Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Nature of power to amend the Constitution or to propose • Doctrine of Parens Patriae (state as guardian of the people)
amendments thereto: not inherent power of Congress but of the • Transfer of sovereignty; effect on laws:
people; constituent power of Congress - abrogation of laws in conflict with the political character of the
substituted sovereign (political law).
Tolentino v. COMELEC - great body of municipal law regarding private and domestic rights
continue in force until abrogated or changed by new ruler.
The condition and limitation that all the amendments to be proposed
by the same convention must be submitted in a “single election” or Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh
plebiscite.
• Continuity of Law: Law, once established, continues until changed by
Imbong v. COMELEC some competent legislative power (not changed by mere change of
sovereignty)
Competence of Congress acting as Constituent Assembly: Authority to • All acts and proceedings of the 3 gov. depts. of a de facto
call constitutional convention as Constituent Assembly in enacting government are good and valid.
implementing details. • Kinds of De facto government:
(1) de facto proper – government obtained by force or voice of the
Sanidad v. COMELEC majority
(2) paramount force – by military forces who invade the territory
-Presidential exercise of legislative powers (and proposing (3) independent government – established by inhabitants through
amendments) is valid in martial law. insurrection
-Amending process is a sovereign act, although the authority to • Republic of the Philippines (during Japanese occupation) was a de
institute the same and the procedure to be followed reside somehow facto government.
in a particular body (Pres. Marcos).
People vs Gozo
Santiago v. COMELEC
STATE IMMUNITY
Amigable vs. Cuenca
Sanders v Veridiano
The government, when it takes away a property from a private land
• Mere allegation that a government functionary is being sued in his owner for public use without going through the legal process of
personal capacity will not automatically remove him from the expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly
protection of the laws of public officers and doctrine of state maintain a suit against the government without thereby violating the
immunity doctrine of governmental immunity from suit. This doctrine cannot be
• Doctrine of state immunity applicable also to other states. used in perpetrating injustice to a citizen.
USA vs Guinto
The Holy See v Rosario, Jr.
- A state may be said to have descended to the level of an individual
and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued • Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a
only when it enters into business contracts. diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the civil and
administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real action
relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the
Veterans Manpower vs CA receiving state which the envoy holds on behalf of the sending state
for the purposes of the mission
- The state is deemed to have given tacitly its consent to be sued when
it enters into a contract. However, it does not apply where the
Republic vs. Villasor
contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions.
- Judgment against the State cannot be enforced by execution. It may
limit claimant’s action only up to the completion of proceedings
The Merritt vs Gov’t of the Phil
anterior to the state of execution. Power of courts end when
judgment is rendered. [suability vs. liability]
- Functions and public services cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or are not regarded as suits against the State.
disrupted by the disruption of public funds.
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme
- State immunity from suit cannot be validly invoked with regard to Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez
funds of public corporations.
- [suable corporations] Public funds of corporations which can sue and Municipal funds in possession of municipal and provincial treasurers
be sued are not exempt from gaarnishment. are public funds exempt from execution. Municipal funds are held in
trust for the people intended and used for the accomplishments of
the purposes for which municipal corporations are created and that to
Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan subject said properties and public funds to execution would materially
impede, even defeat and in some instance destroy said purposes.
- The character of an incorporated agency allows it to sue and be sued
without qualification Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals
Section 1
Mobil Phils. Exploration, Inc. vs. CA
If an agency‘s function is deemed proprietary, if such is a necessary
incident of the primary and gov. function of such agency, such agency Villavicencio v. Lukban:
is not suable (for an unincorporated agency only).
Mayor’s act is unconstitutional. It was not authorized by any law or
ordinance. “Our government is a government of laws and not of
Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Court of Appeals men.”
It is incompetent for the government to prohibit the teaching of a The immediate response to the demands of necessities of protecting
foreign language to students. There is nothing harmful in the vital public interests gives vitality to the statement on ecology
language that will impair the upbringing of the child. embodied in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the
1987 Constitution. Article II, Section 16. As a constitutionally
guaranteed right of every person, it carries the correlative duty of
Pierce vs. Society of Sisters non-impairment. This is but the consonance with the declared policy
of the state to protect and promote the right to health of the people
State may not require children to attend only public schools. The child and instill health consciousness among them.
is not a creature of the State.
