, members of
said cooperative, as well as other residents of areas also
affected by the mining activities of W MCP. Even if they
are not the actual parties in the contract, they claim that
they will suffer irremediable displacement as a result
of the FTAA allowing WMCP to conduct mining activities
in their area of residence.
- And although RA 7942 and DAO 96-40 were not in force
when the subject FTAA was entered into, the question as
to their validity is ripe for adjudication. RA 7942
explicitly makes certain provisions apply to pre-existing
arrangements. The WMCP FTAA also provides that any
t e r m a n d c o n d i t i o n f a v o r a b l e t o F T AA c o n t r a c t o r s
resul tin g from a la w or re gula tion sha ll be considered
part of the agreement.
- The petition for prohibition and mandamus is also the
appropriate remedy. Public respondents, in behalf of the
Government, have obligations to fulfill under said
contract. Petitioners seek to prevent them from fulfilling
such obligations on the theory that the contract is
unconstitutional and, therefore, void.
- The contention tha t the filing of the peti tion viola tes
the rule on hierarchy of courts does not likewise lie. The
repercussions of the issues in this case on the Philippine
mining industry, if not the national economy, as well as
the novel ty thereof , consti tute exceptional and
compelling circumstances to justify resort to this Court in
the first instance. Indeed, when the issues raised are of
paramount importance to the public, this Court may
brush aside technicalities of procedure.
2. YES.
Ratio
When the issues raised are of paramount
i m p o r t a n ce t o t h e p u b l i c , t h e C o u r t m a y b r u s h a s i d e
technicalities of procedure.
- P e t i t i o n e r s co n te n d t h a t EO 2 7 9 d i d n o t t a ke e ffe c t
because its supposed date of effectivity came after
President Aquino had already lost her legislative powers
under the Provisional Constitution. But it was explained
that the convening of the first Congress merely
precluded the exercise of legislative powers by the
President it did not prevent the effectivity of laws she
had previously enacted.
3. NO.
Ratio
The convening of the first Congress merely
precluded the exercise of legislative powers by the
President and did not prevent the effectivity of laws she
had previously enacted.
In accordan ce with Ar t. XII, sec. 2 of the con stitu tion ,
F T AA s s h o u l d b e l i m i t e d t o t e c h n i c a l o r f i n a n c i a l
assistance only. However, contrary to the language of
the Constitution, the WMCP FTAA allows WMCP, a fully
foreign-owned mining corporation, to extend more than
mere financial or technical assistance to the State, for it
permits WMCP to manage and operate every aspect of
the mining activity.
- W MCP nevertheless submits that the word technical
encompasses a broad number of possible services,
perhaps, scientific and/or technological in basis. It thus
posits that it may well include the area of management
a n d o p e r a t i o n s . T h e C o u r t i s n o t p e r s u a d e d . Casus
omisus pro omisso habendus est a person, object or
thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to have
been omitted intentionally. Moreover, the management
or operation of mining activities by foreign contractors,
whi ch is the primar y feature of service contracts, was
precisely the evil that the drafters of the 1987
Constitution sought to eradicate.
- Respondents insist that agreements involving
technical or financial assistance is just another term for
s e r v i c e co n t r a c t s . T h e p r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e C O N C O M
indicate
that
the
members
used
the
terms
interchangeabl y. The Court is like wise not persuaded.
W hile ce rta in comm issioner s ma y have men tioned the
term service contracts, they may have been using the
term loosely and not in the context of the 1973
Con stitu tion . Al so, the phra se service contra cts has
b ee n de le ted in the 1 98 7 Co nstitu tion s Ar ticle on
N a t i o n a l E c o n o m y a n d P a t r i m o n y. I f t h e C O N C O M
intended to retain the concept of service contracts under
the 1973 Constitution, it could have simply adapted the
old terminology instead of employing new and unfamiliar
terms (agreements involving either technical or
financial assistance).
- The UP Law Draft and Article XII, as adopted, uses the
same terminologies. And the UP Law draft proponents
viewed service contracts under the 1973 Constitution as
grants of beneficial ownership of the countr ys natural
resources to foreign owned corporations. W hile, in
t h e o r y, th e St a t e o w n s t h e se n a tu r a l r e so u r ce s a n d
Filipino citizens, their beneficiaries service contracts
actually vested foreigners with the right to dispose,
explore for, develop, exploit, and utilize the same. This
arrangement
is
clearly
incompatible
with
the
which side wins, the FTAA would still be in the hands of a
constitutional ideal of nationali zation of natural
qualified Filipino company.
resources.
But
the
proponents
nevertheless
- The word involving signifies the possibility of
acknowledged the need for capital and technical knowinclusion of other activities. If the intention of the
ho w in th e la r ge- sca le ex pl oi ta tio n , d eve lo pm en t an d
drafters were strictly to confine foreign corporations to
utilization of natural resources. Hence, they proposed a
financial or technical assistance and nothing more, their
compromise technical or financial agreements.
language would have been unmistakably restrictive and
4. NO, insofar as said Act authorizes service contracts.
stringent.
Ratio
Finan cial or techn ical a greements as
- The pre sent Constitution still recogni ze s and allo ws
con temp lated in Art. XII, se c. 2 sha ll refer to financial
service con tra cts (and has no t rendered the m taboo) ,
agreements and/or technical agreements only and not to
albeit sub ject to several restrictions and modifications
service contracts.
aimed at avoiding pitfalls of the past.
- Although the statute employs the phrase financial and
- I n t h e m i n d s o f t h e co m m i s si o n e r s , t h e co n ce p t o f
te ch ni ca l a gre e me n ts , i t a ctua l l y tr ea ts th e se
te chnica l and financial assi stan ce a greements did no t
a gre e me n ts a s se r vi ce co n tr a cts th a t gr an t be ne fi cia l
exist at all apart from the concept of service contracts
ownership
to
foreign
contractors
contrary
to
duly modified to prevent abuses technical and
fundamental law.
financial agreements were understood by the delegates
De ci sio n
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The
to i n cl u d e se r v i ce co n t r a c ts d u l y m o d i f i e d t o p r ev e n t
Court hereby declares unconstitutional and void:
abuses.
1)The following provision of RA 7942
- C u r r e n t b u si n e ss p r a c ti ce s of te n r e q u i r e b o r r o we r s
a) The proviso in Section 3 (aq)
seeking huge loans to allow creditors access to financial
b) Section 23,
records and other data, and probably a seat or two on
c) Section 33 to 41,
the formers board of directors, or at least some
d) Section 56,
participation in certain management decisions that may
e) The second and third paragraphs
have an impact on the financial health or the long-term
of Section 81, and
viability of the debtor, which of course will directly affect
f)
Section 90.
the latters capacity to repay its loans.
2 ) All pr ovi sio n s of D AO 9 6- 4 0, s. 1 99 6
- If the Supreme Court closes its doors to international
wh i ch a r e n o t i n co n f o r m i t y wi t h th i s D e c i si o n ,
r e a l i t i e s a n d u n i l a te r a l l y se t s u p i t s o wn co n ce p t s o f
and
s tr i ct te ch n i ca l a n d f i n a n ci a l a s si sta n ce , th e n i t m a y
3)The FTAA between the Government of
unwittingly make the country a virtual hermit an
the Republic of the Philippines and WMC
economic isolationist in the real world of finance.
Philippines, Inc.
- The commissioners fully realized that their work would
Vot i n g 8 concur including ponente, 5 dissent, 1 took
h a v e t o w i t h s t a n d t h e te s t o f t i m e , th a t t h e C h a r t e r,
no part
though crafted with the wisdom born of past experiences
and lessons painfully learned, would have to be a living
SEPARATE OPINION
d o cu m e n t th a t w o u l d a n sw e r th e n e e d s o f t h e n a ti o n
well into the future.
VITUG
- It could not have been the object of the framers of the
Charter to limit the contracts which the President may
enter into, to mere agreements for financial and
technical assistance; The Constitution has not prohibited
the State from itself exploring, developing, or utili zing
the countrys natural resources, and, for this purpose, it
may, enter into the necessary agreements with
individuals or entities in the pursuit of a feasible
operation.
