Cases Stat Con- Midterm

8/11/2019 Cases Stat Con- Midterm

1/298

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-42050-66 November 20, 1978

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,petitioner,vs.HONOR !LE "#$GE % NTE P. P#RISI% , &O#RT OF FIRSTINST N&E OF % NIL , !R N&H 'II, ()* PORFIRIO & N$ELOS S,NESTOR ! ES, ELI S L. G R&I , SI%EON !#N$ LI N, "R., "OSEPH&. % ISO, E$# R$O . LI!OR$O, RO%EO L. S#G +, FE$ERI&O T.$I ON, GEORGE %. L!INO, % RI NO &OTI , "R., R% N$O L.$I ON, ROGELIO !. P RENO, RO$RIGO '. ESTR $ , LFRE$O .RE+ES, "OSE . ! & RR , RE+N L$O !OGTONG, ()* E$G R$O %.%EN$O , respondents.

G.R. No. L-46229- 2 November 20, 1978

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,petitioner,vs."#$GE % I%O . % &EREN, &O#RT OF FIRST INST N&E OF% NIL , !R N&H 'III, ()* RE+N L$O L /#I + /#INO, ELPI$IO

RPON, 'I&TOR E#GENIO + RO/#E ()* LFRE$O'ERSO , respondents.

G.R. No. L-46 1 -16 November 20, 1978

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,petitioner,vs."#$GE % I%O . % &EREN, &O#RT OF FIRST INST N&E OF% NIL , !R N&H 'III, ()* "# NITO $E L &R# + N#NE , S !INO!#ENO + & & L, TIRSO IS G N + FR N&IS&O ()* !EN & STILLO +#! L$O, respondents.

G.R. No. L-46997 November 20, 1978

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs.


2/298

THE HONOR !LE EN&ESL O %. POLO, " * e o3 e &o r o3 F rI) () e o3 S(m(r, ()* P N&HITO REF#N&ION, respondents.

Jose L. Gamboa, Fermin Martin, Jr. & Jose D. Cajucom, Office of the City ofFiscal of Manila and the Office of Pro incial Fiscal of !amar for "etitioners.

#orberto Parto for res"ondents Candelosas, $aes and Garcia.

%mado C. de la Marced for res"ondents !imeon $undalian Jr., et al.

Manuel F. de Jesus for all the res"ondents in L '())* +) and L '(+ + (.

#orberto L. %"ostol for res"ondent Panchito -efuncion.

on. %mante P. Purisima for and in his o/n behalf.

%# O P L% , J.:

These twenty-six (26) Petitions for Review filed by the People of thePhilippines represented, respectively, by the Office of the City isc!l of "!nil!,the Office of the Provinci!l isc!l of #!$!r, !nd %oined by the #olicitor&ener!l, !re consolid!ted in this one 'ecision !s they involve one b!sic

estion of l!w.

These Petitions or !ppe!ls involve three Co rts of irst *nst!nce, n!$ely+ theCo rt of irst *nst!nce of "!nil!, r!nch **, presided by on. /$!nte P.P risi$! (01 Petitions), the Co rt of irst *nst!nce of "!nil!, r!nch ***,presided by on. "!xi$o /. "!ceren (3 Petitions) !nd, the Co rt of irst*nst!nce of #!$!r, with on. 4encesl!o ". Polo, presidin5, (0 Petition).

efore those co rts, *nfor$!tions were filed ch!r5in5 the respective !cc sedwith ille5!l possession of de!dly we!pon in viol!tion of Presidenti!l 'ecree7o. 8. On ! $otion to !sh filed by the !cc sed, the three 9 d5es $entioned

!bove iss ed in the respective c!ses filed before the$ : the det!ils of whichwill be reco nted below : !n Order !shin5 or dis$issin5 the *nfor$!tions,on ! common 0round, i1 , th!t the *nfor$!tion did not !lle5e f!cts whichconstit te the offense pen!li;ed by Presidenti!l 'ecree 7o. 8 bec! se it f!iledto st!te one essenti!l ele$ent of the cri$e.


3/298


4/298

*O=.OP/R. A,

P' 8 *7RB=.

TO =O*

7o. 266of theChief

Bxec tived!ted

/pril 0,081@

*7 OR"/T*O7

The ndersi5ned !cc ses RB 7/='O =/ID* /ID*7O of ! *O=/T*O7 OP/R/&R/P A, PRB#*'B7T*/= 'BCRBB 7O. 8 in rel!tion to =etter of *nstr ction 7o.266 of the Chief Bxec tive d!ted /pril 0, 081@, co$$itted !s follows+

Th!t on or !bo t the 23 th d!y of 9!n !ry, 0811, in the City of "!nil!, Philippines, thes!id !cc sed did then !nd there wilf lly, nl!wf lly !nd Enowin5ly c!rry o tside of hisresidence ! bl!ded !nd pointed we!pon, to wit+ !n ice picE with !n over!ll len5th of !bo t3F inches, the s!$e not bein5 sed !s ! necess!ry tool or i$ple$ent to e!rn hislivelihood nor bein5 sed in connection therewith.

Contr!ry to l!w. (p. 0>, rollo of =->6228-A2)

The other *nfor$!tions !re liEewise si$il!rly worded except for the n!$e ofthe !cc sed, the d!te !nd pl!ce of the co$$ission of the cri$e, !nd the Eindof we!pon involved.

A. *n =->6881, the *nfor$!tion before the Co rt of irst *nst!nce of #!$!r isoted here nder+

P4OPL4 OF 2 4 P 3L3PP3#4!, com"lainant, ersus P%#C 32O -4F6#C3O#,accused.

C-3M.C%!4#O.*++

For7

3LL4G%L


5/298

PO!!4 !!3O#OF

D4%DL5

84%P O#

9:3OL%23O#OF PD#O. *;

3#FO-M%23O#

2he undersi0ned First %ssistant Pro incial Fiscal of !amar, accuses P%#C 32O-4F6#C3O# of the crime of 3LL4G%L PO!!4!!3O# OF D4%DL5 84%PO# or:3OL%23O# OF PD #O. * issued by the President of the Phili""ines on Oct. ), * , as justification therefor. De oid of this s"ecific alle0ation, not necessarily in thesame /ords, the information is not com"lete, as it does not alle0e sufficient facts toconstitute the offense contem"lated in P.D. #o. *. 2he information in these cases underconsideration suffer from this defect.


6/298

%nd /hile there is no "roof of it before the Court, it is not difficult to belie e themurmurin0s of detained "ersons brou0ht to Court u"on a char0e of "ossession of bladed /ea"ons under P.D. #o. *, that more than e er before, "olicemen of course not all canbe so heartless @ no/ ha e in their hands P.D. #o. * as a most con enient tool fore tortion, /hat /ith the terrifyin0 ris? of bein0 sentenced to im"risonment of fi e to tenyears for a rusted ?itchen ?nife or a "air of scissors, /hich only God ?no/s /here itcame from. 8hereas before martial la/ an e tortion minded "eace officer had to ha e astoc? of the chea"est "alti?, and e en that could only con ey the coerci e messa0e ofone year in jail, no/ anythin0 that has the semblance of a shar" ed0e or "ointed object,a ailable e en in trash cans, may already ser e the same "ur"ose, and yet fi e to tentimes more incriminatin0 than the infamous "alti?.

For sure, P.D. #o. * /as concei ed /ith the best of intentions and /isely a""lied, itsnecessity can ne er be assailed. $ut it seems it is bac? firin0, because it is too hot in thehands of "olicemen /ho are inclined to bac?slidin0.

2he chec? al es a0ainst abuse of P.D. #o. * are to be found in the heart of the Fiscaland the conscience of the Court, and hence this resolution, let alone technical le0albasis, is "rom"ted by the desire of this Court to a""ly said chec? al es. 9"".


7/298

that said "erson had just bou0ht from a store in order that the same may be used byoneBs coo? for "re"arin0 the meals in oneBs home, such "erson /ill be liable for

"unishment /ith such a se ere "enalty as im"risonment from fi e to ten years under thedecree. !uch "erson cannot claim that said ?nife is 0oin0 to be used by him to earn ali elihood because he intended it merely for use by his coo? in "re"arin0 his meals.

2his "ossibility cannot be discounted if Presidential Decree #o. * /ere to be inter"retedand a""lied in the manner that that the "rosecution /ants it to be done. 2he 0oodintentions of the President in "romul0atin0 this decree may thus be "er erted by someunscru"ulous la/ enforcement officers. 3t may be used as a tool of o""ression andtyranny or of e tortion.

3t is therefore the considered and humble ie/ of this Court that the act /hich thePresident intended to ma?e unla/ful and "unishable by Presidential Decree #o. *,

"articularly by "ara0ra"h + thereof, is one that abets oris intended to abet sub ersion,rebellion, insurrection, la/less iolence, criminality, chaos and "ublic disorder. 9"". )>+=, rollo of L '())* +);

+. Jud0e Polo of the Court of First 3nstance of !amar e "ounded his orderdismissin0 the 3nformation filed before him, thus7

... 8e belie e that to constitute an offense under the aforcited Presidential decree, thesame should be or there should be an alle0ation that a felony /as committed inconnection or in furtherance of sub ersion, rebellion, insurrection, la/less iolence and

"ublic disorder. Precisely Proclamation #o. => declarin0 a state of martial la/throu0hout the country /as issued because of /anton destruction to li es and "ro"erties/ides"read la/lessness and anarchy. %nd in order to restore the tranAuility and stabilityof the country and to secure the "eo"le from iolence anti loss of li es in the Auic?est

"ossible manner and time, carryin0 firearms, e "losi es and deadly /ea"ons /ithout a "ermit unless the same /ould fall under the e ce"tion is "rohibited. 2his conclusionbecomes more com"ellin0 /hen /e consider the "enalty im"osable, /hich is from fi eyears to ten years. % strict enforcement of the "ro ision of the said la/ /ould mean theim"osition of the Draconian "enalty u"on the accused.

3t is "ublic ?no/led0e that in rural areas, e en before and durin0 martial la/, as a matterof status symbol, carryin0 deadly /ea"ons is ery common, not necessarily forcommittin0 a crime nor as their farm im"lement but for self "reser ation or self defense if necessity /ould arise s"ecially in 0oin0 to and from their farm. 9"". > *, rollo of L'(**


8/298

C. @ 2he la/ under /hich the 3nformations in Auestion /ere filed by thePeo"le.

%s seen from the 3nformations Auoted abo e, the accused are char0ed /ithille0al "ossession of deadly /ea"on in iolation of Presidential Decree #o. *,Para0ra"h +.

