Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Republic of the Philippines discontinue the withholding of taxes from salaries of withholding tax from the salaries of the members of the
SUPREME COURT members of the Bench. Thus, on June 4, 1987, the Supreme Court, as well as from the salaries of all other
Manila Court en banc had reaffirmed the Chief Justice’s directive members of the Judiciary. The Court hereby makes of
EN BANC as follows: record that it had then discarded the ruling in Perfecto vs.
G.R. No. 78780 July 23, 1987 RE: Question of exemption from income taxation. — The Meer and Endencia vs. David, infra, that declared the
DAVID G. NITAFAN, WENCESLAO M. POLO, and Court REAFFIRMED the Chief Justice’s previous and salaries of members of the Judiciary exempt from payment
MAXIMO A. SAVELLANO, JR., petitioners, standing directive to the Fiscal Management and Budget of the income tax and considered such payment as a
vs. Office of this Court to continue with the deduction of the diminution of their salaries during their continuance in
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and THE withholding taxes from the salaries of the Justices of the office. The Court hereby reiterates that the salaries of
FINANCIAL OFFICER, SUPREME COURT OF THE Supreme Court as well as from the salaries of all other Justices and Judges are properly subject to a general
PHILIPPINES, respondents. members of the judiciary. income tax law applicable to all income earners and that
That should have resolved the question. However, with the the payment of such income tax by Justices and Judges
RESOLUTION filing of this petition, the Court has deemed it best to settle does not fall within the constitutional protection against
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: the legal issue raised through this judicial pronouncement. decrease of their salaries during their continuance in
Petitioners, the duly appointed and qualified Judges As will be shown hereinafter, the clear intent of the office.
presiding over Branches 52, 19 and 53, respectively, of the Constitutional Commission was to delete the proposed A comparison of the Constitutional provisions involved is
Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, all express grant of exemption from payment of income tax to called for. The 1935 Constitution provided:
with stations in Manila, seek to prohibit and/or perpetually members of the Judiciary, so as to “give substance to … (The members of the Supreme Court and all judges of
enjoin respondents, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue equality among the three branches of Government” in the inferior courts) shall receive such compensation as may be
and the Financial Officer of the Supreme Court, from words of Commissioner Rigos. In the course of the fixed by law, which shall not be diminished during their
making any deduction of withholding taxes from their deliberations, it was further expressly made clear, specially continuance in office … 1 (Emphasis supplied).
salaries. with regard to Commissioner Joaquin F. Bernas’ accepted Under the 1973 Constitution, the same provision read:
In a nutshell, they submit that “any tax withheld from their amendment to the amendment of Commissioner Rigos, The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate
emoluments or compensation as judicial officers that the salaries of members of the Judiciary would be Justices of the Supreme court, and of judges of inferior
constitutes a decrease or diminution of their salaries, subject to the general income tax applied to all taxpayers. courts shall be fixed by law, which shall not
contrary to the provision of Section 10, Article VIII of the This intent was somehow and inadvertently not clearly set be decreased during their continuance in office.
1987 Constitution mandating that “(d)uring their forth in the final text of the Constitution as approved and … 2 (Emphasis ours).
continuance in office, their salary shall not be decreased,” ratified in February, 1987 (infra, pp. 7-8). Although the And in respect of income tax exemption, another provision
even as it is anathema to the Ideal of an independent intent may have been obscured by the failure to include in in the same 1973 Constitution specifically stipulated:
judiciary envisioned in and by said Constitution.” the General Provisions a proscription against exemption of No salary or any form of emolument of any public officer or
It may be pointed out that, early on, the Court had dealt any public officer or employee, including constitutional employee, including constitutional officers, shall be exempt
3
with the matter administratively in response to officers, from payment of income tax, the Court since then from payment of income tax.
The provision in the 1987 Constitution, which petitioners income, we tax the income, not the salary. Why do we as to “give substance to equality among the three
rely on, reads: have to give special privileges to the salary of justices? branches in the government.
The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate MR. CONCEPCION. It is the independence of the Commissioner Florenz D. Regalado, on behalf of the
Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower judiciary. We prohibit the increase or decrease of their Committee on the Judiciary, defended the original draft
courts shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in salary during their term. This is an indirect way of and referred to the ruling of this Court in Perfecto vs.
office, their salary shall not be decreased. 4(Emphasis decreasing their salary and affecting the independence of Meer 8 that “the independence of the judges is of far
supplied). the judges. greater importance than any revenue that could come from
The 1987 Constitution does not contain a provision similar MS. AQUINO. I appreciate that to be in the nature of a taxing their salaries.” Commissioner Rigos then moved
to Section 6, Article XV of the 1973 Constitution, for which clause to respect tenure, but the special privilege on that the matter be put to a vote. Commissioner Joaquin G.
reason, petitioners claim that the intent of the framers is to taxation might, in effect, be a violation of the principle of Bernas stood up “in support of an amendment to the
revert to the original concept of “non-diminution “of salaries uniformity in taxation and the equal protection clause. 6 amendment with the request for a modification of the
of judicial officers. xxx xxx xxx amendment,” as follows:
The deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission MR. OPLE. x x x FR. BERNAS. Yes. I am going to propose an amendment
relevant to Section 10, Article VIII, negate such contention. Of course, we share deeply the concern expressed by the to the amendment saying that it is not enough to drop the
The draft proposal of Section 10, Article VIII, of the 1987 sponsor, Commissioner Roberto Concepcion, for whom we phrase “shall not be subjected to income tax,” because if
Constitution read: have the highest respect, to surround the Supreme Court that is all that the Gentleman will do, then he will just fall
Section 13. The salary of the Chief Justice and the and the judicial system as a whole with the whole armor of back on the decision in Perfecto vs. Meer and in Dencia
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and of judges of defense against the executive and legislative invasion of vs. David [should be Endencia and Jugo vs. David, etc., 93
the lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their their independence. But in so doing, some of the citizens Phil. 696] which excludes them from income tax, but rather
continuance in office, their salary shall not be diminished outside, especially the humble government employees, I would propose that the statement will read: “During their
nor subjected to income tax. Until the National Assembly might say that in trying to erect a bastion of justice, we continuance in office, their salary shall not be diminished
shall provide otherwise, the Chief Justice shall receive an might end up with the fortress of privileges, an island of BUT MAY BE SUBJECT TO GENERAL INCOME TAX.”IN
annual salary of _____________ and each Associate extra territoriality under the Republic of the Philippines, support of this position, I would say that the argument
Justice ______________ pesos. 5 (Emphasis ours) because a good number of powers and rights accorded to seems to be that the justice and judges should not be
During the debates on the draft Article (Committee Report the Judiciary here may not be enjoyed in the remotest subjected to income tax because they already gave up the
No. 18), two Commissioners presented their objections to degree by other employees of the government. income from their practice. That is true also of Cabinet
the provision on tax exemption, thus: An example is the exception from income tax, which is a members and all other employees. And I know right now,
MS. AQUINO. Finally, on the matter of exemption from tax kind of economic immunity, which is, of course, denied to for instance, there are many people who have accepted
7
of the salary of justices, does this not violate the principle the entire executive department and the legislative. employment in the government involving a reduction of
of the uniformity of taxation and the principle of equal And during the period of amendments on the draft Article, income and yet are still subject to income tax. So, they are
protection of the law? After all, tax is levied not on the on July 14, 1986, Commissioner Cirilo A. Rigos proposed not the only citizens whose income is reduced by
salary but on the combined income, such that when the that the term “diminished” be changed to “decreased” and accepting service in government.
judge receives a salary and it is comingled with the other that the words “nor subjected to income tax” be deleted so
Commissioner Rigos accepted the proposed amendment tax? The amendment proposed herein and accepted by would be a strained construction to read into the provision
to the amendment. Commissioner Rustico F. de los Reyes, the Committee now reads as follows: “During their an exemption from taxation in the light of the discussion in
Jr. then moved for a suspension of the session. Upon continuance in office, their salary shall not be the Constitutional Commission.
resumption, Commissioner Bernas announced: DECREASED”; and the phrase “nor subjected to income With the foregoing interpretation, and as stated heretofore,
During the suspension, we came to an understanding with tax” is deleted.9 the ruling that “the imposition of income tax upon the
the original proponent, Commissioner Rigos, that his The debates, interpellations and opinions expressed salary of judges is a diminution thereof, and so violates the
amendment on page 6,. line 4 would read: “During their regarding the constitutional provision in question until it Constitution” in Perfecto vs. Meer,13 as affirmed
14
continuance in office, their salary shall not be was finally approved by the Commission disclosed that the in Endencia vs. David must be declared discarded. The
DECREASED.”But this is on the understanding that there true intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, in framers of the fundamental law, as the alter ego of the
will be a provision in the Constitution similar to Section 6 of adopting it, was to make the salaries of members of the people, have expressed in clear and unmistakable terms
Article XV, the General Provisions of the 1973 Judiciary taxable. The ascertainment of that intent is but in the meaning and import of Section 10, Article VIII, of the
Constitution, which says: keeping with the fundamental principle of constitutional 1987 Constitution that they have adopted
No salary or any form of emolument of any public officer or construction that the intent of the framers of the organic Stated otherwise, we accord due respect to the intent of
employee, including constitutional officers, shall be exempt law and of the people adopting it should be given the people, through the discussions and deliberations of
10
from payment of income tax. effect. The primary task in constitutional construction is to their representatives, in the spirit that all citizens should
So, we put a period (.) after “DECREASED” on the ascertain and thereafter assure the realization of the bear their aliquot part of the cost of maintaining the
understanding that the salary of justices is subject to tax. purpose of the framers and of the people in the adoption of government and should share the burden of general
11
When queried about the specific Article in the General the Constitution. it may also be safely assumed that the income taxation equitably.
Provisions on non-exemption from tax of salaries of public people in ratifying the Constitution were guided mainly by WHEREFORE, the instant petition for Prohibition is
12
officers, Commissioner Bernas replied: the explanation offered by the framers. hereby DISMISSED.
FR BERNAS. Yes, I do not know if such an article will be Besides, construing Section 10, Articles VIII, of the 1987
found in the General Provisions. But at any rate, when we Constitution, which, for clarity, is again reproduced
JOSE D. FILOTEO, JR., petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
put a period (.) after “DECREASED,” it is on the hereunder: and THE PEOPLE OF THE
understanding that the doctrine in Perfecto vs. Meer and The salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Dencia vs. David will not apply anymore. Justices of the Supreme Court, and of judges of lower
DECISION
The amendment to the original draft, as discussed and courts shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in
understood, was finally approved without objection. office, their salary shall not be decreased. (Emphasis PANGANIBAN, J.:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bengzon). The supplied).
A person under investigation for the commission of
understanding, therefore, is that there will be a provision it is plain that the Constitution authorizes Congress to pass
an offense is constitutionally guaranteed certain
under the Article on General Provisions. Could a law fixing another rate of compensation of Justices and rights. One of the most cherished of these is the right “to
have competent and independent counsel preferably of his
Commissioner Rosario Braid kindly take note that the Judges but such rate must be higher than that which they
choice”. The 1987 Constitution, unlike its predecessors,
salaries of officials of the government including are receiving at the time of enactment, or if lower, it would expressly covenants that such guarantee “cannot be
constitutional officers shall not be exempt from income be applicable only to those appointed after its approval. It waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel”. In the present case, petitioner claims that such
proscription against an uncounselled waiver of the right to the Bureau of Postal while it was travelling along the “The existence of the bound record of Criminal Case No.
counsel is applicable to him retroactively, even though his MacArthur Highway of said municipality, at the point of 50737-B-82, consisting of 343 pages from the Bulacan CFI
custodial investigation took place in 1983 -- long before the their guns, and then take, rob and carry away with them (Exhibit A); in 1982 or thereabouts, accused Bernardo
effectivity of the new Constitution. He also alleges that his the following, to wit: Relator was a PC Sergeant at Camp Bagond Diwa,
arrest was illegal, that his extrajudicial confession was Bicutan, Metro Manila; as such PC Sergeant, accused
extracted through torture, and that the prosecution’s Relator was issued a service revolver, Smith & Wesson
1) Postal Delivery Truck
evidence was insufficient to convict him. Finally, though Revolver, 32 (sic), with Serial No. 11707 (Exhibit B) and
not raised by petitioner, the question of what crime -- 2) Social Security System Medicare Checks holster (Exhibit B-1) with six (6) live ammo (Exhibit B-2); in
brigandage or robbery -- was committed is likewise motu and Vouchers 1982 or thereabouts, accused Eddie Saguindel was a PC
propio addressed by the Court in this Decision. Constable First Class; on May 30, 1982, accused
3) Social Security System Pension Checks Saguindel, together with accused Relator and Danilo
Challenged in the instant amended petition is the and Vouchers Miravalles, a former PC Sergeant, was invited for
Decision[1] of respondent Sandiganbayan[2] in Criminal investigation in connection with the hijacking of a delivery
Case No. 8496 promulgated on June 19, 1987 convicting 4) Treasury Warrants van by the elements of the Special Operations Group, PC,
petitioner of brigandage, and the Resolution[3] promulgated and the three availed of their right to remain silent and to
on July 27, 1987 denying his motion for reconsideration. 5) Several Mail Matters from abroad have counsel of their choice, as shown by their Joint
Affidavit (Exhibit A-20); and the existence of the sworn
in the total amount of P253,728.29 more or less, belonging statement executed by accused Martin Mateo (Exhibit A-
to US Government Pensionados, SSS Pensionados, SSS 11) as well as the Certification dated May 30, 1982,
The Facts Medicare Beneficiaries and Private Individuals from subject to the qualification that said document was made
Bulacan, Pampanga, Bataan, Zambales under duress.”
andOlongapo City, to the damage and prejudice of the
Petitioner Jose D. Filoteo, Jr. was a police owners in the aforementioned amount. The prosecution sought to prove its case with the
investigator of the Western Police District in Metro Manila, testimonies of Bernardo Bautista, Rodolfo Miranda, Capt.
an old hand at dealing with suspected criminals. A Contrary to law.” Rosendo Ferrer, M/Sgt. Noel Alcazar and Capt. Samuel
recipient of various awards and commendations attesting Pagdilao, Jr.6-a and the submission of Exhibits A to K. In
to his competence and performance as a police officer, he their defense, accused Filoteo and Miravalles presented
could not therefore imagine that one day he would be On separate dates, accused Filoteo, Mateo, their respective testimonies plus those of Gary Gallardo
sitting on the other side of the investigation table as the Saguindel, Relator and Miravalles, assisted by their and Manolo Almogera. Filoteo also submitted his Exhibits
suspected mastermind of the armed hijacking of a postal respective counsel, pleaded not guilty. Their co-accused 1-14-Filoteo, but Miravalles filed no written
delivery van. Perez, Frias, Mendoza, Liwanag, Castro and Escalada evidence. Thereafter, the prosecution proffered rebuttal
were never arrested and remained at large. Accused evidence and rested with the admission of Exhibits A-16-a,
Along with his co-accused Martin Mateo, Mateo escaped from police custody and was A-31 and L.
Jr. y Mijares, PC/Sgt. Bernardo Relator, Jr. y Retino, CIC tried in absentia in accordance with Article IV, Section 19
Ed Saguindel y Pabinguit, Ex-PC/Sgt. Danilo of the 1973 Constitution. Accused Saguindel and Relator
Miravalles y Marcelo and civilians Ricardo Perez, failed to appear during the trial on February 21, 1985 and
Reynaldo Frias, Raul Mendoza, Angel Liwanag, Severino on March 31, 1986, respectively, and were thus ordered
Castro and Gerardo Escalada, petitioner Filoteo was Evidence for the Prosecution
arrested but remained at large since then. Like in the case
charged in the following Information:[4] of Mateo, proceedings against them were held in
absentia.[5] Only Filoteo filed this petition, after the
respondent Court rendered its assailed Decision and At about 6:30 in the morning of May 3, 1982, Bureau
“That on or about the 3rd day of May, 1982, in the of Post mail van no. MVD 02 left San Fernando,
municipality of Meycauyan, province of Bulacan, Resolution.
Pampanga to pick up and deliver mail matters to and
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Before trial commenced and upon the instance of from Manila. On board the vehicle were Nerito Miranda,
Court, the said accused, two of whom were armed with the prosecution for a stipulation of facts, the defense the driver, and two couriers named Bernardo Bautista and
guns, conspiring, confederating together and helping one
admitted the following:[6] Eminiano Tagudar who were seated beside the
another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and driver. They arrived at around 9:40 that morning at
feloniously with intent of gain and by means of violence, the AirmailDistribution Center of
threat and intimidation, stop the Postal Delivery Truck of
the Manila International Airport where they were issued
waybills[7] for the sacks of mail they collected. They then was Eddie Saguindel. Earlier, as he was about to enter Capt. Ferrer introduced himself and his companions as
proceeded to the Central Post Office where they likewise the car, Bautista looked back and recognized lawmen investigating the hijacking incident. Shocked and
gathered mail matters including 737 check letters[8] sent by Frias.[15] These incidents yielded the pieces of information distressed, Frias calmed down only when assured that his
the United States Embassy. All the mail matters were critical to the subsequent identification of Mendoza, penalty would be mitigated should he cooperate with the
placed inside the delivery van, and its door padlocked. Liwanag, Saguindel and Frias in the line-up of suspects at authorities. Frias thus volunteered to help crack the case
Camp Crame later on. and lead the SOG team to Ricardo Perez and Raul
As they had to deliver mail matters to several towns Mendoza.
of Bulacan, they took the MacArthur Highway on the return The car seemed to move around in circles. When it
trip to Pampanga. When they reached Kalvario, finally came to a stop, the captured men discovered that Capt. Ferrer instructed Lt. Pagdilao, his assistant
Meycauayan, Bulacan at about4:30 in the afternoon, an they were along Kaimito Road in Kalookan City. They operations officer who was in another car during the
old blue Mercedes Benz sedan[9] overtook their van and were made to remove their pants and shoes and then told mission, to accompany Frias to Obrero, Tondo while he
cut across its path. The car had five (5) passengers -- to run towards the shrubs with their heads lowered. Upon escorted Alcantara to their headquarters at Camp
three seated in front and two at the back. The car’s driver realizing that the hijackers had left, they put on their pants Crame. On the way to the headquarters, Alcantara denied
and the passenger beside him were in white shirts; the and reported the incident to the Kalookan Police Station. participation in the hijacking although he admitted living
third man in front and the person immediately behind him with Martin Mateo who allegedly was in possession of
were both clad in fatigue uniforms, while the fifth man in The Security and Intelligence Unit of the Bureau of several checks. Alcantara was turned over to the
the back had on a long-sleeved shirt.[10] Posts recovered the postal van at the corner of Malindang investigation section of the SOG for further questioning.
and Angelo Streets, La Loma, Quezon City on May 4,
Two of the car passengers aimed an armalite and a 1982. Discovered missing were several mail Meanwhile, Lt. Pagdilao’s group was able to corner
hand gun at driver Nerito Miranda as someone uttered, matters,[16] including checks and warrants, along with the Ricardo Perez in his house in Tondo. Confronted with the
“Are you not going to stop this truck?”[11] Frightened, van’s battery, tools and fuel.[17] hijacking incident, Perez admitted participation therein and
Miranda pulled over and stopped the van’s expressed disappointment over his inability to dispose of
engine. Alighting from the car, the armed group identified In a letter-request dated May 6, 1982 to then Col. the checks even after a month from the hijacking. He
themselves as policemen.[12] They ordered the postal Ramon Montaño, then Postmaster General Roilo S. Golez surrendered the checks in his possession to Lt.
employees to disembark from the van. As he stepped out sought the assistance of the Special Operations Group Pagdilao.[19]
of the van, Miranda took the ignition key with him, but (SOG) of the Philippine Constabulary in the investigation
when threatened, he surrendered it to one of the car of the hijacking incident.[18] Responding to the request, the An hour and a half later, Capt. Ferrer received
passengers.[13] The three postal employees were then SOG, which was tasked to detect, investigate and information over their two-way radio that Ricardo Perez
ordered to board the Benz. “neutralize” criminal syndicates in Metro Manila and and Raul Mendoza were in Lt. Pagdilao’s custody. Capt.
adjacent provinces, organized two investigative Ferrer ordered that, instead of returning to headquarters,
As he was about to enter the car, Bautista looked teams. One group was led by Capt. Rosendo Ferrer and Lt. Pagdilao and his companions should meet him in
st
back and saw one of the malefactors, who turned out to be the other by 1 Lt. Samuel Pagdilao. Initially, they Quirino, Novaliches to apprehend Martin Mateo. They met
Reynaldo Frias, going up the van. Inside the car, the three conducted a “massive intelligence build-up” to monitor the at the designated place and proceeded to Gulod,
delivery employees were ordered to lower their drop points where the stolen checks could be sold or Novaliches arriving there at about 10:30 P.M. of May 29,
heads. They sat between two of their captors at the back negotiated. 1982.
of the car while two others were in front. Later, Nerito
Miranda asked permission to straighten up as he was On May 28, 1982, the SOG received a tip from a Walking atop a ricefield dike to the house of Mateo,
feeling dizzy for lack of air. As he stretched, he caught a civilian informer that two persons were looking for buyers they noticed two men heading in their direction. Perez
glimpse of the pimply face of the man to his left. He also of stolen checks. Capt. Ferrer requested the informer to identified them as Martin Mateo and Angel Liwanag. The
recognized the driver who had glanced back. These men arrange a meeting with them. The meeting materialized at latter threw something into the ricefield which, when
turned out to be Angel Liwanag and Reynaldo Frias, about 9:00 P.M. of May 29, 1982 at the Bughaw retrieved, turned out to be bundles of checks wrapped in
respectively.[14] Restaurant in Cubao, Quezon City. With cash on hand, cellophane inside a plastic bag.[20] As the two were about
Capt. Ferrer posed as the buyer. The informer introduced to board the SOG teams's car, Mateo said, “Sir, kung baga
As the car started moving, Bautista complained him to Rey Frias and Rafael Alcantara. Frias in turn sa basketball, talo na kami. Ibibigay ko yong para sa
about feeling “densely confined”. He was allowed to raise showed Capt. Ferrer a sample Social Security System panalo. Marami pa akong tseke doon sa bahay ko, sir,
his head but with eyes closed. However, he sneaked a (SSS) pension check and told him that the bulk of the kunin na natin para di na natin babalikan.”[21] Capt. Ferrer
look and recognized the driver of the car as Raul Mendoza checks were in the possession of their companions in accompanied Mateo to his house where they retrieved
and the fellow beside him who poked a “balisong” at him Obrero, Tondo, Manila. After some negotiations, they several other checks in another plastic bag.
as Angel Liwanag. The man in uniform on the front seat agreed to proceed to Tondo. Then as they boarded a car,
On the way to the SOG headquarters in Camp b. Na ikaw ay may karapatang kumuha ng isang Ssg., PC C1C
Crame, Mateo and Liwanag admitted participation in the abugadong sarili mong pili upang may WAC (PC)"
postal hijacking. At a confrontation with Perez and magpapayo sa iyo habang ikaw ay sinisiyasat;
Mendoza, all four of them pointed to petitioner, Jose D.
3. T:- Maari bang sabihin mong muli ang
Filoteo, Jr., as the mastermind of the crime.
c. Na ikaw ay may karapatang huwag sumagot sa iyong buong pangalan, edad at iba pang
Consequently, Capt. Ferrer directed Lt. Pagdilao to mga katanungang maaring makasira sa iyo sa bagay-bagay na maaring
accompany Mateo to the house of petitioner in Tondo, dahilang anumang iyong isalaysay ay maaaring mapagkakikilalanan sa iyo?
Manila. The lawmen found petitioner at home. Upon gamitin pabor or laban sa iyo sa kinauukulang
hukuman; S:- Jose Filoteo y Diendo, 30-anyos, may
being invited to Camp Crame to shed light on his
asawa, isang Patrolman ng Western
participation in the hijacking, petitioner was dumbfounded
Police District, Metropolitan Police Force
(“parang nagulat”). Pursuant to standard operating d. Na ikaw ay walang maibabayad sa isang abugado, na kasalukuyang nakatalaga sa General
procedure in arrests, petitioner was informed of his ako mismo ang makipag-ugnayan sa CLAO-IBP Assignment Section, Investigation
constitutional rights,[22] whereupon they proceeded to upang ikaw ay magkaroon ng isang abugadong Division ng naturang Distrito ng Pulisya
Camp Crame. However, the group, including petitioner, walang bayad. at kasalukuyang nakatira sa No. 810
returned to the latter’s place to recover the loot. It was “in
Cabesas St., Dagupan, Tondo, Manila.
the neighborhood,” not in petitioner’s house, where the
authorities located the checks.[23] 1. TANONG:- Ang mga bagay-bagay bang
4. T:- Kailan ka pa na-appoint sa service
akin nang naipaliwanag sa iyo ay iyong
bilang isang Kabatas?
The authorities confronted Filoteo about his lubos na naiintindihan at nauunawaan?
participation in the hijacking, telling him that Frias, S:- Noon pong October 1978, hindi ko
Mendoza and Perez had earlier volunteered the SAGOT:- Opo.
maalaala ang exactong petsa, noong
information that petitioner furnished the Benz used in the ako ay mapasok sa serbisyo.
hijacking. Thereupon, Filoteo admitted involvement in the 2. T:- Handa mo bang lagdaan ang ilalim ng
katanungan at sagot na ito bilang
crime and pointed to three other soldiers, namely, Eddie 5. T:- Kailan ka pa naman na-assign sa
Saguindel, Bernardo Relator and Jack Miravalles (who katibayan na iyo ngang naiintindihan
GAS, WPD, MPF?
turned out to be a discharged soldier), as his ang iyong mga karapatan at gayun na
rin sa dahilan ng pagsisiyasat na ito, at S:- Noon lamang pong January 1982.
confederates. At 1:45 in the afternoon of May 30, 1982,
petitioner executed a sworn statement in Tagalog before ikaw din ay nakahanda ngang magbigay
M/Sgt. Arsenio C. Carlos and Sgt. Romeo P. Espero ng isang malaya at kusang-loob na 6. T:- Patrolman Filoteo, ikaw ba ay tubong
which, quoted in full, reads as follows: salaysay, sumagot sa mga katanungan saang bayan, lungsod or lalawigan?
at sumusumpang lahat ng iyong
isasalaysay ay pawang mga S:- Pagkakaalam ko sa tatay ko ay Bulacan
“BABALA: -- Nais kong ipaalam sa iyo, Patrolman Filoteo, katotohanan lamang? samantalang ang aking ina naman ay
na ang dahilan ng pagsisiyasat na ito ay tungkol sa isang Bisaya, pero ako ay ipinanganak na sa
kasong Robbery-in-Band/Hi-Jacking na naganap noong S:- Opo, pipirma ako Ser. Maynila noon July 17, 1951.
ika-3 ng Mayo 1982 doon sa Meycauyan, Bulacan, mga
bandang alas-4:00 ng hapon, humigit-kumulang, kung (Sgd.) 7. T:- Ano naman ang natapos mong kurso
saang maraming tsekeng US, tseke ng BIR at iba pang JOSE D. FILOTEO sa pag-aaral?
mga personal na tseke ang nabawi mula sa iyo. Nais ko (Affiant)
S:- Undergraduate ako ng BS Criminology sa
ring ibigay sa iyo ang babala alinsunod sa mga isinasaad
PCCr, dahil hindi ko natapos ang
ng Section 20, Article IV ng Bagong Saligang Batas ng MGA SAKSI: second semester ng 4th year ko.
Republika ng Pilipinas, kagaya ng mga sumusunod:
(Sgd.) 8. T:- Ano naman ang iyong specific
a. Na ikaw ay may karapatang tumahimik; (Sgd.) designation sa GAS, ID, WPD-MPF?
ROMEO P. S:- Sa Follow-Up Unit ako.
ESPERO THERE
SA L. TOLENTINO
9. T:- At bilang miyembro ng follow-up unit mga sakay naman ni Carding Perez ay mismo ang nagmaneho at sinamahan
ng GAS, ano naman ang iyong mga sina Junior Mateo, Rey Frias at Sgt. Dan naman ako nina Junior Mateo at si Rey
specific duties? Miravalles ng LRP rin. Pero may Frias, tatlo (3) rin kaming pumalit sa
kasama pa kaming contact ni Carding puwesto noong tatlong (3) taga-Post
S:- Kami po ang magsasagawa ng follow-up Perez na taga-loob ng Post Office na Office na maydala ng delivery
kung may mga at large sa mga suspects sina Alias NINOY na isang dispatcher at van. Nag-Utturn (sic) kami ngayon at
namin sa mga kasong hawak ng Alias JERRY, dahil ang mastermind dito ibinalik na namin sa Manila ang
investigation. sa trabahong ito ay si Carding PEREZ at van. Iyong Mercedes Benz na
kami naman ng mga sundalong taga- minamaneho pa rin ni Raul Mendoza ay
10. T:- Noong ika-3 ng Mayo 1982, mga LRP ay kanila lamang inimporta upang dumeretso pa norte samantalang ang
bandang alas-4:00 ng hapon humigit
umeskort sa kanila sa pag-hijack ng Lancer naman ay nag-U-turn din at
kumulang, saan ka naroroon at ano ang delivery van. sumunod sa amin. Noong makarating
iyong ginagawa? na kami sa Malinta, Valenzuela, Metro
12. T:- Anong oras naman noong umalis ang Manila ay inunahan na kami ng Lancer
S:- Nasa Plaza Lawton ho kami, eh, at
delivery van ng Post Office patungong at iyon na nga, parang follow the leader
inaantay na namin iyong hinayjack norte?
namin na Philippine Mail delivery van. na dahil siya na noon ang aming guide.
S:- Kung hindi ako nagkakamali ay nasa 14. T:- Ipagpatuloy mo ang iyong
11. T:- Wika mo’y kami, sinu-sino ang
pagitan na noon ng alas-4:00 hanggang pagsasalaysay?
tinutukoy mong mga kasamahan? alas-5:00 ng hapon.
S:- Si Carding Perez, ho; si Junior ho (Affiant S:- Dumeretso kami ngayon sa may Obrero,
13. T:- Isalaysay mo nga ng buong-buo kung sa bahay mismo nina Carding Perez, at
pointed to Martin Mateo, Jr. who was
ano ang mga naganap noong hapon na noong nakarating ng kami roon ay
seated in the investigation room and iyon?
asked the name and was duly iniyatras ko na ang van sa kanilang
answered: Martin Mateo, Jr.); si Rey garahe at doon ay ibinaba namin lahat
S:- Noon pong lumakad na ang delivery van ang mga duffle bag, hindi ko na po alam
Frias; Raul Mendoza; Angelo Liwanag at ng Central Post Office, sinundan na
ang mga taga LRP ng PC Brigade na kung ilan lahat iyon, na siyang laman ng
namin, una ang van, sumunod ang
sina Sgt. Ed Saguindel, Sgt. Dan delivery van at pagkatapos ay umalis
Lancer at huli ang Mercedes Benz kaming muli ng mga kasama ko rin sa
Miravales at isa pang Sergeant na ang namin. Pagdating namin sa Malinta,
alam ko lang sa kanya ay JUN ang van papuntang Quezon City kung saan
Valenzuela Metro Manila ay nagpalit namin inabandon ang delivery van. Sa
tawag namin. Walo (8) (corrected and kami ng puwesto sa pagsunod, van
initialled by affiant to read as ‘SIYAM Retiro ho yata iyong lugar na iyon, kung
naman ngayon, sunod ang Mercedes
[9]’) kaming lahat doon noon at ang mga hindi ako nagkakamali.
Benz at huli na ang Lancer. Noong
gamit naman naming kotse noon ay ang makapasok na kami ng boundary ng 15. T:- Ano ang mga sumunod na nangyari?
kotse ng kumpare kong si Rudy Miranda Meycauyan, Bulacan ay kumuha na
na isang Mercedes Benz na may kami ng tiyempo at noon makatiyempo S:- Sumakay kami ngayon ng taksi at bumalik
plakang NMJ-659 kung saang ang driver kami ay kinat namin ang delivery na kami kina Carding Perez sa may
namin noon ay si Raul Mendoza van. Tumigil naman ito at bumaba bahay nila sa Obrero, Tondo, Manila at
(corrected and initialled by affiant to kaagad sina Sgt. Ed Saguindel at Sgt. inabutan na namin sila na nagkakarga
read as ‘AKO’) at ang mga kasama Jun ng LRP dahil sila noon ang may na noong mga duffle bag sa (sic),
naman naming sakay ay sina Angelo hawak ng kanilang Armalite Rifle pero madilim na ho noon, sa isang kotseng
Liwanag, Sgt. Ed Saguindel at Sgt. Jun may service pa silang maiksing mamula-mula o orange na Camaro at
na parehong taga-LRP (affiant added baril. Pinababa nila ang tatlong isa pang Mercedes Benz na brown,
and initialled this additional fact: ‘AT maydala ng delivery van at pinasakay sa dahil ang Lancer ay isinoli na raw nila sa
RAUL MENDOZA’). Ang isang kotse Mercedes Benz, habang nakatutok ang may-ari. Dinala nila ngayon ang mga
namang gamit namin ay pag-aari daw kanilang mga baril sa kanila. Ako duffle bag sa Bocaue, Bulacan, iyon kasi
ng pinsan ni Carding Perez na kanya na naman ay bumaba na sa aming kotse at ang usapan namin noon dahil sumilip
rin mismong minamaneho na isang sumakay ng delivery van at ako na lamang ako noon at kasama ko si
Lancer na dirty-white ang kulay at ang
Carding Perez, kami naman ngayon ay doon sa bahay ni Junior Mateo sa kinuha iyon noong isurender ko ang
pumunta sa bahay nina Rudy Miranda Novaliches. Di magdamag ngayon ang mga tsekeng ito kagabi, at hanggang sa
sa San Marcelino, Malate, Manila na trabaho namin, kinabukasan ay kanya- kinuha na namin ang supot na ito (the
sakay ng isang Toyota Corona na brown kanyang uwian na, pagkatapos ay checks placed in a plastic bag was
na si Carding Perez ang pahinga. Kinabukasan muli, gabi, inilipat again referred to) ay wala pa rin
nagmaneho. Pagdating namin doon sa na namin doon sa bahay ni Junior kamalay-malay ang kumare ko.
kina Rudy Miranda ay naroon na rin Mateo ang mga tsekeng ito (Affiant
noon ang Mercedes Benz na ginamit again referred to said checks). Isinakay 18. T:- Iyong sinasabi mong mga kontak
namin, pero wala na ang crew ng namin noon sa isang cargo truck na nina Carding Perez sa Central Post
delivery van dahil ibinaba at iniwanan pag-aari din daw nina Carding. Iyong Office, mga kakilala mo rin ba ang mga
daw nila sa Caloocan City. Ang mga tsekeng iyan ngayon ay nakalagay ito?
naroroon na lamang noon ay sina noon doon sa isang sikretong
Angelo Liwanag, si Raul Mendoza, si compartment sa gitna ng truck, doon ba S:- Iyong araw na lamang na iyon ko sila
nakita, dahil maghapon ko noon silang
Sgt. Ed Saguindel at si Sgt. Jun na sa may chassis. Sikretong compartment
parehong taga-LRP. Naiwan na noon iyon, na mahirap mahalata. nakikita, itong si Alias NINOY lamang
ang Mercedes Benz namin doon kina ang dispatcher, dahil palabas-labas siya
16. T: Ikaw ba naman ay mayroong dalang noon at nakikipag-usap kina Carding
Rudy Miranda at iniwan na rin ang susi
doon sa kamag-anak, dahil hindi nila baril noon at kung ganoon, sabihin mo Perez, Raul Mendoza at saka si Rey
alam ang trabahong ito. Sumakay na nga kung anong uring baril iyon? Frias. Makikilala ko itong si Alias
NINOY kung makita ko siyang muli.
iyong apat naming kasama sa Toyota
Corona na sakay namin at inihatid S:- Wala po akong baril, Ser.
19. T:- Sino naman ang kumontak sa iyo
namin sina Sgt. Saguindel at Sgt. Jun 17. T:- Paano naman napunta ang mga upang sumama sa trabahong ito?
doon sa tinitirhan nitong huling tsekeng ito (the checks recovered from
nabanggit na sundalo doon sa malapit the Affiant was referred to) sa iyo? S:- Si Junior Mateo po, ipinakilala niya ako
sa Del Pan Bridge sa may Recto kina Carding at sa buong tropa na
Avenue sa San Nicolas yata iyon sa S:- E, di ganoon na nga ho, habang namin.
Manila. Kami naman ngayong apat, tumatagal ay umiinit ang situwasyon sa
sina Carding Perez, Angelo Liwanag at aming grupo, dahil iyong partehan sana 20. T:- Pansamantala ay wala na muna
si Raul Mendoza ay tumuloy na sa namin ay puro pangako ang akong itatanong pa sa iyo, mayroon ka
Bocaue, Bulacan. Dumaan kami sa nangyari. Kaya napagpasiyahan namin bang nais na idagdag, bawasin o palitan
North Diversion Road at paglabas namin na hatiin na lamang iyong mga tseke kaya sa salaysay na ito?
sa exit papuntang Bocaue, Bulacan ay upang walang onsehan sa amin. Ito
hindi na kalayuan doon, hindi ko alam ngayon ay parte namin nina Sgt. Ed S:- Wala na po.
ang lugar pero alam kong Saguindel, Sgt. Dan Miravalles Alias 21. T:- Handa mo bang lagdaan ang iyong
puntahan. Bahay daw yata ng kamag- JACK at ni Sgt. Jun, dahil noong una ay salaysay na ito bilang patotoo sa
anak ni Carding Perez iyon pero hindi ko doon muna sa amin ito nakatago (The katotohanan nito nang hindi ka pinilit,
alam ang pangalan. Naroon na ngayon checks recovered from the Affiant was sinaktan or pinangakuan kaya ng
ang buong tropa, maliban sa mga referred to). Pero habang tumatagal ay anuman upang lumagda lamang?
dalawang sundalong naihatid na namin umiinit at nalaman namin pati na may
sa may Manila, at may mga nadagdag alarma na, kaya’t inilipat namin doon sa S:- Opo.
pang ibang mukha pero hindi ko ito mga may Raxa Bago sa may likod ng
kakilala. Si JACK o Sgt. Dan Miravalles Alhambra Cigar & Cigarette Factory sa
ay naroon din noon. Kumain kami, Tondo, Manila at akin munang ipinatago WAKAS NG SALAYSAY: . . . . . /ac
pagkatapos ay nagbukasan na ng mga sa isang kumare ko doon,
duffle bag. Iyon na nga,nakita na namin pansamantala, pero hindi alam nitong
ang mga tsekeng ito, (Affiant pointed to kumare ko ang laman noon dahil
the checks he voluntarily surrendered) mahigpit kong ipinagbilin na huwag
at aming inihiwalay ngayon sa mga sulat nilang bubuksan. Doon na rin namin
na naroon na sinunog lahat pagkatapos
kasangkot sa. pagnanakaw ng mga US Treasury Warrants, nagamit.”[32] The three suspects were brought to Camp
SSS Pension ) Checks and Vouchers at SSS Medicare Crame for further investigation. Thereafter, Capt. Ferrer
Checks and JVouchers mula sa delivery van ng Philippine submitted an after-operations report about their mission
Mail;” (c) that
O the SOG men confiscated from him and executed jointly with Lt. Pagdilao on affidavit on the
numerous checks
S and a Mercedes Benz 200 colored sky- same matter.[33]
blue, and (d)E that he was not hurt or maltreated nor was
anything taken from him which was not duly receipted Aside from petitioner, Liwanag, Mateo and Perez
for.[26] D executed sworn statements.[34] Prior to doing so, they
. waived their right to counsel. Liwanag and Mateo admitted
As certified to by petitioner (in the above described their participation and implicated petitioner in the
document), F he led the SOG operatives to the house of crime. Perez, on the other hand, denied having driven a
Rodolfo Miranda
I on Singalong where the latter admitted Lancer car in the hijacking and stated that he was
that petitioner
L was his friend. He denied, however, having implicated in the crime only because in one drinking spree
knowledge thatO his car was used in the hijacking until the with petitioner, Mateo and one alias “Buro” during that
authorities came
T to his house. According to Miranda, he month of May, they had a heated altercation. Like
was made E to believe that his car would be used for petitioner, Liwanag and Mendoza certified that they
surveillance Opurposes because petitioner’s jeep was not voluntarily surrendered vouchers and checks which were
available. The car was not returned until the evening part of their loot in the hijacking; they also executed
following that when it was borrowed.[27] After the trip to waivers under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. For
MGA SAKSI SA LAGDA: Miranda’s house, petitioner informed the investigators that his part, Relator executed a certification to the effect that
some more checks could be recovered from he voluntarily surrendered his .32 caliber Smith & Wesson
(Sgd.) his kumare. Said checks were retrieved and turned over to service revolver used in the commission of the crime. In
SSG ROMEO P. ESPERO PC headquarters along with the car surrendered by Miranda spite of the fact that his father-in-law was a lawyer,
who later executed a sworn statement dated May 31, 1992 petitioner did not manifest that he needed the assistance
(Sgd.) at the SOG.[28] of counsel. During the taking of his statement, petitioner
CIC THERESA TOLENTINO was visited by Jimmy Victorino and another comrade from
WAC (PC)”[24] Upon learning of the whereabouts of Miravalles, the General Assignment Section of the WPD.
Eddie Saguindel and Bernardo Relator, the team of Capt.
Petitioner executed two other documents on the Ferrer proceeded to Taguig, Metro Manila in the afternoon For their part, Relator, Saguindel and Miravalles
same day, May 30, 1982. One was a certification stating of May 30, 1982. They met Miravalles along the way to his executed a joint affidavit[35] manifesting their option to avail
that he voluntarily surrendered “voluminous assorted US house. Informed by Capt. Ferrer that six of his of their right to remain silent until such time as they would
checks and vouchers,” that because of the “large number companions were already under custody and that they have retained a counsel of their choice. Frias and
of pieces” of checks, he affixed his signature upon the implicated him as one of their confederates, Miravalles Mendoza executed a similar joint affidavit.[36] Severino
middle portion of the back of each check “to serve as reacted by saying, “Sir, ang hihina kasi ng mga loob niyan, Castro, the postal employee implicated, also chose to
identification in the future, prior to the completion of its eh.”[29] remain silent as he wanted to testify in court. However, he
proper inventory and listing conducted by elements of linked to the crime a certain Gerardo Escalada, a former
SOG” in his presence, and that he “guided the elements of Capt. Ferrer later asked Miravalles to bring him to clerk of the Central Post Office and son of a director of the
SOG” to the residence of Rodolfo C. Miranda, the owner of Eddie Saguindel. At the barracks of the Long Range Bureau of Posts in Region I.[37]
the sky-blue Mercedes Benz car which was surrendered to Patrol in Bicutan, Metro Manila, Saguindel voluntarily
the SOG Headquarters.[25] The other document was a accepted the invitation to proceed to the SOG On May 31, 1982, then Postmaster General Golez
sworn statement wherein petitioner attested to his waiver headquarters, after Miravalles initially informed him of the summoned postal employees Miranda, Bautista and
of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code facts obtained during the investigation. Saguindel was Tagudar and directed them to proceed to Camp Crame. At
and the following facts: (a) that he was apprised of his heard saying, “Hindi na kami interesado, sir, sa mga the office of the SOG, they were told to go over some
constitutional rights under Section 20, Article IV of the tsekeng iyan kasi isang buwan na hindi pa pictures for identification of the culprits. The three
(1973) Constitution, that he understood all his rights nabebenta.”[30] With Miravalles and Saguindel, Capt. Ferrer recognized and pointed to the suspects in a line-
thereunder, and that the investigators offered him counsel and his team moved on to Binondo, Manila to look for up. Tagudar identified Saguindel and Liwanag.[38] Miranda
from the CLAO-IBP but he refused to avail of the privilege; Bernardo Relator. When they found him at home, Relator pointed at Frias and Liwanag[39] while Bautista identified
(b) that he was arrested by SOG men in his house at excused himself, went upstairs, returned with a .32 caliber Frias, Mendoza and Liwanag .[40] Petitioner himself, when
around 11:00 p.m. of May 29, 1982 “sa dahilang ako ay revolver with six bullets[31] and said, “Sir, ito yong baril na told to identify his alleged cohorts, pointed to Severino
Castro as their contact at the post office. [41] Five of the Corporation.[49] Although a suspect, Mateo was not Mateo and the automobile. A little before 8:00 o’clock,
suspects who were not identified in the line-up were charged in the information subsequently filed in that someone informed him that Mateo had finally
however implicated by Liwanag, Mateo and petitioner. case. Sometime in March 1981, Mateo visited petitioner at arrived. Petitioner went out and scolded Mateo for being
the police headquarters seeking assistance in his bid to late; the latter apologized and said that his surveillance
SOG Chief Investigator Jorge C. Mercado filed a lead a new life. Considering Mateo’s familiarity with bore good results. Petitioner then returned the car to
complaint for robbery-in-band (hijacking) before the underworld characters, petitioner readily made him an Miranda, through the latter’s cousin.
Municipal Court of Meycauyan, Bulacan against petitioner informer who was paid from time to time out of the police
and ten (10) others, namely, Mateo, Saguindel, Relator, intelligence fund. Mateo proved to be an effective At around 11:00 in the evening of May 29, 1982,
Miravalles, Perez, Frias, Mendoza, Liwanag, Castro and informer. In fact, he allegedly supplied vital information on Mateo, escorted by a group of military men, went to
Escalada (Criminal Case No. 7885).[42] the identities and whereabouts of suspects in robbery petitioner’s house at 810 Cabezas St., Tondo, Manila. The
cases at the La Elegancia Jewelry Store, at the Likha group refused to give any reason for their visit but arrested
On August 8, 1983, the Information previously Antique and Crafts,[50] and in an alleged racket in Aranque him. Wearing only short pants, petitioner was made to
referred to and aforequoted was filed with the Market in Manila involving jewelries. board a car where he was handcuffed. The men asked
Sandiganbayan and docketed as Criminal Case No. 8496. him about the Benz and the identities of his companions in
As such informer, Mateo became accustomed to an alleged hijacking incident. Petitioner admitted having
On September 20, 1983, Sandiganbayan Associate borrowing petitioner’s owner-type jeep whenever he was knowledge of the exact location of the car but denied
Justice Romeo M. Escareal issued orders for the arrest of given an assignment. In one instance however, petitioner participation in the crime. Nobody apprised him of his
the accused[43] and fixed bail at P13,000.00
saw Mateo using his jeep with some male constitutional rights to remain silent and to be assisted by
each. Saguindel and Relator filed a motion to quash the companions. Because Mateo denied the occurrence of counsel.[52]
Information asserting that under the Articles of War and the incident, petitioner from then on refused to lend his
Section 1 of P.D. 1850, they should be tried by a court Petitioner was then instructed to accompany Lt.
jeep to Mateo. Instead, Mateo was given an allowance to
martial.[44] The Sandiganbayan denied the motion on cover his travelling expenses. Pagdilao to the residence of Miranda to get the
January 3, 1984[45] on the ground that courts martial could Benz. They were on board two cars. When petitioner
no longer exercise jurisdiction over them by virtue of their About a month prior to May 3, 1982, petitioner met noticed that they were not heading for Miranda’s place, he
separation from military service. Mateo and requested the latter to give him a good project clutched the hand of Lt. Pagdilao, pleading for pity and
as he was working for his transfer to the Metrocom thinking that he was about to be “salvaged”. Lt. Pagdilao
Intelligence Security Group (MISG). On May 2, 1982, however informed him that they would be dropping by
Mateo urged petitioner to lend him his jeep in order that he petitioner’s house first per the investigator’s information
Evidence for the Defense could follow-up a bank robbery case. That same evening, that more checks could be recovered thereat. A
petitioner approached his kumpare, accused Rodolfo warrantless search was then allegedly conducted in
Miranda, to borrow the latter’s old Mercedes Benz since, if petitioner’s house but nothing was found. Suddenly,
Testifying in his own defense, petitioner alleged that the jeep was used, Mateo could be identified as an someone from the other car came out of a nearby house
as a patrolman since August 21, 1978 assigned to the informer. Petitioner left his jeep with Miranda and “went owned by Mateo and reported that they had recovered
Investigation Division or the Detective Bureau of the WPD around boasting of the Mercedes Benz.”[51] some checks. Thereafter, they proceeded to the house of
to which the General Assignment Section belonged, he Miranda who was also invited for questioning. The latter
Mateo took the Benz in the morning of May 3, surrendered his Benz to the group.
was the recipient of several awards and recognitions
1982. Petitioner advised him to return the car between the
starting with ranking fifth in the Final Order of Merit in the
hours of two and three in the afternoon at the Lakan Beer At the SOG headquarters in Camp Crame, petitioner
basic course for police officers.[46] He also claimed to have
House at the corner of Rizal Avenue and Zurbaran Streets repeatedly coaxed to admit participation in the
received a loyalty medal for meritorious service above the
in Sta. Cruz, Manila where petitioner was to meet his friend hijacking. As he vehemently denied the accusation
call of duty[47] and several commendations[48] for the
Manolo Almoguera who would be celebrating his birthday against him, someone blindfolded him from behind, led
distinguished performance of his duties. On that fateful
there. Petitioner met Almoguera and company at around him outside and loaded him in a car. He was taken to an
date of May 3, 1982, he was a member of the Special Task
3:30 in the afternoon. He waited for Mateo until shortly unidentified place and made to lie flat on his back. An
Force Unit covering the tourist belt area.
before 5:00 in the afternoon when he was constrained to object was tied to his small finger to electrocute
Of the ten other accused in this case, petitioner leave without seeing Mateo because he had to attend a him. While a wet handkerchief was stuffed in his mouth,
admitted knowing only Martin Mateo whose name mandatory regular troop formation at 5:00 P.M. at the someone mounted his chest and applied the “water cure”
appeared in the initial follow-up operation he allegedly police headquarters. From there, petitioner proceeded to (“tinutubig”) through his nose. Because these ordeals
participated in regarding a P250,000 qualified theft case his area of responsibility in the tourist belt. He returned to were simultaneously carried out, petitioner felt unbearable
on May 16, 1980 at the Shemberg Marketing the beer house at about 6:00 in the evening hoping to find pain. He sought permission to get in touch with his father-
in-law, Atty. Felix Rosacia, but his request was Petitioner filed a complaint for grave coercion and matters, and it further appearing that the mail van which
denied. They urged him to cooperate otherwise something maltreatment against Lt. Rosendo Ferrer and several John was hijacked had been recovered, as well as most of the
terrible would happen to him. Does. On August 4, 1982, Asst. City Fiscal Emelita H. checks and warrants which were surrendered by some of
Garayblas recommended its dismissal for petitioner’s the accused, without prejudice to the institution of the
Meanwhile, petitioner’s wife reported to the WPD failure to appear despite subpoenas and to answer proper civil action to recover damages should proof thereof
General Assignment Section her husband’s forcible clarificatory questions as well as to authenticate his be available.
abduction by armed men whom she mistook for CIS statement.[57] However, petitioner swore that he never
agents. A check with the CIS yielded negative received the subpoenas.
results. Thereafter, Lt. Reynaldo Dator went to the SOG Consequently, it is hereby ordered that Exhibits B, B-1 and
where he was informed that petitioner was being Petitioner’s alibi was supported by Manolo B-2, which are the .32 Cal. Revolver, Smith and Wesson,
investigated but no details were given thereon pending Almoguera whose birthday on May 3, 1995 was the reason Serial No. 11707, its holster and six (6) live ammunition
clearance with superior officers.[53] Consequently, a for the celebration at the Lakan Beer House. While his respectively, which were surrendered by accused Relator,
newspaper carried an item on the SOG’s refusal to allow baptismal certificate indicated that he was born on May 4, and Exhibits J, J-1 to J-5, consisting of 187, 222, 215, 197,
petitioner’s co-police officers to see him in his detention 1956,[58] a joint affidavit[59] also attested that his birth date 194 and 22 pieces, respectively, of Social Security System
cell.[54] was actually May 3, 1956. Gary Gallardo, the owner of the and Medicare checks and vouchers, be returned to the
beer house, corroborated Almoguera’s testimony as to Firearm and Explosive Unit (FEU), PC, Camp Crame,
Among his comrades, only Jimmy Victorino, formerly petitioner’s alleged presence during the birthday Quezon City and the Social Security System, respectively,
of the WPD who was transferred to the SOG, was able to celebration. upon proper receipts.
visit him. Petitioner revealed to Victorino the maltreatment
done him but the latter expressed helplessness about
Let copies of this decision be furnished the Postmaster-
it. In fact, Victorino advised him to just cooperate so that
General, Central Post Office, Liwasang Bonifacio, Metro
the SOG would not incriminate him (“para hindi ka pag- The Respondent Court’s Decision Manila and the Commanding General and Chief, PC-INP,
initan dito”).[55] The advice came after petitioner was
Camp Crame, Quezon City for their information and
warned that he, like Pat. Serrano of the WPD, would be
guidance with respect to the other accused who are still at-
liquidated by the SOG,[56] should he refused to
On June 18, 1987, the Sandiganbayan rendered the large.
cooperate. Later, Mateo came to petitioner’s cell and
confided that he had been similarly maltreated and forced herein questioned 51-page Decision, the dispositive
to implicate petitioner. portion of which reads: SO ORDERED.”
The respondent court erred and gravely abused its Insofar as petitioner is concerned, the respondent court The Court believes that the above “errors” may be
discretion in finding that dorsal portions of the checks and erred and gravely abused its discretion as well as condensed into four:
warrants allegedly taken from petitioner were signed by exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that ‘accused Filoteo’s
him to indicate his admission of accountability therefor and (petitioner’s) and Mateo’s [alleged] unexplained (1) Are the written statements,
that his signatures thereon confirm the confiscation from possession of the stolen checks raised the presumption particularly the extra-judicial confession
and/or surrender by him of said checks, said findings being that ‘they were responsible for the robbery in question’, executed by the accused without the
absolutely without any support in the evidence.
presence of his lawyer, admissible in the Sandiganbayan misapprehended certain (f)acts in Court’s admission in evidence of his extrajudicial
evidence against him? arriving at its factual conclusions.” confession on the strength of cases[62] upholding the
admissibility of extrajudicial confessions notwithstanding
(2) Were said statements obtained the absence of counsel “especially where the statements
through torture, duress, maltreatment and As amended by Republic Act No. 7975, Section 7 of
are replete with details and circumstances which are
intimidation and therefore illegal and P.D. No. 1606 expressly provides that “(d)ecisions and
indicative of voluntariness.” We shall first tackle the issue
inadmissible? final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to
of his uncounselled waiver of his right to counsel.
the Supreme Court by petition for review
(3) Was petitioner’s warrantless arrest on certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance The pertinent provision of Article IV, Section 20 of
valid and proper? with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.” However, in the 1973 Constitution reads as follows:
exceptional cases, this Court has taken cognizance of
(4) Is the evidence of the prosecution questions of fact in order to resolve legal issues, as where
sufficient to find the petitioner guilty there was palpable error or grave misapprehension of facts “No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
beyond reasonable doubt? by the lower court. Criminal cases elevated by convicted himself. Any person under investigation for the
public officials from the Sandiganbayan deserve the same commission of an offense shall have the right to remain
thorough treatment by this Court as criminal cases silent and to counsel and to be informed of such rights. No
involving ordinary citizens simply because the force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
The Court’s Ruling constitutional presumption of innocence must be overcome which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Any
by proof beyond reasonable doubt. In all criminal cases, a confession obtained in violation of this section shall be
person’s life and liberty are at stake.[61] inadmissible in evidence.”
Preliminary Issue: Rule 45 or Rule 65? As a petition for review under Rule 45 is the
In comparison, the relevant rights of an accused
available remedy, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution
would not prosper. Basic it is that certiorari is invocable
are, inter alia, as follows:
only where there is no other plain, speedy or adequate
Before ruling on the foregoing issues, it is necessary remedy. For waffling on procedural matters, petitioner
to dwell on the procedural aspects of the case. Petitioner, could have lost this battle through a summary dismissal of “(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of
a “segurista”, opted to file an (amended) “alternative his “alternative” petition. But in view of the importance of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
petition” for certiorariunder Rule 65 and for review the issues raised, the Court decided to take cognizance of remain silent and to have competent and independent
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. We the matter. counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
however hold that the instant petition must be considered afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
as one for review on certiorari under Rule 45. InJariol, Jr. one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and
vs. Sandiganbayan,[60] this Court clearly ruled: in the presence of counsel.
First Issue: Uncounselled Waiver
“Presidential Decree No. 1486, as amended by P.D. No. (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
1606, which created the Sandiganbayan, specified that other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be On the merits of the petition, we find that the pivotal against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
subject to review on certiorari by this Court in accordance issue here is the admissibility of petitioner’s extrajudicial incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. And Rule 45 of the confession which lays out in detail his complicity in the prohibited.
Revised Rules of Court provides, in Section 2, that only crime. Petitioner contends that respondent Court erred in
questions of law may be raised in the Petition for Review admitting his extrajudicial confession notwithstanding
and these must be distinctly set forth. Thus, in principle, uncontradicted testimony and documentary proof that he (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are not to be was made to sign the same through torture, maltreatment, this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
reviewed by this Court in a petition for review on physical compulsion, threats and intimidation and without against him.
certiorari. There are, of course, certain exceptions to this the presence and assistance of counsel. He also claims
general principle. Here, reading petitioner’s Petition for that in executing the extrajudicial confession, he was (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
Review and Memorandum in the most favorable possible denied the right to counsel in the same way that his waiver violations of this section as well as compensation to and
light, petitioner may be seen to be in effect asserting that of the said right was likewise without the benefit of rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices and
counsel. Petitioner therefore questions the respondent their families.” (underscoring supplied. Obviously, the
1973 Constitution did not contain the right against an Court through Mr. Justice Florentino P. Feliciano liberties for the individual and a limitation upon the power
uncounselled waiver of the right to counsel which is vigorously taught: of the state.[70] Penal laws, on the other hand, strictly and
provided under paragraph 1, Section 12, Article III of the properly are those imposing punishment for an offense
1987 Constitution, above underscored.) committed against the state which the executive of the
“x x x. The doctrine that an uncounseled waiver of the
state has the power to pardon. In other words, a penal law
right to counsel is not to be given legal effect was initially a
denotes punishment imposed and enforced by the state for
In the landmark case of Magtoto vs. judge-made one and was first announced on 26 April 1983
a crime or offense against its law.[71]
Manguera,[63] the Court categorically held that the in Morales vs. Enrile and reiterated on 20 March 1985
aforequoted provisions of the 1973 Constitution (which in People vs. Galit. x x x. Hence, petitioner’s vigorous reliance on People vs.
were not included in the 1935 Charter) must be Sison[72] to make his extrajudicial confession inadmissible
prospectively applied. This Court said: is misplaced. In that case, the extrajudicial confession was
While the Morales-Galit doctrine eventually became part of
Section 12(1) of the 1987 Constitution, that doctrine executed on May 19, 1983, clearly after the promulgation
“We hold that this specific portion of this constitutional affords no comfort to appellant Luvendino for the of Morales on April 26, 1983.
mandate has and should be given a prospective and not a requirements and restrictions outlined
The admissibility of petitioner’s uncounselled waiver
retrospective effect. Consequently, a confession obtained in Morales andGalit have no retroactive effect and do not
of the right to counsel notwithstanding, the Court has still
from a person under investigation for the commission of an reach waivers made prior to 26 April 1983 the date of
to determine whether such waiver was made voluntarily
offense, who has not been informed of his right (to silence promulgation of Morales.”
and intelligently.[73] The waiver must also be categorical
and) to counsel, is inadmissible in evidence if the same
and definitive,[74] and must rest on clear evidence.[75]
had been obtained after the effectivity of the New
Pursuant to the above doctrine, petitioner may not
Constitution on January 17, 1973. Conversely, such In his affidavit of May 30, 1982 waiving the
claim the benefits of the Morales and Galit rulings because
confession is admissible in evidence against the accused, provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal
he executed his extrajudicial confession and his waiver to
if the same had been obtained before the effectivity of the Code,[76] petitioner stated that:
the right to counsel on May 30, 1982, or before April 26,
New Constitution, even if presented after January 17,
1983. The prospective application of “judge-made” laws
1973, and even if he had not been informed of his right to
was underscored in Co vs. Court of Appeals[68] where the “x x x matapos akong mapagpaliwanagan ng mga
counsel, since no law gave the accused the right to be so
Court ruled thru Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa that in imbestigador ng Special Operations Group, PC/INP
informed before that date.”
accordance with Article 8 of the Civil Code which provides Central Anti-Organized Crime Task Force, Camp Crame,
that “(j)udicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or Quezon City ng aking mga karapatan alinsunod sa mga
By parity of reasoning, the specific provision of the the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the isinasaad ng Section 20, Article IV ng Bagong Saligang
1987 Constitution requiring that a waiver by an accused of Philippines,” and Article 4 of the same Code which states Batas ng Republika ng Pilipinas ay malaya at kusang-loob
his right to counsel during custodial investigation must be that “(l)aws shall have no retroactive effect unless the na nagsasalaysay ng mga sumusunod kahit na walang
made with the assistance of counsel may not be applied contrary is provided,” the principle of prospectivity of abugadong magpapayo sa akin sa pagsasagawa nito sa
retroactively or in cases where the extrajudicial confession statutes, original or amendatory, shall apply to judicial dahilang alam at nauunawaan ko ang aking ginagawa at
was made prior to the effectivity of said decisions, which, although in themselves are not laws, are wala naman akong isasalaysay kung hindi mga
Constitution. Accordingly, waivers of the right to counsel nevertheless evidence of what the law means.[69] katotohanan lamang, bagama’t ako ay inalok ng mga
during custodial investigation without the benefit of counsel imbestigador na ikuha ng isang abugadong walang bayad
during the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution should, by Petitioner’s contention that Article III, Section 12 of
mula sa CLAO-IBP na akin namang tinanggihan:
such argumentation, be admissible. Although a number of the 1987 Constitution should be given retroactive effect for
cases held that extrajudicial confessions made while the being favorable to him as an accused, cannot be
1973 Constitution was in force and effect, should have sustained. While Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code xxx xxx xx
been made with the assistance of counsel, [64] the definitive provides that “(p)enal laws shall have a retroactive effect x;
ruling was enunciated only on April 26, 1983 when this insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony who is
Court, through Morales, Jr., vs. Enrile,[65] issued the not a habitual criminal,” what is being construed here is a
constitutional provision specifically contained in the Bill of Na ako ay hindi sinaktan o minaltrato gayunding walang
guidelines to be observed by law enforcers during kinuha mula sa akin na hindi niresibohan;
custodial investigation. The court specifically ruled that Rights which is obviously not a penal statute. A bill of
“(t)he right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall rights is a declaration and enumeration of the individual
not be valid unless made with the assistance of rights and privileges which the Constitution is designed to xxx xxx xx
counsel.”[66] Thereafter, in People vs. Luvendino,[67] the protect against violations by the government, or by x.”
individuals or groups of individual. It is a charter of
Sgt. Arsenio Carlos, investigating officer, testified voluntarily and not under compulsion of fear immediately sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered
that he apprised petitioner of his right to counsel even in after he had been subjected to maltreatment. In view of upon a sufficient complaint after trial free from error.”
waiving the same right[77] but petitioner did not even inform the foregoing, his extrajudicial confession is presumed to
him that his father-in-law was a lawyer. Although allowed have been voluntarily made, in the absence of conclusive
The only move petitioner made in regard to his
to talk for thirty minutes with Jimmy Victorino, who was his evidence showing that petitioner’s consent in executing the
arrest was to file a complaint for “grave coercion, grave
comrade at the WPD General Assignment Section,[78] still, same had been vitiated.[83]
threat & maltreatment” which was docketed as I.S. No. 82-
petitioner did not invoke his right to counsel.
Besides, the question of whether petitioner was 12684 before the Fiscal’s Office of Quezon City.[86] The
It should be emphasized that petitioner could not indeed subjected to torture or maltreatment is a factual complaint was an offshoot of his alleged maltreatment in
have been ignorant of his rights as an accused. He was a question addressed primarily to trial courts, the findings of the hands of the SOG upon his arrest. However, as stated
fourth year criminology student and a topnotch student in which are binding on this Court whose function, as afore- above, he did not lift a finger to revive it upon its dismissal.
the police basic course.[79] Having been in the police force discussed, is principally to review only of questions of
since 1978, with stints at the investigation division or the law. Moreover, we have pored over the assailed Decision
detective bureau, he knew the tactics used by and we are satisfied that respondent Court performed its
investigators to incriminate criminal suspects.[80] in other duty in evaluating the evidence. More on this later. The Fourth Issue: Sufficiency of the Prosecution’s
words, he was knowledgeable on the matter of Evidence
extrajudicial confessions.
The Third Issue: Illegal Arrest? Contrary to petitioner’s claim, his culpability has
been proven beyond reasonable doubt. He borrowed a
The Second Issue: Confession Extracted Through car to use in the hijacking knowing fully well that his owner-
Torture? Petitioner questions the manner of his arrest, stating type jeep would give away his identity. He could not be
that the arresting officers “invited” him without a warrant of identified by the postal employees in the postal van simply
arrest and brought him to Camp Crame where he was because after overtaking said vehicle and forcing its driver
Petitioner’s claim that he was tortured into signing allegedly subjected to torture almost a month after the to pull over, he gave up driving the Mercedes Benz where
the confession appears incredible, or at least susceptible commission of the crime.[84] Petitioner’s claim is belatedly the postal employees were made to ride, and
to serious doubts. The allegation of torture was negated made. He should have questioned the validity of his arrest commandeered the van. That the checks were not found
by the medical report[81]showing no evidence of physical before he entered his plea in the trial court. On this point, in his own home is of no moment. Before the arrest and
injuries upon his person. As correctly observed by the this Court explained in People vs. Lopez, Jr.:[85] upon learning that the authorities had begun to nail down
Solicitor General, there is no reason to maltreat him in the identities of the malefactors, he had entrusted them to
particular when the record shows that the investigating his “kumare”. It was petitioner himself who led the team of
“Finally, it is much too late for appellant to raise the Lt. Pagdilao back to his place after he had admitted to Sgt.
team respected the right of the other suspects to remain
question of his arrest without a warrant. When accused- Arsenio Carlos that his share of the checks were in the
silent. When he was presented before Judge Mariano
appellant was arrested and a case was filed against him, possession of his “kumare” in the neighborhood.[87]
Mendieta of the municipal court in Meycauayan, petitioner
he pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, participated in the
even waived his right to present evidence[82] instead of
trial and presented his evidence. Appellant is thus In view of these facts, it is beyond dispute that
impugning his confession on account of the torture
estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest. It is petitioner was a direct participant in the commission of the
allegedly inflicted upon him. If indeed he had been
well-settled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest crime. His alibi has been correctly considered by the
tortured, he would have revived the case he filed against
or procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction Sandiganbayan to be weak and implausible. The distance
his alleged torturers upon learning of its dismissal.
over the person of an accused must be made before he between Kalvario, Meycauayan, Bulacan and downtown
Furthermore, an examination of his signatures in the enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed Manila where petitioner claimed to have been at the crucial
different documents on record bearing the same discloses waived. Besides, this issue is being raised for the first time time was between fifteen (15) to twenty (20) kilometers,
an evenness of lines and strokes in his penmanship which by appellant. He did not move for the quashal of the which, through first-class roads, could be negotiated
is markedly consistent in his certification, extrajudicial information before the trial court on this during that time in approximately thirty (30) minutes. It
confession and waiver of detention. Human experience ground. Consequently, any irregularity attendant to his could not therefore have been physically impossible for
has proven that the lines and strokes of a person’s arrest, if any, was cured when he voluntarily submitted him to be at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity when
handwriting reflect his disposition at a certain given himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court by entering a the crime was committed.[88]
time. In the present case, no handwriting expert is needed plea of not guilty and by participating in the
to declare that petitioner’s signatures were written trial. Moreover, the illegal arrest of an accused is not
Having already ruled on the admissibility of voluminous assorted checks which were part of the through said witnesses that he tried to establish his
petitioner’s confession, this Court holds that the full force loot. Relator admitted that his service firearm was used by whereabouts between 4:30 o’clock to 7:30 o’clock p.m. of
of the totality of the prosecution’s evidence proves his guilt him in the hi-jacking, which firearm was identified by May 2, 1982, the period from the time the mail van was hi-
well beyond reasonable doubt. Weighing heavily against prosecution witnesses Miranda and Bautista. Saguindel jacked up to when postal employees Bautista, Miranda
the defense is the well-settled doctrine that findings of was identified in line-ups at the SOG office as the suspect and Tagudar were brought to Caloocan City and freed by
facts of the trial courts -- in this case, the Sandiganbayan clad in fatigue uniform and carrying an Armalite rifle by their captors. Such alibi, however, fails to show that it was
itself -- particularly in the assessment of the credibility of prosecution witnesses Tagudar and Bautista. All three (3) physically impossible for him to be present at the scene of
witnesses, is binding upon this Court, absent any accused, namely, Mateo, Relator and Saguindel also the hi-jacking. We take judicial notice that the distance
arbitrariness, abuse or palpable error. jumped bail during the trial and did not offer any evidence between the crime scene and downtown Manila is some
to refute the evidence presented by the prosecution 15-20 kilometers and negotiable over first-class roads in
against them. Such flight to evade prosecution constitutes some thirty (30) minutes.”
“x x x It is well-settled that this Court will not interfere with
an implied admission of guilt.
the judgment of the trial court in passing on the credibility
of the witnesses, unless there appears in the record some We are likewise convinced that there is sufficient
fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has Moreover, accused Filoteo’s and Mateo’s unexplained evidence of conspiracy as convincing as the evidence of
been overlooked or the significance of which has been possession of the stolen checks raises the presumption the participation of each of the accused. As ratiocinated in
misapprehended or misinterpreted. The reason for this is that they were responsible for the robbery in question. It is the assailed Decision:[92]
that the trial court is in a better position to decide the a rule established by an abundance of jurisprudence that
question, having heard the witnesses themselves and when stolen property is found in the possession of one, not
“The participation of accused Filoteo, Mateo, Relator and
observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the owner, without a satisfactory explanation of his
Saguindel in the criminal conspiracy have (sic) been
the trial.”[89] possession, he will be presumed the thief. This rule is in
proved beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on
accordance with the disputable presumption “that a person
record and which evidence not only confirms the existence
found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a
“The doctrine is firmly settled that the trial court’s of the conspiracy between them as easily discernible from
recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole
conclusion on issues of credibility is accorded with highest their conduct before, during and after the commission of
act.” In the instant case, said accused has not given such
respect by the appellate courts (People vs. Dominguez, the offense, but also their participation therein as co-
satisfactory explanation, much more so when their
217 SCRA 170). Appellate courts will generally respect principals by direct participation and/or indispensable
possession had been positively established by the
the findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses cooperation. Their concerted efforts were performed with
testimonies of prosecution witnesses Capt. Ferrer and Sgt.
since trial courts are in a better position to weigh conflicting closeness and coordination indicating their common
Carlos and by accused’s own signatures at the back of
testimonies. They heard the witnesses themselves and purpose. Hence, there being collective criminal
said checks.
observed their deportment and manner of testifying. x x responsibility, the act of one is the act of all, and each of
x.”[90] the participants are responsible for what the others did in
Furthermore, accused Filoteo’s denials and alibi cannot be all the stages of execution of the offense.”
entertained for being quite weak and implausible. His
So overwhelming is the prosecution’s evidence that
claim that he merely borrowed the Mercedes Benz car
respondent Court opined that even without the “inter-
from Rodolfo Miranda to help out his co-accused Mateo,
locking confessions of Filoteo, Mateo and Liwanag” the
who had been utilized by the police as an “informer” and Final Question: Brigandage or Robbery?
remaining evidence would still be sufficient for
was following up tips in certain unsolved cases, appears to
conviction.[91] Said the respondent tribunal:
be incredible and fantastic. He also claimed that he could
not have participated in the hi-jack because after giving the
The Court believes that, though not raised as an
“However, even setting aside the inter-locking confessional car to Mateo in the morning of May 2, 1982, he waited at
issue and though not argued by the parties in their
statements of Filoteo, Mateo and Liwanag, we are of the the corner of Zurbaran St. and Avenida Rizal between 2-
pleadings, the question of which law was violated by the
considered opinion that substantial and sufficient evidence 3:00 o’clock p.m. of the same day and then went to the
accused should be discussed and passed upon. In fact,
exist which indubitably prove the guilt of Filoteo, Relator, WPD headquarters to attend the police formation at
petitioner should have brought up such question as it may
Mateo and Saguindel who had submitted themselves to around 5:00 o’clock p.m. when Mateo failed to show
benefit him with a reduced penalty.
the jurisdiction of this Court. As above-stated, Filoteo was up. Thereafter, he tried to show through his witnesses
responsible for securing the use of the Mercedes Benz car Gary Gallardo and Manolo Almogera that he was with The respondent Court convicted the accused of
used by the co-conspirators in the hi-jacking. Together them between 3:00 o’clock to 4:45 o’clock p.m., then from brigandage punishable under Presidential Decree No.
with Mateo, Liwanag and Mendoza, he surrendered 6:00 o’clock to 8:30 o’clock p.m. and, finally, from 10:45 532. [93]
o’clock p.m. to 11:00 o’clock of the same date. It was
Justifying the above disposition, the assailed statute violated. Such reasoning has already been Further, that Presidential Decree No. 532 punishes as
Decision ratiocinates: debunked by this Court in the case of People vs. Isabelo highway robbery or brigandage only acts of robbery
Puno,[94] where it was ruled in unmistakable language that perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any person
it takes more than the situs of the robbery to bring it within or persons on Philippine highways as defined therein, and
“Accused herein are charged with the violation of
the ambit of PD 532. Said the Court through Mr. Justice not acts of robbery committed against only a
Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-
Florenz D. Regalado: predetermined or particular victim, is evident from the
Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974. Under
preambular clauses thereof, to wit:
said decree, with respect to the highway robbery aspect,
the offense is committed on a “Philippine Highway” which “The following salient distinctions between brigandage and
under Section 2 (c) thereof has been defined as “any road, robbery are succinctly explained in a treatise on the “WHEREAS, reports from law-enforcement agencies
street, passage, highway and bridges or any part thereof, subject and are of continuing validity: reveal that lawless are still committing acts of depredation
or railway or railroad within the Philippines, used by upon the persons and properties of innocent and
persons or vehicles, or locomotives or trains for the defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to
‘The main object of the Brigandage Law is to prevent the
movement or circulation of persons or transportation of another, thereby disturbing the peace, order and tranquility
formation of bands of robbers. The heart of the offense
goods, articles or property or both”, while under Section 2 of the nation and stunting the economic and social
consists in the formation of a band by more than three
(e) thereof “Highway Robbery/Brigandage” has been progress of the people:
armed persons for the purpose indicated in art. 306. Such
defined as the “the seizure of any person for ransom,
formation is sufficient to constitute a violation of art. 306. It
extortion or other unlawful purposes or the taking away of
would not be necessary to show, in a prosecution under it, “WHEREAS, such acts of depredations constitute x x x
property of another by means of violence against or
that a member or members of the band actually committed highway robbery/brigandage which are among the highest
intimidation of persons nor force upon things or other
robbery or kidnapping or any other purpose attainable by forms of lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes of
unlawful means, committed by any person on any
violent means. The crime is proven when the organization all countries:
Philippine Highway”. (Underscoring supplied)
and purpose of the band are shown to be such as are
contemplated by art. 306. On the other hand, if robbery is
‘WHEREAS, it is imperative that said lawless elements be
The offense described in the information and established committed by a band, whose members were not primarily
discouraged from perpetrating such acts of depredations
by the evidence presented by the prosecution properly organized for the purpose of committing robbery or
by imposing heavy penalty on the offenders, with the end
falls within the ambit of the aforesaid special law. Therein, kidnapping, etc., the crime would not be brigandage, but
in view of eliminating all obstacles to the economic, social,
it was conclusively proven that a postal van containing mail only robbery. Simply because robbery was committed by
educational and community progress of the
matters, including checks and warrants, was hi-jacked a band of more than three armed persons, it would not
people; (Emphasis supplied.)
along the national highway in Bulacan by the accused, follow that it was committed by a band of brigands. In the
with the attendant use of force, violence and intimidation Spanish text of art. 306, it is required that the band ‘sala a
against the three (3) postal employees who were los campos para dedicarse a robar.’ (Italics ours.) Indeed, it is hard to conceive of how a single act of robbery
occupants thereof, resulting in the unlawful taking and against a particular person chosen by the accused as their
asportation of the entire van and its contents consisting of specific victim could be considered as committed on the
In fine, the purpose of brigandage, is inter alia,
mail matters. Also the evidence further showed that the “innocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one
indiscriminate highway robbery. If the purpose is only a
crime was committed by the accused who were PC place to another,” and which single act of depredation
particular robbery, the crime is only robbery, or robbery in
soldiers, policeman (sic) and private individuals in would be capable of “stunting the economic and social
band if there are at least four armed participants. The
conspiracy with their co-accused Castro and Escalada who progress of the people” as to be considered “among the
martial law legislator, in creating and promulgating
were postal employees and who participated in the highest forms of lawlessness condemned by the penal
Presidential Decree No. 532 for the objectives announced
planning of the crime. Accordingly, all the essential statutes of all countries,” and would accordingly constitute
therein, could not have been unaware of that distinction
requisites to constitute a consummated offense under the an obstacle “to the economic, social, educational and
and is presumed to have adopted the same, there being
law in point are present.” (Underscoring in the original community progress of the people,” such that said isolated
no indication to the contrary. This conclusion is buttressed
text.) act would constitute the highway robbery or brigandage
by the rule on contemporaneous construction, since it is
contemplated and punished is said decree. This would be
one drawn from the time when and the circumstances
an exaggeration bordering on the ridiculous.”
Obviously, the Court a quo labored under the belief under which the decree to be construed
that because the taking or robbery was perpetrated on originated. Contemporaneous exposition or construction is
a national highway (McArthur Highway), ergo, Presidential the best and strongest in the law. From the above, it is clear that a finding of
Decree No. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and brigandage or highway robbery involves not just
Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974, must have been the the locus of the crime or the fact that more than three (3)
persons perpetrated it. It is essential to prove that the Hence, the offender shall be punished by the ---------------------------------
outlaws were purposely organized not just for one act of maximum period of the penalty provided under paragraph
robbery but for several indiscriminate commissions 5 of Art. 294, which is, “prision correctional in its maximum
G.R. No. L-18672 December 26, 1961
thereof. In the present case, there had been no evidence period to prision mayor in its medium period”.
presented that the accused were a band of outlaws
organized for the purpose of “depredation upon the Effectively, the penalty imposed by the Court a REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, (Represented by the
persons and properties of innocent and defenseless quo should be lightened. However, such lighter penalty Land Tenure Administration), petitioner,
inhabitants who travel from one place to another.” What shall benefit only herein petitioner and not his co-accused vs.
was duly proven in the present case is one isolated who did not contest or appeal the Sandiganbayan’s J. M. TUAZON & CO., ET AL., respondents.
hijacking of a postal van. There was also no evidence of Decision.
any previous attempts at similar robberies by the accused
to show the “indiscriminate” commission thereof.[95] WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, but the first Araneta and Araneta for petitioners.
paragraph of the dispositive portion of the assailed Office of the Solicitor General and Legal Staff, LTA for
Upon the other hand, the Information did not Decision is partially MODIFIED to read as follows: respondents.
specifically mention P.D. 532.[96] The facts alleged therein Legal Staff, LTA for petitioner.
and proven by the evidence constitute the offense of Araneta and Araneta and A. M. Tolentino for respondents.
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding
robbery defined in Art. 293 in relation to Art. 295 and accused Jose Filoteo, Jr. y Diendo GUILTY beyond
punished by Art. 294, par. 5, all of the Revised Penal reasonable doubt as co-principal in the crime of robbery as REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Code.[97] From the facts, it was duly proven that: defined in Arts. 293 and 295 and penalized under Art. 294,
paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code Code IMPOSING
The record shows that the judgments rendered in 1955 by
personal property (treasury warrants, checks, on him an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years and
the Court of First Instance of Rizal, in its ejectment cases
mail, van, tools, etc.) two (2) months of prision correctional, as minimum, to ten
Q-1401 and Q-1402, were, upon regular appeal, sequently
(10) years of prision mayor as maximum, and to pay his
affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals in its cases CA-
proportionate share of the costs of the action.”
belonging to another were G.R. Nos. 16265-66-R, "Tuason & Company, Inc. vs.
Bruna Rosete and Buenaventura Dizon". The Court of First
All other parts of the disposition are Instance, after the appellate court's decision became final
unlawfully taken by the accused hereby AFFIRMED. and upon return of the records in due course, issued writ
of execution of the judgment against Rosete and Dizon, as
SO ORDERED. prayed for by the landowner Tuason & Company.
with intent to gain (animo lucrandi)
Subsequently, on November 19, 1960, the Court of First
Instance issued orders of demolition of the houses of the
with intimidation against three persons (Art. evictees or judgment debtors.
293)
EN BANC
A few days previously, on November 16, 1960, the land-
in an uninhabited place, or owner J. M. Tuason & Company had also applied for a writ
G.R. No. L-18128 December 26, 1961 of prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City
by an band, or (Case No. Q-5527) against the Land Tenure
administration, the Auditor General, and the Solicitor
J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., HON. HERMOGENES General, to restrain them from instituting expropriation
by attacking a moving motor vehicle CALAUAG, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal proceedings of the petitioner Company's land in Quezon
(Quezon City, Branch IV) and HON. NICASIO YATCO, City, generally known as the "Tatalon Estate", as expressly
Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City and specifically authorized by Republic Act No. 2616, that
on a highway; and Branch V), petitioners, became law, without executive approval, on August 3,
vs. 1959; the Company claiming mainly that the Republic Act
the intimidation was made with the use of COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), THE was unconstitutional, null and void, as legislation aimed at
firearms (Art. 295) CHAIRMAN-ADMINISTRATOR OF THE LAND TENURE depriving it of its property for the benefit of squatters and
ADMINISTRATION, BRUNA ROSETE and occupants, even if the property had been actually
BUENAVENTURA DIZON, respondents.
subdivided, and its lots were being sold to the public; and in refusing to suspend the same until the expropriation Thereupon, Tuason & Company instituted in this Supreme
that respondent officers threatened to enforce said law by case was terminated. The petitioners prayed that — Court certiorari proceedings (G.R. No. L-18128). We gave
initiating expropriation proceedings. At petitioner's request, it due course and enjoined enforcement of orders of the
Judge Hermogenes Caluag of the Quezon City Court of Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. No. 28842, and order the
(1) Judge Yatco be enjoined from issuing orders
First Instance (to whom the prohibition case was assigned) Land Tenure Administration to the defer the filing of the
of demolition in Cases Nos. Q-1401 and 1402;
issued an ex parte writ of preliminary injunction on expropriation proceedings until further orders.
November 18, 1960, upon the filing of a bond of P20,000.
(2) Judge Caluag be enjoined from enforcing the
The sequel to the events narrated can be gleaned from the
preliminary injunction he had issued in Case No.
After injunction was issued, the evictees in Quezon City record of case G.R. No. L-18672, a certiorariproceeding
Q-5527; and
cases Q-1401 and 1402, Bruna Rosete and Tranquilino filed by the Land Tenure Administration against Judge
Dizon, petitioned the Court of First Instance to suspend the Hermogenes Caluag and Tuason & Company, Inc. The
order of demolition of their houses, on the ground that they (3) That the Land Tenure Administrator be motion of the Land Tenure Administration and its
were tenants of the Tatalon Estate; that Republic Act No. commanded to institute the expropriation correspondents to dismiss the prohibition case in the
2616, after specifically authorizing the expropriation of the proceedings authorized by Republic Act No. Quezon City Court (Case No. Q-5527), as well as their
Tatalon Estate, in its section 4, prescribes as follows: 2616. motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction issued by
Judge Caluag, was denied by him; and when the Second
Division of the Court of Appeals issued its resolution of
Section 4. After the expropriation proceedings The Court of Appeals gave due course to February 26, 1961, quashing Judge Caluag's preliminary
mentioned in section two of this Act shall have the certiorari petition, and on February 9, 1961 ordered the injunction, the Land Tenure Administration attorneys
been initiated and during the pendency of the issuance ex parte of the preliminary injunction prayed for,
attempted to file the complaint for the expropriation of 93
same, no ejectment proceedings shall be upon the filing of a P1,000 bond, which was done. hectares of the Tatalon Estate in the Quezon City court,
instituted or prosecuted against the present Respondent Tuason & Company, Inc., moved to dissolve but said complaint could not be docketed because the
occupant of any lot in said Tatalon Estate, and the preliminary injunction of the Court of Appeals, pointing
Judge had forbidden the Court Clerk to do so. Despite
no ejectment proceedings already commenced out that said Court's jurisdiction to take cognizance entreaties, Judge Caluag refused to allow the
shall be continued and such lot or any portion of certiorari proceedings and to issue injunction was only expropriation complaint to be docketed, claiming that he
thereof shall not be sold by the owners of said in aid of its appellate jurisdiction; that the orders of
had no official knowledge of the resolution of the Court of
estate to any person other than the present execution issued by the Quezon City Court are not Appeals, even after he was served with a certified copy
occupant without the consent of the latter given appealable; that the prohibition proceedings in case No. Q- thereof.
in a public document. 5527, involving (as they did) a question of constitutionality
of a statute, were likewise not appealable to the Court of
Appeals; and that said Court, therefore, was without The Land Tenure Administration avers that the issuance of
However, Judge Nicasio Yatco of the Court of First
jurisdiction to pass over the questioned orders and that its the injunction in the prohibition case (Q-5527), the denial
Instance of Quezon City denied the suspension because
injunction was improperly issued, not being in aid of the of the motion to dismiss the case, the refusal to dissolve
no expropriation proceedings had been actually filed.
appellate jurisdiction the Court of Appeals. These points the injunction, and the refusal to have the complaint for
were reiterated in the Company's answer to the petition expropriation docketed were all in abuse of discretion and
Thereupon, the evictees Rosete and Dizon recoursed to forcertiorari. The Court of Appeals (Second Division) excess of jurisdiction; that furthermore, venue was
the Court of Appeals, and there instituted, on February 4, refused to lift the preliminary injunction; on the contrary, on improperly laid, because an action for prohibition is
1961, certiorari proceedings (C.A.-G.R. No. 28842-R) February 26, upon motion of one of the respondents, the personal in character, and neither petitioner nor any of the
against Judge Yatco and Caluag, J. M. Tuason & Co. Inc., Land Tenure Administration, it clarified the previous writ of respondents in said prohibition case were domiciled in
and the Land Tenure Administration. They averred, after preliminary injunction. Quezon City. Petitioner Land Tenure Administration,
recital of the facts, that Judge Caluag, gravely abused his therefore, prayed that Judge Caluag be ordered by this
discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction in the Court to refrain from proceeding with the prohibition case,
in the sense that said Writ lifts, quashes or from enforcing the writ of preliminary injunction issued
prohibition case No. Q-5527 to restrain the initiation of
dissolves writ of preliminary injunction issued by
condemnation proceedings over the Tatalon Estate; that therein, from issuing orders of demolition of the tenant's
the Hon. Judge Hermogenes Caluag, in Civil houses, and to allow the expropriation case to be docketed
as beneficiaries under section 4 of Republic Act No. 2616,
Case No. 5527, CFI, Rizal, so that respondent and regularly proceeded with.
they were entitled to a stay of the demolition proceedings
Land Tenure Administration may thus properly
against them; and that Judge Yatco abused his discretion
file the complaint for expropriation as authorized
by Republic Act No. 2616.
As we view it, two main questions are involved in these SEC. 7. Expediting proceedings. Preliminary of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse,
cases: injunction. modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari or writ of
error, as the law or the rules of court may
provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior
(1) In G.R. L-18128: Did the Court of Appeals have The court in which the petition is filed, or a judge
courts in —
jurisdiction to lift, quash, and dissolve the preliminary writ thereof, may make orders expediting the
of injunction issued by Judge Caluag in the prohibition proceedings, and may also grant a preliminary
case No. Q-5527 pending in his court? injunction for the preservation of the rights of the (1) All cases in which the constitutionality or
parties pending such proceedings. validity of any treaty, law, ordinance or executive
orders or regulations is in question (Emphasis
(2) In G.R. L-18672: Did Judge Caluag act without or in
supplied).
excess of jurisdiction in issuing the preliminary injunction in Authority is likewise derived from section 6 of Rule 124,
the prohibition case? concerning the powers and duties of courts.
Plainly the Constitution contemplates that the inferior
courts should have jurisdiction in cases involving
As to the first issue, we are satisfied that the writ of When by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court
constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of
injunction issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes
appellate review of final judgments of inferior courts in
28842-R is null and void for want of jurisdiction. The and other means necessary to carry into effect
cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue.
authority of said Court to issue writs of mandamus, may be employed by such court or officer.
Construing both provisions together, it is readily discerned
prohibition, injunction, certiorari and habeas corpus is
that the two-third vote of the Supreme Court, required by
expressly limited by statute to their issuance in aid of its
That the alleged unconstitutionality of Republic Act No. section 10 of Article VIII, conditions only the decisions of
appellate jurisdiction (Judiciary Act, sec. 30), and it has
2616 could be invoked as a defense in the expropriation the Supreme Court in the exercise of its appellate
been repeatedly ruled by us that the jurisdiction of the
proceedings does not alter the right of respondent Tuason jurisdiction.
Court of Appeals to issue such writs must be based on the
& Company to invoke it in the prohibition case, without
existence of a right to appeal to it from the judgment on the
awaiting the initiation of the condemnation case. In any
merits in the main case. Without such right of appeal, the It is true that, as argued by the petitioner Land Tenure
event, the issue of constitutionality would be like a
Court of Appeals is without jurisdiction to interfere, for that Administration, the mere fact that a statute is alleged to be
prejudicial question to the expropriation, as it would be a
Court is purely a creature of statute.1 Since the issuance of unconstitutional or invalid will not entitle a party to have its
waste of time and effort to appoint evaluation
orders for execution after the judgment of ejectment had enforcement enjoined. But the rule is not without
commissioners and debate the market value of the
become final are not appealable, as the Court of Appeals exceptions. In Cochiong vs. Dinglasan, 79 Phil. 125, this
property sought to be condemned if it turned out that the
itself has ruled,2 otherwise litigations would never end, and Court quoted with approval from 28 Am. Jur. 369-371 the
condemnation was illegal.
since the prohibition case No. Q-5527 involved the rule that —
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 2616, an issue of
which the Court of Appeals could not take cognizance, It is urged by amicus curiae that Courts of First Instance
It is recognized, however, that an injunction will
said Court clearly had no authority to interfere by have no jurisdiction to entertain actions assailing the
lie to restrain the threatened enforcement of an
prerogative writ in either litigation, for lack of appellate constitutionality of statutes or treaties, because section 10
invalid law where the lawful use and enjoyment
jurisdiction Judge Caluag of Quezon City was, therefore, of Article VIII of the Constitution prescribes that —
of private property will be injuriously affected by
not bound by the writs so issued by the Court of Appeals.
its enforcement ...,
No treaty or law may be declared
On the second question, the preliminary injunction issued unconstitutional without the concurrence of two-
and the petition for a writ of prohibition in Q-5527 Court of
by Judge Caluag was merely an incident to the main thirds of all the members of the (Supreme)
First Instance of Quezon City pleads precisely this
(prohibition) case, and evidently had for its object to Court.
threatened injury to the proprietary rights of Tuason &
prevent that the principal case and any remedy to be
Company, Inc., as owners of the Tatalon Estates. Whether
granted therein should be rendered moot and nugatory by
This contention is, however, destroyed by the terms of this injury is real or not must be decided on the evidence
the filing of the condemnation proceedings sought to be
section 2 of Article VIII, wherein the Constitution itself submitted in that case, and we are in no position to resolve
prohibited. Issuance of the injunction was authorized by
section 7 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, dealing with inhibits Congress from depriving the Supreme Court — it in the certiorari proceedings now before us. Our task
here is merely to determine absence or excess of
writs, certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.
jurisdiction: and on the facts and applicable law we cannot
say that in the issuance of the preliminary injunction by the
Court of First Instance of Quezon City there was such character) does not even provide for a deposit of the
EN BANC
grave abuse of discretion as would constitute excess of current rentals by the tenants during the pendency of the
jurisdiction. proceedings (Cf. R.A. No. 1126, section 5). The Bill of
Rights, in requiring that "private property shall not be taken G.R. No. 83896 February 22, 1991
for public use without just compensation," and Article XIII,
It may be added that the maintenance of the injunction CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, petitioner,
section 4 in prescribing that "Congress may
issued by Judge Caluag works no real prejudice at
authorize, upon payment of just compensation, the vs.
present, not only because we cannot anticipate the final
expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots and
decision of Judge Caluag on the issue of constitutionality, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, respondent.
conveyed at cost to individuals," prohibit any disturbance
but also because the Land Tenure Administration
of proprietary rights without coetaneous payment of just
confesses that it has only two million pesos available to
indemnity. Hence, the mere filing of the condemnation
pay for property that, according to the proposed complaint G.R. No. 83815 February 22, 1991
proceedings for the benefit of tenants cannot, by itself
for expropriation, has an area of 1,096,849.50 square
alone, lawfully suspend the condemnee's dominical rights, ANTI-GRAFT LEAGUE OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. and
meters with a reasonable assessed value of
whether of possession, enjoyment, or disposition. And this
P6,034,865.95. Plainly, the government is not now in a CRISPIN T. REYES, petitioners,
is especially the case where final and executory judgments
position to take over the possession of the land since it
of ejectment have been obtained against the occupants of vs.
does not have the money that it must deposit as a
the property.
prerequisite to its entry (section 3 of Rule 69 on Eminent PHILIP ELLA C. JUICO, as Secretary of Agrarian Reform;
Domain).
CARLOS DOMINGUEZ, as Secretary of Agriculture;
Whether or not venue was correctly laid in the prohibition
case now pending in the Court of First Instance of Quezon LOURDES QUISUMBING, as Secretary of Education,
In moving for the lifting of the preliminary injunction and for
City is a question of law that does not affect jurisdiction,
a stay of the ejectment proceedings, the Land Tenure Culture and Sports; FULGENCIO FACTORAN, JR., as
and any resolution of the trial Court thereon is reviewable
Administration and the other movants assume that, upon
by appeal and not by certiorari. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources;
filing of the condemnation petition, the land owner will be
barred from enforcing its final judgments of ejectment VICENTE V. JAYME, as Secretary of Finance; SEDFREY
against the possessors of the land, even if the In view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered: ORDOÑEZ, as Secretary of Justice; FRANKLIN N.
Government should not take over the possession of the
property involved. This view, in our opinion, is not DRILON, as Secretary of Labor and Employment; LUIS
(a) In Case G.R. No. L-18128, J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs.
warranted. We see nothing in the terms of Republic Act SANTOS, as Secretary of Local Government; FIDEL V.
Court of Appeals et al., setting aside the writ of preliminary
No. 2616 to justify the belief that the Legislature intended a
injunction issued by the Court of Appeals in its case CA- RAMOS, as Secretary of National Defense; TEODORO F.
departure from the normal course prescribed for eminent
G.R. No. 28842-R, the same being null andvoid for lack of
domain cases, where the rights of the owner of the land BENIGNO, as Press Secretary; JUANITO FERRER, as
jurisdiction on the part of the Court to take cognizance of
may not be disturbed without previous deposit of the
said case; Secretary of Public Works and Highways; ANTONIO
provisional value of the property bought to be condemned.
The effectivity of section 4 of Republic Act 2616, ARRIZABAL, as Secretary of Science and Technology;
discontinuing ejectment proceedings against the present (b) In Case G.R. No. L-18672, Republic of the Philippines
occupants, and restraining any act of disposition of the vs. J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. et al., dismissing the petition JOSE CONCEPCION, as Secretary of Trade and Industry;
property, is justifiable only if the Government takes for certiorari, and denying the writs of certiorari and JOSE ANTONIO GONZALEZ, as Secretary of Tourism;
possession of the land in question by depositing its value. injunction applied for.lawphil.net
It needs no argument to show that by restraining the land ALFREDO R.A. BENGZON, as Secretary of Health;
owner from enforcing even final judgments in his favor to REINERIO D. REYES, as Secretary of Transportation and
recover possession of his property, as well as from The Court of First Instance of Quezon City is directed to
hear and resolve the prohibition case No. Q-5527 with all Communication; GUILLERMO CARAGUE, as
disposing of it to persons of his choice, he is deprived of
practicable dispatch. Commissioner of the Budget; and SOLITA MONSOD, as
the substance of ownership, and his title is left as an
empty shell. The land owner would then be deprived of
Head of the National Economic Development
those attributes of ownership that give it value, and his Without costs. So ordered.
property is virtually taken from him without compensation Authority, respondents.
and in violation of the Constitution, particularly in view of
the fact that R.A. 2616 (unlike previous Acts of similar
Ignacio P. Lacsina, Luis R. Mauricio, Antonio R. Quintos boards of such corporation should either be a secretary, or from holding, in addition to their primary positions, dual or
and Juan T. David for petitioners in 83896. undersecretary, or assistant secretary. multiple positions other than those authorized by the 1987
Antonio P. Coronel for petitioners in 83815. Petitioners maintain that this Executive Order which, in Constitution and from receiving any salaries, allowances,
effect, allows members of the Cabinet, their per diems and other forms of privileges and the like
DECISION undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other appurtenant to their questioned positions, and compelling
FERNAN, C.J.:p government offices or positions in addition to their primary public respondents to return, reimburse or refund any and
These two (2) petitions were consolidated per resolution positions, albeit subject to the limitation therein imposed, all amounts or benefits that they may have received from
dated August 9, 1988 1 and are being resolved jointly as runs counter to Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 such positions.
both seek a declaration of the unconstitutionality of Constitution, 2 which provides as follows: Specifically, petitioner Anti-Graft League of the Philippines
Executive Order No. 284 issued by President Corazon C. Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of charges that notwithstanding the aforequoted “absolute
Aquino on July 25, 1987. The pertinent provisions of the the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, and self-executing” provision of the 1987 Constitution, then
assailed Executive Order are: unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any Secretary of Justice Sedfrey Ordoñez, construing Section
Sec. 1. Even if allowed by law or by the ordinary functions other office or employment during their tenure. They shall 13, Article VII in relation to Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B,
of his position, a member of the Cabinet, undersecretary or not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly practice any rendered on July 23, 1987 Opinion No. 73, series of
assistant secretary or other appointive officials of the other profession, participate in any business, or be 1987, 5 declaring that Cabinet members, their deputies
Executive Department may, in addition to his primary financially interested in any contract with, or in any (undersecretaries) and assistant secretaries may hold
position, hold not more than two positions in the franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government other public office, including membership in the boards of
government and government corporations and receive the or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, government corporations: (a) when directly provided for in
corresponding compensation therefor; Provided, that this including government-owned or controlled corporations or the Constitution as in the case of the Secretary of Justice
limitation shall not apply to ad hoc bodies or committees, their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of who is made an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar
or to boards, councils or bodies of which the President is interest in the conduct of their office. Council under Section 8, paragraph 1, Article VIII; or (b) if
the Chairman. It is alleged that the above-quoted Section 13, Article VII allowed by law; or (c) if allowed by the primary functions of
Sec. 2. If a member of the cabinet, undersecretary or prohibits public respondents, as members of the Cabinet, their respective positions; and that on the basis of this
assistant secretary or other appointive official of the along with the other public officials enumerated in the list Opinion, the President of the Philippines, on July 25, 1987
Executive Department holds more positions than what is attached to the petitions as Annex “C” in G.R. No. or two (2) days before Congress convened on July 27,
allowed in Section 1 hereof, they (sic) must relinquish the 83815 and as Annex “B” in G.R. No. 83896 from holding
3 4
1987: promulgated Executive Order No. 284. 6
excess position in favor of the subordinate official who is any other office or employment during their tenure. In Petitioner Anti-Graft League of the Philippines objects to
next in rank, but in no case shall any official hold more addition to seeking a declaration of the unconstitutionality both DOJ Opinion No. 73 and Executive Order No. 284 as
than two positions other than his primary position. of Executive Order No. 284, petitioner Anti-Graft League of they allegedly “lumped together” Section 13, Article VII and
Sec. 3. In order to fully protect the interest of the the Philippines further seeks in G.R. No. 83815 the the general provision in another article, Section 7, par. (2),
government in government-owned or controlled issuance of the extraordinary writs of prohibition Article I-XB. This “strained linkage” between the two
corporations, at least one-third (1/3) of the members of the and mandamus, as well as a temporary restraining order provisions, each addressed to a distinct and separate
directing public respondents therein to cease and desist group of public officers –– one, the President and her
official family, and the other, public servants in general –– holding of multiple positions which are not related to or President being allowed to become a Member of the
allegedly “abolished the clearly separate, higher, necessarily included in the position of the public official Cabinet under the second paragraph of Section 3, Article
exclusive, and mandatory constitutional rank assigned to concerned (disparate positions). VII or the Secretary of Justice being designated an ex-
the prohibition against multiple jobs for the President, the In sum, the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 284 is officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council under
Vice-President, the members of the Cabinet, and their being challenged by petitioners on the principal Article VIII, Sec. 8 (1). Public respondents, on the other
deputies and subalterns, who are the leaders of submission that it adds exceptions to Section 13, Article hand, maintain that the phrase “unless otherwise provided
government expected to lead by example.” Article IX-B,
7
VII other than those provided in the Constitution. in the Constitution” in Section 13, Article VII makes
Section 7, par. (2) 8 provides: According to petitioners, by virtue of the phrase “unless reference to Section 7, par. (2), Article I-XB insofar as the
Sec. 7. . . . . . otherwise provided in this Constitution,” the only appointive officials mentioned therein are concerned.
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary exceptions against holding any other office or employment The threshold question therefore is: does the prohibition in
functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold in Government are those provided in the Constitution, Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution insofar as
any other office or employment in the government or any namely: (1) The Vice-President may be appointed as a Cabinet members, their deputies or assistants are
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including Member of the Cabinet under Section 3, par. (2), Article VII concerned admit of the broad exceptions made for
government-owned or controlled corporations or their thereof; and (2) the Secretary of Justice is an ex- appointive officials in general under Section 7, par. (2),
subsidiaries. officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Article I-XB which, for easy reference is quoted anew,
The Solicitor General counters that Department of Justice Section 8 (1), Article VIII. thus: “Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary
DOJ Opinion No. 73, series of 1987, as further elucidated Petitioners further argue that the exception to the functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold
9
and clarified by DOJ Opinion No. 129, series of 1987 and prohibition in Section 7, par. (2), Article I-XB on the Civil any other office or employment in the Government or any
DOJ Opinion No. 155, series of 1988, 10 being the first Service Commission applies to officers and employees of subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
official construction and interpretation by the Secretary of the Civil Service in general and that said exceptions do not government-owned or controlled corporation or their
Justice of Section 13, Article VII and par. (2) of Section 7, apply and cannot be extended to Section 13, Article VII subsidiaries.”
Article I-XB of the Constitution, involving the same subject which applies specifically to the President, Vice-President, We rule in the negative.
of appointments or designations of an appointive executive Members of the Cabinet and their deputies or assistants. A foolproof yardstick in constitutional construction is the
official to positions other than his primary position, is There is no dispute that the prohibition against the intention underlying the provision under consideration.
“reasonably valid and constitutionally firm,” and that President, Vice-President, the members of the Cabinet and Thus, it has been held that the Court in construing a
Executive Order No. 284, promulgated pursuant to DOJ their deputies or assistants from holding dual or multiple Constitution should bear in mind the object sought to be
Opinion No. 73, series of 1987 is consequently positions in the Government admits of certain exceptions. accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any, sought
constitutional. It is worth noting that DOJ Opinion No. 129, The disagreement between petitioners and public to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision will be
series of 1987 and DOJ Opinion No. 155, series of 1988 respondents lies on the constitutional basis of the examined in the light of the history of the times, and the
construed the limitation imposed by E.O. No. 284 as not exception. Petitioners insist that because of the phrase condition and circumstances under which the Constitution
applying to ex-officio positions or to positions which, “unless otherwise provided in this Constitution” used in was framed. The object is to ascertain the reason which
although not so designated as ex-officio are allowed by the Section 13 of Article VII, the exception must be expressly induced the framers of the Constitution to enact the
primary functions of the public official, but only to the provided in the Constitution, as in the case of the Vice- particular provision and the purpose sought to be
accomplished thereby, in order to construe the whole as to Particularly odious and revolting to the people’s sense of employment in the government subsuming both elective
make the words consonant to that reason and calculated propriety and morality in government service were the data and appointive public officials, the Constitutional
to effect that purpose. 11 contained therein that Roberto V. Ongpin was a member Commission should see it fit to formulate another
The practice of designating members of the Cabinet, their of the governing boards of twenty-nine (29) governmental provision, Sec. 13, Article VII, specifically prohibiting the
deputies and assistants as members of the governing agencies, instrumentalities and corporations; Imelda R. President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their
bodies or boards of various government agencies and Marcos of twenty-three (23); Cesar E.A. Virata of twenty- deputies and assistants from holding any other office or
instrumentalities, including government-owned and two (22); Arturo R. Tanco, Jr. of fifteen (15); Jesus S. employment during their tenure, unless otherwise provided
controlled corporations, became prevalent during the time Hipolito and Geronimo Z. Velasco, of fourteen each (14); in the Constitution itself.
legislative powers in this country were exercised by former Cesar C. Zalamea of thirteen (13); Ruben B. Ancheta and Evidently, from this move as well as in the different
President Ferdinand E. Marcos pursuant to his martial law Jose A. Roño of twelve (12) each; Manuel P. Alba, Gilberto phraseologies of the constitutional provisions in question,
authority. There was a proliferation of newly-created O. Teodoro, and Edgardo Tordesillas of eleven (11) each; the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to impose
13
agencies, instrumentalities and government-owned and and Lilia Bautista and Teodoro Q. Peña of ten (10) each. a stricter prohibition on the President and his official family
controlled corporations created by presidential decrees The blatant betrayal of public trust evolved into one of the in so far as holding other offices or employment in the
and other modes of presidential issuances where Cabinet serious causes of discontent with the Marcos regime. It government or elsewhere is concerned.
members, their deputies or assistants were designated to was therefore quite inevitable and in consonance with the Moreover, such intent is underscored by a comparison of
head or sit as members of the board with the overwhelming sentiment of the people that the 1986 Section 13, Article VII with other provisions of the
corresponding salaries, emoluments, per diems, Constitutional Commission, convened as it was after the Constitution on the disqualifications of certain public
allowances and other perquisites of office. Most of these people successfully unseated former President Marcos, officials or employees from holding other offices or
instrumentalities have remained up to the present time. should draft into its proposed Constitution the provisions employment. Under Section 13, Article VI, “(N)o Senator or
This practice of holding multiple offices or positions in the under consideration which are envisioned to remedy, if not Member of the House of Representatives may hold any
government soon led to abuses by unscrupulous public correct, the evils that flow from the holding of multiple other office or employment in the Government . . .”. Under
officials who took advantage of this scheme for purposes governmental offices and employment. In fact, as keenly Section 5(4), Article XVI, “(N)o member of the armed
of self-enrichment. In fact, the holding of multiple offices in observed by Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz during the forces in the active service shall, at any time, be appointed
government was strongly denounced on the floor of the deliberations in these cases, one of the strongest selling in any capacity to a civilian position in the
Batasang Pambansa. 12 This condemnation came in points of the 1987 Constitution during the campaign for its Government, including government-owned or controlled
reaction to the published report of the Commission on ratification was the assurance given by its proponents that corporations or any of their subsidiaries.” Even Section 7
Audit, entitled “1983 Summary Annual Audit Report on: the scandalous practice of Cabinet members holding (2), Article IX-B, relied upon by respondents provides
Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations, Self- multiple positions in the government and collecting “(U)nless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary
Governing Boards and Commissions” which carried as its unconscionably excessive compensation therefrom would functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold
Figure No. 4 a “Roaster of Membership in Governing be discontinued. any other office or employment in the Government.”
Boards of Government-Owned and Controlled But what is indeed significant is the fact that although It is quite notable that in all these provisions on
Corporations as of December 31, 1983.” Section 7, Article I-XB already contains a blanket disqualifications to hold other office or employment, the
prohibition against the holding of multiple offices or prohibition pertains to an office or employment in the
government and government-owned or controlled between the Civil Service prohibitions, originally found in (2) of Article IX-B would obliterate the distinction so
corporations or their subsidiaries. In striking contrast is the the General Provisions and the anticipated report on the carefully set by the framers of the Constitution as to when
wording of Section 13, Article VII which states that “(T)he Executive Department. Commissioner Foz Commented, the high-ranking officials of the Executive Branch from the
President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, “We actually have to be stricter with the President and the President to Assistant Secretary, on the one hand, and the
and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise members of the Cabinet because they exercise more generality of civil servants from the rank immediately below
provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or powers and, therefore, more cheeks and restraints on Assistant Secretary downwards, on the other, may hold
employment during their tenure.” In the latter provision, the them are called for because there is more possibility of any other office or position in the government during their
disqualification is absolute, not being qualified by the abuse in their case.” 14 tenure.
phrase “in the Government.” The prohibition imposed on Thus, while all other appointive officials in the civil service Moreover, respondents’ reading of the provisions in
the President and his official family is therefore all- are allowed to hold other office or employment in the question would render certain parts of the Constitution
embracing and covers both public and private office or government during their tenure when such is allowed by inoperative. This observation applies particularly to the
employment. law or by the primary functions of their positions, members Vice-President who, under Section 13 of Article VII is
Going further into Section 13, Article VII, the second of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants may do so allowed to hold other office or employment when so
sentence provides: “They shall not, during said tenure, only when expressly authorized by the Constitution itself. authorized by the Constitution, but who as an elective
directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, In other words, Section 7, Article I-XB is meant to lay down public official under Sec. 7, par. (1) of Article I-XB is
participate in any business, or be financially interested in the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive absolutely ineligible “for appointment or designation in any
any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege public officials and employees, while Section 13, Article VII capacity to any public office or position during his tenure.”
granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency or is meant to be the exception applicable only to the Surely, to say that the phrase “unless otherwise provided
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or President, the Vice- President, Members of the Cabinet, in this Constitution” found in Section 13, Article VII has
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.” These their deputies and assistants. reference to Section 7, par. (1) of Article I-XB would render
sweeping, all-embracing prohibitions imposed on the This being the case, the qualifying phrase “unless meaningless the specific provisions of the Constitution
President and his official family, which prohibitions are not otherwise provided in this Constitution” in Section 13, authorizing the Vice-President to become a member of the
similarly imposed on other public officials or employees Article VII cannot possibly refer to the broad exceptions Cabinet, 15 and to act as President without relinquishing the
such as the Members of Congress, members of the civil provided under Section 7, Article I-XB of the 1987 Vice-Presidency where the President shall not have been
service in general and members of the armed forces, are Constitution. To construe said qualifying phrase as chosen or fails to qualify. 16 Such absurd consequence can
proof of the intent of the 1987 Constitution to treat the respondents would have us do, would render nugatory and be avoided only by interpreting the two provisions under
President and his official family as a class by itself and to meaningless the manifest intent and purpose of the consideration as one, i.e., Section 7, par. (1) of Article I-XB
impose upon said class stricter prohibitions. framers of the Constitution to impose a stricter prohibition providing the general rule and the other, i.e., Section 13,
Such intent of the 1986 Constitutional Commission to be on the President, Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet, Article VII as constituting the exception thereto. In the
stricter with the President and his official family was also their deputies and assistants with respect to holding other same manner must Section 7, par. (2) of Article I-XB be
succinctly articulated by Commissioner Vicente Foz after offices or employment in the government during their construed vis-à-vis Section 13, Article VII.
Commissioner Regalado Maambong noted during the floor tenure. Respondents’ interpretation that Section 13 of It is a well-established rule in Constitutional construction
deliberations and debate that there was no symmetry Article VII admits of the exceptions found in Section 7, par. that no one provision of the Constitution is to be separated
from all the others, to be considered alone, but that all the being ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council by Bank Governor would then be assisted by lower ranking
provisions bearing upon a particular subject are to be virtue of Section 8 (1), Article VIII. employees in providing policy direction in the areas of
brought into view and to be so interpreted as to effectuate The prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices or money, banking and credit. 25
the great purposes of the instrument. 17 Sections bearing employment under Section 13, Article VII of the Indeed, the framers of our Constitution could not have
on a particular subject should be considered and Constitution must not, however, be construed as applying intended such absurd consequences. A Constitution,
interpreted together as to effectuate the whole purpose of to posts occupied by the Executive officials specified viewed as a continuously operative charter of government,
18
the Constitution and one section is not to be allowed to therein without additional compensation in an ex- is not to be interpreted as demanding the impossible or the
defeat another, if by any reasonable construction, the two officio capacity as provided by law and as required 22 by impracticable; and unreasonable or absurd consequences,
can be made to stand together. 19 the primary functions of said officials’ office. The reason is if possible, should be avoided. 26
In other words, the court must harmonize them, if that these posts do no comprise “any other office” within To reiterate, the prohibition under Section 13, Article VII is
practicable, and must lean in favor of a construction which the contemplation of the constitutional prohibition but are not to be interpreted as covering positions held without
will render every word operative, rather than one which properly an imposition of additional duties and functions on additional compensation in ex-officio capacities as
20
may make the words idle and nugatory. said officials. 23 To characterize these posts otherwise provided by law and as required by the primary functions
Since the evident purpose of the framers of the 1987 would lead to absurd consequences, among which are: of the concerned official’s office. The term ex-officio means
Constitution is to impose a stricter prohibition on the The President of the Philippines cannot chair the National “from office; by virtue of office.” It refers to an “authority
President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their Security Council reorganized under Executive Order No. derived from official character merely, not expressly
deputies and assistants with respect to holding multiple 115 (December 24, 1986). Neither can the Vice-President, conferred upon the individual character, but rather
offices or employment in the government during their the Executive Secretary, and the Secretaries of National annexed to the official position.” Ex-officio likewise denotes
tenure, the exception to this prohibition must be read with Defense, Justice, Labor and Employment and Local an “act done in an official character, or as a consequence
equal severity. On its face, the language of Section 13, Government sit in this Council, which would then have no of office, and without any other appointment or authority
Article VII is prohibitory so that it must be understood as reason to exist for lack of a chairperson and members. The than that conferred by the office.” 27 An ex-officio member
intended to be a positive and unequivocal negation of the respective undersecretaries and assistant secretaries, of a board is one who is a member by virtue of his title to a
privilege of holding multiple government offices or would also be prohibited. certain office, and without further warrant or
employment. Verily, wherever the language used in the The Secretary of Labor and Employment cannot chair the appointment. 28 To illustrate, by express provision of law,
constitution is prohibitory, it is to be understood as Board of Trustees of the National Manpower and Youth the Secretary of Transportation and Communications is
21
intended to be a positive and unequivocal negation. The Council (NMYC) or the Philippine Overseas Employment the ex-officio Chairman of the Board of the Philippine Ports
phrase “unless otherwise provided in this Constitution” Administration (POEA), both of which are attached to his Authority, 29 and the Light Rail Transit Authority. 30
must be given a literal interpretation to refer only to those department for policy coordination and guidance. Neither The Court had occasion to explain the meaning of an ex-
particular instances cited in the Constitution itself, to wit: can his Undersecretaries and Assistant Secretaries chair officio position in Rafael vs. Embroidery and Apparel
the Vice-President being appointed as a member of the these agencies. Control and Inspection Board, 31 thus: “An examination of
Cabinet under Section 3, par. (2), Article VII; or acting as The Secretaries of Finance and Budget cannot sit in the section 2 of the questioned statute (R.A. 3137) reveals that
President in those instances provided under Section 7, Monetary Board. 24 Neither can their respective for the chairman and members of the Board to qualify they
pars. (2) and (3), Article VII; and, the Secretary of Justice undersecretaries and assistant secretaries. The Central need only be designated by the respective department
heads. With the exception of the representative from the limited to chairmanships or directorships in government- capacity as provided by law, without receiving any
private sector, they sit ex-officio. In order to be designated owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. additional compensation therefor.
they must already be holding positions in the offices Mandating additional duties and functions to the President, The ex-officio position being actually and in legal
mentioned in the law. Thus, for instance, one who does Vice-President, Cabinet Members, their deputies or contemplation part of the principal office, it follows that the
not hold a previous appointment in the Bureau of Customs, assistants which are not inconsistent with those already official concerned has no right to receive additional
cannot, under the act, be designated a representative from prescribed by their offices or appointments by virtue of compensation for his services in the said position. The
that office. The same is true with respect to the their special knowledge, expertise and skill in their reason is that these services are already paid for and
representatives from the other offices. No new respective executive offices is a practice long-recognized covered by the compensation attached to his principal
appointments are necessary. This is as it should be, in many jurisdictions. It is a practice justified by the office. It should be obvious that if, say, the Secretary of
because the representatives so designated merely perform demands of efficiency, policy direction, continuity and Finance attends a meeting of the Monetary Board as
duties in the Board in addition to those already performed coordination among the different offices in the Executive an ex-officio member thereof, he is actually and in legal
32
under their original appointments.” Branch in the discharge of its multifarious tasks of contemplation performing the primary function of his
The term “primary” used to describe “functions” refers to executing and implementing laws affecting national principal office in defining policy in monetary and banking
the order of importance and thus means chief or principal interest and general welfare and delivering basic services matters, which come under the jurisdiction of his
function. The term is not restricted to the singular but may to the people. It is consistent with the power vested on the department. For such attendance, therefore, he is not
refer to the plural. 33 The additional duties must not only be President and his alter egos, the Cabinet members, to entitled to collect any extra compensation, whether it be in
closely related to, but must be required by the official’s have control of all the executive departments, bureaus and the form of a per them or an honorarium or an allowance,
primary functions. Examples of designations to positions offices and to ensure that the laws are faithfully or some other such euphemism. By whatever name it is
by virtue of one’s primary functions are the Secretaries of executed. 35 Without these additional duties and functions designated, such additional compensation is prohibited by
Finance and Budget sitting as members of the Monetary being assigned to the President and his official family to sit the Constitution.
Board, and the Secretary of Transportation and in the governing bodies or boards of governmental It is interesting to note that during the floor deliberations on
Communications acting as Chairman of the Maritime agencies or instrumentalities in an ex-officio capacity as the proposal of Commissioner Christian Monsod to add to
34
Industry Authority and the Civil Aeronautics Board. provided by law and as required by their primary functions, Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B, originally found as Section
If the functions required to be performed are merely they would be supervision, thereby deprived of the means 3 of the General Provisions, the exception “unless required
incidental, remotely related, inconsistent, incompatible, or for control and resulting in an unwieldy and confused by the functions of his position,” 36 express reference to
otherwise alien to the primary function of a cabinet official, bureaucracy. certain high-ranking appointive public officials like
37
such additional functions would fall under the purview of It bears repeating though that in order that such additional members of the Cabinet were made. Responding to a
“any other office” prohibited by the Constitution. An duties or functions may not transgress the prohibition query of Commissioner Blas Ople, Commissioner Monsod
example would be the Press Undersecretary sitting as a embodied in Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 pointed out that there are instances when although not
member of the Board of the Philippine Amusement and Constitution, such additional duties or functions must required by current law, membership of certain high-
Gaming Corporation. The same rule applies to such be required by the primary functions of the official ranking executive officials in other offices and
positions which confer on the cabinet official management concerned, who is to perform the same in an ex-officio corporations is necessary by reason of said officials’
functions and/or monetary compensation, such as but not
primary functions. The example given by Commissioner have re-worded said Section 13 to conform to the wider or employment in the government, except in those cases
38
Monsod was the Minister of Trade and Industry. exceptions provided in then Section 3 of the proposed specified in the Constitution itself and as above clarified
While this exchange between Commissioners Monsod and general Provisions, later placed as Section 7, par. (2) of with respect to posts held without additional compensation
Ople may be used as authority for saying that additional Article IX-B on the Civil Service Commission. in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as
functions and duties flowing from the primary functions of That this exception would in the final analysis apply also to required by the primary functions of their office, the citation
the official may be imposed upon him without offending the the President and his official family is by reason of the of Cabinet members (then called Ministers) as examples
constitutional prohibition under consideration, it cannot, legal principles governing additional functions and duties during the debate and deliberation on the general rule laid
however, be taken as authority for saying that this of public officials rather than by virtue of Section 7, par. 2, down for all appointive officials should be considered as
exception is by virtue of Section 7, par. (2) of Article I-XB. Article IX-B At any rate, we have made it clear that only the mere personal opinions which cannot override the
This colloquy between the two Commissioners took place additional functions and duties “required,” as opposed to constitution’s manifest intent and the people’
in the plenary session of September 27, 1986. Under “allowed,” by the primary functions may be considered as understanding thereof.
consideration then was Section 3 of Committee Resolution not constituting “any other office.” In the light of the construction given to Section 13, Article
No. 531 which was the proposed article on General While it is permissible in this jurisdiction to consult the VII in relation to Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B of the 1987
Provisions. 39 At that time, the article on the Civil Service debates and proceedings of the constitutional convention Constitution, Executive Order No. 284 dated July 23, 1987
Commission had been approved on third reading on July in order to arrive at the reason and purpose of the resulting is unconstitutional. Ostensibly restricting the number of
22, 1986, 40 while the article on the Executive Department, Constitution, resort thereto may be had only when other positions that Cabinet members, undersecretaries or
containing the more specific prohibition in Section 13, had guides fail 42 as said proceedings are powerless to vary the assistant secretaries may hold in addition to their primary
also been earlier approved on third reading on August 26, terms of the Constitution when the meaning is clear. position to not more than two (2) positions in the
1986. 41It was only after the draft Constitution had Debates in the constitutional convention “are of value as government and government corporations, Executive
undergone reformatting and “styling” by the Committee on showing the views of the individual members, and as Order No. 284 actually allows them to hold multiple offices
Style that said Section 3 of the General Provisions became indicating the reasons for their votes, but they give us no or employment in direct contravention of the express
Section 7, par. (2) of Article IX-B and reworded “Unless light as to the views of the large majority who did not talk, mandate of Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his much less of the mass of our fellow citizens whose votes prohibiting them from doing so, unless otherwise provided
position. . . .” at the polls gave that instrument the force of fundamental in the 1987 Constitution itself.
What was clearly being discussed then were general law. We think it safer to construe the constitution from what The Court is alerted by respondents to the impractical
principles which would serve as constitutional guidelines in appears upon its face.” 43
The proper interpretation consequences that will result from a strict application of the
the absence of specific constitutional provisions on the therefore depends more on how it was understood by the prohibition mandated under Section 13, Article VII on the
matter. What was primarily at issue and approved on that people adopting it than in the framers’ understanding operations of the Government, considering that Cabinet
occasion was the adoption of the qualified and delimited thereof. 44 members would be stripped of their offices held in an ex-
phrase “primary functions” as the basis of an exception to It being clear, as it was in fact one of its best selling points, officio capacity, by reason of their primary positions or by
the general rule covering all appointive public officials. Had that the 1987 Constitution seeks to prohibit the President, virtue of legislation. As earlier clarified in this decision, ex-
the Constitutional Commission intended to dilute the Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies or officio posts held by the executive official concerned
specific prohibition in said Section 13 of Article VII, it could assistants from holding during their tenure multiple offices without additional compensation as provided by law and as
LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION, INC.,
required by the primary functions of his office do not fall other named respondents, the petitions have become
represented by its Chairman F’LONG MIGUEL
under the definition of “any other office” within the moot and academic as they are no longer occupying the M. LUMAYONG, WIGBERTO E. TAÑADA,
contemplation of the constitutional prohibition. With positions complained of. PONCIANO BENNAGEN, JAIME TADEO,
RENATO R. CONSTANTINO, JR., F’LONG
respect to other offices or employment held by virtue of During their tenure in the questioned positions, AGUSTIN M. DABIE, ROBERTO P. AMLOY,
legislation, including chairmanships or directorships in respondents may be considered de facto officers and as RAQIM L. DABIE, SIMEON H. DOLOJO,
IMELDA M. GANDON, LENY B. GUSANAN,
government-owned or controlled corporations and their such entitled to emoluments for actual services MARCELO L. GUSANAN, QUINTOL A.
subsidiaries, suffice it to say that the feared impractical rendered. 46
It has been held that “in cases where there is LABUAYAN, LOMINGGES D. LAWAY, BENITA
P. TACUAYAN, minors JOLY L. BUGOY,
consequences are more apparent than real. Being head of no de jure, officer, a de facto officer, who, in good faith has represented by his father UNDERO D. BUGOY,
an executive department is no mean job. It is more than a had possession of the office and has discharged the duties ROGER M. DADING, represented by his father
ANTONIO L. DADING, ROMY M. LAGARO,
full-time job, requiring full attention, specialized knowledge, pertaining thereto, is legally entitled to the emoluments of represented by his father TOTING A. LAGARO,
skills and expertise. If maximum benefits are to be derived the office, and may in an appropriate action recover the MIKENY JONG B. LUMAYONG, represented by
his father MIGUEL M. LUMAYONG, RENE T.
from a department head’s ability and expertise, he should salary, fees and other compensations attached to the MIGUEL, represented by his mother EDITHA T.
be allowed to attend to his duties and responsibilities office. This doctrine is, undoubtedly, supported on MIGUEL, ALDEMAR L. SAL, represented by his
father DANNY M. SAL, DAISY RECARSE,
without the distraction of other governmental offices or equitable grounds since it seems unjust that the public
represented by her mother LYDIA S. SANTOS,
employment. He should be precluded from dissipating his should benefit by the services of an officer de facto and EDWARD M. EMUY, ALAN P. MAMPARAIR,
MARIO L. MANGCAL, ALDEN S. TUSAN,
efforts, attention and energy among too many positions of then be freed from all liability to pay any one for such
AMPARO S. YAP, VIRGILIO CULAR, MARVIC
responsibility, which may result in haphazardness and services. 47 Any per diem, allowances or other emoluments M.V.F. LEONEN, JULIA REGINA CULAR, GIAN
inefficiency. Surely the advantages to be derived from this received by the respondents by virtue of actual services CARLO CULAR, VIRGILIO CULAR, JR.,
represented by their father VIRGILIO CULAR,
concentration of attention, knowledge and expertise, rendered in the questioned positions may therefore be PAUL ANTONIO P. VILLAMOR, represented by
particularly at this stage of our national and economic retained by them. his parents JOSE VILLAMOR and ELIZABETH
PUA-VILLAMOR, ANA GININA R. TALJA,
development, far outweigh the benefits, if any, that may be WHEREFORE, subject to the qualification above-stated, represented by her father MARIO JOSE B.
gained from a department head spreading himself too thin the petitions are GRANTED. Executive Order No. 284 is TALJA, SHARMAINE R. CUNANAN,
represented by her father ALFREDO M.
and taking in more than what he can handle. hereby declared null and void and is accordingly set aside. CUNANAN, ANTONIO JOSE A. VITUG III,
Finding Executive Order No. 284 to be constitutionally SO ORDERED. represented by his mother ANNALIZA A. VITUG,
LEAN D. NARVADEZ, represented by his father
infirm, the court hereby orders respondents Secretary of Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, MANUEL E. NARVADEZ, JR., ROSERIO
Environment and Natural Resources Fulgencio Factoran, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Medialdea, Regalado MARALAG LINGATING, represented by her
father RIO OLIMPIO A. LINGATING, MARIO
Jr., Secretary of Local Government 45 Luis Santos, and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur. JOSE B. TALJA, DAVID E. DE VERA, MARIA
Secretary of National Defense Fidel V. Ramos, Secretary MILAGROS L. SAN JOSE, SR., SUSAN O.
BOLANIO, OND, LOLITA G. DEMONTEVERDE,
of Health Alfredo R.A. Bengzon and Secretary of the
EN BANC BENJIE L. NEQUINTO,[1] ROSE LILIA S.
Budget Guillermo Carague to immediately relinquish their ROMANO, ROBERTO S. VERZOLA,
EDUARDO AURELIO C. REYES, LEAN LOUEL
other offices or employment, as herein defined, in the
A. PERIA, represented by his father ELPIDIO V.
government, including government-owned or controlled PERIA,[2] GREEN FORUM PHILIPPINES,
corporations and their subsidiaries. With respect to the [G.R. No. 127882. January 27, 2004] GREEN FORUM WESTERN VISAYAS, (GF-
WV), ENVIRONMETAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE
CENTER (ELAC), PHILIPPINE KAISAHAN accept, consider and evaluate proposals from foreign- cancellation, revocation and termination of agreements
TUNGO SA KAUNLARAN NG KANAYUNAN AT owned corporations or foreign investors for contracts or and permits.[32]
REPORMANG PANSAKAHAN agreements involving either technical or financial
(KAISAHAN),[3] KAISAHAN TUNGO SA assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and On April 9, 1995, 30 days following its publication on
KAUNLARAN NG KANAYUNAN AT utilization of minerals, which, upon appropriate March 10, 1995 in Malaya and Manila Times, two
REPORMANG PANSAKAHAN (KAISAHAN), recommendation of the Secretary, the President may newspapers of general circulation, R.A. No. 7942 took
PARTNERSHIP FOR AGRARIAN REFORM and execute with the foreign proponent. In entering into such effect.[33]
RURAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. proposals, the President shall consider the real
(PARRDS), PHILIPPINE PART`NERSHIP FOR contributions to the economic growth and general welfare Shortly before the effectivity of R.A. No. 7942,
THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN of the country that will be realized, as well as the however, or on March 30, 1995, the President entered into
an FTAA with WMCP covering 99,387 hectares of land in
RESOURCES IN THE RURAL AREAS, INC. development and use of local scientific and technical
(PHILDHRRA), WOMEN’S LEGAL BUREAU resources that will be promoted by the proposed contract South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Davao del Sur and North
(WLB), CENTER FOR ALTERNATIVE or agreement. Until Congress shall determine otherwise, Cotabato.[34]
DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES, INC. (CADI), large-scale mining, for purpose of this Section, shall mean On August 15, 1995, then DENR Secretary Victor O.
UPLAND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE (UDI), those proposals for contracts or agreements for mineral Ramos issued DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 95-
KINAIYAHAN FOUNDATION, INC., SENTRO resources exploration, development, and utilization 23, s. 1995, otherwise known as the Implementing Rules
NG ALTERNATIBONG LINGAP PANLIGAL involving a committed capital investment in a single mining and Regulations of R.A. No. 7942. This was later repealed
(SALIGAN), LEGAL RIGHTS AND NATURAL unit project of at least Fifty Million Dollars in United States by DAO No. 96-40, s. 1996 which was adopted on
RESOURCES CENTER, INC. Currency (US $50,000,000.00).[7] December 20, 1996.
(LRC), petitioners, vs. VICTOR O. RAMOS,
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF On January 10, 1997, counsels for petitioners sent a
On March 3, 1995, then President Fidel V. Ramos
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES letter to the DENR Secretary demanding that the DENR
approved R.A. No. 7942 to “govern the exploration,
(DENR), HORACIO RAMOS, DIRECTOR, stop the implementation of R.A. No. 7942 and DAO No.
development, utilization and processing of all mineral
MINES AND GEOSCIENCES BUREAU (MGB- 96-40,[35] giving the DENR fifteen days from receipt[36] to
resources.”[8] R.A. No. 7942 defines the modes of mineral
DENR), RUBEN TORRES, EXECUTIVE act thereon. The DENR, however, has yet to respond or
agreements for mining operations,[9] outlines the procedure
SECRETARY, and WMC (PHILIPPINES),
for their filing and approval,[10] assignment/transfer[11] and act on petitioners’ letter.[37]
[4]
INC. respondents.
withdrawal,[12] and fixes their terms.[13] Similar provisions Petitioners thus filed the present petition for
govern financial or technical assistance agreements.[14] prohibition and mandamus, with a prayer for a temporary
DECISION restraining order. They allege that at the time of the filing
The law prescribes the qualifications of
CARPIO-MORALES, J.: contractors[15] and grants them certain rights, including of the petition, 100 FTAA applications had already been
timber,[16] water[17] and easement[18] rights, and the right to filed, covering an area of 8.4 million hectares,[38] 64 of
possess explosives.[19] Surface owners, occupants, or which applications are by fully foreign-owned corporations
The present petition for mandamus and prohibition concessionaires are forbidden from preventing holders of covering a total of 5.8 million hectares, and at least one by
assails the constitutionality of Republic Act No. mining rights from entering private lands and concession a fully foreign-owned mining company over offshore
7942,[5] otherwise known as the PHILIPPINE MINING ACT areas.[20] A procedure for the settlement of conflicts is areas.[39]
OF 1995, along with the Implementing Rules and likewise provided for.[21]
Regulations issued pursuant thereto, Department of Petitioners claim that the DENR Secretary acted
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) The Act restricts the conditions for without or in excess of jurisdiction:
Administrative Order 96-40, and of the Financial and exploration,[22] quarry[23] and other[24] permits. It regulates I
Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) entered into on the transport, sale and processing of minerals,[25] and
March 30, 1995 by the Republic of the Philippines and promotes the development of mining communities, science
WMC (Philippines), Inc. (WMCP), a corporation organized and mining technology,[26] and safety and environmental x x x in signing and promulgating DENR Administrative
under Philippine laws. protection.[27] Order No. 96-40 implementing Republic Act No. 7942, the
latter being unconstitutional in that it allows fully foreign
On July 25, 1987, then President Corazon C. Aquino The government’s share in the agreements is owned corporations to explore, develop, utilize and exploit
issued Executive Order (E.O.) No. 279[6] authorizing the spelled out and allocated,[28] taxes and fees are mineral resources in a manner contrary to Section 2,
DENR Secretary to imposed,[29] incentives granted.[30] Aside from penalizing paragraph 4, Article XII of the Constitution;
certain acts,[31] the law likewise specifies grounds for the
II x x x in recommending approval of and implementing the After petitioners filed their reply, this Court granted
Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement between due course to the petition. The parties have since filed
the President of the Republic of the Philippines and their respective memoranda.
x x x in signing and promulgating DENR Administrative
Western Mining Corporation Philippines Inc. because the
Order No. 96-40 implementing Republic Act No. 7942, the WMCP subsequently filed a Manifestation dated
same is illegal and unconstitutional.[40]
latter being unconstitutional in that it allows the taking of September 25, 2002 alleging that on January 23, 2001,
private property without the determination of public use WMC sold all its shares in WMCP to Sagittarius Mines,
and for just compensation; They pray that the Court issue an order: Inc. (Sagittarius), a corporation organized under Philippine
laws.[44] WMCP was subsequently renamed “Tampakan
III (a) Permanently enjoining respondents from acting on Mineral Resources Corporation.”[45] WMCP claims that at
any application for Financial or Technical Assistance least 60% of the equity of Sagittarius is owned by Filipinos
Agreements; and/or Filipino-owned corporations while about 40% is
x x x in signing and promulgating DENR Administrative owned by Indophil Resources NL, an Australian
Order No. 96-40 implementing Republic Act No. 7942, the company.[46] It further claims that by such sale and transfer
latter being unconstitutional in that it violates Sec. 1, Art. III (b) Declaring the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 or of shares, “WMCP has ceased to be connected in any way
of the Constitution; Republic Act No. 7942 as unconstitutional and null and with WMC.”[47]
void;
By virtue of such sale and transfer, the DENR
IV
Secretary, by Order of December 18, 2001,[48] approved
(c) Declaring the Implementing Rules and Regulations
the transfer and registration of the subject FTAA from
of the Philippine Mining Act contained in DENR
x x x in signing and promulgating DENR Administrative WMCP to Sagittarius. Said Order, however, was appealed
Administrative Order No. 96-40 and all other similar
Order No. 96-40 implementing Republic Act No. 7942, the by Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. (Lepanto) to the
administrative issuances as unconstitutional and null and
latter being unconstitutional in that it allows enjoyment by Office of the President which upheld it by Decision of July
void; and
foreign citizens as well as fully foreign owned corporations 23, 2002.[49] Its motion for reconsideration having been
of the nation’s marine wealth contrary to Section 2, denied by the Office of the President by Resolution of
paragraph 2 of Article XII of the Constitution; (d) Cancelling the Financial and Technical Assistance November 12, 2002,[50] Lepanto filed a petition for
Agreement issued to Western Mining Philippines, Inc. as review[51] before the Court of Appeals. Incidentally, two
unconstitutional, illegal and null and void.[41] other petitions for review related to the approval of the
V transfer and registration of the FTAA to Sagittarius were
recently resolved by this Court.[52]
Impleaded as public respondents are Ruben Torres,
x x x in signing and promulgating DENR Administrative
the then Executive Secretary, Victor O. Ramos, the then It bears stressing that this case has not been
Order No. 96-40 implementing Republic Act No. 7942, the
DENR Secretary, and Horacio Ramos, Director of the rendered moot either by the transfer and registration of the
latter being unconstitutional in that it allows priority to
Mines and Geosciences Bureau of the DENR. Also FTAA to a Filipino-owned corporation or by the non-
foreign and fully foreign owned corporations in the
impleaded is private respondent WMCP, which entered issuance of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary
exploration, development and utilization of mineral
into the assailed FTAA with the Philippine injunction to stay the above-said July 23, 2002 decision of
resources contrary to Article XII of the Constitution;
Government. WMCP is owned by WMC Resources the Office of the President.[53] The validity of the transfer
International Pty., Ltd. (WMC), “a wholly owned subsidiary remains in dispute and awaits final judicial
VI of Western Mining Corporation Holdings Limited, a publicly determination. This assumes, of course, that such transfer
listed major Australian mining and exploration cures the FTAA’s alleged unconstitutionality, on which
company.”[42] By WMCP’s information, “it is a 100% owned question judgment is reserved.
x x x in signing and promulgating DENR Administrative subsidiary of WMC LIMITED.”[43]
Order No. 96-40 implementing Republic Act No. 7942, the WMCP also points out that the original claimowners
latter being unconstitutional in that it allows the inequitable Respondents, aside from meeting petitioners’ of the major mineralized areas included in the WMCP
sharing of wealth contrary to Sections [sic] 1, paragraph 1, contentions, argue that the requisites for judicial inquiry FTAA, namely, Sagittarius, Tampakan Mining Corporation,
and Section 2, paragraph 4[,] [Article XII] of the have not been met and that the petition does not comply and Southcot Mining Corporation, are all Filipino-owned
Constitution; with the criteria for prohibition and corporations,[54] each of which was a holder of an approved
mandamus. Additionally, respondent WMCP argues that Mineral Production Sharing Agreement awarded in 1994,
VII there has been a violation of the rule on hierarchy of albeit their respective mineral claims were subsumed in
courts.
the WMCP FTAA;[55] and that these three companies are Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states that In view of the alleged impending injury, petitioners
the same companies that consolidated their interests in “(j)udicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to also have standing to assail the validity of E.O. No. 279, by
Sagittarius to whom WMC sold its 100% equity in settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally authority of which the FTAA was executed.
WMCP.[56]WMCP concludes that in the event that the demandable and enforceable.” The power of judicial
FTAA is invalidated, the MPSAs of the three corporations review, therefore, is limited to the determination of actual Public respondents maintain that petitioners, being
would be revived and the mineral claims would revert to cases and controversies.[59] strangers to the FTAA, cannot sue either or both
their original claimants.[57] contracting parties to annul it.[71] In other words, they
An actual case or controversy means an existing contend that petitioners are not real parties in interest in an
These circumstances, while informative, are hardly case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for action for the annulment of contract.
significant in the resolution of this case, it involving the determination, not conjectural or anticipatory,[60] lest the
validity of the FTAA, not the possible consequences of its decision of the court would amount to an advisory Public respondents’ contention fails. The present
invalidation. opinion.[61] The power does not extend to hypothetical action is not merely one for annulment of contract but for
questions[62] since any attempt at abstraction could only prohibition and mandamus. Petitioners allege that public
Of the above-enumerated seven grounds cited by lead to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile respondents acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in
petitioners, as will be shown later, only the first and the last conclusions unrelated to actualities.[63] implementing the FTAA, which they submit is
need be delved into; in the latter, the discussion shall dwell unconstitutional. As the case involves constitutional
only insofar as it questions the effectivity of E. O. No. 279 “Legal standing” or locus standi has been defined as questions, this Court is not concerned with whether
by virtue of which order the questioned FTAA was forged. a personal and substantial interest in the case such that petitioners are real parties in interest, but with whether
the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a they have legal standing. As held in Kilosbayan v.
I result of the governmental act that is being Morato:[72]
challenged,[64] alleging more than a generalized
Before going into the substantive issues, the
grievance.[65] The gist of the question of standing is
procedural questions posed by respondents shall first be x x x. “It is important to note . . . that standing because of
whether a party alleges “such personal stake in the
tackled. its constitutional and public policy underpinnings, is very
outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete
different from questions relating to whether a particular
adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues
plaintiff is the real party in interest or has capacity to
upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult
sue. Although all three requirements are directed towards
constitutional questions.”[66] Unless a person is injuriously
REQUISITES FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ensuring that only certain parties can maintain an action,
affected in any of his constitutional rights by the operation
standing restrictions require a partial consideration of the
of statute or ordinance, he has no standing.[67]
merits, as well as broader policy concerns relating to the
Petitioners traverse a wide range of sectors. Among proper role of the judiciary in certain
When an issue of constitutionality is raised, this
them are La Bugal B’laan Tribal Association, Inc., a areas.[”] (FRIEDENTHAL, KANE AND MILLER, CIVIL
Court can exercise its power of judicial review only if the
farmers and indigenous people’s cooperative organized PROCEDURE 328 [1985])
following requisites are present:
under Philippine laws representing a community actually
(1) The existence of an actual and affected by the mining activities of WMCP, members of Standing is a special concern in constitutional law because
appropriate case; said cooperative,[68] as well as other residents of areas in some cases suits are brought not by parties who have
also affected by the mining activities of WMCP.[69] These been personally injured by the operation of a law or by
(2) A personal and substantial interest of the petitioners have standing to raise the constitutionality of official action taken, but by concerned citizens, taxpayers
party raising the constitutional question; the questioned FTAA as they allege a personal and or voters who actually sue in the public interest. Hence,
substantial injury. They claim that they would suffer the question in standing is whether such parties have
(3) The exercise of judicial review is pleaded “irremediable displacement”[70] as a result of the
at the earliest opportunity; and “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the
implementation of the FTAA allowing WMCP to conduct controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which
(4) The constitutional question is the lis mining activities in their area of residence. They thus meet sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court
mota of the case. [58] the appropriate case requirement as they assert an so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional
interest adverse to that of respondents who, on the other questions.” (Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 7 L.Ed.2d 633
Respondents claim that the first three requisites are hand, insist on the FTAA’s validity. [1962].)
not present.
As earlier stated, petitioners meet this requirement.
The challenge against the constitutionality of R.A. at the earliest opportunity – WMCP points out that the The propriety of a petition for prohibition being
No. 7942 and DAO No. 96-40 likewise fulfills the requisites petition was filed only almost two years after the execution upheld, discussion of the propriety of the mandamus
of justiciability. Although these laws were not in force of the FTAA, hence, not raised at the earliest opportunity. aspect of the petition is rendered unnecessary.
when the subject FTAA was entered into, the question as
to their validity is ripe for adjudication. The third requisite should not be taken to mean that
the question of constitutionality must be raised immediately
The WMCP FTAA provides: after the execution of the state action complained of. That HIERARCHY OF COURTS
the question of constitutionality has not been raised before
is not a valid reason for refusing to allow it to be raised
14.3 Future Legislation
later.[73] A contrary rule would mean that a law, otherwise
unconstitutional, would lapse into constitutionality by the The contention that the filing of this petition violated
Any term and condition more mere failure of the proper party to promptly file a case to the rule on hierarchy of courts does not likewise lie. The
favourable to Financial &Technical challenge the same. rule has been explained thus:
Assistance Agreement contractors
resulting from repeal or amendment of Between two courts of concurrent original jurisdiction, it is
any existing law or regulation or from the lower court that should initially pass upon the issues of
the enactment of a law, regulation or PROPRIETY OF PROHIBITION a case. That way, as a particular case goes through the
administrative order shall be AND MANDAMUS hierarchy of courts, it is shorn of all but the important legal
considered a part of this Agreement. issues or those of first impression, which are the proper
subject of attention of the appellate court. This is a
It is undisputed that R.A. No. 7942 and DAO No. 96-40 Before the effectivity in July 1997 of the Revised procedural rule borne of experience and adopted to
contain provisions that are more favorable to WMCP, Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 2 of Rule 65 read: improve the administration of justice.
hence, these laws, to the extent that they are favorable to
WMCP, govern the FTAA. This Court has consistently enjoined litigants to respect the
SEC. 2. Petition for prohibition. – When the proceedings
of any tribunal, corporation, board, or person, whether hierarchy of courts. Although this Court has concurrent
In addition, R.A. No. 7942 explicitly makes certain jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of
provisions apply to pre-existing agreements. exercising functions judicial or ministerial, are without or in
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of Appeals to issue writs of certiorari,
discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and
SEC. 112. Non-impairment of Existing Mining/Quarrying speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of injunction, such concurrence does not give a party
Rights. – x x x That the provisions of Chapter XIV on law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. The resort
government share in mineral production-sharing in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and to this Court’s primary jurisdiction to issue said writs shall
agreement and of Chapter XVI on incentives of this Act praying that judgment be rendered commanding the be allowed only where the redress desired cannot be
shall immediately govern and apply to a mining lessee or defendant to desist from further proceeding in the action or obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional
contractor unless the mining lessee or contractor indicates matter specified therein. and compelling circumstances justify such invocation. We
his intention to the secretary, in writing, not to avail of said held in People v. Cuaresma that:
provisions x x x Provided, finally, That such
leases, production-sharing agreements, financial or Prohibition is a preventive remedy.[74] It seeks a
judgment ordering the defendant to desist from continuing A becoming regard for judicial hierarchy most certainly
technical assistance agreements shall comply with the indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary
applicable provisions of this Act and its implementing rules with the commission of an act perceived to be illegal.[75]
writs against first level (“inferior”) courts should be filed
and regulations. The petition for prohibition at bar is thus an with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter,
appropriate remedy. While the execution of the contract with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of the
As there is no suggestion that WMCP has indicated its itself may be fait accompli, its implementation is not. Public Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs
intention not to avail of the provisions of Chapter XVI of respondents, in behalf of the Government, have should be allowed only where there are special and
R.A. No. 7942, it can safely be presumed that they apply obligations to fulfill under said contract. Petitioners seek to important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out
to the WMCP FTAA. prevent them from fulfilling such obligations on the theory in the petition. This is established policy. It is a policy
that the contract is unconstitutional and, therefore, void. necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s
Misconstruing the application of the third requisite for time and attention which are better devoted to those
judicial review – that the exercise of the review is pleaded matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent
further over-crowding of the Court’s docket x x flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by AND THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE
x.[76] [Emphasis supplied.] the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all
other natural resources shall not be alienated. The
exploration, development, and utilization of natural The first sentence of Section 2 embodies the
The repercussions of the issues in this case on the
resources shall be under the full control and supervision of Regalian doctrine or jura regalia. Introduced by Spain into
Philippine mining industry, if not the national economy, as
the State. The State may directly undertake such activities these Islands, this feudal concept is based on the State’s
well as the novelty thereof, constitute exceptional and
or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or power of dominium, which is the capacity of the State to
compelling circumstances to justify resort to this Court in
production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or own or acquire property.[79]
the first instance.
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of
In all events, this Court has the discretion to take whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such
cognizance of a suit which does not satisfy the agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five In its broad sense, the term “jura regalia” refers to royal
years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and rights, or those rights which the King has by virtue of his
requirements of an actual case or legal standing when
paramount public interest is involved.[77]When the issues under such terms and conditions as may be provided by prerogatives. In Spanish law, it refers to a right which the
raised are of paramount importance to the public, this law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, sovereign has over anything in which a subject has a right
fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of of property or propriedad. These were rights enjoyed
Court may brush aside technicalities of procedure.[78]
water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit during feudal times by the king as the sovereign.
II of the grant.
The theory of the feudal system was that title to all lands
Petitioners contend that E.O. No. 279 did not take
effect because its supposed date of effectivity came after The State shall protect the nation’s marine wealth in its was originally held by the King, and while the use of lands
archipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic was granted out to others who were permitted to hold them
President Aquino had already lost her legislative powers
zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to under certain conditions, the King theoretically retained the
under the Provisional Constitution.
Filipino citizens. title. By fiction of law, the King was regarded as the
And they likewise claim that the WMC FTAA, which original proprietor of all lands, and the true and only source
was entered into pursuant to E.O. No. 279, violates of title, and from him all lands were held. The theory
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of of jura regalia was therefore nothing more than a natural
Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution because, among natural resources by Filipino citizens, as well as
other reasons: fruit of conquest.[80]
cooperative fish farming, with priority to subsistence
(1) It allows foreign-owned companies to fishermen and fish-workers in rivers, lakes, bays, and
lagoons. The Philippines having passed to Spain by virtue of
extend more than mere financial or technical assistance to
discovery and conquest,[81] earlier Spanish decrees
the State in the exploitation, development, and utilization
declared that “all lands were held from the Crown.”[82]
of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils, and even The President may enter into agreements with foreign-
permits foreign owned companies to “operate and owned corporations involving either technical or financial The Regalian doctrine extends not only to land but
manage mining activities.” assistance for large-scale exploration, development, and also to “all natural wealth that may be found in the bowels
utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils of the earth.”[83] Spain, in particular, recognized the unique
(2) It allows foreign-owned companies to according to the general terms and conditions provided by value of natural resources, viewing them, especially
extend both technical and financial assistance, instead of law, based on real contributions to the economic growth minerals, as an abundant source of revenue to finance its
“either technical or financial assistance.” and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, wars against other nations.[84] Mining laws during the
To appreciate the import of these issues, a visit to the State shall promote the development and use of local Spanish regime reflected this perspective.[85]
scientific and technical resources.
the history of the pertinent constitutional provision, the
concepts contained therein, and the laws enacted
pursuant thereto, is in order. The President shall notify the Congress of every contract
entered into in accordance with this provision, within thirty THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION AND
Section 2, Article XII reads in full: days from its execution. THE CONCESSION REGIME
“Mining operation,” as the law defines it, Section 40,[289] which allows the assignment or
means mining activities involving exploration, feasibility, Provided, That a legally organized foreign-owned transfer of financial or technical assistance agreements;
development, utilization, and processing.[275] corporation shall be deemed a qualified person for
purposes of granting an exploration permit, financial or Section 41,[290] which allows the withdrawal of the
The underlying assumption in all these provisions is technical assistance agreement or mineral processing contractor in an FTAA;
that the foreign contractor manages the mineral resources, permit.
just like the foreign contractor in a service contract. The second and third paragraphs of Section
81,[291] which provide for the Government’s share in a
Furthermore, Chapter XII of the Act grants foreign (2) Section 23,[280] which specifies the rights financial and technical assistance agreement; and
contractors in FTAAs the same auxiliary mining rights that and obligations of an exploration permittee, insofar as said
it grants contractors in mineral agreements (MPSA, CA section applies to a financial or technical assistance Section 90,[292] which provides for incentives to
and JV).[276]Parenthetically, Sections 72 to 75 use the term agreement, contractors in FTAAs insofar as it applies to said
“contractor,” without distinguishing between FTAA and contractors;
(3) Section 33, which prescribes the eligibility
mineral agreement contractors. And so does “holders of
of a contractor in a financial or technical assistance When the parts of the statute are so mutually
mining rights” in Section 76. A foreign contractor may
agreement; dependent and connected as conditions, considerations,
even convert its FTAA into a mineral agreement if the
inducements, or compensations for each other, as to
economic viability of the contract area is found to be (4) Section 35,[281] which enumerates the
inadequate to justify large-scale mining warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a
terms and conditions for every financial or technical whole, and that if all could not be carried into effect, the
operations,[277] provided that it reduces its equity in the assistance agreement; legislature would not pass the residue independently, then,
corporation, partnership, association or cooperative to forty
percent (40%).[278] if some parts are unconstitutional, all the provisions which
(5) Section 39,[282] which allows the contractor
are thus dependent, conditional, or connected, must fall
in a financial and technical assistance agreement to
Finally, under the Act, an FTAA contractor warrants with them.[293]
convert the same into a mineral production-sharing
that it “has or has access to all the financing, managerial, agreement;
and technical expertise. . . .”[279] This suggests that an There can be little doubt that the WMCP FTAA itself
FTAA contractor is bound to provide [283] is a service contract.
(6) Section 56, which authorizes the
some management assistance – a form of assistance that issuance of a mineral processing permit to a contractor in Section 1.3 of the WMCP FTAA grants WMCP “the
has been eliminated and, therefore, proscribed by the a financial and technical assistance agreement; exclusive right to explore, exploit, utilise[,] process and
present Charter. dispose of all Minerals products and by-products thereof
The following provisions of the same Act are likewise
By allowing foreign contractors to manage or that may be produced from the Contract Area.”[294] The
void as they are dependent on the foregoing provisions
operate all the aspects of the mining operation, the above- FTAA also imbues WMCP with the following rights:
and cannot stand on their own:
cited provisions of R.A. No. 7942 have in effect conveyed
beneficial ownership over the nation’s mineral resources to (1) Section 3 (g),[284] which defines the term (b) to extract and carry away any Mineral samples from
these contractors, leaving the State with nothing but bare “contractor,” insofar as it applies to a financial or technical the Contract area for the purpose of conducting tests and
title thereto. assistance agreement. studies in respect thereof;
Moreover, the same provisions, whether by design Section 34,[285] which prescribes the maximum
or inadvertence, permit a circumvention of the contract area in a financial or technical assistance (c) to determine the mining and treatment processes to
constitutionally ordained 60%-40% capitalization agreements; be utilised during the Development/Operating Period and
requirement for corporations or associations engaged in the project facilities to be constructed during the
the exploitation, development and utilization of Philippine Section 36,[286] which allows negotiations for financial Development and Construction Period;
natural resources. or technical assistance agreements;
In sum, the Court finds the following provisions of Section 37,[287] which prescribes the procedure for (d) have the right of possession of the Contract Area,
R.A. No. 7942 to be violative of Section 2, Article XII of the filing and evaluation of financial or technical assistance with full right of ingress and egress and the right to occupy
agreement proposals; the same, subject to the provisions of Presidential Decree
Constitution:
No. 512 (if applicable) and not be prevented from entry
into private ands by surface owners and/or occupants improvements and replacements of the mining facilities President no less, which, in entering into said treaty is
thereof when prospecting, exploring and exploiting for and may add such new facilities as it considers necessary assumed to be aware of the existing Philippine laws on
minerals therein; for the mining operations.[299] service contracts over the exploration, development and
utilization of natural resources. The execution of the FTAA
These contractual stipulations, taken together, grant by the Philippine Government assures the Australian
xxx WMCP beneficial ownership over natural resources that Government that the FTAA is in accordance with existing
properly belong to the State and are intended for the Philippine laws.[300] [Emphasis and italics by private
(f) to construct roadways, mining, drainage, power benefit of its citizens. These stipulations are abhorrent to respondents.]
generation and transmission facilities and all other types of the 1987 Constitution. They are precisely the vices that
works on the Contract Area; the fundamental law seeks to avoid, the evils that it aims to
suppress. Consequently, the contract from which they The invalidation of the subject FTAA, it is argued,
spring must be struck down. would constitute a breach of said treaty which, in turn,
(g) to erect, install or place any type of improvements, would amount to a violation of Section 3, Article II of the
supplies, machinery and other equipment relating to the In arguing against the annulment of the FTAA, Constitution adopting the generally accepted principles of
Mining Operations and to use, sell or otherwise dispose of, WMCP invokes the Agreement on the Promotion and international law as part of the law of the land. One of
modify, remove or diminish any and all parts thereof; Protection of Investments between the Philippine and these generally accepted principles is pacta sunt
Australian Governments, which was signed in Manila on servanda, which requires the performance in good faith of
January 25, 1995 and which entered into force on treaty obligations.
(h) enjoy, subject to pertinent laws, rules and regulations
December 8, 1995.
and the rights of third Parties, easement rights and the use Even assuming arguendo that WMCP is correct in its
of timber, sand, clay, stone, water and other natural interpretation of the treaty and its assertion that “the
resources in the Contract Area without cost for the x x x. Article 2 (1) of said treaty states that it applies to Philippines could not . . . deprive an Australian investor
purposes of the Mining Operations; investments whenever made and thus the fact that (like [WMCP]) of fair and equitable treatment by
[WMCP’s] FTAA was entered into prior to the entry into invalidating [WMCP’s] FTAA without likewise nullifying the
force of the treaty does not preclude the Philippine service contracts entered into before the enactment of RA
xxx
Government from protecting [WMCP’s] investment in [that] 7942 . . .,” the annulment of the FTAA would not
FTAA. Likewise, Article 3 (1) of the treaty provides constitute a breach of the treaty invoked. For this decision
(l) have the right to mortgage, charge or encumber all that “Each Party shall encourage and promote investments herein invalidating the subject FTAA forms part of the legal
or part of its interest and obligations under this Agreement, in its area by investors of the other Party and shall [admit] system of the Philippines.[301] The equal protection
the plant, equipment and infrastructure and the Minerals such investments in accordance with its Constitution, clause[302] guarantees that such decision shall apply to all
produced from the Mining Operations; Laws, regulations and investment policies” and in Article 3 contracts belonging to the same class, hence, upholding
(2), it states that “Each Party shall ensure that investments rather than violating, the “fair and equitable treatment”
are accorded fair and equitable treatment.” The latter stipulation in said treaty.
x x x. [295] stipulation indicates that it was intended to impose an
obligation upon a Party to afford fair and equitable One other matter requires clarification. Petitioners
All materials, equipment, plant and other installations treatment to the investments of the other Party and that a contend that, consistent with the provisions of Section 2,
erected or placed on the Contract Area remain the failure to provide such treatment by or under the laws of Article XII of the Constitution, the President may enter into
property of WMCP, which has the right to deal with and the Party may constitute a breach of the treaty. Simply agreements involving “either technical or financial
remove such items within twelve months from the stated, the Philippines could not, under said treaty, rely assistance” only. The agreement in question, however, is
termination of the FTAA.[296] upon the inadequacies of its own laws to deprive an a technical and financial assistance agreement.
Australian investor (like [WMCP]) of fair and equitable
Pursuant to Section 1.2 of the FTAA, WMCP shall treatment by invalidating [WMCP’s] FTAA without likewise Petitioners’ contention does not lie. To adhere to the
provide “[all] financing, technology, management and nullifying the service contracts entered into before the literal language of the Constitution would lead to absurd
personnel necessary for the Mining Operations.” The enactment of RA 7942 such as those mentioned in PD 87 consequences.[303] As WMCP correctly put it:
mining company binds itself to “perform all Mining or EO 279.
Operations . . . providing all necessary services, x x x such a theory of petitioners would compel the
technology and financing in connection therewith,”[297] and
This becomes more significant in the light of the fact that government (through the President) to enter into contract
to “furnish all materials, labour, equipment and other with two (2) foreign-owned corporations, one for financial
installations that may be required for carrying on all Mining [WMCP’s] FTAA was executed not by a mere Filipino
citizen, but by the Philippine Government itself, through its assistance agreement and with the other, for technical
Operations.”[298] WMCP may make expansions,
assistance over one and the same mining area or land; or (3) The Financial and Technical Assistance
Bureau of Customs is unconstitutional by reason of its not
to execute two (2) contracts with only one foreign-owned Agreement between the Government of the Republic of
corporation which has the capability to provide both the Philippines and WMC Philippines, Inc. having been confirmed by the Commission on
financial and technical assistance, one for financial Appointments. The respondents, on the other hand,
assistance and another for technical assistance, over the SO ORDERED.
same mining area. Such an absurd result is definitely not maintain the constitutionality of respondent Mison’s
sanctioned under the canons of constitutional Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Carpio,
Corona, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga. JJ., concur. appointment without the confirmation of the Commission
construction.[304] [Underscoring in the original.]
Vitug, J., see Separate Opinion. on Appointments.
Panganiban, J., see Separate Opinion.
Surely, the framers of the 1987 Charter did not Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez and Austria- Because of the demands of public interest, including the
contemplate such an absurd result from their use of Martinez, JJ., joins J. Panganiban’s separate opinion. need for stability in the public service, the Court resolved
“either/or.” A constitution is not to be interpreted as Azcuna, no part, one of the parties was a client.
demanding the impossible or the impracticable; and to give due course to the petition and decide, setting aside
unreasonable or absurd consequences, if possible, should the finer procedural questions of whether prohibition is the
be avoided.[305] Courts are not to give words a meaning
that would lead to absurd or unreasonable consequences
G.R. No. 79974 December 17, 1987 proper remedy to test respondent Mison’s right to the
and a literal interpretation is to be rejected if it would be ULPIANO P. SARMIENTO III AND JUANITO G. Office of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and of
unjust or lead to absurd results.[306] That is a strong
ARCILLA, petitioners, whether the petitioners have a standing to bring this suit.
argument against its adoption.[307] Accordingly, petitioners’
interpretation must be rejected. vs. By the same token, and for the same purpose, the Court
The foregoing discussion has rendered unnecessary SALVADOR MISON, in his capacity as COMMISSIONER allowed the Commission on Appointments to intervene and
the resolution of the other issues raised by the petition. OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, AND GUILLERMO file a petition in intervention. Comment was required of
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court CARAGUE, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF THE respondents on said petition. The comment was filed,
hereby declares unconstitutional and void: DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET, respondents, followed by intervenor’s reply thereto. The parties were
(1) The following provisions of Republic Act No. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, intervenor. also heard in oral argument on 8 December 1987.
7942:
This case assumes added significance because, at bottom
DECISION line, it involves a conflict between two (2) great
(a) The proviso in Section 3 (aq),
PADILLA, J.: departments of government, the Executive and Legislative
(b) Section 23, Once more the Court is called upon to delineate Departments. It also occurs early in the life of the 1987
constitutional boundaries. In this petition for prohibition, the Constitution.
(c) Section 33 to 41, petitioners, who are taxpayers, lawyers, members of the The task of the Court is rendered lighter by the existence
Integrated Bar of the Philippines and professors of of relatively clear provisions in the Constitution. In cases
(d) Section 56,
Constitutional Law, seek to enjoin the respondent Salvador like this, we follow what the Court, speaking through Mr.
Mison from performing the functions of the Office of Justice (later, Chief Justice) Jose Abad Santos stated
(e) The second and third paragraphs of Section 81, and
Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and the in Gold Creek Mining Corp. vs. Rodriguez, 1 that:
(f) Section 90. respondent Guillermo Carague, as Secretary of the The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is
Department of Budget, from effecting disbursements in to give effect to the intent of the framers of the organic law
(2) All provisions of Department of Environment and payment of Mison’s salaries and emoluments, on the and of the people adopting it. The intention to which force
Natural Resources Administrative Order 96-40, s. 1996
which are not in conformity with this Decision, and ground that Mison’s appointment as Commissioner of the
is to be given is that which is embodied and expressed in captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested In deciding this point, it should be borne in mind that a
2
the constitutional provisions themselves. in him in this Constitution; constitutional provision must be presumed to have been
The Court will thus construe the applicable constitutional Second, all other officers of the Government whose framed and adopted in the light and understanding of prior
provisions, not in accordance with how the executive or appointments are not otherwise provided for by law; 3
and existing laws and with reference to them. “Courts are
the legislative department may want them construed, but in Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law bound to presume that the people adopting a constitution
accordance with what they say and provide. to appoint; are familiar with the previous and existing laws upon the
4
Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution says: Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the subjects to which its provisions relate, and upon which
The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Congress may by law vest in the President alone. they express their judgment and opinion in its adoption.”
Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the The first group of officers is clearly appointed with the (Barry vs. Truax 13 N.D., 131; 99 N.W., 769,65 L. R. A.,
executive departments, ambassadors, other public consent of the Commission on Appointments. 762.) 6
ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from Appointments of such officers are initiated by nomination It will be recalled that, under Sec. 10, Article VII of the
the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers and, if the nomination is confirmed by the Commission on 1935 Constitution, it is provided that —
whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. Appointments, the President appoints. 5 xxx xxx xxx
He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government The second, third and fourth groups of officers are the (3) The President shall nominate and with the consent of
whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, present bone of contention. Should they be appointed by the Commission on Appointments, shall appoint the heads
and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. the President with or without the consent (confirmation) of of the executive departments and bureaus, officers of the
The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other the Commission on Appointments? By following the army from the rank of colonel, of the Navy and Air Forces
officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, accepted rule in constitutional and statutory construction from the rank of captain or commander, and all other
or in the heads of the departments, agencies, commissions that an express enumeration of subjects excludes others officers of the Government whose appointments are not
or boards. not enumerated, it would follow that only those herein otherwise provided for, and those whom he may be
The President shall have the power to make appointments appointments to positions expressly stated in the first authorized by law to appoint; but the Congress may by law
during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or group require the consent (confirmation) of the vest the appointment of inferior officers, in the President
compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only Commission on Appointments. But we need not rely solely alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments.
until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or on this basic rule of constitutional construction. We can (4) The President shall have the power to make
until the next adjournment of the Congress. refer to historical background as well as to the records of appointments during the recess of the Congress, but such
It is readily apparent that under the provisions of the 1987 the 1986 Constitutional Commission to determine, with appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by
Constitution, just quoted, there are four (4) groups of more accuracy, if not precision, the intention of the framers the Commission on Appointments or until the next
officers whom the President shall appoint. These four (4) of the 1987 Constitution and the people adopting it, on adjournment of the Congress.
groups, to which we will hereafter refer from time to time, whether the appointments by the President, under the xxx xxx xxx
are: second, third and fourth groups, require the consent (7) …, and with the consent of the Commission on
First, the heads of the executive departments, (confirmation) of the Commission on Appointments. Again, Appointments, shall appoint ambassadors, other public
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, officers in this task, the following advice of Mr. Chief Justice J. ministers and consuls …
of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval Abad Santos in Gold Creek is apropos: Upon the other hand, the 1973 Constitution provides that-
Section 10. The President shall appoint the heads of The proceedings in the 1986 Constitutional Commission department heads, ambassadors, generals and so on but
bureaus and offices, the officers of the Armed Forces of support this conclusion. The original text of Section 16, not to the levels of bureau heads and colonels.
the Philippines from the rank of Brigadier General or Article VII, as proposed by the Committee on the Executive xxx xxx xxx 8 (Emphasis supplied.)
Commodore, and all other officers of The government of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, read as follows: In the course of the debates on the text of Section 16,
whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, Section 16. The president shall nominate and, with the there were two (2) major changes proposed and approved
and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. consent of a Commission on Appointment, shall appoint by the Commission. These were (1) the exclusion of the
However, the Batasang Pambansa may by law vest in the the heads of the executive departments and bureaus, appointments of heads of bureaus from the requirement of
Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet, the Executive ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; and (2)
Committee, Courts, Heads of Agencies, Commissions, and officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or the exclusion of appointments made under the second
Boards the power to appoint inferior officers in their naval captain and all other officers of the Government sentence 9 of the section from the same requirement. The
respective offices. whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, records of the deliberations of the Constitutional
Thus, in the 1935 Constitution, almost all presidential and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. Commission show the following:
appointments required the consent (confirmation) of the The Congress may by law vest the appointment of inferior MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Foz be
Commission on Appointments. It is now a sad part of our officers in the President alone, in the courts, or in the recognized
political history that the power of confirmation by the heads of departments 7 [Emphasis supplied]. THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized
Commission on Appointments, under the 1935 The above text is almost a verbatim copy of its counterpart MR. FOZ: Madam President, my proposed amendment is
Constitution, transformed that commission, many times, provision in the 1935 Constitution. When the frames on page 7, Section 16, line 26 which is to delete the words
into a venue of “horse-trading” and similar malpractices. discussed on the floor of the Commission the proposed “and bureaus,” and on line 28 of the same page, to change
On the other hand, the 1973 Constitution, consistent with text of Section 16, Article VII, a feeling was manifestly the phrase ‘colonel or naval captain to MAJOR GENERAL
the authoritarian pattern in which it was molded and expressed to make the power of the Commission on OR REAR ADMIRAL. This last amendment which is co-
remolded by successive amendments, placed the absolute Appointments over presidential appointments more limited authored by Commissioner de Castro is to put a period (.)
power of appointment in the President with hardly any than that held by the Commission in the 1935 Constitution. after the word ADMIRAL, and on line 29 of the same page,
check on the part of the legislature. Thus- start a new sentence with: HE SHALL ALSO APPOINT, et
Given the above two (2) extremes, one, in the 1935 Mr. Rama: … May I ask that Commissioner Monsod be cetera.
Constitution and the other, in the 1973 Constitution, it is recognized MR. REGALADO: May we have the amendments one by
not difficult for the Court to state that the framers of the The President: We will call Commissioner Davide later. one. The first proposed amendment is to delete the words
1987 Constitution and the people adopting it, struck a Mr. Monsod: With the Chair’s indulgence, I just want to “and bureaus” on line 26.
“middle ground” by requiring the consent (confirmation) of take a few minutes of our time to lay the basis for some of MR. FOZ: That is correct.
the Commission on Appointments for the first group of the amendments that I would like to propose to the MR. REGALADO: For the benefit of the other
appointments and leaving to the President, without such Committee this morning. Commissioners, what would be the justification of the
confirmation, the appointment of other officers, i.e., those xxx xxx xxx proponent for such a deletion?
in the second and third groups as well as those in the On Section 16, I would like to suggest that the power of MR. FOZ: The position of bureau director is actually quite
fourth group, i.e., officers of lower rank. the Commission on Appointments be limited to the low in the executive department, and to require further
confirmation of presidential appointment of heads of directors no longer need confirmation by the Commission the President, as a matter of fact like those of the different
bureaus would subject them to political influence. on Appointment. constitutional commissions.
MR. REGALADO: The Commissioner’s proposed Section 16, therefore, would read: ‘The President shall FR. BERNAS: That is correct. This list of officials found in
amendment by deletion also includes regional directors as nominate, and with the consent of a Commission on Section 16 is not an exclusive list of those appointments
distinguished from merely staff directors, because the Appointments, shall appoint the heads of the executive which constitutionally require confirmation of the
regional directors have quite a plenitude of powers within departments, ambassadors. . . . Commission on Appointments,
the regions as distinguished from staff directors who only THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to delete the MR. DAVIDE: That is the reason I seek the incorporation
stay in the office. phrase ‘and bureaus’ on page 7, line 26? (Silence) The of the words I proposed.
MR. FOZ: Yes, but the regional directors are under the Chair hears none; the amendments is approved. FR. BERNAS: Will Commissioner Davide restate his
supervision of the staff bureau directors. xxx xxx xxx proposed amendment?
xxx xxx xxx MR. ROMULO: Madam President. MR. DAVIDE: After ‘captain,’ add the following: AND
MR. MAAMBONG: May I direct a question to THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized. OTHER OFFICERS WHOSE APPOINTMENTS ARE
Commissioner Foz? The Commissioner proposed an THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized VESTED IN HIM IN THIS CONSTITUTION.
amendment to delete ‘and bureaus on Section 16. Who MR. FOZ: Madam President, this is the third proposed FR. BERNAS: How about:”AND OTHER OFFICERS
will then appoint the bureau directors if it is not the amendment on page 7, line 28. 1 propose to put a period WHOSE APPOINTMENTS REQUIRE CONFIRMATION
President? (.) after ‘captain’ and on line 29, delete ‘and all’ and UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION”?
MR. FOZ: It is still the President who will appoint them but substitute it with HE SHALL ALSO APPOINT ANY. MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President, that is modified by
their appointment shall no longer be subject to MR. REGALADO: Madam President, the Committee the Committee.
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. accepts the proposed amendment because it makes it FR. BERNAS: That will clarify things.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, it is in line with the clear that those other officers mentioned therein do not THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept?
same answer of Commissioner de Castro? have to be confirmed by the Commission on MR. REGALADO: Just for the record, of course, that
MR. FOZ: Yes. Appointments. excludes those officers which the Constitution does not
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you. MR. DAVIDE: Madam President. require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments,
THE PRESIDENT: Is this clear now? What is the reaction THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized. like the members of the judiciary and the Ombudsman.
of the Committee? xxx xxx xxx MR. DAVIDE: That is correct. That is very clear from the
xxx xxx xxx MR. DAVIDE: So would the proponent accept an modification made by Commissioner Bernas.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, the Committee feels amendment to his amendment, so that after “captain” we THE PRESIDENT: So we have now this proposed
that this matter should be submitted to the body for a vote. insert the following words: AND OTHER OFFICERS amendment of Commissioners Foz and Davide.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you. WHOSE APPOINTMENTS ARE VESTED IN HIM IN THIS xxx xxx xxx
MR. REGALADO: We will take the amendments one by CONSTITUTION? THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed
one. We will first vote on the deletion of the phrase ‘and FR. BERNAS: It is a little vague. amendment of Commissioners Foz and Davide as
bureaus on line 26, such that appointments of bureau MR. DAVIDE: In other words, there are positions provided accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears
for in the Constitution whose appointments are vested in
none; the amendment, as amended, is Rather than limit the area of consideration to the possible appointments of other officers are left to the President
approved 10
(Emphasis supplied). meanings of the word “also” as used in the context of said without need of confirmation by the Commission on
It is, therefore, clear that appointments to the second and second sentence, the Court has chosen to derive Appointments. This conclusion is inevitable, if we are to
third groups of officers can be made by the President significance from the fact that the first sentence speaks of presume, as we must, that the framers of the 1987
without the consent (confirmation) of the Commission on nomination by the President and appointment by the Constitution were knowledgeable of what they were doing
Appointments. President with the consent of the Commission on and of the foreseeable effects thereof.
It is contended by amicus curiae, Senator Neptali Appointments, whereas, the second sentence speaks only Besides, the power to appoint is fundamentally executive
Gonzales, that the second sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII of appointment by the President. And, this use of different or presidential in character. Limitations on or qualifications
reading- language in two (2) sentences proximate to each other of such power should be strictly construed against them.
He (the President) shall also appoint all other officers of underscores a difference in message conveyed and Such limitations or qualifications must be clearly stated in
the Government whose appointments are not otherwise perceptions established, in line with Judge Learned Hand’s order to be recognized. But, it is only in the first sentence
provided for by law and those whom he may be authorized observation that “words are not pebbles in alien of Sec. 16, Art. VII where it is clearly stated that
by law to appoint . . . . (Emphasis supplied) juxtaposition” but, more so, because the recorded appointments by the President to the positions therein
with particular reference to the word “also,” implies that the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission clearly enumerated require the consent of the Commission on
President shall “in like manner” appoint the officers and expressly justify such differences. Appointments.
mentioned in said second sentence. In other words, the As a result of the innovations introduced in Sec. 16, Article As to the fourth group of officers whom the President can
President shall appoint the officers mentioned in said VII of the 1987 Constitution, there are officers whose appoint, the intervenor Commission on Appointments
second sentence in the same manner as he appoints appointments require no confirmation of the Commission underscores the third sentence in Sec. 16, Article VII of the
officers mentioned in the first sentence, that is, by on Appointments, even if such officers may be higher in 1987 Constitution, which reads:
nomination and with the consent (confirmation) of the rank, compared to some officers whose appointments The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other
Commission on Appointments. have to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts,
Amicus curiae’s reliance on the word “also” in said second under the first sentence of the same Sec. 16, Art. VII. or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or
sentence is not necessarily supportive of the conclusion he Thus, to illustrate, the appointment of the Central Bank boards. [Emphasis supplied].
arrives at. For, as the Solicitor General argues, the word Governor requires no confirmation by the Commission on and argues that, since a law is needed to vest the
“also” could mean “in addition; as well; besides, too” Appointments, even if he is higher in rank than a colonel in appointment of lower-ranked officers in the
(Webster’s International Dictionary, p. 62, 1981 edition) the Armed Forces of the Philippines or a consul in the President alone, this implies that, in the absence of such a
which meanings could, on the contrary, stress that the Consular Service. law, lower-ranked officers have to be appointed by the
word “also” in said second sentence means that the But these contrasts, while initially impressive, merely President subject to confirmation by the Commission on
President, in addition to nominating and, with the consent underscore the purposive intention and deliberate Appointments; and, if this is so, as to lower-ranked officers,
of the Commission on Appointments, appointing the judgment of the framers of the 1987 Constitution that, it follows that higher-ranked officers should be appointed
officers enumerated in the first sentence, can appoint except as to those officers whose appointments require by the President, subject also to confirmation by the
(without such consent (confirmation) the officers the consent of the Commission on Appointments by Commission on Appointments.
mentioned in the second sentence- express mandate of the first sentence in Sec. 16, Art. VII,
The respondents, on the other hand, submit that the third In other words, since the 1935 Constitution subjects, as a 16, Article VII. And, this redundancy cannot prevail over
sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII, abovequoted, merely general rule, presidential appointments to confirmation by the clear and positive intent of the framers of the 1987
declares that, as to lower-ranked officers, the Congress the Commission on Appointments, the same 1935 Constitution that presidential appointments, except those
may by law vest their appointment in the President, in the Constitution saw fit, by way of an exception to such rule, to mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII, are
courts, or in the heads of the various departments, provide that Congress may, however, by law vest the not subject to confirmation by the Commission on
agencies, commissions, or boards in the government. No appointment of inferior officers (equivalent to 11 officers Appointments.
reason however is submitted for the use of the word lower in rank” referred to in the 1987 Constitution) in the Coming now to the immediate question before the Court, it
“alone” in said third sentence. President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of is evident that the position of Commissioner of the Bureau
The Court is not impressed by both arguments. It is of the departments, of Customs (a bureau head) is not one of those within the
considered opinion, after a careful study of the In the 1987 Constitution, however, as already pointed out, first group of appointments where the consent of the
deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, that the clear and expressed intent of its framers was to Commission on Appointments is required. As a matter of
the use of the word alone” after the word “President” in exclude presidential appointments from confirmation by the fact, as already pointed out, while the 1935 Constitution
said third sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII is, more than Commission on Appointments, except appointments to includes “heads of bureaus” among those officers whose
anything else, a slip or lapses in draftsmanship. It will be offices expressly mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. appointments need the consent of the Commission on
recalled that, in the 1935 Constitution, the following 16, Article VII. Consequently, there was no reason to use Appointments, the 1987 Constitution on the other hand,
provision appears at the end of par. 3, section 1 0, Article in the third sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII the word “alone” deliberately excluded the position of “heads of bureaus”
VII thereof — after the word “President” in providing that Congress may from appointments that need the consent (confirmation) of
…; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of by law vest the appointment of lower-ranked officers in the the Commission on Appointments.
inferior officers, in the President alone, in the courts, or in President alone, or in the courts, or in the heads of Moreover, the President is expressly authorized by law to
the heads of departments. [Emphasis supplied]. departments, because the power to appoint officers whom appoint the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs. The
The above provision in the 1935 Constitution appears he (the President) may be authorized by law to appoint is original text of Sec. 601 of Republic Act No. 1937,
immediately after the provision which makes practically all already vested in the President, without need of otherwise known as the Tariff and Customs Code of the
presidential appointments subject to confirmation by the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments, in the Philippines, which was enacted by the Congress of the
Commission on Appointments, thus- second sentence of the same Sec. 16, Article VII. Philippines on 22 June 1957, reads as follows:
3. The President shall nominate and with the consent of Therefore, the third sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII could 601. Chief Officials of the Bureau.-The Bureau of Customs
the Commission on Appointments, shall appoint the heads have stated merely that, in the case of lower-ranked shall have one chief and one assistant chief, to be known
of the executive departments and bureaus, officers of the officers, the Congress may by law vest their appointment respectively as the Commissioner (hereinafter known as
Army from the rank of colonel, of the Navy and Air Forces in the President, in the courts, or in the heads of various the ‘Commissioner’) and Assistant Commissioner of
from the rank of captain or commander, and all other departments of the government. In short, the word “alone” Customs, who shall each receive an annual compensation
officers of the Government whose appointments are not in the third sentence of Sec. 16, Article VII of the 1987 in accordance with the rates prescribed by existing laws.
herein provided for, and those whom he may be Constitution, as a literal import from the last part of par. 3, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs shall be
authorized by law to appoint; … section 10, Article VII of the 1935 Constitution, appears to appointed by the proper department head.
be redundant in the light of the second sentence of Sec.
Chief of Staff of the AFP and the PNP Chief. [3] In the
Sec. 601 of Republic Act No. 1937, was amended on 27 the office and to receive all the salaries and emoluments
Memorandum, the President expressed his desire to
October 1972 by Presidential Decree No. 34, amending pertaining thereto. improve the peace and order situation in Metro Manila
the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines. Sec. 601, WHEREFORE, the petition and petition in intervention through a more effective crime prevention program
including increased police patrols.[4] The President further
as thus amended, now reads as follows: should be, as they are, hereby DISMISSED. Without costs. stated that to heighten police visibility in the metropolis,
Sec. 601. Chief Officials of the Bureau of Customs.-The SO ORDERED. augmentation from the AFP is necessary.[5] Invoking his
powers as Commander-in-Chief under Section 18, Article
Bureau of Customs shall have one chief and one assistant VII of the Constitution, the President directed the AFP
chief, to be known respectively as the Commissioner Chief of Staff and PNP Chief to coordinate with each other
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, for the proper deployment and utilization of the Marines to
(hereinafter known as Commissioner) and Deputy vs. HON. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, GEN. assist the PNP in preventing or suppressing criminal or
Commissioner of Customs, who shall each receive an PANFILO M. LACSON, GEN. EDGAR B. lawless violence.[6] Finally, the President declared that the
AGLIPAY, and GEN. ANGELO services of the Marines in the anti-crime campaign are
annual compensation in accordance with the rates REYES, respondents. merely temporary in nature and for a reasonable period
prescribed by existing law. The Commissioner and the only, until such time when the situation shall have
improved.[7]
Deputy Commissioner of Customs shall be appointed by DECISION
the President of the Philippines (Emphasis supplied.) The LOI explains the concept of the PNP-Philippine
KAPUNAN, J.: Marines joint visibility patrols as follows:
Of course, these laws (Rep. Act No. 1937 and PD No. 34)
xxx
were approved during the effectivity of the 1935 At bar is a special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition with prayer for issuance of a temporary
Constitution, under which the President may nominate
restraining order seeking to nullify on constitutional 2. PURPOSE:
and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, grounds the order of President Joseph Ejercito Estrada
appoint the heads of bureaus, like the Commissioner of commanding the deployment of the Philippine Marines (the
“Marines”) to join the Philippine National Police (the “PNP”) The Joint Implementing Police Visibility Patrols between
the Bureau of Customs. in visibility patrols around the metropolis. the PNP NCRPO and the Philippine Marines partnership in
the conduct of visibility patrols in Metro Manila for the
After the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, however, Rep. suppression of crime prevention and other serious threats
In view of the alarming increase in violent crimes in
Act No. 1937 and PD No. 34 have to be read in harmony Metro Manila, like robberies, kidnappings and to national security.
carnappings, the President, in a verbal directive, ordered
with Sec. 16, Art. VII, with the result that, while the
the PNP and the Marines to conduct joint visibility patrols 3. SITUATION:
appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of for the purpose of crime prevention and suppression. The
Customs is one that devolves on the President, as an Secretary of National Defense, the Chief of Staff of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (the “AFP”), the Chief of Criminal incidents in Metro Manila have been perpetrated
appointment he is authorized by law to make, such the PNP and the Secretary of the Interior and Local not only by ordinary criminals but also by organized
Government were tasked to execute and implement the syndicates whose members include active and former
appointment, however, no longer needs the confirmation of
said order. In compliance with the presidential mandate, police/military personnel whose training, skill, discipline
the Commission on Appointments. the PNP Chief, through Police Chief Superintendent Edgar and firepower prove well-above the present capability of
B. Aglipay, formulated Letter of Instruction 02/2000[1] (the the local police alone to handle. The deployment of a joint
Consequently, we rule that the President of the Philippines
“LOI”) which detailed the manner by which the joint PNP NCRPO-Philippine Marines in the conduct of police
acted within her constitutional authority and power in visibility patrols, called Task ForceTulungan, would be visibility patrol in urban areas will reduce the incidence of
appointing respondent Salvador Mison, Commissioner of conducted.[2] Task Force Tulungan was placed under the crimes specially those perpetrated by active or former
leadership of the Police Chief of Metro Manila. police/military personnel.
the Bureau of Customs, without submitting his nomination
to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation. He is Subsequently, the President confirmed his previous
directive on the deployment of the Marines in a 4. MISSION:
thus entitled to exercise the full authority and functions of Memorandum, dated 24 January 2000, addressed to the
The PNP NCRPO will organize a provisional Task Force to Commercial Center, LRT/MRT Stations and the NAIA and Without granting due course to the petition, the
conduct joint NCRPO-PM visibility patrols to keep Metro Domestic Airport.[9] Court in a Resolution,[11] dated 25 January 2000, required
Manila streets crime-free, through a sustained street the Solicitor General to file his Comment on the
patrolling to minimize or eradicate all forms of high-profile On 17 January 2000, the Integrated Bar of the petition. On 8 February 2000, the Solicitor General
crimes especially those perpetrated by organized crime Philippines (the “IBP”) filed the instant petition to annul LOI submitted his Comment.
syndicates whose members include those that are well- 02/2000 and to declare the deployment of the Philippine
trained, disciplined and well-armed active or former Marines, null and void and unconstitutional, arguing that: The Solicitor General vigorously defends the
PNP/Military personnel. constitutionality of the act of the President in deploying the
I Marines, contending, among others, that petitioner has no
legal standing; that the question of deployment of the
5. CONCEPT IN JOINT VISIBILITY PATROL Marines is not proper for judicial scrutiny since the same
OPERATIONS: THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE MARINES IN
METRO MANILA IS VIOLATIVE OF THE involves a political question; that the organization and
CONSTITUTION, IN THAT: conduct of police visibility patrols, which feature the team-
a. The visibility patrols shall be conducted jointly by the up of one police officer and one Philippine Marine soldier,
NCRPO [National Capital Regional Police Office] and the does not violate the civilian supremacy clause in the
Philippine Marines to curb criminality in Metro Manila and A) NO EMERGENCY SITUATION OBTAINS IN METRO Constitution.
to preserve the internal security of the state against MANILA AS WOULD JUSTIFY, EVEN ONLY REMOTELY,
THE DEPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS FOR LAW The issues raised in the present petition are: (1)
insurgents and other serious threat to national security,
ENFORCEMENT WORK; HENCE, SAID DEPLOYMENT Whether or not petitioner has legal standing; (2) Whether
although the primary responsibility over Internal Security
IS IN DEROGATION OF ARTICLE II, SECTION 3 OF THE or not the President’s factual determination of the
Operations still rests upon the AFP.
CONSTITUTION; necessity of calling the armed forces is subject to judicial
review; and, (3) Whether or not the calling of the armed
b. The principle of integration of efforts shall be applied to forces to assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols violates
eradicate all forms of high-profile crimes perpetrated by B) SAID DEPLOYMENT CONSTITUTES AN INSIDIOUS the constitutional provisions on civilian supremacy over
INCURSION BY THE MILITARY IN A CIVILIAN
organized crime syndicates operating in Metro Manila. This the military and the civilian character of the PNP.
concept requires the military and police to work cohesively FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT (LAW ENFORCEMENT)
and unify efforts to ensure a focused, effective and holistic IN DEROGATION OF ARTICLE XVI, SECTION 5 (4), OF The petition has no merit.
THE CONSTITUTION;
approach in addressing crime prevention. Along this line,
the role of the military and police aside from neutralizing First, petitioner failed to sufficiently show that it is in
crime syndicates is to bring a wholesome atmosphere possession of the requisites of standing to raise the issues
C) SAID DEPLOYMENT CREATES A DANGEROUS
in the petition. Second, the President did not commit
wherein delivery of basic services to the people and TENDENCY TO RELY ON THE MILITARY TO PERFORM
development is achieved. Hand-in-hand with this joint grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
THE CIVILIAN FUNCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT.
jurisdiction nor did he commit a violation of the civilian
NCRPO-Philippine Marines visibility patrols, local Police
Units are responsible for the maintenance of peace and supremacy clause of the Constitution.
order in their locality. II
The power of judicial review is set forth in Section 1,
Article VIII of the Constitution, to wit:
c. To ensure the effective implementation of this project, a IN MILITARIZING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN METRO
provisional Task Force “TULUNGAN” shall be organized to MANILA, THE ADMINISTRATION IS UNWITTINGLY
MAKING THE MILITARY MORE POWERFUL THAN Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one
provide the mechanism, structure, and procedures for the Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
integrated planning, coordinating, monitoring and WHAT IT SHOULD REALLY BE UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.[10] established by law.
assessing the security situation.
Asserting itself as the official organization of Filipino Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
xxx.[8] settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
lawyers tasked with the bounden duty to uphold the rule of
The selected areas of deployment under the LOI law and the Constitution, the IBP questions the validity of demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or
the deployment and utilization of the Marines to assist the not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to
are: Monumento Circle, North Edsa (SM City), Araneta
Shopping Center, Greenhills, SM Megamall, Makati PNP in law enforcement. lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.
The President did not commit grave abuse of discretion in calling out the Marines.
When questions of constitutional significance are sure, members of the BAR, those in the judiciary included,
raised, the Court can exercise its power of judicial review have varying opinions on the issue. Moreover, the IBP,
only if the following requisites are complied with, namely: assuming that it has duly authorized the National President
(1) the existence of an actual and appropriate case; (2) a to file the petition, has not shown any specific injury which In the case at bar, the bone of contention concerns
personal and substantial interest of the party raising the it has suffered or may suffer by virtue of the questioned the factual determination of the President of the necessity
constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is governmental act. Indeed, none of its members, whom the of calling the armed forces, particularly the Marines, to aid
pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the IBP purportedly represents, has sustained any form of the PNP in visibility patrols. In this regard, the IBP admits
constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.[12] injury as a result of the operation of the joint visibility that the deployment of the military personnel falls under
patrols. Neither is it alleged that any of its members has the Commander-in-Chief powers of the President as stated
been arrested or that their civil liberties have been violated in Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, specifically,
by the deployment of the Marines. What the IBP projects the power to call out the armed forces to prevent or
The IBP has not sufficiently complied with the requisites of as injurious is the supposed “militarization” of law suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. What the
standing in this case. enforcement which might threaten Philippine democratic IBP questions, however, is the basis for the calling of the
institutions and may cause more harm than good in the Marines under the aforestated provision. According to the
long run. Not only is the presumed “injury” not personal in IBP, no emergency exists that would justify the need for
character, it is likewise too vague, highly speculative and
“Legal standing” or locus standi has been defined the calling of the military to assist the police force. It
uncertain to satisfy the requirement of standing. Since contends that no lawless violence, invasion or rebellion
as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that
petitioner has not successfully established a direct and exist to warrant the calling of the Marines. Thus, the IBP
the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a
personal injury as a consequence of the questioned act, it prays that this Court “review the sufficiency of the factual
result of the governmental act that is being
does not possess the personality to assail the validity of basis for said troop [Marine] deployment.”[19]
challenged.[13] The term “interest” means a material
the deployment of the Marines. This Court, however, does
interest, an interest in issue affected by the decree, as
not categorically rule that the IBP has absolutely no The Solicitor General, on the other hand, contends
distinguished from mere interest in the question involved,
standing to raise constitutional issues now or in the that the issue pertaining to the necessity of calling the
or a mere incidental interest.[14] The gist of the question of
future. The IBP must, by way of allegations and proof, armed forces is not proper for judicial scrutiny since it
standing is whether a party alleges “such personal stake in
satisfy this Court that it has sufficient stake to obtain involves a political question and the resolution of factual
the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete
judicial resolution of the controversy. issues which are beyond the review powers of this Court.
adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues
upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult Having stated the foregoing, it must be emphasized As framed by the parties, the underlying issues are
constitutional questions.”[15] that this Court has the discretion to take cognizance of a the scope of presidential powers and limits, and the extent
suit which does not satisfy the requirement of legal of judicial review. But, while this Court gives considerable
In the case at bar, the IBP primarily anchors its
standing when paramount interest is involved.[16] In not a weight to the parties’ formulation of the issues, the
standing on its alleged responsibility to uphold the rule of
few cases, the Court has adopted a liberal attitude on resolution of the controversy may warrant a creative
law and the Constitution. Apart from this declaration,
the locus standi of a petitioner where the petitioner is able approach that goes beyond the narrow confines of the
however, the IBP asserts no other basis in support of
to craft an issue of transcendental significance to the issues raised. Thus, while the parties are in agreement
its locus standi. The mere invocation by the IBP of its duty
people.[17] Thus, when the issues raised are of paramount that the power exercised by the President is the power to
to preserve the rule of law and nothing more, while
importance to the public, the Court may brush aside call out the armed forces, the Court is of the view that the
undoubtedly true, is not sufficient to clothe it with standing
technicalities of procedure.[18] In this case, a reading of the power involved may be no more than the maintenance of
in this case. This is too general an interest which is shared
petition shows that the IBP has advanced constitutional peace and order and promotion of the general
by other groups and the whole citizenry. Based on the
issues which deserve the attention of this Court in view of welfare.[20] For one, the realities on the ground do not show
standards above-stated, the IBP has failed to present a
their seriousness, novelty and weight as that there exist a state of warfare, widespread civil unrest
specific and substantial interest in the resolution of the
precedents. Moreover, because peace and order are or anarchy. Secondly, the full brunt of the military is not
case. Its fundamental purpose which, under Section 2,
under constant threat and lawless violence occurs in brought upon the citizenry, a point discussed in the latter
Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court, is to elevate the
increasing tempo, undoubtedly aggravated by the part of this decision. In the words of the late Justice Irene
standards of the law profession and to improve the
Mindanao insurgency problem, the legal controversy Cortes in Marcos v. Manglapus:
administration of justice is alien to, and cannot be affected
raised in the petition almost certainly will not go away. It
by the deployment of the Marines. It should also be noted
will stare us in the face again. It, therefore, behooves the
that the interest of the National President of the IBP who More particularly, this case calls for the exercise of the
Court to relax the rules on standing and to resolve the
signed the petition, is his alone, absent a formal board President’s powers as protector of the
issue now, rather than later.
resolution authorizing him to file the present action. To be peace. [Rossiter, The American Presidency]. The power
of the President to keep the peace is not limited merely to As Tañada v. Cuenco[23] puts it, political questions By grave abuse of discretion is meant simply
exercising the commander-in-chief powers in times of refer “to those questions which, under the Constitution, are capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment that is
emergency or to leading the State against external and to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive
internal threats to its existence. The President is not only in regard to which full discretionary authority has been duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law,
clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency, delegated to the legislative or executive branch of or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power
but is also tasked with attending to the day-to-day government.” Thus, if an issue is clearly identified by the is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason
problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring text of the Constitution as matters for discretionary action of passion or hostility.[29] Under this definition, a court is
domestic tranquility in times when no foreign foe appears by a particular branch of government or to the people without power to directly decide matters over which full
on the horizon. Wide discretion, within the bounds of law, themselves then it is held to be a political question. In the discretionary authority has been delegated. But while this
in fulfilling presidential duties in times of peace is not in classic formulation of Justice Brennan in Baker v. Court has no power to substitute its judgment for that of
any way diminished by the relative want of an emergency Carr,[24] “[p]rominent on the surface of any case held to Congress or of the President, it may look into the question
specified in the commander-in-chief provision. For in involve a political question is found a textually of whether such exercise has been made in grave abuse
making the President commander-in-chief the enumeration demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a of discretion.[30] A showing that plenary power is granted
of powers that follow cannot be said to exclude the coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially either department of government, may not be an obstacle
President’s exercising as Commander-in-Chief powers discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or to judicial inquiry, for the improvident exercise or abuse
short of the calling of the armed forces, or suspending the the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy thereof may give rise to justiciable controversy.[31]
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or declaring martial determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or
law, in order to keep the peace, and maintain public order the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent When the President calls the armed forces to
and security. resolution without expressing lack of the respect due prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion,
coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need he necessarily exercises a discretionary power solely
for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already vested in his wisdom. This is clear from the intent of the
xxx[21] framers and from the text of the Constitution itself. The
made; or the potentiality of embarassment from
multifarious pronouncements by various departments on Court, thus, cannot be called upon to overrule the
Nonetheless, even if it is conceded that the power
the one question.” President’s wisdom or substitute its own. However, this
involved is the President’s power to call out the armed
does not prevent an examination of whether such power
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
The 1987 Constitution expands the concept of was exercised within permissible constitutional limits or
rebellion, the resolution of the controversy will reach a
judicial review by providing that “(T)he Judicial power shall whether it was exercised in a manner constituting grave
similar result.
be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts abuse of discretion. In view of the constitutional intent to
We now address the Solicitor General’s argument as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the give the President full discretionary power to determine the
that the issue involved is not susceptible to review by the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies necessity of calling out the armed forces, it is incumbent
judiciary because it involves a political question, and thus, involving rights which are legally demandable and upon the petitioner to show that the President’s decision is
not justiciable. enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has totally bereft of factual basis. The present petition fails to
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or discharge such heavy burden as there is no evidence to
As a general proposition, a controversy is justiciable excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or support the assertion that there exist no justification for
if it refers to a matter which is appropriate for court instrumentality of the Government.”[25] Under this definition, calling out the armed forces. There is, likewise, no
review.[22] It pertains to issues which are inherently the Court cannot agree with the Solicitor General that the evidence to support the proposition that grave abuse was
susceptible of being decided on grounds recognized by issue involved is a political question beyond the jurisdiction committed because the power to call was exercised in
law. Nevertheless, the Court does not automatically of this Court to review. When the grant of power is such a manner as to violate the constitutional provision on
assume jurisdiction over actual constitutional cases qualified, conditional or subject to limitations, the issue of civilian supremacy over the military. In the performance of
brought before it even in instances that are ripe for whether the prescribed qualifications or conditions have this Court’s duty of “purposeful hesitation”[32] before
resolution. One class of cases wherein the Court hesitates been met or the limitations respected, is justiciable - the declaring an act of another branch as unconstitutional,
to rule on are “political questions.” The reason is that problem being one of legality or validity, not its only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown
political questions are concerned with issues dependent wisdom.[26] Moreover, the jurisdiction to delimit shall the Court interfere with the President’s judgment. To
upon the wisdom, not the legality, of a particular act or constitutional boundaries has been given to this doubt is to sustain.
measure being assailed. Moreover, the political question Court.[27] When political questions are involved, the
being a function of the separation of powers, the courts will Constitution limits the determination as to whether or not There is a clear textual commitment under the
not normally interfere with the workings of another co- there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to Constitution to bestow on the President full discretionary
equal branch unless the case shows a clear need for the lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official power to call out the armed forces and to determine the
courts to step in to uphold the law and the Constitution. whose action is being questioned.[28] necessity for the exercise of such power. Section 18,
Article VII of the Constitution, which embodies the powers A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of review by the Supreme Court and subject to concurrence
of the President as Commander-in-Chief, provides in part: the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil by the National Assembly. But when he exercises this
courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the lesser power of calling on the Armed Forces, when he
conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies says it is necessary, it is my opinion that his judgment
The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all
over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor cannot be reviewed by anybody.
armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes
automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent
or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In xxx
case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only
requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses
FR. BERNAS. Let me just add that when we only have
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
imminent danger, the matter can be handled by the first
place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.
sentence: “The President may call out such armed forces
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
xxx person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially rebellion.” So we feel that that is sufficient for handling
charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released. imminent danger.
