CASES IN POLITICAL LAW 1
(listed by Dean MarlonfritzB. Broto)
CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES
De Leon v. ESGUERRA
The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February
2, 1987. By that date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must
be deemed to have been superseded. (Effectivity is immediately upon
ratification)
Gonzales v. COMELEC
Nature of power to amend the Constitution or to propose
amendments thereto: not inherent power of Congress but of the
people; constituent power of Congress
Tolentino v. COMELEC
The condition and limitation that all the amendments to be
proposed by the same convention must be submitted in a single
election or plebiscite.
Imbong v. COMELEC
Competence of Congress acting as Constituent Assembly: Authority
to call constitutional convention as Constituent Assembly in
enacting implementing details.
Sanidad v. COMELEC
-Presidential exercise of legislative powers (and proposing
amendments) is valid in martial law.
-Amending process is a sovereign act, although the authority to
institute the same and the procedure to be followed reside somehow
in a particular body (Pres. Marcos).
Santiago v. COMELEC
The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution through the system of initiative would remain entombed
in a cold niche until Congress provides for its implementation.
Section 2 of Article XVII is not self-executing.
Lambino v. COMELEC
Essence of people's initiative: (1) people must author; (2) they
must sign the proposal; (3) proposal is embodied in petition
CONCEPT OF STATE
Bacani vs NACOCO
The mere fact that the Government happens to be a major
stockholder of a corporation does not make it a public
corporation.
Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions.
PVTA vs CIR
Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions
obsolete.
Government has to provide for general welfare.
Gov. of the Phil. Islands vs. Monte de Piedad
Doctrine of Parens Patriae (state as guardian of the people)
Transfer of sovereignty; effect on laws:
- abrogation of laws in conflict with the political character of
the substituted sovereign (political law).
- great body of municipal law regarding private and domestic
rights continue in force until abrogated or changed by new
ruler.
Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh
Continuity of Law: Law, once established, continues until
changed by some competent legislative power (not changed by mere
change of sovereignty)
All acts and proceedings of the 3 gov. depts. of a de facto
government are good and valid.
Kinds of De facto government:
(1) de facto proper government obtained by force or voice of the
majority
(2) paramount force by military forces who invade the
territory
(3) independent government established by inhabitants through
insurrection
Republic of the Philippines (during Japanese occupation) was a
de facto government.
People vs Gozo
Principle of Auto-limitation: Extent of Philippine sovereignty
over American bases Philippine Government has not abdicated its
sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory.
Laurel vs Misa
Nature of Allegiance to sovereign: Absolute and permanent
Effect of enemy occupation: sovereignty of the government not
transferred to occupier
Ruffy v Chief of Staff
The rule that laws of political nature or affecting political
relations are considered superseded or held in abeyance during the
military occupation, is intended for the governing of the civil
inhabitants of the occupied territory and not for the enemies in
arms.
STATE IMMUNITY
Sanders v Veridiano
Mere allegation that a government functionary is being sued in
his personal capacity will not automatically remove him from the
protection of the laws of public officers and doctrine of state
immunity
Doctrine of state immunity applicable also to other states.
Republic v Sandoval
State cannot be held liable for the deaths that followed the
incident; liability should fall on the public officers who
committed acts beyond their authority
3 instances when suit is proper:
1. when sued by its name
2. when unincorporated government agency is sued3. when the suit
is against a government employee but liability belongs to the
government
Festejo v Fernando
Officer or employee committing the tort is personally liable and
maybe sued as any other citizen and held answerable for whatever
injury
USA vs Guinto
A state may be said to have descended to the level of an
individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent
to be sued only when it enters into business contracts.
Veterans Manpower vs CA
The state is deemed to have given tacitly its consent to be sued
when it enters into a contract. However, it does not apply where
the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign
functions.
The Merritt vs Govt of the Phil
By consenting to be sued, a state simply waives its immunity
from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability to the
plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or extend
its liability to any cause not previously recognized. It merely
gives remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability and submit itself
to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose
any lawful defense.
Amigable vs. Cuenca
The government, when it takes away a property from a private
land owner for public use without going through the legal process
of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may
properly maintain a suit against the government without thereby
violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit. This
doctrine cannot be used in perpetrating injustice to a citizen.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
When the state files an action, it divests itself of the
sovereign character and shed its immunity form suit, descending to
the level of an ordinary litigant.Republic vs. Feliciano
- failure to allege in the complaint the existence of consent by
the State is a fatal defect (construction must be strict against
conferment of waiver
- Immunity may be invoked by the courts at any point/stage of
the proceedings.
USA vs. Ruiz
Restrictive Application of State Immunity to foreign states:
States may be sued when the proceedings arise out of commercial
transactions of the foreign sovereign.
The Holy See v Rosario, Jr.
Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations,
a diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the civil and
administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real
action relating to private immovable property situated in the
territory of the receiving state which the envoy holds on behalf of
the sending state for the purposes of the mission
Republic vs. Villasor
- Judgment against the State cannot be enforced by execution. It
may limit claimants action only up to the completion of proceedings
anterior to the state of execution. Power of courts end when
judgment is rendered. [suability vs. liability]
- Functions and public services cannot be allowed to be
paralyzed or disrupted by the disruption of public funds.
Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC
Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a
waiver of its non-suability. Distinction must still be made between
one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign function and
another which is done in the proprietary capacity.
State gives consent upon moneyed claim arising from
contract.
PNB vs. Pabalan
State immunity from suit cannot be validly invoked with regard
to funds of public corporations.
[suable corporations] Public funds of corporations which can sue
and be sued are not exempt from gaarnishment.
Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan
The character of an incorporated agency allows it to sue and be
sued without qualification
Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Assoc.
Acceptance of outside work and payment of overtime compensation
does not make work of Bureau of Printing proprietary.
Non-suability of the State is available to the agency even if it
is shown that it is engaged not only in governmental functions but
also, incidentally, in proprietary enterprises (unincorporated
agency).
Mobil Phils. Exploration, Inc. vs. CA
If an agencys function is deemed proprietary, if such is a
necessary incident of the primary and gov. function of such agency,
such agency is not suable (for an unincorporated agency only).
Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Court of Appeals
- Not all government entities whether corporate or not are
immune from suits. Immunity from suits is determined by the
character of the objects for which the entity was organized.
- Suits against State agencies with relation to matters in which
they have assumed to act in private or non-governmental capacity,
and various suits against certain corporations created by the State
to engage In matters partaking more of the nature of ordinary
business are not regarded as suits against the State.
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme
The test of liability of the municipality depends on whether or
not the driver acting in behalf of the municipality is performing
governmental or proprietary functions. It has already been remarked
that municipal corporations are suable because their charters grant
them the competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are
generally not liable for torts committed by them in the discharge
of governmental functions and can be held answerable only if it can
be shown that they were acting in a proprietary capacity. In
permitting such entities to be sued, the state merely gives the
claimants the right to show the defendant was not acting in its
governmental capacity when the injury was inflicted or that the
case comes under the exceptions recognized by law. Failing this,
the claimants cannot recover.
Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez
Municipal funds in possession of municipal and provincial
treasurers are public funds exempt from execution. Municipal funds
are held in trust for the people intended and used for the
accomplishments of the purposes for which municipal corporations
are created and that to subject said properties and public funds to
execution would materially impede, even defeat and in some instance
destroy said purposes.
Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals
When a municipality fails or refuses without justifiable reason
to effect payment of a final money judgment rendered against it,
the claimant may avail of the remedy of mandamus in order to compel
the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance
and the corresponding disbursement of municipal funds.
Fundamental Principles and State Policies
Section 1
Villavicencio v. Lukban:
Mayors act is unconstitutional. It was not authorized by any law
or ordinance. Our government is a government of laws and not of
men.
Section 2
Kuroda v. Jalandoni:
The Philippines can adopt the rules and regulations laid down on
the Hague and Geneva Conventions notwithstanding that it is not a
signatory thereto. It embodied generally accepted principles of
international law binding upon all states.
Agustin v. Edu:
Legislative enactment is not necessary in order to authorize the
issuance of LOI prescribing the use of triangular reflectorized
early warning devices. This is also an illustration of generally
accepted principles of international law (Pacta sunt servanda).
Ichong v. Hernandez:
The Retail Trade Nationalization Law is not unconstitutional
because it was passed in the exercise of the police power which
cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty.
Gonzales v. Hechanova:
Prevalence of National or Municipal law over International law:
Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only
when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but also when it runs
counter to an act of Congress.
In re Garcia
A treaty cannot modify regulations governing admission to
Philippine bar (that would be an encroachment upon Supreme Court by
the Executive)
Section 3
IBP vs. Zamora
The deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of
the civilian supremacy clause. The calling of the marines in this
case constitutes permissible use of military asset for civilian law
enforcement. x x x The limited participation of the Marines is
evident in the provisions of the Letter of Instruction (LOI)
itself, which sufficiently provides the metes and bounds of the
Marines authority. It is noteworthy that the local police forces
are the ones charge of the visibility patrols at all times, the
real authority belonging to the PNP. In fact, the Metro Manila
Police Chief is the overall leader of the PNP-Marines joint
visibility patrols. Under the LOI, the police forces are tasked to
brief or orient the soldiers on police patrol procedures. It is
their responsibility to direct and manage the deployment of the
marines. It is, likewise, their duty to provide the necessary
equipment to the Marines and render logistic support to these
soldiers. In view of the foregoing, it cannot be properly argued
that military authority is supreme over civilian authority. It is
worth mentioning that military assistance to civilian authorities
in various forms persists in Philippine jurisdiction. The
Philippine experience reveals that it is not averse to requesting
the assistance of the military in the implementation and execution
of certain traditionally civil functions. x x x Some of the
multifarious activities wherein military aid has been rendered,
exemplifying the activities that bring both the civilian and the
military together in a relationship of cooperation are:
1. Elections;
2. Administration of the Philippine National Red Cross;
3. Relief and rescue operations during calamities and
disasters;
4. Amateur sports promotion and development;
5. Development of the culture and the arts;
6. Conservation of the natural resources;
7. Implementation of the agrarian reform program;
8. Enforcement of customs laws;
9. Composite civilian-military law enforcement activities;
10. Conduct of licensure examinations;
11. Conduct of nationwide test for elementary and high school
students;
12. Anti-drug enforcement activities;
13. Sanitary inspections;
14. Conduct of census work;
15. Administration of the Civil Aeronautic Board;
16. Assistance in installation of weather forecasting
devices;
17. Peace and order policy formulation in local government
units.
This unquestionably constitutes a gloss on executive power
resulting from a
systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the
knowledge of Congress
and, yet, never before questioned. What we have here is a mutual
support and
cooperation between the military and civilian authorities, not
derogation of civilian
supremacy.Section 4People vs. Lagman
- Case at bar: accused is prosecuted for failure to register for
military service under the National Defense Act - SC upheld the
National Defense Act. To leave an organization of an army to the
will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the Government
excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist
therein.
Section 5
Chavez vs. Romulo
Right to bear arms: It is statutory and not a constitutional
right. The license to carry a firearm is neither a property nor a
property right. Neither does it create a vested right. Even if it
were a property right, it cannot be considered absolute as to be
placed beyond the reach of police power. The maintenance of peace
and order, and the protection of the people against violence are
constitutional duties of the State, and the right to bear firearm
is to be construed in connection and in harmony with these
constitutional duties.
Section 6
Aglipay vs. Ruiz
-There is no violation of the principle of the separation of
church and state. The issuance and sale of the stamps in question
may be said to be linked with an event of a religious character,
but the resulting propaganda, if any, received by the Catholic
Church, was not the aim and purpose of the government. The idea
behind the issuance of the postage stamps was to attract tourists
to our country and not primarily the religious event.
- What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty ,
not mere religious toleration. However, religious freedom is not
inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial
of its influence in human affairs.
Austria vs. NLRC
An ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between the
church and its members and relates to matter of faith, religious
doctrines, worship and governance of the congregation. Examples of
these affairs in which the State cannot meddle are proceedings for
excommunication, ordination of religious ministers, administration
of sacraments, and other activities to which is attached religious
significance. In this case, what is involved is the relationship of
the church as an employer and the minister as an employee. It is
purely secular and has no relation whatsoever with the practice of
faith, worship or doctrine of the church.Section 10
Calalang vs. Williams
-Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor
atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the
equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that
justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at
least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the
welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of
measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the
competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper
economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the
members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of
measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through
the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments
on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of
the necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units of
a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly
extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and
economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount
objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet
of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the
greatest number.
Almeda vs. CA
-There exists a tenants right of redemption in sugar and coconut
lands. Pursuant to Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963, it
recognizes share tenancy in sugar lands which is in consonance with
the States promotion of social justice wherein it may regulate the
acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of private
property, and equitably diffuse propertyownership and profits.Ondoy
.vs. Ignacio
-The principle of social justice applied in this case is a
matter of protection, not equality. The Court recognized the right
of the petitioner to the claim of compensation because her son was
shown to have died while in the actual performance of his work. To
strengthen the constitutional scheme of social justice and
protection to labor, The Court made mention that as between a
laborer, usually poor and unlettered, and the employer, who has
resources to secure able legal advice, the law has reason to demand
from the latter the stricter compliance.Salonga vs. Farrales
-The plea of social justice of the plaintiff cannot be
considered because it was shown that no contract, either to sell or
of sale, was ever perfected between him and the defendant. It must
be remembered that social justice cannot be invoked to trample on
the rights of property owners who under our Constitution and laws
are also entitled to protection. The social justice consecrated in
our Constitution was not intended to take away rights from a person
and give them to another who is not entitled thereto.
Section 12Meyer vs. Nebraska
It is incompetent for the government to prohibit the teaching of
a foreign language to students. There is nothing harmful in the
language that will impair the upbringing of the child.
Pierce vs. Society of Sisters
State may not require children to attend only public schools.
The child is not a creature of the State.
Virtuouso vs. Municipal Judge
Youthful Offender: A person charged with an offense but found to
be a youthful offender could be provisionally released on
recognizance at courts decision.
Section 14
PT&T Co. vs. NLRC
the SC held that the petitioners policy of not accepting or
considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who
contracts marriage, runs afoul of the test of, and the right
against, discrimination, which is guaranteed all women workers
under the Constitution. While a requirement that a woman employee
must remain unmarried may be justified as a bona fide occupational
qualification where the particular requirements of the job would
demand the same, discrimination against married women cannot be
adopted by the employer as a general principle.
Section 16
Oposa vs. Factoran
[Intergenerational Responsibility / Intergenerational Justice]
the 34 minors duly joined by their respective parents pleading the
cause of inter-generational responsibility and inter-generational
justice, had a valid cause of action in questioning the grant of
Timber Licensing Agreements (TLAs) for commercial logging purposes.
The minors filed the action for themselves as representing their
generation as well as generations yet unborn. The SC, on the basis
of Section 16, Article II linked with the right to health,
recognized a right to a balanced and healthful ecology and the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.LLDA v.
CA
The immediate response to the demands of necessities of
protecting vital public interests gives vitality to the statement
on ecology embodied in the Declaration of Principles and State
Policies of the 1987 Constitution. Article II, Section 16. As a
constitutionally guaranteed right of every person, it carries the
correlative duty of non-impairment. This is but the consonance with
the declared policy of the state to protect and promote the right
to health of the people and instill health consciousness among
them.
C&M Timber Corporation vs. Alcala
On the issue that the total log ban is a new policy which should
be applied prospectively and not affect the rights of petitioner
vested under the Timber Licensing Agreement (TLA), the Sc held that
this is not a new policy but a mere reiteration of the policy of
conservation and protection the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology.Section 17
PRC vs. De Guzman
while it is true that the SC has upheld the constitutional right
of every citizen to select a profession or course of study subject
to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic
requirements, the exercise of this right may be regulated pursuant
to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals,
peace, education, order, safety and general welfare. Thus, persons
who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring
scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an
examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers.
This regulation assumes particular pertinence in the field of
medicine, in order to protect the public from the potentially
deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance.
PMMS, Inc. vs. CA
the Court said that the requirement that a school must first
obtain government authorization before operating is based on the
State policy that educational programs and/or operations shall be
of good quality and, therefore, shall at least satisfy minimum
standards with respect to curricula, teaching staff, physical plant
and facilities and administrative and management viability.Section
18
Bernardo vs. NLRC
The SC held that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates
that qualified disabled persons be granted the same terms and
conditions of employment as qualified able bodied employees; thus,
once hey have attained the status of regular workers, they should
be accorded all the benefits granted by law, notwithstanding
written or verbal contracts to the contrary. This treatment is
rooted not merely in charity or accommodation, but in justice for
all.Section 19
Garcia vs. BOI
BOI committed grave abuse of discretion because it repudiates
the independent policy of government to run its affairs the way it
deems best for the national interest.
Every provision of the Constitution on the national economy and
patrimony is infused with the spirit of national interest. The
non-alienation of national resources, the State full control over
the development and utilization of contributions to the economic
growth and general welfare of the country and the regulation of
foreign investment in accordance to national goals and priorities
are too explicit not to be noticed and understood.
Section 20
Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs. PCA,
The SC said that although the Constitution enshrines free
enterprise as a policy, it nevertheless reserves to the Government
the power to intervene whenever necessary for the promotion of the
general welfare as reflected in Sections 6 & 19 of Article
XII.
Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs. Fertilizer
and Pesticide
Authority, and Pharmaceutical and Health
Care Association of the Philippines vs. Sec. Duque IIIDespite
the fact that our present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as
a policy, it nevertheless reserves to the Government the power to
intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare. Free
enterprise does not call for removal of protective regulations. It
must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence just
exactly how such protective regulation would result in the
restraint of trade.Section 21
ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL. vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN
REFORM
Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it
to forcibly acquire private lands intended for public use upon
payment of just compensation to the owner. Private rights must
yield to the irresistible demands of the public interest on the
time-honored justification, as in the case of the policed power,
that the welfare of the people is the supreme law.
Section 25
BASCO VS PAGCOR
Local Autonomy under 1987 Constitution simply means the
decentralization and does not make the local governments sovereign
within the State or an imperium imperio.
LIMBONA VS MANGELIN
Decentralization of administration is merely delegation of
administrative powers to the LGUs in order to broaden the base of
governmental power. Decentralization of power is the abdication by
the national government powers.
Section 26
Pamatong vs. COMELEC
- There is no constitutional right to run for or hold public
office and, particularly, to seek the presidency. What is
recognized is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by
law. Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither bestows
such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an
enforceable right. There is nothing in the plain language of the
provision which suggests such a thrust or justifies an
interpretation of the sort. The "equal access" provision is a
subsumed part of Article II of the Constitution, entitled
"Declaration of Principles and State Policies." The provisions
under the Article are generally considered not self-executing, and
there is no plausible reason for according a different treatment to
the "equal access" provision. Like the rest of the policies
enumerated in Article II, the provision does not contain any
judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies a
guideline for legislative or executive action. The disregard of the
provision does not give rise to any cause of action before the
courts.
Section 30
Legspi vs CSC
The constitutional right to information on matters of public
concern is self-executing without the need for any ancillary act of
legislation.
Valmonte vs de Villa
The constitutional right to information is limited on matters of
public concern and is further subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law. However, although citizens are afforded the right
to information, the Constitution does not accord them the right to
compel the custodians of official records to prepare lists,
abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to acquire
information of public concern.
Aquino-Sarmiento vs Morato
- When a committee or board is created as public in its very
existence and character such as the MTRCB, there can be no valid
claim to privacy. Here, decisions of Board and individual voting
slips are public in character.
SEPARATION OF POWERS
In re Manzano
- Members of the SC and other courts shall not be designated to
any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions.
- The committee performs administrative function* which under
Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution prohibits members of
the SC and other courts established by law to be designated to any
agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. To
quote CJ Fernando in Garcia vs. Macaraig, he said that while the
doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory not to be
enforced with pedantic rigor, the practical demands of government
precluding its doctrine application, it cannot justify a member of
the judiciary being required to assume a position or perform a duty
non-judicial in character.Administrative functions are those which
involves the regulation and control the conduct and affairs of
individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and
regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislative or
such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic
law of its existence.
Angara vs. Electoral Commission
- Separation of powers as actual division than obtained through
express provision
- Judiciary is the only Constitutional Arbiter to allocate
Constitutional Boundaries
- Judicial Supremacy = supremacy of the Constitution asserted by
the judiciary (not supremacy of the judiciary itself)
- Judicial Review is limited to Actual Litigation. Judiciary
does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of
litigation.
- The Electoral Commission is an independent, impartial, and
non-partisan tribunal. The sole power to determine contests
regarding the elections, returns, and qualifications of the members
of the National Assembly has been transferred in totality to the
Electoral Commission. Its power is clear, complete, and
exclusive.
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA
- Legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the
law cannot be delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to
determine how the law may be enforced.
- Completeness test and Sufficient Standard Test:
Completeness Test = complete in all its terms and conditions
when it leaves the legislature such that what is left is merely its
enforcement.
Sufficient Standard Test = adequate guidelines or limitations in
the law to map out the boundaries of the delegates authority and
prevent the delegation from running riot.
- Subordinate Legislation = delegated power to issue rules to
carry out the general provision of the statute. (Administrative
bodies implement the broad policies by promulgating their
supplementary regulations.)
Casibang vs. Aquino
- Political Question = question of policy; question to be
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity or full
discretionary authority
- Justiciable Question = implies a given right, legally
demandable and enforceable; an act or omission violative of such
right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by law for said breach
of right.
Sanidad v. COMELEC
On whether the case is justiciable. Political questions are
associated with the wisdom of the legality of a particular act.
Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or
validity of the contested act, that matter is definitely
justiciable or non-political. If the Constitution provides how it
may be amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that
Constitution, can declare whether the procedure followed or the
authority assumed was valid or not.On whether the President may
propose Constitutional amendments
If the President has been legitimately discharging the
legislative functions of the interim Assembly, there is no reason
why he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly to
propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but an adjunct,
although peculiar, to its gross legislative power.
(Note that at the time Prez. Marcos had legislative powers and
there was no legislative department at the time)
Daza v. Singson
Where the legality or validity of the act is in question and not
the wisdom of the act, the Court may take jurisdiction and decide
on the acts validity. Even in political questions the Court may
take jurisdiction under the expanded judicial power extended to it
by Art 8 Sec. 1 of the Constitution.
(Judicial power includes the duty to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of Government.)
Delegation of Powers
Garcia v. Exec. Secretary
The Congress may authorize the President to fix tariff rates and
duties subject to such limitations and restrictions that they may
impose. This is expressly provided for in Art 6, Sec 28 par 2 of
the Constitution.
Araneta v. Dinglasan
The delegation of emergency powers by Congress to the President
may be limited by Congress subject to restrictions it may provide.
Congress may withdraw the delegated power at any time. In this
case, the emergency power was withdrawn at the time Congress became
able to exercise its legislative duties again.
Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA
The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all
three branches of government specifically in the case of the
legislative. What can be delegated is the discretion to determine
how the law may be enforced and not what the law shall be since the
ascertainment of the latter subject is within the prerogative and
determination of the legislature. Delegation of legislative power
is permitted and valid provided that is passes the two accepted
tests- completeness test and the sufficient standard test. The
reason for such delegation is the increasing complexity of the task
of the government and the growing inability of the legislature to
cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its attention.
Rodriguez v. Gella
Act No. 671 was expressly in pursuance of the constitutional
limitation of the delegation of emergency powers. It is presumed
that the National Assembly intended it to be for a limited period.
Executive Orders Nos. 545 and 546, which was anchored to the said
Act are declared null and void and the respondents are ordered to
desist from appropriating, releasing and allotting expending funds
set aside therein.
People v. Vera
Act No. 4221 is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative
power. The powers of the government are distributed among three
coordinate and substantially independent organs: the legislative,
the executive and the judicial. Each of the departments of the
government derives its authority from the Constitution.
US vs. Ang Tang Ho
If the act within itself does not define a crime and is not
complete, legislative act remains to be done to make it a law or a
crime, the doing of which is vested in the Gov, generally, the act
is a delegation of legislative power, and is thus unconstitutional
and void.
Ynot vs. IAC
There is no standard that the officials must observe in
determining to whom to distribute the confiscated carabaos and
carabeef. There is thus an invalid delegation of legislatie
power.
Tablarin vs. Gutierez
Because the necessity standards are set forth in the statute (RA
No. 2383), providing for standardization and regulation of
education, delegation is valid.
Pelaez vs. Auditor GeneralThe two tests (Completeness test and
Sufficient Standard test) must be applied together.
Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita
Where the effectivity of the law is made dependent on the
verification by the executive of the existence of certain
conditions, the verification is delegated to the executive. (This
is an example of contingent legislation - a valid delegation of law
execution).
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 5
Tobias v. Abalos
The creation of a new congressional district is but a natural
consequence of a municipalitys conversion into a city. The
Constitution provides that a city should have a population of at
least 250,000 and is entitled to at least 1 representative.
Mariano Jr. v. Comelec
As decided in Tobias v. Abalos, the Constitution provides that
the compositions of the House should not be more than 250 members,
unless otherwise provided by law. The natural result in the
creation of a new legislative from a special law whose purpose is
to convert a municipality into a city is sanctioned by the
Constitution.
Montejo v. Comelec
The Comelec has no power to reapportion districts but only to
make minor adjustments.
Republic Act No. 7941 An act providing for the election of the
party-list representatives through the party-list system and
appropriating funds therefrom.
Section 13
Zandueta vs. De la Costa
When a judge of first instance, presiding over a branch of a
Court of First Instance of a judicial district by virtue of a legal
and valid appointment, accepts another appointment to preside over
the same branch of the same Court of First Instance, in addition of
another Court of First Instance to the old one, enters into the
discharge of the functions of his new office and receives the
corresponding salary, he abandons his old office and cannot claim
to be entitled to repossess it or question the constitutionality of
the law by virtue of which his new appointment has been issued;
and, said new appointment having been disapproved by the Commission
on Appointments of the National Assembly, neither can he claim to
continue occupying the office conferred upon him by said new
appointment, having ipso jure ceased in the discharge of the
functions thereof.
Section 14
Puyat vs. De Guzman
No Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall appear as counsel
before any court without appellate jurisdiction, before any court
in any civil case wherein the Government, or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party, or in any
criminal case wherein any officer or employee of the Government is
accused of an offense committed in relation to his office,or before
any administrative body.
Neither shall he, directly or indirectly be interested
financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special
privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or
controlled corporation, during his term of office.
He shall not accept employment to intervene in any cause or
matter where he may be called to act on account of his office.
Section 16
Santiago vs. Guingona, Jr.
Where no provision of the Constitution, the laws or even the
rules of the Senate has been clearly shown to have been violated,
disregarded or overlooked, grave abuse of discretion cannot be
imputed to Senate officials for acts done within their competence
and authority.
Avelino vs. Cuenco
The constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its
own president should not be interfered with, nor taken over, by the
judiciary.
When the constitution declares that a majority of each House
shall constitute a quorum, it does not mean all of its members.
Majority of all the members constitute the House. Hence, 12
senators who unanimously voted constitute a majority of 23 senators
(10 walked out, 1 out of the country). OSMEA VS. PENDATUN
The House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior
as conferred upon by the Constitution. Also, Congress has the
inherent legislative prerogative of suspension.
PAREDES, JR. VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Sandiganbayan has the authority to suspend a district
representative in violation of the Anti-Graft Law as it is being
imposed on the representative NOT as a member of the House.
U.S. VS PONS
The Court may not go beyond the the recitals of the legislative
journals for the purpose of determining the date of adjournment
when such journal are clear and explicit. To inquire the veracity
of journals, when they are clear and explicit, would be to violate
both the letter and spirit of the laws, to invade the coordinate
and independent department of the government and to interfere with
the legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature.
CASCO PHIL CHEMICAL CO VS GIMENEZ
Enrolled bill doctrine- the term urea formaldehyde is conclusive
upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by the
Congress and approved by the President.
Section 18
Daza vs Singson
- The sense of the Constitution is that the membership in the
COA must always reflect political alignments and must adjust to
changes. Nowhere, however, in the Constitution require that the
party must be a registered party.
Coseteng vs Mitra
- Endorsement of other representatives (in COA) cannot be
counted in favor of a representative if they do not belong to the
latter's party.
Guingona vs Gonzales
- Full complement of 12 seats in COA is not mandatory
Rounding out 0.5 to 1 is unconstitutional as it would deprive
other parties of seats in COA.
Sec. 21:
Bengzon vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
- Investigation was not in aid of legislation where it merely
aims at determining whether a law is violated. To allow such
investigation is to violate separation of powers.
Arnault vs Nazareno
- Power of Investigation includes power to punish a contumacious
witness for contempt. Experience has shown that mere requests for
information are frequently unavailing.
- In aid of legislation - not difficult to satisfy. Necessity or
lack of necessity for legislative action is determined by the sum
total of information to be gathered as a result of investigation,
and not by a fraction of such information elicited from single
question. It is sufficient that the question is germane to the
subject matter of inquiry. There is no need for it to be directly
related or connected to possible legislation.
Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability
- Exception to legislative inquiry: Executive Privilege (which
is extended to all close advisors of the President)
- It is wrong for Senate to punish one for contempt where
executive privilege is properly invoked.
- Senate's mistakes in the case at bar: (1) invitations to Neri
did not include possible statute; (2) contempt order lacks required
# of votes; (3) Senate did not first rule on the claim of executive
privilege and instead dismissed Neri's explanation; (4) rules of
procedure on inquiries in aid of legislation not duly
published.
Sec. 21 and 22:
Senate vs Ermita
- When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department
heads are implementing the statutes, it is not imperative.
- The oversight function of Congress may be facilitated by
compulsory process only to the extent that it is performed in
pursuit of legislation.
- Appearance of department heads in question hour is
discretionary.
- When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for
the department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid
claim of privilege.
- EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE privilege based on doctrine of separation
of powers, exempting executive from disclosure requirements where
such exemption is necessary to the discharge of highly important
executive responsibilities. It covers categories of information not
of persons.
Sec. 24:
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance
- The phrase originate exclusively does not refer to the
appropriations law but to the appropriations bill. It is sufficient
that the House of Rep. initiated the passage of the bill.
Alvarez vs Guingona
- A bill of local application, such as one asking for the
conversion of a municipality into a city, is deemed to have
originated from the House provided that the bill of the House was
filed prior to the filing of the bill in the Senate even if, in the
end, the Senate approved its own version.
- The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation
of its receipt of the bill does not contravene the constitutional
requirement as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it
receives the House bill.
Sec. 25:
Garcia vs Mata
- RIDER a provision not related to the appropriation act (is
prohibited)
Demetria vs Alba
- transfer of appropriations prohibited
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- The list of those who may be authorized to transfer funds is
exclusive.
- Case at bar: Congressmen are allowed to determine the
necessity of realignment, but House Speaker or Senate Pres. will
have to approve the realignment before items are realigned.
- Case at bar: Chief of Staff may not be give authority to
realign appropriations.
Sec. 26:
Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board
- Imposition of tax is sufficiently related to the regulation of
video industry where the title is comprehensive enough to include
such subject (taxation) related to the general purpose (creation of
Videogram Board)
Phil. Judges Assoc. vs Prado
- Repeal/Withdrawal of franking privilege is germane to the
object of the title, which is to create postal service system.
Hence, the same is embraced in the title/
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26 (1)]
- Withdrawing tax exemptions granted before is embraced in the
subject of the title which is to widen the tax base
Tan vs Del Rosario
- 3 purposes of Sec. 3(1), Art. VI:
(a) to prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation
(b) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means
of provisions which might be overlooked
(c) to fairly apprise the people of the subjects of
legislation
Tobias vs Abalos
- Provision providing for a separate legislative district is
germane to the subject of the bill creating the City of
Mandaluyong
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26 (2)]
- IF it is only the printing that is being dispensed by
presidential certification, the time saved would be so negligible
as to be of any use in ensuring immediate enactment. (Printing and
Readings on separate days both dispensable by pres.
certification)
- Where no Senators controverted the reality of the factual
basis of certification, growing budget deficit may be considered as
basis for presidential certification. Senators, in responding to
the call of the Pres. by voting on the bill, manifested their
belief in the urgent need for certification of the bill.
Sec. 27:
Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance
- It is within the power of a conference committee to include in
its report an entirely new provision not found in either House Bill
or Senate Bill. (Amendment in the nature of substitution is
warranted as long as amendment is germane to the subject matter of
the bill)
- to disregard the enrolled bill is to disregard the respect due
the other 2 departments.
Gonzales vs Macaraig
- President can veto an item
- Doctrine of inappropriate provisions a provision that is
constitutionally inappropriate may be singled out for veto if it is
not an appropriation or revenue item. An inappropriate provision in
an appropriations bill is an item in itself.
Bengzon vs Drilon
- President's power to veto an item does not grant authority to
veto part of an item (or provisions).
- President cannot veto a law or repeal a law.
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- Provisions that are germane to the specific appropriations
cannot be vetoed.
- Requirement of Congressional approval for release of funds for
modernization of AFP can be incorporated in separate bill and hence
inappropriate. It was properly vetoed.
- Executive Impoundment refusal of the President to spend funds
already allocated by Congress for a specific purpose (the duty to
implement the law includes the duty to desist from implementing it
when implementation would prejudice public interest). The Court,
however, did not rule on this issue, and rather declared the
provision concerning benefits of CAFGUs as an inappropriate
provision.
Sec. 28:
Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pilipinas vs Tan
- a tax is considered uniform when it operates with the same
force and effect in every place where the subject may be found.
Province of Abra vs Judge Hernando
Abra Valley College vs Aquino
- Where a lot is not used exclusively for educational purpose,
it may be taxed if the use is not incidental to the attainment of
main purpose.
Tan vs Del Rosario
- Uniformity of taxation means:
(a) standards that are used are substantial and not
arbitrary
(b) categorization is germane to achieve legislative purpose
(c) law applies, all things being equal, to both present and
future conditions
(d) classification applies equally well to all those belonging
to the same class
Sec. 29:
Pascual vs Sec. of Public Works
- Appropriation for a road owned by a private individual is
invalid because it is not for a public purpose. Subsequent donation
did not validate the law because validity of a statute depends upon
the power of Congress at the time of its approval and not upon
subsequent events.
Aglipay vs Ruiz
- Appropriation for special stamp issue is valid as it is not
specifically made to benefit a religious denomination but for a
public purpose. The benefit acquired by the Church is incidental
only.
Guingona vs Carague
- The Automatic Reappropriation Law for servicing foreign debts
is valid because the amount is fixed by the parameters of the law
itself which requires the simple act of looking into the books of
Treasure (the amount is determinable).
- Budgetary process:
(a) budget preparation
(b) legislative authorization
(c) budget execution
(d) budget accountability
Osmena vs Orbos
- Increase of petroleum prices to resolve the Terminal Fund
Balance deficit is valid as it was a valid exercise of police
power.
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez
- Pork barrel provisions in the annual budget allowing members
of Congress to perform executive function of spending money
appropriated are not in violation of separation of powers because
Congress itself had specified the uses of the fund and the power
given was merely recommendatory to the President who could approve
or disapprove the recommendation.
Sec. 30:
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs CA
- B.P. Blg. 129 granting exclusive appellate jurisdiction to CA
over the decisions of quasi-judicial bodies is not superseded by
Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 providing that decisions of BOI
are appealable to SC because advice and concurrence of SC was not
sought.
Diaz vs CA
- Sec. 10 of EO No. 170 stating a party adversely affected by a
decision of ERB may file a petition with SC was superseded by the
Constitution stating that jurisdiction of SC cannot be made to
increase without its advice and concurrence.
Sec. 32:
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs COMELEC
- Initiative is entirely the work of electorate; the process of
law-making by the people themselves
- Referendum consists merely of the electorate approving or
rejecting what has been drawn up or enacted by a legislative
body.
- Case at bar: COMELEC erred in implementing a Resolution when
respondents filed petition for Initiative and not Referendum.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Sec. 1:
Marcos vs Manglapus
- The President has residual powers. The President is more than
the sum of specific powers enumerated in the Constitution.
- What is not part of the legislative and judicial departments
is deemed part of the executive.
- The 1987 Constitution provided for a limitation of specific
powers of the President, particularly those relating to the
commander-in-chief clause, but not a diminution of the general
grant of executive power.
Soliven vs Makasiar
- The privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise
of Presidential duties free from any hindrance or distraction
considering that being the Chief Executive demands undivided
attention.
- The privilege pertains to the President by virtue of the
office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office. There
is nothing which prohibits the President to waive this
privilege.
Estrada vs Desierto
- A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit
(immunity is only during the tenure)
- Even a sitting President is not immune from suit for
non-official acts or from wrongdoing. (Public office is a public
trust. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not
acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not acting
as such but stands in the same footing as any other
trespasser.)
Sec. 13:
Doromal vs Sandiganbayan
- Sec Sec. 13, Art. VII is applicable in a case where the
accused has not signed any document of any bid of the family
corporation of which he is a member, submitted to any government
department.
- Case at bar: Petitioner has at least an indirect interest with
the transaction with DECS and NMYC.
Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary
- EO No. 284 is unconstitutional insofar it allows a member of
the Cabinet to hold not more than two positions in the government.
(Respondent's contention that Sec. 7, Art. IX-B is an exception
would defeat the obvious legislative intent which is to prohibit
cabinet members from holding multiple offices.)
Aytona vs Castillo
- As a rule, once an appointment is issued, it cannot be
reconsidered where the appointee has qualified. Exception: ad
interim appointments issued in the last hours of an outgoing Chief
Executive (midnight appointments made for buying votes).
In re Valenzuela and Vallarta
- Sec. 15 (President shall not make appointments within 2 months
prior to the next Presidential election) is applicable to the
members of the Judiciary.
- This sort of appointment is made for partisan
considerations.
De Castro vs. JBC
Sec. 16:
Binamira vs Garrucho
- Appointment or designation involves exercise of discretion
which cannot be delegated. Even if it be assumed that the power
could be exercised by Minister of Tourism, it could be recalled by
the President.
- Designation is considered only an acting or temporary
appointment, which does not confer security of tenure.
Sarmiento vs Mison
- 4 groups of officers whom the President shall appoint:
(a) heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the
rank of colonel or naval captain, and other whose appointments are
vested in him in this Constitution
(b) all other officers of the Government whose appointments are
not otherwise provided for by law
(c) those whom the President may be authorized by law to
appoint
(d) officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may
by law vest in the President alone.
- Case at bar: Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment
of Commissioner of Bureau of Customs because a bureau head is not
among those within the first group of appointments where consent of
COA is required.
Bautista vs Salonga
- Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment of Chairman
of Commission of Human Rights because such appointment is not
vested in the President in the Constitution. The President appoints
Chairman of CHR pursuant to EO 163 (CHR Chairman is thus within the
3rd group of officers)
Quintos-Deles vs Commission of Appointments
- The appointment of Sectoral Representatives requires
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. The seats reserved
for sectoral representatives may be filled by appointment by the
President by express provision of Sec.7, Article XVIII of the
Constitution (hence, sectoral representatives are within the 1st
group of officers)
- Exceptions to those officers within the 1st group: (1)
Ombudsman and his deputies, and (2) members of the Supreme Court
and judges of lower courts.
Calderon vs Carale
- Confirmation by COA is required only for presidential
appointees that are within the 1st group of officers as mentioned
in Sarmiento vs Mison.
- Congress may not expand the list of appointments needing
confirmation.
- Case at bar: RA 6715, which requires the COA confirmation in
appointments of NLRC Chairman and Commissioners, transgresses Sec.
16, Art. VII. The appointments of NLRC Chairman and Commissioners
do not need COA confirmation because they fall under the 3rd group
of officers.
Tarrosa vs Singson
- affirmed the ruling in Calderon vs Carale
- Case at bar: Appointment of Central Bank Governor does not
need COA confirmation.
Flores vs Drilon
- A law which limits the President to only one appointee is an
encroachment to the prerogative of the President because
appointment involves discretion to choose who to appoint.
Luego vs Civil Service Commission
- CSC is without authority to revoke an appointment because of
its belief that another person was better qualified, which is an
encroachment on the discretion vested solely in the appointing
authority.
- The permanent appointment made by the appointing authority may
not be reversed by CSC and call it temporary.
Pobre vs Mendieta
- The vacancy in the position of Chairman of the Professional
Regulation Commission cannot be filled by the Senior Associate
Commissioner by operation of law (or by succession) because it will
deprive the President of the power to appoint the Chairman.
Sec. 17
Drilon vs Lim
- Distinction between power and control:
An officer in control lays down the rules in the doing of an
act. if they are not followed, he may, in his discretion, order the
act undone or re-done by his subordinate or he may even decide to
do it by himself.
Supervision does not cover such authority. The supervisor merely
sees to it that rules are followed, but he himself does not lay
down such rules, nor does he have the discretion to modify or
replace them. If the rules are not observed, he may order the work
done or re-done but only to conform to the prescribed rules. He may
not prescribe his own manner except to see to it that the rules are
followed.
(Note) Power of control pertains to power of an officer to
alter, modify, nullify, or set aside what a subordinate has done in
the performance of his duties and to substitute his judgment to
that of the former [Mondano vs Silvosa]
Villena vs Secretary of the Interior
- Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (alter ego principle)
-acts of the Secretaries of Executive Departments, when performed
and promulgated in the regular course of business or unless
disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, are presumptively
the acts of the Chief Executive
- Case at bar: Secretary of the Interior is invested with the
authority to order the investigation of the charges against the
petitioner and to appoint a special investigator for that
purpose.
Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs Pano
- Department heads are President's men of confidence. His is the
power to appoint them; his, too, is the privilege to dismiss them
at pleasure. Normally, he controls and directs their acts. Implicit
then is his authority to go over, confirm, modify or reverse the
action taken by his department secretaries.
- Case at bar: The President, through his Executive Secretary,
may undo an act of the Director of Lands
City of Iligan vs Director of Lands
- The President has the power to grant portions of public domain
to any government entity like the City of Iligan because he has
control over the Director of Lands, who has direct executive
control in the lease, sale or any form of concession or disposition
of the land of public domain.
Gascon vs Arroyo
- Case at bar: Executive Secretary has the power and authority
to enter into the Agreement to Arbitrate with the ABS CBN as he
acted for and in behalf of the President when he signed it.
Kilusan Bayan vs Dominguez
- An administrative officer has only such powers as are
expressly granted to him and those necessarily implied in the
exercise thereof. These powers should not be extended by
implication beyond what may be necessary for their just and
reasonable execution.
Angangco vs Castillo
- The power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint, but
not with regard to those officers or employees who belong to the
classified service for as to them the inherent power cannot be
exercised
NAMARCO vs Arca
- Executive power of control extends to government-owned
corporations.
Sec. 18:
Guazon vs De Villa
- The President has the power to ordain saturation drives. There
is nothing in the Constitution which denies the authority of the
Chief Exec. to order police actions to stop unabated criminality,
rising lawlessness, and alarming communist activities.
Ruffy vs Chief of Staff
- Courts martial are simply instrumentalities of the executive
power, provided by the Congress for the President as Commander in
chief to aid him in properly commanding the army and navy and
enforcing discipline therein and utilize under his order those of
his authorized military representatives.
Olaguer vs Military Commission No. 34
- Due process of law demands that in all criminal prosecutions
the accused be entitled to a trial. The trial contemplated by the
due process clause is trial by judicial process. Military
Commissions are not courts within the Philippine judicial system.
Judicial power is vested only in the courts. Military commissions
pertain to the executive department and are instrumentalities of
the President as commander-in-chief to aid him in enforcing
discipline in the armed forces.
Quilona vs General Court Martial
Gudani vs Senga
- The President has constitutional authority to prevent a member
of the armed forces from testifying before a legislative inquiry,
by virtue of her power as commander-in-chief, and that as a
consequence, a military officer who defies such injunction is
liable under military justice. At the same time, the Court also
holds that any chamber of Congress which seeks the appearance befoe
it of a military officer against the consent of the President has
adequate remedies under law to compel such attendance. Any military
officer whom the Congress summons to testify before it may be
compelled to do so by the President. If the President is not so
inclined, the President may be commanded by judicial order to
compel the attendance of the military officer. Final judicial
orders have the force of the law of the land which the President
has the duty to faithfully execute.
Sec. 19:
Torres vs Gonzales
- A judicial pronouncement is not necessary in determining
whether the conditions in the pardon are violated. The
determination of whether there is a violations of the conditions
rests exclusively in the sound judgment of the President.
Monsanto vs Factoran
- Pardon implies guilt. While it relieves the party pardoned
from all punitive consequences of his criminal act, it relieves him
from nothing more. It does not, therefore, restore a convicted
felon to public office forfeited by reason of conviction.
People vs Salle, Jr.
- Pardon may be granted only by final judgment. Where the
judgment of conviction is still pending appeal, executive clemency
may not yet be granted. Before an appellant may be granted pardon,
he must first ask for the withdrawal of his appeal.
Garcia vs COA
- President's grant of executive clemency to a person dismissed
from his office pursuant to an administrative case (but where the
latter has been acquitted in a criminal case based on the same
facts alleged in the criminal case) entitles the latter to
automatic reinstatement and backwages.
Sabello vs DECS
- Pardon (in a criminal case) frees the individual from all the
penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil
rights. Although such pardon may restore a person's eligibility to
public office, it does not entitle him to automatic reinstatement.
He should apply for reappointment to said office.
- [Compare with Garcia vs COA]
Llamas vs Orbos
- In granting the power of executive clemency, the Constitution
does not distinguish between criminal and administrative cases.
Sec. 18:
Constantino, Jr. vs Cuisia
- The debt-relief contracts, providing for buy-back and
bond-conversion schemes, entered into pursuant to Financing Program
are not beyond the powers granted to the President under Sec. 20,
Art. VII. The only restriction that the Constitution provides,
aside from the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, is that
loans must be subject to limitations provided by law. Accordingly,
the contention that buy-back and bond-conversion schemes are
neither loans nor guarantees, and hence beyond the Presidents power
to execute, are without merit.
Sec. 21:
Commissioner of Customs vs Eastern Sea Trading (1961)
- The concurrence of the House of Congress is required by our
fundamental law in the making of treaties which are however
distinct and different from executive agreements which may be
validly entered without such concurrence.
Pimentel, Jr. vs Exec. Sec.
- The power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to
concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate is limited only
to giving or withholding its consent or concurrence to the
ratification. Hence, it is within the authority of the President to
refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or having secured its
consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. This discretion
to ratify lies within the President's competence alone.
- 4 steps in treaty-making process:
(a) negotiation
(b) signing of the treaty (simply a means of authenticating the
instrument and a symbol of good faith)
(c) ratification (formal act by which a statute confirms and
accepts the provisions of a treaty)
(d) exchange of instruments of ratification
- In the case at bar, the treaty was merely signed.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Sec. 1:
Santiago vs Bautista
- The courts may not exercise judicial power when there is no
applicable law.
- Case at bar: An award of honors to a student by a board of
teachers may not be reversed by a court where the awards are
governed by no applicable law.
Daza v Singson
- Even if the issue presented was political in nature, the Court
is still not be precluded from resolving it under the expanded
jurisdiction conferred upon it that now covers, in proper cases,
even the political question.
- That where serious constitutional questions are involved, "the
transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that
they be settled promptly and definitely brushing aside, if we must,
technicalities of procedure."
Mantruste Systems v Court of Appeals
- There can be no justification for judicial interference in the
business of an administrative agency, except when it violates a
citizen's constitutional rights, or commits a grave abuse of
discretion, or acts in excess of, or without jurisdiction.
- Courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the Asset
Privatization Trust (administrative body), nor block, by an
injunction, the discharge of its functions and the implementation
of its decisions in connection with the acquisition, sale or
disposition of assets transferred to it.
Malaga v Penachos, Jr.
- It was previously declared the prohibition pertained to the
issuance of injunctions or restraining orders by courts against
administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the
exercise of discretion in technical cases. The Court observed that
to allow the courts to judge these matters would disturb the smooth
functioning of the administrative machinery. On issues definitely
outside of this dimension and involving questions of law, courts
could not be prevented by any law (in this case, P.D. No. 605) from
exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative
acts.
PACU v Secretary of Education
- Judicial power is limited to the decision of actual cases and
controversies.
(Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education might under
the law withdraw the permit of one of petitioners does not
constitute a justiciable controversy.)
- Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to
satisfy scholarly interest therein however intellectually solid the
problem may be. This is especially true where the issues "reach
constitutional dimensions, for then there comes into play regard
for the court's duty to avoid decision of constitutional issues
unless avoidance becomes evasion.
Mariano, Jr. v COMELEC
- Considering that those contingencies mentioned by the
petitioners may or may not happen, petitioners merely pose a
hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case or
controversy. Petitioners who are residents of Taguig (except
Mariano) are not also the proper parties to raise this abstract
issue (city of Makati is involved). Worse, they raise this
futuristic issue in a petition for declaratory relief over which
this Court has no jurisdiction.
Macasiano v National Housing Authority
-It is a rule firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that the
constitutionality of an act of the legislature will not be
determined by the courts unless that question is properly raised
and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a
determination of the case.
J. Joya v PCGG
- The rule is settled that no question involving the
constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental act may be
heard and decided by the court unless there is compliance with the
legal requisites for judicial inquiry, namely: that the question
must be raised by the proper party; that there must be an actual
case or controversy; that the question must be raised at the
earliest possible opportunity; and, that the decision on the
constitutional or legal question must be necessary to the
determination of the case itself. But the most important are the
first two (2) requisites.
- Not every action filed by a taxpayer can qualify to challenge
the legality of official acts done by the government. A taxpayer's
suit can prosper only if the governmental acts being questioned
involve disbursement of public funds upon the theory that the
expenditure of public funds by an officer of the state for the
purpose of administering an unconstitutional act constitutes a
misapplication of such funds, which may be enjoined at the request
of a taxpayer.
Legaspi v Civil Service Commission
- It becomes apparent that when a Mandamus proceeding involves
the assertion of a public right, the requirement of personal
interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a
citizen, and therefore, part of the general "public" which
possesses the right.
-"Public" is a comprehensive, all-inclusive term. Properly
construed, it embraces every person.
Dumlao v COMELEC
- For one, there is a misjoinder of parties and actions. One
petitioner does not join other petitioners in the burden of their
complaint, nor do the latter join the former in his. They,
respectively, contest completely different statutory
provisions.
- For another, there are standards that have to be followed in
the exercise of the function of judicial review, namely: (1) the
existence of an appropriate case; (2) an interest personal and
substantial by the party raising the constitutional question; (3)
the plea that the function be exercised at the earliest
opportunity; and (4) the necessity that the constitutional question
be passed upon in order to decide the case.
Bugnay Const. and Devt. Corp. v Laron
- The doctrine holds that only when the act complained of
directly involves an illegal disbursement of public funds raised by
taxation will the taxpayer's suit be allowed. The essence of a
taxpayer's right to institute such an action hinges on the
existence of that requisite pecuniary or monetary interest.
- It is not enough that the taxpayer-plaintiff sufficiently show
that he would be benefited or injured by the judgment or entitled
to the avails of the suit as a real party in interest.
Kilosbayan v Guingona, Jr.
- A party's standing before this Court is a procedural
technicality which it may, in the exercise of its discretion, set
aside in view of the importance of the issues raised.
- In line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi,
ordinary taxpayers, members of Congress, and even association of
planters, and non-profit civic organizations were allowed to
initiate and prosecute actions before this Court to question the
constitutionality or validity of laws, acts, decisions, rulings, or
orders of various government agencies or instrumentalities.
PHILCONSA v Enriquez
- The Senators have legal standing to question the validity of
the veto. When a veto was made in excess of the authority of the
President, it impermissibily intrudes into the domain of the
Legislature. A member of Congress can question an act of the
Executive which injures Congress as an institution.
Tatad v Garcia, Jr.
-The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are to allow
taxpayers to question contracts entered into by the national
government or government-owned or controlled corporations allegedly
in contravention of the law and to disallow the same when only
municipal contracts are involved (just like in Bugnay case since no
public money was involved).
Oposa v Factoran, Jr.
- CLASS SUIT: The subject matter of the complaint is of common
and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens of
the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous,
it becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all
of them before the court.
- Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding
generations can only be based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is concerned.
- Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the
next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of
a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, the
minors` assertion of their right to a sound environment
constitutes, at the same time, the performance of their obligation
to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to
come.
Lozada v COMELEC
- As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the instant petition,
for nowhere therein is it alleged that tax money is being illegally
spent. It is only when an act complained of, which may include a
legislative enactment or statute, involves the illegal expenditure
of public money that the so-called taxpayer suit may be
allowed.
- The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the
validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest
in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct
injury as a result of its enforcement. Concrete injury, whether
actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute
which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of
judicial resolution. When the asserted harm is a "generalized
grievance" shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large
class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant
exercise of jurisdiction.
Kilosbayan v Morato
- The voting on petitioners' standing in the previous case was a
narrow one, seven (7) members sustaining petitioners' standing and
six (6) denying petitioners' right to bring the suit. The majority
was thus a tenuous one that is not likely to be maintained in any
subsequent litigation. In addition, there have been charges in the
membership of the Court, with the retirement of Justice Cruz and
Bidin and the appointment of the writer of this opinion and Justice
Francisco. Given this fact it is hardly tenable to insist on the
maintenance of the ruling as to petitioners' standing.
SECTION 3
Bengzon v Lim
- What is fiscal autonomy? It contemplates a guarantee of full
flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources with the wisdom
and dispatch that their needs require. It recognizes the power and
authority to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of
compensation not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law for
compensation and play plans of the government and allocate and
disburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by them
in the course of the discharge of their functions. Fiscal autonomy
means freedom from outside control.
- The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the
Ombudsman must have the independence and flexibility needed in the
discharge of their constitutional duties. The imposition of
restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent
constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds appropriated
for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative
not only of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially
as regards the Supreme Court, of the independence and separation of
powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutional system is
based
SECTION 4
Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v Court of Appeals, et.al.
- Reorganization is purely an internal matter of the Court to
which petitioner certainly has no business at all.
- The Court with its new membership is not obliged to follow
blindly a decision upholding a party's case when, after its
re-examination, the same calls for a rectification.
SECTION 5
Drilon v Lim
- The Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate
jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of lower courts in all
cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in
question.
- In the exercise of this jurisdiction, lower courts are advised
to act with the utmost circumspection, bearing in mind the
consequences of a declaration of unconstitutionality upon the
stability of laws, no less than on the doctrine of separation of
powers. As the questioned act is usually the handiwork of the
legislative or the executive departments, or both, it will be
prudent for such courts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to
defer to the higher judgment of this Court in the consideration of
its validity, which is better determined after a thorough
deliberation by a collegiate body and with the concurrence of the
majority of those who participated in its discussion.
Larranaga v Court of Appeals
(Transfer the venue of the preliminary investigation from Cebu
City to Manila because of the extensive coverage of the proceedings
by the Cebu media which allegedly influenced the people's
perception of petitioner's character and guilt.)
- The Court recognizes that pervasive and prejudicial publicity
under certain circumstances can deprive an accused of his due
process right to fair trial. It was previously held that to warrant
a finding of prejudicial publicity there must be allegation and
proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that
they might be, by the barrage in publicity.
- In the case at bar, nothing in the records shows that the tone
and content of the publicity that attended the investigation of
petitioners fatally infected the fairness and impartiality of the
DOJ Panel.
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v Court of Appeals
- It is intended to give the Supreme Court a measure of control
over cases paced under its appellate jurisdiction. For the
indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate
jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate enactment of legislation
enlarging its appellate jurisdiction can unnecessarily burden the
Court and thereby undermine its essential function of expounding
the law in its most profound national aspects.
Aruelo v Court of Appeals
- Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC can not adopt a rule
prohibiting the filing of certain pleadings in the regular courts.
The power to promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practice and
procedure in all courts is vested on the Supreme Court.
Javellana v DILG
(Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG
Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 does not violate Article VIII.
Section 5 of the Constitution. Neither the statute nor the circular
trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe
rules on the practice of law.)
- The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No.
90-81 simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to
avoid conflicts of interest between the discharge of their public
duties and the private practice of their profession, in those
instances where the law allows it.
SECTION 6
Maceda v Vasquez
- In the absence of any administrative action taken against a
person by the Court with regard to his certificates of service, the
investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the
Court's power of administrative supervision over all courts and its
personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of
powers.
- Where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court
employee arises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman
must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to the Court
for determination whether said Judge or court employee had acted
within the scope of their administrative duties.
Raquiza v Judge Castaneda, Jr.
- The rules even in an administrative case demands that if the
respondent Judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any
graver offense, the evidence presented against him should be
competent and derived from direct knowledge. The judiciary, to
which respondent belongs, no less demands that before its member
could be faulted, it should be only after due investigation and
based on competent proofs, no less. This is all the more so when as
in this case the charges are penal in nature.
('Misconduct' also implies 'a wrongful intention and not a mere
error of judgment. It results that even if respondent were not
correct in his legal conclusions, his judicial actuations cannot be
regarded as grave misconduct, unless the contrary sufficiently
appears.)
SECTION 10
Nitafan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- The clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was to
delete the proposed express grant of exemption from payment of
income tax to members of the Judiciary, so as to "give substance to
equality among the three branches of Government.SECTION 11
De La Llana v Alba
-Judiciary Act does not violate judicial security of tenure.
This Court is empowered "to discipline judges of inferior courts
and, by a vote of at least eight members, order their dismissal."
Thus, it possesses the competence to remove judges. Under the
Judiciary Act, it was the President who was vested with such power.
Removal is, of course, to be distinguished from termination by
virtue of the abolition of the office. There can be no tenure to a
non-existent office. After the abolition, there is in law no
occupant. In case of removal, there is an office with an occupant
who would thereby lose his position. It is in that sense that from
the standpoint of strict law, the question of any impairment of
security of tenure does not arise. Nonetheless, for the incumbents
of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of separation. As
to its effect, no distinction exists between removal and the
abolition of the office. Realistically, it is devoid of
significance. He ceases to be a member of the judiciary.
People v Gacott, Jr.
- To require the entire Court to deliberate upon and participate
in all administrative matters or cases regardless of the sanctions,
imposable or imposed, would result in a congested docket and undue
delay in the adjudication of cases in the Court, especially in
administrative matters, since even cases involving the penalty of
reprimand would require action by the Court en banc.
- Yet, although as thus demonstrated, only cases involving
dismissal of judges of lower courts are specifically required to be
decided by the Court en banc, in cognizance of the need for a
thorough and judicious evaluation of serious charges against
members of the judiciary, it is only when the penalty imposed does
not exceed suspension of more than one year or a fine of
P10,000.00, or both, that the administrative matter may be decided
in division.
SECTION 12
In Re: Manzano
- As incumbent RTC Judges, they form part of the structure of
government. Their integrity and performance in the adjudication of
cases contribute to the solidity of such structure. As public
officials, they are trustees of an orderly society. Even as
non-members of Provincial/City Committees on Justice, RTC judges
should render assistance to said Committees to help promote the
landable purposes for which they exist, but only when such
assistance may be reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their
judicial duties.
SECTION 14
Nicos Industrial Corp v Court of Appeals
- The Court is not duty bound to render signed decisions all the
time. It has ample discretion to formulate decisions and/or minute
resolutions, provided a legal basis is given, depending on its
evaluation of a case.
- As it is settled that an order dismissing a case for
insufficient evidence is a judgment on the merits, it is imperative
that it be a reasoned decision clearly and distinctly stating
therein the facts and the law on which it is based.
Mendoza v CFI
- What is expected of the judiciary "is that the decision
rendered makes clear why either party prevailed under the
applicable law to the facts as established. Nor is there any regid
formula as to the language to be employed to satisfy the
requirement of clarity and distinctness. The discretion of the
particular judge in this respect, while not unlimited, is
necessarily broad. There is no sacramental form of words which he
must use upon pain of being considered as having failed to abide by
what the Constitution directs."
- The provision has been held to refer only to decisions of the
merits and not to orders of the trial court resolving incidental
matters such as the one at bar. (content of the resolution:
incident in the prosecution of petitioner)
Borromeo v Court of Appeals
- The Court reminds all lower courts, lawyers, and litigants
that it disposes of the bulk of its cases by minute resolutions and
decrees them as final and executory, as where a case is patently
without merit, where the issues raised are factual in nature, where
the decision appealed from is supported by substantial evidence and
is in accord with the facts of the case and the applicable laws,
where it is clear from the records that the petition is filed
merely to forestall the early execution of judgment and for
non-compliance with the rules. The resolution denying due course or
dismissing the petition always gives the legal basis.
- When the Court, after deliberating on a petition and any
subsequent pleadings, manifestations, comments, or motions decides
to deny due course to the petition and states that the questions
raised are factual or no reversible err