Section 14 Section 17
Section 19
Section 25
Garcia vs. BOI
BASCO VS PAGCOR
BOI committed grave abuse of discretion because it repudiates the
independent policy of government to run its affairs the way it deems Local Autonomy under 1987 Constitution simply means the
best for the national interest. decentralization and does not make the local governments sovereign
Every provision of the Constitution on the national economy and within the State or an imperium imperio.
patrimony is infused with the spirit of national interest. The non-
alienation of national resources, the State full control over the LIMBONA VS MANGELIN
development and utilization of contributions to the economic growth
and general welfare of the country and the regulation of foreign Decentralization of administration is merely delegation of
investment in accordance to national goals and priorities are too administrative powers to the LGUs in order to broaden the base of
explicit not to be noticed and understood. governmental power. Decentralization of power is the abdication by
the national government powers.
Section 20
Section 26
Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs. PCA,
Pamatong vs. COMELEC
the SC said that although the Constitution enshrines free enterprise
as a policy, it nevertheless reserves to the Government the power to - There is no constitutional right to run for or hold public office and,
intervene whenever necessary for the promotion of the general particularly, to seek the presidency. What is recognized is merely a
welfare as reflected in Sections 6 & 19 of Article XII. privilege subject to limitations imposed by law. Section 26, Article II of
the Constitution neither bestows such a right nor elevates the
privilege to the level of an enforceable right. There is nothing in the
Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs. Fertilizer and plain language of the provision which suggests such a thrust or
Pesticide justifies an interpretation of the sort. The "equal access" provision is a
Authority, and Pharmaceutical and Health subsumed part of Article II of the Constitution, entitled "Declaration of
Care Association of the Philippines vs. Sec. Duque III Principles and State Policies." The provisions under the Article are
generally considered not self-executing, and there is no plausible
Despite the fact that “our present Constitution enshrines free reason for according a different treatment to the "equal access"
enterprise as a policy”, it nevertheless reserves to the Government provision. Like the rest of the policies enumerated in Article II, the
the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional
welfare. Free enterprise does not call for removal of ‘protective right but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive
regulations’. It must be clearly explained and proven by competent action. The disregard of the provision does not give rise to any cause
evidence just exactly how such protective regulation would result in of action before the courts.
the restraint of trade.
Section 30
- When a committee or board is created as public in its very existence - Legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law
and character such as the MTRCB, there can be no valid claim to cannot be delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to
privacy. Here, decisions of Board and individual voting slips are public determine how the law may be enforced.
in character. - Completeness test and Sufficient Standard Test:
Completeness Test = complete in all its terms and conditions when it
leaves the legislature such that what is left is merely its enforcement.
Sufficient Standard Test = adequate guidelines or limitations in the
SEPARATION OF POWERS law to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and
prevent the delegation from running riot.
- Subordinate Legislation = delegated power to issue rules to carry
In re Manzano out the general provision of the statute. (Administrative bodies
implement the broad policies by promulgating their supplementary
- Members of the SC and other courts shall not be designated to any regulations.)
agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
- The committee performs administrative function* which under
Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution prohibits members of the Casibang vs. Aquino
SC and other courts established by law to be designated to any
agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. To quote - Political Question = question of policy; question to be decided by
CJ Fernando in Garcia vs. Macaraig, he said that “while the doctrine of the people in their sovereign capacity or full discretionary authority
separation of powers is a relative theory not to be enforced with - Justiciable Question = implies a given right, legally demandable and
pedantic rigor, the practical demands of government precluding its enforceable; an act or omission violative of such right, and a remedy,
doctrine application, it cannot justify a member of the judiciary being granted or sanctioned by law for said breach of right.
required to assume a position or perform a duty non-judicial in
character.”
• Administrative functions are those which involves the regulation Sanidad v. COMELEC
and control the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own
welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better On whether the case is justiciable
Political questions are associated with the wisdom of the legality of a
carry out the policy of the legislative or such as are devolved
particular act. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the
upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its legality or validity of the contested act, that matter is definitely
existence. justiciable or non-political. If the Constitution provides how it may be
amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution, can
declare whether the procedure followed or the authority assumed
was valid or not.
