ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

8/7/2019 ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

1/37

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

De Leon v. ESGUERRA

The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. Bythat date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to havebeen superseded. (Effectivity is immediately upon ratification)

Gonzales v. COMELEC

Nature of power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendmentsthereto: not inherent power of Congress but of the people; constituentpower of Congress

Tolentino v. COMELEC

The condition and limitation that all the amendments to be proposed by thesame convention must be submitted in a single election or plebiscite.

Imbong v. COMELEC

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

Santiago v. COMELEC

Right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution

through the system of initiative would remain entombed in a cold niche untilCongress provides for its implementation. Section 2 of Article XVII is notself-executing.

Lambinov. COMELEC

Essence of people's initiative: (1) people must author; (2) they must signthe proposal; (3) proposal is embodied in petition

CONCEPT OF STATE

Bacani vs NACOCO

The mere fact that the Government happens to be a major stockholder of acorporation does not make it a public corporation.

Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions.PVTA vs CIR

Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions obsolete.

Government has to provide for general welfare.

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

Doctrine of Parens Patriae (state as guardian of the people)

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

- great body of municipal law regarding private and domestic rights continuein force until abrogated or changed by new ruler.


2/37

Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh

Continuity of Law: Law, once established, continues until changed by somecompetent legislative power (not changed 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 propoer government obtained by force or voice of the majority

(2) paramount force by military forces who invade the territory

(3) independent government established by inhabitants throughinsurrection

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

People vs Gozo

Principle of Auto-limitation: Extent of Philippine sovereignty over Americanbases Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over thebases as part of the Philippine territory.

Laurel vs Misa

Nature of Allegiance to sovereign: Absolute and permanent

Effect of enemy occupation: sovereignty of the government nottransferred to occupier

Ruffy v Chief of Staff The rule that laws of political nature or affecting political relations are

considered superseded or held in abeyance during the military occupation,is intended for the governing of the civil inhabitants of the occupied territoryand not for the enemies in arms.

STATE IMMUNITY

The Holy See v Rosario, Jr.

Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a

diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the civil and administrativejurisdiction of the receiving state over any real action relating to privateimmovable property situated in the territory of the receiving state which theenvoy holds on behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the mission

Sanders v Veridiano

Mere allegation that a government functionary is being sued in his personalcapacity will not automatically remove him from the protection of the laws ofpublic officers and doctrine of state immunity

Doctrine of state immunity applicable also to other states.

Republic v Sandoval

State cannot be held liable for the deaths that followed the incident; liabilityshould fall on the public officers who committed acts beyond their authority

3 instances when suit is proper:1. when sued by its name

2. when unincorporated government agency is sued


3/37

3. when the suit is against a government employee but liability belongs tothe government

Festejo v Fernando

Officer or employee committing the tort is personally liable and maybe sued

as any other citizen and held answerable for whatever injury

Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Court of Appeals

Not all government entities whether corporate or not are immune from suits.Immunity from suits is determined by the character of the objects for whichthe entity was organized.

Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme

The test of liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the driveracting in behalf of the municipality is performing governmental orproprietary functions. It has already been remarked that municipal

corporations are suable because their charters grant them the competenceto sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for tortscommitted by them in the discharge of governmental functions and can beheld answerable only if it can be shown that they were acting in aproprietary capacity. In permitting such entities to be sued, the state merelygives the claimants the right to show the defendant was not acting in itsgovernmental capacity when the injury was inflicted or that the case comesunder the exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the claimants cannotrecover.

Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez

Municipal funds in possession of municipal and provincial treasurers are

public funds exempt from execution. Municipal funds are held in trust for thepeople intended and used for the accomplishments of the purposes forwhich municipal corporations are created and that to subject said propertiesand public funds to execution would materially impede, even defeat and insome instance destroy said purposes.

Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals

When a municipality fails or refuses without justifiable reason to effectpayment of a final money judgment rendered against it, the claimant mayavail of the remedy of mandamus in order to compel the enactment andapproval of the necessary appropriation ordinance and the correspondingdisbursement of municipal funds.

USA vs Guinto

- A state may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and canthus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when itenters into business contracts.

Veterans Manpower vs CA

- The state is deemed to have given tacitly its consent to be sued when itenters into a contract. However, it does not apply where the contract relatesto the exercise of its sovereign functions.

The Merritt vs Govt of the Phil

- By consenting to be sued, a state simply waives its immunity from suit. Itdoes not thereby concede its liability to the plaintiff, or create any cause ofaction in his favor, or extend its liability to any cause not previouslyrecognized. It merely gives remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability and


4/37

submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interposeany lawful defense.

Amigable vs. Cuenca

The government, when it takes away a property from a private land ownerfor public use without going through the legal process of expropriation ornegotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit againstthe government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmentalimmunity from suit. This doctrine cannot be used in perpetrating injustice toa citizen.

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

- When the state files an action, it divests itself of the sovereign characterand shed its immunity form suit, descending to the level of an ordinarylitigant.

Fundamental Principles and State Policies

Section 1

Villavicencio v. Lukban:

Held: Mayors act unconstitutional. It was not authorized by any law orordinance. Our government is a government of laws and not men.

Section 2

Kuroda v. Jalandoni:

think Japanese Lieutenat-General charged before the military commission.

Held: The Philippines can adopt the rules and regulations laid down on theHague and Geneva Conventions notwithstanding that it is not a signatorythereto. It embodied generally accepted principles of international lawbinding upon all states.

Agustin v. Edu:

think triangular reflectorized early warning devices.

Held: Legislative enactment is not necessary in order to authorize theissuance of LOI prescribing the use of triangular reflectorized early warningdevices. This is also an illustration of generally accepted principles ofinternational law (Pacta sunt servanda).

Ichong v. Hernandez:

5think Retail Trade Nationalization Law which is against the principle ofPacta sunt servanda.Held: the Retail Trade Nationalization Law is notunconstitutional because it was passed in the exercise of the police powerwhich cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty.

Gonzales v. Hechanova:

think rice importation. Statute vs. Treaty.

Held: Municipal law was upheld over international law on the basis of thedoctrine of separation of powers under the rule-making powers of theSupreme Court. In this case, the contracts adverted to are NOT treaties.


5/37

Section 6

Aglipay vs. Ruiz

-There is no violation of the principle of the separation of church and state.The issuance and sale of the stamps in question may be said to be linkedwith an event of a religious character, but the resulting propaganda, if any,received by the Catholic Church, was not the aim and purpose of thegovernment. The idea behind the issuance of the postage stamps was toattract tourists to our country and not primarily the religious event.

Section 10

Almeda vs. CA

-There exists a tenants right of redemption in sugar and coconut lands.Pursuant to Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963, it recognizes sharetenancy in sugar lands which is in consonance with the States promotion ofsocial justice wherein it may regulate the acquisition, ownership, use,enjoyment and disposition of private property, and equitably diffusepropertyownership and profits.

Ondoy .vs. Ignacio

-The principle of social justice applied in this case is a matter of protection,not equality. The Court recognized the right of the petitioner to the claim ofcompensation because her son was shown to have died while in the actualperformance of his work. To strengthen the constitutional scheme of socialjustice and protection to labor, The Court made mention that as between alaborer, usually poor and unlettered, and the employer, who has resourcesto secure able legal advice, the law has reason to demand from the latterthe stricter compliance.

Salonga vs. Farrales

-The plea of social justice of the plaintiff cannot be considered because itwas shown that no contract, either to sell or of sale, was ever perfectedbetween him and the defendant. It must be remembered that social justicecannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners who underour Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection. The social justiceconsecrated in our Constitution was not intended to take away rights from aperson and give them to another who is not entitled thereto.