The full discretionary power of the President to
determine the factual basis for the exercise of the calling
out power is also implied and further reinforced in the rest Under the foregoing provisions, Congress may MR. DE LOS REYES. So actually, if a President feels that
of Section 18, Article VII which reads, thus: revoke such proclamation or suspension and the Court there is imminent danger, the matter can be handled by
may review the sufficiency of the factual basis the First Sentence: “The President....may call out such
xxx thereof. However, there is no such equivalent provision Armed Forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
dealing with the revocation or review of the President’s invasion or rebellion.” So we feel that that is sufficient for
action to call out the armed forces. The distinction places handling imminent danger, of invasion or rebellion, instead
Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial the calling out power in a different category from the power of imposing martial law or suspending the writ ofhabeas
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
to declare martial law and the power to suspend the corpus, he must necessarily have to call the Armed Forces
corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, otherwise, the of the Philippines as their Commander-in-Chief. Is that the
writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a framers of the Constitution would have simply lumped idea?
vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or
together the three powers and provided for their revocation
special session, may revoke such proclamation or and review without any qualification. Expressio unius est
suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the MR. REGALADO. That does not require any concurrence
exclusio alterius. Where the terms are expressly limited to
President. Upon the initiative of the President, the by the legislature nor is it subject to judicial review.[34]
certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or
Congress may, in the same manner, extend such construction, be extended to other matters.[33] That the
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined intent of the Constitution is exactly what its letter says, i.e., The reason for the difference in the treatment of the
by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist that the power to call is fully discretionary to the President, aforementioned powers highlights the intent to grant the
and public safety requires it. is extant in the deliberation of the Constitutional President the widest leeway and broadest discretion in
Commission, to wit: using the power to call out because it is considered as the
The Congress, if not in session, shall within twenty-four lesser and more benign power compared to the power to
hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the
FR. BERNAS. It will not make any difference. I may add
in accordance with its rules without need of a call. power to impose martial law, both of which involve the
that there is a graduated power of the President as
curtailment and suppression of certain basic civil rights and
Commander-in-Chief. First, he can call out such Armed
individual freedoms, and thus necessitating safeguards by
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate Forces as may be necessary to suppress lawless violence;
Congress and review by this Court.
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the then he can suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the corpus, then he can impose martial law. This is a Moreover, under Section 18, Article VII of the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension graduated sequence. Constitution, in the exercise of the power to suspend the
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or to impose martial
thirty days from its filing. When he judges that it is necessary to impose martial law law, two conditions must concur: (1) there must be an
or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, his actual invasion or rebellion and, (2) public safety must
judgment is subject to review. We are making it subject to require it. These conditions are not required in the case of
the power to call out the armed forces. The only criterion is the petitioner can show that the exercise of such discretion direct and manage the deployment of the Marines.[39] It is,
that “whenever it becomes necessary,” the President may was gravely abused, the President’s exercise of judgment likewise, their duty to provide the necessary equipment to
call the armed forces “to prevent or suppress lawless deserves to be accorded respect from this Court. the Marines and render logistical support to these
violence, invasion or rebellion." The implication is that the soldiers.[40] In view of the foregoing, it cannot be properly
President is given full discretion and wide latitude in the The President has already determined the necessity argued that military authority is supreme over civilian
exercise of the power to call as compared to the two other and factual basis for calling the armed forces. In his authority. Moreover, the deployment of the Marines to
powers. Memorandum, he categorically asserted that, “[V]iolent assist the PNP does not unmake the civilian character of
crimes like bank/store robberies, holdups, kidnappings and the police force. Neither does it amount to an “insidious
If the petitioner fails, by way of proof, to support the carnappings continue to occur in Metro Manila...”[35] We do incursion” of the military in the task of law enforcement in
assertion that the President acted without factual basis, not doubt the veracity of the President’s assessment of the violation of Section 5(4), Article XVI of the Constitution.[41]
then this Court cannot undertake an independent situation, especially in the light of present
investigation beyond the pleadings. The factual necessity developments. The Court takes judicial notice of the In this regard, it is not correct to say that General
of calling out the armed forces is not easily quantifiable recent bombings perpetrated by lawless elements in the Angelo Reyes, Chief of Staff of the AFP, by his alleged
and cannot be objectively established since matters shopping malls, public utilities, and other public involvement in civilian law enforcement, has been virtually
considered for satisfying the same is a combination of places. These are among the areas of deployment appointed to a civilian post in derogation of the aforecited
several factors which are not always accessible to the described in the LOI 2000. Considering all these facts, we provision. The real authority in these operations, as stated
courts. Besides the absence of textual standards that the hold that the President has sufficient factual basis to call in the LOI, is lodged with the head of a civilian institution,
court may use to judge necessity, information necessary to for military aid in law enforcement and in the exercise of the PNP, and not with the military. Such being the case, it
arrive at such judgment might also prove unmanageable this constitutional power. does not matter whether the AFP Chief actually
for the courts. Certain pertinent information might be participates in the Task Force Tulungan since he does not
difficult to verify, or wholly unavailable to the courts. In exercise any authority or control over the same. Since
many instances, the evidence upon which the President none of the Marines was incorporated or enlisted as
might decide that there is a need to call out the armed The deployment of the Marines does not violate the civilian members of the PNP, there can be no appointment to
forces may be of a nature not constituting technical proof. supremacy clause nor does it infringe the civilian character civilian position to speak of. Hence, the deployment of the
of the police force. Marines in the joint visibility patrols does not destroy the
On the other hand, the President as Commander-in- civilian character of the PNP.
Chief has a vast intelligence network to gather information,
some of which may be classified as highly confidential or Considering the above circumstances, the Marines
affecting the security of the state. In the exercise of the Prescinding from its argument that no emergency render nothing more than assistance required in
power to call, on-the-spot decisions may be imperatively situation exists to justify the calling of the Marines, the IBP conducting the patrols. As such, there can be no
necessary in emergency situations to avert great loss of asserts that by the deployment of the Marines, the civilian “insidious incursion” of the military in civilian affairs nor can
human lives and mass destruction of property. Indeed, the task of law enforcement is “militarized” in violation of there be a violation of the civilian supremacy clause in the
decision to call out the military to prevent or suppress Section 3, Article II[36] of the Constitution. Constitution.
lawless violence must be done swiftly and decisively if it
We disagree. The deployment of the Marines does It is worth mentioning that military assistance to
were to have any effect at all. Such a scenario is not
not constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy civilian authorities in various forms persists in Philippine
farfetched when we consider the present situation in
clause. The calling of the Marines in this case constitutes jurisdiction. The Philippine experience reveals that it is not
Mindanao, where the insurgency problem could spill over
permissible use of military assets for civilian law averse to requesting the assistance of the military in the
the other parts of the country. The determination of the
enforcement. The participation of the Marines in the implementation and execution of certain traditionally “civil”
necessity for the calling out power if subjected to
conduct of joint visibility patrols is appropriately functions. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor
unfettered judicial scrutiny could be a veritable prescription
circumscribed. The limited participation of the Marines is General, some of the multifarious activities wherein military
for disaster, as such power may be unduly straitjacketed
evident in the provisions of the LOI itself, which sufficiently aid has been rendered, exemplifying the activities that
by an injunction or a temporary restraining order every
provides the metes and bounds of the Marines’ bring both the civilian and the military together in a
time it is exercised.
authority. It is noteworthy that the local police forces are relationship of cooperation, are:
Thus, it is the unclouded intent of the Constitution to the ones in charge of the visibility patrols at all times, the
vest upon the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the real authority belonging to the PNP. In fact, the Metro 1. Elections;[42]
Armed Forces, full discretion to call forth the military when Manila Police Chief is the overall leader of the PNP-
in his judgment it is necessary to do so in order to prevent Philippine Marines joint visibility patrols.[37] Under the LOI, 2. Administration of the Philippine National
the police forces are tasked to brief or orient the soldiers Red Cross;[43]
or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. Unless
on police patrol procedures.[38] It is their responsibility to
3. Relief and rescue operations during similar to those surrounding the present deployment of the enforcement, the conclusion is inevitable that no violation
calamities and disasters;[44] Philippine Marines. Under the Posse Comitatus Act[61] of of the civilian supremacy clause in the Constitution is
the US, the use of the military in civilian law enforcement is committed. On this point, the Court agrees with the
4. Amateur sports promotion and generally prohibited, except in certain allowable observation of the Solicitor General:
development;[45] circumstances. A provision of the Act states:
5. Development of the culture and the arts;[46] 3. The designation of tasks in Annex A[65] does not
§ 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus constitute the exercise of regulatory, proscriptive, or
6. Conservation of natural resources;[47] compulsory military power. First, the soldiers do not
control or direct the operation. This is evident from
7. Implementation of the agrarian reform Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances
Nos. 6,[66] 8(k)[67] and 9(a)[68] of Annex A. These
program;[48] expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of
soldiers, second, also have no power to prohibit or
Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air
8. Enforcement of customs laws;[49] condemn. In No. 9(d)[69] of Annex A, all arrested
Force as posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws
persons are brought to the nearest police stations
shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not
9. Composite civilian-military law enforcement for proper disposition. And last, these soldiers apply
more than two years, or both.[62]
activities;[50] no coercive force. The materials or equipment
issued to them, as shown in No. 8(c)[70] of Annex A,
10. Conduct of licensure examinations;[51] To determine whether there is a violation of are all low impact and defensive in character. The
the Posse Comitatus Act in the use of military personnel, conclusion is that there being no exercise of
11. Conduct of nationwide tests for elementary the US courts[63] apply the following standards, to wit: regulatory, proscriptive or compulsory military
and high school students;[52] power, the deployment of a handful of Philippine
Marines constitutes no impermissible use of military
12. Anti-drug enforcement activities;[53] Were Army or Air Force personnel used by the civilian law power for civilian law enforcement.[71]
[54]
enforcement officers at Wounded Knee in such a manner
13. Sanitary inspections; that the military personnel subjected the citizens to the
exercise of military power which was regulatory, It appears that the present petition is anchored on
14. Conduct of census work;[55]
proscriptive, or compulsory[64] George Washington Law fear that once the armed forces are deployed, the military
15. Administration of the Civil Aeronautics Review, pp. 404-433 (1986), which discusses the four will gain ascendancy, and thus place in peril our cherished
Board;[56] divergent standards for assessing acceptable involvement liberties. Such apprehensions, however, are
of military personnel in civil law enforcement. See likewise unfounded. The power to call the armed forces is just that
16. Assistance in installation of weather HONORED IN THE BREECH: PRESIDENTIAL - calling out the armed forces. Unless, petitioner IBP can
forecasting devices;[57] AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THE LAWS WITH MILITARY show, which it has not, that in the deployment of the
FORCE, 83 Yale Law Journal, pp. 130-152, 1973. 64 in Marines, the President has violated the fundamental law,
17. Peace and order policy formulation in local nature, either presently or prospectively? exceeded his authority or jeopardized the civil liberties of
government units.[58] the people, this Court is not inclined to overrule the
President’s determination of the factual basis for the
This unquestionably constitutes a gloss on executive x x x calling of the Marines to prevent or suppress lawless
power resulting from a systematic, unbroken, executive violence.
practice, long pursued to the knowledge of Congress and, When this concept is transplanted into the present legal
yet, never before questioned.[59] What we have here is context, we take it to mean that military involvement, even One last point. Since the institution of the joint
mutual support and cooperation between the military when not expressly authorized by the Constitution or a visibility patrol in January, 2000, not a single citizen has
and civilian authorities, not derogation of civilian statute, does not violate the Posse Comitatus Act unless it complained that his political or civil rights have been
supremacy. actually regulates, forbids or compels some conduct on the violated as a result of the deployment of the Marines. It
part of those claiming relief. A mere threat of some future was precisely to safeguard peace, tranquility and the civil
In the United States, where a long tradition of liberties of the people that the joint visibility patrol was
suspicion and hostility towards the use of military force for injury would be insufficient. (emphasis supplied)
conceived. Freedom and democracy will be in full bloom
domestic purposes has persisted,[60] and whose only when people feel secure in their homes and in the
Constitution, unlike ours, does not expressly provide for Even if the Court were to apply the above rigid streets, not when the shadows of violence and anarchy
the power to call, the use of military personnel by civilian standards to the present case to determine whether there constantly lurk in their midst.
law enforcement officers is allowed under circumstances is permissible use of the military in civilian law
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is history. Political questions are defined as “those questions conditions justifying the assailed acts exists, it will presume
hereby DISMISSED. which under the Constitution, are to be decided by the that the conditions continue until the same authority decide
people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full that they no longer exist.9 It adopted the rationale that the
SO ORDERED. discretionary authority has been delegated to the executive branch, thru its civil and military branches,
legislative or executive branch of government.”2 They have are better situated to obtain information about peace and
Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, two aspects: (1) those matters that are to be exercised by order from every corner of the nation, in contrast with the
Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., the people in their primary political capacity and (2) judicial department, with its very limited machinery.10 The
JJ., concur.
matters which have been specifically delegated to some seed of the political question doctrine was thus planted in
Bellosillo, J., on official leave. other department or particular office of the government, Philippine soil.
Puno, J., see separate opinion. with discretionary power to act.3 The exercise of the
Vitug, J., see separate opinion. The doctrine barring judicial review because of the
discretionary power of the legislative or executive branch
Mendoza, J., see concurring and dissenting opinion. of government was often the area where the Court had to political question doctrine was next applied to the internal
Panganiban, J., in the result. wrestle with the political question doctrine.4 affairs of the legislature. The Court refused to interfere in
Quisumbing, J., joins the opinion of J. Mendoza. the legislative exercise of disciplinary power over its own
A brief review of some of our case law will thus give members. In the 1924 case of Alejandrino v.
us a sharper perspective of the political question Quezon,11 Alejandrino, who was appointed Senator by the
doctrine. This question confronted the Court as early as Governor-General, was declared by Senate Resolution as
SEPARATE OPINION 1905 in the case of Barcelon v. Baker.5 The Governor- guilty of disorderly conduct for assaulting another Senator
General of the Philippine Islands, pursuant to a resolution in the course of a debate, and was suspended from office
of the Philippine Commission, suspended the privilege of for one year. Senator Alejandrino filed a petition for
PUNO, J.: the writ of habeas corpus in Cavite and Batangas based mandamus and injunction to compel the Senate to
on a finding of open insurrection in said provinces. Felix reinstate him. The Court held that under the Jones Law,
Barcelon, who was detained by constabulary officers in the power of the Senate to punish its members for
If the case at bar is significant, it is because of the Batangas, filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of disorderly behavior does not authorize it to suspend an
government attempt to foist the political question habeas corpus alleging that there was no open appointive member from the exercise of his office. While
doctrine to shield an executive act done in the exercise of insurrection in Batangas. The issue to resolve was the Court found that the suspension was illegal, it refused
the commander-in-chief powers from judicial scrutiny. If whether or not the judicial department may investigate the to issue the writ of mandamus on the ground that "the
the attempt succeeded, it would have diminished the facts upon which the legislative (the Philippine Supreme Court does not possess the power of coercion to
power of judicial review and weakened the checking Commission) and executive (the Governor-General) make the Philippine Senate take any particular
authority of this Court over the Chief Executive when he branches of government acted in suspending the privilege action. [T]he Philippine Legislature or any branch thereof
exercises his commander-in-chief powers. The attempt of the writ. cannot be directly controlled in the exercise of their
should remind us of the tragedy that befell the country legislative powers by any judicial process."12
when this Court sought refuge in the political question The Court ruled that under our form of government,
doctrine and forfeited its most important role as protector one department has no authority to inquire into the acts of The issue revisited the Court twenty-two (22) years
of the civil and political rights of our people. The ongoing another, which acts are performed within the discretion of later. In 1946, in Vera v. Avelino,13 three senators-elect
conflict in Mindanao may worsen and can force the Chief the other department.6Surveying American law and who had been prevented from taking their oaths of office
Executive to resort to the use of his greater commander-in- jurisprudence, it held that whenever a statute gives by a Senate resolution repaired to this Court to compel
chief powers, hence, this Court should be extra cautious in discretionary power to any person, to be exercised by him their colleagues to allow them to occupy their seats
assaying similar attempts. A laid back posture may not sit upon his own opinion of certain facts, the statute contending that only the Electoral Tribunal had jurisdiction
well with our people considering that the 1987 Constitution constitutes him the sole judge of the existence of those over contests relating to their election, returns and
strengthened the checking powers of this Court and facts.7 Since the Philippine Bill of 1902 empowered the qualifications. Again, the Court refused to intervene
expanded its jurisdiction precisely to stop any act Philippine Commission and the Governor-General to citing Alejandrino and affirmed the inherent right of the
constituting “xxx grave abuse of jurisdiction xxx on the part suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, this legislature to determine who shall be admitted to its
of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”1 power is exclusively within the discretion of the legislative membership.
and executive branches of government. The exercise of
The importance of the issue at bar includes this this discretion is conclusive upon the courts.8 In the 1947 case of Mabanag v. Lopez-Vito,14 three
humble separate opinion. We can best perceive the Senators and eight representatives who were proclaimed
different intersecting dimensions of the political question The Court further held that once a determination is elected by Comelec were not allowed by Congress to take
doctrine by viewing them from the broader canvass of made by the executive and legislative departments that the part in the voting for the passage of the Parity amendment
to the Constitution. If their votes had been counted, the and composition of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. It necessary for a quorum in the Senate; in the third, we
affirmative votes in favor of the proposed amendment rejected the Solicitor General's claim that the dispute nullified the election, by Senators belonging to the party
would have been short of the necessary three-fourths vote involved a political question. Instead, it declared that the having the largest number of votes in said chamber,
in either House of Congress to pass the amendment. The Senate is not clothed with "full discretionary authority" in purporting to act on behalf of the party having the second
amendment was eventually submitted to the people for the choice of members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal largest number of votes therein, of two (2) Senators
ratification. The Court declined to intervene and held that and the exercise of its power thereon is subject to belonging to the first party, as members, for the second
a proposal to amend the Constitution is a highly political constitutional limitations which are mandatory in nature.22 It party, of the Senate Electoral Tribunal; and in the fourth,
function performed by Congress in its sovereign legislative held that under the Constitution, the membership of the we declared unconstitutional an act of Congress purporting
capacity.15 Senate Electoral Tribunal was designed to insure the to apportion the representative districts for the House of
exercise of judicial impartiality in the disposition of election Representatives upon the ground that the apportionment
In the 1955 case of Arnault v. Balagtas,16 petitioner, contests affecting members of the lawmaking body.23 The had not been made as may be possible according to the
a private citizen, assailed the legality of his detention Court then nullified the election to the Senate Electoral number of inhabitants of each province. Thus, we rejected
ordered by the Senate for his refusal to answer questions Tribunal made by Senators belonging to the party having the theory, advanced in these four cases, that the issues
put to him by members of one of its investigating the largest number of votes of two of their party members therein raised were political questions the determination of
committees. This Court refused to order his release but purporting to act on behalf of the party having the which is beyond judicial review.”27
holding that the process by which a contumacious witness second highest number of votes.
is dealt with by the legislature is a necessary concomitant
of the legislative process and the legislature's exercise of In the 1962 case of Cunanan v. Tan, Jr.,24 the Court The Court explained that the power to amend the
its discretionary authority is not subject to judicial passed judgment on whether Congress had formed the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto is not
interference. Commission on Appointments in accordance with the included in the general grant of legislative powers to
Constitution and found that it did not. It declared that the Congress. As a constituent assembly, the members of
In the 1960 case of Osmena v. Pendatun,17 the Commission on Appointments is a creature of the Congress derive their authority from the fundamental law
Court followed the traditional line. Congressman Sergio Constitution and its power does not come from Congress and they do not have the final say on whether their acts
Osmena, Jr. was suspended by the House of but from the Constitution. are within or beyond constitutional limits.28 This ruling was
Representatives for serious disorderly behavior for making reiterated in Tolentino which held that acts of a
a privilege speech imputing "malicious charges" against The 1967 case of Gonzales v. Comelec25 and the constitutional convention called for the purpose of
the President of the Philippines. Osmena, Jr. invoked the 1971 case of Tolentino v. Comelec26 abandoned Mabanag proposing amendments to the Constitution are at par with
power of review of this Court but the Court once more did v. Lopez-Vito. The question of whether or not Congress, acts of Congress acting as a constituent assembly.29
not interfere with Congress' power to discipline its acting as a constituent assembly in proposing
members. amendments to the Constitution violates the Constitution In sum, this Court brushed aside the political
was held to be a justiciable and not a political question doctrine and assumed jurisdiction whenever it
The contours of the political question doctrine have issue. In Gonzales, the Court ruled: found constitutionally-imposed limits on the exercise of
always been tricky. To be sure, the Court did not always powers conferred upon the Legislature.30
stay its hand whenever the doctrine is invoked. In the
1949 case of Avelino v. Cuenco,18 Senate President Jose "It is true that in Mabanag v. Lopez-Vito, this Court The Court hewed to the same line as regards the
Avelino, who was deposed and replaced, questioned his characterizing the issue submitted thereto as a political exercise of Executive power. Thus, the respect accorded
successor's title claiming that the latter had been elected one, declined to pass upon the question whether or not a executive discretion was observed in Severino v.
without a quorum. The petition was initially dismissed on given number of votes cast in Congress in favor of a Governor-General,31where it was held that the Governor-
the ground that the selection of Senate President was an proposed amendment to the Constitution-which was being General, as head of the executive department, could not
internal matter and not subject to judicial review.19 On submitted to the people for ratification-satisfied the three- be compelled by mandamus to call a special election in the
reconsideration, however, the Court ruled that it could fourths vote requirement of the fundamental law. The town of Silay for the purpose of electing a municipal
assume jurisdiction over the controversy in light of force of this precedent has been weakened, however, president. Mandamus and injunction could not lie to
subsequent events justifying intervention among which by Suanes v. Chief Accountant of the Senate, Avelino v. enforce or restrain a duty which is discretionary. It was
was the existence of a quorum.20 Though the petition was Cuenco, Tanada v. Cuenco, and Macias v. Commission on held that when the Legislature conferred upon the
ultimately dismissed, the Court declared respondent Elections. In the first, we held that the officers and Governor-General powers and duties, it did so for the
Cuenco as the legally elected Senate President. employees of the Senate Electoral Tribunal are under its reason that he was in a better position to know the needs
supervision and control, not of that of the Senate of the country than any other member of the executive
In the 1957 case of Tanada v. Cuenco,21 the Court President, as claimed by the latter; in the second, this department, and with full confidence that he will perform
assumed jurisdiction over a dispute involving the formation Court proceeded to determine the number of Senators such duties as his best judgment dictates.32
Similarly, in Abueva v. Wood,33 the Court held that of the judicial department of government to determine arbitrarily.44 Using this yardstick, the Court found that the
the Governor-General could not be compelled by when war is at end.39 President did not.
mandamus to produce certain vouchers showing the
various expenditures of the Independence In 1952, the Court decided the landmark case The emergency period of the 1970's flooded the
Commission. Under the principle of separation of powers, of Montenegro v. Castaneda.40 President Quirino Court with cases which raised the political question
it ruled that it was not intended by the Constitution that one suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for defense. The issue divided the Court down the
branch of government could encroach upon the field of persons detained or to be detained for crimes of sedition, middle. Javellana v. Executive Secretary45 showed that
duty of the other. Each department has an exclusive field insurrection or rebellion. The Court, while a majority of the Court held that the issue of whether
within which it can perform its part within certain citing Barcelon, declared that the authority to decide or not the 1973 Constitution had been ratified in
discretionary limits.34 It observed that "the executive and whether the exigency has arisen requiring the suspension accordance with the 1935 Constitution was justiciable, a
legislative departments of government are frequently of the privilege belongs to the President and his decision majority also ruled that the decisive issue of whether the
called upon to deal with what are known as political is final and conclusive on the courts.41 1973 Constitution had come into force and effect, with or
questions, with which the judicial department of without constitutional ratification, was a political question. 46
Barcelon was the ruling case law until the 1971 case
government has no intervention. In all such questions, the
courts uniformly refused to intervene for the purpose of of Lansang v. Garcia came.42 Lansang reversed the The validity of the declaration of martial law by then
directing or controlling the actions of the other department; previous cases and held that the suspension of the President Marcos was next litigated before the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was not a political Court. In Aquino, Jr. v. Enrile,47 it upheld the President's
such questions being many times reserved to those
departments in the organic law of the state."35 question. According to the Court, the weight declaration of martial law. On whether the validity of the
of Barcelon was diluted by two factors: (1) it relied heavily imposition of martial law was a political or justiciable
In Forties v. Tiaco,36 the Court also refused to take on Martin v. Mott, which involved the U.S. President's question, the Court was almost evenly divided. One-half
cognizance of a case enjoining the Chief Executive from power to call out the militia which is a much broader power embraced the political question position and the other half
deporting an obnoxious alien whose continued presence in than suspension of the privilege of the writ; and (2) the subscribed to the justiciable position in Lansang. Those
the Philippines was found by him to be injurious to the privilege was suspended by the American Governor- adhering to the political question doctrine used different
public interest. It noted that sudden and unexpected General whose act, as representative of the sovereign methods of approach to it.48
conditions may arise, growing out of the presence of affecting the freedom of its subjects, could not be equated
untrustworthy aliens, which demand immediate action. The with that of the President of the Philippines dealing with In 1983, the Lansang ruling was weakened by the
the freedom of the sovereign Filipino people. Court in Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile.49 The petitioners therein
President's inherent power to deport undesirable aliens is
universally denominated as political, and this power were arrested and detained by the Philippine Constabulary
continues to exist for the preservation of the peace and The Court declared that the power to suspend the by virtue of a Presidential Commitment Order
domestic tranquility of the nation.37 privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is neither absolute (PCO). Petitioners sought the issuance of a writ of habeas
nor unqualified because the Constitution sets limits on the corpus. The Court found that the PCO had the function of
In Manalang v. Quitoriano,38 the Court also declined exercise of executive discretion on the matter. These validating a person's detention for any of the offenses
to interfere in the exercise of the President's appointing limits are: (1) that the privilege must not be suspended covered in Proclamation No. 2045 which continued in force
power. It held that the appointing power is the exclusive except only in cases of invasion, insurrection or rebellion the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
prerogative of the President, upon which no limitations or imminent danger thereof; and (2) when the public safety corpus. It held that the issuance of the PCO by the
may be imposed by Congress, except those resulting from requires it, in any of which events the same may be President was not subject to judicial inquiry.50 It went
the need of securing concurrence of the Commission on suspended wherever during such period the necessity for further by declaring that there was a need to re-examine
Appointments and from the exercise of the limited the suspension shall exist. The extent of the power which Lansang with a view to reverting to Barcelon and
legislative power to prescribe qualifications to a given may be inquired into by courts is defined by these Montenegro. It observed that in times of war or national
appointive office. limitations.43 emergency, the President must be given absolute control
for the very life of the nation and government is in great
We now come to the exercise by the President of his On the vital issue of how the Court may inquire into peril. The President, it intoned, is answerable only to his
powers as Commander-in-Chief vis-a-vis the political the President's exercise of power, it ruled that the function conscience, the people, and God.51
question doctrine. In the 1940's, this Court has held that of the Court is not to supplant but merely to check the
as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the Executive; to ascertain whether the President has gone But barely six (6) days after Garcia-Padilla, the Court
President has the power to determine whether war, in the beyond the constitutional limits of his jurisdiction, not to promulgated Morales, Jr. v. Enrile52 reiterating Lansang. It
legal sense, still continues or has terminated. It ruled that exercise the power vested in him or to determine the held that by the power of judicial review, the Court must
it is within the province of the political department and not wisdom of his act. Judicial inquiry is confined to the inquire into every phase and aspect of a person's
question of whether the President did not act detention from the moment he was taken into custody up
to the moment the court passes upon the merits of the "Sec. 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief I am not unaware that in the deliberations of the
petition. Only after such a scrutiny can the court satisfy of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it Constitutional Commission, Commissioner Bernas opined
itself that the due process clause of the Constitution has becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to that the President's exercise of the "calling out power,"
been met.53 prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or unlike the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public corpus and the declaration of martial law, is not a
It is now history that the improper reliance by the safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty justiciable issue but a political question and therefore not
Court on the political question doctrine eroded the people's days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or subject to judicial review.
faith in its capacity to check abuses committed by the then place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial
Executive in the exercise of his commander-in-chief law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of It must be borne in mind, however, that while a
powers, particularly violations against human rights. The martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of member's opinion expressed on the floor of the
refusal of courts to be pro-active in the exercise of its habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in Constitutional Convention is valuable, it is not necessarily
checking power drove the people to the streets to resort to person or in writing to Congress. The Congress, voting expressive of the people's intent.55The proceedings of the
extralegal remedies. They gave birth to EDSA. jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in Convention are less conclusive on the proper construction
regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation of the fundamental law than are legislative proceedings of
Two lessons were not lost to the members of the or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the proper construction of a statute, for in the latter case it
Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the is the intent of the legislature the courts seek, while in the
Constitution. The first was the need to grant this Court the former, courts seek to arrive at the intent of
Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
express power to review the exercise of the powers as proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined the people through the discussions and deliberations of
commander-in-chief by the President and deny it of any by Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and their representatives.56 The conventional wisdom is that
discretion to decline its exercise. The second was the the Constitution does not derive its force from the
public safety requires it.
need to compel the Court to be pro-active by expanding its convention which framed it, but from the people who
jurisdiction and, thus, reject its laid back stance against ratified it, the intent to be arrived at is that of the people.57
acts constituting grave abuse of discretion on the part of The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four
any branch or instrumentality of government. Then Chief hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene It is true that the third paragraph of Section 18,
Justice Roberto Concepcion, a member of the in accordance with its rules without need of a call. Article VII of the 1987 Constitution expressly gives the
Constitutional Commission, worked for the insertion of the Court the power to review the sufficiency of the factual
second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII in the draft bases used by the President in the suspension of the
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
Constitution,54 which reads: privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the declaration
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
of martial law. It does not follow, however, that just
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
because the same provision did not grant to this Court the
"Sec. 1. x x x. suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
power to review the exercise of the calling out power by
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within
the President, ergo, this Court cannot pass upon the
thirty days from its filing.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to validity of its exercise.
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or x x x." Given the light of our constitutional history, this
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting express grant of power merely means that the Court
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or cannot decline the exercise of its power because of the
It is clear from the foregoing that the President, as political question doctrine as it did in the past. In fine, the
instrumentality of the Government."
Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of express grant simply stresses the mandatory duty of this
the Philippines, may call out the armed forces subject to Court to check the exercise of the commander-in-chief
The language of the provision clearly gives the Court the two conditions: (1) whenever it becomes necessary; and powers of the President. It eliminated the discretion of the
power to strike down acts amounting to grave abuse of (2) to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or Court not to wield its power of review thru the use of the
discretion of both the legislative and executive branches of rebellion. Undeniably, these conditions lay down the sine political question doctrine.
government. qua requirement for the exercise of the power and the
objective sought to be attained by the exercise of the It may be conceded that the calling out power may
We should interpret Section 18, Article VII of the power. They define the constitutional parameters of the be a "lesser power" compared to the power to suspend the
1987 Constitution in light of our constitutional history. The calling out power. Whether or not there is compliance with privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the power to
provision states: these parameters is a justiciable issue and is not a political declare martial law. Even then, its exercise cannot be left
question. to the absolute discretion of the Chief Executive as
Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, as its impact on In the equation of judicial power, neither of two jurisdiction. Minus the not-so-unusual exaggerations often
the rights of our people protected by the Constitution extremes - one totalistic and the other bounded - is invoked by litigants in the duel of views, the act of the
cannot be downgraded. We cannot hold that acts of the acceptable nor ideal. The 1987 Constitution has President in simply calling on the Armed Forces of the
commander-in-chief cannot be reviewed on the ground introduced its definition of the term "judicial power" to be Philippines, an executive prerogative, to assist the
that they have lesser impact on the civil and political rights that which - Philippine National Police in "joint visibility patrols" in the
of our people. The exercise of the calling out power may metropolis does not, I believe, constitute grave abuse of
be "benign" in the case at bar but may not be so in future discretion that would now warrant an exercise by the
“x x x includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
cases. Supreme Court of its extraordinary power as so envisioned
actual controversies involving rights which are legally
by the fundamental law.
The counsel of Mr. Chief Justice Enrique M. demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or
Fernando, in his Dissenting and Concurring Opinion not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to Accordingly, I vote for the dismissal of the petition.
in Lansang that it would be dangerous and misleading to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
push the political question doctrine too far, is apropos. It instrumentality of the Government.”1
will not be complementary to the Court if it handcuffs itself MENDOZA, J., concurring and dissenting:
to helplessness when a grievously injured citizen seeks It is not meant that the Supreme Court must be deemed
relief from a palpably unwarranted use of presidential or vested with the awesome power of overseeing the entire
military power, especially when the question at issue falls bureaucracy, let alone of institutionalizing judicial I concur in the opinion of the Court insofar as it holds
in the penumbra between the "political" and the absolutism, under its mandate. But while this Court does petitioner to be without standing to question the validity of
"justiciable. "58 not wield unlimited authority to strike down an act of its two LOI 02/2000 which mandates the Philippine Marines to
co-equal branches of government, it must not wither under conduct "joint visibility" patrols with the police in Metro
We should not water down the ruling that deciding Manila. But I dissent insofar as the opinion dismisses the
technical guise on its constitutionally ordained task to
whether a matter has been committed by the Constitution petition in this case on other grounds. I submit that
intervene, and to nullify if need be, any such act as and
to another branch of government, or whether the action of judgment on the substantive constitutional issues raised by
when it is attended by grave abuse of discretion amounting
that branch exceeds whatever authority has been petitioner must await an actual case involving real parties
to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The proscription then
committed, is a delicate exercise in constitutional with "injuries" to show as a result of the operation of the
against an interposition by the Court into purely political
interpretation, and is a responsibility of the Court as challenged executive action. While as an organization for
questions, heretofore known, no longer holds within that
ultimate interpreter of the fundamental law.59 When private the advancement of the rule of law petitioner has an
context.
justiciable rights are involved in a suit, the Court must not interest in upholding the Constitution, its interest is
refuse to assume jurisdiction even though questions of Justice Feria, in the case of Avelino vs. indistinguishable from the interest of the rest of the
extreme political importance are necessarily Cuenco,2 has aptly elucidated in his concurring opinion: citizenry and falls short of that which is necessary to give
involved.60 Every officer under a constitutional government petitioner standing.
must act according to law and subject to the controlling
power of the people, acting through the courts, as well as "x x x [I] concur with the majority that this Court has As I have indicated elsewhere, a citizens' suit
through the executive and legislative. One department is jurisdiction over cases like the present x x x so as to challenging the constitutionality of governmental action
just as representative of the other, and the judiciary is the establish in this country the judicial supremacy, with the requires that (1) the petitioner must have suffered an
department which is charged with the special duty of Supreme Court as the final arbiter, to see that no one "injury in fact" of an actual or imminent nature; (2) there
determining the limitations which the law places upon all branch or agency of the government transcends the must be a causal connection between the injury and the
official action.61 Thishistoric role of the Court is the Constitution, not only in justiceable but political questions conduct complained of; and (3) the injury is likely to be
foundation stone of a government of laws and not of as well."3 redressed by a favorable action by this Court.1 The "injury
men.62 in fact" test requires more than injury to a cognizable
It is here when the Court must have to depart from the interest. It requires that the party seeking review be
I join the Decision in its result. himself among those injured.2
broad principle of separation of powers that disallows an
intrusion by it in respect to the purely political decisions of My insistence on compliance with the standing
its independent and coordinate agencies of government. requirement is grounded in the conviction that only a party
SEPARATE OPINION The term grave abuse of discretion is long injured by the operation of the governmental action
understood in our jurisprudence as being, and confined to, challenged is in the best position to aid the Court in
a capricious and whimsical or despotic exercise of determining the precise nature of the problem
judgment amounting to lack or excess of presented. Many a time we have adverted to the power of
VITUG, J.:
judicial review as an awesome power not to be exercised deployment of troops in shopping centers and public
A petition for prohibition and writ of habeas corpus to
save in the most exigent situation. For, indeed, sound utilities is justified. (p. 24)
judgment on momentous constitutional questions is not enjoin respondent Judge Fernando Cruz, Jr. from
likely to be reached unless it is the result of a clash of We are likely to err in dismissing the suit brought in
this case on the ground that the calling out of the military promulgating his decision in Criminal Case No. C-5910,
adversary arguments which only parties with direct and
specific interest in the outcome of the controversy can does not violate the Constitution, just as we are likely to do entitled People of the Philippines versus Bernardino
make. This is true not only when we strike down a law or so if we grant the petition and invalidate the executive
Marcelino, and for release from detention of petitioner, the
official action but also when we uphold it. issuance in question. For indeed, the lack of a real,
earnest and vital controversy can only impoverish the accused in said case, on the ground of loss of jurisdiction
In this case, because of the absence of parties with judicial process. That is why, as Justice Laurel
of respondent trial court over the case for failure to decide
real and substantial interest to protect, we do not have emphasized in the Angara case, "this power of judicial
evidence on the effect of military presence in malls and review is limited to actual cases and controversies to be the same within the period of ninety [90] days from
commercial centers, i.e., whether such presence is exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties, submission thereof.
coercive or benign. We do not know whether the presence and limited further to the constitutional question raised or
of so many marines and policemen scares shoppers, the very lis mota presented."6 Petitioner was charged with the crime of rape before the
tourists, and peaceful civilians, or whether it is reassuring Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XII. Trial was
to them. To be sure, the deployment of troops to such We are told, however, that the issues raised in this
places is not like parading them at the Luneta on case are of "paramount interest" to the nation. It is conducted and the same was concluded when the
Independence Day. Neither is it, however, like calling precisely because the issues raised are of paramount
accused rested his case on August 4, 1975. On the same
them out because of actual fighting or the outbreak of importance that we should all the more forego ruling on the
violence. constitutional issues raised by petitioner and limit the date, however, the attorneys for both parties moved for
dismissal of this petition on the ground of lack of standing
time within which to submit their respective memoranda.
We need to have evidence on these questions of petitioner. A Fabian policy of leaving well enough alone
because, under the Constitution, the President's power to is a counsel of prudence. The trial court granted the motion as follows:
call out the armed forces in order to suppress lawless Upon joint motion, the parties are given thirty [30] days to
violence, invasion or rebellion is subject to the limitation For these reasons and with due appreciation of the
that the exercise of this power is required in the interest of scholarly attention lavished by the majority opinion on the submit their respective memoranda, simultaneously, and
public safety.3 constitutional questions raised, I am constrained to limit my
thereafter the case shall be deemed submitted for decision
concurrence to the dismissal of this suit on the ground of
Indeed, whether it is the calling out of the armed lack of standing o f petitioner and the consequent lack of of the Court.
forces alone in order to suppress lawless violence, an actual case or controversy.
Counsel for petitioner submitted his memorandum in due
invasion or rebellion or also the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus or the proclamation of martial time, but no memorandum was filed by the People.
law (in case of invasion or rebellion), the exercise of the On November 28, 1975, respondent judge filed with the
President's powers as commander-in-chief, requires proof G.R. No. L-42428 March 18, 1983
- not mere assertion.4 As has been pointed out, "Standing Deputy Clerk of Court his decision in said case for
BERNARDINO MARCELINO, petitioner,
is not `an ingenious academic exercise in the conceivable' promulgation. The decision was also dated November 28,
. . . but requires . . . a factual showing of perceptible vs.
harm."5 1975. 1
THE HON. FERNANDO CRUZ, JR., as Presiding Judge of
A certification dated January 26, 1976 was executed by
Because of the absence of such record evidence, Branch XII of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, PEOPLE
we are left to guess or even speculate on these Postmaster Jesse A. Santos of the Grace Park Post
questions. Thus, at one point, the majority opinion says OF THE PHILIPPINES, and THE PROVINCIAL WARDEN
Office2 to the effect that registered letters Nos. 011980 and
that what is involved here is not even the calling out of the OF THE PROVINCIAL JAIL OF RIZAL,respondents.
armed forces but only the use of marines for law 011981, addressed to Marietta Ferrer of 9-E Mango Road,
enforcement. (p. 13) At another point, however, the Portero, Malabon, Rizal, the complaining witness, and Atty.
majority opinion somersaults and says that because of DECISION
bombings perpetrated by lawless elements, the Angel P. Purisima of 414 Shurdut Bldg., Intramuros,
ESCOLIN, J.:
Manila, counsel for the accused, respectively, were posted
in said office on December 4, 1975. These notices were rendered his decision on said case within the three-month they [referring to the courts] venture to apply rules which
received by the respective addressees on December 8 period prescribed by the Constitution. distinguish directory and mandatory statutes to the
and 9, 1975. 3 In Comia v. Nicolas, 5 Ago v. Court of provisions of a constitution.” 9
Similar notices were sent to the Provincial Fiscal of Pasig Appeals 6 and Balquidra v. Court of First Instance 7 this The established rule is that “constitutional provisions are to
and to the Provincial Warden of Pasig, Rizal, who both Court ruled that the rendition of the judgment in trial courts be construed as mandatory, unless by express provision or
4
received them on December 2, 1975, refers to the filing of the signed decision with the clerk of by necessary implication, a different intention is
On the date set for promulgation of the decision, counsel court. There is no doubt that the constitutional provision manifest.” 10
“The difference between a mandatory and a
for accused moved for postponement, raising for the first cited by petitioner refers to the rendition of judgment and directory provision is often determined on grounds of
time the alleged loss of jurisdiction of the trial court for not to the promulgation thereof. Thus, it is this date that expediency, the reason being that less injury results to the
failure to decide the case within 90 days from submission should be considered in determining whether or not general public by disregarding than by enforcing the letter
thereof for decision. Acceding to counsel’s request that he respondent judge had resolved the case within the allotted of the law.” 11
be given time to consider the proper remedial measure to period. Indeed, the date of promulgation of a decision In Trapp v. McCormick, 12 a case calling for the
take, the respondent judge reset the promulgation of the could not serve as the reckoning date because the same interpretation of a statute containing a limitation of thirty
decision to January 19, 1976 at 8:30 A. M. necessarily comes at a later date, considering that notices [30] days within which a decree may be entered without
On January 19, 1976, counsel for petitioner moved anew have to be sent to the accused as well as to the other the consent of counsel, it was held that “the statutory
for the resetting of the promulgation of decision. Granting parties involved, an event which is beyond the control of provisions which may be thus departed from with impunity,
the motion, respondent judge rescheduled the the judge. As pointed out in People v. Court of Appeals 8, without affecting the validity of statutory proceedings, are
promulgation to January 26, 1976. the promulgation of a judgment in the trial court does not usually those which relate to the mode or time of doing
Meanwhile, on January 12, 1976, counsel for the accused necessarily coincide with the date of its delivery by the that which is essential to effect the aim and purpose of the
filed before Us the present petition. On January 16, 1976, judge of the clerk of court. Legislature or some incident of the essential act. ” Thus, in
this Court issued an Order temporarily restraining Section 11 [1], Article X of the New Constitution provides in said case, the statute under examination was construed
respondent judge from promulgating the decision in full, to wit: merely to be directory.
Criminal Case No. C-5910. SEC. 11 [1]. Upon the effectivity of this Constitution, the On this view, authorities are one in saying that:
Petitioner espouses the thesis that the three-month period maximum period within which a case or matter shall be Statutes requiring the rendition of judgment forthwith or
prescribed by Section 11[l] of Article X of the 1973 decided or resolved from the date of its submission, shall immediately after the trial or verdict have been held by
Constitution, being a constitutional directive, is mandatory be eighteen months for the Supreme court, and, unless some courts to be merely directory so that non-compliance
in character and that non-observance thereof results in the reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all with them does not invalidate the judgment, on the theory
loss of jurisdiction of the court over the unresolved case. inferior collegiate courts, and three months for all other that if the statute had intended such result it would clearly
We disagree. Undisputed is the fact that on November 28, inferior courts. have indicated it.” [American Tupe Founders Co. v.
1975, or eighty- five (85) days from September 4, 1975 the To date, no authoritative interpretation of the above-quoted Justice's Court, 133 Cal. 819, 65 Pac. 742; Heillen v.
date the case was deemed submitted for decision, provision has been rendered by this Court. Thus, in Phillips, 88 Cal. 557, 26 Pac. 366; Drake v. Bagley, 69 Mo.
respondent judge filed with the deputy clerk of court the approaching this novel question, We now tread upon what App. 39, State v. Davis, 194 Mo. 585, 5 Ann. Cas. 1000, 4
decision in Criminal Case No. 5910. He had thus veritably Mr. Cooley characterizes as “very dangerous ground when L.R.A. (N.S.) 1023, 92 S.W. 484; Wissman v. Meagher,
ANTONIO Y. CO, petitioner,
115 Mo. App. 82, 91 S.W. 448; Pohle v. Dickmann, 67 Mo. causes by reason merely of having failed to render a
vs.
App. 381;Herwick v. Koken Barber Supply Co., 61 Mo. decision within the alloted term. Such an absurd situation ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF
App. 454]. could not have been intended by the framers of our REPRESENTATIVES AND JOSE ONG, JR., respondents.
… ” And there can be no doubt that said provision, having rule constitutes a ground for administrative sanction
The petitioners come to this Court asking for the setting
been incorporated for reasons of expediency, relates against the defaulting judge. In fact a certificate to this aside and reversal of a decision of the House of
merely to matters of procedure. Albermarle Oil & Gas Co. effect is required before judges are allowed to draw their Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
14
v. Morris, declares that constitutional provisions are salaries.
The HRET declared that respondent Jose Ong, Jr. is a
directory, and not mandatory, where they refer to matters WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED; and the natural born Filipino citizen and a resident of Laoang,
merely procedural. Restraining Order dated January 16, 1976 issued by this Northern Samar for voting purposes. The sole issue before
us is whether or not, in making that determination, the
In practice, We have assumed a liberal stand with respect Court is lifted. Since respondent Judge Fernando Cruz, Jr. HRET acted with grave abuse of discretion.
to this provision. This Court had at various times, upon is already deceased, his successor is hereby ordered to
proper application and for meritorious reasons, allowed decide Criminal Case No. C-5910 on the basis of the On May 11, 1987, the congressional election for the
second district of Northern Samar was held.
judges of inferior courts additional time beyond the three- record thereof within ninety [90] days from the time the
month period within which to decide cases submitted to case is raffled to him.
Among the candidates who vied for the position of
them. The reason is that a departure from said provision SO ORDERED. representative in the second legislative district of Northern
would result in less injury to the general public than would Samar are the petitioners, Sixto Balinquit and Antonio Co
and the private respondent, Jose Ong, Jr.
its strict application. To hold that non-compliance by the
courts with the aforesaid provision would result in loss of Respondent Ong was proclaimed the duly elected
jurisdiction, would make the courts, through which conflicts G.R. Nos. 92191-92 July 30, 1991 representative of the second district of Northern Samar.
are resolved, the very instruments to foster unresolved
The petitioners filed election protests against the private The use of the word "sole" decision or resolution was rendered without or in excess of
respondent premised on the following grounds: emphasizes the exclusive character of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion or
the jurisdiction conferred (Angara v. paraphrasing Morrero, upon a clear showing of such
Electoral Commission, supra at p. arbitrary and improvident use by the Tribunal of its power
1) Jose Ong, Jr. is not a natural born
162). The exercise of power by the as constitutes a denial of due process of law, or upon a
citizen of the Philippines; and
Electoral Commission under the 1935 demonstration of a very clear unmitigated ERROR,
Constitution has been described as manifestly constituting such GRAVE ABUSE OF
2) Jose Ong, Jr. is not a resident of "intended to be as complete and DISCRETION that there has to be a remedy for such
the second district of Northern Samar. unimpaired as if it had originally abuse." (at pp. 785-786)
remained in the legislature." (id., at p.
175) Earlier this grant of power to the
The HRET in its decision dated November 6, 1989, found In the leading case of Morrero v. Bocar (66 Phil. 429
legislature was characterized by
for the private respondent. [1938]) the Court ruled that the power of the Electoral
Justice Malcolm as "full, clear and
Commission "is beyond judicial interference except, in any
complete; (Veloso v. Board of
event, upon a clear showing of such arbitrary and
A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners on Canvassers of Leyte and Samar, 39
improvident use of power as will constitute a denial of due
November 12, 1989. This was, however, denied by the Phil. 886 [1919]) Under the amended
process." The Court does not venture into the perilous
HRET in its resolution dated February 22, 1989. 1935 Constitution, the power was
area of trying to correct perceived errors of independent
unqualifiedly reposed upon the
branches of the Government, It comes in only when it has
Electoral Tribunal and it remained as
Hence, these petitions for certiorari. to vindicate a denial of due process or correct an abuse of
full, clear and complete as that
discretion so grave or glaring that no less than the
previously granted the Legislature and
Constitution calls for remedial action.
We treat the comments as answers and decide the issues the Electoral Commission, (Lachica v.
raised in the petitions. Yap, 25 SCRA 140 [1968]) The same
may be said with regard to the The Supreme Court under the 1987 Constitution, has been
jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal given an expanded jurisdiction, so to speak, to review the
ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION under the 1987 Constitution. (p. 401) decisions of the other branches and agencies of the
government to determine whether or not they have acted
The first question which arises refers to our jurisdiction. within the bounds of the Constitution. (See Article VIII,
The Court continued further, ". . . so long as the
Section 1, Constitution)
Constitution grants the HRET the power to be the sole
The Constitution explicitly provides that the House of judge of all contests relating to election, returns and
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and the Senate qualifications of members of the House of Yet, in the exercise thereof, the Court is to merely check
Electoral Tribunal (SET) shall be the sole judges of all Representatives, any final action taken by the HRET on a whether or not the governmental branch or agency has
contests relating to the election, returns, matter within its jurisdiction shall, as a rule, not be gone beyond the Constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not
and qualificationsof their respective members. (See Article reviewed by this Court . . . the power granted to the that it erred or has a different view. In the absence of a
VI, Section 17, Constitution) Electoral Tribunal is full, clear and complete and excludes showing that the HRET has committed grave abuse of
the exercise of any authority on the part of this Court that discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, there is no
would in any wise restrict it or curtail it or even affect the occasion for the Court to exercise its corrective power; it
The authority conferred upon the Electoral Tribunal is full, same." (pp. 403-404) will not decide a matter which by its nature is for the HRET
clear and complete. The use of the word soleemphasizes alone to decide. (See Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA
the exclusivity of the jurisdiction of these Tribunals. 668 [1989]) It has no power to look into what it thinks is
When may the Court inquire into acts of the Electoral
apparent error.
Tribunals under our constitutional grants of power?
The Supreme Court in the case of Lazatin v. HRET (168
SCRA 391 [1988]) stated that under the 1987 Constitution, As constitutional creations invested with necessary power,
the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal is original and In the later case of Robles v. HRET (181 SCRA 780
the Electoral Tribunals, although not powers in the
exclusive, viz: [1990]) the Supreme Court stated that the judgments of
tripartite scheme of the government, are, in the exercise of
the Tribunal are beyond judicial interference save only "in
their functions independent organs — independent of
the exercise of this Court's so-called extraordinary
Congress and the Supreme Court. The power granted to
jurisdiction, . . . upon a determination that the Tribunal's
HRET by the Constitution is intended to be as complete Jose Ong Chuan spent his childhood in the province of Filipinos insofar as the customs and practices of the local
and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the Samar. In Laoang, he was able to establish an enduring populace were concerned.
legislature. (Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 relationship with his neighbors, resulting in his easy
[1936]) assimilation into the community.
Fortunes changed. The house of the family of the private
respondent in Laoang, Samar was burned to the ground.
In passing upon petitions, the Court with its traditional and As Jose Ong Chuan grew older in the rural and seaside
careful regard for the balance of powers, must permit this community of Laoang, he absorbed Filipino cultural values
Undaunted by the catastrophe, the private respondent's
exclusive privilege of the Tribunals to remain where the and practices. He was baptized into Christianity. As the
family constructed another one in place of their ruined
Sovereign authority has place it. (See Veloso v. Boards of years passed, Jose Ong Chuan met a natural born-
house. Again, there is no showing other than that Laoang
Canvassers of Leyte and Samar, 39 Phil. 886 [1919]) Filipino, Agripina Lao. The two fell in love and, thereafter,
was their abode and home.
got married in 1932 according to Catholic faith and
practice.
It has been argued that under Article VI, Section 17 of the
After completing his elementary education, the private
present Constitution, the situation may exist as it exists
respondent, in search for better education, went to Manila
today where there is an unhealthy one-sided political The couple bore eight children, one of whom is the private
in order to acquire his secondary and college education.
composition of the two Electoral Tribunals. There is respondent who was born in 1948.
nothing in the Constitution, however, that makes the HRET
because of its composition any less independent from the In the meantime, another misfortune was suffered by the
The private respondent's father never emigrated from this
Court or its constitutional functions any less exclusive. The family in 1975 when a fire gutted their second house in
country. He decided to put up a hardware store and
degree of judicial intervention should not be made to Laoang, Samar. The respondent's family constructed still
shared and survived the vicissitudes of life in Samar.
depend on how many legislative members of the HRET another house, this time a 16-door apartment building, two
belong to this party or that party. The test remains the doors of which were reserved for the family.
same-manifest grave abuse of discretion. The business prospered. Expansion became inevitable. As
a result, a branch was set-up in Binondo, Manila. In the
The private respondent graduated from college, and
meantime, the father of the private respondent, unsure of
In the case at bar, the Court finds no improvident use of thereafter took and passed the CPA Board Examinations.
his legal status and in an unequivocal affirmation of where
power, no denial of due process on the part of the HRET
he cast his life and family, filed with the Court of First
which will necessitate the exercise of the power of judicial
Instance of Samar an application for naturalization on Since employment opportunities were better in Manila, the
review by the Supreme Court.
February 15, 1954. respondent looked for work here. He found a job in the
Central Bank of the Philippines as an examiner. Later,
ON THE ISSUE OF CITIZENSHIP however, he worked in the hardware business of his family
On April 28, 1955, the CFI of Samar, after trial, declared
in Manila. In 1971, his elder brother, Emil, was elected as
Jose Ong Chuan a Filipino citizen.
a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention. His
The records show that in the year 1895, the private
status as a natural born citizen was challenged.
respondent's grandfather, Ong Te, arrived in the
On May 15, 1957, the Court of First Instance of Samar Parenthetically, the Convention which in drafting the
Philippines from China. Ong Te established his residence
issued an order declaring the decision of April 28, 1955 as Constitution removed the unequal treatment given to
in the municipality of Laoang, Samar on land which he
final and executory and that Jose Ong Chuan may already derived citizenship on the basis of the mother's citizenship
bought from the fruits of hard work.
take his Oath of Allegiance. formally and solemnly declared Emil Ong, respondent's full
brother, as a natural born Filipino. The Constitutional
As a resident of Laoang, Ong Te was able to obtain a Convention had to be aware of the meaning of natural
Pursuant to said order, Jose Ong Chuan took his Oath of
certificate of residence from the then Spanish colonial born citizenship since it was precisely amending the article
Allegiance; correspondingly, a certificate of naturalization
administration. on this subject.
was issued to him.
The father of the private respondent, Jose Ong Chuan was The private respondent frequently went home to Laoang,
At the time Jose Ong Chuan took his oath, the private
born in China in 1905. He was brought by Ong Te to Samar, where he grew up and spent his childhood days.
respondent then a minor of nine years was finishing his
Samar in the year 1915.
elementary education in the province of Samar. There is
nothing in the records to differentiate him from other
In 1984, the private respondent married a Filipina named perform any act to acquire or perfect (Records of the
Desiree Lim. their citizenship. Those who elect Constitutional
Philippine citizenship in accordance Commission, Vol.
with paragraph 3 hereof shall be 1, p. 228;
For the elections of 1984 and 1986, Jose Ong, Jr.
deemed natural-born citizens. Emphasis
registered himself as a voter of Laoang, Samar, and
supplied)
correspondingly, voted there during those elections.
The Court interprets Section 1, Paragraph 3 above as
applying not only to those who elect Philippine citizenship xxx xxx xxx
The private respondent after being engaged for several
after February 2, 1987 but also to those who, having been
years in the management of their family business decided
born of Filipino mothers, elected citizenship before that
to be of greater service to his province and ran for public Mr. Trenas: The
date.
office. Hence, when the opportunity came in 1987, he ran Committee on
in the elections for representative in the second district of Citizenship, Bill of
Northern Samar. The provision in Paragraph 3 was intended to correct an Rights, Political
unfair position which discriminates against Filipino women. Rights and
There is no ambiguity in the deliberations of the Obligations and
Mr. Ong was overwhelmingly voted by the people of
Constitutional Commission, viz: Human Rights
Northern Samar as their representative in Congress. Even
has more or less
if the total votes of the two petitioners are combined, Ong
decided to extend
would still lead the two by more than 7,000 votes. Mr. Azcuna: With
the interpretation
respect to the
of who is a
provision of
The pertinent portions of the Constitution found in Article natural-born
section 4, would
IV read: citizen as
this refer only to
provided in
those who elect
section 4 of the
SECTION 1, the following are citizens Philippine
1973 Constitution
of the Philippines: citizenship after
by adding that
the effectivity of
persons who have
the 1973
1. Those who are citizens of the elected Philippine
Constitution or
Philippines at the time of the adoption Citizenship under
would it also
of the Constitution; the 1935
cover those who
Constitution shall
elected it under
be natural-born?
2. Those whose fathers or mothers the 1973
Am I right Mr.
are citizens of the Philippines; Constitution?
Presiding Officer?
There is no dispute that the respondent's mother was a For those in the peculiar situation of the respondent who The respondent HRET has an interesting view as to how
natural born Filipina at the time of her marriage. Crucial to cannot be expected to have elected citizenship as they Mr. Ong elected citizenship. It observed that "when
this case is the issue of whether or not the respondent were already citizens, we apply the In Re Mallare rule. protestee was only nine years of age, his father, Jose Ong
elected or chose to be a Filipino citizen. Chuan became a naturalized Filipino. Section 15 of the
Revised Naturalization Act squarely applies its benefit to
The respondent was born in an outlying rural town of him for he was then a minor residing in this country.
Election becomes material because Section 2 of Article IV Samar where there are no alien enclaves and no racial Concededly, it was the law itself that had already elected
of the Constitution accords natural born status to children distinctions. The respondent has lived the life of a Filipino
since birth. His father applied for naturalization when the
Philippine citizenship for protestee by declaring him as There is another reason why we cannot declare the HRET 4. Those without such papers, who
such." (Emphasis supplied) as having committed manifest grave abuse of discretion. may have acquired domicile in any
The same issue of natural-born citizenship has already town in the Monarchy. (Emphasis
been decided by the Constitutional Convention of 1971 supplied)
The petitioners argue that the respondent's father was not,
and by the Batasang Pambansa convened by authority of
validly, a naturalized citizen because of his premature
the Constitution drafted by that Convention. Emil Ong, full
taking of the oath of citizenship. The domicile of a natural person is the place of his habitual
blood brother of the respondent, was declared and
residence. This domicile, once established is considered to
accepted as a natural born citizen by both bodies.
continue and will not be deemed lost until a new one is
The Court cannot go into the collateral procedure of
established. (Article 50, NCC; Article 40, Civil Code of
stripping Mr. Ong's father of his citizenship after his death
Assuming that our opinion is different from that of the Spain; Zuellig v. Republic, 83 Phil. 768 [1949])
and at this very late date just so we can go after the son.
Constitutional Convention, the Batasang Pambansa, and
the respondent HRET, such a difference could only be
As earlier stated, Ong Te became a permanent resident of
The petitioners question the citizenship of the father characterized as error. There would be no basis to call the
Laoang, Samar around 1895. Correspondingly, a
through a collateral approach. This can not be done. In our HRET decision so arbitrary and whimsical as to amount
certificate of residence was then issued to him by virtue of
jurisdiction, an attack on a person's citizenship may only to grave abuse of discretion.
his being a resident of Laoang, Samar. (Report of the
be done through a direct action for its nullity. (See Queto v.
Committee on Election Protests and Credentials of the
Catolico, 31 SCRA 52 [1970])
What was the basis for the Constitutional Convention's 1971 Constitutional Convention, September 7, 1972, p. 3)
declaring Emil Ong a natural born citizen?
To ask the Court to declare the grant of Philippine
The domicile that Ong Te established in 1895 continued
citizenship to Jose Ong Chuan as null and void would run
Under the Philippine Bill of 1902, inhabitants of the until April 11, 1899; it even went beyond the turn of the
against the principle of due process. Jose Ong Chuan has
Philippines who were Spanish subjects on the 11th day of 19th century. It is also in this place were Ong Te set-up his
already been laid to rest. How can he be given a fair
April 1899 and then residing in said islands and their business and acquired his real property.
opportunity to defend himself. A dead man cannot speak.
children born subsequent thereto were conferred the
To quote the words of the HRET "Ong Chuan's lips have
status of a Filipino citizen.
long been muted to perpetuity by his demise and obviously As concluded by the Constitutional Convention, Ong Te
he could not use beyond where his mortal remains now lie falls within the meaning of sub-paragraph 4 of Article 17 of
to defend himself were this matter to be made a central Was the grandfather of the private respondent a Spanish the Civil Code of Spain.
issue in this case." subject?
Although Ong Te made brief visits to China, he,
The issue before us is not the nullification of the grant of Article 17 of the Civil Code of Spain enumerates those nevertheless, always returned to the Philippines. The fact
citizenship to Jose Ong Chuan. Our function is to who were considered Spanish Subjects, viz: that he died in China, during one of his visits in said
determine whether or not the HRET committed abuse of country, was of no moment. This will not change the fact
authority in the exercise of its powers. Moreover, the that he already had his domicile fixed in the Philippines
ARTICLE 17. The following are
respondent traces his natural born citizenship through and pursuant to the Civil Code of Spain, he had become a
Spaniards:
his mother, not through the citizenship of his father. The Spanish subject.
citizenship of the father is relevant only to determine
whether or not the respondent "chose" to be a Filipino 1. Persons born in Spanish territory.
If Ong Te became a Spanish subject by virtue of having
when he came of age. At that time and up to the present,
established his domicile in a town under the Monarchy of
both mother and father were Filipinos. Respondent
2. Children born of a Spanish father or Spain, necessarily, Ong Te was also an inhabitant of the
Ong could not have elected any other citizenship unless
mother, even though they were born Philippines for an inhabitant has been defined as one who
he first formally renounced Philippine citizenship in favor of
out of Spain. has actual fixed residence in a place; one who has a
a foreign nationality. Unlike other persons faced with a
domicile in a place. (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Vol. II)
problem of election, there was no foreign nationality of his
Apriori, there can be no other logical conclusion but to
father which he could possibly have chosen. 3. Foreigners who may have obtained
educe that Ong Te qualified as a Filipino citizen under the
naturalization papers. provisions of section 4 of the Philippine Bill of 1902.
The HRET itself found this fact of absolute verity in found. (see Government of P.I. v. Martinez, 44 Phil. 817 ON THE ISSUE OF RESIDENCE
concluding that the private respondent was a natural-born [1918])
Filipino.
The petitioners question the residence qualification of
Since the execution of the document and the inability to respondent Ong.
The petitioners' sole ground in disputing this fact is that produce were adequately established, the contents of the
document presented to prove it were not in compliance questioned documents can be proven by a copy thereof or
The petitioners lose sight of the meaning of "residence"
with the best the evidence rule. The petitioners allege that by the recollection of witnesses.
under the Constitution. The term "residence" has been
the private respondent failed to present the original of the
understood as synonymous with domicile not only under
documentary evidence, testimonial evidence and of the
Moreover, to erase all doubts as to the authenticity of the the previous Constitutions but also under the 1987
transcript of the proceedings of the body which the
documentary evidence cited in the Committee Report, the Constitution.
aforesaid resolution of the 1971 Constitutional Convention
former member of the 1971 Constitutional Convention,
was predicated.
Atty. Nolledo, when he was presented as a witness in the
The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission reveal
hearing of the protest against the private respondent,
that the meaning of residence vis-a-vis the qualifications of
On the contrary, the documents presented by the private categorically stated that he saw the disputed documents
a candidate for Congress continues to remain the same as
respondent fall under the exceptions to the best evidence presented during the hearing of the election protest
that of domicile, to wit:
rule. against the brother of the private respondent. (TSN,
February 1, 1989, pp. 8-9)
Mr. Nolledo: With
It was established in the proceedings before the HRET
respect to Section
that the originals of the Committee Report No. 12, the In his concurring opinion, Mr. Justice Sarmiento, a vice-
5, I remember
minutes of the plenary session of 1971 Constitutional president of the Constitutional Convention, states that he
that in the 1971
Convention held on November 28, 1972 cannot be found. was presiding officer of the plenary session which
Constitutional
deliberated on the report on the election protest against
Convention, there
Delegate Emil Ong. He cites a long list of names of
This was affirmed by Atty. Ricafrente, Assistant Secretary was an attempt to
delegates present. Among them are Mr. Chief Justice
of the 1971 Constitutional Convention; by Atty. Nolledo, require residence
Fernan, and Mr. Justice Davide, Jr. The petitioners could
Delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention; and by in the place not
have presented any one of the long list of delegates to
Atty. Antonio Santos, Chief Librarian of the U.P Law less than one
refute Mr. Ong's having been declared a natural-born
Center, in their respective testimonies given before the year immediately
citizen. They did not do so. Nor did they demur to the
HRET to the effect that there is no governmental agency preceding the day
contents of the documents presented by the private
which is the official custodian of the records of the 1971 of the elections.
respondent. They merely relied on the procedural
Constitutional Convention. (TSN, December 12, 1988, pp. So my question
objections respecting the admissibility of the evidence
30-31; TSN, January 17, 1989, pp. 34-35; TSN, February is: What is the
presented.
1, 1989, p. 44; TSN, February 6, 1989, pp. 28-29) Committee's
concept of
The Constitutional Convention was the sole judge of the residence of a
The execution of the originals was established by Atty.
qualifications of Emil Ong to be a member of that body. candidate for the
Ricafrente, who as the Assistant Secretary of the 1971
The HRET by explicit mandate of the Constitution, is legislature? Is it
Constitutional Convention was the proper party to testify to
the sole judge of the qualifications of Jose Ong, Jr. to be a actual residence
such execution. (TSN, December 12, 1989, pp. 11-24)
member of Congress. Both bodies deliberated at length on or is it the concept
the controversies over which they were sole judges. of domicile or
The inability to produce the originals before the HRET was Decisions were arrived at only after a full presentation of constructive
also testified to as aforestated by Atty. Ricafrente, Atty. all relevant factors which the parties wished to present. residence?
Nolledo, and Atty. Santos. In proving the inability to Even assuming that we disagree with their conclusions, we
produce, the law does not require the degree of proof to be cannot declare their acts as committed with grave abuse of
Mr. Davide:
of sufficient certainty; it is enough that it be shown that discretion. We have to keep clear the line
Madame
after a bona fide diligent search, the same cannot be between error and grave abuse.
President, in so
far as the regular
members of the Ms. Rosario residence, no matter how long, notwithstanding, it
National Braid: Yes, So, continues to be the domicile of that person. In other words,
Assembly are would the domicile is characterized by animus revertendi (Ujano v.
concerned, the gentlemen Republic, 17 SCRA 147 [1966])
proposed section consider at the
merely provides, proper time to go
The domicile of origin of the private respondent, which was
among others, back to actual
the domicile of his parents, is fixed at Laoang, Samar.
and a resident residence rather
Contrary to the petitioners' imputation, Jose Ong, Jr. never
thereof, that is, in than mere
abandoned said domicile; it remained fixed therein even
the district, for a intention to
up to the present.
period of not less reside?
than one year
preceding the day The private respondent, in the proceedings before the
Mr. De los Reyes:
of the election. HRET sufficiently established that after the fire that gutted
But we might
This was in effect their house in 1961, another one was constructed.
encounter some
lifted from the
difficulty
1973 Constitution,
especially Likewise, after the second fire which again destroyed their
the interpretation
considering that a house in 1975, a sixteen-door apartment was built by their
given to it was
provision in the family, two doors of which were reserved as their family
domicile.
Constitution in the residence. (TSN, Jose Ong, Jr., November 18,1988, p. 8)
(Records of the
Article on
1987
Suffrage says that
Constitutional The petitioners' allegation that since the private
Filipinos living
Convention, Vol. respondent owns no property in Laoang, Samar, he
abroad may vote
11, July 22, 1986. cannot, therefore, be a resident of said place is misplaced.
as enacted by
p. 87)
law. So, we have
to stick to the The properties owned by the Ong Family are in the name
xxx xxx xxx original concept of the private respondent's parents. Upon the demise of
that it should be his parents, necessarily, the private respondent, pursuant
by domicile and to the laws of succession, became the co-owner thereof
Mrs. Rosario
not physical and (as a co- heir), notwithstanding the fact that these were still
Braid: The next
actual residence. in the names of his parents.
question is on
(Records of the
Section 7, page 2.
1987
I think Even assuming that the private respondent does not own
Constitutional
Commissioner any property in Samar, the Supreme Court in the case
Commission, Vol.
Nolledo has ofDe los Reyes v. Solidum (61 Phil. 893 [1935]) held that it
11, July 22, 1986,
raised the same is not required that a person should have a house in order
p. 110)
point that to establish his residence and domicile. It is enough that
"resident" has he should live in the municipality or in a rented house or in
been interpreted The framers of the Constitution adhered to the earlier that of a friend or relative. (Emphasis supplied)
at times as a definition given to the word "residence" which regarded it
matter of intention as having the same meaning as domicile.
rather than actual To require the private respondent to own property in order
residence. to be eligible to run for Congress would be tantamount to a
The term "domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence property qualification. The Constitution only requires that
to which when absent for business or pleasure, one the candidate meet the age, citizenship, voting and
Mr. De los Reyes: intends to return. (Ong Huan Tin v. Republic, 19 SCRA residence requirements. Nowhere is it required by the
Domicile. 966 [1967]) The absence of a person from said permanent Constitution that the candidate should also own property in
order to be qualified to run. (see Maquera v. Borra, 122 whose lawyers knew how to overcome so many technical In G.R. Nos. 92191-92, petitioner Co also prays that the
Phil. 412 [1965]) traps of the judicial process were able to acquire Court declare private respondent Ong not qualified to be a
citizenship. It is time for the naturalization law to be revised Member of the House of Representatives and to declare
to enable a more positive, affirmative, and meaningful him (petitioner Co) who allegedly obtained the highest
It has also been settled that absence from residence to
examination of an applicant's suitability to be a Filipino. A number of votes among the qualified candidates, the duly
pursue studies or practice a profession or registration as a
more humane, more indubitable and less technical elected representative of the second legislative district of
voter other than in the place where one is elected, does
approach to citizenship problems is essential. Northern Samar. In G.R. Nos. 92202-03, petitioner
not constitute loss of residence. (Faypon v. Quirino, 96
Balanquit prays that the Court declare private respondent
Phil. 294 [1954])
Ong and Co (petitioner in G.R. Nos. 92191-92) not
WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED. The
qualified for membership in the House of Representatives
questioned decision of the House of Representatives
As previously stated, the private respondent stayed in and to proclaim him (Balanguit) as the duly elected
Electoral Tribunal is AFFIRMED. Respondent Jose Ong,
Manila for the purpose of finishing his studies and later to representative of said district.
Jr. is declared a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and
practice his profession, There was no intention to abandon
a resident of Laoang, Northern Samar.
the residence in Laoang, Samar. On the contrary, the
Petitioners Antonio Y. Co, Sixto T. Balanquit, Jr. and
periodical journeys made to his home province reveal that
private respondent Jose Ong Chuan, Jr. were among the
he always had the animus revertendi. SO ORDERED.
candidates for the position of Representative or
Congressman for the second district of Northern Samar
The Philippines is made up not only of a single race; it has, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea and Davide, Jr., JJ., during the 11 May 1987 congressional elections. Private
rather, undergone an interracial evolution. Throughout our concur. respondent was proclaimed duly-elected on 18 May 1987
history, there has been a continuing influx of Malays, with a plurality of some sixteen thousand (16,000) votes
Chinese, Americans, Japanese, Spaniards and other over petitioner Co who obtained the next highest number
Fernan, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Feliciano and of votes.
nationalities. This racial diversity gives strength to our
Gancayco, JJ., took no part.
country.
Petitioners Co and Balanquit then filed separate election
Many great Filipinos have not been whole-blooded protests against private respondent with the tribunal,
nationals, if there is such a person, for there is none. To docketed as HRET Cases Nos. 13 and 15 respectively.
mention a few, the great Jose Rizal was part Chinese, the Both protests raised almost the same issues and were
late Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee was part Chinese, thus considered and decided jointly by the tribunal.
and of course our own President, Corazon Aquino is also
Separate Opinions
part Chinese. Verily, some Filipinos of whom we are proud
The issues raised before the tribunal were the following:
were ethnically more Chinese than the private respondent.
MS. AQUINO. Mr. Presiding Officer. MS. AQUINO. So, the Gentlemen has
MS . AQUINO. The motion is for this
accepted the amendment the
Commission to undertake the
amendment.
apportionment of the legislative THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
districts instead of the proposal that Jamir). Commissioner Aquino is
COMELEC be given the mandate to recognized. Thank you.
undertake the responsibility.
MS. AQUINO. Would that require a MR. SARMIENTO. I am voting that
xxx xxx xxx two-thirds vote or a simple plurality to this Commission do the
adopt that motion? reapportionment.
MR. SARMIENTO. May I be clarified,
Mr. Presiding Officer. Is it the motion THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. VOTING
or the proposed amendment? Jamir). That will require a two-thirds
vote.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jamir). Let us proceed to vote.
Jamir). The proposed amendment. MS. AQUINO. Thank you. Mr.
Presiding Officer.
As many as are in favor, please raise
MR. SARMIENTO. May we move for their hand. (Several Members raised
the approval of this proposed MR. SARMIENTO. May I restate the their hand.)
amendment which we substitute for motion, Mr. Presiding Officer.
paragraphs 4 and 5.
As many as are against, please raise
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. their hand. (No Member raised his
MR. DAVIDE. May I request that it Jamir) The Gentleman may proceed. hand.)
should be treated merely as a motion
to be followed by a deletion of
paragraph 4 because that should not MR. SARMIENTO. May I move that The results show 30 votes in favor and
really appear as a paragraph in this Commission do the none against; the motion is approved.
reapportionment legislative districts.
Section 5; otherwise, it will appear
very ugly in the Constitution where we Clearly then, the Constitutional Commission denied to the
mandate a Commission that will MS. AQUINO. Mr. Presiding Officer. COMELEC the major power of legislative apportionment
as it itself exercised the power. Section 2 of the Ordinance I was about to ask the committee the Laguna, they cannot put that in any
only empowered the COMELEC "to meaning of minor adjustment. Can it other district.
make minoradjustments of the reapportionment herein be possible that one municipality in a
made." The meaning of the phrase "minor adjustments district be transferred to another
MR. DAVIDE. That is not even a minor
was again clarified in the debates 17 of the district and call it a minor adjustment?
correction. It is a substantive one.
Commission, viz.:
MR. DAVIDE. That cannot be done,
MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you.
xxx xxx xxx Mr. Presiding Officer. Minor, meaning,
that there should be no change in the
allocations per district. However, it Consistent with the limits of its power to make minor
MR. GUINGONA. This is just
may happen that we have forgotten a adjustments, Section 3 of the Ordinance did not also give
clarificatory, Mr. Presiding Officer. In
municipality in between which is still in the respondent COMELEC any authority to
Section 2, the Commission on
the territory of one assigned district, or transfer municipalities from one legislative district to
Elections is empowered to make
there may be an error in the correct another district. The power granted by Section 3 to the
minor adjustments on the
name of a particular respondent COMELEC is to adjust the number
apportionment made here.
municipality because of changes of members (not municipalities) "apportioned to the
made by the interim Batasang province out of which such new province was created. . . ."
MR. DAVIDE. Yes, Mr. Presiding Pambansa and the Regular Batasang
Officer. Pambansa. There were many batas
Prescinding from these premises, we hold that respondent
pambansa enacted by both the interim
and the Regular Batasang Pambansa COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
MR. GUINGONA. We have not set changing the names of municipalities. amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it promulgated
any time limit for this. section 1 of its Resolution No. 2736 transferring the
municipality of Capoocan of the Second District and the
MR. DE CASTRO. So, the minor municipality of Palompon of the Fourth District to the Third
MR. DAVIDE. We should not set a adjustment may be made only if one District of Leyte.
time limit unless during the period of
of the municipalities is not mentioned
amendments a proposal is made. The in the ordinance appended to, and it
authority conferred would be on minor will be up for the COMELEC now to It may well be that the conversion of Biliran from a sub-
corrections or amendments, meaning adjust or to put such municipality to a province to a regular province brought about an imbalance
to say, for instance, that we may have certain district. in the distribution of voters and inhabitants in the five (5)
forgotten an intervening municipality in legislative districts of the province of Leyte. This
the enumeration, which ought to be imbalance, depending on its degree, could devalue a
included in one district. That we shall MR. DAVIDE. Yes, Mr. Presiding citizen's vote in violation of the equal protection clause of
consider a minor amendment. Officer. For instance, we may not have the Constitution. Be that as it may, it is not proper at this
the data regarding a division of a time for petitioner to raise this issue using the case at
municipality by the interim Batasang bench as his legal vehicle. The issue involves a problem of
MR. GUINGONA. Thank you. Pambansa or the Regular Batasang reapportionment of legislative districts and petitioner's
Pambansa into two municipalities, remedy lies with Congress. Section 5(4), Article VI of the
xxx xxx xxx meaning, a mother municipality and Constitution categorically gives Congress the power to
the new municipality, but still actually reapportion, thus: "Within three (3) years following the
these are within the geographical return of every census, the Congress shall make a
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. district area. reapportionment of legislative districts based on the
Romulo). Commissioner de Castro is standards provided in this section." In Macias
recognized. v. COMELEC,18 we ruled that the validity of a legislative
MR. DE CASTRO. So the minor
apportionment is a justiciable question. But while this Court
adjustment which the COMELEC
MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you. can strike down an unconstitutional reapportionment, it
cannot do is that, if, for example, my
cannot itself make the reapportionment as petitioner would
municipality is in the First District of
want us to do by directing respondent COMELEC to
transfer the municipality of Tolosa from the First District to When the Senate convened on May 25, 1946, it the influence of threats or violence,
the Second District of the province of Leyte. proceeded with the selection of its officers. Thereafter, in are valid or invalid. . . ."
the course of the session, a resolution was approved
referring to the report and ordering that, pending the
IN VIEW WHEREOF, section 1 of Resolution No. 2736 WHEREAS, the minority report of the Hon.
termination of the protest lodged against their election, the
insofar as it transferred the municipality of Capoocan of the Vicente de Vera, member of the Commission on
herein petitioners, Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose
Second District and the municipality of Palompon of the Elections, says among other things, that "we
E. Romero — who had been included among the sixteen
Fourth District to the Third District of the province of Leyte, know that as a result of this chaotic condition,
candidates for senator receiving the highest number of
is annulled and set aside. We also deny the Petition many residents of the four provinces have
votes, proclaimed by the Commission on Elections — shall
praying for the transfer of the municipality of Tolosafrom voluntarily banished themselves from their home
not be sworn, nor seated, as members of the chamber.
the First District to the Second District of the province of towns in order not to be subjected to the
Leyte. No costs. prevailing oppression and to avoid being
Pertinent parts of the resolution — called Pendatun — are victimized or losing their lives"; and that after the
these: election dead bodies had been found with notes
SO ORDERED.
attached to their necks, reading, "Bomoto kami
kay Roxas" (we voted for Roxas);
WHEREAS the Commission on Elections,
Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide,
charged under the Constitution with the duty of
Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Vitug, Kapunan,
insuring free, orderly, and honest elections in the WHEREAS the same Judge De Vera says in his
Mendoza and Francisco, JJ., concur.
Philippines, reported to the President of the minority report that in the four Provinces of
Philippines on May 23, 1946, that Pampanga, Tarlac, Bulacan and Nueva Ecija,
the worst terrorism reigned during and after the
election, and that if the elections held in the
". . . Reports also reached this
aforesaid provinces were annulled as demanded
G.R. No. L-543 August 31, 1946 Commission to the effect that in the
by the circumstances mentioned in the report of
Provinces of Bulacan, Pampanga,
the Commission, Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno,
Tarlac and Nueva Ecija, the secrecy of
JOSE O. VERA, ET AL., petitioners, and Jose Romero, would not and could not have
the ballot was actually violated; the
vs. been declared elected;
armed bands saw to it that their
JOSE A. AVELINO, ET AL., respondents. candidates were voted for; and that
the great majority of the voters, thus xxx xxx xxx
Jose W. Diokno and Antonio Barredo for petitioners. coerced or intimadated, suffered from
Vicente J. Francisco and Solicitor General Tañada for a paralysis of judgement in the matter
WHEREAS the terrorism resorted to by the
respondents. of exercising the right of suffrage;
lawless elements in the four provinces
J. Antonio Araneta of the Lawyers' Guild as amicus curiae. considering all those acts of terrorism,
mentioned above in order to insure the election
violence and intimidation in connection
of the candidates of the Conservative wing of the
with elections which are more or less
BENGZON, J.: Nationalist Party is of public knowledge and that
general in the Provinces of
such terrorism continues to this day; that before
Pampanga, Tarlac, Bulacan and
the elections Jose O. Vera himself declared as
Pursuant to a constitutional provision (section 4, Article X), Nueva Ecija, this Commission
campaign Manager of the Osmeña faction that
the Commission on elections submitted, last May, to the believes that the election in the
he was sorry if Presidential Candidate Manuel A.
President and the Congress of the Philippines, its report provinces aforesaid did not reflect the
Roxas could not campaign in the Huk provinces
on the national elections held the preceding month, and, true and free expression of the
because his life would be endangered; and that
among other things, stated that, by reason of certain popular will. It should be stated,
because of the constant murders of his
specified acts of terrorism and violence in the Provinces of however, that the Commission is
candidates and leaders, Presidential Candidate
Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bulacan and Tarlac, the voting in without jurisdiction, to determine
Roxas found it necessary to appeal to American
said region did not reflect the true and free expression of whether or not the votes cast in the
High Commissioner Paul V. McNutt for
the popular will. said provinces which, according to
protection, which appeal American High
these reports have been cast under
Commissioner personallyreferred to President
Sergio Osme_¤_a for appropriate action, and In their pleadings, respondents traverse the jurisdiction of [1907], 187 N. Y., 1; Abueva vs. Wood [1924],
the Presidentin turn ordered the Secretary of the this court, and assert the validity of the Pendatun 45 Phil., 612.) (Supra, pp. 88, 89.)
existence and reign of such terrorism; Resolution.
. . . Under our form of government the judicial
WHEREAS the Philippines, a Republic State, The issues, few and clear-cut, were thoroughly discussed department has no power to revise even the
embracing the principles ofdemocracy, must at the extended oral argument and in comprehensive most arbitrary and unfair action of the legislative
condem all acts that seek to defeat the popular memoranda submitted by both sides. department, or of either house thereof, taken in
will; pursuance of the power committed exclusively to
that department by the constitution. (Supra, p.
A.—NO JURISDICTION
93)
WHEREAS it is essential, in order to maintain
alive the respect fordemocratic institutions
Way back in 1924, Senator Jose Alejandrino assaulted a
among our people, that no man or group of men No court has ever held and we apprehend no
fellow-member in the Philippine Senate. That body, after
be permitted to profit from the results of an court will ever hold that it possesses the power
investigation, adopted a resolution, suspending him from
election held under coercion, in violation of law, to direct the Chief Executive or the Legislature or
office for one year. He applied here for mandamus and
and contrary to the principle of freedom of a branch thereof to take any particular action. If
injunction to nullify the suspension and to require his
choice which should underlie all elections under a court should ever be so rash as to thus trench
colleagues to reinstate him. This court believed the
the Constitution; on the domain of either of the other
suspension was legally wrong, because, as senator
departments, it will be the end of popular
appointed by the Governor-General, he could not be
government as we know it in democracies.
WHEREAS protests against the election of Jose disciplined by the Philippine Senate; but it denied the
(Supra, p. 94.)
O. Vega, Ramon Diokno, and Jose Romero, prayer for relief, mainly upon the theory of the separation
have been filed with the electoral Tribunal of the of the three powers, Executive, Legislative and Judicial.
Senate of the Philippines on the basis of the (Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil., 81.) Said the decision: Conceding therefore that the power of the
findings of the Commission on Elections above Senate to punish its members for disorderly
quoted; behavior does not authorize it to suspend an
. . . Mandamus will not lie against the legislative
appointive member from the exercise of his
body, its members, or its officers, to compel the
office for one year, conceding what has been so
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the performance of duties purely legislative in their
well stated by the learned counsel for the
Senate of the Philippines in session assembled, character which therefore pertain to their
petitioner, conceding all this and more, yet the
as it hereby resolves, to defer the administration legislative functions and over which they have
writ prayed for cannot issue, for the all-
of oath and the sitting of Jose O. Vera, Ramon exclusive control. The courts cannot dictate
conclusive reason that the Supreme Court does
Diokno, and Jose Romero, pending the hearing action in this respect without a gross usurpation
not possess the power of coercion to make the
and decision on the protests lodged against their of power. So it has been held that where a
Philippine Senate take any particular action. . . .
elections, wherein the terrorism averred in the member has been expelled by the legislative
(Supra, p. 97.)
report of the Commission on Elections and in the body, the courts have no power, irrespective of
report of the Provost Marshal constitutes the whether the expulsion was right or wrong, to
ground of said protests and will therefore be the issue a mandate to compel his reinstatement. The same hands-off policy had been previously followed in
subject of investigation and determination. (Code of civil Procedure, section 222, 515; 18 Severino vs. Governor-General and Provincial Board of
R.C. L., 186, 187; Cooley, Constitutional Occidental Negros (16 Phil., 366) and Abueva vs. Wood
Limitations, 190; French vs. Senate [1905], 146 (45 Phil., 612)
Petitioners immediately instituted this action against their
Cal; Hiss vs. Bartlett [1855], 69 Mass., 468; Ex
colleagues responsible for the resolution. They pray for an
parte Echols [1886], 39 Ala., 698; State vs. Bolte
order annulling it, and compelling respondents to permit At this point we could pretend to erudition by tracing the
[1889], 151 Mo., 362; De Diego vs. House of
them to occupy their seats, and to exercise their senatorial origin, development and various applications of theory of
Delegates [1904], 5 Porto Rico, 235; Greenwood
prerogatives. separation of powers, transcribing herein whole
Cemetery Land Co. vs. Routt [1892], 17 Colo.,
paragraphs from adjudicated cases to swell the pages of
156; State ex rel. Crammer vs. Thorson [1896],
judicial output. Yet the temptation must be resisted, and
33 L. R. A., ex rel. Bruce vs. Dunne [1913], 258
the parties spared a stiff dose of juris prudential lore about
Ill., 441; Peopleex rel. La Chicote vs. Best
a principle, which, after all, is the first fundamental any member thereof.2 This Court, in that case, did not It must be conceded that the acts of the Chief
imparted to every student of Constitutional Law. require the National Assembly or any assemblyman to do executive performed within the limits of his
any particular act. It only found it "has jurisdiction over the jurisdiction are his official acts and courts will
Electoral Commission." (Supra, 63 Phil., 161.) neither direct nor restrain executive action in
Not that a passable excuse would be lacking for such a
such cases. The rule is non-interference. But
dissertation. The advent of the Republic, and the
from this legal premise, it does not necessarily
consequent finality of our views on constitutional issues, That this court in the Angara litigation made declarations,
follow that we are precluded from making an
may call for a definition of concepts and attitudes. But nullifying a resolution of the National Assembly, is not
inquiry into the validity or constitutionality of his
surely, there will be time enough, as cases come up for decisive. In proper cases this court may annul any
acts when these are properly challenged in an
adjudication. Legislative enactment that fails to observe the
appropriate legal proceeding. . . . In the present
constitutional limitations. That is a power conceded to the
case, the President is not a party to the
judiciary since Chief Justice Marshall penned Marbury vs.
Returning to the instant litigation, it presents no more than proceeding. He is neither compelled nor
Madison in 1803. Its foundation is explained by Justice
the questions, whether the Alejandro doctrine still obtains, restrained to actin a particular way. . . . This
Sutherland in the Minimum Wage Case (261 U. S.,
and whether the admitted facts disclose any features court, therefore, has jurisdiction over the instant
544).Said the Court:
justifying departure therefrom. proceedings and will accordingly proceed to
determine the merits of the present controversy."
. . . The Constitution, by its own terms, is the (Planas vs. Gil., 67 Phil., 62, 73, 74, 76.)
When the Commonwealth Constitution was approved in (Emphasis ours.) (See also Lopez vs. De los
supreme law of the land, emanating from the
1935, the existence of three coordinate, co-equal and co- Reyes, 55 Phil., 170.)
people, the repository of ultimate sovereignty
important branches of the government was ratified and
under our form of government. A congressional
confirmed. That Organic Act contained some innovations
statute, on the other hand, is the act of an
which established additional exceptions to the well-known More about the Angara precedent: The defendant there
agency of this sovereign authority, and if it
separation of powers; for instance, the creation of the was only the Electoral Commission which was "not a
conflicts with the Constitution, must fall; for that
Electoral Tribunal wherein Justices of the Supreme Court separate department of the Government" (Vol. 63,p. 160),
which is not supreme must yield to that which is.
participate in the decision of congressional election and exercised powers "judicial in nature." (Supra, p. 184)
To hold it invalid (if it be invalid) is a plain
protests, the grant of rule-making power to the Supreme Hence, against our authority, there was no objection based
exercise of the judicial power, — that power
Court, etc.; but in the main, the independence of one on the independence and separation of the three co-
vested in courts to enable them to administer
power from the other was maintained. And the Convention equal departments of Government. Besides, this court said
justice according to law. From the authority to
— composed mostly of lawyers (143 out of a total of 202 no more than that, there being a conflict ofjurisdiction
ascertain and determine the law in a given case
members), fully acquainted with the Abueva, Alejandrino between two constitutional bodies, it could not decline to
there necessa ruly results, in case of conflict, the
and Severino precedents — did not choose to modify their take cognizance of the controversy to determine the
duty to declare and enforce the rule of the
constitutional doctrine, even as it altered some "character, scope and extent" of their respective
supreme law and reject that of an inferior act of
fundamental tenets theretofore well established.1 constitutional spheres of action. Here, there is actually no
legislation which, transcending the Constitution,
antagonism between the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate
is no effect, and binding on no one. This is not
and the Senate itself, for it is not suggested has adopted a
However, it is alleged that, in 1936, Angara vs. Electoral the exercise of a substantive power to review
rule contradicting the Pendatun Resolution. Consequently,
Commission (63 Phil., 139), modified the aforesaid ruling. and nullify acts of Congress, for such no
there is no occasion for our intervention. Such conflict of
We do not agree. There is no pronouncement in the latter substantive power exists. It is simply a
jurisdiction, plus the participation of the Senate Electoral
decision, making specific reference to the Alejandrino necessary concomitant of the power to hear and
Tribunal are essential ingredients to make the facts of this
incident regarding our power — or lack of it — to interfere dispose of a case or controversy properly before
case fit the mold of the Angara doctrine.
with the functions of the Senate. And three years later, in the court, to the determination of which must be
1939, the same Justice Laurel, who had penned it, cited brought the test and measure of the law.
Alejandrino vs. Quezon as a binding authority of the Now, under the principles enunciated in the Alejandrino
separation of powers. (Planas vs. Gil, 67 Phil., 62.) It must case, may this petition be entertained? The answer must
And the power is now expressly recognized by our Organic
be stressed that, in the Angara controversy, no legislative naturally be in the negative. Granting that the
Act. (See sections 2 and 10. Article VIII.)
body or person was a litigant before the court, and postponement of the administration of the oath amounts to
whatever obiter dicta, or general expressions, may therein suspension of the petitioners from their office, and
found can not change the ultimate circumstance that no But we must emphasize, the power is to be exercised conceding arguendo that such suspension is beyond the
directive was issued against a branch of the Legislature or in proper cases, with the appropriate parties. power of the respondents, who in effect are and acted as
the Philippine Senate (Alejandrino vs. Quezon, 46 Phil.,
83, 88),this petition should be denied. As was explained in guardian of the others and that, for official wrong-doing, Before the organization of the Commonwealth and the
the Alejandrino case, we could not order one branch of the each may be brought to account, either by impeachment, promulgation of the Constitution, each House of the
Legislature to reinstate a member thereof. To do so would trial or by the ballot box. Philippine Legislature exercised the power to defer oath-
be to establish judicial predominance, and to upset the taking of any member against whom a protest had been
classic pattern of checks and balances wisely woven into lodged, whenever in its discretion such suspension was
The extreme case has been described wherein a
our institutional setup. necessary, before the final decision of the contest. The
legislative chamber, without any reason whatsoever,
cases of Senator Fuentebella and Representative Rafols
decrees by resolution the incarceration, for years, of a
are known instances of such suspension. The discussions
Adherence to established principle should generally be our citizen. And the rhetorical question is confidently
in the constitutional Convention showed that instead of
guiding criterion, if we are to escape the criticism voiced formulated. Will this man be denied relief by the courts?
transferring to the Electoral Commission all thepowers of
once by Bryce in American Commonwealth thus:
the House or Senate as "the sole judge of the election,
Of course not: He may successfully apply for habeas returns, and qualifications of the members of the National
The Supreme Court has changed its color i. e., corpus, alleging the nullity of the resolution and claiming Assembly," it was given only jurisdiction over "all contests"
its temper and tendencies, from time to time for release. But then, the defendant shall be the officer or relating to the election, etc. (Aruego, The Framing of the
according to the political proclivities of the men person, holding him in custody, and the question therein Philippine Constitution, Vol. I, p. 271.) The proceedings in
who composed it. . . . Their action flowed will be the validity or invalidity of resolution. That was done the Constitutional Convention on this subject are
naturally from the habits of thought they had in Lopez vs. De los Reyes, supra. (See also Kilbourn vs. illuminating:
formed before their accession to the bench and Thompson, 103 U.S. 168; 26 Law. ed., 377, p. 391.)
from the sympathy they could not feel for the Courts will interfere, because the question is not a political
It became gradually apparent in the course of
doctrine on whose behalf they had contended. one, the "liberty of citizen" being involved (Kilbourn vs.
the debates that the Convention was evenly
(The Annals of the American Academy of Thompson, supra) and the act will clearly beyond the
divided on the proposition of creating the
Political and Social Science, May, 1936, p. 50.) bounds of the legislative power, amounting to usurpation
Electoral Commission with the membership and
of the privileges of the courts, the usurpation being clear,
powers set forth in the draft. It was growing
palpable and oppressive and the infringement of the
Needless to add, any order we may issue in this case evident, too, that the opposition to the Electoral
Constitution truly real. (See 16 C.J.S., p. 44.)
should, according to the rules, be enforceable by contempt Commission was due to rather inclusive power
proceedings. If the respondents should disobey our order, of that body to judge not only of cases
can we punish them for contempt? If we do, are we not Nevertheless, suppose for the moment that we have contesting the election of the members of the
thereby destroying the independence, and the equal jurisdiction: National Assembly, but also of their elections,
importance to which legislative bodies are entitled under returns, and qualifications.
the Constitution?
B.—PROHIBITION DOES NOT LIE
Many of the delegates wanted to be definitely informed of
Let us not be overly influenced by the plea that for every the scope of the powers of the Electoral Commission as
Petitioners pray for a writ of prohibition. Under the law, defined in the draft before determining their final decision;
wrong there is are medy, and that the judiciary should
prohibition refers only to proceedings of any tribunal,
stand ready to afford relief. There are undoubtedly many for if the draft meant to confer upon the Electoral
corporation, board, or person, exercising Commission the inclusive power to pass upon the
wrongs the judicature may not correct, for instance, those
functions judicial or ministerial. (Rule 67, section 2, Rules elections, returns, and qualifications — contested or not —
involving political questions. Numerous decisions are
of Court.) As the respondents do not exercise such kind of
quoted and summarized under this heading in 16 Corpus of the members of the National Assembly, they were more
functions, theirs being legislative, it is clear the dispute falls inclined to vote against the Electoral Commission. In an
Juris Secundum, section 145.
beyond the scope of such special remedy. attempt to seek this clarification, the following
interpretations took place:
Let us likewise disabuse our minds from the notion that the
C.—SENATE HAS NOT EXCEEDED POWERS
judiciary is the repository of remedies for all political and
social ills. We should not forget that the Constitution had xxx xxx xxx
judiciously allocated the powers of government to three Again let us suppose the question lies within the limits of
distinct and separate compartments; and that judicial prohibition and of our jurisdiction. Delegate Labrador.—Does not the gentleman
interpretation has tended to the preservation of the
from Capiz believe that unless this power is
dependence of the three, and a zealous regard of the
granted to the assembly, the assembly on its
prerogatives of each, knowing full well that one is not the
own motion does not have the right to contest The limitation to the powers of the Electoral by the party having the second largest
the election and qualification of its members? Commission proposed in the compromise number of votes therein. The senior
amendment did much to win in favor of the Justice in the Commission shall be its
Electoral Commission many of its opponents; so Chairman.The Electoral Commission
Delegate Roxas.—I have no doubt that the
that when the amendment presented by shall be the sole judge of the election,
gentleman is right. If this right is retained, as it is,
Delegate Labrador and others to retain in the returns, and qualifications of the
even if two-thirds of the assembly believe that a
Constitution the power of the lawmaking body to Members of the National Assembly."
member has not the qualifications provided by
be the sole judge of the elections, returns, and
law, they cannot remove him from that reason.
qualifications of its members was put to a
The report of the special committee on style on
nominal vote, it was defeated by 98 negative
the power of the Commission was opposed on
xxx xxx xxx votes against 56 affirmative votes.
the floor of the Convention by Delegate
Confesor, who insisted that the Electoral
In the course of the heated debates, with the With the defeat of the Labrador amendment, the Commission should limit itself to judging only of
growing restlessness on the part of the provision of the draft creating the Electoral all contests relating to the elections, returns, and
Convention, President Recto suspended the Commission, as modified by the compromise qualifications of the members of the National
session in order to find out if it was possible to amendment, was consequently approved. Assembly. The draft was amended accordingly
arrive at a compromise plan to meet the by the Convention.
objection.
"All cases contesting the elections, returns and
qualifications of the members of the National As it was finally adopted by the Convention, the
When the session was resumed, a compromise Assembly shall be judged by an electoral provision read:
plan was submitted in the form of an amendment commission, composed of three members
presented by Delegates Francisco, Ventura, elected by the party having the largest number
There shall be an Electoral Commission . . . The
Lim, Vinzons, Rafols, Mumar, and others, of votes in the National Assembly, three elected
Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of
limiting the power of the Electoral Commission to by the members of the party having the second
all contestsrelating to the election, returns, and
the judging of all cases contesting elections, largest number of votes, and three justices of the
qualifications of the Members of the National
returns, and qualifications of members of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief, the
Assembly. (Aruego, The Framing of the
National Assembly. Explaining the difference Commission to be presided over by one of said
Philippine Constitution, Vol. I, pp. 267, 269, 270,
between the amendment thus proposed and the justices."
271 and 272.).
provision of the draft, Delegate Roxas, upon the
request of President Recto, said:
In the special committee on style, the provision
Delegate Roxas rightly opined that "if this draft is retained"
was amended so that the Chairman of the
the Assembly would have no power over election and
The difference, Mr. President, consists only in Commission should be the senior Justice in the
qualifications of its members; because all the powers are
obviating the objection pointed out by various Commission, and so that the Commission was to
by the draft vested in the Commission.
delegates to the effect that the first clause of the be the sole judge of the election, returns, and
draft which states "The election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the National
qualifications of members of the National Assembly. As it was then amended, the The Convention, however, bent on circumscribing the
Assembly" seems to give to the Electoral provision read: latter's authority to "contests" relating to the election, etc.
commission the power to determine also the altered the draft. The Convention did not intend to give
election of the members who have not been it all the functions of the Assembly on the subject of
"There shall be an Electoral
protested. And in order to obviate that difficulty, election and qualifications of its members. The distinction
Commission composed of three
we believe that the amendment is right in that is not without a difference. "As used in constitutional
Justices of the Supreme court
sense . . . that is, if we amend the draft so that it provisions", election contest "relates only to statutory
designated by the Chief Justice, and
should read as follows: "All cases contesting the contests in which the contestant seeks not only to oust the
of six Members chosen by the
election, etc.", so that the judges of the Electoral intruder, but also to have himself inducted into the
National Assembly, three of whom
Commission will limit themselves only to cases office."(Laurel on Elections, Second Edition, p. 250; 20
shall be nominated by the party having
in which there has been a protest against the C.J., 58.)
the largest number of votes, and three
returns.
One concrete example will serve to illustrate the remaining power to inquire into the credentials of any member and adopt rules for its proceedings(section 10 [3], Article VI of
power in either House of Congress: A man is elected by a the latter's right to participate in its deliberations. As we the Constitution), and by legislative practice it is conceded
congressional district who had previously served ten years have seen, the assignment by the constitution of the the power to promulgate such orders as may be necessary
in Bilibid Prison for estafa. As he had no opponent, no Electoral Tribunal does not actually negative that power — to maintain its prestige and to preserve its dignity.4 We are
protest is filed. And the Electoral Tribunal has no provided the Senate does not cross the boundary line, advised by the respondents that, after weighing the
jurisdiction, because there is no election contest. (20 C.J., deciding an election contest against the member. Which propriety or impropriety of the step, the Senate, in the
58,supra.) When informed of the fact, may not the the respondents at bar never attempted to do. Precisely, exercise of its authority and discretion and of its inherent
House, motu propio postpone his induction? May not the their resolution recognized, and did not impair, the power of self-preservation, resolved to defer the
House suspend, investigate and thereafter exclude jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal to decide the contest. administration of oath and the sitting of the petitioners
him?3 It must be observed that when a member of the To test whether the resolution trenched on the territory of pending determination of the contest. It is not clear that the
House raises a question as to the qualifications of another, the last named agency let ask the question: May the measure had no reasonable connection with the ends in
an "election contest" does not thereby ensue, because the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate order that Body to defer view, and neither does it palpably transcend the powers of
former does not seek to be substituted for the latter. the admission of any member whose election has been the public deliverative body. On the contrary, there are
contested? Obviously not. Then it must be conceded that reasons to believe it was prompted by the dictates of
the passage of the disputed resolution meant no invasion ordinary caution, or of public policy. For, if, as reported by
So that, if not all the powers regarding the election,
of the former's realm. the corresponding constitutional agency, concededly well-
returns, and qualifications of members was withdrawn by
posted on the matter by reason of its official duties, the
the Constitution from the Congress; and if, as admitted by
elections held in the Provinces of Pampanga, Bulacan,
petitioners themselves at the oral argument, the power to At this juncture the error will be shown of the contention
Tarlac, and Nueva Ecija were so tainted with acts of
defer the oath-taking, until the contests is adjudged, does that the Senate has not this privilege "as a residuary
violence and intimidation, that the result was not the
not belong to the corresponding Electoral Tribunal, then it power". Such contention is premised on the proposition
legitimate expression of the voters' choice, the Senate
must be held that the House or Senate still retains such that the Houses of the Philippine Congress possess only
made no grievous mistake in foreseeing the probability
authority, for it has not been transferred to, nor assumed such powers as are expressly or impliedly granted by the
that, upon proof of such widespread lawlessness, the
by, the Electoral Tribunal. And this result flows, whether Constitution. And an American decision is quoted on the
Electoral Tribunal would annull the returns in that region
we believe that such power (to delay induction) stemmed powers of the United States Congress. The mistake is due
(see Gardiner vs. Romulo, 26 Phil., 521; Laurel, Elections
from the (former) privilege of either House to be judge of to the failure to differentiate between the nature of
[2d ed.], p. 488 et seq.), and declare herein petitioners not
the election, returns, and qualifications of the members legislative power under the Constitution of the United
entitled to seats in the Senate. Consequently, to avoid the
thereof, or whether we hold it to be inherent to every States, and legislative power under the State Constitutions
undesirable result flowing from the participation of
legislative body as a measure of self-preservation. and the Constitution of the Commonwealth (now the
disqualified members in its deliberations, it was prudent for
Republic). It must be observed that the Constitution of the
it to defer the sitting of the respondents. True, they may
United States contains only a grant or delegation of
It is customary that when a number of persons come have no direct connection with the acts of intimidation; yet
legislative powers to the Federal Government, whereas,
together to form a legislative body, ". . . the first the votes may be annulled just the same, and if that
the other Constitutions, like the Constitution of the
organization must be temporary, and if the law does not happens, petitioners would not among the sixteen
Commonwealth (now the Republic), are limits upon the
designate the person who shall preside over such senators elected. Nor was it far-fetched for the Senate to
plenary powers of legislation of the Government. The
temporary organization, the persons assembled and consider that "in order to maintain alive the respect for
legislative power of the United States Congress is confined
claiming to be members may select one of their number for democratic institutions among our people, no man or
to the subject on which it is permitted to act by the Federal
that purpose. The next step is to ascertain in some group of men (should) be permitted to profit from the
constitution. (Dorr vs. United States, 195 U. S., 140;
convenient way the names of the person who are, by results of an election held under coercion, in violation of
Martin vs. Hunter, 1 Wheat., 326; McCullock vs. Maryland,
reason of holding the proper credentials, prima law and contrary to the principle of freedom of choice
4 Wheat., 405; United States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S.,
facie entitled to seats, and therefore entitled to take part in which should underlie all elections under the Constitution."
551.) The legislative power of the Philippine Congress is
permanent organization of the body. In the absence of any (Exhibit A of petitioners' complaint.)
plenary, subject only to such limitations, as are found in
statutory or other regulation upon this subject, a committee
the Republic's Constitution. So that any power, deemed to
on credentials is usually appointed, to whom all credentials
be legislative by usage and tradition, is necessarily a. Justices in the Electoral Tribunals
to be entitled to seats. . . . (Laurel on Elections, Second
possessed by the Philippine Congress, unless the Organic
Edition, pp. 356, 357, quoting McCrary on Elections.)
Act has lodged it elsewhere.
During our deliberations, it was remarked that several
justices subscribing the majority opinion, belong to the
Therefore, independently of constitutional or statutory
Another line of approach. The Senate, as a branch of the electoral tribunals wherein protests connected with the
grant, the Senate has, under parliamentary practice, the
legislative department, had the constitutional power to Central Luzon polls await investigation. Mulling over this,
we experience no qualmish feelings about the Gonzales vs. Ross (Gonzales vs. Ross), 120 Aruego,supra, and of others — have persuasive force.
coincidence. Their designation to the electoral tribunals U.S., 605; 7 Sup. Ct. Rep., 705. (Op. cit., p. 55.)
deducted not a whit from their functions as members of
this Supreme Court, and did not disqualify them in this
Officers charged with the performance of a But their personal opinion on the matter at issue
litigation. Nor will their deliverances here at on a given
public duty are presumed to perform it correctly. expressed during our deliberations stand on a different
question operate to prevent them from voting in the
Quinlan vs. Greene Country, 205 U.S., 410; 27 footing: If based on a "fact" known to them, but not duly
electoral forum on identical questions; because the
Sup. Ct. Rep., 505. (United State Supreme established or judicially cognizable, it is immaterial, and
Constitution, establishing no incompatibility between the
Court Reports Digest, Vol. 5, p. 3188.) their brethren are not expected to take their word for it, to
two roles, naturally did not contemplate, nor want, justices
the prejudice of the party adversely affected, who had no
opining one way here, and thereafter holding
chance of rebuttal. If on a matter of legal hermeneutics,
otherwise, pari materia, in the electoral tribunals, or vice- It is presumed that the legislature has acted
their conclusions may not, simply on account of
versa. within its constitutional powers. (See cases cited
membership in the Convention, be a shade better, in the
at p. 257, 16 C.J.S., note 1.)
eyes of the law. There is the word "deference" to be sure.
Anyhow, these should be no diversity of thought in a But deference is a compliment spontaneously to be paid
democratic country, at least, on the legal effects of the And should there be further doubt, by all the maxims of — never a tribute to be demanded.
alleged rampant lawlessness, root and basis of the prudence, left alone comity, we should heed the off-limits
Pendatun Resolution. sign at the Congressional Hall, and check the impulse to
And if we should (without intending any disparagement)
rush in to set matters aright — firm in the belief that if a
compare the Constitution's enactment to a drama on the
political fraud has been accomplished, as petitioners aver,
However, it must be observed and emphasized, herein is stage or in actual life, we would realize that intelligent
the sovereign people, ultimately the offended party, will
no definite pronouncement that terrorism and spectators or readres often know as much, if not more,
render the fitting verdict — at the polling precints.
violenceactually prevailed in the district to such extent that about the real meanings, effects or tendency is of the
the result was not the expression of the free will of the event, or incidents thereof, as some of the actors
electorate. Such issue was not tendered in these c. Membership in the Constitutional Convention themselves, who sometimes become so absorbed in
proceedings. It hinges upon proof to be produced by fulfilling their emotional roles that they fail to watch the
protestants and protestees at the hearing of the respective other scenes or to meditate on the larger aspects of the
The theory has been proposed — modesty aside — that
contests. whole performance, or what is worse, become so
the dissenting members of this Court who were delegates infatuated with their lines as to construe the entire story
to the Constitutional Convention and were "co-authors of according to their prejudices or frustrations. Perspective
b. Doubt and presumption. the Constitution" "are in a better position to interpret" that and disinterestedness help certainly a lot in examining
same Constitution in this particular litigation. actions and occurrences.
After all is said or written, the most that may be conceded
to the industry of petitioners' counsel is that the Senate There is no doubt that their properly recorded utterances Come to think of it, under the theory thus proposed,
power, or lack of power, to approve the resolution is not during the debates and proceedings of the Convention Marshall and Holmes (names venerated by those who
entirely clear. We should, therefore, indulge the deserve weight, like those of any other delegate therein. have devoted a sizable portion of their professionals lives
presumption that official duty has been performed Note, however, that the proceedings of the Convention to analyzing or solving constitutional problems and
regularly, (Rule 123, section 69, Rule of Court), and in the "are less conclusive of the power construction of the developments) were not so authoritative after all in
right manner: instrument than are legislative proceedings of the proper
expounding the United States Constitution — because
construction of a statute; since in the latter case it is the they were not members of the Federal Convention that
intent of the legislature we seek, while in the former we are framed it!
It is a general principle to presume that public
endeavoring to arrive at the intent of the people through
officers act correctly until the contrary is shown.
the discussions and deliberations of their representatives.
United States vs. Weed, 5 Wall., 62.
(Willoughby on the Constitution, Vol. I, pp. 54, 55.) D.—ALLEGED DUTY OF RESPONDENTS
Justice Jaranilla absent. Although the belief expressed in the majority resolution is,
The Supreme Court in banc adopted then the following in effect, a moral injunction, addressed solely to the sense
resolution:
of responsibility, fairness, decency, and patriotism of
Justice Perfecto dissents as follows: respondents, without any enforceable legal sanction, the
The court in banc, having been informed that a majority being sure that respondents will not betray the
writ of preliminary injunction has been issued in The facts alleged in the petition show that trust reposed on them, yet we felt it our duty to dissent
G.R. No. L-543, Jose O. Vera vs. Jose Avelino petitioners' fundamental rights have been because in questions so important as those raised in this
by Justice Perfecto under sections 2 and 5 of trampled upon in open defiance of the law and case we do not agree with indirect and diplomatic
Rule 60, Resolved to set for hearing the petition the Constitution; that respondents, in adopting procedures, with wavering, innocious and hesitating
for preliminary injunction on Saturday, June 1st, the Pendatun Resolution and trying to enforce it, action, with laodicean measures and resolutions, with
1946, at 10 o'clock a.m., for the purpose of usurped constitutional functions exclusively equivocal, furtive, and not forth putting attitude. In judicial
determining whether or not the issuance of said entrusted by the people to the Electoral Tribunal matters, the best policy is forthrightness, not ambiguity.
writ was justified. Let notice be given to all the of the Senate, as an independent and separate The way of Themis is always rectilinear. Her path is never
parties. department of the government; that the people tortuous, labyrinthine, or misleading.
Without any attempt at prophecy, not long after the The Senate and the House of Representatives reasons behind the adoption of the Pendatun Resolution,
resolution dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction, shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall we read:
events have shown the moral, indirect, or admonitory be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
injunctions by courts of justice are mere sounds election, returns, and qualifications of their
The Senate considers it against its dignity and
transcribed on scraps of paper, not worthier than the respective members. Each Electoral Tribunal
inimical to its welfare and integrity to allow
sheets on which they are written. Hocking at the credulity, shall be composed of nine members, three of
petitioners to sit as members pending the final
ingenuousness, and compliance of the majority of this whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to
determination of the question whether or not
court, with the exclusion of petitioners, respondents be designated by the Chief Justice, and the
they were duly elected . . . it was an expression
proceeded to carryout the acts alleged in the last part of remaining six shall be members of the Senate or
of the legislative (?) policy, a desire on the part
paragraph X of the petition, such as the approval of the of the House of Representatives, as the case
of the Senate to recognize only members whom
Bell bill, the revamping of the judiciary system of the may be, who shall be chosen by each House,
it believes were legally elected. (Emphasis
Philippines, including the unconstitutional reduction of the three upon nomination of the party having the
supplied.)
membership of the Supreme Court from the eleven to largest number of votes and three of the party
seven, and the measure which would wipe out the time- having the second largest number of votes
honored principle of stability in the Philippine civil service therein. The senior Justice in each Electoral The respondents do not constitute the Senate Electoral
system, by placing many thousands of public officers and Tribunal shall be its Chairman. Tribunal which has the exclusive jurisdiction to exercise
employees in iniquitous insecurity in the positions in which said power. The fact that latter three among the
they have invested the be stenergies in years of public respondent Senators were chosen to be members of said
The constitution of the Electoral Tribunals is provided in
service. Tribunal does not change the situation, nor cures the
section 13 of Article VI of the Constitution, wherein it is
constitution inroad. They, therefore, in adopting the
required that they shall be constituted "within thirty days
Pendatun Resolution, usurped a power, a jurisdiction, and
For the nonce, it will be hard to gauge and appraise the full after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall
an authority exclusively belonging to the Senate Electoral
consequences of the resolution of June 5, 1946, dissolving have been organized with the election of their President
Tribunal. The usurpation has been perpetrated in flagrant
the writ of preliminary injunction based on the majority's and Speaker, respectively."
violation of the Constitution. The Pendatun Resolution,
belief and trust that events have shown to be completely
being unconstitutional, is null and void per se.
hazy and groundless. It is only our fervent hope that the
From the foregoing, it is evident that the power to judge "all
consequences, whatever they may be, may not dampen
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications"
the enthusiasm of those who have reposed so much faith Among the Justices who voted to declare it invalid,
of senators and representatives, is exclusively lodged in
in the success of our sovereign Republic as the pursuivant because it wimbles the fundamental law, are two former
the respective Electoral Tribunal, the exclusivity being
heralding a new era to all subjected peoples. members of the constitutional convention and of its
emphasized by the use of the word "sole" by the drafters of
committee on style, who took active part in the creation of
the Constitution.
the Electoral Commission, and a former member of the
On June 8, 1946, petitioners filed a motion praying that the
Second National Assembly which, by constitutional
above majority's resolution of June 3, 1946, be
By the Pedatun Resolution, respondents exercised, in amendment, created the present Senate and the two
reconsidered and that the writ of preliminary injunction be
effect, the power to judge "the election, returns, and Electoral Tribunals. Justice Hontiveros, one of the present
restored. It remained deplorably unacted upon for weeks
qualifications" of petitioners as senators of the Philippines, three Justices who took part in the framing of the original
until respondents were able to consummate the acts
duly proclaimed as elected on April 23, 1946. Constitution, did not participate in the voting.
above mentioned.
From the very words of respondents themselves there can We have to bring out these facts because it is only logical
That action continues now to be pending before us for
be no possible mistakes as to the fact that, in adopting the that the co-authors of the Constitution and of its
decision, the same as respondents' motion to dismiss.
Pendatun Resolution, they exercised the judicial power to amendments must be in a better position to interpret their
judge a controversy concerning the election of petitioners own will, intention, and purposes as they expressed them
VI.—UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION as senators of the Philippines. in their own words in the fundamental law.
Section 11 of Article VI of the Constitution reads as From their motion to dismiss dated June 6, 1946, through VI.-A.—THE INTENT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE
follows: Solicitor General Lorenzo Tañada and Atty. Vicente J. CONSTITUTION IS IDENTICAL WITH THE
Francisco, himself one of the Senate, referring to the INTENT OF THEIR DELEGATES
Even the majority themselves admit that, in construing the law and the latter with the enactment of ordinary laws does they were not members of the federal convention that
Constitution of the United States, the writings in "The not change their common character as representatives framed it, eventhough, it should be recalled, Chief Justice
Federalist" of the delegates of the constitutional and mouthpieces of the people. In either the Constitution Marshall was one of the outstanding figures in the Virginia
convention, such as Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, have or in the ordinary statutes, it is the thought and the will of convention that ratified said Constitution. The mention is
persuasive force, the same as the book of Delegate the people which are expressed. What that thought and out of place, because it has not been, and can not be,
Aruego and of other members of our own constitutional that will are can only be gathered from the way they are shown that the constitutional opinions of Marshall and
convention concerning the Constitution of the Philippines. expressed by the representatives. The thought and the will Holmes, for which they were hailed as authorities, are in
It is only logical that the authors themselves should be in of the people are interpreted and expressed by the conflict with what Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and other
the advantageous situation of construing more exactly the representatives and crystallized in the words uttered and delegates to the federal convention had said or written as
product of their own minds. written by them. No one may pretend to know the meaning to the intent expressed in said fundamental law; while in
of the expressions uttered of the provisions written better the present controversy, there is an actual conflict of
than the very persons who poured on them their own interpretation between former delegates and those who
But, as if repenting for making the admission, foreseeing
thoughts and decisions. The thought and the will of the never have been, and it happens that the former members
the damaging consequences thereof for the majority's
people remain in the abstract, are incapable of caption, are of the constitutional convention taking part in the disposal
position, they tried to neutralize it or subtract its validity by
more ideological entities, and do not form and cannot be of this case, are unanimous in construing the document in
seconding the sophistic distinction made by Willoughby as
pointed out or determined until and unless their the drafting of which they took personal and active part.
to the conclusiveness of the parliamentary proceedings as
representatives in the constitutional convention are in the
means by proper construction of the Constitution, on one
legislature express them in concrete and specific words of
side, and of the statutes, on the other, since in the Of course, in our atmosphere of freedom of opinion,
their own. The collective entity of the people is, by its very
legislative proceedings "it is the intent of the legislature we outsiders may perfectly claim and pretend to know what
in being, inarticulate. It becomes articulate only through its
seek, " while in the preceedings of the constitution the delegates to our constitutional convention intended to
chosen representatives. Its will is an aphlogistic amber that
convention "we are endeavoring to arrive at the intent of express in the Constitution better than the delegates
becomes aflame only in the parliamentary actuations of its
the people through the discussions and the liberations of themselves, as it is possible for some anthropologists to
delegates.
their representative." The distinction is absolutely claim that they are in a position to recognize the children of
groundless. In either the constitutional convention are in some parents better than the parents themselves. But
the legislature, it is the people who speak through their And if we are not dreaming, we must accept the fact that everybody must also agree that such feats of clairvoyance
delegates and representatives, and the intent of the people what the representatives of the people stereotype either in are not within the range of normal experience and,
may only be gathered from the utterances of said a constitution or in ordinary laws are their own personal therefore, must not ordinarily be accepted at their face
delegates and representatives. The "intent of the opinions and convictions, their own individual and personal value.
legislature" in ordinary laws is the "intent of the people," thoughts and wills, although in doing so they act in their
both and being undistinguishable for all practical purposes. representative capacity. We, the members of the Supreme
VII.—UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURE
And the "intent of the people" in a constitutional convention Court, are also representatives of the people and are
is identified with the "intent" of their delegates thereof. It is performing our official functions in are presentative
absurd, in practical, and against the realities of all capacity, but the opinions we express and write flow, not The Pendatun Resolution has been adopted when there
experience to mention "intent of the people" as something from any extrinsic or indwelling reservoir of justice, was no quorum in the Senate. Those present were only
different from and in opposition to the intent of their own reserved to us by the sovereign people, but from the 12, all respondent senators.
representatives. The delegates and representatives are spiritual fountain of our own personal consciousness.
the mouthpiece of the people. In the system of the
representative democracy prevailing in the United States When respondents adopted the resolution, they
We will not dare to dispute any one's claim to wield, in purportedly adopted it as a resolution of the Senate.
of America and in the Philippines, the people never speak
interpreting the fundamental law, the same authority of
by themselves, but by their chosen mouthpieces — the
such judicial giants as Marshall and Holmes, but we
voters in the matter of selection of government officers, Section 10 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution provides that
consider it completely out of place to conclude that,
and the officers in the matter of expressing the people's "a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do
because in the present constitutional controversy we
will in government or state matters. business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to
maintain that the co-authors of our fundamental law are in
better position to construe the very document in which they day and may compel the attendance of absent members in
There is no essential difference between the parliamentary have infused the ideas which boiled in their minds, and such manner and under such penalties as such House
may provide."
role of the delegates to a constitutional convention and gave a definite form to their own convictions and
that of the members of a legislature. The fact that the decisions, said great justices shall not be so authoritative
former are charged with the drafting of the fundamental in expounding the United States Constitution, because
It is evident, therefore, that, to do business, the Senate, arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, or It is a duty from which respondents can not legally escape.
being composed of 24 members, needs the presence of at both. Otherwise they will invite the sword of Damocles of
least 13 senators. "A smaller number may adjourn from criminal prosecution to be hanging on their heads. As the
day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Supreme Court of Kansas said in Re Gunn. 19 L.R.A.,
Art. 234. Refusal to discharge elective office.—
members," but not in exercising any other power, such as 519:
The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not
the adoption of the Pendatun Resolution.
exceeding 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be
imposed upon any person who, having been But, again we have what is known as a
The procedure used by respondents in adopting the elected by popular election to a public office, "standard work" on parliamentary or legislative
Pendatun Resolution is, therefore, conclusively shall refuse without legal motive to be sworn in practice. It is found in almost every public library,
unconstitutional. or to discharge the duties of said office. is examined and referred to by every legislative
assembly and every congressional body, and its
title is "Cushing's Law and Practice of Legislative
VIII.—CRIMINAL OFFENSES No one may prevent them from performing the duties of
Assemblies." . . . In section 240 it is said: "the
their office, such as attending the meetings of the Senate
principle of parliamentary law applicable to the
or of any of its committees or subcommittees, or from
Petitioners are among the senators who, having been question are perfectly simple and plain, founded
expressing their opinions or casting their votes, without
proclaimed elected by the Commission on Elections, are in the very nature of things, established by the
being criminally guilty of a violation of parliamentary
duty bound to assume office from May 23, 1946, under the uniform practice and authority of parliament,
immunity, a criminal offense punished by the Penal Code
following mandatory provision of section 12 of confirmed by reason and analogy. These
withprision mayor.
Commonwealth Act No. 725: principles are as follows: First, that every person
duly returned is a member, whether legally
ART. 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity.— elected or not, until his election is set aside;
SEC. 12. The candidates for member of the second, that no person who is not duly returned,
The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed
House of Representatives and those for Senator
upon any person who shall use force, is a member, although legally elected, until his
who have been proclaimed elected by the election is established; third, that conflicting
intimidation, threats, or fraud to prevent any
respective Board of Canvassers and the claimants, both in form legally returned (that
member of the National Assembly
Commission on Elections shall assume office
(Congress)from attending the meetings of the would be where two persons had certificates),
and shall hold regular session for the year are neither of them entitled to be considered as
Assembly (Congress) or of any of its committees
nineteen hundred and forty-six on May twenty- members until the question between them has
or subcommittees, constitutional commissions or
five, nineteen hundred and forty-six. Within been settled; fourth, that those members who
committees or divisions thereof, from expressing
thirty-five days after the election has been held, are duly returned, and they alone — the
his opinions or casting his vote; and the penalty
both Houses of Congress shall meet in session members whose rights are to determined being
of prision correccional shall be imposed upon
and shall publicly count the votes cast for the excluded — constitute the judicial tribunal for the
any public officer or employee who shall, while
offices of President and Vice-President, in decision of all questions of this nature." Upon
the Assembly (Congress) is in regular or special
accordance with Article VII, section two of the
session, arrest or search any member thereof, this question of certificates, we also cite the
Constitution. The persons respectively having contest in the United States Senate from
except this Code by a penalty higher than prision
the largest number of votes for President and Montana, which is the latest utterance of the
mayor. (Words in parenthesis supplied.)
Vice-President shall be declared elected; but in
highest legislative body in this land. In the report
case two or more candidates shall have an of the majority of the committee it is said: "The
equal and largest number of votes for either From the foregoing, it is evident that respondents have the majority of the committee are of the opinion that,
office, one of them shall be chosen President or inexcusable duty of recognizing petitioners as legal
if this body of persons had lawful and
Vice-President, as the case may be, by a members of the Senate, otherwise they may be liable to constitutional certificates of their election, that
majority vote of the members of Congress in criminal prosecution for an offense defined and punished title is a good title against all the world,
joint session assembled. by the Penal Code with imprisonment ranging from 6 years
governing their associates in that body,
to 12 years. governing the senate, governing everybody who
If petitioners should fail to discharge the duties of their had a lawful duty to determine who are lawfully
respective offices, they will incur criminal responsibility and IX.—PETITIONERS' CREDENTIALS CONCLUSIVE AS elected representatives, until there can be an
may be punished, according to the Penal Code, with TO THEIR RIGHT TO THEIR SEATS IN THE SENATE adjudication by the House itself to the contrary;
and that nobody can be heard to say, and that
no authority can be permitted to inquire into or holder of a certificate of election who has duly Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, 9th
determine, the actual facts of the election as qualified is prima facie entitled to the office when ed., sec. 166). (Angara vs. Electoral
against the title." (51st Congress, 1st Session his term begins, as against everyone except Commission, 63 Phil., 139, 180, 181.)
[21 Cong. Record, pt. 3, pp. 2906-2810], p. 521.) a de facto officer in possession under color of
authority. He is entitled to retain possession and
As a matter of fact, in the Gunn case, the Supreme Court
to perform the duties of the office without
The court also quoted from the American and English of Kansas had occasion to comment on the exclusion of
interference until such certificate is set aside by
Encyclopedia, saying: ten duly proclaimed members from the roll of the House,
some appropriate proceeding." (22 R. C. L., 436,
and unhesitatingly condemned it in these words:
437.)
The American and English Encyclopedia
summarizes the law of the worth of a certificate It seems that while 10 contestants are marked in
This Supreme Court laid down the same doctrine by
of election as follows: "It is settled that when it is the Dunsmore Journal as present, but not voting,
stating the following:
made the duty of certain officers to canvass the 10 names on the certified roll are wholly omitted.
votes, and issue a certificate of election in favor Any rightful reason for such omission does not
of the successful candidate, a certificate of such . . . As a matter of fact, certification by the proper appear. We cannot perceive any valid reason for
officers, regular upon its face, is sufficient to provincial board of canvassers is sufficient to such omission, even if 10 certified members had
entitle the person holding it to the possession of entitle a member-elect to a seat in the National their seats contested. Every person duly
the office during an action to contest the right." Assembly and to render him eligible to any office returned too a house of representatives, and
Volume 6, p. 373; 33 Law. ed., 948; State vs. in said body (No. 1, par. 1, Rules of the National having a certificate, is a member thereof,
Buckland (23 Kan., 369). Assembly, adopted December 6, 1935) whether elected or not, whether eligible or not,
until his election is set aside. And this must be
set aside by the House, not by the individual
The court might well have added that Ruling Case Law Under the practice prevailing both in the English
members before organization, not by anyone
wholly confirms its stand: House of Commons and in the Congress of the
member, not by any contestant, not by any mob.
United States, confirmation is neither necessary
Before organization, a few members properly
in order to entitle a member-elect to take his
. . . The certificate entitles the recipient to elected, meeting in causus or otherwise, cannot
seat. The return of the proper election officers is
exercise the office until the regular constitutional pass upon the "elections, returns, and
sufficient, and the member-elect presenting such
authority shall determine who is legally elected qualification of a members of the House to be
return begins to enjoy the privileges of a
officer, and it is duty of the incumbent of an thereafter organized." If one member, before
member from the time that he takes his oath of
office at the expiration of his term to surrender it organization can object to any other member
office (Laws of England, vol. 12, pp. 331, 332;
to one who has received a certificate of election duly returned and having a certificate, then all
vol. 21, pp. 694, 695;U. S. C. A., Title 2, secs.
and has qualified thereunder. If it is desired to members can be objected to, and there could be
21, 25, 26). Confirmation is in order only in
contest the election or qualification of such no one left to organize any house. In McCraryon
cases of contested elections where the decision
person, this may be done in the manner Election (2d ed., s. 204) the practice is thus
is adverse to the claims of the protestant. In
prescribed by law for determining claims to an stated; "Where two or more persons claim the
England, the judges' decision or report in
office. Disbursing officers, charges with the same office, and where a judicial investigation is
controverted election is certified to the Speaker
payment of salaries, have a right to rely on the required to settle the contest upon the merits, it
of the House of Commons, and the House, upon
apparent title, and treat the officer who is clothed is often necessary to determine which of the
being informed of such certificate or report by
with it as the officer de jure, without inquiring claimants shall be permitted to qualify and to
the Speaker, is required to enter the same upon
whether another has the better right. While a exercise the functions of the office pending such
the Journals, and to give such directions for
certificate of election may be superseded by a investigation. If the office were to remain vacant
confirming or altering the return, or for the issue
decree in proceedings to contest the election, it pending the contest, it might frequently happen
of a writ for a new election, or for carrying into
cannot be subjected to attack in a collateral that the greater part of the term would expire
execution the determination as circumstances
proceeding in which the title may be in question; before it could be filled; and thus the interests of
may require (31 & 32 Vict., c. 125, sec. 13). In
and if the time should pass within which such the people might suffer for the want of a public
the United States, it is believed, the order or
proceeding may be instituted the title may officer. Besides, if the mere institution of a
decision of the particular house itself is generally
become absolute and indefeasible in default of contest were deemed sufficient to prevent the
regarded as sufficient, without any actual
any contest. Hence it has been said that the swearing in of the person holding the usual
alteration or amendment of the return (Cushing,
credentials, it is easy to see that every great and
serious injustice might be done. If this were the We agree that not enough emphasis may be placed on Although the Pro delegates of the convention were only
rule, it would only be necessary for an evil- said case, although not as an isolated one but as the initial about one-fifth of all the members, some of them were
disposed person to contest the right of his link of a chain of historical events handing with the leading elected to preside over important committees--Rafael
successful rival, and to protract the contest as and epoch-making, although not enough of the publicized Palma, on principles; Jose P. Laurel, on the bill of rights;
long as possible, in order to deprive the latter of case of Angara vs. Electoral Commission, decided on July Manuel C. Briones, on legislative power; and ourselves on
his office for at least a part of the term; and this 15, 1936, which reversed the pusillanimous, vacillating, citizenship. By his leading and influential role in the
might be done by a contest having little or no and self-contradictory majority position taken in drafting of the Constitution, Manuel A. Roxas was pointed
merit on his side for it would be impossible to Alejandrino vs. Quezon, decided on September 11, 1924. out as the Hamilton of our convention.
discover in advance of an investigation the
absence of merit. And, again, if the party holding
A little piece of history will be helping. With such men and with their background, the convention
the ordinary credentials to an office could be
introduced the innovation of creating the Electoral
kept out of the office by the mere institution of a
Commission of the National Assembly, to which the power
contest, the organization of a legislative body- In 1925, Nicolas A. Rafols was reelected as representative
to judge upon the election, returns, and qualifications of
such, for example, as the House of from one district of Cebu. The House of Representatives of
legislators, formerly exercised by legislative bodies, was
Representatives of the United States-might be the 7th Philippine Legislature suspended his seating. The
transferred. The innovation was introduced precisely with
altogether prevented by instituting contest resolution for suspension was passed after a bitter
the purpose of avoiding the repetition of such abuses and
against a majority of the members; or what is parliamentary debate between members of the majority
injustices as those committed against Rafols, by lodging
more to be apprehended, the relative strength of belonging to the Nacionalista Party and the members of
the judicial power of deciding electoral contests for
political parties against members of one or the the minority belonging to the Democrata Party. The House
legislative positions to where it should logically belong--to
other of such parties. These considerations have was then presided over by Speaker Manuel A. Roxas, now
a judicial body, which is expected to do justice and not to
made it necessary to adopt and to adhere to the President of the Philippines, and among those who with us
serve partisan political interests without compunctions and
rule that the person holding the ordinary opposed the resolution for suspension were
scruples.
credential shall be qualified and allowed to act Representative Jose Avelino from Samar, now President
pending a contest and until a decision can be of the Senate, and the minority floor leader, Claro M.
had on the merits. Recto, who later became President of the House of Although the initiative came from the minority, Pros, it was
Representatives. The arbitrariness and injustice committed whole heartedly supported by the majority Anti leaders.
against Representative Rafols were bitterly resented and The members of the constitutional convention, with the
Now, why should not this principle be followed?
rankled deep in the hearts of the minority who felt they most prominent leaders thereof, were fully aware of how
Why should not this rule, which is universal
were despotically trampled upon by a bulldozing majority. changeable the political fortunes of men are, and it was in
throughout the states of this Union, and which is
the interest of everybody that the rights of the minority be
accepted and adopted by Congress, be followed
equally protected as those of the majority.
in the state of Kansas? It has history to sustain The Pro-Anti political struggle in 1934 resulted in new
it. It has reason to sustain it. And let us here alignments. Former Democratas Avelino and Recto
remark that in every state of this Union where, happened to align with the Anti majority, the same as Through Justice Laurel, a former member of the
through political excitement or personal Justice Hontiveros, who also became a Delegate to the constitutional convention, this Supreme Court said:
contests, a different rule has been adopted, constitutional convention; and former Nacionalistas
disturbance, violence, and almost bloodshed Manuel A. Roxas and Manuel C. Briones happened to
The members of the Constitutional Convention
have always occurred. (Pp. 522-523.) align with the Pro minority.
who framed our fundamental law were in their
majority men mature in years and experience.
X.—ELECTORAL CONTESTS ON LEGISLATIVE In 1934, the constitutional convention was presided over To be sure, many of them were familiar with the
POSITIONS by Claro M. Recto, as President, Ruperto Montinola, as history and political development of other
First Vice President, and Teodoro Sandico, as Second countries of the world. When, therefore, they
Vice President. All of them belonged to the Democrata deemed it wise to create an Electoral
Much reliance has been placed by respondents on the
Party when in 1925 injustice was committed against Commission as a constitutional organ and
Rafols case in support of their authority to suspend the
Representative Rafols. Recto and Sandico were aligned invested it with the exclusive function of passing
seatings of petitioners through the Pendatun Resolution.
with the Anti majority and Montinola with the Pro minority. upon and determining the election, returns, and
qualifications of the members of the National
Assembly, they must have done so not only in
the light of their own experience of other originally in the legislature. The express lodging The drafters of the constitution were fully acquainted with
enlightened peoples of the world. The creation of that power in the Electoral Commission is an the then prevailing confusions and misconceptions as to
of the Electoral Commission was designed to implied denial of the exercise of that power by the meaning of the principle of separation of powers. One
remedy certain evils of which the framers of our the National Assembly. And this is as effective a outstanding instance is shown in the self-contradicting,
Constitution were cognizant. Nothwithstanding restriction upon the legislative power as an courageless decision in Alejandrino vs. Quezon (46 Phil.,
the vigorous opposition of some members of the express prohibition in the Constitution (Ex parte 83), where the majority deflected from the natural and
convention to its creation, the plan, as Lewis, 45 Tex. Crim. Rep., 1; State vs. logical consequences of the premises unanimously agreed
hereinabove stated, was approved by that body Whisman, 36 S. D., 260; L. R. A., 1917B, 1). upon by all the members of the court using as a subterfuge
by a vote of 98 against 58. All that can be said (Angara vs. Electoral commission, 63 Phil., 139, an erroneous, disrupting, and subversive interpretation
now is that, upon the approval of the 174-176.) and application of the principle of separation of powers,
Constitution, the creation of the Electoral becoming since a fetish of a class of unanalytical
Commission is the expression of the wisdom constitutional doctrinaires, distressingly unmindful of its
XI.—SEPARATION OF POWERS
and "ultimate justice of the people." (Abraham dangerous implications, eager to emulate, in proclaiming it
Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.) as a legal dogma, the plangent exertions of housetop
There is much misunderstanding as to the real import bawlers preaching the virtues of a new panacea.
meaning, and scope of the much vaunted principle of
From the deliberations of our constitutional
separation of power due to the confusion in many minds
convention it is evident that the purpose was to Fully knowing the prevailing misconceptions regarding said
between two conceptions: one, naive and vulgar; and the
transfer in its totality all the powers previously principle, although there was an implicit agreement that it
other, constitutional and strictly juridical. The trouble lies in
exercised by the legislature in matter pertaining is one of those underlying principles of government
the fact that, for lack of more appropriate term, the
to contested elections of its members, to an ordered by the Constitution to be established, the
word separation has been used to convey a group of
indefendent and impartial tribunal. It was not so delegates to the constitutional convention purposely
concepts and ideas, when the word only expresses just
much the knowledge and appreciation of avoided its inclusion in the Declaration of Principles
one of partial aspect of one of said concepts and ideas.
contemporary constitutional precedents, inserted as Article II of the fundamental law. They even
Thus a misconception results by confounding a part with
however, as the long-felt need of determining went to the extent of avoiding to mention it by the phrase it
the whole or the whole with the part.
legislative contests devoid of partisan is designated.
considerations which prompted the people,
acting through their delegates to the Convention, The vulgar notion of separation of powers appears to be
XII.—CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPTION—THE ONLY
to provide for this body known as the Electoral simple, rudimentary, and clear-cut. As a consequence, the
ONE ACCEPTABLE
Commission. With this end in view, a composite principle of separation of powers creates in the mind of the
body in which both the majority and minority ignorant or uninitiated the images of the different
parties are equally represented to off-set departments of government as individual units, each one The only acceptable conception of the principle of
partisan influence in its deliberations was existing independently, all alone by itself, completely separation of powers within our democracy in the
created, and further endowed with judicial disconnected from the remaining all others. The picture in constitutional one. We must reject any idea of it as
temper by including in its membership three their mental panorama offers, in effect, the appearance of something existing by itself, independent of the
justices of the Supreme Court. each department as a complete government by itself. Each Constitution and, as some misguided jurist would have it,
governmental department appears to be a veritable state even superior to the fundamental law of the land.
in the general set up of the Philippine state, like the
The Electoral commission is a constitutional
autonomous kingdoms and princedoms of them a harajahs
creation, invested with the necessary authority in The separation of powers is a fundamental
of India. Such undiscerning and rudimentary notion can
the performance and execution of the limited principle in our system of government. It obtains
not fit in the pattern framed by the Filipino people through
and specific function assigned to it by the not through express provision but by actual
their representatives in the constitutional convention. The
Constitution. division in our Constitution. Each department of
true concept of the principle of separation of powers may
the government has exclusive cognizance of
not be obtained but in conjunction with the political
matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme
The grant of power to the Electoral Commission structure set up by the Constitution and only in accordance
within its own sphere. . . . The Constitution has
to judge all contests relating to the election, with the specific provisions thereof.
provided for an elaborate system of checks and
returns and qualifications of members of the
balances to secure coordination in the workings
National Assembly, is intended to be as
of the various departments of the government.
complete and unimpaired as if it had remained
For example, the Chief Executive under our The idea of unity is fundamental in our Constitution. Representatives, through the Commission on
Constitution is so far made a check on the Appointments, take part in the exercise of the executive
legislative power that this assent is required in power of appointment (section 12, Article VI, and section
The Filipino people ordained and promulgated the
the enactment of laws. This, however, is subject 10 [3], Article VII, of the Constitution), and in the granting
Constitution "in order to establish a government that shall
to the further check that a bill may become a law of amnesty and in making treaties (section 10 [6] and 10
embody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony
notwithstanding the refusal of the President to [7], Article VII, of theConstitution). The Supreme Court
of the nation, promote the general welfare, and secure to
approve it, by a vote of two-thirds or three- exercises executive power regarding the transfer of judges
themselves and their posterity the blessings of
fourths, as the case may be, of the National from their districts to another. (Section 7, Article VIII, of the
independence under a regime of justice, liberty and
Assembly. The President has also the right to Constitution.) Tribunals' power to order the execution of
democracy" (Preamble of the Constitution). "The
convene the Assembly in special session their decisions and mandates is of executive character.
Philippines is a republic state. Sovereignty resides in the
whenever he chooses. On the other hand, the
people and all government authority emanates from them"
National Assembly operates as check on the
(section 1, Article 11, Constitution). Under this principle we The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in
Executive in the sense that its consent through
must view the whole government as a unit, and all such inferior court as may be established by law (section
its Commission on Appointments is necessary in
departments and other government organs, agencies and 1, Article VIII, of the Constitution).But there are many
the appointment of certain officers; and the
instrumentalities as parts of that unit in the same was as instances wherein the President of the Philippines must
concurrence of a majority of all its members is
the head, the hands, and the heart are parts of a human administer justice, so it is required from him by the
essential to the conclusion of treaties.
body. Constitution to swear to "do justice to every man" (section
Furthermore, in its power to determine what
7, Article VII, of the Constitution). And by impeachment
courts other than the Supreme Court shall be
proceedings, the House of Representatives and the
established, to define their jurisdiction and to By examining the provisions of the Constitution, the vulgar
Senate exercise judicial function (Article IX, of the
appropriate funds for their support, the National notion of the principle of separation of powers can be
Constitution). Their power to construe and apply their own
Assembly controls the judicial department to a shown to be wrong, as there is neither an office nor a
rules and their disciplinary power to punish their own
certain extent. The Assembly also exercises the department, created or allowed to be created under the
members for disorderly conduct are of judicial nature.
judicial power of trying impeachments. And the Constitution, that may be considered as effectively
judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the separate from the others, as the misinformed people would
final arbiter, effectively checks the other have it. As a matter of fact, there is no government power Furthermore, there are specific functions of government
departments in the exercise of its power to vested exclusively in any authority, office, or government entrusted to agencies other than the three great
determine the law, and hence to declare agency. Section 1 of Article VI vests the legislative power departments of government, the legislative, the executive,
executive and legislative acts void if violative of in a Congress of the Philippines, but this provision does and the judicial. The judicial function of judging contests as
the Constitution. (Angara vs. Electoral not preclude the President of the Philippines and the to election, returns, and qualifications of senators in
Commission, 63 Phil., 139, 156, 157.) Supreme Court from partaking in the exercise of legislative entrusted to the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate; and that
power. The President has the initiative in the making of of judging contests as to election, returns, and
appropriations which may not be increased by Congress qualifications of representatives, to the Electoral Tribunal
The framers of the Constitution had never intended to
except those pertaining to Congress itself and the judicial of the House of Representatives (section 11, Article VI, of
create or allow the existence of governmental departments
department, and the President may veto any bill enacted the Constitution).The executive function of auditing the
as autonomous states within the republican state of the
by Congress (sections 19 and 20, Article VI, of the government accounts is entrusted to a constitutional
Philippines. The three departments mentioned in the
Constitution). The Supreme Court may declare officer, the Auditor General (Article XI, of the Constitution),
Constitution were created, not as complete independent
unconstitutional and, therefore, nullify a law enacted by and the administrative function of supervising elections is
units, but as limbs and organs of the organic unit of the
Congress and approved by the President of the Philippines entrusted to the Commission on Elections (Article X, of the
department is independent and separate from the others in
(sections 2 and 10, Article VIII, of the Constitution). The Constitution).
the sense that it is an organ specifically entrusted with the
Supreme Court exercises, besides, legislative power in
performance of specific functions, not only for the sake of
promulgating rules concerning pleading, practice, and
efficiency resulting from division of labor, but to avoid To understand well the true meaning of the principle of
procedure in all courts (section 13, Article VIII, of the
tyranny, despotism, and dictatorship which, as experience separation of powers, it is necessary to remember and pay
Constitution)
and history have taught, result from the concentration of special attention to the fact that the idea of separation
government powers in one person or in an oligarchical refers, not to departments, organs, or other government
group. The executive power is vested in a President of the agencies, but to powers exercised. The things separated
Philippines (section 1, Article VII, Constitution of the are not the subject of the powers, but the functions to be
Philippines), but the Senate and House of performed. It means division of functions, but not of
XIII.—FUNDAMENTAL IDEA OF UNITY
officials or organs which will perform them. It is analogous existence itself. By the same token, nothing can and contestants have been duly elected — all the claimants
to the economic principle of division of labor practiced in a should silence tribunals as the organs, in the government being in possession of incompatible, self-denying and self-
factory where multiple manufacturing processes are set up by the Constitution, of the collective conscience of destroying credentials — reason counsels that all of them
performed to produce a finished article. the people. In the long trip of destiny, that collective be suspended by the Electoral Tribunal pending the
conscience shall ever be the guiding star, unerring even in presentation of the necessary evidence to allow one of
the gloomiest confusions. them to take his seat in the Senate until the contest is
XIV.—APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF
finally decided.
SEPARATION OF POWERS
Applying to the case at bar the principle of separation of
powers in its true meaning, the logical result will be The usurpation perpetrated by respondents is a flagrant
In the discussion of the question how the principle of
precisely the opposite of the position taken by respondents violation of the principle of separation of powers, they
separation of powers must be applied, misunderstood
who, unwittingly, are insistently invoking it to challenge the having invaded a ground belonging exclusively to the
ideas have been asserted as springboard to jump to rash
power, authority, and jurisdiction of this Supreme Court to Senate Electoral Tribunal.
and unfounded conclusions. Among such assertions is the
entertain the petition and to grant petitioners coercive
one which would have three great departments of
relief.
government, not only co-equal in dignity, but, XV.—THE SENATE WITHOUT POWER TO SUSPEND
notwithstanding their admitted coordination, as actual ITS MEMBERS
sovereigns — as if within the sphere of the sovereigns can From the facts of the case, it is evident that respondents
be admitted — each one with full powers to destroy and encroached upon, invaded, and usurped the ancillary
Respondents lack the power of suspension, not only as
trample upon the Constitution, with the victims absolutely powers to suspend petitioners in relation to the power to
ancillary remedy in senatorial election contests, but even in
incapable and powerless to obtain redress against the judge electoral contests concerning senators, a power
the exercise of the Senate judicial power to punish its
offense. Such an assertion would make of said which the Constitution specifically assigns to the Senate
members for disorderly conduct. The majority and the
departments as states within a state. The fundamental Electoral Tribunal, exclusive of all other departments,
minority of the Supreme Court in the case of Alejandrino
error of the assertion lies in the failure to consider the agencies or organs of government. That power of
vs. Quezon (46 Phil., 83), agreed unanimously with
following principle of the Constitution: suspension is accessory, adjective, complementary, and
respect to said Senate Malcolm, speaking for the Court in
ancillary to the substantial power to judge said electoral
said case, stated:
contests. The accessory must follow the principal; the
Sovereignty resides in the people and all
adjective, the substantive; the complementary, the
government authority emanates from them.
complemented. As to whether the power to "suspend" is
(Section 1, Article II.)
included in the power to "punish," a power
granted to the Houses of the Legislature by the
It is a settled rule of construction that where a
Each department of government is nothing but a mere Constitution, or in the power to "remove" a
general power is conferred or duty enjoined,
agency by which the people exercise its supreme power granted to the Governor-General by the
every particular power necessary for the
sovereignty. Within the framework of the Constitution, our Constitution, it would appear that neither is the
exercise of the one or the performance of the
government may be compared to a human being: the correct hypothesis. The Constitution has
other is also conferred (Cooley, Constitutional
legislative department is the brain that formulates policies purposely withheld from the two Houses of the
Limitations, eighth ed., vol. I, pp. 138, 139).
and rule through the laws it enacts; the executive Legislature and the Governor-General alike the
(Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil., 139,
department is the hand that executes such policies and power to suspend an appointive member of the
177.)
rules; the judicial department is the conscience that Legislature.
declares what is wrong and what is right, and determines
what acts are in consonance with or inimical to the That power of suspension may, in the interest of reason
It is noteworthy that the Congress of the United
constitutional unity as the very condition of life and and justice, be exercised by the Senate Electoral Tribunal
States has not in all its long history suspended a
survival. in relation too an electoral contest, among other possible
member. And the reason is obvious. Punishment
cases that can be surmissed, where two or more allegedly
by way of reprimand or fine vindicates the
elected senators are in possession of apparently valid
The brain that defines policies and the hand that executes outraged dignity of the House without depriving
credentials of having been proclaimed as duly elected. In
them may go astray and disregard, by their physical the construency of representation; expulsion,
such a case, as the Constitution does not allow more than
power, the infallible pronouncements and admonitions of when permissible, likewise vindicates the honor
twenty-four senators to sit in the Senate and there is, in
conscience; but nothing can and should stop conscience in of the legislative body while giving to the
the meantime, no possibility of determining who among the
its great ethical mission as a condition indespensable to constituency an opportunity to elect anew; but
suspension deprives the electoral district of government, as well as violating the powers an indefinite time and lasting for a period of six
representation without the district being afforded conferred upon the Legislature, because the months, lost its temporary character, ceased to
any means by which to fill the vacancy. By Legislature cannot remove an elective member be a suspension, and in effect became a
suspension, the seat remains filled but the except by two-thirds majority. removal from such office. It was held, in the case
occupant is silenced. Suspension for one year is of the State vs. Chamber of Commerce, that the
equivalent to qualified expulsion or removal. (P. suspension of a member was a qualified
It is strenuously argued by the respondents that
96.) expulsion, and that whether it was called a
the resolution depriving the petitioner "of all his
suspension or expulsion or removal, it in effect
prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments for the
disfrachised the person suspended. In the case
And Justice Johnson, who dissented on another ground, period of one year" is not a removal from his
of Metsker vs. Nelly, it was held that a
explained the ruling in greater detail as follows: office but a mere suspension. The resolution
suspension or a deprivation for either a definite
does not use the word "suspend" but does not
period is in effect a removal. In the case of
use the word "deprive." It provides that the
The power to punish for misbehavior was Gregory vs. New York, it was held that the
petitioner is "deprived" of all his prerogatives,
intended purely as a disciplinary measure. When power to remove an officer or punish him does
etc., for a period of one year. If that word means
a member of the Legislature is removed either not include the power to suspend him
anything it means that all of the prerogatives,
by the Governor-General or by the Legislature, a temporarily from his office. A mere suspension
privileges, and emoluments of the petitioner and
vacancy exists, and the law gives the Governor- would not create a vacancy, and the anomalous
the citizens whom he represents have been
General the right to appoint, and the people of and unfortunate condition would exist of an
taken from him and them. His prerogatives,
the district the right to fill the vacancy by office, — an officer, — but no vacancy, and of no
privileges, and emoluments constitute his right to
election, so that the people may again, under one whose right and duty it was to execute the
represent the people of his district, and his right
either case, be represented. A "suspension" of a office. (Pp. 100-102.)
to exercise all the duties and to assume all the
member, however, does not create a vacancy,
responsibilities pertaining to his office. His
and the people of the district are without a
emoluments constitute his right to receive his XVI.—POWER OF JUDICIAL NATURE
representative and the Governor-General cannot
salary and the benefits pertaining to his office as
appoint one and the people cannot elect one
a senator. If a value can be placed upon his
during the period of suspension. They are The principle of separation of powers can not be invoked
prerogatives, privileges and emoluments, and if
without representation during that period. They to deny the Supreme Court jurisdiction in this case,
he has been deprived of them, then it must
are, for the period of suspension, taxed without because to decide the question of validity or nullity of the
follow that they have been removed from him, or
representation. If a member, under the power to Pendatun Resolution, of whether petitioners are illegally
that he has been removed from them. At any
punish, can be suspended for ten or more years, deprived of their constitutional rights and privileges as
rate, the resolution has separated the petitioner
thus depriving the Governor-General of his right senators of the Philippines, of whether respondents must
and the people whom he represents and
under the law, and the people of the district, of a or must not be enjoined by injunction or prohibition from
deprived them of all of one year; and, for all
representative, and without a remedy in the illegally and unconstitutionally trampling upon the
intents and purposes, he and the people whom
premises. constitutional and legal rights of petitioners, is a function
he represents, have been deprived of their
judicial in nature and, not having been assigned by the
prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments, and in
Constitutional to other department of government, is
If the power "to punish for disorderly behavior" effect, has been removed from any participation
logically within the province of courts of justice, including
includes the power to suspend or to deprive a in the legislative affairs of the government.
the Supreme Court.
member of all his rights, and if the suspension is
in effect a removal, then an appointed member
A great many cases have been studied on the
many be removed, under the power to punish, The power, authority, and jurisdiction to decide any
question of removal and suspension, and we are
by a mere majority, while the law requires a two- question as to the allocation of powers by the Constitution
confindent in the assertion that the power to
thirds majority to remove an elective member. In are of judicial nature and belong to court of justice. In
punish does not include the power to remove or
other words, if under the power to "punish," any denying that power to the Supreme Court, respondents
suspend. A suspension from an office or a
member of the legislature, including an only add insult to injury by maintaining that there is no
deprivation of the rights of an officer of all his
appointive member, may be in effect removed, remedy for any usurpation being committed in adopting the
prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments, is in
then an elective member may be removed by a Pendatun Resolution.
effect a deprivation or a removal from office for
majority vote only, thus encroaching upon the
the time mentioned in the order of suspension. It
power of the executive department of the
has been held that a suspension from office for
But in the main, the Constitution has blocked out period of more than one and a half centuries. In There is much loose talk as to the inherent power of the
with deft strokes and in bold lines, allotment of our case, this moderating power is granted, if not Senate to adopt the unsconstitutional Pendatun Resolution
power to the executive, the legislative and the expressly, by clear implication from section 2 of for the self-preservation of the Senate, for its dignity and
judicial departments of the government. The article VIII of our Constitution. decorum. We are afraid that, by the facts publicly known to
overlapping and interlacing of functions and everybody, such talks serve only to reveal sheer hypocrisy.
duties between the several departments, There is absolutely no showing that they are guilty of any
The Constitution is a definition of the powers of
however, sometimes makes it hard to say just disorderly conduct or of any action by which they may be
government. Who is to determine the nature,
where the one leaves off and the other begins. subject to criminal prosecution, or that by their conduct
scope and extent of such powers? The
In times of social disquietude or political they have become unworthy to have a seat in Congress.
Constitution itself has provided for the
excitement, the great landmarks of the On the other hand, there are three senators who are under
instrumentality of the judiciary as the rational
Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred, if indictment for the heinous crime of treason before the
way. And when the judiciary mediates to allocate
not entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the People's Court, not for acts committed before their
constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any
judicial department is the only constitutional election, but for acts committed while they were already
superiority over the other departments; it does
organ which can be called upon to determine the holding office as such senators. Respondents have not
not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the
proper allocation of power between the several taken any action looking toward the suspension of said
legislature, but only asserts the solemn and
departments and among the integral or three senators. Although we do not propose to criticize
sacred obligation assigned to it by the
constituent units thereof. respondents for this inaction, as the three senators
Constitution to determine conflicting claims of
undicted for treason must be presumed innocent unless
authority under the Constitution and to establish
and until they are finally convicted by the proper court,
As any human production, our Constitution is of for the parties in an actual controversy the rights
such inaction serves to emphasize the iniquitous
course lacking perfection and perfectibility, but which that instrument secures and guarantees to
discrimination committed against petitioners, who have not
as much as it was within the power of our them. This is in truth all that is involved in what is
even been indicted before any court of justice for the
people, acting through their delegates to so termed "judicial supremacy" which properly is
slightest violation of law.
provide, that instrument which is the expression the power of judicial review under the
of their sovereignty however limited, has Constitution. Even this, this power of judicial
established a republican government intended to review is limited to actual cases and The Pendatun Resolution invokes the report of the
operate and function as a harmonious whole, controversies to be exercised after full Commission on Elections as to alleged electoral
under a system of checks and balances, and opportunity of argument by the parties, and irregularities in four Central Luzon provinces; but there is
subject to specific limitations and restrictions limited further to the constitutional question absolutely nothing in the resolution to show that petitioners
provided in the said instrument. The Constitution raised or the very lis mota presented. Any had anything to do with said irregularities, and
sets forth in no uncertain language the attempt at abstraction could only lead to respondents themselves, in the canvass of votes for
restrictions and limitations upon governmental dialectics and barren legal questions and to President and Vice President, had counted as valid all the
powers and agencies. If these restrictions and sterile conclusions unrelated to actualities. votes cast in said Central Luzon provinces and had
limitations are transcended it would be Narrowed as its function is in this manner, the accepted as good ones the votes they themselves
inconceivable if the Constitution had not judiciary does not pass upon the questions of obtained therein. In fact, one of them occupied the first
provided for a mechanism by which to direct the wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation. place in one of said provinces. This self-contradicting
course of government along constitutional More than that, courts accord the presumption of attitude has absolutely no defense in the judgement of any
channels, for then distribution of powers would constitutionality to legislative enactments, not decent person. To this we must add that the Pendatun
be mere verbiage, the bill of rights mere only because the legislature is presumed to Resolution, in fact, misquotes the report of the
expressions of sentiment, and the principles of abide by the Constitution but also because the Commission on elections in the sense that it tries to
good government mere political apothegms. judiciary in the determination of actual cases and convey an impression contrary to said report by quoting
Certainly, the limitations and restrictions controversies must reflect the wisdom and parts thereof based on unverified and uncorroborated
embodied in our Constitution are real as they justice of the people as expressed through their hearsay evidence, and ignoring its main conclusion in
should be in any living constitution. In the United representatives in the executive and legislative which it is stated that the alleged irregularities did not
States where no express constitutional grant is departments of the government. (Angara vs. affect the orderly election in said provinces.
found in their constitution, the possession of this Election Commission, 63 Phil., 139, 157-159.)
moderating power of the courts, not to speak of
There is much talk as to the alleged terrorism prevailing in
its historical origin and development there, has
XVII.—SENATORIAL TERRORISM the provinces in question during election, but there is
been set at rest by popular acquiescense for a
absolutely no reliable evidence as to such terrorism that
can be found either in the report of the Commission on but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to means, or it is On a level with ordinary legislative
Elections or in the Pendatun Resolution. Even in the case its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the
that such terrorism really happened, there is no reason to certain principles, supposed to have been long legislature shall please to alter it.
make any pronouncement based on it without proper and well established, to decide it.
investigation by proper authorities, and in the present case
If the former part of the alternative be true, then
the proper authority that must determine, if such terrorism
That the people have an original right to a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not
did really take place and affect the election on April 23,
establish, for their future government, such law; if the latter part be true, then written
1946, concerning senators, is the Senate Electoral
principles, as, in their opinion, shall most constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of
Tribunal. And until then there is no reason why
conduce to their own happiness is the basis on the people, to limit a power in its own nature
respondents must themselves resort to senatorial terrorism
which the whole American fabric has been illimitable.
in order to oppress, muzzle, and crush minority senators,
erected. The exercise of this original right is a
such as petitioners. Congressional terrorism is no better
very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be
than lawless terrorism. Because it is practised by Certainly all those who have framed written
frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so
despotice government officials does not make it holy and constitutions contemplate them as forming the
established, are deemed fundamental. And as
sacrosanct. fundamental and paramount law of the nation,
the authority from which they proceed is
and, consequently, the theory of every such
supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed
government must be, that an act of the
XVIII.—NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW to be permanent.
legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.
There are assertions to the effect that we may exercise This original and supreme will organizes the
This theory is essentially attached to a written
jurisdiction against individual officers of the Senate, but not government, and assigns to different
constitution, and, is consequently, to be
against the Senate or against respondents. We do not departments their respective powers. It may
considered, by this court, as one of the
agree with such an unmanly attitude. We do not agree with either stop here, or establish certain limits not to
fundamental principles of our society.
the theory that the Supreme Court must exercise its be transcended by those departments.
judicial power to give redress to the victims of a usurpation
only when its decision is addressed to minor officers of xxx xxx xxx
The government of the United States is of the
government, but not when it is addressed to minor officers
latter description. The powers of the legislature
of government, but not when it is addressed to powerful
are defined and limited; and that those limits It is emphatically the province and duty of the
ones. We will incur a grave dereliction of duty if we should
may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the judicial department to say what the law is. Those
refuse to grant the redress that justice demands only and
constitution is written. To what purpose are who apply the rule to particular cases, must of
because we have to reverse an illegal and unconstitutional
powers limited, and to what purpose is that necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two
act committed by a legislative chamber, or a group of its
limitation committed to writing, if these limits laws conflict with each other, the courts must
members, specially if the group forms the majority, or by
may, at any time, be passed by those intended decide on the operation of each.
Congress itself. To show that under the Constitution
to be restrained? The distinction between a
nobody is above the law, we have only to refer to its
government with limited and unlimited powers is
provision which recognizes in the Supreme Court the So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if
abolished, if those limits do not confine the
power to nullify the declare unconstitutional an act enacted both the law and the constitution apply to a
persons on whom they are imposed, and if act
by Congress and approved by the President of the particular case, so that the court must either
prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal
Philippines. A law passed by Congress is enacted with the decide that case conformably to the law,
obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be
direct participation of the two great departments of our disregarding the constitution; or conformably to
contested, that the constitution controls any
government, the legislative and the executive. the constitution, disregarding the law; the court
legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the
Nevertheless, if the law enacted is unconstitutional, the must determine which of these conflicting rules
legislature may alter the Constitution by an
Supreme Court has the power to declare it so and deny governs the case. This is of the very essence of
ordinary act.
effect to the same. judicial duty.
XXIX.—RIZALIAN ADMONITION ON TOLERANCE XXX.—CONSTITUTIONALISM By the same token, in the history of law, man had to stick
in each epoch to the known as the best of legal
institutions. In the millenia of human life no more wonderful
Although there is absolutely nothing in the report of the The present nuclear physics of a far cry from the more
legal institution was devised by man than constitutionalism,
Commission on Elections or in the Pendatun Resolution than twenty-five centuries old theory enunciated by
the evolution of which is one of the most inspiring chapters
itself which imputes upon petitioners any act of disorderly Democritus in the following words: "By convention sweet is
of history. A mere religious concept, giving voice to moral
behavior, it not appearing that they have anything todo sweet, by convention bitter is bitter, by convention hot is
law, in Israel, a philosophical concept, merely normative, in
with alleged irregularities and terrorism in the four hot, by convention cold is cold, by convention color is
Greece, it was in republican Rome where it took a definite
provinces of Central Luzon, yet had the Senate elected to color. But in reality there are atoms and the void. That is,
legal and political force as the basis of jurisdiction as
deprive petitioners of their seat in the Senate under the the objects of sense are supposed to be real and it is
distinguished fromgobernaculum, the reason of the law as
power to punish and expel a member for disorderly customary to regard them as such, but in truth they are
opposed to the power of government. In England for the
behaviour provided in section 10 (3) of Article VI of the not. Only the atoms and the void are real."
common law to prevail over the prerogative of the crown it
Constitution, and the Senate adopted the Pendatun
took several hundred years of bitter struggle. But fate had
Resolution in pursuance thereof, the majority of this court
The heated controversy between Ptolemy and Copernicus, it that in America is where the evolution of
would still dismiss the petition. It appearing that not two-
the discoveries of Galileo and Newton, are just small constitutionalism had to reach its highest accomplishment.
thirds of all members of the Senate concurred or could
incidents in the perennial struggle in which man is It became the basis of the government of the United States
concur in the adoption of the Pendatun Resolution and,
engaged to be, through science, fully acquainted with the from its very inception. Now constitutionalism for the world
therefore, under the constitutional provision invoked, the
truth about our universe. It takes 1,600 years for one-half is envisaged as the only hope of humanity to attain the
deprivation of petitioners of their seat in the Senate would
of a gram of radium to disintegrate, and it takes one goal that will insure juridical order for the world, so that
appear as a flagrant transgression of the fundamental law,
second for light to travel 186,300 miles; formerly matter men's inventions, including those ominous on nuclear
the majority of this court would still shield respondents with
and energy were essentially different things, but now solid energy, may be placed under adequate social control.
the palladium of judicial noli me tangere. Respondents
matter is but concentrated energy, and energy has weight;
must be very extraordinary beings to enjoy such an
it is not yet answered whether light is wave of a shower of
immunity from even the most shocking and tyranical The hope of the Republic of the Philippines lies also on
photons, but it is known that it can be weighed. The theory
violation of theConstitution. constitutionalism. Not the one that would merely offer lip
of relativity, opened new vistas in the panorama of
service to the Constitution, but that would make of that
science, but new riddles meet man in the great adventure
document as one of the living tissues of our body politic,
The majority would counsel prudence and comity and to the unknown. Albert Einstein said:
absolutely indispensable to its own existence.
admonish to heed the off-limits sign at the Congressional
hall, firm in the belief that "if apolitical fraud has been
Yet new, still more difficult problems arise which
accomplished, as petitioners aver, the sovereign people, XXXI.—THE MOST VITAL ISSUE
have not been definitely settled as yet. We shall
ultimately the offended party, will render the fitting verdict
mention only some of these unsolved problems.
— at the polling precint."
Science is not and will never be a closed book. The validity of the Constitution of the most vital issue
Every important advance brings new questions. involved in this case. If no one must be allowed to be
We are reluctant to wash our hands so easily. We can not Every development reveals, in the long run, new above the law, with greater reason no one should be
remain comfortably seated in the highest tribunal of the and deeper difficulties." (The Evolution of allowed to ignore or to trample upon the provisions and
land nor reconcile with our conscience by abstaining to Physics, p. 308.) mandates sacred by all persons living under the pale of
give the relief we are duty bound to give the victims of a the Republic of the Philippines, and not rocked of as an
political fraud which constitutes a wanton trampling down insignificant pushpin to toy with.
All theories which, in their day, served useful scientific
of the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution.
purposes, had to give way to others giving better
Let us not so easily forget the Rizalian admonition:
explanations of physical phenomena. The prevailing
Burning with the thirst of immortality, shepherd Erostratus Camara de Representantes inauguraron se periodo de
burned the temple of Ephesus to gain a berth in history. sesiones reuniendose por primera vez el 25 mayo. Uno de 9. Olegario Clarin
Let us not make of the Constitution of the Philippines los primeros documentos que seleyeron en el Senado fue
another temple of Ephesus. It is much better to be buried la roclama expedida por la Comision sobre 10. Alejo Mabanag
in the dust of eternal oblivion than to permanently live in Eleccionescuyo texto integro se transcribe a continuacion:
the memory of future generations as guilty of arson, as 11. Enrique B. Magalona
rivals of the barbaric hordes who destroyed the great
CERTIFICATE OF CANVASS BY THE
works of art of Greece and Rome, or the contemporary 12. Tomas Cabili
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS OF RETURNS
vandals who destroyed without any compunction churches
OF VOTES FOR THE OFFICE OF SENATOR
and schools, treasures of noble human institutions, or 13. Jose O. Vera
AND PROCLAMATION OF THE CANDIDATES
other works wherein the loftiest ideals and aspirations of
ELECTED IN THE ELECTIONS HELD ON
man have blossomed with imperishable grandeur and 14. Ramon Diokno
APRIL 23, 1946.
beauty. Letus spare the Constitution from the deleterious
effects of our prejudices and from the ravages of blind 15. Jose O. Vera
passions. Let us keep it as an underlying beacon of hope, We, the undersigned, constituting the
the indestructible foundation of our national existence, the Commission on Elections, do hereby certify that,
16. Salipada E. Romero
inexpugnable citadel of the rights and liberties of our pursuant to the provisions of section 11 of
people, the eternal rock upon which the Republic of the Commonwealth Act No. 725, we have made the
Philippines shall forever subsist with dignity. canvass of the votes cast in the Philippines for
the office of Senator in accordance with the In view of the above result, we hereby proclaim
statements submitted by the Provincial Board of that the above-named sixteen(16) registered
The pamphlet in which it is printed may wizen and shrivel, candidates are the duly elected Senators in the
Canvassers of the different provinces and the
its paper rived into shreds, the shreds pulverized into dust election held on April 23, 1946.
City Board of Canvassers of Manila, and that the
and ashes, and these reduced into infinitesimal atoms
result thereof shows the following sixteen (16)
which will finally scatter in the wide universe, to form new
registered candidates to have received the We further certify that Vicente J. Francisco,
substances. But the juridical sense of our people,
highest number of votes: Vicente Sotto, Jose Avelino, Melecio Arranz,
crystallized in that pamphlet and permeating that paper,
embodied in the great document, like the mythological Ramon Torres, Tomas, Confesor, Mariano
phoenix of Arabia, undergoing the five hundred years cycle Jesus Cuenco and Carlos P. Garcia received the
of resurrection, shall again and again rise in youthful Name of candidates Votes
first eight (8) highest number of votes, and that
freshness from the scattered ashes and atoms, the Olegario Clarin, Alejo Mabanag, received
Enrique B.
undying symbol of the spirit of law, the flaming banner of Magalona, Tomas Cabili, Jose O. Vera, Ramon
justice, the magnificent expression of the undaunted will- 1. Vicente J. Francisco Diokno, Jose E. Romero and Salipada Pendatun
735,671
power to live. received the next eight (8) highest number of
2. Vicente Sotto votes. 717,225
The petition must be granted, and the preliminary
3. Jose Avelino 708,420
We further certify that the attached statement of
injunction of May 29, 1946, must be reissued and made
perpetual. votes shows the number of votes polled by each
4. Melencio Arranz candidate for the Office of Senator666,700
in the
Philippines by provinces.
5. Ramon Torres 640,477
In witness whereof, we have signed these
6. Tomas Confessor presents in the City of Manila, this627,354
23rd day of
BRIONES, M., disidente: May, 1946.
7. Mariano Jesus Cuenco 623,650
Despues de las elecciones generales de 23 abril, 1946, en
que fueron elegidos el Presidente y Vice Presidente de 8. Carlos P. Garcia (Sgd.) JOSE LOPEZ VITO 617,542
Filipinas y los miembros del Congreso, el senado y la
by the Military Police Command. After of all laws relative to the conduct of
Chairman the election we cannot fail to notice elections and shall exercise all other
the reports published in the functions which may be conferred
(Sgd.) FRANCISCO ENAGE newspapers on the attacks that have upon it by law. It shall decide — save
Member been made by armed bands upon those involving the right to vote — all
persons or group of persons who were administrative questions, affecting
known to have voted for candidates elections, including the determination
I concur in toto, except as regards the other than the candidates of those of the number and location of polling
proclamation of the 16 Senators-elect, on the armed elements. Even the report places, and the appointment of
basis of the canvassing of all the votes cast in submitted to this Commission by the election inspectors and of other
their favor, without excluding those of Central Provost Marshal General on May 20, election officials . . ." and that the
Luzon. (Separate opinion prepared.) 1946, . . . contains a recital of question of whether or not a vote has
incidents of terrorism that occured in been cast legally or illegally is not for
the four provinces of Central Luzon this Commission to determine. The
(Sgd.) VICENTE DE VERA herein above mentioned which matter is therefore being brought to
Member disturbed or affected the national the attention of the President and
election in an undesirable manner. Congress of the Philippines for such
Reports also reached this Commission action as may be deemed proper
Acto seguido procediose a la eleccion del Presidente del to the effect that in the provinces of pursuant to the requirements of the
Senado saliendo elegido como tal el candidato de la Bulacan, Pampanga, Tarlac and Constitution that this Commission
mayoria Hon. Jose A. Avelino que obtuvo 10 votos contra Nueva Ecija, the secrecy of the ballot submit after every election a report to
el candidato del partido de la minoria Hon. Jose O. Vera was actually violated; that armed the said offices on the manner the
que obtuvo 8. Tanto el Sr. Vera como sus correcurrentes bands saw to it that their candidates election was conducted."
Sres. Diokno y Romero tomaron parte en la votacion. were voted for; and that the great
majority of the voters, thus coerced or
WHEREAS, the minority report of the Hon.
intimidated, suffered from a paralysis
Elegido el Presidente se iba a proceder a la toma del Vicente de Vera, member of the Commission on
of judgment in the matter of exercising
juramento colectivo de los Senadores electos, pero en Elections, says among other things, that "we
the right of suffrage. Considering all
esto el Senador Hon. Salipada Pendatun presento para su know that as result of this chaotic condition,
those facts of terrorism, violence and
aprobacion un proyecto de resolucion cuyo texto tambien many residents of the four provinces have
intimidation in connection with
se transcribe integro a continuacion: voluntarily banished themselves from their home
elections which are more or less
towns in order not to be subjected to the
general in the provinces of Pampanga,
prevailing oppression and to avoid being
Whereas, the Commission on Elections, charged Tarlac, Bulacan and Nueva Ecija, this
victimized or losing their lives;" and that after the
under the Constitution with the duty of insuring Commission believes that the election
election dead bodies had been found with notes
free, orderly, and honest elections, in the in the provinces aforesaid did not
attached to their necks, reading: "Bumoto kami
Philippines, reported to the President of the reflect the true and free expression of
kay Roxas" (We voted for Roxas);
Philippines on May 23, 1946, that the popular will. It should be stated,
however, that the Commission is
without jurisdiction, to determine WHEREAS, the same Judge De Vera says in his
"On election day, altho no acts of whether or not the votes cast in the minority report that in the four provinces of
violence were officially reported to this said provinces which, according to Pampanga, Tarlac, Bulacan and Nueva Ecija,
Commission in connection with the these reports have been cast under the worst terrorism reigned during and after the
elections, we were advised by our the influence of threats or violence, election, and that if the elections held in the
representative in Nueva Ecija that are valid or invalid. Suffice to state aforesaid provinces were annulled as demanded
ballot boxes were stolen by armed that in accordance with the provision by circumstances mentioned in the report of the
bands in the barrios of the of Article 1, section 2, of the Commission, Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno, and
municipalities of Bongabon, Gapan, Constitution, "The Commission on Jose Romero, would not and could not have
Sta. Rosa and Guimba. These Elections shall have exclusive charge been declared elected;
incidents are still under investigation of the enforcement and administration
WHEREAS, in his report to the Provost Marshal, WHEREAS, it is essential in order to maintain Ramon diokno y Jose Romero, y cuya parte petitoria es
col. Amando Dumlao, Assistant Chief of Staff, G- alive the respect for democratic institutions como sigue:
2, attached to the report of the Commission on among our people, that no man or group of men
Elections, states among other things, that "all be permitted to profit from the results of election
POR LO TANTO, los recurrentes
the members of the Church of Christ(Iglesia ni held under coercion, in violation of law, and
respetuosamente piden a este Honorable
Cristo) were intimidated and coerced, some contrary to the principle of freedom of choice
Tribunal y a cualquier Magistrado del mismo,
kidnapped and murdered" by the which should underlie all elections under the
tenga a bien expedir un interdicto prohibitorio
HUKBALAHAPS "because they had expressed Constitution;
preliminar dirigido a los recurridos, sus
their opinion that they were going to vote for
funcionarios, empleados, agentes y demas
President-elect Manuel A. Roxas"; that because
WHEREAS, protest against the election of Jose personas que obran en su ayuda, ordenandoles
of terrorism and coercion "a great many barrio
O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose Romero, have que hasta nueva orden del Tribunal, desistan y
people have evacuated their respective places
been filed with the Electoral Tribunal of the se abstengan de poner en ejecucion la
and signified their attention not to vote"; and that
Senate of the Philippines on the basis of the resolucion arriba mencionada, y impedir a los
ballot boxes were taken away from barrios San
findings of the Commission on Elections above recurrentes continuen en sus asientos en el
Miguel, Pasong Isip, Pakap, Guimba and
quoted; Senado y ejerzan libremente sus funciones y
Galvan, and that in some instances election
derechos como senadores de Filipinas,
inspectors were kidnapped;
deshaciendo todo lo hecho en contrario hasta
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the
esta fecha; que acorte los terminos de
Senate of the Philippines in session assembled,
WHEREAS, the terrorism resorted to by the contestacion; que una vez contestada esta
as it hereby resolves, to defer the administration
lawless elements in the four provinces demanda, designe un Comisionado para recibir
of oath and the sitting of Jose O. Vera, Ramon
mentioned above in order to insure the election las pruebas, con instrucciones de que la haga
Diokno and Jose Romero, pending the hearing
of the candidates of the Conservative Wing of sin dilaciones, y que, previa la vista
and decision of reports lodged against their
the Nacionalista Party is of public knowledge correspondiente, dicte sentencia declarando
elections, wherein the terrorism averred in the
and that such terrorism continues to this day; enteramente nula y de ningun valor la citada
report of the Commission on Elections and in the
that before the elections Jose O. Vera himself resolucion, y prohibiendo consecuentemente a
report of the Provost Marshal constitute the
declared as campaign manager of the Osmeña los recurridos y a cada uno de ellos a impedir a
ground of said protests and will therefore be the
faction that he was sorry if Presidential los recurrentes a continuar en sus cargos como
subject of investigation and determination.
Candidate Manuel A. Roxas could not campaign senadores, y prohibiendoles igualmente a
in Huk provinces because his life would be in realizar cualquier otro procediemiento ulterior
endangered; and that because of the constant Parece que cuando se puso a debate la resolucion arriba para ejecutar la resolucion citada, con las
murders of his candidates and leaders, transcrita, el Senado acordo unanimemente transferir la costas. Los recurrentes piden tambien cualquier
Presidential Candidate Roxas found it necessary discusion para la sesion del lunes siguiente, 27 de mayo. otro remedio justo y equitativo.
to appeal to American High Commissioner Paul Ya se estaba discutiendo otro asunto cuando surgio
V. Mcnutt for protection, which appeal American unacalorado incidente en virtud del cual los Senadores de
El magistrado Perfecto concedio el interdicto preliminar
High Commissioner personally referred to la minoria salierontodos del salon de sesiones,
pedido principalmenteen virtud de la alegacion expuesta
President Sergio Osmeña for appropriate action, quedandose alli solamente el Presidente Avelinocon sus
en el parrafo 10 de la demanda, en el sentido de que la
and the President in turn ordered the Secretary once (11) compañeros de la mayoria. Se alega en esta
resolucion cuestionada tenia por objecto, entre otras
of the Interior to afford the necessary protection, ocasion, ausenteslos Senadores minoritarios y sin el
cosas, "la realizacion de fines siniestros, tales como la
thus impliedly admitting the existence and reign necesario quorum legal para poder seguir despachando
aprobacion, sin la fiscalizacion e intervencion de los
of such terrorism; asuntos, los Senadores de la mayoria, revocando el
recurrentes, del Bill Bell, de una medidade reorganizacion
acuerdo anterior de transferencia, decidieron considerar y
judicial terrorista para el personal de la judicatura y
aprobar la resolucion sinmas debate.
WHEREAS, the Philippines, a Republic state, deotras semejantes, y para doblegar a los recurrentes, por
embracing the principles of democracy, must tal hitlerico procedimiento a los manejos de tal mayoria."
condemn all acts that seek to defeat the popular Tales son, a grandes rasgos, los hechos que han dado Sometido el interdicto preliminar a la corte en pleno, esta
will; lugar a la demanda quedirecta y originariamente plantean lo aprobo en una votacion de seis (6) contra cuatro (4), y
ante este Tribunal Supremo los recurrentes Jose O. Vera, al propio tiempo lo señalo a vista para la determinacion de
la cuestion de si su expedicion estaba o no justificada. En
dicha vista que duro 6 horas seguidas, desde la mañana
hasta la tarde (una de las mas largas si no la mas larga Primera cuestion.—A la luz de nuestre mayor numero de votos, y tres por el partido que lesiga en
que se haya celebrado jamas en los anales de esta Constitucion y de nuestre leyes ¿eslegal el mayor numero de votos. Esta Commision Electoral sera
Corte), arguyeron extensamente tanto la representacion sostenible la resolucion objecto de controversia, presidida porel Magistrado mas antiguo y conocera
de los recurrentes como la de los recurridos. El Procurador en cuanto por ella sepriva a los recurrentes de exclusivamente de todas las controversiasrelativas al
General Tañada comparecio y arguyo en nombre de estos sus asientos en el Senado de Filipinas, y de resultado de la eleccion y a las calificaciones de los
ultimos, pero limitandose en su informe a cuestionar e losderechos, privilegios y prerrogativas anejos a miembrosde la Asamblea Nacional" (Articulo IV,
impugnar la jurisdiccion de este Supremo Tribunal para dichos asientos? Constitucion de Filipinas, 1935). Cuando la Constitucion
conocer y enjuiciar el asunto bajo el principio de la se reformo en 1940 restaurandose le legislatura
separacion de poderes que informa nuestra Constitucion. bicameral, la filosofia de la comision electoral se respecto
Antes de la aprobacion de la primera Constitucion del
Puede decirse sin exageracion que el tema se agoto y conservo en la Constitucion reformada y en lugar de una
Commonwealth de Filipinas (1935), la Legistura era el juez
discutiendose con minuciosidad los puntos comision se crearon dos, una para cada camara, y ya no
de las elecciones, actas y condiciones de sus propios
constitucionales y juridicos planteados en el asunto. se llamaba Comision electoral sino Tribunal Electoral,
miembros. La disposicion original relativa a esta materia
Despues de la vista esta Corte en pleno, con la como para recalcar y subrayar el caracter judicial del
era la contenida en la Ley Congreso de los Estados
solañausencia del Magistrado Jaranilla, y con la disidencia nuevo organismo. El precepto constitucional pertinente es
Unidos de 1.º de julio de 1902 (Ley Organica, articulo 7,
del Magistrado Perfecto, acordo disolver el interdicto como sigue:
parrafo 5), la cual preceptuaba que "La Asamblea
prohibitorio preliminar mediante lasiguente orden:
(Filipina) decidira de las elecciones, su resultado y las
calificaciones de los representantes. . . ." Cuando se Sec. 11. The Senate and the House of
Considering that the preliminary injunction was aprobo la Ley del Congreso de 1916 (Ley Jones, de Representatives shall each have an Electoral
issued in the case of Jose O. Vera et al., amplia automania, seccion 18, parrafo 1), la citada Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all
petitioners, vs. Jose Avelino, respondents, ( G. disposicion se reincorporo, con una modificacion que la contests relating to the election, returns,and
R. No. L-543), to preserve the status quo and hacia mas enfatica insertandose la palabra "unicos," a qualifications of their respective members. Each
thus prevent the execution of the acts alleged saber: "Que el Senado y la Camara de Representantes, Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine
under oath in the last part of paragraph X of the respectivamente, seran los unicos jueces de las members, three of whom shall be Justice of the
petition, without the intervention of the elecciones, del resultado, escrutinio y condiciones de sus Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief
petitioners; and taking into consideration that miembros electivos. . . ." Esta disposicion no era de Justice, and the remaining six shall be members
this court, after hearing both parties, at any rate ningun modo original: no hacia mas que transplantar a of the Senate or of the House of
believes and trusts that the respondents will not este pais la tradicion y el sistema americano provisto en la Representatives, as the case may be, who shall
carry out said acts during the pendency of this clausula 1.ª de la seccion 5 del Articulo I de la constitucion be chosen by each House, three upon
proceeding, this court, without deciding whether de los Estados Unidos, que dispone que "cada Camara nomination of the party having the largest
or not the said injunction was justified, hereby sera juez de las Elecciones, Actas y Condicciones de sus number of votes and three of the party having
resolves to dissolve it in the meantime, without propios miembros. . ." the second largest number of votes therein. The
prejudice to whatever action or decision this senior Justice in each Electral Tribunal shall be
court may take or render on the questions its Chairman.
La Asamblea Constituyente convocada en 1934 para
involved in this case including that of jurisdiction.
redactar la Constitucionde nuestro Commonwealth pudo
haber seguido sobre esta materia diferents cursos de De lo expuesto resulta evidente que una importante fa
Resulta evidente de autos que las cuestiones que accion: reafirmar la tradicion americana vigente en este cultad judicial que tenian las camaras legislativas
tenemos que considerar yresolver son las siguientes: (1) a pais desde1902; o seguir el ejemplo de algunos paises — anteriormente — la facultad de actuar como jueces sobre
la luz de nuestra Constitucion y de nuestras ¿es legal y verbigracia, Canada, Australia,Hungria y Polonia — que las elecciones, actas y calificaciones de sus miembros —
sostenible la resolucion objecto de controversia, en cuanto habian transladado esta facultad de las Camaras ha quedado eliminada completamente bajo la actual
por ella se priva a los recurrentes de sus asientos en el Legislativas al departamento judicial, hablando mas Constitucion y traspasada tambien completa y plenamente
Senado de Filipinas, y de los derechos, privilegios y concretamente, al TribunalSupremo; o bien instituir un al nuevo organismo constitucional — el Tribunal Electoral.
prerrogativas anejos a dichos asientos?; (2) a la luz de sistema mixto, creando un cuerpo constitucional separado La pregunta ahora en orden es si la resolucion
nuestra constitucion y de nuestrs leyes ¿tiene este e independiente, con jurisdiccion exclusiva sobre la cuestionada que para mayor claridad llamaremos
Tribunal Supremo jurisdiccion y competencia para materia. La Asemblea Constituyente opto por este ultimo Resolucion Pendatun representa o constituye,por parte de
conocer, enjuiciar y decidir el asunto? creando "una Comision Electoralque se compondra de los Senadores recurridos, el ejercicio de una facultad
tres Magistrados del Tribunal Supremo que seran constitucional que no les pertenece sino al Tribunal
designadospor su Presidente, y de seis diputados Electoral, y nuestra contestacion es decididamente
escogidos por la Asamblea Nacional, tres de los cuales el afirmativa. Con esa resolucion en la mano es como si los
recurridos hubieran dicho a los recurrentes lo una eleccion llev ada a cabo bajo coercion"; y al final se volcado en ella no solo el resultado de nuestra experiencia
siguiete:"Señores, aqui tenemos un informe de la dice "por cuanto, sobre la base de los informes arriba necessariamentelimitada, sino lo que hemos aprendido de
Comision sobre Elecciones en donde se dice que en citados de la Comision sobre Elecciones se han formulado la sabiduria y experiencia de otros pueblos mas
cuatro provincias del centro de Luzon no ha habido protestas ante el Tribunal Electoral de Senado contra la avanzados que nosotros, particularmente del pueblo
sufragio libre, sincero y or denado, por los actos de eleccion de Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno y Jose E. Americano, con el cual nos ha ligado una convivencia de
intimadacion y violencia de vuestros partidarios. Sin los Romero"; y luego la parte dispositiva en virtud de la cual cerca de medio sigolo. Despues de largas y laboriosas
votos de esas provincias, vosotros no hubierais triunfado. se priva a los recurrentes del juramento y de sus asientos deliberaciones nuestra Asamablea Constituyente, elegida
Por tanto, hasta que se decida en vuestro favor las en el Senado entre tanto no se resuelvan las protestas por el pueblo (1934-1935), adopto el sistema presidencial
protestas formuladas contra vuestras actas ante el formuladas contra sus actos, interregno que puede durar de gobierno dividido en tres altospoderes,
Tribunal Electoral, os negamos el derecho de jurar, de meses y hasta años. De todo esto resulta bien claro que independendientes entre si pero coordinandos en un
sentarse en estos escaños, de participar en las los considerandos de la resolucion versan precisamente mecanismo cuidadosamente elaborado de frenos y
deliberaciones del Senado y de gozar de los derechos, sobre los mismos hechos electorales cuya determinacion contrapesos. Esos poderes son: legislativo, ejecutivo y
prerrogativas y privilegios anejos al cargo de Senador." incumbe exclusivamente al Tribunal Electoral, y que la judicial.Sus altas facultades y funciones se hallan
¿Que es esto sino una innegabale susurpacion de la interdiccion, o mejor dicho, la suspension de los derechos, especificadas en la Constitucion, en capitulos separados.
facultad exclusiva que tiene el Tribunal Electoral de ser el prerrogativas y privilegios de los recurrentes se basa En el uso del lenguaje se ha evitado la municiosidad, el
unico juez de las controversias relativas a la eleccion, indudablemente en tales considerandos. No hay en la pormenorismo caractereistico de las leyesordinarias, a fin
actas y calificaciones de los miembros de la camara a qu resolucion ni la mas minima insinuacion de que se haya de hacer del instrumento suficientemente amplio y flexible
corresponde dicho tribunal? aprobado por altos motivos de dignidad y decoro para acomodarse y para subvenir a las necesidades y
senatorial — eso que algun tratadista lllama graficamente condiciones cambiantes de los tiempos; pero, con todo,
medida de profilaxis — como para evitar el roce los trazos, los lineamientos son suficientemente claros,
Se arguye que independientemente de la cuestion
deshonroso con miembros que fuerean algo aso com de la firmes y seguros, y creemos puededecirse sin inmodestia
electoral cada camara, para proteger su existencia, su
casta despreciable de lost intocables, aquejados de lepra que en concision, en claridad y en buen ordenamiento
buen nombre y su decoro, tiene el poder inherente de
moral en sus personas. No hay ni el menor cargo de nuestra Constitucion no cede a ninguna de las
suspender a cualquier miembro suyo; que la Resolucion
torpeza moral contra los recurrentes, ni siquiera se insinua constituciones escritas que se conocen.
Pendatun se inspiro en estos motivos; que la suspension
que estos fuereon directa o indirectamente responsables
de los recurrentes es un acto politico que nada tiene que
del alegado estado de terror y violencia. La conclusion
ever con la determinacion de sus actas por el Tribunal Examinemos ahora el departamento o poder legislative
indeclinable, pues, es que la Resolucion Pendatun enjuicia
Electoral y no se halla sujeto a revision de parte del que es lo que nos concierne e interesa en el presente
y resuelve cuestiones o "issues" puramente electorales,
departamento judicial por cuestionable que fuera el mismo asunto. Es un principio constitucional bien establecido que
aceptando prima facie un informe incompetente sobre
desde el punto de vista del derecho o de la moral publica; el poder de legislar es ilimitado en tanto en cuanto no
terrorismo, violencias y fraudes, y como tal constituye una
y que, por tanto, no hay tal usurpacion de poderes pugna con la Constitucion, la cual opera como una
intromision en la facultad que bajo la Constitucion tiene el
constitucionales, no habiendose los recurridos entrometido limitacion. Todos los demas poderes y facultades que no
Tribunal Electoral del Senado de ser el unico juez de las
en la esfera de accion del Tribunal Electoral. Sin embargo, tengan caracter legislativo deben ser conferidos expresa o
controversias relativas a la eleccion, actas y calificaciones
no hay mas que leer la resolucion en cuestion para implicitamente. Nuestro Congreso, actuando
de los miembros de dicho alto cuerpo colegislador.
convencerse de que su entera motivacion se deriva de las concurrentemente por medio de sus dos camaras, tiene el
elecciones de 23 de April, dandose en ella por poder de legislar. "El poder legislativo queda investido en
establecido, en virtud del informe de la Comision sobre Pero admitamos por un momento que la Resolucion un Congreso de Filipinas, compuesto de un Senado y de
Elecciones, que el triunfo de los recurrentes se debio a un Pendatun tiene ese caracter profilactico que le atribuyen a una Camara de Representates (Articulo VI, seccion 1,
estado de terror y violencia en las Provincias de ultima hora; que, contra lo que es evidente y claro con Constitucion de Filipinas, 1940). Pero ademas de este
Pampanga, Tarlac, Nueva Ecija y Bulacan. Los "por claridad meridiana, esa resolucion nada tiene que ver con poder de conjunto, cada camara tiene ciertas facultades,
cuantos" de la resolucion hacen referencia a las supuestas la determinacion judicial de las actas de los recurrentes entre ellas algunas de caracter disciplinario, a saber: (a) la
anomalias e irregularidades que viciaron el sufragio en por el Tribunal electoral. La pregunta otra vez en orden s de compeler la asistencia de miembros ausentes en la
dichas provincias; hacen ciertas afirmaciones de caracter la siguiente: sometida la Resolucion Pendatum a la piedra forma y bajo las penas que dicha camara prescriba; (b) la
general como la de que Filipinas, a fuer de nacion y de toque de nuestra Constitucion ¿puede resistir con exito de castigar a sus miembros por conducta desordenada, y,
estado democratico, debe condenar todo acto tendente a la prueba? Nuestra contestacion es terminantemente con la concurrencia de dos terceras partes de sus
derrotar la voluntad popular, y la de que "para mantener negativa. La Constitucion filipina es el producto de la miembros, expulsar a un miembro por tal motivo (Articulo
vivo entre nosotros el respeto a las instituciones sabiduria, experiencia y genio politico de nuestro pueblo. VI, seccion 10, ap. 2 y 3). Fuera de estas facultades no
democraticas, a ningun hombre o grupo de hombres se No es un documento enteramente original: en ciencia hay en nuestra Constitucion ninguna otra que autorice la
debe permitir que reporten beneficio de los resultados de politica las concepciones originales no abundan. Hemos imposicion de un castigo o pena, o envuelva una privacion
de derechos, prerrogativas y privilegios, siguiera sea acta; que solamente una sentencia final podira cerrarle las Constituyente dominaba en Filipinas un partido politico
temporal, tal como la que se provee en la Resolucion puertas del Congreso. No tenemos porque averiguar si fuerte, denso, acaudillado por una personalidad genial,
Pendatun. ¿Encaja esta resolucion en cualquiera de las con esta decision la Asamblea Constituyente quiso erigir brillante, dinamica y poderosa. Ese partido acababa de
facultades arriba enumeradas? Evidentemente que no. No un firme valladar a los excesos y demasias de la pasion ganar en unas elecciones apasionadisimas y muy reidas
encaja en el inciso (a)—la facultad de compeler politica creando un clima propicio para el desarrollo de las una victoria espectacular, abrumadora, que le daba el
disciplinariamente la asistencia de miembros ausentes — minorias en un pais en que, como el nuestro, ciertas dominio y control de todos los resortes de la vida politica
porque es superfluo decir que no se trata ni remotamente causas y circunstancias han retardado el turno periodico y no solo en la nacion sino hasta en las provincias y
de tal caso. Tampoco encaja en el inciso "b" porque se ha saludable de los partidos; todo lo que nos incumbe hacer municipios.Ese partido dominaba naturalmente tambien la
admitido desde el comienzo que el caso que nos ocupa no es señalar y destacar el hecho inexorable, la volicion Convencion Constitucional, la Asamblea Constituyente.
es el de conducta desordenada de un miembro. Tampoco constitucional. ¿Que hizo ese partido en medio de su omnipotencia? ¿Le
encaja en la facultad de determinar y resolver la legalidad emborracho ese peligroso licor de los dioses — el licor de
y solvencia de las actas y credenciales de los recurrentes la victoria, el licor del poder? No. Ese partido, sus
Se han citado dos casos de nuestra jurisprudencia
porque ya hemos demostrado hasta la saciedad que caudillos, resolvieron ser generosos, ser justos, ser
parlamentaria para justificar la Resolucion Pendatun: el
habiendose retirado totalmente de las camaras prudentes, ser democraticos, y lo fueron; determinaron
caso de Jose Fuentebella en el Senado de Filipinas, en
la substancia, laesencia de esa facultad trasladandola al pensar en terminos de humanidad, en terminos de nacion,
1916, y el caso de Nicolas Rafols en la Camara de
Tribunal Electoral, quedo tambien ipso facto retirada y en terminos de justica pero justicia de verad, en terminos
Representantes, en 1925. Bajo la alegacion de haberse
eliminada la facultad de suspender que es nada mas que de libertad y democracia, y lo hicieron tal como lo
cometido graves irregularidades y fraudes en las primeras
un incidente un aledaño de la substancia. pensaron. Podian haber escrito una constitucion a su
elecciones senatoriales celebradas en el 6. o distrito
talante — una constitucion que sirviese sus propios fines,
(provincias bicolanas)al candidato electo Jose Fuentebella
que asegurase su perpetuidad en el poder. No lo hicieron.
