Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Secretary of Justice Also, she does not want to pay her penalty for she understands that being granted the absolute pardon
also removed her legal obligation to pay her penalties. The Ministry of Finance forwarded her concern to
Facts: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of petitioner Leo Echegaray y Pilo for the crime of rape the Office of the President. The Office of the President replied through Deputy Executive Secretary
of the 10 year-old daughter of his common-law spouse. The supreme penalty of death was to be imposed Fulgencio S. Factoran. Factoran held that both the Ministry of Finance and Ms. Monsnato are wrong.
upon him. He then filed motion for recon and a supplemental motion for recon raising constitutionality of Factoran held that:
Republic Act No. 7659 and the death penalty for rape. Both were denied. Consequently, Congress changed 1. She cannot be automatically reinstated. ONLY acquittal and NOT PARDON can give rise to such effect.
the mode of execution of the death penalty from electrocution to lethal injection, and passed Republic Act She must secure reappointment.
No. 8177, designating death by lethal injection. Echegaray filed a Petition for prohibition from carrying out 2. She is still liable for the civil liability and she still must pay. This, of course, super pissed Ms. Monsanto
the lethal injection against him under the grounds that it constituted 1. cruel, degrading, or unusual because what the eff, she was granted absolute pardon, hence, she invoked the power of the Supreme
punishment, 2. Being violative of due process, 3. a violation of the Philippines obligations under Court to decide on the matter.
international covenants, 4. an undue delegation of legislative power by Congress, an unlawful exercise by
respondent Secretary of the power to legislate, and an unlawful delegation of delegated powers by the ISSUE: Being a public officer granted the absolute pardon, can she be automatically reinstated to her old
Secretary of Justice. In his motion to amend, the petitioner added equal protection as a ground. position without need for reappointment?
The Solicitor General stated that the Supreme Court has already upheld the constitutionality of the Death RULING: NO automatic reinstatement whatsoever is to take effect. Upon conviction of Estafa, absolute
Penalty Law, and has declared that the death penalty is not cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual punishment; disqualification or ineligibility from public office forms part of the punishment. Upon her absolute pardon,
execution by lethal injection, as authorized under R.A. No. 8177 and the questioned rules, is constitutional, this particular disability was removed. So, she can apply for reappointment to the same position that she
lethal injection being the most modern, more humane, more economical, safer and easier to apply (than lost because she was convicted.
electrocution or the gas chamber); in addition to that, the International Covenant on Civil and Political The pardon only removed her disqualification from public office. It cannot go beyond that. To
Rights does not expressly or impliedly prohibit the imposition of the death penalty. regain her former post as assistant city treasurer, she must re-apply and undergo the usual procedure
required for a new appointment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court abused its discretion in granting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on The court stressed that upon her application that in considering her qualifications and
the execution of Echegaray despite the fact that the finality of judgment has already been rendered that suitability for the public post, the facts constituting her offense must be and should be evaluated and taken
by granting the TRO, the Honorable Court has in effect granted reprieve which is an executive function. into account to determine ultimately whether she can once again be entrusted with public funds.
She then duly filed a motion for reconsideration. While the motion was pending, President Marcos granted Holding:
her an absolute pardon The Court ruled initially by explaining the mandate of Sec 19 Article VII of the Constitution and further
. Acting on the absolute pardon granted her, she wished to be reinstated to her position as assistant city articulates that the bestowal of executive clemency on petitioner in effect completely obliterated the
treasurer. Her request by processed by the Ministry of Finance. adverse effects of the administrative decision which found him guilty of dishonesty and ordered his
The Ministry granted her request for reinstatement. However, it shall take effect only right after her separation from the service. This can be inferred from the executive clemency itself exculpating petitioner
pardon. She was also reminded to pay the indemnification required of her by the Sandiganbayan. from the administrative charge and thereby directing his reinstatement, which is rendered automatic by
the grant of the pardon. This signifies that petitioner need no longer apply to be reinstated to his former
(P4, 892.50) This pissed her off. She said that she should be reinstated effectively starting from the date employment; he is restored to his office ipso facto upon the issuance of the clemency.
of her suspension (August 1, 1982) and not from the effectivity of the absolute pardon (April 17, 1985).