PANGANIBAN
- T h e p e t i t i o n s h o u l d b e d i sm i s s e d o n th e g r o u n d o f
mootness. The dispute claiming the right to purchase the
foreign shares in WMCP is between two Filipino
companies (Sagittarius and Lepanto). So regardless of
RESOLUTION
PANGANIBAN; December 1, 2004
FACTS
- Marivic M.V.F. Leonen, et. al for petitioners
- SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in Supreme Court. Mandamus
and Prohibition
- Ponente: Panganiban, J. (take note: major dissenter in
part1)
- All mine ral resour ces are owned by the Sta te . Their
ex p l o r a ti o n , d e ve l o p m e n t a n d u t i l i za t i o n ( E D U ) m u st
always be subject to the full control and supervision of
th e S ta te . M o r e sp e ci f i ca l l y, g i v e n th e i n a d e qu a c y o f
Filipino capital and technology in large-scale EDU
activities, the State may secure the help of foreign
companies in all relevant matters especially financial
and technical assistance provided that, at all times, the
State maintains its right of full control. The foreign
b e i n f u l l f o r ce a n d e ffe ct a r e co n t a i n e d i n Se ct i o n
force and effect, except insofar as inconsistent with
operates; second, ERC must consider the comments or
16(c), which states thus:
this order. (Words in parenthesis supplied).
p le ad in gs of the cu sto me r s an d LGU con ce rn ed i n i ts
Section 16. Proceedings of the C om m i ssio n , u po n
- Furthermore, under Sec. 80, only three specific laws
action on the application or motion for provisional rate
notice and hearing.
were expressly repealed or modified. Sec. 8 of EO No.
adjustmen t. Sin ce the IRR wa s issued pursuan t to the
The Commission shall have power, upon proper notice
172 and Section 16(c) of CA No. 146 which both grant
EPIRA, Sec. 4(e) of Rule 3 as part of the IRR has the force
and hearing in accordance with the rules and
the regulatory body concerned the authority to approve
and effect of law and thus should have been complied
provision s of thi s Act, sub je ct to the limi tations and
provisional rate increases are not among the provisions
with.
ex ce p tio n s me n tio ne d an d sa vi n g p rov isi on s to th e
expressly repealed or modified. This clearly indicates the
- In view of the infirmities which attended the November
contrary:
laws intent to transfer the power to ERC.
27, 2003 Order, particularly: 1) the failure of MERALCO
xxx xxx xxx
- Be it noted that implied repeals are not favored in our
to publish its Application or at least a summary thereof;
c) To fix and de termine individual or jo int rate s, toll
jurisdiction. Thus, a statute will not be deemed to have
2 ) t h e f a i l u r e o f E R C t o r e s o l v e t h e Mo tio n s fo r
charges, classifications, or schedules thereof, as well
been impliedly repealed by another enacted subsequent
Production of Docu ments f i l e d b y t h e o p p o s i t o r s t o
as commutation, mileage, kilometrage, and other
thereto unless there is a showing that a plain,
MERALCOs Application before acting on the motion for
special rates which shall be imposed, observed, and
unavoidable, and irreconcilable repugnancy exists
provisional rate adjustment; and 3) the failure of the ERC
follo wed thereafte r by an y publi c service : Provided,
between the two.
to consider the ar gumen ts raised by the oppositor s in
That the Commission may, in its discretion, approve
- Likewise, it may not be asserted with success that the
their respective pleadin gs prior to the issuance of the
ra tes propo sed by publi c service s provisional l y and
power to grant provisional rate adjustments runs counter
assailed Order, the Cour t decla res void the November
w i th o u t n e ce ssi t y o f a n y h e a r i n g ; b u t i t sh a l l ca l l a
to the statutory construction guide provided in Sec. 75 of
27, 2003 Order of the ERC for having been issued with
h e a r i n g t h e r e o n w i t h i n t h i r t y d a ys t h e r e a f te r, u p o n
the l a w. Thi s se ctio n or da in s th a t th e EPIR A sh al l b e
grave abuse of discretion.
publication and notice to the concerned parties
co n s tr u e d i n f a v o r of m a r ke t co m p e t i t i o n a n d p e o p l e
operating in the territor y affected: Provided, further,
power empowerment, thereby ensuring the widest
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V
That in case public service equipment of an operator is
par ticipation of the people. To the Cour t, the goals of
used principally or secondarily for the promotion of a
m ar ke t com pe ti ti on an d p eo pl e em po we r me n t a re n o t
ROSEMOOR MINING AND DEVELOPMENT
private business, the net profits of said private
negated by the ERCs exercise of authority to approve
CORPORATION
business shall be considered in relation with the public
pr ovi sio na l r a te ad ju stme n ts. The con cer n s a re ta ke n
PANGANIBAN; March 30, 2004
service of such operator for the purposes of fixing the
care of by Sec. 43 of the EPIRA and its IRR. Again for
rates.
one, even if the re is a ground to gran t the provi sional
FACTS
- Similarly, Sections 8 and 14 of EO No. 172 or the ERB
rate increase, the ERC may do so only after the
- The petitioners, after having been granted permission
Charter continue to be in full force by virtue of Sections
publication requirement is met and the consumers
to prospect for marble deposits in the mountains of Biak4 4 a n d 8 0 o f th e E P I R A . Sa i d p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e E R B
affected are given the opportunity to present their side.
na-Ba to , su cceeded in di scovering marble deposits in
Charter read:
For another, the rate increase is provisional in character
Mount Mabio, which forms part of Biak-na-bato mountain
SEC. 8. Authority to Grant Provisional Relief. The
and therefore may be modified or even recalled anytime.
range. The petitioners then applied with the Bureau of
Board may, upon the filing of an application, petition
Finally, the ERC is mandated to prescribe a rate-setting
Mines for the issuance of the corresponding license to
o r co mp l ai n t o r a t an y sta ge the r ea f te r an d wi tho u t
m e th o d o l o g y i n t h e p u b l i c i n te r e st a n d to p r o m o te
exploit said marble deposits. License No. 33 was granted
prior hearing, on the basi s of the supporting papers
e f f i c i e n c y. F o r t h a t m a t t e r , t h e r e i s a p l e t h o r a o f
to them. Shortl y after respondent Ernesto Maceda was
duly verified or authenticated, grant provisional relief
provisions in Sec. 43 and related sections which seek to
a p p o i n t e d M i n i s t e r o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f E n e r g y, h e
on motion of a party in the case or on its own
promote public interest, market competition, and
cance lled the peti tione r s licen se throu gh his le tte r to
i ni ti a tiv e, wi tho u t p re ju d i ce to a f in al d eci sio n af te r
consumer protection.
Rosemoor Mining and Development Corporation dated
h e a r i n g , sh o u l d th e B o a r d f i n d t h a t t h e p l e a d i n g s ,
- All the foregoing undeniably lead to the conclusion that
Semptember 6, 1986. Because of the cancellation, the
to ge the r wi th su ch affi da vi ts, do cu me n ts a nd o th e r
the ERC, under Sections 43(u), 44, and 80 of the EPIRA,
original petition was filed on August 21, 1991.
ev id en ce wh i ch m a y be sub m i tted i n su pp o r t of the
in relation to Sec. 16(c) of the Publ ic Service Act and
- The tr ial cour t granted the pe tition and said that the
motion, substantially support of the provisional order;
Se c. 8 of EO. No . 17 2, po sse sse s the p o wer to gra n t
privilege granted under the license had already ripened
Provided, That the Board shall immediately schedule
provi sional ra te ad justmen ts sub je ct to the procedure
into a property right, thus the cancellation of the license
and conduct a hearing thereon within thirty (30) days
laid down in these laws as well as in the IRR.
without notice or hearing was against the Constitutional
thereafter, upon publication and notice to all affected
2. Yes. It is settled that there is grave abuse of discretion
right of the petitioners against deprivation of their
parties.
when an act is done
property rights. It was unjustified because that could be
SEC. 14. App l i ca bi l i ty C la u se The applicability
contrary to the Constitution, the law, or jurisprudence, or
covered by four separate applica tion i s 400 hecta res.
