Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 24

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES CONCEPT OF STATE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 Bacani vs NACOCO

• The mere fact that the Government happens to be a major


CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES stockholder of a corporation does not make it a public corporation.
• Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions.
De Leon v. ESGUERRA
PVTA vs CIR
The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2,
1987. By that date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be
deemed to have been superseded. (Effectivity is immediately upon
• Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions – obsolete.
ratification) • Government has to provide for general welfare.

Gonzales v. COMELEC Gov. of the Phil. Islands vs. Monte de Piedad

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

The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the


• Principle of Auto-limitation: Extent of Philippine sovereignty over
Constitution through the system of initiative would remain entombed American bases – Philippine Government has not abdicated its
in a cold niche until Congress provides for its implementation. Section sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory.
2 of Article XVII is not self-executing.
Laurel vs Misa
Lambino v. COMELEC
• Nature of Allegiance to sovereign: Absolute and permanent
Essence of people's initiative: (1) people must author; (2) they must • Effect of enemy occupation: sovereignty of the government – not
sign the proposal; (3) proposal is embodied in petition transferred to occupier

Ruffy v Chief of Staff


• The rule that laws of political nature or affecting political relations are - By consenting to be sued, a state simply waives its immunity from
considered superseded or held in abeyance during the military suit. It does not thereby concede its liability to the plaintiff, or create
occupation, is intended for the governing of the civil inhabitants of any cause of action in his favor, or extend its liability to any cause not
the occupied territory and not for the enemies in arms. previously recognized. It merely gives remedy to enforce a pre-
existing liability and submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court,
subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense.

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.

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan


Republic v Sandoval
- When the state files an action, it divests itself of the sovereign
• State cannot be held liable for the deaths that followed the incident; character and shed its immunity form suit, descending to the level of
liability should fall on the public officers who committed acts beyond an ordinary litigant.
their authority
• 3 instances when suit is proper:
1. when sued by its name Republic vs. Feliciano
2. when unincorporated government agency is sued
3. when the suit is against a government employee but liability - failure to allege in the complaint the existence of consent by the State is
belongs to the government a fatal defect (construction must be strict against conferment of waiver
- Immunity may be invoked by the courts at any point/stage of the
Festejo v Fernando proceedings.
USA vs. Ruiz
• Officer or employee committing the tort is personally liable and
Restrictive Application of State Immunity to foreign states: States may be
maybe sued as any other citizen and held answerable for whatever
sued when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the
injury
foreign sovereign.

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

The test of liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the


driver acting in behalf of the municipality is performing governmental
Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC or proprietary functions. It has already been remarked that municipal
corporations are suable because their charters grant them the
- Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not
of its non-suability. Distinction must still be made between one which liable for torts committed by them in the discharge of governmental
is executed in the exercise of its sovereign function and another functions and can be held answerable only if it can be shown that
which is done in the proprietary capacity. they were acting in a proprietary capacity. In permitting such entities
- State gives consent upon moneyed claim arising from contract. to be sued, the state merely gives the claimants the right to show the
defendant was not acting in its governmental capacity when the
injury was inflicted or that the case comes under the exceptions
PNB vs. Pabalan recognized by law. Failing this, the claimants cannot recover.

- 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

When a municipality fails or refuses without justifiable reason to effect


Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Assoc. payment of a final money judgment rendered against it, the claimant
may avail of the remedy of mandamus in order to compel the
- Acceptance of outside work and payment of overtime compensation enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance and
does not make work of Bureau of Printing proprietary. the corresponding disbursement of municipal funds.
- Non-suability of the State is available to the agency even if it is
shown that it is engaged not only in governmental functions but also,
incidentally, in proprietary enterprises (unincorporated agency).
Fundamental Principles and State Policies

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.”

