Constitutional Law I (Political Law) - Case Summary/Digest

CONSTI I 1st Sem AY 2014-2015: Catapusan, Kevin C.

1

Ref. Case Title Facts Doctrine

Art. I Sec.I

1 Magallona v. CA RA 9522 on adjusting the countries archipelagic

baselines.

Pacta sunt servanda. UNCLOS (multi-lateral treaty) codifies

the worlds oceans and submarine areas, recognizing coastal and archipelagic authority over a limited span of waters and

submarines along their coasts. Not depart to any depreciable

extent from the general configuration of the archipelago.

Territorial waters 12, contiguous zones 24, exclusive ecozone

200.

RA is a statutory tool to demarcate the countrys maritime zones and constitutional shelf under UNLCOS III, not delineate

Philippine territory. UNCLOS is the only way to draw baseline.

Regime of islandscontested islands outside our configuration

Right of innocent passage is customary international law.

Sovereignty over internal waters is not lost. Legislation may be

passed to designate routes. Becomes archipelagic sea lanes

passage.

RA passed to avoid future disputes.

Art. II

2 Tondo Medical v. CA

Health Sector Reform Agenda of DOH passed.

EO redirecting the functions and operation of

DOH passed.

Art. II of Constitution is non-self-executing.

President may, by EO or AO, direct reorganization of

government entities under Executive Department. Admin

Code: restructure internal; transfer any function; transfer any

agency. Simplicity, economy and efficiency.

3 BCDA v. COA BCDA compensation benefit equivalent to BSP.

BODs are not salaried officials. Full time consultants are not

paid full basic salary. Giving YEB to them violates RA 7227

on BCDA stating that they are only given per diem. Further,

YEB applies to salaried individuals.

Denial of YEB does not violate constitution. Art. II is non-self-

executing.

Approval of FVR does not cure the defect. Not required to

refund because in good faith.


2


Art. II Sec. I

4 Bacani v. NACOCO

Court stenographers ordered to refund the

payment made to them as ordered by the auditor

general on the ground that NACOCO is not a

government entity.

Constituent v. ministrant; government; functions; incorporated.

Constituentorder, legal relations, contracts, punishments, justice

Ministrantpublic works, education, charity, health, trade; what private not naturally do; government is better equipped.

NACOCO was made subject to the provisions of Corporation

Law. Not a municipal corporation. Should pay stenographers.

5 ACCFA v. CUGCO Union strike because of failure to meet the

CBA.

Government; functions; unincorporated

ACA was made under Agricultural Reform Code stating that

ACA is not going to be a profit making institution. Falls under

the constituent function of the government.

Prohibition against strike in government should be followed.

Strike cannot be granted.

6 PVTA v. CIR

PVTA does not recognize the overtime in 8Hr

Labor Law because of its governmental

functions.


8Hr Labor Law provides that it applies to both public and

private persons employed.

7 Republic v. Judge of CFI of Rizal Rice and Corn Administration, governmental

agency, did not post appeal bond.


Though doing mercantile activity, only incident to primary

government function. Hence, still a government agency and

exempt from paying legal fees. No doubt as to solvency of

government.

8 VFP v. Reyes Dept. of National Defense intends to audit VFP

and Veterans Bank.

GOCC

Special laws cannot be passed to create private corporations.

However, GOCCs are allowed.

VFP is public corporation. Created by RA. Adjunct of

government. Executive functions only to implement RA

creating it.

DND Circular to audit is valid.

9 Ramiscal v. SB AFP makes unilateral and bilateral deeds of sale GOCC


3


for its Retirement Benefit System.

AFP-RSBS is a GOCC. SB has jurisdiction.

Can be charged under Anti-Graft Law and RPC.

Ramiscal defends that he is doing a ministerial function of

signing. But then, he had full knowledge of the crime.

10 Alzaga v. SB

Petitioners wanted to absolve themselves of the

crime for unilateral and bilateral sales because

they are not managers (certain salary grade).

GOCC

SB has jurisdiction since AFP-RSBS is GOCC. Also, being VP

and AVP is more than being mangers.

11 Javier v. SB Member of National Book Development Board

is charged with malversation.

GOCC

Though not receiving compensation, she is considered to have

public office by the perusal of powers in RA creating NBDB.

SB has jurisdiction.

Can be charged under Anti-Graft Law and RPC. No double

jeopardy:

12 MIAA v. CA MIAA seeks real property tax exemption.

Instrumentalities

MIAA not a GOCC but instrumentality of National

Government. GOCC is organized as stock or non-stock

corporation. MIAA has no stocks divided into shares, no

stockholders or voting shares, no members. It is a public utility.

MIAA is a mere trusty of the republic.

Charging of fess does not determine the character of property

whether it is of public dominion or not. Outside of commerce

are those for public use.

MIAA not taxable.

13 BSP v. COA COA resolution to conduct an annual audit of

BSP.

Instrumentalities

BSP Charter shows that it is a public corporation. Created for a

public interest or purpose.

Public corporations are governed by law which creates it.


4


Art. XII Sec. 16 ban on creation of private corporations by

special law does not preclude creation of public corporation.

COA has jurisdiction.

14 Phil. Society v. COA

Phil. Society for Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals claims that they cannot be audited by

COA.

Quasi-public corporation

Textual foundation of charter shows that it was incorporated in

1905. It was a private juridical entity then. No government

representative sits in BOTrustees. Registered and covered by

SSS.

It is a quasi-public corporation, a species of private

corporations. Private corporations that render public service.

15 Serana v. SB Serena, UP Board of Regents, squandered the

budget for renovation of building.

State universities

PD has a catch all phrase in relation to office hence SB has jurisdiction. Serana regarded as public office since she had the

corporate powers of UP.

Though estafa is not particularly enumerated in the PD, the rule

applies: when there is ambiguity, such interpretation, as will

avoid inconvenience and absurdity, be adopted.

16 Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh

A pending case was not entertained by CFI

judge because Aquino government did not

effect for the transfer of jurisdiction of cases.

De jure and de facto government; government de facto

Philippines had a de facto government of the second kind

(military occupation).

MacArthurs decree is to be interpreted as: judicial acts and proceedings of the courts are valid as long as not of political

complexion. Principle of postliminy.

Further, no substantial change in organization of the courts.

17 Letter of Assoc. J. Puno

Assoc. J. Punos ranking was changed during the Aquino administration after the martial law

period.

Government; revolution

President Aquino was still exercising her powers of

revolutionary government encompassing both executive and

legislative powers. Courts did not question or correct the

exercise.

18 Republic v. SB Ramas house was raided by Philippine De jure and de facto government; rights during interregnum


5


Constabulary. Done with illegal search warrant.

Constitution was not operative during interregnum.

Revolutionary government was bound by International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Universal

Declaration of Human Rights.

Warrant is illegal. Items confiscated not in warrant. Raiding

team exceeded its authority.

19 People v. Gozo

Invoking that she should be exempted from

securing a permit for construction/erection of a

building because she is located in US Naval

Reservation.

Sovereignty

Philippines has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases. US

has preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction. Philippines has

authority over its entire domain. It decrees are supreme,

commands are paramount.

Autolimitation concept applies. Jurisdiction may be

diminished but not disappear.

Art. II Sec. 2

1 Taada v. Angara

GATT-WTO Agreement was concurred by the

Senate but the Final Act, Ministerial

Declarations and Decisions, and the

Understanding on Commitments were not

included in the document concurred.

Adoption of international law and doctrine of incorporation as

applied to treaties and agreements.

Nationalistic portions of the constitution are not self-executing

hence it should not be read in isolation.

WTO clauses do not contradict the constitution. Only against

unfair trade practices. In fact, certain provisions are favorable

to the developing countries.

Did not envision a hermit type isolation of the country from the

rest of the world.

By doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by GAP of

international law.

A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally

binding obligation to make its legislations such modifications

as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations

undertaken.


6


When Philippines joined UN, it consented to restrict its

sovereignty under the concept of autolimitation.