(applicable) provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 146,
when executed whimsicall y, capriciously, or arbitraril y
F i n a l l y, t h e y r u l e d t h a t P r o c l a m a t i o n N o . 8 4 , w h i c h
as amended, otherwise known as the Public Service
out of malice, ill will, or personal bias. W hat makes the
confirmed the cancellation of the license, was an ex post
Act; Republic Act No. 6173, as amended, otherwise
challenged Order pa r ti cu la r l y r ep u gn an t i s th a t i t
f a c t o l a w. T h u s , t h e y w e r e a l l o w e d to co n t i n u e t h e i r
known as the Oil Industry Commission Act; Republic
involves a bla tant and inexcusab le breach of the very
operations until the expiration of their license.
Act No. 6395, as amended, revising the charter of the
rule which the ERC is mandated to observe and
- On appeal, the CA held that the grant of quary license
National Power Corporation under CA 120; Presidential
i mp l em en t. Th e vio la ted pr ovi sio n wh i ch is Se c. 4 (e ) ,
c o v e r i n g 3 3 0 .3 0 6 2 h e c t a r e s t o t h e r e sp o n d e n t s w a s
Decree No. 269, as amended, also referred to as the
Rule 3 of the IRR specifies how the ERC should exercise
valid because it was covered by four separate
National Electrification Administration Decree, and
its power to issue provisional orders pursuant to Sec. 44
applications, each for an area of 81 hectares. Moreover,
Presidential Decree No. 1206, as amended, creating
in relation to Sec. 80 of the EPIRA. First, the application
it held that the limitation under PD 463 - that any quarry
the Department of Energy, shall continue to have full
for rate increase must be published in a newspaper of
license should not cover not more than 100 hectares in
ge ne ra l ci r cu l a tio n in th e lo cal i t y whe r e the a pp li can t
- Pr o c N o . 8 4 i s a l so n o t a b i l l o f a tt a i n d e r s i n ce t h e
declaration of the license as a nullity is not a declaration
of guilt. Neither is the cancellation a punishment within
th e pu rvi e w of th e con sti tu tio na l p ro scri p tio n a gai n st
bills of attainder.
- Proclamation No. 84 is also not an ex post facto law. It
does not fall under the six recognized instances when a
law is considered as such. Also, an ex post facto law is
limited in its scope only to matters criminal in nature.
D e ci si on Petition granted
HELD
1. No. With the shift of constitutional policy (Art 12 Sec
2) toward full control and supervision of the State over
natural resources the Court in Miners Association of the
DIDIPIO EARTHSAVERS ASSOCIATION V
Philippines vs Factoran declared the provisions of PD 463
as contrary to the Constitution.
SECRETARY
- RA 7942 or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 embodies
CHICO-NAZARIO; March 30,2006
the new constitutional
mandate. It has repealed all laws that are inconsistent
FACTS
wi th an y of i ts p rov i si on s. Ho we ve r, i t do es n o t ap pl y
- N a t u r e Prohibition and mandamus
r e tr o a c ti v e l y to a l i ce n se g r a n t e d b y th e go v e r n m e n t
- Assails the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7942
under the 1973 Constitution. The Court therefore needs
otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995,
to determine W ON the license of the respondents falls
together with the Implementing Rules and Regulations
within the type of licenses wherein the new law cannot
i s su e d p u r su a n t th e r e to , D e p a r tm e n t o f En v i r o n m e n t
be applied.
and Natural Resources (DENR) Administrative Order No.
2. No. The license granted to the petitioners is subject to
96-40, s. 1996.
the terms and conditions of PD 463. Proclamation No.
- 25 July 1987 ~ President Aquino promulgated EO No.
2202, which awarded the license to Rosemoor, expressly
27 9 wh i ch a u th or i ze d the D ENR Se cr e ta r y to a cce p t,
states that the grant is subject to existing policies, laws,
co n si d e r a n d e v a l u a te p r o p o sa l s fr o m f o r e i gn - o w n e d
r ul e s an d re gu la ti on s . The li cen se i s thu s su b je ct to
corporations or foreign investors for contracts of
Section 69 of PD 463, which states that a license cannot
agreements involving either technical or financial
cover more than 100 hectares in any one province. The
assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and
l a w d o e s n o t p r o v i d e a n y e x ce p ti o n to th e n u m b e r o f
utilization of minerals, which, upon appropriate
a pp li ca tio n s fo r a l i ce n se . Mo re ov er, the l i ce n se wa s
r e co m m e n d a ti o n of th e Se cr e ta r y, th e Pr e si d e n t m a y
i s s u e d so l e l y i n t h e n a m e o f R o s e m o o r e M i n i n g a n d
execute with the foreign proponent.
Development Corporation, rather than the four individual
- 3 March 1995 ~ President Ramos signed into law Rep.
stockholders.
Act No. 7942 entitled, An Act Instituting A New System
3. Yes. Citing Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining
of Mineral Resources Exploration, Development,
Corporation vs. Balite Portal Mining Cooperative, Tan vs.
Utili zation and Conservation, other wise known as the
Director of Forestry and Ysmael vs. Executive Secretary,
Philippine Mining Act of 1995.
the Court ruled that licenses may be revoked by
- 15 Au gu st 19 95 ~ D EN R Se cr e tar y Victo r O. Ra mo s
e x e c u t i v e a c t i o n w h e n n a t i o n a l i n te r e s t so r e q u i r e s ,
issued DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 23, Series
because it is not a contract, property or a property right
of 1995, containing the implementing guidelines of Rep.
protected by the due process clause. The license merely
Act No. 7942.
evidences the privile ge granted by the sta te and does
- 23 January 1997 ~ DAO No. 96-40, s. 1996, which took
not vest any permanent or irrevocable right. The license
effect on after due publication superseded DAO No. 23,
likewise contains a provision which says that the license
s.1995.
m a y b e re v o ke d o r c a n c e l l e d a t a n y t i m e b y t h e
- Previously, however, or specifically on 20 June 1994,
Director of Mines and Geo-Sciences when in his opinion,
Pre si de n t R am o s exe cu ted an FTAA wi th AM C ove r a
public interest so require. As to the exercise of
total land area of 37,000 hectares covering the
p r e r o g a t i v e b y M a ce d a , su ff i ce to sa y t h a t w h i l e th e
provinces of Nueva Vizcaya and Quirino. Included in this
cancellation or revocation of the license is vested in the
area is Barangay Dipidio, Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya.
s a i d d i r e c to r, t h e l a t t e r i s su b j e c t to th e d e p a r t m e n t
- Subsequently, AMC consolidated with Climax Mining
head.
Limited to form a single company that now goes under
- Moreover, granting that the license is valid, it may also
the new name of Climax-Arimco Mining Corporation
by revoked by the State in the exercise of police power.
(CAMC), the controlling 99% of stockholders of which are
The exercise of power through Proclamation No. 84 is
Australian nationals.
clearly in accord with jura regalia, which reserves to the
- 7 Se p tem be r 2 00 1 ~ cou n se l s f or p eti ti on er s fi le d a
State ownership of all natural resources.
demand letter addressed to then DENR Secretary
Heherson Alvarez, for the cancellation of the CAMC FTAA
for the pri mar y reason tha t Rep . Act No . 7942 and its
Im p l e m e n t i n g R u l e s a n d R e gu l a t i o n s D AO 9 6 - 4 0 a r e
unconstitutional.
- The Office of the Executive Secretary was also
furnished a copy of the said letter.
- There being no response to both letters, another letter
o f t h e sa m e co n te n t d a te d 1 7 Ju n e 2 0 0 2 w a s se n t to
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
- This le tte r wa s indor sed to the DENR Secre tar y and
ev e n tu a l l y r e f e r r e d to th e Pa n e l of Ar b i tr a to r s o f t h e
Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB), Regional Office
No. 02, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, for further action.
- 12 November 2002 ~ counsels for petitioners received
a letter from the Panel of Arbitrators of the MGB
requiring the petitioners to comply with the Rules of the
Panel of Arbitrators before the letter may be acted upon.
- Yet a g a i n , c o u n s e l s f o r p e t i t i o n e r s s e n t P r e s i d e n t
Arroyo another demand letter dated 8 November 2002.
Said letter was again forwarded to the DENR Secretary
who referred the same to the MGB, Quezon City.
- In a letter dated 19 February 2003, the MGB rejected
the demand of counsels for petitioners for the
cancellation of the CAMC FTAA.