Angara vs. Electoral Commission On whether the President may propose Constitutional amendments
If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative
functions of the interim Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot such delegation is the increasing complexity of the task of the
validly discharge the function of that Assembly to propose government and the growing inability of the legislature to cope
amendments to the Constitution, which is but an adjunct, although directly with the myriad problems demanding its attention.
peculiar, to its gross legislative power.
(Note that at the time Prez. Marcos had legislative powers and there Rodriguez v. Gella
was no legislative department at the time)
Act No. 671 was expressly in pursuance of the constitutional
Daza v. Singson limitation of the delegation of emergency powers. It is presumed that
the National Assembly intended it to be for a limited period.
Where the legality or validity of the act is in question and not the Executive Orders Nos. 545 and 546, which was anchored to the said
wisdom of the act, the Court may take jurisdiction and decide on the Act are declared null and void and the respondents are ordered to
acts’ validity. Even in political questions the Court may take desist from appropriating, releasing and allotting expending funds set
jurisdiction under the expanded judicial power extended to it by Art 8 aside therein.
Sec. 1 of the Constitution.
(“Judicial power includes the duty to settle actual controversies People v. Vera
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of Act No. 4221 is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of power. The powers of the government are distributed among three
any branch or instrumentality of Government.”) coordinate and substantially independent organs: the legislative, the
executive and the judicial. Each of the departments of the
government derives its authority from the Constitution.
Delegation of Powers
US vs. Ang Tang Ho
If the act within itself does not define a crime and is not complete,
Garcia v. Exec. Secretary legislative act remains to be done to make it a law or a crime, the
doing of which is vested in the Gov, generally, the act is a delegation
The Congress may authorize the President to fix tariff rates and of legislative power, and is thus unconstitutional and void.
duties subject to such limitations and restrictions that they may
impose. This is expressly provided for in Art 6, Sec 28 par 2 of the
Constitution. Ynot vs. IAC
There is no standard that the officials must observe in determining to
whom to distribute the confiscated carabaos and carabeef. There is
Araneta v. Dinglasan thus an invalid delegation of legislatie power.
The Comelec has no power to reapportion districts but only to make Santiago vs. Guingona, Jr.
minor adjustments.
Where no provision of the Constitution, the laws or even the rules of
Republic Act No. 7941 “An act providing for the election of the party- the Senate has been clearly shown to have been violated,
list representatives through the party-list system and appropriating disregarded or overlooked, grave abuse of discretion cannot be
funds therefrom. imputed to Senate officials for acts done within their competence and
authority.
The constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own
Zandueta vs. De la Costa president should not be interfered with, nor taken over, by the
judiciary.
When a judge of first instance, presiding over a branch of a Court of
First Instance of a judicial district by virtue of a legal and valid When the constitution declares that a majority of “each House” shall
appointment, accepts another appointment to preside over the same constitute a quorum, it does not mean all of its members. Majority of
branch of the same Court of First Instance, in addition of another all the members constitute the House. Hence, 12 senators who
Court of First Instance to the old one, enters into the discharge of the unanimously voted constitute a majority of 23 senators (10 walked
functions of his new office and receives the corresponding salary, he out, 1 out of the country).
abandons his old office and cannot claim to be entitled to repossess it
or question the constitutionality of the law by virtue of which his new OSMEÑA VS. PENDATUN
appointment has been issued; and, said new appointment having
been disapproved by the Commission on Appointments of the The House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior as
National Assembly, neither can he claim to continue occupying the conferred upon by the Constitution. Also, Congress has the inherent
office conferred upon him by said new appointment, having ipso jure legislative prerogative of suspension.
ceased in the discharge of the functions thereof.
PAREDES, JR. VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Sec. 21: - Courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the Asset
Privatization Trust (administrative body), nor block, by an injunction,
Commissioner of Customs vs Eastern Sea Trading (1961) the discharge of its functions and the implementation of its decisions
- The concurrence of the House of Congress is required by our fundamental in connection with the acquisition, sale or disposition of assets
law in the making of treaties which are however distinct and different from transferred to it.
executive agreements which may be validly entered without such
concurrence. Malaga v Penachos, Jr.