G.R. No. 122338 December 29, 1995 Executive or his delegate who is duty-bound to see to it that the pardonee complies with the terms and
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF WILFREDO SUMULONG TORRES, conditions of the pardon. Under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code, the Chief Executive is
(LYDIA DELA ROSA TORRES, Wife of Wilfredo Sumulong Torres, and daughters RAMONA ELISA R. TORRES authorized to order "the arrest and re-incarceration of any such person who, in his judgment, shall fail to
and MARIA CECILIA R. TORRES), petitioners, comply with the condition, or conditions of his pardon, parole, or suspension of sentence." It is now a well-
vs. THE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS, NEW BILIBID PRISONS, MUNTINLUPA, MM., respondents. entrenched rule in this jurisdiction that this exercise of presidential judgment is beyond judicial scrutiny.
The determination of the violation of the conditional pardon rests exclusively in the sound judgment of
HERMOSISIMA, JR. J.: the Chief Executive, and the pardonee, having consented to place his liberty on conditional pardon upon
the judgment of the power that has granted it, cannot invoke the aid of the courts, however erroneous
We ruled consistently, viz., in Tesoro v. Director of Prisons, 1 Sales v. Director of Prisons 2 Espuelas v. the findings may be upon which his recommitment was ordered. 11
Provincial Warden of Bohol 3 and Torres v. Gonzales, 4 that, where a conditional pardonee has allegedly
breached a condition of a pardon, the President who opts to proceed against him under Section 64 (i) of It matters not that in the case of Torres, he has allegedly been acquitted in two of the three criminal cases
the Revised Administrative Code need not wait for a judicial pronouncement of guilt of a subsequent crime filed against him subsequent to his conditional pardon, and that the third case remains pending for
or for his conviction therefor by final judgment, in order to effectuate the recommitment of the pardonee thirteen (13) years in apparent violation of his right to a speedy trial.
to prison. The grant of pardon, the determination of the terms and conditions of the pardon, the
determination of the occurrence of the breach thereof, and the proper sanctions for such breach, are Habeas corpus lies only where the restraint of a person's liberty has been judicially adjudged as illegal or
purely executive acts and, thus, are not subject to judicial scrutiny. We have so ruled in the past, and we unlawful. In the instant petition, the incarceration of Torres remains legal considering that, were it not for
so rule now. the grant of conditional pardon which had been revoked because of a breach thereof, the determination
of which is beyond judicial scrutiny, he would have served his final sentence for his first conviction until
In this original petition for habeas corpus, the wife and children of convicted felon Wilfredo Sumulong November 2, 2000.
Torres pray for his immediate release from prison on the ground that the exercise of the President's
prerogative under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code to determine the occurrence, if any, Ultimately, solely vested in the Chief Executive, who in the first place was the exclusive author of the
of a breach of a condition of a pardon in violation of pardonee's right to due process and the constitutional conditional pardon and of its revocation, is the corrollary prerogative to reinstate the pardon if in his own
presumption of innocence, constitutes a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of judgment, the acquittal of the pardonee from the subsequent charges filed against him, warrants the
jurisdiction. same. Courts have no authority to interefer with the grant by the President of a pardon to a convicted
criminal. It has been our fortified ruling that a final judicial pronouncement as to the guilt of a pardonee is
Of two counts of estafa Torres was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila some time before not a requirement for the President to determine whether or not there has been a breach of the terms of
1979. These convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The maximum sentence would expire on a conditional pardon. There is likewise nil a basis for the courts to effectuate the reinstatement of a
November 2, 2000. On April 18, 1979, a conditional pardon was granted to Torres by the President of the conditional pardon revoked by the President in the exercise of powers undisputedly solely and absolutely
Philippines on condition that petitioner would "not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines. lodged in his office.