- Petitioners thus filed the present petition for
prohibition and ma ndamus, with a pra ye r for a
t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r. T h e y p r a y t h a t t h e
Court issue an order:
1.
enjoining public respondents
from acting on any application for FTAA;
2.
declaring unconstitutional the
P h i l i p p i n e M i n i n g Ac t o f 1 9 9 5 a n d i t s
Implementing Rules and Regulations;
3.
canceling the FTAA issued to
CAMC.
ISSUES
Procedural
1. W ON the pe titioners' eminent domain claim is a
justiciable issue.
Substantive
2 . W O N R A 7 9 4 2 a n d t h e CAMC FTAA a r e v o i d
b e c a u s e t h e y a l l o w t h e u n j u s t a n d u n l a w f u l ta k i n g o f
property without payment of just compensation, in
violation of Art III Sec 9 of the Constitution
3. W ON the mining act and its implementing rules and
regulations are void and unconstitutional for sanctioning
an
unconstitutional
administrative
process
of
determining just compensation
4. WON the state, through RA 7942 and the CAMC FTAA,
ab di ca te d i ts p ri ma r y r e sp on sib i l i ty to the ful l con tro l
and supervision over natural resources
5. WON the respondents interpretation of the role of the
wholly foreign and foreign-owned corporations in their
involvement in mining enterprises, violates Art XII Sec 2
(4) of the Constitution
6. WON the 1987 Constitution prohibits service contracts
HELD
b.
c.
A l t h o u g h b o t h p o l i c e p o w e r a n d t h e p o w e r o f
eminent domain have the general welfare for their
object, and recent trends show a mingling of the two
wi th the l a tter b ei n g u se d a s an i mp le m en t of th e
former, there are still traditional distinctions
between the two.
Property condemned under police power is usually
noxious or intended for a noxious purpose; hence,
Jurisprudence
shows:
WHERE
A
PROPERTY INTEREST IS MERELY RESTRICTED
BECAUSE THE CONTINUED USE THEREOF WOULD BE
INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC WELFARE, OR WHERE
PROPERTY IS DESTROYED BECAUSE ITS CONTINUED
EXISTENCE WOULD BE INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC
INTEREST, THERE IS NO COMPENSABLE TAKING.
However, WHEN A PROPERTY INTEREST IS
APPROPRIATED AND APPLIED TO SOME PUBLIC
PURPOSE, THERE IS COMPENSABLE TAKING.
In the exerci se of i ts police po wer re gula tion , the
state restricts the use of private property, but none
o f t h e p r o p e r t y i n te r e s t s i n t h e b u n d l e o f r i g h t s ,
which constitute ownership, is appropriated for use
by or for the benefit of the public. (-Bernas)
H a m p e r e d b y t h e d i ffi cu l t i e s a n d d e l a ys i n
securing surface rights for the entry into private
land s for purpo ses of minin g operations,
Presidential Decree No. 512 dated 19 Jul y 1974
was passed into law in order to achieve full and
accelerated mineral resources development.
Thus, Presidential Decree No. 512 provides for a
new system of surface rights acquisition by
mining prospectors and claimants.
b y th e h ol de r of mi ni n g ri gh ts an d th e su r fa ce o wn er,
occupant or concessionaire in accordance to PD 512.
Reasoning and Held/s on the Second Substantive Issue:
3. On the Power of Courts to Determine Just
Compensation
The question on the judicial determination of just
co m p e n sa ti o n h a s b e e n se tt l e d i n t h e ca se of Export
Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay wherein the Court
declared that the determination of just compensation in
eminent domain cases is a judicial function. Even as the
executive department or the legislature may make the
initial determinations, the same cannot prevail over the
courts findings. (NOTE: I think this is the ratio already.)
T h e r e i s n o th i n g w r o n g wi th
the grant of pri mar y jur isdi ction b y the Pane l of
A r b i tr a t o r s o r th e M i n e s Ad j u d i ca t i o n Bo a r d to
determine in a preliminary matter the reasonable
co m p e n sa t i o n d u e t h e a f fe c te d l a n d o w n e r s o r
occupants.
The
jurisdiction
of
the
Regional Trial Courts is not any less original and
exclusive becau se the que stion is fir st passed
upon by the DAR, as the judicial proceedings are
n o t a co n t i n u a t i o n o f t h e a d m i n i s tr a t i v e
determination.
4 . On th e Suffi ci en t Co n tr o l b y th e Sta te Ove r Mi ni n g
Operations
In o th e r wo r d s , t h e F TAA co n tr a ct o r i s n o t
free to do whatever it pleases and get away with
i t ; o n t h e c o n t r a r y, i t w i l l h a v e t o f o l l o w t h e
government line if it wants to stay in the
enterprise. Ineluctably then, RA 7942 and DAO
96-40 vest in the government more than a
sufficient degree of control and supervision over
the conduct of mining operations.
5 . On th e Pr op er In te rp re ta ti on o f th e Co n sti tu ti on a l
Phrase "Agreements Involving Either Technical or
Financial Assistance"
o
The word involving as
used in this context has three connotations that
c a n b e d i ff e r e n t i a te d t h u s : one, t h e s e n s e o f
concerning, having to do with, or affecting;
two, en tai l in g , r e qu i r in g, im p l yi n g or
necessitating;
and
three,
including,
containing or comprising.
- M e a n w h i l e , J u n e 1 3 , 1 9 9 7 , t h e R PA r e s o l v e d t h e
Consolidated Mines cases and decreed in an Omnibus
FACTS
Resolution that the validity of EP No. 133 is reiterated
- Diwalwal Gold Rush Area rich tract of mineral land
and all adverse claims against MPSAA No. 128 are
situated in the Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve. It
dismissed.
is located at Mt. Diwata in the municipalities of Monkayo
- June 24, 1997 the DENR Secretary issued Memorandum
and Cateek in Davao Del Norte. The land has been
Order No. 97-03 which provided among others, that:
embroiled in controversy since mid-80s due to the
a. DENR shall studythe option of direct state
scramble over gold deposits found within its bowels.
utilization of the mineral resources in the Diwalwal
- M ar ch 10 , 1 98 8 , Ma r co pp er Mi ni n g C or po r a tio n wa s
Gold-Rush Area
granted Exploration Permit No. 133 (EP No. 133) over
b . S t u d y sh a l l i n c l u d e s t u d yi n g a n d w e i g h i n g t h e
4 , 4 9 1 h e c t a r e s o f l a n d , w h i ch i n cl u d e d th e D i w a l w a l
feasibility of entering into management agreements
area.
or operating agreements
- June 27, 1991, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 7076
c.Such agreements shall include provisions for profitor the Peoples Small-Scale Mining Act which established
sharing including profit-sharing arrangements with
a People s Small- Scale Mining Pro gra m to be
small-scale miners, as well as the payment of
implemented by the secretary of the DENR and created
royalties to indigenous cultural communities
the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board (PMRB) under the
- July 16, 1997 petitioner SEM filed a special civil action
DENR Secretarys direct supervision and control. It also
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus before the CA
authorized the PMRB to declare and set aside small-scale
for the nullification of Memorandum Order No. 97-03 on
mining areas subject to review by the DENR Secretary
the ground that the di rect state uti li za tion espoused
and award mining contracts to small-scale miners under
therein would effectivel y impair its vested rights under
certain conditions.
EP No. 133, among others
- December 21, 1991, then DENR Secretar y Fulgencio
- January 6, 1998, the MAB rendered a decision in the
Factoran issued Department Administrative Order (DAO)
Consolidated Mines cases, setting aside the judgment of
No. 66 declaring 729 hectares of the Diwalwal area as
the RPA. This decision was then elevated to he Supreme
no n- fo re st l an d op en to sma l l - sca le mi ni n g. Th is wa s
Court by way of consolidated petition.
made pursuant to the powers vested in the DENR
- M a r c h 1 9 , 1 9 9 8 , t h e C A d i s m i s se d p e t i t i o n o f S E M
Secretary by Proclamation No. 369 which established the
ruling that:
Agusan-Davao-Surigao Forest Reserve.
a.DENR Secretary did not abuse his discretion in
- P e t i t i o n f o r t h e ca n ce l l a t i o n o f E P N o . 1 3 3 a n d th e
issuing Memorandum Order No. 97-03 since it was
admission of a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement
merely a directive to conduct studies on the various
( M P S A ) p r o p o sa l o v e r D i w a l w a l w a s f i l e d b e f o r e t h e
options available to the government for solving the
DENR Regional Executive Director (RED Mines Case)
Diwalwal conflict.
