CONSTI-Cases Sumary Whole Sem

8/8/2019 CONSTI-Cases Sumary Whole Sem

1/39

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

De Leon v. ESGUERRA

The 1987 Constitution was ratified in aplebiscite on February 2, 1987. By thatdate, therefore, the ProvisionalConstitution must be deemed to havebeen superseded. (Effectivity isimmediately upon ratification)

Gonzales v. COMELEC

Nature of power to amend theConstitution or to propose amendmentsthereto: not inherent power of Congressbut of the people; constituent power ofCongress

Tolentino v. COMELEC

The condition and limitation that all the

amendments to be proposed by thesame convention must be submitted in asingle election or plebiscite.

Imbong v. COMELEC

Competence of Congress acting asConstituent Assembly: Authority to callconstitutional convention as ConstituentAssembly in enacting implementingdetails.

Sanidad v. COMELEC

-Presidential exercise of legislativepowers (and proposing amendments) isvalid in martial law.-Amending process is a sovereign act,although the authority to institute the

same and the procedure to be followedreside somehow in a particular body(Pres. Marcos).

Santiago v. COMELEC

The right of the people to directlypropose amendments to the Constitutionthrough the system of initiative wouldremain entombed in a cold niche untiCongress provides for its implementation.Section 2 of Article XVII is not self-executing.

Lambino v. COMELEC

Essence of people's initiative: (1) peoplemust author; (2) they must sign theproposal; (3) proposal is embodied inpetition

CONCEPT OF STATE

Bacani vs NACOCO

The mere fact that the Governmenthappens to be a major stockholder of acorporation does not make it a publiccorporation.

Distinction between constituent andministrant functions.

PVTA vs CIR

Distinction between constituent andministrant functions obsolete.

Government has to provide for generalwelfare.

Gov. of the Phil. Islands vs. Monte de Piedad

Doctrine of Parens Patriae (state asguardian of the people)


2/39

Transfer of sovereignty; effect on laws:- abrogation of laws in conflict with thepolitical character of the substitutedsovereign (political law).- great body of municipal law regarding

private and domestic rights continue inforce until abrogated or changed by newruler.

Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh

Continuity of Law: Law, onceestablished, continues until changed bysome competent legislative power (notchanged by mere change of sovereignty)

All acts and proceedings of the 3 gov.depts. of a de facto government aregood and valid.

Kinds of De facto government:(1) de facto proper governmentobtained by force or voice of themajority(2) paramount force by military forceswho invade the territory(3) independent government established by inhabitants throughinsurrection

Republic of the Philippines (duringJapanese occupation) was a de factogovernment.

People vs Gozo

Principle of Auto-limitation: Extent ofPhilippine sovereignty over Americanbases Philippine Government has notabdicated 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: sovereigntyof the government not transferred to

occupier

Ruffy v Chief of Staff

The rule that laws of political nature or

affecting political relations areconsidered superseded or held inabeyance during the military occupation,is intended for the governing of the civilinhabitants of the occupied territory andnot for the enemies in arms.

STATE IMMUNITY

Sanders v Veridiano

Mere allegation that a governmentfunctionary is being sued in his personalcapacity will not automatically removehim from the protection of the laws ofpublic officers and doctrine of stateimmunity

Doctrine of state immunity applicable alsoto other states.

Republic v Sandoval

State cannot be held liable for the deathsthat followed the incident; liability shouldfall on the public officers who committedacts beyond their authority

3 instances when suit is proper:1. when sued by its name2. when unincorporated government

agency is sued3. when the suit is against a governmentemployee but liability belongs to thegovernment

Festejo v Fernando

Officer or employee committing the tort


3/39

is personally liable and maybe sued asany other citizen and held answerablefor whatever injury

USA vs Guinto

- A state may be said to have descendedto the level of an individual and canthus be deemed to have tacitly given itsconsent to be sued only when it entersinto business contracts.

Veterans Manpower vs CA

-The state is deemed to have giventacitly its consent to be sued when itenters into a contract. However, it doesnot apply where the contract relates tothe exercise of its sovereign functions.

The Merritt vs Govt of the Phil

- By consenting to be sued, a state simplywaives its immunity from suit. It does

not thereby concede its liability to theplaintiff, or create any cause of actionin his favor, or extend its liability to anycause not previously recognized. Itmerely gives remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability and submit itself to thejurisdiction of the court, subject to itsright to interpose any lawful defense.

Amigable vs. Cuenca

The government, when it takes away aproperty from a private land owner forpublic use without going through thelegal process of expropriation ornegotiated sale, the aggrieved partymay properly maintain a suit against thegovernment without thereby violating

the doctrine of governmental immunityfrom suit. This doctrine cannot be used inperpetrating injustice to a citizen.

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

- When the state files an action, it divestsitself of the sovereign character and shedits immunity form suit, descending to thelevel of an ordinary litigant.

Republic vs. Feliciano

- failure to allege in the complaint the

existence of consent by the State is a fataldefect (construction must be strict againstconferment of waiver- Immunity may be invoked by the courts atany point/stage of the proceedings.

USA vs. Ruiz

Restrictive Application of State Immunity toforeign states: States may be sued when the

proceedings arise out of commercialtransactions of the foreign sovereign.

The Holy See v Rosario, Jr.

Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Conventionon Diplomatic Relations, a diplomaticenvoy is granted immunity from the civiland administrative jurisdiction of thereceiving state over any real actionrelating to private immovable propertysituated in the territory of the receivingstate which the envoy holds on behalf ofthe sending state for the purposes of themission


4/39

Republic vs. Villasor

- Judgment against the State cannot beenforced by execution. It may limitclaimants action only up to the

completion of proceedings anterior tothe state of execution. Power of courtsend when judgment is rendered.[suability vs. liability]- Functions and public services cannotbe allowed to be paralyzed or disruptedby the disruption of public funds.

Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC

- Not all contracts entered into by thegovernment operate as a waiver of itsnon-suability. Distinction must still bemade between one which is executed inthe exercise of its sovereign functionand another which is done in theproprietary capacity.

- State gives consent upon moneyed claimarising from contract.

PNB vs. Pabalan

- State immunity from suit cannot bevalidly invoked with regard to funds ofpublic corporations.

- [suable corporations] Public funds ofcorporations which can sue and be suedare not exempt from gaarnishment.

Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan

- The character of an incorporated agencyallows it to sue and be sued withoutqualification

Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of PrintingEmployees Assoc.

- Acceptance of outside work and paymentof 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 isengaged not only in governmentalfunctions but also, incidentally, inproprietary enterprises (unincorporatedagency).

Mobil Phils. Exploration, Inc. vs. CAIf an agencys function is deemed

proprietary, if such is a necessary incidentof the primary and gov. function of suchagency, such agency is not suable (for anunincorporated agency only).

Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Court ofAppeals

- Not all government entities whethercorporate or not are immune from suits.

Immunity from suits is determined by thecharacter of the objects for which theentity was organized.- Suits against State agencies withrelation to matters in which they haveassumed to act in private or non-governmental capacity, and various suitsagainst certain corporations created bythe State to engage In matters partakingmore of the nature of ordinary businessare not regarded as suits against the

State.

Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v.Judge Firme

The test of liability of the municipalitydepends on whether or not the driveracting in behalf of the municipality is


5/39

performing governmental or proprietaryfunctions. It has already been remarkedthat municipal corporations are suablebecause their charters grant them thecompetence to sue and be sued.

Nevertheless, they are generally notliable for torts committed by them inthe discharge of governmental functionsand can be held answerable only if itcan be shown that they were acting in aproprietary capacity. In permitting suchentities to be sued, the state merelygives the claimants the right to showthe defendant was not acting in itsgovernmental capacity when the injurywas inflicted or that the case comes

under the exceptions recognized by law.Failing this, the claimants cannotrecover.

Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v.Fernandez

Municipal funds in possession ofmunicipal and provincial treasurers arepublic funds exempt from execution.Municipal funds are held in trust for the

people intended and used for theaccomplishments of the purposes forwhich municipal corporations arecreated and that to subject saidproperties and public funds to executionwould materially impede, even defeatand in some instance destroy saidpurposes.

Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals

When a municipality fails or refuseswithout justifiable reason to effectpayment of a final money judgmentrendered against it, the claimant mayavail of the remedy of mandamus in orderto compel the enactment and approval ofthe necessary appropriation ordinanceand the corresponding disbursement of

municipal funds.

Fundamental Principles and State Policies

Section 1

Villavicencio v. Lukban:

Mayors act is unconstitutional. It was notauthorized by any law or ordinance. Ourgovernment is a government of laws andnot of men.