Pero se dice: el Tribunal Electoral no tiene la facultad de se le nego prima facie el juramento y el asiento pendiente
Y no solamente no lo hicieron, sino que hicieronalgo mas;
suspender, esto se halla admitido por todo el mundo; la resolucion de la protesta formulada contra su acta. Lo
algo extraordinario, inconcebible, juzgado a la luz y segun
luego esa facultad ha quedado, por lo menos, en las mismo se hizo en el caso de Nicolas Rafols, por alegados
la norma usual del egoismo de los partidos. Teniendo en
camaras como residuo no afectado por el traspaso de fraudes electorales cometidos en el 6.º distrito diputacional
sus manos un poder enorme, formidable, sumamente
jurisdiccionsobre las credenciales y actas electorales. Sin de Cebu. Pero la endeblez e inaplicabilidad de estos
tentador, el poder de resolver las controversias electorales
embargo,esto no es mass que una habil sustileza. En la precedentes salta inmediatamente a la vista si se tiene en
sobre las actas de los miembros de la Legislatura,
Constitucion no hay mas que dos categorias de poderes: cuenta que cuando se establecieron las camaras
renunciaron a ese poder para alojarlo en un cuerpo
el expreso o el implicito (either by express grant or byfair legislativas eran constitucionalmente los unicos jueces de
constitucional separado e independiente, el cual es
implication from what is granted). Como quiera que la eleccion, actas y calificaciones de sus miembros; asi
practicamente un tribunal de justicia: la Comision
esa reserva, ese residuo (la facultad de suspender) no que la suspension prima facie del juramento y del asiento
Electoral, hoy Tribunal Electoral. La determinacion de
esta conferido expresamente en la Constitucion, luego hay no fue mas que un incidente en el ejercicio de esa
hacer este cuerpo lo mas apolitico posible se denota en el
que suponerlo implicito. Pero ¿implicito de que? Tiene que facultad; y, prescindiendo de si esto era justo o injusto,
hecho de que sus miembros legislativos estan distribuidos
ser de algo de un poder mas general y mas amplio prudente o arbitrario, parecia incuestionable que estaba
en igual numero, 3-3, de suerte que los 3 Magistrados
expresamente conferido (parte de un todo) que en este dentro los poderes y facultades de las camaras el hacerlo.
componen el factor decisivo.
caseo tendria que ser el poder de conocer y resolver las
controversias electorales sobre las actas de los miembros
Pero, en realidad, los casos de Fuentebella y Rafols
del Congreso. Es asi que este poder ya no lo tienen las ¿Por que los redactores de la Constitucion, y, sobre todo,
pueden citarse para un efecto completamente opuesto al
camaras bajo la Constitucion; luego tampoco queda por que el partido politico mayoritario pudo hacer
perseguido por los abogados dee los recurridos cuando se
nada implicito en elias, so pena de sostener que lo estarenuncia de la que pocos ejemplos hay en la historia
analizan y discuten amplia y objetivamente los motivos,
implicito, que es nada mas que un incidente, puede politica del mundo? No parece dificil imaginarse los
circunstancias y designios que indujeron a nuestra
subsistir por si solo sin la substancia — el vaso esencial motivos, las causas, sobre todo para uno que como el
Asamblea Constituyente a abandonar la bien arraigada
que lo envuelve y entraña. El corolario forzoso de todo autor de esta opinion tuvo algo que ver, siguera muy
tradicion americana de hacer de las camaras legislativas
esto es que los redactores de la Constitucion filipina modestamente, con las tareas de la Asamblea
los unicos jueces de la eleccion, actas y calificaciones de
eliminaron por completo la facultad de suspender no solo Constituyente. El pueblo filipino estab empeñado en una
sus miembros, trasladanddo la jurisdiccion a un organismo
del Congreso sino del Tribunal Electroral; que la voluntad suprema, altisima tarea — la de estructurar el Estado, la
constitucional completamente separado e independiente.
soberana del pueblo expresada en el codigo fundamental, de escribir el codigo fundamental de la nacion no solo
Un analisis de este genero viene a ser altamente
es que ningun protestado seria privado de sus asiento ni para los 10 años del Commonwealth sino para la
revelador y expresivo. Lo primero que embarga la
por un solo minuto; que ninguna presuncion se Republica que se proclamaria despues de dicho periodo
atencion del observador es que cuando se adopto esta
estableceria en contra de la legitimidad y solvencia de su de tiempo. Todo el mundo sabia que la suerte de la
reforma fundamental y original por la Asamblea
democracia en filipinas dependia principalmente de la politicas a la de justiciables." (Angara contra Comision delegados a la Convencion, a establecer este
Constitucion que se escribiera, no solo en su letra sino en Electoral, 63 Jur. Fil., 151, 200.) Y el ponente en dicho Cuerpo que se conoce por Comision Electoral.
su espiritu, y, sobre todo, de la forma y manera como ella asunto el Magistrado Laurel se explaya mas todavia con Con estas miras, se creo un cuerpo en el que
moldearia, penetraria e influiria en la vida cotidiana del los siguientes pronunciamientos que no tienen tanto el partido de la mayoria como el de la
pueblo y del individuo. Desde luego no eramos unos desperdicio: minoria estanigualmente representados para
ilusos, utopistas, perfeccionistas; no aspirabamos ni contrarrestar la influencia partidista en sus
mucho menos a crear un trasunto de la republica ideal de deliberaciones, y dotado, ademas, de caracter
Los miembros de la Convencion Constitucional
Platon; pero deseabamos hacer lo mejor posible dadas judicial mediantela inclusion entre sus miembros
que planearon nuestra ley fundamental eran, en
nuestras circunstancias y limitaciones, dada nuestra de tres magistrados del Tribunal Supremo.
su mayor parte, hombres de edad madura y de
historia y tradiciones, y dado el temperamento y genio
experiencia. A buen seguro muchos de ellos
politico y social de nuestro pueblo. Se habia acuñado y
estaban familiarizados con la historia y La Comision Electoral es una creacion
popularizado por aquel tiempo la frase "justicia politica"
desarrollo politico de otros paises del mundo. constitucional, investida de las facultades
para denotar la clase de justicia convencional que cabia
Por tanto, cuando creyeron conveniente crear necesarias para el cumplimiento y ejecucion de
esperar en relacion con las protestas electorales
una Comision Electoral como un organismo las funciones limitadas y especificas que la ha
planteadas ante las camaras legislativas. No solo se
constitucional y lo invistieron con la exclusiva asignado la Comision. Aunque no es un Poder
aceleraba o demoraba el despacho de las mismas a ritmo
funcion de conocer y fallar las controversias en nuestro Gobierno tripartito, es, para todos los
con los dictados de ciertas conveniencias de taifa o grupo,
electorales, actas y condiciones de los fines, cuando obra dentro de los limites de su
sino que no pocas veces el complejo politico o personal
miembros de la Asamblea Nacional,debieronde autoridad, un organismo independiente. Se
era el factor determinante en las resoluciones y decisiones
haberlo hecho asi, no solamente a la luz de su aproxima mas, ciertamente, al Departamento
que se tomaban. Todo esto lo sabian los delegados a la
propia experiencia, sino tambien teniendo en Legislativo que a cualquiera otro. El lugar que
asamblea constituyente, lo sabian los liders de los
cuente la experiencia de otros pueblos ocupa la disposicion legal (articulo 4) que crea la
partidos, lo sabian los escritores y pensadores dedicados
ilustrados del mundo. La creacion de la Comision Electoral en el Titulo VI, titulado
al estudio de las ciencias politicas y sociales.
Comision Electoral fue planeada para remediar "Departamento Legislativo" de nuestra
ciertos males que conocian los autores de Constitucion,es muy significativo. Su
En la Convencion habi delegados que eran miembros nuestra Constitucion. No obstante la tenaz composicion es tambien significativa por cuanto
actuales y pasados de la Legislatura, hombres que sabian oposicion de algunos miembros de la etsa constituida por una mayoria de miembros
por propia experiencia como se resolvian las protestas Convencion a su creacion, el proyecto como de la Legislatura. Pero es un cuerpo separado e
electorales en las camaras legislativas y que, ademas, antes se ha dicho, fue aprobado por ese cuerpo independiente de la Legislatura.
sabian por sus lecturas lo que sobre el particular ocurria mediante una votacion de 98 contra 58. Todo
en otros paises. Alli estaba, como delegado, Nicolas cuanto se puede decir ahora sobre la
La concesion de facultades a la Comision
Rafols — actor del drama politico que determino uno de aprobacion de la Constitucion, la creacion de la
Electoral para conocer de todas las
los procedentes parlamentarios que se citan — acaso Comision Electoral es la expresion de la
controversias relativas a las elecciones, actas y
rumiando todavia en su fuero interno el agravio contra lo sabiduria y "la justicia esencial al pueblo".
condiciones de los miembros de la Asamblea
que reputara arbitrariedad cometida por la mayoria en su (Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address,
Nacional, tiene por objeto hacer que esas
caso. ¿Que de extraño habia que en medio de tal marzo 4, 1861.)
facultades sean tan completas y queden tan
"background", en medio de tal ambiente ideologico se
incolumes como si hubieran continuado
formara una fuerte opinionen favor de un cambio de
De las deliberaciones de nuestra Convencion originalmente en la Legislatura. El haber
sistema, en favor de unarbitrio constitucional que
Constitucional resulta evidente que el objeto era expresamente investido de esas facultades a la
sustituyera la llamada "justicia politica" con una justicia de
traspasar en su totalidad toda la facultad Comision Electoral, es una negativa tacita del
verdad, una "justicia judicial?"Asi se creo la Comision
previamente ejercitada por la Legislatura en ejercicio de esas facultades por la Asamblea
Electoral. Nada mejor que las siguientes palabras del
asuntos pertenecientes a protestas electorales Nacional. Y esto es una restriccion tan eficaz a
malogrado Magistrado Abad Santos en su luminosa
de sus miembros, a un tribunal independiente e las facultades legislativas como una prohibicion
opinion concurrente en el celebrado asunto de
imparcial. Sin embargo, no fue tanto el expresa contenida en la Constitucion (Ex
Angara contra Comision Electoral, para definir el caracter
conocimientoy apreciacion de precedentes parte Lewis, 45 Tex. Crim. Rep., 1; State vs.
del sistema: "El objeto que se trataba de obtener con la
constitucionales contemporaneos comola ha Whisman,36 S.D., 260; L.R.A., 1917B, 1). . . ."
creacion del a Comision Electoral no era crear un cuerpo
tiempo sentida necesidad de fallar protestas (Angara contra Comision Electoral, 63 Jur. Fil.,
que estuviera por encima de la ley, sino el elevar las
legislativas, libres de prejuicios partidistas lo que 151-, 188-190.)
elecciones legislativas de la categoria de cuestiones
impulso al pueblo, obrando por medio de sus
Acaso se pueda decir algo mas todavia acerca de los miembros mismos, empequeñeciendo, en una palabra, el "contest" o contencion las camaras tienen la facultad de
motivos que indujeron la creacion de la Comision prestigio del tribunal. ¿Como se puede pensar que la entender y juzgar de "la eleccion, actas y cualificaciones
Electoral; acaso se pueda aventurar la afirmacion de que Asamblea Constituyente permitiera y posibitara ese de sus miembros".Esto se desprende, segun la ponencia,
con este cuerpo los redactores de la Constitucion, los resultado antijudicial, reservandoalgo al Congreso en un del hecho de que mientras el "draft" o proyecto original
caudillos de los partidos se propusieron asegurar por traspaso de facultades que se consideraba total, absoluto decia lo siguiente:
todos los medios y garantias la vida y crecimiento de la e incondicional? Los tribunalesordinarios de justicia estan
democracia en Filipinas. Democracia es esencialmente por ley protegidos contra todo estorbo y obstruccion a sus
The elections, returns and qualifications of the
libre discusion de los asuntos publicos, de los problemas funciones. El Tribunal Electoral — criatura de la misma
members of the National Assembly and all cases
de la comunidad; libreexpresion del pensamiento y de la Constitucion — tiene, por lo menos, iguales si no mejores
contesting the election of any of its members
opinion. De esto se sigue necesariamente un regimen titulos a esa impermeabilidad, mejor todavia, a esa
shall be judged by an Electoral Commission.
basado en la existencia de una mayoria que gobierna y de inmunidad contra toda obstruccion y entorpecimiento. El
una minoria que aspira a gobernar entretanto que vigila hecho de que la intromision venga del Congreso o de una
los actos del gobierno en su doble papel de censor y de de sus camaras no puede ser una justificacion. la redaccion final del proyecto quedo como sigue:
aspirante al poder. La mejor piedra de toque para apreciar
y juzgar la calidad de un regimen politico es la manera y
Las deliberaciones de la Asamblea Constituyente arrojan xxx xxx xxx
forma como trata a las minorias y oposiciones. Un
buena luz sobre el espiritu del precepto que nos ocupa.
gobierno totalitario, despotico, las liquida, las ahoga; un
Queel traspaso de facultades fue total, absoluto; que al
gobierno democratico no solo las respeta, sino que crea The Electoral Commission shall be the sole
Congreso no se reservo ninguna facultad, mucho menos
para ellas un clima vital propicio. Mirado en esta sentido el judge of all contests relating to the election,
la de suspender, en toda cuestion relativa a la eleccion de
Tribunal electoral es un instrumento de minorias por returns, and qualifications of the members of the
sus miembros, lo denotan bien claro ciertas
antonomasia: la idea basica de su creacion es el National Assembly.
observaciones, que a estas alturas resultan profeticas, del
desposeer a las mayhorias del poder de destruir, de
Delegado ManuelRoxas, uno de los liders mas
aniquilar a las minorias mediante lo que cinicamente se ha
autorizados de la Asamblea Constituyente, hoy primer Se asevera enfaticamente en la opinion de la mayoria que
denominado "justicia politica," e impartir a las minorias las
Magistrado de la nacion. El Sr. Roxas estaba contestando la supresion de la primera parte de la clausula es harto
maximas garantias de una justicia de verdad — una
varias interpelaciones sobre el alcance del nuevo sistema significativa. Ello demuestra, se dice, que la clausula tenia
"justicia judicial" de la mayoria en el Senado,
propuesto. Replicando al Delegado Ventura no parece dos partes con significados distintos: la primera parte,
pronunciando su discurso a favor de la reforma en la
sino que el Sr. Roxas presintiera la Resolucion Pendatun relativa a casos no contenciosos, y la segunda referente a
Asamblea Constituyente, dijo entre otros conceptos las
o actos semejantes a ella cuando dijo lo siguiente: ". . . casos contenciosos. La eliminacion de la primera parte
siguientes significativas palabras: "Many have criticized,
Ademas, si la Asamblea desea anular el poder de la venia a reducir consiguientemente la jurisdiccion de la
many have complained against the tyranny of the majority
Comision (Electoral), puede hacerlo asi mediante ComisionElectoral a los casos contenciosos, reservandose
in electoral cases. . . ." (Aruego, The Framing of the
ciertasmaniobras en su primera sesion cuando se los no contenciosos a las camaras. Y para probar esta
Philippine Constitution,Tomo I, pag. 263). Por eso es un
someten las actas a la Asamblea. El objeto es dar a la tesis a primera vista deslumbrante se transcribe en la
absurdo sostener que la facultad de suspender utilizada
Comision Electoral todo el poder ejercitado por la ponencia una larga tirada del diario de sesiones de la
mediante la Resolucion Pendatun haya quedado en el
Congreso como residuo, independientemente de la
Asamblea referente a las elecciones, actas y condiciones Asamblea Constituyente — tirada que, en verdad, ofrece
de sus miembros" (vease Angara contra Comision ciertos equivocos y ambiguedades. Pero esto no es mas
jurisdiccion exclusiva del Tribunal Electoral para resolver
Electoral, supra, pag. 179). Ese todo de que habla el Sr. que un aspecto del cuadro.
protestas electorales legislativas. Ello equivaldria a
Roxas excluye la idea de cualquier reserva o residuo
sostener que los redactores de la Constitucion pusieron un
dejado a las camaras del Congreso.
remedio paraderrotarlo al propio tiempo mediante una Estos nos obliga a revisar y examinar toda la parte del
puerta reservada y trasera por la que podria escurrirse el diario de sesiones que abarca los debates sobre el
pequeño monstruo de la "justicia politica". Este juego Se dice, sin embargo, en la opinion de la mayoria que los particular.Afortunadamente, las discusiones fueron
infantil no podian haberlo hecho los redactores de la debates en la Asamblea Constituyente sobre el precepto amplias, plenas de informacion y detalle, y sobre todo
Constitucion, los liders de los partidos que tuvieron alguna constitucional de que se trata demuestran que la intencion llevadas muyinteligentemente. El Delegado Manuel
responsabilidad en la redaccion de dicho documento. de los redactores de la Constitucion no fue el Roxas, ahora Presidente de Filipinas, era quien sostenia
¿Que mas? Esa facultada para suspender equivale entregar todo a la Comision Electoral (ahora Tribunal el lado afirmativo, esto es, el precepto original tal como lo
practicamentea una carta blanca para intervenir y estorbar Electoral), sino que se le confirio solamente la facultad de habia sometido el llamando Comite de Siete y tal como
las actuaciones y procedimientos del Tribunal Electoral, ser "the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, queda transcritoen el parrafo anterior. Un grupo de
provocando suspicacias, creando anticipadamente returns and qualifications of the members of the National Delegados, encabezado por el Hon. Alejo Labrador, de
prejuicios no solo en la mente del publico sino de los Assembly."Es decir — se arguye — que cuando no hay
Zambales, estaba fundamental y decididamente opuesto a indicate a controversy. If there is no qustion de proclamacion expedido por la Comision sobre
la formula. Estos Delegados no aceptaban la reforma about the election of a member, there is nothing Elecciones), ello era bastante, a menos que su eleccion
propuesta, querian que se conservase el antiguo sistema to be submitted to the Electoral Commission and fuese cuestionada, ycuestionada legalmente, esto es,
por virtud del cual las camaras eran los jueces exclusivos there is nothing to be determined. protestada debidamente ante el Tribunal Electoral.
de la elecccion, actas ycualificaciones de sus miembros.
Acaso sea pertinente consignar el hecho de que si bien es
Delegate VENTURA. But that does carry the El pensamiento del Delegado Roxas se aclaro mas
verdad que los partidos (anti y pro) habian declarado una
idea also that the Electoral Commission shall contestado otras interpelaciones. El dijo positiva y
tregua patriotica y saludable en sus luchas dentro de la
confirm also the election of those whose election terminantemente, replicando al DelegadoCinco, que no
Convencion, el Sr. Roxas pertenecia al partido minoritario
is not contested? habia ninguna diferencia entre la primera y segunda parte
— el de los pros — mientras que el Sr. Labrador era de la
de laclausula; que, en realidad, los casos de elections,
mayoria, el partido fuerte y poderoso de los antis cuyo
returns and qualifications," y que la frase "and contested
indiscutible lider era el entonces Presidente del Senado Delegate ROXAS. There is no need of
elections" se inserto meramente para los efectos de mayor
Sr. Quezon. La oposicion del Sr. Labrador y confirmation. As the gentleman knows, theaction
claridad.
compa_¤_eros se fundaba principalmente en la teoria de of the House of Representatives in confirming
la separacion de poderes: ellos creian que la reforma era the election of its members is just a matter of the
demasiado radical, que la misma venia a mermar rules of the Assembly. It is not constitutional. It is xxx xxx xxx
grandemente el poder y prestigio del departamento not necessary. After a man (adviertase bien
legislativo,reduciendolo a un estado de inferioridad y esto) fileshis credentials that he has been
vasallaje, particularmente al poder judicial, en virtud de la Delegate CINCO. Mr. President, I have a similar
elected, that is sufficient, unless the election is
question as that propounded by the gentleman
intervencion de miembros de la Corte Suprema en la contested." (Arruego, The Framing of the
composicion de la Comision o Tribunal Electoral. Acaso from Ilocos Norte (Mr. Ventura) when I arose a
Philippine Constitution,pp. 267, 268.)
sea pertinente decir tambien que entre los ardientes while ago.However, I want to ask more
questions from the Delegate from Capiz. This
patrocinadores de la reforma figuraban distinguidos
Delegados de la mayoria entre ellos el Hon. Vicente J. Como se ve, lo que preocupada al Delegado Ventura era paragraph 6 on page 11 of the draft cites cases
Francisco, de Cavite, en la actualidad Senador de que con la fraseologiaindicada la Comision Electoral contesting the election asseparated from the first
tuviera jurisdiccion y competencia hasta sobrelas part of the section which refers to elections,
Filipinas.
credenciales no protestadas; parece que se temia esta returns and qualifications.
ambiguedad. Peroni el Delegado Ventura ni nadie en la
Veamos ahora el proceso de como se enmendo el Convencion tuvo jamas en la mente la idea de que la
"draft"original del precepto. Las siguientes interpelaciones Delegate ROXAS. That is merely for the sake of
fraseologia envolvia una dual jurisdiccion: una, de parte de
arrojan copiosa luz sobre la cuestion. clarity. In fact the cases ofcontested elections
la Asamblea Nacional, sobre las credenciales no
are alreadyincluded in the phrase "the elections,
protestadas; y otra, de parte de la Comision Electoral,
returns and qualifications." This phrase "and
sobre las credenciales protestadas. Y elDelegado Roxas,
Delegate VENTURA. We have a doubt here as contested elections" was inserted merely for the
con su contestaciones, establecio bien claramente que se
to the scope of the meaning of the first four lines, sake of clarity.
empleaba la palabra "judge"; y el "contest," el litigio tenia
paragraph 6, page 11 of the draft reading: "The
que ser enjuiciado naturalmente por la Comision Electoral.
elections, returns and qualifications of the
members of the National Assembly and all cases Delegate CINCO. Under this paragraph, may not
the Electoral Commission, at its own instance,
contesting the election of anyof its members De la ultima contestacion del Delegado Roxas transcrita
shall be judged by an electoral Commission ."I refuse to confirm the election of the members?
arriba se deduceincuestionablemente que el no admitia la
should like to ask from the gentleman from posibilidad de que la Asemblea Nacional rehusase su
Capiz whether the election and qualification of confirmacion a una credencial no protestada o contendida. Delegate ROXAS. I do not think so unless there
the members whose election is not contested El sostenia que esta confirmacion no era constitucional, no is a protest. (Arruego, id.,p. 269.)
shall also be judged by the Electoral era necesaria. Poreso el dijo categoricamente: "After a
Commission. man files his credential, that issufficient, unless the
Pero hay todavia cosa mas importante. En realidad, esta
election is contested." Aplicado este criterio al casoque
nos ocupa, equivale a lo siguiente: Despues de haberse misma custion que nos ocupa ya se planteo en aquellos
Delegate ROXAS. If there is no question about debates y la solucion que entonces se le diocuadra
presentado alSenado las credenciales de los recurrentes
the election of the member, there is nothing to perfectamente con el criterio que sostenemos en esta
Sres. Vera, Diokno y Romero (a ello monta el certificado
be judged; that is why the word "judge"is used to disidencia. ElDelegado Labrador, lider, como ya se ha
dicho, de los opositores a la reforma,hizo al Delegado Delegate ROXAS. Yes sir; that is the purpose. respecto al alcance del proyecto tal como estaba
Roxas algunas interpelaciones que parecian hechas (Aruego, idem, pp. 269, 270.) fraseado;pero, por otro lado, el decia que esas dudas
enanticipacion a los presentes acontecimientos. He aqui el carecian de fundamento, que las dos clausulas del
dialogo Roxas-Labrador: precepto tenian un mismo significado, que la segunda ya
Este dialogo Roxas-Labrador nos da la mejor clave para
estaba contenida en la primera y se insertaba tan solo
interpretar el perfecto. Labrador pregunto si bajo el mismo
para fines de claridad.Asi que, habil estrategia
Delegate LABRADOR. Does not the gentleman la Asamblea tenia derecho acuestionar, de su propia
parlamentario, creyo que podia aceptar perfectamente la
from Capiz believe that unless this power is iniciativa (on its motion). la eleccion y cualificacion de sus
enmienda, entre cuyos proponentes (esto es muy
granted to the Assembly, the Assembly on its miembros; Roxas contesto que NO, que "aunque dos
significativo, como se vera mas adelante) figuraba por
own motion does nothave the right to contest the terceras partes de la Asamblea creyeran que un miembro
cierto el Delegado Rafols, pues con ello no perdia nada,
election and qualification of its members? no tenia las cualificaciones provistas por la ley, ellos no
no comprometia ni un apice de su posicion, y en cambio
podrian removerle por tal razon".
ganaba mucho, atraia el apoyo de los
Delegate ROXAS. I have no doubt that the indecisos,aseguraba la aprobacion del precepto en la
gentleman is right. If this draft is retained, as it Labrador volvio a preguntar inquiriendo sobre quien tenia votacion final, derrotando a los que estaban
is, even if two-thirds of the Assembly believe that el derecho de remover. Roxas contesto: la Asamblea fundamentalmente opuestos al mismo como, en efecto, los
a member has not the qualifications provided by Nacional por mala conducta (for misconduct); y la derroto por 98 votos contra 56. Que la enmienda no era
law, they cannot remove him for that reason. Comision Electoral, con respeto a las cualificaciones de sustancial y de ningun modoafectaba al sistema, asi lo
losmiembros de la Asamblea. declaro categoricamente el Sr. Roxas cuando, defiriendo a
una sugestion del Presidente Recto de la Convencion,
Delegate LABRADOR. So that the right to
definio el alcance del cambio diciendo que era "tan solo
remove shall only be retained by the Electoral Y cuando Labrador volvio a remachar preguntando si un para obviar la objecion apuntadapor varios delegados en
Commission. miembro de la AsambleaNacional podria, bajo el precepto el sentido de que la primera clausula del 'draft' que dice
que se discutia, cuestionar la elegibilidadde sus miembros,
'The election, returns and qualifications of the members of
Roxas contesto categoricamente que "antes de que un the National Assembly' parece dar a la Comision Electoral
Delegate ROXAS. By the Assembly for
miembro pudiera cuestionar la eligibilidad (de otro) debia ir el poder de determinar hasta la eleccion de los miembros
misconduct.
a la Comision Electoral y hacer que la cuestion se oyera
que no han sido protestados."Es decir, que o unico que se
ante la Comision Electoral." Es decir que,aplicado este quiso aclarar y establecer fuera de toda duda con la
Delegate LABRADOR. I mean with the respect criterio al caso nos ocupa, ni el Senador Pendatun, ni enmienda es que el poder de la Comision Electoral no
to the qualifications of the members. ningun otro Senador, ni nadie tenia derecho a cuestionar podia extenderse a las credenciales no protestadas, pero
la elegibilidad de los recurrentes Sres. Vera, Diokno y jamas se penso que el efecto de la enmienda era el
Romero ante el Senado, sino que el asunto debia llevarse desgajar este poder de la Comision Electoral para dejarlo
Delegate ROXAS. Yes, by the Electoral directamente al Tribunal Electoral y hacer que este lo
Commission. como un residuo en la Legislatura; en otros terminos,
enjuiciara. jamas se imagino que con la enmienda la Asamblea
Nacional todavia podria ser juez de las credenciales no
Delegate LABRADOR. So that under this draft, Pero se preguntara: ¿entonces por que se reformo el protestadas de sus miembros. He aqui las palabras
no member of the Assembly has the right to "draft" o proyecto original eliminando la primera clausula y textuales del Sr. Roxas:
question the eligibility of its members? dejando solo la segunda, o sea la frase "all cases
contesting the elections, returns and qualifications," etc. The difference, Mr. President, consists only in
Delegate ROXAS. Before a member can etc? Es verdad, se hizo la enmienda, pero la misma no es obviating the objection pointed out by various
question the eligibility, he must go to the sustancial,no afecta al fondo del precepto, no involucra el
delegates to the effect that the first clause which
Electoral Commission and make the question espiritu del sistema tal como lo definio y explico el states "The election, returns and qualifications of
heard before the Electoral Commission. Delegado Roxas en sus luminosas respuestas a las the members of the National Assembly" seems
diversas interpelaciones, particularmente las dadas al
to give to the Electoral Commission the power to
Delegado Labrador. Se acepto la enmienda mas bien por determine also the election of the members who
Delegate LABRADOR. So that the Electoral razones puramente psicologicas, esas que conoce bien
Commission shall decide whether the election is have not been elected. And in order to obviate,
todo aquel que este familiarzado con la mecanica de los
not contested. we believe that the amendment is right in that
parlamentos y asambleas deliberativas.Por un lado, el sense . that is, if we amend the draft so that it
Delegado Roxas veia que habia ciertas dudascon should read as follows: "All cases contesting the
election, etc.," so that the judges of the Electoral años en las Prisiones de Bilibid, por estafa. Como no tuvo En el ejemplo que propone la mayoria, la condena por
Commission will limit themselves only to cases contrincante(¡este hombre debia de ser muy popular!), estafa no es cosa que guarda relacion con
in which there has been a protest against the ninguna protesta se formula contra su eleccion. Y lascualificaciones constitucionales del congresista o
returns. naturalmente el Tribunal Electoral no adquiere jurisdiccion Representante electo ni con la regularidad y legalidad de
sobre el caso, pues no hay 'contest' o controversia. Una las elecciones en que salio victorioso, por cierto sin ningun
vez informada del hecho ¡no puede la Camara, motu contrincante. Es cosa que afecta a su caracter personal o
No pudo haberse concebido jamas la peregrina, fantastica
propio, suspender la toma de su juramento? ¿No puede la conducta. Por tanto, no cabe discutir su derecho a ser
idea de que el "draft" enmendado dejaba a la Asamblea
Camara investigarle y despues exclurle? Se observara admitido como miembro de la camara; el reune las
Nacional la facultad de enjuiciar la "eleccion, actas y
que cuando un miembro de la Camara suscita una cualificaciones constitucionales (ciudadania, edad, etc.)
cualificaciones de los miembros" contra los cuales no
cuestion respecto a las cualificaciones de otro, de ello no para ser Representante y la limpieza de su eleccion esta
existiera ninguna protesta ante la Comision Electoral, por
se sigue un pleito electoral, pues ninguno pretende admitida. Asi que, parafraseando al Delegado Roxas, la
al sencilla razon de que ello engendraria las siguientes
sustituir a este ultimo." "presentacion de su credencial de que ha sido eligido, es
anomalias: (a) la creacion de dos jueces: uno, para
bastante para que sea admitido como miembro." Pero ¿la
credenciales no protestadas — la Asamblea Nacional o
condena por estafa? ¿No puede la camara por este
Congreso; y otro, para credenciales protestadas — la Pareceria que estabamos excusados de replicar a este
motivo investigarle y excluirle como elemento no
Comision o Tribunal Electoral; (b) en un momento dado, argumento por dos razones: primera, porque
deseable? — pregunta la mayoria. Esta es otra cuestion.
una mayoria sin escrupulos,viendo peligrar el poder en evidentemente el ejemplo propone un caso que es
Ya hemos visto que el derecho de admision es una cosa,
sus manos despues de unas elecciones reñidisimas, completamente distintodel que nos ocupa, pues los
y el derecho de expulsion, otra. El derecho de expulsion,
podria dar un golpe de mano mediante la estratagema de recurrentes no estan acusados de estafa ni de nada que
por mala conducta, lo tienen las camaras
hacer que sus candidatos derrotados se inhiban de afecta a su caracter, y su caso,como ya hemos dicho, es
independientemente del Tribunal Electroral. Ya lo dijo el
protestar ante el Tribunal Elctoral a fin de dar lugar a que de motivacion enteramente electoral, es decir, relacionada
Delegado Roxas, contestando al Delegado Labrador: la
el Congreso actue directamente sobre el caso, con la mira con la forma como fueron elegidos que se dice viciada por
facultad de remover, en tratandose de la "eleccion, actas y
de ajusticiar a los candidatos minoritarios triunfantes bajo actos de violencia y terrorismo de sus partidarios; y
cualificaciones de los miembros," la tiene la Comision o
la guillotina de lo que el cinismo de los descreidos ha segunda, porque si bien es verdad que el ejemplo es
Tribunal Electoral, previa protesta; la facultad de remover,
llamado justicia politica de las mayorias; (c) occurriria la meramente hipotetico, plantea, sin embargo, un caso que
por mala conducta, la tiene la Asamblea (Congreso)
paradoja de que las credenciales no protestadas estarian puede perfectamente occurrir y pareceria que ni esta
en peor situacion que las protestada, porque mientras Corte ni ningun miembro suyo deberia adelantar su
estas ultimas tendrian el beneficio de una justicia de opinion sobre semejante hipotesis susceptible de Pero examinemos el ejemplo de la estafa que plantea la
verdad, la justicia judicial del Tribunal Electoral, aquellas realizarse. Pero como del ejemplo se pretende hacer mayoria hast sus ultimas consecuencias. Willoughby dice
caerian bajo la justicia politica de las mayorias, sedientas argumento aquiles, no tenemos mas remedio que que sobre este respecto el punto principal de controversia
de sangre adversaria. Es indudable que, como hemos comentarlo y discutirlo. es si los actos de mala conducta objeto de queja debenser
dicho en otra parte de esta disidencia, la Asamblea solo los subsiguientes a la eleccion y que afecten a la
Constituyente no podia ser parte en un juego infantil como dignidad del Congreso y al debido desempeño de sus
Ante todo se deben deslindar bien los conceptos. El
este; y el Delgado Roxas, con su seriedad, con su bien funciones, o deben ser tambien los anteriores. "Respecto
derecho o facultad de expulsar a un miembro de una
conocida madurezpolitica, con su devocion a la causa de de los actos de los miembros electos cometidos con
camara legislativa (Articulo VI, seccion 10, ap. 3,
la libertad y democracia, de ningun modo podia ser anterioridad a su eleccion se ha argumentado fuertemente
Constitucion de Filipinas) es una cosa bien diferente del
corresponsable de un precepto constitucional que pudiera que las Camaras no deben tenerlos cuenta, pues se debe
derecho derehusar la admision de uno para ser miembro
dar lugar a tan tremendas anomalias. Y ¿que decir del conceder que los electores tienen el derecho de elegir a
de dicha camara. En esto ultimo las cuestiones envueltas
Delgado Rafols? ¿Como se puede concebir que, con sus quienes quieran para representarles en el Congreso, y se
se refieren principalmente, tal vez exclusivamente, a las
tristes reminiscencias de lajusticia politica de las mayorias, debe presumir que han tenido en cuenta el caracter y la
cualificaciones constitucionales de aquiellos que se
diera su patrocinio a una enmienda que pudiera producir conducta de aquellos a quienes elegen."
presentan para ser admitidos como miembros, o bien a la
tales consecuencias?
regularidad y legalidad de las elecciones en que fueron
elegidos; mientras que en lo primero, esto es, en lo que A disregard of the foregoing doctrine, it has been
Para remachar la tesis de que cada camara de nuestro toca a la expulsion, lo que de lugar a la accion es el urged, operates as a denial to the States of a
Congreso todavia retiene la facultad de determinar "la caracter personal o conducta de la parte afectada right or privilege constitutionally provided for
eleccion, las actas y las cualificaciones de sus miembros" (Willoughby, On the Constitution of the United States, them. Thus, we find James M. Beck, former
en casos en que no hay protesta, la mayoria propone en tomo 1.º, pag. 611). Solicitor General of the United States, declaring :
su opinion el siguiente ejemplo: "Es elegido por un distrito "It seems too clear for argument, that each
congresil un hombre que habia servido previamente 10 States has the right to select from its people any
representative in the Senate (or the House) that constitucionales. Sus cualificaciones, la invenstidura y el and qualifications of its members. That power carries with
it sees fit, irrespective of his intellectual or moral ejercicio de su cargo, el termino del mismo,estan definidos it authority to take such steps as may beappropriate and
qualifications (provided he possesses the y amparados por la Constitucion mediante preceptos y necessary to secure information upon which to decide
qualifications specified in the Constitution), . . ." disposiciones que operan como limitaciones concerning elections" (Barry, supra, 871). Y al final de la
A state may have selected a member of the constitucionales sobre el poder legislativo en general. sentencia la Corte sienta la siguiente afirmacion que es
Senate or secured his nomination by unworthy Esos preceptos y disposiciones no se pueden enmendar o muysignificativa para el presente caso: "Here the question
means. He may be intelectually unfitted for the derogar mediante una ley ordinaria, mucho menos under consideration concerns the exercise by the Senate
high office, and his moral character may, in other mediante una resolucion simple como la del Senador of an indubitable power; and if judicial interference can be
respects, leave much to be desired. The People Pendatun: para enmendarlos o derogarlos hace falta que successfullyinvoked it can only be upon a clear showing of
of the United States may justifiably think that the se reforme la Constitucion por los procesos que ella such arbitrary and improvident use of the power as will
States has sent to Congress an unfit man, who preceptua. Hacer depender la admision del legislador o la constitute a denial of the due process of law. That
could add nothing to its deliberations, and tenencia de sus cargo de una resolucion o acuerdo condition we are unable to find in the present case"
whose influence might well be pernicious. None reglamentario es de los mas subversivo, pues le reduciria (Barry, supra, 874). De suerte que, bien mirado, el asunto
the less, the States has the right to send him. It a un a situacion tan precaria y tan endeble que un mero de Barry hasta es un argumento en favor de la jurisdiccion
is its sole concern, and to nullify its choice is to empleado del servicio civil tendria mas prestancia y mas de esta Corte Suprema para conocer y enjuiciar la
destroy the basic right of a sovereign State, and seguridad que el. Resolucion Pendatun,para determinar si con ella se ha
amounts to a revolution" (Willoughby, idem, pp. infringido o no la Constitucion.
611, 612).
Se nos cita, sin embargo, el caso de Barry vs. United
States ex rel. Cunningham (279 U.S., 867, 874; 73 Law, Se arguye que los recurridos no hicieron mas que actuar
El primer precedente — añade el autor citado — de que, ed. 597), para demostrar que la Resolucion Pendatun es sobre un informe rendido por la Comisioon sobre
como base para expulsion, los actos cometidos antes de valida y legal por entrar y recaer dentro del poder Elecciones en obediencia a un mandato constitucional. En
la eleccion no deben ser considerados, fue en el caso del inherente del Senado para suspender a cualquier el informe se recitaban ciertos hechos y se sentaban
Senador Humphrey Marshall, en 1796, quien fue acusado miembro, independientemente de la cuestion electoral. conclusiones sobre alegados actos de terrorismo y
de que habia cometido perjurio. El Senado en este caso Hemos revisado cuidadosamente la sentencia citada y la violencia que posian afectar a la eleccion de los
se nego a tomar jurisdiccion para determinar si, de hecho, hemos hallado inaplicable el presente caso. Es verdad recurrentes. Se dice que la Resolucion Pendatun no es
Marshall habia sido reo de un delito, a pesar del hecho de que ella tiene cierta relacion con el caso de Vare, sino la reaccion, la respuesta de los recurridos adicho
que el pidio que el Senato investigase y determinase el candidatoa Senador en Pennsylvania en las elecciones de informe; que estos tenian absoluta discrecion sobre el
caso" (supra, p. 612). Parece que en estos casos el 1926, a quien se lenegro prima facie el asiento mientras particular; que ello entraba dentro de sus poderes politicos
criteriogeneral y predominante es que el sufragio popular se efectuaba una investigacion dealegadas irregularidades y no era revisable por el departamento judicial. Para
es como un especie de Jordan que lava con sus aguas y practicas corruptas cometidas para promover contestar esto nos bastara repetir que la Resolucion
purificadoras todos los pecados cometidos antes de la sunominacion y su eleccion, entre ellas el haber hecho Pendatun es algo mas que el ejercicio de un poder politico
eleccion. Es como si al pueblo se le supusiera investido de promesas impropiase ilegales, etc. Pero, aparte de que la y discrecional: es una usurpacion de poderes
la facultad suprema de indultar totalmente a sus favoritos suspension del juramento y asientode Vare caia del constitucionales pertenecientes a otro organismo
por medio de la balota electoral. Senado American como "unico juez de la eleccion, actas y constitucional; y para demostrarlo no necesitamos
calificaciones de sus miembros," solo muy incidental y reproducir los argumentos ya extensamente expuestos.
colateralmentese habla de esto en el caso de Barry. La
Se insinua que los recurridos tenian la facultad de adoptar
unica y verdadera cuestion planteadaen esta caso era la
la Resolucion Pendum en virtud del principio de que todo Por lo demas, el discutido informe de la Comission sobre
de si a un tal Cunningham se le podia arrestrar, mediante
cuerpolegislativo tiene el poder inherente de adoptar Elecciones no tiene el valor ni alcane que le atribuye. Ese
orden del Senado, y traerle a la barra para contestar a
reglas para su organizacion, funcionamiento y informe no podia autorizar ni justifica ninguna accion que
ciertas preguntassobre la procedencia de ciertos fondos
preservacion. Se cita la practica legislativa de que al como la Resolucion Pendatun tuviese el efecto de privar a
gastados en la nominacion y eleccionde Vare. La Corte
inaugurarse un cuerpo deliberativo se forma un comite de los recurrentes de sus asientos en el Senado, siguera
Suprema Federal dijo que si, que esto caia dentro de
credienciales que examia los certificados o titulos que temporalmente. El documento sometido por la Comision
los poderes judiciales del Senado. "Generally" — dice la
presentan los miembros para su admision. Dicho comite sobre Elecciones que tiene verdadero valor constitucional
Corte — "the Senate is alegislative body, exercising in
rinde su informe recomendando la aprobacion o y legal, que tiene fuerza obligatoria, es su proclama
connection with the House only the power to make laws.
desaprobacion de las credenciales. No puede sostenerse declaranda electos a los recurrentes. Esa proclama
But it has had conferred upon it by the Constitution certain
una tesis mas peligrosa que esta. Las camaras legislativas impone a los recurridos el deber ministerial de recibir y
powers which are not legislative but judicial in character.
son mas, muchisimo mas que una camara de comercio, aceptar a los recurrentes como miembros del Senado
Among these is the power to judge of the elections, returns
por ejemplo. Los legisladores son funcionarios hasta que el Tribunal Electoral diga otra cosa. ¿Como un
informe, que ni siquiera es al resultado de una debidamente proclamados por la Comission sobre genio audaz de sus juristas, particularmente del gran
investigacion propia, sino que esta basado en otros Elecciones bajo las dispposiciones de la Ley No. 725 y, Marshall, el que arrnaco esa facultad de las penumbras de
informes de fuerea, podia tener la trascendencia que se le por tanto, tienen derecho por ministerio de la Constitucion la Constitucion (Marbury vs. Madison [1803], 1 Cranch,
ha dado, tomando pie del mismo para una sacudida y de la ley a ocupar sus asientos en el Senado con todos 137) contribuyendo ello grandemente, segun opinion
seismica de tales proporciones como es la suspension de los derechos, prerrogativas y privilegios anejos al cargo; general de los criticos tanto nacionales como exranjeros, a
los derechos de tres miembros electos del Senado y siete que, sin embargo, los recurridos, o mas bien una mayoria fortalecer y estabilizar las instituciones politicas de
miembros electos de la Camara de Representantes? Ni la de ellos, han aprobado una resolucion — la Resolucion America. Aprovechando la experiencia americana hemos
imaginacion mas libre y erratica en la Asamblea Nacional Pendatun — por la cual se les priva de sud asientos; que escrito expresamente en nuestra Constitucion lo que en
pudo haberse figurado jamas este efecto a cuenta de esa dicha resolucion infringe la Constitucion y la ley; por tanto, Americ no era mas que doctrina judicial o jurisprudencia.
clausula inofensiva de la Constitucion que manda a la piden dictemos sentencia "declarrando entramente nula y
Comision sobre Elecciones presentar un informe despues de ningun valor la citada resolucion, y prohibiendo
Se dice, sin embargo, con todo enfasis, con todo vigor,
de cada eleccion al Jefe Ejecutivo y al Congreso. consecuentemente a los recurridos y a cada uno de ellos
que aun admitiendo que los recurridos, actuando como
a impedir a los recurrentes a continuar en sus asientos en
mayoria del Senado, hayan infringido la Constitucion al
el Senado de Filipinas y a ejercer libremente sus cargos
La accion sobre ese informe no puede ir mas alla de los aprobar la Resolucion Pendatun y hacerla efectiva, con
como Senadores, y prohibiendoles igualmente a realizer
limites que confinan cada poder. El Ejecutivo, por ejemplo, todo la judicatura, la judicatura filipina no tiene jurisdiccion
cualquier otro procedimiento ulterior para ejeccutar la
investigaria los abusos e irregularidades los funcionarios para intervenir en el caso, bajo el principio de la
resolucion citada." ¿Podemos negarnos a asumir la
encargados de ejecutar y hacer cumplir la Ley Electoral en separacion de poderes que informa nuestra Constitucion.
jurisdiccion que se invoca? ¿Hay alguna manera de evadir
cumplimiento de su mandato constitucional de ejecutar las Se arguye que los tres poderes del Estado son igueles;
la cuestion, inhibiendose este Tribunal de declarar si es o
leyes y de hacer que estas se ejecuten fielmente que ninguno de ellos es superior al otro; que cada poder
no verdad que se han infringido la Constitucion y la ley, y
(Constitucion de Filipinas, Articulo VII, secciones 7 y 10); y puede interpretar la Constitucion a su modo y cuando asi
de conceder el remedio pedido si ha habido tal infraccion?
el Congreso estudiaria y consideraria reformas a la ley con lo hace ningun otro poder puede ni debe entrometerse yu
La comodidad, la linea de menor resistencia hubiera sido
vista de dicho informe, o bien crearia inmediatamente el revisar su interpretacion; que el Senado es el unico juez
por el lado de la inaccion, de la inhibicion. Nos damos
Tribunal Electoral para despachar sin demora las de sus actos y si algun ciudadano sale agraviado por
perfecta cuenta de la tremenda responsabilidad que
protestas sobre elecciones legislativas. El Ejecutivo no algun alegado atropello a sus derechos constitucionales,
supone el mantener la armonia entre los poderes del
podria, por ejemplo, so pretexto de tremendas su recurso no esta en acudir al poder judicial o al poder
Estado. Es parte de la prudencia y sabiduria de los
irregularidades y anomalias expuestas en el informe sobre ejecutivo, sino en apelar directamente al pueblo en la
gobernantes el evitar en todo lo posible cualquier ocasion
elecciones locales y provinciales, mandar suspender el epoca de elecciones, en los comicios, empleando el arma
de conflicto entre dichos poderes, recordando siempre que
juramento de algun concejal, alcalde o gobernador civil por excelencia del ciudadano — la balota; y,
si las instituciones son entidades abstractas, por ende
provincial electo, puesto que esto seria una usurpacion y finalmente, que el poder judicial no es un "curalo todo,"
anestesicas, insensibles, los hombres estan hechos de
una invasion de la jurisdiccion de los tribunales de justicia. una especie de Don Quijote que con la lanza en ristre
arcilla animada y ya no son tan impasibles como las
pretenda endereezar todos los entuertos.
instituciones. Pero hemos hallado que en el presente caso
De todo lo antedicho resulta evidente que, resolviendo la nuestro deber de actuar, y de actuar positivamente, tiene
promera cuestion propuesta, la Resolucion Pendatun la fuerza de un imperativo categorico. Nuestra jurisdiccion Como se ve, nos llaman a decidir custiones de tremenda
objeto de controversia es ilegal, es anticonstitucional y es, esta escrita en la Constitutcion, se halla reafirmada en la importancia para el desenvolvimiento constitutcional en
por tanto, insostenible. ley. En el Titulo VIII de la Constitucion (sobre la judicatura) este pais; lo que resolvamos puede trascender mucho
esta declarada tanto implicita como expresamente la mas alla del promedio de tiempoo en que puede durar
facultad judicialde resolver y decidir casos nuestra existencia. Puede dicirse sin inmodestia que
Segunda cuestion. — A la luz de nuestra constitucionales; y en la regla 67 del Reglamento de los grandes diciones del futuro — empleamos la palabra no
Constitucion y de nuestras leyes ? tiene este
Tribunales hallamos la implementacion procesal de esa en su sentido exclusivamente judicial — dependeran de
Tribunal Supremo jurisdiccion y competencia jurisdiccion y competencia. como resolvamos esas cuestiones formidables que se nos
para conocer, enjuiciar y decidir el asunto?
plantean hoy.
Puede decirse que en este respecto nuestra Constitucion
Los recurrentes invocan nuestra jurisdiccion pidiendo un es una edicion mejorada de la Constitucion federal de los En parte, el argumento expuesto es correcto y acertado.
remedio a que, segun ellos, tienen derecho bajo la Estados Unidos. Como se sabe, la llamada facultad No se puede discutir que los tres poderes del Estado son
Constitucion y la ley. Alegan que son Senadores electos y,
judicial de revisar la Constitucion en controversias iguales e independientes entre si; que ninguno de ellos es
por tanto, funcionarios constitucionales de Filipinas, pues propiamente planteadas no se halla concedida superior al otro, mucho menos el poder judicial que entre
el Senado es cuerpo constitucional; que han sido expresamente en la magna carta americana. Ha diso el los tres es el menos fuerte y el mas precario en medios e
implementos materiales. Tampoco se pude discutir que de gobierno constitucional, los redactores de nuestra se planteaban y discutian ante esta Corte cuestiones
bajo la Constitucion cada poder tiene una zona, una Constitucion han adoptado el tipo americano, en donde el importantisimas resultantes de la Constitucion del
esfera de accion propia y privativa, y dentro de esa esfera departamento judicial interpreta y da efecto a la Commonwealth que acababa de promulgarse. Se trataba
un cumulo de facultades que le pertenecen Constitucion escrita. En algunos paises, que han rehusado precisamente de deslindar las zonas constitucionales
exclusivamente; que dentro de esa esfera y en el suso de seguir el ejemplo americano, se han insertado ocupadas por la Asamblea Nacional y la Comision
esas facultades cada poder tiene absoluta discrecion y disposiciones en sus constituciones prohibiendo a los electoral; es decir que, fundamentalmente, casi, casi las
ningun otro poder puede controlar o revisar sus actos so tribunales que ejerciten su facultad de interpretar la ley mismas cuestiones que ahora se plantea ante nosotros.
pretexto de que alguien los cuestiona o tach de arbitrarios, fundamental. Esto se toma como un reconocimiento de lo La teoria de la separacion de poderes — el leit motif de la
injustos, imprudentes o insensatos. Pero la insularidad, la que, de otro modo, seria la regla de que a falta de presente controversia — se analizo y discutio alli hasta en
separacion llega solo hasta aqui. Desde Montesquieu que prohibicion expresa los tribunales estan obligados a sus ultimas implicaciones los siguientes; Jose Angara
lo proclamo cientificamente hasta nuestros dias, el asumir lo que logicamente es deber suyo" habia sido proclamado Representante electo por uno de
principio de la separacion de poderes ha sufrido (Angara contra Comision Electoral, 63, Jur. Fil., 173, 174). los distritos de Tayabas. Al inaugurarse la Asamblea
tremendas modificaciones y limitaciones. El consenso Nacional su acta fue confirmada por este cuerpo
doctrinal hoy es que la teoria es solo relativa y que la juntamente con las de otros Representantes contra
En el famoso asunto de Marbuyr vs. Madison, supra, el
separacion de poderes queda condicionada mecanica quienes no se habian formulado protestas. el acta de
Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos, por boca de su
constitucional — la mecanica de los frenos y cortapisas. Angara no estaba protestada entonces. Algunos dias
gran Chief Justice John Marshall, en tarminos inequivocos
(Willoughby, On the Constitution of the United States, despues Pedro Insua, su contrincante, presento una
definio y explico las facultades de la judicatura para poner
tomo 3, pags. 1619, 1620, 2.ª edicion.) Como queda dicho, protesta ante la Comision electoral que acababa
en vigor la Constitucion como la suprem ley del pais, y
cada poder es absoluto dentro de la esfera que le asigna solamente de constituirse. Escuadado tras el hecho de
declaro que "es terminantemente de la competencia y
la Constitucion; alli el juego de sus facultades y funciones que su acta ya habia sido confirmada por la Asamblea
deber del departamento judicial el decider cual es la ley
no se puede coartar. Pero cuando se sale y extravasa de Nacional, Angara vino a esta Corte planteando una accion
que rige.
esa esfera invadiendo otros esferas constitucionales, orginaria para que se expidiera un mandamiento de
ejerciendo facultades que no le pertenecen, la teoria de la inhibicion prohibiendole a la Comision Electoral que
separacion ya no le ampara, la Constitucion que es The reasoning of Webster and Kent is siguera conociendo de la protesta. Esta Corte acepto el
superior a el le sale al encuentro, le restringe y le achica substantially the same. Webster says: "The reto asumiendo jurisdiccion sobre el caso, procediendo a
dentro de sus fronteras, impidiendo sus incursiones Constitution being the supreme law, it follows of desempenar su alta funcion de interllamo deslinde de
anticonstitucionales. La cuestion ahora a determinar es si course, that every act of the legislature constrary facultades constitucionales. Reconociendo y
bajo nuestro sistema de gobierno hay un mecanismo que to the law must be void. But who shall decide estableciendo firmemente la jurisdiccion exclusiva de la
permite restablecer el juego normal de la Constitucion this question? Shall the legislature itself decide novisima Comision Electoral sobre controversias relativas
cuando surgen estos desbarajustes, estos conflictos que it? If so, then the Constitution ceases to be legal a la eleccion de miembros de la Asamblea Nacional, esta
podriamos llamar de fronteras constitucionales; tambien es and becomes only a moral restraint for the Corte denego el recurso de prohibicion. Llevaando las
cuestion a determinar si cuando surgen esos conflictos, un legislature. If they, and they only, are to judge cosas por la tremenda, la Asamblea Nacional, bajo la
ciudadano sale perjudicado en sus derechos, el mismo whether their acts be conformable to the teoria de la separacion de poderes, pudo haber ignorado
tiene algun remedio expedito y adecuado bajo la Constitution, then the Constitution is advisory la decision de esta Corte, pudo haber pasado por encima
Constitucion y las leyes, y quien puede concederle ese and accessory only, not legally binding; de la Comision Electoral conservandole el asiento a
remedio. Y con esto llegamos a la cuestion basica, because, if the construction of it rest wholly with Angara, ya que el acta de este habia sido confirmada por
cardinal en este asunto. them, their discretion, in particular cases, may ella cuando jjaun no habia portesta. No lo hizo. La
be in favor of very erroneous constructions. Constitucion, casi entre los pañales aun de su cuna, se
Hence the courts of law, necessarily, when the salvo gracias a la compostura de todo el mundo, saliendo
Nuestra opinion es que ese mecanismo y ese remedio
case arises, must decide upon the validityof ilesa de la prueba, rodeada de grandes prestigios. Las
existen — son los tribunales de justicia. "They very
particular acts." Webster, Works, Vol. III, 30. conclusiones y pronunciamientos de la Corte por boca del
essence of the American conception of the separation of
(Willoughby on the Constitution of the United ponente el Magistrado Laure, parecen estereotipados para
powers is its insistence upon the inherent distinction
States, Vol. 1, 2d edition pp. 4,5.) el case que nos ocupa y para el presente momento
between lawmaking and law-interpreting, and its
historico con todas sus crisis; asi que los vamos a
assignment of the latter to the judiciary, a notion which,
reproducir en toda su integridad a continuacion:
when brought to bear upon the Constitution, yields judicial En realidad, esta cuestion no es nueva en esta jurisdicion.
review" (Corwin, The Twilight of the Supreme Court, p. El precedente mas inmediato que tenemos en nuestra
146). En Angara contra Comision Electoral (supra) dijimos jurisprudencia es el asunto de Angara contra Comision La separacion de poderes es un principio
que "prescindiendo del tipo ingles y otros tipos europeos Electoral ya tantas veces citado (1936). Por primera vez fundamental de nuestro sistema de gobierno. Se
establece, no por disposicion expresa, sino por sasignacion de facultade as los departamentos nada de su origen historico y desenvolvimiento
division real trazada en nuestra Constitucion. ejecutivo, legislativo y judicial de Gobierno. La aqui, ha sido dejado en reposo por la
Cada departamento del Gobeierno tiene superposicion y el entralazamiento de funciones aquiescencia popular por un periodo de mas de
conocimiento exclusivo de las materias que y deberees de los varios departamentos, sin un siglo y medio. En nuestro caso, este poder
caen dentro de su jurisdiccion, y es supremo embargo, a veces hace dificil decir precisamente moderador esta concedido, si no expresamente,
dentro de su propia esfera. Pero del hecho de donde termina uno y empieza otro. En tiempos por decuccion tacita del articulo 2, Titulo VIII, de
que los tres poderes han de conservarse de intraquilidad social o excitacion politica, las nuestra Constitucion.
separados yu distintos no se sigue que la grandes piedras angulares de la Constitucion
Constitucion se propuso que fuerean son susceptibles de ser olvidadas o anubladas,
La Constitucion es una defnicion de las
absolutamente irrestringidos e independientes si no desatendidas enteramente. En casos de
facultades del Gobierno. ¿Quien es el llamado a
unos de otros. La Constitucion ha dispuesto un conflicto, el departamento judicial es el unico
determinar la naturaleza, proposito y alcance de
sistema elaborado de frenos y cortapisas para organismo constitucional que puede ser llamado
esas facultades? La Constitucion misma ha
asegurar coordinacion en los trabajos de los para deteminar el proprio deslinde de facultades
dispuesto el organismo de la judicatura como el
varios departamentos del Gobierno. Por entre los varios departamentos y entre las
medio racional. Y, cuando la judicatura media
ejemplo, el Jefe Ejecutivo, bajo nuestra unidades integrales o constituyentes de los
para determinar los linderos constitucionales, no
Constitucion, es hasta tal punto erigido en un mismos.
mantiene ninguna superioridad sobre los otros
freno para el poder legislativo que se requiere
departamentos; en realida no anula ni invalida
su asentimiento en la aprobacion de las leyes.
Como cualquier producto humano, nuestra un acto de la Legislatura, sino que solamente
Sin embargo, esto esta sujeto al ulterior freno de
Constitucion carece, desde luego, de perfeccion asevera la solemne y sagrada obligacion a ella
que un proyecto de ley puede convertirse en ley
y perfectibilidad; pero, en tanto en cuanto asignada por la Constitucion de determinar
no obstante la negativa del Presidente de
estaba en manos de nuestro pueblo disponerlo pretensiones incompatibles de autoridad
aprobarlo, por medio de una votacion de dos
asi, obrando por medio de sus delegados, ese dimanada de la Constitucion, y de establecer
tercios tiene el Presidente facultad de convocar
instrumento, que es expresion de su soberania, para las partes en una contraversia actual los
a la Asamblea cuando lo crea conveniente. Por
por limitada que se, ha establecido un gobierno derechos que ese intrumento asegura y
otra parte, la Asamblea Nacional funciona como
republicano destinado a obrar y funcionar como garantiza a las mismas. Esto, a la verdad, es
un freno sobre el Ejecutivo, en el sentido de que
un conjunto armonico, bajo un sistema de frenos todo lo que va implicito en la expresion
es necesario su consentimiento, por medio de la
y cortapisas, y con sujecion a las limitaciones y "supremacia judicial", que propiamente es la
Comision de Nombramientos, en el
restricciones que se disponen en dicho facultad de revision judicial bajo la Constitucion.
nombramiento de ciertos funcionarlos; y es
instrumento. La Constitucion señala, en un Aun entonces, este poder de revision judicial
esencial la conformidad de todos sus miembros
lenguaje nada incierto, las restricciones y esta limitado a casos y controversias reales, que
para la conclusien de tratados. Ademas, en su
limitaciones de los poderes y organismos se ha de ejercitar despues de que las partes
facultad de determinar que tribunales, que no
gubernamentales. Si estas restrcciones y han tenido plena libertad de hacerse oir, y esta,
sea el Tribunal Supremo, se habran de
limitaciones fueran traspuestas, seria ademas, limitado a la cuestion constitucional
establecer, para definir su competencia, y de
inconcebible que la Constitucion no hubiera suscitada, o a la misma lis mota planteada.
destinar fondos para su sostenimiento, la
dispuesto un mecanismo por el cual pudiera Cualquier tentativa de abstraccion , solo
Asamblea Nacional rigte al departamento
encauzarse el curso del Gobierno por los conduciria a la dialectica, y obstaculizaria las
judicial en cierto grado y medida. La Asamblea
canales constitucionales, pues entoneces la cuestiones legales, y a conclusiones esteriles
ejercita, tambien, la facultad judicial de conocer
distribucion de poderes seria merea palabreria, que nada tendrian que ver con los hechos
de recusaciones. Y la judicatura, a su vez, con
el bill de derechos meras expresiones reales. Circunsrita de este modo a sus
el Tribunal Supremo por arbitro final, frena con
sentimentales, y los principios de buen gobierno funciones, la judicatura no se ocupa de resolver
efectividad a los demas departamentos en el
meros apotegmas politicos. Ciertamente, las cuestiones sobre la cordura, justicia o
ejercicio de su facultad de determinar la ley, y
limitaciones y restricciones que comprende convenciencia de la legislacion. Aun mas, los
de aqui que pueda declarar nulos los actos
nuestra Constitucion son reales, como debe tribunales conceden la presucnion de
ejecutivos y legislativos que contravengan la
serlo en cualquier Constitucion. En loos Estados constitucionalidad a las leyes aprobadas por la
Constitucion.
Unidos en donde no se encuentra ninguna Legisltura, no solamente porque se presume
concesion constitucional expresa en su que esta acata la Constitucion, sino, tambien,
Pero, en esencia, la Constitucion ha delineado Constitucion, la posesion de este poder porque la judicatura, en el fallo de actuales
con mano firme y en terminos energicos la moderador de los tribunales, por no diceir ya casos y controversias, debe reflejar la sabiduria
y la justicia del pueblo, tal y como se han constitucionales; nos referimos al asunto de Carmen democretico; que, en efecto, ella escribio el articulo no
expresado por medio de sus representantes y Planas, recurrente, contra Jose Gil, Comisionado del como concejal sino como persona particular; que como
por los departamentos ejecutivo y legislativo del Servicio Civil, recurrido, decidido por este Tribunal funcionario ella solamente podia ser investigada y
Gobierno. Supremo el 18 de enero de 1939 bajo la ponencia del exigirsele responsabilidad por motivo de prevaricacion,
mismo Magistrado Laurel (67 Phil., 62). Carmen Planas, mala conducta o infraccion relacionada con su cargo, y
siendo miembro de la Junta Municipal de Manila, publico este no era el caso; que suponiendo que el articulo en
Pero por mucho que pudieramos postular sobre
un articulo en La Vanguardia criticando duramente a cuestion fuera libeloso o contuviera algo por lo cual la
los frenos internos de poderes que dispone
ciertos funcionarios del Gobierno, entre ellos el Presidente articulista pudiera ser cirminalmente responsable, el
nuestra Constitucion, debe, con todo, recordarse
de Filipinas Sr. Quezon, en relacion con las elecciones de Codigo Penal y el Procedimiento Criminal Señalan el
que, segun las palabras de James Madison, el
Diputados a la Asamblea Nacional celebradas el 8 de modo de hacerefectiva esa responsabilidad ante los
sistema mismo no es el principal paladin de la
noviembre de 1938. Entre los fuertes cargos formulados tribunales de justicia. El Procurador General, al impugnar
libertad constitucional . . . el pueblo, que es el
por la articulista contra los dioses del Olimpo oficial , el recurso, aleego entre otros fundamentos que este
autor de esta bendicion, debe, tambien, ser su
figuraban los siguientes: que, no obstante el tacito Tribunal, bajo "el principio de la separacion de poderes
guardian . . . sus ojos deben siempre estar
interdicto impuesto por la Constitucion al disponer que el establecido por la Constitucion, no tenia jurisdiccion para
alertos para señalar, su voz para delatar . . .
Presidente de Filipinas ejerciese su cargo por un solo revisar las ordenes del jefe Ejecutivo de que se trata, las
agresiones a la autoridad de su constitucion. En
periodo — años — sin reeleccion, situandosele de esta cuales son de caracter puramente administrativo,"
ultimo analisis, pues, el trinof de nuestro
manera en las serenas alturas del Poder como un citandose en apoyo de la impugnacion las sentencias de
Gobierno en los años venideros debera ser
supremo arbitro, moderador y neutral, el Sr. Quezon este Tribunal en los asunto de Severino contra El
puesto a prueba en el crisol de las mentes y en
intervino activamente en aquellas elecciones a favor de Gobernador General y Junta Provincial de Negros
los corazones de los filipinos, mas bien que en
los nacionalistas poniendo en juego toda la enorme Occidental, Abueva contra Wood y
las salas de consultas y camaras de audiencia
influencia de su cargo y apalstando asi a los condidatos Alejandrion contra Quezon, citados en otra parte de esta
de los tribunales." (Angara contra Comision
de la oposicion; que toda la maquinaria del Gobierno se disiddencia. Esta Corte desestimo la objecion y resolvio
Electoral, 63 Jur. Fil., 169-172.)
movilizo favor de los candidatos nacionalistas, que tenia jurisdiccion y competencia sobre el caso,
colocandose en la vanguardia de dicha movlizaccion los diciendo que si bien "los actos del Ejecutivo ejecutados
Algo mas se puede añadir sobre el caso de Angara. Alli la miembros del Gabinete; y que no se escatimaron medios dentro de los limites de su jurisdiccion son sus actos
Corte descarto sin vacilaciones la posibilidad de un vacio, para asegurar el trifunfo de los coandidatos de la oficialies y los tribunales no dirigiran ni controlaran la
de un estado juridico de inerme impotencia frente a adminstracion, el fraude y la corrupcion inclusive. Al dia si accion ejecutiva en tales casos" (la regla es la de no-
conflictos constitucionales, sentando la siguiente guiente de haberse publicado este articulo sensacional, la intervencion), sin embargo, "de esta premisa legal no se
conclusion: "En nuestro caso, la indole de la actual Srta. Planasa recibio una carta firmada de la siguiente sigue necesariamente que no podemo inquirir la validez o
contrversia revela la necesidad de un arbitro constitucional manera: "By authority of the President: Jorge B. Vargas, constitucionalidad de sus actos cuando estos se
ultimo que determine la incompatibilidad de facultades Secretary to the President," en donde se le decia: "Por la cuestionan y atacan en un procedimiento legal apropiado."
entre dos organismos creados por la Constitucion. Si presente se le instruye que comparezca ante el "Por lo que respecta a la judicatura" — añadio esta Corte
fueramos a rehusar el conocer de la contrversia ?quien Comisionado del Servicio Civil, sola o acompañada por un — "si bien es verdad que ella no agara `ni la estpada ni la
determinaria el conflicto? Y si se dejara sin decidir ni abogado, a las 9 de la mañana, Noviembre 22, para bolsa," es por arreglo constitucional el organo llmado para
determinar el conflicto ¿no se crearia en si un vacio en porbar las declaraciones hechas por usted. El que tales deslindar las fronteras constitucionales, y al Tribunal
nuestro sistema constitucional que la larga daria por cargo no se puedan sostener o no se pruebe que se han Supremo esta encomendada expresamente o por necesari
resultado echar a perder toda la labor? El hacer estas hecho de buena fe, sera considerado como razon aimplicacion la oblligacion de determinar en
preguntas es contestarlas. Natura vacuum abhorret, por lo suficiente para su suspension o destitucion del cargo." procedimientos appropieados la validea o
que debemos evitar toda postracion en nuestro sistema constitucionalidad de cualquier tratado, ley, ordenanaza,
constitucional." No solamente esto — añadimos — sino orden ejecutiva o regulacion."
La Srta. Planas objeto a la investigacion rescusando al
que a toda costa debemos evitar que fuera de la legalidad
Comissionaldo del Servicio Civil. Este, sin embargo,
sse forme un "territorio de nadie" donde puedan germinar
insistio en proseguir la investigacion y fue entonces Es verdad que esta Corte denego el recurso interpuesto
situaciones peligrosas y explosivas.
cuando ella vino ante este Tribunal Supremo pidiendo un por la Srta. Planas, pero no por el fundamento de la falta
mandamiento de prohibicion contra el Comisionado, por de jurisdiccion alegado poor el Procurador General, sino
Pero ademas del caos de Angara tenemos en nuestra los siguientes fundamentos, entre otros: que bajo la porque llego a la conclusion de que la orden de
jurisprudencia otro precedente mas inmediato todavia en Constitucion y las leyes que protegen la libertad de investigacion cuestionada caia dentro de los limites
apoyo de la tesis de la supremacia judicial en tratandose palabra y de expresion, ella tenia derecho o formular la constitucionales de la jurisdiccion del Presidente, y, por
de interpretar la Constitucion y de dirimir conflictos censura de que se trata como libre ciudadana de un pais tanto, era valida, constitucional y legalmente. He aqui los
prononciamientos pertinentes de la Corte, los cuales no mathematical precision and divide the branches necessarily abated or suspended. The facts in
tienen desperdicio y reafirman con todo vigor la doctrina into watertight compartments" not only because Severino vs. Governor-General (supra), Abueva
de la supremacia judicial en materia de deslindes "the great ordinances of the Constitution do not vs. Wood (supra), and Alejandrino vs. Quezon,
constitucionales, establecida en el asunto de Angara, a establish and divide fields of blacks and white" (supra), are different, and the doctrines laid
saber: but also because "even the more specific of down therein must be confined to the facts and
them are found to terminate in a penumbra legal environment involved and whatever
shading gradually from one extreme to the general observations might have been made in
The Solicitor General, under the last paragraph
other." (Springer vs. Government [1928], 277 elaboratioon of the views therein expressed but
(par. 10) of his amended answer, raises the
U.S. 189; 72 Law ed., 845, 852.) As far as the which are not essential to the determination of
question of jurisdiction of this court over the acts
judiciary is concerned, while it holds "neither the the issues presented are mere obiter dicta.
of the Chief Executive. He contends that "under
sword nor the purse" it is by constitutional
the separation of powers marked by the
placement the organ called upon to allocate
Constitution, the court has no jurisdiction to While, generally, prohibition as an extraordinary
constitutional boundaries, and to the Supreme
review the orders of the Chief Executive, legal writ willnot issue to restrain or control the
Court is entrusted expressly or by necessary
evidenced by Annex A and Annex C of the performance of other than judicial or quasi-
implication the obligation of determinig in
petition, which are of purely administrative judicial functions (50 C.J., 658), its issuance and
appropriate cases the constitutionality or validity
character." Reliance is had on the prrvious enforcement are regulated by statute and in this
of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order
decisions of this court: Severino vs. Governor- jurisdiction it may issue to any inferior tribunal,
or regulation. (Sec. 2 [1], Article VIII, Constitution
General ([1910], 16 Phil., 366);Abueva vs. Wood corporation, board, or person, whether
of the Philippines.) In this sense and to this
([1924], 45 Phil., 612); and Alejandrino vs. exercising functions judicial or ministerial, whose
extent, the judiciary restrains the other
Quezon ([1924], 46 Phil., 83). Although this is acts are without or in excess of jurisidction.
departments of the government and this result is
the last point raised by the Government in its (Secs. 516 and 226, Code of Civil Procedure.)
one of the necessary corollaries of the "system
answer, it should, for reasons that are apparent, The terms "judicial" and "ministerial" used with
of checks and balances" of the government
be first to be considered. If this court does not reference to "functions" in the statute are
established.
have jurisdiction to entertain these proceedings, undoubtedly comprehensive and include the
then, the same should be dismissed as a matter challenged investigation by the
of course; otherwise the merits of the In the present case, the President is not a party respondentCommissioner of Civil Service, which
controversy should be passed upon and to the proceeding. He is neither compelled nor investigation if unauthorized and is violative of
determined. restrained to act in a particular way. the the Constitution as contended is a fortiori without
Commissioner of Civil Service is the party or in excess or jurisdiction. The statutory rule in
respondent and the theory is advanced by the this jurisdiction is that the writ of prohibition is
It must be conceded that the acts of the Chief
Government that because an investigation not confined exclusively to courts or tribunals to
Executive performed within the limits of his
undertaken by him is directed by authority of the keep them within the limits of their own
jurisidction are his official acts and courts will
President of the Philippines, this court has no jurisdiction and to prevent them from
neither direct nor restrain executive action in
jurisdiction over the present proceedings encroaching upon the jurisdiction of other
such cases. The rule is noninterference. But
instituted by the petitioner, Carmen Planas. The tribunals, but will issue, in appropriate cases, to
from this legal premise, it does not necessarily
argument is ferafetched. A mere plea that a an officer or person whose acts are without or in
follow that we are precluded from making an
subordinate officer of the government is acting excess of his authority. Not infrequently, "the writ
inquirey into the validity or constitutionality of his
under orders from the Chief Executive may be is granted, where it is necessary for the orderly
acts when those are properly challenged in an
an important averment, but is neither decisive administration of justice, or to prevent the use of
appropriate legal proceeding. The classical
nor conclusive upon this court. Like the dignity of the strong arm of the law in an oppressive or
separation of governmental powers, whether
his high office, the relative immunity of the Chief vindictive manner, or a multiplicity of actions."
viewed in the light of the political philosophy of
Executive from judicial interference is not in the (Dimayuga and Fajardo vs. Fernandez [1922],
Aristotle, Locke, or Montesquieu, or of the
nature of a sovereign passport for all the 43 Phil., 304, 307; Aglipay vs. Ruiz [1937], 35
postulations of Mabini, Madison, or Jefferson, is
subordinate officials and employees of the Off. Gaz., 1264.) This court, therefore, has
a relative theory of government. There is more
Executive Department to the extent that at the jurisdiction over the instant proceedings and will
truism and actuality in interdependence than in
mere invocation of the authority that it purports accordingly proceed to determine the merits of
independence and separation of powers, for as
the jurisdiction of this court to inquire into the the present controversy.
observed by Justice Holmes in a case of
validity or legality of an executive order is
Philippine orgin, we cannot lay down "with
Se arguye, sin embargo, que de permitirse la trataba de una orden ejecutiva expedida por directa completamente ultra vires. Y no es necesario que
interventcionjudicial para deslinde constitucional o para autorizacion del Presidente? Y asi como se pudo dictar repitamos los argumentos ya extensamente desarrollados
dirimir conflictos constitucionales, ello tiene que ser una sentencia a favor del recurrido por el fundamento de acercade este punto.
en casos o procedimientos apropiados. Se dice que en el que con la expedicion de la orden cuestionada el
asunto de Angara la intromision judicial era procedente y Presidente ne se habia extralimitado de sus facultades
Todas las autoridades que se citan en la decision de la
justificada porque en el la parte litigante era solo la constitucionales y estatutorias, a sensu contrario tambien
mayoria en el asunto de Alejandrino tienen la misma
Comision (Tribunal) Electoral, como recurrida, y la se hubiera podido dictar una sentencia adversa, es decir,
ratiodecidendi, el mismo leit motif. Se trata de casos en
Asamblea Nacional, como uno de los tres poderes del si se hubiese tratado de un acto ejecutivo que cae fuera
que los actos discutidos recaian dentro de las facultades
Estado, no era ni recurrente ni recurrida. Por analogia se de las facultades conferidas al Presidente por la
constitucionales del poder envuelto en el litigio; de ahi la
insinua tambien que en el asunto de Planas contra Gil Constitucion; y en este ultimo caso la sentencia no hubiera
negativa del departamento judicial a intervenir, a
Presidente de Filipinas no era parte directa sino tan solo el sido menos derogatoria tan solo porque hubiese estado
entrometerse.
Comisionado del Servicio Civil. dirigida contra el Comisionado del Servicio Civil que
actuaba por mandato directo del Presidente. El que esta a
las maduras, tambien debe estar a las duras. . . . Y si examinamos los precedentes locales sobre la materia,
El argumento es de esos que, por su sutileza, provocan
vemos que la veta de la jurisprudencia tiene el mismo tipo,
una batalla de argucxias hasta sobre el filo de una navaja,
la misma naturaleza. En el asunto de
como se suele dicir. Es verdad que en el caso de Angara Se nos dice, sin embargo, que el caso de Angara no es la
Barcelon contra Baker y Thompson (5 Jur. Fil., 89) se
la Asamblea Nacional no era parte directa porque de su cita pertinente aplicable, sino el de Alejandrino contra
declaro legal lo hecho por el Gobernador General por la
inclusion no habi necesidad; pero ¿cambia ello el aspecto Quezon (46 Jur. Fil., 87, 151), decidido en 1924. El
razon de que caia dentro de sus poderes politicos o
de la cuestion? ¿Se puede negar que alli habia conflicto Senador Alejandrino agredio a otro miembro del Senado
ejecutivos bajo la constitucion.
de jurisdicciones contituciones constitucionales entre la fuera de la sala de sesiones de resultas de un debate
Asamablea y la Comision electoral y que cuando, a acalorado. Con motivo del incidente la mayoria aprobo
instancia de parte, se invoco y pidio la intervencioon de una resulucion. suspendiendo a Alejandrino por un año y Lo propio se hizo en los siguientes asuntos:
esta Corte, la misma intermvino y se declaro competente privandole, ademas, de todas sus prerrogativas, privilegios
para hacer el deslinde constituticonal y finalmente y emolumentos durante dicho periodo de tiempo.
adjudico la zona disputada a la Comision (Tribunal) Alejandrino planteo ante esta Corte una accion originaria Forbes contra Chuoco Tiaco y Crossfield, 16 Jur. Fil.,
535; Asunto de McCulloch Dick, 38 Jur. Fil., 43, 225, 240;
Electoral? Supongase que una mayoria de los miembros pidiendo la expedicion de una orden de mandamus o
de la Asamblea Nacional, pasando por encima de la interdicto para que se le repusiera en su cargo on todos Severino contra gobernador General y Junta Provincial de
sentencia de esta Corte, hubieran insistido en hacer los drechos y privilegios anexos. Se denego el recurso por Negros Occidental, 16 Jur. Fil., 369; Abueva contra Wood,
efectiva la confirmacion del acta de Angara y le hubieran el fundamento de que esta Corte carecia de jurisdiccion 45 Jur. Fil., 643.
dado un asiento en los escanos de dicha Asamblea, para conocer del asunto.
despojando a la Comision Electoral de su derecho de Al negarse esta Corte a revisar lo actuado por el Jefe
conocer y enjuiciar la protesta de Insua ?hubiera ello Ejecutivo en los casos citados, ha tenido indudablemente
Un somero examen del caso Alejandrino demuestra, sin
modificado la fase fundamental del caso, haciendo en cuenta el siguiente pronunciamiento del Chief
embargo, que no tiene ninguna paridad con el que nos
constitucional lo que era anticonstitucional, y hubiera Justice Marshall en el citado asunto de Marburry vs.
ocupa. Es evidente que el Senado tenia el derecho de
perdido este Tribunal Supremo la jurisdiccion para Madison: "The Constitution itself endows the President
castigar a Alejandrino dentro de sus facultades
entender del asunto? Indudablemente que no: la infraccion with certain important political powers in the exercise of
disciplinarias provistas por la ley organica — la Ley Jones.
de la Constitucion seria misma, tal vez mayor y mas grave; which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable
Esta era una facultad discrecional y constitucional cuyo
y la jurisdiccion de este Tribunal para interveneir en el onlyu to his country in his political character, and to his
ejercicio no podia ser regido ni revisado por ningun otro
conflicto, mas obligada y mas forzosa, a fin de mantener own conscience." De modo que, en ultimo resultado, en
poder. Como hemos dicho mas arriba, cada poder es
inviolada la suprema Ley de la nacion. En otras palabras, tales casos se ha reconocido que el ejecutivo ha ejercido
arbitro unico y exclusivo dentro de su esfera
la inhibicion judicial no seria una actitud mas correcta, mas solamente sus poderes constitucionales; nada hay en
constitucional. (Planas contra Gil, 67 Phil., 62.) Ninguno
sana y mas prudente tan solo porque la infraccion de la ellos que sugiera la idea de la inmunidad e
tiene derecho a entrometerse en la forma como se las
Constitucion fuera mas audaz y mas agresiva. Aqui no irresponsabilidad por una infraccion de la Constitucion.
arregla alli. Pero nuestro caso es completamente
habria medias tintas: to be or not to be, que dijo Hamlet.
diferente. Aqui los recurridos o la mayoria de los
Senadores han ejercido una facultad que Contra la pretension de que el departamento judicial no
Y lo propio se puede decir del asunto de Planas contra Gil. constitucionalmente no les pertenece. Por tanto, han puede revisar los procedimientos de una Camara
Es verdad que el Presidente no estaba nombrado como traspasado los confined de su predio constitucional, legislativa en casos de extralimitacion constitucional y
parte directa en el litigio. Pero ?que mas da? ?No se invadiendo otro; por tanto, la Resolucion Pendatun es
dictar la orden correspondiente, militan varios precedentes The Constitution declares that the judicial power say that such an utter perversion of their powers
en la jurisprudencia americana. El mas conocido y of the United States shall be vested in one to a criminal purpose would be screened from
celebrado entre ellos es el asunto de Kilbourn vs. Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as punishment by the constitutional provision for
Thompson (103 U.S., 168; 26 Law. ed., 377). En 1876 la the Congress may from time to time ordain. If freedom of debate. (Idem. p. 392.)
Camara de Representantes de los Estados Unidos aprobo what we have said of the division of the powers
una resolucion disponiendo que se investigara cierta of the government among the three departments
Ademas de la precedente cita, varias decisiones de los
compania en la que el gobierno federal, por medio del be sound, this is equivalent to a declaration
mas altos tribunales pueden ictarse en apoyo de la
Secretario de la Marina, habia hecho depositos that no judicial power is vested in the Congress
doctrina de que "todos los funcionarios, departamentos o
improvidentes de dinero publico. Se decia que la or either branch of it, save in the cases
agencias gubernamentales estan sujetos a restriccion
compania estaba en quiebra y el gobierno federal era uno specifically enumerated to which we have
judicial cuando obran fuereaa de sus facultades, legales o
de los mayores acreedores. Se alegaba, ademas, en la referred . . .
constitucionales, y por virtud de dicha extralimitacion
resolucion que los tribunales eran impotentes para hacer
privan a un ciudadano de sus derechos" (Osborn vs.
algo en el caso y proteger el interes publico. Se nombraba
We are of opinion, for these reasons, that the United States Bank, 9 Wheaton [U.S.], 739; Board of
en la resolucion un comite de cinco Representates para
Resolution of the House of Representatives Liquidation vs. McComb, 92 [U.S.], 531; United States vs.
efectuar la investigacion.
authorizing the investigation, was in excess of Lee, 106 U.S., 196; Virginia Cases, 114 U.S., 311; Regan
the power conferred on that body by the vs. Farmers & Co., 154 U.S., 362; Smith vs. Ames, 169
En el curso de la investigacion se le cito al recurrente Constitution; that the committee, therefore, had U.S. 466; Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123; Philadelphia Co.
Hallet Kilbourn subpoena duces tecum para que produjera no lawful authority to require Mr. Kilbourn to vs. Stimson, 223 U.S. 605.)
ante el comite ciertos documentos y contestase ciertas testify as a witness beyond what he voluntarily
preguntas. Killbourn se nego a hacer lo uno y lo otro. chose to tell; that the orders and resolutions of
Respecto de la facultad judicial para expedir, en casos
Kilbourn fue entonces arrestado por orden del Speaker y the House, and the warrant of the Speaker,
apropiados, ordenes coercitivas dirigidas a funcionarios de
como quiera que siguio rehusando contestar las mismas under which Mr. Kilbourn was improsined, are, in
la Legislatura, hay en la jurisprudencia americana una
preguntas formulada ahora por el Speaker y producir los like manner, void for want of jurisdiction in that
buena copia de autoridades. He aqui algunas de ellas:
documentos requeridos por el comite, la Camara aprobo body, and that his imprisonment was without any
otra resolucion disponiendo que Kilbourn fuese otra vez lawful authority. (Kilbourn vs. Thompson, 103
arrestado y detenido en la carcel de Distrito de Columbia U.S., 168; 26 Law. ed., 377.) . . . En el asunto Ex parte Pickett (24 Ala., 91) se
hasta que se aviniese a cumplir la orden contenida en las libro el mandamiento contra el Presidente de la
resoluciones de la Camara de representantes. Kilbourn no Camara de representantes para obligarle a que
Finalmente, la Corte dispuso que la causa contra
solo inistio en su negativa, sino que formulo una queja certificara al Interventor de Cuentas Publicas la
Thompson, el sargento de armas, se devolviera al tribunal
contra el sargento de armas de la Camara y los cinco cantidad a que tenia derecho el recurrente como
de origen para ulteriores procedimientos. Se estimo el
miembros del Comite por "trespass for false miembro de lal Camara como compensacion por
sobreseimiento con respecto a los miembros del comite
imprisonment," acusandoles de haberle arrancado de su millaje y dietas. En el asunto de State vs. Elder
bajo el principio de la libertad parlamentaria de debate qu
casa mediante fuerza y detnido por 45 dias en la carcel. (31 Neb., 169), se libro el mandamiento para
les hacia imunes. A proposito de esto ultimo son muy
Elevado el asunto al Tribunal Supremo Federal, este obligar al Presidente de la Camara de
significativas las siguientes palabras de la Corte:
declaro que la resolucion de investigacion era Representantes para que abriera y publicara los
anticonstitucional; que la investigacion no tenia por objeto resultados de la eleccion general. En el asunto
una accion legislativa sino que era mas bien para una It is not necessary to decided here that there de State vs. Moffitt (5 Ohio, 350) se declaro que
inquisicion de caracter judicial; asi que la Corte declaro lo may not be things done, in the one House or procedia expedir un mandamus contra el
siguiente: other, of an extraordinary character, for which Presidente de la Camara de Representantes
the members who take part in the act may be para obligarle que certificara la eleccion y
held legally responsible. If we could suppose the nombramiento de funcionarios. En el asunto de
In looking to the Preamble and Resolution under
members of these bodies so far to forget their Wolfe vs. McCaull (76 Va., 87) se expidio el
which the committee acted, before which Mr.
high functions and the noble instrument under mandmiento para obligar al Archivero de las
Kilbourn refused to testify, we are of opinion that
which they act as to imitate the Long Pariliament Nominas de la Camara de Representantes a
the House of Representatives not only exceeded
in the execution of the Chief Magistrate of the que imprimiera y publicara un proyecto de ley
the limit of its own authority, but assumed a
Nation, or to follow the example of the French aprobado por la Legislatura y, a solicitud, que
power which could only be properly exercised by
Assembly in assuming the functions of a court facilitara copia del mismo propiamente
another branch of the government, because the
for capital punishment, we are not prepared to certificada. (Veanse tambien los asuntos de
power was in its nature clearly judicial.
Kilbourn vs. Thompson, 103 U.S., 168; sino legislativas; luego la regla no es aplicable a ellos. Commission on Elections shall assume
Statee vs. Gilchrist, 64 Fla., 41People vs. Pero es evidente que en el presente caso la funcion de office and shall hold regular session for the year
Marton, 156 N.Y., 136.) que se trata no es de caracter legislativo sino ministerial; 1946 on May 25, 1946 (las bastardillas son
(Alejandrino contra Quezon, 46 Jur. Fil, 87, 149.) apenas es necesario decir que la Resolucion Pendatun no nuestras).
es un acto legislativo. Bajo la Constitucion y los estatutos
el derecho de un miembro electo del Congreso a ser
De lo expuesto resulta evidente que esta Corte tiene Si bajo estas disposisciones legales los recurrentes tienen
admitido y a ocupar su asiento es de naturaleza
facultad para dictar la sentencia y expedir el interdicto que el derecho de asumir el cargo, es obvio que los demas
ministerial, imperativa. La Ley No. 725 del Commonwealth,
se solicita. La orden ira dirigida no contra el Senado de Senadores, entre ellos los recurridos, tienen el correlativo
aprobada por el pasado Congreso para implimentar la Ley
Filipinas, entidad abastracta que nada ha hecho contra la deber ministerial de no impedirles el ejercicio de ese
Electoral con vista a Las elecciones nacionales del pasado
Constitucion. La orden resitringente ira dirigida contra los derecho, o dicho de otro modo, el correlativo deber
23 de Abril, dice en parte lo siguiente:
recurridos en cuanto ellos intentan hacer efectiva una ministerial de admitirles para que tomen posesion de sus
resolucion que es ilegal, que es anticonstitucional, lo cargos a la sola presentacion de sus credenciales que en
mismo que se hizo en el asunto de Kilbourn. Se les ART. 11. La Comision de Elecciones hara el este caso viene a ser la proclama expedidda por la
restringe y cohibe como se les restringiria y cohibiria si, escrutinio de los resultados para Senadores tan Comision sobre Elecciones declarandolos electos
por ejemplo, en vez de la Resolucion Pendatun, hubieran pronto como se hayan recibido las actas decada (Delegado Roxas, debates en la Asamblea
aporbado otra resolucion mandando a la carcel a los provincia y ciaudad, pero no depues del viente Constituyente, ut supra). Se dice que la frase shall assume
recurrentes hasta que el Tribunal Electoral resuelva la de mayo de milnovecientos cuarenta y seis. office, con ser imperative, no impone una obligacion
cuestion de sus actas. ¿Habria alguien que sostuviera que Sera proclamados elegidos los dieciseis especifica de admitir a cualquier miembro electo, sino que
si en tal caso vinieran a esta Corte los afectados para candidatos inscritos que obtuvieren el mayor es tan solo un mandamiento, un directive al legislador
pedir el adecuado remedio contra el atropello, esta Corte numero de votos para el cargo de Seandor. En electo para que tome posesion de su cargo
no podria concederlo bajo la teoria de la sepracion de caso de que apareciere de los resultados del inmediatamente, como si un candidato triunfante que, es
poderes? Luego la cuestion se reduce a una de grado, de escrutinio de los votos para Senadores que dos de presumir, se presento voluntariamente candidato y a lo
tamaño de la transgresion constitucional; pero es obvio os mas candidatos han obtenido el mismo mejor gasto una fortuna para promover su eleccion,
que nuestra jurisdiccion y competencia no queda numero de votos para el decimosexto puesto, la necesitara de eseukase legislativo para asumir su oficio.
condicionada por el volumen de la transgresion. ¿Y quien Comision de Elecciones, despues de hacer Pero concedamos por un momento, arguendo, que esa
diria en tal caso que el Senado de Filipinas ha sido el constar este hecho en el acta correspondiente, disposicion legal no tiene mas que el significado de una
sujeto de la orden de interdicto, con grave desdoro de sus celebrara otra sesion publica, previa notificacion especie de conscripcion civil, todavia cabe preguntar:
altos prestigios como uno de los tres poderes del Estado? con tres dias de antelacion a todos los ¿como prodri el legislador electoasumir forzosamente
candidatos empatados, para que ellos os sus (shall) su cargo, si, por otro lado, un mayoria de sus
representantes debidamente autorizados compañeros en conclave tuvieran la facultad discrecional
Puesto que la accion en el presente caso va dirigida no
puedan estar presentes si asi lo desearen, en la — que puede degenerar en arbitraria — de negarle el
contra el Senado como corporacion o institucion, sino
cual procedera al sorteo de los candidatos asiento, siquiera sea con caracter temporal? ¿No seria ello
contra una mayoria de sus miembros como personas,
empatados y proclamara el candidato que claramente un absurdo, un contrasentido? Luego la
como individuos, si bien en su concepto de Senadores,
saliere favorecido por la suerte. El condidato asi conclusion logica y natural es que esa frase imperativa es
dicho se esta que tenemos competencia para conceder el
proclamado tendra derecho a tomar posesion de doble via, esto es, tanto para admitir al miembro electo
recurso, no solo por las razones constitucionales ya
del cargo del mismo modo que si hubiere sido como para que este asuma el cargo.
expuestas, sino porque esta claramente reconocida y
elegido por pluralidad de votos. Acto seguido, la
definida dicha competencia en nuestros estatutos:
Comision de Elecciones levantara acta del
anteriormente en los articulos 226 y 516 de la Ley No. 190 Se apunta el temor de que la intervencion judicial en el
procedimiento seguido en el sorteo, de su
(Cod. de Proc. Civ.), y ahora en la regla 67, secciones 2 y caso que nos ocupa puede dar lugar a una grave
resultado y de la proclamacion subsiquiente. Se
4, Reglamento de los Tribunales. Estas disposiciones consecuencia — la de que una orden adversa sea
enviaran copias cerfificadas de dicha acta por
legales prescriben que el mandamiento de inhibicion desobedecida por los recurridos, suscitandose por tal
correo certificado al Secretario del Senado y a
(prohibition) puede expedirse a "una corporacion, junta, motivo un conflicto de poderes. Pero, aparte de que el
cada uno de os candidatos empatados.
o persona, en ejercicio de sus funciones judicales o deber — maxime si esta impuesto por la Constitucion y las
ministeriales, siempre que se demuestre que carecian de leyes — se tiene que cumplir rigurosamdnete por penoso
competencia o se han extralimitado de ella en las Art. 12. . . . The candidates for Member of the que fuese sin consideraciona las consecuencias, parece
actuaciones que hayan practicado" (Planas contra Gil House of Representatives and those for Senator impropio e injusto presumir que los recurridos sean
ut supra). Sin embargo, se arguye que los recurridos como who have been proclaimed elected by the capaces, en un momento dado, de desplazar las
Senadores no ejercen funciones judiciales ni ministeriales, respective Board of Canvassers and the cuestiones que entraña la presente controversia del
elevado nivel en que deben discutirse y resolverse, en No. 2941 que exigia a los jueces de primera instancia que violencia. El sistema presidencial no tiene esa valvula. El
medio de un atmosfera de absouta impersonalidad y echasen suertes cada cinco años para el cambio de periodo que media de eleccion a eleccion es inflexible.
objetividad, libre de los miasmas de la pasion y suspicacia distritos. Esta Corte declaro que la ley popularmente Entre nosotros, por ejemplo, el periodo es de seis años
Y no se diga, fulanizando ostensiblemente la cuestion que conocida por ley de la "loteria judicial" era para el Senado, y de cuatro años para la Camara de
cuando la judicatura, en el apropiado ejercicio de su anticonstitucional. Se concedio, por tanto, el mandamiento Representantes y los gobiernos provinciales y
facultad de interpretar la Constitucion y los estatutos, dicta de prohibicion, haciendose definitivo el interdicto municipales. Solamente se celebran elecciones especiales
un fallo adverso a ciertos intereses y a ciertos hombres preliminar expedido. para cubrir vacantes que ocurran entre unas elecciones
pertenecientes a otro poder del Estado, humilla y generales y otras. Se comprendera facilmente que bajo un
empequeñece con ello a ese poder, colocandolo en sistema asi es harto peligroso, es jugar con fuego el
Solo nos queda por considerar el argumento deprimente,
condicion inferior y subalterna. en los grandes conflictos y posibilitar situaciones donde el individuo y el pueblo no
desalentador de que el caso que nos ocupa no tiene
disputas sobre la cosa publica lo que, en verdad, pueden buscar el amparo de la Constitucion y de las
remedio ni bajo la Constitucion ni bajo las leyes ordinarias.
empequeñece y deslustra no es el contrateimpo y reves leyes, bajo procesos ordenandos y expeditos, para
A los recurrentes se les dice que no tienen mas que un
que se sufre — incidente inevitable en toda noble lid por la proteger sus derechos.
recurso: esperar las elecciones y plantear directamente la
razon, la verdad y la justicia — sino la falta de esa serena
cuestion ante el pueblo elector. Si los recurrentes tienen
dignidad, de ese sentido sobrio de propia inhibicion y
razon, el pueblo les reivindicara eleigiendoles o elevando En resumen, direcmos lo siguiente:
propio dominio paa aceptar y sufrir el reves, de todo eso
a su partido al poder, repudiando, en cambio, a los
que es la mejor piedra de toque de la madurez politica y
recurridos o a su partido. algunas cosas se podrian decir
de las virtudes publicas en un regimen de caracter popular Tenemos una Constitucion escrita que representa el genio
acerca de este argumento. Se podria decir, por ejemplo,
y democratico. Los hombres van y vienen, pasan con sus politico y socio de nuestro pueblo, que encarna nuestra
que el remedio no es expedito ni adecuado porque la
miserias y sus disputas en la interminable caravana del historia, nuestras tradiciones, nuestra civilizacion y cultura
mayoria de los recurridos han sido elegidos para un
tiempo; las instituciones quedan, y eso es lo que importa influida por las mas grandes civilizaciones y culturas
periodo de seis años, asi que no se les podra exigir
salvar a toda costa por encima de las pasiones y conocidas en el mundo. Esa Constitucion se escribio no
ninguna responsabilidad por tan largo tiempo. Se podria
caprichos transeuntes del momento. solo para el Commonwealth, sino para la Republica: esta
decir tambien que en una eleccion politica entra muchos
hecha para perdurar y sobrevivir a todas las crisis y
factores, y es posible que la cuestion que se discute hoy,
vicisitudes. Sobrevivio casi milagrosamente a la peor de
Se esta corte tiene, segun la Constitucion, facultad para con ser tan fervida y tan palpitante, quede, cuando llegue
estas — la ocupacion japonesa. Es un formidable
conceder el remedio solictado, es de suponer que los el caso, obscurecida por otros "issues" mas presionantes y
instrumento de libertad y democracia. Su modelo mas
recurridos acataran el fallo que se dicte, pues son decisvos. Tambien se podria decir que,
cercano es la Constitucion americana, pero en ciertos
hombres de orden y de ley, y seran los primeros en dar el independientemente de la justicia de su causa, un partido
respectos es una superacion del modelo. Uno de sus
ejemplo de cumplir los mandatos de la Constitucion, minoritario siempre lucha con desventaja contra el partido
aspectos mas originales y progresivos es indudablemente
interpretados y aplicados por la judicatura; pero si — lo mayoritario.
la creacion del Tribunal Electoral. Esta reforma constituye
que para nosotros es imposible que ocurra —
el valiente reconocimiento de una dura realidad, al propio
escudandose tras sus privilegios, llegaren al extremo de
Pero, a nuestro juicio, la mejor contestacion al argumento tiempo que un energico remedio.
cometer desacato, que cada cual asuma su
es que no cabe concebir que los redactores de la
responsabilidad ante su conciencia, ante el pais y ante la
Constitucion filipina hayan dejado en medio de nuestro
historia. Esta Corte habra cumplido solamente consu Pero en las constituciones la letra no es el todo, ni siquiera
sistema de gobierno un peligroso vacio en donde quedan
deber, sin miedo y sin favor, y en la forma mejor que le lo principal. Lo imporatante, lo fundamental es el espiritu,
paralizados los resortes de la Constitucion y de la ley, y el
haya sido dable hacerlo en la medida de sus luces y el caracter del pueblo; son las practicas, las costumbres,
ciudadano queda inerme, importente frente a lo que el
alcances. los habitos politicos que vivifican e implementan la letra
considera flagrante transgresion de sus derechos. Los
esrita que es inorganica e inerte. Exceptuando el
redactores de la Constitucion conocian muy bien nuestro
parentesis tragico de la guerraa, nuestra Constitucion lleva
En esta jurisdiccion tenemos un precedente tipico, claro y sistema de gobierno — sistema presidenecial. Sabian
unos ocho años de vigencia. En ese breve periodo de
terminante de orden coercitiva dirigida por el mauy bien que este no tiene la flexibilidad del tipo ingles
tiempo se ha formado en su derredor una limitada
departamento judicial al departamento ejecutivo del — el parlamentario. En Inglaterra y en los paises que
jurisprudencia, encaminada a robustecerla y expandirla
gobierno. Nos referimos al asunto de siguen su sistema hay una magnifica valvula de seguridad
como intrumento de libertad y democracia. Los casos de
Concepcion contraParedes (42 Jur. Fil., 630) en el cual se politica; cuando surge una grave crisis, de esas que
Angara y Planas, tan copiosamente comentados en esta
trataba de una solicitud de mandamiento de inhibicion sacuden los cimientos de la nacion, el parlamento se
modesta disidencia, son tipicamente representativos de
ordenando al recurrido Secretario de Justicia de inhibicion disuelve y se convocan elecciones generales para que el
esa magnifica tendencia. La custion ahoraa es si esta ha
ordenando al recurrido Secretario de Justicia que pueblo decida los grandes "issues" del dia. Asi se
de poder continuar sin estorbos, sin trabas, o ha de sufrir
desistiera de poner en vigor las disposiciones de la Ley consuman verdaderas revoluciones, sin sangre, sin
un serio reves en su marcha ascendente. Nuestro sentir x-----------------------x A.M. No. 10-2-5- FERDINAND GAITE; KALIPUNAN
es que se debe permitir el ordenado desenvolvimiento de IN RE APPLICABILITY OF SC NG DAMAYANG MAHIHIRAP
la Constitucion en toda su anchura, bajo los amplisimos SECTION 15, ARTICLE VII OF THE (KADAMAY) SECRETARY
auspicios de la libertad, en terminos y perspectivas que CONSTITUTION TO GENERAL GLORIA ARELLANO;
hagan de ella la formidable herramienta de democracia y APPOINTMENTS TO THE ALYANSA NG NAGKAKAISANG
justicia que debe ser. JUDICIARY, KABATAAN NG SAMBAYANAN
ESTELITO P. MENDOZA, PARA SA KAUNLARAN
¡ Ojala el resultado del presente asunto no sea parte para Petitioner, (ANAKBAYAN) CHAIRMAN KEN
estorbar ese desenvolvimiento! x-----------------------x LEONARD RAMOS; TAYO ANG
JOHN G. PERALTA, G.R. No. 191149 PAG-ASA CONVENOR ALVIN
Petitioner, PETERS; LEAGUE OF FILIPINO
- versus - STUDENTS (LFS) CHAIRMAN
JAMES MARK TERRY LACUANAN
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL RIDON; NATIONAL UNION OF
(JBC). STUDENTS OF THE PHILIPPINES
Respondent. (NUSP) CHAIRMAN EINSTEIN
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x RECEDES; COLLEGE EDITORS
PETER IRVING CORVERA; GUILD OF THE PHILIPPINES
(CEGP) CHAIRMAN VIJAE
ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, G. R. No. CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM; ALQUISOLA; and STUDENT
Petitioner, 191002 CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT OF THE
ALFONSO V. TAN, JR.; PHILIPPINES (SCMP) CHAIRMAN
- versus - MA. CRISTINA ANGELA
NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLE’S GUEVARRA;
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL LAWYERS;
(JBC) and PRESIDENT GLORIA WALDEN F. BELLO and LORETTA
MACAPAGAL – ARROYO, MARLOU B. UBANO; ANN P. ROSALES;
Respondents
. INTEGRATED BAR OF THE WOMEN TRIAL LAWYERS
x-----------------------x PHILIPPINES-DAVAO DEL SUR ORGANIZATION OF THE
JAIME N. SORIANO, G.R. No. 191032 CHAPTER, represented by its PHILIPPINES, represented by
Petitioner, Immediate Past President, ATTY. YOLANDA QUISUMBING-
ISRAELITO P. TORREON, and the JAVELLANA; BELLEZA ALOJADO
- versus - latter in his own personal capacity DEMAISIP; TERESITA
as a MEMBER of the PHILIPPINE GANDIONCO-OLEDAN; MA.
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL BAR; VERENA KASILAG-VILLANUEVA;
(JBC), MARILYN STA. ROMANA;
Respondent. MITCHELL JOHN L. BOISER; LEONILA DE JESUS; and
x-----------------------x GUINEVERE DE LEON.
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION G.R. No. 191057 BAGONG ALYANSANG BAYAN Intervenors.
ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), (BAYAN) CHAIRMAN DR. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
Petitioner, CAROLINA P. ARAULLO; BAYAN ATTY. AMADOR Z. TOLENTINO,
SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO JR., (IBP
- versus - M. REYES, JR.; CONFEDERATION Governor–Southern Luzon), and
FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ATTY. ROLAND B. INTING
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL ADVANCE-MENT OF (IBP Governor–Eastern Visayas), G.R. No. 191342
(JBC), GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES Petitioners,
Respondent. (COURAGE) CHAIRMAN
- versus -
presidential elections on May 10, 2010. Even before the Petitioners Arturo M. De Castro and John G.
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL event actually happens, it is giving rise to many legal Peralta respectively commenced G.R. No. 191002[1] and
(JBC),
Respondent. dilemmas. May the incumbent President appoint his G.R. No. 191149[2] as special civil actions
x-----------------------x
successor, considering that Section 15, Article VII for certiorari andmandamus, praying that the JBC be
PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION,
INC.,
(Executive Department) of the Constitution prohibits the compelled to submit to the incumbent President the list of
Petitioner,
President or Acting President from making appointments at least three nominees for the position of the next Chief
G.R. No. 191420
within two months immediately before the next presidential Justice.
Present:
elections and up to the end of his term, except temporary
PUNO, C.J.,
CARPIO, appointments to executive positions when continued In G.R. No. 191032,[3] Jaime N. Soriano, via his
- versus - CORONA,
CARPIO vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger petition for prohibition, proposes to prevent the JBC from
MORALES,
VELASCO, JR., public safety? What is the relevance of Section 4 (1), conducting its search, selection and nomination
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE Article VIII (Judicial Department) of the Constitution, which proceedings for the position of Chief Justice.
JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL and CASTRO,
HER EXCELLENCY GLORIA BRION, provides that any vacancy in the Supreme Court shall be
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, PERALTA,
Respondents. BERSAMIN, filled within 90 days from the occurrence thereof, to the In G.R. No. 191057, a special civil action
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD, matter of the appointment of his successor? May the for mandamus,[4] the Philippine Constitution Association
VILLARAMA,
JR., Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) resume the process of (PHILCONSA) wants the JBC to submit its list of nominees
PEREZ, and
MENDOZA, JJ. screening the candidates nominated or being considered for the position of Chief Justice to be vacated by Chief
Promulgated: to succeed Chief Justice Puno, and submit the list of Justice Puno upon his retirement on May 17, 2010,
March 17, 2010
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------- nominees to the incumbent President even during the because the incumbent President is not covered by the
-------------x
period of the prohibition under Section 15, Article VII? prohibition that applies only to appointments in the
DECISION
Doesmandamus lie to compel the submission of the Executive Department.
BERSAMIN, J.:
shortlist of nominees by the JBC?
the Judiciary. Section 15, Article VII prohibited the exercise by the submission of the list of nominees to the President; and
President of the power to appoint to judicial positions that a “final and definitive resolution of the constitutional
[6]
In G.R. No. 191342, which the Court consolidated during the period therein fixed. questions raised above would diffuse (sic) the tension in
on March 9, 2010 with the petitions earlier filed, petitioners the legal community that would go a long way to keep and
Amador Z. Tolentino, Jr. and Roland B. Inting, Integrated In G.R. No. 191002, De Castro submits that the maintain stability in the judiciary and the political system.”[9]
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Governors for Southern Luzon conflicting opinions on the issue expressed by legal
and Eastern Visayas, respectively, want to enjoin and luminaries – one side holds that the incumbent President In G.R. No. 191032, Soriano offers the view that
restrain the JBC from submitting a list of nominees for the is prohibited from making appointments within two months the JBC committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting
position of Chief Justice to the President for appointment immediately before the coming presidential elections and to lack or excess of its jurisdiction when it resolved
during the period provided for in Section 15, Article VII. until the end of her term of office as President on June 30, unanimously on January 18, 2010 to open the search,
2010, while the other insists that the prohibition applies nomination, and selection process for the position of Chief
All the petitions now before the Court pose as the only to appointments to executive positions that may Justice to succeed Chief Justice Puno, because the
principal legal question whether the incumbent President influence the election and, anyway, paramount national appointing authority for the position of Chief Justice is the
can appoint the successor of Chief Justice Puno upon his interest justifies the appointment of a Chief Justice during Supreme Court itself, the President’s authority being
retirement. That question is undoubtedly impressed with the election ban – has impelled the JBC to defer the limited to the appointment of the Members of the Supreme
transcendental importance to the Nation, because the decision to whom to send its list of at least three nominees, Court. Hence, the JBC should not intervene in the process,
appointment of the Chief Justice is any President’s most whether to the incumbent President or to her unless a nominee is not yet a Member of the Supreme
important appointment. successor.[8] He opines that the JBC is thereby arrogating Court.[10]
A precedent frequently cited is In Re by the Constitution,” which has limited it to the task of
Appointments Dated March 30, 1998 of Hon. Mateo A. recommending appointees to the Judiciary, but has not For its part, PHILCONSA observes in its petition
Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B. Vallarta as Judges of the empowered it to “finally resolve constitutional questions, in G.R. No. 191057 that “unorthodox and exceptional
Regional Trial Court of Branch 62, Bago City and of which is the power vested only in the Supreme Court circumstances spawned by the discordant interpretations,
Branch 24, Cabanatuan City, under the Constitution.” As such, he contends that the JBC due perhaps to a perfunctory understanding, of Sec. 15,
Art. VII in relation to Secs. 4(1), 8(5) and 9, Art. VIII of the appoint a Chief Justice even during the election ban under the occurrence thereof” from a “list of at least three
Constitution” have bred “a frenzied inflammatory legal Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution. [13]
nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for
divided the bench and the bar and the general public as The petitioners in G.R. No. 191342 insist that
well, because of its dimensional impact to the nation and there is an actual controversy, considering that the “JBC On December 22, 2009, Congressman Matias V.
the people,” thereby fashioning “transcendental questions has initiated the process of receiving applications for the Defensor, an ex officio member of the JBC, addressed a
or issues affecting the JBC’s proper exercise of its position of Chief Justice and has in fact begun the letter to the JBC, requesting that the process for
“principal function of recommending appointees to the evaluation process for the applications to the position,” and nominations to the office of the Chief Justice be
Judiciary” by submitting only to the President (not to the “is perilously near completing the nomination process and commenced immediately.
next President) “a list of at least three nominees prepared coming up with a list of nominees for submission to the
by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy” from President, entering into the period of the ban on midnight In its January 18, 2010 meeting en banc,
which the members of the Supreme Court and judges of appointments on March 10, 2010,” which “only highlights therefore, the JBC passed a resolution, [15]
which reads:
the lower courts may be appointed.”[11] PHILCONSA the pressing and compelling need for a writ of prohibition
The JBC, in its en
further believes and submits that now is the time to revisit to enjoin such alleged ministerial function of submitting the banc meeting of January 18, 2010,
unanimously agreed to start the
and review Valenzuela, the “strange and exotic Decision of list, especially if it will be cone within the period of the ban process of filling up the position of
Chief Justice to be vacated on May
the Court en banc.” [12]
on midnight appointments.”[14] 17, 2010 upon the retirement of the
incumbent Chief Justice Honorable
Reynato S. Puno.
Peralta states in his petition in G.R. No. 191149 Antecedents It will publish the opening of
the position for applications or
that mandamus can compel the JBC “to immediately recommendations; deliberate on the
list of candidates; publish the names
transmit to the President, within a reasonable time, its These cases trace their genesis to the of candidates; accept comments on or
opposition to the applications; conduct
nomination list for the position of chief justice upon the controversy that has arisen from the forthcoming public interviews of candidates; and
prepare the shortlist of candidates.
mandatory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, in compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Puno on May 17,
As to the time to submit this
compliance with its mandated duty under the Constitution” 2010, or seven days after the presidential election. Under shortlist to the proper appointing
authority, in the light of the
in the event that the Court resolves that the President can Section 4(1), in relation to Section 9, Article
Constitution, existing laws and
VIII, that “vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from
jurisprudence, the JBC welcomes and
will consider all views on the matter. The announcement was published on January Justice Antonio T. Carpio and Associate Justice Conchita
18 January 2010. 20, 2010 in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and The Philippine Carpio Morales.[19] Declining their nominations were Atty.
Carpio Morales; Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Judge Florentino Floro (for failure to meet the standards
As a result, the JBC opened the position of Chief
Jr.; and Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura. set by the JBC rules); and Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-
Justice for application or recommendation, and published
However, the last two declined their nomination through Ignacio of the Office of the Ombudsman (due to cases
for that purpose its announcement dated January 20,
letters dated January 18, 2010 and January 25, 2010, pending in the Office of the Ombudsman).[21]
[16]
2010, viz:
respectively.[18]
Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion; and Associate Justice The announcement came out in the Philippine Daily
Edilberto G. Sandoval (Sandiganbayan). Candidates who Inquirer and The Philippine Star issues of February 13,
this issue now before us as an administrative matter “to G.R. No. 191032
b. May President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo make appointments to the
avoid any possible polemics concerning the matter,” but he Judiciary after March 10, 2010,
a. Is the power to appoint the Chief including that for the position of
Justice vested in the Supreme
opines that the polemics leading to Valenzuela “would be Chief Justice after Chief Justice
Court en banc? Puno retires on May 17, 2010?
miniscule [sic] compared to the “polemics” that have now
G.R. No. 191057 G.R. No. 191149
erupted in regard to the current controversy,” and that
a. Is the constitutional prohibition a. Does the JBC have the discretion
unless “put to a halt, and this may only be achieved by a against appointment under
to withhold the submission of the
short list to President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo? candidates, “including the interview of the constitutional principal function under the Constitution to recommend
a. Does the JBC have the authority recommend is a “continuing process,” which does not
to submit the list of nominees to Likewise, the JBC has yet to take
the incumbent President without a position on when to submit the begin with each vacancy or end with each nomination,
committing a grave violation of shortlist to the proper appointing
the Constitution and authority, in light of Section 4 (1), because the goal is “to submit the list of nominees to
jurisprudence prohibiting the Article VIII of the Constitution,
incumbent President from which provides that vacancy in Malacañang on the very day the vacancy arises”;[26] the
making midnight appointments the Supreme Court shall be filled
two months immediately within ninety (90) days from the JBC was thus acting within its jurisdiction when it
preceding the next presidential occurrence thereof, Section 15,
elections until the end of her Article VII of the Constitution commenced and set in motion the process of selecting the
term? concerning the ban on
Presidential appointments “two nominees to be submitted to the President for the position
b. Is any act performed by the JBC, (2) months immediately before
including the vetting of the the next presidential elections of Chief Justice to be vacated by Chief Justice Puno;[27] (c)
candidates for the position of and up to the end of his term”
and Section 261 (g), Article XXII petitioner Soriano’s theory that it is the Supreme Court, not
Chief Justice, constitutionally
invalid in view of the JBC’s illegal of the Omnibus Election Code of
the Philippines. the President, who has the power to appoint the Chief
composition allowing each
member from the Senate and the
Justice, is incorrect, and proceeds from his
House of Representatives to 12. Since the Honorable Supreme
have one vote each? Court is the final interpreter of the
misinterpretation of the phrase “members of the Supreme
Constitution, the JBC will be
guided by its decision in these
Court” found in Section 9, Article VIII of the Constitution as
consolidated Petitions and
On February 16, 2010, the Court directed the Administrative Matter. referring only to the Associate Justices, to the exclusion of
JBC and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to the Chief Justice; [28] (d) a writ of mandamus can issue to
comment on the consolidated petitions, except that filed compel the JBC to submit the list of nominees to the
On February 26, 2010, the OSG also submitted
in G.R. No. 191342. President, considering that its duty to prepare the list of at
its comment, essentially stating that the incumbent
least three nominees is unqualified, and the submission of
President can appoint the successor of Chief Justice Puno
On February 26, 2010, the JBC submitted its the list is a ministerial act that the JBC is mandated to
upon his retirement by May 17, 2010.
comment, reporting therein that the next stage of the perform under the Constitution; as such, the JBC, the
process for the selection of the nominees for the position nature of whose principal function is executive, is not
The OSG insists that: (a) a writ of prohibition
of Chief Justice would be the public interview of the vested with the power to resolve who has the authority to
cannot issue to prevent the JBC from performing its
candidates and the preparation of the short list of appoint the next Chief Justice and, therefore, has no
discretion to withhold the list from the President; [29] and (e) also incorporated in Article VIII ample restrictions or Lastly, the OSG urges that there are now
a writ of mandamus cannot issue to compel the JBC to limitations on the President’s power to appoint members of undeniably compelling reasons for the incumbent
include or exclude particular candidates as nominees, the Supreme Court to ensure its independence from President to appoint the next Chief Justice, to wit: (a) a
considering that there is no imperative duty on its part to “political vicissitudes” and its “insulation from political deluge of cases involving sensitive political issues is “quite
include in or exclude from the list particular individuals, but, pressures,”[33] such as stringent qualifications for the expected”;[36] (b) the Court acts as the Presidential
on the contrary, the JBC’s determination of who it positions, the establishment of the JBC, the specified Electoral Tribunal (PET), which, sitting en banc, is the sole
nominates to the President is an exercise of a period within which the President shall appoint a Supreme judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
[30]
discretionary duty. Court Justice. qualifications of the President and Vice President and, as
The OSG contends that the incumbent President The OSG posits that statement of votes (SOV) and certificates of canvass
may appoint the next Chief Justice, because the although Valenzuela involved the appointment of RTC (COC)”;[37] (c) if history has shown that during ordinary
prohibition under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution Judges, the situation now refers to the appointment of the times the Chief Justice was appointed immediately upon
does not apply to appointments in the Supreme Court. It next Chief Justice to which the prohibition does not apply; the occurrence of the vacancy, from the time of the
argues that any vacancy in the Supreme Court must be that, at any rate, Valenzuela even recognized that there effectivity of the Constitution, there is now even more
filled within 90 days from its occurrence, pursuant to might be “the imperative need for an appointment during reason to appoint the next Chief Justice immediately upon
deliberations on the mandatory period for the appointment Supreme Court should be “so reduced that it will have no next Chief Justice come from among the incumbent
of Supreme Court Justices, the framers neither mentioned quorum, or should the voting on a particular important Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, thereby causing
nor referred to the ban against midnight appointments, or question requiring expeditious resolution be a vacancy, it also becomes incumbent upon the JBC to
[32] [34]
its effects on such period, or vice versa; that had the divided”; and that Valenzuela also recognized that the start the selection process for the filling up of the vacancy
framers intended the prohibition to apply to Supreme Court filling of vacancies in the Judiciary is undoubtedly in the in accordance with the constitutional mandate.[39]
appointments, they could have easily expressly stated so public interest, most especially if there is any compelling
in the Constitution, which explains why the prohibition reason to justify the making of the appointments during the
On March 9, 2010, the Court admitted the
found in Article VII (Executive Department) was not written period of the prohibition.[35]
following comments/oppositions-in-intervention, to wit:
in Article VIII (Judicial Department); and that the framers
Mahihirap (KADAMAY) Secretary
General Gloria Arellano; Alyansa Section 15, Article VII, the outgoing President is
ng Nagkakaisang Kabataan ng
Samayanan Para sa Kaunlaran constitutionally banned from making any appointments
(a) The opposition-in-intervention
(ANAKBAYAN) Chairman Ken
dated February 22, 2010 of Atty. from March 10, 2010 until June 30, 2010, including the
Leonard Ramos; Tayo ang Pag-
Peter Irving Corvera (Corvera);[40]
asa Convenor Alvin Peters;
League of Filipino Students appointment of the successor of Chief Justice Puno.
(b) The opposition-in-intervention
(LFS) Chairman James Mark
dated February 22, 2010 of Atty. Hence, mandamus does not lie to compel the JBC to
Terry Lacuanan Ridon; National
Christian Robert S. Lim (Lim);
Union of Students of the
Philippines (NUSP) Chairman submit the list of nominees to the outgoing President if the
(c) The opposition-in-intervention
Einstein Recedes, College
dated February 23, 2010 of Atty. constitutional prohibition is already in effect. Tan adds that
Editors Guild of the Philippines
Alfonso V. Tan, Jr. (Tan);
(CEGP) Chairman Vijae
Alquisola; and Student Christian the prohibition against midnight appointments was applied
(d) The comment/opposition-in-
Movement of the Philippines
intervention dated March 1, by the Court to the appointments to the Judiciary made by
(SCMP) Chairman Ma. Cristina
2010 of the National Union of
Angela Guevarra (BAYAN et al.);
People’s Lawyers (NUPL); then President Ramos, with the Court holding that the duty
(i) The opposition-in-intervention
(e) The opposition-in-intervention of the President to fill the vacancies within 90 days from
dated March 3, 2010 of Walden
dated February 25, 2010 of Atty.
F. Bello and Loretta Ann P.
Marlou B. Ubano (Ubano); occurrence of the vacancies (for the Supreme Court) or
Rosales (Bello et al.); and
(f) The opposition-in-intervention from the submission of the list (for all other courts) was not
(j) The consolidated
dated February 25, 2010 of
comment/opposition-in- an excuse to violate the constitutional prohibition.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines-
intervention dated March 4, 2010
Davao del Sur Chapter and its
of the Women Trial Lawyers
Immediate Past President, Atty.
Organization of the Philippines
Israelito P. Torreon (IBP- Davao
(WTLOP), represented by Atty. Intervenors Tan, Ubano, Boiser, Corvera, NULP,
del Sur);
Yolanda Quisumbing-Javellana;
Atty. Belleza Alojado Demaisip; BAYAN et al., and Bello et al. oppose the insistence
(g) The opposition-in-intervention
Atty. Teresita Gandionco-Oledan;
dated February 26, 2010 of Atty.
Atty. Ma. Verena Kasilag- that Valenzuela recognizes the possibility that the
Mitchell John L. Boiser (Boiser);
Villanueva; Atty. Marilyn Sta.
Romana; Atty. Leonila de Jesus; President may appoint the next Chief Justice if exigent
(h)The consolidated
and Atty. Guinevere de Leon
comment/opposition-in-
(WTLOP). circumstances warrant the appointment, because that
intervention dated February 26,
2010 of BAYAN Chairman Dr.
Carolina P. Araullo; BAYAN recognition is obiter dictum; and aver that the absence of a
Secretary General Renato M.
Reyes, Jr.; Confederation for Chief Justice or even an Associate Justice does not cause
Intervenors Tan, WTLOP, BAYAN et al., Corvera,
Unity, Recognition and
epic damage or absolute disruption or paralysis in the
Advancement of Government IBP Davao del Sur, and NUPL take the position that De
Employees (COURAGE)
operations of the Judiciary. They insist that even without
Chairman Ferdinand Gaite; Castro’s petition was bereft of any basis, because under
Kalipunan ng Damayang
the successor of Chief Justice Puno being appointed by
the incumbent President, the Court is allowed to sit and more a submission of such list, before a vacancy occurs is
adjudge en banc or in divisions of three, five or seven Intervenors Ubano, Boiser, NUPL, Corvera, and glaringly premature; that the proposed advance
members at its discretion; that a full membership of the Lim maintain that the Omnibus Election Code penalizes as appointment by the incumbent President of the next Chief
Court is not necessary; that petitioner De Castro’s fears an election offense the act of any government official who Justice will be unconstitutional; and that no list of
are unfounded and baseless, being based on a mere appoints, promotes, or gives any increase in salary or nominees can be submitted by the JBC if there is no
possibility, the occurrence of which is entirely unsure; that remuneration or privilege to any government official or vacancy.
it is not in the national interest to have a Chief Justice employee during the period of 45 days before a regular
whose appointment is unconstitutional and, therefore, void; election; that the provision covers all appointing heads, All the intervenors-oppositors submit that Section
and that such a situation will create a crisis in the judicial officials, and officers of a government office, agency or 15, Article VII makes no distinction between the kinds of
system and will worsen an already vulnerable political instrumentality, including the President; that for the appointments made by the President; and that the Court,
situation. incumbent President to appoint the next Chief Justice inValenzuela, ruled that the appointments by the President
upon the retirement of Chief Justice Puno, or during the of the two judges during the prohibition period were void.
ice is imperative for the stability of the judicial system and
the political situation in the country when the election- period of the ban under the Omnibus Election
related questions reach the Court as false, because there
is an existing law on filling the void brought about by a Code, constitutes an election offense; that even an Intervenor WTLOP posits that Section 15, Article
vacancy in the office of Chief Justice; that the law is
Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, which has not appointment of the next Chief Justice prior to the election VII of the 1987 Constitution does not apply only to the
been repealed by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 or any other
law; that a temporary or an acting Chief Justice is not ban is fundamentally invalid and without effect because appointments in the Executive Department, but also to
anathema to judicial independence; that the designation of
an acting Chief Justice is not only provided for by law, but there can be no appointment until a vacancy occurs; and judicial appointments, contrary to the submission of
is also dictated by practical necessity; that the practice was
intended to be enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, but the that the vacancy for the position can occur only by May 17, PHILCONSA; that Section 15 does not distinguish; and
Commissioners decided not to write it in the Constitution
on account of the settled practice; that the practice 2010. that Valenzuela already interpreted the prohibition as
was followed under the 1987 Constitution, when, in 1992,
at the end of the term of Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan, applicable to judicial appointments.
Associate Justice Andres Narvasa assumed the position
as Acting Chief Justice prior to his official appointment as
Chief Justice; that said filling up of a vacancy in the office Intervenor Boiser adds that De Castro’s prayer
of the Chief Justice was acknowledged and even used by Intervenor WTLOP further posits that petitioner
analogy in the case of the vacancy of the Chairman of the to compel the submission of nominees by the JBC to the
Commission on Elections, per Brillantes v. Yorac, 192 Soriano’s contention that the power to appoint the Chief
SCRA 358; and that the history of the Supreme Court has incumbent President is off-tangent because the position of
shown that this rule of succession has been repeatedly Justice is vested, not in the President, but in the Supreme
observed and has become a part of its tradition. Chief Justice is still not vacant; that to speak of a list, much
Court, is utterly baseless, because the Chief Justice is also Chief Justice during the period of prohibition; that even if nominees to the President by the JBC is a matter of right
a Member of the Supreme Court as contemplated under the JBC has already come up with a short list, it still has to under law.
Section 9, Article VIII; and that, at any rate, the term bow to the strict limitations under Section 15, Article VII;
“members” was interpreted in Vargas v. Rillaroza (G.R. that should the JBC defer submission of the list, it is not The main question presented in all the filings
No. L-1612, February 26, 1948) to refer to the Chief arrogating unto itself a judicial function, but simply herein – because it involves two seemingly conflicting
Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court; respecting the clear mandate of the Constitution; and that provisions of the Constitution – imperatively demands the
that PHILCONSA’s prayer that the Court pass a resolution the application of the general rule in Section 15, Article attention and resolution of this Court, the only authority
declaring that persons who manifest their interest as VII to the Judiciary does not violate the principle of that can resolve the question definitively and finally. The
nominees, but with conditions, shall not be considered separation of powers, because said provision is an imperative demand rests on the ever-present need, first, to
nominees by the JBC is diametrically opposed to the exception. safeguard the independence, reputation, and integrity of
arguments in the body of its petition; that such glaring the entire Judiciary, particularly this Court, an institution
inconsistency between the allegations in the body and the Oppositors NUPL, Corvera, Lim and BAYAN et that has been unnecessarily dragged into the harsh
relief prayed for highlights the lack of merit of al. state that the JBC’s act of nominating appointees to polemics brought on by the controversy; second, to settle
PHILCONSA’s petition; that the role of the JBC cannot be the Supreme Court is purely ministerial and does not once and for all the doubt about an outgoing President’s
separated from the constitutional prohibition on the involve the exercise of judgment; that there can be no power to appoint to the Judiciary within the long period
President; and that the Court must direct the JBC to follow default on the part of the JBC in submitting the list of starting two months before the presidential elections until
the rule of law, that is, to submit the list of nominees only nominees to the President, considering that the call for the end of the presidential term; and third, to set a definite
to the next duly elected President after the period of the applications only begins from the occurrence of the guideline for the JBC to follow in the discharge of its
constitutional ban against midnight appointments has vacancy in the Supreme Court; and that the primary office of screening and nominating qualified
expired. commencement of the process of screening of applicants persons for appointment to the Judiciary.
Oppositor IBP Davao del Sur opines that the begins from the retirement on May 17, 2010, for, prior to Thus, we resolve.
JBC – because it is neither a judicial nor a quasi-judicial this date, there is no definite legal basis for any party to
body – has no duty under the Constitution to resolve the claim that the submission or non-submission of the list of Ruling of the Court
Felix,[48] and Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works.[49] However, the assertion of a public right as a
The question on legal standing
is whether such parties have “alleged predicate for challenging a supposedly illegal or
such a personal stake in the outcome
of the controversy as to assure that unconstitutional executive or legislative action rests on the
Yet, the Court has also held that the requirement
concrete adverseness which sharpens
the presentation of issues upon which theory that the petitioner represents the public in general.
of locus standi, being a mere procedural technicality, can
the court so largely depends for
illumination of difficult constitutional Although such petitioner may not be as adversely affected
be waived by the Court in the exercise of its discretion. For
questions.”[43] Accordingly, it has been
held that the interest of a person instance, in 1949, in Araneta v. Dinglasan,[50] the Court by the action complained against as are others, it is
assailing the constitutionality of a
statute must be direct and personal. liberalized the approach when the cases had enough that he sufficiently demonstrates in his petition that
He must be able to show, not only that
the law or any government act is
he is entitled to protection or relief from the Court in the Faculty of the College of Law of the University of the
Quite often, as here, the petitioner in a public all assert their right as citizens filing their petitions on The petitioners in G.R. No. 191342 are the
action sues as a citizen or taxpayer to gain locus standi. behalf of the public who are directly affected by the issue Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
That is not surprising, for even if the issue may appear to of the appointment of the next Chief Justice. De Castro for Southern Luzon and Eastern Visayas. They allege that
concern only the public in general, such capacities and Soriano further claim standing as taxpayers, with they have the legal standing to enjoin the submission of
nonetheless equip the petitioner with adequate interest to Soriano averring that he is affected by the continuing the list of nominees by the JBC to the President, for “[a]n
sue. In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,[54] the Court aptly proceedings in the JBC, which involve “unnecessary, if not, adjudication of the proper interpretation and application of
controversy as to vest them with the requisite locus pointed out: “Standing is a peculiar concept in pointing out that petitioner De Castro has not even shown
standi. The issues before us are of transcendental constitutional law because in some cases, suits are not that the JBC has already completed its selection process
importance to the people as a whole, and to the petitioners brought by parties who have been personally injured by and is now ready to submit the list to the incumbent
in particular. Indeed, the issues affect everyone (including the operation of a law or any other government act but by President; and that petitioner De Castro is merely
the petitioners), regardless of one’s personal interest in concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in presenting a hypothetical scenario that is clearly not
life, because they concern that great doubt about the the public interest.” But even if, strictly speaking, the sufficient for the Court to exercise its power of judicial
authority of the incumbent President to appoint not only petitioners “are not covered by the definition, it is still within review.
the successor of the retiring incumbent Chief Justice, but the wide discretion of the Court to waive the requirement
also others who may serve in the Judiciary, which already and so remove the impediment to its addressing and Intervenors Corvera and Lim separately opine
suffers from a far too great number of vacancies in the resolving the serious constitutional questions raised.” [64]
that De Castro’s petition rests on an overbroad and vague
ranks of trial judges throughout the country. allegation of political tension, which is insufficient basis for
discretion to waive the requirement of legal standing in Intervenor NUPL maintains that there is no Intervenor BAYAN et al. contend that the
favor of any petitioner when the matter involved has actual case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for petitioners are seeking a mere advisory opinion on what
transcendental importance, or otherwise requires a adjudication, considering that although the selection the JBC and the President should do, and are not invoking
liberalization of the requirement.[62] process commenced by the JBC is going on, there is yet any issues that are justiciable in nature.
Yet, if any doubt still lingers about the locus controversy as to whether such list must be submitted to Intervenors Bello et al. submit that there exist no
standi of any petitioner, we dispel the doubt now in order the incumbent President, or reserved for submission to the conflict of legal rights and no assertion of opposite legal
to remove any obstacle or obstruction to the resolution of incoming President. claims in any of the petitions; that PHILCONSA does not
the essential issue squarely presented herein. We are not allege any action taken by the JBC, but simply avers that
to shirk from discharging our solemn duty by reason alone the conditional manifestations of two Members of the
Court, accented by the divided opinions and interpretations requires the President to appoint one from the short list to
of legal experts, or associations of lawyers and law We hold that the petitions set forth an actual fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court (be it the Chief
students on the issues published in the daily newspapers case or controversy that is ripe for judicial determination. Justice or an Associate Justice) within 90 days from the
are “matters of paramount and transcendental importance The reality is that the JBC already commenced the occurrence of the vacancy.
to the bench, bar and general public”; that PHILCONSA proceedings for the selection of the nominees to be
fails not only to cite any legal duty or allege any failure to included in a short list to be submitted to the President for The ripeness of the controversy for judicial
perform the duty, but also to indicate what specific action consideration of which of them will succeed Chief Justice determination may not be doubted. The challenges to the
should be done by the JBC; that Mendoza does not even Puno as the next Chief Justice. Although the position is not authority of the JBC to open the process of nomination and
attempt to portray the matter as a controversy or conflict of yet vacant, the fact that the JBC began the process of to continue the process until the submission of the list of
rights, but, instead, prays that the Court should “rule for the nomination pursuant to its rules and practices, although it nominees; the insistence of some of the petitioners to
guidance of” the JBC; that the fact that the Court has yet to decide whether to submit the list of nominees to compel the JBC through mandamus to submit the short list
supervises the JBC does not automatically imply that the the incumbent outgoing President or to the next President, to the incumbent President; the counter-insistence of the
Court can rule on the issues presented in the Mendoza makes the situation ripe for judicial determination, because intervenors to prohibit the JBC from submitting the short
petition, because supervision involves oversight, which the next steps are the public interview of the candidates, list to the incumbent President on the ground that said list
means that the subordinate officer or body must first act, the preparation of the short list of candidates, and the should be submitted instead to the next President; the
and if such action is not in accordance with prescribed “interview of constitutional experts, as may be needed.” strong position that the incumbent President is already
rules, then, and only then, may the person exercising prohibited under Section 15, Article VII from making any
oversight order the action to be redone to conform to the A part of the question to be reviewed by the appointments, including those to the Judiciary, starting on
prescribed rules; that the Mendoza petition does not allege Court is whether the JBC properly initiated the process, May 10, 2010 until June 30, 2010; and the contrary
that the JBC has performed a specific act susceptible to there being an insistence from some of the oppositors- position that the incumbent President is not so prohibited
correction for being illegal or unconstitutional; and that the intervenors that the JBC could only do so once the are only some of the real issues for determination. All such
Mendoza petition asks the Court to issue an advisory vacancy has occurred (that is, after May 17, 2010). issues establish the ripeness of the controversy,
ruling, not to exercise its power of supervision to correct a Another part is, of course, whether the JBC may resume considering that for some the short list must be
wrong act by the JBC, but to declare the state of the law in its process until the short list is prepared, in view of the submitted before the vacancy actually occurs by May 17,
the absence of an actual case or controversy. provision of Section 4(1), Article VIII, which unqualifiedly 2010. The outcome will not be an abstraction, or a merely
hypothetical exercise. The resolution of the controversy will
The first, Section 15, Article VII (Executive
surely settle – with finality – the nagging questions that are Department), provides: The Court agrees with the submission.
ripe for judicial determination by the Court. It is enough Constitution were not arbitrarily or whimsically done by the
The other, Section 4 (1), Article VIII (Judicial
that one alleges conduct arguably affected with a Department), states: framers, but purposely made to reflect their intention and
constitutional interest, but seemingly proscribed by the manifest their vision of what the Constitution should
Section 4. (1). The Supreme
Constitution. A reasonable certainty of the occurrence of Court shall be composed of a Chief contain.
Justice and fourteen Associate
the perceived threat to a constitutional interest is sufficient Justices. It may sit en banc or in its
discretion, in division of three, five, or
to afford a basis for bringing a challenge, provided the The Constitution consists of 18 Articles, three of
seven Members. Any vacancy shall be
filled within ninety days from the
Court has sufficient facts before it to enable it to which embody the allocation of the awesome powers of
occurrence thereof.
[65]
intelligently adjudicate the issues. Herein, the facts are government among the three great departments, the
not in doubt, for only legal issues remain. Legislative (Article VI), the Executive (Article VII), and the
In the consolidated petitions, the petitioners, with Judicial Departments (Article VIII). The arrangement was a
Substantive Merits
the exception of Soriano, Tolentino and Inting, submit that true recognition of the principle of separation of powers
the incumbent President can appoint the successor of that underlies the political structure, as Constitutional
I
Prohibition under Section 15, Article VII does not apply
Chief Justice Puno upon his retirement on May 17, 2010, Commissioner Adolfo S. Azcuna (later a worthy member of
to appointments to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court
or to other appointments to the Judiciary
on the ground that the prohibition against presidential the Court) explained in his sponsorship speech:
appointments under Section 15, Article VII does not extend
We have in the political part of
to appointments in the Judiciary.
Two constitutional provisions are seemingly in this Constitution opted for the
conflict. separation of powers in government
because we believe that the only way
to protect freedom and liberty is to
separate and divide the awesome Had the framers intended to extend the the prohibition not being intended to apply to the
powers of government. Hence, we
return to the separation of powers prohibition contained in Section 15, Article VII to the appointments to the Judiciary, which
doctrine and the legislative, executive
and judicial departments.[66] appointment of Members of the Supreme Court, they could confirmation Valenzuela even expressly mentioned, should
have explicitly done so. They could not have ignored the prevail.
As can be seen, Article VII is devoted to the have easily and surely written the prohibition made explicit Relevantly, Valenzuela adverted to the intent of the
Executive Department, and, among others, it lists the in Section 15, Article VII as being equally applicable to the framers in the genesis of Section 4 (1), Article VIII, viz:
powers vested by the Constitution in the President. The appointment of Members of the Supreme Court in Article
V . Intent of the
presidential power of appointment is dealt with in Sections VIII itself, most likely in Section 4 (1), Article VIII. That such Constitutional Commission
14, 15 and 16 of the Article. specification was not done only reveals that the prohibition The journal of the Commission
which drew up the present
against the President or Acting President making Constitution discloses that the original
proposal was to have an eleven-
Article VIII is dedicated to the Judicial appointments within two months before the next member Supreme Court.
Commissioner Eulogio Lerum wanted
Department and defines the duties and qualifications of presidential elections and up to the end of the President’s to increase the number of Justices to
fifteen. He also wished to ensure that
Members of the Supreme Court, among others. Section or Acting President’s term does not refer to the Members that number would not be reduced for
any appreciable length of time (even
4(1) and Section 9 of this Article are the provisions of the Supreme Court. only temporarily), and to this end
proposed that any vacancy “must be
specifically providing for the appointment of Supreme filled within two months from the date
that the vacancy occurs.” His
Court Justices. In particular, Section 9 states that the proposal to have a 15-member Court
was not initially adopted. Persisting
appointment of Supreme Court Justices can only be made however in his desire to make certain
that the size of the Court would not be
by the President upon the submission of a list of at least Although Valenzuela[67] came to hold that the
decreased for any substantial period
as a result of vacancies, Lerum
three nominees by the JBC; Section 4(1) of the Article prohibition covered even judicial appointments, it cannot
proposed the insertion in the provision
(anent the Court’s membership) of the
mandates the President to fill the vacancy within90 days be disputed that the Valenzuela dictum did not firmly rest
same mandate that “IN CASE OF
on the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. ANY VACANCY, THE SAME SHALL
from the occurrence of the vacancy. BE FILLED WITHIN TWO MONTHS
Thereby, the confirmation made to the JBC by then Senior FROM OCCURRENCE
THEREOF.” He later agreed to
Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado of this Court, a suggestions to make the period three,
instead of two, months. As thus
former member of the Constitutional Commission, about amended, the proposal was
approved. As it turned out, however, MR. CONCEPCION. That is
the Commission ultimately agreed on right. That is borne out of the fact that
a fifteen-member Court. Thus it was in the past 30 years, seldom has the
that the section fixing the composition However, the reference to the records of the Court had a complete complement.[70]
of the Supreme Court came to include
a command to fill up any vacancy Constitutional Commission did not advance or support the
therein within 90 days from its
occurrence. result in Valenzuela. Far to the contrary, the records Moreover, the usage in Section 4(1), Article VIII
In this connection, it may be disclosed the express intent of the framers to enshrine in of the word shall – an imperative, operating to impose a
pointed out that that instruction that
any “vacancy shall be filled within the Constitution, upon the initiative of Commissioner duty that may be enforced[71] – should not be disregarded.
ninety days” (in the last sentence of
Section 4 (1) of Article VIII) contrasts Eulogio Lerum, “a command [to the President] to fill up any Thereby, Sections 4(1) imposes on the President
with the prohibition in Section 15,
Article VII, which is couched in vacancy therein within 90 days from its occurrence,” which the imperative duty to make an appointment of a Member
stronger negative language - that “a
President or Acting President shall even Valenzuela conceded.[69] The exchanges of the Supreme Court within 90 days from the occurrence
not make appointments…”
during deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of the vacancy. The failure by the President to do so will
The commission later
on October 8, 1986 further show that the filling of a be a clear disobedience to the Constitution.
approved a proposal of Commissioner
Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (now a Member
vacancy in the Supreme Court within the 90-day period
of this Court) to add to what is now
Section 9 of Article VIII, the following
was a true mandate for the President, viz: The 90-day limitation fixed in Section 4(1),
paragraph: “WITH RESPECT TO
LOWER COURTS, THE PRESIDENT
Article VIII for the President to fill the vacancy in the
SHALL ISSUE THE APPOINTMENT MR. DE CASTRO. I understand
WITHIN NINETY DAYS FROM THE that our justices now in the Supreme Supreme Court was undoubtedly a special provision to
SUBMISSION OF THE LIST” (of Court, together with the Chief Justice,
nominees by the Judicial and Bar are only 11. establish a definite mandate for the President as the
Council to the President). Davide
stated that his purpose was to provide MR. CONCEPCION. Yes. appointing power, and cannot be defeated by mere judicial
a “uniform rule” for lower
courts. According to him, the 90-day MR. DE CASTRO. And the interpretation in Valenzuela to the effect that Section 15,
period should be counted from second sentence of this subsection
submission of the list of nominees to reads: “Any vacancy shall be filled Article VII prevailed because it was “couched in stronger
the President in view of the possibility within ninety days from the occurrence
that the President might reject the list thereof.” negative language.” Such interpretation even turned out to
submitted to him and the JBC thus
need more time to submit a new one. MR. CONCEPCION. That is be conjectural, in light of the records of the Constitutional
right.
On the other hand, Section 15, Commission’s deliberations on Section 4 (1), Article VIII.
Article VII - which in effect deprives MR. DE CASTRO. Is this now a
the President of his appointing power mandate to the executive to fill the
“two months immediately before the vacancy?
next presidential elections up to the
end of his term” - was approved
without discussion.[68]
last in order of position will prevail,
How Valenzuela justified its pronouncement and since it is the latest expression of the like Valenzuela should not be allowed to last after its false
legislative will. Obviously, the rule is
result is hardly warranted. According to an authority on subject to deserved criticism. It is premises have been exposed.[74] It will not do to merely
seldom applied, and probably then
statutory construction:[72] only where an irreconcilable conflict distinguishValenzuela from these cases, for the result to
exists between different sections of
the same act, and after all other be reached herein is entirely incompatible with
xxx the court should seek to means of ascertaining the meaning of
avoid any conflict in the provisions of the legislature have been exhausted. what Valenzuela decreed. Consequently,
the statute by endeavoring to Where the conflict is between two
harmonize and reconcile every part so statutes, more may be said in favor of Valenzuela now deserves to be quickly sent to the dustbin
that each shall be effective. It is not the rule’s application, largely because
easy to draft a statute, or any other of the principle of implied repeal. of the unworthy and forgettable.
writing for that matter, which may not
in some manner contain conflicting
provisions. But what appears to the
reader to be a conflict may not have We reverse Valenzuela.
seemed so to the drafter. In this connection, PHILCONSA’s urging of a
Undoubtedly, each provision was
inserted for a definite reason. Often by revisit and a review of Valenzuela is timely and
considering the enactment in its Second. Section 15, Article VII does not apply as
entirety, what appears to be on its appropriate. Valenzuela arbitrarily ignored the express
face a conflict may be cleared up and well to all other appointments in the Judiciary.
the provisions reconciled. intent of the Constitutional Commission to have Section 4
Consequently, that (1), Article VIII stand independently of any other provision,
construction which will leave every There is no question that one of the reasons
word operative will be favored over least of all one found in Article VII. It further ignored that
underlying the adoption of Section 15 as part of Article VII
one which leaves some word or
provision meaningless because of the two provisions had no irreconcilable conflict, regardless
was to eliminate midnight appointments from being made
inconsistency. But a word should not
be given effect, if to do so gives the of Section 15, Article VII being couched in the negative. As
by anoutgoing Chief Executive in the mold of the
statute a meaning contrary to the
intent of the legislature. On the other judges, we are not to unduly interpret, and should not
appointments dealt with in the leading case of Aytona v.
hand, if full effect cannot be given to
the words of a statute, they must be accept an interpretation that defeats the intent of the
Castillo.[75] In fact, in Valenzuela, the Court so observed,
made effective as far as possible. Nor [73]
should the provisions of a statute framers.
stating that:
which are inconsistent be harmonized
at a sacrifice of the legislative
intention. It may be that two provisions xxx it appears that Section 15,
are irreconcilable; if so, the one which Consequently, prohibiting the incumbent President
Article VII is directed against two types
expresses the intent of the law-makers of appointments: (1) those made for
from appointing a Chief Justice on the premise that
should control. And the arbitrary rule buying votes and (2) those made for
has been frequently announced that partisan considerations. The first
Section 15, Article VII extends to appointments in the
where there is an irreconcilable refers to those appointments made
conflict between the different within the two months preceding a
Judiciary cannot be sustained. A misinterpretation
provisions of a statute, the provision
Presidential election and are similar to new administration of an appointing power of the President
those which are declared election opportunity to make the during the period of the ban.
offenses in the Omnibus Election corresponding
Code, viz.: appointments.” Considering the respective
reasons for the time frames for filling
xxx As indicated, the Court vacancies in the courts and the
recognized that there may well be restriction on the President's power of
The second type of appointments to important positions appointment, it is this Court’s view
appointments prohibited by Section which have to be made even after the that, as a general proposition, in case
15, Article VII consists of the so-called proclamation of the new of conflict, the former should yield to
“midnight” appointments. In Aytona v. President. Such appointments, so the latter. Surely, the prevention of
Castillo, it was held that after the long as they are “few and so spaced vote-buying and similar evils
proclamation of Diosdado Macapagal as to afford some assurance of outweighs the need for avoiding
as duly elected President, President deliberate action and careful delays in filling up of court vacancies
Carlos P. Garcia, who was defeated in consideration of the need for the or the disposition of some
his bid for reelection, became no more appointment and the appointee’s cases. Temporary vacancies can
than a “caretaker” administrator whose qualifications,” can be made by the abide the period of the ban which,
duty was to “prepare for the orderly outgoing President. Accordingly, incidentally and as
transfer of authority to the incoming several appointments made by earlier pointed out, comes to exist
President.” Said the Court: President Garcia, which were shown only once in every six
to have been well considered, were years. Moreover, those occurring in
“The filling up of upheld. the lower courts can be filled
vacancies in important temporarily by designation. But
positions, if few, and so Section 15, Article VII has a prohibited appointments are long-
spaced as to afford some broader scope than lasting and permanent in their
assurance of deliberate the Aytona ruling. It may not effects. They may, as earlier pointed
action and careful unreasonably be deemed to out, in fact influence the results of
consideration of the need contemplate not only “midnight” elections and, for that reason, their
for the appointment and appointments – those made obviously making is considered an election
appointee's qualifications for partisan reasons as shown by their offense.[76]
may undoubtedly be number and the time of their making –
permitted. But the but also appointments presumed
issuance of 350 made for the purpose of influencing
appointments in one night the outcome of the Presidential
and the planned induction election. Given the background and rationale for the
of almost all of them in a
few hours before the On the other hand, the prohibition in Section 15, Article VII, we have no doubt that
inauguration of the new exception in the same Section 15 of
President may, with some Article VII – allowing appointments to the Constitutional Commission confined the prohibition to
reason, be regarded by be made during the period of the ban
the latter as an abuse of therein provided – is much narrower appointments made in the Executive Department. The
Presidential prerogatives, than that recognized inAytona. The
the steps taken being exception allows only the making framers did not need to extend the prohibition to
apparently a mere of temporary appointments
partisan effort to fill all to executive positions when continued appointments in the Judiciary, because their establishment
vacant positions vacancies will prejudice public service
irrespective of fitness and or endanger public safety. Obviously, of the JBC and their subjecting the nomination and
other conditions, and the article greatly restricts the
thereby to deprive the screening of candidates for judicial positions to the
unhurried and deliberate prior process of the JBC ensured shows that even candidates for judicial positions at any
that there would no longer bemidnight appointments to the level backed by people influential with the President could The fault of Valenzuela was that it accorded no
Judiciary. If midnight appointments in the mold not always be assured of being recommended for the weight and due consideration to the confirmation of Justice
of Aytona were made in haste and with irregularities, or consideration of the President, because they first had to Regalado. Valenzuela was weak, because it relied on
made by an outgoing Chief Executive in the last days of undergo the vetting of the JBC and pass muster interpretation to determine the intent of the framers rather
his administration out of a desire to subvert the policies of there. Indeed, the creation of the JBC than on the deliberations of the Constitutional
the incoming President or for partisanship,[77] the was precisely intended to de-politicize the Judiciary by Commission. Much of the unfounded doubt about the
appointments to the Judiciary made after the doing away with the intervention of the Commission on President’s power to appoint during the period of
establishment of the JBC would not be suffering from such Appointments. This insulating process was absent from prohibition in Section 15, Article VII could have been
defects because of the JBC’s prior processing of the Aytona midnight appointment. dispelled since its promulgation on November 9, 1998,
candidates. Indeed, it is axiomatic in statutory construction had Valenzuela properly acknowledged and relied on the
that the ascertainment of the purpose of the enactment is Third. As earlier stated, the non-applicability of confirmation of a distinguished member of the
a step in the process of ascertaining the intent or meaning Section 15, Article VII to appointments in the Judiciary was Constitutional Commission like Justice Regalado.
of the enactment, because the reason for the enactment confirmed by then Senior Associate Justice Regalado to
must necessarily shed considerable light on “the law of the the JBC itself when it met on March 9, 1998 to discuss the Fourth. Of the 23 sections in Article VII, three
statute,” i.e., the intent; hence, the enactment should be question raised by some sectors about the (i.e., Section 14, Section15, and Section 16) concern the
construed with reference to its intended scope and “constitutionality of xxx appointments” to the Court of appointing powers of the President.
purpose, and the court should seek to carry out this Appeals in light of the forthcoming presidential elections.
purpose rather than to defeat it.[78] He assured that “on the basis of the (Constitutional) Section 14 speaks of the power of
Commission’s records, the election ban had no application the succeeding President to revoke appointments made by
Also, the intervention of the JBC eliminates the to appointments to the Court of Appeals.”[79] This an Acting President,[81] and evidently refers only to
danger that appointments to the Judiciary can be made for confirmation was accepted by the JBC, which then appointments in the Executive Department. It has no
the purpose of buying votes in a coming presidential submitted to the President for consideration the application to appointments in the Judiciary,
election, or of satisfying partisan considerations. The nominations for the eight vacancies in the Court of because temporary or acting appointments can only
experience from the time of the establishment of the JBC Appeals.[80] undermine the independence of the Judiciary due to their
being revocable at will.[82] The letter and spirit of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, the appointment by the incumbent President does not run
Constitution safeguard that independence. Also, there is i.e. that every part must be considered together with the the same risk of compromising judicial independence,
no law in the books that authorizes the revocation of other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of precisely because her term will end by June 30, 2010.
[84]
appointments in the Judiciary. Prior to their mandatory the whole enactment. It is absurd to assume that the
retirement or resignation, judges of the first and second framers deliberately situated Section 15 between Section Sixth. The argument has been raised to the
level courts and the Justices of the third level courts may 14 and Section 16, if they intended Section 15 to effect that there will be no need for the incumbent
only be removed for cause, but the Members of the cover all kinds of presidential appointments. If that was President to appoint during the prohibition period the
Supreme Court may be removed only by impeachment. their intention in respect of appointments to the Judiciary, successor of Chief Justice Puno within the context of
the framers, if only to be clear, would have easily and Section 4 (1), Article VIII, because anyway there will still be
Section 16 covers only the presidential surely inserted a similar prohibition in Article VIII, most about 45 days of the 90 days mandated in Section 4(1),
appointments that require confirmation by the Commission likely within Section 4 (1) thereof. Article VIII remaining.
restored the requirement of confirmation by the Fifth. To hold like the Court did The argument is flawed, because it is focused
Commission on Appointments after the requirement was in Valenzuela that Section 15 extends to appointments to only on the coming vacancy occurring from Chief Justice
removed from the 1973 Constitution. Yet, because of the Judiciary further undermines the intent of the Puno’s retirement by May 17, 2010. It ignores the need to
Section 9 of Article VIII, the restored requirement did not Constitution of ensuring the independence of the Judicial apply Section 4(1) to every situation of a vacancy in the
include appointments to the Judiciary.[83] Department from the Executive and Legislative Supreme Court.
Section 14, Section 15, and Section 16 are Supreme Court to the fortunes or misfortunes of political The argument also rests on the fallacious
obviously of the same character, in that they affect the leaders vying for the Presidency in a presidential election. assumption that there will still be time remaining in the 90-
power of the President to appoint. The fact that Section 14 Consequently, the wisdom of having the new President, day period under Section 4(1), Article VIII. The fallacy is
and Section 16 refer only to appointments within the instead of the current incumbent President, appoint the easily demonstrable, as the OSG has shown in its
Executive Department renders conclusive that Section 15 next Chief Justice is itself suspect, and cannot ensure comment.
also applies only to the Executive Department. This judicial independence, because the appointee can also
conclusion is consistent with the rule that every part of the become beholden to the appointing authority. In contrast,
Section 4 (3), Article VII requires the regular The question is not squarely before us at the
elections to be held on the second Monday of May, letting Seventh. As a matter of fact, in an extreme moment, but it should lend itself to a deeper analysis if and
the elections fall on May 8, at the earliest, or May 14, at case, we can even raise a doubt on whether a JBC list is when circumstances permit. It should be a good issue for
the latest. If the regular presidential elections are held on necessary at all for the President – any President – to the proposed Constitutional Convention to consider in the
May 8, the period of the prohibition is 115 days. If such appoint a Chief Justice if the appointee is to come from the light of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile’s statement
elections are held on May 14, the period of the prohibition ranks of the sitting justices of the Supreme Court. that the President can appoint the Chief Justice from
is 109 days. Either period of the prohibition is longer than Sec. 9, Article VIII says: among the sitting justices of the Court even without a JBC
the full mandatory 90-day period to fill the vacancy in the list.
xxx. The Members of the
Supreme Court. The result is that there are at least 19 Supreme Court xxx shall be appointed
by the President from a list of at least II
occasions (i.e., the difference between the shortest three nominees prepared by the The Judiciary Act of 1948
Judicial and Bar Council for any
possible period of the ban of 109 days and the 90-day vacancy. Such appointments need no
confirmation.
mandatory period for appointments) in which the outgoing xxx
The posture has been taken that no urgency exists
President would be in no position to comply with the
for the President to appoint the successor of Chief Justice
constitutional duty to fill up a vacancy in the Supreme
Puno, considering that the Judiciary Act of 1948 can still
Court. It is safe to assume that the framers of the The provision clearly refers to an appointee coming
address the situation of having the next President appoint
Constitution could not have intended such an absurdity. In into the Supreme Court from the outside, that is, a non-
the successor.
fact, in their deliberations on the mandatory period for the member of the Court aspiring to become one. It speaks of
appointment of Supreme Court Justices under Section 4 candidates for the Supreme Court, not of those who are
(1), Article VIII, the framers neither discussed, nor already members or sitting justices of the Court, all of Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 states:
mentioned, nor referred to the ban against midnight whom have previously been vetted by the JBC.
Section 12. Vacancy in Office
of Chief Justice. — In case of a
appointments under Section 15, Article VII, or its effects on
vacancy in the office of Chief Justice
Can the President, therefore, appoint any of the of the Supreme Court or of his inability
the 90-day period, or vice versa. They did not need to,
to perform the duties and powers of
incumbent Justices of the Court as Chief Justice? his office, they shall devolve upon the
because they never intended Section 15, Article VII to
Associate Justice who is first in
apply to a vacancy in the Supreme Court, or in any of the precedence, until such disability is
removed, or another Chief Justice is
lower courts. appointed and duly qualified. This
provision shall apply to every
Associate Justice who succeeds to the on Appointments. With reference to the Chief Justice, he
office of Chief Justice.
or she is appointed by the President as Chief Justice, and The appointment of the next Chief Justice by the
the appointment is never in an acting capacity. The incumbent President is preferable to having the Associate
The provision calls for an Acting Chief Justice in
express reference to a Chief Justice abhors the idea that Justice who is first in precedence take over. Under the
the event of a vacancy in the office of the Chief Justice, or
the framers contemplated an Acting Chief Justice to head Constitution, the heads of the Legislative and Executive
in the event that the Chief Justice is unable to perform his
the membership of the Supreme Court. Otherwise, they Departments are popularly elected, and whoever are
duties and powers. In either of such circumstances,
would have simply written so in the Constitution. elected and proclaimed at once become the leaders of
the duties and powers of the office of the Chief Justice
Consequently, to rely on Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of their respective Departments. However, the lack of any
shall devolve upon the Associate Justice who is first in
1948 in order to forestall the imperative need to appoint appointed occupant of the office of Chief Justice harms the
precedence until a new Chief Justice is appointed or until
the next Chief Justice soonest is to defy the plain intent of independence of the Judiciary, because the Chief Justice
the disability is removed.
the Constitution. is the head of the entire Judiciary. The Chief Justice
Judiciary Act of 1948 only responds to a rare situation in mandatory for the incumbent President to make within the
We cannot agree with the posture.
which the new Chief Justice is not yet appointed, or in 90-day period from May 17, 2010, there is no justification
which the incumbent Chief Justice is unable to perform the to insist that the successor of Chief Justice Puno be
A review of Sections 4(1) and 9 of Article VIII shows
duties and powers of the office. It ought to be appointed by the next President.
that the Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice
remembered, however, that it was enacted because the
and 14 Associate Justices, who all shall be appointed by
Chief Justice appointed under the 1935 Constitution was Historically, under the present Constitution, there
the President from a list of at least three nominees
subject to the confirmation of the Commission on has been no wide gap between the retirement and the
prepared by the JBC for every vacancy, which
Appointments, and the confirmation process might take resignation of an incumbent Chief Justice, on one hand,
appointments require no confirmation by the Commission
longer than expected. and the appointment to and assumption of office of his
successor, on the other hand. As summarized in the Section 8(5) and Section 9, Article VIII, mandate
comment of the OSG, the chronology of succession is as the JBC to submit a list of at least three nominees to the
May the JBC be compelled to submit the list of
follows: President for every vacancy in the Judiciary:
nominees to the President?
JBC to submit to the President the list of nominees to fill a there should be an unexplained delay on its part in vacancy created by the compulsory retirement of Chief
vacancy in the Supreme Court in order to enable the recommending nominees to the Judiciary, that is, in Justice Puno.
President to appoint one of them within the 90-day period submitting the list to the President.
vacancy occurs, because that shortens the 90-day period discretionary one has been delineated in the following
allowed by the Constitution for the President to make the manner: In light of the foregoing disquisitions, the
appointment. For the JBC to do so will be unconscionable The distinction between a conclusion is ineluctable that only the President can
ministerial and discretionary act is well
on its part, considering that it will delineated. A purely ministerial act or appoint the Chief Justice. Hence, Soriano’s petition for
duty is one which an officer or tribunal
thereby effectively and illegally deprive the President of the performs in a given state of facts, in a prohibition in G.R. No. 191032, which proposes to prevent
prescribed manner, in obedience to
ample time granted under the Constitution to reflect on the the mandate of a legal authority, the JBC from intervening in the process of nominating the
without regard to or the exercise of his
qualifications of the nominees named in the list of the JBC own judgment upon the propriety or successor of Chief Justice Puno, lacks merit.
impropriety of the act done. If the law
before making the appointment. imposes a duty upon a public officer
and gives him the right to decide how
or when the duty shall be performed, On the other hand, the petition for prohibition in
such duty is discretionary and not
The duty of the JBC to submit a list of ministerial. The duty is ministerial only G.R. No. 191342 is similarly devoid of merit. The challenge
when the discharge of the same
nominees before the start of the President’s mandatory 90- requires neither the exercise of official mounted against the composition of the JBC based on the
discretion or judgment.[89]
day period to appoint is ministerial, but its selection of the allegedly unconstitutional allocation of a vote each to
candidates whose names will be in the list to be submitted the ex officio members from the Senate and the House of
to the President lies within the discretion of the JBC. The Accordingly, we find no sufficient grounds to grant Representatives, thereby prejudicing the chances of some
object of the petitions for mandamus herein should only the petitions for mandamus and to issue a writ candidates for nomination by raising the minimum number
refer to the duty to submit to the President the list of of mandamus against the JBC. The actions for that of votes required in accordance with the rules of the JBC,
nominees for every vacancy in the Judiciary, because in purpose are premature, because it is clear that the JBC is not based on the petitioners’ actual interest, because
order to constitute unlawful neglect of duty, there must be still has until May 17, 2010, at the latest, within which to they have not alleged in their petition that they were
an unjustified delay in performing that nominated to the JBC to fill some vacancies in the
INITIATIVES, LIKAS-KAYANG KAUNLARAN
Judiciary. Thus, the petitioners lack locus standi on that (b) To prepare the short list of FOUNDATION, INC., PHILIPPINE RURAL
RECONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT,
issue. nominees for the position of DEMOKRATIKONG KILUSAN NG
MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS, INC., and
Chief Justice; PHILIPPINE PEASANT INSTITUTE, in
representation of various taxpayers and as non-
WHEREFORE, the Court: governmental organizations, petitioners,
(c) To submit to the incumbent vs. EDGARDO ANGARA, ALBERTO ROMULO,
LETICIA RAMOS-SHAHANI, HEHERSON
President the short list of ALVAREZ, AGAPITO AQUINO, RODOLFO
1. Dismisses the petitions BIAZON, NEPTALI GONZALES, ERNESTO
nominees for the position of HERRERA, JOSE LINA, GLORIA
for certiorari and mandamus in G.R. No. 191002 and G.R. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, ORLANDO
Chief Justice on or before May MERCADO, BLAS OPLE, JOHN OSMEÑA,
No. 191149, and the petition for mandamus in G.R. No. SANTANINA RASUL, RAMON REVILLA, RAUL
17, 2010; and ROCO, FRANCISCO TATAD and FREDDIE
191057 for being premature; WEBB, in their respective capacities as
members of the Philippine Senate who
(d) To continue its proceedings for concurred in the ratification by the President of
the Philippines of the Agreement Establishing
2. Dismisses the petitions for prohibition in the nomination of candidates to the World Trade Organization; SALVADOR
ENRIQUEZ, in his capacity as Secretary of
G.R. No. 191032 and G.R. No. 191342 for lack of merit; fill other vacancies in the
Budget and Management; CARIDAD
VALDEHUESA, in her capacity as National
and Judiciary and submit to the
Treasurer; RIZALINO NAVARRO, in his capacity
as Secretary of Trade and Industry; ROBERTO
President the short list of
SEBASTIAN, in his capacity as Secretary of
3. Grants the petition in A.M. No. 10-2-5- nominees corresponding thereto Agriculture; ROBERTO DE OCAMPO, in his
capacity as Secretary of Finance; ROBERTO
SC and, accordingly, directs the Judicial and Bar Council: in accordance with this decision. ROMULO, in his capacity as Secretary of
Foreign Affairs; and TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA,
in his capacity as Executive
(a) To resume its proceedings for the Secretary,respondents.
SO ORDERED.
nomination of candidates to fill DECISION
the vacancy to be created by the PANGANIBAN, J.:
Agreement on Subsidies and On the other hand, the Final Act signed by Secretary
General Agreement on Tariffs Navarro embodies not only the WTO Agreement (and its
Coordinating
and Trade 1994 integral annexes aforementioned) but also (1) the
Measures
Ministerial Declarations and Decisions and (2) the
Agreement on Agriculture Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services. In
Agreement on Safeguards his Memorandum dated May 13, 1996,[8] the Solicitor
General describes these two latter documents as follows:
Agreement on the Application
Annex 1B: General Agreement on Trade in Services
of Sanitary and
and Annexes “The Ministerial Decisions and Declarations are twenty-five
declarations and decisions on a wide range of matters,
Phytosanitary such as measures in favor of least developed countries,
Annex 1C: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Measures notification procedures, relationship of WTO with the
Intellectual Property Rights
International Monetary Fund (IMF), and agreements on
Agreement on Textiles and technical barriers to trade and on dispute settlement.
ANNEX 2
Clothing
The Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services
dwell on, among other things, standstill or limitations and
qualifications of commitments to existing non-conforming In their Memorandum dated March 11, 1996, Ministerial Declaration and Decisions, and the
measures, market access, national treatment, and petitioners summarized the issues as follows: Understanding on Commitments in Financial
definitions of non-resident supplier of financial services, Services.”
commercial presence and new financial service.”
“A. Whether the petition presents a political question or is
otherwise not justiciable. On the other hand, the Solicitor General as counsel
On December 29, 1994, the present petition was for respondents “synthesized the several issues raised by
filed. After careful deliberation on respondents’ comment petitioners into the following”:[10]
B. Whether the petitioner members of the Senate
and petitioners’ reply thereto, the Court resolved on
who participated in the deliberations and voting
December 12, 1995, to give due course to the petition, and
leading to the concurrence are estopped from “1. Whether or not the provisions of the ‘Agreement
the parties thereafter filed their respective
impugning the validity of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and the
memoranda. The Court also requested the Honorable Lilia
Establishing the World Trade Organization or Agreements and Associated Legal Instruments included in
R. Bautista, the Philippine Ambassador to the United
of the validity of the concurrence. Annexes one (1), two (2) and three (3) of that agreement’
Nations stationed in Geneva, Switzerland, to submit a
cited by petitioners directly contravene or undermine the
paper, hereafter referred to as “Bautista Paper,”[9] for
letter, spirit and intent of Section 19, Article II and Sections
brevity, (1) providing a historical background of and (2) C. Whether the provisions of the Agreement
10 and 12, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
summarizing the said agreements. Establishing the World Trade Organization
contravene the provisions of Sec. 19, Article II,
During the Oral Argument held on August 27, 1996, and Secs. 10 and 12, Article XII, all of the 1987 2. Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement
the Court directed: Philippine Constitution. unduly limit, restrict or impair the exercise of legislative
power by Congress.
“(a) the petitioners to submit the (1) Senate Committee D. Whether provisions of the Agreement
Report on the matter in controversy and (2) the transcript Establishing the World Trade Organization 3. Whether or not certain provisions of the Agreement
of proceedings/hearings in the Senate; and unduly limit, restrict and impair Philippine impair the exercise of judicial power by this Honorable
sovereignty specifically the legislative power Court in promulgating the rules of evidence.
(b) the Solicitor General, as counsel for respondents, to file which, under Sec. 2, Article VI, 1987 Philippine
(1) a list of Philippine treaties signed prior to the Philippine Constitution is ‘vested in the Congress of the
4. Whether or not the concurrence of the Senate ‘in the
adherence to the WTO Agreement, which derogate from Philippines’;
ratification by the President of the Philippines of the
Philippine sovereignty and (2) copies of the multi-volume Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization’
WTO Agreement and other documents mentioned in the E. Whether provisions of the Agreement implied rejection of the treaty embodied in the Final Act.”
Final Act, as soon as possible.” Establishing the World Trade Organization
interfere with the exercise of judicial power.
By raising and arguing only four issues against the
After receipt of the foregoing documents, the Court seven presented by petitioners, the Solicitor General has
said it would consider the case submitted for resolution. In F. Whether the respondent members of the Senate effectively ignored three, namely: (1) whether the petition
a Compliance dated September 16, 1996, the Solicitor acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to presents a political question or is otherwise not justiciable;
General submitted a printed copy of the 36- lack or excess of jurisdiction when they voted (2) whether petitioner-members of the Senate (Wigberto E.
volume Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, for concurrence in the ratification of the Tañada and Anna Dominique Coseteng) are estopped
and in another Compliance dated October 24, 1996, he constitutionally-infirm Agreement Establishing from joining this suit; and (3) whether the respondent-
listed the various “bilateral or multilateral treaties or the World Trade Organization. members of the Senate acted in grave abuse of discretion
international instruments involving derogation of Philippine when they voted for concurrence in the ratification of the
sovereignty.” Petitioners, on the other hand, submitted WTO Agreement. The foregoing notwithstanding, this
their Compliance dated January 28, 1997, on January 30, G. Whether the respondent members of the Senate
Court resolved to deal with these three issues thus:
1997. acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction when they
concurred only in the ratification of the (1) The “political question” issue -- being very fundamental
Agreement Establishing the World Trade and vital, and being a matter that probes into the very
The Issues Organization, and not with the Presidential jurisdiction of this Court to hear and decide this case --
submission which included the Final Act,
was deliberated upon by the Court and will thus be ruled EXERCISE OF LEGISLATIVE POWER to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
upon as the first issue; BY CONGRESS? instrumentality of the government.”
This is the lis mota, the main issue, raised by the In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering
petition. Illustrative List
the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give
preference to qualified Filipinos.
Petitioners vigorously argue that the “letter, spirit and 1. TRIMS that are inconsistent with the obligation of
intent” of the Constitution mandating “economic
national treatment provided for in paragraph 4 of
nationalism” are violated by the so-called “parity xx xx
Article III of GATT 1994 include those which are
provisions” and “national treatment” clauses scattered in xx xx
mandatory or enforceable under domestic law or
various parts not only of the WTO Agreement and its
under administrative rulings, or compliance with
annexes but also in the Ministerial Decisions and which is necessary to obtain an advantage, and
Sec. 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of
Declarations and in the Understanding on Commitments in Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced which require:
Financial Services.
goods, and adopt measures that help make them
Specifically, the “flagship” constitutional provisions competitive.”
(a) the purchase or use by an enterprise of
referred to are Sec. 19, Article II, and Secs. 10 and 12, products of domestic origin or from any
Article XII, of the Constitution, which are worded as Petitioners aver that these sacred constitutional domestic source, whether specified in
follows: principles are desecrated by the following WTO provisions terms of particular products, in terms of
quoted in their memorandum:[19] volume or value of products, or in terms
“Article II of proportion of volume or value of its
local production; or
“a) In the area of investment measures related to trade in
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES goods (TRIMS, for brevity):
(b) that an enterprise’s purchases or use of
imported products be limited to an
xx xx “Article 2
amount related to the volume or value of
xx xx local products that it exports.
National Treatment and Quantitative Restrictions.
Sec. 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and 2. TRIMS that are inconsistent with the obligations
independent national economy effectively controlled by 1. Without prejudice to other rights and of general elimination of quantitative restrictions
Filipinos. obligations under GATT 1994. no Member provided for in paragraph 1 of Article XI of GATT
shall apply any TRIM that is inconsistent 1994 include those which are mandatory or
xx xx with the provisions of Article III or Article XI enforceable under domestic laws or under
xx xx of GATT 1994. administrative rulings, or compliance with which
is necessary to obtain an advantage, and which
restrict:
Article XII 2. An Illustrative list of TRIMS that are
inconsistent with the obligations of general
elimination of quantitative restrictions (a) the importation by an enterprise of
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY provided for in paragraph I of Article XI of products used in or related to the local
GATT 1994 is contained in the Annex to production that it exports;
xx xx this Agreement.” (Agreement on Trade-
xx xx Related Investment Measures, Vol. 27,
(b) the importation by an enterprise of
Uruguay Round, Legal Instruments,
products used in or related to its local
p.22121, emphasis supplied).
production by restricting its access to
foreign exchange inflows attributable to National Treatment preferential treatment accorded to Filipino labor, domestic
the enterprise; or materials and locally produced goods.
1. In the sectors inscribed in its schedule, and On the other hand, respondents through the Solicitor
(c) the exportation or sale for export specified subject to any conditions and qualifications General counter (1) that such Charter provisions are not
in terms of particular products, in terms of set out therein, each Member shall accord self-executing and merely set out general policies; (2) that
volume or value of products, or in terms of to services and service suppliers of any these nationalistic portions of the Constitution invoked by
a preparation of volume or value of its other Member, in respect of all measures petitioners should not be read in isolation but should be
local production.” (Annex to the affecting the supply of services, treatment related to other relevant provisions of Art. XII, particularly
Agreement on Trade-Related Investment no less favourable than it accords to its Secs. 1 and 13 thereof; (3) that read properly, the cited
Measures, Vol. 27, Uruguay Round Legal own like services and service suppliers. WTO clauses do not conflict with the Constitution; and (4)
Documents, p.22125, emphasis supplied). that the WTO Agreement contains sufficient provisions to
2. A Member may meet the requirement of protect developing countries like the Philippines from the
The paragraph 4 of Article III of GATT 1994 referred to is paragraph I by according to services and harshness of sudden trade liberalization.
quoted as follows: service suppliers of any other Member,
We shall now discuss and rule on these arguments.
either formally identical treatment or
formally different treatment to that it
The products of the territory of any contracting party
accords to its own like services and service
imported into the territory of any other contracting
suppliers.
party shall be accorded treatment no less favorable than Declaration of Principles Not Self-Executing
that accorded to like products of national origin in respect
of laws, regulations and requirements affecting their 3. Formally identical or formally different
internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, treatment shall be considered to be less
By its very title, Article II of the Constitution is a
distribution or use. the provisions of this paragraph shall favourable if it modifies the conditions of
“declaration of principles and state policies.” The
not prevent the application of differential internal completion in favour of services or service
counterpart of this article in the 1935 Constitution[21] is
transportation charges which are based exclusively on the suppliers of the Member compared to like
called the “basic political creed of the nation” by Dean
economic operation of the means of transport and not on services or service suppliers of any other
Vicente Sinco.[22] These principles in Article II are not
the nationality of the product.” (Article III, GATT 1947, as Member. (Article XVII, General Agreement
intended to be self-executing principles ready for
amended by the Protocol Modifying Part II, and Article on Trade in Services, Vol. 28, Uruguay
enforcement through the courts.[23] They are used by the
XXVI of GATT, 14 September 1948, 62 UMTS 82-84 in Round Legal Instruments, p.22610
judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of
relation to paragraph 1(a) of the General Agreement on emphasis supplied).”
judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of
Tariffs and Trade 1994, Vol. 1, Uruguay Round, Legal
laws. As held in the leading case of Kilosbayan,
Instruments p.177, emphasis supplied).
It is petitioners’ position that the foregoing “national Incorporated vs. Morato,[24] the principles and state policies
treatment” and “parity provisions” of the WTO Agreement enumerated in Article II and some sections of Article XII
“b) In the area of trade related aspects of intellectual “place nationals and products of member countries on the are not “self-executing provisions, the disregard of which
property rights (TRIPS, for brevity): same footing as Filipinos and local products,” in can give rise to a cause of action in the courts. They do
contravention of the “Filipino First” policy of the not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights but
Constitution. They allegedly render meaningless the guidelines for legislation.”
Each Member shall accord to the nationals of other
phrase “effectively controlled by Filipinos.” The
Members treatment no less favourable than that it accords In the same light, we held in Basco vs.
constitutional conflict becomes more manifest when
to its own nationals with regard to the protection of Pagcor[25] that broad constitutional principles need
viewed in the context of the clear duty imposed on the
intellectual property... (par. 1, Article 3, Agreement on legislative enactments to implement them, thus:
Philippines as a WTO member to ensure the conformity of
Trade-Related Aspect of Intellectual Property rights, Vol.
its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its
31, Uruguay Round, Legal Instruments, p.25432
obligations as provided in the annexed “On petitioners’ allegation that P.D. 1869 violates Sections
(emphasis supplied)
agreements.[20] Petitioners further argue that these 11 (Personal Dignity) 12 (Family) and 13 (Role of Youth) of
provisions contravene constitutional limitations on the role Article II; Section 13 (Social Justice) of Article XIII and
“(c) In the area of the General Agreement on Trade in exports play in national development and negate the Section 2 (Educational Values) of Article XIV of the 1987
Services: Constitution, suffice it to state also that these are merely
statements of principles and policies. As such, they are defendants may well be unable to defend themselves to the national economy and patrimony, should be read
basically not self-executing, meaning a law should be intelligently and effectively; in other words, there are due and understood in relation to the other sections in said
passed by Congress to clearly define and effectuate such process dimensions to this matter. article, especially Secs. 1 and 13 thereof which read:
principles.
The second is a broader-gauge consideration -- where a “Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more
‘In general, therefore, the 1935 provisions were not specific violation of law or applicable regulation is not equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth;
intended to be self-executing principles ready for alleged or proved, petitioners can be expected to fall back a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services
enforcement through the courts. They were rather on the expanded conception of judicial power in the produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and
directives addressed to the executive and to the second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality
legislature. If the executive and the legislature failed to Constitution which reads: of life for all, especially the underprivileged.
heed the directives of the article, the available remedy was
not judicial but political. The electorate could express their
‘Section 1. xxx The State shall promote industrialization and full
displeasure with the failure of the executive and the
employment based on sound agricultural development and
legislature through the language of the ballot. (Bernas,
agrarian reform, through industries that make full and
Vol. II, p. 2).” Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
efficient use of human and natural resources, and which
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
are competitive in both domestic and foreign
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or
The reasons for denying a cause of action to an markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting
alleged infringement of broad constitutional principles are enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
sourced from basic considerations of due process and the practices.
instrumentality of the Government.’ (Emphases supplied)
lack of judicial authority to wade “into the uncharted ocean
of social and economic policy making.” Mr. Justice
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy
Florentino P. Feliciano in his concurring opinion in Oposa When substantive standards as general as ‘the right to a
and all regions of the country shall be given optimum
vs. Factoran, Jr.,[26] explained these reasons as follows: balanced and healthy ecology’ and ‘the right to health’ are
opportunity to develop. x x x
combined with remedial standards as broad ranging as ‘a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
“My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the
jurisdiction,’ the result will be, it is respectfully submitted, to x x x x x
trial court, show a more specific legal right -- a right cast in
propel courts into the uncharted ocean of social and x xxx
language of a significantly lower order of generality than
economic policy making. At least in respect of the vast
Article II (15) of the Constitution -- that is or may be
area of environmental protection and management, our
violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the Sec. 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves
courts have no claim to special technical competence and
public respondent by petitioners so that the trial court can the general welfare and utilizes all forms and
experience and professional qualification. Where no
validly render judgment granting all or part of the relief arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and
specific, operable norms and standards are shown to exist,
prayed for. To my mind, the court should be understood reciprocity.”
then the policy making departments -- the legislative and
as simply saying that such a more specific legal right or
executive departments -- must be given a real and
rights may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the
effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate those As pointed out by the Solicitor General, Sec. 1 lays
general policy principles found in the Constitution and the
norms and standards, and to implement them before the down the basic goals of national economic development,
existence of the Philippine Environment Code, and that the
courts should intervene.” as follows:
trial court should have given petitioners an effective
opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of aborting the 1. A more equitable distribution of opportunities,
proceedings on a motion to dismiss. income and wealth;
Economic Nationalism Should Be Read with Other
It seems to me important that the legal right which is an 2. A sustained increase in the amount of goods and
Constitutional Mandates to Attain Balanced Development
essential component of a cause of action be a specific, services provided by the nation for the benefit of the
of Economy
operable legal right, rather than a constitutional or people; and
statutory policy, for at least two (2) reasons. One is that 3. An expanding productivity as the key to raising
unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or the quality of life for all especially the underprivileged.
On the other hand, Secs. 10 and 12 of Article XII,
disregarded is given specification in operational terms,
apart from merely laying down general principles relating
With these goals in context, the Constitution then Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of “The Parties to this Agreement,
ordains the ideals of economic nationalism (1) by foreign goods, services and investments into the country, it
expressing preference in favor of qualified Filipinos “in the does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an
Recognizing that their relations in the field of trade and
grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning
economic endeavour should be conducted with a view to
national economy and patrimony”[27] and in the use of only on foreign competition that is unfair.
raising standards of living, ensuring full employment and a
“Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally-produced
large and steadily growing volume of real income and
goods”; (2) by mandating the State to “adopt measures
effective demand, and expanding the production of and
that help make them competitive;[28] and (3) by requiring
trade in goods and services, while allowing for the optimal
the State to “develop a self-reliant and independent WTO Recognizes Need to Protect Weak Economies use of the world’s resources in accordance with the
national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.”[29] In
objective of sustainable development, seeking both to
similar language, the Constitution takes into account the
protect and preserve the environment and to enhance the
realities of the outside world as it requires the pursuit of “a
Upon the other hand, respondents maintain that the means for doing so in a manner consistent with their
trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all
WTO itself has some built-in advantages to protect weak respective needs and concerns at different levels of
forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of
and developing economies, which comprise the vast economic development,
equality and reciprocity”;[30] and speaks of industries “which
majority of its members. Unlike in the UN where major
are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets” as
states have permanent seats and veto powers in the
well as of the protection of “Filipino enterprises against Recognizing further that there is need for positive efforts
Security Council, in the WTO, decisions are made on the
unfair foreign competition and trade practices.” designed to ensure that developing countries, and
basis of sovereign equality, with each member’s vote equal
especially the least developed among them, secure
It is true that in the recent case of Manila Prince in weight to that of any other. There is no WTO equivalent
of the UN Security Council. a share in the growth in international trade commensurate
Hotel vs. Government Service Insurance System, et with the needs of their economic development,
al., this Court held that “Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of
[31]
the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive command “WTO decides by consensus whenever possible,
which is complete in itself and which needs no further otherwise, decisions of the Ministerial Conference and the Being desirous of contributing to these objectives by
guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its General Council shall be taken by the majority of the votes entering into reciprocal and mutually advantageous
enforcement. From its very words the provision does not arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs
cast, except in cases of interpretation of the Agreement or
require any legislation to put it in operation. It is per waiver of the obligation of a member which would require and other barriers to trade and to the elimination of
se judicially enforceable.” However, as the constitutional three fourths vote. Amendments would require two thirds discriminatory treatment in international trade relations,
provision itself states, it is enforceable only in regard to vote in general. Amendments to MFN provisions and the
“the grants of rights, privileges and concessions covering Amendments provision will require assent of all Resolved, therefore, to develop an integrated, more viable
national economy and patrimony” and not to every aspect members. Any member may withdraw from the and durable multilateral trading system encompassing the
of trade and commerce. It refers to exceptions rather than Agreement upon the expiration of six months from the date General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the results of
the rule. The issue here is not whether this paragraph of of notice of withdrawals.”[33] past trade liberalization efforts, and all of the results of the
Sec. 10 of Art. XII is self-executing or not. Rather, the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations,
issue is whether, as a rule, there are enough balancing
provisions in the Constitution to allow the Senate to ratify Hence, poor countries can protect their common
the Philippine concurrence in the WTO Agreement. And interests more effectively through the WTO than through Determined to preserve the basic principles and to further
we hold that there are. one-on-one negotiations with developed countries. Within the objectives underlying this multilateral trading system, x
the WTO, developing countries can form powerful blocs to x x.” (underscoring supplied.)
All told, while the Constitution indeed mandates a push their economic agenda more decisively than outside
bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and the Organization. This is not merely a matter of practical
enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for alliances but a negotiating strategy rooted in law. Thus,
business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases the basic principles underlying the WTO Agreement Specific WTO Provisos Protect Developing Countries
of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino recognize the need of developing countries like the
enterprises only against foreign competition and trade Philippines to “share in the growth in international
practices that are unfair.[32] In other words, the Constitution trade commensurate with the needs of their economic
So too, the Solicitor General points out that pursuant
did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not development.” These basic principles are found in the
preamble[34] of the WTO Agreement as follows: to and consistent with the foregoing basic principles, the
shut out foreign investments, goods and services in the
WTO Agreement grants developing countries a more
development of the Philippine economy. While the
lenient treatment, giving their domestic industries some policy. It will only perform its constitutional duty of Constitution Favors Consumers, Not Industries or
protection from the rush of foreign competition. Thus, with determining whether the Senate committed grave abuse of Enterprises
respect to tariffs in general, preferential treatment is given discretion.
to developing countries in terms of the amount of tariff
reduction and the period within which the reduction is to be The Constitution has not really shown any
spread out. Specifically, GATT requires an average tariff unbalanced bias in favor of any business or enterprise, nor
reduction rate of 36% for developed countries to be Constitution Does Not Rule Out Foreign Competition does it contain any specific pronouncement that Filipino
effected within aperiod of six (6) years while developing companies should be pampered with a total
countries -- including the Philippines -- are required to proscription of foreign competition. On the other hand
effect an average tariff reduction of only 24% within ten
Furthermore, the constitutional policy of a “self- , respondents claim that WTO/GATT aims to make
(10) years.
reliant and independent national economy”[35] does not available to the Filipino consumer the best goods and
In respect to domestic subsidy, GATT necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods services obtainable anywhere in the world at the most
requires developed countries to reduce domestic support and services. It contemplates neither “economic reasonable prices. Consequently, the question boils down
to agricultural products by 20% over six (6) years, as seclusion” nor “mendicancy in the international to whether WTO/GATT will favor the general welfare of the
compared to only 13% for developing countries to be community.” As explained by Constitutional Commissioner public at large.
effected within ten (10) years. Bernardo Villegas, sponsor of this constitutional policy:
Will adherence to the WTO treaty bring this ideal (of
favoring the general welfare) to reality?
In regard to export subsidy for agricultural products, “Economic self-reliance is a primary objective of a
GATT requires developed countries to reduce their Will WTO/GATT succeed in promoting the Filipinos’
developing country that is keenly aware of
budgetary outlays for export subsidy by 36% and export overdependence on external assistance for even its most general welfare because it will -- as promised by its
volumes receiving export subsidy by 21% within a period basic needs. It does not mean autarky or economic promoters -- expand the country’s exports and generate
of six (6) years. For developing countries, however, the more employment?
seclusion; rather, it means avoiding mendicancy in the
reduction rate is only two-thirds of that prescribed for international community. Independence refers to the
developed countries and a longer period of ten (10) freedom from undue foreign control of the national Will it bring more prosperity, employment,
years within which to effect such reduction. purchasing power and quality products at the most
economy, especially in such strategic industries as in the
development of natural resources and public utilities.”[36] reasonable rates to the Filipino public?
Moreover, GATT itself has provided built-in
protection from unfair foreign competition and trade The responses to these questions involve “judgment
practices including anti-dumping measures, countervailing The WTO reliance on “most favored nation,” calls” by our policy makers, for which they are answerable
measures and safeguards against import surges. Where “national treatment,” and “trade without discrimination” to our people during appropriate electoral exercises. Such
local businesses are jeopardized by unfair foreign cannot be struck down as unconstitutional as in fact they questions and the answers thereto are not subject to
competition, the Philippines can avail of these are rules of equality and reciprocity that apply to all WTO judicial pronouncements based on grave abuse of
measures. There is hardly therefore any basis for the members. Aside from envisioning a trade policy based on discretion.
statement that under the WTO, local industries and “equality and reciprocity,”[37] the fundamental law
enterprises will all be wiped out and that Filipinos will be encourages industries that are “competitive in both
deprived of control of the economy. Quite the contrary, the domestic and foreign markets,” thereby demonstrating a
weaker situations of developing nations like the Philippines clear policy against a sheltered domestic trade Constitution Designed to Meet Future Events and
have been taken into account; thus, there would be no environment, but one in favor of the gradual development Contingencies
basis to say that in joining the WTO, the respondents have of robust industries that can compete with the best in the
gravely abused their discretion. True, they have made a foreign markets. Indeed, Filipino managers and Filipino
bold decision to steer the ship of state into the yet enterprises have shown capability and tenacity to compete
uncharted sea of economic liberalization. But such No doubt, the WTO Agreement was not yet in
internationally. And given a free trade environment, existence when the Constitution was drafted and ratified in
decision cannot be set aside on the ground of grave Filipino entrepreneurs and managers in Hongkong
abuse of discretion, simply because we disagree with it or 1987. That does not mean however that the Charter is
have demonstrated the Filipino capacity to grow and to
simply because we believe only in other economic necessarily flawed in the sense that its framers might not
prosper against the best offered under a policy of laissez have anticipated the advent of a borderless world of
policies. As earlier stated, the Court in taking jurisdiction faire.
of this case will not pass upon the advantages and business. By the same token, the United Nations was not
disadvantages of trade liberalization as an economic yet in existence when the 1935 Constitution became
effective. Did that necessarily mean that the then
Constitution might not have contemplated a diminution of legislation that will be good for our national interest and By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict
the absoluteness of sovereignty when the Philippines general welfare if such legislation will not conform with the the absoluteness of sovereignty. By their voluntary act,
signed the UN Charter, thereby effectively surrendering WTO Agreement, which not only relates to the trade in nations may surrender some aspects of their state power
part of its control over its foreign relations to the decisions goods x x x but also to the flow of investments and money in exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from
of various UN organs like the Security Council? x x x as well as to a whole slew of agreements on socio- a convention or pact. After all, states, like individuals, live
cultural matters x x x.”[40] with coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted
It is not difficult to answer this objectives and benefits, they also commonly agree to limit
question. Constitutions are designed to meet not only the More specifically, petitioners claim that said the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights. Thus,
vagaries of contemporary events. They should be WTO proviso derogates from the power to tax, which is treaties have been used to record agreements between
interpreted to cover even future and unknown lodged in the Congress.[41] And while the Constitution States concerning such widely diverse matters as, for
circumstances. It is to the credit of its drafters that a allows Congress to authorize the President to fix tariff example, the lease of naval bases, the sale or cession of
Constitution can withstand the assaults of bigots and rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage territory, the termination of war, the regulation of conduct
infidels but at the same time bend with the refreshing dues, and other duties or imposts, such authority is subject of hostilities, the formation of alliances, the regulation of
winds of change necessitated by unfolding events. As one to “specified limits and x x x such limitations and commercial relations, the settling of claims, the laying
eminent political law writer and respected jurist[38] explains: restrictions” as Congress may provide,[42] as in fact it did down of rules governing conduct in peace and the
under Sec. 401 of the Tariff and Customs Code. establishment of international organizations.[46] The
“The Constitution must be quintessential rather than sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in fact and in reality
superficial, the root and not the blossom, the base and be considered absolute. Certain restrictions enter into the
framework only of the edifice that is yet to rise. It is but the picture: (1) limitations imposed by the very nature of
core of the dream that must take shape, not in a twinkling Sovereignty Limited by International Law and Treaties membership in the family of nations and (2) limitations
by mandate of our delegates, but slowly ‘in the crucible of imposed by treaty stipulations. As aptly put by John F.
Filipino minds and hearts,’ where it will in time develop its Kennedy, “Today, no nation can build its destiny
sinews and gradually gather its strength and finally This Court notes and appreciates the ferocity and alone. The age of self-sufficient nationalism is over. The
achieve its substance. In fine, the Constitution cannot, like passion by which petitioners stressed their arguments on age of interdependence is here.”[47]
the goddess Athena, rise full-grown from the brow of the this issue. However, while sovereignty has traditionally
Constitutional Convention, nor can it conjure by mere fiat been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the
an instant Utopia. It must grow with the society it seeks to domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions and
re-structure and march apace with the progress of the limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, UN Charter and Other Treaties Limit Sovereignty
race, drawing from the vicissitudes of history the expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of
dynamism and vitality that will keep it, far from becoming a nations. Unquestionably, the Constitution did not envision
petrified rule, a pulsing, living law attuned to the heartbeat a hermit-type isolation of the country from the rest of the Thus, when the Philippines joined the United Nations
of the nation.” world. In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, as one of its 51 charter members, it consented to restrict
the Constitution “adopts the generally accepted principles its sovereign rights under the “concept of sovereignty as
of international law as part of the law of the land, and auto-limitation.”47-AUnder Article 2 of the UN Charter, “(a)ll
adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, members shall give the United Nations every assistance in
Third Issue: The WTO Agreement and Legislative Power cooperation and amity, with all nations."[43] By the doctrine any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter,
of incorporation, the country is bound by generally and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state
accepted principles of international law, which are against which the United Nations is taking preventive or
considered to be automatically part of our own enforcement action.” Such assistance includes payment of
The WTO Agreement provides that “(e)ach Member
laws.[44] One of the oldest and most fundamental rules in its corresponding share not merely in administrative
shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and
international law is pacta sunt servanda -- international expenses but also in expenditures for the peace-keeping
administrative procedures with its obligations as provided
agreements must be performed in good faith. “A treaty operations of the organization. In its advisory opinion of
in the annexed Agreements.”[39] Petitioners maintain that
engagement is not a mere moral obligation but creates a July 20, 1961, the International Court of Justice held that
this undertaking “unduly limits, restricts and impairs
legally binding obligation on the parties x x x. A state money used by the United Nations Emergency Force in
Philippine sovereignty, specifically the legislative power
which has contracted valid international obligations is the Middle East and in the Congo were “expenses of the
which under Sec. 2, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine
bound to make in its legislations such modifications as United Nations” under Article 17, paragraph 2, of the UN
Constitution is vested in the Congress of the Philippines. It
may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the Charter. Hence, all its members must bear their
is an assault on the sovereign powers of the Philippines
obligations undertaken.”[45] corresponding share in such expenses. In this sense, the
because this means that Congress could not pass
Philippine Congress is restricted in its power to (c) Bilateral convention with the Kingdom of Sweden exempted from customs duties, taxes and
appropriate. It is compelled to appropriate funds whether it for the avoidance of double taxation. related charges.
agrees with such peace-keeping expenses or not. So too,
under Article 105 of the said Charter, the UN and its
(d) Bilateral convention with the French Republic for (k) Multilateral Convention on the Law of
representatives enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities,
the avoidance of double taxation. Treaties. In this convention, the Philippines
thereby limiting again the exercise of sovereignty of
agreed to be governed by the Vienna
members within their own territory. Another example:
Convention on the Law of Treaties.
although “sovereign equality” and “domestic jurisdiction” of (e) Bilateral air transport agreement with Korea
all members are set forth as underlying principles in the where the Philippines agreed to exempt from
UN Charter, such provisos are however subject to all customs duties, inspection fees and other (l) Declaration of the President of the Philippines
enforcement measures decided by the Security Council for duties or taxes aircrafts of South Korea and the accepting compulsory jurisdiction of the
the maintenance of international peace and security under regular equipment, spare parts and supplies International Court of Justice. The
Chapter VII of the Charter. A final example: under Article arriving with said aircrafts. International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in
103, “(i)n the event of a conflict between the obligations of all legal disputes concerning the interpretation
the Members of the United Nations under the present of a treaty, any question of international law,
Charter and their obligations under any other international (f) Bilateral air service agreement with Japan, where
the existence of any fact which, if established,
the Philippines agreed to exempt from customs
agreement, their obligation under the present charter shall would constitute a breach of international
prevail,” thus unquestionably denying the Philippines -- as duties, excise taxes, inspection fees and other
obligation.”
a member -- the sovereign power to make a choice as to similar duties, taxes or charges fuel, lubricating
oils, spare parts, regular equipment, stores on
which of conflicting obligations, if any, to honor.
board Japanese aircrafts while on Philippine In the foregoing treaties, the Philippines has
Apart from the UN Treaty, the Philippines has soil. effectively agreed to limit the exercise of its sovereign
entered into many other international pacts -- both powers of taxation, eminent domain and police
bilateral and multilateral -- that involve limitations on power. The underlying consideration in this partial
(g) Bilateral air service agreement with Belgium
Philippine sovereignty. These are enumerated by the surrender of sovereignty is the reciprocal commitment of
where the Philippines granted Belgian air
Solicitor General in his Compliance dated October 24, the other contracting states in granting the same privilege
carriers the same privileges as those granted
1996, as follows: and immunities to the Philippines, its officials and its
to Japanese and Korean air carriers under
citizens. The same reciprocity characterizes the Philippine
separate air service agreements.
commitments under WTO-GATT.