- February 16, 1994, while RED mines case was pending,
b .T h e a s s a i l e d m e m o r a n d u m d i d n o t c o n c l u s i v e l y
Marcopper assigned its EP No. 133 to Southeast
adopt
direct
state
utilization
as
official
Mindanao Gold Mining Corporation (SEM), which in turn
government policy on the matter, but was simply a
applied for an integrated MPSA over the land covered by
manifestation of the DENRs intent to consider it as
the permit. The Mines and Geosciences Bureau Regional
one of i ts op tions, after determ ining i ts feasib ili ty
Office No. XI in Davao City (MGB-XI) accepted and
through studies.
registered SEMs integrated MPSA application. Several
c.Petitioners rights under EP No. 133 are not
small-scale miners filed their opposition (MAC cases).
inviolable , sa crosan ct or immu table and , being in
- March 3, 1995, Republic Act No. 7942 or the Philippine
the nature of a privilege granted by the State, the
Mining Act was enacted. Pursuant to this, the MAC cases
permit can be revoked, amended or modified by the
were referred to a Regional Panel of Arbitrators (RPA)
Chief Executive when the national interest so
tasked to resolve disputes involving conflicting mining
requires.
ri gh ts. R PA too k co gn i za n ce of th e R ED M in e s ca se s
- Motion for reconsideration was denied, thus this
which was consolidated with the MAC cases.
petition.
- Ap ri l 1 , 1 99 7 Pro vi nci al Mi ni n g Re gu la tor y Boa rd o f
Davao passed Resolution No. 26, Series of 1997
ISSUES
authorizing the issuance of ore transport permits (OTPs)
1. WON CA erred in upholding the questioned acts of the
to small-scale miners operating in the Diwalwal mines.
DENR Secretar y which petitioner allege as violative of
- May 30, 1997, petitioner SEM filed complaint for
mining laws and in derogation of vested rights of
d am a ge s a ga i n st D EN R Se cr e tar y an d PM R B- D ava o,
petitioner over the area as covered by EP No. 133.
alleging that the illegal issuance of the OTPs allowed the
2. WON CA erred in holding that an action on the validity
extraction and hauling of P60,000 worth of gold ore per
of ore transport permit (OTP) is vested in the Regional
truckload from SEMs mining claim.
Panel of Arbitrators (RPA).
HELD
1. SC agreed with CA that the challenged MO 97-03 did
n o t co n c l u s i v e l y a d o p t d i r e c t s t a t e u t i l i za t i o n a s a
policy in resolving the Diwalwal dispute. The terms of the
m e m o r a n d u m cl e a r l y i n d i ca t e th a t w h a t wa s d i r e ct e d
was merely a study of this option and nothing else. It did
no t gran t an y manage ment/opera tin g or profi t- sharin g
agreement to small-scale miners or to any party, for that
matter, but simply instructed the DENR officials
concerned to undertake studies to determine its
feasibility.
- Petition wa s prema ture . The MO did no t impose any
obligation on the claimants or fix any legal relation
whatsoever between and among the parties to the
dispute. Petitioner can show no more than a mere
apprehension that the State, through the DENR, would
directly take over the mines, and until the DENR actually
does so and petitioners fears turn into reality, no valid
objection can be entertained against MO 97-03 on
grounds which are purely speculative and anticipatory.
2. Whether or not petitioner actually has a vested right
over Diwalwal under EP No. 133 is still an indefinite and
unse ttled ma tter, as the EPs validi ty is s ti ll bein g
disputed in the Consolidated Mines cases.
- W he th e r o r n o t r e sp o n d e n t B a l i te C o m m u n a l Po r ta l
Mining Cooperative (BCPMC) and the other mining
entities it represents are conducting illegal mining
a ctiv i ti e s i s a fa ctu a l ma tte r tha t ha s ye t to b e f in al l y
determined in the Consolidated Mines Cases.
- SC also pointed out that under no circumstances may
petitioners rights under EP No. 133 be regarded as total
and absolute, as EP No. 133 merely evidences a
privilege granted by the State, which may be amended,
modified or rescinded when the national interest so
re quire s. This i s necessaril y so since the explora tion ,
development and utilization of the countrys natural
mineral resources are matters impresses with great
public interest.
- L oo ki n g in t o Ar t i c l e X I I , S e c t i on 2 of t he 19 87
Constitution and Section 4, Chapter II of the Philippine
M i n i n g Ac t o f 1 9 9 5 , t h e S C s a i d t h a t t h e S t a t e m a y
pursue the constitutional policy of full control and
supervision of the exploration, development and
utilization of the countrys natural mineral resources, by
either directly undertaking the same or by entering into
a greemen ts wi th qual ified enti tie s. The State need be
guided only by the demands of public interest.
- In the absence of any concrete evidence that the DENR
Secretary violated the law or abused his discretion, he is
p r e su m e d to h a v e r e gu l a r l y i ssu e d th e m e m o r a n d u m
with a lawful intent and pursuant to his official functions.
- With regard to the second issue, the Court did not rule
on it as the grounds invoked by petitioner for
invalidating the OTPs are inextricably linked to the
issues raised in the Consolidated Mines cases.
D e ci si on Petition was denied; CA ruling affirmed.
a)
P u b l i c u t i l i t y = a business or service
engaged in regularly supplying the public with some
commodity or service of public consequence such as
electricity, water, transportation. The facility must
be necessary for the maintenance of life and
occupation of residents.
b)Public utility implies public use and service to the
public. Determinative characteristic: service or
readiness to serve an indefinite public (not a
p r i v i l e g e d f e w ) , w h i ch h a s r i g h t s t o d e m a n d a n d
receive the services and commodities.
c)Public use is not synon ymous wi th public interest.
The fact that a business offers services and goods
that promote public good and serve the interest of
the public does not make it a public utility.
d ) T ru e c r i te r i o n t o j u d g e t h e ch a r a c t e r o f t h e u s e :
whether the public may enjoy it by RIGHT or only by
PERMISSION
e)
S h i p ya r d = a p l a c e o r e n c l o s u r e
wh e re sh ip s a re b ui l t o r re pa ir ed . It ha s a li m i te d
SEPARATE OPINION
TINGA
2)
2.
FACTS
- Two s e p a r a t e m o t i o n s f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s e e k i n g
reversal of the SCs decision nullifying the win-win
resolution dated November 7, 1997 issued by the Office
of the President (OP)
- Decision struck down as void the act of the OP in
reopening the case in OP Case No. 96-C 6424 through
the i ssuan ce of November 7, 1997 win -win Re solution
which substantially modified its March 29, 1996 OP
Decision that had long become final and executory
- The March 29, 1996 OP Decision was declared by the
same office as final and executory after the DARs
motion for reconsideration of the said decision was
denied for having been filed beyond the 15-day
reglementary period
- Movants:
o
T h e w i n - w i n r e so l u t i o n i s v a l i d a s i t
seeks to correct an erroneous ruling
o
Proper remedy for petitioner is a
petition for review and not certiorari
o
Filing of motion for reconsideration is a
condition sine qua non before petition for
certiorari may be filed
o
Petitioners
are guilty of forum
shopping
- Intervenors:
o
They have right to intervene
o
The win-win resolution is valid as it
seeks to correct an erroneous ruling
o
Win-win resolution properly addresses
the substantial issues of the case
- Bo th m ova nts ask th a t the i r m o ti on s be re sol ve d e n
banc since the issues are novel and of transcendental
significance Issue here according to them is WON the
power of the local government units (LGUs) to reclassify
lands is subject to the approval of the Dept of Agrarian
Reform (DAR)
- Other issues raised by movants described as
substantial (1) whether the subject land is considered
a prime agricultural land with irrigation facility; (2)
whether the land has long been covered by a Notice of
Compulsor y Acquisition (NCA); (3) whether the land is
tenanted, and if not, whether the applicants for
intervention are qualified to become beneficiaries
t h e r e o f ; a n d ( 4 ) w h e t h e r t h e S a n g g u n i a n g B a ya n o f
Sumilao has the legal authority to reclassify the land into
industrial/institutional use
ISSUE
WON the SCs decision nullifying the win-win resolution
d a te d N o v e m b e r 7 , 1 9 9 7 i s s u e d b y th e O ff i c e o f t h e
President (OP) must be reversed.
