DOCTRINES Consti1 Cases (Based on Atty. Gabriel's Outline)

8/6/2019 DOCTRINES Consti1 Cases (Based on Atty. Gabriel's Outline)

1/33

1

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

1

DOCTRINES OF CONSTI 1 CASES (based on Atty. Gabriels outline)

CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

DE LEON v. ESGUERRA

The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, theProvisional Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded.

GONZALES v. COMELEC

R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 are null and void because:

1. The Members of Congress, which approved the proposed amendments, as well as theresolution calling a convention to propose amendments, are, at best, de factoCongressmen;

2. Congress may adopt either oneof two alternatives propose amendments or call a conventiontherefore but may not avail of both that is to say, propose amendment andcall a convention atthe same time;

3. The election, in which proposals for amendment to the Constitution shall be submittedfor ratification, must be a specialelection, nota generalelection, in which officers of thenational and local governments such as the elections scheduled to be held on November 14,1967 will be chosen; and

4. The spirit of the Constitution demands that the election, in which proposals for amendmentshall be submitted to the people for ratification, must be held under such conditions which,allegedly, do not exist as to give the people a reasonable opportunity to have a fair grasp of thenature and implications of said amendments.

IMBONG v. COMELEC

Congress, when acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to Art. XV of the Constitution, has full

and plenary authority to propose Constitutional amendments or to call a convention for thepurpose, by a three-fourths vote of each House in joint session assembled but voting separately.Consequently, when Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, omits to provide for suchimplementing details after calling a constitutional convention, Congress, acting as a legislativebody, can enact the necessary implementing legislation to fill in the gaps.

CONCEPT OF STATE

Ruffy v Chief of Staff

The rule that laws of political nature or affecting political relations are considered superseded orheld in abeyance during the military occupation, is intended for the governing of the civilinhabitants of the occupied territory and not for the enemies in arms.

STATE IMMUNITY

The Holy See v Rosario, Jr.

Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic envoy is grantedimmunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real actionrelating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving state which theenvoy holds on behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the mission


2/33

2

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

2

Sanders v Veridiano

Mere allegation that a government functionary is being sued in his personal capacity will notautomatically remove him from the protection of the laws of public officers and doctrine of state

immunity Doctrine of state immunity applicable also to other states.

Republic v Sandoval

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

3 instances when suit is proper:1. when sued by its name2. when unincorporated government agency is sued3. when the suit is against a government employee but liability belongs to the government

Festejo v Fernando

Officer or employee committing the tort is personally liable and maybe sued as any other citizenand held answerable for whatever injury

Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Court of Appeals

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

Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme

The test of liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the driver acting in behalf of the

municipality is performing governmental or proprietary functions. It has already been remarkedthat municipal corporations are suable because their charters grant them the competence to sueand be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts committed by them in thedischarge of governmental functions and can be held answerable only if it can be shown that theywere acting in a proprietary capacity. In permitting such entities to be sued, the state merely givesthe claimants the right to show the defendant was not acting in its governmental capacity whenthe injury was inflicted or that the case comes under the exceptions recognized by law. Failingthis, the claimants cannot recover.

Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez

Municipal funds in possession of municipal and provincial treasurers are public funds exemptfrom execution. Municipal funds are held in trust for the people intended and used for the

accomplishments of the purposes for which municipal corporations are created and that tosubject said properties and public funds to execution would materially impede, even defeat and insome instance destroy said purposes.

Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals

When a municipality fails or refuses without justifiable reason to effect payment of a final moneyjudgment rendered against it, the claimant may avail of the remedy of mandamus in order to


3/33

3

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

3

compel the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance and thecorresponding disbursement of municipal funds.

USA vs Guinto

- A state may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed tohave tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts.

Veterans Manpower vs CA

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

The Merritt vs Govt of the Phil

- By consenting to be sued, a state simply waives its immunity from suit. It does not therebyconcede its liability to the plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or extend its liabilityto any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives remedy to enforce a pre-existing liabilityand submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense.

Amigable vs. Cuenca

The government, when it takes away a property from a private land owner for public use withoutgoing through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party mayproperly maintain a suit against the government without thereby violating the doctrine ofgovernmental immunity from suit. This doctrine cannot be used in perpetrating injustice to acitizen.

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

- When the state files an action, it divests itself of the sovereign character and shed its immunityform suit, descending to the level of an ordinary litigant.

Fundamental Principles and State Policies

Section 1

Villavicencio v. Lukban:

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

Section 2

Kuroda v. Jalandoni:

think Japanese Lieutenat-General charged before the military commission.Held: The Philippines can adopt the rules and regulations laid down on the Hague and GenevaConventions notwithstanding that it is not a signatory thereto. It embodied generally acceptedprinciples of international law binding upon all states.

Agustin v. Edu:


4/33

4

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

4

think triangular reflectorized early warning devices.Held: Legislative enactment is not necessary in order to authorize the issuance of LOI prescribingthe use of triangular reflectorized early warning devices. This is also an illustration of generallyaccepted principles of international law (Pacta sunt servanda).

Ichong v. Hernandez:

think Retail Trade Nationalization Law which is against the principle of Pacta sunt servanda.Held:the Retail Trade Nationalization Law is not unconstitutional because it was passed in the exerciseof the police power which cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty.

Gonzales v. Hechanova:

think rice importation. Statute vs. Treaty.Held: Municipal law was upheld over international law on the basis of the doctrine of separationof powers under the rule-making powers of the Supreme Court. In this case, the contractsadverted to are NOT treaties.

Section 6

Aglipay vs. Ruiz

-There is no violation of the principle of the separation of church and state. The issuance and saleof the stamps in question may be said to be linked with an event of a religious character, but theresulting propaganda, if any, received by the Catholic Church, was not the aim and purpose ofthe government. The idea behind the issuance of the postage stamps was to attract tourists toour country and not primarily the religious event.

Section 10

Almeda vs. CA

-There exists a tenants right of redemption in sugar and coconut lands. Pursuant to AgriculturalLand Reform Code of 1963, it recognizes share tenancy in sugar lands which is in consonancewith the States promotion of social justice wherein it may regulate the acquisition, ownership,use, enjoyment and disposition of private property, and equitably diffuse propertyownershipand profits.

Ondoy .vs. Ignacio

-The principle of social justice applied in this case is a matter of protection, not equality. TheCourt recognized the right of the petitioner to the claim of compensation because her son wasshown to have died while in the actual performance of his work. To strengthen the constitutionalscheme of social justice and protection to labor, The Court made mention that as between a

laborer, usually poor and unlettered, and the employer, who has resources to secure able legaladvice, the law has reason to demand from the latter the stricter compliance.

Salonga vs. Farrales

-The plea of social justice of the plaintiff cannot be considered because it was shown that nocontract, either to sell or of sale, was ever perfected between him and the defendant. It must beremembered that social justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of property owners whounder our Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection. The social justice consecrated in


5/33

5

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

5

our Constitution was not intended to take away rights from a person and give them to anotherwho is not entitled thereto.

Section 16

LLDA v. CA

The immediate response to the demands of necessities of protecting vital public interests givesvitality to the statement on ecology embodied in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies ofthe 1987 Constitution. Article II, Section 16. As a constitutionally guaranteed right of everyperson, it carries the correlative duty of non-impairment. This is but the consonance with thedeclared policy of the state to protect and promote the right to health of the people and instillhealth consciousness among them.

Section 19

GARCIA vs. BOI

BOI committed grave abuse of discretion because it repudiates the independent policy ofgovernment to run its affairs the way it deems best for the national interest.Every provision of the Constitution on the national economy and patrimony is infused with thespirit of national interest. The non-alienation of national resources, the State full control over thedevelopment and utilization of contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of thecountry and the regulation of foreign investment in accordance to national goals and priorities aretoo explicit not to be noticed and understood.

Section 21

ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL. vs. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM

Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it to forcibly acquire private landsintended for public use upon payment of just compensation to the owner. Private rights mustyield to the irresistible demands of the public interest on the time-honored justification, as in thecase of the policed power, that the welfare of the people is the supreme law.

Section 25

BASCO VS PAGCOR

Local Autonomy under 1987 Constitution simply means the decentralization and does not makethe local governments sovereign within the State or an imperium imperio.

LIMBONA VS MANGELIN

Decentralization of administration is merely delegation of administrative powers to the LGUs inorder to broaden the base of governmental power. Decentralization of power is the abdication bythe national government powers.

Section 30

Legspi vs CSC


6/33

6

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

6

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

Valmonte vs de Villa

The constitutional right to information is limited on matters of public concern and is further subjectto such limitations as may be provided by law. However, although citizens are afforded the rightto information, the Constitution does not accord them the right to compel the custodians of officialrecords to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to acquire information ofpublic concern.

Aquino-sarmiento vs morato

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

SEPARATION OF POWERS

Sanidad v. COMELEC

On whether the case is justiciablePolitical questions are associated with the wisdom of the legality of a particular act. Where thevortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that matter isdefinitely justiciable or non-political. If the Constitution provides how it may be amended, the

judiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution, can declare whether the procedure followed or theauthority assumed was valid or not.

On whether the President may propose Constitutional amendments

If the President has been legitimately discharging the legislative functions of the interimAssembly, there is no reason why he cannot validly discharge the function of that Assembly topropose amendments to the Constitution, which is but an adjunct, although peculiar, to its grosslegislative power.

(Note that at the time Prez. Marcos had legislative powers and there was no legislativedepartment at the time)

Daza v. Singson

Where the legality or validity of the act is in question and not the wisdom of the act, the Court maytake jurisdiction and decide on the acts validity. Even in political questions the Court may take

jurisdiction under the expanded judicial power extended to it by Art 8 Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

(Judicial power includes the duty to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legallydemandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse ofdiscretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentalityof Government.)

Delegation of Powers

Garcia v. Exec. Secretary


7/33

7

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

7

The Congress is may authorize the President to fix tariff rates and duties subject to suchlimitations and restrictions that they may impose. This is expressly provided for in Art 6, Sec 28par 2 of the Constitution.

Araneta v. Dinglasan

The delegation of emergency powers by Congress to the President. Such delegation of powersmay be limited by Congress and subject to restrictions it may provide. Congress may withdrawthe delegated power at any time. In this case the emergency power was withdrawn at the timeCongress became able to exercise its legislative duties again.

In Re: Manzano

The committee performs administrative function* which under Section 12, Article VIII of theConstitution prohibits members of the SC and other courts established by law to be designated toany agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. To quote CJ Fernando in Garcia

vs. Macaraig, he said that while the doctrine of separation of powers is a relative theory not to beenforced with pedantic rigor, the practical demands of government precluding its doctrineapplication, it cannot justify a member of the judiciary being required to assume a position orperform a duty non-judicial in character.

Administrative functions are those which involves the regulation and control the conduct and

affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to

better carry out the policy of the legislative or such as are devolved upon the administrative

agency by the organic law of its existence.

Angara vs. Electoral Commission

The Electoral Commission is an independent, impartial, and non-partisan tribunal. The sole powerto determine contests regarding the elections, returns, and qualifications of the members of theNational Assembly has been transferred in totality to the Electoral Commission. Its power is clear,complete, and exclusive.

Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA

The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all three branches of governmentspecifically in the case of the legislative. What can be delegated is the discretion to determinehow the law may be enforced and not what the law shall be since the ascertainment of the lattersubject is within the prerogative and determination of the legislature. Delegation of legislativepower is permitted and valid provided that is passes the two accepted tests- completeness testand the sufficient standard test. The reason for such delegation is the increasing complexity ofthe task of the government and the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the

myriad problems demanding its attention.

Casibang vs. Aquino

While under the 1973 Constitution the Commission on Elections is now the sole judge of allcontests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of members of the National Assembleas well as elective provincial and city officials (par 2, Sec. 2, Art. XII-C, 1973 Constitution), suchpower does not extend to electoral contests concerning municipal elective positions. The issue


8/33

8

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

8

still remains a justiciable question and not a political question*. Hence, the courts have thejurisdiction to hear and decide on the case.

Political questions, in its ordinary parlance, refers to the question of policy. It refers to thosequestions which under the Constitution are to be decided by the people in their sovereigncapacity to, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been vested to the legislative orexecutive branch of the government. It is concerned with the issues dependent upon the wisdom,and not the legality of a particular measure.

Rodriguez v. Gella

Act No. 671 was expressly in pursuance of the constitutional limitation of the delegation ofemergency powers. It is presumed that the National Assembly intended it to be for a limitedperiod. Executive Orders Nos. 545 and 546, which was anchored to the said Act are declared nulland void and the respondents are ordered to desist from appropriating, releasing and allottingexpending funds set aside therein.

People v. Vera

Act No. 4221 is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative power. The powers of the

government are distributed among three coordinate and substantially independent organs: thelegislative, the executive and the judicial. Each of the departments of the government derives itsauthority from the Constitution.

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Tobias v. Abalos

The creation of a new congressional district is but a natural consequence of a municipalitysconversion into a city. The Constitution provides that a city should have a popula tion of at least250,000 and is entitled to at least 1 representative.

Mariano Jr. v. Comelec

As decided in Tobias v. Abalos, the Constitution provides that the compositions of the Houseshould not be more than 250 members, unless otherwise provided by law. The natural result inthe creation of a new legislative from a special law whose purpose is to convert a municipality intoa city is sanctioned by the Constitution.

Montejo v. Comelec

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

Republic Act No. 7941 An act providing for the election of the party-list representatives through

the party-list system and appropriating funds therefrom.

Section 13

Zandueta vs. De la Costa

When a judge of first instance, presiding over a branch of a Court of First Instance of a judicialdistrict by virtue of a legal and valid appointment, accepts another appointment to preside overthe same branch of the same Court of First Instance, in addition of another Court of First Instance


9/33

9

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

9

to the old one, enters into the discharge of the functions of his new office and receives thecorresponding salary, he abandons his old office and cannot claim to be entitled to repossess it orquestion the constitutionality of the law by virtue of which his new appointment has been issued;and, said new appointment having been disapproved by the Commission on Appointments of theNational Assembly, neither can he claim to continue occupying the office conferred upon him bysaid new appointment, having ipso jure ceased in the discharge of the functions thereof.

Section 14

Puyat vs. De Guzman

No Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall appear as counsel before any court withoutappellate jurisdiction, before any court in any civil case wherein the Government, or anysubdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party, or in any criminal casewherein any officer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense committed inrelation to his office,or before any administrative body.

Neither shall he, directly or indirectly be interested financially in any contract with, or in anyfranchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency orinstrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, during histerm of office.

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

Section 16

Santiago vs. Guingona, Jr.

Where no provision of the Constitution, the laws or even the rules of the Senate has been clearly

shown to have been violated, disregarded or overlooked, grave abuse of discretion cannot beimputed to Senate officials for acts done within their competence and authority.

Avelino vs. Cuenco

The constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own president, which should not beinterfered with, nor taken over, by the judiciary.

When the constitution declares that a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum , doesnot mean allof its members. Majority of all the members constitute the House. Hence, 12senators who unanimously voted constitute a majority of 23 senators (10 walked out, 1 out of thecountry).

OSMEA VS. PENDATUNThe House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behavior as conferred upon by theConstitution. Also, Congress has the inherent legislative prerogative of suspension.

PAREDES, JR. VS SANDIGANBAYAN

Sandiganbayan has the authority to suspend a district representative in violation of the Anti-GraftLaw as it is being imposed on the representative NOT as a member of the House.


10/33

10

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

10

U.S. VS PONS

The Court may not go beyond the the recitals of the legislative journals for the purpose ofdetermining the date of adjournment when such journal are clear and explicit. To inquire theveracity of journals, when they are clear and explicit, would be to violate both the letter and spiritof the laws, to invade the coordinate and independent department of the government and tointerfere with the legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature.

CASCO PHIL CHEMICAL CO VS GIMENEZ

Enrolled bill doctrine- the term urea formaldehyde is conclusive upon the courts as regards thetenor of the measure passed by the Congress and approved by the President.

Sec. 18:

Daza vs Singson

- The sense of the Constitution is that the membership in the COA must always reflect politicalalignments and must adjust to changes. Nowhere, however, in the Constitution require that theparty must be a registered party.

Coseteng vs Mitra

- Endorsement of other representatives (in COA) cannot be counted in favor of a representative ifthey do not belong to the latter's party.

Guingona vs Gonzales

- Full complement of 12 seats in COA is not mandatory. Rounding out 0.5 to 1 is unconstitutionalas it would deprive other parties of seats in COA.

Sec. 21:

Bengzon vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

- Investigation was not in aid of legislation where it merely aims at determining whether a law isviolated. To allow such investigation is to violate separation of powers.

Arnault vs Nazareno

- Power of Investigation includes power to punish a contumacious witness for contempt.

Experience has shown that mere requests for information are frequently unavailing.- In aid of legislation - not difficult to satisfy. Necessity or lack of necessity for legislative action isdetermined by the sum total of information to be gathered as a result of investigation, and not bya fraction of such information elicited from single question. It is sufficient that the question isgermane to the subject matter of inquiry. There is no need for it to be directly related orconnected to possible legislation.

Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability


11/33

11

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

11

- Exception to legislative inquiry: Executive Privilege (which is extended to all close advisors ofthe President)- It is wrong for Senate to punish one for contempt where executive privilege is properly invoked.- Senate's mistakes in the case at bar: (1) invitations to Neri did not include possible statute; (2)contempt order lacks required # of votes; (3) Senate did not first rule on the claim of executiveprivilege and instead dismissed Neri's explanation; (4) rules of procedure on inquiries in aid oflegislation not duly published.

Sec. 21 and 22:

Senate vs Ermita

- When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are implementing thestatutes, it is not imperative.- The oversight function of Congress may be facilitated by compulsory process only to theextent that it is performed in pursuit of legislation.

- Appearance of department heads in question hour is discretionary.- When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for the department heads to exemptthemselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege.- EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE privilege based on doctrine of separation of powers, exemptingexecutive from disclosure requirements where such exemption is necessary to the discharge ofhighly important executive responsibilities. It covers categories of information not of persons.

Sec. 24:

Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance

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

Alvarez vs Guingona

- A bill of local application, such as one asking for the conversion of a municipality into a city, isdeemed to have originated from the House provided that the bill of the House was filed prior tothe filing of the bill in the Senate even if, in the end, the Senate approved its own version.- The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill does notcontravene the constitutional requirement as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until itreceives the House bill.

Sec. 25:

Garcia vs Mata

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

Demetria vs Alba

- transfer of appropriations prohibited

PHICONSA vs Enriquez


12/33

12

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

12

- The list of those who may be authorized to transfer funds is exclusive.- Case at bar: Congressmen are allowed to determine the necessity of realignment, but HouseSpeaker or Senate Pres. will have to approve the realignment before items are realigned.- Case at bar: Chief of Staff may not be give authority to realign appropriations.

Sec. 26:

Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board

- Imposition of tax is sufficiently related to the regulation of video industry where the title iscomprehensive enough to include such subject (taxation) related to the general purpose (creationof Videogram Board)

Phil. Judges Assoc. vs Prado

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

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

- Withdrawing tax exemptions granted before is embraced in the subject of the title which is towiden the tax base

Tan vs Del Rosario

- 3 purposes of Sec. 3(1), Art. VI:(a) to prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation(b) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions which might beoverlooked(c) to fairly apprise the people of the subjects of legislation

Uniformity of taxation means:(a) standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary

(b) categorization is germane to achieve legislative purpose(c) law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future conditions(d) classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class

Tobias vs Abalos

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

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

- IF it is only the printing that is being dispensed by presidential certification, the time saved wouldbe so negligible as to be of any use in ensuring immediate enactment. (Printing and Readings on

separate days both dispensable by pres. certification)- Where no Senators controverted the reality of the factual basis of certification, growing budgetdeficit may be considered as basis for presidential certification. Senators, in responding to the callof the Pres. by voting on the bill, manifested their belief in the urgent need for certification of thebill.

Sec. 27:

Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance


13/33

13

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

13

- It is within the power of a conference committee to include in its report an entirely new provisionnot found in either House Bill or Senate Bill. (Amendment in the nature of substitution iswarranted as long as amendment is germane to the subject matter of the bill)- to disregard the enrolled bill is to disregard the respect due the other 2 departments.

Gonzales vs Macaraig

- Pressident can veto an item- Doctrine of inappropriate provisions a provision that is constitutionally inappropriate may besingled out for veto if it is not an appropriation or revenue item. An inappropriate provision in anappropriations bill is an item in iself.

Bengzon vs Drilon

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

PHILCONSA vs Enriquez

- Provisions that are germane to the specific appropriations cannot be vetoed.- Requirement of Congressional approval for release of funds for modernization of AFP can beincorporated in separate bill and hence inappropriate. It was properly vetoed.- Executive Impoundment refusal of the President to spend funds already allocated byCongress for a specific purpose (the duty to implement the law includes the duty to desist fromimplementing it when implementation would prejudice public interest). The Court, however, didnot rule on this issue, and rather declared the provision concerning benefits of CAFGUs as aninappropriate provision.

Sec. 28:

Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pilipinas vs Tan

- a tax is considered uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every placewhere the subject may be found.

Abra Valley College vs Aquino

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

Sec. 29:

Pascual vs Sec. of Public Works

- Appropriation for a road owned by a private individual is invalid because it is not for a publicpurpose. Subsequent donation did not validate the law because validity of a statute dependsupon the power of Congress at the time of its approval and not upon subsequent events.

Aglipay vs Ruiz

- Appropriation for special stamp issue is valid as it is not specifically made to benefit a religiousdenomination but for a public purpose. The benefit acquired by the Church is incidental only.


14/33

14

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

14

Guingona vs Carague

- The Automatic Reappropriation Law for servicing foreign debts is valid because the amount isfixed by the parameters of the law itself which requires the simple act of looking into the books ofTreasure (the amount is determinable).- Budgetary process:

(a) budget preparation(b) legislative authorization(c) budget execution(d) budget accountability

Osmena vs Orbos

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

PHILCONSA vs Enriquez

- Pork barrel provisions in the annual budget allowing members of Congress to perform executivefunction of spending money appropriated are not in violation of separation of powers because

Congress itself had specified the uses of the fund and the power given was merelyrecommendatory to the President who could approve or disapprove the recommendation.

Sec. 30:

First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs CA

- B.P. Blg. 129 granting exclusive appellate jurisdiction to CA over the decisions of quasi-judicialbodies is not superseded by Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 providing that decisions of BOIare appealable to SC because advice and concurrence of SC was not sought.

Diaz vs CA

- Sec. 10 of EO No. 170 stating a party adversely affected by a decision of ERB may file apetition with SC was superseded by the Constitution stating that jurisdiction of SC cannot bemade to increase without its advice and concurrence.

Sec. 32:

Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs COMELEC

- Initiative is entirely the work of electorate; the process of law-making by the people themselves- Referendum consists merely of the electorate approving or rejecting what has been drawn up orenacted by a legislative body.

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

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Sec. 1:

Marcos vs Manglapus

- The President has residual powers. The President is more than the sum of specific powersenumerated in the Constitution.


15/33

15

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

15

- What is not part of the legislative and judicial departments is deemed part of the executive.- The 1987 Constitution provided for a limitation of specific powers of the President, particularlythose relating to the commander-in-chief clause, but not a diminution of the general grant ofexecutive power.

Soliven vs Makasiar

- The privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the exercise of Presidential duties free from anyhindrance or distraction considering that being the Chief Executive demands undivided attention.- The privilege pertains to the President by virtue of the office and may be invoked only by theholder of the office. There is nothing which prohibits the President to waive this privilege.

Estrada vs Desierto

- A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit (immunity is only during the tenure)- Even a sitting President is not immune from suit for non-official acts or from wrongdoing. (Publicoffice is a public trust. The rule is that unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the State andthe officer who acts illegally is not acting as such but stands in the same footing as any othertrespasser.

Sec. 13:

Doromal vs Sandiganbayan

- Sec Sec. 13, Art. VII is applicable in a case where the accused has not signed any document ofany bid of the family corporation of which he is a member, submitted to any governmentdepartment.- Case at bar: Petitioner has at least an indirect interest with the transaction with DECS andNMYC.

Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary

- EO No. 284 is unconstitutional insofar it allows a member of the Cabinet to hold not more than

two positions in the government. (Respondent's contention that Sec. 7, Art. IX-B is an exceptionwould defeat the obvious legislative intent which is to prohibit cabinet members from holdingmultiple offices.)

Aytona vs Castillo

- As a rule, once an appointment is issued, it cannot be reconsidered where the appointee hasqualified. Exception: ad interim appointments issued in the last hours of an outgoing ChiefExecutive (midnight appointments made for buying votes).

In re Valenzuela and Vallarta

- Sec. 15 (President shall not make appointments within 2 months prior to the next Presidential

election) is applicable to the members of the Judiciary.- This sort of appointment is made for partisan considerations.

Sec. 16:

Binamira vs Garrucho


16/33

16

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

16

- Appointment or designation involves exercise of discretion which cannot be delegated. Even if itbe assumed that the power could be exercised by Minister of Tourism, it could be recalled by thePresident.- Designation is considered only an acting or temporary appointment, which does not confersecurity of tenure.

Sarmiento vs Mison

- 4 groups of officers whom the President shall appoint:(a) heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and

consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other whoseappointments are vested in him in this Constitution

(b) all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise providedfor by law

(c) those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint(d) officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the

President alone.- Case at bar: Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment of Commissioner of Bureau ofCustoms because a bureau headis not among those within the first groupof appointments whereconsent of COA is required.

Bautista vs Salonga

- Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment of Chairman of Commission of HumanRights because such appointment is not vested in the President in the Constitution. ThePresident appoints Chairman of CHR pursuant to EO 163 (CHR Chairmanis thus within the 3

rd

group of officers)

Quintos-Deles vs Commission of Appointments

- The appointment of Sectoral Representatives requires confirmation by the Commission onAppointments. The seats reserved for sectoral representatives may be filled by appointment bythe President by express provision of Sec.7, Article XVIII of the Constitution (hence, sectoral

representativesare within the 1st

groupof officers)- Exceptions to those officers within the 1

stgroup: (1) Ombudsman and his deputies, and (2)

members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts.

Calderon vs Carale

- Confirmation by COA is required only for presidential appointees that are within the 1st

group ofofficers as mentioned in Sarmiento vs Mison.- Congress may not expand the list of appointments needing confirmation.- Case at bar: RA 6715, which requires the COA confirmation in appointments of NLRC Chairmanand Commissioners, transgresses Sec. 16, Art. VII. The appointments of NLRC Chairman andCommissionersdo not need COA confirmation because they fall under the 3

rdgroup of officers.

Tarrosa vs Singson

- affirmed the ruling in Calderon vs Carale- Case at bar: Appointment of Central Bank Governor does not need COA confirmation.

Flores vs Drilon

- A law which limits the President to only one appointee is an encroachment to the prerogative ofthe President because appointment involves discretion to choose who to appoint.


17/33

17

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

17

Luego vs Civil Service Commission

- CSC is without authority to revoke an appointment because of its belief that another person wasbetter qualified, which is an encroachment on the discretion vested solely in the appointingauthority.- The permanent appointment made by the appointing authority may not be reversed by CSC andcall it temporary.

Pobre vs Mendieta

- The vacancy in the position of Chairman of the Professional Regulation Commission cannot befilled by the Senior Associate Commissioner by operation of law (or by succession) because it willdeprive the President of the power to appoint the Chairman.

Sec. 17

Drilon vs Lim

- Distinction between power and control:An officer in controllays down the rules in the doing of an act. if they are not followed, he

may, in his discretion, order the act undone or re-done by his subordinate or he may even decideto do it by himself.

Supervisiondoes not cover such authority. The supervisor merely sees to it that rules arefollowed, but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor does he have the discretion to modifyor replace them. If the rules are not observed, he may order the work done or re-done but only toconform to the prescribed rules. He may not prescribe his own manner except to see to it that therules are followed.(Note) Power of controlpertains to power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify, or set aside what asubordinate has done in the performance of his duties and to substitute his judgment to that of

the former [Mondano vs Silvosa]

Villena vs Secretary of the Interior

- Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (alter ego principle) -acts of the Secretaries of ExecutiveDepartments, when performed and promulgated in the regular course of business or unlessdisapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, are presumptively the acts of the ChiefExecutive- Case at bar: Secretary of the Interior is invested with the authority to order the investigation ofthe charges against the petitioner and to appoint a special investigator for that purpose.

Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs Pano

- Department heads are President's men of confidence. His is the power to appoint them; his,too, is the privilege to dismiss them at pleasure. Normally, he controls and directs their acts.Implicit then is his authority to go over, confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by hisdepartment secretaries.- Case at bar: The President, through his Executive Secretary, may undo an act of the Director ofLands

City of Iligan vs Director of Lands


18/33

18

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

18

- The President has the power to grant portions of public domain to any government entity like theCity of Iligan because he has control over the Director of Lands, who has direct executive controlin the lease, sale or any form of concession or disposition of the land of public domain.

Gascon vs Arroyo

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

Kilusan Bayan vs Dominguez

- An administrative officer has only such powers as are expressly granted to him and thosenecessarily implied in the exercise thereof. These powers should not be extended by implicationbeyond what may be necessary for their just and reasonable execution.

Angangco vs Castillo

- The power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint, but not with regard to those officers oremployees who belong to the classified service for as to them the inherent power cannot beexercised

NAMARCO vs Arca

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

Sec. 18:

Guazon vs De Villa

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

Ruffy vs Chief of Staff

- Courts martial are simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by the Congress forthe President as Commander in chief to aid him in properly commanding the army and navy andenforcing discipline therein and utilize under his order those of his authorized militaryrepresentatives.

Olaguer vs Military Commission No. 34- Due process of law demands that in all criminal prosecutions the accused be entitled to a trial.

The trial contemplated by the due process clause is trial by judicial process. Military Commissionsare not courts within the Philippine judicial system. Judicial power is vested only in the courts.Military commissions pertain to the executive department and are instrumentalities of thePresident as commander-in-chief to aid him in enforcing discipline in the armed forces.

Sec. 19:

Torres vs Gonzales


19/33

19

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

19

- A judicial pronouncement is not necessary in determining whether the conditions in the pardonare violated. The determination of whether there is a violations of the conditions rests exclusivelyin the sound judgment of the President.

Monsanto vs Factoran

- Pardon implies guilt. While it relieves the party pardoned from all punitive consequences of hiscriminal act, it relieves him from nothing more. It does not, therefore, restore a convicted felon topublic office forfeited by reason of conviction.

People vs Salle, Jr.

- Pardon may be granted only by final judgment. Where the judgment of conviction is still pendingappeal, executive clemency may not yet be granted. Before an appellant may be granted pardon,he must first ask for the withdrawal of his appeal.

Garcia vs COA

- President's grant of executive clemency to a person dismissed from his office pursuant to anadministrative case (but where the latter has been acquitted in a criminal case based on the

same facts alleged in the criminal case) entitles the latter to automatic reinstatement andbackwages.

Sabello vs DECS

- Pardon (in a criminal case) frees the individual from all the penalties and disabilities andrestores him to all his civil rights. Although such pardon may restore a person's eligibility to publicoffice, it does not entitle him to automatic reinstatement. He should apply for reappointment tosaid office.- [Compare with Garcia vs COA]

Llamas vs Orbos

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

Sec. 18:

Constantino, Jr. vs Cuisia

- The debt-relief contracts, prividing for buy-back and bond-conversion schemes, entered intopursuant to Financing Program are not beyond the powers granted to the President under Sec.20, Art. VII. The only restriction that the Constitution provides, aside from the prior concurrence ofthe Monetary Board, is that loans must be subject to limitations provided by law. Accordingly, thecontention that buy-back and bond-conversion schemes are neither loans nor guarantees, and

hence beyond the Presidents power to execute, are without merit.

Sec. 21:

Commissioner of Customs vs Eastern Sea Trading (1961)

- The concurrence of the House of Congress is required by our fundamental law in the making oftreaties which are however distinct and different from executive agreements which may be validlyentered without such concurrence.


20/33

20

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

20

Pimentel, Jr. vs Exec. Sec.

- The power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to concurrence of the Senate. The role ofthe Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent or concurrence to the ratification.Hence, it is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate orhaving secured its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. This discretion to ratify lies withinthe President's competence alone.- 4 steps in treaty-making process:

(a) negotiation(b) signing of the treaty (simply a means of authenticating the instrument and a symbol ofgood faith)(c) ratification (formal act by which a statute confirms and accepts the provisions of atreaty)(d) exchange of instruments of ratification- In the case at bar, the treaty was merely signed.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Sec. 1:

Santiago vs Bautista

- The courts may not exercise judicial power when there is no applicable law.- Case at bar: An award of honors to a student by a board of teachers may not be reversed by acourt where the awards are governed by no applicable law.

Daza v Singson

- Even if the issue presented was political in nature, the Court is still not be precluded fromresolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon it that now covers, in proper cases,even the political question.

- That where serious constitutional questions are involved, "the transcendental importance to thepublic of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely brushing aside, if wemust, technicalities of procedure."

Mantruste Systems v Court of Appeals

- There can be no justification for judicial interference in the business of an administrative agency,except when it violates a citizen's constitutional rights, or commits a grave abuse of discretion, oracts in excess of, or without jurisdiction.

- Courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the Asset Privatization Trust (administrativebody), nor block, by an injunction, the discharge of its functions and the implementation of itsdecisions in connection with the acquisition, sale or disposition of assets transferred to it.

Malaga v Penachos, Jr.

- It was previously declared the prohibition pertained to the issuance of injunctions or restrainingorders by courts against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of


21/33

21

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

21

discretion in technical cases. The Court observed that to allow the courts to judge these matterswould disturb the smooth functioning of the administrative machinery. On issues definitely outsideof this dimension and involving questions of law, courts could not be prevented by any law (in thiscase, P.D. No. 605) from exercising their power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.

PACU v Secretary of Education

- Judicial power is limited to the decision of actual cases and controversies.

(Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education might under the law withdraw the permit ofone of petitioners does not constitute a justiciable controversy.)

- Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest thereinhowever intellectually solid the problem may be. This is especially true where the issues "reachconstitutional dimensions, for then there comes into play regard for the court's duty to avoiddecision of constitutional issues unless avoidance becomes evasion.

Mariano, Jr. v COMELEC

- Considering that those contingencies mentioned by the petitioners may or may not happen,

petitioners merely pose a hypothetical issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case orcontroversy. Petitioners who are residents of Taguig (except Mariano) are not also the properparties to raise this abstract issue (city of Makati is involved). Worse, they raise this futuristicissue in a petition for declaratory relief over which this Court has no jurisdiction.

Macasiano v National Housing Authority

-It is a rule firmly entrenched in our jurisprudence that the constitutionality of an act of thelegislature will not be determined by the courts unless that question is properly raised andpresented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a determination of the case.

J. Joya v PCGG

- The rule is settled that no question involving the constitutionality or validity of a law orgovernmental act may be heard and decided by the court unless there is compliance with thelegal requisites for judicial inquiry, namely: that the question must be raised by the proper party;that there must be an actual case or controversy; that the question must be raised at the earliestpossible opportunity; and, that the decision on the constitutional or legal question must benecessary to the determination of the case itself. But the most important are the first two (2)requisites.

- Not every action filed by a taxpayer can qualify to challenge the legality of official acts done bythe government. A taxpayer's suit can prosper only if the governmental acts being questionedinvolve disbursement of public funds upon the theory that the expenditure of public funds by anofficer of the state for the purpose of administering an unconstitutional act constitutes a

misapplication of such funds, which may be enjoined at the request of a taxpayer.

Legaspi v Civil Service Commission

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

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


22/33

22

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

22

Dumlao v COMELEC

- For one, there is a misjoinder of parties and actions. One petitioner does not join otherpetitioners in the burden of their complaint, nor do the latter join the former in his. They,respectively, contest completely different statutory provisions.

- For another, there are standards that have to be followed in the exercise of the function ofjudicial review, namely: (1) the existence of an appropriate case; (2) an interest personal andsubstantial by the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the plea that the function beexercised at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the necessity that the constitutional question bepassed upon in order to decide the case.

Bugnay Const. and Devt. Corp. v Laron

- The doctrine holds that only when the act complained of directly involves an illegal disbursementof public funds raised by taxation will the taxpayer's suit be allowed. The essence of a taxpayer'sright to institute such an action hinges on the existence of that requisite pecuniary or monetaryinterest.

- It is not enough that the taxpayer-plaintiff sufficiently show that he would be benefited or injuredby the judgment or entitled to the avails of the suit as a real party in interest.

Kilosbayan v Guingona, Jr.

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

- In line with the liberal policy of this Court on locus standi, ordinary taxpayers, members ofCongress, and even association of planters, and non-profit civic organizations were allowed toinitiate and prosecute actions before this Court to question the constitutionality or validity of laws,acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of various government agencies or instrumentalities.

PHILCONSA v Enriquez

- The Senators have legal standing to question the validity of the veto. When a veto was made inexcess of the authority of the President, it impermissibily intrudes into the domain of theLegislature. A member of Congress can question an act of the Executive which injures Congressas an institution.

Tatad v Garcia, Jr.

-The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are to allow taxpayers to question contracts enteredinto by the national government or government-owned or controlled corporations allegedly incontravention of the law and to disallow the same when only municipal contracts are involved

(just like in Bugnay case since no public money was involved).

Oposa v Factoran, Jr.

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


23/33

23

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

23

- Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on theconcept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecologyis concerned.

- Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm andharmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently, theminors` assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, theperformance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the generations to come.

Lozada v COMELEC

- As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the instant petition, for nowhere therein is it alleged thattax money is being illegally spent. It is only when an act complained of, which may include alegislative enactment or statute, involves the illegal expenditure of public money that the so-calledtaxpayer suit may be allowed.- The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have apersonal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, directinjury as a result of its enforcement. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is thatindispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of

judicial resolution. When the asserted harm is a "generalized grievance" shared in substantially

equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrantexercise of jurisdiction.

Kilosbayan v Morato

- The voting on petitioners' standing in the previous case was a narrow one, seven (7) memberssustaining petitioners' standing and six (6) denying petitioners' right to bring the suit. The majoritywas thus a tenuous one that is not likely to be maintained in any subsequent litigation. In addition,there have been charges in the membership of the Court, with the retirement of Justice Cruz andBidin and the appointment of the writer of this opinion and Justice Francisco. Given this fact it ishardly tenable to insist on the maintenance of the ruling as to petitioners' standing.

SECTION 3

Bengzon v Lim

- What is fiscal autonomy? It contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize theirresources with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require. It recognizes the power andauthority to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the highestrates authorized by law for compensation and play plans of the government and allocate anddisburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by them in the course of thedischarge of their functions. Fiscal autonomy means freedom from outside control.

- The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have the

independence and flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties. The impositionof restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent constitutional offices allocate andutilize the funds appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative notonly of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards the Supreme Court, ofthe independence and separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutionalsystem is based

SECTION 4


24/33

24

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

24

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

- Reorganization is purely an internal matter of the Court to which petitioner certainly has nobusiness at all.

- The Court with its new membership is not obliged to follow blindly a decision upholding a party'scase when, after its re-examination, the same calls for a rectification.

SECTION 5

Drilon v Lim

- The Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over final judgments andorders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,ordinance, or regulation is in question.

- In the exercise of this jurisdiction, lower courts are advised to act with the utmostcircumspection, bearing in mind the consequences of a declaration of unconstitutionality upon thestability of laws, no less than on the doctrine of separation of powers. As the questioned act is

usually the handiwork of the legislative or the executive departments, or both, it will be prudent forsuch courts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to defer to the higher judgment of this Court in theconsideration of its validity, which is better determined after a thorough deliberation by acollegiate body and with the concurrence of the majority of those who participated in itsdiscussion.

Larranaga v Court of Appeals

(Transfer the venue of the preliminary investigation from Cebu City to Manila because of theextensive coverage of the proceedings by the Cebu media which allegedly influenced thepeople's perception of petitioner's character and guilt.)

- The Court recognizes that pervasive and prejudicial publicity under certain circumstances can

deprive an accused of his due process right to fair trial. It was previously held that to warrant afinding of prejudicial publicity there must be allegation and proof that the judges have been undulyinfluenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage in publicity.- In the case at bar, nothing in the records shows that the tone and content of the publicity thatattended the investigation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness and impartiality of the DOJPanel.

First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v Court of Appeals

- It is intended to give the Supreme Court a measure of control over cases paced under itsappellate jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate

jurisdiction. For the indiscriminate enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction canunnecessarily burden the Court and thereby undermine its essential function of expounding the

law in its most profound national aspects.

Aruelo v Court of Appeals

- Constitutionally speaking, the COMELEC can not adopt a rule prohibiting the filing of certainpleadings in the regular courts. The power to promulgate rules concerning pleadings, practiceand procedure in all courts is vested on the Supreme Court.

Javellana v DILG


25/33

25

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

25

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

- The Local Government Code and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-81 simply prescribe rulesof conduct for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest between the discharge of their publicduties and the private practice of their profession, in those instances where the law allows it.

SECTION 6

Maceda v Vasquez

- In the absence of any administrative action taken against a person by the Court with regard tohis certificates of service, the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches intothe Court's power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of thedoctrine of separation of powers.

- Where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises from theiradministrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer the same to

the Court for determination whether said Judge or court employee had acted within the scope oftheir administrative duties.

Raquiza v Judge Castaneda, Jr.

- The rules even in an administrative case demands that if the respondent Judge should bedisciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence presented against himshould be competent and derived from direct knowledge. The judiciary, to which respondentbelongs, no less demands that before its member could be faulted, it should be only after dueinvestigation and based on competent proofs, no less. This is all the more so when as in this casethe charges are penal in nature.

('Misconduct' also implies 'a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. It results that

even if respondent were not correct in his legal conclusions, his judicial actuations cannot beregarded as grave misconduct, unless the contrary sufficiently appears.)

SECTION 10

Nitafan v Commissioner of Internal Revenue

- The clear intent of the Constitutional Commission was to delete the proposed express grant ofexemption from payment of income tax to members of the Judiciary, so as to "give substance toequality among the three branches of Government.

SECTION 11

De La Llana v Alba-Judiciary Act does not violate judicial security of tenure. This Court is empowered "to discipline

judges of inferior courts and, by a vote of at least eight members, order their dismissal." Thus, itpossesses the competence to remove judges. Under the Judiciary Act, it was the President whowas vested with such power. Removal is, of course, to be distinguished from termination by virtueof the abolition of the office. There can be no tenure to a non-existent office. After the abolition,there is in law no occupant. In case of removal, there is an office with an occupant who wouldthereby lose his position. It is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the question of


26/33

26

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

26

any impairment of security of tenure does not arise. Nonetheless, for the incumbents of inferiorcourts abolished, the effect is one of separation. As to its effect, no distinction exists betweenremoval and the abolition of the office. Realistically, it is devoid of significance. He ceases to be amember of the judiciary.

People v Gacott, Jr.

- To require the entire Court to deliberate upon and participate in all administrative matters orcases regardless of the sanctions, imposable or imposed, would result in a congested docket andundue delay in the adjudication of cases in the Court, especially in administrative matters, sinceeven cases involving the penalty of reprimand would require action by the Court en banc.

- Yet, although as thus demonstrated, only cases involving dismissal of judges of lower courts arespecifically required to be decided by the Court en banc, in cognizance of the need for a thoroughand judicious evaluation of serious charges against members of the judiciary, it is only when thepenalty imposed does not exceed suspension of more than one year or a fine of P10,000.00, orboth, that the administrative matter may be decided in division.

SECTION 12

In Re: Manzano

- As incumbent RTC Judges, they form part of the structure of government. Their integrity andperformance in the adjudication of cases contribute to the solidity of such structure. As publicofficials, they are trustees of an orderly society. Even as non-members of Provincial/CityCommittees on Justice, RTC judges should render assistance to said Committees to helppromote the landable purposes for which they exist, but only when such assistance may bereasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their judicial duties.

SECTION 14

Nicos Industrial Corp v Court of Appeals

- The Court is not duty bound to render signed decisions all the time. It has ample discretion toformulate decisions and/or minute resolutions, provided a legal basis is given, depending on itsevaluation of a case.

- As it is settled that an order dismissing a case for insufficient evidence is a judgment on themerits, it is imperative that it be a reasoned decision clearly and distinctly stating therein the factsand the law on which it is based.

Mendoza v CFI

- What is expected of the judiciary "is that the decision rendered makes clear why either partyprevailed under the applicable law to the facts as established. Nor is there any regid formula as tothe language to be employed to satisfy the requirement of clarity and distinctness. The discretion

of the particular judge in this respect, while not unlimited, is necessarily broad. There is nosacramental form of words which he must use upon pain of being considered as having failed toabide by what the Constitution directs."

- The provision has been held to refer only to decisions of the merits and not to orders of the trialcourt resolving incidental matters such as the one at bar. (content of the resolution: incident in theprosecution of petitioner)


27/33

27

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

27

Borromeo v Court of Appeals

- The Court reminds all lower courts, lawyers, and litigants that it disposes of the bulk of its casesby minute resolutions and decrees them as final and executory, as where a case is patentlywithout merit, where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the decision appealed from issupported by substantial evidence and is in accord with the facts of the case and the applicablelaws, where it is clear from the records that the petition is filed merely to forestall the earlyexecution of judgment and for non-compliance with the rules. The resolution denying due courseor dismissing the petition always gives the legal basis.

- When the Court, after deliberating on a petition and any subsequent pleadings, manifestations,comments, or motions decides to deny due course to the petition and states that the questionsraised are factual or no reversible error in the respondent court's decision is shown or for someother legal basis stated in the resolution, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutionalrequirement.

- Minute resolutions need not be signed by the members of the Court who took part in thedeliberations of a case nor do they require the certification of the Chief Justice.

Komatsu Industries (Phils.) Inc v Court of Appeals

- It has long been settled that this Court has discretion to decide whether a "minute resolution"should be used in lieu of a full-blown decision in any particular case and that a minute Resolutionof dismissal of a Petition for Review on Certiorari constitutes an adjudication on the merits of thecontroversy or subject matter of the Petition. It has been stressed by the Court that the grant ofdue course to a Petition for Review is "not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion; andso there is no need to fully explain the Court's denial. For one thing, the facts and law are alreadymentioned in the Court of Appeals' opinion."

Prudential Bank v Castro

- The Constitutional mandate that "no . . . motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court

shall be . . . denied without stating the legal basis therefor" is inapplicable in administrative cases.And even if it were, said Resolution stated the legal basis for the denial and, therefore, adheredfaithfully to the Constitutional requirement. "Lack of merit," which was one of the grounds fordenial, is a legal basis.

-(certification issue) The requirement of a certification refers to decisions to judicial cases and notto administrative cases. Besides, since the decision was a per curiamdecision, a formalcertification is not required.

Oil and Natural Gas Commission v Court of Appeals

- The constitutional mandate that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressingtherein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based does not preclude the

validity of "memorandum decisions" which adopt by reference the findings of fact and conclusionsof law contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals.

SECTION 14 (not 16)

Valdez v Court of Appeals


28/33

28

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

28

- The (lower) court statement in the decision that a party has proven his case while the other hasnot, is not the findings of facts contemplated by the Constitution and the rules to be clearly anddistinctly stated.- This Court has said again and again that it is not a trier of facts and that it relies, on the factualfindings of the lower court and the appellate court which are conclusive.

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

A. COMMON PROVISIONS

Aruelo v. CA

The rule of the Commission should prevail if the proceeding is before a Commission. But if theproceeding is before a court, the Rules of Court prevails. (Sec. 6)

Cua v. Comelec

The 2-1 decision rendered by the First Division was a valid decision under Article IX-A, Section 7of the Constitution. (Sec.7)

Vital-Gozon v. CA

Execution of the Civil Service Commission's decision should have been ordered and effected bythe Commission itself, when de la Fuente filed a motion therefor. It declined to do so, however, onthe alleged ground, as de la Fuente claims he was told, that it "had no coercive powers unlike acourt to enforce its final decisions/resolutions." That proposition, communicated to de laFuente, of the Commission's supposed lack of coercive power to enforce its final judgments, isincorrect. It is inconsistent with previous acts of the Commission of actually directing execution ofits decisions and resolutions, which this Court has sanctioned in several cases; and it is not intruth a correct assessment of its powers under the Constitution and the relevant laws

Filipinas Engineering and Machine Shop v. Ferrer

While it may be true that the lower court has the jurisdiction over controversies dealing with theCOMELEC's award of contracts, the same being purely administrative and civil in nature,nevertheless, herein petitioner has no cause of action on the basis of the allegations of itscomplaint.

"The Commission on Elections shall have exclusive charge of the enforcement and administrationof all laws relative to the conduct of elections and shall exercise all other functions which may beconferred upon it by law. It shall decide, save those involving the right to vote, all administrativequestions affecting elections, including the determination of the number of location of pollingplaces, and the appointment of election inspectors and of other election officials . . . Thedecisions, orders and rulings of the Commission shall be subject to review by the Supreme

Court."

Mateo v. CA

The hiring and firing of employees of government-owned and controlled corporations aregoverned by the provisions of the Civil Service Law and Rules and Regulations.SC Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95. Final resolutions of the Civil Service Commissionshall be appealable to the Court of Appeals. In any event, whether under the old rule or the


29/33

29

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

29

present rule, Regional Trial Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain cases involving dismissal ofofficers and employees covered y the Civil Service Law.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Section 2

TUPAS v. NHC

Civil service now covers only government-owned or controlled corporations with original orlegislative charters, that is those created by an act of Congress or by special law, and not thoseincorporated under and pursuant to a general legislation.NHC is not covered by civil service so its employees undoubtedly have the right to form unions oremployees' organizations. The right to unionize or to form organizations is now explicitlyrecognized and granted to employees in both the governmental and the private sectors.

De los Santos v. Mallare

The office of city engineer is neither primarily confidential, policy-determining, nor highlytechnical. These positions mentioned are excluded from the merit system and dismissal at

pleasure of officers and employees appointed therein is allowed by the Constitution. Thus, thecity engineer cannot be removed without just cause.

Salazar v. Mathay

The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidencebecause their term of office lasts only as long as confidence in them endures.

Corpus v. Cuaderno

Highly technical employees cannot be removed by reason of lack or loss of confidence by the onemaking the appointment.

Luego v. Civil Service Commission

The CSC has no authority to disapprove or revoke a permanent appointment on the ground thatanother person is better qualified than the appointee. The CSC is not empowered to determinethe kind or nature of the appointment extended by the appointing officer, its authority being limitedto approving or reviewing the appointment in the light of the requirements of the Civil ServiceLaw. Approval is more appropriately called an attestation, that is, of the fact that the appointee isqualified for the position to which he has been named.

Province of Camarines Sur v. CA

Lack of civil service eligibility makes an appointment temporary; thus, the appointment isrevocable at any time (without a fixed and definite term) or dependent upon the pleasure of the

appointing power. Obtaining the civil service legibility later on does not ipso facto convert atemporary appointment into a permanent one.

SSS Employees Association v. CA

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

Section 7


30/33

30

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

30

Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary

While all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office oremployment in the government during their tenure when such is allowed by tlaw and the primaryfunction of their office, Cabinet members, their deputies, and assistants may only do so whenexpressly authorized by the Constitution itself.

Flores v. Drilon

The proviso which states, Provided, however, that for the first year of its operations from theeffectivity of this Act, the mayor of the City of Olongapo shall be appointed as the chairman andchief executive officer of the Subic Authority, violates the constitutional prohibition againstappointment or designation of elective officials to other government posts.

Section 8

Quimson v. Ozaeta

The employment of a person as an agent collector is not itself unlawful because there is noincompatibility between aid appointment and his employment as Deputy Provincial Treasurer and

Municipal Treasurer. There is no legal objection to government official occupying two governmentoffices and performing functions to both as long as there is no incompatibility. The Constitutionalprohibition refers to double appointments and performance of functions of more than one office.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Section 1

Cayetano v. Monsod

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legalprocedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform

those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give noticeor render any kind of service which device or service requires the use in any degree of legalknowledge or skill.

Brillantes v. Yorac

The President has no authority to make designation of a Comelec Chairman in an ActingCapacity. The choice of temporary Chairman in the absence of the regular chairman comesunder the discretion of the Comelec. It cannot be exercised by the President. A designation AsActing Chairman is by its very terms essentially temporary and therefore revocable at will. Nocause need be established to justify its revocation.

Lindo v. Comelec

Comelecs statement that fake and spurious ballots may have been introduced to increase thevotes of protestant cannot be made a basis for denying the execution pending appeal.

Section 3

Sarmiento vs. Comelec


31/33

31

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

31

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

"All pre-proclamation cases pending before the Commission shall be deemed terminated at thebeginning of the term of the office involved and the rulings of the boards of canvassers concernedshall be deemed affirmed, without prejudice to the fil ing of a regular election protest by theaggrieved party. However, proceedings may continue when on the basis of the evidence thus farpresented, the Commission determines that the petition appears meritorious and accordinglyissues an order for the proceeding to continue or when an appropriate order has been issued bythe Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari."

Reyes vs. RTC of Oriental Mindoro

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

Section 4

National Press Club vs. Comelec

The Comelec has also been granted the right to supervise and regulate the exercise by mediapractitioners themselves of their right to expression during plebiscite periods. Media practitionersexercising their freedom of expression during plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holdersnor the candidates. In fact, there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite.

Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines vs GMA

It is argued that the power to supervise or regulate given to the COMELEC under Art. IX-C,Section 4 of the Constitution does not include the power to prohibit. In the first place, what the

COMELEC is authorized to supervise or regulate by Art. IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution,among other things, is the use by media of information of their franchises or permits, while whatCongress (not the COMELEC) prohibits is the sale or donation of print space or air time forpolitical ads. In other words, the object of supervision or regulation is different from the object ofthe prohibition. It is another fallacy for petitioners to contend that the power to regulate does notinclude the power to prohibit. This may have force if the object of the power were the same.

Adiong vs. COMELEC

The posting of decals and stickers on cars, calesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other movingvehicles needs the consent of the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the preference of the citizenbecomes crucial in this kind of election propaganda not the financial resources of the candidate.Whether the candidate is rich and, therefore, can afford to doleout more decals and stickers or

poor and without the means to spread out the number of decals and stickers is not as importantas the right of the owner to freely express his choice and exercise his right of free speech. Theowner can even prepare his own decals or stickers for posting on his personal property. To strikedown this right and enjoin it is impermissible encroachment of his liberties.

Sanidad vs. COMELEC


32/33

32

by 1E (2008-2009)

SBC Law-Mendiola

32

Comelec spaces and Comelec radio time may provide a forum for expression but they do notguarantee full dissemination of information to the public concerned because they are limited toeither specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or television times.

COMMISSION ON AUDIT

SECTION 2

GUEVARA VS GIMENEZ

The Auditor-General has no madate to disapprove expenditures which in his opinion areexcessive and extravagant. His authority is limited to the auditing in expenditures of funds andproperties. such function is limited to a determination of whether there is a law appropriatingfunds for a given purpose; whether a contract entered made by the proper officer has beenentered in conformity with the said appropriation law; whether the goods and services covered bythe said contract have been delivered or rendered in pursuance thereof, as attested by the properofficer; and whether payment therefore has been authorized by the officials of the correspondingdepartment or bureau. If these requirements have been fulfilled, it is the ministerial duty of theAuditor Ge

Documents

DOCTRINES Consti1 Cases (Based on Atty. Gabriel's Outline)