Section 16

LLDA v. CA

The immediate response to the demands of necessities of protecting vitalpublic interests gives vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in theDeclaration of Principles and State Policies of the 1987 Constitution. ArticleII, Section 16. As a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person, itcarries the correlative duty of non-impairment. This is but the consonancewith the declared policy of the state to protect and promote the right tohealth of the people and instill health consciousness among them.

Section 19

GARCIA vs. BOI

BOI committed grave abuse of discretion because it repudiates theindependent policy of government to run its affairs the way it deems best forthe national interest.Every provision of the Constitution on the national economy and patrimonyis infused with the spirit of national interest. The non-alienation of nationalresources, the State full control over the development and utilization ofcontributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country


6/37

and the regulation of foreign investment in accordance to national goals andpriorities are too explicit not to be noticed and understood.

Section 21

ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL. vs. SEC. OF AGRARIANREFORM

Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forciblyacquire private lands intended for public use upon payment of justcompensation to the owner. Private rights must yield to the irresistibledemands of the public interest on the time-honored justification, as in thecase of the policed power, that the welfare of the people is the supremelaw.

Section 25

BASCO VS PAGCOR

Local Autonomy under 1987 Constitution simply means the decentralizationand does not make the local governments sovereign within the State or animperium imperio.

LIMBONA VS MANGELIN

Decentralization of administration is merely delegation of administrativepowers to the LGUs in order to broaden the base of governmental power.Decentralization of power is the abdication by the national governmentpowers.

Section 30Legspi vs CSC

The constitutional right to information on matters of public concern is self-executing without the need for any ancillary act of legislation.

Valmonte vs de Villa

The constitutional right to information is limited on matters of public concernand is further subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.However, although citizens are afforded the right to information, theConstitution does not accord them the right to compel the custodians of

official records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in theirdesire to acquire information of public concern.

Aquino-sarmiento vs morato

When a committee or board is created as public in its very existence andcharacter such MTRCB, there can be no valid claim to privacy.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

Sanidad v. COMELEC

On whether the case is justiciable

Political questions are associated with the wisdom of the legality of aparticular act. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality orvalidity of the contested act, that matter is definitely justiciable or non-political. If the Constitution provides how it may be amended, the judiciaryas the interpreter of that Constitution, can declare whether the procedurefollowed or the authority assumed was valid or not.


7/37

On whether the President may propose Constitutional amendmentsIf the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions ofthe interim Assembly, there is no reason why he cannot validly dischargethe function of that Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution,which is but an adjunct, although peculiar, to its gross legislative power.

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

Daza v. Singson

Where the legality or validity of the act is in question and not the wisdom ofthe act, the Court may take jurisdiction and decide on the acts validity.Even in political questions the Court may take jurisdiction under theexpanded judicial power extended to it by Art 8 Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

(Judicial power includes the duty to settle actual controversies involvingrights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine

whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting tolack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality ofGovernment.)

Delegation of Powers

Garcia v. Exec. Secretary

The Congress is may authorize the President to fix tariff rates and dutiessubject to such limitations and restrictions that they may impose. This isexpressly provided for in Art 6, Sec 28 par 2 of the Constitution.

Araneta v. Dinglasan

The delegation of emergency powers by Congress to the President may belimited by Congress subject to restrictions it may provide. Congress maywithdraw the delegated power at any time. In this case, the emergencypower was withdrawn at the time Congress became able to exercise itslegislative duties again.

In Re: Manzano

The committee performs administrative function* which under Section 12,Article VIII of the Constitution prohibits members of the SC and other courtsestablished by law to be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicialor administrative functions. To quote CJ Fernando in Garcia vs. Macaraig,he said that while the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory

not to be enforced with pedantic rigor, the practical demands of governmentprecluding its doctrine application, it cannot justify a member of the judiciarybeing required to assume a position or perform a duty non-judicial incharacter.

Administrative functions are those which involves the regulation and

control the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and

the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy

of the legislative or such as are devolved upon the administrative

agency by the organic law of its existence.

Angara vs. Electoral Commission

The Electoral Commission is an independent, impartial, and non-partisantribunal. The sole power to determine contests regarding the elections,returns, and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly hasbeen transferred in totality to the Electoral Commission. Its power is clear,complete, and exclusive.


8/37

Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA

The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all three branchesof government specifically in the case of the legislative. What can bedelegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced andnot what the law shall be since the ascertainment of the latter subject is

within the prerogative and determination of the legislature. Delegation oflegislative power is permitted and valid provided that is passes the twoaccepted tests- completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Thereason for such delegation is the increasing complexity of the task of thegovernment and the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly withthe myriad problems demanding its attention.

Casibang vs. Aquino

While under the 1973 Constitution the Commission on Elections is now thesole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualificationsof members of the National Assemble as well as elective provincial and cityofficials (par 2, Sec. 2, Art. XII-C, 1973 Constitution), such power does not

extend to electoral contests concerning municipal elective positions. Theissue still remains a justiciable question and not a political question*.Hence, the courts have the jurisdiction to hear and decide on the case.

Political questions, in its ordinary parlance, refers to the question of policy.It refers to those questions which under the Constitution are to be decidedby the people in their sovereign capacity to, or in regard to which fulldiscretionary authority has been vested to the legislative or executivebranch of the government. It is concerned with the issues dependent uponthe wisdom, and not the legality of a particular measure.

Rodriguez v. Gella

Act No. 671 was expressly in pursuance of the constitutional limitation ofthe delegation of emergency powers. It is presumed that the NationalAssembly intended it to be for a limited period. Executive Orders Nos. 545and 546, which was anchored to the said Act are declared null and void andthe respondents are ordered to desist from appropriating, releasing andallotting expending funds set aside therein.

People v. Vera

Act No. 4221 is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative power. Thepowers of the government are distributed among three coordinate andsubstantially independent organs: the legislative, the executive and thejudicial. Each of the departments of the government derives its authority

from the Constitution.

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Tobias v. Abalos

The creation of a new congressional district is but a natural consequence ofa municipalitys conversion into a city. The Constitution provides that a cityshould have a population of at least 250,000 and is entitled to at least 1representative.

Mariano Jr. v. Comelec

As decided in Tobias v. Abalos, the Constitution provides that thecompositions of the House should not be more than 250 members, unlessotherwise provided by law. The natural result in the creation of a newlegislative from a special law whose purpose is to convert a municipalityinto a city is sanctioned by the Constitution.


9/37

Montejo v. Comelec

The Comelec has no power to reapportion districts but only to make minoradjustments.

Republic Act No. 7941 An act providing for the election of the party-listrepresentatives through the party-list system 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 virtue of a legal and valid appointment,accepts another appointment to preside over the same branch of the sameCourt of First Instance, in addition of another Court of First Instance to theold one, enters into the discharge of the functions of his new office andreceives the corresponding salary, he abandons his old office and cannotclaim to be entitled to repossess it or question the constitutionality of thelaw by virtue of which his new appointment has been issued; and, said newappointment having been disapproved by the Commission on Appointmentsof the National Assembly, neither can he claim to continue occupying theoffice conferred upon him by said new appointment, having ipso jureceased in the discharge of the functions thereof.

Section 14

Puyat vs. De Guzman

No Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall appear as counsel before anycourt without appellate jurisdiction, before any court in any civil casewherein the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality

thereof is the adverse party, or in any criminal case wherein any officer oremployee of the Government is accused of an offense committed in relationto his office,or before any administrative body.

Neither shall he, directly or indirectly be interested financially in any contractwith, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, orany subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including anygovernment-owned or controlled corporation, during his term of office.

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

Section 16

Santiago vs. Guingona, Jr.