8e Auote in full Presidential Decree #o. *, to /it7

P-4!3D4#23%L D4C-44 #O. *

D4CL%-3#G :3OL%23O#! OF G4#4-%L O-D4-! #O. ( and #O. < D%24D!4P24M$4- )), *


9/298

/illfully or ?no/in0ly allo/ any of the firearms o/ned by such firm, com"any, cor"orationor entity concerned to be used in iolation of said General Orders #os. ( and


10/298

the "rohibited act is oluntarily "er"etuated that P.D. * "ro ides andcondemns not only the carryin0 of said /ea"on in connection /ith thecommission of the crime of sub ersion or the li?e, but also that of criminality in0eneral, that is, to eradicate la/less iolence /hich characteri1ed "re martialla/ days. 3t is also ar0ued that the real nature of the criminal char0e isdetermined not from the ca"tion or "reamble of the information nor from thes"ecification of the "ro ision of la/ alle0ed to ha e been iolated but by theactual recital of facts in the com"laint or information. 2

4. @ Our -ulin0 on the matter @

. 3t is a constitutional ri0ht of any "erson /ho stands char0ed in a criminal "rosecution to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation a0ainsthim. 3

Pursuant to the abo e, !ection , -ule = of the -ules of Court, e "resslyreAuires that for a com"laint or information to be sufficient it must, inter aliastate the desi0nation of the offense by the statute, and the acts or omissionscom"lained of as constitutin0 the offense. 2his is essential to a oid sur"riseon the accused and to afford him the o""ortunity to "re"are his defenseaccordin0ly. 4

2o com"ly /ith these fundamental reAuirements of the Constitution and the-ules on Criminal Procedure, it is im"erati e for the s"ecific statute iolated tobe desi0nated or mentioned ' in the char0e. 3n fact, another com"ellin0reason e ists /hy a s"ecification of the statute iolated is essential in thesecases. %s stated in the order of res"ondent Jud0e Maceren the carryin0 of socalled Edeadly /ea"onsE is the subject of another "enal statute and a Manilacity ordinance. 2hus, !ection )( of %ct #o. = "ro ides7

!ection )(. 3t should be unla/ful for any "erson to carry concealed about his "erson anybo/ie ?nife, dir? da00er, ?ris, or other deadly /ea"on7 ... %ny "erson iolatin0 the

"ro isions of this section shall, u"on con iction in a court of com"etent jurisdiction, be "unished by a fine not e ceedin0 fi e hundred "esos, or by im"risonment for a "eriod not e ceedin0 si months, or both such fine and im"risonment, in the discretion of the court.

Ordinance #o. +>)= of the City of Manila as amended by Ordinance #o. +*)> /hich too? effect on December ', *


11/298

substantial difference bet/een the statute and city ordinance on the one hand and P.D. * 9+; on the other re0ardin0 the circumstances of the commission ofthe crime and the "enalty im"osed for the offense.

8e do not a0ree /ith "etitioner that the abo e mentioned statute and the cityordinance are deemed re"ealed by P.D. * 9+;. 5 P. D. *9+; does not containany re"ealin0 clause or "ro ision, and re"eal by im"lication is notfa ored. 6 2his "rinci"le holds true /ith 0reater force /ith re0ards to "enalstatutes /hich as a rule are to be construed strictly a0ainst the state andliberally in fa or of the accused. 7 3n fact, %rticle < of the #e/ Ci il Code

"ro ides that la/s are re"ealed only by subseAuent ones and their iolation or non obser ance shall not be e cused by disuse, or custom or "ractice to thecontrary.

2hus /e are faced /ith the situation /here a "articular act may be made tofall, at the discretion of a "olice officer or a "rosecutin0 fiscal, under thestatute, or the city ordinance, or the "residential decree. 2hat bein0 the case,the ri0ht becomes more com"ellin0 for an accused to be confronted /ith thefacts constitutin0 the essential elements of the offense char0ed a0ainst him, if he is not to become an easy "a/n of o""ression and harassment, or ofne0li0ent or mis0uided official action @ a fear understandably shared byres"ondent Jud0es /ho by the nature of their judicial functions are dailye "osed to such dan0ers.

). 3n all the 3nformations filed by "etitioner the accused are char0ed in theca"tion as /ell as in the body of the 3nformation /ith a iolation of "ara0ra"h+, P.D. *. 8hat then are the elements of the offense treated in the "residential decree in AuestionH

8e hold that the offense carries t/o elements7 first, the carryin0 outside oneBsresidence of any bladed, blunt, or "ointed /ea"on, etc. not used as anecessary tool or im"lement for a li elihood and second, that the act ofcarryin0 the /ea"on /as either in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection/ith sub ersion, rebellion, insurrection, la/less iolence, criminality, chaos, or

"ublic disorder.

3t is the second element /hich remo es the act of carryin0 a deadly /ea"on,if concealed, outside of the sco"e of the statute or the city ordinancementioned abo e. 3n other /ords, a sim"le act of carryin0 any of the /ea"onsdescribed in the "residential decree is not a criminal offense in itself. 8hatma?es the act criminal or "unishable under the decree is the moti ation


12/298

behind it. 8ithout that moti ation, the act falls /ithin the "ur ie/ of the cityordinance or some statute /hen the circumstances so /arrant.

-es"ondent Jud0es correctly ruled that this can be the only reasonably,lo0ical, and alid construction 0i en to P.D. *9+;.

+. 2he "osition ta?en by "etitioner that P.D. *9+; co ers one and all situations/here a "erson carries outside his residence any of the /ea"ons mentionedor described in the decree irres"ecti e of moti ation, intent, or "ur"ose,con erts these cases into one of Estatutory construction.E 2hat there isambi0uity in the "residential decree is manifest from the conflictin0 ie/s/hich arise from its im"lementation. 8hen ambi0uity e ists, it becomes a

judicial tas? to construe and inter"ret the true meanin0 and sco"e of themeasure, 0uided by the basic "rinci"le that "enal statutes are to be construed and a""lied liberally in fa or of the accused and strictly a0ainst the state.

'. 3n the construction or inter"retation of a le0islati e measure @ a "residential decree in these cases @ the "rimary rule is to search for anddetermine the intent and s"irit of the la/. Le0islati e intent is the controllin0factor, for in the /ords of this Court in idal0o . idal0o, "er Mr. JusticeClaudio 2eehan?ee, /hate er is /ithin the s"irit of a statute is /ithin thestatute, and this has to be so if strict adherence to the letter /ould result inabsurdity, injustice and contradictions. 8

2here are certain aids a ailable to 6s to ascertain the intent or reason for P.D.*9+;.

First, the "resence of e ents /hich led to or "reci"itated the enactment ofP.D. *. 2hese e ents are clearly s"elled out in the E8hereasE clauses of the

"residential decree, thus7 9 ; the state of martial la/ in the country "ursuant toProclamation => dated !e"tember ) , * as /ell as General Orders #os. ( and < /hich are

"articularly mentioned in P.D. * and 9+; the alle0ed fact that sub ersion,rebellion, insurrection, la/less iolence, criminality, chaos, aid "ublic disordermentioned in Proclamation => are committed and abetted by the use offirearms and e "losi es and other deadly /ea"ons.

2he !olicitor General ho/e er contends that a "reamble of a statute usuallyintroduced by the /ord E/hereasE, is not an essential "art of an act andcannot enlar0e or confer "o/ers, or cure inherent defects in the statute 9".

)=, rollo of L ')= = ((; that the e "lanatory note or enactin0 clause of thedecree, if it indeed limits the iolation of the decree, cannot "re ail o er the


13/298

te t itself inasmuch as such e "lanatory note merely states or e "lains thereason /hich "rom"ted the issuance of the decree. 9"". ' , rollo of'(** and General Orders #os. ( and


14/298

refers to blunt or bladed /ea"ons. 8ith res"ect to Proclamation => some of theunderlyin0 reasons for its issuance are Auoted hereunder7

8 4-4%!, these la/less elements ha in0 ta?en u" arms a0ainst our duly constituted0o ernment and a0ainst our "eo"le, and ha in0 committed and are still committin0 actsof armed insurrection and rebellion consistin0 of armed raids, forays, sorties, ambushes,

/anton acts of murders, s"oila0e, "lunder, lootin0, arsons, destruction of "ublic and "ri ate buildin0s, and attac?s a0ainst innocent and defenseless ci ilian li es and "ro"erty, all of /hich acti ities ha e seriously endan0ered and continue to endan0er "ublic order and safety and the security of the nation, ...

8 4-4%!, it is e ident that there is throu0hout the land a state of anarchy andla/lessness, chaos and disorder, turmoil and destruction of a ma0nitude eAui alent to anactual /ar bet/een the forces of our duly constituted 0o ernment and the #e/ Peo"leBs

%rmy and their satellite or0ani1ations because of the unmiti0ated forays, raids,ambuscades, assaults, iolence, murders, assassinations, acts of terror, deceits,coercions, threats, intimidations, treachery, machinations, arsons, "lunders andde"redations committed and bein0 committed by the aforesaid la/less elements /hoha e "led0ed to the /hole nation that they /ill not sto" their dastardly effort and schemeuntil and unless they ha e fully attained their "rimary and ultimate "ur"ose of forciblysei1in0 "olitical and state "o/er in this country by o erthro/in0 our "resent dulyconstituted 0o ernment, ... 9!ee $oo? 3, :ital Documents on the Declaration of MartialLa/ in the Phili""ines by the !u"reme Court of the Phili""ines, "". + +*;

3t follo/s that it is only that act of carryin0 a blunt or bladed /ea"on /ith amoti ation connected /ith or related to the afore Auoted desired result ofProclamation => that is /ithin the intent of P.D. *9+;, and nothin0 else.

!tatutes are to be construed in the li0ht of "ur"oses to be achie ed and the e ils sou0htto be remedied. 96.!. . %merican 2rac?in0 %ssociation, + = 6.!. +', cited in L:#Pictures . Phili""ine Musicians Guild, = Phil.