“(a) Bilateral convention with the United States
regarding taxes on income, where the (h) Bilateral notes with Israel for the abolition of
Philippines agreed, among others, to exempt “International treaties, whether relating to nuclear
transit and visitor visas where the Philippines
from tax, income received in the Philippines disarmament, human rights, the environment, the law of
exempted Israeli nationals from the
by, among others, the Federal Reserve Bank the sea, or trade, constrain domestic political sovereignty
requirement of obtaining transit or visitor visas
of the United States, the Export/Import Bank through the assumption of external obligations. But unless
for a sojourn in the Philippines not exceeding
of the United States, the Overseas Private anarchy in international relations is preferred as an
59 days.
Investment Corporation of the United alternative, in most cases we accept that the benefits of
States. Likewise, in said convention, wages, the reciprocal obligations involved outweigh the costs
salaries and similar remunerations paid by the (I) Bilateral agreement with France exempting associated with any loss of political sovereignty. (T)rade
United States to its citizens for labor and French nationals from the requirement of treaties that structure relations by reference to durable,
personal services performed by them as obtaining transit and visitor visa for a sojourn well-defined substantive norms and objective dispute
employees or officials of the United States are not exceeding 59 days. resolution procedures reduce the risks of larger countries
exempt from income tax by the Philippines. exploiting raw economic power to bully smaller countries,
by subjecting power relations to some form of legal
(j) Multilateral Convention on Special Missions, ordering. In addition, smaller countries typically stand to
(b) Bilateral agreement with Belgium, providing, where the Philippines agreed that premises of
gain disproportionately from trade liberalization. This is
among others, for the avoidance of double Special Missions in the Philippines are due to the simple fact that liberalization will provide access
taxation with respect to taxes on income. inviolable and its agents can not enter said to a larger set of potential new trading relationship than in
premises without consent of the Head of
Mission concerned. Special Missions are also
case of the larger country gaining enhanced success to (b) if there is a substantial likelihood that the The foregoing should really present no problem in
the smaller country’s market.”[48] identical product was made by the changing the rules of evidence as the present law on the
process and the owner of the patent has subject, Republic Act No. 165, as amended, otherwise
been unable through reasonable efforts known as the Patent Law, provides a similar presumption
The point is that, as shown by the foregoing treaties,
to determine the process actually used. in cases of infringement of patented design or utility model,
a portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating
thus:
the Constitution, based on the rationale that the
Philippines “adopts the generally accepted principles of 2. Any Member shall be free to provide that the
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres burden of proof indicated in paragraph 1 shall be on “SEC. 60. Infringement. - Infringement of a design patent
to the policy of x x x cooperation and amity with all the alleged infringer only if the condition referred to or of a patent for utility model shall consist in unauthorized
nations.” in subparagraph (a) is fulfilled or only if the condition copying of the patented design or utility model for the
referred to in subparagraph (b) is fulfilled. purpose of trade or industry in the article or product and in
the making, using or selling of the article or product
copying the patented design or utility model. Identity or
3. In the adduction of proof to the contrary, the
Fourth Issue: The WTO Agreement and Judicial Power substantial identity with the patented design or utility model
legitimate interests of defendants in protecting their
shall constitute evidence of copying.” (underscoring
manufacturing and business secrets shall be taken
supplied)
into account.”
Petitioners aver that paragraph 1, Article 34 of the
General Provisions and Basic Principles of the Agreement Moreover, it should be noted that the requirement of
From the above, a WTO Member is required to
on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Article 34 to provide a disputable presumption applies only
(TRIPS)[49] intrudes on the power of the Supreme Court to provide a rule of disputable (note the words “in the
if (1) the product obtained by the patented process is NEW
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and absence of proof to the contrary”) presumption that a
or (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the identical
product shown to be identical to one produced with the use
procedures.[50] product was made by the process and the process owner
of a patented process shall be deemed to have been
has not been able through reasonable effort to determine
To understand the scope and meaning of Article 34, obtained by the (illegal) use of the said patented process,
the process used. Where either of these
TRIPS,[51] it will be fruitful to restate its full text as follows: (1) where such product obtained by the patented product
two provisos does not obtain, members shall be free to
is new, or (2) where there is “substantial likelihood” that the
determine the appropriate method of implementing the
identical product was made with the use of the said
“Article 34 provisions of TRIPS within their own internal systems and
patented process but the owner of the patent could not
processes.
determine the exact process used in obtaining such
Process Patents: Burden of Proof identical product. Hence, the “burden of proof” By and large, the arguments adduced in connection
contemplated by Article 34 should actually be understood with our disposition of the third issue -- derogation of
as the duty of the alleged patent infringer to overthrow legislative power - will apply to this fourth issue
1. For the purposes of civil proceedings in respect of such presumption. Such burden, properly understood, also. Suffice it to say that the reciprocity clause more than
the infringement of the rights of the owner referred actually refers to the “burden of evidence” (burden of justifies such intrusion, if any actually exists. Besides,
to in paragraph 1(b) of Article 28, if the subject going forward) placed on the producer of the identical (or Article 34 does not contain an unreasonable burden,
matter of a patent is a process for obtaining a fake) product to show that his product was produced consistent as it is with due process and the concept of
product, the judicial authorities shall have the without the use of the patented process. adversarial dispute settlement inherent in our judicial
authority to order the defendant to prove that the
system.
process to obtain an identical product is different The foregoing notwithstanding, the patent owner still
from the patented process. Therefore, Members has the “burden of proof” since, regardless of the So too, since the Philippine is a signatory to most
shall provide, in at least one of the following presumption provided under paragraph 1 of Article 34, international conventions on patents, trademarks and
circumstances, that any identical product when such owner still has to introduce evidence of the existence copyrights, the adjustment in legislation and rules of
produced without the consent of the patent owner of the alleged identical product, the fact that it is “identical” procedure will not be substantial.[52]
shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be to the genuine one produced by the patented process and
deemed to have been obtained by the patented the fact of “newness” of the genuine product or the fact of
process: “substantial likelihood” that the identical product was made
by the patented process. Fifth Issue: Concurrence Only in the WTO Agreement and
(a) if the product obtained by the patented process is new; Not in Other Documents Contained in the Final Act
Petitioners allege that the Senate concurrence in the approved by the ministers by virtue of Article XXV: 1 of 4. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
WTO Agreement and its annexes -- but not in the other GATT which provides that representatives of the members 1994 as specified in annex 1A (hereinafter referred
documents referred to in the Final Act, namely the can meet “to give effect to those provisions of this to as “GATT 1994”) is legally distinct from the
Ministerial Declaration and Decisions and the Agreement which invoke joint action, and generally with a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, dated 30
Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services -- is view to facilitating the operation and furthering the October 1947, annexed to the Final Act adopted at
defective and insufficient and thus constitutes abuse of objectives of this Agreement.”[56] the conclusion of the Second Session of the
discretion. They submit that such concurrence in the WTO Preparatory Committee of the United Nations
Agreement alone is flawed because it is in effect a The Understanding on Commitments in Financial Conference on Trade and Employment, as
rejection of the Final Act, which in turn was the document Services also approved in Marrakesh does not apply to the subsequently rectified, amended or modified
signed by Secretary Navarro, in representation of the Philippines. It applies only to those 27 Members which (hereinafter referred to as “GATT 1947”).
Republic upon authority of the President. They contend “have indicated in their respective schedules of
that the second letter of the President to the commitments on standstill, elimination of monopoly,
expansion of operation of existing financial service It should be added that the Senate was well-aware
Senate[53] which enumerated what constitutes the Final Act
suppliers, temporary entry of personnel, free transfer and of what it was concurring in as shown by the members’
should have been the subject of concurrence of the
processing of information, and national treatment with deliberation on August 25, 1994. After reading the letter of
Senate.
respect to access to payment, clearing systems and President Ramos dated August 11, 1994,[59] the senators
“A final act, sometimes called protocol de clôture, is refinancing available in the normal course of business.”[57] of the Republic minutely dissected what the Senate was
an instrument which records the winding up of the concurring in, as follows: [60]
proceedings of a diplomatic conference and usually On the other hand, the WTO Agreement itself
includes a reproduction of the texts of treaties, expresses what multilateral agreements are deemed
“THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Now, the question of the validity
conventions, recommendations and other acts agreed included as its integral parts,[58] as follows:
of the submission came up in the first day hearing of this
upon and signed by the plenipotentiaries attending the Committee yesterday. Was the observation made by
conference.”[54] It is not the treaty itself. It is rather a “Article II Senator Tañada that what was submitted to the Senate
summary of the proceedings of a protracted conference was not the agreement on establishing the World Trade
which may have taken place over several years. The text Organization by the final act of the Uruguay Round which
of the “Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Scope of the WTO is not the same as the agreement establishing the World
Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations” is contained in Trade Organization? And on that basis, Senator Tolentino
just one page[55] in Vol. I of the 36-volume Uruguay Round 1. The WTO shall provide the common institutional raised a point of order which, however, he agreed to
of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. By signing said Final framework for the conduct of trade relations among withdraw upon understanding that his suggestion for an
Act, Secretary Navarro as representative of the Republic of its Members in matters to the agreements and alternative solution at that time was acceptable. That
the Philippines undertook: associated legal instruments included in the suggestion was to treat the proceedings of the Committee
Annexes to this Agreement. as being in the nature of briefings for Senators until the
"(a) to submit, as appropriate, the WTO Agreement question of the submission could be clarified.
for the consideration of their respective 2. The Agreements and associated legal instruments
competent authorities with a view to seeking included in Annexes 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter referred And so, Secretary Romulo, in effect, is the President
approval of the Agreement in accordance with to as “Multilateral Agreements”) are integral parts of submitting a new... is he making a new submission which
their procedures; and this Agreement, binding on all Members. improves on the clarity of the first submission?
(b) to adopt the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions." 3. The Agreements and associated legal instruments MR. ROMULO: Mr. Chairman, to make sure that it is clear
included in Annex 4 (hereinafter referred to as cut and there should be no misunderstanding, it was his
The assailed Senate Resolution No. 97 expressed “Plurilateral Trade Agreements”) are also part of this intention to clarify all matters by giving this letter.
concurrence in exactly what the Final Act required from its Agreement for those Members that have accepted
signatories, namely, concurrence of the Senate in the them, and are binding on those Members. The THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
WTO Agreement. Plurilateral Trade Agreements do not create either
obligation or rights for Members that have not
The Ministerial Declarations and Decisions were accepted them.
deemed adopted without need for ratification. They were
Can this Committee hear from Senator Tañada and later In other words, it is not the Final Act that was agreed to be plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
on Senator Tolentino since they were the ones that raised submitted to the governments for ratification or acceptance of law.
this question yesterday? as whatever their constitutional procedures may provide
but it is the World Trade Organization Agreement. And if By grave abuse of discretion is meant such
that is the one that is being submitted now, I think it capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is
Senator Tañada, please. equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[61] Mere abuse of
satisfies both the Constitution and the Final Act itself.
discretion is not enough. It must be graveabuse of
SEN. TAÑADA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. discretion as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility,
and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an
Based on what Secretary Romulo has read, it would now evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Tolentino, May I
clearly appear that what is being submitted to the Senate the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of
call on Senator Gonzales.
for ratification is not the Final Act of the Uruguay Round, law.[62] Failure on the part of the petitioner to show grave
but rather the Agreement on the World Trade Organization abuse of discretion will result in the dismissal of the
as well as the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions, and SEN. GONZALES. Mr. Chairman, my views on this matter petition.[63]
the Understanding and Commitments in Financial are already a matter of record. And they had been
Services. adequately reflected in the journal of yesterday’s session In rendering this Decision, this Court never forgets
and I don’t see any need for repeating the same. that the Senate, whose act is under review, is one of two
sovereign houses of Congress and is thus entitled to great
I am now satisfied with the wording of the new submission
respect in its actions. It is itself a constitutional body
of President Ramos. Now, I would consider the new submission as an act ex
independent and coordinate, and thus its actions are
abudante cautela.
presumed regular and done in good faith. Unless
SEN. TAÑADA. . . . of President Ramos, Mr. Chairman. convincing proof and persuasive arguments are presented
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Gonzales. Senator to overthrow such presumptions, this Court will resolve
Lina, do you want to make any comment on this? every doubt in its favor. Using the foregoing well-accepted
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Tañada. Can we definition of grave abuse of discretion and the presumption
hear from Senator Tolentino? And after him Senator of regularity in the Senate’s processes, this Court cannot
Neptali Gonzales and Senator Lina. SEN. LINA. Mr. President, I agree with the observation
find any cogent reason to impute grave abuse of discretion
just made by Senator Gonzales out of the abundance of to the Senate’s exercise of its power of concurrence in the
question. Then the new submission is, I believe, stating WTO Agreement granted it by Sec. 21 of Article VII of the
SEN TOLENTINO, Mr. Chairman, I have not seen the new
the obvious and therefore I have no further comment to Constitution.[64]
submission actually transmitted to us but I saw the draft of
make.”
his earlier, and I think it now complies with the provisions
of the Constitution, and with the Final Act itself. The It is true, as alleged by petitioners, that broad
Constitution does not require us to ratify the Final Act. It constitutional principles require the State to develop an
requires us to ratify the Agreement which is now being independent national economy effectively controlled by
submitted. The Final Act itself specifies what is going to Epilogue Filipinos; and to protect and/or prefer Filipino labor,
be submitted to with the governments of the participants. products, domestic materials and locally produced
goods. But it is equally true that such principles -- while
In praying for the nullification of the Philippine serving as judicial and legislative guides -- are not in
In paragraph 2 of the Final Act, we read and I quote: themselves sources of causes of action. Moreover, there
ratification of the WTO Agreement, petitioners are invoking
this Court’s constitutionally imposed duty “to determine are other equally fundamental constitutional principles
‘By signing the present Final Act, the representatives whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion relied upon by the Senate which mandate the pursuit of a
agree: (a) to submit as appropriate the WTO Agreement amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction” on the part of “trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all
for the consideration of the respective competent the Senate in giving its concurrence therein via Senate forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of
authorities with a view to seeking approval of the Resolution No. 97. Procedurally, a writ equality and reciprocity” and the promotion of industries
Agreement in accordance with their procedures.’ of certiorarigrounded on grave abuse of discretion may be “which are competitive in both domestic and foreign
issued by the Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court markets,” thereby justifying its acceptance of said
when it is amply shown that petitioners have no other treaty. So too, the alleged impairment of sovereignty in
the exercise of legislative and judicial powers is balanced
by the adoption of the generally accepted principles of prosperity and stability in the new millennium. Let the
management expertise and/or an international
international law as part of the law of the land and the people, through their duly authorized elected officers,
adherence of the Constitution to the policy of make their free choice. marketing/reservation system, and financial support to
cooperation and amity with all nations. strengthen the profitability and performance of the Manila
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of
That the Senate, after deliberation and voting, merit. Hotel. 2 In a close bidding held on 18 September 1995 only
voluntarily and overwhelmingly gave its consent to the
two (2) bidders participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel
WTO Agreement thereby making it “a part of the law of the
land” is a legitimate exercise of its sovereign duty and EN BANC Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy
power. We find no “patent and gross” arbitrariness or
G.R. No. 122156 February 3, 1997 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per
despotism “by reason of passion or personal hostility” in
such exercise. It is not impossible to surmise that this MANILA PRINCE HOTEL petitioner, share, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-
Court, or at least some of its members, may even agree Sheraton as its hotel operator, which bid for the same
with petitioners that it is more advantageous to the national vs.
interest to strike down Senate Resolution No. 97. But that GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, number of shares at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more than
is not a legal reason to attribute grave abuse of discretion the bid of petitioner.
to the Senate and to nullify its decision. To do so would MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON
constitute grave abuse in the exercise of our own judicial PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT Pertinent provisions of the bidding rules prepared by
power and duty. Ineludably, what the Senate did was a respondent GSIS state —
CORPORATE COUNSEL, respondents.
valid exercise of its authority. As to whether such exercise
was wise, beneficial or viable is outside the realm of BELLOSILLO, J.: I. EXECUTION OF THE NECESSARY CONTRACTS
judicial inquiry and review. That is a matter between the WITH GSIS/MHC —
The FiIipino First Policy enshrined in the 1987
elected policy makers and the people. As to whether the
nation should join the worldwide march toward trade Constitution, i.e., in the grant of rights, privileges, and 1. The Highest Bidder must comply with the conditions set
liberalization and economic globalization is a matter that concessions covering the national economy and forth below by October 23, 1995 (reset to November 3,
our people should determine in electing their policy
makers. After all, the WTO Agreement allows withdrawal patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified 1995) or the Highest Bidder will lose the right to purchase
of membership, should this be the political desire of a 1
Filipinos, is in oked by petitioner in its bid to acquire 51% the Block of Shares and GSIS will instead offer the Block
member.
of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) which of Shares to the other Qualified Bidders:
The eminent futurist John Naisbitt, author of the best a. The Highest Bidder must negotiate and execute with the
owns the historic Manila Hotel. Opposing, respondents
seller Megatrends, predicts an Asian
Renaissance[65] where “the East will become the dominant maintain that the provision is not self-executing but GSIS/MHC the Management Contract, International
region of the world economically, politically and culturally in requires an implementing legislation for its enforcement. Marketing/Reservation System Contract or other type of
the next century.” He refers to the “free market” espoused
by WTO as the “catalyst” in this coming Asian Corollarily, they ask whether the 51% shares form part of contract specified by the Highest Bidder in its strategic
ascendancy. There are at present about 31 countries the national economy and patrimony covered by the plan for the Manila Hotel. . . .
including China, Russia and Saudi Arabia negotiating for
membership in the WTO. Notwithstanding objections protective mantle of the Constitution. b. The Highest Bidder must execute the Stock Purchase
against possible limitations on national sovereignty, the The controversy arose when respondent Government and Sale Agreement with GSIS . . . .
WTO remains as the only viable structure for multilateral
Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to the K. DECLARATION OF THE WINNING
trading and the veritable forum for the development of
international trade law. The alternative to WTO is privatization program of the Philippine Government under BIDDER/STRATEGIC PARTNER —
isolation, stagnation, if not economic self-
Proclamation No. 50 dated 8 December 1986, decided to The Highest Bidder will be declared the Winning
destruction. Duly enriched with original membership,
keenly aware of the advantages and disadvantages of sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and Bidder/Strategic Partner after the following conditions are
globalization with its on-line experience, and endowed with met:
a vision of the future, the Philippines now straddles the outstanding shares of respondent MHC. The winning
crossroads of an international strategy for economic bidder, or the eventual “strategic partner,” is to provide
a. Execution of the necessary contracts with GSIS/MHC practically become a historical monument which reflects Second, granting that this provision is self-executing,
not later than October 23, 1995 (reset to November 3, the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and culture. It is a proud Manila Hotel does not fall under the term national
1995); and legacy of an earlier generation of Filipinos who believed in patrimony which only refers to lands of the public domain,
b. Requisite approvals from the GSIS/MHC and COP the nobility and sacredness of independence and its power waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all
(Committee on Privatization)/OGCC (Office of the and capacity to release the full potential of the Filipino forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
Government Corporate Counsel) are obtained. 3 people. To all intents and purposes, it has become a part wildlife, flora and fauna and all marine wealth in its
6
Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winning of the national patrimony. Petitioner also argues that territorial sea, and exclusive marine zone as cited in the
bidder/strategic partner and the execution of the necessary since 51% of the shares of the MHC carries with it the first and second paragraphs of Sec. 2, Art. XII, 1987
contracts, petitioner in a letter to respondent GSIS dated ownership of the business of the hotel which is owned by Constitution. According to respondents, while petitioner
28 September 1995 matched the bid price of P44.00 per respondent GSIS, a government-owned and controlled speaks of the guests who have slept in the hotel and the
share tendered by Renong Berhad. 4 In a subsequent letter corporation, the hotel business of respondent GSIS being events that have transpired therein which make the hotel
dated 10 October 1995 petitioner sent a manager’s check a part of the tourism industry is unquestionably a part of historic, these alone do not make the hotel fall under
issued by Philtrust Bank for Thirty-three Million Pesos the national economy. Thus, any transaction involving 51% the patrimony of the nation. What is more, the mandate of
(P33.000.000.00) as Bid Security to match the bid of the of the shares of stock of the MHC is clearly covered by the the Constitution is addressed to the State, not to
5
Malaysian Group, Messrs. Renong Berhad . . . which term national economy, to which Sec. 10, second par., Art. respondent GSIS which possesses a personality of its own
respondent GSIS refused to accept. XII, 1987 Constitution, applies. 7 separate and distinct from the Philippines as a State.
On 17 October 1995, perhaps apprehensive that It is also the thesis of petitioner that since Manila Hotel is Third, granting that the Manila Hotel forms part of
respondent GSIS has disregarded the tender of the part of the national patrimony and its business also the national patrimony, the constitutional provision invoked
matching bid and that the sale of 51% of the MHC may be unquestionably part of the national economy petitioner is still inapplicable since what is being sold is only 51% of
hastened by respondent GSIS and consummated with should be preferred after it has matched the bid offer of the the outstanding shares of the corporation, not the hotel
Renong Berhad, petitioner came to this Court on Malaysian firm. For the bidding rules mandate that if for building nor the land upon which the building stands.
prohibition and mandamus. On 18 October 1995 the Court any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Certainly, 51% of the equity of the MHC cannot be
issued a temporary restraining order enjoining Block of Shares, GSIS may offer this to the other Qualified considered part of the national patrimony. Moreover, if the
respondents from perfecting and consummating the sale to Bidders that have validly submitted bids provided that disposition of the shares of the MHC is really contrary to
the Malaysian firm. these Qualified Bidders are willing to match the highest bid the Constitution, petitioner should have questioned it right
8
On 10 September 1996 the instant case was accepted by in terms of price per share. from the beginning and not after it had lost in the bidding.
the Court En Banc after it was referred to it by the First Respondents except. They maintain that: First, Sec. 10, Fourth, the reliance by petitioner on par. V., subpar. J. 1.,
Division. The case was then set for oral arguments with second par., Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is merely a of the bidding rules which provides that if for any reason,
former Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando and Fr. Joaquin statement of principle and policy since it is not a self- the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of
G. Bernas, S.J., as amici curiae. executing provision and requires implementing Shares, GSIS may offer this to the other Qualified Bidders
In the main, petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. legislation(s) . . . Thus, for the said provision to Operate, that have validly submitted bids provided that these
XII, of the 1987 Constitution and submits that the Manila there must be existing laws “to lay down conditions under Qualified Bidders are willing to match the highest bid in
Hotel has been identified with the Filipino nation and has which business may be done.” 9 terms of price per share, is misplaced. Respondents
postulate that the privilege of submitting a matching bid contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the provided that a legislative act is necessary to enforce a
has not yet arisen since it only takes place if for any executive branch or entered into by private persons for constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all
reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block private purposes is null and void and without any force and provisions of the constitution are self-executing If the
of Shares. Thus the submission by petitioner of a matching effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, constitutional provisions are treated as requiring legislation
bid is premature since Renong Berhad could still very well paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the
be awarded the block of shares and the condition giving written in every statute and contract. power to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the
rise to the exercise of the privilege to submit a matching Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations of fundamental law. 14 This can be cataclysmic. That is why
bid had not yet taken place. policies and principles. Their provisions command the the prevailing view is, as it has always been, that —
Finally, the prayer for prohibition grounded on grave abuse legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of the . . . in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered
of discretion should fail since respondent GSIS did not framers who merely establish an outline of government self-executing rather than non-self-executing . . . . Unless
exercise its discretion in a capricious, whimsical manner, providing for the different departments of the governmental the contrary is clearly intended, the provisions of the
and if ever it did abuse its discretion it was not so patent machinery and securing certain fundamental and Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a
and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or inalienable rights of citizens. 12 A provision which lays contrary rule would give the legislature discretion to
a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. down a general principle, such as those found in Art. II of determine when, or whether, they shall be effective. These
Similarly, the petition for mandamus should fail as the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a provisions would be subordinated to the will of the
petitioner has no clear legal right to what it demands and provision which is complete in itself and becomes lawmaking body, which could make them entirely
respondents do not have an imperative duty to perform the operative without the aid of supplementary or enabling meaningless by simply refusing to pass the needed
act required of them by petitioner. legislation, or that which supplies sufficient rule by means implementing statute. 15
We now resolve. A constitution is a system of fundamental of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is Respondents argue that Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of
laws for the governance and administration of a nation. It self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is self- the 1987 Constitution is clearly not self-executing, as they
is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by executing if the nature and extent of the right conferred quote from discussions on the floor of the 1986
the authority from which it emanates. It has been defined and the liability imposed are fixed by the constitution itself, Constitutional Commission —
10
as the fundamental and paramount law of the nation. It so that they can be determined by an examination and MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I am asking this
prescribes the permanent framework of a system of construction of its terms, and there is no language question as the Chairman of the Committee on Style. If the
government, assigns to the different departments their indicating that the subject is referred to the legislature for wording of “PREFERENCE” is given to QUALIFIED
respective powers and duties, and establishes certain action. 13
FILIPINOS,” can it be understood as a preference to
fixed principles on which government is founded. The As against constitutions of the past, modern constitutions qualified Filipinos vis-a-vis Filipinos who are not qualified.
fundamental conception in other words is that it is a have been generally drafted upon a different principle and So, why do we not make it clear? To qualified Filipinos as
supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in have often become in effect extensive codes of laws against aliens?
accordance with which all private rights must be intended to operate directly upon the people in a manner THE PRESIDENT. What is the question of Commissioner
determined and all public authority administered. 11
Under similar to that of statutory enactments, and the function of Rodrigo? Is it to remove the word “QUALIFIED?”.
the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or constitutional conventions has evolved into one more like
contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or that of a legislative body. Hence, unless it is expressly
MR. RODRIGO. No, no, but say definitely “TO QUALIFIED liability is not necessarily an indication that it was not provisions on personal dignity, 21 the sanctity of family
FILIPINOS” as against whom? As against aliens or over intended to be self-executing. The rule is that a self- life, 22 the vital role of the youth in nation-building 23 the
24
aliens? executing provision of the constitution does not necessarily promotion of social justice, and the values of
25 26
MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I think that is exhaust legislative power on the subject, but any education. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance refers to
understood. We use the word “QUALIFIED” because legislation must be in harmony with the constitution, further the constitutional provisions on social justice and human
the existing laws or prospective laws will always lay down the exercise of constitutional right and make it more rights 27 and on education. 28
Lastly, Kilosbayan,
17 29
conditions under which business may be done. For available. Subsequent legislation however does not Inc. v. Morato cites provisions on the promotion of
example, qualifications on the setting up of other financial necessarily mean that the subject constitutional provision general welfare, 30 the sanctity of family life, 31
the vital role
structures, et cetera (emphasis supplied by respondents) is not, by itself, fully enforceable. of the youth in nation-building 32 and the promotion of total
33
MR. RODRIGO. It is just a matter of style. Respondents also argue that the non-self-executing nature human liberation and development. A reading of these
16
MR. NOLLEDO Yes, of Sec. 10, second par., of Art. XII is implied from the tenor provisions indeed clearly shows that they are not judicially
Quite apparently, Sec. 10, second par., of Art XII is of the first and third paragraphs of the same section which enforceable constitutional rights but merely guidelines for
couched in such a way as not to make it appear that it is undoubtedly are not self-executing. 18 The argument is legislation. The very terms of the provisions manifest that
non-self-executing but simply for purposes of style. But, flawed. If the first and third paragraphs are not self- they are only principles upon which the legislations must
certainly, the legislature is not precluded from enacting executing because Congress is still to enact measures to be based. Res ipsa loquitur.
other further laws to enforce the constitutional provision so encourage the formation and operation of enterprises fully On the other hand, Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the of
long as the contemplated statute squares with the owned by Filipinos, as in the first paragraph, and the State the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory, positive command
Constitution. Minor details may be left to the legislature still needs legislation to regulate and exercise authority which is complete in itself and which needs no further
without impairing the self-executing nature of constitutional over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction, as guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its
provisions. in the third paragraph, then a fortiori, by the same logic, enforcement. From its very words the provision does not
In self-executing constitutional provisions, the legislature the second paragraph can only be self-executing as it require any legislation to put it in operation. It is per
may still enact legislation to facilitate the exercise of does not by its language require any legislation in order to se judicially enforceable When our Constitution mandates
powers directly granted by the constitution, further the give preference to qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights, that [i]n the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions
operation of such a provision, prescribe a practice to be privileges and concessions covering the national economy covering national economy and patrimony, the State shall
used for its enforcement, provide a convenient remedy for and patrimony. A constitutional provision may be self- give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just that —
19
the protection of the rights secured or the determination executing in one part and non-self-executing in another. qualified Filipinos shall be preferred. And when our
thereof, or place reasonable safeguards around the Even the cases cited by respondents holding that certain Constitution declares that a right exists in certain specified
exercise of the right. The mere fact that legislation may constitutional provisions are merely statements of circumstances an action may be maintained to enforce
supplement and add to or prescribe a penalty for the principles and policies, which are basically not self- such right notwithstanding the absence of any legislation
violation of a self-executing constitutional provision does executing and only placed in the Constitution as moral on the subject; consequently, if there is no statute
not render such a provision ineffective in the absence of incentives to legislation, not as judicially enforceable rights especially enacted to enforce such constitutional right,
such legislation. The omission from a constitution of any — are simply not in point. Basco v. Philippine Amusements such right enforces itself by its own inherent potency and
express provision for a remedy for enforcing a right or and Gaming Corporation 20 speaks of constitutional puissance, and from which all legislations must take their
bearings. Where there is a right there is a remedy. Ubi jus headquarters. When the American forces returned to This is very clear from the proceedings of the 1986
ibi remedium. recapture Manila the hotel was selected by the Japanese Constitutional Commission
As regards our national patrimony, a member of the 1986 together with Intramuros as the two (2) places fro their final THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recognized.
Constitutional Commission 34
explains — stand. Thereafter, in the 1950′s and 1960′s, the hotel MR. DAVIDE. I would like to introduce an amendment to
The patrimony of the Nation that should be conserved and became the center of political activities, playing host to the Nolledo amendment. And the amendment would
developed refers not only to out rich natural resources but almost every political convention. In 1970 the hotel consist in substituting the words “QUALIFIED FILIPINOS”
also to the cultural heritage of out race. It also refers to our reopened after a renovation and reaped numerous with the following: “CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES OR
intelligence in arts, sciences and letters. Therefore, we international recognitions, an acknowledgment of the CORPORATIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS WHOSE
should develop not only our lands, forests, mines and Filipino talent and ingenuity. In 1986 the hotel was the site CAPITAL OR CONTROLLING STOCK IS WHOLLY
other natural resources but also the mental ability or of a failed coup d’ etat where an aspirant for vice-president OWNED BY SUCH CITIZENS.
faculty of our people. was “proclaimed” President of the Philippine Republic. xxx xxx xxx
We agree. In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term For more than eight (8) decades Manila Hotel has bore MR. MONSOD. Madam President, apparently the
patrimony pertains to heritage. 35 When the Constitution mute witness to the triumphs and failures, loves and proponent is agreeable, but we have to raise a question.
speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the frustrations of the Filipinos; its existence is impressed with Suppose it is a corporation that is 80-percent Filipino, do
natural resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution public interest; its own historicity associated with our we not give it preference?
could have very well used the term natural resources, but struggle for sovereignty, independence and nationhood. MR. DAVIDE. The Nolledo amendment would refer to an
also to the cultural heritage of the Filipinos. Verily, Manila Hotel has become part of our national individual Filipino. What about a corporation wholly owned
Manila Hotel has become a landmark — a living economy and patrimony. For sure, 51% of the equity of the by Filipino citizens?
testimonial of Philippine heritage. While it was restrictively MHC comes within the purview of the constitutional shelter MR. MONSOD. At least 60 percent, Madam President.
an American hotel when it first opened in 1912, it for it comprises the majority and controlling stock, so that MR. DAVIDE. Is that the intention?
immediately evolved to be truly Filipino, Formerly a anyone who acquires or owns the 51% will have actual MR. MONSOD. Yes, because, in fact, we would be limiting
concourse for the elite, it has since then become the control and management of the hotel. In this instance, 51% it if we say that the preference should only be 100-percent
venue of various significant events which have shaped of the MHC cannot be disassociated from the hotel and the Filipino.
Philippine history. It was called the Cultural Center of the land on which the hotel edifice stands. Consequently, we MR: DAVIDE. I want to get that meaning clear because
1930′s. It was the site of the festivities during the cannot sustain respondents’ claim that the Filipino First “QUALIFIED FILIPINOS” may refer only to individuals and
inauguration of the Philippine Commonwealth. Dubbed as Policy provision is not applicable since what is being sold not to juridical personalities or entities.
39
the Official Guest House of the Philippine Government. it is only 51% of the outstanding shares of the corporation, MR. MONSOD. We agree, Madam President.
plays host to dignitaries and official visitors who are not the Hotel building nor the land upon which the building xxx xxx xxx
36
accorded the traditional Philippine hospitality. stands. 38 MR. RODRIGO. Before we vote, may I request that the
The history of the hotel has been chronicled in the The argument is pure sophistry. The term qualified amendment be read again.
book The Manila Hotel: The Heart and Memory of a Filipinos as used in Our Constitution also includes MR. NOLLEDO. The amendment will read: “IN THE
City. 37 During World War II the hotel was converted by the corporations at least 60% of which is owned by Filipinos. GRANT OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND CONCESSIONS
Japanese Military Administration into a military COVERING THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
PATRIMONY, THE STATE SHALL GIVE PREFERENCE The exchange of views in the sessions of the constitutional provision — by the government itself — is
TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS.” And the word “Filipinos” here, Constitutional Commission regarding the subject provision only too distressing. To adopt such a line of reasoning is to
as intended by the proponents, will include not only was still further clarified by Commissioner Nolledo 43 — renounce the duty to ensure faithfulness to the
individual Filipinos but also Filipino-controlled entities or Paragraph 2 of Section 10 explicitly mandates the “Pro- Constitution. For, even some of the provisions of the
entities fully-controlled by Filipinos. 40 Filipino” bias in all economic concerns. It is better known Constitution which evidently need implementing legislation
The phrase preference to qualified Filipinos was explained as the FILIPINO FIRST Policy . . . This provision was have juridical life of their own and can be the source of a
thus — never found in previous Constitutions . . . . judicial remedy. We cannot simply afford the government a
MR. FOZ. Madam President, I would like to request The term “qualified Filipinos” simply means that preference defense that arises out of the failure to enact further
Commissioner Nolledo to please restate his amendment shall be given to those citizens who can make a viable enabling, implementing or guiding legislation. In fine, the
so that I can ask a question. contribution to the common good, because of credible discourse of Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., on constitutional
MR. NOLLEDO. “IN THE GRANT OF RIGHTS, competence and efficiency. It certainly does NOT mandate government is apt —
PRIVILEGES AND CONCESSIONS COVERING THE the pampering and preferential treatment to Filipino The executive department has a constitutional duty to
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY, THE STATE citizens or organizations that are incompetent or inefficient, implement laws, including the Constitution, even before
SHALL GIVE PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS.” since such an indiscriminate preference would be counter Congress acts — provided that there are discoverable
MR FOZ. In connection with that amendment, if a foreign productive and inimical to the common good. legal standards for executive action. When the executive
enterprise is qualified and a Filipino enterprise is also In the granting of economic rights, privileges, and acts, it must be guided by its own understanding of the
qualified, will the Filipino enterprise still be given a concessions, when a choice has to be made between a constitutional command and of applicable laws. The
preference? “qualified foreigner” end a “qualified Filipino,” the latter responsibility for reading and understanding the
MR. NOLLEDO. Obviously. shall be chosen over the former.” Constitution and the laws is not the sole prerogative of
MR. FOZ. If the foreigner is more qualified in some Lastly, the word qualified is also determinable. Petitioner Congress. If it were, the executive would have to ask
aspects than the Filipino enterprise, will the Filipino still be was so considered by respondent GSIS and selected as Congress, or perhaps the Court, for an interpretation every
preferred? one of the qualified bidders. It was pre-qualified by time the executive is confronted by a constitutional
MR. NOLLEDO. The answer is “yes.” respondent GSIS in accordance with its own guidelines so command. That is not how constitutional government
MR. FOZ. Thank you, 41 that the sole inference here is that petitioner has been operates. 45
Expounding further on the Filipino First Policy provision found to be possessed of proven management expertise in Respondents further argue that the constitutional provision
Commissioner Nolledo continues — the hotel industry, or it has significant equity ownership in is addressed to the State, not to respondent GSIS which
MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, Madam President. Instead of another hotel company, or it has an overall management by itself possesses a separate and distinct personality.
“MUST,” it will be “SHALL — THE STATE SHALL GlVE and marketing proficiency to successfully operate the This argument again is at best specious. It is undisputed
PREFERENCE TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS. This Manila Hotel. 44 that the sale of 51% of the MHC could only be carried out
embodies the so-called “Filipino First” policy. That means The penchant to try to whittle away the mandate of the with the prior approval of the State acting through
that Filipinos should be given preference in the grant of Constitution by arguing that the subject provision is not respondent Committee on Privatization. As correctly
concessions, privileges and rights covering the national self-executory and requires implementing legislation is pointed out by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., this fact alone
patrimony. 42 quite disturbing. The attempt to violate a clear makes the sale of the assets of respondents GSIS and
MHC a “state action.” In constitutional jurisprudence, the an assurance that the highest bidder will be declared the Filipino matches the bid of a foreign firm the award should
acts of persons distinct from the government are winning bidder. Resultantly, respondents are not bound to go to the Filipino. It must be so if we are to give life and
considered “state action” covered by the Constitution (1) make the award yet, nor are they under obligation to enter meaning to the Filipino First Policy provision of the 1987
when the activity it engages in is a “public function;“ (2) into one with the highest bidder. For in choosing the Constitution. For, while this may neither be expressly
when the government is so significantly involved with the awardee respondents are mandated to abide by the stated nor contemplated in the bidding rules, the
private actor as to make the government responsible for dictates of the 1987 Constitution the provisions of which constitutional fiat is, omnipresent to be simply disregarded.
his action; and, (3) when the government has approved or are presumed to be known to all the bidders and other To ignore it would be to sanction a perilous skirting of the
authorized the action. It is evident that the act of interested parties. basic law.
respondent GSIS in selling 51% of its share in respondent Adhering to the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, the This Court does not discount the apprehension that this
MHC comes under the second and third categories of subject constitutional provision is, as it should be, impliedly policy may discourage foreign investors. But the
“state action.” Without doubt therefore the transaction. written in the bidding rules issued by respondent GSIS, Constitution and laws of the Philippines are understood to
although entered into by respondent GSIS, is in fact a lest the bidding rules be nullified for being violative of the be always open to public scrutiny. These are given factors
transaction of the State and therefore subject to the Constitution. It is a basic principle in constitutional law that which investors must consider when venturing into
constitutional command. 46 all laws and contracts must conform with the fundamental business in a foreign jurisdiction. Any person therefore
When the Constitution addresses the State it refers not law of the land. Those which violate the Constitution lose desiring to do business in the Philippines or with any of its
only to the people but also to the government as elements their reason for being. agencies or instrumentalities is presumed to know his
of the State. After all, government is composed of three (3) Paragraph V. J. 1 of the bidding rules provides that [if] for rights and obligations under the Constitution and the laws
divisions of power — legislative, executive and judicial. any reason the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the of the forum.
Accordingly, a constitutional mandate directed to the State Block of Shares, GSIS may offer this to other Qualified The argument of respondents that petitioner is now
is correspondingly directed to the three(3) branches of Bidders that have validly submitted bids provided that estopped from questioning the sale to Renong Berhad
government. It is undeniable that in this case the subject these Qualified Bidders are willing to match the highest bid since petitioner was well aware from the beginning that a
constitutional injunction is addressed among others to the in terms of price per share. 47 Certainly, the constitutional foreigner could participate in the bidding is meritless.
Executive Department and respondent GSIS, a mandate itself is reason enough not to award the block of Undoubtedly, Filipinos and foreigners alike were invited to
government instrumentality deriving its authority from the shares immediately to the foreign bidder notwithstanding the bidding. But foreigners may be awarded the sale only if
State. its submission of a higher, or even the highest, bid. In fact, no Filipino qualifies, or if the qualified Filipino fails to match
It should be stressed that while the Malaysian firm offered we cannot conceive of a stronger reason than the the highest bid tendered by the foreign entity. In the case
the higher bid it is not yet the winning bidder. The bidding constitutional injunction itself. before us, while petitioner was already preferred at the
rules expressly provide that the highest bidder shall only In the instant case, where a foreign firm submits the inception of the bidding because of the constitutional
be declared the winning bidder after it has negotiated and highest bid in a public bidding concerning the grant of mandate, petitioner had not yet matched the bid offered by
executed the necessary contracts, and secured the rights, privileges and concessions covering the national Renong Berhad. Thus it did not have the right or
requisite approvals. Since the “Filipino First economy and patrimony, thereby exceeding the bid of a personality then to compel respondent GSIS to accept its
Policy provision of the Constitution bestows preference on Filipino, there is no question that the Filipino will have to earlier bid. Rightly, only after it had matched the bid of the
qualified Filipinos the mere tending of the highest bid is not be allowed to match the bid of the foreign entity. And if the foreign firm and the apparent disregard by respondent
GSIS of petitioner’s matching bid did the latter have a to defend. It is worth emphasizing that it is not the intention take precedence over non-material values. A commercial,
cause of action. of this Court to impede and diminish, much less nay even a budgetary, objective should not be pursued at
Besides, there is no time frame for invoking the undermine, the influx of foreign investments. Far from it, the expense of national pride and dignity. For the
constitutional safeguard unless perhaps the award has the Court encourages and welcomes more business Constitution enshrines higher and nobler non-material
been finally made. To insist on selling the Manila Hotel to opportunities but avowedly sanctions the preference for values. Indeed, the Court will always defer to the
foreigners when there is a Filipino group willing to match Filipinos whenever such preference is ordained by the Constitution in the proper governance of a free society;
the bid of the foreign group is to insist that government be Constitution. The position of the Court on this matter could after all, there is nothing so sacrosanct in any economic
treated as any other ordinary market player, and bound by have not been more appropriately articulated by Chief policy as to draw itself beyond judicial review when the
its mistakes or gross errors of judgment, regardless of the Justice Narvasa — Constitution is involved. 49
consequences to the Filipino people. The As scrupulously as it has tried to observe that it is not its Nationalism is inherent, in the very concept of the
miscomprehension of the Constitution is regrettable. Thus function to substitute its judgment for that of the legislature Philippines being a democratic and republican state, with
we would rather remedy the indiscretion while there is still or the executive about the wisdom and feasibility of sovereignty residing in the Filipino people and from whom
an opportunity to do so than let the government develop legislation economic in nature, the Supreme Court has not all government authority emanates. In nationalism, the
the habit of forgetting that the Constitution lays down the been spared criticism for decisions perceived as obstacles happiness and welfare of the people must be the goal. The
basic conditions and parameters for its actions. to economic progress and development . . . in connection nation-state can have no higher purpose. Any
Since petitioner has already matched the bid price with a temporary injunction issued by the Court’s First interpretation of any constitutional provision must adhere
tendered by Renong Berhad pursuant to the bidding rules, Division against the sale of the Manila Hotel to a Malaysian to such basic concept. Protection of foreign investments,
respondent GSIS is left with no alternative but to award to Firm and its partner, certain statements were published in while laudible, is merely a policy. It cannot override the
petitioner the block of shares of MHC and to execute the a major daily to the effect that injunction “again demands of nationalism. 50
necessary agreements and documents to effect the sale in demonstrates that the Philippine legal system can be a The Manila Hotel or, for that matter, 51% of the MHC, is
accordance not only with the bidding guidelines and major obstacle to doing business here. not just any commodity to be sold to the highest bidder
procedures but with the Constitution as well. The refusal of Let it be stated for the record once again that while it is no solely for the sake of privatization. We are not talking
respondent GSIS to execute the corresponding documents business of the Court to intervene in contracts of the kind about an ordinary piece of property in a commercial
with petitioner as provided in the bidding rules after the referred to or set itself up as the judge of whether they are district. We are talking about a historic relic that has hosted
latter has matched the bid of the Malaysian firm clearly viable or attainable, it is its bounden duty to make sure that many of the most important events in the short history of
constitutes grave abuse of discretion. they do not violate the Constitution or the laws, or are not the Philippines as a nation. We are talking about a hotel
The Filipino First Policy is a product of Philippine adopted or implemented with grave abuse of discretion where heads of states would prefer to be housed as a
nationalism. It is embodied in the 1987 Constitution not amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It will never strong manifestation of their desire to cloak the dignity of
merely to be used as a guideline for future legislation but shirk that duty, no matter how buffeted by winds of unfair the highest state function to their official visits to the
primarily to be enforced; so must it be enforced. This Court and ill-informed criticism. 48 Philippines. Thus the Manila Hotel has played and
as the ultimate guardian of the Constitution will never Privatization of a business asset for purposes of continues to play a significant role as an authentic
shun, under any reasonable circumstance, the duty of enhancing its business viability and preventing further repository of twentieth century Philippine history and
upholding the majesty of the Constitution which it is tasked losses, regardless of the character of the asset, should not culture. In this sense, it has become truly a reflection of the
Filipino soul — a place with a history of grandeur; a most Hotel Corporation at P44.00 per share and thereafter to and possessions of the people. It is to be noted that the
historical setting that has played a part in the shaping of a execute the necessary clearances and to do such other framers did not stop with conservation. They knew that
country. 51 acts and deeds as may be necessary for purpose. conservation alone does not spell progress; and that this
This Court cannot extract rhyme nor reason from the SO ORDERED. may be achieved only through development as a
determined efforts of respondents to sell the historical Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Kapunan, Francisco and correlative factor to assure to the people not only the
landmark — this Grand Old Dame of hotels in Asia — to a Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur. exclusive ownership, but also the exclusive benefits of
total stranger. For, indeed, the conveyance of this epic their national patrimony). 3
exponent of the Filipino psyche to alien hands cannot be Separate Opinions Moreover, the concept of national patrimony has been
less than mephistophelian for it is, in whatever manner PADILLA, J., concurring: viewed as referring not only to our rich natural resources
viewed, a veritable alienation of a nation’s soul for some I concur with the ponencia of Mr. Justice Bellosillo. At the but also to the cultural heritage of our
pieces of foreign silver. And so we ask: What advantage, same time, I would like to expound a bit more on the race. 4
which cannot be equally drawn from a qualified Filipino, concept of national patrimony as including within its scope There is no doubt in my mind that the Manila Hotel is very
can be gained by the Filipinos Manila Hotel — and all that and meaning institutions such as the Manila Hotel. much a part of our national patrimony and, as such,
it stands for — is sold to a non-Filipino? How much of It is argued by petitioner that the Manila Hotel comes deserves constitutional protection as to who shall own it
national pride will vanish if the nation’s cultural heritage is under “national patrimony” over which qualified Filipinos and benefit from its operation. This institution has played
entrusted to a foreign entity? On the other hand, how have the preference, in ownership and operation. The an important role in our nation’s history, having been the
much dignity will be preserved and realized if the national Constitutional provision on point states: venue of many a historical event, and serving as it did, and
patrimony is safekept in the hands of a qualified, zealous xxx xxx xxx as it does, as the Philippine Guest House for visiting
and well-meaning Filipino? This is the plain and simple In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering foreign heads of state, dignitaries, celebrities, and others. 5
meaning of the Filipino First Policy provision of the the national economy and patrimony, the State shall Give It is therefore our duty to protect and preserve it for future
Philippine Constitution. And this Court, heeding the clarion preference to qualified Filipinos. 1 generations of Filipinos. As President Manuel L. Quezon
call of the Constitution and accepting the duty of being the Petitioner’s argument, I believe, is well taken. Under the once said, we must exploit the natural resources of our
elderly watchman of the nation, will continue to respect 1987 Constitution, “national patrimony” consists of the country, but we should do so with. an eye to the welfare of
and protect the sanctity of the Constitution. natural resources provided by Almighty God (Preamble) in the future generations. In other words, the leaders of today
WHEREFORE, respondents GOVERNMENT SERVICE our territory (Article I) consisting of land, sea, and are the trustees of the patrimony of our race. To preserve
2
INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL air. study of the 1935 Constitution, where the concept of our national patrimony and reserve it for Filipinos was the
CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and “national patrimony” originated, would show that its intent of the distinguished gentlemen who first framed our
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE framers decided to adopt the even more comprehensive Constitution. Thus, in debating the need for nationalization
COUNSEL are directed to CEASE and DESIST from expression “Patrimony of the Nation” in the belief that the of our lands and natural resources, one expounded that
selling 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation phrase encircles a concept embracing not only their we should “put more teeth into our laws, and; not make the
to RENONG BERHAD, and to ACCEPT the matching bid natural resources of the country but practically everything nationalization of our lands and natural resources a
of petitioner MANILA PRINCE HOTEL CORPORATION to that belongs to the Filipino people, the tangible and the subject of ordinary legislation but of constitutional
purchase the subject 51% of the shares of the Manila material as well as the intangible and the spiritual assets enactment” 6 To quote further: “Let not our children be
mere tenants and trespassers in their own country. Let us Filipino people to preserve our national patrimony, Filipino to match the foreign bid for, as a particular matter, I
preserve and bequeath to them what is rightfully theirs, including our historical and cultural heritage in the hands of cannot see any bid that literally calls for millions of dollars
free from all foreign liens and encumbrances”. 7 Filipinos. to be at par (to the last cent) with another. The magnitude
Now, a word on preference. In my view “preference to of the magnitude of the bids is such that it becomes hardly
qualified Filipinos”, to be meaningful, must refer not only to READ CASE DIGESTS: Filipino First Policy; Special possible for the competing bids to stand exactly “equal”
things that are peripheral, collateral, or tangential. It must Commercial Law which alone, under the dissenting view, could trigger the
touch and affect the very “heart of the existing order.” In right of preference.
the field of public bidding in the acquisition of things that VITUG, J., concurring: It is most unfortunate that Renong Berhad has not been
pertain to the national patrimony, preference to qualified I agree with Mr. Justice Josue N. Bellosillo on his clear-cut spared this great disappointment, a letdown that it did not
Filipinos must allow a qualified Filipino to match or equal statements, shared by Mr. Justice Reynato S. Puno in a deserve, by a simple and timely advise of the proper rules
the higher bid of a non-Filipino; the preference shall not well written separate (dissenting) opinion, that: of bidding along with the peculiar constitutional
operate only when the bids of the qualified Filipino and the First, the provision in our fundamental law which provides implications of the proposed transaction. It is also
non-Filipino are equal in which case, the award should that “(I)n the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions regrettable that the Court at time is seen, to instead, be the
undisputedly be made to the qualified Filipino. The covering the national economy and patrimony, the State refuge for bureaucratic inadequate which create the
Constitutional preference should give the qualified Filipino shall give preference to qualified Filipinos” is self-
1
perception that it even takes on non-justiciable
an opportunity to match or equal the higher bid of the non- executory. The provision verily does not need, although it controversies.
Filipino bidder if the preference of the qualified Filipino can obviously be amplified or regulated by, an enabling All told, I am constrained to vote for granting the petition.
bidder is to be significant at all. law or a set of rules.
It is true that in this present age of globalization of attitude Second, the term “patrimony” does not merely refer to the READ CASE DIGESTS: Filipino First Policy; Special
towards foreign investments in our country, stress is on the country’s natural resources but also to its cultural heritage. Commercial Law
elimination of barriers to foreign trade and investment in A “historical landmark,” to use the words of Mr. Justice
the country. While government agencies, including the Justo P. Torres, Jr., Manila Hotel has now indeed become MENDOZA, J., concurring in the judgment:
courts should re-condition their thinking to such a trend, part of Philippine heritage. I take the view that in the context of the present
and make it easy and even attractive for foreign investors Third, the act of the Government Service Insurance controversy the only way to enforce the constitutional
to come to our shores, yet we should not preclude System (“GSIS”), a government entity which derives its mandate that “[i]n the grant of rights, privileges and
ourselves from reserving to us Filipinos certain areas authority from the State, in selling 51% of its share in MHC concessions covering the national patrimony the State
where our national identity, culture and heritage are should be considered an act of the State subject to the shall give preference to qualified Filipinos” 1 is to allow
involved. In the hotel industry, for instance, foreign Constitutional mandate. petitioner Philippine corporation to equal the bid of the
investors have established themselves creditably, such as On the pivotal issue of the degree of “preference to Malaysian firm Renong Berhad for the purchase of the
in the Shangri-La, the Nikko, the Peninsula, and Mandarin qualified Filipinos,” I find it somewhat difficult to take the controlling shares of stocks in the Manila Hotel
Hotels. This should not stop us from retaining 51% of the same path traversed by the forceful reasoning of Justice Corporation. Indeed, it is the only way a qualified Filipino
capital stock of the Manila Hotel Corporation in the hands Puno. In the particular case before us, the only meaningful of Philippine corporation can be given preference in the
of Filipinos. This would be in keeping with the intent of the preference, it seems, would really be to allow the qualified
enjoyment of a right, privilege or concession given by the alien vendors in the public markets even if there were Nor should there be any doubt that by awarding the shares
State, by favoring it over a foreign national corporation. available other stalls as good as those occupied by aliens. of stocks to petitioner we would be trading competence
Under the rules on public bidding of the Government “The law, apparently, is applicable whenever there is a and capability for nationalism. Both petitioner and the
Service and Insurance System, if petitioner and the conflict of interest between Filipino applicants and aliens Malaysian firm are qualified, having hurdled the
12
Malaysian firm had offered the same price per share, for lease of stalls in public markets, in which situation the prequalification process. It is only the result of the public
“priority [would be given] to the bidder seeking the larger right to preference immediately arises.” 8 bidding that is sought to be modified by enabling petitioner
ownership interest in MHC,” so that petitioner bid for
2
Our legislation on the matter thus antedated by a quarter to up its bid to equal the highest bid.
more shares, it would be preferred to the Malaysian of a century efforts began only in the 1970s in America to Nor, finally, is there any basis for the suggestion that to
corporation for that reason and not because it is a realize the promise of equality, through affirmative action allow a Filipino bidder to match the highest bid of an alien
Philippine corporation. Consequently, it is only in cases and reverse discrimination programs designed to remedy could encourage speculation, since all that a Filipino entity
like the present one, where an alien corporation is the past discrimination against colored people in such areas would then do would be not to make a bid or make only a
9
highest bidder, that preferential treatment of the Philippine as employment, contracting and licensing. Indeed, in vital token one and, after it is known that a foreign bidder has
corporation is mandated not by declaring it winner but by areas of our national economy, there are situations in submitted the highest bid, make an offer matching that of
allowing it “to match the highest bid in terms of price per which the only way to place Filipinos in control of the the foreign firm. This is not possible under the rules on
share” before it is awarded the shares of stocks. That, to
3
national economy as contemplated in the Constitution 10
is public bidding of the GSIS. Under these rules there is a
me, is what “preference to qualified Filipinos” means in the to give them preferential treatment where they can at least minimum bid required (P36.87 per share for a range of 9 to
context of this case — by favoring Filipinos whenever they stand on equal footing with aliens. 15 million shares). 13 Bids below the minimum will not be
are at a disadvantage vis-a-vis foreigners. There need be no fear that thus preferring Filipinos would considered. On the other hand, if the Filipino entity, after
This was the meaning given in Co Chiong v. Cuaderno 4 to either invite foreign retaliation or deprive the country of the passing the prequalification process, does not submit a
a 1947 statute giving “preference to Filipino citizens in the benefit of foreign capital or know-how. We are dealing bid, he will not be allowed to match the highest bid of the
lease of public market stalls.” 5 This Court upheld the here not with common trades of common means of foreign firm because this is a privilege allowed only to
cancellation of existing leases covering market stalls livelihood which are open to aliens in our midst, 11
but with those who have “validly submitted bids.” 14 The suggestion
occupied by persons who were not Filipinos and the award the sale of government property, which is like the grant of is, to say the least, fanciful and has no basis in fact.
thereafter of the stalls to qualified Filipino vendors as government largess of benefits and concessions covering For the foregoing reasons, I vote to grant the petition.
ordered by the Department of Finance. Similarly, the national economy” and therefore no one should
in Vda. de Salgado v. De la Fuente, 6 this Court sustained begrudge us if we give preferential treatment to our READ CASE DIGESTS: Filipino First Policy; Special
the validity of a municipal ordinance passed pursuant to citizens. That at any rate is the command of the Commercial Law
the statute (R.A. No. 37), terminating existing leases of Constitution. For the Manila Hotel is a business owned by
public market stalls and granting preference to Filipino the Government. It is being privatized. Privatization should TORRES, JR., J., separate opinion:
citizens in the issuance of new licenses for the occupancy result in the relinquishment of the business in favor of Constancy in law is not an attribute of a judicious mind. I
7
of the stalls. In Chua Lao v. Raymundo, the preference private individuals and groups who are Filipino citizens, not say this as we are not confronted in the case at bar with
granted under the statute was held to apply to cases in in favor of aliens. legal and constitutional issues — and yet I am driven so to
which Filipino vendors sought the same stalls occupied by speak on the side of history. The reason perhaps is due to
the belief that in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell MR. MONSOD. We also wanted to add, as Commissioner I subscribe to the view that history, culture, heritage, and
Holmes, Jr., a “page of history is worth a volume of logic.” Villegas said, this committee and this body already traditions are not legislated and is the product of events,
I will, however, attempt to share my thoughts on whether approved what is known as the Filipino First policy which customs, usages and practices. It is actually a product of
the Manila Hotel has a historical and cultural aspect within was suggested by Commissioner de Castro. So that it is growth and acceptance by the collective mores of a race. It
the meaning of the constitution and thus, forming part of now in our Constitution (Vol. IV, Records of the is the spirit and soul of a people.
the “patrimony of the nation”. Constitutional Commission, p. 225). The Manila Hotel is part of our history, culture and
Section 10, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides: Commissioner Jose Nolledo explaining the provision heritage. Every inch of the Manila Hotel is witness to
xxx xxx xxx adverted to above, said: historic events (too numerous to mention) which shaped
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering MR. NOLLEDO. In the grant of rights, privileges and our history for almost 84 years.
the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give concessions covering the national economy and As I intimated earlier, it is not my position in this opinion, to
preference to qualified Filipinos. patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified examine the single instances of the legal largese which
The State shall regulate and exercise authority over Filipinos. have given rise to this controversy. As I believe that has
foreign investments within its national goals and priorities. MR. FOZ. In connection with that amendment, if a foreign been exhaustively discussed in the ponencia. Suffice it to
The foregoing provisions should be read in conjunction enterprise is qualified and the Filipinos enterprise is also say at this point that the history of the Manila Hotel should
with Article II of the same Constitution pertaining to qualified, will the Filipino enterprise still be given a not be placed in the auction block of a purely business
“Declaration of Principles and State Policies” which ordain preference? transaction, where profits subverts the cherished historical
— MR. NOLLEDO. Obviously. values of our people.
The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent MR. FOZ. If the foreigner is more qualified in some As a historical landmark in this “Pearl of the Orient Seas”,
national economy effectively by Filipinos. (Sec. 19). aspects than the Filipino enterprise, will the Filipino still be it has its enviable tradition which, in the words of the
Interestingly, the matter of giving preference to “qualified preferred:? philosopher Salvador de Madarriaga tradition is “more of a
Filipinos” was one of the highlights in the 1987 Constitution MR. NOLLEDO. The answer is “yes”. (Vol. III, p. 616, river than a stone, it keeps flowing, and one must view the
Commission proceedings thus: Records of the Constitutional Commission). flowing , and one must view the flow of both directions. If
xxx xxx xxx The nationalistic provisions of the 1987 Constitution reflect you look towards the hill from which the river flows, you
MR. NOLLEDO. The Amendment will read: “IN THE the history and spirit of the Malolos Constitution of 1898, see tradition in the form of forceful currents that push the
GRANT OF RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND CONCESSIONS the 1935 Constitution and the 1973 Constitutions. That we river or people towards the future, and if you look the other
COVERING THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND have no reneged on this nationalist policy is articulated in way, you progress.”
PATRIMONY, THE STATE SHALL GIVE PREFERENCE one of the earliest case, this Court said — Indeed, tradition and progress are the same, for progress
TO QUALIFIED FILIPINOS”. And the word “Filipinos” here, The nationalistic tendency is manifested in various depends on the kind of tradition. Let us not jettison the
as intended by the proponents, will include not only provisions of the Constitution. . . . It cannot therefore be tradition of the Manila Hotel and thereby repeat our
individual Filipinos but also Filipino-Controlled entities fully said that a law imbued with the same purpose and spirit colonial history.
controlled by Filipinos (Vol. III, Records of the underlying many of the provisions of the Constitution is I grant, of course the men of the law can see the same
Constitutional Commission, p. 608). unreasonable, invalid or unconstitutional (Ichong, et al. vs. subject in different lights.
Hernandez, et al., 101 Phil. 1155).
I remember, however, a Spanish proverb which says — corporation, and Renong Berhad, Malaysian firm with ITT Parties interested in bidding for MHC should be able to
“He is always right who suspects that he makes mistakes”. Sheraton as operator, prequalified. 2
provide access to the requisite management expertise
On this note, I say that if I have to make a mistake, I would The bidding rules and procedures entitled “Guidelines and and/or international marketing/reservation system for The
rather err upholding the belief that the Filipino be first Procedures: Second Prequalification and Public Bidding of Manila Hotel.
under his Constitution and in his own land. the MHC Privatization” provide: xxx xxx xxx
I vote GRANT the petition. I INTRODUCTION AND HIGHLIGHTS D. PREQUALIFICATION DOCUMENTS
PUNO, J., dissenting: DETERMINING THE WINNING BIDDER/STRATEGIC xxx xxx xxx
This is a. petition for prohibition and mandamus filed by PARTNER E. APPLICATION PROCEDURE
the Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a domestic The party that accomplishes the steps set forth below will 1. DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE AT THE REGISTRATION
corporation, to stop the Government Service Insurance be declared the Winning Bidder/Strategic Partner and will OFFICE
System (GSIS) from selling the controlling shares of the be awarded the Block of Shares: The prequalification documents can be secured at the
Manila Hotel Corporation to a foreign corporation. First — Pass the prequalification process; Registration Office between 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM during
Allegedly, the sale violates the second paragraph of Second — Submit the highest bid on a price per share working days within the period specified in Section III.
section 10, Article XII of the Constitution. basis for the Block of Shares; Each set of documents consists of the following:
Respondent GSIS is a government-owned and controlled Third — Negotiate and execute the necessary contracts a. Guidelines and Procedures: Second Prequalification
corporation. It is the sole owner of the Manila Hotel which it with GSIS/MHC not later than October 23, 1995; and Public Bidding of the MHC Privatization
operates through its subsidiary, the Manila Hotel xxx xxx xxx b. Confidential Information Memorandum: The Manila
Corporation. Manila Hotel was included in the privatization IV GUIDELINES FOR PREQUALIFICATION Hotel Corporation
program of the government. In 1995, GSIS proposed to A. PARTIES WHO MAP APPLY FOR c. Letter of Invitation. to the Prequalification and Bidding
sell to interested buyers 30% to 51% of its shares, ranging PREQUALIFICATION Conference
from 9,000,000 to 15,300,000 shares, in the Manila Hotel The Winning Bidder/Strategic Partner will be expected to xxx xxx xxx
Corporation. After the absence of bids at the first public provide management expertise and/or an international 4. PREQUALIFICATION AND BIDDING CONFERENCE
bidding, the block of shares offered for sale was increased marketing reservation system, and financial support to A prequalification and bidding conference will be held at
from a maximum of 30% to 51%. Also, the winning bidder, strengthen the profitability and performance of The Manila The Manila Hotel on the date specified in Section III to
or the eventual “strategic partner” of the GSIS was Hotel. In this context, the GSIS is inviting to the allow the Applicant to seek clarifications and further
required to “provide management expertise and/or an prequalification process any local and/or foreign information regarding the guidelines and procedures. Only
international marketing/reservation system, and financial corporation, consortium/joint venture or juridical entity with those who purchased the prequalification documents will
support to strengthen the profitability and performance of at least one of the following qualifications: be allowed in this conference. Attendance to this
the Manila Hotel” 1 The proposal was approved by a. Proven management .expertise in the hotel industry; or conference is strongly advised, although the Applicant will
respondent Committee on Privatization. b. Significant equity ownership (i.e. board representation) not be penalized if it does not attend.
In July 1995, a conference was held where prequalification in another hotel company; or 5. SUBMISSION OF PREQUALIFICATION DOCUMENTS
documents and the bidding rules were furnished interested c. Overall management and marketing expertise to The applicant should submit 5 sets of the prequalification
parties. Petitioner Manila Prince Hotel, a domestic successfully operate the Manila Hotel. documents (1 original set plus 4 copies) at the Registration
Office between 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM during working days consideration for being included in the shortlist is ground details; improper accomplishment may be a sufficient basis
within the period specified in Section III. for disqualification of the Applicant. for disqualification.
F. PREQUALIFICATION PROCESS V. GUIDELINES FOR THE PUBLIC BIDDING 2. During the Public Bidding, the Qualified Bidder will
1. The Applicant will be evaluated by the PBAC with the A. PARTIES WHO MAY PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC submit the Official Bid Form, which will indicate the offered
assistance of the TEC based on the Information Package BIDDING purchase price, in a sealed envelope marked “OFFICIAL
and other information available to the PBAC. All parties in the shortlist of Qualified Bidders will be BID.”
2. If the Applicant is a Consortium/Joint Venture, the eligible to participate in the Public Bidding. F. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
evaluation will consider the overall qualifications of the B. BLOCK OF SHARES During the Public Bidding, the following documents should
group, taking into account the contribution of each member A range of Nine Million (9,000,000) to Fifteen Million Three be submitted along with the bid in a separate envelop
to the venture. Hundred Thousand (15,300,000) shares of stock marked “SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS”:
3. The decision of the PBAC with respect to the results of representing Thirty Percent to Fifty-One Percent (30%- 1. WRITTEN AUTHORITY TO BID (UNDER OATH).
the PBAC evaluation will be final. 51%) of the issued and outstanding shares of MHC, will be If the Qualified Bidder is a corporation, the representative
4. The Applicant shall be evaluated according to the offered in the Public Bidding by the GSIS. The Qualified of the Qualified Bidder should submit a Board resolution
criteria set forth below: Bidders will have the Option of determining the number of which adequately authorizes such representative to bid for
a. Business management expertise, track record, and shares within the range to bid for. The range is intended to and in behalf of the corporation with full authority to
experience attract bidders with different preferences and objectives for perform such acts necessary or requisite to bind the
b. Financial capability. the operation and management of The Manila Hotel. Qualified Bidder.
c. Feasibility and acceptability of the proposed strategic C. MINIMUM BID REQUIRED ON A PRICE PER SHARE If the Qualified Bidder is a Consortium/Joint Venture, each
plan for the Manila Hotel BASIS member of the Consortium/Joint venture should submit a
5. The PBAC will shortlist such number of Applicants as it 1. Bids will be evaluated on a price per share basis.The Board resolution authorizing one of its members and such
may deem appropriate. minimum bid required on a price per share basis for the member’s representative to make the bid on behalf of the
6. The parties that prequalified in the first MHC public Block of Shares is Thirty-Six Pesos and Sixty-Seven group with full authority to perform such acts necessary or
bidding — ITT Sheraton, Marriot International Inc., Centavos (P36.67). requisite to bind the Qualified Bidder.
Renaissance Hotels International Inc., consortium of 2. Bids should be in the Philippine currency payable to the 2. BID SECURITY
RCBC Capital/Ritz Carlton — may participate in the Public GSIS. a. The Qualified Bidder should deposit Thirty-Three Million
Bidding without having to undergo the prequalification 3. Bids submitted with an equivalent price per share below Pesos (P33,000,00), in Philippine currency as Bid Security
process again. the minimum required will not considered. in the form of:
G. SHORTLIST OF QUALIFIED BIDDERS D. TRANSFER COSTS i. Manager’s check or unconditional demand draft payable
1. A notice of prequalification results containing the xxx xxx xxx to the “Government Service Insurance System” and issued
shortlist of Qualified Bidders will be posted at the E. OFFICIAL BID FORM by a reputable banking institution duly licensed to do
Registration Office at the date specified in Section III. 1. Bids must be contained in the prescribed Official Bid business in the Philippines and acceptable to GSIS; or
2. In the case of a Consortium/Joint Venture, the Form, a copy of which is attached as Annex IV. The ii. Standby-by letter of credit issued by a reputable banking
withdrawal by member whose qualification was a material Official Bid Form must be properly accomplished in all institution acceptable to the GSIS.
b. The GSIS will reject a bid if: 1. The Public Bidding will be held on September 7, 1995 at 1. After the closing time of 2:00 PM on the date of the
i. The bid does not have Bid Security; or the following location: Public Bidding, the PBAC will open all sealed envelopes
ii. The Bid Security accompanying the bid is for less than New GSIS Headquarters Building marked “SUPPORTING BID DOCUMENTS” for screening,
the required amount. Financial Center, Reclamation Area evaluation and acceptance. Those who submitted
c. If the Bid Security is in the form of a manager’s check or Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, Metro Manila. incomplete/insufficient documents or document/s which
unconditional demand draft, the interest earned on the Bid 2. The Secretariat of the PBAC will be stationed at the is/are not substantially in the form required by PBAC will
Security will be for the account of GSIS. Public Bidding to accept any and all bids and supporting be disqualified. The envelope containing their Official Bid
d. If the Qualified Bidder becomes the winning requirements. Representatives from the Commission on Form will be immediately returned to the disqualified
Bidder/Strategic Partner, the Bid Security will be applied as Audit and COP will be invited to witness the proceedings. bidders.
the downpayment on the Qualified Bidder’s offered 3. The Qualified Bidder should submit its bid using the 2. The sealed envelopes marked “OFFICIAL BID” will be
purchase price. Official Bid Form. The accomplished Official Bid Form opened at 3:00 PM. The name of the bidder and the
e. The Bid Security of the Qualified Bidder will be returned should be submitted in a sealed envelope marked amount of its bid price will be read publicly as the
immediately after the Public Bidding if the Qualified Bidder “OFFICIAL BID.” envelopes are opened.
is not declared the Highest Bidder. 4. The Qualified Bidder should submit the following 3. Immediately following the reading of the bids, the PBAC
f. The Bid Security will be returned by October 23, 1995 if documents in another sealed envelope marked will formally announce the highest bid and the Highest
the Highest Bidder is unable to negotiate and execute with “SUPPORTING BID DOCUMENTS” Bidder.
GSIS/MHC the Management Contract, International a. Written Authority Bid 4. The highest bid will be, determined on a price per share
Marketing/Reservation System Contract or other types of b. Bid Security basis. In the event of a tie wherein two or more bids have
contract specified by the Highest Bidder in its strategic 5. The two sealed envelopes marked “OFFICIAL BID” and the same equivalent price per share, priority will be given
plan for The Manila Hotel. “SUPPORTING BID DOCUMENTS” must be submitted to the bidder seeking the larger ownership interest in MHC.
g. The Bid Security of the Highest Bidder will be forfeited in simultaneously to the Secretariat between 9:00 AM and 5. The Public Bidding will be declared a failed bidding in
favor of GSIS if the Highest Bidder, after negotiating and 2:00 PM, Philippine Standard Time, on the date of the case:
executing the Management Contract, International Public Bidding. No bid shall be accepted after the closing a. No single bid is submitted within the prescribed period;
Marketing/Reservation System Contract specified by the time. Opened or tampered bids shall not be accepted. or
Highest Bidder or other types of contract in its strategic 6. The Secretariat will log and record the actual time of b. There is only one (1) bid that is submitted and
plan for The Manila Hotel, fails or refuses to: submission of the two sealed envelopes. The actual time acceptable to the PBAC.
i. Execute the Stock Purchase and Sale Agreement with of submission will also be indicated by the Secretariat on I. EXECUTION OF THE NECESSARY CONTRACTS
GSIS not later than October 23, 1995; or the face of the two envelopes. WITH GSIS/MHC
ii. Pay the full amount of the offered purchase price not 7. After Step No. 6, the two sealed envelopes will be 1. The Highest Bidder must comply with the conditions set
later than October 23, 1995; or dropped in the corresponding bid boxes provided for the forth below by October 23, 1995 or the Highest Bidder will
iii. Consummate the sale of the Block of Shares for any purpose. These boxes will be in full view of the invited lose the right to purchase the Block of Shares and GSIS
other reason. public. will instead offer the Block of Shares to the other Qualified
G. SUBMISSION OF BIDS H. OPENING AND READING OF BIDS Bidders:
a. The Highest Bidder must negotiate and execute with A Qualified Bidder envisioning a Management Contract for “Government Service Insurance System,” issued by a
GSIS/MHC the Management Contract, International The Manila Hotel should determine whether or not the reputable banking institution licensed to do business in the
Marketing Reservation System Contract or other type of management fee structure above is acceptable before Philippines and acceptable to GSIS.
contract specified by the Highest Bidder in its strategic submitting their prequalification documents to GSIS. M. GENERAL CONDITIONS
plan for The Manila Hotel. If the Highest Bidder is J. BLOCK SALE TO THE OTHER QUALIFIED BIDDERS 1. The GSIS unconditionally reserves the right to reject any
intending to provide only financial support to The Manila 1. If for any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be awarded or all applications, waive any formality therein, or accept
Hotel, a separate institution may enter into the the Block of Shares, GSIS may offer this to the other such application as maybe considered most advantageous
aforementioned contract/s with GSIS/MHC. Qualified Bidders that have validly submitted bids provided to the GSIS. The GSIS similarly reserves the right to
b. The Highest Bidder must execute the Stock Purchase that these Qualified are willing to match the highest bid in require the submission of any additional information from
and Sale Agreement with GSIS, a copy of which will be terms of price per share. the Applicant as the PBAC may deem necessary.
distributed to each of the Qualified Bidder after the 2. The order of priority among the interested Qualified 2. The GSIS further reserves the right to call off the Public
prequalification process is completed. Bidders will be in accordance wit the equivalent price per Bidding prior to acceptance of the bids and call for a new
2. In the event that the Highest Bidder chooses a share of their respective bids in their public Bidding, i.e., public bidding under amended rules, and without any
Management Contract for The Manila Hotel, the maximum first and second priority will be given to the Qualified liability whatsoever to any or all the Qualified Bidders,
levels for the management fee structure that GSIS/MHC Bidders that submitted the second and third highest bids except the obligation to return the Bid Security.
are prepared to accept in the Management Contract are as on the price per share basis, respectively, and so on. 3. The GSIS reserves the right to reset the date of the
follows: K. DECLARATION OF THE WINNING prequalification/bidding conference, the deadline for the
a. Basic management fee: Maximum of 2.5% of gross BIDDER/STRATEGIC PARTNER submission of the prequalification documents, the date of
revenues.(1) The Highest Bidder will be declared the Winning the Public Bidding or other pertinent activities at least three
b. Incentive fee: Maximum of 8.0% of gross operating Bidder/Strategic Partner after the following conditions are (3) calendar days prior to the respective deadlines/target
profit(1) after deducting undistributed overhead expenses met: dates.
and the basic management fee. a. Execution of the necessary contract with GSIS/MHC not 4. The GSIS sells only whatever rights, interest and
c. Fixed component of the international later than October 23, 1995; and participation it has on the Block of Shares.
marketing/reservation system fee: Maximum of 2.0% of b. Requisite approvals from the GSIS/MHC and 5. All documents and materials submitted by the Qualified
gross room revenues.(1) The Applicant should indicate in COP/OGCC are obtained. Bidders, except the Bid Security, may be returned upon
its Information Package if it is wishes to charge this fee. I. FULL PAYMENT FOR THE BLOCK OF SHARES request.
Note (1): As defined in the uniform system of account for 1. Upon execution of the necessary contracts with 6. The decision of the PBAC/GSIS on the results of the
hotels. GSIS/MHC, the Winning Bidder/Strategic Partner must Public Bidding is final. The Qualified Bidders, by
The GSIS/MHC have indicated above the acceptable fully pay, not later than October 23, 1995, the offered participating in the Public Bidding, are deemed to have
parameters for the hotel management fees to facilitate the purchase price for the Block of Shares after deducting the agreed to accept and abide by these results.
negotiations with the Highest Bidder for the Management Bid Security applied as downpayment. 7. The GSIS will be held free and harmless form any
Contract after the Public Bidding. 2. All payments should be made in the form of a Manager’s liability, suit or allegation arising out of the Public Bidding
Check or unconditional Demand Draft, payable to the
10
by the Qualified Bidders who have participated in the (2) Assuming section 10 paragraph 2 of Article XII is self- legislation for their enforcement. The reason is not
3
Public Bidding. executing whether the controlling shares of the Manila difficult to discern. For if they are not treated as self-
The second public bidding was held on September 18, Hotel Corporation form part of our patrimony as a nation; executing, the mandate of the fundamental law ratified by
1995. Petitioner bidded P41.00 per share for 15,300,000 (3) Whether GSIS is included in the term “State,” hence, the sovereign people can be easily ignored and nullified by
shares and Renong Berhad bidded P44.00 per share also mandated to implement section 10, paragraph 2 of Article Congress. 11 Suffused with wisdom of the ages is the
for 15,300,000 shares. The GSIS declared Renong Berhad XII of the Constitution; unyielding rule that legislative actions may give breath to
the highest bidder and immediately returned petitioner’s (4) Assuming GSIS is part of the State, whether it failed to constitutional rights but congressional in action should not
bid security. give preference to petitioner, a qualified Filipino suffocate them. 12
On September 28, 1995, ten days after the bidding, corporation, over and above Renong Berhad, a foreign Thus, we have treated as self-executing the provisions in
petitioner wrote to GSIS offering to match the bid price of corporation, in the sale of the controlling shares of the the Bill of Rights on arrests, searches and seizures, 13 the
14
Renong Berhad. It requested that the award be made to Manila Hotel Corporation; rights of a person under custodial investigation, the
15
itself citing the second paragraph of Section 10, Article XII (5) Whether petitioner is estopped from questioning the rights of an accused, and the privilege against self-
of the Constitution. It sent a manager’s check for thirty- sale of the shares to Renong Berhad, a foreign incrimination, 16 It is recognize a that legislation is
three million pesos (P33,000,000.00) as bid security. corporation. unnecessary to enable courts to effectuate constitutional
Respondent GSIS, then in the process of negotiating with Anent the first issue, it is now familiar learning that a provisions guaranteeing the fundamental rights of life,
17
Renong Berhad the terms and conditions of the contract Constitution provides the guiding policies and principles liberty and the protection of property. The same
and technical agreements in the operation of the hotel, upon which is built the substantial foundation and general treatment is accorded to constitutional provisions
refused to entertain petitioner’s request. framework of the law and government. As a rule, its 5
forbidding the taking or damaging of property for public
Hence, petitioner filed the present petition. We issued a provisions are deemed self-executing and can be enforced use without just compensation. 18
temporary restraining order on October 18, 1995. without further legislative action. 6 Some of its provisions, Contrariwise, case law lays down the rule that a
Petitioner anchors its plea on the second paragraph of however, can be implemented only through appropriate constitutional provision is not self-executing where it
Article XII, Section 10 of the Constitution 4 on the “National laws enacted by the Legislature, hence not self-executing. merely announces a policy and its language empowers the
Economy and Patrimony” which provides: To determine whether a particular provision of a Legislature to prescribe the means by which the policy
xxx xxx xxx Constitution is self-executing is a hard row to hoe. The key shall be carried into effect. 19 Accordingly, we have held
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering lies on the intent of the framers of the fundamental law that the provisions in Article II of our Constitution entitled
the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give oftentimes submerged in its language. A searching inquiry “Declaration of Principles and State Policies” should
preference to qualified Filipinos. should be made to find out if the provision is intended as a generally be construed as mere statements of principles of
xxx xxx xxx present enactment, complete in itself as a definitive law, or the State. 20 We have also ruled that some provisions of
The vital issues can be summed up as follows: if it needs future legislation for completion and Article XIII on “Social Justice and Human Rights,” 21 and
(1) Whether section 10, paragraph 2 of Article XII of the enforcement. 7 The inquiry demands a micro-analysis of Article XIV on “Education Science and Technology, Arts,
Constitution is a self-executing provision and does not the text and the context of the provision in question. 8
Culture end Sports” 22 cannot be the basis of judicially
need implementing legislation to carry it into effect; Courts as a rule consider the provisions of the Constitution enforceable rights. Their enforcement is addressed to the
as self-executing, 9 rather than as requiring future
discretion of Congress though they provide the framework The first paragraph of Section 10 is not self-executing. By is now. The second and the third paragraphs of Section
23 24
for legislation to effectuate their policy content. its express text, there is a categorical command for 10, Article XII are thus self-executing.
Guided by this map of settled jurisprudence, we now Congress to enact laws restricting foreign ownership in This submission is strengthened by Article II of the
consider whether Section 10, Article XII of the 1987 certain areas of investments in the country and to Constitution entitled “Declaration of Principles and State
Constitution is self-executing or not. It reads: encourage the formation and operation of wholly-owned Policies.” Its Section 19 provides that “[T]he State shall
Sec. 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the Filipino enterprises. The right granted by the provision is develop a self-reliant and independent national economy
economic and planning agency, when the national interest clearly still in esse. Congress has to breathe life to the right effectively controlled by Filipinos.” It engrafts the all-
dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to by means of legislation. Parenthetically, this paragraph important Filipino First policy in our fundamental law and
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of was plucked from section 3, Article XIV of the 1973 by the use of the mandatory word “shall,” directs its
27
whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher Constitution. The provision in the 1973 Constitution enforcement by the whole State without any pause or a
percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of affirmed our ruling in the landmark case of Lao Ichong half- pause in time.
28
investments. The Congress shall enact measures that will v. Hernandez, where we upheld the discretionary The second issue is whether the sale of a majority of the
encourage the formation and operation of enterprises authority of Congress to Filipinize certain areas of stocks of the Manila Hotel Corporation involves the
whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. investments. 29 By reenacting the 1973 provision, the first disposition of part of our national patrimony. The records of
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering paragraph of section 10 affirmed the power of Congress to the Constitutional Commission show that the
the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give nationalize certain areas of investments in favor of Commissioners entertained the same view as to its
preference to qualified Filipinos. Filipinos. meaning. According to Commissioner Nolledo, “patrimony”
The State shall regulate and exercise authority over The second and third paragraphs of Section 10 are refers not only to our rich natural resources but also to the
30
foreign investments within its national jurisdiction and in different. They are directed to the State and not to cultural heritage of our race. By this yardstick, the sale of
accordance with its national goals and priorities. Congress alone which is but one of the three great Manila Hotel falls within the coverage of the constitutional
The first paragraph directs Congress to reserve certain branches of our government. Their coverage is also provision giving preferential treatment to qualified Filipinos
areas of investments in the country 25 to Filipino citizens or broader for they cover “the national economy and in the grant of rights involving our national patrimony. The
to corporations sixty per cent 26
of whose capital stock is patrimony” and “foreign investments within [the] national unique value of the Manila Hotel to our history and culture
owned by Filipinos. It further commands Congress to enact jurisdiction” and not merely “certain areas of investments.” cannot be viewed with a myopic eye. The value of the
laws that will encourage the formation and operation of Beyond debate, they cannot be read as granting Congress hotel goes beyond pesos and centavos. As chronicled by
one hundred percent Filipino-owned enterprises. In the exclusive power to implement by law the policy of Beth Day Romulo, 31 the hotel first opened on July 4, 1912
checkered contrast, the second paragraph orders the giving preference to qualified Filipinos in the conferral of as a first-class hotel built by the American Insular
entire State to give preference to qualified Filipinos in the rights and privileges covering our national economy and Government for Americans living in, or passing through,
grant of rights and privileges covering the national patrimony. Their language does not suggest that any of Manila while traveling to the Orient. Indigenous materials
economy and patrimony. The third paragraph also directs the State agency or instrumentality has the privilege to and Filipino craftsmanship were utilized in its construction,
the State to regulate foreign investments in line with our hedge or to refuse its implementation for any reason For sometime, it was exclusively used by American and
national goals and well-set priorities. whatsoever. Their duty to implement is unconditional and it Caucasian travelers and served as the “official
guesthouse” of the American Insular Government for
visiting foreign dignitaries. Filipinos began coming to the The third issue is whether the constitutional command to demands. Only a constitution strung with elasticity can
Hotel as guests during the Commonwealth period. When the State includes the respondent GSIS. A look at its grow as a living constitution.
the Japanese occupied Manila, it served as military charter will reveal that GSIS is a government-owned and Thus, during the deliberations in the Constitutional
headquarters and lodging for the highest-ranking officers controlled corporation that administers funds that come Commission, Commissioner Nolledo to define the phrase
from Tokyo. It was at the Hotel and the Intramuros that the from the monthly contributions of government employees brushed aside a suggestion to define the phrase “qualified
Japanese made their last stand during the Liberation of and the government. 33 The funds are held in trust for a Filipinos.” He explained that present and prospective
Manila. After the war, the Hotel again served foreign distinct purpose which cannot be disposed of “laws” will take care of the problem of its interpretation, viz:
guests and Filipinos alike. Presidents and kings, premiers indifferently. 34 They are to be used to finance the xxx xxx xxx
and potentates, as well as glamorous international film and retirement, disability and life insurance benefits of the THE PRESIDENT. What is the suggestion of
sports celebrities were housed in the Hotel. It was also the employees and the administrative and operational Commissioner Rodrigo? Is it to remove the word
situs of international conventions and conferences. In the expenses of the GSIS, 35 Excess funds, however, are “QUALIFIED?”
local scene, it was the venue of historic meetings, parties allowed to be invested in business and other ventures for MR. RODRIGO. No, no, but say definitely “TO QUALIFIED
and conventions of political parties. The Hotel has reaped the benefit of the employees. 36 It is thus contended that FILIPINOS” as against whom? As against aliens over
and continues reaping numerous recognitions and awards the GSIS investment in the Manila Hotel Corporation is a aliens?
from international hotel and travel award-giving bodies, a simple business venture, hence, an act beyond the MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, I think that is
fitting acknowledgment of Filipino talent and ingenuity. contemplation of section 10, paragraph 2 of Article XII of understood. We use the word “QUALIFIED” because the
These are judicially cognizable facts which cannot be bent the Constitution. existing laws or the prospective laws will always lay down
by a biased mind. The submission is unimpressive. The GSIS is not a pure conditions under which business map be done, for
The Hotel may not, as yet, have been declared a national private corporation. It is essentially a public corporation example, qualifications on capital, qualifications on the
cultural treasure pursuant to Republic Act No. 4846 but created by Congress and granted an original charter to setting up of other financial structures, et cetera.
that does not exclude it from our national patrimony. serve a public purpose. It is subject to the jurisdictions of MR. RODRIGO. It is just a matter of style.
Republic Act No. 4846, “The Cultural Properties the Civil Service Commission 37 and the Commission on MR. NOLLEDO Yes.
Preservation and Protection Act,” merely provides a Audit. 38
As state-owned and controlled corporation, it is MR. RODRIGO. If we say, “PREFERENCE TO
procedure whereby a particular cultural property may be skin-bound to adhere to the policies spelled out in the QUALIFIED FILIPINOS,” it can be understood as giving
classified a “national cultural treasure” or an “important general welfare of the people. One of these policies is the preference to qualified Filipinos as against Filipinos who
32
cultural property. Approved on June 18, 1966 and Filipino First policy which the people elevated as a are not qualified.
amended by P.D. 374 in 1974, the law is limited in its constitutional command. MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, that was the intention
reach and cannot be read as the exclusive law The fourth issue demands that we look at the content of of the proponents. The committee has accepted the
implementing section 10, Article XII of the 1987 phrase “qualified Filipinos” and their “preferential right.” amendment.
Constitution. To be sure, the law does not equate cultural The Constitution desisted from defining their contents. This xxx xxx xxx
treasure and cultural property as synonymous to the is as it ought to be for a Constitution only lays down As previously discussed, the constitutional command to
phrase “patrimony of the nation.” flexible policies and principles which can bent to meet enforce the Filipino First policy is addressed to the State
today’s manifest needs and tomorrow’s unmanifested and not to Congress alone. Hence, the word “laws” should
not be understood as limited to legislations but all state define the degree of the right of preference to be given to Constitution is deemed part of said rules and regulations.
actions which include applicable rules and regulations qualified Filipinos. They knew that for the right to serve the Pursuant to legal hermeneutics which demand that we
adopted by agencies and instrumentalities of the State in general welfare, it must have a malleable content that can interpret rules to save them from unconstitutionality, I
the exercise of their rule-making power. In the case at bar, be adjusted by our policy-makers to meet the changing submit that the right of preference of petitioner arises only
the bidding rules and regulations set forth the standards to needs of our people. In fine, the right of preference of if it tied the bid of Benong Berhad. In that instance, all
measure the qualifications of bidders Filipinos and qualified Filipinos is to be determined by degree as time things stand equal, and bidder, as a qualified Pilipino
foreigners alike. It is not seriously disputed that petitioner dictates and circumstances warrant. The lesser the need bidder, should be preferred.
39
qualified to bid as did Renong Berhad. for alien assistance, the greater the degree of the right of It is with deep regret that I cannot subscribe to the view
Thus, we come to the critical issue of the degree of preference can be given to Filipinos and vice verse. that petitioner has a right to match the bid of Renong
preference which GSIS should have accorded petitioner, a Again, it should be stressed that the right and the duty to Berhad. Petitioner’s submission must be supported by the
qualified Filipino, over Renong Berhad, a foreigner, in the determine the degree of this privilege at any given time is rules but even if we examine the rules inside-out .thousand
purchase of the controlling shares of the Manila Hotel. addressed to the entire State. While under our times, they can not justify the claimed right. Under the
Petitioner claims that after losing the bid, this right of constitutional scheme, the right primarily belongs to rules, the right to match the highest bid arises only “if for
preference gives it a second chance to match the highest Congress as the lawmaking department of our any reason, the highest bidder cannot be awarded block of
bid of Renong Berhad. government, other branches of government, and all their shares . . .” No reason has arisen that will prevent the
With due respect, I cannot sustain petitioner’s submission. agencies and instrumentalities, share the power to enforce award to Renong Berhad. It qualified as bidder. It complied
I prescind from the premise that the second paragraph of this state policy. Within the limits of their authority, they with the procedure of bidding. It tendered the highest bid. It
section 10, Article XII of the Constitution is pro-Pilipino but can act or promulgate rules and regulations defining the was declared as the highest bidder by the GSIS and the
not anti-alien. It is pro-Filipino for it gives preference to degree of this right of preference in cases where they have rules say this decision is final. It deserves the award as a
Filipinos. It is not, however, anti-alien per se for it does not to make grants involving the national economy and judicial matter of right for the rules clearly did not give to the
absolutely bar aliens in the grant of rights, privileges and duty. On the other hand, our duty is to strike down acts of petitioner as a qualified Filipino privilege to match the
concessions covering the national economy and the state that violate the policy. higher bid of a foreigner. What the rules did not grant,
patrimony. Indeed, in the absence of qualified Filipinos, the To date, Congress has not enacted a law defining the petitioner cannot demand. Our symphaties may be with
State is not prohibited from granting these rights, privileges degree of the preferential right. Consequently, we must petitioner but the court has no power to extend the latitude
and concessions to foreigners if the act will promote the turn to the rules and regulations of on respondents and longtitude of the right of preference as defined by the
weal of the nation. Committee Privatization and GSIS to determine the degree rules. The parameters of the right of preference depend on
In implementing the policy articulated in section 10, Article of preference that petitioner is entitled to as a qualified galaxy of facts and factors whose determination belongs to
XII of the Constitution, the stellar task of our State policy- Filipino in the subject sale. A tearless look at the rules and the province of the policy-making branches and agencies
makers is to maintain a creative tension between two regulations will show that they are silent on the degree of of the State. We are duty-bound to respect that
desiderata — first, the need to develop our economy and preferential right to be accorded qualified Filipino bidder. determination even if we differ with the wisdom of their
patrimony with the help of foreigners if necessary, and, Despite their silence, however, they cannot be read to judgment. The right they grant may be little but we must
second, the need to keep our economy controlled by mean that they do not grant any degree of preference to uphold the grant for as long as the right of preference is
Filipinos. Rightfully, the framers of the Constitution did not petitioner for paragraph 2, section 10, Article XII of the not denied. It is only when a State action amounts to a
denial of the right that the Court can come in and strike makers can write laws and rules giving favored treatment 2. Aside from being prohibited by the Constitution, such
down the denial as unconstitutional. to the Filipino but we are not free to be unfair to a foreigner judicial is short-sighted and, viewed properly, gravely
Finally, I submit that petitioner is estopped from assailing after writing the laws and the rules. After the laws are prejudicial to long-term Filipino interest. It encourages
the winning bid of Renong Berhad. Petitioner was aware of written, they must be obeyed as written, by Filipinos and other countries — in the guise of reverse comity or worse,
the rules and regulations of the bidding. It knew that the foreigners alike. The equal protection clause of the unabashed retaliation — to discriminate against us in their
rules and regulations do not provide that a qualified Constitution protects all against unfairness. We can be own jurisdictions by authorizing their own nationals to
Filipino bidder can match the winning bid submitting an pro-Filipino without unfairness to foreigner. similarly equal and defeat the higher bids of Filipino
inferior bid. It knew that the bid was open to foreigners and I vote to dismiss the petition. enterprises solely, while on the other hand, allowing similar
that foreigners qualified even during the first bidding. Narvasa, C.J., and Melo, J., concur. bids of other foreigners to remain unchallenged by their
Petitioner cannot be allowed to repudiate the rules which it nationals. The majority’s thesis will thus marginalize
agreed to respect. It cannot be allowed to obey the rules READ CASE DIGESTS: Filipino First Policy; Special Filipinos as pariahs in the global marketplace with absolute
when it wins and disregard them when it loses. If Commercial Law no chance of winning any bidding outside our country.
sustained, petitioners’ stance will wreak havoc on he Even authoritarian regimes and hermit kingdoms have
essence of bidding. Our laws, rules and regulations require PANGANIBAN, J., dissenting: long ago found out unfairness, greed and isolation are self-
highest bidding to raise as much funds as possible for the I regret I cannot join the majority. To the incisive defeating and in the long-term, self-destructing.
government to maximize its capacity to deliver essential Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice Reynato S. Puno, may I The moral lesson here is simple: Do not do unto other
services to our people. This is a duty that must be just add what you dont want other to do unto you.
discharged by Filipinos and foreigners participating in a 1. The majority contends the Constitution should be 3. In the absence of a law specifying the degree or extent
bidding contest and the rules are carefully written to attain interpreted to mean that, after a bidding process is of the “Filipino First” policy of the Constitution, the
this objective. Among others, bidders are prequalified to concluded, the losing Filipino bidder should be given the constitutional preference for the “qualified Filipinos” may
insure their financial capability. The bidding is secret and right to equal the highest foreign bid, and thus to win. be allowed only where all the bids are equal. In this
the bids are sealed to prevent collusion among the parties. However, the Constitution [Sec. 10 (2), Art. XII] simply manner, we put the Filipino ahead without self-destructing
This objective will be undermined if we grant petitioner that states that “in the grant of rights . . . covering the national him and without being unfair to the foreigner.
privilege to know the winning bid and a chance to match it. economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to In short, the Constitution mandates a victory for the
For plainly, a second chance to bid will encourage a bidder qualified Filipinos.” The majority concedes that there is no qualified Filipino only when the scores are tied. But not
not to strive to give the highest bid in the first bidding. law defining the extent or degree of such when the ballgame is over and the foreigner clearly posted
We support the Filipino First policy without any reservation. preference. Specifically, no statute empowers a losing the highest score.
The visionary nationalist Don Claro M. Recto has warned Filipino bidder to increase his bid and equal that of the
us that the greatest tragedy that can befall a Filipino is to winning foreigner. In the absence of such empowering law,
be an alien in his own land. The Constitution has the majority’s strained interpretation, I respectfully submit G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993
embodied Recto’s counsel as a state policy. But while the constitutes unadulterated judicial legislation, which makes
Filipino First policy requires that we incline to a Filipino, it bidding a ridiculous sham where no Filipino can lose and JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO,
all surnamed OPOSA, minors, and represented by their
does not demand that we wrong an alien. Our policy where no foreigner can win. Only in the Philippines!. parents ANTONIO and RIZALINA OPOSA, ROBERTA
NICOLE SADIUA, minor, represented by her parents Oposa Law Office for petitioners. . . . ordering defendant, his agents,
CALVIN and ROBERTA SADIUA, CARLO, AMANDA representatives and other persons
SALUD and PATRISHA, all surnamed FLORES, minors acting in his behalf to —
The Solicitor General for respondents.
and represented by their parents ENRICO and NIDA
FLORES, GIANINA DITA R. FORTUN, minor, represented
(1) Cancel all existing timber license
by her parents SIGRID and DOLORES FORTUN,
agreements in the country;
GEORGE II and MA. CONCEPCION, all surnamed MISA,
minors and represented by their parents GEORGE and
MYRA MISA, BENJAMIN ALAN V. PESIGAN, minor, DAVIDE, JR., J.:
(2) Cease and desist from receiving,
represented by his parents ANTONIO and ALICE accepting, processing, renewing or
PESIGAN, JOVIE MARIE ALFARO, minor, represented by In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of approving new timber license
her parents JOSE and MARIA VIOLETA ALFARO, MARIA Filipinos to a balanced and healthful ecology which the agreements.
CONCEPCION T. CASTRO, minor, represented by her petitioners dramatically associate with the twin concepts of
parents FREDENIL and JANE CASTRO, JOHANNA "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational
DESAMPARADO, and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just and
justice." Specifically, it touches on the issue of whether the
minor, represented by her parents JOSE and ANGELA equitable under the premises." 5
said petitioners have a cause of action to "prevent the
DESAMPRADO, CARLO JOAQUIN T. NARVASA, minor, misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforests
represented by his parents GREGORIO II and CRISTINE and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital The complaint starts off with the general averments that
CHARITY NARVASA, MA. MARGARITA, JESUS life support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth." the Philippine archipelago of 7,100 islands has a land area
IGNACIO, MA. ANGELA and MARIE GABRIELLE, all of thirty million (30,000,000) hectares and is endowed with
surnamed SAENZ, minors, represented by their parents rich, lush and verdant rainforests in which varied, rare and
ROBERTO and AURORA SAENZ, KRISTINE, MARY The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-77
unique species of flora and fauna may be found; these
ELLEN, MAY, GOLDA MARTHE and DAVID IAN, all which was filed before Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila) of
rainforests contain a genetic, biological and chemical pool
surnamed KING, minors, represented by their parents the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial
which is irreplaceable; they are also the habitat of
MARIO and HAYDEE KING, DAVID, FRANCISCO and Region. The principal plaintiffs therein, now the principal
indigenous Philippine cultures which have existed,
THERESE VICTORIA, all surnamed ENDRIGA, minors, petitioners, are all minors duly represented and joined by
endured and flourished since time immemorial; scientific
represented by their parents BALTAZAR and TERESITA their respective parents. Impleaded as an additional
evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced and
ENDRIGA, JOSE MA. and REGINA MA., all surnamed plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. (PENI), a
healthful ecology, the country's land area should be
ABAYA, minors, represented by their parents ANTONIO domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation organized
utilized on the basis of a ratio of fifty-four per cent (54%)
and MARICA ABAYA, MARILIN, MARIO, JR. and for the purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action
for forest cover and forty-six per cent (46%) for agricultural,
MARIETTE, all surnamed CARDAMA, minors, represented geared for the protection of our environment and natural
residential, industrial, commercial and other uses; the
by their parents MARIO and LINA CARDAMA, CLARISSA, resources. The original defendant was the Honorable
distortion and disturbance of this balance as a
ANN MARIE, NAGEL, and IMEE LYN, all surnamed Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the
consequence of deforestation have resulted in a host of
OPOSA, minors and represented by their parents Department of Environment and Natural Resources
environmental tragedies, such as (a) water shortages
RICARDO and MARISSA OPOSA, PHILIP JOSEPH, (DENR). His substitution in this petition by the new
resulting from drying up of the water table, otherwise
STEPHEN JOHN and ISAIAH JAMES, all surnamed Secretary, the Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was
known as the "aquifer," as well as of rivers, brooks and
QUIPIT, minors, represented by their parents JOSE MAX subsequently ordered upon proper motion by the
streams, (b) salinization of the water table as a result of
and VILMI QUIPIT, BUGHAW CIELO, CRISANTO, ANNA, petitioners. 1 The complaint 2was instituted as a taxpayers'
the intrusion therein of salt water, incontrovertible
DANIEL and FRANCISCO, all surnamed BIBAL, minors, class suit 3 and alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of
examples of which may be found in the island of Cebu and
represented by their parents FRANCISCO, JR. and the Republic of the Philippines, taxpayers, and entitled to
the Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite, (c) massive erosion and
MILAGROS BIBAL, and THE PHILIPPINE ECOLOGICAL the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural resource
the consequential loss of soil fertility and agricultural
NETWORK, INC., petitioners, treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests." The
productivity, with the volume of soil eroded estimated at
same was filed for themselves and others who are equally
vs. one billion (1,000,000,000) cubic meters per annum —
THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in concerned about the preservation of said resource but are
approximately the size of the entire island of Catanduanes,
his capacity as the Secretary of the Department of "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all
(d) the endangering and extinction of the country's unique,
Environment and Natural Resources, and THE before the Court." The minors further asseverate that they
rare and varied flora and fauna, (e) the disturbance and
HONORABLE ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, Presiding Judge "represent their generation as well as generations yet
dislocation of cultural communities, including the
of the RTC, Makati, Branch 66, respondents. unborn." 4 Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be
disappearance of the Filipino's indigenous cultures, (f) the
rendered:
siltation of rivers and seabeds and consequential 10. More recent surveys reveal that a will work great damage and
destruction of corals and other aquatic life leading to a mere 850,000 hectares of virgin old- irreparable injury to plaintiffs —
critical reduction in marine resource productivity, (g) growth rainforests are left, barely 2.8% especially plaintiff minors and their
recurrent spells of drought as is presently experienced by of the entire land mass of the successors — who may never see,
the entire country, (h) increasing velocity of typhoon winds Philippine archipelago and about 3.0 use, benefit from and enjoy this rare
which result from the absence of windbreakers, (i) the million hectares of immature and and unique natural resource treasure.
floodings of lowlands and agricultural plains arising from uneconomical secondary growth
the absence of the absorbent mechanism of forests, (j) the forests.
This act of defendant constitutes a
siltation and shortening of the lifespan of multi-billion peso
misappropriation and/or impairment of
dams constructed and operated for the purpose of
11. Public records reveal that the the natural resource property he holds
supplying water for domestic uses, irrigation and the
defendant's, predecessors have in trust for the benefit of plaintiff
generation of electric power, and (k) the reduction of the
granted timber license agreements minors and succeeding generations.
earth's capacity to process carbon dioxide gases which
('TLA's') to various corporations to cut
has led to perplexing and catastrophic climatic changes
the aggregate area of 3.89 million
such as the phenomenon of global warming, otherwise 15. Plaintiffs have a clear and
hectares for commercial logging
known as the "greenhouse effect." constitutional right to a balanced and
purposes.
healthful ecology and are entitled to
protection by the State in its capacity
Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental
A copy of the TLA holders and the as the parens patriae.
consequences of continued and deforestation are so
corresponding areas covered is hereto
capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same
attached as Annex "A".
may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice. This 16. Plaintiff have exhausted all
notwithstanding, they expressed their intention to present administrative remedies with the
expert witnesses as well as documentary, photographic 12. At the present rate of defendant's office. On March 2, 1990,
and film evidence in the course of the trial. deforestation, i.e. about 200,000 plaintiffs served upon defendant a final
hectares per annum or 25 hectares demand to cancel all logging permits
per hour — nighttime, Saturdays, in the country.
As their cause of action, they specifically allege that:
Sundays and holidays included — the
Philippines will be bereft of forest
A copy of the plaintiffs' letter dated
CAUSE OF ACTION resources after the end of this ensuing
March 1, 1990 is hereto attached as
decade, if not earlier.
Annex "B".
7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the
foregoing allegations. 13. The adverse effects, disastrous
17. Defendant, however, fails and
consequences, serious injury and
refuses to cancel the existing TLA's to
irreparable damage of this continued
8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the the continuing serious damage and
trend of deforestation to the plaintiff
Philippines had some sixteen (16) extreme prejudice of plaintiffs.
minor's generation and to generations
million hectares of rainforests
yet unborn are evident and
constituting roughly 53% of the
incontrovertible. As a matter of fact, 18. The continued failure and refusal
country's land mass.
the environmental damages by defendant to cancel the TLA's is an
enumerated in paragraph 6 hereof are act violative of the rights of plaintiffs,
9. Satellite images taken in 1987 already being felt, experienced and especially plaintiff minors who may be
reveal that there remained no more suffered by the generation of plaintiff left with a country that is desertified
than 1.2 million hectares of said adults. (sic), bare, barren and devoid of the
rainforests or four per cent (4.0%) of wonderful flora, fauna and indigenous
the country's land area. cultures which the Philippines had
14. The continued allowance by
been abundantly blessed with.
defendant of TLA holders to cut and
deforest the remaining forest stands
19. Defendant's refusal to cancel the ecology in accord with the rhythm and On 14 May 1992, We resolved to give due course to the
aforementioned TLA's is manifestly harmony of nature." (Section 16, petition and required the parties to submit their respective
contrary to the public policy Article II, id.) Memoranda after the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
enunciated in the Philippine filed a Comment in behalf of the respondents and the
Environmental Policy which, in petitioners filed a reply thereto.
21. Finally, defendant's act is contrary
pertinent part, states that it is the
to the highest law of humankind — the
policy of the State —
natural law — and violative of Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and
plaintiffs' right to self-preservation and unmistakably states a cause of action as it contains
(a) to create, develop, maintain and perpetuation. sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound
improve conditions under which man environment based on Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil
and nature can thrive in productive Code (Human Relations), Section 4 of Executive Order
22. There is no other plain, speedy
and enjoyable harmony with each (E.O.) No. 192 creating the DENR, Section 3 of
and adequate remedy in law other
other; Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine
than the instant action to arrest the
Environmental Policy), Section 16, Article II of the 1987
unabated hemorrhage of the country's
Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a
(b) to fulfill the social, economic and vital life support systems and
balanced and healthful ecology, the concept of
other requirements of present and continued rape of Mother Earth. 6
generational genocide in Criminal Law and the concept of
future generations of Filipinos and;
man's inalienable right to self-preservation and self-
On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary perpetuation embodied in natural law. Petitioners likewise
(c) to ensure the attainment of an Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint rely on the respondent's correlative obligation per Section
environmental quality that is based on two (2) grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard the people's right to a
conductive to a life of dignity and well- no cause of action against him and (2) the issue raised by healthful environment.
being. (P.D. 1151, 6 June 1977) the plaintiffs is a political question which properly pertains
to the legislative or executive branches of Government. In
It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent
their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion, the petitioners
20. Furthermore, defendant's Secretary's alleged grave abuse of discretion in granting
maintain that (1) the complaint shows a clear and
continued refusal to cancel the Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more areas
unmistakable cause of action, (2) the motion is dilatory and
aforementioned TLA's is contradictory for logging than what is available involves a judicial
(3) the action presents a justiciable question as it involves
to the Constitutional policy of the State question.
the defendant's abuse of discretion.
to —
Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the
On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order
a. effect "a more equitable distribution Constitution's non-impairment clause, petitioners maintain
granting the aforementioned motion to dismiss. 7 In the
of opportunities, income and wealth" that the same does not apply in this case because TLAs
said order, not only was the defendant's claim — that the
and "make full and efficient use of are not contracts. They likewise submit that even if TLAs
complaint states no cause of action against him and that it
natural resources (sic)." (Section 1, may be considered protected by the said clause, it is well
raises a political question — sustained, the respondent
Article XII of the Constitution); settled that they may still be revoked by the State when
Judge further ruled that the granting of the relief prayed for
the public interest so requires.
would result in the impairment of contracts which is
b. "protect the nation's marine wealth." prohibited by the fundamental law of the land.
(Section 2, ibid); On the other hand, the respondents aver that the
petitioners failed to allege in their complaint a specific legal
Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action
right violated by the respondent Secretary for which any
c. "conserve and promote the nation's for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court
relief is provided by law. They see nothing in the complaint
cultural heritage and resources (sic)" and ask this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal
but vague and nebulous allegations concerning an
(Section 14, Article XIV,id.); order on the ground that the respondent Judge gravely
"environmental right" which supposedly entitles the
abused his discretion in dismissing the action. Again, the
petitioners to the "protection by the state in its capacity
parents of the plaintiffs-minors not only represent their
d. "protect and advance the right of as parens patriae." Such allegations, according to them,
children, but have also joined the latter in this case. 8
the people to a balanced and healthful do not reveal a valid cause of action. They then reiterate
the theory that the question of whether logging should be as hereinafter expounded, considers based on unverified data. In fine,
permitted in the country is a political question which should the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action
be properly addressed to the executive or legislative created world in its entirety. 9 Such rhythm and harmony in its Complaint against the herein
branches of Government. They therefore assert that the indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, defendant.
petitioners' resources is not to file an action to court, but to utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the
lobby before Congress for the passage of a bill that would country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife,
Furthermore, the Court firmly believes
ban logging totally. off-shore areas and other natural resources to the end that
that the matter before it, being
their exploration, development and utilization be equitably
impressed with political color and
accessible to the present as well as future
As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, involving a matter of public policy, may
generations. 10 Needless to say, every generation has a
respondents submit that the same cannot be done by the not be taken cognizance of by this
responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and
State without due process of law. Once issued, a TLA Court without doing violence to the
harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful
remains effective for a certain period of time — usually for sacred principle of "Separation of
ecology. Put a little differently, the minors' assertion of their
twenty-five (25) years. During its effectivity, the same can Powers" of the three (3) co-equal
right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time,
neither be revised nor cancelled unless the holder has branches of the Government.
the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection
been found, after due notice and hearing, to have violated
of that right for the generations to come.
the terms of the agreement or other forestry laws and
The Court is likewise of the impression
regulations. Petitioners' proposition to have all the TLAs
that it cannot, no matter how we
indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been
stretch our jurisdiction, grant the
would be violative of the requirements of due process. addressed, We shall now proceed to the merits of the
reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e.,
petition.
to cancel all existing timber license
Before going any further, We must first focus on some agreements in the country and to
procedural matters. Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. After a careful perusal of the complaint in question and a cease and desist from receiving,
90-777 as a class suit. The original defendant and the meticulous consideration and evaluation of the issues accepting, processing, renewing or
present respondents did not take issue with this matter. raised and arguments adduced by the parties, We do not approving new timber license
Nevertheless, We hereby rule that the said civil case is hesitate to find for the petitioners and rule against the agreements. For to do otherwise
indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the complaint is respondent Judge's challenged order for having been would amount to "impairment of
of common and general interest not just to several, but to issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of contracts" abhored (sic) by the
all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the jurisdiction. The pertinent portions of the said order reads fundamental law. 11
parties are so numerous, it, becomes impracticable, if not as follows:
totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. We
We do not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the
likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous
xxx xxx xxx plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient definiteness a
and representative enough to ensure the full protection of
specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong
all concerned interests. Hence, all the requisites for the
committed, and that the complaint is replete with vague
filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the After a careful and circumspect
assumptions and conclusions based on unverified data. A
Revised Rules of Court are present both in the said civil evaluation of the Complaint, the Court
reading of the complaint itself belies these conclusions.
case and in the instant petition, the latter being but an cannot help but agree with the
incident to the former. defendant. For although we believe
that plaintiffs have but the noblest of The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal
all intentions, it (sic) fell short of right — the right to a balanced and healthful ecology
This case, however, has a special and novel element.
alleging, with sufficient definiteness, a which, for the first time in our nation's constitutional history,
Petitioners minors assert that they represent their
specific legal right they are seeking to is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. Section
generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no
enforce and protect, or a specific legal 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides:
difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others
wrong they are seeking to prevent and
of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file
redress (Sec. 1, Rule 2, RRC).
a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf of the Sec. 16. The State shall protect and
Furthermore, the Court notes that the
succeeding generations can only be based on the concept advance the right of the people to a
Complaint is replete with vague
of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology in
assumptions and vague conclusions
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right,
accord with the rhythm and harmony MR. Environment and Natural Resources "shall be the primary
of nature. VILLACORTA: government agency responsible for the conservation,
management, development and proper use of the
country's environment and natural resources, specifically
This right unites with the right to health Does this section
forest and grazing lands, mineral, resources, including
which is provided for in the preceding mandate the
those in reservation and watershed areas, and lands of the
section of the same article: State to provide
public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all
sanctions against
natural resources as may be provided for by law in order to
all forms of
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom
pollution — air,
promote the right to health of the for the welfare of the present and future generations of
water and noise
people and instill health Filipinos." Section 3 thereof makes the following statement
pollution?
consciousness among them. of policy:
MR. AZCUNA:
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be Sec. 3. Declaration of Policy. — It is
found under the Declaration of Principles and State hereby declared the policy of the State
Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow Yes, Madam to ensure the sustainable use,
that it is less important than any of the civil and political President. The development, management, renewal,
rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a right to healthful and conservation of the country's
different category of rights altogether for it concerns (sic) environment forest, mineral, land, off-shore areas
nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation necessarily and other natural resources, including
— aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the carries with it the the protection and enhancement of the
advancement of which may even be said to predate all correlative duty of quality of the environment, and
governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these not impairing the equitable access of the different
basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for same and, segments of the population to the
they are assumed to exist from the inception of therefore, development and the use of the
humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the sanctions may be country's natural resources, not only
fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear provided for for the present generation but for
of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and impairment of future generations as well. It is also
healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state environmental the policy of the state to recognize and
policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their balance. 12 apply a true value system including
continuing importance and imposing upon the state a social and environmental cost
solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and implications relative to their utilization,
The said right implies, among many other things, the development and conservation of our
advance the second, the day would not be too far when all
judicious management and conservation of the country's
else would be lost not only for the present generation, but natural resources.
forests.
also for those to come — generations which stand to
inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining
This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title XIV,
life. Without such forests, the ecological or
Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, 15specifically
environmental balance would be irreversiby in Section 1 thereof which reads:
disrupted.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it
the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the
Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. — (1)
environment. During the debates on this right in one of the Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and The State shall ensure, for the benefit
plenary sessions of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, healthful ecology and the right to health, as well as the of the Filipino people, the full
the following exchange transpired between Commissioner other related provisions of the Constitution concerning the
exploration and development as well
Wilfrido Villacorta and Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna who conservation, development and utilization of the country's as the judicious disposition, utilization,
sponsored the section in question: natural resources, 13 then President Corazon C. Aquino management, renewal and
promulgated on 10 June 1987 E.O. No. 192, 14 Section 4
conservation of the country's forest,
of which expressly mandates that the Department of mineral, land, waters, fisheries,
wildlife, off-shore areas and other It may, however, be recalled that even before the It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss
natural resources, consistent with the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, specific statutes based on the ground that the complaint fails to state a
necessity of maintaining a sound already paid special attention to the "environmental right" cause of action, 19 the question submitted to the court for
ecological balance and protecting and of the present and future generations. On 6 June 1977, resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in
enhancing the quality of the P.D. No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy) and P.D. the complaint itself. No other matter should be considered;
environment and the objective of No. 1152 (Philippine Environment Code) were issued. The furthermore, the truth of falsity of the said allegations is
making the exploration, development former "declared a continuing policy of the State (a) to beside the point for the truth thereof is deemed
and utilization of such natural create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under hypothetically admitted. The only issue to be resolved in
resources equitably accessible to the which man and nature can thrive in productive and such a case is: admitting such alleged facts to be true,
different segments of the present as enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to fulfill the social, may the court render a valid judgment in accordance with
well as future generations. economic and other requirements of present and future the prayer in the complaint? 20 In Militante vs.
generations of Filipinos, and (c) to insure the attainment of Edrosolano, 21 this Court laid down the rule that the
an environmental quality that is conducive to a life of judiciary should "exercise the utmost care and
(2) The State shall likewise recognize
dignity and well-being." 16 As its goal, it speaks of the circumspection in passing upon a motion to dismiss on the
and apply a true value system that
"responsibilities of each generation as trustee and ground of the absence thereof [cause of action] lest, by its
takes into account social and
guardian of the environment for succeeding failure to manifest a correct appreciation of the facts
environmental cost implications
generations." 17 The latter statute, on the other hand, gave alleged and deemed hypothetically admitted, what the law
relative to the utilization, development
flesh to the said policy. grants or recognizes is effectively nullified. If that happens,
and conservation of our natural
there is a blot on the legal order. The law itself stands in
resources.
disrepute."
Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they
represent) to a balanced and healthful ecology is as clear
The above provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining
as the DENR's duty — under its mandate and by virtue of After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, We
a sound ecological balance and protecting and enhancing
its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and the find the statements under the introductory affirmative
the quality of the environment." Section 2 of the same
Administrative Code of 1987 — to protect and advance the allegations, as well as the specific averments under the
Title, on the other hand, specifically speaks of the mandate
said right. sub-heading CAUSE OF ACTION, to be adequate enough
of the DENR; however, it makes particular reference to the
to show, prima facie, the claimed violation of their rights.
fact of the agency's being subject to law and higher
On the basis thereof, they may thus be granted, wholly or
authority. Said section provides: A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the
partly, the reliefs prayed for. It bears stressing, however,
corelative duty or obligation to respect or protect the same
that insofar as the cancellation of the TLAs is concerned,
gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners maintain that
Sec. 2. Mandate. — (1) The there is the need to implead, as party defendants, the
the granting of the TLAs, which they claim was done with
Department of Environment and grantees thereof for they are indispensable parties.
grave abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced
Natural Resources shall be primarily
and healthful ecology; hence, the full protection thereof
responsible for the implementation of
requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 be said
the foregoing policy.
granted. to raise a political question. Policy formulation or
determination by the executive or legislative branches of
(2) It shall, subject to law and higher Government is not squarely put in issue. What is
A cause of action is defined as:
authority, be in charge of carrying out principally involved is the enforcement of a right vis-a-
the State's constitutional mandate to vis policies already formulated and expressed in
control and supervise the exploration, . . . an act or omission of one party in legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the
development, utilization, and violation of the legal right or rights of political question doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable
conservation of the country's natural the other; and its essential elements obstacle to the exercise of judicial power or the
resources. are legal right of the plaintiff, impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative
correlative obligation of the defendant, actions from judicial inquiry or review. The second
and act or omission of the defendant paragraph of section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution
Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987
in violation of said legal right. 18 states that:
have set the objectives which will serve as the bases for
policy formulation, and have defined the powers and
functions of the DENR.
Judicial power includes the duty of the In the case now before us, the . . . Provided, That when the national
courts of justice to settle actual jurisdictional objection becomes even interest so requires, the President may
controversies involving rights which less tenable and decisive. The reason amend, modify, replace or rescind any
are legally demandable and is that, even if we were to assume that contract, concession, permit, licenses
enforceable, and to determine whether the issue presented before us was or any other form of privilege granted
or not there has been a grave abuse political in nature, we would still not be herein . . .
of discretion amounting to lack or precluded from revolving it under the
excess of jurisdiction on the part of expanded jurisdiction conferred upon
Needless to say, all licenses may thus be
any branch or instrumentality of the us that now covers, in proper cases,
revoked or rescinded by executive action. It is
Government. even the political question. Article VII,
not a contract, property or a property right
Section 1, of the Constitution clearly
protested by the due process clause of the
provides: . . .
Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine Constitution. In Tan vs. Director of
Political Law, 22 Mr. Justice Isagani A. Cruz, a Forestry, 25 this Court held:
distinguished member of this Court, says: The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the
complaint is the non-impairment of contracts clause found
. . . A timber license is an instrument
in the Constitution. The court a quo declared that:
The first part of the authority by which the State regulates the
represents the traditional concept of utilization and disposition of forest
judicial power, involving the settlement The Court is likewise of the impression resources to the end that public
of conflicting rights as conferred as that it cannot, no matter how we welfare is promoted. A timber license
law. The second part of the authority stretch our jurisdiction, grant the is not a contract within the purview of
represents a broadening of judicial reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs, i.e., the due process clause; it is only a
power to enable the courts of justice to to cancel all existing timber license license or privilege, which can be
review what was before forbidden agreements in the country and to validly withdrawn whenever dictated
territory, to wit, the discretion of the cease and desist from receiving, by public interest or public welfare as
political departments of the accepting, processing, renewing or in this case.
government. approving new timber license
agreements. For to do otherwise
A license is merely a permit or
would amount to "impairment of
As worded, the new provision vests in privilege to do what otherwise would
contracts" abhored (sic) by the
the judiciary, and particularly the be unlawful, and is not a contract
fundamental law. 24
Supreme Court, the power to rule between the authority, federal, state,
upon even the wisdom of the or municipal, granting it and the
decisions of the executive and the We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, We are person to whom it is granted; neither
legislature and to declare their acts amazed, if not shocked, by such a sweeping is it property or a property right, nor
invalid for lack or excess of jurisdiction pronouncement. In the first place, the respondent does it create a vested right; nor is it
because tainted with grave abuse of Secretary did not, for obvious reasons, even invoke in his taxation (37 C.J. 168). Thus, this
discretion. The catch, of course, is the motion to dismiss the non-impairment clause. If he had Court held that the granting of license
meaning of "grave abuse of done so, he would have acted with utmost infidelity to the does not create irrevocable rights,
discretion," which is a very elastic Government by providing undue and unwarranted benefits neither is it property or property rights
phrase that can expand or contract and advantages to the timber license holders because he (People vs. Ong Tin, 54 O.G. 7576).
according to the disposition of the would have forever bound the Government to strictly
judiciary. respect the said licenses according to their terms and
We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. &
conditions regardless of changes in policy and the
Co., Inc. vs. Deputy Executive Secretary: 26
demands of public interest and welfare. He was aware that
In Daza vs. Singson, 23 Mr. Justice Cruz, now speaking for
as correctly pointed out by the petitioners, into every
this Court, noted:
timber license must be read Section 20 of the Forestry . . . Timber licenses, permits and
Reform Code (P.D. No. 705) which provides: license agreements are the principal
instruments by which the State
regulates the utilization and The freedom of contract, under our WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant
disposition of forest resources to the system of government, is not meant to Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the challenged Order of
end that public welfare is promoted. be absolute. The same is understood respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 dismissing Civil Case
And it can hardly be gainsaid that they to be subject to reasonable legislative No. 90-777 is hereby set aside. The petitioners may
merely evidence a privilege granted by regulation aimed at the promotion of therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants
the State to qualified entities, and do public health, moral, safety and the holders or grantees of the questioned timber license
not vest in the latter a permanent or welfare. In other words, the agreements.
irrevocable right to the particular constitutional guaranty of non-
concession area and the forest impairment of obligations of contract is
No pronouncement as to costs.
products therein. They may be validly limited by the exercise of the police
amended, modified, replaced or power of the State, in the interest of
rescinded by the Chief Executive public health, safety, moral and SO ORDERED.
when national interests so require. general welfare.
Thus, they are not deemed contracts
within the purview of the due process Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Romero,
The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ., concur.
of law clause [See Sections 3(ee) and
New York, 29 quoted in Philippine American Life Insurance
20 of Pres. Decree No. 705, as
Co. vs. Auditor General, 30 to wit:
amended. Also, Tan v. Director of Narvasa, C.J., Puno and Vitug, JJ., took no part.
Forestry, G.R. No. L-24548, October
27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302]. Under our form of government the use
of property and the making of
contracts are normally matters of
Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-
private and not of public concern. The
impairment clause, which reads:
general rule is that both shall be free
of governmental interference. But
Sec. 10. No law impairing, the neither property rights nor contract
obligation of contracts shall be rights are absolute; for government
passed. 27 cannot exist if the citizen may at will Separate Opinions
use his property to the detriment of his
fellows, or exercise his freedom of
cannot be invoked.
contract to work them harm. Equally
fundamental with the private right is
In the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the that of the public to regulate it in the FELICIANO, J., concurring
same are contracts, the instant case does not involve a common interest.
law or even an executive issuance declaring the
cancellation or modification of existing timber licenses. I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in
In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police the Court, Davide, Jr., J., in this case which, to my mind, is
Hence, the non-impairment clause cannot as yet be
power of the state. 31 one of the most important cases decided by this Court in
invoked. Nevertheless, granting further that a law has
actually been passed mandating cancellations or the last few years. The seminal principles laid down in this
modifications, the same cannot still be stigmatized as a Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how decision are likely to influence profoundly the direction and
violation of the non-impairment clause. This is because by the non-impairment clause could apply with respect to the course of the protection and management of the
its very nature and purpose, such as law could have only prayer to enjoin the respondent Secretary from receiving, environment, which of course embraces the utilization
been passed in the exercise of the police power of the accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber of all the natural resources in the territorial base of our
state for the purpose of advancing the right of the people licenses for, save in cases of renewal, no contract would polity. I have therefore sought to clarify, basically to myself,
to a balanced and healthful ecology, promoting their health have as of yet existed in the other instances. Moreover, what the Court appears to be saying.
and enhancing the general welfare. In Abe vs. Foster with respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a
Wheeler matter of right. The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locus
Corp. 28 this Court stated: standi necessary to sustain the bringing and, maintenance
of this suit (Decision, pp. 11-12). Locus standi is not a cyanide and other chemicals; contamination of ground Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly,
function of petitioners' claim that their suit is properly water resources; loss of certain species of fauna and flora; neither petitioners nor the Court has identified the
regarded as a class suit. I understand locus standi to refer and so on. The other statements pointed out by the Court: particular provision or provisions (if any) of the Philippine
to the legal interest which a plaintiff must have in the Section 3, Executive Order No. 192 dated 10 June 1987; Environment Code which give rise to a specific legal right
subject matter of the suit. Because of the very broadness Section 1, Title XIV, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative which petitioners are seeking to enforce. Secondly, the
of the concept of "class" here involved — membership in Code; and P.D. No. 1151, dated 6 June 1977 — all appear Philippine Environment Code identifies with notable care
this "class" appears to embrace everyone living in the to be formulations of policy, as general and abstract as the the particular government agency charged with the
country whether now or in the constitutional statements of basic policy in Article II, formulation and implementation of guidelines and
future — it appears to me that everyone who may be Section 16 ("the right — to a balanced and healthful programs dealing with each of the headings and sub-
expected to benefit from the course of action petitioners ecology") and 15 ("the right to health"). headings mentioned above. The Philippine Environment
seek to require public respondents to take, is vested with Code does not, in other words, appear to contemplate
the necessary locus standi. The Court may be seen action on the part of private persons who are beneficiaries
P.D. No. 1152, also dated 6 June 1977, entitled "The
therefore to be recognizing a beneficiaries' right of of implementation of that Code.
Philippine Environment Code," is, upon the other hand, a
action in the field of environmental protection, as against
compendious collection of more "specific environment
both the public administrative agency directly concerned
management policies" and "environment quality standards" As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners' cause of action
and the private persons or entities operating in the field or
(fourth "Whereas" clause, Preamble) relating to an as anchored on a legal right comprised in the constitutional
sector of activity involved. Whether such beneficiaries'
extremely wide range of topics: statements above noted, the Court is in effect saying that
right of action may be found under any and all
Section 15 (and Section 16) of Article II of the Constitution
circumstances, or whether some failure to act, in the first
are self-executing and judicially enforceable even in their
instance, on the part of the governmental agency (a) air quality management;
present form. The implications of this doctrine will have to
concerned must be shown ("prior exhaustion of
be explored in future cases; those implications are too
administrative remedies"), is not discussed in the decision
(b) water quality management; large and far-reaching in nature even to be hinted at here.
and presumably is left for future determination in an
appropriate case.
(c) land use management; My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the
trial court, show a more specific legal right — a right cast in
The Court has also declared that the complaint has
language of a significantly lower order of generality than
alleged and focused upon "one specific fundamental legal (d) natural resources management Article II (15) of the Constitution — that is or may be
right — the right to a balanced and healthful ecology" and conservation embracing: violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the
(Decision, p. 14). There is no question that "the right to a
public respondent by petitioners so that the trial court can
balanced and healthful ecology" is "fundamental" and that,
(i) fisheries and aquatic resources; validly render judgment granting all or part of the relief
accordingly, it has been "constitutionalized." But although it
prayed for. To my mind, the Court should be understood
is fundamental in character, I suggest, with very great
as simply saying that such a more specific legal right or
respect, that it cannot be characterized as "specific," (ii) wild life; rights may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the
without doing excessive violence to language. It is in fact
general policy principles found in the Constitution and the
very difficult to fashion language more comprehensive in
(iii) forestry and soil conservation; existence of the Philippine Environment Code, and that the
scope and generalized in character than a right to "a
trial court should have given petitioners an effective
balanced and healthful ecology." The list of particular
opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of aborting the
claims which can be subsumed under this rubic appears to (iv) flood control and natural proceedings on a motion to dismiss.
be entirely open-ended: prevention and control of emission calamities;
of toxic fumes and smoke from factories and motor
vehicles; of discharge of oil, chemical effluents, garbage It seems to me important that the legal right which is an
and raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters by (v) energy development; essential component of a cause of action be a specific,
vessels, oil rigs, factories, mines and whole communities; operable legal right, rather than a constitutional or
of dumping of organic and inorganic wastes on open land, (vi) conservation and utilization of statutory policy, for at least two (2) reasons. One is that
streets and thoroughfares; failure to rehabilitate land after surface and ground water unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or
strip-mining or open-pit mining; kaingin or slash-and-burn disregarded is given specification in operational terms,
farming; destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other defendants may well be unable to defend themselves
living sea resources through the use of dynamite or (vii) mineral resources
intelligently and effectively; in other words, there are due cancel, must be impleaded in the proceedings below. It regarded as a class suit. I understand locus standi to refer
process dimensions to this matter. might be asked that, if petitioners' entitlement to the relief to the legal interest which a plaintiff must have in the
demanded is not dependent upon proof of breach by the subject matter of the suit. Because of the very broadness
timber companies of one or more of the specific terms and of the concept of "class" here involved — membership in
The second is a broader-gauge consideration — where a
conditions of their concession agreements (and this, this "class" appears to embrace everyone living in the
specific violation of law or applicable regulation is not
petitioners implicitly assume), what will those companies country whether now or in the
alleged or proved, petitioners can be expected to fall back
litigate about? The answer I suggest is that they may seek future — it appears to me that everyone who may be
on the expanded conception of judicial power in the
to dispute the existence of the specific legal right expected to benefit from the course of action petitioners
second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the
petitioners should allege, as well as the reality of the seek to require public respondents to take, is vested with
Constitution which reads:
claimed factual nexus between petitioners' specific legal the necessary locus standi. The Court may be seen
rights and the claimed wrongful acts or failures to act of therefore to be recognizing a beneficiaries' right of
Section 1. . . . public respondent administrative agency. They may also action in the field of environmental protection, as against
controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or remedies both the public administrative agency directly concerned
demanded by petitioners, under all the circumstances and the private persons or entities operating in the field or
Judicial power includes the duty of the which exist. sector of activity involved. Whether such beneficiaries'
courts of justice to settle actual right of action may be found under any and all
controversies involving rights which
circumstances, or whether some failure to act, in the first
are legally demandable and I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the
instance, on the part of the governmental agency
enforceable, and to determine whether protection of the environment, including the forest cover of
concerned must be shown ("prior exhaustion of
or not there has been agrave abuse of our territory, is of extreme importance for the country. The
administrative remedies"), is not discussed in the decision
discretion amounting to lack or excess doctrines set out in the Court's decision issued today
and presumably is left for future determination in an
of jurisdiction on the part of any should, however, be subjected to closer examination.
appropriate case.
branch or instrumentality of the
Government. (Emphasis supplied)
The Court has also declared that the complaint has
alleged and focused upon "one specific fundamental legal
When substantive standards as general as "the
right — the right to a balanced and healthful ecology"
right to a balanced and healthy ecology" and (Decision, p. 14). There is no question that "the right to a
"the right to health" are combined with remedial balanced and healthful ecology" is "fundamental" and that,
standards as broad ranging as "a grave abuse of # Separate Opinions accordingly, it has been "constitutionalized." But although it
discretion amounting to lack or excess of is fundamental in character, I suggest, with very great
jurisdiction," the result will be, it is respectfully respect, that it cannot be characterized as "specific,"
FELICIANO, J., concurring
submitted, to propel courts into the uncharted without doing excessive violence to language. It is in fact
ocean of social and economic policy making. At very difficult to fashion language more comprehensive in
least in respect of the vast area of environmental I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in scope and generalized in character than a right to "a
protection and management, our courts have no the Court, Davide, Jr., J., in this case which, to my mind, is balanced and healthful ecology." The list of particular
claim to special technical competence and one of the most important cases decided by this Court in claims which can be subsumed under this rubic appears to
experience and professional qualification. Where the last few years. The seminal principles laid down in this be entirely open-ended: prevention and control of emission
no specific, operable norms and standards are decision are likely to influence profoundly the direction and of toxic fumes and smoke from factories and motor
shown to exist, then the policy making course of the protection and management of the vehicles; of discharge of oil, chemical effluents, garbage
departments — the legislative and executive environment, which of course embraces the utilization and raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters by
departments — must be given a real and of all the natural resources in the territorial base of our vessels, oil rigs, factories, mines and whole communities;
effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate polity. I have therefore sought to clarify, basically to myself, of dumping of organic and inorganic wastes on open land,
those norms and standards, and to implement what the Court appears to be saying. streets and thoroughfares; failure to rehabilitate land after
them before the courts should intervene. strip-mining or open-pit mining; kaingin or slash-and-burn
The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locus farming; destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other
My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the standi necessary to sustain the bringing and, maintenance living sea resources through the use of dynamite or
timber companies, whose concession agreements or of this suit (Decision, pp. 11-12). Locus standi is not a cyanide and other chemicals; contamination of ground
TLA's petitioners demand public respondents should function of petitioners' claim that their suit is properly water resources; loss of certain species of fauna and flora;
and so on. The other statements pointed out by the Court: Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly, intelligently and effectively; in other words, there are due
Section 3, Executive Order No. 192 dated 10 June 1987; neither petitioners nor the Court has identified the process dimensions to this matter.
Section 1, Title XIV, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative particular provision or provisions (if any) of the Philippine
Code; and P.D. No. 1151, dated 6 June 1977 — all appear Environment Code which give rise to a specific legal right
The second is a broader-gauge consideration — where a
to be formulations of policy, as general and abstract as the which petitioners are seeking to enforce. Secondly, the
specific violation of law or applicable regulation is not
constitutional statements of basic policy in Article II, Philippine Environment Code identifies with notable care
alleged or proved, petitioners can be expected to fall back
Section 16 ("the right — to a balanced and healthful the particular government agency charged with the
on the expanded conception of judicial power in the
ecology") and 15 ("the right to health"). formulation and implementation of guidelines and
second paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the
programs dealing with each of the headings and sub-
Constitution which reads:
headings mentioned above. The Philippine Environment
P.D. No. 1152, also dated 6 June 1977, entitled "The
Code does not, in other words, appear to contemplate
Philippine Environment Code," is, upon the other hand, a
action on the part of private persons who are beneficiaries Section 1. . . .
compendious collection of more "specific environment
of implementation of that Code.
management policies" and "environment quality standards"
(fourth "Whereas" clause, Preamble) relating to an Judicial power includes the duty of the
extremely wide range of topics: As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners' cause of action courts of justice to settle actual
as anchored on a legal right comprised in the constitutional controversies involving rights which
statements above noted, the Court is in effect saying that are legally demandable and
(a) air quality management;
Section 15 (and Section 16) of Article II of the Constitution enforceable, and to determine whether
are self-executing and judicially enforceable even in their or not there has been agrave abuse of
(b) water quality management; present form. The implications of this doctrine will have to discretion amounting to lack or excess
be explored in future cases; those implications are too of jurisdiction on the part of any
large and far-reaching in nature even to be hinted at here. branch or instrumentality of the
(c) land use management;
Government. (Emphasis supplied)
My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the
(d) natural resources management trial court, show a more specific legal right — a right cast in When substantive standards as general as "the
and conservation embracing:
language of a significantly lower order of generality than right to a balanced and healthy ecology" and
Article II (15) of the Constitution — that is or may be "the right to health" are combined with remedial
(i) fisheries and aquatic resources; violated by the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the standards as broad ranging as "a grave abuse of
public respondent by petitioners so that the trial court can discretion amounting to lack or excess of
validly render judgment granting all or part of the relief jurisdiction," the result will be, it is respectfully
(ii) wild life; prayed for. To my mind, the Court should be understood submitted, to propel courts into the uncharted
as simply saying that such a more specific legal right or ocean of social and economic policy making. At
(iii) forestry and soil conservation; rights may well exist in our corpus of law, considering the least in respect of the vast area of environmental
general policy principles found in the Constitution and the protection and management, our courts have no
existence of the Philippine Environment Code, and that the claim to special technical competence and
(iv) flood control and natural trial court should have given petitioners an effective experience and professional qualification. Where
calamities; opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of aborting the no specific, operable norms and standards are
proceedings on a motion to dismiss. shown to exist, then the policy making
(v) energy development; departments — the legislative and executive
departments — must be given a real and
It seems to me important that the legal right which is an
effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate
(vi) conservation and utilization of essential component of a cause of action be a specific,
those norms and standards, and to implement
surface and ground water operable legal right, rather than a constitutional or
them before the courts should intervene.
statutory policy, for at least two (2) reasons. One is that
unless the legal right claimed to have been violated or
(vii) mineral resources disregarded is given specification in operational terms, My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the
defendants may well be unable to defend themselves timber companies, whose concession agreements or
TLA's petitioners demand public respondents should
cancel, must be impleaded in the proceedings below. It Before this Court is a Petition for Review[1] under Ronnie C. Hernandez and wife = Block 3, Lot 5
might be asked that, if petitioners' entitlement to the relief Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the May 9, 2001
demanded is not dependent upon proof of breach by the Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No.
“All the [petitioners] are members of
timber companies of one or more of the specific terms and 58329. The decretalportion of the Decision reads as
the Bagong Silang Phase III-C Homeowners’ Association,
conditions of their concession agreements (and this, follows:
Inc., with office address at Cutud, Angeles City. The
petitioners implicitly assume), what will those companies
[respondents] allowed the [petitioners] and other members
litigate about? The answer I suggest is that they may seek
“WHEREFORE, the judgment dated March 29, 2000 of of the said homeowners’ association to continue occupying
to dispute the existence of the specific legal right
Branch 56 of the RTC of Angeles City is the subject lots and ultimately to acquire ownership of the
petitioners should allege, as well as the reality of the
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new judgment lots occupied, in consideration of a certain amount to be
claimed factual nexus between petitioners' specific legal
entered in favor of the petitioners, ordering the paid to the [respondents] as equity.
rights and the claimed wrongful acts or failures to act of
respondents and all persons claiming rights under them to
public respondent administrative agency. They may also
vacate from the subject lots and to remove their houses
controvert the appropriateness of the remedy or remedies “The [respondents] further alleged that the other members
and/or any other structures or constructions thereon.”[3]
demanded by petitioners, under all the circumstances of the said homeowners’ association paid to the
which exist. [respondents] their respective equity for their right to
The overturned Decision of the Regional Trial Court continue occupying and ultimately acquiring ownership of
(RTC) of Angeles City, Branch 56,[4] affirmed in toto the the occupied lots. However, notwithstanding repeated
I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Angeles City, Branch II.[5] demands made upon the [petitioners], they have refused
protection of the environment, including the forest cover of
and failed without any justifiable ground to pay their
our territory, is of extreme importance for the country. The
respective equity. In view of such failure to pay, the
doctrines set out in the Court's decision issued today
[petitioners] have forfeited their right to continue occupying
should, however, be subjected to closer examination.
The Facts the lots in question. Formal demand letters were then sent
by registered mail to the [petitioners], wherein they were
given a period of thirty (30) days from receipt within which
to vacate and remove their houses from the subject lots.
GEORGE T. VILLENA, CARLOS N. VILLENA, AURORA The facts of the case are summarized by the CA in
The period given to the [petitioners] lapsed on April 11,
M. BONDOC and RONNIE C. FERNANDEZ, this wise:
1998, but up to the present time, the [petitioners] refused
and their Respective Spouses, petitioners, vs. and failed without any justifiable reason or ground to
Spouses ANTONIO C. CHAVEZ and NOEMI “In a Complaint for Illegal Detainer with Damages filed on vacate and remove their houses from the said lots.
MARCOS-CHAVEZ and CARLITA C. October 15, 1998, the [respondents] alleged that they are
CHAVEZ, respondents. the owners of four (4) parcels of land designated as Lot
“The [respondents] then prayed in their Complaint that the
Nos. 164, 165, 166, and 167 of the Cadastral Survey of
[petitioners] be ordered to vacate and remove their houses
DECISION Angeles City, and covered, respectively, by Transfer
from the lots currently occupied; that each of the
Certificates of Title Nos. 83247, 83246, 83248 and 83249,
[petitioners] be ordered to pay the [respondents]
PANGANIBAN, J.: all issued by the Register of Deeds of Angeles City. These
P1,000.00 a month as reasonable rental for the use and
four (4) parcels of land have been consolidated and
occupation of the lots starting from April 11, 1998 until they
subdivided into several blocks and lots, and are now
Stare decisis simply means that a judgment reached have finally vacated and removed their houses from said
collectively designated as Bagong Silang Phase III-C. By
in one case should be applied to successive ones in which lots; and that the [petitioners] jointly and severally pay the
mere permission and tolerance of the [respondents], the
the facts are substantially identical, even though the [respondents] P25,000.00 as actual and compensatory
[petitioners] have occupied and erected their homes on
parties may be different. Like cases ought to be decided damages, P2,000.00 as appearance fee per hearing,
four (4) of the said lots, as follows:
alike. exemplary damages, and the costs of the suit.
This petition for review on certiorari[1] seeks the 4. A parcel of land located at Pulpugan,
reversal of the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated 31 Consolacion, Cebu under tax dec. No. 24954; 18. A parcel of land located at Tipolo, Mandaue City
January 2000 as well as its Resolution dated 25 April 2000 covered by tax dec. No. 01047;
19. A parcel of land located at Banilad, Mandaue 1731 over an area of 6,000 sq. meters for an annual rental family asking for settlement but no settlement was reached
City covered by tax dec. No. 02381; of P9,500.00 for a period of 2 years from June 1, 1982; by the parties.
20. A parcel of land located at Tipolo, Mandaue City f) Visayan Timber and Machinery Corp. – over a Further, plaintiff’s witness, Natividad Retuya, testified that
covered by tax dec. No. 01049; parcel of land at Nawanaw, Mandaue City, for a period of 2 the parcel of land covered by tax declaration marked
years from June 1, 1987 and renewable for another 12 Exhibit “T” was the property bought by her father from
years at an annual income of P4,000.00; Adriano Marababol for at the time of purchase of the
21. A parcel of land located at Tipolo, Mandaue City
property, defendant Pacita Villanueva had no means of
covered by tax dec. No. 01045;
livelihood (TSN, p. 6).
g) House lessees listed in Exhibit “13” with total
monthly rentals of P1,975.00 a month for the 24 lessees
22. A parcel of land located at Tipolo, Mandaue City
or P24,700.00 annually. (Exhs. “7” to “13”) The trial court rendered its Decision on 16 February
covered by tax dec. No. 01450 (in the name of Pacita
1994 in favor of Eusebia. The dispositive portion of the
Villanueva).’
Decision states:
In 1945, defendant Nicolas Retuya no longer lived with his
legitimate family and cohabited with defendant, Pacita
Also, defendant, Nicolas Retuya, is co-owner of a parcel of
Villanueva, wherein defendant, Procopio Villanueva, is WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations,
land situated in Mandaue City which he inherited from his
their illegitimate son. Nicolas, then, was the only person judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff Eusebia
parents Esteban Retuya and Balbina Solon as well as the
who received the income of the above-mentioned Napisa Retuya and against defendants Procopio
purchasers of hereditary shares of approximately eight (8)
properties. Villanueva, Nicolas Retuya and Pacita Villanueva:
parcels of land in Mandaue City.
Defendant, Pacita Villanueva, from the time she started 1. Declaring the properties listed in paragraph 2 of the
Some of these properties above-mentioned earn income
living in concubinage with Nicolas, has no occupation, she amended complaint as conjugal properties of the spouses
from coconuts and the other lands/houses are leased to
had no properties of her own from which she could derive plaintiff Eusebia Retuya and the defendant Nicolas
the following:
income. Retuya;
We agree with the Court of Appeals’ observation that Petitioners argue that in past instances we have The only issue proper for resolution is the question
while petitioners did raise the issue of prescription and reviewed matters raised for the first time during appeal. of whether the subject properties are conjugal. Petitioners
laches in their Answer,[5] they failed to have the same True, but we have done so only by way of exception claim that the subject properties[16] are exclusive properties
included in the pre-trial order for consideration during the involving clearly meritorious situations.[11] This case does of Nicolas except for Lot No. 152, which they claim is
trial. Now, petitioners wish to raise the issue on appeal by not fall under any of those exceptions. The fact that the Pacita’s exclusive property. This issue is easily
relying on Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, which case proceeded to trial, with the petitioners actively resolved. The Family Code provisions on conjugal
provides: participating without raising the necessary objection, all the partnerships govern the property relations between
more requires that they be bound by the stipulations they Nicolas and Eusebia even if they were married before the
made at the pre-trial.[12] Petitioners were well aware that effectivity of Family Code.[17] Article 105[18] of the Family
Section 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. – Code explicitly mandates that the Family Code shall apply
they raised the defense of prescription and laches since
Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to to conjugal partnerships established before the Family
they included it in their answer. However, for reasons of
dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, Code without prejudice to vested rights already acquired
their own, they did not include this defense in the pre-trial.
when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on under the Civil Code or other laws. Thus, under the Family
record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject Able counsels represented both parties. We see no Code, if the properties are acquired during the marriage,
matter, that there is another action pending between the claim that either counsel erred or was negligent. This could the presumption is that they are conjugal.[19] The burden of
same parties for the same cause, or that the action is only mean that petitioners’ counsel chose to waive, or did proof is on the party claiming that they are not
barred by a prior judgment or by statute of limitations, the not consider important, the defense of prescription and conjugal.[20] This is counter-balanced by the requirement
court shall dismiss the claim. laches. Petitioners are bound by their counsel’s that the properties must first be proven to have been
acquired during the marriage before they are presumed
conjugal.[21] Petitioners argue that Eusebia failed to prove Court of Cebu, Branch IV, in Civil Case No. R- this does not prove that Pacita bought Lot No. 152 with her
this pre-requisite. We disagree. 9602[27] involving the acquisition of Lot No. 152. own money. To rebut the presumption that Lot No. 152 is
conjugal, petitioners must prove that Pacita used her own
The question of whether the subject properties were The decision in Civil Case No. R-9602 stated that money to pay for Lot No. 152. Petitioners failed to prove
acquired during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia is a Tranquiliana Marababol Remulta testified that the one who this.
factual issue. Both the trial and appellate courts agreed offered to buy the lot from her was none other than Nicolas
that the subject properties were in fact acquired during the Retuya.[28]Tranquiliana narrated that at first she refused to Petitioners further argue that since Nicolas and
marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia.[22] The tax sign the deed of sale because the buyer placed in the Pacita were already cohabiting when Lot No. 152 was
declarations[23] covering the subject properties, along with deed was Pacita and not Nicolas, her understanding being acquired, the lot cannot be deemed conjugal property of
the unrebutted testimony of Eusebia’s witnesses, establish that the buyer was Nicolas. We find that the trial court in Nicolas and Eusebia. Petitioners keep belaboring this point
this fact. We give due deference to factual findings of trial the present case correctly took into consideration the in their petition and memorandum.
courts,[24] especially when affirmed by the appellate decision in Civil Case No. R-9602.[29] Considering that the
court. A reversal of this finding can only occur if petitioners decision in Civil Case No. R-9602 has become final and Petitioners’ argument is flawed.
show sufficient reason for us to doubt its executory, its findings of fact involving the sale of Lot No.
The cohabitation of a spouse with another person,
correctness. Petitioners in the present case have not. 152 to Nicolas and Pacita are conclusive and binding on
petitioners who introduced in evidence the decision. even for a long period, does not sever the tie of a
Moreover, on whether Lot No. 152 is conjugal or subsisting previous marriage.[33] Otherwise, the law would
not, the answer came from petitioners themselves. Petitioners also point out that all the other tax be giving a stamp of approval to an act that is both illegal
Nicolas and Eusebia were married on 7 October 1926. declarations presented before the trial court are in the and immoral. What petitioners fail to grasp is that Nicolas
Nicolas and Pacita started cohabiting in 1936. Eusebia name of Nicolas alone. Petitioners argue that this serves and Pacita’s cohabitation cannot work to the detriment of
died on 23 November 1996. Pacita and Nicolas were as proof of Nicolas’ exclusive ownership of these Eusebia, the legal spouse. The marriage of Nicolas and
married on 16 December 1996. Petitioners themselves properties. Petitioners are mistaken. The tax declarations Eusebia continued to exist regardless of the fact that
admit that Lot No. 152 was purchased on 4 October are not sufficient proof to overcome the presumption under Nicolas was already living with Pacita. Hence, all property
1957.[25] The date of acquisition of Lot No. 152 is clearly Article 116 of the Family Code. All property acquired by the acquired from 7 October 1926, the date of Nicolas and
during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia. spouses during the marriage, regardless in whose name Eusebia’s marriage, until 23 November 1996, the date of
the property is registered, is presumed conjugal unless Eusebia’s death, are still presumed conjugal. Petitioners
Since the subject properties, including Lot No. 152, proved otherwise.[30] The presumption is not rebutted by have neither claimed nor proved that any of the subject
were acquired during the marriage of Nicolas and Eusebia, the mere fact that the certificate of title of the property or properties was acquired outside or beyond this period.
the presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code is the tax declaration is in the name of one of the spouses
that all these are conjugal properties of Nicolas and only.[31] Article 116 of the Family Code expressly provides Finally, petitioners’ reliance on Article 148 of the
Eusebia. The burden is on petitioners to prove that the that the presumption remains even if the property is Family Code[34] is misplaced. A reading of Article 148
subject properties are not conjugal. The presumption in “registered in the name of one or both of the spouses.” readily shows that there must be proof of “actual joint
Article 116, which subsists “unless the contrary is proved,” contribution” by both the live-in partners before the
stands as an obstacle to any claim the petitioners may In some of the documents that petitioners presented, property becomes co-owned by them in proportion to their
have. The burden of proving that a property is exclusive Nicolas misrepresented his civil status by claiming that he contribution. The presumption of equality of contribution
property of a spouse rests on the party asserting it and the was single. Petitioners point to this as proof of Nicolas’ arises only in the absence of proof of their proportionate
evidence required must be clear and desire to exclude Eusebia from the properties covered by contributions, subject to the condition that actual joint
convincing.[26] Petitioners failed to meet this standard. the documents.[32] Petitioners further claim that this contribution is proven first. Simply put, proof of actual
supports their stand that the subject properties are not contribution by both parties is required, otherwise there is
Petitioners point out that the deed of sale, the conjugal. This argument is baseless. Whether a property is no co-ownership and no presumption of equal
transfer certificate of title and the tax declaration of Lot No. conjugal or not is determined by law and not by the will of sharing. Petitioners failed to show proof of actual
152 are all in the name of Pacita. Petitioners maintain that one of the spouses. No unilateral declaration by one contribution by Pacita in the acquisition of Lot No. 152. In
this can only mean that Pacita is the real owner of Lot No. spouse can change the character of conjugal property. short, petitioners failed to prove that Pacita bought Lot No.
152. We disagree. The totality of the evidence reveals The clear intent of Nicolas in placing his status as single is 152 with her own money, or that she actually contributed
that this was merely just one of the several schemes to exclude Eusebia from her lawful share in the conjugal her own money to acquire it.
Nicolas employed to deprive Eusebia of their conjugal property. The law does not allow this.
property. Ironically, petitioners themselves submitted WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The
in evidence a decision rendered by the Regional Trial Petitioners point out that Pacita had the means to Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 31 January 2000 in
buy Lot No. 152. Even if Pacita had the financial capacity, CA-G.R. CV No. 46716 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. Office, docketed as I.S. No. 92-5433A. Petitioner filed her 1990 alone. Records in the Nuclear Medicine Section will
counter-affidavit to the complaint. show that from January 1989 to January 1991, a total of
2,308 patients were seen. Of these, I had officially
supervised, processed, and interpreted approximately a
RHODORA M. LEDESMA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF Finding ‘sufficient legal and factual basis,’ the Quezon City
total of 1,551 cases as against approximately 684 and 73
APPEALS and HON. MAXIMIANO C. Prosecutor’s Office filed on July 6, 1992 an Information for
cases done by Dr. Monzon and Dr. Torres respectively.
ASUNCION, in his capacity as Presiding Judge libel against petitioner with the Regional Trial Court of
of RTC, Quezon City, respondents. Quezon City, Branch 104.[3] The Information filed by
Assistant City Prosecutor Augustine A. Vestil reads: [4] Until my resignation I had received a monthly share of
professional fees averaging P1,116.90/month supposedly
DECISION representing 20% of the total monthly professional
“That on or about the 27th day of June 1991, in Quezon
PANGANIBAN, J.: fees. The rest were divided equally between Dr. Monzon
City, Metro Manila, Philippines, the said accused, acting
and Dr. Torres. There was never any agreement between
with malice, did, then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
us three consultants that this should be the arrangement
When confronted with a motion to withdraw an feloniously send a letter addressed to Dr. Esperanza I.
and I am certain that this was not with your approval. The
information on the ground of lack of probable cause based Cabral, Director of Philippine Heart Center, East Avenue,
burden of unfairness would have been lesser if there was
this city, and furnished the same to other officers of the
on a resolution of the secretary of justice, the bounden an equal distribution of labor and the schedule of duties
duty of the trial court is to make an independent said hospital, said letter containing slanderous and
were strictly followed. As it was, the schedule of duties
assessment of the merits of such motion. Having acquired defamatory remarks against DR. JUAN F. TORRES, JR.,
submitted monthly to the office of the Asst. Director for
which states in part, to wit:
jurisdiction over the case, the trial court is not bound by Medical Services was simply a dummy to comply with
such resolution but is required to evaluate it before administrative requirements rather than a guideline for
proceeding further with the trial. While the secretary’s ‘27June 1991 strict compliance. Both consultants have complete daily
ruling is persuasive, it is not binding on courts. A trial time records even if they did not come regularly. Dr.
court, however, commits reversible error or even grave Torres came for an hour every week, Dr. Monzon came
abuse of discretion if it refuses/neglects to evaluate such Dr. Esperanza I. Cabral sporadically during the week while I was left with
recommendation and simply insists on proceeding with the everything from training the residents and supervising the
trial on the mere pretext of having already acquired Director Techs to processing and interpreting the results on a
jurisdiction over the criminal action. regular basis. I had a part time appointment just like Dr.
Monzon and Dr. Torres.
This principle is explained in this Decision resolving Subject: Return of all professional fees due Dr.
a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[1] of the Rhodora M. Ledesma, Nuclear Medicine
Court of Appeals,[2] promulgated on September 14, 1993 in Specialist/Consultant, Philippine Heart Center, from In the interest of fairness and to set a precedent for the
CA-G.R. SP No. 30832 which in effect affirmed an order of January 31, 1989 to January 31, 1991. protection of future PHC Nuclear Medicine Alumni I am
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City denying the calling your attention to the unfair and inhuman conditions
prosecution’s withdrawal of a criminal information against I went through as a Consultant in that Section. I trust that
Respondents: Dr. Juan F. Torres, Jr., Chief, Nuclear your sense of professionalism will put a stop to this
petitioner. Medicine Section corruption.
On January 8, 1993, the trial court issued an Order Moreover, it is unbelievable that it took complainants one
setting aside its earlier Order of September 9, 1992 and year to realize that the questioned letter subjected them to “Finding no cogent reason to justify the reconsideration of
scheduling petitioner’s arraignment on January 18, 1993 at public and malicious imputation of a vice or omission. It is the ruling of this Court dated February 22, 1993, the
two o’clock in the afternoon.[9] beyond the ordinary course of human conduct for Motion for Reconsideration dated March 1, 1993 filed by
complainants to start feeling the effects of the alleged the accused through counsel is hereby denied.”
In a resolution dated January 27, 1993, then Justice libelous letter - that of experiencing sleepless nights,
Secretary Franklin M. Drilon reversed the Quezon City wounded feelings, serious anxiety, moral shock and
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and
investigating prosecutor. Pertinent portions of Drilon’s besmirched reputation - one year after they read the
prohibition with the Supreme Court. In a Resolution dated
ruling read:[10] communication in question.
March 31, 1993, this Court referred the case to the Court
of Appeals for proper determination and disposition
pursuant to Section 9, paragraph 1 of B.P. 129.[15]
Respondent Court dismissed the petition “for lack of 7. Its application may constitute or lead to denial of In sum, the main issue in this petition is: Did
merit,” holding that it had no jurisdiction to overturn the equal protection of laws; Respondent Court commit any reversible error in affirming
doctrine laid down in Crespo vs. Mogul -- once a the trial court’s denial of the prosecution’s Motion to
complaint or information has been filed in court, any Withdraw Information?
8. It deprives the secretary of justice or the
disposition of the case, i.e., dismissal, conviction or
president of the power to control or review the acts of a
acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound discretion of
subordinate official;
the trial court.[16]
The Court’s Ruling
Hence, this recourse to this Court. 9. It will lead to, encourage, abet or promote abuse
or even corruption among the ranks of investigating fiscals;
The petition is impressed with merit. We answer the
The Issues 10. It does not subserve the purposes of a above question in the affirmative.
preliminary investigation because -
For unexplained reasons, petitioner failed to make (10.a) It subjects a person to the burdens of an
Preliminary Matter
an assignment of errors against the appellate court. Her unnecessary trial, specially in cases where the
counsel merely repeated the alleged errors of the trial investigating fiscal recommends no bail for the accused;
court: [17]
Before discussing the substance of this case, the
(10.b) It subjects the government, both the Court will preliminarily address a procedural matter. Prior
“I. The Orders, dated February 22, 1993 and March 5, executive and the judiciary, to unnecessary time and to the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on
1993, of respondent Judge Asuncion relied solely on the expenses attendant to an unnecessary trial; July 1, 1997, Section 2 of Rule 45, which governed
‘Crespo vs. Mogul’ (151 SCRA 462) decision. It is appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court,
respectfully submitted that said case is not applicable (10.c) It contributes to the clogging of judicial provided:
because: dockets; and
“SEC. 2. Contents of petition.—The petition shall
1. It infringes on the constitutional separation of 11. It has no statutory or procedural basis or contain a concise statement of x x x the assignment of
powers between the executive and judicial branches of the precedent. errors made in the court below x x x.”
government;
II. On the assumption that ‘Crespo vs. Mogul’ is A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
2. It constitutes or it may lead to misuse or applicable, it is submitted that - requires a concise statement of the errors committed by
misapplication of ‘judicial power’ as defined in the the Court of Appeals, not of the trial court. For failure to
Constitution; follow this Rule, the petition could have been dismissed by
1. Respondent Judge Asuncion committed grave this Court motu proprio, considering that under Section 4
abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, when of the same Rule, “review is not a matter of right but of
3. It goes against the constitutional proscription that he denied the Motion to Withdraw Information since he
rules of procedure should not diminish substantive rights; sound discretion.”
had already deferred to, if not recognized, the authority of
the Secretary of Justice; and We take this occasion to stress the need for
4. It goes against the principle of non-delegation of precision and clarity in the assignment of errors. Review
powers; under this rule is unlike an appeal in a criminal case where
2. The facts in ‘Crespo vs. Mogul’ are different from
the instant case. Hence, respondent Judge Asuncion the death penalty, reclusión perpetua or life imprisonment
committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of is imposed and where the whole case is opened for
5. It sets aside or disregards substantive and review. Under Rule 45, only the issues raised therein by
procedural rules; jurisdiction, when he relied solely on said case in denying
the Motion to Withdraw Information.” the petitioner will be passed upon by the Court, such that
an erroneous specification of the issues may cause the
6. It deprives a person of his constitutional right to dismissal of the petition. We stressed this in Circular No.
procedural due process;
2-90, entitled “Guidelines to be Observed in Appeals to the Such investigation is not a part of the trial. A full and prosecutor in the “established scheme of things,” and that
Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court,” as follows: exhaustive presentation of the parties’ evidence is not the proceedings therein are “essentially preliminary,
required, but only such as may engender a well-grounded prefatory and cannot lead to a final, definite and
belief that an offense has been committed and that the authoritative judgment of the guilt or innocence of the
“4. Erroneous Appeals. x x x x
accused is probably guilty thereof.[19] By reason of the persons charged with a felony or a crime.”[21]
abbreviated nature of preliminary investigations, a
e) Duty of counsel.—It is therefore incumbent upon dismissal of the charges as a result thereof is not In Crespo vs. Mogul,[22] the Court emphasized the
every attorney who would seek review of a judgment or equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of cardinal principle that the public prosecutor controls and
order promulgated against his client to make sure of the acquittal. Hence, no double jeopardy attaches. directs the prosecution of criminal offenses thus:
nature of the errors he proposes to assign, whether these
be of fact or of law; then upon such basis to ascertain In declaring this function to be lodged in the
“It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either
carefully which Court has appellate jurisdiction; and finally, prosecutor, the Court distinguished the determination of
commenced by complaint or by information shall be
to follow scrupulously the requisites for appeal prescribed probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest or a
prosecuted under the direction and control of the
by law, ever aware that any error or imprecision in search warrant from a preliminary investigation proper in
fiscal. The institution of a criminal action depends upon
compliance may well be fatal to his client’s cause. this wise:[20]
the sound discretion of the fiscal. He may or may not file
the complaint or information, follow or not follow that
FOR STRICT COMPLIANCE.” “xxx Judges and prosecutors alike should distinguish the presented by the offended party, according to whether the
preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for evidence in his opinion, is sufficient or not to establish the
the issuance of a warrant of arrest from a preliminary guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The reason
Be that as it may, the Court — noting the importance investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender for placing the criminal prosecution under the direction and
of the substantial matters raised — decided to overlook should be held for trial or released. xxx The determination control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded
petitioner’s lapse and granted due course to the petition of probable cause for the warrant of arrest is made by the prosecution by private persons. It cannot be controlled by
per Resolution dated July 15, 1996, with a warning that Judge. The preliminary investigation proper--whether xxx the complainant. Prosecuting officers under the power
henceforth petitions which fail to specify an assignment of there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is vested in them by law, not only have the authority but also
errors of the proper lower court may be denied due guilty of the offense charged and, therefore, whether xxx the duty of prosecuting persons who, according to the
course motu proprio by this Court. he should be subjected to the expense, rigors and evidence received from the complainant, are shown to be
embarrassment of trial--is the function of the prosecutor. guilty of a crime committed within the jurisdiction of their
office. They have equally the legal duty not to prosecute
when after an investigation they become convinced that
Determination of Probable Cause Is an Executive Function We reiterate that preliminary investigation should be
the evidence adduced is not sufficient to establish a prima
distinguished as to whether it is an investigation for the
facie case.”
determination of a sufficient ground for the filing of the
information or it is an investigation for the determination of
The determination of probable cause during a a probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of In the same case, the Court added that where there
preliminary investigation is judicially recognized as an arrest. The first kind of preliminary investigation is is a clash of views between a judge who did not
executive function and is made by the prosecutor. The executive in nature. It is part of the prosecutor’s job. The investigate and a fiscal who conducted a reinvestigation,
primary objective of a preliminary investigation is to free a second kind of preliminary investigation which is more those of the prosecutor should normally prevail:[23]
respondent from the inconvenience, expense, ignominy properly called preliminary examination is judicial in nature
and stress of defending himself/herself in the course of a and is lodged with the judge.”
formal trial, until the reasonable probability of his or her “x x x x The Courts cannot interfere with the fiscal’s
guilt has been passed upon in a more or less summary discretion and control of the criminal prosecution. It is not
proceeding by a competent officer designated by law for Sound policy supports this distinction. Otherwise, prudent or even permissible for a Court to compel the
that purpose. Secondarily, such summary proceeding also judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary fiscal to prosecute a proceeding originally initiated by him
protects the state from the burden of unnecessary examination and investigation of criminal complaints on an information, if he finds that the evidence relied upon
expense and effort in prosecuting alleged offenses and in instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases by him is insufficient for conviction. Neither has the Court
holding trials arising from false, frivolous or groundless filed before their courts. The Separate Opinion of Mr. any power to order the fiscal to prosecute or file an
charges.[18] Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa in Roberts, Jr. vs. Court information within a certain period of time, since this would
of Appeals stressed that the determination of the existence interfere with the fiscal’s discretion and control of criminal
of probable cause properly pertains to the public prosecutions. Thus, a fiscal who asks for the dismissal of
the case for insufficiency of evidence has authority to do Prosecutors shall x x x perform such other duties as may In Marcelo vs. Court of Appeals,[25] the Court clarified
so, and Courts that grant the same commit no error. The be assigned to them by the Secretary of Justice in the that Crespo[26] did not foreclose the power or authority of
fiscal may re-investigate a case and subsequently move interest of public service.” the secretary of justice to review resolutions of his
for the dismissal should the re-investigation show either subordinates in criminal cases. The Court recognized
that the defendant is innocent or that his guilt may not be in Crespo that the action of the investigating fiscal or
xxx xxx
established beyond reasonable doubt. In a clash of views prosecutor in the preliminary investigation is subject to the
xxx
between the judge who did not investigate and the fiscal approval of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state
who did, or between the fiscal and the offended party or prosecutor. Thereafter, it may be appealed to the
the defendant, those of the fiscal’s should normally “Section 37. The provisions of the existing law to the secretary of justice.
prevail. x x x x.” contrary notwithstanding, whenever a specific power,
authority, duty, function, or activity is entrusted to a chief of The justice secretary’s power of review may still be
bureau, office, division or service, the same shall be availed of despite the filing of an information in court. In
understood as also conferred upon the proper Department his discretion, the secretary may affirm, modify or reverse
Appeal as an Exercise of the Justice Secretary’s Power of Head who shall have authority to act directly in pursuance resolutions of his subordinates pursuant to Republic Act
Control Over Prosecutors thereof, or to review, modify, or revoke any decision or No. 5180, as amended,[27] specifically in Section 1 (d):
action of said chief of bureau, office, division or service.”
“(d) x x x Provided, finally, That where the resolution of
Decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are subject “Supervision” and “control” of a department head the Provincial or City Fiscal or the Chief State Prosecutor
to appeal to the secretary of justice who, under the over his subordinates have been defined in administrative is, upon review, reversed by the Secretary of Justice, the
Revised Administrative Code, exercises the power of direct law as follows:[24] latter may, where he finds that no prima faciecase exists,
control and supervision over said prosecutors; and who authorize and direct the investigating fiscal concerned or
may thus affirm, nullify, reverse or modify their rulings. any other fiscal or state prosecutor to cause or move for
“In administrative law supervision means overseeing or the the dismissal of the case, or, where he finds a prima
Section 39, Chapter 8, Book IV in relation to Section power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate facie case, to cause the filing of an information in court
5, 8, and 9, Chapter 2, Title III of the Code gives the officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to against the respondent, based on the same sworn
secretary of justice supervision and control over the Office fulfill them, the former may take such action or step as statements or evidence submitted without the necessity of
of the Chief Prosecutor and the Provincial and City prescribed by law to make them perform such conducting another preliminary investigation.”
Prosecution Offices. The scope of his power of duties. Control, on the other hand, means the power of an
supervision and control is delineated in Section 38, officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a
paragraph 1, Chapter 7, Book IV of the Code: subordinate officer had done in the performance of his Pursuant thereto, the Department of Justice
duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that promulgated Circular No. 7 dated January 25, 1990
of the latter.” governing appeals in preliminary investigation. Appeals
“(1) Supervision and Control.— Supervision and control under Section 2 are limited to resolutions dismissing a
shall include authority to act directly whenever a specific criminal complaint. However, Section 4 provides an
function is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate; Review as an act of supervision and control by the exception: appeals from resolutions finding probable cause
direct the performance of duty; restrain the commission of justice secretary over the fiscals and prosecutors finds upon a showing of manifest error or grave abuse of
acts; review, approve, reverse or modify acts and basis in the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative discretion are allowed, provided the accused has not been
decisions of subordinate officials or units; xxxx.” remedies which holds that mistakes, abuses or negligence arraigned. In the present case, petitioner’s appeal to the
committed in the initial steps of an administrative activity or secretary of justice was given due course on August 26,
by an administrative agency should be corrected by higher 1992 pursuant to this Circular.
Supplementing the aforequoted provisions are administrative authorities, and not directly by courts. As a
Section 3 of R.A. 3783 and Section 37 of Act 4007, which rule, only after administrative remedies are exhausted may On June 30, 1993, Circular No. 7 was superseded
read: judicial recourse be allowed. by Department Order No. 223; however, the scope of
appealable cases remained unchanged:
“Section 3. x x x x
“SECTION 1. What May Be Appealed. -- Only resolutions
Appeal to the Secretary of Justice Is Not Foreclosed by the of the Chief State Prosecutor/Regional State
The Chief State Prosecutor, the Assistant Chief State Ruling in Crespo
Prosecutors, the Senior State Prosecutors, and the State Prosecutor/Provincial or City Prosecutor dismissing a
criminal complaint may be the subject of an appeal to the another preliminary investigation or to dismiss or move for Judicial review of the acts of other departments is
Secretary of Justice except as otherwise provided in dismissal of the complaint or information.” not an assertion of superiority over them or a derogation of
Section 4 hereof. their functions. In the words of Justice Laurel in Angara
vs. Electoral Commission:[29]
This appeal rests upon the sound discretion of the
Appeals from the resolutions of provincial/city prosecutors secretary of justice arising from his power of supervision
where the penalty prescribed for the offense charged does and control over the prosecuting arm of the government, “x x x [W]hen the judiciary mediates to allocate
not exceed prisión correccional, regardless of the not on a substantial right on the part of the accused as constitutional boundaries, it does not in reality nullify or
imposable fine, shall be made to the Regional State claimed by petitioner. invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the
Prosecutors who shall resolve the appeals with finality, solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the
pursuant to Department Order No. 318 dated August 28, Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority
1991 as amended by D.O. No. 34 dated February 4, 1992, under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an
D.O. No. 223 dated August 11, 1992 and D.O. No. 45 Appeal Did Not Divest the Trial Court of Jurisdiction actual controversy the rights which that instrument sources
dated February 2, 1993. Such appeals shall also be and guarantees to them. This is in truth all that is involved
governed by these rules. in what is termed ‘judicial supremacy’ which properly is the
power of the judicial review under the Constitution. x x x.”
Where the secretary of justice exercises his power of
SEC. 4. Non-Appealable Cases; Exceptions.--No appeal review only after an information has been filed, trial courts
may be taken from a resolution of the Chief State should defer or suspend arraignment and further It is not the purpose of this Court to decrease or limit
Prosecutor/Regional State Prosecutor/Provincial or City proceedings until the appeal is resolved. Such deferment the discretion of the secretary of justice to review the
Prosecutor finding probable cause except upon showing of or suspension, however, does not signify that the trial court decisions of the government prosecutors under
manifest error or grave abuse of is ipso facto bound by the resolution of the secretary of him. In Crespo, the secretary was merely advised to
discretion. Notwithstanding the showing of manifest error justice. Jurisdiction, once acquired by the trial court, is not restrict such review to exceptionally meritorious
or grave abuse of discretion, no appeal shall be lost despite a resolution by the secretary of justice to cases. Rule 112, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, which
entertained where the appellant had already been withdraw the information or to dismiss the case. recognizes such power, does not, however, allow the trial
arraigned. If the appellant (is) arraigned during the court to automatically dismiss the case or grant the
pendency of the appeal, x x x appeal shall be withdrawal of the information upon the resolution of the
dismissed motu proprio by the Secretary of Justice. secretary of justice. This is precisely the import of Crespo,
Judicial Review of the Resolution of the Secretary of Marcelo, Martinez vs. Court of Appeals[30] and the recent
Justice case of Roberts, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, which all
An appeal/motion for reinvestigation from a resolution
required the trial court to make its own evaluation of the
finding probable cause, however, shall not hold the filing of
merits of the case, because granting the motion to dismiss
the information in court.”
Judicial power is defined under the 1987 or to withdraw the information is equivalent to effecting a
disposition of the case itself.
Constitution as the duty of courts to settle actual
Apart from the foregoing statutory and administrative controversies involving rights which are legally
issuances, the power of review of the secretary of justice is demandable and enforceable. Such power includes the
recognized also by Section 4 of Rule 112 of the Rules of determination of whether there has been a grave abuse of
Court: discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the The Marcelo and Martinez Cases Are Consistent
part of any branch or instrumentality of the
“SEC. 4. Duty of investigating fiscal.--x x x x government.[28] Under this definition, a court is without
power to directly decide matters over which full In Marcelo vs. Court of Appeals,[31] this Court ruled
discretionary authority has been delegated to the that, although it is more prudent to wait for a final
xxx xxx legislative or executive branch of the government. It is not resolution of a motion for review or reinvestigation from the
xxx empowered to substitute its judgment for that of Congress secretary of justice before acting on a motion to dismiss or
or of the President. It may, however, look into the question a motion to withdraw an information, a trial court
If upon petition by a proper party, the Secretary of Justice of whether such exercise has been made in grave abuse nonetheless should make its own study and evaluation of
reverses the resolution of the provincial or city fiscal or of discretion. said motion and not rely merely on the awaited action of
chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the fiscal concerned the secretary. The trial court has the option to grant or
to file the corresponding information without conducting deny the motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal,
whether before or after the arraignment of the accused, No Grave Abuse of Discretion in theResolution of the We thus proceed to examine the substance of the
and whether after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of Secretary of Justice resolution of the secretary of justice. The secretary
the secretary who reviewed the records of the reversed the finding of probable cause on the grounds that
investigation; provided that such grant or denial is made (1) the subject letter was privileged in nature and (2) the
from its own assessment and evaluation of the merits of In the light of recent holdings complaint was merely a countercharge.
the motion. in Marcelo and Martinez; and considering that the issue of In every case for libel, the following requisites must
In Martinez vs. Court of Appeals,[32] this Court the correctness of the justice secretary’s resolution has concur:
been amply threshed out in petitioner’s letter, the
overruled the grant of the motion to dismiss filed by the
prosecuting fiscal upon the recommendation of the information, the resolution of the secretary of justice, the
motion to dismiss, and even the exhaustive discussion in “(a) it must be defamatory;
secretary of justice because such grant was based upon
the motion for reconsideration – all of which were
considerations other than the judge’s own assessment of
the matter. Relying solely on the conclusion of the submitted to the court -- the trial judge committed grave
(b) it must be malicious;
prosecution to the effect that there was no sufficient abuse of discretion when it denied the motion to withdraw
the information, based solely on his bare and ambiguous
evidence against the accused to sustain the allegation in
the information, the trial judge did not perform his function reliance on Crespo. The trial court’s order is inconsistent (c) it must be given publicity; and
of making an independent evaluation or assessment of the with our repetitive calls for an independent and competent
assessment of the issue(s) presented in the motion to
merits of the case. (d) the victim must be identifiable.”
dismiss. The trial judge was tasked to evaluate the
Despite the pronouncement in Marcelo that a final secretary’s recommendation finding the absence of
resolution of the appeal to the Department of Justice is probable cause to hold petitioner criminally liable for At the preliminary investigation stage, these
necessary, both decisions followed the rule in Crespo vs. libel. He failed to do so. He merely ruled to proceed with requisites must show prima facie a well-founded belief that
Mogul: Once a complaint or information is filed in court, the trial without stating his reasons for disregarding the a crime has been committed and that the accused
any disposition of the case such as its dismissal or its secretary’s recommendation. probably committed it. A cursory reading of the
continuation rests on the sound discretion of the information immediately demonstrates a failure on the part
court. Trial judges are thus required to make their own Had he complied with his judicial obligation, he of the complainant to establish the foregoing elements of
assessment of whether the secretary of justice committed would have discovered that there was, in fact, sufficient libel.
ground to grant the motion to withdraw the
grave abuse of discretion in granting or denying the
appeal, separately and independently of the prosecution’s information. The documents before the trial court judge Every defamatory imputation, even if true, is
or the secretary’s evaluation that such evidence is clearly showed that there was no probable cause to presumed malicious, if no good intention or justifiable
insufficient or that no probable cause to hold the accused warrant a criminal prosecution for libel. motive for making it is shown. There is malice when the
for trial exists. They should embody such assessment in author of the imputation is prompted by personal ill will or
Under the “established scheme of things” in criminal spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to
their written order disposing of the motion. prosecutions, this Court would normally remand the case injure the reputation of the person who claims to have
The above-mentioned cases depict two extreme to the trial judge for his or her independent assessment of been defamed. [33] In this case however, petitioner’s letter
cases in complying with this rule. In Marcelo, the dismissal the motion to withdraw the information. However, in order was written to seek redress of proper grievance against
not to delay the disposition of this case and to afford the the inaccurate distribution and payment of professional
of the criminal action upon the favorable recommendation
of the Review Committee, Office of the City Prosecutor, parties complete relief, we have decided to make directly fees and against unfair treatment in the Nuclear Medicine
was precipitate in view of the pendency of private the independent assessment the trial court should have Department of the Philippine Heart Center. It is a qualified
done. The petitioner has attached as annexes to the privileged communication under Article 354(1) of the
complainant’s appeal to the secretary of justice. In effect,
the secretary’s opinion was totally disregarded by the trial present petition for review the information, which contains Revised Penal Code which provides:
court. In contrast, in Martinez the dismissal of the criminal a complete and faithful reproduction of the subject letter,
the resolution of the secretary of justice, the prosecution’s
action was an “erroneous exercise of judicial discretion” as “ART. 354. Requirement of publicity. -- Every defamatory
the trial court relied hook, line and sinker on the resolution motion for reconsideration of the trial court’s Order of
February 22, 1993, and even the private complainant’s imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if
of the secretary, without making its own independent no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is
opposition to said motion. The records below have been
determination of the merits of the said resolution. shown, except in the following cases:
reproduced and submitted to this Court for its
appreciation. Thus, a remand to the trial court serves no
purpose and will only clog the dockets.
1. A private communication made by any person to indication that her purpose was to seek relief from the rash action did not do justice to the sound ruling in Crespo
another in the performance of any legal, moral or social proper higher authority xxx. vs. Mogul upon which, ironically, he supposedly rested his
duty; and action, or to the directive in Marcelo and Martinez where
this Court required trial courts to make an independent
The same interpretation should be accorded the civil and
assessment of the merits of the motion.
xxx xxx administrative complaints which respondent filed against
xxx” complainants. They are mere manifestations of her WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is hereby
earnest desire to pursue proper relief for the alleged REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Motion to Withdraw the
The rule on privileged communication is that a injustice she got from complainants. If she was motivated Information dated February 17, 1993 filed before the trial
communication made in good faith on any subject matter by malice and ill-will in sending the subject communication court is GRANTED. No costs.
in which the communicator has an interest, or concerning to the Director of the PHCA, she would not have sent the
which he has a duty, is privileged if made to a person second letter and filed the administrative and civil cases SO ORDERED.
having a corresponding interest or duty, although it against complainants.”
contains incriminatory matter which, without the privilege,
would be libelous and actionable. Petitioner’s letter was a
private communication made in the performance of a moral In Alonzo, the settled rule is that, when a public
officer, in the discharge of his or her official duties, sends a G.R. No. L-19650 September 29, 1966
duty on her part. Her intention was not to inflict an
unjustifiable harm on the private complainant, but to communication to another officer or to a body of officers,
present her grievance to her superior. The privileged who have a duty to perform with respect to the subject CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., petitioner-appellee,
nature of her letter overcomes the presumption of matter of the communication, such communication does vs.
malice. There is no malice when justifiable motive exists; not amount to publication within the meaning of the law on ENRICO PALOMAR, in his capacity as THE
and in the absence of malice, there is no libel. We note defamation.[35] Publication in libel means making the POSTMASTER GENERAL, respondent-appellant.
that the information itself failed to allege the existence of defamatory matter, after it has been written, known to
malice. someone other than the person to whom it has been
written.[36] The reason for such rule is that “a Office of the Solicitor General for respondent and
Thus, we agree with the ruling of the secretary of communication of the defamatory matter to the person appellant.
justice:[34] defamed cannot injure his reputation though it may wound Ross, Selph and Carrascoso for petitioner and appellee.
his self-esteem. A man’s reputation is not the good
opinion he has of himself, but the estimation in which
“x x x (T)he subject letter was written to bring to the others hold him.”[37] In this case, petitioner submitted the
attention of the Director of the Philippine Heart Center for letter to the director of said hospital; she did not
Asia and other responsible authorities the unjust and unfair disseminate the letter and its contents to third CASTRO, J.:
treatment that Dr. Ledesma was getting from government
persons. Hence, there was no “publicity” and the matter is
employees, and the subject letter is a complaint x x x on a clearly covered by paragraph 1 of Article 354 of the Penal
subject matter in which respondent has an interest and in In the year 1960 the Caltex (Philippines) Inc. (hereinafter
Code.
reference to which she has a duty to question the same is referred to as Caltex) conceived and laid the groundwork
definitely privileged (US vs. Bustos, 37 Phil. Further, we note that the information against for a promotional scheme calculated to drum up patronage
131). Moreover, in Ang vs. Castro, 136 SCRA 455, the petitioner was filed only on July 27, 1992 or one year after for its oil products. Denominated "Caltex Hooded Pump
Supreme Court, citing Santiago vs. Calvo, 48 Phil. 922, June 27, 1991, the date the letter was sent. It is obviously Contest", it calls for participants therein to estimate the
ruled that ‘a communication made in good faith upon any nothing more than a countercharge to give Complainant actual number of liters a hooded gas pump at each Caltex
subject matter in which the party making the Torres a leverage against petitioner’s administrative action station will dispense during a specified period. Employees
communication has an interest or concerning which he has against him. of the Caltex (Philippines) Inc., its dealers and its
a duty is privileged although it contains incriminatory or advertising agency, and their immediate families excepted,
derogatory matter which, without the privilege, would be Ineluctably, Judge Asuncion’s denial of the motion to participation is to be open indiscriminately to all "motor
libelous and actionable. withdraw the information and the reconsideration thereof vehicle owners and/or licensed drivers". For the privilege
was not only precipitate but manifestly erroneous. This is to participate, no fee or consideration is required to be
further compounded by the fact that he did not explain his paid, no purchase of Caltex products required to be made.
The follow-up letter sent by respondent to the director of Entry forms are to be made available upon request at each
grounds for his denial inasmuch as he did not make an
the PHCA, is a direct evidence of respondent’s righteous Caltex station where a sealed can will be provided for the
independent assessment of the motion or the arguments in
disposition of following the rule of law and is a clear deposit of accomplished entry stubs.
the resolution of the secretary of justice. All in all, such
A three-staged winner selection system is envisioned. At Written or printed matter in any form advertising, as a firm, bank, corporation, or association of
the station level, called "Dealer Contest", the contestant describing, or in any manner pertaining to, or any kind, and may provide by regulation for the
whose estimate is closest to the actual number of liters conveying or purporting to convey any return to the remitters of the sums named in
dispensed by the hooded pump thereat is to be awarded information concerning any lottery, gift money orders or telegraphic transfers drawn in
the first prize; the next closest, the second; and the next, enterprise, or similar scheme depending in favor of such person or company or its agent.
the third. Prizes at this level consist of a 3-burner kerosene whole or in part upon lot or chance, or any
stove for first; a thermos bottle and a Ray-O-Vac hunter scheme, device, or enterprise for obtaining any
The overtures were later formalized in a letter to the
lantern for second; and an Everready Magnet-lite flashlight money or property of any kind by means of false
Postmaster General, dated October 31, 1960, in which the
with batteries and a screwdriver set for third. The first-prize or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or
Caltex, thru counsel, enclosed a copy of the contest rules
winner in each station will then be qualified to join in the promises.
and endeavored to justify its position that the contest does
"Regional Contest" in seven different regions. The winning
not violate the anti-lottery provisions of the Postal Law.
stubs of the qualified contestants in each region will be
"SECTION 1982. Fraud orders.—Upon Unimpressed, the then Acting Postmaster General opined
deposited in a sealed can from which the first-prize,
satisfactory evidence that any person or that the scheme falls within the purview of the provisions
second-prize and third-prize winners of that region will be
company is engaged in conducting any lottery, aforesaid and declined to grant the requested clearance.
drawn. The regional first-prize winners will be entitled to
gift enterprise, or scheme for the distribution of In its counsel's letter of December 7, 1960, Caltex sought
make a three-day all-expenses-paid round trip to Manila,
money, or of any real or personal property by lot, a reconsideration of the foregoing stand, stressing that
accompanied by their respective Caltex dealers, in order to
chance, or drawing of any kind, or that any there being involved no consideration in the part of any
take part in the "National Contest". The regional second-
person or company is conducting any scheme, contestant, the contest was not, under controlling
prize and third-prize winners will receive cash prizes of
device, or enterprise for obtaining money or authorities, condemnable as a lottery. Relying, however,
P500 and P300, respectively. At the national level, the
property of any kind through the mails by means on an opinion rendered by the Secretary of Justice on an
stubs of the seven regional first-prize winners will be
of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, unrelated case seven years before (Opinion 217, Series of
placed inside a sealed can from which the drawing for the
or promises, the Director of Posts may instruct 1953), the Postmaster General maintained his view that
final first-prize, second-prize and third-prize winners will be
any postmaster or other officer or employee of the contest involves consideration, or that, if it does not, it
made. Cash prizes in store for winners at this final stage
the Bureau to return to the person, depositing is nevertheless a "gift enterprise" which is equally banned
are: P3,000 for first; P2,000 for second; Pl,500 for third;
the same in the mails, with the word "fraudulent" by the Postal Law, and in his letter of December 10, 1960
and P650 as consolation prize for each of the remaining
plainly written or stamped upon the outside not only denied the use of the mails for purposes of the
four participants.
cover thereof, any mail matter of whatever class proposed contest but as well threatened that if the contest
mailed by or addressed to such person or was conducted, "a fraud order will have to be issued
Foreseeing the extensive use of the mails not only as company or the representative or agent of such against it (Caltex) and all its representatives".
amongst the media for publicizing the contest but also for person or company.
the transmission of communications relative thereto,
Caltex thereupon invoked judicial intervention by filing the
representations were made by Caltex with the postal
SECTION 1983. Deprivation of use of money present petition for declaratory relief against Postmaster
authorities for the contest to be cleared in advance for
order system and telegraphic transfer service.— General Enrico Palomar, praying "that judgment be
mailing, having in view sections 1954(a), 1982 and 1983 of
The Director of Posts may, upon evidence rendered declaring its 'Caltex Hooded Pump Contest' not
the Revised Administrative Code, the pertinent provisions
satisfactory to him that any person or company to be violative of the Postal Law, and ordering respondent
of which read as follows:
is engaged in conducting any lottery, gift to allow petitioner the use of the mails to bring the contest
enterprise or scheme for the distribution of to the attention of the public". After issues were joined and
SECTION 1954. Absolutely non-mailable matter. money, or of any real or personal property by lot, upon the respective memoranda of the parties, the trial
— No matter belonging to any of the following chance, or drawing of any kind, or that any court rendered judgment as follows:
classes, whether sealed as first-class matter or person or company is conducting any scheme,
not, shall be imported into the Philippines device, or enterprise for obtaining money or
In view of the foregoing considerations, the
through the mails, or to be deposited in or property of any kind through the mails by means
Court holds that the proposed 'Caltex Hooded
carried by the mails of the Philippines, or be of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations,
Pump Contest' announced to be conducted by
delivered to its addressee by any officer or or promise, forbid the issue or payment by any
the petitioner under the rules marked as Annex
employee of the Bureau of Posts: postmaster of any postal money order or
B of the petitioner does not violate the Postal
telegraphic transfer to said person or company
Law and the respondent has no right to bar the
or to the agent of any such person or company,
public distribution of said rules by the mails.
whether such agent is acting as an individual or
The respondent appealed. the dissemination of information thereon thru the mails, contested (III Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court,
amongst other media, it was found expedient to request 1963 ed., pp. 132-133, citing: Woodward vs. Fox West
the appellant for an advance clearance therefor. However, Coast Theaters, 36 Ariz., 251, 284 Pac. 350).
The parties are now before us, arrayed against each other
likewise by virtue of his jurisdiction in the premises and
upon two basic issues: first, whether the petition states a
construing the pertinent provisions of the Postal Law, the
sufficient cause of action for declaratory relief; and second, We cannot hospitably entertain the appellant's pretense
appellant saw a violation thereof in the proposed scheme
whether the proposed "Caltex Hooded Pump Contest" that there is here no question of construction because the
and accordingly declined the request. A point of difference
violates the Postal Law. We shall take these up in seriatim. said appellant "simply applied the clear provisions of the
as to the correct construction to be given to the applicable
law to a given set of facts as embodied in the rules of the
statute was thus reached. Communications in which the
contest", hence, there is no room for declaratory relief. The
1. By express mandate of section 1 of Rule 66 of the old parties expounded on their respective theories were
infirmity of this pose lies in the fact that it proceeds from
Rules of Court, which was the applicable legal basis for the exchanged. The confidence with which the appellee
the assumption that, if the circumstances here presented,
remedy at the time it was invoked, declaratory relief is insisted upon its position was matched only by the
the construction of the legal provisions can be divorced
available to any person "whose rights are affected by a obstinacy with which the appellant stood his ground. And
from the matter of their application to the appellee's
statute . . . to determine any question of construction or this impasse was climaxed by the appellant's open
contest. This is not feasible. Construction, verily, is the art
validity arising under the . . . statute and for a declaration warning to the appellee that if the proposed contest was
or process of discovering and expounding the meaning
of his rights thereunder" (now section 1, Rule 64, Revised "conducted, a fraud order will have to be issued against it
and intention of the authors of the law with respect to its
Rules of Court). In amplification, this Court, conformably to and all its representatives."
application to a given case, where that intention is
established jurisprudence on the matter, laid down certain
rendered doubtful, amongst others, by reason of the fact
conditions sine qua non therefor, to wit: (1) there must be
Against this backdrop, the stage was indeed set for the that the given case is not explicitly provided for in the
a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be
remedy prayed for. The appellee's insistent assertion of its law (Black, Interpretation of Laws, p. 1). This is precisely
between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the
claim to the use of the mails for its proposed contest, and the case here. Whether or not the scheme proposed by
party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest
the challenge thereto and consequent denial by the the appellee is within the coverage of the prohibitive
in the controversy; and (4) the issue involved must be ripe
appellant of the privilege demanded, undoubtedly provisions of the Postal Law inescapably requires an
for judicial determination (Tolentino vs. The Board of
spawned a live controversy. The justiciability of the dispute inquiry into the intended meaning of the words used
Accountancy, et al., G.R. No. L-3062, September 28,
cannot be gainsaid. There is an active antagonistic therein. To our mind, this is as much a question of
1951; Delumen, et al. vs. Republic of the Philippines, 50
assertion of a legal right on one side and a denial thereof construction or interpretation as any other.
