Case Digests 8

8/13/2019 Case Digests 8

1/23


2/23

#ather what is sought to be achieved by thisliberal interpretation is to preclude anyplausibility to the charge that in the e%erciseof the conceded power of reorganiing theinferior courts, the power of removal of thepresent incumbents vested in this Tribunal isignored or disregarded. The challenged !ctwould thus be free from any unconstitutionaltaint, even one not readily discernible e%ceptto those predisposed to view it with distrust.Moreover, such a construction would be inaccordance with the basic principle that in

the choice of alternatives between one whichwould save and another which wouldinvalidate a statute, the former is to bepreferred.

TITLE: SANTIAO VS. $AUTISTA

CITATION: 3! SCRA 1""

FACTS:

Santiago was considered an alien as evidenced&% his alien certificate of registration. Heaverred that this is erroneous. He was &orn ofa 'ilipino $other and a Chinese father here inthe /hilippines. He was sent to China when hewas B %ears old &% his dad. He returned in(!5* and in his 3anding Certificate he wasalread% la&eled as a 'ilipino. Hence, he wouldli6e to cancel the alien certificate that wasissued &% the 2ureau of I$$igrations. In hisoriginal petition however in the lower courthe was pra%ing for a declarator% relief for hi$to &e declared as a 'ilipino. He was favored&% the court. he fiscal appealed averringthat a declarator% relief is not the properre$ed%. he lower court a$ended the

decision not stating the ;declarator%state$ent> &ut rather focusing on thecancellation of the alien certificate. hefiscal appealed &efore the SC.

ISSUE:

hether or not declarator% relief is a properre$ed% to have a "udicial declaration ofcitienship.

RULIN:he Supre$e Court ruled against Santiago.Although a$ended, the proceeding initiatedand originall% pra%ed for is a declarator%relief to have hi$ &e declared as a 'ilipino.nder our laws, there can &e no action orproceeding for the "udicial declaration of thecitienship of an individual. C%uts %) /usti0'

'ist )% th' s'ttl'2'(t %) /usti)i*l'0%(t%'si's, +hi0h i24l * gi'( ight,l'g*ll -'2*(-*l' *(- '()%0'*l', *( *0t% %2issi%( i%l*ti' %) s*i- ight, *(- *'2'-, g*(t'- % s*(0ti%('- l*+, )%s*i- '*0h %) ight.As an accident onl% ofthe ad"udication of the rights of the parties toa controvers%, the court $a% pass upon, and$a6e a pronounce$ent relative to, theirstatus. 9therwise, such a pronounce$ent is&e%ond "udicial power. hus, for instance, noaction or proceeding $a% &e instituted for adeclaration to the effect that plaintiff orpetitioner is $arried, or single, or alegiti$ate child, although a finding thereon$a% &e $ade as a necessar% pre$ise to "ustif%a given relief availa&le onl% to one en"o%ingsaid status. At ti$es, the law per$its theac4uisition of a given status, such asnaturaliation, &% "udicial decree. 2ut, thereis no si$ilar legislation authoriing theinstitution of a "udicial proceeding to declarethat a given person is part of our citienr%.

TITLE: DAA VS. SINSONCITATION: 1"7 SCRA #96FACTS:

9n Septe$&er (@, (!

a.hether petitioners re$oval isunconstitutional.&.hether the election of Sen. Cuenco andDelgado to the Electoral ri&unal isunconstitutional.RULIN:

HERE'9RE, the petition is DIS1ISSED. hete$porar% restraining order dated Januar% (),

(!


3/23

connotes the authorit% of each House ofCongress to see to it that this re4uire$ent isdul% co$plied with. As a conse4uence, it $a%ta6e appropriate $easures, (%t %(l u4%(th' i(iti*l %g*(i*ti%( %) th' C%22issi%( ,&ut also, sus'&u'(tl th''t%.

I( i'+ %) C%(g'ss; *uth%it3astl%, we resolve that issue in favor of theauthorit% of the House of Representatives tochange its representation in the Co$$issionon Appoint$ents to reflect at an% ti$e the

changes that $a% transpire in the politicalalign$ents of its $e$&ership. It is understoodthat su0h 0h*(g's 2ust ' 4'2*('(t *(--% (%t i(0lu-' th' t'24%* *lli*(0's %)*0ti%(*l -iisi%(snot involving severance ofpolitical lo%alties or for$al disaffiliation andper$anent shifts of allegiance fro$ onepolitical part% to another.I( i'+ %) th' C%uts i(t''(ti%(he Court would have preferred not tointervene in this $atter, leaving it to &esettled &% the House of Representatives or theCo$$ission on Appoint$ents as the &odiesdirectl% involved. 2ut as our "urisdiction has&een invo6ed and, $ore i$portantl%, &ecausea 0%(stituti%(*l st*l'2*t'had to &eresolved, there was no alternative for use#cept to act, and to act decisivel%. In doingso, of course, we are not i$posing our willupon the said agencies, or su&stituting ourdiscretion for theirs, &ut $erel% dischargingour sworn responsi&ilit% to interpret and appl%the Constitution. hat is a dut% we do notevade, lest we ourselves &etra% our oath.

TITLE: ARCIA VS. $OARD OF INVEST8ENTS

CITATION: 191 SCRA !"". N%'2' 1997

FACTS:'or$er 2ataan /etroche$ical Corporation82/C:, now 3uon /etroche$ical Corporation,for$ed &% a group of aiwanese investors,was granted &% the 29I its have its plant sitefor the products ;naphta crac6er> and;naphta> to &ased in 2ataan. In 'e&ruar%(!

production in 2ataan, the corporation appliedto the 29I to have its plant site transferredfro$ 2ataan to 2atangas. Despite vigorousopposition fro$ petitioner Cong. Enri4uearcia and others, the 29I granted privaterespondent 2/Cs application, stating that theinvestors have the final choice as to where tohave their plant site &ecause the% are theones who ris6 capital for the pro"ect.

ISSUE:hether or not the 29I co$$itted a grave

a&use of discretion in %ielding to theapplication of the investors withoutconsidering the national interest

RULIN:

he Supre$e Court found the 29I to haveco$$itted grave a&use of discretion in thiscase, and ordered the original application ofthe 2/C to have its plant site in 2ataan andthe product naphta as feedstoc6 $aintained.

he ponente, Justice utierre, Jr., firststated the Courts "udicial power to settleactual controversies as provided for &%Section ( of Article III in our (!


4/23

cases and controversies and the authorit% topass on the validit% of statutes is incident altothe decisions of such cases where conflictingclai$s under the constitution and under thelegislative act assailed as contrar% to theconstitution &ut it is legiti$ate onl% in thelast resort and it $ust &e necessar% todeter$ined a real and vital controvers%&etween litigants. hus, actions li6e this are&rought for a positive purpose to o&tainactual positive relief and the court does notsit to ad"udicate a $ere acade$ic 4uestion to

satisf% scholarl% interest therein. he courthowever, finds the defendant position to &esufficientl% sustained and state that thepetitioner re$ed% is to challenge theregulation not to invalidate the law &ecause itneeds no argu$ent to show that a&use &%officials entrusted with thee#ecution of the statute does not per se de$onstrate the unconstitutionalit% of suchstatute. 9n this phase of the litigation thecourt conclude that therehas &een no undue delegation of legislative power even if the petitioners appended a list ofcirculars and $e$oranda issued &% theDepart$ent of Education the% fail to indicatewhich of such official docu$ents wasconstitutionall% o&"ectiona&le for&eing capricious or pain nuisance. herefore,the court denied the petition for prohi&ition.

TITLE: TAN VS. 8ACAPAALCITATION: #3 SCRA 6="

FACTS:

/etition for declarator% relief as ta#pa%ers anin &ehalf of the 'ilipino people. hepetitioners see6s for the court to declare thatthe deli&erating Constitutional Conventionwas without power, under Section (, Article of the Constitution and Repu&lic Act @()5,

to consider, discuss and adopt proposals whichsee6 to revise the present Constitutionthrough the adoption of a for$ of agovern$ent other than the for$ now outlinedin the present Constitution the Convention&eingK $erel% e$powered to proposei$prove$ents to the present Constitution

without altering the general plan laid downtherein.

ISSUES:

(. hether or not the petitioners haslocus standi.

5. hether or not the court has "urisdiction overthe case.

RULIN:

1. -9.Justice 3aurel0 he unchallenged rule is thatthe person who i$pugns the validit% of astatute $ust have a personal andsu&stantial interest in the case suchthat he has sustained, or will sustain,direct in"ur% as a result of itsenforce$ent. /ascual vs. heSecretar% of /u&lic or6s0 validit% ofa statute $a% &e contested onl% &%one who will sustain a direct in"ur%,in conse4uence of its enforce$ent.a#pa%ers onl% have standing onlaws providing for the dis&urse$ent

of pu&lic funds. E#penditure of pu&licfunds, &% an officer of the State for thepurpose of ad$inistering anunconstitutional act constitutes a$isapplication of such funds, which$a% &e en"oined at the re4uest of a

2. -9.At the ti$e the case was filed the ConGCon has not

%et finalied an% resolution that would radicall% alter the(!)*constitution therefore not %et ripe for"udicial review. he case &eco$es ripe whenthe ConGCon has actuall% does so$ethingalread%. hen the court $a% actuall% in4uireinto the "urisdiction of the &od%. Separationof power depart$ents should &e left alone todo duties as the% see fit. he E#ecutive and

the 3egislature are not &ound to as6 foradvice in carr%ing out their duties, "udiciar%$a% not interfere so that it $a% fulfill itsduties well. he court $a% not interfere untilthe proper ti$e co$es ripeness.

TITLE: DU8LAO VS. CO8ELECCITATION: 95 SCRA 39!

FACTS:/et it ioner Du$lao 4uest ions theconstitutionalit% of Sec. B of 2atas /a$&ansa2lg. *5 as discri$inator% and contrar%to e4ual protection and due processguarantees of the Constitution. Sec. Bprovides that an% retired elective provincialor $unicipal official who has receivedpa%$ents of retire$ent &enefits and shall

have &een @* %ears of age at theco$$ence$ent of the ter$ of office to whichhe see6s to &e elected, shall not &e 4ualifiedto run for the sa$e elective local office fro$which he has retired. According to Du$lao,the provision a$ounts to class legislation./etitioners Igot and Salapantan Jr. also assailthe validit% of Sec. B of 2atas /a$&ansa 2lg.*5, which states that an% person who hasco$$itted an% act of dislo%alt% to the State,including those a$ounting to su&version,insurrection, re&ellion, or other si$ilarcri$es, shall not &e 4ualified for an% of theoffices covered &% the act, or to participate inan% partisan activit% therein0 provided that a"udg$ent of conviction of those cri$es shall&e conclusive evidence of such fact andthe filing of charges for the co$$ission ofsuch cri$es &efore a civil court or$ilitar% tri&unal after preli$inar%investigation shall &e pri$a facie evidence ofsuch fact.

ISSUE:hether or not the afore$entioned

statutor% provisions violate the Constitutionand thus and will &e declared null and void

RULIN:In regards to the unconstitutionalit% of theprovisions, Sec. B of 2/ 2lg. *5 re$ains

constitutional and valid. he constitutionalguarantee of e4ual protection of the laws issu&"ect to rational classification. 9ne classcan &e treated differentl% fro$ another class.In this case, e$plo%ees @* %ears of age areclassified differentl% fro$ %ounger e$plo%ees.he purpose of the provision is to satisf% the;need for new &lood> in the wor6place. In

regards to the second paragraph of Seshould &e declared null and void foviolative of the constitutional presu$innocence guaranteed to an accused. ;is the constitutional provision that,cri$inal prosecutions, the accused spresu$ed innocent until the contproved, and shall en"o% the right to &e&% hi$self and counsel 8Article I, sec(!=) Constitution:. An accusation, acto the funda$ental law, is not s%nowith guilt. he challenged

contravenes the constitutional presu$innocence, as a candidate is dis4ualifirunning for pu&lic office on the grounthat charges have &een filed again&efore a civil or $ilitar% tri&unal. It co&efore one is full% heard. In ulti$ate e#cept as to the degree of prodistinction is $ade &etween a convicted of acts of dislo%alt% and onewho$ charges have &een filed for sucas &oth of the$ would &e ineligi&le topu&lic office. A person dis4ualified to pu&lic office on the ground that charg&een filed against hi$ is virtuall% plthe sa$e categor% as a person convicted of a cri$e with the penarresto, which carries with it the acpenalt% of suspension of the right toffice during the ter$ of the sentencBB, Revised /enal And although the filing of chargconsidered as &ut pri$a facie evidentherefore, $a% &e re&utted, %et tclear and present danger that &ecauspro#i$it% of the elections, ti$e conwill prevent one charged with adislo%alt% fro$ offering contrar% poverco$e the pri$a facie evidence hi$.Additionall%, it is &est that evidence con of acts of dislo%alt% &e aired &ef

Courts rather than &efore an ad$ini&od% such as the C91E3EC. A highl% pconflict of findings &etween two gove&odies, to the e#tre$e detri$ent of acharged, will there&% &e a'urther$ore, a legislative7ad$inideter$ination of guilt should not &e to &e su&stituted for a "udicial deter$


5/23

2eing infected with constitutional infir$it%, apartial declaration of nullit% of onl% thato&"ectiona&le portion is $andated. It issepara&le fro$ the first portion of the secondparagraph of section B of 2/ 2lg. *5 which canstand &% itself.herefore, the first paragraph of section B of2/ 2lg. *5 is here&% declared valid and thatportion of the second paragraph of section Bof 2/ 2lg. *5 is here&% declared null and void,for &eing violative of the constitutionalpresu$ption of innocence guaranteed to an

accused.

TITLE: OPLE VS. TORRES

CITATION: !93 SCRA 1#1

'ACS0

he petition at &ar is a co$$enda&le effort on the partof Senator 2las '. 9ple to prevent the shrin6ing of theright to privac%, which the revered 1r. Justice 2randeisconsidered as the $ost co$prehensive of rights and theright$ost valued &% civilied $en. /etitioner 9ple pra%sthat we invalidate Ad$inistrative 9rder -o. )+< entitledAdoption of a -ational Co$puteried Identification

Reference S%ste$ on two i$portant constitutionalgrounds, 8(:it is a usurpation of the powerof Congress to legislate, and85:iti$per$issi&l% intrudes on our citienr%Lsprotected one of privac%. e grant the petitionfor the rights sought to &e vindicated &% the petitionerneed stronger &arriers against further erosion. A.9. -o.)+< was pu&lished in four newspapers of generalcirculation on Januar% 55, (!!= and Januar% 5), (!!=.9n Januar% 5B, (!!=, petitioner filed the instantpetition against respondents, then E#ecutive Secretar%Ru&en orres and the heads of the govern$entagencies, who as $e$&ers of the InterGAgenc%Coordinating Co$$ittee, are charged with thei$ple$entation of A.9. -o. )+

Notes:In this case, he Court e#plainthe /residential Adviser on the /eace co$$itted grave a&use of discretion wfailed to carr% out the pertinent consuprocess, as $andated &% E9 -o. ), RAand RA


6/23

and drasticall% result to the diaspora ordisplace$ent of a great nu$&er of inha&itantsfro$ their total environ$ent.

