— and the latter is involved in the former — to the United “Political Law” has been defined as that branch of

States, the laws of the country in support of an established public law which deals with the organization and operation of the
Pp religion or abridging the freedom of the press, or authorizing governmental organs of the State and define the relations of the
cruel and unusual punishments, and he like, would at once cease state with the inhabitants of its territory.
PEOPLE VS. PERFECTO to be of obligatory force without any declaration to that effect." It is significant to note that the present Code of
G.R. NO. L018463, OCTOBER 4, 1922 Every nation acquiring territory, by treaty or otherwise, must Commerce is the Spanish Code of Commerce of 1885, with some
The accused was charged with having published an hold it subject to the Constitution and laws of its own modifications made by the "Commission de Codificacion de las
article reflecting on the Philippine Senate and its members in government, and not according to those of the government Provincias de Ultramar," which was extended to the Philippines
violation of Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code (which ceding it. by the Royal Decree of August 6, 1888, and took effect as law in
punished any person who, by writing, shall defame, abuse, or this jurisdiction on December 1, 1888. Upon the transfer of
insult any Minister of the Crown or other person in authority). MACARIOLA VS. ASUNCION (Judge of the CFI of Leyte) sovereignty from Spain to the United States and later on from
The accused was charged with imputing against the A.M. NO. 133-J, MAY 31, 1982 the United States to the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of
Senate responsibility for the alleged scandalous robbery of In 1963, Bernardita Macariola and her step sister and this Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated
records which were kept in the iron safe pof the Senate. He said: other kins (Priscilla Reyes, et al.) had a dispute over their because where there is change of sovereignty, the political laws
“The authors of the robbery of the records from the said iron inheritance involving parcels of land located in Leyte. A trial of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of
safe of the Senate have, perhaps, followed the example of ensued and Judge Elias Macariola, after determining the the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are
certain Senators who secured their election through fraud and eligibility of the parties to inherit rendered a decision in the civil expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.
robbery.” case. Thereafter, the counsels of the parties submitted a project Furthermore, respondent is not liable under the same
The accused was found guilty in a judgment rendered partition reflecting the preference of the parties. The project paragraph because there is no provision in both the 1935 and
by the Court of First Instance of Manila and again on appeal to partition was, however, unsigned by Macariola. But her lawyer 1973 Constitutions of the Philippines, nor is there an existing law
the Supreme Court, with the writer of the instant decision assured Asuncion that he is duly authorized by Macariola as expressly prohibiting members of the Judiciary from engaging or
dissenting on two principal grounds: counsel. having interest in any lawful business.
 That the accused was deprived of the The judge then approved the project partition. The It may be pointed out that Republic Act No. 296, as
constitutional right of cross-examination; and decision became final in 1963 as well. Reyes, et al., sold some of amended, also known as the Judiciary Act of 1948, does not
 That Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is no their shares to Arcadio Galapon, who later sold the property to contain any prohibition to that effect. As a matter of fact, under
longer in force and was abrogated completely by Judge Asuncion in 1965. In August 1968, Macariola filed a Section 77 of said law, municipal judges may engage in teaching
the change from Spanish to American sovereignty complaint against Judge Asuncion with “acts unbecoming a or other vocation not involving the practice of law after office
over the Philippines. judge” on the ground that he bought a property (formerly owned hours but with the permission of the district judge concerned.
by Macariola) which was involved in a civil case decided by him;
1. Whether Article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code is still in this act by Asuncion is averred by Macariola to be against Art. INTERPRETATION/CONSTRUCTION OF THE PHILIPPINE
force. NO. 1491, par. 5 of the Civil Code. CONSTITUTION
It is a general principle of the public law that on Under the second cause of action, the complainant also
acquisition of territory, the previous political relations of the alleged that the respondent Judge violated paragraphs 1 and 5, FRANCISCO VS. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ceded region are totally abrogated. “Political” is here used to Article 14, of the Code of Commerce when he associated himself G.R. NO. 160261, NOVEMBER 10, 2003
denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by the with the Traders Manufacturing and Industries, Inc. as a On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives
inhabitants to the sovereign. stockholder and a ranking officer. (Note: pars. 1 and 5 of Article adopted a Resolution which directed the Committee on Justice to
Mr. Justice Field of the United States Supreme Court 14 prohibits justices and judges from engaging in commerce or “conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of
stated that: "As a matter of course, all laws, ordinances and holding any office or financial intervention in companies located disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the
regulations in conflict with the political character, institutions in provinces or towns in which they discharge their duties). Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)”.
and Constitution of the new government are at once displaced. On June 2, 2003, former President Estrada filed the first
Thus, upon a cession of political jurisdiction and legislative power 1. Whether or not Judge Asuncion should be penalized for impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.
violation of the Code of Commerce. NO.
1|Page
and seven Associate Justices of the Supreme Court for culpable Consequently, the Court determined that our It has been held that in construing a doubtful provision
violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, and other Constitution, though vesting in the House of Representatives the of the Constitution, the Court must consider the intention of the
high crimes, which was later on dismissed for being insufficient in exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases, provides for framers, the object sought to be accomplished, and the evils, if
substance. several limitations to the exercise of such power. This shows that any, sought to be prevented or remedied.
Then on Oct. 23, 2003, a second impeachment the Constitution did not intend to leave the matter of During the presidency of Ferdinand Marcos, the
complaint was filed against the same justices with the Secretary impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress; instead, it practice of holding multiple offices or positions in the
General of the House which was accompanied by an provided for certain well-defined limits. Nevertheless, there government led to abuses by public officials for purposes of self-
endorsement signed by at least 1/3 of all members of the House exists no constitutional basis for the contention that the exercise enrichment. It was, therefore, for this reason, that the
of Representatives. of judicial review over impeachment proceedings would upset constitutional prohibitions were worded in such a way to
Thus, this instant petition against the House of the system of checks and balances. Verily, the Constitution is to remedy, if not correct, the evils that flow from the scandalous
Representatives, et.al. was instituted, for their alleged violation be interpreted as a whole and one section is not to be allowed to practice of Cabinet members holding multiple Government
of the Constitution that “no impeachment proceedings shall be defeat another. positions. Moreover, although Section 7, Article IX-B already
initiated against the same official more than once within a period contains a blanket prohibition against the holding of multiple
of one year.” Note: Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the the Nov. 28, 2001 offices or employment in the government involving both elective
On the other hand, respondents assert that this Court House Impeachment Rules are unconstitutional. Consequently, and appointive public officials, the Constitutional Commission
has no jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings, claimed the second impeachment complaint is barred under par. 5, Sec. 3 decided to formulate another provision, Sec. 13, Article VII,
as a political issue, much less enjoin the House of of Article XI of the Constitution. specifically prohibiting the President, Vice-President, members of
Representatives, which is an independent and co-equal branch of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants. Such addition makes it
government under the Constitution. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION VS. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY clear that the framers intended to specifically be more strict with
G.R. NO. 83896, FEBRUARY 22, 1991 the President and the members of the Cabinet because they
1. Whether or not the Supreme Court may exercise the President Corazon C. Aquino issued E.O. No. 284 on exercise more powers; hence, the higher possibility of abuse of
power of judicial review to determine the July 25, 1987 which allows a member of the Cabinet, power. This being the case, the qualifying phrase "unless
constitutionality of the second impeachment complaint undersecretary or assistant secretary or other appointive officials otherwise provided in this Constitution" in Section 13, Article VII
and the Nov. 28, 2001 House Impeachment Rules. YES. of the Executive Department to hold, in addition to his primary cannot possibly refer to the broad exceptions provided under
As pointed out by Justice Laurel, this “moderating position, not more than two positions in the government and Section 7, Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution.
power” to “determine the proper allocation of powers” of the government corporations and receive the corresponding
different branches of government and “to direct the course of compensation therefor. EFFECTIVITY AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
government along constitutional channels” is inherent in all Such issuance led to this petition, to seek a declaration
courts as a necessary consequence of the judicial power itself, of the unconstitutionality of the order referred to. Under Sec. 13, DE LEON VS. ESGUERRA
which is the power of the court to settle actual controversies Art. 7 of the Constitution, the President, Vice-President, the G.R. NO. 78059, AUGUST 31, 1987
involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall In the barangay elections held on May 17, 1982,
The merits of the issues raised were settled by not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any petitioner Alfredo M. De Leon was elected barangay captain and
employing the principles of constitutional construction as folows: other office or employment during their tenure. There is no the other petitioners Angel S. Salamat, Mario C. Sta. Ana, Jose C.
verba legis, ratio legis est anima, and ut magis valeat quam dispute as to the prohibition itself, what the petitioners and Tolentino, Rogelio J. de la Rosa and Jose M. Resurreccion, as
pereat. Verba legis suggests that, wherever possible, the words respondents disagree about is on the “unless otherwise provided barangay councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal under
used in the Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning in this Constitution” clause; for the petitioners, the stated clause Batas Pambansa Blg. 222 (or the Barangay Election Act of 1982).
except where technical terms are employed. When there is refers to those exceptions expressly provided by the Constitution On February 9, 1987, petitioner De Leon received a
ambiguity, ratio legis est anima, meaning the words of the while for the respondents, it refers to Section 7, par. (2), Article Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986, signed by OIC
Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent IX-B. Governor Benjamin Esguerra, designated Florentino G. Magno as
of its framers. Finally, ut magis valeat quam pereat, which implies 1. Whether or not Executive Order No. 284 is barangay captain of Barangay Dolores. The designation made by
that the Constitution must be interpreted as a whole. constitutional. NO.

2|Page
the OIC Governor was “by authority of the Minister of Local occupied by petitioners. Relevantly, Sec. 8, Art. 1 of the 1987 is apparently to sustain an individual's free exercise of his religion
Government”. Constitution further provides in part: as equally guaranteed by the Constitution and to reinforce an
Also on February 8, 1987, respondent OIC Governor "Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local officials, individual's sense of morality.
signed a Memorandum, antedated December 1, 1986, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall
designating Remigio Tigas, Ricardo Lacanienta, Teodoro Medina, be three years x x x." Dissenting Opinion of J. Leonen: It is a violation of the
Roberto Paz, and Teresita Tolentino as members of the barangay Until the term of office of barangay officials has been Constitutional prohibition against the State’s establishment of a
council of Barangay Dolores. determined by aw, therefore, the term of office of 6 years religion. It has no secular purpose other than to benefit and
Petitoners prayed to the Supreme Court that the provided for in the Barangay Election Act of 1982 should still therefore, promote a religion. It has the effect of imposing and
subject Memoranda of February 8, 1987 be declared null and govern. insidious cultural discrimination against those whose beliefs may
void and that respondents be prohibited by taking over their be different. It is a privilege that is not available to those who
positions of Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen. PREAMBLE profess non-belief in any god. The majority opinion invites judges
Petitioners maintain that pursuant to Section 3 of the to excessively entangle themselves with religious institutions and
Barangay Election Act of 1982 (BP Blg. 222), their terms of office RE: LETTER OF TONY Q. VALENCIANO worship. Decisions on the duration and frequency of rituals are
shall be six years which shall commence on June 7, 1988 and shall A.M. NO. 10-4-19-SC, MARCH 7, 2017 not judicial functions. Holding Catholics masses shed their
continue until their successors shall have elected and shall have Valenciano wrote to then Chief Justice Puno three impartiality.
qualified. It was also their position that with the ratification of letters, each sent on separate days, regarding the regular practice
the 1987 Philippine Constitution, respondent OIC Governor no of holding Roman Catholic masses at the basement of the ARTICLE I: THE NATIONAL TERRITORY/SOVEREIGNTY
longer has the authority to replace them and to designate their Quezon City Hall of Justice. He asserted that the practice is in
successors. violation of Art. IV, Section 29(2) which prohibits the REAGAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
On the other hand, respondents contend that the appropriation of public funds to activities that benefit a religious G.R. NO. L-26379, DECEMBER 27, 1969
terms of office of elective and appointive officials were abolished organization and also complained that the same gives a Reagan, an employee of an American corporation that
and that petitioners continued in office by virtue of Sec. 2, Art. 3 perception that the government favors the religion. He then provided assistance to the US airforce in the Philippines, raised
of the Provisional Constitution and not because their term of six enumerated instances where the practice was an inconvenience an issue regarding income tax assessed on him by Commissioner
years had not yet expired; and that the provision in the Barangay to the personnel and litigants. He then later raised the issue of on the sale of his car.
Election Act fixing the term of office of Barangay officials to six the separation of Church and State (Art. II, Sec 6). Petitioner contended that the place of the transaction,
years must be deemed to have been repealed for being Letter was endorsed to Deputy Court Administrator and the Clark Field Air Base in Pampanga, is outside Philippine
inconsistent with Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the Provisional Constitution. measures were implemented to address Valenciano’s complaints. territory and therefore beyond its jurisdictional power to tax.
Masses were shortened. OCA dismissed letter for lack of merit.
1. Whether or not the designation of respondents to 1. Whether the bases under lease to the US armed forces
replace petitioners was validly made during the one- 1. Whether holding of mass should be prohibited from remain part of Philippine territory. YES.
year period which ended on Feb 25, 1987. NO. being held at the basement of the Quezon City Hall of A state is not precluded from allowing another power
Supreme Court declared that the Memoranda issued by Justice as it may be deemed a violation of the to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain
respondent OIC Governor designating respondents as Barangay Constitution. NO. portions of its territory, but it does not follow that such areas be
Captain and Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, The Filipino people in "imploring the aid of Almighty considered as alien land. They retain their status as native soil
Rizal has no legal force and effect. God" manifested their spirituality innate in our nature and and are still subject to native authority. Its jurisdiction may be
The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on consciousness as a people, shaped by tradition and historical diminished, but it does not disappear. So it is with the bases
Feb 2, 1987, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be experience. As this is embodied in the preamble, it means that under lease to the US armed forces by virtue of the Military
deemed to have superseded. Having become inoperative, the State recognizes with respect the influence of religion in so Bases Agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be foreign
respondent OIC Governor could no longer rely on Sec. 2, Art. 3, far as it instills into the mind the purest principles of morality. territory.
thereof to designate respondents to the elective positions The OCA declared that the primary secular purpose for
accommodating the religious exercise within the court premises PEOPLE VS. GOZO

3|Page
G.R. NO. L-36409, OCTOBER 26, 1973 notice to the international family of states and it is in no way
The appellant seeks to set aside the judgment of the MAGALLONA VS. ERMITA affecting or producing any effect like enlargement or diminution
Court of First Instance of Zambales which convicted her of a G.R. NO. 187167, JULY 16, 2011 of territories.
violation of an ordinance of Olongapo, Zambales, which required R.A. 9522 was enacted by the Congress in March 2009 With regard to the assertion that R.A. 9522 has
a permit from the municipal mayor for the construction of a to comply with the terms of the United Nations Convention on converted the internal waters into archipelagic waters, the Court
building. the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which the Philippines ratified on suggested that the political branches of government can pass
Gozo bought a house and lot inside the United States February 27, 1984. Such compliance shortened one baseline, domestic laws that will aid in the competent security measures
Naval Reservation in Olongapo City. She later demolished the optimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine and policies that will regulate innocent passage. Since innocent
house and built another one in its place without any building archipelago and classified adjacent territories such as the passage as a right is based on customary law, no state can validly
permit from the City Mayor because she claims that Ernesto Kalayaan Island Ground (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal as invoke sovereignty to deny a right acknowledged by modern
Evalle, an assistant in the City Mayor’s office, and other “regimes of islands” whose islands generate their own applicable states. In the case of archipelagic states such as the Philippines,
neighbors in the area advised her that such was unnecessary. maritime zones. UNCLOS III required the imposition of innocent passage as a
Gozo was found guilty by the City Court of Olongapo of violating Petitioners, in their capacities as “citizens, taxpayers or concession in lieu of their right to claim the entire waters
the city ordinance regarding acquisition of said permit. She was legislators” assail the constitutionality of R.A. 9522. To their landward baseline. It also made it possible for archipelagic states
later sentenced to a month-long imprisonment and payment of opinion, the law has effectively reduced the maritime territory of to be recognized as a cohesive entity under the UNCLOS III.
other costs. the country. With this, Article I of the 1987 Constitution will be
Gozo subsequently elevated the case to the Court of violated. The petitioners were also worried that the suggested MOST REV. PEDRO ARIGO, ET AL. VS. SCOTT H. SWIFT
Appeals (1) questioning the legitimacy of such ordinance on the changes in the maritime baselines will allow for foreign aircrafts G.R. NO. 206510, SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
constitutional ground to due process (while citing the case of and vessels to traverse the Philippine territory freely. In effect, it The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine
People v. Fajardo1), and (2) the applicability of said ordinance in steps on the state’s sovereignty and national security. countermeasures ship of the US Navy. On December 2012, the
view of the location of her house inside the naval base Meanwhile, the Congress insisted that in no way will US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic clearance for
considering that the naval reservation site is an American base the amendments affect any pertinent power of the state. It also the said vessel “to enter and exit the territorial waters of the
and not a Philippine territory. deferred to agree to claims that the law impliedly relinquishes Philippines and to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the purpose
the Philippines claims over Sabah. Lastly, they have questioned of routine ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty.”
1. Whether the municipal government has jurisdiction the normative force of the notion that all the waters within the On January 6, 2013, the ship left Sasebo, Japan for Subic Bay,
and authority over the United States Naval Reservation rectangular boundaries in the Treaty of Paris. Now, because this arriving on January 13, 2013 after a brief stop for fuel in Okinawa,
in Olongapo City. YES. treaty still has undetermined controversies, the Congress Japan.
The municipal government has administrative believes that in the perspective of international law, it did not On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic
jurisdiction over the U.S. Naval Reservation in Olongapo City. The see any binding obligation to honor it. Bay for its next port of call in Makassar, Indonesia. On January
Philippine government merely consents the United States to 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship ran
exercise jurisdiction in certain areas, but it has not abdicated its 1. Whether R.A. 9522 is constitutional. YES. aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the Tubbataha
sovereignty over Philippine areas where US established its bases. The Court resolved the following: Reefs, about 80 miles east-southeast of Palawan. No one was
The authority of the Philippine government may be exercised R.A. 9522 merely demarcated the country’s maritime injured in the incident, and there have been no reports of leaking
over its entire domain, and there is no portion that is beyond its zones and continental shelves in accordance to UNCLOS III. fuel or oil.
power. The framework of the regime of islands suggested by Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and
Even when the Philippine government diminished its the law is not incongruent with the Philippines’ enjoyment of post-salvaging operations of the USS Guardian cause and
jurisdictional rights in these areas, but its inherent jurisdiction territorial sovereignty over the areas of Kalayaan Island Group continue to cause environmental damage of such magnitude as
does not disappear. This being said, within the limits of the and the Scarborough. to affect the provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras,
Philippines, whatever statutory powers are vested upon it may The claims over Sabah remained even with the Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte,
be validly exercised. Any residual authority and therein adoption of amendments. Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi, which events violate their
conferred, whether expressly or impliedly, belongs to the The baseline laws are mere mechanisms for the constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology.
national government, and not to an alien country. UNCLOS III to precisely describe the delimitations. It serves as a
4|Page
 1. Will the unauthorized entry of the Foreign Warship of any ruling as to which State enjoys sovereignty over any land concerning the lawfulness of China’s actions in the
the US with resulting damage to marine resources bear territory in the South China Sea, in particular with respect to the South China Sea. The Philippines seeks
an international responsibility under the UNCLOS when disputes concerning sovereignty over the Spratly Islands or declarations that China has violated the
the said flag state is not a signatory to the same Scarborough Shoal. None of the Tribunal’s decisions on this Convention by:
convention? YES. Award are dependent on a finding of sovereignty, nor should o Interfering with the exercise of the
It is difficult to imagine that our long-time ally and anything in this Award be understood to imply a view with Philippines’ rights under the Convention,
trading partner, which has been actively supporting the country’s respect to questions of land sovereignty. including with respect to fishing, oil
efforts to preserve our vital marine resources, would shirk from exploration, navigation, and the construction
its obligation to compensate the damage caused by its warship The Philippines’ grievances of artificial islands and installations;
while transiting our internal waters. Much less can the Court  The Philippines seeks a declaration from the o Failing to protect and preserve the marine
comprehend a government exercising leadership in international Tribunal that China’s rights and entitlements in the environment by tolerating and actively
affairs, unwilling to comply with the UNCLOS directive for all South China Sea must be based on the Convention supporting Chinese fishermen in the
nations to cooperate in the global task to protect and preserve and not on any claim to historic rights. harvesting of endangered species and the use
the marine environment as provided in Article 197.  The Philippines seeks a declaration that China’s of harmful fishing methods that damage the
In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the claim to rights within the nine-dash line marked fragile coral reef ecosystem in the South
present controversy is beyond dispute. Although the said treaty on Chinese maps are without lawful effect to the China Sea; and
upholds the immunity of warships from the jurisdiction of the extent that they exceed the entitlements that o Inflicting severe harm on the marine
Coastal States while navigating the latter’s territorial sea, the flag China would be permitted by the Convention. environment by constructing artificial islands
States shall be required to leave the territorial sea immediately if  The Philippines has asked the Tribunal to resolve a and engaging in extensive land reclamation at
they flout the laws and regulations of the Coastal State, and they dispute between the Parties concerning the seven reefs in the Spratly Islands.
will be liable for damages caused by their warships or any other entitlements to maritime zones that would be  The Philippines has asked the Tribunal to find that
government vessel operated for non-commercial purposes under generated under the Convention by Scarborough China has aggravated and extended the disputes
Article 31. Shoal and certain maritime features in the Spratly between the Parties during the course of this
Islands that are claimed by both the Philippines arbitration by restricting access to a detachment
IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION and China. of Philippine marines stationed at Second Thomas
BEFORE AN ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED UNDER ANNEX  The Convention provides that submerged banks Shoal and by engaging in the large-scale
VII TO THE 1982 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW and low-tide elevations are incapable on their own construction of artificial islands and land
OF THE SEA BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND of generating any entitlements to maritime areas reclamation at seven reefs in the Spratly Islands.
THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA and that rocks which cannot sustain human
PCA CASE N 2013-29 habitation or economic life of their own do not China’s claims
This arbitration concerns disputes between the Parties generate an entitlement to an exclusive economic China’s Foreign Ministry has highlighted in its
regarding the legal basis of maritime rights and entitlements in zone of 200 nautical miles or to a continental statements, press briefings, and interviews that it considers non-
the South China Sea, the status of certain geographic features in shelf. participation in the arbitration to be its lawful right under the
the South China Sea, and the lawfulness of certain actions taken  The Philippines seeks a declaration that all of the Convention (Article 9, Annex VII of the Convention).
by China in the South China Sea. features claimed by China in the Spratly Islands, as The Tribunal has thus held that China’s non-
The basis for this arbitration is the 1982 United Nations well as Scarborough Shoal, fall within one or the participation does not prevent the arbitration from continuing.
Convention on the Law of the Sea. Both the Philippines and China other of these categories and that none of these The Tribunal has also observed that China is still a Party to the
are parties to the Convention, the Philippines having ratified it on features generates an entitlement to an exclusive arbitration and, pursuant to the terms of Article 296(1) of the
May 8, 1984, and China on June 7, 1996. economic zone or to a continental shelf. Convention and Article 11 of the Annex VII, shall be bound by any
The Convention, however, does not address the  The Philippines has asked the Tribunal to resolve a award the Tribunal issues.
sovereignty of States over land territory. Accordingly, this series of disputes between the Philippines
Tribunal has not been asked to, and does not purport to, make
5|Page
 Despite its decision not to appear formally at any point concerning whether a State possesses an entitlement to a that deviated from what was permitted under the freedom of the
in these proceedings, China published a position paper where maritime zone is a distinct matter from the delimitation of high seas and that other States acquiesced in such a right.
they argued that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because: maritime zones in an area in which they overlap. While a wide In practice, to establish the exclusive historic right to
 The essence of the subject-matter of the variety of issues are commonly considered in the course of living and non-living resources within the nine-dash line, which
arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over the delimiting a maritime boundary, it does not follow that a dispute China now appears to claim, it would be necessary to show that
relevant maritime features in the South China Sea; over each of these issues is necessarily a dispute over boundary China had historically sought to prohibit or restrict the
 China and the Philippines have agreed, through delimitation. exploitation of such resources by the nationals of other States
bilateral instruments and the Declaration on the and that those States had acquiesced in such restrictions.
Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, to settle 2. Whether the Convention allows the preservation of
their relevant disputes through negotiations; and rights to resources which are at variance with the 4. Are the following (i.e. Scarborough Shoal, Johnson
 The disputes submitted by the Philippines would Convention. NO. Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, and
constitute an integral part of maritime If China had historic rights giving it a privileged position McKennan Reef) considered “rocks”?
delimitation between the two countries. with respect to the resources of such waters, the acceptance of In the Tribunal’s view, Scarborough Shoal is a “rock”.
the exclusive economic zone as a matter of customary law and The Tribunal finds that Scarborough Shoal includes five to seven
1. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction over China? YES. China’s adherence to the Convention altered that situation. rocks that are exposed at high tide and is accordingly a high-tide
In its Award on Jurisdiction, the Tribunal noted that Through the Convention, China gained additional rights in the feature. They obviously could not sustain human habitation in
“both the Philippines and China are parties to the Convention” areas adjacent to its coasts that became part of its exclusive their naturally formed state; they have no fresh water,
and that the provisions for the settlement of disputes, including economic zone, including the areas adjacent to any island vegetation, or living space and are remote from any feature
through arbitration, form an integral part of the Convention. entitled to such a zone. It necessarily follows, however, that possessing such features. Scarborough Shoal has traditionally
Although the Convention specifies certain limitations and China also relinquished the rights it may have held in the waters been used as a fishing ground by fishermen from different States,
exceptions to the subject matter of the disputes that may be allocated by the Convention to the exclusive economic zones of but the Tribunal recalls that economic activity in the surrounding
submitted to compulsory settlement, it does not permit other other States. waters must have some tangible link to the high-tide feature
reservations, and a State may not except itself generally from the For all of the reasons discussed above, the Tribunal itself before it could begin to constitute the economic life of the
Convention’s mechanism for the resolution of disputes. concludes that China’s claim to historic rights to the living and feature. There is no evidence that the fishermen working on the
China’s non-participation does not deprive the Tribunal non-living resources within the ‘nine-dash line’ is incompatible reef make use of, or have any connection to, the high-tide rocks
of jurisdiction, based on the provisions of Article 9 of Annex VII to with the Convention to the extent that it exceeds the limits of at Scarborough Shoal. Nor is there any evidence of economic
the Convention. China’s maritime zones as provided for by the Convention. activity beyond fishing. There is no evidence that Scarborough
With respect to the first objection of China (that the Accordingly, upon China’s accession to the Convention and its Shoal could independently sustain an economic life of its own.
dispute is actually about sovereignty over the islands of the entry into force, any historic rights that China may have had to In the Tribunal’s view, Johnson Reef is also a rock. The
South China Sea and therefore not a matter concerning the the living and non-living resources within the ‘nine-dash line’ Tribunal finds that Johnson Reef, in its natural condition, had at
Convention), the Tribunal noted that there is a dispute regarding were superseded, as a matter of law and as between the least one rock that reaches as high as 1.2 meters above Mean
sovereignty over the islands but the matters submitted to Philippines and China, by the limits of the maritime zones Sea Level and is accordingly a high-tide feature. While China has
arbitration by the Philippines do not concern sovereignty. The provided for by the Convention. constructed an installation and maintains an official presence on
Tribunal also emphasized that the Philippines has not asked the Johnson Reef, this is only possible through construction on the
Tribunal to rule on sovereignty and, indeed, has expressly 3. Should China’s claim to historic rights in the South portion of the reef platform that submerges at high tide. China’s
repeatedly requested that the Tribunal refrain from so doing. China Sea be upheld? NO. presence is necessarily dependent on outside supplies, and there
With respect to the second objection of China (that the Historical navigation and fishing, beyond the territorial is no evidence of any human activity on Johnson Reef prior to the
Parties’ dispute is actually about the delimitation of the maritime sea, cannot therefore form the basis for the emergence of a beginning of China’s presence in 1988.
boundary between them and therefore excluded from dispute historic right. Such activity was merely the exercise of freedoms In the Tribunal’s view, Cuarteron Reef is also a rock.
settlement by an exception set out in the Convention that States already permitted by international law. Instead, in order to The Tribunal finds that Johnson Reef, in its natural condition, was
may activate by declaration), the Tribunal noted that a dispute establish historic rights in the waters of the South China Sea, it encumbered by rocks that remain exposed one to two meters
would be necessary to show that China had engaged in activities above high tide and is accordingly a high-tide feature. While
6|Page
China has constructed an installation and engaged in significant low-tide elevation situated outside the territorial sea of considering that the naval reservation site is an American base
reclamation work at Cuarteron Reef, this is only possible through any state and therefore forms part of the continental and not a Philippine territory.
dredging and the elevation of the portion of the reef platform shelf and EEZ of the Philippines. Only the Philippines
that submerges at high tide. China’s presence is necessarily can exploit Mischief Reef and construct structures on it. 1. Whether the municipal government has jurisdiction
dependent on outside supplies, and there is no evidence of any 4. Reed Bank, 85 nautical miles from Palawan, is and authority over the United States Naval Reservation
human activity on Cuarteron Reef prior to the beginning of completely submerged and within the Philippine EEZ. in Olongapo City. YES.
China’s presence in 1988. As with the other high-tide features Only the Philippines can exploit the natural resources in The municipal government has administrative
that have been the subject of construction and reclamation work, Reed Bank. jurisdiction over the U.S. Naval Reservation in Olongapo City. The
the status of a feature for the purpose of Article 121(3) is to be 5. China severely harmed the marine environment when Philippine government merely consents the United States to
assessed on the basis of its natural condition, prior to human it dredged reefs to reclaim or create artificial islands, exercise jurisdiction in certain areas, but it has not abdicated its
modification. and when it failed to prevent Chinese fishermen from sovereignty over Philippine areas where US established its bases.
In the Tribunal’s view, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef, harvesting endangered species. The authority of the Philippine government may be exercised
and McKennan Reef, are “rocks”. 6. Scarborough Shoal is a rock entitled only to 12 nautical over its entire domain, and there is no portion that is beyond its
With respect to the Spratly Islands, the Tribunal cannot miles of territorial sea. Filipino, Vietnamese and power.
agree to China’s statement which asserted that the said islands Chinese fishermen have traditional fishing rights in the Even when the Philippine government diminished its
should be enclosed within a system of archipelagic or straight territorial sea of the Scarborough Shoal. jurisdictional rights in these areas, but its inherent jurisdiction
baselines. Article 47(1) limits their use to “archipelagic states”. does not disappear. This being said, within the limits of the
Archipelagic States are defined in Article 46 as States constituted CONCEPT OF AUTO LIMITATION/ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE Philippines, whatever statutory powers are vested upon it may
wholly by one or more archipelagos and may include other be validly exercised. Any residual authority and therein
islands. China, however, is constituted principally by territory on PEOPLE VS. GOZO conferred, whether expressly or impliedly, belongs to the
the mainland of Asia and cannot meet the definition of an G.R. NO. L-36409, OCTOBER 26, 1973 national government, and not to an alien country.
archipelagic State. Moreover, Article 47 of the Convention limits The appellant seeks to set aside the judgment of the
the use of archipelagic baselines to circumstances where “within Court of First Instance of Zambales which convicted her of a Note: The principle of “auto-limitation” – Any state
such baselines are included the main islands and an area in which violation of an ordinance of Olongapo, Zambales, which required may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of
the ratio of the area of the water to the area of the land, a permit from the municipal mayor for the construction of a its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what
including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and 9 to 1. building. otherwise is a power plenary in character. Sovereignty as auto-
Gozo bought a house and lot inside the United States limitation is the property of a state-force due to which it has the
The Six-Point Summary of Ruling on China’s Claim to Historic Naval Reservation in Olongapo City. She later demolished the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction.
Rights Under the Nine-Dashed Line (based on Associate Justice house and built another one in its place without any building A state then, if it chooses to, may refrain from the exercise of
Antonio T. Carpio’s lecture) permit from the City Mayor because she claims that Ernesto what otherwise is illimitable competence.
Evalle, an assistant in the City Mayor’s office, and other
1. China’s claim to historic rights under the nine-dashed neighbors in the area advised her that such was unnecessary. MAGALLONA VS. ERMITA
line is contrary to UNCLOS, without lawful effect and Gozo was found guilty by the City Court of Olongapo of violating G.R. NO. 187167, JULY 16, 2011
cannot be the basis to claim any maritime entitlement the city ordinance regarding acquisition of said permit. She was R.A. 9522 was enacted by the Congress in March 2009
(territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and extended later sentenced to a month-long imprisonment and payment of to comply with the terms of the United Nations Convention on
continental shelf). other costs. the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which the Philippines ratified on
2. No geologic feature in the Spratlys is capable of human Gozo subsequently elevated the case to the Court of February 27, 1984. Such compliance shortened one baseline,
habitation or economic life of its own so as to generate Appeals (1) questioning the legitimacy of such ordinance on the optimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine
a 200-nautical mile EEZ that overlaps with Palawan’s constitutional ground to due process (while citing the case of archipelago and classified adjacent territories such as the
EEZ. People v. Fajardo), and (2) the applicability of said ordinance in Kalayaan Island Ground (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal as
3. Mischief Reef, 125 nautical miles from Palawan, is a view of the location of her house inside the naval base “regimes of islands” whose islands generate their own applicable
maritime zones.
7|Page
 Petitioners, in their capacities as “citizens, taxpayers or concession in lieu of their right to claim the entire waters The existence of sovereignty cannot be suspended
legislators” assail the constitutionality of R.A. 9522. To their landward baseline. It also made it possible for archipelagic states without putting it out of existence at least during the period of
opinion, the law has effectively reduced the maritime territory of to be recognized as a cohesive entity under the UNCLOS III. ‘suspension’. What may be suspended is the exercise of rights of
the country. With this, Article I of the 1987 Constitution will be sovereignty with the passing of control of the government to the
violated. The petitioners were also worried that the suggested Note: The principle of “auto-limitation” is not directly occupant. However, the military occupant is enjoined to respect
changes in the maritime baselines will allow for foreign aircrafts found in the full text. See preceding case for its definition. or continue in force laws unless in conflict with laws and orders
and vessels to traverse the Philippine territory freely. In effect, it of the occupier. Such laws and orders must come within the
steps on the state’s sovereignty and national security. CONCEPT OF THE STATE limitations prescribed by the Hague convention, meaning that
Meanwhile, the Congress insisted that in no way will such action must be
the amendments affect any pertinent power of the state. It also LAUREL VS. MISA (1) demanded by the exigencies of military service;
deferred to agree to claims that the law impliedly relinquishes G.R. NO. L-409, JANUARY 30, 1947 (2) necessary for the control of the inhabitants; and
the Philippines claims over Sabah. Lastly, they have questioned A petition for habeas corpus was filed by Anastacio (3) necessary for the safety and protection of his army.
the normative force of the notion that all the waters within the Laurel (the petitioner). He was then charged and held for the If the contrary were true, invaders would be able force
rectangular boundaries in the Treaty of Paris. Now, because this crime of treason during the Japanese occupation. the citizens, without fear of prosecution for treason, to be party
treaty still has undetermined controversies, the Congress He claims that a Filipino citizen who adhered to the to the nefarious task of depriving themselves of their own
believes that in the perspective of international law, it did not enemy giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese independence and repressing the exercise of their own
see any binding obligation to honor it. occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason sovereignty—to commit a political suicide.
defined and penalized by Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code Because the question of sovereignty is a purely political
1. Whether R.A. 9522 is constitutional. YES. on the ground that the sovereignty of the legitimate government question, its determination by the legislative and executive
The Court resolved the following: in the Philippines and consequently the correlative allegiance of departments of any government conclusively binds the judges as
R.A. 9522 merely demarcated the country’s maritime Filipino citizens thereto were then suspended; and that there well as all other officers, citizens and subjects of the country.
zones and continental shelves in accordance to UNCLOS III. was a change of sovereignty over these islands upon the By virtue of Section 1, Article II of the 1935
The framework of the regime of islands suggested by proclamation of the Philippine Republic. Constitution, which states that “all references in such laws to the
the law is not incongruent with the Philippines’ enjoyment of Government…shall be construed, in so far as applicable, to refer
territorial sovereignty over the areas of Kalayaan Island Group 1. Whether sovereignty of the legitimate government and to the Government and corresponding officials under this
and the Scarborough. allegiance of citizens was suspended during the Constitution”, the crime of treason was made applicable not only
The claims over Sabah remained even with the Japanese military occupation/Whether there was a to the sovereignty of the United States but also to the
adoption of amendments. change in sovereignty over the islands. NO sovereignty of the Government of the Philippines.
The baseline laws are mere mechanisms for the A citizen owes an absolute and permanent allegiance, The change in form of government from
UNCLOS III to precisely describe the delimitations. It serves as a which consists in fidelity and obedience, to his government or Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of
notice to the international family of states and it is in no way sovereign. It cannot be equated to the qualified or temporary those charged with the crime of treason committed during
affecting or producing any effect like enlargement or diminution allegiance which a foreigner owes to the government or Commonwealth, because it is an offense against the same
of territories. sovereign of the territory wherein he resides in return for the government and the same sovereign people.
With regard to the assertion that R.A. 9522 has protection he receives. In the same way, such foreigner remains
converted the internal waters into archipelagic waters, the Court liable to prosecution for treason against his own government or STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
suggested that the political branches of government can pass sovereign, to which he owes absolute and permanent allegiance.
domestic laws that will aid in the competent security measures This absolute and permanent allegiance is not severed by enemy LANSANG VS. COURT OF APPEALS
and policies that will regulate innocent passage. Since innocent occupation because the sovereignty of the government is not G.R. NO. 102667, JANUARY 23, 2000
passage as a right is based on customary law, no state can validly transferred to the occupier, a theory adopted in the Hague Private respondent General Assembly of the Blind
invoke sovereignty to deny a right acknowledged by modern Convention of 1907. Thus, it must necessarily remain vested in (GABI) were allegedly awarded a “verbal contract of lease” in
states. In the case of archipelagic states such as the Philippines, the legitimate government. 1970 by the National Parks Development Committee (NPDC), a
UNCLOS III required the imposition of innocent passage as a
8|Page
government initiated civic body engaged in the development of Private respondents cannot and does not claim a vested right to Quoting the decision from Ministerio vs. Court of First Instance of
national parks, including Rizal Park, which are outside the continue to occupy Rizal Park. Cebu, “Where the government takes away property from a
commerce of man. However, this verbal contract private landowner for public use without going through the legal
accommodation was unclear because there was no document or AMIGABLE VS. CUENCA process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party
instrument involved. G.R. NO. L-26400, FEBRUARY 29, 1972  may properly maintain a suit against the government without
With the change of government after the EDSA Victoria Amigable, the petitioner is a rightful owner of a violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit.
Revolution, the new Chairman of the NPDC, herein petitioner, lot in Cebu City. Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale, Considering that no annotation in favor of the
sought to clean up Rizal Park. In a written notice petitioner the government used a portion of said lot for the construction of government appears at the back of her certificate of title and
terminated the so-called verbal agreement with the General the Mango and Gorordo Avenues. that she has not executed any deed of conveyance of any portion
Assembly of the Blind, Inc. (GABI)  and demanded that the latter Amigable’s counsel wrote the President of the of her lot to the government, the appellant remains the owner of
vacate the premises and the kiosks it ran privately within the Philippines, requesting payment of the portion of the said lot. It the whole lot. As registered owner, she could bring an action to
public park. was disallowed by the Auditor General in his 9th Endorsement. recover possession of the portion of land in question at any time
GABI filed an action for damages and injunction in the Petitioner then filed a complaint against the Republic of the because possession is one of the attributes of ownership.
Regional Trial Court (RTC) against petitioner, Villanueva, and “all Philippines and Nicolas Cuenca, in his capacity as Commissioner However, since restoration of possession of said portion by the
persons acting on their behalf”. The RTC later dismissed the case of Public Highways, for the recovery of ownership and possession government is neither convenient nor feasible at this time
because it is actually one directed against the state which cannot of the lot. because it is now and has been used for road purposes, the only
be sued without its consent. The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendants argue that the: (1) that the action was relief available is for the government to make due compensation
decision of the RTC. premature, the claim not having been filed first with the Office of which it could and should have done years ago. To determine the
the Auditor General; (2) that the right of action for the recovery due compensation for the land, the basis should be the price or
1. Can there be a valid cause of action against the had already prescribed; (3) that the action being a suit against value thereof at the time of the taking. 
petitioner for his order to terminate the the Government, the claim for moral damages, attorney’s fees As regards the claim for damages, the plaintiff is
accommodation extended to GABI? NO. and costs had no valid basis since the Government had not given entitled thereto in the form of legal interest on the price of the
The doctrine of state immunity from suit applies to its consent to be sued; and (4) that inasmuch as it was the land from the time it was taken up to the time that payment is
complaints filed against public officials for acts done in the province of Cebu tphat appropriated and used the area involved made by the government. In addition, the government should
performance of their duties. The rule is that the suit must be in the construction of Mango Avenue, plaintiff had no cause of pay for attorney’s fees, the amount of which should be fixed by
regarded as one against the state where satisfaction of the action against the defendants. the trial court after hearing
judgment against the public official concerned will require the The court rendered its decision holding that it had no
state itself to perform a positive act, such as appropriation of the jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s cause of action for the recovery of CITY OF CALOOCAN VS. JUDGE ALLARDE
amount necessary to pay the damages awarded to the plaintiff. possession and ownership of the lot on the ground that the G.R. NO. 107271, SEPTEMBER 10, 2003
The rule does not apply where the public official is charged in his government cannot be sued without its consent; that it had The City Mayor, through an ordinance, abolished the
official capacity for acts that are unlawful and injurious to the neither original nor appellate jurisdiction to hear and decide position of Assistant City Administrator and 17 other positions
rights of others. Public officials are not exempt, in their personal plaintiff’s claim for compensatory damages, being a money claim from the plantilla of the local government of Caloocan. Then
capacity, from liability arising from acts committed in bad faith. against the government; and that it had long prescribed, nor did Assistant City Administrator Delfina Hernandez Santiago and the
We find, however, no evidence of such abuse of it have jurisdiction over said claim because the government had 17 affected employees of the City Government assailed the
authority on record. As earlier stated, Rizal Park is beyond the not given its consent to be sued. Accordingly, the complaint was legality of the abolition before the then Court of First Instance
commerce of man and, thus, could not be the subject of a lease dismissed. (CFI) of Caloocan City, Branch 33, which was ruled in their favor
contract. Admittedly, there was no written contract. That private   and has attained finality. Later, all dismissed employees were
respondents were allowed to occupy office and kiosk spaces in 1. Whether or not petitioner Amigable, may properly sue paid their back wages except respondent Santiago who was only
the park was only a matter of accommodation by the previous the government under the facts of the case. YES. partially paid.
administrator. This being so, also admittedly, petitioner may   The doctrine of immunity from suit cannot serve as an City of Caloocan resorted to several attempts to delay
validly discontinue the accommodation extended to private instrument for perpetrating an injustice to a citizen. the payment of remaining unpaid back wages with interest of
respondents, who may be ejected from the park when necessary.   Santiago by filing another action with the Court of Appeals and
9|Page
later, inquiry from the Civil Service Commission. Both were not deemed automatically segregated from the other budgetary The immunity from suit is based on the political truism
favorable to the City. allocations of the City of Caloocan and earmarked solely for the that the State, as a sovereign, can do no wrong. Moreover, a
When the City Council of Caloocan enacted City’s monetary obligation to her. The judgment of the trial court sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal
appropriation Ordinance No. 0134, Series of 1992 which included could then be validly enforced against such funds. conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical
the amount of P439,377.14 claimed by Santiago, Judge Allarde ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority
issued an order for the City of Caloocan to deliver to the RTC a AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE VS. SPOUSES DAVID AND RAMOS that makes the law on which the right depends.
manager’s check for the satisfaction of the judgment.  When the G.R. NO. 159402, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 Practical considerations dictate the establishment of an
City Mayor refused to sign the check intended for Santiago’s Spouses David and Elisea Ramos (respondents) immunity from suit in favor of the State. Otherwise, and the
payment, Judge Allarde ordered the Sheriff to garnish the funds discovered that a portion of their land registered under Transfer State is suable at the instance of every other individual,
of the City of Caloocan. The order was questioned by the City Certificate of Title No. T-58894 of the Baguio City land records government service may be severely obstructed and public safety
contending their public funds are beyond the reach of with an area of 985 square meters, was used for Loakan Airport endangered because of the number of suits that the State has to
garnishment. being operated by petitioner Air Transportation Office (ATO). On defend against.
August 11, 1995, the respondents agreed after negotiations to According to Father Bernas, a recognized commentator
1. Is Judge Allarde correct in ordering the garnishment of convey the affected portion by deed of sale to the ATO in on Constitutional Law, to wit: [A] continued adherence to the
City funds to satisfy the judgment in favor of Santiago? consideration of the amount of P778,150.00. However, the ATO doctrine of non-suability is not to be deplored for as against the
YES. failed to pay despite repeated verbal and written demands. inconvenience that may be caused private parties, the loss of
The rule is and has always been that all government Thus, on April 29, 1998, the respondents filed an action governmental efficiency and the obstacle to the performance of
funds deposited in the PNB or any other official depositary of the for collection against the ATO. In their answer, the ATO and its its multifarious functions are far greater if such a fundamental
Philippine Government by any of its agencies or co-defendants invoked as defense the issuance of President principle were abandoned and the availability of judicial remedy
instrumentalities, whether by general or special deposit, remain Marcos that had reserved certain parcels of land that included were not thus restricted. With the well-known propensity on the
government funds and may not be subject to garnishment or the respondents’ affected portion for use of the Loakan Airport, part of our people to go to court, at the least provocation, the
levy, in the absence of a corresponding appropriation as required that the RTC had no jurisdiction to entertain the action without loss of time and energy required to defend against law suits, in
by law. The rule is based on obvious considerations of public the State’s consent considering that the deed of sale had been the absence of such a basic principle that constitutes such an
policy. The functions and public services rendered by the State entered into in the performance of governmental functions. effective obstacle, could very well be imagined.
cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion On November 10, 1998, the RTC denied the ATO’s An unincorporated government agency without any
of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as motion for a preliminary hearing of the affirmative defense. After separate juridical personality of its own enjoys immunity from
appropriated by law. However, the rule is not absolute and the RTC likewise denied the ATO’s motion for reconsideration on suit because it is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty.
admits of a well-defined exception, that is, when there is a December 10, 1998, the ATO commenced a special civil action for Accordingly, a claim for damages against the agency cannot
corresponding appropriation as required by law. Otherwise certiorari in the CA to assail the RTC’s orders. The CA dismissed prosper; otherwise, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is
stated, the rule on the immunity of public funds from seizure or the petition for certiorari, however, upon its finding that the violated.
garnishment does not apply where the funds sought to be levied assailed orders were not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The need to distinguish between an unincorporated
under execution are already allocated by law specifically for the Subsequently, February 21, 2001, the RTC rendered its decision government agency performing governmental function and one
satisfaction of the money judgment against the government. In in favor of the spouses Ramos. performing proprietary functions has arisen. The immunity has
such a case, the monetary judgment may be legally enforced by Hence, the appeal by petition for review on certiorari. been upheld in favor of the former because its function is
judicial processes. governmental or incidental to such function; It has not been
In the instant case, the City Council of Caloocan already 1. The only issue presented for resolution is whether the upheld in favor of the latter whose function was not in pursuit of
approved and passed Ordinance No. 0134, Series of 1992, ATO could be sued without the State’s consent. a necessary function of government but was essentially a
allocating the amount of P439,377.14 for respondent Santiago’s The petition for review has no merit. The immunity of business.
back salaries plus interest. Thus this case fell squarely within the the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of sovereign Contrary to appellants’ conclusions, it was not merely
exception. For all intents and purposes, Ordinance No. 0134, immunity or non-suability of the State, is expressly provided in the collection of landing and parking fees which was declared as
Series of 1992, was the “corresponding appropriation as required Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution, viz: “Section 3. The State proprietary in nature by the High Court in Teodoro, but
by law.” The sum indicated in the ordinance for Santiago were may not be sued without its consent.” management and maintenance of airport operations as a whole,
10 | P a g e
as well. Thus, in the much later case of Civil Aeronautics With the CAAP having legally succeeded the ATO for their enforcement. For if they are not treated as self-
Administration vs. Court of Appeals (167 SCRA 28 [1988]), the pursuant to R.A. No. 9497, the obligations that the ATO had executing, the mandate of the fundamental law can be easily
Supreme Court, reiterating the pronouncements laid down in incurred by virtue of the deed of sale with the Ramos spouses nullified by the inaction of Congress. However, some provisions
Teodoro, declared that the CAA (predecessor of ATO) is an might now be enforced against the CAAP. have already been categorically declared by this Court as non
agency not immune from suit, it being engaged in functions self-executing.
pertaining to a private entity. It went on to explain in this wise: In Tanada v. Angara, the Court specifically set apart the
“The Civil Aeronautics Administration comes under the category sections found under Article II of the 1987 Constitution as non
of a private entity. Although not a body corporate it was created, self-executing and ruled that such broad principles need
like the National Airports Corporation, not to maintain a legislative enactments before they can be implemented.
necessary function of government, but to run what is essentially ARTICLE II: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE By its very title, Article II of the Constitution is a
a business, even if revenues be not its prime objective but rather POLICIES/LEGAL VALUE OF ARTICLE II "declaration of principles and state policies." These principles in
the promotion of travel and the convenience of the travelling Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready
public. It is engaged in an enterprise which, far from being the TONDO MEDICAL CENTER VS. COURT OF APPEALS for enforcement through the courts. They are used by the
exclusive prerogative of state, may, more than the construction G.R. NO. 167324, JULY 17, 2007 judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of
of public roads, be undertaken by private concerns. [National Petitioners alleged that the Health Sector Reform judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of laws.
Airports Corp. v. Teodoro, supra, p. 207.] in Republic Act 776, Agenda (HSRA) launched by the Department of Health, which
Sec. 32(24) and (25), it can be seen that the CAA is tasked with provided five general areas of reform, is void for violating BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS.
private or non-governmental functions which operate to remove constitutional provisions, specifically: COMMISSION ON AUDIT
it from the purview of the rule on State immunity from suit. For  Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18 of Article II; G.R. NO. 178160, FEBRUARY 26, 2009
the correct rule as set forth in the Teodoro case states: Section 1 of Article III; On 13 March 1992, Congress approved Republic Act
Suits against State agencies with relation to matters in which  Sections 11 and 14 of Article XIII; and No. 7227 creating the Bases Conversion and Development
they have assumed to act in private or non-governmental  Sections 1 and 3(2) of Article XV, all of the 1987 Authority (BCDA). The BCDA Board of Directors (Board)
capacity, and various suits against certain corporations created Philippine Constitution. determined the organizational structure of the BCDA and on
by the state for public purposes, but to engage in matters On May 24, 1999, then President Joseph Ejercito December 20, 1996, adopted a new compensation and benefit
partaking more of the nature of ordinary business rather than Estrada issued Executive Order No. 102 which provided for the scheme, which included a P10,000 year-end benefit granted to
functions of a governmental or political character, are not changes in the roles, functions, and organizational processes of each contractual employee, regular permanent employee, and
regarded as suits against the state. The latter is true, although the DOH. The petitioners contended that a law, such as said E.O., Board member.
the state may own stock or property of such a corporation for by which effects the reorganization of the DOH, should be enacted On 20 February 2003, State Auditor IV Corazon V.
engaging in business operations through a corporation, the state by Congress in the exercise of its legislative function. They argued Espao of the COA issued Audit Observation Memorandum (AOM)
divests itself so far of its sovereign character, and by implication that E.O. No. 102 is void, as it was enacted ultra vires on the part No. 2003-004 stating that the grant of year-end benefit to Board
consents to suits against the corporation. (59 C.J., 313) [National of the President. members was contrary to Department of Budget and
Airports Corporation v. Teodoro, supra, pp. 206-207] The Court of Appeals denied the petition ruled that the Management (DBM) Circular Letter No. 2002-2 dated 2 January
Accordingly, as the CAA was created to undertake the HSRA cannot be declared void for violating the various sections 2002. 
management of airport operations which primarily involve of Articles II, III, XIII and XV of the 1987 Constitution since said Petitioners claim that BCDA can and should grant the
proprietary functions, it cannot avail of the immunity from suit provisions are not self-executing and are not judicially year-end benefit to its members and full-time consultants under
accorded to government agencies performing strictly enforceable constitutional rights. Section 10 of R.A. No. 7227, consistent with Sections 5 and 18,
governmental functions. Article II of the Constitution, and that its denial violates Section 1
Lastly, the issue of whether or not the ATO could be 1. Whether the provisions in Article II are self-executory. of Article III.
sued without the State’s consent has been rendered moot by the NO.
passage of Republic Act No. 9497, otherwise known as the Civil As a general rule, the provisions of the Constitution are Note:
Aviation Authority Act of 2008. considered self-executing, and do not require future legislation

11 | P a g e
  Section 5 – The maintenance of peace and order, 1. Whether the provisions of the Agreement Establishing 1. Whether the respondent should release the
the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the World Trade Organization contravene the information. YES.
the promotion of the general welfare are essential provisions of Sec. 19, Article II of the 1987 Philippine The constitutional right to information on matters of
for the enjoyment by all people of the blessings of Constitution. NO. public information is grounded on Sec. 7, Article III and Sec. 28,
democracy. What the constitutional policy of a self-reliant and Article II of the 1987 Constitution. These are self-executory.
 Section 18 – The State affirms labor as a primary independent national economy contemplates does not The government agency Civil Service Commission does
social economic force. It shall protect the rights of necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments, goods and not have the discretion to prohibit the access to information
workers and promote their welfare. services. sought. It only has the authority to regulate the manner of
The Constitution did not intend to pursue an examination (e.g. ensuring that the records are not damaged or
1. Whether the Board members and full time consultants isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign investments, goods destroyed).
should be granted the year-end benefits, invoking and services in the development of the Philippine economy. In The constitutional guarantees, however, are not
Sections 5 and 18 of Article II. NO. fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and absolute as they are “subject to the limitations as may be
Article II of the Constitution is entitled Declaration of reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair. provided by law.” The information sought must not be exempted
Principles and State Policies. By its very title, Article II is a The constitutional policy of a self-reliant and independent by law.
statement of general ideological principles and policies. The national economy does not necessarily rule out the entry of In the case at bar, the information is within the
provisions invoked in this case are not self-executing provisions. foreign investments, goods and services. It contemplates neither following enumerations provided by law:
economic seclusion nor mendicancy in the international  The information sought relates to a public office
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES community. which can be considered as a legitimate concern
Furthermore, Article II of the Constitution, is a of citizens (public office as public trust);
TANADA VS. ANGARA declaration of principles and state policies and its provisions,  The respondent failed to cite any provision in the
G.R. NO. 118295, MAY 2, 1997 such as Section 19, and are not self-executing provisions; Civil Service Law which would limit the petitioner’s
On December 14, 1994, the Philippine Senate adopted meaning, a law should be passed by Congress to clearly define right to know who are, and who are not civil
Resolution No. 97, which resolved that the Senate concur in the and effectuate such principles. service eligible; and
ratification by the President of the Philippines of the Agreement  Civil service exams results are released to the
Establishing the World Trade Organization. Main point: Article II Section 19 contemplates neither economic public.
The WTO is an institution regulating trade among seclusion nor mendicancy in the international community. It is a Here, the information was of a public concern because
nations, including the reduction of tariff and barriers. not self-executing provision and does not embody judicially it is the legitimate concern of citizens to ensure that government
Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the Philippines enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines for legislation. positions requiring civil service eligibility are occupied only by
acceding to the WTO. They said that the WTO agreement violates eligible persons, and the Civil Service Commission failed to cite
the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to “develop a self-reliant LEGASPI VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION any law limiting the requester’s right to know (pg. 5). Thus, the
and independent national economy effectively controlled by G.R. NO. L-72119, MAY 29, 1987 Court ordered the Civil Service Commission to provide the
Filipinos, to give preference to qualified Filipinos and to promote Petitioner Valentin L. Legaspi files for Mandamus to information (pg. 6).
the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and compel the respondent Civil Service Commission to release
locally produced goods. information on the civil service eligibilities of persons employed OPOSA VS. FACTORAN, JR.
Petitioners further argue that the national treatment as sanitarians (Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas) in the G.R. NO. 101083, JULY 30, 1993
and the parity provisions of the WTO agreement place nationals Health Department of Cebu City. The petitioners, all minors, sought the help of the
and products of member countries on the same footing as The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that Supreme Court to order the respondent, then Secretary of DENR,
Filipinos and local products, in contravention of the “Filipino the petitioner has no locus standing as he failed to show his to cancel all existing Timber License Agreement (TLA) in the
First” policy of the Constitution. actual interest. The Court ruled, however, that the petition on country and to cease and desist from receiving, accepting,
mandamus is anchored upon the right of the people for processing, renewing or approving new TLAs.
information on matters of public concern which is a public right.

12 | P a g e
 They alleged that the massive commercial logging in is of common and general interest, not just for several but for all shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the
the country is causing vast abuses on rain-forest. They further citizens of the Philippines. unborn from conception.”
asserted that the rights of their generation and the rights of the In its plain and ordinary meaning (a canon in statutory
generations yet unborn to a balanced and healthful ecology. IMBONG VS. OCHOA construction), the traditional meaning of “conception” according
Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and G.R. NO. 204819, APRIL 8, 2014 to reputable dictionaries cited by the ponente is that life begins
detrimental consequences of continued and deforestation are so The increase of the country’s population at an at fertilization. Medical sources also support the view that
capable of unquestionable demonstration that the same may be uncontrollable pace led to the executive and the legislative’s conception begins at fertilization.
submitted as a matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding, decision that prior measures were still not adequate. Thus, The framers of the Constitution also intended for
they expressed their intention to present expert witnesses as Congress enacted R.A. No. 10354, otherwise known as the (a) “conception” to refer to the moment of “fertilization” and
well as documentary, photographic and film evidence in the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (b) the protection of the unborn child upon fertilization. In
course of the trial.  (RH Law), to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the addition, they did not intend to ban all contraceptives for being
marginalized, access and information to the full range of modern unconstitutional; only those that kill or destroy the fertilized
1. Whether the petitioners have a locus standi. YES. family planning methods, and to ensure that its objective to ovum would be prohibited. Contraceptives that actually prevent
Locus standi means the right of the litigant to act or to provide for the peoples’ right to reproductive health be achieved. the union of the male sperm and female ovum, and those that
be heard. Under Section 16, Article II of the 1987 constitution, it Stated differently, the RH Law is an enhancement similarly take action before fertilization should be deemed non-
states that: The state shall protect and advance the right of the measure to fortify and make effective the current laws on abortive, and thus constitutionally permissible.
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the contraception, women’s health and population control. The intent of the framers of the Constitution for
rhythm and harmony of nature. Shortly after, challengers from various sectors of protecting the life of the unborn child was to prevent the
Petitioners, minors, assert that they represent their society moved to assail the constitutionality of RH Law. Legislature from passing a measure prevent abortion. The Court
generation as well as generation yet unborn. We find no difficulty Meanwhile, the RH-IRR for the enforcement of the assailed cannot interpret this otherwise. The RH Law is in line with this
in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their legislation took effect. The Court then issued a Status Quo Ante intent and actually prohibits abortion. By using the word “or” in
generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Order enjoining the effects and implementation of the assailed defining abortifacient (Section 4(a)), the RH Law prohibits not
Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations legislation. only drugs or devices that prevent implantation but also those
can only be based on the concept of intergenerational Petitioners question, among others, the that induce abortion and induce the destruction of a fetus inside
responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful constitutionality of the RH Law, claiming that it violates Section the mother’s womb. The RH Law recognizes that the fertilized
ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded 26(1), Article VI of the Constitution, prescribing the one subject- ovum already has life and that the State has a bounded duty to
considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature”. Nature means one title rule. According to them, being one for reproductive protect it.
the created world in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony health with responsible parenthood, the assailed legislation However, the authors of the IRR gravely abused their
indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, violates the constitutional standards of due process by office when they redefined the meaning of abortifacient by using
utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the concealing its true intent – to act as a population control the term “primarily”. Recognizing as abortifacients only those
country’s forest, mineral, land, waters fisheries, wildlife, off- measure. On the other hand, respondents insist that the RH Law that “primarily induce abortion or the destruction of a fetus
shore areas and other natural resources to the end that their is not a birth or population control measure, and that the inside the mother’s womb or the prevention of the fertilized
exploration, development and utilization be equitably accessible concepts of “responsible parenthood” and “reproductive health” ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother’s womb” (Sec.
to the present as well as future generations. are both interrelated as they are inseparable. 3.01(a) of the IRR) would pave the way for the approval of
Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility contraceptives that may harm or destroy the life of the unborn
to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full 1. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health from conception/fertilization. This violates Section 12, Article II of
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. (RH) Law is unconstitutional for violating the right to the Constitution. For the same reason, the definition of
Put a little differently, the minor’s assertion of their life. NO.  contraceptives under the IRR (Sec 3.01(j)), which also uses the
right to a sound environment constitutes, at the same time, the Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution states: “The term “primarily”, must be struck down.
performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of that State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and
right for the generations to come. This landmark case has been strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It OTHER ISSUES OF IMBONG VS. OCHOA
ruled as a class suit because the subject matter of the complaint
13 | P a g e
 (Not related to the designated topic in the syllabus anymore, wrong according to one’s dogma or belief. However, the Court the freedom of religion. While penalties may be imposed by law
but including them for our reference) has the authority to determine whether or not the RH Law to ensure compliance to it, a constitutionally-protected right
contravenes the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. must prevail over the effective implementation of the law. 
2. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH)
Law is unconstitutional for violating the right to health. NO.  a.) WON the RH Law violates the guarantee of religious freedom Excluding public health officers from being conscientious
Petitioners claim that the right to health is violated by the RH since it mandates the State-sponsored procurement of objectors (under Sec. 5.24 of the IRR) also violates the equal
Law because it requires the inclusion of hormonal contraceptives, which contravene the religious beliefs of e.g. protection clause. There is no perceptible distinction between
contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, the petitioners public health officers and their private counterparts. In addition,
legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products NO. The State may pursue its legitimate secular objectives the freedom to believe is intrinsic in every individual and the
and supplies in the National Drug Formulary and in the regular without being dictated upon the policies of any one religion. To protection of this freedom remains even if he/she is employed in
purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national allow religious sects to dictate policy or restrict other the government.
hospitals (Section 9 of the RH Law). They cite risks of getting groups would violate Article III, Section 5 of the Constitution or
diseases gained by using e.g. oral contraceptive pills. the Establishment Clause. This would cause the State to adhere Using the compelling state interest test, there is no compelling
to a particular religion, and thus, establishes a state state interest to limit the free exercise of conscientious
Some petitioners do not question contraception and religion. Thus, the State can enhance its population control objectors. There is no immediate danger to the life or health of
contraceptives per se. Rather, they pray that the status quo program through the RH Law even if the promotion of an individual in the perceived scenario of the above-quoted
under RA 4729 and 5921 be maintained. These laws prohibit the contraceptive use is contrary to the religious beliefs of e.g. the provisions. In addition, the limits do not pertain to life-
sale and distribution of contraceptives without the prescription petitioners. threatening cases.
of a duly-licensed physician.
The RH Law does not intend to do away with RA b.) WON the RH Law violates the guarantee of religious The respondents also failed to show that these provisions are
4729 (1966). With RA 4729 in place, the Court believes freedom by compelling medical health practitioners, hospitals, least intrusive meansto achieve a legitimate state objective. The
adequate safeguards exist to ensure that only safe and health care providers, under pain of penalty, to refer Legislature has already taken other secular steps to ensure that
contraceptives are made available to the public. In fulfilling its patients to other institutions despite their conscientious the right to health is protected, such as RA 4729, RA 6365 (The
mandate under Sec. 10 of the RH Law, the DOH must keep in objections Population Act of the Philippines) and RA 9710 (The Magna
mind the provisions of RA 4729: the contraceptives it will YES. Sections 7, 23, and 24 of the RH Law obliges a hospital or Carta of Women).
procure shall be from a duly licensed drug store or medical practitioner to immediately refer a person seeking health
pharmaceutical company and that the actual distribution of care and services under the law to another accessible healthcare c.) WON the RH Law violates the guarantee of religious freedom
these contraceptive drugs and devices will be done following a provider despite their conscientious objections based on religious by requiring would-be spouses, as a condition for the issuance
prescription of a qualified medical practitioner. or ethical beliefs. These provisions violate the religious belief of a marriage license, to attend a seminar on parenthood,
Meanwhile, the requirement of Section 9 of the RH Law is to be and conviction of a conscientious objector. They are contrary family planning, breastfeeding and infant nutrition. NO. 
considered “mandatory” only after these devices and materials to Section 29(2), Article VI of the Constitution or the Free Section 15 of the RH Law, which requires would-be spouses to
have been tested, evaluated and approved by the FDA.Congress Exercise Clause, whose basis is the respect for the inviolability attend a seminar on parenthood, family planning, breastfeeding
cannot determine that contraceptives are “safe, legal, non- of the human conscience. and infant nutrition as a condition for the issuance of a marriage
abortificient and effective”. license, is a reasonable exercise of police power by the
The provisions in the RH Law compelling non-maternity specialty government. The law does not even mandate the type of family
3. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH) hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group planning methods to be included in the seminar. Those who
Law is unconstitutional for violating the freedom of religion and and health care service providers to refer patients to other attend the seminar are free to accept or reject information they
right to free speech  providers and penalizing them if they fail to do so (Sections 7 and receive and they retain the freedom to decide on matters of
The Court cannot determine whether or not the use of 23(a)(3)) as well as compelling them to disseminate information family life without the intervention of the State.
contraceptives or participation in support of modern RH and perform RH procedures under pain of penalty (Sections 23(a)
measures (a) is moral from a religious standpoint; or, (b) right or (1) and (a)(2) in relation to Section 24) also violate (and inhibit) 4. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH)

14 | P a g e
Law is unconstitutional for violating the right to privacy (marital of the RH Law, which mandates the State to provide Age-and exempted from rendering RH service and modern family planning
privacy and autonomy). YES.  Development-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education. methods (as provided for by Section 7 of the RH Law) as well as
Section 23(a)(2)(i) of the RH Law, which permits RH procedures Although educators might raise their objection to their from giving RH information and procedures.
even with only the consent of the spouse undergoing the participation in the RH education program, the Court reserves its
provision (disregarding spousal content), intrudes into martial judgment should an actual case be filed before it. The RH Law also defines “incorrect information”. Used together
privacy and autonomy and goes against the constitutional in relation to Section 23 (a)(1), the terms “incorrect” and
safeguards for the family as the basic social Any attack on its constitutionality is premature because the “knowingly” connote a sense of malice and ill motive to mislead
institution.Particularly, Section 3, Article XV of the Constitution Department of Education has not yet formulated a curriculum on or misrepresent the public as to the nature and effect of
mandates the State to defend: (a) the right of spouses to found a age-appropriate reproductive health education. programs and services on reproductive health.
family in accordance with their religious convictions and the
demands of responsible parenthood and (b) the right of families Section 12, Article II of the Constitution places more importance 7. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH)
or family associations to participate in the planning and on the role of parents in the development of their children with Law is unconstitutional for violating the equal protection
implementation of policies and programs that affect them. The the use of the term “primary”. The right of parents in upbringing clause.
RH Law cannot infringe upon this mutual decision-making, and their youth is superior to that of the State. NO. To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the
endanger the institutions of marriage and the family. government’s RH program is not a violation of the equal
The provisions of Section 14 of the RH Law and corresponding protection clause. In fact, it is pursuant to Section 11, Article XIII
The exclusion of parental consent in cases where a minor provisions of the IRR supplement (rather than supplant) the right of the Constitution, which states that the State shall prioritize the
undergoing a procedure is already a parent or has had a and duties of the parents in the moral development of their needs of the underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women, and
miscarriage (Section 7 of the RH Law) is also anti-family and children. children and that it shall endeavor to provide medical care to
violates Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution, which states: paupers.
“The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing By incorporating parent-teacher-community associations, school
of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral officials, and other interest groups in developing the mandatory The RH Law does not only seek to target the poor to reduce their
character shall receive the support of the Government.” In RH program, it could very well be said that the program will be in number, since Section 7 of the RH Law prioritizes poor and
addition, the portion of Section 23(a)(ii) which reads “in the case line with the religious beliefs of the petitioners. marginalized couples who are suffering from fertility issues and
of minors, the written consent of parents or legal guardian or, in desire to have children. In addition, the RH Law does not
their absence, persons exercising parental authority or next-of- 6. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH) prescribe the number of children a couple may have and does
kin shall be required only in elective surgical procedures” is Law is unconstitutional for violating the due process clause. not impose conditions upon couples who intend to have children.
invalid as it denies the right of parental authority in cases where NO.  The RH Law only seeks to provide priority to the poor.
what is involved is “non-surgical procedures.” The RH Law does not violate the due process clause of the
Constitution as the definitions of several terms as observed by The exclusion of private educational institutions from the
However, a minor may receive information (as opposed to the petitioners are not vague. mandatory RH education program under Section 14 is valid.
procedures) about family planning services. Parents are not There is a need to recognize the academic freedom of private
deprived of parental guidance and control over their minor The definition of “private health care service provider” must be educational institutions especially with respect to religious
child in this situation and may assist her in deciding whether to seen in relation to Section 4(n) of the RH Law which defines a instruction and to consider their sensitivity towards the teaching
accept or reject the information received. In addition, an “public health service provider”. The “private health care of reproductive health education.
exception may be made in life-threatening procedures. institution” cited under Section 7 should be seen as synonymous
to “private health care service provider.” 8. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH)
5. Whether or not (WON) RA 10354/Reproductive Health (RH) Law is unconstitutional for violating the prohibition against
Law is unconstitutional for violating the freedom of expression The terms “service” and “methods” are also broad enough to involuntary servitude. NO. 
and academic freedom. NO.  include providing of information and rendering of medical
The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of Section 14 procedures. Thus, hospitals operated by religious groups are The requirement under Sec. 17 of the RH Law for private and

15 | P a g e
non-government health care service providers to render 48 hours Article III, Sections 6, 10, and 11 of RA 9054 or the Organic Act of simply prohibit foreign powers or interests from maneuvering
of pro bono RH services does not amount to involuntary the ARMM merely delineates the powers that may be exercised our economic policies and ensure that Filipinos are given
servitude, for two reasons. First, the practice of medicine is by the regional government. These provisions cannot be seen as preference in all areas of development. With the assailed
undeniably imbued with public interest that it is both the power an abdication by the State of its power to enact legislation that provision, Filipinos continue to have the right to engage in the
and a duty of the State to control and regulate it in order to would benefit the general welfare. kind of retail business which the law in question has permitted
protect and promote the public welfare. Second, Section 17 only the entry of foreign investors.
encourages private and non-government RH service providers to ESPINA VS. ZAMORA The Legislative acknowledges that indeed it is integral
render pro bono  service. Besides the PhilHealth accreditation, no G.R. NO. 143855, SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 to primarily promote the welfare of Filipino investors as
penalty is imposed should they do otherwise. The case at bar deals with the question of mandated by the Constitution. Nonetheless, it is equally
constitutionality of the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000 important that holistic economic growth must be assure for the
However, conscientious objectors are exempt from Sec. 17 as (R.A. No. 8762) which was signed by President Joseph Ejercito over-all development of our country’s trade industry. This can be
long as their religious beliefs do not allow them to render RH Estrada on March 7, 2000. done by allowing entry of foreign investors that will be allowed
service, pro bono  or otherwise (See Part 3b of this digest.) Unlike its predecessor R.A. No. 1180, which absolutely to engage in businesses regulated by the provisions of R.A. No.
prohibits foreign nationals from engaging in retail trade business 8762.
B. WON the delegation of authority to the Food and Drug in the Philippines, the questioned law allows the said foreign
Administration (FDA) to determine WON a supply or product is trade placing them under four (4) categories. The petitioners filed SECTION 1. PHILIPPINES AS A DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN
to be included in the Essential Drugs List is valid. NO.  a case assailing the constitutionality of R.A. No. 8762 as it is a STATE/FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT
The delegation by Congress to the FDA of the power to clear violation of Sections 9, 19, and 20 of Article II of the
determine whether or not a supply or product is to be included in Constitution. The petitioners stressed that the presence of BACANI VS. NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION
the Essential Drugs List is valid, as the FDA not only has the foreign nationals would result in alien control and monopoly of (NACOCO), ET. AL.
power but also the competency to evaluate, register and cover the retail trade. G.R. NO. L-9657, NOVEMBER 29, 1956
health services and methods (under RA 3720 as amended by RA On the other hand, the respondents contended that Plaintiffs Bacani and Matto are both court
9711 or the FDA Act of 2009). the petitioners have no legal standing to file the petition. Aside
C. WON the RH Law infringes upon the powers devolved to
stenographers assigned in Branch VI of the Court of First
from that, the Constitution mandates the mere regulation but
Local Governments and the Autonomous Region in Muslim not the prohibition of foreign investments in the country. Instance of Manila.
Mindanao (ARMM). NO.  During the pendency of a civil case in the said
The RH Law does not infringe upon the autonomy of local 1. Whether R.A. No. 8762 is constitutional. YES. court, Francisco Sycip vs. National Coconut Corporation,
governments. Paragraph (c) of Section 17 provides a categorical The Court emphasized that the petitioners indeed has Assistant Corporate Counsel Federico Alikpala, counsel for
exception of cases involving nationally-funded projects, facilities, no legal standing to file the petition as there is no clear showing Defendant, requested said stenographers for copies of the
programs and services. Unless a local government unit (LGU) is that the implementation of R.A. No. 8762 prejudices the transcript of the stenographic notes taken by them during
particularly designated as the implementing agency, it has no petitioners or inflicts damage on them, either as taxpayers or as the hearing. Plaintiffs complied with the request by
power over a program for which funding has been provided by legislators. Legal standing is one of the requisites necessary delivering to Counsel Alikpala the needed transcript
the national government under the annual general before one could validly attack the constitutionality of a certain
containing 714 pages and thereafter submitted to him
appropriations act, even if the program involves the delivery of law. Legal standing implies that one must have personal and
basic services within the jurisdiction of the LGU. substantial interest in that he has suffered or will suffer direct their bills for the payment of their fees.
injury as a result of the passage of that law. The National Coconut Corporation (NACOCO) paid
In addition, LGUs are merely encouraged to provide RH services. Also, Sections 9, 19 and 20 of Article II are not self- the amount of P564 to Leopoldo T. Bacani and P150 to
Provision of these services are not mandatory. Therefore, the RH executing by nature, thus, are not judicially demandable. The said Mateo A. Matoto for said transcript at the rate of P1 per
Law does not amount to an undue encroachment by the national sections highlight the necessity of having a self-reliant and page. But the Auditor General required the plaintiffs to
government upon the autonomy enjoyed by LGUs. independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipino reimburse said amounts by virtue of a Department of
entrepreneurs. However, the objective of the provisions is to Justice circular which stated that NACOCO, being a

16 | P a g e
government entity, was exempt from the payment of the simple reason that they do not come under the ACCFA moved for a reconsideration but while the
fees in question. For reimbursement to take place, it was classification of municipal or public corporation. appeal was pending, RA 3844 was passed which effectively
further ordered that the amount of P25 per payday be While NACOCO was organized for the purpose of turned ACCFA to ACA. Then, ASA and AWA petitioned that they
obtain sole bargaining rights with ACA. While this petition was
deducted from the salary of Bacani and P10 from the “adjusting the coconut industry to a position independent
not yet decided upon, EO 75 was also passed which placed ACA
salary of Matoto. of trade preferences in the United States” and of providing
under the Land Reform Project Administration. Notwithstanding
Petitioners filed an action in Court countering that “Facilities for the better curing of copra products and the the latest legislation passed, the trial court and the appellate
NACOCO is not a government entity within the purview of proper utilization of coconut by-products”, a function court ruled in favor of ASA and AWA. 
section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. On the other which our government has chosen to exercise to promote
hand, the defendants set up a defense that NACOCO is a the coconut industry. It was given a corporate power 1. Whether ACA is a government entity. YES.
government entity within the purview of section 2 of the separate and distinct from the government, as it was made It was in furtherance of such policy that the Land
Revised Administrative Code of 1917 hence, it is exempted subject to the provisions of the Corporation Law in so far Reform Code was enacted and the various agencies, the ACA
from paying the stenographers’ fees under Rule 130 of the as its corporate existence and the powers that it may among them, established to carry out its purposes. There can be
Rules of Court. exercise are concerned (sections 2 and 4, Commonwealth no dispute as to the fact that the land reform program
contemplated in the said Code is beyond the capabilities of any
  Act No. 518). It may sue and be sued in the same manner
private enterprise to translate into reality. It is a purely
Issue/Ruling as any other private corporations, and in this sense it is an governmental function, no less than, the establishment and
1. Whether or not National Coconut Corporation entity different from our government. maintenance of public schools and public hospitals. And when,
(NACOCO), which performs certain functions of aside from the governmental objectives of the ACA, geared as
government, make them a part of the THE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND COOPERATIVE FINANCING they are to the implementation of the land reform program of
Government of the Philippines. NO. ADMINISTRATION (ACCFA) VS. CONFEDERATION OF UNITS IN the State, the law itself declares that the ACA is a government
GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS AND OFFICES (CUGCO) office, with the formulation of policies, plans and programs
NACOCO is not a government entity. The term
G.R. NO. L-21484, NOVEMBER 29, 1969 vested no longer in a Board of Governors, as in the case of the
“Government of the Republic of the Philippines” used in
ACCFA, a government agency created under R.A. 821, ACCFA, but in the National Land Reform Council, itself a
Section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code refers to that as amended was reorganized and its name changed to government instrumentality; and that its personnel are subject to
government entity through which the functions of the Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA) under the RA 3844 or Civil Service laws and to rules of standardization with respect to
government are exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, Land Reform Code. While ACCFA Supervisors' Association (ASA) positions and salaries, any vestige of doubt as to the
and in this are included those arms through which political and the ACCFA Workers' Association (AWA), are labor governmental character of its functions disappears.
authority is made effective whether they be provincial, organizations (the Unions) composed of the supervisors and the The growing complexities of modern society, however,
municipal or other form of local government. These are rank-and-file employees in the ACCFA. have rendered this traditional classification of the functions of
what we call municipal corporations. A CBA was agreed upon by labor unions (ASA and AWA) government quite unrealistic, not to say obsolete. The areas
They do not include government entitles which and ACCFA. The said CBA was supposed to be effective on 1 July which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and
1962. Due to non-implementation of the CBA the unions held a which the government was called upon to enter optionally, and
are given a corporate personality separate and distinct
strike. And 5 days later, the Unions, with its mother union, the only "because it was better equipped to administer for the public
from the government and which are governed by the Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and Offices welfare than is any private individual or group of
Corporation Law, such as the National Coconut (CUGCO), filed a complaint against ACCFA before the CIR on individuals,"5continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and
Corporation. Their powers, duties and liabilities have to be ground of alleged acts of unfair labor practices; violation of the to be absorbed within activities that the government must
determined in the light of that law and of their corporate collective bargaining agreement in order to discourage the undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing
charters. They do not therefore come within the members of the Unions in the exercise of their right to self- social challenges of the times. Here as almost everywhere else
exemption clause prescribed in section 16, Rule 130 of our organization, discrimination against said members in the matter the tendency is undoubtedly towards a greater socialization of
Rules of Court. NACOCO do not acquire that status for the of promotions and refusal to bargain. economic forces. Here of course this development was
envisioned, indeed adopted as a national policy, by the
17 | P a g e
Constitution itself in its declaration of principle concerning the The government has to provide for the welfare of its people. be undertaken by the squatter families for the construction of 2
promotion of social justice. RA No. 2265 providing for a distinction between constituent and dams. The undertaking is for the purpose of water irrigation to be
The Unions have no bargaining rights with ACA. EO 75 placed the ministrant functions is irrelevant considering the needs of the used for additional food production. In recruiting participants to
ACA under the LRPA and by virtue of RA 3844 the present time: “The growing complexities of modern society have the program, the WFP issued an application form mentioning the
implementation of the Land Reform Program of the government rendered this traditional classification of the functions of voluntary nature of the work to be rendered. The participants
is a governmental function NOT a proprietary function. Being government obsolete.”  were assigned to work on canals and roads. However, the
such, ACA can no longer step down to deal privately with said The contention of petitioner that the Labor Code does projects agreed between the PHHC and WFP were never fully
unions as it may have been doing when it was still ACCFA. not apply to them deserve scant consideration. implemented. They were ordered to accomplish a time sheet
However, the growing complexities of modern society have There is no question based on RA 4155, that petitioner which is the basis for the payment of P0.50 per day and a weekly
rendered the classification of the governmental functions as is a governmental agency. As such, the petitioner can rightfully food ration. They were also provided with work tools and
unrealistic, if not obsolete. Ministerial and governmental invoke the doctrine announced in the leading ACCFA case.  The assigned a work supervisor to manage and administer the Sapang
functions continue to lose their well-defined boundaries and are objection of private respondents with its overtones of the Palay Project in which the latter also conducted ocular inspection
absorbed within the activities that the government must distinction between constituent and ministrant functions of in the area. However, the participants went to the Department of
undertake in its sovereign capacity if it to meet the increasing governments as set forth in Bacani v. Nacoco, is futile. It does not Labor complaining about their work and compensation to which
social challenges of the times and move towards a greater necessarily follow, that just because petitioner is engaged in Secretary Ople suggest that the workers in the said project must
socialization of economic forces. governmental rather than proprietary functions, that the labor be paid in minimum wage law.
controversy was beyond the jurisdiction of the now defunct The petitioner suspended work. The workers assert
PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION (PVTA) VS. respondent Court. Nor is the objection raised that petitioner their minimum wage and that P0.50 be paid to them. The
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (CIR) does not come within the coverage of the Eight-Hour Labor Law petitioner answered before the CIR that they were exercising
G.R. NO. L-32052, JULY 25, 1975 persuasive. governmental functions and that they did not hire private
This case involves the expanded role of the A reference to the pertinent sections of both Republic respondents; that CIR had no jurisdiction over them. The Court
government necessitated by the increased responsibility to Acts 2265 and 2155 renders clear the differentiation that exists. If dismissed the action of the petitioner. The petitioner moved to
provide for the general welfare. as a result of the appealed order, financial burden would have to reconsider, but the CIR en banc but denied the claims. Hence,
In 1966 private respondents filed a petition be borne by petitioner, it has only itself to blame. It need not this appeal to the SC.
seeking relief for their alleged overtime services and the have required private respondents to render overtime service. It
petitioner’s failure to pay for said compensation in accordance can hardly be surmised that one of its chief problems is paucity 1. Whether the CIR has jurisdiction over PHHC, a GOCC
with CA No. 444.  of personnel. That would indeed be a cause for astonishment. It performing governmental functions? NO.
Petitioner denied the allegations for lack of a cause of would appear, therefore, that such an objection based on this
cause of action and lack of jurisdiction.  Judge Martinez issued an ground certainly cannot suffice for a reversal. To repeat, The CFI has jurisdiction over labor disputes involving GOCCs,
order, directing petitioner to pay. Hence, this petition for respondent Court must be sustained. but not over those performing governmental functions. Since the
certiorari on grounds that the corporation is exercising National Housing Association (NHA) was created, the Philippine
governmental functions and is therefore exempt from PEOPLE’S HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORPORATION (PHHC) VS. government has carried mass housing and resettlement program
Commonwealth Act No. 444.  CIR to meet the needs of Filipinos. The PHHC is a governmental
PVTA contended it is beyond the jurisdiction of G.R. NO. L-31890, MAY 29, 1987 institution performing governmental functions.
respondent Court as it is exercising governmental functions and It has not always been easy determining which functions are
that it is exempt from the operation of Commonwealth Act No. The PHHC seeks a reversal of the Resolution of the CIR governmental in nature and which are proprietary. The
444. en banc in ordering them to pay private respondents wage characterization of functions performed by the government has
differential for work rendered from July 25, 1967 to February evolved from the traditional “constituent-administrant” to its
1. Whether or not PVTA discharges governmental and not 1968. disavowal where, considering the social justice provision of the
proprietary functions. YES. The Philippine government and World Food Program 1935 Constitution, the SC stated that the "constituent-
But the distinction between the constituent and (WFP) entered into an agreement in a plan for the Sapang Palay ministrant" classification had become unrealistic, if not obsolete.
ministrant functions of the government has become obsolete. Resettlement Area in the PHHC proposing a self-help project to Thus, the court gave their assent to a socio-political philosophy
18 | P a g e
espousing a greater socialization of economic forces. They found public benefit and public welfare may be found in the operation in consonance with R.A. No. 2640. As such, it can be placed under
nothing objectionable in government undertaking in its sovereign of certain enterprises (those engaged in the supply of electric the control and supervision of the Secretary of National Defense.
capacity activities which, by the constituent-ministrant test power, or in supplying telegraphic, telephonic, and radio Public office is defined as the right, authority, and duty,
would have been considered as merely optional. communication, or in the production and distribution of prime created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period, is
Thus, the Court granted the petition and set aside the necessities, etc.), yet it is certain that the functions performed by invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the
assailed resolution of the CIR. such enterprises are basically proprietary in nature. government, to be exercised for the benefit of the public. In the
instant case, the functions of VFP – the protection of the
SPOUSES JOSE FONTANILLA & VIRGINIA FONTANILLA THE VETERANS FEDERATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (VFP) VS. interests of war veterans which promotes social justice and
VS. HONORABLE INOCENCIO MALIAMAN & NATIONAL HON. ANGELO T. REYES IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF reward patriotism – certainly fall within the category of sovereign
IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL DEFENSE functions.
G.R. NOS. L-55963 & 61045, FEBRUARY 27, 1991 G. R. NO. 155027, FEBRUARY 28, 2006
JOSE S. RAMISCAL, JR. VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL. 
A pick up owned by the National Irrigation Administration The VFP is a corporate body organized under R.A. No. 2640, G.R. NOS. 169727-28, August 18, 2006 
(NIA) and driven by its regular driver Hugo Garcia, bumped into a dated 18 June 1960, as amended, and duly registered with the
bicycle ridden by Francisco Fontanilla, which resulted in the SEC. Respondent Angelo T. Reyes was the Secretary of National In 1998, the Senate Committees on Accountability of Public
latter’s death. Spouses Fontanilla filed a suit for damages against Defense who issued the assailed Department Circular No. 04 Officers and Investigation (Blue Ribbon) and on National Defense
Garcia and the NIA. After trial, the court awarded actual, moral, entitled “Further Implementing the Provisions of Sections 1 and and Security (collectively, Senate Blue Ribbon Committee),
and exemplary damages to Spouses Fontanilla. The NIA appealed 2 of Republic Act No. 2640”, dated 10 June 2002. carried out an extensive joint inquiry into the "coup rumors and
the court’s decision. The Solicitor General contends that the NIA Petitioner prays to declare as void Department Circular No. the alleged anomalies" in the Armed Forces of the Philippines –
does not perform solely and primarily proprietary functions but is 04. It alleges that the rules and guidelines laid down in the Philippine Retirement Benefits Systems (AFP-RSBS). In its report,
an agency tasked with governmental functions, therefore, not assailed Department Circular No. 04 expanded the scope of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee outlined, among others, the
liable for the tortuous act of Hugo. "control and supervision" beyond what has been laid down in anomalies in the acquisition of lots in Tanauan, Batangas,
R.A. No. 2640. Petitioner claims that it is not a public nor a Calamba, Laguna, and Iloilo City by the AFP-RSBS, and described
1. Whether the NIA is a government agency performing governmental entity but a private organization, and advances the modus operandi of the perpetrators as follows: 
governmental functions and thus cannot be held liable this claim to prove that the issuance of Department Circular No. The modus operandi in the buying of the lots was to
for the damages caused by the negligent act of its 04 is an invalid exercise of respondent Secretary's control and cover the same transactions with 2 deeds of sale. One deed
driver? NO. supervision. of sale would be signed only by the seller or sellers
(unilateral deed). Another deed of sale would be signed by
The NIA is a government agency with a juridical personality 1. Whether VFP is a public corporation, considering that the seller or sellers and the buyer, AFP-RSBS (bilateral deed).
separate and distinct from the government. It is not a mere (a) it does not possess a portion of the sovereign These Unilateral Deeds of Sale recorded lower consideration
agency of the government but a corporate body performing functions of the government and (b) it has no paid by the System to the buyers than those stated in the
proprietary functions. Therefore, it may be held liable for the budgetary appropriation from Department of Budget Bilateral Deeds. The motivation was obviously to evade
damages caused by the negligent act of its driver who was not its and Management; that its funds come from payment of the correct taxes to the government and save
special agent. membership dues? YES. money for the sellers, brokers and probably even for the
The functions of government have been classified into (1) kickbacks going to certain officials of AFP-RSBS, the buyer. 
governmental or constituent and (2) proprietary or ministrant. In the instant case, the functions of VFP – the protection of Pursuant to the recommendation of the Senate Blue Ribbon
The former involves the exercise of sovereignty and considered the interests of war veterans which promotes social justice and Committee to "prosecute and/or cause the prosecution of retired
as compulsory; the latter connotes merely the exercise of reward patriotism – certainly fall within the category of sovereign Gen. Jose Ramiscal Jr., past AFP-RSBS President, who had signed
proprietary functions and thus considered as optional. functions. The fact that VFP has no budgetary appropriation is the unregistered deeds of sale covering the acquisition of certain
On the contrary, the court agrees with the former Chief only a product of an erroneous application of the law by public parcels of land," Ombudsman Investigators conducted a fact-
Justice Concepcion in saying that the same purpose such as officers in the DBM which will not bar subsequent correct finding investigation. They executed a Joint Affidavit-Complaint,
application. The assailed Department Circular No. 04 is perfectly stating that based on their findings, Retired B/Gen. Jose
19 | P a g e
Ramiscal, Jr., among others, may be charged with falsification of Four Informations for violation of R.A. 3019 were filed adequate supply of affordable, quality-produced books for the
public documents and violation of Sec. 3 (e) and (g) of R.A. No. against petitioners Alzaga, et al., relative to the alleged domestic and export market. To achieve this purpose, the law
3019.  irregularities which attended the purchase of 4 lots in Batangas provided for the creation of the National Book Development
Petitioner avers that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction by the Armed Forces of the Philippines – Philippine Retirement Board which shall be under the administration and supervision of
over the crimes charged as provided in Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 8249. Benefits Systems (AFP-RSBS). Alzaga was the Head of the Legal the Office of the President. On February 26, 1996, petitioner was
He insists that the AFP-RSBS is not a GOCC and that he does not Department during the purchase of 1 of the lots. Bello succeeded appointed to the Governing Board as a private sector
fall under Salary Grade 27 as required in Sec. 4 of the law, Alzaga, and it was during his tenure when the other 3 lots were representative for a term of 1 year.
inasmuch as his position as AFP-RSBS President is not even purchased. Both became Vice-Presidents of AFP-RSBS. Satuito The petitioner now claims that she is not a public officer and
included under the Compensation and Classification Act of 1989.  was Chief of Documentation and Asst. VP. Petitioners filed their that she belongs to the Governing Board only as a private sector
respective Motions to Quash alleging that the Sandiganbayan has representative, hence, she may not be charged under R.A. No.
1. Whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the no jurisdiction over them because the AFP-RSBS is a private 3019 before the Sandiganbayan or under any statute which
case? YES. entity created for the benefit of its members. covers public officials. Moreover, she claimed that she does not
perform public functions and is without any administrative or
The AFP-RSBS is a GOCC, and that its funds are in the nature 1. Whether the AFP-RSBS is a GOCC falling under the political power to speak of – that she is serving the private book
of public funds. Under Sec. 4 (a) (1) (g) of R.A. No. 8249, the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan? YES. publishing industry by advancing their interest as participant in
Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses   the government’s book development policy.
committed by presidents, directors, trustees or  The AFP-RSBS was established by virtue of P.D. 361 in
managers of GOCCs. Under Sec. 4 (b) of R.A. No. 8249, the December 1973 to guarantee continuous financial support to the 1. Whether the petitioner is a public officer? YES.
Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses AFP military retirement system, as provided for in R.A. 340. It is
committed by public officers and employees in relation to their similar to the GSIS and SSS since it serves as the system that The fact that the accused does not receive any
office, whether simple or complexed with other crimes. Hence, it manages the retirement and pension funds of those in the compensation in terms of salaries and allowances is not the sole
has jurisdiction to try and decide the merits of this case.  military. qualification for being in the government service or a public
It is enough, as the SC has already ruled, that the The AFP-RSBS is administered by the Chief of Staff of the official.
informations filed in these cases are based on facts establishing AFP through a Board of Trustees and Management Group, and The National Book Development Board is a statutory
probable cause for the offenses charged. The SC will not compel funded from congressional appropriations and compulsory government agency and the persons who participated therein,
the Office of the Ombudsman to file only 1 information for Estafa contributions from members of the AFP. even if they are from the private sector, are public officers to the
through Falsification of Public Documents when its preliminary The SC ruled that that AFP-RSBS is a GOCC under R.A. 9182, extent that they are performing their duty therein as such.
investigation established the commission of several counts otherwise known as the Special Purpose Vehicle Act of 2002. The petitioner is performing her functions as a member of
thereof as such action on the part of the SC would constitute Since AFP-RSBS is a GOCC, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction the board, receives benefits, supposed to travel abroad, and is
undue interference with the Office of the Ombudsman's control over the persons of the petitioners. given government money to effect that travel, to that extent the
over the prosecution of these cases. A corporation that has the character and operations imbued private sector representative is a public official performing public
The number of criminal charges that must be instituted with public interest is a government entity and its funds are in functions.
against a criminal respondent (whether 1 count or multiple the nature of public funds. An individual, who is invested with some portion of the
counts of the same offense) is one addressed to the sound sovereign functions of the government and to be exercised by
discretion of the prosecution service. JAVIER VS. SANDIGANBAYAN him for the benefit of the public, is a public officer.
599 SCRA 324, 2009
JULIAN A. ALZAGA, MEINRADO ENRIQUE A. BELLO, & MANUEL MIAA VS. CA
S. SATUITO VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN & PEOPLE On June 7, 1995, R.A. 8047 or otherwise known as the "Book 495 SCRA 591, 2006
OF THE PHILIPPINES Publishing Industry Development Act", was enacted into law.
G.R. NO. 169328, October 27, 2006 Foremost in its policy is the State's goal in promoting the The petitioner Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA)
continuing development of the book publishing industry, through questioned the authority of the City of Parañaque to impose real
the active participation of the private sector, to ensure an
20 | P a g e
property tax on, levy against, and auction for public sale the Islands, and generally, to do and perform all things which may September 4, 2000, petitioner, with her siblings and relatives,
Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA. tend in any way to alleviate the suffering of animals and promote registered with the SEC the Office of the Student Regent
their welfare. Foundation, Inc. (OSRFI).
1. Whether the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are The petitioner was created by special legislation, this One of the projects of the OSRFI was the renovation of the
exempt from real property tax under existing law? YES. necessarily came about because in January 1905 there was as yet Vinzons Hall Annex. President Estrada gave P15,000,000.00 to
neither a Corporation Law or any other general law under which the OSRFI as financial assistance for the proposed renovation.
First, the MIAA is not a GOCC but an instrumentality of the it may be organized and incorporated, nor a Securities and The source of the funds, according to the information, was the
National Government and thus exempt from local taxation. Exchange Commission which would have passed upon its Office of the President.
A GOCC must be "organized as a stock or non-stock organization and incorporation. The renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex failed to
corporation." MIAA is not organized as a stock or non-stock materialize. The succeeding student regent, Kristine Clare
corporation. MIAA is not a stock corporation because it has no 1. Whether the petitioner qualifies as a Government Bugayong, and Christine Jill De Guzman, Secretary General of the
capital stock divided into shares. MIAA has no stockholders or agency that may be subject to audit by COA? NO. KASAMA sa U.P., a system-wide alliance of student councils
voting shares. Hence, MIAA is a government within the state university, consequently filed a complaint for
instrumentality vested with corporate powers to perform The petitioner is declared a private domestic corporation Malversation of Public Funds and Property with the Office of the
efficiently its governmental functions. subject to the jurisdiction of Securities and Exchange Ombudsman.
Second, the real properties of MIAA are owned by the Commission. Petitioner argued that Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction
Republic of the Philippines and thus exempt from real estate tax. Petitioners’ charter shows that it is not subject to control or over the Estafa case filed against her in her capacity as a student.
These are further supported by the following reasons: (a) airport supervision by any agency of the State, unlike GOCCs. She further contented that the crime was not committed in
lands and buildings are of public dominion, (b) airport lands and The employees of the petitioner are registered and covered connection with her official function as she was not a public
buildings are outside the commerce of man, (c) MIAA is a mere by the Social Security System, and not through the Government official and the offense was not criminal in nature hence, outside
trustee of the republic, (d) transfer to MIAA was meant to Service Insurance System, which should be the case if the the scope of the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan.
implement a reorganization, and (e) real property owned by the employees are considered government employees.
republic is not taxable. The petitioner is considered as a quasi-public corporation, 1. Whether the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over
Local Government Units have no power to tax which is Private Corporation that renders public service, supply the Estafa case filed against the petitioner? YES.
instrumentalities of the national government like MIAA. Hence, public wants, or pursue other eleemosynary objective.
MIAA is not liable to pay real property tax for the NAIA E.O. No. 63, issued during the Commonwealth period, The petitioner was considered a public officer who had the
Parañaque properties. Furthermore, the Airport Lands and effectively deprived the petitioner of its power to make arrests, general powers of administration and exercised corporate
Buildings are properties of public dominion intended for public and that the petitioner lost its operational funding, underscore powers in her capacity as the student body representative.
use, and as such are exempt from real property tax. the fact that it exercises no governmental functions. In fine, the The jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan is not limited to criminal
government itself, by its overt acts, confirmed petitioner’s status offenses committed by public officials and employees in relation
as a private juridical entity. to their office.
PHILIPPINE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO SERANA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED VS. THE HONORABLE CA
ANIMALS VS. COA 542 SCRA 224, 2008 G.R. NO. 143377, February 20, 2001
534 SCRA 112, 2007
Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a senior student of Petitioner Shipside Inc. purchased 2 parcels of land of which
The petitioner was incorporated as a juridical entity over the University of the Philippines-Cebu. A student of a state certificate of title had been ordered by the lower court to be
100 years ago by virtue of Act No. 1285, enacted on January 19, university is known as a government scholar. She was appointed nullified and voided but the Register of Deeds failed to execute
1905, by the Philippine Commission.  The petitioner, at the time by then President Joseph Estrada on December 21, 1999 as a the said order despite its receipt of the writ of execution from
it was created, was composed of animal aficionados and animal student regent of UP, to serve a 1 year term starting January 1, the same court.
propagandists.  The objects of the petitioner, as stated in Sec. 2 2000 and ending on December 31, 2000. After 25 years, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a
of its charter, shall be to enforce laws relating to cruelty inflicted In the early part of 2000, petitioner discussed with President complaint for revival of judgment and cancellation of titles
upon animals or the protection of animals in the Philippine Estrada the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex in UP Diliman. On before the RTC receiving a decision in its favor. The petitioner
21 | P a g e
Shipside Inc. filed for a motion to dismiss and subsequently a The government is required to support its people and escape criminal charges and thorough investigation for possible
motion for reconsideration which were both denied by the same promote their general welfare as part of its inherent state terrorist activist or human trafficking.
trial court. The petitioner then, appealed to the CA asserting that function. In order to meet the social challenges of time, the
the government is not the real-party-in-interest and may not distinction between ministrant and constituents function is now PEOPLE VS. GREGORIO PERFECTO
institute the action since the parcels of land were part of the considered obsolete and non-existent. G.R. NO. L-18463, October 4, 1922
areas subsequently transferred to the Bases Conversion and The role of government extends vastly and may cross
Development Authority (BCDA). economic boundaries in the pursuit of promoting public welfare. About August 20, 1920, the Secretary of the Philippine
Senate, Fernando M. Guerrero, discovered that certain
1. Whether the government can maintain the action for GERONIMO ROSAS VS. DILAUSAN MONTOR & IMRA-ALI M. documents which constituted the records of testimony given by
revival of judgment and cancellation of titles? NO. SABDULLAH witnesses in the investigation of oil companies, had disappeared
G.R. NO. 204105, October 14, 2015, J. Villarama from his office. Shortly thereafter, the Philippine Senate, having
The government is not the real-party-in-interest since the been called into special session by the Governor-General, the
real property covered by the Torrens Title is under the ownership Two Iranians arrived in the Philippines at Mactan Cebu Secretary for the Senate informed that body of the loss of the
and administration of BCDA which has its own capacity to sue International Airport (MCIA) and stayed in Cebu before documents and of the steps taken by him to discover the guilty
and be sued being an entity invested with a personality separate proceeding to Japan. For using fraudulent passports and lack of party. The day following the convening of the Senate, September
and distinct from the government. The filing of the appropriate entry visa, the Japanese immigration authorities denied entry to 7, 1920, the newspaper La Nacion, edited by Gregorio Perfecto,
action should be done by BCDA and not the government. the 2 Iranians and sent them back to the Philippines. Rosas, published an article defaming the competence of the Senate to
The government had no right or interest to protect hence, it Senior Immigration Officer, issued an exclusion order against the investigate the scandalous robbery of the documents which were
cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as a party plaintiff in 2. Respondents then filed a complaint-affidavit for grave stolen.
the case (i.e. it cannot file an action to cancel petitioner’s title). misconduct, violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019, and conduct The Philippine Senate, in its session of September 9, 1920,
prejudicial to the interest of public service against petitioner, adopted a resolution authorizing its committee on elections and
PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACO ADMINISTRATION (PVTA) VS. CIR Napilot, and Ugarte. They alleged that petitioner irregularly and privileges to report as to the action which should be taken with
G.R. NO. L-32052, July 25, 1975 anomalously handled and disposed of the case by issuing reference to the article published in La Nacion. On September 15,
exclusion order instead of undergoing deportation proceedings. 1920, the Senate adopted a resolution authorizing the President
Private respondents filed a petition for claims of overtime Petitioner reiterates that he cannot be held administratively of the Senate to indorse to the Attorney-General, for his study
compensation against the petitioner PVTA of which the CIR liable for a validly issued exclusion order which is an examining and corresponding action, all the papers referring to the case of
issued an order sustaining the claims and directing the petitioner immigration officer's function under the PIA of 1940. He asserts the newspaper La Nacion and its editor, Gregorio Perfecto. As a
to pay. The petitioner pleaded for the reversal of the order on that there was lack of substantial evidence to hold him liable for result, an Information was filed in the municipal court of the City
the basis that it is exercising governmental functions and that it is giving unwarranted benefit to the Iranian nationals. of Manila by an assistant city fiscal, in which the editorial in
exempt from the operation of Commonwealth Act No. 444; that question was set out and in which it was alleged that the same
the 8-Hour Labor Law is not applicable to it. 1. Whether the petitioner’s act of releasing the 2 without constituted a violation of Art. 256 of the Penal Code. The
1. Whether petitioner PVTA is exempt from the initiating any case constitutes gross misconduct and defendant Gregorio Perfecto was found guilty in the municipal
application of Commonwealth Act No. 444? NO. whether he can be made liable under R.A. 3019? YES. court and again in the CFI of Manila.
During the course of the trial in the CFI, after the
It does not necessarily follow, however, just because The petitioner had the duty under the law to oversee the prosecution had rested, the defense moved for the dismissal of
petitioner is engaged in governmental rather than proprietary filing of criminal actions and deportation proceedings. The power the case.
functions, that the labor controversy was beyond the jurisdiction to deport aliens is an act of done by or under the authority of the
of the now defunct CIR. Nor is the objection raised that petitioner sovereign power. It is a police measure against undesirable aliens 1. Whether Art. 256 of the Spanish Penal Code (SPC)
does not come within the coverage of the 8-Hour Labor Law whose continued presence in the country is found to be injurious punishing “Any person who, by writing, shall defame,
persuasive. The SC cannot then grant the reversal sought. They to the public good and the domestic tranquility of the people. By abuse or insult any Minister of the Crown or other
affirm the CIR’s decision. failing to initiate the proper proceedings, it allowed them to person in authority” is still in force and can be applied
in the case at bar? NO.
22 | P a g e
 force until, by direct action of the new government, they are the people and all government authority emanates from them;
No, Art. 256 was abrogated completely by the change from altered or repealed.” what is suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty.
Spanish to American sovereignty over the Philippines and is
inconsistent with democratic principle of government. LAUREL VS. MISA DE JURE AND DE FACTO GOVERNMENT
It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition 77 PHIL 856
of territory, the previous political relations of the ceded region CO KIM CHAM VS. EUSEBIO VALDEZ TAN KEH & ARSENIO P.
are totally abrogated/revoked. The petitioner Anastacio Laurel was charged with the crime DIZON, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA
of treason for adhering to the enemy, giving the latter aid and 75 PHIL 113, September 17, 1945
VILAS VS. CITY OF MANILA comfort during the Japanese occupation. He filed a petition for
229 U.S. 345, April 3, 1911, J. Lurton habeas corpus arguing that he cannot be prosecuted for the The respondent judge argues that the proclamation issued
crime of treason defined and penalized by Art. 114 of the Revised by General Douglas MacArthur on October 23, 1944 which
The plaintiffs are creditors of the City of Manila prior to the Penal Code because of the following reasons: (a) that the stated, “All laws, regulations, and processes of any other
cession of the Philippine Islands to the United States by Treaty of sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, government in the Philippines than that of the said
Paris and incorporation of the City under R.A. 183. Upon the consequently, the correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect in
theory that the city, under its present charter is the same and thereto was then suspended and (b) that there was a change of areas of the Philippines free of enemy occupation and control”
liable upon the obligations, Vilas brought an action to recover the sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation of the invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings and judgments of
sum of money owed to him by the city. The City of Manila Philippine Republic. the court of the Philippines under the Philippine Executive
contended that by virtue of R.A. 183, its liability has been Commission and the Republic of the Philippines established
extinguished. 1. Whether the petitioner may be prosecuted for Treason during the the Japanese military occupation, that the
during the Japanese occupation? YES. government established in the Philippines during said occupation
1. Whether the change of sovereignty extinguishes the were no de facto governments. For these reasons, respondent
previous liability of the City of Manila to its creditors? A citizen or subject owes, not a qualified and temporary, but judge refused to continue the proceedings of a civil case which
NO. an absolute and permanent allegiance, which consists in the were initiated under the regime of the Republic of the Philippines
obligation of fidelity and obedience to his government or established during the Japanese military occupation.
The mere change of sovereignty did not dissolve the sovereign.
municipal corporation nor relive it from its liability incurred The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of 1. Whether the governments established in these islands
before cessation. The new City of Manila is entitled to all the a territory occupied by the enemy of their legitimate government under the names of the Philippine Executive
property and property rights of the former including its or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy Commission and Republic of the Philippines during the
obligations, in the absence of an express legislative declaration to occupation, because the sovereignty of the government or Japanese military occupation or regime were de facto
the contrary. sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier. governments; if they were, the judicial acts and
Change in sovereignty leaves in force laws which are Under Article II of our Constitution, “Sovereignty resides in the proceedings of those governments remain good and
intended for the protection of private rights until by direct action people and all government authority emanates from them.” valid even after the liberation or reoccupation of the
of the new government, they are altered or repealed. What may be suspended is the exercise of the rights of Philippines by the American and Filipino forces? YES.
To quote: “It is a general rule of public law, recognized and sovereignty with the control and government of the territory
acted upon by the United States, that whenever political occupied by the enemy passes temporarily to the occupant. The Philippine Executive Commission, which was organized
jurisdiction and legislative power over any territory are Further, that the change of our form of government from by Order No. 1, issued on January 23, 1942, by the Commander
transferred from one nation or sovereign to another, the Commonwealth to Republic does not affect the prosecution of of the Japanese forces, was a civil government established by the
municipal laws of the country, that is, laws which are intended those charged with the crime of treason committed during the military forces of occupation and therefore a de facto
for the protection of private rights, continue in force until Commonwealth, because it is an offense against the same government.
abrogated or changed by the new government or sovereign… x x government and the same sovereign people. The governments by the Philippine Executive Commission
x the rule is general, that a change of government leaves them in Military occupation by another country does not suspend and the Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese military
sovereignty of the government because sovereignty resides in occupation being de facto governments, it necessarily follows
23 | P a g e
that the judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of justice of The SC holds that the CA and IAC existing prior to Executive The petition was dismissed. Even in the absence of a
those governments, which are not of a political complexion, were Order No. 33 phased out as part of the legal system abolished by Constitution, the right against unlawful seizure can be found in
good and valid, and, by virtue of the well-known principle of the revolution and that the CA established under Executive Order the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
postliminy (postliminium) in international law, remained good No. 33 was an entirely new court with appointments thereto Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Nevertheless, even during
and valid after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines having no relation to earlier appointments to the abolished the interregnum, the Filipino people under the Covenant and
by the American and Filipino forces under the leadership of courts, and that the reference to precedence in rank contained in Declaration continued to enjoy almost the same rights found in
General Douglas MacArthur. the last sentence of Sec. 2, B.P. Blg. No. 129 as amended by the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. As stated in Art. 2 (1)
Hence, the judicial acts and proceedings initiated under de Executive Order No. 33 refers to prospective situations as of the Convenant, the State is required “to respect and to ensure
facto government are good and valid. distinguished from retroactive ones. to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction
At the time of the issuance of Executive Order No. 33, the rights recognized in the present Covenant.” Further, under
IN RE LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO President Aquino was still exercising the powers of a Art. 17 (1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had
210 SCRA 588 revolutionary government, encompassing both executive and the duty to insure that “No one else shall be subjected to
legislative powers, such that she could, if she so desired, amend, arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home,
Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, wrote a letter seeking the modify, or repeal any part of B.P. Blg. 129 or her own Executive or correspondence.” The Declaration also provides in its Art. 17
correction of his seniority ranking in the Court of Appeals (CA). Order No. 33. (2) that “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.” The
Petitioner was first appointed Associate Justice of the CA. Court has taken into consideration the Declaration as part of the
The CA was reorganized and became the Intermediate Appellate REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, MAJOR generally accepted principles of international law and binding on
Court (IAC). He was then appointed as Appellate Justice in the GENERAL JOSEPHUS Q. RAMAS & ELIZABETH DIMAANO the State. Hence, the revolutionary government was also
First Special Cases Division but later on accepted another 407 SCRA 10, July 21, 2003, J. Carpio obligated under international law to observe the rights of
appointment, to be ceased as a member of the judiciary. individuals under the Declaration, because it didn’t repudiated
During the reorganization of the entire government The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) either the Covenant or the Declaration during the interregnum.
including the judiciary, after the EDSA Revolution, the Screening created an AFP Anti-Graft Board tasked to scrutinize the reports
Committee recommended the return of petitioner as Associate of unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by any AFP SOVEREIGNTY
Justice of the new CA and assigned him the rank number 11. personnel, active or retired. The AFP Board investigated various
When the appointments were signed by President Aquino, the reports of alleged “ill-gotten” wealth of respondent Maj. Gen. PEOPLE VS. GOZO
petitioner’s seniority ranking changed, from number 11 to Josephus Q. Ramas. Along with this, the Constabulary raiding 53 SCRA 476, 1973
number 26. team served a search and seizure warrant on the premises of
Petitioner now alleges that the change in his seniority Ramas’ alleged mistress, Elizabeth Dimaano. The Board then Loreta Gozo has purchased a house inside a land leased with
ranking could only be attributed to inadvertence for, otherwise, it concluded that Ramas be prosecuted for violating the “Anti-Graft the American Forces within the territorial jurisdiction of
would run counter to the provisions of Sec. 2 of Executive Order and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019)” and “Forfeiture of Olongapo. She then demolished the housed and built another in
No. 33. The Court en banc granted Justice Puno's request. Unlawfully Acquired Property (R.A. 1379)”. its place without the necessary permits for the construction as
Subsequently, a motion for reconsideration was filed by Thereafter, they filed a petition for forfeiture against him she was told by her neighbors and a city assistant that she did
Associate Justices Jose Campos Jr. and Luis Javellana alleging that before the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan dismissed the not need any. She was then fined for violating municipal laws.
petitioner could not claim reappointment because the courts case on several grounds, one of which is that there was an illegal
where he had previously been appointed ceased to exist at the search and seizure of the items confiscated. 1. Whether properties found inside U.S. Bases still have to
date of his last appointment. comply with municipal laws requiring permits for
1. Whether the properties and other belongings construction of houses therein? YES.
1. Whether the present CA is a new court such that it confiscated in Dimaano’s house were illegally seized
would negate any claim to precedence or seniority which will consequently make it inadmissible even in Yes. The Philippines has not surrendered any of its
admittedly enjoyed by petitioner in the CA and IAC the absence of a Constitution? YES. sovereignty to the U.S. Force; the contract of lease with the U.S.
existing prior to Executive Order No. 33? YES. forces does not count as transfer of ownership. The accused is

24 | P a g e
hence found guilty by the court and asked to pay the fine, as well "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as the Land Transportation Office issued Administrative Order No. 1
as the demolition of the house and imprisonment of 30 days. part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, directing the compliance thereof.
The Philippine Government has not abdicated its equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all This petition alleges that such letter of instruction and
sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or nations." By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound subsequent administrative order are unlawful and
divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed by generally accepted principles of international law, which are unconstitutional as it violates the provisions on due process,
therein. considered to be automatically part of our own laws.  equal protection of the law, and undue delegation of police
The contract that the Philippines entered into is a contract By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the power.
of lease that doesn’t surrender the Philippines rights to its absoluteness of sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations may
territory, thus municipal laws still govern. surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for 1. Whether Letter of Instruction No. 229 and the
greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact. subsequent Administrative Order issued is considered
TAÑADA VS. ANGARA After all, states, like individuals, live with coequals, and in pursuit valid and constitutional? YES.
272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997 of mutually covenanted objectives and benefits, they also
commonly agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute The exercise of police power as such was established to
On April 15, 1994, the Philippine Government represented rights. Thus, treaties have been used to record agreements promote public welfare and safety. The letter of instruction is
by its Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry signed between States concerning such widely diverse matters as, for based on the constitutional provision of adopting to the generally
the Final Act binding the Philippine Government to submit to its example, the lease of naval bases, the sale or cession of territory, accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the
respective competent authorities the World Trade Organization the termination of war, the regulation of conduct of hostilities, land. The letter of instruction mentions, as its premise and basis,
(WTO) Agreements to seek approval for such. On December 14, the formation of alliances, the regulation of commercial relations, the resolutions of the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Signs and
1994, Resolution No. 97 was adopted by the Philippine Senate to the settling of claims, the laying down of rules governing conduct Signals and the discussions on traffic safety by the United Nations
ratify the WTO Agreement. in peace and the establishment of international – that such letter was issued in consideration of a growing
The petitioners assail the constitutionality of the WTO organizations.  The sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in fact number of road accidents due to stalled or parked vehicles on
agreement. The petitioners maintain that this undertaking and in reality be considered absolute. Certain restrictions enter the streets and highways.
"unduly limits, restricts, and impairs Philippine sovereignty, into the picture: (1) limitations imposed by the very nature of It cannot be disputed then that this Declaration of Principle
specifically the legislative power which under Sec. 2, Art. VI of the membership in the family of nations and (2) limitations imposed found in the Constitution possesses relevance that the
1987 Philippine Constitution is vested in the Congress of the by treaty stipulations. Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of
Philippines. It is an assault on the sovereign powers of the international law as part of the law of the land. The 1968 Vienna
Philippines because this means that Congress could not pass SEC. 2. GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL Convention on Road Signs and Signals is impressed with such a
legislation that will be good for our national interest and general LAW character. It is not for this country to repudiate a commitment to
welfare if such legislation will not conform with the WTO which it had pledged its word. The concept of pacta sunt
Agreement, which not only relates to the trade in goods, but also TREATIES AND AGREEMENTS servanda stands in the way of such an attitude, which is,
to the flow of investments and money, as well as to a whole slew moreover, at war with the principle of international morality.
of agreements on socio-cultural matters. Dissenting Opinion of Justice Teehankee: I dissent from the
1. Whether Resolution No. 97 ratifying the WTO AGUSTIN VS. EDU majority's peremptory dismissal of the petition and lifting of the
Agreement is unconstitutional? NO. 88 SCRA 195 restraining order issued on October 19, 1978 against the blanket
enforcement of the requirement that all motor vehicles be
While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute This case is a petition assailing the validity or the equipped with the so-called early warning device, without even
and all-encompassing on the domestic level, it is however subject constitutionality of Letter of Instruction No. 229, issued by hearing the parties in oral argument as generally required by the
to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the President Ferdinand E. Marcos, requiring all vehicle owners, Court in original cases of far-reaching consequence such as the
Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of users, or drivers to procure early warning devices to be installed case at bar. The petition advances grave and serious grounds of
nations. Unquestionably, the Constitution did not envision a a distance away from such vehicle when it stalls or is disabled. In assailing "the rules and regulations issued by the Land
hermit-type isolation of the country from the rest of the world. In compliance with such letter of instruction, the Commissioner of Transportation Commission under Administrative Order No. 1
its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution and Memorandum Circular No. 32 which do not reflect the real
25 | P a g e
intent, noble objectives, and spirit of Letter of Instructions No. disturbance of the peace of the mission, or impairment of its equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all
229, as amended by Letter of Instructions Nos. 479 and 716, dignity, there would be a justification for the denial of the permit nations." By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound
because it is oppressive, unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory, insofar as the terminal point would be the embassy. by generally accepted principles of international law, which are
nay unconstitutional, and contrary to the precepts of our Dissenting Opinion of Justice Aquino: Voted to dismiss the considered to be automatically part of our own laws. 
compassionate New Society. petition on the ground that the holding of the rally in front of the By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the
U.S. Embassy violates Ordinance No. 7295 of the City of Manila. absoluteness of sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations may
JBL REYES VS. BAGATSING surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for
G.R. NO. 65366, October 25, 1983 TAÑADA VS. ANGARA greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or pact.
272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997 After all, states, like individuals, live with coequals, and in pursuit
Retired Justice JBL Reyes in behalf of the members of the of mutually covenanted objectives and benefits, they also
Anti-Bases Coalition pursued a permit to rally from Luneta Park On April 15, 1994, the Philippine Government represented commonly agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute
until the front gate of the U.S. embassy which is less than 2 by its Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry signed rights. Thus, treaties have been used to record agreements
blocks away. The permit has been denied by then Manila Mayor the Final Act binding the Philippine Government to submit to its between States concerning such widely diverse matters as, for
Ramon Bagatsing which claimed that there have been respective competent authorities the World Trade Organization example, the lease of naval bases, the sale or cession of territory,
intelligence reports affirming that the rally would be infiltrated to (WTO) Agreements to seek approval for such. On December 14, the termination of war, the regulation of conduct of hostilities,
disrupt the assembly. He also issued City Ordinance No. 7295 to 1994, Resolution No. 97 was adopted by the Philippine Senate to the formation of alliances, the regulation of commercial relations,
prohibit the staging of rallies within the 500 feet radius of the ratify the WTO Agreement. the settling of claims, the laying down of rules governing conduct
U.S. embassy. Bagatsing pointed out that it was his intention to The petitioners assail the constitutionality of the WTO in peace and the establishment of international
provide protection to the U.S. embassy from such lawless agreement. The petitioners maintain that this undertaking organizations.  The sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in fact
elements pursuant to Art. 22 of the Vienna Convention on "unduly limits, restricts, and impairs Philippine sovereignty, and in reality be considered absolute. Certain restrictions enter
Diplomatic Relations. Also, under our constitution, we “adhere to specifically the legislative power which under Sec. 2, Art. VI of the into the picture: (1) limitations imposed by the very nature of
generally accepted principles of international law.” 1987 Philippine Constitution is vested in the Congress of the membership in the family of nations and (2) limitations imposed
Philippines. It is an assault on the sovereign powers of the by treaty stipulations.
1. Whether the treaty, as the basis of dismissal of Philippines because this means that Congress could not pass
petitioner’s request, used by Mayor Bagatsing, was legislation that will be good for our national interest and general BAYAN VS. EXEC. SEC. ZAMORA
valid? NO. welfare if such legislation will not conform with the WTO G.R. NO. 138570, October 10, 2000, J. Buena
Agreement, which not only relates to the trade in goods, but also
The implementing state is tasked for the protection of to the flow of investments and money, as well as to a whole slew The Republic of the Philippines and the United States of
foreign diplomats from any lawless element and the Vienna of agreements on socio-cultural matters. America entered into an agreement called the Visiting Forces
Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted principles Agreement (VFA). The agreement was treated as a treaty by the
of international law. But it cannot, however, be invoked as 1. Whether Resolution No. 97 ratifying the WTO Philippine government and was ratified by then-president Joseph
defense to prevail over the Philippine Constitution which upholds Agreement is unconstitutional? NO. Estrada with the concurrence of 2/3 of the total membership of
and guarantees the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. the Philippine Senate.
Also, the City Ordinance issued by respondent mayor While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute The VFA defines the treatment of U.S. troops and personnel
cannot be invoked if the application thereof would collide with a and all-encompassing on the domestic level, it is however subject visiting the Philippines. It provides for the guidelines to govern
constitutionally guaranteed right. to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the such visits, and further defines the rights of the U.S. and the
Art. II, Sec. 2 recognizes the generally accepted principles Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of Philippine governments in the matter of criminal jurisdiction,
of international law as part of the law of the land, to the extent nations. Unquestionably, the Constitution did not envision a movement of vessel and aircraft, importation, and exportation of
that the Vienna Convention is a restatement of the generally hermit-type isolation of the country from the rest of the world. In equipment, materials and supplies.
accepted principles of international law, hence, it should be a its Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the Constitution Petitioners argued, inter alia, that the VFA violates Sec. 25,
part of the law of the land. That being the case, if there were a "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as Art. XVIII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that “foreign
clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage, or part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the
26 | P a g e
Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the In 2000, the Republic of the Philippines, through Charge primacy of international agreements entered into between
Senate . . . and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting d’Affaires Enrique A. Manalo, signed the Rome Statute which, by States, even when one of the States is not a State-Party to the
State.”  its terms, is subject to ratification, acceptance, or approval by the Rome Statute.
signatory states. The right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements
1. Whether the VFA is unconstitutional? NO. In 2003, via Exchange of Notes with the U.S. government, without the necessity of subsequent Congressional approval has
the Republic of the Philippines, represented by then DFA been confirmed by long usage. From the earliest days of our
Section 25, Art. XVIII disallows foreign military bases, troops, Secretary Ople, finalized a Non-Surrender Agreement which history, we have entered executive agreements covering such
or facilities in the country, unless the following conditions are aimed to protect certain persons of the Republic of the subjects as commercial and consular relations, most favored-
sufficiently met, viz: (a) it must be under a treaty; (b) the treaty Philippines and U.S. from frivolous and harassment suits that nation rights, patent rights, trademark and copyright protection,
must be duly concurred in by the Senate and, when so required might be brought against them in international tribunals. postal and navigation arrangements and the settlement of
by congress, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people Petitioner imputes grave abuse of discretion to respondents claims. The validity of these has never been seriously questioned
in a national referendum; and (c) recognized as a treaty by the act in concluding and ratifying the Agreement and prays that it by our courts.
other contracting state. be struck down as unconstitutional, or at least declared as Executive agreements may be validly entered into without
There is no dispute as to the presence of the first 2 without force and effect. such concurrence.  As the President wields vast powers and
requisites in the case of the VFA. The concurrence handed by the influence, her conduct in the external affairs of the nation is, as
Senate through Resolution No. 18 is in accordance with the 1. Whether respondents abuse their discretion amounting Bayan would put it, “executive altogether.”  The right of the
provisions of the Constitution. The requirement under Sec. 25, to lack or excess of jurisdiction in concluding the RP- President to enter into or ratify binding executive agreements
Art. XVIII requiring ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a U.S. Non-Surrender Agreement in contravention of the has been confirmed by long practice.
national referendum is unnecessary, since Congress has not Rome Statute?
required it. EQUAL STANDING OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND MUNICIPAL
The SC is of the firm view that the phrase “recognized as a The Agreement does not contravene or undermine, nor LAW
treaty” means that the other contracting party accepts or does it differ from, the Rome Statute.  Far from going against
acknowledges the agreement as a treaty. To require the other each other, one complements the other.  As a matter of fact, the LIM VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
contracting state, the United States of America in this case, to principle of complementarity underpins the creation of the ICC. G.R. NO. 151445, April 11, 2002, J. Velasco Jr.
submit the VFA to the United States Senate for concurrence According to Art. 1 of the Statute, the jurisdiction of the ICC is to
pursuant to its Constitution, is to accord strict meaning to the “be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions of the Beginning January of year 2002, personnel from the armed
phrase. signatory states.” The Rome Statute expressly recognizes the forces of the United States of America started arriving in
Well-entrenched is the principle that the words used in the primary jurisdiction of states, like the Republic of the Philippines, Mindanao to take part, in conjunction with the Philippine
Constitution are to be given their ordinary meaning except where over serious crimes committed within their respective borders, military, in “Balikatan 02-1.” They are a simulation of joint
technical terms are employed, in which case the significance thus the complementary jurisdiction of the ICC coming into play only military maneuvers pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty
attached to them prevails. Its language should be understood in when the signatory states are unwilling or unable to prosecute. (MDT), a bilateral defense agreement entered into by the
the sense they have in common use. Also, under international law, there is a considerable Philippines and the United States in 1951. Its aim is to enhance
Moreover, it is inconsequential whether the United States difference between a State-Party and a signatory to a treaty. the strategic and technological capabilities of our armed forces
treats the VFA only as an executive agreement because, under Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a signatory through joint training with its American counterparts; the
international law, an executive agreement is as binding as a state is only obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the “Balikatan” is the largest training exercise directly supporting the
treaty. To be sure, as long as the VFA possesses the elements of object and purpose of a treaty. The Philippines is only a signatory MDT’s objectives. It is this treaty to which the VFA adverts and
an agreement under international law, the said agreement is to to the Rome Statute and not a State-Party for lack of ratification the obligations thereunder which it seeks to reaffirm.
be taken equally as a treaty. by the Senate. Thus, it is only obliged to refrain from acts which On February 1, 2002, petitioners Arthur D. Lim and Paulino
would defeat the object and purpose of the Rome Statute. Any P. Ersando filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition,
BAYAN MUNA VS. ROMULO argument obliging the Philippines to follow any provision in the attacking the constitutionality of the joint exercise.
G.R. NO. 159618, February 1, 2011, J. Velasco treaty would be premature. And even assuming that the
Philippines is a State-Party, the Rome Statute still recognizes the
27 | P a g e
 1. Whether “Balikatan 02-1” activities are covered by the From the perspective of public international law, a treaty is The Paris Convention mandates that protection should be
Visiting Forces Agreement? YES. favored over municipal law pursuant to the principle of pacta afforded to internationally known marks as signatory to the Paris
sunt servanda. Hence, "every treaty in force is binding upon the Convention without regard as to whether the foreign corporation
The VFA permits United States personnel to engage, on an parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith." registered, licensed or does business in the Philippines.
impermanent basis, in “activities,” the exact meaning of which Further, a party to a treaty is not allowed to "invoke the Our municipal law on trademarks regarding the requirement
was left undefined. The sole encumbrance placed on its provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to of actual use in the Philippines must subordinate an international
definition is couched in the negative, in that United States perform a treaty." agreement. The fact that international law has been made part of
personnel must “abstain from any activity inconsistent with the the law of the land does not imply the primacy of international
spirit of this agreement,” and in particular, from any political SHANGRI-LA HOTEL INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT VS. law over national law in the municipal sphere. Under the
activity. DEVELOPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES INC. doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries, rules of
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Arts. 31 and G.R. NO. 159938, March 31, 2006 international law are given equal footage.
32 contains provisos governing interpretations of international
agreements. It clearly provides that the cardinal rule of Respondent DGCI claims ownership over the Shangri-La PHILIP MORRIS, INC., BENSON & HEDGES (CANADA), INC., &
interpretation must involve an examination of the text, which is mark & S logo in the Philippines. The Bureau of Patents, FABRIQUES DE TABAC REUNIES, S.A., (NOW KNOWN AS PHILIP
presumed to verbalize the parties’ intentions. The Convention Trademarks & Technology Transfer (BPTTT) issued DGCI a MORRIS PRODUCTS S.A.) VS. FORTUNE TOBACCO
likewise dictates what may be used as aids to deduce the certificate of registration (May 31, 1983) and since then, DGCI CORPORATION
meaning of terms, which it refers to as the context of the treaty, started using the Shangri-La & S in its restaurant business. G.R. NO. 158589, June 27, 2006
as well as other elements may be taken into account alongside On the other hand, Kuok family (owns & operates a chain of
the aforesaid context. hotels & hotel-related transactions since 1969) adopted the Petitioner, a corporation organized under the laws of the
It appeared farfetched that the ambiguity surrounding the name Shangri-La as part of the corporate names of all companies state of Virginia, USA, is the registered owner of the trademark
meaning of the word “activities” arose from accident. It was under the Kuok Group of Companies as far back as 1962. The MARK VII for cigarettes. Benson and Hedges (Canada), Inc., a
deliberately made that way to give both parties a certain leeway name Shangri-La has been used in all their hotels & hotel-related subsidiary of Philip Morris, Inc., is the registered owner of the
in negotiation. In this manner, visiting U.S. forces may sojourn in establishments worldwide. trademark MARK TEN for cigarettes. Another subsidiary of Philip
Philippine territory for purposes other than military. As DGCI filed a complaint for Infringement & Damages. The Morris, Inc. the Swiss Company Fabriques de Tabac Reunies, S.A.,
conceived, the joint exercises may include training on new lower court’s judgment was in favor of the respondent. The court is the assignee of the trademark LARK. All are evidenced by
techniques of patrol and surveillance to protect the nation’s emphasized that the Kuok Groups’ bulk use of the trade name Trademark Certificate of Registration. On the other hand,
marine resources, sea search-and-rescue operations to assist was abroad and not in the Philippines. Hence, the Paris Fortune Tobacco Corporation, a company organized in the
vessels in distress, disaster relief operations, civic action projects Convention must yield to a municipal law. Philippines, manufactures and sells cigarettes using the
such as the building of school houses, medical and humanitarian trademark MARK.
missions, and the like. 1. Whether respondent’s prior use of the mark is a Philip Morris, Inc. filed a complaint for trademark
Under these auspices, the VFA gives legitimacy to the requirement for its registration? YES. infringement and damages against Fortune Tobacco Corporation.
current Balikatan exercises. It is only logical to assume that The complaint was dismissed by the RTC Pasig City in its decision
“Balikatan 02-1,” a “mutual anti- terrorism advising, assisting and The new Intellectual Property Code, R.A. No. 8293, dated January 21, 2003.
training exercise,” falls under the umbrella of sanctioned or undoubtedly shows the firm resolve of the Philippines to observe Maintaining to have the standing to sue in the local forum
allowable activities in the context of the agreement. & follow the Paris Convention by incorporating the relevant and that respondent has committed trademark infringement,
Withal, the fact that international law has been made part portions of the Convention such that persons who may question petitioners went on appeal to the CA but CA affirmed the trial
of the law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy a mark (that is, oppose registration, petition for the cancellation court’s decision. The CA found that MARK VII, MARK TEN, and
of international law over national law in the municipal sphere. thereof, sue for unfair competition) include persons whose LARK do not qualify as well-known marks entitled to protection
Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries, internationally well-known mark, whether or not registered, is even without the benefit of actual use in the local market and
rules of international law are given a standing equal, not identical with or confusingly similar to or constitutes a translation that the similarities in the trademarks in question are insufficient
superior, to national legislation. of a mark that is sought to be registered or is actually registered. as to cause deception or confusion tantamount to infringement.

28 | P a g e
 With the motion for reconsideration denied in the CA, the detention, torture, and rape in the hands of police or military primarily by Sec. 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which has
petitioners filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. forces during the Marcos regime. The Final Judgment was existed in its current form since the early 1900s. Certainly, the
affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9 th Circuit and the Philippine legal system has long ago accepted into its
1. Whether petitioners, as Philippine registrants of petitioners filed a Complaint with the RTC of Makati for the jurisprudence and procedural rules the viability of an action for
trademarks, are entitled to enforce trademark rights in enforcement of the Final Judgment. However, the Marcos enforcement of foreign judgment, as well as the requisites for
the country? Estate contended that the P 410.00 filing fee was such valid enforcement, as derived from internationally accepted
incorrectly computed for they argue that the amount is too doctrines. Again, there may be distinctions as to the rules
Their standing to sue in Philippine courts had been small to constitute damages amounting to $2.25 billion. adopted by each particular state, but they all prescind from the
recognized by the CA but such right to sue does not necessarily premise that there is a rule of law obliging states to allow for,
mean protection of their trademarks in the absence of actual use 1. Whether Philippine courts can enforce a foreign however generally, the recognition and enforcement of a foreign
in the Philippines. judgment? YES. judgment. The bare principle, to our mind, has attained the
However, the petitioners are still foreign corporations. They status of opinio juris in international practice. 
may not sue on that basis alone of their respective certificates of There is no obligatory rule derived from treaties or
registration of trademarks unless their country grants similar conventions that requires the Philippines to recognize foreign SOFT LAW
rights and privileges to Filipino citizens pursuant to Sec. 21-A of judgments, or allow a procedure for the enforcement thereof.
R.A. No. 166. This reciprocity requirement is a condition to file a However, generally accepted principles of international law, by PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION OF THE
suit by a foreign corporation as ruled in Leviton Industries vs. virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part PHILIPPINES VS. HEALTH SECRETARY FRANCISCO DUQUE III
Salvador. of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty G.R. NO. 173034, July 19, 2001
The respective home country of the petitioner, namely, the obligations. The classical formulation in international law sees
United States, Switzerland, and Canada, together with the those customary rules accepted as binding result from the On October 28, 1986, Executive Order No. 51 (Milk Code)
Philippines are members of the Paris Union. Philippines combination 2 elements: the established, widespread, and was issued by President Corazon Aquino by virtue of the
adherence to the Paris Convention obligates the country to consistent practice on the part of States; and a psychological legislative powers granted to the president under the Freedom
honor and enforce its provisions, however, this does not element known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as Constitution. The Milk Code states that the law seeks to give
automatically entitle petitioners to the protection of their to law or necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief that effect to Art. 112 of the International Code of Marketing of
trademark in our country without actual use of the marks in local the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the World
commerce and trade because any protection accorded has to be of a rule of law requiring it. Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981. From 1982 to 2006, the WHA
made subject to the limitations of Philippine laws. While the definite conceptual parameters of the recognition adopted several Resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding
Withal, the fact that international law has been made part and enforcement of foreign judgments have not been should be supported, promoted, and protected, hence, it should
of the law of the land does not by any means imply the primacy authoritatively established, the Court can assert with certainty be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not permitted for
of international law over national law in the municipal sphere. that such an undertaking is among those generally accepted breastmilk substitutes. The Philippines ratified the International
Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries, principles of international law. As earlier demonstrated, there is a Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 24 of said
rules of international law are given a standing equal, not widespread practice among states accepting in principle the need instrument provides that State Parties should take appropriate
superior, to national legislative enactments. for such recognition and enforcement, albeit subject to measures to diminish infant and child mortality, and ensure that
limitations of varying degrees. The fact that there is no binding all segments of society, specially parents and children, are
RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS universal treaty governing the practice is not indicative of a informed of the advantages of breastfeeding. The DOH thus
widespread rejection of the principle, but only a disagreement as issued a Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR)
MIJARES VS. RANADA to the imposable specific rules governing the procedure for which was to take effect on July 7, 2006. A petition for certiorari
G.R. NO. 139325, April 12, 2005 recognition and enforcement. under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify RIRR of the
Ten prominent petitioners filed a complaint against the Aside from the widespread practice, it is indubitable that “Milk Code,” assailing that the RIRR was going beyond the
estate of the deceased former president Ferdinand E. Marcos as the procedure for recognition and enforcement is embodied in provisions of the Milk Code, thereby amending and expanding
the petitioners suffered human rights abuses such as arbitrary the rules of law, whether statutory or jurisprudential, adopted in the coverage of said law.
various foreign jurisdictions. In the Philippines, this is evidenced
29 | P a g e
 The Regional Trial Court favored Jimenez and issued While international law is made part of the law of the land,
1. Whether the administrative order or the RIRR is him copies of his request, as well as conduct further proceedings. it does not imply primacy of international law over national law.
unconstitutional? Thus, this petition now at bar. A fundamental principle of Philippine Trademark Law is that
actual use in commerce in the Philippines is a prerequisite to the
1. Whether Jimenez' entitlement to notice and acquisition of ownership over a trademark or a trade name. In
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition.
proceedings during evaluation violates the constitution view of the explicit representation of petitioners in the complaint
Customary international law is deemed incorporated in our
of the Philippines' duties in the RP-US extradition treaty that they are not engaged in business in the Philippines, it
domestic system. This may constitute "Soft Law" or non-binding
– NO. inevitably follows that no conceivable damage can be suffered by
norms or practices that influence state behavior. Resolutions
them not to mention the foremost consideration heretofore
from international law are merely recommendatory, but not
The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever discussed on the absence of their “right” to be protected.
legally binding. Under the 1987 Constitution, international law
can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by municipal tribunals (or local courts) are confronted with
situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule MAIN POINT: Following universal acquiescence and comity, our
transformation or incorporation. The transformation method
of international law and the provisions of the constitution or municipal law on trademarks regarding the requirement of actual
requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic
statute of the local state. The doctrine of incorporation states use in the Philippines must subordinate an international
law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation.
that international laws have equal standing, but are not above agreement inasmuch as the apparent clash is being decided by a
The incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional
national legislations. In the Philippines, statutes and treaties may municipal tribunal
declaration, international law is deemed to have the force of
domestic law. be invalidated if they conflict with the Constitution.
63. VINUYA V. ES
Thus, transformation or incorporation is necessary to for
GR 162230
international laws to become a part of domestic laws.
62. PHILIP MORRIS vs. CA
GR 91332, JULY 16, 1993 Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a
Doctrine of Transformation
non-stock, non-profit organization registered with the Securities
61. SOJ vs. LANTION Petitioners are foreign corporations organized under US and Exchange Commission, established for the purpose of
GR 139465 laws not doing business in the Philippines and registered owners providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military forces in
of symbols ‘MARK VII,’ ‘MARK TEN,’ and ‘LARK’ used in their the Philippines during the Second World War.
The DOJ received a request from the DFA pertaining to cigarette products.
the extradition of respondent, Mark B. Jimenez to the U.S. for Petitioners moved to enjoin respondent Fortune Petitioners also pray the court order the Secretary of
various charges that were attached with his warrant of arrest Tobacco from manufacturing and selling cigarettes bearing the Foreign Affairs and the Executive Secretary to espouse the claims
along with supporting documents. symbol ‘MARK’ asserting that it is identical or confusingly similar of Filipino Comfort women for an official apology, legal
with their trademarks. They Invoked provisions of the Paris compensation, and other forms of reparation from Japan.
Jimenez, then, requested that he be allowed to acquire Convention for the Protection of Industrial and Intellectual
copies of all the documents and be given time to assess them. Property. Respondents argue that the formal apology by the
The SOJ denied his request on the ground that include the U.S.’ As corporate nationals of member-countries of the Government of Japan and the reparation the Government of
prevention of unauthorized disclosure of information on the Paris Union, they can sue before Philippine courts for Japan has provided through the Asian Women’s Fund are
documents and the premature state of the procedure's infringement of trademarks, or for unfair competition, without sufficient to recompense petitioners on their claims.
evaluation regarding the compliance of the requesting need of obtaining registration or a license to do business in the
government on relevant law and treaty leading Jimenez to file a Philippines, and without necessity of actually doing business in 1. Did the Supreme Court fail to uphold its legal
petition against the Secretary of Justice. the Philippines. obligation to declare certain ranking officials at the
executive branch to espouse the claims for crimes
1. Whether there has been an invasion of plaintiffs’ right of against humanity and to back their complaints against
property to such trademark or trade name – NO. Japan before the International Courts of Justice? – NO.

30 | P a g e
 From a Domestic Law perspective, it is well-established
that the conduct of foreign relations of our government is Petitions for Certiorari were filed before the Supreme The petitioner IBP has sought to invalidate the order of
entrusted by the Constitution to the executive and Court assailing the constitutionality of the agreement. Herein President Joseph Estrada to his secretaries of National Defense
legislative--'the political'--departments of the government, and petitioners now contend that it should have been concurred by and Interior and Local Governement, and chiefs of PNP and
the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political the senate as it is not an executive agreement. Army, for joint patrols of PNP and Marines in the metropolis of
power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision." Furthermore, Manila. The IBP contended the use of the powers of the Chief
since the executive department has already decided to waive all 1. Whether the EDCA between the PH and US is Executive in calling upon the military for a task in civilian
the possible claims and reparations of its nationals against Japan constitutional – YES. vicinities, when there was only an obvious lawlessness and
for the greater benefit of the country, the judiciary is not in any increased of organized crimes, but no such national emergencies
position to question the wisdom of the executive department The EDCA is an executive agreement and does not need the were at hand.
regarding its undertaking to advance or imperil the welfare of the Senate's concurrence. As an executive agreement, it remains
people. consistent with existing laws and treaties that it purports to 1. Whether the directive order of joint patrols of police
implement. and military in Metro Manila by President Joseph
There is no sufficient evidence to establish a general Estrada has violated the constitution – NO.
international obligation for States to exercise diplomatic 65. BAYAN V. DND SEC. GAZMIN, GR 212444
protection of their own nationals abroad.  Also, in the President Joseph Estrada has not violated the constitution in
international sphere, the only means available for individuals to Petitioners filed the motion for reconsideration which seeks his discretion of putting the task of joint patrols of the police and
bring a claim within the international legal system has been when to reverse the decision of the court in Saguisag et. al., v. marines in the metropolis. The powers of the president are not
the individual is able to persuade a government to bring a claim Executive Secretary. The petitions in Sasguisag had questioned limited to calling upon the military for threats of war and
on the individual’s behalf. Even then, it is not the individual’s the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation rebellion, but also for the maintenance of peace and order of its
rights that are being asserted, but rather, the state’s own rights Agreement (EDCA) between the Republic of the Philippines and people and the state.
since it is the sole judge to decide whether its protection will be the United States of America (U.S.). There, this Court ruled that
granted, to what extent it is granted, and when will it cease. It the petitions be dismissed. MAIN POINT: That President Joseph Estrada has the right to
retains, in this respect, a discretionary power the exercise of 1. Whether the decision of the court in Saguisag et. al., v. exercise his executive power as the Commander-in-Chief in giving
which may be determined by considerations of a political or Executive Secretary needs to be revised – NO. orders to the military and police in the preservation and
other nature, unrelated to the particular case. maintenance of peace and order of the country.
EDCA remains consistent with the constitution. It explicitly
64. SAGUISAG V. ES, GR 212426 provides that ownership of the Agreed Locations remains with 67. KULAYAN V. TAN
the Philippine Government which asserts sovereignty over its 675 SCRA 482 (2012)
The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) territory. There is an ample legal protection for the Philippines
is an executive agreement that gives U.S. troops, planes and under international law that would ensure its territorial integrity The petitioners requested for the prohibition of the
ships increased rotational presence in Philippine military bases and national security in the event an Agreed Location is respondent’s proclamation of emergency power as the provincial
and allows the U.S. to build facilities to store fuel and equipment subjected to attack. governor of calling upon the Armed Forces Philippines and in
there. It was signed against the backdrop of the Philippines' forming a pseudo army of coalition among the police and military
maritime dispute with China over the West Philippine Sea. There are no reasons EDCA must be declared and the civilian forces made up of local individuals in respond to
unconstitutional. The motion has not raised any additional legal the kidnappings of members of International Committee of Red
The US embassy and DFA exchanged diplomatic notes arguments that warrant revisiting the decision. Cross by the suspected Abu Sayyaf group.
confirming all necessary requirements for the agreement to take 1. Whether the respondent Gov. Abdusakur Tan, has the
force. The agreement was signed on April 2014. President Section 3. Civilian Supremacy and AFP Role
right to emergency powers of calling upon the Armed
Benigno Aquino III ratified the same on June 2014. It was not Forces, and the creation of civilian forces as his own-
submitted to Congress on the understanding that to do so was no 66. IBP V. ZAMORA
338 SCRA 81 (2000) formed army under his command – NO.
longer necessary.
31 | P a g e
The provincial governor has no power to call upon the police and refused to register in the military service between the 1st and Both parties again signed an Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA)
military, and the formation of civilian forces to take similar task 7th of April of said year, notwithstanding the fact that they had for online lottery equipment and accessories on January 25,
and duties as the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The been required to do so. Appellants were duly notified by the 1995. Consequently, Kilosbayan again filed a petition to declare
respondent governor cannot go beyond one’s legal powers, authorities to appear before the Acceptance Board in order to amended ELA invalid because it is the same as the old contract of
specifically in creating an armed force made up of locals in register for military service in accordance with law, and that the lease, it is still violative of PCSO’s charter, and it is violative of the
coalition with the police and military to go after the kidnappers. said appellants, in spite of these notices, had not registered up to law regarding public bidding.
the date of the filing of the information. In this instance, the
68. ALIH V. CASTRO validity of the National Defense Law, under which the accused 1. Whether the petitioners possess legal standing to sue –
GR 69401, JUNE 23, 1987 were sentenced, is impugned on the ground that it is NO.
unconstitutional.
The respondents had a military operation known as The challenged agreement is a different contract; hence, the
“zona” in response to the increased level of lawlessness in the 1. Whether the National Defense Law is unconstitutional previous decision does not preclude determination of the
city of Zamboanga after the assassination of the city mayor Cesar – NO. petitioner’s standing. Kilosbayan's status as a people's
Climaco. As such, the respondents, without securing search organization does not give it the requisite personality to question
warrant from the court, proceeded the raid at the behest of their The National Defense Law, in so far as it establishes the validity of the contract in this case. Petitioners assert an
high ranking officers; and barged into the premises of the compulsory military service, does not go against this interest as taxpayers, but they do not meet the standing
suspects, presumed to be responsible for the said slaying. The constitutional provision but is, on the contrary, in faithful requirement for bringing taxpayer's suits. Neither do the other
petitioners were arrested and taken into military custody for compliance therewith. The duty of the Government to defend cases cited by petitioners support their contention that taxpayers
records and questioning, and the seizures of all their firearms. the State cannot be performed except through an army. To leave have standing to question government contracts regardless of
the organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to whether public funds are involved or not.
1. Whether the respondents have violated the make this duty of the Government excusable should there be no
constitution for the warrantless search and arrest, and sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein. 73. KULAYAN V. TAN
the seizures of firearms and ammunition of the 675 SCRA 482 (2012)
suspects in the said operation – YES. SEC. 2. The defense of the state is a prime duty of government,
and in the fulfillment of this duty all citizens may be required by The petitioners requested for the prohibition of the
The forces of the government, police or military, cannot law to render personal military or civil service. respondent’s proclamation of emergency power as the provincial
simply entertain the assumption of a crime of suspect(s), one governor of calling upon the Armed Forces Philippines and in
must secure the court’s search warrants or warrant of arrest, 71. PD No. 1706, The National Service Law, Aug 8, 1980 – forming a pseudo army of coalition among the police and military
before proceeding. For everyone is clothed under the protection This is presidential decree [?] and the civilian forces made up of local individuals in respond to
of rights of the rule of law, the Constitution. the kidnappings of members of International Committee of Red
Section 5. Maintenance of Peace and Order Cross by the suspected Abu Sayyaf group.
Section 4. Duty of Government to the People
69. PEOPLE V. TRANQUILINO LAGMAN, GR L-45892 72. KILOSBAYAN V. MORATO 1. Whether or not Governor Tan is authorized by any law
70. PEOPLE V. PRIMITIVO DE SOSA, GR L-45893, JULY 13, 246 SCRA 540 (1995) AND MR 250 SCRA 130 to create civilian armed forces under his command –
1938 (Decisions in these cases were lodged in a single NO.
resolution. Check SCRA for confirmation. Thanks!) Kilosbayan vs. Guingona case held the invalidity of the
contract between Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) Respondent provincial governor is not endowed with the
In these two cases, the appellants Tranquilino and Primitivo and the privately-owned Philippine Gaming Management power to call upon the armed forces at his own bidding. In
de Sosa are charged with a violation of section 60 of Corporation (PGMC) for the operation of a nationwide on-line issuing the assailed proclamation, Governor Tan exceeded his
Commonwealth Act No. 1, known as the National Defense Law. It lottery system. The contract violated the provision in the PCSO authority when he declared a state of emergency and called
is alleged that these two appellants, being Filipinos and having Charter which prohibits PCSO from holding and conducting upon the Armed Forces, the police, and his own Civilian
reached the age of twenty years in 1936, willfully and unlawfully lotteries through a collaboration, association, or joint venture.
32 | P a g e
Emergency Force. The calling-out powers contemplated under The MDT is the core of the defense relationship between
the Constitution is exclusive to the President. BUCCI, as a juridical entity, is separate and distinct from the Philippines and the US and it is the VFA which gives
UCCP, possesses the freedom to determine its steps. continued relevance to it. Moreover, it is the VFA that gave
Section 6. Separation of Church and State legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercise.
UCCP and BUCCI, being corporate entities and grantees
74. UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC of primary franchises, are subject to the jurisdiction of the SEC. Based on the facts obtaining, the Supreme court find that
V. BRADFORD UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, INC Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A provides that SEC shall the holding of “Balikatan-02-1” joint military exercise has not
674 SCRA 92 (2012) have absolute jurisdiction, supervision and control over all intruded into that penumbra of error that would otherwise call
corporations. Even with their religious nature, SEC may exercise for the correction on its part.
Bradford United Church of Christ, Inc.(BUCCI) is a religious jurisdiction over them in matters that are legal and corporate.
corporation with a personality separate and distinct from and a The constitution leaves us no doubt that US Forces are
former constituent of United Church of Christ in the Philippines, Section 7. Independent Foreign Policy prohibited from engaging war on Philippine territory. This
Inc. (UCCP), another religious corporation duly organized and limitation is explicitly provided for in the Terms of Reference of
existing under the laws of the Philippines. 75. LIM V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY the Balikatan exercise. The issues that were raised by the
GR 151445, APRIL 11, 2002 petitioners were only based on fear of future violation of the
In 1989, BUCCI started the construction of a fence that Terms of Reference, not on actual violation of the terms of
encroached upon the right of way allocated by UCCP for Cebu Personnel from the armed forces of the United States reference.
Conference Inc. (CCI), an action which later led to the formal of America went to Mindanao to take part in Balikatan 02-1, an
break-up of BUCCI and UCCP and BUCCI’s amendment of its exercise supposedly pursuant to the Mutual Defense Treaty. 76. SAGUISAG V. ES
Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws. Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando filed this petition for GR 212426
certiorari and prohibition, attacking the constitutionality of the
UCCP thereafter filed a complaint for rejection of decision, joint exercise. They were joined subsequently by SANLAKAS and Petitioners question the constitutionality of the Enhanced
alleging that separate incorporation and registration of BUCCI is PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA, both party-list organizations, who Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Republic of
not allowed under the UCCP Constitution and By-laws. SEC filed a petition-in-intervention. Lim and Ersando filed suit in their the Philippines and the United States of America. Claiming that
dismissed this petition and defended BUCCI’s right to capacities as citizens, lawyers and taxpayers. SANLAKAS and the instrument violated multiple constitutional provisions.
disassociate itself from UCCP in recognition of its constitutional PARTIDO, on the other hand, aver that certain members of their
freedom to associate and disassociate, and this was affirmed by organization are residents of Zamboanga and Sulu, and hence will 1. Whether the provisions under EDCA are consistent with
the Court of Appeals. UCCP still maintains that it has the sole be directly affected by the operations being conducted in the Constitution – YES.
power to decide whether BUCCI could disaffiliate from it as this Mindanao. EDCA remains consistent with the constitution. It explicitly
involves a purely ecclesiastical affair. provides that ownership of the Agreed Locations remains with
The petitioners alleged “Balikatan 02-1” is not covered the Philippine Government which asserts sovereignty over its
by MDT, as the mutual military assistance should be done only territory. There is ample legal protection for the Philippines
1. Whether the determination of the validity of when either Philippines or USA is attacked by an external under international law that would ensure its territorial integrity
disaffiliation of respondents is purely an ecclesiastical aggressor. Petitioners also claim that the Visiting Forces and national security in the event an Agreed Location is
affair – NO. Agreement (VFA) does not authorize American Soldiers to engage subjected to attack. Philippines must give paramount
in combat operations in Philippine Territory. consideration to the sovereignty of the nation, the integrity of its
The issue is not purely an ecclesiastical affair. An territory, its national interest and rights to self-determination.
ecclesiastical affair is one that concerns doctrine, creed or form 1. Is the “Balikatan-02-1” inconsistent with the Philippine
of worship of the church, or the adoption and enforcement Constitution? – YES. 77. BAYAN V. DND SEC. GAZMIN
within a religious association of needful laws and regulations for GR 212444
the government of the membership, and the power of excluding
from such associations those deemed unworthy of membership.

33 | P a g e
 Petitioners filed the motion for reconsideration which 1. Whether VFA violates the prohibition of nuclear
seeks to reverse the decision of the court in Saguisag et. al., v. weapon under Article II, Section 8 – No. Section 11. Personal Dignity and Human Rights
Executive Secretary. The petitions in Sasguisag had questioned
the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation By virtue of Article II of the VFA, the United States commits Section 12. Family Life; Mother; Unborn
Agreement (EDCA) between the Republic of the Philippines and to respect the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, including
the United States of America (U.S.). There, this Court ruled that the constitution, which declares in Article II, Section 8, thereof, a 80. ROE V. WADE
the petitions be dismissed. policy of freedom from nuclear weapons, consistent with the 410 US 113 (1973)
national interest. In International Agreements, policy of freedom
1. Whether the decision of the court in Saguisag et. al., v. from nuclear weapon is pursued. Norma L. McCorvey (“Jane Roe”), a pregnant single woman
Executive Secretary needs to be revised – NO. (allegedly a result of rape), filed a suit against the defendant,
Section 9. Social Order District Attorney Henry Wade questioning Texas State Laws
EDCA remains consistent with the constitution. It explicitly which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on
provides that ownership of the Agreed Locations remains with Section 10. Social Justice medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life. She
the Philippine Government which asserts sovereignty over its argues that said laws are unconstitutionality vague and that they
territory. There is an ample legal protection for the Philippines 79. CALALANG V. WILLIAMS abridge her right of personal privacy as guaranteed and
under international law that would ensure its territorial integrity 70 PHIL 726 protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth
and national security in the event an Agreed Location is Amendments. Later she amended her complaint as to represent
subjected to attack. The National Traffic Commission recommended the or sue “on behalf of herself and all other women similarly
Director of Public Works and to the Secretary of Public Works situated,” thereby becoming a class suit.
There are no reasons EDCA must be declared and Communication that animal-drawn vehicles be prohibited
unconstitutional. The motion has not raised any additional legal from passing along Rosario St. extending from Plaza Calderon de 1. Whether a woman’s right to privacy as protected by
arguments that warrant revisiting the decision. la Barca to Dasmarinas St. from 7:30 am to 12 pm and 1:30 pm to the constitution includes the right to abort her child. –
5:30 pm and also along Rizal Avenue from 7 am to 11 pm from a YES.
Section 8. Freedom from Nuclear Weapons period of one year from the date of the opening of Colgante
Bridge to traffic. It was subsequently passed and thereafter The “right of privacy” is broad enough to encompass a
78. BAYAN V. ZAMORA enforce by Manila Mayor and the acting chief of police. Maximo woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
GR 138570, OCTOBER 10, 2000 Calalang then, as a citizen and a taxpayer challenges its We therefore conclude that the right of personal privacy includes
constitutionality. abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must
The Philippines and the United States of America forged a be considered against important state interests in regulation.”
Military Bases Agreement which formalized the use of 1. Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the
installations in the Philippine territory by United States military Director of Public Works infringes upon the “A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type
personnel. To further strengthen their defense and security constitutional precept regarding the promotion of that exempts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on
relationship, US and Phil entered into a Mutual Defense Treaty social justice – NO. behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and
on August 30, 1951. Under the treaty, the parties agreed to without recognition of the interests involved (such as liberty
respond to any external armed attack on their territory, armed The promotion of social justice is to be achieved not through interests), is violate of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
forces, public vessels, and aircraft. In view of the expiration of a mistaken sympathy towards any given group. It is the Amendment.”
Military Bases Agreement in 1991, the Philippines and the United promotion of the welfare of all people. It is neither communism,
States negotiated for a possible extension. The said mutual despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy but the humanization of 81. MEYER V. NEBRASKA
defense treaty embodies the agreement by the two parties to laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the 262 US 390 (1922)
respond to any external armed attack on their territory, armed state so that justice in its rational and objectively secular
forces, public vessels and aircraft. conception may at least be approximated. Plaintiff was convicted for teaching a child German under a
Nebraska statute that outlawed the teaching of foreign
34 | P a g e
languages to students that had not yet completed the eighth schools and teachers therein to engage in a useful business or their children. It is the future of the student, not the parents, that
grade. The Supreme Court of Nebraska upheld the conviction. profession. is imperiled by today’s decision. The views of the two children in
question were not canvassed and should be on remand.
1. Does the statute infringe on the liberty guaranteed by 1. Whether the statute infringes the liberty of the parents
the Fourteenth Amendment? – YES. and guardians to direct the upbringing of their children 84. GINSBERG V. NEW YORK
– YES. 390 US 629 (1968)
The statute as applied is unconstitutional because it
infringes on the liberty interests of the plaintiff and fails to The Supreme Court said that “The fundamental theory of Sam Ginsberg and his wife operated “Sam’s Stationary and
reasonably relate to any end within the competency of the state. liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes Luncheonette” in Bellmore on Long Island in New York. They had
any general power of the state to standardize its children by a lunch counter that sold magazines, including some so-called
The Fourteenth Amendment encompasses more than forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The “girlie” magazines. On October 18, 1965, a sixteen-year-old boy
merely the freedom from bodily restraint. The state argues that child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture entered the store and purchased copies of “Sir” and “Mr.
the purpose of the statute is to encourage the English language him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high Annual”; the purchase was instigated by the boy’s parents to lay
to be the native tongue of all children raised in the state. duty, to recognize and prepare him for addition obligations.” It the grounds for Ginsberg’s prosecution. On October 26, 1965,
Nonetheless, the protection of the Constitution extends to those was also added on the 1987 provision that the adjective Ginsberg sold the same minor copies of “Man to Man” and
who speak other languages. Education is a fundamental liberty “primary” to modify the right of parents. It imports the assertion “Escapade” at the instigation of a police officer. All of the
interest that must be protected, and mere knowledge of the that the right of parents is superior of the state. magazines in question contained pictures of nudes, and
German language cannot be reasonably regarded as harmful. “Escapade” and “Mr. Annual” contained verbal descriptions and
83. WISCONSIN V. YODER narrative accounts of sexual excitement and sexual conduct.
82. PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS 40 LW 4476 (1972)
262 US 510 (1925) 1. Whether Section 484-h of New York’s Penal Law violate
Respondents Jonas Yoder, Wallace Miller, and Adin Yutzy the First and Fourteenth Amendments on its face
The Society of Sisters, a corporation with the power to are members of the Amish religion. Wisconsin’s compulsory because it restrained expression – NO.
establish and maintain academies or schools obtained school-attendance law required them to cause their children to
preliminary restraining orders prohibiting appellants, the attend public or private school until they reach 16. Respondents The Court held that Section 484-h did not violate the First
Scottish-rite Masons and the new governor Walter M. Pierce, declined to send their children to public school after completion and Fourteenth Amendments as a restriction on expression.
from enforcing Oregon’s Compulsory Education Act. of the eighth grade. Respondents were convicted of violating the Justice Brennan wrote that obscenity was not within the area of
law and fined $5 each. protected speech or press. It acknowledged that the magazines
The Oregon Compulsory Education Act which, with certain were not obscene for adults but emphasized that Section 484-h
exemptions, requires every parent, guardian or other person 1. Whether the application of the compulsory attendance did not prohibit Ginsberg from selling the magazines in question
having control of a child between the ages of eight and sixteen law violates respondent’s rights under the First and to persons seventeen years of age or older.
years to send him to the public school in the district where he Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
resides, for the period during which the school is held for the Constitution – YES. The State has an independent interest in protecting the
current year, is an unreasonable interference with the liberty of welfare of children and safeguarding them from abuses. The
the parents and guardians to direct the upbringing of the The law compelling parents to send their children to public Court cannot say that the statute, in defining obscenity on the
children, and in that respect violates the Fourteenth school until the age of 16 is unconstitutional as applied because it basis of its appeal to minors under 17, has no rational relation to
Amendment. impermissibly interferes with the Amish religious beliefs. the objective of safeguarding such minors from harm.

The Sisters' case alleged that the enactment conflicts with The majority assumes that the interests at stake are only 85. ORCEO V. COMELEC
the right of parents to choose schools where their children will those of the parents and the State. The children also have a GR 190779 MARCH 26, 2010
receive appropriate mental and religious training, the right of the legitimate interest in their education. The inevitable effect of the
child to influence the parents' choice of a school, the right of decision is to impose the parents’ notions of religious duty upon
35 | P a g e
 The petitioners order the COMELEC to amend Resolution sanctions abortion. The petitioners challenge the Gambling is generally immoral, and this is precisely so when
No. 8714 by removing airsoft guns and their replicas/imitations constitutionality of Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise known as the gambling resorted to is excessive. This excessiveness
within the meaning of “firearm” the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of necessarily depends not only on the financial resources of the
2012 (RH Law). gambler and his family but also on his mental, social, and
Petitioner asserts that playing airsoft provides bonding spiritual outlook on life. However, the mere fact that some
moments among family members. Families are entitled to 1. Whether the RH Law is unconstitutional for violating persons may have lost their material fortunes, mental control,
protection by the society and the State under the Universal the right to life – NO. physical health, or even their lives does not necessarily mean
Declaration of Human Rights. They are free to choose and enjoy that the same are directly attributable to gambling. Gambling
their recreational activities. These liberties, petitioner contends, The RH Law does not violate the right of an unborn child as may have been the antecedent, but certainly not necessarily the
cannot be abridged by the COMELEC. Thus, petitioner contends guaranteed in S12, A2. The question of when life begins is a cause. For the same consequences could have been preceded by
that Resolution No. 8714 is not in accordance with the State scientific and medical issue that should not be decided without an overdose of food, drink, exercise, work, and even sex.
policies in the constitutional provisions namely, Article 2, Sec. 12 proper hearing and evidence. The framers of the Constitution
“The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect intended “conception” as “fertilization” and protection is given 89. BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES V. COA
and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social upon “fertilization.” Not all contraceptives are ban. Only those GR 177131, JUNE 7, 2011
institution.” that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum are prohibited. The intent
of the framers was to prevent the Legislature from passing a The BSP had been issued by COA a resolution No. 99-
1. Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in measure that would allow abortion. The IRR redefinition of 011 with the subject “Defining the Commission’s Policy with
including airsoft guns and their replicas/imitations in abortifacient in S4a of the RH Law is violative of S12, A2. S7 of the respect to the audit of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines”. The
the term “firearm” in Section 2 (b) of R.A. No. 8714 – RH Law which excludes parental consent in cases where a minor BSP which was established as a public corporation, and that in
NO. undergoing a procedure is already a parent or has had a BSP vs. NLRC, the Supreme Court ruled that the BSP, as
miscarriage is anti-family and is violative of S12, A2. constituted under its charter, was a "government-controlled
The Court holds that the COMELEC did not gravely corporation within the meaning of Article IX(B)(2)(1) of the
abuse its discretion in including airsoft guns and air guns in the 87. ORCEO V. COMELEC, GR 190779, MARCH 26, 2010 Constitution"; and that "the BSP is appropriately regarded as a
term “firearm” in Resolution No. 8714 for purposes of the gun (SAME WITH NUMBER 84) government instrumentality under the 1987 Administrative
ban during the election period. The COMELEC’s intent in the Code." The COA Resolution also cited its constitutional mandate
inclusion of airsoft guns in the term “firearm” and their resultant Section 13. Vital Role of Youth under Section 2(1), Article IX (D).
coverage by the election gun ban. is to avoid the possible use of
recreational guns in sowing fear, intimidation or terror during the 88. BASCO V. PAGCOR 1. Whether the BSP falls under the COA’s audit
election period 197 SCRA 252 jurisdiction – YES.

Families are entitled to protection by the society and the Petitioners filed the instant petition seeking to annul After looking at the legislative history of its amended charter
State under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) and carefully studying the applicable laws and the arguments of
free to choose and enjoy their recreational activities as a form of Charter — PD 1869, because it is allegedly contrary to morals, both parties, we find that the BSP is a public corporation and its
strengthening their bond as a basic social institution. public policy and order, and because It violates the equal funds are subject to the COA’s audit jurisdiction.
protection clause of the constitution in that it legalizes PAGCOR Section 14. Role of Women and Equality of Men and Women
86. Imbong v. Ochoa — conducted gambling, while most other forms of gambling are
GR 204819, April 8, 2014 outlawed, together with prostitution, drug trafficking and other Section 15. Right to Health
vices.
The petitioners attack the constitutionality of the RH 90. IMBONG V. OCHOA
Law because it violates the right to life and health of the unborn 1. Whether PAGCOR is contrary to morals, public policy
child under Section 12, Article II of the Constitution. The assailed and public order and is detrimental to the youth – NO.
legislation allowing access to abortifacients/abortives effectively
36 | P a g e
 Petitioners claim that the right to health is violated by the of discretion in granting Timber License Agreements to cover Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the DENR, and
RH Law because it requires the inclusion of hormonal more areas for logging than what is available. clearance from LLDA as required under RA No. 4850, as amended
contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, by PD No. 813 and E.O. 927. Hence, LLDA issued a Cease and
legal, non-abortifacient and effective family planning products Whether the petitioners have a cause of action in filing Desist Order ordering to completely halt, stop and desist from
and supplies in the National Drug Formulary and in the regular the class suit? dumping any form or kind of garbage and other waste matter at
purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national the Camarin dumpsite.
hospitals (Section 9 of the RH Law). They cite risks of getting Yes. Petitioner-minors assert that they represent their
diseases gained by using e.g. oral contraceptive pills. generation as well as generations to come. The Supreme Court Whether the LLDA have the power and authority to
ruled that they can, for themselves, for others of their issue a cease and desist order.
1. Whether RH Law violates Section 15 Art II of the generation, and for the succeeding generation, file a class suit.
Constitution – NO. Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations is Yes. The LLDA, as a specialized administrative agency, is
based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar specifically mandated under RA No. 4850 and its amendatory
The RH Law does not violate S15. It does not do away with as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. laws to carry out and make effective the declared national policy
RA 4729 (Regulation of Contraceptive Drugs and Devices) and RA Such a right considers the “rhythm and harmony of nature” of promoting and accelerating the development and balanced
5921 (Regulation of Pharmacy) – laws that prohibit the sale and which indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition, growth of the Laguna Lake including Caloocan City with due
distribution of contraceptives without prescription. In fulfilling its utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the regard and adequate provisions for environmental management
mandate under Sec. 10 of the RH Law, the DOH must keep in country’s forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore and control, preservation of the quality of human life and
mind the provisions of RA 4729: the contraceptives it will procure areas and other natural resources to the end that their ecological systems, and the prevention of undue ecological
shall be from a duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical exploration, development, and utilization be equitably accessible disturbances, deterioration and pollution. Thus, the charter of
company and that the actual distribution of these contraceptive to the present as well as the future generations. the LLDA embodies a valid exercise of police power for the
drugs and devices will be done following a prescription of a Needless to say, every generation has a responsibility purpose of protecting and developing the Laguna Lake region
qualified medical practitioner. to the next to preserve that rhythm and harmony for the full Considering the reasons behind the establishment of th
enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little e Authority, which areenviromental protection, navigational
Meanwhile, the requirement of Section 9 of the RH Law is to differently, the minor’s assertion of their right to a sound safety, and sustainable development, there is every indication
be considered “mandatory” only after these devices and environment constitutes at the same time, the performance of that the legislative intent is for the Authority to proceed with
materials have been tested, evaluated and approved by the FDA. their obligation to ensure the protection of that right for the its mission.
Congress cannot determine that contraceptives are “safe, legal, generations to come.
non-abortificient and effective”. 93. MMDA v RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY
92. LLDA VS. CA 231 SCRA 292, 1994 Respondents Concerned Residents of Manila Bay filed a
Section 16. Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology The Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of Our Lady of complaint before the RTC in Imus, Cavite against several
See the Brown Laws, Green Laws, and Blue Laws in Lourdes Parish, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City, filed a letter- government agencies, among them the petitioners, for the
relation to environmental protection cases. complaint with the petitioner, seeking to stop the operation of cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. The
Writ of Kalikasan the open garbage dumpsite in Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, complaint alleged that the water quality of the Manila Bay had
Rule Procedure for Environmental Cases Caloocan City due to its harmful effects on the health of the fallen way below the allowable standards set by law, specifically
91— OPOSA V. FACTORAN, 224 SCRA 792 residents and the possibility of pollution of the water content of PD 1152 or the Philippine Environment Code.
44 children, through their parents, sought to make the the surrounding area. In their individual causes of action, respondents alleged
DENR Secretary stop issuing licenses to cut timber, invoking their The LLDA conducted an on-site investigation, that the continued neglect of petitioners in abating the pollution
right to a healthful environment (Secs. 16, 15 Article II, 1987 monitoring and test sampling of the leachate that seeps from of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of, among others,
Constitution). The petitioners further asserted that they said dumpsite to the nearby creek which is a tributary of the respondents constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced
"represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn." Marilao River. The LLDA found out that the City Government of ecology. Inter alia, respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed that
They further claimed that the Secretary committed grave abuse Caloocan was maintaining an open dumpsite without first petitioners be ordered to clean the Manila Bay and submit to the
securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action for the purpose.
37 | P a g e
 The RTC rendered a Decision in favor of respondents. that respondent Province had filed an application with the DENR This is a petition for certiorari by which Petitioner seeks
Petitioners, before the CA, were one in arguing in the main that for a foreshore lease of areas along the shorelines of Barangay the nullification of the order of the Office of the President,
the pertinent provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) Caticlan, and manifesting its strong opposition to said declaring as of no force and effect Timber License Agreement
relate only to the cleaning of specific pollution incidents and do application, as the proposed foreshore lease practically covered (TLA) No. 106 issued to petitioner on June 30, 1972. TLA No. 106,
not cover cleaning in general. By a Decision, the CA denied almost all the coastlines of said barangay, thereby technically with the expiry date June 30, 1997, covers 67,680 hectares of
petitioners appeal and affirmed the Decision of the RTC. diminishing its territorial jurisdiction, once granted, and depriving forest land in the municipalities of Dipaculao and Dinalongan in
its constituents of their statutory right of preference in the the Province of Aurora and the Municipality of Maddela in
Whether the MMDA should clean-up and rehabilitate development and utilization of the natural resources within its Quirino province. Alleging that because of the log ban imposed
the Manila Bay jurisdiction. The resolution further stated that respondent by the previous administration it had to stop its logging
Province did not conduct any consultations with the Sangguniang operations, but that when the ban was lifted on September 21,
Yes. Sec. 16, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, which Barangay of Caticlan regarding the proposed foreshore lease 1984, its concession area was awarded to FLDC as a result of
explicitly provides that the State shall protect and advance the [FLDCs] covetous maneuvers and unlawful machinations.
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord Whether Resolution No.13 is valid
with the rhythm and harmony of nature. Even assuming the Whether petitioner’s assertion is correct
absence of a categorical legal provision specifically prodding No. The LGC establishes the duties
petitioners to clean up the bay, they and the men and women of national government agencies in the maintenance of No. Conservation and protection of forest resources is
representing them cannot escape their obligation to future ecological balance, and requires them to secure prior public not really a new policy but a mere reiteration of a constitutional
generations of Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay consultation and approval of local government units for the policy which commands the State “to protect and promote the
clean and clear as humanly as possible. Anything less would be a projects described therein. right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord
betrayal of the trust reposed in them. The lack of prior public consultation and approval is not with the rhythm and harmony of nature.”
The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea resource, corrected by the subsequent endorsement of the reclamation The President’s order reconsidering the resolution of
playground, and as a historical landmark cannot be over- project by the Sangguniang Barangay  of Caticlan, and the Presidential Legal Adviser (insofar as it reinstated the license
emphasized. It is not yet too late in the day to restore the Manila the Sangguniang Bayanof the  Municipality of Malay, which were of FLDC) was prompted by concerns expressed by the then
Bay to its former splendor and bring back the plants and sea life both undoubtedly achieved at the urging and insistence of Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources that “said
that once thrived in its blue waters. But the tasks ahead, respondent Province. It is clear that both petitioner and reinstatement [of FLDC’s license] may negate our efforts to
daunting as they may be, could only be accomplished if those respondent Province are interested in the promotion of tourism enhance conservation and protection of our forest resources.”
mandated, with the help and cooperation of all civic-minded in Boracay and the protection of the environment, lest they kill There was really no new policy but, as noted in Felipe Ysmael, Jr.
individuals, would put their minds to these tasks and take the proverbial hen that lays the golden egg.  & Co., Inc., a mere reiteration of a policy of conservation and
responsibility. This means that the State, through petitioners, has   The parties are evidently in accord in seeking to uphold protection. The policy is contained in Art. II, § 16 of the
to take the lead in the preservation and protection of the Manila the mandate found in Article II, Declaration of Principles and Constitution which commands the State “to protect and promote
Bay. State Policies, of the 1987 Constitution. The protection of the the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in
environment in accordance with the constitutional mandate is accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.” There is
94. BORACAY FOUNDATION INC.V. PROVINCE OF AKLAN 674 the aim, among others, of Presidential Decree No. 1586, therefore no merit in petitioner’s contention that no new policy
SCRA 555 Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System, can be applied to existing licenses.
This is an original petition for the issuance of an Environmental Including Other Environmental Management Related Measures
Protection Order in the nature of a continuing mandamus. and For Other Purposes, which declared in its first Section that it 96. MMDA V. RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, GR NO. 171947,
Petitioner is a duly registered, non-stock domestic corporation. is the policy of the State to attain and maintain a rational and DECEMBER 18, 2008
Respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority(PRA), formerly orderly balance between socio-economic growth and Same case #93
called the Public Estates Authority, is a government entity environmental protection.
created by P.D. No. 1084. 97 BORACAY FOUNDATION v. PROVINCE OF AKLAN, GR No.
The Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan, Malay 95. C&M TIMBER V. ALCALA, GR 111088, JUNE 13, 1997 196870, 2012-06-26
Municipality, issued Resolution No. 13 stating that it had learned Same case #94
38 | P a g e
 field trial was described as a “bio-engineered eggplant.” The public and of the environment against the harmful effects of
98.HON. RAMON JESUS PAJE v. Hon. Teodoro Casino, et al. crystal toxin genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis aerial spraying, on one hand, and the imposition of the ban
The DENR, issued an Environmental Compliance (BT) eggplant (Bt talong) were incorporated into the eggplant against aerial spraying of all forms of substances, on the other.
Certificate for the proposed Circulating Fluidized Bed Coal-Fired genome to produce the protein CrylAc which is toxic to target
Thermal Power Plant at Subic, Zambales to be implemented by insect pests, specifically fruit and shoot borer (FSB), the most Whether the Ordinance No.0309 violated the right of
RP Energy. destructive insect pest of eggplant. balance and healthful ecology of the public
Casino’s group filed a Petition for Writ of Kalikasan Greenpeace, et. al., filed a petition for writ of kalikasan
against RP energy, SBMA, and Hon. Ramon Paje as the DENR and writ of continuing mandamus with prayer for the issuance of Yes. The occurrence of pesticide drift is not limited to aerial
secretary on the ground that the project would cause TEPO alleging that the Bt talong field trials violate their spraying but results from the conduct of any mode of pesticide
environmental damage, and adversely affect the health of the constitutional right to health and a balanced ecology. application. Even manual spraying or truck-mounted boom
residents of Subic, Zambales, Morong, Hermosa, and the City of spraying produces drift that may bring about the same
Olongapo. The petitioners further pointed out that the Whether the Bt talong field trials and introduction of inconvenience, discomfort and alleged health risks to the
respondents failed to comply with certain laws and rules genetically modified plant into our ecosystem is in violation of community and to the environment. A ban against aerial spraying
governing or relating to the issuance of an ECC and amendments the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. does not weed out the harm that the ordinance seeks to achieve.
thereto. The constitutional right to health and maintaining environmental
Yes. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology must integrity are privileges that do not only advance the interests of a
Whether the construction of Coal-Fired Thermal Power not be compromised with the introduction of GMOs in the group of individuals. The benefits of protecting human health
Plant, despite issuance of an ECC by the DENR, can be covered by ecosystem since current scientific research indicates that the and the environment transcend geographical locations and even
a Writ of Kalikasan for a violation in the constitutional right for a biotech industry has not sufficiently addressed the uncertainties generations
healthful and balanced ecology over the safety of GM foods and crops.
Assessing the evidence on record, as well as the current 101. SEGOVIA V. CCC, MARCH 7, 2017
Yes. The construction of the power plant can be state of GMO research worldwide, all three conditions are Congress passed the Climate Change Act. It created the
challenged through a Writ of Kalikasan because such writ is present in this case - uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible Climate Change Commission which absorbed the functions of the
principally predicated on an actual or threatened violation of the harm and the possibility of serious harm. The government must PTFCC and became the lead policy-making body of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology, which exercise precaution under the realm of public policy and beyond government which shall be tasked to coordinate, monitor and
involves environmental damage of a magnitude that transcends scientific debate. When in doubt, cases must be resolved in favor evaluate the programs and action plans of the government
political and territorial boundaries. However, the party who of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology. relating to climate change.
invokes the writ must prove that there are actual or threatened Herein petitioners wrote respondents regarding their pleas
violation of this constitutional right, and provide causal link or 100. MOSQUEDA V. PILIPINO BANANA GROWERS for implementation of the Road Sharing Principle, demanding the
reasonable connection with the issuance of the ECC. Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City enacted Ordinance reform of the road and transportation system in the whole
Hence, a party may invoke the Writ of Kalikasan in No. 0309, Series of 2007, to impose a ban against aerial spraying country within thirty (30) days from receipt of the said letter-
accord with the constitutional right for a healthful and balanced as an agricultural practice by all agricultural entities within Davao foremost, through the bifurcation of roads and the reduction of
ecology; as long as it is substantially proven that, the City. The Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association, Inc. official and government fuel consumption by fifty percent (50%).
construction of a coal-fired power plant can pose grave (PBGEA) and two of its members, namely: Davao Fruits Claiming to have not received a response, they filed this
environmental and health damage. Corporation and Lapanday Agricultural and Development petition. The Petitioners are Carless People of the Philippines,
Corporation (PBGEA, et al.), filed their petition in the RTC to parents, representing their children, who in tum represent
99 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance "Children of the Future, and Car-owners who would rather not
Applications, Inc.. et. al. vs. Greenpeace Southeast Asia They alleged that the ordinance exemplified the have cars if good public transportation were safe, convenient,
The ISAAA, UPLBFI and UPMFI, in pursuance of a unreasonable exercise of police power; violated the equal accessible, available, and reliable". They claim that they are
collaborative research and development project on eggplants protection clause; amounted to the confiscation of property entitled to the issuance of the extraordinary writs due to the
that are resistant to the fruit and shoot borer. The UPLB Field without due process of law; and lacked publication pursuant] to alleged failure and refusal of respondents to perform an act
Trial Proposal states that the pest-resistant crop subject of the Section 511[6] of R.A. 7160. They invoked protection of the
39 | P a g e
mandated by environmental laws, and violation of environmental became a 15-20 drum a day affair. Eventually, the sump pit of the While a condominium corporation has limited powers
laws resulting in environmental damage of such magnitude as to condominium was ordered shut down by the City of Makati to under RA 4726, otherwise known as The Condominium Act, it is
prejudice the life, health and property of all Filipinos. prevent the discharge of contaminated water into the drainage empowered to pursue actions in behalf of its members. In the
system of Barangay Bangkal. Eventually, the fumes compelled the instant case, the condominium corporation is the management
Whether the writ of Kalikasan and/or Continuing residents of West Tower to abandon their respective units on body of West Tower and deals with everything that may affect
Mandamus will prosper July 23, 2010 and the condo's power was shut down. some or all of the condominium unit owners or users. Nowhere
Petitioners argued that FPIC's omission or failure to timely did we apply the precautionary principle in deciding the issue on
No. It bears noting that there is a difference between a replace its pipelines and to observe extraordinary diligence the WOPL’s structural integrity. The precautionary principle only
petition for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan, wherein it is caused the petroleum spill in the City of Makati and the applies when the link between the cause, that is the human
sufficient that the person filing represents the inhabitants continued use of the now 4 7-year old pipeline would not only be activity sought to be inhibited, and the effect, that is the damage
prejudiced by the environmental damage subject of the writ; and a hazard or a threat to the lives, health, and property of those to the environment, cannot be established with full scientific
a petition for the issuance of a writ of continuing mandamus, who live or sojourn in all the municipalities in which the pipeline certainty.
which is only available to one who is personally aggrieved by the is laid, but would also affect the rights of the generations yet
unlawful act or omission. unborn to live in a balanced and "healthful ecology," guaranteed 103. BRAGA V. ABAYA, SEPTEMBER 13, 2016
The petitioners failed to establish the requisites for the under Section 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution. The Port of Davao is a seaport located in Mindanao. It is
issuance of the writs prayed for. For a writ of kalikasan to issue, FPIC directors submitted a Joint Return praying for the compose of several ports, all within the gulf of Davao, but its
the following requisites must concur: there is an actual or dismissal of the petition and the denial of the privilege of the base port is the Sasa Whart located at Barangay Sasa, Davao
threatened violation of the constitutional right to a balanced and Writ of Kalikasan. They alleged that: petitioners had no legal City. In 2011, the Sasa Wharf was pegged for privatization under
healthful ecology; the actual or threatened violation arises from capacity to institute the petition; there is no allegation that the the PPP scheme. The DOTC study served as one of the primary
an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or environmental damage affected the inhabitants of 2 or more considerations for current Sasa Wharf expansion project.
private individual or entity; and the actual or threatened cities or provinces; and the continued operation of the pipeline On December 21, 2014, the Regional Development Council for
violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of should be allowed in the interest of maintaining adequate Region XI (the Council) endorsed the project through Resolution
such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of petroleum supply to the public. No. 118. On April 10, 2015, the DOTC published an invitation to
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces. The writ of pre-qualify and bid for the Project.
continuing mandamus cannot issue. Whether petitioner West Tower Corp. has the legal capacity On March 15, 2016, the petitioners - all stakeholders from
In this case, there is no showing of unlawful neglect on the to represent the other petitioners and whether the other Davao City and Samal, Davao del Norte - filed this Urgent Petition
part of the respondents to perform any act that the law petitioners, apart from the residents of West Tower and for a Writ of Continuing Mandamus and/or Writ of Kalikasan with
specifically enjoins as a duty - there being nothing in the Barangay Bangkal, are real parties-in-interest a prayer for the issuance of a TEPO. The petition is directed
executive issuances relied upon by the petitioners that against the DOTC and the PPA modernization project: the Davao
specifically enjoins the bifurcation of roads to implement the Yes. A real party-in-interest is the party who stands to be Sasa Wharf, a 30-year concession to develop, operate, and
Road Sharing Principle. To the opposite, the respondents were benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party manage the port under the Public-Private Partnership (PPP)
able to show that they were and are actively implementing entitled to the avails of the suit. In the case at bar, there can be scheme. The project is allegedly being carried out without the
projects and programs that seek to improve air quality. no quibble that the oil leak from the WOPL affected all the necessary ECC or Environmental Impact Statements and the
condominium unit owners and residents of West Tower as, in project also allegedly failed to conduct local consultation and to
102. WET TOWER CONDOMINIUM V. FPIC, JUNE 16, 2015 fact, all had to evacuate their units at the wee hours in the secure prior Sanggunian approval as required by the LGC.
Before the Court is the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of morning of July 23, 2010, when the condominium's electrical
Kalikasan filed following the leak in the oil pipeline owned by power was shut down. Until now, the unit owners and residents 1. Whether the petition warrant a writ of kalikasan
First Philippine Industrial Corporation (FPIC) in Makati City. of West Tower could still not return to their condominium units. 2. Whether it is proper to issue a writ of continuing
Respondent FPIC operates two pipelines since 1969 these Thus, there is no gainsaying that the residents of West Tower are mandamus
systems transport nearly 60% of the petroleum requirements of real parties-in-interest.
Metro Manila and parts of the provinces of Bulacan, Laguna, and 1. No. The Court cannot issue a writ of kalikasan based on
Rizal. What started as a two-drum leak at the initial stages the petition. The writ is a remedy to anyone whose constitutional
40 | P a g e
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint questioning occurrence, could hardly account for the rise in the water level of
threatened with violation by an lawful act or omission. However, the subject Agreement between Pasay City and RREC on the the Laguna de Bay as observed 4-5 months a year during the
the violation must involve environmental damage of such grounds that the subject-matter of such Agreement is outside the rainy season. Rather, it is the rains which bring about the
magnitude as to prejudice the life, health, or property of commerce of man, that its terms and conditions are violative of inundation of a portion of the land in question.
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces in order to arrant RA 1899, and that the said Agreement was executed without any As aptly found by the Court a quo, the submersion in
the issuance of the writ. public bidding. water of a portion of the land in question is due to the rains
“falling directly on or flowing into Laguna de Bay from different
2. No. Accordingly, there is yet no project proponent Whether RA 1899 is valid sources.” Since the inundation of a portion of the land is not due
responsible for the EIS and the ECC until the bidding process has to “flux and reflux of tides” it cannot be considered a foreshore
concluded and the contract has been awarded. Considering that No. The questioned Agreement and Ordinance cover land within the meaning of the authorities cited by petitioner
the Project is still in the bidding stage, the petition or continuing submerged areas of the Manila Bay. The legal and common Director of Lands. The land sought to be registered not being part
mandamus to compel the respondents to submit an EIS and definition of foreshore land does not include areas that are fully of the bed or basin of Laguna de Bay, nor a foreshore land as
secure an ECC is premature. It is also misplaced because the submerged by the sea. The Manila Bay area is, therefore, claimed by the Director of Lands, it is not a public land and
public respondents DO NOT have the duty to submit the EIS or definitely outside the scope of RA 1899. It remains part of the therefore capable of registration as private property provided
secure an ECC. public domain and is, as such, outside the commerce of man. It that the applicant proves that he has a registerable title.
The purpose of a writ of continuing mandamus is to compel could not be the object of ordinary contracts or ordinances. The
the respondent to perform his duties under the law. This remedy questioned Agreement and Ordinances, the objects of which 106. RESIDENT MARINE MAMMALS VS. REYES, G.R. NO.
is available when any government agency, instrumentality, or involve such public property, are thus null and void. 180771, APRIL 21, 2015
officer unlawfully neglects a Specific legal duty in connection with It is fervently hoped that long after the end of our sojourn Same case #93 and #96
the enforcement or violation of an environmental law, rule, or in this valley of tears, the court, for its herein historic disposition,
regulation, or a right therein, unlawfully excludes another from will be exalted by the future generations of Filipinos, for the 107. ARIGO V. SWIFT, G.R. NO. 206510, SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
the use or enjoyment of such right and there is no other plain, preservation of the national patrimony and promotion of our Tubbataha was declared a National Marine Park by virtue
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The cultural heritage. of Proclamation No. 306 and was inscribed by the UNESCO as a
writ cannot be resorted to when the respondent is not the World Heritage Site. The Congress passed R.A. No. 10067,
person obliged to perform the duty under the law (as is the case 105. REPUBLIC V. COURT OF APPEALS AND DEL RIO otherwise known as the "Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP)
under the EIS System) or when the period for the respondent to Subject land was 20 meters away from the shores of Act of 2009" "to ensure the protection and conservation of the
perform its legal duty has not yet expired (as is the case with the Laguna de Bay. It was owned by Benedicto del Rio. After his globally significant economic, biological, sociocultural,
consultation requirements of the LGC). death, it was acquired by Santos del Rio. Private oppositors educational and scientific values of the Tubbataha Reefs into
sought permission and obtained the same to construct duck perpetuity for the enjoyment of present and future generations."
104. REPUBLIC V. COURT OF APPEALS AND RREC, NOVEMBER houses. They violated agreement by constructing residential Under the "no-take" policy, entry into the waters of TRNP is
25, 1998 houses. Santos then sought to register the land which was strictly regulated and many human activities are prohibited and
RA 1899 which was approved on June 22, 1957, authorized opposed. Meanwhile, the director of Lands alleged that since a penalized or fined.
the reclamation of foreshore lands by chartered cities and portion of the land is submerged in water 4 to 5 months, then it The US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic
municipalities. Pasay City Council invoking RA 1899 passed forms part of the public domain. clearance for vessel "to enter and exit the territorial waters of
Ordinance No. 121, for the reclamation of 300 hectares of the Philippines and to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the
foreshore lands in Pasay City, empowering the City Mayor to Whether the Laguna de Bay is a part of foreshore land purpose of routine ship replenishment, maintenance, and crew
award and enter into reclamation contracts, and prescribing liberty. The USS Guardian departed Subic Bay for its next port of
terms and conditions therefor. Subsequently, Pasay City and No. Laguna de Bay is a lake. While the waters of a lake are call in Makassar, Indonesia while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship
Republic Real Estate Corporation (RREC) entered into an also subject to the same gravitational forces that cause the ran aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the
Agreement for the reclamation of the foreshore lands in Pasay formation of tides in seas and oceans, this phenomenon is not a Tubbataha Reefs, about 80 miles east-southeast of Palawan. No
City. regular daily occurrence in the case of lakes. Thus, the cine was injured in the incident, and there have been no reports
alternation of high tides and low tides, which is an ordinary of leaking fuel or oil.
41 | P a g e
 Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-
salvaging operations of the USS Guardian caused and continue to Section 17. Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture No. As held in the case of Guingona Jr. v. Carague, that
cause environmental damage that affected the provinces of and Sports Section 5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution, is merely directory.
Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, 108. GUINGONA V. CARAGUE While it is true that under Section 5(5), Article XIV of the
Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi- The 1990 budget consists of P98.4B in automatic Constitution, Congress is mandated to 'assign the highest
Tawi, which violate their constitutional rights to a balanced and appropriation, of which P86.8B is appropriated for debt service, budgetary priority to education' in order to 'insure that teaching
healthful ecology. They also seek a directive from this Court for and P155.3B appropriated under RA 6831, otherwise known as will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available
the institution of civil, administrative and criminal suits for acts the General Appropriations Act, while the appropriations for the talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job
committed in violation of environmental laws and regulations in Department of Education, Culture, and Sports amounted to satisfaction and fulfillment,' it does not thereby follow that the
connection with the grounding incident. Furthermore, petitioners P27,017,813,000.00. The petitioners were questioning the hands of Congress are so hamstrung as to deprive it the power to
assail certain provisions of the VFA which they want this Court to constitutionality of the automatic appropriation for debt service, respond to the imperatives of the national interest and for the
nullify for being unconstitutional. it being higher than the budget for education. attainment of other state policies or objectives.

Whether the Writ of Kalikasan be validly implemented Whether the automatic appropriation for debt service is Sec 18. Labor Protection
as a proper remedy for the situation at hand unconstitutional for violating the constitutional mandate to 110 PNB v. DAN PADAO (GR #180849, November 2011)
accord highest priority to education. Dan Padao, was a loan and credit officer of PNB. After
No, for the concept of state immunity from suit does due investigation, PNB found Padao guilty of gross and habitual
not allow another state to sue another state without its consent. No. Budget prioritization for education, culture and sports neglect of duty and ordered him dismissed from the bank. Padao
Also the VFA only provides that the US will only waive its is not absolute as it still depends on the needs of the Country. appealed to the Board of Directors but he eventually instituted a
immunity concerning criminal jurisdiction and the Writ of While it is true that under Section 5(5), Article XIV of the complaint against PNB and its then AVP with the Labor
Kalikasan which was implemented in this situation is a special Constitution, Congress is mandated to “assign the highest Arbitration Branch of the NLRC for reinstatement, backwages,
civil suit, which the US is immune from. budgetary priority to education,” it does not thereby follow that illegal dismissal, and treachery/bad Faith and palpable
The waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains the Congress is not free to balance the demands of education discrimination in the treatment of employees with administrative
only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as against other equally important matters concerning the State, cases.
the present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it much more to deprive the Government to respond to the The ELA found Padao’s dismissal to be valid but
can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7of the Rules that a imperatives of the national interest. Congress is certainly not awarded a separation pay. Padao’s appeal to the NLRC reversed
criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an without power to provide an appropriation that can reasonably the decision and found the termination to be illegal; he was to be
environmental law is to be filed separately. service the Country’s enormous debt since the very survival of reinstated and provided with other monetary awards.
  In any case, it is our considered view that a ruling on our economy is at stake. PNB filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied
the application or non-application of criminal jurisdiction by the NLRC and thus it filed a petition for certiorari with the
provisions of the VFA to US personnel who may be found 109. PHILCONSA v. ENRIQUEZ (GR #113105, 19 August 1994) Court of Appeals.
responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would Congress appropriated P86,323,438,000.00 for debt service
be premature and beyond the province of a petition for a Writ of (Article XLVII of the GAA of 1994), it appropriated only Whether Dan Padao’s was illegally dismissed by PNB?
Kalikasan. We also find it unnecessary at this point to determine P37,780,450,000.00 for the Department of Education Culture and
whether such waiver of State immunity is indeed absolute. In the Sports. Petitioners urged that Congress cannot give debt service No. He was terminated under an authorized or just
same vein, we cannot grant damages which have resulted from the highest priority in the GAA of 1994 (Rollo, pp. 93-94) because cause as laid down in Article 282 (b - Gross and habitual neglect
the violation of environmental laws. The Rules of Procedure for under the Constitution it should be education that is entitled to by the employee of his duties) of the Labor Code. He not only
Environmental Cases allows the recovery of damages, including the highest funding. failed to perform what he was employed to do, but also did so
the collection of administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a repetitively and habitually, causing millions of pesos in damage
separate civil suit or that deemed instituted with the criminal Whether the appropriation is unconstitutional for violating to PNB. PNB, as an employer, has the basic right to freely select
action charging the same violation of an environmental law. the constitutional mandate to accord highest priority to and discharge employees, if only as a measure of self-protection
education. against acts inimical to its interests. It has the authority to
42 | P a g e
impose what penalty it deems sufficient or commensurate to an Constitution, the promotion of full employment, while desirable, workers and promote their welfare. The Department Order of
employee’s offense. cannot take a backseat to the government's constitutional duty DOLE aims to “enhance the protection of Filipina domestic
Article II, Section 18 characterizes labor as a primary to provide mechanisms for the protection of our workforce, local workers” in the midst of maltreatment of our workers have
social economic force, and as such, the State is bound to protect or overseas. suffered abroad; a deployment ban will be for their good and
the rights of workers and promote their welfare; however, it is The requirement for a venue certificate or other welfare.
the basic right of the employer to freely select or discharge its documents evidencing the place and nature of work allows the The court believes that there is no undue
employees, if only as a measure of self-protection against acts government closer monitoring of foreign employers and helps discrimination between the sexes as stated by the petitioners
inimical to its interest. keep our entertainers away from prostitution fronts and other since the preference for female workers rests on substantial
worksites associated with unsavory, immoral, illegal or distinctions; furthermore it is preferred to be applicable only to
111 JMM PROMOTION v CA (GR #120095, 05 August 1996) exploitative practices. female domestic helpers since they are being ill-treated on
Following the much publicized death of Maricris Sioson, The Constitutional mandate requiring Government to massive instances validated by tales and cases of maltreatment
former President Aquino ordered a total ban against the protect our workforce, particularly those who may be prone to extending to even rape and various forms of torture. The court
deployment of performing artists to Japan and other foreign abuse and exploitation as they are beyond the physical reach of understands that it is the state’s policy to protect the rights of
destinations. The ban was, however, rescinded after the promise government regulatory agencies. The tragic incidents must workers and promote their welfare, which is why the court backs
to extend full support for a program aimed at removing kinks in somehow stop, but short of absolutely curtailing the right of up the government’s efforts to protect victims of exploitation.
the system of deployment. In its place the government through these performers and entertainers to work abroad, the assailed
the Secretary of Labor, upon the Entertainment Industry Advisory measures enable our government to assume a measure of Section 19. Self-Reliant and Independent National Economy
Council’s (EIAC’s) recommendation, issued Department Order control. 113 GARCIA V. BOI, GR No. 92024, Nov. 9, 1990
No. 03 establishing various procedures and requirements for Former Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC), now
screening performing artists under a new system of training, 112 PASE V. DRILON, GR No. 81958, June 30, 1988 Luzon Petrochemical Corporation, formed by a group of
testing, certification and deployment of the former. Performing DOLE enacted D.O. No. 1 series of 1988 which outlines Taiwanese investors, was granted by the BOI for the transfer of
artists successfully hurdling the test, training and certification the guidelines of temporary suspension of Filipino domestic and its proposed plant site from Bataan to Batangas and the shift of
requirement were to be issued an Artist's Record Book (ARB), a household workers. Such order was contested by the Philippine the plant's feedstock or fuel for its petrochemical plant from
necessary prerequisite to processing of any contract of Association of Service Exporters Inc. (PASEi) on the bases of being "naphta only" to "naptha and/or liquefied petroleum gas. 1 year
employment by the POEA. discriminatory on both males and females, that it does not apply after the BPC began its production in Bataan, the corporation
Petitioners contends that overseas employment is a to all Filipino workers but only to domestic helpers and females applied to the BOI to have its plant site transferred from Bataan
property right within the meaning of the Constitution and avers with similar skills. to Batangas. Despite vigorous opposition from petitioner Cong.
that the alleged deprivation thereof, through the onerous Solicitor General however on behalf of the respondents Garcia and others,the BOI granted private respondent BPC's
requirement of an ARB, violates due process and constitutes an secretary of DOLE and administrator of POEA filed a comment on application, stating that the investors have the final choice as to
invalid exercise of police power. May 25, 1988 informing the court that effective March 8, 1988 where to have their plant site because they are the ones who risk
the Labor Secretary lifted the deployment ban in states where capital for the project.
Whether the issuance of the order for requirements for the department deems it appropriate. The enacted guidelines
overseas employment is valid allow for vacationing domestic helpers and/or workers to process Whether BOI disregarded the national interest
with POEA and therefore not covered by the ban on the
Yes. The basic constitutional statement on labor, condition that they are returning to the same employer to finish Yes. Affairs regarding the development of national
embodied in Section 18 of Article II of the Constitution provides: an existing or partially served employment contract. economy must fuel the spirit of national interest. The non-
“Sec. 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic alienation of natural resources, the State's full control over the
force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their Whether D.O.1 is valid development and utilization of our scarce resources, agreements
welfare.” The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and with foreigners being based on real contributions to the
overseas, organized and unorganized and promote full Yes. DO No. 1 is a valid regulation. The state gives a paramount economic growth and general welfare of the country and the
employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. importance to its labor force, as stated in ARTICLE II. SEC. 18 of regulation of foreign investments in accordance with national
Under the welfare and social justice provisions of the the Constitution, it is the duty of the state to protect the rights of goals and priorities are disregarded in the approval of the BOI of
43 | P a g e
the investor’s request to amend. The BOI therefore has resolution in which it declares that it will no longer require intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare."
disregarded the best interest of the Filipinos by adhering to the licenses for applicants of coconut processing as a condition in Hence, such power promoting general welfare coincides to
desires of this foreign investor; there is no cogent advantage to engaging in such business The purpose of which is to promote having an effective control of National Economy.
the government shown in this transfer. free enterprise unhampered by protective regulations and
unnecessary bureaucratic red tapes. But this caused cut-throat Section 20. Role of Private Sector
114 TANADA V. ANGARA , GR No. 118295 May 2, 1997 competition among operators specifically in congested areas, 117 MANILA RADIO COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION OF THE
Respondent Rizalino Navarro, Secretary of DTI underselling, smuggling, and the decline of coconut-based PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. REYES
representing the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, commodities. Petitioner brought the instant suit, alleging, that
signed in Marrakesh, Morocco, the Final Act Embodying the Secretary Rainerio Reyes had been guilty of a grave abuse of
Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations. This Whether the policy of free enterprise calls for a discretion upon the unveiling of the DOTC an P880-million
was then adopted as a resolution No. 97 in the Philippine senate removal of protective regulations? maritime coastal communications system project, designed to
and signed by the President. "ensure safety of lives at sea (SOLAS) through the establishment
Tanada et.al seeks for nullification of the World Trade No. Although the present Constitution enshrines free of efficient communication facilities between coast stations and
Organization on the grounds that it violated the mandate of the enterprise as a policy, it nonetheless reserves to the government ship stations and the improvement of safety in navigational
1987 Constitution to "develop a self-reliant and independent the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the routes at sea.
national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos . . . (to) give general welfare. Thus, an inclusion of protective regulation in the Petitioner argued that such Department cannot
preference to qualified Filipinos (and to) promote the application of coconut processing firms strongly corresponds to compete in the business of public correspondence, and rely on
preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally the effective control of National Economy. the provision of Section 20, of Article II, of the Constitution. The
produced goods." Solicitor General, rebutted that, the Government "cannot
116 PHARMACEUTICALS VS. DUQUE abandon its ministerial functions of rendering public services to
Whether the provisions of the Agreement Establishing Petitioner posits that RIRR of EO 51 (Otherwise Known the citizenry which private capital would not ordinarily
the WTO contravene Sec.19, Art II of the 1987 Constitution. as the "Milk Code," Relevant International Agreements, undertake, or which by its very nature is better equipped to
Penalizing Violations Thereof, and for Other Purposes) is not valid administer for the public welfare than by any private individual
No. The WTO agreement is not contravening with the as it contains provisions that are unconstitutional. Petitioner also or entity.
provisions of the Constitution rather it aims to be a surrogate of alleged that the RIRR sought to be implemented by the
the state to fully develop its potential in national economic respondents is unnecessary and oppressive, and is offensive to Whether the petitioner can legitimately rely on Section
development. The agreement does not undermine Art. II sec. 19, the due process clause of the Constitution, insofar as the same is 20, Art II of 1987 Constitution
this charter provision has been merely set to be a general policy in restraint of trade and because a provision therein is
and is therefore not self-executing. When read with other inadequate to provide the public with a comprehensible basis to No. The petitioners cannot legitimately rely on the
provisions particularly Sections 1 and 3 of Article XII, the clauses determine whether or not they have committed a violation. provisions of Section 20, of Article II, of the Constitution, to
cited in the WTO does not conflict with the Constitution, and that defeat the act complained of. The mandate "recognizing the
the agreement is embedded in itself with sufficient provisions to Whether or not the RIRR of EO No. 51 suppress the indispensable role of the private sector" is no more than an
protect the Philippines and other developing countries from trade of milk acknowledgment of the importance of private initiative in
sudden trade liberalization. No. Fee enterprise does not call for removal of building the nation. However, it is not a call for official abdication
‘protective regulations’." It must be clearly explained and proven of duty to citizenry. The Constitution does not bar, however, the
115 ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE COCONUT DESICCATORS VS. by competent evidence just exactly how such protective Government from undertaking its own initiatives, especially in
PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY regulation would result in the restraint of trade. The framers of the domain of public service, and neither does it repudiate its
Petitioner filed a suit against the respondent ( an the constitution were well aware that trade must be subjected to primacy as chief economic caretaker of the nation.
agency created by PD No. 232 as an independent public some form of regulation for the public good. Public interest must
corporation to promote the rapid integrated development and be upheld over business interests. Furthermore, despite the fact 118 BORACAY FOUNDATION, INC. V. THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN
growth of the coconut and other palm oil industry) in RTC of that "our present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a This is an original petition for the issuance of an
NCJR in Makati , Metro Manila to enjoin the respondent’s policy, it nonetheless reserves to the government the power to Environmental Protection Order in the nature of a continuing
44 | P a g e
mandamus. Petitioner is a duly registered, non-stock domestic Section 21. Promotion of Comprehensive Rural and Agrarian the ownership structure of a public utility corporation to be
corporation. Respondent Philippine Reclamation Authority(PRA), Policy divided into one percent (1%) common stocks and ninety-nine
formerly called the Public Estates Authority, is a government 119 WILSON P. GAMBOA VS. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO percent (99%) preferred stocks. If the common shares can be
entity created by P.D. No. 1084. TEVES owned entirely by foreigners it will create an absurd situation
The Sangguniang Barangay of Caticlan, Malay This is a petition to nullify the sale of shares of stock of wherein foreigners, who are supposed to be minority
Municipality, issued Resolution No. 13 stating that it had learned Philippine Telecommunications Investment Corporation (PTIC) by shareholders, control the public utility corporation.
that respondent Province had filed an application with the DENR the government of the Republic of the Philippines, acting through
for a foreshore lease of areas along the shorelines of Barangay the Inter-Agency Privatization Council (IPC), to Metro Pacific Section 24. Vital Role of Communications
Caticlan, and manifesting its strong opposition to said Assets Holdings, Inc. (MPAH), an affiliate of First Pacific Company 120 PLDT vs NTC
application, as the proposed foreshore lease practically covered Limited (First Pacific), a Hong Kong-based investment Petitioners seeks to set aside and annul the decision of
almost all the coastlines of said barangay, thereby technically management and holding company and a shareholder of the the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) signed by
diminishing its territorial jurisdiction, once granted, and depriving Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT).  former NTC Commissioner Jose Luis Alcuaz dated November 14,
its constituents of their statutory right of preference in the The petitioner questioned the sale on the ground that 1989 as well as the order dated July 16, 1990 of the NTC En Banc.
development and utilization of the natural resources within its it also involved an indirect sale of 12 million shares (or about 6.3 Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (Eastern) filed with
jurisdiction. The resolution further stated that respondent percent of the outstanding common shares) of PLDT owned by the NTC an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience
Province did not conduct any consultations with the Sangguniang PTIC to First Pacific. With the this sale, First Pacific’s common and Necessity (CPCN) to construct, maintain and operate an
Barangay of Caticlan regarding the proposed foreshore lease shareholdings in PLDT increased from 30.7 percent to 37 percent, International Digital Gateway Facility (IDGF). The NTC granted
thereby increasing the total common shareholdings of foreigners provisional authority to ETCI subject to the condition that it shall
Whether Resolution No.13 is valid in PLDT to about 81.47%. This, according to the petitioner, enter into “interconnection agreement” with PLDT. PLDT
violates Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution elevated the case to the SC pointing out ETCI’s defective
No. The lack of prior public consultation and approval is which limits foreign ownership of the capital of a public utility to legislative franchise to operate telecommunications system,
not corrected by the subsequent endorsement of the not more than 40%. among others.
reclamation project by the Sangguniang Barangay of
Caticlan, and the Sangguniang Bayanof the  Municipality of Whether the sale of common shares to foreigners in Whether PLDT’s petition should prosper
Malay, which were both undoubtedly achieved at the urging and excess of 40 percent of the entire subscribed common capital
insistence of respondent Province. It is clear that both petitioner stock violates the constitutional limit on foreign ownership of a No. Through the egregious interpretation urged by
and respondent Province are interested in the promotion of public utility PLDT and, in some measure not yet fully clear, unfortunately
tourism in Boracay and the protection of the environment, lest adopted by the majority in the instant case, PLDT seeks to
they kill the proverbial hen that lays the golden egg.  Yes. The (40%) foreign equity limitation in public monopolize the external transmission and reception of
In the case at bar, the national agency involved is PRA. utilities prescribed by the Constitution refers to ownership of telecommunications messages, i.e., the sending and receiving of
Even if the project proponent is the local government of Aklan, it shares of stock entitled to vote, i.e., common shares. such messages across the boundaries of the Philippines. The
is PRA which authorized the reclamation, being the exclusive Furthermore, ownership of record of shares will not suffice but it argument made by PLDT, when adopted so unfortunately by the
agency of the government to undertake reclamation must be shown that the legal and beneficial ownership rests in majority of this Court, will result in local users of PLDT
nationwide. Hence, it was necessary for respondent Province to the hands of Filipino citizens. Thus, the 40% foreign ownership telephones having no choice but to go to PLDT even for the
go through respondent PRA and to execute a MOA, wherein limitation should be interpreted to apply to both the beneficial external portion of international telecommunications. PLDT is
respondent PRAs authority to reclaim was delegated to ownership and the controlling interest. here treating subscribers as its proprietary assets to be
respondent Province. Respondent DENR-EMB RVI, regional office Obviously, the intent of the framers of the Constitution "exploited" by PLDT alone, rather than as customers to be served
of the DENR, is also a national government institution which is in imposing limitations and restrictions on fully nationalized and in the manner that a public utility is supposed to serve the public.
tasked with the issuance of the ECC that is a prerequisite to partially nationalized activities is for Filipino nationals to be
projects covered by environmental laws such as the one at bar. always in control of the corporation undertaking said activities. Section 25. Local Economy
Otherwise, if the Trial Court’s ruling upholding respondents’
arguments were to be given credence, it would be possible for
45 | P a g e
121. RODOLFO G. NAVARRO, ET AL. V. EXECUTIVE main and basic purposes for the creation of a province are
SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, ET AL., GR 180050, 12 APRIL actually, in essence, achieved. It can further be interpreted that Ruling: The petitions are partly granted. The entire 2013 PDAF
2011. (Section 25 as part of IRR of LGU provision on local when the exemption was expressly provided in Article 9(2) of the Article is declared unconstitutional. All legal provisions of past
autonomy) LGC-IRR, the inclusion was intended to reflect the true legislative and present of Congressional Pork Barrel Laws which authorize/d
intent, and remedy the omissions in Sec. 461 of the LGC. legislators to participate in the budget execution, and which
Considering the basic policy under the principle of local confer personal, lump-sum allocations to legislators from which
Facts: In 2006, R.A. 9355 (An Act Creating the Province of autonomy, it can be said that the aforementioned interpretation they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves
Dinagat Islands) was approved into law, and new set of provincial is acceptable. Hence, the restrictive interpretation adopted by the determine.
officials (movants-intervenors) assumed office in 2007 . The Feb. 10, 2010 Decision is counter-productive, defeats the purpose
petitioners, former political leaders of Surigao del Norte, of local autonomy, and the decentralization intended by the Main Point: Yes, the 2013 PDAF Article and some aspects of all
challenged the constitutionality of the aforesaid act as when it framers of the Constitution. other Congressional Pork Barrel Laws are unconstitutional for
was passed, it did not comply with Section 10, Article X of the violating the principles of local autonomy. ThisCourt finds that
Constitution (the creation of province should be subject to the there is an inherent defect in the system of the allocation with
LGC) and of Section 461 of the LGC (minimum income, territory, 122. BELGICA V. ES, 2013 *With PDAF, a Congressman can the avowed intention “making equal the unequal.” The Court
and population requirement for the creation of a province). On a simply bypass the local development council and initiate project observes that the allocation does not take into account the
2010 Decision, the Court declared R.A. 9355 and Article 9(2) of on his own. Thus, insofar as individual legislators are authorized specific interests of the district the legislator represents and its
the LGC-IRR (land area requirement of Sec. 461 of LGC shall not to intervene in purely local matters and thereby subvert genuine limits are clearly not based on genuine parameters of equality. As
apply to proposed provinces composed of 1 or more islands) as local autonomy, the 2013 PDAF Article and similar forms are a result, district representatives of a highly-urbanized metropolis
null and void. deemed unconstitutional. and of an “underdeveloped” rural province get the same amount
of funding. Ultimately, the PDAF and CDF had become personal
Issue: Whether or not the proclamation of the Province of funds of each legislator and given unto them on the sole account
Dinagat Islands is valid. of their office. Additionally, considering that Local Development
Facts: In 2013, Belgica and other petitioners filed a petition
Councils are mandated to manage local affairs, it follows that
Ruling: The provision in Article 9(2) of LGC-IRR is declared VALID. seeking that the annual "Pork Barrel System," presently
their programs, policies and resolutions should not be overridden
Accordingly, Republic Act No. 9355 is declared as VALID and embodied in the provisions of the GAA of 2013 which provided
by individual legislators, who are national officers that have no
CONSTITUTIONAL, and the proclamation of the Province of for the 2013 PDAF, and the Executive‘s lump-sum, discretionary
law-making authority except only when acting as a body. Thus,
Dinagat Islands and the election of the officials thereof are funds, such as the Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social
there is a disregard on the principles on local autonomy because
declared VALID. Fund,107 be declared unconstitutional and null and void for
a Congressman can simply bypass the local development council
being acts constituting grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners
and initiate projects on his own, and even take sole credit for its
Main Point: Yes, the proclamation of the Province of Dinagat define the term "Pork Barrel System" as the "collusion between
execution. Therefore, the 2013 PDAF Article as well as all other
Islands is valid. One of the concerns of this case is to have a true the Legislative and Executive branches of government to
similar forms of Congressional Pork Barrel is deemed
interpretation of the provisions in relation to the creation of local accumulate lump-sum public funds in their offices with
unconstitutional for the reason of authorized interference on the
government units. It must be noted that the main considerations unchecked discretionary powers to determine its distribution as
exclusive local matters by the individual legislators.
in the creation of LGU are the following: economic viability, political largesse." Further, the petitioners contend that the
efficient administration, and capability to deliver basic services to Congressional Pork Barrel goes against the constitutional
their constituents. The minimum requirements prescribed by the principles on local autonomy since it allows district
LGC are all designed to accomplish these results. Thus, it can be representatives, who are national officers, to substitute their
concluded that the primordial criterion in the creation of LGU — judgments in utilizing public funds for local development.
in this case, a province — is economic viability. This is the clear Section 26. Equal Access to Political Opportunities and Political
intent of the framers of the LGC. A province is created for the Issue: Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and all other Dynasties
purpose of administrative efficiency and delivery of basic services. Congressional Pork Barrel Laws are unconstitutional for violating
By having a smaller land area and population requirements, the the principles of local autonomy.

46 | P a g e
123. PAMATONG V. COMELEC, 427 SCRA 96 (2004) any candidate for the positions of President, Vice-President, hearing and that he thought the only remaining questions were
Senator and Party-list. Additionally, in this case, there is no those he claimed to be covered by executive privilege.
showing that any person is exempt from the limitations hence, Respondent Committees found petitioner’s explanations
Facts: In 2003, petitioner Pamatong filed his Certificate of the equal access clause is not violated. That being the case, the unsatisfactory, ordering his arrest and detention.
Candidacy for President. Respondent COMELEC, however, filed petitioner’s reliance on the equal access clause in Section 26,
resolutions and denied 35 other aspirants for national elective Article II of the Constitution is misplaced.
positions for the reason that they have been identified as
nuisance candidates who could not wage a nationwide campaign Issue: W/N the executive privilege raised in this case is exempted
and/or are not nominated by a political party or are not from the policy of full public disclosure of sec 28 of Article 2 of
supported by a registered political party with a national the Constitution.
constituency. In this regard, Pamatong seeks to reverse the Section 27. Honesty and Integrity in Public Service
resolutions, hence this Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and alleges
that the COMELEC violated his right to "equal access to Ruling: YES. The claim of executive privilege is highly recognized
opportunities for public service" under Section 26, Article II of the Section 28. Full Public Disclosure in cases where the subject of inquiry relates to a power textually
1987. He also claims that his disqualification has no basis, i.e., he committed by the Constitution to the President, such as the area
possesses all the constitutional and legal qualifications for the of military and foreign relations. The information relating to
office of the president, he is capable of waging a national these powers may enjoy greater confidentiality than others. The
campaign since he has numerous national organizations under Executive Privilege
doctrine of executive privilege is thus premised on the fact that
his leadership, he also has the capacity to wage an international certain information must, as a matter of necessity, be kept
campaign since he has practiced law in other countries, and he confidential in pursuit of the public interest. The privilege being,
has a platform of government. 124. NERI V. SENATE, GR 180643, MARCH 25, 2008 by definition, an exemption from the obligation to disclose
information, in this case to Congress, the necessity must be of
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner has a constitutional right to such high degree as to outweigh the public interest in enforcing
run for public office. Facts: Neri, head of NEDA, appeared before respondent that obligation in a particular case.
Committees and testified on matters concerning the National
Ruling: The case was remanded to the COMELEC for the Broadband Project, a project awarded by the Department of
reception of further evidence as to the determination whether Transportation and Communications to Zhong Xing
petitioner is indeed a nuisance candidate as defined in the Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE). Petitioner disclosed that Main Point:The doctrine of executive privilege is thus premised
Omnibus Code. COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos offered him P200 Million in on the fact that certain information must, as a matter of
exchange for his approval of the NBN Project. However, when necessity, be kept confidential in pursuit of the public interest.
Main Point: No, there is no constitutional right to run for or hold probed further on President Arroyo and petitioner’s discussions The privilege being, by definition, an exemption from the
public office. Sec. 26, Art. 2 of the Constitution does not bestow relating to the NBN Project, petitioner refused to answer, obligation to disclose information, in this case to Congress, the
such right, but merely recognizes a privilege subject to limitations invoking "executive privilege." Petitioner refused to answer necessity must be of such high degree as to outweigh the public
imposed by law. The provision “equal access to opportunities” questions on: (a) whether or not President Arroyo followed up interest in enforcing that obligation in a particular case.
was constructed that way to relieve the burden of the State to the NBN Project, (b) whether or not she directed him to prioritize
accommodate as many people as possible into public office. Since it, and (c) whether or not she directed him to approve it.
it is only a privilege, as mentioned above, some of the valid Petitioner did not appear before respondent Committees upon
limitations are outlined in the Omnibus Code on "Nuisance orders of the President invoking executive privilege. The
Candidates" and COMELEC Resolution No. 645210 dated respondent Committees issued the show-cause letter requiring 125. WILSON P. GARCIA V. FINANCE SECRETARY TEVES
December 10, 2002 wherein the Commission listed the instances him to explain why he should not be cited in contempt.
where they may, at any time before the election, motu proprio Petitioner replied to respondent Committees stating he
refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy of manifested that it was not his intention to ignore the Senate

47 | P a g e
Facts: Gamboa, a stockholder of PLDT, opposed the acquisition of prompted by an anonymous letter-complaint. A search by a
37% of PLDT common shares by First Pacific, a foreign government employer of an employee’s office is justified at
corporation, as the company will go beyond the 40% threshold 126. BRICCIO POLLO V. CHAIRPERSON KARINA DAVID, GR inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that
prescribed by the Constitution which he claims to violate the 181881 it will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-
nationality requirement prescribed in Section 11, Article XII of related misconduct.
the Constitution. Respondent argues the acquisition is lawful in
Facts: This case involves a search of office computer assigned to a
accordance with PD 217 stating that PLDT consumers subscribe
government employee who was then charged administratively
to non-voting preferred shares, making most of the totality of
and was eventually dismissed from the service. The employee’s Main Point: CSC employees have no expectation of privacy on the
capital Filipino-owned.Petitioner argued that the term capital
personal files stored in the computer were used by the office computers. A search by a government employer of an
should only refer to common shares as only they are able to
government employer as evidence of his misconduct. CSC employee’s office is justified at inception when there are
exercise voting rights.
Chairperson David issued a memo directing a team to conduct reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence
investigation and back up all the files in the computers found in that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct.
the Mamamayan Muna and Legal divisions pursuant to a letter-
Issue: W/N the instant petition raises matters of transcendental complaint about an employee of CSC helping accused
importance to the public, that petitioner has locus standi. government employees with pending case in CSC. Draft pleadings
in connection with administrative cases in CSC were obtained
from Pollo’s computer. Pollo denied that he is the person 127. PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK AND PASCUAL GARCIA III
referred to in the letter and pointed out that though government V. SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT, GR 200238, FEB 9, 2012
Ruling: YES. The petition raises matters of transcendental
property, the temporary use of the computer issued under is
importance to the public. The fundamental and threshold legal
ceded to the employee who may exercise all attributes of
issue in this case, involving the national economy and the
ownership. In view of the illegal search, he claims that the files Facts: This case involves the impeachment case of Chief Justice
economic welfare of the Filipino people, far outweighs any
copied from his computer without his consent is inadmissible as Corona and petition filed by Pascual M. Garcia III for Philippines
perceived impediment in the legal personality of the petitioner to
evidence. CSC found Pollo guilty of misconduct. Savings Bank PS Bank asking nullity for the resolution ordering
bring this action.
the him testify and produce before the impeachment documents
Public interest [was] definitely involved considering the that allegedly belong to the Chief Justice Corona. During the time
important role [of the subject] . . . in the economic development of the pendency the petitioners filed a motion with Leave of
Issue: W/N the search conducted on petitioner’s office computer
of the country and the magnitude of the financial consideration Court to withdraw the petition. With the termination of
and the copying of his personal files without his knowledge and
involved. As a consequence, the disclosure provision in the termination of the impeachment proceedings the bank is no
consent – alleged as a transgression on his constitutional right to
Constitution would constitute sufficient authority for upholding longer torn between contempt and the bank secrecy law.
privacy – lawful?
the petitioners standing. Since the instant petition, brought by a
citizen, involves matters of transcendental public importance, the
petitioner has the requisite locus standi. Issue: whether the impeachment court acted arbitrary when it
Ruling: NO. The CSC in this case had implemented a policy that
issued assailed subpoena in order to attain obtain information
put its employees on notice that they have no expectation of
concerning foreign currency deposits in spite of the
privacy in anything they create, store, send or receive on the
Main Point: The fundamental and threshold legal issue in this confidentiality of such content based on RA 6426?
office computers, and that the CSC may monitor the use of the
case, involving the national economy and the economic welfare computer resources using both automated or human means. This
of the Filipino people, far outweighs any perceived impediment in implies that on-the-spot inspections may be done to ensure that
the legal personality of the petitioner to bring this action. the computer resources were used only for such legitimate Ruling: The court found it appropriate to abstain and dismiss the
business purposes. SC said that the search was conducted in case since it is no longer called.
connection with investigation of work-related misconduct

48 | P a g e
Main Point: In proceeding consent to search for personal bank
accounts is enacted by the bank secrecy law. If an ordinary
person is given this right what more to the chief justice. However
if one is works for the government one must be prepared to be
questioned and protect their transparency.

128. IN RE: PRODUCTION OF COURT RECORDS, 14

FEBRUARY 2012

Facts: During the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona, the

prosecution had presented numerous documents that are used
for questioning and evidences. As the impeachment proceedings
ended the people have entitled to know the public case of chief
justice Corona. Documents

Issue: Whether or not the limited availability of the proceedings

in violation of article 2 section 28?

Ruling: No, is given that not all information is readily available for
the public. The law still values confidentiality among the persons
involved. There are sensitive information that should be kept
from public like judges. This information is kept confidential
because of the probability that it would do more harm than
good. Other than that original copies are kept since this
documents are important and that can be useful other cases.
Hence only photocopies of confidential documents and
permission for the original document shall only be granted to few
people.

Main point: Transparency is important in every organization

specially the government. However we have to take note the
harmful effects of information in different hands.
49 | P a g e
Article VI: The Legislative Department Issue: Whether or not Sec. 2145 of the Administrative Code of 131. PITC V. ANGALES, GR 108461
1917 is an unlawful delegation of legislative power by the
Philippine Legislature to provincial official and a department Facts: The issue stemmed when PITC issued Administrative Order
head. No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 which requires that importation from China
Section 1. Legislative Power; Non-Delegation
must be accompanied by a viable and confirmed Export Program
Ruling/Main Point: No. exception to the general rule, sanctioned of Philippine Products to China carried out by the importer
by immemorial practice, permits the central legislative body to himself or through a tie-up with a legitimate importer
Who may exercise legislative power? delegate legislative powers to local authorities. The Philippine
Legislature has here conferred authority upon the Province of
1. Congress Mindoro, to be exercised by the provincial governor and the Ruling/Main Point: Yes, the PITC was legally empowered to issue
2. Regional/Local legislative power provincial board. As the official representatives of the province, Administrative Orders, as a valid exercise of a power ancillary to
are better qualified to judge "when such as course is deemed legislation. The grant of quasi-legislative powers in administrative
3. People’s initiative on statutes necessary in the interest of law and order bodies is not unconstitutional. As a result of the growing
complexity of the modern society, it has become necessary to
a) Initiative and referendum ANTIPOLO REALTY CORP. V. NHA 153 SCRA 399 create more administrative bodies to help in the regulation of its
ramified activities. Specialized in the particular field assigned to
4. The President under a martial law rule or in a revolutionary Facts: Jose Hernando (acquired prospective ownership over the them, they can deal with the problems thereof with more
government lot in a subdivision from Antipolo Realty Corp. by virtue of a expertise and dispatch than can be expected from the legislature.
contract to sell) transferred his rights over to Mr. Yuson who
assumed the payment of the installments in arrears. due to the
General Rule: Non-Delegation of Legislative Power failure of the petitioner to develop the subdivision, Mr. Yuson 132. ATITIW V. ZAMORA 471 SCRA 329
ceased to pay all monthly installment payments. Antipolo Realty
responded by rescinding the Contract to Sell which prompted Mr. Facts: On July 15, 1987, President Corazon Aquino, promulgated
Yuson to bring the case to the National Housing Authority. NHA, E.O. No. 220 (under the Freedom Constitution), creating the
Exception: Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR) — interim and preparatory
thereafter, ordered the reinstatement of the contract to sell.
body — tasked to administer the affairs of government in the
1. Delegation to local governments and administrative bodies
Ruling: Yes, NHA may assume the performance of judicial or Cordilleras composed of the provinces of Abra, Benguet, Ifugao,
2. Grant of Quasi-Legislative Power; In general: LGU and quasi-judicial functions. In the exercise of such powers, the Kalinga-Apayao and Mountain Province and the City of Baguio.
Administrative Bodies agency concerned must commonly interpret and apply contracts
and determine the rights of private parties under such contracts. Ruling: Yes. While it is true that E.O. No. 220 is a law as it was
Thus, the interpretation of contracts and the determination of promulgated by then President Aquino in the exercise of her
private rights is no longer exercisable only by the regular courts. extraordinary legislative power under the Freedom Constitution,
129. RUBI V.PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO 39 PHIL. said E.O. is no different from any other law. It is subject to
660 amendment or repeal by the plenary power of Congress.
Main Point: Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-judicial Legislative power must remain where the people have lodged it
Facts: The respondent adopted a resolution to educate, protect, authority to administrative agencies is well recognized in our and that it shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines.
and civilize the Manguianes (non-Christian) — inhabitants of jurisdiction, subject to judicial review in case of grave abuse of However, during the 1986 Freedom Constitution, President
Mindoro. In this resolution, the petitioners (and other discretion. Aquino (executive) was vested legislative power until a
Manguianes)were ordered by the Provincial governor of Mindoro legislature would be elected and convened under a new
to remove their residence from their Constitution.
130.

50 | P a g e
133. SEC V. INTERPORT 567 SCRA 354 134. AGUSTIN V. EDU 88 SCRA 1 the ACT CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE. Here, LOI 229 itself provided
the standard. In the REFLECTOR LAW, the legislative objective is
Facts: Petitioner SEC issued an order finding that IRC violated the PUBLIC SAFETY and SAFE TRANSIT UPON ROADS.
Rules on Disclosure of Material Facts when the latter failed to Facts: The validity of a letter of Instruction providing for an early
make timely disclosure of its negotiations with Ganda Holdings seaming device for motor vehicles is assailed in this prohibition
The CA ruled that the SEC had no statutory authority to file a case proceeding as being violative of the constitutional guarantee of
due process and, insofar as the rules and regulations for its Main Point: The standard may be EXPRESS or IMPLIED. The
against Interport under Sec. 8, 30, and 36 of the Revised
implementation are concerned, for transgressing the standard does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be
Securities Act; and that absent any implementing rules, no civil,
fundamental principle of non- delegation of legislative power. implied form the policy and purpose of the ACT CONSIDERED AS
criminal or administrative actions can possibly be filed against
A WHOLE. Here, LOI 229 itself provided the standard.
the IRC without violating their right to due process and equal
President Marcos issued Letter of Instruction # 229 providing for
protection. 
early warning device for all motor vehicles. It provides that all
motor vehicles shall have at least 1 PAIR of early warning device
consisting of triangular and reflectorized in yellow and red, to be
Main Point: It is well established that administrative authorities
used when the vehicle is stalled for more than 30 minutes. The 135. FREE TELEPHONE WORKERS V. MIN. OF LABOR 108
have the power to promulgate rules and regulations to
LOI further provided that the LAND TRANSPORTATION SCRA 757
implement a given statute and to effectuate its policies, provided
COMMISSION shall promulgate rules and regulations as are
such rules and regulations conform to the terms and standards
appropriate to effectively implement the LOI. Agustin – was the
prescribed by the statute as well as purport to carry into effect its Facts: The constitutionality of the amendment to the Article of
owner of a VW Beetle equipped with BLINKING LIGHTS. He
general policies. The necessity for vesting administrative the Labor Code regarding strikes "affecting the national interest"
argues that these lights could very well served as the EWD.
authorities with power to make rules and regulations is based is assailed in this petition which partakes of the nature of a
Agustin further argues that the LOI is invalid because it clearly
on the impracticability of lawmakers providing general prohibition proceeding filed by the Free Telephone Workers
violates the delegation of police powers and that it infringes on
regulations for various and varying details of management. Union.
the non-delegation of legislative powers. It claims that the LOI
However, to rule that the absence of implementing rules can
229 has no standard.
render ineffective an act of Congress, would empower the There was a notice of strike with the Ministry of Labor for unfair
administrative bodies to defeat the legislative will by delaying the labor practices. Several conciliation meetings called by the
implementing rules. Ministry followed, with petitioner manifesting its willingness to
  Issue: W/N the LOI provided a standard in the LTC’s have a revised Code of Conduct that would be fair to all
implementation thus a valid delegation of power. concerned but with a plea that in the meanwhile the Code of
Conduct being imposed be suspended, private respondent
disapproved.
3. In instances allowed by the Constitution, e,g., Article VI, Ruling: Yes. The law is valid. According to the case of EDU vs.
Respondent Minister certified the labor dispute to the National
Section 23(2) and 28(2) ERICTA, to avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a
Labor Relations Commission for compulsory arbitration and
standard set by the legislature itself which determines matters of
enjoined any strike at the private respondent's establishment.
principle and lays down fundamental policy. A STANDARD: a)
The labor dispute was set for hearing by respondent National
defines legislative policy, b) marks its limits and maps out its
Issue on Delegation of Legislative Power Labor Relations Commission.
boundaries, and c) specifies the public agency to apply it. d)
indicates the circumstances under which the legislative It is the submission of petitioner labor union that "Batas
command it to be effected e) is the criterion by which legislative Pambansa Blg. 130 in so far as it amends article 264 of the Labor
Valid delegation purpose may be carried out. The standard may be EXPRESS or Code delegating to the Honorable Minister of Labor and
IMPLIED. The standard does not have to be spelled out Employment the power and discretion to assume jurisdiction
Requisite of a valid delegation specifically. It could be implied form the policy and purpose of and/or certify strikes for compulsory arbitration to the National

51 | P a g e
Labor Relations Commission, and in effect make or unmake the 136. GUINGONA V. CARAGUE 196 SCRA 221
law on free collective bargaining, is an undue delegation of
legislative powers. There is likewise the assertion that such
conferment of authority "may also ran (sic) contrary to the Facts: A group of senators in the Philippines challenged the
constitutionality of the automatic appropriation of the of P86 Complete in Itself/ Completeness Test
assurance of the State to the workers' right to self-organization
and collective bargaining. billion for debt servicing which compared to P27 billion for
137. ARENA V. GATMAITAN 101 PHIL 328
education. They assert that there must be definiteness, certainty
and exactness in an appropriation, otherwise it is an undue
delegation of legislative power to the President who determines FACTS: The President issued EO 22 - prohibiting the use of trawls
Issue: W/N the delegation to Minister of Labor of the power to in advance the amount appropriated for the debt service. in San Miguel Bay, and the EO 66 and 80 as amendments to EO
assume jurisdiction in a labor dispute constitute an undue
22, as a response for the general clamor among the majority of
delegation of legislative powers.
people living in the coastal towns of San Miguel Bay that the said
Issue: W/N there is undue delegation of legislative powers to the resources of the area are in danger of major depletion because of
President the effects of trawl fishing.
Ruling: No. The delegation to The Minister of Labor of the power
to assume jurisdiction in a labor dispute likely to effect the A group of Otter trawl operators filed a complaint for injunction
national interest or to certify the same to the NLRC for and/or declaratory relief with the Court of First Instance of
arbitration does not constitute an undue delegation of legislative Ruling: No. The Court finds that in this case the questioned laws Manila praying to restrain the Secretary of Agriculture and
powers. are complete in all their essential terms and conditions and Natural Resources and the Director of Fisheries from enforcing
sufficient standards are indicated therein. said EO; to declare the same null and void.
The petitioner was not able to make out a case of an undue
delegation of legislative power. There could be, however, an The legislative intention in R.A. No. 4860, as amended, Section 31
unconstitutional application. For while the Constitution allows of P.D. No. 1177 and P.D. No. 1967 is that the amount needed
should be automatically set aside in order to enable the Republic Issue: W/N Executive Orders Nos. 22, 66 and 80 were valid,
compulsory arbitration, it must be stressed that the exercise of
of the Philippines to pay the principal, interest, taxes and other for the issuance thereof was not in the exercise of legislative
such competence cannot ignore the basic fundamental principle
normal banking charges on the loans, credits or indebtedness powers unduly delegated to the President.
and state policy that the state should afford protection to labor.
Whenever, therefore, it is resorted to in labor disputes causing incurred as guaranteed by it when they shall become due
or likely to cause strikes or lockouts affecting national interest, without the need to enact a separate law appropriating funds
the State still is required to “assure the rights of workers to self- therefor as the need arises. The purpose of these laws is to Ruling: YES. Exercise of authority by the president does not
organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just enable the government to make prompt payment and/or constitute undue delegation of legislative powers. For the
and humane conditions of work.” In the absence of factual advances for all loans to protect and maintain the credit standing protection of fry or fish eggs and small and immature fishes,
determination by the Ministry of Labor and the National Labor of the country. Congress intended with the promulgation of Act No. 4003, to
Relations Commission, this Court is not in a position to rule on prohibit the use of any fish net or fishing device like trawl nets
whether or not there is an unconstitutional application. There that could endanger and deplete the supply of sea food, and to
was not even a categorical assertion to that effect by petitioner’s Main Point: To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation there must that end authorized the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
counsel which was indicative of the care in his choice of words. be a standard, which implies at the very least that the legislature Resources to provide by regulations such restrictions as he
He only assumed that the conferment of such authority may run itself determines matters of principle and lays down fundamental deemed necessary in order to preserve the aquatic resources of
counter to the right of the workers to selforganization and policy . . . the land. In so far as the protection of fish fry or fish eggs is
collective bargaining. The petition then cannot prosper. concerned the Fisheries Act is complete in itself leaving only to
The standard may be either express or implied . . . from the the Secretary of Agriculture Natural Resources the
policy and purpose of the act considered as whole . . . promulgation of rules and regulations to carry into effect the
legislative intent. Consequently, when the President, in

52 | P a g e
response to the clamor of the people and authorities of Ruling: No. There is no undue delegation. The Central Bank Act is expressly provides how drug testing for students of secondary
Camarines Sur issued EO No. 80 absolutely prohibiting fishing the penal law which defined the crimes which allegedly were and tertiary schools and officers/employees of public/private
by means of trawls in all waters comprised within the San committed by Imelda Marcos. The C.B. Circulars concerned offices should be conducted.
Miguel Bay, he did nothing but show an anxious regard for the merely spelled out the details of the offense. These circulars are
welfare of the inhabitants of said coastal province and dispose mere administrative regulations and not the penal laws itself
of issues of general concern (Section 63, Revised Administrative alleged to have been violated by Marcos.
Main Point: In the face of the increasing complexity of the task of
Code) which were in consonance and strict conformity with the
There was no undue delegation of legislative power in this the government and the increasing inability of the legislature to
law. The exercise of such authority did not, therefore, constitute
particular instance since it was the Central Bank itself which cope directly with the many problems demanding its attention,
an undue delegation of the powers of Congress.
defined the offense and provided the penalty therefor. As resort to delegation of power or entrusting to administrative
respondent Court of Appeals points out, administrative bodies agencies the power of subordinate legislation.
have the authority to issue administrative regulations which are
138. MARCOS V. CA 278 SCRA 696 penal in nature where the law itself makes the violation of the
administrative regulation punishable and provides for its 140. PACIFIC STEAM V. LLDA 608 SCRA 442
penalty.
Facts: Imelda Marcos was charged for violating Central Bank
Circular No. 960 which banned residents, firms, associations and
FACTS: The DENR has endorsed the a complaint regarding Pacific
corporations from maintaining foreign exchange accounts abroad
Steam Laundry, Inc. to the LLAD the company has apparently
without permission from the Central Bank. Several informations 139. SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY V. DANGEROUS DRUG
regarding the black smoke discharged by their plant and has
were filed against her. During the pendency of the cases, C.B. BOARD 570 SCRA 410
found out. Through investigation other violations such as
Circ. 1318 and C.B. Circ. 1353 (Further Liberalizing Foreign
operating without clearance without a LLDA permit and
Exchange Regulations) were issued which basically allowed
Facts: In its Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65, petitioner discharged of untreated waste water. The company is ordered to
residents, firms, associations and corporations to maintain
Social Justice Society (SJS), a registered political party, seeks to pay due to the failed water sampling test and other violations,
foreign exchange accounts abroad but the circulars have a saving
prohibit the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) and the Philippine the company then has requested for another request which now
clause excepting from the circular pending criminal actions
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) from enforcing paragraphs (c), falls into the standards. The petitioner now prays the cancellation
involving violations of C.B. Circ. 960. Marcos filed a Motion to
(d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36 of RA 9165 on the ground that they are of the penalty which was dismissed by the court and CA.
Quash the informations filed against her based on the new
circulars. The RTC denied the Motion so did the CA hence the constitutionally infirm. For one, the provisions constitute undue
appeal. Marcos averred that her right to equal protection has delegation of legislative power when they give unbridled
been violated, among others, as the new circular was purposedly discretion to schools and employers to determine the manner of ISSUE: Whether or not implied power to LLDA to impose
designed to preserve the criminal cases lodged against her. drug testing. penalties violate the rule on non-delegation of legislative powers.

She also averred that C.B. Circ. 960, as well as the Central Bank
Act (which allowed the Central Bank to issue circulars) is an
Issue: Whether or Not Sec. 36, RA 9165 constitutes undue RULING: No. LLDAs power to impose fines is not unrestricted. It
undue delegation of legislative power because the said law
delegation of legislative power. was only It was only after the investigation result showing
allowed the Central Bank to legislate (define crimes) penal laws
and determine penalties therefor. petitioners failure to meet the established water and effluent
quality standards that LLDA imposed a fine against petitioner.
Ruling: No. Sec. 36 of RA 9165 is objectionable on the ground of LLDA then imposed upon petitioner a penalty of P1, 000 per day
undue delegation of power hardly commends itself for of discharging pollutive wastewater. The P1, 000 penalty per day
Issue: W/N there is undue delegation of legislative powers. is in accordance with the amount of penalty prescribed under PD
concurrence. Contrary to its position, the provision in question is
not so extensively drawn as to give unbridled options to schools 984
and employers to determine the manner of drug testing. Sec. 36
53 | P a g e
 a sufficient standard for the Insular Treasurer to follow in MAIN POINT: Delegations of legislative powers in general are
reaching a decision concerning the issuance or cancellation of a particularly applicable to administrative bodies. With this power,
MAIN POINT: Clearly, there are adequate statutory limitations on certificate or a permit. The decisions of the Insular Treasurer may administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid
LLDAs power to impose fines which obviates unbridled discretion be appealed to the Secretary of Finance, so there is no down in a statute by "filling in' the details which the Congress
in the exercise of such power. The agency has followed extensive contention that the Insular Treasurer can act and decide without may not have the opportunity or competence to provide.
procedural process and followed laws provided by PD 984. restraining influence

142. EASTERN SHIPPING LINES V. POEA 166 SCRA 533

143. TABLARIN V. GUTIEREZ 152 SCRA 730
Fixes a Standard/Sufficient Standard Test
FACTS: Vitaliano Saco was Chief Officer of the M/V Eastern
141. PEOPLE V. ROSENTHAL 68 PHIL 628 FACTS: The petitioners sought admission into colleges or schools
Polaris was killed in an accident in Japan, his widow sued for
FACTS: Nicasio Osemeña and Jacob Rosenthal are two of the ten of medicine for the school year 1987-1988. However, the
damages under Executive Order No. 797 and Memorandum
promoters, organizers, founders, and incorporators of the O. R. petitioners either did not take or did not successfully take the
Circular No. 2 of the POEA. The petitioner, as owner of the vessel,
O. Oil Co., Inc., a domestic corporation organized under the laws National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) required by the Board
argued that the complaint was cognizable not by the POEA but by
of the Philippines and registered in the mercantile registry of the of Medical Education, one of the public respondents, and
the Social Security System and should have been filed against the
Bureau of Commerce. Without obtaining the corresponding administered by the private respondent, the Center for
State Insurance Fund. The petitioner questions the validity of
permit or license from the Insular Treasurer, contrary to what Educational Measurement (CEM).In the trial court, petitioners
Memorandum Circular No. 2 and contends that no authority had
was provided by the law, Osmeña sold 163 shares to nine had made the argument that Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act
been given the POEA to promulgate the said regulation;
different parties and Rosenthal sold 21 shares to seven others No. 2382, as amended, offend against the constitutional principle
under which forbids the undue delegation of legislative power, by
failing to establish the necessary standard to be followed by the
Case No. 52365; furthermore, during the same period, Rosenthal ISSUE: Whether or Not: Memorandum Circular No. 2 violates of delegate, the Board of Medical Education.
sold 12 shares to seven others under Case No. 52366. The Court the principle of non-delegation of legislative power.
of First Instance found the defendants guilty. The defendants
elevated the appeal from the judgments to the Court of Appeals,
but the Solicitor-General motioned to forward the case to the ISSUE: Whether or Not Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No.
Supreme Court because the constitutionality of Act No. 2581 was RULING: No. There is a valid delegation. Memorandum Circular 2382, against the constitutional principle which forbids the
assailed by the appellants on the following grounds: 1. Undue No. 2 is one such administrative regulation. The model contract undue delegation of legislative power.
delegation of legislative authority to the Insular Treasurer prescribed thereby has been applied in a significant number of
the cases without challenge by the employer. The power of the
POEA in requiring the model contract is not unlimited as there is
a sufficient standard guiding the delegate in the exercise of the RULING: No. We believe and so hold that the necessary
ISSUE: Whether or not there was an undue delegation of said authority. That standard is discoverable in the executive standards are set forth in Section 1 of the 1959 Medical Act"the
legislative authority to the Insular Treasurer.  order itself which, in creating the Philippine Overseas standardization and regulation of medical education" and in
Employment Administration, mandated it to protect the rights of Section 5 (a) and 7 of the same Act, the body of the statute itself,
overseas Filipino workers to "fair and equitable employment and that these considered together are sufficient compliance
practices." with the requirements of the non-delegation principle.
RULING:  No. The permit shall be issued when the provisions of
Act No. 2581 have been duly complied with. On the other hand, MAIN POINT: “The standard may be either expressed or implied.
the authority to cancel a certificate or permit is conditioned upon If the former, the non-delegation objection is easily met. The
a finding that such is in line with public interest. The Act provides standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically. It

54 | P a g e
could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act down in a statute by "filling in" the details which the Congress
considered as a whole. may not have the opportunity or competence to provide.

146. VIOLA V. ALUNAN 277 SCRA 409

Facts:The petitioner, Cesar G. Viola, filed a case to restrain the

144. CONFERENCE V. POEA 243 SCRA 666 respondents from carrying out the election for the questioned
positions on July 3, 1994 (General elections for Liga ng mga
145. OSMEÑA V. ORBOS 220 SCRA 703
Barangay officers). That the position in question is in excess of
FACTS: Petitioner, Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies,
those provided in Section 493 of the Local Government Code
Inc. is an incorporated association of Filipino manning agencies,
FACTS: President Ferdinand Marcos issued P.D. 1956 creating a (LGC). Petitioner argues that in providing for the position of first,
and co-petitioners hire and recruits Filipino seamen for and in
Special Account in the General Fund, designated as the Oil Price second, and third vice presidents and auditors for each chapter
behalf of irrespective foreign ship-owner-principals, seek to
Stabilization Fund (OPSF). The OPSF was designed to reimburse expands the number of position provided in the said code.
annulResolution No. 01, series of 1994, of the Governing Board
of the POEA and POEA Memorandum Circular No. 05.The oil companies for cost increases in crude oil and imported
petroleum products resulting from exchange rate adjustments Issue: Whether or not the delegation of power to BOD to create
petitioners contended that POEA does not have the power and
and from increases in the world market prices of crude oil. positions for each chapter of the Liga ng mga Barangay valid?
authority to fix andpromulgate rates affecting death and
workmen's compensation of Filipino seamen working in ocean- President C. Aquino then amends the decree. Which the
petitioner seeks the corrective prohibitive and coercive remedies. Ruling: Yes. The court hold that the delegated powers to the
going vessel. It can only be done by Congress.
Board of Directors to “create such other positions may be
deemednecessary for the management of the chapter(s)”, as
provided in section 493 of the LGC, embodies a fairly intelligible
ISSUE: Whether or Not POEA can promulgate rules by virtue of ISSUE: Whether or not the paragraph 1 (c) of P.D. No. 1956, as standard. This follows the statutory provision of the exercise of
delegation of legislative power. amended by Executive Order No. 137, unconstitutional for "being the Secretary of Education to prescribe minimum standards of
an undue and invalid delegation of legislative power. “adequate and efficient instructions” to schools, vested by the
president in making reforms and changes for the purpose of
RULING: Yes. The governing Board of the Administration (POEA), promoting “simplicity, economy and efficiency”, sufficient for the
as hereunder provided, shall promulgate the necessary rules and RULING: No. The standard, as the Court has already stated, may purpose of a valid delegation.
regulations to govern the exercise of the adjudicatory functions even be implied. In that light, there can be no ground upon which
of the Administration (POEA).The delegation of legislative powers to sustain the petition, inasmuch as the challenged law sets forth Main Point: The delegated power to create other positions as
in general are particularly applicable to administrative bodies. a determinable standard which guides the exercise of the power provided in Sec 493 of the LGC embodies a fairly intelligible
With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant granted to the ERB. By the same token, the proper exercise of standard as supported by the statutory provision of the exercise
peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more and the delegated power may be tested with ease. The Court finds of power of the secretary of education delegated by the
more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the that the provision conferring the authority upon the ERB to president.
authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the impose additional amounts on petroleum products provides a
statute. This is called the "power of subordinate legislation." sufficient standard by which the authority must be exercised.

147. ABAKADA V. ERMITA 469 SCRA 1

MAIN POINT: Delegation of legislative powers in general are MAIN POINT: the law intended was to permit the additional
particularly applicable to administrative bodies.With this power, imposts for as long as there exists a need to protect the general FACTS: The petitioners, ABAKADA Guro Party List, assails the
administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid public and the petroleum industry from the adverse validity of RA 9337, the amendment of some sections of the
consequences of pump rate fluctuations National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) of 1997, particularly the
55 | P a g e
amendment of Sections 106, 107, and 108 of the said code commercial blood banks, Both which implemented by the inconsistent standard. As to whether respondent mayor has the
through Sections 4, 5, and 6 of RA 9337, respectively. Such as Secretary of Health. That the action made by the latter is same power independently under R.A. 7160 is thus not necessary
that the giving of the “stand-by authority” to the President to unconstitutional because it is an improper and unwarranted to resolve in these proceedings.
raise VAT rate from 10% to 12% when a certain condition is delegation of legislative power.
met***, where information about such condition is to be MAIN POINT: The delegation to the mayors to the power to issue
provided by the Secretary of Finance, constitutes undue ISSUE: Whether or not the law has sufficiently provided a definite rally “permits” is valid because it is subject to the
delegation of legislative power. standard for the guidance of the Secretary of Health in carrying constitutionally-sound “clear and present danger” standard.
out RA 7719.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative
power to the President, through the recommendation of the RULING: Yes. The law has sufficiently provided a definite
Secretary of Finance, to increase VAT rate upon happening of standard for the guidance of the Secretary of Health in carrying
150. ABAKADA V. PURISIMA, 562 SCRA 251 (2008)
certain conditions. out its provisions, that is the promotion of public health by
providing a safe and adequate supply of blood through voluntary
FACTS: The petitioners seeks to prevent respondents from
RULING: No. The Secretary of Finance, in this instance, is acting donation. By its provisions, it has conferred the power and
implementing and enforcing RA 9337 (Attrition Act of 2005),
as the agent of the legislative department not as an alter ego of authority to the Secretary of Health as to its execution, to be
which reward officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC for
the President. For this to be valid, the law must fix a standard as exercised under and in pursuance of the law.
exceeding revenue targets and sanctioning those who did not, to
to the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and
optimize the revenue generation capability of the agencies.
determinable – to which the delegate must conform in the MAIN POINT: Congress may validly delegate to administrative
Petitioner expressed that this will invite corruption and
performance in this action. This was expressly laid out when the agencies the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to
undermines the responsibility of the officials to serve the public.
congress granted the Secretary of Finance the authority to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies.
Petitioners further contend that the law unduly delegates the
ascertain the existence of certain facts*** by December 31,
power to fix revenue targets to the President as it lacks a
2005. When such conditions occurred, the Secretary of Finance,
sufficient standard on that matter.
by legislative mandate, must submit such information to the
President.
149. BAYAN V. ERMITA 488 SCRA 226 ISSUE: Whether or not there is a sufficient standard laid down in
RA 9337.
MAIN POINT: There is no undue delegation of legislative power
FACTS: The petitioners, where holding rallies until the police
but only of the discretion as to the execution of a law. This is
intervene and disperse the assembly. Subsequently, some of RULING: Yes. Sec 7 of RA 9337 specifies the limits of the board
constitutionally permissible.
their members were arrested as a result of this. They are now authority and identifies the conditions under which officials and
assailing the validity of the B.P. 880 “An act ensuring the free employees whose revenue collections fall short. The court also
***a) the VAT collection as a percentage of GDP of the previous
exercise by the people of their right to assemble and petition the recognized the following as sufficient standard as provided in the
year exceeds 2 and 4/5 % or b) the national government deficit
government for other purposes” and RA 7160, Local Government said Republic Act: “public interest”, “justice and equity”, “public
as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds 1 and 1/2
Code. That the law didn’t provide a clear standard to the power convenience and welfare”, and “simplicity, economy and
%.
delegated to the mayor. welfare”.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is inconsistency in the fixing of MAIN POINT: A law is complete when it sets forth therein the
standard of the powers delegated to the mayor. policy to be executed carried out or implemented by the
148. BELTRAN V. SECRETARY OF HEALTH 476 SCRA 168 delegate and lays down a sufficient standard when it provides
RULING: No. The law has provided a precise and sufficient adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the
FACTS: The petitioners, owners of blood banks, are praying to standard, the clear and present danger test as stated in Sec. 6(a). boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation
nullify Sec 7 of RA 7719 or The National Blood Services Act of The reference to “imminent and grave danger of substantive evil” from running riot.
1994 and Administrative Order No. 9., the phasing out of in Sec. 6(c) substantially means the same thing and is not an

56 | P a g e
Filling in the Details ISSUE/RULING: Estrada issued EO No. 102, entitled, Redirecting the Functions
and Operations of the Department of Health, which provided for
151. FERNANDEZ V. STO TOMAS 1. Whether or not RA 6734 is invalid because it contains changes in the roles, functions, and organizational processes for
no standard to guide the President’s discretion. the DOH. Petitioners contended one of the five general areas of
Petitioners argue that resolution no. 94-
HSRA which is “to provide fiscal autonomy to government
3710(Reorganization of the Civil Service Commission/merging of No. Congress merely followed the pattern set in previous hospitals”; particularly on the collection of socialized user fees
departments) effected the abolition of public offices, something legislation dating back to the initial organization of administrative
which can be done only by the same legislative authority which and the corporate restructuring of government hospitals.
regions in 1972. The choice of the President as delegate is logical
has created those public offices in the first place. Further, petitioners contended that a law, such as EO No. 102,
because the division of the country into regions is intended to
facilitate not only the administration of local governments but which effects the reorganization of DOH, should be enacted by
ISSUE/RULING: also the direction of executive departments which the law Congress in the exercise of its legislative function. Petitioners also
1. Whether or not he CSC had legal authority to issue requires should have regional offices.  pointed out that they violate Sec. 15, 18 of Art. II; Sec. 1, Art. III;
Resolution no. 94-3710. Sec. 11 and 14 of Art. XIII; and Sec. 1 and 3(2) Art. XV of the 1987
153. RODRIGO V. SANDIGANBAYAN Constitution.
Yes. The court considers Resolution No. 94-3710 had not
abolished any public as that term is used in the law of public The Petitioners contends that the authority of DBM ISSUE/RULING:
offices. The legislative authority, placed in Sec 17 of the revised was limited to the preparation of the Index of Occupational
administrative code of 1987 which sets out the internal structure Services, Position Titles and Salary Grades. That adopting such
and organization of the CSC, authorized the commission to carry 1. Whether or not HSRA and EO No. 102 should be
index requires a new law to have the force of the law.
out “changes in the organization as the need for such changes declared void since it runs counter to the aspiration
arises”. ISSUE/RULING: and ideals of the Filipino people as embodied in the
constitution.
MAIN POINT: Administrative agencies may be allowed to either 1. Whether or not the contentions of the petitioners
“to fill up the details” of an already complete statute or to No, HSRA and EO 102 are not void and are therefore
would prevail.
ascertain the facts necessary to bring a contingent law into actual constitutional. As a general rule, the provisions of the
operation. No. The petitioners overlooked Section 444 (d) of the local Constitution are considered self-executing, and do not require
government code that enumerates the salary grade of municipal future legislation for their enforcement. For if they are not
152. CHIONGBIAN VS. ORBOS mayors in pursuant to RA 6758 or the Compensation and Position treated as self-executing, the mandate of the fundamental law
Classification Act of 1989 as provided by the DBM. can be easily nullified by the inaction of Congress. However,
Pursuant to the Constitution, Congress passed RA. some provisions have already been categorically declared by this
6734, the Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim MAIN POINT: Administrative agencies can performs such actions Court as non self-executing. Constitutional provisions which are
Mindanao, calling for a plebiscite to create an autonomous as prescribe the law or legislative body that created them. statements of principles and policies are mere directives
region. The RA, under ART XIX Sec 13, provided that those
addressed to the executive and the legislative departments—if
provinces and cities who did not vote in favor of it shall remain in
unheeded, the remedy will not lie with the courts but rather, the
its existing administrative regions, provided however, that the 154. TONDO MEDICAL V. CA,
president may merge the existing regions through administrative 527 SCRA 746 (2007) electorate’s displeasure may be manifested in their votes.
determination. President Aquino subsequently issued EO 429
Main Issue: The executive branch, on subjects that are of less
providing for the reorganization of the administrative regions in
interest, in which a general provision may be made, may be given
Mindanao. The petitioner questions the validity of Art XIX Sec 13
In 1999, the DOH launched the Health Sector Reform the power to act under such general provisions, to fill up the
and the powers granted therein to the president, and the actions
by the President issuing EO 429. Agenda (HSRA), a reform agenda developed by the HSRA details.
Technical Working Group. On May of the same year, then Pres.

57 | P a g e
 155. PICHAY V. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE the prerogative of the President under his continuing "delegated Whether or not the DOJ and COMELEC violated the principle of
SECRETARY, 677 SCRA 408 (2012) legislative authority to reorganize" his own office pursuant to separation of powers by creating the joint DOJ-COMELEC fact-
E.O. 292. finding team and preliminary investigation committee which
Former President Benigno Simeon Aquino III issued encroached upon the powers of the legislature and the regional
Executive Order No. 13 (E.O. 13), abolishing the PAGC and Main Point: The Office of the President is the nerve center of the trial court.
transferring its functions to the Office of the Deputy Executive Executive Branch. To remain effective and efficient, the Office of
Secretary for Legal Affairs (ODESLA), more particularly to its the President must be capable of being shaped and reshaped by No. The Joint Committee and the Fact-Finding Team
newly-established Investigative and Adjudicatory Division (IAD). the President in the manner he deems fit to carry out his perform functions that they are already performing under the
Respondent Finance Secretary Cesar V. Purisima filed before the directives and policies. After all, the Office of the President is the law.
IAD-ODESLA a complaint-affidavit for grave misconduct against command post of the President.
petitioner Prospero A. Pichay, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Main Point: With respect to the power to conduct preliminary
Trustees of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), as 156. ARROYO V. DOJ investigation and to prosecute election offenses, Congress has
well as the incumbent tmembers of the LWUA Board of Trustees 681 SCRA 181 (2012) mandated that the COMELEC shall have the power concurrent
which arose from the purchase by the LWUA of Four Hundred with the other prosecuting arms of the government, to conduct
COMELEC and DOJ issued Joint Order No. 001-2011, preliminary investigation of all election offenses punishable
Forty-Five Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Seven (445,377) creating and constituting a Joint Committee and Fact-Finding
shares of stock of Express Savings Bank, Inc. Petitioner received under the Omnibus Election Code, and to prosecute these
Team on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud offenses. Concurrent jurisdiction has been defined as “equal
an order requiring him and his co-respondents to submit their and manipulation cases. The Fact-Finding Team was created for
respective written explanations under oath. In compliance jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter.” Thus, under
the purpose of gathering real, documentary, and testimonial the present legal framework, the COMELEC and the DOJ, and its
therewith, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss Ex Abundante Ad evidence which can be utilized in the preliminary investigation to
Cautelam manifesting that a case involving the same transaction prosecuting arms, have equal jurisdiction to conduct preliminary
be conducted by the Joint Committee. The Team recommended investigation and prosecute election offenses. Effectively, this
and charge of grave misconduct entitled, "Rustico B. Tutol, et al. that petitioner Abalos and ten (10) others be subjected to
v. Prospero Pichay, et al.", and docketed as OMB-C-A-10-0426-I, means that the DOJ and its prosecuting arms can already conduct
preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage for conspiring to preliminary investigations and prosecute election offenses not
is already pending before the Office of the Ombudsman. manipulate the election results in North and South Cotabato. merely as deputies, but independently of the COMELEC.
ISSUE/RULING: Twenty-six (26) persons, including petitioners GMA and Abalos,
were likewise recommended for preliminary investigation for Undue Delegation of Legislative Power
electoral sabotage for manipulating the election results in
1. Whether or not EO No. 13 is unconstitutional for Maguindanao. Several persons were also recommended to be 157. PEOPLE V. VERA, 65 PHIL 56
abrogating unto an administrative office a quasi- charged administratively, while others, including petitioner Mike
Defendant Mariano Cu Unjieng applied
judicial function through an EO and not through Arroyo, were recommended to be subjected to further
for probation under the provisions of Act No. 4421, otherwise
legislative enactment by Congress. investigation. GMA contended that for the crime of electoral
known as the Probation Act. The Insular Probation Office denied
sabotage to be established, there is a need to present election
No, because the President has Continuing Authority to the application. However, Judge Vera upon another request by
documents allegedly tampered which resulted in the increase or
Reorganize the Executive Department under E.O. 292 which the petitioner allowed the petition to be set for hearing. The City
decrease in the number of votes of local and national candidates.
states that "the President, subject to the policy of the Executive Prosecutor countered alleging that Vera has no power to place
The Joint Committee denied the aforesaid motion. GMA
Office and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency, Cu Unjieng under probation because it is in violation of the
subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration.
shall have the continuing authority to reorganize the Constitution. Original action for certiorari and prohibition was
administrative structure of the Office of the President. Clearly, ISSUE/RULING: filed to prohibit the Court of First Instance of Manila from taking
the abolition of the PAGC and the transfer of its functions to a any further action in entertaining the aforementioned application
division specially created within the ODESLA is properly within for probation on the ground that Sec. 11 of Act No. 4421 is

58 | P a g e
unconstitutional for being an undue delegation of legislative the interpretation of authorizing the Collector to promulgate 1. Whether or not Act No. 1760 would apply to the
power. such a law, they are void, as constituting an illegal delegation of respondent.
legislative power.”
ISSUE/RULING: No.
1. Whether or not Act No. 4221 constituted an undue ISSUE/RULING:
delegation of legislative power. Act No. 1760 would not apply to the respondent.
1. Whether or not the authority conferred to the However, he is convicted of a violation of Art. 581, par. 2, of the
Yes, Sec. 11 of Act No. 4221 constituted an undue Collector to promulgate said Circular constitutes an Penal Code which provides that “a fine of not less than 15 and
delegation of legislative power. The provincial boards of the invalid delegation of legislative power. not more than 70 pesetas and censure shall be imposed... (2)
various provinces are to determine for themselves, whether the upon any person who shall violate the regulations, ordinances, or
Probation Law shall apply to their provinces or not at all. The Yes. The judgment of the Court of First Instance is revoked proclamations issued with reference to any epidemic disease
applicability and application of the Probation Act are entirely as it is an invalid delegation; however, the defendant is convicted among animals, the extermination of locusts, or any other similar
placed in the hands of the provincial boards. If the provincial of misdemeanour. plague.”
board does not wish to have the Act applied in its province, all
Main Point: The orders of a government agency are statutes and Main Point: The orders of a government agency like the Bureau
that it has to do is to decline to appropriate the needed amount
particularly not penal statutes, and a violation of such orders is of Agriculture, while they may possibly be said to have the force
for the salary of a probation officer.
not a penal offense unless the statute itself somewhere makes a of law, are statutes and particularly not penal statutes, and a
Main Point: An act of the legislature is incomplete and hence violation thereof unlawful and penalizes it. violation of such orders is not a penal offense unless the statute
invalid if it does not lay down any rule or definite standard by itself somewhere makes a violation thereof unlawful and
NOTES: Circular No. 397
which the administrative officer or board may be guided in the penalizes it.
exercise of the discretionary powers delegated to it. Par 70. “No heavily loaded casco, lighter, or other similar craft
shall be permitted to move in the Pasig River without being 160. PEOPLE V. MACEREN
NOTE: Sec. 11 “This Act shall apply only in those provinces in 79 SCRA 450 (1977)
towed by steam or moved by other adequate power.”
which the respective provincial boards have provided for the
salary of a probation officer at rates not lower than those now Par 83. “For the violation of any part of the foregoing regulations, The respondents were charged with having violated the
provided for provincial fiscals. Said probation officer shall be the persons offending shall be liable to a fine of not less than P5 Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84-1, penalizing electro fishing
appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to the and not more than P500, in the discretion of the court.” in fresh water fisheries, promulgated by the Sec. of Agriculture
direction of the Probation Office.” under the old Fisheries Law and the law creating Fisheries
159. US V. PANLILIO Commission. The municipal court quashed the complaint and
158. US V. BARRIAS 28 PHIL 608 (1914) held that the law does not clearly prohibit electro fishing, hence
11 SCRA 327 (1908) the executive and judicial departments cannot consider the
Respondent was accused of having violated Act No. same.
Defendant transported a loaded lighter across Pasig 1760 relating to the quarantining of animals suffering from
River without the use of steam, sail, or any other external power. dangerous communicable diseases for illegally and voluntarily Issue/Ruling:
The defendant was then charged in the Court of First Instance and without being authorized to do so, respondent permitted
within a violation of par. 70 and 83 of Circular No. 397 of the and ordered that his carabaos be taken from the corral in which 1. Whether or not the Sec. of Agriculture exceeded his
Insular Collector of Customs, duly published in the Official they were then quarantined. Respondent contended that the authority in issuing administrative orders.
Gazette and approved by the Secretary of Finance and Justice. said Act as ordered by the Bureau of Agriculture do not have the Yes. The reason is that the Fisheries Law does not expressly
The defendant attacked the validity of the said Circular by force of law. prohibit electro fishing. As electro fishing is not banned under
pointing out that “if the acts of the Philippine Commission bear
Issue/Ruling:
59 | P a g e
that law, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and Petitioner and its union of employees (COAVEA) carabeef. Petitioner was then fined via the order of the Regional
the Commissioner of Fisheries are powerless to penalize it. entered into a Collecting Bargaining Agreement regarding the Trial Court. Petitioner then claimed that the executive order is
latter’s appeal to an increase in salaries by P200.00 for the years unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes outright confiscation of
Main Point: Administrative regulations adopted under legislative 1986 to 1987 and P300.00 for 1989. The CBA also stipulates that the carabao or carabeef being transported across provincial
authority by a particular department must be in harmony with
should there be legislations passed increasing salaries greater boundaries. His claim is that the penalty is invalid because it is
the provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of
than the ones mentioned in the agreement, the petitioner will imposed without according the owner a right to be heard before
carrying into effect its general provisions. By such
provide the difference. The implementation of RA 6640 raised a competent and impartial court as guaranteed by due process.
regulations, the law itself cannot be extended. An administrative
agency cannot amend an act of Congress COVAEA members’ salaries by P10.00. Secretary of Labor Drilon There is also a challenge to the improper exercise of the
issued the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 6640, legislative power by the former President under Amendment No.
161. PEOPLE V. DACUYCUY stipulating that increases by companies will not be credited as 6 of the 1973 Constitution.
173 SCRA 90 (1989) compliance if these weren’t stated in the CBA in anticipation of
RA 6640. Issue/Ruling:
Private respondents, Celestino Matondo, Segundino
Issue/Ruling: 1. Whether or not EO 626-A is unconstitutional.
Caval, and Cirilo Zanoria, were charged for having been violated
the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers (RA No. 4670). The No. The Executive Order was formed to conserve and
1. Whether or not an Implementing Order of the
respondents pleaded not guilty and petitioned for certiorari and protect carabaos to provide farmers assistance with their work.
Secretary of Labor and Employment (DOLE) can provide
prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Its construction, however, suggests the prohibition of due
for a prohibition not contemplated by the law it seeks
Instance. They contend that Sec. 32 of RA 4670 is process. Petitioner was not allowed to explain himself for the
to implement.
unconstitutional because it constitutes an undue delegation of reason the act was committed. The Court also found that the
power by leaving the duration of imprisonment to the discretion No. The provisions of Republic Act No. 6640, do not challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power
of the court. prohibit the crediting of CBA anniversary wage increases (which because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not
is included in the CBA) for purposes of compliance with Republic reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and, worse, is
Issue/Ruling:
Act No. 6640. The implementing rules cannot provide for such a unduly oppressive.
1. Whether or not RA No. 4670 is unconstitutional as it prohibition not contemplated by the law.
Main Point: EO 626-A violates the right to due process and is an
constitutes undue delegation of power.
Main Point: Section 8 is null and void. The implementing rules invalid exercise of police power because the method employed
Yes, it is unconstitutional. Section 32 which leaves to cannot provide for such a prohibition not contemplated by the to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the
the court’s discretion the duration of imprisonment law. Administrative regulations adopted under legislative purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive.
constitutes undue delegation of legislative power since it authority by a particular department must be in harmony with
the provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of 164. PHARMACEUTICAL V. DOH
makes it practice powers lodged with the legislative (2007)
department and not with the judiciary. carrying into effect its general provisions.

163. YNOT V. IAC Executive Order No. 51 (Milk Code) was issued by
Main Point: The court can only interpret the law. It is still the job
148 SCRA 659 (1987) President Corazon Aquino on October 28, 1986 by virtue of the
of the legislative department to create laws and impose penalties
legislative powers granted to the president under the Freedom
thereof.
Petitioner transported six carabaos from Masbate to Constitution. One of the preambular clauses of the Milk Code
162. CEBU OXYGEN V. DRILON Iloilo via pump boat. The animals were confiscated by the police states that the law seeks to give effect to Article 11[2] of the
176 SCRA 24 (1989) station commander of Barotac Nuevo for violating EO 626-A, International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes
which prohibits inter-provincial movement of carabaos and (ICMBS), a code adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA) in

60 | P a g e
1981. In 1990, the Philippines ratified the International Constitution, and delegates power to fix revenue targets to the complete in themselves and prescribed sufficient
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 24 of said President. standards that circumscribed the discretion of the PCA.
instrument provides that State Parties should take appropriate
measures to diminish infant and child mortality, and ensure that Issue/Ruling: Yes. P.D. No. 755 involves an undue delegation of legislative
all segments of society, specially parents and children, are power The law failed to identify who is eligible for the shares of
1. Whether or not there was an unduly delegation of stock of UCPB. It also did not identify or delineate any clear
informed of the advantages of breastfeeding. On May 15, 2006, power to fix revenue targets to the President
Respondent DOH issued herein the assailed RIRR of the Milk condition as to how the disposition of the UCPB shares or their
Code which was to take effect on July 7, 2006. Petitioner posits No. What transpired in this issue is that in the event that revenue conversion into private ownership will redound to the
that the RIRR is not valid as it goes beyond the law it is supposed targets (original estimated revenue collection expected of the BIR advancement of the national policy declared under it.
to implement. and the BOC for a given fiscal year) are to be provided to the Main Point: In order not to be classified as an undue delegation
President for approval, the same is still subject to the scrutiny of of power, two criteria must be satisfied: the completeness test
Issue/Ruling: BESF. In this case, it is not a delegation of legislative power BUT a and the sufficient standards test. The requisite standards or
1. Whether or not respondent acted without or in excess delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement criteria, as mentioned above, are absent in P.D. No. 755.
of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion and administration of the increased rate under the law is
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. contingent. There is no undue delegation of legislative power but
only of the discretion as to the execution of a law.
Respondent acted within its scope of responsibility in Executive Misapplication
the case at hand. Section 57 of the RIRR does not provide for the Main Point: In this instance, Congress does not abdicate its
functions or unduly delegate power when it describes what job 167. TATAD V. SECRETARY DOE
repeal of laws but only orders, issuances and rules and 281 SCRA 330 (1997) AND MR 282 SCRA 337 (1997)
regulations. Thus, said provision is valid as it is within the DOH's must be done, who must do it, and what is the scope of his
rule-making power. authority. In our complex economy that is frequently the only
way in which the legislative process can go forward. The petitioner question the constitutionality of RA No.
Main Point: An administrative agency like respondent possesses 8180 “An Act Deregulating the Downstream Oil Industry and For
quasi-legislative or rule-making power or the power to make Other Purposes.” The deregulation process has two phases: (a)
166. PHILIPPINE COCONUT V. REPUBLIC
rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is the transition phase and the (b) full deregulation phase through
GR 178193, JANUARY 24, 2012
within the confines of the granting statute and the Constitution, EO No. 372.
and subject to the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of
The declaration of martial law in September 1972 saw
powers. The petitioner claims that Sec. 15 of RA No. 8180
the issuance of several presidential decrees (P.Ds.) purportedly
constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power to the
designed to improve the coconut industry through the collection
President and the Sec. of Energy because it does not provide a
165. ABAKADA V. PURISIMA and use of the coconut levy fund. Petitioners argue that said
determinate or determinable standard to guide the Executive
G.R. No. 166715 court erred in concluding that Section 1 of PD No. 755 constitutes
Branch in determining when to implement the full deregulation
RA 9335 was passed optimize the revenue-generation an undue delegation of legislative power insofar as it authorizes
of the downstream oil industry, and the law does not provide any
capability and collection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) the PCA to promulgate rules and regulations governing the
specific standard to determine when the prices of crude oil in the
and the Bureau of Customs (BOC) by exceeding their revenue distribution of the UCPB shares to the farmers.
world market are considered to be declining nor when the
targets through the use of an incentive system for the officials
Issue/Ruling: exchange rate of the peso to the US dollar is considered stable.
and employees of the departments. Petitioners challenge the
constitutionality of RA 9335, which, according to them, corrupts 1. Whether or not the coconut levy laws, constitute an Issue/Ruling:
government officials, violates the equal protection clause of the undue delegation of legislative power as they were

61 | P a g e
 1. Whether or not Sec 15 of R.A. 8180 violates the Mere Directive MARCH 8, 2016
constitutional prohibition on undue delegation of
power. 168. DAGAN V. PRC
578 SCRA 585 (2009) Petitioner was found abandoned in the parish church
Sec 15 of R.A. 8180 can hurdle both the completeness test of Jaro, Iloilo on September 3, 1968. She was then adopted and
and the sufficient standard test. It will be noted that Congress taken care of by Ronald Allan Kelley Poe and his spouse.
Respondent PRC issued a directive ordering the Manila
expressly provided in R.A. No. 8180 that full deregulation will Petitioner studied Development Studies in the University of the
Jockey Club, Inc. and Philippine Racing Club, Inc. to immediately
start at the end of March 1997, regardless of the occurrence of Philippines, but decided to continue her studies where she
come up with their respective Clubs’ House Rule to address the
any event. Full deregulation at the end of March 1997 is finished her degree in Political Studies in the University of Boston
Equine Infectious Anemia. Both clubs obliged to this act, but
mandatory and the Executive has no discretion to postpone it for in 1991. She became a naturalized American citizen on October
petitioner et al refused to comply. Despite resistance from
any purported reason. Thus, the law is complete on the question 18, 2001. She then returned to the Philippines because of her
petitioners, the blood testing proceeded. The horses, whose
of the final date of full deregulation. The discretion given to the ailing father on December 13, 2001, and decided to stay in the
owners refused to comply were banned from the races, were
President is to advance the date of full deregulation before the Philippines to be with her mother sometime in 2005. Petitioner
removed from the actual day of race, prohibited from renewing
end of March 1997. Section 15 lays down the standard to guide re-acquired her Filipino citizenship on July 7, 2006.
their licenses or evicted from their stables.
the judgment of the President. He is to time it as far as
Petitioner’s citizenship has been in question when
practicable when the prices of crude oil and petroleum products Issue/Ruling:
several petitions were filed before the COMELEC to deny or
in the world market are declining and when the exchange rate of
1. Was there an undue delegation by PRC of its rule- cancel her candidacy on the ground particularly, among others,
the peso in relation to the US dollar is stable.
making powers to MJCI and PRCI? that she cannot be considered a natural-born Filipino citizen
“There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not since she cannot prove that her biological parents or either of
there is a valid delegation of legislative power, viz: the No. The directive issued by the PRC to the racing clubs is them were Filipinos.
completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the instructive in nature. Respondent merely exercised its franchise
granted to them by Congress allowing MJCI "to do and carry out Issue/Ruling:
first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions
when it leaves the legislative such that when it reaches the all such acts, deeds and things as may be necessary to give effect
1. Whether or not petitioner is qualified for the position
delegate the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it. Under to the foregoing."
of Senator, with the fact that her citizenship is in
the sufficient standard test, there must be adequate guidelines question?
Main Point: Potestas delegate non delegare potest. However,
or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the
there are exceptions to the rule. The delegation should pass the
delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running Yes. Petitioner Poe-Llamanzares is classified as a foundling,
tests of completeness and standards sufficiency. In the case at
riot. Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of and was conferred with Filipino citizenship. Hence, she is
hand, Section 9 of PD 420 which provides the responsibilities of
legislative authority to the delegate, who is not allowed to step qualified to run for the position of Senator.
respondent, satisfied the two tests.
into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentially
legislative. Main Point: A foundling is a natural-born citizen of the
PDAF Case
Philippines as there is no restrictive language which would
Main Point: The exercise of delegated power is given a strict Dap Case definitely exclude foundlings as they are already impliedly so
scrutiny by courts for the delegate is a mere agent whose action recognized. Foundlings are citizens under international law as
cannot infringe the terms of agency. In the cases at bar, the Section 2. Senate Composition this is supported by some treaties, adhering to the customary
Executive co-mingled the factor of depletion of the OPSF fund rule to presume foundlings as having born of the country in
Section 3. Qualifications of Senator which the foundling is found.
with the factors of decline of the price of crude oil in the world
market and the stability of the peso to the US dollar. 169. POE-LLAMANZARES V. COMELEC Section 4. Senator: Term of Office; Voluntary Renunciation

62 | P a g e
Section 5. Composition of the House of Representatives; not self-executory. It is, in fact, interspersed with phrases like "in Alleviation of Poverty and Social Advancement) filed with the
Apportionment; Party List accordance with law" or "as may be provided by law"; it was thus COMELEC a petition alleging that the filling up of the 20%
up to Congress to sculpt in granite the lofty objective of the membership of party-list representatives in the House of
Par. 2; Party-List Representation Constitution. Hence, RA 7941 was enacted and provided in its Representatives, as provided under the Constitution, was
statutory policy that “The State shall promote proportional mandatory and that there should be 52 party-list
170. ANG BAGONG BAYANI V. COMELEC representatives. Thereafter, PAG-ASA and 9 other party-list
GR 147589 representation in the election of representatives to the House of
organizations filed a motion for intervention, which was granted
Representatives through a party-list system of registered
by the COMELEC Second Division through a resolution
national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or
proclaiming that the 38 herein respondents would complete the
With the onset of the 2001 elections, Respondent coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to 52 party-list seats. In allocating the 52 seats, it disregarded the
COMELEC approved in its assailed March 26, 2001 Omnibus marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and two percent-vote requirement prescribed under Section 11 (b) of
Resolution No. 3785 the Manifestations of 154 parties and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but RA 7941. Instead, it identified three "elements of the party-list
organizations who expressed their intention to participate in the who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of system," which should supposedly determine "how the 52 seats
party-list elections. Akbayan Citizens Action Party, and the Bayan appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole x x should be filled up”, namely: (1) " to enable the marginalized
Muna together with Bayan Muna-Youth, filed before the x”. Political parties, while they are not disqualified merely on the sectors of the Philippine society to be represented in the House
COMELEC two petitions for the Cancellation of Registration and ground that they are political parties, must show, however, that of Representatives”; (2) "represent the broadest sectors of the
Nomination against some of herein respondents. Dissatisfied they represent the interests of the marginalized and Philippine society”; and (3) encourage the multi-party system.
with the pace of the COMELEC, petitioner Ang Bagong Bayani- underrepresented. The linchpin of this case is the clear and plain Petitioners contended that under Section 11 (b) of RA 7941, only
OFW Labor Party filed a petition and assailed the COMELEC policy of the law: "to enable Filipino citizens belonging to parties, organizations or coalitions garnering at least 2% of the
Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. Bayan Muna also filed before the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and votes for the party-list system were entitled to seats in the House
Court a petition challenging the Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. of Representatives; and that additional seats, not exceeding two
parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but
for each, should be allocated to those which had garnered the
The Court then ordered the consolidation of the two petitions. In who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of
two percent threshold in proportion to the number of votes cast
its Petition, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party contends that appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, for the winning parties, as provided by said Section 11.
"the inclusion of political parties in the party-list system is the to become members of the House of Representatives."
most objectionable portion of the questioned Resolution."   For its Issue/Ruling:
part, Petitioner Bayan Muna objects to the participation of Main point: Political parties, while they are not disqualified
"major political parties."  merely on the ground that they are political parties, must show, 1. Whether or not the thirty-eight (38) herein respondent
however, that they represent the interests of the marginalized parties, organizations and coalitions are each entitled
Issue/Ruling: and underrepresented and satisfy the requirements laid down by to a party-list even if they had not passed the two
the Constitution and RA 7941. percent threshold.
1. Whether or not the private respondents, which were
political parties, may participate in the party-list NO. The Constitution simply states that the party-list
elections. 171. VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY V. COMELEC representatives shall constitute 20% of the total number of
GR 136781 representatives including those under the party-list. The said
YES. Under the Constitution, private respondents cannot be
percentage is merely a ceiling and not mandatory, meaning, the
disqualified from the party-list elections, merely on the ground On May 1, 1998, the first election for party-list combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed
that they are political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the representation was held where the COMELEC en banc 20% of the total membership of the House of Representatives.
Constitution provides that members of the House of proclaimed 14 party-list representatives from 13 parties and In the exercise of its constitutional prerogative to define and
Representatives may "be elected through a party-list system of organizations which had obtained at least 2% of the total number prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or of votes cast for the party-list system. PAG-ASA (Peoples representation, Congress enacted RA 7941 which deemed it
organizations." The foregoing provision on the party-list system is Progressive Alliance for Peace and Good Government Towards necessary to require parties, organizations and coalitions
63 | P a g e
participating in the system to obtain at least two percent of the abused its discretion when it denied its petition for re- Petitioners PM and BUTIL, together with CIBAC, filed a Joint
total votes cast for the party-list system in order to be entitled to qualification. Motion for Immediate Proclamation with the respondent
a party-list seat. . However, no winning party, organization or COMELEC en banc and prayed that they be declared as entitled
coalition can have more than three seats in the House of Issue/Ruling: to one (1) additional seat each and their respective second
Representatives. Those garnering more than 2% could have nominees be proclaimed as duly elected members of the House
additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes. 1. Whether or not Aklat shall be re-qualified as a party-list
organization. of Representatives. As basis, they cited the formula used by the
Together, they make up at least four inviolable parameters
Court in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC to
mandated by the Constitution and RA 7941: (1) the 20%
compute the additional seats that movants are entitled to using
allocation; (2) the 2% threshold; (3) three-seat limit; and (4) NO. The incorporators and directors of Aklat are
proportional representation. the Veterans formula of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Ang
invariably known as pillars of the book publishing industry or
Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party and Bayan Muna cases.
Main point: In determining the winners in a Philippine-style authors. Hence, even as re-organized, Aklat remains to be an
Respondent COMELEC failed to resolve the substantive issues
party-list election, the Constitution and RA 7941 mandate at least association of authors, book publishers, and publishing
raised by petitioners and to cause the re-tabulation of the party-
the abovementioned four inviolable parameters.  companies, rather than the organization of indigenous cultural
list votes despite the lapse of time. Hence, petitioners PM and
communities, farm and factory workers, fisherfolk and youth it
BUTIL filed the instant petition on August 18, 2004 and submit
claims to be. The Court observes that Aklat’s articles of
172. AKLAT V. COMELEC that the respondent COMELEC en banc, as National Board of
incorporation and document contain general averments that it
427 SCRA 712 Canvassers for the party-list system, be compelled to
supposedly represents marginalized groups such as the youth,
mechanically apply the formula stated in its 25 June 2003
indigenous communities, urban poor and farmers/fisherfolk.
Petitioner Aklat filed a Petition for the declaration of its Resolution reiterated in the 20 November 2003 Resolution in Ang
Aklat is not an organization representing the marginalized and
re-qualification as a party-list organization for purposes of the Bagong Bayani cases in the determination of qualified party-list
underrepresented sectors, but is actually a business interest or
May 2004 elections, alleging that it participated in the 2001 organizations and in the proclamation of their respective
economic lobby group which seeks the promotion and protection
elections but was disqualified by the COMELEC as it was found nominees.
of the book publishing industry.
not to have complied with the guidelines set by the Court for
party-list organizations to qualify and participate as such in the Issue/Ruling:
party-list elections. Accordingly, Aklat re-organized itself in order Main point: Party-list participants must show  that their political
parties, sectors, organizations or coalitions represent the 1. Whether or not the respondent COMELEC en banc, as
that it will comply with the 8-point guidelines enunciated by the the National Board of Canvassers for the party-list
marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section
Supreme Court. The COMELEC dismissed the petition stating that system, shall be compelled to mechanically apply the
5 of R.A. 7941. It must show—through its constitution, articles of
Aklat cannot be considered as an organization representing the formula stated in its 25 June 2003 Resolution reiterated
incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government and track
marginalized and underrepresented groups as identified under record—that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and in the 20 November 2003 Resolution in Ang Bagong
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7941 (R.A. 7941). Aklat filed underrepresented sectors. Verily, majority of its membership Bayani cases in the determination of qualified party-list
a Motion for Reconsideration, substantially averring that it has should belong to the marginalized and underrepresented and it organizations and in the proclamation of their
reorganized itself. The COMELEC denied the motion in its must demonstrate that in a conflict of interests, it has chosen or respective nominees.
questioned Resolution on three grounds, namely: the petition is likely to choose the interest of such sectors.
was filed beyond the deadline set by the COMELEC; the petition NO. First, the June 25, 2003 Resolution of the Court in Ang
was not one for re-qualification as Aklat was never a registered Bagong Bayani referred to the Veterans case in determining the
173. PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA V. COMELEC
party-list organization having failed to meet the eight-point number of seats due for the party-list winners. Second, in the
484 SCRA 671
guidelines; and that its decision not to extend the deadline for November 20, 2003 Resolution in Ang Bagong Bayani, the Court
registration of party-list organizations is valid, the COMELEC The petition at bar involves the formula for computing gave an additional seat to BUHAY only because it was similarly
being in the best position to make such a determination. In the the additional seats due, if any, for winners in party-list elections. situated to APEC, BUTIL, CIBAC and AKBAYAN which "had
instant case, petitioner contends t that the COMELEC gravely obtained more than four percent (4%) of the total number of
64 | P a g e
votes validly cast for the party-list system and obtained more 1. Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse 175. BANTAY V. COMELEC
than 0.50 for the additional seats." Well to note, the grant of an of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction 523 SCRA 1
additional seat to BUHAY was pro  hac vice. Pro hac  vice is a when it issued the assailed Omnibus Resolution,
Latin term meaning "for this one particular occasion." A ruling disqualifying and cancelling the registration and
Before the Court are these two consolidated petitions
expressly qualified as pro hac  vice cannot be relied upon as a accreditation of SENIOR CITIZENS solely on account of
for certiorari and mandamus to nullify and set aside certain
precedent to govern other cases. It was therefore erroneous for its purported violation of the prohibition against term-
issuances of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) respecting
respondent Commission to apply the November 20, sharing.
party-list groups which have manifested their intention to
2003 Resolution and rule that the formula in Veterans has been
participate in the party-list elections on May 14, 2007. The
abandoned. The confusion in the petition at bar must have YES. The term-sharing agreement was entered into in Comelec issued Resolution No. 7804 prescribing rules and
been created by the way the Veterans formula was cited in 2010 or two years prior to the promulgation of said resolution on regulations to govern the filing of manifestation of intent to
the June 25, 2003 Resolution of the Court in Ang February 21, 2012. ." Article 4 of the Civil Code states that "laws participate and submission of names of nominees under the
Bagong Bayani. shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided." party-list system of representation in connection with the May
Be that as it may, even if COMELEC Resolution No. 9366 expressly 14, 2007 elections. Pursuant thereto, a number of organized
Main point: The prevailing formula for the computation of
provided for its retroactive application, the Court finds that the groups filed the necessary manifestations. Among these – and
additional seats for party-list winners is the one formulated in
the landmark case of Veterans. COMELEC En Banc indeed erred in cancelling the registration and ostensibly subsequently accredited by the Comelec to participate
accreditation of SENIOR CITIZENS. The reason for this is that the in the 2007 elections - are 14 party-list groups. Petitioners assail
ground invoked by the COMELEC En Banc, i.e., the term-sharing the various Comelec resolutions accrediting private respondents
174. CITIZENS V. COMELEC agreement among the nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS, was not Biyaheng Pinoy et al., to participate in the forthcoming party-list
521 SCRA 524 implemented. In its Resolution dated June 27, 2012 in E.M. No. elections on May 14, 2007 without simultaneously determining
12-040, the COMELEC En Banc itself refused to recognize the whether or not their respective nominees possess the requisite
The present petitions were filed by the two rival term-sharing agreement and the tender of resignation of Rep. qualifications defined in Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, or the
factions within the same party-list organization, the Coalition of Kho. The COMELEC even declared that no vacancy was created "Party-List System Act" and belong to the marginalized and
Associations of Senior Citizens in the Phil., Inc. (SENIOR CITIZENS) despite the execution of the said agreement. Subsequently, there underrepresented sector each seeks to represent. They further
that are now praying for essentially the same reliefs from this was also no indication that the nominees of SENIOR CITIZENS still impugn Comelec Resolution 07-0724 effectively denying their
Court. One group is headed by Godofredo V. Arquiza (Rep. tried to implement, much less succeeded in implementing, the request for the release or disclosure of the names of the
Arquiza). The other group is led by Francisco G. Datol, Jr.The term-sharing agreement nominees of the fourteen (14) accredited participating party-list
above petitions were filed, both assailing the Omnibus Resolution
groups mentioned in petitioner’s previous letter-request.
dated May 10, 2013 of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Main point: Since the term-sharing agreement was not actually
En Banc. Said Resolution disqualified SENIOR CITIZENS from implemented by the parties thereto, the SENIOR CITIZENS, as a Issue/Ruling:
participating in the May 13, 2013 elections and ordered the party-list organization, had been unfairly and arbitrarily penalized
cancellation of its registration and accreditation as a party-list 1. Whether respondent Comelec is mandated by the
by the COMELEC En Banc. There was no violation of an election
organization, on the sole ground that the SENIOR CITIZENS failed Constitution to disclose to the public the names of said
law, rule, or regulation to speak of. Clearly then, the
to comply with Section 7, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and nominees.
disqualification of SENIOR CITIZENS and the cancellation of its
Section 7, Rule 4 of Comelec Resolution No. 9366. This failure is a registration and accreditation have no legal leg to stand on. The YES. Assayed against the non-disclosure stance of the
ground for cancellation of registration under Section 6 of lack of a legal ground to disqualify the SENIOR CITIZENS spell out COMELEC and the given rationale therefor is the right to
Republic Act No. 7941. a finding of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess information enshrined in the self-executory Section 7, Article III
of jurisdiction on the part of the COMELEC En Banc. of the Constitution Complementing and going hand in hand with
Issue/Ruling: the right to information is another constitutional provision
enunciating the policy of full disclosure and transparency in
65 | P a g e
Government. We refer to Section 28, Article II of the this is that it also failed to secure the required percentage in one 586 SCRA 210
Constitution. Like all constitutional guarantees, however, the (1) but not in the two (2) preceding elections.
right to information and its companion right of access to official  COMELEC, as the National Board of Canvassers
records are not absolute. The people’s right to know is limited to Issue/Ruling: proclaimed in its NBC Resolution No. 07-60 thirteen (13) parties
"matters of public concern" and is further subject to such as winners in the May 2007 party-list elections. Petitioner BANAT
limitation as may be provided by law. Similarly, the policy of full 1. Whether or not PGBI, a party list organization that did
filed a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-List
disclosure is confined to transactions involving "public not participate in the 2007 election, necessarily gets, by
Representatives Provided by the Constitution. BANAT filed its
interest" and is subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by default, less than 2% of the party-list votes and is
petition because [t]he Chairman and the Members of the
law. As may be noted, no national security or like concerns is delisted from the list of registered national, regional or
[COMELEC] have recently been quoted in the national papers
involved in the disclosure of the names of the nominees of the sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions, in
that the [COMELEC] is duty bound to and shall implement
party-list groups in question. Doubtless, the Comelec committed reference to the Minero ruling, pursuant to Section 6(8)
grave abuse of discretion in refusing the legitimate demands of the Veterans ruling, that is, would apply the Panganiban formula
of RA 7941.
the petitioners for a list of the nominees of the party-list groups in allocating party-list seats. Acting on BANAT’s petition,
subject of their respective petitions. NO. What Minero effectively holds is that a party list respondent COMELEC promulgated NBC Resolution No. 07-88
organization that does not participate in an election necessarily where it denied the petition of BANAT for being moot and
Main point: The Commission on Elections has a constitutional gets, by default, less than 2% of the party-list votes.  A delisting academic. Petitioner BANAT filed a petition for certiorari and
duty to disclose and release the names of the nominees of the based on a mixture or fusion of these two different and separate mandamus assailing the ruling in NBC Resolution No. 07-88
party-list groups, citing Sec 7 Art III of the Constitution on the grounds for delisting is therefore a strained application of the law Petitioner and questioned the constitutionality of two percent
right of the people to information on matters of public concern in jurisdictional terms, it is an interpretation not within the threshold of Section 11(b) of RA 7941 used in the distribution of
as complemented by the policy of full disclosure and contemplation of the framers of the law and hence is a gravely additional party-list seats.
transparency in Government, as cited in Sec 28 Art II of the abusive interpretation of the law. The Minero  ruling is an
Issue/Ruling:
Constitution. erroneous application of Section 6(8) of RA 7941; hence, it
cannot sustain PGBIs delisting from the roster of registered 1. Whether or not the two percent (2%) threshold of
176. PHIL. GUARDIANS V. COMELEC national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions Section 11(b) of RA 7941 is constitutional.
GR 190529 under the party-list system.

Main point: Section 6(8) of RA 7941 provides for two separate

For the upcoming May 2010 elections, the
grounds for delisting; (a) fails to participate in the last two (2) NO. The second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941
COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8679, pursuant to Section 6(8) of
preceding elections; or (b) fails to obtain at least two per centum provides that those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the
RA 7941, deleting several party-list groups or organizations from
(2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their
the list of registered national, regional or sectoral parties,
preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered. total number of votes. This is where petitioners and intervenors
organizations or coalitions. Among the party-list organizations
These grounds cannot be mixed or combined to support problem with the formula in Veterans lies. Veterans interprets
affected was Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI); it
delisting. Further, the disqualification for failure to garner 2% the clause in proportion to their total number of votes to be in
was delisted because it failed to get 2% of the votes cast in
party-list votes in two preceding elections should now be proportion to the votes of the first party. This interpretation is
2004 and it did not participate in the 2007 elections. Petitioner
understood, in light of the Banat  ruling, to mean failure to contrary to the express language of R.A. No. 7941. The Court
PGBI seeks to nullify Resolution No. 8679 and the Resolution
qualify for a party-list seat in two preceding elections for the ruled that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the
dated December 9, 2009 denying PGBIs motion for
constituency in which it has registered.  This, we declare, is how continued operation of the two percent threshold for the
reconsideration. Petitioner asserts that Section 6(8) does not
Section 6(8) of RA 7941 should be understood and applied.  distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause
apply to its situation, as it is obvious that it failed to participate
of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional. This Court
in one (1) but not in the two (2) preceding elections. Implied in 177. BANAT V. COMELEC finds that the two percent threshold makes it mathematically

66 | P a g e
impossible to achieve the maximum number of available party petitioner was not elected into office but were chosen by their 1. Whether or not Supreme Court has jurisdiction to
list seats when the number of available party list seats exceeds respective organizations under their internal rules. question the proclamation of Buhay Party-List over
50. The continued operation of the two percent threshold in the questions of qualifications in which the HRET has sole
distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of Main point: Republic Act 7941, the Party-List System Act, vests in jurisdiction.
the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of the COMELEC the authority to determine which parties or
Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives. organizations have the qualifications to seek party-list seats in
the House of Representatives during the elections. Yes. The Supreme Court, not the HRET has jurisdiction
Main point: The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted over the present petition. Clearly, the members of the House of
obstacle to the full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of Representatives are of two kinds: (1) members who shall be
the Constitution and prevents the attainment of the broadest 179. LAYUG V. COMELEC elected from legislative districts; and (2) those who shall be
possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in 666 SCRA 321 elected through a party-list system of registered national,
the House of Representatives. regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. In this case, Buhay
Rolando Layug filed pro se a petition to disqualify Party-List was entitled to two seats in the House that went to its
178. ALBAYON V. COMELEC Buhay Party-List and Brother Mike from being its nominee. He first two nominees. On the other hand, Brother Mike, being the
GR 189466 argued that Buhay Party-List is a mere "extension of the El fifth nominee, did not get a seat and thus had not become a
Shaddai," which is a religious sect. Neither does Brother Mike, member of the House of Representatives. Indubitably, the HRET
Respondents filed a petition for quo warranto against who is allegedly a billionaire real estate businessman and the has no jurisdiction over the issue of Brother Mike's qualifications.
Aangat Tayo and its nominees. They claimed that the party list spiritual leader of El Shaddai, qualify as "one who belongs to the
was not eligible for a party list seat in the House of marginalized and underrepresented sector”. The respondents Neither does the HRET have jurisdiction over the
Representatives, since it did not represent the marginalized and answered Buhay Party-List is not a religious sect but a political qualifications of Buhay Party-List, as it is vested by law,
underrepresented sectors. Petitioner countered that COMELEC party possessing all the qualifications of a party-list. They likewise specifically, the Party-List System Act, upon the COMELEC.
had already confirmed the status of Aangat Tayo as a national argued that nominees from a political party such as Buhay Party- Section 6 of said Act states that "the COMELEC may motu proprio
multi-sectoral party-list organization representing the workers, List need not even come from the marginalized and or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or
women, youth, urban poor, and elderly and that she belonged to underrepresented sector. Record shows that Layug received a cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any
the women sector. Furthermore, petitioner pointed out that copy of the aforesaid Answer only at the hearing. national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition xxx."
respondent HRET had no jurisdiction over the petition for quo
warranto since respondents collaterally attacked the registration The COMELEC Second Division found Layug to be a "phantom Main point: It is the court, under its power to review decisions,
of Aangat Tayo as a party-list organization, a matter that fell petitioner" by "seeing to it that pleadings, orders and judicial orders, or resolutions of the COMELEC provided under Section 7,
within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC. notices addressed to him are not received by him because the Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution20 and Section 1, Rule 37 of
address he gave and maintains is fictitious". As a consequence of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure21 that has jurisdiction to hear
Issue/Ruling: such entry, the COMELEC promulgated a resolution, proclaiming the instant petition.
Buhay Party-List as a winner entitled to two (2) seats in the
1. Whether or not respondent HRET has jurisdiction over House of Representatives. Layug filed a petition imputing grave
the question of qualifications of petitioner, Abayon as abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC for denial of due 180. MAGDALO V. COMELEC
nominee of Aangat Tayo. process. 673 SCRA 651

No. The HRET has no jurisdiction to inquire into and Magdalo sa Pagbabago (MAGDALO) filed its Petition for
adjudicate Albayon’s qualifications as nominee since the Issue/Ruling: Registration with the respondent COMELEC, seeking its
registration and/or accreditation as a regional political party
based in the NCR for participation in the 2010 national and local
67 | P a g e
elections. It was represented by its Chairperson, Senator Antonio to achieve its goal through violence shall be entitled to coalitions. Among the party-list organizations affected was PGBI;
F. Trillanes IV, and its Secretary General, Francisco Ashley L. accreditation. it was delisted because it failed to get 2% of the votes cast in
Acedillo. Taking cognizance of the Oakwood incident, the 2004 and it did not participate in the 2007 elections. PGBI filed its
COMELEC denied the Petition, claiming that MAGDALO’s purpose ATONG PAGLAUM VS. COMELEC opposition that the Supreme Court's ruling in G.R. No. 177548 –
G.R. No. 203766 , APRIL 12, 203 MINERO (Philippine Mines Safety Environment Association) vs
was to employ violence and unlawful means to achieve their
goals. COMELEC cannot apply in the instant controversy..
Atong Paglaum, Inc. and 51 other parties were disqualified
by the Commission on Elections in the May 2013 party-list 1. Whether or not there is a legal basis for delisting. NO.
Oakwood incident: The incident involved over 300 heavily armed elections primarily for not being qualified as representatives for No. The Supreme Court granted PGBI’s petition and is
military officers and enlisted men led by the founding members marginalized or underrepresented sectors. Atong Paglaum, Inc. qualified to be voted upon as a party-list group. The MINERO
of MAGDALO who surreptitiously took over Oakwood in the on et al., then filed a petition for certiorari against COMELEC alleging ruling is an erroneous application of Section 6(8) of RA 7941;
July 27 2003. They disarmed the security guards and planted grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC in disqualifying hence, it cannot sustain PGBI's delisting. The application of the
explosive devices around the building and within its vicinity. They them. principle of stare decisis is to adhere to precedents and not to
aired their grievances against the administration of former 1. Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse unsettle things which are established.
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, withdrew their support from of discretion in disqualifying the party-lists. NO. Section 6(8) of RA 7941 provides that COMELEC, upon
the government, and called for her resignation, as well as that of The COMELEC merely followed the guidelines set in the verified complaint of any interested party, may remove or cancel,
her cabinet members and of the top officials of the PNP and AFP. cases of Ang Bagong Bayani and BANAT. However, the Supreme after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national,
Court remanded the cases back to the COMELEC as the Supreme regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition if: (1) it fails
Court now provides for new guidelines which abandoned some to participate in the last two preceding elections or (2) fails to
Issue/Ruling: principles established in the two aforestated cases. obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the
In qualifying party-lists, there are three different groups may party-list system in the two preceding elections for the
1. Whether or not COMELEC gravely abused its discretion participate in the party-list system: (1) national parties or constituency in which it has registered.
when it denied the petition for registration filed by organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3)
MAGDALO on the ground that the latter seeks to sectoral parties or organizations. ANG LADLAD PARTY VS. COMELEC
achieve its goals through violent or unlawful means. Major political parties can now participate in the party-list G.R. No. 190582, APRIL 8, 2010
system provided that they do so through their bona fide sectoral
wing. The case has its roots in the COMELEC’s refusal to accredit
No. The COMELEC, in taking judicial notice of the The Supreme Court also emphasized that the party-list Ang Ladlad LGBT Party, an organization composed of men and
Oakwood incident, did not commit grave abuse of discretion system is not reserved for the “marginalized and women who identify themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or
because under the Rules of Court, judicial notice may be taken of underrepresented” or for parties who lack “well-defined political trans-gendered individuals as a party-list organization under
matters that are of public knowledge, or are capable of constituencies”. It is also for national or regional parties. It is also Republic Act (RA) No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List
unquestionable demonstration. The contention of MAGDALO for small ideology-based and cause-oriented parties who lack System Act on moral grounds.
“well-defined political constituencies”. 1. Whether or not Ang Ladlad LGBT Party is qualified for
that COMELEC denied their petition not on the basis of facts or
registration as party-list. YES.
evidence on record, but on mere speculation and conjectures
PGBI v. COMELEC Ang Ladlad has sufficiently demonstrated its compliance
cannot be given any merit. G.R. NO. 12345, JANUARY 1, 2019 with the legal requirements for accreditation. COMELEC
mistakenly opines that Supreme Court’s ruling in Ang Bagong
Main point: Under Article IX-C, Section 2(5) of the 1987 The Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. files a petition Bayani stands for the proposition that only those sectors
Constitution, parties, organizations and coalitions that seek to for review and a motion for reconsideration to nullify COMELEC specifically enumerated in the law or related to said sectors may
achieve their goals through violence or unlawful means shall be Resolution No. 8679 dated on 13 October 2009 that deleted be registered under the party-list system.
denied registration. This disqualification is reiterated in Section several party-list groups or organizations from the list of The enumeration of marginalized and under-represented
61 of B.P. 881, which provides that no political party which seeks registered national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or sectors is not exclusive. The crucial element is not whether a
68 | P a g e
sector is specifically enumerated, but whether a particular COMELEC accredited SENIOR CITIZENS as a party-list
organization complies with the requirements of the Constitution organization. Senior Citizen then participated in the May 2007 Petitioners contend in common that the COMELEC
and RA 7941. elections, however failed to get the 2% total votes cast. gravely abused its discretion in failing to disqualify Arroyo as
Subsequently, Senior Citizen was allowed to participate in the AGPP’s (Ang Galing Pinoy Party-List) nominee since: (1) he does
ANAD v. COMELEC May 2010 elections. After the conduct of the May 2010 elections, not belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector he
G.R. No. 206987, SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 SENIOR CITIZENS ranked second among all the party-list claims to represent which represents tricycle drivers and security
candidates and was allocated two seats in the House of guards and because he is not only a member of the First Family,
The COMELEC En Banc promulgated a resolution Representatives. The first seat was occupied by its first nominee, but is also (a) an incumbent member of the House of
canceling petitioner’s Certificate of Registration and/or Rep. Arquiza, while the second was given to its second nominee, Representatives and several committees in the same office; (2)
Accreditation on three grounds: (1) Petitioner ANAD does not David L. Kho (Rep. Kho). he is not a bona fide AGPP member for at least ninety (90) days
belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors Later, David Kho tendered his resignation letter as preceding the May 10, 2010 elections; (3) in light of these
enumerated in Section 5 of R.A. No. 7941; (2) ANAD failed to representative which was followed by a board resolution of preceding reasons, he would not be able to contribute to the
comply with the procedural requirements set forth in Section 4, Senior Citizen accepting such resignation in accordance with the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislations for the
Rule 3 of Resolution No. 9366, having only three out of five term-sharing agreement made between the nominees of the sector he seeks to represent; and (4) his nomination and
nominees; and (3) ANAD failed to submit its Statement of party-list. COMELEC, however, did not recognize the resignation acceptance of nomination as AGPP’s nominee violate AGPP’s
Contributions and Expenditures for the 2007 National and Local saying that it is against public policy. COMELEC resolved to cancel continuing undertaking upon which its petition for registration
Elections as required by Section 14 of Republic Act No. 7166. the registration of the Senior Citizens as party-list. and accreditation was based and granted.
1. Whether or not the COMELEC erred in finding that 1. Whether or not the Term-Sharing Agreement 1. Whether or not the COMELEC can disqualify AGPP’s
petitioner submitted only three nominees and that it failed to between Senior Citizens nominees (violation of public policy) a representative. NO.
submit its Statement of Contributions and Expenditures in the legal ground to cancel Senior Citizens’ Certificate of Registration? Under Section 2. Grounds for Disqualification. – Any
2007 Elections. NO. NO. nominee (a) who does not possess all the qualifications of a
The COMELEC held that while ANAD can be classified as The COMELEC indeed erred in cancelling the nominee as provided for by the Constitution, existing laws or (b)
a sectoral party lacking in well-defined political constituencies, its registration and accreditation of SENIOR CITIZENS. The public who commits any act declared by law to be grounds for
disqualification still subsists for violation of election laws and policy prohibiting term-sharing was provided for under Section 7, disqualification may be disqualified from continuing as a nominee
regulations, particularly for its failure to submit at least five Rule 4 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366, which was promulgated For a Filipino citizen to qualify as a party-list nominee,
nominees, and for its failure to submit its Statement of only on February 21, 2012. Hence, the resolution should not be he/she only needs to be a bona fide member of the party or
Contributions and Expenditures for the 2007 Elections. made to apply retroactively to the case of SENIOR CITIZENS as organization which he seeks to represent, for at least ninety (90)
In any event, the official tally results of the COMELEC nothing therein provides for its retroactive effect. When the days preceding the day of the election, and must likewise be at
show that ANAD garnered 200,972 votes. As such, even if term-sharing agreement was executed in 2010, the same was not least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.
petitioner is declared qualified and the votes cast for it are yet expressly proscribed by any law or resolution. Thus, it concluded that Arroyo possessed all the requirements
canvassed, statistics show that it will still fail to qualify for a seat Furthermore, the Datol Group points out that the mere mandated by Section 9 of RA 7941 and COMELEC had no reason
in the House of Representatives. execution of the Irrevocable Covenant between the nominees of to disqualify him.
The COMELEC may motu proprio cancel, after due SENIOR CITIZENS for the 2010 elections should not have been a In cases where someone challenges the qualifications
notice and hearing, the registration of any party-list organization ground for the cancellation of the organization’s registration and of a nominee to not belong to the marginalized and
if it violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations accreditation because the nominees never actually implemented underrepresented sectors that they ought to represent, the
relating to elections. the agreement. Party-List System Act provides that a nominee must be a "bona
The term sharing agreement was not implemented and fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to
COALITION OF ASSOCIATIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS VS. must not be given retroactive effect to cancel the registration of represent.", It is for the HRET to interpret the meaning of this
COMELEC the SENIOR CITIZENS as party list. particular qualification of a nominee after their proclamation and
G.R. 206844-45, JULY 23, 2013 assumption of office– the need for him or her to be a bona fide
BELLO VS. COMELEC member or a representative of his party-list organization. As this
G.R. No. 191998, DECEMBER 7, 2010 Court also held in Bantay Republic Act or BA-RA 7941 v.
69 | P a g e
Commission on Elections, a party-list representative is in every against party-list representatives is with the House of and fisher folks were never raised in the proceedings before the
sense "an elected member of the House of Representatives." Representative Election Tribunal. COMELEC. Lest it be misunderstood, the Court does not condone
Although the vote cast in a party-list election is a vote for a party, the deceit perpetrated by ABANG LINGKOD in connection with its
such vote, in the end, would be a vote for its nominees, who, in ABANG LINGKOD PARTY-LIST VS. COMELEC bid for continued registration under the party-list system.
appropriate cases, would eventually sit in the House of G.R. No. 206952, OCTOBER 22, 2013 Nevertheless, considering that track record is no longer a
Representatives. requirement, a group’s misrepresentation as to its track record
ABANG LINGKOD manifested before the COMELEC its intent to cannot be used as a ground to deny or cancel its registration -it is
ABC VS. COMELEC participate in the May 2013 elections. Pursuant to Resolution No. no longer material to its qualification under the party-list system.
GR. No. 193256, MARCH 22, 2011 9513,2 which, inter alia required previously registered party-list The disqualification of one or some of the nominees of
Private respondent, Melanio Mauricio Jr., filed a groups that have filed their respective Manifestations of Intent, a party-list group should not automatically result in the
petition2 with the COMELEC for the cancellation of registration to undergo summary evidentiary hearing for purposes of disqualification of the group. Otherwise it would accord the
and accreditation of petitioner ABC Party-List on the ground that determining their continuing compliance with the requirements nominees the same significance, which the law holds for the
petitioner is a front for a religious organization; hence, it is under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 79413, after the hearings, party-list groups; it is still the fact that the party-list group
disqualified to become a party-list group under Section 6(1) the COMELEC pointed out that ABANG LINGKOD failed to establish its satisfied the qualifications of the law that is material to consider.
Party-List System Act. track record in uplifting the cause of the marginalized and
The petition was dismissed by the 2nd Division of underrepresented; that it merely offered photographs of some COCOFED-PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC.
COMELEC. But the decision was reversed after COMELEC en banc alleged activities it conducted after the May 2010 elections. VS. COMELEC
found out that the petition verification page substantially They further opined that petitioner failed to show that G.R. No. 207026, AUGUST 6, 2013
complied with the requirements and that the records of the case its nominees are themselves marginalized and underrepresented
were issued without any hearing. COMELEC then resolved to hold or that they have been involved in activities aimed at improving Petitioner COCOFED-Philippine Coconut Producers
a hearing to ensure that due process is respected to which the the plight of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors it Federation, Inc. (COCOFED) is an organization and sectoral party
petitioner wishes to forbid contending that such proceedings is claims to represent. whose membership comes from the peasant sector, particularly
only applicable to non-winning party-list groups to which they 1. Whether or not the COMELEC gravely abused its the coconut farmers and producers. COCOFED manifested its
don’t qualify as one as they’re already proclaimed winners. discretion in cancelling ABANG LINGKOD’s registration under the intent to participate in the party-list elections of May 2013 and
1. Whether or not the COMELEC has jurisdiction on the party-list system. YES. submitted the names of only two nominees. The COMELEC
cancellation of registration for candidacy of ABC. YES. R.A. No. 7941 did not require groups intending to cancelled COCOFED’s registration and accreditation as a party-list
Based on the provision of Section 2 (5), Article IX-C, the register under the party-list system to submit proof of their track organization since COCOFED submitted only two nominees, it
COMELEC is granted the authority to register political parties, record as a group. Track record is not the same as the submission failed to comply with Section 8 of Republic Act (RA) No. 79417
organizations or coalitions, and the authority to cancel the or presentation of "constitution, by-laws, platform of that requires the party to submit to COMELEC a list of not less
registration of the same on legal grounds. The said authority of government, list of officers, coalition agreement, and other than five nominees.
the COMELEC is also supported in Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941, relevant information as may be required by the COMELEC," 1. Whether or not the cancellation of registration of
which provides that the COMELEC may motu proprio or upon which are but mere pieces of documentary evidence intended to candidacy of COCOFED is valid. YES.
verified complaint of any interested party, refuse or cancel, after establish that the group exists and is a going concern. Section 8 of RA No. 7941 states that each registered
due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional Indeed, it is enough that their principal advocacy party, organization or coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not
or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. It later than forty-five (45) days before the election a list of names,
grounds: xxx (1) It is a religious sect or denomination, must be stressed that the COMELEC cancelled ABANG LINGKOD’s not less than five (5), from which party-list representatives shall
organization or association organized for religious purposes. registration solely on the ground of the lack of its track record be chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes.
Therefore, making it clear that the COMELEC has jurisdiction over -that it falsely represented, by submitting digitally altered Furthermore, under Section 6(5) of RA No. 7941, violation of or
the instant petition for cancellation of the registration of the ABC photographs of its supposed activities, that it had a track record failure to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to
Party-List. in representing the marginalized and underrepresented. elections is a ground for the cancellation of registration.
Jurisdiction over contests that involves the party-list as The existence of ABANG LINGKOD as a party-list group COCOFED’s failure to submit a list of five nominees, despite
a party is rested with the COMELEC as jurisdiction over contests per se and the genuineness of its representation of the farmers ample opportunity to do so before the elections, is a violation
70 | P a g e
imputable to the party. The Court in no way authorizes a party- within the same party since multi-sectoral party-list organizations enactment. Therefore, the increase in congressional
list group's inexcusable failure, if not outright refusal, to comply are qualified to participate in the Philippine party-list system. representation mandated by R.A. No. 7675 is not
with the clear letter of the law on the submission of at least five Hence, a nominee who changes his sectoral affiliation unconstitutional.
nominees. within the same party will only be eligible for nomination under Reapportionment of legislative districts may be made
the new sectoral affiliation if the change has been effected at through a special law mad by the Congress. To hold that
A party is not allowed to simply refuse to submit a list least six months before the elections. reapportionment can be made only through a general law would
containing "not less than five nominees" and consider the In the case at bar, the Court ruled that private create an inequitable situation where a new city or province
deficiency as a waiver on its part. Aside from colliding with the respondent was not qualified to be a nominee of either the youth created by Congress will be denied legislative representation.
plain text of the law, this interpretation is not in harmony with sector or the overseas Filipino workers and their families sector
the statutory policy of enhancing the party-list-groups’ chances in the May 2007 elections. MARIANO VS. COMELEC
to compete for and win seats in the legislature, and therefore A party-list organization’s ranking of its nominees is a 242 SCRA 211
does not serve as incentive to Filipino citizens belonging to these mere indication of preference, their qualifications according to
groups to contribute to the formulation and enactment of law are a different matter. At bench are two (2) petitions assailing certain
appropriate legislation. provisions of Republic Act No. 7854 "An Act Converting the
Municipality of Makati Into a Highly Urbanized City to be known
MILAGROS AMORES VS. HRET Pars. 1, 3, and 4; Rules on Apportionment as the City of Makati." as unconstitutional. Petitioners contend
G.R. No. 189600, JUNE 29, 2010 Reapportionment through Special Law that Section 52 of the Act is unconstitutional on the grounds that:
(a) it increased the legislative district of Makati only by special
Milagros E. Amores (petitioner) seeks the ouster of TOBIAS VS. ABALOS law (the Charter in violation of the constitutional provision
private respondent Villanueva, alleging that, among other things, 239 SCRA 106 requiring a general reapportionment law to be passed by
(1) private respondent assumed office without a formal Congress within three (3) years following the return of every
proclamation issued by the COMELEC; (2) he was disqualified to Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Republic Act census; (b) the increase in legislative district was not expressed in
be a nominee of the youth sector of CIBAC since, at the time of No. 7675, otherwise known as "An Act Converting the the title of the bill; and(c) the addition of another legislative
the filing of his certificates of nomination and acceptance, he was Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be district in Makati is not in accord with Section 5 (3), Article VI of
already 31 years old, beyond the age limit of 30 pursuant to known as the City of Mandaluyong." Petitioners came before this the Constitution for as of the latest survey (1990 census), the
Section 9 of RA No. 7941 (Party-List System Act); and (3) his Court, contending that R.A. No. 7675, specifically Article VIII, population of Makati stands at only 450,000.
change of affiliation from CIBAC’s youth sector to its overseas Section 49 thereof, is unconstitutional for being violative of the 1. Whether or not RA 7854 is violative of the provision
Filipino workers and their families sector was not effected at provisions of the Constitution, among others, involving Article VI, of the constitution on the apportionment of legislative districts in
least six months prior to the May 2007 elections so as to be Sections 5(1) of the 1987 PH Constitution providing for the the House of Representatives. NO.
qualified to represent the new sector under Section 15 of RA No. “fixed” composition of the lower house. These issues have been laid to rest in the recent case of
7941. 1. Whether or not the RA No. 7675 provides for a Tobias v. Abalos. The Court ruled that reapportionment of
1. Whether Sections 9 and 15 of RA No. 7941 apply to reapportionment of the composition of the HR beyond what is legislative districts may be made through a special law, such as in
private respondent. YES. provided in Article VI, Sec. 5(1) of the Constitution. NO. the charter of a new city. The Constitution clearly provides that
The law states in unequivocal terms that a nominee of To the contention that the assailed law violates the Congress shall be composed of not more than two hundred fifty
the youth sector must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more present limit on the number of representatives as set forth in the (250) members, unless otherwise fixed by law. As thus worded,
than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election, so it must Constitution, Article VI, Section 5(1), as aforequoted, shows that the Constitution did not preclude Congress from increasing its
be that a candidate who is more than 30 on election day is not the present limit of 250 members is not absolute. The membership by passing a law, other than a general
qualified to be a youth sector nominee. Constitution clearly provides that the House of Representatives reapportionment of the law. This is its exactly what was done by
Since this mandate is contained in RA No. 7941, the shall be composed of not more than 250 members, "unless Congress in enacting R.A. No. 7854 and providing for an increase
Party-List System Act, covers ALL youth sector nominees vying for otherwise provided by law." The inescapable import of the latter in Makati's legislative district.
party-list representative seats. Section 15 covers changes in both clause is that the present composition of Congress may be
political party and sectoral affiliation. And the latter may occur increased, if Congress itself so mandates through a legislative
71 | P a g e
 The Constitution does not preclude Congress from cities, is void for being contrary to Sec. 5, Art. VI, and Sec. 20, Art. brought the imbalance in the distribution of voters and
increasing its membership by passing a law other than a general X, as well as Sec. 3 of the Ordinance appended to the inhabitants in the five legislative districts of the province of
apportionment law. Constitution. Leyte.
Congress cannot validly delegate to the ARMM This imbalance could devalue a citizen's vote in
SEMA VS. COMELEC Regional Assembly the power to create legislative districts, violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The
558 SCRA 700 nothing in Sec. 20, Article X of the Constitution, authorizes issue involves a problem of reapportionment of legislative
autonomous regions, expressly or impliedly, to create or districts and petitioners’ remedy lies with Congress, as stated in
ARMM Regional Assembly, pursuant to Sec. 19, Art. VI reapportion legislative districts. The power to increase the paragraph 4 of the same section. The Constitutional Commission
of RA 9054, delegating to the said assembly the power to create allowable membership in the House of Representatives and to denied to the COMELEC the major power of legislative
provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays, enacted Muslim reapportion legislative districts is vested exclusively in Congress. apportionment as it itself exercised the power. Section 2 of the
Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 201, creating the Province of Shariff Ordinance only empowered the COMELEC "to make minor
Kabunsuan composed of municipalities in the First District of Rules on Apportionment adjustments of the reapportionment herein made." Consistent
Maguindanao, leaving Maguindao with municipalities (1) In accordance with the number of their respective with the limits of its power to make minor adjustments, Section 3
constituting its 2nd Legislative District. The Sangguniang inhabitants and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio of the Ordinance did not also give the respondent COMELEC any
Panlungsod of Cotabato City then issued a resolution requesting authority to transfer municipalities from one legislative district to
the COMELEC to clarify its status considering that, although they MONTEJO VS. COMELEC another district. The power granted by Section 3 to the
are part of Maguindanao’s 1st Leg. District, they are not part of 242 SCRA 415 respondent COMELEC is to adjust the number of members (not
the Province itself. municipalities).
In answer, thereto, COMELEC issued Resolution 07- Biliran, which is located in the third district of Leyte, The COMELEC has no vested power to reapportion
0407 “maintaining the status quo of Cotabato City as part of was converted into a regular province. As a consequence, eight legislative districts, only the Congress has the power to do so, as
Shariff Kabunsuan in the 1st Leg. Dist. of Maguindanao”, which (8) municipalities of the Third District composed the new stated in Sec 5(4) of Art 6 of the Constitution. (The Ordinance is
was later amended by Res. No. 7902 renaming the legislative province of Biliran. A further consequence was to reduce the entitled "Apportioning the Seats of the House of Representatives
district in question as “Shariff Kabunsuan Province with Cotabato Third District to five (5) municipalities. To remedy the resulting of the Congress of the Philippines to the Different Legislative
City”.’ inequality in the distribution of inhabitants, voters and Districts in Provinces and Cities and the Metropolitan Manila
Sema, who was a candidate of the May 2007 Elections for municipalities in the province of Leyte, respondent COMELEC Area.")
Representative petitioned for the nullification of the such promulgated Resolution No. 2736 where it transferred the
resolution contending that COMELEC acted without or in excess municipality of Capoocan of the Second District and the HERRERA VS. COMELEC
of its jurisdiction for issuing the resolution despite its earlier municipality of Palompon of the Fourth District to the Third GR 131499, NOVEMBER 17, 1999
directive in Resolution No. 7845 designating Cotabato City as the District of Leyte.
one component of the 1st Leg. Dist. of Maguindanao. Petitioner Cirilo Roy G. Montejo, representing the First In its Resolution no. 68, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
1. Whether or not a province created by the ARMM District of Leyte, pleads for the annulment of section 1 of of Guimaras requested the COMELEC to have the province
Regional Assembly is entitled to 1 representative in the HOR Resolution No. 2736 of the COMELEC, redistricting certain subdivided into two provincial districts. Acting upon the request,
without the need of a national law creating a legislative district municipalities in Leyte, on the ground that it violates the the Provincial Election Supervisor conducted two consultative
for such a new province. NO. principle of equality of representation. To remedy the alleged meetings which resulted in favor of the division. The PES then
Sec. 19, Art. VI of RA 9054 is invalid, insofar as it inequity, petitioner seeks to transfer the municipality of Tolosa issues a memorandum recommending the division of the
granted to the Assembly the power to create provinces and cities from his district to the Second District of the province. province. Guimaras was then reclassified from 5th class to 4th
which could in effect result in the creation of legislative districts. 1. Whether or not the Section 1 of Resolution No. 2736 class province under the Memo Circular No. 97-1 issued by the
Only Congress can create provinces and cities because creation of the COMELEC is void. YES. Bureau of Local Government Finance of the Department of
of such necessarily includes the creation of legislative districts, a The ruling for this case falls under the lack of major Finance. In line with such reclassification, the COMELEC issued
power only Congress can exercise under Sec. 5, Art. VI of the power for legislative apportionment of COMELEC. With regard to Resolution No. 2950 which allotted 8 Sangguniang Panlalawigan
Constitution. Accordingly, Sec. 19, Art. VI of R.A. 9054, granting the Sec 5(1) of art 6, it was only stated that the conversion of seats to Guimaras.
the ARMM Regional Assembly the power to create provinces and Biliran from a sub-province to a regular province may have
72 | P a g e
 1. Whether or not the COMELEC committed a grave The ordinance appended to the Constitution merely legislative district for the city, is unconstitutional for failing to
abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 2950, on the ground apportions the seats of the House of Representatives to the meet the minimum population threshold of 250,000 for a city to
that there is disparity in the ratio of the number of voters that a different legislative districts in the country. merit representation in Congress as provided under Section 5(3),
Board Member represents. NO. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion. The HERRERA VS. COMELEC 1. Whether or not the RA 9591 violates the Section
court ruled that under R.A. 7166 and COMELEC Resolution No. GR 131499, NOVEMBER 17, 1999 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution with regard to the
2313, the basis for division into districts shall be the number of minimum population threshold. YES.
inhabitants of the province concerned and not the number of In its Resolution no. 68, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan The court declares RA 9591 unconstitutional for being
listed or registered voters as theorized upon by petitioners. of Guimaras requested the COMELEC to have the province violative of Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. The
The basis for division into districts shall be the number subdivided into two provincial districts. Acting upon the request, 1987 Constitution requires that for a city to have a legislative
of inhabitants of the province concerned and not the number of the Provincial Election Supervisor conducted two consultative district, the city must have "a population of at least two hundred
listed or registered. meetings which resulted in favor of the division. The PES then fifty thousand."
(2) Contiguous, compact and adjacent territory issues a memorandum recommending the division of the Section 5(3), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
(3) Population size province. Guimaras was then reclassified from 5th class to 4th provides: "Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as
class province under the Memo Circular No. 97-1 issued by the practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory. Each city
SAMSON VS. AGUIRRE Bureau of Local Government Finance of the Department of with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each
315 SCRA 53 Finance. In line with such reclassification, the COMELEC issued province, shall have at least one representative."
Resolution No. 2950 which allotted 8 Sangguniang Panlalawigan
President Fidel V. Ramos signed into law Republic Act seats to Guimaras. AQUINO VS. COMELEC
No. 8535, creating the City of Novaliches out of 15 barangays of 1. Whether or not the COMELEC committed a grave GR 189793, APRL 17, 2010
Quezon City. Petitioner Moises S. Samson, incumbent councilor abuse of discretion in issuing Resolution No. 2950, on the ground
of the first district of Quezon City, challenges the that the districts do not comprise a compact, contiguous and Petitioners Senator Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III and
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 8535 on the grounds that: a) adjacent area. NO. Mayor Jesse Robredo, as public officers, seek the
R.A. No. 8535 failed to conform to the criteria established by the COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion. The unconstitutionality of Republic Act No. 9716, entitled "An Act
Local Government Code particularly, Sections 7 as to the court ruled that the municipalities belonging to each district are Reapportioning the Composition of the First (1st) and Second
requirements of income, population and land area; and b) The compact, contiguous and adjacent. Contiguous and adjacent (2nd) Legislative Districts in the Province of Camarines Sur and
said law will in effect amend the Constitution. means adjoining, nearby, abutting, having a common border, Thereby Creating a New Legislative District From Such
1. Whether or not the RA 8535 is violative of the Sec 5, connected, and/or touching along boundaries often for Reapportionment." Petitioners contend that the
par 5 of Art 6 of the Phil Constitution . NO. considerable distances. On its face, the map of Guimaras shows reapportionment introduced by Republic Act No. 9716, violates
The proposed creation of the City of Novaliches will in that the municipalities grouped together are contiguous or the explicit constitutional standard that requires a minimum
no way result in a prohibited amendment of the Constitution, adjacent. population of two hundred fifty thousand for the creation of a
contrary to petitioner's contention. The Constitution merely Contiguous and adjacent means adjoining, nearby, legislative district. The petitioners claim that the reconfiguration
apportions the seats of the House of Representatives to the abutting, having a common border, connected, and/or touching by Republic Act No. 9716 of the first and second districts of
different legislative districts in the country, and not for the along boundaries often for considerable distances. On its face, Camarines Sur is unconstitutional, because the proposed first
creation of a city itself. Section 5, paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the the map of Guimaras shows that the municipalities grouped district will end up with a population of less than 250,000 or only
Constitution states that each city with a population of at least together are contiguous or adjacent. 176,383.
two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least 1. Whether the claim of the petitioner is correct. NO.
one representative. It does not mandate that for a city to be ALDABA VS. COMELEC RA 9716 is declared to be a valid law. There is no
created there should be a population of two hundred fifty GR 188078, JANUARY 25, 2010 specific provision in the Constitution that fixes a 250,000
thousand. minimum population that must compose a legislative district. The
Petitioners filed this petition contending that RA 9591, provision draws a plain and clear distinction between the
which amended Malolos’ City Charter by creating a separate entitlement of a city to a district on one hand, and the
73 | P a g e
entitlement of a province to a district on the other. For while a Province of Dinagat Islands and the election of the officials district and the delineation of the city into two districts for
province is entitled to at least a representative, with nothing thereof are declared VALID. purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.
mentioned about population, a city must first meet a population The provision in Article 9(2) of the Rules and Thus, Article X, Section 10 of the Constitution does not come into
minimum of 250,000 in order to be similarly entitled. Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 play and no plebiscite is necessary to validly apportion Cagayan
The second sentence of Section 5(3), Article VI of the stating, "The land area requirement shall not apply where the de Oro City into two districts.
Constitution, succinctly provides: "Each city with a population of proposed province is composed of one (1) or more islands," is Article VI (entitled Legislative Department) of the 1987
at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have declared as VALID by the SC in this case. Constitution lays down the rules on legislative apportionment
at least one representative." Plainly read, Section 5(3) of the under its Section 5, par 4 which provides “within three years
Constitution requires a 250,000 minimum population only for a (4) Following the return of every census, Congress shall make a following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a
city to be entitled to a representative, but not so for a province. reapportionment reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards
provided in this section.”
NAVARRO VS. ERMITA BAGABUYO VS. COMELEC A pronounced distinction between Article VI, Section 5
GR 180050, APRIL 12, 2011 GR. 176970 and, Article X, Section 10 is on the requirement of a plebiscite.
The creation of legislative districts does not need confirmation by
This case involves the question of validity of Republic On 2006, Cagayan de Oro's then Congressman plebiscite if it does not involve the creation of a local government
Act (R.A.) No. 9355 (An Act Creating the Province of Dinagat Constantino G. Jaraula filed and sponsored House Bill No. 5859: unit.
Islands) for being unconstitutional, alleging that when the law "An Act Providing for the Apportionment of the Lone Legislative
was passed, Dinagat had a land area of 802.12 square kilometers District of the City of Cagayan De Oro." which eventually became Section 6. Qualifications of Representatives
only and a population of only 106,951, failing to comply with Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9371. COMELEC promulgated Resolution
Section 10, Article X of the Constitution and of Section 461 of the No. 7837 to implement R.A. No. 9371.
LGC. Petitioner Rogelio Bagabuyo filed the petition for
Previous decisions relating to this case declared the creation of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with a prayer for the
the province as unconstitutional. issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of
1. Is the creation of Dinagat Islands as a separate preliminary injunction against the COMELEC from implementing
province constitutional? YES. Resolution No. 7837 on the ground that RA 9371 is
SC now looked at the central policy considerations in unconstitutional, averring that Cagayan de Oro City's
the creation of provinces. They compared the LGC provisions on reapportionment under this act falls within the meaning of
the creation of municipalities and cities and how they allow an creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of
exception to the land area requirement in cases of non-contiguity boundaries of cities under Section 10, Article X of the
as provided for under Sections 442 and 450 of the LGC.SC Constitution, thus the COMELEC cannot implement R.A. No. 9371
concluded that it must have been the intent of the legislators to without confirmation by plebiscite which is indispensable for the
extend such exception to provinces especially considering the division or conversion of a local government unit.
physical configuration of the Philippine archipelago. In fact, while 1. Whether or not R.A. No. 9371 merely provides for
such exemption was absent under Section 461 of the LGC the legislative reapportionment of Cagayan de Oro City and thus,
(provision relating to creation of provinces), such was constitutional. YES.
incorporated under the LGC-IRR thus correcting the R.A. No. 9371 is purely and simply reapportionment
congressional oversight in said provision and reflecting the true legislation passed in accordance with the authority granted to
legislative intent. It would, then, be in order for the Court to Congress under Article VI, Section 5(4) of the Constitution. No
uphold the validity of Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR. Thus, the division of Cagayan de Oro City as a political and corporate entity
Honorable Supreme Court ruled that Republic Act No. 9355 is as takes place or is mandated. Cagayan de Oro City politically
VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL, and the proclamation of the remains a single unit and its administration is not divided along
territorial lines. There is only the addition of another legislative
74 | P a g e
Citizenship In order for a person to qualify as a candidate for a
Agapito A. Aquino, the petitioner, filed his Certificate of district, he must prove that he has established not just residence
BENGZON VS. CRUZ Candidacy for the position of Representative for the new Second but domicile of choice.
GR 142840, M 7, 2001 Legislative District of Makati City. In his certificate of candidacy,
Aquino stated that he was a resident of the aforementioned MARCOS VS. COMELEC
Respondent Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the district for 10 months. 248 SCRA 300 (1995)
Philippines. He was born in San Clemente, Tarlac, on April 27, Move Makati, a registered political party, and Mateo
1960, of Filipino parents. The fundamental law then applicable Bedon, Chairman of LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Barangay Cembo, Imelda Marcos filed her certificate of candidacy for the
was the 1935 Constitution. However, he enlisted in the United Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify Aquino on the ground First District of Leyte stating that she has been residing there for
States Marine Corps and without the consent of the Republic of that the latter lacked the residence qualification as a candidate seven months. Incumbent, Cirilo Montejo filed for motion for
the Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the United States. for congressman which under Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 disqualification of Marcos for failing the required residency.
As a Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for under Constitution, should be for a period not less than one year Marcos amended her certificate of candidacy to due to honest
Commonwealth Act No. 63, section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may preceding the (May 8, 1995) day of the election. Faced with a mistake, and that she was residing in the district since childhood.
lose his citizenship by, among other, "rendering service to or petition for disqualification, Aquino amended the entry on his COMELEC decided in favor of Montejo. Marcos received the
accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country." residency in his COC to 1 year and 13 days. highest number of votes and her proclamation was suspended,
Respondent reacquired his Philippine citizenship The COMELEC passed a resolution that dismissed the hence the petition.
through repatriation under Republic Act No. 2630. He ran for and petition on and allowed Aquino to run in the election. Aquino 1. Whether or not Marcos failed the constitutional
was elected as the Representative of the Second District of won the election. However, private respondents filed an residency requirement. NO.
Pangasinan. Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration of the COMELEC resolution COMELEC resolution was set aside and directed to
Subsequently, petitioner filed a case for Quo Warranto and a 2nd Urgent Motion Ad Cautelum to Suspend Proclamation proclaim Marcos as duly elected representative of the First
Ad Cautelam with respondent House of Representatives Electoral of petitioner. COMELEC issued an Order suspending petitioner's District of Leyte. The petitioner held various residences for
Tribunal (HRET) claiming that respondent Cruz was not qualified proclamation. Aquino then filed a Petition of Certiorari assailing different purposes during the last four decades. None of these
to become a member of the House of Representatives since he is the orders. purposes point to an intention to abandon her domicile of origin
not a natural-born citizen as required under Article VI, section 6 1. Whether or not it is proven that Aquino has in Tacloban, Leyte. The essential distinction between residence
of the Constitution. HRET rendered its decision dismissing the established domicile of choice and not just residence in the and domicile in law is that residence involves the intent to leave
petition for quo warranto. district he was running in. NO. when the purpose for which the resident has taken his abode
1. Whether or not respondent Cruz, a natural-born Petitioner has not established domicile of choice in the ends. If a person’s intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if
Filipino who became an American citizen, can still be considered district he was running in. The Constitution requires a person his intent is to leave then as soon as his purpose is established it
a natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippine running for a post in the House of the Representatives one year is residence.
citizenship. YES. of residency prior to the elections in the district in which he seeks Domicile includes the twin elements of “the fact of
As respondent Cruz was not required by law to go election to. Aquino’s assertion that he has transferred his residing or physical presence in a fixed place” and animus
through naturalization proceeding in order to reacquire his domicile from Tarlac to Makati is a bare assertion which is hardly manendi, or the intention of returning there permanently.
citizenship, he is perforce a natural-born Filipino. As such, he supported by the facts in the case at bench.
possessed all the necessary qualifications to be elected as To successfully effect a change of domicile, petitioner DOMINO VS. COMELEC
member of the House of Representatives. must prove an actual removal or an actual change of domicile, a GR 134015 (July 19, 1999)
There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) by birth bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence
and (2) by naturalization. A person who at the time of his birth is and establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond Petitioner Juan Domino filed his certificate of candidacy
a citizen of a particular country, is a natural citizen thereof. with the purpose. Aquino was thus rightfully disqualified by the for the position of Representative of the Lone Legislative District
Commission on Elections due to his lack of one year residence in of the Province of Sarangani. Private respondents filed a petition
Domicile and Residence the district. to Cancel Certificate of Candidacy to COMELEC against Domino,
AQUINO VS. COMELEC on reasons that Domino is not a resident and a registered voter
243 SCRA 400 (1995) of the province of Sarangani. The COMELEC disqualified Domino
75 | P a g e
as candidate for lack of the one-year residence requirement and 1. Whether or not the petitioner is qualified for the from the address they had indicated as their place of residence in
likewise ordered the cancellation of his COC. However the residency requirement in Sec. 6, Art. 2 of the Constitution. YES. their Certificate of Candidacy.
COMELEC issued Supplemental Omnibus Resolution No. 3046, The place where he actually or constructively has his
ordering that the votes cast for Domino is counted but to permanent home, where he eventually intends to return and Additional Qualifications
postpone the proclamation if winning because the remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which the Constitution refers
disqualification is not yet final and executory. Domino filed when it speaks of residence. MAQUERA VS. BORRA
petition for Certiorari and prayed for preliminary injunction The registration of the voter in one district is not proof 15 SCRA 7
alleging, in the main, that the COMELEC committed grave abuse that he is not domiciled in another district, or have abandoned or
of discretion. lost his residence. The Congress passed the R.A. No. 4421 requiring all
1. Whether or not petitioner lacked the qualification candidates for national, provincial, city and municipal offices to
with regard to residence as a candidate for congressman in FERNANDEZ VS. HRET post a surety bond equivalent to the one-year salary or
Sarangani. YES. 608 SCRA 733 (2009) emoluments of the position to which he is a candidate. In
Petitioner falls short of the one year residency compliance with the said R.A. No. 4421, COMELEC decided to
requirement under the Constitution. To successfully effect a Petitioner filed for candidacy as Representative of the require all candidates for President, Vice-President, Senator and
change of domicile, one must demonstrate an actual removal or First Legislative District of the Province of Laguna. In his Member of the House of the Representatives to file a surety
an actual change of domicile. The lease contract of Domino does Certificate of Candidacy, he indicated that he is a resident of Sta. bond, by a bonding company of good reputation, acceptable to
not adequately support a change of domicile. Rosa City, Laguna. the Commission. Finding R.A. No. 4421 and COMELEC’s action to
While “residence” simply requires bodily presence in a Private respondent sought to COMELEC the be undemocratic and contrary to the Constitution, the Maquera
given place, “domicile” requires not only such bodily presence in cancellation of petitioner’s COC and the latter’s disqualification filed a petition assailing the constitutionality of R.A. No. 4421.
that place but also a declared and probable intent to make it as a candidate on the ground of an alleged material 1. Whether R.A. No. 4421 is unconstitutional and hence
one’s fixed and permanent place of abode, one’s home. misrepresentation in his COC regarding his place of residence null and void. YES.
outside the First District, because during past elections, he had The property qualifications are inconsistent with the
PEREZ VS. COMELEC declared Pagsanjan and Cabuyao, and the petitioner lacked the nature and essence of the Republican system, and the principle
GR 133944, OCTOBER 28, 1999 one year residency requirement. of social justice for this system is premised upon the tenet that
The petition, however, was dismissed by COMELEC for sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
Private respondent, Rodolfo Aguinaldo, filed his lack of merit. Subsequently, petitioner was elected as the emanates from them. This, in turn, implies necessarily that the
certificate of candidacy for Representative of the 3rd District of Representative of the First District of Laguna. Private respondent right to vote and to be voted shall not be dependent upon the
Cagayan in the 1998 elections. Petitioner filed in the COMELEC a filed a petition for quo warranto before the HRET which ruled in wealth of the individual concerned.
petition for the disqualification of private respondent as a favor of private respondent. Social justice presupposes equal opportunity for all,
candidate on the ground that he was a resident of Gattaran, 1. Whether or not petitioner sufficiently complied with rich and poor alike, and that, accordingly, no person shall, by
Cagayan (1st District) and not in Tuguegarao, Cagayan (3rd the one-year residency requirement to be a Member of the reason of poverty, be denied the chance to be elected to public
District), as shown by the documentary evidence in the record: House of Representatives, as provided in the 1987 Constitution. office.
he voted in Gattaran until 1995 elections. YES.
Private respondent claimed that while he had been a The Supreme Court found the interpretation of the SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY VS. DNGEROUS DRUGS BOARD
resident of Gattaran, he transferred his residence to Tuguegarao HRET of the residency requirement under the Constitution to be GR No. 157870, NOVEMBER 3, 2008
in 1990 by renting an apartment in order to hide his mistress overly restrictive and unwarranted under the factual
from public view because his marriage to his former wife was still circumstances of this case. Thus, the decision of the HRET and its In its Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65, petitioner
subsisting, and he presented records that showed he had been a Minute Resolution are hereby reversed and set aside. Social Justice Society (SJS), a registered political party, seeks to
resident of Tuguegarao. The petition was dismissed and There is nothing in the residency requirement for prohibit the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) and the Philippine
Aquinaldo was proclaimed elected. Petitioner filed a motion for candidates that prohibits them from owning property and Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) from enforcing Sec. 36 of RA
reconsideration exercising their rights of ownership thereto in other places aside 9165 on the ground that they are constitutionally infirm. Section
36 thereof requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for
76 | P a g e
public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers development. Then, they removed Dimaporo’s name for any office other than the one which he is holding in
and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged from the roll of members from the House of a permanent capacity, except for President and Vice-
before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses. Representatives pursuant to Sec. 67 Article IX of the President, shall be considered ipso facto  resigned from
For one ground, the provisions trench in the equal Omnibus Election Code. his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
protection clause inasmuch as they can be used to harass a  Section 67, Article IX of B.P. Blg. 881 reads: Any elective
student or an employee deemed undesirable. And for another, official whether national or local running for any office
Hence, under RA 9006, an elective official shall no
there is no provision in the Constitution authorizing the Congress other than the one which he is holding in a permanent
longer be deemed resigned if he files his certificate of
or COMELEC to expand the qualification requirements of capacity except for President and Vice-President shall
candidacy for an elective office while he is still in office.
candidates for senator. be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon
1. Whether or not Sec. 36 of RA 9165 is the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
unconstitutional, and whether Congress or COMELEC is not  Respondents assert that petitioner's filing of a  Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, which
authorized in enforcing it. YES. Certificate of Candidacy is an act of resignation which provides that an appointive official shall be considered
The Sec. 36 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional, petitioner’s estops him from claiming otherwise as he is presumed ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his
contention is valid. The essence of privacy is the right to be left to be aware of existing laws. certificate of candidacy, was however retained by the
alone. In context, the right to privacy means the right to be free  Petitioner lost in the first ARMM elections and then Fair Election Act.
from unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion tried to regain his seat in the lower house. Hence, the  Petitioner questioned the constitutionality of Section
into one’s private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation issue 14 on the ground that it violates the equal protection
to a person’s ordinary sensibilities. COMELEC cannot validly 1. Whether or not running for another elective office clause of the Constitution. He averred that the repeal
impose qualifications on candidates for senator in addition to constitute voluntary renunciation of one’s public office? YES. of Section 67 gave elective officials undue advantage
what the Constitution prescribes. If Congress cannot require a When an elective official covered thereby files a certificate over appointive officials (discrimination).
candidate for senator to meet such additional qualification, the of candidacy for another office, he is deemed to have voluntarily  Respondents contend that there is no violation of the
COMELEC is also without such power. The right of a citizen in the cut short his tenure, not his term. The term remains and his equal protection clause of the Constitution. Equal
democratic process of election should not be defeated by successor, if any, is allowed to serve its unexpired portion. The protection simply requires that all persons or things
unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified act of filing a certificate of candidacy for another office similarly situated are treated alike, both as to rights
in the Constitution. constitutes an overt, concrete act of voluntary renunciation of conferred and responsibilities imposed.
The right of a citizen in a democratic process of election the elective office, it is not necessary, as petitioner opines that
should not be defeated by unwarranted impositions of the other position be actually held. 1. Whether the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election
requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution. The term of office prescribed by the Constitution may not be Code pertaining to elective officials gives undue benefit to such
extended or reduced by circumstances within or beyond the officials as against the appointive ones
Section 7. Term of Representatives power of said officer. Tenure may be shorter than the term or it
may not exist at all. These situations will not change the duration NO. By repealing Section 67 but retaining Section 66 of the
DIMAPORO VS. MITRA of the term of office. Omnibus Election Code, the legislators deemed it proper to treat
202 SCRA 779 these two classes of officials differently with respect to the effect
211. FARINAS VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY on their tenure in the office. Substantial distinctions clearly exist
 Petitioner Mohamad Ali Dimaporo was elected G.R. NO. 147387, Dec. 10, 2003 between elective officials and appointive officials. The former
representative for the 2nd legislative District of Lanao occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the electorate and
del Sur. After 2 years, petitioner filed a Certificate of  In 2001, the Fair Election Act (RA 9006) was signed into elected to an office for a definite term and may be removed
Candidacy for Regional Governor in ARMM with the law. Section 14 thereof repealed Section 67 of the therefrom only upon stringent conditions. While, appointive
COMELEC. Omnibus Election Code which provides: officials hold their office by virtue of their designation thereto by
 COMELEC then informed the Speaker and the Secretary SEC. 67.  Candidates holding elective office. –
an appointing authority and are entitled to security of tenure
of the House of Representatives about the foregoing Any elective official, whether national or local, running
while others serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority.

77 | P a g e
Moreover, it is not within the power of the Court to pass upon or the elective ones, the law unduly discriminates against the first
look into the wisdom of this classification. Hence, equal class. The fact alone that there is substantial distinction between Main point: A person holding office in the House must yield his or
protection is not infringed. those who hold appointive positions and those occupying her seat to the person declared by the COMELEC to be the
elective posts, does not justify such differential treatment. winner. The Speaker shall administer the oath on the winner.
Main point: With the repeal of Section 67, all elective officials are
now placed on equal footing as they are allowed to finish their Main point: An elected or appointed official is not considered Art. VI, Section 9: Special Elections
respective terms even if they run for any office, whether the resigned from his office upon filling the Certificate of Candidacy.
presidency, vice-presidency or other elective positions, other 214. Tolentino v. COMELEC
than the one they are holding in a permanent capacity. Art. VI, Section 8: Regular Elections G.R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004

Art. VI, Section 7: Term of Representative  Following the confirmation of Senator

213. CODILLA VS. DE VENECIA Guingona as VP, the Senate called on COMELEC to fill
212. QUINTO VS. COMELEC G.R. NO. 150605, DECEMBER 10, 2002 the vacancy through a special election to be held
G.R. NO. 189698, DECEMBER 1, 2009 simultaneously with the regular elections on May 14,
 Petitioner Codilla garnered the highest votes in the 2001. 12 Senators, with 6-year term each, were due to
 Petitioners Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. election for representative in the 4 th district of Leyte be elected in that election. COMELEC issued a
Tolentino, Jr. hold appointive positions in the against respondent Locsin. Petitioner won while a resolution providing that the "Senatorial candidate
government and intend to run in the coming elections, disqualification suit was pending. Respondent moved garnering the 13th highest number of votes shall serve
they filed the instant petition for prohibition and only for the unexpired term of former Senator Teofisto
for the suspension of petitioner’s proclamation. By
certiorari, seeking the declaration of the afore-quoted Guingona, Jr."
virtue of the Comelec ex parte order, petitioner’s
Section 4(a) of Resolution No. 8678 (a) Any person  Petitioner challenged the resolution because
holding a public appointive office or position including proclamation was suspended. Comelec later on 1. It failed to notify the electorate of the position to
active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, resolved that petitioner was guilty of soliciting votes be filled.
and other officers and employees in government- and consequently disqualified him. Respondent Locsin 2. It failed to require senatorial candidates to
owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered was proclaimed winner. Upon motion by petitioner, the indicate in their certificates of candidacy whether
ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his they seek for special or regular election.
resolution was however reversed and a new resolution
certificate of candidacy) as null and void. 3. It failed to specify in the Voter's Information Sheet
declared respondent’s proclamation as null and void.
 The Office of the Solicitor General maintains that the the candidates seeking election.
COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in Respondent made his defiance and disobedience to
phrasing Section 4(a) of Resolution No. 8678 for it subsequent resolution publicly known while petitioner Whether a special election to fill a vacant 3-year term
merely copied what is in the law. It is based on Section asserted his right to the office he won. Senate seat was validly held
66 of the Omnibus Election Code, which provides that
an appointive official shall be considered ipso facto Whether respondent’s proclamation was valid. YES. In case of vacancy, a special election may be
resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law. The
of candidacy. NO. The Court ruled that the proclamation of right and duty to hold the election emanate from the statute and
respondent Locsin is null and void for the following reasons. (1) not from any call for the election by some authority and the law
1. Whether Sec.4(a) of the COMELEC Resolution is The petitioner (Codilla) was denied due process during the entire thus charges voters with knowledge of time and place of
unconstitutional proceeding leading to the proclamation of Respondent Locsin. (2)
election.
No votes cast in favor of the petitioner cannot be considered
YES. In considering persons holding appointive positions as stray and respondent cannot be validly proclaimed on that basis.
ipso facto resigned from their posts upon the filing of their CoCs, Furthermore, respondent, as second placer, could not take the
but not considering as resigned all other civil servants, specifically seat in office since he did not represent the electorate’s choice.
78 | P a g e
 (1) COMELEC's failure to give notice of the time of the Representatives even when prior to Dec. 30, 1969 are declared Premier Apartments in Makati City publicly demanded
special election did not negate the calling of such election, that is void, as violative of Art. VI, Sec. 10 of the Constitution. the resignation of the President and key national
the giving of notice of the time and place of occurrence. officials. After a series of negotiations, military soldiers
Main point: No increase in said compensation shall take effect
surrendered that evening.
(2) No proof that COMELEC's failure to give notice of until after the expiration of the full term of all the members of
 In the aftermath of such event dubbed as the Oakwood
the office to be filled and the mappnner of determining the the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such
winner in the special election misled voters. increase. Incident, petitioner Antonio F. Trillanes IV was charged
with coup d’état before the RTC of Makati. 4 years
*main point in bold Art. VI, Sec 11: Privilege from Arrest; Parliamentary Freedom of later, Trillanes remained in detention and won a seat in
Speech the Senate.
Article VI, Section 10: Salaries
Privilege from Arrest  Trillanes requested to be allowed to attend senate
215. PHILCONSA VS. MATHAY sessions and fulfill his functions as senator. The RTC
18 SCRA 300, 1966 216. PEOPLE VS. JALOSJOS however denied his motion. Thus, he filed Petition for
324 SCRA 689 Certiorari with the Supreme Court to set aside orders
 There was an increase in salary authorized by RA No.
of the RTC.
4134 (approved on June 1964) to the Speaker and  Petitioner Rep. Jalosjos was convicted for rape and
Members of the House of the Representatives before detained in prison, he asks that he be allowed to attend
Whether members of the Senate are exempt from
Dec. 30, 1969. However, Petitioners contend that the the sessions of the House. He argues on the basis of
increase in salary in the 1965-1966 budget would detention.
"mandate of sovereign will" and the need for his
violate the Sec. 10 of Article VI of the Constitution, as constituents to be represented. NO. Petitioner’s electoral victory only signifies pertinently
amended in 1940, which states that "No increase in
that when the voters elected him to the Senate, “they did so with
said compensation shall take effect until after the Whether members of Congress can be exempt from
full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action [and] x
expiration of the full term of all the Members of the detention for crime
Senate and the House of Representatives approving x x with the knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative
such increase." NO. Members of Congress are not exempt from detention results which he could accomplish within the confines of prison.
 The expiration of the term of the Members of the for crime. The court ruled that the functions and duties of the The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by
Senate and the House of the Representatives who office are not substantial distinctions which lift him from the class public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly
authorized the increase will be on Dec. 30, 1969 and of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty in prison.
Dec. 30, 1965, respectively. of movement. Members of the Senate are not exempt from detention.
 Respondents alleged that the expiration of the term of
the members of the House of the Representatives who Members of the Congress may be arrested, even when the They may be arrested for crimes punishable by a penalty of
approved the increase suffices to make the higher house is in session, for crimes punishable by a penalty of more more than six months.
compensation effective for them, regardless of the than six months. There is no basis whatsoever for treating him
term of the members of the Senate. Hence, the issue. Parliamentary Freedom of Speech
differently from other convicts.
218. JIMENEZ V. CABANGBANG
Whether the increase in compensation on the 1965-1966 217. TRILLANES V. PIMENTEL 17 SCRA 876 (1966)
Budget is violative of Section 10, Article VI of the Constitution. 556 SCRA 471
Plaintiffs seek for damages for the publication of the
YES. The court ruled that the items of the Appropriation Act  On July 27, 2003, more than 300 heavily armed soldiers allegedly libelous letter of defendant Cabangbang. Defendant
purporting to authorize the disbursement of the increased led by junior officers of the Armed Forces of the wood filed for a motion to dismiss and argued that the letter is not
compensation to members of the senate and the House of the
79 | P a g e
libelous and that even if it is, said letter is a privileged Plaintiff attributed the loss of the Liberal Party’s committee or congressional proceedings in the consideration of
communication candidate in the election for Governor in Davao to the proposed legislation or of other matters which the Constitution
defendant’s support of the other independent Liberal Party has placed within the jurisdiction of the Congress.
The open letter addressed to the president states that candidate which divided the LP votes. In public statements
“there have been allegedly three operational plans under serious widely quoted in the metropolitan newspapers, plaintiff stated 220. POBRE V. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO
study by some ambitious AFP officers, with aid of some civilian that had not the defendant “sabotaged” and “double crossed” AC No. 7399, August 25, 2009
political strategists”. The plaintiffs were mentioned in the first
the LP, its office candidate would have won the election. Plaintiff
plan (an insidious plan or a massive political build-up of then
also filed a formal request with the Senate Committee to Below is the excerpt of the speech delivered by
Secretary of National Defense, Jesus Vargas, by propagandizing
and glamorizing him in such a way as to be prepared to become a investigate the actions of the defendant as Secretary of Public respondent on the Senate floor:
candidate for President in 1961) of which the defendant said to Works and Communications in connection with certain specified
be possibly an unwitting tools of the plan of which they (Jimenez, alleged anomalous acquisitions of public works supplies and “x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the
et al) may have no absolutely no knowledge of equipment. mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased,
degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be
Whether the letter published by defendant A press release was issued by various metropolitan living my middle years in a country of this nature. I am
Cabangbang falls within the scope of ‘speech or debate’ found in newspapers containing defendant’s statements which depicted nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban
Sec 11, Art. VI of the Constitution hence, a privilege plaintiff as a consistent liar; that he prostituted his high public and his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested
communication offices as monetary board member and senator for personal ends in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by
and pecuniary gains; accused him the commission of certain idiots. I would rather be in another environment but not in the
NO. The letter was published in several newspapers of serious offenses in violation of the Constitution and the Anti- Supreme Court of idiots x x x.”
general circulation when the Congress was presumably not in Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Defendant claimed that he did
session. Since the communication was published when the not issue or cause the publication of the press release, though. At Complainant Pobre argued that the statements
Congress was in recess, said publication was not made in any rate, that they were made in good faith and in self-defense reflected a total disrespect towards then Chief Justice Artemio
connection with the performance of defendant’s official duty, and that they were qualifiedly privileged in character. Panganiban and other members of the Court and constituted
either as a member of the Congress or as officer of any direct contempt of court. He also asked that disbarment
committee thereof. However, the court ruled that the letter is Whether the defendant’s press release is a privileged proceedings or other disciplinary actions be taken against the
not derogatory to the plaintiffs hence, not libelous and the speech and a defensive libel hence, free from libel suit lady senator.
damages was not awarded.
NO. Since defendant’s accusations against the plaintiff Senator Santiago explained that her statements were
Parliamentary privilege of speech can only be invoke if were not made privately nor officially as to be qualifiedly covered by the constitutional provision on parliamentary
the letter/publication is within the scope of ‘speech and debate’ privileged under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, the court immunity, being part of speech she delivered in the discharge of
found in Sec 11 Art VI which includes utterances made in the held that by virtue of the allegations’ defamatory and libelous her duty as member of Congress or its committee. The purpose
performance of official functions, such as speeches delivered, nature against the plaintiff’s honor, integrity, and reputation, of her speech, according to her, was to bring out in the open
statements made, votes cast, as well as bill introduced and other malice in law was presumed. The defendant was prompted by controversial anomalies in governance with a view to future
acts done in the performance of official duties. malice and not a sense of duty when he released the statement remedial legislation.

219. ANTONINO V. VALENCIA For the press release to be considered as privileged Whether respondent Senator Santiago can invoke the
57 SCRA 70 speech, it is essential that its utterance must constitute a privilege of speech as her defense
legislative action. That is, it must be part of the deliberative and
communicative process by which the legislators participate in
80 | P a g e
 YES, courts do not interfere with the legislature or its raised only against the government, not against private prohibits members of the Senate from holding other office or
members in the manner they perform they functions in the individual. employment in entities specified therein. Furthermore,
legislative floor or in committee rooms. Any claim of an unworthy petitioners contended that PNRC is a Government-owned or
purpose or of the falsity and mala fides of the statement uttered Whether petitioner Trillanes can invoke parliamentary Controlled Corporation
by the member of the Congress does not destroy the privilege. freedom of speech as his defense
The disciplinary authority of the assembly and the voters, not the Whether respondent should be automatically removed
courts, can properly discourage or correct such abuses from his seat as Senator pursuant to his violation of Section 13,
NO. The statements were clearly not part of any
committed in the name of parliamentary immunity. Article VI of the Constitution
speech delivered in the Senate or any of its committees. They
were also not spoken in the course of any debate in said fora. It
The Court upheld her defense of parliamentary cannot likewise be contended that they were made in the official NO. The Philippine National Red Cross is a private
immunity but added that the lady senator has undoubtedly discharge or performance of petitioner’s duties as a Senator, as corporation performing public function and not a government
crossed limits of decency and good professional conduct. It is the remarks were not part of or integral to the legislative office or an office in the government-owned or controlled
apparent that her statements were intemperate and highly process. corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article
improper in substance. VI of the 1987 Constitution. There was no violation of the
provision since PNRC does not fall in one of the entities category
The Constitution conferred the privilege on members
The privilege of speech is intended to leave the mentioned therein.
of Congress “not for their private indulgence, but for the public
legislator unimpeded in the performance of his duties and free good”. It was intended to protect them against government
from fear of harassment from outside. pressure and intimidation aimed at influencing their decision- Prohibition in Section 13, Article VI does not apply to
making prerogatives. private corporations. Senators and members of the House of
221. TRILLANES V. CASTILLO-MARIGOMEN Representative are prohibited from holding other office or
GR. 223451 employment in the government, or any of its subdivision, agency,
Parliamentary Freedom of Speech cannot be invoked
In the Senate Blue Ribbon Sub-Committee hearings on or instrumentality, including government-owned or controlled
when the lawmaker’s speech or utterance is made outside
the alleged anomalies committed by former and local corporations or their subsidiaries during their terms.
sessions, hearings or debates in Congress, extraneous to the
government officials, respondent had claimed ownership of the “due functioning of the legislative process”. To participate in or
so-called Hacienda Binay through his company Sunchamp Real respond to media interviews is not an official function of any Article VI, Section 14: Prohibitions Related to the Practice of
Estate Corporation. lawmaker. Profession

223. Puyat v. De Guzman

Respondent Castillo filed a Complaint for Damages Article VI, Section 13: Prohibitions on Members of Congress 113 SCRA 31
against Trillanes for his alleged defamatory statements of
accusing respondent as a mere ‘dummy’ of VP Binay before the 222. LIBAN V. GORDON, Members of the Directors of International Pipe
media during gaps and breaks in plenary hearings in the Senate. GR No. 175352, July 15, 2009 Industries Corporation (IPI), a private corporation, were divided
Petitioner pointed out that his statements were part of an on- into the Puyat Group and the Acero Group where the former
going public debate on matter of public concern and it was done During Gordon’s incumbency as member of the Senate group is in control of the Board and management of IPI. The
in the course of the performance of his duties as a Senator. of the Philippines, he was elected Chairman of the Philippine Acero group instituted a quo warranto proceeding questioning
Private respondent contented that petitioner cannot invoke National Red Cross (PNRC) during the meeting of PNRC Board of the election held for the Directors of IPI on the ground that
Governors. Petitioners claimed that by accepting and holding the stockholders’ votes were not properly counted. Justice Estanislao
parliamentary immunity as his utterances were made in various
position of Chairman of the PNRC Board of Governors, A. Fernandez, then a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa,
media interviews beyond the scope of his official duties as
respondent has ceased to be a member of the Senate as orally entered his appearance as counsel for Acero group to
Senator, and that the constitutional right to free speech can be provided in Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution which which the Puyat Group objected on Constitutional grounds of

81 | P a g e
violation Section 14 Article 6. Assemblyman Fernandez then, minority leader. He explained that those who had voted for Sen. Meaning of “a quorum to do business” and “compulsion to
decided to intervene, after purchasing 10 shares of IPI stocks, on Fernan comprised the majority while only those who voted for attend”
the ground of legal interest in the matter under litigation. him, the losing nominee, belonged to the minority. The issue on
who should constitute the minority was discussed in the Senate 225. AVELINO V. CUENCO
Whether the intervention of Assemblyman Fernandez but it remained unresolved even after the third day of the 83 PHIL. 17 [1949]
in SEC Case on the ground of legal interest in the matter under session. The Senate President formally recognized Sen. Guingona
litigation violates the provisions in Section 14 Article 6 of the as the minority leader after receiving a letter signed by the seven
1987 Constitution Lakas-National Union of Christian Democrats-United Muslim In a Senate session held on February 21, 1949, twenty-
Democrats of the Philippines (Lakas – NUCD-UMDP) senators two (22) senators were present excluding Senator Sotto who was
YES. It falls within the ambit of the prohibition stating that they elected Guingona as the minority leader. confined in a hospital and Senator Confessor who was in the US.
contained in Section 14 Article 6 of the Constitution. Based on Petitioners filed a quo warranto, alleging that Sen. Guingona had When a disorderly conduct broke out in the Senate gallery during
facts and circumstances, the court found that there has been been usurping, unlawfully holding and exercising the position of the session, the then Senate President Avelino adjourned the
indirect appearance as counsel before an administrative body Senate minority leader, a position that, according to them, session without moving the motion for adjournment to a vote
which in the court’s opinion is a circumvention of the rightfully belonged to Senator Tatad. Petitioners argued that the and walked out of the session hall followed by nine other
Constitutional prohibition. right to determine who the minority leader belonged to those senators. The remaining twelve (12) senators continued the
who voted for the losing nominee and did not accept such session where a resolution declaring the vacancy of the Senate
A ruling upholding the "intervention" would make the chairmanship. President position and designating Senator Cuenco as Acting
constitutional provision ineffective. All an Assemblyman need Senate President was introduced and put to a vote which was
do, if he wants to influence an administrative body is to acquire Whether the Senate violated the Constitutional unanimously approved (with Senator Cuenco abstaining from
a minimal participation in the "interest" of the client and then provision on quorum found in Section 16 Article VI in recognizing voting). Senator Cuenco took his oath and was recognized by the
"intervene" in the proceedings. Guingona as the minority leader President as acting Senate President the following day. Senator
Avelino petitioned a quo warranto proceedings to declare him as
What the Constitution directly prohibits may not be NO, while the Constitution mandates that the President the rightful Senate President and oust Senator Cuenco. The lack
done indirectly or by a legislative act which is intended to of the Senate must be elected by a number constituting more of quorum being one of the grounds.
accomplish the objectives specifically or impliedly prohibited. than half of all the members thereof, it does not provide that the
members who will not vote for him shall ipso facto constitute the Whether the twelve Senators in the rump (a group
Article VI, Section 16: Officers of Congress; Quorom; Discipline; minority who could thereby elect the minority leader. Verily, no (such as parliament) carrying on in the name of the original body
Journal/Records law or regulation states that the defeated candidate shall after the departure or expulsion of a large number of its member)
automatically become the minority leader. Moreover, the Court session constituted a quorum to do business hence, the election
Officers of Congress held that the method of choosing other officers must be left to of defendant Senator Cuenco as acting Senate President is valid
the discretion of the Senate.
224. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO V. GUINGONA
GR 134577, November 18, 1998 Main point: While the Constitution is explicit on the manner of
electing a Senate President and a House Speaker, it is, however,
Petitioner Tatad lost to Sen. Marcelo B. Fernan during dead silent on the manner of selecting other officers in both
the election for Senate President with the vote 20 to 2 favoring chamber of Congress. Hence, the power and prerogative to elect
Sen. Fernan. Petitioner then manifested that, with the agreement such officers shall be left to the Congress who has the jurisdiction
of Senator Defensor-Santiago who was allegedly the only other and discretion to prescribe the parameters for the exercise of
member of the minority, he was assuming the position of the such prerogative. (Refer to pages 237-238 of Bernas)
82 | P a g e
 YES, although the Court ruled that it has no jurisdiction NO, members of Congress cannot compel absent *Note:
over the petition for quo warranto, four of the Justices gave their members to attend session if the reason for the absence is a
opinion regarding whether or not there was quorum in the rump legitimate one especially on a crime punishable by imprisonment RA 9333 – resets the ARMM regional elections to 2 nd Monday of
session held. In the opinion of these Justices, there was quorum of more than six (6) months. Moreover, the accused-appellant is August 2005, and on the same date every 3 years thereafter.
because firstly, the minutes say so. Secondly, at the beginning of only one of 250 of the House of Representatives and Congress RA 10153 - resets the ARMM elections from 8 th of August 2011 to
the rump session there were at least fourteen (14) Senators continues to function well in the physical absence of one or a few Second Monday of May 2013 and every 3 years thereafter, to
including Senators Pendatun and Lopez. Lastly, in view of the of its members. Further, allowing accused-appellant to attend coincide with the country’s regular national and local elections
absence from the country of Senator Tomas Confesor, twelve congressional sessions and committee meetings for five (5) days and grants the President the power to appoint OICs.
Senators constitute a majority of the Senate. or more in a week will virtually make him a free man with all the
privileges appurtenant thereto. Internal Rules and Disciplines
When the Constitution declares that a majority of
“each House” shall constitute a quorum, “the House” does not To constitute quorum, Congress may compel absent
mean “all” the members. Even a majority of all the members members to attend session however, this does not apply if the
constitute “the House”. There is a difference between majority of reason for the absence is legitimate. 228. ARROYO V. DE VENECIA
“the House”, the latter requiring lesser number. Therefore an 277 SCRA 268 [1997]
227. DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA V. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
absolute majority (12) of all the members of the Senate less one GR 196271, 18 OCTOBER 2011 Petitioners, members of the House of Representative,
(23), constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the
questioned the validity of RA 8240, an act which amends certain
purpose of a quorum Petitioners assailed the validity of RA No. 9140, RA No. provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, on the ground
9333* and RA No. 10153* on the ground that these laws amend that there was violation of the rules of the House which
In this case only, senator who was abroad was excluded RA No. 9054, and thus have to comply with the required prevented Petitioner Arroyo from questioning the presence of
in determining the total number of Senate members. Hence, supermajority vote in order to become effective. quorum.
there was still a quorum since 12 out of 23 Senate members
were present in the rump session. The election of Senator Whether the supermajority vote is required for its Whether RA 8240 is null and void because it was
Cuenco as acting Senate President was valid. validity passed in violation of the Rules of the House

226. PEOPLE V. JALOSJOS NO, the supermajority (2/3) voting requirement has to NO, courts have no power to inquire into the internal
324 SCRA 689 be struck down for giving RA No. 9054 the character of an procedures of Congress, in the absence of any violation of a
Cong. Romeo Jalosjos, temporarily detained in the irrepealable law by requiring more than what the Constitution constitutional provision or the rights of private individuals,
national penitentiary for two (2) counts of rape and acts of demands. The Constitution only provides for a quorum of a Parliamentary procedures may be waived or disregarded by the
lasciviousness, filed a motion asking that he be allowed to fully majority of the members of the House of Representations or the legislative body and failure to conform does not invalidate the
discharge his duties as Congressman (i.e. attendance to Senate present to enact laws and approve acts and the (2/3) action (taken by a deliberative body) when the requisite number
legislative session and committee meetings) on the basis of voting requirement restrains the plenary powers of Congress to of members have agreed to.
popular sovereignty and the need for his constituents to be amend, revise or repeal laws it had passed.
represented. Parliamentary procedures of the House may be
Main point: : Supermajority is not a total ban against repeal waived or disregarded if the required number of members has
Whether Cong. Jalosjos is allowed to discharge his however it is a limitation in excess of what the Constitution agreed thereto and does not invalidate their acts. Further courts
duties being a detainee requires on the passage of bills and constricts the future cannot declare an act of the legislature void on account merely of
legislation room for action and flexibility. noncompliance with rules of procedure made by itself.

83 | P a g e
229. OSMEÑA V. PENDATUN Whether the Senator may be suspended in her capacity Legislative Journals, if clear and explicit, are conclusive.
109 PHIL. 863 [1960] as senator for acts done as commissioner of CID

YES, RA 3019 does not exclude from its coverage the

House Resolution No. 59 and 175 were passed members of Congress, it has been held that the use of the word 232. CASCO PHIL. COMMERCIAL CO. V. GIMENEZ 7 SCRA 347
suspending Congressman Osmena from office for fifteen months office would indicate that it applies to any office which the officer [1963]
for serious disorderly behavior for making without basis charges charged may be holding.
of bribery against the President during his privilege speech. Casco Philippine Chemical Co, engaged in the
Osmena avers that the House already lost its power because it Main point: Members of Congress may be the subject of manufacture of synthetic resin glues bought foreign exchange for
had taken up other business before approving Resolution No 59. suspension as Senator/Congressman for acts done in the the importation of urea and formaldehyde. Petitioner relying
particular office under which he stands accused. upon Resolution No. 1529 of the Monetary Board of the said
Whether the House has authority to suspend Osmena Bank, sought refund for the amount paid as margin fee, however
regardless of its failure to follow the House Rules. Duty to Keep Journals and Records
the Auditor of the Bank refused to pass in audit and approved
231. US V. PONS the said vouchers on the ground that the exemption granted was
YES, Resolution No. 59 was unanimously approved by
34 PHIL. 729 [1916] for “urea formaldehyde” a finished product and not “urea and
the House that such approval amounted to a suspension of the formaldehyde” (raw materials).
House Rules. Mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will
not invalidate the action taken by a deliberative body when the Gabino Beliso, Juan Pons and Jacinto Lasarte
Whether “urea formaldehyde” and “urea and
required number of members has agreed to a particular transported and concealed 520 tins of opium in barrels of wine.
formaldehyde” means the same and thus exempt from paying
measure. Respondent Pons asserted that he should not be punished if
the margin fee.
found guilty under RA 2381 arguing that the law was approved
The House is the judge of what constitute disorderly while the Philippine Commission (Congress) was not in session. NO, it is well settled that the enrolled bill, which uses
behavior and mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage He said that his witnesses claimed that it was passed/approved the term urea formaldehyde instead of urea and formaldehyde is
will not invalidate the action taken by it when the required on March 1, 1914 while the special session of the Commission conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure
number of members has agreed to a particular measure. was adjourned at 12MN of February 28, 1914 as reflected in the passed by Congress and approved by the President. If there has
legislative journals. The clock was allegedly stopped to conform been any mistake in printing the bill which the court cannot
230. SANTIAGO V. SANDIGANBAYAN to the Governor’s proclamation for the expiration on the conduct speculate without jeopardizing the principle of separation of
356 SCRA 636
of special session. powers the remedy is amendment or curative legislation, not by
judicial decree. Legislative Journals, if clear and explicit, are
Whether the SC must go beyond the recitals of the
Sen. Mirriam Defensor-Santiago filed a petition in conclusive.
journals to determine the veracity, if the special session was
connection with a pending criminal case for an alleged violation
adjourned in 12MN of February 28, 1914. 233. MORALES V. SUBIDO
of Republic Act No. 3019(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
wherein being a the Commissioner of Commission on 27 SCRA 131 [1969]
NO, the SC looked into the journals to ascertain the
Immigration and Deportation she manifested partiality by
date of adjournment but refused to go beyond the recitals. The Enrique Morales has served as captain in the police
willfully, unlawfully and criminally allowing the legalization of the
said journals are conclusive on the Court and to inquire into its department of a city for at least 3 years but does not possess a
stay of a few aliens/foreigners. Sandiganbayan suspended the
veracity, when they are, clear and explicit, would be to violate bachelor’s degree. Upon the resignation of the former Chief, the
Senator from her position as senator and from any other
both the letter and the spirit of the organic laws and to invade Commissioner of Civil Service approved his designation as acting
government position for ninety (90) days.
and interfere with the legitimate powers and functions of the chief but rejected his appoint for “failure to meet the minimum
Legislative. education and civil service eligibility requirements for the

84 | P a g e
position”. Petitioners that the Bill was changed during the course Secretary of State, and having the official attestations of the cut it down is the equal protection clause. Equal protection
of its engrossment, that the change was made not by Congress Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the President of the simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should
but only by an employee thereof. Senate, and of the Chief Executive, carries, on its face, a solemn be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
assurance by the legislative and executive departments of the imposed. What the clause requires is equality among equals as
Whether the SC must look upon the history of the bill, government, charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and determined according to a valid classification. Section 35 of RA
thereby inquiring upon the journals executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress. 7354 is declared unconstitutional. Circular No. 92-28 is set aside
insofar.
NO, the SC cannot go beyond the approved Act to Enrolled Bill Theory: "the respect due to coequal and
discover what really happened. independent departments," "to accept, as having passed The distinction made by the law is superficial. It is not
Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated."  based on substantial distinctions that make real differences
Legislative Journals and Records, if clear and explicit, between the Judiciary and the grantees of the franking
It is the approval of the Congress and not the privilege.
are conclusive. signatures of the presiding officers that is essential.
Note: Principle of Enrolled Bill – The text of the act as passed and 236. ABAKADA V. ERMITA
235. PHIL. JUDGES ASSN. V. PRADO 469 SCRA 1
approved is deemed importing absolute verity and is binding on 227 SCRA 703
the courts
RA 9337, an act amending certain sections of the
The Philippine Postal Corporation issued circular No. National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, is questioned by
234. ASTORGA V. VILLEGAS 92-28 to implement Section 35 of RA 7354 withdrawing the
petitioners for being unconstitutional. Procedural issues raised by
56 SCRA 714, 1974 franking privilege from the SC, CA, RTCs, MeTCs, MTCs and Land
petitioners are the legality of the bicameral proceedings,
Registration Commission and with certain other government
House Bill No. 9266, a bill of local application, was filed exclusive origination of revenue measures and the power of the
offices. It is alleged that RA 7354 is discriminatory because while
in the House of Representatives and then sent to the Senate for withdrawing the franking privilege from judiciary, it retains the Senate concomitant thereto. Also, an issue was raised with
reading. During discussion at the Senate, Senator Tolentino and same for the President and Vice-President of the Philippines, regard to the undue delegation of legislative power to the
Senator Roxas recommended amendments thereto. Despite the Senator & members of the House of Representatives, COMELEC, President to increase the rate of value-added tax to
fact that it was the Tolentino amendment that was approved and National Census & Statistics Office and the general public. The 12%. Petitioners also argue that the increase to 12%, as well as
the Roxas amendment not even appearing in the journal, when respondents counter that there is no discrimination because the the 70% limitation on the creditable input tax, the 60- month
Senate sent its certification of amendment to the House, only the law is based on a valid classification in accordance with the equal amortization on the purchase or importation of capital goods
Roxas amendment was included, not the Tolentino amendment. protection clause. exceeding P1,000,000.00, and the 5% final withholding tax by
Nevertheless, the House approved the same. Printed copies were government agencies, is arbitrary, oppressive, and confiscatory,
then certified and attested by the Secretary of the House of Reps, Whether Section 35 of RA 7354 is constitutional and that it violates the constitutional principle on progressive
the Speaker, the Secretary of the Senate and the Senate
taxation, among others. 
President, and sent to the President of the Philippines who NO, the equal protection of the laws is embraced in the
thereby approved the same. The Bill thus was passed as RA 4065. concept of due process, as every unfair discrimination offends Whether RA 9337 is constitutional
However, when the error was discovered, both the Senate the requirements of justice and fair play. It has nonetheless been
President and the Chief Executive withdrew their signatures. embodied in a separate clause in Article III Section 1 of the YES. Mounting budget deficit, revenue generation,
Constitution to provide for a more specific guarantee against any inadequate fiscal allocation for education, increased emoluments
Whether the entries in the journal should prevail over for health workers, and wider coverage for full value-added tax
form of undue favoritism or hostility from the government.
the enrolled bill. benefits ... these are the reasons why Republic Act No. 9337 (R.A.
Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of the
YES, as the President has no authority to approve a bill due process clause. But if the particular act assailed partakes of No. 9337) was enacted. Reasons, the wisdom of which, the Court
not passed by Congress, an enrolled Act in the custody of the an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper weapon to

85 | P a g e
even with its extensive constitutional power of review, cannot previous confirmation of such election by resolution of the 77 PHIL. 192, 1946
probe.  National Assembly
The COMELEC submitted its report regarding the
It has been said that taxes are the lifeblood of the NO. The Electoral Commission did not act without or in national elections to the President and Congress. The report
government. In this case, it is just an enemy, a first-aid measure excess of its jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the protest filed states that the voting in the provinces of Pampanga, Nueva Ecija,
to resuscitate an economy in distress. The Court is neither blind against the election of the petitioner notwithstanding the Bulacan and Tarlac did not reflect the true and free expression of
nor is it turning a deaf ear on the plight of the masses. But it does previous confirmation of such election by resolution of the the popular will because of the acts of terrorism and violence.
not have the panacea for the malady that the law seeks to National Assembly. Consequently, Jose Vera, Ramon Diokno, and Jose Romero (the
remedy. As in other cases, the Court cannot strike down a law as petitioners), who had been included among the sixteen
unconstitutional simply because of its yokes.  The Electoral Commission acted within the
legitimate exercise of its constitutional prerogative in assuming candidates for senator receiving the highest number of votes
There is no undue delegation of legislative power but to take cognizance of the protest filed by the respondent Ynsua shall not be sworn, nor seated, as members of the chamber. The
only of the discretion as to the execution of a law. This is against the election of the petitioner Angara, and that the earlier petitioners brought an action to compel the respondents to
constitutionally permissible. Congress did not delegate the resolution of the National Assembly cannot in any manner toll permit them to occupy their seats, and to exercise their
power to tax but the mere implementation of the law. the time for filing election protests against members of the senatorial prerogatives.
National Assembly, nor prevent the filing of a protest within such
Article VI, Section 17: Electoral Tribunal time as the rules of the Electoral Commission might prescribe. Whether COMELEC has the jurisdiction to determine
whether or not votes cast in the said provinces are valid
Jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunal; Nature and Power Main point: The creation of the Electoral Commission carried
237. ANGARA V. ELECTORAL COMMISSION 63 PHIL. 134 [1936] with it ex necesitate rei the power regulative in character to limit NO. Because no court has ever held and will ever hold
the time with which protests intrusted to its cognizance should that it possesses power to direct the Chief Executive or the
Petitioner Jose Angara was proclaimed winner and took be filed. Where a general power is conferred or duty enjoined, Legislature or a branch thereof to take any particular action. The
his oath of office as member of the National Assembly of the every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or rule is non-interference. The Court could not order one branch of
Commonwealth Government. On December 3, 1935, the the performance of the other is also conferred. In the absence of the Legislative to reinstate a member thereof. To do so would be
National Assembly passed a resolution confirming the election of any further constitutional provision relating to the procedure to to establish judicial predominance, and to upset the classic
those who have not been subject of an election protest prior to be followed in filing protests before the Electoral Commission, pattern of checks and balances wisely woven into our
the adoption of the said resolution. On December 8, 1935, therefore, the incidental power to promulgate such rules institutional setup.
however, private respondent Pedro Ynsua filed an election necessary for the proper exercise of its exclusive power to judge
protest against the petitioner before the Electoral Commission of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of Main point: Having sworn to uphold the Constitution, we must
members of the National Assembly, must be deemed by enforce the constitutional directive. We must not question, nor
the National Assembly. The following day, December 9, 1935, the
Electoral Commission adopted its own resolution providing that it necessary implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral permit respondents to be questioned here in connection with
Commission. their votes.
will not consider any election protest that was not submitted on
or before December 9, 1935. Citing among others the earlier
resolution of the National Assembly, the petitioner sought the 239. ROCES V. HRET
dismissal of respondent’s protest. The Electoral Commission 469 SCRA 681, 2005
however denied his motion.
Pre-proclamation controversies v. Election Contests ; Scope of On July 16, 2004, the spouses Ang Ping filed their
Whether the Electoral Commission acted without or in inquiry; When Proper Election Contest consolidated reply with this Court. On July 27, 2004, we required
excess of its jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the protest filed Mrs. Ang Ping to show cause why the petition in G.R. No. 163259
against the election of the petitioner notwithstanding the 238. VERA V. AVELINO should not be dismissed in view of the filing and pendency of
86 | P a g e
HRET Case No. 04-004. In her Compliance filed on July 30, 2004, in advance upon the parties or their attorneys personally or by officer of any political party, the latter being the Acting
Mrs. Ang Ping explained that the issue of whether the COMELEC registered mail or by telegram. Promulgation is important Administrator of the Light Railway Transport Authority (LRTA), a
gravely abused its discretion in issuing the COMELEC Resolution because it determines when the reglementary period begins to government-controlled corporation. Robles, so Señeres would
No. 6823 may be ventilated as one of the issues to be settled in toll. In the case at bar, Commissioner Garcilliano fixed the charge, was into a partisan political activity which civil service
the HRET Election Protest since the non-canvassing of the Ang promulgation of its resolution whether to give due course to the members, like the former, were enjoined from engaging in.
Ping votes and the proclamation of petitioner Roces were candidacy of Mr. Ang Ping on May 5, 2004
founded on COMELEC Resolution No. 6823 and were raised as Whether Robles should be disqualified as president of
the principal issues in the HRET Election Protest. This MAIN POINT: The circumstances of this case, however, are BUHAY.
notwithstanding, the spouses Ang Ping manifested that they will unique in that the private respondent was denied due process
submit to any disposal which this Honorable Court may find NO. Robles is not disqualified as the president of
and was forced to seek justice in the HRET. o grant the petition
appropriate under the above circumstances and would defer and BUHAY. His being the chairman of LRTA and the president of
now would effectively foreclose the private respondents access
will accept any order/resolution of the Honorable Court that BUHAY, a party-list group, is not compatible. There is no law
to any remedy despite violation of her right to due process. prohibiting that the LRTA chair cannot be a president of a party-
would resolve to dismiss the instant petition/controversy, but
allowing them to pursue and concentrate their time and effort in list group. Further, Robles is not guilty of electioneering. Robles’
240. SENERES V. COMELEC
the above-mentioned Ad Cautela HRET Election Protest Case, act of nominating BUHAY representatives to Congress is not
585 SCRA 557, 2009
which they intend to convert to a REGULAR PROTEST case, in electioneering. The crime electioneering is clearly defined under
such an event.activity which civil service members, like the Section 79 (b) of the Omnibus Election Code but Robles did not
Melquiades Robles was elected president and
former, were enjoined from engaging in. commit any act defined thereunder.
chairperson of BUHAY, a party-list group duly registered with the
Whether the HRET merely exercised its exclusive Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The constitution of BUHAY MAIN POINT: As a general rule, officers and directors of a
jurisdiction when it ruled that Mrs. Ang Ping was a proper party provides for a three-year term for all its party officers, without corporation hold over after the expiration of their terms until
to contest the election of Roces. re-election. BUHAY participated in the 2001 and 2004 elections, such time as their successors are elected or appointed. The
with Robles as its president. All the required Manifestations of holdover doctrine has, to be sure, a purpose which is at once
YES. There is no dispute that to support his motion to Desire to participate in the said electoral exercises, including the legal as it is practical. It accords validity to what would otherwise
dismiss, Roces offered as evidence the COMELEC resolutions Certificates of Nomination of representatives, carried the be deemed as dubious corporate acts and gives continuity to a
denying due course to Mrs. Ang Pings COC. In doing so, Roces signature of Robles as president of BUHAY. On January 26, 2007, corporate enterprise in its relation to outsiders.
submitted to the HRET the admissibility and validity of these in connection with the May 2007 elections, BUHAY again filed a
resolutions and the HRET cannot be faulted in reviewing the said Manifestation of its Desire to participate in the Party-List System Pre-proclamation controversies v. Election Contests; Scope of
resolutions especially for the purpose of determining whether of Representation. As in the past two elections, the manifestation inquiry; When Proper Election Contest
Roces was able to discharge his burden of proving that Mrs. Ang to participate bore the signature of Robles as BUHAY president. LIMKAICHIIONG VS. COMELEC
Ping is not the proper party to assail his election. In passing upon
Dr. Hans Christian Señeres, on the other hand, filed 594 SCRA 434 , G.R. No. 178831-32, JULY 30, 2009
the COMELEC resolutions especially for that purpose, it cannot
with the COMELEC a Petition to Deny Due Course to Certificates.
be said that the HRET usurped the jurisdiction of the COMELEC.
In it, Señeres alleged that he was the acting president and
On the merits of the HRET ruling, we hold that the secretary-general of BUHAY, having assumed that position since Two petitions were consolidated on the issue about the
HRET did not abuse its discretion in holding that Mrs. Ang Ping is August 17, 2004 when Robles vacated the position. Señeres also
qualifications of Jocelyn Limkaichong to run for, be elected to,
claim that the nominations made by Robles (nominations
a proper party to contest the election of Roces. Under COMELEC and assume as Representative of the 1st District of Negros
pertaining as to who should represent BUHAY in Congress) were,
rules, the procedure of promulgation of a decision or resolution Oriental contending that she lacks the citizenship requirement in
for lack of authority, void owing to the expiration of the latter’s
is as follows:SECTION 5. Promulgation. The promulgation of a Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. During the election,
term as party president. Furthermore, Señeres asserted that
decision or resolution of the Commission or a Division shall be Robles was, under the Constitution, disqualified from being an she garnered the highest votes and she was eventually
made on a date previously fixed, of which notice shall be served
87 | P a g e
proclaimed as the winner and has since performed her duties A candidate who has not been proclaimed 16 and who has
and responsibilities as Member of the House of Representatives. not taken his oath of office cannot be said to be a member of the
Aquino filed his COC for the position of Representative for House of Representatives subject to Section 17, Article VI of the
The proponents against Limkaichong's qualification stated the new Second Legislative District of Makati City. Respondents, Constitution.
that she is not a natural-born citizen because her parents were Move Makati. Bedon filed a petition to disqualify Aquino on the
Chinese citizens at the time of her birth. They went on to claim ground that Aquino lacked the residence qualification as a Not only is a disqualification case against a candidate
that the proceedings for the naturalization of Julio Ong Sy, her candidate for congressman. The COMELEC dismissed the petition allowed to continue after the election (and does not oust the
father, never attained finality due to procedural and substantial and allowed Aquino to run in the election. Aquino won against COMELEC of its jurisdiction), but his obtaining the highest
defects. Augusto Syjuco. number of votes will not result in the suspension or termination
of the proceedings against him when the evidence of guilt is
Respondents filed an Urgent Motion Ad Cautelum to strong.
Suspend Proclamation until the Commission resolved the issue.
Should the HRET assume jurisdiction over the COMELEC found Aquino ineligible and disqualified for the
disqualification case. elective office for lack of constitutional qualification of residence.
PEREZ v. COMELEC
YES. Petitioner vigorously contends that the COMELEC lost its
jurisdiction over the question of petitioner's qualifications to run G.R. NO. 133944, OCTOBER 28, 1999
Limkaichong was proclaimed by the Provincial Board of
Canvassers, she had taken her oath of office, and she was for member of the House of Representatives and claims that
allowed to officially assume office on July 23, 2007. Accordingly, jurisdiction over the petition for disqualification is exclusively
the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, and no longer lodged with the HRET. Aguinaldo filed his COC for Representative of the Third
the COMELEC, should now assume the jurisdiction over the District of Cagayan (TDC) for the elections. Petitioner, filed in the
disqualification case. Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of Aguinaldo on the
Constitution and in Section 2509 of the OEC underscores the Is the determination of the qualifications after the elections ground that he had not been a resident of the district for at least
exclusivity of the Electoral Tribunal's jurisdiction over election lodged exclusively in the HRET? one (1) year immediately before the day of the elections. The
contests relating to its members. COMELEC, dismissed the petition for disqualification, finding
No. Aguinaldo qualified to run. Aguinaldo won the election and was
Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his proclaimed elected and, he was sworn in office.
oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Petitioner conveniently confuses the distinction between an
Representatives, COMELEC’s jurisdiction ends and the HRET’s unproclaimed candidate to the House of Representatives and a Aguinaldo asks that the petition be dismissed
own jurisdiction begins. member of the same. Obtaining the highest number of votes in contending that after his proclamation and his assumption of
an election does not automatically vest the position in the office, the COMELEC lost jurisdiction to pass upon his
With the foregoing, Jocelyn Limkaichoing remains a Chinese winning candidate. qualifications for the office of Representative. He argues further
national and disqualified to run as member of the House of that this case should have been filed with the HRET.
Representatives. The electoral tribunal clearly assumes jurisdiction over all
contests relative to the election, returns and qualifications of
candidates for either the Senate or the House only when the
latter become members of either the Senate or the House of Does the COMELEC have jurisdiction to entertain
AGAPITO AQUINO v. COMELEC Representatives. instant petition and eventually pass upon Aguinaldo’s eligibility
for the office of Representative of the Third District of Cagayan?
243 SCRA 400 , G.R. NO. 120265, SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
No.

88 | P a g e
 Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6646 authorizes the continuation of Is Aggabao’s petition best addressed to the HRET? for Immediate Service of Summons, for Suspension of the Effects
proceedings for disqualification even after the elections if the of Proclamation, and to Set Case for Hearing.
respondent has not been proclaimed. The COMELEC en banc had Yes.
no jurisdiction to entertain the motion because the proclamation The COMELEC DENIES the petition to annul the
The HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all proclamation of Biazon for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Special
of private respondent barred further consideration of petitioner's contests relative to the election, returns, and qualifications of
action. In the same vein, considering that at the time of the filing Division RESTATES the proclamation of the COMELEC Sitting en
members of the House of Representatives. Thus, once a winning banc as the NBC declaring Biazon as the duly elected 12th
of this petition on June 16, 1998, private respondent was already candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed
a member of the House of Representatives, this Court has no Senator. Barbers filed a motion for reconsideration which the
office as a Member of the House of Representatives, COMELEC’s COMELEC en banc denied in the second assailed resolution.
jurisdiction over the same. jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election,
Pursuant to Art. VI, §17 of the Constitution, the House returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has the exclusive original begins. It is undisputed that Miranda has already been
proclaimed, taken his oath and assumed office. Does the COMELEC have the exclusive jurisdiction to
jurisdiction over the petition for the declaration of Respondent's
decide this case?
ineligibility. As such, Aggabao’s recourse would have been to file an
electoral protest before the HRET. His remedy is not this petition No.
for certiorari. The allegation that Miranda’s proclamation is null
It is the Senate Electoral Tribunal that has the exclusive
GEORGIDI AGGABAO v. COMELEC and void ab initio does not divest the HRET of its jurisdiction
jurisdiction in light of Sec. 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
449 SCRA 400, G.R. No. 163756, JANUARY 26, 2005 In an electoral contest where the validity of the The word “sole” underscores the exclusivity of the SET’s
proclamation of a winning candidate who has taken his oath of jurisdiction over election contests relating to members of the
office and assumed his post as Congressman is raised, that issue Senate. The authority conferred upon the SET is categorical and
is best addressed to the HRET. The reason for this ruling is self- complete. It is therefore clear that this Court has no jurisdiction
During the canvassing of the certificates of canvass of
evident, for it avoids duplicity of proceedings and a clash of to entertain the instant petition. Since Barbers contests Biazon’s
votes (COCV), Respondent Miranda, moved for the exclusion of
jurisdiction between constitutional bodies, with due regard to proclamation as the 12th of the winning senatorial candidate, it is
the 1st copy of the COCV on grounds that it was tampered with;
the people’s mandate. the SET which has exclusive jurisdiction to act on Barbers’
prepared under duress; differed from other authentic copies and
complaint. For this Court to take cognizance of the electoral
contained manifest errors.
protest against Biazon would usurp the constitutional functions
Aggabao objected arguing that the grounds raised by of the SET.
BARBERS v. COMELEC
Miranda are proper only for a pre-proclamation controversy
which is not allowed in elections for Members of the House of 460 SCRA 569, G.R. No. 165691, JUNE 22, 2005
Representatives. The reconstituted Provincial Board of RASUL v. COMELEC
Canvassers (PBC) excluded from canvass the contested COCVs
and used instead the 4th and 7th copies of the COCVs. Based on GR 134142, AUGUST 24, 1999
The COMELEC sitting en banc as the National Board of
the results, Miranda garnered the highest number of votes and Canvassers for the election of Senators promulgated Resolution
was proclaimed as the duly elected Congressman for the 4th based on the COC’s. Biazon was proclaimed as the first duly
District of Isabela. elected Senator in the elections. Barbers filed a petition claiming Respondent, Oreta, was proclaimed as the 12th
that the proclamation of Biazon was "illegal and premature being winning candidate in the May 1998 senatorial elections.
based on an incomplete canvass” and filed an Omnibus Motion Petitioner questioned the said proclamation arguing that the
COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion when, acting as a
89 | P a g e
National Board of Canvassers, it declared that the remaining proceeding against the proclaimed winner, such as his disloyalty No.
uncanvassed certificates would no longer affect the results and or ineligibility or the inadequacy of his certificate of candidacy.
proceeded to proclaim the twelve (12) winning candidates. While the COMELEC is vested with the power to
The word “sole” in the Constitution and the Omnibus declare valid or invalid a certificate of candidacy, its refusal to
She contends that if the number of registered voters Election Code underscores the exclusivity of the Tribunal’s exercise that power following the proclamation and assumption
who have yet to cast their votes where special elections have jurisdiction over election contests relating to its members. of the position by Fariñas is a recognition of the jurisdictional
been suspended is combined with the uncanvassed votes from boundaries separating the COMELEC and the Electoral Tribunal of
other areas of the country, there is a possibility that the 12th Inasmuch as petitioner is contesting the proclamation the House of Representatives (HRET). Thus, the COMELEC’s
ranking senatorial candidate, Teresa Aquino-Oreta could be of Aquino-Oreta as the 12th winning candidate, her proper decision to discontinue exercising jurisdiction over the case is
dislodged by the l3th placer, Roberto Pagdanganan. recourse is to file a regular election protest which pertains to the justifiable, in deference to the HRET’s own jurisdiction and
Senate Electoral Tribunal. functions.
The petitioner submits that the inclusion of Aquino-
Oreta among the winning candidates was premature and based Under Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution, the
on incomplete canvass. Thus, she filed a petition for certiorari GUERERO v. COMELEC HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative
before the Supreme Court. to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the
GR 137004, JULY 26, 2000 House of Representatives. Thus, once a winning candidate has
been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a
Fariñas filed his COC with the COMELEC, substituting member of the House of Representatives, COMELEC’s jurisdiction
Does the Senate Electoral Tribunal have jurisdiction candidate Chevylle V. Fariñas who withdrew on. substitute for
over the case? over election contests relating to his election, returns, and
Chevylle V. Fariñas, since the latter was not the official candidate qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins.
YES. of the Lakas ng Makabayan Masang Pilipino (LAMMP), but was an
independent candidate.
Sec. 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution as well as
Section 250 of the Omnibus Election Code provide that "the Fariñas took his oath of office as a member of the VILLAROSA v. HRET
Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an House of Representatives. Petitioner, Guerrero, herein filed his
“Petition-In-Intervention” in COMELEC. Petitioner averred that he GR 143351, SEPTEMBER 14, 2000
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their was the official candidate of the Liberal Party (LP) in said
respective Members..." elections for Congressman. Guerrero contended that Fariñas,
having failed to file his COC on or before the last day therefor, The provincial board of canvassers proclaimed
The phrase "election, returns and qualifications" should Fariñas illegally resorted to the remedy of substitution provided petitioner as the winning candidate. In her COC, petitioner wrote
be interpreted in its totality as referring to all matters affecting for under Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code6 and thus, “JTV” as her “nickname/stagename.” The HRET agreed with the
the validity of the contestee's title. But if it is necessary to Fariñas’ disqualification was in order. Guerrero then asked that COMELEC in disallowing petitioner to use JTV as her nickname
specify, we can say that "election" referred to the conduct of the the position be declared vacant and special elections called for, because it was not her nickname with which she was popularly
polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral but disallowing the candidacy of Fariñas. The COMELEC En Banc known. HRET also invoked rule 14 of section 211 of the Omnibus
campaign, and the casting and counting of the votes; "returns" to dismissed Ruiz’s motion for reconsideration and Guerrero’s Election code providing that votes containing initials only shall be
the canvass of the returns and the proclamation of the winners, petition-in-intervention. considered stray.
including questions concerning the composition of the board of
canvassers and the authenticity of the election returns; and Petitioner assails the HRET decision, reiterates the issue
"qualifications" to matters that could be raised in a quo warranto of the validity of the JTV votes, and charges the HRET with grave
Does the COMELEC have jurisdiction over the case? abuse of discretion and deprivation of her right to due process.

90 | P a g e
She further asserted that treating of the “JTV” votes as stray GR 189466, FEBRUARY 11, 2010 What is inevitable is that Section 17, Article VI of the
would result tot the disenfranchisement of the voters. She Constitution provides that the HRET shall be the sole judge of all
argues that “JTV” was her designated nickname and the one that contests relating to, among other things, the qualifications of the
she used in her election propaganda materials. The HRET ruled Petitioner Abayon is the first nominee of the Aangat members of the House of Representatives. Since, as pointed out
against the petitioner because in her affidavit she stated that she Tayo party-list. Respondents filed a petition for quo warranto above, party-list nominees are elected members of the House of
was known Girlie in ever barangay, hence an admission that her with respondent HRET against Aangat Tayo and its nominee, Representatives no less than the district representatives are, the
nickname was not JTV but Girlie. The counting of JTV votes would petitioner Abayon. They claimed that Aangat Tayo was not HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon their qualifications.
be tantamount to injustice because it allows the petitioner to eligible for a party-list seat in the House of Representatives, since By analogy with the cases of district representatives, once the
have 2 nicknames. it did not represent the marginalized and underrepresented party or organization of the party-list nominee has been
sectors. Finally, petitioner Abayon pointed out that respondent proclaimed and the nominee has taken his oath and assumed
HRET had no jurisdiction over the petition for quo \warranto office as member of the House of Representatives, the
Did the HRET commit grave abuse of discretion in not since respondents collaterally attacked the registration of Aangat COMELECs jurisdiction over election contests relating to his
counting the votes for JTV or other derivatives thereof in favor of Tayo as a party-list organization, a matter that fell within the qualifications ends and the HRETs own jurisdiction begins.
the petitioner? jurisdiction of the COMELEC.

No. It was Aangat Tayo that was taking a seat in the House GARCIA v. HRET
of Representatives, and not Abayon who was just its nominee. All
The Facts established in the case, reinforced by the questions involving her eligibility as first nominee, said Abayon, GR 134792, AUGUST 12, 1999
admission of the parties during the preliminary conferences were internal concerns of Aangat Tayo. Respondent HRET issued
conducted and during the oral arguments, lead the Court to no an order, dismissing the petition as against Aangat Tayo but
other conclusion that the use of JTV as a nickname or stage name upholding its jurisdiction over the qualifications of petitioner. The
was a clever ruse or ploy to make a mockery of the election On May 29, 1998, within the prescribed 10-day period,
latter moved for reconsideration but the HRET denied the same a quo warranto petition was filed to question eligibility of
process. Based on the facts the court ruled that HRET did not on September 17, 2009, prompting Abayon to file the present
commit any grave abuse of discretion in ruling the JTV votes shall Congressman-elect Angping. Petitioner claims that the latter was
petition for special civil action of certiorari. not a natural-born Filipino citizen. However, on June 10, 1998,
not be counted in favor of the petitioner because they are stray
votes. the petition for quo warranto was dismissed by HRET for failing
to pay the cash deposit which was required under Rule 32 of
HRET correctly applied Rule 14, Section 211 of the Does the HRET have jurisdiction over the question of HRET Rules of Procedure. On June 26, 1998, petitioners paid the
Omnibus Election Code which provides that there are three qualifications of petitioner Abayon as a nominee of Aangat Tayo cash deposit after receiving the copy of the resolution.
different kinds of stray votes: party-list organizations? Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was further
denied in view of Rule 32.
1. A vote containing initials only; NO.

2. A vote which is illegible; and Since petitioner Abayon was not elected into office but
was chosen by her organization under its internal rules, the HRET Did the HRET committ grave abuse of discretion in
3. A vote which does not sufficiently identify the has no jurisdiction to inquire into and adjudicate her applying its Rules and dismissing the petition for quo warranto?
candidate for whom it was intended. qualifications as nominees. Although it is the party-list
organization that is voted for in the elections, it is not the No.
organization that sits as and becomes a member of the House of
ABAYON v. HRET Representatives..

91 | P a g e
 HRET acted within its jurisdiction by applying its Rule respondent's protest on the ground that it had been filed late, The petitioner alleged that COMELEC Res No. 92-1322
on payment of the required cash deposit for the petition to citing Sec. 250 of the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881). did not reach the nationwide precincts, thus “Chavez” votes were
prosper. Its Rule states that if a party fails to make cash deposits However, the HRET ruled that the protest had been filed on time invalidated or declared stray” and that errors in the CoCs must be
or additional deposit within the prescribed limit, the Tribunal in accordance with Sec. 9 of the HRET Rules. Petitioner's motion corrected.
may dismiss the protest. for reconsideration was also denied. Hence, petitioner has come
to this Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the HRET over the
The Court ruled that, due to the delicate nature of the protest filed by private respondent
charge, HRET Rules of Procedure must be taken seriously to Whether or not pre-proclamation controversy is
attain the objective – hence the technicalities must strictly be Whether or not HRET jurisdiction over the case filed to allowed and the petition is valid
followed. Imperative justice requires proper observance of question the proclamation of the petitioner No.
technicalities precisely designed to ensure proper dispensation.
Yes. Sec 15 of RA 7166 provides that Pre-proclamation cases
Certiorari cases are filed to question if lower courts are not allowed in the Elections of President, Vice-President,
acted within its jurisdiction without abuse amounting to lack or The applicable rule is the Tribunal rule. Sec 17 Article
17 of the Constitution states that Electoral Tribunals shall be the Senator and House of Representatives. No pre-proclamation
excess of jurisdiction. The petition will only correct errors of cases shall be allowed on the matters relating to the preparation,
jurisdiction and not errors conclusion of the lower court. Any sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective members. This power may transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation of the election
alleged errors committed in exercise of its discretion will be returns and certificate of canvass. However, this does not
nothing more but an error of judgment which are reviewable by necessarily include rule making powers with which the Congress
may not interfere. preclude the authority of the appropriate canvassing body, upon
appeal and not by special civil action. written request of an interested person, to correct manifest
Certiorari will only prosper if grave abuse of discretion errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns before it.
or act without or in excess of jurisdiction is manifested. Pre-proclamation controversy The petitioner did not call for the correction of
manifested errors in the certificate of canvass or election returns
CHAVEZ v. COMELEC but requests for the re-opening of the ballot boxes and
LAZATIN v. HRET AND LORENZO TIMBOL 211 SCRA 315 [1991] appreciation of the ballot boxes contained therein.

GR No. 84297, DECEMBER 8, 1988

Petitioner filed a petition to issue a temporary Composition

Petitioner and private respondent were among the restraining order in the proclamation of the 24th senator. The ABBAS v. SET
candidates for Representative of the first district of Pampanga petitioner, being a senatorial candidate, seeks to restrain the
during the elections of May 11, 1987. Petitioner was proclaimed COMELEC in proclaiming the final senator on the grounds that it 166 SCRA 651 [1988]
as Congressman-elect. Private respondent thus filed in the did not act on his petition to remove the name of Melchor
COMELEC a petition to declare petitioners proclamation void ab Chavez on the official ballot for the said election. However,
initio. COMELEC declared petitioner's proclamation void ab initio. despite the resolution of the COMELEC mandating the remove Abbas filed a petition before the SET against 22 candidates
the name of the other Chavez, the petitioner claims that the of the LABAN coalition who were proclaimed senators-elect in
Private respondent filed in the House of information did not reach the BEIs nationwide, thus the Chavez the recent 1987 elections. The SET was composed of (3) Justices
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as votes were not credited in favor of the petitioner. of the Supreme Court and six (6) Senators. Abbas later on filed to
HRET an election protest. Petitioner moved to dismiss private disqualify 6 senator members from the hearing of the election

92 | P a g e
protest on the basis that they are also part of the parties. The PIMENTEL v. HRET It was not proven that the HoR barred the party-list
petitioner argues that the 6 senator members must consider representatives from seeking membership in HRET or CA. The
public policy and the norms of fair play and due process GR 141489, NOVEMBER 29, 2002 party-list representatives did not designate their nominees even
imperatively require the mass disqualification sought. up to the time they filed the petitions, with the predictable result
that the House did not consider any party-list representative for
To accommodate the disqualification, an amendment was The first Party-list election was held on May 11, 1998. election to the HRET or the CA
suggested even if members of the SET are disqualified, the 14 party-list representatives were proclaimed from 13
remaining members of the tribunal shall constitute a quorum if, organizations. By usual practice, the House of Representatives Despite the discretion being not absolute in reference
not less than three (3) including one (1) Justice, and may adopt constituted its HRET and Commission on Appointments by to the election of HoR members to the HRET and CA in reference
resolutions by majority vote with no abstentions. The suggested electing representatives involving nominations from political to the rule on proportional representation, the doctrine of
amendment was proposed and tailored to fit the situation parties who are to occupy seats in the constitutional bodies. No separation of powers states that, the Court may not interfere
created by the petition which will leave the resolution of the nominations were included from the party-list groups was with the exercise of powers by the House of Representatives. The
petition only to the members whose disqualification is not reflected. Senator Pimentel wrote a letter to Senate President Court is only limited to subject the HoR to checking as to grave
sought. Ople and HRET Chairman Associate Justice Melo to cause a abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is
reconstruction of HRET and CA which will include the party-list to being manifested.
conform to Sec 17 and 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
Whether or not the composition of SET must be changed to
accommodate the petition A petition for prohibition and mandamus with a prayer Independence
of writ of preliminary injunction was filed against HRET (chairman
No. and members) and CA (chairman and members) to question the BONDOC VS. PINEDA
exclusion of party-list members in the composition of HRET and
Sec 17, Article VI of the Constitution states the creation of CA. 201 SCRA 792 G.R. No. 97710, SEPTEMBER 26, 1991
the Senate Electoral Tribunal which is vested upon the power to
be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualifications of their respective Members. Moreover, the Pineda, member of Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino
composition of the Tribunal has been explicitly stated together Does composition of HRET violate the constitutional
requirement of proportional representation? (LDP) and Bondoc, member of Nacionalista Party (NP) were rival
with the qualification in selecting the representation of Senator- candidates for Representative for 4TH district of Pampanga.
members. NO. Pineda was proclaimed winner. Bondoc filed a protest at the
The Constitution provides no scheme or mode for settling House of Rep Electoral Tribunal (HRET). After review, HRET
Sec 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution explicitly decided that Bondoc won by 107 votes.
unusual situations or for the substitute of Senators designated to confers the Senate and HoR the authority to elect among their
be members of the Tribunal whose disqualifications are sought. members who would fill the CA. Also, Sec 17, Article VI of the ong. Camasura revealed to Cong. Cojuangco (LDP Sec.
The legislative component cannot be totally excluded from the Constitution states that HoR exercises the power to choose, Gen) that he voted for Bondoc because he was ‘consistent with
participation in the resolution of the senatorial election contest. within its constitutionally defined limits, who among their truth, justice and self-respect’ and that they would abide by the
The Litigants in such situations must simply place their trust and members would occupy the allotted seats for the electoral results of the recounted votes where Bondoc was leading. Cong.
hopes for the vindication in the fairness and sense of justice of tribunal. The constitution expressly grants the HoR to choose Camasura was then expelled from his party (LDP) because it was
the members of the tribunal. among its district and party-list representatives those who may a complete betrayal to his party when he decided for Bondoc.
occupy the seats allotted to HRET and CA.

93 | P a g e
 HRET then ordered Camasura to withdraw and rescind irregularities which calls for the reappreciation and recounting of 246 SCRA 384 [1995]
his nomination from the tribunal. Bondoc filed for petition for the votes. The petitioner filed an urgent motion to suspend the
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to HRET from its revision while Santos filed a motion to Withdraw Protest on the
resolution. unrevised precincts. Arroyo and Syjuco were candidates for congressman in
No action was made by HRET on the petitioner’s the lone district of Makati during the May 1992 elections. Arroyo
motion, when Santos filed another motion to Recall and was proclaimed to be the winner, but Syjuco filed an election
Was the removal of Camasura valid? Disregard Withdrawal of Protest. The petitioner opposed the protest before the HRET on the grounds of alleged
motion to Recall and filed an urgent motion to Cancel irregularities/anomalies in the tabulation and entries of votes.
NO.
Continuation of Revision with Opposition to recall withdrawal. Syjuco submitted photocopied evidences to prove that
The action taken by the LDP was a grave abuse of there was fraud in the election that had given the petitioner the
discretion which the SC can correct by virtue of its power to HRET granted Santos’ urgent Motion to recall and
disregard Withdrawal of protest while denying the petitioner’s congressional seat while the petitioner submitted certified true
review. Also, Sec 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides copies of evidences. Also, Syjuco shifted his cause of action in
the functions of HRET in deciding election contests concerning its motion for reconsideration. Hence the petition for certiorari was
sought with the prayer of temporary restraining order assailing declaring to use a non-traditional process of recounting.
members. Thus HoR resolution withdraw the nomination of an
HRET member violates the independence of the HRET. Removing HRET resolutions on granting Santos’ urgent motion to disregard HRET assailed the decision annulling the petitioner’s
a representative from HRET for party disloyalty is a clear withdrawal of protest and denial of petitioner’s motion for proclamation and declaring Syjuco as the duly elected
impairment of the constitutional prerogative of HRET to be the reconsideration. congressman.
sole judge of the contest.
Petitioner filed an instant petition to question the
The Judicial power of the Court was invoked by the Whether or not HRET acted without its jurisdiction discretion of HRET when it refused to dismiss the protest filed by
petitioner for the protection of his rights against the strong arm Syjuco despite the change in the theory of the case and the acts
of the majority party in the House of Representatives. The court NO. of the respondent in ignoring the internal procedures of the
cannot be deaf for the plea of relief to his charge the HoR acted tribunal
with grave abuse of discretion in removing a member of HRET. The mere discretion of the HRET not to act on the
The plea for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is granted. petition filed under the tribunal dies not divest the tribunal of its
jurisdiction over the case. The tribunal retains the authority to
grant or deny motions and the withdrawal becomes effective
only when it is granted. The action of the tribunal not to act on Whether or not HRET manifested grave abuse of
Action/Decision the motion to withdraw is lies within its powers to decide on discretion in ruling the election protest
Robles v. HRET motions related to election contest of its members. .
YES.
181 SCRA 780 [1990] The court found no grave abuse of discretion on the
The HRET proceeded to nullify election results on the
part of HRET in not acting on the initial motion to withdraw
basis of inadmissible documents. The court ruled that elections
protest. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance
should never be void unless they are clearly illegal and reiterated
of the parties but continues until the case is terminated.
Robles and Santos were candidates for the position of its duty to sustain an election authorized by law if it has been
Congressman in the 1st district of Caloocan City in the May 1987 conducted as to give free and fair expression of the popular will,
election. The petitioner was declared winner. Santos then filed and the actual results is clearly ascertained. HRET resolution was
with HRET and election contest alleging electoral fraud and Arroyo v. HRET set aside and the petition was granted

94 | P a g e
 The procedural flaws of HRET proceedings was electorate tribunal except only upon the strongest showing that a Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction
embraced by majority of its members up to the rendition of the constitutional norm has been violated. The petitioner anchors over the electoral case.
decision to nullify the election of the petitioner. The violation of her arguments on alleged election abnormalities. Her allegations
the Tribunal’s own governing rules for even the rules of evidence are based solely on the question of fact which vests solely within Yes.
cannot be justified by simply invoking that procedural rules the jurisdiction of the house of electoral tribunal. The SC has jurisdiction. While the Constitution provides
should be liberally construed. The Constitutional provision Sec 17 that the HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
Article VI hold true only if HRET did not exceed its jurisdiction nor Judicial review of decisions or final resolutions of the
electoral tribunals is possible only in the exercise of the Court’s the elections, returns and qualifications of members of Congress,
have acted in its allowed jurisdiction. this regime however does not bar this Court from entertaining
so-called extraordinary jurisdiction upon a determination that
the tribunal’s decision or resolution was rendered without or in petitions where the threshold of legitimate review is breached.
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion it is well-settled that judicial guidance is appropriate
Lerias v. HRET constituting denial of due process. where jurisdictional issues are involved or charges of grave abuse
202 SCRA 808 [1991] of discretion are presented in order that we may vindicate
established claims of denial of due process or correct veritable
Sandoval v. HRET abuses of discretion so grave or glaring that no less than the
Petitioner Rosette Lerias filed her certificate of Constitution itself calls for remedial action.
GR 149380, July 3, 2002
candidacy at the UPP-KBL for the position of Representative for
the lone district of Southern Leyte in May 11, 1987 elections. Her
opponent, Roger Mercado, was the administration candidate for Lokin v. COMELEC
the same position. At initial count, Roger Mercado was declared On the May 2001 elections, petitioner Sandoval won in
as having the highest number of votes but petitioner claims that the congressional district of Malabon-Navotas by a difference of GR 179431-32
if they were to base the certificate of canvass from the provincial 19,200 votes against respondent Oreta. Respondent then filed
board, it would show that Lerias was the winning candidate. This with HRET an election protest against the petitioner alleging
was dismissed by the provincial board because such certificate electoral frauds and anomalies on June 1, 2001. On July 12, 2001, CIBAC was one of the party lists qualified for the 2004
were tampered with erasures and alterations. The filing of HRET issued Resolution No. 01-081 which took note that synchronized elections.. Together with its manifestation of intent
motion of reconsideration later escalated to the COMELEC and petitioner failed to file an answer to the election protest within to participate, CIBAC, through its President Emmanuel Joel J.
the tribunal to which both consider Mercado as the winning 10 days from the date of service of the summons on June 7, Villanueva, submitted a list of 5 nominees from which its
candidate. The petitioner is now contesting the validity of the 2001. The petitioner raised the matter with the Supreme Court representatives would be chosen should CIBAC obtain the
decision of the tribunal. contending that the respondent did not exhaust the matter of required number of qualifying votes. Prior to elections, however,
serving summons as governed by the 1997 Rules of Civil CIBAC still through Villanueva filed a certificate of nomination,
Procedure which provides that whenever practicable, summons substitution and amendment of the list of nominees dated May
shall be served by handing a copy thereof to the defendant in 7, 2007, hereby it withdrew the nominations of Lokin, Tugma and
Whether or not the Supreme Court can exercise the person before resorting to substituted service. Instead, the
power of judicial review over the aforementioned case. Galang and substituted Armi Jane R. Borje as one of the
summon was given to a Gene Maga who identified himself as a nominees. Election results showed that CIBAC was entitled to a
No. “maintenance” personnel of the petitioner, not even an second seat and that Lokin, as second nominee on the original
employee of the petitioner. list, to a proclamation, which was opposed by Villanueva and
The court ruled that SC cannot exercise the power of Cruz-Gonzales.The COMELEC resolved the matter on the validity
judicial review over decisions and orders of the house of of the amendment of the list of nominees and the withdrawal of

95 | P a g e
the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang. COMELEC en banc were lost ballots for 247 ballot boxes. The Tribunal conducted Where a ballot box is found in such a condition as
proclaimed Cruz-Gonzales as the official second nominee of revision of ballots in all the contended precints and found that in would raise a reasonable suspicion that unauthorized persons
CIBAC. Cruz-Gonzales took her oath of office as a Party-List all the contested precints, most of the ballots were fake and could have gained unlawful access to its contents, no evidentiary
Representative of CIBAC. Lokin filed a petition for mandamus to spurious since they did not contain security features and were value can be given to the ballots in it and the official count
compel respondent COMELEC to proclaim him as the official thus rejected. However, HRET ruled that petitioner failed to reflected in the election return must be upheld as the better and
second nominee of CIBAC. Likewise, he filed another petition for prove by convincing evidence that the election itself, conducted more reliable account of how and for whom the electorate
certiorari assailing Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 alleging that on May 14, 2007, was tainted by fraud and irregularities that voted.
it expanded Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941 by allowing CIBAC to frustrated the will of the electorate. The HRET concluded that the
change its nominees. ballots and/or ballot boxes must have been tampered with after
the elections and the counting and canvassing of votes. Thus, the Duenas v. HRET
HRET relied on the election returns and other election
Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse documents to arrive at the number of votes validly cast for 593 SCRA 316 [2010]
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in petitioner and respondent Dilangalen. Petitioner filed a petition
approving the withdrawal of the nominees of CIBAC and allowing for certiorari and alleged that the HRET committed grave abuse
the amendment of the list of nominees of CIBAC without any of discretion by relying on election returns and other election Petitioner was proclaimed as the Congressman for the
basis in fact or law and after the close of polls. documents, instead of the ballots themselves. Second Legislative District of Taguig City. Private respondent filed
an election protest with the HRET. After revision of ballots in
Yes. 100% of the protested precincts and 25% of the counter-
The Court ruled that COMELEC had no authority to Whether or not the Tribunal can rely on election protested precincts, the case was submitted for resolution upon
expand, extend, or add anything to law it seeks to implement. returns and/or tally sheets and other election documents to the parties' submission of memoranda. However, in its Order, the
Administrative agencies such as the COMELEC cannot mend an arrive at the number of votes for each of the parties. HRET directed the continuation of the revision and appreciation
act of Congress nor issue IRRs that may enlarge, alter or restrict of ballots for the remaining 75% of the counter-protested
YES. precincts. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari, seeking
the provisions of the law it administers and enforces.
The general rule is, if what is being questioned is the the nullification of said order of revision, alleging that it was
correctness of the number of votes for each candidate, the best issued with grave abuse of discretion. On July 21, 2009, the Court
and most conclusive evidence is the ballots themselves. promulgated a Decision dismissing the petition. Said Decision
Sema v. HRET became final and executory and the HRET continued the
However, this rule applies only if the ballots are available and
GR 190734, MARCH 26, 2010 their integrity has been preserved from the day of elections until proceeding in the electoral protest case. On February 25, 2010,
revision. When the ballots are unavailable or cannot be the HRET promulgated its Decision which declared private
produced, then recourse can be made to untampered and respondent as the winner with a margin of 37 votes.

Petitioner was a candidate of Lakas-CMD for as unaltered election returns or other election documents as
evidence. The parties have not presented any evidence that
Representative of the Lone District of Shariff Kabunsuan with
Cotabato City and alleged that fraud was committed by her co- there were any incidents of ballot snatching or switching on May Whether or not HRET's Order to continue the revision
14, 2007 the day of the election itself. as concluded by the of ballots in 75% of the counter-protested precincts proved that
candidate, Didagen P. Dilangalen during the congressional
elections. Petitioner protested that there were fake ballots in the HRET, when said ballot boxes were opened for revision purposes, HRET committed grave abuse of discretion.
they could not be said to be in the same condition as they were
195 precints and Dilangalen filed a counter-protest saying that it No.
was petitioner who meddled with the elections and that there when closed by the Chairman and Members of the BEI after the
completion of the canvassing proceedings

96 | P a g e
 It is hornbook principle that Court's jurisdiction to Whether or not change in the representation of the majority membership in the CA due topolitical realignment and
review decisions and orders of electoral tribunals is exercised HOR in the Commission of Appointments with the reorganization the replacement of Rep. Daza (LP) with Rep. Singson (LDP).
only upon showing of grave abuse of discretion committed by the of the LDP is valid.
tribunal; otherwise, the Court shall not interfere with the Congresswoman Coseteng filed this Petition for
electoral tribunal’s exercise of its discretion or jurisdiction. It was YES. Extraordinary Legal Writs (which may be considered as a petition
eventually determined that private respondent's margin of votes for quo warranto and injunction) praying this Court to declare as
The HOR has the authority to change its representation null and void the election of the twelve members of the
is only 37, this allegedly shows that the results of the initial in the Commission on Appointments to reflect at any time the
revision of ballots really had no substantial effect on the Commission on Appointments on the ground that their election
changes that may transpire in the political alignments of its to that Commission violated the constitutional mandate of
proclaimed results. membership. It is understood that such changes must be proportional representation because the New Majority is entitled
The HRET was acting in accordance with its rules. The permanent and do not include the temporary alliances or to only nine (9) seats out of the twelve to be filled by the House
fact that the HRET went on with the revision of ballots in 75% of factional divisions not involving severance of political loyalties or and the members must be nominated by their respective political
the counter-protested precincts cannot be considered as grave formal disaffiliation and permanent shifts of allegiance from one parties or coalitions;
abuse of discretion on the part of the electoral tribunal. political party to another. The Constitution requires proportional
representation of the parties in both houses of Congress,
however, nowhere does the constitution provide that the party
must be a registered party. With this, the contention of the Whether or not the members of the House in the
Section 18. Commission on Appointments petitioner is defeated. Commission on Appointments were chosen on the basis of
proportional representation from the political parties therein as
DAZA VS. SINGSON The sense of the Constitution is that the membership in provided in Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
180 SCRA 496, GR 86344, DECEMBER 21, 1989 the Commission on Appointments must always reflect political
alignments in Congress and must therefore adjust to changes. It YES.
is understood that such changes must be permanent and do not The composition of the House membership in the
include the temporary alliances. Commission on Appointments was based on proportional
Petitioner was a member of the Commission on
Appointments representing the Liberal Party. With the representation of the political parties in the House. There are 160
reorganization of the Laban Demokratikong Pilipino, some members of the LDP in the House. They represent 79% of the
congressional members belonging to the LP resigned from the COSETENG VS. MITRA House membership (which may be rounded out to 80%). Eighty
said party to join the LDP. Based on this development, the HOR percent (80%) of 12 members in the Commission on
187 SCRA 377, GR 86649, JULY 12, 1990 Appointments would equal 9.6 members, which may be rounded
revised its representation in the Commission on Appointments by
withdrawing the seat occupied by the petitioner and giving this out to ten (10) members from the LDP. The remaining two seats
to the newly-formed LDP. Hence this petition by Daza contending were apportioned to the LP (respondent Lorna Verano-Yap) as
that the organization of the LDP cannot affect the composition of Petitioner Coseteng, the lone candidate elected to the the next largest party in the Coalesced Majority and the KBL
the Commission on Appointments because LDP is not a House of Representatives under KAIBA, wrote a letter to Mitra to (respondent Roque Ablan) as the principal opposition party in the
registered party and has not yet shown the stability of a party. seek appointment to the Commission on Appointments as a House. There is no doubt that this apportionment of the House
minority representative. Previously, the House elected from the membership in the Commission on Appointments was done "on
Coalesced Major parties 11 out of 12 congressmen to the CA and the basis of proportional representation of the political parties
later on added Ablan as the twelfth member from the Coalesced therein."
Minority. A year later, "Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino" was
organized as a political party prompting the revision of the

97 | P a g e
 To be able to claim proportional membership in the mandatory to elect 12 senators to the CA. The act of filling up the release of its legal opinion because the handling lawyer was
Commission on Appointments, a political party should represent membership thereof cannot disregard the mandate of directed to secure documents necessary to establish some of the
at least 8.4% of the House membership, i.e., it should have been proportional representation of the parties even if it results in members’ party affiliations. Petitioners filed for prohibition,
able to elect at least 17 congressmen or congresswomen. fractional membership in unusual situations. mandamus, and quo warranto with prayer for the issuance of
writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order,
The provision of Sec. 18 on proportional representation against the Respondents.
is mandatory in character and does not leave any discretion to
Guingona v. Gonzales the majority party in the Senate to disobey or disregard the rule
214 SCRA 789 (1992); MR, 219 SCRA 326 (1993) on proportional representation.
Whether or not the liberal party with at least 20
members who signed herein as petitioners, is constitutionally
entitled to 1 seat in the commission on appointments.
As a result of national elections on May 1992, the FRANKLIN M. DRILON as President,et.al. vs. HON. JOSE DE
Senate was composed by the following by parties: 15 LDP, 1 LP- VENECIA JR. in his official capacity as Speaker of the House of Even assuming that party-list representatives comprise
LABAN, 5 NPC, 3 Lakas-NUCD. On the basis of proportional Representatives, et,al. a sufficient number and have agreed to designate common
representation, therefore, the Commission on Appointments nominees to the HRET and the CA, their primary recourse clearly
GR No. 180055, JULY 31, 2009 rests with the House of Representatives and not this Court.
could contain 7.5 LDP, .5 LP-PDP-LABAN, 2.5 NPC, 1.5 LAKAS-
NUCD. The Senate, however, put in 8 LDP by rounding out 7.5, 1 MAINPOINT: Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction,
LP-PDP-LABAN by rounding out .5 to 1, 2 NPC by ignoring .5, 1 prior recourse to the House is necessary before petitioners may
LAKAS-NUCD by ignoring .5. Petitioners went to respondent, then Speaker, Jose de
Venecia to ask for one seat for the Liberal Party in the CA. bring the instant case to the court. Consequently, petitioner’s
The LDP majority in the Senate converted a fractional Speaker Jose de Venecia merely said that he would study their direct recourse to this Court is premature.
half membership into a whole membership of one Senator by demand.
adding one-half or .5 to 7.5 to be able to elect respondent
Senator Romulo. In so doing, one other party’s fractional Petitioner Representative Tañada then requested from Section 19. Constitutions of the Electoral Tribunal and the
membership was correspondingly reduced leaving the latter’s the House of Representatives leadership one seat in the CA for Commission on Appointments
representation in the CA to less than their proportional the Liberal Party. In a separate move, Representative Tañada,
representation in the Senate. The election of Senator Romulo requested the Secretary General of the House of Representatives
gave more representation to the LDP and reduced the the reconstitution of the House contingent in the CA to include
one seat for the Liberal Party in compliance with the provision of Section 20. Records and Books of Accounts
representation of one political party — either the LAKAS-NUCD
or the NPC. Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution. Representative Tañada
also brought the matter to the attention of then Speaker De
Venecia, reiterating the position that since there were at least 20 Section 21. Inquiries in Aid of Legislation
members of the Liberal Party in the 14th Congress, the party
Is the full complement of 12 members mandatory? should be represented in the CA. No report or recommendation
NO. was proffered by the Legal Department, drawing Representative Power of Inquiry
Tañada to request a report or recommendation on the matter
The Constitution does not require that the full within three days. In reply, Atty. Grace Andres of the Legal Affairs SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, in his
complement of 12 senators be elected to the membership in the Bureau of the House of Representatives informed Representative capacity as Executive Secretary and alter-ego of President
CA before it can discharge its functions and that it is not Tañada that the department was constrained to withhold the

98 | P a g e
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and anyone acting in his stead and in Thus, E.O 464 is contrary to Section 21 due to the fact that it At the same time, the refusal of the President to allow
behalf of the President of the Philippines forbids people to attend congressional hearings without the members of the military to appear before Congress is still subject
permission of the president. to judicial relief. The Constitution itself recognizes as one of the
488 SCRA 1, G.R. No. 169777, APRIL 20, 2006 legislature’s functions is the conduct of inquiries in aid of
legislation. Inasmuch as it is ill-advised for Congress to interfere
B/GEN. (RET.) FRANCISCO V. GUDANI AND LT. COL. ALEXANDER with the President’s power as commander-in-chief, it is similarly
This case is regarding the railway project of the North F. BALUTAN VS. LT./GEN. GENEROSO S. SENGA AS CHIEF OF detrimental for the President to unduly interfere with Congress’s
Luzon Railways Corporation with the China National Machinery STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, COL. right to conduct legislative inquiries.
and Equipment Group as well as the Wiretapping activity of the GILBERTO JOSE C. ROA AS THE PRE-TRIAL JOSE C. ROA AS THE
ISAFP, and the Fertilizer scam. We believe and hold that our constitutional and legal
PRE-TRIAL PROVOST MARSHALL GENERAL PROVOST MARSHALL order sanctions a modality by which members of the military may
GENERAL PHILIPPINES AND THE GENERALCOURT-MARTIAL, be compelled to attend legislative inquiries even if the President
PHILIPPINES AND THE GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL desires otherwise, a modality which does not offend the Chief
The Senate Committees sent invitations to various Executive’s prerogatives as commander-in-chief. The remedy lies
officials of the Executive Department and AFP officials for them 498 SCRA 671, G.R. No. 170165, AUGUST 15, 2006
with the courts.
to appear before Senate. The President issued EO 464, effective
immediately, which, among others, mandated that “all heads of The fact that the executive branch is an equal,
departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall Sen. Biazon invited several senior officers of the AFP to coordinate branch of government to the legislative creates a
secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before appear at a public hearing before the Senate Committee on wrinkle to any basic rule that persons summoned to testify
either House of Congress.” Pursuant to this Order, Executive Sec. National Defense and Security (Senate Committee) but the before Congress must do so. Reciprocal courtesy idealizes this
Ermita communicated to the Senate that the executive and AFP president gave an order that didn’t allow the petitioners to relationship; hence, it is only as a last resort that one branch
officials would not be able to attend the meeting since the appear before a congressional or senate hearing without her seeks to compel the other to a particular mode of behavior. The
President has not yet given her consent. Despite the lack of approval. judiciary, the third coordinate branch of government, does not
consent, Col. Balutan and Brig. Gen. Gudani, among all the AFP enjoy a similar dynamic with either the legislative or executive
officials invited, attended the investigation Petitioners seek the annulment of that order from branches. Whatever weakness inheres on judicial power due to
President Arroyo. Respondent argued that the petitioners its inability to originate national policies and legislation, such is
disobeyed a legal order from the president as their Commander- balanced by the fact that it is the branch empowered by the
In-Chief. Constitution to compel obeisance to its rulings by the other
Does E.O. 464 contravenes the power of inquiry vested
in Congress? branches of government.

Yes. Can the Congress still compel the military officers to

appear before it? REGHIS M. ROMERO II, EDMOND Q. SESE, LEOPOLDO T.
Congress undoubtedly has a right to information from
SANCHEZ, REGHIS M. ROMERO III, MICHAEL L. ROMERO,
the executive branch whenever it is sought in aid of legislation. If Yes.
the executive branch withholds such information on the ground NATHANIEL L. ROMERO, and JEROME R. CANLAS, vs. SENATOR
The President could, as a general rule, require military JINGGOY E. ESTRADA and SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR,
that it is privileged, it must so assert it and state the reason
therefor and why it must be respected. officers to seek presidential approval before appearing before EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Congress since the Constitution prescribes that it is the President,
The Senate or House of Representatives or any of its and not the Senate, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed G.R. NO. 174105, APRIL 2, 2009
respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. forces.

99 | P a g e
 Petitioner, owner of R-II builders, was invited by the motion of Chavez, as the petitioner in Chavez, for refused to answer three important questions, invoking his right
Committee on Labor, Employment and Human Resources reconsideration of the Decision of the Court dated August 15, to executive privilege. For failing to appear in the other days that
Development, chaired by the respondent, to attend a senate 2007. In fine, it will not avail petitioners any to invoke the sub he was summoned, Neri was held in contempt.
hearing regarding the investment of OWWA (Overseas Workers judice effect of Chavez and resist, on that ground, the assailed
Welfare Administration) funds in the Smokey Mountain. congressional invitations and subpoenas. The sub judice issue has
been rendered moot and academic by the supervening issuance 1. Did Respondent Committees commit grave abuse of
Petitioner requested to be excused from appearing and of the en banc Resolution of July 1, 2008 in G.R. No. 164527. discretion in issuing the contempt order.
testifying before the Committee but was denied. Petitioner
Yes.
issued subpoena ad testificandum to petitioner directing him to Suffice it to state that when the Committee issued
appear and testify before the committee. Petitioners in gist claim invitations and subpoenas to petitioners to appear before it in The respondent violated Section 21 of Article VI of the
that: (1) the subject matter of the investigation is sub judice connection with its investigation of the aforementioned Constitution, requiring that the inquiry be in accordance with the
owing to the pendency of the Chavez petition; (2) since the investments, it did so pursuant to its authority to conduct "duly published rules of procedure." The senate that time did not
investigation has been intended to ascertain petitioners’ criminal inquiries in aid of legislation. This is clearly provided in Art. VI, publish its Rules of Procedure which makes it procedurally infirm.
liability for plunder, it is not in aid of legislation Sec. 21 of the Constitution, which was quoted at the outset. And The phrase 'duly published rules of procedure' requires the
the Court has no authority to prohibit a Senate committee from Senate of every Congress to publish its rules of procedure
Respondents made a distinction between the issues requiring persons to appear and testify before it in connection governing inquiries in aid of legislation because every Senate is
raised in Chavez and the subject matter of the Senate with an inquiry in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly distinct from the one before it or after it. There were no rules of
resolutions, nixing the notion of sub judice that petitioners raised published rules of procedure.. procedure made known to the public on that time.
at every possible turn. Respondents averred that the subject
matter of the investigation focused on the alleged dissipation of CASE NO. 271 -ART 6 SEC 21: INQUIRIES IN AID OF LEGISLATION
OWWA funds and the purpose of the probe was to aid the
Senate determine the propriety of amending Republic Act No. NERI VS. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC GARCILLANO VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
8042 or The Migrant Workers Act of 1995 and enacting laws to OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATIONS
protect OWWA funds in the future. G.R. No. 180643, MARCH 25, 2008
FACTS: "Hello Garci" tapes allegedly contained the President’s
instructions to COMELEC Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano to
1. Is the subject matter of the Senate inquiry sub judice. manipulate in her favor results of the 2004 presidential elections.
Department of Transportation and Communication
No. Petitioner filed before the court praying that such playing of the
(DOTC) entered into a contract with Zhong Xing
illegally seized communication was in violation of RA 4200 or the
The court ruled that the Subject Matter of the Senate Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) for the supply of
anti-wiretapping law.  Also, such petition for injunction prays that
Inquiry is no Longer Sub Judice. The sub judice rule restricts equipment and services for the National Broadband Network
the Senate committee be prevented from further conducting
comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial proceedings to (NBN) Project. Several Resolutions regarding the investigation
such investigation for the basic reason that there was no proper
avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing and implications on national security and government-to-
publication of the senate rules, empowering them to make such
the administration of justice. government contracts regarding the NBN Project were
investigation of the unlawfully seized documents.
introduced in Senate.
Chavez, assuming for argument that it involves issues ISSUES:  W / the Senate committee be prevented from further
subject of the respondent Committee’s assailed investigation, is Respondent Committees initiated the investigation by
conducting such investigation because there was no proper
no longer sub judice or "before a court or judge for sending invitations to certain personalities and cabinet officials
publication of the senate rules?
consideration."13 For by an en banc Resolution dated July 1, involved in the NBN Project. Petitioner was summoned to appear
2008, the Court, in G.R. No. 164527, denied with finality the and he testified to the Committees for eleven (11) hours, but

100 | P a g e
RULING: Yes. The court ruled that the senate cannot be allowed jurisdiction. However, they are without power due to the fact Case No. 274 Article 6, Section 21: In aid of legislation
to continue with the conduct of the questioned legislative inquiry that legislative contempt was halted by the restraining order to
without duly published rules of procedure, in clear derogation of refrain from compelling the attendance and testimony of the GR 167173 - Dec 27, 2007
the constitutional requirement. petitioners. Standard Chartered Bank vs Senate Committee on Banks
MAINPOINT: According to section 21, Article VI of the 1987 CASE NO. 273-ART 6 SEC 21: INQUIRIES IN AID OF LEGISLATION
Constitution, the Senate or the House of Representatives or any
of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of BENGZON V. SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE
FACTS: P was faced with criminal and civil charges for selling
legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of unregistered foreign securities. Enrile, who had given a privileged
procedure. The requisite of publication of the rules is intended FACTS: On 30 July 1987, the Republic of the Philippines filed with
speech, urged the Senate to conduct an inquiry in aid of
to satisfy the basic requirements of due process. the Sandiganbayan Civil Case No. 0035 (PCGG Case No. 35)
legislation, for future prevention of similar fraudulent
entitled "Republic of the Philippines vs. Benjamin "Kokoy"
occurrences. Petitioner contented that the respondent has no
CASE NO. 272 -ART 6 SEC 21: INQUIRIES IN AID OF LEGISLATION Romualdez, et al.", for reconveyance, reversion, accounting,
jurisdiction to conduct inquiry as there are other criminal and
restitution and damages. Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, delivered a
NEG. O. II ELEC. COOP. V. SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD civil charges involved pending before the CA.
speech asking the Senate to look into possible violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act because of the said
purchase. A petition for prohibition was filed to enjoin Senate
FACTS: The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order for the Blue Ribbon Committee from requiring the petitioners to testify ISSUE: W/ the respondent may conduct an inquiry in aid of
respondents, to refrain from compelling the attendance and and produce evidence at its inquiry into the alleged sale of the legislation and compel the petitioners to testify despite pending
testimony of Petitioners on the alleged installation and use by equity of Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez to the Lopa Group in cases of same matter
the petitioner NORECO II of inefficient power lines in that city. several corporations.
Petitioners contend that the respondent Sangguniang
Panlungsod of Dumaguete is bereft of the power to compel the ISSUE: Whether or not Senate has authority to conduct inquiry? RULIN : Yes. Privacy is not an absolute right. While it is true that
attendance and testimony of witnesses and it cannot exercise its Sec 21 Art 2 respects the rights of a person, the court has held
power because of the terms and conditions of the franchise that right to access information of public concern prevails the
RULING: Yes. The 1987 Constitution recognizes the power of
granted to NORECO II which are beyond the jurisdiction of the right of privacy over ordinary financial transactions. There is no
both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries and should be “in
respondent. Respondents claim to have the power to conduct infringement of right to privacy where there is an overriding state
aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
investigations in aid of legislation and with it, the power to interest, in this case, public interest who invest in foreign
procedure.”
punish for contempt in inquiries on matters within its jurisdiction securities
MAINPOINT: The 1987 Constitution expressly recognizes the
ISSUE: W/ respondent has no power to compel the attendance
power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of
and testimony of the petitioner.
legislation but it is not absolute or unlimited. Its exercise is
MAIN POINT;The mere filing of a criminal or an administrative
RULING: Yes. The subpoena requiring the attendance and circumscribed by the aforequoted provision of the Constitution.
complaint before a court or a quasi-judicial body should not
testimony of the petitioners at an investigation by the The investigation must be “in aid of legislation in accordance
automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation. It
respondent is declared null and void for being ultra vires. with its duly published rules of procedure” and that “the rights
would be extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by
of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be
Congress through the convenient ploy of instituting a criminal
MAINPOINT: The Respondents have the power to conduct respected”.
or an administrative complaint. The exercise of sovereign
investigations in aid of legislation and with it, the power to
legislative authority cannot be made subordinate to a criminal
punish for contempt in inquiries on matters within its
or an administrative investigation.
101 | P a g e
 MAIN POINT: Pursuant to this constitutional grant of virtually value. In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to
unrestricted authority to determine its own rules, the Senate is which the petitioner would be entitled and which would be
at liberty to alter or modify these rules at any time it may see negated by the dismissal of the petition.
Case No. 275 Article 6, Section 21: In aid of legislation fit, subject only to the imperatives of quorum, voting and
publication.
GR No. 184849 - Feb. 13, 2009 Case No. 277 Article 6, Sec 21: In accordance with duly
Maria Fe C. De la Paz vs. Senate Committee on Public Relations published rules of procedure
and Senate Sergeant-at-arms Balajadia Case No. 276Article 6, Section 21: In aid of legislation
GR No. 170338 - December 23, 2008
GR NO. 174105 - April 2, 2009
Virgilio Garcilliano vs The House of Representatives
FACTS: P were sent to Moscow for a General Assembly of Reghis Romero II vs. Senator Jinggoy Estrada Committees on Public Communications
INTERPOL and were detained for non-declaration of 105,000
Euros in their luggage and 45,000 Euros in their possession.
Respondent issued them with a subpoena upon return, in which FACTS: Petitioners filed for a petition of prohibition with FACTS:Petitioner filed for a petition of prohibition and injunction
petitioner, instead of attending the hearing, challenged with a application of TRO that assails the constitutionality of the with prayer of TRO and writ of preliminary injunction when an
pleading that questioned the respondent's jurisdiction with invitations issued by the respondent with regards to the illegally-wiretapped conversation of him and the former
motion to quash subpoena, stating the matter does not involve investigation on the investment on OWWA funds in the Smokey President GMA had surfaced encompassing the issue of vote
state to state regulations. Senator Santiago sided with the Mountain Projects. This follows the request of the petitioner, manipulation for the 2004 elections, praying that the tapes were
respondent's jurisdiction and ordered Balajadia to arrest owner of R-II Builders, Inc., to be excused from attending to be restrained from use and stricken off records. He claimed
petitioners committee hearing for ascertaining their liability for plunder, to that he would stand to be directly injured as he was identified to
be excused stating that it is not in aid of legislation and the be one of thevoice in the tapes. Petitioner prayed for injunction
matter is sub judice. Respondents denied the request and issued stating that there was noproper publication that unlawfully-
ISSUE: W/the respondent's action had violated the senate rules subpoena to the petitioner and the board members. seized tapes can be used as evidence for conducting an
in issuing a warrant of arrest investigation
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject matter is sub judice
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a proper publication of rules to
RULING:No. The SC held that the issue had been rendered moot further empower the senate to further proceed with their
RULING: No. The respondent, with full discretionary authority, and academic or had ceased to present a justiciable controversy, investigation
has jurisdiction over the case, as all matters relating to or in thus, there is no substantial relief the petitioner would be
relation to the Philippines and other nations, including entitled to nor negated if the petition is dismissed. The court RULING: No. The respondents justified their non-observance of
international agreements and overseas Filipino affairs. The further held that when the invitations were issued in relation to constitutionally-mandated publication by arguing that the rules
respondent Committee can properly inquire into this matter, its investments, it did so to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation have never been amended despite it being published in booklet
particularly as to the source and purpose of the funds discovered that is in accordance with its duly published rules and form available for free access in the Senate webpage. The court
in Moscow as this would involve the Philippines’ commitments in procedures. disagreed stating that the absence of amendment to the rules
UN affairs. does not justify defiance of the constitution and inquiries in aid
MAIN POINT: An issue or a case becomes moot and academic of legislation are allowed only in accordance with duly published
when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, so that a rules of procedure.
determination of the issue would be without practical use and

102 | P a g e
MAIN POINT: The conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation by Furthermore, it does not believe that the respondent has the required information, recourse must be had to others who do
the Senate has to be deferred until it shall have caused the right to set aside the rules as they wish and that the rules are not possess it.
publication of the rules, because it can do so only "in promulgated for their benefits.
accordance with its duly published rules of procedure". MAIN POINT
MAIN POINT:A system that allows a standing committee to
simply articulate its reasons to investigate pro forma does no The right to life is one of the most sacred that the citizen may
more than imposes minimal drafting burdens. Rather, the claim, and yet the state may deprive him of it if he violates his
Case No. 278 Article 6, Sec 21: Respect for the rights of persons system must be designed in a manner that imposes actual corresponding obligation to respect the life of others.
appearing in or affected by such inquiries burdens on the committee to articulate its need for
GR No. 180643 - September 4, 2008 investigation and allows for meaningful debate about the
merits of proceeding with the investigation. Case No. 280 Article 6, Sec 21: Power to punish a person under
Romulo Neri vs. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF investigation
PUBLIC OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATIONS,
GR No. 174340 - October 17, 2006
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND COMMERCE, AND SENATE Case No. 279 Article 6, Sec 21: Power to punish a person under
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY investigation Camilo Sabio vs. Senator Richard Gordon

GR No. L-3820 Jean Arnault vs Leon Nazareno

FACTS:Petitioner disclosed to the president about the COMELEC FACTS:In 2006, Resolution No. 455 was introduced in aid of
chair main bribing him into the approval of the NBN deal offering legislation due to the alleged improprieties in POTC,
FACTS:The issue arose when the government made a purchase of
him P200-M. However, when probed further about the PHILCOMSAT and PHC, in which petitioner was invited to be one
two estates, in which the petitioner was the attorney-in-factof
discussion between him and the president, the petitioner refused of the resource persons in the public meeting by the respondent.
the negotiations between the buyer and the government
to answer, invoking his right to executive privileges, leading the Petitioner declined invoking E.O No.1 due to prior commitments
wherein Senate adopted a resolution that determined if the
respondents to issue a subpoena and show cause letter, later on, which led the respondent to continuously send subpoena that
validity and price of the purchase was right. When petitioner was
requiring him to explain why he should not be cited in contempt. was repeatedly ignored. Respondent threatened to be cited with
questioned about the allocation of a part of the purchase price,
Petitioner stated that confidentiality of the matter is needed and contempt if subpoena was continuedly ignored.
he refused to answer leading him to be cited in contempt in New
disclosure can cause impairment of diplomatic relations, the Bilibid Prison until he reveals information withheld. Petitioner ISSUE : Whether or not Section 4 of EO.1 is constitutional
senate found this reasoning unsatisfactory and ordered his arrest contented by stating that the senate has no power to punish him
and detention until he gives testimony. for contempt as the information is immaterial and that he would RULING :No. The power of inquiry is broad enough to cover
incriminate himself if he reveals the person. officials of the executive branch. Subject to reasonable conditions
ISSUE: Whether respondents committed grave abuse of prescribed by the law, the state adopts and implements a policy
discretion in issuing contempt order ISSUE: Whether or not the senate has the right to punish for of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public
refusing to reveal the name of the person who received the interest regardless of its official cognizance.
RULING : Yes. The respondents argued that their order did not as
amount
it did not violate Sec. 21, Art 6 of the constitution and that it is
not arbitrary or precipitate. The court, however, ruled that the RULING: Yes. Once an inquiry is admitted to be within jurisdiction
legitimacy claim of the executive of a legislative body, the investigating committee has the right to Case No. 281 Article 6, Section 22: Appearance of Heads and
require a witness to answer any question. The power of inquiry is Departments in Congress
privileges has been stated and that an unconstrainted
essential and when the legislative body does not possess the
congressional investigative power generates its own abuses. GR No. 169777 - April 20, 2006
103 | P a g e
Senate of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Ermita Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) stormed into the Oakwood the President has attempted to or has exercised powers beyond
Premiere apartments in Makati City. President Arroyo issued her powers as Chief Executive or as Commander-in-Chief. The
later in the day Proclamation No. 427 and General Order No. 4, President, in declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the
both declaring "a state of rebellion" and calling out the Armed armed forces, was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief
FACTS:This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition, stating that
Forces to suppress the rebellion. When the Oakwood occupation Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers. These are purely
the president has abused its power by issuing EO 464, praying
had ended after hours-long negotiations, the President did not executive powers, vested on the President by Sections 1 and 18,
that the issuance be considered null and void. The Senate of the
immediately lift the declaration of a state of rebellion until after a Article VII, as opposed to the delegated legislative powers
Philippines, through its various Senate Committees, conducts
few days through Proclamation No. 435. Petitioners contend that contemplated by Section 23 (2), Article VI.
inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation which call for, inter
Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution does not require the
alia, the attendance of officials and employees of the executive
declaration of a state of rebellion to call out the armed forces.
department, bureaus, and offices. The Committee of the Senate
They further submit that, because of the cessation of the MAIN POINT:
issued invitations to various officials of the Executive Department
Oakwood occupation, there exists no sufficient factual basis for
for them to appear as resource speakers in a public hearing on
the proclamation by the President of a state of rebellion for an Delegation of Emergency Powers/Military Powers
the railway project, others on the issues of massive election fraud
indefinite period.
in the Philippine elections, wiretapping, and the role of military in The Congress may authorize the President to exercise powers
the so-called “Gloria gate Scandal". Said officials did not attend necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. In
due to lack of consent from the president prior to appearing other words, the President may be given emergency legislative
before either house of Congress. ISSUE: Whether or not the President’s declaration of a state of powers if the Congress so desires. In the case at bar, there was
rebellion is invalid. no delegated legislative powers. The President, in her
ISSUE: Whether or not EO 464 is valid and constitutional
declaration of state of rebellion, acted in her executive capacity,
RULING: Partly granted. The enumeration of the EO is broad and as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief.
covered by executive privilege. The necessity must be of such RULING: No. It is true that for the purpose of exercising the
high degree that it outweighs its obligation towards public calling out power, the Constitution does not require the
interest. If the executive branch withholds such information, it President to make a declaration of a state of rebellion under CASE NO. 283 ART 6 SEC 23: DECLARATION OF A STATE OF WAR;
must be stated as to why it should be respected. The provisions Section 18, Article VII. The grants the President, as Commander- EMERGENCY POWERS
of the EO, however, allows the branch to evade congressional in-Chief, a "sequence" of "graduated powers." From the most to
requests for information by the mere invoking of the provisions, the least benign, these are: (1) the calling out power, (2) the AMPATUAN V. HON. DILG SEC. PUNO
disabling inquiries in aid of legislation. power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and
(3) the power to declare martial law. The President may call the FACTS: The day after the Maguindanao Massacre, then President
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Proclamation 1946, placing "the
rebellion, whenever it becomes necessary. It is equally true that Provinces of Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat and the City of
CASE NO. 282 ART VI SEC 23: Delegation of Emergency
Section 18, Article VII does not expressly prohibit the President Cotabato under a state of emergency." She directed the Armed
Powers/Military Powers
from declaring a state of rebellion. Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police
SANLAKAS v. Executive Secretary (PNP) "to undertake such measures as may be allowed by the
Constitution and by law to prevent and suppress all incidents of
The declaration cannot constitute an indirect exercise of lawless violence" in the named places. Petitioners filed this
emergency powers, which exercise depends upon a grant of petition for prohibition under Rule 65. They alleged that the
FACTS: Armed with high-powered ammunitions and explosives,
Congress pursuant to Section 23 (2), Article VI of the proclamation and the orders empowered the DILG Secretary to
some three hundred junior officers and enlisted men of the
Constitution. The petitions do not cite a specific instance where take over ARMM’s operations and seize the regional
104 | P a g e
government’s powers, in violation of the principle of local FACTS:The petitioners were questioning the constitutionality of which apparently it had prepared in the anticipation of the House
autonomy under Republic Act 9054 (also known as the Expanded the automatic appropriation for debt service, it being higher than Bill. The President later certified to the urgency of passing the
ARMM Act) and the Constitution. The President gave the DILG the budget for education, therefore it is against Section 5(5), Senate version of the Bill. After the two versions had gone
Secretary the power to exercise, not merely administrative Article XIV of the Constitution which mandates to “assign the through a Conference Committee, the House approved the
supervision, but control over the ARMM since the latter could highest budgetary priority to education.” Conference Committee report which for all practical purpose was
suspend ARMM officials and replace them. the Senate Bill.

ISSUES: Whether or not President Arroyo invalidly exercised ISSUE:Whether or not the automatic appropriation for debt
emergency powers when she called out the AFP and the PNP to service is unconstitutional; it being higher than the budget for ISSUE: Whether or not the constitutional rule that revenue bulls
prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence in education. must originate exclusively from the House of Representatives
Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, and Cotabato City. (HOP) was violated.

RULLING: No. The President did not proclaim a national RULING:No. While it is true that under Section 5(5), Article XIV of
emergency, only a state of emergency in the three places
the Constitution Congress is mandated to “assign the highest RULING: No.The court said that the exclusivity of the prerogative
mentioned. And she did not act pursuant to any law enacted by
budgetary priority to education,” it does not thereby follow that of HOP mean that the house alone can initiate the passage of the
Congress that authorized her to exercise extraordinary powers.
the hands of Congress are so hamstrung as to deprive it the Bill, such that, if the house does not initiate one, no revenue law
The calling out of the armed forces to prevent or suppress
lawless violence in such places is a power that the Constitution power to respond to the imperatives of the national interest and will be passed. The Senate, once passed to them, can completely
directly vests in the President. She did not need a congressional for the attainment of other state policies or objectives. overhaul it, by amendment of parts or by amendment by
authority to exercise the same. substitution, and come out with completely different from what
the House approved.
MAINPOINT: Such deployment is not by itself an exercise of MAIN POINT
emergency powers as understood under Section 23 (2), Article
VI of the Constitution, which provides that the Congress may, If in the process Congress appropriated an amount for debt MAIN POINT: Article VI, Sec. 24: “All appropriation, revenue or
by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject service bigger than the share allocated to education, the Court tariff bills,…shall originate exclusively in the House of
to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers finds and so holds that said appropriation cannot be thereby Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with
necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. assailed as unconstitutional. amendments.”
Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such
powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
CASE NO. 285-ART 6 SEC 24: Bills originating in the House of
Representatives CASENO.286 ART 6, SEC 24: Bills originating in the House of
Case No. 284 Sec. 24 – Bills originating in the House of Representatives
Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance
Representatives Alvarez v. Guingona

G.R. No. 94571 - April 22, 1991

FACTS: This case refer to the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7716, FACTS: House Bill 8817 (An Act Converting the Municipality of
Teofisto Guingona vs. Hon. Guillermo Carague
the Value Added Tax (VAT) Law. After the house version of the Santiago into an Independent Component City to be known as
bill was sent to the Senate, the Senate introduced substitute bill the City of Santiago) was passed in the House of Representatives.

105 | P a g e
In May 1993, a Senate Bill (SB 1243) of similar title and content Both views are thereby... made to bear on the enactment of Issue: W/N CTA has jurisdiction over the case which is concerned
with that of HB 8817 was introduced in the Senate. HB 8817 was such laws. with imposition of safeguard measures
then transmitted to the Senate. In February 1994, the Senate
conducted a public hearing on SB 1243. In March 1994, the Ruling: YES. Under Sec 29 of the SMA, there are 3 requisites to
Case No. 287-Art 6/Sec 24, Delegation of Emergency enable the CTA to require jurisdiction over petition for review
Senate Committee on Local Government rolled out its
Powers/Military Powers contemplated therein: (i) there must be a ruling by DTI Secretary;
recommendation for approval of HB 8817 as it was totally the
Southern Cross Cement vs. Phil. Cement (ii) the petition must be filed by an interested party adversely
same with SB 1243. Eventually, HB 8817 became a law (RA 7720).
Now Senator Heherson Alvarez et al are assailing the affected the ruling; and (iii) such ruling must be in connection
constitutionality of the said law on the ground that the bill with the imposition of a safeguard measure. The first 2 requisites
Facts: Petitioner is a domestic corp. manufacturing, producing,
creating the law did not originate from the lower house and that are clearly present. The third requisite deserves closer scrutiny.
importing and exporting cement and the Respondent is an
City of Santiago was not able to comply with the income of at Even assuming arguendo that Sec 29 has not expressly granted
association of domestic cement manufacturers. DTI accepted an
least P20M per annum in order for it to be a city. the CTA jurisdiction to review a negative ruling of the DTI Sec, the
application form Philcemcor to seek for the imposition of
Court is precluded from favouring an interpretation that would
definitive safeguard measures on the import of cement pursuant
cause inconvenience and absurdity. Adopting the respondents
to the Safeguard Measures Act. Tariff Commission received a
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 7720 is invalid for not being originally position favouring the CTAs minimal jurisdiction would
request from DTI for a formal investigation to determine w/n to
from the HOR. unnecessarily lead to illogical and onerous results.
impose a definitive safeguard measure on imports on Portland
cement. TC reported that elements of serious injury and Main point: The CTA has jurisdiction over the case which is
RULING:NO. The house bill was filed first before the senate bill as imminent threat of serious injury not having been established, concerned with the imposition of safeguard measure because
the record shows. Further, the Senate held in abeyance any thus recommended that no general safeguard measure be the 3 requisites of the pertinent provision (sec 29 of the SMA) is
hearing on the said SB while the HB was on its 1st, 2nd and 3rd imposed on the importation of gray Portland cement. After present.
reading in the HOR. The Senate only conducted its 1st hearing on receiving report, then DTI Sec Manuel Roxas II disagreed with the
the said SB one month after the HB was transmitted to the conclusion of TC that there was no serious injury caused by the
CASE NO. 288-ART. VI, SECTION 24: APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC
Senate (in anticipation of the said HB as well). surge of imports. In view of this disagreement, DTI requested
REVENUE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE
opinion from DOJ on the DTI Secs scope of option in acting on the
Commission recommendations. Then DOJ Sec Perez rendered
PASCUAL vs.SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS
MAIN POINT:A Bill of local application, such as one asking for opinion stating that Sec 13 of the SMA precluded review by the
the conversion of a municipality into a city, is deemed to have DTI Sec of the TCs negative finding, or safeguard measure shouls
originated from the House provided that the bill of the House FACTS: Petitioner as Provincial Governor of Rizal, instituted this
not be imposed. DTI then denied app for SM against the
action for declaratory relief, with injunction, upon the ground
was filed prior to the filing of the bill in the Senate even if, in importation of gray Pc. Philcemcor received a copy of the DTI
that Republic Act No. 920, entitled "An Act Appropriating Funds
the end, the Senate approved its own version. decision on 12th April 2022. 10 days later, it filed with the Court of
for Public Works” is unconstitutional, premised on the following:
Appeals a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus the projected feeder roads in question were private property at
The initiative for filing revenue, tariff, or tax bills, bills seeking to set aside the DTI Decision as well as the TC Report. On the time of the passage and approval of R.A. 920, the
authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills the other hand, Petitioner filed its Comment arguing that the CA appropriation of P85,000.00 therein made, for the construction,
of local application must come from the House of has no jurisdiction over Philcemcors Petition for it is on the Court reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement of said
Representatives on the theory that, elected as... they are from of Tax Appeals (CTA) that the SMA conferred jurisdiction to projected feeder roads, was illegal and, therefore, void ab initio";
the districts, the members of the House can be expected to be review ruling of the Sec in connection w/ the imposition of a that said appropriation was made by Congress because its
more sensitive to the local needs and problems. On the other safeguard measure. members were made to believe that the projected feeder roads
hand, the senators, who are elected at large, are expected to in question were "public roads and not private streets of a
approach the same problems from the national perspective. private subdivision"'; that, "in order to give a semblance of
106 | P a g e
legality, when there is absolutely none, to the aforementioned from the promotion of private interest and the prosperity of must not be made to pay huge amounts of money arising from
appropriation", respondents Zulueta executed, while he was a private enterprises or business, does not justify their aid by the void contracts.
member of the Senate of the Philippines, an alleged deed of use public money.
donation of the four (4) parcels of land constituting said
projected feeder roads, in favor of the Government of the
MAIN POINT: In accordance with the rule that the taxing power ISSUE:Whether the contracts between the DPWH and the
Republic of the Philippines.
must be exercised for public purposes only, money raised by contractors are valid?
taxation can be expended only for public purposes and not for
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner’s action should prevail and
the advantage of private individuals.
said act is unconstitutional.
RULING:Yes. Citing the case of Melchor v. COA, it was found that
RULING: Yes. The circumstances surrounding this case sufficiently the contract was approved by an unauthorized person and,
justify petitioner’s action and should not have been dismissed by similar to the case at bar, the required certification of the chief
Case No. 289-Article VI, Section 25: Rules on Appropriation
the lower court; and that the writ of preliminary injunction accountant was absent. The Court did not deny or justify the
should have been maintained. R.A. 920 is unconstitutional. The DPWH v. Quirino (GR #183444, 12 October 2011) invalidity of the contract. The Court, however, found that the
test of the constitutionality of a statute requiring the use of government unjustifiably denied what the latter owed to the
public funds is whether the statute is designed to promote the contractors, leaving them uncompensated after the government
public interest, as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage had benefited from the already completed work.
FACTS: After the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991, the Department
of individuals, although each advantage to individuals of Public Works and Highways engaged the services of several
might incidentally serve the public. Respondent Zulueta is the contractors for the rehabilitation of affected river systems. The
owner of several parcels of residential land in Antonio owners of Save for Chiara Construction and Ardy Construction, As found by the court a quo, petitioner had assured the
Subdivision, certain portions of which had been reserved for the respectively, signed written agreements with DPWH’s project contractors that they would be paid for the work that they would
projected feeder roads aforementioned, which, admittedly, were manager, Engineer Philip Menez. do, as even DPWH Undersecretary Teodoro T. Encarnacion had
private property of said respondent when Republic Act No. 920, told them to “fast-track” the project. Hence, respondents
was passed by Congress, as well as when it was approved by the cannot by any stretch of logic, be deprived of compensation for
President. The construction of said roads, to be undertaken with their services when - despite their ostensible omissions - they
the appropriation of P85,000.00, would have the effect of The contractors completed their rehabilitation works. only heeded the assurance of DPWH and proceeded to work on
However, DPWH alleged that their contracts with the companies the urgent project
relieving respondent Zulueta of the burden of constructing his
subdivision streets or roads at his own expenses, and would were void due to non-compliance with legal requirements and
"greatly enhance or increase the value of the subdivision" of said thus refused to pay them. Because of this, the contractors filed
respondent. Under these circumstances, the appropriation in an action for sum of money against DPWH. MAIN POINT
question was "clearly for a private, not a public purpose." It is a
The applicable parts of Section 25, Article VI of the 1987
general rule that  the legislature is without power to appropriate
Constitution are:
public revenue for anything but a public purpose . It is the The Regional Trial Court ruled that the contracts were
essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which valid and required DPWH to pay the contractors. DPWH filed an (2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general
must determine its validity as justifying a tax, and not the appeal to the Court of Appeals who also ruled in favor of the appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some
magnitude of the interest to be affected nor the degree to which contractors. The petitioner averred that the respondents failed to particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or
the general advantage of the community, and thus the public comply with the legal requirements concerning government enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation
welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their contracts and in ascertaining the extent of authority of the public to which it relates.
promotion. Incidental  to the public or to the state, which results official with whom they contracted. Therefore, the petitioner
107 | P a g e
(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress MAIN POINT: MAIN POINT:
shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations
for other departments and agencies. Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution gives power By its very terms, the electronic transmission and tabulation
to the heads of the Constitutional Commissions to augment any of the election results projected under Resolution No. 6712 is
(4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for item in the General Appropriations Law for their respective “unofficial” in character, meaning “not emanating from or
which it is intended, and shall be supported by funds actually offices from savings in other items of their respective sanctioned or acknowledged by the government or government
available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised appropriations. body. The limitation “no money shall be paid out of the
by a corresponding revenue proposed therein. treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law”
is also a limit on the disturbing authority of the executive
CASE NO. 290-ART 6 SEC 25: Rules on Appropriation (par. 5) CASE NO. 291-ART 6 SEC 25: Limits on power to Appropriate department.

Goh vs. COMELEC Brillantes vs. COMELEC

CASE NO. 292-ART 6 SEC 25: Prohibition on “riders” in
appropriation bills
FACTS: Respondent COMELEC suspended the holding of a recall FACTS: COMELEC ventured to implement the Phase III of the
election supposedly through lack of funding. The commission Automated Election System (AES) through an electronic Garcia vs. Mata
further argued that the power to augment from its savings lies transmission of advanced “unofficial” results of the 2004
dormant until authorized by law. Hence, a legislative fiat is a elections for national, provincial and municipal positions, also
necessity. Petitioner contended that the commission committed dubbed as an “unofficial quick count.” Petitioners contended FACTS: The petitioner argues that his reversion to inactive status
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of that there has been no appropriation by Congress for the was in violation of Par. 11 of the "Special Provisions for the
jurisdiction for suspending a recall election. respondent COMELEC to conduct an “unofficial” electronic Armed Forces of the Philippines" of Republic Act No. 1600,
transmission of results of the May 10, 2004 elections and any which is an act appropriating funds for the operations of the
expenditure for the said purpose contravenes the Constitution. Government. Paragraph 11 prohibits the reversion to inactive
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC has the authority to
status of reserve officers with ten years accumulated active
augment from its savings for the recall elections.
commissioned service. The respondents contended that the said
ISSUE: Whether or not the conduct of “unofficial counts” violates provision has no relevance or pertinence whatsoever to the
the constitutional provision for appropriations. budget in question or to any appropriation item contained
RULING: Yes. There is no clash between the COMELEC and therein, and is therefore proscribed by Art. VI, Sec. 19, par. 24 of
Congress. The SC reiterated that the 2014 General the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines.
Appropriations Act (GAA) provides a line item appropriation for
the COMELEC's conduct of recall elections. Since the COMELEC RULING: Yes. The assailed COMELEC resolution contravenes the
now admits that it does not have sufficient funds from its current constitutional provision that “no money shall be paid out of the ISSUE: Whether or not the Par. 11 of the "Special Provisions for
line item appropriation for the "Conduct and supervision of recall treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law”. the Armed Forces of the Philippines" of Republic Act No. 1600 is
votes" to conduct an actual recall election, then there is The Supreme Court reviewed Rep. Act No. 9206, the General unconstitutional.
therefore an actual deficiency in its operating funds for the Appropriations Act, which took effect on April 23, 2003 and
current year. Hence, the Chairman can use its constitutional found no appropriation for the project of the COMELEC for
power to augment actual deficiencies. electronic transmission of “unofficial” election results. RULING: Yes. It is unconstitutional, invalid and inoperative. The
subject of R.A. 1600, as expressed in its title, is restricted to
"appropriating funds for the operation of the government."
108 | P a g e
 not to support the programs of the CAR was properly made a RULING: No. The Court is convinced that the title and the
part of the 2000 GAA. objectives of RA 9006 are comprehensive enough to include the
MAIN POINT: If a provision in the body of the act is not fairly repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code within its
included in the restricted subject like the provision relating to the contemplation.
policy matters of calling to active duty and reversion to inactive
duty of reserve officers of the AFP, such provision is inoperative MAIN POINT:
and of no effect. Provisions unrelated to the appropriation bill MAIN POINT: A single general subject, indicated in the title, may
The assailed provision precisely follows the standard
are considered prohibited “riders”. contain any number of provisions, no matter how diverse they
that a provision in an appropriations bill must relate specifically
may be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to
to some particular appropriation therein.
the general subject, and may be considered in furtherance of
such subject by providing for the method and means of carrying
CASE NO. 293-ART 6 SEC 25: Prohibition on “riders” in
out the general subject.
appropriation bills
CASE NO. 294-ART 6 SEC 25: Prohibition on “riders” in
Atitiw vs. Zamora
appropriation bills

Farinas vs. Executive Secretary

FACTS: According to petitioners, paragraph 1 of the Special
Provisions of the 2000 General Appropriations Act (GAA),
Note:
allotting funds for the winding up of activities and operations of FACTS: The petitioners assailed that the inclusion of Sec 14
the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), is foreign to the repealing Sec 67 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) in RA 9006
general subject of the GAA. They argue that instead of providing constitutes a proscribed rider. The Sec 14 of RA 9006 primarily
a budget for the CAR, it violates the purpose (of the 2000 GAA) Guys, this case should be covered by Article 6, Section 26
deals with the lifting of the ban on the use of media for election
by not providing for the proper and reasonable budget for the (Subject and Title Bills: General prohibition of “riders”)
propaganda and the elimination of unfair election practices. Sec
CAR. Hence, a prohibited rider. 67 of the OEC imposes a limitation of officials who run for office
other than the one they are holding in a permanent capacity by
considering them as ipso facto resigned therefrom upon filing of Don’t know why it is included under Section 25 since section 25
ISSUE: Whether or not the assailed paragraph of the Special the certificate of candidacy. talks about prohibition of “riders” in appropriation bills only. The
Provisions, insofar as it limits the spending of the appropriation case above is NOT an appropriation bill.
for CAR to the winding up of its activities, constitute a prohibited
rider. The repeal of Sec 67 of the OEC is thus not embraced in the
title, nor germane to the subject matter of RA 9006.
CASE NO. 295 -ART 6 SEC 25: Transfer of Funds
RULING: No. Said paragraph meets the germaneness standard Demetria vs. Alba
because it lays down a limitation or restriction on the use of a ISSUE: Whether Section 14 of RA 9006 is a rider.
specific appropriation item already provided in the 2000 GAA.
Said provision did not have to be the subject of separate
legislation because precisely the budgetary policy of Congress FACTS: Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of the Paragraph
1 of Section 44 PD No. 1177 or the “Budget Reform Decree of

109 | P a g e
1977” for infringing upon the fundamental law by authorizing the Liga vs. COMELEC Note:
illegal transfer of public money and the failure of specifying the
objectives thereof. Guys, the allegations about the illegal transfer were mere
accusations and unverified since they came only from newspaper
FACTS: Petitioners claim that respondents will effect the transfer reports. However, the intentions of the petitioners were right that
of public funds from the executive and legislative branches of the illegal transfer of funds are prohibited as made clear above in the
Private respondents contented that the provision Government to respondent COMELEC, which in turn would use main point.
under consideration was enacted pursuant to Section 16[5], the said funds for the purpose of holding the barangay elections
Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution; and that at any rate, scheduled on 9 May 1994. Respondents claim that petitioners
prohibition will not lie from one branch of the government to a acted solely on the basis of reports made in a newspaper, not
coordinate branch to enjoin the performance of duties within the bothering to confirm the veracity of the said reports either from CASE NO. 297-ART 6 SEC 25: Transfer of Funds
latter's sphere of responsibility. the COMELEC, the DILG, and/or any of the respondents, Nazareth vs. Villar
particularly on whether respondents are indeed officially
initiating the alleged transfer of funds for the barangay elections.
ISSUE: Whether Paragraph 1 of Section 44 PD No. 1177 or the
“Budget Reform Decree of 1977” is unconstitutional. FACTS: On December 22, 1997, Congress enacted R.A. No. 8439
ISSUE: Whether or not there was an existence of factual basis to address the policy of the State to provide a program for
that impleaded respondents are attempting, or intending to human resources development in science and technology. The
RULING: Yes. It empowers the President to indiscriminately effect the transfer of funds which would be in direct DOST Regional Office in Zamboanga City released the Magna
transfer funds from one department, bureau, office or agency of contravention of Sec. 25(5), Art. VI, of the Constitution. Carta benefits to the covered officials and employees
the Executive Department to any program, project or activity of commencing in CY 1998 to 2001 despite the absence of specific
any department, bureau or office included in the General appropriation for the purpose in the General Appropriations Act
Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment, without RULING: No. Undoubtedly, the threat to pursue the scheme, if (GAA) and absence of authority from the office of the President.
regard as to whether or not the funds to be transferred are ever there was one, existed only in newspaper reports which
actually savings in the item from which the same are to be could have misled the general public, including the petitioners,
taken, or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of into believing that the same emanated from unimpeccable Petitioners contended that authority was given by OP on
augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made. sources. year 2000 to utilize the DOST’s savings to pay the Magna Carta
benefits. The petitioner believed that the authority granted
covered years 1998 to 2001 as a continuing authorization.
MAIN POINT: No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
MAIN POINT: No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations, however, the President, the Prime Minister, the
appropriations, however, the President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of
Speaker, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of constitutional commissions may by law be authorized to ISSUE: Whether payments of the benefits made by the agency
constitutional commissions may by law be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their using its savings based on RA 8522 (1998 GAA) were legal and
augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective valid.
respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
appropriations.
RULING: No. The authority granted on year 2000 was not a
blanket authority from the OP to pay the benefits out of the
CASE NO. 296-ART 6 SEC 25: Transfer of Funds
110 | P a g e
DOST’s savings. It only covered years 1998 to 2000. The Notice of ISSUE WHETER OR NOT THERE IS USURPING OF THE POWER MAINPOINT The President of the Senate and the Speaker of the
Disallowance for year 2001 from COA is sustained for lack of OF THE LEGISLATURE TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS. House of Representatives, may, by law, be authorized to
authority. However, The Court declared and held that the augment any item in the general appropriations law for their
disallowed benefits received in good faith need not be RULING NO. The necessary funds for the IAD-ODESLA may be respective offices from savings in other items of their respective
reimbursed to the Government. properly sourced from the President's own office budget without appropriations.
committing any illegal appropriation. The President simply
allocates the existing funds previously appropriated by Congress
for his office.
MAIN POINT: CASE NO. 300-ARTICLE VI, SECTION 25 RULES ON
MAINPOINT President, may, by law, be authorized to augment APPROPRIATION – TRANSFER OF FUNDS
“No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of any item in the general appropriations law for their respective
appropriations, however, the PRESIDENT, x x x may by law, be offices from savings in other items of their respective SANCHEZ V. COA
authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations appropriations.
law for their respective offices from savings in other items of
their respective appropriations."Simply put, only the President FACTS General Appropriations Act of 1992 provided an
has the power to augment savings from one item to another in appropriation for the DILG under Title XIII and set aside the
the budget of administrative agencies under his control and CASE NO. 299-ARTICLE VI, SECTION 25 RULES ON
APPROPRIATION – TRANSFER OF FUNDS amount of P75, 000,000.00 for the DILG’s Capability Building
supervision. Program. A "shamrock" type task force was implemented, its
PHILCONSA V. ENRIQUEZ purpose was to design programs, strategize and prepare modules
for an effective program for local autonomy. The estimated
CASE NO. 298-ARTICLE VI, SECTION 25 RULES ON expenses for its operation was P2,388,000.00 and P600,000.00
APPROPRIATION – TRANSFER OF FUNDS FACTS The Philippine Constitution Association prayed for a were taken from the fund. Upon post-audit conducted by
writ of prohibition to declare the special provision in Article I Department auditor Iluminada M.V. Fabroa, however, the
PICHAY V. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY amounts were disallowed. Petitioner requested reconsideration
entitled Realignment of Allocation for Operational Expenses of
the General Appropriation Bill of 1994 as unconstitutional and of the disallowance for reason that it didn’t violate any
void. Petitioners assail the special provision which allows a provisions.
FACTS On November 15, 2010, President Benigno Simeon member of Congress to realign his allocation for operational
Aquino III issued Executive Order No. 13, Abolishing the ISSUE WHETHER THE CONDITIONS OR REQUISITES FOR THE
expenses, claiming that this practice is prohibited by Section TRANSFER OF FUNDS UNDER ARTICLE IV SECTION 5 WERE
Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) and transferring its 25(5), Article VI of the Constitution.
functions to the Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for PRESENT
Legal Affairs (ODESLA). The Office of the Executive Secretary, ISSUE WHETER OR NOT A MEMBER OF A CONGRESS IS RULING NO. It was not the President but the Deputy Executive
with the assistance of the Department of Budget and AUTHORIZED TO REALIGN HIS ALLOCATION FOR OPERATIONAL Secretary who caused the transfers and the transfer of funds
Management, shall ensure the smooth and efficient EXPENSES were not taken out from the savings.
implementation of the dispositive actions and winding-up of the
activities of PAGC. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and RULING NO. The members of Congress only determine the MAINPOINT The President, may, by law, be authorized to
prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary necessity of the realignment, it is the Senate President and the augment any item in the general appropriations law for their
restraining order, seeking to declare Executive Order No. 13 Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, respective offices from savings in other items of their respective
unconstitutional. who shall approve the realignment. appropriations.

111 | P a g e
 from the land owners standpoint, the same were not actually, Issue(s)/Ruling
directly and exclusively used for educational purposes. Whether the said act is unconstitutional. Yes
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs.
COURT OF APPEALS Issue(s)/Ruling Respondent Zulueta is the owner of several parcels of
G.R. NO. 124043, October 14, 1998 Whether or not the subject parcels of land may avail residential land in Antonio Subdivision, certain portions of which
Private respondent YMCA, is a non-stock, non-profit the tax exemption. No had been reserved for the projected feeder roads
institution, which conducts various programs and activities that aforementioned, which, admittedly, were private property of
are beneficial to the public, especially the young people, The revenue officers, in proper cases, may disregard said respondent when Republic Act No. 920, was passed by
pursuant to its religious, educational and charitable objectives, the separate corporate entity where it serves as a shield for tax Congress, as well as when it was approved by the President. In
submits that the rental income of the YMCA from its real estate is evasion. Secondly, the grant of exemption from taxation rests accordance with the rule that the taxing power must be
not subject to tax. upon the theory that an exemption will benefit the body of exercised for public purposes only, money raised by taxation can
people, and not upon any idea of lessening the burden of be expended only for public purposes and not for the advantage
Issue(s)/Ruling individual or corporate owners. Thirdly, while the beneficial use of private individuals.
Whether or not the contentions of the private of the properties being sought to be exempt from Real Property
respondent may be given merit. No Taxes were donated to SYSTEMS PLUS COMPUTER COLLEGE,
there is no showing that the same are actually, directly and ART. VI, SECTION 29: FISCAL POWERS OF CONGRESS
Because taxes are the lifeblood of the nation, the exclusively used either for religious, charitable, or educational MIAA vs.MABUNAY
Court has always applied the doctrine of strict interpretation in purposes. G.R. NO. 126151, January 20, 2000
construing tax exemptions. Furthermore, a claim of statutory Petitioners assail the decision of respondent Judge
exemption from taxation should be manifest and unmistakable ART. VI, SECTION 29: FISCAL POWERS OF CONGRESS PASCUAL Mabunay insofar as it ruled that under the laws and regulations,
from the language of the law on which it is based. Thus, the vs.SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS it is necessary for the Manila International Airport Authority to
claimed exemption must expressly be granted in a statute stated 110 PHIL 331, December 29, 1960 contract for security services through public bidding. The
in a language too clear to be mistaken. Petitioner Wenceslao Pascual, as Provincial Governor petitioners claim that the ruling interferes with "the absolute
of Rizal, instituted this action for declaratory relief, with prerogative" of the petitioners, as government agency, to award
SYSTEM PLUS COMPUTER COLLEGE vs. CALOOCAN injunction, upon the ground that Republic Act No. 920, entitled security services.
GR NO. 146382, August 7, 2003 "An Act Appropriating Funds for Public Works” is
Petitioner, a non-stock and non-profit educational unconstitutional, premised on the following: the projected Issue(s)/Ruling
institution, enjoys property tax exemption from the local feeder roads in question were private property at the time of the Whether or not the position of the petitioners may be
government on its buildings but not on the parcels of land which passage and approval of R.A. 920, the appropriation of given merit. No.
petitioner is renting for P5,000 monthly from its sister P85,000.00 therein made, for the construction, reconstruction,
companies, Consolidated Assembly, Inc. (Consolidated Assembly) repair, extension and improvement of said projected feeder By positive provision of the annual General
and Pair Management and Development Corporation (Pair roads, was illegal and, therefore, void ab initio"; that said Appropriations Acts government offices and agencies are
Management). Petitioner requested respondent city government appropriation was made by Congress because its members were authorized to enter into contracts for services related or
of Caloocan, through respondent Mamerto Manahan, City made to believe that the projected feeder roads in question were incidental to their respective functions and operations, either
Assessor and Administrator, to extend tax exemption to the "public roads and not private streets of a private subdivision"'; through public bidding or negotiated contract, whenever it is
parcels of land claiming that the same were being used actually, that, "in order to give a semblance of legality, when there is impractical or more expensive for the government to directly
directly and exclusively for educational purposes pursuant to absolutely none, to the aforementioned appropriation", undertake such functions and operation, subject to accounting or
Article VI, Section 28(3) of the 1987 Constitution. Respondent city respondents Zulueta executed, while he was a member of the auditing rules and regulations. As earlier stated, these provisions
government denied the request on the ground that the subject Senate of the Philippines, an alleged deed of donation of the four are not to be construed as doing away with the general
parcels of land were owned by Consolidated Assembly and Pair (4) parcels of land constituting said projected feeder roads, in requirement of public bidding. Indeed, public bidding is the
Management which derived income therefrom in the form of favor of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. accepted method for arriving at a fair and reasonable price and it
rentals and other local taxes assumed by the petitioner. Hence, ensures that overpricing and favoritism, and other anomalous
112 | P a g e
practices are eliminated or minimized. Although the legislature in legislative intention clearly and certainly appears from the millers filed a MANDAMUS to implement the privatization of
making appropriations under its exclusive jurisdiction leaves language employed whether in the past or in the present. Republic Planters Bank, and for the transfer of the fund in the
largely to administrative discretion the choice of ways and means government bank to sugar producers and planters. (because they
to accomplish the object of appropriation, that administrative ART. VI, SECTION 29: FISCAL POWERS OF CONGRESS are allegedly the true beneficial owners of the bank since they
discretion may not transcend the statutes. COMELEC vs. HON. QUIJANO pay P1.00 per picul of sugar from the proceeds of sugar
G.R. NO. 151992, September 18, 2002 producers as STABILIZATION FEES).
ART. VI, SECTION 29: FISCAL POWERS OF CONGRESS COMELEC issued invitations to pre-qualify and bid for .
GUINGONA vs. CARAGUE the supply and installations of information technology equipment Issue(s)/Ruling
169 SCRA 221, April 22, 1991 and ancillary services for its VRIS Project. Photokina Marketing Whether or not the stabilization fees collected can be
This is a case of first impression whereby petitioners Corporation (PHOTOKINA) pre-qualified and was allowed to appropriated to exclusive sugar producers and planters. No
question the constitutionality of the automatic appropriation for participate as one of the bidders. After the public bidding was
debt service in the 1990 budget. The 1990 budget consists of a conducted, PHOTOKINA's bid in the amount of P6.588 Billion The stabilization fees collected are in the nature of a
total of P233.5 Billion appropriated under Republic Act No. 6831 Pesos garnered the highest total weighted score and was tax, which is within the power of the State to impose for the
(General Appropriations Act) while the appropriations for the declared the winning bidder. Thus the COMELEC issued promotion of the sugar industry (Lutz vs. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148).
Department of Education, Culture and Sports amount to Resolution No. 3252 approving the Notice of Award to The stabilization fees in question are levied by the State upon
P27,017,813,000.00. PHOTOKINA, which, in turn, immediately accepted the same. The sugar millers, planters and producers for a special purpose —
parties then proceeded to formalize the contract. However, that of "financing the growth and development of the sugar
Issue(s)/Ruling under Republic Act No. 8760 the budget appropriated by industry and all its components, stabilization of the domestic
Whether or not the appropriation is violative of Congress for the COMELECs modernization project was only One market including the foreign market the fact that the State has
SECTION 29(l), ARTICLE VI OF THE CONSTITUTION. No. (1) Billion Pesos and that the actual available funds under the taken possession of moneys pursuant to law is sufficient to
Certificate of Availability of Funds (CAF) issued by the Chief constitute them state funds, even though they are held for a
Our Constitution does not require a definite, certain, Accountant of the COMELEC was only P1.2 Billion Pesos. special purpose Revenues derived from taxes cannot be used for
exact or "specific appropriation made by law." Section 29, Article purely private purposes or for the exclusive benefit of private
VI of our 1987 Constitution omits any of these words and simply Issue(s)/Ruling persons. The Stabilization Fund is to be utilized for the benefit of
states: Section 29(l). No money shall be paid out of the treasury Whether or not a successful bidder can compel a the entire sugar industry, "and all its components, stabilization of
except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. More government agency to formalize a contract with it the domestic market," including the foreign market the industry
significantly, there is no provision in our Constitution that notwithstanding the fact that its bid exceeds the amount being of vital importance to the country's economy and to
provides or prescribes any particular form of words or religious appropriated by Congress for the project. No national interest.
recitals in which an authorization or appropriation by Congress
shall be made, except that it be "made by law," such as precisely . Enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the ART VI SEC 29: Fiscal Powers of Congress; Limitations; Special
the authorization or appropriation under the questioned mandate that "no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except Funds
presidential decrees. In other words, in terms of time horizons, in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. Thus, in the Osmena v. Orbos
an appropriation may be made impliedly (as by past but execution of government contracts, the precise import of this
subsisting legislations) as well as expressly for the current fiscal constitutional restriction is to require the various agencies to 220 SCRA 703 , March 31, 1993
year (as by enactment of laws by the present Congress), just as limit their expenditures within the appropriations made by law The Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) is a TRUST
said appropriation may be made in general as well as in specific for each fiscal year. ACCOUNT in the books of account of the Ministry of Energy
terms. The Congressional authorization may be embodied in (now, Office of Energy Affairs). The petition avers that this is a
annual laws, such as a general appropriations act or in special ART. VI, SECTION 29: SPECIAL FUNDS violation of Section 29 (3), Article VI of the Constitution because
provisions of laws of general or special application which GASTON vs. REPUBLIC PLANTERS BANK if special taxes are collected for a specific purpose, the revenue
appropriate public funds for specific public purposes, such as the 158 SCRA 626, March 15, 1988 generated therefrom shall be treated as SPECIAL (NOT TRUST)
questioned decrees. An appropriation measure is sufficient if the This is a case involving the Stabilization Fund of the FUND. The OPSF was established "for the purpose of minimizing
Sugar industry. Petitioners are sugar producers and planters and the frequent price changes brought about by exchange rate
113 | P a g e
adjustment and/or changes in world market prices of crude oil be used to purchase shares of stock to be given for free to Makabayan, and several other concerned citizens to file various
and imported petroleum products. A portion of the funding is private individuals. petitions with the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the
sourced from collections of ad valorem taxes and the increases The conversion of special funds into a private fund for DAP. Among their contentions was that DAP is unconstitutional
thereon. the benefit of private individuals cannot be allowed. Balance of because it violates the constitutional rule which provides that
special funds, after the purpose has been fulfilled, is to be “no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance
Issue(s)/Ruling transferred to the general funds of the Government. of an appropriation made by law.” Secretary Abad argued that
Whether or not the classification of OPSF as Trust Fund the DAP is based on certain laws particularly the GAA (savings
is unconstitutional. No and augmentation provisions thereof), Sec. 25(5), Art. VI of the
Constitution (power of the President to augment), Secs. 38 and
49 of Executive Order 292 (power of the President to suspend
The court ruled that the tax collected is not in a pure expenditures and authority to use savings, respectively).
exercise of the taxing power. It is levied with a regulatory ART VI SEC 29: Fiscal Powers of Congress; Limitations; Special
purpose, to protect consumers from constant fluctuation of oil Funds; Impoundment Issue(s)/Ruling
prices. The levy is primarily in the exercise of the police power of Araullo v. Aquino III Whether or not the DAP realignments can be
the State. OPSF is segregated from the general fund; and while it GR No. 209287, July 1, 2014 considered as impoundments by the executive. No.
is placed in what the law refers to as a "trust liability account,"
the fund nonetheless remains subject to the scrutiny and review IMPOUNDMENT – the power of the President of not There is no executive impoundment in the DAP.
of the COA. The Court is satisfied that these measures comply spending the money that has been appropriated by the Congress. Impoundment of funds refers to the President’s power to refuse
with the constitutional description of a "special fund." to spend appropriations or to retain or deduct appropriations for
Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad then came whatever reason. Impoundment is actually prohibited by the
up with a program called the Disbursement Acceleration Program GAA unless there will be an unmanageable national government
(DAP) as a mechanism to speed up Government spending. DAP budget deficit (which did not happen).  Nevertheless, there is no
ART VI SEC 29: Fiscal Powers of Congress; Limitations; Special enables the Executive to realign funds from slow moving projects impoundment in the case at bar because what’s involved in the
Funds to priority projects instead of waiting for next year’s DAP was the transfer of funds .Impoundment is a power of the
Philippine Coconut v. Republic appropriation. So, what happens under the DAP was that if a President to suspend the spending of money duly appropriated if
663 SCRA 514, 2012 certain government project is being undertaken slowly by a there is an unmanageable national government budget deficit.
In line with Pres. Aquino’s priority to recover ill-gotten certain executive agency, the funds allotted therefor will be The scheme in DAP was not an executive impoundment, but
wealth during the Marcos regime, the PCGG instituted before the withdrawn by the Executive. Once withdrawn, these funds are rather transfer of appropriated funds from slow-moving projects
Sandiganbayan a recovery suit against petitioners. PCA declared as “savings” by the Executive and said funds will then be to priority projects.
appropriated, out of its own coconut levy fund, an amount for re-allotted to another priority projects. Other sources of the DAP
the purchase of the First United Bank (FUB) shares to be include the unprogrammed funds from the General ART VI SEC 30: Appellate Jurisdiction Supreme Court
distributed to coconut farmers holding registered COCOFUND Appropriations Act (GAA). Unprogrammed funds are standby First Lepanto Ceramics v. CA
receipts on equitable basis. appropriations made by Congress in the GAA. Meanwhile, in 237 SCRA 519 , October 07, 1994
September 2013, Senator Jinggoy Estrada made an exposé BOI granted petitioner’s application to amend its BOI
claiming that he, and other Senators, received Php50M from the certificate of registration by changing the scope of its registered
Issue(s)/Ruling President as an incentive for voting in favor of the impeachment product from "glazed floor tiles" to "ceramic tiles." Oppositor
Whether or not the coconut farmers may own the of then Chief Justice Renato Corona. Secretary Abad claimed that Mariwasa filed a motion for reconsideration, which was
coconut levy fund which was reclassified into private fund. No. the money was taken from the DAP but was disbursed upon the dismissed. Mariwasa filed a petition for review with CA, which
request of the Senators. This prompted the issue that the DAP temporarily restrained the BOI from implementing its decision.
does not only realign funds within the Executive. It turns out that Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss and to lift the restraining
The coconut levy funds are in the nature of taxes and some non-Executive projects were also funded. This prompted order contending that CA does not have jurisdiction over the BOI
can only be used for public purpose. Consequently, they cannot Maria Carolina Araullo, Chairperson of the Bagong Alyansang case.
114 | P a g e
 Issue(s)/Ruling ART VI SEC 30: Appellate Jurisdiction Supreme Court
Petitioner assailed the conflicting provisions of Article Whether or not E.O. No. 172 is violative of Section 30, Villavert v. Desierto
82 EO 226, which provides that appeals from decisions or orders Article VI of the Constitution. Yes. 326 SCRA 355, February 23, 2000
of the BOI shall be filed directly with the Supreme Court, and This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to
Circular 1-91 issued by the Supreme Court which deals with the Since it was enacted without the advice and annul the memorandum issued by the Deputy Ombudsman –
jurisdiction of courts for appeal of cases decided by quasi-judicial concurrence of the Supreme Court, this provision never became Cebu, and approved by the Ombudsman, which recommended
agencies such as the Board of Investments (BOI). effective.The appellate jurisdiction of the SC cannot be simply the dismissal of petitioner as Sales and Promotion Supervisor of
increased by provisions set by quasi-judicial bodies or agencies PCSO. This is on the ground that the petitioner incurred 2 months
Issue(s)/Ruling like the ERB without the concurrence and advice of the SC. worth of unpaid PCSO tickets. He proposed to settle his
Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction obligations by paying a downpayment, and the remaining
over the case. No. balance through installments. This prompted the COA which
ART VI SEC 30: Appellate Jurisdiction Supreme Court demanded immediate settlement of the petitioner’s past due
Circular 1-91, promulgated 4 years after, effectively Fabian v. Desierto accounts. Deputy Ombudsman issued a memorandum that the
repealed or superseded Article 82 of E.O. 226 insofar as the GR 129742, September 16, 1998 petitioner is liable for administrative sanction for grave
manner and method of enforcing the right to appeal from Fabian, president of PROMAT Construction misconduct and/or dishonesty. Petitioner filed for a Motion for
decisions of the BOI are concerned. Appeals from decisions of the Development Corporation (PROMAT), was engaged in the Reconsideration, which was denied by the Deputy Ombudsman
BOI, which by statute was previously allowed to be filed directly construction business with Agustin, District Engineer of the First in an order approved by the Ombudsman. Hence, this petition for
with the Supreme Court, should now be brought to the Court of Metro Manila Engineering District (FMED). Unpleasant incidents certiorari.
Appeals.Court of Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over developed between the two, so petitioner tried to terminate
all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders, awards of their relationship, but Agustin refused to the extent of employing Issue(s)/Ruling
Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, acts of harassment, intimidation and threats. She eventually filed Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction for
instrumentalities, boards or commissions, except those falling an administrative case which eventually led an appeal to the appeals in administrative disciplinary cases. No.
within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Ombudsman.
accordance with the Constitution. Ombudsman ruled in favor of Agustin, and said that the In Fabian v. Desierto, the filing of petition before the
decision is final and executory. Hence, this petition. She avers Supreme Court for administrative disciplinary cases was declared
ART VI SEC 30: Appellate Jurisdiction Supreme Court that under Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989, she can invalid for violation of the Constitutional mandate that the
Diaz v. CA file a petition for certiorari for all administrative disciplinary cases appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be increased
238 SCRA 785, December 5, 1994 of the Office of the Ombudsman. without its advice and consent.The Court also noted Rule 45 of
Davao Light and Power Company, Inc. (DLPC) filed with the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure precludes appeals from quasi-
the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) an application for the judicial agencies, like the Office of the Ombudsman, to the
approval of the sound value appraisal of its property in service, Issue(s)/Ruling Supreme Court.
which was eventually approved after deducting the worth of Whether or not Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act is
property and equipment which were not used in the operations. valid. No. ART VI SEC 30: Appellate Jurisdiction Supreme Court
After the 1987 Constitution took effect, and as provided in EO Tirol v. COA
No. 172, "[a] party adversely affected by a decision, order or It is invalid for it illegally expanded the appellate GR 133954, August 3, 2000
ruling of the Board . . . may file a petition to be known as petition jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Ombudsman Act cannot In this case, petitioner seeks the reversal of the
for review with the Supreme Court," petitioners filed a petition validly authorize an appeal to the SC from decisions of the Office resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman which found the
for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing the of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases. The petitioner guilty for malversation of public funds for entering into
decision of ERB on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The appellate jurisdiction of the SC only includes the courts a negotiated contract instead of a competitive public bidding.
Supreme Court referred the case for proper disposition to the composing the integrated judicial system. It does not include the Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration with the Office of
Court of Appeals which subsequently dismissed the petition. quasi-judicial bodies or agencies. the Ombudsman which was dismissed for lack of merit. Thus, this
petition. However, respondents raised that it is beyond the
115 | P a g e
Court’s authority to review the power of Ombudsman in The courts (SC) will not interfere with the
prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it. Ombudsman’s supervision and control over the preliminary The Constitution clearly includes not only ordinances
investigation conducted by him. It is beyond the ambit of this but resolutions as appropriate subjects of a local initiative.
Issue(s)/Ruling Court to review the exercise of discretion of the Ombudsman in Section 32 of Article VI provides in luminous language: "The
Whether or not the petition is within the appellate prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it. The rule is Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. No. based not only upon respect for the investigatory and initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom,
prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or
The Court cannot interfere with the investigatory and the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the
prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by Congress, or local legislative body . .." An act includes a
the Ombudsman. Otherwise, the functions of the Court will be innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory resolution. It is basic that a law should be construed in harmony
grievously hampered by immeasurable petitions assailing proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with with and not in violation of the constitution. The petition is
dismissals of the investigatory proceedings conducted by the regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that granted and the decision of the COMELEC is annulled and set
Office. the courts would be extremely swamped if they would be aside.
compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the
Article VI, Section 30: Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an
Court information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private Sec. 3. Definition of Terms — For purposes of this Act, the
CABRERA v. LAPID complainant. following terms shall mean;
(GR #129098, 06 December 2006) Case No. 227 (a) "Initiative" is the power of the people to propose
Petitioner accused respondents of violating Section 3(e) amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Article 324 of the Article VI, Section 32: Initiative and Referendum legislations through an election called for the purpose. There
Revised Penal Code. Petitioner entered into a lease agreement GARCIA v. COMELEC are three (3) systems of initiative, namely:
with the Municipality of Sasmuan over a tract of land for the (GR #111230, 30 September 1994) a.1. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition
purpose of devoting it to fishpond operations which was later on Petitioners filed a petition with the Sangguniang Bayan proposing amendments to the Constitution.
subjected for an impending demolition because it was of Morong to annul Pambansang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye 1993 a.2. Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to
purportedly illegal and blocked the flow of the Pasak River. which includes the Municipality of Morong as part of the Subic enact a national legislation; and
Petitioner imputed evident bad faith on respondent mayor and Special Economic Zone in accord with the RA No. 7227. The a.3. Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition
vice mayor in allowing the destruction of the fishpond despite municipality did not take any action on the petition within 30 proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or
their prior knowledge of the existence of the lease agreement. days after its submission; so, they resorted to their power of barangay law, resolution, or ordinance.
She also charged respondents Governor Lapid and Senior initiative under the Local Government Code of 1991. They
Superintendent Ventura with gross inexcusable negligence for solicited the required number of signatures to repeal the said
ordering the destruction of the fishpond without first verifying its resolution. Article VI, Section 32: Initiative and Referendum
legality. SBMA v. COMELEC
However, Vice Mayor Hon. Edilberto de Leon, and the (GR #125416, 26 September 1996)
The Ombudsman issued the assailed Resolution, Presiding Office of the Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong wrote a In line with the events that transit in the case of Garcia
dismissing petitioner’s complaint; petitioner, then, elevated the letter to deny the petition for local initiative and/or referendum. v. COMELEC, The Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong acted upon the
matter to this Court (Supreme Court) via a petition for review on The COMELEC, as well, denied the petition for local initiative petition by promulgating Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 18, Serye
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. because its subject is “merely a resolution and not an ordinance.” 1993, requesting Congress of the Philippines so amend certain
provisions of RA 7227. Not satisfied, respondents resorted to
Issue(s)/Ruling Issue(s)/Ruling their power initiative under the LGC of 1991 which COMELEC
Whether the petition for review on certiorari will Whether or not Pambansang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye denied stating that the petition for local initiative on the ground
prosper. No. 1993 is the proper subject of a local initiative, despite the fact that the subject thereof was merely a resolution and not an
that said issuance is a resolution? Yes ordinance.
116 | P a g e
 control or change the substance or the content of legislation. In Whether or not COMELEC Resoluti on No. 2300
Furthermore, COMELEC also directed the Provincial the exercise of its authority, it may (in fact it should have done so regarding the conduct of initi ati ve on amendments to the
Election Supervisor to hold the action on the authentication of already) issue relevant and adequate guidelines and rules for the Constitution is valid, considering the absence in the law of
signatures being solicited by the private respondents. The private orderly exercise of these "people power" features of our specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative? No.
respondents then filed a petition of certiorari and mandamus to Constitution.
the Supreme Court against COMELEC to set aside its 2 resolutions RULING
wherein these resolutions: (1) disallowed the conduct of a local Article VI, Section 32: Initiative and Referendum This provision, however, is not self-executory. While
initiative to annul Resolution No. 10 and (2) preventing the Defensor - Santiago v. COMELEC the Constitution has recognized or granted that right, the people
Provincial Election Supervisor from proceeding with the (GR #127325, 19 March 1997) cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not
authentication of the required number of signatures in support Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president of provide for its implementation. While Congress had enacted RA
of the initiative and in the gathering of signatures. People’s Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action 6735 purportedly to provide the mechanisms for the people’s
(PIRMA), filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the exercise the power to amend the Constitution by people’s
Upon the President’s issuance of Proclamation No. 532, constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials, through initiative, it was held that RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate or
defining already the metes and bounds of the SSEZ. The People’s Initiative. He based this petition on Article XVII, Sec. 2 of wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative
COMELEC, then, issued Resolution No. 2845, adopting therein a the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the right of the people on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. R.A. 6735
calendar of activities for local referendum on a certain municipal to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the failed to provide for the details in the implementation of
ordinance. It also promulgated guidelines in conducting a local Constitution. Subsequently the COMELEC issued an order initiative and referendum on amendments to the Constitution, in
referendum proposing to annul Resolution No. 10. This is why the directing the Delfin "to cause the publication of the petition, contrast to that of national and local legislation.
SBMA filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against together with the attached Petition for Initiative, and the notice
COMELEC contesting Resolution No. 2848 and alleging that of hearing in three (3) daily newspapers of general circulation at The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 which
COMELEC is intent on amending a national law. his own expense; thereafter, set the case for hearing. At the prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on
hearing, Senator Roco, et al. appeared as intervenors-oppositors. amendments to the Constitution, is void. It has been an
Issue(s)/Ruling Senator Roco filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the established rule that what has been delegated, cannot be
Whether or not the respondent COMELEC commit ground that one which is cognizable by the COMELEC. delegated (potestas delegata non delegari potest). The
grave abuse of discretion in promulgating and implementing delegation of the power to the COMELEC being invalid, the latter
Resolution No. 2848, considering that the subject of petition was The petitioners herein Senator Santiago, et al. filed this cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement
an initiative and not a referendum? Yes. civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court the exercise of the right to people’s initiative.
against COMELEC and the Delfin petition rising the several
In this case, COMELEC mistakenly calendared a arguments, such as the following: (1) The constitutional provision
referendum instead of an initiative, which was being invoked by on people’s initiative to amend the constitution can only be Article VI, Section 32: Initiative and Referendum
the private respondents because they have the power to do so implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has Lambino v. COMELEC
according to Section 32, Article VI of the Constitution. In fact, in been passed; (2) The people’s initiative is limited to amendments (GR #174153, 25 October 2006)
the body of the Resolution as reproduced in the footnote below, to the Constitution, not to revision thereof. Lifting of the term The Lambino Group commenced gathering signatures
the word "referendum" is repeated at least 27 times, but limits constitutes a revision, therefore it is outside the power of for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution and
"initiative" is not mentioned at all. To repeat, not once was the people’s initiative. The Supreme Court granted the Motions for then filed a petition with COMELEC to hold a plebiscite for
word "initiative" used in said body of Resolution No. 2848. And Intervention. ratification under Sec. 5(b) and (c) and Sec. 7 of RA 6735. The
yet, this exercise is unquestionably an INITIATIVE. Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of
Issue(s)/Ruling 6,327,952 individuals constituting at least twelve per
In initiative and referendum, the COMELEC exercises Whether or not the people can directly propose centum (12%) of all registered voters, with each legislative
administration and supervision of the process itself, akin to its amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative district represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its
powers over the conduct of elections. These lawmaking powers under Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution? No. registered voters. The Lambino Group also claimed
belong to the people, hence the respondent Commission cannot that COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of
117 | P a g e
the 6.3 million individuals. These proposed changes will shift the time of the signing of the nature and effect, failure to do so is safety and health. Petitioner also claimed that the President
present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral- “deceptive and misleading” which renders the initiative void. acted outside her jurisdiction.
Parliamentary form of government.
There is no presumption that the proponents observed
The COMELEC, however, issued its Resolution denying the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures. The
due course to the Lambino Group’s petition for lack of an proponents bear the burden of proving that they complied with Issue(s)/Ruling
enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures – that Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted
Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this Court’s ruling in the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full by the Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses
Santiago v. COMELEC declaring RA 6735 inadequate to text of the proposed amendments. from returning to the Philippines? Yes.
implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the
Constitution. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is not necessary. Even assuming
that RA 6735 is valid, it will not change the result because the
The Supreme Court sustained the refusal of the
Issue(s)/Ruling present petition violated Section 2, Article XVII - to be a valid
government to allow the petitioner’s return to the Philippines, on
Whether or not the proposed changes constitute an initiative, must first comply with the Constitution before
amendment and not a revision? No. complying with RA 6735.  the ground that it would endanger national security. They held
Whether or not initiative petition of the Lambino Group that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of
complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Article VII, Section 1: Executive Power; Scope of Power discretion in determining that the return of the former President
amendments to the Constitution through a people’s initiative? Marcos and his family poses a serious threat to national interest
No. MARCOS v. MANGLAPUS and welfare. President Aquino has determined that the
Whether this Court should revisit its ruling destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe
in Santiago declaring RA 6735 "incomplete, inadequate or (GR #88211, 15 September 1989)
away the gains achieved during the past few years after the
wanting in essential terms and conditions" to implement the Marcos regime. The Executive power shall be vested in the
Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed
initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution? No. President of the Philippines. (Section 1, Article VII).The first and
from the presidency via the non-violent “people power”
revolution and was forced into exile. Marcos, in his deathbed, safest criterion to determine whether a given power has been
RULING: validly exercised by a particular department is whether or not the
By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a shift from has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die. But
President Corazon Aquino, considering the dire consequences to power has been constitutionally conferred upon the department
a Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system,
the nation of his return at a time when the stability of claiming its exercise — since the conferment is usually done
involving the abolition of the Office of the President and the
abolition of one chamber of Congress, is beyond doubt a revision, government is threatened from various directions and the expressly. However, even in the absence of express conferment,
not a mere amendment. Thus, the proposed changes to the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood the exercise of the power may be justified under the doctrine of
Constitution cannot be undertaken by the method of People's firmly on the decision to bar the return of Marcos and his family. necessary implication, i.e. that the grant of an express power
Initiative, because its substance is that of a revision, which is carries with it all other powers that may be reasonably inferred
specifically reserved for Constitutional Conventions or the from it. Note also that there are powers which although not
Congress expressly conferred nor implied therefrom, are inherent or
. Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and
incidental, e.g., the President’s power to deport undesirable
According to the Supreme Court the Lambino group prohibition to order the respondents to issue them their travel
aliens which may be exercised independently of constitutional or
failed to comply with the basic requirements for conducting a documents and prevent the implementation of President
statutory authority, because it is an “act of State”.
people’s initiative. The Lambino Group did not attach to their Aquino’s decision to bar Marcos from returning in the
present petition with this Court a copy of the paper that the Philippines. Petitioner questions Aquino’s power to bar his return
people signed as their initiative petition. The petitioners failed to in the country. He also questioned the claim of the President that
show the court that the initiative signer must be informed at the the decision was made in the interest of national security, public Article VII, Section 1: Executive Power; Valid Exercise

118 | P a g e
PHILCONSA v. ENRIQUEZ which he does not object.” Under his executive power to veto,
the President has to veto the entire bill, not merely parts thereof
(GR #113105, 19 August 1994) (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 27[1]). The exception to the Issue(s)/Ruling
Whether or not the DOJ Panel unlawfully intrude into
The president vetoed the first Special provision without general veto power is the power given to the President to veto
judicial prerogative for it is only the court which has the power
vetoing the amount [Php 86,323,438,000.00] appropriation for any particular item or items in a general appropriations bill (1987
under the Rules on Criminal Procedure to discharge an accused
debt service. The provision provided for a debt reduction Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 27 [2]). In so doing, the President must
as a state witness? No.
scheme. The president explained in his veto message that the veto the entire item.
appropriations for payment of public debt, whether foreign or
domestic, are automatically appropriated pursuant to the
Petitioner's argument lacks appeal for it lies on the
Foreign Borrowing Act - Section 31 of PD No. 1177, and EO No. Article VII, Section 1: Executive Power; Valid Exercise
faulty assumption that the decision whom to prosecute is a
292, but the GAA is not the appropriate legislative measure to
Webb v. De Leon judicial function, the sole prerogative of courts and beyond
amend the provisions of the 3 laws previously mentioned.
executive and legislative interference. The executive power is
Petitioners claim that the President cannot veto the Special (GR #121234, 23 August 1995) the power to enforce and administer the laws. In relation to the
Provision on the appropriation for debt service without vetoing
case, the prosecution of crimes appertains to the executive
the entire amount for said purpose. On June 19, 1994, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
department of government whose principal power and
filed with the Department of Justice a letter-complaint charging
responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully executed. A
petitioners Hubert Webb, Michael Gatchalian, Antonio J. Lejano
necessary component of this power to execute our laws is the
and six (6) other persons with the crime of Rape and Homicide of
right to prosecute their violators.
Carmela N. Vizconde, her mother Estrellita Nicolas-Vizconde, and
Issue(s)/Ruling her sister Anne Marie Jennifer in their home at Metro Manila on
Whether or not the President has power to veto June 30, 1991.
‘provisions’ of an Appropriations Bill? Yes. Forthwith, the Department of Justice formed a panel of
prosecutors headed by Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Jovencio
Djumantan v. Domingo
R. Zuno to conduct the preliminary investigation.
The provision assailed in the case are inappropriate GR No. 99358 Jan. 30, 1995
provisions that should be treated as “items” for the purpose of Petitioners fault the DOJ Panel for its finding of probable cause.
the President’s veto power. The vetoed provision is clearly an They assail the credibility of Jessica Alfaro as inherently weak and Quiason, J.:
attempt to repeal aforementioned laws and to reverse the debt uncorroborated due to the inconsistencies between her April 28,
1995 and May 22, 1995 sworn statements. They criticize the Married to a Filipino Citizen, Djumantan and her
payment policy. According to the case of Henry v. Edwards, children entered the country as a “guest” of her husband who
Congress cannot include in a general appropriations Bill matters procedure followed by the DOJ Panel when it did not examine
witnesses to clarify the alleged inconsistencies.Petitioners charge has his own family not disclosing their real relationship. They
that should be more properly enacted in separate legislation, and were admitted as temporary visitors in the country under the
if it does that, the inappropriate provisions inserted by it must be that respondent Judge Raul de Leon and, later, respondent Judge
Amelita Tolentino issued warrants of arrest against them without Immigration Act. Of 1940 and was even issued an Alien
treated as “item,” which can be vetoed by the President in the Certificate of Registration, In a letter of Leonardo Banez the CID
exercise of his item-veto power.As part of the executive powers conducting the required preliminary examination.Petitioners
complain about the denial of their constitutional right to due was made aware of her unlawful entry into the Philippines, she
vested in the President, Section 27[2], Article VI (1987 was detained and about to face deportation proceedings, the
Constitution) provides “that The President shall have the power process and violation of their right to an impartial investigation.
They also assail the prejudicial publicity that attended their certificate was also then revoked and her marriage was found
to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, irregular and not in accordance with the laws of the country in a
or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to preliminary investigation.

119 | P a g e
Decision rendered by CID with a denied motion for billions of ill-gotten wealth involves an issue of paramount public respondents refute the charges on filing separate counter
reconsideration dated January 29, 1991. interest that would be greatly prejudicial to the national interest affidavits; they claimed that the meeting never took place and
of the Filipino people. The respondents countered that they may that they never received any money from Aquino. Subsequently
not be yet compelled to make any disclosure since the proposed Atos issued yet another affidavits where she retracted her
Issue(s)/Ruling terms and conditions of the agreements have not become original defense and said that indeed the meetings did took place
WON the petitioner may stay in the country despite effective and binding since the President did not authorized the and that she even encashed the check allegedly to accommodate
prior events of misinterpretation. Yes. PCGG to approve any compromise agreements with the Pontejos. Thereafter the Overall Deputy OMB ruled that Atos
Marcoses. should be extended immunity from criminal prosecution and
discharged as state witness because her testimony as a mere
subordinate of Pontejos who could have acted only upon his
Although upon entry into the country, the petitioner prodding was necessary to build a case against the latter.
was admitted on the basis of false and misleading statements in Issue(s)/Ruling
her application and other supporting documents submitted to WON this court could require PCGG to disclose to the
the immigration authorities and may be a basis for her public details of any agreement, perfected or not with the
deportation, however tolling the prescriptive period from 1980 Marcoses. Yes. Issue(s)/Ruling
when Mr. Leonardo informed the CID of the illegal entry of WON the Omb’ decision to grant the witness immunity
petitioner into the country, more than five years has elapsed from criminal prosecution is valid. Yes.
before the issuance of the order of her deportation in 1990. The The PCGG is directed to disclose to the public the terms
decision of the Board of Commissioners revoking the issuance of of any proposed compromise settlement, as well as the final
the permanent resident visa to petitioner and resolution dated agreement relating to such alleged ill-gotten wealth since there is Prosecutorial powers include the discretion of granting
1990 is hereby reversed. Although the power to deport the no doubt that the recovery of the wealth is a matter of public immunity to an accused in exchange for testimony against
petitioner was prescribed and is the right of the president to concern and imbued with public interest. another. Its justification lies in the particular need of the state to
deport undesirable aliens, the provisions of Immigration Act. Of obtain the conviction of the more guilty criminals who,
1990 specified the grounds and conditions of deportation one of Though the absence of the Presidents’ approval of the
otherwise, will probably elude the law. The decision on whether
which was applicable in the case of the petitioner as stated Principal agreement, an expressed condition therein, renders the
to prosecute and whom to indict is executive in character, it is
above. compromise incomplete and unenforceable, writings coming into
constitutionally permissible for Congress to vest the prosecutor
the hands of public officers in connection with their official
with the power to determine who can qualify as a witness and be
function must still be accessible to the public, consistent with the
granted immunity from prosecution.
policy of transparency of governmental affairs.
Chavez v. PCGG

GR No. 130716 Dec. 9, 1998

Banda v. Ermita
Pontejos v. Ombudsman
Panganiban, J.:
GR No. 166620 April 20, 2010
GR No. 158613-14 Feb. 22, 2006
Petitioner Chavez, invoking his constitutional right to
Leonardo, De-Castro, J.:
information and the correlative duty of the state to disclose Panganiban, CJ.:
publicly all its transactions involving national interest, demands The NPO was formed on 1987 during the term of
that respondents make public any and all negotiations and Aquino filed a complaint against Pontejos and Atos
Former President Aquino by virtue of E.O 285, which provides
agreements pertaining to PCGG’s task of recovering Marcos’ ill- sometime in 1998 accusing them of conspiring to exact money in
creation of the NPO from the merger of the Government Printing
gotten wealth. He claims that any compromise on the alleged exchange for a favorable decision in a case against Ngo. The

120 | P a g e
Office and the relevant printing units of the PIA. In 2004 under the Reparations Agreement entered into with Japan.
President Arroyo issued the herein assailed E.0 378 amending of Amidst opposition by various sectors the Exec. Branch has been
E.O 285 wherein the NPO no longer enjoy exclusive jurisdiction pushing to sell the reparations property starting with the On June 2006 licensure applicants wrote the PRC to
over the printing services requirement of the government over Roppongi lot. Petitioner asserts that this property given that it is report that handwritten copies of two sets of examination were
standard and accountable forms. In the amendment they are to acquired from the agreement, and is for diplomatic and consular circulated during the examination period among the examinees
compete with the private sector except in the election use by the Philippines and under Art. 420 of the Civil Code is reviewing at two certain review centers. The PRC later admitted
paraphernalia, which could be shared with the BSP. The classified as a public dominion. He states that no ownership can the leakages and traced them to two Board of nursing members
petitioners assailed that Pres. Arroyo cannot amend or repeal E.O be attach to. The respondents countered that the property cease as a result the PRC was restrained by the CA to proceed with the
285 because they maintain that Aquino’s E.O is a legislative to be of public dominion and has become patrimonial because it oath taking of the successful examinees. Consequently Pres.
enactment under the freedom constitution. has not been use for public service or diplomatic use for over 13 Arroyo replaced the members of the PRC board, ordered the
years. examinees to re-take the NBE and issued EO 566, which
authorized CHED to supervise the establishment and operation of
all review centers and similar entities in the Philippines. Hence
Issue(s)/Ruling the petition for prohibition and mandamus assailing EO 566 and
WON E.O 285 can be amended by Arroyo by issuing Issue(s)/Ruling CHED MO 30 is filed.
another E.O. Yes WON the authority of the officials to validly dispose a
property belonging to the state. No.

Issue(s)/Ruling
It is provided in the Administrative Code of 1987 that WON EO 566 is an unconstitutional exercise by the
the President is given the continuing authority to reorganize and The abandonment of the intention to use the property Executive of legislative power as it expands CHED’ jurisdiction.
redefine the functions of the Office of the President, NPO is an for public service and to make it patrimonial must be definite Yes.
agency under PIA or at times deemed part of the Office of the abandonment and cannot be inferred from the non-use alone.
President Secretary which is part of the Office of the President. Abandonment must be a certain and positive act based on
The President is given the authority to reorganize and redefine correct legal premises. As public dominion the Roppongi property
structures of the internal organization, transfer any function and is outside the commerce of man. If any conveyance is to The CHED’ coverage under RA 7722 is limited to “public
transfer agencies within her jurisdiction provided that the transpire, it should be authorized and approved by law enacted and private institutions of higher education and degree-granting
reorganization is carried out for the purpose of economy or to by the congress. The Roppongi property is valuable because of its programs in all public and private post-secondary educational
make the bureaucracy more efficient. symbolic value to all Filipinos- Veterans and civilians alike. institutions .The President has no inherent or delegated power to
Considering the propeties’ importance and value, the laws on amend the functions of the CHED under RA 7722. Legislative
conversion and disposition of property of public dominion must power is the authority to make laws or repel them, and this
be faithfully followed. It is not for the President to convey a power is vested with the Congress.
Laurel v. Garcia
valuable property of the government on his/her own sole will. PHILCONSA VS. ENRIQUEZ
GR No. 92013 July 25, 1990 235 SCRA 506 [1994]
Main Point: Only the Senate President and the Speaker of the
Gutierrez, Jr., J.:
House are allowed to approve the realignment. This list is
Review Center v. Ermita
This petition seeks to enjoin the respondents from exclusive.
from proceeding with the bidding of sale in Japan on Feb. 21, GR No. 180046 April 2, 2009
1990. The subject property in this case id the Roppongi property, Petitioners assailed the validity of RA 7663 or General
Carpio, J.: Appropriations Act of 1994. The said Appropriations Act contains
which was, one of the four properties acquired by the Philippines
121 | P a g e
a special provision that allows any members of the Congress the • Jessica Alfaro is the star witness. and petitioner’s relationship was later discovered by Cabel who
Realignment of Allocation for Operational Expenses, provided • Alfaro qualified under the Witness Protection then filed for concubinage but was dismissed. Immigration status
that the total of said allocation is not exceeded. Program, RA 6981. Thus she was not included in the of petitioner was changed from temporary visitor to that of
Complaint or Information permanent resident. Petitioner was issued an alien certificate of
PHILCONSA claims that only the Senate President and • Hubert contends that the DOJ failed to include Alfaro registration. Banez’ eldest son, Leonardo, filed a letter complaint
the Speaker of the House of Representatives are the ones in the information for her alleged conspiratorial subsequently referred to CID (Commissioners Bureau of
authorized under the Constitution to realign savings, not the participation in the said crime. Immigation and Deportation). Petitioner was detained at the CID
individual members of Congress themselves. • Hubert challenges the law, RA 6981 claiming that it detention cell. Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the
constitutes an intrusion into the judicial prerogative for deportation case on the ground that she was validly married to a
it is only the court which has the power to discharge an Filipino citizen. CID disposed that the second marriage of
The President signed the law, but vetoes certain
accused as a state witness, (under the Rules on Bernardo Banes to respondent Djumantan was irregular and not
provisions of the law and imposed certain provisional conditions:
CrimPro). in accordance with the laws of the Philippines. They revoked the
that the AFP Chief of Staff is authorized to use savings to
visa previously granted to her.
augment the pension funds under the Retirement and Separation
Benefits of the AFP. 1. Can the DOJ (the executive branch) approve
the discharge of a state witness 1. Whether such revocation is a valid exercise of
executive power.
1. Whether or not the President validly vetoed
the questioned provisions YES, it is valid. The prosecution of crimes pertains to
the executive department, whose principal power and YES. Generally, the right of the President to expel or
responsibility is to see to it that our laws are faithfully executed. deport aliens whose presence is deemed inimical to the public
YES. Only the Senate President and the Speaker of the
A necessary component of this power to execute our laws is the interest is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and
House are allowed to approve the realignment. Furthermore,
right to prosecute their violators. The right to prosecute vests prevent their entry into the country. This right is based on the
two conditions must be met: 1) the funds to be realigned are
the prosecutor with a wide range of discretion, and the discretion fact that since the aliens are not part of the nation, their
actually savings, and 2) the transfer is for the purpose of
of whether, what and whom to charge, the exercise of which admission into the territory is a matter of pure permission and
augmenting the items of expenditures to which said transfer to
depends on a smorgasboard of factors which are best simple tolerance which creates no obligation on the part of the
be made.
appreciated by prosecutors. government to permit them to stay.

As to the certain condition given to the AFP Chief of

The law is valid in vesting the DOJ with the power to CHAVEZ v. PCGG
Staff, it is violative of of Sections 25(5) and 29(1) of the Article VI
determine who can qualify as a witness and who shall be granted GR 130716, December 9, 1998
of the Constitution. The list of those who may be authorized to
immunity from prosecution. Thus, Hubert’s challenge to the Main Point: PCGG cannot validly enter into the compromise
transfer funds is exclusive and the AFP Chief of Staff is not
validity of RA 6981 cannot succeed. agreements with the Marcoses because the provisions thereof
included in such list.
are violative of the Constitution.
DJUMANTAN VS. DOMINGO
240 SCRA 746 [1995] Petitioner Chavez, as a taxpayer, citizen and former
WEBB VS. DE LEON Main Point: Right of every state to regulate the entry of persons gov’t official, impelled to bring this action regarding several news
247 SCRA 652 into their country: deportation part of executive power. reports on: (1) the alleged discovery of billions of dollars of
MAIN POINT: The prosecution of crimes pertains to the executive Marcos assets deposited in various coded accounts in Swiss
department, whose principal power and reasonability is to see Bernard Bañez was an OFW in Indonesia, married to banks and (2) the reported execution of a compromise, between
that our laws are faithfully executed. Marina Cabael. He married Djumantan in Indonesia and had 2 the government (through PCGG) and the Marcos heirs, on how to
• This is the Hubert Webb- Vizconde Massacre case. children. He brought them to Philippines pretending to be only split or share these assets.
Hubert is co-accused in the crime of Rape with friends and passed through immigration through such
Homicide. misrepresentation. They lived at Bañez’s house. However, Bañez
122 | P a g e
 Petitioner, invoking his constitutional right to (1) Generally, law encourages compromises in civil (3) Under the Agreement, the government binds itself
information, demands that respondents make public any cases, except with regard to the following matters: 1) the civil to cause the dismissal of all cases against the Marcos heirs,
negotiations and agreements pertaining to PCGG’s task of status of persons, 2) the validity of a marriage of a legal pending before the Sandiganbayan and other court. This is a
recovering the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth. He claims that any separation, 3) any ground for legal separation, 4) future support, direct encroachment on judicial powers of the court which has
compromise on the alleged billions of ill-gotten wealth involves 5) the jurisdiction of courts, and 6) future legitimate. A the jurisdiction on dismissal. Hence, PCGG cannot guarantee the
an issue of paramount public interest, since it has a “debilitating Compromise must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, dismissal of all such criminal cases against the Marcoses.
effect on the country’s economy” that would be greatly public policy or public order.
prejudicial to the national interest of the Filipino People. Hence, (4) The government also waives all claims and
they have the right to know the transactions effected by the In Republic & Campos Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, the power to grant counterclaims, whether past, present, or future against the
Government. criminal immunity was conferred on PCGG by Section 5 of EO No. Marcoses. This stipulation is contrary to the Civil Code which
14, as amended by EO No. 14-A, which provides: states that “an action for future fraud may not be waived.”
Respondents, on the other hand, contended that Further, the Agreements do not provide for a definite or
petitioner’s action is premature, because there is no showing Section 5. The PCGG is authorized to grant immunity from determinable period within which the parties shall fulfill their
that he has asked the PCGG to disclose the negotiations and the criminal prosecution to any person who provides information or respective prestations.
Agreements. And even if he has, PCGG may not yet be testifies in an investigation conducted by the Commission to
compelled to make any disclosure, since the proposed terms and establish the unlawful manner in which any respondent, (5) The absence of then President Ramos’ approval of
conditions of the Agreements have not become effective and defendant or accused has acquired the properties in question in the principal Agreement, an express condition therein, renders
binding. any case where such information or testimony is necessary to the compromise incomplete and unenforceable. Nevertheless, as
ascertain or prove the latter’s guilt or his civil liability. The detailed above, even if such approval were obtained, the
Further, Pres. Ramos, in his Memorandum, immunity thereby granted shall be continued to protect the Agreements would still not be valid.
commanded the PCGG Chairman NOT to approve the witness who repeats such testimony before the Sandiganbayan
Compromise Agreements. Embodied in the covenant that (a) the when required to do so by the latter or by the Commission. Based on the foregoing discussion, it is crystal clear
Marcoses shall provide the gov’t assistance by way of testimony that the Agreements which PCGG entered into with the Marcos
or disposition on any information that may shed light on the In the case at bar, the compromise agreements revealed serious heirs violated the Constitution.
cases; (b) the assets determined to belong to the Marcoses shall flaws. First, the agreements did not conform to the
be net of and exempt from, any form of taxes due the Republic of requirements of EO 14 and 14-A. Criminal immunity under
the Philippines; (c) that all disclosures of assets shall not be used section 5 cannot be granted to the Marcoses, who are the
as evidence by the Gov’t in any criminal, civil, tax or PONTEJOS VS. OMBUDSMAN
principal defendants in the ill-gotten wealth cases. The provision
administrative case against the former. 483 SCRA 83 [2006]
is applicable mainly to witnesses who provide information
Main Point: Given that the power to grant immunity is executive,
against a respondent, defendant or accused in an ill-gotten
the fact that an individual had not been previously charged or
1. Whether PCGG has the authority to (1) grant wealth case.
included in information does not prevent the prosecution from
immunity from criminal prosecution, (2)
utilizing said person as a witness.
exempt the Marcoses from tax, (3) bind the (2) Under the General Agreement, the PCGG commits
Government to dismiss the cases before the to exempt from all forms of taxes the properties to be retained
Sandiganbayan, (4) waive Government claim Restituto P. Aquino filed a complaint before the
by the Marcos heirs. This is a clear violation of the Constitution.
against the Marcoses, and (5) enter into the Ombudsman against Emmanuel T. Pontehos (arbiter), Wilfredo
Sec. 28(4), Art. VI of the Constitution specifically provides: “No
compromise agreements without the Imperial (Regional Director) and Carmencita Atos (legal staff), all
law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the
approval of FVR. officials of Housing and land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and
concurrence of a majority of all the Member of the Congress.”
Roderick Ngo (private individual). Aquino accused Pontejos and
The PCGG has absolutely no power to grant such exemptions.
Atos of conspiring to exact money in exchange for a favorable
NO.
decision of a case against Ngo then pending in the HLURB.

123 | P a g e
Moreover, he averred that Pontejos acted as his counsel during vested the Ombudsman with the power to grant immunity from contending that: (1) it is beyond the executive powers of
the time when the Aquino was the hearing officer of the case. prosecution. President Arroyo to amend or repeal Executive Order No. 285
Atos allegedly received P10,000 in check, which was part of the issued by former President Aquino when the latter still exercised
consideration for a favorable decision. Imperial was implicated Section 17 states that immunity may be granted when: legislative powers; and (2) Executive Order No. 378 violates
as an alleged accomplice. Preliminary investigation found a) There is no other direct evidence available, except testimony petitioners security of tenure, because it paves the way for the
probable cause against Pontejos for the crimes of estafa, direct of said accused; b) Testimony of accused can be substantially gradual abolition of the NPO.
bribery, and illegal practice of profession in violation of RA 6713. validated in its material points; c) Accused does not appear to be
most guilty; and d) Accused not convicted of any offense 1. Whether President Arroyo’s issuance of EO
Consequestly, criminal cases of estafa and bribery involving moral turpitude. Given that the power to grant 378 a valid exercise of power.
against Pontejos were filed before the RTC of Quezon City. Prior immunity is executive, the fact that an individual had not been
to this, Atos was extended immunity as a state witness by the previously charged or included in information does not prevent YES. It is undisputed that the NPO, as an agency that is
Ombudsman Desierto. The Overall Deputy Ombudsman ruled the prosecution from utilizing said person as a witness. part of the Office of the Press Secretary (which in various times
that Atos should be extended immunity from criminal has been an agency directly attached to the Office of the Press
prosecution and discharged as state witness. According to him, BANDA VS. ERMITA Secretary or as an agency under the Philippine Information
Atos was merely a subordinate who could have acted only upon 618 SCRA 499 [2010] Agency), is part of the Office of the President.
the prodding of Pontejos. Also, her testimony was necessary to Main Point: It is a well-settled principle in jurisprudence that the
build a case against Pontejos. President has the power to reorganize the offices and agencies in In the case at bar, there was neither an abolition of the NPO nor
the executive department in line with the Presidents a removal of any of its functions to be transferred to another
The Asst. City Prosecutor after conducting constitutionally granted power of control over executive offices agency. Under the assailed Executive Order No. 378, the NPO
reinvestigation, recommended to amend the information and and by virtue of previous delegation of the legislative power to remains the main printing arm of the government for all kinds of
include Atos as accused, reasoning that the power to grant reorganize executive offices under existing statutes. government forms and publications but in the interest of greater
immunity pertains solely to the courts not the prosecution which
economy and encouraging efficiency and profitability, it must
can only recommend.
Petitioners are employees at the National Printing now compete with the private sector for certain government
Office (NPO). The NPO was formed during the term of President printing jobs, with the exception of election paraphernalia which
1. Whether the Ombudsman committed grave Corazon C. Aquino, by virtue of EO 285. Section 6 of EO 285 gives remains the exclusive responsibility of the NPO, together with
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or NPO the exclusive jurisdiction of the NPO over the printing the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, as the Commission on Elections
excess of discretion when it granted services requirements of government agencies and may determine. At most, there was a mere alteration of the main
immunity to Ms. Atos to become a state instrumentalities. function of the NPO by limiting the exclusivity of its printing
witness on almost the same date the Affidavit responsibility to election forms.
was executed and submitted.
President Arroyo issued EO 378, amending Section 6 of
EO 285 removing the exclusive jurisdiction of the NPO over the Invalid Exercise
NO. The decision on whether to prosecute and whom printing services requirements of government agencies and
to indict is executive in character. It is the prosecution that could instrumentalities. That NPO shall no longer enjoy exclusive LAUREL VS. GARCIA
essentially determine the strength of pursuing a case against the jurisdiction over the printing services requirements of the 187 SCRA 797 [1990]
accused. Prosecutorial powers include discretion to granting government over standard and accountable forms. It shall have Main Point: The conveyance of a valuable real property of the
immunity against another. Justification of granting immunity lies to compete with the private sector, except in the printing of government cannot be left to the sole will of the President. It
in the particular need of the State to obtain the conviction of the election paraphernalia requires executive and legislative concurrence. Facts: This case
more guilty criminals. The power to prosecute includes the right
involves the sale of the Roppongi property in Japan by the
to determine who shall be prosecuted and the corollary right to
Seeing a threat to their security of tenure as employees Government. The Roppongi property served as indemnification
decide whom not to prosecute. Sec. 17 of the Ombudsman Act
of the NPO, petitioners now challenge its constitutionality, to the Filipino people for their losses during World War II.

124 | P a g e
 1. Whether EO 566 is an unconstitutional
The President has been pushing for the sale of the said exercise by the Executive of legislative power Private citizen Louis Biraogo and a group of
reparations which led to this case with Court. In connection to as it expands the CHED’s jurisdiction. congressmen led by Lakas Kampi CMD chairman Rep. Edcel
this, an Executive Order was issued that declares its “authority to Lagman filed in the Supreme Court separate petitions for
sell” the said properties. YES. It expands CHED’S jurisdiction, hence certiorari and prohibition assailing the constitutionality of E.O. 1
unconstitutional. The scopes of EO 566 and the RIRR clearly based on their belief that the creation of the PTC constitutes
1. Whether or not the President can sell the expand the CHED’s coverage under RA 7722. The CHED’s usurpation of the legislative power to create public office,
said properties coverage under RA 7722 is limited to public and private threatens the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman,
institutions of higher education and degree granting programs in and violates the equal protection clause of the Philippine
NO, the President do not have such power. As property all public and private post-secondary educational institutions. EO Constitution for specifically targeting certain officials of the
of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of 566 directed the CHED to formulate a framework for the Arroyo administration.
man. It cannot be alienated. The fact that the Roppongi site has regulation of review centers and similar entities. The definition of
not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service does a review center under EO 566 shows that it refers to one which
1. Whether or not the President has the
not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. offers "a program or course of study that is intended to refresh
authority to create the Truth Commission
and enhance the knowledge or competencies and skills of
reviewees obtained in the formal school setting in preparation
It is not for the President to convey valuable real YES Majority of the members of the Supreme Court
for the licensure examinations" given by the PRC. It does not
property of the government on his or her own sole will. Any such rejected the justification of the Solicitor General (OSG) that the
offer a degree-granting program that would put it under the
conveyance must be authorized and approved by a law enacted creation of the PTC finds basis on the president’s power of
jurisdiction of the CHED. The President has no inherent or
by the Congress. It requires executive and legislative control over all executive offices. The Decision stressed that
delegated legislative power to amend the functions of the CHED
concurrence. “control” is essentially the power to alter, modify, nullify or set
under RA 7722.The line that delineates Legislative and Executive
power is not indistinct. aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of
REVIEW CENTER VS. ERMITA his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former with that
583 SCRA 42 [2009 BIRAOGO VS. TRUTH COMMISSION of the latter. Clearly, the power of control is entirely dfferent
Main Point: The President has no inherent or delegated 637 SCRA 78 [2010] from the power to create public offices. The majority also
legislative power to amend the functions of the CHED under RA Main Point: While it is true that the authority of the president to rejected the OSG’s claim that that the E.O. finds basis under sec.
7722. conduct investigations and to create bodies to execute this 31 of the Administrative Code, which authorizes the president to
power is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or in restructure the Office of the President. Clearly, “restructure”
There was a report that handwritten copies of two sets statutes, it does not necessarily mean that he does not have such under the said provision refers to reduction of personnel,
of 2006 Nursing Board examination were circulated during the authority. The president has the obligation to ensure that all consolidation or abolition of offices by reason of economy or
examination period among examinees reviewing at the R.A. executive officials and employees (whether from past or present redundancy. This presupposes an already existing office. The
Gapuz Review Center and Inress Review Center. PRC later administrations) faithfully comply with the law. creation of an office is nowhere mentioned, much less envisioned
admitted the leakage and traced it to two Board of Nursing in said provision.
members. Exam results came out but Court of Appeals restrained After a month in office, President Benigno Aquino III
the PRC from proceeding with the oath-taking of the successful issued Executive Order No. 1 (E.O. 1) on July 30, 2010 creating Nonetheless, the ponencia agreed with the argument
examinees. President GMA ordered for a re-examination and the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC). The PTC was tasked to of the OSG that the president’s power to create the PTC may find
issued EO 566 which authorized the CHED to supervise the conduct a thorough fact-finding investigation of reported cases justification under the president’s duty under sec. 17, Article VII
establishment and operation of all review centers and similar of graft and corruption involving third level public officers during of the Constitution “to ensure that the laws be faithfully
entities in the Philippines. the administration of Aquino's predecessor Gloria Macapagal- executed.” The Court held that while it is true that the authority
Arroyo, and thereafter submit its findings and recommendations of the president to conduct investigations and to create bodies to
to the Office of the President, Congress, and the Ombudsman. execute this power is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution
or in statutes, it does not necessarily mean that he does not have
125 | P a g e
such authority. The president has the obligation to ensure that all 1. Whether or not the President's right to diplomatic secrets or similar matters. There is no express
executive officials and employees (whether from past or present safeguard certain information, using his statutory grant of privilege. EIIB has duty to account for use of
administrations) faithfully comply with the law. The purpose of "executive privilege" confidentiality power, is public funds.
ad hoc investigating bodies such as the PTC is to allow an inquiry entirely immune from judicial review
into matters which the president is entitled to know so that he SENATE VS. ERMITA
can be properly advised and guided in the performance of his NO. The Court held that neither the doctrine of GR 169659, April 20, 2006 [E.O. 464]
duties relative to the execution and enforcement of the laws of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for Main Point: The claim of executive privilege must be
the land. confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can accompanied by specific allegation of basis thereof.
sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court
EXECUTIVE PREVILEGE granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of This case is regarding the railway project of the North
military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the Luzon Railways Corporation with the China National Machinery
US VS. NIXON fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair and Equipment Group as well as the Wiretapping activity of the
418 US 683 [1974] administration of justice." Therefore, the president must obey ISAFP, and the Fertilizer scam.
MAIN POINT: General claim of executive privilege is not absolute the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon
nor unqualified; in a situation when a person’s right is made resigned shortly after the release of the tapes. The Senate Committees sent invitations to various
subject of a criminal proceeding, then production of evidence is officials of the Executive Department and AFP officials for them
essential to uphold the constitutional rights of the accused. ALMONTE VS .VASQUEZ to appear before Senate on Sept. 29, 2005. Before said date
244 SCRA 286 [1995] arrived, Executive Sec. Ermita sent a letter to Senate President
A grand jury returned indictments against seven of Main Point: Executive privilege will not hold unless it is alleged Drilon, requesting for a postponement of the hearing on Sept. 29
President Richard Nixon's closest aides in the Watergate affair. that the privileged info partakes of the nature of military or in order to “afford said officials ample time and opportunity to
The special prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants diplomatic secrets or similar matters. study and prepare for the various issues so that they may better
sought audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in the enlighten the Senate Committee on its investigation.” Senate
Oval Office. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the Ombudsman Vasquez Ombudsman received an refused the request.
subpoena claiming "executive privilege," which is the right to anonymous letter, presumed to be from employee of Economic
withhold information from other government branches to Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) alleging corruption On Sept. 28, 2005, the President issued EO 464,
preserve confidential communications within the executive within such as ghost employees, anomalous disbursement of effective immediately, which, among others, mandated that “all
branch or to secure the national interest. public funds, etc. Ombudsman required Rogado and Rivera of heads of departments of the Executive Branch of the government
EIIB to produce all documents relating to Personal Service Funds shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing
Walter Nixon, a former Chief Judge of the United States yr. 1988 and all evidence for the whole plantilla of EIIB for 1988. before either House of Congress.” Pursuant to this Order,
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, was The subpoena duces tecum was issued in connection with the Executive Sec. Ermita communicated to the Senate that the
sentenced to prison for lying under oath to a federal grand jury. investigation of funds representing savings from unfilled executive and AFP officials would not be able to attend the
The Petitioner refused to resign from his post and continued to positions in the EIIB which were legally disbursed. Almonte and meeting since the President has not yet given her consent.
draw his salary while incarcerated. In the ensuing impeachment Perez denied the anomalous activities that circulate around the Despite the lack of consent, Col. Balutan and Brig. Gen. Gudani,
trial, the Senate invoked Rule XI, which allowed a Senate EIIB office. They moved to quash the subpoena duces tecum. among all the AFP officials invited, attended the investigation.
committee to receive evidence and testimony. The committee They claim privilege of an agency of the Government. Both faced court marshal for such attendance. Hence, these
provided full transcripts and summaries to the entire Senate and petitions.
more than the necessary two-thirds voted to impeach on two of 1. Whether EIIBB may invoke executive
the three articles. Nixon now appeals, arguing that Rule XI privilege. 1. Whether or not EO 464, in so far as requiring
violates the impeachment trial clause, Art. I Section: 3, cl. 6 of the members of the Executive Branch to procure
United States Constitution (Constitution). NO. Executive privilege will not hold unless it is alleged the consent of the President prior to
that the privileged info partakes of the nature of military or appearing before the Congress, violative of
126 | P a g e
 the right of the Congress for inquiry in aid of It is also rendered unconstitutional on the basis of the answer, invoking "executive privilege." In particular, he refused
legislation and presumptive authorization to the Department Heads to decide as to answer the questions on 1.) whether or not the President
what is unconstitutional. Section 2(b) in relation to Section 3 followed up the NBN Project, 2.) whether or not she directed him
YES it is violative of the Constitution. The infirm virtually provides that, once the head of office determines that a to prioritize it, and 3.) whether or not she directed him to
provisions of E.O. 464, however, allow the executive branch to certain information is privileged, such determination is presumed approve it.
evade congressional requests for information without need of to bear the President’s authority and has the effect of prohibiting
clearly asserting a right to do so and/or proffering its reasons the official from appearing before Congress, subject only to the Later on, respondent Committees issued a Subpoena
therefor. By the mere expedient of invoking said provisions, the express pronouncement of the President that it is allowing the Ad Testificandum to petitioner, requiring him to appear and
power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is appearance of such official. These provisions thus allow the testify on 20 November 2007. However, Executive Secretary
frustrated. President to authorize claims of privilege by mere silence. Eduardo Ermita sent a letter dated 15 November to the
Committees requesting them to dispense with Neri's testimony
It appears that in this case, the members of the NERI VS. SENATE on the ground of executive privilege. Ermita invoked the privilege
Executive Branch are trying to raise the concept of executive GR 180643, March 25, 2008 on the ground that "the information sought to be disclosed might
privilege. Schwartz defines executive privilege as “the power of Main Point: Citing the case of United States vs. Nixon, the Court impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the
the Government to withhold information from the public, the laid out the three elements needed to be complied with in order People’s Republic of China," and given the confidential nature in
courts, and the Congress.” Similarly, Rozell defines it as “the right for the claim to executive privilege to be valid. These are: 1.) the which these information were conveyed to the President, Neri
of the President and high-level executive branch officers to protected communication must relate to a quintessential and "cannot provide the Committee any further details of these
withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately non-delegable presidential power; 2.) it must be authored, conversations, without disclosing the very thing the privilege is
the public.” solicited, and received by a close advisor of the President or the designed to protect." Thus, on 20 November, Neri did not appear
President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in before the respondent Committees.
Generally, when Congress exercises its power of "operational proximity" with the President; and, 3.) it may be
inquiry, the only way for department heads to exempt overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the On 22 November, respondents issued a Show Cause
themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. They are information sought "likely contains important evidence," and by Letter to Neri requiring him to show cause why he should not be
not exempt by the mere fact that they are department heads. the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate cited for contempt for his failure to attend the scheduled hearing
Only one executive official may be exempted from this power – investigating authority. on 20 November. On 29 November, Neri replied to the Show
the President on whom executive power is vested, hence, Cause Letter and explained that he did not intend to snub the
beyond the reach of Congress except through the power of Romulo Neri, then Director General of the National Senate hearing, and requested that if there be new matters that
impeachment. It is based on her being the highest official of the Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), was invited by the were not yet taken up during his first appearance, he be
executive branch, and the due respect accorded to a co-equal Senate Committees to attend their joint investigation on the informed in advance so he can prepare himself. He added that
branch of government which is sanctioned by a long-standing alleged anomalies in the National Broadband Network (NBN) his non-appearance was upon the order of the President, and
custom. Project. This project was contracted by the Philippine that his conversation with her dealt with delicate and sensitive
Government with the Chinese firm Zhong Xing national security and diplomatic matters relating to the impact of
The assailed Executive Order is rendered Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE), which involved the the bribery scandal involving high government officials and the
unconstitutional by the Court as it basically grants executive amount of US$329,481,290. When he testified before the Senate possible loss of confidence of foreign investors and lenders in the
privilege to “persons”. The claim of executive privilege must be Committees, he disclosed that then Commission on Elections Philippines. Respondents found the explanation unsatisfactory,
accompanied by specific allegation of basis thereof. Absent then Chairman Benjamin Abalos, brokering for ZTE, offered him P200 and later on issued an Order citing Neri in contempt and
a statement of the specific basis of a claim of executive privilege, million in exchange for his approval of the NBN Project. He consequently ordering his arrest and detention at the Office of
there is no way of determining whether it falls under one of the further narrated that he informed President Gloria Macapagal- the Senate Sergeant-At-Arms until he appears and gives his
traditional privileges, or whether, given the circumstances in Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that she instructed him testimony.
which it is made, it should be respected. not to accept the bribe. However, when probed further on what
they discussed about the NBN Project, petitioner refused to

127 | P a g e
 1. Whether or not the three questions that "operational proximity" test, petitioner Neri can be considered a privilege on their Comment to the present petition. The
petitioner Neri refused to answer were close advisor, being a member of the President's Cabinet. Petitioners claim that due to this act, the Respondent have
covered by executive privilege, making the waived their right to invoke such privilege.
arrest order issued by the respondent Senate And as to the third element, there is no adequate
Committees void. showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of 1. Whether or not the executive privilege have
the privilege and of the unavailability of the information been waived
YES, citing the case of United States vs. Nixon (418 U.S. elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority. Presidential
683), the Court laid out the three elements needed to be communications are presumptively privileged and that the NO When the respondents invoked the privilege for the
complied with in order for the claim to executive privilege to be presumption can be overcome only by mere showing of public first time only in their Comment to the present petition does not
valid. These are: 1.) the protected communication must relate to need by the branch seeking access to such conversations. In the mean that the claim of privilege should not be credited.
a quintessential and non-delegable presidential power; 2.) it present case, respondent Committees failed to show a
must be authored, solicited, and received by a close advisor of compelling or critical need for the answers to the three questions
Respondents’ failure to claim the privilege during the
the President or the President himself. The judicial test is that an in the enactment of any law under Sec. 21, Art. VI. Instead, the
House Committee hearings may not, however, be construed as a
advisor must be in "operational proximity" with the President; questions veer more towards the exercise of the legislative
waiver thereof by the Executive branch. What respondents
and, 3.) it may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such oversight function under Sec. 22, Art. VI. As ruled in Senate vs.
received from the House Co mmittee and petitioner-
that the information sought "likely contains important evidence," Ermita, "the oversight function of Congress may be facilitated by
Congressman Aguja were mere requests for information. The
and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an compulsory process only to the extent that it is performed in
House Committee refrained from pursuing its earlier resolution
appropriate investigating authority. pursuit of legislation."
to issue a subpoena duces tecum on account of then Speaker
Jose de Venecia’s alleged request to Committee Chairperson
Anent the first element, executive privilege may be AKBAYAN VS. AQUINO Congressman Teves to hold the same in abeyance.
validly claimed by the executive department only in cases where GR 170516, July 16, 2008
the power subject of the legislative inquiry is expressly granted Main Point: Executive privilege is not waived by its non-assertion
While it is a salutary and noble practice for Congress to
by the Constitution to the President. Such powers include the during the issuance of subpoena by Congress.
refrain from issuing subpoenas to executive officials – out of
commander-in-chief, appointing, pardoning, and diplomatic
respect for their office – until resort to it becomes necessary, the
powers. In light of the doctrine of separation of powers, the said Petitioners seek to obtain from respondents the full
fact remains that such requests are not a compulsory process.
powers of the President enjoy a greater degree of confidentiality text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement
Being mere requests, they do not strictly call for an assertion of
than other presidential powers. In the present case, Executive (JPEPA) including the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted
executive privilege.
Secretary Ermita claimed executive privilege on the argument during the negotiation process and all pertinent attachments and
that the communications elicited by the three questions "fall annexes thereto.The JPEPA, which will be the first bilateral free
under conversation and correspondence between the President trade agreement to be entered into by the Philippines with IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
and public officials" necessary in "her executive and policy another country in the event the Senate grants its consent to it,
decision-making process," and that "the information sought to be covers a broad range of topics which includes trade in goods, SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR
disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic rules of origin, customs procedures, paperless trading, trade in 167 SCRA 393 [1988]
relations with the People’s Republic of China." It is clear then that services, investment, intellectual property rights, government Main Point: The privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the
the basis of the claim is a matter related to the quintessential and procurement, movement of natural persons, cooperation, President by virtue of the office and may be invoked only by the
nondelegable presidential power of diplomacy or foreign competition policy, mutual recognition, dispute avoidance and holder of the office; not by any other person in the President's
relations. settlement, improvement of the business environment, and behalf.
general and final provisions. The Petitioner Soliven broadcasted a statement that
the President Aquino hid under her bed during the coup d'etat.
As to the second element, the communications were
The President, infuriated of this, filed for libel against Soliven. In
received by a close advisor of the President. Under the In this case, the Respondents only bring the argument
this case with the Court, the Petitioner argues "the reasons which
that the negotiation process of the JPEPA is covered by executive

128 | P a g e
necessitate presidential immunity from suit impose a correlative constitutional and statutory rights. The presidential aides invoked NO. The President’s immunity from suit does not
disability to file suit." immunity from suit. After extensive pretrial discovery, the extend to acts committed outside of official duties. The rationale
District Court denied the motions of petitioners holding that of the rule is to allow the President to perform his duties without
1. Whether or not the President of the petitioners were not entitled to absolute immunity from suit. being hampered. The protected action must be related to the
Philippines, under the Constitution, may immunity’s purpose. Unofficial acts do not fall within the
initiate criminal proceedings against the 1. Whether presidential aides may invoke privilege of immunity from suit. The Federal Court, however,
petitioners through the filing of a complaint- immunity from suit. erred in deferring due course and must assume jurisdiction to try
affidavit. the case.
NO. While absolute immunity might be justified for
NO. The argument and contention of the Petitioners aides entrusted with discretionary authority in such sensitive
are incorrect and misplaced. The privilege of immunity from suit, areas as national security or foreign policy, a "special functions" GLORIA VS. CA
pertains to the President by virtue of the office and may be rationale does not warrant a blanket recognition of absolute GR 119903, August 15, 2000
invoked only by the holder of the office; not by any other person immunity for all Presidential aides in the performance of all their MAIN POINT: Immunity from suit is for the president, not for
in the President's behalf. Thus, an accused in a criminal case in duties. To establish entitlement to absolute immunity, a cabinet members.
which the President is complainant cannot raise the presidential Presidential aide first must show that the responsibilities of his
privilege as a defense to prevent the case from proceeding office embraced a function so sensitive as to require a total shield DECS Secretary Ricardo Gloria recommended to
against such accused. from liability. He then must demonstrate that he was discharging President Fidel V. Ramos the re-assignment of Bienvenido
the protected function when performing the act for which Icasiano from being Schools Division Superintendent of QC to
Moreover, there is nothing in our laws that would liability is asserted. Under the record in this case, neither Superintendent of Marikina Institute of Science & Technology
prevent the President from waiving the privilege. Thus, if so petitioner has made the requisite showing for absolute (MIST) to fill up a temporary vacancy. This was approved by then
minded the President may shed the protection afforded by the immunity. However, the possibility that petitioners, on remand, president FVR. Icasiano sued for violation of security of tenure
privilege and submit to the court's jurisdiction. The choice of can satisfy the proper standards is not foreclosed.. due to indefinite duration of assignment.
whether to exercise the privilege or to waive it is solely the
President's prerogative. It is a decision that cannot be assumed CLINTON VS. JONES 1. Whether the President’s immunity from suit
and imposed by any other person. 520 US 681 [1997] was violated.
MAIN POINT: Immunity from suit does not apply to unofficial
HARLOW VS. FITZGERALD conduct. Immunities are grounded in the nature of the function NO. President’s immunity from suit was not violated
457 US 800 [1982] performed, not the identity of the actor who performed because it is directed against Secretary Gloria and not President
Main Point: To establish entitlement to absolute immunity, a FVR. Even so, presidential decisions may be assailed in court if
Presidential aide first must show that the responsibilities of his Paula Corbin Jones was working with Arkansas there is grave abuse of discretion. The re-assignment clearly
office embraced a function so sensitive as to require a total shield Industrial Development Commission. State Police Officer Danny violated security of tenure.
from liability. He then must demonstrate that he was discharging Ferguson ordered her to leave her desk to visit then Governor Bill
the protected function when performing the act for which Clinton in his hotel suite where the latter made “abhorrent”
ESTRADA VS. DESIERTO
liability is asserted. sexual advances upon her which she rejected. She was later
GR 146740-15 and GR 146738, March 2, 2001 and MR- April 3,
treated in a hostile manner at work. She filed a suit for damages.
2001
Fitzgerald filed an action for civil damages for his Federal Trial Court deferred trial until expiration of term of
Main Point: Incumbent Presidents are immune from suit or from
alleged unlawful discharge from employment in the Department Clinton as President of the US.
being brought to court during the period of their incumbency and
of the Air Force. Petitioners, Bryce Harlow and Alexander tenure but not beyond.
Butterfield, White House aides to former President Nixon, were 1. Whether Clinton may invoke immunity from
codefendants with him and were claimed to have participated in suit.
the same alleged conspiracy to violate respondent's
129 | P a g e
 This case involves the People Power II, resignation of In this Motion for Reconsideration of the above case, Arroyo issued PP 1017, implemented by G.O. No. 5, declaring a
President Erap Estrada, his impeachment trial, the cases filed by the former President clings to that he is entitled to absolute state of national emergency, thus: NOW, THEREFORE, I, Gloria
the Ombudsman against him and all others that relate to his immunity from suit. He contends that he is still President, albeit, Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Republic of the Philippines
tumultuous last months in office. a President on leave. His stance that his immunity covers his and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
entire term of office or until June 30, 2004 disregards the reality by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Section 18, Article 7
One of the main facts that involve this case is that the that he has relinquished the presidency and there is now a new of the Philippine Constitution which states that: “The
Ombudsman filed several cases against the Former President de jure President. President. . . whenever it becomes necessary, . . . may call out
including graft and corruption, plunder, serious misconduct, (the) armed forces to prevent or suppress. . .rebellion. . .,” and in
perjury and many others. In his defense, the former President He even goes a step further and avers that even a non- my capacity as their Commander-in-Chief, do hereby command
asserts that he has immunity from suits whether it is civil or sitting President enjoys immunity from suit during his term of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order
criminal. Thus, the Ombudsman acted in excess of its authority office. throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of
when he filed such cases. Further, he asserts that he cannot be lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and
prosecuted for reasons that he shall be convicted in the to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders
1. Whether or not the Presidential immunity extends until
impeachment proceedings first. and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my
the duration of the term of office of the President.
direction; and as provided in Section 17, Article 12 of the
Constitution do hereby declare a State of National Emergency.
1. Whether or not the President enjoys Ruling: No, it does not. The intent of the framers of the
immunity from suit NO Constitution is clear that the immunity of the president from suit
2. whether or not he should be convicted in the In their presentation of the factual bases of PP 1017
is concurrent only with his tenure and not his term.
impeachment proceedings first before being and G.O. No. 5, respondents stated that the proximate cause
prosecuted for the offenses. NO behind the executive issuances was the conspiracy among some
DAVID VS. ARROYO
military officers, leftist insurgents of the New People’s Army, and
289 SCRA 162 [2006]
some members of the political opposition in a plot to unseat or
As regards the question of immunity, incumbent Main Point: The President, during his tenure of office or actual
assassinate President Arroyo. They considered the aim to oust or
Presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and
assassinate the President and take-over the reins of government
during the period of their incumbency and tenure but not there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will
as a clear and present danger.
beyond. Thus, since at this time, the former President Estrada degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head
have relinquished his post as president, he cannot any more of State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving
claim immunity. as such. Furthermore, it is important that he be freed from any Petitioners David and Llamas were arrested without
form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to warrants on February 24, 2006 on their way to EDSA. Meanwhile,
fully attend to the performance of his official duties and the offices of the newspaper Daily Tribune, which was perceived
Due to the fact that in this case the members of the
functions. Unlike the legislative and judicial branch, only one to be anti-Arroyo, was searched without warrant at about 1:00
Impeachment Court aborted proceedings and subsequently
constitutes the executive branch and anything which impairs his A.M. on February 25, 2006. Seized from the premises – in the
declared itself as Functus Officio, it is untenable for petitioner to
usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important absence of any official of the Daily Tribune except the security
demand that he should first be impeached and then convicted
duties imposed upon him by the Constitution necessarily impairs guard of the building – were several materials for publication.
before he can be prosecuted. The plea if granted, would put a
the operation of the Government. However, this does not mean The law enforcers, a composite team of PNP and AFP officers,
perpetual bar against his prosecution.
that the President is not accountable to anyone. Like any other cited as basis of the warrantless arrests and the warrantless
official, he remains accountable to the people but he may be search and seizure was Presidential Proclamation 1017 issued by
Estrada vs Desierto
removed from office only in the mode provided by law and that is then President Gloria MacapagalArroyo in the exercise of her
Main Point: The intent of the framers of the Constitution is clear
by impeachment. constitutional power to call out the Armed Forces of the
that the immunity of the president from suit is concurrent only
Philippines to prevent or suppress lawless violence.
with his tenure and not his term.
On February 24, 2006, as the Filipino nation celebrated
the 20th Anniversary of the EDSA People Power I, President 1. Whether or not PP 1107 YES

130 | P a g e
 2. Whether or not GO No 5 valid and constitutional NO The “Take Care” Power The second provision pertains Following our interpretation of Section 17, Article XII,
3. whether or not the arrest, search and seizure against to the power of the President to ensure that the laws be invoked by President Arroyo in issuing PP 1017, this Court rules
the Petitioner by the AFP within constitutional faithfully executed. This is based on Section 17, Article VII which that such Proclamation does not authorize her during the
boundaries. NO reads: SEC. 17. The President shall have control of all the emergency to temporarily take over or direct the operation of
executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that any privately owned public utility or business affected with public
The Court ruled that PP 1017 is constitutional insofar as it the laws be faithfully executed. interest without authority from Congress.
constitutes a call by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on the
AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. However, the The Power to Take Over Distinction must be drawn Let it be emphasized that while the President alone can
provisions of PP 1017 commanding the AFP to enforce laws not between the President’s authority to declare “a state of national declare a state of national emergency, however, without
related to lawless violence, as well as decrees promulgated by emergency” and to exercise emergency powers. To the first, legislation, he has no power to take over privately-owned public
the President, are declared unconstitutional. In addition, the Section 18, Article VII grants the President such power, hence, no utility or business affected with public interest. Nor can he
provision in PP 1017 declaring national emergency under Section legitimate constitutional objection can be raised. But to the determine when such exceptional circumstances have ceased.
17, Article VII of the Constitution is constitutional, but such second, manifold constitutional issues arise. Likewise, without legislation, the President has no power to point
declaration does not authorize the President to take over out the types of businesses affected with public interest that
privately-owned public utility or business affected with public Generally, Congress is the repository of emergency should be taken over. In short, the President has no absolute
interest without prior legislation. powers. This is evident in the tenor of Section 232), Article VI authority to exercise all the powers of the State under Section
authorizing it to delegate such powers to the President. 17, Article VII in the absence of an emergency powers act passed
As regards GO No. 5, the Court ruled it to be Certainly, a body cannot delegate a power not reposed upon it. by Congress.
constitutional since it provides a standard by which the AFP and However, knowing that during grave emergencies, it may not be
the PNP should implement PP 1017, i.e. whatever is "necessary possible or practicable for Congress to meet and exercise its THE CABINET CONSTANTINO VS. CUISIA
and appropriate actions and measures to suppress and prevent powers, the Framers of our Constitution deemed it wise to allow 472 SCRA 505 [2005]
acts of lawless violence." Considering that "acts of terrorism" Congress to grant emergency powers to the President, subject to Main Point: The Congress can delegate to the cabinet Secretary
have not yet been defined and made punishable by the certain conditions, thus: (1) There must be a war or other (i.e. Secretary of Finance), in his capacity as the alter ego of the
Legislature, such portion of G.O. No. 5 is declared emergency. (2) The delegation must be for a limited period only. president, to carry out the authority vested on the Chief
unconstitutional. (3) The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the Executive under Section 28.
Congress may prescribe. (4) The emergency powers must be
PP 1017 can be divided into three portions: The Calling- exercised to carry out a national policy declared by Congress. During the Corazon Aquino regime, her administration
out Power The validity of this power is already settled in came up with a scheme to reduce the country’s external debt.
Sanlakas. However, there is a distinction between the President’s Section 17, Article XII must be understood as an aspect The solution resorted to was to incur foreign debts. Three
authority to declare a “state of rebellion” (in Sanlakas) and the of the emergency powers clause. The taking over of private restructuring programs were sought to initiate the program for
authority to proclaim a state of national emergency. In declaring business affected with public interest is just another facet of the foreign debts – they are basically buyback programs and bond-
a state of national emergency under PP 1017, President Arroyo emergency powers generally reposed upon Congress. Thus, conversion programs.
did not only rely on Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution. She when Section 17 states that the “the State may, during the
also relied on Section 17, Article XII, a provision on the State’s emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, The spouses Renato Constantino, Jr. and Lourdes
extraordinary power to take over privately-owned public utility temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately Constantino, as a taxpayers, and in behalf of their minor children
and business affected with public interest. Indeed, PP 1017 calls owned public utility or business affected with public interest,” it who are Filipino citizens, together with FFDC (Freedom From
for the exercise of an awesome power. Obviously, such refers to Congress, not the President. Now, whether or not the Debt Coalition) averred that the buyback and bond-conversion
Proclamation cannot be deemed harmless, without legal President may exercise such power is dependent on whether schemes were onerous and they do not constitute the loan
significance, or not written, as in Sanlakas. Congress may delegate it to him pursuant to a law prescribing “contract” or “guarantee” contemplated in Sec. 20, Art. VII of the
the reasonable terms thereof. Constitution. And assuming that the President has such power,
unlike other powers which may be validly delegated by the
131 | P a g e
President, the power to incur foreign debts is expressly reserved many methods that may be taken toward this end, meeting presented, it can be ascertained that Fernando Poe Jr. was
by the Constitution in the person of the President, hence, the countless times with creditor representatives to negotiate, indeed a Filipino Citizen.
respondents herein, Central Bank Governor Josse Cuisia et al, obtaining the concurrence of the Monetary Board, explaining and
cannot incur debts for the Philippines or such power can be defending the negotiated deal to the public, and more often than POE-LLAMANZARES VS.COMELEC
delegated to them. not, flying to the agreed place of execution to sign the G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016
documents. This sort of constitutional interpretation would MAIN POINT: There are also no provisions in the Constitution
Petitioners stress that unlike other powers which may negate the very existence of cabinet positions and the respective with intent or language permitting discrimination against
be validly delegated by the President, the power to incur foreign expertise which the holders thereof are accorded and would foundlings as the three Constitution’s guarantee the basic right
debts is expressly reserved by the Constitution in the person of unduly hamper the President’s effectivity in running the to equal protection of the laws. Foundlings are citizens under
the President. They argue that the gravity by which the exercise government. The act of the Cuisia et al are not unconstitutional. international law as this is supported by some treaties, adhering
of the power will affect the Filipino nation requires that the to the customary rule to presume foundlings as having born of
President alone must exercise this power. They submit that the Section 2. Qualifications of the President the country in which the foundling is found.
requirement of prior concurrence of an entity specifically named
by the Constitution–the Monetary Board–reinforces the TECSON v. COMELEC The petitioner Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-
submission that not respondents but the President "alone and G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004 Llamanzares also known as Grace Poe- Llamanzares wishes to run
personally" can validly bind the country. Main Point: The term "natural-born citizens," is defined to as the President of the Republic of the Philippines. However,
include "those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth petitions were made by Estrella Elamparo to deny due course or
1. Whether or not the President can validly delegate the without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their cancel the COC of Poe-Llamanzares for the reason that the latter
power to incur foreign loans with the Cabinet Philippine citizenship. is not a naturalborn citizen on the account of the fact that she is
Secretary. a foundling. In addition, Elamparo stated that Poe-Llamanzares
The Petitioners of this case question the citizenship of even assuming that the latter is a natural-born citizen she has
YES. There is no question that the president has borrowing the presidential candidate, Fernando Poe Jr. They allege that he deemed to lost the same when the she became a naturalized
powers and that the President may contract or guarantee foreign misrepresented his citizenship in his Certificate of Candidacy as American citizen, according to Elamparo, natural-born citizenship
loans in behalf of this country with prior concurrence of the he was not a natural-born Filipino citizen. They allege that must be continuous from birth.
Monetary Board. It makes no distinction whatsoever and the fact because his parents were both American citizens, he is not a
that a debt or a loan may be onerous is irrelevant. On the other natural-born Filipino citizen. 1. Whether or not Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-
hand, the President can delegate this power to her direct Llamanzares is a natural-born Filipino citizen.
subordinates. The evident exigency of having the Secretary of 1. Whether or not Fernando Poe Jr. meets the citizenship
Finance implement the decision of the President to execute the requirement to run for president RULING: Yes. Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares may be
debt-relief contracts is made manifest by the fact that the considered a natural-born Filipino. It ruled that a foundling is a
process of establishing and executing a strategy for managing the natural-born citizen of the Philippines as there is no restrictive
YES The term "natural-born citizens," is defined to include
government’s debt is deep within the realm of the expertise of language which would definitely exclude foundlings as they are
"those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without
the Department of Finance, primed as it is to raise the required already impliedly so recognized. There are also no provisions in
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
amount of funding, achieve its risk and cost objectives, and meet the Constitution with intent or language permitting
citizenship.
any other sovereign debt management goals. discrimination against foundlings as the three Constitution’s
guarantee the basic right to equal protection of the laws.
The date, month and year of birth of FPJ appeared to be 20
If the President were to personally exercise every aspect of Foundlings are citizens under international law as this is
August 1939 during the regime of the 1935 Constitution. At this
the foreign borrowing power, he/she would have to pause from supported by some treaties, adhering to the customary rule to
time, jus sanguinis or blood relationship would now become the
running the country long enough to focus on a welter of time- presume foundlings as having born of the country in which the
primary basis of citizenship by birth. On the basis of the evidence
consuming detailed activities–the propriety of foundling is found.
incurring/guaranteeing loans, studying and choosing among the
132 | P a g e
 advanced result of “unofficial” count. Petitioners claimed that
Section 3. Vice President the resolution would allow the preemption and usurpation of the By a Petition for Prohibition, Senator Aquilino Q.
exclusive power of Congress to canvass the votes for President Pimentel, Jr. seeks a judgment declaring null and void the
and Vice-President and would likewise encroach upon the continued existence of the Joint Committee of Congress (Joint
Section 4. Election, Term Limits and Canvass
authority of NAMFREL, as the citizens’ accredited arm, to conduct Committee) to determine the authenticity and due execution of
the “unofficial” quick count as provided under pertinent election the certificates of canvass and preliminarily canvass the votes
ANSON-ROA v. ARRYO
laws. Comelec contended that the resolution was promulgated in cast for Presidential and VicePresidential candidates in the 10
GR 162384, March 24, 2004
the exercise of its executive and administrative power “to ensure May 2004 elections following the adjournment of Congress sine
MAIN POINT: GMA was not elected: she assumed presidency
free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections” Comelec die on 11 June 2004.
after resignation of Estrada. Thus, there is no bar from running
added that the issue is beyond judicial determination.
for presidency as she is not covered by the phrase: “run for any
reelection.” The petition corollarily prays for the issuance of a writ
1. Whether or not Comelec’s promulgation of Resolution of prohibition directing the Joint Committee to cease and desist
6712 would allow the preemption and usurpation of from conducting any further proceedings pursuant to the Rules
Senatorial candidates Elisa Anson-Roa and Amina
the exclusive power of Congress to canvass the votes of the Joint Public Session of Congress on Canvassing.
Rasul-Bernardo challenged President GMA’s candidacy and
for President and Vice-President
alleged the use of public funds for campaign.
Petitioner posits that with "the adjournment sine die
YES. Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution, further on June 11, 2004 by the Twelfth Congress of its last regular
1. Whether President GMA is barred from running for
bolstered by RA 8436, vest upon Congress the sole and exclusive session, [its] term ... terminated and expired on the said day and
presidency.
authority to officially canvass the votes for the elections of the said Twelfth Congress serving the term 2001 to 2004 passed
President and Vice-President. The quick count under the guise of out of legal existence."
NO. President GMA was not elected as president and has an “unofficial” tabulation would not only be preemptive of the
not served a term for more than four years. She assumed authority of congress and NAMFREL, but would also be lacking
presidency after the resignation of Estrada. Thus, there is no bar 1. Whether or not existence and proceedings of the joint
constitutional and/or statutory basis.
from running for presidency as she is not covered by the phrase: committee of Congress are constitutional following the
“run for any reelection” under Section 4 of Article VII. adjournment sine die of both houses of Congress.
The Omnibus Election Code in providing the powers and
functions of the Commission subjects the same to certain
Congress as National Board of Canvassers (article 7) YES. Congress may continue the canvass even after the final
conditions with respect to the adoption of the latest
adjournment of its session. The final adjournment of Congress
technological and electronic devices, to wit: (1)consideration of
does not terminate an unfinished presidential canvass.
BRILLIANTES VS. COMELEC the area and available funds (2) notification to all political parties
Adjournment terminates legislation but not the non-legislative
432 SCRA [2005] and candidates. The aforementioned conditions were found to
functions of Congress such as canvassing of votes.
MAIN POINT: Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution, further have not been substantially met. Resolution 6712 was null and
bolstered by RA 8436, vest upon Congress the sole and exclusive void.
authority to officially canvass the votes for the elections of LOPEZ VS. SENATE
President and Vice-President. The quick count under the guise of GR 163556, June 8, 2004
PIMENTEL VS. JOINT COMITTEE
an “unofficial” tabulation would not only be preemptive of the MAIN POINT: Congress may validly delegate the initial
GR 163783, June 22, 2004
authority of congress and NAMFREL, but would also be lacking determination of the authenticity and due execution of the
MAIN POINT: Congress may continue the canvass even after the
constitutional and/or statutory basis. certificates of canvass to a Joint Congressional Committee so long
final adjournment of its session. The final adjournment of
as the decisions and final report of the said Committee shall be
Congress does not terminate an unfinished presidential canvass.
subject to the approval of the joint session of Both Houses of
Comelec issued resolutions adopting an Automated Adjournment terminates legislation but not the non-legislative
Congress voting separately.
Elections System including the assailed resolution, Resolution functions of Congress such as canvassing of votes.
6712, which provides for the electronic transmission of
133 | P a g e
 The case is a petition for prohibition and mandamus On the other hand, under Section 37, congress and the
seeking to nullify Section 13, Rule VIII of the Rules of the Joint Barangay Association for National Advancement and COMELEC en banc shall determine only the authenticity and due
Public Session of Congress. It created a Joint Committee that Transparency (BANAT) Party-List, a duly accredited multi- execution of the certificates of canvass. Congress and the
would preliminary canvass the votes of the candidates for sectorial organization, filed a petition for prohibition alleging that COMELEC en banc shall exercise this power before the
president and vice-president in the May 2004 election. Sections 37 and 38 of RA 9369 violates Section 17, Article VI and proclamation of the winning presidential, vice presidential, and
Paragraph 7, Sec 4, Article 7 of the constitution. According to senatorial candidates.
1. Whether or not the creation by Congress of the Joint BANAT, the provisions are of questionable application and of
Committee to canvass the votes for president and vice doubtful validity for failing to comply with provisions of the
president in the 2004 elections is unconstitutional. constitition. Breaking President or Vice-President Tie Presidential or Vice-
Presidential Controversies
NO. Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution expressly Petitioner argues that 37 and 38 of RA 9369 violates
empowers Congress “to promulgate its rules for the canvassing the constitution by impairing the powers of the Presidential DEFENSOR SANTIAGO VS. RAMOS
of the certificates.” In the exercise of this power, Congress may Electoral Tribunal (PET) and the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET). 253 SCRA 559 [1996]
validly delegate the initial determination of the authenticity and According to petitioner, under the amended provisions, congress MAIN POINT: The Court held that the election protest filed by
due execution of the certificates of canvass to a Joint as the national board of canvassers for the election of president Santiago has been abandoned or considered withdrawn as a
Congressional Committee, composed of members of the House and vice president (congress), and the COMELEC en banc as the consequence of her election and assumption of office as Senator
of Representatives and of the Senate. national board of canvassers, for the election of senators may and her discharge of the duties and functions thereof. The
not entertain pre-proclamation cases in the election of the protestant abandoned her “determination to protest and pursue
The creation of the Joint Committee does not constitute president, vice president, and senators. Petitioner concludes that the public interest involved in the matter of who is the real
grave abuse and cannot be said to have deprived petitioner and in entertaining pre-proclamation cases, the congress and the choice of the electorate.
the other members of Congress of their congressional COMELEC en banc undermine the independence and encroach
prerogatives, because under the very Rules under attack, the upon the jurisdiction of the PET and the SET.
After Fidel Ramos was declared President, defeated
decisions and final report of the said Committee shall be subject candidate Miriam Defensor-Santiago filed an election protest
to the approval of the joint session of both Houses of Congress, 1. Whether or not Sections 37 and 38 of RA 9369 violates with the SC. Subsequently, while the case is pending, she ran for
voting separately.” Section 17, Article VI and Paragraph 7, Sec 4, Article 7 the office of Senator and, having been declared elected, assumed
of the constitution. office as Senator.

BANAT v. COMELEC NO. Congress and the COMELEC en banc do not encroach 1. Whether or not the election protest filed by Defensor-
GR 177508, August 7, 2009 upon the jurisdiction of the PET and the SET. There is no conflict Santiago is moot and academic by her election as a
MAIN POINT: Congress and the COMELEC en banc do not of jurisdiction since the powers of congress and the COMELEC en Senator in the May 1995 election and her assumption
encroach upon the jurisdiction of the PET and the SET. There is banc, on one hand, and the PET and the SET, on the other, are of office as such on the 30th of June in the year 1995.
no conflict of jurisdiction since the powers of congress and the exercised on different occasions and for different purposes. The
COMELEC en banc, on one hand, and the PET and the SET, on the PET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
YES. The Court held that the election protest filed by
other, are exercised on different occasions and for different returns and qualifications of the President or Vice President. The
Santiago has been abandoned or considered withdrawn as a
purposes. The PET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the SET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
consequence of her election and assumption of office as Senator
election, returns and qualifications of the President or Vice returns, and qualifications of members of the Senate. The
and her discharge of the duties and functions thereof. The
President. The SET is the sole judge of all contests relating to the jurisdiction of the PET and the SET can only be invoked once the
protestant abandoned her “determination to protest and pursue
election, returns, and qualifications of members of the winning presidential, vice presidential or senatorial candidates
the public interest involved in the matter of who is the real
Senate. The jurisdiction of the PET and the SET can only be have been proclaimed.
choice of the electorate.
invoked once the winning presidential, vice presidential or
senatorial candidates have been proclaimed.
134 | P a g e
135 | P a g e