FORTRICH V CORONA
MARTINEZ; November 17, 1998
HELD
- The issues presented are matters of no extraordinary
import to merit the attention of the Court en banc
FACTS
- Private respondent Lilia Y. Gonzales, as coadministratrix of the Estate of Matias Yusay, filed with
the Cour t of Appeals a pe tition for prohibition and
mandamus s e e k i n g t o p r o h i b i t t h e L a n d B a n k o f t h e
Philippines (LBP) from accepting the leasehold rentals
from Ernesto Sigre (predecessor of petitioner Rolando
Sigre), and for LBP to turn over to private respondent the
rentals previously remitted to it by Sigre.
- Ernesto Sigre was private responden ts tenant in an
irrigated rice land located in Barangay Naga, Pototan,
Ilo i lo . He wa s pr evi ou sl y p a yin g p riv a te r e sp on de n t a
l e a se r e n t a l o f 1 6 ca v a n s p e r cr o p o r 3 2 c a v a n s p e r
agricultural year. In the agricultural year of 1991-1992,
Sigre stopped paying his rentals to private respondent
and instead, remitted it to the LBP pursuant to the
Department of Agrarian Reforms Memorandum Circular
N o . 6 , Se ri e s of 1 97 8, wh i ch se t th e gu id el i ne s i n the
payment of lease rental/partial payment by farmerbeneficiaries under the land transfer program of P.D. No.
27.
- The pertinent provision of the DAR Memorandum
Circular No. 6 reads:
"A. W here the value of the land has already
been established.
T he val ue o f th e la nd i s e stab l i sh ed o n th e
da te the Secre tar y or his author i zed
representative has finally approved the
average gross production data established by
the BCLP or upon the signing of the LTPA by
3. WON PD 27 is unconstitutional
o pe n so cie t y. To d ep ri ve pe ti tio ne r s o f th e
small landholdin gs in the face of a
presidential decree considered ratified by the
new Constitution and precisely in accordance
w i t h i t s a v o w e d o b j e c t i v e co u l d i n d e e d b e
contributor y to perpetuating the misery that
tenancy had spawned in the past as well as
the grave socia l problem s thereb y crea ted.
T h e r e ca n b e n o ju st i f i ca t i o n f o r a n y o th e r
decision then whether predicated on a
juridical norm or on the traditional role
assigned to the judiciary of implementing and
not thwarting fundamental policy goals."
- Thereafter, in Gonzales v. Estrella, which incidentally
involves private respondent and counsel in the case at
bench,
the
Court
emphatically
declared
that
" P r e si d e n ti a l D e cr e e N o . 2 7 h a s su rv i v e d th e t e s t o f
constitutionality."
- Then, in 1982, P.D. 27, once again, was stamped with
judicial imprimatur in A s s o c i a t i o n o f R i c e & C o r n
Producers of the Philippines, Inc. v. The National Land
Reform Council.
- Fu r th er, in Asso ci a tio n of Sm al l L an do wn er s in the
Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
involving the constitutionality of P.D. 27, E.O. Nos. 228
and 229, and R.A. 6657, any other assault on the validity
o f P.D . 2 7 w a s u l t i m a t e l y f o r e c l o s e d w h e n i t w a s
declared therein that R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, Proc.
No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 are SUSTAINED
a ga i n s t a l l t h e co n s ti tu ti o n a l o b je ct i o n s r a i se d i n th e
herein petition.
- The objection that P.D. 27 is unconstitutional as it sets
limitations on the judicial prerogative of determining just
compensation is bereft of merit. P.D. 27 provides:
"For the purpose of deter minin g the cost of
the land to be transferred to the tenantfarmer pursuant to this Decree, the value of
the land shall be e quivalent to two and one
half (2 ) times the average harvest of three
normal crop years immediately preceding the
promulgation of this Decree;"
- E.O. 228 supplemented such provision, viz.:
"SEC. 2. Henceforth, the valuation of rice and
corn lands covered by P.D. 27 shall be based
on the average gross production determined
by the Baranga y Committee on Land
Pro du cti on in a cco rd an ce wi th D ep ar tm en t
Memorandum Circular No. 26, series of 1973
and related issuances and regulation of the
Department of Agrarian Reform. The average
gross production per hectare shall be
multiplied by two and a half (2.5), the product
of which shall be multiplied by Thirty Five
Pesos (P35.00), the government support price
for one cavan of 50 kilos of palay on October
21, 1972, or Thirty One Pesos (P31.00), the
government support price for one cavan of 50
ki lo s of co rn o n Octob er 21 , 1 97 2, an d th e
SEPARATE OPINION
MELO [concur and dissent]
- PP 1520 which declared Nasugbu, Bats as tourist zone,
has force and effect of law unless repealed. It cannot be
disregarded by DAR.
YNARES-SANTIAGO
dissent]
[concurr
and
a n d s h e c r e a t e d o n e e n t i t l e d , Tam i l i n f l u e n c e s i n
filed. Trial court dismissed the petition for lack of merit
Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. She defended
while Court of Appeals rev ersed and ordered the
h er d isse r ta ti on al tho u gh pr io r to i t D r. Me di na no te d
restoration of the degree.
so me lifted materia l in the di sser ta tion wi thou t proper
acknowledgment. She got the nod of four of the five
ISSUES
panelist and thus was allowed to graduate because the
1. W ON the writ of Mandamu s is applicable in this
letter coming from Dean Paz that wanted her to be
situation
temporarily struck off the list of candidates for
2. W ON THE withdrawal of the doctoral degree can be
graduation to clear the problems regarding her
done by the University
dissertation did not reach the Board of Regents on time.
3. WON there was a denial of due process
- Prior to the graduation, Dean Paz told Celine through a
letter that she would not be granted academic clearance
HELD
w i t h o u t C e l i n e su b s ta n t i a t i n g h e r a c cu s a t i o n o f D r s .
1. No, a writ of Mandamus is not available to restrain an
Diokno and Medina maliciously working for the
i n st i tu ti o n of h i gh e r l e a r n i n g f r o m th e e xe r ci se of i ts
disapproval of her dissertation. Celine answered by
academic freedom that is a constitutional right
sa yi n g tha t th e u nfav or ab le a tti tud e wa s du e to so me
2 . Yes , b e c a u s e M a n d a m u s i s a w r i t c o m m a n d i n g a
failure to include Dr. Medina in the list of panel members
tribunal, corporation, board or person to do the act
and that Dr. Diokno was guilty of harassment. Dr.
required to be done when it or s/he unlawfully neglects
Medina answered back and wrote that Celines
t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f a n a c t w h i c h t h e l a w sp e ci f i c a l l y
dissertation contained plagiarized materials and that her
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or
doctorate be withdrawn.
station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and
- An ad -h oc co m mi tte e wa s for me d to i nve sti ga te the
e n j o ym e n t o f a r i gh t o r o ff i ce t o w h i c h s u ch o t h e r i s
char ge s and tha t the reque st for the withdra wal of the
e n ti t l e d , th e r e b e i n g n o p l a i n , sp e e d y, a n d a d e qu a t e
doctorate degree was asked of the Board of Regents. In
remedy in the ordinar y course of a law. It could not be
the investigation it was found out that in at least 90
invoked against the academic freedom of the school as
instances the dissertation included lifted materials
academic freedom as a Constitutional right (Article XIV
wi t h o u t p r o p e r o r d u e a c kn o wl e d gm e n t . Th e C o l l e ge
Section 5 (2)) gives a wide sphere of authority over the
Assembly
therefore
unanimously
approved
and
choice of students. This entails as well that it can also
r eco mm en de d the wi thd r a wa l of the d octo ra te d e gr ee
d e te r m i n e wh o wo u l d h a v e t h e d i s ti n ct i o n o f b e i n g a
and forwarded it to the University Council. The University
graduate of the school. If the University discovers that
Council approved, endorsed, and recommended the
the honor and distinction was obtained through fraud it
withdrawal to the Board of Regents. UP Diliman
has the right to revoke or withdraw such distinction. The
Chancellor Roman summoned Celine to a meeting and
actions of the University through the Board of Regents is
th a t she sho u ld sub m i t h er wr i tte n exp la na ti on to th e
to protect academic integrity by withdrawing her
charges against her. The Chancellor informed Celine of
academic degree that she obtained through fraud.
th e ch ar ge s an d sho wed a cop y o f th e fi nd in gs of the
3 . N o , D u e p r o c e s s w a s d o n e a s t h e r e w e r e se v e r a l
investigating committee. A second meeting was done as
investigations done by the school starting from the
we ll as a third one, however Cel ine did not a ttend the
college to the Board of Regents. She was also invited in
third meeting alleging that the Board of Regents at that
t h e i nv e s ti ga ti o n to cl e a r u p h e r n a m e . H o we v e r, t h e
time already had decided her case before she was fully
actual admission and the clear plagiarism of her sources
heard. Celine asked for a re-investigation and that the
proved that indeed she committed the offense. Her
jurisdiction was placed on the student disciplinary
demand for the Student Tribunal to decide her case is
tribunal in the case of dishonesty and that the
untenable, as it is obvious that such case is useless for
withdrawal of the doctorate degree is not an authorized
the penalty it gives is suspension. Celine in not in the
penalty.
ambit of disciplinary powers of the UP anymore.
- A special committee was create by Chancellor Roman
that investi ga ted the case and the y came out with the
MIRIAM COLLEGE FOUNDATION V COURT
findings through all the documents and an interview of
Celine. It was established that at least 22 counts of
OF APPEALS
d o c u m e n te d l i f t i n g w e r e i d e n t i f i e d t h a t f o r m s t h e 9 0
KAPUNAN; December 15, 2000
instances found by the College ad-hoc committee. That
Celine admits of being guilt of the allegation of
FACTS
plagiarism. The Board of Regents decided to withdraw
-PET ITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the
the doctorate degree. Celine requested an audience with
Court of Appeals
the Board of Regents and a reinvestigation which was
-Vol. 41, No. 14, or the September-October 1994 issue of
denied.
Miriam Colleges school paper Chi-Rho entitled Libog
- Thus this case, a petition for mandamus and a prayer
at Iba Pang Tula was odiously received by the MCHS
for a writ of mandatory injunction and damages was
n a m e l y: t h a t "h e r f r e qu e n t q u e s t i o n s a n d d i f fi c u l t i e s
were not always pertinent and had the effect of slowing
down the progress of the class," is not valid ground for
expulsion
- Respondent, on the other hand, contended that
p e ti ti on er wa s a dm i tted , no t to a de gr ee p ro gr am bu t
merely to take some courses for credit, since admission
to a degree requires acceptance by the Assistant Dean
of the Graduate School of Ateneo de Manila University
(as opposed to, the Loyola School of Theology), and no
such acceptance was given.
- Further, that respondent, being an "institute of higher
learning" has the "academic freedom" to discretion
USP BoR, is bolstered by the constitutional
wh e th er to ad mi t or con ti nu e ad mi tti n g an y p ar ti cu l ar
guarantee on academic freedom. Academic freedom
stu de n t con sid er i n g n o t on l y acad e mi c or i n te l le ctua l
is two-tiered - that of the academic institution and
standards but also other factors.
the teachers. As was held in Miriam College v. CA,
- Finally that there is no "clear duty" to admit petitioner
Institutional freedom includes the right of the
since the School of Theology is a seminary for the
school or col lege to decide for itself, its aims and
priesthood and petitioner is admittedly and obviously not
ob je ctives and the method s on how best to a tta in
studying for the priesthood, she being a lay person and a
t h e m , f r e e f r o m i n te r f e r e n ce o r o u ts i d e co e r ci o n
woman.
except when overriding public welfare calls for some
restra int. It include s the freedom to determ ine for
ISSUES
itself: who may teach, what may be taught, how it
Procedural
shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.
1. WON a mandamus proceeding is proper in the case at
5. It was said in Montemayor v. Araneta University bar
Foundation that, Academic freedom also accords a
Substantive
faculty member the right to pursue his studies in his
2. W ON respondent is deemed possessed of a right to
p a r t i cu l a r sp e ci a l t y. Ap p l i e d to th e c a se a t b a r,
continued admission to the Loyola School of Theology.
acade mic freedom c lothe s Dr. Daleon wi th the
3. WON her expulsion was based on reasonable grounds
wide st latitude to innovate and experimen t on the
(therefore, not aribtrary).
method of teaching which is most fitting to his
students, sub je ct only to the rules and poli cie s of
HELD
the university. Consider that the BoR, whose task is
1. Mandamus shall not lie absent a showing that there is
to lay down school rules and policies, has validated
a clear legal right on her part and a clear duty on
his teaching, there can be no reason for petitioner
respondent's part to so admit her.
to complain before the Court simply because he
- What a student possesses is a privilege rather than a
holds a contrary opinion on the matter.
right. She cannot therefore satisfy the prime an
De ci sio n P e t i t i o n i s d i s m i s s e d f o r l a c k o f m e r i t .
indispensable requisite of a mandamus proceeding.
R e so l u ti o n of Off i ce o f th e O m b u d s m a n - M i n d a n a o i s
2. Autonomy recognized by the Constitution: "All
affirmed.
institutions of higher learning shall enjoy academic
Vot i n g Concurred with by JJs: Bellosillo, Mendoza, and
freedom."
Corona
- Although "academic freedom" is more often identified
with the right of a faculty member to publish his findings
GARCIA V LOYOLA THEOLOGICAL
and thoughts wi thou t fear of re tribu tion , the referen ce
given by the constitution of "institutions of higher
SCHOOL
learning," show that the school or college itself is
SEPARATE OPINION
TEEHANKEE [concur]
- Same points as Ponencia, plus:
- A petition will be dismissed where petitioner has
admi ttedl y failed to exhaust her admini strative
remedies.
- Que sti on s of ad mi ssio n to the sch oo l a re m a tte r s o f
technical and academic judgment that the courts will not
ordinarily interfere with. Only after exhaustion of
administrative remedies and when there is marked
arbitrariness, will the courts interfere with the academic
judgment of the school faculty.
MAKASIAR [dissent]
- 1 9 3 5 C o n s ti tu t i o n : "U n i v e r si ti e s e st a b l i sh e d b y th e
State shall enjoy academic freedom." VS. 1973
Constitution which broadened the scope into "All
institutions of higher learning." Thus guaranteed, it is
not limited to the members of the faculty nor to
administrative authorities of the educational institution.
It must also be deemed granted in favor of the student
body because all three constitute the educational
i n st i tu ti o n , w i th o u t a n y o n e o f wh i ch t h e e d u ca t i o n a l
institution can neither exist nor operate.
- An individual has a natural and inherent right to learn
and develop his faculties. The Constitution provides for
this in various provisions. The happiness and full
development of the curious intellect of the student are
protected by the narrow guarantee of academic freedom
a n d m o r e so b y th e b r o a d e r r i gh t o f f r e e e x p r e ss i o n ,
wh i ch i ncl ud e s fr ee sp ee ch a nd pr e ss, a nd acad e mi c
freedom.
- No private person has the inherent right to establi sh
a nd o pe ra te a scho o l . Ed u ca ti on i s a sove re i gn sta te
f u n c ti o n ; th e r e f o r e , n o t d i ffe r e n t i n th i s r e sp e ct f r o m
commercial public utilities, whose right to exist and to
o p e r a te d e p e n d s u p o n st a te a u th o r i t y. C o n st i t u t i o n a l
rights must be respected by the State and by enterprises
authorized by the state to operate.
right to academic freedom; that they believed the issue was simply on the
question of observance of the proper procedure in implementing admission
requirements; that they felt they no longer have any moral right to pursue
the court action; that they would leave to the Faculty the determination of
humanitarian consideration of their case; that they apologized for offending
the Faculty and that they would like to appeal for a chance to remain in the
college
Admission Committee , L o y o l a S c h o o l o f T h e o l o g y ,
citing Justice Frankfurter's concurring opinion in Sweezy
53
v. Ne w Ha mp sh ir e , t h o u g h a s o b i t e r d i c t a o n l y, t o
strengthen the arguments in support of the ratio
decidendi.