R.A. andthe i$$inent i$ple$entation of the Contractof 3ease in 'e&ruar% (!!B, NI39S2AMA-, withits coGpetitioners, filed on 5< Januar% (!!Bthis petition.

/etitioner clai$s that it is a nonGstoc6do$estic corporation co$posed of civicGspirited citiens, pastors, priests, nuns, andla% leaders. he rest of the petitioners,e#cept Senators 'reddie e&& and ig&ertoaFada and Representative Jo6er /. Arro%o,are suing in their capacities as $e$&ers ofthe 2oard of rustees of NI39S2AMA- and asta#pa%ers and concerned citiens. Senatorse&& and aFada and Representative Arro%o

are suing in their capacities as $e$&ers ofCongress and as ta#pa%ers and concernedcitiens of the /hilippines. he pu&licrespondents, $eanwhile allege that thepetitioners have no standing to $aintain theinstant suit, citing the Courts resolution inal$onte vs. /hilippine Charit% Sweepsta6es9ffice.

ISSUES:(. hether or not the petitioners have locusstandi

5.hether or the Contract of 3ease in thelight of Section ( of R.A. -o. ((@!, asa$ended &% 2./. 2lg. B5,

which prohi&its the /CS9 fro$ holding andconducting lotter%s ;in colla&oration,association or "oint venture with an% person,association, co$pan% or entit%, whetherdo$estic or foreign.> is legal and valid.

RULIN:

e find the instant petition to &e oftranscendental i$portance to the pu&lic. hera$ifications of such issues i$$easura&l%affect the social, econo$ic, and $oral wellG&eing of the people even in the re$otest&aranga%s of the countr% and the counterGproductive and retrogressive effects of theenvisioned onGline lotter% s%ste$ are asstaggering as the &illions in pesos it ise#pected to raise. he legal standing then of

the petitioners deserves recognition and, inthe e#ercise of its sound discretion, this Courthere&% &rushes aside the procedural &arrierwhich the respondents tried to ta6eadvantage of.

he language of Section ( of R.A. -o. ((@! isindisputa&l% clear. he /CS9 cannot share itsfranchise with another &% wa% ofcolla&oration, association or "oint venture.-either can it assign, transfer, or lease suchfranchise. hether the contract in 4uestion isone of lease or whether the /1C is $erel%an independent contractor should not &edecided on the &asis of the title ordesignation of the contract &ut &% the intent

of the parties, which $a% &e gathered fro$the provisions of the contract itself. Ani$usho$inis est ani$a scripti. he intention of thepart% is the soul of the instru$ent.

ndou&tedl%, fro$ the ver% inception, the/CS9 and the /1C $utuall% understood thatan% arrange$ent &etween the$ wouldnecessaril% leave to the /1C the technical,operations, and $anage$ent aspects of theonGline lotter% s%ste$ while the /SC9 would,pri$aril%, provide the franchise. he soGcalledContract of 3ease is not, therefore, what itpurports to &e. oven therein are provisionswhich negate its title and &etra% the trueintention of the parties to &e in or to have a"oint venture for a period of eight %ears in theoperation and $aintenance of the onGlinelotter% s%ste$.

e thus declare that the challenged Contractof 3ease violates the e#ception provided for inparagraph 2, Section ( of R.A. -o. ((@!, as

a$ended &% 2./. 2lg. B5, and is, theinvalid for &eing contrar% to lawconclusion renders unnecessar% discussion on the other issues raisedpetitioners.

TITLE: >ILOS$A


7/23

no constitutional issues were actuall%involved. 3A 9' HE CASE cannot alsoappl%. Since the present case is not the sa$eone litigated &% theparties &efore inNilos&a%an vs. uingona, Jr., the rulingcannot &e in an% sense &e regarded as the lawof this case. he parties are the sa$e &ut thecases are not. R3E 9- C9-C3SIE-ESScannot still appl%. An issue actuall% anddirectl% passed upon and deter$ine in afor$er suit cannot again &e drawn in 4uestionin an% future action &etween the sa$e parties

involving a different cause of action. 2ut therule does not appl% to issues of law at leastwhen su&stantiall% unrelated clai$s areinvolved. hen the second proceedinginvolves an instru$ent or transaction identicalwith, &ut in a for$ separa&le fro$ the onedealt with in the first proceeding, the Court isfree in the second proceeding to $a6e anindependent e#a$ination of the legal $attersat issue. Since E3A is a different contract, theprevious decision does not precludedeter$ination of the petitionerLs standing.SA-DI- is a concept in constitutional lawand here no constitutional 4uestion is actuall%involved. he $ore appropriate issue iswhether the petitioners are REA3 /ARIES in

I-ERES.

TITLE: ?O


8/23

the case at &ar, petitioners are not after thefulfill$ent of a positive dut% re4uired ofrespondent officials under the (!


9/23

In assailing the constitutionalit% of E9 B),petitioner asserts his interest as a citien andta#pa%er.

A citien ac4uires standing onl% if he canesta&lish that he has suffered so$e actual orthreatened in"ur% as a result of the allegedl%illegal conduct of the govern$ent the in"ur%is fairl% tracea&le to the challenged actionand the in"ur% is li6el% to &e addressed &% afavora&le action. /etitioner has not shownthat he has sustained or in danger of

sustaining an% personal in"ur% attri&uta&le tothe creation of the /CCR and ofthe positions of presidentialconsultants, advisers and assistants. -eitherdoes he clai$ that his rights or privileges have&een or are in danger of &eing violated, northat he shall &e su&"ected to an% penalties or&urdens as a result of the issues raised.

In his capacit% as a ta#pa%er, a ta#pa%er isdee$ed to have the standing to raise aconstitutional issue when it is esta&lished thatpu&lic funds have dis&ursedin alleged contravention of the law or theConstitution. hus, pa%ers action is properl%&rought onl% when there is an e#ercise &%

Congress of its ta#ing or spending power. Inthe creation of /CCR, it is apparent that thereis no e#ercise &% Congress of its ta#ing orspending power. he /CCR was created &% the/resident &% virtue of E9 B) as a$ended &%E9 =+. he appropriations for the /CCR wereauthoried &% the /resident, not &% Congress.he funds used for the /CCR were ta6en fro$funds intended for the 9ffice of the/resident, in the e#ercise of the ChiefE#ecutives power to transfer funds pursuantto Sec. 5*8*: of Art. I of the Constitution. Asto the creation of the positions of presidentialconsultants, advisers and assistants, thepetitioner has not alleged the necessar% factsso as to ena&le the Court to deter$ine if hepossesses a ta#pa%ers interest in thisparticular issue.

TITLE:1A3I S. I-9-A

CITATION:.R. -o. ()((5B. 1arch 5(, (!!!