Does not limit the power of Congress or SC since the

sovereignty is still there.

Non concurrence in the Final Act, Ministerial Declarations and

Decisions does not invalidate since it is not the treaty itself.

Adopted without need for ratification.

Understanding on Commitments does not apply to Philippines.

Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. There should be grave

abuse of discretion.

2 Bayan v. Zamora VFA approved by 2/3 votes of Senate.



Sec. 25 Art. XVIII (expiration of agreement of military bases)

and Sec. 21 Art. VII (concurred by 2/3 of all members of

Senate).

The use of comma and the disjunctive word or clearly signifies disassociation.

Allowed only if (under special law Sec. 25 Art. XVIII):

Treaty

Duly concurred by the Senate (or also with national referendum if required by Congress)

Recognized by the other party as a treaty (signified through letter of US Ambassador Hubbard)

Not relevant if US sees it as an executive agreement only. In

international law, no difference between treaties and

executive agreements in their binding effect upon states

concerned. They are equally binding among nations.

Entering into treaties are generally executive functions.

President involving the VFA (his ratification and entering into

a treaty) are within the sphere of his constitutional powers. No


7


grave abuse shown.

3 Bayan v. Romulo RP-US no surrender agreement.



International agreements may be in the form of treaties or

executive agreements. Treaties take precedence because it has

the authority of the president, the senate and the people.

Executive agreements are given obligatory effect even without

the concurrence of the senate.

Jurisdiction of ICC is complementary only. ICC respects the

municipal laws of the state.

Philippines is not a state party of Rome Statute. Signatory only.

Only to refrain from going against the purpose/objective of the

international agreement.

Customary international law or international custom is a source

of international law: (1) general and consistent practice of

states (2) sense of legal obligation.

4 Deutsche Bank v. CIR Deutsche is seeking for a TTRA.



Pacta sunt servanda. Tax treaty should be followed. Tax treaty

does not provide for any period to be complied with in order to

qualify. Hence, the statute created to require such period should

be void. it denies the availment of the tax relief. Impairs the

value of tax treaty.

5 Lim v. Exec. Secretary Balikatan exercise lodged under VFA.

Equal standing of international and municipal law.

Activities in VFA is deliberately made general in order to give leeway to both parties. Hence, Balikatan is legitimate.

Not engage in combat except in self-defense.

Neither MDT nor VFA allow foreign troops to engage in an

offensive war on the Philippine Territory.


8


Doctrine of incorporation. International law as part of the law

of the land is given an equal standing, not primacy.

6 Shangri-La v. Developers Shangri-La sues Developers for using the same

logo and S mark.


Municipal law requires that it should not have been

appropriated. No area/country specified. Hence, Developers

cannot register.

Both entities are not qualified to register.

Municipal law is in effect. Intellectual Property Code of Paris

Convention does not apply yet because it took effect at a later

date. Though no provision on retroactivity, the IPC has no time

limit.



7 Philip Morris v. FTC PM sues FTC for use of logo.




8 Mijares v. Ranada Claim damages awarded by US courts during

the Marcos regime.

Recognition of foreign judgments.

Philippines is not a party of the foreign judgment treaty but it is

a general principle in international law to which the Philippines should adhere.

Final judgment in the US courts is not conclusive. It can still be

rebutted by the Marcos.

9 Pharmaceutical v. DOH

Milk code was enacted in consonance with soft

law (ICMB). RIRR was issued by ODH, alleged

to contravene Milk Code.

Soft law.

Milk Code (municipal law) should prevail over the ICMB.

ICMB was made into law through transformation (as opposed

to incorporation for treaties).

Art. II Sec. 3

10 IBP v. Zamora Calling of marines to Metro Manila to prevent

violent crimes.

Civilian supremacy.

Power involved may be no more than the maintenance of peace

and order and promotion of general welfare. Not limited to


9


time of emergency.

No evidence to show no justification for calling out the armed

forces.

Deployment of marines to assist the PNP and not unmake the

civilian character of the police force. Mutual support and

cooperation between the military and civilian authorities.

Art. II Sec. 5

11 Kilosbayan v. Morato

Invalidating the lease contract between PCSO

and PGMC. A new equipment lease agreement

was made.

Maintenance of peace and order. Mere guidelines.

Petitioners are speculative.

ELA is a lease contract absent the badges of a lease agreement.

No need for public bidding since it is only a lease.

Art. II Sec. 7

Lim v. Exec. Secretary See # 5 Independent Foreign Policy.

Art. II Sec. 8

Bayan v. Zamora See #2 Freedom from nuclear weapons.

Art. II Sec. 11

12 Roe v. Wade Jane Roe wants to get an abortion even if her

life is not in danger (Texas).

Unborn.

Ancient religion did not bar abortion. Women had broader

rights.

Right to privacy, is broad enough to encompass a womans decisions to terminate pregnancy. However, not absolute.

Prior to compelling point, mother and physician may decide to

abort.

13 Imbong v. Ochoa RH Law

Unborn.

Life begins at conception. Fertilization is the union of sperm

and egg. Abrotifacients killing a fertilized egg is unlawful.

Not violative of OSOT.

14 Meyer v. Nebraska Teaching of foreign language is prohibited for

children who have not passed the 8th

grade.

Rights and duties of parents. Aid from government.

Parents have the liberty to engage the children so to instruct the


10


children. Legislature had materially interfere.

Teaching another language is not injurious to the health,

morals, understanding of a child.

15 Pierce v. Society of Sisters To send children (18-16) to public schools.

Oregon.


Unreasonably interferes with the liberty of the parents. This is

an arbitrary, unreasonable and unlawful interference. Parents

have the right to choose.

Society of Sisters were not unfit. The law destroys the business

of the Society of Sisters.

16 Wisconsin v. Yoder Amish opposes the law that sends children to

secondary schools.


However strong the interest of the state is, no means absolute to

the exclusion or subordination of all other interest.

Encroaches to the free exercise of the religious belief.

Religious clause properly buttressed. This is covered by the

Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

17 Ginsberg v. New York Girlie magazines were sold to a 16 year old boy.

This is prohibited by law.


Obscenity is not within the area of protected speech or press.

Parental control guidance cannot always be provided and

societys transcendent interest in protecting the welfare of children.

Harmful in the statute is not vague. It only prohibits those sales made knowingly. Exempted are those who did it on

honest mistake and made a bona fide attempt to ascertain the

age of the minor.

18 Orceo v. COMELEC Air soft guns ban during election. It is included

in the definition of firearms.


The regulation (through subordinate legislation) is germane to

the objective and purposes of the law on gun ban.

A previous regulation on airsoft guns was already passed

through PNP Circular.


11


Courts excluded replicas and imitations form the term

firearm because not subject to any regulation.

As a long time player, it is presumed that he has a license to

possess. As a lawyer, he should be aware that the license to

possess is not absolute.

Art. II Sec. 13

BSP v. COA See #13 Vital role of the youth.

Art. II Sec. 14

19 Garcia v. Drilon Husband abuses wife. RA 9262 protects the

interest of the wife.

Role of women and equality of men and women.

Women and children was the intent to be protected by the RA

as seen in the deliberation. There is an unequal power, gender

biased relationship. Their abuse is supported by statistics.

Art. II Sec. 16

20 Oposa v. Factoran Stopping the issuance of timberland agreements

since it jeopardizes the future generations.

Inter-generational justice and responsibility.

Concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-

perpetuation.

EO and Administrative Code recognizes environmental right of

the present and future generations.

TLAs can be withdrawn. It yields to the interest of the state.

Contract impairment does not stand since the interest of the

state should always be protected.

21 LLDA v. CA Dumping of garbage in Tala Estate done by the

Caloocan government is opposed by LLDA.

Water pollution.

LLDA has jurisdiction. mandated to protect and accelerate the

development and balanced growth of Laguna Lake.

Though authority granting LLDA the power to order cease and

desist to Caloocan, jurisprudence abound.