O.G., No. 2, pp. 576, 578-579; Edades vs. Edades, et al.,
on the other, concerning a real — not a mere theoretical —
G.R. No. L-8964, July 31, 1956). The gravamen of the
question or issue. The contenders are as real as their
appellant's stand being that the petition herein states no Nor is it accurate to say, as the appellant intimates, that a
interests are substantial. To the appellee, the uncertainty
sufficient cause of action for declaratory relief, our duty is pronouncement on the matter at hand can amount to
occasioned by the divergence of views on the issue of
to assay the factual bases thereof upon the foregoing nothing more than an advisory opinion the handing down
construction hampers or disturbs its freedom to enhance
crucible. of which is anathema to a declaratory relief action. Of
its business. To the appellant, the suppression of the
course, no breach of the Postal Law has as yet been
appellee's proposed contest believed to transgress a law
committed. Yet, the disagreement over the construction
As we look in retrospect at the incidents that generated the he has sworn to uphold and enforce is an unavoidable
thereof is no longer nebulous or contingent. It has taken a
present controversy, a number of significant points stand duty. With the appellee's bent to hold the contest and the
fixed and final shape, presenting clearly defined legal
out in bold relief. The appellee (Caltex), as a business appellant's threat to issue a fraud order therefor if carried
issues susceptible of immediate resolution. With the battle
enterprise of some consequence, concededly has the out, the contenders are confronted by the ominous shadow
lines drawn, in a manner of speaking, the propriety — nay,
unquestioned right to exploit every legitimate means, and of an imminent and inevitable litigation unless their
the necessity — of setting the dispute at rest before it
to avail of all appropriate media to advertise and stimulate differences are settled and stabilized by a tranquilizing
accumulates the asperity distemper, animosity, passion
increased patronage for its products. In contrast, the declaration (Pablo y Sen, et al. vs. Republic of the
and violence of a full-blown battle which looms ahead (III
appellant, as the authority charged with the enforcement of Philippines, G.R. No. L-6868, April 30, 1955). And,
Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1963 ed., p. 132
the Postal Law, admittedly has the power and the duty to contrary to the insinuation of the appellant, the time is long
and cases cited), cannot but be conceded. Paraphrasing
suppress transgressions thereof — particularly thru the past when it can rightly be said that merely the appellee's
the language in Zeitlin vs. Arnebergh 59 Cal., 2d., 901, 31
issuance of fraud orders, under Sections 1982 and 1983 of "desires are thwarted by its own doubts, or by the fears of
Cal. Rptr., 800, 383 P. 2d., 152, cited in 22 Am. Jur., 2d.,
the Revised Administrative Code, against legally non- others" — which admittedly does not confer a cause of
p. 869, to deny declaratory relief to the appellee in the
mailable schemes. Obviously pursuing its right aforesaid, action. Doubt, if any there was, has ripened into a
situation into which it has been cast, would be to force it to
the appellee laid out plans for the sales promotion scheme justiciable controversy when, as in the case at bar, it was
choose between undesirable alternatives. If it cannot
hereinbefore detailed. To forestall possible difficulties in translated into a positive claim of right which is actually
obtain a final and definitive pronouncement as to whether
the anti-lottery provisions of the Postal Law apply to its promotion plan. In pari materia, see also: Bunis vs. Unanimity there is in all quarters, and we agree, that the
proposed contest, it would be faced with these choices: If it Conway, 17 App. Div. 2d., 207, 234 N.Y.S. 2d., 435; Zeitlin elements of prize and chance are too obvious in the
launches the contest and uses the mails for purposes vs. Arnebergh, supra; Thrillo, Inc. vs. Scott, 15 N.J. Super. disputed scheme to be the subject of contention.
thereof, it not only incurs the risk, but is also actually 124, 82 A. 2d., 903. Consequently as the appellant himself concedes, the field
threatened with the certain imposition, of a fraud order with of inquiry is narrowed down to the existence of the element
its concomitant stigma which may attach even if the of consideration therein. Respecting this matter, our task is
In fine, we hold that the appellee has made out a case for
appellee will eventually be vindicated; if it abandons the considerably lightened inasmuch as in the same case just
declaratory relief.
contest, it becomes a self-appointed censor, or permits the cited, this Court has laid down a definitive yard-stick in the
appellant to put into effect a virtual fiat of previous following terms —
censorship which is constitutionally unwarranted. As we 2. The Postal Law, chapter 52 of the Revised
weigh these considerations in one equation and in the Administrative Code, using almost identical terminology in
In respect to the last element of consideration,
spirit of liberality with which the Rules of Court are to be sections 1954(a), 1982 and 1983 thereof, supra,
the law does not condemn the gratuitous
interpreted in order to promote their object (section 1, Rule condemns as absolutely non-mailable, and empowers the
distribution of property by chance, if no
1, Revised Rules of Court) — which, in the instant case, is Postmaster General to issue fraud orders against, or
consideration is derived directly or indirectly from
to settle, and afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity otherwise deny the use of the facilities of the postal service
the party receiving the chance, but does
with respect to, rights and duties under a law — we can to, any information concerning "any lottery, gift enterprise,
condemn as criminal schemes in which a
see in the present case any imposition upon our or scheme for the distribution of money, or of any real or
valuable consideration of some kind is paid
jurisdiction or any futility or prematurity in our intervention. personal property by lot, chance, or drawing of any kind".
directly or indirectly for the chance to draw a
Upon these words hinges the resolution of the second
prize.
issue posed in this appeal.
The appellant, we apprehend, underrates the force and
binding effect of the ruling we hand down in this case if he
Reverting to the rules of the proposed contest, we are
believes that it will not have the final and pacifying function Happily, this is not an altogether untrodden judicial path.
struck by the clarity of the language in which the invitation
that a declaratory judgment is calculated to subserve. At As early as in 1922, in "El Debate", Inc. vs. Topacio, 44
to participate therein is couched. Thus —
the very least, the appellant will be bound. But more than Phil., 278, 283-284, which significantly dwelt on the power
this, he obviously overlooks that in this jurisdiction, of the postal authorities under the abovementioned
"Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law shall provisions of the Postal Law, this Court declared that — No puzzles, no rhymes? You don't need
form a part of the legal system" (Article 8, Civil Code of the wrappers, labels or boxtops? You don't have to
Philippines). In effect, judicial decisions assume the same buy anything? Simply estimate the actual
authority as the statute itself and, until authoritatively While countless definitions of lottery have been
number of liter the Caltex gas pump with the
abandoned, necessarily become, to the extent that they attempted, the authoritative one for this
hood at your favorite Caltex dealer will dispense
jurisdiction is that of the United States Supreme
are applicable, the criteria which must control the from — to —, and win valuable prizes . . . ." .
actuations not only of those called upon to abide thereby Court, in analogous cases having to do with the
but also of those in duty bound to enforce obedience power of the United States Postmaster
General, viz.: The term "lottery" extends to all Nowhere in the said rules is any requirement that any fee
thereto. Accordingly, we entertain no misgivings that our
resolution of this case will terminate the controversy at schemes for the distribution of prizes by chance, be paid, any merchandise be bought, any service be
hand. such as policy playing, gift exhibitions, prize rendered, or any value whatsoever be given for the
concerts, raffles at fairs, etc., and various forms privilege to participate. A prospective contestant has but to
of gambling. The three essential elements of a go to a Caltex station, request for the entry form which is
It is not amiss to point out at this juncture that the lottery are: First, consideration; second, prize; available on demand, and accomplish and submit the
conclusion we have herein just reached is not without and third, chance. (Horner vs. States [1892], 147 same for the drawing of the winner. Viewed from all angles
precedent. In Liberty Calendar Co. vs. Cohen, 19 N.J., U.S. 449; Public Clearing House vs. Coyne or turned inside out, the contest fails to exhibit any
399, 117 A. 2d., 487, where a corporation engaged in [1903], 194 U.S., 497; U.S. vs. Filart and discernible consideration which would brand it as a lottery.
promotional advertising was advised by the county Singson [1915], 30 Phil., 80; U.S. vs. Olsen and Indeed, even as we head the stern injunction, "look
prosecutor that its proposed sales promotion plan had the Marker [1917], 36 Phil., 395; U.S. vs. Baguio beyond the fair exterior, to the substance, in order to
characteristics of a lottery, and that if such sales promotion [1919], 39 Phil., 962; Valhalla Hotel Construction unmask the real element and pernicious tendencies which
were conducted, the corporation would be subject to Company vs. Carmona, p. 233, ante.) the law is seeking to prevent" ("El Debate", Inc. vs.
criminal prosecution, it was held that the corporation was Topacio, supra, p. 291), we find none. In our appraisal, the
entitled to maintain a declaratory relief action against the
county prosecutor to determine the legality of its sales
scheme does not only appear to be, but actually is, a which is equally prescribed? Incidentally, while the enterprise comes within the prohibitive statutes only if it
gratuitous distribution of property by chance. appellant's brief appears to have concentrated on the exhibits the tripartite elements of prize, chance and
issue of consideration, this aspect of the case cannot be consideration (E.g.: Bills vs. People, 157 P. 2d., 139, 142,
avoided if the remedy here invoked is to achieve its 113 Colo., 326; D'Orio vs. Jacobs, 275 P. 563, 565, 151
There is no point to the appellant's insistence that non-
tranquilizing effect as an instrument of both curative and Wash., 297; People vs. Psallis, 12 N.Y.S., 2d., 796; City
Caltex customers who may buy Caltex products simply to
preventive justice. Recalling that the appellant's action was and County of Denver vs. Frueauff, 88 P., 389, 394, 39
win a prize would actually be indirectly paying a
predicated, amongst other bases, upon Opinion 217, Colo., 20, 7 L.R.A., N.S., 1131, 12 Ann. Cas., 521; 54
consideration for the privilege to join the contest. Perhaps
Series 1953, of the Secretary of Justice, which opined in C.J.S., 851, citing: Barker vs. State, 193 S.E., 605, 607, 56
this would be tenable if the purchase of any Caltex product
effect that a scheme, though not a lottery for want of Ga. App., 705; 18 Words and Phrases, perm. ed., pp. 590-
or the use of any Caltex service were a pre-requisite to
consideration, may nevertheless be a gift enterprise in 594). The apparent conflict of opinions is explained by the
participation. But it is not. A contestant, it hardly needs
which that element is not essential, the determination of fact that the specific statutory provisions relied upon are
reiterating, does not have to buy anything or to give
whether or not the proposed contest — wanting in not identical. In some cases, as pointed out in 54 C.J.S.,
anything of value.1awphîl.nèt
consideration as we have found it to be — is a prohibited 851, the terms "lottery" and "gift enterprise" are used
gift enterprise, cannot be passed over sub silencio. interchangeably (Bills vs. People, supra); in others, the
Off-tangent, too, is the suggestion that the scheme, being necessity for the element of consideration or chance has
admittedly for sales promotion, would naturally benefit the been specifically eliminated by statute. (54 C.J.S., 351-
While an all-embracing concept of the term "gift enterprise"
sponsor in the way of increased patronage by those who 352, citing Barker vs. State, supra; State ex rel. Stafford
is yet to be spelled out in explicit words, there appears to
will be encouraged to prefer Caltex products "if only to get vs. Fox-Great Falls Theater Corporation, supra). The
be a consensus among lexicographers and standard
the chance to draw a prize by securing entry blanks". The lesson that we derive from this state of the pertinent
authorities that the term is commonly applied to a sporting
required element of consideration does not consist of the jurisprudence is, therefore, that every case must be
artifice of under which goods are sold for their market
benefit derived by the proponent of the contest. The true resolved upon the particular phraseology of the applicable
value but by way of inducement each purchaser is given a
test, as laid down in People vs. Cardas, 28 P. 2d., 99, 137 statutory provision.
chance to win a prize (54 C.J.S., 850; 34 Am. Jur., 654;
Cal. App. (Supp.) 788, is whether the participant pays a
Black, Law Dictionary, 4th ed., p. 817; Ballantine, Law
valuable consideration for the chance, and not whether
Dictionary with Pronunciations, 2nd ed., p. 55; Retail Taking this cue, we note that in the Postal Law, the term in
those conducting the enterprise receive something of
Section of Chamber of Commerce of Plattsmouth vs. question is used in association with the word "lottery". With
value in return for the distribution of the prize. Perspective
Kieck, 257 N.W., 493, 128 Neb. 13; Barker vs. State, 193 the meaning of lottery settled, and consonant to the well-
properly oriented, the standpoint of the contestant is all
S.E., 605, 56 Ga. App., 705; Bell vs. State, 37 Tenn. 507, known principle of legal hermeneutics noscitur a sociis —
that matters, not that of the sponsor. The following, culled
509, 5 Sneed, 507, 509). As thus conceived, the term which Opinion 217 aforesaid also relied upon although
from Corpus Juris Secundum, should set the matter at
clearly cannot embrace the scheme at bar. As already only insofar as the element of chance is concerned — it is
rest:
noted, there is no sale of anything to which the chance only logical that the term under a construction should be
offered is attached as an inducement to the purchaser. accorded no other meaning than that which is consistent
The fact that the holder of the drawing expects The contest is open to all qualified contestants irrespective with the nature of the word associated therewith. Hence, if
thereby to receive, or in fact does receive, some of whether or not they buy the appellee's products. lottery is prohibited only if it involves a consideration, so
benefit in the way of patronage or otherwise, as also must the term "gift enterprise" be so construed.
a result of the drawing; does not supply the Significantly, there is not in the law the slightest indicium of
Going a step farther, however, and assuming that the
element of consideration.Griffith Amusement Co. any intent to eliminate that element of consideration from
appellee's contest can be encompassed within the
vs. Morgan, Tex. Civ. App., 98 S.W., 2d., 844" the "gift enterprise" therein included.
broadest sweep that the term "gift enterprise" is capable of
(54 C.J.S., p. 849).
being extended, we think that the appellant's pose will gain
no added comfort. As stated in the opinion relied upon, This conclusion firms up in the light of the mischief sought
Thus enlightened, we join the trial court in declaring that rulings there are indeed holding that a gift enterprise to be remedied by the law, resort to the determination
the "Caltex Hooded Pump Contest" proposed by the involving an award by chance, even in default of the thereof being an accepted extrinsic aid in statutory
appellee is not a lottery that may be administratively and element of consideration necessary to constitute a lottery, construction. Mail fraud orders, it is axiomatic, are
adversely dealt with under the Postal Law. is prohibited (E.g.: Crimes vs. States, 235 Ala 192, 178 So. designed to prevent the use of the mails as a medium for
73; Russell vs. Equitable Loan & Sec. Co., 129 Ga. 154, disseminating printed matters which on grounds of public
58 S.E., 88; State ex rel. Stafford vs. Fox-Great Falls policy are declared non-mailable. As applied to lotteries,
But it may be asked: Is it not at least a "gift enterprise, or
Theater Corporation, 132 P. 2d., 689, 694, 698, 114 Mont. gift enterprises and similar schemes, justification lies in the
scheme for the distribution of money, or of any real or 52). But this is only one side of the coin. Equally recognized necessity to suppress their tendency to inflame
personal property by lot, chance, or drawing of any kind", impressive authorities declare that, like a lottery, a gift the gambling spirit and to corrupt public morals (Com. vs.
Lund, 15 A. 2d., 839, 143 Pa. Super. 208). Since in E.V. Guevarra for respondent. containing an area of 59.4687
gambling it is inherent that something of value be hectares, situated in barrio Taban,
hazarded for a chance to gain a larger amount, it follows Minalabac Camarines Sur; to annul
ineluctably that where no consideration is paid by the any and all contracts affecting said
contestant to participate, the reason behind the law can property between the Development
hardly be said to obtain. If, as it has been held — ESGUERRA, J.: Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and
Rodolfo General and Carmen
Gontang and to recover damages,
Gratuitous distribution of property by lot or Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of attorney's fees and costs.
chance does not constitute "lottery", if it is not Appeals (Second Division) in CA-G.R. No. 38363-R,
resorted to as a device to evade the law and no entitled "Leoncio Barrameda, plaintiff-appellant, vs.
consideration is derived, directly or indirectly, Development Bank of the Philippines (Naga Branch, Naga The land in dispute was mortgaged by
from the party receiving the chance, gambling City), Rodolfo General and Carmen Gontang, defendants- plaintiff to the DBP to secure a loan of
spirit not being cultivated or stimulated thereby. appellees," which reversed the decision of the Court of P22,000.00. For failure of the
City of Roswell vs. Jones, 67 P. 2d., 286, 41 First Instance of Camarines Sur in its Civil Case No. 5697, mortgagor to pay in full the
N.M., 258." (25 Words and Phrases, perm. ed., "dismissing the complaint with costs against plaintiff". installments as they fall due, the
p. 695, emphasis supplied). mortgagee foreclosed extrajudicially
pursuant to the provisions of Act 3135.
Appellate Court's decision has the following dispositive On April 23, 1962, the provincial
we find no obstacle in saying the same respecting a gift portion: sheriff conducted an auction sale in
enterprise. In the end, we are persuaded to hold that,
which the mortgagee, as the highest
under the prohibitive provisions of the Postal Law which
We therefore find that the appealed bidder, bought the mortgaged property
we have heretofore examined, gift enterprises and similar
judgment should be reversed and set for P7,271.22. On May 13, 1963, the
schemes therein contemplated are condemnable only if,
aside and another one entered sheriff executed a final deed of sale in
like lotteries, they involve the element of consideration.
declaring (1) null and void the sale favor of the DBP (Exhibit 2) and the
Finding none in the contest here in question, we rule that
executed on September 3, 1963, by DBP executed an affidavit of
the appellee may not be denied the use of the mails for
defendant Development Bank of the consolidation of ownership (Exhibit 3).
purposes thereof.
Philippines in favor of its defendants Upon registration of the sale and
Rodolfo General and Carmen affidavit on September 2,
Recapitulating, we hold that the petition herein states a Gontang, (2) T.C.T. No. 5003 1963 (Exhibit 1), TCT No. 1418 in the
sufficient cause of action for declaratory relief, and that the cancelled and (3) the mortgaged name of plaintiff was cancelled and
"Caltex Hooded Pump Contest" as described in the rules property redeemed; and ordering the TCT No. 5003 issued to the DBP
submitted by the appellee does not transgress the Clerk of the lower court to deliver the (Exhibit-5) in its stead. On September
provisions of the Postal Law. amount of P7,271.22 deposited to 3, 1963, defendants Rodolfo General
defendants Rodolfo General and and Carmen Gontang purchased the
Carmen Gontang and the Register of land from their codefendant. The sale
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. in their favor was annotated on TCT
Deeds to issue a new Transfer
No costs.
Certificate of Title in the name of No. 5003 on November 26, 1963 only.
plaintiff in lieu of T.C.T. No. 5003 upon
G.R. No. L-29906 January 30, 1976 payment by him of corresponding Prior to the date last mentioned, or on
fees; with costs against the
November 20, 1963, plaintiff offered to
defendants in both instances. redeem the land. In view of the refusal
RODOLFO GENERAL and CARMEN
GONTANG, petitioners, of the DBP to allow the redemption,
vs. Undisputed facts are: plaintiff commenced this suit. The
LEONCIO BARRAMEDA, respondent. original complaint was filed in court on
November 23, 1963. On August 12,
Plaintiff seeks to redeem the land 1964, plaintiff deposited with the clerk
Augusto A. Pardalis for petitioners. formerly embraced in Transfer of court the sum of P7,271.22,
Certificate of Title No. 1418,
representing the repurchase price of shall the period of redemption start Commonwealth Act 459 specifically and clearly provides
the land. from the date of auction sale or the that the running of the redemption period shall start from
date of the registration of the sale in the date of the auction sale; and that the ruling of this
the register of deeds as the Court in Gonzales vs. P.N.B., 48 Phil. 824, also invoked by
The trial court held that the one-year
respondent Appellate Court held? respondent Appellate Court as a basis for its decision, is
period of redemption began to run on
likewise not applicable to the case at bar because the
April 23, 1962, when the sale at public
provisions on the matter of the P.N.B. Charter, Act No.
auction was held, and ended on April (2) Were petitioners under obligation
2938, are different from that of Commonwealth Act 459.
24, 1963; that the plaintiff's offer to to look beyond what appeared in the
Section 32 of Act 2938, which is now Section 20 of R.A.
redeem on November 20, 1963 and certificate of title of their vendor the
No. 1300 (PNB Charter) provides that the mortgagor shall
the deposit of the redemption price on Development Bank of the Philippines
have the right to redeem within one year the sale of the
August 12, 1964 were made beyond and investigate the validity of its title
real estate. This is Identical to the provision appearing in
the redemption period; and that before they could be classified as
Sec. 26, now Sec. 30, Rule 39, Rules of Court, while under
defendants Rodolfo General and purchasers in good faith?
Sec. 31 of Commonwealth Act 459, the period of
Carmen Gontang 'are legitimate
redemption should star, on the date of the auction
purchasers for value.
Petitioners' principal contentions are: that Section 31 of sale, and the latter provision is applicable specifically and
Commonwealth Act No. 459 which created the Agricultural expressly to the case at bar.
Two principal issues raised are: and Industrial Bank, predecessor of the Rehabilitation
Finance Corporation and the Development Bank of the
It is also petitioners' principal argument that the ruling in
Philippines, clearly provides that the right to redeem the
(1) In the interpretation and application Metropolitan Insurance Company, substituted by
real property sold at public auction judicially or extra-
of Section 31, Commonwealth Act 459 spousesLoreto Z. Marcaida and Miguel de Marcaida vs.
judicially may only be exercised "within one year from the
(Law that created the Agricultural and Pigtain 101 Phil. 1111, 1115-1116, wherein this Court, in
date of the auction sale"; that there is no provision in
Industrial Bank, now Development construing Sec. 6 of Act No. 3135, categorically stated that
Commonwealth Act No. 459 expressly stating that the
Bank of the Philippines) which the one year redemption period shall start from the date of
redemption period of one year shall start from the
provides: sale and not from the report of the sale or the registration
registration of the certificate of sale in the register of
of the sale certificate in the office of the Register of
deeds; that Sec. 31 of C. A. 459 is a specific provision of
Deeds, is more applicable to the present case. The
The Mortgagor or law which governs redemption of real property foreclosed
pertinent portion of the decision in the Marcaida case
debtor to the by the Agricultural and Industrial Bank (now the
follows:
Agricultural and Development Bank of the Philippines), and prescribes the
Industrial Bank redemption period for both judicial and extra-judicial
whose real foreclosures of mortgage; that insofar as foreclosures of But again the appellants claim that in
property was sold mortgage by banking and financial institutions are this particular case, the statutory
at public auction, concerned, the period of redemption applicable must be redemption period of one year should
judicially or extra- the one prescribed in their respective charters as, in the begin from December 17, 1954, when
judicially, for the case at bar, Section 31, C.A. No. 459; that the ruling in the the auction sale was actually recorded
full or partial case of Agbulos vs. Alberto, G.R. No. L-17483, July 31, in the office of the Register of Deeds
payment of an 1962, cited by respondent Appellate Court as a basis for of Manila and not from December 15,
obligation to said its decision, is not applicable to the case at bar because 1953, when the sale at public auction
bank shall, within this Court based its Agbulos ruling on Section 26 (now of the properties in question took
one year from the Sec. 90) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, wherein it is not place. We find its contention to be also
date of' the clear when the period of redemption should start (date untenable in view of the clear
auction sale, have when execution sale was conducted, or when the provision of the aforesaid Section 6 of
the right to certificate of sale was executed by sheriff, or when the Act No. 3135 to the effect that the right
redeem the real certificate of sale was registered in the registry of deeds), of redemption should be exercised
property ... and this Court ruled that as the land involved in that case within one year from the date of the
(Emphasis is registered under the Torrens system, the date of sale. It should not be overlooked that
supplied), redemption should begin to run from the date of the extrajudicial sale in question was
registration, unlike in the case at bar where Section 31 of for foreclosure of a mortgage and was
not by virtue of an ordinary writ of all foreclosures of mortgages and sale of property pursuan registered land. It
execution in a civil case. ... And since to execution, whether judicial or extrajudicial in nature, is the law in this
the appeallants had failed to redeem under different legislative enactments, a public auction jurisdiction that
the land in question within the time sale is a indispensable pre-requisite to the valid disposal of when property
allowed by Section 6 of Act 3135, the properties used as collateral for the obligation. So that brought under the
appellee has perfect right to require whether the legislators in different laws used as collateral operation of the
the cancellation of the attachment lien for the obligation. So that whether the legislators in Land Registration
in question. (Emphasis supplied) different laws used the term "sale" or "auction sale" is of no Act
moment, since the presumption is that when they used sold, the operativ
those words "sale" and "auction sale" interchangeable in e act is the
Notwithstanding the impressive arguments presented by
different laws they really referred to only one act — registration of the
petitioners, the crucial issue to determine is the choice of
the sale at public auction indispensably necessary in the deed of
what rule to apply in determining the start of the one year
disposition of mortgaged properties and those levied upon conveyance.
redemption period, whether from the date of the auction
to pay civil obligations of their owners. The deed of sale
sale or from that of the registration of the sale with the
does not take
registry of deeds. In other words it is whether a literal
effect this a
interpretation of the provision of Section 31 of In the case of Ernesto Salazar, et al. vs. Flor De Lis
conveyance or
Commonwealth Act 459 — that the period of redemption Meneses, et al.,G.R. No.
bind the land it is
shall start from the date of the auction sale — shall govern, L-15378, promulgated July 31, 1963, this Court stated:
registered. (Sectio
or whether the words, "auction sale" shall be considered in
n 50, Act 496;
their ordinary meaning or in the same sense that site is
The issue decisive of this appeal is the Tuason vs.
used in the texts of Section 26, now 30, of Rule 39 of the
one raised by appellants in their third Raymundo, 28
Rules of Court, and Section 26 of Act 2938, now Section
assignment of error, which is to this Phil. 635;
20, R.A. 1300 (Charter of PNB). Stated differently, should
effect: that the lower court erred in not Sikatuna vs.
the word "sale" used in the above indicated provisions of
holding that the period of redemption Guevara, 43 Phil.
the Rules of Court and the PNB Charter, under whichWe
in this case, as far as appellants are 371; Worcester
ruled that the redemption period shall start from the
concerned, started only on May 26, vs. Ocampo, 34
registration of the sale in the registry of deeds be applied
1956, registered. Should We rule to Phil. 646)
to foreclosure sales for the DBP and give to the words
this effect, it is clear that hen (Emphasis
auction sale" in its charter the same meaning of "sale" as
appellants attempted to exercise their supplied)
used in connection with registered land?
right to redeem, as judgment creditors
of the deceased mortgagor by
We find no compelling reason to deviate from the
We are of the view that a correct solution to the foregoing judgment subsequent to the
aforequoted ruling and not apply the same to the present
issue must entail not merely trying to determine the extrajudicial foreclosure sale, and
case. To Us petitioners' main contention that there is a
meaning of the words auction sale" and "sale" in different when they initiated the present action
great deal of difference in legislative intent in the use of the
legislative enactments, but, more importantly, a on October 1, 1956, the period of
words 94 auction sale" in Sec. 31 of Commonwealth Act
determination of the legislative intent which is quite a task redemption had not yer expired.
459 and the word "sale" in See. 32 of Act 2938, and See.
to achieve as it depends more on a determination of the
30 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, pales into
purpose and objective of the law in giving mortgagors a
We find appellants' contention to be insignificance in the light of Our stand that those words
period of redemptiom of their foreclosed properties.
meritorious. In the case of Agbulos vs. used interchangeably refer to one thing, and that is the
Mortgagors whose properties are foreclosed and are
Alberto, G.R. No. L-17483, public auction sale required by law in the disposition of
purchased by the mortgagee as highest bidder at the
promulgated on July 31, 1962, We properties foreclosed or levied upon. Our stand in the
auction sale are decidedly at a great disadvatage because
held: Salazar case and in those mentioned therein (Garcia vs.
almost invariably mortgagors forfeit their properties at a
Ocampo, G.R. No. L-13029, June 30, 1959; Gonzales et
great loss as they are purchased at nominal costs by the
al. vs. Philippine National Bank et al. 48 Phil. 824) is firmly
mortgagee himself who ordinarily bids in no more than his The property
planted on the premise that registration of the deed of
credit or the balance threof at the auction sale. That is the involved in the conveyance for properties brought under the Torrens
reason why the law gives them a chance to redeem their present case is System is the operative act to transfer title to the property
properties within a fixed period. It cannot be denied that in
and registration is also the notice to the whole world that a FISHER, J.: The question of law presented by this appeal, as we view,
transaction involving the same had taken place. is not whether fish in general constitute an agricultural
products, but whether fish produced as were those upon
After the publication of the decision announced under the
which the tax in question was levied are an agricultural
To affirm the previous stand this Court has taken on the date of February 1st., 1918, 1counsel for appellee
product.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
question of when the one year period of redemption should presented a petition for a rehearing. This petition was
library
start (from the time of registration of the sale) would better granted and oral argument of the motion was permitted.
serve the ends of justice and equity especially in this case, Two of the members of the court, as constituted at the time
since to rule otherwise would result in preventing the of the argument on the motion for a rehearing, were not As stated by judged Cooley in his great work on taxation:
respondent-mortgagor from redeeming his 59.4687 present when the case was first submitted and did not
hectares of land which was acquired by the Development participate in the original
The underlying principle of all construction is that the intent
Bank of the Philippines as the highest bidder at the auction decision.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
of the legislature should be sought in the words employed
sale for the low price of only P7,271.22 which was simply library
to express it, and that when found it should be made to
the unpaid balance of the mortgage debt of P22,000.00
govern, . . . . If the words of the law seem to be of doubtful
after the respondent-mortgagor had paid the sum of
Upon the facts, as correctly stated in the original majority import, it may then perhaps become necessary to look
P14,728.78. As it is, affirmance of the Appellate Court's
decision, a majority of the members of the court as now beyond them in order to ascertain what was in the
decision would not result in any loss to petitioners since
constituted is in favor of setting aside the original decision legislative mind at the time the law was enacted; what the
the amount of P7,271.22 they paid to the Bank will be
and affirming the judgment of the trial circumstances were, under which the action was taken;
returned to 'them. What further strengthen's Our stand is
court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law what evil, if any, was meant to be redressed; . . . . And
the fact found by the respondent Appellate Court that
library where the law has contemporaneously been put into
respondent Barrameda has always been in possession of
operation, and in doing so a construction has necessarily
the disputed land.
been put upon it, this construction, especially if followed for
Plaintiff contends that the fish produced by him are to be
some considerable period, is entitled to great respect, as
regarded as an "agricultural product" within the meaning of
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, We find it no longer being very probably a true expression of the legislative
that term as used in paragraph ( c) of section 41 of Act No.
necessary to determine whether the petitioners are purpose, and is not lightly to be overruled, although it is
2339 (now section 1460 of the Administrative Code of
purchasers in good faith of the land involved, since the not conclusive. (Cooley on Taxation [Vol. 1] 3d. Ed., p.
1917), in forced when the disputed tax was levied, and that
respondent Barrameda redeemed the mortgaged property 450.)
he is therefore exempt from the percentage tax on
within the legal period of redemption and, consequently
merchants' sales established by section 40 of Act No.
the sale of the property executed on September 3, 1963,
2339, as amended.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles The first inquiry, therefore, must relate to the purpose of
by the Development Bank of the Philippine in favor of the
virtual law library the Legislative had in mind in establishing the exemption
petitioners is null and void.
contained in the clause now under consideration. It seems
reasonable to assume that it was due to the belief on the
The provision upon which the plaintiff relies reads as
WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Appellate part of the law making body that by exempting agricultural
follows:
Court is affirmed, with costs against petitioners. products from this tax the farming industry would be
favored and the development of the resources of the
In computing the tax above imposed transactions in the country encouraged. It is a fact, of which we take judicial
following commodities shall be excluded: . . . ( c) cognizance, that there are immense tracts of public land in
Agricultural products when sold by the producer or owner this country, at present wholly unproductive, which might
G.R. No. L-11988 April 4, 1918 of the land where grown, whether in their original state or be made fruitful by cultivation, and that large sums of
not. (Act No. 2339, sec. 41.) money go abroad every year for the purchase of food
substances which might be grown here. Every dollar's
JACINTO MOLINA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JAMES J. worth of food which the farmer produces and sells in these
RAFFERTY, Collector of Internal Revenue, Defendant- The same exemption, with a slight change in wording, is Islands adds directly to the wealth of the country. On the
Appellant. now embodied in section 1460 of the Administrative Code,
other hand, in the process of distribution of commodities to
of 1917.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law the ultimate consumer, no direct increase in value results
library solely from their transfer from one person to another in the
Acting Attorney-General Paredes for appellant.
Araneta & Zaragoza for appellee. course of commercial transactions. It is fairly to be inferred
from the statute that the object and purpose of the
Legislature was, in general terms, to levy the tax in Webster's New International Dictionary as meaning in its no decision which as yet has held that the fish grown in
question, significantly termed the "merchant's tax," upon all broader sense, "The science and art of the production of ponds are an agricultural product, but that is no reason
persons engaged in making a profit upon goods produced plants and animal useful to man . . ."chanrobles virtual law why we should not so hold if we find that such fish fall
by others, but to exempt from the tax all persons directly library within the scope of the meaning of the term. Of necessity,
producing goods from the land. In order to accomplish this the products of land tend constantly to multiply in number
purpose the Legislature, instead of attempting an and variety, as population increases and new demands
In Dillard vs. Webb (55 Ala., 468) it is held that the words
enumeration of exempted products, has grouped them all spring up. In California there are farms devoted to the
"agriculture" includes "the rearing, feeding and managing
under the general designation of "agricultural growth of frogs for the market. In many places in North
of live stock." The same view was expressed in the case of
products."chanrobles virtual law library America foxes and other animals usually found wild are
Binzel vs. Grogan (67 Wis.,
reared in confinement for their fur. In Japan land is
147).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
devoted to the culture of the silkworm and the growth of
It seems to require no argument to demonstrate that it is library
the plants necessary for the food of those insects. Bees
just as much to the public interest to encourage the
are everywhere kept for the wax and honey into which the
artificial propagation and growth of fish as of corn, pork,
Webster defines "product" to be "anything that is land is made to produce by those engaged in these
milk or any other food substance. If the artificial production
produced, whether as the result of generation, growth, occupations are "agricultural products" in the same sense
of fish is held not to be included within the exemption of
labor, or thought ... ," while "grow" is defined in the Century in which poultry, eggs, and butter have been held to be
the statute this conclusion must be based upon the
Dictionary as meaning "to cause to grow; cultivate; agricultural products.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
inadequacy of the language used by the Legislature to
produce, raise . . .."chanrobles virtual law library virtual law library
express its purpose, rather than the assumption that it was
actually intended to exclude producers of artificially grown
fish from the benefits conferred upon producers of other While it is true that in a narrow and restricted sense Now, if the purpose of agriculture, in the broader sense of
substances brought into the store of national wealth by the agricultural products are limited to vegetable substances the term, is to obtain from the land the products to which it
arts of husbandry and animal directly resulting from the tillage of the soil, it is evident is best adapted and through which it will yield the greatest
industry.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law from the definitions quoted that the term also includes return upon the expenditure of a given amount of labor and
library animal which derived their sustenance from vegetable capital, can it not be said that it is just as much an
growths, and are therefore indirectly the product of the agricultural process to enclose a given area of land with
land. Thus it has been held that "The product of the dairy dykes, flood it with water, grow aquatic plants in it, and
While we have no doubt that the land occupied by the
and the product of the poultry yard, while it does not come feed fish with the plants so produced as to fence in it and
ponds in which the fish in question are grown is
directly out of the soil is necessarily connected with the soil allow poultry to feed upon the plants naturally or artificially
agricultural land within the meaning of the Acts of
. . . and is therefore farm produce. (District of grown upon the surface? In the last analysis the result is
Congress and of the Philippine Commission under
Columbia vs. Oyster, 15 D. C., 285.)chanrobles virtual law the same - a given area of land produces a certain amount
consideration in the case of Map vs. Insular Government
library of food. In the one case it is the flesh of poultry, in the
(10 Phil. Rep., 175) and others cited in the original majority
other the flesh of fish. It has been agreed between the
opinion, it does not seem to us that this conclusion solves
parties that an important article of diet consumed by fish
the problem. A man might cultivate the surface of a tract of In the case of Mayor vs. Davis (6 Watts & Sergeant [Penn.
grown in a pond consists of certain marine plants which
land patented to him under the mining law, but the Rep.], 269) the court said: grow from roots which affix themselves to the bottom of the
products of such soil would not for that reason, we
pond. In a real sense, therefore, the fish are just as truly a
apprehend, be any the less "agricultural products."
Swine horses, meat cattle, sheep, manure, cordwood, hay, product of the land as are poultry or swine, living upon its
Conversely, the admission that the land upon which these
vegetables, fruits, eggs, milk, butter, lard . . . are strictly vegetable growths, aquatic or terrestrial. Thus, land may
fishponds are constructed is not to be classified as mineral
produce of the farm . . . truly be said to produce fish, although it is true that the
or forest land, does not lead of necessity to the conclusion
producer is not a fisherman. Neither is one who grows
that everything produced upon them is for that reason
foxes for their pelts a hunter. As contended by counsel, the
alone to be deemed an "agricultural product" within the Without attempting to further multiply examples, we think it inquiry is not whether fish in general constitute an
meaning of the statute under may safely be asserted that courts and lexicographers are agricultural product, but whether fish artificially grown and
consideration.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual in accord in holding that the term "agricultural products" is fed in confinement are to be so regarded. Honey produced
law library not limited in its meaning to vegetable growth, but includes by one who devotes his land to apiculture might be so
everything which serves to satisfy human needs which is regarded, even if we were to admit that wild honey
grown upon the land, whether it pertain to the vegetable gathered in the forest is not. Pigeons kept in domestication
"Agriculture" is an English word made upon of Latin words
" ager," a field, and " cultura," cultivation. It is defined by kingdom, or to the animal kingdom. It is true that there is and fed by the owner would fall within the definition. Wild
pigeons obtained by a hunter would not. Firewood We are therefore of the opinion, and so hold, that the CARSON, J., dissenting:chanrobles virtual law library
gathered in a natural forest is not an agricultural product, decision heretofore rendered herein must be set aside,
but firewood cut from bacauan trees planted for that and the judgment of the lower court affirmed. So
I dissent.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
purpose has been held to be such a product, and its ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law
library
producer exempt from the merchant's tax. library
(Mercado vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 32 Phil. Rep.,
271.) Other comparisons might be made, many of which As I understand them, the contentions of counsel in
Arellano, C.J., Torres and Johnson, JJ., concur.
will be found in the opinion in which two of the members of support of the motion for a rehearing and reconsideration
Araullo, J., dissents.
the court expressed their dissent from the original majority are substantially identical with those adduced in briefs and
opinion, but enough have been given to make our position the oral arguments when the case was originally
clear.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law submitted.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
library library
During the many hears that the statute before us has been Separate Opinionschanrobles virtual law library I have heard nothing which would lead me to modify my
in existence, since it first appeared, substantially in its views or my vote when the case was decided and the
present form, in section 142 of Act No. 1189, passed in decision promulgated.
STREET, J., concurring:chanrobles virtual law library
1904, no attempt has been made, until this case arose, to
construe it as not applying to fish grown in ponds, and
much weight should be given to this long continued At the original hearing, I became quite firmly convinced, as
administrative interpretation. The opinion of the Attorney- I supposed, that the product of a fishery maintained in the
General, cited by Justice Malcolm, will be found on manner shown in this case ought not to be considered an
examination to have no bearing upon the present inquiry, agricultural products, within the meaning of the provision of MALCOLM, J., dissenting:chanrobles virtual law library
as in that case question was, not whether fish grown and the Internal Revenue Law which exempts agricultural
fed in ponds were agricultural products, but whether ". . products from the merchant's tax. Upon fuller reflection,
. fishermen, shell and pearl gatherers . . ." were liable to This case well illustrates how on the same facts, the same
and further consideration of the arguments advanced at
the occupation tax. There is nothing in the opinion to law, and the same authorities, judges can arrive at
the rehearing in favor of the other contention, I have come
indicate that the word "fishermen" was used to mean men diametrically opposed
to the conclusion that I was wrong. I therefore take this
growing fish in ponds, and it must, therefore, be assumed conclusions.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual
opportunity to recede from my former position and to
that it was used in its proper grammatical sense to law library
express my conformity with the opinion which now
designate persons engaged in catching fish not artificially becomes the opinion of the majority of the
produced.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law Take the facts. They are stipulated. The only difference is
library library that possibly unconsciously, in order to fortify the
conclusion, the decision of the majority on reconsideration
The decision in the case of The United States vs. Laxa (36 would stress the point that an important article of diet
My conformity with the opinion first written was based on
Phil. Rep., 670) is not controlling, as the reasoning upon consumed by fish grown in a pond consists of certain
the conviction that the term "agricultural products," as used
which it is based was not concurred in by four members of marine plants which grow from roots which affix
in this statute, had reference to articles produced by purely
the court. Furthermore, the Laxa case might be themselves to the bottom of the pond, while the original
agricultural processes, more especially by the tillage of the
distinguished from the one now under consideration, were decision as well as the decision in the Laxa case,1 possibly
fields. As I now view the case, this conception of the
it necessary to do so, in that it has been stipulated in this also in order to fortify their conclusions, would stress the
meaning of agricultural is too narrow. It must be admitted
case that fish cultivated in ponds subsist largely upon scientific fact that the food of the bangus includes marine
that poultry, eggs, pigs, and other ordinary produce of farm
aquatic plants which grow from roots which attach plants, that these algae are of seven classes, that one of
and country are agricultural products within the meaning of
themselves to the bottom of the pond, and are therefore in these plants is rooted, that some of the others are very
the statute; and no sufficient reason is discernible for
a real sense a product of the land, while in the Laxa case loosely attached to the ground but not rooted, and that
excluding fish produced under the conditions revealed in
the evidence was that they subsisted solely upon free generally the algae float on the
this case.
floating algae.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual water.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
law library library
Or take the law. The section in dispute is made up of a few include everything which would fall under the word Because of the similarity of the two cases, involving as
simple words. In reality, the meaning of the phrase, "products."chanrobles virtual law library they do the same question of law, they were jointly
"agricultural products," is only to be ascertained. The submitted for determination in the lower court. Judge
primary duty of the court is, of course, to ascertain Higinio B. Macadaeg presiding, in a rather exhaustive and
My views and those of three other members of the court
legislative intention. But here again the two decisions well considered decision found and held that under the
are fully set out in the first decision. Restatement or
radically differ. The decision of the majority on doctrine laid down by this Court in the case of Perfecto vs.
reargument will avail nothing. Suffice it to say that the
reconsideration in a laudable endeavor to encourage Meer, 85 Phil., 552, the collection of income taxes from the
argument on motion for reconsideration and the decision
commercial development would make this the purpose of salaries of Justice Jugo and Justice Endencia was a
of the majority have failed to convince me that fish - or to
the law and would follow this idea consistently to the end. diminution of their compensation and therefore was in
accede to the critical suggestion of the majority - that fish
On the other hand, the original decision would start with violation of the Constitution of the Philippines, and so
produced as were those upon which the tax in question
the same presumption but finding that to so construe the ordered the refund of said taxes.
was levied, are an agricultural product. The administrative
law would result in judicial amendment must then
ruling of the Attorney-General, the decision of this court in
necessarily reach a different result; if the Legislature had
United States vs. Laxa ([1917], 36 Phil., 670), and the We see no profit and necessity in again discussing and
intended to exempt all classes of domestic products which
original decision in the instant case should not be considering the proposition and the arguments pro and
would include fish, it would undoubtedly have done so in
overturned by granting this motion. cons involved in the case of Perfecto vs. Meer, supra,
plain language.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
which are raised, brought up and presented here. In that
virtual law library
case, we have held despite the ruling enunciated by the
G.R. No. L-6355-56 August 31, 1953
United States Federal Supreme Court in the case of O
Or take the authorities. The Supreme Court of Georgia 'Malley vs. Woodrought 307 U. S., 277, that taxing the
(Davis vs. Mayor [1879], 64 Ga., 128) would confine PASTOR M. ENDENCIA and FERNANDO salary of a judicial officer in the Philippines is a diminution
"agricultural products" to the yield of the soil, as corn, JUGO, plaintiffs-appellees, of such salary and so violates the Constitution. We shall
wheat, rye, hay, etc. Possibly this court was right. The vs. now confine our-selves to a discussion and determination
supreme courts Alabama and Wisconsin would go further SATURNINO DAVID, as Collector of Internal of the remaining question of whether or not Republic Act
and would include as" agricultural products" the rearing, Revenue, defendant-appellant. No. 590, particularly section 13, can justify and legalize the
feeding, and management of live stock. In this collection of income tax on the salary of judicial officers.
construction, these courts may have been right for, as one
example, it is merely a matter of comparative profit to the Office of the Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solicitor
Jose P. Alejandro for appellant. According to the brief of the Solicitor General on behalf of
farmer whether he markets his corn in the ear or on the
Manuel O. Chan for appellees. appellant Collector of Internal Revenue, our decision in the
hoof in the shape of swine. The Supreme Court of
case of Perfecto vs. Meer, supra, was not received
Pennsylvania (Mayor vs. Davis [1843], 6 W. S., 269) would
favorably by Congress, because immediately after its
go still further and would include as "agricultural products" MONTEMAYOR, J.: promulgation, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 590. To
swine, horses, meat, cattle, sheep, manure, cord, wood,
bring home his point, the Solicitor General reproduced
hay, poultry vegetables, fruit, eggs, milk, butter, and lard,
This is a joint appeal from the decision of the Court of First what he considers the pertinent discussion in the Lower
that is, domestic animals and products of the farm.
Instance of Manila declaring section 13 of Republic Act House of House Bill No. 1127 which became Republic Act
Possibly, this court was right. And now the Supreme Court
No. 590 unconstitutional, and ordering the appellant No. 590.
of the Philippine Islands in granting the motion for
reconsideration would go even further and would include in Saturnino David as Collector of Internal Revenue to re-
the term "agricultural products," frogs, foxes, bees, fund to Justice Pastor M. Endencia the sum of P1,744.45,
For purposes of reference, we are reproducing section 9,
pigeons, silkworms, silk, honey, and fish. Possibly, this representing the income tax collected on his salary as Article VIII of our Constitution:.
court is right. Try as I may, for I am gratified to have this Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals in 1951, and to
decision of the court, I cannot bring myself to this view. Justice Fernando Jugo the amount of P2,345.46,
Without giving way to the temptation to use ironical and representing the income tax collected on his salary from SEC. 9. The members of the Supreme Court
January 1,1950 to October 19, 1950, as Presiding Justice and all judges of inferior courts shall hold office
facetious language because of this result, let me merely
make the observation that where the limit will reached is of the Court of Appeals, and from October 20, 1950 to during good behavior, until they reach the age of
beyond my poor mind to comprehend. Another court could December 31,1950, as Associate Justice of the Supreme seventy years, or become incapacitated to
Court, without special pronouncement as to costs. discharge the duties of their office. They shall
very well instead of prolonging the examples ad
infinitum merely judicially repeal the word "agricultural" and receive such compensation as may be fixed by
law, which shall not be diminished during their
continuance in office. Until the Congress shall Under our system of constitutional government, the contrary to the provisions of the Federal and
provide otherwise, the Chief Justice of the Legislative department is assigned the power to make and State Constitutions. (11 Am. Jur., 905.).
Supreme Court shall receive an annual enact laws. The Executive department is charged with the
compensation of sixteen thousand pesos, and execution of carrying out of the provisions of said laws. But
By legislative fiat as enunciated in section 13, Republic Act
each Associate Justice, fifteen thousand pesos. the interpretation and application of said laws belong
NO. 590, Congress says that taxing the salary of a judicial
exclusively to the Judicial department. And this authority to
officer is not a decrease of compensation. This is a clear
interpret and apply the laws extends to the Constitution.
As already stated construing and applying the above example of interpretation or ascertainment of the meaning
Before the courts can determine whether a law is
constitutional provision, we held in the Perfecto case that of the phrase "which shall not be diminished during their
constitutional or not, it will have to interpret and ascertain
judicial officers are exempt from the payment of income tax continuance in office," found in section 9, Article VIII of the
the meaning not only of said law, but also of the pertinent
on their salaries, because the collection thereof by the Constitution, referring to the salaries of judicial officers.
portion of the Constitution in order to decide whether there
Government was a decrease or diminution of their salaries This act of interpreting the Constitution or any part thereof
is a conflict between the two, because if there is, then the
during their continuance in office, a thing which is by the Legislature is an invasion of the well-defined and
law will have to give way and has to be declared invalid
expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Thereafter, established province and jurisdiction of the Judiciary.
and unconstitutional.
according to the Solicitor General, because Congress did
not favorably receive the decision in the Perfecto case,
The rule is recognized elsewhere that the
Congress promulgated Republic Act No. 590, if not to Defining and interpreting the law is a judicial
legislature cannot pass any declaratory act, or
counteract the ruling in that decision, at least now to function and the legislative branch may not limit
act declaratory of what the law was before its
authorize and legalize the collection of income tax on the or restrict the power granted to the courts by the
passage, so as to give it any binding weight with
salaries of judicial officers. We quote section 13 of Constitution. (Bandy vs. Mickelson et al., 44N.
the courts. A legislative definition of a word as
Republic Act No. 590: W., 2nd 341, 342.)
used in a statute is not conclusive of its meaning
as used elsewhere; otherwise, the legislature
SEC 13. No salary wherever received by any When it is clear that a statute transgresses the would be usurping a judicial function in defining
public officer of the Republic of the Philippines authority vested in the legislature by the a term. (11 Am. Jur., 914, emphasis supplied)
shall be considered as exempt from the income Constitution, it is the duty of the courts to declare
tax, payment of which is hereby declared not to the act unconstitutional because they cannot
The legislature cannot, upon passing a law
be dimunition of his compensation fixed by the shrink from it without violating their oaths of
which violates a constitutional provision, validate
Constitution or by law. office. This duty of the courts to maintain the
it so as to prevent an attack thereon in the
Constitution as the fundamental law of the state
courts, by a declaration that it shall be so
is imperative and unceasing; and, as Chief
So we have this situation. The Supreme Court in a construed as not to violate the constitutional
Justice Marshall said, whenever a statute is in
decision interpreting the Constitution, particularly section 9, inhibition. (11 Am. Jur., 919, emphasis supplied)
violation of the fundamental law, the courts must
Article VIII, has held that judicial officers are exempt from
so adjudge and thereby give effect to the
payment of income tax on their salaries, because the
Constitution. Any other course would lead to the We have already said that the Legislature under our form
collection thereof was a diminution of such salaries,
destruction of the Constitution. Since the of government is assigned the task and the power to make
specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Now comes the
question as to the constitutionality of a statute is and enact laws, but not to interpret them. This is more true
Legislature and in section 13, Republic Act No. 590, says
a judicial matter, the courts will not decline the with regard to the interpretation of the basic law, the
that "no salary wherever received by any public officer of
exercise of jurisdiction upon the suggestion that Constitution, which is not within the sphere of the
the Republic (naturally including a judicial officer) shall be
action might be taken by political agencies in Legislative department. If the Legislature may declare
considered as exempt from the income tax," and proceeds
disregard of the judgment of the judicial what a law means, or what a specific portion of the
to declare that payment of said income tax is not a
tribunals. (11 Am. Jur., 714-715.) Constitution means, especially after the courts have in
diminution of his compensation. Can the Legislature validly
actual case ascertain its meaning by interpretation and
do this? May the Legislature lawfully declare the collection
applied it in a decision, this would surely cause confusion
of income tax on the salary of a public official, specially a Under the American system of constitutional
and instability in judicial processes and court decisions.
judicial officer, not a decrease of his salary, after the government, among the most important
Under such a system, a final court determination of a case
Supreme Court has found and decided otherwise? To functions in trusted to the judiciary are the
based on a judicial interpretation of the law of the
determine this question, we shall have to go back to the interpreting of Constitutions and, as a closely
Constitution may be undermined or even annulled by a
fundamental principles regarding separation of powers. connected power, the determination of whether
subsequent and different interpretation of the law or of the
laws and acts of the legislature are or are not
Constitution by the Legislative department. That would be 590, it would seem that one of the main reasons behind Having in mind the limited number of judicial officers in the
neither wise nor desirable, besides being clearly violative the enactment of the law was the feeling among certain Philippines enjoying this exemption, especially when the
of the fundamental, principles of our constitutional system legislators that members of the Supreme Court should not great bulk thereof are justices of the peace, many of them
of government, particularly those governing the separation enjoy any exemption and that as citizens, out of patriotism receiving as low as P200 a month, and considering further
of powers. and love for their country, they should pay income tax on the other exemptions allowed by the income tax law, such
their salaries. It might be stated in this connection that the as P3,000 for a married person and P600 for each
exemption is not enjoyed by the members of the Supreme dependent, the amount of national revenue to be derived
So much for the constitutional aspect of the case.
Court alone but also by all judicial officers including from income tax on the salaries of judicial officers, were if
Considering the practical side thereof, we believe that the
Justices of the Court of Appeals and judges of inferior not for the constitutional exemption, could not be large or
collection of income tax on a salary is an actual and
courts. The exemption also extends to other constitutional substantial. But even if it were otherwise, it should not
evident diminution thereof. Under the old system where
officers, like the President of the Republic, the Auditor affect, much less outweigh the purpose and the
the in-come tax was paid at the end of the year or
General, the members of the Commission on Elections, considerations that prompted the establishment of the
sometime thereafter, the decrease may not be so apparent
and possibly members of the Board of Tax Appeals, constitutional exemption. In the same case of Evans vs.
and clear. All that the official who had previously received
commissioners of the Public Service Commission, and Gore, supra, the Federal Supreme Court declared "that
his full salary was called upon to do, was to fulfill his
judges of the Court of Industrial Relations. Compares to they (fathers of the Constitution) regarded the
obligation and to exercise his privilege of paying his
the number of all these officials, that of the Supreme Court independence of the judges as far as greater importance
income tax on his salary. His salary fixed by law was
Justices is relatively insignificant. There are more than 990 than any revenue that could come from taxing their
received by him in the amount of said tax comes from his
other judicial officers enjoying the exemption, including 15 salaries.
other sources of income, he may not fully realize the fact
Justices of the Court of Appeals, about 107 Judges of First
that his salary had been decreased in the amount of said
Instance, 38 Municipal Judges and about 830 Justices of
income tax. But under the present system of withholding When a judicial officer assumed office, he does not exactly
the Peace. The reason behind the exemption in the
the income tax at the source, where the full amount of the ask for exemption from payment of income tax on his
Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Federal
income tax corresponding to his salary is computed in salary, as a privilege . It is already attached to his office,
Supreme Court and this Court, is to preserve the
advance and divided into equal portions corresponding to provided and secured by the fundamental law, not
independence of the Judiciary, not only of this High
the number of pay-days during the year and actually primarily for his benefit, but based on public interest, to
Tribunal but of the other courts, whose present
deducted from his salary corresponding to each payday, secure and preserve his independence of judicial thought
membership number more than 990 judicial officials.
said official actually does not receive his salary in full, and action. When we come to the members of the
because the income tax is deducted therefrom every Supreme Court, this excemption to them is relatively of
payday, that is to say, twice a month. Let us take the case The exemption was not primarily intended to benefit short duration. Because of the limited membership in this
of Justice Endencia. As Associate Justice of the Court of judicial officers, but was grounded on public policy. As said High Tribunal, eleven, and due to the high standards of
Appeals, his salary is fixed at p12,000 a year, that is to by Justice Van Devanter of the United States Supreme experience, practice and training required, one generally
say, he should receive P1,000 a month or P500 every Court in the case of Evans vs. Gore (253 U. S., 245): enters its portals and comes to join its membership quite
payday, — fifteenth and end of month. In the present case, late in life, on the aver-age, around his sixtieth year, and
the amount collected by the Collector of Internal Revenue being required to retire at seventy, assuming that he does
The primary purpose of the prohibition against
on said salary is P1,744.45 for one year. Divided by twelve not die or become incapacitated earlier, naturally he is not
diminution was not to benefit the judges, but, like
(months) we shall have P145.37 a month. And further in a position to receive the benefit of exemption for long. It
the clause in respect of tenure, to attract good
dividing it by two paydays will bring it down to P72.685, is rather to the justices of the peace that the exemption
and competent men to the bench and to
which is the income tax deducted form the collected on his can give more benefit. They are relatively more numerous,
promote that independence of action and
salary each half month. So, if Justice Endencia's salary as and because of the meager salary they receive, they can
judgment which is essential to the maintenance
a judicial officer were not exempt from payment of the less afford to pay the income tax on it and its diminution by
of the guaranties, limitations and pervading
income tax, instead of receiving P500 every payday, he the amount of the income tax if paid would be real,
principles of the Constitution and to the
would be actually receiving P427.31 only, and instead of substantial and onerous.
administration of justice without respect to
receiving P12,000 a year, he would be receiving but
person and with equal concern for the poor and
P10,255.55. Is it not therefor clear that every payday, his
the rich. Such being its purpose, it is to be Considering exemption in the abstract, there is nothing
salary is actually decreased by P72.685 and every year is
construed, not as a private grant, but as a unusual or abhorrent in it, as long as it is based on public
decreased by P1,744.45?
limitation imposed in the public interest; in other policy or public interest. While all other citizens are subject
words, not restrictively, but in accord with its to arrest when charged with the commission of a crime,
Reading the discussion in the lower House in connection spirit and the principle on which it proceeds. members of the Senate and House of Representatives
with House Bill No. 1127, which became Republic Act No. except in cases of treason, felony and breach of the peace
are exempt from arrest, during their attendance in the enacting a law, the Legislature may not legally provide majority in ruling that no legislation may provide that it be
session of the Legislature; and while all other citizens are therein that it be interpreted in such a way that it may not held valid although against a provision of the Constitution.
generally liable for any speech, remark or statement, oral violate a Constitutional prohibition, thereby tying the hands
or written, tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or of the courts in their task of later interpreting said statute,
contempt of a natural or juridical person or to blacken the specially when the interpretation sought and provided in
memory of one who is dead, Senators and Congressmen said statute runs counter to a previous interpretation
in making such statements during their sessions are already given in a case by the highest court of the land. G.R. No. L-45081 July 15, 1936
extended immunity and exemption.
In the views of the foregoing considerations, the decision JOSE A. ANGARA, petitioner,
And as to tax exemption, there are not a few citizens who appealed from is hereby affirmed, with no pronouncement vs.
enjoy this exemption. Persons, natural and juridical, are as to costs. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION, PEDRO YNSUA,
exempt from taxes on their lands, buildings and MIGUEL CASTILLO, and DIONISIO C.
improvements thereon when used exclusively for MAYOR,respondents.
Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes, and Labrador,
educational purposes, even if they derive income
JJ., concur.
therefrom. (Art. VI, Sec. 22 [3].) Holders of government
bonds are exempted from the payment of taxes on the Godofredo Reyes for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General Hilado for respondent
income or interest they receive therefrom (sec. 29 (b) [4],
National Internal Revenue Code as amended by Republic Electoral Commission.
Act No. 566). Payments or income received by any person Pedro Ynsua in his own behalf.
No appearance for other respondents.
residing in the Philippines under the laws of the United
Separate Opinions
States administered by the United States Veterans
Administration are exempt from taxation. (Republic Act No. LAUREL, J.:
360). Funds received by officers and enlisted men of the BAUTISTA ANGELO, J., concurring:
Philippine Army who served in the Armed Forces of the
United States, allowances earned by virtue of such This is an original action instituted in this court by the
services corresponding to the taxable years 1942 to 1945, Without expressing any opinion on the doctrine laid down petitioner, Jose A. Angara, for the issuance of a writ of
inclusive, are exempted from income tax. (Republic Act by this Court in the case of Perfecto vs. Meer, G. R. No. L- prohibition to restrain and prohibit the Electoral
No. 210). The payment of wages and allowances of 2314, in view of the part I had in that case as former Commission, one of the respondents, from taking further
officers and enlisted men of the Army Forces of the Solicitor General, I wish however to state that I concur in cognizance of the protest filed by Pedro Ynsua, another
Philippines sent to Korea are also exempted from taxation. the opinion of the majority to the effect that section 13, respondent, against the election of said petitioner as
(Republic Act No. 35). In other words, for reasons of public Republic Act No. 590, in so far as it provides that taxing of member of the National Assembly for the first assembly
policy and public interest, a citizen may justifiably by the salary of a judicial officer shall be considered "not to be district of the Province of Tayabas.
constitutional provision or statute be exempted from his a diminution of his compensation fixed by the Constitution
ordinary obligation of paying taxes on his income. Under or by law", constitutes an invasion of the province and
The facts of this case as they appear in the petition and as
the same public policy and perhaps for the same it not jurisdiction of the judiciary. In this sense, I am of the
admitted by the respondents are as follows:
higher considerations, the framers of the Constitution opinion that said section is null and void, it being a
deemed it wise and necessary to exempt judicial officers transgression of the fundamental principle underlying the
from paying taxes on their salaries so as not to decrease separation of powers. (1) That in the elections of September 17, 1935,
their compensation, thereby insuring the independence of the petitioner, Jose A. Angara, and the
the Judiciary. respondents, Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo and
Dionisio Mayor, were candidates voted for the
position of member of the National Assembly for
In conclusion we reiterate the doctrine laid down in the the first district of the Province of Tayabas;
case of Perfecto vs. Meer, supra, to the effect that the PARAS, C.J., concurring and dissenting:
collection of income tax on the salary of a judicial officer is
a diminution thereof and so violates the Constitution. We (2) That on October 7, 1935, the provincial board
further hold that the interpretation and application of the I dissent for the same reasons stated in the dissenting of canvassers, proclaimed the petitioner as
Constitution and of statutes is within the exclusive province opinion of Mr. Justice Ozaeta in Perfecto vs. Meer, 85 member-elect of the National Assembly for the
and jurisdiction of the Judicial department, and that in Phil., 552, in which I concurred. But I disagree with the
said district, for having received the most (6) That on December 9, 1935, the Electoral (a) That the Constitution confers exclusive
number of votes; Commission adopted a resolution, paragraph 6 jurisdiction upon the electoral Commission solely
of which provides: as regards the merits of contested elections to
the National Assembly;
(3) That on November 15, 1935, the petitioner
took his oath of office; 6. La Comision no considerara
ninguna protesta que no se haya (b) That the Constitution excludes from said
presentado en o antes de este dia. jurisdiction the power to regulate the
(4) That on December 3, 1935, the National
proceedings of said election contests, which
Assembly in session assembled, passed the
power has been reserved to the Legislative
following resolution: (7) That on December 20, 1935, the herein
Department of the Government or the National
petitioner, Jose A. Angara, one of the
Assembly;
respondents in the aforesaid protest, filed before
[No. 8]
the Electoral Commission a "Motion to Dismiss
the Protest", alleging (a) that Resolution No. 8 of (c) That like the Supreme Court and other courts
RESOLUCION Dismiss the Protest", alleging (a) that Resolution created in pursuance of the Constitution, whose
CONFIRMANDO LAS No. 8 of the National Assembly was adopted in exclusive jurisdiction relates solely to deciding
ACTAS DE AQUELLOS the legitimate exercise of its constitutional the merits of controversies submitted to them for
DIPUTADOS CONTRA prerogative to prescribe the period during which decision and to matters involving their internal
QUIENES NO SE HA protests against the election of its members organization, the Electoral Commission can
PRESENTADO should be presented; (b) that the aforesaid regulate its proceedings only if the National
PROTESTA. resolution has for its object, and is the accepted Assembly has not availed of its primary power to
formula for, the limitation of said period; and (c) so regulate such proceedings;
that the protest in question was filed out of the
Se resuelve: Que las actas
prescribed period;
de eleccion de los (d) That Resolution No. 8 of the National
Diputados contra quienes Assembly is, therefore, valid and should be
no se hubiere presentado (8) That on December 27, 1935, the herein respected and obeyed;
debidamente una protesta respondent, Pedro Ynsua, filed an "Answer to
antes de la adopcion de la the Motion of Dismissal" alleging that there is no
(e) That under paragraph 13 of section 1 of the
presente resolucion sean, legal or constitutional provision barring the
ordinance appended to the Constitution and
como por la presente, son presentation of a protest against the election of
paragraph 6 of article 7 of the Tydings-McDuffie
aprobadas y confirmadas. a member of the National Assembly after
Law (No. 127 of the 73rd Congress of the United
confirmation;
States) as well as under section 1 and 3 (should
Adoptada, 3 de diciembre, be sections 1 and 2) of article VIII of the
1935. (9) That on December 31, 1935, the herein Constitution, this Supreme Court has jurisdiction
petitioner, Jose A. Angara, filed a "Reply" to the to pass upon the fundamental question herein
aforesaid "Answer to the Motion of Dismissal"; raised because it involves an interpretation of
(5) That on December 8, 1935, the herein the Constitution of the Philippines.
respondent Pedro Ynsua filed before the
Electoral Commission a "Motion of Protest" (10) That the case being submitted for decision,
against the election of the herein petitioner, Jose the Electoral Commission promulgated a On February 25, 1936, the Solicitor-General appeared and
A. Angara, being the only protest filed after the resolution on January 23, 1936, denying herein filed an answer in behalf of the respondent Electoral
passage of Resolutions No. 8 aforequoted, and petitioner's "Motion to Dismiss the Protest." Commission interposing the following special defenses:
praying, among other-things, that said
respondent be declared elected member of the
The application of the petitioner sets forth the following (a) That the Electoral Commission has been
National Assembly for the first district of
grounds for the issuance of the writ prayed for: created by the Constitution as an instrumentality
Tayabas, or that the election of said position be
of the Legislative Department invested with the
nullified;
jurisdiction to decide "all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the 1935, there was no existing law fixing the period could it be subject in the exercise of its quasi-
members of the National Assembly"; that in within which protests against the election of judicial functions to a writ of prohibition from the
adopting its resolution of December 9, 1935, members of the National Assembly should be Supreme Court;
fixing this date as the last day for the filed; that in fixing December 9, 1935, as the last
presentation of protests against the election of day for the filing of protests against the election
(g) That paragraph 6 of article 7 of the Tydings-
any member of the National Assembly, it acted of members of the National Assembly, the
McDuffie Law (No. 127 of the 73rd Congress of
within its jurisdiction and in the legitimate Electoral Commission was exercising a power
the united States) has no application to the case
exercise of the implied powers granted it by the impliedly conferred upon it by the Constitution,
at bar.
Constitution to adopt the rules and regulations by reason of its quasi-judicial attributes;
essential to carry out the power and functions
conferred upon the same by the fundamental The case was argued before us on March 13, 1936.
(b) That said respondent presented his motion of
law; that in adopting its resolution of January 23, Before it was submitted for decision, the petitioner prayed
protest before the Electoral Commission on
1936, overruling the motion of the petitioner to for the issuance of a preliminary writ of injunction against
December 9, 1935, the last day fixed by
dismiss the election protest in question, and the respondent Electoral Commission which petition was
paragraph 6 of the rules of the said Electoral
declaring itself with jurisdiction to take denied "without passing upon the merits of the case" by
Commission;
cognizance of said protest, it acted in the resolution of this court of March 21, 1936.
legitimate exercise of its quasi-judicial functions
a an instrumentality of the Legislative (c) That therefore the Electoral Commission
Department of the Commonwealth Government, There was no appearance for the other respondents.
acquired jurisdiction over the protest filed by said
and hence said act is beyond the judicial respondent and over the parties thereto, and the
cognizance or control of the Supreme Court; resolution of the Electoral Commission of The issues to be decided in the case at bar may be
January 23, 1936, denying petitioner's motion to reduced to the following two principal propositions:
dismiss said protest was an act within the
(b) That the resolution of the National Assembly
jurisdiction of the said commission, and is not
of December 3, 1935, confirming the election of 1. Has the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the
reviewable by means of a writ of prohibition;
the members of the National Assembly against Electoral Commission and the subject matter of
whom no protest had thus far been filed, could the controversy upon the foregoing related facts,
not and did not deprive the electoral (d) That neither the law nor the Constitution and in the affirmative,
Commission of its jurisdiction to take cognizance requires confirmation by the National Assembly
of election protests filed within the time that of the election of its members, and that such
might be set by its own rules: 2. Has the said Electoral Commission acted
confirmation does not operate to limit the period
within which protests should be filed as to without or in excess of its jurisdiction in
deprive the Electoral Commission of jurisdiction assuming to the cognizance of the protest filed
(c) That the Electoral Commission is a body the election of the herein petitioner
over protest filed subsequent thereto;
invested with quasi-judicial functions, created by notwithstanding the previous confirmation of
the Constitution as an instrumentality of the such election by resolution of the National
Legislative Department, and is not an "inferior (e) That the Electoral Commission is an Assembly?
tribunal, or corporation, or board, or person" independent entity created by the Constitution,
within the purview of section 226 and 516 of the endowed with quasi-judicial functions, whose
Code of Civil Procedure, against which We could perhaps dispose of this case by passing directly
decision are final and unappealable;
prohibition would lie. upon the merits of the controversy. However, the question
of jurisdiction having been presented, we do not feel
( f ) That the electoral Commission, as a justified in evading the issue. Being a case primæ
The respondent Pedro Ynsua, in his turn, appeared and constitutional creation, is not an inferior tribunal, impressionis, it would hardly be consistent with our sense
filed an answer in his own behalf on March 2, 1936, setting corporation, board or person, within the terms of of duty to overlook the broader aspect of the question and
forth the following as his special defense: sections 226 and 516 of the Code of Civil leave it undecided. Neither would we be doing justice to
Procedure; and that neither under the provisions the industry and vehemence of counsel were we not to
of sections 1 and 2 of article II (should be article pass upon the question of jurisdiction squarely presented
(a) That at the time of the approval of the rules
VIII) of the Constitution and paragraph 13 of to our consideration.
of the Electoral Commission on December 9,
section 1 of the Ordinance appended thereto
The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our called upon to determine the proper allocation of powers then, this power of judicial review is limited to actual cases
system of government. It obtains not through express between the several departments and among the integral and controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of
provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each or constituent units thereof. argument by the parties, and limited further to the
department of the government has exclusive cognizance constitutional question raised or the very lis
of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its mota presented. Any attempt at abstraction could only lead
As any human production, our Constitution is of course
own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile
lacking perfection and perfectibility, but as much as it was
three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the conclusions unrelated to actualities. Narrowed as its
within the power of our people, acting through their
Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained function is in this manner, the judiciary does not pass upon
delegates to so provide, that instrument which is the
and independent of each other. The Constitution has questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation.
expression of their sovereignty however limited, has
provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances More than that, courts accord the presumption of
established a republican government intended to operate
to secure coordination in the workings of the various constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only
and function as a harmonious whole, under a system of
departments of the government. For example, the Chief because the legislature is presumed to abide by the
checks and balances, and subject to specific limitations
Executive under our Constitution is so far made a check on Constitution but also because the judiciary in the
and restrictions provided in the said instrument. The
the legislative power that this assent is required in the determination of actual cases and controversies must
Constitution sets forth in no uncertain language the
enactment of laws. This, however, is subject to the further reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as expressed
restrictions and limitations upon governmental powers and
check that a bill may become a law notwithstanding the through their representatives in the executive and
agencies. If these restrictions and limitations are
refusal of the President to approve it, by a vote of two- legislative departments of the governments of the
transcended it would be inconceivable if the Constitution
thirds or three-fourths, as the case may be, of the National government.
had not provided for a mechanism by which to direct the
Assembly. The President has also the right to convene the
course of government along constitutional channels, for
Assembly in special session whenever he chooses. On the
then the distribution of powers would be mere verbiage, But much as we might postulate on the internal checks of
other hand, the National Assembly operates as a check on
the bill of rights mere expressions of sentiment, and the power provided in our Constitution, it ought not the less to
the Executive in the sense that its consent through its
principles of good government mere political apothegms. be remembered that, in the language of James Madison,
Commission on Appointments is necessary in the
Certainly, the limitation and restrictions embodied in our the system itself is not "the chief palladium of constitutional
appointments of certain officers; and the concurrence of a
Constitution are real as they should be in any living liberty . . . the people who are authors of this blessing must
majority of all its members is essential to the conclusion of
constitution. In the United States where no express also be its guardians . . . their eyes must be ever ready to
treaties. Furthermore, in its power to determine what
constitutional grant is found in their constitution, the mark, their voice to pronounce . . . aggression on the
courts other than the Supreme Court shall be established,
possession of this moderating power of the courts, not to authority of their constitution." In the Last and ultimate
to define their jurisdiction and to appropriate funds for their
speak of its historical origin and development there, has analysis, then, must the success of our government in the
support, the National Assembly controls the judicial
been set at rest by popular acquiescence for a period of unfolding years to come be tested in the crucible of Filipino
department to a certain extent. The Assembly also
more than one and a half centuries. In our case, this minds and hearts than in consultation rooms and court
exercises the judicial power of trying impeachments. And
moderating power is granted, if not expressly, by clear chambers.
the judiciary in turn, with the Supreme Court as the final
implication from section 2 of article VIII of our constitution.
arbiter, effectively checks the other departments in the
exercise of its power to determine the law, and hence to In the case at bar, the national Assembly has by resolution
declare executive and legislative acts void if violative of the The Constitution is a definition of the powers of (No. 8) of December 3, 1935, confirmed the election of the
Constitution. government. Who is to determine the nature, scope and herein petitioner to the said body. On the other hand, the
extent of such powers? The Constitution itself has Electoral Commission has by resolution adopted on
provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary as the December 9, 1935, fixed said date as the last day for the
But in the main, the Constitution has blocked out with deft
rational way. And when the judiciary mediates to allocate filing of protests against the election, returns and
strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the
constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority qualifications of members of the National Assembly,
executive, the legislative and the judicial departments of
over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or notwithstanding the previous confirmation made by the
the government. The overlapping and interlacing of
invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the National Assembly as aforesaid. If, as contended by the
functions and duties between the several departments,
solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the petitioner, the resolution of the National Assembly has the
however, sometimes makes it hard to say just where the
Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority effect of cutting off the power of the Electoral Commission
one leaves off and the other begins. In times of social
under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an to entertain protests against the election, returns and
disquietude or political excitement, the great landmarks of
actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures qualifications of members of the National Assembly,
the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred, if not
and guarantees to them. This is in truth all that is involved submitted after December 3, 1935, then the resolution of
entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the judicial
in what is termed "judicial supremacy" which properly is the Electoral Commission of December 9, 1935, is mere
department is the only constitutional organ which can be
the power of judicial review under the Constitution. Even surplusage and had no effect. But, if, as contended by the
respondents, the Electoral Commission has the sole power Australia and South Africa. Whereas, in Czechoslovakia returns and qualifications of the members of the National
of regulating its proceedings to the exclusion of the (arts. 2 and 3, Preliminary Law to constitutional Charter of Assembly." It is imperative, therefore, that we delve into
National Assembly, then the resolution of December 9, the Czechoslovak Republic, February 29, 1920) and Spain the origin and history of this constitutional provision and
1935, by which the Electoral Commission fixed said date (arts. 121-123, Title IX, Constitutional of the Republic of inquire into the intention of its framers and the people who
as the last day for filing protests against the election, 1931) especial constitutional courts are established to adopted it so that we may properly appreciate its full
returns and qualifications of members of the National pass upon the validity of ordinary laws. In our case, the meaning, import and significance.
Assembly, should be upheld. nature of the present controversy shows the necessity of a
final constitutional arbiter to determine the conflict of
The original provision regarding this subject in the Act of
authority between two agencies created by the
Here is then presented an actual controversy involving as Congress of July 1, 1902 (sec. 7, par. 5) laying down the
Constitution. Were we to decline to take cognizance of the
it does a conflict of a grave constitutional nature between rule that "the assembly shall be the judge of the elections,
controversy, who will determine the conflict? And if the
the National Assembly on the one hand, and the Electoral returns, and qualifications of its members", was taken from
conflict were left undecided and undetermined, would not a
Commission on the other. From the very nature of the clause 1 of section 5, Article I of the Constitution of the
void be thus created in our constitutional system which
republican government established in our country in the United States providing that "Each House shall be the
may be in the long run prove destructive of the entire
light of American experience and of our own, upon the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its
framework? To ask these questions is to answer
judicial department is thrown the solemn and inescapable own Members, . . . ." The Act of Congress of August 29,
them. Natura vacuum abhorret, so must we avoid
obligation of interpreting the Constitution and defining 1916 (sec. 18, par. 1) modified this provision by the
exhaustion in our constitutional system. Upon principle,
constitutional boundaries. The Electoral Commission, as insertion of the word "sole" as follows: "That the Senate
reason and authority, we are clearly of the opinion that
we shall have occasion to refer hereafter, is a and House of Representatives, respectively, shall be the
upon the admitted facts of the present case, this court has
constitutional organ, created for a specific purpose, sole judges of the elections, returns, and qualifications of
jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the subject
namely to determine all contests relating to the election, their elective members . . ." apparently in order to
mater of the present controversy for the purpose of
returns and qualifications of the members of the National emphasize the exclusive the Legislative over the particular
determining the character, scope and extent of the
Assembly. Although the Electoral Commission may not be case s therein specified. This court has had occasion to
constitutional grant to the Electoral Commission as "the
interfered with, when and while acting within the limits of its characterize this grant of power to the Philippine Senate
sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns
authority, it does not follow that it is beyond the reach of and House of Representatives, respectively, as "full, clear
and qualifications of the members of the National
the constitutional mechanism adopted by the people and and complete" (Veloso vs. Boards of Canvassers of Leyte
Assembly."
that it is not subject to constitutional restrictions. The and Samar [1919], 39 Phil., 886, 888.)
Electoral Commission is not a separate department of the
government, and even if it were, conflicting claims of Having disposed of the question of jurisdiction, we shall
The first step towards the creation of an independent
authority under the fundamental law between department now proceed to pass upon the second proposition and
tribunal for the purpose of deciding contested elections to
powers and agencies of the government are necessarily determine whether the Electoral Commission has acted
the legislature was taken by the sub-committee of five
determined by the judiciary in justifiable and appropriate without or in excess of its jurisdiction in adopting its
appointed by the Committee on Constitutional Guarantees
cases. Discarding the English type and other European resolution of December 9, 1935, and in assuming to take
of the Constitutional Convention, which sub-committee
types of constitutional government, the framers of our cognizance of the protest filed against the election of the
submitted a report on August 30, 1934, recommending the
constitution adopted the American type where the written herein petitioner notwithstanding the previous confirmation
creation of a Tribunal of Constitutional Security
constitution is interpreted and given effect by the judicial thereof by the National Assembly on December 3, 1935.
empowered to hear legislature but also against the
department. In some countries which have declined to As able counsel for the petitioner has pointed out, the
election of executive officers for whose election the vote of
follow the American example, provisions have been issue hinges on the interpretation of section 4 of Article VI
the whole nation is required, as well as to initiate
inserted in their constitutions prohibiting the courts from of the Constitution which provides:
impeachment proceedings against specified executive and
exercising the power to interpret the fundamental law. This
judicial officer. For the purpose of hearing legislative
is taken as a recognition of what otherwise would be the
"SEC. 4. There shall be an Electoral Commission protests, the tribunal was to be composed of three justices
rule that in the absence of direct prohibition courts are
composed of three Justice of the Supreme Court designated by the Supreme Court and six members of the
bound to assume what is logically their function. For
designated by the Chief Justice, and of six Members house of the legislature to which the contest corresponds,
instance, the Constitution of Poland of 1921, expressly
chosen by the National Assembly, three of whom shall be three members to be designed by the majority party and
provides that courts shall have no power to examine the
nominated by the party having the largest number of votes, three by the minority, to be presided over by the Senior
validity of statutes (art. 81, chap. IV). The former Austrian
and three by the party having the second largest number Justice unless the Chief Justice is also a member in which
Constitution contained a similar declaration. In countries
of votes therein. The senior Justice in the Commission case the latter shall preside. The foregoing proposal was
whose constitutions are silent in this respect, courts have
shall be its Chairman. The Electoral Commission shall be submitted by the Committee on Constitutional Guarantees
assumed this power. This is true in Norway, Greece,
the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, to the Convention on September 15, 1934, with slight
modifications consisting in the reduction of the legislative cases contesting the election of any of its the election of those whose election is not
representation to four members, that is, two senators to be Members shall be judged by an Electoral contested?
designated one each from the two major parties in the Commission, composed of three members
Senate and two representatives to be designated one elected by the party having the largest number
Mr. ROXAS. There is no need of confirmation.
each from the two major parties in the House of of votes in the National Assembly, three elected
As the gentleman knows, the action of the
Representatives, and in awarding representation to the by the members of the party having the second
House of Representatives confirming the
executive department in the persons of two largest number of votes, and three justices of the
election of its members is just a matter of the
representatives to be designated by the President. Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice,
rules of the assembly. It is not constitutional. It is
the Commission to be presided over by one of
not necessary. After a man files his credentials
said justices.
Meanwhile, the Committee on Legislative Power was also that he has been elected, that is sufficient,
preparing its report. As submitted to the Convention on unless his election is contested.
September 24, 1934 subsection 5, section 5, of the During the discussion of the amendment introduced by
proposed Article on the Legislative Department, reads as Delegates Labrador, Abordo, and others, proposing to
Mr. VENTURA. But I do not believe that that is
follows: strike out the whole subsection of the foregoing draft and
sufficient, as we have observed that for
inserting in lieu thereof the following: "The National
purposes of the auditor, in the matter of election
Assembly shall be the soled and exclusive judge of the
The elections, returns and qualifications of the of a member to a legislative body, because he
elections, returns, and qualifications of the Members", the
members of either house and all cases will not authorize his pay.
following illuminating remarks were made on the floor of
contesting the election of any of their members
the Convention in its session of December 4, 1934, as to
shall be judged by an Electoral Commission,
the scope of the said draft: Mr. ROXAS. Well, what is the case with regards
constituted, as to each House, by three
to the municipal president who is elected? What
members elected by the members of the party
happens with regards to the councilors of a
having the largest number of votes therein, three xxx xxx xxx
municipality? Does anybody confirm their
elected by the members of the party having the
election? The municipal council does this: it
second largest number of votes, and as to its
Mr. VENTURA. Mr. President, we have a doubt makes a canvass and proclaims — in this case
Chairman, one Justice of the Supreme Court
here as to the scope of the meaning of the first the municipal council proclaims who has been
designated by the Chief Justice.
four lines, paragraph 6, page 11 of the draft, elected, and it ends there, unless there is a
reading: "The elections, returns and contest. It is the same case; there is no need on
The idea of creating a Tribunal of Constitutional Security qualifications of the Members of the National the part of the Electoral Commission unless
with comprehensive jurisdiction as proposed by the Assembly and all cases contesting the election there is a contest. The first clause refers to the
Committee on Constitutional Guarantees which was of any of its Members shall be judged by an case referred to by the gentleman from Cavite
probably inspired by the Spanish plan (art. 121, Electoral Commission, . . ." I should like to ask where one person tries to be elected in place of
Constitution of the Spanish Republic of 1931), was soon from the gentleman from Capiz whether the another who was declared elected. From
abandoned in favor of the proposition of the Committee on election and qualification of the member whose example, in a case when the residence of the
Legislative Power to create a similar body with reduced elections is not contested shall also be judged man who has been elected is in question, or in
powers and with specific and limited jurisdiction, to be by the Electoral Commission. case the citizenship of the man who has been
designated as a Electoral Commission. The Sponsorship elected is in question.
Committee modified the proposal of the Committee on
Mr. ROXAS. If there is no question about the
Legislative Power with respect to the composition of the
election of the members, there is nothing to be However, if the assembly desires to annul the
Electoral Commission and made further changes in
judged; that is why the word "judge" is used to power of the commission, it may do so by certain
phraseology to suit the project of adopting a unicameral
indicate a controversy. If there is no question maneuvers upon its first meeting when the
instead of a bicameral legislature. The draft as finally
about the election of a member, there is nothing returns are submitted to the assembly. The
submitted to the Convention on October 26, 1934, reads
to be submitted to the Electoral Commission and purpose is to give to the Electoral Commission
as follows:
there is nothing to be determined. all the powers exercised by the assembly
referring to the elections, returns and
(6) The elections, returns and qualifications of qualifications of the members. When there is no
Mr. VENTURA. But does that carry the idea also
the Members of the National Assembly and all contest, there is nothing to be judged.
that the Electoral Commission shall confirm also
Mr. VENTURA. Then it should be eliminated. Mr. ROXAS. I have no doubt but that the members of the National Assembly and" was eliminated by
gentleman is right. If this draft is retained as it is, the Sponsorship Committee in response to an amendment
even if two-thirds of the assembly believe that a introduced by Delegates Francisco, Ventura, Vinzons,
Mr. ROXAS. But that is a different matter, I think
member has not the qualifications provided by Rafols, Lim, Mumar and others. In explaining the
Mr. Delegate.
law, they cannot remove him for that reason. difference between the original draft and the draft as
amended, Delegate Roxas speaking for the Sponsorship
Mr. CINCO. Mr. President, I have a similar Committee said:
Mr. LABRADOR. So that the right to remove
question as that propounded by the gentleman
shall only be retained by the Electoral
from Ilocos Norte when I arose a while ago.
Commission. xxx xxx xxx
However I want to ask more questions from the
delegate from Capiz. This paragraph 6 on page
11 of the draft cites cases contesting the election Mr. ROXAS. By the assembly for misconduct. Sr. ROXAS. La diferencia, señor Presidente,
as separate from the first part of the sections consiste solamente en obviar la objecion
which refers to elections, returns and apuntada por varios Delegados al efecto de que
Mr. LABRADOR. I mean with respect to the
qualifications. la primera clausula del draft que dice: "The
qualifications of the members.
elections, returns and qualifications of the
members of the National Assembly" parece que
Mr. ROXAS. That is merely for the sake of
Mr. ROXAS. Yes, by the Electoral Commission. da a la Comision Electoral la facultad de
clarity. In fact the cases of contested elections
determinar tambien la eleccion de los miembros
are already included in the phrase "the elections,
que no ha sido protestados y para obviar esa
returns and qualifications." This phrase "and Mr. LABRADOR. So that under this draft, no
dificultad, creemos que la enmienda tien razon
contested elections" was inserted merely for the member of the assembly has the right to en ese sentido, si enmendamos el draft, de tal
sake of clarity. question the eligibility of its members? modo que se lea como sigue: "All cases
contesting the election", de modo que los jueces
Mr. CINCO. Under this paragraph, may not the Mr. ROXAS. Before a member can question the de la Comision Electoral se limitaran solamente
Electoral Commission, at its own instance, eligibility, he must go to the Electoral a los casos en que haya habido protesta contra
refuse to confirm the elections of the members." Commission and make the question before the las actas." Before the amendment of Delegate
Electoral Commission. Labrador was voted upon the following
interpellation also took place:
Mr. ROXAS. I do not think so, unless there is a
protest. Mr. LABRADOR. So that the Electoral
Commission shall decide whether the election is El Sr. CONEJERO. Antes de votarse la
contested or not contested. enmienda, quisiera
Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. President, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ROXAS. Yes, sir: that is the purpose. El Sr. PRESIDENTE. ¿Que dice el Comite?
THE PRESIDENT. The gentleman may yield, if
he so desires. Mr. PELAYO. Mr. President, I would like to be El Sr. ROXAS. Con mucho gusto.
informed if the Electoral Commission has power
and authority to pass upon the qualifications of El Sr. CONEJERO. Tal como esta el draft,
Mr. ROXAS. Willingly.
the members of the National Assembly even dando tres miembros a la mayoria, y otros tres a
though that question has not been raised. la minoria y tres a la Corte Suprema, ¿no cree
Mr. LABRADOR. Does not the gentleman from
Su Señoria que esto equivale practicamente a
Capiz believe that unless this power is granted dejar el asunto a los miembros del Tribunal
Mr. ROXAS. I have just said that they have no
to the assembly, the assembly on its own motion Supremo?
power, because they can only judge.
does not have the right to contest the election
and qualification of its members?
In the same session, the first clause of the aforesaid draft El Sr. ROXAS. Si y no. Creemos que si el
reading "The election, returns and qualifications of the tribunal o la Commission esta constituido en esa
forma, tanto los miembros de la mayoria como Chief Justice, the Commission to be presided of proceeding prevailed, in the determination of
los de la minoria asi como los miembros de la over by one of said justices. controverted elections, and rights of
Corte Suprema consideraran la cuestion sobre membership. One of the standing committees
la base de sus meritos, sabiendo que el appointed at the commencement of each
The Style Committee to which the draft was submitted
partidismo no es suficiente para dar el triunfo. session, was denominated the committee of
revised it as follows:
privileges and elections, whose functions was to
hear and investigate all questions of this
El Sr. CONEJERO. ¿Cree Su Señoria que en un
SEC. 4. There shall be an Electoral Commission description which might be referred to them, and
caso como ese, podriamos hacer que tanto los
composed of three Justices of the Supreme to report their proceedings, with their opinion
de la mayoria como los de la minoria
Court designated by the Chief Justice, and of six thereupon, to the house, from time to time.
prescindieran del partidismo?
Members chosen by the National Assembly, When an election petition was referred to this
three of whom shall be nominated by the party committee they heard the parties and their
El Sr. ROXAS. Creo que si, porque el partidismo having the largest number of votes, and three by witnesses and other evidence, and made a
no les daria el triunfo. the party having the second largest number of report of all the evidence, together with their
votes therein. The senior Justice in the opinion thereupon, in the form of resolutions,
Commission shall be its chairman. The Electoral which were considered and agreed or disagreed
xxx xxx xxx
Commission shall be the sole judge of the to by the house. The other mode of proceeding
election, returns, and qualifications of the was by a hearing at the bar of the house itself.
The amendment introduced by Delegates Labrador, Members of the National Assembly. When this court was adopted, the case was
Abordo and others seeking to restore the power to decide heard and decided by the house, in substantially
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications the same manner as by a committee. The
When the foregoing draft was submitted for approval on committee of privileges and elections although a
of members of the National Assembly to the National
February 8, 1935, the Style Committee, through President
Assembly itself, was defeated by a vote of ninety-eight (98) select committee. The committee of privileges
Recto, to effectuate the original intention of the and elections although a select committee was
against fifty-six (56).
Convention, agreed to insert the phrase "All contests usually what is called an open one; that is to
relating to" between the phrase "judge of" and the words
say, in order to constitute the committee, a
In the same session of December 4, 1934, Delegate Cruz "the elections", which was accordingly accepted by the quorum of the members named was required to
(C.) sought to amend the draft by reducing the Convention. be present, but all the members of the house
representation of the minority party and the Supreme Court were at liberty to attend the committee and vote
in the Electoral Commission to two members each, so as if they pleased.
The transfer of the power of determining the election,
to accord more representation to the majority party. The
returns and qualifications of the members of the legislature
Convention rejected this amendment by a vote of seventy-
long lodged in the legislative body, to an independent, 154. With the growth of political parties in
six (76) against forty-six (46), thus maintaining the non-
impartial and non-partisan tribunal, is by no means a mere parliament questions relating to the right of
partisan character of the commission.
experiment in the science of government.
membership gradually assumed a political
character; so that for many years previous to the
As approved on January 31, 1935, the draft was made to year 1770, controverted elections had been tried
Cushing, in his Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies
read as follows: and determined by the house of commons, as
(ninth edition, chapter VI, pages 57, 58), gives a vivid
account of the "scandalously notorious" canvassing of mere party questions, upon which the strength of
(6) All cases contesting the elections, returns votes by political parties in the disposition of contests by contending factions might be tested. Thus, for
and qualifications of the Members of the the House of Commons in the following passages which Example, in 1741, Sir Robert Walpole, after
National Assembly shall be judged by an are partly quoted by the petitioner in his printed repeated attacks upon his government, resigned
Electoral Commission, composed of three memorandum of March 14, 1936: his office in consequence of an adverse vote
members elected by the party having the largest upon the Chippenham election. Mr. Hatsell
number of votes in the National Assembly, three remarks, of the trial of election cases, as
153. From the time when the commons conducted under this system, that "Every
elected by the members of the party having the
established their right to be the exclusive judges principle of decency and justice were notoriously
second largest number of votes, and three
of the elections, returns, and qualifications of and openly prostituted, from whence the
justices of the Supreme Court designated by the
their members, until the year 1770, two modes younger part of the house were insensibly, but
too successfully, induced to adopt the same pleas, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Dyson, who had been clerk passed a law on January 29, 1877 (United States Statutes
licentious conduct in more serious matters, and of the house, and Mr. Charles James Fox, at Large, vol. 19, chap. 37, pp. 227-229), creating a
in questions of higher importance to the public chiefly on the ground, that the introduction of the special Electoral Commission composed of five members
welfare." Mr. George Grenville, a distinguished new system was an essential alteration of the elected by the Senate, five members elected by the House
member of the house of commons, undertook to constitution of parliament, and a total abrogation of Representatives, and five justices of the Supreme Court,
propose a remedy for the evil, and, on the 7th of of one of the most important rights and the fifth justice to be selected by the four designated in the
March, 1770, obtained the unanimous leave of jurisdictions of the house of commons. Act. The decision of the commission was to be binding
the house to bring in a bill, "to regulate the trial unless rejected by the two houses voting separately.
of controverted elections, or returns of members Although there is not much of a moral lesson to be derived
As early as 1868, the House of Commons in England
to serve in parliament." In his speech to explain from the experience of America in this regard, judging from
solved the problem of insuring the non-partisan settlement
his plan, on the motion for leave, Mr. Grenville the observations of Justice Field, who was a member of
of the controverted elections of its members by abdicating
alluded to the existing practice in the following that body on the part of the Supreme Court (Countryman,
its prerogative to two judges of the King's Bench of the
terms: "Instead of trusting to the merits of their the Supreme Court of the United States and its Appellate
High Court of Justice selected from a rota in accordance
respective causes, the principal dependence of Power under the Constitution [Albany, 1913] — Relentless
with rules of court made for the purpose. Having proved
both parties is their private interest among us; Partisanship of Electoral Commission, p. 25 et seq.), the
successful, the practice has become imbedded in English
and it is scandalously notorious that we are as experiment has at least abiding historical interest.
jurisprudence (Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868 [31 & 32
earnestly canvassed to attend in favor of the
Vict. c. 125] as amended by Parliamentary Elections and
opposite sides, as if we were wholly self-
Corrupt Practices Act. 1879 [42 & 43 Vict. c. 75], s. 2; The members of the Constitutional Convention who framed
elective, and not bound to act by the principles
Corrupt and Illegal Practices Preventions Act, 1883 [46 & our fundamental law were in their majority men mature in
of justice, but by the discretionary impulse of our
47 Vict. c. 51;, s. 70; Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1911 years and experience. To be sure, many of them were
own inclinations; nay, it is well known, that in
[1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 22]; Laws of England, vol. XII, p. 408, vol. familiar with the history and political development of other
every contested election, many members of this
XXI, p. 787). In the Dominion of Canada, election contests countries of the world. When , therefore, they deemed it
house, who are ultimately to judge in a kind of
which were originally heard by the Committee of the House wise to create an Electoral Commission as a constitutional
judicial capacity between the competitors, enlist
of Commons, are since 1922 tried in the courts. Likewise, organ and invested it with the exclusive function of passing
themselves as parties in the contention, and
in the Commonwealth of Australia, election contests which upon and determining the election, returns and
take upon themselves the partial management of
were originally determined by each house, are since 1922 qualifications of the members of the National Assembly,
the very business, upon which they should
tried in the High Court. In Hungary, the organic law they must have done so not only in the light of their own
determine with the strictest impartiality."
provides that all protests against the election of members experience but also having in view the experience of other
of the Upper House of the Diet are to be resolved by the enlightened peoples of the world. The creation of the
155. It was to put an end to the practices thus Supreme Administrative Court (Law 22 of 1916, chap. 2, Electoral Commission was designed to remedy certain
described, that Mr. Grenville brought in a bill art. 37, par. 6). The Constitution of Poland of March 17, evils of which the framers of our Constitution were
which met with the approbation of both houses, 1921 (art. 19) and the Constitution of the Free City of cognizant. Notwithstanding the vigorous opposition of
and received the royal assent on the 12th of Danzig of May 13, 1922 (art. 10) vest the authority to some members of the Convention to its creation, the plan,
April, 1770. This was the celebrated law since decide contested elections to the Diet or National as hereinabove stated, was approved by that body by a
known by the name of the Grenville Act; of which Assembly in the Supreme Court. For the purpose of vote of 98 against 58. All that can be said now is that,
Mr. Hatsell declares, that it "was one of the deciding legislative contests, the Constitution of the upon the approval of the constitutional the creation of the
nobles works, for the honor of the house of German Reich of July 1, 1919 (art. 31), the Constitution of Electoral Commission is the expression of the wisdom and
commons, and the security of the constitution, the Czechoslovak Republic of February 29, 1920 (art. 19) "ultimate justice of the people". (Abraham Lincoln, First
that was ever devised by any minister or and the Constitution of the Grecian Republic of June 2, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.)
statesman." It is probable, that the magnitude of 1927 (art. 43), all provide for an Electoral Commission.
the evil, or the apparent success of the remedy,
From the deliberations of our Constitutional Convention it
may have led many of the contemporaries of the
The creation of an Electoral Commission whose is evident that the purpose was to transfer in its totality all
measure to the information of a judgement,
membership is recruited both from the legislature and the the powers previously exercised by the legislature in
which was not acquiesced in by some of the
judiciary is by no means unknown in the United States. In matters pertaining to contested elections of its members,
leading statesmen of the day, and has not been
the presidential elections of 1876 there was a dispute as to to an independent and impartial tribunal. It was not so
entirely confirmed by subsequent experience.
the number of electoral votes received by each of the two much the knowledge and appreciation of contemporary
The bill was objected to by Lord North, Mr. De
opposing candidates. As the Constitution made no constitutional precedents, however, as the long-felt need
Grey, afterwards chief justice of the common
adequate provision for such a contingency, Congress of determining legislative contests devoid of partisan
considerations which prompted the people, acting through would be created with the resultant inevitable clash of concession of the power as there is no power that is not
their delegates to the Convention, to provide for this body powers from time to time. A sad spectacle would then be susceptible of abuse. In the second place, if any mistake
known as the Electoral Commission. With this end in view, presented of the Electoral Commission retaining the bare has been committed in the creation of an Electoral
a composite body in which both the majority and minority authority of taking cognizance of cases referred to, but in Commission and in investing it with exclusive jurisdiction in
parties are equally represented to off-set partisan influence reality without the necessary means to render that all cases relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
in its deliberations was created, and further endowed with authority effective whenever and whenever the National of members of the National Assembly, the remedy is
judicial temper by including in its membership three Assembly has chosen to act, a situation worse than that political, not judicial, and must be sought through the
justices of the Supreme Court. intended to be remedied by the framers of our ordinary processes of democracy. All the possible abuses
Constitution. The power to regulate on the part of the of the government are not intended to be corrected by the
National Assembly in procedural matters will inevitably judiciary. We believe, however, that the people in creating
The Electoral Commission is a constitutional creation,
lead to the ultimate control by the Assembly of the entire the Electoral Commission reposed as much confidence in
invested with the necessary authority in the performance
proceedings of the Electoral Commission, and, by this body in the exclusive determination of the specified
and execution of the limited and specific function assigned
indirection, to the entire abrogation of the constitutional cases assigned to it, as they have given to the Supreme
to it by the Constitution. Although it is not a power in our
grant. It is obvious that this result should not be permitted. Court in the proper cases entrusted to it for decision. All
tripartite scheme of government, it is, to all intents and
the agencies of the government were designed by the
purposes, when acting within the limits of its authority, an
Constitution to achieve specific purposes, and each
independent organ. It is, to be sure, closer to the We are not insensible to the impassioned argument or the
constitutional organ working within its own particular
legislative department than to any other. The location of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the importance
sphere of discretionary action must be deemed to be
the provision (section 4) creating the Electoral Commission and necessity of respecting the dignity and independence
animated with the same zeal and honesty in accomplishing
under Article VI entitled "Legislative Department" of our of the national Assembly as a coordinate department of
the great ends for which they were created by the
Constitution is very indicative. Its compositions is also the government and of according validity to its acts, to
sovereign will. That the actuations of these constitutional
significant in that it is constituted by a majority of members avoid what he characterized would be practically an
agencies might leave much to be desired in given
of the legislature. But it is a body separate from and unlimited power of the commission in the admission of
instances, is inherent in the perfection of human
independent of the legislature. protests against members of the National Assembly. But
institutions. In the third place, from the fact that the
as we have pointed out hereinabove, the creation of the
Electoral Commission may not be interfered with in the
Electoral Commission carried with it ex necesitate rei the
The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to judge exercise of its legitimate power, it does not follow that its
power regulative in character to limit the time with which
all contests relating to the election, returns and acts, however illegal or unconstitutional, may not be
protests intrusted to its cognizance should be filed. It is a
qualifications of members of the National Assembly, is challenge in appropriate cases over which the courts may
settled rule of construction that where a general power is
intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had exercise jurisdiction.
conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power
remained originally in the legislature. The express lodging
necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance
of that power in the Electoral Commission is an implied
of the other is also conferred (Cooley, Constitutional But independently of the legal and constitutional aspects of
denial of the exercise of that power by the National
Limitations, eight ed., vol. I, pp. 138, 139). In the absence the present case, there are considerations of equitable
Assembly. And this is as effective a restriction upon the
of any further constitutional provision relating to the character that should not be overlooked in the appreciation
legislative power as an express prohibition in the
procedure to be followed in filing protests before the of the intrinsic merits of the controversy. The
Constitution (Ex parte Lewis, 45 Tex. Crim. Rep., 1;
Electoral Commission, therefore, the incidental power to Commonwealth Government was inaugurated on
State vs.Whisman, 36 S.D., 260; L.R.A., 1917B, 1). If we
promulgate such rules necessary for the proper exercise of November 15, 1935, on which date the Constitution,
concede the power claimed in behalf of the National
its exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the except as to the provisions mentioned in section 6 of
Assembly that said body may regulate the proceedings of
election, returns and qualifications of members of the Article XV thereof, went into effect. The new National
the Electoral Commission and cut off the power of the
National Assembly, must be deemed by necessary Assembly convened on November 25th of that year, and
commission to lay down the period within which protests
implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral the resolution confirming the election of the petitioner,
should be filed, the grant of power to the commission
Commission. Jose A. Angara was approved by that body on December
would be ineffective. The Electoral Commission in such
3, 1935. The protest by the herein respondent Pedro
case would be invested with the power to determine
Ynsua against the election of the petitioner was filed on
contested cases involving the election, returns and It is, indeed, possible that, as suggested by counsel for the
December 9 of the same year. The pleadings do not show
qualifications of the members of the National Assembly but petitioner, the Electoral Commission may abuse its
when the Electoral Commission was formally organized
subject at all times to the regulative power of the National regulative authority by admitting protests beyond any
but it does appear that on December 9, 1935, the Electoral
Assembly. Not only would the purpose of the framers of reasonable time, to the disturbance of the tranquillity and
Commission met for the first time and approved a
our Constitution of totally transferring this authority from peace of mind of the members of the National Assembly.
resolution fixing said date as the last day for the filing of
the legislative body be frustrated, but a dual authority But the possibility of abuse is not argument against the
election protest. When, therefore, the National Assembly member. As a matter of fact, certification by the proper members not theretofore contested (Amistad vs. Claravall
passed its resolution of December 3, 1935, confirming the provincial board of canvassers is sufficient to entitle a [Isabela], Second Philippine Legislature, Record — First
election of the petitioner to the National Assembly, the member-elect to a seat in the national Assembly and to Period, p. 89; Urguello vs. Rama [Third District, Cebu],
Electoral Commission had not yet met; neither does it render him eligible to any office in said body (No. 1, par. 1, Sixth Philippine Legislature; Fetalvero vs. Festin
appear that said body had actually been organized. As a Rules of the National Assembly, adopted December 6, [Romblon], Sixth Philippine Legislature, Record — First
mater of fact, according to certified copies of official 1935). Period, pp. 637-640; Kintanar vs. Aldanese [Fourth District,
records on file in the archives division of the National Cebu], Sixth Philippine Legislature, Record — First Period,
Assembly attached to the record of this case upon the pp. 1121, 1122; Aguilar vs. Corpus [Masbate], Eighth
Under the practice prevailing both in the English House of
petition of the petitioner, the three justices of the Supreme Philippine Legislature, Record — First Period, vol. III, No.
Commons and in the Congress of the United States,
Court the six members of the National Assembly 56, pp. 892, 893). The Constitution has repealed section
confirmation is neither necessary in order to entitle a
constituting the Electoral Commission were respectively 18 of the Jones Law. Act No. 3387, section 478, must be
member-elect to take his seat. The return of the proper
designated only on December 4 and 6, 1935. If Resolution deemed to have been impliedly abrogated also, for the
election officers is sufficient, and the member-elect
No. 8 of the National Assembly confirming non-protested reason that with the power to determine all contest relating
presenting such return begins to enjoy the privileges of a
elections of members of the National Assembly had the to the election, returns and qualifications of members of
member from the time that he takes his oath of office
effect of limiting or tolling the time for the presentation of the National Assembly, is inseparably linked the authority
(Laws of England, vol. 12, pp. 331. 332; vol. 21, pp. 694,
protests, the result would be that the National Assembly — to prescribe regulations for the exercise of that power.
695; U. S. C. A., Title 2, secs. 21, 25, 26). Confirmation is
on the hypothesis that it still retained the incidental power There was thus no law nor constitutional provisions which
in order only in cases of contested elections where the
of regulation in such cases — had already barred the authorized the National Assembly to fix, as it is alleged to
decision is adverse to the claims of the protestant. In
presentation of protests before the Electoral Commission have fixed on December 3, 1935, the time for the filing of
England, the judges' decision or report in controverted
had had time to organize itself and deliberate on the mode contests against the election of its members. And what the
elections is certified to the Speaker of the House of
and method to be followed in a matter entrusted to its National Assembly could not do directly, it could not do by
Commons, and the House, upon being informed of such
exclusive jurisdiction by the Constitution. This result was indirection through the medium of confirmation.
certificate or report by the Speaker, is required to enter the
not and could not have been contemplated, and should be
same upon the Journals, and to give such directions for
avoided.
confirming or altering the return, or for the issue of a writ Summarizing, we conclude:
for a new election, or for carrying into execution the
From another angle, Resolution No. 8 of the National determination as circumstances may require (31 & 32
(a) That the government established by the
Assembly confirming the election of members against Vict., c. 125, sec. 13). In the United States, it is believed,
Constitution follows fundamentally the theory of
whom no protests had been filed at the time of its passage the order or decision of the particular house itself is
separation of power into the legislative, the
on December 3, 1935, can not be construed as a limitation generally regarded as sufficient, without any actual
executive and the judicial.
upon the time for the initiation of election contests. While alternation or amendment of the return (Cushing, Law and
there might have been good reason for the legislative Practice of Legislative Assemblies, 9th ed., sec. 166).
practice of confirmation of the election of members of the (b) That the system of checks and balances and
legislature at the time when the power to decide election the overlapping of functions and duties often
Under the practice prevailing when the Jones Law was still
contests was still lodged in the legislature, confirmation makes difficult the delimitation of the powers
in force, each house of the Philippine Legislature fixed the
alone by the legislature cannot be construed as depriving granted.
time when protests against the election of any of its
the Electoral Commission of the authority incidental to its
members should be filed. This was expressly authorized
constitutional power to be "the sole judge of all contest
by section 18 of the Jones Law making each house the (c) That in cases of conflict between the several
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the
sole judge of the election, return and qualifications of its departments and among the agencies thereof,
members of the National Assembly", to fix the time for the
members, as well as by a law (sec. 478, Act No. 3387) the judiciary, with the Supreme Court as the final
filing of said election protests. Confirmation by the National
empowering each house to respectively prescribe by arbiter, is the only constitutional mechanism
Assembly of the returns of its members against whose
resolution the time and manner of filing contest in the devised finally to resolve the conflict and allocate
election no protests have been filed is, to all legal
election of member of said bodies. As a matter of formality, constitutional boundaries.
purposes, unnecessary. As contended by the Electoral
after the time fixed by its rules for the filing of protests had
Commission in its resolution of January 23, 1936,
already expired, each house passed a resolution
overruling the motion of the herein petitioner to dismiss the (d) That judicial supremacy is but the power of
confirming or approving the returns of such members
protest filed by the respondent Pedro Ynsua, confirmation judicial review in actual and appropriate cases
against whose election no protests had been filed within
of the election of any member is not required by the and controversies, and is the power and duty to
the prescribed time. This was interpreted as cutting off the
Constitution before he can discharge his duties as such see that no one branch or agency of the
filing of further protests against the election of those
government transcends the Constitution, which (k) That section 4 of article VI of the Constitution person within the purview of sections 226 and 516 of the
is the source of all authority. repealed not only section 18 of the Jones Law Code of Civil Procedure.
making each house of the Philippine Legislature
respectively the sole judge of the elections,
(e) That the Electoral Commission is an The petition for a writ of prohibition against the Electoral
returns and qualifications of its elective
independent constitutional creation with specific Commission is hereby denied, with costs against the
members, but also section 478 of Act No. 3387
powers and functions to execute and perform, petitioner. So ordered.
empowering each house to prescribe by
closer for purposes of classification to the
resolution the time and manner of filing contests
legislative than to any of the other two
against the election of its members, the time and Avanceña, C. J., Diaz, Concepcion, and Horrilleno, JJ.,
departments of the governments.
manner of notifying the adverse party, and bond concur.
or bonds, to be required, if any, and to fix the
(f ) That the Electoral Commission is the sole costs and expenses of contest.
judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns and qualifications of members of the
(l) That confirmation by the National Assembly of
National Assembly.
the election is contested or not, is not essential
Separate Opinions
before such member-elect may discharge the
(g) That under the organic law prevailing before duties and enjoy the privileges of a member of
the present Constitution went into effect, each the National Assembly. ABAD SANTOS, J., concurring:
house of the legislature was respectively the
sole judge of the elections, returns, and
(m) That confirmation by the National Assembly I concur in the result and in most of the views so ably
qualifications of their elective members.
of the election of any member against whom no expressed in the preceding opinion. I am, however,
protest had been filed prior to said confirmation, constrained to withhold my assent to certain conclusions
(h) That the present Constitution has transferred does not and cannot deprive the Electoral therein advanced.
all the powers previously exercised by the Commission of its incidental power to prescribe
legislature with respect to contests relating to the the time within which protests against the
elections, returns and qualifications of its election of any member of the National The power vested in the Electoral Commission by the
Assembly should be filed. Constitution of judging of all contests relating to the
members, to the Electoral Commission.
election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the
National Assembly, is judicial in nature.
(i) That such transfer of power from the We hold, therefore, that the Electoral Commission was (Thomas vs. Loney, 134 U.S., 372; 33 Law. ed., 949, 951.)
legislature to the Electoral Commission was full, acting within the legitimate exercise of its constitutional On the other hand, the power to regulate the time in which
clear and complete, and carried with it ex prerogative in assuming to take cognizance of the protest notice of a contested election may be given, is legislative
necesitate rei the implied power inter alia to filed by the respondent Pedro Ynsua against the election in character. (M'Elmoyle vs. Cohen, 13 Pet., 312; 10 Law.
prescribe the rules and regulations as to the time of the herein petitioner Jose A. Angara, and that the ed., 177; Missouri vs. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496; 50 Law. ed.,
and manner of filing protests. resolution of the National Assembly of December 3, 1935 572.)
can not in any manner toll the time for filing protests
against the elections, returns and qualifications of
( j) That the avowed purpose in creating the It has been correctly stated that the government
members of the National Assembly, nor prevent the filing
Electoral Commission was to have an of a protest within such time as the rules of the Electoral established by the Constitution follows fundamentally the
independent constitutional organ pass upon all Commission might prescribe. theory of the separation of powers into legislative,
contests relating to the election, returns and executive, and judicial. Legislative power is vested in the
qualifications of members of the National National Assembly. (Article VI, sec. 1.) In the absence of
Assembly, devoid of partisan influence or In view of the conclusion reached by us relative to the any clear constitutional provision to the contrary, the power
consideration, which object would be frustrated if character of the Electoral Commission as a constitutional to regulate the time in which notice of a contested election
the National Assembly were to retain the power creation and as to the scope and extent of its authority may be given, must be deemed to be included in the grant
to prescribe rules and regulations regarding the under the facts of the present controversy, we deem it of legislative power to the National Assembly.
manner of conducting said contests. unnecessary to determine whether the Electoral
Commission is an inferior tribunal, corporation, board or
The Constitution of the United States contains a provision beyond the reach of the law, but to insure the to decide such contests. Construing section 478 of the
similar to the that found in Article VI, section 4, of the determination of such contests with the due process of Election Law to refer to the National Assembly, as required
Constitution of the Philippines. Article I, section 5, of the law. by Article XV, section 2, of the Constitution, it seems
Constitution of the United States provides that each house reasonable to conclude that the authority to prescribe the
of the Congress shall be the judge of the elections, time and manner of filing contests in the election of
Section 478 of the Election Law was in force at the time of
returns, and qualifications of its own members. members of the National Assembly is vested in the
the adoption of the Constitution, Article XV, section 2, of
Notwithstanding this provision, the Congress has assumed Electoral Commission, which is now the body clothed with
which provides that —
the power to regulate the time in which notice of a power to decide such contests.
contested election may be given. Thus section 201, Title 2,
of the United States Code Annotated prescribes: All laws of the Philippine Islands shall continue
In the light of what has been said, the resolution of the
in force until the inauguration of the
National Assembly of December 3, 1935, could not have
Commonwealth of the Philippines; thereafter,
Whenever any person intends to contest an the effect of barring the right of the respondent Pedro
such laws shall remain operative, unless
election of any Member of the House of Ynsua to contest the election of the petitioner. By the
inconsistent with this Constitution, until
Representatives of the United States, he shall, same token, the Electoral Commission was authorized by
amended, altered, modified, or repealed by the
within thirty days after the result of such election law to adopt its resolution of December 9, 1935, which
National Assembly, and all references in such
shall have been determined by the officer or fixed the time with in which written contests must be filed
laws to the Government or officials of the
board of canvassers authorized by law to with the commission.
Philippine Islands shall be construed, in so far as
determine the same, give notice, in writing, to
applicable, to refer to the Government and
the Member whose seat he designs to contest,
corresponding officials under this Constitution. Having been filed within the time fixed by its resolutions,
of his intention to contest the same, and, in such
the Electoral Commission has jurisdiction to hear and
notice, shall specify particularly the grounds
determine the contest filed by the respondent Pedro Ynsua
upon which he relies in the contest. (R. S., par. The manifest purpose of this constitutional provision was
against the petitioner Jose A. Angara.
105.) to insure the orderly processes of government, and to
prevent any hiatus in its operations after the inauguration
of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. It was thus Republic of the Philippines
The Philippine Autonomy Act, otherwise known as the
provided that all laws of the Philippine Islands shall remain SUPREME COURT
Jones Law, also contained a provision to the effect that the
operative even after the inauguration of the Manila
Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, shall
Commonwealth of the Philippines, unless inconsistent with
be the sole judges of the elections, returns, and
the Constitution, and that all references in such laws to the
qualifications of their elective members. Notwithstanding SECOND DIVISION
government or officials of the Philippine Islands shall be
this provision, the Philippine Legislature passed the
construed, in so far as applicable, to refer to the
Election Law, section 478 of which reads as follows:
government and corresponding officials under the G.R. No. L-33628 December 29, 1987
Constitution. It would seem to be consistent not only with
The Senate and the House of Representatives the spirit but the letter of the Constitution to hold that
shall by resolution respectively prescribe the section 478 of the Election Law remains operative and BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, SANTIAGO EISMA, MIRUFO
time and manner of filing contest in the election should now be construed to refer to the Electoral CELERIAN, JOSE SAYSON, CESAR TABILIRAN, and
of members of said bodies, the time and manner Commission, which, in so far as the power to judge MAXIMO ADLAWAN, petitioners,
vs.
of notifying the adverse party, and bond or election contests is concerned, corresponds to either the
bonds, to be required, if any, and shall fix the Senate or the House of Representative under the former HON. JUDGE MELQUIADES B. SUCALDITO, RUFINO
costs and expenses of contest which may be regime. It is important to observe in this connection that LABANG, MENELEO MESINA, ARTURO GUILLERMO, IN
THEIR RESPECTIVE CAPACITIES AS JUDGE OF THE
paid from their respective funds. said section 478 of the Election Law vested the power to
regulate the time and manner in which notice of a COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL
contested election may be given, not in the Philippine SUR, CITY FISCAL OF PAGADIAN CITY AND STATE
The purpose sought to be attained by the creation of the PROSECUTOR, and ANTI-GRAFT LEAGUE OF THE
Legislature but in the Senate and House of
Electoral Commission was not to erect a body that would PHILIPPINES, INC., respondents.
Representatives singly. In other words, the authority to
be above the law, but to raise legislative elections contests
prescribe the time and manner of filing contests in the
from the category of political to that of justiciable
elections of members of the Philippine Legislature was by No. L-34162 December 29, 1987
questions. The purpose was not to place the commission
statute lodged separately in the bodies clothed with power
BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, petitioner, Law as well as Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, as the amount of P4,823.95 under PTA
vs. follows: No. 3654; that the same was not
HON. JUDGE ASAALI S. ISNANI, RUFINO LABANG, passed in audit by the Provincial
ALBERTO S. LIM, JR., JESUS ACEBES, IN THEIR Auditor in view of the then subsisting
xxx xxx xxx
RESPECTIVE CAPACITIES AS JUDGE OF THE COURT contract with Tecson Trucking
OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, CITY Company; which was to expire on
FISCAL OF PAGADIAN CITY AND STATE SPECIFICATION NO. I — November 2, 1969; that nevertheless
PROSECUTORS, ANTI-GRAFT LEAGUE OF THE the said amount was paid and it was
PHILIPPINES, INC., and ARTEMIO made to appear that it was collected
ROMANILLOS, respondents. That on or about October 10, 1969, by Tecson Trucking Company,
above-named respondents, conspiring
although there was nothing due from
and confabulating together, allegedly tile latter and the voucher was never
conducted a bidding for the supply of indorsed or signed by the operator of
gravel and sand for the Province of
Tecson Trucking; and that in
Zamboanga del Sur: that it was made facilitating and consummating the
SARMIENTO, J.:
to appear that Tabiliran Trucking aforecited collection, respondent
Company won the bidding; that,
officials, hereinabove cited, conspired
The petitioner, then provincial Governor of Zamboanga del thereafter, the award and contract and connived to the great prejudice
Sur and a candidate for reelection in the local elections of pursuant to the said simulated bidding and damage of the Provincial
1971, seeks injunctive relief in two separate petitions, to were effected and executed in favor of
Government of Zamboanga del Sur. 1
enjoin further proceedings in Criminal Cases Nos. CCC Tabiliran Trucking Company; that, in
XVI-4-ZDS, CCC XVI-6-ZDS, and CCC XVI-8-ZDS of the truth and in fact, the said bidding was
then Circuit Criminal Court sitting in Pagadian City, as well really simulated and the papers on the xxx xxx xxx
as I.S. Nos. 1-70, 2-71, 4-71, 5-71, 6-71, and 7-71 of the same were falsified to favor Tabiliran
respondent Fiscal's office of the said city, all in the nature Trucking Company, represented by
On the same date, the private respondent commenced
of prosecutions for violation of certain provisions of the the private secretary of respondent
Criminal Case No. 2-71 of the respondent City Fiscal,
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. Bienvenido Ebarle, formerly
another proceeding for violation of Republic Act No. 3019
3019) and various provisions of the Revised Penal Code, confidential secretary of the latter; that
as well as Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The
commenced by the respondent Anti-Graft League of the said awardee was given wholly
complaint reads as follows:
Philippines, Inc. unwarranted advantage and
preference by means of manifest
partiality; that respondent officials are xxx xxx xxx
On June 16, 1971 and October 8, 1971, respectively, we
hereby also charged with interest for
issued temporary restraining orders directing the
personal gain for approving said
respondents (in both petitions) to desist from further That on or about April 8, 1970, a
award which was manifestly irregular
proceedings in the cases in question until further orders bidding was held for the construction
and grossly unlawful because the
from the Court. At the same time, we gave due course to of the right wing portion of the Capitol
same was facilitated and committed
the petitions and accordingly, required the respondents to Building of the Province of
by means of falsification of official
answer. Zamboanga del Sur, by the Bidding
documents.
Committee composed of respondents
cited hereinabove; that the said
The petitions raise pure question of law. The facts are
SPECIFICATION NO. II building was maliciously manipulated
hence, undisputed.
so as to give wholly unwarranted
advantage and preference in favor of
That after the aforecited award and
On September 26, 1970, the private respondent Anti-Graft the, supposed winning bidder,
contract, Tabiliran Trucking Company,
League of the Philippines, Inc., filed a complaint with the Codeniera Construction, allegedly
represented by respondent Cesar
respondent City Fiscal, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1- owned and managed by Wenceslao
Tabiliran, attempted to collect
70 thereof, for violation of the provisions of the Anti-Graft Codeniera, brother-in-law of the wife
advances under his trucking contract
of respondent Bienvenido Ebarle; that
in the under his trucking contract in
respondent official is interested for were made knowingly to the great qualified operator
personal gain because he is damage and prejudice of the of "Teoson
responsible for the approval of the Provincial Government of Zamboanga Trucking Service,"
manifestly irregular and unlawful del Sur in violation of aforecited and
award and contract aforecited; and provisions of the Revised Penal notwithstanding
that, furthermore, respondent, being a Code. 3 his compliance
Member of the Bidding Committee, with all the rules
also violated Article 171 of the and requirements
On February 10, 1971, finally, the private respondent filed
Revised Penal Code, by making it on public bidding;
a complaint, docketed as I.S. No. 5-71 of the respondent
appear in the very abstract of bids that that, instead,
Fiscal, an action for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 and
another interested bidder, was not aforecited
Articles 171 and 213 of the Revised Penal Code, as
interested in the bidding, when in truth respondents
follows:
and in fact, it was not so. 2 illegally and
irregularly
xxx xxx xxx awarded said
xxx xxx xxx
contract to Cesar
Tabiliran, an
We hereby respectfully charge the associate of
On January 26, 1971, the private respondent instituted I.S.
above-named respondents for respondent
No. 4-71 of the respondent Fiscal, a prosecution for
violation of Sec. 3, R.A. No. 3019,
violation of Articles 182, 183, and 318 of the Revised Governor
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Bienvenido
Penal Code, as follows:
Corrupt Practices Act, Articles 171 Ebarle; and
and 213, Revised Penal Code and the
xxx xxx xxx rules and regulations of public bidding,
committed as follows: 2. That in truth
and in fact,
That on or about April 4, 1967, in
aforesaid
Pagadian City, said respondent 1. That on June "bidding" was
testified falsely under oath in 16, 1970, without really simulated
Cadastral Case No. N-17, LRC CAD publication, and papers were
REC. NO. N-468, for registration of respondents falsified or
title to Lot No. 2545 in particular; conducted the so- otherwise
called "bidding" "doctored" to
for the supply of favor respondent
That respondent BIENVENIDO
gravel and sand
EBARLE testified falsely under oath Cesar Tabiliran
for the province of thereby giving him
during the hearing and reception of
Zamboanga del wholly
evidence that he acquired said lot by
Sur; that said
purchase from a certain Brigido unwarranted
respondents, advantage,
Sanchez and that he is the owner,
without any valid preference and
when in truth and in fact Lot 2545 had
or legal ground,
been previously acquired and is benefits by means
did not include or of manifest
owned by the provincial Government
even open the bid partiality; and that
of Zamboanga del Sur, where the
of one Jesus
provincial jail building is now located. there is a
Teoson that was statutory
seasonably presumption of
2. That aforesaid deceit, false submitted, despite
interest for
testimony and untruthful statement of the fact that he is personal gain
respondent in said Cadastral case a registered duly because the
transaction and That on or about December 18, 1969, latter is related with him within the
award were in Pagadian City, and within the third degree of consanguinity.
manifestly jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
irregular and BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, Provincial
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
contrary to Governor of Zamboanga del Sur, did
applicable law, then and there unlawfully and
rules and feloniously extended and gave xxx xxx xxx
regulations. 4 ELIZABETH EBARLE
MONTESCLAROS, daughter of his
brother, his relative by consanguinity xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
within the third degree, and
appointment as Private Secretary in That on or about December 18, 1969,
The petitioner initially moved to dismiss the aforesaid the Office of the Provincial Governor in Pagadian City, and within the
preliminary investigations, but the same having been of Zamboanga del Sur, although he jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
denied, he went to the respondent Court of First Instance well know that the latter is related with BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, then and
of Zamboanga del Sur, the Honorable Melquiades him within the third degree by there unlawfully and feloniously made
Sucaldito presiding, on prohibition and mandamus (Special consanguinity. untruthful statements in a narration of
Case No. 1000) praying at the same time, for a writ of facts by accomplishing and issuing a
preliminary injunction to enjoin further proceedings therein. certificate, to wit:
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
The court granted preliminary injunctive relief (restraining
order) for which the Anti-Graft League filed a motion to
have the restraining order lifted and to have the petition xxx xxx xxx c. That the provisions of law and rules
itself dismissed. on promotion, seniority and nepotism
have been observed.
xxx xxx xxx
On May 14, 1971, the respondent, Judge Sucaldito,
handed down the first of the two challenged orders, required by law in such cases, in
That on or about December 18, 1969, support of the appointment he
granting Anti-Graft League's motion and dismissing
in Pagadian City, and within the extended to TERESITO
Special Case No. 1000.
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, MONTESCLAROS, husband of his
BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, then and niece Elizabeth Ebarle, as Motor Pool
On June 11, 1971, the petitioner came to this Court on there unlawfully and feloniously made Dispatcher, Office of the Provincial
certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining order untruthful statements in a narration of Engineer of Zamboanga del Sur,
(G.R. No. 33628). As we said, we issued a temporary facts by accomplishing and issuing a although he well knew that the latter is
restraining order on June 16, 1971. certificate, to wit: , related with him within the third degree
affinity.
Meanwhile, and in what would begin yet another series of c. That the provisions of law and rules
criminal prosecutions, the private respondent, on April 26, on promotion, seniority and nepotism CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
1971, filed three complaints, subsequently docketed as have been observed.
Criminal Cases Nos. CCC XVI-4-ZDS, CCC XVI-6-ZDS,
and CCC XVI-8-ZDS of the Circuit Criminal Court of xxx xxx xxx
required by law in such cases, in
Pagadian City for violation of various provisions of the Anti-
support of the appointment he
Graft Law as well as Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Subsequently, on August 23, 1971, the private respondent
extended to ELIZABETH EBARLE-
Code, as follows: brought I.S. No. 6-71 of the respondent Pagadian City
MONTESCLAROS as Private
Secretary in the Office of the Fiscal against the petitioner, still another proceeding for
violation of Republic Act No. 3019 and Article 171 (4) of
xxx xxx xxx Provincial Governor of Zamboanga del
Sur, although he well know that the the Revised Penal Code, thus:
xxx xxx xxx extended and gave ELIZABETH latter was not qualified to such
EBARLE MONTESCLAROS, daughter appointment as it was in violation of
of his brother, his relative by the Civil Service Law, thereby
First Count.
consanguinity within the third degree, knowingly granting and giving
an appointment as Private Secretary unwarranted advantage and
That on or about December 1, 1969, in the Office of the Provincial preference in the discharge of his
in Pagadian City, BIENVENIDO A. Governor of Zamboanga del Sur, administrative function through
EBARLE, Provincial Governor of although he well know that the latter is manifest partiality.
Zamboanga del Sur, did then and related with him within the third degree
there unlawfully and feloniously of consanguinity, and said
II. SPECIFICATION FOR VIOLATION
extended and gave MARIO EBARLE, appointment is in violation of the Civil
OF SECTION 4 (b), R.A. 3019
son of his brother, his relative by Service Law.
consanguinity within the third degree,
an appointment as SECURITY That on August 19, 1967, respondent
Fourth Count.
GUARD in the Office of the Provincial BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE, Governor
Engineer of Zamboanga del Sur of Zamboanga del Sur, taking
although he well knew that the latter is That on or about January 22, 1970, in advantage of his position caused,
related with him in the third degree by Pagadian City, BIENVENIDO A. persuaded, induced, or influence the
consanguinity and is not qualified EBARLE, Provincial Governor of Presiding Judge to perform irregular
under the Civil Service Law. Zamboanga del Sur, did then and and felonious act in violation of
there unlawfully and feloniously applicable law or constituting an
extended and gave ZACARIAS offense into awarding and decreeing
Second Count.
UGSOD, JR., son of the younger Lot 2645 of the Pagadian Public
sister of Governor Ebarle, his relative Lands subdivision to him who,
That in January, 1970, at Pagadian by consanguinity within the third according to the records of the case,
City, Gov. BIENVENIDO A. EBARLE degree, an appointment as failed to establish his rights of
replaced JOHNNY ABABONwho was Architectural Draftsman in the Office ownership pursuant to the provisions
then the incumbent Motor Pool of the Provincial Engineer of of the Land Registration law and the
Dispatcher in the Office of the Zamboanga del Sur although he well Public Land Act, it appearing that the
Provincial Engineer of Zamboanga del know that the latter is related with him Provincial Government of Zamboanga
Sur with his nephew-in-law in the third degree of consanguinity. del Sur as and is a claimant and in
TERESITO MONTESCLAROS adverse possession of Lot 2545
relative by affinity within the third Civil whereon the Provincial Jail Building
Fifth Count.
degree, in violation of the Civil Service thereon still stands.
Law, this knowingly causing undue
injury in the discharge of his That on February 5, 1970, at
III. SPECIFICATION FOR VIOLATION
administrative function through Pagadian City, BIENVENIDO A.
OF ARTICLE 171 (4), REVISED
manifest partiality against said EBARLE, Provincial Governor of
PENAL CODE
complaining employee. Zamboanga del Sur, did then and
there unlawfully and feloniously
extended and gave TERESITO First Count.
Third Count:
MONTESCLAROS, husband of his
niece ELIZABETH EBARLE, his
That on or about December 18, 1969,
That on or about December 18, 1969, relative by affinity within the third
in Pagadian City, BIENVENIDO A.
in Pagadian City, BIENVENIDO A. degree, an appointment as Motor Pool
EBARLE, then and there unlawfully
EBARLE, Provincial Governor of Dispatcher, Office of the Provincial
and feloniously made untruthful
Zamboanga del Sur, did then and Engineer of Zamboanga del Sur,
statement in a narration of facts by
there unlawfully and feloniously although he wen knew then that the
accomplishing and issuing a On September 21, 1971, the private respondent instituted That on or about November 1, 1969,
certificate, to wit: I.S. No. 7-71 of the said City Fiscal, again charging the at Pagadian City, BIENVENIDO
petitioner with further violations of Republic Act No. 3019 EBARLE, Provincial Governor of
thus: Zamboanga del Sur, did then and
c. That the provisions of law and rules
there unlawfully and feloniously
on promotion, seniority and nepotism
extend and give unwarranted benefits
have been observed. xxx xxx xxx
and privileges PHENINA CODINERA,
sister-in-law of said respondent, an
required by law in such cases, in First Count. appointment as CONFIDENTIAL
support of the appointment he ASSISTANT in the Office of the
extended to TERESITO Provincial Governor, Pagadian City,
That on or about December 2, 1969, although he well knew that Phenina
MONTESCLAROS, husband of his
in Pagadian City, BIENVENIDO Codinera is related to him in the
niece ELIZABETH EBARLE, as Motor
EBARLE, Provincial Governor of
Pool Dispatcher, Office of the second civil degree of consanguinity
Zamboanga del Sur, did then and and is not qualified under the Civil
Provincial Engineer of Zamboanga del
there unlawfully and feloniously Service Law.
Sur, although he wen knew that the
extend and give unwarranted benefits
latter is related with him within the
and privileges BONINDA EBARLE,
third degree of affinity and is in
wife of his brother Bertuldo Ebarle, the ALL CONTRARY TO AFORECITED LAW.
violation of the Civil Service Law.
former being his relative by affinity
within the second civil degree, an
Please give due course to the above
Second Count. appointment as LABORATORY
complaint and please set the case for
TECHNICIAN in Pagadian City,
immediate preliminary investigation
although he well knew that the latter is
That on or about December 18, 1969, pursuant to the First Indorsement
related to him in the second degree by
in Pagadian City, BIENVENIDO A. dated August 27, 1971 of the
affinity and is not qualified under the
EBARLE, then and there unlawfully Secretary of Justice, and in the
Civil Service Law.
and feloniously made untruthful paramount interest of good
statements a certificate, to wit: government. 9
Second Count.
c. That the provisions of the law and xxx xxx xxx
rules on promotion, seniority and That on or about January 1, 1970, at
nepotism have been observed. Pagadian City, BIENVENIDO
The petitioner thereafter went to the respondent Court of
EBARLE, Provincial Governor of
First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur, the Honorable Asaali
Zamboanga del Sur, did then and
required by law in such cases, in Isnani presiding, on a special civil action (Special Civil
there unlawfully and feloniously
support of the appointment he Case No. 1048) for prohibition and certiorari with
extend and give unwarranted benefits
extended to ELIZABETH EBARLE- preliminary injunction. The respondent Court issued a
and privileges JESUS EBARLE,
MONTESCLAROS as Private restraining order. The respondent Anti-Graft League
nephew of said respondent, an
Secretary in the Office of the moved to have the same lifted and the case itself
appointment as DRIVER of the
Provincial Governor of Zamboanga del dismissed.
Provincial Engineer's Office, Pagadian
Sur, although he well knew that the
City, although he well knew that Jesus
latter is related with him within the
Ebarle is related to him within the third On September 27, 1971, Judge Isnani issued an order,
third degree of consanguinity, and is in
civil degree by consanguinity and is dismissing the case.
violation of the Civil Service Law.
not qualified under the Civil Service
CONTRARY to aforecited laws. 8
Law.
On October 6, 1971, the petitioner instituted G.R. No.
34162 of this Court, a special civil action for certiorari with
xxx xxx xxx
Third Count.
preliminary injunction. As earlier noted, we on October 8, EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 264 NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND
1971, stayed the implementation of dismissal order. E. MARCOS, President of the
Philippines, by virtue of the powers
OUTLINING THE PROCEDURE BY
vested in me by law, do hereby order:
Subsequently, we consolidated both petitions and WHICH COMPLAINANTS
considered the same submitted for decision. CHARGING GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES WITH 1. Complaints against public officials
COMMISSION OF IRREGULARITIES and employees shall be in writing,
Principally, the petitioner relies (in both petitions) on the
SHOULD BE GUIDED. subscribed and sworn to by the
failure of the respondents City Fiscal and the Anti-Graft
complainants, describing in sufficient
League to comply with the provisions of Executive Order
detail and particularity the acts or
No. 264, "OUTLINING THE PROCEDUE BY WHICH WHEREAS, it is necessary that the
conduct complained of, instead of
COMPLAINANTS CHARGING GOVERNMENT general public be duly informed or
generalizations.
OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES WITH COMMISSION OF reminded of the procedure provided
IRREGULARITIES SHOULD BE GUIDED," 10 preliminary by law and regulations by which
to their criminal recourses. At the same time, he assails complaints against public officials and 2. Complaints against presidential
the standing of the respondent Anti-Graft League to employees should be presented and appointees shag be filed with the
commence the series of prosecutions below (G.R. No. prosecuted. Office of the President or the
33628). He likewise contends that the respondent Fiscal Department Head having direct
(in G.R. No. 34162), in giving due course to the complaints supervision or control over the official
WHEREAS, actions on complaints are
notwithstanding the restraining order we had issued (in involved.
at times delayed because of the failure
G.R. No. 33628), which he claims applies as well thereto,
to observe the form.91 requisites
committed a grave abuse of discretion.
therefor, to indicate with sufficient 3. Those against subordinate officials
clearness and particularity the charges and employees shall be lodged with
He likewise submits that the prosecutions in question are or offenses being aired or denounced, the proper department or agency
politically motivated, initiated by his rivals, he being, as we and to file the complaint with the head.
said, a candidate for reelection as Governor of proper office or authority;
Zamboanga del Sur.
4. Those against elective local officials
WHEREAS, without in any way shall be filed with the Office of the
We dismiss these petitions. curtailing the constitutional guarantee President in case of provincial and city
of freedom of expression, the officials, with the provincial governor
Administration believes that many or board secretary in case of
The petitioner's reliance upon the provisions of Executive
complaints or grievances could be municipal officials, and with the
Order No. 264 has no merit. We reproduce the Order in
resolved at the lower levels of municipal or city mayor or secretary in
toto:
government if only the provisions of case of barrio officials.
law and regulations on the matter are
MALACAÑANG duly observed by the parties
5. Those against members of police
concerned; and
forces shall be filed with the
RESIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT corresponding local board of
WHEREAS, while all sorts of officials investigators headed by the city or
misconduct should be eliminated and municipal treasurer, except in the case
OF THE PHILIPPINES
punished, it is equally compelling that of those appointed by the President
public officials and employees be which should be filed with the Office of
MANILA given opportunity afforded them by the the President.
constitution and law to defend
themselves in accordance with the
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 6. Complaints against public officials
procedure prescribed by law and
PHILIPPINES and employees shall be promptly
regulations;
acted upon and disposed of by the e
officials or authorities concerned in s
accordance with pertinent laws and i
regulations so that the erring officials d
or employees can be soonest e
removed or otherwise disciplined and n
the innocent, exonerated or vindicated t
in like manner, and to the end also
that other remedies, including court o
action, may be pursued forthwith by f
the interested parties after
administrative remedies shall have t
been exhausted. h
e
Done in the City of Manila, this 6th day
P
of October, in the year of Our Lord,
h
nineteen hundred and seventy.
i
l
( i
S p
g p
d i
. n
) e
s
F
E
B
R
y
D
I
t
N
h
A
e
N
D
P
r
E
e
.
s
i
M
d
A
e
R
n
C
t
O
:
S
C L
A O
S I
E
N
N
o
O
.
.
INFORMATION
2
2
6
9 The undersigned accuses
6
6 REYNALDO LAQUI Y AQUINO of a
7 VIOLATION OF PARAGRAPH 3,
o
7 PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 9 in
f
relation to Letter of Instruction No. 266
of the Chief Executive dated April 1,
V t
1975, committed as follows:
I h
O e
L That on or about the 28 th day of
. C
January, 1977, in the City of Manila,
Philippines, the said accused didh then
O and there wilfully, unlawfullyi and
F knowingly carry outside ofe his
residence a bladed and pointed f
P weapon, to wit: an ice pick with an
A overall length of about 8½ inches, the
E
R same not being used as a necessary
x
. tool or implement to earn his livelihood
e
nor being used in connection
c
3 therewith.
u
,
t
Contrary to law. (p. 14, rollo i of L-
P 46229-32) v
D e
The other Informations are likewise similarly worded
9 d
except for the name of the accused, the date and place
a of
I the commission of the crime, and the kind of weapont
involved.
N e
d
R 3. In L-46997, the Information before the Court of First
E Instance of Samar is quoted hereunder: A
L p
. r
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, of ILLEGAL POSSESSION O OF
complainant, versus PANCHITO DEADLY WEAPON or VIOLATION F
REFUNCION, accused. OF PD NO. 9 issued by the President
of the Philippines on Oct. 2, 1972,
D
pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081
C E
dated Sept. 21 and 23, 1972,
R A
committed as follows:
I D
M L
. That on or about the 6th day Y of
October, 1976, in the evening at
C Barangay Barruz, Municipality W of
A Matuginao, Province of Samar
E
S Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
A
E of this Honorabe Court, P the
abovenamed accused, knowingly, O
N wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
N
O carried with him outside of his
. residence a deadly weapon called
(
socyatan, an instrument which from its
V
9 very nature is no such as could be
I
3 used as a necessary tool or
O
3 instrument to earn a livelihood, which
L
act committed by the accused is a
A
Violation of Presidential Decree No. 9.
F T
o I
r CONTRARY TO LAW. (p. 8, rolloOof L-
: 46997) N
O
I B. — The Orders of dismissal —
F
L
L
P
In dismissing or quashing the Informations the trial courts
E
concurred with the submittal of the defense thatD one
G
essential element of the offense charged is missing from
A
the Information, viz: that the carrying outside of N the
L
O
accused's residence of a bladed, pointed or blunt weapon
is in furtherance or on the occasion of, connected with. or
P
related to subversion, insurrection, or rebellion, organized
O
lawlessness or public disorder. 9
S
)
S
E 1. Judge Purisima reasoned out, inter alia, in this manner:
INFORMATION S
S
I ... the Court is of the opinion that in
The undersigned First Assistant order that possession of bladed
O
Provincial Fiscal of Samar, accuses weapon or the like outside residence
N
PANCHITO REFUNCION of the crime may be prosecuted and tried under
P.D. No. 9, the information must For sure, P.D. No. 9 was conceived No. 9 does not contain any repealing
specifically allege that the possession with the best of intentions and wisely clause or provisions.
of bladed weapon charged was for the applied, its necessity can never be
purpose of abetting, or in furtherance assailed. But it seems it is back-firing,
xxx xxx xxx
of the conditions of rampant because it is too hot in the hands of
criminality, organized lawlessness, policemen who are inclined to
public disorder, etc. as are backsliding. The mere carrying outside of one's
contemplated and recited in residence of these deadly weapons if
Proclamation No. 1081, as justification not concealed in one's person and if
The checkvalves against abuse of
therefor. Devoid of this specific not carried in any of the aforesaid
P.D. No. 9 are to be found in the heart
allegation, not necessarily in the same specified places, would appear to be
of the Fiscal and the conscience of the
words, the information is not complete, not unlawful and punishable by law.
Court, and hence this resolution, let
as it does not allege sufficient facts to
alone technical legal basis, is
constitute the offense contemplated in
prompted by the desire of this Court to With the promulgation of Presidential
P.D. No. 9. The information in these
apply said checkvalves. (pp. 55-57, Decree No. 9, however, the
cases under consideration suffer from
rollo of L-42050-66) prosecution, through Assistant Fiscal
this defect.
Hilario H. Laqui, contends in his
opposition to the motion to quash, that
2. Judge Maceren in turn gave his grounds for dismissing
xxx xxx xxx this act is now made unlawful and
the charges as follows:
punishable, particularly by paragraph
3 thereof, regardless of the intention of
And while there is no proof of it before
xxx xxx xxx the person carrying such weapon
the Court, it is not difficult to believe
because the law makes it "mala
the murmurings of detained persons
prohibita". If the contention of the
brought to Court upon a charge of As earlier noted the "desired result"
prosecution is correct, then if a person
possession of bladed weapons under sought to be attained by Proclamation
happens to be caught while on his
P.D. No. 9, that more than ever No. 1081 is the maintenance of law
way home by law enforcement officers
before, policemen - of course not all and order throughout the Philippines
carrying a kitchen knife that said
can be so heartless — now have in and the prevention and suppression of
person had just bought from a store in
their hands P.D. No. 9 as a most all forms of lawless violence as well as
order that the same may be used by
convenient tool for extortion, what with any act of insurrection or rebellion. It is
one's cook for preparing the meals in
the terrifying risk of being sentenced therefore reasonable to conclude from
one's home, such person will be liable
to imprisonment of five to ten years for the foregoing premises that the
for punishment with such a severe
a rusted kitchen knife or a pair of carrying of bladed, pointed or blunt
penalty as imprisonment from five to
scissors, which only God knows where weapons outside of one's residence
ten years under the decree. Such
it came from. Whereas before martial which is made unlawful and
person cannot claim that said knife is
law an extortion-minded peace officer punishable by said par. 3 of P.D. No. 9
going to be used by him to earn a
had to have a stock of the cheapest is one thatabets subversion,
livelihood because he intended it
paltik, and even that could only insurrection or rebellion, lawless
merely for use by his cook in
convey the coercive message of one violence, criminality, chaos and public
preparing his meals.
year in jail, now anything that has the disorder or is intended to bring about
semblance of a sharp edge or pointed these conditions. This conclusion is
object, available even in trash cans, further strengthened by the fact that all This possibility cannot be discounted if
may already serve the same purpose, previously existing laws that also Presidential Decree No. 9 were to be
and yet five to ten times more made the carrying of similar weapons interpreted and applied in the manner
incriminating than the infamous paltik. punishable have not been repealed, that that the prosecution wants it to be
whether expressly or impliedly. It is done. The good intentions of the
noteworthy that Presidential Decree President in promulgating this decree
may thus be perverted by some when we consider the penalty AND PROVIDING PENALTIES
unscrupulous law enforcement imposable, which is from five years to THEREFORE.
officers. It may be used as a tool of ten years. A strict enforcement of the
oppression and tyranny or of extortion. provision of the said law would mean
WHEREAS, pursuant to Proclamation
the imposition of the Draconian
No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972,
penalty upon the accused.
xxx xxx xxx the Philippines has been placed under
a state of martial law;
xxx xxx xxx
It is therefore the considered and
humble view of this Court that the act WHEREAS, by virtue of said
which the President intended to make It is public knowledge that in rural Proclamation No. 1081, General Order
unlawful and punishable by areas, even before and during martial No. 6 dated September 22, 1972 and
Presidential Decree No. 9, particularly law, as a matter of status symbol, General Order No. 7 dated September
by paragraph 3 thereof, is one carrying deadly weapons is very 23, 1972, have been promulgated by
that abets or is intended to abet common, not necessarily for me;
subversion, rebellion, insurrection, committing a crime nor as their farm
lawless violence, criminality, chaos implement but for self-preservation or
WHEREAS, subversion, rebellion,
and public disorder. (pp. 28-30, rollo of self-defense if necessity would arise
insurrection, lawless violence,
L-46229-32) specially in going to and from their
criminality, chaos and public disorder
farm. (pp. 18-19, rollo of L-46997)
mentioned in the aforesaid
3. Judge Polo of the Court of First Instance of Samar Proclamation No. 1081 are committed
expounded his order dismissing the Information filed In most if not all of the cases, the orders of dismissal were and abetted by the use of firearms,
before him, thus: given before arraignment of the accused. In the criminal explosives and other deadly weapons;
case before the Court of (First Instance of Samar the
accused was arraigned but at the same time moved to
... We believe that to constitute an NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND
quash the Information. In all the cases where the accused
offense under the aforcited E. MARCOS, Commander-in-Chief of
were under arrest, the three Judges ordered their
Presidential decree, the same should all the Armed Forces of the
immediate release unless held on other charges.
be or there should be an allegation Philippines, in older to attain the
that a felony was committed in desired result of the aforesaid
connection or in furtherance of C. — The law under which the Informations in question Proclamation No. 1081 and General
subversion, rebellion, insurrection, were filed by the People. Orders Nos. 6 and 7, do hereby order
lawless violence and public disorder. and decree that:
Precisely Proclamation No. 1081
As seen from the Informations quoted above, the accused
declaring a state of martial law
are charged with illegal possession of deadly weapon in 1. Any violation of the aforesaid
throughout the country was issued
violation of Presidential Decree No. 9, Paragraph 3. General Orders Nos. 6 and 7 is
because of wanton destruction to lives
unlawful and the violator shall, upon
and properties widespread
conviction suffer:
lawlessness and anarchy. And in We quote in full Presidential Decree No. 9, to wit:
order to restore the tranquility and
stability of the country and to secure (a) The mandatory penalty of death by
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 9
the people from violence anti loss of a firing squad or electrocution as a
lives in the quickest possible manner Military, Court/Tribunal/Commission
and time, carrying firearms, explosives DECLARING VIOLATIONS OF may direct, it the firearm involved in
and deadly weapons without a permit GENERAL ORDERS NO. 6 and NO. 7 the violation is unlicensed and is
unless the same would fall under the DATED SEPTEMBER 22, 1972, AND attended by assault upon, or
exception is prohibited. This SEPTEMBER 23, 1972, resistance to persons in authority or
conclusion becomes more compelling RESPECTIVELY, TO BE UNLAWFUL their agents in the performance of
their official functions resulting in cause such a sudden generation of
death to said persons in authority or highly heated gases that the resultant
their agent; or if such unlicensed gaseous pressures are capable of
firearm is used in the commission of producing destructive effects on
crimes against persons, property or continguous objects or of causing
chastity causing the death of the injury or death of a person; and any
victim used in violation of any other person convicted thereof shall be
General Orders and/or Letters of punished by imprisonment ranging
Instructions promulgated under said from ten to fifteen years as a Military
Proclamation No. 1081: Court/Tribunal/Commission may
direct.
(b) The penalty of imprisonment
ranging from twenty years to life 3. It is unlawful to carry outside of
imprisonment as a Military residence any bladed, pointed or blunt
Court/Tribunal/commission may direct, weapon such as "fan knife," "spear,"
when the violation is not attended by "dagger," "bolo," "balisong," "barong,"
any of the circumstances enumerated "kris," or club, except where such
under the preceding paragraph; articles are being used as necessary
tools or implements to earn a
livelihood and while being used in
(c) The penalty provided for in the
connection therewith; and any person
preceding paragraphs shall be
found guilty thereof shall suffer the
imposed upon the owner, president,
penalty of imprisonment ranging from
manager, members of the board of
five to ten years as a Military
directors or other responsible officers
Court/Tribunal/Commission may
of any public or private firms,
direct.
companies, corporations or entities
who shall willfully or knowingly allow
any of the firearms owned by such 4. When the violation penalized in the
firm, company, corporation or entity preceding paragraphs 2 and 3 is
concerned to be used in violation of committed during the commission of
said General Orders Nos. 6 and 7. or for the purpose of committing, any
other crime, the penalty shall be
imposed upon the offender in its
2. It is unlawful to posses deadly
maximum extent, in addition to the
weapons, including hand grenades,
penalty provided for the particular
rifle grenades and other explosives,
offenses committed or intended to be
including, but not limited to, "pill box
committed.
bombs," "molotov cocktail bombs,"
"fire bombs," or other incendiary
device consisting of any chemical, Done in the City of Manila, this 2nd
chemical compound, or detonating day of October in the year of Our Lord,
agents containing combustible units or nineteen hundred and seventy-two.
other ingredients in such proportion,
quantity, packing, or bottling that
(
ignites by fire, by friction, by
S
concussion, by percussion, or by
G
detonation of all or part of the
D
compound or mixture which may
Pursuant to the above, Section 5,P Rule 110 of the Rules of We do not agree with petitioner that the above-mentioned
Court, expressly requires that h for a complaint or statute and the city ordinance are deemed repealed by
information to be sufficient it must,
i inter alia state the P.D. 9 (3). 5 P. D. 9(3) does not contain any repealing
designation of the offense by the l statute, and the acts or clause or provision, and repeal by implication is not
omissions complained of as constituting
i the offense. This favored. 6 This principle holds true with greater force with
is essential to avoid surprise on pthe accused and to afford regards to penal statutes which as a rule are to be
him the opportunity to prepare hisp defense accordingly. 4 construed strictly against the state and liberally in favor of
i the accused. 7 In fact, Article 7 of the New Civil Code
n provides that laws are repealed only by subsequent ones
To comply with these fundamental requirements of the
e and their violation or non- observance shall not be
Constitution and the Rules on Criminal Procedure, it is
s excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.
imperative for the specific statute violated to be designated
or mentioned 4 in the charge. In fact, another compelling
D. — The arguments of the People — reason exists why a specification of the statute violated is Thus we are faced with the situation where a particular act
essential in these cases. As stated in the order of may be made to fall, at the discretion of a police officer or
respondent Judge Maceren the carrying of so-called a prosecuting fiscal, under the statute, or the city
In the Comment filed in these cases by the Solicitor
"deadly weapons" is the subject of another penal statute ordinance, or the presidential decree. That being the case,
General who as stated earlier joins the City Fiscal of
and a Manila city ordinance. Thus, Section 26 of Act No. the right becomes more compelling for an accused to be
Manila and the Provincial Fiscal of Samar in seeking the
1780 provides: confronted with the facts constituting the essential
setting aside of the questioned orders of dismissal, the
elements of the offense charged against him, if he is not to
main argument advanced on the issue now under
become an easy pawn of oppression and harassment, or
consideration is that a perusal of paragraph 3 of P.D. 9 Section 26. It should be unlawful for
of negligent or misguided official action — a fear
'shows that the prohibited acts need not be related to any person to carry concealed about
understandably shared by respondent Judges who by the
subversive activities; that the act proscribed is essentially his person any bowie knife, dirk
nature of their judicial functions are daily exposed to such
a malum prohibitum penalized for reasons of public dagger, kris, or other deadly weapon:
dangers.
policy. 1 ... Any person violating the provisions
of this section shall, upon conviction in
a court of competent jurisdiction, be 2. In all the Informations filed by petitioner the accused are
The City Fiscal of Manila in his brief adds further that in
punished by a fine not exceeding five charged in the caption as well as in the body of the
statutory offenses the intention of the accused who
hundred pesos, or by imprisonment for Information with a violation of paragraph 3, P.D. 9. What
commits the act is immaterial; that it is enough if the
a period not exceeding six months, or then are the elements of the offense treated in the
prohibited act is voluntarily perpetuated; that P.D. 9
both such fine and imprisonment, in presidential decree in question?
provides and condemns not only the carrying of said
the discretion of the court.
weapon in connection with the commission of the crime of
subversion or the like, but also that of criminality in We hold that the offense carries two elements: first, the
general, that is, to eradicate lawless violence which Ordinance No. 3820 of the City of Manila as amended by carrying outside one's residence of any bladed, blunt, or
characterized pre-martial law days. It is also argued that Ordinance No. 3928 which took effect on December 4, pointed weapon, etc. not used as a necessary tool or
the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not 1957, in turn penalizes with a fine of not more than implement for a livelihood; and second, that the act of
from the caption or preamble of the information nor from P200.00 or imprisonment for not more than one months, or carrying the weapon was either in furtherance of, or to
the specification of the provision of law alleged to have both, at the discretion of the court, anyone who shall carry abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion,
been violated but by the actual recital of facts in the concealed in his person in any manner that would disguise insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public
complaint or information. 2 its deadly character any kind of firearm, bowie knife, or disorder.
other deadly weapon ... in any public place.Consequently,
it is necessary that the particular law violated be specified
E. — Our Ruling on the matter — It is the second element which removes the act of carrying
as there exists a substantial difference between the statute
a deadly weapon, if concealed, outside of the scope of the
and city ordinance on the one hand and P.D. 9 (3) on the
statute or the city ordinance mentioned above. In other
1. It is a constitutional right of any person who stands other regarding the circumstances of the commission of
words, a simple act of carrying any of the weapons
charged in a criminal prosecution to be informed of the the crime and the penalty imposed for the offense.
described in the presidential decree is not a criminal
nature and cause of the accusation against him. 3
offense in itself. What makes the act criminal or punishable
under the decree is the motivation behind it. Without that and abetted by the use of firearms and explosives and particular provision alone. This is a cardinal rule of
motivation, the act falls within the purview of the city other deadly weapons. statutory construction. For taken in the abstract, a word or
ordinance or some statute when the circumstances so phrase might easily convey a meaning quite different from
warrant. the one actually intended and evident when the word or
The Solicitor General however contends that a preamble
phrase is considered with those with which it is associated.
of a statute usually introduced by the word "whereas", is
Thus, an apparently general provision may have a limited
Respondent Judges correctly ruled that this can be the not an essential part of an act and cannot enlarge or
application if read together with other provisions. 9
only reasonably, logical, and valid construction given to confer powers, or cure inherent defects in the statute (p.
P.D. 9(3). 120, rollo of L-42050-66); that the explanatory note or
enacting clause of the decree, if it indeed limits the Second, the result or effects of the presidential decree
violation of the decree, cannot prevail over the text must be within its reason or intent.
3. The position taken by petitioner that P.D. 9(3) covers
itself inasmuch as such explanatory note merely states or
one and all situations where a person carries outside his
explains the reason which prompted the issuance of the
residence any of the weapons mentioned or described in In the paragraph immediately following the last "Whereas"
decree. (pp. 114-115, rollo of 46997)
the decree irrespective of motivation, intent, or purpose, clause, the presidential decree states:
converts these cases into one of "statutory construction."
That there is ambiguity in the presidential decree is We disagree with these contentions. Because of the
NOW, THEREFORE, I , FERDINAND
manifest from the conflicting views which arise from its problem of determining what acts fall within the purview of
E. MARCOS, Commander-in-Chief of
implementation. When ambiguity exists, it becomes a P.D. 9, it becomes necessary to inquire into the intent and
an the Armed Forces of the
judicial task to construe and interpret the true meaning and spirit of the decree and this can be found among others in
Philippines, in order to attain the
scope of the measure, guided by the basic principle that the preamble or, whereas" clauses which enumerate the
desired result of the aforesaid
penal statutes are to be construed and applied liberally in facts or events which justify the promulgation of the decree
Proclamation No. 1081 and General
favor of the accused and strictly against the state. and the stiff sanctions stated therein.
Orders Nos. 6 and 7, do hereby order
and decree that:
4. In the construction or interpretation of a legislative A "preamble" is the key of the statute,
measure — a presidential decree in these cases — the to open the minds of the makers as to
xxx xxx xxx
primary rule is to search for and determine the intent and the mischiefs which are to be
spirit of the law. Legislative intent is the controlling factor, remedied, and objects which are to be
for in the words of this Court in Hidalgo v. Hidalgo, per Mr. accomplished, by the provisions of the From the above it is clear that the acts
Justice Claudio Teehankee, whatever is within the spirit of statute." (West Norman Timber v. penalized in P.D. 9 are those related
a statute is within the statute, and this has to be so if strict State, 224 P. 2d 635, 639, cited in to the desired result of Proclamation
adherence to the letter would result in absurdity, injustice Words and Phrases, "Preamble"; 1081 and General Orders Nos. 6 and
and contradictions. 8 emphasis supplied) 7. General Orders Nos. 6 and 7 refer
to firearms and therefore have no
relevance to P.D. 9(3) which refers to
There are certain aids available to Us to ascertain the While the preamble of a statute is not
blunt or bladed weapons. With respect
intent or reason for P.D. 9(3). strictly a part thereof, it may, when the
to Proclamation 1081 some of the
statute is in itself ambiguous and
underlying reasons for its issuance are
difficult of interpretation, be resorted
First, the presence of events which led to or precipitated quoted hereunder:
to, but not to create a doubt or
the enactment of P.D. 9. These events are clearly spelled
uncertainty which otherwise does not
out in the "Whereas" clauses of the presidential decree,
exist." (James v. Du Bois, 16 N.J.L. (1 WHEREAS, these lawless elements
thus: (1) the state of martial law in the country pursuant to
Har.) 285, 294, cited in Words and having taken up arms against our duly
Proclamation 1081 dated September 21, 1972; (2) the
Phrases, "Preamble") constituted government and against
desired result of Proclamation 1081 as well as General
our people, and having committed and
Orders Nos. 6 and 7 which are particularly mentioned in
are still committing acts of armed
P.D. 9; and (3) the alleged fact that subversion, rebellion, In Aboitiz Shipping Corporation, et al. v. The City of Cebu,
insurrection and rebellion consisting of
insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, aid public et al. this Court had occasion to state that '(L)egislative
armed raids, forays, sorties,
disorder mentioned in Proclamation 1081 are committed intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the
ambushes, wanton acts of murders,
statute as a whole, and not of an isolated part or a
spoilage, plunder, looting, arsons, Statutes are to be construed in the possession of bladed weapons under
destruction of public and private light of purposes to be P.D. No. 9, that more than ever
buildings, and attacks against achieved and the evils sought to be before, policemen - of course not all
innocent and defenseless civilian lives remedied. (U.S. v. American Tracking can be so heartless — now have in
and property, all of which activities Association, 310 U.S. 534, cited in their hands P.D. No. 9 as a most
have seriously endangered and LVN Pictures v. Philippine Musicians convenient tool for extortion, what with
continue to endanger public order and Guild, 110 Phil. 725, 731; emphasis the terrifying risk of being sentenced
safety and the security of the nation, supplied) to imprisonment of five to ten years for
... a rusted kitchen knife or a pair of
scissors, which only God knows where
When construing a statute, the reason
it came from. Whereas before martial
xxx xxx xxx for its enactment should be kept in
law an extortion-minded peace officer
mind, and the statute should be
had to have a stock of the cheapest
construed with reference to its
WHEREAS, it is evident that there is paltik, and even that could only
intended scope and purpose.
throughout the land a state of anarchy convey the coercive message of one
(Statutory Construction by E.T.
and lawlessness, chaos and disorder, year in jail, now anything that has the
Crawford, pp. 604-605, cited in
turmoil and destruction of a magnitude semblance of a sharp edge or pointed
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
equivalent to an actual war between object, available even in trash cans,
Filipinas Compania de Seguros, 107
the forces of our duly constituted may already serve the same purpose,
Phil. 1055, 1060; emphasis supplied)
government and the New People's and yet five to ten times more
Army and their satellite organizations incriminating than the infamous paltik.
because of the unmitigated forays, 5. In the construction of P.D. 9(3) it becomes relevant to (pp. 72-73, rollo L-42050-66)
raids, ambuscades, assaults, violence, inquire into the consequences of the measure if a strict
murders, assassinations, acts of adherence to the letter of the paragraph is followed.
And as respondent Judge Maceren points out, the people's
terror, deceits, coercions, threats,
interpretation of P.D. 9(3) results in absurdity at times. To
intimidations, treachery, machinations,
It is a salutary principle in statutory construction that there his example We may add a situation where a law-abiding
arsons, plunders and depredations
exists a valid presumption that undesirable consequences citizen, a lawyer by profession, after gardening in his
committed and being committed by
were never intended by a legislative measure, and that a house remembers to return the bolo used by him to his
the aforesaid lawless elements who
construction of which the statute is fairly susceptible is neighbor who lives about 30 meters or so away and while
have pledged to the whole nation that
favored, which will avoid all objectionable, mischievous, crossing the street meets a policeman. The latter upon
they will not stop their dastardly effort
indefensible, wrongful, evil, and injurious consequences. 9- seeing the bolo being carried by that citizen places him
and scheme until and unless they
a under arrest and books him for a violation of P.D. 9(3).
have fully attained their primary and
Could the presidential decree have been conceived to
ultimate purpose of forcibly seizing
produce such absurd, unreasonable, and insensible
political and state power in this It is to be presumed that when P.D. 9 was promulgated by results?
country by overthrowing our present the President of the Republic there was no intent to work a
duly constituted government, ... (See hardship or an oppressive result, a possible abuse of
Book I, Vital Documents on the authority or act of oppression, arming one person with a 6. Penal statutes are to be construed strictly against the
Declaration of Martial Law in the weapon to impose hardship on another, and so on. 10 state and liberally in favor of an accused.
Philippines by the Supreme Court of
the Philippines, pp. 13-39)
At this instance We quote from the order of Judge American jurisprudence sets down the reason for this rule
Purisima the following: to be "the tenderness of the law of the rights of individuals;
It follows that it is only that act of carrying a blunt or bladed the object is to establish a certain rule by conformity to
weapon with a motivation connected with or related to the which mankind would be safe, and the discretion of the
afore-quoted desired result of Proclamation 1081 that is And while there is no proof of it before court limited." 11 The purpose is not to enable a guilty
within the intent of P.D. 9(3), and nothing else. the Court, it is not difficult to believe person to escape punishment through a technicality but to
the murmurings of detained persons
provide a precise definition of forbidden acts. 12
brought to Court upon a charge of
Our own decisions have set down the same guidelines in Information wherein the facts recited did not constitute a orders of respondent Judges. We have ruled that if the
this manner, viz: public offense as defined in Section 1, Republic Act 145. 15 facts alleged in the Information do not constitute a
punishable offense, the case should not be dismissed but
the prosecution should be given an opportunity to amend
Criminal statutes are to be construed G. The filing of these Petitions was unnecessary because
the Information. 16
strictly. No person should be brought the People could have availed itself of other available
within their terms who is not clearly remedies below.
within them, nor should any act be Second, if the facts so justified, the People could have filed
pronounced criminal which is not a complaint either under Section 26 of Act No. 1780,
Pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court follow:
made clearly so by the statute. (U.S. quoted earlier, or Manila City Ordinance No. 3820, as
v. Abad Santos, 36 Phil. 243, 246) amended by Ordinance No. 3928, especially since in most
Rule 117, Section 7. Effect of if not all of the cases, the dismissal was made prior to
sustaining the motion to quash. — If arraignment of the accused and on a motion to quash.
The rule that penal statutes are given
the motion to quash is sustained the
a strict construction is not the only
court may order that another
factor controlling the interpretation of Section 8. Rule 117 states that:
information be filed. If such order is
such laws, instead, the rule merely
made the defendant, if in custody,
serves as an additional, single factor
shall remain so unless he shall be An order sustaining the motion to
to be considered as an aid in
admitted to bail. If such order is not quash is not a bar to another
determining the meaning of penal
made or if having been made another prosecution for the same offense
laws. (People v. Manantan, 5 SCRA
information is not filed withuntime to unless the motion was based on the
684, 692)
be specified in the order, or within grounds specified in section 2,
such further time as the court may subsections (f) and (h) of this rule.
F. The Informations filed by petitioner are fatally defective. allow for good cause shown, the
defendant, if in custody, shall be
Under the foregoing, the filing of another complaint or
discharged therefrom, unless he is in
The two elements of the offense covered by P.D. 9(3) must Information is barred only when the criminal action or
custody on some other charge.
be alleged in the Information in order that the latter may liability had been extinguished (Section 2[f]) or when the
constitute a sufficiently valid charged. The sufficiency of an motion to quash was granted for reasons of double
Information is determined solely by the facts alleged Rule 110, Section 13. Amendment. — jeopardy. (ibid., [h])
therein. 13 Where the facts are incomplete and do not The information or complaint may be
convey the elements of the crime, the quashing of the amended, in substance or form,
As to whether or not a plea of double jeopardy may be
accusation is in order. without leave of court, at any time
successfully invoked by the accused in all these cases
before the defendant pleads; and
should new complaints be filed against them, is a matter
thereafter and during the trial as to all
Section 2(a), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court provides that We need not resolve for the present.
matters of form, by leave and at the
the defendant may move to quash the complaint or
discretion of the court, when the same
information when the facts charged do not constitute an
can be done without prejudice to the H. — We conclude with high expectations that police
offense.
rights of the defendant. authorities and the prosecuting arm of the government true
to the oath of office they have taken will exercise utmost
In U.S.U. Gacutan, 1914, it was held that where an circumspection and good faith in evaluating the particular
xxx xxx xxx
accused is charged with knowingly rendering an unjust circumstances of a case so as to reach a fair and just
judgment under Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code, conclusion if a situation falls within the purview of P.D. 9(3)
failure to allege in the Information that the judgment was Two courses of action were open to Petitioner upon the and the prosecution under said decree is warranted and
rendered knowing it to be unjust, is fatal. 14 quashing of the Informations in these cases, viz: justified. This obligation becomes a sacred duty in the face
of the severe penalty imposed for the offense.
In People v. Yadao, 1954, this Court through then Justice First, if the evidence on hand so warranted, the People
Cesar Bengzon who later became Chief Justice of the could have filed an amended Information to include the On this point, We commend the Chief State Prosecutor
Court affirmed an order of the trial court which quashed an second element of the offense as defined in the disputed Rodolfo A. Nocon on his letter to the City Fiscal of Manila
on October 15, 1975, written for the Secretary, now I concur with the additional observation that accused could
Minister of Justice, where he stated the following: properly be convicted of a violation of Act 1780 of the
Philippine Commission or of the ordinance.
In any case, please study well each
and every case of this nature so that Footnotes
Separate Opinions
persons accused of carrying bladed
weapons, specially those whose
1 p. 118, rollo of L-42050-66.
purpose is not to subvert the duly
constituted authorities, may not be
unduly indicted for the serious 2 pp. 10-11, brief of Petitioner at p.
BARREDO, J., concurring.
offenses falling under P.D. No. 9. 17 218, Ibid.
Yes, while it is not within the power of courts of justice to I concur with the qualification that under existing
3 Art. IV, Sec. 19, 1973 Constitution.
jurisprudence conviction is possible, without the need of
inquire into the wisdom of a law, it is however a judicial
task and prerogative to determine if official action is within amending the information, for violation of other laws or
the spirit and letter of the law and if basic fundamental ordinances on concealment of deadly weapons. 4 Francisco on the Revised Rules of
Court, 1969 Ed., Vol. on Criminal
rights of an individual guaranteed by the Constitution are
not violated in the process of its implementation. We have Procedure, p. 86.
Makasiar, J, concurs.
to face the fact that it is an unwise and unjust application
of a law, necessary and justified under prevailing 5 pp. 33-34 brief of Petitioner filed by
circumstances, which renders the measure an instrument CONCEPCION, JR., J, concurring:
the City Fiscal of Manila.
of oppression and evil and leads the citizenry to lose their
faith in their government. I concur with the additional observation that accused could
6 Valera v. Tuason, Jr., et al., 80 Phil.
properly be convicted of a violation of Act 1780 of the
823, citing U.S. v. Palacio, 33 Phil.
WHEREFORE, We DENY these 26 Petitions for Review Philippine Commission or of the ordinance.
208; Quisumbing v. Lachica, 2 SCRA
and We AFFIRM the Orders of respondent Judges 182; Almeda v. Florentino, 15 SCRA
dismissing or quashing the Information concerned, subject 514; Lechoco v. Civil Aeronautics
however to Our observations made in the preceding pages Board, 43 SCRA 670.
23 to 25 of this Decision regarding the right of the State or
Petitioner herein to file either an amended Information
under Presidential Decree No. 9, paragraph 3, or a new 7 People v. Elkanish, 1951, 90 Phil.
one under other existing statute or city ordinance as the 53, 57 People v. Yadao, 1954, 94 Phil.
Separate Opinions 726, 728.
facts may warrant.
BARREDO, J., concurring.
Without costs. 8 33 SCRA 105. See also 73 Am Jur
2d 351 citing United States v. N.E.
I concur with the qualification that under existing Rosenblum Truck Lines, Inc., 315 US
SO ORDERED. jurisprudence conviction is possible, without the need of 50,86 L Ed 671; United States v.
amending the information, for violation of other laws or Stone & Downer Co., 274 US 225, 71
Fernando, Teehankee, Santos, Fernandez and Guerrero, ordinances on concealment of deadly weapons. L Ed 1013; Ebert v. Poston, 266 US
548, 69 L Ed 435; Wisconsin C.R. Co.
JJ., concur.
v. Forsythe, 159 US 46,40 L Ed 71.
Makasiar, J, concurs.
Castro, C.J. and Antonio, J, concur in the result.
9 13 SCRA 449, 453; Emphasis
CONCEPCION, JR., J, concurring: supplied.
Aquino, J, took no part.
9-a 73 Am Jur 2d 428. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, petitioner, vs. COURT After deducting Paramount’s total quarterly income tax
OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, payments of P1,218,940.00 from its income tax
10 See 73 Am Jur 2d 432-433 for
and BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS as of P1,153,681.00, the return showed a refundable amount
cases on the foregoing undesirable
LIQUIDATOR OF PARAMOUNT ACCEPTANCE of P65,259.00. The appropriate box in the return was
consequences.
CORPORATION, respondents. marked with a cross (x) indicating “To be refunded” the
amount of P65,259.00.
11 United States v. Harris, 177 US
DECISION
305, 44 L Ed 780, 20 S Ct 609;
n April 14, 1988, petitioner BPI, as liquidator of Paramount,
Braffith v. Virgin Islands (CA3) 26 F2d MENDOZA, J.: through counsel filed a letter dated April 12, 1988
646; Caudill v. State, 224 Ind 531, 69
reiterating its claim for refund of P65,259.00 as overpaid
NE2d 549; Jennings v.
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the income tax for the calendar year 1985. The following day
Commonwealth, 109 Va 821, 63 SE
decision, dated September 19, 1994, of the Court of or on April 15, 1988, BPI filed the instant petition with this
1080, all cited in 73 Am Jur 2d 452.
Appeals affirming the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals Court in order to toll the running of the prescriptive period
which ordered petitioner to refund P65,259.00 as overpaid for filing a claim for refund of overpaid income taxes.
12 State v. Zazzaro, 20 A 2d 737, income tax.
quoted in Martin's Handbook on
The question is whether the two-year period of
Statutory Construction, Rev. Ed. pp. The facts are stated in the following portion of the prescription for filing a claim for refund, as provided in
183-184. decision of the CTA which the Court of Appeals quoted §230 of the National Internal Revenue Code, is to be
with approval: counted from April 2, 1986 when the corporate income tax
13 People v. Supnad, 7 SCRA 603, return was actually filed or from April 15, 1986 when,
606. Petitioner, Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI for short) is according to §70(b) of the NIRC, the final adjustment
a bank and trust corporation duly organized and existing return could still be filed without incurring any penalty. The
under Philippine laws. It acts as the liquidator of aforesaid §230 of the NIRC[1] provides that such period
14 28 Phil. See Moran, Comments on must be counted “from the date of payment of the
the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed., Vol. 4, p. Paramount Acceptance Corporation after its dissolution on
March 31, 1986. tax.” But, given the facts as stated above, when was the
222. corporate income tax paid in this case?
15 94 Phil. 726. On April 2, 1986, Paramount Acceptance Corporation The Court of Tax Appeals rendered a decision
(Paramount for brevity) filed its Corporate Annual Income considering the two-year period of prescription to have
Tax Return, for calendar year ending December 31, 1985, commenced to run from April 15, 1986, the last day for
16 People v. Plaza, 7 SCRA 617. declaring a Net Income of P3,324,802.00 (Exh. A). The filing the corporate income tax return, and, since the claim
income tax due thereon is P1,153,681.00. However, for refund was filed on April 14, 1988 and the action was
Paramount paid the BIR its quarterly income tax, to wit: brought on April 15, 1988, it held that prescription had not
17 This letter which was addressed to
the City Fiscal of Manila referred to a set in. Accordingly, the CTA ordered as follows:
decision of the Court of First Instance Qtr. CR/ROR Date Bank Amo
of Manila, Branch III, in Criminal Case unt Exh. WHEREFORE, the respondent [petitioner herein] is hereby
No. 21178, "People vs. Conrado C. ordered to REFUND in favor of petitioner, the sum
Petate, "for violation of Presidential of P65,259.00, representing overpaid income tax of
Decree No. 9. 1st 6817293 5-30-
85 DBP P308,779.00 C Paramount Acceptance Corporation for the calendar year
1985.
2nd 5613316 8-29-
85 DBP 626,000.00 C-1
3rd 77204711 1-29- No pronouncement as to costs.
[G.R. No. 117254. January 21, 1999] 85 DBP 284,161.00 C-2
TOTAL SO ORDERED.[2]
P1,218,940.00
On appeal, its decision was affirmed by the Court of Petitioner disagrees with the foregoing decision of remitted by its withholding agents to the Bureau of Internal
Appeals. Said the appellate court:[3] the Court of Appeals. He contends that the two-year Revenue. The petitioner corporation filed its final
prescriptive period should be computed from April 2, 1984, adjustment return for its 1981 taxable year on April 15,
when the final adjustment return was actually filed, 1982. In our Resolution dated April 10, 1989 in the case
We agree with the respondent court’s ruling that the date
because that is the time of payment of the tax within the of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Asia Australia
of payment of the tax as prescribed under the Tax Code is
meaning of §230 of the NIRC. Express, Ltd. (G.R. No. 85956), we ruled that the two-year
the date when the corporate income tax return is required
prescriptive period within which to claim a refund
to be filed. . . . We agree. commences to run, at the earliest, on the date of the filing
of the adjusted final tax return. Hence, the petitioner
The conclusions reached by the appellate court are corporation had until April 15, 1984 within which to file its
The Supreme Court has laid down the rule regarding the
contrary to the very rulings cited by it. In Commissioner of
computation of the prescriptive period that the two-year claim for refund.
Internal Revenue v. TMX Sales, Inc.,[4] this Court, in
period should be computed from the time of filing of the
rejecting the contention that the period of prescription
Adjustment Returns or Annual Income Tax Return and
should be counted from the date of payment of the ....
final payment of income tax; it is only when the Adjustment
quarterly tax, held:
Return covering the whole year is filed that the taxpayer
would know whether a tax is still due or a refund can be It bears emphasis at this point that the rationale in
claimed based on the adjusted and audited figures . . . [T]he filing of a quarterly income tax return required in computing the two-year prescriptive period with respect to
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. TMX Sales Inc., Section 85 [now Section 68] and implemented per BIR the petitioner corporation’s claim for refund from the time it
205 SCRA 184). The two-year prescriptive period within Form 1702-Q and payment of quarterly income tax should filed its final adjustment return is the fact that it was only
which to claim a refund commences to run, at the earliest, only be considered mere installments of the annual tax then that ACCRAIN could ascertain whether it made profits
on the date of the filing of the adjusted final tax return due. These quarterly tax payments which are computed or incurred losses in its business operations. The “date of
(Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Asia Australia based on the cumulative figures of gross receipts and payment”, therefore, in ACCRAIN’s case was when its tax
Express Ltd., G.R. No. 85956). The “date of payment” deductions in order to arrive at a net taxable income, liability, if any, fell due upon its filing of its final adjustment
from which to reckon the two-year period, in the case of a should be treated as advances or portions of the annual return on April 15, 1982.
corporation whose taxable year is on a calendar basis, is income tax due, to be adjusted at the end of the calendar
the 15th day of the fourth month (April 15th) following the or fiscal year. This is reinforced by Section 87 [now
Finally, in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
close of the fiscal year, and the filing of the final Section 69] which provides for the filing of adjustment
Philippine American Life Insurance Co.,[7] we held:
adjustment return on April 15th, following the close of the returns and final payment of income tax. Consequently,
preceding taxable year, is such “date of payment” (ACCRA the two-year prescriptive period provided in Section 292
Investments Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 957). [now Section 230 of the Tax Code] should be computed Clearly, the prescriptive period of two years should
from the time of filing the Adjustment Return or Annual commence to run only from the time that the refund is
Income Tax Return and final payment of income tax. ascertained, which can only be determined after a final
In this case, BPI filed its final adjustment return on April 2,
adjustment return is accomplished. In the present case,
1986. No taxes were paid then because the returns
this date is April 16, 1984, and two years from this date
showed that the quarterly taxes already paid exceeded the On the other hand, in ACCRA Investments
would be April 16, 1986. The record shows that the claim
income tax due by P65,259.00. As correctly put by BPI, it Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[5] where the question was
for refund was filed on December 10, 1985 and the petition
is only on April 15 that the previous year’s income tax whether the two-year period of prescription should be
for review was brought before the CTA on January 2,
becomes due and payable and the taxpayer is still free to reckoned from the end of the taxable year (in that case
1986. Both dates are within the two-year reglementary
make amendments or adjustments on its return, without December 31, 1981), we explained why the period should
period. Private respondent being a corporation, Section
penalty, until April 15, 1986 (See Section 80, be counted from the filing of the final adjustment return,
292 [now Section 230] cannot serve as the sole basis for
N.I.R.C.). Thus the final payment of income tax should be thus:[6]
determining the two-year prescriptive period for
deemed to be on April 15, 1986, when the previous year’s
refunds. As we have earlier stated in the TMX Sales case,
income tax became due and payable and when the
Clearly, there is the need to file a return first before a claim Sections 68, 69, and 70 on Quarterly Corporate Income
quarterly corporate income taxes may be considered
for refund can prosper inasmuch as the respondent Tax Payment and Section 321 should be construed in
paid. Accordingly the administrative claim and court
Commissioner by his own rules and regulations mandates conjunction with it.
proceeding for tax refund were timely filed.
that the corporate taxpayer opting to ask for a refund must
show in its final adjustment return the income it received
Sec. 49(a) of the NIRC provides that
from all sources and the amount of withholding taxes
§49. Payment and assessment of income tax for G.R. No. L-21734 September 5, 1975
individuals and corporations.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
(a) Payment of tax (1) In general. The total amount of [1]
This provision reads in part as follows: vs.
tax imposed by this Title shall be paid by the person ABELARDO SUBlDO, defendant-appellant.
subject thereto at the time the return is filed. . . . SEC. 230. Recovery of tax erroneously or illegally
collected. - No suit or proceeding shall be maintained in
Office of the Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor
any court for the recovery of any national internal revenue
On the other hand, §70(b) of the same Code Ceferino Padua for plaintiff-appellee. Estanislao A.
tax hereafter alleged to have been erroneously or illegally
provides that Fernandez for defendant-appellant.
assessed or collected, or of any penalty claimed to have
been collected without authority, or of any sum alleged to
§70 (b) Time of filing the income return The corporate have been excessive or in any manner wrongfully
quarterly declaration shall be filed within sixty (60) days collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly
following the close of each of the first three quarters of the filed with the Commissioner; but such suit or proceeding
MARTIN, J.:
taxable year. The final adjustment return shall be filed on may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or
or before the 15th day of the 4th month following the close sum has been paid under protest or duress.
of the fiscal year, as the case may be. Appeal on questions of law from the Orders of the Court of
In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be First Instance of Manila in Criminal Case No. 23041,
begun after the expiration of two years from the date of entitled People of the Philippines versus Abelardo Subido,
Thus, it can be deduced from the foregoing that, in payment of the tax or penalty regardless of any denying defendant-appellant's motion for the cancellation
the context of §230, which provides for a two-year period supervening cause that may arise after payment: Provided, of his appeal bond and declaring him to suffer subsidiary
of prescription counted “from the date of payment of the however, That the Commissioner may, even without a imprisonment in case of failure to pay the fine and
tax” for actions for refund of corporate income tax, the two- written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on indemnity.
year period should be computed from the time of actual the face of the return upon which payment was made,
filing of the Adjustment Return or Annual Income Tax such payment appears clearly to have been erroneously
Return. This is so because at that point, it can already be paid. . . . From an adverse decision in said case, the dispositive
determined whether there has been an overpayment by portion of which reads:
[2]
the taxpayer. Moreover, under §49(a) of the NIRC, Rollo, p. 55.
payment is made at the time the return is filed.
[3]
Id., pp. 36-37. From the facts above stated the Court
In the case at bar, Paramount filed its corporate finds the accused guilty of libel and he
[4]
annual income tax return on April 2, 1986. However, 205 SCRA 184, 192 (1992) (emphasis added). is hereby sentenced to three (3)
private respondent BPI, as liquidator of Paramount, filed a months of arresto mayor with the
[5]
written claim for refund only on April 14, 1988 and a 204 SCRA 957 (1991) (emphasis added). accessory penalties of the law, to pay
petition for refund only on April 15, 1988. Both claim and [6]
a fine of five hundred (P500.00)
Id., at 963-964 (emphasis added). pesos, to indemnify the offended
action for refund were thus barred by prescription.
[7]
244 SCRA 446, 453 (1995) (emphasis added). party, Mayor Arsenio Lacson in the
The foregoing conclusion makes it unnecessary for sum of ten thousand (P10,000.00)
us to pass on the other issues raised in this case by pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in
petitioner. Republic of the Philippines case of insolvency, and to pay the
SUPREME COURT costs.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals Manila
is REVERSED and the petition for refund filed by private
respondent is DISMISSED on the ground that it is barred defendant-appellant Abelardo Subido has taken an appeal
by prescription. FIRST DIVISION to the Court of Appeals, which modified the said judgment
in the following tenor:
SO ORDERED.
1
"As a general rule words used in a statute are According to the petition, the said order was issued upon
DRA. BRIGIDA S. BUENASEDA, Lt. Col. ISABELO
to be given their usual and commonly the recommendation of Director Raul Arnaw and
BANEZ, JR., ENGR. CONRADO REY MATIAS, Ms.
understood meaning .. ." C.J.S. p. 639.
CORA S. SOLIS and Ms. ENYA N. LOPEZ, petitioners, Investigator Amy de Villa-Rosero, without affording
vs. petitioners the opportunity to controvert the charges filed
2 against them. Petitioners had sought to disqualify Director
CF. Encyclopedia Americana (1954) Vol. V, p. SECRETARY JUAN FLAVIER, Ombudsman CONRADO
129, 130; Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 5 (1945 M. VASQUEZ, and NCMH NURSES ASSOCIATION, Arnaw and Investigator Villa-Rosero for manifest partiality
ed.) p. 948. represented by RAOULITO GAYUTIN, respondents. and bias (Rollo, pp. 4-15).
Direct the officer concerned to take Under the Constitution, the Ombudsman is expressly In Nera v. Garcia, 106 Phil. 1031 [1960], this Court,
appropriate action against a public authorized to recommend to the appropriate official the holding that a preventive suspension is not a penalty, said:
official or employee at fault, and discipline or prosecution of erring public officials or
recommend his removal, suspension, employees. In order to make an intelligent determination
Suspension is a preliminary step in an
demotion, fine, censure or whether to recommend such actions, the Ombudsman has
administrative investigation. If after
prosecution, and ensure compliance to conduct an investigation. In turn, in order for him to
such investigation, the charges are
therewith. conduct such investigation in an expeditious and efficient
established and the person
manner, he may need to suspend the respondent.
investigated is found guilty of acts
The Solicitor General argues that under said provision of warranting his removal, then he is
the Constitutions, the Ombudsman has three distinct The need for the preventive suspension may arise from removed or dismissed. This is the
powers, namely: (1) direct the officer concerned to take several causes, among them, the danger of tampering or penalty.
appropriate action against public officials or employees at destruction of evidence in the possession of respondent;
fault; (2) recommend their removal, suspension, demotion the intimidation of witnesses, etc. The Ombudsman should
fine, censure, or prosecution; and (3) compel compliance
To support his theory that the Ombudsman can only government. The moment a criminal or administrative The same conditions for the exercise of the power to
preventively suspend respondents in administrative cases complaint is filed with the Ombudsman, the respondent preventively suspend officials or employees under
who are employed in his office, the Solicitor General leans therein is deemed to be "in his authority" and he can investigation were found in Section 34 of R.A. No. 2260.
heavily on the phrase "suspend any officer or employee proceed to determine whether said respondent should be
under his authority" in Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770. placed under preventive suspension.
The import of the Nera decision is that the disciplining
authority is given the discretion to decide when the
The origin of the phrase can be traced to Section 694 of In their petition, petitioners also claim that the Ombudsman evidence of guilt is strong. This fact is bolstered by Section
the Revised Administrative Code, which dealt with committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of 24 of R.A. No. 6770, which expressly left such
preventive suspension and which authorized the chief of a jurisdiction when he issued the suspension order without determination of guilt to the "judgment" of the Ombudsman
bureau or office to "suspend any subordinate or employee affording petitioners the opportunity to confront the on the basis of the administrative complaint. In the case at
in his bureau or under his authority pending an charges against them during the preliminary conference bench, the Ombudsman issued the order of preventive
investigation . . . ." and even after petitioners had asked for the suspension only after: (a) petitioners had filed their answer
disqualification of Director Arnaw and Atty. Villa-Rosero to the administrative complaint and the "Motion for the
(Rollo, pp. 6-13). Joining petitioners, the Solicitor General Preventive Suspension" of petitioners, which incorporated
Section 34 of the Civil Service Act of 1959 (R.A. No. 2266),
contends that assuming arguendo that the Ombudsman the charges in the criminal complaint against them (Annex
which superseded Section 694 of the Revised
has the power to preventively suspend erring public 3, Omnibus Submission, Rollo, pp. 288-289; Annex
Administrative Code also authorized the chief of a bureau
officials and employees who are working in other 4, Rollo,
or office to "suspend any subordinate officer or employees,
departments and offices, the questioned order remains null pp. 290-296); (b) private respondent had filed a reply to
in his bureau or under his authority."
and void for his failure to comply with the requisites in the answer of petitioners, specifying 23 cases of
Section 24 of the Ombudsman Law (Comment dated harassment by petitioners of the members of the private
However, when the power to discipline government December 3, 1992, pp. 11-19). respondent (Annex 6, Omnibus Submission, Rollo, pp.
officials and employees was extended to the Civil Service 309-333); and (c) a preliminary conference wherein the
Commission by the Civil Service Law of 1975 (P.D. No. complainant and the respondents in the administrative
Being a mere order for preventive suspension, the
805), concurrently with the President, the Department case agreed to submit their list of witnesses and
questioned order of the Ombudsman was validly issued
Secretaries and the heads of bureaus and offices, the documentary evidence.
even without a full-blown hearing and the formal
phrase "subordinate officer and employee in his bureau"
presentation of evidence by the parties. In Nera, supra,
was deleted, appropriately leaving the phrase "under his
petitioner therein also claimed that the Secretary of Health Petitioners herein submitted on November 7, 1991 their list
authority." Therefore, Section 41 of said law only mentions
could not preventively suspend him before he could file his of exhibits (Annex 8 of Omnibus Submission, Rollo, pp.
that the proper disciplining authority may preventively
answer to the administrative complaint. The contention of 336-337) while private respondents submitted their list of
suspend "any subordinate officer or employee under his
petitioners herein can be dismissed perfunctorily by exhibits (Annex 9 of Omnibus Submission, Rollo, pp. 338-
authority pending an investigation . . ." (Sec. 41).
holding that the suspension meted out was merely 348).
preventive and therefore, as held in Nera, there was
The Administrative Code of 1987 also empowered the "nothing improper in suspending an officer pending his
Under these circumstances, it can not be said that Director
proper disciplining authority to "preventively suspend any investigation and before tho charges against him are heard
Raul Arnaw and Investigator Amy de Villa-Rosero acted
subordinate officer or employee under his authority . . . (Nera v. Garcia., supra).
with manifest partiality and bias in recommending the
pending an investigation" (Sec. 51).
suspension of petitioners. Neither can it be said that the
There is no question that under Section 24 of R.A. No. Ombudsman had acted with grave abuse of discretion in
The Ombudsman Law advisedly deleted the words 6770, the Ombudsman cannot order the preventive acting favorably on their recommendation.
"subordinate" and "in his bureau," leaving the phrase to suspension of a respondent unless the evidence of guilt is
read "suspend any officer or employee under his authority strong and (1) the charts against such officer or employee
The Motion for Contempt, which charges the lawyers of
pending an investigation . . . ." The conclusion that can be involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or
petitioners with unlawfully causing or otherwise inducing
deduced from the deletion of the word "subordinate" before neglect in the performance of duty; (2) the charge would
their clients to openly defy and disobey the preventive
and the words "in his bureau" after "officer or employee" is warrant removal from the service; or (3) the respondent's
suspension as ordered by the Ombudsman and the
that the Congress intended to empower the Ombudsman continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed
Secretary of Health can not prosper (Rollo, pp. 259-261).
to preventively suspend all officials and employees under against him.
The Motion should be filed, as in fact such a motion was
investigation by his office, irrespective of whether they are
filed, with the Ombudsman. At any rate, we find that the
employed "in his office" or in other offices of the
acts alleged to constitute indirect contempt were legitimate I would be amenable to holding oral argument to hear the
measures taken by said lawyers to question the validity parties if only to have enough factual and legal bases to
and propriety of the preventive suspension of their clients. justify the preventive suspension of petitioners.
15 28
1
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 Deogracias Gundran happened to be a People v. Dramayo, 149 Phil. 107, 112-113
of the Revised Rules of Court. nephew of petitioner Yadao's wife. (1971).
16 29
2
Penned by Court of Appeals Associate Justice Records, pp. 43-45. R. Francisco, BASIC EVIDENCE, p. 38 of the
Mercedes Gozo-Dadole with Associate Justices Supplement (1999).
Fermin A. Martin, Jr. and Portia Aliño- 17
Hematoma is the extravasation or effusion of
Hormachuelos concurring; Annex "A" of the blood in a newly formed cavity underneath the 30
23 C.J.S. 264.
Petition; rollo, pp. 52-64. skin. It usually develops when the blunt
instrument is applied in part of the body where 31
Proximate cause is that cause, which in
3
Annex "C" of the Petition; rollo, p. 79. bony tissue is superficially located, like the head,
natural and continuous sequence of events,
chest and anterior aspect of the legs. The force
unbroken by an efficient intervening cause,
applied causes the subcutaneous tissue to
4
Penned by Hon. Fortunato V. Panganiban, produces injury or death, and without which the
rupture on account of the presence of a hard
Presiding Judge, RTC Bauang, La Union, result would not have occurred.
structure underneath. The destruction of the
Branch 33; Annex "D" of the Petition; rollo, pp. subcutaneous tissue will lead to the
80-97. accumulation of blood causing it to elevate. 32
Dr. Alambra's autopsy report.
5 18
Dispositve of the RTC Decision, p. 18; rollo, p. Records, p. 12. 33
Dr. Llavore's autopsy report.
97.
19 34
Handwritten by Dr. Llavore. S. I. Schwartz, et al., PRINCIPLES OF
6
Id. SURGERY, p. 1787 (4th ed., 1984).
35 51
Id. at 1790. People v. Vidal, G.R. No. 90419, 1 June 1999, house was razed in a fire which gutted the entire
308 SCRA 1. neighborhood on February 8, 1981.
36
Enzymes that digests the cell in which it is
52
produced, usually marking the death of the cell. Padilla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-39999, On June 17, 1986, the private respondents applied for
It is produced during autolysis – the process by 31 May 1984. individual lot allocations with the NHA. The Awards and
which a cell, in dying tissues, self destructs (the Arbitration Committee (AAC) of West Crame, to whom the
cell then, in effect, digests itself). request was forwarded by the NHA, denied the
Republic of the Philippines
applications because the parties were disqualified for a lot
SUPREME COURT
37 award. Upon appeal to the NHA, this decision was
Id. at 136. Manila
reversed and the private respondents
were awarded the lots occupied by their respective
38
By NBI pathologist Dr. Nieto M. Salvador; THIRD DIVISION structures inside Lot 10, Block 17.
Records, p. 182.
Pacita Ting twice moved for a reconsideration of the
39
P. Solis, LEGAL MEDICINE, p. 220 (Revised award, but the NHA upheld its decision on both occasions,
ed., 1987). denying her second motion with finality in an order dated
G.R. No. 109216 October 27, 1994
May 29, 1989.
40
Id. at 169.
PACITA TING, petitioner, She then appealed to the Office of the President (OP),
vs.
41 which rendered a decision on August 15, 1990, affirming
Id. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AURORA TANALEON the NHA's ruling, with the following observations:
EPIFANIA GOMILLA, ELIZA SUBALDO, and
42 ROBERTO/SHIRLEY YEBRA, respondents.
Id.
The appealed order, it bears stressing,
is primarily assayed on the factual and
43 Public Attorney's Office for petitioner. unrebutted findings of the office a
People v. Batidor, 362 Phil. 673, 681-682
(1999). quo anent the extent of and actual
Esmeralda R. Acorda for private respondents. occupancy by appellant and appellees
44
of their respective areas.
People v. Bautista, 368 Phil. 100, 120 (1999). Consequently, appellant's contention
that she alone is entitled to the award
45
Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 150439, 29 of the entire Lot 10, Block 17, with an
July 2005, 465 SCRA 190, 215. ROMERO, J.: area of 212 square meters, on the
strength of her allegation that the
46
other claimants are not qualified
People v. Mejia, 341 Phil. 118, 145 (1997). Sometime in 1965, the spouses Jose and Pacita Ting project beneficiaries, is untenable.
purchased a house standing on a 212-square meter lot
47 known as Lot 10, Block 17 of the West Crame ZIP (Zonal
People v. Manambit, 338 Phil. 57, 100 (1997). That subject lot had been earlier
Improvement Program. The lot was bought by the
government under Presidential Decree No. 1517, awarded by the ZIP project's
48
People v. Vasquez, 345 Phil. 380, 399 (1997). otherwise known as the "Urban Land Reform Act," for Arbitration and Adjudication
disposition to qualified beneficiaries. These beneficiaries Committee (AAC) to appellant adds
49 were determined in the 1978 census conducted by the nothing in the way of conclusiveness
Supra at note 43. Municipality of San Juan. Jose Ting was listed as a to the legality of her claim to the whole
structure owner and was given Tag No. 80-0417-01. area, much more confers upon her a
50
People v. Fronda, 384 Phil. 732, 743 (2000). Pacita Ting allegedly allowed the private respondents vested right thereto, to the exclusion
herein to occupy portions of the lot in question after their of appellees who, as shown by the
evidence, are as much as qualified to
be lot awardees of the NHA. For, in Appellant's claim that the NHA Hence, petitioner filed this petition for review with the
the first place, no formal award of the proceedings was punctuated with bias following assigned errors:
controverted lot has been made by the and partiality is a mere play on
NHA to appellant for lack of Notice of emotion that cannot defeat the
I
Award issued by the NHA General overriding considerations of justice
Manager, and, more importantly, no and fair play. In so ruling for herein
Conditional Contract to Sell of said lot appellees, the NHA simply fittingly THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
was even executed between appellant supplied its long standing policy of OF THE NATIONAL HOUSING
and the NHA. And, in the second awarding NHA lots to the actual AUTHORITY, THAT PRIVATE
place, the decision of the AAC is occupants thereof and within the RESPONDENTS SEASONABLY
merely recommendatory and subject permissible limits. What is more, FILED THE NOTICE OF APPEAL
to the final approval of the NHA, thru appellant had failed to overthrow the WITH THE NATIONAL HOUSING
its General Manager. Hence, the presumption of regularity that the AUTHORITY FROM THE DECISION
disapproval of appellee's applications courts attach to acts of administrative OF THE AWARD AND ARBITRATION
for lot award and their subsequent bodies/officers. COMMITTEE IS NOT SUPPORTED
elevation of the case to the NHA by WITH EVIDENCE.
way of appeal is but in accord with the
Finally, considering that the NHA is
NHA rule of proceedings, the AAC's
tasked with the determination of the II
award to appellant not having yet
technical aspects of mass housing,
acquired the character of finality.
which includes the feasibility of
subdividing lots for multiple ASSUMING WITHOUT CONCEDING
Appellant's lot allocation cannot, and allocations, the award of the contested THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
INTERPOSED THE APPEAL FROM
should not, extend to portions of the lot to all the contending parties in the
lot where appellees' structures had manner heretofore adjudged, on the THE DECISION OF THE AWARD
been constructed. Otherwise, basis of their actual occupancy, is but AND ARBITRATION COMMITTEE
STILL, THE NATIONAL HOUSING
appellant would be the virtual owner of in consonance with the government's
the structures put up by appellees on declared policy under Section 3 of PD AUTHORITY HAS NO
the portions of subject lot which the 757, "[t]o provide and maintain JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE
former had leased to the latter without adequate housing for the greatest APPEAL, HAVING BEEN FILED OUT
the required prior approval by the possible number of people." OF TIME.
