DoctrinesSummary Gabriel PoliticalLawReview FirstSem 2013

7/28/2019 DoctrinesSummary Gabriel PoliticalLawReview FirstSem 2013

1/41

SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

De Leon v. ESGUERRA

The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date,therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded. (Effectivityis immediately upon ratification)

Gonzales v. COMELEC

Nature of power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto: not inherentpower of Congress but of the people; constituent power of Congress

Tolentino v. COMELEC

The condition and limitation that all the amendments to be proposed by the same conventionmust be submitted in a single election or plebiscite.

Imbong v. COMELEC

Competence of Congress acting as Constituent Assembly: Authority to call constitutionalconvention as Constituent Assembly in enacting implementing details.

Sanidad v. COMELEC

-Presidential exercise of legislative powers (and proposing amendments) is valid in martial

law.-Amending process is a sovereign act, although the authority to institute the same and theprocedure to be followed reside somehow in a particular body (Pres. Marcos).

Santiago v. COMELEC

The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through thesystem of initiative would remain entombed in a cold niche until Congress provides for itsimplementation. Section 2 of Article XVII is not self-executing.

Lambino v. COMELEC

Essence of people's initiative: (1) people must author; (2) they must sign the proposal; (3)proposal is embodied in petition

CONCEPT OF STATE

Bacani vs NACOCO


2/41

The mere fact that the Government happens to be a major stockholder of a corporation does

not make it a public corporation.

Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions.

PVTA vs CIR

Distinction between constituent and ministrant functions obsolete.

Government has to provide for general welfare.

Gov. of the Phil. Islands vs. Monte de Piedad

Doctrine of Parens Patriae (state as guardian of the people)

Transfer of sovereignty; effect on laws:

- abrogation of laws in conflict with the political character of the substituted sovereign(political law).- great body of municipal law regarding private and domestic rights continue in force untilabrogated or changed by new ruler.

Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh

Continuity of Law: Law, once established, continues until changed by some competent

legislative power (not changed by mere change of sovereignty)

All acts and proceedings of the 3 gov. depts. of a de facto government are good and valid.

Kinds of De facto government:

(1) de facto proper government obtained by force or voice of the majority(2) paramount force by military forces who invade the territory(3) independent government established by inhabitants through insurrection

Republic of the Philippines (during Japanese occupation) was a de facto government.

People vs Gozo

Principle of Auto-limitation: Extent of Philippine sovereignty over American bases

Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of thePhilippine territory.

Laurel vs Misa

Nature of Allegiance to sovereign: Absolute and permanent

Effect of enemy occupation: sovereignty of the government not transferred to occupier

Ruffy v Chief of Staff

The rule that laws of political nature or affecting political relations are considered supersededor held 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

Sanders v Veridiano


3/41

Mere allegation that a government functionary is being sued in his personal capacity will not

automatically remove him from the protection of the laws of public officers and doctrine ofstate 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 the

public 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 othercitizen and held answerable for whatever injury

USA vs Guinto

- A state may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemedto have 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 acontract. However, it does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of itssovereign 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 itsliability to any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability and submit itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interposeany lawful defense.

Amigable vs. Cuenca

The government, when it takes away a property from a private land owner for public usewithout going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrievedparty may properly maintain a suit against the government without thereby violating thedoctrine of governmental immunity from suit. This doctrine cannot be used in perpetratinginjustice to a citizen.


4/41

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

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

Republic vs. Feliciano

- failure to allege in the complaint the existence of consent by the State is a fatal defect(construction must be strict against conferment of waiver- Immunity may be invoked by the courts at any point/stage of the proceedings.

USA vs. Ruiz

Restrictive Application of State Immunity to foreign states: States may be sued when the

proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign.

The Holy See v Rosario, Jr.

Pursuant to the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic envoy is

granted immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over anyreal action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receivingstate which the envoy holds on behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the mission

Republic vs. Villasor

- Judgment against the State cannot be enforced by execution. It may limit claimants actiononly up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the state of execution. Power of courtsend when judgment is rendered. [suability vs. liability]- Functions and public services cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by thedisruption of public funds.

Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC

- Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its non-suability.Distinction must still be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign

function and another which is done in the proprietary capacity.- State gives consent upon moneyed claim arising from contract.

PNB vs. Pabalan

- State immunity from suit cannot be validly invoked with regard to funds of publiccorporations.

- [suable corporations] Public funds of corporations which can sue and be sued are not


5/41

exempt from gaarnishment.

Rayo vs. CFI of Bulacan

- The character of an incorporated agency allows it to sue and be sued without qualification

Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Assoc.

- Acceptance of outside work and payment of overtime compensation does not make work ofBureau of Printing proprietary.

- Non-suability of the State is available to the agency even if it is shown that it is engaged notonly in governmental functions but also, incidentally, in proprietary enterprises(unincorporated agency).

Mobil Phils. Exploration, Inc. vs. CA

If an agencys function is deemed proprietary, if such is a necessary incident of the primaryand gov. function of such agency, such agency is not suable (for an unincorporated agencyonly).

Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Court of Appeals

- Not all government entities whether corporate or not are immune from suits. Immunity fromsuits is determined by the character of the objects for which the entity was organized.- Suits against State agencies with relation to matters in which they have assumed to act inprivate or non-governmental capacity, and various suits against certain corporations createdby the State to engage In matters partaking more of the nature of ordinary business are notregarded as suits against the State.

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 ofthe municipality is performing governmental or proprietary functions. It has already beenremarked that municipal corporations are suable because their charters grant them thecompetence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for tortscommitted by them in the discharge of governmental functions and can be held answerableonly if it can be shown that they were acting in a proprietary capacity. In permitting suchentities to be sued, the state merely gives the claimants the right to show the defendant wasnot acting in its governmental capacity when the injury was inflicted or that the case comesunder the exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, 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 theaccomplishments of the purposes for which municipal corporations are created and that tosubject said properties and public funds to execution would materially impede, even defeatand in some instance destroy said purposes.


6/41

Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals

When a municipality fails or refuses without justifiable reason to effect payment of a finalmoney judgment rendered against it, the claimant may avail of the remedy of mandamus inorder to compel the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance and thecorresponding disbursement of municipal funds.

Fundamental Principles and State Policies

Section 1

Villavicencio v. Lukban:

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

Section 2

Kuroda v. Jalandoni:

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

Agustin v. Edu:

think triangular reflectorized early warning devices.

Held: Legislative enactment is not necessary in order to authorize the issuance of LOIprescribing the use of triangular reflectorized early warning devices. This is also anillustration of generally accepted principles of international law (Pacta sunt servanda).

Ichong v. Hernandez:

think Retail Trade Nationalization Law which is against the principle of Pacta suntservanda.Held: the Retail Trade Nationalization Law is not unconstitutional because it waspassed in the exercise of the police power which cannot be bargained away through themedium of a treaty.

Gonzales v. Hechanova:

Prevalence of National or Municipal law over International law: Constitution authorizes thenullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but also when itruns counter to an act of Congress.

In re Garcia


7/41

A treaty cannot modify regulations governing admission to Philippine bar (that would be anencroachment upon Supreme Court by the Executive)

Section 3

IBP vs. Zamora

the deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy clause.The calling of the marines in this case constitutes permissible use of military asset for civilianlaw enforcement. xx xThe limited participation of the Marines is evident in the provisions ofthe Letter of Instruction (LOI) itself, which sufficiently provides the metes and bounds of theMarines authority. It is noteworthy that the local police forces are the ones charge of thevisibility patrols at all times, the real authority belonging to the PNP. In fact, the Metro ManilaPolice Chief is the overall leader of the PNP-Marines joint visibility patrols.Under the LOI, the police forces are tasked to brief or orient the soldiers on police patrolprocedures. It is their responsibility to direct and manage the deployment of the

marines. It is, likewise, their duty to provide the necessary equipment to the Marinesand render logistic support to these soldiers. In view of the foregoing, it cannot beproperly argued that military authority is supreme over civilian authority.It is worth mentioning that military assistance to civilian authorities in variousforms persists in Philippine jurisdiction. The Philippine experience reveals that it is notaverse to requesting the assistance of the military in the implementation and executionof certain traditionally civil functions. x x x Some of the multifarious activities whereinmilitary aid has been rendered, exemplifying the activities that bring both the civilian andthe military together in a relationship of cooperation are:1. Elections;2. Administration of the Philippine National Red Cross;3. Relief and rescue operations during calamities and disasters;4. Amateur sports promotion and development;

5. Development of the culture and the arts;6. Conservation of the natural resources;7. Implementation of the agrarian reform program;8. Enforcement of customs laws;9. Composite civilian-military law enforcement activities;10. Conduct of licensure examinations;11. Conduct of nationwide test for elementary and high school students;12. Anti-drug enforcement activities;13. Sanitary inspections;14. Conduct of census work;15. Administration of the Civil Aeronautic Board;16. Assistance in installation of weather forecasting devices;17. Peace and order policy formulation in local government units.This unquestionably constitutes a gloss on executive power resulting from asystematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of Congressand, yet, never before questioned. What we have here is a mutual support andcooperation between the military and civilian authorities, not derogation of civiliansupremacy.

Section 4


8/41

People vs. Lagman- Case at bar: accused is prosecuted for failure to register for military service under theNational Defense Act- SC upheld the National Defense Act. To leave an organization of an army to the will of thecitizens would be to make this duty of the Government excusable should there be nosufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein.

Section 5

Chavez vs. RomuloRight to bear arms: It is statutory and not a constitutional right. The license to carry a firearmis neither a property nor a property right. Neither does it create a vested right. Even if it werea property right, it cannot be considered absolute as to be placed beyond the reach of policepower. The maintenance of peace and order, and the protection of the people againstviolence are constitutional duties of the State, and the right to bear firearm is to be construedin connection and in harmony with these constitutional duties.

Section 6

Aglipay vs. Ruiz

-There is no violation of the principle of the separation of church and state. The issuance andsale of the stamps in question may be said to be linked with an event of a religious character,but the resulting propaganda, if any, received by the Catholic Church, was not the aim andpurpose of the government. The idea behind the issuance of the postage stamps was toattract tourists to our country and not primarily the religious event.- What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty , not mere religious toleration.However, religious freedom is not inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not adenial of its influence in human affairs.

Austria vs. NLRCan ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between the church and its members andrelates to matter of faith, religious doctrines, worship and governance of the congregation.Examples of these affairs in which the State cannot meddle are proceedings forexcommunication, ordination of religious ministers, administration of sacraments, and otheractivities to which is attached religious significance. In this case, what is involved is therelationship of the church as an employer and the minister as an employee. It is purelysecular and has no relation whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or doctrine of thechurch.

Section 10

Calalang vs. Williams

-Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but thehumanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that

justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Socialjustice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government


9/41

of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society,through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations ofthe members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally

justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existenceof all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex. Social

justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence

among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally andevenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistentwith the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort,and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest number.

Almeda vs. CA

-There exists a tenants right of redemption in sugar and coconut lands. Pursuant toAgricultural Land Reform Code of 1963, it recognizes share tenancy in sugar lands which isin consonance with the States promotion of social justice wherein it may regulate theacquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of private property, and equitably

diffuse propertyownership and 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 sonwas shown to have died while in the actual performance of his work. To strengthen theconstitutional scheme of social justice and protection to labor, The Court made mention thatas between a laborer, usually poor and unlettered, and the employer, who has resources tosecure able legal advice, the law has reason to demand from the latter the strictercompliance.

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 mustbe remembered that social justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of propertyowners who under our Constitution and laws are also entitled to protection. The social justiceconsecrated in our Constitution was not intended to take away rights from a person and givethem to another who is not entitled thereto.

Section 12

Meyer vs. Nebraska

It is incompetent for the government to prohibit the teaching of a foreign language tostudents. There is nothing harmful in the language that will impair the upbringing of the child.

Pierce vs. Society of Sisters

State may not require children to attend only public schools. The child is not a creature of theState.


10/41

Virtuouso vs. Municipal Judge

Youthful Offender: A person charged with an offense but found to be a youthful offendercould be provisionally released on recognizance at courts decision.

Section 14

PT&T Co. vs. NLRC

the SC held that the petitioners policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified fromwork any woman worker who contracts marriage, runs afoul of the test of, and the rightagainst, discrimination, which is guaranteed all women workers under the Constitution. Whilea requirement that a woman employee must remain unmarried may be justified as a bonafide occupational qualification where the particular requirements of the job would demand

the same, discrimination against married women cannot be adopted by the employer as ageneral principle.

Section 16

Oposa vs. Factoran

[Intergenerational Responsibility / Intergenerational Justice] the 34 minors duly joined bytheir respective parents pleading the cause of inter-generational responsibility and inter-generational justice, had a valid cause of action in questioning the grant of Timber Licensing

Agreements (TLAs) for commercial logging purposes. The minors filed the action for

themselves as representing their generation as well as generations yet unborn. The SC, onthe basis of Section 16, Article II linked with the right to health, recognized a right to abalanced and healthful ecology and the correlative duty to refrain from impairing theenvironment.

LLDA v. CA

The immediate response to the demands of necessities of protecting vital public interestsgives vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in the Declaration of Principles and StatePolicies of the 1987 Constitution. Article II, Section 16. As a constitutionally guaranteed rightof every person, it carries the correlative duty of non-impairment. This is but the consonancewith the declared policy of the state to protect and promote the right to health of the peopleand instill health consciousness among them.

C&M Timber Corporation vs. Alcala

On the issue that the total log ban is a new policy which should be applied prospectivelyand not affect the rights of petitioner vested under the Timber Licensing Agreement (TLA),the Sc held that this is not a new policy but a mere reiteration of the policy of conservationand protection the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.


11/41

Section 17

PRC vs. De Guzman

while it is true that the SC has upheld the constitutional right of every citizen to select aprofession or course of study subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission andacademic requirements, the exercise of this right may be regulated pursuant to the policepower of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety and generalwelfare. Thus, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific ortechnical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging intheir chosen careers. This regulation assumes particular pertinence in the field of medicine,in order to protect the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence andignorance.

PMMS, Inc. vs. CA

the Court said that the requirement that a school must first obtain government authorizationbefore operating is based on the State policy that educational programs and/or operationsshall be of good quality and, therefore, shall at least satisfy minimum standards with respectto curricula, teaching staff, physical plant and facilities and administrative and managementviability.

Section 18

Bernardo vs. NLRC

The SC held that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that qualified disabledpersons be granted the same terms and conditions of employment as qualified able bodied

employees; thus, once hey have attained the status of regular workers, they should beaccorded all the benefits granted by law, notwithstanding written or verbal contracts to thecontrary. This treatment is rooted not merely in charity or accommodation, but in justice forall.

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 withthe spirit of national interest. The non-alienation of national resources, the State full controlover the development and utilization of contributions to the economic growth and generalwelfare of the country and the regulation of foreign investment in accordance to nationalgoals and priorities are too explicit not to be noticed and understood.

Section 20


12/41

Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators vs. PCA,

the SC said that although the Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, itnevertheless reserves to the Government the power to intervene whenever necessary for thepromotion of the general welfare as reflected in Sections 6 & 19 of Article XII.

Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs. Fertilizer and PesticideAuthority, andPharmaceutical and HealthCare Association of the Philippines vs. Sec. Duque III

Despite the fact that our present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, itnevertheless reserves to the Government the power to intervene whenever necessary topromote the general welfare. Free enterprise does not call for removal of protectiveregulations. It must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence just exactly howsuch protective regulation would result in the restraint of trade.

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 privatelands intended for public use upon payment of just compensation to the owner. Privaterights must yield to the irresistible demands of the public interest on the time-honored

justification, as in the case of the policed power, that the welfare of the people is thesupreme law.

Section 25

BASCO VS PAGCOR

Local Autonomy under 1987 Constitution simply means the decentralization and does notmake the local governments sovereign within the State or an imperium imperio.

LIMBONA VS MANGELIN

Decentralization of administration is merely delegation of administrative powers to the LGUsin order to broaden the base of governmental power. Decentralization of power is theabdication by the national government powers.

Section 26

Pamatong vs. COMELEC

- There is no constitutional right to run for or hold public office and, particularly, to seek thepresidency. What is recognized is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by law.Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither bestows such a right nor elevates the


13/41

privilege to the level of an enforceable right. There is nothing in the plain language of theprovision which suggests such a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort. The "equalaccess" provision is a subsumed part of Article II of the Constitution, entitled "Declaration ofPrinciples and State Policies." The provisions under the Article are generally considered notself-executing, and there is no plausible reason for according a different treatment to the"equal access" provision. Like the rest of the policies enumerated in Article II, the provision

does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely specifies aguideline for legislative or executive action. The disregard of the provision does not give riseto any cause of action before the courts.

Section 30

Legspi vs CSC

The constitutional right to information on matters of public concern is self-executing withoutthe need for any ancillary act of legislation.

Valmonte vs de Villa

The constitutional right to information is limited on matters of public concern and is furthersubject to such limitations as may be provided by law. However, although citizens areafforded the right to information, the Constitution does not accord them the right to compelthe custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in theirdesire to acquire information of public concern.

Aquino-Sarmiento vs Morato

- When a committee or board is created as public in its very existence and character such asthe MTRCB, there can be no valid claim to privacy. Here, decisions of Board and individual

voting slips are public in character.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

In re Manzano

- Members of the SC and other courts shall not be designated to any agency performingquasi-judicial or administrative functions.- 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 bedesignated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. To quote CJFernando in Garcia vs. Macaraig, he said that while the doctrine of separation of powers isa relative theory not to be enforced with pedantic rigor, the practical demands of government

precluding its doctrine application, it cannot justify a member of the judiciary being requiredto assume a position or perform 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


14/41

the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence.

Angara vs. Electoral Commission

- Separation of powers as actual division than obtained through express provision- Judiciary is the only Constitutional Arbiter to allocate Constitutional Boundaries- Judicial Supremacy = supremacy of the Constitution asserted by the judiciary (notsupremacy of the judiciary itself)- Judicial Review is limited to Actual Litigation. Judiciary does not pass upon questions ofwisdom, justice or expediency of litigation.- The Electoral Commission is an independent, impartial, and non-partisan tribunal. The solepower to determine contests regarding the elections, returns, and qualifications of themembers of the National Assembly has been transferred in totality to the ElectoralCommission. Its power is clear, complete, and exclusive.

Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. POEA

- Legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated. Whatcan be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced.- Completeness test and Sufficient Standard Test:Completeness Test = complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislaturesuch that what is left is merely its enforcement.Sufficient Standard Test = adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out theboundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.- Subordinate Legislation = delegated power to issue rules to carry out the general provisionof the statute. (Administrative bodies implement the broad policies by promulgating theirsupplementary regulations.)

Casibang vs. Aquino

- Political Question = question of policy; question to be decided by the people in theirsovereign capacity or full discretionary authority- Justiciable Question = implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable; an act oromission violative of such right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by law for said breachof right.

Sanidad v. COMELEC

On whether the case is justiciablePolitical questions are associated with the wisdom of the legality of a particular act. Wherethe vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act, that matteris definitely 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 procedurefollowed or the authority assumed was valid or not.

On whether the President may propose Constitutional amendments


15/41

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 Assemblyto propose amendments to the Constitution, which is but an adjunct, although peculiar, to itsgross legislative power.

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

department 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 Courtmay take jurisdiction and decide on the acts validity. Even in political questions the Courtmay take jurisdiction under the expanded judicial power extended to it by Art 8 Sec. 1 of theConstitution.

(Judicial power includes the duty to settle actual controversies involving rights which arelegally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been agrave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any

branch or instrumentality of Government.)

Delegation of Powers

Garcia v. Exec. Secretary

The Congress 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, Sec28 par 2 of the Constitution.

Araneta v. Dinglasan

The delegation of emergency powers by Congress to the President may be limited byCongress subject to restrictions it may provide. Congress may withdraw the delegated powerat any time. In this case, the emergency power was withdrawn at the time Congress becameable to exercise its legislative duties again.

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 todetermine how the law may be enforced and not what the law shall be since theascertainment of the latter subject is within the prerogative and determination of thelegislature. Delegation of legislative power is permitted and valid provided that is passes thetwo accepted tests- completeness test and the sufficient standard test. The reason for suchdelegation is the increasing complexity of the task of the government and the growinginability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its attention.

Rodriguez v. Gella


16/41

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 aredeclared null and void and the respondents are ordered to desist from appropriating,releasing and allotting expending funds set aside therein.

People v. Vera

Act No. 4221 is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative power. The powers of thegovernment are distributed among three coordinate and substantially independent organs:the legislative, the executive and the judicial. Each of the departments of the governmentderives its authority from the Constitution.

US vs. Ang Tang HoIf the act within itself does not define a crime and is not complete, legislative act remains to

be done to make it a law or a crime, the doing of which is vested in the Gov, generally, theact is a delegation of legislative power, and is thus unconstitutional and void.

Ynot vs. IACThere is no standard that the officials must observe in determining to whom to distribute theconfiscated carabaos and carabeef. There is thus an invalid delegation of legislatie power.

Tablarin vs. GutierezBecause the necessity standards are set forth in the statute (RA No. 2383), providing forstandardization and regulation of education, delegation is valid.

Pelaez vs. Auditor GeneralThe two tests (Completeness test and Sufficient Standard test) must be applied together.

Abakada Guro Party List vs. ErmitaWhere the effectivity of the law is made dependent on the verification by the executive of theexistence of certain conditions, the verification is delegated to the executive. (This is an example ofcontingent legislation - a valid delegation of law execution).

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 5Tobias 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 population of atleast 250,000 and is entitled to at least 1 representative.

Mariano Jr. v. Comelec


17/41

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 resultin the creation of a new legislative from a special law whose purpose is to convert amunicipality into a 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 representativesthrough 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 ajudicial district by virtue of a legal and valid appointment, accepts another appointment topreside over the same branch of the same Court of First Instance, in addition of anotherCourt of First Instance to the old one, enters into the discharge of the functions of his newoffice and receives the corresponding salary, he abandons his old office and cannot claim tobe entitled to repossess it or question the constitutionality of the law by virtue of which hisnew appointment has been issued; and, said new appointment having been disapproved bythe Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly, neither can he claim to continueoccupying the office conferred upon him by said new appointment, having ipso jure ceasedin 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 calledto act on account of his office.

Section 16


18/41

Santiago vs. Guingona, Jr.

Where no provision of the Constitution, the laws or even the rules of the Senate has beenclearly shown to have been violated, disregarded or overlooked, grave abuse of discretioncannot be imputed 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 should not beinterfered with, nor taken over, by the judiciary.

When the constitution declares that a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum, itdoes not mean allof its members. Majority of all the members constitute the House. Hence,12 senators who unanimously voted constitute a majority of 23 senators (10 walked out, 1out of the country).

OSMEA VS. PENDATUN

The 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-Graft Law as it is being imposed on the representative NOT as a member of the House.

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 the

veracity of journals, when they are clear and explicit, would be to violate both the letter andspirit of the laws, to invade the coordinate and independent department of the governmentand to interfere 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 regardsthe tenor of the measure passed by the Congress and approved by the President.

Section 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 the partymust 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.


19/41

Guingona vs Gonzales- Full complement of 12 seats in COA is not mandatoryRounding out 0.5 to 1 is unconstitutional as 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. Experiencehas 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 by a

fraction of such information elicited from single question. It is sufficient that the question is germaneto the subject matter of inquiry. There is no need for it to be directly related or connected to possiblelegislation.

Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability- Exception to legislative inquiry: Executive Privilege (which is extended to all close advisors of thePresident)- 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 the extentthat 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 the appropriationsbill. It is sufficient that the House of Rep. initiated the passage of the bill.


20/41

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 to thefiling 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 not contravenethe constitutional requirement as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives 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

PHILCONSA vs Enriquez

- 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 (creation ofVideogram 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 to widenthe 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 be

overlooked(c) to fairly apprise the people of the subjects of legislation

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 would beso negligible as to be of any use in ensuring immediate enactment. (Printing and Readings on


21/41

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 call ofthe Pres. by voting on the bill, manifested their belief in the urgent need for certification of the bill.

Sec. 27:

Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance- It is within the power of a conference committee to include in its report an entirely new provision notfound in either House Bill or Senate Bill. (Amendment in the nature of substitution is warranted aslong 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- President 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 an

appropriations bill is an item in itself.

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 by Congressfor a specific purpose (the duty to implement the law includes the duty to desist from implementing itwhen implementation would prejudice public interest). The Court, however, did not rule on this issue,

and rather declared the provision concerning benefits of CAFGUs as an inappropriate 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 place wherethe subject may be found.

Province of Abra vs Judge Hernando

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.

Tan vs Del Rosario- 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


22/41

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 depends upon

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.

Guingona vs Carague- The Automatic Reappropriation Law for servicing foreign debts is valid because the amount is fixedby the parameters of the law itself which requires the simple act of looking into the books of Treasure(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 a validexercise 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 becauseCongress itself had specified the uses of the fund and the power given was merely recommendatoryto 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 BOI areappealable 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 a petitionwith SC was superseded by the Constitution stating that jurisdiction of SC cannot be made toincrease without its advice and concurrence.

Sec. 32:

Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs COMELEC- Initiative is entirely the work of electorate; the process oflaw-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 filed petition for


23/41

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.- 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 the holderof 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 government department.- Case at bar: Petitioner has at least an indirect interest with the transaction with DECS and NMYC.

Civil Liberties Union vs Executive Secretary- EO No. 284 is unconstitutional insofar it allows a member of the Cabinet to hold not more than twopositions in the government. (Respondent's contention that Sec. 7, Art. IX-B is an exception woulddefeat the obvious legislative intent which is to prohibit cabinet members from holding multipleoffices.)

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 Chief Executive(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 Presidentialelection) is applicable to the members of the Judiciary.- This sort of appointment is made for partisan considerations.

De Castro vs. JBC


24/41

Sec. 16:

Binamira vs Garrucho- Appointment or designation involves exercise of discretion which cannot be delegated. Even if it beassumed 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 confer securityof 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 whose appointmentsare vested in him in this Constitution

(b) all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided forby 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 group of appointments whereconsent of COA is required.

Bautista vs Salonga- Confirmation of COA is not needed in appointment of Chairman of Commission of Human Rightsbecause such appointment is not vested in the President in the Constitution. The President appointsChairman of CHR pursuant to EO 163 (CHR Chairman is thus within the 3rd group of officers)

Quintos-Deles vs Commission of Appointments- The appointment of Sectoral Representatives requires confirmation by the Commission on

Appointments. The seats reserved for sectoral representatives may be filled by appointment by thePresident by express provision of Sec.7, Article XVIII of the Constitution (hence, sectoralrepresentatives are within the 1stgroup of officers)- Exceptions to those officers within the 1st group: (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 ofNLRC Chairman andCommissioners do not need COA confirmation because they fall under the 3rdgroup 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


25/41

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

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 appointing authority.

- 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 decide to doit by himself.

Supervision does 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 theformer [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 Chief Executive- Case at bar: Secretary of the Interior is invested with the authority to order the investigation of thecharges 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 thenis his authority to go over, confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by his department 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- 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 control inthe 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 to

Arbitrate with the ABS CBN as he acted for and in behalf of the President when he signed it.


26/41

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 beexercisedNAMARCO 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 Constitution whichdenies the authority of the Chief Exec. to order police actions to stop unabated criminality, risinglawlessness, and alarming communist activities.

Ruffy vs Chief of Staff- Courts martial are simply instrumentalities of the executive power, provided by the Congress for thePresident 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. Thetrial contemplated by the due process clause is trial by judicial process. Military Commissions are not

courts within the Philippine judicial system. Judicial power is vested only in the courts. Militarycommissions pertain to the executive department and are instrumentalities of the President ascommander-in-chief to aid him in enforcing discipline in the armed forces.

Quilona vs General Court Martial

Gudani vs Senga- The President has constitutional authority to prevent a member of the armed forces from testifyingbefore a legislative inquiry, by virtue of her power as commander-in-chief, and that as aconsequence, a military officer who defies such injunction is liable under military justice. At the sametime, the Court also holds that any chamber of Congress which seeks the appearance befoe it of amilitary officer against the consent of the President has adequate remedies under law to compelsuch attendance. Any military officer whom the Congress summons to testify before it may becompelled to do so by the President. If the President is not so inclined, the President may becommanded by judicial order to compel the attendance of the military officer. Final judicial ordershave the force of the law of the land which the President has the duty to faithfully execute.

Sec. 19:

Torres vs Gonzales- A judicial pronouncement is not necessary in determining whether the conditions in the pardon are


27/41

violated. The determination of whether there is a violations of the conditions rests exclusively in thesound 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 to

public 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, hemust 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 samefacts alleged in the criminal case) entitles the latter to automatic reinstatement and backwages.

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

Llamas vs Orbos- In granting the power of executive clemency, the Constitution does not distinguish between criminaland administrative cases.

Sec. 18:

Constantino, Jr. vs Cuisia- The debt-relief contracts, providing 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 of theMonetary 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, andhence 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.

Pimentel, Jr. vs Exec. Sec.- The power to ratify is vested in the President, subject to concurrence of the Senate. The role of theSenate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent or concurrence to the ratification. Hence, itis within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the Senate or having secured itsconsent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it. This discretion to ratify lies within the President'scompetence alone.


28/41

- 4 steps in treaty-making process:(a) negotiation(b) signing of the treaty (simply a means of authenticating the instrument and a symbol of

good faith)(c) ratification (formal act by which a statute confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty)(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 reversedby a court 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 propercases, even the political question.- That where serious constitutional questions are involved, "the transcendental importance tothe public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely brushingaside, if we must, technicalities of procedure."

Mantruste Systems v Court of Appeals

- There can be no justification for judicial interference in the business of an administrativeagency, except when it violates a citizen's constitutional rights, or commits a grave abuse of

discretion, or acts in excess of, or without jurisdiction.

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

Malaga v Penachos, Jr.

- It was previously declared the prohibition pertained to the issuance of injunctions orrestraining orders by courts against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or theexercise of discretion in technical cases. The Court observed that to allow the courts to judgethese matters would disturb the smooth functioning of the administrative machinery. Onissues definitely outside of this dimension and involving questions of law, courts could not beprevented by any law (in this case, P.D. No. 605) from exercising their power to restrain orprohibit 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


29/41


30/41

- 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 illegaldisbursement of public funds raised by taxation will the taxpayer's suit be allowed. Theessence of a taxpayer's right to institute such an action hinges on the existence of thatrequisite pecuniary or monetary interest.

- It is not enough that the taxpayer-plaintiff sufficiently show that he would be benefited orinjured by 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 exerciseof its 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 allowedto initiate and prosecute actions before this Court to question the constitutionality or validityof laws, acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of various government agencies orinstrumentalities.

PHILCONSA v Enriquez

- The Senators have legal standing to question the validity of the veto. When a veto wasmade in excess of the authority of the President, it impermissibily intrudes into the domain ofthe Legislature. A member of Congress can question an act of the Executive which injuresCongress as an institution.

Tatad v Garcia, Jr.

-The prevailing doctrines in taxpayer's suits are to allow taxpayers to question contractsentered into by the national government or government-owned or controlled corporationsallegedly in contravention of the law and to disallow the same when only municipal contractsare 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 notjust to several, but to all citizens of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are sonumerous, it becomes impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before thecourt.

- 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 healthfulecology is concerned.


31/41

- Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythmand harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little differently,the minors` 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 tocome.

Lozada v COMELEC

- As taxpayers, petitioners may not file the instant petition, for nowhere therein is it allegedthat tax money is being illegally spent. It is only when an act complained of, which mayinclude a legislative enactment or statute, involves the illegal expenditure of public moneythat the so-called taxpayer 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,direct injury as a result of its enforcement. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, isthat indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionallycapable 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 normallydoes not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.

Kilosbayan v Morato

- The voting on petitioners' standing in the previous case was a narrow one, seven (7)members sustaining petitioners' standing and six (6) denying petitioners' right to bring thesuit. The majority was thus a tenuous one that is not likely to be maintained in anysubsequent litigation. In addition, there have been charges in the membership of the Court,with the retirement of Justice Cruz and Bidin and the appointment of the writer of this opinionand Justice Francisco. Given this fact it is hardly 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 utilizetheir resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require. It recognizes thepower and authority to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceedingthe highest rates authorized by law for compensation and play plans of the government andallocate and disburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by them in thecourse of the discharge of their functions. Fiscal autonomy means freedom from outsidecontrol.

- The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have theindependence and flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties. Theimposition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent constitutionaloffices allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscalautonomy and violative not only of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially asregards the Supreme Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which theentire fabric of our constitutional system is based


32/41

SECTION 4

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 aparty's case 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 unconstitutionalityupon the stability of laws, no less than on the doctrine of separation of powers. As thequestioned act is usually the handiwork of the legislative or the executive departments, orboth, it will be prudent for such courts, if only out of a becoming modesty, to defer to thehigher judgment of this Court in the consideration of its validity, which is better determinedafter a thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with the concurrence of the majority ofthose who participated in its discussion.

Larranaga v Court of Appeals

(Transfer the venue of the preliminary investigation from Cebu City to Manila because of the

extensive 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 circumstancescan deprive an accused of his due process right to fair trial. It was previously held that towarrant a finding of prejudicial publicity there must be allegation and proof that the judgeshave been unduly influenced, 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 publicitythat attended the investigation of petitioners fatally infected the fairness and impartiality ofthe DOJ Panel.

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 jurisdictioncan unnecessarily burden the Court and thereby undermine its essential function ofexpounding 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


33/41

certain pleadings in the regular courts. The power to promulgate rules concerning pleadings,practice and procedure in all courts is vested on the Supreme Court.

Javellana v DILG

(Section 90 of the Local Government Code of 1991 and DLG Memorandum Circular No. 90-

81 does not violate Article VIII. Section 5 of the Constitution. Neither the statute nor thecircular trenches upon the Supreme Court's power and authority to prescribe rules on thepractice of law.)

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

SECTION 6

Maceda v Vasquez

- In the absence of any administrative action taken against a person by the Court with regardto his certificates of service, the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsmanencroaches into the Court's power of administrative supervision over all courts and itspersonnel, in violation of the doctrine 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 thesame to the Court for determination whether said Judge or court employee had acted withinthe scope of their 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 afterdue investigation and based on competent proofs, no less. This is all the more so when as inthis case the charges are penal in nature.

('Misconduct' also implies 'a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. It resultsthat even if respondent were not correct in his legal conclusions, his judicial actuationscannot be regarded 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 grantof exemption from payment of income tax to members of the Judiciary, so as to "givesubstance to equality among the three branches of Government.

SECTION 11

De La Llana v Alba


34/41

-Judiciary Act does not violate judicial security of tenure. This Court is empowered "todiscipline judges of inferior courts and, by a vote of at least eight members, order theirdismissal." Thus, it possesses the competence to remove judges. Under the Judiciary Act, itwas the President who was vested with such power. Removal is, of course, to bedistinguished from termination by virtue of 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 would thereby lose his position. It is in that sense thatfrom the standpoint of strict law, the question of any impairment of security of tenure doesnot arise. Nonetheless, for the incumbents of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one ofseparation. As to its effect, no distinction exists between removal and the abolition of theoffice. Realistically, it is devoid of significance. He ceases to be a member 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 docketand undue delay in the adjudication of cases in the Court, especially in administrative

matters, since even cases involving the penalty of reprimand would require action by theCourt en banc.

- Yet, although as thus demonstrated, only cases involving dismissal of judges of lowercourts are specifically required to be decided by the Court en banc, in cognizance of theneed for a thorough and judicious evaluation of serious charges against members of the

judiciary, it is only when the penalty imposed does not exceed suspension of more than oneyear or a fine of P10,000.00, or both, that the administrative matter may be decided indivision.

SECTION 12

In Re: Manzano

-As incumbent RTC Judges, they form part of the structure of government. Their integrityand performance in the adjudication of cases contribute to the solidity of such structure. Aspublic officials, they are trustees of an orderly society. Even as non-members ofProvincial/City Committees on Justice, RTC judges should render assistance to saidCommittees to help promote the landable purposes for which they exist, but only when suchassistance may be reasonably 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 discretionto formulate decisions and/or minute resolutions, provided a legal basis is given, dependingon its evaluation 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 thefacts and the law on which it is based.

Mendoza v CFI


35/41

- What is expected of the judiciary "is that the decision rendered makes clear why eitherparty prevailed under the applicable law to the facts as established. Nor is there any regidformula as to the language to be employed to satisfy the requirement of clarity anddistinctness. The discretion of the particular judge in this respect, while not unlimited, isnecessarily broad. There is no sacramental form of words which he must use upon pain ofbeing considered as having failed to abide by what the Constitution directs."

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

Borromeo v Court of Appeals

- The Court reminds all lower courts, lawyers, and litigants that it disposes of the bulk of itscases by minute resolutions and decrees them as final and executory, as where a case ispatently without merit, where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the decisionappealed from is supported by substantial evidence and is in accord with the facts of the

case and the applicable laws, where it is clear from the records that the petition is filedmerely to forestall the early execution of judgment and for non-compliance with the rules.The resolution denying due course or 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 statesthat the questions raised are factual or no reversible error in the respondent court's decisionis shown or for some other legal basis stated in the resolution, there is sufficient compliancewith the constitutional requirement.

- 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 "minuteresolution" should be used in lieu of a full-blown decision in any particular case and that aminute Resolution of dismissal of a Petition for Review on Certiorari constitutes anadjudication on the merits of the controversy or subject matter of the Petition. It has beenstressed by the Court that the grant of due course to a Petition for Review is "not a mat

Documents

DoctrinesSummary Gabriel PoliticalLawReview FirstSem 2013