5" Petitioner accepted the conditional pardon and was consequently released from confinement. 6
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. No
On May 21, 1986, the Board of Pardons and Parole resolved to recommend to the President the pronouncement as to costs.
cancellation of the conditional pardon granted to Torres because Torres had been charged with twenty
counts of estafa before, and convicted of sedition by, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. On Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015
September 8, 1986, the President cancelled the conditional pardon of Torres. On October 10, 1986, then
Minister of Justice Neptali A. Gonzales issued "by authority of the President" an Order of Arrest and FACTS:
Recommitment 7 against petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly arrested and confined in Muntinlupa
to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence. Torres impugned the validity of the Order of Arrest and September 12, 2007, the Sandiganbayan convicted former President Estrada, a former President of the
Recommitment in the aforecited case of Torres v. Gonzales 8. There we ruled that: Republic of the Philippines, for the crime of plunder.
Succinctly put, in proceeding against a convict who has been conditional pardoned and who is alleged to October 25, 2007, however, former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (former President Arroyo)
have breached the conditions of his pardon, the Executive Department has two options: (i) to proceed extended executive clemency, by way of pardon, to former President Estrada.
against him under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code, or (ii) to proceed against him under
Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code . . . Here, the President has chosen to proceed against the petitioner October 2, 2012, former President Estrada once more ventured into the political arena, and filed a
under Section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code. That choice is an exercise of the President's Certificate of Candidacy, this time vying for a local elective post, that of the Mayor of the City of Manila.
executive prerogative and is not subject to judicial scrutiny. 9
January 24, 2013, Risos-Vidal, the petitioner in this case, filed a Petition for Disqualification against former
Now, Torres, apparently through his wife and children, seeks anew relief from this court. Unfortunately, President Estrada before the COMELEC. Risos Vidal anchored her petition on the theory that Former
there is no adequate basis for us to oblige him. President Estrada is Disqualified to Run for Public Office because of his Conviction for Plunder by the
Sandiganbayan Sentencing Him to Suffer the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with Perpetual Absolute
A conditional pardon is in the nature of a contract between the sovereign power or the Chief Executive Disqualification.
and the convicted criminal to the effect that the former will release the latter subject to the condition that
if he does not comply with the terms of the pardon, he will be recommitted to prison to serve the ISSUE: Whether or not former President Estrada is qualified to vote and be voted for in public office as a
unexpired portion of the sentence or an additional one. 10 By the pardonee's consent to the terms result of the pardon granted to him by former President Arroyo.
stipulated in this contract, the pardonee has thereby placed himself under the supervision of the Chief
HELD:
The first cited provision applies to any form of treaties and international agreements in general with
Yes, former President Estrada is qualified to vote and be voted for in public office as a result of the pardon a wide variety of subject matter. All treaties and international agreements entered into by the Philippines,
granted to him by former President Arroyo. regardless of subject matter, coverage or particular designation requires the concurrence of the Senate to
be valid and effective.
It is well-entrenched that where the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must
be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. Verba legis non est In contrast, the second cited provision applies to treaties which involve presence of foreign military
recedendum. From the words of a statute there should be no departure. It is this Courts firm view that bases, troops and facilities in the Philippines. Both constitutional provisions share some common ground.
the phrase in the presidential pardon at issue which declares that former President Estrada is hereby The fact that the President referred the VFA to the Senate under Sec. 21 Art. VII, and that Senate extended
restored to his civil and political rights substantially complies with the requirement of express restoration. its concurrence under the same provision is immaterial.
On December 30, 1993, the President signed the bill into law, making it as Republic Act No. 7663, entitled Meanwhile, in September 2013, Senator Jinggoy Estrada made an expos claiming that he, and
"AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM other Senators, received Php50M from the President as an incentive for voting in favor of the
JANUARY ONE TO DECEMBER THIRTY ONE, NINETEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY-FOUR, AND FOR OTHER impeachment of then Chief Justice Renato Corona. Secretary Abad claimed that the money was taken from
PURPOSES" (GAA of 1994). On the same day, the President delivered his Presidential Veto Message, the DAP but was disbursed upon the request of the Senators.
specifying the provisions of the bill he vetoed and on which he imposed certain conditions.