- Not all government entities whether corporate or not are immune


from suits. Immunity from suits is determined by the character of the
objects for which the entity was organized. Section 2
- Suits against State agencies with relation to matters in which they
have assumed to act in private or non-governmental capacity, and Kuroda v. Jalandoni:
various suits against certain corporations created by the State to
engage In matters partaking more of the nature of ordinary business think Japanese Lieutenant-General charged before the military
commission. Under the LOI, the police forces are tasked to brief or orient the
Held: The Philippines can adopt the rules and regulations laid down soldiers on police patrol
on the Hague and Geneva Conventions notwithstanding that it is not procedures. It is their responsibility to direct and manage the
a signatory thereto. It embodied generally accepted principles of deployment of the
international law binding upon all states. marines. It is, likewise, their duty to provide the necessary equipment
to the Marines
Agustin v. Edu: and render logistic support to these soldiers. In view of the foregoing,
it cannot be
think triangular reflectorized early warning devices. properly argued that military authority is supreme over civilian
Held: Legislative enactment is not necessary in order to authorize authority.
the issuance of LOI prescribing the use of triangular reflectorized It is worth mentioning that military assistance to civilian authorities in
early warning devices. This is also an illustration of generally various
accepted principles of international law (Pacta sunt servanda). forms persists in Philippine jurisdiction. The Philippine experience
reveals that it is not
averse to requesting the assistance of the military in the
Ichong v. Hernandez: implementation and execution
of certain traditionally “civil” functions. x x x Some of the multifarious
think Retail Trade Nationalization Law which is against the principle of activities wherein
Pacta sunt servanda.Held: the Retail Trade Nationalization Law is not military aid has been rendered, exemplifying the activities that bring
unconstitutional because it was passed in the exercise of the police both the civilian and
power which cannot be bargained away through the medium of a the military together in a relationship of cooperation are:
treaty. 1. Elections;
2. Administration of the Philippine National Red Cross;
3. Relief and rescue operations during calamities and disasters;
Gonzales v. Hechanova: 4. Amateur sports promotion and development;
5. Development of the culture and the arts;
Prevalence of National or Municipal law over International law: 6. Conservation of the natural resources;
Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it 7. Implementation of the agrarian reform program;
conflicts with the fundamental law, but also when it runs counter to 8. Enforcement of customs laws;
an act of Congress. 9. Composite civilian-military law enforcement activities;
10. Conduct of licensure examinations;
11. Conduct of nationwide test for elementary and high school
In re Garcia students;
12. Anti-drug enforcement activities;
A treaty cannot modify regulations governing admission to Philippine 13. Sanitary inspections;
bar (that would be an encroachment upon Supreme Court by the 14. Conduct of census work;
Executive) 15. Administration of the Civil Aeronautic Board;
16. Assistance in installation of weather forecasting devices;
17. Peace and order policy formulation in local government units.
Section 3 This unquestionably constitutes a gloss on executive power resulting
from a
systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the
IBP vs. Zamora knowledge of Congress
and, yet, never before questioned. What we have here is a mutual
the deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the support and
civilian supremacy clause. The calling of the marines in this case cooperation between the military and civilian authorities, not
constitutes permissible use of military asset for civilian law derogation of civilian
enforcement. x x x The limited participation of the Marines is evident supremacy.
in the provisions of the Letter of Instruction (LOI) itself, which
sufficiently provides the metes and bounds of the Marines’ authority.
It is noteworthy that the local police forces are the ones charge of Section 4
the visibility patrols at all times, the real authority belonging to the
PNP. In fact, the Metro Manila Police Chief is the overall leader of the People vs. Lagman
PNP-Marines joint visibility patrols. - Case at bar: accused is prosecuted for failure to register for military
service under the National Defense Act
- SC upheld the National Defense Act. To leave an organization of an -Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism,
army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of
Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational
volunteer to enlist therein. and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.
Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people,
the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure
Section 5 economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through
the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the
Chavez vs. Romulo interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally,
Right to bear arms: It is statutory and not a constitutional right. The through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-
license to carry a firearm is neither a property nor a property right. constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the
Neither does it create a vested right. Even if it were a property right, existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus
it cannot be considered absolute as to be placed beyond the reach of populi est suprema lex. Social justice, therefore, must be founded on
police power. The maintenance of peace and order, and the the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among divers
protection of the people against violence are constitutional duties of and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be
the State, and the right to bear firearm is to be construed in equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our
connection and in harmony with these constitutional duties. social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and
paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort,
and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to
Section 6 the greatest number.”

Aglipay vs. Ruiz


Almeda vs. CA
-There is no violation of the principle of the separation of church and
state. The issuance and sale of the stamps in question may be said to -There exists a tenant’s right of redemption in sugar and coconut
be linked with an event of a religious character, but the resulting lands. Pursuant to Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963, it
propaganda, if any, received by the Catholic Church, was not the aim recognizes share tenancy in sugar lands which is in consonance with
and purpose of the government. The idea behind the issuance of the the State’s promotion of social justice wherein it may “regulate the
postage stamps was to attract tourists to our country and not acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of private
primarily the religious event. property, and equitably diffuse property…ownership and profits.”
- What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty , not mere
religious toleration. However, religious freedom is not inhibition of Ondoy .vs. Ignacio
profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in
human affairs. -The principle of social justice applied in this case is a matter of
protection, not equality. The Court recognized the right of the
petitioner to the claim of compensation because her son was shown
Austria vs. NLRC to have died while “in the actual performance of his work.” To
an ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between the church strengthen the constitutional scheme of social justice and protection
and its members and relates to matter of faith, religious doctrines, to labor, The Court made mention that “as between a laborer, usually
worship and governance of the congregation. Examples of these poor and unlettered, and the employer, who has resources to secure
affairs in which the State cannot meddle are proceedings for able legal advice, the law has reason to demand from the latter the
excommunication, ordination of religious ministers, administration of stricter compliance.”
sacraments, and other activities to which is attached religious
significance. In this case, what is involved is the relationship of the Salonga vs. Farrales
church as an employer and the minister as an employee. It is purely
secular and has no relation whatsoever with the practice of faith, -The plea of social justice of the plaintiff cannot be considered
worship or doctrine of the church. because it was shown that no contract, either to sell or of sale, was
ever perfected between him and the defendant. It must be
remembered that social justice cannot be invoked to trample on the
Section 10 rights of property owners who under our Constitution and laws are
also entitled to protection. The social justice consecrated in our
Constitution was not intended to take away rights from a person and
Calalang vs. Williams give them to another who is not entitled thereto.
“right to a balanced and healthful ecology” and “the correlative duty
to refrain from impairing the environment”.
Section 12

Meyer vs. Nebraska LLDA v. CA

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.

C&M Timber Corporation vs. Alcala


Virtuouso vs. Municipal Judge
On the issue that the “total log ban” is a new policy which should be
Youthful Offender: A person charged with an offense but found to be a applied prospectively and not affect the rights of petitioner vested
youthful offender could be provisionally released on recognizance at under the Timber Licensing Agreement (TLA), the Sc held that this is
court’s decision. not a new policy but a mere reiteration of the policy of conservation
and protection the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.

