Constitutional Law Case DigestsARTICLE 2: DECLARATION OF
PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
Oposa v Factoran Jr. (The right to a balanced ecology)Facts:
Petitioner (representing their generation as well as generations
unborn) wants defendant (Factoran) to 1) cancel all existing timber
license agreements in the country and 2) cease and desist from
receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber
license agreements. Countrys land area should be utilized on the
basis of a ration of 54% forest cover and 46% for agri,
residential, industrial, commercial use. Otherwise the following
environmental tragedies will occur: water shortages, change in the
salinization of water, massive erosion, loss of soil fertility,
endangering and extinction of countrys flora and fauna, disturbance
and dislocation of cultural communities etc.
Issue: Whether said petitioners have a cause of action to
prevent the misappropriation or impairment of Phil rainforests and
arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the countrys vital life support
system and continued rape of Mother Earth?
Held/Ratio: Petition is GRANTED based on Sec 15 and 16 of the
1987 Constitution as well as E.O 192 which mandates the DENR to be
the primary government agency responsible fo the conservation,
management, development and proper use of the countrys environment
and natural resources including forests, grazing lands and mineral
resources.
Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of AppealsFacts: LLDA
filed a complained against Caloocan City to cease operations of the
open garbage dumpsite. LLDA also found that the city government was
maintaining an open dumpsite without securing an Environmental
Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the DENR as required by PD No
1586. The operation was stopped but was resumed in August 1992.
Another Cease and Desist Order was filed by LLDA. On Sept 1992, the
Caloocan filed an action for declaration of nullity of the cease
and desist order and argued that they have the sole authority to
promote the health and safety and the protection of their ecology.
The order which was based on the Pollution Control Law was then put
up for review by the Court of Appeals. COA sided with Caloocan and
thus promoted LLDA to claim that COA disregarded the provisions of
EO 927 which granted them administrative quasi-judicial functions
on pollution abatement cases.
Issues: Which agency can lawfully exercise jurisdiction over the
matter?
Held/Ratio: LLDA. It is a specialized administrative agency
specifically mandated under RA No4850 to promote and accelerate the
development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the
surrounding provinces including Caloocan. Also, the provisions of
EO 927 grant LLDA the administrative and quasi-judicial functions
on pollution abatement cases.
Garcia v Board of InvestmentsFacts: Petition to annul and set
aside the decision of the Board of Investments approving the
transfer of the site of the petrochemical plant from Bataan to
Batangas and the shift of feedstock for that plant from naphtha
only to naphtha and/or lpg.
Issue: Whether or not the foreign investor has the right of
final choice of plant site?
Held/Ratio: Petition granted. BOI committed a grave abuse of
discretion in approving the transfer of the plant to Batangas
Nothing is shown to justify the transfer to Batangas. Even more so,
Bataan was the original choice by the parties due to its ideal
location and that Bataan produces 60% of naphtha whilst LPG still
needs to be imported. Legally, Sec10 ArtXII of the Constitution
states that it is the duty of the State to regulate and exercise
authority over foreign investments within its jurisdiction and in
accordance with its goals and priorities. Same could be implied
from Art 2 of the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987.
Pamatong v COMELECFacts: Petitioner Pamatong seeks to reverse
Comelecs refusal to accept his Certificate of Candidacy which was
rendered in violation of his right to equal access to opportunities
for public service under Sec 26 of the 1987 Consti. Petitioner
claims that COmelec erred in disqualifying him since he possesses
all constitutional and legal qualifications for the office of the
president.
Issues: Whether or not petitioners reliance on the equal access
clause of the Constitution is misplaced?
Held/Ratio: Yes. There is no constitutional right to run for or
hold public office rather it is only a privilege subject to
limitations imposed by law. Sec26 Art 2 neither bestows such right
nor elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right.
The provisions under the article are considered not self-executing.
It merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive
action.
ARTICLE VI: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Garcia v ComelecFacts: The Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong in its
Pambayang Kapasyahan agreed to the inclusion of the municipality of
Morong as part of the Subic Special Economic Zone. Petitioners
filed a petition to annul Pambayang Kapasyahan.
Issue: Whether Pambayang Kapasyahan is the proper subject of an
initiative
Held/Ratio: Petition is granted and the Comelec resolution is
annulled and set aside. The Constitution includes ordinances as
well as resolutions as appropriate subjects of a local initiative
(RA 6735)
Eastern Shipping Lines v Philippine Overseas Employment
AdministrationFacts: Private respondent was awarded the sum of 192k
by POEA for the death of her husband. Petitioner challenged the
decision on the ground that the POEA had no jurisdiction over the
case since the husband was not an overseas worker.
Issues: Whether or not POEA has the jurisdiction to cover for
the death benefits and burial expenses?
Held/Ratio: Yes. Based on EO 797 and Memorandum Circular No 2,
the POEA is mandated to protect the rights of overseas Filipino
workers to fair and equitable practices.
Tablarin v GutierrezPetitioner argues that RA 2382 offends the
non delegation principle by failing to establish the necessary
standard to be followed by the delegate Board of Medical Education.
However, the said standards are already in Sec 1 of the 1959
Medical Act which states: the standardization and regulation of
medical education.
Free Telephone Workers Union v Minister of LaborEmpowering the
Minister of Labor to assume jurisdiction over labor disputes is not
unconstitutional and does not violate the doctrine of non
delegation of legislative power.
Tatad v Secretary of EnergyPetitioners argued that the Executive
Branch rewrote the standards set forth in RA No 8180 to hasten the
deregulation. They also argued that the Executive has no right to
alter the standards set in the RA in question because it has no
power to make laws.
People v DacuycuyRespondents argue that the judicial
determination of what Congress intended to be the duration of the
penalty of imprisonment would be against the doctrine of undue
delegation of legislative power. The respondent judge erroneously
assumed that since the penalty of imprisonment has been provided
for by the legislature, the court is endowed with discretion to
ascertain the term or period of imprisonment. As such, it was ruled
that the penalty of imprisonment provided in Sec 32 is
unconstitutional.
Employers Confederation v. National Wages CommissionFacts: ECOP
questioned the validity of a Wage Order of the Regional Tripartite
Wages and Productivity Board, NCR on Wage Rationalization which is
in charge of prescribing minimum wage rates for all workers in
various regions.
Issues: Whether or not the Wage Order is valid and does not
violate the undue delegation of legislative power
Held/Ratio: The Court sided with the Commission. Court does not
find it unlawful and has decided that the Commission have set
sufficient standards for the Minimum Wage Fixing
Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board (Sec 3)Facts:
Pimentel claims that RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486, which
requires candidates for public office to undergo mandatory drug
testing, is illegally imposed as an additional qualification on
senatorial candidates. He points out the the only requisites needed
by a senatorial candidate as stated in Sec 3 Art 6 of the
Constitution are as follows: 1) citizenship 2) voter registration
3) literacy 4) age and 5) residency
Issues: Whether or not RA 9165 and COMMELEC Resolution 6486 are
unconstitutional
Held/Ratio: Unconstitutional. It is a fundamental rule that if a
law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the
Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. In
other words, no acts shall be valid if it conflicts with the
Constitution.
Veterans Federation Party v COMELECFacts: RA 7941 and the
Constitution mandates 4 inviolable parameters regarding the
determination of winners in a Philippine style party-list election.
Parameters are: a) 20% allocation, b) 2% threshold c) 3-seat limit
d) proportional representation. Petitioners claim that Comelec
violated these parameters.
Issues:1. Is the 20% allocation mandatory or merely a ceiling?2.
Are the 2% threshold requirement and the 3 seat limit
constitutional?3. If the answer to Issue2 is in the affirmative,
how should the additional seats of a qualified party be
determined?
Held/Ratio:1. Not mandatory. The Constitution merely states the
party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of the total number
of representatives including those under the party-list.2. Yes. It
is consistent with the intent of the framers of the Constitution,
the law, and, even more so, the very essence of representation
under our so-called republican state. 3. Arrange from greatest to
least votes relate this to the total number of votes cast only
those with at least 2% of votes will be considered for additional
seatsParty with highest vote becomes benchmark Grant first party 3
seats, and the party receiving 6%, additional seats in proportion
to the first partyAdditional seats for other partiesAdditional
seats = no of votes of concerned party/no of votes of first party x
first party additional seats Fractional membership cannot be
converted into whole because this will deprive anothers fractional
membership and would be a violation of the constitutional mandate
of proportional representationAng Bagong Bayani v COMELECFacts:
Petitioners are challenging Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 (COMELEC)
which approved the participation of 154 organizations and parties
in the 2001 party-list elections. Petitioners seek the
disqualification of private respondents, arguing mainly that the
party-list system was intended to benefit the marginalized and
underrepresented; not the mainstream political parties, the
non-marginalized or over-represented.
Issues:1. WON political parties may participate in the
party-list elections2. WON the party-list system is exclusive to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors and organizations3. WON
the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in promulgating
above resolution
Held/Ratio:1. Yes they can. The Constitution and RA 7941 states
that the party-list system is open to all registered national,
regional and sectoral parties or organizations. Private respondents
cannot be disqualified from the elections based on the above
grounds.2(3). Yes. It is exclusive to the unprivileged. It is clear
in the Constitution as well as in RA 7941 that the COMELEC should
see to it that only those Filipinos who are marginalized and
underrepresented should become members of Congress under the
party-list system. Allowing the non-marginalized and
overrepresented to vie for the remaining seats under the party-list
system would prejudice the chance of the underprivileged.
Ang Bagong Bayani OFW Labor Party, et al. v. COMELEC, et
al.Facts: Parties BUHAY, COCOFED, SANLAKAS and PM have already been
validly proclaimed by the Comelec. Before the Court, however, are
Motions for proclamation filed by various party-list participants
who raised the following question: Aside from those already validly
proclaimed pursuant to earlier Resolutions of the Court, are thre
other party-list candidates that should be proclaimed winners?
Issues:1. WON Labo v COMELEC and Grego v COMELEC and related
cases should be deemed applicable to the determination of winners
in party-list elections?2. WON the votes cast for parties/orgs that
were subsequently disqualified for having failed to meet the 8-pt
guideline should be deducted from the total votes cast for the
party-list system during said elections?
Held/Ratio:1. Based on RA 7941 Sec 10 which states that a vote
cast for a party, sectoral organization, or coalition not entitled
to be voted shall not be counted, Labo and Grego cannot be
considered.2. Votes obtained by disqualified party-list candidates
are not to be counted in determining the total votes cast for the
party-list system pursuant to RA 7941 Sec 12.
Banat v. COMELECFacts: BANAT assailed the COMELECs resolution in
National Board of Canvassers (NBC) which approved the
recommendation of Atty. Dalaig (Head of NBC Legal Group) to deny
the petition of BANAT for being moot. BANAT filed Petition to
Proclaim Full Number of Party-List Representatives Provided by the
Constitution before the COMELEC.
Issues: 1. WON the method of allocating the seats for elected
party-lists is valid and constitutional? If not, what is
applicable?2. WON major political parties can participate in the
party-list elections?
Held/Ratio: Petition is partially granted. Resolution is SET
ASIDE.1. 2% threshold is deemed unconstitutional in the
distribution of additional party-list seats because just as in
Veterans, those garnering more than 2% of votes shall be entitled
to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes
was understood to be in proportion to the votes of the first
party.Applicable Steps: Find out the guaranteed seats based on the
number of those who got at least 2% of votes The remaining (total
seats less guaranteed) will be up for grabs # of party votes /
total votes cast = % Allocate remaining seats: Remaining seats x %
= number of seats to be allocated (USE WHOLE INTEGER ONLY!) Assign
1 seat to each of the parties next in rank (descending order) until
depleted Make sure 3 seat limit is maintained2. Major political
parties are disallowed from participating in party-list elections
for obvious reasons.
Tobias v AbalosFacts: Petitioners assail the constitutionality
of RA 7675 (An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into
a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong.
Mandaluyong and San Juan belonge to 1 legislative district.
Plebiscite was held regarding the RA with a 14.41% turnout. 1800+
voted yes while 7000+ voted no and by these results, the said RA
was ratified and in effect.
Issues:1. One-subject-one-bill Rule (Art 6 Sec 26 of the
Consti): Every bill passed shall only have 1 subject... But the RA
has 2 subjects namely 1) conversion into a city 2) division of
congressional district of SanJuan/Manda2. Art 6 Sec 5(1): House of
Rep shall be composed of not more than 250 members3. Art 6 Sec
5(4): Preempt the right of Congress to reapportion legislative
districts
Held/Ratio: DISMISSED. Bereft of merit1. Liberal usage of the
One-subject-one-bill Rule (Lidasan v Comelec 21 SCRA 496). Also, it
is in compliance with Art 6 Sec 5(3): Each city with a population
of at least 250,000 shall have at least 1 rep2. 250 House of Rep
member limit is not absolute. There is an unless otherwise provided
by law clause3. It was Congress itself which drafted, deliberated
upon and enacted the law in question.NOTE: The alleged
gerrymandering is also baseless since author Rep Zamora would
actually be diminishing his constituency.
Mariano Jr v COMELECFacts: Petitions assailing RA 7859
(Municipality of Makati to City of Makati) as unconstitutional.
Issues:1. RA did not properly identify the land area/territorial
jurisdiction of Makati by metes and bounds2. RA attempts to
alter/restart the 3 consecutive term limit of local officials in
violation of Sec 8 Art 10, Sec 7 Art 63. Violated constitutional
provision requiring general reapportionment law to be passed by
Congress within 3 years following the return of census, increase in
legislative district, adding another district in Makati not in
accordance with Sec5(3) due to population is only at 450k
Held/Ratio: DISMISSED. No merit1. Sec 2, Art 1 of RA in question
did delineate the land area2. Its districts may still be increased
since it has met the minimum population requirement of 250,000.
Montejo v COMELECFacts: Petitioner Montejo (Leyte Congressman)
pleads for the annulment of Sec 1 of Resolution 2736 of the COMELEC
redistricting municipalities in Leyte on the ground that it
violates the principle of equality of representation.
Issue: WON COMELEC has constitutional power to transfer
municipalities from one district to another
Held/Ratio: Sec 1 of RA 2736 VOID. COMELEC has no authority to
transfer municipalities. It can only adjust number of members.
Bagabuyo v COMELECFacts: Petitioner insists that RA 9371
converts and divides the City of CDO as a LGU, and does not merely
provide for the Citys legislative apportionment.
Issue: WON this is possible...
Held/Ratio: Plebiscite must be held. The Constitution and the
Local Government Code expressly require a plebiscite to carry out
any creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration of boundary
of a local government unit
Section 6Gallego v VerraFacts: Petitioner Pedro Gallego, hailing
from Abuyog, Leyte, registered himself as an elector and voted in
the election for assemblymen in Malaybalay, Bukidnon wherein he has
worked as a government employee until his retirement while his
family remained in Abuyog where he owns real property. COA held
that lost his domicile in Abuyog in lieu of Malaybalay and, as
such, his election for mayor of Abuyog was rendered void.
Issues: WON Gallego had been resident of Abuyog for at least 1
year prior to date of elections in 1940
Held/Ratio: COA judgment REVERSED. Despite being absent from
Abuyog for 2 years, he did not lose contact with his family and
townspeople and had no intention of remaining and residing
indefinitely in Malaybalay. More importantly, he was elected mayor
with an overwhelming majority.
Romualdez-Marcos v COMELECFacts: Petitioner Imelda Marcos filed
for Candidacy for the positi0on of Representative of the First
District of Leyte. Her candidacy was challenged by respondent
COMELEC due to the residency requirement needed for district
representative candidates.
Issues: WON Imelda was a resident of the First District of Leyte
for a period of 1 year at the time of the 1995 elections
Held/Ratio: SET ASIDE. During the past 4 decades, petitioner
held various residences for different purposes. None of these
purposes unequivocally point to an intention to abandon her
domicile of origin.
Aquino v COMELECFacts: Petitioner Aquino is being challenged by
COMELEC in his qualification to be a candidate for Representative
of the Second District of Makati. His domicile of origin was
Concepcion, Tarlac
Issues: WON petitioner has qualified for the candidacy of
Representative of the 2nd District of Makati by fulfilling the
residency requirement
Held/Ratio: No. Positive proof of showing an abandonment of
domicile under the conditions above is absent. Also, it was
indicated that the sole purpose of residing (evidenced by
petitioners lease) in the 2nd District of Makati was to qualify as
a candidate for its Representative elections.
Domino v COMELECFacts: Petitioner Domino challenged respondent
COMELEC for declaring the petitioner disqualified as candidate for
the legislative district of Sarangani in the May, 11 1998 elections
for not complying with the 1 year residency requirement. Petitioner
is said to be a resident of Ayala Hts, QC wherein he ran for the
same position in the 1995 elections. His motion for reconsideration
was denied by COMELEC. As a result, a Petition for Certiorari with
prayer for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction was filed by the
petitioner.
Issues: WON Domino complied with the residency requirement of
the Constitution to be qualified to run for representative e of
Sarangani province.
Held/Ratio: No. His lease of contract for the Sarangani property
does not support his change of domicile from QC. Though there was
physical presence, he did not intend to make it his domicile. This
is supported by his lack of intention to abandon his QC residence.
More importantly, he fell short of the 1 year requirement indicated
in the Constitution.
Co v House Electoral Tribunal (HRET)Facts: Petitioner asked for
decision by HRET which declared Jose Ong Jr. A natural born
Filipino to be set aside and reversed.
Issues: WON Jose Ongchuan Jr. Was indeed a natural born
Filipino
Held/Ratio: Yes. Petitioner was already a natural born Filipino
citizen by virtue of his naturalized father and natural born
Filipino mother.
Bengzon v CruzFacts: Petitioner Bengzon, who lost his
re-election for Representative of the 2nd District of Pangasinan to
respondent Cruz, argues that Cruz did not comply with the natural
born Filipino citizen requirement for representatives due to his
tour of duty with the USMC despite having been repatriated back and
reacquired his Filipino citizenship.
Issue: WON respondent, a natural born Filipino who became an
American citizen, can still be considered a natural born Filipino
upon his reacquisition of Phil citizenship through the Commonwealth
Act 63
Held/Ratio: Petition dismissed. Repatriation results in the
recovery of the original nationality. In other words, if he was a
natural born citizen before he lost his Phil citizenship, he will
be restored to his former status when he is repatriated.
Dissenting Opinion: Petition granted. Sec 2 Article 4 of the
Constitution states, those who are citizens of the Philippines from
birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship.
Valles v COMELECFacts:Petitioner is challenging the citizenship
of private respondent Rosalind Lopez, daughter of a Filipino father
and an Australian mother, born in Australia, and requesting that
the respondent must go through the process of repatriation.
Issue: WON respondent Lopez is a citizen of the Philippines
Held/Ratio: She is. Despite the respondents application for an
alien certificate of registration and carrying an Australian
passport, it does not mean that she has renounced her Phil
citizenship. Being a dual citizen is not a ground for
disqualification for public office. What this refers to is dual
allegiance. Lastly, by virtue of jus sanguinis, Lopez is a citizen
of the Phil due to her Filipino father. When she filed her
certificate of candidacy for public office, she declared her
support to the Phil Constitution and thereby terminated her
Australian citizenship. Lopez executed a Declaration of
Renunciation of Australian Citizenship
SEC 7Dimaporo v Mitra JrThe term in office cannot be changed but
the tenure may be affected by circumstances within or beyond the
power of the said officer. Tenure may be shorter than the term or
it may not exist at all. For instance, when an elective official
files a certificate of candidacy for another office, he is deemed
to have voluntarily cut short his tenure, not his term.
Farinas v Executive SecretaryFacts:Petioners declare as
unconstitutional Sec 14 RA 9006 (Fair Election Act) insofar as it
repeals Section 67 of Batas Pambansa Blg 881 (Omnibus Election
Code) as it violates Sec 26 Art 6 of the Constitution requiring
every law to only have one subject which should be expressed in its
title. The repeal of Sec 67 of the Omnibus Election Code is not
embraced in the title of RA 9006. Petitioners also challenged that
said RA violated the Equal Protection Clause because it gives
elective officials undue benefit as against the appointive ones. As
such, petitioners assert that RA 9006 should be null and void in
its entirety because of its irregularities.
Issues: 1. WON RA 9006 violates the One-Subject-One-Bill Rule?2.
WON the repeal of Sec 67 of the Omnibus Election Code is
unconstitutional?3. WON RA 9006 violates the equal protection
clause?4. WON entire RA 9006 should be nullified?
Held/Ratio: Petition DISMISSED!1. It does not violate the
one-subject rule because it believes that RA 9006 general subject
matter (An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest,
Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices)
may contain various provisions so long as they are not inconsistent
with the general subject.2. No. Even if some legislators believe
that the repeal of Sec 67 is bad policy, policy matters are not the
concern of the Court but belonging to the dominion of the political
branches of the government. When the validity of a statute is
challenged on constitutional grounds, the role of the court is to
determine whether it transcends constitutional limitations or the
limits of legislative power. No transgression has been shown in
this case.3. It does not. EPC does not demand absolute equality
among residents (ie. elective and appointive officials), it merely
requires that all persons shall be treated alike. 4. The Court is
not persuaded by the petitioners argument regarding the alleged
irregularities in procedure of passing the of the bill in question
because, first and foremost, it is not the proper forum for the
enforcement of internal rules of Congress. Moreover, the Court
cannot inquire into the rules of procedure in Congress especially
when the requisite number of its members has agreed that the bill
in question should be passed.
SEC 8 - Codilla v De VeneciaFacts: Petition for mandamus and quo
warranto against respondents De Venecia et al to compel them to
implement the decision of COMELEC by a) administer to petitioner
oath of office and b) register her name in the Roll of Members of
the House of Representatives and against Ma. Victoria Locsin for
usurping.
Issue: WON Mandamus should be granted and thereby proclaiming
petitioner as Representative over Locsin
Held/Ratio: Mandamus granted. Codilla garnered 71350 votes v
Locsins 53447 for the position of representative of 4th District of
Leyte
SEC 9 Tolentino v COMELEC.Facts: A seat was vacant in the senate
when Sen. Guingona was appointed to VP. Resolution No. 84 called on
COMELEC to fill the vacancy via special election on 14 May 2001 and
Resolution 84 provided that the 13th placer would serve for the
unexpired term of Guingona. Honasan ranked 13th. Petitioners
Tolentino & Mojica sought to enjoin COMELEC from proclaiming
the 13th as the winner of the special election and sought the
issuance of a TRO.
Issues: WON the special election to fill a vacant seat in the
Senate was validly held on May 14 2001
Held/Ratio: Dismissed for lack of merit. Election is legally
valid. Art VI Sec 9 & RA No. 6645 allows the calling for
special elections when a seat in the senate becomes vacant. It also
allows the special election and the general elections be held
simultaneously
SEC 11 People v JalosjosFacts: Accused-appellant Jalosjos,
member of Congress, was convicted with statutory rape and acts of
lasciviousness. He filed for motion asking that he be allowed to
fully discharge his duties as Congressman including attendance in
legislative sessions and hearings.
Issue: WON membership in Congress exempt an accused from
statutes and rules which apply to incarcerated persons in
general?
Held/Ratio: Motion denied.
Antonino v ValenciaFacts: The loss of LP candidate Sarmiento to
Duterte for the position of Davao governor was attributed by
plaintiff Antonino (senator & LP head in Davao) to the
defendant Valencia (Secretary of Public Works and Communications)
because he supported an independent candidate (Maglana) and thereby
dividing the LP votes. Plaintiff made public statements that were
widely quoted in newspapers about Valencias alleged disloyalty.
Because of this strained relationship, defendant issued a 2-page
press released (Exhibit A) which were reported on the front pages
of 6 metropolitan newspapers. Exhibit A contained certain
allegations regarding Plaintiff such as taking advantage of his
position as a Senator and member of the Monetary Board among
others.
Issue: WON Plaintiff has grounds to hold defendant liable for
his alleged libellous deeds?
Held/Ratio: Yes. Defendants press release attacked plaintiffs
honor, integrity and reputation and was not covered by qualified
privilege given to members of Congress in the exercise of their
duties.
SEC 13 Liban v GordonFacts: Petition to declare Sen Gordon as
having forfeited his Senatorial seat..
Issues: WON the office of the Philippine National Red Cross is a
government office or an office in a government-owned or controlled
corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Sec 13, Art 6 of the
Constitution
Held/Ratio: PNRC is a private organization performing public
functions (RA No. 95) The government doesnt control the PNRC.
SEC 14 Puyat v De GuzmanFacts: Puyat Group (petitioner) claims
that SEC Commissioner De Guzman, with Justice Fernandez (member of
Interim Batasang Pambansa), entered as counsel in SEC Case No.
1747. Fernandez had purchase purchase 10 shares of stock (Php
200.00) of the IPI so he can qualify to run for election as
Director of the company.
Issue: WON Fernandez appeared as counsel, albeit indirectly,
before an administrative body and thus violating the Constitutional
provision that no Assemblyman could appear as counsel before any
administrative body (SEC) as indicated in the 1973 Consti
Held/Ratio: Granted Fernandez leave to intervene in the SEC Case
1747. He acquired the shares after the fact and thus appearing as
counsel would be in violation of the Constitution
SEC 16 Avelino v CuencoFacts: Senate President Avelino
(petitioner) stormed out of the senate session hall with 6 other
senators to avoid the ensuing conspiracy by Senator Tanada who was
being prevented to deliver his privilege speech to formulate
charges against petitioner. In his absence, Senate President
Pro-Tempore Arranz was unanimously given permission by his
colleagues to continue the session. They finally allowed Tanada to
give his speech. By virtue of Resolition No 67 which was
unanimously approved, Senator Cuenco as Acting Senate President to
which he approved and subsequently took the oath. Petitioner
assailing the clusterfuck.
Issue:1. Does the Court have jurisdiction over the matter?2. If
the above answer is yes, were resolutions 68 and 67 validly
approved?
Held/Ratio: DISMISSED.1. No. The selection of the presiding
officer remains within the Senators themselves (by a majority vote)
not with the Court.2. Supposing the Court has jurisdiction,
Resolutions passed were still valid because there was quorum or the
majority required by the Constitution for the transaction of
business of the Senate. (12 Senators)
Santiago v GuingonaFacts: After a 20-2 decision, Senator Fernan
was declared Senate President against his opponent Senator Tatad.
Tatad thereafter assumed the position of minority leader. However,
Senator Guingona was recognized as minority leader by Fernan. In
lieu of this, Sen. Santiago and Tatad filed a petition for quo
warranto alleging Guingona had usurped the position which
rightfully belonged to Tatad.
Issue: 1. Does the court have jurisdiction?2. As there a
violation of the Constitution?3. Do the allegations against
Guingona have merit? Did Fernan ac with grave abuse of discretion
in recognizing Guingona as minority leader?
Held/Ratio: DISMISSED1. Yes. Court has the power to inquire
whether the Senate committed violation of the Constitution or
gravely abuse their discretion on the exercise of their
functions.2. No. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state the
means of how a minority leader is elected (Only Senate president
and House Speaker). As such, Court must leave such to the
jurisdiction of Congress by virtue of the separation of powers.3.
Since the position of minority leader has not been laid down by the
Constitution, no way can it be said that there was illegality in
Guingonas assumption to the position as well as Fernans recognition
of the latter.
Arroyo v De VeneciaFacts: RA 8240 (Sin Taxes) was passed and
signed both Speaker and Senate President and was subsequently
certified by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress. Bill was
signed into law by FVR. Petitioner claims that RA 8240 is null and
void because it was passed in violation of the rules of the House
which is mandated in the Constitution that each House may determine
the rules of its proceedings. Petitioner contends that De Venecias
certification that the law was properly passed was false.
Specifically, the House did not call for yeas or nays, ignored
Arroyos objection and the session was hastily adjourned to prevent
Arroyo from objecting.
Issue: WON Congress committed grave abuse of discretion in
enacting RA 8240?
Held/Ratio: NO. DISMISSED. Courts have no jurisdiction over
internal rules of procedure unless private rights are involved.
Also, the call for yeas and nays does not have to happen every time
a vote is cast but only on the last or 3rd reading at the request
of 1/5 of the members present. Last, they suspended session to
settle dispute.Osmena v PendatunFacts: In Osmenas privilege speech,
he imputed against the President charges of bribery. As a result,
Resolution No 59 was passed saying that he will be suspended for 15
months for disorderly behaviour if he fails to provide evidence
pertaining to his charges against the president. Petitioner claims
that Resolution 59 violated his parliamentary immunity, that his
words constituted no actionable conduct, and that, after his
speech, the House took up other business which indicated that he
shall not be held to answer for his speech.
Issues: WON the Court has jurisdiction over this?
Held/Ratio: DISMISSED. Case at bar deals with internal rules of
procedure and is outside the Courts jurisdiction.
Paredes v SandinganbayanFacts: While governor, Paredes was
charged with violations against Anti-Graft Law. He was eventually
elected to Congress. During his 2nd term, Sandiganbayan imposed a
preventive suspension on him pursuant to the Anti Graft Law.
Held/Ratio: Petitioners invocation of Sec 16(3) Art 6 of the
Constitution is unavailing as it is different from the suspension
spoken of in Sec 13 of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft Law). WTF?
United States v PonsFacts: Act 2381, under which Pons must be
punished if found guilty, was being disputed to have been approved
on March 1, 1914 and not February 28, last day of the special
session of Philippine Legistlature. As such, Act must be null and
void.
Issue: WON courts can take judicial notice of legislative
journals in determining if a bill became a law or not
Held/Ratio: Yes they can. In fact, in the case at bar, they used
the journal to ascertain that, indeed, Legislature adjourned on Feb
28, 1914 at midnight.
Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v Gimenez(Auditor of Central
Bank)The issue at bar is whether urea and formaldehyde should be
exempt by the law from payment of a margin fee pursuant to RA 2609.
However it was expressed by the National Institute of Science and
Technology that urea formaldehyde is the finished product and is
completely different from urea and formaldehyde. It was held that
if there was any mistake in the printing of the bill, no judicial
decree is needed rather only an amendment or curative
legislation.
Astorga v VillegasFacts: RA 4065 (Defining Powers, Rights and
Duties of the Vice Mayor of Manila) was signed by the Pres.
However, there were irregularities in the content because what was
certified by the Secretary of the HRep, Speaker, Secretary of the
Senate and the Senate Pres was not the same bill that was
originally discussed in Congress. As such, the Pres withdrew his
signature from said RA. Thereupon, Manila Mayor Villegas issued
circulars to disregard provisions of the RA. In response, Manila
Vice Mayor Astorga, filed a petition for mandamus for the
respondents to comply with RA 4065.
Issue: WON enrolled bill doctrine or the journal entry rule
should be adhered to in this jurisdiction
Held/Ratio: DENIED. RA 4065 is hereby declared not to have been
duly enacted.It is the approval by Congress and not the signatures
of presiding officers that is essential in determining if a bill
has been successfully passed by Congress (enrolled bill). Also, the
journal discloses that the amendments introduced on the floor and
approved by the Senate were not incorporated in the text sent to
the President which was signed by him.
SEC 17 Angara v Electoral CommissionHistory of the creation of
the Electoral Commission: Act of Congress of July 1, 1902: the
assembly shall be the judge of the elections, returns and
qualifications of its members taken from the US Constitution Act of
Congress of August 29, 1916: modified this provision by inserting
the word sole... That the Senate and House of Representatives,
respectively, shall be the sole judges of the elections, returns
and qualifications of their elective members. to emphasize the
exclusive character of their jurisdiction Committee on
Constitutional Guarantees (1934) recommended the creation of a
Tribunal empowered to hear protests against election of the
legislature and executive (3 Justices, 6 from the legislature 3
minority + 3 majority) It has evolved since then.
Abbas et al v SenateFacts: Petitioners filed before the
respondent Tribunal against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition
who were proclaimed senators by COMELEC. Enrile, with the
petitioners filed a Motion for Disqualification of the
Senator-Members of the Tribunals on the ground that all of them
were interested parties.
Held/Ratio: Not possible. The proposed mass disqualification
would leave the Tribunal no alternative but to abandon a duty that
no other court or body can perform. The Tribunal should not be
prevented from discharging a duty which it alone has the power to
perform.
Bondoc v PinedaFacts:Respondent Pineda (LDP) won against
Petitioner (Bondoc - NP) in the 1987 elections for District
Representative of Pampanga by a margin of 3,300 votes. Bondoc
contested the result and filed a case in the HRET. A decision was
reached in Oct 1990 and revealed that Bondoc won over Pineda by 23
votes. The LDP insisted on a recount and the result thereof
revealed that Bondoc won by 107 votes. Cong. Camasura (LDP) voted
for Bondoc and thus caused an uproar which resulted in his
expulsion from the LDP by their party leader. Also, Camsuras
election to the HRET was rescinded by the LDP. Without Camasuras
vote, the decision lacks the concurrence of 5 members as required
by the Rules of the Tribunal and, as such, cant be properly
promulgated. A petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
was filed by Bondoc against Pineda et al praying that Camasura be
reinstated.
Issue: Can the House of Reps interfere with the disposition of
an election contest in the HRET through the ruse of reorganizing
the representation on the tribunal of the majority party?
Held/Ratio: No. Disloyalty to party is not a valid cause for
termination of membership in the HRET. As such, Camasura is
reinstated and the decision that Bondoc is the winner should be
duly promulgated.
Guerrero v COMELECFacts: There was a dispute regarding Farinas
bid for Congress in the 1998 elections. His Certificate of
Candidacy was alleged to not have been filed in time for said
election but the COMELEC still allowed him and dismissed the
petition against Farinas. When he assumed office, petitioner
Guerrero filed a petition claiming that COMELEC committed grave
abuse of discretion by failing in its Constitutional duty to uphold
and enforce election laws.
Issue: WON it is within COMELECs jurisdiction to decide on this
matter?
Held/Ratio: DISMISSEDWhen Farinas was proclaimed winner and
subsequently took office, the jurisdiction of HRET will apply and
not COMELECs.
Garcia et al v HRETFacts:Petitioners filed a case to disqualify
elected Congressman Angping for allegedly violating the citizenship
requirement in the Constitution. In the filing of said case,
Petitioners failed to pay the 5,000 filing fee which led to the
dismissal of their case. After which, petitioners paid the fee and
attached a Motion for Reconsideration which was, again, denied.
Petition for certiorari was filed before the HRET.
Issue: WON HRET committed grave abuse of discretion for
dismissing the petition for quo warranto of petitioners and in
refusing to reinstate the same even after the fee was paid
Held/Ratio: DISMISSED! The lawyers of the petitioners should
have known what the necessary requirements are for filing the case
a particularly important one at that! They cannot accuse HRET for
grave abuse of discretion by reason of their non-observance.
Pimentel v HRETFacts: Petitioners are assailing the composition
of HRET and CA. They pray that respondents be ordered to alter,
reorganize, reconstitute and reconfigure the composition of HRET
and CA to include party-list representatives in accordance with Sec
17 & 18 Art 6 of the Constitution and RA 7941.
Issues:1. WON present composition of HRET violates the
Constitutional requirement of proportional representation because
there arent any party-list reps present2. WON the refusal of HRET
and CA to include party-list representatives constitutes a grave
abuse of discretion
Held/Ratio: BEREFT OF MERIT. HRET and CA did not violate the
Constitution and the Rules of HRET. Sec 17 Art 6 of the
Constitution expressly grants to the House of Reps the prerogative
to choose from among its district and party-list reps in accordance
to the constitutional mandate of proportional representation. As
such, no abuse of discretion was done by HRET and CA.
Vinzons-Chato v COMELECFacts: Petitioner Chato raised an issue
regarding the canvassing of returns and the alleged invalidity of
the respondent Unicos proclamation. However, Unico has already been
proclaimed and has taken his oath as a member of the House of
Reps.
Held/Ratio:DISMISSED. COMELEC has no jurisdiction over protests
after candidate has been proclaimed winner.
Limkaichong v COMELECFacts: Winning Negros Oriental
Representative candidate Limkaichong (petitioner) was disqualified
by COMELEC before she was proclaimed the winner in the May 14, 2007
elections. May 17, Provincial Board of Canvassers (PBOC) received
Joint Resolution of COMELEC suspending the proclamation of
petitioner. Next day, Resolution 8062 was issued by COMELEC en banc
which stated that: not suspending the proclamation of winning
candidates with pending disqualification cases. In compliance with
Resolution 8062, COMELEC proclaimed petitioner as duly elected
member of the House.
Issues:1. Whether PBOCs proclamation is valid2. Whether, upon
Limkaichongs proclamation, the HRET, instead of the COMELEC, should
assume jurisdiction over disqualification cases3. WON COMELEC
correctly disqualified petitioner on the ground that she is not a
natural-born Filipino4. WON the Speaker may be compelled to
prohibit petitioner from assuming her duties as a Member
Held/Ratio:GRANTED1. Valid. Since the execution of the May 17
Joint Resolution was suspended due to petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration, there was no impediment to the valid proclamation
of Limkaichong as winner2. Yes. The law is clear when it said that
once candidate has been proclaimed, taken oath and assumed office,
jurisdiction now lies with HRET.3. No. This matter should be
decided under HRET jurisdiction4. No. House should honor the
validity of petitioners proclamation especially since she received
the highest number of votes in the elections. Prohibiting her would
disenfranchise the electorate.
SEC 18 Daza v SingsonFacts: Petitioner Daza was chosen to
represent the LP for the Commission on Appointments (CA). However,
LDP was established and consequently, a number of LP members
switched to LDP thereby leaving the LP with 17 members while LDP
had 159. As a result, Dazas seat was withdrawn and given to
respondent LDP member Luis Singson. Petitioner filed for
prohibition and injunction with preliminary injunction against
respondent. He argues that he cant be removed from CA because his
election thereto was permanent and that LDP is not a duly
registered party.
Issue: WON petitioners arguments a) non registration of LDP and
b) political stability of LDP are sufficient to grant petition
Held/Ratio: DISMISSED. On November 23, 1989, COMELEC granted
LDPs position for registration as a political party. Also, the
argument regarding LDP being politically unstable is bereft of
merit. The 159 members of LDP is proof enough of its permanence and
stability.
Coseteng v MitraFacts: Petitioner Nikki Coseteng was the only
candidate elected as representative in the 1987 elections from the
KAIBA party. She requested from Speaker Mitra to be appointed to CA
and HRET as a representative of her party which was thereby
endorsed by 9 other representatives not belonging to her party.
Held/Ratio: DISMISSED. Not in accordance with proportional
representation.
Guingona v GonzalesFacts: Guingona petitioned to prohibit
respondents Sen. Romulo & Tanada from assuming position in CA
and to prohibit ex officio Chairman Gonzales from recognizing and
allowing respondent senators to sit as members thereof. The LDP
majority is questioned by the petitioners because it unduly
increased the membership of LDP and LP-PDP-LABAN at the expense of
LAKAS NUCD and NPC.
Issue: WON the election of Sen. ROmula and Tanada to the CA is
in accordance with Sec 18 Art VI of the constitution and, if so,
did senate commit grave abuse of discretion.
Held/Ratio: GRANTED. The election of the 2 senators violated Sec
18, Art 6. Also, the membership (12 senators, 12 representatives)
is not a mandatory requirement. CA can operate when quorum is
achieved (i.e COMELEC, Supreme Court). Lastly, Senate committed
grave abuse of discretion.
SEC 19, 20, 21 Bengzon v Senate Blue Ribbon CommitteeFacts: The
Senate, by way of the Blue Ribbon Committee, was called upon to
investigate a possible violation of the RA 3019 (Anti Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) regarding the sale of 36 corporations owned
by Kokoy Romualdez. As a result, the Committee subpoenaed
petitioners to appear before the Committee and testify on what they
know. Petitioners (Bengzon + Baby Lopa) refused by invoking the
right of due process. The Court has jurisdiction over the case at
bar as it involves the determination of the scope and extent of the
power of the Committee in accordance with the constitution
Issues: WON the Committee violated Sec 21, Art 6 of the
Constitution in their actions against the petitioners
Held/Ratio: GRANTED. There is already a case intimately similar
to this in the Sandiganbayan. Even more so, the investigation must
be, as stated in Sec 21, Art 6 of the Constitution, in aid of
legislation and that the rights of persons appearing or affected by
such inquiries shall be respected.
Sabio v GordonFacts: Petitioner Sabio (PCGG Chairman) was
invited by the Sen. Gordon (respondent) to join a meeting conducted
by the Senate Committee on Government Corps and Public Enterprises
and Committee on Public Services to deliberate Senate Res. No. 455
which directed an inquiry in the losses incurred by the Philippine
Overseas Telecom Corp (POTC), Phil Communications Satellite Corp
(PhilCOMSAT), PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corp (PHC). Sabio declined the
invitation 3 times and invoked Sec 4b EO No 1 which limited the
power of legislative inquiry. The Committee thereby ordered Sabios
arrest and held him in contempt of Senate. Sabio, then, filed a
petition for habeas corpus against the Committee.
Issue: WON Sec 4b EO No 1 was repealed by the 87 Constitution
and thereby rendering the petitioners defense valid
Held/Ratio: Sec 4b EO No 1 was held to be repugnant to Sec 21,
Art 6 and shall not be countenanced. Based on jurisprudence (Senate
v Ermita), it ruled that the power of inquiry is broad enough to
cover officials of the executive branch.
Standard Chartered Bank v Senate CommitteeFacts: In Sen. Enriles
privilege speech, Standard Chartered Bank was denounced for selling
unregistered foreign securities in violation of RA 8799 (Securities
Regulation Code) and urged the Senate to conduct an inquiry
immediately. Petitioner argues that respondent has no jurisdiction
to conduct the inquiry and that the inquiry to be conducted was in
aid of collection. For this, petitioner was held in contempt.
Issues: WON the Committee has the power to enjoin SBC in
cooperating with their inquiry
Held/Ratio: Yes. SBC was not singled out in this inquiry. In
fact, SEC and BSP were also enjoined by the Senate. The legislative
body can only obtain the knowledge and information needed to base
intended legislation by requiring and compelling the disclosure of
such information from those who can supply it. The insistence of
the petitioner that it was in aid of collection was a direct
challenge against the Senates authority and, thus, justifies the
contempt citation.
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee v Judge MajaduconFacts: Respondent
Judge Majaducon was alleged to have committed grave abuse of
discretion when he dismissed the Blue Ribbon Committees petition to
lift the cease and desist order filed against them by Atty Flaviano
in connection to fund irregularities in the AFP. Also, respondent
judge is also alleged to have erred in convicting petitioner
Pimentel et al of indirect contempt of court when the latter
published in The Phil Star information about the previous case
which, for Majaducon, created in the minds of readers the
impression that he violated the Constitution and was guilty of
gross ignorance of the rules and procedures.
Issue: 1. WON Majaducon committed grave abuse of discretion when
he dismissed the petition of the Committee2. WON Majaducon erred in
convicting Pimentel et al for indirect contempt of court
Held/Ratio: GRANTED. Reversed decision on the Committee as well
as that of Pimentel.1. Courts have no jurisdiction to restrain
Congress from performing its function to conduct investigations in
aid of legislation2. Yes. Pimentel did not cause the publication in
the Phil Star. Also, There was nothing malicious about his
statement regarding Majaducons gross ignorance of the rules and
procedures since this always comes up in administrative cases.
SEC 22 Senate v ErmitaFacts: Petitioner Senate filed for
certiorari & prohibition before the Court challenging the
constitutionality of EO 464 (granting head of departments executive
privilege) which was proclaimed after the Senate invited members of
the executive to a public hearing about alleged overpricing and
other unlawful provisions of the contract concerning the North Rail
Project. EO 464: deprives Congress of the information possessed by
executive officials Sec 21: power to conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation which aims to elicit information that may be used for
legislation Sec 22: power to conduct a question hour with the
objective of obtaining information in pursuit of Congress oversight
function (inquiring how dep heads are implementing the statutes
given to them)
Issues: WON EO 464 contravenes the power of inquiry vested in
Congress
Held/Ratio: PARTIALLY GRANTED. EO 464 Sec 1 & 2a are VALID.
Sec 2b & 3 are VOID. Sec 1: Limited only to appearances during
question hour (Sec 22) as opposed to inquiries in aid of
legislation (Sec 21) Sec 2a: Only through the permission of the
President can the Department Heads can appear in Congress Sec 2b:
Exec privilege is properly invoked in relation to specific
categories of INFORMATION, not PERSONS Sec 3: A claim of privilege
must be clearly asserted. Implied claims of exec privilege are not
allowed.Neri v Senate CommitteeFacts:Romulo Neri has already
testified before the respondent Committees in an 11-hour proceeding
regarding matters on National Broadband Project (NBN) awarded by
DOTC to ZTE. Petitioner disclosed that COMELEC Chair Abalos offered
him 200M in exchange for his approval of the NBN project. He,
however, refused to answer questions pertaining to PGMA by invoking
executive privilege. Exec Secretary Ermita wrote respondents a
letter for them to dispense with questions under executive
privilege. He did not show up in the succeeding hearing and was
held in contempt. He then explained that he had not shown
contemptible conduct and that he still was willing to cooperate
provided that he be given in advance what he needs to clarify. Such
is the nature of this present motion for reconsideration
Issues: 1. WON there is a recognized presumptive presidential
communications privilege in our legal system2. WON there is factual
or legal basis to hold that the communications elicited by the 3
questions (WON PGMA followed up the project? WON she directed him
to prioritize it? WON she directed him to approve it?) are covered
by executive privilege3. WON respondent Committees have shown that
the communications elicited by the 3 questions are critical to
exercise their functions.4. WON respondent Committees committed
grave abuse of discretion in issuing contempt order
Held/Ratio:1. Presidential communications privilege is
fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the
separation of powers under the Constitution.2. In upholding
executive privilege with respect to the 3 questions, it did not in
any way curb the publics right to information3. Inquiries by the
legislature are not subject to the exacting standards of evidence
essential to arrive at accurate findings in court proceedings.4.
Yes. The subpoena issued to petitioner did not inform him of the
questions to be asked. It merely commanded him to testify on what
he knows
SEC 25 Garcia v MataFacts: Petitioner filed for certiorari to
review Court of First Instances decision which declared Par 11 of
the Special Provisions of the AFP of RA No. 1600 (Appropriation Act
for the FY 56-57) unconstitutional and invalid. Petitioner also
argues that his reversion to inactive status was in violation of
the above provision which prohibits the reversion to inactive
status of reserve officers on active duty with at least 10 yrs of
accumulated service.
Held/Ratio: DENIED. Court affirmed lower courts decisions. It is
unconstitutional because a new and completely unrelated provision
was attached to the Appropriation Act. Said provision is a RIDER
(LOL)
Demetria v AlbaFacts: Petitioner is assailing the
constitutionality of Par 1 Sec 44 of PD 1177 or Budget Reform
Decree of 1977 as it unduly empowers the president to transfer
funds within the government without any limits whatsoever.
Held/Ratio: GRANTED. Said provision violates Sec 16(5) of the 73
Constitution (now Sec 25(5) Art 6 of the 87 Constitution) as well
as the undue delegation of legislative power.
SEC 26 Tio v Videogram Regulatory BoardFacts: Petitioner
assailing the constitutionality of PD 1987 or Act Creating the
Videogram Regulatory Board on the ground that Sec 10 of the decree
is not related to the subject matter in the title as it deals with
collection of taxes.
Held/Ratio: BEREFT OF MERIT. Its not necessary that the title
express each and every word the statute wishes to accomplish. If
the parts of the statute are related and not completely
inconsistent and foreign to the general title, its all
good.Philippine Judges Association v PradoFacts: Petitioners
(members of the lower courts) are questioning the constitutionality
of Sec 35 of RA 7354 implemented by the Philippine Postal Corp on
the ff grounds:1. Title embraces more than 1 subject and does not
express its purposes2. Did not pass required number of readings in
both Houses including other requirements in passing bills3.
Encroaches on the independence of the judiciary
Held/Ratio:1. If the title fairly indicates the general subject
and reasonably covers all the provisions of the act, there is
sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement. DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION!2. A Conference Committee Report on the
Bill was duly approved by both houses of Congress3. Violates Sec 1
Art 3 of the 87 Constitution which provides that no person shall be
deprived of the equal protection of the laws
Farinas v Executive Secretary SEE UNDER SEC 7
Tan v Del RosarioFacts: Petitioner argues that the enactment of
RA 7496 violates the Constitution on the following grounds:1.
One-subject-one-bill rule2. Desecrates constitutional requirement
that taxation shall be uniform and equitable3. Violates the equal
protection clause
Held/Ratio:1. Reading the full text of the title renders this
argument invalid2(3). Even prior to RA 7496, the general rule of
uniform and equitable taxation is the law in force.
Tolentino v Secretary of FinanceFacts: Petitioners assailing the
constitutionality of RA 7716 (E-VAT Law) which seeks to widen the
tax base of the existing VAT system (levied on the sale, barter, or
exchange of goods and properties and on the exchange/sale of
services; equivalent of 10% of the gross selling price or gross
value).
Issues: 1. Procedural: Does it violate Art 6, Sec 24 & Art 6
Sec 26(2) of the Constitution? What is the extent of the power of
Conference Committees?2. Substantive: Does it violate Art 6 Sec
28(1) & (3) of the Constitution?
Held/Ratio: DISMISSED!1. Art 6 Sec 24 bill originated from the
House of RepsArt 6 Sec 26(2) President certified the Senate bill as
urgentConference Committee It is within their power to include an
entirely new provision not found in the House or Senate bill as
long as it is germane to the subject of the bills of the committee.
After all, its report is not final and would need the approval of
both Houses. Which it did.2. Art 6 Sec 28(1) & (3): Tax burden,
according to respondents, is actually distributed to as many goods
& services as possible particularly those within the reach of
higher-income groups.
Tobias v Abalos See Sec 5
SEC 27 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue v Court of Tax
AppealsFacts: CTA declared that the caterers tax under Sec 191-A of
RA 6110 illegal because Sec 42 of House Bill 17839 which carries
the said proviso was vetoes y Marcos when it was submitted to him
by Congress (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v Manila Hotel)
Issue: WON the presidential veto referred to the entire section
or merely to the imposition of 20% tax on gross receipts of
proprietors of restaurants, refreshments, parlors, bars, inside
hotels, motels or rest houses?
Held/Ratio: OVERRULED CTA DECISION. What Marcos intended to veto
was not the entire section but merely the inclusion of hotels,
motels and rest houses in the 20% caterers tax.
Gonzales v MacaraigFacts: Petitioner Gonzales (plus members of
the Senate Committee on Finance) challenged the constitutionality
of Resolution No. 381 whose Sec 55 & Sec 16 were vetoed by the
president. They sought to enjoin respondents (Macaraig + Cabiet
members) from implementing Res No 381/RA 6688. Sec 55 & 16 were
vetoed because it was in violation of Art 6 Sec 25(5) which allowed
the Pres et al to augment items in the General Appropriations
Law.
Issue: WON the veto of Sec 55 & 16 is constitutional
Held: PRESIDENTIAL VETO UPHELD. PETITION DISMISSED.Although
labelled as provisions, sec 55 (FY89) & Sec 16 (FY90) are
actually inappropriate provisions and should be treated as items
because they dont show any connection with a schedule of
expenditures. As such, pursuant to Sec 25(5), they can be vetoed.
In the same vein, they also nullify the authority vested in the
President and heads of different branches to augment items in the
GAA.
PHILCONSA v EnriquezFacts: GAB 1994 was passed by Congress for
presidential approval. Pres signed bill into law (GAA 1994) but
vetoed specific provisions which he imposed certain conditions. 4
petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of the
presidential veto, to wit:1. Philippine Constitution Association
(Philconsa): writ of prohibition2. 16 senators led by Sen. Pres.
Angara, Sen. Gonzales, Sen. Roco: certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus3. Sen. Romulo & Sen Tanada: prohibition and mandamus4.
Same as 3: with temporary restraining order
Held/Ratio: DISMISSED with exceptions (provisions on debt
service, no. 2 of DPWH, no. 12 of medicines for AFP)Court dismissed
all petitions that challenged the validity of the presidential
vetoes that were vetoed properly. This means that those
inappropriate provisions and items that were vetoed were rightly
done. On the other hand, those that the Court granted were not
properly vetoed for the reason that the part the president vetoed
is intimately connected to the entire provision. Removing such item
would entail removing the provision altogether. (THIS IS THE BEST I
COULD DO.)
Arroyo v De Venecia see under Sec 16
SEC 28 Gerochi v Dep of EnergyFacts: Petitioners pray that Sec
34 of RA 9136 (Electric Power Industry Reform Act 2001 EPIRA),
imposing the Universal Charge and Rule 18 of the IRR, be declared
unconstitutional. Also, petitioner prays that a TRO be issued for
respondents to refrain from enacting the Universal Charge (non
by-passable charge passed on and collected from all end-users on a
monthly basis by distribution utilities).
Issue: WON Universal Charge under Sec 34 of EPIRA is a form of
taxation
Held/Ratio: Sec 34 of EPIRA regarding the Universal Charge is
not a tax but a n exercise of the States regulatory and police
power.
Garcia v Executive SecretaryFacts: EO 438 5% ad valorem on all
imported articles. Then, EO 443 increased to 9% ad valorem. Then,
EO 475 reduced to 5% ad valorem except for crude oil and oil
products (9% still). Then, EO 478 added special duties on top of
the 9% ad valorem for crude oil and oil products. Petitioner filed
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus assailing validity of EO
475 and 478 claiming they did not originate from the House of Reps
(Sec 24)
Held/Ratio: EO 475 & 478 are VALID. Sec 401 of the Tariff
and Customs Code delegated to the President such power to implement
changes in the taxing of imported goods as long as it aims to
generate additional public revenue
Systems Plus Computer College v Caloocan CityFacts: Systems Plus
Computer College filed for tax exemption to Caloocan City which is
denied because the parcel of land in which the school is situated
is owned b Consolidated Assembly Inc. and Pair Mgt Corp, sister
company of the school. Another case is filed saying that the
companies owning the land donated it to the school but was still
denied. A mandamus was then filed by petitioner to respondent city
but was again denied for being premature.
Held/Ratio: School did not exhaust all administrative remedies
before going to court. It should have presented evidence of the
donation of the parcel of land before the City Assessor who would
bring it up to the Local Board of Assessment Appeals and Central
Board of Assessment Appeals, if necessary.
Central Mindanao University v Dept of Agrarian ReformFacts:
Petition for certiorari to nullify the Adjudication Board (DARAB)
& Court of Appeals decision to include CMUs 400 hectares of
land in the CARP.
Held/Ratio: Court reversed decision because, as misinterpreted
by DARAB & Court of Appeals, CMUs lands are exempt from CARP
coverage because such lands are ACTUALLY, DIRECTLY and EXCLUSIVELY
used and have been found necessary for educational purposes.
Commissioner of BIR v Court of AppealsFacts: Commissioner of
Internal Revenue issued a tax assessment to the Young Mens
Christian Assoc of the Phils (YMCA) to pay property and income tax
from the lease of their property. YMCA contends that, as a
charitable and educational institution, they are exempt from
property and income tax. Commissioner filed a petition to Court of
Appeals on YMCA.
Held/Ratio: What the framers of the Constitution meant by Sec
28(3) is that only property would be exempt from tax and not the
income. Hence, YMCA has to pay income tax.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v Judge SantosFacts: RTC Judge
Santos decided that certain provisions of the Tariff & Customs
Code and the National Internal Revenue Code are confiscating,
oppressive and unconstitutional. As a result, CIR brought it up to
a higher court to review the decision.
Held/Ratio: Santos went beyond the reach of judicial questioning
by questioning the legislators reasons why jewelry, a non-essential
item, is taxed as it is in our country. Moreover, using other
countries tax policies regarding said item as a yardstick to
determine what may be proper policy in our country is
unacceptable.
John Hay Peoples Alternative Coalition v Victor LimFacts: FVR
signed into law RA 7227 (Bases Conversion & Development Act
1992) which declared 288.1 hectares of Camp John Hay as a potential
Special Economic Zone. Proclamation 420 was issued which was an act
formally directed to the creation of a part of John Hay as a SEZ
under the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA).
Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Proc 420.
Issue: WON Proc 420 is unconstitutional by providing national
& local tax exemption to the John Hay SEZ and WON Proc 420
limits the local autonomy of Baguio City
Held/Ratio: Tax exemption for John Hay SEZ is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
because nowhere in RA 7227 does it say that John Hay is exempted.
It only mentioned Subic SEZ. Also, Proc 420 does not limit Baguios
local autonomy. The designation of BCDA as the governing agency of
John Hay EZ is merely an emphasis on the statutory role it has been
granted.
SEC 29 Guingona Jr v CaragueFacts: Petitioner Senators question
the constitutionality of PD 81, PD 1177 & PD 1967 which allowed
the automatic appropriation of 86B for debt service in the national
budget.
Issue: WON such PDs violate the Constitution
Held/Ratio: DISMISSED1. Though higher than the budget allotted
for education, the budget for DECS was the highest among other
department budgets. Also, for the survival of the countrys economy,
the budget allocated for debt service is justified.2. Existing laws
inconsistent with the 87 Constitution shall remain operative until
amended, repealed or revoked (Sec 3 Art 13). Legislators intent for
automatic appropriation is that the amount needed should be
automatically set aside in order that we may pay any indebtedness
incurred.
Osmena v OrbosFacts: Marcos PD 1956 (Oil Price Stabilization
Fund OPSF) sought to reimburse oil companies cost increases in
crude oil and imported petroleum products resulting from exchange
rate adjustments. Petitioner argues that such collections, being a
form of special tax, must be created as a special fund and not
trust account pursuant to Sec 29(3) Art 6 of the Constitution.
Held/Ratio: While funds collected may be referred to as taxes,
they are in the exercise of the States police power to lessen the
adverse effects of market volatility in the oil industry to the
community. As such, there is no violation of Sec 29(3) of the
Constitution.
SEC 30 Fabian v DesiertoFacts: Petitioner filed an
administrative case against Agustin (District Engineer) for
harassment before the Ombudsman (herein respondent). Agustin was
found guilty but filed a motion for reconsideration before the
same. Because the ombudsman was friends with Agustins counsel, he
passed the case to deputy ombudsman Guerrero who exonerated Agustin
from the administrative charges. Petitioner filed for certiorari
before the Court to review the decision.
Held/Ratio: Court cannot review Ombudsmans decision because it
would violate Sec 30 Art 6. It will unduly expand the appellate
jurisdiction of the Court without its advice & consent.
Moreover, appellate jurisdiction can only extend to decisions from
lower courts in the integrated judicial system and not
quasi-judicial bodies/agencies such as the office of the
respondent.
JMHRoco