NHA. And worst, such arrangements
would constitute a palpable violation of III
NHA policy against multiple ownership
of structures in its ZIP projects, as
defined under Section V, Paragraph 5 Petitioner's motion for reconsideration of this decision was THE DECISION OF THE NATIONAL
of NHA Circular No. 13, dated likewise denied. HOUSING AUTHORITY WHICH WAS
February 19, 1982. AFFIRMED BY THE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT AND THE HONORABLE
Not satisfied with these pronouncements, petitioner RESPONDENT COURT OF
Were this Office to rule that appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals raising, as one of the APPEALS IS TAINTED WITH
is entitled to the award of the entire issues, the lack of jurisdiction of the NHA to entertain the UNFAIRNESS AND
Lot 10, Block 17 whereon several appeal of the private respondents from the decision of the ARBITRARINESS AMOUNTING TO
other structures have been AAC. ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
constructed, the net result thereof
would be a stultification, if not
complete evisceration, of the NHA The appellate court dismissed the petition in its decision IV
dated
policy of "one structure, one lot,"
which eventuality this Office cannot December 29, 1992, and denied petitioner's motion for
legally countenance. reconsideration on March 3, 1993.
THE CONSTRUCTION AND proof as to the existence of said appeal by the lot to private respondents who were admittedly
INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE respondents. How then can petitioner allege the late filing uncensused household owner(s) in ZIP West Crame."
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY of an appeal which she claims does not even exist? Her
UPON SEC. 3 OF P.D. 757 IS IN argument simply defies logic and must consequently be
This argument is untenable.
VIOLATION OF NHA CIRCULAR NO. stricken out.
13 KNOWN AS THE CODE OF
POLICY, PARTICULARLY SEC. V, In the first place, the "construction given to a statute by an
The issue of lack of jurisdiction was first raised before the
PAR. 3, THEREOF. administrative agency charged with the interpretation and
Court of Appeals. It appears however, that whereas in the
application of that statute is entitled to great respect and
proceedings below, petitioner claimed that the NHA lacked
should be accorded great weight by the courts, unless
V jurisdiction to entertain the appeal from AAC's decision,
such construction is clearly shown to be in sharp conflict
the basis of the same allegation of lack of jurisdiction
with the governing statute or the Constitution and other
raised in the instant petition is the NHA'sentertainment of
THE NATIONAL HOUSING laws. . . . The Courts give much weight to
the appeal in spite of having been filed late.
AUTHORITY GRAVELY ERRED IN contemporaneous construction because of the respect due
AWARDING LOTS TO PRIVATE the government agency or officials charged with the
RESPONDENTS WHO WERE This may be a desperate effort on the part of the petitioner implementation of the law, their competence, expertness,
ADMITTEDLY UNCENSUSED to overturn the unanimous decisions of the appellate court experience and informed judgment, and the fact that they
HOUSEHOLD OWNERS IN ZIP and the administrative bodies concerned, considering that frequently are the drafters of the law they interpret." 1
WEST CRAME BECAUSE THEY (sic) the Court of Appeals has sufficiently and correctly rejected
FOUR ARE ALL DISQUALIFIED. the claim of lack of jurisdiction of the NHA to entertain the
In the second place, these are factual issues already
appeal.
touched upon and decided by the Court of Appeals which
VI may not be assailed in this petition, there being nothing on
Under paragraph V(7) of NHA Circular No. 13, dated record that would justify a relaxation of the rule that the
February 19, 1982 upon which the petitioner also relies, appellate court's findings of fact are conclusive upon the
THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE
"All decisions of the AAC shall be subject to review and Court, which may only review and correct errors of law. 2
DEEMED TO HAVE ADMITTED
approval of the General Manager of the Authority, the local
PETITIONER'S ALLEGATION IN THE
Mayors, and finally the Governor of the Metropolitan
PETITION FILED WITH THE COURT On the issue that the challenged NHA decision is "tainted
Manila Commission."
OF APPEALS FOR FAILURE TO with unfairness and arbitrariness amounting to lack of
FILE THEIR COMMENT/ANSWER jurisdiction," suffice it to say that the Court has consistently
TO IT AS REQUIRED BY THE It is clear from this provision that the NHA was acting declared that findings or conclusions of administrative
COURT. within its statutory authority when it reversed the decision bodies which have gained expertise in their fields because
of the AAC and awarded the lot to the respondents. While their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, supported
it is true that NHA Circular No. 13 does not provide for as they are by substantial evidence, are generally
It must be noted at this juncture that this petition is actually
any period within which to appeal, the 15-day period respected and even given finality, in the absence of a
a special civil action for certiorari filed under Rule 65. A
applied to appeals from quasi-judicial bodies to the Court showing of unfairness or arbitrariness on the part of the
perusal of the errors cited above instantly reveals that the
of Appeals cannot apply to an appeal from the AAC's administrative body amounting to abuse of discretion or
basis of this petition is grave abuse of discretion
decision to the NHA which is an intra-agency recourse. lack of jurisdiction. 3 Hence, the decision of the NHA, as
amounting to lack of jurisdiction allegedly committed, not
Anyhow, the decision of the NHA in this case was reached well as that of the Office of the President, should not be
by the respondent Court of Appeals, but by the NHA and
"after a judicious review and evaluation of the records and disturbed on appeal.
the Office of the President. It even prays for the
the documentary evidence submitted." and "in consonance
reinstatement of the AAC's decision. Henceforth, we shall
with the mandate of the Authority to provide and maintain
treat this petition as one for certiorari under Rule 65. Finally, petitioner alleges that the "private respondents are
adequate housing for the greatest number of people."
deemed to have admitted petitioner's allegation in the
petition with the Court of Appeals for their failure to file
Petitioner claims that the NHA has no jurisdiction to
The petitioner also claims that the "construction given by their comment/answer as required by the Court of
reverse the AAC's decision and award the lot to the private
the National Housing Authority over Sec. 3 of P.D. 757 is Appeals."
respondents because the latter's appeal was filed out of
in violation of NHA Circular
time. It is also claimed, in the alternative, that there is no
No. 13," and that the NHA "gravely erred in awarding (the)
The non-filing of the comment/answer by the private Exploration, Inc. v. Macaraig, Jr., 194 Private respondent worked for the petitioner as a
respondents cannot be interpreted as an admission of the SCRA 1 [1991]; Villanueva, Sr. v. security guard since September 1963 until his retirement at
allegations in the petition. Under Section 8, Rule 65 (which Leogardo Jr., 215 SCRA 835 the age of 60 on March 20, 1989, with a monthly salary
applies in this case instead of Section 1, Rule 9, stating [1992], citing Special Events & Central of P1,480.00. He formally requested petitioner for
that allegations not specifically denied are deemed Shipping Office Workers Union v. San payment of his retirement pay, but petitioner refused,
admitted), upon the expiration of the period to file an Miguel Corporation, 122 SCRA 557 stating that it would give him financial assistance instead,
answer, "the court may order the proceedings complained [1983]; Sesbreno v. Ala, 208 SCRA without specifying the amount, which offer was refused by
of to be forthwith certified up for review and shall hear the 359 [1992]. the private respondent.
case, and if after such hearing the court finds that the
allegations of the petition are true, it shall render judgment On May 11, 1989, private respondent filed a
THIRD DIVISION complaint for non-payment of retirement benefits against
for such of the relief prayed for as the petitioner is entitled
to . . . ." Conversely, if the court finds the allegations to be petitioner, docketed as NLRC Case No. 00-05-02236-
false, then it is not duty bound to grant any of the reliefs 89. Petitioner, in its position paper, alleged that private
sought, and may dismiss the petition outright. respondent was not entitled to retirement pay since there
was no company policy which provided for nor any
[G.R. No. 99859. September 20, 1996] collective bargaining agreement granting it.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition
for review (properly certiorari) is hereby DISMISSED for On September 19, 1989, the arbiter rendered his
lack of merit. decision in favor of private respondent.[4] Inasmuch as his
ratiocination may be indicative of the mind-set of our labor
PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS SECURITY & officialdom, we quote the same below:
SO ORDERED. INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC., petitioner, vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
and PORPING REGALADO, respondents. “It is admitted that it is provided in Article 287 of the Labor
Bidin, Melo and Vitug, JJ., concur.
Code that in case of retirement, the employee shall be
entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may have
Feliciano, J., is on leave. DECISION earned under existing laws and any CBA or other
agreement. Since there is no CBA nor company policy
PANGANIBAN, J.: granting the same, we have to look into other articles of
the Labor Code. Article 283 of the Labor Code requires
Does the Labor Code, prior to its amendment by employer to give separation pay to employees who were
# Footnotes Republic Act No. 7641,[1] authorize the payment of retrenched at the rate of one month salary for every year of
retirement pay in the absence of a provision therefor in a service when the termination is a result of installation of
collective bargaining agreement or other applicable labor saving device and one-half month pay for every year
1 Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Court of of service in case of retrenchment due to prevent losses
Appeals, 203 SCRA 504 employment contract?
(sic), closure or cessation of operations of establishment or
[1991], citing Asturias Sugar Central, The instant petition for certiorari seeks to nullify the undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial
Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, 29 Decision of the National Labor Relations reverses. Article 284 of the Labor Code also requires
SCRA 617 [1969]. Commission[2] promulgated January 10, 1991, in NLRC employer to pay an employee his separation pay at the
Case No. 00-05-02236-89, entitled “Porping Regalado vs. rate of one-half month salary for every year of service
2 Godines v. Court of Appeals, 226 Phil. Scout Veterans Security & Investigation Agency, Inc. when terminated due to incurable disease. An analysis of
SCRA 338 [1993], citing Ronquillo v. and/or Col. Cesar Sa Macalalad”, affirming the labor this article will reveal that it is the intention of the Code to
Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 433 arbiter’s[3] award of retirement pay to private respondent. provide same financial assistance to these people who are
[1991]. dislocated either because of loss of employment or due to
disease and yet, an employee who retires and ironically
whose company does not have any CBA nor policy
3 Tiatco v. Civil Service Commission, providing for retirement pay will not receive any retirement
The Antecedent Facts
216 SCRA 749 [1992], citing Filipinas pay for him to augment and supply his needs during his
Manufacturers Bank v. NLRC, 182 old age. This matter has to be correct(ed) and it will be an
SCRA 848 [1990], and Earth Minerals
injustice if such retirement pay will be denied to and which are, from the standpoint of affected employees The Court’s Ruling
complainant. After all, the company has benefitted from usually temporary contingency that do not prevent them
the service of the employee, hence, it is only fitting for the from sooner or later being gainfully employed again, we
company to provide him some funds for his old age. Also, feel that there is far greater need to cushion retired The main contention of both petitioner and the
equity demands that in cases where there is no CBA nor employees from the difficulties attendant to old age and Solicitor General is that there is no contractual nor
company policy providing a retirement pay, an employer permanent idleness. And in protecting retired employees, statutory basis for the grant of retirement pay, hence, said
must pay its employee the needed retirement pay. we are also protecting their dependents. This is the award is improper.
essence of social justice. (Angel T. Tolentino vs. Standard
Wood Products Company, Inc., NLRC Case No. NCR-5- The petition is impressed with merit.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the
3847-82, NLRC First Division, Promulgated July 8, 1987.)’”
respondent Phil. Scout Veterans Security and Investigation The applicable provisions of the Labor Code on the
Agency, Inc. to pay complainant his retirement pay at the matter of retirement are Art. 287 of the Labor Code, and
rate of one-half month salary for every year of service, a Petitioner moved for reconsideration but respondent Sections 13 and 14(a) of Rule I, Book VI of the
fraction of at least six (6) months considered as one year Commission denied the same for lack of merit. Hence, this Implementing Rules, which read as follows:
of service.” recourse.
This Court issued a temporary restraining order on “Article 287. Retirement. Any employee may be retired
Petitioner appealed to the respondent National June 10, 1991, enjoining respondent Commission and its upon reaching the retirement age established in the
Labor Relations Commission, which in its now-assailed representatives from enforcing its January 10, 1991 collective bargaining agreement or other applicable
Decision[5] affirmed the arbiter: Decision. In a Manifestation in Lieu of Comment employment contract.
dated July 25, 1991, the Solicitor General agreed with the
“An employee is entitled to retirement benefits even in the petitioner’s position.
In case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to
absence of a company retirement plan or collective receive such retirement benefits as he may have earned
bargaining agreement. This is the import of Article 287 of under existing laws and any collective bargaining or other
the Labor Code, as amended, and implemented by agreement.”
Sections 13 and 14, Rule I, Book V (sic) of the Rules The Issues
Implementing the Labor Code. Thus in a case, this
Commission (1st Division) ruled: xxx xxx
Petitioner alleges that respondent Commission acted xxx
‘With respect to the award of retirement benefits, the with grave abuse of discretion:
contention of respondent-appellant that complainant is not “Sec. 13. Retirement. In the absence of any collective
A
entitled to his claim of retirement benefits or to his bargaining agreement or other applicable agreement
termination or separation pay because he was not retired concerning terms and conditions of employment which
under the bonafide retirement plan or under an individual “x x x IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 283 provides for retirement at an older age, an employee may
or collective bargaining agreement or under company AND ARTICLE 284 OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE be retired upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years.
policy, is highly untenable because Rule I, Sections 13 and PHILIPPINES, AS AMENDED, AS THE LAW THAT
14, Book VI of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code PROVIDE FOR RETIREMENT PAY TO PRIVATE
Sec. 14. Retirement Benefits. (a) An employee who is
taken together clearly states that, with or without a RESPONDENT. retired pursuant to a bona-fide retirement plan or in
retirement plan, individual or collective bargaining accordance with the applicable individual or collective
agreement or company policy, an employee who retires or
B agreement or established employer policy shall be entitled
is retired at the age of sixty (60) or over, is entitled to to all the retirement benefits provided therein or to
termination pay equivalent to one-half month salary for termination pay equivalent at least to one-half month
every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months x x x IN ISSUING THE QUESTIONED RESOLUTION salary for every year of service, whichever is higher, a
being considered as one whole year. WHICH RESULTED IN ADMINISTRATIVE fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one
LEGISLATION.” whole year.”
Moreover, if social justice and compassion to labor
demand that termination pay be granted to victims of In a nutshell, the issue here is whether or not private It is at once apparent from a cursory reading of the
mechanization, redundancy, retrenchment to avoid losses respondent is legally entitled to retirement benefits. arbiter’s decision that, in making the award of retirement
pay, he was confronted by the lack of contractual or “x x x Section 14 (a) refers to ‘termination pay equivalent to and shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at
statutory basis therefor. Undaunted, he scavenged for a at least one-half (1/2) month for every year of service’ least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service,
basis from among the other provisions of the Labor while Section 14 (b) mentions ‘termination pay to which the a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as
Code. Seizing upon Articles 283 and 284, he concluded employee would have been entitled had there been no one whole year.
that it is ironical and unjust that some financial assistance such retirement fund’ as well as ‘termination pay the
is provided for people who are dismissed from their jobs employee is entitled to receive.’ It should be recalled that
Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term
and who can presumably still find other work and continue Sections 13 and 14 are found in Implementing Rule I
‘one half (1/2) month salary’ shall mean fifteen (15) days
to earn a livelihood, but not for those who are retired and which deals with both ‘termination of employment’ and
plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash
facing the difficulties attendant to old age and permanent ‘retirement.’ It is important to keep the two (2) concepts of
equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service
idleness. This reflection exudes wisdom; unfortunately, it ‘termination pay’ and ‘retirement benefits’ separate and
incentive leaves.
lacks legal basis. distinct from each other. Termination pay or separation
pay is required to be paid by an employer in particular
Going even deeper, respondent Commission, situations identified by the Labor Code itself or by x x x x x x x x
instead of clearing up the confusion, added to it by Implementing Rule I. Termination pay where properly due x”
construing Sections 13 and 14(a) of Rule I, Book VI of the and payable under some applicable provision of the Labor
Implementing Rules in relation to Art. 287 as basis for the Code or under Section 4 (b) of Implementing Rule I, must nevertheless, the aforequoted provisions, which could
grant of retirement benefits to private respondent. be paid whether or not an additional retirement plan has have saved the day for the private respondent, cannot be
been set up under an agreement with the employer or applied in this case, since private respondent retired on
But far from being novel, this issue had already been under an ‘established employer policy.’ March 20, 1989, or about three years prior to the approval
settled in Abaquin Security and Detective Agency, Inc. vs. of the new retirement law. RA 7641 is to be effective
Atienza,[6] where this Court held: prospectively, absent a clear intention on the part of the
What needs to be stressed, however, is that Section 14 of legislature to give it retroactivity.[8] “It is a rule of statutory
Implementing Rule I, like Article 287 of the Labor Code, construction that all statutes are to be construed as having
“Construing these provisions in relation to the same issue does not purport to require ‘termination pay’ to be paid to
presented in this petition, this Court in the case of Llora only a prospective operation unless the purpose and
an employee who may want to retire but for whom no intention of the Legislature to give them a retrospective
Motors, Inc., and/or Constantino Carlota, Jr. vs. Hon. additional retirement plan had been set up by prior
Franklin Drilon, et al., (G.R. No. 82895, November 7, 1989) effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from
agreement with the employer. Thus, Section 14 itself the language used. In every case of doubt, the doubt must
clarified that Article 288 (now 287) ‘does not itself purport speaks of an employee ‘who is retired pursuant to a
to impose any obligation upon employers to set up be resolved against the retrospective effect.”[9]
bonafide retirement plan or in accordance with
a retirement scheme for their employees over and above theapplicable individual or collective The fact that respondent Commission had a prior
that already established under existing laws. In other agreement or established employer policy’ x x x.” (italics in ruling in a similar case[10]granting retirement benefits is of
words, Article 287 recognizes that existing laws already
the original text.) no moment. Although it may be true that the
provide for a scheme by which retirement benefits may be
contemporaneous construction of a statute by executive
earned or accrue in favor of employees, as part of a
Consequently, the Decision in question has to be officers tasked to enforce and implement said statute
broader social security system that provides not only for
should be given great weight by the courts, nevertheless, if
retirement benefits but also death and funeral benefits, struck down for being legally indefensible.
such construction is erroneous[11] or is clearly shown to be
permanent disability benefits, sickness benefits and
While Article 287 has since been amended by in conflict with the governing statute or the Constitution or
maternity leave benefits.”
Republic Act No. 7641 (approved on December 9, 1992) to other laws,[12] the same must be declared null and void. “It
read as follows: is the role of the Judiciary to refine and, when necessary,
In Llora Motors, Inc. vs. Drilon,[7] this Court sought to correct constitutional (and/or statutory) interpretation, in
end the confusion caused by the wording of Section 14 “x x x xxx xxx the context of the interactions of the three branches of the
abovequoted, and differentiated between the concepts of government.”[13]
“termination pay” and “retirement benefits”. We clarified
In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing Had respondent Commission simply followed our
that the phrase “pay equivalent at least one-half month
for retirement benefits of employees in the establishment, ruling in Llora Motors, this problem would not have
salary for every year of service, whichever is higher”
an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or reached this far. Besides, with Llora’s promulgation in
pertains to termination pay:
more, but not beyond sixty-five (65) years which is hereby 1989, the ruling in the Tolentinocase was effectively
declared the compulsory retirement age, who has served superseded.
at least five (5) years in the said establishment, may retire
It has been held that “(i)t is axiomatic that retirement [10]
Tolentino vs. Standard Wood Products Co., Inc., NLRC The instant case emanated from the two complaints-
laws are liberally construed and administered in favor of Case No. NCR-5-3847-82. affidavits filed by respondent Cecille S. Abalos on 18
the persons intended to be benefited. All doubts as to the January 2001 before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
[11]
intent of the law should be resolved in favor of the retiree Abaquin, supra, p. 466, citing Insular Bank of Asia and Iligan City, against petitioner for Estafa.
to achieve its humanitarian purposes.”[14] The intention is to America Employees' Union (IBAAEU) vs. Inciong, 132
provide for the retiree’s sustenance and hopefully even SCRA 663, October 23, 1984..
Respondent alleged in the complaints-affidavits that
comfort, when he no longer has the stamina to continue [12]
Nestle Phil., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 203 SCRA 504, petitioner, through deceit, received and encashed two
earning his livelihood. Unfortunately, such interpretation
510, November 13, 1991. checks issued in the name of respondent without
cannot be made in this case in the light of the clear lack of
respondent’s knowledge and consent and that despite
consensual and statutory basis of the grant of retirement [13]
Abaquin, supra, pp. 466-467. repeated demands by the latter, petitioner failed and
benefits to private respondent.
[14]
refused to pay the proceeds of the checks.
Re: Judge Alex Z. Reyes, 216 SCRA 720, 725,
In all, it has been sufficiently shown that respondent December 21, 1992, citing Borromeo vs. Civil Service
Commission acted in grave abuse of discretion by Commission, 199 SCRA 924, (1991). On 23 March 2001, petitioner filed a counter-affidavit
affirming the grant of retirement benefits to private admitting that she received and encashed the two checks
respondent despite our pronouncements on the matter. issued in favor of respondent.
Republic of the Philippines
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is SUPREME COURT
hereby GRANTED and the assailed Decision SET Manila In her Supplemental Affidavit filed on 29 March 2001,
ASIDE. No costs. petitioner, however, recanted and alleged instead that it
was a certain Bebie Correa who received the two checks
SO ORDERED. THIRD DIVISION which are the subject matter of the complaints and
encashed the same; and that said Bebie Correa left the
Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Davide, Jr., country after misappropriating the proceeds of the checks.
Melo, and Francisco, JJ., concur. G.R. No. 168617 February 19, 2007
BERNADETTE L. ADASA, petitioner, On 25 April 2001, a resolution was issued by the Office of
vs. the City Prosecutor of Iligan City finding probable cause
CECILLE S. ABALOS, Respondent. against petitioner and ordering the filing of two separate
[1]
Approved on December 9, 1992. Informations for Estafa Thru Falsification of Commercial
[2]
Document by a Private Individual, under Article 315 in
Second Division, composed of Comm. Rustico L. DECISION relation to Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal
Diokno, ponente, and Pres. Comm. Edna Bonto-Perez and Code, as amended.
Comm. Domingo H. Zapanta.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
[3]
Labor Arbiter Eduardo G. Magno. Consequently, two separate criminal cases were filed
[4] This Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of against petitioner docketed as Criminal Cases No. 8781
Rollo, pp. 35-38. and No. 8782, raffled to Branches 4 and 5, Regional Trial
Court, filed by petitioner Bernadette L. Adasa, seeks to
[5] nullify and set aside the 21 July 2004 Decision1 and 10 Court of Iligan City, respectively.
Rollo, pp. 16-20.
June 2005 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
[6]
190 SCRA 460, 465, October 15, 1990. SP No. 76396 which nullified the Resolutions of the This instant petition pertains only to Criminal Case No.
Department of Justice (DOJ). The Resolutions of the DOJ 8782.
[7]
179 SCRA 175, 183-184, November 7, 1989. reversed and set aside the Resolution of the Office of the
[8]
City Prosecutor of Iligan City, which found on
See Balatbat vs. Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 419, 426, reinvestigation probable cause against petitioner, and On 8 June 2001, upon motion of the petitioner, the trial
January 27, 1992; also, Article 4, Civil Code. directed the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City to court in Criminal Case No. 8782 issued an order directing
[9] withdraw the information for Estafa against petitioner. the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City to conduct a
Balatbat vs. Court of Appeals, supra, citing Nilo vs.
reinvestigation.
Court of Appeals, 128 SCRA 519, 525, April 2, 1984, in
turn quoting Mr. Justice Moreland
After conducting the reinvestigation, the Office of the City Meanwhile, on 27 February 2003, the trial court issued an cannot be dealt with by it since factual issues are not
Prosecutor of Iligan City issued a resolution dated 30 order granting petitioner’s "Motion to Withdraw proper subjects of a Petition for Certiorari.
August 2001, affirming the finding of probable cause Information" and dismissing Criminal Case No. 8782. No
against petitioner. action was taken by respondent or any party of the case
In disposing of the last issue, the Court of Appeals held
from the said order of dismissal.
that the order of the trial court dismissing the subject
Meanwhile, during her arraignment on 1 October 2001 in criminal case pursuant to the assailed resolutions of the
Criminal Case No. 8782, petitioner entered an Aggrieved by the resolution of the DOJ, respondent filed a DOJ did not render the petition moot and academic. It said
unconditional plea of not guilty.3 Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. that since the trial court’s order relied solely on the
Respondent raised the following issues before the resolutions of the DOJ, said order is void as it violated the
appellate court: rule which enjoins the trial court to assess the evidence
Dissatisfied with the finding of the Office of the City
presented before it in a motion to dismiss and not to rely
Prosecutor of Iligan City, petitioner filed a Petition for
solely on the prosecutor’s averment that the Secretary of
Review before the DOJ on 15 October 2001. 1. Whether or not the Department of Justice
Justice had recommended the dismissal of the case.
gravely abused its discretion in giving due
course to petitioner’s petition for review despite
In a Resolution dated 11 July 2002, the DOJ reversed and
its having been filed after the latter had already Dissatisfied by the Court of Appeals’ ruling, petitioner filed
set aside the 30 August 2001 resolution of the Office of the
been arraigned; a Motion for Reconsideration setting forth the following
City Prosecutor of Iligan City and directed the said office to
grounds:
withdraw the Information for Estafa against petitioner.
2. Whether or not there is probable cause that
the crime of estafa has been committed and that 1. that the over-all language of Sections 7 and
The said DOJ resolution prompted the Office of the City
petitioner is probably guilty thereof; 12 of Department Circular No. 70 is permissive
Prosecutor of Iligan City to file a "Motion to Withdraw
and directory such that the Secretary of Justice
Information" on 25 July 2002.
may entertain an appeal despite the fact that the
3. Whether or not the petition before the Court of
accused had been arraigned;
Appeals has been rendered moot and academic
On 26 July 2002, respondent filed a motion for
by the order of the Regional Trial Court
reconsideration of said resolution of the DOJ arguing that
dismissing Criminal Case No. 8782. 2. that the contemporaneous construction by the
the DOJ should have dismissed outright the petition for
Secretary of Justice should be given great
review since Section 7 of DOJ Circular No. 70 mandates
weight and respect;
that when an accused has already been arraigned and the The Court of Appeals in a Decision dated 21 July 2004
aggrieved party files a petition for review before the DOJ, granted respondent’s petition and reversed the
the Secretary of Justice cannot, and should not take Resolutions of the DOJ dated 11 July 2002 and 30 3. that Section 7 of the Circular applies only to
cognizance of the petition, or even give due course January 2003. resolutions rendered pursuant to a preliminary
thereto, but instead deny it outright. Respondent claimed investigation, not on a reinvestigation;
Section 12 thereof mentions arraignment as one of the
In resolving the first issue, the Court of Appeals, relying
grounds for the dismissal of the petition for review before
heavily on Section 7 of DOJ Circular No. 70 which states 4. that the trial court’s order of dismissal of the
the DOJ.
"[i]f an information has been filed in court pursuant to the criminal case has rendered the instant petition
appealed resolution, the petition shall not be given due moot and academic;
In a resolution dated 30 January 2003, the DOJ denied the course if the accused had already been arraigned," ruled
Motion for Reconsideration opining that under Section 12, that since petitioner was arraigned before she filed the
5. that her arraignment was null and void it being
in relation to Section 7, of DOJ Circular No. 70, the petition for review with the DOJ, it was imperative for the
conducted despite her protestations; and
Secretary of Justice is not precluded from entertaining any DOJ to dismiss such petition. It added that when petitioner
appeal taken to him even where the accused has already pleaded to the charge, she was deemed to have waived
been arraigned in court. This is due to the permissive her right to reinvestigation and right to question any 6. that despite her being arraigned, the
language "may" utilized in Section 12 whereby the irregularity that surrounds it. supposed waiver of her right to preliminary
Secretary has the discretion to entertain an appealed investigation has been nullified or recalled by
resolution notwithstanding the fact that the accused has virtue of the trial court’s order of reinvestigation.4
Anent the second issue, the Court of Appeals declared
been arraigned.
that the existence of probable cause or the lack of it,
The Court of Appeals stood firm by its decision. This time, files a petition for review, the Secretary of Justice cannot, this contention, petitioner set her sights on the ruling of this
however, it tried to construe Section 7 side by side with and should not take cognizance of the petition, or even Court in Crespo v. Mogul,5 to wit:
Section 12 of DOJ Circular No. 70 and attempted to give due course thereto, but instead dismiss or deny it
reconcile these two provisions. According to the appellate outright. The appellate court added that the word "may" in
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a
court, the phrase "shall not" in paragraph two, first Section 12 should be read as "shall" or "must" since such
complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of
sentence of Section 7 of subject circular, to wit: construction is absolutely necessary to give effect to the
the case as to its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of
apparent intention of the rule as gathered from the context.
the accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court.
If an information has been filed in court pursuant to the Although the fiscal retains the direction and control of the
appealed resolution, the petition shall not be given due As to the contemporaneous construction of the Secretary prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is
course if the accused had already been arraigned. x x x. of Justice, the Court of Appeals stated that the same already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the trial
(Emphasis supplied.) should not be given weight since it was erroneous. court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do
with the case before it. The determination of the case is
within its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion
employed in the circular denotes a positive prohibition. Anent petitioner’s argument that Section 7 of the
to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed
Applying the principle in statutory construction - that when questioned circular applies only to original resolutions that
to the Court who has the option to grant or deny the
a statute or provision contains words of positive brought about the filing of the corresponding informations
same. It does not matter if this is done before or after the
prohibition, such as "shall not," "cannot," or "ought not" or in court, but not to resolutions rendered pursuant to a
arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed
which is couched in negative terms importing that the act motion for reinvestigation, the appellate court simply
after a reinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary
shall not be done otherwise than designated, that statute brushed aside such contention as having no basis in the
of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation.
or provision is mandatory, thus rendering the provision circular questioned.
(Emphasis supplied.)
mandatory – it opined that the subject provision simply
means that the Secretary of Justice has no other course of
It also rejected petitioner’s protestation that her
action but to deny or dismiss a petition before him when To bolster her position, petitioner cites Roberts v. Court of
arraignment was forced upon her since she failed to
arraignment of an accused had already taken place prior Appeals,6 which stated:
present any evidence to substantiate the same.
to the filing of the petition for review.
There is nothing in Crespo vs. Mogul which bars the DOJ
It is petitioner’s contention that despite her being
On the other hand, reading Section 12 of the same circular from taking cognizance of an appeal, by way of a petition
arraigned, the supposed waiver of her right to preliminary
which reads: for review, by an accused in a criminal case from an
investigation has been nullified by virtue of the trial court’s
unfavorable ruling of the investigating prosecutor. It merely
order or reinvestigation. On this score, the Court of
advised the DOJ to, "as far as practicable, refrain from
The Secretary may reverse, affirm or modify the appealed Appeals rebuffed such argument stating that there was no
entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action
resolution. He may, motu proprio or upon motion, dismiss "supposed waiver of preliminary investigation" to speak of
of the fiscal, when the complaint or information has already
the petition for review on any of the following grounds: for the reason that petitioner had actually undergone
been filed in Court. x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
preliminary investigation.
xxxx
Petitioner likewise invokes Marcelo v. Court of
Petitioner remained unconvinced with the explanations of
Appeals7 where this Court declared:
the Court of Appeals.
(e) That the accused had already been arraigned when the
appeal was taken; x x x.
Nothing in the said ruling forecloses the power or authority
Hence, the instant petition.
of the Secretary of Justice to review resolutions of his
the Court of Appeals opined that the permissive word subordinates in criminal cases. The Secretary of Justice is
"may" in Section 12 would seem to imply that the Again, petitioner contends that the DOJ can give due only enjoined to refrain as far as practicable from
Secretary of Justice has discretion to entertain an appeal course to an appeal or petition for review despite its having entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the action
notwithstanding the fact that the accused has been been filed after the accused had already been arraigned. It of the prosecutor once a complaint or information is filed in
arraigned. This provision should not be treated separately, asserts that the fact of arraignment of an accused before court. In any case, the grant of a motion to dismiss, which
but should be read in relation to Section 7. The two the filing of an appeal or petition for review before the DOJ the prosecution may file after the Secretary of Justice
provisions, taken together, simply meant that when an "is not at all relevant" as the DOJ can still take cognizance reverses an appealed resolution, is subject to the
accused was already arraigned when the aggrieved party of the appeal or Petition for Review before it. In support of discretion of the court.
The Court is unconvinced. The all too-familiar rule in statutory construction, in this (d) That the appealed resolution is interlocutory
case, an administrative rule9 of procedure, is that when a in nature, except when it suspends the
statute or rule is clear and unambiguous, interpretation proceedings based on the alleged existence of a
A cursory reading of Crespo v. Mogul reveals that the
need not be resorted to.10 Since Section 7 of the subject prejudicial question;
ruling therein does not concern the issue of an appeal or
circular clearly and categorically directs the DOJ to dismiss
petition for review before the DOJ after arraignment. Verily,
outright an appeal or a petition for review filed after
the pronouncement therein has to do with the filing of a (e) That the accused had already been
arraignment, no resort to interpretation is necessary.
motion to dismiss and the court’s discretion to deny or arraigned when the appeal was taken;
grant the same. As correctly pointed out by respondent,
the emphasized portion in the Crespo ruling is a parcel of Petitioner’s reliance to the statutory principle that "the last
(f) That the offense has already prescribed; and
the entire paragraph which relates to the duty and in order of position in the rule or regulation must prevail" is
jurisdiction of the trial court to determine for itself whether not applicable. In addition to the fact that Section 7 of DOJ
or not to dismiss a case before it, and which states that Circular No. 70 needs no construction, the cited principle (g) That other legal or factual grounds exist to
such duty comes into play regardless of whether such cannot apply because, as correctly observed by the Court warrant a dismissal. (Emphases supplied.)
motion is filed before or after arraignment and upon whose of Appeals, there is no irreconcilable conflict between
instructions. The allusion to the Secretary of Justice as Section 7 and Section 12 of DOJ Circular No. 70. Section
reviewing the records of investigation and giving 7 of the circular provides: It is noteworthy that the principle cited by petitioner reveals
that, to find application, the same presupposes that "one
instructions for the filing of a motion to dismiss in the cited
ruling does not take into consideration of whether the part of the statute cannot be reconciled or harmonized with
SECTION 7. Action on the petition. – The Secretary of another part without nullifying one in favor of the other." In
appeal or petition before the Secretary of Justice was filed
Justice may dismiss the petition outright if he finds the the instant case, however, Section 7 is neither
after arraignment. Significantly, in the Crespo case, the
same to be patently without merit or manifestly intended contradictory nor irreconcilable with Section 12. As can be
accused had not yet been arraigned when the appeal or
for delay, or when the issues raised therein are too seen above, Section 7 pertains to the action on the petition
petition for review was filed before the DOJ. Undoubtedly,
unsubstantial to require consideration. If an information that the DOJ must take, while Section 12 enumerates the
petitioner’s reliance on the said case is misplaced.
has been filed in court pursuant to the appealed resolution, options the DOJ has with regard to the disposition of a
the petition shall not be given due course if the accused petition for review or of an appeal.
Also unavailing is petitioner’s invocation of the cases of had already been arraigned. Any arraignment made after
Roberts v. Court of Appeals and Marcelo v. Court of the filing of the petition shall not bar the Secretary of
Appeals. As in Crespo v. Mogul, neither Roberts v. Court Justice from exercising his power of review. (Italics As aptly observed by respondent, Section 7 specifically
of Appeals nor Marcelo v. Court of Appeals took into supplied.) applies to a situation on what the DOJ must do when
account of whether the appeal or petition before the confronted with an appeal or a petition for review that is
Secretary of Justice was filed after arraignment. Just like in either clearly without merit, manifestly intended to delay, or
On the other hand, Section 12 of the same circular states: filed after an accused has already been arraigned, i.e., he
the Crespo case, the accused in both Roberts v. Court of
Appeals and Marcelo v. Court of Appeals had not yet been may dismiss it outright if it is patently without merit or
manifestly intended to delay, or, if it was filed after the
arraigned when the appeal or petition for review was filed SECTION 12. Disposition of the Appeal. – The Secretary
acccused has already been arraigned, the Secretary shall
before the DOJ. may reverse, affirm or modify the appealed resolution. He
not give it due course.
may, motu proprio or upon motion, dismiss the petition for
review on any of the following grounds:
Moreover, petitioner asserts that the Court of Appeals’
Section 12 applies generally to the disposition of an
interpretation of the provisions of DOJ Circular No. 70
violated three basic rules in statutory construction. First, appeal. Under said section, the DOJ may take any of four
(a) That the petition was filed beyond the period
the rule that the provision that appears last in the order of actions when disposing an appeal, namely:
prescribed in Section 3 hereof;
position in the rule or regulation must prevail. Second, the
rule that the contemporaneous construction of a statute or 1. reverse the appealed resolution;
regulation by the officers who enforce it should be given (b) That the procedure or any of the
requirements herein provided has not been
weight. Third, petitioner lifted a portion from Agpalo’s
Statutory Construction8 where the word "shall" had been complied with; 2. modify the appealed resolution;
construed as a permissive, and not a mandatory language.
(c) That there is no showing of any reversible 3. affirm the appealed resolution;
error;
4. dismiss the appeal altogether, depending on If through misapprehension of law or a rule an executive or has already been arraigned, or where the crime the
the circumstances and incidents attendant administrative officer called upon to implement it has accused is being charged with has already prescribed, or
thereto. erroneously applied or executed it, the error may be there is no reversible error that has been committed, or
corrected when the true construction is ascertained. If a that there are legal or factual grounds warranting
contemporaneous construction is found to be erroneous, dismissal, the result would not only be incongruous but
As to the dismissal of a petition for review or an appeal,
the same must be declared null and void. Such principle also irrational and even unjust. For then, the action of the
the grounds are provided for in Section 12 and,
should be as it is applied in the case at bar.11 Secretary of Justice of giving due course to the petition
consequently, the DOJ must evaluate the pertinent
would serve no purpose and would only allow a great
circumstances and the facts of the case in order to
waste of time. Moreover, to give the second sentence of
determine which ground or grounds shall apply. Petitioner’s posture on a supposed exception to the
Section 12 in relation to its paragraph (e) a directory
mandatory import of the word "shall" is misplaced. It is
application would not only subvert the avowed objectives
petitioner’s view that the language of Section 12 is
Thus, when an accused has already been arraigned, the of the Circular, that is, for the expeditious and efficient
permissive and therefore the mandate in Section 7 has
DOJ must not give the appeal or petition for review due administration of justice, but would also render its other
been transformed into a matter within the discretion of the
course and must dismiss the same. This is bolstered by mandatory provisions - Sections 3, 5, 6 and 7, nugatory.13
DOJ. To support this stance, petitioner cites a portion of
the fact that arraignment of the accused prior to the filing
Agpalo’s Statutory Construction which reads:
of the appeal or petition for review is set forth as one of the
In her steadfast effort to champion her case, petitioner
grounds for its dismissal. Therefore, in such instance, the
contends that the issue as to whether the DOJ rightfully
DOJ, noting that the arraignment of an accused prior to the For instance, the word "shall" in Section 2 of Republic Act
entertained the instant case, despite the arraignment of
filing of an appeal or petition for review is a ground for 304 which states that "banks or other financial institutions
the accused prior to its filing, has been rendered moot and
dismissal under Section 12, must go back to Section 7 and owned or controlled by the Government shall, subject to
academic with the order of dismissal by the trial court
act upon as mandated therein. In other words, the DOJ availability of funds xxx, accept at a discount at not more
dated 27 February 2003. Such contention deserves scant
must not give due course to, and must necessarily dismiss, than two per centum for ten years such (backpay)
consideration.
the appeal. certificate" implies not a mandatory, but a discretionary,
meaning because of the phrase "subject to availability of
funds." Similarly, the word "shall" in the provision to the It must be stressed that the trial court dismissed the case
Likewise, petitioner’s reliance on the principle of
effect that a corporation violating the corporation law precisely because of the Resolutions of the DOJ after it
contemporary construction, i.e., the DOJ is not precluded
"shall, upon such violation being proved, be dissolved by had, in grave abuse of its discretion, took cognizance of
from entertaining appeals where the accused had already
quo warranto proceedings" has been construed as the petition for review filed by petitioner. Having been
been arraigned, because it exercises discretionary power,
"may."12 rendered in grave abuse of its discretion, the Resolutions
and because it promulgated itself the circular in question,
of the DOJ are void. As the order of dismissal of the trial
is unpersuasive. As aptly ratiocinated by the Court of
court was made pursuant to the void Resolutions of the
Appeals: After a judicious scrutiny of the cited passage, it becomes
DOJ, said order was likewise void. The rule in this
apparent that the same is not applicable to the provision in
jurisdiction is that a void judgment is a complete nullity and
question. In the cited passage, the word "shall" departed
True indeed is the principle that a contemporaneous without legal effect, and that all proceedings or actions
from its mandatory import connotation because it was
interpretation or construction by the officers charged with founded thereon are themselves regarded as invalid and
connected to certain provisos/conditions: "subject to the
the enforcement of the rules and regulations it ineffective for any purpose.14 That respondent did not file a
availability of funds" and "upon such violation being
promulgated is entitled to great weight by the court in the motion for reconsideration or appeal from the dismissal
proved." No such proviso/condition, however, can be found
latter’s construction of such rules and regulations. That order of the trial court is of no moment. Since the dismissal
in Section 7 of the subject circular. Hence, the word "shall"
does not, however, make such a construction necessarily was void, there was nothing for respondent to oppose.
retains its mandatory import.
controlling or binding. For equally settled is the rule that
courts may disregard contemporaneous construction in
Petitioner further asserts that Section 7 of DOJ Circular
instances where the law or rule construed possesses no At this juncture, the Court of Appeals’ disquisition in this
No. 70 applies only to appeals from original resolution of
ambiguity, where the construction is clearly erroneous, matter is enlightening:
the City Prosecutor and does not apply in the instant case
where strong reason to the contrary exists, and where the
where an appeal is interposed by petitioner from the
court has previously given the statute a different
Indeed, if the intent of Department Circular No. 70 were to Resolution of the City Prosecutor denying her motion for
interpretation.
give the Secretary of Justice a discretionary power to reinvestigation. This claim is baseless.1avvphi1.net
dismiss or to entertain a petition for review despite its
being outrightly dismissible, such as when the accused
A reading of Section 7 discloses that there is no WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of REYNATO S. PUNO
qualification given by the same provision to limit its the Court of Appeals dated 21 July 2004 and its Resolution Chief Justice
application to appeals from original resolutions and not to dated 10 June 2005 in CA-G.R. SP No. 76396 are
resolutions on reinvestigation. Hence, the rule stating that AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
"when the law does not distinguish, we must not
distinguish"15 finds application in this regard.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
Petitioner asserts that her arraignment was null and void
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
as the same was improvidently conducted. Again, this
Associate Justice 1
contention is without merit. Records reveal that petitioner’s Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A.
arraignment was without any restriction, condition or Camello with Associate Justices Estela Perlas
reservation.16 In fact she was assisted by her counsels WE CONCUR: M. Bernabe and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring.
Atty. Arthur Abudiente and Atty. Maglinao when she Rollo, pp. 40-48.
pleaded to the charge.17
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
2
Associate Justice Id. at 49-67.
Moreover, the settled rule is that when an accused pleads Chairperson
to the charge, he is deemed to have waived the right to 3
preliminary investigation and the right to question any Records, pp. 64-65.
irregularity that surrounds it.18 This precept is also MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA- ROMEO J. CALLEJO,
applicable in cases of reinvestigation as well as in cases of MARTINEZ SR. 4
Id. at 50.
review of such reinvestigation. In this case, when petitioner Associate Justice Asscociate Justice
unconditionally pleaded to the charge, she effectively 5
waived the reinvestigation of the case by the prosecutor as G.R. No. L-53373, 30 June 1987, 151 SCRA
well as the right to appeal the result thereof to the DOJ On Leave 462, 471.
Secretary. Thus, with the arraignment of the petitioner, the ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
DOJ Secretary can no longer entertain the appeal or Associate Justice 6
G.R. No. 113930, 5 March 1996, 254 SCRA
petition for review because petitioner had already waived 307, 330-332.
or abandoned the same. ATTESTATION
7
G.R. No. 106695, 4 August 1994, 235 SCRA
Lastly, while there is authority19 permitting the Court to I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were 39, 48-49.
make its own determination of probable cause, such, reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
however, cannot be made applicable in the instant case. the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. 8
As earlier stated, the arraignment of petitioner constitutes Agpalo, Statutory Construction (1990), pp. 240-
a waiver of her right to preliminary investigation or 241, citing Diokno v. Rehabilitation Finance
reinvestigation. Such waiver is tantamount to a finding of CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Corporation, 91 Phil. 608, 611 (1952) and
probable cause. For this reason, there is no need for the Associate Justice Government v. El Hogar Filipino, 50 Phil. 399
Court to determine the existence or non-existence of Chairperson, Third Division (1927).
probable cause.
9
CERTIFICATION When an administrative agency promulgates
Besides, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only rules and regulations, it "makes" a new law with
questions of law may be raised in, and be subject of, a the force and effect of a valid law. (Victorias
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and
Milling Co., Inc. v. Social Security Commission,
petition for review on certiorari since this Court is not a trier the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified
of facts. This being the case, this Court cannot review the 114 Phil. 555, 558 [1962].)
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
evidence adduced by the parties before the prosecutor on consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the issue of the absence or presence of probable cause. 20 the opinion of the Court’s Division.
10
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. CONSUELO VALDERRAMA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL reinstatement with backwages. “Indeed it is well
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74851, 9 LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FIRST said that to get the true intent and meaning of a
December 1999, 320 SCRA 279, 289. DIVISION AND MARIA ANDREA decision, no specific portion thereof should be
SAAVEDRA,respondents. resorted to but same must be considered in its
11 entirety.
Rollo, p. 58. SYLLABUS
3. LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION;
12 1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; RULE ON EMPLOYER CORPORATION AND ITS OFFICERS;
Supra note 5.
FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS; EXCEPTIONS; LIABILITY. - Under the Labor Code, petitioner officer
WHERE CIRCUMSTANCES RENDER ITS is herself considered an employer. In A. C. Ransom
13
Rollo, p. 57. EXECUTION IMPOSSIBLE. - The rule that once a Labor Union-CCLU v. NLRC, we held: “Employer”
judgment becomes final it can no longer be includes any person acting in the interest of an
14 disturbed, altered, or modified is not an inflexible employer, directly or indirectly. Since RANSOM is
Gorion v. Regional Trial Court of Cebu,
one. It admits of exceptions, as where facts and an artificial person, it must have an officer who can
Branch 17, G.R. No. 102131, 31 August 1992,
circumstances transpire after a judgment has be presumed to be the employer, being the “person
213 SCRA 138, 147.
become final and executory which render its acting in the interest of (the) employer.” The
execution impossible or unjust. In such a case the corporation, only in the technical sense, is the
15
Philippine Free Press, Inc. v. Court of modification of the decision may be sought by the employer. The responsible officer of an employer
Appeals, G.R. No. 132864, 24 October 2005, interested party and the court will modify and alter corporation can be held personally, not to say even
473 SCRA 639, 662. the judgment to harmonize it with justice and the criminally, liable for the non-payment of
facts. backwages. A corporation can only act through its
16
Records, pp. 64-65. officers and agents. Any decision against the
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT IN company can be enforced against the officers in
LABOR CASE APPROPRIATE AS WHERE CLAIM
their personal capacities should the corporation fail
17
Id. IN COMPANY NO LONGER FEASIBLE, to satisfy the judgment against it. “Where the
EMPLOYEE CAN GO AFTER ITS OFFICERS. - employer corporation is no longer existing and [is]
Modification of the judgment is appropriate
18
Kuizon v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 140619-24, 9 unable to satisfy the judgment in favor of the
considering that the company is no longer in employee, the officer should be held liable for acting
March 2000, 354 SCRA 158, 176-177; Gonzales operation and there is no showing that it has filed
v. Court of Appeals, 343 Phil. 297, 304-305 on behalf of the corporation.” In this case,
bankruptcy proceedings in which private respondent documents show that petitioner controlled the
(1997); People v. Baluran, 143 Phil. 36, 44 might file a claim and pursue her remedy under
(1981). company owning 1,993 of its 2,000 shares.
Article 110 of the Labor Code. Holding petitioner
officer personally liable for the judgment in this case 4. ID.; TECHNICAL RULES OF PROCEDURE MAY BE
19
Ark Travel Express, Inc. v. Abrogar, G.R. No. is eminently just and proper considering that, DISREGARDED FOR THE PROTECTION OF
137010, 29 August 2003, 410 SCRA 148, 159. although the dispositive portion of the decision LABOR. - There was really no amendment of the
mentions only the “respondent company,” the text decision but only a clarification. But even if appeal
repeatedly mentions “respondents” in assessing was required in order to correct the error, in the
20
Chan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159922, liability for the illegal dismissal of private interest of substantial justice, especially in cases
28 April 2005, 457 SCRA 502, 512. respondent. There can be no doubt of their personal involving rights of workers, the procedural lapse in
liability. The mere happenstance that only the this case may be disregarded.
company is mentioned should not, therefore, be
allowed to obscure the fact that in the text of the APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
SECOND DIVISION decision petitioner and her corespondents below
were found guilty of having illegally dismissed Chaves Hechanova Lim Law Offices for petitioner.
private respondent and of claiming that private Ramon A. Gonzales for private respondent.
respondent’s employment was terminated because
of retrenchment, when the truth was that she was DECISION
[G.R. No. 98239. April 25, 1996] dismissed for pregnancy. Hence they should be
held personally liable for private respondent’s MENDOZA, J.:
On October 27, 1983, Maria Andrea Saavedra, WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the and corespondents therein] were included, hence said
herein private respondent, filed a complaint against the dispositive part of the decision be clarified to read as error or mistake can yet be corrected even if the decision
COMMODEX (Phils.), Inc., petitioner Consuelo follows: is already final.”[5]
Valderrama as owner, Tranquilino Valderrama as
executive vice president and Jose Ma. Togle as vice On April 12, 1988, the Labor Arbiter, citing our ruling
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in A. C. Ransom Labor Union-CCLU v. NLRC,[6] which held
president and general manager, for reinstatement and
ordering respondents jointly and severally: the president of a corporation responsible and personally
backwages.[1] On December 2, 1986, the Labor Arbiter
rendered a decision, finding private respondent to have liable for payment of backwages, granted the private
been illegally dismissed and holding the respondent 1. to reinstate complainant to her former position with respondent’s motion and set it for hearing for reception of
COMMODEX liable. It was shown that private respondent full backwages at the rate of P 1,474.00 per month from evidence of the relationship of the petitioner and her
had been dismissed from her employment due to her the date she was illegally dismissed on 16 March 1983 corespondents therein to COMMODEX. Private
pregnancy, contrary to allegations of petitioner and her until actually reinstated without loss of seniority right and respondent then presented the Articles of Incorporation,
corespondents therein that the termination of her other benefits which she could have earned were it not for List of Stockholders and the General Information Sheet of
employment was due to redundancy and her illegal dismissal; COMMODEX,[7] which showed that of the 2,000 shares of
retrenchment.[2] The dispositive portion of the Labor stocks of the corporation, Consuelo Valderrama owned
Arbiter’s decision reads: 1,993[8] and that she was chairman of the board and
2. to pay complainant moral and exemplary damages president of respondent company.[9]
in the amount of P20,000.00 and P5,000.00, respectively;
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering and On July 25, 1988, the Labor Arbiter declared
respondent company: petitioner Consuelo Valderrama liable for the payment of
the monetary awards contained in the dispositive portion of
3. to pay complainant attorney’s fee equivalent to ten
the decision dated December 2, 1986,[10] thus:
1. to reinstate complainant to her former position with full (10%) percent of the total award.
backwages at the rate of P1,474.00 per month from the
date she was illegally dismissed on 16 March 1983 until WHEREFORE, respondent Consuelo Valderrama, as
actually reinstated without loss of seniority right and other Private respondent contended that the body of the
Chairman of the Board and President of respondent
benefits which she could have earned were it not for her decision clearly held the petitioner and her corespondents
COMMODEX (Phils.), Inc. who is originally impleaded is
therein to be liable and that
illegal dismissal; hereby deemed included as party respondent and she
should, as she is hereby held liable for the awards to
[t]herefore, this Office is not precluded from correcting the complainant Maria Andrea L. Saavedra.
2. to pay complainant moral and exemplary damages in
inadvertence by clarifying the words “respondent
the amount of P20,000.00 and P5,000.00, respectively;
and, company” which ought to have been “respondents jointly
To obviate the further issuance of a Writ of Execution
and severally” in order to make the fallo or dispositive part
against her, she should, as she is hereby ordered to pay
correspond or correlate with the body of the final decision,
aforenamed complainant the monetary awards ordained in
3. to pay complainant attorney’s fees equivalent to ten considering that the unjust dismissal of the complainant
the Decision herein.
(10%) percent of the total award. constitutes tort or quasidelict. (Article 2176, New Civil
Code).
SO ORDERED.
A writ of execution was granted, but it was returned
unsatisfied.[3] The sheriff reported that COMMODEX had Petitioner and her corespondents therein filed an
ceased operation, while the individual officers, who were opposition to the motion for clarification. They contended Petitioner appealed to the NLRC. In a resolution
corespondents in the case, took the position that the writ that the decision of the Labor Arbiter had become final and dated February 26, 1991, the First Division of the NLRC
could not be enforced against them on the ground that the executory and could no longer be amended.[4] affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s order and dismissed the
dispositive portion of the decision mentioned only appeal for lack of merit.[11]Hence, this petition. Petitioner
COMMODEX. In reply private respondent argued that no alleges that:
amendment of a final decision was being sought but only
Private respondent filed a Motion for Clarification in the correction of a mistake or a clarification of an ambiguity
which she prayed: because “the exclusion [of the other respondents] in the 1. The Decision dated 02 December 1986 has become
dispositive part of the decision is merely a clerical error or final and executory, and, hence, can no longer be
mistake, since in the body of the decision they [petitioner substantially amended as to include liability on the part of
herein Petitioner, who was originally not named as liable in No. 11 p. 5487; I Moran’s Comments on the Rules of the law. In the Minimum Wage Law, Section 15 (b)
the dispositive portion of the said Decision; and Court, 1957 ed., p. 478).”[14] provided:
Second. Not only is it clear by reference to the text (b) If any violation of this Act is committed by
2. Petitioner cannot and should not be held personally of the decision of the Labor Arbiter that COMMODEX as a corporation, trust, partnership or association, the
liable jointly and severally with Commodex (Phils.), Inc. for well as its officers were being held liable so that no manager or in his default, the person acting as such when
the awards adjudged in favor of herein Private Respondent substantial amendment of the decision was really made by the violation took place, shall be responsible. In the case
Saavedra. the Labor Arbiter in ordering petitioner to comply with that of a government corporation, the managing head shall be
decision, but under the Labor Code, petitioner is herself made responsible, except when shown that the violation
We find these contentions to be without merit. considered an employer. In A. C. Ransom Labor Union- was due to an act or commission of some other person,
CCLU v. NLRC,[15] we held: over whom he has no control, in which case the latter shall
First. The rule that once a judgment becomes final it be held responsible.
can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified is not an
(a) Article 265 of the Labor Code, in part, expressly In P.D. 525, where a corporation fails to pay the
inflexible one. It admits of exceptions, as where facts and
provides: emergency allowance therein provided, the prescribed
circumstances transpire after a judgment has become final
and executory which render its execution impossible or penalty “shall be imposed upon the guilty officer or officers”
unjust. In such a case the modification of the decision Any worker whose employment has been terminated as a of the corporation.
may be sought by the interested party and the court will consequence of an unlawful lockout shall be entitled to
(c) If the policy of the law were otherwise,
modify and alter the judgment to harmonize it with justice reinstatement with full backwages.
the corporation employer can have devious ways for
and the facts.[12]
evading payment of backwages. In the instant case, it
In the case at bar, modification of the judgment is Article 273 of the Code provides that: would appear that RANSOM, in 1969, forseeing the
appropriate considering that the company is no longer in possibility or probability of payment of backwages to the
Any person violating any of the provisions of Article 22 strikers, organized ROSARIO to replace RANSOM, with
operation and there is no showing that it has filed
265 of this Code shall be punished by a fine of not the latter to be eventually phased out if the 22 strikers win
bankruptcy proceedings in which private respondent might
exceeding five hundred pesos and/or imprisonment for not their case. RANSOM actually ceased operations on May 1,
file a claim and pursue her remedy under Article 110 of the
less than one (1) day nor more than six (6) months. 1973, after the December 19, 1972 Decision of the Court
Labor Code. Holding petitioner personally liable for the
judgment in this case is eminently just and proper of Industrial Relations was promulgated against RANSOM.
considering that, although the dispositive portion of the (b) How can the foregoing provisions be implemented
(d) The record does not clearly identify “the
decision mentions only the “respondent company,” the text when the employer is a corporation? The answer is found
officer or officers” of RANSOM directly responsible for
repeatedly mentions “respondents” in assessing liability for in Article 212 (c) of the Labor Code which provides:
failure to pay the back wages of the 22 strikers: In the
the illegal dismissal of private respondent. For indeed
absence of definite proof in that regard, we believe it
petitioner and others were respondents below and there
can be no doubt of their personal liability. The mere (c) “Employer” includes any person acting in the interest of should be presumed that the responsible officer is the
an employer, directly or indirectly. The term shall not President of the corporation who can be deemed the chief
happenstance that only the company is mentioned should
include any labor organization or any of its officers or operation officer thereof. Thus, in R.A. 602, criminal
not, therefore, be allowed to obscure the fact that in the
agents except when acting as employer. responsibility is with the “Manager or in his default, the
text of the decision petitioner and her corespondents
person acting as such.” In RANSOM, the President
below were found guilty of having illegally dismissed
appears to be the Manager.
private respondent and of claiming that private The foregoing was culled from Section 2 of RA 602,
respondent’s employment was terminated because of the Minimum Wage Law. Since RANSOM is an artificial (e) Considering that non-payment of the
retrenchment, when the truth was that she was dismissed person, it must have an officer who can be presumed to be back wages of the 22 strikers has been a continuing
for pregnancy. Hence they should be held personally the employer, being the “person acting in the interest of situation, it is our opinion that the personal liability of the
liable for private respondent’s reinstatement with (the) employer” RANSOM. The corporation, only in the RANSOM President, at the time the back wages were
backwages.[13] technical sense, is the employer. ordered to be paid should also be a continuing joint and
several personal liabilities of all who may have thereafter
“Indeed it is well said that to get the true intent and The responsible officer of an employer corporation succeeded to the office of president; otherwise the 22
meaning of a decision, no specific portion thereof should can be held personally, not to say even criminally, liable
strikers may be deprived of their rights by the election of a
be resorted to but same must be considered in its entirety for the non-payment of back wages. That is the policy of president without leviable assets.
(Escarella vs. Director of Lands, 83 Phil. 491; 46 Off. Gaz.
[2]
Petitioner seeks to distinguish that case from the Third. Petitioner says the failure of private Id.
one at bar on the ground that the dispositive portion of the respondent to make a timely appeal bars her from
[3]
decision in that case actually ordered the “officers and enforcing the decision in her favor against her (petitioner) Rollo, p. 30.
agents” of A. C. Ransom to cease and desist from and the officers of the corporation because the decision of [4]
Rollo, p. 38.
committing further acts of certain labor practice thus: December 2, 1986 of the Labor Arbiter is now final and
can no longer be amended. [5]
Rollo, p. 41.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, . . . the A. C. We have already explained that there was really no [6]
Ransom Philippine Corporation is guilty of unfair labor 142 SCRA 269 (1986).
amendment of the decision but only a clarification. But
practice of interference and discrimination hereinabove even if appeal was required in order to correct the error, in [7]
Rollo, p. 43.
held and specified, ordering its officers and agentsto cease the interest of substantial justice, especially in cases
and desist from committing the same, finding the strike involving rights of workers, the procedural lapse in this [8]
Rollo, p. 53.
legal and justified; and to reinstate immediately . . . to their case may be disregarded. As held in General Baptist Bible [9]
respective positions with backwages from July 25, 1969 College v. NLRC:[19] Order of Labor Arbiter Raymundo Valenzuela, pp. 4-5,
until actually reinstated, without loss of seniority rights and Rollo, pp. 66-67.
other privileges appurtenant to their employment.[16] [10]
Technicalities have no room in labor cases, where the Rollo, pp. 63-68.
Rules of Court are applicable only in order to effectuate [11]
A corporation can only act through its officers and the objectives of the Labor Code and not to defeat Per Commissioner Romeo B. Putong and concurred in
agents. That is why the cease and desist order was them. The pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of by Presiding Commissioner Bartolome S. Carale, and
directed to the “officers and agents” of A. C. Ransom, Court of the Philippines and prevailing jurisprudence may Commissioner Vicente S. E. Veloso III.
which was actually found guilty of unfair labor be applied by analogy or in a suppletory character to effect [12]
practice. But that case clearly also holds that any decision Medado v. Court of Appeals, 185 SCRA 80 (1990);
an expeditious resolution of labor controversies in a
against the company can be enforced against the officers Mabuhay Vinyl Corp. v. NLRC, 214 SCRA 135 (1992);
practical and convenient manner. We are inclined to
in their personal capacities should the corporation fail to Sampaguita Garments Corp. v. NLRC, 233 SCRA
overlook a procedural defect if only to promote substantial
satisfy the judgment against it. The quoted portion of that 260(1994).
justice.
decision explaining the basis for such ruling makes that [13]
See Chua v. NLRC, 182 SCRA 353 (1990).
clear. Agreeably with the ruling in A. C. Ransom Labor
Union-CCLU it was held in another case that “where the General rules of procedure are merely suppletory in [14]
character vis-a-vis labor disputes which are primarily Policarpio v. P. V. B. and Associated Ins. & Surety Co.,
Employer corporation is no longer existing and [is] unable Inc., 106 Phil. 125, 131 (1959).
to satisfy the judgment in favor of the employee, the officer governed by labor laws.[20] Furthermore, as provided in Art.
should be held liable for acting on behalf of the 4 of the Labor Code, “all doubts in the implementation and [15]
Supra, note 6 at 273-75.
corporation.”[17] interpretation of this code, including its implementing rules
and regulations shall be rendered in favor of labor.”[21] The [16]
Petition, p. 10, Rollo, p. 11.
Similarly it was held in Carmeicraft Corp. v. NLRC:[18] rule that the NLRC may disregard technical rules of
[17]
procedure in order to give life to the constitutional mandate Gudez v. NLRC, 183 SCRA 645, 650(1990).
We also find untenable the contention of Carmen for the protection of labor is well settled.[22] [18]
Yulo that she is not liable for the acts of the petitioner 186 SCRA 393 (1990).
company, assuming it had acted illegally, because the WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of [19]
Carmelcraft Corporation is a distinct and separate entity merit. 219 SCRA 549 (1993).
with a legal personality of its own. Yulo claims she is only [20]
SO ORDERED. Art. 221 of the Labor Code.
an agent of the company carrying out the decisions of its
board of directors. We do not agree. Our finding is that [21]
Montoya v. Escayo, 171 SCRA 442 (1989).
Regalado (Chairman), Romero, Puno, and Torres,
she is in fact and legal effect the corporation, being not
only its president and general manager but also its owner. Jr., JJ., concur. [22]
Principe v. Philippine-Singapore Transport Services,
Inc., 176 SCRA 514 (1989).
In this case, the documents presented by the private
respondent show that petitioner controlled the company SECOND DIVISION
owning 1,993 of its 2,000 shares, with the rest of the [1]
stockholders owning only nominal amounts. Decision of Labor Arbiter Felipe Pati, p. 1; Rollo, p. 25.
[G.R. No. 98310. October 24, 1996] (P10,000,000.00).[1] The incorporators/stockholders of Matuguina, thus giving her seventy percent (70%) stock
MIWPI, and their stock subscriptions were as follows: ownership of MIWPI.
On February 17, 1987, private respondent filed a Moreover, as a result of the filing of this case, defendant
(c) The plaintiff is now precluded and
Motion to Dismiss[13] alleging that the trial court had no Philip Co and Davencor Corporation, are ordered to jointly
estopped from filing this action.
jurisdiction over the case under Presidential Decree No. and severally pay the amount of P100,000.00 as actual
705, to which Motion to Dismiss, petitioner filed an and compensatory damages, along with another amount
Opposition[14] dated February 1987. On March 9, 1987, 10. The plaintiff has no cause of action against the of P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees and costs of this action,
the trial court issued an order[15] denying private defendants and has not stated any in its complaint, in favor of plaintiff Matuguina Integrated Wood Products,
respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. Hence, private especially because: Inc.
respondents filed their Answer[16] dated March 13, 1987
and an Amended Answer[17]
(a) Having failed to exhaust administrative SO ORDERED.”
In the latter pleading, private respondents raised the remedies, plaintiff is without a ripe
following special and affirmative defenses: cause of action that can be pleaded
Private respondents appealed the trial court’s
before this Honorable Court;
decision on May 19, 1989. Their notice of appeal was
approved by the trial court. The appealed case was THE FAILURE TO AFFORD PETITIONER THE SECRETARY OF NATURAL
docketed with respondent Honorable Court of Appeals as OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN THE RESOURCES.
CA-G.R. SP No. 19887. ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL (MNR CASE NO.
6540) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CURED BY
On February 25, 1991, the respondent Court B. GRANTING ARGUENDO THAT THERE
THE INSTITUTION OF THE ACTION FOR
rendered its Decision,[20] reversing the lower court’s WAS AN EFFECTIVE TRANSFER OF
PROHIBITION IN THE TRIAL COURT
pronouncement. The dispositive portion of the decision PTL NO. 30 FROM MILAGROS/MLE
BECAUSE SAID COURT HAD NO
reads: TO PETITIONER, THE TRANSFER
JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER
COULD NOT MAKE PETITIONER
PETITIONER WAS GUILTY OF
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision ENCROACHMENT ON PRIVATE
LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED
appealed from is reversed and set aside and the Order of ENCROACHMENT OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENT DAVENCOR’S TIMBER
Execution issued by the Minister of Natural Resources RESPONDENT DAVENCOR’S
CONCESSION; FURTHERMORE, THE
dated January 6, 1987 is affirmed. Without TIMBER CONCESSION, SINCE:
QUESTION ON WHETHER PETITIONER WAS
pronouncement as to costs.
GUILTY OF ENCROACHMENT WAS NEVER
PUT IN ISSUE IN THE CASE BEFORE THE 1. SAID TRANSFER WAS
SO ORDERED.” TRIAL COURT. EXECUTED PRIOR TO
THE COMMISSION OF
III THE ALLEGED
In due time, petitioner filed a motion for ENCROACHMENT AND
reconsideration.[21] Private respondents filed their THE LIABILITY OF MILAGROS/MLE AS
THE FILING OF THE
opposition[22] to the same on April 2, 1991. In a FOUND BY RESPONDENT SECRETARY IN
ADMINISTRATIVE
Resolution[23] dated April 12, 1991, the motion was denied ITS DECISION DATED 01 OCTOBER 1986
COMPLAINT FOR
by the respondent Court. (EXHIBIT “A” OF THE ATTACHMENT “0”)
ENCROACHMENT DATED
CANNOT BE IMPUTED AGAINST PETITIONER
Not content with the court’s pronouncement, 28 JULY 1975; THUS,
SINCE THE LATTER IS A CORPORATION
petitioner is now before us on a Petition for Review PETITIONER CANNOT BE
HAVING A PERSONALITY SEPARATE AND
on Certiorari,[24] alleging that the respondent court acted MADE LIABLE FOR
DISTINCT FROM MILAGROS/MLE.
with grave abuse of discretion in rendering the questioned OBLIGATONS OF
decision and its companion resolution, denying the motion IV MILAGROS/MLE WHICH
for reconsideration. WERE INCURRED AFTER
DATE OF THE SAID
The reasons relied upon by the Petitioner in filing its PETITIONER CANNOT BE MADE LIABLE TO TRANSFER.
petition are hereby restated: PRIVATE RESPONDENTS UNDER THE DEED OF
TRANSFER DATED 18 JULY 1975 (EXHIBIT “3”
I OF ATTACHMENT “P”) AND SECTION 61 OF THE 2. SAID TRANSFER COVERED
REVISED FORESTRY CODE OF THE ONLY FORESTRY
PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS PHILIPPINES (P.D. 705, AS AMENDED): CHARGES AND OTHER
OF LAW WHEN IT WAS MADE LIABLE BY GOVERNMENT FEES,
RESPONDENT SECRETARY OF NATURAL AND DID NOT INCLUDE
RESOURCES IN HIS ORDER OF EXECUTION A. THE ALLEGED TRANSFER OF PTL THE PERSONAL LIABILITY
DATED 06 JANUARY 1987 (EXHIBIT “B” OF NO. 30 FROM MILAGROS/MLE TO OF MILAGROS/MLE THAT
ATTACHMENT “O”) ISSUED IN MNR CASE PETITIONER NEVER BECAME AROSE FROM THE
NO. 6540 DESPITE THE FACT THAT BINDING AND EFFECTIVE SINCE ENCROACHMENT OF THE
PETITIONER WAS NEVER A PARTY NOR A PTL NO. 30 REMAINED IN THE TIMBER CONCESSION OF
PARTICIPANT IN THE SAID CASE: IN FACT, NAME OF MILAGROS/MLE UNTIL RESPONDENT
PETITIONER NEVER HAD NOTICE OF THE ITS EXPIRATION ON 30 JUNE DAVENCOR.[25]
PROCEEDINGS IN MNR CASE NO. 6540. 1977: THIS IS DUE TO THE FACT
THAT SAID TRANSFER WAS
II NEVER APPROVED BY THE Private Respondent DAVENCOR and the public
respondent Hon. Minister (now Secretary) of Natural
Resources filed separate Comments[26] on September 5, The writ of execution issued by the Secretary of “Nevertheless, the failure to comply with the procedure in
1991 and June 8, 1992 respectively. Natural Resources on January 8, 1987 clearly varies the order to satisfy the requirements of due process was cured
term of his Decision of October 1, 1986, inasmuch as the by the present action for prohibition where the liability of
The essential issues of the present controversy boil Writ includes the MIWPI as party liable whereas the appellee has been ventilated.”
down to the following: Decision only mentions Milagros Matuguina/MLE.
Was the Petitioner denied due process when it was There is no basis for the issuance of the Order of We do not agree. Essentially, Prohibition is a
adjudged liable with MLE for encroaching upon the timber Execution against the petitioner. The same was issued remedy to prevent inferior courts, corporations, boards or
concession of DAVENCOR in the respondent Minister's without giving the petitioner an opportunity to defend itself persons from usurping or exercising a jurisdiction or power
order of Execution? and oppose the request of DAVENCOR for the issuance of with which they have not been vested by law[35] As we held
a writ of execution against it. In fact, it does not appear in Mafinco Trading Corporation vs. Ople, et al,[36] in
Is the petitioner a transferee of MLE's interest, as to a certiorari or prohibition case, only issues affecting the
that petitioner was at all furnished with a copy of
make it liable for the latter’s illegal logging operations in DAVENCOR’s letter requesting for the Execution of the jurisdiction of the tribunal, board and offices involved may
DAVENCOR’s timber concession, or more specifically, is it Honorable Secretary’s decision against it. Petitioner was be resolved on the basis of undisputed facts.
possible to pierce the veil of MIWPI’s corporate existence,
suddenly made liable upon the order of execution by the
making it a mere conduit or successor of MLE? The issue of whether or not petitioner is an alter ego
respondent Secretary’s expedient conclusions that MLE
of Milagros Matuguina/MLE, is one of fact, and which
Generally accepted is the principle that no man shall and MIWPI are one and the same, apparently on the basis
should have been threshed out in the administrative
be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, merely of DAVENCOR’s letter requesting for the Order,
proceedings, and not in the prohibition proceedings in the
and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment and without hearing or impleading MIWPI. Until the
trial court, where it is precisely the failure of the respondent
rendered by the court. In the same manner an execution issuance of the Order of execution, petitioner was not
Minister of Natural Resources to proceed as mandated by
can be issued only against a party and not against one included or mentioned in the proceedings as having any
law in the execution of its order which is under scrutiny.
who did not have his day in court. In Lorenzo vs. participation in the encroachment in DAVENCOR’s timber
Cayetano, 78 SCRA 485 [1987], this Court held that only concession. This action of the respondent Secretary Assuming, arguendo, that prohibition is the proper
real parties in interest in an action are bound by judgment disregards the most basic tenets of due process and remedy for determining the propriety of piercing the
therein and by writs of execution and demolition issued elementary fairness. separate personality of petitioner with its stockholders, the
pursuant thereto.[27] The liberal atmosphere which pervades the
evidence presented at said trial does not warrant such
action.
Indeed a judgment cannot bind persons who are not procedure in administrative proceedings does not
parties to the action.[28] It is elementary that strangers to a empower the presiding officer to make conclusions of fact It is settled that a corporation is clothed with a
case are not bound by the judgment rendered by the court before hearing all the parties concerned.[32] In Police personality separate and distinct from that of persons
and such judgment is not available as an adjudication Commission vs. Hon Judge Lood,[33] we held that the composing it. It may not generally be held liable for that of
either against or in favor of such other person. A decision formalities usually attendant in court hearings need not be the persons composing it. It may not be held liable for the
of a court will not operate to divest the rights of a person present in an administrative investigation, provided that the personal indebtedness of its stockholders or those of the
who has not and has never been a party to a litigation, parties are heard and given the opportunity to adduce their entities connected with it. Conversely, a stockholder
either as plaintiff or as defendant. Execution of a judgment evidence. The right to notice and hearing is essential to cannot be made to answer for any of its financial
can only be issued against one who is a party to the due process and its non-observance will, as a rule, obligations even if he should be its president.[37] But when
action, and not against one who, not being a party in the invalidate the administrative proceedings. the juridical personality of the corporation is used to defeat
action has not yet had his day in court.[29] As observed by the appellate court, to wit:
public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend
crime, the corporation shall be considered as a mere
The writ of execution must conform to the judgment association of persons (Koppel, Inc. vs. Yatco, 77 Phil 496,
“the appellant should have filed a Motion with the Minister
which is to be executed, as it may not vary the terms of the with Notice to the appellee to include the latter as party Palay, Inc. vs. Clave, G.R. No. 56076, September 21,
judgment it seeks to enforce.[30] Nor may it go beyond the liable for the judgment in order to afford the appellee an 1983, 124 SCRA 638), and its responsible officers and/or
terms of the judgment which sought to be stockholders shall be individually liable (Namarco vs.
opportunity to be heard on its liability for the judgment
executed. Where the execution is not in harmony with the rendered against Ma. Milagros Matuguina doing business Associated Finance Co., Inc., G.R. No. L- 20886, April 27,
judgment which gives it life and exceeds it, it has pro under the name Matuguina Logging Enterprises.[34] 1967, 19 SCRA 962). For the same reasons, a
tanto no validity. To maintain otherwise would be to ignore corporation shall be liable for the obligations of a
the constitutional provision against depriving a person of stockholder (Palacio vs. Fely Transportation Co., G.R. No.
his property without due process of law.[31] Continuing, the said court stated further that: L-15121, August 31, 1963, 5 SCRA 1011), or a corporation
and its successor-in-interest shall be considered as one Enterprises using plaintiff corporation, executed acts or all of the capital stocks of the corporation, is not itself a
and the liability of the former attach to the latter.[38] powers directly involving plaintiff corporation. sufficient warrant for disregarding the fiction of separate
personality. (Liddel and Co. vs. Collector of Internal
But for the separate juridical personality of a revenue, G.R. No. 9687, June 30, 1961).’
corporation to be disregarded, the wrongdoing must be Neither was there any evidence of defendants, that Maria
clearly and convincingly established. It cannot be Milagros Matuguina Logging Enterprises, using the
presumed.[39] facilities and resources of plaintiff corporation, involved It is recognized as lawful to obtain a corporation charter,
itself in transaction using both single proprietorship and even with a single substantial stockholder, to engage in
In the case at bar, there is, insufficient basis for the plaintiff corporation in such particular line of business specific activity and such activity may co-exist with other
appellate court’s ruling that MIWPI is the same as undertakings. private activities of the stockholders.
Matuguina. The trial court’s observation is enlightening.
As stated by this court in resolving plaintiff’s prayer for If the corporation is substantial one, conducted lawfully;
“Despite apparently opposing evidence of both parties, the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, said: without fraud on another, its separate identity is to be
Court gathered and finds, that defendant’s attempt to respected.[40]
pierce the veil of corporate personality of plaintiff
‘There is actually, no evidence presented by defendant,
corporation, as to consider plaintiff corporations merely an
showing that sometime on March 15, 1986, to January In this jurisdiction, it is a settled rule that conclusions
adjunct or alter ego of Maria Milagros Matuguina Logging
1987, during which period, the subject decision of Hon. and findings of fact by trial court are entitled to great
Enterprises, to justify defendants claim against plaintiff
Secretary of Natural Resources and corresponding writ of weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for
corporation, suffers heavily from insufficiency of evidence.
execution, Maria Milagros Matuguina was a stockholder of strong and cogent reasons because the trial court is in a
plaintiff corporation in such amount or was she an officer of better position to examine real evidence, as well as to
It is the vehement contention of defendants, to bolster its plaintiff corporation in whatever capacity.’ observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in
claim, that plaintiff corporation is the alter ego of Maria the case.[41]
Milagros Matuguina Logging Enterprises, because when
The above circumstances is relevant and significant to It is likewise improper to state that the MIWPI is the
Milagros Matuguina became the Chairman of the Board of
assume any such justification of including plaintiff privy or the successor-in-interest of MLE, as the liability for
Directors of plaintiff corporation, she requested for the
corporation in the subject writ of execution, otherwise as the encroachment over DAVENCOR’s timber concession
change of name and transfer of management of PTL No.
maintained by defendants, what matters most was the is concerned, by reason of the transfer of interest in PTL
30, from her single proprietorship, to plaintiff corporation.
control of Milagros Matuguina Logging Enterprises of No. 30 from MLE to MIWPI.
plaintiff corporation in 1974 and 1975, when the
Secondly, when Milagros Matuguina executed the deed of administrative case was pending, this circumstance alone First at all, it does not appear indubitable that the
transfer, transferring her forest concession under PTL No, without formally including plaintiff corporation in said case, said transfer ever became effective, since PTL No. 30
30, together with all the structures and improvements will not create any valid and sufficient justification for remained in the name of Milagros Matuguina/MLE until it
therein, to plaintiff corporation, for a consideration plaintiff corporation, to have been supposedly included in expired on June 30, 1977.[42]
of P14,800.00 representing 148,000 shares of stocks of the suit against defendants and Maria Milagros Matuguina
plaintiff corporation actually all existing shares of stocks of Logging Enterprises, in the administrative case. More importantly, even if it is deemed that there was
Milagros Matuguina, in plaintiff corporation represents a valid change of name and transfer of interest in the PTL
77.4% therein; suffice to say that plaintiff corporation No. 30, this only signifies a transfer of authority, from MLE
Yet, granting as claimed by defendants, that in 1974 or in to MIWPI, to conduct logging operations in the area
practically became an alter ego of Milagros Matuguina.
1975, Maria Milagros Matuguina became the controlling covered by PTL No. 30. It does not show indubitable proof
stockholder of plaintiff corporation, on account of the that MIWPI was a mere conduit or successor of Milagros
Defendants’ arguments on this peripheral aspect of change of name and transfer of management of PTL No. Matuguina/MLE, as far the latter’s liability for the
corporate existence, do not at all indicate that such a legal 30, this circumstance, we repeat, does not of itself prove encroachment upon DAVENCOR’s concession is
fiction, was granted. that plaintiff corporation was the alter ego of Maria concerned. This is the only conclusion which we can
Milagros Matuguina Logging Enterprise, as enunciated in discern from the language of Section 61 of P.D.
various decisions of this Court, to wit: 705,[43] and the letters of the Acting Minister of Natural
In the first place the alleged control of plaintiff corporation
was not evident in any particular corporate acts of plaintiff Resources to Milagros Matuguina/MLE and to MIWPI, on
corporation, wherein Maria Milagros Matuguina Logging ‘It is important to bear in mind that mere ownership by a September 16, 1975.[44] In Soriano vs. Court of Appeals,
single stockholder or by another corporation of all or nearly this Court stated in clear language, that-
“It is the general rule that the protective mantle of a construed according to the spirit and reason, disregarding affording the same an opportunity to be heard before
corporation’s separate and distinct personality could only if necessary the letter of the law.[45] it was adjudged liable.
be pierced and liability attached directly to its officers
and/or members – stockholders, when the same is used In construing statutes, the terms used therein are (b) The petitioner is a corporate entity
for fraudulent, unfair, or illegal purpose. In the case at bar, generally to be given their ordinary meaning, that is, such separate and distinct from Milagros
there is no showing that the Association entered into the meaning which is ascribed to them when they are Matuguina/Matuguina Logging Enterprises, there
transaction with the private respondent for the purpose of commonly used, to the end that absurdity in the law must being no clear basis for considering it as a mere
defrauding the latter of his goods or the payment be avoided.[46] The term “obligations” as used in the final conduit or alter ego of Matuguina/MLE, and
thereof. xxx. Therefore, the general rule on corporate clause of the second paragraph of Section 61 of P.D. 705 therefore, cannot be made liable for the obligations
liability, not the exception, should be applied in resolving is construed to mean those obligations incurred by the of the same for encroachment over the timber
this case. (G.R. No. 49834, June 22, 1989) transferor in the ordinary course of business. It cannot be concession of private respondent DAVENCOR.
construed to mean those obligations or liabilities incurred
by the transferor as a result of transgressions of the law, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is
The respondents cite Section 61 of P.D. 705 to as these are personal obligations of the transferor, and hereby GRANTED, and the Decision dated February 25,
establish MIWPI’s succession to the liability of Milagros could not have been included in the term “obligations” 1991 is SET ASIDE. The decision of the Regional Trial
Matuguina/MLE: absent any modifying provision to that effect. Court is hereby REINSTATED, and correspondingly, Order
of Execution of the respondent Secretary of Natural
“SEC. 61. Transfer. –Unless authorized by the In the September 16, 1975 letters of Acting Director Resources is declared Null and Void and without effect.
Department Head, no licensee, lessee, or permittee may of the Bureau of Forest Development to Milagros
transfer, exchange, sell, or convey his license agreement, Matuguina and MIWPI informing them of the approval of No pronouncement as to cost.
license, lease or permit, or any of his rights or interest Matuguina's request for the change of name and transfer
therein, or any of his assets used in connection therewith. SO ORDERED.
of management of PTL No. 30, the following statements
were made by the Acting Director: Regalado (Chairman), Romero,
The licensee, lessee, or permittee shall be allowed to Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
transfer or convey his license agreement, license, lease, or "In view hereof, (Matuguina Integrated Wood Products,
permit only if he has not violated any forestry law, rule or Inc.) shall assume the responsibility of paying whatever
regulation; has been faithfully complying with the terms pending liabilities and/or accounts remaining unsettled, if
and conditions of the license agreement, license, lease or [1]
any, by the former licensee, Milagros Matuguina, with the Articles of Incorporation of MIWPI are on p. 232 of Rollo.
permit; the transferee has all the qualifications and none of government." (Emphasis ours)[47]
[2]
Rollo, p. 222.
the disqualifications to hold a license agreement, license, [3]
Ibid., p. 227.
lease or permit; there is no evidence that such transfer or [4]
Ibid., p. 228.
conveyance is being made for purposes of speculation; Accordingly, the letter's language implies that the [5]
Ibid., p. 250.
and the transferee shall assume all the obligations of the obligations which MIWPI are to assume as transferee of [6]
Infra.
transferor. Milagros Matuguina/MLE are those obligations in favor of [7]
Rollo, p. 194.
the government only, and not to any other entity. Thus this [8]
Ibid., p. 172.
would include Forestry Charges, Taxes, Fees, and similar [9]
Ibid., 188.
The transferor shall forever be barred from acquiring accountabilities. [10]
another license agreement, license, lease or permit.” Ibid., 93.
[11]
Ibid., 191.
In sum, the Court makes the following [12]
Ibid., p. 77.
pronouncements: [13]
Even if it is mandated in the abovestated provision Ibid., p. 102.
that “the transferee shall assume all the obligations of the (a) The respondent Honorable Minister of
[14]
Ibid., p. 106.
transferor” this does not mean that all obligations are Natural Resources gravely abuse its discretion when
[15]
Ibid., p. 109.
[16]
assumed, indiscriminately. it issued its Order of Execution on January 6, 1987, Ibid., p. 117.
[17]
including therein as one of the parties liable the Ibid., p. 159.17 dated July 16, 1987
Invariably, it is not the letter, but the spirit of the law [18]
Ibid, p. 122.
petitioner Matuguina Integrated Wood Products, Inc.,
and intent of the legislature that is important. When the [19]
Ibid., p. 309.
which was never a party to the assailed proceeding
interpretation of a statute according to the exact and literal [20]
Ibid., p. 63.
resulting in the issuance of such Order and, without
import of its words would lead to absurdity, it should be [21]
Ibid., p. 383.
[22]
Ibid., p. 388.
[23]
Ibid., p. 72. RAMON C. TAN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE Rosita Lim, which he knew or should have known to have
[24]
Ibid., p. 10. PHILIPPINES, respondent. been derived from the proceeds of the crime of theft.
[25]
Petition, Rollo, 26.
[26]
Comment of DAVENCOR, Rollo, p. 409; Comment of
DECISION Contrary to law.”
respondent Minister (Secretary) of Natural
Resources, Rollo, p. 497. PARDO, J.:
[27]
Vda. De Medina vs. Hon Fernando A. Cruz, etc., G.R. Upon arraignment on November 23, 1992, petitioner
No. L-39272, May 4, 1988, 161 SCRA 36. Ramon C. Tan pleaded not guilty to the crime charged and
[28] The case before the Court is an
Buazon, et. al. vs. Court of appeals, et. al., G.R. No. waived pre-trial. To prove the accusation, the prosecution
97749, March 19, 1993, 220 SCRA 182. appeal via certiorari from a decision of the Court of presented the testimonies of complainant Rosita Lim,
[29] *
St Dominic Corp. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, etc., Appeals affirming that of the Regional Trial Court of Victor Sy and the confessed thief, Manuelito Mendez.
G.R., Nos. L-70623, L-48630, June 30, 1987, 151 SCRA Manila, Branch 19,** convicting petitioner of the crime of
577. fencing. On the other hand, the defense presented Rosita
[30]
Buan vs. court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 101614, Lim and Manuelito Mendez as hostile witnesses and
August 17, 1994, 235 SCRA 424. Complainant Rosita Lim is the proprietor of Bueno petitioner himself. The testimonies of the witnesses were
[31]
Moran, M., Comments on the Rules of Court, 1979 ed., Metal Industries, located at 301 Jose Abad Santos St., summarized by the trial court in its decision, as follows:
vol. 2, p. 278. Tondo, Manila, engaged in the business of manufacturing
[32]
Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil 635. propellers or spare parts for boats. Manuelito Mendez was
[33] one of the employees working for her. Sometime in “ROSITA LIM stated that she is the owner of Bueno Metal
G.R. No. 34637, February 24, 1984, 127 SCRA 757. Industries, engaged in the business of manufacturing
[34]
RTC Decision, supra. February 1991, Manuelito Mendez left the employ of the
[35] company. Complainant Lim noticed that some of the propellers, bushings, welding rods, among others (Exhibits
3 Moran, p. 183. A, A-1, and B). That sometime in February 1991, after one
[36]
G.R. No. L-37790, March 25, 1976, 70 SCRA 139. welding rods, propellers and boat spare parts, such as
[37] bronze and stainless propellers and brass screws were of her employees left the company, she discovered that
Laperal Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, some of the manufactured spare parts were missing, so
G.R. No. 96354, June 8, 1993, 223 SCRA 261. missing. She conducted an inventory and discovered that
[38] propellers and stocks valued at P48,000.00, more or less, that on February 19, 1991, an inventory was conducted
Koppel vs. Yatco, supra; Liddell & Co. vs. CIR, G.R. No. and it was found that some welding rods and propellers,
L-9687, June 30, 1961, 2 SCRA 632. were missing. Complainant Rosita Lim informed Victor Sy,
[39] uncle of Manuelito Mendez, of the loss. Subsequently, among others, worth P48,000.00 were
Del Rosario vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 85416, July 24, 1990, missing. Thereafter, she went to Victor Sy, the person
187 SCRA 777. Manuelito Mendez was arrested in the Visayas and he
[40] admitted that he and his companion Gaudencio Dayop who recommended Mr. Mendez to her. Subsequently, Mr.
RTC Decision, supra. Mendez was arrested in the Visayas, and upon arrival in
[41]
Bael, et al., vs. IAC, et al., G.R. No. 74423, January 30, stole from the complainant’s warehouse some boat spare
parts such as bronze and stainless propellers and brass Manila, admitted to his having stolen the missing spare
1989, 169 SCRA 617. parts sold then to Ramon Tan. She then talked to Mr. Tan,
[42]
See BFD Certification to that effect, Rollo, p. 193. screws. Manuelito Mendez asked for complainant’s
[43] forgiveness. He pointed to petitioner Ramon C. Tan as the who denied having bought the same.
71 O.G. No. 28, 4289, July 14, 1975.
[44]
Rollo, pp. 229-230. one who bought the stolen items and who paid the amount
[45]
Lopez vs. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 9274, of P13,000.00, in cash to Mendez and Dayop, and they When presented on rebuttal, she stated that some of their
February 1, 1957, 100 Phil 850. split the amount with one another. Complainant did not file stocks were bought under the name of Asia Pacific, the
[46]
82 C.J.S. p. 639, cited in Martin R., Stutory a case against Manuelito Mendez and Gaudencio Dayop. guarantor of their Industrial Welding Corporation, and
Construction, 1979 ed., p. 83. stated further that whether the stocks are bought under the
[47] On relation of complainant Lim, an Assistant City name of the said corporation or under the name of William
Rollo, pp. 229-230.
Prosecutor of Manila filed with the Regional Trial Court, Tan, her husband, all of these items were actually
Manila, Branch 19, an information against petitioner delivered to the store at 3012-3014 Jose Abad Santos
FIRST DIVISION charging him with violation of Presidential Decree No. Street and all paid by her husband.
1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) committed as follows:
KAPUNAN, J.:
16 Tamayo vs. Gsell, 35 Phil. 953.
Sec. 534. Repealing Clause. — (a) It is a canon of legal hermeneutics that instead of pitting
(f) All general and special laws, acts,
Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, otherwise one statute against another in an inevitably destructive
city charters, decrees, executive
known as the "Local Government confrontation, courts must exert every effort to reconcile
orders, proclamations and
Code," Executive Order No. 112 them, remembering that both laws deserve a becoming
administrative regulations, or part or
(1987), and Executive Order No. 319 respect as the handiwork of a coordinate branch of the
parts thereof which are inconsistent
(1988) are hereby repealed. government. On the assumption of a conflict between P.D.
with any of the provisions of this Code
1869 and the Code, the proper action is not to uphold one
are hereby repealed or modified
and annul the other but to give effect to both by
(b) Presidential Decree Nos. 684, accordingly.
harmonizing them if possible. This is possible in the case
1191, 1508 and such other decrees,
before us. The proper resolution of the problem at hand is
orders, instructions, memoranda and
Furthermore, it is a familiar rule that implied repeals are to hold that under the Local Government Code, local
issuances related to or concerning the
not lightly presumed in the absence of a clear and government units may (and indeed must) prevent and
barangay are hereby repealed.
unmistakable showing of such intention. In Lichauco & Co. suppress all kinds of gambling within their territories except
v. Apostol, 10 this Court explained: only those allowed by statutes like P.D. 1869. The
(c) The provisions of Sections 2, 3, exception reserved in such laws must be read into the
and 4 of Republic Act No. 1939 Code, to make both the Code and such laws equally
The cases relating to the subject of effective and mutually complementary.
regarding hospital fund; Section 3, a
repeal by implication all proceed on
This approach would also affirm that there are indeed two municipal corporations in the State, and sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines,
kinds of gambling, to wit, the illegal and those authorized and the corporation could not prevent remains unimpaired. P.D. 1869 has not been modified by
by law. Legalized gambling is not a modern concept; it is it. We know of no limitation on the the Local Government Code, which empowers the local
probably as old as illegal gambling, if not indeed more so. right so far as to the corporation government units to prevent or suppress only those forms
The petitioners' suggestion that the Code authorizes them themselves are concerned. They are, of gambling prohibited by law.
to prohibit all kinds of gambling would erase the distinction so to phrase it, the mere tenants at will
between these two forms of gambling without a clear of the legislature. 11
Casino gambling is authorized by P.D. 1869. This decree
indication that this is the will of the legislature. Plausibly,
has the status of a statute that cannot be amended or
following this theory, the City of Manila could, by mere
This basic relationship between the national legislature nullified by a mere ordinance. Hence, it was not competent
ordinance, prohibit the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
and the local government units has not been enfeebled by for the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cagayan de Oro City
Office from conducting a lottery as authorized by R.A.
the new provisions in the Constitution strengthening the to enact Ordinance No. 3353 prohibiting the use of
1169 and B.P. 42 or stop the races at the San Lazaro
policy of local autonomy. Without meaning to detract from buildings for the operation of a casino and Ordinance No.
Hippodrome as authorized by R.A. 309 and R.A. 983.
that policy, we here confirm that Congress retains control 3375-93 prohibiting the operation of casinos. For all their
of the local government units although in significantly praiseworthy motives, these ordinances are contrary to
In light of all the above considerations, we see no way of reduced degree now than under our previous P.D. 1869 and the public policy announced therein and are
arriving at the conclusion urged on us by the petitioners Constitutions. The power to create still includes the power therefore ultra vires and void.
that the ordinances in question are valid. On the contrary, to destroy. The power to grant still includes the power to
we find that the ordinances violate P.D. 1869, which has withhold or recall. True, there are certain notable
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the challenged
the character and force of a statute, as well as the public innovations in the Constitution, like the direct conferment
decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED,
policy expressed in the decree allowing the playing of on the local government units of the power to tax, 12which
with costs against the petitioners. It is so ordered.
certain games of chance despite the prohibition of cannot now be withdrawn by mere statute. By and large,
gambling in general. however, the national legislature is still the principal of the
local government units, which cannot defy its will or modify Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Bidin, Regalado,
or violate it. Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug,
The rationale of the requirement that the ordinances
Kapunan and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
should not contravene a statute is obvious. Municipal
governments are only agents of the national government. The Court understands and admires the concern of the
Local councils exercise only delegated legislative powers petitioners for the welfare of their constituents and their
conferred on them by Congress as the national lawmaking apprehensions that the welfare of Cagayan de Oro City will
body. The delegate cannot be superior to the principal or be endangered by the opening of the casino. We share the
exercise powers higher than those of the latter. It is a view that "the hope of large or easy gain, obtained without
heresy to suggest that the local government units can special effort, turns the head of the workman"13 and that
undo the acts of Congress, from which they have derived "habitual gambling is a cause of laziness and
their power in the first place, and negate by mere ruin." 14 In People v. Gorostiza, 15 we declared: "The social
ordinance the mandate of the statute. scourge of gambling must be stamped out. The laws
against gambling must be enforced to the limit." George Separate Opinions
Washington called gambling "the child of avarice, the
Municipal corporations owe their origin
brother of iniquity and the father of mischief."
to, and derive their powers and rights
Nevertheless, we must recognize the power of the
wholly from the legislature. It breathes
legislature to decide, in its own wisdom, to legalize certain
into them the breath of life, without PADILLA, J., concurring:
forms of gambling, as was done in P.D. 1869 and impliedly
which they cannot exist. As it creates,
affirmed in the Local Government Code. That decision can
so it may destroy. As it may destroy, it
be revoked by this Court only if it contravenes the I concur with the majority holding that the city ordinances
may abridge and control. Unless there
Constitution as the touchstone of all official acts. We do in question cannot modify much less repeal PAGCOR's
is some constitutional limitation on the
not find such contravention here. general authority to establish and maintain gambling
right, the legislature might, by a single
act, and if we can suppose it capable casinos anywhere in the Philippines under Presidential
of so great a folly and so great a We hold that the power of PAGCOR to centralize and Decree No. 1869.
wrong, sweep from existence all of the regulate all games of chance, including casinos on land
In Basco v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming In the present case, it is my considered view that the thought that PRYCE doubted a favorable verdict
Corporation (PAGCOR), 197 SCRA 52, I stated in a national government (through PAGCOR) should re- therefrom, in which case the filing of the petition with the
separate opinion that: examine and re-evaluate its decision of imposing the Court of Appeals may have been impelled by tactical
gambling casino on the residents of Cagayan de Oro City; considerations. A dismissal of the petition by the Court of
for it is abundantly clear that public opinion in the city is Appeals would have been in order pursuant to our
. . . I agree with the decision insofar as
very much against it, and again the question must be decisions in People vs. Cuaresma (172 SCRA 415, [1989])
it holds that the prohibition, control,
seriously deliberated: will the prospects of revenue to be and Defensor-Santiago vs. Vasquez (217 SCRA 633
and regulation of the entire activity
realized from the casino outweigh the further destruction of [1993]). In Cuaresma, this Court stated:
known as gambling properly pertain to
the Filipino sense of values?
"state policy". It is, therefore, the
political departments of government, A last word. This court's original
namely, the legislative and the jurisdiction to issue writs
executive that should decide on what of certiorari (as well as
government should do in the entire prohibition,mandamus, quo
DAVIDE, JR., J., concurring:
area of gambling, and assume full warranto, habeas corpus and
responsibility to the people for such injunction) is not exclusive. It is shared
policy." (Emphasis supplied) While I concur in part with the majority, I wish, however, to by this Court with Regional Trial
express my views on certain aspects of this case. Courts (formerly Courts of First
Instance), which may issue the writ,
However, despite the legality of the opening and operation
enforceable in any part of their
of a casino in Cagayan de Oro City by respondent I.
respective regions. It is also shared by
PAGCOR, I wish to reiterate my view that gambling in any
this court, and by the Regional Trial
form runs counter to the government's own efforts to re-
It must at once be noted that private respondent Pryce Court, with the Court of Appeals
establish and resurrect the Filipino moral character which
Properties Corporation (PRYCE) directly filed with the (formerly, Intermediate Appellate
is generally perceived to be in a state of continuing
Court of Appeals its so-called petition Court), although prior to the effectivity
erosion.
for prohibition, thereby invoking the said court's original ofBatas Pambansa Bilang 129 on
jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition under Section 9(1) August 14, 1981, the latter's
It is in the light of this alarming perspective that I call upon of B.P. Blg. 129. As I see it, however, the principal cause competence to issue the extraordinary
government to carefully weigh the advantages and of action therein is one for declaratory relief: to declare null writs was restricted by those "in aid of
disadvantages of setting up more gambling facilities in the and unconstitutional — for, inter alia, having been enacted its appellate jurisdiction." This
country. without or in excess of jurisdiction, for impairing the concurrence of jurisdiction is not,
obligation of contracts, and for being inconsistent with however, to be taken as according to
public policy — the challenged ordinances enacted by parties seeking any of the writs an
That the PAGCOR contributes greatly to the coffers of the absolute, unrestrained freedom of
the Sangguniang Panglungsod of the City of Cagayan de
government is not enough reason for setting up more
Oro. The intervention therein of public respondent choice of the court to which
gambling casinos because, undoubtedly, this will not help application therefor will be directed.
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation
improve, but will cause a further deterioration in the Filipino There is after all a hierarchy of courts.
(PAGCOR) further underscores the "declaratory relief"
moral character.
nature of the action. PAGCOR assails the ordinances for That hierarchy is determinative of the
being contrary to the non-impairment and equal protection revenue of appeals, and should also
It is worth remembering in this regard that, 1) what is legal clauses of the Constitution, violative of the Local serve as a general determinant of the
is not always moral and 2) the ends do not always justify Government Code, and against the State's national policy appropriate forum for petitions for the
the means. declared in P.D. No. 1869. Accordingly, the Court of extraordinary writs. A becoming
Appeals does not have jurisdiction over the nature of the regard for that judicial hierarchy most
action. Even assuming arguendo that the case is one certainly indicates that petitions for the
As in Basco, I can easily visualize prostitution at par issuance of extraordinary writs against
for prohibition, then, under this Court's established policy
with gambling. And yet, legalization of the former will not first level ("inferior") courts should be
relative to the hierarchy of courts, the petition should have
render it any less reprehensible even if substantial filed with the Regional Trial Court, and
been filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro
revenue for the government can be realized from it. The those against the latter, with the Court
City. I find no special or compelling reason why it was not
same is true of gambling. of Appeals. A direct invocation of the
filed with the said court. I do not wish to entertain the
Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to has to be remanded or referred to the necessarily implied therefrom, as well
issue these writs should be allowed lower court as the proper forum under as powers necessary, appropriate, or
only when there are special and the rules of procedure, or as better incidental for its efficient and effective
important reasons therefor, clearly and equipped to resolve the issues since governance, and those which are
specifically set out in the petition. This this Court is not a trier of facts. We, essential to the promotion of the
is established policy. It is a policy that therefore, reiterate the judicial policy general welfare. Within their
is necessary to prevent inordinate that this Court will not entertain direct respective territorial jurisdictions, local
demands upon the Court's time and resort to it unless the redress desired government units shall ensure and
attention which are better devoted to cannot be obtained in the appropriate support, among other things, the
those matters within its exclusive courts or where exceptional and preservation and enrichment of
jurisdiction, and to prevent further compelling circumstances justify culture, promote health and safety,
over-crowding of the Court's docket. availment of a remedy within and enhance the right of the people to a
Indeed, the removal of the restriction calling for the exercise of our primary balanced ecology, encourage and
of the jurisdiction of the Court of jurisdiction. support the development of
Appeals in this regard, supra — appropriate and self-reliant scientific
resulting from the deletion of the and technological capabilities, improve
II.
qualifying phrase, "in aid of its public morals, enhance economic
appellate jurisdiction" — was evidently prosperity and social justice, promote
intended precisely to relieve this The challenged ordinances are (a) Ordinance No. 3353 full employment among their
Court pro tanto of the burden of entitled, "An Ordinance Prohibiting the Issuance of residents, maintain peace and order,
dealing with applications for Business Permit and Canceling Existing Business Permit and preserve the comfort and
extraordinary writs which, but for the To Any Establishment for the Using and Allowing to be convenience of their inhabitants.
expansion of the Appellate Court's Used Its Premises or Portion Thereof for the Operation of
corresponding jurisdiction, would have Casino," and (b) Ordinance No. 3375-93 entitled, "An
The issue that necessarily arises is whether in granting
had to be filed with it. (citations Ordinance Prohibiting the Operation of Casino and
local governments (such as the City of Cagayan de Oro)
omitted) Providing Penalty for Violation Therefor." They were
the above powers and functions, the Local Government
enacted to implement Resolution No. 2295 entitled,
Code has, pro tanto, repealed P.D. No. 1869 insofar as
"Resolution Declaring As a Matter of Policy to Prohibit
And in Vasquez, this Court said: PAGCOR's general authority to establish and maintain
and/or Not to Allow the Establishment of the Gambling
gambling casinos anywhere in the Philippines is
Casino in the City of Cagayan de Oro," which was
concerned.
One final observation. We discern in promulgated on 19 November 1990 — nearly two years
the proceedings in this case a before PRYCE and PAGCOR entered into a contract of
propensity on the part of petitioner, lease under which the latter leased a portion of the I join the majority in holding that the ordinances cannot
and, for that matter, the same may be former's Pryce Plaza Hotel for the operation of a gambling repeal P.D. No. 1869.
said of a number of litigants who casino — which resolution was vigorously reiterated in
initiate recourses before us, to Resolution No. 2673 of 19 October 1992.
III.
disregard the hierarchy of courts in our
judicial system by seeking relief
The challenged ordinances were enacted pursuant to the
directly from this Court despite the fact The nullification by the Court of Appeals of the challenged
Sangguniang Panglungsod's express powers conferred by
that the same is available in the lower ordinances as unconstitutional primarily because it is in
Section 458, paragraph (a), subparagraphs (1)-(v), (3)-(ii),
courts in the exercise of their original contravention to P.D. No. 1869 is unwarranted. A
and (4)-(i), (iv), and (vii), Local Government Code, and
or concurrent jurisdiction, or is even contravention of a law is not necessarily a contravention of
pursuant to its implied power under Section 16 thereof (the
mandated by law to be sought therein. the constitution. In any case, the ordinances can still stand
general welfare clause) which reads:
This practice must be stopped, not even if they be conceded as offending P.D. No. 1869.
only because of the imposition upon They can be reconciled, which is not impossible to do. So
the previous time of this Court but also Sec. 16. General Welfare. — Every reconciled, the ordinances should be construed as not
because of the inevitable and resultant local government unit shall exercise applying to PAGCOR.
delay, intended or otherwise, in the the powers expressly granted, those
adjudication of the case which often
IV. However, despite the legality of the opening and operation I.
of a casino in Cagayan de Oro City by respondent
PAGCOR, I wish to reiterate my view that gambling in any
From the pleadings, it is obvious that the government and It must at once be noted that private respondent Pryce
form runs counter to the government's own efforts to re-
the people of Cagayan de Oro City are, for obvious Properties Corporation (PRYCE) directly filed with the
establish and resurrect the Filipino moral character which
reasons, strongly against the opening of the gambling Court of Appeals its so-called petition for prohibition,
is generally perceived to be in a state of continuing
casino in their city. Gambling, even if legalized, would be thereby invoking the said court's original jurisdiction to
erosion.
inimical to the general welfare of the inhabitants of the issue writs of prohibition under Section 9(1) of B.P. Blg.
City, or of any place for that matter. The PAGCOR, as a 129. As I see it, however, the principal cause of action
government-owned corporation, must consider the valid It is in the light of this alarming perspective that I call upon therein is one for declaratory relief: to declare null and
concerns of the people of the City of Cagayan de Oro and government to carefully weigh the advantages and unconstitutional — for, inter alia, having been enacted
should not impose its will upon them in an arbitrary, if not disadvantages of setting up more gambling facilities in the without or in excess of jurisdiction, for impairing the
despotic, manner. country. obligation of contracts, and for being inconsistent with
public policy — the challenged ordinances enacted by the
Sangguniang Panglungsod of the City of Cagayan de Oro.
That the PAGCOR contributes greatly to the coffers of the
The intervention therein of public respondent Philippine
government is not enough reason for setting up more
Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) further
gambling casinos because, undoubtedly, this will not help
underscores the "declaratory relief" nature of the action.
improve, but will cause a further deterioration in the Filipino
PAGCOR assails the ordinances for being contrary to the
moral character.
# Separate Opinions non-impairment and equal protection clauses of the
Constitution, violative of the Local Government Code, and
It is worth remembering in this regard that, 1) what is legal against the State's national policy declared in P.D. No.
PADILLA, J., concurring: is not always moral and 2) the ends do not always justify 1869. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals does not have
the means. jurisdiction over the nature of the action. Even
assuming arguendo that the case is one for prohibition,
I concur with the majority holding that the city ordinances then, under this Court's established policy relative to the
in question cannot modify much less repeal PAGCOR's As in Basco, I can easily visualize prostitution at par
hierarchy of courts, the petition should have been filed with
general authority to establish and maintain gambling with gambling. And yet, legalization of the former will not the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City. I find no
casinos anywhere in the Philippines under Presidential render it any less reprehensible even if substantial special or compelling reason why it was not filed with the
Decree No. 1869. revenue for the government can be realized from it. The said court. I do not wish to entertain the thought that
same is true of gambling. PRYCE doubted a favorable verdict therefrom, in which
In Basco v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming case the filing of the petition with the Court of Appeals may
Corporation (PAGCOR), 197 SCRA 52, I stated in a In the present case, it is my considered view that the have been impelled by tactical considerations. A dismissal
separate opinion that: national government (through PAGCOR) should re- of the petition by the Court of Appeals would have been in
examine and re-evaluate its decision of imposing the order pursuant to our decisions in People vs.
gambling casino on the residents of Cagayan de Oro City; Cuaresma (172 SCRA 415, [1989]) and Defensor-
. . . I agree with the decision insofar as for it is abundantly clear that public opinion in the city is Santiago vs. Vasquez (217 SCRA 633 [1993]).
it holds that the prohibition, control, very much against it, and again the question must be In Cuaresma, this Court stated:
and regulation of the entire activity seriously deliberated: will the prospects of revenue to be
known as gambling properly pertain to
realized from the casino outweigh the further destruction of A last word. This court's original
"state policy". It is, therefore, the the Filipino sense of values?
political departments of government, jurisdiction to issue writs
namely, the legislative and the of certiorari (as well as
executive that should decide on what DAVIDE, JR., J., concurring: prohibition,mandamus, quo
government should do in the entire warranto, habeas corpus and
area of gambling, and assume full injunction) is not exclusive. It is shared
While I concur in part with the majority, I wish, however, to by this Court with Regional Trial
responsibility to the people for such
express my views on certain aspects of this case. Courts (formerly Courts of First
policy. (emphasis supplied)
Instance), which may issue the writ,
enforceable in any part of their
respective regions. It is also shared by dealing with applications for The challenged ordinances are (a) Ordinance No. 3353
this court, and by the Regional Trial extraordinary writs which, but for the entitled, "An Ordinance Prohibiting the Issuance of
Court, with the Court of Appeals expansion of the Appellate Court's Business Permit and Canceling Existing Business Permit
(formerly, Intermediate Appellate corresponding jurisdiction, would have To Any Establishment for the Using and Allowing to be
Court), although prior to the effectivity had to be filed with it. (citations Used Its Premises or Portion Thereof for the Operation of
ofBatas Pambansa Bilang 129 on omitted) Casino," and (b) Ordinance No. 3375-93 entitled, "An
August 14, 1981, the latter's Ordinance Prohibiting the Operation of Casino and
competence to issue the extraordinary Providing Penalty for Violation Therefor." They were
And in Vasquez, this Court said:
writs was restricted by those "in aid of enacted to implement Resolution No. 2295 entitled,
its appellate jurisdiction." This "Resolution Declaring As a Matter of Policy to Prohibit
concurrence of jurisdiction is not, One final observation. We discern in and/or Not to Allow the Establishment of the Gambling
however, to be taken as according to the proceedings in this case a Casino in the City of Cagayan de Oro," which was
parties seeking any of the writs an propensity on the part of petitioner, promulgated on 19 November 1990 — nearly two years
absolute, unrestrained freedom of and, for that matter, the same may be before PRYCE and PAGCOR entered into a contract of
choice of the court to which said of a number of litigants who lease under which the latter leased a portion of the
application therefor will be directed. initiate recourses before us, to former's Pryce Plaza Hotel for the operation of a gambling
There is after all a hierarchy of courts. disregard the hierarchy of courts in our casino — which resolution was vigorously reiterated in
That hierarchy is determinative of the judicial system by seeking relief Resolution No. 2673 of 19 October 1992.
revenue of appeals, and should also directly from this Court despite the fact
serve as a general determinant of the that the same is available in the lower
The challenged ordinances were enacted pursuant to the
appropriate forum for petitions for the courts in the exercise of their original
Sangguniang Panglungsod's express powers conferred by
extraordinary writs. A becoming or concurrent jurisdiction, or is even
Section 458, paragraph (a), subparagraphs (1)-(v), (3)-(ii),
regard for that judicial hierarchy most mandated by law to be sought therein.
and (4)-(i), (iv), and (vii), Local Government Code, and
certainly indicates that petitions for the This practice must be stopped, not
pursuant to its implied power under Section 16 thereof (the
issuance of extraordinary writs against only because of the imposition upon
general welfare clause) which reads:
first level ("inferior") courts should be the previous time of this Court but also
filed with the Regional Trial Court, and because of the inevitable and resultant
those against the latter, with the Court delay, intended or otherwise, in the Sec. 16. General Welfare. — Every
of Appeals. A direct invocation of the adjudication of the case which often local government unit shall exercise
Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to has to be remanded or referred to the the powers expressly granted, those
issue these writs should be allowed lower court as the proper forum under necessarily implied therefrom, as well
only when there are special and the rules of procedure, or as better as powers necessary, appropriate, or
important reasons therefor, clearly and equipped to resolve the issues since incidental for its efficient and effective
specifically set out in the petition. This this Court is not a trier of facts. We, governance, and those which are
is established policy. It is a policy that therefore, reiterate the judicial policy essential to the promotion of the
is necessary to prevent inordinate that this Court will not entertain direct general welfare. Within their
demands upon the Court's time and resort to it unless the redress desired respective territorial jurisdictions, local
attention which are better devoted to cannot be obtained in the appropriate government units shall ensure and
those matters within its exclusive courts or where exceptional and support, among other things, the
jurisdiction, and to prevent further compelling circumstances justify preservation and enrichment of
over-crowding of the Court's docket. availment of a remedy within and culture, promote health and safety,
Indeed, the removal of the restriction calling for the exercise of our primary enhance the right of the people to a
of the jurisdiction of the Court of jurisdiction. balanced ecology, encourage and
Appeals in this regard, supra — support the development of
resulting from the deletion of the appropriate and self-reliant scientific
II.
qualifying phrase, "in aid of its and technological capabilities, improve
appellate jurisdiction" — was evidently public morals, enhance economic
intended precisely to relieve this prosperity and social justice, promote
Court pro tanto of the burden of full employment among their
residents, maintain peace and order, 2 Ibid., pp. 53-62. THIRD DIVISION
and preserve the comfort and
convenience of their inhabitants.
3 Pryce was dropped as private [G.R. No. 119122. August 8, 2000]
respondent in the resolution of the
The issue that necessarily arises is whether in granting Court dated June 13, 1994.
PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION, petitioner,
local governments (such as the City of Cagayan de Oro)
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS,
the above powers and functions, the Local Government
4 197 SCRA 53. AND COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
Code has, pro tanto, repealed P.D. No. 1869 insofar as
REVENUE,respondents.
PAGCOR's general authority to establish and maintain
gambling casinos anywhere in the Philippines is 5 Sec. 458, [2(vi-xv)]; [3(ii-vii)]; [4(i-ix)],
concerned. Local Government Code, 1991. DECISION
I join the majority in holding that the ordinances cannot 6 Where the law does not distinguish, PURISIMA, J.:
repeal P.D. No. 1869. neither ought we to distinguish.
At bar is a petition for review on certiorari under
III. 7 39 Phil. 102. Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking a review
of the decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 34095 which affirmed the decision
The nullification by the Court of Appeals of the challenged 8 Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 204
of the Court of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No.
ordinances as unconstitutional primarily because it is in SCRA 516, quoting Cooley,
4419.
contravention to P.D. No. 1869 is unwarranted. A Constitutional Limitations, 8th ed.,
contravention of a law is not necessarily a contravention of 379-380.
the constitution. In any case, the ordinances can still stand The facts that matter are as follows:
even if they be conceded as offending P.D. No. 1869.
They can be reconciled, which is not impossible to do. So 9 Tatel v. Municipality of Virac, 207
reconciled, the ordinances should be construed as not SCRA 157; Solicitor General v. On June 21, 1989, the petitioner received an
Metropolitan Manila Authority, 204 assessment letter from the Commissioner of
applying to PAGCOR.
SCRA 837; De la Cruz v. Paras, 123 Internal Revenue (respondent Commissioner)
SCRA 569; U.S. v. Abandan, 24 Phil. for the payment of deficiency amusement tax
IV. 165. computed thus:
From the pleadings, it is obvious that the government and 10 44 Phil. 138. Deficiency Amusement Tax
the people of Cagayan de Oro City are, for obvious
reasons, strongly against the opening of the gambling
casino in their city. Gambling, even if legalized, would be 11 Clinton v. Ceder Rapids, etc.
Railroad Co., 24 Iowa 455. Total gross receipts 1987 P19,9
inimical to the general welfare of the inhabitants of the
City, or of any place for that matter. The PAGCOR, as a 15% tax due thereon 2,995
government-owned corporation, must consider the valid 12 Art. X, Sec. 5, Constitution.
concerns of the people of the City of Cagayan de Oro and Less: Tax paid 602,0
should not impose its will upon them in an arbitrary, if not
despotic, manner. 13 Planiol, Droit Civil, Vol. 2, No.
2210. Deficiency amusement tax P 2,39
#Footnotes
14 Ibid. Add:....75% surcharge 1,795
d) Fifteen percent (15%) in the case of (c) The holding of operas, concerts, dramas,
professional basketball games as envisioned in recitals, painting and art exhibitions, flower
Presidential Decree No. 871; provided, however, shows, musical programs, literary and oratorical
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Pedro A. Ramirez and that the tax herein shall be in lieu of all other presentations, except pop, rock, or similar
concurred by Associate Justices Quirino D. Abad Santos, percentage taxes of whatever nature and concerts shall be exempt from the payment of
Jr. and Eugenio S. Labitoria. description; and the tax herein imposed.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 44-62.
[3]
CTA Decision penned by Associate Judge Ramon O. de
e) Thirty percent (30%) in the case of Jai-Alai (d) The sangguniang panlalawigan may
Veyra and concurred by Presiding Judge Ernesto D.
and race tracks of their gross receipts, prescribe the time, manner, terms and
Acosta and Associate Judge Manuel K. Gruba; Rollo, pp.
irrespective of whether or not any amount is conditions for the payment of tax. In case of
70-78.
[4] charged for admission. fraud or failure to pay the tax, the sangguniang
Rollo, pp. 79-89.
[5] panlalawigan may impose such surcharges,
Ibid., p. 90.
[6] interests and penalties as it may deem
Ibid., pp. 33-40. For the purpose of the amusement tax, the term
[7] appropriate.
Ibid., p. 43. "gross receipts" embraces all the receipts of the
[8]
See also BIR Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 8-88. proprietor, lessee or operator of the amusement
[9]
PNOC Shipping and Transport Corporation vs. Court of place. Said gross receipts also include income (e) The proceeds from the amusement tax shall be shared
Appeals, 297 SCRA 402, 422 citing: from television, radio and motion picture rights, if equally by the province and the municipality where such
Republic vs. Migriño, 189 SCRA 289, 296-297. any. A person or entity or association conducting amusement places are located.
any activity subject to the tax herein imposed
[10] shall be similarly liable for said tax with respect [12]
SEC. 125. Amusement taxes. - There shall ["xxx.....xxx.....xxx
to such portion of the receipts derived by him or
be collected from the proprietor, lessee or
it.
operator of cockpits, cabarets, night or day
xxx this Office is of the opinion and hereby holds that the
clubs, boxing exhibitions, professional basketball
jurisdiction to levy amusement tax on gross receipts from
games, Jai-Alai and race tracks, a tax equivalent The taxes imposed herein shall be payable at the end of
admission tickets to places of amusement was indeed
to: each quarter or month and it shall be the duty of the
transferred to local government under P.D. No. 231, as
proprietor, lessee or operator concerned, as well as any
amended. xxx"
[13]
["xxx the sole jurisdiction for collection of amusement
tax on admission receipts in places of admission rests Should the courts grant a petition for
exclusively on the local government to the exclusion of the
national government." reconstitution of a certificate of title on the basis of a tax
[14]
E. Rodriguez, Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 28
SCRA 1119; United Christian Missionary Society vs. Social declaration, survey plan and technical description? This is
Security Commission, 30 SCRA 982.
[15]
Domingo vs. Commission on Audit, 297 SCRA 163; the question that confronts the Court in this petition for
Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 199.
[16]
Ruby Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 284 review of the Court of Appeals (CA)
SCRA 445; Salao vs. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA 493; [1]
Heirs of Pascasio Uriarte vs. Court of Appeals, 284 SCRA Decision dated September 23, 2002.
511.
THIRD DIVISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA, and
REYES, JJ.
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
The facts of the case are undisputed: Attached to the petition were a tax declaration, survey Exh. “D” - Technical description
of Lot 5358-A-3-0-
[2]
plan, and technical description of each lot. 8-B, (LRC) PSD-
257136;
On February, 16, 1999, respondent Dominador
Exh. “E” - Technical description
Santua filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of On February 25, 1999, the RTC issued an of Lot 5358-A-3-0-
8-C, (LRC) PSD-
Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, a petition for judicial Order[3] setting the initial hearing of the case. It also 257136;
reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T- directed the publication of the order in the Official Gazette, Exh. “F” - Technical description
of Lot 5358-A-3-0-
22868. Respondent alleged that he is the registered owner its posting at the main entrance of the Capitol Building and 8-D, (LRC) PSD-
257136;
of certain parcels of land with an area of 3,306 square in the Municipal Building of Victoria, Calapan City, and
Exh. “G” - Technical description
meters, situated inPoblacion, Victoria, Oriental Mindoro, sending of copies thereof to all adjoining owners of Lot 5358-A-3-0-
8-E, (LRC) PSD-
and covered by TCT No. T-22868; the original copy of TCT mentioned in the petition, the Register of Deeds, Provincial 257136;
No. T-22868 was among those destroyed by the fire that Prosecutor, Director of Lands, Solicitor General and the
Exh. “H” - Technical description
of Lot 5358-A-3-0-
completely razed the Capitol Building then housing the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority.
8-F, (LRC) PSD-
257136;
Office of the Register of Deeds of Oriental Mindoro on
August 12, 1977; the owner’s duplicate copy was lost while Respondent complied with the jurisdictional Exh. “I” - Blue print plan
of Lot 5358-A-3-0-
in respondent’s possession and all efforts exerted to locate requirements. The court thus commissioned the Clerk of 8, (LRC) PSD-
251540 as
the same proved futile; there are no co-owner’s, Court to receive the respondent’s evidence and submit his surveyed for
Dominador
mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicate of said certificate of title; findings to the court. Aside from the documents that delved Santua, et al.
there are no buildings or improvements existing on said into the jurisdictional aspect of the petition, respondent Exh. “J” - Certification
dated September
land which do not belong to respondent; respondent and offered the following documents in support of his petition: 24, 1982 issued
by the Acting
his family are in actual possession of the property and Register of Deeds
Exh. “C” - Tax Declaration No. of this province,
have been paying taxes thereon; and there exists no 15003-816 certifying to the
indicating the effect that all
deeds or instrument affecting the property which have name of original
Dominador certificates of title
been presented for and pending registration in the Office Santua as owner on file with the
of the lots Registry were
of the Register of Deeds. The names and addresses of the covered by TCT destroyed by
No. 22868; reason of the fire
adjoining property owners were enumerated in the petition. that hit
the Capitol Buildin
g housing the never been offered as a bail bond or as collateral to secure
Office of the
Register of Deeds a loan with any banking institution or any person. It has not
on August 12,
1977. been declared as null and void by any court or competent
owner of certain parcels of land known as Lot No. 5358-A- The Provincial Assessor, Mr. Onisimo Naling,
3-0-8-B, with an area of 730 square meters; Lot No. 5358- testified that the tax declaration submitted in evidence is a
A-3-0-8-C, with an area of 731 square meters; Lot No. true and genuine tax declaration issued by their office.
5358-A-3-0-8-D, with an area of 731 square meters; Lot Mrs. Flordeliza Villao, Records Officer III of the Register of
No. 5358-A-3-0-8-E, with an area of 731 square meters, Deeds, testified that the Certification issued by her office is
and Lot No. 5358-A-3-0-8-F, with an area of 383 square a true and genuine certification.
Poblacion, Victoria, Mindoro. The original copy of this title The adjoining property owners were notified of
was among the documents destroyed on August 12, the hearing of the petition but no one interposed any
1977 when fire razed the entire Capitol Building then objection thereto.
a valid basis for reconstitution. For one, we cannot safely prepared at the instance of a party cannot be considered
The Court has already settled in a number of rely on Tax Declaration No. 15003-816 as evidence of the in his favor, the same being self-serving.[18] Further, in Lee
cases that, following the principle of ejusdem generis in subject property being covered by TCT No. T-22868 in the v. Republic,[19] the Court declared the reconstitution based
statutory construction, “any document” mentioned in name of respondent because a tax declaration is executed on a survey plan and technical descriptions void for lack of
Section 3 should be interpreted to refer to documents for taxation purposes only and is actually prepared by the factual support.
[11] [14]
similar to those previously enumerated therein. As aptly alleged owner himself. In fact, in Heirs of Eulalio Ragua
observed by the petitioner, the documents enumerated in v. Court of Appeals,[15] the Court pronounced that a tax Once again, we caution the courts against the
Section 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are documents that had declaration is not a reliable source for the reconstitution of hasty and reckless grant of petitions for reconstitution.
been issued or are on file with the Register of Deeds, thus, a certificate of title. Strict observance of the rules is vital to prevent parties
At most, the tax declaration can only be prima illegal way to obtain Torrens certificate of titles over
Moreover, they are documents from which the facie evidence of possession or a claim of ownership, parcels of land which turn out to be already covered by
particulars of the certificate of title or the circumstances which however is not the issue in a reconstitution existing titles.[20] Courts should bear in mind that should the
which brought about its issuance could readily be proceeding. A reconstitution of title does not pass upon the petition for reconstitution be denied for lack of sufficient
ascertained. After all, the purpose of reconstitution ownership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed basis, the petitioner is not left without a remedy. He may
[16]
proceedings under RA No. 26 is the restoration in the title but merely determines whether a re-issuance of still file an application for confirmation of his title under the
original form and condition of a lost or destroyed such title is proper. provisions of the Land Registration Act, if he is in fact the
land.[12] Consequently, a petitioner’s documentary As for the survey plan and technical
evidence should be able to establish that the lost or descriptions, the Court has previously dismissed the same WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
destroyed certificate of title has, in fact, been issued to the as not the documents referred to in Section 3(f) but merely petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of
petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest and such title was additional documents that should accompany the petition Appeals dated September 23,
in force at the time it was lost or destroyed.[13] for reconstitution as required under Section 12 of RA 26
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO property or has an interest therein, that the said certificate
2002 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for Associate Justice of title was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed, and
that the description, area and boundaries of the property
reconstitution is DENIED. Chairperson, Third Division
are substantially the same as those contained in the lost or
destroyed certificate of title, an order of reconstitution shall
be issued. The clerk of court shall forward to the register of
CERTIFICATION deeds a certified copy of said order and all the documents,
SO ORDERED. which pursuant to said order, are to be used as the basis
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the of the reconstitution. If the court finds that there is no
Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I sufficient evidence or basis to justify the reconstitution, the
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been petition shall be dismissed, but each dismissal shall not
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to preclude the right of the party or parties entitled thereto to
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. file an application for confirmation of his or their title under
NACHURA the provisions of the Land Registration Act. (Emphasis
Associate Justice supplied.)
[14]
See Section 202, Chapter II, Local Government
REYNATO S. PUNO Code.
[15]
Chief Justice 381 Phil. 7 (2000).
WE CONCUR: [16]
Amoroso v. Alegre, Jr., G.R. No. 142766, June
15, 2007, 524 SCRA 641, 653.
[17]
Heirs of Dizon v. Discaya, supra note 11, at 545.
[18]
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Rizal Cement Co., Inc. v. Villareal, No. L-
Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices Conrado M. 30272, February 28, 1985, 135 SCRA 15, 23, reiterated
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Vasquez, Jr. (now Presiding Justice) and Regalado E. in Republic v. El Gobierno de las Islas Filipinas, 459 SCRA
Associate Justice 533, 547 (2005).
Maambong, concurring; rollo, pp. 51-60.
Chairperson [19]
Supra note 8.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 61-62.
[20]
[3]
Id. at 73. Republic v. Sanchez, supra note 10.
[21]
[4]
Id. at 100. Section 15, RA No. 26, supra note 13.
[5]
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA- MINITA V. CHICO- Id. at 51-60.
[6]
Id. at 38.
MARTINEZ NAZARIO [7]
Id. at 138-139. Republic of the Philippines
Associate Justice Associate Justice [8]
Lee v. Republic, 418 Phil. 793, 803 (2001).
[9]
SUPREME COURT
Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. Manila
No. L-68303, January 15, 1988, 157 SCRA 62, 66.
[10]
Republic v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 146081, July 17,
2006, 495 SCRA 248, 274. SECOND DIVISION
RUBEN T. REYES [11]
Republic v. Holazo, G.R. No. 146846, August
Associate Justice
31, 2004, 437 SCRA 345; Heirs of Dizon v. Discaya, 362
Phil. 536, 544 (1999); Republic v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, supra note 9.
ATTESTATION [12] G.R. No. 113092 September 1, 1994
Republic v. Sanchez, supra note 10.
[13]
Section 15 of RA 26 states:
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision SEC. 15. If the court, after hearing, finds that the MARTIN CENTENO, petitioner,
were reached in consultation before the case was documents presented, as supported by parole evidence or
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. vs.
otherwise, are sufficient and proper to warrant the HON. VICTORIA VILLALON-PORNILLOS, Presiding
reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title, Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan,
and that the petitioner is the registered owner of the
Branch 10, and THE PEOPLE OF THE On December 29, 1992, the said trial court rendered Presidential Decree No. 1564 (which amended Act No.
PHILIPPINES, respondents. judgment 4 finding accused Vicente Yco and petitioner 4075, otherwise known as the Solicitation Permit Law),
Centeno guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing provides as follows:
them to each pay a fine of P200.00. Nevertheless, the trial
Santiago V. Marcos, Jr. for petitioner.
court recommended that the accused be pardoned on the
Sec. 2. Any person, corporation,
basis of its finding that they acted in good faith, plus the
organization, or association desiring to
fact that it believed that the latter should not have been
solicit or receive contributions for
criminally liable were it not for the existence of Presidential
charitable or public welfare purposes
Decree
REGALADO, J.: shall first secure a permit from the
No. 1564 which the court opined it had the duty to apply in
Regional Offices of the Department of
the instant case.
Social Services and Development as
It is indeed unfortunate that a group of elderly men, who provided in the Integrated
were moved by their desire to devote their remaining years Both accused Centeno and Yco appealed to the Regional Reorganization Plan. Upon the filing of
to the service of their Creator by forming their own civic
Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 10. However, a written application for a permit in the
organization for that purpose, should find themselves accused Yco subsequently withdrew his appeal, hence the form prescribed by the Regional
enmeshed in a criminal case for making a solicitation from case proceeded only with respect to petitioner Centeno. Offices of the Department of Social
a community member allegedly without the required permit
On May 21, 1993, respondent Judge Villalon-Pornillos Services and Development, the
from the Department of Social Welfare and Development. affirmed the decision of the lower court but modified the Regional Director or his duly
penalty, allegedly because of the perversity of the act authorized representative may, in his
The records of this case reveal that sometime in the last committed which caused damage and prejudice to the discretion, issue a permanent or
quarter of 1985, the officers of a civic organization known complainant, by sentencing petitioner Centeno to suffer an temporary permit or disapprove the
as the Samahang Katandaan ng Nayon ng Tikay launched increased penalty of imprisonment of 6 months and a fine application. In the interest of the
a fund drive for the purpose of renovating the chapel of of P1,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of public, he may in his discretion renew
Barrio Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan. Petitioner Martin Centeno, insolvency. 5 The motion for reconsideration of the or revoke any permit issued under Act
the chairman of the group, together with Vicente Yco, decision was denied by the court. 6 4075.
approached Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, a resident of
Tikay, and solicited from her a contribution of P1,500.00. It Thus it is that a fine of P200.00 imposed as a penalty by The main issue to be resolved here is whether the phrase
is admitted that the solicitation was made without a permit the lowest court in the judicial hierarchy eventually "charitable purposes" should be construed in its broadest
from the Department of Social Welfare and Development. reached this highest tribunal, challenged on the sole issue sense so as to include a religious purpose. We hold in the
of whether solicitations for religious purposes are within negative.
As a consequence, based on the complaint of Judge the ambit of Presidential Decree No. 1564. Quantitatively,
Angeles, an information 1 was filed against petitioner the financial sanction is a nominal imposition but, on a
I. Indeed, it is an elementary rule of statutory construction
Martin Centeno, together with Religio Evaristo and Vicente question of principle, it is not a trifling matter. This Court is
that the express mention of one person, thing, act, or
Yco, for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1564, or the gratified that it can now grant this case the benefit of a final
consequence excludes all others. This rule is expressed in
Solicitation Permit Law, before the Municipal Trial Court of adjudication.
the familiar maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius."
Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 2, and docketed as Criminal Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain
Case No. 2602. Petitioner filed a motion to quash the
Petitioner questions the applicability of Presidential Decree matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be
information 2 on the ground that the facts alleged therein No. 1564 to solicitations for contributions intended for extended to others. The rule proceeds from the premise
do not constitute an offense, claiming that Presidential religious purposes with the submissions that (1) the term that the legislature would not have made specified
Decree No. 1564 only covers solicitations made for
"religious purpose" is not expressly included in the enumerations in a statute had the intention been not to
charitable or public welfare purposes, but not those made provisions of the statute, hence what the law does not restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to those
for a religious purpose such as the construction of a include, it excludes; expressly mentioned. 7
chapel. This was denied 3 by the trial court, and petitioner's
(2) penal laws are to be construed strictly against the State
motion for reconsideration having met the same fate, trial and liberally in favor of the accused; and (3) to subject to
on the merits ensued. It will be observed that the 1987 Constitution, as well as
State regulation solicitations made for a religious purpose
several other statutes, treat the words "charitable" and
would constitute an abridgment of the right to freedom of
"religious" separately and independently of each other.
religion guaranteed under the Constitution.
Thus, the word "charitable" is only one of three descriptive To illustrate, the rule is that tax exemptions are generally The purpose of strict construction is not to enable a guilty
words used in Section 28 (3), Article VI of the Constitution construed strictly against the taxpayer. However, there are person to escape punishment through a technicality but to
which provides that "charitable institutions, churches and cases wherein claims for exemption from tax for "religious provide a precise definition of forbidden acts. 14 The word
personages . . ., and all lands, buildings, and purposes" have been liberally construed as covered in the "charitable" is a matter of description rather than of precise
improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for law granting tax exemptions for "charitable purposes." definition, and each case involving a determination of that
religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be Thus, the term "charitable purposes," within the meaning which is charitable must be decided on its own particular
exempt from taxation." There are certain provisions in of a statute providing that the succession of any property facts and circumstances. 15 The law does not operate in
statutes wherein these two terms are likewise dissociated passing to or for the use of any institution for purposes vacuo nor should its applicability be determined by
and individually mentioned, as for instance, Sections 26 only of public charity shall not be subject to succession tax, circumstances in the abstract.
(e) (corporations exempt from income tax) and 28 (8) (E) is deemed to include religious purposes. 11A gift for
(exclusions from gross income) of the National Internal "religious purposes" was considered as a bequest for
Furthermore, in the provisions of the Constitution and the
Revenue Code; Section 88 (purposes for the organization "charitable use" as regards exemption from inheritance
statutes mentioned above, the enumerations therein given
of non-stock corporations) of the Corporation Code; and tax.12
which include the words "charitable" and "religious" make
Section 234 (b) (exemptions from real property tax) of the
use of the disjunctive "or." In its elementary sense, "or" as
Local Government Code.
On the other hand, to subsume the "religious" purpose of used in a statute is a disjunctive article indicating an
the solicitation within the concept of "charitable" purpose alternative. It often connects a series of words or
That these legislative enactments specifically spelled out which under Presidential Decree propositions indicating a choice of either. When "or" is
"charitable" and "religious" in an enumeration, whereas No. 1564 requires a prior permit from the Department of used, the various members of the enumeration are to be
Presidential Decree No. 1564 merely stated "charitable or Social Services and Development, under paid of penal taken separately. 16 Accordingly, "charitable" and
public welfare purposes," only goes to show that the liability in the absence thereof, would be prejudicial to "religious," which are integral parts of an enumeration
framers of the law in question never intended to include petitioner. Accordingly, the term "charitable" should be using the disjunctive "or" should be given different, distinct,
solicitations for religious purposes within its coverage. strictly construed so as to exclude solicitations for and disparate meanings. There is no compelling
Otherwise, there is no reason why it would not have so "religious" purposes. Thereby, we adhere to the consideration why the same treatment or usage of these
stated expressly. fundamental doctrine underlying virtually all penal words cannot be made applicable to the questioned
legislations that such interpretation should be adopted as provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1564.
would favor the accused.
All contributions designed to promote the work of the
church are "charitable" in nature, since religious activities II. Petitioner next avers that solicitations for religious
depend for their support on voluntary For, it is a well-entrenched rule that penal laws are to be purposes cannot be penalized under the law for,
contributions. 8 However, "religious purpose" is not construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of otherwise, it will constitute an abridgment or restriction on
interchangeable with the expression "charitable purpose." the accused. They are not to be extended or enlarged by the free exercise clause guaranteed under the
While it is true that there is no religious purpose which is implications, intendments, analogies or equitable Constitution.
not also a charitable purpose, yet the converse is not considerations. They are not to be strained by construction
equally true, for there may be a "charitable" purpose which to spell out a new offense, enlarge the field of crime or
It may be conceded that the construction of a church is a
is not "religious" in the legal sense of the term. 9 Although multiply felonies. Hence, in the interpretation of a penal
social concern of the people and, consequently,
the term "charitable" may include matters which are statute, the tendency is to subject it to careful scrutiny and
solicitations appurtenant thereto would necessarily involve
"religious," it is a broader term and includes matters which to construe it with such strictness as to safeguard the
public welfare. Prefatorily, it is not implausible that the
are not "religious," and, accordingly, there is a distinction rights of the accused. If the statute is ambiguous and
regulatory powers of the State may, to a certain degree,
between "charitable purpose" and "religious purpose," admits of two reasonable but contradictory constructions,
extend to solicitations of this nature. Considering,
except where the two terms are obviously used that which operates in favor of a party accused under its
however, that such an activity is within the cloak of the free
synonymously, or where the distinction has been done provisions is to be preferred. The principle is that acts in
exercise clause under the right to freedom of religion
away with by statute.10 The word "charitable," therefore, and of themselves innocent and lawful cannot be held to
guaranteed by the Constitution, it becomes imperative to
like most other words, is capable of different significations. be criminal unless there is a clear and unequivocal
delve into the efficaciousness of a statutory grant of the
For example, in the law, exempting charitable uses from expression of the legislative intent to make them such.
power to regulate the exercise of this constitutional right
taxation, it has a very wide meaning, but under Whatever is not plainly within the provisions of a penal
and the allowable restrictions which may possibly be
Presidential Decree No. 1564 which is a penal law, it statute should be regarded as without its intendment. 13
imposed thereon.
cannot be given such a broad application since it would be
prejudicial to petitioners.
The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of and associations who, secreting their activities under the considering that the complainant in this case is herself a
religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls guise of benevolent purposes, succeed in cheating and judge of the Regional Trial Court at Kalookan City. It bears
compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the defrauding a generous public. It is in fact amazing how stressing at this point that a judge is required to so behave
practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience profitable the fraudulent schemes and practices are to at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity
and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or people who manipulate them. The State has authority and impartiality of the judiciary, 25 should be vigilant
form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be under the exercise of its police power to determine against any attempt to subvert its independence, and must
restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free whether or not there shall be restrictions on soliciting by resist any pressure from whatever source. 26
exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus, the unscrupulous persons or for unworthy causes or for
constitution embraces two concepts, that is, freedom to fraudulent purposes. That solicitation of contributions
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the under the guise of charitable and benevolent purposes is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and petitioner Martin
nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains grossly abused is a matter of common knowledge.
Centeno is ACQUITTED of the offense charged, with
subject to regulation for the protection of society. The Certainly the solicitation of contributions in good faith for
costs de oficio.
freedom to act must have appropriate definitions to worthy purposes should not be denied, but somewhere
preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case, should be lodged the power to determine within
the power to regulate must be so exercised, in attaining a reasonable limits the worthy from the unworthy. 22 The SO ORDERED.
permissible end, as not to unduly infringe on the protected objectionable practices of unscrupulous persons are
freedom. 17 prejudicial to worthy and proper charities which naturally
suffer when the confidence of the public in campaigns for Narvasa, C.J. and Puno, JJ., concur.
the raising of money for charity is lessened or
Whence, even the exercise of religion may be regulated, at
destroyed. 23 Some regulation of public solicitation is,
some slight inconvenience, in order that the State may
therefore, in the public interest. 24
protect its citizens from injury. Without doubt, a State may
protect its citizens from fraudulent solicitation by requiring
a stranger in the community, before permitting him publicly To conclude, solicitation for religious purposes may be
to solicit funds for any purpose, to establish his identity subject to proper regulation by the State in the exercise of
and his authority to act for the cause which he purports to police power. However, in the case at bar, considering that Separate Opinions
represent. The State is likewise free to regulate the time solicitations intended for a religious purpose are not within
and manner of solicitation generally, in the interest of the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 1564, as earlier
public safety, peace, comfort, or convenience. 18 demonstrated, petitioner cannot be held criminally liable
therefor.
MENDOZA, J.:
It does not follow, therefore, from the constitutional
guaranties of the free exercise of religion that everything As a final note, we reject the reason advanced by
which may be so called can be tolerated. 19 It has been respondent judge for increasing the penalty imposed by I concur in the result reached in this case that the
said that a law advancing a legitimate governmental the trial court, premised on the supposed perversity of solicitation of donations for the repair of a chapel is not
interest is not necessarily invalid as one interfering with the petitioner's act which thereby caused damage to the covered by P.D. No. 1564 which requires a permit for the
"free exercise" of religion merely because it also complainant. It must be here emphasized that the trial solicitation of contributions for "charitable or public welfare
incidentally has a detrimental effect on the adherents of court, in the dispositive portion of its decision, even purposes." My reasons are three-fold.
one or more religion. 20 Thus, the general regulation, in the recommended executive clemency in favor of petitioner
public interest, of solicitation, which does not involve any and the other accused after finding that the latter acted in First. Solicitation of contributions for the construction of a
religious test and does not unreasonably obstruct or delay good faith in making the solicitation from the complainant, church is not solicitation for "charitable or public welfare
the collection of funds, is not open to any constitutional an observation with which we fully agree. After all, mistake purpose" but for a religious purpose, and a religious
objection, even though the collection be for a religious upon a doubtful and difficult question of law can be the purpose is not necessarily a charitable or public welfare
purpose. Such regulation would not constitute a prohibited basis of good faith, especially for a layman. purpose. A fund campaign for the construction or repair of
previous restraint on the free exercise of religion or a church is not like fund drives for needy families or victims
interpose an inadmissible obstacle to its exercise. 21 of calamity or for the construction of a civic center and the
There is likewise nothing in the findings of respondent
judge which would indicate, impliedly or otherwise, that like. Like solicitation of subscription to religious magazines,
Even with numerous regulative laws in existence, it is petitioner and his co-accused acted abusively or it is part of the propagation of religious faith or
surprising how many operations are carried on by persons malevolently. This could be reflective upon her objectivity, evangelization. Such solicitation calls upon the virtue of
MENDOZA, J.:
faith, not of charity, save as those solicited for money or other uses of public parks and streets. 2 To read the
aid may not belong to the same religion as the solicitor. Decree, therefore, as including within its reach solicitations
Such solicitation does not engage the philantrophic as for religious purposes would be to construe it in a manner
I concur in the result reached in this case that the
much as the religious fervor of the person who is solicited that it violates the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the
solicitation of donations for the repair of a chapel is not
for contribution. Constitution, when what we are called upon to do is to
covered by P.D. No. 1564 which requires a permit for the
ascertain whether a construction of the statute is not fairly
solicitation of contributions for "charitable or public welfare
possible by which a constitutional violation may be
Second. The purpose of the Decree is to protect the public purposes." My reasons are three-fold.
avoided.
against fraud in view of the proliferation of fund campaigns
for charity and other civic projects. On the other hand,
First. Solicitation of contributions for the construction of a
since religious fund drives are usually conducted among For these reasons, I vote to reverse the decision appealed
church is not solicitation for "charitable or public welfare
those belonging to the same religion, the need for public from and to acquit petitioner.
purpose" but for a religious purpose, and a religious
protection against fraudulent solicitations does not exist in
purpose is not necessarily a charitable or public welfare
as great a degree as does the need for protection with
purpose. A fund campaign for the construction or repair of Padilla, J., concurs.
respect to solicitations for charity or civic projects so as to
a church is not like fund drives for needy families or victims
justify state regulation.
of calamity or for the construction of a civic center and the #Footnotes
like. Like solicitation of subscription to religious magazines,
Third. To require a government permit before solicitation it is part of the propagation of religious faith or
for religious purpose may be allowed is to lay a prior evangelization. Such solicitation calls upon the virtue of 1 Annex A, Petition; Rollo, 25.
restraint on the free exercise of religion. Such restraint, if faith, not of charity, save as those solicited for money or
followed, may well justify requiring a permit before a aid may not belong to the same religion as the solicitor.
church can make Sunday collections or enforce tithing. But Such solicitation does not engage the philantrophic as 2 Annex B, id.; ibid., 20.
in American Bible Society v. City of Manila, 1 we precisely much as the religious fervor of the person who is solicited
held that an ordinance requiring payment of a license fee for contribution. 3 Annex D, id.; ibid., 34.
before one may engage in business could not be applied
to the appellant's sale of bibles because that would impose
Second. The purpose of the Decree is to protect the public 4 Annex G, id.; ibid., 40.
a condition on the exercise of a constitutional right. It is for
against fraud in view of the proliferation of fund campaigns
the same reason that religious rallies are exempted from
for charity and other civic projects. On the other hand,
the requirement of prior permit for public assemblies and 5 Annex H, id.; ibid., 44.
since religious fund drives are usually conducted among
other uses of public parks and streets. 2 To read the
those belonging to the same religion, the need for public
Decree, therefore, as including within its reach solicitations
protection against fraudulent solicitations does not exist in 6 Annex J, id.; ibid., 64.
for religious purposes would be to construe it in a manner
as great a degree as does the need for protection with
that it violates the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the
respect to solicitations for charity or civic projects so as to
Constitution, when what we are called upon to do is to 7 Commissioner of Customs vs. Court
justify state regulation.
ascertain whether a construction of the statute is not fairly of Tax Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos.
possible by which a constitutional violation may be 48886-88, July 21, 1993, 224 SCRA
avoided. Third. To require a government permit before solicitation 665.
for religious purpose may be allowed is to lay a prior
restraint on the free exercise of religion. Such restraint, if
For these reasons, I vote to reverse the decision appealed 8 Scobey vs. Beckman, 41 N.E. 2d 84.
followed, may well justify requiring a permit before a
from and to acquit petitioner.
church can make Sunday collections or enforce tithing. But
in American Bible Society v. City of Manila, 1 we precisely 9 See Adye vs. Smith, 26 Am. Rep.
Padilla, J., concurs. held that an ordinance requiring payment of a license fee 424.
before one may engage in business could not be applied
to the appellant's sale of bibles because that would impose
a condition on the exercise of a constitutional right. It is for 10 See Read vs. McLean, 200 So.
the same reason that religious rallies are exempted from 109.
# Separate Opinions
the requirement of prior permit for public assemblies and
11 In re Seaman's Estate, 139 N.E. 2d MENDOZA, J., concurring: Petitioner Malinias was a candidate for governor
17. whereas Pilando was a candidate for congressional
representative of Mountain Province in the May 11, 1998
1 101 Phil. 386 (1957).
elections.[6]
12 In re Clark's Estate, 159 A. 500.
2 B.P. Blg. 880, § 3(a). The Provincial Board of Canvassers held the
13 Martin, Statutory Construction, canvassing of election returns at the second floor of the
1979 ed., 183. Provincial Capitol Building in Bontoc, Mountain Province
EN BANC from May 11, 1998 to May 15, 1998.[7]
14 Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate On July 31, 1998, Malinias and Pilando filed a
Court, et al., G.R. No. 69809, October complaint with the COMELEC’s Law Department for
16, 1986, 145 SCRA 112. violation of Section 25 of R.A. No. 6646, and Sections 232
[G.R. No. 146943. October 4, 2002] and 261 (i) of B.P. Blg. 881, against Victor Dominguez,
Teofilo Corpuz, Anacleto Tangilag, Thomas Bayugan,
15 Topeka Presbyterian Manor, Inc.
Jose Bagwan who was then Provincial Election
vs. Board, 402 P. ed. 802.
Supervisor, and the members of the Provincial Board of
Canvassers. Victor Dominguez (“Dominguez” for brevity)
16 Martin, op. cit., 81. SARIO MALINIAS, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON was then the incumbent Congressman of Poblacion,
ELECTIONS, TEOFILO CORPUZ, ANACLETO Sabangan, Mountain Province. Teofilo Corpuz (“Corpuz”
TANGILAG and VICTOR for brevity) was then the Provincial Director of the
17 Cantwell vs. Connecticut, 301 U.S. DOMINGUEZ,respondents. Philippine National Police in Mountain Province while
296 (1940). Anacleto Tangilag (“Tangilag” for brevity) was then the
DECISION Chief of Police of the Municipality of Bontoc, Mountain
18 Id., loc. cit. Province.
CARPIO, J.:
Malinias and Pilando alleged that on May 15, 1998 a
19 16 Am. Jur. 2d, Constitutional Law, police checkpoint at Nacagang, Sabangan, Mountain
283. Province blocked their supporters who were on their way
to Bontoc, and prevented them from proceeding to the
The Case
20 Ibid., id., 282. Provincial Capitol Building. Malinias and Pilando further
alleged that policemen, upon orders of private
respondents, prevented their supporters, who nevertheless
21 Cantwell vs. Connecticut, supra. Before us is a petition for review on certiorari[1] of the eventually reached the Provincial Capitol Building, from
Resolutions of the Commission on Elections (“COMELEC” entering the capitol grounds.
for brevity) en banc[2] dated June 10, 1999 and October 26,
22 Id., loc. cit. In their complaint, Malinias and Pilando requested
2000. The assailed Resolutions dismissed the
complaint[3] filed by petitioner Sario Malinias (“Malinias” for the COMELEC and its Law Department to investigate and
23 City of Seattle vs. Rogers, 106 P. brevity) and Roy S. Pilando (“Pilando” for brevity) for prosecute private respondents for the following alleged
2d 598. insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause for unlawful acts.
violation of Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6646[4] and
Sections 232 and 261 (i) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881.[5]
24 Commonwealth vs. Creighton, et “3. That on May 15, 1998 at the site of the canvassing of
al., 170 A. 720. election returns for congressional and provincial returns
located at the second floor of the Provincial Capitol
Building the public and particularly the designated
25 Rule 2.01, Code of Judicial The Facts representatives/watchers of both affiants were prevented
Conduct. from attending the canvassing.
manager for the fashion and personal care department manifestation and motion praying that the proceedings on the SARP did not constitute a valid ground for their
with a monthly salary of P45,000. On the other hand, the consolidated cases be suspended on the ground that reopening.[13]
petitioner Manego was initially employed as buyer on respondent USWCI had been placed in a state of
On June 16, 2004, the labor arbiter issued an
January 16, 1984 but was promoted as senior category suspension of payments by the Securities and Exchange
order directing the parties to file their memoranda. He
[6]
head with a monthly salary of P25,000. Commission (SEC) as early as April 11, 2000 and a
further stated that even without the memoranda, the cases
[10]
receivership committee had in fact been appointed.
On July 5, 2001 and July 13, 2001, petitioners would be ordered submitted for decision after the lapse of
Tiangco and Manego respectively filed separate complaints On February 26, 2002, the labor arbiter the period for filing.[14]
for illegal dismissal, payment of separation pay as well as suspended the proceedings until further orders from the
This prompted respondents to file a petition for
award of moral and exemplary damages in the National SEC.[11]
certiorari[15] with prayer for a temporary restraining order
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The complaints,
On March 23, 2004, petitioners filed a motion to (TRO) in the CA, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the
docketed as NLRC NCR Case Nos. 00-09-03512-2001 and
reopen case on the ground that the SEC, in its order dated part of the labor arbiter.
00-09-04757-2001, were consolidated.[7]
December 23, 2002, had already approved the second
On September 17, 2004, the CA granted the
In his order dated January 11, 2002, the labor amendment to the rehabilitation plan (SARP) of respondent
application for a TRO.[16] In its February 9, 2005 decision, it
arbiter[8] considered the consolidated cases as submitted USWCI.[12]
granted the petition and reversed the June 16, 2004 order
[9]
for decision.
In their opposition to the motion, respondents of the labor arbiter. It ruled that proceedings on the cases
argued that the proceedings in the consolidated cases should remain suspended until further orders from the SEC
Sec. 6. In order to
citing Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc. v. NLRC[17] and Sections effectively exercise such jurisdiction, In Rubberworld, we held that a labor claim is a
[22]
the [SEC] shall possess the
6(b), 11 and 27, Rule 4 of the 2000 Interim Rules of following powers: “claim” within the contemplation of PD 902-A, as
xxx
Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation.[18] It denied xxx x amended. This is consistent with the Interim Rules of
xx
reconsideration on June 28, 2005. Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation which came out in
c) To appoint one or
more receivers of the property, real
and personal, which is the subject of 2000.[25] Section 1, Rule 2 of the Interim Rules defines
Hence, this petition. the action pending before the [SEC] in
accordance with the pertinent
provisions of the Rules of Court in “claims” as follows:
such other cases whenever necessary
The issue determinative of this case is whether in order to preserve the rights of the Sec. 1. Definition of Terms - For
parties-litigants and/or protect the purposes of these Rules:
the consolidated illegal dismissal cases can be reopened interest of the investing public and
creditors: xxx Provided, finally, xxx xxx
that upon appointment of a xxx
at this point of the SEC proceedings for respondent management committee, rehabilitation
receiver, board, or body, pursuant to “Claim” shall include all claims or
this Decree, all actions demands of whatever nature or
USWCI’s rehabilitation. character against a debtor or its
for claims against corporations,
partnerships or associations under property, whether for money or
management or receivership pending otherwise.
This issue is far from novel. We resolved the before any court, tribunal, board or
body shall be suspended
accordingly. (Emphasis supplied)
same question as early as 1999 in Rubberworld (Phils.),
Thus, labor claims are included among the actions
The law is clear: upon the creation of xxx clarified in the Interim Rules:
a management committee or the xxx x Rule 4
appointment of a rehabilitation xx
receiver, all claims for actions "shall xxx x
be suspended accordingly." No This Court notes that PD xx xxx
exception in favor of labor claims is 902-A itself does not provide for the
mentioned in the law. Since the law duration of the automatic stay. Neither Sec. 6. Stay Order. – If the
makes no distinction or exemptions, does the Order of the SEC. Hence, court finds the petition to be sufficient
neither should this Court. Ubi lex non the suspensive effect has no time limit in form and substance, it shall, not
distinguit nec nos distinguere and remains in force as long as later than five (5) days from the filing
debemos. Allowing labor cases to reasonably necessary to accomplish of the petition, issue an Order (a)
proceed clearly defeats the purpose of the purpose of the appointing a Rehabilitation Receiver
the automatic stay and severely Order.[27] (Emphasis supplied) and fixing his bond; (b) staying
encumbers the management enforcement of all claims, whether for
committee's time and resources. The money or otherwise and whether such
said committee would need to defend enforcement is by court action or
against these suits, to the detriment of otherwise, against the debtor, its
its primary and urgent duty to work In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Zamora,[28] we guarantors and sureties not solidarily
towards rehabilitating the corporation liable with the debtor; xxx
and making it viable again. To rule emphasized that “this Court’s adherence to the
otherwise would open the floodgates xxx
to other similarly situated claimants xxx x
and forestall if not defeat the rescue abovestated rule has been resolute and steadfast as xx
efforts. Besides, even if the NLRC
awards the claims of private Sec. 11. Period of the Stay
evidenced by its oft-repeated application in a plethora of Order. – The stay order shall be
respondents, as it did, its ruling could
not be enforced as long as the effective from the date of issuance
petitioner is under the management cases.”[29] until the dismissal of the petition or the
committee.
termination of the rehabilitation
proceedings.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
xxx
xxx x We note that the Rules of Procedure on
xx No costs.
Corporate Rehabilitation was approved on December 2,
Sec. 27. Termination of
Proceedings. – In case of the failure
of the debtor to submit the 2008 and took effect on January 16, 2009. Section 2, Rule SO ORDERED.
rehabilitation plan, or the disapproval
thereof by the court, or the failure of RENATO C. CORONA
9 thereof provides: Associate Justice
the rehabilitation of the debtor
because of failure to achieve the Chairperson
Sec. 2. Transitory WE CONCUR:
desired targets or goals as set forth
Provision. – Unless the court orders
therein, or the failure of the otherwise to prevent manifest
said debtor to perform its obligations injustice, any pending petition for
under the said plan, or a
rehabilitation that has not undergone
determination that the rehabilitation the initial hearing prescribed under the
plan may no longer be implemented in PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Interim Rules or Procedure for
accordance with its terms, conditions, Associate Justice Associate
Corporate Rehabilitation at the time of
restrictions, or assumptions, the court effectivity of these Rules shall be Justice
shall upon motion, motu proprio, or governed by these Rules.
upon the recommendation of the
Rehabilitation Receiver, terminate the
proceedings. The proceedings shall
also terminate upon the successful MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
implementation of the rehabilitation Considering that respondent USWCI’s SARP had already Associate Justice Associate
plan. (Emphasis supplied) Justice
been approved before then, the 2000 Interim Rules still
But even such rules and regulations as may be fixed can GUTIERREZ, JR., J., concurring:
not contravene the concept of substitute parental authority.
I concur in the Court's opinion so carefully analyzed and Separate Opinions
The rationale of liability of school heads and teachers for crafted by Justice Isagani A. Cruz. However, I would like to
the tortious acts of their pupils was explained in Palisoc vs. stress the need for a major amendment to, if not a MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring and dissenting:
Brillantes (41 SCRA 548), thus: complete scrapping of, Article 2180 of the Civil Code
insofar as it refers to teachers or heads of establishments I concur, except with respect to the restricted meaning
The protective custody of the school heads and teachers is of arts and trades in relation to pupils and students or given the term "teacher" in Article 2180 of the Civil Code
mandatorily substituted for that of the parents, and hence, apprentices. The seventh paragraph of Art. 2180 is a relic as "teacher-in-charge." This would limit liability to
it becomes their obligation as well as that of the school of the past and contemplates a situation long gone and out occasions where there are classes under the immediate
itself to provide proper supervision of the students' of date. In a Palisoc v. Brillantes (41 SCRA 548) situation, charge of a teacher, which does not seem to be the
activities during the whole time that they are at attendance it is bound to result in mischief and injustice. intendment of the law.
in the school, including recess time, as well as to take the
necessary precautions to protect the students in their First, we no longer have masters and apprentices toiling in As I understand it, the philosophy of the law is that
custody from dangers and hazards that would reasonably schools of arts and trades. Students in "technological" whoever stands in loco parentis will have the same duties
be anticipated, including injuries that some students colleges and universities are no different from students in and obligations as parents whenever in such a standing.
themselves may inflict wilfully or through negligence on liberal arts or professional schools. Apprentices now work Those persons are mandatorily held liable for the tortious
their fellow students. (Emphasis supplied) in regular shops and factories and their relationship to the acts of pupils and students so long as the latter remain in
employer is covered by laws governing the employment their custody, meaning their protective and supervisory
Of course, as provided for in the same Article 2180, the relationship and not by laws governing the teacher— custody.
responsibility treated of shall cease when the persons student relationship.
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a Thus Article 349 of the Civil Code enumerates the persons
good father of a family to prevent damage. Second, except for kindergarten, elementary, and perhaps who stand in loco parentis and thereby exercise substitute
early high school students, teachers are often no longer parental authority:
And while a school is, admittedly, not directly liable since objects of veneration who are given the respect due to
Article 2180 speaks only of teachers and schools heads, substitute parents. Many students in their late teens or Art. 349 The following persons shall exercise substitute
yet, by virtue of the same provision, the school, as their early adult years view some teachers as part of a parental authority:
employer, may be held liable for the failure of its teachers bourgeois or reactionary group whose advice on
or school heads to perform their mandatory legal duties as behaviour, deportment, and other non-academic matters is xxx xxx xxx
substitute parents (Sangco, Philippine Law on Torts & not only resented but actively rejected. It ,seems most
Damages, 1978 ed., p. 201). Again, the school may unfair to hold teachers liable on a presumption juris tantum 2) Teachers and professors
exculpate itself from liability by proving that it had of negligence for acts of students even under
exercised the diligence of a good father of the family. circumstances where strictly speaking there could be no in xxx xxx xxx
loco parentis relationship. Why do teachers have to prove
Art. 2180. x x x the contrary of negligence to be freed from solidary liability 4) Directors of trade establishments, with regard to
for the acts f bomb-throwing or pistol packing students who apprentices;'
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their would just as soon hurt them as they would other members
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of the so-called-establishment. Article 352 of the Civil Code further provides:
of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
engaged in any business or industry. The ordinary rules on quasi-delicta should apply to Art. 362. The relations between teacher and pupil,
teachers and schools of whatever nature insofar as grown professor and student, are fixed by government
xxx xxx xxx up students are concerned. The provision of Art. 2180 of regulations and those of each school or institution....
the Civil Code involved in this case has outlived its
But even such rules and regulations as may be fixed can GUTIERREZ, JR., J., concurring: Footnotes
not contravene the concept of substitute parental authority.
I concur in the Court's opinion so carefully analyzed and 1 Rollo, pp. 63,157.
The rationale of liability of school heads and teachers for crafted by Justice Isagani A. Cruz. However, I would like to
the tortious acts of their pupils was explained in Palisoc vs. stress the need for a major amendment to, if not a 2 lbid., p. 38.
Brillantes (41 SCRA 548), thus: complete scrapping of, Article 2180 of the Civil Code
insofar as it refers to teachers or heads of establishments 3 Id., p. 23.
The protective custody of the school heads and teachers is of arts and trades in relation to pupils and students or
mandatorily substituted for that of the parents, and hence, apprentices. The seventh paragraph of Art. 2180 is a relic 4 Id p. 31. Climaco, J., ponente, with Pascual and Agcaoili,
it becomes their obligation as well as that of the school of the past and contemplates a situation long gone and out JJ.
itself to provide proper supervision of the students' of date. In a Palisoc v. Brillantes (41 SCRA 548) situation,
activities during the whole time that they are at attendance it is bound to result in mischief and injustice. 5 Id., pp. 30-31,
in the school, including recess time, as well as to take the
necessary precautions to protect the students in their First, we no longer have masters and apprentices toiling in 6 Id., pp. 23, 272.
custody from dangers and hazards that would reasonably schools of arts and trades. Students in "technological"
be anticipated, including injuries that some students colleges and universities are no different from students in 7 101 Phil, 843.
themselves may inflict wilfully or through negligence on liberal arts or professional schools. Apprentices now work
their fellow students. (Emphasis supplied) in regular shops and factories and their relationship to the 8 108 Phil, 414,
employer is covered by laws governing the employment
Of course, as provided for in the same Article 2180, the relationship and not by laws governing the teacher— 9 41 SCRA 548.
responsibility treated of shall cease when the persons student relationship.
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a 10 Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Barredo, Villamor, and
good father of a family to prevent damage. Second, except for kindergarten, elementary, and perhaps Makasiar, JJ.
early high school students, teachers are often no longer
And while a school is, admittedly, not directly liable since objects of veneration who are given the respect due to 11 Castro, Fernando, and Zaldivar, JJ.
Article 2180 speaks only of teachers and schools heads, substitute parents. Many students in their late teens or
yet, by virtue of the same provision, the school, as their early adult years view some teachers as part of a
employer, may be held liable for the failure of its teachers bourgeois or reactionary group whose advice on The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
or school heads to perform their mandatory legal duties as behaviour, deportment, and other non-academic matters is
substitute parents (Sangco, Philippine Law on Torts & not only resented but actively rejected. It ,seems most
Damages, 1978 ed., p. 201). Again, the school may unfair to hold teachers liable on a presumption juris tantum Republic of the Philippines
exculpate itself from liability by proving that it had of negligence for acts of students even under SUPREME COURT
exercised the diligence of a good father of the family. circumstances where strictly speaking there could be no in Manila
loco parentis relationship. Why do teachers have to prove
Art. 2180. x x x the contrary of negligence to be freed from solidary liability FIRST DIVISION
for the acts f bomb-throwing or pistol packing students who
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their would just as soon hurt them as they would other members
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of the so-called-establishment.
of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not G.R. No. 93468 December 29, 1994
engaged in any business or industry. The ordinary rules on quasi-delicta should apply to
teachers and schools of whatever nature insofar as grown NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (NATU)-
xxx xxx xxx up students are concerned. The provision of Art. 2180 of REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK SUPERVISORS
the Civil Code involved in this case has outlived its CHAPTER, petitioner,
Parenthetically, from the enumeration in Article 349 of the purpose. The Court cannot make law. It can only apply the vs.
Civil Code, supra, it is apparent that the Code Commission law with its imperfections. However, the Court can suggest HON. RUBEN D. TORRES, SECRETARY OF LABOR
had already segregated the classification of "teachers and that such a law should be amended or repealed. AND EMPLOYMENT and REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK,
professors" vis-a-vis their pupils, from "directors of trade respondents.
establishments, with regard to their apprentices."
Filemon G. Tercero for petitioner.
positions in question and affidavits of certain employees. It is a Central Bank prescribed internal control measure
The Government Corporate Counsel for Republic Planters also invoked provisions of the General Banking Act and intended to objectively establish responsibilities among the
Bank. the Central Bank Act to show the duties and officers to easily pinpoint culpability in case of error. The
responsibilities of the bank and its branches. "dual control" and "joint custody" aspects mentioned in the
decision of public respondent are likewise internal control
On 23 March 1990, public respondent issued a decision measures prescribed by the Central Bank.
BELLOSILLO, J.: partially granting the appeal, which is now being
challenged before us — Neither is there evidence showing that subject employees
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (NATU)- are vested with powers or prerogatives to hire, transfer,
REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK SUPERVISORS CHAPTER WHEREFORE, . . . the appeal is hereby partially granted. suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline
seeks nullification of the decision of public respondent Accordingly, the Order dated 17 August 1989 is modified employees. The bare allegations in the affidavits of
Secretary of Labor dated 23 March 1990, which modified to the extent that Department Managers, Assistant respondent Bank's Executive Assistant to the President 4
the order of Med-Arbiter Manases T. Cruz dated 17 August Managers, Branch Managers, Cashiers and Controllers and the Senior Manager of the Human Resource
1989 as well as his order dated 20 April 1990 denying are declared managerial employees. Perforce, they cannot Management Department 5 that those powers and
reconsideration. join the union of supervisors such as Division Chiefs, prerogatives are inherent in subject positions are self-
Accounts Officers, Staff Assistants and OIC's (sic) unless serving. Their claim cannot be made to prevail upon the
On 17 March 1989, NATU filed a petition for certification the latter are regular managerial employees . . . . 2 actual duties and responsibilities of subject employees.
election to determine the exclusive bargaining
representative of respondent Bank's employees occupying NATU filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was The other evidence of respondent Bank which purports to
supervisory positions. On 24 April 1989, the Bank moved denied on 20 April 1990. 3 Hence this recourse assailing show that subject employees exercise managerial
to dismiss the petition on the ground that the supposed public respondent for rendering the decision of 23 March functions even belies such claim. Insofar as Department
supervisory employees were actually managerial and/or 1990 and the order of 20 April 1990 both with grave abuse Managers and Assistant Managers are concerned, there is
confidential employees thus ineligible to join, assist or form of discretion. absolutely no reason mentioned in the decision why they
a union, and that the petition lacked the 20% signatory are managerial employees. Not even respondent Bank in
requirement under the Labor Code. The crucial issue presented for our resolution is whether its appeal questioned the inclusion of Assistant Managers
the Department Managers, Assistant Managers, Branch among the qualified petitioning employees. Public
On 17 August 1989, Med-Arbiter Manases T. Cruz granted Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers of respondent respondent has deviated from the real issue in this case,
the petition thus — Bank are managerial and/or confidential employees hence which is, the determination of whether subject employees
ineligible to join or assist the union of petitioner. are managerial employees within the contemplation of the
WHEREFORE, . . . let a certification election be ordered Labor Code, as amended by RA 6715; instead, he merely
conducted among all the regular employees of the NATU submits that an analysis of the decision of public concentrated on the nature, conduct and management of
Republic Planters Bank occupying supervisory positions or respondent readily yields certain flaws that result in banks conformably with the General Banking Act and the
the equivalent within 20 days from receipt of a copy of this erroneous conclusions. Firstly, a branch does not enjoy Central Bank Act.
Order. The choice shall be: (1) National Association of relative autonomy precisely because it is treated as one
Trade Unions (NATU)-Republic Planters Bank Supervisors unit with the head office and has to comply with uniform Petitioner concludes that subject employees are not
Chapter; and (2) No Union. policies and guidelines set by the bank itself. It would be managerial employees but supervisors. Even assuming
absurd if each branch of a particular bank would be that they are confidential employees, there is no legal
The payroll three months prior to the filing of this petition adopting and implementing different policies covering prohibition against confidential employees who are not
shall be utilized in determining the list of eligible voters . . . multifarious banking transactions. Moreover, respondent performing managerial functions to form and join a union.
.1 Bank's own evidence clearly shows that policies and
guidelines covering the various branches are set by the On the other hand, respondent Bank maintains that the
Respondent Bank appealed the order to the Secretary of head office. Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence Department Managers, Branch Managers, Cashiers and
Labor on the main ground that several of the employees showing that bank policies are laid down through the Controllers are inherently possessed of the powers
sought to be included in the certification election, collective action of the Branch Manager, the Cashier and enumerated in Art. 212, par. (m), of the Labor Code. It
particularly the Department Managers, Branch the Controller. Thirdly, the organizational setup where the relies heavily on the affidavits of its Executive Assistant to
Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers were Branch Manager exercises control over branch operations, the President and Senior Manager of the Human Resource
managerial and/or confidential employees and thus the Controller controls the Accounting Division, and the Department. The Branch Managers, Cashiers and
ineligible to join, assist or form a union. It presented Cashier controls the Cash Division, is nothing but a proper Controllers are vested not only with policy-making powers
annexes detailing the job description and duties of the delineation of duties and responsibilities. This delineation necessary to run the affairs of the branch, given the
independence and relative autonomy which it enjoys in the actions, if the exercise of such managerial authority is not Through the collective action of these three branch officers
pursuit of its goals and objectives, but also with the routinary in nature but requires the use of independent operational transactions are carried out like: The two (2)-
concomitant disciplinary authority over the employees. judgment. All employees not falling within any of the above signature requirement of the manager, on one hand, and
definitions are considered rank-and-file employees that of the controller or cashier on the other hand as
The Solicitor General argues that NATU loses sight of the (emphasis supplied). required in bank's issuances and releases. This is the so-
fact that by virtue of the appeal of respondent Bank, the called "dual control" through check-and-balance as
whole case is thrown open for consideration by public At first glance, pursuant to the above-definitions and based prescribed by the Central Bank, per Section 1166.6, Book
respondent. Even errors not assigned in the appeal, such on their job descriptions as guideposts, there would seem I, Manual of Regulations for Banks and Financial
as the exclusion by the Med-Arbiter of Assistant Managers to be no difficulty in distinguishing a managerial employee Intermediaries. Another is in the joint custody of the
from the managerial employees category, is within his from that of a supervisor, or from that of a mere rank-and- branch's cash in vault, accountable forms, collaterals,
discretion to consider as it is closely related to the errors file employee. Yet, this task takes on a different dimension documents of title, deposit, ledgers and others, among the
properly assigned. The fact that Department Managers are when applied to banks, particularly the branches thereof. branch manager and at least two (2) officers of the branch
managerial employees is borne out by the evidence of This is so because unlike ordinary corporations, a bank's as required under Section 1166.6 of the Manual of
petitioner itself. Furthermore, while it assails public organizational operation is governed and regulated by the Regulations for Banks and Other Financial Intermediaries.
respondent's finding that subject employees are General Banking Act and the Central Bank Act, both
managerial employees, petitioner never questioned the special laws . . . . This structural set-up creates a triad of managerial
fact that said officers also occupy confidential positions authority among the branch manager, cashier and
and thus remain prohibited from forming or joining any As pointed out by the respondent, in the banking industry, controller. Hence, no officer of the bank ". . . have (sic)
labor organization. a branch is the microcosm of a banking institution, complete authority and responsibility for handling all
uniquely autonomous and phases of any transaction from beginning to end without
Respondent Bank has no legal personality to move for the self-governing. some control or balance from some other part of the
dismissal of the petition for certification election on the organization" (Section 1166.3, Division of Duties and
ground that its supervisory employees are in reality This relative autonomy of a branch finds legal basis in Responsibilities, Ibid). This aspect in the banking system
managerial employees. An employer has no standing to Section 27 of the General Banking Act, as amended, thus: which calls for the division of duties and responsibilities is
question the process since this is the sole concern of the a clear manifestation of managerial power and authority.
workers. The only exception is where the employer itself . . . . The bank shall be responsible for all business No operational transaction at branch level is carried out by
has to file the petition pursuant to Art. 258 of the Labor conducted in such branches to the same extent and in the the singular act of the Branch Manager but rather through
Code because of a request to bargain collectively. 6 same manner as though such business had all been the collective act of the Branch Manager,
conducted in the head office. Cashier/Controller (emphasis supplied).
Public respondent, invoking RA 6715 and the inherent
functions of Department Managers, Assistant Managers, For the purpose of this Act, a bank and its branches shall Noteworthy is the "on call client" set up in banks. Under
Branch Managers, Cashiers and Controllers, held that be treated as a unit (emphasis supplied). this scheme, the branch manager is tasked with the
these officers properly fall within the definition of responsibility of business development and marketing of
managerial employees. The ratiocination in his Decision of Conformably with the above, bank policies are laid down the bank's services which place him on client call. During
23 March 1990 7 is that — and/or executed through the collective action of the Branch such usual physical absences from the branch, the cashier
Manager, Cashier and Controller at the branch level. The assumes the reins of branch control and administration.
Republic Act No. 6715, otherwise known as the Herrera- Branch Manager exercises over-all control and supervision On those occasions, the "dual control system" is clearly
Veloso Law, restored the right of supervisors to form their over branch operation being on the top of the branch's manifest in the transactions and operations of the branch
own unions while maintaining the proscription on the right pyramid structure. However, both the controller and the bank as it will then require the necessary joint action of the
to self-organization of managerial employees. Accordingly, cashier who are called in banking parlance as "Financial controller and the cashier.
the Labor Code, as amended, distinguishes managerial, Managers" due to their fiscal functions are given such a
supervisory and rank-and-file employees thus: share and sphere of responsibility in the operations of the The grave abuse of discretion committed by public
bank. The cashier controls and supervises the cash respondent is at once apparent. Art. 212, par. (m), of the
Art. 212 (m) — Managerial employee is one who is vested division while the controller that of the Accounting Division. Labor Code is explicit. A managerial employee is (a) one
with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute Likewise, their assigned task is of great significance, who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and
management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay- without which a bank or branch for that matter cannot execute management policies, or to hire, transfer,
off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. operate or function. suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline
Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of employees; or (b) one who is vested with both powers or
the employer, effectively recommend such managerial prerogatives. A supervisory employee is different from a
managerial employee in the sense that the supervisory accomplishment of its profit targets and objectives," 14 is in-Charge of International Department, assigned the cable
employee, in the interest of the employer, effectively contradicted by the following evidence submitted by assistant of the International Department as the concurrent
recommends such managerial actions, if the exercise of respondent Bank itself: FCDU Accountable Forms Custodian." 19
such managerial authority is not routinary in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment. (a) Memorandum issued by respondent Bank's Assistant However, a close scrutiny of the memorandum of Mr.
Vice President to all Regional Managers and Branch Tuates reveals that he does not have said managerial
Ranged against these definitions and after a thorough Managers giving them temporary discretionary authority to power because as plainly stated therein, it was issued
examination of the evidence submitted by both parties, we grant additional interest over the prescribed board rates for "upon instruction from Head Office." 20 With regard to the
arrive at a contrary conclusion. Branch Managers, both short-term and long-term CTDs subject, however, to memorandum of Mr. Robite, Sr., it appears that the power
Cashiers and Controllers of respondent Bank are not specific limitations and guidelines set forth in the same he exercised was merely in an isolated instance, taking
managerial employees but supervisory employees. The memorandum; 15 into account the other evidence submitted by respondent
finding of public respondent that bank policies are laid Bank itself showing lack of said power by other Branch
down and/or executed through the collective action of (b) Memorandum issued by respondent Bank's Executive Managers/OICs:
these employees is simply erroneous. His discussion on Vice President to all Regional Managers and Branch
the division of their duties and responsibilities does not Officers regarding the policy and guidelines on drawing (a) Memorandum from the Branch Manager for the
logically lead to the conclusion that they are managerial against uncollected deposits (DAUD); 16 AVP-Manpower Management Department expressing the
employees, as the term is defined in Art. 212, par. (m). opinion that a certain employee, due to habitual
(c) Memorandum issued by respondent Bank's President absenteeism and tardiness, must be penalized in
Among the general duties and responsibilities of a Branch to all Field Offices regarding the guidelines on domestic accordance with respondent Bank's Code of Discipline;
Manager is "[t]o discharge his duties and authority with a bills purchased and
high sense of responsibility and integrity and shall at all (DBP); 17 and
times be guided by prudence like a good father of the (b) Memorandum from a Branch OIC for the Assistant Vice
family, and sound judgment in accordance with and within (d) Memorandum issued by the same officer to all Branch President recommending a certain employee's promotional
the limitations of the policy/policies promulgated by the Managers regarding lending authority at the branch level adjustment to the present position he occupies.
Board of Directors and implemented by the Management and the terms and conditions thereof. 18
until suspended, superseded, revoked or modified" (par. 5, Clearly, those officials or employees possess only
emphasis supplied). 8 Similarly, the job summary of a As a consequence, the affidavit of the Executive Assistant recommendatory powers subject to evaluation, review and
Controller states: "Supervises the Accounting Unit of the cannot be given any weight at all. final action by higher officials. Therefore, the foregoing
branch; sees to the compliance by the Branch with affidavit cannot bolster the stand of respondent Bank.
established procedures, policies, rules and regulations of Neither do the Branch Managers, Cashiers and Controllers
the Bank and external supervising authorities; sees to the have the power to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, The positions of Department Managers and Assistant
strict implementation of control procedures (emphasis discharge, assign or discipline employees. The Senior Managers were also declared by public respondent as
supplied). 9 The job description of a Cashier does not Manager of the Human Resource Management managerial, without providing any basis therefor. Petitioner
mention any authority on his part to lay down policies, Department of respondent Bank, in her affidavit, stated asserts that the position of Assistant Manager was not
either. 10 On the basis of the foregoing evidence, it is clear that "the power to hire, fire, suspend, transfer, assign or even included in the appeal filed by respondent Bank.
that subject employees do not participate in policy-making otherwise impose discipline among subordinates within While we agree with the Office of the Solicitor General that
but are given approved and established policies to execute their respective jurisdictions is lodged with the heads of the it is within the discretion of public respondent to consider
and standard practices to observe, 11 leaving little or no various departments, the branch managers and officers-in- an unassigned issue that is closely related to an issue
discretion at all whether to implement said policies or not. charge, the branch cashiers and the branch controllers. properly assigned, still, public respondent's error lies in the
12 It is the nature of the employee's functions, and not the Inherent as it is in the aforementioned positions, the fact that his finding has no leg to stand on. Anyway,
nomenclature or title given to his job, which determines authority to hire, fire, suspend, transfer, assign or inasmuch as the entire records are before us, now is the
whether he has rank-and-file, supervisory or managerial otherwise discipline employees within their respective opportunity to discuss this issue.
status. 13 domains was deemed unnecessary to be incorporated in
their individual job descriptions; By way of illustration, on We analyzed the evidence submitted by respondent Bank
Moreover, the bare statement in the affidavit of the August 24, 1989, Mr. Renato A. Tuates, the Officer-in- in support of its claim that Department Managers are
Executive Assistant to the President of respondent Bank Charge/Branch Cashier of the Bank's Dumaguete Branch, managerial employees 21 and concluded that they are not.
that the Branch Managers, Cashiers and Controllers placed under preventive suspension and thereafter Like Branch Managers, Cashiers and Controllers,
"formulate and implement the plans, policies and terminated the teller of the same branch . . . . Likewise, on Department Managers do not possess the power to lay
marketing strategies of the branch towards the successful February 22, 1989, Mr. Francis D. Robite, Sr., the Officer- down policies nor to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall,
discharge, assign or discipline employees. They occupy Corporation v. Sanchez, 28 thus: ". . . if these managerial Republic Planters Bank are ineligible to join or assist
supervisory positions, charged with the duty among others employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, petitioner National Association of Trade Unions (NATU)-
to "recommend proposals to improve and streamline the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union Republic Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter, or join,
operations." 22 With respect to Assistant Managers, there in view of evident conflict of interests. The Union can also assist or form any other labor organization.
is absolutely no evidence submitted to substantiate public become company-dominated with the presence of
respondent's finding that they are managerial employees; managerial employees in Union membership." Stated SO ORDERED.
understandably so, because this position is not included in differently, in the collective bargaining process, managerial
the appeal of respondent Bank. employees are supposed to be on the side of the Davide, Jr., Quiason and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
employer, to act as its representatives, and to see to it that
As regards the other claim of respondent Bank that Branch its interests are well protected. The employer is not
Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers are confidential assured of such protection if these employees themselves
employees, having control, custody and/or access to are union members. Collective bargaining in such a
confidential matters, e.g., the branch's cash position, situation can become one-sided. 29 It is the same reason
statements of financial condition, vault combination, cash that impelled this Court to consider the position of
codes for telegraphic transfers, demand drafts and other confidential employees as included in the disqualification
negotiable instruments, 23 pursuant to Sec. 1166.4 of the found in Art. 245 as if the disqualification of confidential Separate Opinions
Central Bank Manual regarding joint custody, 24 this claim employees were written in the provision. If confidential
is not even disputed by petitioner. A confidential employee employees could unionize in order to bargain for
is one entrusted with confidence on delicate matters, or advantages for themselves, then they could be governed
with the custody, handling, or care and protection of the by their own motives rather than the interest of the PADILLA, J., concurring and dissenting:
employer's property. 25 While Art. 245 of the Labor Code employers. Moreover, unionization of confidential
singles out managerial employees as ineligible to join, employees for the purpose of collective bargaining would I concur in the majority opinion's conclusion that
assist or form any labor organization, under the doctrine of mean the extension of the law to persons or individuals respondent Bank's Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers and
necessary implication, confidential employees are similarly who are supposed to act "in the interest of" the employers. Controllers, being confidential employees of the Bank, are
disqualified. This doctrine states that what is implied in a 30 It is not farfetched that in the course of collective disqualified from joining or assisting petitioner labor union
statute is as much a part thereof as that which is bargaining, they might jeopardize that interest which they or joining, assisting or forming any other labor
expressed, as elucidated in several cases 26 the latest of are duty-bound to protect. Along the same line of organization, including a supervisor's union.
which is Chua v. Civil Service Commission 27 where we reasoning we held in Golden Farms, Inc. v. Ferrer-Calleja
said: 31 reiterated in Philips Industrial Development, Inc. v. However, I dissent from its conclusion that respondent
NLRC, 32 that "confidential employees such as accounting Bank's Department Managers and Department Assistant
No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details personnel, radio and telegraph operators who, having Managers are not disqualified from joining a labor union
involved in its application. There is always an omission that access to confidential information, may become the source including a supervisors' union. My years of experience in
may not meet a particular situation. What is thought, at the of undue advantage. Said employee(s) may act as spy or the banking industry (perhaps irrelevant to this case) have
time of enactment, to be an all-embracing legislation may spies of either party to a collective bargaining agreement." shown that positions of such Department Heads
be inadequate to provide for the unfolding events of the (Managers) are as confidential, if not more, than the
future. So-called gaps in the law develop as the law is In fine, only the Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers and position of Branch Managers. In fact, most of such
enforced. One of the rules of statutory construction used to Controllers of respondent Bank, being confidential Department Heads are Vice-Presidents of the Bank, which
fill in the gap is the doctrine of necessary implication . . . . employees, are disqualified from joining or assisting underscores their status both as managerial employees
Every statute is understood, by implication, to contain all petitioner Union, or joining, assisting or forming any other and confidential personnel of the Bank. It would be
such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its labor organization. But this ruling should be understood to incongruous for a Department Manager who, as already
object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, apply only to the present case based on the evidence of stated, is usually a Vice-President, to be a member of the
privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such the parties, as well as to those similarly situated. It should same labor organization as his messenger or supervisory
collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly not be understood in any way to apply to banks in general. account executives. It would be even more untenable and
and logically inferred from its terms. Ex necessitate dangerous for a Department Manager who usually is a
legis . . . . WHEREFORE, the petition is partially GRANTED. The Vice-President, being a member of a labor union, to be
decision of public respondent Secretary of Labor dated 23 designated a union representative for purposes of
In applying the doctrine of necessary implication, we took March 1990 and his order dated 20 April 1990 are collective bargaining with the management of which he is a
into consideration the rationale behind the disqualification MODIFIED, hereby declaring that only the Branch part. I think the public respondent is correct in disqualifying
of managerial employees expressed in Bulletin Publishing Managers/OICs, Cashiers and Controllers of respondent
from membership in a labor union of supervisors, those #Footnotes 21 Records, pp. 112-115.
who are Department Managers and Assistant Managers.
1 Rollo, p. 33. 22 Rollo, p. 170.
I, therefore, vote for the affirmance in toto of public
respondent's decision of 23 March 1990 and order of 20 2 Id., p. 28. 23 Records, pp. 120-121.
April 1990.
3 Id., pp. 18-19. 24 Id., p. 265.
4 Id., pp. 103-106. 25 See Panday v. NLRC, G.R. No. 67664, 20 May 1992,
# Separate Opinions 209 SCRA 122.
5 Id., pp. 112-113.
26 In re Dick, 38 Phil. 41 [1918]; City of Manila v. Gomez,
6 Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation v. No. L-37251, 31 August 1981, 107 SCRA 98; Escribano v.
PADILLA, J., concurring and dissenting: Laguesma, G.R. No. 101730, 17 June 1993, 223 SCRA Avila, No. L-30375, 12 September 1978, 85 SCRA 245;
452. Go Chico v. Martinez, 45 Phil. 256 [1923]; Gatchalian v.
I concur in the majority opinion's conclusion that COMELEC, No. L-32560, 22 October 1970, 35 SCRA 435;
respondent Bank's Branch Managers/OICs, Cashiers and 7 Decision of public respondent Secretary of Labor People v. Uy Jui Pio, 102 Phil. 679 [1957]; People v.
Controllers, being confidential employees of the Bank, are promulgated 23 March 1990, Annex "B," Petition; Rollo, Aquino, 83 Phil. 614 [1949].
disqualified from joining or assisting petitioner labor union pp. 24-26.
or joining, assisting or forming any other labor 27 G.R. No. 88979, 7 February 1992, 206 SCRA 65, and
organization, including a supervisor's union. 8 Records, p. 111. cited cases therein.
However, I dissent from its conclusion that respondent 9 Id., p. 94. 28 G.R. No. 74425, 7 October 1986, 144 SCRA 628, 635.
Bank's Department Managers and Department Assistant
Managers are not disqualified from joining a labor union 10 Id., pp. 91-92. 29 Alcantara, Samson S., Philippine Labor and Social
including a supervisors' union. My years of experience in Legislation Annotated, 1991 Ed., p. 455.
the banking industry (perhaps irrelevant to this case) have 11 Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines v. Trajano,
shown that positions of such Department Heads G.R. No. 75039, 28 January 1988, 157 SCRA 416. 30 Pascual, Crisolito, Labor Relations Law, 1986 ed., p.
(Managers) are as confidential, if not more, than the 159.
position of Branch Managers. In fact, most of such 12 Southern Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL) v.
Department Heads are Vice-Presidents of the Bank, which Calleja, G.R. No. 80882, 24 April 1989, 172 SCRA 676. 31 G.R. No. 78755, 19 July 1989, 175 SCRA 471.
underscores their status both as managerial employees
and confidential personnel of the Bank. It would be 13 See Batongbacal v. Associated Bank, G.R. No. 72977, 32 G.R. No. 88957, 25 June 1992, 210 SCRA 339.
incongruous for a Department Manager who, as already 21 December 1988, 168 SCRA 600.
stated, is usually a Vice-President, to be a member of the
same labor organization as his messenger or supervisory 14 Records, pp. 249-250. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
account executives. It would be even more untenable and
dangerous for a Department Manager who usually is a 15 Rollo, pp. 201-203.
Vice-President, being a member of a labor union, to be Republic of the Philippines
designated a union representative for purposes of 16 Id., pp. 204-205. SUPREME COURT
collective bargaining with the management of which he is a Manila
part. I think the public respondent is correct in disqualifying 17 Id., pp. 206-207.
from membership in a labor union of supervisors, those THIRD DIVISION
who are Department Managers and Assistant Managers. 18 Id., p. 208.
G.R. No. 96663 August 10, 1999
I, therefore, vote for the affirmance in toto of public 19 Records, pp. 239-240.
respondent's decision of 23 March 1990 and order of 20 PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,
April 1990. 20 Id., pp. 233-238. vs.
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR, MED-ARBITER UOEF and docketed as Case No. 725-90, on the grounds In its Comment dated March 19, 1991, the Federation
NAPOLEON V. FERNANDO & PEPSI-COLA that (a) the members of the Union were managers and (b) argued that:
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION-UOEF, a supervisors' union can not affiliate with a federation
respondents, whose members include the rank and file union of the The pertinent portion of Article 245 of the Labor Code
same company. states that. "Supervisory employees shall not be eligible
----------------------------- for membership in a labor organization of the rank and file
On August 29, 1990, PEPSI presented a motion to re-open employees but may join, assist or form separate labor
G.R. No. 103300 August 10, 1999 the case since it was not furnished with a copy of the organization of their own.
Petition for Certification Election.
PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, petitioner, This provision of law does not prohibit a local union
vs. On September 4, 1990, PEPSI submitted its position paper composed of supervisory employees from being affiliated
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF to the BLR in Case No. 725-90. to a federation which has local unions with rank-and-file
LABOR AND HON. CELENIO N. DAING, in his capacity as members as affiliates.
Med-Arbiter Labor Regional Office No. X, Cagayan de Oro On September 21, 1990, PEPSI received summons to
City, CAGAYAN DE ORO PEPSI COLA SUPERVISORS appear at the pre-trial conference set on September 25, xxx xxx xxx
UNION (UOEF), respondents. 1990 but which the hearing officer rescheduled on October
21, 1990.1âwphi1.nêt . . . the Petition to Cancel, Revoke or Set Aside the Charter
PURISIMA, J.: Certificate of the private respondent is anchored on the
On October 12, 1990, PEPSI filed a Notice of Appeal and alleged ground that certain managerial employees are
These are petitions for certiorari relating to three (3) cases Memorandum of Appeal with the Secretary of Labor, included as members thereof. The grounds for the
filed with the Med-Arbiter, to wit: MED ARB ROX Case No. questioning the setting of the certification election on the cancellation of the registration certificate of a labor
R100-9101-RU-002 for Certification Election filed by Pepsi said date and five (5) days after. It also presented an organization are provided in Section 7 of Rule II, Book V of
Cola Supervisors Union-UOEF (Union), MED ARB Case urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Suspend the Certification the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, and the
No. R1000-9102-RU-008, Re: Petition to Set Aside, Election, which motion was granted on October 18, 1990. inclusion of managerial employees is not one of the
Cancel and/or Revoke the Charter Affiliation of the Union, grounds. . . . (in this case, the private respondent herein)
and MED-ARB ROX Case No. R1000-9104-RU-012, for On November 12, 1990, the Secretary of Labor denied the remains to be a legitimate labor organization.1
Cancellation of Registration Certificate No. 11492-LC in appeal and Motion for Reconsideration. Even as the
favor of the Union. Petition to Cancel, Revoke and Suspend Union Charter On April 8, 1991, the Secretary of Labor and Employment,
Certificate was pending before the BLR, PEPSI found its through the Office of the Solicitor General, sent in a
G. R. No. 96663 way to this Court via the present petition for certiorari. Comment, alleging inter alia, that:
The facts that matter can be culled as follows: On February 6, 1991, the Court granted the prayer for . . . under Article 259 of the New Labor Code, only orders
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. of the Med-Arbiter can be appealed through the Secretary
Sometime in June 1990, the Pepsi-Cola Employees of Labor and only on the ground that the rules and
Organization-UOEF (Union) filed a petition for certification The pivot of inquiry here is: whether or not a supervisors' regulations for the conduct of the certification election have
election with the Med-Arbiter seeking to be the exclusive union can affiliate with the same Federation of which two been violated. The Order of the Representation Officer is
bargaining agent of supervisors of Pepsi-Cola Philippines, (2) rank and file unions are likewise members, without "interlocutory" and not appealable. . . .
Inc. (PEPSI). violating Article 245 of the Labor Code (PD 442), as
amended, by Republic Act 6715, which provides: . . . until and unless there is a final order cancelling its
On July 12, 1990, the Med-Arbiter granted the Petition, certificate of registration or charter certificate, a labor
with the explicit statement that it was an affiliate of Union Art. 245. Ineligibility of managerial employees to join any organization remains to be a legitimate labor organization
de Obreros Estivadores de Filipinas (federation) together labor organization; right of supervisory employees. — entitled to exercised all the rights and duties accorded to it
with two (2) rank and file unions. Pepsi-Cola Labor Unity Managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or by the Labor Code including the right to be certified as a
(PCLU) and Pepsi-Cola Employees Union of the form any labor organization. Supervisory employees shall bargaining representative. . . .
Philippines (PEUP). not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of
the rank-and-file employees but may join, assist or form . . . Public respondent cannot be deemed to have
On July 23, 1990, PEPSI filed with the Bureau of Labor separate labor organizations of their own. committed grave abuse of discretion with respect to an
Relations a petition to Set Aside, Cancel and/or Revoke issue that was never presented before it for resolution. . . .
Charter Affiliation of the Union, entitled PCPPI v. PCEU-
Art. 245 of the New Labor Code does not preclude the The respondent supervisory union could do indirectly what On December 9, 1991, the Court resolved to DISMISS the
supervisor's union and the rank-and-file union from being it could not do directly as the simple expedient of affiliating case for "failure to sufficiently show that the questioned
affiliated with the same federation. with UOEF would negate the manifest intent and letter of judgment is tainted with grave abuse of discretion."
the law that supervisory employees can only "join, assist or
xxx xxx xxx form separate labor organizations of their own" and cannot In a Resolution dated March 2, 1992, the Second Division
"be eligible for membership in a labor organization of the of the Court resolved to grant the motion for
A federation of local union is not the labor organization rank and file employees."4 reconsideration interposed on January 28, 1992.
referred to in Article 245 but only becomes entitled to all
the rights enjoyed by the labor organization (at the On August 6, 1991, the Secretary of Labor and G. R. No. 103300
company level) when it has complied with the registration Employment filed a Rejoinder, claiming thus:
requirements found in Articles 234 and 237. Hence, what What are assailed in this case is Med-Arbiter Order dated
is prohibited by Article 245 is membership of supervisory . . . an employer has no legal standing to question the May 23, 1991 and the Decision and Order of the Secretary
employees in a labor union (at the company level) of the validity of a certification election. of Labor and Employment, dated October 4, 1991 and
rank and file. . . . December 12, 1991, respectively.
. . . For this reason, the Supreme Court has consistently
. . . In other words, the affiliation of the supervisory held that, as a rule, a certification election is the sole and The decretal portion of the Med-Arbiter Order under attack,
employee's union with the same federation with which the exclusive concern of the employees and that the employer reads:
rank and file employees union is affiliated did not make the is definitely an intruder or a mere bystander (Consolidated
supervisory employees members of the rank and file Farms vs. Noriel, L-47752, July 31, 1978, 84 SCRA 469; WHEREFORE, premises considered, an order is hereby
employee's union and vice versa.2 . . . Filipino Metals Corporation vs. Ople, L-43861, September issued:
4, 1981, 107 SCRA 211; Trade Unions of the Philippines
PEPSI, in its Reply dated May 7, 1991, asserted: and Allied Services (TUPAS) vs. Trajano No. L-61153, 1. Dismissing MED ARB ROX CASE NO. R1000-919104-
January 17, 1983, 120 SCRA 64]. RU-012 and R1000-9102-RU-008 for lack of merit; and
It is our humble contention that a final determination of the
Petition to Set-Aside, Cancel, Revoke Charter Union xxx xxx xxx 2. Ordering the conduct of a Certification Election to be
Affiliation should first be disposed of before granting the participated by and among the supervisory workers of the
Petition for the Conduct of Certification Election. To allow In Adamson & Adamson, Inc. vs. CIR No. L-35120, respondent company, Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines,
the conduct of the certification election to proceed would January 31, 1984, 127 SCRA 268, the Supreme Court Inc. at its plant at Tin-ao, Cagayan de Oro City, including
make any decision arrived at by the Bureau of Labor (then dealing with the interpretation of Section 3 of the all the satellite warehouse within the territorial coverage
Relations useless inasmuch as the same would Industrial Peace Act, from which Section 245 of the Labor and control of the Cagayan de Oro Pepsi-Cola Plant. The
necessarily be rendered moot and academic.3 Code was derived) grappled with the issue in the case at choices are as follows:
bar. It held that,
On June 7, 1991, petitioner again filed a Supplemental 1. Cagayan de Oro Pepsi-Cola Supervisors Union
Reply stressing: There is nothing in the provisions of the Industrial Peace (U.O.E.P.)
Act which provides that a duly registered local union
It is likewise stressed that officials of both the PCLU and affiliating with a national union or federation loses its legal 2. No union.
PEUP are top ranking officers of UOEF, the federation of personality, or its independence.
supervisors' union, to wit: The parties are directed to attend a pre-election
xxx xxx xxx conference on June 10, 1991, 2:30 p.m. at the Regional
POSITION IN RANK AND FILE POSITION IN Office to determine the qualification of the voters and to
FEDERATION UNION However, there is absolutely nothing in the Labor Code thresh out the mechanics of the election.
1. Rogelio de la Cruz PCLU-President General Vice that prohibits a federation from representing or exercising Respondent/employer is directed to submit five (5) copies
President influence over its affiliates. On the contrary, this is of the names of the rank and file workers taken from the
2. Felix Gatela PEUP-President General Treasurer precisely the reason why federations are formed and are payroll on October 1-31, 1991; alphabetically arranged
3. Carlito Epino PCLU Board Member Educational allowed by law to exist.5 (sic) indicating their names and positions and dates of
Research Director employment and to bring the aforementioned payroll
xxx xxx xxx On November 8, 1991, the Union also filed a Rejoinder. during the pre-election conference for verification
purposes.6 . . .
The supervisory employees of the Union are: RESPONDENT'S OFFICERS AND MEMBERS ARE NOT useless. Its judgment would have been impossible of
MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES; execution . . . .
POSITION PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS PROHIBITED FROM However, in the case of University of San Agustin, Inc., et
1. Felipe Valdehueza Route Manager AFFILIATING ITSELF WITH A FEDERATION ALREADY al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., the court resolved the case,
2. Gerberto Vertudazo C & C Manager AFFILIATED WITH THE RANK AND FILE UNION; ruling that "even if a case were moot and academic, a
3. Paul Mendoza Sales Service Department Manager statement of the governing principle is appropriate in the
4. Gilberto Emano, Jr. Route Manager PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE OF (SIC) resolution of dismissal for the guidance not only of the
5. Jaime Huliganga Chief Checker ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN RULING THAT THE parties but of others similarly situated. . . .10
6. Elias Edgama, Sr. Accounting Manager INSTITUTION OF A PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF
7. Romanico Ramos Route Manager UNION REGISTRATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A In Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Laguesma, 205
8. Raul Yacapin Route Manager PREJUDICIAL QUESTION TO A PETITION SCRA 121 [1992] decided by the Third Division with J.
9. Jovenal Albaque Route Manager CERTIFICATION ELECTION.8 Gutierrez, Jr., as ponente and JJ. Feliciano, Bidin, Romero
10. Fulvio Narciso Route Manager and now Chief Justice Davide, Jr., as members it was
11. Apolinario Opiniano Route Manager The petitions must fail for want of merit. ratiocinated:
12. Alfredo Panas Route Manager
13. Simplicio Nelie Route Manager At the outset, it must be stressed that on September 1, xxx xxx xxx
14. Arthur Rodriguez Route Manager 1992, there was a Resolution of the Union withdrawing
15. Marco Ilano Warehouse Operations Manager and from the Federation, to wit: Thus, if the intent of the law is to avoid a situation where
16. Deodoro Ramos Maintenance Manager supervisors would merge with the rank-and-file or where
On June 6, 1991, PEPSI appealed the said Order to the BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby RESOLVED, that this the supervisors' labor organization would represent
Secretary of Labor and Employment on the ground of UNION WITHDRAW, as it hereby WITHDRAWS its conflicting interests, then a local supervisors' union should
grave abuse of discretion, docketed as Case No. OS-A- affiliation from the Union de Obreros Estivadores de not be allowed to affiliate with the national federation of
232-91. Filipinas, and at the same time, give our thanks to the said union of rank-and-file employees where that federation
federation for its help and guidance rendered to this Union actively participates in union activity in the company.
On October 4, 1991, the Secretary modified the appealed in the past.9
decision, ruling thus: xxx xxx xxx
The issue in G.R. No. 96663, whether or not the
WHEREFORE, the Order of the Med-Arbiter dated 23 May supervisors union can be affiliated with a Federation with The prohibition against a supervisors' union joining a local
1991 is hereby modified to the effect that MED ARB ROX two (2) rank and file unions directly under the supervision union of rank and file is replete with jurisprudence. The
Case No. R1000-9104-RU-012 and R1000-9102-RU-008 of the former, has thus become moot and academic in Court emphasizes that the limitation is not confined to a
are hereby referred to the Office of the Regional Director view of the Union's withdrawal from the federation. case of supervisors' wanting to join a rank-and-file union.
which has jurisdiction over these cases. The call for The prohibition extends to a supervisors' local union
certification election among the supervisory workers of the In a long line of cases (Narciso Nakpil, et. al., vs. Hon. applying for membership in a national federation the
Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines, Inc. at its plant at Tin-ao, Crisanto Aragon, et. al., G.R. No. L-24087, January 22, members of which include local unions of rank and file
Cagayan de Oro City is hereby sustained.7 1980, 95 SCRA 85; Toribio v. Bidin, et. al., G.R. No. L- employees. The intent of the law is clear especially where,
37960, February 28, 1980, 96 SCRA 361; Gumaua v. as in this case at bar, the supervisors will be co-mingling
On October 19, 1991, PEPSI presented a motion for Espino, G.R. No. L-36188 — 37586 February 29, 1980, 96 with those employees whom they directly supervise in their
reconsideration of the aforesaid Order but the same was SCRA 402), the Court dismissed the petition for being own bargaining unit.
denied on December 12, 1991. moot and academic. In the case of F. C. Fisher v. Yangco
Steamship Co., March 31, 1915, the Court held: Anent the issue of whether or not the Petition to
Meanwhile, the BLR issued Registration Certificate No. cancel/revoke registration is a prejudicial question to the
11492-LC in favor of the Union. Dissatisfied therewith, It is unnecessary, however to indulge in academic petition for certification election, the following ruling in the
PEPSI brought the instant petition for certiorari, contending discussion of a moot question. . . . case of Association of the Court of Appeals Employees
that: (ACAE) vs. Hon. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, in her capacity as
. . . The action would have been dismissed at any time on Director, Bureau of Labor Relations et. Al., 203 ACRA 597,
PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE a showing of the facts as they were. The question left for 598, [1991], is in point, to wit:
OF DISCRETION IN RULING THAT PRIVATE the court was a moot one. Its Resolution would have been
. . . It is a well-settled rule that "a certification proceedings may not meet a particular situation. What is thought, at the Said employee(s) may act as spy or spies of either party to
is not a litigation in the sense that the term is ordinarily time of the enactment, to be an all embracing legislation a collective bargaining agreement.
understood, but an investigation of a non-adversarial and maybe inadequate to provide for the unfolding events of
fact finding character." (Associated Labor Unions (ALU) v. the future. So-called gaps in the law develop as the law is The Court finds merit in the submission of the OSG that
Ferrer-Calleja, 179 SCRA 127 [1989]; Philippine Telegraph enforced. One of the rules of statutory construction used to Route Managers, Chief Checkers and Warehouse
and Telephone Corporation v. NLRC, 183 SCRA 451 fill in the gap is the doctrine of necessary implication . . ., Operations Managers are supervisors while Credit &
[1990]. Thus, the technical rules of evidence do not apply if Every statute is understood, by implication, to contain all Collection Managers and Accounting Managers are highly
the decision to grant it proceeds from an examination of such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its confidential employees. Designation should be reconciled
the sufficiency of the petition as well as a careful look into object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, with the actual job description of subject employees. A
the arguments contained in the position papers and other privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such careful scrutiny of their job description indicates that they
documents. collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly don't lay down company policies. Theirs is not a final
and logically inferred from its terms. Ex necessitate legis . . determination of the company policies since they have to
At any rate, the Court applies the established rule correctly . report to their respective superior. The mere fact that an
followed by the public respondent that an order to hold a employee is designated manager does not necessarily
certification election is proper despite the pendency of the In applying the doctrine of necessary implication, we took make him one. Otherwise, there would be an absurd
petition for cancellation of the registration certificate of the into consideration the rationale behind the disqualification situation where one can be given the title just to be
respondent union. The rationale for this is that at the time of managerial employees expressed in Bulletin Publishing deprived of the right to be a member of a union. In the
the respondent union filed its petition, it still had the legal Corporation v. Sanchez, thus ". . . if these managerial case of National Steel Corporation v. Laguesma, G.R. No.
personality to perform such act absent an order directing employees would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, 103743, January 29, 1996, it was stressed that:
the cancellation. the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union
in view of evident conflict of interests. The Union can also What is essential is the nature of the employee's function
xxx xxx xxx become company — dominated with the presence of and not the nomenclature or title given to the job which
managerial employees in Union membership." Stated determines whether the employee has rank and file or
As regards the issue of whether or not confidential differently, in the collective bargaining process, managerial managerial status, or whether he is a supervisory
employees can join the labor union of the rank and file, employees are supposed to be on the side of the employee.
what was held in the case of National Association of Trade employer, to act as its representatives, and to see to it that
Unions (NATU) — Republic Planters Bank Supervisors its interest are well protected. The employer is not assured WHEREFORE, the petitions under consideration are
Chapter vs. Hon. R. D. Torres, et. al., G.R. No. 93468, of such protection if these employees themselves are DISMISSED but subject Decision, dated October 4, 1991,
December 29, 1994, applies to this case. Citing Bulletin union members. Collective bargaining in such a situation of the Secretary of Labor and Employment is MODIFIED in
Publishing Corporation vs. Sanchez, 144 SCRA 628, 635, can become one-sided. It is the same reason that impelled that Credit and Collection Managers and Accounting
Golden Farms vs. NLRC, 175 SCRA 471, and Pier 8 this Court to consider the position of confidential Managers are highly confidential employees not eligible for
Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc. vs. Hon. Nieves employees as included in the disqualification found in Art. membership in a supervisors' union. No pronouncement as
Roldan-Confessor et al., G.R. No. 110854, February 14, 245 as if the disqualification of confidential employees to costs.1âwphi1.nêt
1995, the Court ruled: were written in the provision. If confidential employees
could unionize in order to bargain for advantages for SO ORDERED.
. . . A confidential employee is one entrusted with themselves, then they could be governed by their own
confidence on delicate matters, or with the custody, motives rather than the interest of the employers. Melo, Vitug and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
handling, or care and protection of the employer's Moreover, unionization of confidential employees for the Panganiban, J., in the result.
property. While Art. 245 of the Labor Code singles out purpose of collective bargaining would mean the extension
managerial employee as ineligible to join, assist or form of the law to persons or individuals who are supposed to
any labor organization, under the doctrine of necessary act "in the interest of" the employers. It is not farfetched Footnotes
implication, confidential employees are similarly that in the course of collective bargaining, they might
disqualified. This doctrine states that what is implied in a jeopardize that interest which they are duty bound to
statute is as much a part thereof as that which is protect. Along the same line of reasoning we held in 1 Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Employees Organization —
expressed, as elucidated in several case; the latest of Golden Farms, Inc. vs. Ferrer-Calleja reiterated in Philips UOEF, Comment, pp. 4-6, Rollo, pp. 71-73.
which is Chua v. Civil Service Commission where we said: Industrial Development, Inc., NLRC, that "confidential
employees such as accounting personnel, radio and 2 Rollo, pp. 86-89, 92.
No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details telegraph operators who, having access to confidential
involved in its application. There is always an omission that information, may become the source of undue advantage. 3 Rollo, p. 104.
Program had a number of component projects: e.g., (a) the
4 Rollo, p. 110. setting up of a "Cold Rolling Mill Expansion Project"; (b) We, therefore, agree with the basic finding of the NLRC
the establishment of a "Billet Steel-Making Plant" (BSP); (and the Labor Arbiter) that the petitioners were indeed
5 Rejoinder, pp. 2, 3, 10, 14; Rollo, pp. 125, 126, 133, 137. (c) the acquisition and installation of a "Five Stand TDM"; "project employees:"
and (d) the "Cold Mill Peripherals Project." 8 Instead of
6 OSG Comment, pp. 3-4, Rollo, pp. 145-146. contracting out to an outside or independent contractor the It is well established by the facts and evidence on record
tasks of constructing the buildings with related civil and that herein 13 complainants were hired and engaged for
7 OSG Comment, p. 5, Rollo, p. 147. electrical works that would house the new machinery and specific activities or undertaking the period of which has
equipment, the installation of the newly acquired mill or been determined at time of hiring or engagement. It is of
8 Petition, pp. 8, 13, 14; Rollo, pp. 9, 14, 15. plant machinery and equipment and the commissioning of public knowledge and which this Commission can safely
such machinery and equipment, NSC opted to execute take judicial notice that the expansion program (FAYEP) of
and carry out its Five Yeear Expansion Projects "in house," respondent NSC consist of various phases [of] project
as it were, by administration. The carrying out of the Five components which are being executed or implemented
In the realm of business and industry, we note that Year Expansion Program (or more precisely, each of its independently or simultaneously from each other . . .
"project" could refer to one or the other of at least two (2) component projects) constitutes a distinct undertaking
distinguishable types of activities. Firstly, a project could identifiable from the ordinary business and activity of NSC. In other words, the employment of each "project worker" is
refer to a particular job or undertaking that is within the Each component project, of course, begins and ends at dependent and co-terminous with the completion or
regular or usual business of the employer company, but specified times, which had already been determined by the termination of the specific activity or undertaking [for
which is distinct and separate, and identifiable as such, time petitioners were engaged. We also note that NSC did which] he was hired which has been pre-determined at the
from the other undertakings of the company. Such job or the work here involved — the construction of buildings and time of engagement. Since, there is no showing that they
undertaking begins and ends at determined or civil and electrical works, installation of machinery and (13 complainants) were engaged to perform work-related
determinable times. The typical example of this first type of equipment and the commissioning of such machinery — activities to the business of respondent which is steel-
project is a particular construction job or project of a only for itself. Private respondent NSC was not in the making, there is no logical and legal sense of applying to
construction company. A construction company ordinarily business of constructing buildings and installing plant them the proviso under the second paragraph of Article
carries out two or more discrete identifiable construction machinery for the general business community, i.e., for 280 of the Labor Code, as amended.
projects: e.g., a twenty-five- storey hotel in Makati; a unrelated, third party, corporations. NSC did not hold itself
residential condominium building in Baguio City; and a out to the public as a construction company or as an xxx xxx xxx
domestic air terminal in Iloilo City. Employees who are engineering corporation.
hired for the carrying out of one of these separate projects, The present case therefore strictly falls under the definition
the scope and duration of which has been determined and Which ever type of project employment is found in a of "project employees" on paragraph one of Article 280 of
made known to the employees at the time of employment, particular case, a common basic requisite is that the the Labor Code, as amended. Moreover, it has been held
are properly treated as "project employees," and their designation of named employees as "project employees" that the length of service of a project employee is not the
services may be lawfully terminated at completion of the and their assignment to a specific project, are effected and controlling test of employment tenure but whether or not
project. implemented in good faith, and not merely as a means of "the employment has been fixed for a specific project or
evading otherwise applicable requirements of labor laws. undertaking the completion or termination of which has
The term "project" could also refer to, secondly, a been determined at the time of the engagement of the
particular job or undertaking that is not within the regular Thus, the particular component projects embraced in the employee". (See Hilario Rada v. NLRC, G.R. No. 96078,
business of the corporation. Such a job or undertaking Five Year Expansion Program, to which petitioners were January 9, 1992; and Sandoval Shipping, Inc. v. NLRC,
must also be identifiably separate and distinct from the assigned, were distinguishable from the regular or ordinary 136 SCRA 674 (1985). 9
ordinary or regular business operations of the employer. business of NSC which, of course, is the production or
The job or undertaking also begins and ends at making and marketing of steel products. During the time Petitioners next claim that their service to NSC of more
determined or determinable times. The case at bar petitioners rendered services to NSC, their work was than six (6) years should qualify them as regular
presents what appears to our mind as a typical example of limited to one or another of the specific component employees. We believe this claim is without legal basis.
this kind of "project." projects which made up the FAYEP I and II. There is The simple fact that the employment of petitioners as
nothing in the record to show that petitioners were hired project employees had gone beyond one (1) year, does
NSC undertook the ambitious Five Year Expansion for, or in fact assigned to, other purposes, e.g., for not detract from, or legally dissolve, their status as project
Program I and II with the ultimate end in view of expanding operating or maintaining the old, or previously installed employees. 10 The second paragraph of Article 280 of the
the volume and increasing the kinds of products that it may and commissioned, steel-making machinery and Labor Code, quoted above, providing that an employee
offer for sale to the public. The Five Year Expansion equipment, or for selling the finished steel products. who has served for at least one (1) year, shall be
considered a regular employee, relates to casual Sandoval Shipyards, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Daniel C. Macaraeg and Alfredo P. Arenas for petitioner.
employees, not to project employees. Commission, 136 SCRA 674 (1985).
Abelardo P. Fermin & Antonio Ruiz for respondents.
In the case of Mercado, Sr. vs. National Labor Relations 6 Articles 281-286, Labor Code, as amended.
Commission, 11 this Court ruled that the proviso in the
second paragraph of Article 280 relates only to casual 7 Fortunato Mercado, Sr., et al. v. NLRC, et al. 201 SCRA
employees and is not applicable to those who fall within 332 (1991); Philippine National Construction Corp. v. FERNANDEZ, J.:
the definition of said Article's first paragraph, i.e., project NLRC, 174 SCRA 191 (1989); Sandoval Shipping, Inc. v.
employees. The familiar grammatical rule is that a proviso NLRC, 136 SCRA 674 (1985); Ochoco v. NLRC, 120 This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the
is to be construed with reference to the immediately SCRA 774 (1983). Court of First Instance of Pangasinan at San Carlos City,
preceding part of the provision to which it is attached, and Branch X, dismissing the petition for mandamus in Civil
not to other sections thereof, unless the clear legislative 8 Petition for Certiorari, pp. 3-11; Rollo, pp. 4-12. NLRC Case No. SCC-182. 1
intent is to restrict or qualify not only the phrase Resolution of 8 January 1993, pp. 7-13; Rollo, pp. 75-81.
immediately preceding the proviso but also earlier In January 1971, Isidro G. Arenas, a City Judge of San
provisions of the statute or even the statute itself as a 9 NLRC Decision, Rollo, pp. 65-66. Carlos City (Pangasinan), instituted against the City of San
whole. No such intent is observable in Article 280 of the Carlos (Pangasinan), City Council of San Carlos City and
Labor Code, which has been quoted earlier. 10 Rada v. National Labor Relations Commission, 205 the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, City Councilors and City Treasurer
SCRA 69 (1992). of San Carlos City, a petition for mandamus in the Court of
ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for First Instance of Pangasinan.
Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The 11 201 SCRA 332 (1991).
Resolutions of the NLRC dated 8 January 1993 and 15 The petition alleged that the petitioner, Isidro G. Arenas, is
February 1993 are hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement the incumbent City Judge of San Carlos City (Pangasinan,
as to costs. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation that the respondent City of San Carlos, from the time of its
creation in 1966 up to the present, has been classified as
SO ORDERED. a third class city; that Republic Act No. 5967 which
became effective on June 21, 1969 provides that the basic
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., salaries of city judges of second and third class cities shall
Romero, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan and Republic of the Philippines be P18,000.00 per annum; that the petitioner was then
Mendoza, JJ., concur. SUPREME COURT actually receiving a monthly salary of P1,000.00 of which
Manila P350.00 was the share of the national government and
Bellosillo, J., is on leave. P650.00 is the share of the city government, which salary
FIRST DIVISION was P500.00 below the basic monthly salary of a City
Judge of a third class city; that under Republic Act No.
G.R. No. L-34024 April 5, 1978 5967, the difference between the salary actually being
#Footnotes received by a City Judge and the basic salary established
ISIDRO G. ARENAS, petitioner, in said act shall be paid by the city government; that from
1 NLRC Resolution, 8 January 1993, p. 7; Rollo, p. 75. vs. June 21, 1969 up to the filing of the petition on January 21,
CITY OF SAN CARLOS (PANGASINAN), CITY COUNCIL 1971, the petitioner was entitled to a salary differential of
2 Petition for Certiorari, 7 May 1993, pp. 3-11, Rollo, pp. 4- OF SAN CARLOS CITY, JUAN C. LOMIBAO, BENJAMIN P9,500.00 with the respondent City of San Carlos
12. POSADAS, DOUGLAS D. SORIANO, BASILIO BULATAO, (Pangasinan); that the petitioner had repeatedly requested
CATALINA B. CAGAMPAN, EUGENIO RAMOS, the respondents to enact the necessary budget and to pay
3 NLRC Decision, 7 June 1991, Rollo, pp. 48-49; FRANCISCO CANCINO, ALFREDO VINLUAN, him the said differential but the respondents, without any
underscoring and brackets supplied. MARCELO LAPEÑA, LEOPOLDO C. TULAGAN and justification, whatsoever, refused and still refuse to do the
TORIBIO PAULINO, in their official capacities as City same; that it is the clear duty of the respondent to enact
4 Petition for Certiorari, 7 May 1993, p. 15; Rollo, p. 16. Mayor, City Vice Mayor, City Councilors and City the necessary budget providing for the payment of the
Treasurer, respectively, and Honorable Presiding Judge, salary of the petitioner as provided for in Republic Act No.
5 Beta Electric Corporation v. National Labor Relations COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF SAN CARLOS CITY 5967; that petitioner has no other plain, adequate and
Commission, 182 SCRA 380 (1990); Cartagenas v. (PANGASINAN), BRANCH X, respondents. speedy remedy except the present action for mandamus;
Romago Electric Co., Inc., 177 SCRA 637 (1989); and that because of the refusal of the respondent to
comply with their obligation as provided in Republic Act For the cities of Baguio, Quezon, Pasay and other first SENATOR LAUREL. No. Mr. President, I understand the
No. 5967, the petitioner was forced to engage the services class cities, the city judge shall receive one thousand concern of the distinguished gentleman from Davao. But in
of a lawyer to file this action for which he was to pay the pesos less than that fixed for the district judge, and for this particular amendment prepared by the distinguished
sum of P2,000.00 as attorney's second and third class cities, the city judge shall receive lady from La Union, this will not require the council to pay it
fees. 2 one thousand five hundred pesos less than that fixed for at P100.00 exactly less than the salary of the mayor. It is
the district judge, and for other cities, the city judge shall just the limit — the maximum — but they may fix it at much
In their answer dated February 10, 1971, the respondents receive two thousand pesos less than that fixed for the less than that. That is why the words "at least" were
admitted and denied the allegations in the petition and district judge: Provided, however, That the salary of a city suggested by the Committee. It need not be exactly just
alleged that Republic Act No. 5967 further provides, judge shall be at least one hundred pesos per month less P100.00 less. It may be P500.00 less.
among other things, that the salary of the city judge shall than that of the city mayor.
at least be one hundred pesos per month less than that of SENATOR ALMENDRAS. Your Honor, take for example
a city mayor; that the city judge receives an annual salary The petitioner contends that "... if the last proviso of said the cities of Iloilo, Cebu, Bacolod or Manila for that matter.
of P12,000.00 which is P100.00 per month less than the Section 7 of Republic Act No. 5967 would be interpreted The Mayors are receiving at least P1,500 a month. Now,
salary being received by the city mayor which is as the controlling measure for fixing the salary of the city under the amendment of the lady from La Union, Nueva
P13,200.00 yearly; that assuming the existence of a salary judges, then the principal provision of Section 7 fixing the Ecija and
difference, in view of the provision of Republic Act No. salaries of City Judges at rate very much higher than that Davao — which has already been accepted by the
5967, that the payment of the salary difference shall be of a City Mayor (particularly in the case of second and third sponsor — does it mean that if the salary of the city mayor
subject to the implementation of the respective city class cities) would be rendered totally useless." The is P1,500, the city judges will receive P1,400?
government, which is discretionary on the part of the city petitioner submitted "that since the principal intention of
government as to whether it would or would not implement the legislature in enacting Section 7 of Republic Act 5967 xxx xxx xxx
the payment of the salary difference, and in view of the is to increase the salary of the city judges, then the last
financial difficulties of the city which has a big overdraft, proviso of said Section 7 should give way to the provisions SENATOR ANTONINO — I would like to call his attention
the payment of the salary difference of the city judge of said section preceding said proviso." to lines 13 to 20. We presented this amendment because it
cannot be made; and that the petitioner should pay his says here: "For the cities of Baguio, Quezon, Pasay and
lawyer and should not charge the attorney's fees to the The record shows that when Republic Act No. 5967 took other first class cities, the city judge shall receive one
respondents who have not violated any rights of the effect on June 21, 1969, San Carlos City (Pangasinan) thousand pesos less than that fixed for the district judge".
petitioner. 3 was a third class city; that the petitioner as city judge So it will happen, and my attention was called by the
received an annual salary of P12,000.00; and that the city gentlemen from Iloilo — that the city judge win be receiving
The Court of First Instance of San Carlos City mayor of San Carlos City received an annual salary of more salary than the city mayor. Hence the amendment,
(Pangasinan), Branch X, rendered its decision dated May P13,200.00 which was exactly P100.00 a month more than Mr. President.
31, 1971 dismissing the petition, without pronouncement the salary of the city judge.
as to costs. xxx xxx xxx
During the deliberation in the Senate on House Bill No.
The pertinent portion of Section 7, Republic Act No. 5967 17046, which became Republic Act No. 5967, the following I conferred with the gentlemen from Iloilo and Batangas,
reads: discussion took place: and this was their objection. We have proposed this
amendment to at least solve this problem, so that no city
Sec. 7. Unless the City Charter or any special law SENATOR GANZON — Because with the bill as drafted, I judge will be receiving more than the city mayor. So they
provides higher salary, the city judge in chartered cities recall that there will be some cities where the city judges will be receiving less than what is proposed in this Bill.
shall receive a basic salary which shall not be lower than will receive salaries higher than those of the mayors. And (Vol. IV, No. 61, Senate Congressional Records, pages
the sums as provided thereinbelow: in all charters, Your Honor, the city judge is considered a 2773-2787. (Emphasis supplied .) 4
department head — theoretically, at least, under the
xxx xxx xxx mayor. It would not be fair for the purposes of public It is clear from the deliberation of the Senate that the
administration that a city department head should receive intention of Congress in enacting Republic Act No. 5967
(c) For second and third class cities, eighteen thousand a salary higher than that of the chief executive of the city. was that the salary of a city judge should not be higher
pesos per annum; than the salary of the city mayor. The saving clause
SENATOR LAUREL. That point is very well taken, and I "Provided, however, That the salary of a city judge shall be
xxx xxx xxx would like to congratulate Your Honor. at least P100.00 per month less than that of the city
mayor" qualifies the earlier provision which fixes the salary
of city judges for second and third class cities at MARCIAL F. SAMSON, City Mayor of Caloocan City, THE On January 11, 1972, City Mayor Marcial F. Samson, who
P18,000.00 per annum. CITY TREASURER, THE CITY AUDITOR, both of succeeded City Mayor Macario Asistio, furnished private
Caloocan City, and HERMOGENES LIWAG, petitioners, respondent herein with the questioned Administrative
The primary purpose of a proviso is to limit the general vs. Order No. 3, which is hereunder reproduced:
language of a statute. When there is irreconcilable THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, CFI-RIZAL
repugnancy between the proviso and the body of the and FELICIANO C. TALENS, respondents. TO: Mr. Feliciano C. Talens
statute the former is given precedence over the latter on
the ground that it is the latest expression of the intent of Hermenegildo V. Lopez and Amado B. Cresini, Jr. for Assistant Secretary to the Mayor
the legislature. petitioners.
Caloocan City
Inasmuch as the city mayor of San Carlos City Dominador G. Magno for private respondent.
(Pangasinan) was receiving an annual salary of Pursuant to the provision of Sec. 5 (f) of R.A. No.2260,
P13,200.00, the respondents cannot be compelled to otherwise known as the Civil Service Act of 1959, as
provide for an annual salary of P18,000.00 for the amended, making the positions of Secretaries of City
petitioner as city judge of the said city. ALAMPAY, J.: Mayors, among others, non-competitive, and it being the
inherent nature of your position to be primarily and highly
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby dismissed The sole issue to be resolved in this case is the legality of confidential, you are hereby informed and advised that
and the decision appealed from is affirmed, without Administrative Order No. 3, issued on January 10, 1972, effective the closing hours of January 10, 1972, your
pronouncement as to cost. by the then mayor Marcial F. Samson, of Caloocan City, services as Assistant Secretary to the Mayor are hereby
one of the petitioners herein, whereby petitioner mayor TERMINATED for lack and loss of confidence.
SO ORDERED. summarily terminated the services of the private
respondent, Feliciano C. Talens, who held the position of You are therefore directed to turnover all official
Teehankee, (Chairman) Makasiar, Muñoz Palma and Assistant Secretary to the Mayor, on the ground of "lack documents, papers and all other government records to
Guerrero, JJ., concur. and loss of confidence" and appointing in place of the Atty. Casiano P. Anunciacion, Jr.
latter Hermogenes Liwag, a co-petitioner in this case.
Cited in support of the challenged administrative order is (SGD.) MARCIAL F. SAMSON City Mayor (Rollo, p. 20)
section 5(f) of Republic Act No. 2260, otherwise known as
Footnotes the Civil Service Act of 1959, as amended. The above- Private respondent acknowledging receipt of said order
cited provision declares the position of secretaries to city demurred on the ground Sec. 5(f) of the Civil Service Law,
1 Annex "A" of the Petition, Rollo, pp. 21-24. mayors non-competitive and this was interpreted by herein which specifies as non-competitive only the positions of
petitioner Mayor as to include the position of Assistant "secretaries of provincial city and municipal boards and
2 Annex "B" to the Petition, Rollo, pp. 25-30. Secretary to the Mayor. councils." He asked that the administrative order be
recalled as he was permanently appointed to a classified
3 Annex "C" to the Petition, Rollo, pp. 31-32. In a resolution dated October 29, 1982, this Court granted position in the city government and that in accordance with
the motion of the widow of private respondent to substitute Section 32 of the Civil hat his position as Assistant
4 Answer, Rollo, pp. 41-42. the heirs of private respondent Feliciano C. Talens in place Secretary to the Mayor was not covered by Sec. Service
of respondent, in view of the latter's death on August 28, Law, he can be removed only for cause and after due
1982. process has been observed.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
There is no dispute as to the factual antecedents of this On January 17, 1972, petitioner Mayor, in a letter-reply
case. Private respondent Feliciano C. Talens, a civil sent to private respondent, declined to recall
Republic of the Philippines service eligible, was appointed on March 16, 1970 by then Administrative Order No. 3, reiterating the reasons set
SUPREME COURT City Mayor Macario Asistio of Caloocan City, as Assistant forth in the order. Consequently, a petition for certiorari,
Manila Secretary to the Mayor. His appointment was attested to prohibition, mandamus and quo warranto was filed with the
as a permanent one under Section 24(b) of Republic Act then Court of First Instance of Caloocan City on January
SECOND DIVISION No. 2260, as amended by the Commissioner of Civil 21, 1972 by the private respondent in order to annul the
Service. He performed the duties of Assistant Secretary to disputed administrative order, to enjoin the petitioner
G.R. No. L-43182 November 25, 1986 the Mayor and even twice received increases in salary. mayor, treasurer and auditor from enforcing the same, and
to compel all the said public officials to pay to private
respondent the salaries and emoluments due to him as comprised within the general term "secretaries" as such position is policy-detrermining, primarily confidential
Assistant Secretary to the Mayor. He also sought the, provided for in Section 5(f). or higly technical. It is the nature of the position which
ouster from the disputed position of Hermogenes Liwag, finally determines a position to be primarily confidential
one of the petitioners herein, who was appointed by Mayor We are not persuaded and find unacceptable such (Leon A. Pinero, et al. vs. Rufino Hechanova, et al., 18
Samson as Assistant Secretary to the Mayor, in place of submission of the herein petitioners. As may be noted, the SCRA 421). Stated differently, it is not the powers and
private respondent. general purpose of the Civil Service Law (Republic Act No. duties exercised and discharged by the Assistant
2260) is "to insure and promote the consitutional mandate Secretary to the Mayor as may be delegated and assigned
The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the plaintiff regarding appointment only according to merit and fitness, by the Mayor that makes the position of Assistant
Feliciano C. Talens, by declaring Administrative Order No. and to provide within the public service a progressive Secretary primarily confidential. While duties possibly
3 null and void, and granting all the aforestated reliefs system of personal administration to insure the involving confidential matters are sometimes handled by
claimed by Feliciano C. Talens. On Appeal of the siad maintenance of an honest and efficient progressive and the Assistant Secretary to the Mayor, this does not
judgment to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the trial courteous civil service in the Philippines." (Section 2, R.A. necessarily transform the nature of the position itself as
court was affirmed. Hence the petition. 2260). one that is primarily and highly confidential.
According to petitioners, the only issue which this Court As a general rule, position in all branches, subdivisions It should be stressed that the position of Secretary to the
has to resolve is the legality of the termination private and instrumentalities of the governmentalities of the Mayor and that of Assistant Secretary to the Mayor are two
respondent Talens' services as assistant secretary to the government, including those in government owned or separate and distinct positions. While both individuals may
Mayor of Caloocan City (Petitioners' Brief, p. 4). controlled corporations, belong to the competitive service. be called "secretary," nevertheless, one is certainly of a
The only exceptions are those expressly declared by law higher category and rank than the other with the added
Petitioners' contention is that the termination of private to be in the non-competitive service and those which are distinction that a Secretary must enjoy the confidence of
respondent's services is authorized by Section 5(f) of policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly technical the Mayor. However, the position of Assistant Secretary
Republic Act No. 2260, as amended by Republic Act No. in nature. (Section 3, R.A. 2260, as amended by R.A. No. being of a lower rank, need not carry the requisites
6040 which declares the position of Secretaries of City 6040). attaching to the primarily confidential position of the actual
Mayors as belonging to the non-competitive service. Secretary to the Mayor.
Petitioners further aver that termination of the services of Under the rules of statutory construction, exceptions, as a
private respondent Talens is justified by the fact that the general rule, should be strictly, but reasonably construed; Moreover, if it was the intention of Congress to include the
disputed position of Assistant Secretary to the Mayor is they extend only so far as their language fairly warrants, Assistant Secretaries within the purview of Section 5(f) of
inherently and primarily highly confidential in nature. and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general R.A. No. 2260, as amended, so that Assistant Secretaries
provisions rather than the exception. Where a general rule are also embraced in the non-competitive service, the law
is established by statute with exceptions, the court will not could have been easily worded "secretaries and their
curtail the former nor add to the latter by implication ... assistance."
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2260, as amended by (Francisco, Statutory Construction, p. 304, citing 69 C.J.,
Republic Act No. 6040 provides that "That non-competitive Section 643, pp. 1092-1093, emphasis supplied). Petitioners also contend that an assistant secretary is also
service shall be composed of positions expressly declared a secretary and thus included in the general term
by law to be in the non-competitive service and those Where a statute enumerates the subjects or things on "secretaries as provided for in Section 5(f) in the above-
which are policy-determining, primarily confidential or which it is to operate, it is to be construed as excluding quoted provision. From this premise, the conclusion drawn
highly technical in nature" and continues with an from its effects all those not expressly mentioned (Martin, by petitioners is that the position of Assistant Secretary to
enumeration of specific officers and employees embraced Statutory Construction, 1979 ed., p. 71 citing Dave's Place the Mayor should be considered as in the non-competitive
within the scope of non-competitive service. Among those vs. Liquor Control Comm., 269 N.W., p, 504). service and that the tenure of assistant secretary lasts only
included in the enumeration are heads of departments as long as the Mayor's confidence in him remains.
created in charters of cities and secretaries of provincial The exceptions provided for in Section 5 of Republic Act Petitioners' submission is that the assistant secretary is no
governors, city mayors and municipal mayors. No. 2260, as amended should be, therefore, strictly less a secretary to the mayor.
construed. It follows then that on this general governing
Although the position of assistant secretary to the city principle, the position of assistant secretary to the City We are not disposed to agree with petitioners. What
mayor is not among those expressly declared in Section 5 Mayor of Caloocan City should be considered as petitioners fail to consider is that an "assistant secretary,"
of Republic Act No. 2260, as amended, to be within the belonging to the non-competitive service. although described as secretary, technically differs in
non-competitive service, petitioners, however, argue that function from the "Secretaries." An "assistant" merely
an assistant secretary is also a secretary, and thus The parties are agreed that the nature of the functions helps, aids or serves in a subordinate capacity to the
attaching to officer position ultimately determines whether person who is actually clothed with all the duties and
responsibilities of "secretary." Needless to say, the permanent the preliminary injunction issued on October 9,
functions strictly attributable to a "secretary" and which IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, 1970, restraining respondent Judge from further
w•uld repose on such person the trust and confidence of the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of Petitioner proceeding with Civil Case No. R-11320.
the employer, is not automatically vested or transferred to Feliciano C. Talens, and against the Respondents, and
an "assistant secretary," because the latter simply assists The records of this case establish the following facts:
or aids the former in the accomplishment of his duties. 1) Declaring Administrative Order No. 3, dated January
10, 1972, of Respondent City Mayor Marcial F. Samson, On September 11, 1966, respondents Fernando
The rulings of this Court in De Los Santos vs. Mallare, 87 null and void; Buenaventura, Jose Vasquez, Adolfo Belderol and
Phil. 289 and Besa vs. PNB, 33 SCRA 330 which have Potenciano Adobes, Jr., all members of the Cebu Police
been invoked by the petitioners do not provide support to 2) Ordering Respondents, except private respondent Department, arrested and detained in the City Jail of Cebu,
petitioners' case. The aforestated cases have no parallel to Hermogenes Liwag, to pay Petitioner Feliciano C. Talens, Edgar Ocampo (petitioner's son) and Paul, Jade, Cesar
the case at bar. The case of De los Santos vs. Mallare, all the salaries and emoluments appurtenant to and due to and Julius, all surnamed Ocampo (his nephews), together
relates to a quo warranto proceeding, questioning the the latter as Assistant Secretary to the Mayor of Caloocan with one George Namok (a friend of the Ocampo boys), all
legality of the appointment of the respondent therein to the City, but for a limited period of three years. Without costs. minors, for an alleged violation of Section 1 of Ordinance
office of the City Engineer for the City of Baguio which No. 345 which amended Ordinance No. 228 fixing curfew
petitioner De los Santos was then occupying. Said position hours. This Ordinance penalizes the "wandering,
was in fact declared to be neither primarily confidential, Republic of the Philippines sauntering or loitering of minors in any street, wood or
policy-determining, nor highly technical and petitioner SUPREME COURT alley." Pursuant to said arrest, the City Fiscal of Cebu filed
therein was adjudged to be entitled to remain in office and Manila an information in the city court and the minors were
the respondent's appointment was declared ineffective. convicted for violation of the said ordinance. On appeal to
Neither would the other case of Besa vs. PNB find any FIRST DIVISION the Court of First Instance, however, Judge Tantuico, on
application to the instant case because the position therein March 3, 1969, noting the exception under Section 3 of
involved was that of Chief Legal Counsel which, by its very Ordinance 228 which provides:
nature, was rightfully ruled to be both impressed with a
highly technical aspect and confidential character. It can G.R. No. L-32293 January 24, 1974 The provisions of Section 1 hereof shall not be applicable
be readily noted that the facts and circumstances in the to minors attending or participating in, or going home from,
present case and even the principal issue involved in the ROBERTO OCAMPO, petitioner, purely scholastic functions, commencement exercises,
case at bar are distinctly different from the cases cited by vs. convocations, educational and religious programs or in
petitioners. FERNANDO BUENAVENTURA, JOSE VASQUEZ, wholesome and decent assemblage, and during yuletide
ADOLFO BELDEROL, POTENCIANO ADOBAS, JR., and masses, New Year's eve and Holy Week cults, during the
More pertinent and relevant are the pronouncements in JUDGE MATEO CANONOY, Court of First Instance of hours mentioned therein.
Ingles vs. Mutuc, 26 SCRA 177. wherein We stated: Cebu, respondents.
acquitted the accused minors, ruling that since they came
. . . . On the contrary, the compensation attached and the Rafael D. de la Victoria for petitioner. from a birthday party considered as a wholesome and
designation given thereto suggest the purely, or, at least, decent assemblage, the minors fell within the exception
mainly clerical nature of their work. The fact that they, at Seno, Mendoza and Associates for respondents. and committed no violation of the ordinance in question.
times, handle 'confidential matters' does not suffice to
characterize their 'positions' as primarily confidential. Meanwhile, petitioner Roberto Ocampo on September 19,
Indeed, it is admitted that plaintiffs, likewise, handle 'other 1966, filed a complaint with the City Mayor's office
routine matters,' and it has not even been shown that their ESGUERRA, J.:1äwphï1.ñët charging the respondents policemen with serious
work is, at least, principally confidential. misconduct, grave abuse of authority and commission of a
Petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to annul the felony. On August 8, 1967, the Mayor issued
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby order dated June 1, 1970, of respondent Judge Hon. Administrative Order No. 157 exonerating the policemen.
AFFIRMED but considering the notice of death given to Mateo Canonoy, then of Branch III, Court of First Instance On March 17, 1969, a complaint was lodged with the
this Court of the death of the herein private respondent of Cebu, denying petitioner's motion to dismiss and/or Police Commission (POLCOM) for serious misconduct,
Feliciano C. Talens, on August 28, 1982 (Rollo, p. 184), suspend the trial of its Civil Case No. R-11320, entitled abuse of authority and commission of an act constituting a
the dispositive portion of the subject decision of the trial "Fernando Buenaventura, et al. v. Roberto Ocampo", felony, which administrative case is still pending up to the
court in Civil Case No. C-2308, is hereby MODIFIED, to including the order denying his motion for reconsideration present.
now read as follows: thereof. Petitioner further prays this Court to make
On June 4, 1969, respondents herein filed a complaint for respondents before the POLCOM. The possibility cannot alone, that of jurisdiction, respondents miserably failed to
damages against petitioner. On May 22, 1970, petitioner be overlooked that the POLCOM may hand down a meet the requirements of the rule invoked. The City Mayor
filed a motion to dismiss and/or suspension of the trial of decision adverse to the respondents, in which case the of Cebu was without jurisdiction to try, hear and decide
the case on the merits on the following grounds: (1) damage suit will become unfounded and baseless for administrative cases either under Republic Act No. 557
existence of a prejudicial question and (2) that the action is wanting in cause of action. Of persuasive force is the ruling (An Act Providing For the Suspension or Removal of the
premature. This motion was denied by respondent Judge in William H. Brown vs. Bank Of the Philippine Islands and Members of the Provincial Guards, City Police and
in an order dated June 1, 1970. The petitioner's motion for Santiago Freixas, 101 Phil. 309, 312, where this Court Municipal Police by the Provincial Governor, City Mayor Or
reconsideration thereof having been also denied, the said: Municipal Mayor), or under Republic Act 4864 (An Act
instant petition was filed. Creating the Police Commission, Amending and Revising
... In effect, plaintiff herein seeks to recover damages upon the Laws Relative to the Local Police System, and For
In the meantime respondent Fernando Buenaventura died the ground that the detainer case has been filed, and is Other Purposes). In Manuel v. De la Fuente, etc., et al., 2
and he was substituted herein by his widow, Guillerma being maintained, maliciously and without justification; but this Court said: "Of course, it should not be understood
Cosca Buenaventura, and his heirs, Carlos, Cora, Eva this pretense affects the merits of said detainer case. that the City Mayor, for the purpose of determining whether
Araceli, Fernando, Jr., Rene Victor, Helen Grace, Flora Should final judgment be eventually rendered in that case he should exercise his power of suspension conferred by
Vicente, and Jose Adolfo, all surnamed "Buenaventura". in favor of the plaintiffs therein, such the one rendered in Republic Act 557, may not conduct his own investigation;
the municipal court, the validity of the cause of action said but this inquiry cannot replace the investigation that should
The main question to be resolved is whether or not the lessors against Brown, would thereby be conclusively be conducted under Republic Act No. 557 by the Municipal
court a quo abused its discretion in denying petitioner's established, and, necessarily, his contention in the present Board and which should form the basis for final
motion to dismiss and/or suspend the trial of the case on case would have to be rejected. Similarly, we can, not administrative action or decision by said Board appealable
the merits. The first ground thereof (prejudicial question) is sustain the theory of Brown in the case at bar, without to the Commissioner of Civil Service." The Court further
entirely inapplicable. In accordance with Article 36 of the prejudging the issue in the detainer case, which is still said: "... the obvious innovations introduced by Republic
Civil Code, a prejudicial question must be decided before pending: Until final determination of said case, plaintiff Act No. 557 lie in the fact that the Municipal Board had
any criminal prosecution based on the same facts may herein cannot, and does not, have, therefore, a cause of been granted the exclusive power to investigate, with the
proceed.<äre||anº•1àw> There is no prejudicial question action — if any, on which we do not express our opinion — Mayor being conferred only the power to prefer charges
here since there is no criminal prosecution involved, the against the herein defendants. In short, the lower court has against a member of the city police ...; that the Municipal
petitioner's case before the POLCOM being administrative correctly held that the present action is premature and, Board, not the Mayor, decides the case; and that the
in nature and the respondents' case before the Court of that, consequently, the complaint herein does not set for a decision may be appealed to the Commissioner of Civil
First Instance of Cebu is a simple civil suit for damages not cause of action against the defendants. Service, instead of to the Secretary of the Interior." 3
based on a crime but on alleged harassment by the (Emphasis Ours). The power to investigate and decide
petitioner in charging them administratively before the City On the ground that the suit for damages is premature, the administrative cases involving police service and
Mayor and before the POLCOM. A careful consideration of trial court, instead of denying petitioner's motion to dismiss personnel has been transferred to the POLCOM.
the record discloses that the principal issue in the and/or suspend the trial on the merits, should have held
complaint for damages is the alleged malicious filing of the action thereon in abeyance pending determination of the In the motion to dismiss filed before the Board of
administrative cases by the petitioner against the case before the POLCOM. Investigators of the Police Commission, 4 respondents
policemen respondents. The determination of this question alleged that the proceedings in the city mayor's office
is primarily dependent on the outcome of the Respondents likewise plead res judicata to defeat this cannot be attacked, invoking for the purpose Section 26 of
administrative case before the POLCOM. The action, contending that the administrative case before the the Police Commission Act, to wit:
respondents' complaint for damages is based on their POLCOM should have been dismissed as it is barred by a
claim that the administrative case filed against them before prior judgment — that embodied in the City Mayor's Section 26. Saving Clause.— All pending administrative
the POLCOM is malicious, unfounded and aimed to harass Administrative Order No. 157 — exonerating herein cases involving police service and personnel shall be
them. The veracity of this allegation is not for us to respondents policemen. The argument is devoid of merit. absorbed by the Police Commission one hundred days
determine, for if We rule and allow the civil case for A review of the essential requisites of res judicata, 1 viz: after the publication of the Police Manual containing rules
damages to proceed on that ground, there is the possibility (1) it must have been rendered by a court having and regulations relative to such matters.
that the court a quo in deciding said case might declare jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (2) the
the respondents victims of harassment and thereby former judgment must be final; (3) it must be a judgment The trust of their argument is that the city mayor then had
indirectly interfere with the proceedings before the on the merits; (4) there must be between the 1st and 2nd jurisdiction because his decision was rendered on August
POLCOM. The respondents' case for damages before the actions [a] identity of parties; [b] identity of subject matter; 8, 1967, while the Police Manual was promulgated later on
lower court is, therefore, premature as it was filed during and [c] identity of cause of action, exposes the glaring December 30, 1967. But the ruling in Police Commission v.
the pendency of the administrative case against the weakness of respondents' contention. On the first requisite Hon. Judge Eloy Bello,
et al. 5 where this Court had occasion to elucidate on the ACCORDINGLY, the order appealed from, dated June 1, Eulogio Nones, Jr. for private respondent.
"saving clause" of the POLCOM Act, is relevant to the 1970, denying the motion to dismiss and/or suspension of
issue and disposes of the respondents' argument. This the trial of the case on the merits, including the order
Court said: denying the motion for reconsideration thereof, is hereby
set aside. The hearing of Civil Case R-11320 of the Court CRUZ, J.:
Section 26 of the Police Act is, as expressly stated therein, of First Instance of Cebu, Branch III, shall be held in
a mere saving clause, and refers solely to the abeyance pending determination of the administrative The sole issue submitted in this case is the validity of the
administrative cases involving police service and case against the respondents before the POLCOM. order of respondent National Labor Relations Commission
personnel which were pending at the time of the effectivity dated October 30, 1992, dismissing the petitioner's appeal
of the Act. The Court's writ of preliminary injunction dated October 9, from a decision of the Philippine Overseas Employment
1970, restraining respondent court from proceeding with Administration on the ground of failure to post the required
The Police Commission was required to absorb the said the damage suit against petitioner shall stand until the appeal bond. 1
pending cases within 100 days after it shall have published POLCOM decides the said administrative case; if it is
a Police Manual. The said Section 26 may not be decided adversely against respondents, the injunction The respondent cited the second paragraph of Article 223
interpreted to mean that the Board of Investigators of each shall become permanent, while if it is decided in their of the Labor Code as amended, providing that:
city or municipality and the Police Commission could not favor, then this damage suit may proceed to trial and
legally function to carry into effect the purposes of the Act determination on its merits by respondent court. In the case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an
until after the lapse of the said 100 days, because Section appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the
28 provides that '(t)his Act shall take effect upon its No special pronouncement as to costs. posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable
approval.' Since the Act was approved on September 8, bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in
1966, it became effective immediately on that date. Makalintal, C.J., Castro, Teehankee, Makasiar and Muñoz an amount equivalent to the monetary award in the
(Emphasis Ours.) Palma, JJ., concur.1äwphï1.ñët judgment appealed from.
Lastly respondent Judge in his order in question dated and Rule VI, Section 6 of the new Rules of Procedure of
June 1, 1970, gave the following reason for denying the the NLRC, as amended, reading as follows:
motion to dismiss and/or suspension of the trial of the case Footnotes
on the merits: "... considering that the said defendant has Sec. 6. Bond — In case the decision of a Labor Arbiter
already filed his answer, containing special defenses 1 Ipekdjian Merchandising Co., Inc. v. Court of Tax involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer
embodying the grounds stated in the motion to dismiss Appeals & Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 9 SCRA 72, shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or
and/or suspension of the trial ..., the said motion to dismiss 75. surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly
and/or suspension of trial is hereby denied." The denial is accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court in an
apparently predicated on the prior filing of an answer. amount equivalent to the monetary award.
Republic of the Philippines
As a general rule a motion to dismiss is interposed before SUPREME COURT The petitioner contends that the NLRC committed grave
the defendant pleads (Section 1, Rule 16, Rules of Court). Manila abuse of discretion in applying these rules to decisions
However, there is no rule or law prohibiting the defendant rendered by the POEA. It insists that the appeal bond is
from filing a motion to dismiss after an answer had been FIRST DIVISION not necessary in the case of licensed recruiters for
filed. On the contrary, Section 2 of Rule 9, expressly overseas employment because they are already required
authorizes the filing of such motion at any stage of the under Section 4, Rule II, Book II of the POEA Rules not
proceedings when it is based upon failure to state a cause only to pay a license fee of P30,000 but also to post a
of action, 6 as in the case at bar where the complaint failed G.R. No. 109835 November 22, 1993 cash bond of P100,000 and a surety bond of P50,000,
to state a cause of action as alleged by petitioner in his thus:
very motion to dismiss and/or suspension of the trial. The JMM PROMOTIONS & MANAGEMENT, INC., petitioner,
respondent Judge therefore, erred in denying said motion. vs. Upon approval of the application, the applicant shall pay a
The surrounding circumstance at the time of the filing of NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and license fee of P30,000. It shall also post a cash bond of
said motion warranted suspension of the trial on the ULPIANO L. DE LOS SANTOS, respondent. P100,000 and surety bond of P50,000 from a bonding
merits. company acceptable to the Administration and duly
Don P. Porciuncula for petitioner. accredited by the Insurance Commission. The bonds shall
answer for all valid and legal claims arising from violations
of the conditions for the grant and use of the license, accredited by the Commission in an amount equivalent to
and/or accreditation and contracts of employment. The the monetary award. (Emphasis supplied) Indeed, it is possible for the monetary award in favor of the
bonds shall likewise guarantee compliance with the employee to exceed the amount of P350,000, which is the
provisions of the Code and its implementing rules and The question is, having posted the total bond of P150,000 sum of the bonds and escrow money required of the
regulations relating to recruitment and placement, the and placed in escrow the amount of P200,000 as required recruiter.
Rules of the Administration and relevant issuances of the by the POEA Rules, was the petitioner still required to post
Department and all liabilities which the Administration may an appeal bond to perfect its appeal from a decision of the It is true that these standby guarantees are not imposed
impose. The surety bonds shall include the condition that POEA to the NLRC? on local employers, as the petitioner observes, but there is
the notice to the principal is notice to the surety and that a simple explanation for this distinction. Overseas
any judgment against the principal in connection with It was. recruiters are subject to more stringent requirement
matters falling under POEA's jurisdiction shall be binding because of the special risks to which our workers abroad
and conclusive on the surety. The surety bonds shall be The POEA Rules are clear. A reading thereof readily are subjected by their foreign employers, against whom
co-terminus with the validity period of license. (Emphasis shows that in addition to the cash and surety bonds and there is usually no direct or effective recourse. The
supplied) the escrow money, an appeal bond in an amount overseas recruiter is solidarily liable with a foreign
equivalent to the monetary award is required to perfect an employer. The bonds and the escrow money are intended
In addition, the petitioner claims it has placed in escrow appeal from a decision of the POEA. Obviously, the appeal to insure more care on the part of the local agent in its
the sum of P200,000 with the Philippine National Bank in bond is intended to further insure the payment of the choice of the foreign principal to whom our overseas
compliance with Section 17, Rule II, Book II of the same monetary award in favor of the employee if it is eventually workers are to be sent.
Rule, "to primarily answer for valid and legal claims of affirmed on appeal to the NLRC.
recruited workers as a result of recruitment violations or It is a principle of legal hermeneutics that in interpreting a
money claims." It is true that the cash and surety bonds and the money statute (or a set of rules as in this case), care should be
placed in escrow are supposed to guarantee the payment taken that every part thereof be given effect, on the theory
Required to comment, the Solicitor General sustains the of all valid and legal claims against the employer, but that it was enacted as an integrated measure and not as a
appeal bond requirement but suggest that the rules cited these claims are not limited to monetary awards to hodge-podge of conflicting provisions. Ut res magis valeat
by the NLRC are applicable only to decisions of the Labor employees whose contracts of employment have been quam pereat. 2 Under the petitioner's interpretation, the
Arbiters and not of the POEA. Appeals from decisions of violated. The POEA can go against these bonds also for appeal bond required by Section 6 of the aforementioned
the POEA, he says, are governed by the following violations by the recruiter of the conditions of its license, POEA Rule should be disregarded because of the earlier
provisions of Rule V, Book VII of the POEA Rules: the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing bonds and escrow money it has posted. The petitioner
rules, E.O. 247 (reorganizing POEA) and the POEA Rules, would in effect nullify Section 6 as a superfluity but we do
Sec. 5. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. The appeal as well as the settlement of other liabilities the recruiter not see any such redundancy; on the contrary, we find that
shall be filed within the reglementary period as provided in may incur. Section 6 complements Section 4 and Section 17. The rule
Section 1 of this Rule; shall be under oath with proof of is that a construction that would render a provision
payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a As for the escrow agreement, it was presumably intended inoperative should be avoided; instead, apparently
cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; to provide for a standing fund, as it were, to be used only inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever
shall be accompanied by a memorandum of appeal which as a last resort and not to be reduced with the possible as parts of a coordinated and harmonious whole.
shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in enforcement against it of every claim of recruited workers
support thereof; the relief prayed for; and a statement of that may be adjudged against the employer. This amount Accordingly, we hold that in addition to the monetary
the date when the appellant received the appealed may not even be enough to cover such claims and, even if obligations of the overseas recruiter prescribed in Section
decision and/or award and proof of service on the other it could initially, may eventually be exhausted after 4, Rule II, Book II of the POEA Rules and the escrow
party of such appeal. satisfying other subsequent claims. agreement under Section 17 of the same Rule, it is
necessary to post the appeal bond required under Section
A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other As it happens, the decision sought to be appealed grants a 6, Rule V, Book VII of the POEA Rules, as a condition for
requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the monetary award of about P170,000 to the dismissed perfecting an appeal from a decision of the POEA.
period for perfecting an appeal. employee, the herein private respondent. The standby
guarantees required by the POEA Rules would be Every intendment of the law must be interpreted in favor of
Sec. 6. Bond. In case the decision of the Administration depleted if this award were to be enforced not against the the working class, conformably to the mandate of the
involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer appeal bond but against the bonds and the escrow money, Constitution. By sustaining rather than annulling the
shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or making them inadequate for the satisfaction of the other appeal bond as a further protection to the claimant
surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly obligations the recruiter may incur.
employee, this Court affirms once again its commitment to Conchita R. Sajonas, who purchased the parcel of land cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT No. N-109417 was
the interest of labor. from the Uychocdes, and are now the petitioners in this ssued in the name of the Sajonas couple. The notice of
case. levy on execution annotated by defendant sheriff was
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, with costs carried over to the new title. On October 21, 1985, the
against the petitioner. It is so ordered. The facts are not disputed, and are hereby reproduced as Sajonas couple filed a Third Party Claim with the sheriff of
follows: Quezon City, hence the auction sale of the subject
Davide and Quiason, JJ., concur. property did not push through as scheduled.
“On September 22, 1983, the spouses Ernesto Uychocde
Bellosillo, J, is on leave. and Lucita Jarin agreed to sell a parcel of residential land On January 10, 1986, the Sajonas spouses demanded the
located in Antipolo, Rizal to the spouses Alfredo Sajonas cancellation of the notice of levy on execution upon
and Conchita R. Sajonas on installment basis as defendant-appellant Pilares, through a letter to their
evidenced by a Contract to Sell dated September 22, lawyer, Atty. Melchor Flores. Despite said demand,
# Footnotes 1983. The property was registered in the names of the defendant-appellant Pilares refused to cause the
Uychocde spouses under TCT No. N-79073 of the cancellation of said annotation. In view thereof, plaintiffs-
1 Order issued by NLRC Commissioner Domingo H. Register of Deeds of Marikina, Rizal. On August 27, 1984, appellees filed this complaint dated January 11, 1986 on
Zapanta, Second Division, dated October 30, 1992. the Sajonas couple caused the annotation of an adverse February 5, 1986.”[1]
claim based on the said Contract to Sell on the title of the
subject property, which was inscribed as Entry No. The Sajonases filed their complaint[2] in the Regional Trial
116017. Upon full payment of the purchase price, the Court of Rizal, Branch 71, against Domingo Pilares, the
SECOND DIVISION Uychocdes executed a Deed of Sale involving the property judgment creditor of the Uychocdes. The relevant portion
[G. R. No. 102377. July 5, 1996] in question in favor of the Sajonas couple on September 4, of the complaint alleges:
1984. The deed of absolute sale was registered almost a
ALFREDO SAJONAS and CONCHITA SAJONAS, year after, or on August 28, 1985. “7. That at the time the notice of levy was annotated by the
petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, DOMINGO A. defendant, the Uychocde spouses, debtors of the
PILARES, SHERIFF ROBERTO GARCIA OF QUEZON Meanwhile, it appears that Domingo Pilares (defendant- defendant, have already transferred, conveyed and
CITY and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MARIKINA, appellant) filed Civil Case No. Q-28850 for collection of assigned all their title, rights and interests to the plaintiffs
respondents. sum of money against Ernesto Uychocde. On June 25, and there was no more title, rights or interests therein
DECISION 1980, a Compromise Agreement was entered into by the which the defendant could levy upon;
TORRES, JR., J.: parties in the said case under which Ernesto Uychocde
acknowledged his monetary obligation to Domingo Pilares 8. That the annotation of the levy on execution which was
A word or group of words conveys intentions. When used amounting to P27,800 and agreed to pay the same in two carried over to the title of said plaintiffs is illegal and invalid
truncatedly, its meaning disappears and breeds conflict. years from June 25, 1980. When Uychocde failed to and was made in utter bad faith, in view of the existence of
Thus, it is written - “By thy words shalt thou be justified, comply with his undertaking in the compromise agreement, the Adverse Claim annotated by the plaintiffs on the
and by thy words shalt thou be condemned.” (Matthew, defendant-appellant Pilares moved for the issuance of a corresponding title of the Uychocde spouses;
12:37) writ of execution to enforce the decision based on the
compromise agreement, which the court granted in its 9. That a demand was made by the plaintiffs upon the
Construing the new words of a statute separately is the order dated August 3, 1982. Accordingly, a writ of defendant Domingo A. Pilares, to cause the cancellation of
raison d’etre of this appeal. execution was issued on August 12, 1982 by the CFI of the said notice of levy but the latter, without justifiable
Quezon City where the civil case was pending. Pursuant to reason and with the sole purpose of harassing and
Essentially, the case before us is for cancellation of the the order of execution dated August 3, 1982, a notice of embarrassing the plaintiffs ignored and refused plaintiffs’
inscription of a Notice of Levy on Execution from a levy on execution was issued on February 12, 1985. On demand;
certificate of Title covering a parcel of real property. The February 12, 1985, defendant sheriff Roberto Garcia of
inscription was caused to be made by the private Quezon City presented said notice of levy on execution 10. That in view of the neglect, failure and refusal of the
respondent on Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-79073 of before the Register of Deeds of Marikina and the same defendant to cause the cancellation of the notice of levy on
the Register of Deeds of Marikina, issued in the name of was annotated at the back of TCT No. 79073 as Entry No. execution, the plaintiffs were compelled to litigate and
the spouses Ernesto B. Uychocde and Lucita Jarin, and 123283. engage the services of the undersigned counsel, to protect
was later carried over to and annotated on Transfer their rights and interests, for which they agreed to pay
Certificate of Title No. N-109417 of the same registry, When the deed of absolute sale dated September 4 1984 attorney’s fees in the amount of P10,000 and appearance
issued in the name of the spouses Alfredo Sajonas and was registered on August 28, 1985, TCT No. N-79073 was fees of P500 per day in court.”[3]
annotated on the same title by the plaintiffs who earlier “WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court dated
Pilares filed his answer with compulsory counterclaim[4] on bought said property from the Uychocdes. February 15, 1989 is reversed and set aside and this
March 8, 1986, raising special and affirmative defenses, complaint is dismissed.
the relevant portions of which are as follows: It is a well settled rule in this jurisdiction (Guidote vs.
Maravilla, 48 Phil. 442) that actual notice of an adverse Costs against the plaintiffs-appellees."[10]
“10. Plaintiff has no cause of action against herein claim is equivalent to registration and the subsequent
defendants; registration of the Notice of Levy could not have any legal The Sajonas couple are now before us, on a Petition for
effect in any respect on account of prior inscription of the Review on Certiorari[11], praying inter alia to set aside the
11. Assuming, without however admitting that they filed an adverse claim annotated on the title of the Uychocdes. Court of Appeals’ decision, and to reinstate that of the
adverse claim against the property covered by TCT No. Regional Trial Court.
79073 registered under the name of spouses Ernesto xxx xxx xxx
Uychocde on August 27, 1984, the same ceases to have Private respondent filed his Comment[12] on March 5,
any legal force and effect (30) days thereafter pursuant to On the issue of whether or not plaintiffs are buyers in good 1992, after which, the parties were ordered to file their
Section 70 of P.D. 1529; faith of the property of the spouses Uychocde even respective Memoranda. Private respondent complied
notwithstanding the claim of the defendant that said sale thereto on April 27, 1994[13], while petitioners were able to
12. The Notice of Levy annotated at the back of TCT No. executed by the spouses was made in fraud of creditors, submit their Memorandum on September 29, 1992.[14]
79073 being effected pursuant to the Writ of Execution the Court finds that the evidence in this instance is bare of
dated August 31, 1982, duly issued by the CFI (now RTC) any indication that said plaintiffs as purchasers had notice Petitioner assigns the following as errors of the appellate
of Quezon City proceeding from a decision rendered in beforehand of the claim of the defendant over said court, to wit:
Civil Case No. 28859 in favor of herein defendant against property or that the same is involved in a litigation between
Ernesto Uychocde, is undoubtedly proper and appropriate said spouses and the defendant. Good faith is the I
because the property is registered in the name of the opposite of fraud and bad faith, and the existence of any
judgment debtor and is not among those exempted from bad faith must be established by competent proof.[8] (Cai THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE
execution; vs. Henson, 51 Phil 606) RULE ON THE 30-DAY PERIOD FOR ADVERSE CLAIM
UNDER SECTION 70 OF P.D. NO. 1529 IS ABSOLUTE
13. Assuming without admitting that the property subject xxx xxx xxx INASMUCH AS IT FAILED TO READ OR CONSTRUE
matter of this case was in fact sold by the registered owner THE PROVISION IN ITS ENTIRETY AND TO
in favor of the herein plaintiffs, the sale is the null and void In view of the foregoing, the Court renders judgment in RECONCILE THE APPARENT INCONSISTENCY WITHIN
(sic) and without any legal force and effect because it was favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Pilares, as THE PROVISION IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO IT AS
done in fraud of a judgment creditor, the defendant follows: A WHOLE.
Pilares.”[5]
1. Ordering the cancellation of the Notice of Levy on II
Pilares likewise sought moral and exemplary damages in a Execution annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-
counterclaim against the Sajonas spouses. The parties 109417. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN INTERPRETING
appeared at pre-trial proceedings on January 21, 1987,[6] SECTION 70 OF P.D. NO. 1529 IN SUCH WISE ON THE
after which, trial on the merits ensued. 2. Ordering said defendant to pay the amount of P5,000 as GROUND THAT IT VIOLATES PETITIONERS’
attorney’s fees. SUBSTANTIAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.
The trial court rendered its decision on February 15,
1989.[7] It found in favor of the Sajonas couple, and 3. Dismissing the Counterclaim interposed by said Primarily, we are being asked to ascertain who among the
ordered the cancellation of the Notice of Levy from defendant. parties in suit has a better right over the property in
Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-109417. question. The petitioners derive their claim from the right
Said defendant is likewise ordered to pay the costs.” of ownership arising from a perfected contract of absolute
The court a quo stated, thus: sale between them and the registered owners of the
Dissatisfied, Pilares appealed to the Court of Appeals[9], property, such right being attested to by the notice of
“After going over the evidence presented by the parties, assigning errors on the part of the lower court. The adverse claim[15] annotated on TCT No. N-79073 as early
the court finds that although the title of the subject matter appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision, and as August 27, 1984. Private respondent on the other
of the Notice of Levy on Execution was still in the name of upheld the annotation of the levy on execution on the hand, claims the right to levy on the property, and have it
the Spouses Uychocde when the same was annotated on certificate of title, thus: sold on execution to satisfy his judgment credit, arising
the said title, an earlier Affidavit of Adverse Claim was
from Civil Case No. Q-28850[16] against the Uychocdes, It should be noted that the adverse claim provision in
from whose title, petitioners derived their own. Section 110 of the Land Registration Act (Act 496) does xxx xxx xxx
not provide for a period of effectivity of the annotation of an
Concededly, annotation of an adverse claim is a measure adverse claim. P.D. No. 1529, however, now specifically The reason for these rulings may be found in Section 51 of
designed to protect the interest of a person over a piece of provides for only 30 days. If the intention of the law was P.D. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration
real property where the registration of such interest or right for the adverse claim to remain effective until cancelled by Decree, which provides as follows:
is not otherwise provided for by the Land Registration Act petition of the interested party, then the aforecited
or Act 496 (now P.D. 1529 or the Property Registration provision in P.D. No. 1529 stating the period of effectivity Section 51. Conveyance and other dealings by the
Decree), and serves a warning to third parties dealing with would not have been inserted in the law. registered owner.- An owner of registered land may
said property that someone is claiming an interest on the convey, mortgage, lease, charge, or otherwise deal with
same or a better right than that of the registered owner Since the adverse claim was annotated On August 27, the same in accordance with existing laws. He may use
thereof. Such notice is registered by filing a sworn 1984, it was effective only until September 26, 1984. such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other voluntary
statement with the Register of Deeds of the province Hence, when the defendant sheriff annotated the notice of instruments as are sufficient in law. But no deed,
where the property is located, setting forth the basis of the levy on execution on February 12, 1985, said adverse mortgage, lease or other voluntary instrument, except a
claimed right together with other dates pertinent claim was already ineffective. It cannot be said that actual will purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take
thereto.[17] or prior knowledge of the existence of the adverse claim effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate
on the Uychocdes’ title is equivalent to registration only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of
The registration of an adverse claim is expressly inasmuch as the adverse claim was already ineffective authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration.
recognized under Section 70 of P.D. No. 1529.* when the notice of levy on execution was annotated.
Thus, the act of defendant sheriff in annotating the notice The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey
Noting the changes made in the terminology of the of levy on execution was proper and justified.” or affect the land in so far as third persons are concerned,
provisions of the law, private respondent interpreted this to and in all cases under the Decree, the registration shall be
mean that a Notice of Adverse Claim remains effective The appellate court relied on the rule of statutory made in the office of the Register of Deeds for the
only for a period of 30 days from its annotation, and does construction that Section 70 is specific and unambiguous province or city where the land lies.” (Italics supplied by the
not automatically lose its force afterwards. Private and hence, needs no interpretation nor construction.[19] lower court.)
respondent further maintains that the notice of adverse Perforce, the appellate court stated, the provision was
claim was annotated on August 27, 1984, hence, it will be clear enough to warrant immediate enforcement, and no Under the Torrens system, registration is the operative act
effective only up to September 26, 1984, after which it will interpretation was needed to give it force and effect. A which gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien upon
no longer have any binding force and effect pursuant to fortiori, an adverse claim shall be effective only for a period the land. A person dealing with registered land is not
Section 70 of P.D. No. 1529. Thus, the sale in favor of the of thirty (30) days from the date of its registration, after required to go behind the register to determine the
petitioners by the Uychocdes was made in order to which it shall be without force and effect. Continuing, the condition of the property. He is only charged with notice of
defraud their creditor (Pilares), as the same was executed court further stated; the burdens on the property which are noted on the face of
subsequent to their having defaulted in the payment of the register or certificate of title.[20]
their obligation based on a compromise agreement.[18] “. . . clearly, the issue now has been reduced to one of
preference- which should be preferred between the notice Although we have relied on the foregoing rule, in many
The respondent appellate court upheld private of levy on execution and the deed of absolute sale. The cases coming before us, the same, however, does not fit in
respondents’ theory when it ruled: Deed of Absolute Sale was executed on September 4, the case at bar. While it is the act of registration which is
1984, but was registered only on August 28, 1985, while the operative act which conveys or affects the land insofar
“The above stated conclusion of the lower court is based the notice of levy on execution was annotated six (6) as third persons are concerned, it is likewise true, that the
on the premise that the adverse claim filed by plaintiffs- months prior to the registration of the sale on February 12, subsequent sale of property covered by a Certificate of
appellees is still effective despite the lapse of 30 days from 1985. Title cannot prevail over an adverse claim, duly sworn to
the date of registration. However, under the provisions of and annotated on the certificate of title previous to the
Section 70 of P.D. 1529, an adverse claim shall be In the case of Landig vs. U.S. Commercial Co., 89 Phil 638 sale.[21] While it is true that under the provisions of the
effective only for a period of 30 days from the date of its it was held that where a sale is recorded later than an Property Registration Decree, deeds of conveyance of
registration. The provision of this Decree is clear and attachment, although the former is of an earlier date, the property registered under the system, or any interest
specific. sale must give way to the attachment on the ground that therein only take effect as a conveyance to bind the land
the act of registration is the operative act to affect the land. upon its registration, and that a purchaser is not required
xxx xxx xxx A similar ruling was restated in Campillo vs. Court of to explore further than what the Torrens title, upon its face,
Appeals (129 SCRA 513). indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right
that may subsequently defeat his right thereto, For a definitive answer to this query, we refer to the law the lapse of said period, the annotation of adverse claim
nonetheless, this rule is not absolute. Thus, one who buys itself. Section 110 of Act 496 or the Land Registration Act may be cancelled upon filing of a verified petition therefor
from the registered owner need not have to look behind reads: by the party in interest: Provided, however, that after
the certificate of title, he is, nevertheless, bound by the cancellation, no second adverse claim based on the same
liens and encumbrances annotated thereon. One who “Sec. 110. Whoever claims any part or interest in ground shall be registered by the same claimant.
buys without checking the vendor’s title takes all the risks registered lands adverse to the registered owner, arising
and losses consequent to such failure.[22] subsequent to the date of the original registration, may, if Before the lapse of thirty days aforesaid, any party in
no other provision is made in this Act for registering the interest may file a petition in the Court of First Instance
In PNB vs. Court of Appeals, we held that “the subsequent same, make a statement in writing setting forth fully his where the land is situated for the cancellation of the
sale of the property to the De Castro spouses cannot alleged right or interest, and how or under whom acquired, adverse claim, and the court shall grant a speedy hearing
prevail over the adverse claim of Perez, which was and a reference to the volume and page of the certificate upon the question of the validity of such adverse claim,
inscribed on the bank’s certificate of title on October 6, of title of the registered owner, and a description of the and shall render judgment as may be just and equitable. If
1958. That should have put said spouses on notice, and land in which the right or interest is claimed. the adverse claim is adjudged to be invalid, the registration
they can claim no better legal right over and above that of thereof shall be ordered cancelled. If, in any case, the
Perez. The TCT issued in the spouses’ names on July, The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall court, after notice and hearing shall find that the adverse
1959 also carried the said annotation of adverse claim. state the adverse claimant’s residence, and designate a claim thus registered was frivolous, it may fine the claimant
Consequently, they are not entitled to any interest on the place at which all notices may be served upon him. The in an amount not less than one thousand pesos, nor more
price they paid for the property.”[23] statement shall be entitled to registration as an adverse than five thousand pesos, in its discretion. Before the
claim, and the court, upon a petition of any party in lapse of thirty days, the claimant may withdraw his adverse
Then again, in Gardner vs. Court of Appeals, we said that interest, shall grant a speedy hearing upon the question of claim by filing with the Register of Deeds a sworn petition
“the statement of respondent court in its resolution of the validity of such adverse claim and shall enter such to that effect.” (Italics ours)
reversal that ‘until the validity of an adverse claim is decree therein as justice and equity may require. If the
determined judicially, it cannot be considered a flaw in the claim is adjudged to be invalid, the registration shall be In construing the law aforesaid, care should be taken that
vendor’s title’ contradicts the very object of adverse claims. cancelled. If in any case, the court after notice and every part thereof be given effect and a construction that
As stated earlier, the annotation of an adverse claim is a hearing shall find that a claim thus registered was frivolous could render a provision inoperative should be avoided,
measure designed to protect the interest of a person over or vexatious, it may tax the adverse claimant double or and inconsistent provisions should be reconciled whenever
a piece of real property, and serves as a notice and treble the costs in its discretion.” possible as parts of a harmonious whole.[25] For taken in
warning to third parties dealing with said property that solitude, a word or phrase might easily convey a meaning
someone is claiming an interest on the same or has a The validity of the above-mentioned rules on adverse quite different from the one actually intended and evident
better right than the registered owner thereof. A claims has to be reexamined in the light of the changes when a word or phrase is considered with those with which
subsequent sale cannot prevail over the adverse claim introduced by P.D. 1529, which provides: it is associated.[26] In ascertaining the period of effectivity
which was previously annotated in the certificate of title of an inscription of adverse claim, we must read the law in
over the property.”[24] “Sec. 70 Adverse Claim- Whoever claims any part or its entirety. Sentence three, paragraph two of Section 70
interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner, of P.D. 1529 provides:
The question may be posed, was the adverse claim arising subsequent to the date of the original registration,
inscribed in the Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-109417 may, if no other provision is made in this decree for “The adverse claim shall be effective for a period of thirty
still in force when private respondent caused the notice of registering the same, make a statement in writing setting days from the date of registration.”
levy on execution to be registered and annotated in the forth fully his alleged right or interest, and how or under
said title, considering that more than thirty days had whom acquired, a reference to the number of certificate of At first blush, the provision in question would seem to
already lapsed since it was annotated? This is a decisive title of the registered owner, the name of the registered restrict the effectivity of the adverse claim to thirty days.
factor in the resolution of this instant case. owner, and a description of the land in which the right or But the above provision cannot and should not be treated
interest is claimed. separately, but should be read in relation to the sentence
If the adverse claim was still in effect, then respondents following, which reads:
are charged with knowledge of pre-existing interest over The statement shall be signed and sworn to, and shall
the subject property, and thus, petitioners are entitled to state the adverse claimant’s residence, and a place at “After the lapse of said period, the annotation of adverse
the cancellation of the notice of levy attached to the which all notices may be served upon him. This statement claim may be cancelled upon filing of a verified petition
certificate of title. shall be entitled to registration as an adverse claim on the therefor by the party in interest.”
certificate of title. The adverse claim shall be effective for
a period of thirty days from the date of registration. After
If the rationale of the law was for the adverse claim to ipso such provision limiting the effectivity of an adverse claim protecting the interest of the adverse claimant and giving
facto lose force and effect after the lapse of thirty days, for thirty days from the date of registration. The court notice and warning to third parties.”[32]
then it would not have been necessary to include the cannot be bound by such period as it would be
foregoing caveat to clarify and complete the rule. For inconsistent with the very authority vested in it. A fortiori, In sum, the disputed inscription of adverse claim on the
then, no adverse claim need be cancelled. If it has been the limitation on the period of effectivity is immaterial in Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-79073 was still in effect
automatically terminated by mere lapse of time, the law determining the validity or invalidity of an adverse claim on February 12, 1985 when Quezon City Sheriff Roberto
would not have required the party in interest to do a which is the principal issue to be decided in the court Garcia annotated the notice of levy on execution thereto.
useless act. hearing. It will therefore depend upon the evidence at a Consequently, he is charged with knowledge that the
proper hearing for the court to determine whether it will property sought to be levied upon on execution was
A statute’s clauses and phrases must not be taken order the cancellation of the adverse claim or not.[30] encumbered by an interest the same as or better than that
separately, but in its relation to the statute’s totality. Each of the registered owner thereof. Such notice of levy
statute must, in fact, be construed as to harmonize it with To interpret the effectivity period of the adverse claim as cannot prevail over the existing adverse claim inscribed on
the pre-existing body of laws. Unless clearly repugnant, absolute and without qualification limited to thirty days the certificate of title in favor of the petitioners. This can be
provisions of statutes must be reconciled. The printed defeats the very purpose for which the statute provides for deduced from the pertinent provision of the Rules of Court,
pages of the published Act, its history, origin, and its the remedy of an inscription of adverse claim, as the to wit:
purposes may be examined by the courts in their annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to
construction.[27] An eminent authority on the subject protect the interest of a person over a piece of real “Section 16. Effect of levy on execution as to third persons-
matter states the rule candidly: property where the registration of such interest or right is The levy on execution shall create a lien in favor of the
not otherwise provided for by the Land Registration Act or judgment creditor over the right, title and interest of the
“A statute is passed as a whole and not in parts or Act 496 (now P.D. 1529 or the Property Registration judgment debtor in such property at the time of the levy,
sections, and is animated by one general purpose and Decree), and serves as a warning to third parties dealing subject to liens or encumbrances then existing.” (Italics
intent. Consequently, each part or section should be with said property that someone is claiming an interest or supplied)
construed in connection with every other part or section so the same or a better right than the registered owner
as to produce a harmonious whole. It is not proper to thereof.[31] To hold otherwise would be to deprive petitioners of their
confine its intention to the one section construed. It is property, who waited a long time to complete payments on
always an unsafe way of construing a statute or contract to The reason why the law provides for a hearing where the their property, convinced that their interest was amply
divide it by a process of etymological dissection, into validity of the adverse claim is to be threshed out is to protected by the inscribed adverse claim.
separate words, and then apply to each, thus separated afford the adverse claimant an opportunity to be heard,
from the context, some particular meaning to be attached providing a venue where the propriety of his claimed As lucidly observed by the trial court in the challenged
to any word or phrase usually to be ascertained from the interest can be established or revoked, all for the purpose decision:
context.”[28] of determining at last the existence of any encumbrance
on the title arising from such adverse claim. This is in line “True, the foregoing section provides that an adverse claim
Construing the provision as a whole would reconcile the with the provision immediately following: shall be effective for a period of thirty days from the date of
apparent inconsistency between the portions of the law registration. Does this mean however, that the plaintiffs
such that the provision on cancellation of adverse claim by “Provided, however, that after cancellation, no second thereby lost their right over the property in question?
verified petition would serve to qualify the provision on the adverse claim shall be registered by the same claimant.” Stated in another, did the lapse of the thirty day period
effectivity period. The law, taken together, simply means automatically nullify the contract to sell between the
that the cancellation of the adverse claim is still necessary Should the adverse claimant fail to sustain his interest in plaintiffs and the Uychocdes thereby depriving the former
to render it ineffective, otherwise, the inscription will remain the property, the adverse claimant will be precluded from of their vested right over the property?
annotated and shall continue as a lien upon the property. registering a second adverse claim based on the same
For if the adverse claim has already ceased to be effective ground. It is respectfully submitted that it did not.”[33]
upon the lapse of said period, its cancellation is no longer
necessary and the process of cancellation would be a It was held that “validity or efficaciousness of the claim As to whether or not the petitioners are buyers in good
useless ceremony.[29] may only be determined by the Court upon petition by an faith of the subject property, the same should be made to
interested party, in which event, the Court shall order the rest on the findings of the trial court. As pointedly
It should be noted that the law employs the phrase “may immediate hearing thereof and make the proper observed by the appellate court, “there is no question that
be cancelled”, which obviously indicates, as inherent in its adjudication as justice and equity may warrant. And it is plaintiffs-appellees were not aware of the pending case
decision making power, that the court may or may not only when such claim is found unmeritorious that the filed by Pilares against Uychocde at the time of the sale of
order the cancellation of an adverse claim, notwithstanding registration of the adverse claim may be cancelled, thereby the property by the latter in their favor. This was clearly
elicited from the testimony of Conchita Sajonas, wife of of the private respondent that the sale executed by the JOHNNY ACOSTA, ARCHIE JOHN TALAUE, RYAN
plaintiff, during cross-examination on April 21, 1988”.[34] spouses was made in fraud of creditors has no basis in DAPITAN, CHRISTOPHER OARDE, JOSE MARI
fact, there being no evidence that the petitioners had any MODESTO, RICHARD M. VALENCIA, EDBEN TABUCOL,
ATTY. REYES knowledge or notice of the debt of the Uychocdes in favor petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
of the private respondents, nor of any claim by the latter respondents.
Q - Madam Witness, when Engr. Uychocde and his wife over the Uychocdes’ properties or that the same was [G.R. No. 147179. March 26, 2001]
offered to you and your husband the property subject involved in any litigation between said spouses and the
matter of this case, they showed you the owner’s transfer private respondent. While it may be stated that good faith MICHELLE D. BETITO, petitioner, vs. CHAIRMAN
certificate, is it not? is presumed, conversely, bad faith must be established by ALFREDO BENIPAYO, COMMISSIONERS MEHOL
competent proof by the party alleging the same. Sans SADAIN, RUFINO JAVIER, LUZVIMINDA TANCANGCO,
A - Yes, sir. such proof, the petitioners are deemed to be purchasers in RALPH LANTION, FLORENTINO TUASON and
good faith, and their interest in the subject property must RESURRECCION BORRA, all of the Commission on
Q - That was shown to you the very first time that this lot not be disturbed. Election (COMELEC), respondents.
was offered to you for sale? DECISION
At any rate, the Land Registration Act (Property BUENA, J.:
A - Yes. Registration Decree) guarantees to every purchaser of
registered land in good faith that they can take and hold At the helm of controversy in the instant consolidated
Q - After you were shown a copy of the title and after you the same free from any and all prior claims, liens and petitions[1] before us is the exercise of a right so
were informed that they are desirous in selling the same, encumbrances except those set forth on the Certificate of indubitably cherished and accorded primacy, if not utmost
did you and your husband decide to buy the same? Title and those expressly mentioned in the ACT as having reverence, no less than by the fundamental law - the right
been preserved against it. Otherwise, the efficacy of the of suffrage.
A - No, we did not decide right after seeing the title. Of conclusiveness of the Certificate of Title which the Torrens
course, we visited... system seeks to insure would be futile and nugatory.[38] Invoking this right, herein petitioners - representing the
youth sector - seek to direct the Commission on Elections
Q - No, you just answer my question. You did not ACCORDINGLY, the assailed decision of the respondent (COMELEC) to conduct a special registration before the
immediately decide? Court of Appeals dated October 17, 1991 is hereby May 14, 2001 General Elections, of new voters ages 18 to
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The decision of the 21. According to petitioners, around four million youth
A - Yes. Regional Trial Court dated February 15, 1989 finding for failed to register on or before the December 27, 2000
the cancellation of the notice of levy on execution from deadline set by the respondent COMELEC under Republic
Q - When did you finally decide to buy the same? Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-109417 is hereby Act No. 8189.[2]
REINSTATED.
A - After seeing the site and after verifying from the Acting on the clamor of the students and civic leaders,
Register of Deeds in Marikina that it is free from The inscription of the notice of levy on execution on TCT Senator Raul Roco, Chairman of the Committee on
encumbrances, that was the time we decided. No. N-109417 is hereby CANCELLED. Electoral Reforms, Suffrage, and People’s Participation,
through a Letter dated January 25, 2001, invited the
Q - How soon after you were offered this lot did you verify Costs against private respondent. COMELEC to a public hearing for the purpose of
the exact location and the genuineness of the title, as soon discussing the extension of the registration of voters to
after this was offered to you? SO ORDERED. accommodate those who were not able to register before
the COMELEC deadline.[3]
A - I think it’s one week after they were offered.[35] Regalado, (Chairman), Romero, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ.,
concur. Commissioners Luzviminda G. Tancangco and Ralph C.
A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys Lantion, together with Consultant Resurreccion Z. Borra
property of another without notice that some other person (now Commissioner) attended the public hearing called by
has a right to or interest in such property and pays a full EN BANC the Senate Committee headed by Senator Roco, held at
and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, [G.R. No. 147066. March 26, 2001] the Senate, New GSIS Headquarters Bldg., Pasay City.
or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some
other person in the property.[36] Good faith consists in an AKBAYAN – Youth, SCAP, UCSC, MASP, KOMPIL II – On January 29, 2001, Commissioners Tancangco and
honest intention to abstain from taking any Youth, ALYANSA, KALIPI, PATRICIA O. PICAR, MYLA Lantion submitted Memorandum No. 2001-027 on the
unconscientious advantage of another.[37] Thus, the claim GAIL Z. TAMONDONG, EMMANUEL E. OMBAO, Report on the Request for a Two-day Additional
Registration of New Voters Only, excerpts of which are Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners AKBAYAN-Youth,
hereto quoted: “The rationale for the additional two-day registration is the SCAP, UCSC, MASP, KOMPIL II (YOUTH) et al. filed
renewed political awareness and interest to participate in before this Court the instant Petition for Certiorari and
“Please be advised that the undersigned attended the the political process generated by the recent political Mandamus, docketed as G.R. No. 147066, which seeks to
public hearing called by the Senate Committee on events in the country among our youth. Considering that set aside and nullify respondent COMELEC’s Resolution
electoral Reforms, Suffrage and People’s Participation they failed to register on December 27, 2000 deadline, and/or to declare Section 8 of R. A. 8189 unconstitutional
presided over by the Hon. Sen. Raul Roco, its Committee they approved for special registration days. insofar as said provision effectively causes the
Chairman to date at the Senate, New GSIS Headquarters disenfranchisement of petitioners and others similarly
Building, Pasay City. The main agenda item is the request “In view of the foregoing, the Commission en banc has to situated. Likewise, petitioners pray for the issuance of a
by youth organizations to hold additional two days of discuss all aspects regarding this request with directives to writ of mandamus directing respondent COMELEC to
registration. Thus, participating students and civic leaders the Finance Services Department (FSD) to submit certified conduct a special registration of new voters and to admit
along with Comelec Representatives were in agreement available funds for the purpose, and for the Deputy for registration petitioners and other similarly situated
that is legally feasible to have a two-day additional Executive Director for Operations (DEDO) for the young Filipinos to qualify them to vote in the May 14, 2001
registration of voters to be conducted preferably on estimated costs of additional two days of registration. General Elections.
February 17 and 18, 2001 nationwide. The deadline for
the continuing voters registration under R.A. 8189 is “The presence of REDs on January 30 can be used partly On March 09, 2001, herein petitioner Michelle Betito, a
December 27, 2000. for consultation on the practical side and logistical student of the University of the Philippines, likewise filed a
requirements of such additional registration days. The Petition for Mandamus, docketed as G.R. No. 147179,
“To address the concern that this may open the flood parts meeting will be set at 1:30 p.m. at the Office of ED.”[4] praying that this Court direct the COMELEC to provide for
for ‘hakot system,’ certain restrictive parameters were another special registration day under the continuing
discussed. The following guidelines to serve as Immediately, Commissioner Borra called a consultation registration provision under the Election Code.
safeguards against fraudulent applicants: meeting among regional heads and representatives and a
number of senior staff headed by Executive Director On March 13, 2001, this Court resolved to consolidate the
“1. The applicants for the registration shall be 25 years of Mamasapunod Aguam. It was the consensus of the two petitions and further required respondents to file their
age or less and will be registering for the first time on May group, with the exception of Director Jose Tolentino, Jr. of Comment thereon within a non-extendible period expiring
14, 2001; the ASD, to disapprove the request for additional at 10:00 A.M. of March 16, 2001. Moreover, this Court
registration of voters on the ground that Section 8 of R.A. resolved to set the consolidated cases for oral arguments
“2. The applicants shall register in their places of 8189 explicitly provides that no registration shall be on March 16, 2001.[6]
residences; and conducted during the period starting one hundred twenty
(120) days before a regular election and that the On March 16, 2001, the Solicitor General, in its
“3. The applicants shall present valid identification Commission has no more time left to accomplish all pre- Manifestation and Motion in lieu of Comment,
documents, like school records. election activities.[5] recommended that an additional continuing registration of
voters be conducted at the soonest possible time “in order
“Preparatory to the registration days, the following On February 8, 2001, the COMELEC issued Resolution to accommodate that disenfranchised voters for purposes
activities are likewise agreed: No. 3584, the decretal portion of which reads: of the May 14, 2001 elections.”
“1. Submission of the list of students and their addresses “Deliberating on the foregoing memoranda, the In effect, the Court in passing upon the merits of the
immediately prior to the actual registration of the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to present petitions, is tasked to resolve a two-pronged issue
applicants; deny the request to conduct a two-day additional focusing on respondent COMELEC’s issuance of the
registration of new voters on February 17 and 18, 2001.” assailed Resolution dated February 8, 2001, which
“2. The Comelec field officers will be given the opportunity Resolution, petitioners, by and large, argue to have
to verify the voters enumerator’s list or conduct ocular Commissioners Rufino S. B. Javier and Mehol K. Sadain undermined their constitutional right to vote on the May 14,
inspection; voted to deny the request while Commissioners 2001 general elections and caused the
Luzviminda Tancangco and Ralph Lantion voted to disenfranchisement of around four (4) million Filipinos of
“3. Availability of funds for the purpose; and accommodate the students’ request. With this impasse, voting age who failed to register before the registration
the Commission construed its Resolution as having taken deadline set by the COMELEC.
“4. Meetings with student groups to ensure orderly and effect.
honest conduct of the registration and drum up interest to Thus, this Court shall determine:
register among the new voters.
a) Whether or not respondent COMELEC committed qualified to exercise his right to vote, in addition to the x may file x x x except one hundred (100) days prior to a
grave abuse of discretion in issuing COMELEC Resolution minimum requirements set by the fundamental charter, is regular election xxx.”
dated February 8, 2001; obliged by law to register, at present, under the provisions
of Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise known as the “Voter’s As aptly observed and succinctly worded by respondent
b) Whether or not this Court can compel respondent Registration Act of 1996.” COMELEC in its Comment:
COMELEC, through the extraordinary writ of mandamus,
to conduct a special registration of new voters during the Stated differently, the act of registration is an “x x x The petition for exclusion is a necessary component
period between the COMELEC’s imposed December 27, indispensable precondition to the right of suffrage. For to registration since it is a safety mechanism that gives a
2000 deadline and the May 14, 2001 general elections. registration is part and parcel of the right to vote and an measure of protection against flying voters, non-qualified
indispensable element in the election process. Thus, registrants, and the like. The prohibitive period, on the
The petitions are bereft of merit. contrary to petitioners’ argument, registration cannot and other hand serves the purpose of securing the voter’s
should not be denigrated to the lowly stature of a mere substantive right to be included in the list of voters.
In a representative democracy such as ours, the right of statutory requirement. Proceeding from the significance of
suffrage, although accorded a prime niche in the hierarchy registration as a necessary requisite to the right to vote, “In real-world terms, this means that if a special voter’s
of rights embodied in the fundamental law, ought to be the State undoubtedly, in the exercise of its inherent police registration is conducted, then the prohibitive period for
exercised within the proper bounds and framework of the power, may then enact laws to safeguard and regulate the filing petitions for exclusion must likewise be adjusted to a
Constitution and must properly yield to pertinent laws act of voter’s registration for the ultimate purpose of later date. If we do not, then no one can challenge the
skillfully enacted by the Legislature, which statutes for all conducting honest, orderly and peaceful election, to the Voter’s list since we would already be well into the 100-day
intents and purposes, are crafted to effectively insulate incidental yet generally important end, that even pre- prohibitive period. Aside from being a flagrant breach of
such so cherished right from ravishment and preserve the election activities could be performed by the duly the principles of due process, this would open the
democratic institutions our people have, for so long, constituted authorities in a realistic and orderly manner – registration process to abuse and seriously compromise
guarded against the spoils of opportunism, debauchery one which is not indifferent and so far removed from the the integrity of the voter’s list, and consequently, that of the
and abuse. pressing order of the day and the prevalent circumstances entire election.
of the times.
To be sure, the right of suffrage ardently invoked by herein “x x x It must be remembered that the period serve a vital
petitioners, is not at all absolute. Needless to say, the Viewed broadly, existing legal proscription and pragmatic role in protecting the integrity of the registration process.
exercise of the right of suffrage, as in the enjoyment of all operational considerations bear great weight in the Without the prohibitive periods, the COMELEC would be
other rights, is subject to existing substantive and adjudication of the issues raised in the instant petitions. deprived of any time to evaluate the evidence on the
procedural requirements embodied in our Constitution, application. We would be obliged to simply take them at
statute books and other repositories of law. Thus, as to On the legal score, Section 8, of the R.A. 8189, which face value. If we compromise on these safety nets, we
the substantive aspect, Section 1, Article V of the provides a system of continuing registration, is explicit, to may very well end up with a voter’s list full of flying voters,
Constitution provides: wit: overflowing with unqualified registrants, populated with
shadows and ghosts x x x.
“SECTION 1. SUFFRAGE MAY BE EXERCISED BY ALL “SEC. 8. System of Continuing Registration of Voters. –
CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES NOT OTHERWISE The Personal filing of application of registration of voters “x x x The short cuts that will have to be adopted in order
DISQUALIFIED BY LAW, WHO ARE AT LEAST shall be conducted daily in the office of the Election Officer to fit the entire process of registration within the last 60
EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE, AND WHO SHALL HAVE during regular office hours. No registration shall, however, days will give rise to haphazard list of voters, some of
RESIDED IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR AT LEAST ONE be conducted during the period starting one hundred whom might not even be qualified to vote. x x x the very
YEAR AND IN THE PLACE WHEREIN THEY PROPOSE twenty (120) days before a regular election and ninety (90) possibility that we shall be conducting elections on the
TO VOTE FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS IMMEDIATELY days before a special election.” (Emphasis Ours) basis of an inaccurate list is enough to cast a cloud of
PRECEDING THE ELECTIONS. NO LITERACY, doubt over the results of the polls. If that happens, the
PROPERTY, OR OTHER SUBSTANTIVE Likewise, Section 35 of R.A. 8189, which among others, unforgiving public will disown the results of the elections,
REQUIREMENT SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THE speaks of a prohibitive period within which to file a sworn regardless of who wins, and regardless of how many
EXERCISE OF SUFFRAGE.” petition for the exclusion of voters from the permanent courts validate our own results. x x x”
voter’s list, provides:
As to the procedural limitation, the right of a citizen to vote Perhaps undaunted by such scenario, petitioners invoke
is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural “SEC. 35. Petition for Exclusion of Voters from the List – the so called “standby” powers or “residual” powers of the
requirements he must undergo: among others, the process Any registered voter, representative of a political party x x COMELEC, as provided under the relevant provisions of
of registration. Specifically, a citizen in order to be
Section 29, Republic Act No. 6646[7] and adopted should endeavor to reconcile them instead of declaring Indicate the total number of established precincts and the
verbatim in Section 28 of Republic Act No. 8436,[8] thus: outright the invalidity of one against the other. Courts number of registered voters per precincts in a city or
should harmonize them, if this is possible, because they municipality. Without the final Project of Precincts, we
“SEC. 28. Designation of other Dates for Certain Pre- are equally the handiwork of the same legislature.[11] cannot even determine the proper allocation of official
election Acts - If it should no longer be possible to observe ballots, election returns and other election forms and
the periods and dates prescribed by law for certain pre- In light of the foregoing doctrine, we hold that Section 8 of paraphernalia. More succinctly said, without the Project of
election acts, the Commission shall fix other periods and R.A. 8189 applies in the present case, for the purpose of Precincts, we won’t know how many forms to print and so
dates in order to ensure accomplishments of the activities upholding the assailed COMELEC Resolution and denying we’re liable to come up short.
so voters shall not be deprived of their right to suffrage.” the instant petitions, considering that the aforesaid law
explicitly provides that no registration shall be conducted “21) More Importantly, without a completed
On this matter, the act of registration is concededly, by its during the period starting one hundred twenty (120) days Project of Precincts, it will be impossible to complete the
very nature, a pre-election act. Under Section 3(a) of R.A. before a regular election. rest of the tasks that must be accomplished prior to the
8189, registration, as a process, has its own specific elections.
definition, precise meaning and coverage, thus: Corollarily, it is specious for herein petitioners to argue that
respondent COMELEC may validly and legally conduct a “22) Second, the Board of Elections Inspectors
“a) Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing two-day special registration, through the expedient of the must be constituted on or before the 4th of March. In
of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter letter of Section 28 of R.A. 8436. To this end, the addition, the list of the members of the BEI — including the
before the election officer of the city or municipality provisions of Section 28, R.A. 8436 would come into play precinct where they are assigned and the barangay where
wherein he resides and including the same in the book of in cases where the pre-election acts are susceptible of that precinct is located - must be furnished by the Election
registered voters upon approval by the Election performance within the available period prior to election Officer to all the candidates and political candidates not
Registration Board;” day. In more categorical language, Section 28 of R.A. later than the 26th of March.
8436 is, to our mind, anchored on the sound premise that
At this point, it bears emphasis that the provisions of these certain “pre-election acts” are still capable of being “23) Third, the Book of Voters, which contains the
Section 29 of R.A. 8436 invoked by herein petitioners and reasonably performed vis-a-vis the remaining period approved Voter Registration Records of registered voters
Section 8 of R.A. 8189 volunteered by respondent before the date of election and the conduct of other related in particular precinct, must be inspected, verified, and
COMELEC, far from contradicting each other, actually pre-election activities required under the law. sealed beginning March 30, until April 15.
share some common ground. True enough, both
provisions, although at first glance may seem to be at war In its Comment, respondent COMELEC—which is the “24) Fourth, the Computerized Voters’ List must
in relation to the other, are in a more circumspect perusal, constitutional body tasked by no less than the fundamental be finalized and printed out of use on election day; and
necessarily capable of being harmonized and reconciled. charter (Sec. 2, par. 3, Article IX-C of the Constitution) to finally
decide, except those involving the right to vote, all
Rudimentary is the principle in legal hermeneutics that questions affecting elections, including registration of “25) Fifth, the preparation, bidding, printing, and
changes made by the legislature in the form of voters—painstakingly and thoroughly emphasized the distribution of the Voters Information Sheet must be
amendments to a statute should be given effect, together “operational impossibility”[12] of conducting a special completed on or before April 15.
with other parts of the amended act. It is not to be registration, which in its on language, “can no longer be
presumed that the legislature, in making such changes, accomplished within the time left to (us) the “26) With this rigorous schedule of pre-election
was indulging in mere semantic exercise. There must be Commission.”[13] activities, the Comelec will have roughly a month that will
some purpose in making them, which should be act as a buffer against any number of unforeseen
ascertained and given effect.[9] Hence: occurrences that might delay the elections. This is the
logic and the wisdom behind setting the 120-day
Similarly, every new statute should be construed in “xxx xxx xxx. prohibitive period. After all, preparing for an election is no
connection with those already existing in relation to the easy task.
same subject matter and all should be made to harmonize “19) In any case, even without the legal
and stand together, if they can be done by any fair and obstacles, the last 60 days will not be a walk in the park for “27) To hold special registrations now would,
reasonable interpretation.[10] Interpretare et concordare the Comelec. Allow us to outline what the Commission aside from being Illegal, whittle that approximately 30-day
legibus est optimus interpretandi, which means that the has yet to do, and the time to do it in: margin away to nothing.
best method of interpretation is that which makes laws
consistent with other laws. Accordingly, courts of justice, “20) First we have to complete the Project of “28) When we say registration of voters, we do
when confronted with apparently conflicting statutes, Precincts by the 19th of March. The Projects of Precincts not - contrary to popular opinion - refer only to the act of
going to the Election Officer and writing our names down. Voters’ List generated - at the earliest, by May 11, after we are of the considered view that the “stand-by power” of
Registration is, In fact, a long process that takes about which the new CVL would be posted. Incidentally, it we the respondent COMELEC under Section 28 of R.A. 8436,
three weeks to complete not even counting how long it were to follow the letter of the law strictly, a May 11 posting presupposes the possibility of its being exercised or
would take to prepare for the registration in the first place. date for the new CVL would be improper since the R.A. availed of, and not otherwise.
8189 provides that the CVL be posted at least 90 days
“29) In order to concretize, the senior Staff of the before the election. Further, petitioners’ bare allegation that they were
Comelec, the other Commissioners, prepared a time-table disenfranchised when respondent COMELEC pegged the
in order to see exactly how the superimposition of special “34) Assuming optimistically that we can then registration deadline on December 27, 2000 instead of
registration would affect the on-going preparation for the finish the inspection, verification, and sealing of the Book if January 13, 2001 – the day before the period before the
May 14 elections. Voters by May 15, we will already have overshot the May May 14, 2001 regular elections commences – is, to our
14, election date, and still not have finished our election mind, not sufficient. On this matter, there is no allegation
“30) We assumed for the sake of argument that preparations. in the two consolidated petitions and the records are bereft
we were to hold the special registration on April 16 and 17. of any showing that anyone of herein petitioners has filed
These are not arbitrary numbers, by the way it takes in “35) After this point, we could have to prepare the an application to be registered as a voter which was
account the fact that we only have about 800,000 Voters allocation of Official Ballots, Election Returns, and other denied by the COMELEC nor filed a complaint before the
Registration Forms available, as against an estimated 4.5 Non-Accountable Forms and Supplies to be used for the respondent COMELEC alleging that he or she proceeded
million potential registrants, and it would take about 14 new registrants. Once the allocation is ready, the to the Office of the Election Officer to register between the
days — If we were to declare special registrations today — contracts would be awarded, the various forms printed, period starting from December 28, 2000 to January 13,
to print up the difference and to verify these accountable delivered, verified, and finally shipped out to the different 2001, and that he or she was disallowed or barred by
forms. After printing and verification, the forms would have municipalities. All told, this process would take respondent COMELEC from filing his application for
to be packed and shipped - roughly taking up a further two approximately 26 days, from the 15th of May until June 10. registration. While it may be true that respondent
and a half weeks. Only then can we get on with COMELEC set the registration deadline on December 27,
registration. “36) Only then can we truly say that we are ready 2000, this Court is of the Firm view that petitioners were
to hold the elections. not totally denied the opportunity to avail of the continuing
“31) The first step in registration is, of course, registration under R.A. 8189. Stated in a different manner,
filling the application for registration with the Election “xxx xxx xxx.”[14] the petitioners in the instant case are not without fault or
Officer. The application, according to Section 17 of R.A. blame. They admit in their petition[18] that they failed to
8189, is then set for hearing, with notice of that hearing It is an accepted doctrine in administrative law that the register, for whatever reason, within the period of
being posted in the city or municipal bulletin board for at determination of administrative agency as to the operation, registration and came to this Court and invoked its
least one week prior. Thus, if we held registrations on the implementation and application of a law would be protective mantle not realizing, so to speak, the speck in
16th and the 17th the posting requirement would be accorded great weight considering that these specialized their eyes. Impuris minibus nemo accedat curiam. Let no
completed by the 24th. Considering that time must be government bodies are, by their nature and functions, in one come to court with unclean hands.
allowed for the filling of oppositions, the earliest that the the best position to know what they can possibly do or not
Election Registration Board can be convened for hearing do, under prevailing circumstances. In a similar vein, well-entrenched is the rule in our
would be the May 1st and 2nd. jurisdiction that the law aids the vigilant and not those who
Beyond this, it is likewise well-settled that the law does not slumber on their rights. Vigilantis sed non dormientibus
“32) Assuming — and this is a big assumption — require that the impossible be done.[15] The law obliges jura in re subveniunt.
that there are nit challenges to the applicant’s right to no one to perform an impossibility, expressed in the
register, the Election registration Board can immediately maxim, nemo tenetur ad impossible.[16] In other words, Applying the foregoing, this court is of the firm view that
rule on the Applicant’s registration, and post notices of its there is no obligation to do an impossible thing. respondent COMELEC did not commit an abuse of
action by the 2nd until the 7th of May. By the 10th, copies Impossibilium nulla obligato est. Hence, a statute may not discretion, much less be adjudged to have committed the
of the notice of the action taken by the Board will have be so construed as to require compliance with what it same in some patent, whimsical and arbitrary manner, in
already been furnished to the applicants and the heads of prescribes cannot, at the time, be legally, issuing Resolution No. 3584 which, in respondent’s own
registered political parties. coincidentally[17], it must be presumed that the legislature terms, resolved “to deny the request to conduct a two-day
did not at all intend an interpretation or application of a law additional registration of new voters on February 17 and
“33) Only at this point can our Election Officers which is far removed from the realm of the possible. Truly, 18, 2001.”
once again focus on the business of getting ready for the in the interpretation of statutes, the interpretation to be
elections. Once the results of the special registration are given must be such that it is in accordance with logic, On this particular matter, grave abuse of discretion implies
finalized, they can be encoded and a new Computerized common sense, reasonableness and practicality. Thus, a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, when the power is registration of voters. For the determination of whether or
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of not the conduct of a special registration of voters is [1] G.R. No. 147066 and G.R. No. 147179.
passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and feasible, possible or practical within the remaining period
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty enjoined before the actual date of election, involves the exercise of [2] AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A GENERAL
or to act at all in contemplation of laws.[19] discretion and thus, cannot be controlled by mandamus. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS, ADOPTING A SYSTEM
OF CONTINUING REGISTRATION, PRESCRIBING
Under these circumstances, we rule that the COMELEC, in In Bayan vs. Executive Secretary Zamora and related PROCEDURE THEREOF AND AUTHORIZING THE
denying the request of petitioners to hold a special cases,[22] we enunciated that the Court’s function, as APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS THEREFOR.
registration, acted within the bounds and confines of the sanctioned by Article VIII, Section 1, is “merely (to) check
applicable law on the matter --Section 8 of RA 8189. In whether or not the governmental branch or agency has [3] Letter of Senator Raul Roco.
issuing the assailed Resolution, respondent COMELEC gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not
simply performed its constitutional task to enforce and that it erred or has a different view. In the absence of a [4] G.R. No. 147066 Rollo, p. 24.
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct showing...(of) grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of an election,[20] inter alia, questions relating to the of jurisdiction, there is no occasion for the Court to [5] See Resolution No. 3584.
registration of voters; evidently, respondent COMELEC exercise its corrective power... It has no power to look into
merely exercised a prerogative that chiefly pertains to it what it thinks is apparent error.”[23] [6] Resolution dated March 13, 2001.
and one which squarely falls within the proper sphere of its
constitutionally-mandated powers. Hence, whatever action Finally, the Court likewise takes judicial notice of the fact [7] AN ACT INTRODUCING ADDITIONAL REFORMS IN
respondent takes in the exercise of its wide latitude of that the President has issued Proclamation No. 15 calling THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM AND FOR OTHER
discretion, specifically on matters involving voters’ Congress to a Special Session on March 19, 2001, to PURPOSES.
registration, pertains to the wisdom rather than the legality allow the conduct of Special Registration of new voters.
of the act. Accordingly, in the absence of clear showing of House Bill No. 12930 has been filed before the Lower [8] AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMELEC TO USE AN
grave abuse of power of discretion on the part of House, which bill seeks to amend R.A. 8189 as to the 120- AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM IN THE MAY 11, 1998
respondent COMELEC, this Court may not validly conduct day prohibitive period provided for under said law. NATIONAL OR LOCAL ELECTIONS AND IN
an incursion and meddle with affairs exclusively within the Similarly, Senate Bill No. 2276[24] was filed before the SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTORAL
province of respondent COMELEC– a body accorded by Senate, with the same intention to amend the aforesaid EXERCISES, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND
no less than the fundamental law with independence. law and, in effect, allow the conduct of special registration FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
before the May 14, 2001 General Elections. This Court
As to petitioners’ prayer for the issuance of the writ of views the foregoing factual circumstances as a clear [9] Agpalo, Statutory Construction, pp. 265-266, Fourth
mandamus, we hold that this Court cannot, in view of the intimation on the part of both the executive and legislative Edition, 1998; Tan Kim Kee vs. Court of Appeals, 7 SCRA
very nature of such extraordinary writ, issue the same departments that a legal obstacle indeed stands in the way 670 (1963); Collector of Internal Revenue, 7 SCRA 872
without transgressing the time-honored principles in this of the conduct by the Commission on Elections of a special (1963).
jurisdiction. registration before the May 14, 2001 General Elections.
[10] Agpalo, Ibid., p. 271; City of Naga vs. Agna, 71 SCRA
As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petitions 176 (1976).
only to compel an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not for certiorari and mandamus are hereby DENIED.
a discretionary one; mandamus will not issue to control the [11] Ibid., p. 271; Gordon vs. Veridaino II, 167 SCRA 51
exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law SO ORDERED. (1988).
imposes upon him the duty to exercise his judgment in
reference to any manner in which he is required to act, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., [12] Comment of respondent COMELEC, p. 14.
because it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not concur.
that of the court.[21] Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, and [13] Ibid., p. 9.
Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., joined Mr. Justice Pardo in his
Considering the circumstances where the writ of dissenting opinion. [14] G.R. No. 147179 Rollo, pp. 98-102.
mandamus lies and the peculiarities of the present case, Bellosillo, Melo, and Mendoza, JJ., concur in the majority
we are of the firm belief that petitioners failed to establish, opinion as well as in the Separate Opinion of J. Kapunan. [15] Reyes vs. Republic, 104 Phil. 889 (1958).
to the satisfaction of this Court, that they are entitled to the Puno, J., on official business abroad.
issuance of this extraordinary writ so as to effectively Kapunan, J., see concurring opinion. [16] Province of Cebu vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
compel respondent COMELEC to conduct a special Pardo, J., see dissenting opinion. 147 SCRA 447 (1987).
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of More than two months later, on February 26, 1996, private
[17] Agpalo, Statutory Construction, pp. 157-158, Fourth the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, respondents through counsel, filed a Motion to Revive the
Edition, 1998. Branch 71 dated August 26, 1997.[1] abovementioned criminal cases against petitioners, stating
that the requirement of referral to the Lupon for conciliation
[18] Paragraphs 4 and 5 in G.R. No. 147066 and The antecedent facts are as follows: had already been complied with.[12] Attached to the
Paragraph 9 in G.R. No. 147179. motion was a Certification dated February 13, 1996 from
Petitioners Fidel M. Bañares II, Lilia C. Valeriano, Edgar M. the Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Dalig, Antipolo,
[19] Cuison vs. Court of Appeals, 289 SCRA 159 (1998); Bañares, Emilia Gatchialian and Fidel Besarino were the Rizal[13] stating that the parties appeared before said
Jardine vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 119268, February 23, 2000 accused in sixteen criminal cases for estafa[2] filed by the body regarding the charges of estafa filed by private
citing Arroyo vs. de Venecia, 277 SCRA 268 (1997). private respondents. The cases were assigned to the respondents against petitioners but they failed to reach an
Municipal Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch II. Ncm amicable settlement with respect thereto. Petitioners filed a
[20] Article IX-C, Section 2. Comment and Opposition to Motion to Revive claiming that
After the petitioners were arraigned and entered their plea the Order of the municipal trial court, dated November 13,
[21] Sy Ha vs. Gulang 7 SCRA 797 [1963]; Aprueba vs. of not guilty,[3] they filed a Motion to Dismiss the 1995 dismissing the cases had long become final and
Ganzon, 18 SCRA 8 [1966]. aforementioned cases on the ground that the filing of the executory; hence, private respondents should have re-filed
same was premature, in view of the failure of the parties to the cases instead of filing a motion to revive.[14]
[22] G.R. No. 138570, promulgated on October 10, 2000. undergo conciliation proceedings before the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Barangay Dalig, Antipolo, Rizal.[4] On March 18, 1996, the municipal trial court issued an
[23] Co vs. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Petitioners averred that since they lived in the same Order[15] granting private respondents’ Motion to Revive.
Representative, 199 SCRA 692 (1991); Llamas vs. Orbos, barangay as private respondents, and the amount involved Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[16] of the
202 SCRA 849, 857 (1991); Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA in each of the cases did not exceed Two Hundred Pesos aforementioned Order which was denied by the municipal
480-481 (1971). (P200.00), the said cases were required under Section trial court.[17]
412 in relation to Section 408 of the Local Government
[24] An Act Providing for the Conduct of Special Code of 1991[5] and Section 18 of the 1991 Revised Rule Petitioners thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Registration of Voters before the May 14, 2001, National on Summary Procedure.[6] to be referred to the Lupong Antipolo, Rizal, a petition for certiorari, injunction and
and Local Elections. Tagapamayapa or Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo of the prohibition assailing the Order dated March 18, 1996 of the
barangay concerned for conciliation proceedings before municipal trial court. They claimed that the said Order
being filed in court.[7] dated November 13, 1995 dismissing the criminal cases
FIRST DIVISION against them had long become final and executory
The municipal trial court issued an Order, dated July 17, considering that the prosecution did not file any motion for
[G.R. No. 132624. March 13, 2000] 1995[8] denying petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss on the reconsideration of said Order.[18] In response thereto,
ground that they failed to seasonably invoke the non- private respondents filed their Comment,[19] arguing that
FIDEL M. BAÑARES II, LILIA C. VALERIANO, EDGAR M. referral of the cases to the Lupong Tagapamayapa or the motion to revive the said cases was in accordance with
BAÑARES, EMILIA GATCHALIAN and FIDEL BESARINO, Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo. It added that such failure to law, particularly Section 18 of the Revised Rule on
petitioners, vs. ELIZABETH BALISING, ROGER ALGER, invoke non-referral of the case to the Lupon amounted to a Summary Procedure.[20]
MERLINDA CAPARIC, EUSTAQUIO R. TEJONES, waiver by petitioners of the right to use the said ground as
ANDREA SAYAM, JENNY ISLA, WILMA ROGATERO, basis for dismissing the cases.[9] After the parties submitted additional pleadings to support
PABLITO ALEGRIA, ROLANDO CANON, EDITHA their respective contentions,[21] the Regional Trial Court
ESTORES, EDMUNDO DOROYA, TERESITA GUION, Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the rendered the assailed Decision denying the petition for
DANNY ANDARAYAN, LOURDES CADAY, ROGELIO aforementioned Order, claiming that nowhere in the certiorari, injunction and prohibition, stating as follows:
MANO, EVANGELINE CABILTES AND PUBLIC Revised Rules of Court is it stated that the ground of
PROSECUTOR OF RIZAL, Antipolo, Rizal, respondents. prematurity shall be deemed waived if not raised Evaluating the allegations contained in the petition and
seasonably in a motion to dismiss.[10] respondents’ comment thereto, the Court regrets that it
DECISION cannot agree with the petitioner(sic). As shown by the
On November 13, 1995, the municipal trial court issued an records the 16 criminal cases were dismissed without
KAPUNAN, J.: Order dismissing the sixteen criminal cases against prejudice at the instance of the petitioners for failure of the
petitioners without prejudice, pursuant to Section 18 of the private respondent to comply with the mandatory
1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.[11] Scncm requirement of PD 1508. Since the dismissal of said cases
was without prejudice, the Court honestly believes that the orders under the Revised Rules of Court. They insist that power to amend and modify, a party wishes to reinstate
questioned order has not attained finality at all. cases dismissed without prejudice for non-compliance with the case has no other remedy but to file a new complaint.
the requirement of conciliation before the Lupong
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby Tagapamayapa or Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo of the This was explained in Ortigas & Company Limited
DENIED for lack of merit. Sdaamiso barangay concerned may be revived summarily by the Partnership vs. Velasco,[36] where we ruled thus: Scsdaad
filing of a motion to revive regardless of the number of
SO ORDERED.[22] days which has lapsed after the dismissal of the case.[28] The dismissal of the case, and the lapse of the
reglementary period to reconsider or set aside the
The Regional Trial Court, likewise, denied petitioners’ Petitioners’ contentions are meritorious. Sdaad dismissal, effectively operated to remove the case from the
Motion for Reconsideration[23] of the aforementioned Court’s docket. Even assuming the dismissal to be without
Decision for lack of merit.[24] A "final order" issued by a court has been defined as one prejudice, the case could no longer be reinstated or
which disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or "revived" by mere motion in the original docketed action,
Hence, this Petition. terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving but only by the filing of another complaint accompanied, of
nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what course, by the payment of the corresponding filing fees
Petitioners raise the following questions of law: has been determined by the court.[29] As distinguished prescribed by law.
therefrom, an "interlocutory order" is one which does not
1. Whether or not an order dismissing a case or action dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more xxx
without prejudice may attain finality if not appealed within to be adjudicated upon.[30]
the reglementary period, as in the present case; [S]ince theoretically every final disposition of an action
This Court has previously held that an order dismissing a does not attain finality until after fifteen (15) days
2. Whether or not the action or case that had been case without prejudice is a final order[31] if no motion for therefrom, and consequently within that time the action still
dismissed without prejudice may be revived by motion reconsideration or appeal therefrom is timely filed. remains within the control of the Court, the plaintiff may
after the order of dismissal had become final and move and set aside his notice of dismissal and revive his
executory; and In Olympia International vs. Court of Appeals,[32] we action before that period lapses. But after dismissal has
stated thus: become final after the lapse of the fifteen-day
3. Whether or not the court that had originally acquired reglementary period, the only way by which the action may
jurisdiction of the case that was dismissed without The dismissal without prejudice of a complaint does not be resuscitated or "revived" is by the institution of a
prejudice still has jurisdiction to act on the motion to revive however mean that said dismissal order was any less final. subsequent action through the filing of another complaint
after the order of dismissal has become final and Such order of dismissal is complete in all details, and and the payment of fees prescribed by law. This is so
executory.[25] though without prejudice, nonetheless finally disposed of because upon attainment of finality of the dismissal
the matter. It was not merely an interlocutory order but a through the lapse of said reglementary period, the Court
Petitioners contend that an order dismissing a case or final disposition of the complaint. loses jurisdiction and control over it and can no longer
action without prejudice may attain finality if not appealed make a disposition in respect thereof inconsistent with
within the reglementary period. Hence, if no motion to The law grants an aggrieved party a period of fifteen (15) such dismissal.[37] (Emphasis supplied.)
revive the case is filed within the reglementary fifteen-day days from his receipt of the court’s decision or order
period within which to appeal or to file a motion for disposing of the action or proceeding to appeal or move to Contrary to private respondents’ claim, the foregoing rule
reconsideration of the court’s order, the order of dismissal reconsider the same.[33] applies not only to civil cases but to criminal cases as well.
becomes final and the case may only be revived by the In Jaca vs. Blanco,[38] the Court defined a provisional
filing of a new complaint or information.[26] Petitioners After the lapse of the fifteen-day period, an order becomes dismissal of a criminal case as a dismissal without
further argue that after the order of dismissal of a case final and executory and is beyond the power or jurisdiction prejudice to the reinstatement thereof before the order of
attains finality, the court which issued the same loses of the court which rendered it to further amend or dismissal becomes final or to the subsequent filing of a
jurisdiction thereon and, thus, does not have the authority revoke.[34] A final judgment or order cannot be modified in new information for the offense."[39] Supremax
to act on any motion of the parties with respect to said any respect, even if the modification sought is for the
case.[27] purpose of correcting an erroneous conclusion by the court Thus, the Regional Trial Court erred when it denied the
which rendered the same.[35] petition for certiorari, injunction and prohibition and ruled
On the other hand, private respondents submit that cases that the order of the municipal trial court, dated November
covered by the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure After the order of dismissal of a case without prejudice has 13, 1995 dismissing without prejudice the criminal cases
such as the criminal cases against petitioners are not become final, and therefore becomes outside the court’s against petitioners had not attained finality and hence,
covered by the rule regarding finality of decisions and could be reinstated by the mere filing of a motion to revive.
procedure. Nothing in Section 18 of the 1991 Revised Rule
Equally erroneous is private respondents’ contention that on Summary Procedure conflicts with the prevailing rule However, while the trial court committed an error in
the rules regarding finality of judgments under the Revised that a judgment or order which is not appealed or made dismissing the criminal cases against petitioners on the
Rules of Court[40] do not apply to cases covered by the subject of a motion for reconsideration within the ground that the same were not referred to the Lupon prior
1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Private prescribed fifteen-day period attains finality.[46] Hence, the to the filing thereof in court although said ground was
respondents claim that Section 18 of the 1991 Revised principle expressed in the maxim interpretare et raised by them belatedly, the said order may no longer be
Rule on Summary Procedure allows the revival of cases concordare legibus est optimus interpretandi, or that every revoked at present considering that the same had long
which were dismissed for failure to submit the same to statute must be so construed and harmonized with other become final and executory, and as earlier stated, may no
conciliation at the barangay level, as required under statutes as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence [47] longer be annulled[55] by the Municipal Trial Court, nor by
Section 412 in relation to Section 408 of the Local applies in interpreting both sets of Rules. the Regional Trial Court or this Court.[56] Scjuris
Government Code. The said provision states:
The rationale behind the doctrine of finality of judgments WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The
Referral to Lupon. – Cases requiring referral to the Lupon and orders, likewise, supports our conclusion that said Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal,
for conciliation under the provisions of Presidential Decree doctrine applies to cases covered by the 1991 Revised Branch II dated August 26, 1997 and its Order dated
No. 1508[41] where there is no showing of compliance Rule on Summary Procedure: January 29, 1998 in SCA Case No. 96-4092 are hereby
with such requirement, shall be dismissed without SET ASIDE and Criminal Cases Nos. 94-0829, 94-0830,
prejudice, and may be revived only after such requirement The doctrine of finality of judgments is grounded on 94-0831, 94-0832, 94-0833, 94-0836, 94-0838, 94-0839,
shall have been complied with. This provision shall not fundamental considerations of public policy and sound 94-0841, 94-0843, 94-0847, 94-0848, 94-0850, 94-0854
apply to criminal cases where the accused was arrested practice that at the risk of occasional error, the judgments and 94-0058 of the Municipal Trial Court of Antipolo are
without a warrant.[42] of the courts must become final at some definite date set ordered DISMISSED, without prejudice, pursuant to Sec.
by law.[48] Misjuris 18 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
There is nothing in the aforecited provision which supports
private respondents’ view. Section 18 merely states that It is but logical to infer that the foregoing principle also SO ORDERED. KAPUNAN
when a case covered by the 1991 Revised Rule on applies to cases subject to summary procedure especially
Summary Procedure is dismissed without prejudice for since the objective of the Rule governing the same is Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, and Ynares-Santiago,
non-referral of the issues to the Lupon, the same may be precisely to settle these cases expeditiously.[49] To JJ., concur.
revived only after the dispute subject of the dismissed case construe Section 18 thereof as allowing the revival of
is submitted to barangay conciliation as required under the dismissed cases by mere motion even after the lapse of Pardo, J., on official business abroad.
Local Government Code. There is no declaration to the the period for appealing the same would prevent the courts
effect that said case may be revived by mere motion even from settling justiciable controversies with finality,[50]
after the fifteen-day period within which to appeal or to file thereby undermining the stability of our judicial system. [1] SCA Case No. 96-4092.
a motion for reconsideration has lapsed. [2] Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 94-0829, 94-0830, 94-
The Court also finds it necessary to correct the mistaken 0831, 94-0832, 94-0833, 94-0836, 94-0838, 94-0839, 94-
Moreover, the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure impression of petitioners and the municipal trial court that 0841, 94-0843, 94-0847, 94-0848, 94-0850, 94-0854 and
expressly provides that the Rules of Court applies the non-referral of a case for barangay conciliation as 94-0058 in the Municipal Trial Court of Antipolo Rizal,
suppletorily to cases covered by the former: required under the Local Government Code of 1991[51] Branch II.
may be raised in a motion to dismiss even after the [3] Rollo, p. 91.
Sec. 22. Applicability of the regular rules. – The regular accused has been arraigned. [4] Motion to Dismiss, Id., at. 22-24.
procedure prescribed in the Rules of Court shall apply to [5] Sections 412 and 408 of the Local Government Code of
the special cases herein provided for in a suppletory It is well-settled that the non-referral of a case for barangay 1991 state thus:
capacity insofar as they are not inconsistent therewith.[43] conciliation when so required under the law[52] is not
jurisdictional in nature[53] and may therefore be deemed Section 412.......Conciliation.-- (a) Pre-condition to Filing of
A careful examination of Section 18 in relation to Section waived if not raised seasonably in a motion to dismiss.[54] Complaint in Court. -- No complaint, petition, action or
22 of the 1991 Revised Rule of Summary Procedure and The Court notes that although petitioners could have proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the
Rule 40, Section 2 in relation to Rule 13, Sections 9 and invoked the ground of prematurity of the causes of action lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any
10,[44] and Rule 36, Section 2[45] of the 1997 Rules of against them due to the failure to submit the dispute to other government office for adjudication, unless there has
Civil Procedure, as amended, leads to no other conclusion Lupon prior to the filing of the cases as soon as they been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon
than that the rules regarding finality of judgments also received the complaints against them, petitioners raised chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or
apply to cases covered by the rules on summary the said ground only after their arraignment. settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon
secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon desire to redeem the subject property and for advice on On August 21, 1985, months after the expiration of the
or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been the procedure for redemption.[3] GSIS responded on redemption period on November 18, 1984, GSIS
repudiated by the parties thereto. October 16, 1984 advising her to pay the total redemption consolidated its title over the property, leading to the
price of P154,896.00 on or before the expiry date of cancellation of TCT No. 167532 covering the property and
FIRST DIVISION redemption on November 18, 1984 in full and in cash, the issuance of TCT No. 33418 in favor of GSIS.[7]
[G.R. No. 137904. October 19, 2001] failing which the property would be offered for sale through
public bidding. On September 5, 1985, respondent Crispina dela Cruz
PURIFICACION M. VDA. DE URBANO, PEDRO DE commenced negotiations with respondent GSIS for her
CASTRO, AURELIO I. ARRIENDA, ARNEL U. On October 29, 1984, petitioner vda. de Urbano requested purchase of the petitioners' foreclosed property for
ARRIENDA, ALBERT U. ARRIENDA, ALICE A. PEDRON for more time to redeem the subject property. In a letter P250,000.00 spot cash.
and MARILYN C. BILOG, petitioners, vs. GOVERNMENT dated January 10, 1985, AAD Manager Marcial Secoquian
SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), FELICIANO informed petitioners that the Board adopted Resolution No. Unable to raise the entire amount of the property but still
BELMONTE, JR., ZACARIAS BELTRAN, JR., MARCIAL 929 on November 16, 1984 approving the "sale of the persistent to reacquire it, petitioner Arnel Arrienda wrote to
SECOQUIAN and CRISPINA DELA CRUZ, respondents. subject property to petitioner Purificacion Urbano for the the Board on October 4, 1985, offering a downpayment of
DECISION sum of P174,572.62, provided that the aforesaid price P50,000.00 to purchase their property, the balance of
PUNO, J.: shall be paid in CASH, within sixty (60) days from notice of P124,572.62 to be paid within five years in equal monthly
this resolution, failing which, the property shall be sold thru installments. He enclosed a cashier's check in the amount
The petitioners in the case at bar have been fighting tooth public bidding with the fair market value of the property as of P10,000.00 as earnest money. On October 30, 1985,
and nail for a roof above their heads. They have fought the minimum bid price." AAD Manager Secoquian informed petitioners that the
long and hard but still not enough, for while as a succor Board adopted Resolution No. 881 on October 10, 1985
institution the respondent GSIS can bend back to Unable to find financing to repurchase the subject declining their offer to purchase the subject property under
accommodate the needs of a member, it can only bend as property, petitioners again wrote to the Board through AAD their proposed terms and conditions.[8]
far as it can also assure the solvency of its funds for the Manager Secoquian on January 18, 1985 requesting for
common good of its members. re-mortgage through repurchase of the subject property.[4] On November 11, 1985, petitioner Arnel Arrienda again
On February 27, 1985, AAD Manager Secoquian wrote to wrote to the Board requesting reconsideration of
This is a petition for review on certiorari to annul and set petitioners that "the granting of real estate/housing loan to Resolution No. 881 and abeyance of the public sale or
aside the Court of Appeals' October 30, 1998 decision[1] the GSIS members is not within the province and negotiation of the subject property.[9] Secoquian wrote
and March 4, 1999 resolution affirming the decision of the competence of this department, hence your request for a petitioner Arnel Arrienda on December 26, 1985 informing
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 102, re-mortgage of said property cannot be acted upon."[5] On him that the Board adopted Resolution No. 1022 dated
dismissing petitioner's complaint for annulment of contract, June 19, 1985, petitioner vda. de Urbano wrote to the December 12, 1985 denying his request for
reconveyance and damages. Board requesting approval to file a loan of P240,000.00 reconsideration of Resolution No. 881 and returning
with the GSIS Real Estate Department to repurchase their petitioners' cashier's check of P10,000.00.[10] The Board
The facts, gathered mainly from the stipulation and foreclosed property. also directed the "Operating Unit Concerned to inform Ms.
admissions of the parties,[2] are as follows: Cristina Cruz (sic) that her offer to purchase the above-
On June 20, 1985, then Deputy Minister and Vice mentioned property shall only be entertained by the GSIS
In 1971, petitioners mortgaged their 200-square meter Governor Ismael A. Mathay, Jr. interceded for the Board if accompanied by a Cashier's or Manager's check
property in Quezon City to the respondent GSIS to secure petitioners and wrote to the Board requesting for a more in the amount equivalent to 10% of her offer, forfeitable in
a housing loan of P47,000.00. As petitioners failed to pay liberal arrangement to enable petitioners to repurchase favor of the System in case she fails to comply with the
their loan when it fell due, GSIS foreclosed the mortgage their property. In response to the letter, the Board adopted terms and conditions proposed by the System."[11]
on October 28, 1983. With a bid of P154,896.00, GSIS Resolution No. 593 on July 6, 1985 granting petitioner
emerged as the highest bidder in the public auction of the Aurelio Arrienda "60 days from notice within which to With no let up on their efforts to repurchase their property,
property. purchase the subject property for P174,572.62 payable in petitioner Aurelio Arrienda wrote to the Board on January
CASH. Should Mr. Arrienda fail to pay the same within the 6, 1986 requesting a restructuring or a liberal arrangement
In a bid to redeem their property, petitioner Arnel Arrienda time frame mentioned, the property shall be sold at public to purchase back the subject property. This was denied by
wrote on September 26, 1984 to the Acquired Assets auction without need of any further action by the Board." the Board in Resolution No. 36 dated January 16, 1986.
Department (AAD) of the GSIS signifying the petitioners' Petitioners were notified of this Resolution in a letter dated
intention to redeem their property. Two days after or on August 2, 1985.[6] Meantime, GSIS continued negotiating with private
September 28, petitioner vda. de Urbano wrote the GSIS respondent dela Cruz. On January 28, 1986, Secoquian
Board of Trustees (the "Board") to inform them of her
recommended to the Board the approval of the sale to dela On September 1, 1987, GSIS wrote to private respondent 2. In not finding that respondent GSIS had consummated
Cruz. dela Cruz that the Board, through Board Resolution No. the alleged negotiated sale in favor of respondent Dela
342, approved the sale of the subject property payable in Cruz notwithstanding the failure of the latter to comply with
Not having lost their resolve and pinning their hopes on the full and in cash for P267,000.00, representing its current the terms and conditions of the alleged sale.
new Board of Trustees under the new administration of market value, within thirty days from notice of the
then President Corazon Aquino, petitioner vda. de Urbano resolution. On January 20, 1988, a Deed of Absolute Sale 3. In not finding that respondent GSIS had committed
wrote on January 20, 1987 to Atty. Regalado over the subject property was executed between GSIS and dishonesty and/or perjury by falsely alleging in their
Resurreccion, Head of the Operation Pabahay of the private respondent de la Cruz. The following day, TCT No. Answer to the Complaint that it acted on the request of
Government Investments and Loan Department of the 374292 covering the subject property was issued to dela petitioner Purificacion Vda. De Urbano to re-acquire her
GSIS, requesting reconsideration of GSIS' position with Cruz. former property through the GSIS Operation Pabahay by
regard to the subject property.[12] As indicated in a GSIS transmitting said request to the Acquired Assets
internal commmunication, Officer-in-Charge Rosales of the Meantime, having learned about the sale of the subject Department.
Residential Loans Department initially handled the property to dela Cruz, petitioner Aurelio Arrienda wrote to
request, then endorsed it to Atty. Resurreccion on January the GSIS on September 27, 1987 protesting the said sale 4. In not finding that the case of Valmonte vs. Belmonte,
19, 1987 and enclosed in his endorsement petitioner vda. and requesting its reconsideration and recall. Respondent Jr., 170 SCRA 256 (1989), is applicable to the case at
de Urbano's June 19, 1985 letter applying for a loan of Beltran, then already the Vice President of the AAMG & bench.
P240,000.00 to repurchase the subject property. The GRADE Department of the GSIS, responded on October
matter was, in turn, endorsed by Atty. Resurreccion to 27, 1987 informing him of Resolution No. 430, dated 5. In not finding that Section 35 of P.D. 1146, does not
AAD Manager Secoquian on January 20, 1987 as "the October 13, 1987, which reiterated the approval of the sale provide any prerogative to the GSIS Board of Trustees to
Operation Pabahay Task Force cannot undertake the of the subject property to respondent dela Cruz as authorize and/or approve the alleged negotiated sale in
processing of this kind of loan unless a certificate of award previously approved under Board Resolution No. 342. On favor of a non-GSIS member or an outsider without
or sale is issued in favor of the applicant." Atty. November 4, 1987, petitioner Aurelio Arrienda again wrote complying with pertinent existing laws and established
Resurreccion likewise noted in his endorsement that the to the GSIS protesting the sale of the property to jurisprudence.
applicant for the loan was already 81 years old and no respondent dela Cruz and requesting for a formal
longer a member of the GSIS. AAD Manager Secoquian investigation of the circumstances leading to the sale. The 6. In not finding that the appealed Decision of the lower
returned said application to the head of the Operation GSIS' Department of Investigation manager wrote to court did not faithfully comply with Sec. 1, Rule 36 of the
Pabahay on March 3, 1987, enumerating the Board petitioner Aurelio Arrienda on January 11, 1988 requesting Rules of Court.
resolutions relative to the subject property and stating that petitioner Aurelio Arrienda to "come for conference" with
"pending action by the Board on the offer of CRISPINA Atty. Gatpatan of the said department regarding his 7. In not finding that the case of Maharlika Publishing
VDA. DELA CRUZ to purchase the subject property for the complaint on the subject property. Corporation vs. Tagle, 142 SCRA 553 (1986), is a
amount of P250,000.00, the request of Mrs. URBANO precedent to the case at bench.
cannot as yet be given due consideration."[13] Not satisfied with the investigation of GSIS, petitioners filed
the instant case before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon 8. In not giving due consideration to the newly discovered
On August 11, 1987, GSIS approved under Resolution No. City, Branch 102. The lower court dismissed the evidence of the petitioners (Annexes "A" and "B", Brief for
342 the "sale of the subject property to respondent dela complaint. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. the Appellants) which showed that respondent Crispina
Cruz for a consideration of P267,000.00 CASH." The Hence, this petition for review with the following Dela Cruz had already withdrawn her offer to buy subject
following day, respondent AAD & GRADE Acting Vice- assignment of errors: property and the same was accepted by respondent
President Zacarias C. Beltran, Jr. wrote to petitioners GSIS."
Zenaida/Aurelio Arrienda calling their attention to the "The Honorable Court of Appeals (Former Eleventh
absence of a formal lease contract over the subject Division) erred as follows: The petition is devoid of merit.
property where petitioners continued to stay. He also
demanded payment of rental arrears on the property for 45 1. In not finding that the alleged negotiated sale of The smorgasbord of issues raised by the petitioner can be
months as of July 31, 1987 amounting to P58,500.00[14] petitioners' foreclosed property was consummated by reduced to three jugular issues, viz:
and invited petitioners Zenaida and Aurelio Arrienda to the respondent GSIS in favor of respondent Crispina Dela
GSIS Office to make arrangements for the payment of the Cruz, a non-GSIS member, in violation of its own Board I. Do petitioners have a right to repurchase the subject
rental arrears and to execute the corresponding lease Resolution Nos. 929 and 593, existing laws and applicable property?
contract. The letter did not mention the negotiation with jurisprudence.
private respondent dela Cruz. II. Does the GSIS have a duty to dispose of the subject
property through public bidding?
of the Fund administered by the GSIS during these times
III. Was GSIS in bad faith in dealing with of grave economic crisis affecting the country; "The right to redeem becomes functus officio on the date
petitioners? of its expiry, and its exercise after the period is not really
xxx one of redemption but a repurchase. Distinction must be
I. made because redemption is by force of law; the
Sec. 7. There is hereby incorporated a new paragraph purchaser at public auction is bound to accept redemption.
We first deal with the issue of repurchase. At the time after the third paragraph of Section 36, which shall read as Repurchase however of foreclosed property, after
petitioners offered to repurchase the subject property from follows: redemption period, imposes no such obligation. After
GSIS, the charter of the GSIS then in force was P.D. 1146 expiry, the purchaser may or may not re-sell the property
or the Revised Government Insurance Act of 1977 (the "The Board of Trustees has the following powers and but no law will compel him to do so. And, he is not bound
"Act"). Sections 35 and 36 of the Act provide in relevant functions, among others: by the bid price; it is entirely within his discretion to set a
part as follows: higher price, for after all, the property already belongs to
(a) To formulate the policies, guidelines and programs to him as owner."[15] (emphasis supplied)
"Sec. 35. Powers and Functions of the System. The effectively carry out the purposes and objectives of this
System shall have the following powers and functions Act; In response to petitioners' plea to repurchase the subject
specified in this Act and the usual general corporate property after the redemption period had expired, the
powers: xxx Board approved its sale to petitioners by virtue of
Resolution No. 929 dated November 16, 1984, provided
xxx (f) The provisions of any law to the contrary that the payment of its purchase price of P174,572.62 shall
notwithstanding, to compromise or release, in whole or in be made in cash within sixty days from notice of the
(d) To acquire, utilize or dispose of, in any manner part, any claim or settled liability to the System, regardless resolution, otherwise the property would be sold through
recognized by law, real or personal properties in the of the amount involved, under such terms and conditions public bidding. After petitioners' failure to purchase the
Philippines or elsewhere necessary to carry out the as it may impose for the best interest of the System; . . ." property within the prescribed period, the Board, through
purposes of this Act." (emphasis supplied) (emphasis supplied) Resolution No. 593 dated July 6, 1985, granted petitioners
another sixty days within which to purchase the property
"Sec. 36. The Board of Trustees; Its Composition; Tenure The above laws grant the GSIS Board of Trustees (the for the same amount and under the same terms stated in
and Compensation.- The Corporate powers and functions "Board") the power, nay, the responsibility, to exercise Resolution No. 929. Counting from the expiry date of
of the System shall be vested in, and exercised by the discretion in "determining the terms and conditions of redemption on November 18, 1984, the petitioners were
Board of Trustees. . ." financial accomodations to its members" with the dual given about ten months within which to repurchase the
purpose of making the GSIS "more responsive to the subject property for the same price of P174,572.62. In
P.D. 1146 was amended by P.D. 1981 dated July 19, 1985 needs of the members of the GSIS" and assuring "the view of petitioners' repeated failure to repurchase coupled
as follows: actuarial solvency of the Fund administered by the GSIS." with their failure to pay rent on the subject property, the
As mandated by P.D. 1146, this discretion may be Board denied through Resolution No. 1022 dated
"WHEREAS, the GSIS Board of Trustees should be vested exercised in acquiring, utilizing or disposing of, in any December 12, 1985 petitioners' subsequent request to
with powers and authority necessary or proper to ensure a manner recognized by law, "real or personal properties in repurchase the subject property. The minutes of the
fair and profitable return of the investments of the funds the Philippines or elsewhere necessary to carry out the Board Meeting on December 12, 1985 show the comment
administered by the GSIS, and, for this purpose, the GSIS purposes of this Act." Contrary to petitioners' position, of the AAD Manager, viz:
Board of Trustees should be given full and sole there is no restriction or qualification that the GSIS should
responsibility of controlling and monitoring insurance dispose of its real properties in favor only of GSIS "From the aforementioned background of the Case where
investments operations and fixing and determining the members. Based on these laws, the Board could exercise the family of Mr. Arrienda has repeatedly made different
terms and conditions of financial accomodations to its its discretion on whether to accept or reject petitioners' and/or conflicting offers/requests, it seems that their family
members, including the power to compromise or release offer to repurchase the subject property taking into account apparently lack(sic) the capacity to reacquire their former
any claim or settled liability to the GSIS; the dual purpose enunciated in the "whereas clause" of property, and are obviously delaying our final disposition of
P.D. 1981, i.e., making the GSIS "more responsive to the the property. Moreover, since the expiry date of the
WHEREAS, it has thus become necessary to amend needs of the members of the GSIS" and assuring "the redemption period, Mr. Arrienda has not made any rental
Presidential Decree No. 1146 to clarify some of its actuarial solvency of the Fund administered by the GSIS." payments on the property."[16]
provisions to make it more responsive to the needs of the
members of the GSIS and to assure the actuarial solvency Jurisprudence also supports the Board's exercise of The Board's denial of petitioners' request to purchase the
discretion in case of repurchase, viz: subject property was based not on whim or caprice, but on
a factual assessment of the financial capacity of the Neither can petitioners invoke Maharlika Publishing Circular No. 86-264 was made clear by the subsequent
petitioners to make good their repeated offers to purchase Corporation v. Tagle,[18] as a precedent insofar as the COA Circular No. 89-296.
the subject property. Respondent GSIS struck a balance Board's exercise of its discretion to grant loan restructuring
between being "responsive to the needs of the members of is concerned.[19] Petitioners point out that in that case, the We uphold the position of the GSIS.
the GSIS" and assuring "the actuarial solvency of the Fund Supreme Court found that the GSIS "created an
administered by the GSIS", and tilted the scale in favor of agreement of binding nature" with the owner of the Section 79 of P.D. 1445 does not apply to the case at bar
the latter. Under the then GSIS charter or P.D. 1146, this foreclosed property when the owners proposed to as this provision applies only to unserviceable property,
was well within the powers of the Board. repurchase the property and the then GSIS General viz:
Manager Roman Cruz, Jr. ordered that the public bidding
Petitioners, in addition, fault their failure to meet the GSIS' of the property be stopped and the repurchase be "SECTION 79. Destruction or sale of unserviceable
terms for repurchase on the GSIS' inaction on their discussed with him a day before the scheduled date of the property. - When government property has become
January 20, 1987 request to re-acquire the subject bidding. The case is not in point. In the Maharlika case, unserviceable for any cause, or is no longer needed, it
property through the GSIS Operation Pabahay. They this Court ruled that GSIS was deemed to have accepted shall, upon application of the officer accountable therefor,
allege that instead of acting upon this letter, what was the offer to repurchase when it ordered the bidding to be be inspected by the head of the agency or his duly
acted upon was their letter of June 19, 1985. The stopped pending discussion of the repurchase with the authorized representative in the presence of the auditor
evidence on record, however, shows that Officer-in-Charge owner of the property. In the case at bar, however, the concerned and, if found to be valueless or unsalable, it
Rosales of the Residential Loans Department endorsed GSIS granted petitioners two opportunities under may be destroyed in their presence. If found to be
the matter raised by petitioners in their January 20, 1987 Resolutions No. 929 dated November 16, 1984 and valuable, it may be sold at public auction to the highest
letter to Atty. Resurreccion, Head of the Operation Resolution No. 593 dated July 6, 1985 to repurchase the bidder under the supervision of the proper committee on
Pabahay. While the endorsement shows that enclosed subject property, but petitioners failed to comply with the award or similar body in the presence of the auditor
therewith was petitioner vda. de Urbano's June 19, 1985 GSIS' terms of repurchase. Subsequently, when concerned or other duly authorized representative of the
letter applying for a loan of P240,000.00 to repurchase the petitioners offered to repurchase the subject property Commission, after advertising by printed notice in the
subject property, the endorsement itself stated that the under their own terms of payment, the GSIS under Official Gazette, or for not less than three consecutive
loan for reacquisition of the subject property was being Resolution No. 881 dated October 10, 1985 denied the days in any newspaper of general circulation, or where the
made under the "current Operations Pabahay." Thereafter, same. Unlike in the Maharlika case therefore, it cannot be value of the property does not warrant the expense of
the matter was endorsed by Atty. Resurreccion to the said that the GSIS "created an agreement (to repurchase) publication, by notices posted for a like period in at least
Manager of the AAD on January 20, 1987 as "the of binding nature" with the herein petitioners. three public places in the locality where the property is to
Operation Pabahay Task Force cannot undertake the be sold. In the event that the public auction fails, the
processing of this kind of loan unless a certificate of award II. property may be sold at a private sale at such price as may
or sale is issued in favor of the applicant." AAD Manager be fixed by the same committee or body concerned and
Secoquian returned said application to the head of the We come now to the second issue of whether the GSIS approved by the Commission."
Operation Pabahay on March 3, 1987, enumerating the should dispose of the subject property through public
Board resolutions relative to the subject property and bidding. That the subject property is not "unserviceable" or useless
stating that "pending action by the Board on the offer of is rather obvious. Petitioners are precisely fighting tooth
CRISPINA VDA. DELA CRUZ to purchase the subject Petitioners aver that Section 79 of P.D. 1445[20] and and nail to claim the subject property as they are still using
property for the amount of P250,000.00, the request of Commission on Audit (COA) Circular No. 86-264 mandate it as their family home. It still serves its purpose well.
Mrs. URBANO cannot as yet be given due the GSIS to dispose of its assets, such as the subject Neither is it "no longer needed" by the GSIS. As a
consideration."[17] property, primarily through public bidding and only upon its financial institution extending housing loans, the
failure, through a negotiated sale. disposition of foreclosed properties - such as the subject
In sum, insofar as the petitioners' request for repurchase is property - at a price beneficial to the GSIS helps maintain
concerned, they are not entitled to repurchase as a matter On the other hand, GSIS contends that Section 79 of P.D. the actuarial solvency of the GSIS fund. It cannot
of right. The Board exercised its discretion in accordance 1445 does not apply to the case at bar as this provision therefore be said that the subject property is "no longer
with law in denying their requests and the GSIS cannot be covers unserviceable government property and not needed" by the GSIS.
faulted for petitioners' failure to repurchase as it acted acquired assets like the subject property. Nor does the
upon petitioners' application under the Operation Pabahay. sale of the subject property come within the purview of We turn now to the COA circulars cited by the parties.
The sale of the subject property to respondent dela Cruz COA Circular No. 86-264 as it is a "sale of COA Circular No. 86-264 dated October 16, 1986, the
cannot therefore be annulled on the basis of petitioners' merchandise/inventory held for sale in the regular course "General guidelines on the divestment or disposal of
alleged right to repurchase. of business" which is carved out as an exception under the assets of government-owned and/or controlled
circular. GSIS posits that this interpretation of COA
corporations, and their subsidiaries" provides in relevant national, local or corporate, including the subsidiaries These audit guidelines shall be observed and adhered to
part, viz: thereof but shall not apply to the disposal of merchandise in the divestment or disposal of property and other assets
or inventory held for sale in the regular course of business of all government entities/instrumentalities, whether
"1.0 Rationale and Scope nor to the disposal by government financial institutions of national, local or corporate, including the subsidiaries
foreclosed assets or collaterals acquired in the regular thereof but shall not apply to the disposal of merchandise
These guidelines shall govern the general procedures on course of business and not transferred to the National or inventory held for sale in the regular course of business
the divestment or disposal of assets of government-owned Government under Proclamation No. 50. . . nor to the disposal by government financial institutions of
and/or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, which foreclosed assets or collaterals acquired in the regular
shall be supplemented by specific procedures as may be xxx course of business and not transferred to the National
adopted by the corporation concerned, provided they do Government under Proclamation No. 50. . ."
not contravene existing laws and the provisions of this V. MODES OF DISPOSAL/DIVESTMENT:
circular. We refer to Circular No. 89-296 in interpreting Circular No.
This Commission recognizes the following modes of 86-264 in adherence to the rule in statutory construction,
xxx disposal/divestment of assets and property of national viz:
government agencies, local government units and
3.0 Modes of Disposal government-owned and controlled corporations and their "The correct rule of interpretation is, that if divers (sic)
subsidiaries, aside from such modes as may be provided statutes relate to the same thing, they ought all to be taken
3.1. Public Auction by law. into consideration in construing any one of them, and it is
an established rule of law, that all acts in pari materia are
As a rule, public auction or bidding shall be the primary 1. Public Auction to be taken together, as if they were one law. (Doug., 30;
mode of disposal of assets. 2 Term Rep., 387, 586; 4 Maule & Selw., 210). If a thing
Conformably to existing state policy, the divestment or contained in a subsequent statute, be within the reason of
3.2. Sale thru Negotiation disposal of government property as contemplated herein a former statute, it shall be taken to be within the meaning
shall be undertaken primarily thru public auction. . . of that statute. (Lord Raym., 1028); and if it can be
Disposal thru this mode, which is a sale without public gathered from a subsequent statute in pari materia, what
bidding, shall be resorted to only in case of failure of public 2. Sale Thru Negotiation meaning the Legislature attached to the words of a former
auction. statute, they will amount to a legislative declaration of its
For justifiable reasons and as demanded by the exigencies meaning, and will govern the construction of the first
xxx of the service, disposal thru negotiated sale may be statute. (Morris v. Mellin, 6 Barn. & Cress., 454; 7 Barn. &
resorted to and undertaken by the proper committee or Cress. 99)"[21]
5.0 Exceptions and Effectivity body in the agency or entity concerned taking into
consideration the following factors: . . ." (emphasis In Riggs et al. v. Palmer et al.,[22] it was also ruled:
This Circular shall not apply to sales of supplied)
merchandise/inventory held for sale in the regular course "It is a familiar canon of construction that a thing which is
of business." (emphasis supplied) When the Board approved the sale of the subject property within the intention of the makers of a statute is as much
to private respondent dela Cruz through Resolution No. within the statute as if it were within the letter; and a thing
On January 27, 1989, COA Circular No. 89-296 was 342 in August 1987 and Resolution No. 430 in October of which is within the letter of the statute is not within the
issued providing also for "Audit Guidelines on the the same year, and when the Deed of Sale was executed statute unless it be within the intention of the makers. The
Divestment or Disposal of Property and Other Assets of between GSIS and private respondent dela Cruz in writers of the laws do not always express their intention
National Government Agencies and Instrumentalities, January 1988, Circular No. 86-264 was then in force. perfectly, but either exceed it or fall short of it, so that
Local Government Units and Government-Owned or judges are to collect it from probable or rational
Controlled Corporations and their Subsidiaries." It provides The pivotal question is whether the subject property is conjectures only, and this is called 'rational interpretation;'
for the disposition of government assets, viz: covered by COA Circular 86-264 or falls under the and Rutherford, in his Institutes, (page 420,) says: 'Where
exception in its paragraph 5 above. In construing this we make use of rational interpretation, sometimes we
"III. DEFINITION AND SCOPE: exception, we derive insight from the exceptions provided restrain the meaning of the writer so as to take in less, and
under the subsequent COA Circular 89-296, viz: sometimes we extend or enlarge his meaning so as to take
These audit guidelines shall be observed and adhered to in more, than his words express.' Such a construction
in the divestment or disposal of property and other assets "III. DEFINITION AND SCOPE: ought to be put upon a statute as will best answer the
of all government entities/instrumentalities, whether intention which the makers had in view, for qui haret in
litera, haret in cortice. In Bac. Abr. 'Statutes,' 1.5; Puff. When both COA Circular No. 86-264 and COA Circular "WHEREAS, it is necessary that the limited resources of
Law Nat. bk. 5, c. 12; Ruth. Inst. 422, 427, and in Smith's No. 89-296 were issued, affording flexibility to government- government be utilized as efficiently, as effectively, and as
Commentaries, 814, many cases are mentioned where it owned and controlled corporations (GOCC's) to allow them economically as possible to further national development
was held that matters embraced in the general words of to generate more revenue for national development was a and to support the economic recovery program, for which
statutes nevertheless were not within the statutes, declared government policy. This policy is unmistakable in the judicious use of the corporate form of organization is
because it could not have been the intention of the law- laws executed before the issuance of Circular No. 86-264 critical;
makers that they should be included. They were taken out in October 1986. P.D. 2029, "Defining Government-
of the statutes by an equitable construction; and it is said Owned and Controlled Corporations and Indentifying Their xxx"
in Bacon: 'By an equitable construction a case not within Role in National Development," dated February 4, 1986,
the letter of a statute is sometimes holden to be within the provides: P.D. 2030, Providing for the Orderly Disposition of Certain
meaning, because it is within the mischief for which the Assets of Government Institutions, also issued on
remedy is provided. The reason for such construction is "WHEREAS, there is a need to assure the flexibility of February 4, 1986, made explicit the policy of the
that the law-makers could not set down every case in such government corporations consistent with the need for government to divest government corporations of assets
express terms.'"[23] public accountability by providing for differential treatment as an aid to national development, viz:
for government corporations;
In C&C Commercial Corporation v. National Waterworks "WHEREAS, the National Government, through the
and Sewerage Authority,[24] we ruled that statutes in pari xxx agency of various financial and other government
materia should be construed together to attain the purpose institutions, has acquired or is otherwise the owner of a
of an expressed national policy, viz: SECTION 1. General Policy. - It is the policy of the State large number of assets in the industrial, manufacturing and
that the corporate form of organization, utilized judiciously, commercial sectors of the economy which, as part of the
"On the presumption that whenever the legislature enacts is one of the valid forms through which the government economic recovery program adopted by the National
a provision it has in mind the previous statutes relating to may participate in economic and social development. Government, it has been deemed necessary and
the same subject matter, it is held that in the absence of appropriate for the National Government to divest in a
any express repeal or amendment therein, the new xxx planned and orderly manner;
provision was enacted in accord with the legislative policy
embodied in those prior statutes, and they all should be SEC. 7. Provision of adequate operational flexiblity. - WHEREAS, as an integral part of this economic recovery
construed together. Provisions in an act which are omitted Government corporations shall be provided with adequate program and in order to facilitate the reorganization of
in another act relating to the same subject matter will be operational flexibility in order to function properly and certain government financial institutions, it is necessary to
applied in a proceeding under the other act, when not efficiently, especially under conditions of market relieve those institutions of assets which adversely affect
inconsistent with its purpose. Prior statutes relating to the competition. Such flexibility shall nevertheless be their financial viability and liquidity, and for the National
same subject matter are to be compared with the new consistent with the requirements of public acountability. Government to take over such assets and to assume the
provisions; and if possible by reasonable construction, realted liabilities of those institutions;
both are to be construed that effect is given to every xxx
provision of each. Statutes in pari materia, although in WHEREAS, it is the desire of the National Government to
apparent conflict, are so far as reasonably possible SEC. 8. Differential treatment.- To implement the concept realize on such assets within the shortest possible time
construed to be in harmony with each other."[25] of greater flexibility, government corporations in general and, to such end, to dispose of such assets generally on
shall be accorded differential treatment which is more terms that would permit immediate substantial cash returns
Agpalo writes in his book, Statutory Construction, viz: consistent with coporate organizational requirements as to the National Government;
distinguished from regular government agencies, with
"Statutes in pari materia should be read and construed respect to the exercise by the various service-wide xxx"
together because enactments of the same legislature on agencies, such as the Civil Service Commission, the
the same subject are supposed to form part of one uniform Commission on Audit, and the Office of Budget and Proclamation No. 50, "Proclaiming and Launching a
system; later statutes are supplementary or complimentary Management, of their respective jurisdiction." Program for the Expeditious Disposition and Privatization
(sic) to the earlier enactments and in the passage of its of Certain Government Corporations and/or the Assets
acts the legislature is supposed to have in mind the Letter of Instructions No. 1520, issued on the same day as Thereof, and Creating the Committee on Privatization and
existing legislations on the subject and to have enacted its P.D. 2029 on February 4, 1986, also provides for the role the Asset Privatization Trust," issued on December 8,
new act with reference thereto."[26] of government corporations in national development, viz: 1986 after the issuance of COA Circular No. 86-264, but
prior to COA Circular No. 89-296, reiterates the continuing
policy of the government to encourage divestment of as clarified by COA Circular 89-296, and thus does not P174,572.62 payable in cash within 60 days from notice of
assets as an aid to national development, viz: offend the requirements of the said COA circulars. resolution with a warning that non-compliance thereof (sic)
will result to the sale of the property at public auction. At
"CONSIDERING that the government has decided to Instead, the policies and procedures of the GSIS on the this point in time, there was still no meeting of the minds
adopt, as the twin cornerstones of the program, the disposition of acquired assets govern the case at bar. Mr. between the parties since the request of appellants thru
following parallel imperatives for the attainment of national Romeo Tejedor, manager of the Acquired Assets Purificacion Urbano is to extend the redemption period to
policy: Department of GSIS, testified that at the time the disputed enable them to redeem the property while Resolution No.
transaction took place, the GSIS still did not have clear cut 929 is for outright sale for the price of P174,572.62. These
xxx policies on the sale of acquired assets. At that time, the are two (2) separate and distinct legal transactions. Under
GSIS Board of Trustees had the prerogative to authorize Article 1319 of the Civil Code, the offer must be certain.
(b) reducing the number of government corporations which the sale of acquired assets. Petitioners aver that the GSIS The offer of Ms. Urbano is certain and explicit as to the
has proliferated to unmanageable proportions; "Policy and Procedural Guidelines Acquisition, extension of time to redeem their property. The
circumscribing the areas of economic activities within Administration, and Disposition of Acquired Assets (PPG)", acceptance of GSIS to this proposal must also be absolute
which the government corporations may operate; and a newspaper copy of which they annexed to their reply to and clear in granting said extension. However, GSIS did
aiming to achieve these goals through the privatization of a the GSIS' brief, provides that a negotiated sale may only not agree to the extension due to legal constraints and
good number of government corporations, and the be entered into after two failed public biddings on the instead a qualified acceptance was given in the sense that
disposition and liquidation of the non-relevant and non- acquired property. Petitioners, however, omitted to state GSIS made a counter-offer for appellants to buy the
performing assets of retained corporations as the logical that the said newspaper copy was published and the PPG property under certain terms.
first step to their rehabilitation." took effect only on January 17, 1991, long after the sale of
the subject property.[27] In the absence of evidence of Was there an acceptance of the counter-offer of GSIS on
The above-quoted laws on GOCC's and disposition of their policies and procedures contrary to the testimony of Mr. the part of appellants? Definitely none. On January 10,
assets unmistakeably show the policy of the government to Tejedor, we give credence to Mr. Tejedor's testimony that 1985, when appellants thru Purificacion Urbano was
allow flexibility to GOCC's and to promote disposition of at the time of the disputed sale to private respondent dela notified by GSIS Manager M.M. Secoquian of the Acquired
non-performing assets. This policy undergirds both COA Cruz, GSIS did not have clear cut policies on disposition of Assets Department of the approval of the sale under Board
Circular No. 86-264 and 89-296. Thus, the exception assets that required it to first sell the subject property Resolution No. 929, appellant Urbano replied on January
provided in COA Circular No. 86-264 should be, to the through public bidding before a negotiated sale. The GSIS 18, 1985 that they cannot pay the price of P174,572.62 as
widest extent possible, construed to accommodate this precisely came out with a PPG in 1991 to set the policies it may be difficult for a financial institution to accommodate
policy and allow GOCC's wide latitude in the disposition of and procedures to govern the disposition of acquired said obligation within the grace period of 60 days. (Exhibit
their assets, including foreclosed assets or collaterals assets because these were not clear cut prior to 1991. We "E", Records). In turn, Ms. Urbano made another counter-
acquired in the regular course of business. COA Circular therefore hold that the sale of the subject property to proposal "to have the said property be RE-MORTGAGE
No. 89-296 provides for two exceptions to the requirement private respondent dela Cruz was not contrary to law. (sic) through the process of repurchase with the GSIS".
of disposition primarily through public bidding, i.e., (1) (Exhibit "F", Records). . . A similar request was sent by
disposal of merchandise or inventory held for sale in the Neither can petitioners invoke the Maharlika case to lend appellant Aurelio Arrienda on May 20, 1985 but the same
regular course of business; and (2) disposal by support to its contention that the Board is bound to fulfill its was denied in a Board Resolution No. 516 dated June 6,
government financial institutions of foreclosed assets or representations in its letters to the petitioners that upon the 1985. (Exhibit "H", Records).
collaterals acquired in the regular course of business." In latter's failure to repurchase the property under Resolution
light of the declared policy of the government on GOCC's Nos. 929 and 593, the GSIS will dispose of the subject From the foregoing, this Court rules that there was no
and their assets, COA Circular No. 89-296 should be property through public bidding. Petitioners claim that meeting of the minds between the parties as the counter-
understood to have clarified the coverage of the exception these representations constituted a contract between them offer of GSIS for the appellants to buy the property based
under COA Circular No. 86-264, i.e., sales of and GSIS. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that there on terms and conditions laid down under Board Resolution
merchandise/inventory held for sale in the regular course was no contract between GSIS and the petitioners that No. 929 was NOT accepted by appellants. Under Article
of business. obligates the GSIS to sell the subject property through 1319 of the Civil Code, there was no valid and perfected
public bidding, viz: contract. Hence, appellants cannot claim any right under
The GSIS being a financial institution extending loans to its Board Resolution No. 929, more particularly on the sale at
members, the foreclosure of the subject property as ". . . the mortgage contract between the parties was not public auction since they did not agree to the counter-offer
collateral to a loan was done in the regular course of novated as to the extension of the redemption period of of GSIS as contained in Board Resolution 929.
business. Its sale to private respondent dela Cruz falls appellants since this is not sanctioned by law. What GSIS
within the exception provided by COA Circular No. 86-264 did per Resolution 929 was to make a counter proposal to . . . In response to the request of the First Lady Imelda
appellants for the sale of the property at the price of Marcos, the GSIS Board of Trustees approved Board
Resolution No. 593 which granted to "Mr. Aurelio Arrienda If the acceptance be qualified or not absolute, there is no
sixty (60) days from notice within which to purchase the concurrence of minds. There merely is counter-offer. Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ.,
property for P174,572.62 payable in cash. Should Mr. (Batangan vs. Cojuangco, 78 Phil. 481) concur.
Arrienda fail to pay the same within the time frame Ynares-Santiago, J., no part.
mentioned, the property shall be sold at public auction, A counter-offer as a matter of fact extinguishes the offer. It
without need of any further action from the Board." (Exhibit may or may not be accepted by the original offerer.
"3", p. 232 Records). Mr. Arrienda was notified of the (Trillana vs. Quezon Colleges, L-5003, June 27, 1953)" SECOND DIVISION
Board Resolution 593 by Manager M.M. Secoquian on (emphasis supplied)[28] [G.R. No. 154616. July 12, 2004]
August 2, 1985, asking him to remit the amount within 60
days from receipt of said letter (Exhibit "K", Records). III. GOV. ANTONIO CALINGIN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF
However, on October 4, 1985, appellants thru Atty. Ariel APPEALS, Special 17th Division, EXECUTIVE
Arrienda sent a letter to GSIS making a counter-offer to Finally, on the issue of whether or not GSIS was in bad SECRETARY RENATO S. DE VILLA, DEPT. OF
purchase said property. . . On October 10, 1985, the GSIS faith in dealing with the petitioners, we rule in the negative. INTERIOR & LOCAL GOVERNMENT SECRETARY JOEY
Board passed Board Resolution 818 declining the offer of As earlier discussed, respondent GSIS' denial of LINA,* UNDERSECRETARY EDUARDO R. SOLIMAN,
Mr. Arnel Arrienda to purchase the property for petitioners' further requests for repurchase of the subject JR., DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR & LOCAL
P147,572,62 under the terms and conditions he proposed. property was based on a factual determination of GOVERNMENT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 10, DIRECTOR
.. petitioners' financial incapacity and the then GSIS charter, RODOLFO Z. RAZUL, respondents.
P.D. 1146. It is also worth noting that GSIS sold the RESOLUTION
From the foregoing, We likewise conclude that there was subject property to respondent dela Cruz only after giving QUISUMBING, J.:
no perfected contract between the parties. The proposal petitioners an almost one year opportunity to repurchase
of appellants thru Mr. Aurelio Arrienda is for the extension the property and only after ascertaining that the purchase Before us is a petition for review seeking to annul the
of the redemption period or to restructure their loan with price proposed by private respondent dela Cruz in Resolution[1] dated May 11, 2001 of the Court of Appeals
GSIS. (Exhibit "J", Records). The approval of GSIS is for payment of the subject property would benefit the GSIS. in CA-G.R. SP No. 64583, which denied petitioner
appellants to purchase the property at the price of Nor can petitioners, on the strength of Valmonte v. Governor Antonio Calingin’s petition for prohibition with
P174,572.62 within 60 days from receipt of notice. (Exhibit Belmonte, Jr.,[29] impute bad faith on the part of GSIS prayer for temporary restraining order and/or the issuance
"3", Res. No. 592, Records). This was NOT approved by when the latter did not disclose to petitioners that it was of an order of status quo ante, as well as its Resolution[2]
appellants and instead they made another counter- negotiating with private respondent dela Cruz for the sale dated July 1, 2002, denying the motion for reconsideration.
proposal to pay said amount with a down payment of of the subject property as soon as it started the
P50,000.00 and the balance to be paid in 60 monthly negotiations. The Court ruled in the Valmonte case that The antecedent facts, as summarized by the Court of
installments. (Exhibit "1", Records). This counter offer the constitutional right to information is limited to "matters Appeals and borne by the records, are as follows:
was denied in Resolution 1022. . . It is clear from the of public concern," to "transactions involving public
above-described events that the offer of appellants to interest." The negotiation and subsequent sale of the The Office of the President issued a Resolution[3] dated
redeem the property or restructure the loan was met with a subject property by the GSIS to private respondent dela March 22, 2001 in OP Case No. 00-1-9220 (DILG ADM.
qualified acceptance from GSIS which is for them to pay Cruz was by no stretch of the imagination imbued with Case No. P-16-99) entitled Vice Governor Danilo P.
the prescribed price within 60 days. Said qualified public interest as it was a purely private transaction. Lagbas, et al. versus Governor Antonio P. Calingin
acceptance constitutes a counter-offer under Article 1319 Petitioners cannot therefore demand that it be informed of (Misamis Oriental) suspending Gov. Calingin for 90 days.
of the Civil Code and the appellants did not accept the such negotiation and sale moreso since they no longer On April 30, 2001, Undersecretary Eduardo R. Soliman of
same by making another counter-offer to pay on staggered had any interest on the subject property upon failure to the Department of the Interior and Local Government
basis. This counter offer was denied twice by GSIS and comply with GSIS' terms for repurchase and upon GSIS' (DILG), by authority of Secretary Jose D. Lina, Jr., issued
therefore there was clearly no meeting of the minds and no denial of petitioners' offer to repurchase under their a Memorandum[4] implementing the said Resolution of the
perfected contract. proposed terms and conditions. In the absence of proof of Office of the President. On May 3, 2001, Gov. Calingin
bad faith on the part of the respondents, we deny filed before the Office of the President a Motion for
If there is completely no acceptance or if the offer is petitioners' prayer for moral damages and attorney's fees. Reconsideration.[5]
expressly rejected, there is no meeting of the minds.
(Leoquingco vs. Postal Savings Bank, 47 Phil. 772 and in WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the impugned The DILG Memorandum bore the authority of the
Gamboa vs. Gonzales, 17 Phil. 381) decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are Commission on Elections (COMELEC) which granted an
AFFIRMED. No costs. exemption to the election ban in the movement of any
public officer in its Resolution No. 3992[6] promulgated on
SO ORDERED.
April 24, 2001. This was in pursuance to COMELEC resolution. According to him, a draft resolution does not
Resolution No. 3401 which provides in part that Petitioner further contends that Section 67,[10] Chapter 4 operate as a final resolution of a case until the proper
of the Local Government Code (Rep. Act 7160), which resolution is duly signed and promulgated. Petitioner
Section 1. Prohibited Acts – (a) During the election period provides that decisions of the Office of the President shall maintains that a draft cannot produce any legal effect.
from January 2, 2001 until July 13, 2001, no public official be final and executory, applies only to decisions of the
shall make or cause any transfer/detail whatsoever of any Office of the President on administrative cases appealed A perusal of the records, however, reveals that the
officer or employee in the civil service, including public from the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang Resolution in O.P. Case No. 00-1-9220 was approved and
school teachers, or suspend elective provincial, city, panlungsod of highly-urbanized cities and independent signed on March 22, 2001 by Executive Secretary Renato
municipal or barangay official, except upon prior written component cities, and sangguniang bayan of de Villa by the authority of the President. Hence, the
approval of the Commission. municipalities within the Metro Manila Area. It does not approval was before the promulgation of COMELEC
cover decisions on cases where the Office of the President Resolution No. 3992 on April 24, 2001. The record also
On May 7, 2001, Gov. Calingin filed a petition for has original jurisdiction such as those involving a shows that the request to implement the said suspension
prohibition before the Court of Appeals to prevent the Provincial Governor.[11] order was filed on March 22, 2001 by the Senior Deputy
DILG from executing the assailed suspension order. Executive Secretary of the Office of the President pursuant
However, on May 11, 2001, the Court of Appeals In Lapid v. Court of Appeals,[12] we held that it is a to the requirements stated in the Resolution.
dismissed the said petition and by resolution issued on principle of statutory construction that where there are two
July 1, 2002, denied petitioner’s motion for statutes that apply to a particular case, that which was Moreover, COMELEC Resolution No. 3529[19] – which
reconsideration. specially intended for the said case must prevail. The may be applied by analogy and in relation to Sec. 2[20] of
case on hand involves a disciplinary action against an COMELEC Resolution No. 3401 – merely requires the
Hence, this appeal by certiorari where petitioner asserts elective local official. Thus, the Local Government Code is request to be in writing indicating the office and place from
that the Court of Appeals erred in the applicable law and must prevail over the Administrative which the officer is removed, and the reason for said
Code which is of general application.[13] Further, the Local movement, and submitted together with the formal
… FINDING THAT THE EXECUTION OF THE Government Code of 1991 was enacted much later than complaint executed under oath and containing the specific
SUSPENSION ORDER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF the Administrative Code of 1987. In statutory construction, charges and the answer to said complaint. The request for
INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT DURING THE all laws or parts thereof which are inconsistent with the the exemption was accompanied with the Affidavit of
ELECTION PERIOD IS WITH AUTHORITY FROM THE later law are repealed or modified accordingly.[14] Complaint, Affidavit of Controversion, Reply and Draft
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. Resolution. The pertinent documents required by the
Besides, even though appeal to the Court of Appeals is COMELEC to substantiate the request were submitted.
… FINDING THAT THE DECISION OF THE OFFICE OF granted under Sec. 1,[15] Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of There being a proper basis for its grant of exemption,
THE PRESIDENT IS FINAL AND EXECUTORY AS Court, Sec. 12,[16] Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court COMELEC Resolution No. 3992 is valid.
PROVIDED IN SECTION 67, CHAPTER 4, OF REPUBLIC in relation to Sec. 68[17] of the Local Government Code
ACT 7160, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF provides for the immediate execution pending appeal. WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari
1991.[7] Under the same case of Lapid v. Court of Appeals,[18] we is DENIED. The assailed Court of Appeals’ resolutions
enunciated that the decisions of the Office of the President dated May 11, 2002 and July 1, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No.
In dispute is the validity of the DILG Memorandum under the Local Government Code are immediately 64583 are hereby AFFIRMED.
implementing the suspension order issued by the Office of executory even pending appeal because the pertinent laws
the President. We are asked to resolve in this connection under which the decisions were rendered mandated them SO ORDERED.
two issues: (1) Was the decision of the Office of the to be so.
President already final and executory? and (2) Was the Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and
exemption from the election ban in the movement of any In sum, the decisions of the Office of the President are Tinga, JJ., concur.
public officer granted by COMELEC valid? final and executory. No motion for reconsideration is
allowed by law but the parties may appeal the decision to EN BANC
Petitioner contends that decisions of the Office of the the Court of Appeals. The appeal, however, does not stay [G.R. No. 123037. March 21, 1997]
President on cases where it has original jurisdiction the execution of the decision. Thus, the DILG Secretary
become final and executory only after the lapse of 15 days may validly move for its immediate execution. TEODORO Q. PEÑA, petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF
from the receipt thereof and that the filing of a Motion for REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND
Reconsideration shall suspend the running of the said As to the validity of the exemption granted by COMELEC ALFREDO E. ABUEG, JR., respondents.
period[8] in accordance with Section 15,[9] Chapter 3, in its Resolution No. 3992, petitioner claims that the DECISION
Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987. exemption was invalid for being based on a mere draft TORRES, JR., J.:
and make it virtually impossible for the Tribunal to
Assailed herein is the October 12, 1995 Resolution[1] of 10. The proclamation by the members of the Provincial determine which ballot boxes have to be collected.
the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) Board of Canvassers of Palawan that the protestee was
dismissing the Petition Ad Cautelam of the Petitioner allegedly the duly elected Member of the House of The Supreme Court, in Fernando vs. Pastor M. Endencia,
Teodoro Q. Peña in HRET Case No. 95-014. Petitioner Representatives for the Second District of Palawan is Judge of First Instance of Bulacan, et. al. (No. 46099, 66
questioned the election of the private respondent Alfredo contrary to law and to the true expression of the will of the Phil 148, 150, August 30, 1938) observed that, ‘[w]hile the
E. Abueg, Jr. as Member of the House of Representatives voters of the Province of Palawan.”[2] election law does not say so directly, it is clearly inferred
representing the Second District of the province of from its relevant provisions that where the grounds of
Palawan. Private respondent-Protestee Abueg filed an Answer With contest are that legal votes were rejected and illegal votes
Affirmative Defense, Counterclaim and Counter-Protest[3] received, the motion of protest should state in what
Petitioner and the private respondent were contenders for on June 5, 1995, to which Peña filed a Reply on June 23, precincts such irregularities occurred. xxx The specification
the said Congressional Office in the May 8, 1995 elections. 1995. Subsequent to the filing of his Answer, Abueg filed a in the motion of protest of the election precinct or precincts
On May 12, 195, upon canvassing the votes cast, the Motion to Dismiss[4] the Petition on June 22, 1995, where the alleged irregularities occurred, is required in
Provincial Board of Canvassers of Palawan proclaimed the averring that the HRET has not acquired jurisdiction over order to apprise the contestee of the issues which he has
private respondent as the winner. the petition, the same being insufficient in form and to meet. xxx’
substance. In essence, the motion to dismiss anchors its
On May 22, 1995, the instant petition was filed with the challenge on the fact that the petition failed to allege the In its more recent resolution in Grand Alliance for
HRET, wherein the petitioner, as protestant, averred that: precincts where the massive fraud and disenfranchisement Democracy (GAD) vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 78302, May
of voters occurred, nor did it point out how many votes 26, 1987, 150 SCRA 665), the Supreme Court held that
“7. The elections in the precincts of the Second District of would be gained by the protestant as a result of the same. the petition therein ‘could have been dismissed outright as
Palawan were tainted with massive fraud, widespread deficient in form and substance, being couched in general
vote-buying, intimidation and terrorism and other serious Petitioner filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss[5] terms only, without precise indication of the time, place
irregularities committed before, during and after the voting, on July 10, 1995, attaching thereto a Summary of and manner of the commission of the alleged
and during the counting of votes and the preparation of Contested Precincts, naming 700 precincts where election irregularities.’ xxx
election returns and certificates of canvass which affected irregularities allegedly occurred.
the results of the election. Among the fraudulent acts Similarly, this Tribunal, in dismissing an election protest,
committed were the massive vote-buying and intimidation In its Resolution of October 12, 1995, the respondent observed that the protest, in general language, “impugns,
of voters, disenfranchisement of petitioner’s known HRET ruled that although it had jurisdiction over the contests and protests the illegal, improper and fraudulent
supporters through systematic deletion of names from the petition, as the sole judge of all contests relating to the electoral practices, acts and deeds” of the protestee and
lists of voters, allowing persons to vote in excess of the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the “impugns and contests all the election returns in the lone
number of registered voters, misappreciation, misreading House of Representatives, the said petition, however, fails district of Catanduanes.” The tribunal held that this
and non-reading of protestant’s ballots and other to state a cause of action, and is therefore, insufficient in scattershot allegation is not allowed in election contests
irregularities. form and substance, meriting its dismissal. and that “it is necessary to make a precise indication of the
precincts protested and a specification of the claimed
8. According to the Statement of Votes by The HRET states pertinently: offenses to have been committed by the parties.” (Alberto
Precinct/Municipality/City, the protestee allegedly obtained vs. Tapia, HRET Case No. 37, January 23, 1989)
52,967 votes, while the protestant allegedly obtained “There are 743 precincts in the second congressional
46,023 votes, or a difference of 6,944 votes. A copy of district of Palawan which is comprised of Puerto Princesa While Protestant has attached as Annex “A” to his
said document is attached hereto as Annex ‘B’. City and the municipalities of Aborlan, Balabac, Bataraza, Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, filed on 10 July 1995,
Brooke’s Point, Narra, Quezon, and Marcos (Ordinance a Summary of contested Precincts, the defects in his
9. Had the massive fraud, widespread intimidation and appended to the 1973 Constitution). The Protestant failed Protest were not cured thereby as the Summary was
terrorism and other serious irregularities not been to specify which are the 700 precincts, out of the said 743 submitted only after the Motion to Dismiss had been filed.
committed, the result of the elections for Member of the precincts, that are included in his protest; he even failed to The Opposition and the attached Summary do not amend
House of Representatives would have been different and allege the municipalities where the protested precincts are the original Petition. There is not even a prayer in the
the protestant would have garnered the highest number of located. Worse, the body of the Petition does not even Opposition suggesting such amendment.
votes for the Office Member of the House of mention the 700 precincts. Reference to them is made
Representatives in the Second District of Palawan, which only in the Prayer. These omissions prevent Protestee Moreover, in a Resolution promulgated on 17 June 1995,
was the true expression of the will of the voters of the from being apprised of the issues which he has to meet the Commission on Elections en banc (COMELEC)
Province of Palawan. dismissed herein Petitioner’s Petition (SPA Case No. 95-
258) to declare a failure of elections in the second district SPECIFY THE CONTESTED PRECINCTS, SAID Revised Rules of Procedure of the HRET, it is provided
of Palawan. Copy of said Resolution was sent to DEFECT WAS CURED WHEN PETITIONER SUBMITTED that:
Petitioner Peña’s Petition Ad Cautelam was thus A SUMMARY OF THE CONTESTED PRECINCTS
converted into a regular protest (not Ad Cautelam) WHICH FORMS PART OF THE RECORD OF THE “RULE 22. Summons. - Upon the filing of the petition, the
effective upon the finality of the official COMELEC RESPONDENT HRET.” Clerk of the Tribunal shall forthwith issue the
resolution, thereby providing him an opportunity to amend corresponding summons to the protestee or respondent
it to cure the defects cited above, Protestant took no It is the Petitioner’s view that the instant election protest is together with a copy of the petition, requiring him within ten
positive and affirmative steps for that purpose. sufficient in form and substance even while failing to (10) days from receipt thereof to file his answer.”
specify the precincts where irregularities allegedly
Protestant alleges in his Opposition that Protestee has occurred. Nowhere is it provided that the specification of As to the adequacy of the protest, we agree with
likewise failed to specify the 47 precincts he contests in his the precincts is a jurisdictional requirement that must be respondent HRET in ruling for the insufficiency of the
Counter-Protest. This omission merely renders complied with in order that an election protest can be same.
Protestee’s Counter-Protest defective for insufficiency in entertained by the HRET. To support his submission,
form and substance and for failure to state a cause of petitioner cites the cases of Yalung vs. Atienza, 52 Phil A perusal of the petition Ad Cautelam, reveals that
action. It does not cure the fatal defects in Protestant’s 781, Arao vs. COMELEC, 210 SCRA 790 and Gallares vs. Petitioner makes no specific mention of the precincts
Petition. Casenas, 48 Phil 362, the latter stating that: where widespread election, fraud and irregularities
occured. This is a fatal omission, as it goes into the very
WHEREFORE, for failure of the petition (Protest) to state a “From a reading of the allegations of the protest, it may be substance of the protest. Under Section 21 of the Revised
cause of action because it is fatally insufficient in form and seen that frauds, irregularities and violations of the law are Rules of Procedure of HRET, insufficiency in form and
substance, the Tribunal Resolved to GRANT Protestee’s alleged therein, which, if true, would undoubtedly change substance of the petition constitutes a ground for the
Motion to Dismiss and to DISMISS, as it hereby the result of the elections. immediate dismissal of the Petition.
DISMISSES, the instant Petition of Protest. As a logical
consequence thereof and also for the same reason, The fact that in the protest the number of votes which The prescription that the petition must be sufficient in form
Protestee’s Counter-Protest is DISMISSED. would result in favor of the protestant after the judicial and substance means that the petition must be more than
counting is not specified, does not affect the right of the merely rhetorical. If the allegations contained therein are
No pronouncement as to costs. protestant, for it being known that said omission is a defect unsupported by even the faintest whisper of authority in
of the protest, the same may be cured by a specification of fact and law, then there is no other course than to dismiss
SO ORDERED.”[6] the votes mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the the petition, otherwise, the assumptions of an elected
protest, without thereby adding new grounds for those public official may, and will always be held up by petitions
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the said already alleged by the protestant.” of this sort by the losing candidate.
resolution was denied by the respondent tribunal on
November 14, 1995. Applying the same principle to the specification of Notably, the instant petition ad cautelam poses a more
precincts in the instant case, the defect in the petition serious inadequacy than a mere failure to specify the
In this Petition for Certiorari, filed on December 29, 1995, should have been cured by the opposition to the private number of votes which would inure to the protestant, as
petitioner argues that the respondent HRET acted with respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. was the case in Gallares vs. Casenas, or the failure to
grave abuse of discretion amounting to having acted impugn the validity of some of the ballots cast, as in
without or in excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the Moreover, the fact that the HRET did not summarily Yalung vs. Atienza, supra, both of which cases were
election protest of petitioner considering that: dismiss the Petition Ad Cautelam, and instead, required decided in the 1920s. The defect in the instant case arises
the private respondent Abueg to file an Answer, the HRET from the failure to allege the contested precincts. Only a
I has thus made a prior determination that the petition is bare allegation of “massive fraud, widespread intimidation
sufficient in form and substance. and terrorism and other serious irregularities”, without
“THE PETITION AD CAUTELAM DATED 22 MAY 1995 specification, and substantiation, of where and how these
STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AND IS SUFFICIENT IN We do not agree. occurences took place, appears in the petition. We cannot
FORM AND SUBSTANCE. allow an election protest based on such flimsy averments
In the first place, in requiring the private respondent to to prosper, otherwise, the whole election process will
II answer the petition, the HRET was not ruling on the formal deteriorate into an endless stream of crabs pulling at each
and substantive sufficiency of the petition. The order to other, racing to disembank from the water.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE PETITION WAS require an answer is but a matter of course, as under the
INITIALLY DEFECTIVE BECAUSE IT FAILED TO
On his second point of argument, Petitioner likewise fails Bellosillo, J., took no part due to relation to one party. expiration of the Parity Amendment on July 3, 1974, the
to impress. The Court has already ruled in Joker P. Arroyo ownership rights of Americans over public agricultural
vs. HRET,[7] that substantial amendments to the protest lands, including the right to dispose or sell their real estate,
may be allowed only within the same period for filing the would be lost. On the basis of this Opinion, private
election protest, which, under Rule 16 of the HRET Rules SYLLABI/SYNOPSIS respondent sold to Siltown Realty Philippines, Inc. on
of Procedure is ten (10) days after proclamation of the THIRD DIVISION January 21, 1974, its Basilan landholding for P500,000
winner. [G.R. No. 104171. February 24, 1999] payable in installments. In accord with the terms of the
sale, Siltown Realty Philippines, Inc. leased the said
While it is conceded that statutes providing for election COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, parcels of land to private respondent for a period of 25
contests are to be liberally construed to the end that the vs. B.F. GOODRICH PHILS., INC. (now SIME DARBY years, with an extension of another 25 years at the latter’s
will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be INTERNATIONAL TIRE CO., INC.) and THE COURT OF option.
defeated by mere technical questions, the rule likewise APPEALS, respondents.
stands, that in an election protest, the protestant must DECISION Based on the BIR’s Letter of Authority No. 10115 dated
stand or fall upon the issues he had raised in his original or PANGANIBAN, J.: April 14, 1975, the books and accounts of private
amended pleading filed prior to the lapse of the statutory respondent were examined for the purpose of determining
period for filing of the protest.[8] Notwithstanding the expiration of the five-year prescriptive its tax liability for taxable year 1974. The examination
period, may the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) still resulted in the April 23, 1975 assessment of private
Admittedly, the rule is well-established that the power to assess a taxpayer even after the latter has already paid respondent for deficiency income tax in the amount of
annul an election should be exercised with the greatest the tax due, on the ground that the previous assessment P6,005.35, which it duly paid.
care as it involves the free and fair expression of the was insufficient or based on a “false” return?
popular will. It is only in extreme cases of fraud and under Subsequently the BIR also issued Letters of Authority Nos.
circumstances which demonstrate to the fullest degree a The Case 074420 RR and 074421 RR and Memorandum Authority
fundamental and wanton disregard of the law that Reference No. 749157 for the purpose of examining
elections are annulled, and then only when it becomes This is the main question raised before us in this Petition Siltown’s business, income and tax liabilities. On the basis
impossible to take any other step.[9] xxx This is as it for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision[1] dated of this examination, the BIR commissioner issued against
should be, for the democratic system is good for the many February 14, 1992, promulgated by the Court of private respondent on October 10, 1980, an assessment
although abhorred by a few. Appeals[2] in CA-GR SP No. 25100. The assailed for deficiency in donor’s tax in the amount of P1,020,850,
Decision reversed the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)[3] in relation to the previously mentioned sale of its Basilan
In sum, this Court’s jurisdiction to review decisions and which upheld the BIR commissioner’s assessments made landholdings to Siltown. Apparently, the BIR deemed the
orders of electoral tribunals operates only upon a showing beyond the five-year statute of limitations. consideration for the sale insufficient, and the difference
of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the tribunal. between the fair market value and the actual purchase
Only where such a grave abuse of discretion is clearly The Facts price a taxable donation.
shown shall the Court interfere with the electoral tribunal’s
judgment. There is such showing in the present petition. The facts are undisputed.[4] Private Respondent BF In a letter dated November 24, 1980, private respondent
Goodrich Phils., Inc. (now Sime Darby International Tire contested this assessment. On April 9, 1981, it received
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby Co. Inc.), was an American-owned and controlled another assessment dated March 16, 1981, which
resolves to DISMISS the present petition for lack of merit. corporation previous to July 3, 1974. As a condition for increased to P1,092,949 the amount demanded for the
The resolution of the respondent House of approving the manufacture by private respondent of tires alleged deficiency donor’s tax, surcharge, interest and
Representatives Electoral Tribunal dated October 12, 1995 and other rubber products, the Central Bank of the compromise penalty.
is hereby AFFIRMED. Philippines required that it should develop a rubber
plantation. In compliance with this requirement, private Private respondent appealed the correctness and the
SO ORDERED. respondent purchased from the Philippine government in legality of these last two assessments to the CTA. After
1961, under the Public Land Act and the Parity trial in due course, the CTA rendered its Decision dated
Narvasa, C.J., Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Amendment to the 1935 Constitution, certain parcels of March 29, 1991, the dispositive portion of which reads as
Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr. and Panganiban, JJ., concur. land located in Tumajubong, Basilan, and there developed follows:
Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., took no part (Chairman of a rubber plantation.
HRET). “WHEREFORE, the decision of the Commissioner of
Davide, Jr., Romero, and Melo, JJ., took no part (Members More than a decade later, on August 2, 1973, the justice Internal Revenue assessing petitioner deficiency gift tax is
of HRET). secretary rendered an opinion stating that, upon the MODIFIED and petitioner is ordered to pay the amount of
P1,311,179.01 plus 10% surcharge and 20% annual The Court’s Ruling “The subsequent assessment made by the respondent
interest from March 16, 1981 until fully paid provided that Commissioner on October 10, 1980, modified by that of
the maximum amount that may be collected as interest on The petition has no merit. March 16, 1981, violates the law. Involved in this petition
delinquency shall in no case exceed an amount is the income of the petitioner for the year 1974, the
corresponding to a period of three years pursuant to Main Issue: Prescription returns for which were required to be filed on or before
Section 130(b) (1) and (c) of the 1977 Tax Code, as April 15 of the succeeding year. The returns for the year
amended by P.D. No. 1705, which took effect on August 1, The petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in 1974 were duly filed by the petitioner, and assessment of
1980. reversing the CTA on the issue of prescription, because its taxes due for such year -- including that on the transfer of
ruling was based on factual findings that should have been properties on June 21, 1974 -- was made on April 13, 1975
“SO ORDERED.”[5] left undisturbed on appeal, in the absence of any showing and acknowledged by Letter of Confirmation No. 101155
that it had been tainted with gross error or grave abuse of terminating the examination on this subject. The
Undaunted, private respondent elevated the matter to the discretion.[8] The Court is not persuaded. subsequent assessment of October 10, 1980 modified, by
Court of Appeals, which reversed the CTA, as follows: that of March 16, 1981, was made beyond the period
True, the factual findings of the CTA are generally not expressly set in Section 331 of the National Intenal
“What is involved here is not a first assessment; nor is it disturbed on appeal when supported by substantial Revenue Code xxx.”[10]
one within the 5-year period stated in Section 331 above. evidence and in the absence of gross error or grave abuse
Since what is involved in this case is a multiple of discretion. However, the CTA’s application of the law to Petitioner relies on the CTA ruling, the salient portion of
assessment beyond the five-year period, the assessment the facts of this controversy is an altogether different which reads:
must be based on the grounds provided in Section 337, matter, for it involves a legal question. There is a question
and not on Section 15 of the 1974 Tax Code. Section 337 of law when the issue is the application of the law to a “Falsity is what we have here, and for that matter, we
utilizes the very specific terms ‘fraud, irregularity, and given set of facts. On the other hand, a question of fact hasten to add that the second assessment (March 16,
mistake’. ‘Falsity does not appear to be included in this involves the truth or falsehood of alleged facts.[9] In the 1981) of the Commissioner was well-advised having been
enumeration. Falsity suffices for an assessment, which is present case, the Court of Appeals ruled not on the truth or made in contemplation of his power under Section 15 of
a first assessment made within the five-year period. When falsity of the facts found by the CTA, but on the latter’s the 1974 Code (now Section 16, of NIRC) to assess the
it is a subsequent assessment made beyond the five-year application of the law on prescription. proper tax on the best evidence obtainable “when there is
period, then, it may be validly justified only by ‘fraud, reason to believe that a report of a taxpayer is false,
irregularity and mistake’ on the part of the taxpayer.”[6] Section 331 of the National Internal Revenue Code incomplete or erroneous.” More, when there is falsity with
provides: intent to evade tax as in this case, the ordinary period of
Hence, this Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules limitation upon assessment and collection does not apply
of Court.[7] “SEC. 331. Period of limitation upon assessment and so that contrary to the averment of petitioner, the right to
collection. – Except as provided in the succeeding section, assess respondent has not prescribed.
The Issues internal-revenue taxes shall be assessed within five years
after the return was filed, and no proceeding in court “What is the considered falsity? The transfer through sales
Before us, petitioner raises the following issues: without assessment for the collection of such taxes shall of the parcels of land in Tumajubong, Lamitan, Basilan in
be begun after expiration of such period. For the purposes favor of Siltown Realty for the sum of P500,000.00 only
“I of this section, a return filed before the last day prescribed whereas said lands had been sworn to under Presidential
by law for the filing thereof shall be considered as filed on Decree No. 76 (Dec. 6, 1972) as having a value of
Whether or not petitioner’s right to assess herein such last day: Provided, That this limitation shall not apply P2,683,467 (P2,475, 467 + P207,700) (see Declaration of
deficiency donor’s tax has indeed prescribed as ruled by to cases already investigated prior to the approval of this Real Property form, p. 28, and p. 15, no. 5, BIR
public respondent Court of Appeals Code.” Record).”[11]
II Applying this provision of law to the facts at hand, it is clear For the purpose of safeguarding taxpayers from any
that the October 16, 1980 and the March 1981 unreasonable examination, investigation or assessment,
Whether or not the herein deficiency donor’s tax assessments were issued by the BIR beyond the five-year our tax law provides a statute of limitations in the collection
assessment for 1974 is valid and in accordance with law” statute of limitations. The Court has thoroughly studied of taxes. Thus, the law on prescription, being a remedial
the records of this case and found no basis to disregard measure, should be liberally construed in order to afford
Prescription is the crucial issue in the resolution of this the five-year period of prescription. As succinctly such protection.[12] As a corollary, the exceptions to the
case. pronounced by the Court of Appeals: law on prescription should perforce be strictly construed.
Section 15 of the NIRC, on the other hand, provides that Furthermore, the fact that private respondent sold its real Romero (Chairman), Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ.,
“[w]hen a report required by law as a basis for the property for a price less than its declared fair market value concur.
assessment of any national internal revenue tax shall not did not by itself justify a finding of false return. Indeed, Vitug, J., on official leave.
be forthcoming within the time fixed by law or regulation, or private respondent declared the sale in its 1974 return
when there is reason to believe that any such report is submitted to the BIR.[14] Within the five-year prescriptive
false, incomplete, or erroneous, the Commissioner of period, the BIR could have issued the questioned
Internal Revenue shall assess the proper tax on the best assessment, because the declared fair market value of
evidence obtainable.” Clearly, Section 15 does not said property was of public record. This it did not do,
provide an exception to the statute of limitations on the however, during all those five years. Moreover, the BIR THIRD DIVISION
issuance of an assessment, by allowing the initial failed to prove that respondent's 1974 return had been
assessment to be made on the basis of the best evidence filed fraudulently. Equally. significant was its failure to
available. Having made its initial assessment in the prove respondent's intent to evade the payment of the PHILEX MINING G.R. No. 148187
manner prescribed, the commissioner could not have been correct amount of tax. CORPORATION,
authorized to issue, beyond the five-year prescriptive Petitioner, Present:
period, the second and the third assessments under Ineludibly, the BIR failed to show that private respondent's
consideration before us. 1974 return was filed fraudulently with intent to evade the Ynares-Santiago, J.
payment of the correct amount of tax.[15] Moreover, even (Chairperson),
Nor is petitioner’s claim of falsity sufficient to take the though a donor's tax, which is defined as "a tax on the - versus - Carpio Morales, *
questioned assessments out of the ambit of the statute of privilege of transmitting one's property or property rights to Chico-Nazario,
limitations. The relevant part of then Section 332 of the another or others without adequate and full valuable Nachura, and,
NIRC, which enumerates the exceptions to the period of consideration,"[16] is different from capital gains tax, a tax Reyes, JJ.
prescription, provides: on the gain from the sale of the taxpayer's property COMMISSIONER OF
forming part of capital assets,[17] the tax return filed by INTERNAL REVENUE, Promulgated:
“SEC. 332. Exceptions as to period of limitation of private respondent to report its income for the year 1974 Respondent.
assessment and collection of taxes. -- (a) In the case of a was sufficient compliance with the legal requirement to file April 16, 2008
false or fraudulent return with intent to evade a tax or of a a return. In other words, the fact that the sale transaction x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
failure to file a return, the tax may be assessed, or a may have partly resulted in a donation does not change ------------ x
proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be the fact that private respondent already reported its
begun without assessment, at any time within ten years income for 1974 by filing an income tax return. DECISION
after the discovery of the falsity, fraud, or omission: xxx.”
Since the BIR failed to demonstrate clearly that private YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Petitioner insists that private respondent committed respondent had filed a fraudulent return with the intent to
“falsity” when it sold the property for a price lesser than its evade tax, or that it had failed to file a return at all, the
declared fair market value. This fact alone did not period for assessments has obviously prescribed. Such This is a petition for review on certiorari of the June
constitute a false return which contains wrong information instances of negligence or oversight on the part of the BIR 30, 2000 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
due to mistake, carelessness or ignorance.[13] It is cannot prejudice taxpayers, considering that the SP No. 49385, which affirmed the Decision[2] of the Court
possible that real property may be sold for less than prescriptive period was precisely intended to give them of Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 5200. Also assailed is
adequate consideration for a bona fide business purpose; peace of mind. the April 3, 2001 Resolution[3] denying the motion for
in such event, the sale remains an “arm’s length” reconsideration.
transaction. In the present case, the private respondent Based on the foregoing, a discussion of the validity and
was compelled to sell the property even at a price less legality of the assailed assessments has become moot The facts of the case are as follows:
than its market value, because it would have lost all and unnecessary.
ownership rights over it upon the expiration of the parity On April 16, 1971, petitioner Philex Mining Corporation
amendment. In other words, private respondent was WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DENIED and the (Philex Mining), entered into an agreement[4] with Baguio
attempting to minimize its losses. At the same time, it was assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Gold Mining Company (”Baguio Gold”) for the former to
able to lease the property for 25 years, renewable for No costs. manage and operate the latter’s mining claim, known as
another 25. This can be regarded as another the Sto. Nino mine, located in Atok and Tublay, Benguet
consideration on the price. SO ORDERED. Province. The parties’ agreement was denominated as
“Power of Attorney” and provided for the following terms:
require at their option that property originally transferred by
4. Within three (3) years from date thereof, the them to the Sto. Nino PROJECT be re-transferred to them. Thereafter, on September 27, 1982, the parties
PRINCIPAL (Baguio Gold) shall make available to the Until such assets are transferred to the MANAGERS, this executed a “Compromise with Dation in Payment”[7]
MANAGERS (Philex Mining) up to ELEVEN MILLION Agency shall remain subsisting. wherein Baguio Gold admitted an indebtedness to
PESOS (P11,000,000.00), in such amounts as from time petitioner in the amount of P179,394,000.00 and agreed to
to time may be required by the MANAGERS within the said xxxx pay the same in three segments by first assigning Baguio
3-year period, for use in the MANAGEMENT of the STO. Gold’s tangible assets to petitioner, transferring to the
NINO MINE. The said ELEVEN MILLION PESOS 12. The compensation of the MANAGER shall be fifty latter Baguio Gold’s equitable title in its Philodrill assets
(P11,000,000.00) shall be deemed, for internal audit per cent (50%) of the net profit of the Sto. Nino PROJECT and finally settling the remaining liability through properties
purposes, as the owner’s account in the Sto. Nino before income tax. It is understood that the MANAGERS that Baguio Gold may acquire in the future.
PROJECT. Any part of any income of the PRINCIPAL from shall pay income tax on their compensation, while the
the STO. NINO MINE, which is left with the Sto. Nino PRINCIPAL shall pay income tax on the net profit of the On December 31, 1982, the parties executed an
PROJECT, shall be added to such owner’s account. Sto. Nino PROJECT after deduction therefrom of the “Amendment to Compromise with Dation in Payment”[8]
MANAGERS’ compensation. where the parties determined that Baguio Gold’s
5. Whenever the MANAGERS shall deem it indebtedness to petitioner actually amounted to
necessary and convenient in connection with the xxxx P259,137,245.00, which sum included liabilities of Baguio
MANAGEMENT of the STO. NINO MINE, they may Gold to other creditors that petitioner had assumed as
transfer their own funds or property to the Sto. Nino 16. The PRINCIPAL has current pecuniary obligation in guarantor. These liabilities pertained to long-term loans
PROJECT, in accordance with the following arrangements: favor of the MANAGERS and, in the future, may incur amounting to US$11,000,000.00 contracted by Baguio
other obligations in favor of the MANAGERS. This Power Gold from the Bank of America NT & SA and Citibank N.A.
(a) The properties shall be appraised and, of Attorney has been executed as security for the payment This time, Baguio Gold undertook to pay petitioner in two
together with the cash, shall be carried by the Sto. Nino and satisfaction of all such obligations of the PRINCIPAL segments by first assigning its tangible assets for
PROJECT as a special fund to be known as the in favor of the MANAGERS and as a means to fulfill the P127,838,051.00 and then transferring its equitable title in
MANAGERS’ account. same. Therefore, this Agency shall be irrevocable while its Philodrill assets for P16,302,426.00. The parties then
any obligation of the PRINCIPAL in favor of the ascertained that Baguio Gold had a remaining outstanding
(b) The total of the MANAGERS’ account shall MANAGERS is outstanding, inclusive of the MANAGERS’ indebtedness to petitioner in the amount of
not exceed P11,000,000.00, except with prior approval of account. After all obligations of the PRINCIPAL in favor of P114,996,768.00.
the PRINCIPAL; provided, however, that if the the MANAGERS have been paid and satisfied in full, this
compensation of the MANAGERS as herein provided Agency shall be revocable by the PRINCIPAL upon 36- Subsequently, petitioner wrote off in its 1982 books
cannot be paid in cash from the Sto. Nino PROJECT, the month notice to the MANAGERS. of account the remaining outstanding indebtedness of
amount not so paid in cash shall be added to the Baguio Gold by charging P112,136,000.00 to allowances
MANAGERS’ account. 17. Notwithstanding any agreement or understanding and reserves that were set up in 1981 and P2,860,768.00
between the PRINCIPAL and the MANAGERS to the to the 1982 operations.
(c) The cash and property shall not thereafter contrary, the MANAGERS may withdraw from this Agency
be withdrawn from the Sto. Nino PROJECT until by giving 6-month notice to the PRINCIPAL. The In its 1982 annual income tax return, petitioner
termination of this Agency. MANAGERS shall not in any manner be held liable to the deducted from its gross income the amount of
PRINCIPAL by reason alone of such withdrawal. P112,136,000.00 as “loss on settlement of receivables
(d) The MANAGERS’ account shall not accrue Paragraph 5(d) hereof shall be operative in case of the from Baguio Gold against reserves and allowances.”[9]
interest. Since it is the desire of the PRINCIPAL to extend MANAGERS’ withdrawal. However, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) disallowed
to the MANAGERS the benefit of subsequent appreciation the amount as deduction for bad debt and assessed
of property, upon a projected termination of this Agency, x x x x[5] petitioner a deficiency income tax of P62,811,161.39.
the ratio which the MANAGERS’ account has to the
owner’s account will be determined, and the corresponding In the course of managing and operating the project, Petitioner protested before the BIR arguing that the
proportion of the entire assets of the STO. NINO MINE, Philex Mining made advances of cash and property in deduction must be allowed since all requisites for a bad
excluding the claims, shall be transferred to the accordance with paragraph 5 of the agreement. However, debt deduction were satisfied, to wit: (a) there was a valid
MANAGERS, except that such transferred assets shall not the mine suffered continuing losses over the years which and existing debt; (b) the debt was ascertained to be
include mine development, roads, buildings, and similar resulted to petitioner’s withdrawal as manager of the mine worthless; and (c) it was charged off within the taxable
property which will be valueless, or of slight value, to the on January 28, 1982 and in the eventual cessation of mine year when it was determined to be worthless.
MANAGERS. The MANAGERS can, on the other hand, operations on February 20, 1982.[6]
Petitioner emphasized that the debt arose out of a The CTA rejected petitioner’s assertion that the advances IV.
valid management contract it entered into with Baguio it made for the Sto. Nino mine were in the nature of a loan. The Court of Appeals erred in refusing to delve upon the
Gold. The bad debt deduction represented advances It instead characterized the advances as petitioner’s issue of the propriety of the bad debts write-off.[14]
made by petitioner which, pursuant to the management investment in a partnership with Baguio Gold for the
contract, formed part of Baguio Gold’s “pecuniary development and exploitation of the Sto. Nino mine. The Petitioner insists that in determining the nature of its
obligations” to petitioner. It also included payments made CTA held that the “Power of Attorney” executed by business relationship with Baguio Gold, we should not only
by petitioner as guarantor of Baguio Gold’s long-term petitioner and Baguio Gold was actually a partnership rely on the “Power of Attorney”, but also on the
loans which legally entitled petitioner to be subrogated to agreement. Since the advanced amount partook of the subsequent “Compromise with Dation in Payment” and
the rights of the original creditor. nature of an investment, it could not be deducted as a bad “Amended Compromise with Dation in Payment” that the
debt from petitioner’s gross income. parties executed in 1982. These documents, allegedly
Petitioner also asserted that due to Baguio Gold’s evinced the parties’ intent to treat the advances and
irreversible losses, it became evident that it would not be The CTA likewise held that the amount paid by petitioner payments as a loan and establish a creditor-debtor
able to recover the advances and payments it had made in for the long-term loan obligations of Baguio Gold could not relationship between them.
behalf of Baguio Gold. For a debt to be considered be allowed as a bad debt deduction. At the time the
worthless, petitioner claimed that it was neither required to payments were made, Baguio Gold was not in default The petition lacks merit.
institute a judicial action for collection against the debtor since its loans were not yet due and demandable. What
nor to sell or dispose of collateral assets in satisfaction of petitioner did was to pre-pay the loans as evidenced by the The lower courts correctly held that the “Power of Attorney”
the debt. It is enough that a taxpayer exerted diligent notice sent by Bank of America showing that it was merely is the instrument that is material in determining the true
efforts to enforce collection and exhausted all reasonable demanding payment of the installment and interests due. nature of the business relationship between petitioner and
means to collect. Moreover, Citibank imposed and collected a “pre- Baguio Gold. Before resort may be had to the two
termination penalty” for the pre-payment. compromise agreements, the parties’ contractual intent
On October 28, 1994, the BIR denied petitioner’s protest must first be discovered from the expressed language of
for lack of legal and factual basis. It held that the alleged The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the CTA.[12] the primary contract under which the parties’ business
debt was not ascertained to be worthless since Baguio Hence, upon denial of its motion for reconsideration,[13] relations were founded. It should be noted that the
Gold remained existing and had not filed a petition for petitioner took this recourse under Rule 45 of the Rules of compromise agreements were mere collateral documents
bankruptcy; and that the deduction did not consist of a Court, alleging that: executed by the parties pursuant to the termination of their
valid and subsisting debt considering that, under the business relationship created under the “Power of
management contract, petitioner was to be paid fifty Attorney”. On the other hand, it is the latter which
percent (50%) of the project’s net profit.[10] I. established the juridical relation of the parties and defined
The Court of Appeals erred in construing that the the parameters of their dealings with one another.
Petitioner appealed before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) advances made by Philex in the management of the Sto.
which rendered judgment, as follows: Nino Mine pursuant to the Power of Attorney partook of the The execution of the two compromise agreements can
nature of an investment rather than a loan. hardly be considered as a subsequent or
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant Petition contemporaneous act that is reflective of the parties’ true
for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The II. intent. The compromise agreements were executed
assessment in question, viz: FAS-1-82-88-003067 for The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the 50%-50% eleven years after the “Power of Attorney” and merely laid
deficiency income tax in the amount of P62,811,161.39 is sharing in the net profits of the Sto. Nino Mine indicates out a plan or procedure by which petitioner could recover
hereby AFFIRMED. that Philex is a partner of Baguio Gold in the development the advances and payments it made under the “Power of
of the Sto. Nino Mine notwithstanding the clear absence of Attorney”. The parties entered into the compromise
ACCORDINGLY, petitioner Philex Mining Corporation is any intent on the part of Philex and Baguio Gold to form a agreements as a consequence of the dissolution of their
hereby ORDERED to PAY respondent Commissioner of partnership. business relationship. It did not define that relationship or
Internal Revenue the amount of P62,811,161.39, plus, indicate its real character.
20% delinquency interest due computed from February 10, III.
1995, which is the date after the 20-day grace period given The Court of Appeals erred in relying only on the Power of An examination of the “Power of Attorney” reveals that a
by the respondent within which petitioner has to pay the Attorney and in completely disregarding the Compromise partnership or joint venture was indeed intended by the
deficiency amount x x x up to actual date of payment. Agreement and the Amended Compromise Agreement parties. Under a contract of partnership, two or more
when it construed the nature of the advances made by persons bind themselves to contribute money, property, or
SO ORDERED.[11] Philex. industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing
the profits among themselves.[15] While a corporation,
like petitioner, cannot generally enter into a contract of operation of mines, as well as the manager’s account states that “this Agency shall be irrevocable while any
partnership unless authorized by law or its charter, it has which is comprised of P11M in funds and property and obligation of the PRINCIPAL in favor of the MANAGERS is
been held that it may enter into a joint venture which is petitioner’s “compensation” as manager that cannot be outstanding, inclusive of the MANAGERS’ account,” it
akin to a particular partnership: paid in cash. does not necessarily follow that the parties entered into an
agency contract coupled with an interest that cannot be
The legal concept of a joint venture is of common law However, petitioner asserts that it could not have entered withdrawn by Baguio Gold.
origin. It has no precise legal definition, but it has been into a partnership agreement with Baguio Gold because it
generally understood to mean an organization formed for did not “bind” itself to contribute money or property to the It should be stressed that the main object of the “Power of
some temporary purpose. x x x It is in fact hardly project; that under paragraph 5 of the agreement, it was Attorney” was not to confer a power in favor of petitioner to
distinguishable from the partnership, since their elements only optional for petitioner to transfer funds or property to contract with third persons on behalf of Baguio Gold but to
are similar – community of interest in the business, sharing the Sto. Niño project “(w)henever the MANAGERS shall create a business relationship between petitioner and
of profits and losses, and a mutual right of control. x x x deem it necessary and convenient in connection with the Baguio Gold, in which the former was to manage and
The main distinction cited by most opinions in common law MANAGEMENT of the STO. NIÑO MINE.”[18] operate the latter’s mine through the parties’ mutual
jurisdictions is that the partnership contemplates a general contribution of material resources and industry. The
business with some degree of continuity, while the joint The wording of the parties’ agreement as to petitioner’s essence of an agency, even one that is coupled with
venture is formed for the execution of a single transaction, contribution to the common fund does not detract from the interest, is the agent’s ability to represent his principal
and is thus of a temporary nature. x x x This observation is fact that petitioner transferred its funds and property to the and bring about business relations between the latter and
not entirely accurate in this jurisdiction, since under the project as specified in paragraph 5, thus rendering third persons.[20] Where representation for and in behalf
Civil Code, a partnership may be particular or universal, effective the other stipulations of the contract, particularly of the principal is merely incidental or necessary for the
and a particular partnership may have for its object a paragraph 5(c) which prohibits petitioner from withdrawing proper discharge of one’s paramount undertaking under a
specific undertaking. x x x It would seem therefore that the advances until termination of the parties’ business contract, the latter may not necessarily be a contract of
under Philippine law, a joint venture is a form of relations. As can be seen, petitioner became bound by its agency, but some other agreement depending on the
partnership and should be governed by the law of contributions once the transfers were made. The ultimate undertaking of the parties.[21]
partnerships. The Supreme Court has however recognized contributions acquired an obligatory nature as soon as
a distinction between these two business forms, and has petitioner had chosen to exercise its option under In this case, the totality of the circumstances and the
held that although a corporation cannot enter into a paragraph 5. stipulations in the parties’ agreement indubitably lead to
partnership contract, it may however engage in a joint the conclusion that a partnership was formed between
venture with others. x x x (Citations omitted) [16] There is no merit to petitioner’s claim that the prohibition in petitioner and Baguio Gold.
paragraph 5(c) against withdrawal of advances should not
Perusal of the agreement denominated as the “Power of be taken as an indication that it had entered into a First, it does not appear that Baguio Gold was
Attorney” indicates that the parties had intended to create partnership with Baguio Gold; that the stipulation only unconditionally obligated to return the advances made by
a partnership and establish a common fund for the showed that what the parties entered into was actually a petitioner under the agreement. Paragraph 5 (d) thereof
purpose. They also had a joint interest in the profits of the contract of agency coupled with an interest which is not provides that upon termination of the parties’ business
business as shown by a 50-50 sharing in the income of the revocable at will and not a partnership. relations, “the ratio which the MANAGER’S account has to
mine. the owner’s account will be determined, and the
In an agency coupled with interest, it is the agency that corresponding proportion of the entire assets of the STO.
Under the “Power of Attorney”, petitioner and Baguio Gold cannot be revoked or withdrawn by the principal due to an NINO MINE, excluding the claims” shall be transferred to
undertook to contribute money, property and industry to interest of a third party that depends upon it, or the mutual petitioner.[22] As pointed out by the Court of Tax Appeals,
the common fund known as the Sto. Niño mine.[17] In this interest of both principal and agent.[19] In this case, the petitioner was merely entitled to a proportionate return of
regard, we note that there is a substantive equivalence in non-revocation or non-withdrawal under paragraph 5(c) the mine’s assets upon dissolution of the parties’ business
the respective contributions of the parties to the applies to the advances made by petitioner who is relations. There was nothing in the agreement that would
development and operation of the mine. Pursuant to supposedly the agent and not the principal under the require Baguio Gold to make payments of the advances to
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the agreement, petitioner and contract. Thus, it cannot be inferred from the stipulation petitioner as would be recognized as an item of obligation
Baguio Gold were to contribute equally to the joint venture that the parties’ relation under the agreement is one of or “accounts payable” for Baguio Gold.
assets under their respective accounts. Baguio Gold agency coupled with an interest and not a partnership.
would contribute P11M under its owner’s account plus any Thus, the tax court correctly concluded that the agreement
of its income that is left in the project, in addition to its Neither can paragraph 16 of the agreement be taken as an provided for a distribution of assets of the Sto. Niño mine
actual mining claim. Meanwhile, petitioner’s contribution indication that the relationship of the parties was one of upon termination, a provision that is more consistent with a
would consist of its expertise in the management and agency and not a partnership. Although the said provision partnership than a creditor-debtor relationship. It should
be pointed out that in a contract of loan, a person who compensation or “wages of an employee”, under the subsisting debts of Baguio Gold that could be deducted
receives a loan or money or any fungible thing acquires exception provided in Article 1769 (4) (b).[24] from its gross income. Consequently, it could not claim the
ownership thereof and is bound to pay the creditor an advances as a valid bad debt deduction.
equal amount of the same kind and quality.[23] In this On this score, the tax court correctly noted that petitioner
case, however, there was no stipulation for Baguio Gold to was not an employee of Baguio Gold who will be paid WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision
actually repay petitioner the cash and property that it had “wages” pursuant to an employer-employee relationship. of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 49385 dated
advanced, but only the return of an amount pegged at a To begin with, petitioner was the manager of the project June 30, 2000, which affirmed the decision of the Court of
ratio which the manager’s account had to the owner’s and had put substantial sums into the venture in order to Tax Appeals in C.T.A. Case No. 5200 is AFFIRMED.
account. ensure its viability and profitability. By pegging its Petitioner Philex Mining Corporation is ORDERED to PAY
compensation to profits, petitioner also stood not to be the deficiency tax on its 1982 income in the amount of
In this connection, we find no contractual basis for the remunerated in case the mine had no income. It is hard to P62,811,161.31, with 20% delinquency interest computed
execution of the two compromise agreements in which believe that petitioner would take the risk of not being paid from February 10, 1995, which is the due date given for
Baguio Gold recognized a debt in favor of petitioner, which at all for its services, if it were truly just an ordinary the payment of the deficiency income tax, up to the actual
supposedly arose from the termination of their business employee. date of payment.
relations over the Sto. Nino mine. The “Power of Attorney”
clearly provides that petitioner would only be entitled to the Consequently, we find that petitioner’s “compensation” SO ORDERED.
return of a proportionate share of the mine assets to be under paragraph 12 of the agreement actually constitutes
computed at a ratio that the manager’s account had to the its share in the net profits of the partnership. Indeed,
owner’s account. Except to provide a basis for claiming petitioner would not be entitled to an equal share in the CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
the advances as a bad debt deduction, there is no reason income of the mine if it were just an employee of Baguio Associate Justice
for Baguio Gold to hold itself liable to petitioner under the Gold.[25] It is not surprising that petitioner was to receive
compromise agreements, for any amount over and above a 50% share in the net profits, considering that the “Power
the proportion agreed upon in the “Power of Attorney”. of Attorney” also provided for an almost equal contribution
of the parties to the St. Nino mine. The “compensation” WE CONCUR:
Next, the tax court correctly observed that it was unlikely agreed upon only serves to reinforce the notion that the
for a business corporation to lend hundreds of millions of parties’ relations were indeed of partners and not
pesos to another corporation with neither security, or employer-employee.
collateral, nor a specific deed evidencing the terms and
conditions of such loans. The parties also did not provide All told, the lower courts did not err in treating petitioner’s CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
a specific maturity date for the advances to become due advances as investments in a partnership known as the Associate Justice
and demandable, and the manner of payment was Sto. Nino mine. The advances were not “debts” of Baguio
unclear. All these point to the inevitable conclusion that Gold to petitioner inasmuch as the latter was under no
the advances were not loans but capital contributions to a unconditional obligation to return the same to the former
partnership. under the “Power of Attorney”. As for the amounts that MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO EDUARDO
petitioner paid as guarantor to Baguio Gold’s creditors, we B. NACHURA
The strongest indication that petitioner was a partner in the find no reason to depart from the tax court’s factual finding Associate Justice
Sto Niño mine is the fact that it would receive 50% of the that Baguio Gold’s debts were not yet due and Associate Justice
net profits as “compensation” under paragraph 12 of the demandable at the time that petitioner paid the same.
agreement. The entirety of the parties’ contractual Verily, petitioner pre-paid Baguio Gold’s outstanding loans
stipulations simply leads to no other conclusion than that to its bank creditors and this conclusion is supported by
petitioner’s “compensation” is actually its share in the the evidence on record.[26] RUBEN T. REYES
income of the joint venture.
In sum, petitioner cannot claim the advances as a bad
Article 1769 (4) of the Civil Code explicitly provides that the debt deduction from its gross income. Deductions for
“receipt by a person of a share in the profits of a business income tax purposes partake of the nature of tax THIRD DIVISION
is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the exemptions and are strictly construed against the taxpayer, [G.R. No. 114087. October 26, 1999]
business.” Petitioner asserts, however, that no such who must prove by convincing evidence that he is entitled
inference can be drawn against it since its share in the to the deduction claimed.[27] In this case, petitioner failed PLANTERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN NEGROS
profits of the Sto Niño project was in the nature of to substantiate its assertion that the advances were INC., petitioner, vs. HON. BERNARDO T. PONFERRADA,
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF produced, to be pooled into a fund for subsequent Private respondent Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Company
NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, BRANCH 42; HONORABLE distribution as bonuses to sugar workers.[8] (BISCOM) is engaged in the business of, among others,
SECRETARY OF LABOR & EMPLOYMENT; milling raw sugar cane of various sugar plantations in their
BINALBAGAN – ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, INC., and Thus, before R.A. No.6982, there were two sets of milling district. For the crop year 1991–1992, the sugar
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF UNIONS IN THE SUGAR beneficiaries under the social amelioration program in the farm workers’ share in BISCOM, under R.A. No. 809
INDUSTRY OF THE PHILIPPINES (NACUSIP), sugar industry: amounted to P30, 590,086.92.[10]
respondents.
DECISION 1) Beneficiaries under R.A. No. 809 and P.D. No. 621; Under P.D. No.621, the workers’ benefit for the same crop
PURISIMA, J.: and year amounted to P2,233,285.26, computed as follows:
“Nowhere is the economic disparity between labor and 2) Beneficiaries under P.D. No. 621 only. (In milling Gross production of BISCOM 1,595,184.46
capital so evident than in the sugar industry. While it is the districts where the annual gross production is less than
lowly farm worker who must toil in the field under the 150,000 piculs) (In Piculs)
harshness of conditions, it is the planter who gets to enjoy
more the fruits of production. While the planter lives in the On May 24, 1991, Republic Act No. 6982 took effect. It Less: 30% BISCOM Share 478,555.33
comfort of his palatial home, the living condition of the imposed a lien of P5.00 per picul on the gross production
sugar farm worker more often than not defies the basic of sugar beginning sugar crop year 1991-1992, with an 70% Planter Share 2,116,626.13
tenets of human dignity.”[1] automatic additional lien of P1.00 for every two (2) years
for the succeeding ten (10) years from the effectivity of the Multiplied by P2.00 lien x P2.00
At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 Act subject to the discretion of the Secretary of Labor and
of the Revised Rules of Court seeking to review and set Employment and upon recommendation of the Sugar TOTAL P2,233,258.26[11]
aside the August 8, 1993 Decision[2] and January 21, Tripartite Council.[9]
1994 Resolution[3] of the Regional Trial Court of Negros But considering that the P2.00 lien under P.D. No.621 is
Occidental, Branch 42,[4] Bacolod City, in Civil Case No. Directly addressing the effect of the new P5.00 per picul obviously lesser than the P5.00 lien under R.A. No.6982,
6894 for Declaratory Relief. lien vis-à-vis the two previously existing laws, Section 12 of the same was no longer imposed by BISCOM pursuant to
R.A. No. 6982, provides: R.A. No.6982.
The antecedent facts that matter can be culled as follows:
“Section. 12. Benefits under Republic Act No. 809 and Hence, before R.A. No.6982 took effect, the total farm
Prior to the passage of Republic Act No. 6982, entitled An P.D. 621, as Amended. - All liens and other forms of workers’ benefit was:
Act Strengthening the Sugar Amelioration Program in the production sharing in favor of the workers in the sugar
Sugar Industry, Providing the Mechanics for its industry under Republic Act No. 809 and Presidential Under R.A. No. 809 P30,590,086.92
Implementation, and for other Purposes, there were two Decree No. 621, as amended, are hereby substituted by
principal laws providing additional financial benefits to the benefits under this Act: Provided, That cases arising Under P.D. No. 621 2,233,258.16
sugar farm workers, namely: Republic Act No. 809 and from such laws pending in the courts or administrative
Presidential Decree No. 621. bodies at the time of the effectivity of this Act shall not be
affected thereby. P32,823,345.18
Republic Act No. 809[5] (implementable in milling districts
with an annual gross production of 150,000 piculs or In connection therewith, Section 14 of the same Act further Upon the effectivity of R.A. No.6982, the total workers’
more), institutionalized production sharing scheme, in the states: benefit in BISCOM’s milling district was computed as
absence of any private agreement between the planters follows:
and farm workers, depending on the mill’s total production “Section 14. Non-Diminution of Benefits.-The provisions of
for each immediately preceding crop year; and specifically Section 12 hereof notwithstanding, nothing in this Act shall Gross Production of BISCOM 1,595,184.46
providing that any increase in the planters’ share shall be be construed to reduce any benefit, interest, right or
divided in the following manner: 40% of the increase shall participation enjoyed by the workers at the time of the (In Piculs)
accrue to the planter and 60% to the farm workers.[6] enactment of this Act, and no amount received by any
beneficiary under this Act shall be subject to any form of Less: 30% BISCOM share 478,555.34
On the other hand, Presidential Decree No. 621,[7] as taxation.”
amended, charged a lien of P2.00 per picul on all sugar 70% Planter Share 1,116,629.12
Multiplied by P5.00 lien x P5.00 Drilon.)18 of the Secretary of Justice, petitioner contends,
From a cursory reading of Section 12[16] of R.A. No. 6892, in the alternative, that the application of R.A. No. 809 can
TOTAL FARMWORKERS’ BENEFIT P5,583,145.61[12] the inevitable conclusion would be that the benefits under be maintained but in no case should the benefits
R.A. No.809 and P.D. No. 621 have been superseded by thereunder be implemented in addition to R.A. No. 6982.
Meanwhile, pending a definite ruling on the effect of R.A. those granted under the new law. This substitution, Applying this interpretation, the share of the sugar farm
No. 6982 to R.A. No. 809 and P.D. No. 621, respondent however, appears to be qualified by Section 14[17] which workers would amount to P30,590,086.92.
Secretary of Labor issued Department Order No.2 disallows substitution if its effect would be to diminish or
(1992),[13] directing, inter alia, the three milling districts in reduce whatever financial benefits the sugar farm workers On the other hand, under the interpretation espoused by
Negros Occidental, namely: SONDECO, San Carlos and are receiving under existing laws at the time of the the public respondent (that the benefits conferred by R.A.
herein private respondent BISCOM, to continue effectivity of R.A. No. 6289. No.6982 should complement those granted by R.A. No.
implementing R.A. No.809 per recommendation of the 809 which cannot be superseded by the former Act since
Sugar Tripartite Council. How then should Section 12 of R.A. No. 6982 be Section 14 thereof prohibits diminution of benefits), the
interpreted in light of the qualification under Section 14 of total worker’s benefit would be as follows:
Consequently, the petitioner, Planters Association of the same Act?
Southern Negros Inc. (PASON), an organization of sugar R.A. No. 809 P30,590,086.92
farm plantation owners milling with private respondent Petitioner insists that the word “substitution” in Section 12
BISCOM, filed with the respondent court a Petition for should be taken in its literal sense considering that the R.A. No. 6982 __,583,145.61
Declaratory Relief against the implementation of the said intention of Congress to effect a substitution of benefits is
D.O. No. 2. It theorized that in view of the substitution of clear and unequivocal. Under this interpretation of P36,173,232.53
benefits under Section 12 of R.A. No. 6982, whatever “unqualified substitution”, the sugar farm workers in the
monetary rewards previously granted to the sugar farm subject milling district will receive only P5,583,145.61 It is a well-settled rule of legal hermeneutics that each
workers under R.A. No. 809 and P.D. No. 621 were under R.A. No.6289, as against the P32,823,345.18 to provision of law should be construed in connection with
deemed totally abrogated and/or superseded.[14] which the workers were entitled under P.D. 621 and R.A. every other part so as to produce a harmonious whole and
No. 809. every meaning to be given to each word or phrase is
On August 18, 1993, the respondent Court came out with ascertained from the context of the body of the statute.[19]
the assailed Decision; the dispositive portion of which held: So also, invoking the Opinion[18] “It is believed that the Ut magis valeat quam pereat.[20] Consequently, laws are
benefits conferred upon labor by RA 809 have been given a reasonable construction such that apparently
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby superseded by those granted to it under RA 6982. This conflicting provisions are allowed to stand and given effect
declares: conclusion is inescapable from a reading of Section 12 of by reconciling them, reference being had to the moving
the latter law, as well as its repealing clause (Sec. 16). spirit behind the enactment of the statute.[21]
1. That the benefits under RA 6982 do not and cannot Indeed, the production-sharing scheme decreed in RA 809
supersede or substitute the benefits under RA 809 in cannot remain in force upon the effectivity of the new Applying the abovestated doctrine, Section 12 therefore,
milling districts where the latter law was already in production-sharing procedure prescribed in RA 6982; which apparently mandates a total substitution by R. A.
implementation at the time of the effectivity of RA 6982; otherwise, sugar workers would be receiving two kinds of No. 6982 of all the benefits under R.A. No. 809 and P.D.
and financial benefits simultaneously. No. 621 existing at the time of the effectivity of R.A. No.
6982, can not be construed apart from Section 14 which
2. That the sugarcane workers in the BISCOM milling The substitution, however, of sugar workers benefits under prohibits such substitution if the effect thereof would be to
district shall continue to enjoy the benefits under RA 809 in RA 809 by RA 6982 is qualified by Section 14 of the latter. reduce any benefit, interest, right or participation enjoyed
addition to the benefits that will henceforth be provided for This section provides that if the effect of such substitution by the worker at the time R.A. No. 6982 took effect. The
by RA 6982 now being implemented by private will be to diminish or reduce whatever monetary rewards Court finds as untenable the interpretation of the petitioner
respondent. sugar industry laborers are receiving under RA 809, then based an unqualified substitution of the benefits under
such workers shall continue to be entitled to the benefits R.A. No. 809 and P.D. No. 621 by the monertary rewards
SO ORDERED.”[15] provided in such law. Expressed otherwise the production- conferred by R.A. No. 6982 in the amount of
sharing scheme in RA 6982 does not apply to sugar P5,583,145.61 as against the P36,173,232.53 previously
With the denial of its motion to reconsider the aforesaid industry workers in milling districts where its application enjoyed by the sugar farm workers under the former laws.
Decision, petitioner found its way to this Court via the would be financially disadvantageous to them, in which
present petition. case the existing production-sharing agreement based on It bears stressing that the primordial objective behind the
RA 809 shall still govern.” (Opinion No. 115, S. 1992 dated enactment of R.A. No. 6982 was to augment the income of
The petition is not visited by merit. September 2, 1992, signed by Justice Secretary Franklin sugar workers by establishing a social amelioration
program in cases where sugar farm workers had none, thereto had always provided for an increase in wages and which better serves the purpose of the law should
and at the same time, to improve whatever amelioration benefits. The reason is obvious. Amidst the rapidly prevail.[26]
schemes already existing in the sugar districts changing, if not worsening, economic conditions prevalent
concerned.[22] In recognition of the avowed guarantee in the industry, the sugar worker can hardly cope with his Premises studiedly considered, the Court is of the
under Section 3, Article 13 of the Constitution to uphold meager income to lean on. ineluctable conclusion, and so holds, that the respondent
the right of workers to a just share in the fruits of Court ventured not in any judicial legislation but merely
production, the policy of R.A. No. 6982 states: Equally wanting of merit is the alleged double recovery gave life to the avowed policy of the State under Section
under the interpretation subscribed by the public 18, Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which states:
“Section 1. Policy. – It is the policy of the State to further respondent. Note that had not R.A. No. 6982 been
strengthen the rights of workers in the sugar industry to enacted, sugar farmworkers would be entitled to a total a “Sec. 18. The state affirms labor as a primary social
their just share in the fruits of production by augmenting share of P32,823,345.18 under R.A. No. 809 and P.D. No. economic force. It shall guarantee the rights of workers
their income and, among other schemes, institutionalizing 621; whereas under the alternative view of the petitioner, and promote their welfare.”
the mechanism among the partners in the sugar industry to maintaining the benefits (P30, 509,086.92) granted by R.A.
enable the workers and their families to enjoy a decent No. 809 to the exclusion of the benefits provided by R.A. WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED; and the assailed
living.” (Emphasis supplied) No. 6982, sugar farm workers stand to lose the difference Decision in Civil Case No. 6894, dated August 18, 1993, of
of P2,233,258.56, from a total of P32,823,345.18 which the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental, Branch 42,
The foregoing studiedly considered, there can be no other they were entitled before RA 6982 took effect. Certainly, Bacolod City, AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
construction that would best promote the welfare of the such a disadvantageous construction cannot be
sugar farm workers, than the interpretation of the public countenanced, being violative of the non-diminution SO ORDERED.
respondent, implementing R.A. No. 6982 as a complement principle under Section 14 of R.A. No. 6982.
to R.A. No. 809. Melo, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Gonzaga-
In view of the foregoing, the addition of the monetary Reyes, JJ., concur.
Citing the floor deliberations of Congress,[23] petitioner rewards under R.A. No. 6982 to the benefits granted by
insists that the non-diminution of benefits referred to in R.A. No. 809, is what is called for in the case under
Section 14 pertains only to pending claims of the workers consideration. While it is true that “addition” is different
at the time of the effectivity of the Act. Stated differently, it from “substitution”, the circumstances involving subject SECOND DIVISION
is contended that the benefits to which the workers are milling districts (where the sugar farm workers are enjoying [G.R. No. 125297. June 6, 2003]
entitled under R.A. No. 809 and P.D. No. 601 can be benefits both from R.A. No. 809 and P.D. No. 621 prior to
validly diminished by virtue of the application of R.A. No. the effectivity of R.A. No. 6982), necessitate the grant of ELVIRA YU OH, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
6982, because the non-diminution provision in Section 14 pecuniary advantage under R.A. No. 809 as a complement PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
thereof refers to pending claims accruing under P.D. 621 to R.A. No. 6982. Otherwise, the workers would suffer a DECISION
and R.A. No. 809, and not to the very benefits previously diminution of benefits. Therefore, the increase of AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
enjoyed by the workers under the said laws. With this monetary advantage in favor of the sugar farm workers, as
construction, from a total benefit of P32,823,345.18 a consequence of such interpretation, is merely incidental Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the
conferred by R.A. No. 809 and P.D. No. 621, the sugar to the application of the non-diminution policy of R.A. No. decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. CR No.
workers would only be entitled to a meager amount of 6982, a labor provision which should be liberally construed 16390, promulgated on January 30, 1996, affirming the
P5,583,145.61. to further its purpose.[25] conviction of petitioner Elvira Yu Oh by the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 99, Quezon City and the resolution
The contention is barren of sustainable merit. To limit the Neither does the Court find convincing the interpretation dated May 30, 1996 which denied her motion for
application of the non-diminution principle only to pending proposed by private respondent BISCOM. While reconsideration.
claims would be repulsive not only to the policy of the Act maintaining the application of R.A. No. 809 and P.D. No.
but also to the salutory provisions of the Constitution. 621 (where the total share of the workers is The facts as borne by the records are as follows:
Verily, the glaring disparity of P27,240,199.57 between P32,823,345.18), and disregarding R.A. No. 6892, would
P32,823,345.18 and P5,583,145.61 would not warrant be beneficial to the sugar farm workers, to the mind of the Petitioner purchased pieces of jewelry from Solid Gold
such an interpretation. As aptly ratiocinated[24] by the Court, the assailed construction of the public respondent International Traders, Inc., a company engaged in jewelry
respondent Court, the evolution of legislation in the sugar (where the total share of the workers is P36,173,232.53), trading. Due to her failure to pay the purchase price, Solid
industry had always had for its foremost concern the would be more in keeping with the spirit of R.A. No. 6982 Gold filed civil cases[2] against her for specific
advancement of the lot of the sugar farm worker. Hence, which is: to improve the living condition of workers in the performance before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. On
through the years every law or decree enacted pursuant sugar industry. Between two statutory interpretations, that September 17, 1990, petitioner and Solid Gold, through its
general manager Joaquin Novales III, entered into a The cases were consolidated and subsequently raffled to NULL AND VOID FOR HAVING BEEN RENDERED
compromise agreement to settle said civil cases.[3] The Branch 99 of the said RTC. Upon arraignment, accused WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.
compromise agreement, as approved by the trial court, pleaded not guilty.[7] Trial then ensued. On December 22,
provided that petitioner shall issue a total of ninety-nine 1993, the RTC rendered its decision, the dispositive II
post-dated checks in the amount of P50,000.00 each, portion of which reads:
dated every 15th and 30th of the month starting October 1, THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
1990 and the balance of over P1 million to be paid in lump WHEREFORE, this Court finds the accused GUILTY of ten RESOLVING IN FAVOR OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT THE
sum on November 16, 1994 which is also the due date of counts of violation of BP 22 and hereby sentences her to a FACT THAT NO NOTICE OF DISHONOR HAD BEEN
the 99th and last postdated check. Petitioner issued ten penalty of one year imprisonment for each count, or a total GIVEN HER AS DRAWER OF THE DISHONORED
checks at P50,000.00 each, for a total of P500,000.00, of ten years, to be served in accordance with the limitation “CHECKS” PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENT
drawn against her account at the Equitable Banking prescribed in par. 4, Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code EXPRESSLY PROVIDED UNDER BATAS PAMBANSA
Corporation (EBC), Grace Park, Caloocan City Branch. and to indemnify complainant the amount of the checks in BILANG 22.
Novales then deposited each of the ten checks on their their totality, or in the amount of P500,000.00.
respective due dates with the Far East Bank and Trust III
Company (FEBTC). However, said checks were SO ORDERED.[8]
dishonored by EBC for the reason “Account Closed.” THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
Dishonor slips were issued for each check that was Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals alleging that: CONSTRUING THE PROVISIONS OF BATAS
returned to Novales.[4] the RTC has no jurisdiction over the offense charged in the PAMBANSA BILANG 22 CONTRARY TO THE WELL-
ten informations; it overlooked the fact that no notice of ESTABLISHED RULE OF STATUTORY
On October 5, 1992, Novales filed ten separate dishonor had been given to the appellant as drawer of the CONSTRUCTION THAT “PENAL STATUTES,
Informations, docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 92-26243 dishonored checks; it failed to consider that the reason of SUBSTANTIVE AND REMEDIAL OR PROCEDURAL,
to 92-36252 before the RTC of Quezon City charging “closed account” for the dishonor of the ten checks in ARE, BY THE CONSECRATED RULE, CONSTRUED
petitioner with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, these cases is not the statutory cause to warrant STRICTLY AGAINST THE STATE, OR LIBERALLY IN
otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law.[5] Except prosecution, much more a conviction, under B.P. Blg. 22; it FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED” AND THAT “IT IS ALWAYS
for the dates and the check numbers, the Informations failed to consider that there is only one act which caused THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO RESOLVE THE
uniformly allege: the offense, if any, and not ten separate cases; and it CIRCUMSTANCES OF EVIDENCE UPON A THEORY OF
disregarded the definition of what a ‘check’ is under Sec. INNOCENCE RATHER THAN UPON A THEORY OF
That on or about the … in Quezon City, Philippines, the 185 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.[9] GUILT WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO”, AND IN SO
said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and DOING THE DECISION APPEALED FROM INDULGED
feloniously make or draw and issue to JOAQUIN P. Finding the appeal to be without merit, the Court of ITSELF IN “JUDICIAL LEGISLATION” TO FAVOR THE
LOVALES III to apply on account or for value Equitable Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court with costs PROSECUTION AND TO WORK GRAVE INJUSTICE TO
Banking Corp. Grace Park Caloocan Branch Check No. … against appellant. THE ACCUSED.
dated … payable to SOLID GOLD INTERNATIONAL
TRADERS, INC. in the amount of P50,000.00, Philippine Hence, herein petition raising the following errors: Simply worded, the issues of this case may be stated as
Currency, said accused well knowing that at the time of follows: (1) whether or not the appellate court erred in not
issue she/he/they did not have sufficient funds in or credit I granting retroactive effect to Republic Act No. 7691[10] in
with the drawee bank for payment of such check in full view of Art. 22 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); (2)
upon its presentment, which check when presented for THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT whether or not notice of dishonor is dispensable in this
payment was subsequently dishonored by the drawee RESOLVING THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE IN FAVOR case; and (3) whether or not the appellate court erred in
bank for insufficiency of funds/Account Closed and despite OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT BY UNJUSTLY construing B.P. Blg. 22.
receipt of notice of such dishonor, said accused failed to DEPRIVING HER OF THE LEGAL BENEFITS OF GIVING
pay said SOLID GOLD INTERNATIONAL TRADERS, INC. RETROACTIVE EFFECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF R.A. We will resolve the first and third issues before considering
the amount of said check or to make arrangement for full NO. 7691 EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE the second issue.
payment of the same within five (5) banking days after INFERIOR COURTS TO COVER THE OFFENSES
receiving said notice. INVOLVED IN THESE CASES PURSUANT TO ART. 22 First issue – Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in
OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, THUS IN EFFECT not giving retroactive effect to R.A. 7690 in view of Article
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6] RENDERING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION 22 of the RPC.
PROMULGATED BY THE TRIAL COURT BELOW AND
AFFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY
Petitioner argues that: the failure of the appellate court to express proviso nor by implication can it be understood as appeal before the Court of Appeals.[20] There is therefore
give retroactive application to R.A. 7691 is a violation of having retroactive application to criminal cases pending or no merit in the claim of petitioner that R.A. No. 7691
Art. 22 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that decided by the RTC prior to its effectivity.”[14] should be retroactively applied to this case and the same
penal laws shall have retroactive effect insofar as they be remanded to the MTC. The Court has held that a “law
favor the person guilty of the felony; R.A. 7691 is a penal On this point, the Court fully agrees with the Solicitor vesting additional jurisdiction in the court cannot be given
law in the sense that it affects the jurisdiction of the court General and holds that Article 22 of the Revised Penal retroactive effect.”[21]
to take cognizance of criminal cases; taken separately, the Code finds no application to the case at bar.
offense covered by each of the ten Informations in this Third issue – Whether or not the Court of Appeals
case falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Said provision reads: erroneously construed B.P. Blg. 22.
Municipal Trial Court under Sec. 2 of R.A. 7691; and the
Court of Appeals is guilty of judicial legislation in stating ART. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. – Penal laws Petitioner insists that: penal statutes must be strictly
that after the arraignment of petitioner, said cases could no shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the construed and where there is any reasonable doubt, it
longer be transferred to the MTC without violating the rules person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as must always be resolved in favor of the accused;[22] the
on double jeopardy, because that is not so provided in this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, Court of Appeals, in construing that B.P. Blg. 22 embraces
R.A. 7691.[11] although at the time of the publication of such laws a final cases of “no funds” or “closed accounts” when the express
sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving language of B.P. Blg. 22 penalizes only the issuance of
The Solicitor General, in its Comment, counters that the sentence. checks that are subsequently dishonored by the drawee
arguments of petitioner are baseless contending that: bank for “insufficiency” of funds or credit, has enlarged by
penal laws are those which define crimes and provides for A penal law, as defined by this Court, is an act of the implication the meaning of the statute which amounts to
their punishment; laws defining the jurisdiction of courts legislature that prohibits certain acts and establishes judicial legislation;[23] a postdated check, not being drawn
are substantive in nature and not procedural for they do penalties for its violations. It also defines crime, treats of payable on demand, is technically not a special kind of a
not refer to the manner of trying cases but to the authority its nature and provides for its punishment.[15] R.A. No. bill of exchange, called check, but an ordinary bill of
of the courts to hear and decide certain and definite cases 7691 does not prohibit certain acts or provides penalties exchange payable at a fixed date, which is the date
in the various instances of which they are susceptible; R.A. for its violation; neither does it treat of the nature of crimes indicated on the face of the postdated check, hence, the
No. 7691 is a substantive law and not a penal law as and its punishment. Consequently, R.A. No. 7691 is not a instrument is still valid and the obligation covered thereby,
nowhere in its provisions does it define a crime neither penal law, and therefore, Art. 22 of the RPC does not but only civilly and not criminally;[24] the trial court also
does it provide a penalty of any kind; the purpose of apply in the present case. erroneously cited a portion in the case of Lozano vs.
enacting R.A. No. 7691 is laid down in the opening Martinez[25] that the “language of B.P. Blg. 22 is broad
sentence thereof as “An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of B. P. Blg. 22, which took effect on April 24, 1979, provides enough to cover all kinds of checks, whether present dated
the Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts the penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty days but or postdated, or whether issued in payment of pre-existing
and the Metropolitan Trial Court” whereby it reapportions not more than one year or by a fine of not less than but not obligations or given in mutual or simultaneous exchange
the jurisdiction of said courts to cover certain civil and more then double the amount of the check which fine shall for something of value,” since the same is mere obiter
criminal case, erstwhile tried exclusively by the Regional in no case exceed P200,000.00, or both such fine and dictum;[26] in the interpretation of the meaning of a
Trial Courts; consequently, Art. 22 of the RPC finds no imprisonment at the discretion of the court. “check”, where the law is clear and unambiguous, the law
application to the case at bar; jurisdiction is determined by must be taken as it is, devoid of judicial addition or
the law in force at the time of the filing of the complaint, R.A. No. 7691 which took effect on June 15, 1994, subtraction.[27]
and once acquired, jurisdiction is not affected by amended B.P. Blg. 129, and vested on the Metropolitan,
subsequent legislative enactments placing jurisdiction in Municipal and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts jurisdiction to The Solicitor General counters that a postdated check is
another tribunal; in this case, the RTC was vested with try cases punishable by imprisonment of not more than six still a check and its being a postdated instrument does not
jurisdiction to try petitioner’s cases when the same were (6) years.[16] Since R.A. No. 7691 vests jurisdiction on necessarily make it a bill of exchange “payable at a fixed
filed in October 1992; at that time, R.A. No. 7691 was not courts, it is apparent that said law is substantive.[17] or determinable future time” since it is still paid on demand
yet effective;[12] in so far as the retroactive effect of R.A. on the date indicated therein or thereafter just like an
No. 7691 is concerned, that same is limited only to In the case of Cang vs. Court of Appeals,[18] this Court ordinary check.[28] It also points out that the doctrine laid
pending civil cases that have not reached pre-trial stage as held that “jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the down in Lozano vs. Martinez was reiterated in People vs.
provided for in Section 7 thereof and as clarified by this established rule is that the statute in force at the time of Nitafan,[29] hence, it can no longer be argued that the
Court in People vs. Yolanda Velasco[13], where it was the commencement of the action determines the statement in the case of Lozano regarding the scope of
held: “[a] perusal of R.A. No. 7691 will show that its jurisdiction of the court.”[19] R.A. No. 7691 was not yet in “checks” is mere obiter dictum.
retroactive provisions apply only to civil cases that have force at the time of the commencement of the cases in the
not yet reached the pre-trial stage. Neither from an trial court. It took effect only during the pendency of the
Again, we agree with the Solicitor General and find Petitioner’s claim that cases of “closed accounts” are not 1. The accused makes, draws or issues any check to
petitioner’s claim to be without merit. included in the coverage of B.P. Blg. 22 has no merit apply to account or for value;
considering the clear intent of the law, which is to
The rationale behind B.P. Blg. 22 was initially explained by discourage the issuance of worthless checks due to its 2. The accused knows at the time of the issuance that
the Court in the landmark case of Lozano vs. Martinez[30] harmful effect to the public. This Court, in Lozano vs. he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with,
where we held that: Martinez, was explicit in ruling that the language of B.P. the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon
Blg. 22 is broad enough to cover all kinds of checks, its presentment; and
The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is whether present dated or postdated, or whether issued in
the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check payment of pre-existing obligations or given in mutual or 3. The check is subsequently dishonored by the
that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment … simultaneous exchange for something of value.[36] drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or it would
The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal have been dishonored for the same reason had not the
sanctions, the making or worthless checks and putting In People vs. Nitafan,[37] the Supreme Court reiterated drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on this point and held that: payment.[40]
the public interest, the practice is proscribed by law. The
law punished the act not as an offense against property, B.P. Blg. 22 … does not distinguish but merely provides For liability to attach under B.P. Blg. 22, it is not enough
but an offense against public order.[31] that “[a]ny person who makes or draws and issues any that the prosecution establishes that checks were issued
check knowing at the time of issue that he does not have and that the same were subsequently dishonored. The
... sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank … which prosecution must also prove that the issuer, at the time of
check is subsequently dishonored … shall be punished by the check’s issuance, had knowledge that he did not have
The effects of the issuance of a worthless check transcend imprisonment … Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere enough funds or credit in the bank of payment thereof
the private interests of the parties directly involved in the debemus. upon its presentment.[41]
transaction and touches the interests of the community at
large. The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the But even if We retrace the enactment of the “Bouncing Since the second element involves a state of mind which is
payee or holder but also an injury to the public. The Check Law” to determine the parameters of the concept of difficult to establish, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 created a
harmful practice of putting valueless commercial papers in “check”, we can easily glean that the members of the then prima facie presumption of such knowledge, as follows:
circulation, multiplied a thousandfold, can very well pollute Batasang Pambansa intended it to be comprehensive as
the channels of trade and commerce, injure the banking to include all checks drawn against banks.[38] SEC. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. –
system and eventually hurt the welfare of society and the The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of
public interest.[32] In this light, it is easy to see that the claim of petitioner that which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient
B.P. Blg. 22 does not include ‘postdated checks’ and funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within
The same is reiterated in Cueme vs. People[33] where we cases of ‘closed accounts’ has no leg to stand on. The ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima
pronounced that: term “closed accounts” is within the meaning of the phrase facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds
“does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder
. . . B.P. Blg. 22 was purposely enacted to prevent the bank”. thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements
proliferation of worthless checks in the mainstream of daily for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five
business and to avert not only the undermining of the Anent the second issue: whether or not notice of dishonor (5) banking days after receiving notice that such check has
banking system of the country but also the infliction of is dispensable in the case at bar. Petitioner failed to show not been paid by the drawee.
damage and injury upon trade and commerce occasioned any cogent reason for us to disturb the findings of the RTC
by the indiscriminate issuances of such checks. By its and the Court of Appeals. Based on this section, the presumption that the issuer had
very nature, the offenses defined under B.P. Blg. 22 are knowledge of the insufficiency of funds is brought into
against public interest.[34] B.P. Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Check’s Law seeks to existence only after it is proved that the issuer had
prevent the act of making and issuing checks with the received a notice of dishonor and that within five days from
In Recuerdo vs. People, this Court also held that the terms knowledge that at the time of issue, the drawer does not receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or
and conditions surrounding the issuance of the checks are have sufficient funds in or credit with the bank for payment to make arrangement for its payment.[42] The
irrelevant since its primordial intention is to ensure the and the checks were subsequently dishonored upon presumption or prima facie evidence as provided in this
stability and commercial value of checks as being virtual presentment.[39] To be convicted thereunder, the section cannot arise, if such notice of non-payment by the
substitutes for currency.[35] following elements must be proved: drawee bank is not sent to the maker or drawer, or if there
is no proof as to when such notice was received by the
drawer, since there would simply be no way of reckoning Q: But inspite of the fact that she already told you about checking account after issuing the ten postdated checks,
the crucial 5-day period.[43] that, that you never suspected that she did not have all of said checks would bounce. Knowing that she had
enough money to cover the checks agreed upon and already closed her checking account with the drawee
In this case, it is not disputed that checks were issued by issued to you? bank, certainly accused-appellant would not have
petitioner and said checks were subsequently dishonored. expected, even in her wildest imagination, that her
The question however is, was petitioner furnished a notice A: Yes, sir. postdated checks would be honored by the drawee bank.
of dishonor? If not, is it sufficient justification to exonerate Thus, accused-appellant need not be notified anymore of
petitioner from her criminal and civil liabilities for issuing Q: And inspite of the fact she told you you never the obvious dishonor of her rubber checks. (itals. ours)[46]
the bouncing checks? suspected that she did not have enough money to cover
you . . . Based on the law and existing jurisprudence, we find that
The trial court ruled that the second element is present the appellate court erred in convicting petitioner.
because: Q: You still believe that although she does not have
enough money she still issued checks to you? In cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, it is necessary that
… the accused knew at the time of issuance of the checks the prosecution prove that the issuer had received a notice
that she did not have sufficient funds in or credit with her A: Yes, sir. (TSN, April 6, 1993, pp. 24-26) of dishonor. Since service of notice is an issue, the person
drawee bank for the payment of the checks in full upon alleging that the notice was served must prove the fact of
their presentment [as] admitted by her in the Counter- At any rate, there is already prima facie evidence of service. Basic also is the doctrine that in criminal cases,
Affidavit she executed during the preliminary investigation knowledge of insufficiency of funds on the part of the the quantum of proof required is proof beyond reasonable
of these criminal cases (itals. ours), to wit: accused from her failure to pay the amount due on the doubt. Hence, for cases of B.P. Blg. 22 there should be
checks or to make arrangements for payment in full by the clear proof of notice.[47]
4. That the time of the issuance of the said checks, drawee bank within five banking days after she received
due notice and information had been so given to Solid notice of their dishonor, each of the checks having been Indeed, this requirement cannot be taken lightly because
Gold anent the actual status of the checks that the same presented within ninety days from their respective dated Section 2 provides for an opportunity for the drawer to
might not be able to cover the amount of the said checks (B.P. Blg. 22, Sec. 2). The defense did not controvert this effect full payment of the amount appearing on the check,
so stated therein … (Exhibit “N”, “1”, underscoring evidence. (itals. ours)[44] within five banking days from notice of dishonor. The
supplied). absence of said notice therefore deprives an accused of
Although the trial court in its decision, mentioned that an opportunity to preclude criminal prosecution. In other
This fact became evident again during the cross- herein petitioner received notices of dishonor, nowhere in words, procedural due process demands that a notice of
examination by the accused’s counsel of the prosecution’s the records is there proof that the prosecution ever dishonor be actually served on petitioner. In the case at
witness, Joaquin Novales III: presented evidence that petitioner received or was bar, appellant has a right to demand – and the basic
furnished a notice of dishonor. The notices of dishonor postulate of fairness requires – that the notice of dishonor
ATTY. TAGANAS: that were presented in court and marked as Exhibits “D-2”, be actually sent to and received by her to afford her to
“E-2”, “F-2”, “G-2”, “H-2”, “I-2”, “J-2”, “K-2”, “L-2”, “C-2”[45] opportunity to aver prosecution under B.P. Blg. 22.[48]
Q: And the reason you agreed to the terms and were all sent to the private complainant, Solid Gold, and
conditions for the issuance of post-dated checks because not to petitioner. In convicting petitioner, the trial court, The Solicitor General contends that notice of dishonor is
you are also aware the particular time the accused Mrs. gave probative weight on the admission of petitioner in her dispensable in this case considering that the cause of the
Elvira Yu Oh did not also have enough funds or money in Counter-Affidavit which she submitted during the dishonor of the checks was “Account Closed” and
the bank within which to cover the amount of the checks? preliminary investigation that at the time of issuance of the therefore, petitioner already knew that the checks will
subject checks, she was aware and even told private bounce anyway. This argument has no merit. The Court
A: I am not aware, sir. complainant that the checks might not be able to cover the has decided numerous cases where checks were
amount stated therein. dishonored for the reason, “Account Closed”[49] and we
... have explicitly held in said cases that “it is essential for the
The Court of Appeals sustained the RTC, to wit: maker or drawer to be notified of the dishonor of her
Q: To your knowledge when the accused had already check, so she could pay the value thereof or make
admitted to you that she had not enough money to pay . . . Neither can We agree that accused-appellant was still arrangements for its payment within the period prescribed
you? entitled to notice of dishonor of the bouncing checks as by law”[50] and omission or neglect on the part of the
she had no more checking account with the drawee bank prosecution to prove that the accused received such notice
A: That is the terms and promise and agreed upon, sir. at the time of the dishonor of the ten checks in question. of dishonor is fatal to its cause.[51]
Accused-appellant must have realized that by closing her
A perusal of the testimony of the prosecution witness reglementary period within which to file a motion for
Joaquin Novales III, General Manager of complainant G.R. No. L-63318 August 18, 1984 reconsideration (pp. 233, 236, rec.).
Solid Gold, discloses that no personal demands were
made on appellant before the filing of the complaints PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS FOUNDATION, INC., On January 12, 1984, PLDT filed its motion for
against her.[52] Thus, absent a clear showing that petitioner, reconsideration (pp. 237-268, rec.).
petitioner actually knew of the dishonor of her checks and vs.
was given the opportunity to make arrangements for NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and On February 27, 1984, respondent PLDT filed a motion to
payment as provided for under the law, we cannot with PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., admit attached supplemental motion for reconsideration
moral certainty convict her of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The respondents. (pp. 281-301, rec.).
failure of the prosecution to prove that petitioner was given
the requisite notice of dishonor is a clear ground for her Tomas C. Llamas for petitioners. On February 27, 1984, public respondent NTC, thru the
acquittal.[53] Solicitor General, filed a manifestation and motion that it is
The Solicitor General for respondent NTC. joining core, respondent PLDT in its motion for
Moreover, as understood by the trial court itself in the reconsideration thereby adopting the same as its own (pp.
herein aforequoted portion of its decision, General Eliseo Alampay, Jr., Graciano C. Regala and Augusto San 302-303, 305-306, rec.).
Manager Novales knew of the non-availability of sufficient Pedro for private respondents.
funds when appellant issued the subject checks to him. In a resolution dated March 1, 1984 and issued on March
This Court has held that there is no violation of B.P. 22 if RESOLUTION 2, 1984, the Court admitted the supplemental motion for
complainant was told by the drawer that he has no reconsideration of PLDT, noted the manifestation and
sufficient funds in the bank.[54] motion of the Solicitor General for and in behalf of
respondent NTC that it is joining the motion for
For these reasons, we reverse the ruling of the Court of MAKASIAR, J.: reconsideration of PLDT and adopting it as its own, and
Appeals affirming the trial court’s conviction of petitioner required petitioner to convenient within 10 days from
for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. This is without prejudice, I notice on the aforesaid supplemental motion for
however, to her civil liability towards private complainant reconsideration of PLDT (p. 304-A, rec.).
Solid Gold in the amount of P500,000.00 plus interest On March 2, 1983, petitioner filed the instant petition
thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from date of finality praying, among others, that the decision of respondent On March 28, 1984, petitioner filed its comment on
of herein judgment.[55] NTC dated November 22, 1982 and the order dated respondent's motion for reconsideration (pp. 310-317,
January 14, 1983 be annulled and set aside on the rec.).
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision and Resolution of grounds therein stated (pp. 2-19, rec.).
the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED and SET In a resolution dated April 3, 1984 and issued on April 11,
ASIDE. Petitioner Elvira Yu Oh is ACQUITTED of the After the petitioner, the private respondent, and the 1984, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration (p.
offense of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 on ten counts for Solicitor General for public respondent NTC filed their 318A, rec.).
insufficiency of evidence. However, she is ordered to pay respective comments and memoranda (pp. 47-53, 96-106,
complainant Solid Gold International Traders, Inc. the total 109-116, 127-142, 147-164, 206-221, rec.), on November On April 6, 1984, respondent PLDT filed a motion to strike
amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) 25, 1983, the decision sought to be reconsidered was out "discussion (e)" in petitioner's "comment on
with 12% interest per annum from date of finality of herein promulgated, annulling and setting aside the challenged respondents' motions" dated March 20, 1984 (pp. 319-321,
judgment. decision and order, respectively dated November 22, 1982 rec.).
and January 14, 1983 (pp. 225-232, rec.).
SO ORDERED. In a resolution dated April 12, 1984 and issued on April 16,
Said decision is not unanimous as it bears the 1984, the Court required petitioner's counsel Atty. Tomas
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concurrence of only 9 members of this Court, while 3 Llamas to comment within 10 days from notice on the
concur. members took no part and 1 member reserved his vote (p aforesaid motion to strike out (p. 323, rec.).
232, rec.)
Republic of the Philippines On April 17, 1984, respondent PLDT, thru counsel, filed a
SUPREME COURT In a resolution dated January 10, 1984 and released on motion for leave to file within 15 days from date a second
Manila January 17, 1984, the Court granted respondent PLDT's motion for reconsideration (pp. 324-326, rec.).
motion for 15-day extension from the expiration of the
EN BANC
On April 27, 1984, petitioner filed an opposition to the A day before June 1, 1984, or on May 31, 1984, private Atty. Samuel Bautista, Flora Alabanza, the municipality of
aforesaid motion of PLDT for leave to file within 15 days to respondent PLDT filed its reply to petitioner's "comment on Marikina, and the Integrated Telecommunications
file a second motion for reconsideration (pp. 328-330, motion of private respondent" dated May 4, 1984 [motion Suppliers' Association of the Philippines (ITESAP). Other
rec.). to strike] (pp. 366-369, rec.). oppositors failed to file their written oppositions. The
hearings on the merits actually started on August 4, 1982
On May 2, 1984, private respondent PLDT filed a second On July 16, 1984, after its motions for extension were and continued for four (4) subsequent dates.
motion for reconsideration with an annex (pp. 332-344, granted, public respondent NTC thru the Solicitor General,
rec.). finally filed its reply (pp. 370-371, 372-A, 373, 375-381, The oppositors, thru counsel, thoroughly cross-examined
rec.). the witness for the applicant, Mr. Romeo Sisteban
In a resolution dated May 8, 1984 but issued on May 11, applicant's Vice-President for Budget and Financial
1984, the Court granted the motion of PLDT to file a It should be emphasized that the resolution of this Court Planning.
second motion for reconsideration within 15 days from dated April 3, 1984 but issued on April 11, 1984, denying
April 16, 1984, noted the opposition of petitioner to said the first motion for reconsideration did not state that the None of the oppositors opted to present evidence but
motion, and required petitioner to comment within 15 days denial is final (see p. 318-A, rec.). merely filed Memoranda and thereafter manifested that the
from notice on the aforesaid second motion for case is submitted for decision Because PLDT made some
reconsideration of PLDT for the reconsideration of the And the motion of May 29, 1984 but filed on June 1, 1984 concessions in favor of the oppositors, oppositors ITESAP,
decision of November 25, 1983 (p. 345, rec.). of petitioner to declare as final the decision of November Eastern Telecommunications, Inc., Philippine Global
25, 1983 (which motion was included in plaintiff's comment Communications, Inc. (Philcom), Globe-Mackay Cable and
On May 4, 1984, petitioner filed its comment on the on PLDT's second motion for reconsideration) with respect Radio Corporation (GMCR) withdrew their opposition and
second motion for reconsideration of private respondent to public respondent NTC (pp. 361-362, rec.), was not manifested that they are no longer opposing the
(pp. 346-350, rec.). acted upon by this Court, ostensibly because as early as application after which respondent NTC issued the
May 21, 1984, public respondent NTC, thru the Solicitor challenged decision of November 22, 1982.
In a resolution dated May 10, 1984 and issued on May 16, General, filed a manifestation that it is joining private
1984, the Court required respondents to file a reply within respondent PLDT in its second motion for reconsideration Respondent NTC rendered the challenged decision dated
10 days from notice on the aforesaid comment of petitioner dated May 18, 1984 and adopting it as its own (pp. 353- November 22, 1982, approving the revised schedule on
on private respondent PLDT's motion praying that the 354, rec.). the ground that the rates are within the 50% of cost limit
discussion (par. 3) in petitioner's comment on the first provided in P.D. No. 217, that they are just and reasonable
motion for reconsideration and the supplemental motion II and in consonance with the public policies declared in said
for reconsideration be deleted (p. 352, rec.). decree, and that such approval is in the public interest
It is not disputed — and should be emphasized that on (see NTC decision of Nov. 22, 1982, pp. 2-19, rec.).
On May 21, 1984, public respondent NTC filed a August 31, 1982, this Court set aside the NTC order dated
manifestation joining private respondent PLDT and April 14, 1982 in the case of Samuel Bautista vs. NTC, et It is undisputed therefore that petitioner and the other
adopting the latter's second motion for reconsideration (pp. al. (16 SCRA 411) provisionally approving the revised oppositors were accorded due process.
353-354, rec.), which the Court granted in a resolution schedule of rates for the Subscriber Investments Plan, on
dated May 29, 1984 and issued on June 6, 1984 (p. 355- the ground that there was necessity of a hearing by the From said decision dated November 22, 1982, petitioner
A). Commission before it could have acted on the PLDT filed the instant petition.
application for said revised schedule, to give opportunity to
On May 28,1984, respondent PLDT filed a motion for the public, especially herein petitioner and the Solicitor III
extension of 10 days or until June 7, 1984 within which to General to substantiate their objections to the said
submit the required reply in the resolution of May 10, 1984 schedule as excessive and unreasonable, especially for The decision promulgated on November 25, 1983
and issued on May 16, 1984 (pp. 356-357, rec.), which the low-income and middle-income groups, which cannot interprets the rule-making authority delegated in Section 2
was granted in a resolution dated June 5, 1984 and issued afford telephone connections and that there is no need to of P.D. No. 217 to the then Department of Public Works,
on July 3, 1984 (p. 357-A, rec.). increase the rate because PLDT is financially sound. Transportation and Communications as mandatory, which
construction is not supported by the actual phraseology of
On June 1, 1984, petitioner filed its comment on PLDT's Thereafter, in NTC Case No. 82-87 entitled "Re Philippine said Section 2, which reads thus:
second motion for reconsideration, with a motion to Long Distance Telephone Co. respondent NTC conducted
declare final the decision with respect to public respondent several hearings on PLDT's revised Subscriber The Department of Public Works, Transportation and
NTC (pp. 358362, rec.). Investments Plan schedule at which written oppositions Communications, through its Board of Communications
were filed by herein petitioner PCFI, the Solicitor General, and/or appropriate agency shall see to it that the herein
declared policies for the telephone industry are scope, including exempting parties from the application of
immediately implemented and for this purpose, pertinent This is emphasized by the fact that under Section 3 of P.D. the rules in the interest of justice and to best serve the
rules and regulations may be promulgated (emphasis No. 217, only "the pertinent provisions" of the Public public interest, and the NTC may apply such suitable
supplied). Service Act, as amended, which are in conflict with the procedure to improve the service in the transaction of
provisions of P.D. No. 217, had been repealed or modified public service. Thus, Section 2 of Rule 1 of said Rules
The basic canon of statutory interpretation is that the word by said P.D. No. 217. reads:
used in the law must be given its ordinary meaning, unless
a contrary intent is manifest from the law itself. Hence, the Section 3 of P.D. No. 217 states: Sec. 2. Scope. — These rules govern pleadings, practice
phrase "may be promulgated" should not be construed to and procedure before the Board of Communications in all
mean "shall" or "must". It shall be interpreted in its ordinary The pertinent provisions of the Public Service Act, as matters of hearing, investigation and proceedings within
sense as permissive or discretionary on the part of the amended, the franchise of the Philippine Long Distance the jurisdiction of the Board. However, in the broader
delegate — department or the Board 6f Communications Telephone Company under Act 3436, as amended, all interest of justice and in order to best serve the public
then, now the National Telecommunications Commission existing legislative and/or municipal franchises and other interest, the Board may, in any particular matter, except it
— whether or not to promulgate pertinent rules and laws, executive orders, proclamations, rules and from these rules and apply such suitable procedure to
regulations. There is nothing in P.D. No. 217 which regulations or parts thereof, as are in conflict with the improve the service in the transaction of the public
commands that the phrase "may be promulgated" should provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed or modified business.
be construed as "shall be promulgated." The National accordingly.
Telecommunications Commission can function and has Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 2 of said rules insure the
functioned without additional rules, aside from the existing And under the Public Service Act, as amended (C.A. No. appearance of the Solicitor General and other consumers
Public Service Law, as amended, and the existing rules 146), the board of Communications then, now the NTC, or users. The notice of hearing is required to be published
already issued by the Public Service Commission, as well can fix a provisional amount for the subscriber's and to be served on the affected parties by Section 2 of
as the 1978 rules issued by the Board of Communications, investment to be effective immediately, without hearing Rule 8; while Section I of Rule 9 allows the filing of written
the immediate predecessor of respondent NTC. It should (par. 3 of Sec. 16, C.A. 146, as amended). oppositions to the application Under Section 3 of Rule 15,
be recalled that the PLDT petition for approval of its the BOC then, now the NTC, may grant, on motion of the
revised SIP schedule was filed on March 20,1980. Section 16 (c) of C.A. No. 146, as amended, provides: applicant or on its own initiative, provisional relief based on
the pleading, supporting affidavits and other documents
P.D. No. 217 does not make the rules and regulations to (c) To fix and determine individual or joint rates, toll attached thereto, without prejudice to a final decision after
be promulgated by the respondent NTC as essential to the charges, classifications, or schedules thereof, as well as completion of the hearing which shall be caged within thirty
exercise of its jurisdiction over applications for SIP communication, mileage, kilometrage, and oilier special (30) days from the grant of the provisional relief.
schedules. In Ang Tibay vs. CIR (69 Phil. 635), this Court, rates which shall be imposed, observed, and followed
through Mr. Justice Jose P. Laurel, did not include the thereafter by any public service: Provided That the Finally, Section 1 of Rule 19 provides for the suppletory
promulgation of rules and regulations as among the seven Commission may, in its discretion approve rates proposed application of the Rules of Court governing proceedings
(7) requirements of due process in quasi-judicial by public services provisionally and without necessity of before the Court of First Instance then, now the Regional
proceedings before a quasi-judicial body such as the any hearing, but it shall call a hearing thereon within thirty Trial Courts, which are not inconsistent with the rules of
respondent NTC. days thereafter, upon publication and notice to the practice and procedure promulgated by the BOC on
concerns operating in the territory affects Provided further, January 25, 1978.
What is patently mandatory on the ministry or National That in case the public service equipment of an operator is
Telecommunications Commission is the immediate used principally or secondarily for the promotion of a There is nothing in P.D. No. 217 modifying, much less
implementation of the policies declared in P.D. No. 217. To private business, the net profits of said private business repeating Section 16 (c) of the Public Service Act, as
repeat, the ministry or the NTC "shall see to it that the shall be considered in relation with the public service of amended.
herein declared policies for the telephone industry are such operator for the purpose of fixing the rates.
immediately implemented ..." The formulation of rules and It is true that P.D. No. 1874 promulgated on July 21, 1983
regulations is purely discretionary on the part of the The Rules of Practice and Procedures promulgated on amending Section 2 of P.D. No. 217 expressly authorizes
delegate. January 25, 1978 by the Board of Communications, the the National Telecommunications Commission (now the
immediate predecessor of respondent NTC, pursuant to successor of the Board of Communications) to approve
Both words "shall and "may be" are employed in the lone Section 11 of the Public Service Act, otherwise known as "such amounts for subscriber investments as applied for
sentence of Section 2 of P.D. No. 217. This graphically Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended, govern the provisionally and without the necessity of a hearing; but
demonstrates that P.D. No. 217 preserves the distinction rules of practice and procedure before the BOC then, now shall call a hearing thereon within thirty (30) days
between their ordinary, usual or nominal senses. respondent NTC. Section 2 of said Rules defines their thereafter, upon publication and notice to all parties
affected." But such amendment merely reiterates or expressly provided for in Section 1 of P.D. 1874 amending
confirms paragraph (c) of Section 16 of C.A. No. 146, as 6. PLDT vs. Medina, G.R. Nos. L-24340-44, July 18, 1967, Sec. 6 of P.D. 217.
amended, otherwise known as the Public Service Law, 20 SCRA 669.
and serves merely to clarify the seeming ambiguity of the Section 1 of P.D. 1874 directs that:
repealing clause in Section 3 of P.D. No. 217 to dissipate As heretofore stated, as early as January 25, 1978, other
an doubts on such power of the National pertinent rules of practice and procedure were Section 1, paragraph 6 of the Presidential Decree No. 217
Telecommunications Commission. promulgated by the then Board of Communications, now is hereby amended to read as follows:
the respondent National Telecommunications Commission,
The construction of the majority decision of November 25, implementing P.D. No, 217, in addition to the applicable 6. In any subscriber self-financing plan, the amount of
1983 of the word "may" to mean "shall" is too strained, if provisions of the Public Service Law, as amended, and the subscriber self-financing wilt in no case, exceed fifty per
not tortured. rules previously issue by the Public Service Commission centum (50%) of the amount which results from dividing
(Annex 2 to the Memo of respondent PLDT filed on August the telephone utility's gross investment in telephone plant
IV 15, 1983, pp. 147-165, rec.). in service by its number of primary stations in service, both
as reported in the utility's latest audited annual report
WE cannot subscribe to the view that the National Even before 1978, respondent applied the procedure rendered he National Telecommunications Commission;
Telecommunications Commission should or must prescribed by the Public Service Law, as amended, and PROVIDED, however, that the amount payable by the
promulgate "pertinent rules and regulations because the the rules previously issued by the Public Service telephone subscriber may be paid on installment or under
existing substantive and procedural laws as well as the Commission, the NTC predecessor, in several cases such payment arrangement as the National
rules promulgated by the Public Service Commission involving similar applications for SIP schedules of Filipino Telecommunications Commission may authorize.
under and pursuant to the Public Service Law, otherwise Telephone Corporation (BOC Case No. 73-064; see BOC
known as CA No. 146, as amended, are more than decision in said cases dated December 5, 1974, May 11, V
adequate to determine the reasonability of the amounts of 1978, March 15, 1977, Feb. 19, 1976 and Aug. 31, 1978
investment of telephone subscribers, the viability of the — Annexes 3, 4, 4-A, 5, pp. 166-195, rec.). It should be likewise emphasized that pursuant to the
company and the other factors that go into determining mandate of Section 5, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution,
such amounts and such viability. The existing laws and The majority opinion recognizes that for the last three as amended, the law-making authority, in issuing both P.D.
rules on rate-making are more than sufficient for a proper years, the PLDT had earned a yearly average net profit of Nos. 217 and 1874, established the all-important policy of
determination of such amounts of investments of individual over P100 million and the existing subscribers have been making available on regular and uninterrupted basis the
subscribers and the profitability of the venture. receiving their corresponding quarterly dividends on their telephone service because it is
investments.
The adequacy of the existing Public Service Law, a crucial element in the conduct of business activity ... and
otherwise known as C.A. No. 146, as amended, and rules It should be stressed that Section 5 of Article XIV of the is essential for the smooth and efficient function of
had been demonstrated, because they have been applied 1973 Constitution, as amended, expressly directs that "the industry,
in the following cases involving PLDT: State shall encourage equity participation in public utilities
by the general public." As above-stated, the existing ... efficient telephone service contributes directly to
1. PLDT vs. PSC, G.R. No. L-26762, Aug. 31, 1970, 34 individual subscribers of PLDT had been sharing in the net national development by facilitating trade and commerce;
SCRA 609; profits of the company every quarter after the promulgation
of P.D. 217 on June 16, 1973. ... the telephone industry is one of the most highly capital
2. Republic vs. PLDT, G.R. No. L-18841, Jan. 27, 1969, 26 intensive industries;
SCRA 620; The amount that is provisionally approved under the
subscriber's investment plan for PBX/PAEX trunks and for ... the telephone industry has fundamentally different
3. PLDT vs. PSC, G.R. Nos. L-24198 & L-24207-10, Dec. business telephones in Metro Manila and the provinces, financing characteristics from other utilities in that capital
18, 1968, 26 SCRA 427; whether new installations or transfers, appears to be requirements per telephone unit installed increase as the
reasonable, including those for the leased lines or outside number of customers serviced also increases instead of
4. Republic Telephone Co. vs. PLDT, G.R. No. L-21070; local. decreasing in cost per unit as in power and water utilities;
PLDT vs. Republic Telephone Co., G.R. No. L-21075, both
decided on Sept. 23, 1968, 25 SCRA 80; To lighten the burden of subscribers, investments may be ... continued reliance on the traditional sources of capital
paid in installments or under some convenient funds through foreign and domestic borrowing and through
5. PLDT vs. Medina, G.R. No. L-24658, April 3, 1968, 23 arrangements which the NTC may authorize, which is now public ownership of common capital stock will result in a
SCRA 1; and high cost of capital heavy cash requirements for
amortization and thus eventually in higher effective cost of shares, after a reasonable period and under reasonable
telephone service to subscribers; terms, at the option of the preferred stockholder; and Metro Manila
... the subscribers to telephone service tend to be among 6. In any subscriber self-financing plan, the amount of Provincial
the residents of urban areas and among the relatively subscriber self-financing wig, in no case, exceed fifty per
higher income segment of the population; centum (50%) of the cost of the installed telephone line, as
may be determined from time to time by the regulatory
... it is in the interest of the national economy to encourage bodies of the State.
savings and to place these savings in productive
enterprises and The same policies and objectives are substantially re-
stated and capsulized in the three Whereases of P.D. No.
... it is the announced policies of the government to 1874 amending P.D. No. 217 as pointed out in the basic I. New Installations —
encourage the spreading out of ownership in public utilities policies aforestated in P.D. No. 217 that the cost per
(see Whereases of P.D. 217; emphasis supplied). telephone unit increases in proportion to the increase in
the number of customers served; and that foreign
P.D. No. 217 further states as the basic policies of the borrowing will impose heavy cash requirements for
State concerning the telephone industry "in the interest of amortizations of such foreign loans which would result in
social, economic and general well-being of the people ... the higher effective costs of telephone service to 1. PBX/PABX Trunk
subscribers and ultimately would be a heavy drain on our
1. The attainment of efficient telephone service for as dollar reserves, which will result in our inability to meet our P5,000
wide an area as possible at the lowest reasonable cost to other foreign commitments and mark the image of the
the subscriber; Republic of the Philippines in international trade relations. P3,000
Thus, P.D. No. 217 stresses that in the interest of the
2. The expansion of telephone service shall be financed national economy it is essential to encourage savings and 2. Phone:
through an optimal combination of domestic and foreign to place these savings (subscriber's investments) in
sources of financing and an optimal combination of debt productive enterprises.
and equity funds so as to minimize the aggregate cost of
capital of telephone utilities; PLDT is profitable for the subscribers-investors as shown
by its net profit and the dividends received quarterly by the
3. Consistent with the declared policy of the State to attain existing subscribers. Single line
widespread ownership of public utilities obtained from
ownership funds shall be raised from a broad base of There is no showing — not even an allegation — that the 3,500
investors, involving as large a number of individual net profits realized by PLDT all these years have been
investors as may be possible; dissipated and not plowed back into the firm to improve its 2,000
service.
4. In line with the objective of spreading ownership among Party line
a wide base of the people, the concept of telephone But the rising cost of materials and labor needed to
subscriber self-financing is hereby adopted whereby a improve the PLDT service, aggravated by the devaluation 2,000
telephone subscriber finances part of the capital of our currency, all the more justify the revised SIP
investments in telephone installations through the schedule approved by the respondent NTC. 1,500
purchase of stocks, whether common or preferred stock, of
the telephone company; The approved revised SIP schedule, which appears 3. Phone:
reasonable and fair is herein reproduced:
5. As part of any subscriber self-financing plan, when the
issuance of preferred stock is contemplated, it is required REVISED SIP SCHEDULE
that the subscriber be assured, in all cases of a fixed
annual income from his investment and that these Revised SIP Rates
preferred capital stocks be convertible into common Single line
Service Category
1,800 800
The law used the term “shall” in prescribing the work to be It may be asked why publication in a newspaper of general
done by the Commissioner of Land Registration upon the circulation should be deemed mandatory when the law SECOND DIVISION
latter’s receipt of the court order setting the time for initial already requires notice by publication in the Official
hearing. The said word denotes an imperative and thus Gazette as well as by mailing and posting, all of which [G.R. No. 87134. January 20, 2000]
indicates the mandatory character of a statute.[15] While have already been complied with in the case at hand. The
concededly such literal mandate is not an absolute rule in reason is due process and the reality that the Official PHILIPPINE REGISTERED ELECTRICAL
statutory construction, as its import ultimately depends Gazette is not as widely read and circulated as PRACTITIONERS, INC. (PREPI), represented by BEN
upon its context in the entire provision, we hold that in the newspapers and is oftentimes delayed in its circulation, ROSETE, HERMINIO S. RAMIREZ, CASIANO PAULINO,
present case the term must be understood in its normal such that the notices published therein may not reach the NONATO VILLANUEVA, JR., RENATO AME, MARIO
mandatory meaning. In Republic vs. Marasigan,[16] the interested parties on time, if at all. Additionally, such BLAS, SAMUEL BRAVO, AMOR CRUZ, FRANCISCO
Court through Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. held that parties may not be owners of neighboring properties, and DULLER, BENITO ESPAÑOL, PABLO FERNANDEZ,
Section 23 of PD 1529 requires notice of the initial hearing may in fact not own any other real estate. In sum, the all- WILFREDO GORRICHO, GRACIANO LAPID, LUISITO
by means of (1) publication, (2) mailing and (3) posting, all encompassing in rem nature of land registration cases, the MAGANA, FERNANDO MALABANAN, MARTIN
of which must be complied with. “If the intention of the law consequences of default orders issued against the whole MARTINEZ, EDGARDO MERIDA, ARNEL PALILIO,
were otherwise, said section would not have stressed in world and the objective of disseminating the notice in as GAUDIOSO SEURA, ZENON TUBIO, MARIANO YAPE,
detail the requirements of mailing of notices to all persons wide a manner as possible demand a mandatory AND NILO MONTALBAN, petitioners, vs. JULIO
named in the petition who, per Section 15 of the Decree, construction of the requirements for publication, mailing FRANCIA, JR., in his capacity as COMMISSIONER OF
include owners of adjoining properties, and occupants of and posting. PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION,
the land.” Indeed, if mailing of notices is essential, then by MEDERICO T. CORTEZ, in his capacity as CHAIRMAN
parity of reasoning, publication in a newspaper of general Admittedly, there was failure to comply with the explicit OF THE BOARD OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, and
circulation is likewise imperative since the law included publication requirement of the law. Private respondents HONORABLE REBECCA SALVADOR, JUDGE OF THE
such requirement in its detailed provision. did not proffer any excuse; even if they had, it would not REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 1,
have mattered because the statute itself allows no respondents.
It should be noted further that land registration is a excuses. Ineludibly, this Court has no authority to
proceeding in rem.[17] Being in rem, such proceeding dispense with such mandatory requirement. The law is RESOLUTION
requires constructive seizure of the land as against all unambiguous and its rationale clear. Time and again, this
persons, including the state, who have rights to or interests Court has declared that where the law speaks in clear and QUISUMBING, J.:
in the property. An in rem proceeding is validated categorical language, there is no room for interpretation,
essentially through publication. This being so, the process vacillation or equivocation; there is room only for For review on certiorari is the decision of the Regional Trial
must strictly be complied with. Otherwise, persons who application.[19] There is no alternative. Thus, the Court, Manila, Branch 1, which dismissed PREPI’s petition
may be interested or whose rights may be adversely application for land registration filed by private for declaratory relief and/or prohibition, for lack of merit.
affected would be barred from contesting an application respondents must be dismissed without prejudice to
which they had no knowledge of. As has been ruled, a reapplication in the future, after all the legal requisites shall Petitioner is an organization composed of professional
party as an owner seeking the inscription of realty in the have been duly complied with. electrical engineers, associate electrical engineers,
land registration court must prove by satisfactory and assistant electrical engineers, and master electricians. It is
conclusive evidence not only his ownership thereof but the WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed represented in this case by several of its officers and
identity of the same, for he is in the same situation as one Decision and Resolution are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. members. ScÓ lex
who institutes an action for recovery of realty.[18] He must The application of private respondent for land registration
prove his title against the whole world. This task, which is DISMISSED without prejudice. No costs. On July 6, 1988, petitioner filed before the RTC an action
rests upon the applicant, can best be achieved when all for declaratory relief and/or prohibition, assailing the
persons concerned -- nay, “the whole world” -- who have SO ORDERED. constitutional validity of Resolution No. 1, Series of 1986,
rights to or interests in the subject property are notified and issued by the Board of Electrical Engineering, then headed
effectively invited to come to court and show cause why Davide, Jr., Melo, and Francisco, JJ., concur. by respondent Mederico T. Cortez. The Professional
the application should not be granted. The elementary Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), on leave. Regulation Commission, then headed by respondent Julio
norms of due process require that before the claimed
Francia, Jr., approved said resolution on February 10, 3. A duly registered electrical engineering practitioner IV........THE LOWER COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN
1986. should have the following credit units for a period of three FINDING THAT THE PETITIONERS’ FEAR AND
(3) years: xä law APPREHENSION THAT THE CPE PROGRAM WOULD
In said resolution, the Board adopted guidelines for the BE BURDENSOME AND A SOURCE OF RED TAPE IS
implementation of the Continuing Professional Education Registered Master Electrician 100 credit units ONLY IMAGINARY THAN REAL.[5]
(CPE) Program for electrical engineers. Included therein is
a requirement that beginning January 1, 1988, every Registered Electrical Engineer 200 credit units (All Essentially, petitioner raises the following issues in this
electrical engineer must earn credit units of CPE before his grades)."[1] petition for review: (1) whether or not the Board of
license could be renewed. To earn credit units, he must Electrical Engineering had authority to issue the resolution
first apply for accreditation with the Institute of Integrated After hearing, the trial court dismissed petitioner’s action, in question; and, if it did, (2) whether or not the resolution
Electrical Engineers of the Philippines (IIEE). on the ground that petitioner failed to establish a clear and issued pursuant to that authority is constitutionally valid.
unequivocal violation of the Constitution or statute. It
Petitioner assailed before the trial court the resolution as pointed out that all reasonable doubts should be resolved Petitioner argues that the PRC and the Board did not have
violative of the Constitution’s equal protection and due in favor of the validity of a statute. the requisite authority to issue said resolution. Citing
process clauses, prohibition against bills of attainder and Section 6(a) of P.D. No. 223, petitioner claims that the
ex post facto laws, and mandate for the protection of the According to the trial court, the questioned resolution is a Board only has visitation powers, "to see [to it] that proper
rights of workers. valid implementation of Section 3, Republic Act No. 184,[2] compliments of professionals are employed and given
and Section 6, Presidential Decree No. 223.[3] proper responsibilities and remuneration." In other words,
Following are the relevant portions of the resolution: petitioner contends that the Board may only conduct
The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads: inspections of sites where electrical engineering jobs are
"III. Possible Exemption to the CPE Guidelines conducted, primarily to safeguard the welfare of electrical
"WHEREFORE, the petition for declaratory relief and/or engineers.
A. An electrical engineering practitioner who has reached prohibition with prayer for injunction is hereby dismissed,
the age of 60. for lack of merit and the temporary restraining order issued Petitioner contends further that implementation of the
by this Court on July 13, 1988, is lifted and set aside. No resolution would amount to deprivation of property without
B. A top government official of at least Vice-President or pronouncement as to costs. due process of law, particularly because an electrical
Bureau Director level, or equivalent ranking position in engineer’s or electrician’s license will not be renewed if he
private sector. SO ORDERED."[4] failed to obtain any or enough units under the CPE
program. Petitioner points out that under Section 32 of
C. A practitioner undergoing post-doctoral studies during In this direct appeal to the Supreme Court on pure R.A. No. 184, the Board has the power to suspend
his current registration period. questions of law, petitioner now raises the following licenses only upon proper notice and hearing. Sclawä
assignment of errors: Scä
D. Those recommended by the PRC or by [the] Board of Petitioner argues that the license to practice a profession
Electrical Engineering. I........THE LOWER COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN is not a mere privilege but a property right. If it were,
DECLARING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 1 SERIES OF indeed, only a privilege, it could not be taken away by the
IV. Method of Evaluation and Credit Units 1986, CONSTITUTIONAL. simple expedient of passing a board resolution. Petitioner
asserts that such license may only be revoked after the
A. Basic Requirements II........THE LOWER COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN license holder is found guilty of the offenses specified in
HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS PRC AND BEE R.A. No. 184 or P.D. No. 223. Since failure to earn units
1. PRC requires that a registered Master Electrician or ARE VESTED WITH POWERS TO ADOPT AND under the CPE program is not among those enumerated, it
Electrical Engineer [of] any grade shall renew his license PROMULGATE RULES SUCH AS THE RESOLUTION IN cannot be made a ground for the revocation of an
once every three (3) years. QUESTION. electrical engineer’s or electrician’s license.
2. As a condition precedent to the above, he shall first III........THE LOWER COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN Petitioner also argues that the classification of persons
secure from IIEE’s Continuing Professional Education FINDING THAT BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 1 SERIES OF who may be exempt from the CPE program requirement
Committee a certificate that he has complied with PRC’s 1986, IS VALID, LEGAL AND NOT TAINTED WITH appears to be arbitrary. Petitioner points out that
requirements for Continuing Professional Education. GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
"…electrical engineers and master electricians who are in
the responsible practice of designing and constructing
electrical installations are excluded in the said exemptions We further note that Section 3, of R.A. No. 184, mandates
and are not given any credit or merit."[6] "(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to the Board to recommend to the PRC the adoption of
fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations
Petitioner further contends that the questioned board and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and "measures as may be deemed proper for the maintenance
resolution does not provide any criteria for the PRC or export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other of good ethics and standards in the practice of electrical
Board to follow in recommending exemptions to the CPE duties or imposts within the framework of the national engineering in the Philippines…" (Underscoring supplied.)
requirement. development program of the government."
Moreover, Section 6(a) of P.D. No. 223 gives the various
Petitioner also assails the resolution as violative of the The Solicitor General opines that this provision is simply professional boards the power
equal protection clause since only electrical engineers are not pertinent nor applicable in this case. For the fees that
subject to the requirements mentioned therein. Members may be charged electrical engineers in complying with the "[t]o look from time to time into the conditions affecting the
of other professions are not similarly required. CPE program, he argues, are not the duties or imposts practice of the profession or occupation under their
referred to in the preceding constitutional provision. respective jurisdictions and whenever necessary, adopt
For the respondents, the Solicitor General submits that, such measures as may be deemed proper for the
contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the Board had the The issue before this Court boils down to (a) whether the enhancement of the profession or occupation and/or the
authority to promulgate the questioned resolution pursuant Board of Electrical Engineers in the light of the provisions maintenance of high professional, ethical and technical
to Section 3, R.A. No. 184 and Section 6, P.D. No. 223. of R.A. No. 184, had the authority to issue the questioned standards…" (Underscoring supplied.)
The latter law is not limited to the power of inspection and resolution; and (b) whether the resolution itself violates
visitation as petitioner contends. It includes the power to certain provisions of the present Constitution. For said purposes,
formulate policies and programs as may be necessary to
improve the practice of a profession. We begin by noting that the Board issued the resolution as "the members of a Board may personally or through
a means purportedly to upgrade the knowledge and skills subordinate employees of the Commission conduct ocular
The Solicitor General further contends that Resolution No. of electrical engineers. Specifically, the resolution has the inspection or visit industrial, mechanical, electrical or
1, Series of 1986 is not violative of the Constitution. He following objectives: chemical plants or works, hospitals, clinics and other
dismisses as unfounded petitioner’s fears regarding the engineering works…"
automatic revocation of license for non-compliance with 1........To upgrade and update technical knowledge and
the CPE requirement. Nothing in the questioned resolution skills of Electrical Engineering Practitioners; On this point, petitioner now insists that the authority of the
provides for such automatic revocation, according to him; Board is limited to the conduct of ocular inspections. But
there is, thus, no violation of the due process clause. 2........To effect transfer of technology from experts and nothing in said provision in any way imposes such an
specialists to Electrical Engineering Practitioners; interpretation. The Board in fact may even do away with
Neither does the resolution violate the equal protection ocular inspections, as can be gleaned from the use of the
clause since not all electrical engineers are similarly 3........To stimulate self-improvement, and thus enhance word "may", implying that the conduct of ocular inspections
situated, he further argues. He claims that there are those practitioner’s competence and self-confidence; and is merely directory and not mandatory. For sure,
who, by reason of age and expertise, may reasonably be conducting ocular inspections is only one way of ensuring
exempted from the CPE requirement. Equal protection, he 4........To broaden practitioner’s horizon to include compliance with laws and rules relative to the professional
concludes, does not require universal application of laws awareness of his social responsibility.[7] practice of electrical engineering. But it certainly is not the
but only equality among equals. only way. ScmisÓ
Effectivity of the resolution has been expressly made
The Solicitor General likewise contends that the resolution subject to the approval of the PRC and its publication in We are, therefore, constrained to concede to the Board the
is not a bill of attainder since it does not seek to punish but the Official Gazette, as may be seen from its effectivity existence of the power to issue the assailed resolution, in
only to regulate the practice of a profession. Neither is it an clause. RtcÓ spped pursuance of its mandates under R.A. 184 and P.D. 223.
ex post facto law, he says, since the ex post facto principle What now remains is a determination of whether or not
only applies to penal statutes and not to regulations "VI. Effectivity said resolution suffers from constitutional infirmities.
involving civil rights such as the practice of a profession.
Korteä These Rules shall take effect upon approval hereof by the Supervening events, however, have rendered moot this
Commission and after fifteen (15) days following the constitutional inquiry. On July 25, 1995, President Fidel V.
In his view also, there is no violation of Article VI, Section completion of its publication in the Official Gazette."[8] Ramos issued Executive Order No. 266, entitled
28 of the Constitution, which states, in its second "Institutionalization of the Continuing Professional
paragraph as follows: Education (CPE) Programs of the Various Professional
Regulatory Boards (PRBs) under the Supervision of the [G.R. No. 122641. January 20, 1997] On 28 August 1995, however, the petitioners filed a Motion
Professional Regulation Commission (PRC)." E.O. No. 266 to Quash,[6] contending that in view of the effectivity of
found it imperative to impose upon registered BAYANI SUBIDO, JR. and RENE PARINA, petitioners, vs. R.A. No. 7975[7] on 6 May 1995, amending §4 of P.D. No.
professionals the completion of the CPE as a pre-requisite THE HONORABLE SANDIGAN-BAYAN and THE 1606,[8] the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over both
for the renewal of their licenses. Avowedly, CPE would PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. the offense charged and the persons of the accused.
enable the professionals DECISION They argued that: (1) Arbitrary Detention did not fall within
DAVIDE, JR., J.: Chapter II, §2, Title VII of the RPC, but within §1, Chapter
"not only to upgrade or improve their technical knowledge 1, Title II (Crimes Against the Fundamental Laws of the
and skills but also to keep them abreast with modern In this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of State), hence, not covered by R.A. No. 7975 and,
trends and technology in their respective professions, Court, the petitioners seek to set aside, on ground of grave therefore, the case should have been filed with the
thereby assuring the rendition of highly qualitative abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila; (2) R.A. No. 7975
professional service/s that will be globally competitive following acts of the respondent Sandiganbayan in should be given prospective application and at the time the
under the General Agreement on Trade in Services Criminal Case No. 22825: (a) the Resolution[1] of 25 case was filed, petitioner Subido was already a private
(GATS) and at the same time securing the safety and October 1995 which denied the petitioners’ Motion to person since he was separated from the service on 28
protection of the public."[9] Quash of 28 August 1995 and Supplementary Motion to February 1995; while petitioner Parina did not hold a
Quash of 7 October 1995; (b) the Order[2] of 10 November position corresponding to salary grade “27”; and (3) penal
In fact, E.O. No. 266 provides that: 1995 which denied the petitioners’ motion for laws must be strictly construed against the State.
reconsideration; and (c) the Order[3] of 10 November 1995
"SECTION 1. The completion by professional licensees of which entered a plea of not guilty for the petitioners and In compliance with the order of the Sandiganbayan, the
the Continuing Professional Education (CPE) programs set pre-trial on 12 January 1996. prosecution filed its Opposition to the Motion to Quash[9]
adopted by all Boards is hereby imposed as a mandatory on 28 September 1995. It contended that it was clear from
requirement for the renewal of professional licenses." In Criminal Case No. 22825, the petitioners were charged §4(b) of R.A. No. 7975 that the Sandiganbayan had
(Underscoring supplied.) with Arbitrary Detention, defined and penalized by Article jurisdiction over both the offense charged and the persons
124 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), under an of the accused considering that “the basis of its jurisdiction
For its part, the PRC issued Resolution No. 507, Series of information dated 17 July 1995 (but filed on 28 July 1995), xxx is the position of the accused in the government
1997,[10] entitled "Standardized Guidelines and the accusatory portion of which reads as follows: service when the offense charged was committed and not
Procedures for the Implementation of the Continuing the nature of the offense charged, provided the said
Professional Education (CPE) Programs for all That on or about June 25, 1992, or sometime subsequent offense committed by the accused was in the exercise of
Professions." This resolution expressly repealed thereto, in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, Philippines and his duties and in relation to his office.” The fact then that
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- accused Subido was already a private individual was of no
"other Resolutions, circulars or other issuances named accused, Bayani Subido, Jr., being then a moment.
promulgated by the PRC and Professional Regulatory Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration and
Boards providing for, or having any bearing on the Deportation (BID) and accused Rene Parina, being then a In a Supplement to the Motion to Quash[10] filed on 9
implementation of the CPE programs, activities or BID Special Agent, while in the performance of their official October 1995, the petitioners further asserted that: (1) the
sources…"[11] functions, and conspiring and confederating with each allegations in the information were vague; (2) under §1,
other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously Rule VIII of Memorandum Order (MO) No. 04-92 (Rules of
Thus, the assailed BEE Resolution No. 1, Series of 1986, cause the issuance and implementation of a warrant of Procedure to Govern Deportation Proceedings), the grant
providing for guidelines on CPE for electrical engineers, is arrest dated June 25, 1992 against James J. Maksimuk, or denial of bail to an alien in a deportation proceeding
no longer in effect now. said accused knowing fully well that the BID Decision was discretionary upon the Commissioner, hence could
dated June 6, 1991, requiring Maksimuk's deportation has not be subject to a charge of arbitrary detention; (3)
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for being not as yet become final and executory considering the petitioner Subido was separated from the service before
moot and academic. pendency of a Motion for Reconsideration, resulting in the the effectivity of R.A. No. 7975, hence retroactive
detention of the latter for a period of forty-three (43) days application thereof would be prejudicial to him; and (4) at
SO ORDERED. and, thus, causing him undue injury. the time the information was filed, petitioner Parina was
not occupying a position corresponding to salary grade
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., CONTRARY TO LAW.[4] “27” or higher, as prescribed by R.A. No. 6758.[11]
JJ., concur.2/22/00 9:43 AM
The arraignment was originally set for 28 August 1995.[5] In its Rejoinder[12] filed on 20 October 1995, the
THIRD DIVISION prosecution maintained that with §4 of MO No. 04-92,
Salazar v. Achacoso,[13] and Gatchalian v. CID,[14] the making of record that arraignment was conducted with the
only instance when an alien facing deportation reservation of the petitioners to seek redress with this In cases where none of the principal accused are
proceedings could be arrested by virtue of a warrant of Court from the denial of their motion for reconsideration. occupying positions corresponding to salary grade “27” or
arrest was when the Commissioner issued the warrant to higher, as prescribed in said Republic Act No. 6758, or
carry out a final order of deportation, which was absent in Hence, this special civil action, where the parties, in the PNP officers occupying the rank of superintendent or
this case due to the pendency of the motion for main, reiterate the arguments they raised before the higher, or their equivalent, exclusive jurisdiction thereof
reconsideration timely filed. It further reiterated that the Sandiganbayan. In due time, we resolved to give due shall be vested in the proper Regional Trial Court,
basis of the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over the case course to the petition and required the parties to file their Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, and
was the position of the accused when the crime was respective memoranda, which they subsequently complied Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as the case may be, pursuant
committed, not when the information was filed; in any with. to their respective jurisdiction as provided in Batas
event, petitioner Subido’s position as a Commissioner of Pambansa Blg. 129.
the Bureau of Immigration was classified even higher than The petition must be dismissed.
grade “27” under the Compensation and Classification Act Sec. 7. Upon the effectivity of this Act, all criminal cases in
of 1989. Sections 2 and 7 of R.A. No. 7975 pertinently provide as which trial has not begun in the Sandiganbayan shall be
follows: referred to the proper courts.
In its Resolution[15] of 25 October 1995, the
Sandiganbayan denied the petitioners’ Motion to Quash Sec. 2. Section 4 of [P.D. No. 1606] is hereby further R.A. No. 7975 took effect on 16 May 1995,[20] or one
and the Supplement thereto, ruling: amended to read as follows: year, ten months and twenty-one days after the alleged
commission of the crime charged in Criminal Case No.
1. [T]he jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan remains not Sec. 4. Jurisdiction. -- The Sandiganbayan shall exercise 22825 before the Sandiganbayan. The provisions of §4 of
only over the specific offenses enumerated in Sec. 4 of original jurisdiction in all cases involving: P.D. No. 1606, as amended by E.O. No. 184, but prior to
P.D. 1606 as Amended by R.A. 7975 but over offenses their further amendment by R.A. No. 7975, are then the
committed in relation to their office, regardless of the a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, applicable provisions. §4 of P.D. No. 1606 then pertinently
penalty provided that the salary of the accused is at Grade otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices provided as follows:
27 under [R.A. 6758] or that he is occupying any of the Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title
position described in Sec. 4(a)e of the law, which includes VII of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. -- The Sandiganbayan shall exercise:
the position of Deputy Commissioner. principal accused are officials occupying the following
positions in the government, whether in a permanent, (a) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases involving:
2. [A]t this time the position of the prosecution in response acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of
to this Court's misgivings stated in its Order of August 28, the offense; (1) violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
1995, appears to be that aliens may not be arrested otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and practices Act,
except upon execution of a deportation order, a matter (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII
which can be taken up at further proceedings after the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise of the Revised Penal Code;
arraignment of the accused. classified as grade 27 and higher, of the Compensation
and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. (2) other offenses or felonies committed by public officers
It likewise set arraignment on 10 November 1995. To 6758), specifically including: and employees in relation to their office, including those
abort arraignment, the petitioners filed on 9 November employed in government-owned or controlled corporations,
1995 a motion for reconsideration[16] and submitted that xxx whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the
under the vast power of the Commissioner of the penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision
Department of Immigration, he could authorize the arrest (5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade correccional or imprisonment for six (6) years, or a fine of
and detention of an alien even though a deportation order “27” and higher under the Compensation and Position P6,000.00: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that offenses or
had not yet become final, in light of the preventive, not Classification Act of 1989. felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the penalty
penal, nature of a deportation order.[17] prescribed by law does not exceed prision correccional or
b. Other offenses or felonies committed by the public imprisonment of six (6) years or a fine of P6,000.00 shall
On 10 November 1995, the Sandiganbayan issued an officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of this be tried by the proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan
Order[18] denying the petitioners’ motion for section in relation to their office. Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit
reconsideration, and a second Order[19] entering a plea of Trial Court.
not guilty in favor of the petitioners since they objected to c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in
arraignment, setting pre-trial on 12 January 1996, and connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
In Aguinaldo v. Domagas,[21] and subsequently in Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the crime allegedly The said R.A. No. 7975 changed this lamentable situation.
Sanchez v. Demetriou,[22] Natividad v. Felix,[23] and committed by Subido. For no as so provided in the said law, there ha[s] been a
Republic v. Asuncion,[24] we ruled that for the modification that benefits [the] accused xxx in the sense
Sandiganbayan to have exclusive original jurisdiction over That petitioner Parina held a position with a salary grade of that now where none of the principal accused are
offenses or felonies committed by public officers or less than “27” at the time of the commission of the alleged occupying positions corresponding to salary grade “27” or
employees under the aforementioned §4(a)(2), it was not arbitrary detention is of no moment. He is prosecuted as a higher as prescribed by Republic Act No. 6758 xxx
enough that the penalty prescribed therefor was higher co-conspirator of petitioner Subido, a principal accused, exclusive jurisdiction there shall be vested now in the
than prision correccional or imprisonment for six years, or who held a position higher than grade “27.” The following proper Regional Trial and Metropolitan Trial Court and
a fine of P6,000.00; it was likewise necessary that the provision of §4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as the case may be xxx. [32]
offenses or felonies were committed in relation to their 7975, then applies:
office.[25] All told, as a procedural and curative statute, R.A. No.
In cases where none of the principal accused are 7975 may validly be given retroactive effect, there being
The information in Criminal Case No. 22825 before the occupying the positions corresponding to salary grade “27” no impairment of contractual or vested rights. [33]
Sandiganbayan charged the petitioners with the crime of or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758
arbitrary detention which was committed “while in the ... exclusive jurisdiction therefor shall be vested in the WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED, and the
performance of their official functions,” or, evidently, in proper Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, questioned resolution and orders of the respondent
relation to their office. As the detention allegedly lasted for Municipal Trial Court, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, as Sandiganbayan are AFFIRMED.
a period of 43 days, the prescribed penalty is prision the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdiction
mayor,[26] with a duration of six years and one day to as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. Costs against the petitioners.
twelve years. Indisputably, the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over the offense charged in Criminal Case No. Finally, the petitioners’ invocation of the prohibition against SO ORDERED.
22825. the retroactivity of penal laws is misplaced. Simply put,
R.A. No. 7975 is not a penal law. Penal laws or statutes Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Melo, Francisco, and
The petitioners, however, urge us to apply §4 of P.D. No. are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts Panganiban, JJ., concur.
1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975, the law in force at and establish penalties for their violation;[28] or those that
the time of the filing of the information in Criminal Case No. define crimes, treat of their nature, and provide for their THIRD DIVISION
22825. They submit that under the new law, the punishment.[29] R.A. No. 7975, in further amending P.D. [G.R. No. 138137. March 8, 2001]
Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the offense No. 1606 as regards the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction,
charged and their persons because at the time of the filing mode of appeal, and other procedural matters, is clearly a PERLA S. ZULUETA, petitioner, vs. ASIA BREWERY,
of the information, petitioner Subido was already a private procedural law, i.e., one which prescribes rules and forms Inc., respondent.
individual, while the classification of petitioner Parina’s of procedure of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for DECISION
position was lower than grade “27.” their invasion, or those which refer to rules of procedure by PANGANIBAN, J.:
which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly
We are not persuaded. The petitioners overlook the fact administer justice.[30] Moreover, the petitioners even When two or more cases involve the same parties and
that for purposes of §4 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, the suggest that it is likewise a curative or remedial statute; affect closely related subject matters, they must be
reckoning point is the time of the commission of the crime. one which cures defects and adds to the means of consolidated and jointly tried, in order to serve the best
This is plain from the last clause of the opening sentence enforcing existing obligations.[31] As noted by the interests of the parties and to settle expeditiously the
of paragraph (a), §4 of P.D. No. 1606, as further amended petitioners, previous to the enactment of R.A. No. 7975: issues involved. Consolidation, when appropriate, also
by R.A. No. 7975. contributes to the declogging of court dockets.
As before, not [sic] matter what kind of offense, so long as
Petitioner Subido never denied the respondents’ claim that it is alleged that the crime is committed in relation to the The Case
as “commissioner of Immigration and Deportation [now office of the public official, the Sandiganbayan had
Bureau of Immigration] at the time of the commission of jurisdiciton to try and hear the case, such that in many Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
the crime [he was] classified as having a position even cases accused persons even from the far away parts of 45 of the Rules of Court, questioning the August 4, 1998
higher than grade 27.”[27] Both parties are, however, the country, Mindanao, Visayas and the northern parts of Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No.
agreed that at such time petitioner Parina was holding a Luzon had to come personally to Manila to attend and 45020; as well as the February 23, 1999 Resolution[2]
position with a classification much lower than salary grade appear for cases filed against them, considering that the denying petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. The
“27.” There can, therefore, be no doubt that the Sandiganbayan has its office/court in Manila. decretal portion of the CA Decision reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, the instant petition is given due course. On August 18, 1997, respondent filed before the Court of filed earlier) for the reason that the obligation sought to be
The assailed orders of the Regional Trial Court, Makati Appeals a Petition for Certiorari assailing Judge collected in the Makati case is the same obligation that is
City, Branch 142 dated 13 February 1997 and 19 May Parentala’s February 13, 1997 and May 19, 1997 Orders. also one of the subject matters of the Iloilo case, x x x?”[6]
1997 are hereby ANNULED and SET ASIDE.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals The Court’s Ruling
SO ORDERED.”
Setting aside the trial court’s assailed Orders which The Petition is meritorious.
The Facts consolidated the Iloilo and the Makati cases, the CA ruled
in this wise: First Issue:
Respondent Asia Brewery, Inc., is engaged in the Propriety of Petition with the CA
manufacture, the distribution and sale of beer; while “There is no common issue of law or fact between the two
Petitioner Perla Zulueta is a dealer and an operator of an cases. The issue in Civil Case No. 94-2110 is private Petitioner avers that the Makati RTC’s February 13, 1997
outlet selling the former’s beer products. A Dealership respondent’s indebtedness for unpaid beer products; while and May 19, 1997 Orders consolidating the two cases
Agreement governed their contractual relations. in Civil Case No. 20341, it is whether or not petitioner could no longer be assailed. Allegedly, respondent’s
(therein defendant) breached its dealership contract with Petition for Certiorari was filed with the CA beyond the
On March 30, 1992, petitioner filed before the Regional private respondent. reglementary sixty-day period prescribed in the 1997
Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo, Branch 22, a Complaint against Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect on July
respondent for Breach of Contract, Specific Performance “Private respondent in her complaint aforequoted attempts 1, 1997. Hence, the CA should have dismissed it outright.
and Damages. The Complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. to project a commonality between the two civil cases, but it
20341 (hereafter referred to as the “Iloilo case”), was cannot be denied that her obligation to pay for the beer The records show that respondent received on May 23,
grounded on the alleged violation of the Dealership deliveries can exist regardless of any “stop payment” order 1997, the Order denying its Motion for Reconsideration. It
Agreement. she made with regard to the checks. Thus, the rationale had, according to petitioner, only sixty days or until July 22,
for consolidation, which is to avoid the possibility of 1997, within which to file the Petition for Certiorari. It did
On July 7, 1994, during the pendency of the Iloilo case, conflicting decisions being rendered, (Active Wood so, however, only on August 21, 1997.
respondent filed with the Makati Regional Trial Court, products, Co. vs. Court of Appeals, 181 SCRA 774,
Branch 66, a Complaint docketed as Civil Case No. 94- Benguet Corporation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA On the other hand, respondent insists that its Petition was
2110 (hereafter referred to as the “Makati case”). The 27; Vallacar Transit, Inc. vs. Yap, 126 SCRA 503) does not filed on time, because the reglementary period before the
Complaint was for the collection of a sum of money in the exist.”[3] effectivity of the 1997 Rules was ninety days. It theorizes
amount of P463,107.75 representing the value of beer that the sixty-day period under the 1997 Rules does not
products, which respondent had delivered to petitioner. Hence, this Petition.[4] apply.
In view of the pendency of the Iloilo case, petitioner moved The Issues As a general rule, laws have no retroactive effect. But
to dismiss the Makati case on the ground that it had split there are certain recognized exceptions, such as when
the cause of action and violated the rule against the In her Memorandum,[5] petitioner interposes the following they are remedial or procedural in nature. This Court
multiplicity of suits. The Motion was denied by the Makati issues for the consideration of this Court: explained this exception in the following language:
RTC through Judge Eriberto U. Rosario.
“a. Were the Orders of February 13, 1997 and May 19, “It is true that under the Civil Code of the Philippines,
Upon petitioner’s Motion, however, Judge Rosario 1997 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 142 in Makati City “(l)aws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary
inhibited himself. The case was raffled again and (ordering consolidation of Makati Civil Case No. 94-2110 is provided.’ But there are settled exceptions to this
thereafter assigned to Branch 142 of the Makati RTC, with the Iloilo Civil Case No. 20341) already final and general rule, such as when the statute is CURATIVE or
presided by Judge Jose Parentala Jr. executory when respondent filed its petition for certiorari REMEDIAL in nature or when it CREATES NEW RIGHTS.
with the Hon. Court of Appeals such that said Court could
On January 3, 1997, petitioner moved for the consolidation no longer acquire jurisdiction over the case and should xxx xxx xxx
of the Makati case with the Iloilo case. Granting the have dismissed it outright (as it originally did) x x x, instead
Motion, Judge Parentala ordered on February 13, 1997, of due giving course to the petition?; and “On the other hand, remedial or procedural laws, i.e., those
the consolidation of the two cases. Respondent filed a statutes relating to remedies or modes of procedure, which
Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in an Order “b. Independent of the first issue, did the Makati RTC, do not create new or take away vested rights, but only
dated May 19, 1997. Branch 142, correctly order the consolidation of the Makati operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of
case (which was filed later) with the Iloilo Case (which was such rights, ordinarily do not come within the legal
meaning of a retrospective law, nor within the general rule served on her counsel by registered mail. In reply,
against the retrospective operation of statutes.”[7] Certification of Non-forum respondent points out that such explanation was not
(emphasis supplied) Shopping Defective necessary, because its counsel held office in Makati City
Petitioner likewise assails the validity of the sworn while petitioner and her counsel were in Iloilo City.
Thus, procedural laws may operate retroactively as to certification against forum-shopping, arguing that the same
pending proceedings even without express provision to was signed by counsel and not by petitioner as required by We agree with petitioner. Under Section 11, Rule 13 of
that effect.[8] Accordingly, rules of procedure can apply to Supreme Court Circular No. 28-91. For his part, the 1997 Rules, personal service of petitions and other
cases pending at the time of their enactment.[9] In fact, respondent claims that even if it was its counsel who pleadings is the general rule, while a resort to other modes
statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be signed the certification, there was still substantial of service and filing is the exception. Where recourse is
applied on actions undetermined at the time of their compliance with Circular No. 28-91 because, a corporation made to the exception, a written explanation why the
effectivity. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense acts through its authorized officers or agents, and its service and the filing were not done personally is
and to that extent.[10] counsel is an agent having personal knowledge of other indispensable, even when such explanation by its nature is
pending cases. acceptable and manifest. Where no explanation is offered
Clearly, the designation of a specific period of sixty days to justify the resort to other modes, the discretionary power
for the filing of an original action for certiorari under Rule The requirement that the petitioner should sign the of the court to expunge the pleading becomes
65 is purely remedial or procedural in nature. It does not certificate of non-forum shopping applies even to mandatory.[17] Thus, the CA should have considered the
alter or modify any substantive right of respondent, corporations, considering that the mandatory directives of Petition as not having been filed, in view of the failure of
particularly with respect to the filing of petitions for the Circular and the Rules of Court make no distinction respondent to present a written explanation of its failure to
certiorari. Although the period for filing the same may between natural and juridical persons. In this case, the effect personal service.
have been effectively shortened, respondent had not been Certification should have been signed “by a duly
unduly prejudiced thereby considering that he was not at authorized director or officer of the corporation,”[13] who In sum, the Petition for Certiorari filed with the CA by
all deprived of that right. has knowledge of the matter being certified.[14] In Robern herein respondent, questioning the orders of consolidation
Development Corporation v. Quitain,[15] in which the by the Makati RTC, should not have been given due
It is a well-established doctrine that rules of procedure may Certification was signed by Atty. Nemesio S. Cañete who course. Not only was the Petition filed beyond the sixty-
be modified at any time to become effective at once, so was the acting regional legal counsel of the National day reglementary period; it likewise failed to observe the
long as the change does not affect vested rights.[11] Power Corporation in Mindanao, the Court held that “he requirements of non-forum shopping and personal service
Moreover, it is equally axiomatic that there are no vested was not merely a retained lawyer, but an NPC in-house or filing. All or any of these acts ought to have been
rights to rules of procedure.[12] counsel and officer, whose basic function was to prepare sufficient cause for its outright denial.
legal pleadings and to represent NPC-Mindanao in legal
It also bears noting that the ninety-day limit established by cases. As regional legal counsel for the Mindanao area, Second Issue:
jurisprudence cannot be deemed a vested right. It is he was the officer who was in the best position to verify the Propriety of Consolidation
merely a discretionary prerogative of the courts that may truthfulness and the correctness of the allegations in the
be exercised depending on the peculiar circumstances of Complaint for expropriation in Davao City. As internal Apart from procedural problems, respondent’s cause is
each case. Hence, respondent was not entitled, as a legal counsel, he was also in the best position to know and also afflicted with substantial defects. The CA ruled that
matter of right, to the 90-day period for filing a petition for to certify if an action for expropriation had already been there was no common issue in law or in fact between the
certiorari; neither can it imperiously demand that the same filed and pending with the courts.” Makati case and the Iloilo case. The former involved
period be extended to it. petitioner’s indebtedness to respondent for unpaid beer
Verily, the signatory in the Certification of the Petition products, while the latter pertained to an alleged breach of
Upon the effectivity of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil before the CA should not have been respondent’s retained the Dealership Agreement between the parties. We
Procedure on July 1, 1997, respondent’s lawyers still had counsel, who would not know whether there were other disagree.
21 days or until July 22, 1997 to file a petition for certiorari similar cases of the corporation.[16] Otherwise, this
and to comply with the sixty-day reglementary period. Had requirement would easily be circumvented by the signature True, petitioner’s obligation to pay for the beer products
they been more prudent and circumspect in regard to the of every counsel representing corporate parties. delivered by respondent can exist regardless of an alleged
implications of these procedural changes, respondent’s breach in the Dealership Agreement. Undeniably,
right of action would not have been foreclosed. After all, No Explanation for however, this obligation and the relationship between
the 1997 amendments to the Rules of Court were well- Non-Filing by Personal Service respondent and petitioner, as supplier and distributor
publicized prior to their date of effectivity. At the very least Citing Section 11 of Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules, petitioner respectively, arose from the Dealership Agreement which
counsel should have asked for as extension of time to file also faults respondent for the absence of a written is now the subject of inquiry in the Iloilo case. In fact,
the petition. explanation why the Petition with the Court of Appeals was petitioner herself claims that her obligation to pay was
negated by respondent’s contractual breach. In other Regional Trial Court of Cavite City, and FE A. MANUEL No. 128[8] to acquire real estate properties through
words, the non-payment -- the res of the Makati case -- is and METROBANK, Cavite City Branch, respondents. negotiated sale, nor to recommend to the President the
an incident of the Iloilo case. DECISION propriety of taking property through condemnation
CORONA, J.: proceedings. It explained that since the NCC’s life was
Inasmuch as the binding force of the Dealership only up to the June 12, 1998 celebrations, the fear of
Agreement was put in question, it would be more practical This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of defendant Metrobank that there would be no more entity to
and convenient to submit to the Iloilo court all the incidents the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to annul the process its claim for just compensation was perfectly valid.
and their consequences. The issues in both civil cases Resolution dated March 15, 1999 of the Court of Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the complaint for
pertain to the respective obligations of the same parties Appeals[1] which dismissed (1) the petition for certiorari expropriation.[9]
under the Dealership Agreement. Thus, every transaction filed by the petitioner Republic of the Philippines for having
as well as liability arising from it must be resolved in the been filed out of time and (2) the subsequent resolution On June 17, 1998, petitioner filed a motion for
judicial forum where it is put in issue. The consolidation of which denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. reconsideration of the trial court’s order dismissing its
the two cases then becomes imperative to a complete, complaint. The trial court denied the motion in its order
comprehensive and consistent determination of all these The antecedent facts follow. dated October 6, 1998, a copy of which was received by
related issues. the petitioner on October 12, 1998.[10]
In line with the centennial celebration of Philippine
Two cases involving the same parties and affecting closely Independence on June 12, 1998, the government On December 11, 1998, petitioner filed a petition for
related subject matters must be ordered consolidated and embarked on several commemorative Centennial Freedom certiorari before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave
jointly tried in court, where the earlier case was filed.[18] Trail (CFT) projects. One of these projects was the abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Christopher Lock
The consolidation of cases is proper when they involve the construction of the Tejeros Convention Center and the for summarily dismissing its complaint and denying its
resolution of common questions of law or facts.[19] founding site of the Philippine Army on the 3,497 sq. m. motion for reconsideration.[11]
property of respondent Fe Manuel located in Tejeros,
Indeed, upon the consolidation of the cases, the interests Rosario, Cavite. The said property was declared by the The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, in its
of both parties in the two civil cases will best be served National Historical Institute (NHI) as a historical landmark resolution dated March 15, 1999, for having been filed out
and the issues involved therein expeditiously settled. After in its Resolution No. 2 dated April 19, 1995.[2] of time. It also denied petitioner’s motion for
all, there is no question on the propriety of the venue in the reconsideration in its January 13, 2000 resolution.[12]
Iloilo case. To carry out the Tejeros Convention Project, the
government, through the National Centennial Commission Aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant petition for review,
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED and the (NCC), filed on December 4, 1997 a complaint for arguing that the Court of Appeals should not have applied
assailed Decision REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The expropriation against respondents Fe Manuel and to its case the amendment made to Section 4, Rule 65 of
Orders of the Makati RTC (Br. 142) dated February 13, Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank).[3] the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect on
1997 and May 19, 1997 are hereby REINSTATED. No The land was mortgaged by Fe Manuel to Metrobank and September 1, 1998. Procedural rules, petitioner argued,
costs. was extrajudicially foreclosed by the latter on November should not be given retroactive effect where their
20, 1997.[4] Respondent Fe Manuel interposed no application would result in injustice. Petitioner invoked
SO ORDERED. objection to the expropriation as long as just compensation Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
was paid.[5] which provides that liberality should be observed in
Melo (Chairman), Vitug, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Sandoval- construing the Rules of Court in order to promote its
Gutierrez, JJ., concur. On May 27, 1998, Presiding Judge Christopher Lock of the objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
Regional Trial Court of Cavite City, Branch 88, dismissed disposition of every action and proceeding. Petitioner also
the complaint for expropriation on the ground of lack of called the Court’s attention to the case of Solar Team
cause of action. The trial court ruled that, based on the Entertainment vs. Ricafort,[13] wherein we accorded
THIRD DIVISION 1987 Administrative Code,[6] there were: (1) no prior liberality to the implementation of Section 11, Rule 13 of
[G.R. No. 141530. March 18, 2003] determination by the President as to the necessity or the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[14] We ruled in the said
wisdom of the exercise of the right of eminent domain, and case that strict compliance with Section 11, Rule 13
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the (2) no prior written authority for the Solicitor General to thereof shall be required 1 month from the promulgation of
NATIONAL CENTENNIAL COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. institute the expropriation case. Without such conditions the Court’s decision or 2 years from the time the Rules
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. CHRISTOPHER LOCK, in precedent, the trial court ruled that plaintiff had no cause of actually took effect. Petitioner said that Solar Team and its
his capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch 88 of the action to file the expropriation case.[7] The trial court also case were similar in that both arose about the time when a
ruled that the NCC had no power under Executive Order new amendment was being implemented; hence, its case
should be accorded the same consideration given in Solar over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It However, Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Team.[15] may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not Procedure as amended by Bar Matter No. 803 effective
the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the September 1, 1998, was recently amended by A.M. No.
In its Memorandum dated September 11, 2001, petitioner Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its jurisdiction. If it involves 00-2-03-SC effective September 1, 2000. The recent rule
invoked A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC which took effect on the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, and no longer provides that the 60-day period shall be
September 1, 2000, specifically amending Section 4, Rule unless otherwise provided by the law or the Rules, the reckoned from receipt of the assailed decision, order or
65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. A.M. No. 00-2-03- petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of resolution. Instead, it provides that the 60-day period shall
SC was the amendment reverting to the original rule that Appeals. be reckoned from receipt of the order denying the motion
the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari shall be for reconsideration. The rule at present reads as follows:
reckoned from receipt of the order denying the motion for If the petitioner had filed a motion for new trial or
reconsideration.[16] reconsideration in due time after notice of said judgment, Sec. 4. When and where petition filed. – The petition shall
order or resolution, the period herein fixed shall be be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the
Private respondent Fe Manuel, owner and mortgagor of interrupted. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for
the land subject of expropriation, interposed no objection may file the petition within the remaining period but which reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such
to the expropriation in her Comment to the petition for shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be
review.[17] She in fact adopted the arguments of the from notice of such denial. No extension of time to file the counted from notice of the denial of said motion.
petitioner in her Memorandum.[18] petition shall be granted except for the most compelling
reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days. The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it
On the other hand, Metrobank asserted that the petition for (Emphasis ours) relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a
certiorari was correctly dismissed because it was filed out corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial
of time. It argued that when petitioner received the order of Strictly speaking, the Court of Appeals did not err in Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as
the trial court denying its motion for reconsideration on dismissing the petition for having been filed out of time defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the
October 12, 1998, the new Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 because the prevailing rule at that time provided that the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Resolution of 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari shall be appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid
the Supreme Court En Banc dated July 21, 1998 in Bar reckoned from receipt of the assailed decision or order. of its appellate jurisdiction. It if involves the acts or
Matter No. 803, was already in effect. Said amended rule, The period is interrupted when a motion for omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise
effective as of September 1, 1998, provides that the 60- reconsideration is filed but it starts to run again from provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in
day period shall be reckoned from receipt of the assailed receipt of the denial of the said motion for reconsideration. and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
decision, order or resolution. Thus, based on this new rule, Based on this amendment, respondent Court of Appeals
the petition for certiorari was filed 14 days late.[19] ruled that the filing of the petition for certiorari was 14 days No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted
late. The respondent Court of Appeals ruled: except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding
The sole issue at hand is whether or not the petition for fifteen (15) days. (Emphasis ours)
certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines before the In the petition at bench, records show that the Office of the
Court of Appeals was filed out of time. Solicitor General received a copy of the Court a quo’s The amendment under A.M. 00-2-03-SC quoted above is
Order dated May 7, 1998 on June 3, 1998 and that a procedural or remedial in character. It does not create new
The petition is meritorious. motion for reconsideration was filed on June 17, 1998. or remove vested rights but only operates in furtherance of
Therefore, there was a lapse of fourteen (14) days from the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing. It is
In dismissing the petition for certiorari for having been filed receipt of the assailed Order before the OSG filed a motion settled that procedural laws do not come within the legal
out of time, the Court of Appeals applied Section 4, Rule for reconsideration. conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against
65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by retroactive operation of statutes. They may be given
the July 21, 1998 Bar Matter No. 803, effective September Considering the material dates stated above, the Office of retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at
1, 1998, which provides: the Solicitor General had only forty-six 46 days left from the time of their passage and this will not violate any right
October 12, 1988 (sic), date when it received the Order of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected,
Sec. 4. Where and when petition to be filed. ─ The petition denying the motion for reconsideration dated October 6, inasmuch as there is no vested rights in rules of
may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of 1998 or until November 27, 1998 within which to file the procedure.[21]
the judgment, order or resolution sought to be assailed in instant petition for certiorari. However, the petition was
the Supreme Court, or if it relates to the acts or omissions filed only on December 11, 1998 by registered mail. The retroactive application of A.M. 00-2-03-SC has, in fact,
of a lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or Therefore, it was filed fourteen (14) days late.[20] already been ordered by this Court in a number of recent
person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction cases, such as Systems Factors Corporation vs. NLRC,
[22] Unity Fishing Development Corporation vs. Court of Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code (RAC), as considered the statements of the Chairman of the COA in
Appeals, [23] Docena et. al. vs. Lapesura, [24] Pfizer vs. amended, in the total amount of P40,831.00. its 5th Indorsement dated 19 September 1990, to the
Galan [25] and Universal Robina Corporation et. al. vs. effect that the RAC being relied upon was repealed by the
Court of Appeals et. al. [26] Petitioner is a Director II of the National Bureau of Administrative Code of 1987.
Investigation (NBI). He was hospitalized for cholecystitis
Thus, by virtue of this retroactive application of A.M. 00-2- from March 26, 1990 to April 7, 1990, on account of which Petitioner then re-submitted his claim to Director Lim, with
03-SC, we hold that the instant petition for certiorari was he incurred medical and hospitalization expenses, the total a copy of Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 2 dated April 26, 1991
filed on time. In fact, there is no dispute that the petition amount of which he is claiming from the COA. of then Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon (Secretary
was filed by petitioner on the 60th day from receipt of the Drilon, for brevity) stating that "the issuance of the
order denying the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner On May 11, 1990, in a memorandum to the NBI Director, Administrative Code did not operate to repeal or abregate
received the denial on October 12, 1998 and it filed the Alfredo S. Lim (Director Lim, for brevity), he requested in its entirety the Revised Administrative Code, including
petition for certiorari on December 11, 1998. Clearly reimbursement for his expenses on the ground that he is the particular Section 699 of the latter".
therefore the petition was filed on time. entitled to the benefits under Section 699 1 of the RAC,
the pertinent provisions of which read: On May 10, 1991, Director Lim, under a 5th Indorsement
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed transmitted anew Mecano's claim to then Undersecretary
resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated March 15, 1999 Sec. 699. Allowances in case of injury, death, or sickness Bello for favorable consideration. Under a 6th
and January 13, 2000 are hereby set aside and the case is incurred in performance of duty. — When a person in the Indorsement, dated July 2, 1991, Secretary Drilon
remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. service of the national government of a province, city, forwarded petitioner's claim to the COA Chairman,
municipality or municipal district is so injured in the recommending payment of the same. COA Chairman
No costs. performance of duty as thereby to receive some actual Eufemio C. Domingo, in his 7th Indorsement of January
physical hurt or wound, the proper Head of Department 16, 1992, however, denied petitioner's claim on the ground
SO ORDERED. may direct that absence during any period of disability that Section 699 of the RAC had been repealed by the
thereby occasioned shall be on full pay, though not more Administrative Code of 1987, solely for the reason that the
Puno, (Chairman), Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez and than six months, and in such case he may in his discretion same section was not restated nor re-enacted in the
Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur. also authorize the payment of the medical attendance, Administrative Code of 1987. He commented, however,
necessary transportation, subsistence and hospital fees of that the claim may be filed with the Employees'
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Corona Ibay-Somera and the injured person. Absence in the case contemplated Compensation Commission, considering that the illness of
concurred in by Associate Justice Oswald D. Agcaoili and shall be charged first against vacation leave, if any there Director Mecano occurred after the effectivity of the
Associate Justice Eloy R. Bello, Jr. Petition, Annex “A”, be. Administrative Code of 1987.
Rollo, pp. 35-37.
xxx xxx xxx Eventually, petitioner's claim was returned by
[2] Rollo, pp. 13, 51. Undersecretary of Justice Eduardo Montenegro to Director
In case of sickness caused by or connected directly with Lim under a 9th Indorsement dated February 7, 1992, with
the performance of some act in the line of duty, the the advice that petitioner "elevate the matter to the
Department head may in his discretion authorize the Supreme Court if he so desires".
G.R. No. 103982 December 11, 1992 payment of the necessary hospital fees.
On the sole issue of whether or not the Administrative
ANTONIO A. MECANO, petitioner, Director Lim then forwarded petitioner's claim, in a 1st Code of 1987 repealed or abrogated Section 699 of the
vs. Indorsement dated June 22, 1990, to the Secretary of RAC, this petition was brought for the consideration of this
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent. Justice, along with the comment, bearing the same date, Court.
of Gerarda Galang, Chief, LED of the NBI, "recommending
favorable action thereof". Finding petitioner's illness to be Petitioner anchors his claim on Section 699 of the RAC, as
service-connected, the Committee on Physical amended, and on the aforementioned Opinion No. 73, S.
CAMPOS, JR., J.: Examination of the Department of Justice favorably 1991 of Secretary Drilon. He further maintains that in the
recommended the payment of petitioner's claim. event that a claim is filed with the Employees'
Antonio A. Mecano, through a petition for certiorari, seeks Compensation Commission, as suggested by respondent,
to nullify the decision of the Commission on Audit (COA, However, then Undersecretary of Justice Silvestre H. Bello he would still not be barred from filing a claim under the
for brevity) embodied in its 7th Indorsement, dated January III, in a 4th Indorsement dated November 21, 1990, subject section. Thus, the resolution of whether or not
16, 1992, denying his claim for reimbursement under returned petitioner's claim to Director Lim, having there was a repeal of the Revised Administrative Code of
1917 would decide the fate of petitioner's claim for conflict must be found in existing and prior acts. The failure However, the COA would have Us consider that the fact
reimbursement. to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent that Section 699 was not restated in the Administrative
was not to repeal any existing law, unless an irreconcilable Code of 1987 meant that the same section had been
The COA, on the other hand, strongly maintains that the inconcistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of the repealed. It further maintained that to allow the particular
enactment of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Exec. new and old laws. 6 This latter situation falls under the provisions not restated in the new Code to continue in
Order No. 292) operated to revoke or supplant in its category of an implied repeal. force argues against the Code itself. The COA anchored
entirety the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. The this argument on the whereas clause of the 1987 Code,
COA claims that from the "whereas" clauses of the new Repeal by implication proceeds on the premise that where which states:
Administrative Code, it can be gleaned that it was the a statute of later date clearly reveals an intention on the
intent of the legislature to repeal the old Code. Moreover, part of the legislature to abrogate a prior act on the WHEREAS, the effectiveness of the Government will be
the COA questions the applicability of the aforesaid subject, that intention must be given effect. 7 Hence, enhanced by a new Administrative Code which incorporate
opinion of the Secretary of Justice in deciding the matter. before there can be a repeal, there must be a clear in a unified document the major structural, functional and
Lastly, the COA contends that employment-related showing on the part of the lawmaker that the intent in procedural principles and rules of governance; and
sickness, injury or death is adequately covered by the enacting the new law was to abrogate the old one. The
Employees' Compensation Program under P.D. 626, such intention to repeal must be clear and manifest; 8 xxx xxx xxx
that to allow simultaneous recovery of benefits under both otherwise, at least, as a general rule, the later act is to be
laws on account of the same contingency would be unfair construed as a continuation of, and not a substitute for, the It argues, in effect, that what is contemplated is only one
and unjust to the Government. first act and will continue so far as the two acts are the Code — the Administrative Code of 1987. This contention
same from the time of the first enactment. 9 is untenable.
The question of whether a particular law has been
repealed or not by a subsequent law is a matter of There are two categories of repeal by implication. The first The fact that a later enactment may relate to the same
legislative intent. The lawmakers may expressly repeal a is where provisions in the two acts on the same subject subject matter as that of an earlier statute is not of itself
law by incorporating therein a repealing provision which matter are in an irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the sufficient to cause an implied repeal of the prior act, since
expressly and specifically cites the particular law or laws, extent of the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the the new statute may merely be cumulative or a
and portions thereof, that are intended to be repealed. 3 A earlier one. The second is if the later act covers the whole continuation of the old one. 12 What is necessary is a
declaration in a statute, usually in its repealing clause, that subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a manifest indication of legislative purpose to repeal. 13
a particular and specific law, identified by its number or substitute, it will operate to repeal the earlier law. 10
title, is repealed is an express repeal; all others are implied We come now to the second category of repeal — the
repeals. 4 Implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency takes place enactment of a statute revising or codifying the former laws
when the two statutes cover the same subject matter; they on the whole subject matter. This is only possible if the
In the case of the two Administrative Codes in question, are so clearly inconsistent and incompatible with each revised statute or code was intended to cover the whole
the ascertainment of whether or not it was the intent of the other that they cannot be reconciled or harmonized; and subject to be a complete and perfect system in itself. It is
legislature to supplant the old Code with the new Code both cannot be given effect, that is, that one law cannot be the rule that a subsequent statute is deemed to repeal a
partly depends on the scrutiny of the repealing clause of enforced without nullifying the other. 11 prior law if the former revises the whole subject matter of
the new Code. This provision is found in Section 27, Book the former statute. 14 When both intent and scope clearly
VII (Final Provisions) of the Administrative Code of 1987 Comparing the two Codes, it is apparent that the new evidence the idea of a repeal, then all parts and provisions
which reads: Code does not cover nor attempt to cover the entire of the prior act that are omitted from the revised act are
subject matter of the old Code. There are several matters deemed repealed. 15 Furthermore, before there can be an
Sec. 27. Repealing Clause. — All laws, decrees, orders, treated in the old Code which are not found in the new implied repeal under this category, it must be the clear
rules and regulations, or portions thereof, inconsistent with Code, such as the provisions on notaries public, the leave intent of the legislature that the later act be the substitute
this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. law, the public bonding law, military reservations, claims to the prior act. 16
for sickness benefits under Section 699, and still others.
The question that should be asked is: What is the nature of According to Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of the Secretary of
this repealing clause? It is certainly not an express Moreover, the COA failed to demonstrate that the Justice, what appears clear is the intent to cover only
repealing clause because it fails to identify or designate provisions of the two Codes on the matter of the subject those aspects of government that pertain to administration,
the act or acts that are intended to be repealed. 5 Rather, claim are in an irreconcilable conflict. In fact, there can be organization and procedure, understandably because of
it is an example of a general repealing provision, as stated no such conflict because the provision on sickness the many changes that transpired in the government
in Opinion No. 73, S. 1991. It is a clause which predicates benefits of the nature being claimed by petitioner has not structure since the enactment of the RAC decades of
the intended repeal under the condition that substantial been restated in the Administrative Code of 1987. years ago. The COA challenges the weight that this
opinion carries in the determination of this controversy benefits as provided for in Section 699 of the Revised
inasmuch as the body which had been entrusted with the Administrative Code . . . whose benefits are administered I
implementation of this particular provision has already by the system (meaning SSS or GSIS) or by other
rendered its decision. The COA relied on the rule in agencies of the government." Petitioner filed two administrative cases against
administrative law enunciated in the case of Sison vs. respondent Naomi C. Corral, the incumbent Mayor of Tiwi,
Pangramuyen 17 that in the absence of palpable error or WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to Albay with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Albay, to wit:
grave abuse of discretion, the Court would be loathe to GRANT the petition; respondent is hereby ordered to give
substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative due course to petitioner's claim for benefits. No costs. (1) Administrative Case No. 02-92 for abuse of authority
agency entrusted with the enforcement and and/or oppression for non-payment of accrued leave
implementation of the law. This will not hold water. This SO ORDERED. benefits due the petitioner amounting to P36,779.02.
principle is subject to limitations. Administrative decisions
may be reviewed by the courts upon a showing that the Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño- (2) Administrative Case No. 05-92 for dishonesty and
decision is vitiated by fraud, imposition or mistake. 18 It Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo abuse of authority for installing a water pipeline which is
has been held that Opinions of the Secretary and and Melo, JJ., concur. being operated, maintained and paid for by the
Undersecretary of Justice are material in the construction municipality to service respondent's private residence and
of statutes in pari materia. 19 Gutierrez, Jr., J., concur in the result. medical clinic.
Lastly, it is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that On July 1, 1993, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan disposed
repeals of statutes by implication are not favored. 20 The the two Administrative cases in the following manner:
presumption is against inconsistency and repugnancy for
the legislature is presumed to know the existing laws on (1) Administrative Case No. 02-92
the subject and not to have enacted inconsistent or Republic of the Philippines
conflicting statutes. 21 SUPREME COURT ACCORDINGLY, respondent Mayor Naomi C. Corral of
Manila Tiwi, Albay, is hereby ordered to pay Achilles Costo
This Court, in a case, explains the principle in detail as Berces, Sr. the sum of THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND AND
follows: "Repeals by implication are not favored, and will EN BANC SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY-NINE PESOS and TWO
not be decreed unless it is manifest that the legislature so CENTAVOS (P36,779.02) per Voucher No. 352, plus legal
intended. As laws are presumed to be passed with interest due thereon from the time it was approved in audit
deliberation with full knowledge of all existing ones on the up to final payment, it being legally due the Complainant
subject, it is but reasonable to conclude that in passing a G.R. No. 112099 February 21, 1995 representing the money value of his leave credits accruing
statute it was not intended to interfere with or abrogate any for services rendered in the municipality from 1988 to 1992
former law relating to some matter, unless the repugnancy ACHILLES C. BERCES, SR., petitioner, as a duly elected Municipal Councilor. IN ADDITION,
between the two is not only irreconcilable, but also clear vs. respondent Mayor NAOMI C. CORRAL is hereby ordered
and convincing, and flowing necessarily from the language HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY TEOFISTO T. SUSPENDED from office as Municipal Mayor of Tiwi,
used, unless the later act fully embraces the subject matter GUINGONA, JR., CHIEF PRESIDENTIAL LEGAL Albay, for a period of two (2) months, effective upon
of the earlier, or unless the reason for the earlier act is COUNSEL ANTONIO CARPIO and MAYOR NAOMI C. receipt hereof for her blatant abuse of authority coupled
beyond peradventure renewed. Hence, every effort must CORRAL OF TIWI, ALBAY, respondents. with oppression as a public example to deter others
be used to make all acts stand and if, by any reasonable similarly inclined from using public office as a tool for
construction, they can be reconciled, the later act will not personal vengeance, vindictiveness and oppression at the
operate as a repeal of the earlier. 22 expense of the Taxpayer (Rollo, p. 14).
QUIASON, J.:
Regarding respondent's contention that recovery under (2) Administrative Case No. 05-92
this subject section shall bar the recovery of benefits under This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule
the Employees' Compensation Program, the same cannot 65 of the Revised Rules of Court with prayer for mandatory WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Mayor
be upheld. The second sentence of Article 173, Chapter II, preliminary injunction, assailing the Orders of the Office of NAOMI C. CORRAL of Tiwi, Albay, is hereby sentenced to
Title II (dealing on Employees' Compensation and State the President as having been issued with grave abuses of suffer the penalty of SUSPENSION from office as
Insurance Fund), Book IV of the Labor Code, as amended discretion. Said Orders directed the stay of execution of Municipal Mayor thereof for a period of THREE (3)
by P.D. 1921, expressly provides that "the payment of the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan suspending MONTHS beginning after her service of the first penalty of
compensation under this Title shall not bar the recovery of the Mayor of Tiwi, Albay from office. suspension ordered in Administrative Case No. 02-92. She
is likewise ordered to reimburse the Municipality of Tiwi and conditions as it may deem just and reasonable (Adm.
One-half of the amount the latter have paid for electric and Order No. 18). All general and special laws, acts, city charters, decrees,
water bills from July to December 1992, inclusive (Rollo, p. executive orders, administrative regulations, part or parts
16). xxx xxx xxx thereof, which are incosistent with any of the provisions of
this Code, are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Consequently, respondent Mayor appealed to the Office of After due consideration, and in the light of the Petition for
the President questioning the decision and at the same Review filed before this Office, we find that a stay of The aforementioned clause is not an express repeal of
time prayed for the stay of execution thereof in accordance execution pending appeal would be just and reasonable to Section 6 of Administrative Order No. 18 because it failed
with Section 67(b) of the Local Government Code, which prevent undue prejudice to public interest. to identify or designate the laws or executive orders that
provides: are intended to be repealed (cf. I Sutherland, Statutory
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Office hereby Construction 467 [1943]).
Administrative Appeals. — Decision in administrative orders the suspension/stay of execution of:
cases may, within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof, be If there is any repeal of Administrative Order No. 18 by
appealed to the following: a) the Decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Albay R.A. No. 7160, it is through implication though such kind of
in Administrative Case No. 02-92 dated 1 July 1993 repeal is not favored (The Philippine American
xxx xxx xxx suspending Mayor Naomi C. Corral from office for a period Management Co., Inc. v. The Philippine American
of two (2) months, and Management Employees Association, 49 SCRA 194
(b) The Office of the President, in the case of decisions of [1973]). There is even a presumption against implied
the sangguniang panlalawigan and the sangguniang b) the Resolution of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of repeal.
panglungsod of highly urbanized cities and independent Albay in Administrative Case. No. 05-92 dated 5 July 1993
component cities. suspending Mayor Naomi C. Corral from office for a period An implied repeal predicates the intended repeal upon the
of three (3) months (Rollo, pp. 55-56). condition that a substantial conflict must be found between
Acting on the prayer to stay execution during the pendency the new and prior laws. In the absence of an express
of the appeal, the Office of the President issued an Order Petitioner then filed a Motion for Reconsideration repeal, a subsequent law cannot be construed as
on July 28, 1993, the pertinent portions of which read as questioning the aforesaid Order of the Office of the repealing a prior law unless an irreconcible inconsistency
follows: President. and repugnancy exists in the terms of the new and old
laws (Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, Inc. v.
xxx xxx xxx On September 13, 1990, the Motion for Reconsideration Feliciano, 13 SCRA 377 [1965]). The two laws must be
was denied. absolutely incompatible (Compania General de Tabacos v.
The stay of the execution is governed by Section 68 of Collector of Customs, 46 Phil. 8 [1924]). There must be
R.A. No. 7160 and Section 6 of Administrative Order No. Hence, this petition. such a repugnancy between the laws that they cannot be
18 dated 12 February 1987, quoted below: made to stand together (Crawford, Construction of
II Statutes 631 [1940]).
Sec. 68. Execution Pending Appeal. — An appeal shall not
prevent a decision from becoming final or executory. The Petitioner claims that the governing law in the instant case We find that the provisions of Section 68 of R.A. No. 7160
respondent shall be considered as having been placed is R.A. No. 7160, which contains a mandatory provision and Section 6 of Administrative Order No. 18 are not
under preventive suspension during the pendency of an that an appeal "shall not prevent a decision from becoming irreconcillably inconsistent and repugnant and the two laws
appeal in the events he wins such appeal. In the event the final and executory." He argues that administrative Order must in fact be read together.
appeal results in an exoneration, he shall be paid his No. 18 dated February 12, 1987, (entitle "Prescribing the
salary and such other emoluments during the pendency of Rules and Regulations Governing Appeals to Office the The first sentence of Section 68 merely provides that an
the appeal (R.A. No. 7160). President") authorizing the President to stay the execution "appeal shall not prevent a decision from becoming final or
of the appealed decision at any time during the pendency executory." As worded, there is room to construe said
Sec. 6 Except as otherwise provided by special laws, the of the appeal, was repealed by R.A. No. 7160, which took provision as giving discretion to the reviewing officials to
execution of the decision/resolution/order appealed from is effect on January 1, 1991 (Rollo, pp. 5-6). stay the execution of the appealed decision. There is
stayed upon filing of the appeal within the period nothing to infer therefrom that the reviewing officials are
prescribed herein. However, in all cases, at any time The petition is devoid of merit. deprived of the authority to order a stay of the appealed
during the pendency of the appeal, the Office of the order. If the intention of Congress was to repeal Section 6
President may direct or stay the execution of the Petitioner invokes the repealing clause of Section 530 (f), of Administrative Order No. 18, it could have used more
decision/resolution/order appealed from upon such terms R.A. No. 7160, which provides: direct language expressive of such intention.
commencement of the action. On March 31, 1982, at the Bengzon, Zarraga, Narciso, Ardala, Pecson, Bengzon, and
The execution of decisions pending appeal is procedural time private respondent filed his complaint against the Jimenez for petitioner.
and in the absence of a clear legislative intent to remove petitioner, the prevailing laws were Presidential Decree Fabian Gappi for private respondent.
from the reviewing officials the authority to order a stay of No. 1691 and Presidential Decree No. 1391 which vested DECISION
execution, such authority can provided in the rules and the Regional Offices of the Ministry of Labor and the Labor
regulations governing the appeals of elective officials in Arbiters with "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all PUNO, J.:
administrative cases. cases involving employer-employee relations including
money claims arising out of any law or contracts involving Petitioner Erectors, Inc. challenges the jurisdiction of
The term "shall" may be read either as mandatory or Filipino workers for overseas employment." At the time of respondent Labor Arbiter Julio F. Andres, Jr. to hear and
directory depending upon a consideration of the entire the filing of the complaint, the Labor Arbiter had clear decide the complaint[1] for underpayment of wages and
provisions in which it is found, its object and the jurisdiction over the same. non-payment of overtime pay filed by private respondent
consequences that would follow from construing it one way Florencio Burgos, an overseas contract worker.
or the other (cf. De Mesa v. Mencias, 18 SCRA 533 2. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; EXECUTIVE
[1966]). In the case at bench, there is no basis to justify ORDER NO. 797 CREATING THE PHILIPPINE The facts are undisputed:
the construction of the word as mandatory. OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION (POEA);
WITHOUT RETROACTIVE APPLICATION; LABOR In September 1979, petitioner recruited private respondent
The Office of the President made a finding that the ARBITER NOT DIVESTED OF JURISDICTION BY to work as service contract driver in Saudi Arabia for a
execution of the decision of the Sagguniang Panlalawigan EFFECTIVITY OF E.O. 797. - E.O. No. 797 did not divest period of twelve (12) months with a salary of US$165.00
suspending respondent Mayor from office might be the Labor Arbiter's authority to hear and decide the case and an allowance of US$165.00 per month. They further
prejudicial to the public interest. Thus, in order not to filed by private respondent prior to its effectivity. Laws agreed that private respondent shall be entitled to a bonus
disrupt the rendition of service by the mayor to the public, should only be applied prospectively unless the legislative of US$ 1,000.00 if after the 12-month period, he renews or
a stay of the execution of the decision is in order. intent to give them retroactive effect is expressly declared extends his employment contract without availing of his
or is necessarily implied from the language used. We fail vacation or home leave. Their contract dated September
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. to perceive in the language of E.O. No. 797 an intention to 20, 1979, was duly approved by the Ministry of Labor and
give it retroactive effect. The law at bar, E.O. No. 797, is Employment.
SO ORDERED. not a curative statute. It was not intended to remedy any
defect in the law. It created the POEA to assume the The aforesaid contract was not implemented. In
Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, functions of the Overseas Employment Development December, 1979, petitioner notified private respondent that
Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Board, the National Seamen Board and the overseas the position of service driver was no longer available. On
Mendoza and Francisco, JJ., concur. employment functions of the Bureau of Employment December 14, 1979, they executed another contract which
Services. Accordingly, it gave the POEA "original and changed the position of private respondent into that of
exclusive jurisdiction over all cases, including money helper/laborer with a salary of US$105.00 and an
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation claims, involving employer-employee relations arising out allowance of US$105.00 per month. The second contract
of or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino was not submitted to the Ministry of Labor and
SECOND DIVISION workers for overseas employment, including seamen." The Employment for approval.
[G.R. No. 104215. May 8, 1996] rule on prospectivity of laws should therefore apply to E.O.
No. 797. It should not affect jurisdiction over cases filed On December 18, 1979, private respondent left the country
ERECTORS, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR prior to its effectivity. and worked at petitioner's Buraidah Sports Complex
RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. JULIO ANDRES, JR. project in Saudi Arabia, performing the job of a
and FLORENCIO BURGOS, respondents. 3. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; STATUTES; helper/laborer. He received a monthly salary and
SYLLABUS CURATIVE STATUTE; DEFINED. - A curative statute is allowance of US$210.00, in accordance with the second
enacted to cure defects in a prior law or to validate legal contract. Private respondent renewed his contract of
1. REMEDIAL LAW; JURISDICTION; JURISDICTION proceedings, instruments or acts of public authorities employment after one year. His salary and allowance
OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER, DETERMINED BY LAW which would otherwise be void for want of conformity with were increased to US$231.00.
IN FORCE AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION; certain existing legal requirements.
LABOR ARBITER HAS JURISDICTION OVER MONEY Private respondent returned to the Philippines on August
CLAIMS OF OVERSEAS WORKER FILED ON MARCH APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL 24, 1981. He then invoked his first employment contract.
31, 1982. - The rule is that jurisdiction over the subject He demanded from the petitioner the difference between
matter is determined by the law in force at the time of the his salary and allowance as indicated in the said contract,
and the amount actually paid to him, plus the contractual were integrated into the Regional Offices under P.D. 1391. The case of Briad Agro Development Corp. vs. Dela
bonus which should have been awarded to him for not On May 1, 1980, P.D. 1691 was promulgated giving the Cerna[14] cited by the petitioner is not applicable to the
availing of his vacation or home leave credits. Petitioner Regional Offices of the Ministry of Labor and Employment case at bar. In Briad, the Court applied the exception
denied private respondent's claim. the original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases arising rather than the general rule. In this case, Briad Agro
out of or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino Development Corp. and L.M. Camus Engineering Corp.
On March 31, 1982, private respondent filed with the Labor workers for overseas employment. There is no dispute challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Director of the
Arbiter a complaint against the petitioner for underpayment that the Labor Arbiter had the legal authority over the case Department of Labor and Employment over cases
of wages and non-payment of overtime pay and on hand, which accrued and was filed when the two above involving workers' money claims, since Article 217 of the
contractual bonus. mentioned Presidential Decrees were in force.”[6] Labor Code, the law in force at the time of the filing of the
complaint, vested in the Labor Arbiters exclusive
On May 1, 1982, while the case was still in the conciliation Petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari jurisdiction over such cases. The Court dismissed the
stage, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 797 creating the reiterating the argument that: petition in its Decision dated June 29, 1989.[15] It ruled
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) that the enactment of E.O. No. 111, amending Article 217
took effect. Section 4(a) of E.O. No. 797 vested the POEA "The NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion of the Labor Code, cured the Regional Director's lack of
with "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases, tantamount to lack of jurisdiction in affirming the Labor jurisdiction by giving the Labor Arbiter and the Regional
including money claims, involving employer-employee Arbiter's void judgment in the case a quo."[7] Director concurrent jurisdiction over all cases involving
relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or contract money claims. However, on November 9,1989, the Court,
involving Filipino workers for overseas employment.”[2] It asserts that E.O. No. 797 divested the Labor Arbiter of in a Resolution,[16] reconsidered and set aside its June 29
his authority to try and resolve cases arising from overseas Decision and referred the case to the Labor Arbiter for
Despite E.O. No. 797, respondent Labor Arbiter proceeded employment contract. Invoking this Court's ruling in Briad proper proceedings, in view of the promulgation of
to try the case on the merits. On September 23, 1983, he Agro Developinent Corp. vs. Dela Cerna,[8] petitioner Republic Act (R.A.) 6715 which divested the Regional
rendered a Decision[3] in favor of private respondent, the argues that E.O. No. 797 applies retroactively to affect Directors of the power to hear money claims. It bears
dispositive portion of which reads: pending cases, including the complaint filed by private emphasis that the Court accorded E.O. No. 111 and R.A.
respondent. 6715 a retroactive application because as curative
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the statutes, they fall under the exceptions to the rule on
respondent to pay the complainant as follows: The petition is devoid of merit. prospectivity of laws.
1. The sum of US$2,496.00 in its peso equivalent on The rule is that jurisdiction over the subject matter is E.O. No.111, amended Article 217 of the Labor Code to
August 25, 1981 as difference between his allowance as determined by the law in force at the time of the widen the workers' access to the government for redress
Service Driver as against his position as Helper/Laborer; commencement of the action.[9] On March 31, 1982, at of grievances by giving the Regional Directors and Labor
the time private respondent filed his complaint against the Arbiters concurrent jurisdiction over cases involving money
2. The sum of US$1,000.00 in its peso equivalent as of petitioner, the prevailing laws were Presidential Decree claims. This amendment, however, created a situation
the same date, as his contractual bonus. No. 1691[10] and Presidential Decree No. 1391[11] which where the jurisdiction of the Regional Directors and the
vested the Regional Offices of the Ministry of Labor and Labor Arbiters overlapped. As a remedy, R.A. 6715 further
The complaints for non-payment/underpayment of the Labor Arbiters with "original and exclusive jurisdiction amended Article 217 by delineating their respective
overtime pay and unpaid wages or commission are over all cases involving employer-employee relations jurisdictions. Under R.A. 6715, the Regional Director has
DISMISSED for lack of merit.”[4] including money claims arising out of any law or contracts exclusive original jurisdiction over cases involving money
involving Filipino workers for overseas employment."[12] claims provided: (1) the claim is presented by an employer
Petitioner appealed to respondent National Labor At the time of the filing of the complaint, the Labor Arbiter or person employed in domestic or household service, or
Relations Commission (NLRC). It questioned the had clear jurisdiction over the same. househelper under the Code; (2) the claimant, no longer
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter over the case in view of the being employed, does not seek reinstatement; and (3) the
enactment of E.O. No. 797. E.O. No. 797 did not divest the Labor Arbiter's authority to aggregate money claim of the employee or househelper
hear and decide the case filed by private respondent prior does not exceed P5,000.00. All other cases are within the
In a Resolution dated July 17, 1991,[5] respondent NLRC to its effectivity. Laws should only be applied prospectively exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
dismissed the petitioner's appeal and upheld the Labor unless the legislative intent to give them retroactive effect E.O. No. 111 and R.A. 6715 are therefore curative
Arbiter's jurisdiction. It ruled: is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the statutes. A curative statute is enacted to cure defects in a
language used.[13] We fail to perceive in the language of prior law or to validate legal proceedings, instruments or
"To begin with, the Labor Arbiter has the authority to E.O. No. 797 an intention to give it retroactive effect. acts of public authorities which would otherwise be void for
decide this case. On May 29, 1978, the Labor Arbiters want of conformity with certain existing legal requirements.
Considering that private respondent Jardin's claims authority's continuing intent to exclude from the Labor
The law at bar, E.O. No. 797, is not a curative statute. It undeniably arose out of an employer-employee Arbiter's jurisdiction claims arising from overseas
was not intended to remedy any defect in the law. It relationship with petitioner PSPC and that private employment.
created the POEA to assume the functions of the respondent worked overseas or in Saudi Arabia, the
Overseas Employment Development Board, the National Bureau of Employment Services and not the Labor Arbiter These amendments notwithstanding, when the complaint
Seamen Board and the overseas employment functions of had jurisdiction over the case. x x x for illegal dismissal was filed on January 31, 1979, under
the Bureau of Employment Services. Accordingly, it gave Art. 15, as amended by P.D. No. 1412, it was the Bureau
the POEA "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all Art. 15 was further amended by P.D. No. 1691 which took of Employment Services which had jurisdiction over the
cases, including money claims, involving employer- effect on May 1, 1990. Such amendment qualifies the case and not the Labor Arbiters. It is a settled rule that
employee relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or jurisdiction of the Bureau of Employment Services as jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force at the time
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas follows: of the commencement of the action (Municipality of Sogod
employment, including seamen."[17] The rule on v. Rosal, 201 SCRA 632, 637 [1991]). P.D. 1691 which
prospectivity of laws should therefore apply to E.O. No. ‘(b) The regional offices of the Ministry of Labor shall gave the regional offices of the Ministry of Labor
797. It should not affect jurisdiction over cases filed prior have the original and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters concurrent jurisdiction with the Bureau of Employment
to its effectivity. or cases involving employer-employee relations including Services, was promulgated more than a year after the
money claims, arising out of or by virtue of any law or complaint was filed. (Italics supplied)
Our ruling in Philippine-Singapore Ports Corp. vs. contracts involving Filipino workers for overseas
NLRC[18] is more apt to the case at bar. In this case, employment except seamen: Provided that the Bureau of In sum, we hold that respondent NLRC did not commit
PSPC hired Jardin to work in Saudi Arabia. Jardin filed a Employment Services may, in the case of the National grave abuse of discretion in upholding the jurisdiction of
complaint against PSPC for illegal dismissal and recovery Capital Region, exercise such power, whenever the respondent Labor Arbiter over the complaint filed by
of backwages on January 31, 1979 with the Labor Arbiter. Minister of Labor deems it appropriate. The decisions of private respondent against the petitioner.
PSPC questioned the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter the regional offices or the Bureau of Employment Services
because at that time, the power to hear and decide cases if so authorized by the Minister of Labor as provided in this IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Petition is DISMISSED. Costs
involving overseas workers was vested in the Bureau of Article, shall be appealable to the National Labor Relations against petitioner.
Employment Services. We held: Commission upon the same grounds provided in Article
223 hereof. The decisions of the National Labor Relations SO ORDERED.
"When Jardin filed the complaint for illegal dismissal on Commission shall be final and inappealable.’
January 31, 1979, Art. 217 (5) of the Labor Code provided Regalado (Chairman), Romero, Mendoza, and Torres, Jr.,
that Labor Arbiters and the NLRC shall have ‘exclusive Hence, as further amended, Art. 15 provided for JJ., concur.
jurisdiction to hear and decide’ all cases arising from concurrent jurisdiction between the regional offices of the
employer-employee relations ‘unless expressly excluded then Ministry of Labor and Bureau of Employment Services [1] Docketed as NLRC-NCR-3-3142-82.
by this Code.’ At that time Art. 15 of the same Code had ‘in the National Capital Region.’ It is noteworthy that P.D.
been amended by P.D. No. 1412 which took effect on No. 1691, while likewise amending Art. 217 of the Labor [2] Official Gazette, Vol. 78, No. 21, May 24, 1982, pp.
June 9, 1978. The pertinent provision of the said Code, did not alter the provision that Labor Arbiters shall 2368-7 - 2638-13.
presidential decree states: have jurisdiction over all claims arising from employer-
employee relations ‘unless expressly excluded by this [3] Rollo, pp. 13-23.
‘Article 15. Bureau of Employment Services. - Code.’
[4] Rollo, p. 23.
(a) xxx xxx xxx The functions of the Bureau of Employment Services were
subsequently assumed by the Philippine Overseas [5] Rollo, pp. 26-30.
(b) The Bureau shall have the original and exclusive Employment Administration (POEA) on May 1, 1982 by
jurisdiction over all matters or cases involving employer- virtue of Executive Order No. 797 by granting the POEA [6] Rollo, p. 28.
employee relations including money claims, arising out of ‘original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases, including
or by virtue of any law or contracts involving Filipino money claims, involving employer-employee relations
workers for overseas employment, except seamen. The arising out of or by virtue of any law or contract involving SYLLABI/SYNOPSIS
decisions of the Bureau shall be final and executory Filipino workers for overseas employment, including THIRD DIVISION
subject to appeal to the Secretary of Labor whose decision seamen.’ (Sec. 4 (a); Eastern Shipping Lines v. Philippine [G.R. No. 127708. March 25, 1999]
shall be final and inappealable.’ Overseas Employment Administration [POEA], 200 SCRA
663 [1991]). This development showed the legislative
CITY GOVERNMENT OF SAN PABLO, LAGUNA, CITY rights, privileges, receipts, revenues and profits from which account realized during the preceding calendar year within
TREASURER OF SAN PABLO, LAGUNA, and THE taxes the grantee is hereby expressly exempted.” the city.”
SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNSOD OF SAN PABLO,
LAGUNA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE BIENVENIDO V. Escudero’s franchise was transferred to the plaintiff (herein Pursuant to the above-quoted Section 2.09, the petitioner
REYES, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial respondent) MERALCO under Republic Act No. 2340. City Treasurer sent to private respondent a letter
Court, Branch 29, San Pablo City and the MANILA demanding payment of the aforesaid franchise tax. From
ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondents. Presidential Decree No. 551 was enacted on September 1994 to 1996, private respondent paid “under protest” a
DECISION 11, 1974. Section 1 thereof provides the following: total amount of P1,857,711.67.[2]
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
“Section 1. Any provision of law or local ordinance to the The private respondent subsequently filed this action
This is a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to contrary notwithstanding, the franchise tax payable by all before the Regional Trial Court to declare Ordinance No.
review on a pure question of law the decision of the grantees of franchise to generate, distribute and sell 56 null and void insofar as it imposes the franchise tax
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pablo City, Branch 29 in electric current for light, heat and power shall be two upon private respondent MERALCO[3] and to claim for a
Civil Case No. SP-4459(96), entitled “Manila Electric percent (2%) of their gross receipts received from the sale refund of the taxes paid.
Company vs. City of San Pablo, Laguna, City Treasurer of of electric current and from transactions incident to the
San Pablo Laguna, and the Sangguniang Panglunsod of generation, distribution and sale of electric current. The Court ruled in favor of MERALCO and upheld its
San Pablo City, Laguna.” The RTC declared the argument that the LGC did not expressly or impliedly
imposition of franchise tax under Section 2.09 Article D of Such franchise tax shall be payable to the Commissioner repeal the tax exemption/incentive enjoyed by it under its
Ordinance No. 56 otherwise known as the Revenue Code of Internal Revenue or his duly authorized representative charter. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
of the City of San Pablo as ineffective and void insofar as on or before the twentieth day of the month following the
the respondent MERALCO is concerned for being violative end of each calendar quarter or month as may be provided “WHEREFORE, the imposition of a franchise tax under
of Act No. 3648, Republic Act No. 2340 and PD 551. The in the respective franchise or pertinent municipal Sec. 2.09 Article D of Ordinance No. 56 otherwise known
RTC also granted MERALCO’S claim for refund of regulation and shall, any provision of the Local Tax Code as the Revenue Code of the City of San Pablo, is declared
franchise taxes paid under protest. or any other law to the contrary notwithstanding, be in lieu ineffective and null and void insofar as the plaintiff
of all taxes and assessments of whatever nature imposed MERALCO is concerned for being violative of Republic Act
The following antecedent facts are undisputed: by any national or local authority on earnings, receipts, No. 2340, PD 551, and Republic Act No. 7160 and the
income and privilege of generation, distribution and sale of defendants are ordered to refund to the plaintiff the
Act No. 3648 granted the Escudero Electric Services electric current.” amount of ONE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY
Company, a legislative franchise to maintain and operate SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED ELEVEN &
an electric light and power system in the City of San Pablo Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the “Local 67/100 (P1,857,711.67) and such other amounts as may
and nearby municipalities Section 10 of Act No. 3648 Government Code of 1991” (hereinafter referred to as the have been paid by the plaintiff under said Revenue
provides: LGC) took effect on January 1, 1992. The said Code Ordinance No. 56 after the filing of the complaint.[4]
authorizes the province/city to impose a tax on business
“x x x In consideration of the franchise and rights hereby enjoying a franchise at a rate not exceeding fifty percent SO ORDERED.”
granted, the grantee shall pay unto the municipal treasury (50%) of one percent (1%) of the gross annual receipts for
of each municipality in which it is supplying electric current the preceding calendar year realized within its jurisdiction. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the
to the public under this franchise, a tax equal to two trial court[5] the petitioners filed the instant petition with
percentum of the gross earnings from electric current sold On October 5, 1992, the Sangguniang Panglunsod of San this Court raising pure questions of law based on the
or supplied under this franchise in each said municipality. Pablo City enacted Ordinance No. 56, otherwise known as following grounds:
Said tax shall be due and payable quarterly and shall be in the Revenue Code of the City of San Pablo. The said
lieu of any and all taxes of any kind, nature or description Ordinance took effect on October 30, 1992:[1] I. RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN
levied, established or collected by any authority HOLDING THAT ACT NO. 3648, REPUBLIC ACT NO.
whatsoever, municipal, provincial or insular, now or in the Section 2.09 Article D of said Ordinance provides: 2340 AND PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 551 AS
future, on its poles, wires, insulators, switches, AMENDED, INSOFAR AS THEY GRANT TAX
transformers, and structures, installations, conductors, and “Sec. 2.09. Franchise Tax – There is hereby imposed a INCENTIVES, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES TO
accessories place in and over and under all public tax on business enjoying a franchise, at a rate of fifty PRIVATE RESPONDENT, HAVE NOT BEEN REPEALED
property, including public streets and highways, provincial percent (50%) of one percent (1%) of the gross annual BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160.
roads, bridges and public squares, and on its franchise, receipts, which shall include both cash sales and sales on
II. RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING identified by number or title, that are intended to be
THAT SECTION 193 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160 HAS Section 137 – Franchise Tax – Notwithstanding any repealed.[8]
NOT WITHDRAWN THE TAX INCENTIVES, PRIVILEGES exemption granted by any law or other special law, the
AND IMMUNITIES BEING ENJOYED BY THE PRIVATE province may impose a tax on business enjoying a Was there an implied repeal by Republic Act No. 7160 of
RESPONDENT UNDER ACT NO. 3648, REPUBLIC ACT franchise, at a rate not exceeding fifty percent 50% of one the MERALCO franchise insofar as the latter impose a 2%
NO. 2340 AND PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 551, AS percent 1% of the gross annual receipts for the preceding tax “in lieu of all taxes and assessments of whatever
AMENDED. calendar year based on the incoming receipts, or realized, nature”?
within its territorial jurisdiction. xxx”
III. RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ERRED IN We rule affirmatively.
HOLDING THAT THE FRANCHISE TAX IN QUESTION Section 151 – Scope of Taxing Powers – Except as
CONSTITUTES AN IMPAIRMENT OF THE CONTRACT otherwise provided in this Code, the city, may levy the We are mindful of the established rule that repeals by
BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PRIVATE taxes, fees, and charges which the province or municipality implication are not favored as laws are presumed to be
RESPONDENT. may impose: Provided, however, That the taxes, fees and passed with deliberation and full knowledge of all laws
charges levied and collected by highly urbanized and existing on the subject. A general law cannot be
Petitioners’ position is the RA 7160 (LGC) expressly independent component cities shall accrue to them and construed to have repealed a special law by mere
repealed Act No. 3648, Republic Act No. 2340 and distributed in accordance with the provisions of this Code. implication unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest[9]
Presidential Decree 551 and that pursuant to the and it must be convincingly demonstrated that the two laws
provisions of Sections 137 and 193 of the LGC, the The rates of taxes that the city may levy may exceed the are so clearly repugnant and patently inconsistent that
province or city now has the power to impose a franchise maximum rates allowed for the province or municipality by they cannot co-exist.[10]
tax on a business enjoying a franchise. Petitioners rely on not more than fifty percent (50%) except the rates of
the ruling in the case of Mactan Cebu International Airport professional and amusement taxes. It is our view that petitioners correctly rely on the
Authority vs. Marcos[6] where the Supreme Court held that provisions of Section 137 and 193 of the LGC to support
the exemption from real property tax granted to Mactan Section 193 – Withdrawal of Tax Exemption Privileges. – their position that MERALCO’s tax exemption has been
Cebu International Airport Authority under its charter has Unless otherwise provided in this Code, tax exemptions or withdrawn. The explicit language of Section 137 which
been withdrawn upon the effectivity of the LGC. incentives granted to, or presently enjoyed by all persons, authorizes the province to impose franchise tax
whether natural or juridical, including government-owned “notwithstanding any exemption granted by any law or
In addition, the petitioners cite in their Memorandum dated or controlled corporations, except local water districts, other special laws" is all-encompassing and clear. The
December 8, 1997 an administrative interpretation made cooperatives duly registered under R.A. 6938, non-stock franchise tax is imposable despite any exemption enjoyed
by the Bureau of Local Government Finance of the and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions, are under special laws.
Department of Finance in its 3rd indorsement dated hereby withdrawn upon the effectivity of this Code.
February 15, 1994 to the effect that the earlier ruling of the Section 193 buttresses the withdrawal of extant tax
Department of Finance that holders of franchise which Section 534 (f) – Repealing Clause – All general and exemption privileges. By stating that unless otherwise
contain the phrase “in lieu of all taxes” proviso are exempt special laws, acts, city charters, decrees, executive orders, provided in this Code, tax exemptions or incentives
from the payment of any kind of tax is no longer applicable proclamations and administrative regulations, or part or granted to or presently enjoyed by all persons whether
upon the effectivity of the LGC in view of the withdrawal of parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the natural or juridical, including government-owned or
tax exemption privileges as provided in Sections 193 and provisions of this code are hereby repealed or modified controlled corporations except 1) local water districts, 2)
234 thereof. accordingly. cooperatives duly registered under R.A. 6938, (3) non-
stock and non-profit hospitals and educational institutions,
We resolve to reverse the court a quo. Section 534 (f), the repealing clause of the LGC, provides are withdrawn upon the effectivity of this code, the obvious
that all general and special laws, acts, city charters, import is to limit the exemptions to the three enumerated
The pivotal issue is whether the City of San Pablo may decrees, executive orders, proclamations and entities. It is a basic precept of statutory construction that
impose a local franchise tax pursuant to the LGC upon the administrative regulations or parts thereof which are the express mention of one person, thing, act, or
Manila Electric Company which pays a tax equal to two inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Code are consequence excludes all others as expressed in the
percent of its gross receipts in lieu of all taxes and hereby repealed or modified accordingly. familiar maxim expressio unius est exlcusio alterius.[11] In
assessments of whatever nature imposed by any national the absence of any provision of the Code to the contrary,
or local authority on savings or income. This clause partakes of the nature of a general repealing and we find no other provision of the Code to the contrary,
clause.[7] It is certainly not an express repealing clause and we find no other provision in point, any existing tax
It is necessary to reproduce the pertinent provisions of the because it fails to designate the specific act or acts exemption or incentive enjoyed by MERALCO under
LGC. existing law was clearly intended to be withdrawn.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue[15] wherein the resulted in serious tax base erosion and distortions in the
Reading together Sections 137 and 193 of the LGC, we Supreme Court stated: tax treatment of similarly situated enterprises, and there
conclude that under the LGC the local government unit was a need for these entities to share in the requirements
may now impose a local tax at a rate not exceeding 50% “xxx Congress could impair petitioner’s legislative of development, fiscal or otherwise, by paying the taxes
of 1% of the gross annual receipts for the preceding franchise by making it liable for income tax from which and other charges due from them.”[18]
calendar year based on the incoming receipts realized heretofore it was exempted by virtue of the exemption
within its territorial jurisdiction. The legislative purpose to provided for in section 3 of its franchise xxx The Court therein concluded that:
withdraw tax privileges enjoyed under existing law or
charter is clearly manifested by the language used in xxx Republic Act No. 5431, in amending section 24 of the “nothing can prevent Congress from decreeing that even
Section 137 and 193 categorically withdrawing such Tax Code by subjecting to income tax all corporate tax instrumentalities or agencies of the Government
exemption subject only to the exceptions enumerated. payers not expressly exempted therein and in section 27 performing governmental functions may be subject to tax.
Since it would be not only tedious and impractical to of the Code, had the effect of withdrawing petitioner’s Where it is done precisely to fulfill a constitutional mandate
attempt to enumerate all the existing statutes providing for exemption from income tax xxx” and national policy, no one can doubt its wisdom.”[19]
special tax exemptions or privileges, the LGC provided for
an express, albeit general, withdrawal of such exemptions Private respondent’s invocation of the non-impairment The power to tax is primarily vested in Congress.
or privileges. No more unequivocal language could have clause of the Constitution is accordingly unavailing. The However, in our jurisdiction, it may be exercised by local
been used. LGC was enacted in pursuance of the constitutional policy legislative bodies, no longer merely by virtue of a valid
to ensure autonomy to local governments[16] and to delegation as before, but pursuant to direct authority
It is true that the phrase “in lieu of all taxes” found in enable them to attain fullest development as self-reliant conferred by Section 5, Article X of the Constitution.[20]
special franchises has been held in several cases to communities.[17] Thus in Mactan Cebu International Thus Article X, Section 5 of the Constitution reads:
exempt the franchise holder from payment of tax on its Airport Authority vs. Marcos, supra, this Court pointed out,
corporate franchise imposed by the Internal Revenue in upholding the withdrawal of the real estate tax “Section 5 – Each Local Government unit shall have the
Code, as the charter is in the nature of a private contract exemption previously enjoyed by the Mactan Cebu power to create its own sources of revenue and to levy
and the exemption is part of the inducement for the International Airport Authority, as follows: taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines and
acceptance of the franchise, and that the imposition of limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with
another franchise tax by the local authority would “Note that as reproduced in Section 234(a) the phrase the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees and
constitute an impairment of contract between the “and any government owned or controlled corporation so charges shall accrue exclusively to the Local
government and the corporation.[12] But these “magic exempt by its charter” was excluded. The justification for Governments.”
words” contained in the phrase “shall be in lieu of all this restricted exemption in Section 234(a) seems obvious:
taxes.”[13] Have to give way to the peremptory language to limit further tax exemption privileges especially in light of The important legal effect of Section 5 is that henceforth,
of the LGC specifically providing for the withdrawal of such the general provision on withdrawal of tax exemption in interpreting statutory provisions on municipal fiscal
exemption privileges. privileges in Section 193 and the special provision on powers, doubts will have to be resolved in favor of
withdrawal of exemption from payment of real property municipal corporations.[21]
Accordingly in Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority taxes in the last paragraph of Section 234. These policy
vs. Marcos,[14] this Court held that Section 193 of the LGC considerations are consistent with the State policy to There is further basis for the conclusion that the non-
prescribes the general rule, viz., the tax exemptions or ensure autonomy to local governments and the objective impairment of contract clause cannot be invoked to uphold
incentives granted to or presently enjoyed by natural or of the LGC that they enjoy genuine and meaningful local Meralco's exemption from the local tax. Escudero Electric
juridical persons are withdrawn upon the effectivity of the autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest Co. was originally given the legislative franchise under Act.
LGC except with respect to those entities expressly development as self-reliant communities and make them 3648 to operate an electric light and power system in the
enumerated. In the same vein We must hold that the effective partners in attainment of national goals. The City of San Pablo and nearby municipalities. The term of
express withdrawal upon effectivity of the LGC of all power to tax is the most effective instrument to raise the franchise under Act No. 3648 is a period of fifty years
exemptions only as provided therein, can no longer be needed revenues to finance and support myriad activities from the Act’s approval in 1929. The said law provided
invoked by Meralco to disclaim liability for the local tax. of local government units for the delivery of basic services that the franchise is granted upon the condition that it shall
essential to the promotion of the general welfare and the be subject to amendment, or repeal by the Congress of the
Private respondents further argue that the “in lieu of” enhancement of peace, progress, and prosperity of the United States.[22] Under the 1935,[23] the 1973[24] and
provision contained in PD 551, Act No. 3648 and RA 2340 people. It may also be relevant to recall that the original the 1987[25] Constitutions, no franchise or right shall be
does not partake of the nature of an exemption, but is a reasons for the withdrawal of tax exemption privileges granted except under the condition that it shall be subject
“commutative tax”. This contention was raised but was not granted to government-owned or controlled corporations to amendment, alteration or repeal by the National
upheld in Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co. Inc. vs. and all other units of government were that such privilege Assembly when the public interest so requires. With or
without the reservation clause, franchises are subject to Petition for Certiorari filed by the petitioners. In that "On April 3, 1997, respondent court issued an Order,
alterations through a reasonable exercise of the police Petition, they questioned the April 3, 1997 Order[4] of the directing the "xxx immediate suspension from office of all
power; they are also subject to alteration by the power to Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Criminal Case Nos. the accused xxx for a period of sixty (60) days from service
tax, which like police power cannot be contracted Q-96-64564-6, directing their immediate suspension from of this Order."[5]
away.[26] office. On the other hand, the questioned CA Resolution
denied their Motion for Reconsideration. Esm The CA Ruling
Finally, while the matter is not of controlling significance,
the Court notes that whereas the original Escudero The Facts In its Decision, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s
franchise exempted the franchise holder from all taxes discretion to order petitioners’ suspension from office. It
levied or collected “now or in the future”[27] this phrase is The procedural and factual antecedents of this case are ruled:
noticeably omitted in the counterpart provision of P.D. 551 summarized in the challenged Decision as follows:
that said omission is intended not to foreclose future taxes "The preventive suspension of those officials is authorized
may reasonably be deduced by statutory construction. "Petitioners Rogelio Juan, Barangay Chairman and Pedro under Section 13 of RA 3019, as amended, which is
de Jesus, Delfin Carreon, and Antonio Galguerra, mandatory in character upon the filing of a valid
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Barangay Kagawads, of Barangay Talipapa, Novaliches, information in court against them. Such suspension can be
decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Quezon City, were separately accused in Criminal Cases issued ‘x x x in whatever stage of execution and mode of
appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside and the Q-96-64564 to 66, for violation of Section 261-(o) of the participation, is pending in court x x x’ (see also Gonzaga
complaint of MERALCO is hereby DISMISSED. Omnibus Election Code, before the Regional Trial Court, vs. Sandiganbayan, 201 SCRA 417, 422, 426). Said cases
Branch 96, National Capital Judicial Region, Quezon City. stressed though that the Constitution rejects preventive
No pronouncement as to costs. Barangay Chairman Juan, and Bgy. Kagawad De Jesus suspension for an indefinite duration as it constitutes a
were charged [with] willful and unlawful use of VHF radio denial of due process and equal protection of the law.
SO ORDERED. transceiver, an equipment or apparatus owned by the Nonetheless, preventive suspension is justifiable for as
barangay government of Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon long as its continuance is for a reasonable length of time.
Romero, (Chairman), Vitug, Panganiban, and Purisima, City, for election campaign or for partisan political activity. This doctrine also finds expression in Luciano vs.
JJ., concur. And Barangay Kagawads Carreon and Galguerra were Provincial Governor, 28 SCRA 570, upholding the power
charged with willful and unlawful use of a tricycle owned by of courts to exercise the mandatory act of suspension of
the same barangay government in their political local elective official[s] under Section 13 of RA 3019."[6]
[G.R. No. 132378. January 18, 2000] campaigns. (underscoring found in the original) Esmso
ROGELIO JUAN, PEDRO DE JESUS, DELFIN CARREON "Rodolfo Cayubit and Ricardo Galguerra, representing Hence, this Petition.[7]
and ANTONIO GALGUERRA, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF themselves as "witnesses/private complainants," assisted
THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. by Atty. Leonides S. Bernabe, Jr., representing himself as The Issues
"Private Prosecutor," filed a "Motion for Removal from
DECISION Office," dated December 5, 1996, for the removal of said In their Memorandum, petitioners urge the Court to resolve
local elective officials, to which herein petitioners filed their the following questions:
PANGANIBAN, J.: comment, on the ground that movants have no legal
standing in court, and neither was the public prosecutor "1. Does Sec. 13 of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Unlawful and unauthorized use of government property by notified of the motion to which he did not conform, and Practices Act), or Sec. 60 of R.A. 7160 (The Local
incumbent public officers constitutes fraud. Thus, the therefore, said motion should be expunged or stricken out Government Code of 1991) confer upon a Regional Trial
provision on preventive suspension in the Anti-Graft Law from the records, or peremptorily denied. Court, before which a criminal case for violation of Sec.
applies to such officers even if the alleged violations are 261 (o) of the Omnibus Election Code is pending, the
primarily considered as election offenses. "In a Manifestation and Comment to the accused- power and authority to order the preventive suspension
petitioners’ comment, the COMELEC prosecutor stated from office of the accused therein upon the filing of a valid
The Case that he "conforms" with the subject motion of private Information against him?
complainants, hence, respectfully submit[s] the same for
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 assailing the ruling of the court, followed by a Supplement to Motion "2. In a criminal case for violation of Sec. 261 (o) of the
the October 14, 1997 Decision[1] and the January 26, for Removal from Office, dated February 28, 1997, to Omnibus Election Code, where the INFORMATION does
1998 Resolution of the Court of Appeals[2] (CA) in CA-GR which petitioners also filed their opposition. not allege damages sustained by any private party by
SP No. 43903.[3] The assailed Decision dismissed the reason thereof, has a person, representing himself to be a
"witness/private complainant," or a lawyer, representing The argument does not persuade. It is evident from "We have explicitly ruled in Morales v. Court of Appeals,
himself to be a "private prosecutor," the legal standing or Section 32, BP 129, as amended by Section 2 of RA 7691, that by virtue of the exception provided for in the opening
personality to file a motion for removal from office of the that the jurisdiction of first-level courts -- the metropolitan sentence of Section 32, the exclusive original jurisdiction
accused in said criminal case? trial courts, municipal trial courts and municipal circuit trial of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
courts -- does not cover those criminal cases which by Municipal Circuit Trial Courts does not cover criminal
‘2.1. Does a motion so filed, acquire legal standing before specific provision of law are cognizable by regional trial cases which by specific provisions of law fall within the
the Court by the subsequent adoption thereof by the courts. Section 32 provides: exclusive original jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and
COMELEC Prosecutor in said case? Msesm of the Sandiganbayan, regardless of the penalty
"Sec. 32. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, prescribed therefor. Otherwise stated, even if those
‘2.2. Does a motion so filed, without compliance of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in excepted cases are punishable by imprisonment not
notice requirements prescribed for motions under Rule 15 Criminal Cases. Except in cases falling within the exclusive exceeding six (6) years, (i.e., prision correccional, arresto
of the Revised Rules of Court, deserve judicial cognizance original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts and of the mayor, or arresto menor) jurisdiction thereon is retained by
by the court vis-a-vis Del Castillo v. Aguinaldo, 212 SCRA Sandiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal the Regional Trial Courts or the Sandiganbayan, as the
169, 174, holding that such motion is "a useless piece of Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall case may be. Kyle
paper with no legal effect" that should not be accepted for exercise:
filing and if filed, is not entitled to judicial cognizance?" "Among the examples cited in Morales as falling within the
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of city exception provided for in the opening sentence of Section
‘2.3. Is there substantial compliance [with] such notice or municipal ordinances, committed within their respective 32 are cases under (1) Section 20 of BP Blg. 129; (2)
requirements by the mere fact that [the] adverse party filed territorial jurisdiction; and Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as amended; (3)
an opposition to said motion, precisely to question its non- the Decree on Intellectual Property; and (4) the Dangerous
compliance [with] notice requirements, prescribed by Rule (2) Exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses Drugs Act of 1972, as amended.
15, Revised Rules of Court?" punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years
irrespective of the amount of fine, and regardless of other "Undoubtedly, pursuant to Section 268 of the Omnibus
‘2.4. Notwithstanding the foregoing defects of said motion, imposable accessory or other penalties, including the civil Election Code, election offenses also fall within the
is it proper for a Regional Trial Court to take cognizance liability arising from such offenses or predicated thereon, exception.
thereof and act favorably thereon, without setting said irrespective of kind, nature, value or amount thereof;
motion for hearing?" Provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to "As we stated in Morales, jurisdiction is conferred by the
property through criminal negligence, they shall have Constitution or Congress. Outside the cases enumerated
Citing RA 7691,[8] petitioners likewise assail the authority exclusive original jurisdiction thereof. in Section 5(2) of Article VIII of the Constitution, Congress
of the trial court to hear the cases against them. has the plenary power to define, prescribe, and apportion
Petitioners were charged with violating Section 261 (o) of the jurisdiction of various courts. Congress may thus
For the sake of clarity, the discussion of the case will the Omnibus Election Code. Under Section 268 of the said provide by law that a certain class of cases should be
revolve around three points: first, the jurisdiction of Code, regional trial courts have exclusive jurisdiction to try exclusively heard and determined by one court. Such law
regional trial courts over violations of the Election Code; and decide any criminal action or proceeding for violation would be a special law and must be construed as an
second, the propriety of petitioners’ suspension; and third, of the Code, "except those relating to the offense of failure exception to the general law on jurisdiction of courts,
the alleged procedural lapses of the trial court. to register or failure to vote." The said provision reads: namely, the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, and the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. R.A. 7691 can by no
The Court’s Ruling "Sec. 268. Jurisdiction of courts. The regional trial court means be considered as a special law on jurisdiction; it is
shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide any merely an amendatory law intended to amend specific
We find no merit in the Petition. criminal action or proceeding for violation of this Code, sections of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.
except those relating to the offense of failure to register or Hence, R.A. No. 7691 does not have the effect of
First Issue: Jurisdiction over Election Cases failure to vote, which shall be under the jurisdiction of the repealing laws vesting upon Regional Trial Courts or the
metropolitan or municipal trial courts. From the decision of Sandiganbayan exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and
Petitioners insist that the RTC did not have the jurisdiction the courts, appeal will lie as in other criminal cases." decide the cases therein specified. That Congress never
to hear and decide the cases filed against them, because intended that RA 7691 should repeal such special
the penalty for the offenses charged did not exceed six Worth noting also is this Court’s disquisition in COMELEC provisions is indubitably evident from the fact that it did not
years. Thus, they claim that the authority to hear the cases v. Noynay:[9] touch at all the opening sentence of Section 32 of B.P. Blg.
is vested by RA 7691 in the first-level courts. Exsm 129 providing for the exception." (Itals supplied)
Clearly then, regional trial courts have jurisdiction to hear final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity Petitioners assail the trial court’s Order of suspension on
and decide cases for violation of the Omnibus Election benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be the ground that it was issued pursuant to the initial "Motion
Code, such as those filed against petitioners. entitled to reinstatement, and to the salaries and benefits for Removal From Office,"[14] received by the trial court on
which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the December 6, 1996. The records show that this Motion
Second Issue: Preventive Suspension meantime administrative proceedings have been filed neither complied with the notice requirements provided
against him. under the Rules of Court, nor was it filed by one who was a
Petitioners contend that their cases are not subject to party to their cases.
Section 13 of RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt "In the event that such convicted officer, who may have
Practices Act, which mandates the preventive suspension already been separated from the service, has already The Court has held time and again that a motion that does
of indicted public officials. We disagree. received such benefits he shall be liable to restitute the not meet the notice requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of
same to the government." Rule 15 of the Rules of Court[15] is pro forma, and that the
Petitioners were accused of using barangay property for trial court has no authority to act on it. The requisites laid
election campaign purposes and other partisan political Interestingly, prior to its amendment by BP 195,[10] the down in the aforementioned provisions are categorical and
activities during their incumbency as barangay officials, in said provision had applied to public officers who, under a mandatory, and the failure of the movants to comply with
violation of Section 261 (o) of the Omnibus Election Code, valid information, were charged with violations of RA 3019 them renders their Motions fatally defective.[16]
which reads as follows: or with offenses covered by the Revised Penal Code
provision on bribery.[11] The amendatory law expanded The Rules mandate the service of a copy of a motion
"Section 261. Prohibited Acts. The following shall be guilty the scope of the provision; now, public officers may containing a notice of time and place of hearing, in order to
of an election offense: likewise be suspended from office if, under a valid afford the adverse party time to study and answer the
information, they are charged with an offense falling under arguments in the said motion before its resolution by the
(o) Use of public funds, money deposited in trust, Title 7 of Book II of the Revised Penal Code, or with any court.
equipment, facilities owned or controlled by the other form of fraud involving government funds or property.
government for an election campaign. - Any person who Considering the circumstances of the present Petition,
uses under any guise whatsoever, directly or indirectly, (1) True, the cases against petitioners involve violations of the however, we believe that the requirements of procedural
public funds or money deposited with or held in trust by, Election Code; however, the charges are not due process were substantially complied with, and that
public financing institutions or by government offices, unidimensional. Every law must be read together with the such compliance justifies a liberal interpretation of the
banks, or agencies; (2) any printing press, radio, or provisions of any other complementing law, unless both above-mentioned rules. Mesm
television station or audio-visual equipment operated by are otherwise irreconcilable. It must be emphasized that
the Government or by its divisions, sub-divisions, agencies petitioners were incumbent public officers charged with the In his "Manifestation on Comment of the Accused," the
or instrumentalities, including government-owned or unauthorized and unlawful use of government property in COMELEC prosecutor adopted the assailed Motion as well
controlled corporations, or by the Armed Forces of the their custody, in the pursuit of personal interests. The as the February 28, 1997 "Supplement to Motion for
Philippines; or (3) any equipment, vehicle, facility, crime being imputed to them is akin to that committed by Removal from Office." This action should be considered to
apparatus or paraphernalia owned by the government or public officers as laid down in the Revised Penal Code. have thus cured the procedural defect pointed out by
by its political subdivisions, agencies, including Certainly, petitioners’ acts constitute fraud against the petitioners. More important, however, is the fact that the
government-owned or controlled corporations, or by the government; thus, the present case is covered by Section trial court heard petitioners and considered their
Armed Forces of the Philippines for any election campaign 13 of RA 3019. Calrky arguments. In their six-page Memorandum[17] filed
or for any partisan political activity." Kycalr pursuant to the directive of the trial court, petitioners were
The aforementioned proviso reinforces the principle that a able to ventilate their arguments against the Motion for
On the other hand, Section 13, R.A. 3019, as amended, public office is a public trust. Its purpose is to prevent the Removal from Office. They contended that neither RA
provides: accused public officer from hampering his prosecution by 3019 nor Section 60 of the Local Government Code
intimidating or influencing witnesses, tampering with justified their suspension from office. Indeed, the purpose
"SEC. 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. Any incumbent documentary evidence, or committing further acts of of a notice of hearing was served;[18] the pleadings that
public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under malfeasance while in office.[12] Preventive suspension is were filed for and against them negated their allegations of
a valid information under this Act or under Title 7, Book II not a penalty;[13] petitioners, whose culpability remains to procedural prejudice.
of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving be proven, are still entitled to the constitutional
fraud upon government or public funds or property whether presumption of innocence. Under Section 13 of RA 3019, the suspension of a public
as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage officer is mandatory after the determination of the validity
of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, Third Issue: Allegations of Procedural Prejudice of the information, as enunciated in Socrates v.
shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by Sandiganbayan[19] which we quote:
"This Court has ruled that under Section 13 of the anti-
graft law, the suspension of a public officer is mandatory
after the validity of the information has been upheld in a
pre-suspension hearing conducted for that purpose. This
pre-suspension hearing is conducted to determine
basically the validity of the information, from which the
court can have a basis to either suspend the accused and
proceed with the trial on the merits of the case, or withhold
the suspension of the latter and dismiss the case, or
correct any part of the proceeding which impairs its
validity. That hearing may be treated in the same manner
as a challenge to the validity of the information by way of a
motion to quash."
SO ORDERED.