Section 14 Section 17

PRC vs. De Guzman


PT&T Co. vs. NLRC
while it is true that the SC has upheld the constitutional right of every
the SC held that the petitioner’s policy of not accepting or citizen to select a profession or course of study subject to fair,
considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements, the
contracts marriage, runs afoul of the test of, and the right against, exercise of this right may be regulated pursuant to the police power
discrimination, which is guaranteed all women workers under the of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order,
Constitution. While a requirement that a woman employee must safety and general welfare. Thus, persons who desire to engage in
remain unmarried may be justified as a “bona fide occupational the learned professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge
qualification” where the particular requirements of the job would may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging
demand the same, discrimination against married women cannot be in their chosen careers. This regulation assumes particular pertinence
adopted by the employer as a general principle. in the field of medicine, in order to protect the public from the
potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance.

PMMS, Inc. vs. CA


Section 16
the Court said that the requirement that a school must first obtain
Oposa vs. Factoran government authorization before operating is based on the State
policy that educational programs and/or operations shall be of good
[Intergenerational Responsibility / Intergenerational Justice] the 34 quality and, therefore, shall at least satisfy minimum standards with
minors duly joined by their respective parents pleading the cause of respect to curricula, teaching staff, physical plant and facilities and
“inter-generational responsibility” and “inter-generational justice”, administrative and management viability.
had a valid cause of action in questioning the grant of Timber
Licensing Agreements (TLAs) for commercial logging purposes. The
minors filed the action for themselves as representing “their Section 18
generation as well as generations yet unborn”. The SC, on the basis
of Section 16, Article II linked with the right to health, recognized a Bernardo vs. NLRC
The SC held that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL. vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN
qualified disabled persons be granted the same terms and conditions REFORM
of employment as qualified able bodied employees; thus, once hey
have attained the status of regular workers, they should be accorded Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it to
all the benefits granted by law, notwithstanding written or verbal forcibly acquire private lands intended for public use upon payment
contracts to the contrary. This treatment is rooted not merely in of just compensation to the owner. Private rights must yield to the
charity or accommodation, but in justice for all. irresistible demands of the public interest on the time-honored
justification, as in the case of the policed power, that the welfare of
the people is the supreme law.

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

Section 21 Legspi vs CSC


- Separation of powers as actual division than obtained through
The constitutional right to information on matters of public concern is express provision
self-executing without the need for any ancillary act of legislation. - Judiciary is the only Constitutional Arbiter to allocate Constitutional
Boundaries
- Judicial Supremacy = supremacy of the Constitution asserted by the
Valmonte vs de Villa judiciary (not supremacy of the judiciary itself)
- Judicial Review is limited to Actual Litigation. Judiciary does not pass
The constitutional right to information is limited on matters of public upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of litigation.
concern and is further subject to such limitations as may be provided - The Electoral Commission is an independent, impartial, and non-
by law. However, although citizens are afforded the right to partisan tribunal. The sole power to determine contests regarding the
information, the Constitution does not accord them the right to elections, returns, and qualifications of the members of the National
compel the custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, Assembly has been transferred in totality to the Electoral
summaries and the like in their desire to acquire information of public Commission. Its power is clear, complete, and exclusive.
concern.

Aquino-Sarmiento vs Morato Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA

- 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 delegation of emergency powers by Congress to the President


may be limited by Congress subject to restrictions it may provide. Tablarin vs. Gutierez
Congress may withdraw the delegated power at any time. In this Because the necessity standards are set forth in the statute (RA No. 2383),
case, the emergency power was withdrawn at the time Congress providing for standardization and regulation of education, delegation is valid.
became able to exercise its legislative duties again.

Pelaez vs. Auditor General


Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA The two tests (Completeness test and Sufficient Standard test) must be
applied together.
The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all three
branches of government specifically in the case of the legislative.
What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita
may be enforced and not what the law shall be since the Where the effectivity of the law is made dependent on the verification by the
ascertainment of the latter subject is within the prerogative and executive of the existence of certain conditions, the verification is delegated
determination of the legislature. Delegation of legislative power is to the executive. (This is an example of contingent legislation - a valid
permitted and valid provided that is passes the two accepted tests- delegation of law execution).
completeness test and the sufficient standard test. The reason for
Puyat vs. De Guzman
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
No Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall appear as counsel before
any court without appellate jurisdiction, before any court in any civil
Section 5 case wherein the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
Tobias v. Abalos instrumentality thereof is the adverse party, or in any criminal case
wherein any officer or employee of the Government is accused of an
The creation of a new congressional district is but a natural offense committed in relation to his office,or before any
consequence of a municipality’s conversion into a city. The administrative body.
Constitution provides that “a city should have a population of at least
250,000” and is entitled to at least 1 representative. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly be interested financially in any
contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the
Mariano Jr. v. Comelec Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including any government-owned or controlled corporation, during his
As decided in Tobias v. Abalos, the Constitution provides that the term of office.
compositions of the House should not be more than 250 members,
unless otherwise provided by law. The natural result in the creation of He shall not accept employment to intervene in any cause or matter
a new legislative from a special law whose purpose is to convert a where he may be called to act on account of his office.
municipality into a city is sanctioned by the Constitution.

Montejo v. Comelec Section 16

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.

Section 13 Avelino vs. Cuenco

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

Sandiganbayan has the authority to suspend a district representative


in violation of the Anti-Graft Law as it is being imposed on the
Section 14 representative NOT as a member of the House.
U.S. VS PONS
Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability
The Court may not go beyond the the recitals of the legislative - Exception to legislative inquiry: Executive Privilege (which is extended to all
journals for the purpose of determining the date of adjournment when close advisors of the President)
such journal are clear and explicit. To inquire the veracity of journals, - It is wrong for Senate to punish one for contempt where executive privilege
when they are clear and explicit, would be to violate both the letter is properly invoked.
and spirit of the laws, to invade the coordinate and independent - Senate's mistakes in the case at bar: (1) invitations to Neri did not include
department of the government and to interfere with the legitimate possible statute; (2) contempt order lacks required # of votes; (3) Senate did
powers and functions of the Legislature. not first rule on the claim of executive privilege and instead dismissed Neri's
explanation; (4) rules of procedure on inquiries in aid of legislation – not duly
published.