This apparently opened a can of worms as it turns out that the DAP does not only realign funds
Petitioners assail the special provision allowing a member of Congress to realign his allocation for within the Executive. It turns out that some non-Executive projects were also funded; to name a few:
operational expenses to any other expense category claiming that it violates Section 25, Article 7 of the Php1.5B for the CPLA (Cordillera Peoples Liberation Army), Php1.8B for the MNLF (Moro National
Constitution. Issues of constitutionality were raised before the Supreme Court. Liberation Front), P700M for the Quezon Province, P50-P100M for certain Senators each, P10B for
Relocation Projects, etc.
Petition prayed for a writ of prohibition to declare unconstitutional and void the provision under Article
16 of the Countrywide Development Fund and the veto of the President of the Special provision of Art This prompted Maria Carolina Araullo, Chairperson of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, and
XLVIII of the GAA of 1994. several other concerned citizens to file various petitions with the Supreme Court questioning the validity
of the DAP. Among their contentions was:
There were 16 members of the Senate who sought for the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus against the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Department of Budget and Management and DAP is unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional rule which provides that no
the National Treasurer and questions the constitutionality of the conditions imposed by the President in money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
the items of the GAA of 1994 as well as the constitutionality of the veto of the special provision in the
appropriation for debt services. Secretary Abad argued that the DAP is based on certain laws particularly the GAA (savings and
augmentation provisions thereof), Sec. 25(5), Art. VI of the Constitution (power of the President to
Senator Tanada and Senator Romulo sought the issuance of the writs of prohibition and mandamus against augment), Secs. 38 and 49 of Executive Order 292 (power of the President to suspend expenditures and
the same respondents. Petitioners contest the constitutionality of (1) the veto on four special provisions authority to use savings, respectively).
added to items in the GAA of 1994 for the AFP and DPWH; and (2) the conditions imposed by the President
in the implementation of certain appropriations for the CAFGUs, DPWH, and National Highway Authority. ISSUE. Whether or not the DAP realignments can be considered as impoundments by the executive.
Issue: Whether or not the Presidents veto is valid? RULING: No, there is no executive impoundment in the DAP. Impoundment of funds refers to the
Presidents power to refuse to spend appropriations or to retain or deduct appropriations for whatever
Decision: Petition dismissed. Congress can not include in the general appropriations matters that should reason. Impoundment is actually prohibited by the GAA unless there will be an unmanageable national
be enacted in a separate legislation and if it does so, the inappropriate provision must be treated as an government budget deficit (which did not happen). Nevertheless, theres no impoundment in the case at
item and can be vetoed by the President. bar because whats involved in the DAP was the transfer of funds.
he provision in GAA authorizing the Chief of Staff to use savings to augment the pension and
gratuity fund violates Section 25 (paragraph 5) and Section 29 (paragraph 1) of Article 6 of the 1987
Constitution. Only the President is authorized to augment items from savings in the general appropriation
to the executive branch. Also pursuant to Section 29 no money shall be paid out of the treasury except
in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
VINUYA VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY November 13, 2000, Estrada was impeached by the Hor and, on December 7, impeachment proceedings
G.R. No. 162230, 28 April 2010 were begun in the Senate during which more serious allegations of graft and corruption against Estrada
were made and were only stopped on January 16, 2001 when 11 senators, sympathetic to the President,
FACTS succeeded in suppressing damaging evidence against Estrada. As a result, the impeachment trial was
thrown into an uproar as the entire prosecution panel walked out and Senate President Pimentel resigned
Petitioners narrate that during the Second World War, the Japanese army attacked villages and after casting his vote against Estrada.