Where no provision of the Constitution, the laws or even the rules of theSenate has been clearly shown to have been violated, disregarded oroverlooked, grave abuse of discretion cannot be imputed to Senate officialsfor acts done within their competence and authority.

Avelino vs. Cuenco

The constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its ownpresident should not be interfered with, nor taken over, by the judiciary.

When the constitution declares that a majority of each House shallconstitute a quorum, it does not mean allof its members. Majority of all themembers constitute the House. Hence, 12 senators who unanimouslyvoted constitute a majority of 23 senators (10 walked out, 1 out of thecountry).


10/37

OSMEA VS. PENDATUN

The House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior as conferredupon by the Constitution. Also, Congress has the inherent legislativeprerogative of suspension.

PAREDES, JR. VS SANDIGANBAYAN

Sandiganbayan has the authority to suspend a district representative inviolation of the Anti-Graft Law as it is being imposed on the representativeNOT as a member of the House.

U.S. VS PONS

The Court may not go beyond the the recitals of the legislative journals forthe purpose of determining the date of adjournment when such journal areclear and explicit. To inquire the veracity of journals, when they are clearand explicit, would be to violate both the letter and spirit of the laws, toinvade the coordinate and independent department of the government andto interfere with the legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature.

CASCO PHIL CHEMICAL CO VS GIMENEZ

Enrolled bill doctrine- the term urea formaldehyde is conclusive upon thecourts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by the Congress andapproved by the President.

Section 18

* Daza vs Singson

- The sense of the Constitution is that the membership in the COA must alwaysreflect political alignments and must adjust to changes. Nowhere, however, in the

Constitution require that the party must be a registered party.

* Coseteng vs Mitra

- Endorsement of other representatives (in COA) cannot be counted in favor of arepresentative if they do not belong to the latter's party.

* Guingona vs Gonzales

- Full complement of 12 seats in COA is not mandatory

Rounding out 0.5 to 1 is unconstitutional as it would deprive other parties of seatsin COA.

Sec. 21:

* Bengzon vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

- Investigation was not in aid of legislation where it merely aims at determiningwhether a law is violated. To allow such investigation is to violate separation ofpowers.

* Arnault vs Nazareno

- Power of Investigation includes power to punish a contumacious witness forcontempt. Experience has shown that mere requests for information are frequentlyunavailing.

- In aid of legislation - not difficult to satisfy. Necessity or lack of necessity forlegislative action is determined by the sum total of information to be gathered as aresult of investigation, and not by a fraction of such information elicited from singlequestion. It is sufficient that the question is germane to the subject matter of inquiry.There is no need for it to be directly related or connected to possible legislation.


11/37

* Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability

- Exception to legislative inquiry: Executive Privilege (which is extended to all closeadvisors of the President)

- It is wrong for Senate to punish one for contempt where executive privilege isproperly invoked.

- Senate's mistakes in the case at bar: (1) invitations to Neri did not includepossible statute; (2) contempt order lacks required # of votes; (3) Senate did notfirst rule on the claim of executive privilege and instead dismissed Neri'sexplanation; (4) rules of procedure on inquiries in aid of legislation not dulypublished.

Sec. 21 and 22:

* Senate vs Ermita

- When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads areimplementing the statutes, it is not imperative.

- The oversight function of Congress may be facilitated by compulsory processonly to the extent that it is performed in pursuit of legislation.

- Appearance of department heads in question hour is discretionary.

- When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for the departmentheads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege.

- EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE privilege based on doctrine of separation of powers,exempting executive from disclosure requirements where such exemption isnecessary to the discharge of highly important executive responsibilities. It coverscategories of information not of persons.

Sec. 24:

* Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance

- The phrase originate exclusively does not refer to the appropriations law but tothe appropriations bill. It is sufficient that the House of Rep. initiated the passage ofthe bill.

* Alvarez vs Guingona

- A bill of local application, such as one asking for the conversion of a municipality

into a city, is deemed to have originated from the House provided that the bill of theHouse was filed prior to the filing of the bill in the Senate even if, in the end, theSenate approved its own version.

- The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the billdoes not contravene the constitutional requirement as long as the Senate does notact thereupon until it receives the House bill.

Sec. 25:

* Garcia vs Mata

- RIDER a provision not related to the appropriation act (is prohibited)

* Demetria vs Alba

- transfer of appropriations prohibited

* PHILCONSA vs Enriquez

- The list of those who may be authorized to transfer funds is exclusive.


12/37

- Case at bar: Congressmen are allowed to determine the necessity of realignment,but House Speaker or Senate Pres. will have to approve the realignment beforeitems are realigned.

- Case at bar: Chief of Staff may not be give authority to realign appropriations.

Sec. 26:

* Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board

- Imposition of tax is sufficiently related to the regulation of video industry where thetitle is comprehensive enough to include such subject (taxation) related to thegeneral purpose (creation of Videogram Board)

* Phil. Judges Assoc. vs Prado

- Repeal/Withdrawal of franking privilege is germane to the object of the title, whichis to create postal service system. Hence, the same is embraced in the title/

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

- Withdrawing tax exemptions granted before is embraced in the subject of the titlewhich is to widen the tax base

* Tan vs Del Rosario

- 3 purposes of Sec. 3(1), Art. VI:

(a) to prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation

(b) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisionswhich might be overlooked

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

* Tobias vs Abalos

- Provision providing for a separate legislative district is germane to the subject ofthe bill creating the City of Mandaluyong

* Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance [Sec. 26 (2)]

- IF it is only the printing that is being dispensed by presidential certification, thetime saved would be so negligible as to be of any use in ensuring immediateenactment. (Printing and Readings on separate days both dispensable by pres.certification)

- Where no Senators controverted the reality of the factual basis of certification,growing budget deficit may be considered as basis for presidential certification.Senators, in responding to the call of the Pres. by voting on the bill, manifestedtheir belief in the urgent need for certification of the bill.

Sec. 27:

* Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance

- It is within the power of a conference committee to include in its report an entirelynew provision not found in either House Bill or Senate Bill. (Amendment in thenature of substitution is warranted as long as amendment is germane to the subjectmatter of the bill)

- to disregard the enrolled bill is to disregard the respect due the other 2departments.

* Gonzales vs Macaraig

- Pressident can veto an item


13/37

- Doctrine of inappropriate provisions a provision that is constitutionallyinappropriate may be singled out for veto if it is not an appropriation or revenueitem. An inappropriate provision in an appropriations bill is an item in iself.

* Bengzon vs Drilon

- President's power to veto an item does not grant authority to veto part of an item(or provisions).

- President cannot veto a law or repeal a law.


- Provisions that are germane to the specific appropriations cannot be vetoed.

- Requirement of Congressional approval for release of funds for modernization ofAFP can be incorporated in separate bill and hence inappropriate. It was properlyvetoed.

- Executive Impoundment refusal of the President to spend funds already

allocated by Congress for a specific purpose (the duty to implement the lawincludes the duty to desist from implementing it when implementation wouldprejudice public interest). The Court, however, did not rule on this issue, and ratherdeclared the provision concerning benefits of CAFGUs as an inappropriateprovision.

Sec. 28:

* Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pilipinas vs Tan

- a tax is considered uniform when it operates with the same force and effect inevery place where the subject may be found.

* Province of Abra vs Judge Hernando* Abra Valley College vs Aquino

- Where a lot is not used exclusively for educational purpose, it may be taxed if theuse is not incidental to the attainment of main purpose.

* Tan vs Del Rosario

- Uniformity of taxation means:

(a) standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary

(b) categorization is germane to achieve legislative purpose

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

(d) classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the sameclass

Sec. 29:

* Pascual vs Sec. of Public Works

- Appropriation for a road owned by a private individual is invalid because it is notfor a public purpose. Subsequent donation did not validate the law because validityof a statute depends upon the power of Congress at the time of its approval and notupon subsequent events.

