ARTICLE INATIONAL TERRITORY

Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of theSea[1], is a belt of coastal waters extending at most twelve nautical miles from the baseline (usually themean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of thestate, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it; thissovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below. The term "territorial waters" is alsosometimes used informally to describe any area of water over which a state has jurisdiction, includinginternal waters, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and potentially the continental shelf. BASELINE: Normally, the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured is the low-water line along thecoast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal state. This is either the low-watermark closest to the shore, or alternatively it may be an unlimited distance from permanently exposed land,provided that some portion of elevations exposed at low tide but covered at high tide (like mud flats) is within12 nautical miles (22 km) of permanently exposed land. Straight baselines can alternatively be definedconnecting fringing islands along a coast, across the mouths of rivers, or with certain restrictions across themouths of bays. In this case, a bay is defined as "a well-marked indentation whose penetration is in suchproportion to the width of its mouth as to contain land-locked waters and constitute more than a merecurvature of the coast. An indentation shall not, however, be regarded as a bay unless its area is as largeas, or larger than, that of the semi-circle whose diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of thatindentation". The baseline across the bay must also be no more than 24 nautical miles (44 km) in length. INTERNAL WATERS: Waters landward of the baseline are defined as internal waters, over which the statehas complete jurisdiction: not even innocent passage is allowed. Lakes and rivers are considered internalwaters, as are all "archipelagic waters" within the outermost islands of an archipelagic state such asIndonesia or the Philippines.TERRITORIAL SEA: A state's territorial sea extends up to 12 nautical miles (22 km) from its baseline. If thiswould overlap with another state's territorial sea, the border is taken as the median point between the states'baselines, unless the states in question agree otherwise. A state can also choose to claim a smallerterritorial sea.Conflicts still occur whenever a coastal nation claims an entire gulf as its territorial waters while othernations only recognize the more restrictive definitions of the UN convention. Two recent conflicts occurred inthe Gulf of Sidra where Libya has claimed the entire gulf as its territorial waters and the U.S. has twiceenforced freedom of navigation rights (Gulf of Sidra incident (1981), Gulf of Sidra incident (1989)).CONTIGUOUS ZONE: The contiguous zone is a band of water extending from the outer edge of theterritorial sea to up to 24 nautical miles (44 km) from the baseline, within which a state can exert limitedcontrol for the purpose of preventing or punishing "infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration orsanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea". This will typically be 12 nauticalmiles (22 km) wide, but could be more (if a state has chosen to claim a territorial sea of less than 12 nauticalmiles), or less, if it would otherwise overlap another state's contiguous zone. However, unlike the territorialsea there is no standard rule for resolving such conflicts, and the states in question must negotiate their owncompromise. The United States invoked a contiguous zone on 24 September 1999.[2]CONTINENTAL SHELF: ARTICLE 76[4] gives the legal definition of continental shelf of coastal countries.For the physical geography definition, see the continental shelf page. The continental shelf of a coastalnation extends out to the outer edge of the continental margin but at least 200 nautical miles (370 km) fromthe baselines of the territorial sea if the continental margin does not stretch that far. The outer limit of acountry's continental shelf shall not stretch beyond 350 nautical miles (648 km) of the baseline, or beyond100 nautical miles (185 km) from the 2,500 meter isobath, which is a line connecting the depths of theseabed at 2,500 meters. The outer edge of the continental margin for the purposes of this ARTICLE isdefined as:

• a series of lines joining points not more than 60 nautical miles (111 km) apart where the thickness ofsedimentary rocks is at least 1% of the height of the continental shelf above the foot of thecontinental slope; or

• a series of lines joining points not more than 60 nautical miles apart that is not more than 60 nauticalmiles from the foot of the continental margin.

The foot of the continental slope is determined as the point of maximum change in the gradient at itsbase.The portion of the continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile limit is also known as the extendedcontinental shelf. Countries wishing to delimit their outer continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles have tosubmit information on their claim to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The Commissionmust make recommendations on matters related to the establishment of the outer limits of their continentalshelf. The limits established based on these recommendations shall be final and binding.Countries were supposed to lodge their submissions to extend their continental shelf beyond 200 nauticalmiles within 10 years of UNCLOS coming into force in the country, or by 13 May 2009 for countries wherethe convention had come into force before 13 May 1999. As of 1 June 2009, 51 submissions have beenlodged with the Commission, of which 8 have been deliberated by the Commission and have hadrecommendations issued. The 8 are (in the order of date of submission): Russian Federation; Brazil;Australia; Ireland; New Zealand; the joint submission by France, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom;Norway and Mexico. A coastal nation has control of all resources on or under its continental shelf, living ornot, but no control over any living organisms above the shelf that are beyond its exclusive economic zone.This gives it the right to conduct petroleum drilling works and lay submarine cables or pipelines in itscontinental shelf.

ARTICLE II

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIESSECTION 1: PHILIPPINES AS A DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN STATE

BACANI v. NACOCO Government Functions: (revised Admin. Code) refers only to government entitythrough which the function of the government are exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, and in this areincluded those arms to the government through w/c political authority is made effective whether they beprovincial, municipal or other form of local government. These are what we call municipal corporations. Theydo not include government entities which are given a corporate personality separate and distinct from thegovernment and which are governed by the Corporation law. Their powers, duties and liabilities have to bedetermined in the light of that law and their corporate charters.ACCFA v. CUGCO Governmental functions:

1) constituent – the very bonds of society and are compulsory2) ministrant – undertaken only by way of advancing the general interest of society; optional.

Land reform program – governmental function and cannot be undertaken by any private enterprise (nocapacity).PVTA v. CIR Government to provide for general welfare. Government entrusted to be responsible forcoping with social and economic problems with commensurate power of control over economic affairs: liveup to commitment of promoting general welfare through state action.REPUBLIC v. JUDGE OF CFI RIZAL The rice and Corn Administration is a government agency without adistinct and separate legal personality from that of the Republic of the Philippines.VFP v. REYES Public Office – the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for agiven period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is vestedwith some portion of sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of thepublic. Office (distinguished from employment or contract) – the creation and conferring of an office involvesa delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign functions of the government, for the benefit of thepublic; that some portion of the sovereign function of the country, either legislative, executive or judicial,attaches, for the time being, to be exercised for the public benefit.MIAA v. CA GOCC – a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to the public needswhether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the government directly or through itsinstrumentalities either wholly, or where applicable (for stock corps.), to the extent of at least 51% of itscapital stock. (MIAA as a government instrumentality) Instrumentality – defined as any agency of theNational Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions orjurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoyingoperational autonomy, usually through a charter.RAMISCAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN AFP-RSBS – a GOCC and its funds are in the nature of public funds.Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by presidents, directors, trustees or managers ofGOCCs. What charges to file, and who are to be charged are matters addressed to the discretion of theOmbudsman.ALZAGA v. SANDIGANBAYAN The character and operations of the AFP-RSBS are imbued with publicinterest thus the same is a government entity and its funds are in the nature of public funds. (similar to theGSIS)PSPCA v. COA GOCCs are subject to the control or supervision of the State (unlike PSPCA). A juridicalentity impressed with public interest does not make the entity a public corporation. The true criterion todetermine whether a corporation is public or private is found in the totality of the relation of the corporationto the State. If it is created by the State as its own agency or instrumentality to help in carrying out itsgovernmental functions, then that corporation is considered public; otherwise, it is private.SERANA v. SANDIGANBAYAN A UP Student Regent is a public officer. It is not a natural right. It exists,when it exists at all only because and by virtue of some law expressly or impliedly creating or conferring it.Compensation is not an essential element of public office. It is merely incidental to the public office.Delegation of sovereign functions is essential in public office. An investment on an individual of someportion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the publicmakes one a public officer. The administration of UP is a sovereign function of the State. (Art. XIV)

DE JURE AND DE FACTO GOVERNMENTCO KIM CHAM v. VALDEZ TAN KEH Kinds of de facto government: 1) government that gets possessionand control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government andmaintains itself against the will of the latter (like England under the Commonwealth); 2) established andmaintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, andwhich is denominated a government of paramount force (like Castine in Maine and Tampico, Mexico); 3)established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection againstthe parent State (like the Southern Confederacy).Distinguishing characteristics of the 2nd kind of de facto government: 1) its existence is maintained by activemilitary power within the territories and against the rightful authority of an established and lawfulgovernment; 2) while it exists it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by actsof obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers, for thoseacts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government.LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PUNO Revolution – the complete overthrow of the establishedgovernment in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it.; sudden, radical andfundamental change in the government or political system, usually effected with violence or at least someacts of violence; occurs whenever the legal order of a community is nullified and replaced by a new order…away not prescribed by the first order itself. The Aquino government was revolutionary government due to

the fact that it was established in defiance of the existing legal processes. It was a revamp of the Judiciaryand the Military signaled the point when the legal system then in effect, had ceased to be obeyed by theFilipino. (De Facto Government).PEOPLE v. GOZO The Philippines has authority over its entire domain. There is no portion of it that isbeyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws governtherein and apply to all. The extent of its jurisdiction is both territorial and personal. A State may allowanother to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain portions of its territory (auto-limitation)but these areas do not retain an alien character, but remain as native soil.

SECTION 2: INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PHILIPPINE MUNICIPAL LAWTANADA v. ANGARA The principles in Art. 2 are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for theenforcement of the courts. They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power ofjudicial review. They do not embody judicially enforceable rights but guidelines for legislation. A law shouldbe passed by Congress to clearly define and effectuate such principles. GATT as international law needs tobe ratified to be transformed into municipal law.BAYAN v. ZAMORA As long as the VFA possesses the elements of an agreement under international law,the said agreement is to be taken equally as a treaty, which is an international instrument concludedbetween States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrumentor in 2 or more related instruments, and whatever it particular designation. In international law, there is nodifference between treaties and executive agreements in their binding effect upon states concerned, as longas the negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers. In this, jurisdiction, we have recognizedthe binding effect of executive agreements even without the concurrence of the Senate or Congress. LIM v. EXEC. SEC. A party to a treaty is not allowed to invoke its internal law as justification for its failure toperform a treaty. A treaty is favored over municipal law pursuant to the principle of pacta sunt servanda.Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. The VFAgives legitimacy to the Balikatan Exercises.MIJARES v. RANADA There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or conventions that requires thePhilippines to recognize foreign judgments, or allow a procedure for the enforcement thereof.PHARMACEUTICAL v. DUQUE III Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of thelaw of the land either by transformation or incorporation. Transformation requires that the international lawbe transformed into domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. Incorporationapplies, when by mere constitutional declaration , international law is deemed to have force and effect ofdomestic law. Treaties become part of the law of the land through transformation, by concurrence of 2/3majority vote of the members of Senate.

SECTION 3: CIVILIAN SUPREMACYIBP v. ZAMORA Orders which resemble the functions of aid by the AFP already present and existent withinthe functions of society such as elections, national exams, relief and rescue operations and projects of theRed Cross, are not violative of civilian supremacy.

SECTION 5: MAINTENANCE OF PEACE AND ORDERKILOSBAYAN v. MORATO The principles in ARTICLE 2 do not embody self-executing constitutional rights,but mere guidelines for legislation and aid for the judiciary.

SECTION 12: FAMILY LIFE, MOTHER, UNBORNROE v. WADE On the basis of the right to privacy, abortion was legalized up to the 6 th month of pregnancy.The constitutional provision bars any application of the Roe v. wade decision in this jurisdiction.MEYER v. NEBRASKA Education should always be diligently promoted as it has always been regarded asa matter of supreme importance. It is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable tohis station in life. Rights of parents are superior to the State.PIERCE v. SOCIETY OF SISTER The fundamental theory of liberty exclude any general power tostandardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public school teachers only.WISCONSIN v. YODER Only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served canover-balance the primary interest of parents in the religious upbringing of their children. Inherent duty of thestate to act as parens patriae (parent of the STATE). Schools may take disciplinary action when:

1. violations of school policies in connection with school sponsored activities2. misconduct affecting student’s status or good name or reputation of the school.

GINSBURG v. NEW YORK The knowledge that parental control cannot always be provided and society’stranscendent interest in protecting the welfare of the children justify reasonable regulation of the sale ofmaterial to them.

SECTION 16: RIGHT TO A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGYOPOSA v. FACTORAN Intergenerational justice and responsibility: SECTION 16 one of the fewself-executing principles in ARTICLE 2.LLDA v. CA It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary requirements of due process yield to thenecessities of protecting vital public interests like the protection of the safety, health and general welfare andcomfort of the public, as well as the protection of plant and animal life: through the exercise of police power.

SECTION 19: SELF-RELIANT AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ECONOMYGARCIA v. BOI The State shall develop self-reliant and independent national economy effectively

controlled by Filipinos. The government must run its affairs the way it deems best for the national interest,without any external influence or control.TANADA v. ANGARA Independence refers to freedom from undue foreign control of the national economyespecially in such strategic industries as in the development of natural resources and public utilities. It doesnot prohibit competition, so long as it is fair and reasonable. Some amount of competition would bebeneficial for the consumers, as well as producers.

SECTION 26: EQUAL ACCESS TO POLITICAL OPPORTUNITIES AND POLITICAL DYNASTIESPAMATONG v. COMELEC There is no constitutional right to run for or hold public office and, particularly, toseek the presidency. What is recognized is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by the law.Equality is not sacrificed so long as the burdens engendered by the limitations are meant to be borne be anyone who is minded to file a certificate of candidacy.

ARTICLE VILEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Powers of Congress: plenary: ARTICLE XVI authorizes Congress to pass law to change name of country,national anthem or national flag; subject to ratification by the people.

VALID DELEGATIONLegislative / Law makingLegislative <->ExecutiveLaw <->Implementing Rules and RegulationsLaw-making <-> Rule-making

PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGABILITY OF LEGISLATIVE POWERPEOPLE V. ROSENTHAL – BLUE SKY LAW The executive has the power of subordinate legislation,insofar as it interprets the laws were it is based, and not going beyond and enacting laws. Moreover, thisenhances convenience and promotes specialization through the administrative bodies.Substantive shares- under insular treasurer

Not undue delegation: standard of “public interest”Delegation to be made: sufficient standard to define rules and regulationsLaw’s constitutional basis:1. Public purpose2. Reasonableness of meansARANETA v. GATMAITAN – EO 22, 66 AND 88 The legislature has the discretion to what the law shouldbe while the executive has the authority or discretion to the execution of such laws, provided that theexecution be exercised under and in pursuance of the law.Any fishing net or fishing device – Protect fish fry and fish eggs (under fisheries law)Fish trawl – destroys fish fry and fish eggs and comes under “Any fishing net or fishing device”PEOPLE v. MACEREN The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive official the power to declarewhat acts should constitute a criminal offense. It can only authorize the issuance of regulations and theimposition of the penalty provided for in the law itself. An administrative agency cannot amend an act ofCongress. “obnoxious and poisonous substance” – under fisheries law prohibitedFisheries Administrative 84 – Prohibits electro fishing (created by sec. of Agriculture and Natural resources,and Commissioner of Fisheries)

- Penalizes something that is not included in the law that created it (fisheries law)- Test of completeness and Sufficient standard test - Ad. 84 goes beyond the fisheries law: added the criminalization of electro fishing

AGUSTIN v. EDU To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies at thevery least that the legislative itself determines matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy.Otherwise, the charge of complete abdication may be heard to repel. A standard thus defines legislativepolicy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates thecircumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. It is the criterion by which legislativepurpose may be carried out. Thereafter, the executive or administrative office designated may in pursuanceof the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and regulations. The standard may be eitherexpress or implied. If the former, the non-delegation objection is easily met. The standard though does nothave to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as awhole. In the Reflector Law, clearly the legislative objective is public safety.EWD – LOI 229 and 479Memorandum Circular No. 32Standard – “Public Safety”Vienna Convention for Road Signs and SignalsFREE TELEPHONE WORKERS v. MIN. OF LABOR What cannot be delegated is the authority under theConstitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them; the test is the completeness of the statute in allits term and provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature.” SC furthered that there lies adistinction between the (1) delegation of power to make the laws that necessarily involves a discretion as towhat it shall be (law-making powers of the Congress) and (2) delegation of authority as to its execution to beexercised under and in pursuance of the law (law-execution powers of administrative bodies). Thisprinciple of non-delegation is in response to “the complexities of modern governments giving riseto the adoption, within certain limits, of the principle of ‘subordinate legislation.Min of Labor – resolve labor disputes -> compulsory arbitration of NLRC

EASTERN SHIPPING v. POEA With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant of peculiarproblems, the national legislature has found it more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies theauthority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. This is called the power ofsubordinate legislation.Memorandum Circular No. 2 – implementationStandard: fair and equitable employment practiceNo contract bet employer and employee – POEA to protect the employeeTABLARIN v. GUTIERREZ With the growing complexities of modern life, the multiplication of the subjectsof governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantlygrowing tendency toward the delegation of greater power by the legislature, and toward the approval of thepractice by the courts. As regards the issue of failing to establish the necessary standards, the courtbelieves that standards have indeed been set, as can be found in SECTION 1 of the 1959 Medical Act: “thestandardization and regulation of medical education.RA 2382 CREATED THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATIONStandard: standardization and regulation of the Medical education: power to determine and prescriberequirements for the admission into Med schoolsOrder 52: creation of NMAT for standardizationGUINGONA v. CARAGUE Delegation of Legislative Powers: The legislature does not abdicate its functionwhen it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority. The powerto make laws and to alter and repeal them CANNOT be delegated. Completeness of Law: The law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leavesthe legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it reaches him except to executeand enforce it.Budget Appropriation – books of treasury determine the appropriation for debtTotal amount of debt along with interests and other fees – standard to be usedCONFERENCE v. POEA POEA Resolution to increase seamen compensation and benefitsOSMENA v. ORBOS For a valid delegation of power, it is essential that the law delegating the power mustbe

(1) Complete in itself, that it must set forth the policy to be executed by the delegate and(2) It must fix a standard—limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable—to which the

delegate must conform.The standard of legislative delegation must be express or implied. If the former, the non-delegation objectionis easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from thepolicy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. What the law intended was to permit the additionalimposts for as long as there exists a need to protect the general public and the petroleum industry from theadverse consequences of pump rate fluctuations.OPSF – Created by Marcos – reimburse oil companies of the changes in the price to stabilize prices forconsumersOil Producers -> Market forces change prices -> imported to PhilippinesVIOLA v. ALUNAN Local Government Code – provides National Liga authority to create positions, as it maydeem necessary.FERNANDEZ V. STO TOMAS Authority to reorganize civil service commissionStandard: decentralization for efficiency and responsiveness in the management of the agencies. Not createand abolish but to reorganize: revised administrative codeCHIONGBIAN V. ORBOS RA 6734 ARMM plebiscite: 4 provinces for creation of autonomous region.President given power to merge the remaining regions: sufficient standard: efficient administration implied inanother lawRODRIGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN DBM given authority to fill in the details of the salary grade, classification.Not undue delegation: standards givenABAKADA V. ERMITA Vat 10% to 12%, following certain criteria. President, through the Secretary ofFinance, given criteria to ascertain facts of the situation in relation to the implementation of the increase.The case is not a delegation of legislative power but a “delegation of ascertainment of facts” upon which theenforcement and administration of the increase rate under the law is contingent. The legislature has madethe 12% rate contingent upon a specified fact or condition, which is outside of the control of the executive.Thus, there is no discretion that is exercised by the President. The court cited Wayman v. Southward: “Thepower to ascertain facts is such a power which may be delegated. There is nothing essentially legislative inascertaining the existence of facts or conditions as the basis of the taking into effect of law” The ground forthis that legislature has determined that under given circumstances, certain executive or administrativeaction is to be taken and that under other circumstances, different or no action at all is to be taken. What isleft to the administration is not legislative determination of what public policy demands but simply anascertainment of what the facts of the case require to be done according to the terms of the law by which heis governed.BELTRAN V. SEC. OF HEALTH RA 7719 Voluntary Blood Donation and regulate blood banks. PublicHealth sufficient guideline. There is a valid exercise of police power if (a) public interest requires stateinterference, and (b) the means employed are necessary to the attainment of such objectives. in this regardthe interests of the owners/operators of the CBBs must give way to the higher interest of the people.BAYAN V. ERMITA BP No. 880 permits for rallies: issued by the Mayor, clear and present danger standardfor issuance. The delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally permits is valid because it is subject tothe constitutionally-sound “clear and present danger” standard.GEROCHI v. DOE Constitutionality of EPIRA and Universal Charge. Undue Delegation – Power of tax: UC

not a tax but exercise of Police power. Complete: amount of universal charge is based on guidelinesprovided in EPIRA. Sufficient Standard: total electrification, viability of power industry, electricity madeaffordableABAKADA v. PURISIMA BIR and BOC: system of rewards and sanctions. Revenue targets given byDBCC; employees covered by the civil service commission and contracts of the employees

UNDUE DELEGATIONPEOPLE v. VERA Probation Act – will only be applied to provinces which provide salaries for probationofficersNot complete in itself – w/n having probation officers under discretion of the provincial board. Not sufficientstandard – arbitrary standard givenPEOPLE v. BARRIAS The penalty must not be left to the administrative agency, but must be provided bystatute.PEOPLE v. PANLILIO Act No. 1760 – not criminalizing act. May be charged under other law: Penal CodePEOPLE v. DACUYCUY Law imposes fine, but no terms of imprisonment – Minimum, medium andmaximum sentence depending on the circumstances of the crime (mitigating, etc.). Judge given legaldiscretion - circumstances in the crime = penalty to be imposed. Act 296 – less than 3000.00 phpCEBU OXYGEN v. DRILON RA 6470 – increasing minimum wage = implementing rules YNOT v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT EO 626 – A: prohibition on inter-province transport ofcarabao and cara-beef. “as may deem necessary” – gives legislative power to officers: arbitraryImplementing rules cannot add or detract from the provisions of law it designed to implement. PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOC. V. DUQUE III EO No. 51 (Milk Code) – legislativepower under freedom consti: Pres. AquinoWHO – promote the use of breastmilk; Milk Code – promote the use of breastmilk; DOH – International law – Soft Law and hard Law: WHO – soft law, regulation: has to be enacted into localregulation before it becomes bindingThere was a defect – RIRR invalidated: provided a ban on advertisement on milk substitutes, but the law,does not provide for a total ban, only the international law was followed. International Soft Law must firstbe enacted into a local regulation before it can be followed by any agency. Milk Code provides the localenactment of the soft law and it is what should have been followedABAKADA v. PURISIMA BIR and BOC System of rewards – RA 9335, SECTION 12: creation of the JointCongressional Oversight Committee for approval of IRR of the RA. Encroahment of the legislative into therealm of judiciary: decision is judiciary in nature as it involves the interpretation and application of the RAunto the IRR.TATAD v. SEC OF DOE RA 8180 “Deregulating the Downstream Oil Industry2 phases: transitionFull deregulation: implementation should be based on two criteria:

1. global oil prices decline2. US-Peso exchange rate stable

EO 372 – implemented full deregulation adding additional criteria: depletion of OPSF: void: executivemisapplication. Congress has to rely more on the practice of delegating the execution of laws to theexecutive and other administrative agencies, as society becomes more complex. According tojurisprudence, there are two tests to determine, whether it is a valid delegation – 1) thecompleteness test, and, 2) the sufficient standard test.Congress: Senate and House of RepresentativesHoR: 2 ways to run: (3 year term, 3 consecutive terms) = 250 members unless otherwise provided by law

1. District representative – natural-born, at least 25 years old, read and write, registered voter of thedistrict, resident of same district at least one year preceding the day of the election

2. Party-list representativeSenate: term of 6 years, re-election for 2 consecutive terms onlyElection: 6 years for first 12, 3 years for latter 12 = 24 members

SECTION 5: COMPOSITION OF THE HORHOR = 80% district representatives + 20% party-list representativesBARANGAY v. COMELEC Standards for apportioning seats for Party-list Representatives. 20%composition : merely a ceiling, not mandatory to fill in all seats: merely reserved for PLR. Check RecentRulingANG BAGONG BAYANI v. COMELEC Characteristics of a party-list: (guideline for COMELEC)

1. must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups2. must comply with declared statutory policy of enabling Filipinos belonging to marginalized and

underrepresented sectors be elected in the HoR.3. Must not represent a religious sect4. Must not be disqualified under SECTION 6 of RA 79415. Party or org must not be an adjunct of or a project organized by the government6. Party must comply with requirements, as well as its nominees under SECTION 9 RA 79417. Nominee must belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector8. Nominee must be able to contribute to the formulation of legislation

AKLAT v. COMELEC AKLAT re-disqualified: did not meet qualifications mentioned in the bagong bayanicaseTOBIAS v. ABALOS RA 7675: Mandaluyong into an urbanized city: create own legislative district and a

new legislative district of San Juan: reapportionmentGERRYMANDERING – creation of a new legislative district to increase possible number of voters forelections, contrary to the guideline of “contiguous, compact and adjacent territory.Consti – one province at least on representativeNot gerrymandering – rep who issued RA will actually be made to lose part of his district: contiguous,compact and adjacent territoryMARIANO v. COMELEC RA 7854: Municipality of Makati into a highly urbanized cityValid: reapportionment thru special law: duty of congress to reapportionCriteria: population (250,000) and, income or areaSAMSON v. AGUIRRE RA 8583: Novaliches as a city: certification as to income, population and area notfatal: statements of NSO, Bureau of Local Government Finance, and Land MONTEJO v. COMELEC COMELC res. No 2736: change legislative district of Capoocan and Palompon:COMELEC only to make minor adjustmentsLegislative district can only be apportioned by “legislative” i.e. congressHERRERA v. COMELEC Province of Guimaras – made into 4th class provinceDistricting based on number of inhabitants: not reapportionment: can be undertaken by COMELEC(districting)SEMA v. COMELEC RLA – RA 9054: power to create province, cities, etc.Creation of the province of Shariff Kabunsan: the power to create provinces inherently involves the power tocreate legislative districts. However, under the present Constitution, the power to increase the allowablemembership in the House of Representatives, as well as the power to reapportion legislative districts, isvested exclusively in Congress (by virtue of SECTIONs 5, (1), (3) and (4) of ARTICLE 6). This textualcommitment to Congress of the exclusive power to create or reapportion legislative districts is logical.Congress is a national legislature and any increase in its allowable membership or in its incumbentmembership through the creation of legislative districts must be embodied in a national law. It would beanomalous for regional or local legislative bodies to create or reapportion legislative districts for a nationallegislature like Congress. An inferior legislative body, created by a superior legislative body, cannot changethe membership of the superior legislative body.BAGABUYO v. COMELEC Legislative apportionment – representation in the HoR. Reapportionment isbrought about by changes in population and mandated by the constitutional requirement of equalrepresentation. Hence, emphasis is given to the number of people represented; the uniform and progressiveratio to be observed among the representative districts; and accessibility and commonality of interests interms of each district being, as far as practicable, continuous, compact and adjacent territory. In terms of thepeople represented, every city with at least 250,000 people and every province (irrespective of population)is entitled to one representative.

SECTION 6BENGSON v. COMELEC Repatriation – oath of allegiance, which reinstates previous status as a Filipino:natural-born in TarlacAQUINO v. COMELEC Domicile – physical residence, and intention to return there permanently. Less thanone year residency prior to date of elections; lease of a house not permanent: disqualified. The place wherea party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found atany given time, eventually intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile is that to which the Constitutionrefers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of election law.MARCOS v. COMELEC Criteria for the abandonment of domicile:

• actual removal or change in domicile• bona fide intention of abandoning and establishing new one• acts which correspond to the purpose• absence of which would continue the domicile of origin

DOMINO v. COMELEC Lease of house – not indicative of intent of permanencePEREZ v. COMELEC Domicile- the place where a party actually of constructively has his permanent home,where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remainThe fact that a person registered as a voter in one district is not proof of his domicile in the said district.Petitioner – ran for governor of the province previouslySJS v. COMELEC COMELEC resolution – additional qualification of a candidate for senate: unconstitutionalas it violates the explicit qualifications in the consti

SECTION 7: TERM OF REPRESENTATIVESDIMAPORO v. MITRA, JR. BP Blg. 881 – forfeiture or voluntary giving up of one’s tenure, due to the act offiling of certificate of candidacy.

• Term – legally mandated• Tenure – actual time

Forfeiture, expulsion, voluntary renunciation

SECTION 9: FILLING-IN VACANCIESLUCERO v. COMELEC Failure of elections = special electionsTOLENTINO v. COMELEC Vacancy in senate: RA 7166: “permanent vacancy at least one year beforeexpiration of the term, shall call and hold a special elections, but in case of vacancy in senate, specialelection will be held simultaneously with the next regular elections.”

Special elections can coincide with regular electionsOCAMPO v. HRET 2nd placer cannot take the place of a disqualified first placer

SALARIESThe salaries of members of the Senate is governed by ARTICLE VI of the Constitution as follows:Sec. 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be determined bylaw. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all themembers of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase.Sec. 20. The records and books of accounts of Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public inaccordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publishannually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each Member.It must be noted that in accordance with the above provisions, there is no prohibition against the receipt ofallowances by the members of Congress. The second SECTION, on the other hand, seeks to avoid therecurrence of the abuses committed by the members of the Old Congress in allotting themselves fabulousallowances the amount of which they refused to divulge to the people. It is now provided under theConstitution that the books of accounts of Congress shall be open to public inspection and must be auditedby the Commission on Audit. Moreover, every member of Congress’ itemized expenditures, includingallowances, shall be published annually for the information of the people. It is interesting to note that theConstitution in SECTION 17, ARTICLE XVIII, provides the corresponding salaries of Senators, to wit: Untilthe Congress provides otherwise, the President shall receive an annual salary of three hundred thousandpesos; the Vice-President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, andthe Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, two hundred forty thousand pesos each; the Senators, themembers of the House of Representatives, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Chairmenof the Constitutional Commissions, two hundred four thousand pesos each; and the Members of theConstitutional Commissions, one hundred eighty thousand pesos each. However, under Joint ResolutionNo. 1, the salaries of the members of the Senate is increased to salary grade 33 with monthly equivalentrate of P35,000.00. The Senate President, on the other hand, is raised to salary grade 34 with a monthlybasic salary of P40,000.00.

SECTION 11: IMMUNITY OF ARREST“punishable by more than six years imprisonment”; while congress is in session – 4 th Monday of july (SONA)and ends 30 days before the next session (compulsory recess), with small recesses in between.PEOPLE v. JALOSJOS Conviction of more than 6 years imprisonment – immunity not applicableElected by constituents even though he was already convicted.TRILLANES v. PIMENTEL No person charged by capital offense or offense punishable by reclusionperpetua shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong. Capacity to carry out his duties while inprison.JIMENEZ v. CABANGBANG Libelous letter: not in the exercise of his dutiesThough, it was not libelous against the petitioners, only alleges that they were unwitting tools, not that theywere the planners themselves. Part of communicative and deliverative processPUYAT v. DE GUZMAN IPI elections = puyat group v. acero group = SEC caseFernandez intervention – circumstances show that there is indirect appearance as counsel beforeadministrative bodySANTIAGO v. GUINGONA Minority v. majority = must be understood in ordinary termsAVELINO v. CUENCO Adjournment -> proclamation of new senate president and session continued withonly 12 members presentQuorum – majority of “the house” instead of majority of “all the members of the house”12 members out of 23 is majority of “the house” = based on the number of those presentPEOPLE v. JALOSJOS Compulsion to attend: jalosjos saying that he could be persuaded for being unableto attend session: not reason for releaseAbsence is for a valid reason: being detainedARROYO v. DE VENECIA RA 8240 passed in congress not in accordance with house rules: arroyo still hadquestions regarding the bill but it was still passed: no calling of the yeas and nays.Internal rules violated – not in court jurisdiction – only the house can determine its rules and punish itsmembersOSMENA v. PENDATUN Privilege speech accusing Pres. Garcia of bribery -> house comitte to investigate-> House resolution # 175 declaring him guilty of disorderly behavior and suspension for 15 monthsAlthough exempt from prosecution or civil action for words uttered in congress, members may bequestioned in CONGRESS ITSELF.Disorderly behavior – the house has exclusive power and the court has none.SANTIAGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN Santiago charged with graft and corruption for allowing aliens to stay inPhils. Suspended by sandiganbayan – pending criminal case: not punishment for disorderly behavior, butpreliminary preventive measure for graft and corrupt act.US v. PONS Pons charged under Act 2381 – anti-opium importationAct 2381 – said to have been passed after last day of session: according to the journals, clock was stoppedat 12 midnight: law passed valid = journal prevails over extraneous evidenceCASCO v. GIMENEZ Urea and formaldehyde v. urea formaldehyde (as written in the law passed)Wording of the law – urea formaldehyde: error in the printingBetween the journals and the enrolled bill: enrolled bill prevails

MORRALES v. SUBIDO Enrolled bill over journalASTORGA v. VILLEGAS Due to the circumstances in the case, the court looked into the Senate journals. = amendments made but not included in the bill signed by the presidentSenate president and Chief Executive: had already withdrawn their signatures: invalidates the lawPHIL. JUDGES v. PRADO Franking privileges of judiciaryEnrolled bill clear, no need to look into journalsBut law must be struck down as it violates the equal protection of the law, in regards to the removal offranking privileges of the judiciaryABAKADA v. ERMITA Enrolled bill to be followed as it was the one approved by both houses and by thepresident.

SECTION 17: SENATE AND HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNALElection Contest - statutory contests in which the contestant seeks not only to oust the intruder, but also tohave himself inducted into the office.Pre-proclamation contests - any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board ofcanvassers in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the electionreturns.ANGARA v. ELECTORAL COMMISSION Prescription given by Electoral commission – has sole jurisdictionover election returns and qualifications of its membersVERA v. AVELINO Deferment of oath-taking – not election contestOath-taking- makes one a members of the legislature: under jurisdiction of the Electoral tribunalCHAVEZ v. COMELEC Pre-proclamation cases not allowed for president, vp, senators and members ofHoRAQUINO v. COMELEC Electoral tribunal does not assume jurisdiction until the winning candidate has beenproclaimed and has taken his oath of office. 2nd placer – cannot take the place of the winning candidatePEREZ v. COMELEC COMELEC no longer has jurisdiction as perez was already proclaimed.GARCIA v. HRET HRET acted according to its own rules, no grave abuse of discretion resulting inlack/excess of jurisdiction. RASUL v. COMELEC HRET – exclusivity in jurisdiction over election contests relating to its own members.VILLAROSA v. HRET Initials not to be used, only one nickname per candidate: not known as Girlie: JTVinitials of her husbandROCES v. HRET Electoral tribunals: 3 justices appointed by Chief Justice, 6 from members of Senate or theHoRABBAS v. SET Electoral tribunal must always be composed of legislative members: for every 2 legislatorsonly one justice.PIMENTEL v. HRET Party-list reps in HoR did not elect a member to the HRETBONDOC v. PINEDA HRET must be non-partisan: must not alter composition of the HRET.ROBLES v. HRET Motion to withdraw does not end tribunal’s jurisdictionARROYO v. HRET NON-TRADITIONAL PROCESS OF PRECINCT-LEVEL DOCUMENT-BASEDEVIDENCE – the process of procuring election documents used not only during the actual balloting stage ofthe election but much earlier, as early as the time of the registration of voters. (not the best form ofevidence)LERIAS v. HRET Original copy of the certificates of canvass should be the best evidenceSANDOVAL v. HRET Substitute service – exhaust all means of locating recipient,

SECTION 18: COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTDAZA v. SINGSON Shift in representation of LDP party = reapportionment of the Commission onAppointment. Must be based on proportional representation, political party must be permanentCOSETENG v. MITRA 2 seats – per appointment into commissionGUINGONA v. GONZALES Cannot reduce the number of seats of a party in favor of another. 12 memberCommission – not mandatory, what is mandatory is the proportional representation

SECTION 21 LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATIONSNEGROS v. SANGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD Power of inquiry – for the legislative only, not delegatedBENGZON v. SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE Power of inquiry to be exercised only for legislativepurposesSENATE v. ERMITA Question hour v. power of inquiryGUDANI v. SENGA Commander-in-chief powers – may limit power of inquiry of congressSTANDARD v. SENATE Compel to attend – in aid of legislationNERI v. SENATE Executive privilege: 2 kinds: presidential communications (between president andexecutive official) and deliberative process (between executive officials only)GARCI v. HOUSE Senate inquiry must be deferred until publication of the Senate rules has been compliedwith.

SECTION 22: “QUESTION HOUR”• Voluntary with consent of the President, or upon the request of the house.• For oversight functions.

ARNAULT v. NAZARENO The materiality of the question must be determined by its direct relation to thesubject of the inquiry and not by its inherent relation to any possible or proposed legislation. (Answer mightbe the basis if the subject is to be made the subject of legislation.)

Senate continuing – power of investigation terminates at the end of session; may be taken up again at thenext session.SENATE v. ERMITA Question hour v. “in aid of legislation”: can only be limited by PRESIDENTIALcommunication privilegeExecutive: with presidential consent v. anyoneRemedy: Sec 21: habeas corpus petition v. sec 22: questions to be submitted beforehand and executivesession

SECTION 23: congress sole power to declare the existence of a state of war, but may by law authorizepresident for a limited time, to exercise powers necessary and to carry out a declared national policy.

Lawless violence, invasion or rebellion – either suspend writ of habeas corpus or declare martial law.In line with David v. Arroyo – gr. no. 171396 (re BP 1070)

SECTION 24: ORIGIN OF MONEY BILLS, PRIVATE BILLS AND LOCAL APPLICATIONAppropriations – specific sum of money appropriated for departments for the performance of theirfunctionsRevenue bills – raising taxesTariff bills – raises revenue from importation and exportation of goodsBills authorizing increase of public debtBills of local application – in relation to provinces, cities and municipalities, ex. Change municipality into acityPrivate bills – ex. Reacquisition of citizenshipTOLENTINO v. SEC OF FINANCE It is the bill that has to originate from the HoR, not the law itself.HoR and Senate equal = has power to propose amendment, even through substitution.“…originate exclusively from the HoR, but Senate may propose and concur with amendments.”ALVAREZ v. GUINGONA The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the Bill ofthe House, does not contravene the constitutional requirement that a bill of local application should originatefrom the House of Representatives, for as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives theHouse Bill.Presentations on (3 area- 3 groups)Constitutional commissions on COMELEC: Civil Service and COASOUTHERN CROSS v. PHILCEMCOR Bill is a tariff bill for a particular purposePASCUAL v. SEC. OF PUBLIC WORKS Incidental advantage to the public or to the state, which resultsfrom the promotion of private interest and the prosperity of private enterprises or business, does not justifytheir aid by the use public money.

SECTION 25 RULES ON APPROPRIATIONBRILLANTES v. COMELEC Electronic quick count (Phase III) not included in the GAA. Appropriation in theGAA – for modernization of Election system; not for quick countGUINGONA v. CARAGUE Appropriation – there must be a fixed amount: valid if it only needs to becomputedGARCIA v. MATA 3rd law should have applied, but applicable provision was invalidated due to its insertionin the Appropirations Act.ATITIW v. ZAMORA In order that a provision or clause in a general appropriations bill may comply with thetest of germaneness, it must be particular, unambiguous, and appropriate.

• Particular – if it relates specifically to a distinct item or appropriation in the bill and does not refergenerally to the entire appropriations bill

• Unambiguous – when its application or operation is apparent on the face of the bill and it does notnecessitate reference to details or sources outside the appropriations bill

• Appropriate – when its subject matter does not necessarily have to be treated in a separatelegislation.

FARINAS v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Difference between elective and appointed officials.DEMETRIA v. ALBA The president cannot indiscriminately transfer funds without regard as to whether ornot the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item from which the same are to be taken, orwhether or not the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made.PHILCONSA v. ENRIQUEZ Chief of Staff cannot be delegated power to augment: only for thoseenumerated in the constitution.SANCHEZ v. COA 2 requisites for augmentation: 1) Actual savings; and, 2) there is an existing item to beaugmented. Deputy Executive Secretary of DILG – no power to augment: only president, senate president,speaker of the House, Chief Justice, and heads of Constitutional Commissions

SECTION 26: Subject and title of bills – General prohibition on “riders”CORDERO v. CABATUANDO The constitutional requirement (one title – one bill rule) is satisfied if all partsof the law related to, and are germane to the subject matter expressed in the title of the Bill.It is sufficient of the title is comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general object which the statuteseeks to effect, without expressing each and every end and means necessary or convenient for theaccomplishment of the object.PHILCONSA v. GIMENEZ It has been the general disposition of the court that the constitutional provisioninvolving the one title – one subject rule should be construed liberally, in favor of the validity of the statute.

The purpose of this rule is to:1. prevent fraud or surprise in the legislature2. fairly appraise the people, through such publication of legislation that are being considered, in order

that they may have the opportunity of being heard thereon by petition or otherwise, if they shall sodesire.

The requirement that the subject of the act shall be expressed in its title is not a mere rule of legislativeprocedure; it is MANDATORY. It is the duty of the court to declare void any statute not conforming to theconstitutional provision.ALALAYAN v. NPC If the object of the law is to amend a previous legislation, it will suffice if the title givesreference to the amended law.INSULAR LUMBER v. CTA The primary purpose of the one subject-one title rule is to prohibit duplicity oflegislation, the title of which might completely fail to appraise the legislators or the public of the nature,scope and consequences of the law or its operation. -> every presumption fails its validityWhere there is doubt as to the insufficiency of either the title or the Act, the legislation should be sustained.TIO v. VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD Art. VI, Sec. 26 is sufficiently complied with if the title iscomprehensive enough to include the general purpose to which a statute seeks to achieve. It is satisfied ifall the parts of the statue are related to, and are germane to the subject expressed in the title, or as long asthey are not inconsistent with and foreign to the general subject and title. PRACTICAL rather thanTECHNICAL construction.PHIL. JUDGES v. PRADO The title need not be an index of the body of the act, or be comprehensive as tocover every single detail of the measure. It need only that all provisions in said act should be germane to thesubject thereof.TOBIAS V. ABALOS A liberal construction of the one title-one subject rule has been invariably adopted by the court so as not to impede or cripple legislation.TATAD v. DOE The title of a law need not mirror or fully index or catalogue all the contents or provisions of the said law.DE GUZMAN v. COMELEC Purpose of SECTION 26: 1) prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation; 2)to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions in bills of which titles gave no info,and which might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and, 3) to fairlyappraise the people through such publication of legislative proceedings as is usually made, of the subjectsof legislation that are being considered, in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon bypetition or otherwise if they so desire. SECTION 26 is said to have been complied with if the title iscomprehensive enough to embrace the general to embrace the general objective it seeks to achieve:presumption is in favor of validity.CAWALING v. COMELEC Every statutes has in its favor the presumption of validity: grounds for nullitymust be beyond reasonable doubt. (This also goes for one title-one subject rule).

SECTION 27: PROCEDURE IN LAW-MAKINGARROYO v. DE VENECIA No rule of the House of Representatives has been cited which specificallyrequires that in case involving the approval of a conference committee report, the Chair must restate themotion and conduct a viva voce or nominal voting. The constitution does not require that the yeas and naysof the Members be taken every time a House has to vote, except only in the ff circumstances: 1) upon thelast and third readings of the bills; 2) at the request of 1/5 of the members present; and, 3) in repassing a billover the veto of the president.ABAKADA v. ERMITA It is within the power of a conference committee to include in its report an entirelynew provision that is not found either in the House bill or in the Senate bill. If the committee can propose anamendment consisting of one or two provisions, there is no reason why it cannot propose severalprovisions, collectively considered as “an amendment in the nature of a substitute”, so long as suchamendment is germane to the subject of the bills before the committee.Bicameral conference committees – have power to introduce amendments.No amendment rule pertains only to the procedure to be followed by each house of the Congress withregard to bills initiated in each of said respective Houses, before said bill is transmitted to the other housefor its concurrence or amendment.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CTA An “item” in a revenue bill doesn’t refer to an entireSECTION imposing a particular kind of tax, but rather to the subject of the tax and the tax rate. To construe“item” as referring to the whole SECTION, would tie the president’s hand in choosing either to approve thewhole SECTION at the expense of also approving a provision therein which he deems unacceptable or vetothe entire SECTION at the expense of foregoing the collection of the kind of tax altogether.In Appropriation bills, the president may exercise “item-veto”.GONZALEZ v. MACARAIG The terms item and provision in budgetary legislation and practice areconcededly different. An item in a bill refers to the particulars, the details, and the distinct and several partsof a bill. It furthered that “an ‘item’ of an appropriation bill obviously means an item which in itself is aspecific appropriation of money, not some general provision of law, which happens to be put into anappropriation bill.” Inappropriate provisions – should be treated as items subject to the veto power of thepresident. To determine if a provision is an inappropriate provision: test of appropriateness. It is notenough that a provision be related to the institution or agency to which funds are appropriated. Conditionsand limitations properly included in an appropriation bill must exhibit such a connection with money items ofappropriation that they logically belong in a schedule of expenditures. For the rule to apply, restrictionsshould be such in the real sense of the term, not some matter which are more appropriately dealt with in aseparate legislation.

BENGZON v. DRILON The act of the Executive in vetoing particular provisions is an exercise of aconstitutionally vested power. But the veto power is not absolute. Only particular items may be vetoed. Thepresident cannot set aside or reverse a final and executory judgment of the court through the exercise of theveto power, nor can she enact or amend statutes promulgated by her predecessors, much less to repealexisting laws.PHILCONSA v. ENRIQUEZ Where the veto is claimed to have been made without or in excess of theauthority vested in the President, the issue of an impermissible intrusion of the Executive into the Legislativedomain arises.

SECTION 28: TAXATIONPLANTERS v. FERTIPHIL Public purpose is at the heart of a tax law. It is an elastic concept. The inherentrequirement that taxes can only be exacted for a public purpose still stands. When a tax law is only a maskto exact funds from the public when its true intent is to give undue benefit and advantage to a privateenterprise, the law will not satisfy the requirement of “public purpose”. The purpose of the law is evidentfrom its text or inferable from other secondary sources.CIR v. LINGAYEN A tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where thesubject of it is found. Uniformity means that all property belonging to the same class shall be taxed alike.(Follows requisites for a valid classification).TOLENTINO v. SEC. OF FINANCE Tax exemption based on valid classification (?)TAN v. DEL ROSARIO Uniformity of taxation follows valid classification between individuals andcorporations:

1) the standards that are used therefore are substantial and not arbitrary2) the categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose3) the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future conditions4) the classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class.

Under the tax system, the trend is to treat different things differently.CIR v.CA All subjects or objects similar must be equally taxed, or put on equal footing both in privileges andliabilities; no exemptions. All taxable ARTICLEs or kinds of property of the same class must be taxed at thesame rate and the tax must operate with the same force and effect in every place where the subject may befound.ABRA VALLEY COLLEGE v. AQUINO The exemption in favor of property used exclusively for charitableor educational purposes is not limited to property actually indispensable therefore, but extends to facilitiesthat are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of said purpose, such as in the caseof hospitals, a school for training nurses, a nurse’s home, property used to provide housing facilities forinterns, doctors, superintendents, and other members of the hospital staff, etc. The exemption extends tofacilities which are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the main purpose ofthe charitable or educational (or religious) institution. The test of exemption is the use of the property forpurposes mentioned in the constitution.JOHN HAY v. LIM Since only Congress can pass tax laws, it follows that only Congress can provide taxexemptions, through the passage of legislation.SOUTHERN CEMENT v. PHILCEMCOR The power of taxation by nature and by command of thefundamental law is a preserve of the legislature. The delegation of taxation power by the legislative to theexecutive is authorized by the constitution itself. The constitution also grants Congress the right to imposerestrictions and limitations on the taxation power of the president. The restrictions and limitations imposedby Congress take on the mantle of a constitutional command, which the executive branch is obliged toobserve.LUNG CENTER v. QC To determine whether an enterprise is a charitable institution/entity or not, theelements which should be considered include the statutes creating the enterprise, its corporate purpose, itsconstitution and by-laws, the methods of administration, the nature of the actual work performed, thecharacter of the services rendered, the indefiniteness of the beneficiaries, and the use and occupation of theproperties. A charity may be fully defined as a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for thebenefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds and hearts under the influence ofeducation or religion, by assisting them to establish themselves in life or otherwise lessening the burden orgovernment. The test whether an enterprise is charitable or not is whether it exists to carry out apurpose recognized in law as charitable or whether it is maintained for gain, profit or privateadvantage. A charitable institution does not lose its character as such and its exemptions from taxes simplybecause it derives income from paying patients, or receivables from the government (or donations), so longas the money received is devoted or used altogether to the charitable object which it is intended to achieve,and no money inures to the private benefit of the persons managing or operating the institution.ABAKADA v. ERMITA The power of tax cannot be delegated, but the details as to the enforcement andadministration of an exercise of such power may be left to the executive, including the power to determinethe existence of facts which its operation depends, the rationale being that the preliminary ascertainment offacts as basis for the enactment of legislation is not itself a legislative function but is simply ancillary tolegislation. The constitution does not require that Congress find for itself every fact upon which it desires tobase legislative action or that it make for itself detailed determinations which it has declared to beprerequisite to application of legislative policy to particular facts and circumstances impossible for Congressitself to properly investigate. Congress may delegate to the President the power to increase a tax,dependent on a certain set of facts, upon the completion of which the president may carry out the delegatedpower.SPOUSES CONSTANTINO v. CUISIA The Congress can delegate to the cabinet Secretary (i.e. Secretary

of Finance), in his capacity as the alter ego of the president, to carry out the authority vested on the ChiefExecutive under SECTION 28.REPUBLIC v. CITY OF KIDAPAWAN Tax exemption cannot be granted without the concurrence of themajority of the members of congress, and may only be done through the passage of legislation. Onlycongress can provide for tax exemptions, as it is the only branch that has power to tax.

SECTION 29: RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDSPASCUAL v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS The right to appropriate funds is correlative to the right totax. Since taxing powers must be exercised for public purposes only, then money raised by taxation can beexpended only for public purposes as well. Legislature is without power to appropriate public funds foranything but a public purpose. It is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which mustdetermine its validity and not the magnitude of interest to be affected. Incidental benefit or advantage to thepublic does not justify the use of public money. The test of constitutionality is whether the statute isdesigned to promote public interests, as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of individuals,even if each advantage to individuals incidentally serves the public. MIAA v. MABUNAY Legislative may delegate to the agency the power to provide for the means of obtainingobject of an appropriation but such act cannot go beyond statutes. Public bidding has been a practice, whichis the accepted method of arriving at a fair price and prevents favoritism and overpricing.GUINGONA v. CARAGUE Constitution does not require exact, specific appropriation made by law.COMELEC v. QUIJANO No money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriationmade by law. Appropriation must first be made prior to the bidding and creation of contracts, so as toprovide for a guideline regarding the amount that can be used for the specific enterprise.GASTON v. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK Taxes levied for a specific purpose are considered to bespecial funds, which is an exercise of the police power of the state. Once the specific purpose isaccomplished or abandoned, the funds become and are transferred to the general funds of the state.Revenues collected are to be treated as a special fund, to be ‘administered in trust’ for the purposeintended.OSMENA v. ORBOS Money named as tax but actually collected in the exercise of the police power of thestate may be placed in a special trust account.

SECTION 30: APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURTFIRST LEPANTO CERAMICS v. CA The provision is intended to give the SC a measure of control overcases placed under its appellate jurisdiction.FABIAN v. DISIERTO A law is invalid when it increases the appellate jurisdiction of the court without itsadvice.

ARTICLE VIIEXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE POWER• Constitutional power granted to the President to enforce laws• Includes rule-making power: implementation and enforcement of laws passed

PHILCONSA v. ENRIQUEZ The Countrywide Development Fund is explicit that it shall be used “forinfrastructure, purchase of ambulances and computers and other priority projects and activities and creditfacilities to qualified beneficiaries.” It was Congress itself that determined the purposes for the appropriation.Executive function under the said fund involves implementation of the priority projects specified in the law.WEBB v. DE LEON The prosecution of crimes pertains to the executive department, whose principal powerand reasonability is to see that our laws are faithfully executed. Determining probable cause – executive incharacterMARCOS v. MANGLAPUS The powers of the president are not limited to those enumerated in theconstitution: residual powersRight to return – found in the UN declaration of Human Rights, International covenant on human rights, butnot absolute: subject to national interests, public policy and welfare, health, etc.

• general power to faithfully execute the laws• express powers of the president – those enumerated in the constitution• residual powers – anything not expressly provided in the Constitution, ARTICLE VI

LAUREL v. GARCIA Power to enter into contracts – except for property under public dominionDJUMANTAN v. DOMINGO Right of every state to regulate the entry of persons into their country:deportation part of executive powerPONTEJOS v. OMB State witness – will not be charged with criminal prosecution.US v. NIXON General claim of executive privilege is not absolute nor unqualified; in a situation when aperson’s right is made subject of a criminal proceeding, then production of evidence is essential to upholdthe constitutional rights of the accused.NERI v. SENATE COMMITTEE Presidential communication privilegeElements:

• Protected communication must relate to a quintessential and non-delegable presidential power• Must be authored or solicited and received by a close advisor of the President of the President

himself• Remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need.

SOLIVEN v. MAKASIAR President may waive immunity from suit. The only person who can invoke

immunity is the president himself.HARLOW v. FITZGERALD Qualified Immunity or “good faith” immunity may be use by an official. A officialwould be qualifiedly immune if he (1) does not know that the action taken in his sphere of responsibilitywould violate the constitutional rights of the victim. (2) did not act with malicious intent. Gov’t officialsperforming discretionary functions generally are shieled from civil damages insofar as their conduct does notviolate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable person would have known.CLINTON v. JONES The President of the United States is entitled to absolute immunity from damagesliability predicated on official acts. Some public servants are granted immunity from suits for moneydamages arising out of their official acts so as to enable them to perform their designated functionseffectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability. The societal interest inproviding such public officials with the maximum ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with the public atlarge as an acceptable justification for official immunity. The point of immunity for such officials is to forestallan atmosphere of intimidation that would conflict with their resolve to perform their designated function in aprincipled fashion. However, as much as some public officials including the President, may be grantedimmunity, it does not apply to unofficial conduct. Immunities are grounded in the nature of the functionperformed, not the identity of the actor who performed. GLORIA v. CA Immunity from suit for the president, not for cabinet members.ESTRADA v. DISIERTO Though incumbent presidents are immune from suit DURING their tenure, thisimmunity does not extend BEYOND their tenure. Additionally, the charges filed against Erap are criminal innature, and the SC cannot “wrap him in post-tenure immunity from liability”. It would then circumvent thegeneral application of laws to him. DAVID v. ARROYO The President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in anycivil or criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constituion or law. It will degrade thedignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be dragged into court litigations whileserving as such. Furthermore, it is important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance ordistraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike thelegislative and judicial branch, only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which impairs hisusefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties imposed upon him by the Constitutionnecessarily impairs the operation of the Government. However, this does not mean that the President is notaccountable to anyone. Like any other official, he remains accountable to the people but he may beremoved from office only in the mode provided by law and that is by IMPEACHMENT.CONSTANTINO v. CUISIA The President of the Philippines is the Executive of the Government of thePhilippines, and no other. The heads of the executive departments occupy political positions and hold officein an advisory capacity, and, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, "should be of the President's bosomconfidence", and, in the language of Attorney-General Cushing, "are subject to the direction of thePresident." Without minimizing the importance of the heads of the various departments, their personality isin reality but the projection of that of the President. Stated otherwise, and as forcibly characterized by ChiefJustice Taft of the Supreme Court of the United States, "each head of a department is, and must be, thePresident's alter ego in the matters of that department where the President is required by law toexercise authority".

SECTION 4: ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VPANSON-ROA v. ARROYO GMA was not elected: she assumed presidency after resignation of Estrada.Thus, there is no bar from running for presidency as she is not covered by the phrase: “run for anyreelection.”BRILLANTES v. COMELEC Canvassing of votes for President and VP is the tack of Congress. It cannot beundertaken by the Comelec, even in the disguise of being “unofficial.”PIMENTEL v. JOINT COMMITTEE The canvassing of votes of the president and vp by the congress is notone of its legislative functions. Thus, it is not covered by the end of the session of Congress, unlike itslegislative funcstions, which end along with the adjournment of its sessions.LOPEZ v. SENATE The constitution provides that Congress has the power to promulgate its rulesconcerning the canvassing of votes for the presidency and VP.

SECTION 7: START OF TERM AS OF NOON JUNE 30

PRESIDENT FAILS TOQUALIFY

NOT CHOSEN DEATH/DISABILITY

PRES. VP BOTH PRES. VP BOTH PRES. VP BOTH

VP actsas Pres.

Nosuccessio

n

SenatePres,/Speak

er of HoR(until onequalifies)“actingpres.”

VP asactingPres.

Nosuccession

SenatePres. Or

Speaker ofHoR

VP asPres.

Pres. NominatesVP from

members ofCongress uponconfirmation bymajority vote ofall members ofboth houses

SenatePres./Speaker of HoR

TECSON v. LIM The election contest can only contemplate a post-election scenario. It is fair to concludethat the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, defined by SECTION 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution,would not include cases directly brought before it, questioning the qualifications of a candidate for the

presidency or vice-presidency before the elections are held.SECTION 7-8: FILLING IN VACANCY IN THE PRESIDENCY

ESTRADA v. DISIERTO Resignation is not a high level legal abstraction. It is a factual question and itselements are beyond quibble: there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts ofrelinquishment. The validity of a resignation is not government by any formal requirement as to form. It canbe oral. It can be written. It can be express. It can be implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must begiven legal effect.

SECTION 8: MIDTERM PAST JUNE 30

DEATH, DISABILITY; REMOVAL, RESIGNATIONDEATH, DISABILITY; RESIGNATION

Pres. VP Both Acting Pres. (SP/SH)VP is Pres. Pres. Will nominate VPP

from Congress (sec. 9)Senate Pres./Speaker of

HoR as Pres.By Law (Congress)

SECTION 11: INCAPACITY OF THE PRESIDENTESTRADA v. DISIERTO To be determined by Congress: can be ascertained form their acts of recognitionof GMA.

SECTION 13: PROHIBITIONSRAFAEL v. EMBROIDERY Ex-officio capacity – not entirely different from current duties and functions;incidental to their officeCLU v. EXEC. SEC. The executive is treated as a class in itself and as such, are given stricter prohibitions.DELA CRUZ v. COA Ex-officio capacity – no compensation for the executive who acts as such, nor do theirrepresentatives.BITONIO v. COA AND AMNESTY INT’L v. COA Representatives designated by ex-officio members arenot exempted from the law: the designation is an imposition only of additional duties, and does not conferany legally demandable rights.DOROMAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN Participation in a contract with the government, though indirect, is stillprohibited: but accused is entitled to investigation and rights conferred by the law.CIVIL LIBERTIES V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY – There is a sweeping, all-embracing prohibition imposed on the President, members of Cabinet, which prohibitions are not similarly imposed on other public officials. The prohibition against holding dual or multiple offices must not be construed as applying to posts occupied by executive officials: (1) without additional compensation; (2) in an ex-officio capacity; (3) as provided for by law and (4)as required by the primary functions of said official’s office. Additional duties must not only be closely related to, but must be required by the official’s primary functions. If the functions required to be performed are merely incidental, remotely related, inconsistent incompatible, or alien to the primary function,then it would prohibited.

SECTION 14-15: APPOINTMENTS BY ACTING PRESIDENTIN RE APPOINTMENT OF VALENZUELA There are two kinds of appointments directed against by theappointment ban in Sec. 15, Art. 7: (1) those made for vote-buying and (2) those made for partisan politics.Midnight appointments such as the appointments in question are made in consideration of partisan politicsto influence the outcome of the elections. The only appointments that are exempted from the ban are vacantexecutive positions that will prejudice public interest.

SECTION 16: NATURE OF APPOINTING POWERGOVENRMENT v. SPRINGER The legislative branch has no power to appoint. It is only for the executive.BERMUDEZ v. EXEC. SEC. The president need not wait for his/her subordinate’s recommendation to carryout a duty or function vested in his/her office.PIMENTEL v. ERMITA The law expressly allows the President to make such acting appointment. SECTION17, Chapter 5, Title I, Book III of EO 292 states that “[t]he President may temporarily designate an officeralready in the government service or any other competent person to perform the functions of an office in theexecutive branch.” Thus, the President may even appoint in an acting capacity a person not yet in thegovernment service, as long as the President deems that person competent. SARMIENTO v. MISON Except as to those officers whose appointments require the consent of the COA byexpress mandate of the first sentence in Sec 16 Art VII, appointments of other officers are left to thePresident without need of confirmation by the COA. It is only in the first sentence where it is clearly statedthat positions enumerated therein require the consent of the COA. The word “alone” is a mere lapsus.BAUTISTA v. SALONGA Appointing power solely vests in the President, but once she makes theappointment, the President loses the power over the position. It’s up to the appointed person if she wouldaccept or not.QUINTO-DELES v. CA Appointment of sectoral representatives need CA confirmation.POBRE v. MENDIENTA This provision empowers the President to appoint "those whom he may beauthorized by law to appoint." The law that authorizes him to appoint the PRC Commissioner andAssociate Commissioners, is P.D. 223, SECTION 2, which provides that the Commissioner and AssociateCommissioners of the PRC are "all to be appointed by the President for a term of nine (9) years, withoutreappointment, to start from the time they assume office .FLORES v. DRILON The power of choice is the heart of the power to appoint. Appointment involves an

exercise of discretion of whom to appoint; it is not a ministerial act of issuing appointment papers to theappointee. In other words, the choice of the appointee is a fundamental component of the appointing power.RUFINO v. ENDRIGA The power to appoint is the prerogative of the President, except in those instanceswhen the Constitution provides otherwise. Under SECTION 16, there is a fourth group of lower-rankedofficers whose appointments Congress may by law vest in the heads of departments, agencies,commissions, or boards. These inferior or lower in rank officers are the subordinates of the heads ofdepartments, agencies, commissions, or boards who are vested by law with the power to appoint. Congresshas the discretion to grant to, or withhold from, the heads the power to appoint lower-ranked officers. The1987 Constitution only allows heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards to appoint only“officers lower in rank” than such “heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.”CALDERON v. CARALE The second sentence of Sec 16, Art VII refers to all other officers of thegovernment whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law and those whom the President maybe authorized by law. The NLRC Chairman and Commissioners fall within the second sentence of Sec 16.The Chairman and Members of the NLRC are NOT among the officers mentioned in the first sentence ofSec 16, whose appointments requires the confirmation by the Commission on App.TARROSA v. SINGSON Congress cannot by law expand the confirmation powers of the Commission onAppointments and require confirmation of appointments of other government officials not expresslymentioned in the first sentence of SECTION 16 of ARTICLE 7 of the Constitution. MANOLO v. SIZTOZA The police force is different from and independent of the armed forces and the ranksin the military are not similar to those in the PNP. Thus, directors and chief superintendents of the PNP,such as respondent police officers in this case, do not fall under the first category of presidential appointeesrequiring the confirmation by the CA (see first sentence of the first paragraph of SECTION 16). PNP is notpart of the AFP.SORIANO v. LISTA It is clear from SECTION 16, ARTICLE VII of the 1987 Constitution that only appointedofficers from the rank of colonel or naval captain in the armed forces require confirmation by the CA. Therule is that the plain, clear and unambiguous language of the Constitution should be construed as such andshould not be given a construction that changes its meaning. The enumeration of appointments subject toconfirmation by the CA under SECTION 16, ARTICLE VII of the 1987 Constitution is exclusive. The clause"officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain" refers to military officers alone.

SECTION 17: POWER OF CONTROLLACSON-MAGALLANES v. PANO The president is vested with the executive power in the 3 branches ofgovernment. With this power, comes the power to control all of the executive departments. He can appointthese heads, and dismiss them as he pleases. Having the power to control and direct them, he as well canconfirm, modify or reverse the decisions of these department secretaries.ANG-ANGCO v. CASTILLO The power of control of the President extends to the power to “alter or modifyor nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitutethe judgment of the [President] for that of the [subordinate officer].” This may be extended to the power to“investigate, suspend or remove officers and employees who belong to the executive department if they arepresidential appointees or do not belong to the classified service for such can be justified that the power toremove is inherent to the power to appoint.” The same cannot be done to officers or employees who belongto the classified service. The procedure laid down in the Civil Service Act of 1959 must be followed for theirremoval.VILLALUZ v. ZALDIVAR Inherent in the power to appoint is the power to remove.NAMARCO v. ARCA President’s power of control includes GOCCs as part of the Executive department.DRILON v. LIM Supervision – merely to determine if rules are being followed; control – change the rulesand creates new ones, and provide penalties for non-compliance with the rules.PASEI v. TORRES The Ministry of Labor is under the executive department and the president has thepower of control of its department head (Secretary). It is implicit in the power of control is the power toreview, confirm, modify or reverse acts of Dept’ heads. In this case, if the Secretary grants a new license,Marcos can deny or approve of it. Hence, this LOI takes the nature of a presidential issuance which can berepealed by a later presidential issuance. DE LEON v. CARPIO Acts of the alter egos of the President are acts of the President himself unlessdisapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive.

• All executive departments, bureaus, and offices are under control of President• President’s power of control over cabinet, who in turn controls bureaus and other offices under their

jurisdictiono As head of executive department, he may delegate some of his powers to the Cabinet except

when he is required by the Constitution to act in person or in the exegencies of the situationsdemand that he act personally

• The NBI is under the Department of Justice and since the Secretary of Justice acts as alter ego of thePresident, his orders must be followed by the Director of the NBI.

JOSON v. TORRES Jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary actions against elective local officials islodged in two authorities: The disciplining authority and the Investigating Authority. The DiscipliningAuthority is the President whether acting by himself or through the Executive Secretary. The Secretary ofthe Interior and Local Government is the Investigating Authority who may act by himself or by andInvestigating committee. The secretary of the DILG, however is not the exclusive investigating authority. Inlieu of the DILG Secretary, the disciplining authority may designate a special Investigating committee. HUTCHINSON v. SBMA Chartered instirutions are always under the power of control of the President.

PRA v. BUNAG The task of the Department of Budget and Management is simply to review thecompensation and benefits plan of the government agency or entity concerned and determine if the samecomplies with the prescribed policies and guidelines issued in this regard. The role of the Department ofBudget and Management is supervisorial in nature, its main duty being to ascertain that the proposedcompensation, benefits and other incentives to be given to PRA officials and employees adhere to thepolicies and guidelines issued in accordance with applicable laws.DOMINGO v. ZAMORA Power of the President to reorganize over: 1) office of the President proper; 2)offices within the office of the PresidentROMULDEZ v. SNDIGANBAYAN The felonious act of public officials and their close relatives are not actsof the state, and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such, but stands on the same footing as anyother offender.CHAVEZ v. ROMULO Under SECTION 17, ARTICLE VII of the Constitution, he/she is given powers as theChief Executive: “The president shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices. Heshall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.” As the Chief Executive, GMA holds the steering wheel thatcontrols the course of her government. She lays down the policies in the execution of her plans andprograms. Whatever policy she chooses, she has her subordinate to implement them. In short, she has thepower of control. Whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to her subordinate, she mayact directly or merely direct the performance of a duty. Thus, when GMA directed Ebdane to suspend theissuance of the PTCFOR, she was just directing a subordinate to perform an assigned duty. Such act waswell within the prerogative of her office.

SECTION 18 COMMANDER IN CHIEF

CALL IN AFPSUSPEND PRIVILEGE OF

WRIT OF HABEASCORPUS

DECLAREMARTIAL LAW

GROUNDS

Prevent / Suppress lawless violence

Yes ? ?

Invasion Yes yes yes

Rebellion Yes yes yes

PERIOD

Prevent / Suppress lawless violence

?

InvasionGen. Rule: 60 days (except if extended or revoked by

Congress)

Rebellion

Notice ? Congress w/in 48 hours

Revocation ? Congress

Judicial Review & Period?

Yes. The test is w/n the Pres. Acted arbitrarily 7sufficiently based on the facts; decide in 60

days

Who can question ? Any Citizen

Courts & legis. Assembly Open Open Open

LANSANG v. GARCIA President has 3 courses of action (in times of national emergency):• To call out Armed Forces • To suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus• To place the Philippines (entirely or partly) under martial law

IBP v. ZAMORA The calling out power is placed in a different category from the power to declare martiallaw and the power to suspend martial law and the power to suspend the habeas corpus otherwise, theframers of the Constitution would have simply lumped together the 3 powers and provided for theirrevocation and review without any qualification (see SECTION 18, ARTICLE 7 codal)The power to call is fully discretionary to the president.LACSON v. PEREZ The court may review the factual basis for the proclamation declaring the existence of astate of rebellion.SANLAKAS v. EXEC. SEC. The President has full discretionary power to call out the armed forces and todetermine the necessity of the exercise of such power. None of the petitioners have supported theirassertion that the President acted without factual basis.DAVID v. ARROYO The president may call out the AFP without confirmation from Congress, but may notexercise emergency powers without congressional enactment.

SECTION 19: EXECUTIVE CLEMENCYREPRIEVES COMMUTATIO

NPARDON FINES AMNESTY

Whoexercises

President President President PresidentPres. + maj. Ofall of Congress

Effect Postpones to aday certain

Remission ofpart of the

punishment

Exempts frompunishment

(looks forward)

-abolishesoffense(looks

-relieved fromconsequences

-civil liabilitybackward)

Requisites Final Judgment Final Judgment Final JudgmentFinal

judgment

-beforeconviction-treason,political

offense/law ofnations

Beneficiary individual Individual Individual IndividualClass of

individuals

Limitation

Except:impeachment;

election offense(Comelec

recommendation)

-> Same Same Same

Same (if taxamnesty, needs

legislativeconcurrence)

AcceptanceGen. Rule:

needed exceptif absolute

CRISTOBAL v. LABRADOR There are only two limitations on the pardoning power of the executive: thatthe power be exercised after conviction (final judgement) and that such power does not extend to cases ofimpeachment. Pardon was granted to Santos after he has served his sentence and his case was not that ofimpeachment. Thus, the pardoning power of the executive cannot be restricted by legislative action. Anabsolute pardon blots out not only the crime committed but removes all disabilities resulting from conviction.Often, imprisonment is not the only punishment when one goes against the law but punishment also comesin the form of accessory and resultant disabilities. When pardon is granted after the term of imprisonmenthas expired, absolute pardon removes all that is left of the consequences of conviction.LLAMAS v. ORBOS The president may grant clemency for administrative cases in the executive branch:the constitution does not distinguish between criminal and administrative cases.PEOPLE v. SALLE “after final judgment of conviction” – no appeals: if pardon is applied for, it shall not beprocessed pending an appeal. The judgment must fist be final.PEOPLE v. BACANG Pardon cannot be extended pending an appeal.DRILON v. CA Once a person has been pardoned, or has served his sentence, his case can no longer bereopened and reinvestigated.TORRES v. GONZALES The acceptance of a conditional pardon, carried with it the authority or powergiven to the President to determine whether the condition of the pardon has been violated. To no otherdepartment of the Government has such power been entrusted or delegated. Such act of the President isnot subject to judicial scrutiny.PEOPLE v. CASSIDO Amnesty – granted to classes of persons guilty of political offenses, instituted beforeor after criminal prosecution or even after conviction.MONSANTO v. FACTORAN Pardon does not restore a convicted felon to public office. He must firstacguire a reappointment, not a reinstatement, and does not exempt him from paying civil liabilities.GARCIA v. COA Since the pardon was based on innocence, the accused should be accorded his rightspreviously held. He should be automatically reinstated and given back wages, as if he never left his office,as his dismissal is rendered null and void, due to lack of the cause of action to which his innocence wasfound.

SECTION 21 INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS, TREATIES, ETC.GONZALES v. HECHANOVA Although the president may enter into agreements without previouslegislative authority, he may not by executive agreement, enter into transactions which is prohibited bystatutes enacted prior thereto. Under the constitution, the main function of the executive is to enforce thelaws enacted by congress. He may not defeat legislative enactments by indirectly repealing the samethrough an executive agreement providing for the performance of the very act prohibited by said laws.USAFFE v. TREASURER Executive agreements are two classes:

1) PRESIDENTIAL AGREEMENTS- Agreement made purely by executive acts affecting externalrelations and independent of or needs no legislative authorization.

2) CONGRESSIONAL- EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS- Agreement entered into in pursuance of acts ofcongress.

The agreement may fall under any of these 2 classes. Why?1) Because congress granted authority to the president to obtain loans and incur indebtedness with the

Government of US.2) Even assuming that there was no legislative authorization, the agreement may still be entered into

purely as executive acts (which usually relates to money agreements for settlement of pecuniaryclaims of the citizens.

3) Senate resolution 15 admitted the validity and the binding force of the agreement.4) The act of congress appropriating funds for the yearly installments (under the agreement) constitute a

ratification thereof. Because international agreements are for the executive, the courts may notencroach upon their validity.

BAYAN v. ZAMORA Treaty – signed and approved by 2/3 majority vote of all members of the Senate.

ABAYA v. EBDANE An "exchange of notes" is a record of a routine agreement that has many similaritieswith the private law contract. The agreement consists of the exchange of two documents, each of the partiesbeing in the possession of the one signed by the representative of the other. Under the usual procedure, theaccepting State repeats the text of the offering State to record its assent. The signatories of the letters maybe government Ministers, diplomats or departmental heads. The technique of exchange of notes isfrequently resorted to, either because of its speedy procedure, or, sometimes, to avoid the process oflegislative approval. It is stated that "treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols,declarations, memoranda of understanding, modus vivendi and exchange of notes" all refer to"international instruments binding at international law." Significantly, an exchange of notes isconsidered a form of an executive agreement, which becomes binding through executive action without theneed of a vote by the Senate or Congress. Agreements concluded by the President which fall short oftreaties are commonly referred to as executive agreements and are no less common in our scheme ofgovernment than are the more formal instruments – treaties and conventions. They sometimes take theform of exchange of notes and at other times that of more formal documents denominated "agreements" or"protocols". The point where ordinary correspondence between this and other governments ends andagreements – whether denominated executive agreements or exchange of notes or otherwise – begin, maysometimes be difficult of ready ascertainment.Pharmaceutical v. DOH Non-customary laws need to be transformed into local legislation before it can bebinding: ratification and concurrence of Senate.

ARTICLE VIIIJUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

SECTION 1: JUDICIAL POWERMARBURY v. MADISON Judicial review: authority of the court to inquire into the acts of the branches ofgovernment or instrumentalities thereof.SANTIAGO v. BAUTISTA Judicial function is an act performed by virtue of judicial powers; the exercise ofwhich is the doing of something in the nature of the action of the court. In order that a special action ofcertiorari may be invoked in this jurisdiction, the following must exist:a. That there must be a specific controversy involving the rights of persons or property;b. Such controversy is brought before a tribunal, board, or officer for hearing and determination of rights andobligations.MANILA ELECTRIC v. PASAY TRANSIT The Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot berequired to exercise any power or to perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or connectedwith the administering of judicial functions. The power conferred on this court is exclusively judicial, and itcannot be required or authorized to exercise any other. . . . Its jurisdiction and powers and duties beingdefined in the organic law of the government, and being all strictly judicial, Congress cannot require orauthorize the court to exercise any other jurisdiction or power, or perform any other duty… And while itexecutes firmly all the judicial powers entrusted to it, the court will carefully abstain from exercising anypower that is not strictly judicial in its character, and which is not clearly confided to it by the Constitution.NOBLEJAS v. TEEHANKEE Judicial power does not include the power to discipline officers in othersbranches of government with equal rank as that of a judge. This is beyond the judicial sphere.RADIOWEALTH v. AGREGADO The “preservation of Judiciary’s integrity and effectiveness is necessary”.Corollary to this is the power of judiciary to maintain its existence. The quality of the government dependsupon the independence of judiciary and the officials of the government cannot deprive the courts of anythingwhich is vital to their functions. Furthermore, the prerogatives of this court which the Constitution securesagainst interference include not only the powers to adjudicate cases but all things that are REASONABLYnecessary for the administration of justice. The purchase of the necessary equipment would contribute to amore effective judiciary. Lastly, these are implied and incidental powers that are as essential to theexistence of the court as the powers specifically granted to it.IN RE LAURETA The Court's authority and duty under the premises is unmistakable. It must act to preserveits honor and dignity from the scurrilous attacks of an irate lawyer, mouthed by his client, and to safeguardthe morals and ethics of the legal profession.IN RE BORROMEO Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces orfactors. They should not be subject to intimidation, the fear of civil, criminal or administrative sanctions foracts they may do and dispositions they may make in the performance of their duties and functions. Hence itis sound rule, which must be recognized independently of statute that judges are not generally liable for actsdone within the scope of their jurisdiction and in good faith. The Court has repeatedly and uniformly ruledthat a judge may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision he renders.The exercise of the power of contempt of the court is valid.DIRECTOR OF PRISONS v. ANG CHO KIO The power to revoke a conditional pardon is within the realmof the executive, and does not fall within the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Neither does the judiciary have thepower to give advisory opinions. Its main duty is to settle disputes and uphold rights, in the absence ofwhich it cannot render opinions, as this is not one of its functions.ECHEGARAY v. SEC. OF JUSTICE The finality of a judgment does not mean the Court has lost all itspowers over the case. By the finality of the judgment, what the court loses is its jurisdiction to amend,modify, or alter the same. The court still has jurisdiction to execute and enforce it. The power to control theexecution of its decision is an essential aspect of jurisdiction. Supervening events may change thecircumstance of the parties and compel courts to intervene and adjust the rights of the litigants to preventunfairness.Postponement of the date: The particulars of the execution itself are absolutely under the control of the

judicial authority, while the executive has no power over the person of the convict except to provide forcarrying out of the penalty and to pardon. The date can be postponed, even in sentences of death. Underthe common law this postponement can be ordered in 3 ways: (1) by command of the King (2) by discretionof the court (3) by mandate of the law.PCGG v. DISIERTO The Constitution has tasked this Court “to determine whether or not there has beengrave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch orinstrumentality of the Government,” including the Office of the Ombudsman. Specifically, this Court ismandated to review and reverse the ombudsman’s evaluation of the existence of probable cause, if it hasbeen made with grave abuse of discretion.DOMINGO v. SCHEER Although the courts are without power to directly decide matters over which fulldiscretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government and arenot empowered to execute absolutely their own judgment from that of Congress or of the President, theCourt may look into and resolve questions of whether or not such judgment has been made with graveabuse of discretion, when the act of the legislative or executive department violates the law or theConstitution.ANGARA v. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL Judicial supremacy is but the power of judicial review in actual andappropriate cases and controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one branch or agency of thegovernment transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all authority. The Electoral Commission is anindependent constitutional creation with specific powers and functions to execute and perform, closer forpurposes of classification to the legislative than to any of the other two departments of the government; isthe sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the NationalAssembly.US v. NIXON The mere assertion of an “intra-executive” dispute does not defeat federal jurisdiction.Furhtermore the attorney general had conferred upon the special prosecutor the unique tenure and authorityto represent the US and with this explicit power to contest the invocation of executive privilege in seekingevidence deemed relevant to the performance of his duties. Actions of the prosecutor are well within thescope of this express authority seeking specified evidence, which are admissible and relevant ot the criminalcase at hand. Thus the issue is of a type considered “traditionally justiciable,” the fact that both officers areof the exec branch does not bar this. MARCOS v. MANGLAPUS Given the expanded jurisdiction of the SC, it no longer cowers behind thepolitical question doctrine save for certain undeniable situations such as recognition of states or the grantof pardons. The SC, in the face of the present controversy, has the duty of ascertaining whether or not theExecutive goes beyond the power vested by the Constitution. There exists a conflict between the rightsasserted by the Marcoses as opposed to the exercise of executive power by the President for thepreservation of national interest and security.DAZA v. SINGSON The issue presented is justiciable rather political, involving as it does the legality andnot the wisdom of the act complained of, or the manner of filling the Commission on Appointments asprescribed by the Constitution. Even if the question were political in nature, it would still come within thepowers of review under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon the SC by ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 1, ofthe Constitution, which includes the authority to determine whether grave abuse of discretion amounting toexcess or lack of jurisdiction has been committed by any branch or instrumentality of the government.GARCIA v. BOI There is an actual controversy whether the petro-chemical plant should remain in Bataan orbe transferred to Batangas. DJUMANTAN v. DOMINGO Being final arbiter, it has power to review the order of the Commission ofImmigration and Deportation, as a branch or instrumentality of the Government. GADELJMARIANO v. COMELEC A hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen into an actual case is not a justiciablecontroversy which the court can take cognizance of. A hypothetical issue which rests on many contingentevents does not pose an issue ripe for adjudication.PPI v. COMELEC Issue not ripe for judicial review due to lack of actual case or controversy.SBMA v. COMELEC Courts may decide only actual controversies, not hypothetical questions or cases.Judicial power has been defined in jurisprudence as "the right to determine actual controversies arisingbetween adverse litigants, duly instituted in courts of proper jurisdiction". It is "the authority tosettle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and demandablebefore the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violation of such rights". Thus, there can beno occasion for the exercise of judicial power unless real parties come to court for the settlement of anactual controversy and unless the controversy is such that it can be settled in a manner that binds theparties by the application of existing laws.TANADA v. ANGARA The court cannot look into the wisdom of the acts of the legislature.ARROYO v. DE VENECIA The courts may only look into the constitutionality of the acts of officials, and notif these acts conform to the internal rules of each branch of government (HoR rules).CIR v. SANTOS The Constitution contemplates that the inferior courts should have jurisdiction in casesinvolving constitutionality of any treaty or law, for it speaks of appellate review of final judgments of inferiorcourts in cases where such constitutionality happens to be in issue. But this authority does not extend todeciding questions, which pertain to legislative policy.GARCIA-RUEDA v. PASCASIO While the Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or nota criminal case should be filed, this Court is not precluded from reviewing the Ombudsman's action whenthere is an abuse of discretion, in which case Rule 65 of the Rules of Court may exceptionally be invokedpursuant to SECTION I, ARTICLE VIII of the 1987 Constitution. In this regard, "grave abuse of discretion"has been defined as "where a power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion orpersonal hostility so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a

duty enjoined by, or in contemplation of law.DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO v. GUINGONA The present constitution now fortifies the authority of the courts todetermine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments. It speaks of judicialprerogative in terms of duty: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actualcontroversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether ornot there has been a GADALEJ on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.TATAD v. DOE Judicial power includes not only the duty of the courts to settle actual controversiesinvolving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, but also the duty to determine whether ornot there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of anybranch or instrumentality of the government. The courts, as guardians of the Constitution, have the inherentauthority to determine whether a statue enacted by the legislature transcends the limit imposed by thefundamental law. Where a statute violates the Constitution, it is not only the right, but the duty of thejudiciary to declare such null and void. The petitioner is not assailing the wisdom of the law, but itsconstitutionality. Therefore, there is a justiciable controversy.TELEBAP v. COMELEC A justiciable controversy has arisen as GMA allaged that said law violates itsrights against deprivation of property without just compensation and that it has sustained millions of pesos indamages resulting therefrom.MIRANDA v. AGUIRRE “The term ‘political question’ connotes what it means in ordinary parlance, namely,a question of policy. It refers ‘to those questions which under the Constitution are to be decided by thepeople in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated tothe legislative or executive branch of the government.’ It is concerned with issues dependent upon thewisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.”“A purely justiciable issue implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omissionviolative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law, for said breach of right.”CUTARAN v. DENR There is no justiciable controversy because the applications are still pending. Hence,there is not government act to speak of and rule upon.ESTRADA v. DISIERTO Review of the inability of the president to perform his duties and the decision ofCongress is no longer a political question. Courts cannot expand executive immunity from suit. The 1987Constitution has narrowed the reach of the political question doctrine when it expanded the power of judicialreview of this court not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable andenforceable but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting tolack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. The judiciary hasfocused on the “thou shall not’s” of the Constitution. CAWALING v. COMELEC A political question is one in which the wisdom, expediency or justice of thelegislative enactment is being questioned. The courts cannot rule on the wisdom of the laws.MONTESCLAROS v. COMELEC A proposed bill cannot be the subject of judicial review because it is not alaw. Judicial review may only be exercised after a laws has been passed, not before it.JOHN HAY v. LIM The courts retain full discretionary power to take cognizance of the petition filed directlyto it if compelling reasons or the nature and importance of the uses raised, warrant. Remanding the case tothe lower courts would unduly prolong the case. VELARDE v. SJS Requirements for declaratory relief sought by respondents are: 1) justiciable controversy,2)controversy is between people whose interests are adverse, 3) party seeking relief has a legal interest inthe controversy and 4) the issue is ripe for judicial determination.A justiciable controversy refers to an existing case or controversy that is appropriate or ripe for judicialdetermination, not one which is merely one of conjecture or merely anticipatory. This petition failed to allegean exsitng controversy or dispute between the petitioner and the named respondents. PANGANIBAN v. SHELL The court cannot rule of “feared hypothetical abuse”: not an actual case orcontroversy. There is not cause of action. No injury or encroachment of right legally enforceable ordemandable.SMART v. NTC The court has jurisdiction over administrative issuances of agencies, which were issued inthe exercise of their quasi-legislative, and not quasi-judicial function.BUAC v. COMELEC Recount of plebiscite ballots is exclusively within the realm of the Comelec: not to beinterfered with by the courts.INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY v. COMELEC The court does not give advisory opinions. It can nly rule onactual cases or controversies, involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.MACASIANO v. NHA Requisites for declaratory relief:1) There must be a justiciable controversy;2) The controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; and3) The party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy.TANO v. SOCRATES Court will not entertain direct resort unless redress desired cannot be obtained inappropriate court and when there is exceptional circumstance to justify availment of remedy.

SECTION 2: POWER OF LEGISLATURE TO APPORTION JURISDICTIONMANTRUSTE v. CA The court is prohibited by law to interfere with, or block, a decision of an executiveagency.MALAGA v. PENACHOS Courts are not barred from issuing restraining orders against government entities,if the requirements and procedures set by law are followed.

SECTION 3: FISCAL AUTONOMYIN RE CLARIFYING AND STRENGTHENING…. The authority of the DBM to “review” the plantilla and

compensation of court personnel extends only to “calling the attention of the Court” on what it may perceiveas erroneous application of budgetary laws and rules on position classification.

SECTION 4: COMPOSITIONS AND SESSIONSFORTRICH v. CORONA it is clear that only cases are referred to the Court en banc for decision wheneverthe required number of votes is not obtained. Conversely, the rule does not apply where, as in this case,the required three votes is not obtained in the resolution of a motion for reconsideration. Hence, the secondsentence of the aforequoted provision speaks only of “case” and not “matter”. The reason is simple. Theabove-quoted ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 4(3) pertains to the disposition of cases by a division. If there is atie in the voting, there is no decision. The only way to dispose of the case then is to refer it to the Court enbanc. On the other hand, if a case has already been decided by the division and the losing party files amotion for reconsideration, the failure of the division to resolve the motion because of a tie in the votingdoes not leave the case undecided. There is still the decision which must stand in view of the failure of themembers of the division to muster the necessary vote for its reconsideration. Quite plainly, if the votingresults in a tie, the motion for reconsideration is lost. The assailed decision is not reconsidered and musttherefore be deemed affirmed.PEOPLE v. DY The divisions of the Supreme Court are not different and distinct from the actual tribunal. Itcan be said that the decisions promulgated by each division are actually decisions of the Supreme Court enbanc.

SECTION 5: POWERS OF THE SUPREME COURTPACU v. SEC. OF EDUCATION Before a case can be filed with the Supreme Court, the petitioners mustfirst exhaust all available administrative remedies, and it is encumbent upon them to prove that their rightshave been violated. SOLICITOR GENERAL V. MMDA The court may suspend procedural rules to give way for substantivejustice. The requisite of having an actual case or controversy ripe for adjudication (in invoking the court’spower of judicial review) may be waived by the court in cases of transcendental importance.PIMENTEL v. HRET All remedies must first be exhaust before seeking recourse to the courts: if the issueinvolves the rules of the HoR regarding the composition of HRET and the CA, then the proper recourse isthrough the HoR, and not the courts.GONZALES v. MACARAIG Members of congress have the requisite standing to raise constitutional issues.JAWORSKI v. PAGCOR Members of Congress have standing to file suits assailing the legality of acts ofother branches of government, or instrumentalities thereof.PROVINCE OF BATANGAS v. ROMULO The crucial legal issue submitted for resolution of this Courtentails the proper legal interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions. Moreover, the“transcendental importance” of the case, as it necessarily involves the application of the constitutionalprinciple on local autonomy, cannot be gainsaid. The nature of the present controversy, therefore, warrantsthe relaxation by this Court of procedural rules in order to resolve the case forthwith.BOARD OF OPTOMETRY v. COLET Only natural and juridical persons or entities authorized by law maybe parties in a civil action, and every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party ininterest. Under ARTICLE 44 of the Civil Code, an association is considered a juridical person if the lawgrants it a personality separate and distinct from that of its members. A real party in interest underSECTION 2 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court is a party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment onthe suit, or the party entity led to the avails of the suit. Since OPAP, COA, ACMO, and SMOAP were notshown to be juridical entities, they cannot be deemed real parties in interest.CRUZ v. SEC. OF DENR Petitioners, as citizens, possess the “public right” to ensure that the nationalpatrimony is not alienated and diminished in violation of the Constitution. Since the government, as theguardian of the national patrimony, holds it for the benefit of all Filipinos without distinction as to ethnicity, itfollows that a citizen has sufficient interest to maintain a suit to ensure that any grant of concessionscovering the national economy and patrimony strictly complies with constitutional requirements. Thus, thepreservation of the integrity and inviolability of the national patrimony is a proper subject of a citizen’s suit.In addition, petitioners, as taxpayers, possess the right to restrain officials from wasting public funds throughthe enforcement of an unconstitutional statute. It is well-settled that a taxpayer has the right to enjoin publicofficials from wasting public funds through the implementation of an unconstitutional statute, and bynecessity, he may assail the validity of a statute appropriating public funds. The taxpayer has paid his taxesand contributed to the public coffers and, thus, may inquire into the manner by which the proceeds of histaxes are spent. The expenditure by an official of the State for the purpose of administering an invalid lawconstitutes a misapplication of such funds.LIM v. EXEC. SEC. Though being lawyers does not grant these petitioners standing because of lack ofsufficient interest (IBP v ZAMORA) and there was no exercise of Congress’ spending powers to warrant ataxpayer’s suit, this issue is one of transcendental importance (to the public), where the SC can relax thestanding requirements and allow the suit to prosper.CHAVEZ v. PEA The petitioner has locus standi because of his invocation of his right to information and tothe equitable diffusion of natural resources is a matter of transcendental public importance. Furthermore,since PEA did not conduct public bidding, there was no information released to the public regarding thedetails of its disposition of property. Hence, any citizen can demand from PEA this information at any timeduring the bidding process, but only upon the committee’s official recommendation (because the right to infoonly attaches upon that moment).TOLENTINO v. COMELEC Ordinarily, the petition will be dismissed because first, the petitioners only asserta harm which is a generalized and not a particular interest. Second, there was no allegation that taxpayer’s

money was misused by the COMELEC in violation of specific constitutional protections. However, becauseof the nature of the issues as being imbued with public interest (right of suffrage) and one which will mostlikely arise again, the petitioners are granted standing to file. AGAN v. PIATCO The petitioners are employees of service providers currently operating at the MIAA andservice providers who have contracts with MIAA. They will surely sustain direct injury upon theimplementation of the PIATCO contracts because they will be displaced by new employees/serviceproviders thus losing their means of livelihood. Furthermore, the issues posed in the cases required adiscussion of the BOT Law and its constitutionality.TICHANGCO v. ENRIQUEZ Interest means a material interest in issue that is affected by the questionedact or instrument, as distinguished from a mere incidental interest. It cannot be vague, speculative oruncertain.AIWA v. ROMULO Petitioners must show that they have sustained or will sustain a direct injury as a resultof the executive or legislative act being questioned. In the absence of such showing the case will notprosper.PIMENTEL v. EXEC. SEC The Rome Statute is merely intended to complement national criminal laws andcourts. Sufficient remedies are available under our national laws to protect our citizens against human rightsviolations.SENATE v. ERMITA The interest of the petitioner in assailing the constitutionality of laws must be directand personal. When the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that he is a citizensatisfies the requirement of personal interest.PUROK v. YUIPICO The general rule is that all actions must be prosecuted and defended by the realparties in interest and in the name of the real party in interest. An association has the legal personality torepresent its members and the outcome case will affect their vital interest. Additionally, an association hasstanding to file suit for its members despite its lack of direct interest if its members are affected by theaction.HOLY SPIRIT v. DEFENSOR The petitioner association has legal standing to file the petition WON it is theduly recognized association of homeowners in the NGC. There is no dispute that the individual members ofthe HSPSAI are residents of the NGC. They are covered and stand to be benefited or injured by theenforcement of the IRR (particularly as regards the selection process of beneficiaries and lot allocation toqualified beneficiaries). Thus, the petitioner may assail the IRR if it believes it to be unfavorable to the rightsof its members. Furthermore, the petitioners have sustained injury because of the enforcement of the IRRbecause they were disqualified and eliminated from the selection process (of being considered as bona fideresidents),HENARES v. LTFRB The petitioners have standing to bring this issue to court. This petition focuses ontheir fundamental legal right to clean air. This right is an issue of paramount importance for it concerns theair they breathe and it is imbued with public interest. The consequences of the counterproductive effects ofa neglected environment due to motor vehicle emissions affect the well-being of everyone. FRANCISCO v. FERNANDO Francisco has no standing because he did not show that he has personallysuffered some injury from the alleged illegal conduct of the government. He also did not show that he had asufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of tax money. There is also no transcendentalimportance because he did not show a clear disregard of a consti/statutory prohibition. On the lack of legalbasis, all other cities have each enacted anti-jaywalking ordinances. Such fact serves as sufficient basis forMMDA’s scheme. After all, the MMDA is an admin agency tasked with the implementation of rules andregulations. Furthermore, the absence of an anti-jaywalking ordinance in Valenzuela does not detract fromthis conclusion because there was no proof that the MMDA implemented the scheme in that city. PEOPLE v. VERA It has been held that since the decree pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is void,where the jurisdiction of the court depends on the validity of the statue in question, the issue of theconstitutionality will be considered on its being brought to the attention of the court by persons interested inthe effect to be given the statute. Also, it is true that as a general rule, the question of constitutionality mustbe raised at the earliest opportunity. There are exceptions. Courts, in the exercise of sound discretion, maydetermine the time when a question affecting the constitutionality of a statute should be presented. In civilcases, it has been held that it is the duty of the court to pass on the constitutional questions, even if it wasraised for the first time on appeal IF it appears that a determination of the question is necessary to adecision of the case. As to the power of the court to consider the constitutional question raised for the firsttime in these proceedings, the SC is of the opinion is that the People of the Philippines and the Fiscal of theCity of Manila is a proper party in these proceedings. The rule is that the person who impugns the validity ofa statute must have a substantial interest in the case. The enforcement of an invalid statute is detrimental topublic interest. Thus, the state has standing to sue.MIRASOL v. CA The present case was instituted primarily for accounting and specific performance. The CAcorrectly ruled that PNB’s obligation to render an accounting is an issue which can be determined withouthaving to rule on the validity of PD 579. It is not the lis mota of the case.MATIBAG v. BENIPAYO The earliest opportunity is to raise it in the pleadings before a competent courtthat can resolve the same.LA BUGAL v. RAMOS The “earliest opportunity” requirement should not be taken to mean that the questionof constitutionality must be immediately raised after the execution of the act complained of. That thequestion of constitutionality has not been raised before is not a valid reason for refusing to allow it to beraised later.ARCETA v. MANGROBANG The constitutional question is not the lis mota in the case. To justify a law’snullification, there must be a clear breach of the Consti and not one which is speculative.ESTARJA v. RANADA The law requires that the question of constitutionality be raised at the earliest

opportunity. In this case, Estarija raised the issue of constitutionality in his MR to the OMB. Verily, the OMBhas no jurisdiction to entertain questions on the constitutionality of a law. Thus, when petitioner raised theissue of constitutionality before the CA, the constitutional question was raised at the earliest opportunity.Furthermore, this court may determine when a constitutional issue may be passed upon. BAKER v. CARR Political questions are those questions under the Constitution, are to be decided by thepeople in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated tothe legislative/executive branch of the government. Cases which are political in nature as follows:

a. Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department(issues of foreign affairs and executive war powers, parliamentary rules and regulations)

b. A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issuec. Impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial

discretion (WISDOM)d. Possible infringement of separation of powerse. An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made*f. Potentiality of embarrassment from many pronouncements by various departments on one question *

Significantly in the Philippines, since the Constitution empowers the SC to check for GADLEJ of otherbranches, the question is not political even if there is the presence of e and f. OMENA v. PENDATUN The resolution was unanimously approved by the Congress and such approvalamounted to the suspension of Congress rules, which can be done by unanimous consent (therefore theycan take up matters already dealt with). In conclusion, the courts may not interfere with internal rules andregulations of the Congress unless Constitutional rights are violated. ARROYO v. DE VENECIA The wisdom of house rules (procedure) cannot be judicially determined out ofrespect for the separation of powers.DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO v. GUINGONA The Senate may determine its rules when it comes to voting forthe minority leader as it is not constitutionally provided for. Only the manner of electing the Senate Presidentand House Speaker is provided for in the Constitution. “Each House shall choose such officers as it maydeem necessary”. ICMC v. CALLEJA The determination of immunities accorded to international organizations has been heldto be a political question conclusive upon the courts in order not to embarrass a political department of theGovernment. If a plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized by the executive, it is the duty of the courts toaccept the same. These organizations are granted immunities to prevent control or interference from thelocal host government (unimpeded performance).TANADA v. ANGARA Where an action of the legislative branch is alleged to have infringed theConstitution, it becomes the judiciary’s duty to settle the dispute. The Constitution must be upheld. The SCstresses, though, that the Court will not review the wisdom (reasons why) the Senate concurred in the WTOagreement or pass upon the merits of trade liberalization as a policy espoused by the WTO. It will also notrule on the propriety of the government’s policy of removing taxes, subsidies and other import barriers. It willonly check if Senate committed GADLEJ/violated the Constitution in ratifying the WTO agreement.GARCIA v. CORONA The court is bound to respect the legislative finding that deregulation is the policyanswer to the problem of high oil prices.LIANG v. PEOPLE Slandering a person could not be covered by the immunity agreement because our lawsdo not allow the commission of a crime (defamation) in the name of an official duty. The imputation of theftcannot be part of official functions. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomaticagent, enjoys immunity from crim jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an action relating toany commercial/professional activity exercised by the agent in the receiving state outside his officialfunctions.DE AGBAYANI v. PNB This is merely to reflect awareness that precisely because the judiciary is thegovernmental organ which has the final say on whether or not a legislative or executive measure is valid, aperiod of time may have elapsed before it can exercise the power of judicial review that may lead to adeclaration of nullity. It would be to deprive the law of its quality of fairness and justice then, if there be norecognition of what had transpired prior to such adjudication. The actual existence of a statute, prior to sucha determination [of unconstitutionality], is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justlybe ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.CHAVEZ v. PEOPLE It is only in cases where the penalty is death that the RTC must forward the records ofthe case to the SC for automatic review. Since the petitioners did not file an appeal, the decision of theirconviction and sentence to RP is final and unappealable.PEARSON v. IAC The SC has CONCURRENT jurisdiction with the IAC (now CA) and CFI (now RTC) toissue extraordinary writs. Parties should seek proper relief from lower courts before going to the SC. If theCA or RTC can competently issue extraordinary writs, the principle of hierarchy of courts must bepreserved. PEOPLE v. MATEO To ensure utmost inspection before the penalty of death, RP or LI is imposed, theCourt now deems it wise to provide in these cases a review by the CA before the case is elevated to the SC.The need for an intermediate review by the CA is merely a procedural matter that is Constitutionally vestedin the SC.CEBU WOMEN’S CLUB v. DE LA VICTORIA A party may directly appeal to the SC from a decision of thetrial court only on pure questions of law. The petition does not involve pure questions of law because aquestion of law arises when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts asdistinguished from a question of fact which occurs when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth orfalsehood of the facts.PEOPLE v. GUTIERREZ It is within the power of the courts to determine the most suitable place of the trial.

The Judicial Power vested in the SC and it connotes certain inherent attributes necessary for an effectiveadministration of justice. One of these inherent powers is that of the transfer of trial of cases from one courtto another. FIRST LEPANTO v. CA Review of BOI decisions – first to CA.LINA v. PURISIMA If in any case elevated to this Court for the correction of any supposed procedural errorof any lower court, it should be found that indeed there has been a mistake, and it further appears that allthe facts needed for a complete determination of the whole controversy are already before the Court, the SCmay at its option dispense with the usual procedure of remanding and instead resolve the pertinent issuesand render final judgments on the merits.IN RE: CUNANAN Congress may repeal, alter and supplement the rules promulgated by the SC but theauthority and responsibility over the admission of attorneys remain vested in the SC.IN RE: AGROSINO The practice of law is a personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral character,with special educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified. JAVELLANA v. DILG These merely prescribe rules of conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts ofinterest between the discharge of public duties and the private practice of law, and do not infringe on theSC’s power and authority to promulgate rules regarding the practice of law.BUSTOS v. LUCERO Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines and regulates rights asopposed to remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing rights/obtain redress for invasion. Asapplied to criminal law, substantive law is that which declares what acts are crimes and prescribes thepunishment for committing them, as distinguished from procedural law which provides or regulates the stepsby which one who commits a crime is to be punished. Preliminary investigation is eminently remedial (beingthe first step taken in a criminal prosecution). The curtailment of the right of an accused in a preliminvestigation to cross examine the witnesses who had given evidence for his arrest does not offend theConstitution. Prelim investigation is not an essential part of due process (it may suppressed entirely).Finally,nit is inevitable that the SC in making rules should step on substantive rights, and the Constitutionmust be presumed to tolerate if not expect such incursion as does not affect the accused in a harsh andarbitrary manner but operates only in a limited and substantial manner to his disadvantage. It has the powerto adopt a general and complete system of procedure.SANTERO v. CFI OF CAVITE A substantive law, gives the surviving spouse and to the children the right toreceive support during liquidation, such right cannot be impaired by the Rules of Court, which is aprocedural rule.PNB v. ASUNCION A procedural rule cannot amend a substantive law.DAMASCO v. LAQUI Philippine jurisprudence considers prescription of a crime or offense a loss or waiverby the State of its right to prosecute an act prohibited/punished by law. While it is the rule that an accusedwho fails to move to quash before pleading, is deemed to waive all objections, yet this rule cannot apply tothe defense of prescription, which under Art 69 of the RPC extinguishes criminal liability.CARPIO v. SULU RESOURCES When the SC, in its exercise of its rule-making power, transfers to the CApending cases involving a review of a quasi-judicial body’s decisions [MAB’s], such transfer only relates toprocedure and it does not impair substantive rights because the aggrieved party’s right to appeal ispreserved and what is changed is only the procedure by which the appeal is to be made or decided.LAND BANK v. DE LEON A petition for review, not an ordinary appeal, is the proper procedure in effectingappeal from decisions of Special Agrarian Courts in cases involving the determination of just compensationto the landowners concerned.PEOPLE v. LACSON If a criminal case is provisionally dismissed without express consent, the new rulewould not apply. In this case, the 11 informations in criminal cases were filed with the RTC which was wellwithin the two year period therefore the MR is granted and the RTC is directed to proceed with the criminalcases. PLANTERS v. FERTIPHIL Retroactive application is only allowed if no vested rights are impaired. In thecase, at the time PPI filed its appeal in 1992, all that the rules require for the perfection of its appeal was thefiling of a notice of appeal. PPI complied with this requirement when it filed a notice of appeal. Thus, the1997 Rules of CivPro which took effect on 1997 and required docket fees cannot affect PPI’s appeal whichwas already perfected in 1992.IN RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS Disbarment due to violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 as well as Canon 7of the Code of Professional Responsibility (a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest and immoralconduct/uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession).TAN v. BAUSCH SC has authority to transfer jurisdiction through Administrative Order.TAN v. COMELEC Review of rules of quasi-judicial bodies.

ARTICLE IXCONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

CIVIL SERVICE COMELEC COMMISSION ON AUDIT

COMPOSITION1 chairman and 2commissioners

1 chairman and 6commissioners

1 chairman and 2 commisisioners

QUALIFICATIONS

Natural-born, 35 + yrsold, capacity for publicad.; not candidate for

elctive position inelctions immediately

preceding appt

Natural-born, 35+ yrs old,college grad.; not candidatefor elctive position in elctionsimmediately preceding appt;

maj. Including chairmanshould be member of bar, +

Natural-born, 35 + yrs old, CPA (10yrs auditing experience), or

members of the bar(10 yrs lawpractice); not candidate for elctive

position in elctions immediatelypreceding appt.

10 yr practice

TERM7 yrs w/out

reappointment(staggered)

7 yrs w/out reappointment(staggered)

7 yrs w/out reappointment(staggered)

APPOINTMENTPresident w/ CA

approvalPresident w/ CA approval President w/ CA approval

JURISDICTION

Branches,subdivisions,

instrumentalities andagencies of the gov’t

including GOCCs withoriginal charters

Electoral process

Government, any subdivision,agency or instrumentality, including

GOCCs w/ original charterspost-audit: consti bodies,

autonomous state univ. andcolleges, other GOCCs, NGOs w/

gov’t subsidy or equity

POWERSCentral personnelagency of the gov’t

Insure free, orderly andhonest elections

Examine, audit and settle allaccounts pertaining to the revenueand receipts of, and expenditures

or uses of funds and propertyowned and held in trust by, or

pertaining to the gov’t

ARTICLE XLOCAL GOVERNMENT

Territorial and Political subdivisions:1) provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays2) Autonomous regions (only ARMM so far)

Power of president over LGU: general supervisionARTICLE XI

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERSPublic office: public trustImpeachment: President, VP, members of SC, members of Constitutional Commissions, and OmbudsmanReasons: culpable violation of the Consti, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, orbetrayal of public trust.HoR: exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachmentWho may file: any member of HoR, or any citizen upon resolution of endorsement by any member of HoRVote: at least 1/3 of all the members of HoR.

ARTICLE XIINATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

FILIPINO CITIZENSFILIPINO

CORPORATIONSFOREIGN

CORPORATIONAgricultural

LandsOwn/lease Own/lease Lease -

# of years ifleased

25 years -

# of hectares500 hectares by

lease; 12 hectaresif owned

1000 hectares -

Other Nat.Resources

Form ofExploitation

Co-production,joint venture or

production sharingagreement(license,

concession/lease)

Co-production,joint venture or

production sharingagreement(license,

concession/lease)

Technical/financialassistance

(large-scale)Minerals,

petroleum, andother mineral oils

# of years25 years

(renewable foraddt’l 25)

25 years(renewable for

addt’l 25)

Transfer ofPrivate Land

Yes Yes

No (if foreignindividual: only in

cases of hereditarysuccession)

Franchise YesYes (60% Filipino;

40% foreign)No

ARTICLE XVIIAMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

CONGRESS

CONSTITUTIONAL

CONVENTION

THE PEOPLE HOW?

AMENDMENT Yes Yes No Congress: vote of ¾ of all members;

constitutional convention

REVISION Yes Yes Yes

Initiative: petition of at least 12% of allregistered voters, every legislative

district represented by at least 3% ofregistered voters therein

Amendment- alteration of one or a few specific and separable provisions.; improve specific parts or to addnew provisions deemed necessary to meet new conditions or to suppress specific portions that may havebecome obsolete or that are judged to be dangerous.Revision – re-examination of the whole document, or of provisions of the document which have over-allimplications for the entire document, to determine ho and to what extent they should be altered; may involvea re-writing of the whole Constitution.Ex. Presidential system to parliamentary – revision; change of term of president – amendment

No amendment shall be authorized oftener than once every 5 years. Congress to provide for the implementation of right to initiative Congress by a vote of 2/3 of all its members, may call a constitutional convention By a vote of a majority of all its members, it may submit to the electorate the question of calling a

convention. Proposed amendments or revision: submitted all at once for one election by the people.

Valid amendment or revision: ratified by majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to be held not earlier than60 days not later than 90 days after the approval of such amendment or revision.

ARTICLE XVIIITRANSITORY PROVISIONS

1987 Constitution – took effect on Feb. 2, 1987 (upon ratification by the people)PCGG – continued to operate.Military Bases: only allowed based on following requisites:

1) a treaty is entered into2) duly concurred in by the Senate, and when Congress requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast

by the people in a national referendum for that purpose3) the treaty is recognized as such by the other contracting State.