Section 2

Kuroda v. Jalandoni:

think Japanese Lieutenant-Generacharged before the military commission.Held: The Philippines can adopt the rulesand regulations laid down on the Hagueand Geneva Conventions notwithstandingthat it is not a signatory thereto. Itembodied generally accepted principles

of international law binding upon alstates.

Agustin v. Edu:

think triangular reflectorized earlywarning devices.

Held: Legislative enactment is notnecessary in order to authorize theissuance of LOI prescribing the use oftriangular reflectorized early warning

devices. This is also an illustration ofgenerally accepted principles ofinternational law (Pacta sunt servanda).

Ichong v. Hernandez:

think Retail Trade Nationalization Law


6/39

which is against the principle of Pactasunt servanda.Held: the Retail TradeNationalization Law is notunconstitutional because it was passedin the exercise of the police power

which cannot be bargained awaythrough the medium of a treaty.

Gonzales v. Hechanova:

Prevalence of National or Municipal lawover International law: Constitutionauthorizes the nullification of a treaty,not only when it conflicts with thefundamental law, but also when it runs

counter to an act of Congress.

In re Garcia

A treaty cannot modify regulationsgoverning admission to Philippine bar(that would be an encroachment uponSupreme Court by the Executive)

Section 3

IBP vs. Zamora

the deployment of the Marines does notconstitute a breach of the civiliansupremacy clause. The calling of themarines in this case constitutespermissible use of military asset forcivilian law enforcement. xx xThe

limited participation of the Marines isevident in the provisions of the Letter ofInstruction (LOI) itself, whichsufficiently provides the metes andbounds of the Marines authority. It isnoteworthy that the local police forcesare the ones charge of the visibilitypatrols at all times, the real authority

belonging to the PNP. In fact, the MetroManila Police Chief is the overall leader ofthe PNP-Marines joint visibility patrols.Under the LOI, the police forces aretasked to brief or orient the soldiers on

police patrolprocedures. It is their responsibility todirect and manage the deployment of themarines. It is, likewise, their duty toprovide the necessary equipment to theMarinesand render logistic support to thesesoldiers. In view of the foregoing, itcannot beproperly argued that military authority issupreme over civilian authority.

It is worth mentioning that militaryassistance to civilian authorities in variousforms persists in Philippine jurisdiction.The Philippine experience reveals that itis notaverse to requesting the assistance of themilitary in the implementation andexecutionof certain traditionally civil functions. xx x Some of the multifarious activitieswherein

military aid has been rendered,exemplifying the activities that bring boththe civilian andthe military together in a relationship ofcooperation are:1. Elections;2. Administration of the PhilippineNational Red Cross;3. Relief and rescue operations duringcalamities and disasters;4. Amateur sports promotion and

development;5. Development of the culture and thearts;6. Conservation of the natural resources;7. Implementation of the agrarian reformprogram;8. Enforcement of customs laws;9. Composite civilian-military law


7/39

enforcement activities;10. Conduct of licensure examinations;11. Conduct of nationwide test forelementary and high school students;12. Anti-drug enforcement activities;

13. Sanitary inspections;14. Conduct of census work;15. Administration of the CivilAeronautic Board;16. Assistance in installation of weatherforecasting devices;17. Peace and order policy formulationin local government units.This unquestionably constitutes a glosson executive power resulting from asystematic, unbroken, executive

practice, long pursued to the knowledgeof Congressand, yet, never before questioned. Whatwe have here is a mutual support andcooperation between the military andcivilian authorities, not derogation ofciviliansupremacy.

Section 4

People vs. Lagman- Case at bar: accused is prosecuted forfailure to register for military serviceunder the National Defense Act- SC upheld the National Defense Act. Toleave an organization of an army to thewill of the citizens would be to makethis duty of the Government excusableshould there be no sufficient men whovolunteer to enlist therein.

Section 5

Chavez vs. RomuloRight to bear arms: It is statutory andnot a constitutional right. The license tocarry a firearm is neither a property nor

a property right. Neither does it create avested right. Even if it were a propertyright, it cannot be considered absolute asto be placed beyond the reach of policepower. The maintenance of peace and

order, and the protection of the peopleagainst violence are constitutional dutiesof the State, and the right to bear firearmis to be construed in connection and inharmony with these constitutional duties.

Section 6

Aglipay vs. Ruiz

-There is no violation of the principle ofthe separation of church and state. Theissuance and sale of the stamps inquestion may be said to be linked with anevent of a religious character, but theresulting propaganda, if any, received bythe Catholic Church, was not the aim andpurpose of the government. The ideabehind the issuance of the postage stampswas to attract tourists to our country andnot primarily the religious event.

- What is guaranteed by our Constitutionis religious liberty , not mere religioustoleration. However, religious freedom isnot inhibition of profound reverence forreligion and is not a denial of its influencein human affairs.

Austria vs. NLRCan ecclesiastical affair involves therelationship between the church and its

members and relates to matter of faith,religious doctrines, worship andgovernance of the congregation. Examplesof these affairs in which the State cannotmeddle are proceedings forexcommunication, ordination of religiousministers, administration of sacraments,and other activities to which is attached


8/39

religious significance. In this case, whatis involved is the relationship of thechurch as an employer and the ministeras an employee. It is purely secular andhas no relation whatsoever with the

practice of faith, worship or doctrine ofthe church.

Section 10

Calalang vs. Williams

-Social justice is neither communism,nor despotism, nor atomism, nor

anarchy, but the humanization of lawsand the equalization of social andeconomic forces by the State so thatjustice in its rational and objectivelysecular conception may at least beapproximated. Social justice means thepromotion of the welfare of all thepeople, the adoption by theGovernment of measures calculated toinsure economic stability of all thecompetent elements of society, through

the maintenance of a proper economicand social equilibrium in theinterrelations of the members of thecommunity, constitutionally, through theadoption of measures legally justifiable,or extra-constitutionally, through theexercise of powers underlying theexistence of all governments on thetime-honored principle of salus populiest suprema lex. Social justice,therefore, must be founded on the

recognition of the necessity ofinterdependence among divers anddiverse units of a society and of theprotection that should be equally andevenly extended to all groups as acombined force in our social andeconomic life, consistent with thefundamental and paramount objective

of the state of promoting the health,comfort, and quiet of all persons, and ofbringing about "the greatest good to thegreatest number.

Almeda vs. CA

-There exists a tenants right ofredemption in sugar and coconut lands.Pursuant to Agricultural Land ReformCode of 1963, it recognizes share tenancyin sugar lands which is in consonance withthe States promotion of social justicewherein it may regulate the acquisition,ownership, use, enjoyment and

disposition of private property, andequitably diffuse propertyownership andprofits.

Ondoy .vs. Ignacio

-The principle of social justice applied inthis case is a matter of protection, notequality. The Court recognized the rightof the petitioner to the claim ofcompensation because her son was shown

to have died while in the actuaperformance of his work. To strengthenthe constitutional scheme of social justiceand protection to labor, The Court mademention that as between a laborer,usually poor and unlettered, and theemployer, who has resources to secureable legal advice, the law has reason todemand from the latter the strictecompliance.

Salonga vs. Farrales

-The plea of social justice of the plaintiffcannot be considered because it wasshown that no contract, either to sell orof sale, was ever perfected between himand the defendant. It must beremembered that social justice cannot be


9/39

invoked to trample on the rights ofproperty owners who under ourConstitution and laws are also entitledto protection. The social justiceconsecrated in our Constitution was not

intended to take away rights from aperson and give them to another who isnot entitled thereto.

Section 12

Meyer vs. Nebraska

It is incompetent for the government toprohibit the teaching of a foreign

language to students. There is nothingharmful in the language that will impairthe upbringing of the child.

Pierce vs. Society of Sisters

State may not require children to attendonly public schools. The child is not acreature of the State.

Virtuouso vs. Municipal Judge

Youthful Offender: A person chargedwith an offense but found to be ayouthful offender could be provisionallyreleased on recognizance at courtsdecision.

Section 14

PT&T Co. vs. NLRC

the SC held that the petitioners policyof not accepting or considering asdisqualified from work any woman

worker who contracts marriage, runsafoul of the test of, and the right against,discrimination, which is guaranteed allwomen workers under the Constitution.While a requirement that a woman

employee must remain unmarried may bejustified as a bona fide occupationalqualification where the particularrequirements of the job would demandthe same, discrimination against marriedwomen cannot be adopted by theemployer as a general principle.

Section 16

Oposa vs. Factoran

[Intergenerational Responsibility /Intergenerational Justice] the 34 minorsduly joined by their respective parentspleading the cause of inter-generationalresponsibility and inter-generationaljustice, had a valid cause of action inquestioning the grant of Timber LicensingAgreements (TLAs) for commercial logging

purposes. The minors filed the action forthemselves as representing theirgeneration as well as generations yetunborn. The SC, on the basis of Section16, Article II linked with the right tohealth, recognized a right to a balancedand healthful ecology and thecorrelative duty to refrain from impairingthe environment.

LLDA v. CA

The immediate response to the demandsof necessities of protecting vital publicinterests gives vitality to the statementon ecology embodied in the Declaration ofPrinciples and State Policies of the 1987Constitution. Article II, Section 16. As a


10/39

constitutionally guaranteed right ofevery person, it carries the correlativeduty of non-impairment. This is but theconsonance with the declared policy ofthe state to protect and promote the

right to health of the people and instillhealth consciousness among them.

C&M Timber Corporation vs. Alcala

On the issue that the total log ban is anew policy which should be appliedprospectively and not affect the rightsof petitioner vested under the TimberLicensing Agreement (TLA), the Sc held

that this is not a new policy but a merereiteration of the policy of conservationand protection the right to a balancedand healthful ecology.

Section 17

PRC vs. De Guzman

while it is true that the SC has upheld

the constitutional right of every citizento select a profession or course of studysubject to fair, reasonable, andequitable admission and academicrequirements, the exercise of this rightmay be regulated pursuant to the policepower of the State to safeguard health,morals, peace, education, order, safetyand general welfare. Thus, persons whodesire to engage in the learnedprofessions requiring scientific or

technical knowledge may be required totake an examination as a prerequisite toengaging in their chosen careers. Thisregulation assumes particularpertinence in the field of medicine, inorder to protect the public from thepotentially deadly effects ofincompetence and ignorance.

PMMS, Inc. vs. CA

the Court said that the requirement thata school must first obtain government

authorization before operating is based onthe State policy that educationalprograms and/or operations shall be ofgood quality and, therefore, shall at leastsatisfy minimum standards with respect tocurricula, teaching staff, physical plantand facilities and administrative andmanagement viability.

Section 18

Bernardo vs. NLRC

The SC held that the Magna Carta forDisabled Persons mandates that qualifieddisabled persons be granted the sameterms and conditions of employment asqualified able bodied employees; thus,once hey have attained the status ofregular workers, they should be accordedall the benefits granted by law,

notwithstanding written or verbalcontracts to the contrary. This treatmentis rooted not merely in charity oraccommodation, but in justice for all.

Section 19

Garcia vs. BOI

BOI committed grave abuse of discretionbecause it repudiates the independentpolicy of government to run its affairs theway it deems best for the nationainterest.Every provision of the Constitution on thenational economy and patrimony is


11/39

infused with the spirit of nationalinterest. The non-alienation of nationalresources, the State full control overthe development and utilization ofcontributions to the economic growth

and general welfare of the country andthe regulation of foreign investment inaccordance to national goals andpriorities are too explicit not to benoticed and understood.

Section 20

Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccatorsvs. PCA,

the SC said that although theConstitution enshrines free enterprise asa policy, it nevertheless reserves to theGovernment the power to intervenewhenever necessary for the promotionof the general welfare as reflected inSections 6 & 19 of Article XII.

Pest Management Association of the

Philippines vs. Fertilizer and PesticideAuthority, andPharmaceutical and HealthCare Association of the Philippines vs. Sec.Duque III

Despite the fact that our presentConstitution enshrines free enterprise asa policy, it nevertheless reserves to theGovernment the power to intervenewhenever necessary to promote thegeneral welfare. Free enterprise does

not call for removal of protectiveregulations. It must be clearlyexplained and proven by competentevidence just exactly how suchprotective regulation would result in therestraint of trade.

Section 21

ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL.vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM

Eminent domain is an inherent power ofthe State that enables it to forciblyacquire private lands intended for publicuse upon payment of just compensationto the owner. Private rights must yield tothe irresistible demands of the publicinterest on the time-honoredjustification, as in the case of the policedpower, that the welfare of the people isthe supreme law.

Section 25

BASCO VS PAGCOR

Local Autonomy under 1987 Constitutionsimply means the decentralization anddoes not make the local governmentssovereign within the State or an imperium

imperio.

LIMBONA VS MANGELIN

Decentralization of administration ismerely delegation of administrativepowers to the LGUs in order to broadenthe base of governmental power.Decentralization of power is theabdication by the national governmentpowers.

Section 26

Pamatong vs. COMELEC

- There is no constitutional right to runfor or hold public office and, particularly,


12/39

to seek the presidency. What isrecognized is merely a privilege subjectto limitations imposed by law. Section26, Article II of the Constitution neitherbestows such a right nor elevates the

privilege to the level of an enforceableright. There is nothing in the plainlanguage of the provision which suggestssuch a thrust or justifies aninterpretation of the sort. The "equalaccess" provision is a subsumed part ofArticle II of the Constitution, entitled"Declaration of Principles and StatePolicies." The provisions under theArticle are generally considered notself-executing, and there is no plausible

reason for according a differenttreatment to the "equal access"provision. Like the rest of the policiesenumerated in Article II, the provisiondoes not contain any judiciallyenforceable constitutional right butmerely specifies a guideline forlegislative or executive action. Thedisregard of the provision does not giverise to any cause of action before thecourts.

Section 30

Legspi vs CSC

The constitutional right to informationon matters of public concern is self-executing without the need for anyancillary act of legislation.

Valmonte vs de Villa

The constitutional right to information islimited on matters of public concernand is further subject to such limitationsas may be provided by law. However,although citizens are afforded the right

to information, the Constitution does notaccord them the right to compel thecustodians of official records to preparelists, abstracts, summaries and the like intheir desire to acquire information of

public concern.

Aquino-Sarmiento vs Morato

- When a committee or board is createdas public in its very existence andcharacter such as the MTRCB, there canbe no valid claim to privacy. Here,decisions of Board and individual votingslips are public in character.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

In re Manzano

- Members of the SC and other courts shalnot be designated to any agencyperforming quasi-judicial oradministrative functions.

- The committee performs administrativefunction* which under Section 12, ArticleVIII of the Constitution prohibits membersof the SC and other courts established bylaw to be designated to any agencyperforming quasi-judicial oradministrative functions. To quote CJFernando in Garcia vs. Macaraig, he saidthat while the doctrine of separation of

powers is a relative theory not to beenforced with pedantic rigor, the

practical demands of governmentprecluding its doctrine application, itcannot justify a member of the judiciarybeing required to assume a position or

perform a duty non-judicial incharacter.

Administrative functions are those


13/39

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 thepolicy 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 divisionthan obtained through express provision- Judiciary is the only ConstitutionalArbiter to allocate ConstitutionalBoundaries- Judicial Supremacy = supremacy of theConstitution asserted by the judiciary(not supremacy of the judiciary itself)- Judicial Review is limited to ActualLitigation. Judiciary does not pass uponquestions of wisdom, justice orexpediency of litigation.- The Electoral Commission is anindependent, impartial, and non-partisan tribunal. The sole power todetermine contests regarding theelections, returns, and qualifications ofthe members of the National Assemblyhas been transferred in totality to theElectoral Commission. Its power is clear,complete, and exclusive.

Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA

- Legislative discretion as to thesubstantive contents of the law cannotbe delegated. What can be delegated isthe discretion to determine how the law

may be enforced.- Completeness test and SufficientStandard Test:Completeness Test = complete in all itsterms and conditions when it leaves the

legislature such that what is left is merelyits enforcement.Sufficient Standard Test = adequateguidelines or limitations in the law to mapout the boundaries of the delegatesauthority and prevent the delegation fromrunning riot.- Subordinate Legislation = delegatedpower to issue rules to carry out thegeneral provision of the statute(Administrative bodies implement the

broad policies by promulgating theirsupplementary regulations.)

Casibang vs. Aquino

- Political Question = question of policy;question to be decided by the people intheir sovereign capacity or fuldiscretionary authority- Justiciable Question = implies a given

right, legally demandable andenforceable; an act or omission violativeof such right, and a remedy, granted orsanctioned by law for said breach of right.

Sanidad v. COMELEC

On whether the case is justiciablePolitical questions are associated with thewisdom of the legality of a particular act.

Where the vortex of the controversyrefers to the legality or validity of thecontested act, that matter is definitelyjusticiable or non-political. If theConstitution provides how it may beamended, the judiciary as the interpreterof that Constitution, can declare whetherthe procedure followed or the authority


14/39

assumed was valid or not.

On whether the President may proposeConstitutional amendments

If the President has been legitimately

discharging the legislative functions ofthe interim Assembly, there is no reasonwhy he cannot validly discharge thefunction of that Assembly to proposeamendments to the Constitution, whichis but an adjunct, although peculiar, toits gross legislative power.

(Note that at the time Prez. Marcos hadlegislative powers and there was nolegislative department at the time)

Daza v. Singson

Where the legality or validity of the actis in question and not the wisdom of theact, the Court may take jurisdiction anddecide on the acts validity. Even inpolitical questions the Court may takejurisdiction under the expanded judicialpower extended to it by Art 8 Sec. 1 ofthe Constitution.

(Judicial power includes the duty tosettle actual controversies involvingrights which are legally demandable andenforceable, and to determine whetheror not there has been a grave abuse ofdiscretion amounting to lack or excessof jurisdiction on the part of anybranch or instrumentality of Government.)

Delegation of Powers

Garcia v. Exec. Secretary

The Congress may authorize the

President to fix tariff rates and dutiessubject to such limitations andrestrictions that they may impose. This isexpressly provided for in Art 6, Sec 28 par2 of the Constitution.

Araneta v. Dinglasan

The delegation of emergency powers byCongress to the President may be limitedby Congress subject to restrictions it mayprovide. Congress may withdraw thedelegated power at any time. In this case,the emergency power was withdrawn atthe time Congress became able to

exercise its legislative duties again.

Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA

The principle of non-delegation of powersis applicable to all three branches ofgovernment specifically in the case of thelegislative. What can be delegated is thediscretion to determine how the law maybe enforced and not what the law shall be

since the ascertainment of the lattersubject is within the prerogative anddetermination of the legislature.Delegation of legislative power ispermitted and valid provided that ispasses the two accepted tests-completeness test and the sufficientstandard test. The reason for suchdelegation is the increasing complexity ofthe task of the government and thegrowing inability of the legislature to

cope directly with the myriad problemsdemanding its attention.

Rodriguez v. Gella

Act No. 671 was expressly in pursuance ofthe constitutional limitation of the


15/39

delegation of emergency powers. It ispresumed that the National Assemblyintended 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 therespondents are ordered to desist fromappropriating, releasing and allottingexpending funds set aside therein.

People v. Vera

Act No. 4221 is tantamount to an unduedelegation of legislative power. Thepowers of the government are

distributed among three coordinate andsubstantially independent organs: thelegislative, the executive and thejudicial. Each of the departments of thegovernment derives its authority fromthe Constitution.

US vs. Ang Tang HoIf the act within itself does not define acrime and is not complete, legislative

act remains to be done to make it a lawor a crime, the doing of which is vestedin the Gov, generally, the act is adelegation of legislative power, and isthus unconstitutional and void.

Ynot vs. IACThere is no standard that the officialsmust observe in determining to whom todistribute the confiscated carabaos and

carabeef. There is thus an invaliddelegation of legislatie power.

Tablarin vs. GutierezBecause the necessity standards are set forthin the statute (RA No. 2383), providing forstandardization 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. ErmitaWhere the effectivity of the law is madedependent on the verification by the executiveof the existence of certain conditions, theverification is delegated to the executive. (Thisis an example of contingent legislation - a validdelegation of law execution).

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 5Tobias v. Abalos

The creation of a new congressionaldistrict is but a natural consequence of amunicipalitys conversion into a city. TheConstitution provides that a city should

have a population of at least 250,000and is entitled to at least 1representative.

Mariano Jr. v. Comelec

As decided in Tobias v. Abalos, theConstitution provides that thecompositions of the House should not bemore than 250 members, unless otherwiseprovided by law. The natural result in the

creation of a new legislative from aspecial law whose purpose is to convert amunicipality into a city is sanctioned bythe Constitution.

Montejo v. Comelec

The Comelec has no power to reapportion


16/39

districts but only to make minoradjustments.

Republic Act No. 7941 An act providingfor the election of the party-list

representatives through the party-listsystem and appropriating fundstherefrom.

Section 13

Zandueta vs. De la Costa

When a judge of first instance, presiding

over a branch of a Court of FirstInstance of a judicial district by virtueof a legal and valid appointment,accepts another appointment to presideover the same branch of the same Courtof First Instance, in addition of anotherCourt of First Instance to the old one,enters into the discharge of thefunctions of his new office and receivesthe corresponding salary, he abandonshis old office and cannot claim to be

entitled to repossess it or question theconstitutionality of the law by virtue ofwhich his new appointment has beenissued; and, said new appointmenthaving been disapproved by theCommission on Appointments of theNational Assembly, neither can he claimto continue occupying the officeconferred upon him by said newappointment, having ipso jure ceased inthe discharge of the functions thereof.

Section 14

Puyat vs. De Guzman

No Member of the Batasang Pambansashall appear as counsel before any courtwithout appellate jurisdiction, before anycourt in any civil case wherein theGovernment, or any subdivision, agency,

or instrumentality thereof is the adverseparty, or in any criminal case wherein anyofficer or employee of the Government isaccused of an offense committed inrelation to his office,or before anyadministrative body.

Neither shall he, directly or indirectly beinterested financially in any contractwith, or in any franchise or specialprivilege granted by the Government, or

any subdivision, agency or instrumentalitythereof, including any government-ownedor controlled corporation, during his termof office.

He shall not accept employment tointervene in any cause or matter wherehe may be called to act on account of hisoffice.

Section 16

Santiago vs. Guingona, Jr.

Where no provision of the Constitution,the laws or even the rules of the Senatehas been clearly shown to have beenviolated, disregarded or overlooked,grave abuse of discretion cannot beimputed to Senate officials for acts donewithin their competence and authority.

Avelino vs. Cuenco

The constitutional grant to the Senate ofthe power to elect its own presidentshould not be interfered with, nor takenover, by the judiciary.


17/39

When the constitution declares that amajority of each House shallconstitute a quorum, it does not meanall of its members. Majority of all themembers constitute the House. Hence,

12 senators who unanimously votedconstitute a majority of 23 senators (10walked out, 1 out of the country).

OSMEA VS. PENDATUN

The House is the judge of whatconstitutes disorderly behavior asconferred upon by the Constitution.Also, Congress has the inherentlegislative prerogative of suspension.

PAREDES, JR. VS SANDIGANBAYAN

Sandiganbayan has the authority tosuspend a district representative inviolation of the Anti-Graft Law as it isbeing imposed on the representativeNOT as a member of the House.

U.S. VS PONS

The Court may not go beyond the therecitals of the legislative journals forthe purpose of determining the date ofadjournment when such journal areclear and explicit. To inquire theveracity of journals, when they areclear and explicit, would be to violateboth the letter and spirit of the laws, toinvade the coordinate and independentdepartment of the government and tointerfere with the legitimate powers

and functions of the Legislature.

CASCO PHIL CHEMICAL CO VS GIMENEZ

Enrolled bill doctrine- the term ureaformaldehyde is conclusive upon the

courts as regards the tenor of themeasure passed by the Congress andapproved by the President.

Section 18

Daza vs Singson- The sense of the Constitution is that themembership in the COA must always reflectpolitical alignments and must adjust to changes.Nowhere, however, in the Constitution requirethat the party must be a registered party.

Coseteng vs Mitra- Endorsement of other representatives (in COA)

cannot be counted in favor of a representative ifthey do not belong to the latter's party.

Guingona vs Gonzales- Full complement of 12 seats in COA is notmandatoryRounding out 0.5 to 1 is unconstitutional as itwould deprive other parties of seats in COA.

Sec. 21:

Bengzon vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee- Investigation was not in aid of legislationwhere it merely aims at determining whether alaw is violated. To allow such investigation is toviolate separation of powers.

Arnault vs Nazareno- Power of Investigation includes power to punisha contumacious witness for contempt.

Experience has shown that mere requests forinformation are frequently unavailing.- In aid of legislation - not difficult to satisfy.Necessity or lack of necessity for legislativeaction is determined by the sum total ofinformation to be gathered as a result ofinvestigation, and not by a fraction of suchinformation elicited from single question. It is


18/39

sufficient that the question is germane to thesubject matter of inquiry. There is no need forit to be directly related or connected topossible legislation.

Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability- Exception to legislative inquiry: ExecutivePrivilege (which is extended to all closeadvisors of the President)- It is wrong for Senate to punish one forcontempt where executive privilege is properlyinvoked.- Senate's mistakes in the case at bar: (1)invitations to Neri did not include possiblestatute; (2) contempt order lacks required # ofvotes; (3) Senate did not first rule on the claim

of executive privilege and instead dismissedNeri's explanation; (4) rules of procedure oninquiries in aid of legislation not dulypublished.

Sec. 21 and 22:

Senate vs Ermita- When Congress merely seeks to be informedon how department heads are implementing

the statutes, it is not imperative.- The oversight function of Congress may befacilitated by compulsory process only to theextent that it is performed in pursuit oflegislation.- Appearance of department heads in questionhour is discretionary.- When Congress exercises its power of inquiry,the only way for the department heads toexempt themselves therefrom is by a validclaim of privilege.

- EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE privilege based ondoctrine of separation of powers, exemptingexecutive from disclosure requirements wheresuch exemption is necessary to the dischargeof highly important executive responsibilities.It covers categories of information not ofpersons.

Sec. 24:

Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance- The phrase originate exclusively does not

refer to the appropriations law but to theappropriations bill. It is sufficient that the Houseof Rep. initiated the passage of the bill.

Alvarez vs Guingona- A bill of local application, such as one askingfor the conversion of a municipality into a city,is deemed to have originated from the Houseprovided that the bill of the House was filedprior to the filing of the bill in the Senate evenif, in the end, the Senate approved its own

version.- The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill inanticipation of its receipt of the bill does notcontravene the constitutional requirement aslong as the Senate does not act thereupon untilit receives the House bill.

Sec. 25:

Garcia vs Mata- RIDER a provision not related to theappropriation act (is prohibited)

Demetria vs Alba- transfer of appropriations prohibited

PHILCONSA vs Enriquez- The list of those who may be authorized totransfer funds is exclusive.- Case at bar: Congressmen are allowed todetermine the necessity of realignment, but

House Speaker or Senate Pres. will have toapprove the realignment before items arerealigned.- Case at bar: Chief of Staff may not be giveauthority to realign appropriations.

Sec. 26:


19/39

Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board- Imposition of tax is sufficiently related to theregulation of video industry where the title iscomprehensive 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 isgermane to the object of the title, which is tocreate postal service system. Hence, the sameis embraced in the title/

Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26(1)]

- Withdrawing tax exemptions granted beforeis embraced in the subject of the title which isto 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 thelegislature by means of provisions which mightbe overlooked

(c) to fairly apprise the people of thesubjects of legislation

Tobias vs Abalos- Provision providing for a separate legislativedistrict is germane to the subject of the billcreating 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, thetime saved would be so negligible as to be ofany use in ensuring immediate enactment.(Printing and Readings on separate days bothdispensable by pres. certification)- Where no Senators controverted the realityof the factual basis of certification, growingbudget deficit may be considered as basis for

presidential certification. Senators, inresponding to the call of the Pres. by voting onthe bill, manifested their belief in the urgentneed for certification of the bill.

Sec. 27:

Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance- It is within the power of a conferencecommittee to include in its report an entirelynew provision not found in either House Bill orSenate Bill. (Amendment in the nature ofsubstitution is warranted as long as amendmentis 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 aprovision that is constitutionally inappropriatemay be singled out for veto if it is not anappropriation or revenue item. An inappropriateprovision in an appropriations bill is an item initself.

Bengzon vs Drilon- President's power to veto an item does notgrant authority to veto part of an item (orprovisions).- President cannot veto a law or repeal a law.

PHILCONSA vs Enriquez- Provisions that are germane to the specificappropriations cannot be vetoed.- Requirement of Congressional approval forrelease of funds for modernization of AFP can be

incorporated in separate bill and henceinappropriate. It was properly vetoed.- Executive Impoundment refusal of thePresident to spend funds already allocated byCongress for a specific purpose (the duty toimplement the law includes the duty to desistfrom implementing it when implementationwould prejudice public interest). The Court,


20/39

however, did not rule on this issue, and ratherdeclared the provision concerning benefits ofCAFGUs as an inappropriate provision.

Sec. 28:

Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pilipinas vsTan- a tax is considered uniform when it operateswith the same force and effect in every placewhere the subject may be found.

Province of Abra vs Judge Hernando

Abra Valley College vs Aquino

- Where a lot is not used exclusively foreducational purpose, it may be taxed if the useis not incidental to the attainment of mainpurpose.

Tan vs Del Rosario- Uniformity of taxation means:

(a) standards that are used aresubstantial and not arbitrary

(b) categorization is germane to achievelegislative purpose

(c) law applies, all things being equal,to both present and future conditions

(d) classification applies equally well toall those belonging to the same class

Sec. 29:

Pascual vs Sec. of Public Works- Appropriation for a road owned by a privateindividual is invalid because it is not for a

public purpose. Subsequent donation did notvalidate the law because validity of a statutedepends upon the power of Congress at thetime of its approval and not upon subsequentevents.

Aglipay vs Ruiz- Appropriation for special stamp issue is valid

as it is not specifically made to benefit areligious denomination but for a public purpose.The benefit acquired by the Church is incidentalonly.

Guingona vs Carague- The Automatic Reappropriation Law forservicing foreign debts is valid because theamount is fixed by the parameters of the lawitself which requires the simple act of lookinginto the books of Treasure (the amount isdeterminable).- Budgetary process:

(a) budget preparation(b) legislative authorization(c) budget execution

(d) budget accountability

Osmena vs Orbos- Increase of petroleum prices to resolve theTerminal Fund Balance deficit is valid as it was avalid exercise of police power.

PHILCONSA vs Enriquez- Pork barrel provisions in the annual budgetallowing members of Congress to performexecutive function of spending money

appropriated are not in violation of separationof powers because Congress itself had specifiedthe uses of the fund and the power given wasmerely recommendatory to the President whocould approve or disapprove therecommendation.

Sec. 30:

First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs CA- B.P. Blg. 129 granting exclusive appellatejurisdiction to CA over the decisions of quasi-judicial bodies is not superseded by OmnibusInvestments Code of 1987 providing thatdecisions of BOI are appealable to SC becauseadvice and concurrence of SC was not sought.

Diaz vs CA


21/39

- Sec. 10 of EO No. 170 stating a partyadversely affected by a decision of ERB mayfile a petition with SC was superseded by theConstitution stating that jurisdiction of SCcannot 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 peoplethemselves- Referendum consists merely of the electorateapproving or rejecting what has been drawn

up or enacted by a legislative body.- Case at bar: COMELEC erred in implementinga Resolution when respondents filed petitionfor Initiative and not Referendum.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Sec. 1:

Marcos vs Manglapus- The President has residual powers. ThePresident is more than the sum of specificpowers enumerated in the Constitution.- What is not part of the legislative andjudicial departments is deemed part of theexecutive.- The 1987 Constitution provided for alimitation of specific powers of the President,particularly those relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but not a diminution of thegeneral grant of executive power.

Soliven vs Makasiar- The privilege of immunity from suit is toassure the exercise of Presidential duties freefrom any hindrance or distraction consideringthat being the Chief Executive demandsundivided attention.- The privilege pertains to the President by

virtue of the office and may be invoked only bythe holder of the office. There is nothing whichprohibits the President to waive this privilege.

Estrada vs Desierto

- A non-sitting President does not enjoyimmunity from suit (immunity is only during thetenure)- Even a sitting President is not immune fromsuit for non-official acts or from wrongdoing.(Public office is a public trust. The rule is thatunlawful acts of public officials are not acts ofthe State and the officer who acts illegally is notacting as such but stands in the same footing asany other trespasser.)

Sec. 13:

Doromal vs Sandiganbayan- Sec Sec. 13, Art. VII is applicable in a casewhere the accused has not signed any documentof any bid of the family corporation of which heis a member, submitted to any governmentdepartment.- Case at bar: Petitioner has at least an indirectinterest with the transaction with DECS and

NMYC.

Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary- EO No. 284 is unconstitutional insofar it allowsa member of the Cabinet to hold not more thantwo positions in the government. (Respondent'scontention that Sec. 7, Art. IX-B is an exceptionwould defeat the obvious legislative intentwhich is to prohibit cabinet members fromholding multiple offices.)

Aytona vs Castillo- As a rule, once an appointment is issued, itcannot be reconsidered where the appointee hasqualified. Exception: ad interim appointmentsissued in the last hours of an outgoing ChiefExecutive (midnight appointments made forbuying votes).


22/39

In re Valenzuela and Vallarta- Sec. 15 (President shall not makeappointments within 2 months prior to thenext Presidential election) is applicable to themembers of the Judiciary.

- This sort of appointment is made for partisanconsiderations.

De Castro vs. JBC

Sec. 16:

Binamira vs Garrucho

- Appointment or designation involves exerciseof discretion which cannot be delegated. Evenif it be assumed that the power could beexercised by Minister of Tourism, it could berecalled by the President.- Designation is considered only an acting ortemporary appointment, which does not confersecurity of tenure.

Sarmiento vs Mison- 4 groups of officers whom the President shall

appoint:(a) heads of the executive departments,

ambassadors, other public ministers andconsuls, officers of the armed forces from therank of colonel or naval captain, and otherwhose appointments are vested in him in thisConstitution

(b) all other officers of the Governmentwhose appointments are not otherwiseprovided 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 inthe President alone.- Case at bar: Confirmation of COA is notneeded in appointment of Commissioner ofBureau of Customs because a bureau headisnot among those within the first group of

appointments where consent of COA is required.

Bautista vs Salonga- Confirmation of COA is not needed inappointment of Chairman of Commission of

Human Rights because such appointment is notvested in the President in the Constitution. ThePresident appoints Chairman of CHR pursuant toEO 163 (CHR Chairman is thus within the 3rd

group of officers)

Quintos-Deles vs Commission of Appointments- The appointment of Sectoral Representativesrequires confirmation by the Commission onAppointments. The seats reserved for sectoralrepresentatives may be filled by appointment by

the President by express provision of Sec.7,Article XVIII of the Constitution (hence, sectoralrepresentatives are within the 1st group ofofficers)- Exceptions to those officers within the 1st

group: (1) Ombudsman and his deputies, and (2)members of the Supreme Court and judges oflower 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 vsMison.- Congress may not expand the list ofappointments needing confirmation.- Case at bar: RA 6715, which requires the COAconfirmation in appointments of NLRC Chairmanand Commissioners, transgresses Sec. 16, Art.VII. The appointments of NLRC Chairman andCommissioners do not need COA confirmationbecause they fall under the 3rdgroup of officers.

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

Flores vs Drilon- A law which limits the President to only one


23/39

appointee is an encroachment to theprerogative of the President becauseappointment involves discretion to choose whoto appoint.

Luego vs Civil Service Commission- CSC is without authority to revoke anappointment because of its belief that anotherperson was better qualified, which is anencroachment on the discretion vested solelyin the appointing authority.- The permanent appointment made by theappointing authority may not be reversed byCSC and call it temporary.

Pobre vs Mendieta

- The vacancy in the position of Chairman ofthe Professional Regulation Commission cannotbe filled by the Senior Associate Commissionerby operation of law (or by succession) becauseit will deprive the President of the power toappoint the Chairman.

Sec. 17

Drilon vs Lim- Distinction between power and control:

An officer in control lays down the rulesin the doing of an act. if they are notfollowed, he may, in his discretion, orderthe act undone or re-done by hissubordinate or he may even decide to do itby himself.

Supervision does not cover suchauthority. The supervisor merely sees to itthat rules are followed, but he himself doesnot lay down such rules, nor does he have

the discretion to modify or replace them. Ifthe rules are not observed, he may orderthe work done or re-done but only toconform to the prescribed rules. He may notprescribe his own manner except to see to itthat the rules are followed.

(Note) Power of control pertains to power ofan officer to alter, modify, nullify, or set aside

what a subordinate has done in the performanceof his duties and to substitute his judgment tothat of the former [Mondano vs Silvosa]

Villena vs Secretary of the Interior

- Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (alterego principle) -acts of the Secretaries ofExecutive Departments, when performed andpromulgated in the regular course of business orunless disapproved or reprobated by the ChiefExecutive, are presumptively the acts of theChief Executive- Case at bar: Secretary of the Interior isinvested with the authority to order theinvestigation of the charges against thepetitioner and to appoint a special investigator

for that purpose.

Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs Pano- Department heads are President's men ofconfidence. His is the power to appoint them;his, too, is the privilege to dismiss them atpleasure. Normally, he controls and directs theiracts. Implicit then is his authority to go over,confirm, modify or reverse the action taken byhis department secretaries.- Case at bar: The President, through his

Executive Secretary, may undo an act of theDirector of Lands

City of Iligan vs Director of Lands- The President has the power to grant portionsof public domain to any government entity likethe City of Iligan because he has control overthe Director of Lands, who has direct executivecontrol in the lease, sale or any form ofconcession or disposition of the land of publicdomain.

Gascon vs Arroyo- Case at bar: Executive Secretary has the powerand authority to enter into the Agreement toArbitrate with the ABS CBN as he acted for andin behalf of the President when he signed it.

Kilusan Bayan vs Dominguez


24/39

- An administrative officer has only suchpowers as are expressly granted to him andthose necessarily implied in the exercisethereof. These powers should not be extendedby implication beyond what may be necessary

for their just and reasonable execution.

Angangco vs Castillo- The power to remove is inherent in the powerto appoint, but not with regard to thoseofficers or employees who belong to theclassified service for as to them the inherentpower cannot be exercisedNAMARCO vs Arca- Executive power of control extends to

government-owned corporations.

Sec. 18:

Guazon vs De Villa- The President has the power to ordainsaturation drives. There is nothing in theConstitution which denies the authority of theChief Exec. to order police actions to stopunabated criminality, rising lawlessness, and

alarming communist activities.

Ruffy vs Chief of Staff- Courts martial are simply instrumentalities ofthe executive power, provided by the Congressfor the President as Commander in chief to aidhim in properly commanding the army andnavy and enforcing discipline therein andutilize under his order those of his authorizedmilitary representatives.

Olaguer vs Military Commission No. 34- Due process of law demands that in allcriminal prosecutions the accused be entitledto a trial. The trial contemplated by the dueprocess clause is trial by judicial process.Military Commissions are not courts within thePhilippine judicial system. Judicial power isvested only in the courts. Military commissions

pertain to the executive department and areinstrumentalities of the President ascommander-in-chief to aid him in enforcingdiscipline in the armed forces.

Quilona vs General Court Martial

Gudani vs Senga- The President has constitutional authority toprevent a member of the armed forces fromtestifying before a legislative inquiry, by virtueof her power as commander-in-chief, and that asa consequence, a military officer who defiessuch injunction is liable under military justice.At the same time, the Court also holds that anychamber of Congress which seeks the

appearance befoe it of a military officer againstthe consent of the President has adequateremedies under law to compel such attendance.Any military officer whom the Congress summonsto testify before it may be compelled to do so bythe President. If the President is not so inclined,the President may be commanded by judicialorder to compel the attendance of the militaryofficer. Final judicial orders have the force ofthe law of the land which the President has theduty to faithfully execute.

Sec. 19:

Torres vs Gonzales- A judicial pronouncement is not necessary indetermining whether the conditions in thepardon are violated. The determination ofwhether there is a violations of the conditionsrests exclusively in the sound judgment of thePresident.

Monsanto vs Factoran- Pardon implies guilt. While it relieves the partypardoned from all punitive consequences of hiscriminal act, it relieves him from nothing more.It does not, therefore, restore a convicted felonto public office forfeited by reason ofconviction.


25/39

People vs Salle, Jr.- Pardon may be granted only by finaljudgment. Where the judgment of conviction isstill pending appeal, executive clemency may

not yet be granted. Before an appellant maybe granted pardon, he must first ask for thewithdrawal of his appeal.

Garcia vs COA- President's grant of executive clemency to aperson dismissed from his office pursuant to anadministrative case (but where the latter hasbeen acquitted in a criminal case based on thesame facts alleged in the criminal case)entitles the latter to automatic reinstatement

and backwages.

Sabello vs DECS- Pardon (in a criminal case) frees theindividual from all the penalties anddisabilities and restores him to all his civilrights. Although such pardon may restore aperson's eligibility to public office, it does notentitle him to automatic reinstatement. Heshould 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 betweencriminal and administrative cases.

Sec. 18:

Constantino, Jr. vs Cuisia- The debt-relief contracts, providing for buy-

back and bond-conversion schemes, enteredinto pursuant to Financing Program are notbeyond the powers granted to the Presidentunder Sec. 20, Art. VII. The only restrictionthat the Constitution provides, aside from theprior concurrence of the Monetary Board, isthat loans must be subject to limitationsprovided by law. Accordingly, the contention

that buy-back and bond-conversion schemes areneither loans nor guarantees, and hencebeyond the Presidents power to execute, arewithout merit.

Sec. 21:

Commissioner of Customs vs Eastern SeaTrading (1961)- The concurrence of the House of Congress isrequired by our fundamental law in the makingof treaties which are however distinct anddifferent from executive agreements which maybe 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 roleof the Senate is limited only to giving orwithholding its consent or concurrence to theratification. Hence, it is within the authority ofthe President to refuse to submit a treaty to theSenate or having secured its consent for itsratification, refuse to ratify it. This discretion toratify lies within the President's competencealone.

- 4 steps in treaty-making process:(a) negotiation(b) signing of the treaty (simply a means

of authenticating the instrument and a symbol ofgood faith)

(c) ratification (formal act by which astatute confirms and accepts the provisions of atreaty)

(d) exchange of instruments ofratification- In the case at bar, the treaty was merely

signed.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Sec. 1:


26/39

Santiago vs Bautista- The courts may not exercise judicialpower when there is no applicable law.- Case at bar: An award of honors to astudent by a board of teachers may not

be reversed by a court where theawards are governed by no applicablelaw.

Daza v Singson- Even if the issue presented waspolitical in nature, the Court is still notbe precluded from resolving it under theexpanded jurisdiction conferred upon itthat now covers, in proper cases, eventhe political question.

- That where serious constitutionalquestions are involved, "thetranscendental importance to the publicof these cases demands that they besettled promptly and definitely brushingaside, if we must, technicalities ofprocedure."

Mantruste Systems v Court of Appeals

- There can be no justification forjudicial interference in the business ofan administrative agency, except whenit violates a citizen's constitutionalrights, or commits a grave abuse ofdiscretion, or acts in excess of, orwithout jurisdiction.

- Courts may not substitute theirjudgment for that of the AssetPrivatization Trust (administrativebody), nor block, by an injunction, the

discharge of its functions and theimplementation of its decisions inconnection with the acquisition, sale ordisposition of assets transferred to it.

Malaga v Penachos, Jr.

- It was previously declared the

prohibition pertained to the issuance ofinjunctions or restraining orders by courtsagainst administrative acts incontroversies involving facts or theexercise of discretion in technical cases.

The Court observed that to allow thecourts to judge these matters woulddisturb the smooth functioning of theadministrative machinery. On issuesdefinitely outside of this dimension andinvolving questions of law, courts couldnot be prevented by any law (in this case,P.D. No. 605) from exercising their powerto restrain or prohibit administrative acts.

PACU v Secretary of Education

- Judicial power is limited to the decisionof actual cases and controversies.

(Mere apprehension that the Secretary ofEducation might under the law withdrawthe permit of one of petitioners does notconstitute a justiciable controversy.)

- Courts do not sit to adjudicate mereacademic questions to satisfy scholarly

interest therein however intellectuallysolid the problem may be. This isespecially true where the issues "reachconstitutional dimensions, for then therecomes into play regard for the court'sduty to avoid decision of constitutionalissues unless avoidance becomes evasion.

Mariano, Jr. v COMELEC

- Considering that those contingencies

mentioned by the petitioners may or maynot happen, petitioners merely pose ahypothetical issue which has yet to ripento an actual case or controversy.Petitioners who are residents of Taguig(except Mariano) are not also the properparties to raise this abstract issue (city ofMakati is involved). Worse, they raise this


27/39

futuristic issue in a petition fordeclaratory relief over which this Courthas no jurisdiction.

Macasiano v National Housing Authority

-It is a rule firmly entrenched in ourjurisprudence that the constitutionalityof an act of the legislature will not bedetermined by the courts unless thatquestion is properly raised andpresented in appropriate cases and isnecessary to a determination of thecase.

J. Joya v PCGG

- The rule is settled that no questioninvolving the constitutionality or validityof a law or governmental act may beheard and decided by the court unlessthere is compliance with the legalrequisites for judicial inquiry, namely:that the question must be raised by theproper party; that there must be anactual case or controversy; that the

question must be raised at the earliestpossible opportunity; and, that thedecision on the constitutional or legalquestion must be necessary to thedetermination of the case itself. But themost important are the first two (2)requisites.

- Not every action filed by a taxpayercan qualify to challenge the legality ofofficial acts done by the government. A

taxpayer's suit can prosper only if thegovernmental acts being questionedinvolve disbursement of public fundsupon the theory that the expenditure ofpublic funds by an officer of the statefor the purpose of administering anunconstitutional act constitutes amisapplication 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 theassertion of a public right, therequirement of personal interest issatisfied by the mere fact that thepetitioner is a citizen, and therefore, partof the general "public" which possessesthe right.

-"Public" is a comprehensive, all-inclusiveterm. Properly construed, it embracesevery person.

Dumlao v COMELEC

- For one, there is a misjoinder of partiesand actions. One petitioner does not joinother petitioners in the burden of theircomplaint, nor do the latter join theformer in his. They, respectively, contestcompletely different statutory provisions.

- For another, there are standards that

have to be followed in the exercise of thefunction of judicial review, namely: (1)the existence of an appropriate case; (2)an interest personal and substantial bythe party raising the constitutionalquestion; (3) the plea that the functionbe exercised at the earliest opportunity;and (4) the necessity that theconstitutional question be passed upon inorder to decide the case.

Bugnay Const. and Devt. Corp. v Laron

- The doctrine holds that only when theact complained of directly involves anillegal disbursement of public funds raisedby taxation will the taxpayer's suit beallowed. The essence of a taxpayer's rightto institute such an action hinges on the


28/39

existence of that requisite pecuniary ormonetary interest.

- It is not enough that the taxpayer-plaintiff sufficiently show that he would

be benefited or injured by the judgmentor entitled to the avails of the suit as areal party in interest.

Kilosbayan v Guingona, Jr.

- A party's standing before this Court is aprocedural technicality which it may, inthe exercise of its discretion, set asidein view of the importance of the issues

raised.

- In line with the liberal policy of thisCourt on locus standi, ordinarytaxpayers, members of Congress, andeven association of planters, and non-profit civic organizations were allowedto initiate and prosecute actions beforethis Court to question theconstitutionality or validity of laws,acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of

various government agencies orinstrumentalities.

PHILCONSA v Enriquez

- The Senators have legal standing toquestion the validity of the veto. Whena veto was made in excess of theauthority of the President, itimpermissibily intrudes into the domainof the Legislature. A member of

Congress can question an act of theExecutive which injures Congress as aninstitution.

Tatad v Garcia, Jr.

-The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer'ssuits are to allow taxpayers to question

contracts entered into by the nationalgovernment or government-owned orcontrolled corporations allegedly incontravention of the law and to disallowthe same when only municipal contracts

are involved (just like in Bugnay casesince no public money was involved).

Oposa v Factoran, Jr.

- CLASS SUIT: The subject matter of thecomplaint is of common and generalinterest not just to several, but to allcitizens of the Philippines. Consequently,since the parties are so numerous, itbecomes impracticable, if not totally

impossible, to bring all of them beforethe court.

- Their personality to sue in behalf of thesucceeding generations can only be basedon the concept of intergenerationalresponsibility insofar as the right to abalanced and healthful ecology isconcerned.

- Needless to say, every generation has a

responsibility to the next to preserve thatrhythm and harmony for the fullenjoyment of a balanced and healthfulecology. Put a little differently, theminors` assertion of their right to a soundenvironment constitutes, at the sametime, the performance of their obligationto ensure the protection of that right forthe generations to come.

Lozada v COMELEC

- As taxpayers, petitioners may not filethe instant petition, for nowhere thereinis it alleged that tax money is beingillegally spent. It is only when an actcomplained of, which may include alegislative enactment or statute, involvesthe illegal expenditure of public money


29/39

that the so-called taxpayer suit may beallowed.- The unchallenged rule is that theperson who impugns the validity of astatute must have a personal and

substantial interest in the case such thathe has sustained, or will sustain, directinjury as a result of its enforcement.Concrete injury, whether actual orthreatened, is that indispensableelement of a dispute which serves inpart to cast it in a form traditionallycapable of judicial resolution. Whenthe asserted harm is a "generalizedgrievance" shared in substantially equalmeasure by all or a large class of

citizens, that harm alone normally doesnot warrant exercise of jurisdiction.

Kilosbayan v Morato

- The voting on petitioners' standing inthe previous case was a narrow one,seven (7) members sustainingpetitioners' standing and six (6) denying

petitioners' right to bring the suit. Themajority was thus a tenuous one that isnot likely to be maintained in anysubsequent litigation. In addition, therehave been charges in the membership ofthe Court, with the retirement ofJustice Cruz and Bidin and theappointment of the writer of thisopinion and Justice Francisco. Given thisfact it is hardly tenable to insist on themaintenance of the ruling as to

petitioners' standing.

SECTION 3

Bengzon v Lim

- What is fiscal autonomy? Itcontemplates a guarantee of full

flexibility to allocate and utilize theirresources with the wisdom and dispatchthat their needs require. It recognizes thepower and authority to levy, assess andcollect fees, fix rates of compensation not

exceeding the highest rates authorized bylaw for compensation and play plans ofthe government and allocate and disbursesuch sums as may be provided by law orprescribed by them in the course of thedischarge of their functions. Fiscalautonomy means freedom from outsidecontrol.

- The Judiciary, the ConstitutionalCommissions, and the Ombudsman must

have the independence and flexibilityneeded in the discharge of theirconstitutional duties. The imposition ofrestrictions and constraints on the mannerthe independent constitutional officesallocate and utilize the fundsappropriated for their operations isanathema to fiscal autonomy andviolative not only of the express mandateof the Constitution but especially asregards the Supreme Court, of the

independence and separation of powersupon which the entire fabric of ourconstitutional system is based

SECTION 4

Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v Court ofAppeals, et.al.

- Reorganization is purely an internalmatter of the Court to which petitioner

certainly has no business at all.

- The Court with its new membership isnot obliged to follow blindly a decisionupholding a party's case when, after itsre-examination, the same calls for arectification.


30/39

SECTION 5

Drilon v Lim

- The Constitution vests in the Supreme

Court appellate jurisdiction over finaljudgments and orders of lower courts inall cases in which the constitutionalityor validity of any treaty, international orexecutive agreement, law, presidentialdecree, proclamation, order,instruction, ordinance, or regulation isin question.

- In the exercise of this jurisdiction,lower courts are advised to act with the

utmost circumspection, bearing in mindthe consequences of a declaration ofunconstitutionality upon the stability oflaws, no less than on the doctrine ofseparation of powers. As the questionedact is usually the handiwork of thelegislative or the executivedepartments, or both, it will be prudentfor such courts, if only out of abecoming modesty, to defer to thehigher judgment of this Court in the

consideration of its validity, which isbetter determined after a thoroughdeliberation by a collegiate body andwith the concurrence of the majority ofthose who participated in its discussion.

Larranaga v Court of Appeals

(Transfer the venue of the preliminaryinvestigation from Cebu City to Manilabecause of the extensive coverage of

the proceedings by the Cebu mediawhich allegedly influenced the people'sperception of petitioner's character andguilt.)

- The Court recognizes that pervasiveand prejudicial publicity under certaincircumstances can deprive an accused of

his due process right to fair trial. It waspreviously held that to warrant a findingof prejudicial publicity there must beallegation and proof that the judges havebeen unduly influenced, not simply that

they might be, by the barrage in publicity.- In the case at bar, nothing in the recordsshows that the tone and content of thepublicity that attended the investigationof petitioners fatally infected the fairnessand impartiality of the DOJ Panel.

First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v Court of Appeals

- It is intended to give the Supreme Courta measure of control over cases paced

under its appellate jurisdiction. For theindiscriminate enactment of legislationenlarging its appellate jurisdiction. Forthe indiscriminate enactment oflegislation enlarging its appellatejurisdiction can unnecessarily burden theCourt and thereby undermine its essentialfunction of expounding the law in its mostprofound national aspects.

Aruelo v Court of Appeals

- Constitutionally speaking, the COMELECcan not adopt a rule prohibiting the filingof certain pleadings in the regular courts.The power to promulgate rules concerningpleadings, practice and procedure in allcourts is vested on the Supreme Court.

Javellana v DILG

(Section 90 of the Local Government Code

of 1991 and DLG Memorandum CircularNo. 90-81 does not violate Article VIII.Section 5 of the Constitution. Neither thestatute nor the circular trenches upon theSupreme Court's power and authority toprescribe rules on the practice of law.)

- The Local Government Code and DLG


31/39

Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simplyprescribe rules of conduct for publicofficials to avoid conflicts of interestbetween the discharge of their publicduties and the private practice of their

profession, in those instances where thelaw allows it.

SECTION 6

Maceda v Vasquez

- In the absence of any administrativeaction taken against a person by theCourt with regard to his certificates ofservice, the investigation being

conducted by the Ombudsmanencroaches into the Court's power ofadministrative supervision over allcourts and its personnel, in violation ofthe doctrine of separation of powers.

- Where a criminal complaint against aJudge or other court employee arisesfrom their administrative duties, theOmbudsman must defer action on saidcomplaint and refer the same to the

Court for determination whether saidJudge or court employee had actedwithin the scope of their administrativeduties.

Raquiza v Judge Castaneda, Jr.

- The rules even in an administrativecase demands that if the respondentJudge should be disciplined for gravemisconduct or any graver offense, the

evidence presented against him shouldbe competent and derived from directknowledge. The judiciary, to whichrespondent belongs, no less demandsthat before its member could befaulted, it should be only after dueinvestigation and based on competentproofs, no less. This is all the more so

when as in this case the charges are penalin nature.

('Misconduct' also implies 'a wrongfulintention and not a mere error of

judgment. It results that even ifrespondent were not correct in his legalconclusions, his judicial actuations cannotbe regarded as grave misconduct, unlessthe contrary sufficiently appears.)

SECTION 10

Nitafan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue

- The clear intent of the Constitutional

Commission was to delete the proposedexpress grant of exemption from paymentof income tax to members of theJudiciary, so as to "give substance toequality among the three branches ofGovernment.

SECTION 11

De La Llana v Alba

-Judiciary Act does not violate judicialsecurity of tenure. This Court isempowered "to discipline judges ofinferior courts and, by a vote of at leasteight members, order their dismissal."Thus, it possesses the competence toremove judges. Under the Judiciary Act,it was the President who was vested withsuch power. Removal is, of course, to bedistinguished from termination by virtueof the abolition of the office. There can

be no tenure to a non-existent office.After the abolition, there is in law nooccupant. In case of removal, there is anoffice with an occupant who wouldthereby lose his position. It is in thatsense that from the standpoint of strictlaw, the question of any impairment ofsecurity of tenure does not arise.


32/39

Nonetheless, for the incumbents ofinferior courts abolished, the effect isone of separation. As to its effect, nodistinction exists between removal andthe abolition of the office. Realistically,

it is devoid of significance. He ceases tobe a member of the judiciary.

People v Gacott, Jr.

- To require the entire Court todeliberate upon and participate in alladministrative matters or casesregardless of the sanctions, imposableor imposed, would result in a congesteddocket and undue delay in the

adjudication of cases in the Court,especially in administrative matters,since even cases involving the penalty ofreprimand would require action by theCourt en banc.

- Yet, although as thus demonstrated,only cases involving dismissal of judgesof lower courts are specifically requiredto be decided by the Court en banc, incognizance of the need for a thorough

and judicious evaluation of seriouscharges against members of thejudiciary, it is only when the penaltyimposed does not exceed suspension ofmore than one year or a fine ofP10,000.00, or both, that theadministrative matter may be decidedin division.

SECTION 12

In Re: Manzano

- As incumbent RTC Judges, they formpart of the structure of government.Their integrity and performance in theadjudication of cases contribute to thesolidity of such structure. As publicofficials, they are trustees of an orderly

society. Even as non-members ofProvincial/City Committees on Justice,RTC judges should render assistance tosaid Committees to help promote thelandable purposes for which they exist,

but only when such assistance may bereasonably incidental to the fulfillment oftheir judicial duties.

SECTION 14

Nicos Industrial Corp v Court of Appeals

- The Court is not duty bound to rendersigned decisions all the time. It has amplediscretion to formulate decisions and/or

minute resolutions, provided a legal basisis given, depending on its evaluation of acase.

- As it is settled that an order dismissing acase for insufficient evidence is ajudgment on the merits, it is imperativethat it be a reasoned decision clearly anddistinctly stating therein the facts and thelaw on which it is based.

Mendoza v CFI

- What is expected of the judiciary "isthat the decision rendered makes clearwhy either party prevailed under theapplicable law to the facts as established.Nor is there any regid formula as to thelanguage to be employed to satisfy therequirement of clarity and distinctness.The discretion of the particular judge inthis respect, while not unlimited, is

necessarily broad. There is nosacramental form of words which he mustuse upon pain of being considered ashaving failed to abide by what theConstitution directs."

- The provision has been held to refer onlyto decisions of the merits and not to


33/39

orders

CONSTI-Cases Sumary Whole Sem

Documents

Transcript of CONSTI-Cases Sumary Whole Sem