* Aglipay vs Ruiz

- Appropriation for special stamp issue is valid as it is not specifically made tobenefit a religious denomination but for a public purpose. The benefit acquired bythe Church is incidental only.


14/37

* Guingona vs Carague

- The Automatic Reappropriation Law for servicing foreign debts is valid becausethe amount is fixed by the parameters of the law itself which requires the simple actof looking into the books of Treasure (the amount is determinable).

- Budgetary process:

(a) budget preparation

(b) legislative authorization

(c) budget execution

(d) budget accountability

* Osmena vs Orbos

- Increase of petroleum prices to resolve the Terminal Fund Balance deficit is validas it was a valid exercise of police power.


- Pork barrel provisions in the annual budget allowing members of Congress toperform executive function of spending money appropriated are not in violation ofseparation of powers because Congress itself had specified the uses of the fundand the power given was merely recommendatory to the President who couldapprove or disapprove the recommendation.

Sec. 30:

* First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs CA

- B.P. Blg. 129 granting exclusive appellate jurisdiction to CA over the decisions ofquasi-judicial bodies is not superseded by Omnibus Investments Code of 1987providing that decisions of BOI are appealable to SC because advice andconcurrence of SC was not sought.

* Diaz vs CA

- Sec. 10 of EO No. 170 stating a party adversely affected by a decision of ERBmay file a petition with SC was superseded by the Constitution stating thatjurisdiction of SC cannot be made to increase without its advice and concurrence.

Sec. 32:

* Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs COMELEC

- Initiative is entirely the work of electorate; the process oflaw-making by thepeople themselves

- Referendum consists merely of the electorate approving or rejecting what hasbeen drawn up or enacted by a legislative body.

- Case at bar: COMELEC erred in implementing a Resolution when respondentsfiled petition for Initiative and not Referendum.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Sec. 1:

* Marcos vs Manglapus

- The President has residual powers. The President is more than the sum ofspecific powers enumerated in the Constitution.


15/37

- What is not part of the legislative and judicial departments is deemed part of theexecutive.

- The 1987 Constitution provided for a limitation of specific powers of the President,particularly those relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but not a diminution ofthe general grant of executive power.

* Soliven vs Makasiar

- The privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of Presidential dutiesfree from any hindrance or distraction considering that being the Chief Executivedemands undivided attention.

- The privilege pertains to the President by virtue of the office and may be invokedonly by the holder of the office. There is nothing which prohibits the President towaive this privilege.

* Estrada vs Desierto

- A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit (immunity is only during

the tenure)

- Even a sitting President is not immune from suit for non-official acts or fromwrongdoing. (Public office is a public trust. The rule is that unlawful acts of publicofficials are not acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not acting assuch but stands in the same footing as any other trespasser.)

Sec. 13:

* Doromal vs Sandiganbayan

- Sec Sec. 13, Art. VII is applicable in a case where the accused has not signed anydocument of any bid of the family corporation of which he is a member, submittedto any government department.

- Case at bar: Petitioner has at least an indirect interest with the transaction withDECS and NMYC.

* Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary

- EO No. 284 is unconstitutional insofar it allows a member of the Cabinet to holdnot more than two positions in the government. (Respondent's contention that Sec.7, Art. IX-B is an exception would defeat the obvious legislative intent which is toprohibit cabinet members from holding multiple offices.)

* Aytona vs Castillo

- As a rule, once an appointment is issued, it cannot be reconsidered where theappointee has qualified. Exception: ad interim appointments issued in the last hoursof an outgoing Chief Executive (midnight appointments made for buying votes).

* In re Valenzuela and Vallarta

- Sec. 15 (President shall not make appointments within 2 months prior to the nextPresidential election) is applicable to the members of the Judiciary.

- This sort of appointment is made for partisan considerations.

Sec. 16:* Binamira vs Garrucho

- Appointment or designation involves exercise of discretion which cannot bedelegated. Even if it be assumed that the power could be exercised by Minister ofTourism, it could be recalled by the President.


16/37

- Designation is considered only an acting or temporary appointment, which doesnot confer security of tenure.

* Sarmiento vs Mison

- 4 groups of officers whom the President shall appoint:

(a) heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other publicministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or navalcaptain, and other whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution

(b) all other officers of the Government whose appointments are nototherwise provided for by law

(c) those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint

(d) officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by lawvest in the President alone.

- Case at bar: Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment of Commissionerof Bureau of Customs because a bureau headis not among those within the firstgroup of appointments where consent of COA is required.

* Bautista vs Salonga

- Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment of Chairman of Commission ofHuman Rights because such appointment is not vested in the President in theConstitution. The President appoints Chairman of CHR pursuant to EO 163 (CHRChairman is thus within the 3rd group of officers)

* Quintos-Deles vs Commission of Appointments

- The appointment of Sectoral Representatives requires confirmation by theCommission on Appointments. The seats reserved for sectoral representatives maybe filled by appointment by the President by express provision of Sec.7, ArticleXVIII of the Constitution (hence, sectoral representatives are within the 1stgroup ofofficers)

- Exceptions to those officers within the 1st group: (1) Ombudsman and hisdeputies, and (2) members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts.

* Calderon vs Carale

- Confirmation by COA is required only for presidential appointees that are withinthe 1st group of officers as mentioned in Sarmiento vs Mison.

- Congress may not expand the list of appointments needing confirmation.

- Case at bar: RA 6715, which requires the COA confirmation in appointments ofNLRC Chairman and Commissioners, transgresses Sec. 16, Art. VII. Theappointments ofNLRC Chairman and Commissioners do not need COAconfirmation because they fall under the 3rdgroup of officers.

* Tarrosa vs Singson

- affirmed the ruling in Calderon vs Carale

- Case at bar: Appointment of Central Bank Governor does not need COA

confirmation.

* Flores vs Drilon

- A law which limits the President to only one appointee is an encroachment to theprerogative of the President because appointment involves discretion to choosewho to appoint.

* Luego vs Civil Service Commission


17/37

- CSC is without authority to revoke an appointment because of its belief thatanother person was better qualified, which is an encroachment on the discretionvested solely in the appointing authority.

- The permanent appointment made by the appointing authority may not bereversed by CSC and call it temporary.

* Pobre vs Mendieta

- The vacancy in the position of Chairman of the Professional RegulationCommission cannot be filled by the Senior Associate Commissioner by operation oflaw (or by succession) because it will deprive the President of the power to appointthe Chairman.

Sec. 17

* Drilon vs Lim

- Distinction between power and control:

An officer in controllays down the rules in the doing of an act. if they are notfollowed, he may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re-done by hissubordinate or he may even decide to do it by himself.

Supervision does not cover such authority. The supervisor merely sees to itthat rules are followed, but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor does hehave the discretion to modify or replace them. If the rules are not observed, hemay order the work done or re-done but only to conform to the prescribed rules.He may not prescribe his own manner except to see to it that the rules arefollowed.

(Note) Power of controlpertains to power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify, or setaside what a subordinate has done in the performance of his duties and to

substitute his judgment to that of the former [Mondano vs Silvosa]

* Villena vs Secretary of the Interior

- Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (alter ego principle) -acts of the Secretariesof Executive Departments, when performed and promulgated in the regular courseof business or unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, arepresumptively the acts of the Chief Executive

- Case at bar: Secretary of the Interior is invested with the authority to order theinvestigation of the charges against the petitioner and to appoint a specialinvestigator for that purpose.

* Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs Pano- Department heads are President's men of confidence. His is the power toappoint them; his, too, is the privilege to dismiss them at pleasure. Normally, hecontrols and directs their acts. Implicit then is his authority to go over, confirm,modify or reverse the action taken by his department secretaries.

- Case at bar: The President, through his Executive Secretary, may undo an act ofthe Director of Lands

* City of Iligan vs Director of Lands

- The President has the power to grant portions of public domain to anygovernment entity like the City of Iligan because he has control over the Director ofLands, who has direct executive control in the lease, sale or any form of concessionor disposition of the land of public domain.

* Gascon vs Arroyo

- Case at bar: Executive Secretary has the power and authority to enter into theAgreement to Arbitrate with the ABS CBN as he acted for and in behalf of thePresident when he signed it.


18/37

* Kilusan Bayan vs Dominguez

- An administrative officer has only such powers as are expressly granted to himand those necessarily implied in the exercise thereof. These powers should not beextended by implication beyond what may be necessary for their just andreasonable execution.

* Angangco vs Castillo

- The power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint, but not with regard tothose officers or employees who belong to the classified service for as to them theinherent power cannot be exercised

* NAMARCO vs Arca

- Executive power of control extends to government-owned corporations.

Sec. 18:

* Guazon vs De Villa

- The President has the power to ordain saturation drives. There is nothing in theConstitution which denies the authority of the Chief Exec. to order police actions tostop unabated criminality, rising lawlessness, and alarming communist activities.

* Ruffy vs Chief of Staff

- Courts martial are simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by theCongress for the President as Commander in chief to aid him in properlycommanding the army and navy and enforcing discipline therein and utilize underhis order those of his authorized military representatives.

* Olaguer vs Military Commission No. 34

- Due process of law demands that in all criminal prosecutions the accused beentitled to a trial. The trial contemplated by the due process clause is trial by judicialprocess. Military Commissions are not courts within the Philippine judicial system.Judicial power is vested only in the courts. Military commissions pertain to theexecutive department and are instrumentalities of the President as commander-in-chief to aid him in enforcing discipline in the armed forces.

* Quilona vs General Court Martial

* Gudani vs Senga

- The President has constitutional authority to prevent a member of the armedforces from testifying before a legislative inquiry, by virtue of her power ascommander-in-chief, and that as a consequence, a military officer who defies suchinjunction is liable under military justice. At the same time, the Court also holds thatany chamber of Congress which seeks the appearance befoe it of a military officeragainst the consent of the President has adequate remedies under law to compelsuch attendance. Any military officer whom the Congress summons to testify beforeit may be compelled to do so by the President. If the President is not so inclined,the President may be commanded by judicial order to compel the attendance of themilitary officer. Final judicial orders have the force of the law of the land which thePresident has the duty to faithfully execute.

Sec. 19:

* Torres vs Gonzales

- A judicial pronouncement is not necessary in determining whether the conditionsin the pardon are violated. The determination of whether there is a violations of theconditions rests exclusively in the sound judgment of the President.

* Monsanto vs Factoran


19/37

- Pardon implies guilt. While it relieves the party pardoned from all punitiveconsequences of his criminal act, it relieves him from nothing more. It does not,therefore, restore a convicted felon to public office forfeited by reason of conviction.

* People vs Salle, Jr.

- Pardon may be granted only by final judgment. Where the judgment of convictionis still pending appeal, executive clemency may not yet be granted. Before anappellant may be granted pardon, he must first ask for the withdrawal of his appeal.

* Garcia vs COA

- President's grant of executive clemency to a person dismissed from his officepursuant to an administrative case (but where the latter has been acquitted in acriminal case based on the same facts alleged in the criminal case) entitles thelatter to automatic reinstatement and backwages.

* Sabello vs DECS

- Pardon (in a criminal case) frees the individual from all the penalties anddisabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. Although such pardon may restorea person's eligibility to public office, it does not entitle him to automaticreinstatement. He should apply for reappointment to said office.

- [Compare with Garcia vs COA]

* Llamas vs Orbos

- In granting the power of executive clemency, the Constitution does not distinguishbetween criminal and administrative cases.

Sec. 18:* Constantino, Jr. vs Cuisia

- The debt-relief contracts, providing for buy-back and bond-conversion schemes,entered into pursuant to Financing Program are not beyond the powers granted tothe President under Sec. 20, Art. VII. The only restriction that the Constitutionprovides, aside from the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, is that loansmust be subject to limitations provided by law. Accordingly, the contention that buy-back and bond-conversion schemes are neither loans nor guarantees, andhence beyond the Presidents power to execute, are without merit.

Sec. 21:

* Commissioner of Customs vs Eastern Sea Trading (1961)

- The concurrence of the House of Congress is required by our fundamental law inthe making of treaties which are however distinct and different from executiveagreements which may be validly entered without such concurrence.

* Pimentel, Jr. vs Exec. Sec.

- The power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to concurrence of theSenate. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent orconcurrence to the ratification. Hence, it is within the authority of the President torefuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or having secured its consent for itsratification, refuse to ratify it. This discretion to ratify lies within the President's

competence alone.

- 4 steps in treaty-making process:

(a) negotiation

(b) signing of the treaty (simply a means of authenticating the instrumentand a symbol of good faith)


20/37


21/37

- Considering that those contingencies mentioned by the petitioners may ormay not happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yetto ripen to an actual case or controversy. Petitioners who are residents ofTaguig (except Mariano) are not also the proper parties to raise thisabstract issue (city of Makati is involved). Worse, they raise this futuristicissue in a petition for declaratory relief over which this Court has no

jurisdiction.

Macasiano v National Housing Authority

-It is a rule firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that the constitutionality ofan act of the legislature will not be determined by the courts unless thatquestion is properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and isnecessary to a determination of the case.

J. Joya v PCGG

- The rule is settled that no question involving the constitutionality or validityof a law or governmental act may be heard and decided by the court unlessthere is compliance with the legal requisites for judicial inquiry, namely: thatthe question must be raised by the proper party; that there must be anactual case or controversy; that the question must be raised at the earliestpossible opportunity; and, that the decision on the constitutional or legalquestion must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. But themost important are the first two (2) requisites.

- Not every action filed by a taxpayer can qualify to challenge the legality ofofficial acts done by the government. A taxpayer's suit can prosper only ifthe governmental acts being questioned involve disbursement of publicfunds upon the theory that the expenditure of public funds by an officer ofthe state for the purpose of administering an unconstitutional act constitutesa misapplication of such funds, which may be enjoined at the request of a

taxpayer.

Legaspi v Civil Service Commission

- It becomes apparent that when a Mandamus proceeding involves theassertion of a public right, the requirement of personal interest is satisfiedby the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part of thegeneral "public" which possesses the right.

-"Public" is a comprehensive, all-inclusive term. Properly construed, itembraces every person.

Dumlao v COMELEC

- For one, there is a misjoinder of parties and actions. One petitioner doesnot join other petitioners in the burden of their complaint, nor do the latterjoin the former in his. They, respectively, contest completely differentstatutory provisions.

- For another, there are standards that have to be followed in the exerciseof the function of judicial review, namely: (1) the existence of an appropriatecase; (2) an interest personal and substantial by the party raising theconstitutional question; (3) the plea that the function be exercised at theearliest opportunity; and (4) the necessity that the constitutional question bepassed upon in order to decide the case.

Bugnay Const. and Devt. Corp. v Laron

- The doctrine holds that only when the act complained of directly involvesan illegal disbursement of public funds raised by taxation will the taxpayer'ssuit be allowed. The essence of a taxpayer's right to institute such an actionhinges on the existence of that requisite pecuniary or monetary interest.