Pimentel, Jr. vs Exec. Sec. - It was previously declared the prohibition pertained to the issuance
- The power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to concurrence of the of injunctions or restraining orders by courts against administrative
Senate. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in
consent or concurrence to the ratification. Hence, it is within the authority of technical cases. The Court observed that to allow the courts to judge
the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or having secured its these matters would disturb the smooth functioning of the
consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. This discretion to ratify lies administrative machinery. On issues definitely outside of this
within the President's competence alone. dimension and involving questions of law, courts could not be
- 4 steps in treaty-making process: prevented by any law (in this case, P.D. No. 605) from exercising their
(a) negotiation power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.
(b) signing of the treaty (simply a means of authenticating the
instrument and a symbol of good faith) PACU v Secretary of Education
(c) ratification (formal act by which a statute confirms and accepts
the provisions of a treaty) - Judicial power is limited to the decision of actual cases and
(d) exchange of instruments of ratification controversies.
- In the case at bar, the treaty was merely signed.
(Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education might under the
law withdraw the permit of one of petitioners does not constitute a
justiciable controversy.)
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
- Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy
Sec. 1: scholarly interest therein however intellectually solid the problem
may be. This is especially true where the issues "reach constitutional
dimensions, for then there comes into play regard for the court's duty - For one, there is a misjoinder of parties and actions. One petitioner
to avoid decision of constitutional issues unless avoidance becomes does not join other petitioners in the burden of their complaint, nor
evasion. do the latter join the former in his. They, respectively, contest
completely different statutory provisions.
Mariano, Jr. v COMELEC
- For another, there are standards that have to be followed in the
- Considering that those contingencies mentioned by the petitioners exercise of the function of judicial review, namely: (1) the existence of
may or may not happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue an appropriate case; (2) an interest personal and substantial by the
which has yet to ripen to an actual case or controversy. Petitioners party raising the constitutional question; (3) the plea that the
who are residents of Taguig (except Mariano) are not also the proper function be exercised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the
parties to raise this abstract issue (city of Makati is involved). Worse, necessity that the constitutional question be passed upon in order to
they raise this futuristic issue in a petition for declaratory relief over decide the case.
which this Court has no jurisdiction.
Bugnay Const. and Dev’t. Corp. v Laron
Macasiano v National Housing Authority - The doctrine holds that only when the act complained of directly
involves an illegal disbursement of public funds raised by taxation will
-It is a rule firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that the the taxpayer's suit be allowed. The essence of a taxpayer's right to
constitutionality of an act of the legislature will not be determined by institute such an action hinges on the existence of that requisite
the courts unless that question is properly raised and presented in pecuniary or monetary interest.
appropriate cases and is necessary to a determination of the case.
- It is not enough that the taxpayer-plaintiff sufficiently show that he
J. Joya v PCGG would be benefited or injured by the judgment or entitled to the
avails of the suit as a real party in interest.
- The rule is settled that no question involving the constitutionality or
validity of a law or governmental act may be heard and decided by
the court unless there is compliance with the legal requisites for Kilosbayan v Guingona, Jr.
judicial inquiry, namely: that the question must be raised by the
proper party; that there must be an actual case or controversy; that - A party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality
the question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and, which it may, in the exercise of its discretion, set aside in view of the
that the decision on the constitutional or legal question must be importance of the issues raised.
necessary to the determination of the case itself. But the most
important are the first two (2) requisites. - In line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary
taxpayers, members of Congress, and even association of planters,
- Not every action filed by a taxpayer can qualify to challenge the and non-profit civic organizations were allowed to initiate and
legality of official acts done by the government. A taxpayer's suit can prosecute actions before this Court to question the constitutionality
prosper only if the governmental acts being questioned involve or validity of laws, acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of various
disbursement of public funds upon the theory that the expenditure of government agencies or instrumentalities.
public funds by an officer of the state for the purpose of
administering an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of PHILCONSA v Enriquez
such funds, which may be enjoined at the request of a taxpayer.
- The Senators have legal standing to question the validity of the
Legaspi v Civil Service Commission veto. When a veto was made in excess of the authority of the
President, it impermissibily intrudes into the domain of the
- It becomes apparent that when a Mandamus proceeding involves Legislature. A member of Congress can question an act of the
the assertion of a public right, the requirement of personal interest is Executive which injures Congress as an institution.
satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and
therefore, part of the general "public" which possesses the right. Tatad v Garcia, Jr.
-"Public" is a comprehensive, all-inclusive term. Properly construed, it -The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are to allow taxpayers to
embraces every person. question contracts entered into by the national government or
government-owned or controlled corporations allegedly in
Dumlao v COMELEC contravention of the law and to disallow the same when only
municipal contracts are involved (just like in Bugnay case since no
public money was involved). Bengzon v Lim
- Yet, although as thus demonstrated, only cases involving dismissal - The Court reminds all lower courts, lawyers, and litigants that it
of judges of lower courts are specifically required to be decided by disposes of the bulk of its cases by minute resolutions and decrees
the Court en banc, in cognizance of the need for a thorough and them as final and executory, as where a case is patently without
judicious evaluation of serious charges against members of the merit, where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the
judiciary, it is only when the penalty imposed does not exceed decision appealed from is supported by substantial evidence and is in
suspension of more than one year or a fine of P10,000.00, or both, accord with the facts of the case and the applicable laws, where it is
that the administrative matter may be decided in division. clear from the records that the petition is filed merely to forestall the
early execution of judgment and for non-compliance with the rules.
SECTION 12 The resolution denying due course or dismissing the petition always
gives the legal basis.
In Re: Manzano
- When the Court, after deliberating on a petition and any subsequent
- As incumbent RTC Judges, they form part of the structure of pleadings, manifestations, comments, or motions decides to deny
government. Their integrity and performance in the adjudication of due course to the petition and states that the questions raised are
cases contribute to the solidity of such structure. As public officials, factual or no reversible error in the respondent court's decision is
they are trustees of an orderly society. Even as non-members of shown or for some other legal basis stated in the resolution, there is
Provincial/City Committees on Justice, RTC judges should render sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement.
assistance to said Committees to help promote the landable purposes
for which they exist, but only when such assistance may be - Minute resolutions need not be signed by the members of the Court
reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their judicial duties. who took part in the deliberations of a case nor do they require the
certification of the Chief Justice.
SECTION 14
Nicos Industrial Corp v Court of Appeals Komatsu Industries (Phils.) Inc v Court of Appeals
- The Court is not duty bound to render signed decisions all the time. - It has long been settled that this Court has discretion to decide
It has ample discretion to formulate decisions and/or minute whether a "minute resolution" should be used in lieu of a full-blown
resolutions, provided a legal basis is given, depending on its decision in any particular case and that a minute Resolution of
evaluation of a case. dismissal of a Petition for Review on Certiorari constitutes an
adjudication on the merits of the controversy or subject matter of the
- As it is settled that an order dismissing a case for insufficient Petition. It has been stressed by the Court that the grant of due
evidence is a judgment on the merits, it is imperative that it be a course to a Petition for Review is "not a matter of right, but of sound
reasoned decision clearly and distinctly stating therein the facts and judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully explain the Court's
the law on which it is based. denial. For one thing, the facts and law are already mentioned in the
Court of Appeals' opinion."
Mendoza v CFI
Prudential Bank v Castro
- What is expected of the judiciary "is that the decision rendered
makes clear why either party prevailed under the applicable law to - The Constitutional mandate that "no . . . motion for reconsideration
the facts as established. Nor is there any regid formula as to the of a decision of the court shall be . . . denied without stating the legal
language to be employed to satisfy the requirement of clarity and basis therefor" is inapplicable in administrative cases. And even if it
distinctness. The discretion of the particular judge in this respect, were, said Resolution stated the legal basis for the denial and,
while not unlimited, is necessarily broad. There is no sacramental therefore, adhered faithfully to the Constitutional requirement. "Lack
form of words which he must use upon pain of being considered as of merit," which was one of the grounds for denial, is a legal basis.
cases; and it is not in truth a correct assessment of its powers under
-(certification issue) The requirement of a certification refers to the Constitution and the relevant laws
decisions to judicial cases and not to administrative cases. Besides,
since the decision was a per curiam decision, a formal certification is
not required.
Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer
Oil and Natural Gas Commission v Court of Appeals
While it may be true that the lower court has the jurisdiction over
- The constitutional mandate that no decision shall be rendered by controversies dealing with the COMELEC's award of contracts, the
any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts same being purely administrative and civil in nature, nevertheless,
and the law on which it is based does not preclude the validity of herein petitioner has no cause of action on the basis of the
"memorandum decisions" which adopt by reference the findings of allegations of its complaint.
fact and conclusions of law contained in the decisions of inferior
tribunals. "The Commission on Elections shall have exclusive charge of the
enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of
SECTION 14 (not 16) elections and shall exercise all other functions which may be
conferred upon it by law. It shall decide, save those involving the right
Valdez v Court of Appeals to vote, all administrative questions affecting elections, including the
determination of the number of location of polling places, and the
- The (lower) court statement in the decision that a party has proven appointment of election inspectors and of other election officials . . .
his case while the other has not, is not the findings of facts The decisions, orders and rulings of the Commission shall be subject
contemplated by the Constitution and the rules to be clearly and to review by the Supreme Court."
distinctly stated.
- This Court has said again and again that it is not a trier of facts and Mateo v. CA
that it relies, on the factual findings of the lower court and the
appellate court which are conclusive. The hiring and firing of employees of government-owned and
controlled corporations are governed by the provisions of the Civil
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS Service Law and Rules and Regulations.
SC Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95. Final resolutions of the
A. COMMON PROVISIONS Civil Service Commission shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals.
In any event, whether under the old rule or the present rule, Regional
Aruelo v. CA Trial Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain cases involving dismissal
of officers and employees covered by the Civil Service Law.
The rule of the Commission should prevail if the proceeding is before
a Commission. But if the proceeding is before a court, the Rules of CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Court prevails. (Sec. 6)
Section 2
Cua v. Comelec
TUPAS v. NHC
The 2-1 decision rendered by the First Division was a valid decision
under Article IX-A, Section 7 of the Constitution. (Sec.7) Civil service now covers only government-owned or controlled
corporations with original or legislative charters, that is those created
Vital-Gozon v. CA by an act of Congress or by special law, and not those incorporated
under and pursuant to a general legislation.
Execution of the Civil Service Commission's decision should have NHC is not covered by civil service so its employees undoubtedly
been ordered and effected by the Commission itself, when de la have the right to form unions or employees' organizations. The right
Fuente filed a motion therefor. It declined to do so, however, on the to unionize or to form organizations is now explicitly recognized and
alleged ground, as de la Fuente claims he was told, that it "had no granted to employees in both the governmental and the private
coercive powers unlike a court to enforce its final sectors.
decisions/resolutions." That proposition, communicated to de la
Fuente, of the Commission's supposed lack of coercive power to De los Santos v. Mallare
enforce its final judgments, is incorrect. It is inconsistent with
previous acts of the Commission of actually directing execution of its The office of city engineer is neither primarily confidential, policy-
decisions and resolutions, which this Court has sanctioned in several determining, nor highly technical. These positions mentioned are
excluded from the merit system and dismissal at pleasure of officers officer of the Subic Authority”, violates the constitutional prohibition
and employees appointed therein is allowed by the Constitution. against appointment or designation of elective officials to other
Thus, the city engineer cannot be removed without just cause. government posts.
The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends Quimson v. Ozaeta
upon loss of confidence because their term of office lasts only as long
as confidence in them endures. The employment of a person as an agent collector is not itself
unlawful because there is no incompatibility between aid
Corpus v. Cuaderno appointment and his employment as Deputy Provincial Treasurer and
Municipal Treasurer. There is no legal objection to government official
Highly technical employees cannot be removed by reason of lack or occupying two government offices and performing functions to both
loss of confidence by the one making the appointment. as long as there is no incompatibility. The Constitutional prohibition
refers to double appointments and performance of functions of more
Luego v. Civil Service Commission than one office.
While all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to Comelec’s statement that fake and spurious ballots may have been
hold other office or employment in the government during their introduced to increase the votes of protestant cannot be made a
tenure when such is allowed by tlaw and the primary function of their basis for denying the execution pending appeal.
office, Cabinet members, their deputies, and assistants may only do
so when expressly authorized by the Constitution itself.
Section 3
Flores v. Drilon
Sarmiento vs. Comelec
The proviso which states, “Provided, however, that for the first year
of its operations from the effectivity of this Act, the mayor of the City Pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. 7166, it provides:
of Olongapo shall be appointed as the chairman and chief executive
"All pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be candidate. Whether the candidate is rich and, therefore, can afford to
deemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office doleout more decals and stickers or poor and without the means to
involved and the rulings of the boards of canvassers concerned shall spread out the number of decals and stickers is not as important as
be deemed affirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a regular the right of the owner to freely express his choice and exercise his
election protest by the aggrieved party. However, proceedings may right of free speech. The owner can even prepare his own decals or
continue when on the basis of the evidence thus far presented, the stickers for posting on his personal property. To strike down this right
Commission determines that the petition appears meritorious and and enjoin it is impermissible encroachment of his liberties.
accordingly issues an order for the proceeding to continue or when an
appropriate order has been issued by the Supreme Court in a petition Sanidad vs. COMELEC
for certiorari."
Comelec spaces and Comelec radio time may provide a forum for
expression but they do not guarantee full dissemination of
Reyes vs. RTC of Oriental Mindoro information to the public concerned because they are limited to
either specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or television
All election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, must be times.
decided by the COMELEC in division. Should a party be dissatisfied
with the decision, he may file a motion for reconsideration before the
COMELEC en banc. It is, therefore, the decision, order or ruling of the COMMISSION ON AUDIT
COMELEC en banc that, in accordance with Art. IX, A, Section 7, "may
be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari." SECTION 2
National Press Club vs. Comelec The Auditor-General has no madate to disapprove expenditures which
in his opinion are excessive and extravagant. His authority is
The Comelec has also been granted the right to supervise and limited to the auditing in expenditures of funds and properties. such
regulate the exercise by media practitioners themselves of their right function is limited to a determination of whether there is a law
to expression during plebiscite periods. Media practitioners exercising appropriating funds for a given purpose; whether a contract entered
their freedom of expression during plebiscite periods are neither the made by the proper officer has been entered in conformity with the
franchise holders nor the candidates. In fact, there are no candidates said appropriation law; whether the goods and services covered by
involved in a plebiscite. the said contract have been delivered or rendered in pursuance
thereof, as attested by the proper officer; and whether payment
therefore has been authorized by the officials of the corresponding
Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines vs GMA department or bureau. If these requirements have been fulfilled, it is
the ministerial duty of the Auditor General to approve and pass in
It is argued that the power to supervise or regulate given to the audit the voucher and treasury warrant for said payment. No
COMELEC under Art. IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution does not discretion to disapprove said payment on the ground that contract
include the power to prohibit. In the first place, what the COMELEC is was unwise or unreasonable.
authorized to supervise or regulate by Art. IX-C, Section 4 of the
Constitution, among other things, is the use by media of information OROCIO VS COA
of their franchises or permits, while what Congress (not the
COMELEC) prohibits is the sale or donation of print space or air time To determine whether an expenditure of a government agency or
for political ads. In other words, the object of supervision or instrumentality is irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant and
regulation is different from the object of the prohibition. It is another unconscionable, the COA should not be bound by the opinion of the
fallacy for petitioners to contend that the power to regulate does not legal counsel of a particular agency. Legal counsel can only offer
include the power to prohibit. This may have force if the object of the legal advice.
power were the same.
OSMENA VS COA
Adiong vs. COMELEC
A compromise agreement between a municipal corporation (Cebu
The posting of decals and stickers on cars, calesas, tricycles, City) and the parents of victim (Spouses dela Cerna) was
pedicabs and other moving vehicles needs the consent of the owner constitutional. The participation of the city in an amicable settlement
of the vehicle. Hence, the preference of the citizen becomes crucial in and eventual execution of a compromise is indubitable within the
this kind of election propaganda not the financial resources of the power and authority of a municipal corporation. Notably, the
compromise agreement was submitted to its legislative council,
which approved it conformably with its established rules and
procedure.
COA has the regulatory power to ensure that government funds and
properties are fully protected and conserved and that irregular
unnecessary, excessive, or extravagant expenditures or uses of funds
owned by, or pertaining to the Government or any of its subdivisions,
agencies of instrumentalities are prevented.
BUSTAMANTE VS COA
SALIGUMBA VS COA
Supreme Courts power to review COA decisions refers to money
matters and not to administrative cases (rape case vs. auditing
examiner-respondent) involving the discipline of its personnel.
SECTION 3