FACTS:

9s$undo $ali the petitioner wasappointed Regional Director of the 2ureau ofInternal Revenue &% /res 'idel . Ra$os. Heassigned hi$ in 1anila, -ove$&er 5!, (!!) to1arch (*, (!!B and 1a6ati, 1arch (@, (!!B toAugust B, (!!B. 9n August (, (!!B, /residentRa$os received a confidential $e$orandu$against the petitioner for alleged violations ofinternal revenue laws, rules and regulations

during his incu$&enc% as Regional Director,$ore particularl% the following $alfeasance,$isfeasance and nonfeasance. upon receipt ofthe said confidential $e$orandu$, for$er/resident authoried the issuance of an 9rderfor the preventive suspension of thepetitioner and i$$ediatel% referred theCo$plaint against the latter to the/residential Co$$ission on AntiGraft andCorruption 8/CAC:, for investigation./etitioner was dul% infor$ed of the chargesagainst hi$. And was directed hi$ to send inhis answer, copies of his State$ent of Assets,and 3ia&ilities for the past three %ears 8):,and /ersonal Data Sheet. Initial hearing wasset on August 5*, (!!B, at 50++ p.$., at the

/CAC 9ffice. 9n August 5), the petitionerfiled his re4uired answer. After evaluating theevidence on record, the /CAC issued itsResolution of Septe$&er 5), (!!B, findinga pri$a facie evidence to support si# 8@: ofthe twelve 8(5: charges against petitioner. 9n9cto&er @, (!!B, acting upon thereco$$endation of the /CAC, then/resident Ra$os issued Ad$inistrative 9rder-o. (*5 dis$issing petitioner fro$ theservice, with forfeiture of retire$ent and all&enefits under the law.

ISSUES:

(. hether or -ot A9 -o. (*5 violatedpetitionerLs Right to Securit% of enure.

5. hether or -ot /etitioner was denied dueprocess of law.

). hether or -ot the /CAC is a validl%Constituted govern$ent agenc% and whetherthe petitioner can raise the issue ofconstitutionalit% &elatedl% in its $otion forreconsideration of the trial courts decision.

B. hether or -ot the o$&uds$anLs resolutiondis$issing the charges against the petitioneris still &asis for the petitionerLs dis$issal withforfeiture of &enefits as ruled in A9 -o. (*5

RULIN:

/etitioner $aintains that as a careere#ecutive service officer, he can onl%&e re$oved for cause and under theAd$inistrative Code of (!


10/23

as reparations for da$age done &% the latterto the for$er during the war.

/etitioner argues that under /hilippine 3aw,the su&"ect propert% is propert% of pu&licdo$inion. As such, it is outside the co$$erceof $en. herefore, it cannot &e alienated.

Respondents aver that Japanese 3aw, and not/hilippine 3aw, shall appl% to the case&ecause the propert% is located in Japan.he% posit that the principle of le# situs

applies.

ISSUES:

(. hether or not the su&"ect propert%cannot &e alienated.

5. hether or not /hil ippine 3awapplies to the case at &ar.

RULIN:

(. he answer is in the affir$ative.

nder /hilippine 3aw, there can &e no dou&tthat it is of pu&lic do$inion unless it isconvincingl% shown that the propert% has&eco$e patri$onial. his, the respondentshave failed to do. As propert% of pu&licdo$inion, the Roppongi lot is outside theco$$erce of $an. It cannot &e alienated.

5. he answer is in the affir$ative.

e see no reason wh% a conflict of law ruleshould appl% when no conflict of law situation

e#ists. A conflict of law situation arises onl%when0 8(: here is a dispute over the title orownership of an i$$ova&le, such that thecapacit% to ta6e and transfer i$$ova&les, thefor$alities of conve%ance, the essentialvalidit% and effect of the transfer, or theinterpretation and effect of a conve%ance, areto &e deter$ined and 85: A foreign law on

land ownership and its conve%ance is assertedto conflict with a do$estic law on the sa$e$atters. Hence, the need to deter$ine whichlaw should appl%.

In the instant case, none of the a&oveele$ents e#ists.

he issues are not concerned with validit% ofownership or title. here is no 4uestion thatthe propert% &elongs to the /hilippines. heissue is the authorit% of the respondent

officials to validl% dispose of propert%&elonging to the State. And the validit% of theprocedures adopted to effect its sale. his isgoverned &% /hilippine 3aw. he rule of le#situs does not appl%.

he assertion that the opinion of theSecretar% of Justice sheds light on therelevance of the le# situs rule is $isplaced.he opinion does not tac6le the aliena&ilit% ofthe real properties procured throughreparations nor the e#istence in what &od% ofthe authorit% to sell the$. In discussing whoare capa&le of ac4uiring the lots, theSecretar% $erel% e#plains that it is theforeign law which should deter$ine who can

ac4uire the properties so that theconstitutional li$itation on ac4uisition oflands of the pu&lic do$ain to 'ilipino citiensand entities wholl% owned &% 'ilipinos isinapplica&le.

TITLE: HACIE-DA 3ISIA S. /RESIDE-IA3ARARIA- RE'9R1C9-CI3

CITATION: .R. -o. (=((+(. -ove$&er 55,5+((

FACTS:

9n Jul% *, 5+((, the Supre$e Courten &anc voted unani$ousl% 8((G+: toDIS1ISS7DE-M the petition filed &% H3I andA''IR1 with 19DI'ICAI9-S the resolutions ofthe /ARC revo6ing H3Is Stoc6 Distri&ution/lan 8SD/: and placing the su&"ect lands inHacienda 3uisita under co$pulsor% coverage

of the Co$prehensive Agrarian Refor$/rogra$ 8CAR/: of the govern$ent.

he Court however did not orderoutright land distri&ution. oting @G*, theCourt noted that there are operative factsthat occurred in the interi$ and which theCourt cannot validl% ignore. hus, the Courtdeclared that the revocation of the SD/ $ust,&% application of the operative fact principle,give wa% to the right of the original @,5!@4ualified far$ wor6ersG&eneficiaries 8'2s: to

choose whether the% want to re$ain as H3Istoc6holders or choose actual landdistri&utionK. It thus ordered the Depart$entof Agrarian Refor$ 8DAR: to ;i$$ediatel%schedule $eetings with the said @,5!@ '2sand e#plain to the$ the effects ,conse4uences and legal or practicali$plications of their choice, after which the'2s will &e as6ed to $anifest, in secretvoting, their choices in the &allot, signingtheir signatures or placing their thu$&$ar6s,as the case $a% &e, over their printedna$es.>

he parties thereafter filed theirrespective $otions for reconsideration of the

Court decision.

ISSUES:

(. hether or not the Doctrine of 9perative'act is availa&le in this case.

5. hether or not Sec. )( of RA @@*=unconstitutional?

). hether or not the Court order that DARsco$pulsor% ac4uisition of Hacienda 3usitacover the full @,BB) hectares allegedl%covered &% RA @@*= and previousl% held &%arlac Develop$ent Corporation 8adeco:,and not "ust the B,!(*.=* hectares covered &%

H3Is SD/?

B. hether or not the date of the ;ta6ing>8for purposes of deter$ining the "ustco$pensation pa%a&le to H3I: -ove$&er 5(,(!

*. hether or not the (+G%ear prohi&ition on the transfer of awardeunder RA @@*= lapsed on 1a% (+, (!!!Hacienda 3uisita were placed undecoverage through the SD9A sche$e ((, (!

RULIN:

(. MES, the operative fact doctapplica&le in this case.

he Court $aintained its stanthe operative fact doctrine is applicthis case since, contrar% to the suggethe $inorit%, the doctrine is not li$itto invalid or unconstitutional laws &applies to decisions $ade &% the /resithe ad$inistrative agencies that haforce and effect of laws. /rior

nullification or recall of said decision$a% have produced acts and conse4that $ust &e respected. It is on this scothe operative fact doctrine should &e to acts and conse4uences that resultethe i$ple$entation of the /ARC Reapproving the SD/ of H3I. he $stressed that the application of the opfact doctrine &% the Court in its Jul% decision was in fact favora&le to th&ecause not onl% were the% allowed tothe &enefits and ho$e lots the% runder the stoc6 distri&ution sche$ewere also given the option to chothe$selves whether the% want to re$stoc6holders of H3I or not.