22/37

- It is not enough that the taxpayer-plaintiff sufficiently show that he wouldbe benefited or injured by the judgment or entitled to the avails of the suit asa real party in interest.

Kilosbayan v Guingona, Jr.

- A party's standing before this Court is a procedural technicality which itmay, in the exercise of its discretion, set aside in view of the importance ofthe issues raised.

- In line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinarytaxpayers, members of Congress, and even association of planters, andnon-profit civic organizations were allowed to initiate and prosecute actionsbefore this Court to question the constitutionality or validity of laws, acts,decisions, rulings, or orders of various government agencies orinstrumentalities.

PHILCONSA v Enriquez

- The Senators have legal standing to question the validity of the veto.When a veto was made in excess of the authority of the President, itimpermissibily intrudes into the domain of the Legislature. A member ofCongress can question an act of the Executive which injures Congress asan institution.

Tatad v Garcia, Jr.

-The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are to allow taxpayers toquestion contracts entered into by the national government or government-

owned or controlled corporations allegedly in contravention of the law andto disallow the same when only municipal contracts are involved (just like inBugnay case since no public money was involved).

Oposa v Factoran, Jr.

- CLASS SUIT: The subject matter of the complaint is of common andgeneral interest not just to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines.Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it becomes impracticable,if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court.

- Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can onlybe based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the

right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.

- Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next topreserve that rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced andhealthful ecology. Put a little differently, the minors` assertion of their rightto a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the performance oftheir obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations tocome.

Lozada v COMELEC

- As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the instant petition, for nowhere

therein is it alleged that tax money is being illegally spent. It is only when anact complained of, which may include a legislative enactment or statute,involves the illegal expenditure of public money that the so-called taxpayersuit may be allowed.

- The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of astatute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such thathe has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement.


23/37

Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable elementof a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable ofjudicial resolution. When the asserted harm is a "generalized grievance"shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, thatharm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.

Kilosbayan v Morato

- The voting on petitioners' standing in the previous case was a narrow one,seven (7) members sustaining petitioners' standing and six (6) denyingpetitioners' right to bring the suit. The majority was thus a tenuous one thatis not likely to be maintained in any subsequent litigation. In addition, therehave been charges in the membership of the Court, with the retirement ofJustice Cruz and Bidin and the appointment of the writer of this opinion andJustice Francisco. Given this fact it is hardly tenable to insist on themaintenance of the ruling as to petitioners' standing.

SECTION 3

Bengzon v Lim

- What is fiscal autonomy? It contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility toallocate and utilize their resources with the wisdom and dispatch that theirneeds require. It recognizes the power and authority to levy, assess andcollect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the highest ratesauthorized by law for compensation and play plans of the government andallocate and disburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribedby them in the course of the discharge of their functions. Fiscal autonomymeans freedom from outside control.

- The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman musthave the independence and flexibility needed in the discharge of theirconstitutional duties. The imposition of restrictions and constraints on themanner the independent constitutional offices allocate and utilize the fundsappropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy andviolative not only of the express mandate of the Constitution but especiallyas regards the Supreme Court, of the independence and separation ofpowers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based

SECTION 4

Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v Court of Appeals, et.al.

- Reorganization is purely an internal matter of the Court to which petitioner

certainly has no business at all.

- The Court with its new membership is not obliged to follow blindly adecision upholding a party's case when, after its re-examination, the samecalls for a rectification.

SECTION 5

Drilon v Lim

- The Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction overfinal judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases in which theconstitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive

agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,ordinance, or regulation is in question.

- In the exercise of this jurisdiction, lower courts are advised to act with theutmost circumspection, bearing in mind the consequences of a declarationof unconstitutionality upon the stability of laws, no less than on the doctrineof separation of powers. As the questioned act is usually the handiwork ofthe legislative or the executive departments, or both, it will be prudent forsuch courts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to defer to the higher


24/37

judgment of this Court in the consideration of its validity, which is betterdetermined after a thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with theconcurrence of the majority of those who participated in its discussion.

Larranaga v Court of Appeals

(Transfer the venue of the preliminary investigation from Cebu City toManila because of the extensive coverage of the proceedings by the Cebumedia which allegedly influenced the people's perception of petitioner'scharacter and guilt.)

- The Court recognizes that pervasive and prejudicial publicity under certaincircumstances can deprive an accused of his due process right to fair trial.It was previously held that to warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity theremust be allegation and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced,not simply that they might be, by the barrage in publicity.

- In the case at bar, nothing in the records shows that the tone and contentof the publicity that attended the investigation of petitioners fatally infectedthe fairness and impartiality of the DOJ Panel.

First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v Court of Appeals

- It is intended to give the Supreme Court a measure of control over casespaced under its appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate enactment oflegislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminateenactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction canunnecessarily burden the Court and thereby undermine its essentialfunction of expounding the law in its most profound national aspects.

Aruelo v Court of Appeals

- Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC can not adopt a rule prohibitingthe filing of certain pleadings in the regular courts. The power to promulgaterules concerning pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts is vestedon the Supreme Court.

Javellana v DILG

(Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG MemorandumCircular No. 90-81 does not violate Article VIII. Section 5 of the Constitution.Neither the statute nor the circular trenches upon the Supreme Court'spower and authority to prescribe rules on the practice of law.)

- The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81simply prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of

interest between the discharge of their public duties and the private practiceof their profession, in those instances where the law allows it.

SECTION 6

Maceda v Vasquez

- In the absence of any administrative action taken against a person by theCourt with regard to his certificates of service, the investigation beingconducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court's power ofadministrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation ofthe doctrine of separation of powers.

- Where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employeearises from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer actionon said complaint and refer the same to the Court for determination whethersaid Judge or court employee had acted within the scope of theiradministrative duties.

Raquiza v Judge Castaneda, Jr.


25/37

- The rules even in an administrative case demands that if the respondentJudge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense, theevidence presented against him should be competent and derived fromdirect knowledge. The judiciary, to which respondent belongs, no lessdemands that before its member could be faulted, it should be only afterdue investigation and based on competent proofs, no less. This is all the

more so when as in this case the charges are penal in nature.

('Misconduct' also implies 'a wrongful intention and not a mere error ofjudgment. It results that even if respondent were not correct in his legalconclusions, his judicial actuations cannot be regarded as gravemisconduct, unless the contrary sufficiently appears.)

SECTION 10

Nitafan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue

- The clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was to delete theproposed express grant of exemption from payment of income tax tomembers of the Judiciary, so as to "give substance to equality among thethree branches of Government.

SECTION 11

De La Llana v Alba

-Judiciary Act does not violate judicial security of tenure. This Court isempowered "to discipline judges of inferior courts and, by a vote of at leasteight members, order their dismissal." Thus, it possesses the competenceto remove judges. Under the Judiciary Act, it was the President who wasvested with such power. Removal is, of course, to be distinguished from

termination by virtue of the abolition of the office. There can be no tenure toa non-existent office. After the abolition, there is in law no occupant. In caseof removal, there is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose hisposition. It is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the questionof any impairment of security of tenure does not arise. Nonetheless, for theincumbents of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of separation. Asto its effect, no distinction exists between removal and the abolition of theoffice. Realistically, it is devoid of significance. He ceases to be a memberof the judiciary.

People v Gacott, Jr.

- To require the entire Court to deliberate upon and participate in all

administrative matters or cases regardless of the sanctions, imposable orimposed, would result in a congested docket and undue delay in theadjudication of cases in the Court, especially in administrative matters,since even cases involving the penalty of reprimand would require action bythe Court en banc.