systematically raped the women as part of the destruction of the village. As a result of the actions of their
Japanese tormentors, the petitioners have spent their lives in misery, having endured physical injuries, On January 19, PNP and the AFP also withdrew their support for Estrada and joined the crowd at EDSA
pain and disability, and mental emotional suffering. Petitioners claim that since 1998, they have Shrine. Estrada called for a snap presidential election to be held concurrently with congressional and local
approached the Executive Department through the DOJ, DFA and OSG, requesting assistance in filing a elections on May 14, 2001. He added that he will not run in this election. On January 20, SC declared that
claim against the Japanese officials and military officers who ordered the establishment of the comfort the seat of presidency was vacant, saying that Estrada constructively resigned his post. At noon, Arroyo
women stations in the Philippines. However, said officials declined to assist the petitioners, and took the took her oath of office in the presence of the crowd at EDSA as the 14th President. Estrada and his family
position that the individual claims for compensation have already been fully satisfied by Japans later left Malacaang Palace. Erap, after his fall, filed petition for prohibition with prayer for WPI. It sought
compliance with the Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Japan. Petitioners also argued that the to enjoin the respondent Ombudsman from conducting any further proceedings in cases filed against him
comfort women system constituted a crime against humanity, sexual slavery, and torture. They alleged not until his term as president ends. He also prayed for judgment confirming Estrada to be the lawful and
that the prohibition against these international crimes is jus cogens norms from which no derogation is incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his
possible, as such, the Philippine government is in breach of its legal obligation not to afford impunity for office.
crimes against humanity.
ISSUE(S):
ISSUE 1. WoN the petition presents a justiciable controversy.
Whether the Executive Department committed grave abuse of discretion in not espousing petitioners RULING:
claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan.
1. Political questions- "to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people
RULING in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the
legislative or executive branch of the government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom,
No. The question whether the government should espouse claims of its nationals against a foreign not legality of a particular measure."
government is a foreign relations matter, the authority for which is demonstrably committed by our Legal distinction between EDSA People Power I EDSA People Power II:
Constitution not to the courts but to the political branches. In this case, the Executive Department has
determined that taking up petitioners cause would be inimical to our countrys foreign policy interests,
and could disrupt our relations with Japan, thereby creating serious implications for stability in this region.
For the Court to overturn the Executive Departments determination would mean an assessment of the
foreign policy judgments by a coordinate political branch to which authority to make that judgment has
been constitutionally committed. In the international sphere, traditionally, the only means available for
individuals to bring a claim within the international legal system has been when the individual is able to
persuade a government to bring a claim on the individuals behalf. Even then, it is not the individuals rights
that are being asserted, but rather, the states own rights. The State, therefore, is the sole judge to decide
whether its protection will be granted, to what extent it is granted, and when will it cease.
The Court fully agree that rape, sexual slavery, torture, and sexual violence are morally
reprehensible as well as legally prohibited under contemporary international law. However, it does not
automatically imply that the Philippines is under a non-derogable obligation to prosecute international
crimes. Absent the consent of the states, an applicable treaty regime, or a directive by the Security Council,
there is no non-derogable duty to institute proceedings against Japan. Even the invocation of jus cogens
norms and erga omnes obligations will not alter this analysis. Even if we sidestep the question of whether
jus cogens norms existed in 1951, petitioners have not deigned to show that the crimes committed by the
Japanese army violated jus cogens prohibitions at the time the Treaty of Peace was signed, or that the
duty to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes is an erga omnes obligation or has attained the The cases at bar pose legal and not political questions. The principal issues for resolution require the
status of jus cogens. proper interpretation of certain provisions in the 1987 Constitution: Sec 1 of Art II, and Sec 8 of Art VII,
and the allocation of governmental powers under Sec 11 of Art VII. The issues likewise call for a ruling on
Estrada vs Desierto G.R. No. 146710-15 March 2 2001 the scope of presidential immunity from suit. They also involve the correct calibration of the right of
petitioner against prejudicial publicity.
FACTS:
It began in October 2000 when allegations of wrong doings involving bribe-taking, illegal gambling, and
other forms of corruption were made against Estrada before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. On
Cruz vs Secretary of DENR This case involves the proposed bills abolishing the Judiciary Development Fund1 and replacing
Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine it with the "Judiciary Support Fund." Funds collected from the proposed Judiciary Support Fund shall be
remitted to the national treasury and Congress shall determine how the funds will be used. Petitioner Rolly
GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000 Mijares (Mijares) prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamus in order to compel this court to exercise its
judicial independence and fiscal autonomy against the perceived hostility of Congress. The complaint
FACTS: implied that certain acts of members of Congress and the President after the promulgation of these cases
Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and show a threat to judicial independence.
taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known The issue for resolution is whether petitioner Rolly Mijares has sufficiently shown grounds for
as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The this court to grant the petition and issue a writ of mandamus. Petitioner argues that Congress gravely
petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful abused its discretion with a blatant usurpation of judicial independence and fiscal autonomy of the
deprivation of the States ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural Supreme Court. Petitioner points out that Congress is exercising its power in an arbitrary and despotic
resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution. manner by reason of passion or personal hostility by abolishing the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) of
the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: The power of judicial review, like all powers granted by the Constitution, is subject to certain
Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution? limitations. Petitioner must comply with all the requisites for judicial review before this court may take
cognizance of the case. Petitioners failure to comply with the first two requisites warrants the outright
HELD: dismissal of this petition.
No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in the
law that grants to the ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural resources within their ancestral domain. ISSUE: Whether petitioner Rolly Mijares has sufficiently shown grounds for this court to grant the petition
Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral domains remains with the State and the rights and issue a writ of mandamus.
granted by the IPRA to the ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their ancestral domains merely gives
them, as owners and occupants of the land on which the resources are found, the right to the small scale RULING: One of the requirements for this court to exercise its power of judicial review is the existence
utilization of these resources, and at the same time, a priority in their large scale development and of an actual controversy. This means that there must be an existing case or controversy that is appropriate
exploitation. or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the decision of the court would amount to
an advisory opinion. Petitioners allegations show that he wants this court to strike down the proposed
Additionally, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not part of the lands of the public domain. They bills abolishing the Judiciary Development Fund. This court, however, must act only within its powers
are private lands and belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept of private land title that granted under the Constitution. This court is not empowered to review proposed bills because a bill is not
existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However, the right of ownership and possession by a law.
the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right to Similar to Montesclaros, petitioner is asking this court to stop Congress from passing laws that
alienate the same. will abolish the Judiciary Development Fund. This court has explained that the filing of bills is within the
legislative power of Congress and is not subject to judicial restraint. A proposed bill produces no legal
Seven (7) voted to dismiss the petition. Justice Kapunan filed an opinion, which the Chief Justice and effects until it is passed into law. Under the Constitution, the judiciary is mandated to interpret laws. It
Justices Bellosillo, Quisumbing, and Santiago join, sustaining the validity of the challenged provisions of cannot speculate on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a bill that Congress may or may not
R.A. 8371. Justice Puno also filed a separate opinion sustaining all challenged provisions of the law with pass. It cannot rule on mere speculations or issues that are not ripe for judicial determination. The petition,
the exception of Section 1, Part II, Rule III of NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998, the Rules and therefore, does not present any actual case or controversy that is ripe for this courts determination.
Regulations Implementing the IPRA, and Section 57 of the IPRA which he contends should be interpreted For this reason, we appreciate petitioner's concern for the judiciary. It is often only through the
as dealing with the large-scale exploitation of natural resources and should be read in conjunction with vigilance of private citizens that issues relating to the judiciary can be discussed in the political sphere.
Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. On the other hand, Justice Mendoza voted to dismiss the Unfortunately, the remedy he seeks cannot be granted by this court. But his crusade is not a lost cause.
petition solely on the ground that it does not raise a justiciable controversy and petitioners do not have Considering that what he seeks to be struck down is a proposed bill, it would be better for him to air his
standing to question the constitutionality of R.A. 8371. concerns by lobbying in Congress. There, he may discover the representatives and senators who may have
a similar enthusiastic response to truly making the needed investments in the Rule of Law.