Art. II Sec. 18

22 PNB v. Dan Padao Padao is a credit investigator who committed

gross and habitual negligence of duties.

Labor protection.

PNB acted within bounds of the law by meting out the penalty

of dismissal. Proven that he has committed gross and habitual


12


negligence of duties. PNB, as an employer, may freely select

and discharge employees. It has the authority to impose what

penalty applies.

Padao cannot invoke that he was following the orders of

superior. One cannot evade the liability or culpability based on

obedience to the corporate chain of command.

Art. II Sec. 19

23 Garcia v. BOI Transfer if BRC/LPC to Batangas from Bataan.

Independent policy.

Nothing is shown to support the transfer from Bataan to

Batangas.

BOI committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the

transfer. Final choice should be on the BOI in order to allocate

the resources of the country.

Taada v. Angara See #1

Art. II Sec. 21

24 Gamboa v. Teves Controlling interest in PLDT share vilates the

40% constitutional limit to foreign owners.

The provision on 40% limit is for the recognition of the

sensitive and vital position of public utilities both in the

national economy and sector.

Self-reliant and effectively controlled by Filipinos. Self-

executing provision in the constitution.

The controlling interest should be the measurement, not

whether it is a percentage of the total outstanding shares

(voting and nonvoting).

The term capital stock refers only to share that can vote in the

election of directors.

Art. II Sec. 25

25 Navarro v. Ermita Dinagat Island is made into a province.

Local autonomy.

Dinagat Island, though violates the 2000km continuous land

area requirement, was made into a province because the IRR of

the LGC provides that when a province is composed of two or

more islands, the 2000km requirement may not be followed.


13


Logical to infer that the genuine legislative policy decision was

expressed to exempt municipalities and cities. Exemption on

provinces was inadvertently omitted.

BCC intention is to promote development in the previously

underdeveloped and uninhabited land areas. Congress merely

breathed flesh and blood in the exemption made in IRR.

IRR was followed.

Art. II Sec. 26

26 Pamatong v. COMELEC Pamatong is a nuisance candidate.

Equal access to political opportunities for public office is a privilege subject to limitations. The provision is not self-

executing.

Davide amendment: Ensure equal access to to mean that government would not be mandated to create as many offices

as possible.

COMELEC had valid limitations. Limitations apply to

everybody equally without discrimination. Compelling interest

to ensure that its electoral exercise is rational, objective and

orderly.

Navarro v. Ermita See #25 Equal access to political opportunities and political dynasties.

Art. II. Sec. 27

27 Dimapilis-Baldoz v. COA

Labrador was dismissed for bribery in 1997 but

has been continuing her work in POEA while

receiving salary. Dimapilis-Baldoz ordered to

pay the salaries made to Labrador.

Honesty and integrity in public service.

Removal from office is immediate. This should have been done

in 1997.

Dimapilis-Baldoz is not at fault because SB only informed her

in 2004. None is indicated in the 201 file of Labrador.

1 Art. II Sec. 28

28 Neri v. Senate

Neri of NEDA is invoking executive privilege

in answering (ZTE NBN Project):

President followed up?

Dictated to prioritize ZTE?

President gave a go ahead?

Full public disclosure.

Sec. 21 Art. VI in aid of legislation Sec. 22 Art. VI oversight power of Congress

Oversight functions of Congress for compulsory process only

to the extent that it is performed in pursuit of legislation.


14


Cannot compel the appearance of executive officials under Sec.

22.

The questions are covered by executive privilege.

Two kinds of executive privilege:

Presidential communications privilegecommunications, documents, or other materials that

reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations

that the president believes should be confidential

(president)

Applies even to post decisional materials.

Covered are those with operational proximity to the

decision-making of the president.

Deliberative process privilegeadvisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of

a process by which governmental decisions and

policies are formulated (executive officials)

Executive has a right to withhold documents that might reveal

military or state secrets. Highly revered in foreign relations.

Elements of presidential communications privilege:

1. Relate to quintessential and non-delegable presidential power (executive agreements without concurrence of

senate)

2. Operational proximity (petitioner was a close advisor of the president)

3. Show adequate need of withholding information (no crime/wrongdoing)

Claim of privilege properly invoked:

Formal claim of privilege

Precise and certain reason for preserving the confidentiality

Congress must not require the executive to reveal confidential

information. Respect co-equal departments.


15


Grave abuse of senate. Capricious and whimsical exercise of

judgment. Inquiry did not follow the published procedure.

29 Pollo v. Constantino-David

Pollos computer was replicated despite his opposition. He invoked his right against search

and seizure and communication and

correspondence.


Constitutional guarantee is not a prohibition of all searches and

seizures but only of unreasonable searches and seizures.

Two fold requirement of existence of privacy:

1. Actual (subjective) expectation of privacy 2. Expectation that society is willing to recognize it

Special needs authorize warrantless searches involving public

employees for work-related reasons. This is a legitimate

intrusion into the privacy of employees in the government

workplace.

Though the complaint came from an anonymous letter and the

same should not be admitted, it is considered that CSC itself

was the one who initiated the complaint. Hence, valid.

30 PSB v. Impeachment Court PSB refuses to release information on the dollar

accounts of Corona.


There is absolute confidentiality on the FCDs. Can only be

divulged upon a written permission of the depositor.

31 In Re: Production of Court

Records

The SC is compelled to release the rollo, files,

and other documents involved in the Corona

trials.


Principle of separation of powers. Independence of each branch

of government.

Principle of comity. Voluntary observing inter-departmental

courtesy.

Right to information is not absolute. Prohibited to be released:

raffle of cases; actions taken by the Court; deliberations of

members.

This is a deliberative process privilege. Requisites:

Predecisional (before arriving to a decision)

Deliberative (candid discussion)

Art. VI Sec. 1


16


1 Rubi v. Provincial Board of

Mindoro

A statute was made by the provincial governor

to create a reservation for non-Christian

individuals.

Delegation to local governments and administrative bodies.

LGU.

Not the literal meaning of non-Christians. Means uncivilized

individuals.

An exception to the non-delegability rule of legislative power

is sanctioned by time immemorial practice of permitting the

central legislative body to delegate legislative powers to the

local authorities since they are better qualified to judge the

necessities of their constituency.

Due process of law:

1. Law prescribed in harmony 2. Reasonable in operation 3. Enforced according to general methods 4. Applicable to all of a class

2 Antipolo Realty Corp. v. NHA

Antipolo Realty failed to improve its

subdivision. Yuzon, a buyer, suspended

payments. When the improvements were made,

Yuzon was asked to pay including the arrearsdemandable. NHA rules that it is to be

condoned since fault of realty.


Administrative.

NHA has jurisdiction on unsound practice, refunds and specific

performance. Many administrative agencies exercise and

perform adjudicatory powers and functions through a limited

extent only. Dockets of our regular courts have become

crowded and clogged. Valid administrative tribunal.

The very definition of administrative agency includes quasi-

judicial powers. NHA was created through a PD. It has

exclusive jurisdiction to regulate real estates.

Payments are to be extended only, not condoned. Condonation

would be terse.

3 PITC v. Angeles

PITC issued an admin order on the balancing

program between RP and PROC. The law was

repealed. Importers application for importation was refused to be processed by PITC for non-

compliance before the law was repealed. It has

to settle the arrears first.


Administrative.

Balancing measure was lifted by the president. AO has no force

and effect.

PITC is a GOCC mandated to participate in all official trade


17


and economic decisions and adopt measures. PITC is DTIs line agencies. PITC was not repealed bye EO. No indication in

the EO of removal of powers of PITC of its regulatory

functions.

Grant of quasi-legislative function is not unconstitutional.

Executive power is vested in the executive department who

delegates the exercise of such power among its designated

agencies.

AO not legally effective because not published.

4 Atitiw v. Zamora

CAR is assailing that 2000 GA is

unconstitutional because of decrease in budget

of CAR. It does not follow EO. Congress

effectively amends.


Repealing power.

A rider is a provision which is alien to or not germane to the

subject or purpose of the bill in which it is incorporated.

Test of germaneness:

Particular

Unambiguous

Appropriate

Deactivate means to render inactive or ineffective or to break up while abolish means to annul, abrogate or destroy completely.

No OE has established an autonomous region for CAR.

Petitioner to amend the budget should be raised in Congress.

Nothing could prevent the congress from amending or

repealing an EO when it decides to do so.

Creation of autonomous region effective when approved by

majority. People have voted against regional autonomy for

CAR.

5 SEC v. Interport

SEC sued IRC for nondisclosure. IRC

purchased 100% of GHR and 67% of PRCI. CA

ruled that SEC cannot impose penalty since no


Absence of IRR.


18


IRR of the Revised Securities Act. Absence of any constitutional or statutory infirmity, provisions

are still legal and binding.

What is required to be disclosed in a fact of special

significancematerial that will change decision of a reasonable person.

Though no IRR, the provisions in the law are sufficiently clear

and complete by themselves to allow SEC to run after civil,

criminal or administrative actions. SEC maintains jurisdiction.

6 Agustin v. Edu Installation of EWD in conformance with

Vienna Convention.

Requisites of valid delegation. Test of delegability.

Letter of Instruction was issued in the exercise of police power.

In the reflector law, the legislative objective is public safety.

Salutary measure: to insure communal peace, safety, good

order and welfare.

Presumption of constitutionality must prevail absent some

factual foundation overthrowing a statute.

Edu v. Ericta: to avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there

must be a standard, which implies at the very least the

legislature itself determines the matters of principle and lays

down the fundamental policy.

What is delegated is authority non-legislative in character.

Philippine to follow pacta sunt servanda under Vienna

Convention.

7 FTW v. Min. of Labor Ministry of Labor is granted the authority to

issue permits on strike.

Requisites of valid delegation. Assumption of jurisdiction in

labor dispute.

What is delegated is authority non-legislative in character.

Implementation could be delegated, not the

creation/amendment/repeal of laws passed by Congress.

Rigid application of non-delegation would be an obstacle to the

efforts of government.


19


Delegation is the dynamo of the modern government.

8 Guingona v. Carague

Appropriation on automatic debt servicing.

Provision is a carryover of the Marcos

administration.

Requisites of valid delegation. Automatic debt service.

Protecting the credit standing of the country is primordial (than

education although stipulated in constitution to have the highest

budget).

No need for a law to be passed on debt servicing because

transitory provision of the 1987 constitution did not repeal the

statue in Marcos administration on debt servicing.

Parameters were set for the amount of disbursement made. No

undue delegation. There is a fix standard to be followed.

9 TIDCORP v. CSC

TIDCORP creates a new position but was

invalidated by CSC since it does not follow the

general law on IOS and PAL.

Requisites of valid delegation. Rule-making is not law making.

CSC is an administrative agency that possesses executive,

quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative powers. Though CSC is a

separate/untouchable body made by Congress, it still has its

limits.

Charter of TIDCORP should be followed (special law).

TIDCORP is only encouraged to conform with CSC memo.

Rules made by CSC should be in harmony with other laws.

10 Araneta v. Gatmaitan Trawl fishing is banned. Trawl falls under net prohibition.

Complete in itself. Details of implementation only.

EO of Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources is valid.

Under the supervision of the President.

Wisdom of Congress is to protect marine life (Fisheries Law).

It prohibited the use of fish nets.

11 Marcos v. CA

Imelda Marcos did not report/register her

foreign accounts as required by the Central

Bank.

Complete in itself. Monetary Board authority.

Saving clause is valid. Monetary Boards administrative power includes administrative regulation (including penal). This is for

the effective discharge of the responsibilities. Law itself

provides for penalty in violation of administrative regulations.

Laws itself makes the violation


20


Provides for penalty

12 Gerochi v. DOE ERC imposes a universal charge.

Complete in itself. Imposition of universal charge.

EPIRA is complete in itself and there is a sufficient standard

(law and order, public interest, justice and equity, public

convenience and welfare, adequate and sufficient instruction).

13 SJS v. Dangerous Drug Board Mandatory drug testing to students/teachers,

senators, criminals.

Complete in itself. Drug testing.

Unconstitutionality for having infringed the constitutional

provision defining qualification for senators.

Citizenship (NBC)

Voter registration

Literacy (read and write)

Age (35)

Residency (2 years)

Right to enroll is not absolute. Allowed in schools for

students/teachers. Parens patriae.

No valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons

accused of crimes. Violates persons right to privacy.

14 Pacfic Steam v. LLDA Jurisdiction of LLDA in imposing penalties.

Complete in itself. LLDAs power.

Though Pollution Adjudication Board is created, it did not

eliminate LLDA. It is a special agency granted to issue

orders/decisions for compliance. There is a penalty imposed in

PD being followed by LLDA.

15 People v. Rosenthal Speculative shares sold in violation of law

created by the Insular Treasurer.

Fixes a standard. Standard of public interest.

No undue delegation. Fix standard is public interest. Blue Sky

Law should be imposed.

Insular Treasurer had limited powers as to determining which

shares are speculative because it is subject to appeal.

Speculative shares is defined.

16 Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA POEA sets a standard contract.

Fixes a standard. Discretion as to substantive contents.

Fix standard: fair and equitable employment practices among


21


OFWs.

Though ESL did not enter into a contract as specified by the

law on standard contract issued by POEA, ESL should have

done so. Provisions of the circular be deemed written into the

contract.

POEA has adjudicatory functions.

Administrative body: filling in the details. It has quasi-judicial

and quasi-legislative powers.

17 Tablarin v. Gutierrez NMAT is required before admitted to medical

schools.

Fixes a standard. Establishment of educational requirements.

Board of medical education follows a standard on regulating

the medical education. Law states that it is to determine and

prescribe requirements for admission into a recognized college

of medicine.

Fix standard: standardization and regulation of medical

education.

NMAT requirement is a valid exercise of governmental power.

18 Conference v. POEA POEA changed the death rates and workmens compensation.

Fixes a standard. Promulgation of rules and regulations.

Fix standard: fair and equitable employment practices among

OFWs.

POEA has rule-making authority.

Classification is reasonable:

1. Substantial distinctions 2. Germane to purpose 3. Not be limited to existing conditions 4. Apply equally to members of the same class

19 Osmea v. Orbos OPSF creation of trust fund.

Fixes a standard. Power of ERB to add amounts.

ERB is authorized to impose additional amounts to augment

the resources of the fund.


22


Fix standard: promoting the oil and petroleum industry while

stabilizing the price.

Only those domestic reductions in petroleum are allowed by

law. Payment for forex is not allowed.

20 Viola v. Alunan Creating positions for 1

st, 2

nd, 3

rd VP and auditor

in LGU.

Fixes a standard. Power to create positions.

Explicitly allowed by by-laws of Liga. LGC allows it to

appoint/create position as it deems it necessary.

National association of LGU is also allowed to create

additional positions. Illogical for it to be disallowed when the

local associations of LGU are allowed.

21 Abakada v. Ermita

12% VAT is imposed. The president is given

the authority to ascertain the facts. If complied

with, the law will be imposed.

1. Exceed the VAT/GDP 2 4/5% 2. Exceed Deficit//GDP 1 %

Fixes a standard. Ascertainment of facts.

No amendment rule refers only to the procedure to be followed

by each house of Congress with regard to bills initiated in each

of the respective houses before the said bill is transmitted to the

other house for concurrence or amendment.

Members of the House for local needs while Senators for

national perspective.

Standby authority. Preliminary ascertainment of facts as basis

for enactment of legislation is not of itself a legislative function

but is simply ancillary to legislation.

22 Beltran v. Sec. of Health Commercial blood banks being shut.

Fixes a standard. Promotion of public health sufficient

guideline.

National Blood Services Act granted to Secretary of Health is

complete (safeguard the people) and has a fix standard

(promotion of public health).

23 Bayan v. Ermita Calibrated preemptive response gives chilling

effect to rallyists.

Fixes a standard. Issuance of permits for rally.

No undue delegation. Fix standard: using the clear and present

danger test.

Rallies are not absolutely banned. Only regulate the time, place

and manner of assembly. Content-neutral.


23


CPR is null and void. creates confusion.

24 Abakada v. Purisima BOC and BIR are given incentives if they

exceed their targets.

Fixes a standard. System of rewards.

Attrition Act. No undue delegation. The President may not

decide alone on the target to be set. It is subject to the scrutiny

of the Dept. of Budget and Coordinating Commission.

Unconstitutional for having an oversight function of Congress

in terms of approving the IRR. This can be done by the Board

(executive). Separation of powers.

Congress is only up to scrutiny and investigation. It should not

have legislative supervision. In effect, if there is legislative

supervision (especially in passing the IRR), there is legislative

veto.

25 Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas CSC reorganization by combining three

departments into one.

Filling in the details. Authority to reorganize.

There is no abolishment of office. There is only change in

organization in CSC. This is expressly granted by

Administrative Code.

No breach of security of tenure. They still hold the same

positions as Dir. IV. Not determined by place of work.

26 Chiongbian v. Orbos Regrouping of cities in ARMM. Organic Act of

ARMM.


Power to merge lies with the president. Traditionally benn

lodged. President may reorganize National Government.

Fix standard: to promote simplicity, economy and efficiency.

This is an administrative function. Regrouping is only done in

paper. Does not affect legislative districts, constituencies, etc.

27 Rodrigo v. SB DBM set the salary level which qualified the

petitioner to be under the jurisdiction of SB.

Filling in the details. Power to classify.

Needs no enactment of Congress to set the salary level public

officials. DBM was given the delegation to change/set the

salary level as necessary (through RA 6758).


24


Fix standard: prescribed in the Benchmark Position Schedule.

DBM did not have the authority to set jurisdiction. Only

incidental effect.

LGC has also provided the salary grade level of a municipal

mayor.

28 Tondo Medical v. CA See #2 (Art. II) Filling in the details. Authority to reorganize.

29 Malaria Employees v. Romulo Petitioners affected by reorganization.


President can reorganize National Government. Has power

over all executive departments. Not limited to the office of the

present only.

30 Anak v. Exec. Secretary

PCIP and NCIP were transferred under DAR.

President was the one who executed, not the

Congress.

Filling in the details. Authority to reorganize. PCUP/NCIP.



present only.

31 Pichay v. Office of the Deputy

Exec. Secretary

Pichay, who has a case under SB, is being

investigated under IAD-ODESLA. IAD-

ODESLA is the product of reorganization of the

president.

Filling in the details. Authority to reorganize and appropriate

funds for this purpose.



present only.

Restructure internal organization

Transfer of function

Transfer of agency

If president proper (i.e., IAD), it can abolish, consolidate,

merge units.

If outside president proper, only transfer functions or agencies.

Not encroach upon the SB. Only fact-finding. Only

recommends. Not quasi-judicial.

32 Arroyo v. DOJ COMELEC and DOJ to make a Joint

Committee and Fact Finding Committee.

Filling in the details. Collaboration of two committees.

COMELEC can act on election concern and ask the other

departments to quicken the investigation. (Art. IX-C Sec. 2)


25


Not targeted to Arroyo alone. There are other election fraud

offenses.

No new office is created. Only collaboration. Hence, no need

for legislation. They have concurrent jurisdiction.

33 People v. Vera Probation law takes effect if there is a salary

made to a probationary officer.

Undue delegation. Discretion in implementation.

Probation law is not in conflict with the pardoning power of the

president.

Unlawful delegation of legislative authority to the provincial

boards is unconstitutional and void.

No fix standard when to impose probation law.

34 US v. Barrias

Captain of a lighter was in violation of not using

mechanical engine in transporting a heavily

loaded boat.

Undue delegation. Delegated power to fix penalties.

Penalty for violation is a matter purely in the hands of the

legislature, not the Insular Collector of Customs.

35 US v. Panlilio Use of quarantined carabaos in his farm.

Undue delegation. Delegated power to criminalize.

Nowhere does it make it a penal offense if persons do not

comply with the law of the Director of Agriculture.

Charged under penal code only.

36 People v. Maceren A statute made to ban electro-fishing though not

specified in the Fisheries Law.

Undue delegation. Delegation of power to declare what acts

constitutes a crime.

MANR does not have the power to declare a criminal act not

provided in the law. More so, it exceeds the penalty imposed

by the statute. Law made is void.

Fisheries Law does not include electro-fishing.

37 People v. Dacuycuy Courts to decide the imprisonment term.

Undue delegation. Power to fix term of imprisonment.

Penal provision of the RA grants the court to decide the

imprisonment term. No parameters set in the law.

There is undue delegation. Intrusion of power of legislative. A


26


fine is not transmutable to imprisonment term.

38 Cebu Oxygen v. Drilon Credit of annual increase in CBA is voided by

the statute enacted by DOLE.

Undue delegation. Implementing rule void.

IRR is void. IRR cannot add or detract the law implementing it.

The prohibition for crediting the annual increase in CBA is not

provided in the law.

39 Ynot v. IAC Violation of transferring carabaos/carabeef.

Undue delegation. Disposition of confiscated property.

Roving commission on how to dispose the confiscated

carabao/carabeef as seen fit is invalid. No fix standard on how

to dispose.

The law can be easily circumvented.

40 Pharmaceutical v. DOH See #9 Art. II Undue delegation. WHO guidelines.

Abakada v. Purisima See # 24 Art. VI Undue delegation. Encroachment of judicial power.

41 COCOFED v. Republic COCOFED purchases UCPB shares to be

distributed to famers as private individuals.

Undue delegation. UCPB share distribution.

There was an operational problem of distribution of shares. It

led to reversal of priorities. Fix standard are absent as to how

and who. Ended in the hands of private individuals.

Public money should remain as public funds. It should not

transfer to private individuals. COA loses jurisdiction.

42 Tatad v. DOE

Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act was

fully implemented by the president using the

standard of depleting OPSF funds instead of

using lowering prices in oil and stability of

forex.

Executive Misapplication. OPSF Fund.

The president did not follow the standard set by Congress.

Hence, unconstitutional.

43 Dagan v. PRC Horses are to be tested for EIA.

Mere directive. Requisite of valid administrative issuance.

No undue delegation.

Fix standard: horseracing industry.

No undue delegation to MJCI and PIRC. Only instructive in

character.

No need for publication. Internal only.


27


Requisites of administrative issuance:

1. Authorized by legislative 2. Promulgated within the prescribe procedure 3. Within the scope 4. Reasonable

Art. VI Sec. 5

44 Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW v.

COMELEC Inclusion of several political parties is opposed.

Characteristics of political parties to qualify under party-list

system.

Political parties are allowed to participate. To open up the

system. Only allowed if they follow statute:

Proportional representation

Marginalized and underrepresented

No jurisdiction Intent is to give genuine powers.

Eight rules:

1. Marginalized and underrepresented 2. Follow stator policies 3. Religious sectors not allowed 4. Not disqualified under Sec. 6 5. Not adjunct of government 6. Nominees comply with laws 7. Nominees are marginalized/underrepresented 8. Contribute to legislation

45 VFP v. COMELEC COMELEC granted seats to 28 parties who did

not reach the 2% requirement.

Par. 2. Standards for apportioning seats for party-list

representatives. not mandatory to fill-in sits.

Four inviolable parameters:

1. 20% allocation 2. 2% threshold 3. Three seat limit 4. Proportional representation

20% composition is not mandatory.

2% threshold is precise and crystalline. Patterned after

Germany.


28


One additional seat formula does not use the simplified or

Niemeyer. Philippines has a unique formula.

46 AKLAT v. COMELEC Seeking for registration but not granted.

Disqualified party-list.

COMELEC can change the deadline for filing. It can protract

but not countback (90 days before election).

AKLAT is not qualified because it is not what it purports to be.

It has not track record to speak of.

47 Partido ng Manggagawa v.

COMELEC

Petitioners pray for additional seats to be

granted.

Reiterates Veterans.

Buhay case does not apply. Pro hac vice only.

Vetarans computation applies.

48 Citizens v. COMELEC Petitioners pray for additional seats to be

granted.

Computation for party-list.

Buhay case does not apply. Pro hac vice only.

Vetarans computation applies.

49 Bantay v. COMELEC COMELEC will only disclose the nominees of

parties on the date of election.

Disclosure of names.

Infringes on the right to info and public disclosure. COMELEC

stretches the non-disclosure clause provided by law.

Knowing the nominees is a high public interest.

50 Phil. Guardians v. COMELEC Petitioners was disqualified for failing to garner

2% in 2001 and failing to participate in 2004.

Participation in previous election.

The word or is disjunctive. COMELEC cannot mix the provision on failure to get 2% and failure to participate. Each

ground should have been committed twice. In this case, not

evident.

Garnering 2% should be interpreted as being qualified to have a

seat.

Stare deicsis on Minero case does not warrant. It was an

erroneous ruling.

51 BANAT v. COMELEC New formula for additional seats. Mere ceiling.


29


20% representation is a mere ceiling.

2% requirement on additional seats is unconstitutional.

3 seat limit is valid in order to avoid over representation.

Major political parties are not allowed to participate however

sectoral wings may join.

52 Abayon v. COMELEC Petitioners aver that they are not under the

jurisdiction of HRET.

Party-list and HRET.

HRET has jurisdiction over its members. Though they were

under a party-list, they are seated as a member and not as a

party-list.

Party list matters, HRET has no jurisdiction.

53 Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC Not allowed to register due to moral issues.

Disapproval of Ladlad due to moral issues.

Though LGBT is not enumerated in the list of marginalized and

underrepresented, the true test is compliance with requirements

of constitution and Party List Act.

Use of religion as a basis for disqualification violates non-

establishment clause.

Laws of general application should be equally enforced to

LGBT.

Every group has the right to promote its agenda.

54 Layug v. COMELEC Disqualify BUHAY and Brother Mike on

account of being an extension of El Shaddai.

Jurisdiction of COMELEC over determination of party list

qualification.

Jurisdiction on COMELEC not HRET.

HRET jurisdiction to members only.

55 Magdalo v. COMELEC

Magdalo was denied application on account of

using violence and unlawful means to pursue

goals.

In re: Art. IX C Sec. 2(5) and qualification as regional political

party.

Decision of COMELEC was based on facts of common

knowledge (public knowledge).


30


Presumption of evidence is not violated since this is only

administrative. Preponderance of evidence will suffice.

Had the amnesty (declare Oakwood not unlawful) occurred

before their application, COMELEC could have ruled

otherwise.

56 Dayao v. COMELEC

Petitioner seeks for the disqualification of a

party-list for not being a representative of

marginalized and underrepresented.

Members not belonging to marginalized and underrepresented

sector.

Though final resolution on qualification was released,

COMELEC deprived itself of the power to cancel (as opposed

to deny).

No perpetual infeasible right. Same as a franchise license

which can be revoked anytime if violative of provisions.

Party-list needs to be members of marginalized and

underrepresented.

57 Atong Paglaum et al. Petitioners disqualified for not meeting the 8pt

guideline of Ang Bagong Bayani.

New guidelines for party-list. Controlling rule.

6 guidelines:

1. Three groups (national, regional, sectoral) 2. National and regional need not be marginalized or

underrepresented (as long as it has an advocacy)

3. Political parties can participate. If it fields a candidate in legislative district, can only run under sectoral

wings.

4. Sectorallack of well-defined constituency (women, elderly, youth, professionals) or

underrepresented/marginalized

5. Nominees of sectoral must belong to underrepresented or marginalized or have a track record

Nominees of national or regional must be memebers

6. Party list not disqualified if a nominee is disqualified as long as one nominee remains

58 Abang Lingkod v. COMELEC

Petitioner disqualified for using unlawful

statements (photoshop of picture) and having no

track record.

Meaning of national, regional and sectoral.

No requirement for track record needed. Track record in not the


31


same as the submission of constitution, bylaws, platform,

government, list of officers, coalition agreement, etc.

National and regional parties are not required to be

marginalize/underrepresented.

Nominees for sectoral parties may either belong to

marginalized/underrepresented or show track record. Three of

five nominees belong to the sector.

Rule #6 does not disqualify the party as long as at least one

nominee remains.

Varying track record would result into absurdity.

59 Tobias v. Abalos

Petitioners oppose the law to make

Mandaluyong as another city granting it one

seat.

Par. 3. Reapportionment through special law (Mandaluyong

City).

A congressional district has a legislative representative as a

logical consequence. Does not violate the one title one subject

rule.

No gerrymandering (creating legislative districts to favor a

particular candidate or party). In fact, decrease in constituency.

The law assumes the presumption that it has satisfied the basic

requirements needed to be passed as law since it is the

Congress who made it.

60 Mariano v. COMELEC Opposing the conversion of Makati into a city.

Par. 3. Reapportionment through special law (Makati City).

Though not defined by metes and bounds, it is still valid. Uses

the word present area.

Special law is not prohibited to be used in making cities.

Ordinance appended to the Constitution provides one more

representative when cities exceed 250,000 in population.

61 Sema v. COMELEC

Sema is supposed to be a candidate of Shariff

Kabunsuan. However, law creating said

province was invalidated.

Par. 3. ARMM Regional legislative authority.

ARMM cannot create provinces because it creates a position


32


for a legislative representative which is lodged to the Congress

only. ARMM can only make municipalities and barangays.

Legislative power of ARMM should only be within the internal

region.

62 Montejo v. COMELEC

Due to change in legislative districts made by

Congress, COMELEC redistributed the

municipalities to equalize the voters.

In accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants

and on the basis of a uniform progressive ratio. Par. 3 and 4.

Redistricting Leyte. Mere adjustments.

COMELEC has no power. Minor changes only (i.e., municipal

city left out or clerical error).

Constitutional Commission deliberations proved that only

Congress can reapportion.

63 Herrera v. COMELEC Petitioners oppose the division and

reapportionment of Guimaras.

In accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants

and on the basis of a uniform progressive ratio. Par. 3 and 4.

Redistricting province of Guimaras, Also in (3) population size

amd (1) uniform and progressive ratio.

Provincial reapportionment is for Sanguniang Panlalawigan

only and can be done by COMELEC. Should be based on

number of inhabitants and not number of voters.

Should follow general rule on contiguous, compact and

adjacent territories.

64 Samson v. Aguirre Petitioners oppose the separation of Novaliches

and Quezon City.

Population size. Par. 3. Absence of certification as to income,

population and area are not fatal. Presumed valid.

Proposed city must meet the requirements on income and

population or land area.

Though no proof, BLGF and NSO presence certifying the

population and income are sufficient.

Presumed to be valid in favor of constitutionality. It originated

from the House of Representatives.

Omission of specifying the seats is not fatal. Can be done after.


33


Does not amend constitution by adding another city. The

number of cities in the constitution is not fixed.

65 Aldaba v. COMELEC Petition to void creation of Malolos.

Population size. Par. 3 and 4.

250,000 population is needed. The certification should:

1. Declared official by NSCB 2. Issued by NSO administrative or designated officer 3. Reach 250,000 as of the middle of the year.

Actual or projected population did not meet the requirement.

Hence, Malolos is not to be made a city.

66 Aquino v. COMELEC (GR

189793)

Aquino opposes the creation of a new

legislative district in the province of Camarines

Sur. Population did not meet the 250,000

requirement.

Population size. Par. 3 and 4.

Constriction mentions city to reach the population requirement,

not provinces.

Population is an alternative to income requirement of LGC.

Does not require mathematical exactitude.