- Yet, although as thus demonstrated, only cases involving dismissal ofjudges of lower courts are specifically required to be decided by the Courten banc, in cognizance of the need for a thorough and judicious evaluationof serious charges against members of the judiciary, it is only when thepenalty imposed does not exceed suspension of more than one year or afine of P10,000.00, or both, that the administrative matter may be decidedin division.

SECTION 12

In Re: Manzano

- As incumbent RTC Judges, they form part of the structure of government.Their integrity and performance in the adjudication of cases contribute tothe solidity of such structure. As public officials, they are trustees of an


26/37

orderly society. Even as non-members of Provincial/City Committees onJustice, RTC judges should render assistance to said Committees to helppromote the landable purposes for which they exist, but only when suchassistance may be reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their judicialduties.

SECTION 14

Nicos Industrial Corp v Court of Appeals

- The Court is not duty bound to render signed decisions all the time. It hasample discretion to formulate decisions and/or minute resolutions, provideda legal basis is given, depending on its evaluation of a case.

- As it is settled that an order dismissing a case for insufficient evidence is ajudgment on the merits, it is imperative that it be a reasoned decisionclearly and distinctly stating therein the facts and the law on which it isbased.

Mendoza v CFI

- What is expected of the judiciary "is that the decision rendered makesclear why either party prevailed under the applicable law to the facts asestablished. Nor is there any regid formula as to the language to beemployed to satisfy the requirement of clarity and distinctness. Thediscretion of the particular judge in this respect, while not unlimited, isnecessarily broad. There is no sacramental form of words which he must

use upon pain of being considered as having failed to abide by what theConstitution directs."

- The provision has been held to refer only to decisions of the merits andnot to orders of the trial court resolving incidental matters such as the oneat bar. (content of the resolution: incident in the prosecution of petitioner)

Borromeo v Court of Appeals

- The Court reminds all lower courts, lawyers, and litigants that it disposesof the bulk of its cases by minute resolutions and decrees them as final andexecutory, as where a case is patently without merit, where the issuesraised are factual in nature, where the decision appealed from is supported

by substantial evidence and is in accord with the facts of the case and theapplicable laws, where it is clear from the records that the petition is filedmerely to forestall the early execution of judgment and for non-compliancewith the rules. The resolution denying due course or dismissing the petitionalways gives the legal basis.

- When the Court, after deliberating on a petition and any subsequentpleadings, manifestations, comments, or motions decides to deny duecourse to the petition and states that the questions raised are factual or noreversible error in the respondent court's decision is shown or for someother legal basis stated in the resolution, there is sufficient compliance withthe constitutional requirement.

- Minute resolutions need not be signed by the members of the Court whotook part in the deliberations of a case nor do they require the certificationof the Chief Justice.

Komatsu Industries (Phils.) Inc v Court of Appeals

- It has long been settled that this Court has discretion to decide whether a"minute resolution" should be used in lieu of a full-blown decision in anyparticular case and that a minute Resolution of dismissal of a Petition for


27/37


28/37

communicated to de la Fuente, of the Commission's supposed lack ofcoercive power to enforce its final judgments, is incorrect. It is inconsistentwith previous acts of the Commission of actually directing execution of itsdecisions and resolutions, which this Court has sanctioned in severalcases; and it is not in truth a correct assessment of its powers under theConstitution and the relevant laws

Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer

While it may be true that the lower court has the jurisdiction overcontroversies dealing with the COMELEC's award of contracts, the samebeing purely administrative and civil in nature, nevertheless, hereinpetitioner has no cause of action on the basis of the allegations of itscomplaint.

"The Commission on Elections shall have exclusive charge of theenforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct ofelections and shall exercise all other functions which may be conferredupon it by law. It shall decide, save those involving the right to vote, all

administrative questions affecting elections, including the determination ofthe number of location of polling places, and the appointment of electioninspectors and of other election officials . . . The decisions, orders andrulings of the Commission shall be subject to review by the SupremeCourt."

Mateo v. CA

The hiring and firing of employees of government-owned and controlledcorporations are governed by the provisions of the Civil Service Law andRules and Regulations.

SC Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95. Final resolutions of the Civil

Service Commission shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals. In anyevent, whether under the old rule or the present rule, Regional Trial Courtshave no jurisdiction to entertain cases involving dismissal of officers andemployees covered by the Civil Service Law.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Section 2

TUPAS v. NHC

Civil service now covers only government-owned or controlled corporationswith original or legislative charters, that is those created by an act ofCongress or by special law, and not those incorporated under and pursuant

to a general legislation.

NHC is not covered by civil service so its employees undoubtedly have theright to form unions or employees' organizations. The right to unionize or toform organizations is now explicitly recognized and granted to employees inboth the governmental and the private sectors.

De los Santos v. Mallare

The office of city engineer is neither primarily confidential, policy-determining, nor highly technical. These positions mentioned are excludedfrom the merit system and dismissal at pleasure of officers and employeesappointed therein is allowed by the Constitution. Thus, the city engineer

cannot be removed without just cause.

Salazar v. Mathay

The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends uponloss of confidence because their term of office lasts only as long asconfidence in them endures.

Corpus v. Cuaderno


29/37

Highly technical employees cannot be removed by reason of lack or loss ofconfidence by the one making the appointment.

Luego v. Civil Service Commission

The CSC has no authority to disapprove or revoke a permanentappointment on the ground that another person is better qualified than theappointee. The CSC is not empowered to determine the kind or nature ofthe appointment extended by the appointing officer, its authority beinglimited to approving or reviewing the appointment in the light of therequirements of the Civil Service Law. Approval is more appropriately calledan attestation, that is, of the fact that the appointee is qualified for theposition to which he has been named.

Province of Camarines Sur v. CA

Lack of civil service eligibility makes an appointment temporary; thus, theappointment is revocable at any time (without a fixed and definite term) ordependent upon the pleasure of the appointing power. Obtaining the civilservice legibility later on does not ipso facto convert a temporaryappointment into a permanent one.

SSS Employees Association v. CA

The right of government employees to organize does not include the right tostrike.

Section 7

Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary

While all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to holdother office or employment in the government during their tenure when such

is allowed by tlaw and the primary function of their office, Cabinet members,their deputies, and assistants may only do so when expressly authorized bythe Constitution itself.

Flores v. Drilon

The proviso which states, Provided, however, that for the first year of itsoperations from the effectivity of this Act, the mayor of the City of Olongaposhall be appointed as the chairman and chief executive officer of the SubicAuthority, violates the constitutional prohibition against appointment ordesignation of elective officials to other government posts.

Section 8

Quimson v. Ozaeta

The employment of a person as an agent collector is not itself unlawfulbecause there is no incompatibility between aid appointment and hisemployment as Deputy Provincial Treasurer and Municipal Treasurer.There is no legal objection to government official occupying twogovernment offices and performing functions to both as long as there is noincompatibility. The Constitutional prohibition refers to double appointmentsand performance of functions of more than one office.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Section 1Cayetano v. Monsod

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires theapplication of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. Toengage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which arecharacteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice


30/37

or render any kind of service which device or service requires the use inany degree of legal knowledge or skill.

Brillantes v. Yorac

The President has no authority to make designation of a ComelecChairman in an Acting Capacity. The choice of temporary Chairman in theabsence of the regular chairman comes under the discretion of theComelec. It cannot be exercised by the President. A designation As ActingChairman is by its very terms essentially temporary and therefore revocableat will. No cause need be established to justify its revocation.

Lindo v. Comelec

Comelecs statement that fake and spurious ballots may have beenintroduced to increase the votes of protestant cannot be made a basis fordenying the execution pending appeal.