5. -9, Sec. )( of RA @@*=unconstitutional.

he Court $aintained that this -9 co$pelled to rule oconstitutionalit% of Sec. )( of RA


11/23

reiterating that it was not raised at theearliest opportunit% and that the resolutionthereof is not the lis $ota of the case.1oreover, the issue has &een rendered $ootand acade$ic since SD9 is no longer one ofthe $odes of ac4uisition under RA !=++. he$a"orit% clarified that in its Jul% *, 5+((decision, it $ade no ruling in favor of theconstitutionalit% of Sec. )( of RA @@*=, &utfound nonetheless that there was no apparentgrave violation of the Constitution that $a%"ustif% the resolution of the issue of

constitutionalit%.

). -9, the Court CA--9 order that DARsco$pulsor% ac4uisition of Hacienda 3usitacover the full @,BB) hectares and not "ust theB,!(*.=* hectares covered &% H3Is SD/.

Since what is put in issue &efore theCourt is the propriet% of the revocation of theSD/, which onl% involves B,!(*.=* ofagricultural land and not @,BB) has., then theCourt is constrained to rule onl% as regardsthe B,!(*.=* of agricultural land.-onetheless, this should not prevent the DAR,

under its $andate under the agrarian refor$law, fro$ su&se4uentl% su&"ecting to agrarianrefor$ other agricultural lands originall% held&% adeco that were allegedl% not transferredto H3I &ut were supposedl% covered &% RA@@*=.

However since the area to &eawarded to each '2 in the Jul% *, 5+((Decision appears too restrictive consideringthat there are roads, irrigation canals, andother portions of the land that are consideredco$$onl%Gowned &% far$ wor6ers, and these$a% necessaril% result in the decrease of thearea sie that $a% &e awarded per '2 theCourt reconsiders its Decision and resolves to

give the DAR leewa% in ad"usting the area that$a% &e awarded per '2 in case the nu$&erof actual 4ualified '2s decreases. In orderto ensure the proper distri&ution of theagricultural lands of Hacienda 3uisita per4ualified '2, and considering that $attersinvolving strictl% the ad$inistrative

i$ple$entation and enforce$ent of agrarianrefor$ laws are within the "urisdiction of theDAR,it is the latter which shall deter$ine thearea with which each 4ualified '2 will &eawarded.

9n the other hand, the $a"orit%li6ewise reiterated its holding that the *++Ghectare portion of Hacienda 3uisita that have&een validl% converted to industrial use andhave &een ac4uired &% intervenors RialCo$$ercial 2an6ing Corporation 8RC2C: and

3uisita Industrial /ar6 Corporation 83I/C9:, aswell as the separate

share of the '2s in the H3I capital s"ust )).5!@O. hus, even if all the hothis )).5!@O unani$ousl% vote to re$H3I stoc6holders, which is unli6el%, will never &e in the hands o'2s. Control $eans the $a"orit% *+O plus at least one share of the cshares and other voting shares. Appl%for$ula to the H3I stoc6holdings, the of shares that will constitute the $a"5!*,((5,(+( shares 8*!+,**B,55+ tocapital shares divided &% 5 plus one

share:. he ((respondent ordon, who was Chair$an of the /hilippine -ational Re8/-RC: 2oard of overnors duriincu$&enc% as Senator.

/etitioners alleged that &% acthe chair$anship of the /-RC 2oovernors, respondent ordon ceased $e$&er of the Senate pursuant to SArticle I of the Constitution, which pthat ;nKo Senator . . . $a% hold an%office or e$plo%$ent in the overn$an% su&division, agenc%, or instru$

thereof, including govern$entGowncontrolled corporations or their su&siduring his ter$ without forfeitiseat.> /etitioners c ited the of Ca$poredondo vs. -3RC, .R. -o. decided August @, (!!!, which held t/-RC is a 9CC, in supporting their ar
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1027845194005507795http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1027845194005507795http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1027845194005507795


12/23

that respondent ordon auto$aticall%forfeited his seat in the Senate when heaccepted and held the position of Chair$an ofthe /-RC 2oard of overnors.

'or$erl%, in its Decision dated Jul%(*, 5++!, the Court, voting =G*, held that theoffice of the /-RC Chair$an is -9 agovern$ent office or an office in a 9CC forpurposes of the prohi&ition in Sec. (), ArticleI of the (! he Court thus directed the /-RC toincorporate under the Corporation Code andregister with the Securities and E#changeCo$$ission if it wants to &e a privatecorporation. he fall of the Decision read0

HERE'9RE, we declare that theoffice of the Chair$an of the /hilippine-ational Red Cross is not a govern$ent office

or an office in a govern$entGowned orcontrolled corporation for purposes of theprohi&ition in Section (), Article I of the(! as wellindependence, nor strictl% as a corporation since it is regulatinternational hu$anitarian law and is as an au#iliar% of the State.

Although the /-RC is nei

su&division, agenc%, or instru$entalit%govern$ent, nor a 9CC or a suthereof so $uch so that respondentthe Decision, was correctl% allowed to position as Chair$an thereof concuwhile he served as a Senator, conclusion does not ipso facto i$pl% t


13/23

/-RC is a ;private corporation> within theconte$plation of the provision of theConstitution, that $ust &e organied underthe Corporation Code. he suigeneris character of /-RC re4uires us toapproach controversies involving the /-RC ona caseGtoGcase &asis.

In su$, the /-RC en"o%s a specialstatus as an i$portant all% and au#iliar% ofthe govern$ent in the hu$anitarian field inaccordance with its co$$it$ents under

international law. his Court cannot all of asudden refuse to recognie its e#istence,espec ia ll% s ince the issue of theconstitutionalit% of the /-RC Charter wasnever raised &% the parties. It &earse$phasiing that the /-RC has responded toal$ost all national disasters since (!B=, and iswidel% 6nown to provide a su&stantial portionof the countr%s &lood re4uire$ents. Itshu$anitarian wor6 is unparalleled. he Courtshould not sha6e its e#istence to the core inan unti$el% and drastic $anner that wouldnot onl% have negative conse4uences to thosewho depend on it in ti$es of disaster andar$ed hostilities &ut also have adverse effectson the i$age of the /hilippines in the

international co$$unit%. he sections of the/-RC Charter that were declared void $usttherefore sta%.

hus, R.A. -o. !* re$ains valid andconstitutional in its entiret%. he Court19DI'IED the dispositive portion of theDecision &% deleting the second sentence, tonow read as follows0

HERE'9RE, we declare that theoffice of the Chair$an of the /hilippine-ational Red Cross is not a govern$ent officeor an office in a govern$entGowned orcontrolled corporation for purposes of theprohi&ition in Section (), Article I of the

(!


14/23

of 3a&or: can validl% issue warrants of searchand seiure 8or arrest: under Article )< of the3a&or Code

RULIN:

nder the new Constitution, ;nosearch warrant or warrant of arrest shall issuee#cept upon pro&a&le cause to &e deter$inedpersonall% &% the "udge after e#a$inationunder oath or affir$ation of the co$plainantand the witnesses he $a% produce, and

particularl% descri&ing the place to &esearched and the persons or things to &eseied>. 1a%ors and prosecuting officerscannot issue warrants of seiure or arrest. heClosure and Seiure 9rder was &ased onArticle )< of the 3a&or Code. he Supre$eCourt held, ;e reiterate that the Secretar%of 3a&or, not &eing a "udge, $a% no longerissue search or arrest warrants. Hence, theauthorities $ust go through the "udicialprocess. o that e#tent, we declare Article) 'urther$ore,the search and seiure order was in the natureof a general warrant. he court held that thewarrant is null and void, &ecause it $ustidentif% specificall% the things to &e seied.

HERE'9RE, the petition isRA-ED. Article )FACTS:

9cto&er (@, (!!* Elia&eth . Ra$osfiled a cri$inal co$plaint for rape against'eliciano 1. Ra$os. It was alleged that theappellant was a&le to perpetrate the felon%against the $inor through the use of force andinti$idation in its e#ecution

Elia&eth Ra$os, a $inor of (B %earsold, was raped &% her father while her&rothers and sisters were sleeping near&%.

She was warned not to report the $atter toan%one or else he would 6ill her. he rapewas discovered onl% when she suffered ana&ortion of the fetus that she was carr%ing inher wo$&.

pon filing of the charges in the RC'eliciano changed his residence to uai,Caga%an and an alias warrant of arrest wasissued. 1arch 5@, (!!@ 'eliciano was arrestedin uao, Caga%an while he was feeding theduc6s.

After the prosecution has presentedtheir evidence 'eliciano wanted to change hisplea to guilt% and he was allowed &% the court

to do so. 'eliciano Ra$os was sentenced todeath &% the RC of /angasinan.

ISSUES:

(. hether or not he can clai$ the$itigating circu$stance ofvoluntar% surrender

5. hether or not his plea of guilt%can &e ta6en as a $itigatingcircu$stance

). hether or not the = newattendant circu$stancesinstituted &% RA =@*! can &e

considered as aggravatingcircu$stance

B. hether or not the accused can&e convicted for 4ualified rape

RULIN:

(. -9. here was no voluntar% surrender&ecause he arrested &% police A&an.According to A&an 'eliciano ;went with hi$>when he showed the warrant of arrest. hee#ecution of warrant of arrest against'eliciano entailed e#penses of a&out /5,*++

Surrender is voluntar% when it is done&% an accused spontaneousl% and $ade insuch a $anner that it shows the intent of the

accused to surrender unconditionall% to theauthorities, either &ecause he ac6nowledgeshis guilt or he wishes to save the$ the trou&leand e#pense necessaril% incurred in his searchand capture.

'eliciano tried to evade arrest &%changing his residence. he appellant wasarrested and he was actuall% ta6en and heldin custod% under the authorit% of the law.

5. -9. His plea of guilt% was $ade after theevidence against hi$ was presented. It was$ade out of fear of conviction U not &ased onhis conscience. A plea of guilt% $ust &e $adeat the first opportunit%, indicating repentance

on the part of the accused.

A plea of guilt% $ade after thearraign$ent and after the trial had &egundoes not entitle the accused to have such pleaconsidered as a $itigating circu$stance

). -9. RA =@*! in A))* in the R/C providedfor the = new attendant circu$stances./eople vs. arcia attendant circu$stanceparta6e the nature of 4ualif%ingcircu$stances and not $erel% aggravatingcircu$stance, since the% increase thepenalties &% the degrees. Aggravatingcircu$stance affect onl% the period of thepenalt% and does not increase it to a higher

degree.

/eople vs. 2a%ot 4ualif%ingcircu$stance or an inherent aggravatingcircu$stance should not &e $ista6en for ageneric aggravating circu$stance in the cri$eof ro&&er%. eneric aggravating

circu$stance, not offset &% $icircu$stance, increases the penalt%should &e i$posed upon the accused$a#i$u$ period, &ut without e#ceedli$it prescri&ed &% law. A 4ucircu$stance gives the cri$e its proe#clusive na$e &ut also i$poses on thethereof no other penalt% &ut that sprescri&ed &% law for said cri$es.

Rape with the concurrence of $of the victi$ and her relationship w

aggressor gives a different character which raised the i$posa&le penaltreclusion perpertua to the higher and spenalt% of death. Result0 $inorit% offended part% and relationship offender special 4ualif%ing circu$stanc

B. -9. Cannot &e convicted of 4ualifi&ecause he wasnt properl% infor$ed is &eing accused of 4ualified rape.

Ever% ele$ent which the ofco$posed $ust &e alleged in the co$pinfor$ation.

/erson cannot &e convicte

offense higher than that which he is in the co$plaint or infor$ation on whitried.

In arcia it was held that it woudenial of the right of the accusedinfor$ed of the charges against hiconse4uentl%, a denial of due process,charged with si$ple rape and &e convits 4ualified for$ punisha&le withalthough the attendant circu$4ualif%ing the offense and resulting inpunish$ent was not alleged in the indon which he was arraigned

he general principles of cri$i

provide that aggravating circu$stanceif not alleged in the infor$ation, $proven during the trial over o&"ectiondefense and $a% &e appreciated in i$the sentence. Such evidence $erel%part of the proof of the actual co$$ithe offense and its consideration &% the


15/23


16/23

/etitioner Douglas R. illavert is a Sales U/ro$otion Supervisor of /CS9 Ce&u 2ranchresponsi&le for the sale and disposal of /CS9sweepsta6es tic6ets withdrawn &% hi$, whichare alread% considered sold. As illavert is note#pected to sell all withdrawn tic6ets on hisown, he is allowed &% the /CS9 to consigntic6ets to tic6et outlets and7or to engage thehelp of sales agents, usuall% sidewal6 peddlersand haw6ers.

ISSUE:

hether or not the Sec. )+ Art. I violates theConstitution.

RULIN:

MES.

In 'a&ian, Sec. 5= of RA @==+, whichauthories an appeal to this Court fro$decisions of the 9ffice of the 9$&uds$an inad$inistrative disciplinar% cases, was

declared violative of the prescription in Sec.)+, Art. I, of the Constitution against a lawwhich increases the appellate "urisdiction ofthis Court without its advice and consent. Inaddition, the Court noted that Rule B* of the(!!= Rules of Civil /rocedure precludesappeals fro$ 4uasiG"udicial agencies, li6e the9ffice of the 9$&uds$an, to the Supre$eCourt. Conse4uentl%, appeals fro$ decisionsof the 9ffice of the 9$&uds$an inad$inistrative cases should &e ta6en to theCourt of Appeals under Rule B), as reiteratedin the su&se4uent case of -a$uhe v.9$&uds$an.

An% appeal &% wa% of petition for review fro$

a decision or final resolution or order of the9$&uds$an in ad$inistrative cases, orspecial civil action relative to such decision,resolution or order filed with the Court after(* 1arch (!!! shall no longer &e referred tothe Court of Appeals, &ut $ust &e forthwithDE-IED or DIS1ISSED, respectivel%.

As the instant petition was filed prior to (*1arch (!!!, its referral for final disposition tothe Court of Appeals is still in order.

he case was RE'ERRED to the Court ofAppeals as a petition for review under Rule B)of the (!!= Rules of Civil /rocedure to &edisposed of in accordance with law.

TITLE:MA9 S. CA

CITATION:.R. -o. ()5B5


17/23

securing a &uilding per$it fro$ the Cit%Engineers 9ffice on April 5), (!


18/23

propert% in dispute at the ti$e the secondDeed of Sale was e#ecuted on June (, (!/etitioners contention has no $erit. he case

of Repu&lic v. Director of 3ands deals with there4uire$ent for appeals fro$ the Courts of'irst Instance, the Social Securit% Co$$ission,and the Court of Agrarian Relations to theCourt of Appeals. he case of Aranas v.Endona, on the other hand, was decidedunder the (!@B Rules of Court and prior to theenact$ent of the Judiciar% Reorganiation Actof (!ISSUE:

hether or not the inves

$ade &% the 9$&uds$an conan encroach$ent into the SCs constidut% of supervision over all inferior

RULIN:

A "udge who falsifies his cerof service is ad$inistrativel% lia&le tofor serious $isconduct and under Sec.(B+ of the Rules of Court, and crlia&le to the State under the RevisedCode for his felonious

In the a&sence of an% ad$inistrativeta6en against hi$ &% the Court with re

his certificates of service, the inves&eing conducted the 9$&uds$an encroaches into the power of ad$inistrative supervision ocourts and its personnel, in violationdoctr ine of separation of

Art. III, Sec. @ of the Constitution e#cvests in the SC ad$inistrative supervisiall courts and court personnel, fr/residing Justice of the CA down lowest $unicipal trial court cler6. 2% vthis power, it is onl% the SC that can othe "udges and court personnels co$with all laws, and ta6e the ad$inistrative action against the$

co$$it an% violation thereof. -o otherof govern$ent $a% intrude into this without running afoul of the dof separation of

here a cri$inal co$plaint against a "other court e$plo%ee arises fro$


19/23

ad$inistrative duties, the 9$&uds$an $ustdefer action on said co$plaint and refer thesa$e to the SC for deter$ination whethersaid "udge or court e$plo%ee had acted withinthe scope of their ad$inistrative duties.

TITLE:-923EJAS S. EEHA-NEE

CITATION:5) SCRA B+*

FACTS:

-o&le"as was the co$$issioner ofland registration. nder RA ((*(, heis entitled to the sa$eco$pensation, e$olu$ents, andprivileges as those of a Judge of C'I.He approved a su&division plancovering certain areas that are ine#cess of those covered &% the title

he Secretar% of Justice, eehan6ee,sent a letter to -o&le"as, re4uiringhi$ to e#plain.

-o&le"as answered, arguing that

since he has a ran6 e4uivalent to thatof a Judge, he could onl% &esuspended and investigated in thesa$e $anner as an ordinar% Judge,under the Judiciar% Act. He clai$sthat he $a% &e investigated onl% &%the Supre$e Court

-evertheless, he was suspended &%the E#ecutive Secretar% 8ES:

-o&le"as filed this case clai$ing thelac6 of "urisdiction of the ES and hisa&use of discretion.

ISSUE:

hether the Co$$issioner of 3andRegistration $a% onl% &e investigated &% theSupre$e Court 8in view of his having a ran6e4uivalent to a "udge:?

RULIN:

-9.

If the law had reall% intended to include thegeneral grant of ;ran6 and privilegese4uivalent to Judges>, the right to &einvestigated and &e suspended or re$ovedonl% &% the Supre$e Court, then such grant ofprivileges would &e unconstitutional, since itwould violate the doctrine of separation ofpowers because it would charge the -upremeCourt with an administrative function ofsupervisory control over e%ecutive officials,simultaneously reducing pro tanto, thecontrol of the Chief +%ecutive over suchofficials.

here is no inherent power in the E#ecutive or3egislative to charge the Judiciar% withad$inistrative functions e#cept whenreasona&le incidental to the fulfill$ent of"udicial duties.

he "udiciar% cannot give decisions which are$erel% advisor%, nor can it e#ercise or

participate in the e#ercise of functions whichare essentiall% legislative or ad$inistrative.he Supre$e Court and its $e$&ers shouldnot and cannot &e re4uired to e#ercise an%power or to perfor$ an% trust or to assu$ean% dut% not pertaining to or connected withthe ad$inistration of "udicial functions.

As such, RA ((*( while conferring the sa$eprivileges as those of a "udge, did not includeand was not intended to include, the right tode$and investigation &% the Supre$e Court,and to &e suspended or re$oved onl% uponthe Courts reco$$endation. Said rightswould &e violative of the Constitution.

he suspension of -o&le"as &% the E#ecutiveSecretar% valid.

Also, the resolution of the consult a &% aRegister of Deeds is -9 a "udicial function,&ut an ad$inistrative process. It is conclusiveand &inding onl% upon the Register of Deeds,-9 the parties the$selves. Even if the

resolution is appeala&le, it does notauto$aticall% $ean that the% are "udicial incharacter. Still, the resolution of the consultare a $ini$al portion of the ad$inistrative ore#ecutive functions.

TITLE: 1A-I3A E3ECRIC C9. S. /ASAMRA-S.CITATION:*= /hil @++

FACTS:

he preli$inar% and &asic 4uestionpresented &% the petition of the 1anilaElectric Co$pan%, re4uesting the $e$&ers ofthe Supre$e Court, sitting as a &oard ofar&itrators, to fi# the ter$s upon whichcertain transportation co$panies shall &eper$itted to use the /asig &ridge of the1anila Electr ic Co$pan% and theco$pensation to &e paid to the 1anilaElectric Co$pan% &% such transportationco$panies, relates to the validit% of section(( of Act -o. (BB@ and to the legal right ofthe $e$&ers of the Supre$e Court, sitting asa &oard of ar&itrators, to act on the petition.

Act -o. (BB@ a&ove referred to is entitled. AnAct granting a franchise to Charles 1. Swift toconstruct, $aintain, and operate an electricrailwa%, and to construct, $aintain, andoperate an electric light, heat, and powers%ste$ fro$ a point in the Cit% of 1anila in aneasterl% direction to the town of /asig, in the/rovince of Rial. 9pposition was entered tothe petition &% a nu$&er of pu&lic utilit%operators.

ISSUE:

hether or not SEC. (( of AC -o.

(BB@ is valid.

RULIN:

he law calls for ar&itration whichrepresents a $ethod of the partiesL own

choice. A su&$ission to ar&itratiocontract. he parties to an ar&agree$ent $a% not oust the cou"urisdiction of the $atters su&$itar&itration. hese are fa$iliar rulesfind support in articles (


20/23


21/23

his pro$pted arcia to file a ;1anifestationand 1ost rgent 1otion to Defer and7orCancel Scheduled /ro$ulgation of Judg$ent>pre$ised on respondents refusal to furnishhi$ a cop% of the -2I Reports, and arciasph%sical i$possi&ilit% of e#a$ining thecontested &allots &ecause 8a: the report wassu&$itted on June 5@, (!!=, and 8&: thecontested &allots and other electionparaphernalia had &een transferred to thesala of Judge ivencio 2aclig in RC, 2ranch(*=. Respondent "udge denied arcias$otion on Jul% 5, the"udge $ust render service with i$partialit%co$$ensurate with pu&lic trust andconfidence reposed in hi$>. 8Di$atulac vs.illon, 5!= SCRA @=! (!!


22/23

far$ers through dispersal as the Director ofAni$al Industr% $a% see fit, in the case ofcara&aos>.

he petitioner sued for recover%, andthe Regional rial Court of Iloilo Cit% issued awrit of replevin upon his filing of a supersedes&ond of /(5,+++.++. After considering the$erits of the case, the court sustained theconfiscation of the cara&aos and, since the%could no longer &e produced, ordered theconfiscation of the &ond. he court alsodeclined to rule on the constitutionalit% of thee#ecutive order, as raise &% the petitioner,for lac6 of authorit% and also for its presu$edvalidit%.

he petitioner appealed the decisionto the Inter$ediate Appellate Court,) whichupheld the trial court, and he has now co$e&efore us in this petition for review oncertiorari.

ISSUES:hether or not e#ecutive order no.

@5@GA is unconstitutional due $isapplicationof police power, violation of due process, andundue delegation of legislative power?

RULIN:

he protection of the generalwelfare is the particular function of the policepower which &oth restraints and is restrained&% due process. he police power is si$pl%defined as the power inherent in the State toregulate li&ert% and propert% for thepro$otion of the general welfare. It is thispower that is now invo6ed &% the govern$entto "ustif% E#ecutive 9rder -o. @5@GA,a$ending the &asic rule in E#ecutive 9rder-o. @5@, prohi&iting the slaughter of cara&aose#cept under certain conditions. o "ustif%the State in thus interposing its authorit% in&ehalf of the pu&lic, it $ust appear, first,that the interests of the pu&lic generall%, asdistinguished fro$ those of a particular class,

re4uire such interference and second, thatthe $eans are reasona&l% necessar% for theacco$plish$ent of the purpose, and notundul% oppressive upon individuals.

In the light of the tests $entioned,we hold with the ori&io Case that there is nodou&t that &% &anning the slaughter of these

ani$als e#cept where the% are at least seven%ears old if $ale and eleven %ears old iffe$ale upon issuance of the necessar% per$it,the e#ecutive order will &e conserving thosestill fit for far$ wor6 or &reeding andpreventing their i$provident depletion.

2ut while conceding that thea$endator% $easure has the sa$e lawfulsu&"ect as the original e#ecutive order, wecannot sa% with e4ual certaint% that itco$plies with the second re4uire$ent, vi.,that there &e a lawful $ethod. e note thatto strengthen the original $easure, E#ecutive9rder -o. @5@GA i$poses an a&solute &an noton the slaughter of the cara&aos &ut on their$ove$ent, providing that no cara&aoregardless of age, se#, ph%sical condition orpurpose 8sic: and no cara&eef shall &etransported fro$ one province to another.he o&"ect of the prohi&ition escapes us. hereasona&le connection &etween the $eanse$plo%ed and the purpose sought to &eachieved &% the 4uestioned $easure is$issing.

e do not see how the prohi&ition ofthe interGprovincial transport of cara&aos canprevent their indiscri$inate slaughter,considering that the% can &e 6illed an%where,

with no less difficult% in one province than inanother. 9&viousl%, retaining the cara&aos inone province will not prevent their slaughterthere, an% $ore than $oving the$ to anotherprovince will $a6e it easier to 6ill the$there. As for the cara&eef, the prohi&ition is$ade to appl% to it as otherwise, so sa%se#ecutive order, it could &e easil%circu$vented &% si$pl% 6illing the ani$al.However, if the $ove$ent of the live ani$alsfor the purpose of preventing their slaughtercannot &e prohi&ited, it should follow thatthere is no reason either to prohi&it theirtransfer as, not to &e flippant dead $eat.

Even if a reasona&le relation

&etween the $eans and the end were to &eassu$ed, we would still have to rec6on withthe sanction that the $easure applies forviolation of the prohi&ition. he penalt% isoutright confiscation of the cara&ao orcara&eef &eing transported, to &e $eted out&% the e#ecutive authorities, usuall% the

police onl%. In the ori&io Case, the statutewas sustained &ecause the penalt% prescri&edwas fine and i$prison$ent, to &e i$posed &%the court after trial and conviction of theaccused. nder the challenged $easure,significantl%, no such trial is prescri&ed, andthe propert% &eing transported is i$$ediatel%i$pounded &% the police and declared, &% the$easure itself, as forfeited to thegovern$ent. his $easure deprives theindividual due process as granted &% theConstitution.

he due process clause was 6eptintentionall% vague so it would re$ain alsoconvenientl% resilient. his was felt necessar%&ecause due process is not, li6e so$eprovisions of the funda$ental law, an ironrule la%ing down an i$placa&le andi$$uta&le co$$and for all seasons and allpersons. 'le#i&ilit% $ust &e the &est virtue ofthe guarant%. he ver% elasticit% of the dueprocess clause was $eant to $a6e it adapteasil% to ever% situation, enlarging orconstricting its protection as the changingti$es and circu$stances $a% re4uire.

Aware of this, the courts have alsohesitated to adopt their own specificdescription of due process lest the% confine

the$selves in a legal strait"ac6et that willdeprive the$ of the el&ow roo$ the% $a%need to var% the $eaning of the clausewhenever indicated.

he $ini$u$ re4uire$ents of dueprocess are notice and hearing which,generall% spea6ing, $a% not &e dispensed with&ecause the% are intended as a safeguardagainst official ar&itrariness. It is a gratif%ingco$$entar% on our "udicial s%ste$ that the"urisprudence of this countr% is rich withapplications of this guarant% as proof of ourfealt% to the rule of law and the ancientrudi$ents of fair pla%.

It has alread% &een re$ar6ed thatthere are occasions when notice and hearing

$a% &e validl% dispensed with notwithstandingthe usual re4uire$ent for these $ini$u$guarantees of due process. It is also concededthat su$$ar% action $a% &e validl% ta6en inad$inistrative proceedings as procedural dueprocess is not necessaril% "udicial onl%. In thee#ceptional cases accepted, however if there

is a "ustification for the o$ission of thto a previous hearing, to wit, the i$$of the pro&le$ sought to &e corrected urgenc% of the need to correct it.

In the case &efore us, there such pressure of ti$e or action callingpetitionerLs pere$ptor% treat$entproperties involved were not even per se as to re4uire their instant desthere certainl% was no reason wh% the prohi&ited &% the e#ecutive order shohave &een proved first in a court of "with the accused &eing accorded all thsafeguarded to hi$ under the ConstConsidering that, as we held in /esAngeles, 5( E#ecutive 9rder -o. @penal in nature, the violation thereofhave &een pronounced not &% the poli&ut &% a court of "ustice, which alonehave had the authorit% to i$poprescri&ed penalt%, and onl% after trconviction of the accused.

o su$ up then, we find thchallenged $easure is an invalid e#ethe police power &ecause the e$plo%ed to conserve the cara&aos

reasona&l% necessar% to the purposelaw and, worse, is undul% oppressivprocess is violated &ecause the ownerpropert% confiscated is denied the righheard in his defense and is i$$econde$ned and punished. he confer$the ad$inistrative authorities of the pad"udge the guilt of the supposed offea clear encroach$ent on "udicial fuand $ilitates against the doctrseparation of powers. here is, finall%,invalid delegation of legislative powersofficers $entioned therein who are gunli$ited discretion in the distri&utionproperties ar&itraril% ta6en. 'or reasons, we here&% declare E#ecutiv

-o. @5@GA unconstitutional.TT!E:M!#C+2&(3 4-. C#U5

CTATON:676 -C#! 86FACTS:

9n +B Aug (!=*, 1arcelino was convicrape. 9n the sa$e date, the attorne%s


23/23

parties in the cri$inal case $oved for ti$ewithin which to su&$it their respective$e$oranda. 9n the date set for pro$ulgationof the decision in its finalit%, 1arcelinoscounsel $oved for postpone$ent. he courtignored his $otion.

ISSUE:hether or not Judge Cru had

resolved the case within the allotted period.

RULIN:

he date of pro$ulgation of adecision could not serve as the rec6oning date&ecause the sa$e necessaril% co$es at a laterdate. Section (( 8(:, Art (+ of the (!

Documents

Case Digests 8