67 Navarro v. Ermita See #25 Population size. Land area as a factor.

68 Bagabuyo v. COMELEC Petitioners assail the additional legislative

district of CDO due to absence of plebiscite.

Following the return of every census, Congress shall make

reapportionment. Par. 4. No need for plebiscite in

apportionment or reapportionment.

LGU was not created. Hence, no plebiscite needed.

Basis for division should be the number of inhabitants, not

number of voters.

Division should follow the contiguous, compact and adjacent

rule.

Art. VI Sec. 6 Qualifications of district and party-list Representatvies

69 Bengzon v. Cruz

Bengson, NBC, lost his citizenship when

naturalized as US citizen (marines). He

reacquired citizenship through repatriation.

Citizenship. Recovery of NBC status.

NBC are those citizens from birth without having to perform

any act to acquire or perfect citizenship.

Two ways of acquiring citizenship:

1. Birth (NBC)


34


2. Naturalization (naturalized citizen)

Reacquisition of a former Filipino citizen:

1. Naturalization 2. Repatriation 3. Direct act of Congress

Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality.

70 Aquino v. COMELEC Petitioner not proclaimed due to residency

insufficiency.

Domicile and residence. Domicile of origin; read in relation to

Sec. 17 on jurisdiction of ET.

COMELEC has jurisdiction.

HRET jurisdiction if:

1. Proclaimed 2. Oath before the speaker in Congress session 3. Assumed office

Residence, for election law purposes, is synonymous of

domicile.

Domicile is where a party actually or constructively has his

permanent home where he eventually intends to return nad

remain.

Makati residence is only an alleged lease agreement. Petitioner

did not show abandonment of domicile.

Abandonment of domicile:

1. Actual removal or an actual change of domicile 2. Intention of abandoning the former place and

establishing a new one

3. Definite acts which correspond with purpose

The second placer is just that, a second placer. Voters preference is volatile.

71 Marcos v. COMELEC

Marcos is not to be declared as representative of

Leyte because of failing to meet the residency

requirement.

Domicile and residence. Abandonment of domicile.

Domicile:


35


Minor follows the domicile of parents.

Domicile not easily abandoned

Only actual residence contemplated in Civil Code

Marcos did not abandon domicile. This is not easily changed.

Honest mistake in writing 7 months because line 7 and 8 are

confusing. Line 8 may easily be understood as stay in actual

residence.

72 Domino v. COMELEC Domino is disqualified for not satisfying the

residency requirement.

Domicile and residence. Mere lease of house.

MTC jurisdiction is limited only to right of voter to remain in

the list of voters or to declare that the challenged voter is not

qualified. It cannot say that Domino is a resident of Saranggani.

Lack of intention to abandon. Hence, not meeting the residency

requirement.

73 Perez v. COMELEC

Aguinaldo is being disqualified by Perez for not

being able to comply with the residency

requirement. Aguinaldo transferred to District 3

from Dstrict1 only in January of that year.

Domicile and residence. Registration in another district.

He is qualified because he has served as the governor of the

province before. What the law intends is to make sure that

candidates are aware of the issues of the place they are

seeking to serve.

COMELEC has no jurisdiction since Aguinaldo was already a

member of HR. HRET has jurisdiction.

74 Fernandez v. HRET Fernandez is to be removed from HR because of

failure to meet the residency requirement.

Domicile and residence.

Not expected to be in the residence 24 hours. Affidavit of

contract of lease is sufficient even absent the notarization. Not

required to be the property owner.

Petitioner has real and substantial reason to be domiciled in

Sta. Rosa (has business, children are studying in Sta. Rosa).

Petitioner not a stranger because he has served the Province of

Laguna as a Board Member.

75 Tagolino v. HRET Richard Gomez ran but was disqualified due to

residency requirement. His CoC was cancelled.

Domicile and residence. One year residency requirement.


36


Lucy Torres substituted. CoC was cancelled due to false representation. Hence,

considered void ab initio. Consequently, no substitution can

happen even if Lucy Torres is indeed a resident of Leyte.

Had Richard only been disqualified, substitution could happen.

76 Reyes v. COMELEC

Reyes is a subsisting American citizen who did

not comply with the citizenship retention and

reacquisition act.

Domicile and residence. One year residency requirement.

Oath should be made before the Speaker in an open session.

Filipino NBC status is not proven. By executing an affidavit of

renunciation, it is implied that she is bound by the citizenship

retention and reacquisition act.

Required under retention and reacquisition act:

1. Oath of allegiance to the RP 2. Personal and sworn renunciation of her American

citizenship

After complying with the above, she must show that she is to

establish her domicile in the Philippines.

Art. VI Sec. 7 Term of Representatives

77 Dimaporo v. Mitra

Dimaporo was stricken out from HR because he

ran as Regional Governor of ARMM. He lost as

a Regional Governor but was not allowed by

HR to resume his office.

Forfeiture of Elective Position

Constitutional edict: all public officials must serve the people

with utmost loyalty and not trifle.

Term (legal term imposed by law) is different fromtenure (actual period holding office). Only the tenure was shortened,

not the term.

Four modes of renunciation: holding another office, expulsion,

disqualification, voluntary renunciation. Filing of COC is

considered as a voluntary renunciation of his office.

Art. VI Sec. 9 Filling in vacancies

78 Lucero v. COMELEC Holding of special election in Precinct 13 after

counting the votes in 7 and 16.

Requisites of special elections.

Special election:

1. Failure of election 2. Affect the results


37


The count of Precincts 7 and 16 should be made first in order to

determine if special election in Precinct 13 should push

through.

Difference between special election in Constitution and

Omnibus Code:

Omnibus code is mandatory because it presupposes that no one

has been declared.

Constitution is discretionary because someone has already

assumed office.

79 Tolentino v. COMELEC

13th Senator to be elected to fill the vacancy.

Special election is made simultaneous with

general elections without publication of notice

to voters (not compliant with RA 6645).

Special and regular elections; RA 6645.

Law provides that Senate vacancy be held simultaneous with

general elections (provided in RA 7166). No need to inform

voters because this is embodied in a statute to which the voters

are assumed to have known.

80 Ocampo v. HRET

Ocampo seeks to declare the votes casted to

Crespo as stray votes. Hence, being the second

placer, he should be proclaimed as the

representative.

Rule on second placers.

To be stray votes, the final judgment should have been made

before the election. In this case, the final judgment was made

after the election. Hence, not stray votes.

Second placer could not be proclaimed. He lost in the elections.

Art. VI Sec. 11 Privileges from arrest

81 People v. Jalosjos

Jalosjos who appealed from a criminal

judgment against him wants to attend session in

Congress.

Privileges from arrest. Convicted legislator. Detention as valid

reason not to attend.

Allowed to leave the cell only during emergency cases.

He has a fully functioning office in jail. He is allowed to have

an inter-department coordination from his prison cell.

No reason to exempt petitioner. Congress can act even without

him.

Mandate of sovereign will can be enlarged or restricted by law.

82 Trillanes v. Pimentel Trillanes prays to attend session in Congress

despite being detained for Oakwood incident.

Privileges from arrest. Re-election to office and criminal

charge.


38


Rape and coup d etat charge are punishable by reclusion

perpetua. Hence, not covered by privileges from arrest. Only

civil in nature.

Mandate of the people yield to the constitution.

83 Jimenez v. Cabangbang Petitioners are seeking for damages for a

published open letter made.

Parliamentary freedom of speech and debate. Coverage.

Publishing the letter in newspaper of general circulation is not

covered by parliamentary freedom of speech/debate. It should

be done within their official functions.

Not libelous to petitioners because it explicitly states that the

petitioners may be unaware that they are being used as tools for

the plans.

84 Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago Defensor-Santaigo made remarks against the

judiciary and JBC.

Parliamentary freedom of speech and debate. Violation of oath

of lawyers.

Covered by privilege speech.

Not for the courts to discipline Santiago. It is for the Senate to

discipline.

Violated Canon but lawyer holding government office may not

be disciplined as a member of the bar unless violates his oath as

a lawyer.

Art. VI Sec. 13 Disqualifications

85 Dante V. Liban v. Richard J.

Gordon

Gordon is elected as chairman of PCNC.

Petitioners want him to leave his seat in

Congress as well.

Office of PNRC chairman is not government office nor an

office in a GOCC for the purposes of prohibition in Sec. 13.

PNRC is not under government control. PNRC needs to be

autonomous, neutral and independent in order to carry out its

objectives as embodied in the Geneva Red Cross Convention

signed by the Philippines.

PNRC to incorporate under corporation code. Presently, it is

under a special law created by the Congress. A private

corporation cannot be created by Congress.

Art. VI Sec. 14 Prohibitions Lawyer legislators/Conflict of interests


39


86 Puyat v. De Guzman Assemblyman purchases several shares in order

to have legal interest and be able to intervene.

Appearing in intervention on ones behalf

Cannot be allowed to intervene. Initially, assemblyman wanted

to appear as counsel before the SEC but was denied. Buying

shares is an afterthought. Even if being an intervenor is not

appearing as counsel, still not allowed.

What the constitution directly prohibits may not be done

indirectly.

Art. VI Sec. 16 Officers and Internal Business

87 Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona

Petitioners assail the election of Guingona as

the minority leader despite voting for Fernan as

the majority leader.

Officers of Congress. Determination of majority and minority.

Nowhere is minority defined in the constitution.

Majority is greater than one half.

Constitution is dead silent on the method of choosing other

officers. Rules of Senate are also silent.

To accept the petitioners view is to judicially legislate.

No grave abuse of discretion because no specific standard is

presented to be violated.

88 Avelino v. Cuenco

Avelino, then Senate President, walked out of

the session together with other nine members.

Only 12 remained.

Par. 2. Quorum.

There is still quorum. 12/23.

Quorum is defined to be the members of the house, not all members of the house.

Cuenco, elected Senate President, could have then ordered the

arrest of the 10 who walked away and thus further reducing the

numbers.

89 Datu Michael Abas Kida v.

Senate of the Phil

Constitutionality of RA 10153 on

synchronization of elections in ARMM.

Supermajority vote in violation of the Constitution.

Constitution mandates the synchronization of local election

(includes ARMM even if regional).

No necessity for 3 readings if immediate action from the


40


president is present. The Congress recognized this presidents power.

RA does not amend but provides rules for subsequent election.

No supermajority vote needed (2/3) because does not amend

the Organic Act of ARMM. Unconstitutional to require

supermajority vote because it restricts future legislation. Only

majority is required by the constitution.

Plebiscite not needed because new LGU is not created. If so, it

becomes unconstitutional because it expands the scope of

plebsicte.

90 Arroyo v. De Venecia Violation of internal rules is violation of the

constitution.

Internal rules and discipline. Par. 3. Determination of rules.

In parliamentary procedures, SC has no concern. SC could not

rule on it. Redress to Congress.

No grave abuse of power. Arroyo was silent after the recess.

Enrolled bill doctrine is not presumptive. Enrolled bill in this

case is not infirm. Even so, journals support the passing of the

bill.

91 Osmea v. Pendatun

Osmea is suspended for 15 months for serious

assault of the dignity and premium of the

president.

Internal rules and discipline. Disorderly behavior.

He can be questioned in the Congress itself. The prohibition is

in any other place.

Parliamentary immunity is still recognized. But for

unparliamentarily conduct, members can be censured,

suspended, expel, prisoned.

SC will not rule on the procedures of parliamentary.

92 Santiago v. Sandiganbayan Santiago is given a preventive suspension.

Internal rules and discipline. Order of suspension.

Suspension couched in terms all offices is not void because it is provided for by the law (term office) which is meant to apply to any office.


41


In preventive suspension, guilt is not required to be proven as

long as there is validity of evidence and the accused is heard.

This is not a penalty but a preventive suspension only.

Suspension of SB is different from suspension from Congress.

93 US v. Pons

Pons adjudged to have smuggled opium. He

avers that the law was not passed on Feb. 28

hence he should not be charged.

Duty to keep journals and records.

Journals are relied. This is published and required by law.

Between journals and extraneous evidence, journals prevail.

94 Casco Phil. Commercial Co. v.

Gimenez

Petitioner seeks to be exempted from margin fee

because he imports urea and formaldehyde (not

urea formaldehyde as specified in law).


Enrolled bill is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor

of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the

President.

SC cannot speculate error in printing. Remedy is to amend or

cure the law through Congress.

95 Morales v. Subido Law passed omitted the phrase who has served the police department of a city.


Enrolled bill doctrine prevails.

What was officially published by the Bureau of Printing is

official and binding.

House cleaning must be done by the occupants, not SC.

96 Astorga v. Villegas

Vice Mayors five policemen were removed after the Senate President invalidated his

signature in the enrolled bill.


Since no enrolled bill because of the revocation of the

signature, refer to the journals.

A law is approved when it is passed by both houses. Signing of

heads of the houses is only an attestation.

97 Phil Judges Assn. v. Prado Withdrawing of franking privileges in judiciary

and other agencies.

Duty to keep journals and records. Conclusiveness of enrolled

bill.

BCC reconciles the two houses and the final bill is approved by

both houses.


42


Franking privilege not be removed because it is essential. If

they want to stop losses, it should withdraw all agencies, not

from those who need it the most. There is violation for equal

protection because the judiciary is categorized with the class of

AFP, telecommunications, etc.

98 Angara v. Electoral Commission Different deadline was set by Electoral

Commission and the proclamation of the

National Assembly to protest.

Transfer in its totality all the powers previously exercised by

the legislature pertaining to contested elections of its members

to an independent and impartial tribunal.

National Assembly has cut off the Electoral Commissions

power.

99 Locsin v. HRET Election protest on stray ballots.

SC will review HRET if GADLEJ.

Marks made unintentionally do not invalidate the ballot.

Neither do marks made by some person other than the vote.

Failure of BEI chairman to sign/authenticate will not penalize

the voter with disenfranchisement.

Intent rule:

1. Only the oval beside the name of the claimant is marked

2. Ballot belongs to the clustered precinct 3. Ballot is not marked 4. Ballot is authentic

100 Vera v. Avelino Petitioners not sworn by Senate. Votes were

done through coercion.

Senate may adopt rules for its proceedings and may resolve to

defer administration of oath and sitting of petitioners to

exercise the power of self-preservation.

Violence is not the expression of free will of the people.

For any speech or debate in congress, senators and

congressmen shall not be questioned in any other place.

101 Roces v. HRET Petitioner assails the jurisdiction of HRET.

HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to election,

returns, and qualification of the members of HR. It will decide

on questions whether of fact or of law.

COMELEC en banc usurped COMELEC 1st Division.


43


Void judgment or decree is subject to collateral attack anytime.

102 Seneres v. COMELEC Nominees made by a president of BUHAY who

is assailed to be a president no more.

This is an internal matter of BUHAY.

Signatory was authorized by BUHAY. Still the valid act of

BUHAY.

Hold over capacity is allowed in corporations until the

successor is chosen. He is a de facto officer.

103 Limkaichong v. COMELEC Accuses of not being NBC.

Citizenship requirement is essential. Not even the plurality of

votes will substitute the requirement of the fundamental law.

HRET begins when the winning candidate has proclaimed,

taken oath, assumed office.

Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements.

These do not prescribe.

104 Aggabao v. COMELEC Motion is still in COMELEC but assailed

person is already in HR.

Despite invalidity of proclamation of COMELEC, the

COMELEC lost its jurisdiction when Miranda was proclaimed,

took oath and assumed office.

105 Barbers v. COMELEC Biazon as the 12

th senator when there were still

uncanvassed votes.

SET is the sole judge of all contests to the election, retu

Constitutional Law I (Political Law) - Case Summary/Digest

Documents

Transcript of Constitutional Law I (Political Law) - Case Summary/Digest