Indeed, the judicial power cannot be extended to matters which do not involve actual cases or
controversies without upsetting the balance of power among the three branches of the government and RULE 63 Declaratory Relief and Similar Remedies
erecting, as it were, the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, as a third branch of Congress, with power Section 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written
not only to invalidate statutes but even to rewrite them. Yet that is exactly what we would be permitting instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any
in this case were we to assume jurisdiction and decide wholesale the constitutional validity of the IPRA other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof bring an action in the appropriate
contrary to the established rule that a party can question the validity of a statute only if, as applied to him, Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of
it is unconstitutional. Here the IPRA is sought to be declared void on its face. his rights or duties, thereunder. (Bar Matter No. 803, 17 February 1998)
But, in this case, what public right is there for petitioners to enforce when the IPRA does not apply to them ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
except in general and in common with other citizens.
For the foregoing reasons I vote to dismiss the petition in this case. FACTS:
Before us is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing Commission
UDK-15143: In the matter of: Save the Supreme Court Judicial Independence and Fiscal Autonomy on Elections (Comelec) en banc Resolution No. 98-1419[1] dated April 21, 1998. In the said Resolution, the
Movement v. Abolition of Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Reduction of Fiscal Autonomy poll body
IBP v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81(2000)
"RESOLVED to approve the issuance of a restraining order to stop ABS-CBN or any other groups, its agents
or representatives from conducting such exit survey and to authorize the Honorable Chairman to issue the
same."
The Resolution was issued by the Comelec allegedly upon "information from [a] reliable source
that ABS-CBN (Lopez Group) has prepared a project, with PR groups, to conduct radio-TV coverage of the
elections x x x and to make [an] exit survey of the x x x vote during the elections for national officials
particularly for President and Vice President, results of which shall be [broadcast] immediately."[2] The
electoral body believed that such project might conflict with the official Comelec count, as well as the
unofficial quick count of the National Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel). It also noted that it had not
authorized or deputized Petitioner ABS-CBN to undertake the exit survey.
On May 9, 1998, this Court issued the Temporary Restraining Order prayed for by petitioner.
We directed the Comelec to cease and desist, until further orders, from implementing the assailed
Resolution or the restraining order issued pursuant thereto, if any. In fact, the exit polls were actually
conducted and reported by media without any difficulty or problem.
ISSUE: Petitioner raises this lone issue: "Whether or not the Respondent Commission acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction when it approved the issuance of a
restraining order enjoining the petitioner or any [other group], its agents or representatives from
conducting exit polls during the x x x May 11 elections."[3]
In his Memorandum,[4] the solicitor general, in seeking to dismiss the Petition, brings up
additional issues: (1) mootness and (2) prematurity, because of petitioner's failure to seek a
reconsideration of the assailed Comelec Resolution.
Respondents stated that the proximate cause behind the executive issuances was the conspiracy among
some military officers, leftist insurgents of the New Peoples Army (NPA), and some members of the
political opposition in a plot to unseat or assassinate President Arroyo. They considered the aim to oust or Fourteen Thousand Pesos (P14,000.00), Philippine Currency, to the damage and prejudice of the
assassinate the President and take-over the reigns of government as a clear and present danger. Government in the amount aforestated.
Issue: whether petitioners have legal standing
Lalican claimed that the law is vague and standardless as it does not specify the authority or the legal
Held: documents required by existing forest laws and regulations. Hence, the information should be quashed as
Locus standi is defined as a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question. In it violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law.
private suits, standing is governed by the real-parties-in interest rule as contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. It provides that every action must be prosecuted or ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of the case id proper
defended in the name of the real party in interest. Accordingly, the real-party-in interest is the party
who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the RULING: The Court, therefore, finds that the lower court did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying
suit. Succinctly put, the plaintiffs standing is based on his own right to the relief sought. the quashal of the information. The petition simply has no legal basis. Certiorari may be issued only where
it is clearly shown that there is patent and gross abuse of discretion as to amount to an evasion of positive
Case law in most jurisdictions now allows both citizen and taxpayer standing in public actions. duty or to virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as
However, to prevent just about any person from seeking judicial interference in any official policy or act where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
with which he disagreed with, and thus hinders the activities of governmental agencies engaged in public hostility. 11 Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of power.
service the Supreme Court laid down the more stringent direct injury test. For a private individual to Certiorari is not the proper remedy where a motion to quash an information is denied. That the
invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of an executive or legislative action, he must show that appropriate recourse is to proceed to trial and in case of conviction, to appeal such conviction, as well as
he has sustained a direct injury as a result of that action, and it is not sufficient that he has a general the denial of the motion to quash, is impelled by the fact that a denial of a motion to quash is an
interest common to all members of the public. However, being a mere procedural technicality, the interlocutory procedural aspect which cannot be appealed nor can it be the subject of a petition for
requirement of locus standi may be waived by the Court in the exercise of its discretion in cases of certiorari.
transcendental importance and far-reaching implications. With respect to the constitutionality of Sec. 68 of P.D. No. 705 which petitioner would have this
Court consider, 24 this Court has always desisted from delving on constitutional issues. Thus, even if all
By way of summary, the following rules may be culled from the cases decided by the Supreme the requisites for judicial review of a constitutional matter are present in a case, 25 this Court will not pass
Court. Taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators may be accorded standing to sue, provided upon a constitutional question unless it is the lis mota of the case or if the case can be disposed of on some
that the following requirements are met: other grounds, such as the application of the statute or general law. 26
The Court can well take judicial notice of the deplorable problem of deforestation in this
(1) the cases involve constitutional issues; country, considering that the deleterious effects of this problem are now imperiling our lives and
(2) for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is properties, more specifically, by causing rampaging floods in the lowlands. While it is true that the rights
unconstitutional; of an accused must be favored in the interpretation of penal provisions of law, it is equally true that when
(3) for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question; the general welfare and interest of the people are interwoven in the prosecution of a crime, the Court
(4) for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental must arrive at a solution only after a fair and just balancing of interests. This the Court did in arriving at
importance which must be settled early; and the foregoing interpretation of Sec. 68 of the Revised Forestry Reform Code. This task, however, has not
(5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their at all been a difficult one considering that, contrary to petitioner's assertion, his rights to due process and
prerogatives as legislators. equal protection of the law have not been clearly shown to have been jeopardized.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition is hereby DISMISSED.
EPIFANIO LALICAN, petitioner, vs. HON. FILOMENO A. VERGARA, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 52, Puerto
Princesa City and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS: The issue posed for resolution in this petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order is whether or not a charge of illegal possession of "lumber" is
excluded from the crime of illegal possession of "timber" as defined in Sec. 68 of Presidential Decree No.
705 (The Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines), as amended, to warrant the quashal of an information
charging the former offense or a "nonexistent crime."
On July 23, 1991, an information for violation of Section 68 of P.D. No. 705, as amended by Executive Order
No. 277, was filed by the City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa City against petitioner Epifanio Lalican, 1 Ruben
Benitez, Allan Pulgar and Jose Roblo before the Regional Trial Court of that city. Docketed as Criminal Case
No. 9543, the information reads:
That on or about the 9th day of February, 1991, at Sitio Cadiz, Barangay Bacungan, City of Puerto Princesa,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without lawful
authority or permit, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession, custody and control 1,800 board
feet of assorted species and dimensions of lumber on board two (2) passenger jeeps, with a value of
It is also emphasized that every court, including this Court, is charged with the duty of a purposeful
hesitation before declaring a law unconstitutional, on the theory that the measure was first carefully
studied by the executive and the legislative departments and determined by them to be in accordance
with the fundamental law before it was finally approved. To doubt is to sustain. The presumption of
constitutionality can be overcome only by the clearest showing that there was indeed an infraction of the
Constitution, and only when such a conclusion is reached by the required majority may the Court
pronounce, in the discharge of the duty it cannot escape, that the challenged act must be struck down.