First. U n d e r t h e U P C h a r t e r , t h e p o w e r t o f i x t h e
requirements for admission to any college of the
university is vested in the University Council (See. 9).
The power to prescribe the courses of study is vested in
t h e U n i v e r si t y C o u n ci l su b j e c t t o th e a p p r o v a l o f t h e
B o a r d o f R e ge n ts ( Se c. 9 ) . Th e p o we r t o a p p o i n t th e
academic staff, fix their compensation, hours of service
and other conditions is vested in the Board of Regents
[Sec. 6(e)]. The power to allocate the income among the
d i ff e r e n t ca t e g o r i e s o f e x p e n d i t u r e s i s v e s t e d i n t h e
Board of Regents
54
his particular specialty and thereafter to make known or publish the result
of his endeavors without fear that retribution would be visited on him in the
event that His conclusions are found distasteful or objectionable to the
powers that be, whether in the political, economic, or academic
establishments
53 In contrast, the University has the academic freedom to determine for
itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it
shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study
54
Art. XIV Sec.5 (2) of the 1987 Constitution sates that Academic freedom
shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.
b y l a w w h i c h a r e e s s e n t i a l t o i n s t i t u t i o n a l a ca d e m i c
freedom
T he acade mic freedom claimed by the facul ty to have
been violated by the Board of Regents when it issued the
questioned order is related to the right of the University
to fix admission requirements. This right and power to fix
admission requirements is clearl y vested by law in the
University Council. The College Faculty was merely
empowered by the Board of Regents under Article 324 of
the University Code to initially determine the admission
requirements, subject to the approval of the University
Council and the President of the University.
Third. W hen the Board of Regen ts reta ined the cu t off
s c o r e i n th e N M AT a t 7 0 th p e r c e n t i l e ( p , 1 6 1 , R o l l o )
which was the cut off score approved by the University
Council on 8 April 1986, it did not exercise the power to
prescribe the entrance re quire ments. It merel y upheld
the power of the University Council under the law to fix
the requirements for admission to the UPCM and
r en de re d in effe cti ve the a ctio n of the U PC M F a cu l ty,
which attempted to exercise that power to increase the
c u t o f f s c o r e i n N M AT t o 9 0 p e r c e n t i l e w i t h o u t t h e
approval of the University Council and the President of
the University in violation of Section 324 of the
U ni ve rsi t y Co de ( su pr a ) wh i ch is ver y exp li ci t on thi s
matter.]
Fourth. The BOR only exercised its power of governance
and its duty in seeing to it that all the units abide wi th
the law, university rules and regulations.
Fifth. Under the Constitution, the students have the right
to select a profession or course of study subject to a fair,
reasonable and equitable admission and academic
requirements [Article XIV, Section 5(3)]. While it may be
t h e U C co u l d r a ti f y th e a c ts of th e C o l l e g e r e ga r d i n g
admission requirements, the same should be done within
a reasonable time. It is to be recalled that the
controversy regarding the students' admission started in
1987. It is surprising that despite petitioners' insistence
on the UC's juri sdiction over admi ssion requi rements,
they did not seek recourse to it immediatel y. From the
records, there appears to be no physical or legal
hindrance to the calling for a UC meeting on the
students' case. To validate these resolutions at this point
in time would not be fair and equitable to the students.
In the span of three years, they have proved their mettle
by passing the academic requirements of the college
Therefore
No. There was no violation of the
petitioners academic freedom by the BOR since the BOR
onl y exercised its power of governance and its duty in
see ing to it tha t all the units abide with the law,
university rules and regulations.
D e ci si on Petitions DISMISSED and the decisions of the
Court of Appeals AFFIRMED.
Vo t i n g 3 concur, no dissent, 2 took no part.
MORALES V UP
CHICO-NAZARIO; December 13, 2004
FACTS
- According to Art. 410 of the U P Code, studen ts who
complete their courses with the following minimum
weighted average grade shall be graduated with honors:
Summa cum laude 1.20
Magna cum laude 1.45
Cum laude 1.75
- Provided that all the grades in all subjects prescribed in
the curriculum, as well as subjects that qualify as
el e ctive s, sha l l b e i n cl ud ed in the co mp u ta tio n of the
weighted average grade; provided further that in cases
where the electives taken are more than those required
in the program, the following procedure will be used in
selecting the electives to be included in the computation
of the weighted average grade:
1)
For students who did not shift
programs, consider the required number of
electives in chronological order.
2)
For students who shifted from one
program to another, the electives to be
considered shall be selected according to the
following order of priority:
a.Electives taken in the program where the
student is graduating will be selected in
chronological order.
b.Electives taken in the previous program and
acceptable as electives in the second
program will be selected in chronological
order.
c.Prescribed courses taken in the previous
program, but qualify as electives in the
se co n d p r o gr a m wi l l b e se l e c te d i n
chronological order.
- Nadine Morales transferred from UP Manila (majored in
Spe e ch Pa tho l o gy) to U P Di l i ma n an d en ro ll ed in the
European Languages undergraduate program in SY
1997-98. She was enrolled under the Plan A curriculum
and chose French as her major and German as her
minor.
- Under Plan A, a student has to complete 141 units with
27 being electives.
st
- 1 s e m e s t e r o f AY 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 M o r a l e s e n r o l l e d i n
German 10 and German 11 where she obtained a grade
of 1.0 in both subjects.
nd
- 2 semester of AY 1997-98 Morales changed minor to
Spanish but maintained French as her major.
st
- End of 1 semester of SY 1990-2000 Morales included
in list of candidates for graduation with probable honors
based on the computation made by the College of Arts
and Letters of Morales GWA inclusive of her grades of
1.0 in German 10 and 11. Her GWA then was 1.725.
- 2nd seme ster of S Y 1999-2000 Morales GW A wa s
1 .7 29 a fter ob ta i ni n g an ave ra ge o f 1 .70 8 in h er f in al
s e m e s t e r i n U P, m a k i n g h e r e l i g i b l e f o r c u m l a u d e
honors.
- D u r i n g th e a s se s sm e n t f o r gr a d u a ti o n , sh e w a s n o t
granted cum laude honors because her grades in
Ele cti ve s mu st be ma jo r
language electives taken from French courses
in either literature or translation.
A m e m b e r a s ke d w h e t h e r Ge r m a n 1 0 a n d 11
could be counted as electives for Morales and
the Registrar responded the student was
enrolled in Foreign Languages with a major in
French and a minor in Spanish and German 10
and 11 are not required in the checklist. These
can neither be considered as electives because
e l e c t i v e s sh o u l d b e n o n - l a n g u a g e e l e c t i v e s .
German 10 and 11 are excess subjects.
E v e n i f M o r a l e s c o m p l e t e d a l l t h e r e q u i r e d
sub jects under the curriculum so that German
10 and 11 should be included, the Dean of the
CAL said that the same rule had applied in the
past to previous students. Applying the rules to
Morales would be unfair to the other students.
o
Since the rule provides for an order of
p ri or i t y in the el ecti ve s, th er e i s an i mp l i ca ti on
that not all electives may be included in the GWA.
o
The
Advising
Committee
allows
studen ts to chan ge their ma jor s and minor s but
these shifts are not counted as part of the course
with credit in the curriculum.
- The word program in Art. 410 must be interpreted in
the context of a particular curriculum. In computing the
GWA, the grades of subjects prescribed in the curriculum
and the grades of subjects that qualify as electives in the
curriculum are included.
- The interpretation of the required subjects or allowable
electives in the curriculum should be taken in the
context of the entire courses. Morales decision to shift
cau sed the exclu sion of her grade s in Ger man 10 and
11. Besides, German 10 and 11 were excess subjects,
h e r to t a l u n i t s t a k e n u p i n t h e U n i v e r s i t y b e i n g 1 4 7 ,
instead of the required 141.
- Well-settled is the principle that by reason of the
special knowledge and expertise of administrative
a gen ci e s ove r ma tte r s fa ll in g u nd er the i r ju r i sd i ctio n ,
they are in a better position to pass judgment thereon;
th u s the ir fi nd in gs of fact in th a t r e ga r d ar e gen er a ll y
accorded respect, if not finality, by the Courts.
Art. 14, Sec. 4 of the Constitution proves that academic
freedom shall be enjoyed in all institution