15/298

3t is to be "resumed that /hen P.D. * /as "romul0ated by the President of the-e"ublic there /as no intent to /or? a hardshi" or an o""ressi e result, a

"ossible abuse of authority or act of o""ression, armin0 one "erson /ith a/ea"on to im"ose hardshi" on another, and so on. 10

%t this instance 8e Auote from the order of Jud0e Purisima the follo/in07

%nd /hile there is no "roof of it before the Court, it is not difficult to belie e themurmurin0s of detained "ersons brou0ht to Court u"on a char0e of "ossession of bladed /ea"ons under P.D. #o. *, that more than e er before, "olicemen of course not all canbe so heartless @ no/ ha e in their hands P.D. #o. * as a most con enient tool fore tortion, /hat /ith the terrifyin0 ris? of bein0 sentenced to im"risonment of fi e to tenyears for a rusted ?itchen ?nife or a "air of scissors, /hich only God ?no/s /here itcame from. 8hereas before martial la/ an e tortion minded "eace officer had to ha e astoc? of the chea"est "alti?, and e en that could only con ey the coerci e messa0e ofone year in jail, no/ anythin0 that has the semblance of a shar" ed0e or "ointed object,a ailable e en in trash cans, may already ser e the same "ur"ose, and yet fi e to tentimes more incriminatin0 than the infamous "alti?. 9"".


16/298

2he rule that "enal statutes are 0i en a strict construction is not the only factor controllin0 the inter"retation of such la/s, instead, the rule merely ser es as an additional, sin0lefactor to be considered as an aid in determinin0 the meanin0 of "enal la/s. 9Peo"le .Manantan, !C-% (>', (*);

F. 2he 3nformations filed by "etitioner are fatally defecti e.

2he t/o elements of the offense co ered by P.D. *9+; must be alle0ed in the3nformation in order that the latter may constitute a sufficiently alid char0ed.2he sufficiency of an 3nformation is determined solely by the facts alle0edtherein. 13 8here the facts are incom"lete and do not con ey the elements ofthe crime, the Auashin0 of the accusation is in order.

!ection )9a;, -ule < of the -ules of Court "ro ides that the defendant maymo e to Auash the com"laint or information /hen the facts char0ed do notconstitute an offense.

3n 6.!.6. Gacutan, * ', it /as held that /here an accused is char0ed /ith?no/in0ly renderin0 an unjust jud0ment under %rticle )=' of the -e isedPenal Code, failure to alle0e in the 3nformation that the jud0ment /asrendered ?no/in0 it to be unjust, is fatal. 14

3n Peo"le . 5adao, * ', this Court throu0h then Justice Cesar $en01on /holater became Chief Justice of the Court affirmed an order of the trial court/hich Auashed an 3nformation /herein the facts recited did not constitute a

"ublic offense as defined in !ection , -e"ublic %ct ' . 15

G. 2he filin0 of these Petitions /as unnecessary because the Peo"le couldha e a ailed itself of other a ailable remedies belo/.

Pertinent "ro isions of the -ules of Court follo/7

-ule


17/298

2/o courses of action /ere o"en to Petitioner u"on the Auashin0 of the3nformations in these cases, i17

First, if the e idence on hand so /arranted, the Peo"le could ha e filed anamended 3nformation to include the second element of the offense as definedin the dis"uted orders of res"ondent Jud0es. 8e ha e ruled that if the factsalle0ed in the 3nformation do not constitute a "unishable offense, the caseshould not be dismissed but the "rosecution should be 0i en an o""ortunity toamend the 3nformation. 16

!econd, if the facts so justified, the Peo"le could ha e filed a com"laint eitherunder !ection )( of %ct #o. =, Auoted earlier, or Manila City Ordinance#o. +>)=, as amended by Ordinance #o. +*)>, es"ecially since in most if notall of the cases, the dismissal /as made "rior to arrai0nment of the accusedand on a motion to Auash.

!ection >. -ule < states that7

%n order sustainin0 the motion to Auash is not a bar to another "rosecution for the sameoffense unless the motion /as based on the 0rounds s"ecified in section ), subsections9f; and 9h; of this rule.

6nder the fore0oin0, the filin0 of another com"laint or 3nformation isbarred only /hen the criminal action or liability had been e tin0uished9!ection )If ; or /hen the motion to Auash /as 0ranted for reasons of double

jeo"ardy. 9ibid., Ih ;

%s to /hether or not a "lea of double jeo"ardy may be successfully in o?edby the accused in all these cases should ne/ com"laints be filed a0ainstthem, is a matter 8e need not resol e for the "resent.

. @ 8e conclude /ith hi0h e "ectations that "olice authorities and the "rosecutin0 arm of the 0o ernment true to the oath of office they ha e ta?en/ill e ercise utmost circums"ection and 0ood faith in e aluatin0 the "articularcircumstances of a case so as to reach a fair and just conclusion if a situationfalls /ithin the "ur ie/ of P.D. *9+; and the "rosecution under said decree is/arranted and justified. 2his obli0ation becomes a sacred duty in the face ofthe se ere "enalty im"osed for the offense.

On this "oint, 8e commend the Chief !tate Prosecutor -odolfo %. #ocon onhis letter to the City Fiscal of Manila on October , *< , /ritten for the!ecretary, no/ Minister of Justice, /here he stated the follo/in07


18/298

3n any case, "lease study /ell each and e ery case of this nature so that "ersonsaccused of carryin0 bladed /ea"ons, s"ecially those /hose "ur"ose is not to sub ert theduly constituted authorities, may not be unduly indicted for the serious offenses fallin0under P.D. #o. *. 17

5es, /hile it is not /ithin the "o/er of courts of justice to inAuire into the/isdom of a la/, it is ho/e er a judicial tas? and "rero0ati e to determine ifofficial action is /ithin the s"irit and letter of the la/ and if basic fundamentalri0hts of an indi idual 0uaranteed by the Constitution are not iolated in the

"rocess of its im"lementation. 8e ha e to face the fact that it is an un/iseand unjust a""lication of a la/, necessary and justified under "re ailin0circumstances, /hich renders the measure an instrument of o""ression ande il and leads the citi1enry to lose their faith in their 0o ernment.

8 4-4FO-4, 8e D4#5 these )( Petitions for -e ie/ and 8e %FF3-M theOrders of res"ondent Jud0es dismissin0 or Auashin0 the 3nformationconcerned, subject ho/e er to Our obser ations made in the "recedin0

"a0es )+ to ) of this Decision re0ardin0 the ri0ht of the !tate or Petitionerherein to file either an amended 3nformation under Presidential Decree #o. *,

"ara0ra"h +, or a ne/ one under other e istin0 statute or city ordinance asthe facts may /arrant.

8ithout costs.

!O O-D4-4D.

Fernando, 2eehan?ee, !antos, Fernande1 and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Castro, C.J. and %ntonio, J, concur in the result.

%Auino, J, too? no "art.

Separate Opinions

BARREDO J. concurrin0.


19/298

3 concur /ith the Aualification that under e istin0 juris"rudence con iction is "ossible, /ithout the need of amendin0 the information, for iolation of otherla/s or ordinances on concealment of deadly /ea"ons.

Ma?asiar, J, concurs.

!O"!E#!$O" JR. J concurrin07

3 concur /ith the additional obser ation that accused could "ro"erly becon icted of a iolation of %ct = of the Phili""ine Commission or of theordinance.

Separate Opinions

BARREDO J. concurrin0.

3 concur /ith the Aualification that under e istin0 juris"rudence con iction is "ossible, /ithout the need of amendin0 the information, for iolation of otherla/s or ordinances on concealment of deadly /ea"ons.

Ma?asiar, J, concurs.

!O"!E#!$O" JR. J concurrin07

3 concur /ith the additional obser ation that accused could "ro"erly becon icted of a iolation of %ct = of the Phili""ine Commission or of theordinance.

%ootnotes

". >, rollo of L ')= = ((.

) "". = , brief of Petitioner at ". ) >, 3bid.

+ %rt. 3:, !ec. *, *= Phil. >)+, citin0 6.!. . Palacio, ++ Phil. )=> Kuisumbin0 . Lachica, ) !C-% >) %lmeda . Florentino, !C-% ' Lechoco . Ci il %eronautics $oard, '+ !C-% (


20/298

< Peo"le . 4l?anish, * , *= Phil. +, < Peo"le . 5adao, * ', *' Phil. ++ !C-% = . !ee also ( L4d (< 6nited !tates . !tone & Do/ner Co., ), (* L 4d '+8isconsin C.-. Co. . Forsythe, * 6! '(,'= L 4d < .

* + !C-% ''*, ' + 4m"hasis su""lied.

* a ) , (+ !4 =>=, all cited in


21/298

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 191618 November 23, 2010

ATTY. ROMULO B. MACAL NTAL, Petitioner,vs.PRES !ENT AL ELECTORAL TR BUNAL, Respondent.

D E C I S I N

NAC"URA, J.:

Confrontin! us is an undesi!nated petition " filed b# Att#. Ro$ulo B. Macalintal %Att#.Macalintal&, that 'uestions the constitution of the Presidential Electoral (ribunal%PE(& as an ille!al and unauthori)ed pro!en# of Section *, + Article II of theConstitution-

(he Supre$e Court, sittin! en banc, shall be the sole ud!e of all contests relatin! tothe election, returns, and 'ualifications of the President or ice/President, and $a#

pro$ul!ate its rules for the purpose.

0hile petitioner concedes that the Supre$e Court is 1authori)ed to pro$ul!ate itsrules for the purpose,1 he chafes at the creation of a purportedl# 1separate tribunal1co$ple$ented b# a bud!et allocation, a seal, a set of personnel and confidentiale$plo#ees, to effect the constitutional $andate. Petitioner2s aver$ent is supposedl#supported b# the provisions of the +334 Rules of the Presidential Electoral (ribunal%+334 PE( Rules&,5 specificall#-

%"& Rule 5 6hich provides for $e$bership of the PE( 6herein the Chief 7usticeand the Associate 7ustices are desi!nated as 1Chair$an and Me$bers,1respectivel#8

%+& Rule 9%e& 6hich authori)es the Chair$an of the PE( to appoint e$plo#eesand confidential e$plo#ees of ever# $e$ber thereof8

%5& Rule : 6hich provides for a separate 1Ad$inistrative Staff of the (ribunal16ith the appoint$ent of a Cler; and a Deput# Cler; of the (ribunal 6ho, at the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt1


22/298

discretion of the PE(, $a# desi!nate the Cler; of Court %en banc& as the Cler;of the (ribunal8 and

%*& Rule "" 6hich provides for a 1seal1 separate and distinct fro$ the Supre$eCourt seal.

EC * 6hich peripherall#declared that 1contests involvin! the President and the ice/President fall 6ithin thee?clusive ori!inal urisdiction of the PE(, ? ? ? in the e?ercise of 'uasi/ udicial

po6er.1 n this point, petitioner reiterates that the constitution of the PE(, 6ith thedesi!nation of the Me$bers of the Court as Chair$an and Me$bers thereof,contravenes Section "+, Article III of the Constitution, 6hich prohibits thedesi!nation of Me$bers of the Supre$e Court and of other courts established b# la6to an# a!enc# perfor$in! 'uasi/ udicial or ad$inistrative functions.

(he ffice of the Solicitor EC( RA> (RIB NA> IS
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt5


23/298

NC NS(I( (I NA> = R BEIN< A I >A(I N = SEC(I N "+, AR(IC>EIII = ( E ":9 C NS(I( (I N. @

In his Repl# , petitioner $aintains that-

". e has le!al standin! to file the petition !iven his aver$ent of transcendentali$portance of the issues raised therein8

+. (he creation of the PE(, a separate tribunal fro$ the Supre$e Court, violatesSection *, Article II of the Constitution8 and

5. (he PE(, bein! a separate tribunal, e?ercises 'uasi/ udicial functionscontrar# to Section "+, Article III of the Constitution.

0e 6inno6 the $eanderin!s of petitioner into the sin!ular issue of 6hether the

constitution of the PE(, co$posed of the Me$bers of this Court, is unconstitutional,and violates Section *, Article II and Section "+, Article III of the Constitution.

But first, 6e dispose of the procedural issue of 6hether petitioner has standin! to filethe present petition.

(he issue of locus standi is derived fro$ the follo6in! re'uisites of a udicial in'uir#-

". (here $ust be an actual case or controvers#8

+. (he 'uestion of constitutionalit# $ust be raised b# the proper part#8

5. (he constitutional 'uestion $ust be raised at the earliest possibleopportunit#8 and

*. (he decision of the constitutional 'uestion $ust be necessar# to thedeter$ination of the case itself. 9

n $ore than one occasion 6e have characteri)ed a proper part# as one 6ho hassustained or is in i$$ediate dan!er of sustainin! an in ur# as a result of the act

co$plained of.:

(he dust has lon! settled on the test laid do6n in Ba;er v.Carr- "3 16hether the part# has alle!ed such a personal sta;e in the outco$e of thecontrovers# as to assure that concrete adverseness 6hich sharpens the presentation ofissues upon 6hich the court so lar!el# depends for illu$ination of difficult'uestions.1 "" ntil and unless such actual or threatened in ur# is established, theco$plainant is not clothed 6ith le!al personalit# to raise the constitutional 'uestion.

ur pronounce$ents in David v. Macapa!al/Arro#o "+ illu$inate-
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt12


24/298

(he difficult# of deter$inin! locus standi arises in public suits. ere, the plaintiff 6hoasserts a 1public ri!ht1 in assailin! an alle!edl# ille!al official action, does so as arepresentative of the !eneral public. e $a# be a person 6ho is affected no differentl#fro$ an# other person. e could be suin! as a 1stran!er,1 or in the cate!or# of a1citi)en,1 or 1ta?pa#er.1 In either case, he has to ade'uatel# sho6 that he is entitled tosee; udicial protection. In other 6ords, he has to $a;e out a sufficient interest in thevindication of the public order and the securin! of relief as a1 citi)en1 or 1ta?pa#er.1

? ? ? ?

o6ever, to prevent ust about an# person fro$ see;in! udicial interference in an#official polic# or act 6ith 6hich he disa!reed 6ith, and thus hinders the activities of!overn$ental a!encies en!a!ed in public service, the nited States Supre$e Courtlaid do6n the $ore strin!ent 1direct in ur#1 test in E? Parte >evitt, later reaffir$ed in(ileston v. ll$an. (he sa$e Court ruled that for a private individual to invo;e the

udicial po6er to deter$ine the validit# of an e?ecutive or le!islative action, he $ustsho6 that he has sustained a direct in ur# as a result of that action, and it is notsufficient that he has a !eneral interest co$$on to all $e$bers of the public.

(his Court adopted the 1direct in ur#1 test in our urisdiction. In People v. era, it heldthat the person 6ho i$pu!ns the validit# of a statute $ust have 1a personal andsubstantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or 6ill sustain direct in ur#as a result.1 (he era doctrine 6as upheld in a litan# of cases, such as, Custodio v.President of the Senate, Manila Race orse (rainers2 Association v. De la =uente,Pascual v. Secretar# of Public 0or;s and Anti/Chinese >ea!ue of the Philippines v.=eli?.

o6ever, bein! a $ere procedural technicalit#, the re'uire$ent of locus standi $a# be 6aived b# the Court in the e?ercise of its discretion. (his 6as done in the ":*:E$er!enc# Po6ers Cases, Araneta v. Din!lasan, 6here the 1transcendentali$portance1 of the cases pro$pted the Court to act liberall#. Such liberalit# 6asneither a rarit# nor accidental. In A'uino v. Co$elec, this Court resolved to pass uponthe issues raised due to the 1far/reachin! i$plications1 of the petition not6ithstandin!its cate!orical state$ent that petitioner therein had no personalit# to file the suit.Indeed, there is a chain of cases 6here this liberal polic# has been observed, allo6in!ordinar# citi)ens, $e$bers of Con!ress, and civic or!ani)ations to prosecute actionsinvolvin! the constitutionalit# or validit# of la6s, re!ulations and rulin!s.

? ? ? ?


25/298

B# 6a# of su$$ar#, the follo6in! rules $a# be culled fro$ the cases decided b# thisCourt. (a?pa#ers, voters, concerned citi)ens, and le!islators $a# be accordedstandin! to sue, provided that the follo6in! re'uire$ents are $et-

%"& cases involve constitutional issues8

%+& for ta?pa#ers, there $ust be a clai$ of ille!al disburse$ent of public fundsor that the ta? $easure is unconstitutional8

%5& for voters, there $ust be a sho6in! of obvious interest in the validit# of theelection la6 in 'uestion8

%*& for concerned citi)ens, there $ust be a sho6in! that the issues raised are oftranscendental i$portance 6hich $ust be settled earl#8 and

%4& for le!islators, there $ust be a clai$ that the official action co$plained ofinfrin!es upon their prero!atives as le!islators.

Contrar# to the 6ell/settled actual and direct in ur# test, petitioner has si$pl# alle!eda !enerali)ed interest in the outco$e of this case, and succeeds onl# in $uddlin! theissues. Para!raph + of the petition reads-

+. ? ? ? Since the creation and continued operation of the PE( involves the use of public funds and the issue raised herein is of transcendental i$portance, it is petitioner2s hu$ble sub$ission that, as a citi)en, a ta?pa#er and a $e$ber of the

BAR, he has the le!al standin! to file this petition.

But even if his sub$ission is valid, petitioner2s standin! is still i$periled b# the 6hiteelephant in the petition, i.e., his appearance as counsel for for$er President


26/298

the proper invocation of this Court2s po6er of udicial revie6. Even on this scorealone, the petition ou!ht to be dis$issed outri!ht.

Prior to petitioner2s appearance as counsel for then protestee Macapa!al/Arro#o, 6ehad occasion to affir$ the !rant of ori!inal urisdiction to this Court as a PresidentialElectoral (ribunal in the auspicious case of (ecson v. Co$$ission onElections. "4 (hus /

Petitioners (ecson, et al., in ope) vs. Ro?as,as 1not %bein!& usticiable1 controversies or disputes involvin! contests on theelections, returns and 'ualifications of the President or ice/President. (heconstitutional lapse pro$pted Con!ress, on +" 7une ":4 , to enact Republic Act No." :5, "An Act Constituting an Independent Presidential Electoral Tribunal to Try,

Hear and Decide Protests Contesting the Election of the President-Elect and the Vice- President-Elect of the Philippines and Pro iding for the !anner of Hearing the

a#e$" Republic Act " :5 desi!nated the Chief 7ustice and the Associate 7ustices ofthe Supre$e Court to be the $e$bers of the tribunal. Althou!h the subse'uentadoption of the parlia$entar# for$ of !overn$ent under the ": 5 Constitution $i!hthave i$plicitl# affected Republic Act No. " :5, the statutor# set/up, nonetheless,6ould no6 be dee$ed revived under the present Section *, para!raph , of the ":9Constitution.

=or$er Chief 7ustice Re#nato S. Puno, in his separate opinion, 6as even $orecate!orical-

(he Court is unani$ous on the issue of urisdiction. It has no urisdiction on the(ecson and alde) petitions. Petitioners cannot invo;e Article II, Section *, par. of the Constitution 6hich provides-
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt15


27/298

1(he Supre$e Court, sittin! en banc shall be the sole ud!e of all contests relatin! tothe election, returns and 'ualifications of the President or ice President and $a#

pro$ul!ate its rules for the purpose.1

(he 6ord 1contest1 in the provision $eans that the urisdiction of this Court can onl# be invo;ed after the election and procla$ation of a President or ice President. (herecan be no 1contest1 before a 6inner is proclai$ed. "@

Si$ilarl#, in her separate opinion, 7ustice Alicia Austria/Martine) declared-


28/298

Petitioner2s pastiche ar!u$ents are all hurled at the Court, hopeful that at least one$i!ht possibl# stic;. But these ar!u$ents fail to elucidate on the scope of the rules theSupre$e Court is allo6ed to pro$ul!ate. Apparentl#, petitioner2s concept of thisad unct of udicial po6er is ver# restrictive. =ortunatel#, than;s in no part to

petitioner2s opinion, 6e are !uided b# 6ell/settled principles of constitutionalconstruction.

erba le!is dictates that 6herever possible, the 6ords used in the Constitution $ust be!iven their ordinar# $eanin! e?cept 6here technical ter$s are e$plo#ed, in 6hichcase the si!nificance thus attached to the$ prevails. (his Court, spea;in! throu!hfor$er Chief 7ustice Enri'ue =ernando, in 7.M. (uason Co., Inc. v. >and (enureAd$inistration +3instructs-

As the Constitution is not pri$aril# a la6#er2s docu$ent, it bein! essential for the ruleof la6 to obtain that it should ever be present in the people2s consciousness, itslan!ua!e as $uch as possible should be understood in the sense the# have in co$$onuse. 0hat it sa#s accordin! to the te?t of the provision to be construed co$pelsacceptance and ne!ates the po6er of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate thatthe fra$ers and the people $ean 6hat the# sa#. (hus these are cases 6here the needfor construction is reduced to a $ini$u$.

o6ever, 6here there is a$bi!uit# or doubt, the 6ords of the Constitution should beinterpreted in accordance 6ith the intent of its fra$ers or ratio le!is et ani$a. Adoubtful provision $ust be e?a$ined in li!ht of the histor# of the ti$es, and thecondition and circu$stances surroundin! the fra$in! of the Constitution. +" Infollo6in! this !uideline, courts should bear in $ind the ob ect sou!ht to beacco$plished in adoptin! a doubtful constitutional provision, and the evils sou!ht to

be prevented or re$edied. ++ Conse'uentl#, the intent of the fra$ers and the peopleratif#in! the constitution, and not the panderin!s of self/indul!ent $en, should be!iven effect.

>ast, ut $a!is valeat 'ua$ pereat the Constitution is to be interpreted as a 6hole.0e intoned thus in the land$ar; case of Civil >iberties nion v. E?ecutiveSecretar#- +5

It is a 6ell/established rule in constitutional construction that no one provision of theConstitution is to be separated fro$ all the others, to be considered alone, but that allthe provisions bearin! upon a particular sub ect are to be brou!ht into vie6 and to beso interpreted as to effectuate the !reat purposes of the instru$ent. Sections bearin!on a particular sub ect should be considered and interpreted to!ether as to effectuatethe 6hole purpose of the Constitution and one section is not to be allo6ed to defeatanother, if b# an# reasonable construction, the t6o can be $ade to stand to!ether.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt23


29/298

In other 6ords, the court $ust har$oni)e the$, if practicable, and $ust lean in favorof a construction 6hich 6ill render ever# 6ord operative, rather than one 6hich $a#$a;e the 6ords idle and nu!ator#.

0e had earlier e?pounded on this rule of construction in Chion!bian v. De >eon, etal., +* to 6it-

F(Ghe $e$bers of the Constitutional Convention could not have dedicated a provisionof our Constitution $erel# for the benefit of one person 6ithout considerin! that itcould also affect others. 0hen the# adopted subsection +, the# per$itted, if not6illed, that said provision should function to the full e?tent of its substance and itster$s, not b# itself alone, but in con unction 6ith all other provisions of that !reatdocu$ent.

n its face, the contentious constitutional provision does not specif# the establish$entof the PE(. But neither does it preclude, $uch less prohibit, other6ise. It entertainsdiver!ent interpretations 6hich, thou!h unacceptable to petitioner, do not include hisrestrictive vie6 one 6hich reall# does not offer a solution.

Section *, Article II of the Constitution, the provision under scrutin#, should be read6ith other related provisions of the Constitution such as the parallel provisions on theElectoral (ribunals of the Senate and the ouse of Representatives.

Before 6e resort to the records of the Constitutional Co$$ission, 6e discuss thefra$e6or; of udicial po6er $apped out in the Constitution. Contrar# to petitioner2sassertion, the Supre$e Court2s constitutional $andate to act as sole ud!e of electioncontests involvin! our countr#2s hi!hest public officials, and its rule/$a;in! authorit#in connection there6ith, is not restricted8 it includes all necessar# po6ers i$plicit inthe e?ercise thereof.

0e recall the unprecedented and trailbla)in! case of Marcos v. Man!lapus- +4

(he ":9 Constitution has full# restored the separation of po6ers of the three !reat branches of !overn$ent. (o recall the 6ords of 7ustice >aurel in An!ara v. ElectoralCo$$ission, 1the Constitution has bloc;ed but 6ith deft stro;es and in bold lines,allot$ent of po6er to the e?ecutive, the le!islative and the udicial depart$ents of the!overn$ent.1 (hus, the ":9 Constitution e?plicitl# provides that 1FtGhe le!islative

po6er shall be vested in the Con!ress of the Philippines1 FArt. I, Sec. "G, 1FtGhee?ecutive po6er shall be vested in the President of the Philippines1 FArt. II, Sec. "G,and 1FtGhe udicial po6er shall be vested in one Supre$e Court and in such lo6ercourts as $a# be established b# la61 FArt. III, Sec. "G. (hese provisions not onl#establish a separation of po6ers b# actual division but also confer plenar# le!islative,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt25


30/298

e?ecutive and udicial po6ers sub ect onl# to li$itations provided in the Constitution.=or as the Supre$e Court in ca$po v. Caban!is pointed out 1a !rant of thele!islative po6er $eans a !rant of all le!islative po6er8 and a !rant of the udicial

po6er $eans a !rant of all the udicial po6er 6hich $a# be e?ercised under the!overn$ent.1

(he Court could not have been $ore e?plicit then on the plenar# !rant and e?ercise of udicial po6er. Plainl#, the abstraction of the Supre$e Court actin! as a PresidentialElectoral (ribunal fro$ the une'uivocal !rant of urisdiction in the last para!raph ofSection *, Article II of the Constitution is sound and tenable.

(he $irabile dictu of the !rant of urisdiction to this Court, albeit found in the Articleon the e?ecutive branch of !overn$ent, and the constitution of the PE(, is evident inthe discussions of the Constitutional Co$$ission. n the e?ercise of this Court2s

udicial po6er as sole ud!e of presidential and vice/presidential election contests, andto pro$ul!ate its rules for this purpose, 6e find the proceedin!s in the ConstitutionalCo$$ission $ost instructive-

MR. DA IDE. n line +4, after the 6ords 1 ice/President,1 I propose to add ANDMAH PR M >ES = R ( E P RP SE. (his refers to the Supre$eCourt sittin! en banc. (his is also to confer on the Supre$e Court e?clusive authorit#to enact the necessar# rules 6hile actin! as sole ud!e of all contests relatin! to theelection, returns and 'ualifications of the President or ice/President.

MR. READ . M# personal position is that the rule/$a;in! po6er of theSupre$e Court 6ith respect to its internal procedure is alread# i$plicit under theArticle on the 7udiciar#8 considerin!, ho6ever, that accordin! to the Co$$issioner,the purpose of this is to indicate the sole po6er of the Supre$e Court 6ithoutintervention b# the le!islature in the pro$ul!ation of its rules on this particular point,I thin; I 6ill personall# reco$$end its acceptance to the Co$$ittee. +@

? ? ? ?

MR. N >>ED . ? ? ?.

0ith respect to Sections "3 and "" on pa!e 9, I understand that the Co$$ittee hasalso created an Electoral (ribunal in the Senate and a Co$$ission on Appoint$ents6hich $a# cover $e$bership fro$ both ouses. But $# 'uestion is- It see$s to $ethat the co$$ittee report does not indicate 6hich bod# should pro$ul!ate the rulesthat shall !overn the Electoral (ribunal and the Co$$ission on Appoint$ents. 0hoshall then pro$ul!ate the rules of these bodies


31/298


32/298

udiciar#. 0ill the above/'uoted provision not i$pin!e on the doctrine of separationof po6ers bet6een the e?ecutive and the udicial depart$ents of the !overn$ent

MR. READ . No, I reall# do not feel that 6ould be a proble$. (his is a ne6 provision incidentall#. It 6as not in the ":54 Constitution nor in the ": 5Constitution.

MR. I>>AC R(A. (hat is ri!ht.

MR. READ . 0e feel that it 6ill not be an intrusion into the separation of po6ers !uaranteed to the udiciar# because this is strictl# an adversarial and udicial proceedin!.

MR. I>>AC R(A. Ma# I ;no6 the rationale of the Co$$ittee because thissupersedes Republic Act :43 6hich provides for the Presidential Electoral (ribunal

=R. BERNAS. Precisel#, this is necessar#. Election contests are, b# their nature, udicial. (herefore, the# are co!ni)able onl# b# courts. If, for instance, 6e did nothave a constitutional provision on an electoral tribunal for the Senate or an electoraltribunal for the ouse, nor$all#, as co$posed, that cannot be !iven urisdiction overcontests.

So, the bac;!round of this is reall# the case of Ro?as v. >ope). (he ope) 6as declared 6inner. e filed a protest beforethe Supre$e Court because there 6as a republic act 6hich created the Supre$e Court

as the Presidential Electoral (ribunal. (he 'uestion in this case 6as 6hether ne6 po6ers could be !iven the Supre$e Court b# la6. In effect, the conflict 6as actuall#6hether there 6as an atte$pt to create t6o Supre$e Courts and the ans6er of theSupre$e Court 6as- 1No, this did not involve the creation of t6o Supre$e Courts, but

precisel# 6e are !ivin! ne6 urisdiction to the Supre$e Court, as it is allo6ed b# theConstitution. Con!ress $a# allocate various urisdictions.1

Before the passa!e of that republic act, in case there 6as an# contest bet6een t6o presidential candidates or t6o vice/presidential candidates, no one had urisdictionover it. So, it beca$e necessar# to create a Presidential Electoral (ribunal. 0hat 6ehave done is to constitutionali)e 6hat 6as statutor# but it is not an infrin!e$ent onthe separation of po6ers because the po6er bein! !iven to the Supre$e Court is a

udicial po6er. 5"

n$ista;able fro$ the fore!oin! is that the e?ercise of our po6er to ud!e presidential and vice/presidential election contests, as 6ell as the rule/$a;in! po6erad unct thereto, is plenar#8 it is not as restrictive as petitioner 6ould interpret it. In


33/298

fact, for$er Chief 7ustice ilario


34/298

(o fill the void in the ":54 Constitution, the National Asse$bl# enacted R.A. No." :5, establishin! an independent PE( to tr#, hear, and decide protests contestin! theelection of President and ice/President. (he Chief 7ustice and the Associate 7usticesof the Supre$e Court 6ere tas;ed to sit as its Chair$an and Me$bers, respectivel#.Its co$position 6as e?tended to retired Supre$e Court 7ustices and incu$bent Courtof Appeals 7ustices 6ho $a# be appointed as substitutes for ill, absent, or te$poraril#incapacitated re!ular $e$bers.

(he eleven/$e$ber tribunal 6as e$po6ered to pro$ul!ate rules for the conduct ofits proceedin!s. It 6as $andated to sit en banc in decidin! presidential and vice/

presidential contests and authori)ed to e?ercise po6ers si$ilar to those conferredupon courts of ustice, includin! the issuance of subpoena, ta;in! of depositions,arrest of 6itnesses to co$pel their appearance, production of docu$ents and otherevidence, and the po6er to punish conte$ptuous acts and bearin!s. (he tribunal 6asassi!ned a Cler;, subordinate officers, and e$plo#ees necessar# for the efficient

perfor$ance of its functions.

R.A. No. " :5 6as i$plicitl# repealed and superseded b# the ": 5 Constitution6hich replaced the bica$eral le!islature under the ":54 Constitution 6ith theunica$eral bod# of a parlia$entar# !overn$ent.

0ith the ": 5 Constitution, a PE( 6as rendered irrelevant, considerin! that thePresident 6as not directl# chosen b# the people but elected fro$ a$on! the $e$bersof the National Asse$bl#, 6hile the position of ice/President 6as constitutionall#non/e?istent.

In ":9", several $odifications 6ere introduced to the parlia$entar# s#ste$.E?ecutive po6er 6as restored to the President 6ho 6as elected directl# b# the people.An E?ecutive Co$$ittee 6as for$ed to assist the President in the perfor$ance of hisfunctions and duties. Eventuall#, the E?ecutive Co$$ittee 6as abolished and the

ffice of ice/President 6as installed ane6.

(hese chan!es pro$pted the National Asse$bl# to revive the PE( b# enactin!, onDece$ber 5, ":94, Batas Pa$bansa Bilan! %B.P. Bl!.& 99*, entitled 1An ActConstitutin! an Independent Presidential Electoral (ribunal to (r#, ear and DecideElection Contests in the ffice of the President and ice/President of the Philippines,Appropriatin! =unds (herefor and =or ther Purposes.1 (his tribunal 6as co$posedof nine $e$bers, three of 6ho$ 6ere the Chief 7ustice of the Supre$e Court and t6oAssociate 7ustices desi!nated b# hi$, 6hile the si? 6ere divided e'uall# bet6eenrepresentatives of the $a orit# and $inorit# parties in the Batasan! Pa$bansa.


35/298

Aside fro$ the license to 6ield po6ers a;in to those of a court of ustice, the PE( 6as per$itted to reco$$end the prosecution of persons, 6hether public officers or privateindividuals, 6ho in its opinion had participated in an# irre!ularit# connected 6ith thecanvassin! andKor acco$plishin! of election returns.

(he independence of the tribunal 6as hi!hli!hted b# a provision allocatin! a specific bud!et fro$ the national treasur# or Special Activities =und for its operationale?penses. It 6as e$po6ered to appoint its o6n cler; in accordance 6ith its rules.

o6ever, the subordinate officers 6ere strictl# e$plo#ees of the udiciar# or otherofficers of the !overn$ent 6ho 6ere $erel# desi!nated to the tribunal.

After the historic People Po6er Revolution that ended the $artial la6 era andinstalled Cora)on A'uino as President, civil liberties 6ere restored and a ne6constitution 6as for$ed.

0ith R.A. No. " :5 as fra$e6or;, the ":9@ Constitutional Co$$ission transfor$edthe then statutor# PE( into a constitutional institution, albeit 6ithout its traditionalno$enclature-

=R. BERNAS. ? ? ?.

? ? ?. So it beca$e necessar# to create a Presidential Electoral (ribunal. 0hat 6ehave done is to constitutionali)e 6hat 6as statutor# but it is not an infrin!e$ent onthe separation of po6ers because the po6er bein! !iven to the Supre$e Court is a

udicial po6er. 5*

Clearl#, petitioner2s bete noire of the PE( and the e?ercise of its po6er areun6arranted. is ar!u$ents that- %"& the Chief 7ustice and Associate 7ustices arereferred to as 1Chair$an1 and 1Me$bers,1 respectivel#8 %+& the PE( uses a differentseal8 %5& the Chair$an is authori)ed to appoint personnel8 and %*& additionalco$pensation is allocated to the 1Me$bers,1 in order to bolster his clai$ of infir$it#in the establish$ent of the PE(, are too superficial to $erit further attention b# theCourt.

Be that as it $a#, 6e hasten to clarif# the structure of the PE( as a le!iti$ate pro!en#of Section *, Article II of the Constitution, co$posed of $e$bers of the Supre$eCourt, sittin! en banc. (he follo6in! e?chan!e in the ":9@ ConstitutionalCo$$ission should provide enli!hten$ent-

MR. S AREJ. (han; #ou. >et $e proceed to line +5, pa!e +, 6herein it is provided,and I 'uote-


36/298

(he Supre$e Court, sittin! en bancF,G shall be the sole ud!e of all contests relatin! tothe election, returns and 'ualifications of the President or ice/President.

Are 6e not !ivin! enor$ous 6or; to the Supre$e Court especiall# 6hen it is directedto sit en banc as the sole ud!e of all presidential and vice/presidential electioncontests

MR. S M > N


37/298

0ould the Co$$issioner not consider that violative of the doctrine of separation of po6ers

MR. C NCEPCI N. I thin; Co$$issioner Bernas e?plained that this is a contest bet6een t6o parties. (his is a udicial po6er.

MR. S AREJ. 0e ;no6, but practicall# the Co$$ittee is !ivin! to the udiciar# theri!ht to declare 6ho 6ill be the President of our countr#, 6hich to $e is a politicalaction.

MR. C NCEPCI N. (here are le!al ri!hts 6hich are enforceable under the la6, andthese are essentiall# usticiable 'uestions.

MR. S AREJ. If the election contest proved to be lon!, burdenso$e and tedious, practicall# all the ti$e of the Supre$e Court sittin! en banc 6ould be occupied 6ith itconsiderin! that the# 6ill be !oin! over $illions and $illions of ballots or electionreturns, Mada$ President.

MR. C NCEPCI N. (he ti$e consu$ed or to be consu$ed in this contest forPresident is dependent upon the# ;e# nu$ber of tea$s of revisors. I have noe?perience insofar as contests in other offices are concerned.

MR. S AREJ. Althou!h there is a re'uire$ent here that the Supre$e Court is$andated to sit en banc

MR. C NCEPCI N. Hes.

MR. S AREJ. I see.

MR. C NCEPCI N. (he steps involved in this contest are- =irst, the ballot bo?es areopened before tea$s of three, !enerall#, a representative each of the court, of the

protestant and of the 1protestee.1 It is all a 'uestions of ho6 $an# tea$s areor!ani)ed. f course, that can be e?pensive, but it 6ould be e?pensive 6hatever courtone 6ould choose. (here 6ere ti$es that the Supre$e Court, 6ith so$eti$es 43tea$s at the sa$e ti$e 6or;in!, 6ould classif# the ob ections, the ;ind of proble$s,

and the court 6ould onl# !o over the ob ected votes on 6hich the parties could nota!ree. So it is not as a6eso$e as it 6ould appear insofar as the Court is concerned.0hat is a6eso$e is the cost of the revision of the ballots because each part# 6ouldhave to appoint one representative for ever# tea$, and that $a# ta;e 'uite a bi!a$ount.


38/298

MR. S AREJ. If 6e dra6 fro$ the Co$$issioner2s e?perience 6hich he is sharin!6ith us, 6hat 6ould be the reasonable period for the election contest to be decided

MR. C NCEPCI N. Insofar as the Supre$e Court is concerned, the Supre$e Courtal6a#s $ana!es to dispose of the case in one #ear.

MR. S AREJ. In one #ear. (han; #ou for the clarification. 54

bvious fro$ the fore!oin! is the intent to besto6 independence to the Supre$eCourt as the PE(, to underta;e the erculean tas; of decidin! election protestsinvolvin! presidential and vice/presidential candidates in accordance 6ith the processoutlined b# for$er Chief 7ustice Roberto Concepcion. It 6as $ade in response to theconcern aired b# dele!ate 7ose E. Suare) that the additional dut# $a# prove too

burdenso$e for the Supre$e Court. (his e?plicit !rant of independence and of the plenar# po6ers needed to dischar!e this burden ustifies the bud!et allocation of thePE(.

(he confer$ent of additional urisdiction to the Supre$e Court, 6ith the dut#characteri)ed as an 1a6eso$e1 tas;, includes the $eans necessar# to carr# it intoeffect under the doctrine of necessar# i$plication. 5@ 0e cannot overe$phasi)e that theabstraction of the PE( fro$ the e?plicit !rant of po6er to the Supre$e Court, !ivenour abundant e?perience, is not un6arranted.

A plain readin! of Article II, Section *, para!raph , readil# reveals a !rant ofauthorit# to the Supre$e Court sittin! en banc. In the sa$e vein, althou!h the $ethod

b# 6hich the Supre$e Court e?ercises this authorit# is not specified in the provision,the !rant of po6er does not contain an# li$itation on the Supre$e Court2s e?ercisethereof. (he Supre$e Court2s $ethod of decidin! presidential and vice/presidentialelection contests, throu!h the PE(, is actuall# a derivative of the e?ercise of the

prero!ative conferred b# the afore'uoted constitutional provision. (hus, thesubse'uent directive in the provision for the Supre$e Court to 1pro$ul!ate its rulesfor the purpose.1

(he confer$ent of full authorit# to the Supre$e Court, as a PE(, is e'uivalent to thefull authorit# conferred upon the electoral tribunals of the Senate and the ouse ofRepresentatives, i.e., the Senate Electoral (ribunal %SE(& and the ouse ofRepresentatives Electoral (ribunal % RE(&, 5 6hich 6e have affir$ed on nu$erousoccasions. 59

Particularl# co!ent are the discussions of the Constitutional Co$$ission on the parallel provisions of the SE( and the RE(. (he discussions point to the inevitableconclusion that the different electoral tribunals, 6ith the Supre$e Court functionin!
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt38


39/298

as the PE(, are constitutional bodies, independent of the three depart$ents of!overn$ent E?ecutive, >e!islative, and 7udiciar# but not separate therefro$.

MR. MAAMB N


40/298

has the effect of !ivin! said defeated candidate the le!al ri!ht to contest udiciall# theelection of the President/elect of ice/President/elect and to de$and a recount of thevotes case for the office involved in the liti!ation, as 6ell as to secure a ud!$entdeclarin! that he is the one elected president or vice/president, as the case $a# be, andthat, as such, he is entitled to assu$e the duties attached to said office. And b#

providin!, further, that the Presidential Electoral (ribunal 1shall be co$posed of theChief 7ustice and the other ten Me$bers of the Supre$e Court,1 said le!islation hasconferred upon such Court an additional ori!inal urisdiction of an e?clusivecharacter.

Republic Act No. " :5 has not created a ne6 or separate court. It has $erel#conferred upon the Supre$e Court the functions of a Presidential Electoral (ribunal.(he result of the enact$ent $a# be li;ened to the fact that courts of first instance

perfor$ the functions of such ordinar# courts of first instance, those of court of landre!istration, those of probate courts, and those of courts of uvenile and do$esticrelations. It is, also, co$parable to the situation obtainin! 6hen the $unicipal court of a provincial capital e?ercises its authorit#, pursuant to la6, over a li$ited nu$ber ofcases 6hich 6ere previousl# 6ithin the e?clusive urisdiction of courts of firstinstance.

In all of these instances, the court %court of first instance or $unicipal court& is onl#one, althou!h the functions $a# be distinct and, even, separate. (hus the po6ers of acourt of first instance, in the e?ercise of its urisdiction over ordinar# civil cases, are

broader than, as 6ell as distinct and separate fro$, those of the sa$e court actin! as acourt of land re!istration or a probate court, or as a court of uvenile and do$esticrelations. So too, the authorit# of the $unicipal court of a provincial capital, 6henactin! as such $unicipal court, is, territoriall# $ore li$ited than that of the sa$e court6hen hearin! the afore$entioned cases 6hich are pri$ar# 6ithin the urisdiction ofcourts of first instance. In other 6ords, there is onl# one court, althou!h it $a#

perfor$ the functions pertainin! to several t#pes of courts, each havin! so$echaracteristics different fro$ those of the others.

Indeed, the Supre$e Court, the Court of Appeals and courts of first instance, arevested 6ith ori!inal urisdiction, as 6ell as 6ith appellate urisdiction, in conse'uenceof 6hich the# are both trial courts and, appellate courts, 6ithout detractin! fro$ thefact that there is onl# one Supre$e Court, one Court of Appeals, and one court of firstinstance, clothed 6ith authorit# to dischar!e said dual functions. A court of firstinstance, 6hen perfor$in! the functions of a probate court or a court of landre!istration, or a court of uvenile and do$estic relations, althou!h 6ith po6ers less

broad than those of a court of first instance, hearin! ordinar# actions, is not inferior tothe latter, for one cannot be inferior to itself. So too, the Presidential Electoral(ribunal is not inferior to the Supre$e Court, since it is the sa$e Court althou!h the


41/298

functions peculiar to said (ribunal are $ore li$ited in scope than those of theSupre$e Court in the e?ercise of its ordinar# functions. ence, the enact$ent ofRepublic Act No. " :5, does not entail an assu$ption b# Con!ress of the po6er ofappoint$ent vested b# the Constitution in the President. It $erel# connotes thei$position of additional duties upon the Me$bers of the Supre$e Court.

B# the sa$e to;en, the PE( is not a separate and distinct entit# fro$ the Supre$eCourt, albeit it has functions peculiar onl# to the (ribunal. It is obvious that the PE(6as constituted in i$ple$entation of Section *, Article II of the Constitution, and itfaithfull# co$plies not unla6full# defies the constitutional directive. (he adoptionof a separate seal, as 6ell as the chan!e in the no$enclature of the Chief 7ustice andthe Associate 7ustices into Chair$an and Me$bers of the (ribunal, respectivel#, 6asdesi!ned si$pl# to hi!hli!ht the sin!ularit# and e?clusivit# of the (ribunal2s functionsas a special electoral court.

As re!ards petitioner2s clai$ that the PE( e?ercises 'uasi/ udicial functions incontravention of Section "+, Article III of the Constitution, 6e point out that theissue in Buac v. C ME>EC *5 involved the characteri)ation of the enforce$ent andad$inistration of a la6 relative to the conduct of a plebiscite 6hich falls under the

urisdiction of the Co$$ission on Elections. o6ever, petitioner latches on to theenu$eration in Buac 6hich declared, in an obiter, that 1contests involvin! thePresident and the ice/President fall 6ithin the e?clusive ori!inal urisdiction of thePE(, also in the e?ercise of 'uasi/ udicial po6er.1

(he issue raised b# petitioner is $ore i$a!ined than real. Section "+, Article III ofthe Constitution reads-

SEC. "+. (he Me$bers of the Supre$e Court and of other courts established b# la6shall not be desi!nated to an# a!enc# perfor$in! 'uasi/ udicial or ad$inistrativefunctions.

(he traditional !rant of udicial po6er is found in Section ", Article III of theConstitution 6hich provides that the po6er 1shall be vested in one Supre$e Court andin such lo6er courts as $a# be established b# la6.1 Consistent 6ith our presidentials#ste$ of !overn$ent, the function of 1dealin! 6ith the settle$ent of disputes,controversies or conflicts involvin! ri!hts, duties or prero!atives that are le!all#de$andable and enforceable1 ** is apportioned to courts of ustice. 0ith the advent ofthe ":9 Constitution, udicial po6er 6as e?panded to include 1the dut# of the courtsof ustice to settle actual controversies involvin! ri!hts 6hich are le!all# de$andableand enforceable, and to deter$ine 6hether or not there has been a !rave abuse ofdiscretion a$ountin! to lac; or e?cess of urisdiction on the part of an# branch or
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt44


42/298

instru$entalit# of the EC and in the

ouse of Representatives and Senate Electoral (ribunals, 6hich are not, strictl# andliterall# spea;in!, courts of la6. Althou!h not courts of la6, the# are, nonetheless,e$po6ered to resolve election contests 6hich involve, in essence, an e?ercise of

udicial po6er, because of the e?plicit constitutional e$po6er$ent found in Section+%+&, Article IL/C %for the C ME>EC& and Section " , Article I %for the Senate and

ouse Electoral (ribunals& of the Constitution. Besides, 6hen the C ME>EC, theRE(, and the SE( decide election contests, their decisions are still sub ect to udicial

revie6 via a petition for certiorari filed b# the proper part# if there is a sho6in!that the decision 6as rendered 6ith !rave abuse of discretion tanta$ount to lac; ore?cess of urisdiction. *@

It is also be#ond cavil that 6hen the Supre$e Court, as PE(, resolves a presidential or vice/presidential election contest, it perfor$s 6hat is essentiall# a udicial po6er. Inthe land$ar; case of An!ara v. Electoral Co$$ission, * 7ustice 7ose P. >aurelenucleated that 1it 6ould be inconceivable if the Constitution had not provided for a$echanis$ b# 6hich to direct the course of !overn$ent alon! constitutionalchannels.1 In fact, An!ara pointed out that 1FtGhe Constitution is a definition of the

po6ers of !overn$ent.1 And #et, at that ti$e, the ":54 Constitution did not containthe e?panded definition of udicial po6er found in Article III, Section ", para!raph +of the present Constitution.

0ith the e?plicit provision, the present Constitution has allocated to the Supre$eCourt, in con unction 6ith latter2s e?ercise of udicial po6er inherent in allcourts, *9 the tas; of decidin! presidential and vice/presidential election contests, 6ithfull authorit# in the e?ercise thereof. (he po6er 6ielded b# PE( is a derivative of the

plenar# udicial po6er allocated to courts of la6, e?pressl# provided in theConstitution. n the 6hole, the Constitution dra6s a thin, but, nevertheless, distinctline bet6een the PE( and the Supre$e Court.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#fnt48


43/298

If the lo!ic of petitioner is to be follo6ed, all Me$bers of the Court, sittin! in theSenate and ouse Electoral (ribunals 6ould violate the constitutional proscriptionfound in Section "+, Article III. Surel#, the petitioner 6ill be a$on! the first toac;no6led!e that this is not so. (he Constitution 6hich, in Section " , Article I,e?plicitl# provides that three Supre$e Court 7ustices shall sit in the Senate and ouseElectoral (ribunals, respectivel#, effectivel# e?e$pts the 7ustices/Me$bers thereoffro$ the prohibition in Section "+, Article III. In the sa$e vein, it is the Constitutionitself, in Section *, Article II, 6hich e?e$pts the Me$bers of the Court, constitutin!the PE(, fro$ the sa$e prohibition.

0e have previousl# declared that the PE( is not si$pl# an a!enc# to 6hich Me$bersof the Court 6ere desi!nated. nce a!ain, the PE(, as intended b# the fra$ers of theConstitution, is to be an institution independent, but not separate, fro$ the udicialdepart$ent, i.e., the Supre$e Court. McCulloch v. State of Mar#land *: proclai$edthat 1FaG po6er 6ithout the $eans to use it, is a nullit#.1 (he vehicle for the e?erciseof this po6er, as intended b# the Constitution and specificall# $entioned b# theConstitutional Co$$issioners durin! the discussions on the !rant of po6er to thisCourt, is the PE(. (hus, a $icroscopic vie6, li;e the petitioner2s, should not constrictan absolute and constitutional !rant of udicial po6er.

ne final note. Althou!h this Court has no control over contrar# people andna#sa#ers, 6e reiterate a 6ord of caution a!ainst the filin! of baseless petitions 6hichonl# clo! the Court2s doc;et. (he petition in the instant case belon!s to thatclassification.

0 ERE= RE, the petition is DISMISSED. Costs a!ainst petitioner.

S RDERED.

ANTON O E!UAR!O B. NAC"URAAssociate 7ustice

0E C NC R-

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief 7ustice

ANTON O T. CARP OAssociate 7ustice

CONC" TA CARP O MORALESAssociate 7ustice

PRESB TERO #. $ELASCO, #R.Associate 7ustice

TERES TA #. LEONAR!O%!ECASTRO


44/298

Associate 7ustice

ARTURO !. BR ONAssociate 7ustice

! OS!A!O M. PERALTAAssociate 7ustice

LUCAS P. BERSAM NAssociate 7ustice

% n fficial >eave&MAR ANO C. !EL CAST LLO

Associate 7ustice

ROBERTO A. ABA!Associate 7ustice

MART N S. $ LLARAMA, #R.Associate 7ustice

#OSE PORTUGAL PERE&Associate 7ustice

#OSE CATRAL MEN!O&AAssociate 7ustice

Associate 7ustice Associate 7ustice

MAR A LOUR!ES P.A. SERENOAssociate 7ustice

C E R ( I = I C A ( I N

Pursuant to Section "5, Article III of the Constitution, I certif# that the conclusionsin the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case 6as assi!ned to

the 6riter of the opinion of the Court.

RENATO C. CORONAChief 7ustice

'oo()o(e*

n official leave." Rollo, pp. 5/:.

+ Para!raph .

5 n Ma# *, +3"3, the +3"3 Rules of the Presidential Electoral (ribunal %+3"3PE( Rules& too; effect.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt3


45/298

* *@4 Phil. 933, 9"3 %+33*&.

4 Rollo, pp. "+/59.

@ Id. at "4/"@.

Id. at *+/49.

9 Cru), Philippine Political >a6, "::9 ed., p. +4 .

: Province of North Cotabato v. a6, "::9 ed., p. +@5.

"4 EC, *45 Phil. 49@ %+335&.

": Supra at note "4.

+3 No. >/+"3@*, =ebruar# "9, ": 3, 5" SCRA *"5, *+5.

+" McCulloch v. State of Mar#land, " .S. 5"@ %0heat.&, "9":.

++ In the Philippine conte?t, see Civil >iberties nion v. E?ecutive Secretar#,


46/298

+5 Id. at 553/55".

+* 9+ Phil. ", 4 %":*:&.

+4 EC, supra at note "4.

55 Constitutional Convention Record, ol. L, pp. * "/* +.

5* Records of the Constitutional Co$$ission, ol. +, p. *39.

54 Id. at *+3/*+". %E$phasis supplied.&

5@ McCulloch v. State of Mar#land, supra note +".

5 C NS(I( (I N, Art. I, Sec. " .

59 Sen. Defensor/Santia!o v. Sen.


47/298

*" Court of Appeals.

*+ No. >/+4 "@, 7ul# +9, ":@@, " SCRA 4@, @+/ @4. %E$phasis supplied.&

*5 Supra note *.

** 7avellana v. E?ecutive Secretar#, et al., "4"/A Phil. 5@, "5" %": 5&.

*4 C NS(I( (I N, Art. III, Sec. ", second para!raph.

*@ See Robles v. ouse of Representatives Electoral (ribunal, supra note 598>a)atin v. ouse Electoral (ribunal, supra note 59.

* @5 Phil. "5: %":5@&.

*9

See Hnot v. Inter$ediate Appellate Court, / **4 , March +3,":9 , "*9 SCRA @4:, @@48 (a ada and Macapa!al v. Cuenco, et al., "35 Phil."34" %":4 &8 Ale andrino v. Oue)on, *@ Phil. 95 %":+*&.

*: Supra note +".

T *R' '* *#*O7
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/nov2010/gr_191618_2010.html#rnt49


48/298

:G.R. No . 1 6149-51. Se; ember 19, 2000, 7R., and SP " RICARD 7.>ACAS(ESAN( S, in the follo6in! $anner, to 6it- b# then and there firin! theirM/"* ? ? ? Ar$alite Rifles, M/"@ Ar$alite Rifles and other assorted firear$s ande?plosives, ai$ed and directed at the fatal parts of the bodies of the above/na$ed

police officers, 6ell ;no6n to the accused as $e$bers of the Philippine NationalPolice, Ja$boan!a Cit# Police ffice, and as such, a!ents of a person in authorit#,6ho at the ti$e of the attac; 6ere en!a!ed in the perfor$ance of their duties, that is,on the occasion 6hen said officers 6ere about to serve the Search 0arrant le!all#issued b# the Re!ional (rial Court, this Cit#, to the person of the accused thusco$$encin! the co$$ission of cri$e of $ultiple $urder directl# b# overt acts, and if the accused did not acco$plish their unla6ful purpose, that is, to ;ill the above/na$ed Police fficers, it 6as not b# reason of their o6n voluntar# desistance butrather because of the fact that all the above/na$ed police officers 6ere able to see;cover durin! the firin! and 6ere not hit b# the bullets and e?plosives fired b# theaccused and also b# the fact said police officers 6ere able to 6restle 6ith t6o %+& ofthe accused na$el#- 0alpan >ad aala$ # Miha il a.;.a. 0arpan2 and Ah$ad Sailabbi# a airani, 6ho 6ere subdued and subse'uentl# placed under arrest8 6hereasaccused P + Nurha;i$ (. ad ula 6as able to $a;e !ood his escape and hasre$ained at/lar!e.Q F:G
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/136149_51.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/136149_51.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/136149_51.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/136149_51.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/136149_51.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/136149_51.htm#_edn9


50/298

*n the fo rth *nfor$!tion, !ppell!nt w!s ch!r5ed with ille5!l possession of dr 5s. L0?M

On 'ece$ber 20, 0881, the c!ses !5!inst 7 r-in =!d%!!l!$ !nd /h$!d#!il!bbi y !%!r!ini were dis$issed pon $otion of the Office of the City Prosec tor,which h!d cond cted ! reinvesti5!tion of the c!ses !s ordered by the lower co rt. The!cc sed were conse ently rele!sed fro$ %!il.

The !rr!i5n$ent of !ppell!nt on !ll fo r (>) ch!r5es tooE pl!ce on 9!n !ry 6, 0883,d rin5 which he entered ! ple! of not 5 ilty. L00M /fter pretri!l, the !ss!iled 'ecision w!srendered, the dispositive p!rt of which re!ds+

+"ERE'ORE , the Court finds accused +ALPAN LA!#AALAM M "A# L a.;.a. WARPAN 2 /

". in Cri$inal Case No. "*@5@, GU LTY BEYON! REASONABLE !OUBT ofiolation of Section "4/A, Article III, of Republic Act No. @*+4, other6ise ;no6n as

the Dan!erous Dru!s Act of ": +, as a$ended, and SEN(ENCES said accused to the penalt# of RECLUS ON PERPETUA and to pa# a fine of ' $E "UN!RE!T"OUSAN! %P433,333.33& and to pa# the costs8

+. In Cri$inal Case No. "*@5 , NOT GU LTY of iolation of Section "@, ArticleIII, in relation to Section +", Article I , of Republic Act No. @*+4, other6ise ;no6nas the Dan!erous Dru!s Act of ": +, as a$ended, and AC-U TS hi$ of said cri$e6ith costs de oficio8

5. in Cri$inal Case No. "*@59, GU LTY BEYON! REASONABLE !OUBT ofthe cri$e of Ille!al Possession of =irear$ and A$$unition penali)ed underPresidential Decree No. "9@@, as a$ended b# Republic Act. No. 9+:*,and SENTENCES said accused to suffer an indeter$inate penalt# of S /6YEARS of prision correccional as $ini$u$ to E G"T /8 YEARS of prision $a#oras $a?i$u$ and to pa# a fine FofG T" RTY T"OUSAN! /P30,000.00 and pa# thecosts8

*. in Cri$inal Case No. "*@5:, GU LTY BEYON! REASONABLE !OUBT ofthe cri$e of Direct Assault 6ith Multiple Atte$pted o$icide and SENTENCES saidaccused to an indeter$inate penalt# of T+O /2 YEARS ) 'OUR /MONT"S of prision correccional as $ini$u$ to S /6 YEARS of prisioncorreccional as $a?i$u$ and to pa# a fine of ONE T"OUSAN! /P1,000.00 and to

pa# the costs.Q %e$phasis in the ori!inal&

ence, this !ppe!l. L02M

T e F(
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/136149_51.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/136149_51.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/136149_51.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/136149_51.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/136149_51.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/136149_51.htm#_edn12


51/298

#rose)*tion+s ,ersion

*n its rief, L0AM the Office of the #olicitor &ener!l presents the f!cts in this wise+

At "-*4 p.$. of Septe$ber +*, ":: , P 5 Allan Marcos but filed an application for the issuance of a search 6arrant a!ainst appellant, his 6ife and so$e 7ohn Does %E?h.C&. After the search 6arrant 6as issued about +-53 p.$. of the sa$e da#, a briefin!6as conducted inside the office of the Anti/ iceKNarcotics nit of the Ja$boan!aCit# Police ffice in connection 6ith the service of the search 6arrant. (he briefin!6as conducted b# SP + =elipe acastesantos, P 5 Rivera, and P 5 Dela Pe a 6ho 6ere 6iththe first !roup of police$en sa6 appellant fire an M"* rifle to6ards the$.(he# all;ne6 appellant. 0hen the# 6ere fired upon, the !roup, to!ether 6ith SP +


52/298

>acastesantos and Mirasol proceeded to the second floor 6here the# earlier sa6appellant firin! an M"* rifle at the$ throu!h the 6indo6. 0hile the# 6ere !oin!upstairs, appellant noticed their presence. e 6ent inside the bedroo$ and, after

brea;in! and re$ovin! the alousies, u$ped fro$ the 6indo6 to the roof of anei!hborin! house. Seein! this, Mirasol rushed do6nstairs and as;ed help fro$ theother $e$bers of the raidin! tea$ to arrest appellant. >acastesantos 6ent to thesecond floor and shouted to the police$en outside not to fire in the direction of thesecond floor because there 6ere children. Mirasol and SP " Cesar Rabu#a arrestedappellant at the bac; of his house after a brief chase %Ibid., pp. +"/+5&.

At the second floor, >acastesantos sa6 an M"* rifle %E?h. B/5& 6ith $a!a)ine on topof the sofa at the sala on the second floor %Ibid., P. + &. (he rifle bore Serial No."444++4. e re$oved the $a!a)ine fro$ the rifle and the bullet inside the cha$ber of the rifle. e counted seventeen %" & live a$$unition inside the $a!a)ine. e sa6 t6o%+& $ore M"* rifle $a!a)ines on the sofa, one 6ith t6ent# %+3& live a$$unition%E?h. ocson 6as an infor$er of the Anti/ iceKNarcotics nit of theJa$boan!a Police. F Gn the $ornin! of Septe$ber +*, ":: , he 6as instructed b#SP + ocson ;ne6 appellant asa seller of shabu2 %(SN, April ++, "::9, p. 4& and had been to appellant2s house aboutfifteen %"4& ti$es before. e 6ent to Rio ondo and arrived at appellant2s house at5-+3 p.$. e bou!ht P533.33 6orth of shabu2 fro$ appellant. (he latter !ot three %5&dec;s of shabu fro$ his 6aist ba!. Appellant instructed >ocson to !o behind thecurtain 6here there 6as a table. (here 6ere si? %@& persons alread# s$o;in!. (here


53/298

6as a li!hted ;erosene la$p $ade of a $edic