Section 3

Sarmiento vs. Comelec

Pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. 7166, it provides:

"All pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall bedeemed terminated at the beginning of the term of the office involved andthe rulings of the boards of canvassers concerned shall be deemedaffirmed, without prejudice to the filing of a regular election protest by theaggrieved party. However, proceedings may continue when on the basis ofthe evidence thus far presented, the Commission determines that thepetition appears meritorious and accordingly issues an order for theproceeding to continue or when an appropriate order has been issued bythe Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari."

Reyes vs. RTC of Oriental Mindoro

All election cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, must bedecided by the COMELEC in division. Should a party be dissatisfied withthe decision, he may file a motion for reconsideration before the COMELECen banc. It is, therefore, the decision, order or ruling of the COMELEC enbanc that, in accordance with Art. IX, A, Section 7, "may be brought to theSupreme Court on certiorari."

Section 4

National Press Club vs. Comelec

The Comelec has also been granted the right to supervise and regulate theexercise by media practitioners themselves of their right to expressionduring plebiscite periods. Media practitioners exercising their freedom ofexpression during plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders northe candidates. In fact, there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite.

Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines vs GMA

It is argued that the power to supervise or regulate given to the COMELECunder Art. IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution does not include the power toprohibit. In the first place, what the COMELEC is authorized to supervise orregulate by Art. IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution, among other things, is

the use by media of information of their franchises or permits, while whatCongress (not the COMELEC) prohibits is the sale or donation of printspace or air time for political ads. In other words, the object of supervisionor regulation is different from the object of the prohibition. It is anotherfallacy for petitioners to contend that the power to regulate does not includethe power to prohibit. This may have force if the object of the power werethe same.

Adiong vs. COMELEC


31/37

The posting of decals and stickers on cars, calesas, tricycles, pedicabs andother moving vehicles needs the consent of the owner of the vehicle.Hence, the preference of the citizen becomes crucial in this kind of electionpropaganda not the financial resources of the candidate. Whether thecandidate is rich and, therefore, can afford to doleout more decals andstickers or poor and without the means to spread out the number of decals

and stickers is not as important as the right of the owner to freely expresshis choice and exercise his right of free speech. The owner can evenprepare his own decals or stickers for posting on his personal property. Tostrike down this right and enjoin it is impermissible encroachment of hisliberties.

Sanidad vs. COMELEC

Comelec spaces and Comelec radio time may provide a forum forexpression but they do not guarantee full dissemination of information to thepublic concerned because they are limited to either specific portions innewspapers or to specific radio or television times.

COMMISSION ON AUDITSECTION 2

GUEVARA VS GIMENEZ

The Auditor-General has no madate to disapprove expenditures which inhis opinion are excessive and extravagant. His authority is limited to theauditing in expenditures of funds and properties. such function is limited toa determination of whether there is a law appropriating funds for a givenpurpose; whether a contract entered made by the proper officer has beenentered in conformity with the said appropriation law; whether the goodsand services covered by the said contract have been delivered or rendered

in pursuance thereof, as attested by the proper officer; and whetherpayment therefore has been authorized by the officials of the correspondingdepartment or bureau. If these requirements have been fulfilled, it is theministerial duty of the Auditor General to approve and pass in audit thevoucher and treasury warrant for said payment. No discretion todisapprove said payment on the ground that contract was unwise orunreasonable.

OROCIO VS COA

To determine whether an expenditure of a government agency orinstrumentality is irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant andunconscionable, the COA should not be bound by the opinion of the legal

counsel of a particular agency. Legal counsel can only offer legal advice.

OSMENA VS COA

A compromise agreement between a municipal corporation (Cebu City) andthe parents of victim (Spouses dela Cerna) was constitutional. Theparticipation of the city in an amicable settlement and eventual execution ofa compromise is indubitable within the power and authority of a municipalcorporation. Notably, the compromise agreement was submitted to itslegislative council, which approved it conformably with its established rulesand procedure.

SAMBELI VS PROVINCE OF ISABELA

COA has the regulatory power to ensure that government funds andproperties are fully protected and conserved and that irregular unnecessary,excessive, or extravagant expenditures or uses of funds owned by, orpertaining to the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies ofinstrumentalities are prevented.

BUSTAMANTE VS COA


32/37

Discretion exercised by COA in the denial of the appeal (on the decision ofa Regional Auditor) is within its power. Also, conclusions of a Board of Directorsof a government-owned and controlled corporation in safeguarding the proper useof the governments and peoples property cannot prevail over the constitutionalmandate on COA.

SALIGUMBA VS COASupreme Courts power to review COA decisions refers to money mattersand not to administrative cases (rape case vs. auditing examiner-respondent) involving the discipline of its personnel.

SECTION 3

PHIL AIRLINES VS COA (more on section 2)

COA has the exclusive authority, subject to limitations, to define the scopeof its audit and examination, establish the techniques and methods required

therefore. COA can adopt as its own, simply by reiteration or by reference,without the necessity of repromulgation, already existing rules andregulations. It may also expand the coverage thereof to agencies orinstrumentalities under its audit jurisdiction. COA can advised PAL to desistfrom bidding the its fuel upon expiration of contracts

BAGATSING VS COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION

COA, the agency that adopted the rules on bidding procedure to befollowed by government offices and corporations, upheld the legality ofbidding although there is only one offeror (2 were disqualified- bid belowfloor price and technical reasons) since the COA Circular does not speak ofaccepted bids but of offerors, without distinction as to whether they were

disqualified. The interpretation of an agency of its own rules should begiven more weight than the interpretation by the agency of the law it ismerely tasked to administer.

ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, LOCAL OFFICIALS, AND

MEMBERS OF THE REGIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE AUTONOMOUS

REGIONS; THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM

22 VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY V. COMELEC

342 SCRA 244

FACTS:

Respondent proclaimed 14 party-list representatives from 13 parties whichobtained at least 2% of the total number of votes cast for the party-list system as

members of the House of Representatives. Upon petition for respondents, who

were party-list organizations, it proclaimed 38 additional party-list

representatives although they obtained less than 2% of the total number of votescast for the party-list system on the ground that under the Constitution, it is

mandatory that at least 20% of the members of the House of Representatives

come from the party-list representatives.

HELD:

It is not mandatory. It merely provides a ceiling for the party-list seats in theHouse of Representatives. The Constitution vested Congress with the broad

power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of

representatives. In the exercise of its constitutional prerogative, Congressdeemed it necessary to require parties participating in the system to obtain at

least 2% of the total votes cast for the party list system to be entitled to a party-

list seat. Congress wanted to ensure that only those parties having a sufficient


33/37

number of constituents deserving of representation are actually represented in

Congress.

**NOTES:

determination of total number of party-list representatives=

additional representatives of first party=

additional seats for

concerned party=

23 ANG BAGONG BAYANI V. COMELEC

359 SCRA 698(ENRIQUEZ)

FACTS:

The Omnibus Resolution No. 3785 issued by the COMELEC is challenged

insofar as it approves the participation of 154 organizations and parties in the

2001 party-list elections. Petitioners seek the disqualification of privaterespondents as the party-list system was intended to benefit the marginalized

and underrepresented and not the mainstream political parties.

The COMELEC received several petitions for registration filed by sectoral

parties, etc. for the 2001 elections. The COMELEC allege that verifications for

the qualifications of these parties take a long process and as a result the 2divisions promulgated a separate Omnibus Resolution and individual resolution

on political parties only on February 10, 2001. Before the February 12, 2001

deadline, the registered parties and organizations filed their Manifestations,stating their intention to participate in the party-list elections. The COMELEC

approved the Manifestations of 154 parties and organizations but denied those of

several others.

ACAP filed before the COMELEC a petition praying that the names of some

respondents be deleted from the Certified List of Political PartiesParticipating

in the Party List System for the May 14, 2001 Electi

ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Documents

Transcript of ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS