IA 2008 Constitutional Law I Digests (Legislative)

8/13/2019 IA 2008 Constitutional Law I Digests (Legislative)

1/31

Subject: Constitutional Law I

Date:

CASES ON PARTY LIST

Veterans Federation Party v. ComelecFacts:

On May 11, 1998, the first election for party-listrepresentation was held with the national elections. Comelec

proclaimed 1party-list representatives which had otained atleast two percent of the total n!mer of votes cast for theparty-list system.1"owever, P#$-#%# alle&ed that the fillin& !pof the twenty percent memership of party-list representativesin the "o!se of 'epresentatives, as provided !nder theConstit!tion, was mandatory. (he Comelec then prom!l&atedP#$-#%#)s petition, orderin& the proclamation of another !"respondents who, in addition to the 1already sittin&, wo!ldth!s complete the f!ll #$party-list representatives in Con&resseven if they had not passed the two percent threshold.*

Issue%s&:1'+s the twenty percent allocation for party-listrepresentatives mentioned in %ection *, #rticle V+of the Constit!tion, mandatoryor is it merely a ceilin&/+n other words, sho!ld the twenty percent allocationfor party-list solons e filled !p completelyand all thetime/$'#re the two percent threshold re0!irement and thethree-seat limit provided in %ection 11 of '# 921constitutional/!'+f the answer to +ss!e * is yes, how sho!ld theadditional seats of a 0!alified party e determined/

(el):(he Comelec &ravely a!sed its discretion in r!lin& thatthe thirty-ei&ht 38 parties, or&ani4ations and coalitions areeach entitled to a party-list seat, eca!se it &larin&ly violatedtwo re0!irements of '.#. 9215 the two percent threshold andproportional representation. #s a mere implementin& ody,Comelec which is tas6ed merely to enforce and administerelection-related laws, cannot simply disre&ard an act ofCon&ress e7ercised within the o!nds of its a!thority.

Rulin*:%1& o. %ection *, #rticle V+ of the Constit!tion is notmandatory. +t merely provides a ceilin& for party-list seats inCon&ress.

%$& (he two percent threshold is consistent not only withthe intent of the framers of the Constit!tion and the law, !twith the very essence of representation. (o have meanin&f!lrepresentation, the elected persons m!st have the mandate ofa s!fficient n!mer of people. Otherwise, in a le&islat!re thatfeat!res the party-list system, the res!lt mi&ht e theproliferation of small &ro!ps which are incapale of contri!tin&si&nificant le&islation, and which mi&ht even pose a threat tothe staility of Con&ress. (h!s, even le&islative districts areapportioned accordin& to the n!mer of their respectiveinhaitants, and on the asis of a !niform and pro&ressiveratio to ens!re meanin&f!l local representation.

Consistent with the Constit!tional Commission:sprono!ncements, Con&ress set the seat-limit to three 3 foreach 0!alified party, or&ani4ation or coalition. %!ch three-seatlimit ens!res the entry of vario!s interest-representations intothe le&islat!re; th!s, no sin&le &ro!p, no matter how lar&e itsmemership, wo!ld dominate the party-list seats, if not theentire "o!se.

1Short of the 52 party-list representatives who should actually sit in the House 20% of the total number of

representatives Section 5 (2) rticle !" of the #$& 'onstitution

2s provided under Section 5 rticle !" of the #$& 'onstitution and * &$+# only those parties ,arnerin, a

minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are .ualified/ to have a seat in theHouse of *epresentatives

%!&Step One. 'an6 all the participatin& parties, or&ani4ations andcoalitions from the hi&hest to the lowest ased on the n!merof votes they each received. (hen the ratio for each party iscomp!ted y dividin& its votes y the total votes cast for all theparties participatin& in the system. #ll parties with at least twopercent of the total votes are &!aranteed one seat each. Onlythese parties shall e considered in the comp!tation ofadditional seats. (he party receivin& the hi&hest n!mer ofvotes shall thenceforth e referred to as the etermine the n!mer of seats the first party isentitled to, in order to e ale to comp!te that for the otherparties. %ince the distri!tion is ased on proportionalrepresentation, the n!mer of seats to e allotted to the otherparties cannot possily e7ceed that to which the first party isentitled y virt!e of its otainin& the most n!mer of votes. (hen!mer of seats to which the first party is entitled is as follows5

!mer of votesof first party Proportion of votes of-------------------- ? first party relative to

(otal votes for total votes for party-list systemparty-list system

Step Three. %olve for the n!mer of additional seats that the

other 0!alified parties are entitled to, ased on proportionalrepresentation. (he form!la is encompassed y the followin&comple7 fraction5

o. of votes of#dditional seats concerned party o. of additionalfor concerned ? ------------------ 7 seats allocated toparty o. of votes of the first partyfirst party

Case di&est5 An* +a*on* +a,ani -' CO.ELECGlenn Tuazon, I-AFacts

#6ayan and @ayan M!na filed petitions thatchallen&ed Omni!s 'esol!tion 38, proclaimin& 12

or&s and parties for *AA1 partylist elections (hey wanted COMBBC to dis0!alify &ro!ps that are

not mar&inali4ed or !nderrepresented from the partylist elections

+ss!es1. DE political parties may participate in party list

elections.*. DE party list elections are e7cl!sive to mar&inali4ed

and !nderrepresented &ro!ps.3. DE COMBBC)s allowin& of non-mar&inali4ed and non-

!nderrepresented &ro!ps, as well as political parties tor!n in party list elections is a &rave a!se of discretion

"eld DE' to political parties, they may participate in party

list electionso #'( V+, %ec 5 B> that these political partiesrepresent the mar&inali4ed and!nderprivile&ed

+# *AA8 >i&ested Cases

1


2/31

DE' to e7cl!sivity of P elections to mar&inali4ed and!nderrepresented MGH' sectors, maIority held that itis.

o From stat!tory constr!ction, lan&!a&e of lawclearly forwards +(B( to represent theMGH' sectors

'# 921, %ec *5 enale election to"o!se of 'epresentatives yproportional representation to5

(hose elon&in& to MGH'sector

Dho lac6 well-definedconstit!encies

Dho co!ld contri!te tole&islation

'# 921, %ec 5 en!merated theMGH' sectors

o #llowin& the s!per-rich and economicallyprivile&ed to r!n as P &ro!ps defeatsp!rpose of P elections5 to draw f!ndamentaldifference etween5

8AJ district elections !s!ally forthe powerf!l

*AJ P seats for the MGH'o 'ecommendations of %C to COMBBC for

screenin& P &ro!ps5

P &ro!ps m!st show thro!&h consti,articles, etc. that it is for MGH'&ro!ps, and maIority of memersm!st e MGH'

Political parties5 not dis0!alifiedo!tri&ht, !t m!st prove that it is forMGH' &ro!ps

$ro!nds for dis0!alification5

'eli&io!s sects

#dvocatin& violence

Forei&n parties

'eceivin& s!pport fromforei&n entities

Violatin& laws, r!les, andre&!lations of elections O(B5 this is the &ro!nds

for dis0!alification of nonMGH' &ro!ps

Hntr!thf!l statements inpetition

Ceasin& to e7ist for at least1 year

Failin& to participate in *consec!tive P elections O'failin& to &et *J votes for *consec!tive elections

P m!st e independent from&overnment

ominees m!st comply with the law

ominees m!st elon& to the MGH'sects

M!st e ale to contri!te tole&islation

>+%%B(+$ OP++O OF MB>OK#5 #rt V+, %ec 5 P system for eclaration of Policy3. Bayan Muna contends that this will result to instability o thesystem. On the contrary, !omelec now has a list o those"ualiied and dis"ualiied or the uture elections # !omelec is$uided accordin$ly or uture can%assin$ o candidate&s"ualiication beore elections are held.2. # new tally ran6in& 0!alified party list candidates ased onpercent of votes otained compare to total votes casnationwide.

APPORTION.ENT


*


3/31


4/31

pop!lation of at least two h!ndred fifty tho!sand shallhave at least one representative.

+n petitioner)s contention that the creation of anadditional le&islative district in Ma6ati sho!ld haveeen e7pressly stated in the ill, the co!rt r!led thatistrictof eyte statin& her months of residency- private respondent Cirilo 'oy MonteIo, the inc!ment'epresentative of the First >istrict of eyte and a candidate for

the same position, filed a Petition for Cancellation and>is0!alification, contendin& that Mrs. Marcos does not complywith the residency re0!irement of one year immediatelyprecedin& the elections- petitioner later amended the certificate of candidacy, statin&residency as


5/31

+ss!e5 Dhether or not petitioner was a resident

"eld5 Les. 'esidence in election law means domicile theirplace of hait!al residence, an individ!al)s omino claims COMBBC committed &rave a!se of discretionamo!ntin& to e7cess or lac6 of I!risdiction when it r!led he didnot meet the 1 year residency re0!irement.ISS7ES:

1. DE the I!d&ment of the Metropolitan (rial Co!rt ofQ!e4on City, in e7cl!sion proceedin&s, declarin&

petitioner as resident of %aran&ani and not Q.C. is final,concl!sive and indin& on the whole world incl!din&the COMBBC. Rit appears that e7cl!sion proceedin&srefer to a voter)s ein& e7cl!ded from the list of votersin a certain precinct; Q.C. e7cl!ded >omino from itsvoter list sayin& he was a resident of %aran&aniS

*. DE petitioner resided in %aran&ani for at least 1 yearimmediately precedin& E11E98 elections.

3. DE COMBBC has I!risdiction over the petition a 0!ofor the dis0!alification of the petitioner. R>isc!ssion ofthis iss!e omitted from the oo6S

R7LIN/:

1. >omino)s contention that the M(C of Q.C.)s declarin&him a resident of %aran&ani and not of Q.C. is final andconcl!sive !pon the COMBBC cannot e s!stained

*. >omino was O( a resident of %aran&ani for at least 1year immediately precedin& the election

RATIONALE:

1. +t is within the M(C)s I!risdiction to e7cl!de >ominofrom its voter list !t it cannot concl!de that therefore,the COMBBC m!st reco&ni4e >omino as havin&

satisfied the residency re0!irement in his certificate ofcandidacy. +t is within the COMBBC)s I!risdiction!nder %ec. 8, #rt + of the Omni!s Blection Code todetermine if a certificate of candidacy is valid.

*. (o s!ccessf!lly effect a chan&e of domicile there m!ste animus manendi Rintention of remainin&S co!pledwith animus non re%ertendi Rintention to aandon olddomicileS. >omino did not s!fficiently demonstratethis. #ltho!&h he leased a ho!se in %aran&ani in

Nan!ary 199, he did not p!rchase the home !ntilovemer 199.

CITI>ENS(IP 67ALIFICATIONS

Co -s' (ouse Electo4al T4ibunal

Facts5

(he case is ao!t the citi4enship of Nose On& Nr. whowas elected to represent orthern %amar in Con&ress. (he"o!se 'epresentatives Blectoral (ri!nal "'B( alreadydeclared Nose On& Nr. is a nat!ral orn Filipino Citi4en.Petitioners 0!estion this decision efore the co!rt.

+mportant facts in Nose On& Nr.)s history5

1 Nose On& Nr.)s &randfather, On& (e, moved to thePhilippines %amar from China in 189 and was aleto otain a certificate of residence.

* Nose On& Nr.)s father, Nose On& Ch!an, was orn inChina in 19A and was ro!&ht to %amar y On& (e in191.

3 Nose On& Ch!an event!ally married a nat!ral ornFilipina named #&ripina ao and ore Nose On& Nr. in1928.

2 +n 19, Nose On& Ch!an was declared a Filipino citi4enand it was e7ec!ted in 19 Nose On& Nr. was 9.

Private respondent Nose On& Nr. finished hiselementary ed!cation in %amar and went to Manila forhis secondary and colle&e ed!cation and event!allypassed the CP# oard e7ams. "e also fo!nd wor6 inManila

Private respondent fre0!ently went home to aoan&,%amar and even re&istered himself and voted thered!rin& the 1982 and 198 elections.

Private respondent married a Filipina woman named>esiree im in 1982.

8 "e ran for p!lic office and won y a h!&e mar&in in

the 198 elections.

+%%HB%5

Dhether or not people who have elected Philippine citi4enship!nder the 193 Constit!tion are to e considered natural bornFilipino citi4ens therey e7tendin& the interpretation of the193 constit!tion on the matter.

Dhether or not this provision sho!ld e applied retroactively.

"B>5



6/31

Private respondent is a nat!ral orn Filipino Citi4en eca!se ofthe followin& reasons5

1 +t was estalished y Father @ernas that people whoelect Philippine Citi4enship !nder the 193 Constit!tionare to be considered natural born.

* +t was also estalished that the provisions were to eapplied retroactively since it see6s to remedy andine0!itale sit!ation !nder the 193 Constit!tionwherein people orn of Filipino fathers and alienmothers were considered nat!ral orn Filipinos

however people orn of Filipino mothers and alienfathers are not. (he provision is therefore curati%e.

3 Private respondent)s mother was a Filipina and hisfather was nat!rali4ed when he was 9 years old. (hismeans that he was already a Filipino and did not haveto perform any formal or written action.

2 Private respondent)s e7ec!tion of his ri&ht to s!ffra&eT of facts constit!te a positive act of election ofPhilippine citi4enship.

C' Noel 10A+en*istrict of ano del %!r.

(oo6 his oath on Nan!ary 198 and performed ri&hts and d!tiesof his position. On Nan!ary 1,199A, petitioner files Cert. ofCandidacy with COMBBC for 'e&ional $overnor of #'MM,election was sched!led on Fer!ary 1,199A. COMBBCinformed respondents %pea6er and %ecretary of the "o!se of'eps, who then e7cl!ded >imaporo)s name from the 'oll of the"o!se of 'eps p!rs!ant of %ection , #rticle + of the Omni!sBlection Code.

Petitioner lost the a!tonomo!s elections. %ent a letter tthe %pea6er, e7pressin& his intention to


7/31

positions. Filin& of candidacy for another office is aform of vol!ntary ren!nciation.

YES' 'espondents were d!ty o!nd to stri6e the nameof the petitioner from the 'oll of the "o', considerin&the clear and !nmista6ale le&al effect of %ec. #rticle + of @.P. @l&. 881. #s administrative officers,the respondents, !pon the comm!nication of COMBBCof >imaporo)s filin& of Candidacy, had to aide y theirministerial d!ties to remove petitioners name from 'ollof "o'.

DECISION:

Petition dismissed for lac6 of merit.

>issentin& Opinion, $H((+B'BK, N'., N5@elieves that respondents have no power to erase

from the 'olls the name of a memer d!ly elected y hissoverei&n constit!ents to represent the in Con&ress. +t is af!ndamental principle in Consti aw that Con&ress cannotadd y stat!te or administrative act to the ca!ses ofdis0!alification or removal of constit!tional officers. @.P881 has no s!ch power when it comes to constit!tionalofficers. Dhen >imaporo ran for 'e&ional $overnor, he wasnot triflin& with mandate of the people, he wanted to servea &reater n!mer in an a!tonomo!s, more direct andintimate manner. VO(B (O $'#( ("B PB(+(+O.

Farinas vs. B7ec!tive %ecretary

Facts5

- %ection 12 of 'ep!lic #ct 9AA a.6.a. (he FairBlection #ct repealed %ec. of the Omni!s BlectionCode OBC. %ec. of the said code states thatelective officials r!nnin& for any office other than theone which he is holdin& in a permanent capacity,e7cept for President and VP, shall e considered ipsoactoresi&ned from his office !pon filin& of hiscertificate of candidacy.

+ss!es5

- DE the repeal of %ec. of the OBC is emraced inthe title and &ermane to the s!Iect matter of '#9AA.

- DE %ection 12 of '# 9AA violates the e0!alprotection cla!se of the Constit!tion eca!se it repeals%ection only of the OBC leavin& %ec. whichimposes similar limitation to appointive officials.

- DE '# 9AA is n!ll and void in its entirety asirre&!larities attended in its enactment.

"eld

- First iss!e5 %ection 12 of '# 9AA is not a rider. (here0!irement that the s!Iect of an act shall ee7pressed in its title sho!ld receive a reasonale andnot a technical constr!ction. +t is s!fficient that thetitle e comprehensive eno!&h and sho!ld incl!de the&eneral oIect which the stat!tes see6s to effect. Meredetails of the stat!te need not e incl!ded in the title.

- %econd iss!e5 %ection 12 is not violative of the e0!alprotection cla!se of the constit!tion. (he e0!alprotection cla!se is a&ainst !nd!e favor and individ!alor class privile&e, as well as hostile discrimination orthe oppression of ine0!ality. (he e0!al protectioncla!se is not infrin&ed y le&islation when it appliesonly to those persons fallin& within a specified class, ifit applies ali6e to all persons within s!ch class andreasonale &ro!nds e7ist for ma6in& a distinctionetween those who fall within s!ch class and thosewho do not. Dhat the petitioner is tryin& to say is thatelective officials are &iven a privile&e to for an officeother than the one which he is holdin&, whereas

appointive officials are not &iven s!ch privile&e. #sstated earlier, the e0!al protection cla!se does notapply if the le&islat!re can distin&!ish one class fromanother, in this case the elective officials from theappointive officials, and the law sho!ld apply to allpersons elon&in& to s!ch class. (he first differenceetween an elective official and an appointive official isthat the former occ!pies his office y virt!e of themandate of the electorate while the latter wasdesi&nated to office y an appointin& a!thority.#nother difference is that the elective officials are

allowed to ta6e part in political and electoral activitieswhile the appointive officials are strictly prohiited tota6e part in any election e7cept to vote.

- (he irre&!larities concernin& the enactment of '#9AA are considered as internal r!les of Con&ress."ence, the Co!rt has no I!risdiction over the matter.Dhat is important for the Co!rt re&ardin& theenactment of a law is the si&nin& of a ill y the%pea6er of the "o!se and the %enate President andthe certification of the %ecretaries of oth "o!ses ofCon&ress that it was passed. (his doctrine is 6nown asthe Bnrolled @ill >octrine

T(E ELECTORAL TRI+7NAL

An*a4a -s' Electo4al Co33ission"istory of the Provision

3 Phil, 132 193

Facts5"istory of the Provision5- (here was s!ch a provision in the 193

constit!tion sec. 2 Composition of which was 3s!preme co!rt I!stices and memer of theational #ssemly to e nominated my the firstand second lar&est party 3 each.

- the ori&inal provision was in the #ct of Con&ress oN!ly 1, 19A*,


8/31

- 1A 1 committee of privile&es and elections5to hear and investi&ate all 0!estions of thisdescription. * hearin& at ar of the ho!se itself.

- 188 "o!se of Commons in Bn&lancd, >ominionof Canada - election contests were heard y thecommittee of the "o!se of Commons,Commonwealth of #!stralia contests were heardin ho!se !t chan&ed to "i&h Co!rts, $recian'ep!lic and C4echoslova6ia 'ep!lic oth hadBlectoral commissions

N!rispr!dence5

- the creation of the Blectoral Commission was desi&ned toremedy certain evils of which the framers of o!r Constit!tionwere co&ni4ant

- #ll that can e said now is that, !pon the approval of theconstit!tional the creation of the Blectoral Commission is thee7pression of the wisdom and !ltimate I!stice of thepeople. #raham incoln, First +na!&!ral #ddress, March 2,181.

- need of determinin& le&islative contests devoid of partisanconsiderations which prompted the people, actin& thro!&htheir dele&ates to the Convention, to provide for this ody6nown as the Blectoral Commission

-(he Blectoral Commission is a constit!tional creation,invested with the necessary a!thority in the performanceand e7ec!tion of the limited and specific f!nction assi&ned toit y the Constit!tion. #ltho!&h it is not a power in o!r

tripartite scheme of &overnment, it is, to all intents andp!rposes, when actin& within the limits of its a!thority, anindependent or&an. +t is, to e s!re, closer to the le&islativedepartment than to any other. (he location of the provisionsection 2 creatin& the Blectoral Commission !nder #rticle V+entitled e&islative >epartment of o!r Constit!tion is veryindicative. +ts compositions is also si&nificant in that it isconstit!ted y a maIority of memers of the le&islat!re. @!tit is a ody separate from and independent of the le&islat!re.

-(he &rant of power to the Blectoral Commission to I!d&e allcontests relatin& to the election, ret!rns and 0!alifications ofmemers of the ational #ssemly, is intended to e ascomplete and !nimpaired as if it had remained ori&inally inthe le&islat!re.

-(he e7press lod&in& of that power in the BlectoralCommission is an implied denial of the e7ercise of that powery the ational #ssemly. #nd this is as effective a

restriction !pon the le&islative power as an e7pressprohiition in the Constit!tion 41 parteewis, 2 (e7. Crim.'ep., 1; %tate %s.Dhisman, 3 %.>., *A; .'.#., 191@, 1. +fwe concede the power claimed in ehalf of the ational#ssemly that said ody may re&!late the proceedin&s of theBlectoral Commission and c!t off the power of thecommission to lay down the period within which protestssho!ld e filed, the &rant of power to the commission wo!lde ineffective.

- the creation of the Blectoral Commission carried with it e1necesitate reithe power re&!lative in character to limit thetime with which protests intr!sted to its co&ni4ance sho!lde filed. +t is a settled r!le of constr!ction that where a&eneral power is conferred or d!ty enIoined, every partic!larpower necessary for the e7ercise of the one or theperformance of the other is also conferred Cooley,

Constit!tional imitations, ei&ht ed., vol. +, pp. 138, 139. +nthe asence of any f!rther constit!tional provision relatin& tothe proced!re to e followed in filin& protests efore theBlectoral Commission, therefore, the incidental power toprom!l&ate s!ch r!les necessary for the proper e7ercise ofits e7cl!sive power to I!d&e all contests relatin& to theelection, ret!rns and 0!alifications of memers of theational #ssemly, m!st e deemed y necessaryimplication to have een lod&ed also in the BlectoralCommission.

+ss!e of the Case5

Dhether the Blectoral Commission has acted witho!t or ine7cess of its I!risdiction in adoptin& its resol!tion of >eceme9, 193, and in ass!min& to ta6e co&ni4ance of the protest fileda&ainst the election of the herein petitioner notwithstandin& theprevio!s confirmation thereof y the ational #ssemly on>ecemer 3, 193.

Sanc;e< -s' CO.ELEC %8'$?"&

Facts5

>!rin& the May 11, 198 elections, the COMBBC hasproclaimed *3 senators only. (he people fi&htin& for the *2t

position in the %enate are #!&!sto %anche4 and N!an PonceBnrile. On N!ly *, 198 Bnrile was leadin& with 3,A32 voteswith only 31,AAA votes not ein& co!nted. %ome voters wroteon their allots


9/31

On Nan!ary , 1988, %antos filed an Blection protest withRrespondentS "o!se of 'epresentatives Blectoral (ri!nal"'B(. "e alle&ed that there were electoral fra!ds andirre&!larities in the concl!ded elections in Caloocan City. "eprayed for the reco!ntin& of the &en!ine allots in all the 3*Aprecincts. On Nan 12, 1988, 'oles filed an #nswer to %antos)protest alle&in& the lac6 of residence of the Protestant %antosand the late filin& of the Protest. "'B( iss!ed an order on #!&1, 1988 settin& the commencement of the revision ofcontested allots on %ept 1, 1988. (he revision of @allots for thefirst precincts was terminated on %ept 1988.

'oles filed an isre&ard Dithdrawal of Protest.= +n answer to this, 'oles filedyet another .

+ss!e5DE "'B( lost its I!risdiction on the case when it ordered therevision of the !nrevised protested allots, notwithstandin& thewithdrawal of the Protest.

"eld5

o,


10/31

and ass!med his d!ties as Con&ressman.For this Co!rt to ta6e co&ni4ance of the electoral protesta&ainst him wo!ld e to !s!rp the f!nctions of the "o!seBlectoral (ri!nal. (he alle&ed invalidity of the proclamationwhich had een previo!sly ordered y the COMBBC itselfdespite alle&ed irre&!larities, and despite the pendency of theprotests of the rival candidates, is a matter that is alsoaddressed, considerin& the premises, to the so!nd I!d&ment ofthe Electo4al T4ibunal.

1" SCRA !51 %15""& 0 Lar. Bmi&dio #. @ondoc P and 'espondent,Marciano M. Pineda >P were rival candidates for the positionof 'epresentative for the 2th >istrict of Pampan&a in the198election. Pineda was the proclaimed winner. @ondoc filed aprotest to the "o!se of 'epresentatives Blectoral (ri!nal"'B(. (he "'B( was composed of N!stices "errerra "'B(chairman, Cr!4 and Feliciano, >P memers amon& who was'epresentative N!anita $. Camas!ra and one P memer.

On Octoer 199A, a decision had een reached in which @ondocwon y a mar&in of *3 votes. ot satisfied with the o!tcome,the >P memers demanded a reco!nt, which res!lted in anincreased lead of @ondoc y 1A votes. >P memer Camas!raP memers plotted to ne!trali4ethe Pro-@ondoc maIority in the (ri!nal y e7pellin& Camas!rafrom the party, conse0!ently relin0!ishin& his position in the

"'B(. (he otice of Prom!l&ation of >ecision was on March 12,1991, d!rin& which @ondoc)s proclamation wo!ld e formali4ed.>P, however, informed %pea6er Mitra and N!stice "errerra thatthe party had withdrawn the nomination and rescinded theelection of Con&ressman Camas!ra to the "'B(. (he (ri!naliss!ed a resol!tion cancelin& the proclamation of @ondoc d!e tothis development. Ditho!t Camas!ra)s vote, the decision lac6edthe conc!rrence of memers as re0!ired y %ection *2 of the'!les of (ri!nal.

@ondoc filed a petitition for certiorari and prohiition andmandam!s on March *1, 1991 as6in& the Co!rt to ann!l thedecision of Camas!ra)s e7p!lsion orderin& him to rea!ss!mehis post in the (ri!nal and to prevent the desi&nation ofPalacol or whomsoever may e desi&nated in Camas!ra)s place

'espondent Pineda plead for a dismissal of the petition ar&!in&that the Con&ress is the sole a!thority that nominates andelects its memers.

Co!rt r!led in favor of @ondoc. Camas!ra)s e7p!lsion wasdeclared n!ll and void ab initiofor ein& violative of theConstit!tion. (he Co!rt declared the cancelled proclamationd!ly prom!l&ated.ISS7E:DE the "o!se can interfere with the disposition of an electioncontest in the "o!se Blectoral (ri!nal thro!&h the r!se


11/31

(he "'B( of the %enate and Con&ress were created y theConstit!tion as special tri!nals to e the %OB I!d&e of allcontests relatin& to ret!rns and 0!alifications of memers ofthe le&islative ho!ses, and as s!ch, are independent odieswhich m!st e permitted to select their own employees, and tos!pervise and control them, witho!t le&islative interference. (oe ale to e7ercise e7cl!sive I!risdiction, the "'B( m!st eindependent. +ts I!risdiction to hear and decide con&ressionalelection contests is not to e shared with the e&islat!re O'the Co!rts.

Le4ias - (ouse o Re84esentati-es Electo4al T4ibunal/'R' No' 51?# Octobe4 1#2 1551

Facts5- Contention etween canvass of votes of Mercado and

erias for the 'epresentative of the lone district of%o!thern eyte in the 198 elections

- COMBBC copy of the certificate of canvass for them!nicipality of ian&on credited Mercado 1,31 votesand erias 1,211 votes

- @allots of Precints , 1A 18 and 19 lac6ed 1AA voteseach for erias in the ta!lation

- Mercado won over erias with a difference of *2 votesfor the 'epresentative of the lone district of %o!therneyte

- erias filed with the Comelec a petition for theann!lment of the canvass and the proclamation ofMercado, prayin& that allot o7es , 1A,18 and 19 ofian&on e opened and reco!nted

- erias filed a motion to s!spend the effects ofproclamation of Mercado

- o action ta6en y the COMBBC, erias filed a petitionfor the ann!lment of COMBBC resol!tion of N!ne ,198 and the proclamation of Mercado

- Mercado filed a motion to dismiss on the &ro!nds thata the resol!tion dated N!ne , 198 had alreadyecome final eca!se the motion for reconsiderationfiled y erias was e7-parte and did not stop ther!nnin& of the period to appeal therefrom and sinceerias filed with the %!preme Co!rt a petition for theann!lment of the Comelec:s N!ne , 198 resol!tionand the s!se0!ent proclamation of Mercado, she hadaandoned her previo!s petition with the Comelec

- COMBBC did not want to hear the testimony of theschool teachers present in the precincts in 0!estionthat the CoC)s was not a!thentic

- ('+@H# voted -2 that Mercado wins

+ss!e5- DE Mercado sho!ld e proclaimed the winner for the

'epresentative of the lone district of %o!thern eyte

"eld5- Co!rt held that erias sho!ld e the winner. the

decision of the "onorale Blectoral (ri!nal in "'B(Case o. 1 is 'BVB'%B> and %B( #%+>B. (he Co!rtdeclares that petitioner 'osette Lni&!e4 erias is thed!ly elected representative of the one >istrict of the

Province of %o!thern eyteo Considerin& the ind!itale evidence on

record the 2AA votes fra!d!lently ta6en awayfrom erias sho!ld e ret!rned to her. %o thatin the entire m!nicipality of ia&on, shereceived 1,811 votes. From the ori&inal56,657 %otes, erias sho!ld e credited with56,757 %otes as a&ainst the 3,93 votes ofMercado &ivin& her a mar&in of 12 votes.Dhatever the res!lts of the review of theallots in the co!nter-protested precinctswo!ld e, wherein Mercado won y votesaccordin& to the maIority, or as fo!nd y the

dissentin& memers, erias won y 1* votesdissent of N. "errera or y *A votes dissenof 'ep. Cerilles erias wo!ld still e thewinner.

o +n an election contest where what is involvedis the correctness of the n!mer of votes oeach candidate the est and most concl!siveevidence are the allots themselves

@OBER P' ARROYO2 petitionervs.(O7SE ELECTORAL TRI+7NAL %(RET& an) A7/7STO L'

SY@7CO2 @R2 respondents8G2 9o. //67+, 'uly /:, /776;

onente( i&ested Cases

11


12/31

# fair readin& of the proceedin&s of the Constit!tionalCommission will reveal that the primary p!rpose of thecommissioners in e7pandin& the concept of I!dicial power ofthis Co!rt y incl!din& the d!ty to determine whether or notthere has een a &rave a!se of discretion amo!ntin& to lac6 ore7cess of I!risdiction on the part of any ranch orinstr!mentality of the &overnment is to eliminate the defenseof political 0!estions which in the past deprived this Co!rt ofthe I!risdiction to stri6e down a!ses of power y &overnment.

/ue44e4o -' Co3elec

Firstly, who $!errero is, is not stated in the case, e7cept that heis the petitioner. %econdly, this is case is merely ao!t who has

I!risdiction over the case. Dho ever really won is not an iss!e.

Facts5 $!illermo '!i4 and 'odolfo Farinas oth ran for Con&ressin +locos. '!i4 alle&ed that Farias had een campai&nin& as acandidate for Con&ressman in the May 11, 1998 polls, despitehis fail!re to file a Certificate of Candidacy for said office.Comelec dismissed '!i4)s petition. Farinas won the electionsand '!i4 filed for a motion for reconsideration statin& thatFarinas co!ld not s!stit!te CR7> an) /ERALDINE PADERNAL2vs.T(E (O7SE OF REPRESENTATI9ES ELECTORAL TRI+7NAL%(RET& an) REP' (ARRY AN/PIN/ %!4) DISTRICT.ANILA&

Facts:

Petitioners filed a petition for "uo warranto efore the

"o!se of 'epresentatives Blectoral (ri!nal "'B( a&ainst"arry #n&pin within the 1A day period of private respondent)sproclamation as the representative of the 3 rddistrict of Manila.

(hey 0!estion the eli&iility of the private respondent eca!sehe is not considered as a nat!ral-orn citi4en and prayed thathe e ineli&ile to hold office and that to proclaim the candidateother than him who &ot the hi&hest n!mer of votes. (hepetitioners d!ly paid the re0!ired P,AAA.AA filin& fee. "oweverthe "'B( iss!ed a 'esol!tion which dismissed the petition for"uo warranto for fail!re to pay the P,AAA.AA cash depositre0!ired y its '!les. (he petitioners paid the P,AAA.AA cashdeposit and attached the correspondin& receipt to the Motionfor 'econsideration they filed with the "'B( on the same day.

(he Motion was denied eca!se '!le 3* of the 1998 "'B( '!les

re0!ired a P,AAA.AA cash deposit in addition to filin& fees for"uo warranto cases.

Issue:

DE the "'B( has committed &rave a!se of discretion ins!mmarily dismissin& the petition for "uo warranto opetitioners and in ref!sin& to reinstate the same even after thepayment of the re0!ired Five (ho!sand Pesos P,AAA.AA cashdeposit.

(el):

Petition was DIS.ISSED

Ratio:

+n the case of election protests, no period is providedfor to ma6e the cash deposit in the case of petitions for "uowarranto. "owever, the cash deposit re0!ired in "uo warrantocases is fi7ed. +t does not vary nor can it e varied; it is4e=ui4e) to be 8ai) to*et;e4 wit; t;e ilin* ee at t;e

ti3e t;e 8etition is ile). (h!s, when the re0!ired amo!nt ocash deposits does not e7ceed P,AAA.AA, the party concernedm!st ma6e the deposit within ten 1A days after the filin& othe protest or co!nter-protest; otherwise, when it e7ceedsP,AAA.AA he is re0!ired to ma6e a partial deposit of at leastP,AAA.AA li6ewise within ten 1A days and the alancepayale in installments as may e determined y the (ri!nal.

(he petitioners filed their petition for "uo warranto onMay *9, 1998. "owever, the re0!ired cash deposit of P,AAA.AAwas paid only on N!ne *, 1998, which was after the dismissal othe petition. +t was a delay of *8 days. (he "'B( acted

I!dicio!sly, correctly and certainly within its I!risdiction indismissin& the petition. +t was a I!d&ment call of the "'B(which is clearly a!thori4ed !nder its '!les. #s lon& as thee7ercise of discretion is ased on well-fo!nded fact!al and le&a

asis, as in this case, no a!se of discretion can e imp!ted tothe (ri!nal.

'!le 3* of the 1998 '!les of the "'B( provides W

'HB 3*. Cash >eposit. W +n addition to the feesprescried in the precedin& '!le, each protestant,co!nter-protestant or petitioner in "uo warranto shallma6e a cash deposit with the (ri!nal in the followin&amo!nts5

1 in a petition for "uo warranto, Five(ho!sand P,AAA.AA Pesos;

.......

2 if, as th!s comp!ted, the amo!nt of thedeposit does not e7ceed %eventy Five

(ho!sand P,AAA.AA Pesos, the same shalle made in f!ll with the (ri!nal within ten1A days after filin& of the protest or co!nter-protest;

if the deposit e7ceeds %eventy Five(ho!sand P,AAA.AA Pesos, partial depositof at least %eventy Five (ho!sand


1*


13/31

P,AAA.AA Pesos shall e made within ten1A days after the filin& of the protest orco!nter-protest. (he alance shall e paid ins!ch installments as may e re0!ired y the

(ri!nal on at least five days advancenotice to the party re0!ired to ma6e thedeposit.

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

'HB *1. %!mmary >ismissal of Blection Contest. W #nelection protest or petition for "uo warranto may es!mmarily dismissed y the (ri!nal witho!t thenecessity of re0!irin& the protestee or respondent toanswer if, inter alia5

........

3 the filin& fee is not paid within the periodprovided for filin& the protest or petition for"uo warranto;

2 in case of protests where a cash deposit isre0!ired, the cash deposit or the firstP1AA,AAA.AA thereof, is not paid within ten

1A days after the filin& of the protest;

........

'!le 33 of the '!les li6ewise provides W

'HB 33. Bffect of Fail!re to Ma6e Cash >eposit. W +f aparty fails to ma6e the cash deposits or additionaldeposits herein provided within the prescried timelimit, the (ri!nal may dismiss the protest, co!nter-protest, or petition for "uo warranto, or ta6e s!chaction as it may deem e0!itale !nder thecirc!mstances.

Note:

!ertiorari as a special civil action can e availed of only if thereis conc!rrence of the essential re0!isites, to wit5 a thetri!nal, oard or officer e7ercisin& I!dicial f!nctions has actedwitho!t or in e7cess of I!risdiction or with &rave a!se ofdiscretion amo!ntin& to lac6 or in e7cess or I!risdiction, there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and ade0!ate remedyin the ordinary co!rse of law for the p!rpose of ann!llin& ormodifyin& the proceedin&. (here m!st e a capricio!s, aritraryand whimsical e7ercise of power for it to prosper

San)o-al -' (RET

Facts- Petitioner %andoval and 'espondent Oreta were

candidates for the lone con&ressional district ofMalaon-avotas

- %andoval won over Oreta y 19,*AA votes- Oreta filed an election protest to "'B( a&ainst

petitioner %andoval for alle&al electoral fra!ds andanomalies in 1,3A8 precincts in Malaon-avotas

- (he "'B( iss!ed s!mmons for service !pon petitioner;however

- 3 days after, the the "'B( Process %erver, Pacifico imserved the s!mmons y s!stit!ted service to acertain $ene Ma&a, a


14/31

Facts:May 11, 198, the "o!se of 'epresentatives proportionallyapportioned its twelve seats in the Commission on#ppointments amon& the several political parties represented inthat chamer, incl!din& the a6as n& @ansa, the P>P-aan, theP-Hnido, the ieral Party, and the @. Petitioner 'a!l #.>a4a was amon& those chosen and was listed as arepresentative of the ieral Party.

On %eptemer 1, 1988, the aan n& >emo6rati6on& PilipinoParty was formed from the mer&in& of some memers from the

P>P-aan and ieral Party. (he Commission on #ppointmentswas reor&ani4ed and petitioner >a4a since the ieral Partyonly had 1 memers left lost his seat and !is C. %in&son too6it as the additional memer from the >P. Petitioner filed apetition for prohiition and inI!nction with preliminaryinI!nction, and the co!rt iss!ed a temporary restrainin& orderthat same day to prevent oth the petitioner and therespondent from servin& in the Commission on #ppointments.

Petitioner)s claims5 @asin& the case C!nanan vs. (an,- the reor&ani4ation of the "o!se representation in the

said ody is not ased on a permanent politicalreali&nment eca!se the >P is not a d!ly re&isteredpolitical party and has not yet attained politicalstaility.

'espondent)s claims5 #lso asin& on the case C!nanan vs. (an,- 0!estion raised y the petitioner is political in nat!re

and so eyond the I!risdiction of this Co!rt- he has een improperly impleaded, the real party

respondent ein& the "o!se of 'epresentatives- nowhere in the Constit!tion is it re0!ired that the

political party e re&istered to e entitled toproportional representation in the Commission on#ppointments

X+n the C!nanan vs. (an case, the acionalista and ieral partyIoined forces and made the #llied MaIority eca!se they wantedto chan&e the %pea6er. C!nanan of the P lost his seat to (anof the #llied MaIority. C!nanan won eca!se the #lliedMaIority was only a temporary comination !t the memerswere still part of the acionalista party.

Issues:1. Dhether or not the case falls within the I!risdiction of

the co!rts.*. Dhether or not %in&son sho!ld have a seat since the

>P is not re&istered and is not permanent.3. Dhether or not %in&son was improperly impleaded.

minor iss!e

(el):Petition dismissed.1. Les, it is within co!rt)s I!risdiction.*. Les, %in&son sho!ld have a seat and the >P is

permanent.3. o, he was not improperly impleaded. +t is "+% ri&ht to

seat ein& 0!estioned. minor iss!e

Ratio:1. (he Co!rt has the competence to act on the matter at

ar eca!se what is involved here is the le&ality, notthe wisdom, of the act of that chamer in removin& thepetitioner from the Commission on #ppointmentswhich is not a political 0!estion !t a constit!tionalone. (he petitioners were 0!estionin& the manner offillin& the (ri!nal, not the discretion of the %enate indoin& so. (he Co!rt held that this was a I!sticiale andnot a political 0!estion. +t is the Co!rt)s a!thority todetermine whether &rave a!se of discretionamo!ntin& to e7cess or lac6 of I!risdiction has een

committed y any ranch or instr!mentality of the&overnment ? was there a technical flaw in thedesi&nation of the party respondent.

2. On ovemer *3, 1989, the Commission on Blectionsin an en anc resol!tion affirmed the resol!tion of itsFirst >ivision dated #!&!st *8, 1989, &rantin& thepetition of the >P for re&istration as a political party.%o the >P is re&istered and is permanent even tho!&hthey were formed recently. at that time

Coseten* -' .it4a @4'

Facts5

(he con&ressional elections of May 11, 198 res!lted in theelection to the "o!se of 'epresentatives of the candidates odiverse political parties s!ch as the P>P-aan, a6as n& @ansa@, ieral Party P, P-Hnido, il!san n& @a&on& ip!nan@, Pana&hi!sa, aaaihan Para sa +nan& @ayan #+@#and some independents. Petitioner #nna >omini0!e M.Coseten& was the only candidate elected !nder the anner of#+@#.

On #!&!st *, 198, the "o!se of 'epresentatives, !ponnomination y the MaIority Floor eader, elected from the

MaIority, eleven o!t of twelve con&ressmen to represent the"o!se in the Commission on #ppointments.

On %eptemer **, 198, !pon nomination of the Minority Flooeader, the "o!se elected 'o0!e #lan, Nr., @, as the twelfthmemer of the Commission on #ppointments, representin& theMinority in the "o!se.

# year later, on %eptemer 1, 1988, the aan n&>emo6rati6on& Pilipino >P was or&ani4ed as a politicaparty. #s 18 o!t of *A* memers of the "o!se o'epresentatives formally affiliated with the >P, the "o!secommittees, incl!din& the "o!se representation in theCommission on #ppointments, had to e reor&ani4ed.

On Octoer 8, 1988, petitioner Coseten& wrote a letter to%pea6er 'amon Mitra re0!estin& that as representative o#+@#, she e appointed as a memer of the Commission on#ppointments and "o!se Blectoral (ri!nal. "er re0!est wasendorsed y nine con&ressmen.

On >ecemer , 1988, the "o!se of 'epresentatives revisedthe "o!se maIority memership in the Commission on#ppointments to conform with the new political ali&nments yreplacin& 'ep. 'a!l #. >a4a, P, with 'ep. !is C. %in&son, >P.

Con&ressman #lan, @, was retained as the 1*th memerepresentin& the "o!se minority.

On Fer!ary 1, 1989, Con&resswoman Coseten& and her party

the #+@#, filed this Petition for B7traordinary e&al Dritswhich may e considered as a petition for"uo warranto andinI!nction prayin& this Co!rt to declare as n!ll and void theelection of respondent #lan, Verano-Lap, 'omero, C!encoMercado, @andon, Caochan, +mperial, ore&at, @eltranocsin, and %in&son, as memers of the Commission on#ppointments on the theory that their election to thaCommission violated the constit!tional mandate of proportionarepresentation.

+ss!e5 Dhether the memers of the "o!se in the Commissionon #ppointments were chosen on the asis of proportiona


12


15/31

representation from the political parties therein as provided in%ection 18, #rticle V+ of the 198 Constit!tion.

"eld5 Les they were. Petition is dismissed.

'ationale5

(he composition of the "o!se memership in the Commissionon #ppointments was ased on proportional representation ofthe political parties in the "o!se. (here are 1A memers of the>P in the "o!se. (hey represent 9J of the "o!sememership which may e ro!nded o!t to 8AJ. Bi&htypercent of 1* memers in the Commission on #ppointmentswo!ld e0!al 9. memers, which may e ro!nded o!t to tenmemers from the >P. (he remainin& two seats wereapportioned to the P respondent orna Verano-Lap as thene7t lar&est party in the MaIority and the @ respondent'o0!e #lan as the principal opposition party in the "o!se.

(here is no do!t that this apportionment of the "o!sememership in the Commission on #ppointments was done onthe asis of proportional representation of the political partiestherein.

(he other political parties or &ro!ps in the "o!se, s!ch aspetitioner:s #+@# which is pres!maly a memer also of the

Coalesced MaIority, are o!nd y the maIority:s choices. Bvenif #+@# were to e considered as an opposition party, its lonememer petitioner Coseten& represents only .2J or less than1J of the "o!se memership, hence, she is not entitled to oneof the 1* "o!se seats in the Commission on #ppointments. (oe ale to claim proportional memership in the Commission on#ppointments, a political party sho!ld represent at least 8.2Jof the "o!se memership, i.e., it sho!ld have een ale to electat least 1 con&ressmen or con&resswomen.

(he endorsements of the nine con&ressmen andcon&resswomen in favor of the petitioner:s election to theCommission are inconse0!ential eca!se they are not memersof her party and they si&ned identical endorsements in favor ofher rival, respondent Con&resswoman Verano-Lap.

/uin*ona @4' 9s' /onP 1 %enators .mers 8 Memers

PC %enators *.mers * Memers

##%-HC> 3 %enators 1.mers 1 Memer

P-P>P-#@# 1 %enator A. Memers1 Memer

Followin& the provisions of the Constit!tion, thepolitical parties a&reed to comp!te the representation this way5

of %enators of a political party 1$ seats

Total of %enators elected

(his res!lted to the third col!mn in the tale aoveProportional Memership. @ased on this comp!tation, then!mer of senators per party nominated in the Commission on#ppointments are in the fo!rth col!mn of the tale, withSenator 2omulo as the ei$hth member o => and SenatoTa?ada as the sole member o =->-=ABA9.

(his was oIected to y %enator $!in&ona ##%HC> and %enator Osmea PC. (hey filed a petition fo

Prohiition to prohiit %enate President eptali $on4ales fromreco&ni4in& %enators 'om!lo and (aada as representatives of>P and P-P>P-#@# respectively. (hey claimed that the set!p of the commission was violative of the r!le of proportionarepresentation.

+%%HB%51 DE the election of 'om!lo and (aada as memers o

the Commission on #ppointments is in accordance with#rt. %ec. 18 of the Constit!tion.

* DE the %enate acted with &rave a!se of discretion inelectin& the said %enators

3 DE a writ of Prohiition sho!ld e iss!ed.

"B>51 o. +t is violative of the r!le of P4o8o4tiona

Re84esentationin #rt %ec 18.* Les3 Les

'#(+O51 # literal interpretation of the said section in o!

Constit!tion estalishes * facts in the case at ar. 1(he form!la !sed to comp!te for proportionamemership in the commission was a&reed to y thememers as in line with proportional representationand * as a res!lt of the form!la, each party is entitledto a fraction of a seat in the commission. Blectin&'om!lo and (aada therey &ivin& >P and P-P>P-#@# 8 memers and 1 memer respectively, isviolative of the r!le on proportional representationeca!se it deprives the other parties, namely PC and##%-HC>, of their fractional memership and i

&ives the maIority party a chance to impose its will onthe hapless minority.

(he co!rt stated that the p!rpose of %ec 18was to wor6 as a chec6 on the maIority party in orderto maintain a alance in power and ass!resrepresentation in the Commission on #ppointments oany political party who s!cceeds in electin& memersto the %enate 84o-i)e)that the n!mer of senatorsenales it to do so. (he co!rt then laid down two&!idelines to follow5 1 +n the %enate, a political partyor coalition m!st have at least two d!ly electedsenators for every seat in the Commission on#ppointments. * Dhere there are more than twopolitical parties represented in the %enate, a politicapartyEcoalition with a sin&le senator in the %enatecannot constit!tionally claim a seat in the commission.

+ncidentally, the Co!rt also noted that fillin&the 1* positions in the Commission on #ppointmentswas not mandatory. (he said that the commission mayperform its f!nctions and transact their !siness evenif only 1A senators are elected thereto as lon& as a0!or!m e7ists.

* (he nomination of 'om!lo and (aada was done in&rave a!se of discretion eca!se power is e7ercisedin a manner inconsistent with the command of theConstit!tion, violatin& the r!le on Proportiona'epresentation.

3 %ince the nomination of 'om!lo and (aada wasviolative of the r!le on Proportional 'epresentation and


1


16/31

therefore !nconstit!tional, a writ of prohiition sho!lde iss!ed. d!h

LE/ISLATI9E IN9ESTI/ATION

+EN/>ON2 @4'' -s' Senate +lue Ribbon Co33ittee$?! SCRA

FACTS5 (his is a case where defendants @enIamin =o6oy='om!alde4 and N!liette $ome4 'om!alde4, then crony-relativesof deposed President Marcos, who owned 3 i& corporationsand y !nI!stly enrichin& themselves at the e7pense of theFilipino people. Hpon ass!mption of office y Pres. #0!ino, shecreated the Presidential Commission on $ood $overnmentPC$$ to in0!ire into and se0!ester the assets of thecorporations.

#nd efore the PC$$ co!ld in0!ire into their assets,petitioner #rty. Nose @en&4on, Nr. and his law partners to&etherwith the corporations) officials and mana&ers had manip!latedand employed devio!s financial schemes and techni0!es for thep!rpose of concealin& and placin& the corporations eyond thein0!iry and I!risdiction of the PCC$. #nd in order to deceivethe PC$$, they also made it appear that defendant @enIamin'om!alde4 had already divested himself of his ownership of thesame when in tr!th and in fact, his interests are well intact and

ein& protected y #tty. @en&4on aw firm and some seniormana&ers who still control and r!n the affairs of saidcorporations.

(he 'ep!lic of the Philippines thro!&h the PC$$ filedwith the %andi&anayan Civil Case a&ainst @enIamin 'om!alde4for reconveyance, reversion, acco!ntin&, restit!tion anddama&es. ater, the complaint was amended several times yimpleadin& other defendants in the persons of #tty. @en&4onand his law partners and other officials of the corporations.

Dhile the civil case was pendin& trial efore the%andi&anayan, then %enate Minority Floor leader N!an PonceBnrile delivered a speech ISS7ES5 DE this Co!rt can in0!ire into the motives of thelawma6ers in cond!ctin& le&islative investi&ation, m!ch lesscan it enIoin the Con&ress from ma6in& in0!iries in aid of

le&islation !nder the doctrine of separation of powers.

DE the sale or disposition of the 'om!alde4corporations is a


17/31

Facts5G2 9o./5*+*@(

#!&!st *8, 1998 %en. Ople)s 'esol!tion 1directin& Committee on ational >efense and %ec!rityto cond!ct in0!iry, in aid of le&islation, into thechar&es of >ef. %ec. Mercado that a &ro!p of activeand retired military officers are or&ani4in& a co!p toprevent the Bstrada administration from proin&alle&ed f!nd irre&!larities in the #FP and %en. %otto)s'esol!tion o. 1A directin& the appropriate senate

committee to cond!ct an in0!iry, in aid of le&islation,into the alle&ed mismana&ement of f!nds andinvestment portfolio of the #FP-'etirement and%eparation @enefits %ystem were referred to the @l!e'ion Committee and Committee on ational>efense and %ec!rity.

+t was held that #FP-'%@% o!&ht lot in $eneral %antosCity from #tty. ilo Flaviano for P1A*AAEs0.m. >eed ofsale indicated that p!rchase price was onlyP3AAAEs0.m. # s!poena was iss!ed to #tty. Flavianoto appear efore the committee hearin&. Flaviano filedfor prohiition, preliminary inI!nction and restrainin&order a&ainst the committee in which the trial co!rtapproved. @l!e 'ion filed for motion to dismiss onthe &ro!nds of lac6 of I!risdiction and fail!re to statevalid ca!se of action to the trial co!rt and filed a case

a&ainst N!d&e MaIad!con for &ross i&norance andviolation of separation of powers

G2 9o. /55+ Nan. 13, 1999 Philippine %tar report on the @l!e

'ion)s filin& for petition for certiorari in the previo!s$'. (he news 0!oted portions of the petition filedalle&in& N!d&e MaIad!con &!ilty of &ross i&norance ofthe r!les and proced!res d!e to the ('O and writ ofpreliminary inI!nction he iss!ed.

'espondent I!d&e char&ed for indirect contempt ofco!rt %en. Pimentel, reporter Bcheminada, p!lisherMa7imo %oliven, ed-in-chief 'amon Farolan and e7ec.Bditor @oy dela Cr!4 sayin& that the report createdan impression that he violated the separation ofpowers cla!se of the Consti and was &!ilty of &ross

i&norance. Pimentel was fo!nd &!ilty of indirectcontempt in which he petitioned here as not &!ilty forhe is not the one who p!lici4e the news, thecomplaint mentioned in the news is with asis andstatements pertainin& to the I!d&e)s &ross i&norancedoes not constit!te improper cond!ct

+ss!es51 DE N!d&e MaIad!con committed &rave a!se of

discretion with his decisions sidin& with the respondent* DE I!d&e erred in convictin& Pimentel of indirect

contempt of co!rt

"eld51 ("B'B +% $'#VB #@H%B of discretion when the

respondent acts in a capricio!s, whimsical aritrary ordespotic manner in the e7ercise of I!d&ment since hisorder lac6s any fact!al and le&al I!stification.

%eparation of powers means each is prevented frominvadin& the domain of the other. Dhen the @l!e 'ionserved s!poena to #tty. Flaviano, it did so in p!rs!ant ofits a!thority to cond!ct in0!iries in aid of le&islation withthe intention of enactin& appropriate le&islation to protectthe ri&hts and interest of the #FP. (he Ben$zon r!lin& isinapplicale for in that case the in0!iry involves nointended le&islation. #lso, no co!rt has not ac0!ired

I!risdiction over the case.* P+MB(B +% O( $H+(L of contempt for he did not

ca!sed the p!lication in the Philippine %tar. #lso,complaint a&ainst him is with asis and the phrase

!rin& the time of enactment of this #ct, thepetitioner already has 1A years, months and days of acc!m!lated commissioned service

so he is e7empted from ein& reverted toinactive stat!s. T;is is t;e basis o8etitione4s a4*u3ent'

2. 'espondents contend that the said provision has norelevance to the !d&et in 0!estion or to anyappropriation item. #ccordin& to the respondents. i&ested Cases

1


18/31

relates speciically to some particular appropriations therein.Any such pro%ision or enactment shall be limited in itsoperation to the appropriation to which it relates.+t also violates#rt. V+. %ec. * 1 of the 198 Constit!tion which states that54%ery bill passed by the !on$ress shall embrace only onesub)ect which shall be e1pressed in the title thereo.

TRANSFER OF F7NDS

De3et4ia - Alba

(his case is ao!t the petition for prohiition with prayer for

writ of preliminary inI!nction of the constit!tionality of the firstpara&raph of section 22 of the P> o. 11 or the 11opens flood&ates for enactment of !nf!ndedappropriations res!lts in !ncontrolled e7ec!tive e7pendit!resdiff!ses acco!ntaility for !d&etary performance andentrenches the por6 arrel system as the r!lin& party may wele7pand p!lic money not on the asis of dev)t priorities !t onpolitical sn personal e7pendiency

"B>5 (he instant petition is &ranted. Par 1 of %ec 22 of P> no11 is herey declared n!ll and void for ein& !nconstit!tional

S7+@ECT AND TITLE OF +ILLS

Tio -s' 9i)eo*4a3 Re*ulato4, +oa4)%ec. *Z#

Facts5 Petitioner attac6s the constit!tionality of %ection 1A othe P.>. 1982, which imposes a ta7 of 3AJ of the p!rchaseprice or rental rate for every sale, lease or disposition of avideo&ram containin& a reprod!ction of any motion pict!re oa!diovis!al pro&ram. Petitioner ar&!es that %ection 1A is a2I>42 and the same is not &ermane to the s!Iect mattethereof.

Issue5 DE P.>. 198 is !nconstit!tional accordin& to #rt. %ec. * of the Constit!tion5 one-s!Iect one-ill cla!se.

(el)5 Petitioner:s contention that the ta7 provision of the

>BC'BBis a rider is witho!t merit.

Rulin*5%ection 1A of the >BC'BB is reasonaly necessary for theaccomplishment of, the &eneral oIect of the >BC'BB, which isthe re&!lation of the video ind!stry thro!&h the Video&ram'e&!latory @oard as e7pressed in its title. (he ta7 provision isnot inconsistent with, nor forei&n to that &eneral s!Iect andtitle.

(he Constit!tional re0!irement that every ill shall emraceonly one s!Iect which shall e e7pressed in the title thereof iss!fficiently complied with if the title e comprehensive eno!&hto incl!de the &eneral p!rpose which a stat!te see6s toachieve. +t is not necessary that the title e7press each andevery end that the stat!te wishes to accomplish. (he

re0!irement is satisfied if all the parts of the stat!te arerelated, and are &ermane to the s!Iect matter e7pressed inthe title, or as lon& as they are not inconsistent with or forei&nto the &eneral s!Iect and title. #n act havin& a sin&le &eneras!Iect, indicated in the title, may contain any n!mer oprovisions, no matter how diverse they may e, so lon& as theyare not inconsistent with or forei&n to the &eneral s!Iect, andmay e considered in f!rtherance of s!ch s!Iect y providin&for the method and means of carryin& o!t the &eneral oIect.

(he r!le also is that the constit!tional re0!irement as to thetitle of a ill sho!ld not e so narrowly constr!ed as to cripple orimpede the power of le&islation. 2 +t sho!ld e &iven practicarather than technical constr!ction.

#rt %ec *@P;ili88ine @u)*es Association 9S P4a)o

Facts0 (his is a petition a&ainst "on. Pete Prado, %ecretary of the>ept. of (ransportation and Comm!nications and also a&ainsthe Philippine Postal Corp. to declare %ection 3 of '# 32!nconstit!tional

'# 32 is entitled efinin& +ts Powers, F!nctions and'esponsiilities, Providin& for 'e&!lation of the+nd!stry and for Other P!rposes Connected (herewith.=

434 #$& created the Videogram Regulatory Boardwith broad powers to re,ulate and supervise the video,ram

industry

5Hereunder referrin, to 34 #$&


A4t 9III o 15!Constitution

Pa4 1 Sec o PD no'11

%ec 1 No law s;all be8asse) aut;o4i


19/31

%ec 3 of '# 32 repeals all fran6in& privile&esa!thori4ed y law e7cept for those provided !nder theacts mentioned in this section fran6in& privile&e is the privile&e to send mail forfree

- Circ!lar o. 9**8 of the Philippine Postal Corporationimplements this #ct. +t withdraws fran6in& privile&es from the%!preme Co!rt, Co!rt of #ppeals, 'e&ional (rial Co!rts,Metropolitan (rial Co!rts, and the M!nicipal (rial Co!rts, andthe and 'e&istration Committee and its 'e&ister of >eeds,alon& with certain other &ov)t offices

+ss!e1 Constit!tionality of '# 32 it emraces more than ones!Iect* +t did not pass re0!ired readin&s in oth "o!ses of Con&ressand printed copies of the ill in its final form were notdistri!ted amon& the memers efore its passa&e3 >iscriminatory and encroaches on independence of the

N!diciary, ased on the e0!al protection cla!se

"eld1 (he title of '# 32 does not violate the constit!tionalprovision that the title of the ill may only emrace one s!Iect.* (his co!rt will not decide on this iss!e eca!se it is withtheir respect to the Con&ress as a co-e0!al &overnmentdepartment that they also respect the concl!siveness of the

enrolled ill.3 (his co!rt finds %ec 3 of the '# 32 !nconstit!tional as itis violative of the e0!al protection cla!se.

'atio1 (he title of '# 32 does not emrace more than ones!Iect, th!s it is constit!tional.- urposes o the rule that e%ery bill title shall only embrace onesub)ect(a. pre%ent lo$-rollin$ le$islationb. pre%ent surprise or raud upon the le$islature by addin$pro%isions which ha%e no relation to the titlec. airly apprise the people o the sub)ect o the le$islation- Dhere a stat!te repeals a former cla!se, the repealin& cla!seis the BFFBC( and not the %H@NBC( of the c!rrent stat!te. #ndwhat sho!ld e e7pressed in the title is the %H@NBC( and notnecessarily the BFFBC(%. @y virt!e of its nat!re as a repealin&

cla!se, %ection 3 did not have to e e7pressly incl!ded in thetitle of the said law.* (his co!rt shall not decide !pon this matter eca!se theenrolled ill is concl!sive !pon the I!diciary.- Petitioners claimed that the second para&raph of %ec 3 whichstates5


20/31

Con&ress that it was passed. (his doctrine is 6nown asthe Bnrolled @ill >octrine

Tan -' Del Rosa4io %8' $#5&

Facts:

'ep!lic #ct o. 29 is entitled < %implified et +ncome(a7ation %cheme. "@ no. 32312, pro&enitor of the said '# isentitled +# *AA8 >i&ested Cases

*A


21/31

++. %!stantive +ss!e51. Petitioners Cooperative Hnion of the Philippines,

Philippines Press +nstit!te, Chamer of 'eal Bstateand @!ilders #ssociation contend that '# 1 isrepressive of the freedom of speech, press andreli&ion and that the law is re&ressive eca!se ofthe !niform 1AJ V#( and that the asiccommodities are now ta7ed at a hi&her rate.On the iss!e that the law is re&ressive, the Co!rtr!led that it is not eca!se it distri!tes the ta7!rden to certain &oods and commodities that are

within the reach of the hi&her income &ro!p. #ndthat the asic &oods and commodities have eene7empted from the B-V#(. +t is th!s e0!itale. +t isdirective of the Con&ress re0!ired y theConstit!tion to +%M+%%B>.

A4t I9 Sec $%1&

Tobias -' Abalos

/'R' No' L011"!2 Dece3be4 "2 155

Facts5- Petitioners assail the constit!tionality of 'ep!lic #ct

o. also 6nown as

1"# SCRA !$5 %155?& Co33issione4 o Inte4nalRe-enue -' Cou4t o TaH A88eals

Facts5- Manila $olf and Co!ntry Cl!, +nc. operates a

cl!ho!se with lo!n&e, ar and dinin& room fore7cl!sive !se of memers and accompanied &!ests,char&in& on a cost-pl!s-e7pense asis. #s s!ch, itclaims sho!ld e e7empt from payment of privele&eta7es were it not for the para&raph 3 of %ection 191-# of the Omni!s (a7 aw. elow

- Omni!s (a7 aw '.#. o. 11A, %ec. 191-#. !atererF # Caterer)s ta7 is imposed as follows5

o 1 !of &ross receipt5 on proprietors oroperators of resta!rants, refreshment parlos,and other eatin& places incl!din& cl!s, and

catererso * !of &ross receipts for oo) o4

4e4es;3ents and for)istille) s8i4its2e43ente) li=uo4s2 o4 wines: onproprietors or operators of resta!rants,refreshment parlos, and other eatin& placesincl!din& cl!s, and caterers where )istille)s8i4its2 e43ente) li=uo4s2 o4 wines a4ese4-e)' $ sets o co33e4icla in-oices o44ecei8ts shall e separately prepared andiss!ed.

o 3 $? of &ross receipts5 on proprietors oroperators of resta!rants, refreshment parlos,and other eatin& places incl!din& cl!s, andcaterers which are 3aintaine) wit;in t;e84e3ises o4 co38ou) o a ;otel2 3otel2

4es;ouse2 cocJ8it2 4ace t4acJ2 jail0alai2caba4et2 ni*;t o4 )a, club, y means of aconnectin& door or passa&e.

where the estalishments areoperated or maintained y cl!s ofany 6ind or nat!re whether theycater e7cl!sively to memers or notthe 6eepers of the estalishmentsshall pay the correspondin& ta7es5

- Omni!s (a7 aw too6 effect on %eptemer 1, 199- Commissioner on +nternal 'evn!e assessed the cl!

fi7ed ta7es as operators of &olf lin6s and resta!rantsand also percenta&e ta7 caterer)s ta7 for its sale offoods and fermented li0!orsE0ines for the periodcoverin& %ep 199 >ec 19A5 P 3*,A2.9

- Manila $olf and Co!ntry Cl! protested claimin& theassessment to e witho!t asis eca!se para&raph 3of the '.#. or section 2* of the "o!se @ill was vetoedy then President Marcos.

+ss!e5 Dhether the presidential veto referred to the entiresection or merely to the imposition of *AJ ta7 on &ross receiptsof operators or proprietors ofrestaurants, rereshments parlors,bars and other eatin$ placeswhich are maintained within thepremises or compo!nd o a hotel, motel or resthouses.

- C(# opined that the President co!ld not veto words orphrases in a ill !t only an entire item. (he co!rtdoesn)t a&ree with the C(# on that, !t even ass!min&it to e so, it wo!ld still e to the favor of theCommissioner of +nternal 'even!e. (he ineffect!al


*1


22/31

veto rendered section 191-# as not havin& eenvetoed at all.

- @!t an % FO' ("B OPB'#(+OOF ("B $OVB'MB( OF ("B P"++PP+B% F'OM N#H#'L OB

(O >BCBM@B' ("+'(L OB, +B(BB "H>'B> #> +B(LFOH', #> FO' O("B' PH'PO%B%. $## of 1992= On the same


**


23/31

day, the President also delivered his special Presidential VetoMessa&e, specifyin& the provisions of the ill he vetoed on andon which he imposed certain conditions.+n the case at ar, the Philippine Constit!tion #ssociationPhilconsa, B7e0!iel @. $arcia and 'amon #. $on4ales asta7payers, prayed for a writ of prohiition to declare as!nconstit!tional and void5 a article V+ on the Co!ntrywide>evelopment F!nd, the special provision in #rticle + entitled'eali&nment of #llocation for Operational B7penses, and #rticleV+++ on the #ppropriation for >et %ervice or the amo!ntappropriated !nder said #rticle in e7cess of the P3.9@

allocated for >BC%.; and the veto of the President of the%pecial Provision of #rticle V+++ of the $## of 1992.#rticle + of the $## of 1992 sets !p a Co!ntry >evelopmentF!nd P*.9@ to e !sed for co!ntrywide development proIectsinfrastr!ct!re, p!rchases of am!lances, comp!ters and otherpriority proIects and activities. Petitioners claim that the power&iven to the memers of Con&ress to propose and identify theproIects and activities to e f!nded y the C>F is anencroachment of the le&islat!re on B7ec!tive power. (heyar&!e that the proposal and identification of the proIects do notinvolve the ma6in& of laws or the repeal or amendment thereof,the only f!nction &iven to the Con&ress y the Constit!tion. (heC>F also incl!des a special provision permittin& the reali&nmentof allocation for operatin& e7penses, wherein a memer ofCon&ress may reali&n his allocation for operational e7penses toany other e7pense cate&ory provided the total said allocation is

not e7ceeded. Hnder the $## of 1992, the appropriation for the%enates is P2*@, the "' is P1.11M. Petitioners assert %ection* of the constit!tion that BC%. Petitioners!r&ed that Con&ress cannot &ive det services the hi&hestpriority eca!se !nder the Constit!tion, ed!cation sho!ld eentitled to hi&hest f!ndin&. (he Con&ress added a %pecialProvision #rticle V+++ #ppropriatons to >et %ervice of the$## of 1992 which provides


24/31

1 (he alle&ed violations of the '!les of the "o!se are merelyinternalr!les of proced!re rather than constit!tionalre0!irements for the enactment of laws. +n these cases, othhere and aroad, )en, to t;e cou4ts t;e 8owe4 to in=ui4einto alle&ations that, in enactin& a law, a "o!se of Con&ressfailed to comply with its ownr!lesin t;e absence o s;owin*t;at t;e4e was a -iolation o a constitutional 84o-ision.%ince the r!les violated were the r!les that the "o!se itselfcreated, the Co!rts have no concern with their oservance. (her!les are s!Iect to the modification, revocation or waiver at thepleas!re of the ody adoptin& them. (he co!rt has no more

power to loo6 into internal proceedin&s of the "o!se as lon& asno violation of constit!tional provisions whether proced!ral ors!stantial preI!dicial to private individ!als is shown.

* Q!otin& former Chief N!stice Fernando5

BPH(L %PB#B' Mr. >a4a5 #ny oIection to the motion/

M'. #''OLO5 Dhat is that, Mr. %pea6er/

("B >BPH(L %PB#B'5 (here ein& none, approved.

$avel

M'. #''OLO5 o, no, no wait a min!te, Mr. %pea6er, + stood !p.+ want to 6now what is the 0!estion that the Chair as6ed thedistin&!ished sponsor.

("B >BPH(L %PB#B'5 (here was a motion y the MaIorityeader for the approval of the report, and the Chair called formotion.

M'. #''OLO5 OIection, + stood !p, so + wanted to oIect.

("B >BPH(L %PB#B'5 (he session is s!spended for onemin!te.

+( D#% 35A1 P.M.

352A P.M., ("B %B%%+O D#% 'B%HMB>

("B >BPH(L %PB#B'5 (he session is res!med.

M'. #@#O5 Mr. %pea6er, + move to adIo!rn !ntil fo!r o)cloc6,Dednesday, ne7t wee6.

("B >BPH(L %PB#B'5 (he session is adIo!rned !ntil fo!ro)cloc6, Dednesday, ne7t wee6.

+( D#% 352AP.M.

TAMATION

/a4cia -' EHecuti-e Sec4eta4,@ul, !2 155$

Facts5BO 238 imposed, in addition to any their d!ties, ta7es andchar&es imposed y law on all articles imported into thePhilippines, an additional d!ty J ad valorem. across theoard incl!din& oil prod!ctsBO 223 imposed instead of J additional d!ty a 9J additionad!ty ad valorem.- "earin& for interested parties to present their evidence ins!pport to their positionBO 2 red!ced the rate of additional d!ty on all importedarticles from 9J to J ad valorem e7cept in the cases of cr!deoil and other oil prod!cts 9J d!ty still

- (ariff Commission s!mitted to the president a )s areherey adopted and form part of the (CC. (he rates of d!tyherein provided or s!se0!ently fi7ed p!rs!ant to sec 2A1 o

(CC shall e s!Iect to periodic investi&ation of the (arifCommission and may e revised y the President !ponrecommendation of B>#.

a. the co!rt in not pers!aded that the words


25/31

d. petitioner)s concept which he !r&es to !ild intoo!r constit!tional and c!stoms laws is a stiflin&lynarrow one.

S,ste3s Plus Co38ute4 Colle*e -' Caloocan Cit,Facts5Petitioner %ystem Pl!s Colle&e is a non-profit ed!cationalinstit!tion estalished in 199. +t availed of the property ta7e7emption on its !ildin&s !t not from the parcels of land thatit is rentin& from its sister companies Consolidated #ssemly+nc. and Pair Mana&ement Corpration. +n 1998, %ystem Pl!s

re0!ested the city &overnment of Caloocan to e7empt it frompayin& the ta7es for the parcels of land that it is rentin& fromthe two sister companies. %ystem Pl!s said that the parcels ofland ein& !sed were act!ally, directly and e7cl!sively fored!cational p!rposes, th!s they were e7empt from payin&ta7es !nder %ec *8 of #rticle of the Constit!tion. City #ssessorand #dministrator, with the recommendation of the City e&alOfficer, denied the re0!est sayin& that the parcels of land wereowned y Consolidated #ssemly. (herefore, Consolidated#ssemly was o!nd to pay the ta7es from the income receivedfrom the rent of the parcels of land !sed y %ystem Pl!s.Consolidated #ssemly was not a non-profit or&ani4ation, andth!s, their income from the rental of %ystem Pl!s was note7empt from ta7.On Fer!ray 1999, Consolidated #ssemly #'#@ and to set aside the decisionof C# affirmin& the decision of the >#'#@ which ordered these&re&ation of 2AA hectares of s!itale, compact andconti&!o!s portions of CMH

>#'#@, !nder the Comprehensive #&rarian 'eform Pro&ram,ordered 2AA hectares of CMH land to e s!Iect to se&re&ationaccordin& to C#'P, since the land was not directly, act!ally ande7cl!sively !sed for school sites, eca!se it was leased to >elMonte Philippines.CMH contends, however, that schools are e7empt from thecovera&e of C#'P, and that land was awarded to them y Pres.$arcia so that in the f!t!re, they may e7pand li6e schools in theH% s!ch as Michi&an %tate Hniv, Penn %tate Hniv, etc.

+ss!e5 >id the >#'#@ and C# have I!risdiction as to determinin&

the !se of the land of CMH

"eld5 o, CMH is in the est position to resolve and answer the0!estion and pass !pon the prolem of its needs in relation toits avowed oIectives for which the land was &iven to it y thestate. either the >#'#@ or the Ca has the ri&ht to s!stit!te

I!d&ement or discretion on this matter, !nless the evidentiaryfacts are so manifest as to show that CMH has no real need forthe land.

$.'. o. 1*2A23 Octoer 12, 19985CO..ISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE9EN7E2 8etitione42-s'CO7RT OF APPEALS2 CO7RT OF TAM APPEALS an)

YO7N/ .ENS C(RISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF T(EP(ILIPPINES2 INC'2 4es8on)ents'

P#$#+@#, N.5Petition for review on certiorari challen&in& two 'esol!tionsiss!ed y the Co!rt of #ppeals. @oth 'esol!tions affirmed the>ecision of the Co!rt of (a7 #ppeals C(# allowin& the LMC# toclaim ta7 e7emption on the latter:s income from the lease of itsreal property.

Private 'espondent LMC# is a non-stoc6, non-profit instit!tion,which cond!cts vario!s pro&rams and activities that areeneficial to the p!lic, especially the yo!n& people, p!rs!antto its reli&io!s, ed!cational and charitale oIectives.

+n 198A, private respondent earned, amon& others, an incomeof P,8*9.8A from leasin& o!t a portion of its premises tosmall shop owners, li6e resta!rants and canteen operators, andP22,*9.AA from par6in& fees collected from non-memers. On

N!ly *, 1982, the commissioner of internal reven!e C+' iss!edan assessment to private respondent, in the total amo!nt ofP21,1.A1 incl!din& s!rchar&e and interest, for deficiencyincome ta7, deficiency e7panded withholdin& ta7es on rentalsand professional fees and deficiency withholdin& ta7 on wa&es.

Private respondent formally protested the assessment and, as as!pplement to its asic protest, filed a letter dated Octoer 8,198. +n reply, the C+' denied the claims of LMC#.

LMC# filed a petition to the C(# too6 o!t the ta7es.

C+' filed a petition to the C# reversed decision and p!t ac6the ta7es.

LMC# filed motion for reconsideration to C# reversed itsdecision and too6 o!t ta7es a&ain.

C+' petitioned for review on certiorari to %C.

Issue5

+s the income derived from rentals of real property owned ythe Lo!n& Men:s Christian #ssociation of the Philippines, +nc.LMC# W estalished as a welfare, ed!cational and charitalenon-profit corporation W s!Iect to income ta7 !nder theational +nternal 'even!e Code +'C and the Constit!tion/>id the C# commit reversile error sayin& they were ta7e7empt/


*


26/31

(el)5First 0!estion5 o. +t is not ta7 e7empt. %econd 0!estion5 Les,they committed error.

evelopment #!thority@C>#, (!nte7 Co. td (H(B, and #siaworld +nternationale$ro!p +nc #%+#DO'> entered into a Memorand!m ofa&reement to develop Camp Nohn "ay into a premier to!ristdestination. Dith the conc!rrence of the %an&&!nian&Panl!n&sod of @a&!io City %#$$H R!!y, oyola daysS,respondents see6ed the s!pport of President 'amos to declarethe camp as a %BK.On N!ly , 1992, Pres 'amos iss!ed P4ocla3ation No $?evelopment #ct of 199* set o!t the policy of the &overnmentto find alternative prod!ctive !ses for the former military ases!nder the 192 H%# Military @ases #&reement.

Proc T *2, p!rs!ant to '.# **, &ranted Camp Nohn "aysimilar ta7 e7emptions and other privile&es &ranted to the %!ic%BK %%BK. Petitioner filed a petition for prohiition, mandam!sand declaratory relief. (he co!rt, decidin& that the ri&hts of thepeople livin& in the immediate vicinity of the camp in 0!estionwill e affected y the proposed %BK, claimed I!risdiction overthe case.

Issues:DE PP 2*A, in so far as it &rants ta7 e7emptionsp!rs!ant to '# **, is invalid and ille&al as it is an

!nconstit!tional e7ercise y the President of a power &rantedonly to the le&islat!re.(el): PP 2*A is Hnconstit!tional. +t ases the a!thority of thePresident to &rant ta7 e7emptions on '# **. #ltho!&h Camp

Nohn "ay is covered y '# ** eca!se the said camp is ane7tension of the military ases in the H%# Military ases#&reement, '# ** only specifically &rants the ta7 e7emptionsand privile&es to SS4and not all %BKs. '# ** is too lon& to0!ote. +ts in pp 318-319. (he important thin& is that in allsections where it provides ta7 e7emptions or privile&es, the saidenefits 4ee4 onl, to Subic S8ecial Econo3ic >one.Bstalishin& that '# ** does not a!thori4e the President to&rant ta7 e7emptions to %BKs renders PP 2*A !nconstit!tional,


*


27/31

as far as the sections that provide ta7 e7emptions andprivile&es to %BKs.Hnder #rt , %ec *8, Par 2 of the constit!tion, Con&ress has solepower of creatin& ta7 e7emptions y stat!es altho!&h it maydele&ate this power, s!Iect to limitations it may provide, to thePresident as stated in #rt , %ec *8, Par *.

EMPENDIT7RE OF P7+LIC F7NDS

/uin*ona @4 -s' Ca4a*ue/R no' 5#12 A84il $$2 1551

Facts5 (he petitioners are %enators of the 'ep!lic of thePhilippines who 0!estioned ao!t the !d&et consistin& ofP98.2 @illion in a!tomatic appropriation with P8.8 @illion fordet service and P 1.3 @illion appropriated !nder '# o.831, otherwise 6nown as the $eneral #ppropriations #ct, or atotal of P*33. @illion, while the appropriations for the>epartment of Bd!cation, C!lt!re and %ports amo!nt to P*,A1,813,AAA.AA.

(he said a!tomatic appropriation for det service ofP8.8 @illion is a!thori4ed y P> o. 81. (he petitioners so!&htthe declaration of P> o. 81 as !nconstit!tional and th!s see6to restrain the dis!rsement of det service !nder the l99A!d&et.

ISS7ES5 1. DE the appropriation of P8.8 @illion l99A @!d&etfor det service is violative of %ection , #rticle +V of theConstit!tion;

*. DE P> 81, P> 11 and P> l9 still operative!nder the Consit!tion;

3. DE it violates %ection *9 1, #rticle V+ of theConstit!tion.

(ELD51. On the first iss!e, the appropriation of P8.8 @illion for

det service does not violate %ection , #rticle +V ofthe Constit!tion. +n s!pport hereof, #rticle V+++,%ection 3 of the Constit!tion provides5 #ll e7istin&laws, decrees, e7ec!tive orders, proclamations, lettersof instr!ctions and other e7ec!tive iss!ances notinconsistent with the Constit!tion shall remainoperative !ntil amended, repealed or revo6ed.

(he presidential decrees iss!ed y then Pres. Marcos

were intended to cover the payment of principal andinterest on all forei&n loans, incl!din& those&!aranteed y the national &overnment. #nd th!s, thea!tomatic appropriation provides the fle7iility for theeffective e7ec!tion of det mana&ement policies.

*. On the second iss!e, the le&islative intention in '.#.o. 28A as amended y P> o. ll and P> o. l9is that the amo!nt needed sho!ld a!tomatically setaside to enale the 'ep!lic of the Philippines to paythe principal, interest, ta7es and other normal an6in&char&es on the loans, credits or indetedness in orderto maintain the credit standin& of the co!ntry witho!tthe need to enact a separate law appropriatin& f!ndstherefor.

3. On the third iss!e, #rticle V+, %ection *91 of the

Constit!tion provides5 o money shall e paid o!t ofthe treas!ry e7cept in p!rs!ance of an appropriationmade y law.P!rs!ant to #rticle V++, %ection ** of the l98Constit!tion, Pres. #0!ino s!mitted to Con&ress the@!d&et of B7pendit!res and %o!rces of Financin& forthe Fiscal year l99A. Of the proposed !d&et of P *33.@illion, P 8.8 @illion is set aside for det servicin&p!rs!ant to P> l9 and '# o. 28A as amended yP> o. 81.

(h!s, the Co!rt finds it as lawf!l a!thori4ations orappropriations, !nless repealed or otherwise amendedy Con&ress.

Dherefore, the petition is dismissed.

SPECIAL F7ND

@O(N OS.ENA -' OR+OS %eHec' sec'& $' no. 9988 A3-31-93Facts5Oil Price %taili4ation F!nd OP%F was a special acco!nt !nderP>199 reclassified to eficit of 1*.8illion. (o decrease this deficit, the Bner&y 'e&!latory @oardiss!ed an order increasin& prices of petrole!m prod!cts torecover f!nd within mos. 'espondents are poised to acceptprocess and pay claims not a!thori4ed !nder P>19Petitioner see6s remedies to the followin&5 %1&unconstitutionalit, as PD15#5 as a T4ust Accountcont4a4, to Sec$5%!& A4t' Constitution* P> no.19!nconstit!tional a&ainst non-dele&aility of le&islative powers;3 ille&ality of reim!rsements to oil companies as a&ainstP>19; 2 n!llity of the order increasin& prices of petrole!mprod!cts and roll ac6 of prices to levels prior to the increase

Issue5 DE corrective, prohiitive and coercive remediesprovided y '!les of Co!rt so!&ht y the petitioner is valid.

(el): the petition is $'#(B> insofar as it prays for then!llification of the reim!rsement of financin& char&es, paidp!rs!ant to B.O. 13 remedies so!&ht for T3 and >+%M+%%B>in all other respects.

'ationale51. PD15#5 Constitutional OP%F is a tr!st acco!ntestalished to minimi4in& fre0!ent price chan&es f!nded yincrease in ta7 collection thro!&h ad valorem or c!stoms d!ty,liftin& ta7 e7emption, additional amo!nt imposed on prod!cts orany res!ltin& peso cost differential. Dhile f!nds collected maye referred to as ta7es, they are e7acted in the e7ercise of thepolice power of the %tate. Moreover, OP%F is se&re&ated fromthe &eneral f!nd; and while it is placed in what the law refers toas a tr!st liaility acco!nt, the f!nd nonetheless remains

s!Iect to the scr!tiny and review of the Commision of #!dit.(he Co!rt is satisfied that these meas!res comply with theconstit!tional description of a special f!nd. +ndeed, thepractice is not witho!t precedent.*. (he Co!rt finds that the provision conferrin& the a!thority!pon the B'@ to impose additional amo!nts on petrole!mprod!cts provides a s!fficient standard y which the a!thoritym!st e e7ercised.3. (he reim!rsement of financin& char&es is not a!thori4ed ypara&raph * of \ 8 of P.>. 19, for the reason that they werenot inc!rred as a res!lt of the red!ction of domestic prices ofpetrole!m prod!cts.2.(he p!mp rates of &asoline have een red!ced to levelselow even those prayed for in the petition.

APPELATE @7RISDICTION OF T(E S7PRE.E CO7RT

Fabian -' Desie4to

Se8te3be4 12 155"

X (itle from ori&inal case5 (B'B%+(# $. F#@+# petitioner, %s"O. #+#O #. >B%+B'(O, in his capacity as om!dsman"O. NB%H% F. $HB''B'O, in his capacity as >ep!tyOm!dsman for !4on; and B%(O' V. #$H%(+ respondents.ote5 (his case is complicated considerin& that it involves othelawsEr!les which are rather


28/31

(eresita Faian maIor stoc6holder and president ofP'OM#( Constr!ction >evelopment Corporation

estor V. #&!stin inc!ment >istrict Bn&ineer ofFMB> First Metro Manila Bn&ineerin& >istrict

Bd!ardo '. @enite4 $raft +nvesti&ator who r!led infavor of petitioner

Nes!s F. $!errero >ep!ty Om!dsman who set aside@enite4) resol!tion

X "on. #niano >esierto was not mentioned in the proceedin&s ofthe caseFacts5Petitioner has appealed to the %!preme Co!rt y certiorari!nder '!le 2 of the '!les of Co!rt from the Noint Orderiss!ed y p!lic respondents on N!ne 18, 199 in OM@-#dm.Case o. A-9-A211 which &ranted the motion forreconsideration of and asolved private respondents fromadministrative char&es for inter alia &rave miscond!ctcommitted y him as then #ssistant 'e&ional >irector, 'e&ion+V-#, >epartment of P!lic Dor6s and "i&hways >PD".

(eresita $. Faian and estor #&!stin had an amoro!srelationship in the co!rse of which, respondent &ifted P'OM#(with p!lic wor6s contracts and interceded for it in prolemsconcernin& the same in his office. ater on, whenmis!nderstandin&s and !npleasant incidents developedetween the two, petitioner tried to end their relationship !trespondent ref!sed to the e7tent that the latter employed acts

of harassment, intimidation and threats. Bvent!ally, petitionerfiled the aforementioned administrative case a&ainst him in aletter-complaint.

(he said complaint so!&ht the dismissal of private respondentfor violation of %ection 19, 'ep!lic #ct o. A Om!dsman#ct of 1989 and %ection 3 of Presidential >ecree o. 8ACivil %ervice >ecree, with an ancillary prayer for hispreventive s!spension. For p!rposes of this case, the char&esreferred to may e s!s!med !nder the cate&ory of oppression,miscond!ct, and dis&racef!l or immoral cond!ct.$raft +nvesti&ator @enite4 iss!ed a resol!tion findin& privaterespondents &!i

IA 2008 Constitutional Law I Digests (Legislative)

Documents

Transcript of IA 2008 Constitutional Law I Digests (Legislative)