CASCO PHIL CHEMICAL CO VS GIMENEZ


Sec. 21 and 22:
Enrolled bill doctrine- the term “urea formaldehyde” is conclusive
upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by the Senate vs Ermita
Congress and approved by the President. - When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are
implementing the statutes, it is not imperative.
- The “oversight function” of Congress may be facilitated by compulsory
Section 18 process only to the extent that it is performed in pursuit of legislation.
- Appearance of department heads in question hour is discretionary.
Daza vs Singson - When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for the
- The sense of the Constitution is that the membership in the COA must department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of
always reflect political alignments and must adjust to changes. Nowhere, privilege.
however, in the Constitution require that the party must be a registered party. - EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE – privilege based on doctrine of separation of powers,
exempting executive from disclosure requirements where such exemption is
Coseteng vs Mitra necessary to the discharge of highly important executive responsibilities. It
- Endorsement of other representatives (in COA) cannot be counted in favor covers “categories of information” not of persons.
of a representative if they do not belong to the latter's party.

Guingona vs Gonzales Sec. 24:


- Full complement of 12 seats in COA is not mandatory
Rounding out 0.5 to 1 is unconstitutional as it would deprive other parties of Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance
seats in COA. - The phrase “originate exclusively” does not refer to the appropriations law
but to the appropriations bill. It is sufficient that the House of Rep. initiated
the passage of the bill.

Sec. 21: Alvarez vs Guingona


- A bill of local application, such as one asking for the conversion of a
Bengzon vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee municipality into a city, is deemed to have originated from the House
- Investigation was not in aid of legislation where it merely aims at provided that the bill of the House was filed prior to the filing of the bill in the
determining whether a law is violated. To allow such investigation is to violate Senate even if, in the end, the Senate approved its own version.
separation of powers. - The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the
bill does not contravene the constitutional requirement as long as the Senate
Arnault vs Nazareno does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill.
- Power of Investigation includes power to punish a contumacious witness for
contempt. Experience has shown that mere requests for information are
frequently unavailing. Sec. 25:
- “In aid of legislation” - not difficult to satisfy. Necessity or lack of necessity
for legislative action is determined by the sum total of information to be Garcia vs Mata
gathered as a result of investigation, and not by a fraction of such - RIDER – a provision not related to the appropriation act (is prohibited)
information elicited from single question. It is sufficient that the question is
germane to the subject matter of inquiry. There is no need for it to be directly Demetria vs Alba
related or connected to possible legislation. - transfer of appropriations – prohibited
- It is within the power of a conference committee to include in its report an
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez entirely new provision not found in either House Bill or Senate Bill.
- The list of those who may be authorized to transfer funds is exclusive. (Amendment in the nature of substitution is warranted as long as amendment
- Case at bar: Congressmen are allowed to determine the necessity of is germane to the subject matter of the bill)
realignment, but House Speaker or Senate Pres. will have to approve the - to disregard the enrolled bill is to disregard the respect due the other 2
realignment before items are realigned. departments.
- Case at bar: Chief of Staff may not be give authority to realign
appropriations. Gonzales vs Macaraig
- President can veto an item
- Doctrine of inappropriate provisions – a provision that is constitutionally
Sec. 26: inappropriate may be singled out for veto if it is not an appropriation or
revenue item. An inappropriate provision in an appropriations bill is an item in
Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board itself.
- Imposition of tax is sufficiently related to the regulation of video industry
where the title is comprehensive enough to include such subject (taxation) Bengzon vs Drilon
related to the general purpose (creation of Videogram Board) - President's power to veto an item does not grant authority to veto part of an
item (or provisions).
Phil. Judges Assoc. vs Prado - President cannot veto a law or repeal a law.
- Repeal/Withdrawal of franking privilege is germane to the object of the title,
which is to create postal service system. Hence, the same is embraced in the PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
title/ - Provisions that are germane to the specific appropriations cannot be vetoed.
- Requirement of Congressional approval for release of funds for
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26 (1)] modernization of AFP can be incorporated in separate bill and hence
- Withdrawing tax exemptions granted before is embraced in the subject of inappropriate. It was properly vetoed.
the title which is to widen the tax base - Executive Impoundment – refusal of the President to spend funds already
allocated by Congress for a specific purpose (the duty to implement the law
Tan vs Del Rosario includes the duty to desist from implementing it when implementation would
- 3 purposes of Sec. 3(1), Art. VI: prejudice public interest). The Court, however, did not rule on this issue, and
(a) to prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation rather declared the provision concerning benefits of CAFGUs as an
(b) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of inappropriate provision.
provisions which might be overlooked
(c) to fairly apprise the people of the subjects of legislation
Sec. 28:
Tobias vs Abalos
- Provision providing for a separate legislative district is germane to the Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pilipinas vs Tan
subject of the bill creating the City of Mandaluyong - a tax is considered uniform when it operates with the same force and effect
in every place where the subject may be found.
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26 (2)]
- IF it is only the printing that is being dispensed by presidential certification, Province of Abra vs Judge Hernando
the time saved would be so negligible as to be of any use in ensuring
immediate enactment. (Printing and Readings on separate days – both Abra Valley College vs Aquino
dispensable by pres. certification) - Where a lot is not used exclusively for educational purpose, it may be taxed
- Where no Senators controverted the reality of the factual basis of if the use is not incidental to the attainment of main purpose.
certification, growing budget deficit may be considered as basis for
presidential certification. Senators, in responding to the call of the Pres. by Tan vs Del Rosario
voting on the bill, manifested their belief in the urgent need for certification - Uniformity of taxation means:
of the bill. (a) standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary
(b) categorization is germane to achieve legislative purpose
(c) law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future
conditions
(d) classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the
Sec. 27: same class

Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance


Sec. 29: - Initiative is entirely the work of electorate; the process of law-making by the
people themselves
Pascual vs Sec. of Public Works - Referendum consists merely of the electorate approving or rejecting what
- Appropriation for a road owned by a private individual is invalid because it is has been drawn up or enacted by a legislative body.
not for a public purpose. Subsequent donation did not validate the law - Case at bar: COMELEC erred in implementing a Resolution when
because validity of a statute depends upon the power of Congress at the time respondents filed petition for Initiative and not Referendum.
of its approval and not upon subsequent events.

Aglipay vs Ruiz EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT


- Appropriation for special stamp issue is valid as it is not specifically made to
benefit a religious denomination but for a public purpose. The benefit Sec. 1:
acquired by the Church is incidental only.
Marcos vs Manglapus
Guingona vs Carague - The President has “residual powers.” The President is more than the sum of
- The Automatic Reappropriation Law for servicing foreign debts is valid specific powers enumerated in the Constitution.
because the amount is fixed by the parameters of the law itself which - What is not part of the legislative and judicial departments is deemed part
requires the simple act of looking into the books of Treasure (the amount is of the executive.
determinable). - The 1987 Constitution provided for a limitation of specific powers of the
- Budgetary process: President, particularly those relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but
(a) budget preparation not a diminution of the general grant of executive power.
(b) legislative authorization
(c) budget execution Soliven vs Makasiar
(d) budget accountability - The privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of Presidential
duties free from any hindrance or distraction considering that being the Chief
Osmena vs Orbos Executive demands undivided attention.
- Increase of petroleum prices to resolve the Terminal Fund Balance deficit is - The privilege pertains to the President by virtue of the office and may be
valid as it was a valid exercise of police power. invoked only by the holder of the office. There is nothing which prohibits the
President to waive this privilege.
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- Pork barrel provisions in the annual budget allowing members of Congress Estrada vs Desierto
to perform executive function of spending money appropriated are not in - A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit (immunity is only
violation of separation of powers because Congress itself had specified the during the tenure)
uses of the fund and the power given was merely recommendatory to the - Even a sitting President is not immune from suit for non-official acts or from
President who could approve or disapprove the recommendation. wrongdoing. (Public office is a public trust. The rule is that unlawful acts of
public officials are not acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is
not acting as such but stands in the same footing as any other trespasser.)
Sec. 30:

First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs CA Sec. 13:


- B.P. Blg. 129 granting exclusive appellate jurisdiction to CA over the
decisions of quasi-judicial bodies is not superseded by Omnibus Investments Doromal vs Sandiganbayan
Code of 1987 providing that decisions of BOI are appealable to SC because - Sec Sec. 13, Art. VII is applicable in a case where the accused has not
advice and concurrence of SC was not sought. signed any document of any bid of the family corporation of which he is a
member, submitted to any government department.
Diaz vs CA - Case at bar: Petitioner has at least an indirect interest with the transaction
- Sec. 10 of EO No. 170 stating “a party adversely affected by a decision of with DECS and NMYC.
ERB may file a petition with SC” was superseded by the Constitution stating
that jurisdiction of SC cannot be made to increase without its advice and Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary
concurrence. - EO No. 284 is unconstitutional insofar it allows a member of the Cabinet to
hold not more than two positions in the government. (Respondent's
contention that Sec. 7, Art. IX-B is an exception would defeat the obvious
Sec. 32: legislative intent which is to prohibit cabinet members from holding multiple
offices.)
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs COMELEC
Aytona vs Castillo deputies, and (2) members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts.
- As a rule, once an appointment is issued, it cannot be reconsidered where
the appointee has qualified. Exception: ad interim appointments issued in the Calderon vs Carale
last hours of an outgoing Chief Executive (midnight appointments – made for - Confirmation by COA is required only for presidential appointees that are
buying votes). within the 1st group of officers as mentioned in Sarmiento vs Mison.
- Congress may not expand the list of appointments needing confirmation.
In re Valenzuela and Vallarta - Case at bar: RA 6715, which requires the COA confirmation in appointments
- Sec. 15 (President shall not make appointments within 2 months prior to the of NLRC Chairman and Commissioners, transgresses Sec. 16, Art. VII. The
next Presidential election) is applicable to the members of the Judiciary. appointments of NLRC Chairman and Commissioners do not need COA
- This sort of appointment is made for partisan considerations. confirmation because they fall under the 3rd group of officers.

De Castro vs. JBC Tarrosa vs Singson


- affirmed the ruling in Calderon vs Carale
- Case at bar: Appointment of Central Bank Governor does not need COA
confirmation.

Sec. 16: Flores vs Drilon


- A law which limits the President to only one appointee is an encroachment
Binamira vs Garrucho to the prerogative of the President because appointment involves discretion
- Appointment or designation involves exercise of discretion which cannot be to choose who to appoint.
delegated. Even if it be assumed that the power could be exercised by
Minister of Tourism, it could be recalled by the President. Luego vs Civil Service Commission
- Designation is considered only an acting or temporary appointment, which - CSC is without authority to revoke an appointment because of its belief that
does not confer security of tenure. another person was better qualified, which is an encroachment on the
discretion vested solely in the appointing authority.
Sarmiento vs Mison - The permanent appointment made by the appointing authority may not be
- 4 groups of officers whom the President shall appoint: reversed by CSC and call it temporary.
(a) heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or Pobre vs Mendieta
naval captain, and other whose appointments are vested in him in this - The vacancy in the position of Chairman of the Professional Regulation
Constitution Commission cannot be filled by the Senior Associate Commissioner by
(b) all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not operation of law (or by succession) because it will deprive the President of
otherwise provided for by law the power to appoint the Chairman.
(c) those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint
(d) officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by
law vest in the President alone. Sec. 17
- Case at bar: Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment of
Commissioner of Bureau of Customs because a bureau head is not among Drilon vs Lim
those within the first group of appointments where consent of COA is - Distinction between power and control:
required. An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an act. if they
are not followed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re-done
Bautista vs Salonga by his subordinate or he may even decide to do it by himself.
- Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment of Chairman of Supervision does not cover such authority. The supervisor merely sees
Commission of Human Rights because such appointment is not vested in the to it that rules are followed, but he himself does not lay down such rules,
President in the Constitution. The President appoints Chairman of CHR nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are
pursuant to EO 163 (CHR Chairman is thus within the 3rd group of officers) not observed, he may order the work done or re-done but only to conform
to the prescribed rules. He may not prescribe his own manner except to
Quintos-Deles vs Commission of Appointments see to it that the rules are followed.
- The appointment of Sectoral Representatives requires confirmation by the (Note) Power of control pertains to power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify,
Commission on Appointments. The seats reserved for sectoral or set aside what a subordinate has done in the performance of his duties
representatives may be filled by appointment by the President by express and to substitute his judgment to that of the former [Mondano vs Silvosa]
provision of Sec.7, Article XVIII of the Constitution (hence, sectoral
representatives are within the 1st group of officers) Villena vs Secretary of the Interior
- Exceptions to those officers within the 1st group: (1) Ombudsman and his - Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (alter ego principle) -acts of the
Secretaries of Executive Departments, when performed and promulgated in
the regular course of business or unless disapproved or reprobated by the Olaguer vs Military Commission No. 34
Chief Executive, are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive - Due process of law demands that in all criminal prosecutions the accused be
- Case at bar: Secretary of the Interior is invested with the authority to order entitled to a trial. The trial contemplated by the due process clause is trial by
the investigation of the charges against the petitioner and to appoint a judicial process. Military Commissions are not courts within the Philippine
special investigator for that purpose. judicial system. Judicial power is vested only in the courts. Military
commissions pertain to the executive department and are instrumentalities of
Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs Pano the President as commander-in-chief to aid him in enforcing discipline in the
- Department heads are President's “men of confidence.” His is the power to armed forces.
appoint them; his, too, is the privilege to dismiss them at pleasure. Normally,
he controls and directs their acts. Implicit then is his authority to go over, Quilona vs General Court Martial
confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by his department secretaries.
- Case at bar: The President, through his Executive Secretary, may undo an Gudani vs Senga
act of the Director of Lands - The President has constitutional authority to prevent a member of the
armed forces from testifying before a legislative inquiry, by virtue of her
City of Iligan vs Director of Lands power as commander-in-chief, and that as a consequence, a military officer
- The President has the power to grant portions of public domain to any who defies such injunction is liable under military justice. At the same time,
government entity like the City of Iligan because he has control over the the Court also holds that any chamber of Congress which seeks the
Director of Lands, who has direct executive control in the lease, sale or any appearance befoe it of a military officer against the consent of the President
form of concession or disposition of the land of public domain. has adequate remedies under law to compel such attendance. Any military
officer whom the Congress summons to testify before it may be compelled to
Gascon vs Arroyo do so by the President. If the President is not so inclined, the President may
- Case at bar: Executive Secretary has the power and authority to enter into be commanded by judicial order to compel the attendance of the military
the Agreement to Arbitrate with the ABS CBN as he acted for and in behalf of officer. Final judicial orders have the force of the law of the land which the
the President when he signed it. President has the duty to faithfully execute.

Kilusan Bayan vs Dominguez


- An administrative officer has only such powers as are expressly granted to Sec. 19:
him and those necessarily implied in the exercise thereof. These powers
should not be extended by implication beyond what may be necessary for Torres vs Gonzales
their just and reasonable execution. - A judicial pronouncement is not necessary in determining whether the
conditions in the pardon are violated. The determination of whether there is a
Angangco vs Castillo violations of the conditions rests exclusively in the sound judgment of the
- The power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint, but not with President.
regard to those officers or employees who belong to the classified service for
as to them the inherent power cannot be exercised Monsanto vs Factoran
- Pardon implies guilt. While it relieves the party pardoned from all punitive
NAMARCO vs Arca consequences of his criminal act, it relieves him from nothing more. It does
- Executive power of control extends to government-owned corporations. not, therefore, restore a convicted felon to public office forfeited by reason of
conviction.

Sec. 18: People vs Salle, Jr.


- Pardon may be granted only by final judgment. Where the judgment of
Guazon vs De Villa conviction is still pending appeal, executive clemency may not yet be
- The President has the power to ordain saturation drives. There is nothing in granted. Before an appellant may be granted pardon, he must first ask for the
the Constitution which denies the authority of the Chief Exec. to order police withdrawal of his appeal.
actions to stop unabated criminality, rising lawlessness, and alarming
communist activities. Garcia vs COA
- President's grant of executive clemency to a person dismissed from his
Ruffy vs Chief of Staff office pursuant to an administrative case (but where the latter has been
- Courts martial are simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided acquitted in a criminal case based on the same facts alleged in the criminal
by the Congress for the President as Commander in chief to aid him in case) entitles the latter to automatic reinstatement and backwages.
properly commanding the army and navy and enforcing discipline therein and
utilize under his order those of his authorized military representatives. Sabello vs DECS
- Pardon (in a criminal case) frees the individual from all the penalties and Santiago vs Bautista
disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. Although such pardon may - The courts may not exercise judicial power when there is no
restore a person's eligibility to public office, it does not entitle him to applicable law.
automatic reinstatement. He should apply for reappointment to said office. - Case at bar: An award of honors to a student by a board of teachers
- [Compare with Garcia vs COA] may not be reversed by a court where the awards are governed by no
applicable law.
Llamas vs Orbos
- In granting the power of executive clemency, the Constitution does not Daza v Singson
distinguish between criminal and administrative cases. - Even if the issue presented was political in nature, the Court is still
not be precluded from resolving it under the expanded jurisdiction
conferred upon it that now covers, in proper cases, even the political
Sec. 18: question.
- That where serious constitutional questions are involved, "the
Constantino, Jr. vs Cuisia transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that
- The debt-relief contracts, providing for buy-back and bond-conversion they be settled promptly and definitely brushing aside, if we must,
schemes, entered into pursuant to Financing Program are not beyond the technicalities of procedure."
powers granted to the President under Sec. 20, Art. VII. The only restriction
that the Constitution provides, aside from the prior concurrence of the Mantruste Systems v Court of Appeals
Monetary Board, is that loans must be subject to limitations provided by law.
Accordingly, the contention that buy-back and bond-conversion schemes are - There can be no justification for judicial interference in the business
neither “loans” nor “guarantees,” and hence beyond the President’s power to of an administrative agency, except when it violates a citizen's
execute, are without merit. constitutional rights, or commits a grave abuse of discretion, or acts
in excess of, or without jurisdiction.

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

Oposa v Factoran, Jr. - What is fiscal autonomy? It contemplates a guarantee of full


flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources with the wisdom and
- CLASS SUIT: The subject matter of the complaint is of common and dispatch that their needs require. It recognizes the power and
general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the authority to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation
Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law for compensation
becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them and play plans of the government and allocate and disburse such
before the court. sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by them in the course
of the discharge of their functions. Fiscal autonomy means freedom
- Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can from outside control.
only be based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility
insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. - The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman
must have the independence and flexibility needed in the discharge
- Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to of their constitutional duties. The imposition of restrictions and
preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a constraints on the manner the independent constitutional offices
balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors` allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for their operations is
assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative not only of the express
same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards the Supreme
protection of that right for the generations to come. Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which the
entire fabric of our constitutional system is based
Lozada v COMELEC
SECTION 4
- As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the instant petition, for
nowhere therein is it alleged that tax money is being illegally spent. It Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v Court of Appeals, et.al.
is only when an act complained of, which may include a legislative
enactment or statute, involves the illegal expenditure of public - Reorganization is purely an internal matter of the Court to which
money that the so-called taxpayer suit may be allowed. petitioner certainly has no business at all.
- The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity
of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case - The Court with its new membership is not obliged to follow blindly a
such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of decision upholding a party's case when, after its re-examination, the
its enforcement. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is same calls for a rectification.
that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it
in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution. When the SECTION 5
asserted harm is a "generalized grievance" shared in substantially
equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone Drilon v Lim
normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.
- The Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction
over final judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases in which
the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
Kilosbayan v Morato executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
- The voting on petitioners' standing in the previous case was a
narrow one, seven (7) members sustaining petitioners' standing and - In the exercise of this jurisdiction, lower courts are advised to act
six (6) denying petitioners' right to bring the suit. The majority was with the utmost circumspection, bearing in mind the consequences of
thus a tenuous one that is not likely to be maintained in any a declaration of unconstitutionality upon the stability of laws, no less
subsequent litigation. In addition, there have been charges in the than on the doctrine of separation of powers. As the questioned act is
membership of the Court, with the retirement of Justice Cruz and usually the handiwork of the legislative or the executive departments,
Bidin and the appointment of the writer of this opinion and Justice or both, it will be prudent for such courts, if only out of a becoming
Francisco. Given this fact it is hardly tenable to insist on the modesty, to defer to the higher judgment of this Court in the
maintenance of the ruling as to petitioners' standing. consideration of its validity, which is better determined after a
thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with the concurrence
SECTION 3 of the majority of those who participated in its discussion.
Larranaga v Court of Appeals investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into
the Court's power of administrative supervision over all courts and its
(Transfer the venue of the preliminary investigation from Cebu City to personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
Manila because of the extensive coverage of the proceedings by the
Cebu media which allegedly influenced the people's perception of - Where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee
petitioner's character and guilt.) arises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer
action on said complaint and refer the same to the Court for
- The Court recognizes that pervasive and prejudicial publicity under determination whether said Judge or court employee had acted within
certain circumstances can deprive an accused of his due process the scope of their administrative duties.
right to fair trial. It was previously held that to warrant a finding of
prejudicial publicity there must be allegation and proof that the Raquiza v Judge Castaneda, Jr.
judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be,
by the barrage in publicity. - The rules even in an administrative case demands that if the
- In the case at bar, nothing in the records shows that the tone and respondent Judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any
content of the publicity that attended the investigation of petitioners graver offense, the evidence presented against him should be
fatally infected the fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel. competent and derived from direct knowledge. The judiciary, to which
respondent belongs, no less demands that before its member could
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v Court of Appeals be faulted, it should be only after due investigation and based on
competent proofs, no less. This is all the more so when as in this case
- It is intended to give the Supreme Court a measure of control over the charges are penal in nature.
cases paced under its appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate
enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction. For the ('Misconduct' also implies 'a wrongful intention and not a mere error
indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate of judgment. It results that even if respondent were not correct in his
jurisdiction can unnecessarily burden the Court and thereby legal conclusions, his judicial actuations cannot be regarded as grave
undermine its essential function of expounding the law in its most misconduct, unless the contrary sufficiently appears.)
profound national aspects.
SECTION 10
Aruelo v Court of Appeals
Nitafan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC can not adopt a rule
prohibiting the filing of certain pleadings in the regular courts. The - The clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was to delete the
power to promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practice and proposed express grant of exemption from payment of income tax to
procedure in all courts is vested on the Supreme Court. members of the Judiciary, so as to "give substance to equality among
the three branches of Government.”
Javellana v DILG
SECTION 11
(Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG
Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 does not violate Article VIII. Section De La Llana v Alba
5 of the Constitution. Neither the statute nor the circular trenches
upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe rules on -Judiciary Act does not violate judicial security of tenure. This Court is
the practice of law.) empowered "to discipline judges of inferior courts and, by a vote of at
least eight members, order their dismissal." Thus, it possesses the
- The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90- competence to remove judges. Under the Judiciary Act, it was the
81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid President who was vested with such power. Removal is, of course, to
conflicts of interest between the discharge of their public duties and be distinguished from termination by virtue of the abolition of the
the private practice of their profession, in those instances where the office. There can be no tenure to a non-existent office. After the
law allows it. abolition, there is in law no occupant. In case of removal, there is an
office with an occupant who would thereby lose his position. It is in
SECTION 6 that sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the question of any
impairment of security of tenure does not arise. Nonetheless, for the
Maceda v Vasquez incumbents of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of
separation. As to its effect, no distinction exists between removal and
- In the absence of any administrative action taken against a person the abolition of the office. Realistically, it is devoid of significance. He
by the Court with regard to his certificates of service, the ceases to be a member of the judiciary.
having failed to abide by what the Constitution directs."
People v Gacott, Jr.
- The provision has been held to refer only to decisions of the merits
- To require the entire Court to deliberate upon and participate in all and not to orders of the trial court resolving incidental matters such
administrative matters or cases regardless of the sanctions, as the one at bar. (content of the resolution: incident in the
imposable or imposed, would result in a congested docket and undue prosecution of petitioner)
delay in the adjudication of cases in the Court, especially in
administrative matters, since even cases involving the penalty of
reprimand would require action by the Court en banc. Borromeo v Court of Appeals

- 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.

Salazar v. Mathay Section 8

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.

The CSC has no authority to disapprove or revoke a permanent


appointment on the ground that another person is better qualified COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
than the appointee. The CSC is not empowered to determine the kind
or nature of the appointment extended by the appointing officer, its Section 1
authority being limited to approving or reviewing the appointment in
the light of the requirements of the Civil Service Law. Approval is Cayetano v. Monsod
more appropriately called an attestation, that is, of the fact that the
appointee is qualified for the position to which he has been named. Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires
the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
Province of Camarines Sur v. CA experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts
which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law
Lack of civil service eligibility makes an appointment temporary; thus, is to give notice or render any kind of service which device or service
the appointment is revocable at any time (without a fixed and definite requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.
term) or dependent upon the pleasure of the appointing power.
Obtaining the civil service legibility later on does not ipso facto Brillantes v. Yorac
convert a temporary appointment into a permanent one.
The President has no authority to make designation of a Comelec
SSS Employees Association v. CA Chairman in an Acting Capacity. The choice of temporary Chairman in
the absence of the regular chairman comes under the discretion of
The right of government employees to organize does not include the the Comelec. It cannot be exercised by the President. A designation
right to strike. As Acting Chairman is by its very terms essentially temporary and
therefore revocable at will. No cause need be established to justify its
Section 7 revocation.

Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary Lindo v. Comelec

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

Section 4 GUEVARA VS GIMENEZ

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.

SAMBELI VS PROVINCE OF ISABELA

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

Discretion exercised by COA in the denial of the appeal (on the


decision of a Regional Auditor) is within its power. Also, conclusions
of a Board of Directors of a government-owned and controlled
corporation in safeguarding the proper use of the government’s and
people’s property cannot prevail over the constitutional mandate on
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

PHIL AIRLINES VS COA (more on section 2)

COA has the exclusive authority, subject to limitations, to define the


scope of its audit and examination, establish the techniques and
methods required therefore. COA can adopt as its own, simply by
reiteration or by reference, without the necessity of repromulgation,
already existing rules and regulations. It may also expand the
coverage thereof to agencies or instrumentalities under its audit
jurisdiction. COA can advised PAL to desist from bidding the its fuel
upon expiration of contracts

BAGATSING VS COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION

COA, the agency that adopted the rules on bidding procedure to be


followed by government offices and corporations, upheld the legality
of bidding although there is only one offeror (2 were disqualified- bid
below floor price and technical reasons) since the COA Circular does
not speak of accepted bids but of offerors, without distinction as to
whether they were disqualified. The interpretation of an agency of its
own rules should be given more weight than the interpretation by the
agency of the law it is merely tasked to administer.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi