Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-49705-09 February 8, 1979 TOMATIC ARATUC, SERGIO TOCAO, CISCOLARIO DIAZ, FRED TAMULA, MANGONTAWAR GURO and BONIFACIO LEGASPI, petitioners, vs. The COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REGIONAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS for Region XII (Central Mindanao), ABDULLAH DIMAPORO, JESUS AMPARO, ANACLETO BADOY, et al., respondents. Nos. L-49717-21 February 8,1979. LINANG MANDANGAN, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THE REGIONAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS for Region XII, and ERNESTO ROLDAN, respondents. L-49705-09 Lino M. Patajo for petitioners. Estanislao A. Fernandez for private respondents. L-49717-21 Estanislao A. Fernandez for petitioner. Lino M. Patajo for private respondent. Office of the Solicitor General, for Public respondents.

BARREDO, J.:

Petition in G. R. Nos. L-49705-09 for certiorari with restraining order and preliminary injunction filed by six (6) independent candidates for representatives to tile Interim Batasang Pambansa who had joined together under the banner of the Kunsensiya ng Bayan which, however, was not registered as a political party or group under the 1976 Election Code, P.D. No. 1296, namely Tomatic Aratuc, Sorgio Tocao, Ciscolario Diaz, Fred Tamula, Mangontawar Guro and Bonifacio Legaspi her referred to as petitioners, to review the decision of the respondent Commission on Election (Comelec) resolving their appeal from the Of the respondent Regional Board of Canvasses for Region XII regarding the canvass of the results of the election in said region for representatives to the I.B.P. held on April 7, 1978. Similar petition in G.R. Nos. L49717-21, for certiorari with restraining order and preliminary injunction filed by Linang Mandangan, abo a candidate for representative in the same election in that region, to review the decision of the Comelec declaring respondent Ernesto Roldan as entitled to be proclaimed as one of the eight winners in said election. The instant proceedings are sequels of Our decision in G.R. No. L- 48097, wherein Tomatic Aratuc et al. sought the suspension of the canvass then being undertaken by respondent dent Board in Cotabato city and in which canvass, the returns in 1966 out of a total of 4,107 voting centers in the whole region had already been canvassed showing partial results as follows: NAMES OF CANDIDATES 1. Roldan, Ernesto (KB) 2. Valdez, Estanislao NO. OF VOTES 225,674 217,789

(KBL) 3. Dimporo, Abdullah (KBL) 4. Tocao, Sergio (KB) 5. Badoy, Anacleto (KBL) 6. Amparo, Jesus (KBL) 7. Pangandaman , Sambolayan (KBL) 8. Sinsuat, Datu Blah (KBL) 9. Baga, Tomas (KBL) 10. Aratuc, Tomatic (KB) 11. Mandangan, Linang(KB) 12. Diaz, Ciscolario (KB) 13. Tamalu, Fred (KB) 199,244 199,062 198,966 184,764 183,646

182,457

171,656 165,795 165,032

159,977 153,734

14. Legaspi Bonifacio (KB) 15. Guro, Mangontawar (KB) 16. Loma, Nemesio (KB) 17. Macapeges, Malamama (Independent)

148,200 139,386

107,455 101,350

(Votes Of the independent candidates who actually were not in contention omitted)" (Page 6, Record, L-49705-09.) A supervening panel headed by Commissioner of Elections, HonVenancio S. Duque, had conducted of the complaints of the petitioners therein of alleged irregularities in the election records in all the voting centers in the whole province of Lanao del Sur, the whole City of Marawi, eight (8) towns of Lanao del Norte, namely, Baloi, Karomatan, Matungao, Munai, Nunungan, Pantao Ragat, Tagoloan and Tangcal, seven (7) towns in Maguindanao, namely, Barrira, Datu Piang, Dinaig, Matanog Parang, South Upi and Upi, ten (10) towns in North Cotabato, namely, Carmen, Kabacan, Kidapwan, Magpet, Matalam Midsayap, Pigcawayan, Pikit, Pres. Roxas and Tulonan, and eleven (11) towns in Sultan Kudarat, namely, Bagumbayan, Columbia Don Mariano Marcos, Esperanza, Isulan, Kalamansig, Lebak, Lutayan, Palimbang, President Quirino and Tacurong, by reason for which, petitioners had asked that the returns from said voting centers be excluded from the canvass. Before the start of the hearings, the canvass was suspended but after the supervisory panel presented its report, on May 15, 1978, the Comelec lifted its order of

suspension and directed the resumption of the canvass to be done in Manila. This order was the one assailed in this Court. We issued a restraining order. After hearing the parties, the Court allowed the resumption of the canvass but issued the following guidelines to be observed thereat: 1. That the resumption of said canvass shall be held in the Comelec main office in Manila starting not later than June 1, 1978; 2. That in preparation therefor, respondent Commission on Elections shall see to it that all the material election paragraph corresponding to all the voting center involved in Election Nos. 78-8, 78-9, 78-10, 78-11 and 78-12 are taken to its main office in Manila, more particularly, the ballot boxes, with the contents, used during the said elections, the books of voters or records of voting and the lists or records of registered voters, on or before May 31, 1978; 3. That as soon as the corresponding records are available, petitioners and their counsel shall be allowed to examine the same under such security measures as the respondent Board may determine, except the contents of the ballot boxes which shall be opened only upon orders of either the respondent Board or respondent Commission, after the need therefor has become evident, the purpose of such examination being to enable petitioners, and their counsel to expeditiously determine which of them they would wish to be scrutinized and passed upon by the Board as supporting their charges of election frauds and anomalies, petitioners and their counsel being admonished in this connection, that no dilatory tactics

should be in by them and that only such records substantial objections should be offered by them for the scrutiny by the Board; 4. That none of the election returns reffered to in the petition herein shall be canvassed without first giving the herein petitioners ample opportunity to make their specific objections thereto, if they have any, and to show sufficient basis for the rejection of any of the returns, and, in this connection, the respondent Regional Board of Canvassers should give due consideration to the points raised in the memorandum filed by said petitioners with the Commission on Election in the above cases dated April 26, 1978; 5. That should it appear to the board upon summary scrutiny of the records to be offered by petitioners indication that in the voting center actually held and/or that election returns were prepared either before the day of the election returns or at any other time, without regard thereto or that there has been massive substitution of voters, or that ballots and/or returns were prepared by the same groups of persons or individuals or outside of the voting centers, the Board should exclude the corresponding returns from the canvass; 6. That appeals to the commission on Election of the Board may be made only after all the returns in question in all the above, the above five cases shall have been passed upon by the Board and, accordingly, no proclamation made until after the Commission shall have finally resolved the appeal without prejudice to recourse to this court, if warranted as provided by the Code and the Constitution, giving the parties reasonable time therefor;

7. That the copies of the election returns found in the corresponding ballot boxes shall be the one used in the canvass; 8. That the canvass shall be conducted with utmost dispatch, to the end that a proclamation, if feasible, may be made not later than June 10, 1978; thus, the canvass may be terminated as soon as it is evident that the possible number of votes in the still uncanvassed returns with no longer affect the general results of the elections here in controversy; 9. That respondent Commission shall promulgate such other directive not inconsistent with this resolution y necessary to expedite the proceedings herein contemplated and to accomplish the purposes herein intended. (Pp. 8-9, Record. On June 1, 1978, upon proper motion, said guidelines were modified: ... in the sense that the ballot boxes for the voting centers just referred to need not be taken to Manila, EXCEPT those of the particular voting centers as to which the petitioners have the right to demand that the corresponding ballot boxes be opened in order that the votes therein may be counted because said ballots unlike the election returns, have not been tampered with or substituted, which instances the results of the counting shall be specified and made known by petitioners to the Regional Board of Canvassers not later than June 3, 1978; it being understood, that for the purposes of the canvass, the petitioners shall not be allowed to invoke any objection not already alleged in or comprehend within the allegations in their complaint in the election cases above- mentioned. (Page 8, Id.)

Thus respondent Board proceeded with the canvass, with the herein petitioners presenting objections, most of them supported by the report of handwriting and finger print experts who had examined the voting records and lists of voters in 878 voting centers, out of 2,700 which they specified in their complaints or petitions in Election Cases 78-8, 78-9, 78-10, 78-11 and 7812 in the Comelec. In regard to 501 voting centers, the records cf. which, consisting of the voters lists and voting records were not available- and could not be brought to Manila, petitions asked that the results therein be completely excluded from the canvass. On July 11, 1978, respondent Board terminated its canvass and declared the result of the voting to be as follows: NAME OF CANDIDATE VALDEZ, Estanislao DIMAPORO, Abdullah PANGANDAMAN , Sambolayan SINSUAT, Blah AMPARO, Jesus MANDANGAN, Linang BAGA, Tomas BADOY,Anacleto ROLDAN, Ernesto VOTES OBTAIN 436,069 429,351 406,106 403,445 399,997 387,025 386,393 374,933 275,141

TOCAO, Sergio ARATUC, Tomatic GURO, Mangontawar DIAZ, Ciscolario TAMULA, Fred LEGASPI, Bonifacio MACAPEGES, Malamana (Pp. 11-12, Record.)

239,914 205,829 190,489 190,077 180,280 174,396 160,271

Without loss of time, the petitioners brought the resolution of respondent Board to the Comelec. Hearing was held on April 25, 1978, after which , the case was declared submitted for decision. However, on August 30,1978, the Comelec issued a resolution stating inter alia that : In order to enable the Commission to decide the appeal properly : a. It will have to go deeper into the examination of the voting records and registration records and in the case of voting centers whose voting and registration records which have not yet been submitted for the Commission to decide to open the ballot boxes; and b. To interview and get statements under oath of impartial and disinterested persons from the area to

determine whether actual voting took place on April 7, 1978, as well as those of the military authorities in the areas affects (Page 12). Record, L-49705-09 .) On December 11, 1978, the Comelec required the parties "to file their respective written comments on the reports they shall periodically receive from the NBI-Comelec team of finger-print and signature experts within the inextendible period of seven (7) days from their receipt thereof". According to counsel for Aratuc, et al., "Petitioners submitted their various comments on the report 4, the principal gist of which was that it would appear uniformly in all the reports submitted by the Comelec-NBI experts that the registered voters were not the ones who voted as shown by the fact that the thumbprints appearing in Form 1 were different from the thumbprints of the voters in Form 5. " But the Comelec denied a motion of petitioners asking that the ballot boxes corresponding to the voting centers the record of which are not available be opened and that a date be set when the statements of witnesses referred to in the August 30, 1978 resolution would be taken, on the ground that in its opinion, it was no longer necessary to proceed with such opening of ballot boxes and taking of statements. For his part, counsel for petitioner M in G.R. No. L-49717-21 filed with Comelec on December 19,1978 a Memorandum. To quote from the petition: On December 19, 1978, the KBL, through counsel, filed a Memorandum for the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) Candidates on the Comelec's Resolution of December 11, 1978, a xerox copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Annex 2, wherein they discussed the following topics: (I) Brief History of the President Case; (II) Summary of Our Position and Submission Before the Honorable commission; and (III) KBL's

Appeal Ad Cautelam. And the fourth topic, because of its relevance to the case now before this Honorable Court, we hereby quote for ready reference: IV OUR POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE ESOLUTION OF THE HONORABLE COMMISSION OF DECEMBER 11, 1978 We respectfully submit that the Resolution of this case by this Honorable Commission should be limited to the precincts and municipalities involved in the KB'S Petitions in Cases Nos. 78-8 to 78-12, on which evidence had been submitted by the parties, and on which the KB submitted the reports of their handwritingprint. Furthermore, it should be limited by the appeal of the KB. For under the Supreme Court Resolution of May 23, 1978, original jurisdiction was given to the Board, with appeal to this Honorable CommissionConsiderations of other matters beyond these would be, in our humble opinion, without jurisdiction. For the present, we beg to inform this Honorable Commission that we stand by the reports and findings of the COMELEC/NBI experts as submitted by them to the Regional Board of Canvassers and as confirmed by the said Regional Board of Canvassers in its Resolution of July 11, 1978, giving the 8 KBL candidates the majorities we have already above mentioned. The Board did more than make a summary scrutiny of the records' required by the Supreme Court Resolution, Guideline No. 5, of May 23, 1978. Hence, if for lack of material time we cannot file any Memorandum within

the non-extendible period of seven (7) days, we would just stand by said COMELEC/NBI experts' reports to the Regional Board, as confirmed by the Board (subject to our appeal ad cautelam). The COMELEC sent to the parties copies of the reports of the NBI-COMELEC experts. For lack of material time due to the voluminous reports and number of voting centers involved, the Christmas holidays, and our impression that the COMELEC will exercise only its appellate jurisdiction, specially as per resolution of this Honorable Court of May 23, 1978 (in G.R. No. L48097), we, the KBL, did not comment any more on said reports. (Pp. 5-6, Record, L-49717-21.) On January 13, 1979, the Comelec rendered its resolution being assailed in these cases, declaring the final result of the canvass to be as follows: CANDIDATES VALDEZ, Estanislao DIMAPORO, Abdullah AMPARO, Jesus BADOY, Anacleto BAGA, Tomas PANGANDAMAN , Sambolayan SINSUAT, Blah VOTES 319,514 289.751 286,180 285,985 271,473 271,393 269,905

ROLDAN, Ernesto MANDANGAN, Linang TACAO, Sergio DIAZ, Ciscolario ARATUC, Tomatic LEGASPI, Bonifacio TAMULA, Fred GURO, Mangontawar LOMA, Nemesio (Page 14, Record, L-4970509.) It is alleged in the Aratuc petition that:

268,287 251,226 229,124 187,986 183,316 178,564 177,270 163,449 129,450

The Comelec committee grave abuse of dicretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction: 1. In not pursuing further the examination of the registration records and voting records from the other voting centers questioned by petitioners after it found proof of massive substitute voting in all of the voting records and registration records examined by Comelec and NBI experts;

2. In including in the canvass returns from the voting centers whose book of voters and voting records could not be recovered by the Commission in spite of its repeated efforts to retrieve said records; 3. In not excluding from the canvass returns from voting centers showing a very high percentage of voting and in not considering that high percentage of voting, coupled with massive substitution of voters is proof of manufacturing of election returns; 4. In denying petitioners' petition for the opening of the ballot boxes from voting centers whose records are not available for examination to determine whether or not there had been voting in said voting centers; 5. In not Identifying the ballot boxes that had no padlocks and especially those that were found to be empty while they were shipped to Manila pursuant to the directive of the Commission in compliance with the guidelines of this Honorable Court; 6. In not excluding from the canvass returns where the results of examination of the voting records and registration records show that the thumbprints of the voters in CE Form 5 did not correspond to those of the registered voters as shown in CE Form 1; 7. In giving more credence to the affidavits of chairmen and members of the voting centers, municipal treasurers and other election officials in the voting centers where irregularities had been committed and not giving credence to the affidavits of watchers of petitioners;

8. In not including among those questioned before the Board by petitioners those included among the returns questioned by them in their Memorandum filed with the Commission on April 26, 1978, which Memorandum was attached as Annex 'I' to their petition filed with this Honorable Court G.R. No. L-48097 and which the Supreme Court said in its Guidelines should be considered by the Board in the course of the canvass (Guidelines No. 4). (Pp. 15-16, Record, Id.) On the other hand, the Mandangan petition submits that the Comelec comitted the following errors: 1. In erroneously applying the earlier case of Diaz vs. Commission on Elections (November 29, 1971; 42 SCRA 426), and particularly the highly restrictive criterion that when the votes obtained by the candidates with the highest number of votes exceed the total number of highest possible valid votes, the COMELEC ruled to exclude from the canvass the election return reflecting such rests, under which the COMELEC excluded 1,004 election returns, involving around 100,000 votes, 95 % of which are for KBL candidates, particularly the petitioner Linang Mandangan, and which rule is so patently unfair, unjust and oppressive. 2. In not holding that the real doctrine in the Diaz Case is not the total exclusion of election returns simply because the total number of votes exceed the total number of highest possible valid votes, but 'even if all the votes cast by persons Identified as registered voters were added to the votes cast by persons who can not be definitely ascertained as registered or not, and granting, ad arguendo, that all of them voted for respondent Daoas, still the resulting total is much below

the number of votes credited to the latter in returns for Sagada, 'and that 'of the 2,188 ballots cast in Sagada, nearly one-half (1,012) were cast by persons definitely Identified as not registered therein or still more than 40 % of substitute voting which was the rule followed in the later case of Bashier/Basman (Diaz Case, November 19,1971,42 SCRA 426,432). 3. In not applying the rule and formula in the later case of Bashier and Basman vs. Commission on Election (February 24, 1972, 43 SCRA 238) which was the one followed by the Regional Board of Canvassers, to wit: In Basman vs Comelec (L-33728, Feb. 24, 1972) the Supreme Court upheld the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Commission setting the standard of 40 % excess votes to justify the exclusion of election returns. In line with the above ruling, the Board of Canvassers may likewise set aside election returns with 40 % substitute votes. Likewise, where excess voting occured and the excess was such as to destroy the presumption of innocent mistake, the returns was excluded. (COMELEC'S Resolution, Annex I hereof, p. 22), which this Honorable Court must have meant when its Resolution of May 23, 1978 (G.R. No. 7), it referred to "massive substitution of voters. 4. In examining, through the NBI/COMELEC experts, the records in more than 878 voting centers examined by the KB experts and passed upon by the Regional Board of Canvassers which was all that was within its appellate jurisdiction is examination of more election

records to make a total of 1,085 voting centers (COMELEC'S Resolution, Annex 1 hereof, p. 100), being beyond its jurisdiction and a denial of due process as far as the KBL, particularly the petitioner Mandangan, were concerned because they were informed of it only on December, 1978, long after the case has been submitted for decision in September, 1978; and the statement that the KBL acquiesced to the same is absolutely without foundation. 5. In excluding election returns from areas where the conditions of peace and order were allegedly unsettled or where there was a military operation going on immediately before and during election and where the voter turn out was high (90 % to 100 %), and where the people had been asked to evacuate, as a ruling without jurisdiction and in violation of due process because no evidence was at all submitted by the parties before the Regional Board of Canvasssers. (Pp. 23-25, Record, L47917-21.) Now before discussing the merits of the foregoing contentions, it is necessary to clarify first the nature and extent of the Supreme Court's power of review in the premises. The Aratuc petition is expressly predicated on the ground that respondent Comelec "committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction" in eight specifications. On the other hand, the Mandangan petition raises pure questions of law and jurisdiction. In other words, both petitions invoked the Court's certiorari jurisdiction, not its appellate authority of review. This is as it should be. While under the Constitution of 1935, "the decisions, orders and rulings of the Commission shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court" (Sec. 2, first paragraph, Article X) and pursuant to the Rules of Court, the petition for "certiorari or

review" shall be on the ground that the Commission "has decided a question of substance not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way not in accord with law or the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court" (Sec. 3. Rule 43), and such provisions refer not only to election contests but even to pre-proclamation proceedings, the 1973 Constitution provides somewhat differently thus: "Any decision, order or ruling of the Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from his receipt of a copy thereof" (Section 11, Article XII c), even as it ordains that the Commission shall "be the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all members of the National Assembly and elective provincial and city official" (Section 2(2).) Correspondingly, the ElectionCode of 1978, which is the first legislative constructionof the pertinent constitutional provisions, makes the Commission also the "sole judge of all preproclamation controversies" and further provides that "any of its decisions, orders or rulings (in such contoversies) shall be final and executory", just as in election contests, "the decision of the Commission shall be final, and executory and inappealable." (Section 193) It is at once evident from these constitutional and statutory modifications that there is a definite tendency to enhance and invigorate the role of the Commission on Elections as the independent constitutinal body charged with the safeguarding of free, peaceful and honest elections. The framers of the new Constitution must be presumed ot have definite knowledge of what it means to make the decisions, orders and rulings of the Commission "subject to review by the Supreme Court". And since instead of maintaining that provision intact, it ordained that the Commission's actuations be instead "brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari", We cannot insist that there was no intent to

change the nature of the remedy, considering that the limited scope of certiorari, compared to a review, is well known in remedial law. Withal, as already stated, the legislative construction of the modified peritinent constitutional provision is to the effect that the actuations of the Commission are final, executory and even inappealable. While such construction does not exclude the general certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which inheres in it as the final guardian of the Constitution, particularly, of its imperious due process mandate, it correspondingly narrows down the scope and extent of the inquiry the Court is supposed to undertake to what is strictly the office of certiorari as distinguished from review. We are of the considered opinion that the statutory modifications are consistent with the apparent new constitional intent. Indeed, it is obvious that to say that actuations of the Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari technically connotes something less than saying that the same "shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court", when it comes to the measure of the Court's reviewing authority or prerogative in the premises. A review includes digging into the merits and unearthing errors of judgment, while certiorari deals exclusively with grave abuse of discretion, which may not exist even when the decision is otherwise erroneous. certiorari implies an indifferent disregard of the law, arbitrariness and caprice, an omission to weight pertinent considerations, a decision arrived at without rational deliberation. While the effecdts of an error of judgment may not differ from that of an indiscretion, as a matter of policy, there are matters taht by their nature ought to be left for final determination to the sound discretion of certain officers or entities, reserving it to the Supreme Court to insure the faithful observance of due process only in cases of patent arbitrariness.

Such, to Our mind, is the constitutional scheme relative to the Commission on Elections. Conceived by the charter as the effective instrument to preserve the sanctity of popular suffrage, endowed with independence and all the needed concommittant powers, it is but proper that the Court should accord the greatest measure of presumption of regularity to its course of action and choice of means in performing its duties, to the end that it may achieve its designed place in the democratic fabric of our government. Ideally, its members should be free from all suspicions of partisan inclinations, but the fact that actually some of them have had stints in the arena of politics should not, unless the contrary is shown, serve as basis for denying to its actuations the respect and consideration that the Constitution contemplates should be accorded to it, in the same manner that the Supreme Court itself which from time to time may have members drawn from the political ranks or even from military is at all times deemed insulated from every degree or form of external pressure and influence as well as improper internal motivations that could arise from such background or orientation. We hold, therefore that under the existing constitution and statutory provisions, the certiorari jurisdiction of the Court over orders, and decisions of the Comelec is not as broad as it used to be and should be confined to instances of grave abuse of discretion amounting to patent and substantial denial of due process. Accordingly, it is in this light that We the opposing contentions of the parties in this cases. THE MANDANGAN CASE Being more simple in Our view, We shall deal with the petition in G.R. No. L-49717-21 first. The errors assigned in this petition boil down to two main propositions, namely, (1) that it was an error of law on the part of respondent Comelec to have applied to the extant circumstances

hereof the ruling of this Court in Diaz vs. Comelec 42 SCRA 426 instead of that of Bashier vs. Comelec 43 SCRA 238; and (2) that respondent Comelec exceeded its jurisdiction and denied due process to petitioner Mandangan in extending its inquiry beyond the election records of "the 878 voting centers examined by the KB experts and passed upon by the Regional Board of Canvassers" and in excluding from the canvass the returns showing 90 to 100 % voting, from voting centers where military operations were by the Army to be going on, to the extent that said voting centers had to be transferred to the poblaciones the same being by evidence. Anent the first proposition, it must be made clear that the Diaz and Bashier rulings are not mutually exclusive of each other, each being an outgrowth of the basic rationale of statistical improbability laid down in Lagumbay vs. Comelec and , 16 SCRA 175. Whether they be apply together or separately or which of them be applied depends on the situation on hand. In the factual milieu of the instant case as found by the Comelec, We see no cogent reason, and petitioner has not shown any, why returns in voting centers showing that the votes of the candidate obtaining highest number of votes of the candidate obtaining the highest number of votes exceeds the highest possible number of valid votes cast therein should not be deemed as spurious and manufactured just because the total number of excess votes in said voting centers were not more than 40 %. Surely, this is not the occasion, consider the historical antecedents relative to the highly questionable manner in which elections have been bad in the past in the provinces herein involved, of which the Court has judicial notice as attested by its numerous decisions in cases involving practically every such election, of the Court to move a whit back from the standards it has enunciated in those decisions. In regard to the jurisdictional and due process points raised by herein petitioner, it is of decisive importance to bear in mind that

under Section 168 of the Revised Election Code of 1978, "the Commission (on Elections) shall have direct control and supervision on over the board of canvassers" and that relatedly, Section 175 of the same Code provides that it "shall be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies." While nominally, the procedure of bringing to the Commission objections to the actuations of boards of canvassers has been quite loosely referred to in certain quarters, even by the Commission and by this Court, such as in the guidelines of May 23,1978 quoted earlier in this opinion, as an appeal, the fact of the matter is that the authority of the Commission in reviewing such actuations does not spring from any appellate jurisdiction conferred by any specific provision of law, for there is none such provision anywhere in the Election Code, but from the plenary prerogative of direct control and supervision endowed to it by the abovequoted provisions of Section 168. And in administrative law, it is a too well settled postulate to need any supporting citation here, that a superior body or office having supervision and control over another may do directly what the latter is supposed to do or ought to have done. Consequently, anything said in Lucman vs. Dimaporo, 33 SCRA 387, cited by petitioner, to the contrary notwithstanding, We cannot fault respondent Comelec for its having extended its inquiry beyond that undertaken by the Board of Canvass On the contrary, it must be stated that Comelec correctly and commendably asserted its statutory authority born of its envisaged constitutional duties vis-a-vis the preservation of the purity of elections and electoral processes and p in doing what petitioner it should not have done. Incidentally, it cannot be said that Comelec went further than even what Aratuc et al. have asked, since said complaints had impugned from the outset not only the returns from the 878 voting centers examined by their experts but all those mentioned in their complaints in the election cases filed originally with the Comelec enumerated in the opening

statements hereof, hence respondent Comelec had that much field to work on. The same principle should apply in respect to the ruling of the Commission regarding the voting centers affected by military operations. It took cognizance of the fact, not considered by the board of canvass, that said voting centers had been transferred to the poblaciones. And, if only for purposes of pre-proclamation proceedings, We are persuaded it did not constitute a denial of due process for the Commission to have taken into account, without the need or presentation of evidence by the parties, a matter so publicly notorious as the unsettled situation of peace and order in localities in the provinces herein involved that their may perhaps be taken judicial notice of, the same being capable of unquestionable demonstration. (See 1, Rule 129) In this connection, We may as well perhaps, say here as later that regrettably We cannot, however, go along with the view, expressed in the dissent of our respected Chief Justice, that from the fact that some of the voting centers had been transferred to the poblaciones there is already sufficient basis for Us to rule that the Commission should have also subjected all the returns from the other voting centers of the some municipalities, if not provinces, to the same degree of scrutiny as in the former. The majority of the Court feels that had the Commission done so, it would have fallen into the error by petitioner Mandangan about denial of due process, for it is relatively unsafe to draw adverse conclusions as to the exact conditions of peace and order in those other voting centers without at list some prima facie evidence to rely on considering that there is no allegation, much less any showing at all that the voting centers in question are so close to those excluded by the Comelec on as to warrant the inescapable conclusion that the relevant circumstances by the Comelec as obtaining in the latter were Identical to those in the former.

Premises considered the petition in G.R. Nos. L-49717-21 is hereby dismiss for lack of merit. THE ARATUC ET AL. PETITION Of the eight errors assigned by herein petitioners earlier adverted to, the seventh and the sight do not require any extended disquisition. As to the issue of whether the elections in the voting centers concerned were held on April 7, 1978, the date designated by law, or earlier, to which the seventh alleged error is addressed, We note that apparently petitioners are not seriously pressing on it anymore, as evidenced by the complete absence of any reference thereto during the oral argument of their counsel and the practically cavalier discussion thereof in the petition. In any event, We are satisfied from a careful review of the analysis by the Comelec in its resolution now before Us that it took pains to consider as meticulously as the nature of the evidence presented by both parties would permit all the contentions of petitioners relative to the weight that should be given to such evidence. The detailed discussion of said evidence is contained in not less than nineteen pages (pp. 70-89) of the resolution. In these premises, We are not prepared to hold that Comelec acted wantonly and arbitrarily in drawing its conclusions adverse to petitioners' position. If errors there are in any of those conclusions, they are errors of judgment which are not reviewable in certiorari, so long as they are founded on substantial evidence. As to eighth assigned error. the thrust of respondents, comment is that the results in the voting centers mentioned in this assignment of error had already been canvassed at the regional canvass center in Cotabato City. Again, We cannot say that in sustaining the board of canvassers in this regard, Comelec gravely abused its discretion, if only because in the guidelines set by this Court, what appears to have been referred to is, rightly or wrongly, the resumption only of the canvass, which does not necessarily

include the setting aside and repetition of the canvass already made in Cotabato City. The second and fourth assignments of error concern the voting centers the corresponding voters' record (C.E. Form 1) and record of voting, (C.E. Form 5) of which have never been brought to Manila because they, were not available The is not clear as to how many are these voting centers. According to petitioners they are 501, but in the Comelec resolution in question, the number mentioned is only 408, and this number is directly challenged in the petition. Under the second assignment, it is contended that the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in including in the canvass the election returns from these voting centers and, somewhat alternatively, it is alleged as fourth assignment that the petitioners motion for the opening of the ballot boxes pertaining to said voting centers was arbitraly denied by respondent Comelec. The resolution under scrutiny explains the situation that confronted the Commission in regard to the 408 voting centers reffered to as follows : The Commission had the option of excluding from the canvass the election returns under category. By deciding to exclude, the Commission would be summarily disenfranchising the voters registered in the voting centers affected without any basis. The Commission could also order the inclusion in the canvass of these elections returns under the injunction of the Supreme Court that extremes caution must be exercised in rejecting returns unless these are palpably irregular. The Commission chose to give prima facie validity to the election returns mentioned and uphold the votes cast by the voters in those areas. The Commission held the view that the failure of some election officials to comply with Commission orders(to

submit the records) should not parties to such official disobedience. In the case of Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez, 39 Phil. 208, the Supreme Court ruled that when voters have honestly cast their ballots, the same should not be nullified because the officers appointed under the law to direct the election and guard the purity of the ballot have not complied with their duty. (cited in Laurel on Elections, p. 24) On page 14 of the comment of the Solicitor General, however, it is stated that: At all events, the returns corresponding to these voting centers were examined by the Comelec and 141 of such returns were excluded, as follows: SUMMARY PROVINCE Lanao del Norte Lanao del Sur TOTAL 30 342 EXCLUDED INCLUDED 137 1 1 2 141 30 205 20 6 10 271

Maguindanao 21 North Cotabato Sultan Kudarat totals ----(Page 301, Record.) 7 12 412

This assertion has not been denied by petitioners. Thus, it appears that precisely use of the absence or unavailability of the CE Forms 1 and 5 corresponding to the more than 400 voting centers concerned in our present discussion the Comelec examined the returns from said voting centers to determine their trustworthiness by scrutinizing the purported relevant data appearing on their faces, believing that such was the next best thing that could be done to avoid total disenfranchisement of the voters in all of them On the Other hand, Petitioners' insist that the right thing to do was to order the opening of the ballot boxes involved. In connection with such opposing contentions, Comelec's explanation in its resolution is: ... The commission had it seen fit to so order, could have directed the opening of the ballot boxes. But the Commission did not see the necessity of going to such length in a that was in nature and decided that there was sufficient bases for the revolution of the appeal. That the Commission has discretion to determine when the ballot boxes should be opened is implicit in the guidelines set by the Supreme Court which states that '. . . the ballot bones [which] shall be opened only upon orders of either the respondent Board or respondent Commission, after the need therefor has become evident ... ' (guideline No. 3; emphasissupplied). Furthermore, the Court on June 1, 1978, amended the guidelines that the "ballot boxes for the voting centers ... need not be taken to Manila EXCEPT those of the centers as to which the petitioners have the right to demand that the corresponding ballot boxes be opened ... provided that the voting centers concerned shall be specified and made known by petitioners to the

Regional Board of Canvassers not later than June 3,1978 ... ' (Emphasis supplied). The KB, candidates did not take advantage of the option granted them under these guidelines.( Pp 106-107, Record.) Considering that Comelec, if it had wished to do so, had the facilities to Identify on its own the voting centers without CE Forms I and 5, thereby precluding the need for the petitioners having to specify them, and under the circumstances the need for opening the ballot boxes in question should have appeared to it to be quite apparent, it may be contended that Comelec would have done greater service to the public interest had it proceeded to order such opening, as it had announced it had thoughts of doing in its resolution of August 30, 1978. On the other hand, We cannot really blame the Commission too much, since the exacting tenor of the guidelines issued by Us left it with very little elbow room, so to speak, to use its own discretion independently of what We had ordered. What could have saved matters altogether would have been a timely move on the part of petitioners on or before June 3, 1978, as contemplated in Our resolution. After all come to think of it, that the possible outcome of the opening of the ballot boxes would favor the petitioners was not a certainty the contents them could conceivably boomerang against them, such as, for example, if the ballots therein had been found to be regular and preponderantly for their opponents. Having in mind that significantly, petitioners filed their motion for only on January 9, 1979, practically on the eve of the promulgation of the resolution, We hold that by having adhered to Our guidelines of June 1, 1978, Comelec certainly cannot be held to be guilty of having gravely abused its discretion, in examining and passing on the returns from the voting centers reffered to in the second and fourth assignments of error in the canvass or in denying petitioners' motion for the of the ballot boxes concerned.

The first, third and sixth assignment of involve related matters and maybe discussed together. They all deal with the inclusion in or exclusion from the canvass of returns on the basis of the percentage of voting in specified voting centers and the corresponding findings of the Comelec on the extent of substitute voting therein as indicated by the result of either the technical examination by experts of the signatures and thumb-prints of the voters threat. To begin with, petitioners' complaint that the Comelec did not examine and study 1,694 of the records in an the 2,775 voting centers questioned by them is hardly accurate. To be more exact, the Commission excluded a total of 1,267 returns coming under four categories namely: 1,001 under the Diaz, supra, ruling, 79 because of 90-100 % turnout of voters despite military operations, 105 palpably manufactured owe and 82 returns excluded by the board of canvass on other grounds. Thus, 45.45 % of the of the petitioners were sustained by the Comelec. In contrast, in the board of canvassers, only 453 returns were excluded. The board was reversed as to 6 of these, and 821 returns were excluded by Comelec over and above those excluded by the board. In other words, the Comelec almost doubled the exclusions by the board. Petitioners would give the impression by their third assignment of error that Comelec refused to consider high percentage of voting, coupled with mass substitute voting, as proof that the pertinent returns had been manufactured. That such was not the case is already shown in the above specifications. To add more, it can be gleaned from the resolution that in t to the 1,065 voting centers in Lanao del Sur and Marawi City where a high percentage of voting appeared, the returns from the 867 voting centers were excluded by the Comelec and only 198 were included a ratio of roughly 78 % to 22 %. The following tabulation drawn from the figures in the resolution shows how the Comelec went over those returns center by center and acted on them individually:

90% 100% VOTING MARAWI CITY AND LANAO DEL SUR NO. OF V/C THAT V/C WITH 90% to 100% MUNICIPALITIES FUNCTIONED VOTING N o . o f V / C Mara wi City Baco lod Gran de Bala baga n Balin dong Baya ng Binid ayan 1 5 1 2 8 1 1 2 2 8 E x c l u d e d 1 0 7 2 7 I n c l u d e d 5

5 3 2 2 2 9 3 7

5 3 2 2 2 0 3 3

4 9 1 5 1 3 2 9

7 7 4

Buad ipos o Bunt on Bubo ng Bum bara n

4 1

1 0

1 0

2 4 2 1 ( A ll e x cl u d e d ) 3 5 2 3 4 2

2 3

2 1

Butig Cala noga s Ditsa anRam ain Gan assi

3 3 2 1 3 9

3 2 2 1 3 8

1 0

3 9

3 8

2 3

1 5

Lum ba Baya bao Lum bata n Lum baya nagu e Mad alum Mad amb a Mag uing Mala bang Mara ntao Maru gong Masi

6 4

6 3

4 7

1 6

3 0 3 7

2 8 3 3

1 7 2 8

1 1 5

1 4 2 0 5 7 5 9 7 9 3 7 2

1 3 2 0 5 5 4 7 6 3 3 5 2

6 5

7 1 5 2 4 2 2 2 3 2

5 3 5

4 1 3 2 2

u Paga yawa n Piag apo Poon aBaya bao Pual as Sagu iaran Sulta n Gum ande r Tam para n Tara ka Tuba ran TOT

7 1 5 3 9 4 4

6 1 3 3 9 4 4

4 9 4

3 6 4 2

3 2

2 3 3 6 3 5

2 0 3 2 3 1

2 0 2 1 3 1

0 1 1 0

2 4 3 1 2 3

2 1 3 1 1 9

1 5 3 1 1 9

0 0

ALS: Mara wi & Lana o del Sur 1 , 2 1 8 1 , 0 6 5 8 6 7 1 9 8

We are convinced, apart from presuming regularity in the performance of its duties, that there is enough showing in the record that it did examine and study the returns and pertinent records corresponding to all the 2775 voting centers subject of petitioners' complaints below. In one part of its resolution the Comelec states: The Commission as earlier stated examined on its own the Books of Voters (Comelec Form No. 1) and the Voters Rewards Comelec Form No. 5) to determine for itself which of these elections form needed further examination by the COMELEC-NBI experts. The Commission, aware of the nature of this preproclamation controversy, believes that it can decide, using common sense and perception, whether the election forms in controversy needed further examination by the experts based on the presence or absence of patent signs of irregularity. (Pp. 137-138, Record.) In the face of this categorical assertion of fact of the Commission, the bare charge of petitioners that the records pertaining to the 1,694 voting centers assailed by them should not create any ripple of serious doubt. As We view this point under discussion, what is more factually accurate is that those records complained

of were not examined with the aid of experts and that Comelec passed upon the returns concerned "using common sense and perception only." And there is nothing basically objectionable in this. The defunct Presidential Senate and House Electoral Tribunals examine passed upon and voided millions of votes in several national elections without the assistance of experts and "using" only common sense and perception". No one ever raised any eyebrows about such procedure. Withal, what we discern from the resolution is that Comelec preliminary screened the records and whatever it could not properly pass upon by "using common sense and perception" it left to the experts to work on. We might disagree with he Comelec as to which voting center should be excluded or included, were We to go over the same records Ourselves, but still a case of grave abuse of discretion would not come out, considering that Comelec cannot be said to have acted whimsically or capriciously or without any rational basis, particularly if it is considered that in many respects and from the very nature of our respective functions, becoming candor would dictate to Us to concede that the Commission is in a better position to appreciate and assess the vital circumstances closely and accurately. By and large, therefore, the first, third and sixth assignments of error of the petitioners are not well taken. The fifth assignment of error is in Our view moot and academic. The Identification of the ballot boxes in defective condition, in some instances open and allegedly empty, is at best of secondary import because, as already discussed, the records related thereto were after all examined, studied and passed upon. If at all, deeper inquiry into this point would be of real value in an electoral protest. CONCLUSION Before closing, it may not be amiss to state here that the Court had initially agreed to dispose of the cases in a minute resolution, without prejudice to an extended or reasoned out opinion later, so

that the Court's decision may be known earlier. Considering, however, that no less than the Honorable Chief Justice has expressed misgivings as to the propriety of yielding to the conclusions of respondent Commission because in his view there are strong considerations warranting farther meticulous inquiry of what he deems to be earmarks of seemingly traditional faults in the manner elections are held in the municipalities and provinces herein involved, and he is joined in this pose by two other distinguished colleagues of Ours, the majority opted to ask for more time to put down at least some of the important considerations that impelled Us to see the matters in dispute the other way, just as the minority bidded for the opportunity to record their points of view. In this manner, all concerned will perhaps have ample basis to place their respective reactions in proper perspective. In this connection, the majority feels it is but meet to advert to the following portion of the ratiocination of respondent Board of Canvassers adopted by respondent Commission with approval in its resolution under question: First of all this Board was guided by the legal doctrine that canvassing boards must exercise "extreme caution" in rejecting returns and they may do so only when the returns are palpably irregular. A conclusion that an election return is obviously manufactured or false and consequently should be disregarded in the canvass must be approached with extreme caution, and only upon the most convincing proof. Any plausible explanation one which is acceptable to a reasonable man in the light of experience and of the probabilities of the situation, should suffice to avoid outright nullification, with the resulting t of those who exercised their right of suffrage. (Anni vs. Isquierdo et at L-35918, Jude 28,1974; Villavon v. Comelec L-32008, August

31,1970; Tagoranao v. Comelec 22 SCRA 978). In the absence of strong evidence establishing the spuriousness of the return, the basis rule of their being accorded prima facie status as bona fide reports of the results of the count of the votes for canvassing and proclamation purposes must be applied, without prejudice to the question being tried on the merits with the presentation of evidence, testimonial and real in the corresponding electoral protest. (Bashier vs. Comelec L-33692, 33699, 33728, 43 SCRA 238, February 24, 1972). The decisive factor is that where it has been duly de ed after investigation and examination of the voting and registration records hat actual voting and election by the registered voters had taken place in the questioned voting centers, the election returns cannot be disregarded and excluded with the resting disenfranchisement of the voters, but must be accorded prima facie status as bona fide reports of the results of the voting for canvassing and registration purposes. Where the grievances relied upon is the commission of irregularities and violation of the Election Law the proper remedy is election protest. (Anni vs. Isquierdo et al. Supra). (P. 69, Record, L-49705-09). The writer of this opinion has taken care to personally check on the citations to be doubly sure they were not taken out of context, considering that most, if not all of them arose from similar situations in the very venues of the actual milieu of the instant cases, and We are satisfied they do fit our chosen posture. More importantly, they actually came from the pens of different members of the Court, already retired or still with Us, distinguished by their perspicacity and their perceptive prowess. In the context of the constitutional and legislative intent expounded at the outset of this opinion and evident in the modifications of the duties and responsibilities of the Commission

on Elections vis-a-vis the matters that have concerned Us herein, particularly the elevation of the Commission as the "sole judge of pre-proclamation controversies" as well as of all electoral contests, We find the afore-quoted doctrines compelling as they reveal through the clouds of existing jurisprudence the pole star by which the future should be guided in delineating and circumscribing separate spheres of action of the Commission as it functions in its equally important dual role just indicated bearing as they do on the purity and sanctity of elections in this country. In conclusion, the Court finds insufficient merit in the petition to warrant its being given due course. Petition dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs. Justices Fernando, Antonio and Guerrero who are presently on official missions abroad voted for such dismissal. Fernando, Antonio, Concepcion Jr., Santos Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur. Teehankee, J. took no part. Aquino and Abad Santos, Jr., took no part.

Separate Opinions

CASTRO, C.J., dissenting: 1

At the outset I must state that constraints of time effectively prevent me from writing an extended dissent. Hence, this abbreviated exposition of my views. For a clear understanding of the issues, a summary of the essential events relative to these cases is necessary. On April 7, 1978, elections of representatives to the Batasang Pambansa were held throughout the Philippines. The cases at bar concern only the results of the elections in Region XII (Central Mindanao) which compromises the p s Of Lanao del Sur, Lanao del Norte, Maguindanao, North Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat, and the cities of Marawi, Iligan and Cotabato. (The entire Region had a total of 4,107 voting center but only 3,984 were functions). On June 11, 1978, the Region Board of Canvassers issued a resolution, Over the objection of the Konsensiya ng Bayan (KB) candidates d all the eight Kilusang ng Bagong Lipunan (KBL) candidates elected. Appeal was taken by the KB candidates to the On January 13, 1979, the Comelec its questioned resolution KBL can candidates and one KB candidate as having obtained the first eight places, and ordering the Regional Board of Can to p the winning candidates. The KB candidate forewith the present petition ; in due time the respondents filed their comments. Oral argument was had before the Court for two days, specifically on January 31 and February 1, 1979. Atty. Lino Patajo argued for and in behalf of the KB candidates, Assemblyman Estanislao Fernandez for the KBL and the private respondents and Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza for the public respondents. The Court subjected the three counsels to intensive interrogation. The cases were then sub. muted for decision in the afternoon of February 1. 2

I have carefully read the entire record, more particularly the Comelec resolution of January 13, 1979, and I must confess that until now my mind cannot rest easy on a number of questions sharply in issue, some of which are hereunder briefly discussed. a. After the Comelec examined very closely the voting returns, books of voting and voting records from 1, 116 voting centers protested by the KB candidates, to the extent of subjecting them to detailed documentary examination and finger print comparison by Comelec experts, and thereafter annulled 31.84% of the votes cast, why did it refuse to proceed to subject all the records of the remaining 1,659 voting centers protested by the KB candidates to the same manner of close scrutiny? b. Why did not the Comelec examine, utilizing the same meticulous method, similar documents and records appertaining to a total of 164 voting centers in Lanao del Sur and 19 voting centers in Lanao del Nortetwo provinces where concededly there had been military operationsand an additional number of voting centers in the other provinces, all of which registered a 100 % turnout of voters? The peace and order conditions in the two cities of Iligan and Cotabato on the day of the elections were normal and yet the total percentages of voting were only 73 % and 52 %, lively. How then can the Comelec explained why and how in many voting centers located in areas where there had been military operations there was a voting turnout of 100 %? Assuming that the KB candidates did not call the attention of the Comelecalthough they actually didto the stark improbability of 100 % vote turnout in the said places, because the peace and order conditions were far from normal it perforce devolved on the Comelec to conduct, motu propio, an in-depth and full-blown inquiry into this paradox. The record shows that there was l00 % voting in the whole of each of three municipalities, over 99 % viting in each of thirteen other municipalities, and an average 97 % turnout in five more municipalities. Of inescapable significance

is the fact that most of these municipalities are located in the provinces of Lanao del Sur and Lanao del Norte, the past election history of which is replete with the perpetration of massive frauds, terrorism and scandalous substitutions of voters. c. Why did the Comelec deny the motion of the KB candidates for the opening of ballot boxes Pertaining to a total of 408 voting centers the voting record of which were not available as they had somehow mysteriously disappeared to determine whether or not the election in each of the said voting centers was a sham? This remedial measure was resorted to by the Comelec in 1969 when it Order the opening of a number of ballot boxes in the preproclamation contest in Lucman vs. Dimaporo in order to see whether or not there were ballots, and determine whether there had been an actual election in each of the disputed precincts. In that case to almost 200 ballot boxes found to be without padlocks? 3 Of incalculable significance is the abscence of any statement in the Comelec resolution that indicates that, granting that all the questions I have above raised would be resolved in favor of the KB candidates, the election results would not be materially altered.Upon the other hand , the KB candidates state categorically, with benefit of extrapolation, that the election results would be considerably changed in their favor. 4 The majority of my brethren anchor their denial of the petition on two principal grounds, namely: a. The issues raised by the KB candidates would be better and properly ventilated in an election protest; and

b. No grave abuse of discretion is discernible from the actuations of the Comelec. Anent the first ground, it is a notorious fact in the history of Philippine politics that an election protest not only is usually inordinately protracted but as well entails heavy and prohibitive expenditure of time, money and effort on the part of the protestant. More than this, should the protestant in the end win, very little time or none at all is left for him to assume and discharge the duties of his office. In the meantime, the person previously proclaimed elected continues to fraudulently represent the people who had in law and in fact duly elected someone else to represent them. Besides, taking a broad view of the fundamental issues raised by the KB candidates, I am of the opinion that resolution of these issues by the Comelec would not take more than six months of conscientious laborand surely this period is short, very short indeed, compared to the time that win be wasted by the Comelec in deciding a formal electoral protest. Is it not time the Supreme Court asserted its powers in order to excise completely the Old Society pernicious evil of "grab the proclamation at all costs"? Anent the second ground, I squarely traverse the statement that no grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the Comelec. The grave misgivings I have above articulated demonstrate what to my mind constitute the size and shape of the remissness of the Comelec. And more compelling and over-riding a consideration than the overwrought technicality of "grave abuse of discretion" is the fundamental matter of the faith of the people of Region XII in the electoral process. There will always be the nagging question in the minds of the voters in that Region as to the legitimacy of those who will be proclaimed elected under the Comelec resolution should the Court refuse to direct that body to continue the meticulous for legitimacy and truth.

5 Upon all the foregoing, it behooves the Court to remand these cases to the Comelec, with the direction that body immediately convene and within an unextendible period and as speedily as possible, resolve with definitiveness all the questions I have above posed, under such unequivocal guidelines as the Court may prescribe. For my part, unless and until this is done, I shall continue to enter grave doubt as to the correctness and validity of the results already reached by the Comelec, especially when political history, placed in perspective, pointedly reminds me of the massive frauds, terrorism and scandalous substitutions of voters that have characterized past elections in the two Lanao provinces. DE CASTRO, J., concuring: The present case has afforded Us an early opportunity to examine and define the extent of the power of judicial review as granted to the Supreme Court over any decision, order or ruling of the Commission on Elections under the new Constitution the pertinent provision of which reads: Section 11. Any decision order or ruling of the on may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the party within thirty days from his receipt of a copy thereof XII, Constitution). The Commission on Elections has been granted powers under the new Constitution which, under the old Constitution, belonged either to the legislative body(Electoral Tribunals) or the courts. This evident from the provision of the new Constitution which reads:

(2) Be the sole judge of all contents relating to the elections, returns, and quallifications of all Members of the National Assembly and elective provincial and city officials. (Section 2, Article XII, Constitution). The Commission is thus envisioned to exercise exclusive powers on all electoral matters except the right to vote, such as the enforcement and administration of laws relative to the conduct of elections deciding administrative questions affecting elections, except those involving the right to vote, but also those that heretofore have been agreed as matters for strictly judicial inquiry, such as the hearing and disposition of election contests, as is doubtlessly shown by the transfer thereto of the powers previously conferred upon the Electoral Tribunal of Congress and the Courts. (see Section 2, par. 2, Article XII, New Constitution). This change may properly be viewed as having the intention to relieve the Courts, particularly the Supreme Court, of those burdens placed upon them relating to the conduct of election and matters incident thereto. It could have been, likewise, intended to insulate judicial bodies from the baneful effects of partisan politics, the more deleterious ones being those that could come from the higher mats of political power, such a those in the Assembly and in the provincial and city government levels. It is, therefore, my view that what was intended by the new Constitution is to limit the intervention of the Supreme Court in the acts of the Commission as constitutional body like said Court, but with broadened powers, allocating to it a domain as exclusive as that of the legislative body (which includes the President or Prime Minister) on matters of lawmaking , to that of "judicial inquiry". This power is confined to justifiable questions not of political nature, and always involving alleged violation of constitutional rights or the constitution itself.. For a controversy of a political character, commonly referred to as "Political questions", is excluded from the scope of the Supreme Courts power of judicial

inquiry. 1 The exclusive character of the Power conferred upon the Commission on Elections, and considering that political rights, as distinguished from civil and personal Or Property rights, 2 are for the most part, if not in their totality, the subject of its authority, should counsel an expansive intervention by the Supreme Court in the acts of the Commission on Election. With the confernment of exclusive authority on the electoral process upon it, the Commission may be said to have been given hill discretionary authority, the exercise of which would give rise to a controversy involving a political question. 3 What then is the test or criterion in de whether the Supreme Court may exercise its power under Article XII, Section 11 of the new Constitution? It is my humble submission that the aforecited provision is merely a reassertion of the power of the Supreme Court as guardian of the Constitution and protector of constitutional rights, of which, under no circumstance, could it be deprived, if our present Constitution system is to be maintained. For it is a power constitutionally assigned to it as the essence of the high judicial power of the Supreme Court, for the orderly and salutary apportionment of governmental powers among the different b of the government, as well as the Constitution bodies created to deal more effectively with specific matters requiring governmental actions. Examining the instant petition, nothing reveals itself as raising more than questions merely affecting the conduct of the election held on April 7, 1978, much less a truly constitutional question, aside perhaps from the alegation that the COMELEC undertook an examination of election records beyond those examined during the pendency of the controversy before the Regional Board of Canvassers, allegedly without notice to the petitioners, thus intimating a violation of due process. This particular matter, however, can easily be disposed of by citing the provision of Section 175 of the Electoral Code of 1978 which reads:

... The Commission shall be the sole judge of all preproclamation controversies and any of its decisions, orders or rulings shall be final and executory. It may, motu proprio or upon written petition, and after due notice and heating order the suspension of the proclamation of a candidate-elect or annul any proclamation, if one has been made, on any of the grounds mentioned in Sections 172, 173 and 174 hereof. If the Commission has the power to suspend motu proprio the proclamation of a candidate-elect it must have the power to conduct inquiry into the cause for which it ordains the suspension of the proclamation such as making its own examination of the integrity of election returns or inquiring into any relevant matter affecting the purity of the ballot. Notice is required by the legal provision cited, but this must be notice to the party adversely affected, the candidate-elect whose proclamation is suspended. The action taken by the COMELEC in e additional election documents to those examined by the KB experts during the pendency of the controversy with the Regional Board of Canvassers was, therefore, one of which petitioners cannot be heard, nor have any reason, one of which petitioners cannot be heard, nor have any reason, to complain, for it even resulted in one KB candidate getting into the winners column. If the COMELEC stopped at a certain point in its examination, instead of going through all those questioned by the petitioners, evidently due to time constraint as fixed in the guidelines, set by this Court, and the character of pre-proclamation proceedings , it cannot be charged with abuse of discretion, much less a grave one. it did not have to conduct the additional examination, in the first place. The controversy which was heard and decided in the first instance, by the Regional Board of Canvassers, with guidelines set by this Court, was appealed to the COMELEC. The latter's appellate authority was thus limited to a review of the decision of

the Board on the basis of the evidence presented before it, rendering its own decision on the basis of the evidence, and no more. It incorporated the result of its own examination of additional election returns, and found one KB as one of the candidate, a fact clearly showing that COMELEC did examine the said documents, otherwise , the result as previously declared by the Board of Canvassers with a clean sweep of the KBL candidate would have remained unaltered. Expounding more on the one circumstance inclining me to the theory that with the enlarged power and broadened authority of the COMELEC which to and cover virtually the entire electoral process, as exclusively as the power of legislation is constitutionally lodged in the law-making body, what is given to the Supreme Court as its reviewing authority over acts of the COMELEC is no more than what it could exercise under its power of judicial inquiry with to acts of the legislative body, which is the transfer to the COMELEC of the powers pertaining to the Electoral Tribunals and the courts under the old Constitution over election contests, it must not be hard to concede that with the composition of the electoral tribunals in which six of the justices of the Supreme Court sit in said bodies, the Supreme Court crowd no longer exercise any reviewing authority over the acts of the said electoral tribunals except possibly when violation of the Constitution or constitution rights are involved. With this limited concept of this Court's authority over the defunct electoral tribunals now applied to an equally constitutional body that the COMELEC is that took over the function of the Election Tribunal would hesitate to hold that Supreme Court may grant the relief as in prayed for in the present petition. If this is so under the law and the Constitution, it should also be upon consideration of public policy. The last elections were called by the President as a test or t as to how the vital reforms and changes of political and social discipline and moral values he has

instituted to evolve a new order have affected the thinking and the attitudes of our Tribunal should be extreme caution, if not restraint, in any act on our part that might reflect on the success or failure of that experiment intended, at the time as a big stride in the way back to normalization. This is specially true in the field of politics where the ills of the Old Society has been most grave, because our elections then as a democratic process, have tarnished the image of our country as a representative democracy. Except on very compelling reasons then, which I believe do not exist in the case before Us, should we make any pronouncement that would detract on how successful the last political exercise had been, as the first election held under the new Constitution. We must refrain from imputing to the COMELEC which has been enlarged with fresh mandate and a bigger trust by the Constitution failure in the performance of its functions either by willfull neglect, official incompetence, much less by deliberate partiality, in the first real test of its capability. In the light of the foregoing, I vote, in concurrence with the majority, to dismiss the petition, first, as to the matter allegedly involving a violation of the petitioners' right of due process on the ground that there was no denial thereof, and second, as to the other matters involving no violation of constitutional rights, on the ground they are purely political questions, and that in any case, no grave abuse of discretion has been committed by, much leas is there lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of, the Commission on Elections. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

DECISION May 19, 1903 G.R. No. 1051 THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. FRED L. DORR, ET AL., defendants-appellants. F. G. Waite for appellants. Solicitor-General Araneta for appellee. Ladd, J.: The defendants have been convicted upon a complaint charging them with the offense of writing, publishing, and circulating a scurrilous libel against the Government of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands. The complaint is based upon section 8 of Act No. 292 of the Commission, which is as follows: Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or circulate scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities, or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal such evil practices, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, in the discretion of the court.

The alleged libel was published as an editorial in the issue of the "Manila Freedom" of April 6, 1902, under the caption of "A few hard facts." The Attorney-General in his brief indicates the following passages of the article as those upon which he relies to sustain the conviction: Sidney Adamson, in a late letter in "Leslie's Weekly," has the following to say of the action of the Civil Commission in appointing rascally natives to important Government positions: "It is a strong thing to say, but nevertheless true, that the Civil Commission, through its ex-insurgent office holders, and by its continual disregard for the records of natives obtained during the military rule of the Islands, has, in its distribution of offices, constituted a protectorate over a set of men who should be in jail or deported. . . . [Reference is then made to the appointment of one Tecson as justice of the peace.] This is the kind of foolish work that the Commission is doing all over the Islands, reinstating insurgents and rogues and turning down the men who have during the struggle, at the risk of their lives, aided the Americans." xxx xxx xxx There is no doubt but that the Filipino office holders of the Islands are in a good many instances rascals. xxx xxx xxx The commission has exalted to the highest positions in the Islands Filipinos who are alleged to be notoriously corrupt and rascally, and men of no personal character. xxx xxx xxx

Editor Valdez, of "Miau," made serious charges against two of the native Commissioners charges against Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, which, if true, would brand the man as a coward and a rascal, and with what result? . . . [Reference is then made to the prosecution and conviction of Valdez for libel "under a law which specifies that the greater the truth the greater the libel."] Is it the desire of the people of the United States that the natives against whom these charges have been made (which, if true, absolutely vilify their personal characters) be permitted to retain their seats on the Civil Commission, the executive body of the Philippine Government, without an investigation? xxx xxx xxx It is a notorious fact that many branches of the Government organized by the Civil Commission are rotten and corrupt. The fiscal system, upon which life, liberty, and justice depends, is admitted by the AttorneyGeneral himself to be most unsatisfactory. It is a fact that the Philippine judiciary is far from being what it should. Neither fiscals nor judges can be persuaded to convict insurgents when they wish to protect them. xxx xxx xxx Now we hear all sorts of reports as to rottenness existing in the province [of Tayabas], and especially the northern end of it; it is said that it is impossible to secure the conviction of lawbreakers and outlaws by the native justices, or a prosecution by the native fiscals. xxx xxx xxx The long and short of it is that Americans will not stand for an arbitrary government, especially when evidences of carpetbagging and rumors of graft are too thick to be pleasant. We do not understand that it is claimed that the defendants succeeded in

establishing at the trial the truth of any of the foregoing statements. The only question which we have considered is whether their publication constitutes an offense under section 8 of Act No. 292, above cited. Several allied offenses or modes of committing the same offense are defined in that section, viz: (1) The uttering of seditious words or speeches; (2) the writing, publishing, or circulating of scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands; (3) the writing, publishing, or circulating of libels which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office; (4) or which tend to instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes; (5) or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots; (6) or which tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government; (7) knowingly concealing such evil practices. The complaint appears to be framed upon the theory that a writing, in order to be punishable as a libel under this section, must be of a scurrilous nature and directed against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, and must, in addition, tend to some one of the results enumerated in the section. The article in question is described in the complaint as "a scurrilous libel against the Government of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, which tends to obstruct the lawful officers of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands in the execution of their offices, and which tends to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, and which suggests and incites rebellious conspiracies, and which tends to stir up the people against the lawful authorities, and which disturbs the safety and order of

the Government of the United States and the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands." But it is "a well-settled rule in considering indictments that where an offense may be committed in any of several different modes, and the offense, in any particular instance, is alleged to have been committed in two or more modes specified, it is sufficient to prove the offense committed in any one of them, provided that it be such as to constitute the substantive offense" (Com. vs. Kneeland, 20 Pick., Mass., 206, 215), and the defendants may, therefore, be convicted if any one of the substantive charges into which the complaint may be separated has been made out. We are all, however, agreed upon the proposition that the article in question has no appreciable tendency to "disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing his office," or to "instigate" any person or class of persons "to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes," or to "suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots," or to "stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of the community, the safety and order of the Government." All these various tendencies, which are described in section 8 of Act No. 292, each one of which is made an element of a certain form of libel, may be characterized in general terms as seditious tendencies. This is recognized in the description of the offenses punished by this section, which is found in the title of the act, where they are defined as the crimes of the "seditious utterances, whether written or spoken." Excluding from consideration the offense of publishing "scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands," which may conceivably stand on a somewhat different footing, the offenses punished by this section all consist in inciting, orally or in writing, to acts of disloyalty or disobedience to the

lawfully constituted authorities in these Islands. And while the article in question, which is, in the main, a virulent attack against the policy of the Civil Commission in appointing natives to office, may have had the effect of exciting among certain classes dissatisfaction with the Commission and its measures, we are unable to discover anything in it which can be regarded as having a tendency to produce anything like what may be called disaffection, or, in other words, a state of feeling incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government and obedient to the laws. There can be no conviction, therefore, for any of the offenses described in the section on which the complaint is based, unless it is for the offense of publishing a scurrilous libel against the Government of the of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands kJVLdD. Can the article be regarded as embraced within the description of "scurrilous libels against the Government of the United States or the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands?" In the determination of this question we have encountered great difficulty, by reason of the almost entire lack of American precedents which might serve as a guide in the construction of the law. There are, indeed, numerous English decisions, most of them of the eighteenth century, on the subject of libelous attacks upon the "Government, the constitution, or the law generally," attacks upon the Houses of Parliament, the Cabinet, the Established Church, and other governmental organisms, but these decisions are not now accessible to us, and, if they were, they were made under such different conditions from those which prevail at the present day, and are founded upon theories of government so foreign to those which have inspired the legislation of which the enactment in question forms a part, that they would probably afford but little light in the present inquiry. In England, in the latter part of the eighteenth century,

any "written censure upon public men for their conduct as such," as well as any written censure "upon the laws or upon the institutions of the country," would probably have been regarded as a libel upon the Government. (2 Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England, 348.) This has ceased to be the law in England, and it is doubtful whether it was ever the common law of any American State. "It is true that there are ancient dicta to the effect that any publication tending to "possess the people with an ill opinion of the Government" is a seditious libel (per Holt, C. J., in R. vs. Tuchin, 1704, 5 St. Tr., 532, and Ellenborough, C. J., in R. vs. Cobbett, 1804, 29 How. St. Tr. 49), but no one would accept that doctrine now. Unless the words used directly tend to foment riot or rebellion or otherwise to disturb the peace and tranquility of the Kingdom, the utmost latitude is allowed in the discussion of all public affairs." (11 Enc. of the Laws of England, 450.) Judge Cooley says (Const. Lim., 528): "The English common law rule which made libels on the constitution or the government indictable, as it was administered by the courts, seems to us unsuited to the condition and circumstances of the people of America, and therefore never to have been adopted in the several States." We find no decisions construing the Tennessee statute (Code, sec. 6663), which is apparently the only existing American statute of a similar character to that in question, and from which much of the phraseology of then latter appears to have been taken, though with some essential modifications. The important question is to determine what is meant in section 8 of Act No. 292 by the expression "the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands." Does it mean in a general and abstract sense the existing laws and institutions of the Islands, or does it mean the aggregate of the

individuals by whom the government of the Islands is, for the time being, administered? Either sense would doubtless be admissible. We understand, in modern political science, . . . by the term government, that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are unnecessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them. Government is the aggregate of authorities which rule a society. By "administration, again, we understand in modern times, and especially in more or less free countries, the aggregate of those persons in whose hands the reins of government are for the time being (the chief ministers or heads of departments)." (Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 891.) But the writer adds that the terms "government" and "administration" are not always used in their strictness, and that "government" is often used for "administration." In the act of Congress of July 14, 1798, commonly known as the "Sedition Act," it is made an offense to "write, print, utter, or published," or to "knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the Government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said Government, or either House of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute, or to excite against them or either or any of them the hatred of the good people of the United States," etc. The term "government" would appear to be used here in the abstract sense of the existing political system, as distinguished from the concrete organisms of the Government the Houses of Congress and the Executive

which are also specially mentioned FYsm. Upon the whole, we are of the opinion that this is the sense in which the term is used in the enactment under consideration. It may be said that there can be no such thing as a scurrilous libel, or any sort of a libel, upon an abstraction like the Government in the sense of the laws and institutions of a country, but we think an answer to this suggestion is that the expression "scurrilous libel" is not used in section 8 of Act No. 292 in the sense in which it is used in the general libel law (Act No. 277) that is, in the sense of written defamation of individuals but in the wider sense, in which it is applied in the common law to blasphemous, obscene, or seditious publications in which there may be no element of defamation whatever. "The word 'libel' as popularly used, seems to mean only defamatory words; but words written, if obscene, blasphemous, or seditious, are technically called libels, and the publication of them is, by the law of England, an indictable offense." (Bradlaugh vs. The Queen, 3 Q. B. D., 607, 627, per Bramwell L. J. See Com. vs. Kneeland, 20 Pick., 206, 211.) While libels upon forms of government, unconnected with defamation of individuals, must in the nature of things be of uncommon occurrence, the offense is by no means an imaginary one. An instance of a prosecution for an offense essentially of this nature is Republica vs. Dennie, 4 Yeates (Pa.) 267, where the defendant was indicted "as a factious and seditious person of a wicked mind and unquiet and turbulent disposition and conversation, seditiously, maliciously, and willfully intending, as much as in him lay, to bring into contempt and hatred the independence of the United States, the constitution of this Commonwealth and of the United States, to excite popular discontent

and dissatisfaction against the scheme of polity instituted, and upon trial in the said United States and in the said Commonwealth, to molest, disturb, and destroy the peace and tranquility of the said United States and of the said Commonwealth, to condemn the principles of the Revolution, and revile, depreciate, and scandalize the characters of the Revolutionary patriots and statesmen, to endanger, subvert, and totally destroy the republican constitutions and free governments of the said United States and this Commonwealth, to involve the said United States and this Commonwealth in civil war, desolation, and anarchy, and to procure by art and force a radical change and alteration in the principles and forms of the said constitutions and governments, without the free will, wish, and concurrence of the people of the said United States and this Commonwealth, respectively," the charge being that "to fulfill, perfect, and bring to effect his wicked, seditious, and detestable intentions aforesaid he . . . falsely, maliciously, factiously, and seditiously did make, compose, write, and publish the following libel, to wit; 'A democracy is scarcely tolerable at any period of national history. Its omens are always sinister and its powers are unpropitious. With all the lights or experience blazing before our eyes, it is impossible not to discover the futility of this form of government. It was weak and wicked at Athens, it was bad in Sparta, and worse in Rome. It has been tried in France and terminated in despotism. It was tried in England and rejected with the utmost loathing and abhorrence. It is on its trial here and its issue will be civil war, desolation, and anarchy. No wise man but discerns its imperfections; no good man but shudders at its miseries; no honest man but proclaims its fraud, and no brave man but draws his sword against its force. The institution of a scheme of polity so radically contemptible and vicious is a memorable example of what the villainy of some men can devise, the folly of others receive, and both establish, in despite of reason, reflection, and sensation.'"

An attack upon the lawfully established system of civil government in the Philippine Islands, like that which Dennie was accused of making upon the republican form of government lawfully established in the United States and in the State of Pennsylvania would, we think, if couched in scandalous language, constitute the precise offense described in section 8 of Act No. 292 as a scurrilous libel against the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands. Defamation of individuals, whether holding official positions or not, and whether directed to their public conduct or to their private life, may always be adequately punished under the general libel law. Defamation of the Civil Commission as an aggregation, it being "a body of persons definite and small enough for its individual members to be recognized as such" (Stephen, Digest of the Criminal Law, art. 277), as well as defamation of any of the individual members of the Commission or of the Civil Governor, either in his public capacity or as a private individual, may be so punished. The general libel law enacted by the Commission was in force when Act No. 292 was passed. There was no occasion for any further legislation on the subject of libels against the individuals by whom the Insular Government is administered against the Insular Government in the sense of the aggregate of such individuals. There was occasion for stringent legislation against seditious words or libels, and that is the main if not the sole purpose of the section under consideration. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Commission, in enacting this section, may have conceived of attacks of a malignant or scurrilous nature upon the existing political system of the United States, or the political system established in these Islands by the authority of the United States, as necessarily of a seditious tendency, but it is not so reasonable to suppose that they conceived of attacks upon the personnel

of the government as necessarily tending to sedition. Had this been their view it seems probable that they would, like the framers of the Sedition Act of 1798, have expressly and specifically mentioned the various public officials and collegiate governmental bodies defamation of which they meant to punish as sedition. The article in question contains no attack upon the governmental system of the United States, and it is quite apparent that, though grossly abusive as respects both the Commission as a body and some of its individual members, it contains no attack upon the governmental system by which the authority of the United States is enforced in these Islands. The form of government by a Civil Commission and a Civil Governor is not assailed. It is the character of the men who are intrusted with the administration of the government that the writer is seeking to bring into disrepute by impugning the purity of their motives, their public integrity, and their private morals, and the wisdom of their policy. The publication of the article, therefore, no seditious tendency being apparent, constitutes no offense under Act No. 292, section 8. The judgment of conviction is reversed and the defendants are acquitted, with costs de oficio. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. 97149 March 31, 1992

FIDENCIO Y. BEJA, SR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE REINERIO O. REYES, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications; COMMODORE ROGELIO A. DAYAN, in his capacity as General Manager of the Philippine Ports Authority; DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION BOARD; and JUSTICE ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, in his capacity as Chairman of the Administrative Action Board, DOTC, respondents.

ROMERO, J.: The instant petition for certiorari questions the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and/or its Administrative Action Board (AAB) over administrative cases involving personnel below the rank of Assistant General Manager of the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), an agency attached to the said Department. Petitioner Fidencio Y. Beja, Sr. 1 was first employed by the PPA as arrastre supervisor in 1975. He became Assistant Port Operations Officer in 1976 and Port Operations Officer in 1977. In February 1988, as a result of the reorganization of the PPA, he was appointed Terminal Supervisor. On October 21, 1988, the PPA General Manager, Rogelio A. Dayan, filed Administrative Case No. 11-04-88 against petitioner Beja and Hernando G. Villaluz for grave dishonesty, grave misconduct, willful violation of reasonable office rules and regulations and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Beja and Villaluz allegedly erroneously assessed storage fees resulting in the loss of P38,150.77 on the part of the PPA.

Consequently, they were preventively suspended for the charges. After a preliminary investigation conducted by the district attorney for Region X, Administrative Case No. 11-04-88 was "considered closed for lack of merit." On December 13, 1988, another charge sheet, docketed as Administrative Case No. 12-01-88, was filed against Beja by the PPA General Manager also for dishonesty, grave misconduct, violation of reasonable office rules and regulations, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and for being notoriously undesirable. The charge consisted of six (6) different specifications of administrative offenses including fraud against the PPA in the total amount of P218,000.00. Beja was also placed under preventive suspension pursuant to Sec. 41 of P.D. No. 807. The case was redocketed as Administrative Case No. PPA-AAB1-049-89 and thereafter, the PPA general manager indorsed it to the AAB for "appropriate action." At the scheduled hearing, Beja asked for continuance on the ground that he needed time to study the charges against him. The AAB proceeded to hear the case and gave Beja an opportunity to present evidence. However, on February 20, 1989, Beja filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental. 2 Two days later, he filed with the AAB a manifestation and motion to suspend the hearing of Administrative Case No. PPA-AAB-1-049-89 on account of the pendency of the certiorari proceeding before the court. AAB denied the motion and continued with the hearing of the administrative case. Thereafter, Beja moved for the dismissal of the certiorari case below and proceeded to file before this Court a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order. The case was docketed as G.R. No. 87352 captioned "Fidencio Y. Beja v. Hon. Reinerio 0. Reyes, etc., et al." In the en banc resolution of March 30, 1989, this Court referred the case to

the Court of Appeals for "appropriate action." 3 G.R. No. 87352 was docketed in the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. SP No. 17270. Meanwhile, a decision was rendered by the AAB in Administrative Case No. PPA-AAB-049-89. Its dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, adjudging the following, namely: a) That respondents Geronimo Beja, Jr. and Hernando Villaluz are exonerated from the charge against them; b) That respondent Fidencio Y. Beja be dismissed from the service; c) That his leave credits and retirement benefits are declared forfeited; d) That he be disqualified from re-employment in the government service; e) That his eligibility is recommended to be cancelled. Pasig, Metro Manila, February 28, 1989. On December 10, 1990, after appropriate proceedings, the Court of Appeals also rendered a decision 4 in CA-G.R. SP No. 17270 dismissing the petition for certiorari for lack of merit. Hence, Beja elevated the case back to this Court through an "appeal by certiorari with preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order." We find the pleadings filed in this case to be sufficient bases for arriving at a decision and hence, the filing of memoranda has been dispensed with.

In his petition, Beja assails the Court of Appeals for having "decided questions of substance in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions" of this Court. 5 Specifically, Beja contends that the Court of Appeals failed to declare that: (a) he was denied due process; (b) the PPA general manager has no power to issue a preventive suspension order without the necessary approval of the PPA board of directors; (c) the PPA general manager has no power to refer the administrative case filed against him to the DOTC-AAB, and (d) the DOTC Secretary, the Chairman of the DOTC-AAB and DOTCAAB itself as an adjudicatory body, have no jurisdiction to try the administrative case against him. Simply put, Beja challenges the legality of the preventive suspension and the jurisdiction of the DOTC Secretary and/or the AAB to initiate and hear administrative cases against PPA personnel below the rank of Assistant General Manager. Petitioner anchors his contention that the PPA general manager cannot subject him to a preventive suspension on the following provision of Sec. 8, Art. V of Presidential Decree No. 857 reorganizing the PPA: (d) the General Manager shall, subject to the approval of the Board, appoint and remove personnel below the rank of Assistant General Manager. (Emphasis supplied.) Petitioner contends that under this provision, the PPA Board of Directors and not the PPA General Manager is the "proper disciplining authority. 6 As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, the petitioner erroneously equates "preventive suspension" as a remedial measure with "suspension" as a penalty for administrative dereliction. The imposition of preventive suspension on a government employee charged with an administrative offense is

subject to the following provision of the Civil Service Law, P.D. No. 807: Sec. 41. Preventive Suspension. The proper disciplining authority may preventively suspend any subordinate officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct, or neglect in the performance of duty, or if there are reasons to believe that the respondent is guilty of charges which would warrant his removal from the service. Imposed during the pendency of an administrative investigation, preventive suspension is not a penalty in itself. It is merely a measure of precaution so that the employee who is charged may be separated, for obvious reasons, from the scene of his alleged misfeasance while the same is being investigated. 7 Thus, preventive suspension is distinct from the administrative penalty of removal from office such as the one mentioned in Sec. 8(d) of P.D. No 857. While the former may be imposed on a respondent during the investigation of the charges against him, the latter is the penalty which may only be meted upon him at the termination of the investigation or the final disposition of the case. The PPA general manager is the disciplining authority who may, by himself and without the approval of the PPA Board of Directors, subject a respondent in an administrative case to preventive suspension. His disciplinary powers are sanctioned, not only by Sec. 8 of P.D. No. 857 aforequoted, but also by Sec. 37 of P.D. No. 807 granting heads of agencies the "jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary actions against officers and employees" in the PPA. Parenthetically, the period of preventive suspension is limited. It may be lifted even if the disciplining authority has not finally

decided the administrative case provided the ninety-day period from the effectivity of the preventive suspension has been exhausted. The employee concerned may then be reinstated. 8 However, the said ninety-day period may be interrupted. Section 42 of P.D. No. 807 also mandates that any fault, negligence or petition of a suspended employee may not be considered in the computation of the said period. Thus, when a suspended employee obtains from a court of justice a restraining order or a preliminary injunction inhibiting proceedings in an administrative case, the lifespan of such court order should be excluded in the reckoning of the permissible period of the preventive suspension.
9

With respect to the issue of whether or not the DOTC Secretary and/or the AAB may initiate and hear administrative cases against PPA Personnel below the rank of Assistant General Manager, the Court qualifiedly rules in favor of petitioner. The PPA was created through P.D. No. 505 dated July 11, 1974. Under that Law, the corporate powers of the PPA were vested in a governing Board of Directors known as the Philippine Port Authority Council. Sec. 5(i) of the same decree gave the Council the power "to appoint, discipline and remove, and determine the composition of the technical staff of the Authority and other personnel." On December 23, 1975, P.D. No. 505 was substituted by P.D. No. 857, See. 4(a) thereof created the Philippine Ports Authority which would be "attached" to the then Department of Public Works, Transportation and Communication. When Executive Order No. 125 dated January 30, 1987 reorganizing the Ministry of Transportation and Communications was issued, the PPA retained its "attached" status. 10 Even Executive Order No. 292 or the Administrative Code of 1987 classified the PPA as an agency "attached" to the Department of Transportation and

Communications (DOTC). Sec. 24 of Book IV, Title XV, Chapter 6 of the same Code provides that the agencies attached to the DOTC "shall continue to operate and function in accordance with the respective charters or laws creating them, except when they conflict with this Code." Attachment of an agency to a Department is one of the three administrative relationships mentioned in Book IV, Chapter 7 of the Administrative Code of 1987, the other two being supervision and control and administrative supervision. "Attachment" is defined in Sec. 38 thereof as follows: (3) Attachment. (a) This refers to the lateral relationship between the Department or its equivalent and the attached agency or corporation for purposes of policy and program coordination. The coordination shall be accomplished by having the department represented in the governing board of the attached agency or corporation, either as chairman or as a member, with or without voting rights, if this is permitted by the charter; having the attached corporation or agency comply with a system of periodic reporting which shall reflect the progress of programs and projects; and having the department or its equivalent provide general policies through its representative in the board, which shall serve as the framework for the internal policies of the attached corporation or agency; (b) Matters of day-to-day administration or all those pertaining to internal operations shall he left to the discretion or judgment of the executive officer of the agency or corporation. In the event that the Secretary and the head of the board or the attached agency or corporation strongly disagree on the interpretation and application of policies, and the Secretary is unable to

resolve the disagreement, he shall bring the matter to the President for resolution and direction; (c) Government-owned or controlled corporations attached to a department shall submit to the Secretary concerned their audited financial statements within sixty (60) days after the close of the fiscal year; and (d) Pending submission of the required financial statements, the corporation shall continue to operate on the basis of the preceding year's budget until the financial statements shall have been submitted. Should any government-owned or controlled corporation incur an operation deficit at the close of its fiscal year, it shall be subject to administrative supervision of the department; and the corporation's operating and capital budget shall be subject to the department's examination, review, modification and approval. (emphasis supplied.) An attached agency has a larger measure of independence from the Department to which it is attached than one which is under departmental supervision and control or administrative supervision. This is borne out by the "lateral relationship" between the Department and the attached agency. The attachment is merely for "policy and program coordination." With respect to administrative matters, the independence of an attached agency from Departmental control and supervision is further reinforced by the fact that even an agency under a Department's administrative supervision is free from Departmental interference with respect to appointments and other personnel actions "in accordance with the decentralization of personnel functions" under the Administrative Code of 1987. 11 Moreover, the Administrative Code explicitly provides that Chapter 8 of Book IV on supervision and control

shall not apply to chartered institutions attached to a Department.

12

Hence, the inescapable conclusion is that with respect to the management of personnel, an attached agency is, to a certain extent, free from Departmental interference and control. This is more explicitly shown by P.D. No. 857 which provides: Sec. 8. Management and Staff. a) The President shall, upon the recommendation of the Board, appoint the General Manager and the Assistant General Managers. (b) All other officials and employees of the Authority shall be selected and appointed on the basis of merit and fitness based on a comprehensive and progressive merit system to be established by the Authority immediately upon its organization and consistent with Civil Service rules and regulations. The recruitment, transfer, promotion, and dismissal of all personnel of the Authority, including temporary workers, shall be governed by such merit system. (c) The General Manager shall, subject to the approval of the Board, determine the staffing pattern and the number of personnel of the Authority, define their duties and responsibilities, and fix their salaries and emoluments. For professional and technical positions, the General Manager shall recommend salaries and emoluments that are comparable to those of similar positions in other government-owned corporations, the provisions of existing rules and regulations on wage and position classification notwithstanding.

(d) The General Manager shall, subject to the approval by the Board, appoint and remove personnel below the rank of Assistant General Manager. xxx xxx xxx (emphasis supplied.) Although the foregoing section does not expressly provide for a mechanism for an administrative investigation of personnel, by vesting the power to remove erring employees on the General Manager, with the approval of the PPA Board of Directors, the law impliedly grants said officials the power to investigate its personnel below the rank of Assistant Manager who may be charged with an administrative offense. During such investigation, the PPA General Manager, as earlier stated, may subject the employee concerned to preventive suspension. The investigation should be conducted in accordance with the procedure set out in Sec. 38 of P.D. No. 807. 13 Only after gathering sufficient facts may the PPA General Manager impose the proper penalty in accordance with law. It is the latter action which requires the approval of the PPA Board of Directors. 14 From an adverse decision of the PPA General Manager and the Board of Directors, the employee concerned may elevate the matter to the Department Head or Secretary. Otherwise, he may appeal directly to the Civil Service Commission. The permissive recourse to the Department Secretary is sanctioned by the Civil Service Law (P.D. No. 807) under the following provisions: Sec. 37. Disciplinary Jurisdiction. (a) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office. A

complaint may be filed directly with the Commission by a private citizen against a government official or employee in which case it may hear and decide the case or it may deputize any department or agency or official or group of officials to conduct the investigation. The results of the investigation shall be submitted to the Commission with recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed or other action to be taken. (b) The heads of departments, agencies and instrumentalities, provinces, cities and municipalities shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers and employees under their jurisdiction. The decisions shall be final in case the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty days' salary. In case the decision rendered by a bureau or office head is appealable to the Commission, the same may be initially appealed to the department and finally to the Commission and pending appeal, the same shall be executory except when the penalty is removal, in which case the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the department head. xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied.) It is, therefore, clear that the transmittal of the complaint by the PPA General Manager to the AAB was premature. The PPA General Manager should have first conducted an investigation, made the proper recommendation for the imposable penalty and sought its approval by the PPA Board of Directors. It was discretionary on the part of the herein petitioner to elevate the

case to the then DOTC Secretary Reyes. Only then could the AAB take jurisdiction of the case. The AAB, which was created during the tenure of Secretary Reyes under Office Order No. 88-318 dated July 1, 1988, was designed to act, decide and recommend to him "all cases of administrative malfeasance, irregularities, grafts and acts of corruption in the Department." Composed of a Chairman and two (2) members, the AAB came into being pursuant to Administrative Order No. 25 issued by the President on May 25, 1987. 15 Its special nature as a quasi-judicial administrative body notwithstanding, the AAB is not exempt from the observance of due process in its proceedings. 16 We are not satisfied that it did so in this case the respondents protestation that petitioner waived his right to be heard notwithstanding. It should be observed that petitioner was precisely questioning the AAB's jurisdiction when it sought judicial recourse. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED insofar as it upholds the power of the PPA General Manager to subject petitioner to preventive suspension and REVERSED insofar as it validates the jurisdiction of the DOTC and/or the AAB to act on Administrative Case No. PPA-AAB-1049-89 and rules that due process has been accorded the petitioner. The AAB decision in said case is hereby declared NULL and VOID and the case in REMANDED to the PPA whose General Manager shall conduct with dispatch its reinvestigation. The preventive suspension of petitioner shall continue unless after a determination of its duration, it is found that he had served the total of ninety (90) days in which case he shall be reinstated immediately. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 102976 October 25, 1995 IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER CORPORATION, respondents.

FELICIANO, J.: Petitioner Iron and Steel Authority ("ISA") was created by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 272 dated 9 August 1973 in order, generally, to develop and promote the iron and steel industry in the Philippines. The objectives of the ISA are spelled out in the following terms: Sec. 2. Objectives The Authority shall have the following objectives: (a) to strengthen the iron and steel industry of the Philippines and to expand the domestic and export markets for the products of the industry; (b) to promote the consolidation, integration and rationalization of the industry in order to increase industry capability and viability to service the domestic market and to compete in international markets;

(c) to rationalize the marketing and distribution of steel products in order to achieve a balance between demand and supply of iron and steel products for the country and to ensure that industry prices and profits are at levels that provide a fair balance between the interests of investors, consumers suppliers, and the public at large; (d) to promote full utilization of the existing capacity of the industry, to discourage investment in excess capacity, and in coordination, with appropriate government agencies to encourage capital investment in priority areas of the industry; (e) to assist the industry in securing adequate and lowcost supplies of raw materials and to reduce the excessive dependence of the country on imports of iron and steel. The list of powers and functions of the ISA included the following: Sec. 4. Powers and Functions. The authority shall have the following powers and functions: xxx xxx xxx (j) to initiate expropriation of land required for basic iron and steel facilities for subsequent resale and/or lease to the companies involved if it is shown that such use of the State's power is necessary to implement the construction of capacity which is needed for the attainment of the objectives of the Authority; xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)

P.D. No. 272 initially created petitioner ISA for a term of five (5) years counting from 9 August 1973. 1 When ISA's original term expired on 10 October 1978, its term was extended for another ten (10) years by Executive Order No. 555 dated 31 August 1979. The National Steel Corporation ("NSC") then a wholly owned subsidiary of the National Development Corporation which is itself an entity wholly owned by the National Government, embarked on an expansion program embracing, among other things, the construction of an integrated steel mill in Iligan City. The construction of such a steel mill was considered a priority and major industrial project of the Government. Pursuant to the expansion program of the NSC, Proclamation No. 2239 was issued by the President of the Philippines on 16 November 1982 withdrawing from sale or settlement a large tract of public land (totalling about 30.25 hectares in area) located in Iligan City, and reserving that land for the use and immediate occupancy of NSC. Since certain portions of the public land subject matter Proclamation No. 2239 were occupied by a non-operational chemical fertilizer plant and related facilities owned by private respondent Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corporation ("MCFC"), Letter of Instruction (LOI), No. 1277, also dated 16 November 1982, was issued directing the NSC to "negotiate with the owners of MCFC, for and on behalf of the Government, for the compensation of MCFC's present occupancy rights on the subject land." LOI No. 1277 also directed that should NSC and private respondent MCFC fail to reach an agreement within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of LOI No. 1277, petitioner ISA was to exercise its power of eminent domain under P.D. No. 272 and to initiate expropriation proceedings in respect of occupancy rights of private respondent MCFC relating to the subject public land as well as the plant itself and related facilities and to cede the same to the NSC. 2

Negotiations between NSC and private respondent MCFC did fail. Accordingly, on 18 August 1983, petitioner ISA commenced eminent domain proceedings against private respondent MCFC in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, of Iligan City, praying that it (ISA) be places in possession of the property involved upon depositing in court the amount of P1,760,789.69 representing ten percent (10%) of the declared market values of that property. The Philippine National Bank, as mortgagee of the plant facilities and improvements involved in the expropriation proceedings, was also impleaded as party-defendant. On 17 September 1983, a writ of possession was issued by the trial court in favor of ISA. ISA in turn placed NSC in possession and control of the land occupied by MCFC's fertilizer plant installation. The case proceeded to trial. While the trial was ongoing, however, the statutory existence of petitioner ISA expired on 11 August 1988. MCFC then filed a motion to dismiss, contending that no valid judgment could be rendered against ISA which had ceased to be a juridical person. Petitioner ISA filed its opposition to this motion. In an Order dated 9 November 1988, the trial court granted MCFC's motion to dismiss and did dismiss the case. The dismissal was anchored on the provision of the Rules of Court stating that "only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil case." 3 The trial court also referred to non-compliance by petitioner ISA with the requirements of Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. 4 Petitioner ISA moved for reconsideration of the trial court's Order, contending that despite the expiration of its term, its juridical existence continued until the winding up of its affairs could be completed. In the alternative, petitioner ISA urged that the Republic of the Philippines, being the real party-in-interest, should

be allowed to be substituted for petitioner ISA. In this connection, ISA referred to a letter from the Office of the President dated 28 September 1988 which especially directed the Solicitor General to continue the expropriation case. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration, stating, among other things that: The property to be expropriated is not for public use or benefit [__] but for the use and benefit [__] of NSC, a government controlled private corporation engaged in private business and for profit, specially now that the government, according to newspaper reports, is offering for sale to the public its [shares of stock] in the National Steel Corporation in line with the pronounced policy of the present administration to disengage the government from its private business ventures. 5 (Brackets supplied) Petitioner went on appeal to the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated 8 October 1991, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of dismissal of the trial court. The Court of Appeals held that petitioner ISA, "a government regulatory agency exercising sovereign functions," did not have the same rights as an ordinary corporation and that the ISA, unlike corporations organized under the Corporation Code, was not entitled to a period for winding up its affairs after expiration of its legally mandated term, with the result that upon expiration of its term on 11 August 1987, ISA was "abolished and [had] no more legal authority to perform governmental functions." The Court of Appeals went on to say that the action for expropriation could not prosper because the basis for the proceedings, the ISA's exercise of its delegated authority to expropriate, had become ineffective as a result of the delegate's dissolution, and could not be continued in the name of Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General:

It is our considered opinion that under the law, the complaint cannot prosper, and therefore, has to be dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of a new complaint for expropriation if the Congress sees it fit." (Emphases supplied) At the same time, however, the Court of Appeals held that it was premature for the trial court to have ruled that the expropriation suit was not for a public purpose, considering that the parties had not yet rested their respective cases. In this Petition for Review, the Solicitor General argues that since ISA initiated and prosecuted the action for expropriation in its capacity as agent of the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic, as principal of ISA, is entitled to be substituted and to be made a party-plaintiff after the agent ISA's term had expired. Private respondent MCFC, upon the other hand, argues that the failure of Congress to enact a law further extending the term of ISA after 11 August 1988 evinced a "clear legislative intent to terminate the juridical existence of ISA," and that the authorization issued by the Office of the President to the Solicitor General for continued prosecution of the expropriation suit could not prevail over such negative intent. It is also contended that the exercise of the eminent domain by ISA or the Republic is improper, since that power would be exercised "not on behalf of the National Government but for the benefit of NSC." The principal issue which we must address in this case is whether or not the Republic of the Philippines is entitled to be substituted for ISA in view of the expiration of ISA's term. As will be made clear below, this is really the only issue which we must resolve at this time. Rule 3, Section 1 of the Rules of Court specifies who may be parties to a civil action:

Sec. 1. Who May Be Parties. Only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. Under the above quoted provision, it will be seen that those who can be parties to a civil action may be broadly categorized into two (2) groups: (a) those who are recognized as persons under the law whether natural, i.e., biological persons, on the one hand, or juridical person such as corporations, on the other hand; and (b) entities authorized by law to institute actions. Examination of the statute which created petitioner ISA shows that ISA falls under category (b) above. P.D. No. 272, as already noted, contains express authorization to ISA to commence expropriation proceedings like those here involved: Sec. 4. Powers and Functions. The Authority shall have the following powers and functions: xxx xxx xxx (j) to initiate expropriation of land required for basic iron and steel facilities for subsequent resale and/or lease to the companies involved if it is shown that such use of the State's power is necessary to implement the construction of capacity which is needed for the attainment of the objectives of the Authority; xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)

It should also be noted that the enabling statute of ISA expressly authorized it to enter into certain kinds of contracts "for and in behalf of the Government" in the following terms: xxx xxx xxx (i) to negotiate, and when necessary, to enter into contracts for and in behalf of the government, for the bulk purchase of materials, supplies or services for any sectors in the industry, and to maintain inventories of such materials in order to insure a continuous and adequate supply thereof and thereby reduce operating costs of such sector; xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied) Clearly, ISA was vested with some of the powers or attributes normally associated with juridical personality. There is, however, no provision in P.D. No. 272 recognizing ISA as possessing general or comprehensive juridical personality separate and distinct from that of the Government. The ISA in fact appears to the Court to be a non-incorporated agency or instrumentality of the Republic of the Philippines, or more precisely of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. It is common knowledge that other agencies or instrumentalities of the Government of the Republic are cast in corporate form, that is to say, are incorporated agencies or instrumentalities, sometimes with and at other times without capital stock, and accordingly vested with a juridical personality distinct from the personality of the Republic. Among such incorporated agencies or instrumentalities are: National Power Corporation; 6 Philippine Ports Authority; 7 National Housing Authority; 8 Philippine National Oil Company; 9 Philippine National Railways; 10 Public Estates Authority; 11 Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, 12 and so

forth. It is worth noting that the term "Authority" has been used to designate both incorporated and non-incorporated agencies or instrumentalities of the Government. We consider that the ISA is properly regarded as an agent or delegate of the Republic of the Philippines. The Republic itself is a body corporate and juridical person vested with the full panoply of powers and attributes which are compendiously described as "legal personality." The relevant definitions are found in the Administrative Code of 1987: Sec. 2. General Terms Defined. Unless the specific words of the text, or the context as a whole, or a particular statute, require a different meaning: (1) Government of the Republic of the Philippines refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippines, including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government. xxx xxx xxx (4) Agency of the Government refers to any of the various units of the Government, including a department, bureau, office, instrumentality, or government-owned or controlled corporation, or a local government or a distinct unit therein. xxx xxx xxx

(10) Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations. xxx xxx xxx (Emphases supplied) When the statutory term of a non-incorporated agency expires, the powers, duties and functions as well as the assets and liabilities of that agency revert back to, and are re-assumed by, the Republic of the Philippines, in the absence of special provisions of law specifying some other disposition thereof such as, e.g., devolution or transmission of such powers, duties, functions, etc. to some other identified successor agency or instrumentality of the Republic of the Philippines. When the expiring agency is an incorporated one, the consequences of such expiry must be looked for, in the first instance, in the charter of that agency and, by way of supplementation, in the provisions of the Corporation Code. Since, in the instant case, ISA is a nonincorporated agency or instrumentality of the Republic, its powers, duties, functions, assets and liabilities are properly regarded as folded back into the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and hence assumed once again by the Republic, no special statutory provision having been shown to have mandated succession thereto by some other entity or agency of the Republic. The procedural implications of the relationship between an agent or delegate of the Republic of the Philippines and the Republic itself are, at least in part, spelled out in the Rules of Court. The

general rule is, of course, that an action must be prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest. (Rule 3, Section 2) Petitioner ISA was, at the commencement of the expropriation proceedings, a real party in interest, having been explicitly authorized by its enabling statute to institute expropriation proceedings. The Rules of Court at the same time expressly recognize the role of representative parties: Sec. 3. Representative Parties. A trustee of an expressed trust, a guardian, an executor or administrator, or a party authorized by statute may sue or be sued without joining the party for whose benefit the action is presented or defended; but the court may, at any stage of the proceedings, order such beneficiary to be made a party. . . . . (Emphasis supplied) In the instant case, ISA instituted the expropriation proceedings in its capacity as an agent or delegate or representative of the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to its authority under P.D. No. 272. The present expropriation suit was brought on behalf of and for the benefit of the Republic as the principal of ISA. Paragraph 7 of the complaint stated: 7. The Government, thru the plaintiff ISA, urgently needs the subject parcels of land for the construction and installation of iron and steel manufacturing facilities that are indispensable to the integration of the iron and steel making industry which is vital to the promotion of public interest and welfare. (Emphasis supplied) The principal or the real party in interest is thus the Republic of the Philippines and not the National Steel Corporation, even though the latter may be an ultimate user of the properties involved should the condemnation suit be eventually successful.

From the foregoing premises, it follows that the Republic of the Philippines is entitled to be substituted in the expropriation proceedings as party-plaintiff in lieu of ISA, the statutory term of ISA having expired. Put a little differently, the expiration of ISA's statutory term did not by itself require or justify the dismissal of the eminent domain proceedings. It is also relevant to note that the non-joinder of the Republic which occurred upon the expiration of ISA's statutory term, was not a ground for dismissal of such proceedings since a party may be dropped or added by order of the court, on motion of any party or on the court's own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. 13 In the instant case, the Republic has precisely moved to take over the proceedings as party-plaintiff. In E.B. Marcha Transport Company, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 14 the Court recognized that the Republic may initiate or participate in actions involving its agents. There the Republic of the Philippines was held to be a proper party to sue for recovery of possession of property although the "real" or registered owner of the property was the Philippine Ports Authority, a government agency vested with a separate juridical personality. The Court said: It can be said that in suing for the recovery of the rentals, the Republic of the Philippines acted as principal of the Philippine Ports Authority, directly exercising the commission it had earlier conferred on the latter as its agent. . . . 15 (Emphasis supplied) In E.B. Marcha, the Court also stressed that to require the Republic to commence all over again another proceeding, as the trial court and Court of Appeals had required, was to generate unwarranted delay and create needless repetition of proceedings:

More importantly, as we see it, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the Republic of the Philippines is not the proper party would result in needless delay in the settlement of this matter and also in derogation of the policy against multiplicity of suits. Such a decision would require the Philippine Ports Authority to refile the very same complaint already proved by the Republic of the Philippines and bring back as it were to square one. 16 (Emphasis supplied) As noted earlier, the Court of Appeals declined to permit the substitution of the Republic of the Philippines for the ISA upon the ground that the action for expropriation could not prosper because the basis for the proceedings, the ISA's exercise of its delegated authority to expropriate, had become legally ineffective by reason of the expiration of the statutory term of the agent or delegated i.e., ISA. Since, as we have held above, the powers and functions of ISA have reverted to the Republic of the Philippines upon the termination of the statutory term of ISA, the question should be addressed whether fresh legislative authority is necessary before the Republic of the Philippines may continue the expropriation proceedings initiated by its own delegate or agent. While the power of eminent domain is, in principle, vested primarily in the legislative department of the government, we believe and so hold that no new legislative act is necessary should the Republic decide, upon being substituted for ISA, in fact to continue to prosecute the expropriation proceedings. For the legislative authority, a long time ago, enacted a continuing or standing delegation of authority to the President of the Philippines to exercise, or cause the exercise of, the power of eminent domain on behalf of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. The 1917 Revised Administrative Code, which was in effect at the time of the commencement of the present

expropriation proceedings before the Iligan Regional Trial Court, provided that: Sec. 64. Particular powers and duties of the President of the Philippines. In addition to his general supervisory authority, the President of the Philippines shall have such other specific powers and duties as are expressly conferred or imposed on him by law, and also, in particular, the powers and duties set forth in this Chapter. Among such special powers and duties shall be: xxx xxx xxx (h) To determine when it is necessary or advantageous to exercise the right of eminent domain in behalf of the Government of the Philippines; and to direct the Secretary of Justice, where such act is deemed advisable, to cause the condemnation proceedings to be begun in the court having proper jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied) The Revised Administrative Code of 1987 currently in force has substantially reproduced the foregoing provision in the following terms: Sec. 12. Power of eminent domain. The President shall determine when it is necessary or advantageous to exercise the power of eminent domain in behalf of the National Government, and direct the Solicitor General, whenever he deems the action advisable, to institute expopriation proceedings in the proper court. (Emphasis supplied)

In the present case, the President, exercising the power duly delegated under both the 1917 and 1987 Revised Administrative Codes in effect made a determination that it was necessary and advantageous to exercise the power of eminent domain in behalf of the Government of the Republic and accordingly directed the Solicitor General to proceed with the suit. 17 It is argued by private respondent MCFC that, because Congress after becoming once more the depository of primary legislative power, had not enacted a statute extending the term of ISA, such non-enactment must be deemed a manifestation of a legislative design to discontinue or abort the present expropriation suit. We find this argument much too speculative; it rests too much upon simple silence on the part of Congress and casually disregards the existence of Section 12 of the 1987 Administrative Code already quoted above. Other contentions are made by private respondent MCFC, such as, that the constitutional requirement of "public use" or "public purpose" is not present in the instant case, and that the indispensable element of just compensation is also absent. We agree with the Court of Appeals in this connection that these contentions, which were adopted and set out by the Regional Trial Court in its order of dismissal, are premature and are appropriately addressed in the proceedings before the trial court. Those proceedings have yet to produce a decision on the merits, since trial was still on going at the time the Regional Trial Court precipitously dismissed the expropriation proceedings. Moreover, as a pragmatic matter, the Republic is, by such substitution as party-plaintiff, accorded an opportunity to determine whether or not, or to what extent, the proceedings should be continued in view of all the subsequent developments in the iron and steel sector of the country including, though not limited to, the partial privatization of the NSC.

WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 8 October 1991 to the extent that it affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the expropriation proceedings, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the case is REMANDED to the court a quo which shall allow the substitution of the Republic of the Philippines for petitioner Iron and Steel Authority and for further proceedings consistent with this Decision. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. 120319 October 6, 1995 LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK, petitioner, vs. ASSOCIATION OF LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK EMPLOYEES and ATTY. ESTER S. GARCIA in her capacity as VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR, respondents.

ROMERO, J.: From a submission agreement of the Luzon Development Bank (LDB) and the Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees (ALDBE) arose an arbitration case to resolve the following issue:

Whether or not the company has violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision and the Memorandum of Agreement dated April 1994, on promotion. At a conference, the parties agreed on the submission of their respective Position Papers on December 1-15, 1994. Atty. Ester S. Garcia, in her capacity as Voluntary Arbitrator, received ALDBE's Position Paper on January 18, 1995. LDB, on the other hand, failed to submit its Position Paper despite a letter from the Voluntary Arbitrator reminding them to do so. As of May 23, 1995 no Position Paper had been filed by LDB. On May 24, 1995, without LDB's Position Paper, the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, finding is hereby made that the Bank has not adhered to the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision nor the Memorandum of Agreement on promotion. Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set aside the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator and to prohibit her from enforcing the same. In labor law context, arbitration is the reference of a labor dispute to an impartial third person for determination on the basis of evidence and arguments presented by such parties who have bound themselves to accept the decision of the arbitrator as final and binding. Arbitration may be classified, on the basis of the obligation on which it is based, as either compulsory or voluntary. Compulsory arbitration is a system whereby the parties to a dispute are compelled by the government to forego their right to strike and are compelled to accept the resolution of their dispute

through arbitration by a third party. 1 The essence of arbitration remains since a resolution of a dispute is arrived at by resort to a disinterested third party whose decision is final and binding on the parties, but in compulsory arbitration, such a third party is normally appointed by the government. Under voluntary arbitration, on the other hand, referral of a dispute by the parties is made, pursuant to a voluntary arbitration clause in their collective agreement, to an impartial third person for a final and binding resolution. 2 Ideally, arbitration awards are supposed to be complied with by both parties without delay, such that once an award has been rendered by an arbitrator, nothing is left to be done by both parties but to comply with the same. After all, they are presumed to have freely chosen arbitration as the mode of settlement for that particular dispute. Pursuant thereto, they have chosen a mutually acceptable arbitrator who shall hear and decide their case. Above all, they have mutually agreed to de bound by said arbitrator's decision. In the Philippine context, the parties to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) are required to include therein provisions for a machinery for the resolution of grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA or company personnel policies. 3 For this purpose, parties to a CBA shall name and designate therein a voluntary arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators, or include a procedure for their selection, preferably from those accredited by the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). Article 261 of the Labor Code accordingly provides for exclusive original jurisdiction of such voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators over (1) the interpretation or implementation of the CBA and (2) the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. Article 262 authorizes them, but only upon agreement of the parties, to exercise jurisdiction over other labor disputes.

On the other hand, a labor arbiter under Article 217 of the Labor Code has jurisdiction over the following enumerated cases: . . . (a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or nonagricultural: 1. Unfair labor practice cases; 2. Termination disputes; 3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; 4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations; 5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; 6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.

xxx xxx xxx It will thus be noted that the jurisdiction conferred by law on a voluntary arbitrator or a panel of such arbitrators is quite limited compared to the original jurisdiction of the labor arbiter and the appellate jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for that matter. 4 The state of our present law relating to voluntary arbitration provides that "(t)he award or decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator . . . shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties," 5 while the "(d)ecision, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders." 6 Hence, while there is an express mode of appeal from the decision of a labor arbiter, Republic Act No. 6715 is silent with respect to an appeal from the decision of a voluntary arbitrator. Yet, past practice shows that a decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is, more often than not, elevated to the Supreme Court itself on a petition for certiorari, 7 in effect equating the voluntary arbitrator with the NLRC or the Court of Appeals. In the view of the Court, this is illogical and imposes an unnecessary burden upon it. In Volkschel Labor Union, et al. v. NLRC, et al., 8 on the settled premise that the judgments of courts and awards of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some definite time, this Court ruled that the awards of voluntary arbitrators determine the rights of parties; hence, their decisions have the same legal effect as judgments of a court. In Oceanic Bic Division (FFW), et al. v. Romero, et al., 9 this Court ruled that "a voluntary arbitrator by the nature of her functions acts in a quasi-judicial capacity." Under these rulings, it follows that the voluntary arbitrator, whether acting solely or in a panel, enjoys in law the status of a quasi-

judicial agency but independent of, and apart from, the NLRC since his decisions are not appealable to the latter. 10 Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902, provides that the Court of Appeals shall exercise: xxx xxx xxx (B) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. xxx xxx xxx Assuming arguendo that the voluntary arbitrator or the panel of voluntary arbitrators may not strictly be considered as a quasijudicial agency, board or commission, still both he and the panel are comprehended within the concept of a "quasi-judicial instrumentality." It may even be stated that it was to meet the very situation presented by the quasi-judicial functions of the voluntary arbitrators here, as well as the subsequent arbitrator/arbitral tribunal operating under the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, 11 that the broader term "instrumentalities" was purposely included in the above-quoted provision.

An "instrumentality" is anything used as a means or agency. 12 Thus, the terms governmental "agency" or "instrumentality" are synonymous in the sense that either of them is a means by which a government acts, or by which a certain government act or function is performed. 13 The word "instrumentality," with respect to a state, contemplates an authority to which the state delegates governmental power for the performance of a state function. 14 An individual person, like an administrator or executor, is a judicial instrumentality in the settling of an estate, 15 in the same manner that a sub-agent appointed by a bankruptcy court is an instrumentality of the court, 16 and a trustee in bankruptcy of a defunct corporation is an instrumentality of the state. 17 The voluntary arbitrator no less performs a state function pursuant to a governmental power delegated to him under the provisions therefor in the Labor Code and he falls, therefore, within the contemplation of the term "instrumentality" in the aforequoted Sec. 9 of B.P. 129. The fact that his functions and powers are provided for in the Labor Code does not place him within the exceptions to said Sec. 9 since he is a quasi-judicial instrumentality as contemplated therein. It will be noted that, although the Employees Compensation Commission is also provided for in the Labor Code, Circular No. 1-91, which is the forerunner of the present Revised Administrative Circular No. 195, laid down the procedure for the appealability of its decisions to the Court of Appeals under the foregoing rationalization, and this was later adopted by Republic Act No. 7902 in amending Sec. 9 of B.P. 129. A fortiori, the decision or award of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators should likewise be appealable to the Court of Appeals, in line with the procedure outlined in Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, just like those of the quasijudicial agencies, boards and commissions enumerated therein.

This would be in furtherance of, and consistent with, the original purpose of Circular No. 1-91 to provide a uniform procedure for the appellate review of adjudications of all quasi-judicial entities 18 not expressly excepted from the coverage of Sec. 9 of B.P. 129 by either the Constitution or another statute. Nor will it run counter to the legislative intendment that decisions of the NLRC be reviewable directly by the Supreme Court since, precisely, the cases within the adjudicative competence of the voluntary arbitrator are excluded from the jurisdiction of the NLRC or the labor arbiter. In the same vein, it is worth mentioning that under Section 22 of Republic Act No. 876, also known as the Arbitration Law, arbitration is deemed a special proceeding of which the court specified in the contract or submission, or if none be specified, the Regional Trial Court for the province or city in which one of the parties resides or is doing business, or in which the arbitration is held, shall have jurisdiction. A party to the controversy may, at any time within one (1) month after an award is made, apply to the court having jurisdiction for an order confirming the award and the court must grant such order unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected. 19 In effect, this equates the award or decision of the voluntary arbitrator with that of the regional trial court. Consequently, in a petition for certiorari from that award or decision, the Court of Appeals must be deemed to have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court. As a matter of policy, this Court shall henceforth remand to the Court of Appeals petitions of this nature for proper disposition. ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to REFER this case to the Court of Appeals. SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. Nos. L-10123 and L-10355 April 26, 1957

GENARO URSAL, as City Assessor of Cebu, petitioner, vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and CONSUELO NOEL, respondents. GENARO URSAL, as City Assessor of Cebu, petitioner, vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and JESUSA SAMSON, respondents. City Fiscal of Cebu Jose L. Abad for petitioner. Francisco M. Alonso for respondents. BENGZON, J.: In these two cases Genaro Ursal as City Assessor of Cebu challenges the correctness of the order of the Court of Tax Appeals dismissing his appeals to that body from two rulings of the Cebu Board of Assessment Appeals. The record shows that said city assessors in the exercise of his powers assessed for taxation certain real properties of Consuelo Noel and Jesusa Samson in the City of Cebu, and that upon protest of the taxpayers, the Cebu Board of Assessment Appeals reduced the assessments. It also shows he took the matter to the Court of Tax Appeals insisting on his valuation; but said Court refused to entertain the appeal saying it was late, and, besides, the assessor had no personality to bring the matter before it under section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125, which reads as follows:

SEC. 11. Who may appeal; effect of appeal. Any person, association or corporation adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Collector of Internal Revenue, the Collector of Customs or any provincial or city Board of Assessment Appeals may file an appeal in the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty days after the receipt of such decision or ruling. We share the view that the assessor had no personality to resort to the Court of Tax Appeals. The rulings of the Board of Assessment Appeals did not "adversely affect" him. At most it was the City of Cebu1 that had been adversely affected in the sense that it could not thereafter collect higher realty taxes from the abovementioned property owners. His opinion, it is true had been overruled; but the overruling inflicted no material damage upon him or his office. And the Court of Tax Appeals was not created to decide mere conflicts of opinion between administrative officers or agencies. Imagine an income tax examiner resorting to the Court of Tax Appeals whenever the Collector of Internal Revenue modifies, or lower his assessment on the return of a tax payer! Republic Act No. 1125 creating the Court of Tax Appeals did not grant it blanket authority to decide any and all tax disputes. Defining such special court's jurisdiction, the Act necessarily limited its authority to those matters enumerated therein. In line with this idea we recently approved said court's order rejecting an appeal to it by Lopez & Sons from the decision of the Collector of Customs, because in our opinion its jurisdiction extended only to a review of the decisions of the Commissioner of Customs, as provided by the statute and not to decisions of the Collector of Customs. (Lopez & Sons vs. The Court of Tax Appeals, 100 Phil., 850, 53 Off. Gaz., [10] 3065). The appellant invites attention to the fact that the Court of Appeals is the successor of the former Central Board of Tax Appeals created by Commonwealth Act No. 530 and of the Board of Tax Appeals established by Executive Order No. 401-A, and that said Commonwealth Act No. 530 (section 2) explicitly authorized the city assessor to appeal

to the Central Board of Tax Appeals. Here is precisely another argument against his position: as Republic Act No. 1125 failed to reenact such express permission, it is deemed with held. Oversight could not have been the clause of such withholding, since there were proper grounds therefor: (a) discipline and command responsibility in the executive branches; and (b) instead of being another superior administrative agency as was the former Board of Tax Appeals2 the Court of Tax Appeals as created by Republic Act No. 1125 is a part of the judicial system presumably to act only on protests of private persons adversely affected by the tax, custom, or assessment. There is no merit to the contention that section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 530 is still in force and justifies Ursal's appeal. Apart from the reasons already advanced, Republic Act No. 1125 is a complete law by itself and expressly enumerates the matters which the Court of Tax Appeals may consider; such enumeration excludes all others by implication. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. parts of an original act which act omitted from the act as revised are to be considered as annulled and repealed, provided it clearly appears to have been the intention of the legislature to cover the whole subject by the revision. (82 C. J. S. p. 501.) Inasmuch as we agree to the appellant's lack of personality before the Court of Tax Appeals, we find it unnecessary to review the question whether or not his appeal had been perfected in due time. Wherefore, the challenge order is hereby affirmed. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 143672 April 24, 2003

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner, vs. GENERAL FOODS (PHILS.), INC., respondent. CORONA, J.: Petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) assails the resolution1 of the Court of Appeals reversing the decision2 of the Court of Tax Appeals which in turn denied the protest filed by respondent General Foods (Phils.), Inc., regarding the assessment made against the latter for deficiency taxes. The records reveal that, on June 14, 1985, respondent corporation, which is engaged in the manufacture of beverages such as "Tang," "Calumet" and "Kool-Aid," filed its income tax return for the fiscal year ending February 28, 1985. In said tax return, respondent corporation claimed as deduction, among other business expenses, the amount of P9,461,246 for media advertising for "Tang." On May 31, 1988, the Commissioner disallowed 50% or P4,730,623 of the deduction claimed by respondent corporation. Consequently, respondent corporation was assessed deficiency income taxes in the amount of P2,635, 141.42. The latter filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. On September 29, 1989, respondent corporation appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals but the appeal was dismissed: With such a gargantuan expense for the advertisement of a singular product, which even excludes "other advertising and promotions" expenses, we are not prepared to accept that such amount is reasonable "to stimulate the current sale of merchandise" regardless of Petitioners explanation that such expense "does not connote unreasonableness considering the grave economic situation taking place after the Aquino assassination characterized by capital fight, strong deterioration of the purchasing power of the

Philippine peso and the slacking demand for consumer products" (Petitioners Memorandum, CTA Records, p. 273). We are not convinced with such an explanation. The staggering expense led us to believe that such expenditure was incurred "to create or maintain some form of good will for the taxpayers trade or business or for the industry or profession of which the taxpayer is a member." The term "good will" can hardly be said to have any precise signification; it is generally used to denote the benefit arising from connection and reputation (Words and Phrases, Vol. 18, p. 556 citing Douhart vs. Loagan, 86 III. App. 294). As held in the case of Welch vs. Helvering, efforts to establish reputation are akin to acquisition of capital assets and, therefore, expenses related thereto are not business expenses but capital expenditures. (Atlas Mining and Development Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, supra). For sure such expenditure was meant not only to generate present sales but more for future and prospective benefits. Hence, "abnormally large expenditures for advertising are usually to be spread over the period of years during which the benefits of the expenditures are received" (Mertens, supra, citing Colonial Ice Cream Co., 7 BTA 154). WHEREFORE, in all the foregoing, and finding no error in the case appealed from, we hereby RESOLVE to DISMISS the instant petition for lack of merit and ORDER the Petitioner to pay the respondent Commissioner the assessed amount of P2,635,141.42 representing its deficiency income tax liability for the fiscal year ended February 28, 1985."3 Aggrieved, respondent corporation filed a petition for review at the Court of Appeals which rendered a decision reversing and setting aside the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals: Since it has not been sufficiently established that the item it claimed as a deduction is excessive, the same should be allowed.

WHEREFORE, the petition of petitioner General Foods (Philippines), Inc. is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision, dated 8 February 1994 of respondent Court of Tax Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the letter, dated 31 May 1988 of respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue is CANCELLED. SO ORDERED.4 Thus, the instant petition, wherein the Commissioner presents for the Courts consideration a lone issue: whether or not the subject media advertising expense for "Tang" incurred by respondent corporation was an ordinary and necessary expense fully deductible under the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). It is a governing principle in taxation that tax exemptions must be construed in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority;5 and he who claims an exemption must be able to justify his claim by the clearest grant of organic or statute law. An exemption from the common burden cannot be permitted to exist upon vague implications.6 Deductions for income tax purposes partake of the nature of tax exemptions; hence, if tax exemptions are strictly construed, then deductions must also be strictly construed. We then proceed to resolve the singular issue in the case at bar. Was the media advertising expense for "Tang" paid or incurred by respondent corporation for the fiscal year ending February 28, 1985 "necessary and ordinary," hence, fully deductible under the NIRC? Or was it a capital expenditure, paid in order to create "goodwill and reputation" for respondent corporation and/or its products, which should have been amortized over a reasonable period? Section 34 (A) (1), formerly Section 29 (a) (1) (A), of the NIRC provides:

(A) Expenses.(1) Ordinary and necessary trade, business or professional expenses.(a) In general.- There shall be allowed as deduction from gross income all ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on, or which are directly attributable to, the development, management, operation and/or conduct of the trade, business or exercise of a profession. Simply put, to be deductible from gross income, the subject advertising expense must comply with the following requisites: (a) the expense must be ordinary and necessary; (b) it must have been paid or incurred during the taxable year; (c) it must have been paid or incurred in carrying on the trade or business of the taxpayer; and (d) it must be supported by receipts, records or other pertinent papers.7 The parties are in agreement that the subject advertising expense was paid or incurred within the corresponding taxable year and was incurred in carrying on a trade or business. Hence, it was necessary. However, their views conflict as to whether or not it was ordinary. To be deductible, an advertising expense should not only be necessary but also ordinary. These two requirements must be met. The Commissioner maintains that the subject advertising expense was not ordinary on the ground that it failed the two conditions set by U.S. jurisprudence: first, "reasonableness" of the amount incurred and second, the amount incurred must not be a capital outlay to create "goodwill" for the product and/or private respondents business. Otherwise, the expense must be considered a capital expenditure to be spread out over a reasonable time. We agree.

There is yet to be a clear-cut criteria or fixed test for determining the reasonableness of an advertising expense. There being no hard and fast rule on the matter, the right to a deduction depends on a number of factors such as but not limited to: the type and size of business in which the taxpayer is engaged; the volume and amount of its net earnings; the nature of the expenditure itself; the intention of the taxpayer and the general economic conditions. It is the interplay of these, among other factors and properly weighed, that will yield a proper evaluation. In the case at bar, the P9,461,246 claimed as media advertising expense for "Tang" alone was almost one-half of its total claim for "marketing expenses." Aside from that, respondent-corporation also claimed P2,678,328 as "other advertising and promotions expense" and another P1,548,614, for consumer promotion. Furthermore, the subject P9,461,246 media advertising expense for "Tang" was almost double the amount of respondent corporations P4,640,636 general and administrative expenses. We find the subject expense for the advertisement of a single product to be inordinately large. Therefore, even if it is necessary, it cannot be considered an ordinary expense deductible under then Section 29 (a) (1) (A) of the NIRC. Advertising is generally of two kinds: (1) advertising to stimulate the current sale of merchandise or use of services and (2) advertising designed to stimulate the future sale of merchandise or use of services. The second type involves expenditures incurred, in whole or in part, to create or maintain some form of goodwill for the taxpayers trade or business or for the industry or profession of which the taxpayer is a member. If the expenditures are for the advertising of the first kind, then, except as to the question of the reasonableness of amount, there is no doubt such expenditures are deductible as business expenses. If, however, the expenditures are for advertising of the second kind, then normally they should be spread out over a reasonable period of time.

We agree with the Court of Tax Appeals that the subject advertising expense was of the second kind. Not only was the amount staggering; the respondent corporation itself also admitted, in its letter protest8 to the Commissioner of Internal Revenues assessment, that the subject media expense was incurred in order to protect respondent corporations brand franchise, a critical point during the period under review. The protection of brand franchise is analogous to the maintenance of goodwill or title to ones property. This is a capital expenditure which should be spread out over a reasonable period of time.9 Respondent corporations venture to protect its brand franchise was tantamount to efforts to establish a reputation. This was akin to the acquisition of capital assets and therefore expenses related thereto were not to be considered as business expenses but as capital expenditures.10 True, it is the taxpayers prerogative to determine the amount of advertising expenses it will incur and where to apply them.11 Said prerogative, however, is subject to certain considerations. The first relates to the extent to which the expenditures are actually capital outlays; this necessitates an inquiry into the nature or purpose of such expenditures.12 The second, which must be applied in harmony with the first, relates to whether the expenditures are ordinary and necessary. Concomitantly, for an expense to be considered ordinary, it must be reasonable in amount. The Court of Tax Appeals ruled that respondent corporation failed to meet the two foregoing limitations. We find said ruling to be well founded. Respondent corporation incurred the subject advertising expense in order to protect its brand franchise. We consider this as a capital outlay since it created goodwill for its business and/or product. The P9,461,246 media advertising expense for the promotion of a single product, almost one-half of petitioner corporations entire claim for marketing expenses for that year under review, inclusive of other advertising and promotion expenses of P2,678,328 and P1,548,614 for consumer promotion, is doubtlessly unreasonable.

It has been a long standing policy and practice of the Court to respect the conclusions of quasi-judicial agencies such as the Court of Tax Appeals, a highly specialized body specifically created for the purpose of reviewing tax cases. The CTA, by the nature of its functions, is dedicated exclusively to the study and consideration of tax problems. It has necessarily developed an expertise on the subject. We extend due consideration to its opinion unless there is an abuse or improvident exercise of authority.13 Since there is none in the case at bar, the Court adheres to the findings of the CTA. Accordingly, we find that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it declared the subject media advertising expense to be deductible as an ordinary and necessary expense on the ground that "it has not been established that the item being claimed as deduction is excessive." It is not incumbent upon the taxing authority to prove that the amount of items being claimed is unreasonable. The burden of proof to establish the validity of claimed deductions is on the taxpayer.14 In the present case, that burden was not discharged satisfactorily. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Pursuant to Sections 248 and 249 of the Tax Code, respondent General Foods (Phils.), Inc. is hereby ordered to pay its deficiency income tax in the amount of P2,635,141.42, plus 25% surcharge for late payment and 20% annual interest computed from August 25, 1989, the date of the denial of its protest, until the same is fully paid. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. L-57883 March 12, 1982 GUALBERTO J. DE LA LLANA Presiding Judge, Branch II of the City Court of Olongapo, ESTANISLAO L. CESA, JR., FIDELA Y. VARGAS, BENJAMIN C. ESCOLANGO, JUANITO C. ATIENZA, MANUEL REYES ROSAPAPAN, JR., VIRGILIO E. ACIERTO, and PORFIRIO AGUILLON AGUILA, petitioners, vs. MANUEL ALBA, Minister of Budget, FRANCISCO TANTUICO, Chairman, Commission on Audit, and RICARDO PUNO, Minister of Justice, Respondents.

FERNANDO, C.J.: This Court, pursuant to its grave responsibility of passing upon the validity of any executive or legislative act in an appropriate cases, has to resolve the crucial issue of the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, entitled "An act reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes." The task of judicial review, aptly characterized as exacting and delicate, is never more so than when a conceded legislative power, that of judicial reorganization, 1 may possibly collide with the time-honored principle of the independence of the judiciary 2 as protected and safeguarded by this constitutional provision: "The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of inferior courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court shall have the power to discipline judges of inferior courts and, by a vote of at least eight Members, order their dismissal." 3 For the assailed legislation mandates that Justices and judges of inferior courts from the Court of Appeals to municipal circuit courts, except the occupants of the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals, unless appointed to the inferior courts established by such Act, would be

considered separated from the judiciary. It is the termination of their incumbency that for petitioners justifies a suit of this character, it being alleged that thereby the security of tenure provision of the Constitution has been ignored and disregarded, That is the fundamental issue raised in this proceeding, erroneously entitled Petition for Declaratory Relief and/or for Prohibition 4 considered by this Court as an action for prohibited petition, seeking to enjoin respondent Minister of the Budget, respondent Chairman of the Commission on Audit, and respondent Minister of Justice from taking any action implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. Petitioners 5 sought to bolster their claim by imputing lack of good faith in its enactment and characterizing as an undue delegation of legislative power to the President his authority to fix the compensation and allowances of the Justices and judges thereafter appointed and the determination of the date when the reorganization shall be deemed completed. In the very comprehensive and scholarly Answer of Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, 6 it was pointed out that there is no valid justification for the attack on the constitutionality of this statute, it being a legitimate exercise of the power vested in the Batasang Pambansa to reorganize the judiciary, the allegations of absence of good faith as well as the attack on the independence of the judiciary being unwarranted and devoid of any support in law. A Supplemental Answer was likewise filed on October 8, 1981, followed by a Reply of petitioners on October 13. After the hearing in the morning and afternoon of October 15, in which not only petitioners and respondents were heard through counsel but also the amici curiae, 7 and thereafter submission of the minutes of the proceeding on the debate on Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, this petition was deemed submitted for decision. The importance of the crucial question raised called for intensive and rigorous study of all the legal aspects of the case. After such

exhaustive deliberation in several sessions, the exchange of views being supplemented by memoranda from the members of the Court, it is our opinion and so hold that Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 is not unconstitutional. 1. The argument as to the lack of standing of petitioners is easily resolved. As far as Judge de la Llana is concerned, he certainly falls within the principle set forth in Justice Laurel's opinion in People v. Vera. 8 Thus: "The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement." 9 The other petitioners as members of the bar and officers of the court cannot be considered as devoid of "any personal and substantial interest" on the matter. There is relevance to this excerpt from a separate opinion in Aquino, Jr. v. Commission on Elections: 10 "Then there is the attack on the standing of petitioners, as vindicating at most what they consider a public right and not protecting their rights as individuals. This is to conjure the specter of the public right dogma as an inhibition to parties intent on keeping public officials staying on the path of constitutionalism. As was so well put by Jaffe: 'The protection of private rights is an essential constituent of public interest and, conversely, without a well-ordered state there could be no enforcement of private rights. Private and public interests are, both in substantive and procedural sense, aspects of the totality of the legal order.' Moreover, petitioners have convincingly shown that in their capacity as taxpayers, their standing to sue has been amply demonstrated. There would be a retreat from the liberal approach followed in Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, foreshadowed by the very decision of People v. Vera where the doctrine was first fully discussed, if we act differently now. I do not think we are prepared to take that step. Respondents, however, would hark back to the American Supreme Court doctrine in Mellon v. Frothingham with their claim that what petitioners possess 'is an interest which is shared in common by other

people and is comparatively so minute and indeterminate as to afford any basis and assurance that the judicial process can act on it.' That is to speak in the language of a bygone era even in the United States. For as Chief Justice Warren clearly pointed out in the later case of Flast v. Cohen, the barrier thus set up if not breached has definitely been lowered." 11 2. The imputation of arbitrariness to the legislative body in the enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 to demonstrate lack of good faith does manifest violence to the facts. Petitioners should have exercised greater care in informing themselves as to its antecedents. They had laid themselves open to the accusation of reckless disregard for the truth, On August 7, 1980, a Presidential Committee on Judicial Reorganization was organized. 12 This Executive Order was later amended by Executive Order No. 619A., dated September 5 of that year. It clearly specified the task assigned to it: "1. The Committee shall formulate plans on the reorganization of the Judiciary which shall be submitted within seventy (70) days from August 7, 1980 to provide the President sufficient options for the reorganization of the entire Judiciary which shall embrace all lower courts, including the Court of Appeals, the Courts of First Instance, the City and Municipal Courts, and all Special Courts, but excluding the Sandigan Bayan." 13 On October 17, 1980, a Report was submitted by such Committee on Judicial Reorganization. It began with this paragraph: "The Committee on Judicial Reorganization has the honor to submit the following Report. It expresses at the outset its appreciation for the opportunity accorded it to study ways and means for what today is a basic and urgent need, nothing less than the restructuring of the judicial system. There are problems, both grave and pressing, that call for remedial measures. The felt necessities of the time, to borrow a phrase from Holmes, admit of no delay, for if no step be taken and at the earliest opportunity, it is not too much to say that the people's faith in the administration of justice could be shaken. It is imperative that there be a greater

efficiency in the disposition of cases and that litigants, especially those of modest means much more so, the poorest and the humblest can vindicate their rights in an expeditious and inexpensive manner. The rectitude and the fairness in the way the courts operate must be manifest to all members of the community and particularly to those whose interests are affected by the exercise of their functions. It is to that task that the Committee addresses itself and hopes that the plans submitted could be a starting point for an institutional reform in the Philippine judiciary. The experience of the Supreme Court, which since 1973 has been empowered to supervise inferior courts, from the Court of Appeals to the municipal courts, has proven that reliance on improved court management as well as training of judges for more efficient administration does not suffice. I hence, to repeat, there is need for a major reform in the judicial so stem it is worth noting that it will be the first of its kind since the Judiciary Act became effective on June 16, 1901." 14 I t went to say: "I t does not admit of doubt that the last two decades of this century are likely to be attended with problems of even greater complexity and delicacy. New social interests are pressing for recognition in the courts. Groups long inarticulate, primarily those economically underprivileged, have found legal spokesmen and are asserting grievances previously ignored. Fortunately, the judicially has not proved inattentive. Its task has thus become even more formidable. For so much grist is added to the mills of justice. Moreover, they are likewise to be quite novel. The need for an innovative approach is thus apparent. The national leadership, as is well-known, has been constantly on the search for solutions that will prove to be both acceptable and satisfactory. Only thus may there be continued national progress." 15 After which comes: "To be less abstract, the thrust is on development. That has been repeatedly stressed and rightly so. All efforts are geared to its realization. Nor, unlike in the past, was it to b "considered as simply the movement towards economic progress and growth measured in terms of sustained increases in per capita income

and Gross National Product (GNP). 16 For the New Society, its implication goes further than economic advance, extending to "the sharing, or more appropriately, the democratization of social and economic opportunities, the substantiation of the true meaning of social justice." 17 This process of modernization and change compels the government to extend its field of activity and its scope of operations. The efforts towards reducing the gap between the wealthy and the poor elements in the nation call for more regulatory legislation. That way the social justice and protection to labor mandates of the Constitution could be effectively implemented." 18 There is likelihood then "that some measures deemed inimical by interests adversely affected would be challenged in court on grounds of validity. Even if the question does not go that far, suits may be filed concerning their interpretation and application. ... There could be pleas for injunction or restraining orders. Lack of success of such moves would not, even so, result in their prompt final disposition. Thus delay in the execution of the policies embodied in law could thus be reasonably expected. That is not conducive to progress in development." 19 For, as mentioned in such Report, equally of vital concern is the problem of clogged dockets, which "as is well known, is one of the utmost gravity. Notwithstanding the most determined efforts exerted by the Supreme Court, through the leadership of both retired Chief Justice Querube Makalintal and the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, from the time supervision of the courts was vested in it under the 1973 Constitution, the trend towards more and more cases has continued." 20 It is understandable why. With the accelerated economic development, the growth of population, the increasing urbanization, and other similar factors, the judiciary is called upon much oftener to resolve controversies. Thus confronted with what appears to be a crisis situation that calls for a remedy, the Batasang Pambansa had no choice. It had to act, before the ailment became even worse. Time was of the essence, and yet it

did not hesitate to be duly mindful, as it ought to be, of the extent of its coverage before enacting Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. 3. There is no denying, therefore, the need for "institutional reforms," characterized in the Report as "both pressing and urgent." 21 It is worth noting, likewise, as therein pointed out, that a major reorganization of such scope, if it were to take place, would be the most thorough after four generations. 22 The reference was to the basic Judiciary Act generations . enacted in June of 1901, 23 amended in a significant way, only twice previous to the Commonwealth. There was, of course, the creation of the Court of Appeals in 1935, originally composed "of a Presiding Judge and ten appellate Judges, who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly, 24 It could "sit en banc, but it may sit in two divisions, one of six and another of five Judges, to transact business, and the two divisions may sit at the same time." 25 Two years after the establishment of independence of the Republic of the Philippines, the Judiciary Act of 1948 26 was passed. It continued the existing system of regular inferior courts, namely, the Court of Appeals, Courts of First Instance, 27 the Municipal Courts, at present the City Courts, and the Justice of the Peace Courts, now the Municipal Circuit Courts and Municipal Courts. The membership of the Court of Appeals has been continuously increased. 28 Under a 1978 Presidential Decree, there would be forty-five members, a Presiding Justice and fortyfour Associate Justices, with fifteen divisions. 29 Special courts were likewise created. The first was the Court of Tax Appeals in 1954, 30 next came the Court of Agrarian Relations in 1955, 31 and then in the same year a Court of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations for Manila in 1955, 32 subsequently followed by the creation of two other such courts for Iloilo and Quezon City in 1966. 33 In 1967, Circuit Criminal Courts were established, with the Judges having the same qualifications, rank, compensation, and privileges as judges of Courts of First Instance. 34

4. After the submission of such Report, Cabinet Bill No. 42, which later became the basis of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, was introduced. After setting forth the background as above narrated, its Explanatory Note continues: "Pursuant to the President's instructions, this proposed legislation has been drafted in accordance with the guidelines of that report with particular attention to certain objectives of the reorganization, to wit, the attainment of more efficiency in disposal of cases, a reallocation of jurisdiction, and a revision of procedures which do not tend to the proper meeting out of justice. In consultation with, and upon a consensus of, the governmental and parliamentary leadership, however, it was felt that some options set forth in the Report be not availed of. Instead of the proposal to confine the jurisdiction of the intermediate appellate court merely to appellate adjudication, the preference has been opted to increase rather than diminish its jurisdiction in order to enable it to effectively assist the Supreme Court. This preference has been translated into one of the innovations in the proposed Bill." 35 In accordance with the parliamentary procedure, the Bill was sponsored by the Chairman of the Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government to which it was referred. Thereafter, Committee Report No. 225 was submitted by such Committee to the Batasang Pambansa recommending the approval with some amendments. In the sponsorship speech of Minister Ricardo C. Puno, there was reference to the Presidential Committee on Judicial Reorganization. Thus: "On October 17, 1980, the Presidential Committee on Judicial Reorganization submitted its report to the President which contained the 'Proposed Guidelines for Judicial Reorganization.' Cabinet Bill No. 42 was drafted substantially in accordance with the options presented by these guidelines. Some options set forth in the aforesaid report were not availed of upon consultation with and upon consensus of the government and parliamentary leadership. Moreover, some amendments to the bill were adopted by the Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government, to which The bill

was referred, following the public hearings on the bill held in December of 1980. The hearings consisted of dialogues with the distinguished members of the bench and the bar who had submitted written proposals, suggestions, and position papers on the bill upon the invitation of the Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government." 36 Stress was laid by the sponsor that the enactment of such Cabinet Bill would, firstly, result in the attainment of more efficiency in the disposal of cases. Secondly, the improvement in the quality of justice dispensed by the courts is expected as a necessary consequence of the easing of the court's dockets. Thirdly, the structural changes introduced in the bill, together with the reallocation of jurisdiction and the revision of the rules of procedure, are designated to suit the court system to the exigencies of the present day Philippine society, and hopefully, of the foreseeable future." 37 it may be observed that the volume containing the minutes of the proceedings of the Batasang Pambansa show that 590 pages were devoted to its discussion. It is quite obvious that it took considerable time and effort as well as exhaustive study before the act was signed by the President on August 14, 1981. With such a background, it becomes quite manifest how lacking in factual basis is the allegation that its enactment is tainted by the vice of arbitrariness. What appears undoubted and undeniable is the good faith that characterized its enactment from its inception to the affixing of the Presidential signature. 5. Nothing is better settled in our law than that the abolition of an office within the competence of a legitimate body if done in good faith suffers from no infirmity. The ponencia of Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Cruz v. Primicias, Jr. 38 reiterated such a doctrine: "We find this point urged by respondents, to be without merit. No removal or separation of petitioners from the service is here involved, but the validity of the abolition of their offices. This is a legal issue that is for the Courts to decide. It is well-known rule also that valid abolition of offices is neither removal nor separation

of the incumbents. ... And, of course, if the abolition is void, the incumbent is deemed never to have ceased to hold office. The preliminary question laid at rest, we pass to the merits of the case. As well-settled as the rule that the abolition of an office does not amount to an illegal removal of its incumbent is the principle that, in order to be valid, the abolition must be made in good faith." 39 The above excerpt was quoted with approval in Bendanillo, Sr. v. Provincial Governor, 40 two earlier cases enunciating a similar doctrine having preceded it. 41 As with the offices in the other branches of the government, so it is with the judiciary. The test remains whether the abolition is in good faith. As that element is conspicuously present in the enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, then the lack of merit of this petition becomes even more apparent. The concurring opinion of Justice Laurel in Zandueta v. De la Costa 42 cannot be any clearer. This is a quo warranto proceeding filed by petitioner, claiming that he, and not respondent, was entitled to he office of judge of the Fifth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila. There was a Judicial Reorganization Act in 1936, 43 a year after the inauguration of the Commonwealth, amending the Administrative Code to organize courts of original jurisdiction known as the Courts of First Instance Prior to such statute, petitioner was the incumbent of such branch. Thereafter, he received an ad interim appointment, this time to the Fourth Judicial District, under the new legislation. Unfortunately for him, the Commission on Appointments of then National Assembly disapproved the same, with respondent being appointed in his place. He contested the validity of the Act insofar as it resulted in his being forced to vacate his position This Court did not rule squarely on the matter. His petition was dismissed on the ground of estoppel. Nonetheless, the separate concurrence of Justice Laurel in the result reached, to repeat, reaffirms in no uncertain terms the standard of good faith to preclude any doubt as to the abolition of an inferior court, with due recognition of the security of tenure guarantee. Thus: " I am of the opinion that Commonwealth Act

No. 145 in so far as it reorganizes, among other judicial districts, the Ninth Judicial District, and establishes an entirely new district comprising Manila and the provinces of Rizal and Palawan, is valid and constitutional. This conclusion flows from the fundamental proposition that the legislature may abolish courts inferior to the Supreme Court and therefore may reorganize them territorially or otherwise thereby necessitating new appointments and commissions. Section 2, Article VIII of the Constitution vests in the National Assembly the power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts, subject to certain limitations in the case of the Supreme Court. It is admitted that section 9 of the same article of the Constitution provides for the security of tenure of all the judges. The principles embodied in these two sections of the same article of the Constitution must be coordinated and harmonized. A mere enunciation of a principle will not decide actual cases and controversies of every sort. (Justice Holmes in Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S., 45; 49 Law. ed; 937)" 44 justice Laurel continued: "I am not insensible to the argument that the National Assembly may abuse its power and move deliberately to defeat the constitutional provision guaranteeing security of tenure to all judges, But, is this the case? One need not share the view of Story, Miller and Tucker on the one hand, or the opinion of Cooley, Watson and Baldwin on the other, to realize that the application of a legal or constitutional principle is necessarily factual and circumstantial and that fixity of principle is the rigidity of the dead and the unprogressive. I do say, and emphatically, however, that cases may arise where the violation of the constitutional provision regarding security of tenure is palpable and plain, and that legislative power of reorganization may be sought to cloak an unconstitutional and evil purpose. When a case of that kind arises, it will be the time to make the hammer fall and heavily. But not until then. I am satisfied that, as to the particular point here discussed, the purpose was the fulfillment of what was considered a great public need by the legislative department and that Commonwealth Act

No. 145 was not enacted purposely to affect adversely the tenure of judges or of any particular judge. Under these circumstances, I am for sustaining the power of the legislative department under the Constitution. To be sure, there was greater necessity for reorganization consequent upon the establishment of the new government than at the time Acts Nos. 2347 and 4007 were approved by the defunct Philippine Legislature, and although in the case of these two Acts there was an express provision providing for the vacation by the judges of their offices whereas in the case of Commonwealth Act No. 145 doubt is engendered by its silence, this doubt should be resolved in favor of the valid exercise of the legislative power." 45 6. A few more words on the question of abolition. In the abovecited opinion of Justice Laurel in Zandueta, reference was made to Act No. 2347 46 on the reorganization of the Courts of First Instance and to Act No. 4007 47 on the reorganization of all branches of the government, including the courts of first instance. In both of them, the then Courts of First Instance were replaced by new courts with the same appellation. As Justice Laurel pointed out, there was no question as to the fact of abolition. He was equally categorical as to Commonwealth Act No. 145, where also the system of the courts of first instance was provided for expressly. It was pointed out by Justice Laurel that the mere creation of an entirely new district of the same court is valid and constitutional. such conclusion flowing "from the fundamental proposition that the legislature may abolish courts inferior to the Supreme Court and therefore may reorganize them territorially or otherwise thereby necessitating new appointments and commissions." 48 The challenged statute creates an intermediate appellate court, 49 regional trial courts, 50 metropolitan trial courts of the national capital region, 51 and other metropolitan trial courts, 52 municipal trial courts in cities, 53 as well as in municipalities, 54 and municipal circuit trial courts. 55 There is even less reason then to doubt the fact that existing inferior courts were abolished. For

the Batasang Pambansa, the establishment of such new inferior courts was the appropriate response to the grave and urgent problems that pressed for solution. Certainly, there could be differences of opinion as to the appropriate remedy. The choice, however, was for the Batasan to make, not for this Court, which deals only with the question of power. It bears mentioning that in Brillo v. Eage 56 this Court, in an unanimous opinion penned by the late Justice Diokno, citing Zandueta v. De la Costa, ruled: "La segunda question que el recurrrido plantea es que la Carta de Tacloban ha abolido el puesto. Si efectivamente ha sido abolido el cargo, entonces ha quedado extinguido el derecho de recurente a ocuparlo y a cobrar el salario correspodiente. Mc Culley vs. State, 46 LRA, 567. El derecho de un juez de desempenarlo hasta los 70 aos de edad o se incapacite no priva al Congreso de su facultad de abolir, fusionar o reorganizar juzgados no constitucionales." 57 Nonetheless, such wellestablished principle was not held applicable to the situation there obtaining, the Charter of Tacloban City creating a city court in place of the former justice of the peace court. Thus: "Pero en el caso de autos el Juzgado de Tacloban no ha sido abolido. Solo se le ha cambiado el nombre con el cambio de forma del gobierno local." 58 The present case is anything but that. Petitioners did not and could not prove that the challenged statute was not within the bounds of legislative authority. 7. This opinion then could very well stop at this point. The implementation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, concededly a task incumbent on the Executive, may give rise, however, to questions affecting a judiciary that should be kept independent. The allembracing scope of the assailed legislation as far as all inferior courts from the Courts of Appeals to municipal courts are concerned, with the exception solely of the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals 59 gave rise, and understandably so, to misgivings as to its effect on such cherished Ideal. The first paragraph of the section on the transitory provision reads: "The

provisions of this Act shall be immediately carried out in accordance with an Executive Order to be issued by the President. The Court of Appeals, the Courts of First Instance, the Circuit Criminal Courts, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, the Courts of Agrarian Relations, the City Courts, the Municipal Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Courts shall continue to function as presently constituted and organized, until the completion of the reorganization provided in this Act as declared by the President. Upon such declaration, the said courts shall be deemed automatically abolished and the incumbents thereof shall cease to hold the office." 60 There is all the more reason then why this Court has no choice but to inquire further into the allegation by petitioners that the security of tenure provision, an assurance of a judiciary free from extraneous influences, is thereby reduced to a barren form of words. The amended Constitution adheres even more clearly to the long-established tradition of a strong executive that antedated the 1935 Charter. As noted in the work of former Vice-Governor Hayden, a noted political scientist, President Claro M. Recto of the 1934 Convention, in his closing address, in stressing such a concept, categorically spoke of providing "an executive power which, subject to the fiscalization of the Assembly, and of public opinion, will not only know how to govern, but will actually govern, with a firm and steady hand, unembarrassed by vexatious interferences by other departments, or by unholy alliances with this and that social group." 61 The above excerpt was cited with approval by Justice Laurel in Planas v. Gil. 62 Moreover, under the 1981 Amendments, it may be affirmed that once again the principle of separation of powers, to quote from the same jurist as ponente in Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 "obtains not through express provision but by actual division." 64 The president, under Article VII, shall be the head of state and chief executive of the Republic of the Philippines." 65 Moreover, it is equally therein expressly provided that all the powers he possessed under the 1935 Constitution are once again vested in him unless the Batasang Pambansa

provides otherwise." 66 Article VII of the 1935 Constitution speaks categorically: "The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the Philippines." 67 As originally framed, the 1973 Constitution created the position of President as the "symbolic head of state." 68 In addition, there was a provision for a Prime Minister as the head of government exercising the executive power with the assistance of the Cabinet 69 Clearly, a modified parliamentary system was established. In the light of the 1981 amendments though, this Court in Free Telephone Workers Union v. Minister of Labor 70 could state: "The adoption of certain aspects of a parliamentary system in the amended Constitution does not alter its essentially presidential character." 71 The retention, however, of the position of the Prime Minister with the Cabinet, a majority of the members of which shall come from the regional representatives of the Batasang Pambansa and the creation of an Executive Committee composed of the Prime Minister as Chairman and not more than fourteen other members at least half of whom shall be members of the Batasang Pambansa, clearly indicate the evolving nature of the system of government that is now operative. 72 What is equally apparent is that the strongest ties bind the executive and legislative departments. It is likewise undeniable that the Batasang Pambansa retains its full authority to enact whatever legislation may be necessary to carry out national policy as usually formulated in a caucus of the majority party. It is understandable then why in Fortun v. Labang 73 it was stressed that with the provision transferring to the Supreme Court administrative supervision over the Judiciary, there is a greater need "to preserve unimpaired the independence of the judiciary, especially so at present, where to all intents and purposes, there is a fusion between the executive and the legislative branches." 74 8. To be more specific, petitioners contend that the abolition of the existing inferior courts collides with the security of tenure enjoyed by incumbent Justices and judges under Article X, Section 7 of the Constitution. There was a similar provision in the 1935

Constitution. It did not, however, go as far as conferring on this Tribunal the power to supervise administratively inferior courts. 75 Moreover, this Court is em powered "to discipline judges of inferior courts and, by a vote of at least eight members, order their dismissal." 76 Thus it possesses the competence to remove judges. Under the Judiciary Act, it was the President who was vested with such power. 77 Removal is, of course, to be distinguished from termination by virtue of the abolition of the office. There can be no tenure to a non-existent office. After the abolition, there is in law no occupant. In case of removal, there is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose his position. It is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the question of any impairment of security of tenure does not arise. Nonetheless, for the incumbents of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of separation. As to its effect, no distinction exists between removal and the abolition of the office. Realistically, it is devoid of significance. He ceases to be a member of the judiciary. In the implementation of the assailed legislation, therefore, it would be in accordance with accepted principles of constitutional construction that as far as incumbent justices and judges are concerned, this Court be consulted and that its view be accorded the fullest consideration. No fear need be entertained that there is a failure to accord respect to the basic principle that this Court does not render advisory opinions. No question of law is involved. If such were the case, certainly this Court could not have its say prior to the action taken by either of the two departments. Even then, it could do so but only by way of deciding a case where the matter has been put in issue. Neither is there any intrusion into who shall be appointed to the vacant positions created by the reorganization. That remains in the hands of the Executive to whom it properly belongs. There is no departure therefore from the tried and tested ways of judicial power, Rather what is sought to be achieved by this liberal interpretation is to preclude any plausibility to the charge that in the exercise of the conceded power of reorganizing tulle inferior courts, the power of removal of

the present incumbents vested in this Tribunal is ignored or disregarded. The challenged Act would thus be free from any unconstitutional taint, even one not readily discernidble except to those predisposed to view it with distrust. Moreover, such a construction would be in accordance with the basic principle that in the choice of alternatives between one which would save and another which would invalidate a statute, the former is to be preferred. 78 There is an obvious way to do so. The principle that the Constitution enters into and forms part of every act to avoid any constitutional taint must be applied Nuez v. Sandiganbayan, 79 promulgated last January, has this relevant excerpt: "It is true that other Sections of the Decree could have been so worded as to avoid any constitutional objection. As of now, however, no ruling is called for. The view is given expression in the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Makasiar that in such a case to save the Decree from the direct fate of invalidity, they must be construed in such a way as to preclude any possible erosion on the powers vested in this Court by the Constitution. That is a proposition too plain to be committed. It commends itself for approval." 80 Nor would such a step be unprecedented. The Presidential Decree constituting Municipal Courts into Municipal Circuit Courts, specifically provides: "The Supreme Court shall carry out the provisions of this Decree through implementing orders, on a province-to-province basis." 81 It is true there is no such provision in this Act, but the spirit that informs it should not be ignored in the Executive Order contemplated under its Section 44. 82 Thus Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 could stand the most rigorous test of constitutionality. 83 9. Nor is there anything novel in the concept that this Court is called upon to reconcile or harmonize constitutional provisions. To be specific, the Batasang Pambansa is expressly vested with the authority to reorganize inferior courts and in the process to abolish existing ones. As noted in the preceding paragraph, the termination of office of their occupants, as a necessary

consequence of such abolition, is hardly distinguishable from the practical standpoint from removal, a power that is now vested in this Tribunal. It is of the essence of constitutionalism to assure that neither agency is precluded from acting within the boundaries of its conceded competence. That is why it has long been wellsettled under the constitutional system we have adopted that this Court cannot, whenever appropriate, avoid the task of reconciliation. As Justice Laurel put it so well in the previously cited Angara decision, while in the main, "the Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes and in bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, the legislative and the judicial departments of the government, the overlapping and interlacing of functions and duties between the several departments, however, sometimes makes it hard to say just where the one leaves off and the other begins." 84 It is well to recall another classic utterance from the same jurist, even more emphatic in its affirmation of such a view, moreover buttressed by one of those insights for which Holmes was so famous "The classical separation of government powers, whether viewed in the light of the political philosophy of Aristotle, Locke, or Motesquieu or of the postulations of Mabini, Madison, or Jefferson, is a relative theory of government. There is more truism and actuality in interdependence than in independence and separation of powers, for as observed by Justice Holmes in a case of Philippine origin, we cannot lay down 'with mathematical precision and divide the branches into water-tight compartments' not only because 'the great ordinances of the Constitution do not establish and divide fields of black and white but also because 'even the more specific of them are found to terminate in a penumbra shading gradually from one extreme to the other.'" 85 This too from Justice Tuazon, likewise expressing with force and clarity why the need for reconciliation or balancing is well-nigh unavodiable under the fundamental principle of separation of powers: "The constitutional structure is a complicated system, and overlappings of governmental functions are recognized, unavoidable, and inherent necessities of governmental

coordination." 86 In the same way that the academe has noted the existence in constitutional litigation of right versus right, there are instances, and this is one of them, where, without this attempt at harmonizing the provisions in question, there could be a case of power against power. That we should avoid. 10. There are other objections raised but they pose no difficulty. Petitioners would characterize as an undue delegation of legislative power to the President the grant of authority to fix the compensation and the allowances of the Justices and judges thereafter appointed. A more careful reading of the challenged Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 ought to have cautioned them against raising such an issue. The language of the statute is quite clear. The questioned provisions reads as follows: "Intermediate Appellate Justices, Regional Trial Judges, Metropolitan Trial Judges, municipal Trial Judges, and Municipal Circuit Trial Judges shall receive such receive such compensation and allowances as may be authorized by the President along the guidelines set forth in Letter of Implementation No. 93 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 985, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1597." 87 The existence of a standard is thus clear. The basic postulate that underlies the doctrine of non-delegation is that it is the legislative body which is entrusted with the competence to make laws and to alter and repeal them, the test being the completeness of the statue in all its terms and provisions when enacted. As pointed out in Edu v. Ericta: 88 "To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy. Otherwise, the charge of complete abdication may be hard to repel. A standard thus defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. It is the criterion by which legislative purpose may be carried out. Thereafter, the executive or administrative office

designated may in pursuance of the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and regulations. The standard may be either express or implied. If the former, the non-delegation objection is easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole." 89 The undeniably strong links that bind the executive and legislative departments under the amended Constitution assure that the framing of policies as well as their implementation can be accomplished with unity, promptitude, and efficiency. There is accuracy, therefore, to this observation in the Free Telephone Workers Union decision: "There is accordingly more receptivity to laws leaving to administrative and executive agencies the adoption of such means as may be necessary to effectuate a valid legislative purpose. It is worth noting that a highly-respected legal scholar, Professor Jaffe, as early as 1947, could speak of delegation as the 'dynamo of modern government.'" 90 He warned against a "restrictive approach" which could be "a deterrent factor to muchneeded legislation." 91 Further on this point from the same opinion" "The spectre of the non-delegation concept need not haunt, therefore, party caucuses, cabinet sessions or legislative chambers." 92 Another objection based on the absence in the statue of what petitioners refer to as a "definite time frame limitation" is equally bereft of merit. They ignore the categorical language of this provision: "The Supreme Court shall submit to the President, within thirty (30) days from the date of the effectivity of this act, a staffing pattern for all courts constituted pursuant to this Act which shall be the basis of the implementing order to be issued by the President in accordance with the immediately succeeding section." 93 The first sentence of the next section is even more categorical: "The provisions of this Act shall be immediately carried out in accordance with an Executive Order to be issued by the President." 94 Certainly petitioners cannot be heard to argue that the President is insensible to his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. 95 In the

meanwhile, the existing inferior courts affected continue functioning as before, "until the completion of the reorganization provided in this Act as declared by the President. Upon such declaration, the said courts shall be deemed automatically abolished and the incumbents thereof shall cease to hold office." 96 There is no ambiguity. The incumbents of the courts thus automatically abolished "shall cease to hold office." No fear need be entertained by incumbents whose length of service, quality of performance, and clean record justify their being named anew, 97 in legal contemplation without any interruption in the continuity of their service. 98 It is equally reasonable to assume that from the ranks of lawyers, either in the government service, private practice, or law professors will come the new appointees. In the event that in certain cases a little more time is necessary in the appraisal of whether or not certain incumbents deserve reappointment, it is not from their standpoint undesirable. Rather, it would be a reaffirmation of the good faith that will characterize its implementation by the Executive. There is pertinence to this observation of Justice Holmes that even acceptance of the generalization that courts ordinarily should not supply omissions in a law, a generalization qualified as earlier shown by the principle that to save a statute that could be done, "there is no canon against using common sense in construing laws as saying what they obviously mean." 99 Where then is the unconstitutional flaw 11. On the morning of the hearing of this petition on September 8, 1981, petitioners sought to have the writer of this opinion and Justices Ramon C. Aquino and Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera disqualified because the first-named was the chairman and the other two, members of the Committee on Judicial Reorganization. At the hearing, the motion was denied. It was made clear then and there that not one of the three members of the Court had any hand in the framing or in the discussion of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. They were not consulted. They did not testify. The

challenged legislation is entirely the product of the efforts of the legislative body. 100 Their work was limited, as set forth in the Executive Order, to submitting alternative plan for reorganization. That is more in the nature of scholarly studies. That the undertook. There could be no possible objection to such activity. Ever since 1973, this Tribunal has had administrative supervision over interior courts. It has had the opportunity to inform itself as to the way judicial business is conducted and how it may be improved. Even prior to the 1973 Constitution, it is the recollection of the writer of this opinion that either the then Chairman or members of the Committee on Justice of the then Senate of the Philippines 101 consulted members of the Court in drafting proposed legislation affecting the judiciary. It is not inappropriate to cite this excerpt from an article in the 1975 Supreme Court Review: "In the twentieth century the Chief Justice of the United States has played a leading part in judicial reform. A variety of conditions have been responsible for the development of this role, and foremost among them has been the creation of explicit institutional structures designed to facilitate reform." 102 Also: "Thus the Chief Justice cannot avoid exposure to and direct involvement in judicial reform at the federal level and, to the extent issues of judicial federalism arise, at the state level as well." 103 12. It is a cardinal article of faith of our constitutional regime that it is the people who are endowed with rights, to secure which a government is instituted. Acting as it does through public officials, it has to grant them either expressly or impliedly certain powers. Those they exercise not for their own benefit but for the body politic. The Constitution does not speak in the language of ambiguity: "A public office is a public trust." 104 That is more than a moral adjuration It is a legal imperative. The law may vest in a public official certain rights. It does so to enable them to perform his functions and fulfill his responsibilities more efficiently. It is from that standpoint that the security of tenure provision to assure

judicial independence is to be viewed. It is an added guarantee that justices and judges can administer justice undeterred by any fear of reprisal or untoward consequence. Their judgments then are even more likely to be inspired solely by their knowledge of the law and the dictates of their conscience, free from the corrupting influence of base or unworthy motives. The independence of which they are assured is impressed with a significance transcending that of a purely personal right. As thus viewed, it is not solely for their welfare. The challenged legislation Thus subject d to the most rigorous scrutiny by this Tribunal, lest by lack of due care and circumspection, it allow the erosion of that Ideal so firmly embedded in the national consciousness There is this farther thought to consider. independence in thought and action necessarily is rooted in one's mind and heart. As emphasized by former Chief Justice Paras in Ocampo v. Secretary of Justice, 105 there is no surer guarantee of judicial independence than the God-given character and fitness of those appointed to the Bench. The judges may be guaranteed a fixed tenure of office during good behavior, but if they are of such stuff as allows them to be subservient to one administration after another, or to cater to the wishes of one litigant after another, the independence of the judiciary will be nothing more than a myth or an empty Ideal. Our judges, we are confident, can be of the type of Lord Coke, regardless or in spite of the power of Congress we do not say unlimited but as herein exercised to reorganize inferior courts." 106 That is to recall one of the greatest Common Law jurists, who at the cost of his office made clear that he would not just blindly obey the King's order but "will do what becomes [him] as a judge." So it was pointed out in the first leading case stressing the independence of the judiciary, Borromeo v. Mariano, 107 The ponencia of Justice Malcolm Identified good judges with "men who have a mastery of the principles of law, who discharge their duties in accordance with law, who are permitted to perform the duties of the office undeterred by outside influence, and who are independent and self-respecting human units in a judicial

system equal and coordinate to the other two departments of government." 108 There is no reason to assume that the failure of this suit to annul Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 would be attended with deleterious consequences to the administration of justice. It does not follow that the abolition in good faith of the existing inferior courts except the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals and the creation of new ones will result in a judiciary unable or unwilling to discharge with independence its solemn duty or one recreant to the trust reposed in it. Nor should there be any fear that less than good faith will attend the exercise be of the appointing power vested in the Executive. It cannot be denied that an independent and efficient judiciary is something to the credit of any administration. Well and truly has it been said that the fundamental principle of separation of powers assumes, and justifiably so, that the three departments are as one in their determination to pursue the Ideals and aspirations and to fulfilling the hopes of the sovereign people as expressed in the Constitution. There is wisdom as well as validity to this pronouncement of Justice Malcolm in Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transportation Company, 109 a decision promulgated almost half a century ago: "Just as the Supreme Court, as the guardian of constitutional rights, should not sanction usurpations by any other department or the government, so should it as strictly confine its own sphere of influence to the powers expressly or by implication conferred on it by the Organic Act." 110 To that basic postulate underlying our constitutional system, this Court remains committed. WHEREFORE, the unconstitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 not having been shown, this petition is dismissed. No costs. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

EN BANC G.R. Nos. L-8895 and L-9191 April 30, 1957

SALVADOR A. ARANETA, ETC., ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ETC., ET AL., respondents. EXEQUIEL SORIANO, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. SALVADOR ARANETA, ETC., ET AL., respondents-appellants. Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla, Assistant Solicitor General Jose G. Bautista and Solicitor Troadio T. Quiazon for petitioners. San Juan, Africa and Benedicto for respondents. FELIX, J.: San Miguel Bay, located between the provinces of Camarines Norte and Camarines Sur, a part of the National waters of the Philippines with an extension of about 250 square miles and an average depth of approximately 6 fathoms (Otter trawl explorations in Philippine waters p. 21, Exh. B), is considered as the most important fishing area in the Pacific side of the Bicol region. Sometime in 1950, trawl1 operators from Malabon, Navotas and other places migrated to this region most of them settling at Sabang, Calabanga, Camarines Sur, for the purpose of using this particular method of fishing in said bay. On account of the belief of sustenance fishermen that the operation of this kind of gear caused the depletion of the marine resources of that area, there arose a general clamor among the majority of the inhabitants of coastal towns to prohibit the operation of trawls in San Miguel Bay. This move was manifested in the resolution of December 18, 1953 (Exh. F), passed by the Municipal Mayors' League condemning the operation of trawls as the cause of the wanton destruction of the shrimp specie and resolving to petition the President of the Philippines to regulate fishing in San Miguel

Bay by declaring it closed for trawl fishing at a certain period of the year. In another resolution dated March 27, 1954, the same League of Municipal Mayor, prayed the President to protect them and the fish resources of San Miguel Bay by banning the operation of trawls therein (Exh. 4). The Provincial Governor also made proper presentations to this effect and petitions in behalf of the non-trawl fishermen were likewise presented to the President by social and civic organizations as the NAMFREL (National Movement for Free Elections) and the COMPADRE (Committee for Philippine Action in Development, Reconstruction and Education), recommending the cancellation of the licenses of trawl operators after investigation, if such inquiry would substantiate the charges that the operation of said fishing method was detrimental to the welfare of the majority of the inhabitants (Exh. 2). In response to these pleas, the President issued on April 5, 1954, Executive Order No. 22 (50 Off. Gaz., 1421) prohibiting the use of trawls in San Miguel Bay, but said executive order was amended by Executive Order No. 66, issued on September 23, 1954 (50 Off. Gaz., 4037), apparently in answer to a resolution of the Provincial Board of Camarines Sur recommending the allowance of trawl fishing during the typhoon season only. On November 2, 1954, however, Executive Order No. 80 (50 Off. Gaz., 5198) was issued reviving Executive Order No. 22, to take effect after December 31, 1954. A group of Otter trawl operators took the matter to the court by filing a complaint for injunction and/or declaratory relief with preliminary injunction with the Court of First Instance of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 24867, praying that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to restrain the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Director of Fisheries from enforcing said executive order; to declare the same null and void, and for such other relief as may be just and equitable in the premises. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Director of Fisheries, represented by the Legal Adviser of said Department and a

Special Attorney of the Office of the Solicitor General, answered the complaint alleging, among other things, that of the 18 plaintiff (Exequiel Soriano, Teodora Donato, Felipe Concepcion, Venancio Correa, Santo Gaviana, Alfredo General, Constancio Gutierrez, Arsenio de Guzman, Pedro Lazaro, Porfirio Lazaro, Deljie de Leon, Jose Nepomuceno, Bayani Pingol, Claudio Salgado, Porfirio, San Juan, Luis Sioco, Casimiro Villar and Enrique Voluntad), only 11 were issued license to operate fishing boats for the year 1954 (Annex B, petition L-8895); that the executive orders in question were issued accordance with law; that the encouragement by the Bureau of Fisheries of the use of Otter trawls should not be construed to mean that the general welfare of the public could be disregarded, and set up the defenses that since plaintiffs question the validity of the executive orders issued by the President, then the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Director of Fisheries were not the real parties in interest; that said executive orders do not constitute a deprivation of property without due process of law, and therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed (Exh. B, petition, L-8895). During the trial of the case, the Governor of Camarines Sur appearing for the municipalities of Siruma, Tinambac, Calabanga, Cabusao and Sipocot, in said province, called the attention of the Court that the Solicitor General had not been notified of the proceeding. To this manifestation, the Court ruled that in view of the circumstances of the case, and as the Solicitor General would only be interested in maintaining the legality of the executive orders sought to be impugned, section 4 of Rule 66 could be interpreted to mean that the trial could go on and the Solicitor General could be notified before judgement is entered. After the evidence for both parties was submitted and the Solicitor General was allowed to file his memorandum, the Court rendered decision on February 2, 1955, the last part of which reads as follows:

The power to close any definite area of the Philippine waters, from the fact that Congress has seen fit to define under what conditions it may be done by the enactment of the sections cited, in the mind of Congress must be of transcendental significance. It is primarily within the fields of legislation not of execution: for it goes far and says who can and who can not fish in definite territorial waters. The court can not accept that Congress had intended to abdicate its inherent right to legislate on this matter of national importance. To accept respondents' view would be to sanction the exercise of legislative power by executive decrees. If it is San Miguel Bay now, it may be Davao Gulf tomorrow, and so on. That may be done only by Congress. This being the conclusion, there is hardly need to go any further. Until the trawler is outlawed by legislative enactment, it cannot be banned from San Miguel Bay by executive proclamation. The remedy for respondents and population of the coastal towns of Camarines Sur is to go to the Legislature. The result will be to issue the writ prayed for, even though this be to strike at public clamor and to annul the orders of the President issued in response therefor. This is a task unwelcome and unpleasant; unfortunately, courts of justice use only one measure for both the rich and poor, and are not bound by the more popular cause when they give judgments. IN VIEW WHEREOF, granted; Executive Order Nos. 22, 66 and 80 are declared invalid; the injunction prayed for is ordered to issue; no pronouncement as to costs. Petitioners immediately filed an ex-parte motion for the issuance of a writ of injunction which was opposed by the Solicitor General and after the parties had filed their respective memoranda, the Court issued an order dated February 19, 1955, denying respondents' motion to set aside judgement and ordering them to file a bond in the sum of P30,000 on or before March 1, 1955, as a condition for the non-issuance of the injunction prayed for by petitioners pending appeal. The Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied for lack of

merit, and the Court, acting upon the motion for new trial filed by respondents, issued another order on March 3, 1965, denying said motion and granting the injunction prayed for by petitioners upon the latter's filing a bond for P30,000 unless respondents could secure a writ of preliminary injunction from the Supreme Court on or before March 15, 1955. Respondents, therefore, brought the matter to this Court in a petition for prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction, docketed as G.R. No. L-8895, and on the same day filed a notice to appeal from the order of the lower court dated February 2, 1955, which appeal was docketed in this Court as G.R. No. L-9191. In the petition for prohibition and certiorari, petitioners (respondents therein) contended among other things, that the order of, the respondent Judge requiring petitioners Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Director of Fisheries to post a bond in the sum of P30,000 on or before March 1, 1955, had been issued without jurisdiction or in excess thereof, or at the very least with grave abuse of discretion, because by requiring the bond, the Republic of the Philippines was in effect made a party defendant and therefore transformed the suit into one against the Government which is beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent Judge to entertain; that the failure to give the Solicitor General the opportunity to defend the validity of the challenged executive orders resulted in the receipt of objectionable matters at the hearing; that Rule 66 of the Rules of Court does not empower a court of law to pass upon the validity of an executive order in a declaratory relief proceeding; that the respondent Judge did not have the power to grant the injunction as Section 4 of Rule 39 does not apply to declaratory relief proceedings but only to injunction, receivership and patent accounting proceedings; and prayed that a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin the respondent Judge from enforcing its order of March 3, 1955, and for such other relief as may be deem just and equitable in the premises. This petition was given due course and the hearing on the merits was set by this Court for April 12, 1955, but no writ of preliminary injunction was issued.

Meanwhile, the appeal (G.R. No. L-9191) was heard on October 3, 1956, wherein respondents-appellants ascribed to the lower court the commission of the following errors: 1. In ruling that the President has no authority to issue Executive Orders Nos. 22, 66 and 80 banning the operation of trawls in San Miguel Bay; 2. In holding that the power to declare a closed area for fishing purposes has not been delegated to the President of the Philippines under the Fisheries Act; 3. In not considering Executive Orders Nos. 22, 66 and 80 as declaring a closed season pursuant to Section 7, Act 4003, as amended, otherwise known as the Fisheries Act; 4. In holding that to uphold the validity of Executive Orders Nos. 22 and 80 would be to sanction the exercise of legislative power by executive decrees; 5. In its suggestion that the only remedy for respondents and the people of the coastal towns of Camarines Sur and Camarines Norte is to go to the Legislature; and 6. In declaring Executive Orders Nos. 22, 66 and 80 invalid and in ordering the injunction prayed for to issue. As Our decision in the prohibition and certiorari case (G.R. No. L-8895) would depend, in the last analysis, on Our ruling in the appeal of the respondents in case G.R. No. L-9191, We shall first proceed to dispose of the latter case. It is indisputable that the President issued Executive Orders Nos. 22, 66 and 80 in response to the clamor of the inhabitants of the municipalities along the coastline of San Miguel Bay. They read as follows: EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 22

PROHIBITING THE USE OF TRAWLS IN SAN MIGUEL BAY In order to effectively protect the municipal fisheries of San Miguel Bay, Camarines Norte and Camarines Sur, and to conserve fish and other aquatic resources of the area, I, RAMON MAGSAYSAY, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order that: 1. Fishing by means of trawls (utase, otter and/or perenzella) of any kind, in the waters comprised within San Miguel Bay, is hereby prohibited. 2. Trawl shall mean, for the purpose of this Order, a fishing net made in the form of a bag with the mouth kept open by a device, the whole affair being towed, dragged, trailed or trawled on the bottom of the sea to capture demersal, ground or bottom species. 3. Violation of the provisions of this Order shall subject the offender to the penalty provided under Section 83 of Act 4993, or more than six months, or both, in the discretion of the Court. Done in the City of Manila, this 5th day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-four and of the Independence of the Philippines, the eighth. (50 Off. Gaz. 1421) EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 66 AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 22, DATED APRIL 5, 1954, ENTITLED "PROHIBITING THE USE OF TRAWLS IN SAN MIGUEL BAY" By virtue of the powers voted in me by law, I, RAMON MAGSAYSAY, President of the Philippines, do hereby amend Executive Order No. 22, dated April 5, 1954, so as to allow fishing by means of trawls, as defined in said Executive Order, within that portion of San Miguel Bay north of a straight line drawn from Tacubtacuban Hill in the Municipality of Tinambac, Province of

Camarines Sur. Fishing by means of trawls south of said line shall still be absolutely prohibited. Done in the City of Manila, this 23rd day of September, in the year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, and of the Independence of the Philippines, the ninth." (50 Off. Gaz. 4037). EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 80. FURTHER AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 22, DATED APRIL 5, 1954, AS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 66, DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 1954. By virtue of the powers vested in me by law, I, RAMON MAGSAYSAY, President of the Philippines, do hereby amend Executive Order No. 66 dated September 23, 1954, so as to allow fishing by means of trawls, as defined in Executive Order No. 22, dated April 5, 1954, within the portion of San Miguel Bay North of a straight line drawn from Tacubtacuban Hill in the Municipality of Mercedes, Province of Camarines Norte to Balocbaloc Point in the Municipality of Tinambac, Province of Camarines Sur, until December 31, 1954, only. Thereafter, the provisions of said Executive Order No. 22 absolutely prohibiting fishing by means of trawls in all the waters comprised within the San Miguel Bay shall be revived and given full force and effect as originally provided therein. Done in the City of Manila, this 2nd day of November, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and fifty-four and of the Independence of the Philippines, the ninth. (50 Off. Gaz. 5198) It is likewise admitted that petitioners assailed the validity of said executive orders in their petition for a writ of injunction and/or declaratory relief filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila, and that the lower court, upon declaring Executive Orders Nos. 22, 66 and

80 invalid, issued an order requiring the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Director of Fisheries to post a bond for P30,000 if the writ of injunction restraining them from enforcing the executive orders in question must be stayed. The Solicitor General avers that the constitutionality of an executive order cannot be ventilated in a declaratory relief proceeding. We find this untenable, for this Court taking cognizance of an appeal from the decision of the lower court in the case of Hilado vs. De la Costa, et al., 83 Phil., 471, which involves the constitutionality of another executive order presented in an action for declaratory relief, in effect accepted the propriety of such action. This question being eliminated, the main issues left for Our determination with respect to defendants' appeal (G.R. No. L-9191), are: (1) Whether the Secretary of an Executive Department and the Director of a Bureau, acting in their capacities as such Government officials, could lawfully be required to post a bond in an action against them; (2) Whether the President of the Philippines has authority to issue Executive Orders Nos. 22, 66 and 80, banning the operation of trawls in San Miguel Bay, or, said in other words, whether said Executive Orders Nos. 22, 66 and 80 were issued in accordance with law; and. (3) Whether Executive Orders Nos. 22, 66 and 80 were valid, for the issuance thereof was not in the exercise of legislative powers unduly delegated to the President. Counsel for both parties presented commendable exhaustive defenses in support of their respective stands. Certainly, these cases deserve such efforts, not only because the constitutionality of an act of a coordinate branch in our tripartite system of Government is in issue, but also because of the number of inhabitants, admittedly classified as "subsistence fishermen", that may be affected by any ruling that We may promulgate herein.

I. As to the first proposition, it is an elementary rule of procedure that an appeal stays the execution of a judgment. An exception is offered by section 4 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which provides that: SEC. 4. INJUNCTION, RECEIVERSHIP AND PATENT ACCOUNTING, NOT STAYED. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, a judgment in an action for injunction or in a receivership action, or a judgment or order directing an accounting in an action for infringement of letter patent, shall not be stayed after its rendition and before an appeal is taken or during the pendency of an appeal. The trial court, however, in its discretion, when an appeal is taken from a judgement granting, dissolving or denying an injunction, may make an order suspending, modifying, restoring, or granting such injunction during the pendency of an appeal, upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as it may consider proper for the security of the rights of the adverse party. This provision was the basis of the order of the lower court dated February 19, 1955, requiring the filing by the respondents of a bond for P30,000 as a condition for the non-issuance of the injunction prayed for by plaintiffs therein, and which the Solicitor General charged to have been issued in excess of jurisdiction. The State's counsel, however, alleges that while judgment could be stayed in injunction, receivership and patent accounting cases and although the complaint was styled "Injunction, and/or Declaratory Relief with Preliminary Injunction", the case is necessarily one for declaratory relief, there being no allegation sufficient to convince the Court that the plaintiffs intended it to be one for injunction. But aside from the title of the complaint, We find that plaintiffs pray for the declaration of the nullity of Executive Order Nos. 22, 66 and 80; the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, and for such other relief as may be deemed just and equitable. This Court has already held that there are only two requisites to be satisfied if an injunction is to issue, namely, the existence of the right sought to be protected, and that the acts against which the injunction is to be directed are violative of said right (North Negros Sugar Co., Inc. vs. Serafin

Hidalgo, 63 Phil., 664). There is no question that at least 11 of the complaining trawl operators were duly licensed to operate in any of the national waters of the Philippines, and it is undeniable that the executive enactment's sought to be annulled are detrimental to their interests. And considering further that the granting or refusal of an injunction, whether temporary or permanent, rests in the sound discretion of the Court, taking into account the circumstances and the facts of the particular case (Rodulfa vs. Alfonso, 76 Phil,, 225, 42 Off. Gaz., 2439), We find no abuse of discretion when the trial Court treated the complaint as one for injunction and declaratory relief and executed the judgment pursuant to the provisions of section 4 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. On the other hand, it shall be remembered that the party defendants in Civil Case No. 24867 of the Court of First Instance of Manila are Salvador Araneta, as Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and, Deogracias Villadolid, as Director of Fisheries, and were sued in such capacities because they were the officers charged with duty of carrying out the statutes, orders and regulations on fishing and fisheries. In its order of February 19, 1955, the trial court denied defendants' motion to set aside judgment and they were required to file a bond for P30,000 to answer for damages that plaintiffs were allegedly suffering at that time, as otherwise the injunction prayed for by the latter would be issued. Because of these facts, We agree with the Solicitor General when he says that the action, being one against herein petitioners as such Government officials, is essentially one against the Government, and to require these officials to file a bond would be indirectly a requirement against the Government for as regards bonds or damages that may be proved, if any, the real party in interest would be the Republic of the Philippines (L. S. Moon and Co. vs. Harrison, 43 Phi., 39; Salgado vs. Ramos, 64 Phil., 724-727, and others). The reason for this pronouncement is understandable; the State undoubtedly is always solvent (Tolentino vs. Carlos 66 Phil., 140; Government of the P. I. vs. Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, 34 Phil., 167, cited in

Joaquin Gutierrez et al. vs. Camus et al. * G.R. No. L-6725, promulgated October 30, 1954). However, as the records show that herein petitioners failed to put up the bond required by the lower court, allegedly due to difficulties encountered with the Auditor General's Office (giving the impression that they were willing to put up said bond but failed to do so for reasons beyond their control), and that the orders subjects of the prohibition and certiorari proceedings in G.R. No. L-8895, were enforced, if at all,2 in accordance with section 4 of Rule 39, which We hold to be applicable to the case at bar, the issue as to the regularity or adequacy of requiring herein petitioners to post a bond, becomes moot and academic. II. Passing upon the question involved in the second proposition, the trial judge extending the controversy to the determination of which between the Legislative, and Executive Departments of the Government had "the power to close any definite area of the Philippine waters" instead of limiting the same to the real issue raised by the enactment of Executive Orders No. 22, 26 and 80, especially the first and the last "absolutely prohibiting fishing by means trawls in all the waters comprised within the San Miguel Bay", ruled in favor of Congress had not intended to abdicate its power to legislate on the matter, he maintained as stated before, that "until the trawler is outlawed by legislative enactment, it cannot be banned from San Miguel Bay by executive proclamation", and that "the remedy for respondents and population of the coastal towns of Camarines Sur is to go to Legislature," and thus declared said Executive Orders Nos. 22, 66 and 80 invalid". The Solicitor General, on the contrary, asserts that the President is empowered by law to issue the executive enactment's in question. Sections 6, 13 and 75 of Act No. 4003, known as the Fisheries Law, the latter two sections as amended by section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 471, read as follows: SEC. 6. WORDS AND PHRASES DEFINED. Words and terms used in this Act shall be construed as follows:

xxx

xxx

xxx

TAKE or TAKING includes pursuing, shooting, killing, capturing, trapping, snaring, and netting fish and other aquatic animals, and all lesser acts, such as disturbing, wounding, stupefying; or placing, setting, drawing, or using any net or other device commonly used to take or collect fish and other aquatic animals, whether they result in taking or not, and includes every attempt to take and every act of assistance to every other person in taking or attempting to take or collect fish and other aquatic animals: PROVIDED, That whenever taking is allowed by law, reference is had to taking by lawful means and in lawful manner. xxx xxx xxx

SEC. 13. PROTECTION OF FRY OR FISH EGGS. Except for scientific or educational purpose or for propagation, it shall be unlawful to take or catch fry or fish eggs and the small fish, not more than three (3) centimeters long, known as siliniasi, in the territorial waters of the Philippines. Towards this end, the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce shall be authorized to provide by regulations such restrictions as may be deemed necessary to be imposed on THE USE OF ANY FISHING NET OR FISHING DEVICE FOR THE PROTECTION OF FRY OR FISH EGGS; Provided, however, That the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce shall permit the taking of young of certain species of fish known as hipon under such restrictions as may be deemed necessary. SEC. 75. FISH REFUGEES AND SANCTUARIES. Upon the recommendation of the officer or chief of the bureau, office or service concerned, the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce may set aside and establish fishery reservation or fish refuges and sanctuaries to be administered in the manner to be prescribed by him. All streams, ponds and waters within the game refuge, birds, sanctuaries, national parks, botanical gardens, communal forest

and communal pastures are hereby declared fishing refuges and sanctuaries. It shall be unlawful for any person, to take, destroy or kill in any of the places aforementioned, or in any manner disturb or drive away or take therefrom, any fish fry or fish eggs. Act No. 4003 further provides as follows: SEC. 83. OTHER VIOLATIONS. Any other violation of the provisions of this Act or any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall subject the offender to a fine of not more than two hundred pesos, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, in the discretion of the Court. As may be seen from the just quoted provisions, the law declares unlawful and fixes the penalty for the taking (except for scientific or educational purposes or for propagation), destroying or killing of any fish fry or fish eggs, and the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce (now the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources) is authorized to promulgate regulations restricting the use of any fish net or fishing device (which includes the net used by trawl fishermen) for the protection of fry or fish eggs, as well as to set aside and establish fishery reservations or fish refuges and sanctuaries to be administered in the manner prescribed by him, from which no person could lawfully take, destroy or kill in any of the places aforementioned, or in any manner disturb or drive away or take therefrom any small or immature fish, fry or fish eggs. It is true that said section 75 mentions certain streams, ponds and waters within the game refuges, . . . communal forest, etc., which the law itself declares fish refuges and sanctuaries, but this enumeration of places does not curtail the general and unlimited power of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in the first part of section 75, to set aside and establish fishery reservations or fish refuges and sanctuaries, which naturally include seas or bays, like the San Miguel Bay in Camarines.

From the resolution passed at the Conference of Municipal Mayors held at Tinambac, Camarines Sur, on December 18, 1953 (Exh. F), the following manifestation is made: WHEREAS, the continuous operation of said trawls even during the close season as specified in said Executive Order No. 20 caused the wanton destruction of the mother shrimps laying their eggs and the millions of eggs laid and the inevitable extermination of the shrimps specie; in order to save the shrimps specie from eventual extermination and in order to conserve the shrimps specie for posterity; In the brief submitted by the NAMFREL and addressed to the President of the Philippines (Exh. 2), in support of the petition of San Miguel Bay fishermen (allegedly 6, 175 in number), praying that trawlers be banned from operating in San Miguel Bay, it is stated that: The trawls ram and destroy the fish corrals. The heavy trawl nets dig deep into the ocean bed. They destroy the fish foods which lies below the ocean floor. Their daytime catches net millions of shrimps scooped up from the mud. In their nets they bring up the life of the sea: algea, shell fish and star fish . . . The absence of some species or the apparent decline in the catch of some fishermen operating in the bay may be due to several factors, namely: the indiscriminate catching of fry and immature sizes of fishes, the wide-spread use of explosives inside as well as at the mouth and approaches of the bay, and the extensive operation of the trawls. (p.9, Report of Santos B. Rasalan, Exh. A) Extensive Operation of Trawls: The strenuous effect of the operations of the 17 TRAWLS of the demersal fisheries of San Miguel Bay is better appreciated when we consider the fact that out of its about 850 square kilometers area, only about 350 square kilometers of 5 fathoms up could be trawled. With their continuous operation, is greatly strained. This is shown by the fact that in view

of the non-observance of the close season from May to October, each year, majority of their catch are immature. If their operation would continue unrestricted, the supply would be greatly depleted. (p. 11), Report of Santos B. Rasalan, Exh. A) San Miguel Bay can sustain 3 to 4 small trawlers (Otter Trawl Explorations in Philippine Waters, Research Report 25 of the Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior, p. 9 Exhibit B). According to Annex A of the complaint filed in the lower court in Civil Case No. 24867 G.R. No. L-9191 (Exh. D, p. 53 of the folder of Exhibits), the 18 plaintiffs-appellees operate 29 trawling boats, and their operation must be in a big scale considering the investments plaintiffs have made therefore, amounting to P387,000 (Record on Appeal, p. 1617). In virtue of the aforementioned provisions of law and the manifestation just copied, We are of the opinion that with or without said Executive Orders, the restriction and banning of trawl fishing from all Philippine waters come, under the law, within the powers of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, who in compliance with his duties may even cause the criminal prosecution of those who in violation of his instructions, regulations or orders are caught fishing with trawls in the Philippine waters. Now, if under the law the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources has authority to regulate or ban the fishing by trawl which, it is claimed, obnoxious for it carries away fish eggs and fry's which should be preserved, can the President of the Philippines exercise that same power and authority? Section 10(1), Article VII of the Constitution of the Philippines prescribes: SEC. 10 (1). The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus or offices, exercises general supervision over

all local governments as may be provided by law, and take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Section 63 of the Revised Administrative Code reads as follows: SEC. 63. EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND EXECUTIVE PROCLAMATION. Administrative acts and commands of the President of the Philippines touching the organization or mode of operation of the Government or rearranging or readjusting any of the district, divisions, parts or ports of the Philippines, and all acts and commands governing the general performance of duties by public employees or disposing of issues of general concern shall be made in executive orders. xxx xxx xxx

Regarding department organization Section 74 of the Revised Administrative Code also provides that: All executive functions of the government of the Republic of the Philippines shall be directly under the Executive Departments subject to the supervision and control of the President of the Philippines in matters of general policy. The Departments are established for the proper distribution of the work of the Executive, for the performance of the functions expressly assigned to them by law, and in order that each branch of the administration may have a chief responsible for its direction and policy. Each Department Secretary shall assume the burden of, and responsibility for, all activities of the Government under his control and supervision. For administrative purposes the President of the Philippines shall be considered the Department Head of the Executive Office. One of the executive departments is that of Agriculture and Natural Resources which by law is placed under the direction and control of the Secretary, who exercises its functions subject to the general supervision

and control of the President of the Philippines (Sec. 75, R. A. C.). Moreover, "executive orders, regulations, decrees and proclamations relative to matters under the supervision or jurisdiction of a Department, the promulgation whereof is expressly assigned by law to the President of the Philippines, shall as a general rule, be issued upon proposition and recommendation of the respective Department" (Sec. 79-A, R.A.C.), and there can be no doubt that the promulgation of the questioned Executive Orders was upon the proposition and recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and that is why said Secretary, who was and is called upon to enforce said executive Orders, was made a party defendant in one of the cases at bar (G.R. No. L-9191). For the foregoing reasons We do hesitate to declare that Executive Orders Nos. 22, 66 and 80, series of 1954, of the President, are valid and issued by authority of law. III. But does the exercise of such authority by the President constitute and undue delegation of the powers of Congress? As already held by this Court, the true distinction between delegation of the power to legislate and the conferring of authority or discretion as to the execution of law consists in that the former necessary involves a discretion as to what the law shall be, wile in the latter the authority or discretion as to its execution has to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made (Cruz vs. Youngberg, 56 Phil., 234, 239. See also Rubi, et al. vs. The Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil., 660). In the case of U. S. vs. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil. 1, We also held: THE POWER TO DELEGATE. The Legislature cannot delegate legislative power to enact any law. If Act No. 2868 is a law unto itself, and it does nothing more than to authorize the Governor-General to make rules and regulations to carry it into effect, then the Legislature created the law. There is no delegation of power and it is valid. On the other hand, if the act within itself

does not define a crime and is not complete, and some legislative act remains to be done to make it a law or a crime, the doing of which is vested in the Governor-General, the act is delegation of legislative power, is unconstitutional and void. From the provisions of Act No. 4003 of the Legislature, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 471, which have been aforequoted, We find that Congress (a) declared it unlawful "to take or catch fry or fish eggs in the territorial waters of the Philippines; (b) towards this end, it authorized the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to provide by the regulations such restrictions as may be deemed necessary to be imposed on the use of any fishing net or fishing device for the protection of fish fry or fish eggs (Sec. 13); (c) it authorized the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to set aside and establish fishery reservations or fish refuges and sanctuaries to be administered in the manner to be prescribed by him and declared it unlawful for any person to take, destroy or kill in any of said places, or, in any manner disturb or drive away or take therefrom, any fish fry or fish eggs (See. 75); and (d) it penalizes the execution of such acts declared unlawful and in violation of this Act (No. 4003) or of any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, making the offender subject to a fine of not more than P200, or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, in the discretion of the court (Sec. 83). From the foregoing it may be seen that in so far as the protection of fish fry or fish egg is concerned, the Fisheries Act is complete in itself, leaving to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources the promulgation of rules and regulations to carry into effect the legislative intent. It also appears from the exhibits on record in these cases that fishing with trawls causes "a wanton destruction of the mother shrimps laying their eggs and the millions of eggs laid and the inevitable extermination of the shrimps specie" (Exh. F), and that, "the trawls ram and destroy the fish corrals. The heavy trawl nets dig deep into the ocean bed. They destroy the fish food which lies below the ocean floor. Their

daytime catches net millions of shrimps scooped up from the mud. In their nets they bring up the life of the sea" (Exh- 2). In the light of these facts it is clear to Our mind that for the protection of fry or fish eggs and small and immature fishes, Congress intended with the promulgation of Act No. 4003, to prohibit the use of any fish net or fishing device like trawl nets that could endanger and deplete our supply of sea food, and to that end authorized the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to provide by regulations such restrictions as he deemed necessary in order to preserve the aquatic resources of the land. Consequently, when the President, in response to the clamor of the people and authorities of Camarines Sur issued Executive Order No. 80 absolutely prohibiting fishing by means of trawls in all waters comprised within the San Miguel Bay, he did nothing but show an anxious regard for the welfare of the inhabitants of said coastal province and dispose of issues of general concern (Sec. 63, R.A.C.) which were in consonance and strict conformity with the law. Wherefore, and on the strength of the foregoing considerations We render judgement, as follows: (a) Declaring that the issues involved in case G.R. No. L-8895 have become moot, as no writ of preliminary injunction has been issued by this Court the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila Branch XIV, from enforcing his order of March 3, 1955; and (b) Reversing the decision appealed from in case G. R. No. L-9191; dissolving the writ of injunction prayed for in the lower court by plaintiffs, if any has been actually issued by the court a quo; and declaring Executive Orders Nos. 22, 66 and 80, series of 1954, valid for having been issued by authority of the Constitution, the Revised Administrative Code and the Fisheries Act. Without pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

epublic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-10759 May 20, 1957

LEONARDO MONTES, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF APPEALS and THE SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, respondents-appellees. Gonzalo U. Garcia for appellant. Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosia Padilla and Solicitor Eriberto D. Ignacio for appellees. LABRADOR, J.: Petitioner-appellant was on and before January, 1953, a watchman of the Floating Equipment Section, Ports and Harbors Division, Bureau of Public Works. In Administrative Case No. R-8182 instituted against him for negligence in the performance of duty (Dredge No. 6 under him had sunk because of water in the bilge, which he did not pump out while under his care), the Commissioner of Civil Service exonerated him, on the basis of findings made by a committee. But the Civil Service Board of Appeals modified the decision, finding petitioner guilty of contributory negligence in not pumping the water from the bilge, and ordered that he be considered resigned effective his last day of duty with pay, without prejudice to reinstatement at the discretion of the appointing officer. Petitioner filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to review the decision, but the said court dismissed the action on a motion to dismiss, on the ground that petitioner had not exhausted all his

administrative remedies before he instituted the action. The case is now before us on appeal against the order of dismissal. The law which was applied by the lower court is Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 598, which provides: The Civil Service Board of Appeals shall have the power and authority to hear and decide all administrative cases brought before it on appeal, and its decisions in such cases shall be final, unless revised or modified by the President of the Philippines. It is urged on the appeal that there is no duty imposed on a party against whom a decision has been rendered by the Civil Service Board of Appeals to appeal to the President, and that the tendency of the courts has been not to subject the decision of the President to judicial review. It is further argued that if decisions of the Auditor General may be appealed to the courts, those of the Civil Service Board of Appeals need not be acted upon by the President also, before recourse may be had to the courts because such a courts. It is also argued that if a case is appealed to the President, his action should be final and not reviewable by the courts because such a course of action, would be derogatory to the high office of the President. The objection to a judicial review of a Presidential act arises from a failure to recognize the most important principle in our system of government, i.e., the separation of powers into three co-equal departments, the executive, the legislative and the judicial, each supreme within its own assigned powers and duties. When a presidential act is challenged before the courts of justice, it is not to be implied therefrom that the Executive is being made subject and subordinate to the courts. The legality of his acts are under judicial review, not because the Executive is inferior to the courts, but because the law is above the Chief Executive himself, and the courts seek only to interpret, apply or implement it (the law). A judicial review of the President's decision on a case of an employee decided by the Civil Service Board of Appeals should be viewed in this light and the bringing of the case to the courts

should be governed by the same principles as govern the judicial review of all administrative acts of all administrative officers. The doctrine of exhaustion, of administrative remedies requires where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, as in this case, relief must be sought by exhausting this remedy before the courts will act. (42 Am. Jur. 580-581.) The doctrine is a device based on considerations of comity and convenience. If a remedy is still available within the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to the courts, not only to give the administrative agency opportunity to decide the matter by itself correctly, but also to prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the courts. (Ibid.) Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 598 above-quoted is a clear expression of the policy or principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. If the President, under whom the Civil Service directly falls in our administrative system as head of the executive department, may be able to grant the remedy that petitioner pursues, reasons of comity and orderly procedure demand that resort be made to him before recourse can be had to the courts. We have applied this same rule in De la Paz, vs. Alcaraz, et al., 99 Phil., 130, 52 Off. Gaz., 3037, Miguel et al., vs. Reyes, et al., 93 Phil., 542, and especially in Ang Tuan Kai & Co. vs. The Import Control Commission, 91 Phil., 143, and we are loathe to deviate from the rule we have consistently followed, especially in view of the express provision of the law (section 2, Commonwealth Act No. 598). The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 151908 August 12, 2003

SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (SMART) and PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION (PILTEL), petitioners, vs. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (NTC), respondent. x---------------------------------------------------------x G.R. No. 152063 August 12, 2003 GLOBE TELECOM, INC. (GLOBE) and ISLA COMMUNICATIONS CO., INC. (ISLACOM), petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (The Former 6th Division) and the NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, respondents. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Pursuant to its rule-making and regulatory powers, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued on June 16, 2000 Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000, promulgating rules and regulations on the billing of telecommunications services. Among its pertinent provisions are the following: (1) The billing statements shall be received by the subscriber of the telephone service not later than 30 days from the end of each billing cycle. In case the statement is received beyond this period, the subscriber shall have a specified grace period within which to pay the bill and the public telecommunications entity (PTEs) shall not be allowed to disconnect the service within the grace period. (2) There shall be no charge for calls that are diverted to a voice mailbox, voice prompt, recorded message or similar facility excluding the customer's own equipment.

(3) PTEs shall verify the identification and address of each purchaser of prepaid SIM cards. Prepaid call cards and SIM cards shall be valid for at least 2 years from the date of first use. Holders of prepaid SIM cards shall be given 45 days from the date the prepaid SIM card is fully consumed but not beyond 2 years and 45 days from date of first use to replenish the SIM card, otherwise the SIM card shall be rendered invalid. The validity of an invalid SIM card, however, shall be installed upon request of the customer at no additional charge except the presentation of a valid prepaid call card. (4) Subscribers shall be updated of the remaining value of their cards before the start of every call using the cards. (5) The unit of billing for the cellular mobile telephone service whether postpaid or prepaid shall be reduced from 1 minute per pulse to 6 seconds per pulse. The authorized rates per minute shall thus be divided by 10.1 The Memorandum Circular provided that it shall take effect 15 days after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation and three certified true copies thereof furnished the UP Law Center. It was published in the newspaper, The Philippine Star, on June 22, 2000.2 Meanwhile, the provisions of the Memorandum Circular pertaining to the sale and use of prepaid cards and the unit of billing for cellular mobile telephone service took effect 90 days from the effectivity of the Memorandum Circular. On August 30, 2000, the NTC issued a Memorandum to all cellular mobile telephone service (CMTS) operators which contained measures to minimize if not totally eliminate the incidence of stealing of cellular phone units. The Memorandum directed CMTS operators to: a. strictly comply with Section B(1) of MC 13-6-2000 requiring the presentation and verification of the identity and addresses of prepaid SIM card customers;

b. require all your respective prepaid SIM cards dealers to comply with Section B(1) of MC 13-6-2000; c. deny acceptance to your respective networks prepaid and/or postpaid customers using stolen cellphone units or cellphone units registered to somebody other than the applicant when properly informed of all information relative to the stolen cellphone units; d. share all necessary information of stolen cellphone units to all other CMTS operators in order to prevent the use of stolen cellphone units; and e. require all your existing prepaid SIM card customers to register and present valid identification cards.3 This was followed by another Memorandum dated October 6, 2000 addressed to all public telecommunications entities, which reads: This is to remind you that the validity of all prepaid cards sold on 07 October 2000 and beyond shall be valid for at least two (2) years from date of first use pursuant to MC 13-6-2000. In addition, all CMTS operators are reminded that all SIM packs used by subscribers of prepaid cards sold on 07 October 2000 and beyond shall be valid for at least two (2) years from date of first use. Also, the billing unit shall be on a six (6) seconds pulse effective 07 October 2000. For strict compliance.4 On October 20, 2000, petitioners Isla Communications Co., Inc. and Pilipino Telephone Corporation filed against the National Telecommunications Commission, Commissioner Joseph A. Santiago, Deputy Commissioner Aurelio M. Umali and Deputy Commissioner Nestor C. Dacanay, an action for declaration of nullity of NTC Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000 (the Billing Circular) and the NTC Memorandum dated October 6, 2000, with prayer for the issuance

of a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-00-42221 at the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 77.5 Petitioners Islacom and Piltel alleged, inter alia, that the NTC has no jurisdiction to regulate the sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since such jurisdiction belongs to the Department of Trade and Industry under the Consumer Act of the Philippines; that the Billing Circular is oppressive, confiscatory and violative of the constitutional prohibition against deprivation of property without due process of law; that the Circular will result in the impairment of the viability of the prepaid cellular service by unduly prolonging the validity and expiration of the prepaid SIM and call cards; and that the requirements of identification of prepaid card buyers and call balance announcement are unreasonable. Hence, they prayed that the Billing Circular be declared null and void ab initio. Soon thereafter, petitioners Globe Telecom, Inc and Smart Communications, Inc. filed a joint Motion for Leave to Intervene and to Admit Complaint-in-Intervention.6 This was granted by the trial court. On October 27, 2000, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the NTC from implementing Memorandum Circular No. 13-62000 and the Memorandum dated October 6, 2000.7 In the meantime, respondent NTC and its co-defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Subsequently, after hearing petitioners' application for preliminary injunction as well as respondent's motion to dismiss, the trial court issued on November 20, 2000 an Order, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the defendants' motion to dismiss is hereby denied for lack of merit. The plaintiffs'

application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is hereby granted. Accordingly, the defendants are hereby enjoined from implementing NTC Memorandum Circular 13-6-2000 and the NTC Memorandum, dated October 6, 2000, pending the issuance and finality of the decision in this case. The plaintiffs and intervenors are, however, required to file a bond in the sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), Philippine currency. SO ORDERED.8 Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in an Order dated February 1, 2001.9 Respondent NTC thus filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 64274. On October 9, 2001, a decision was rendered, the decretal portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED, in that, the order of the court a quo denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss as well as the order of the court a quo granting the private respondents' prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, and the writ of preliminary injunction issued thereby, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The private respondents' complaint and complaint-in-intervention below are hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice to the referral of the private respondents' grievances and disputes on the assailed issuances of the NTC with the said agency. SO ORDERED.10 Petitioners' motions for reconsideration were denied in a Resolution dated January 10, 2002 for lack of merit.11

Hence, the instant petition for review filed by Smart and Piltel, which was docketed as G.R. No. 151908, anchored on the following grounds: A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (NTC) AND NOT THE REGULAR COURTS HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE. B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ALSO GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS FAILED TO EXHAUST AN AVAILABLE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY. C. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE BILLING CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NTC IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY. D. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS FAILED TO SHOW THEIR CLEAR POSITIVE RIGHT TO WARRANT THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.12 Likewise, Globe and Islacom filed a petition for review, docketed as G.R. No. 152063, assigning the following errors: 1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SO GRAVELY ERRED BECAUSE THE DOCTRINES OF PRIMARY

JURISDICTION AND EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES DO NOT APPLY SINCE THE INSTANT CASE IS FOR LEGAL NULLIFICATION (BECAUSE OF LEGAL INFIRMITIES AND VIOLATIONS OF LAW) OF A PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION PROMULGATED BY AN AGENCY IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS RULE MAKING POWERS AND INVOLVES ONLY QUESTIONS OF LAW. 2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SO GRAVELY ERRED BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE ON EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE QUESTIONS RAISED ARE PURELY LEGAL QUESTIONS. 3. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SO GRAVELY ERRED BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS COMPLETE AND EFFECTIVE, WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER REMEDY, AND THE PETITIONER STANDS TO SUFFER GRAVE AND IRREPARABLE INJURY. 4. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SO GRAVELY ERRED BECAUSE PETITIONERS IN FACT EXHAUSTED ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THEM. 5. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SO GRAVELY ERRED IN ISSUING ITS QUESTIONED RULINGS IN THIS CASE BECAUSE GLOBE AND ISLA HAVE A CLEAR RIGHT TO AN INJUNCTION.13 The two petitions were consolidated in a Resolution dated February 17, 2003.14 On March 24, 2003, the petitions were given due course and the parties were required to submit their respective memoranda.15

We find merit in the petitions. Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or rule-making powers and quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory powers. Quasilegislative or rule-making power is the power to make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers.16 The rules and regulations that administrative agencies promulgate, which are the product of a delegated legislative power to create new and additional legal provisions that have the effect of law, should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency. It is required that the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law, and be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by law.17 They must conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling statute in order for such rule or regulation to be valid. Constitutional and statutory provisions control with respect to what rules and regulations may be promulgated by an administrative body, as well as with respect to what fields are subject to regulation by it. It may not make rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or a statute, particularly the statute it is administering or which created it, or which are in derogation of, or defeat, the purpose of a statute. In case of conflict between a statute and an administrative order, the former must prevail.18 Not to be confused with the quasi-legislative or rule-making power of an administrative agency is its quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power. This is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such

manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions, the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature.19 In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an administrative agency, a party need not exhaust administrative remedies before going to court. This principle applies only where the act of the administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function, and not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative power. In Association of Philippine Coconut Dessicators v. Philippine Coconut Authority,20 it was held: The rule of requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before a party may seek judicial review, so strenuously urged by the Solicitor General on behalf of respondent, has obviously no application here. The resolution in question was issued by the PCA in the exercise of its rulemaking or legislative power. However, only judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies made in the exercise of their quasi-judicial function is subject to the exhaustion doctrine. Even assuming arguendo that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies apply in this case, the records reveal that petitioners sufficiently complied with this requirement. Even during the drafting and deliberation stages leading to the issuance of Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000, petitioners were able to register their protests to the proposed billing guidelines. They submitted their respective position papers setting forth their objections and submitting proposed schemes for the billing circular.21 After the same was issued, petitioners wrote successive letters dated July 3, 200022 and July 5, 2000,23 asking for the suspension and reconsideration of the so-called Billing Circular. These letters were not acted upon until October 6, 2000, when respondent NTC

issued the second assailed Memorandum implementing certain provisions of the Billing Circular. This was taken by petitioners as a clear denial of the requests contained in their previous letters, thus prompting them to seek judicial relief. In like manner, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only where the administrative agency exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. Thus, in cases involving specialized disputes, the practice has been to refer the same to an administrative agency of special competence pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The courts will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the premises of the regulatory statute administered. The objective of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to guide a court in determining whether it should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction until after an administrative agency has determined some question or some aspect of some question arising in the proceeding before the court. It applies where the claim is originally cognizable in the courts and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, has been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view.24 However, where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative function, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the constitution is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial

review or the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts.25 This is within the scope of judicial power, which includes the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments.26 Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.27 In the case at bar, the issuance by the NTC of Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000 and its Memorandum dated October 6, 2000 was pursuant to its quasi-legislative or rule-making power. As such, petitioners were justified in invoking the judicial power of the Regional Trial Court to assail the constitutionality and validity of the said issuances. In Drilon v. Lim,28 it was held: We stress at the outset that the lower court had jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of Section 187, this authority being embraced in the general definition of the judicial power to determine what are the valid and binding laws by the criterion of their conformity to the fundamental law. Specifically, B.P. 129 vests in the regional trial courts jurisdiction over all civil cases in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, even as the accused in a criminal action has the right to question in his defense the constitutionality of a law he is charged with violating and of the proceedings taken against him, particularly as they contravene the Bill of Rights. Moreover, Article X, Section 5(2), of the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of lower courts in all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,

presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.29 In their complaint before the Regional Trial Court, petitioners averred that the Circular contravened Civil Code provisions on sales and violated the constitutional prohibition against the deprivation of property without due process of law. These are within the competence of the trial judge. Contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals, the issues raised in the complaint do not entail highly technical matters. Rather, what is required of the judge who will resolve this issue is a basic familiarity with the workings of the cellular telephone service, including prepaid SIM and call cards and this is judicially known to be within the knowledge of a good percentage of our population and expertise in fundamental principles of civil law and the Constitution. Hence, the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide Civil Case No. Q-00-42221. The Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the orders of the trial court and in dismissing the case. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the consolidated petitions are GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 64274 dated October 9, 2001 and its Resolution dated January 10, 2002 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated November 20, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 77, in Civil Case No. Q-00-42221 is REINSTATED. This case is REMANDED to the court a quo for continuation of the proceedings. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION G.R. NO. 135992 January 31, 2006

EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC. and TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., petitioners, vs. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION CORPORATION, Respondent. AMENDED DECISION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: On July 23, 2004, the Court promulgated its Decision in the abovecaptioned case with the following dispositive portion: WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Order of the National Telecommunications Commissions dated November 10, 1997 in NTC Case No. 96-195 is AFFIRMED with the following modifications: Respondent International Communication Corporation, in accordance with Section 27 of NTC MC No. 11-9-93, is required to: (1) Deposit in escrow in a reputable bank 20% of the investment required for the first two years of the implementation of the proposed project; and (2) Post a performance bond equivalent to 10% of the investment required for the first two years of the approved project but not to exceed P500 Million. within such period to be determined by the National Telecommunications Commission. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.1

Respondent now seeks a partial reconsideration of the portion of the Courts decision requiring it to make a 20% escrow deposit and to post a 10% performance bond. Respondent claims that Section 27 of NTC MC No. 11-9-93, which required the foregoing amounts, pertains only to applications filed under Executive Order No. 109 (E.O. No. 109) and not to applications voluntarily filed. In its Manifestation in support of the motion for partial reconsideration, respondent attached a letter from Deputy Commissioner and Officer-in-Charge (OIC), Kathleen G. Heceta, of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), stating thus: xxx Please be informed that the escrow deposit and performance bond were required to public telecommunications entities to ensure that the mandated installation of local exchange lines are installed within three (3) years pursuant to EO 109 and RA 7925. Since your company has already complied with its obligation by the installation of more than 300,000 lines in Quezon City, Malabon City and Valenzuela City in the National Capital Region and Region V in early 1997, the escrow deposit and performance bond were not required in your subsequent authorizations.2 In a Resolution dated October 4, 2004, the Court required petitioners and the NTC to file their respective comments on the motion.3 Subsequently, in its Manifestation/Comment filed on January 11, 2005, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in behalf of the NTC, likewise referred to the same letter of OIC Heceta and declared that it fully agrees with respondent that the escrow deposit and performance bond are not required in subsequent authorizations for additional/new areas outside its original roll-out obligation under the Service Area Scheme of E.O. No. 109. Petitioners did not file any comment and it was only after the Court issued a show cause and compliance Resolution on October 19, 2005

that petitioners manifested in their Entry of Special Appearance, Manifestation and Compliance dated November 25, 2005 that they have no further comments on respondents motion for partial reconsideration.4 The Court has observed in its Decision that Section 27 of NTC MC No. 11-9-93 is silent as to whether the posting of an escrow deposit and performance bond is a condition sine qua non for the grant of a provisional authority. The NTC, through the OSG, explicitly clarified, which was not disputed by petitioners, that the escrow deposit and performance bond are not required in subsequent authorizations for additional/new areas outside its original roll-out obligation under E.O. No. 109. The OSG agreed with respondents stance that since the provisional authority in this case involves a voluntary application not covered by the original service areas created by the NTC under E.O. No. 109, then it is not subject to the posting of an escrow deposit and performance bond as required by E.O. No. 109, but only to the conditions provided in the provisional authority. Further, the OSG adapted the ratiocination of the Court of Appeals on this matter, i.e., respondent was not subjected to the foregoing escrow deposit and performance bond requirement because the landline obligation is already outside its original roll-out commitment under E.O. No. 109.5 The NTC, being the government agency entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under its special and technical forte, and possessing the necessary rule-making power to implement its objectives,6 is in the best position to interpret its own rules, regulations and guidelines. The Court has consistently yielded and accorded great respect to the interpretation by administrative agencies of their own rules unless there is an error of law, abuse of power, lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the law.7 In City Government of Makati vs. Civil Service Commission,8 the Court cited cases where the interpretation of a particular administrative agency of a certain rule was adhered to, viz.:

As properly noted, CSC was only interpreting its own rules on leave of absence and not a statutory provision in coming up with this uniform rule. Undoubtedly, the CSC like any other agency has the power to interpret its own rules and any phrase contained in them with its interpretation significantly becoming part of the rules themselves. As observed in West Texas Compress & Warehouse Co. v. Panhandle & S.F. Railing Co. xxx This principle is not new to us. In Geukeko v. Araneta this Court upheld the interpretation of the Department of Agriculture and Commerce of its own rules of procedure in suspending the period of appeal even if such action was nowhere stated therein. We said xxx x x x It must be remembered that Lands Administrative Order No. 6 is in the nature of procedural rules promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources pursuant to the power bestowed on said administrative agency to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the proper discharge and management of the functions imposed by law upon said office. x x x x Recognizing the existence of such rulemaking authority, what is the weight of an interpretation given by an administrative agency to its own rules or regulations? Authorities sustain the doctrine that the interpretation given to a rule or regulation by those charged with its execution is entitled to the greatest weight by the Court construing such rule or regulation, and such interpretation will be followed unless it appears to be clearly unreasonable or arbitrary (42 Am. Jur. 431). It has also been said that: xxx The same precept was enunciated in Bagatsing v. Committee on Privatization where we upheld the action of the Commission on Audit (COA) in validating the sale of Petron Corporation to Aramco Overseas

Corporation on the basis of COA's interpretation of its own circular that set bidding and audit guidelines on the disposal of government assets The COA itself, the agency that adopted the rules on bidding procedure to be followed by government offices and corporations, had upheld the validity and legality of the questioned bidding. The interpretation of an agency of its own rules should be given more weight than the interpretation by that agency of the law it is merely tasked to administer (underscoring supplied). Given the greater weight accorded to an agency's interpretation of its own rules than to its understanding of the statute it seeks to implement, we simply cannot set aside the former on the same grounds as we would overturn the latter. More specifically, in cases where the dispute concerns the interpretation by an agency of its own rules, we should apply only these standards: "Whether the delegation of power was valid; whether the regulation was within that delegation; and if so, whether it was a reasonable regulation under a due process test." An affirmative answer in each of these questions should caution us from discarding the agency's interpretation of its own rules. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, the Court holds that the interpretation of the NTC that Section 27 of NTC MC No. 11-9-93 regarding the escrow deposit and performance bond shall pertain only to a local exchange operators original roll-out obligation under E.O. No. 109, and not to roll-out obligations made under subsequent or voluntary applications outside E.O. No. 109, should be sustained. IN VIEW THEREOF, respondents Motion for Partial Reconsideration is GRANTED. The Courts Decision dated July 23, 2004 is AMENDED, the dispositive portion of which should read as follows: WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Order of the National Telecommunications Commission dated November 10, 1997 in NTC Case No. 96-195 is AFFIRMED.

thereby deleting the order requiring respondent to make a 20% escrow deposit and to post a 10% performance bond. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No. 112526 October 12, 2001

STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JUAN B. AMANTE, FRANCISCO L. ANDAL, LUCIA ANDAL, ANDREA P. AYENDE, LETICIA P. BALAT, FILOMENA B. BATINO, ANICETO A. BURGOS, JAIME A. BURGOS, FLORENCIA CANUBAS, LORETO A. CANUBAS, MAXIMO A. CANUBAS, REYNALDO CARINGAL, QUIRINO C. CASALME, BENIGNO A. CRUZAT, ELINO A. CRUZAT, GREGORIO F. CRUZAT, RUFINO C. CRUZAT, SERGIO CRUZAT, SEVERINO F. CRUZAT, VICTORIA DE SAGUN, SEVERINO DE SAGUN, FELICISIMO A. GONZALES, FRANCISCO A. GONZALES, GREGORIO GONZALES, LEODEGARIO N. GONZALES, PASCUAL P. GONZALES, ROLANDO A. GONZALES, FRANCISCO A. JUANGCO, GERVACIO A. JUANGCO, LOURDES U. LUNA, ANSELMO M. MANDANAS, CRISANTO MANDANAS, EMILIO M. MANDANAS, GREGORIO A. MANDANAS, MARIO G. MANDANAS, TEODORO MANDANAS, CONSTANCIO B. MARQUEZ, EUGENIO B. MARQUEZ, ARMANDO P. MATIENZO, DANIEL D. MATIENZO, MAXIMINO MATIENZO, PACENCIA P. MATIENZO, DOROTEA L. PANGANIBAN, JUANITO T. PEREZ, MARIANITO T. PEREZ, SEVERO M.

PEREZ, INOCENCIA S. PASQUIZA, BIENVENIDO F. PETATE, IGNACIO F. PETATE, JUANITO PETATE, PABLO A. PLATON, PRECILLO V. PLATON, AQUILINO B. SUBOL, CASIANO T. VILLA, DOMINGO VILLA, JUAN T. VILLA, MARIO C. VILLA, NATIVIDAD A. VILLA, JACINTA S. ALVARADO, RODOLFO ANGELES, DOMINGO A. CANUBAS, EDGARDO L. CASALME, QUIRINO DE LEON, LEONILO M. ENRIQUEZ, CLAUDIA P. GONZALES, FELISA R. LANGUE, QUINTILLANO LANGUE, REYNALDO LANGUE, ROMEO S. LANGUE, BONIFACIO VILLA, ROGELIO AYENDE, ANTONIO B. FERNANDEZ, ZACARIAS HERRERA, ZACARIAS HERRERA, REYNARIO U. LAZO, AGAPITO MATIENZO, DIONISIO F. PETATE, LITO G. REYES, JOSE M. SUBOL, CELESTINO G. TOPI NO, ROSA C. AMANTE, SOTERA CASALME, REMIGIO M. SILVERIO, THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAGUNA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR REGION IV, and REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER FOR REGION IV, respondents. PARDO, J.: The case before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals1 affirming the decision of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board2 (hereafter DARAB) ordering the compulsory acquisition of petitioner's property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation (hereafter, SRRDC) was the registered owner of two parcels of land, situated at Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891, with a total area of 254.6 hectares. According to petitioner, the parcels of land are watersheds, which provide clean potable water to the

Canlubang community, and that ninety (90) light industries are now located in the area.3 Petitioner alleged that respondents usurped its rights over the property, thereby destroying the ecosystem. Sometime in December 1985, respondents filed a civil case4 with the Regional Trial Court, Laguna, seeking an easement of a right of way to and from Barangay Casile. By way of counterclaim, however, petitioner sought the ejectment of private respondents. In October 1986 to August 1987, petitioner filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Cabuyao, Laguna separate complaints for forcible entry against respondents.5 After the filing of the ejectment cases, respondents petitioned the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for the compulsory acquisition of the SRRDC property under the CARP. On August 11, 1989, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Cabuyao, Laguna issued a notice of coverage to petitioner and invited its officials or representatives to a conference on August 18, 1989.6 During the meeting, the following were present: representatives of petitioner, the Land Bank of the Philippines, PARCCOM, PARO of Laguna, MARO of Laguna, the BARC Chairman of Barangay Casile and some potential farmer beneficiaries, who are residents of Barangay Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna. It was the consensus and recommendation of the assembly that the landholding of SRRDC be placed under compulsory acquisition. On August 17, 1989, petitioner filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO), Cabuyao, Laguna a "Protest and Objection" to the compulsory acquisition of the property on the ground that the area was not appropriate for agricultural purposes. The area was rugged in terrain with slopes of 18% and above and that the occupants of the land were squatters, who were not entitled to any land as beneficiaries.7

On August 29, 1989, the farmer beneficiaries together with the BARC chairman answered the protest and objection stating that the slope of the land is not 18% but only 5-10% and that the land is suitable and economically viable for agricultural purposes, as evidenced by the Certification of the Department of Agriculture, municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna.8 On September 8, 1989, MARO Belen dela Torre made a summary investigation report and forwarded the Compulsory Acquisition Folder Indorsement (CAFI) to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (hereafter, PARO).9 On September 21, 1989, PARO Durante Ubeda forwarded his endorsement of the compulsory acquisition to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. On November 23, 1989, Acting Director Eduardo C. Visperas of the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Development, DAR forwarded two (2) Compulsory Acquisition Claim Folders covering the landholding of SRRDC, covered by TCT Nos. T-81949 and T-84891 to the President, Land Bank of the Philippines for further review and evaluation.10 On December 12, 1989, Secretary of Agrarian Reform Miriam Defensor Santiago sent two (2) notices of acquisition11 to petitioner, stating that petitioner's landholdings covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891, containing an area of 188.2858 and 58.5800 hectares, valued at P4,417,735.65 and P1,220,229.93, respectively, had been placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. On February 6, 1990, petitioner SRRDC in two letters12 separately addressed to Secretary Florencio B. Abad and the Director, Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution, sent its formal protest, protesting not only the amount of compensation offered by DAR for the property but also the two (2) notices of acquisition.

On March 17, 1990, Secretary Abad referred the case to the DARAB for summary proceedings to determine just compensation under R. A. No. 6657, Section 16. On March 23, 1990, the LBP returned the two (2) claim folders previously referred for review and evaluation to the Director of BLAD mentioning its inability to value the SRRDC landholding due to some deficiencies. On March 28, 1990, Executive Director Emmanuel S. Galvez wrote Land Bank President Deogracias Vistan to forward the two (2) claim folders involving the property of SRRDC to the DARAB for it to conduct summary proceedings to determine the just compensation for the land. On April 6, 1990, petitioner sent a letter to the Land Bank of the Philippines stating that its property under the aforesaid land titles were exempt from CARP coverage because they had been classified as watershed area and were the subject of a pending petition for land conversion. On May 10, 1990, Director Narciso Villapando of BLAD turned over the two (2) claim folders (CACF's) to the Executive Director of the DAR Adjudication Board for proper administrative valuation. Acting on the CACF's, on September 10, 1990, the Board promulgated a resolution asking the office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to first resolve two (2) issues before it proceeds with the summary land valuation proceedings.13 The issues that need to be threshed out were as follows: (1) whether the subject parcels of land fall within the coverage of the Compulsory Acquisition Program of the CARP; and (2) whether the petition for land conversion of the parcels of land may be granted. On December 7, 1990, the Office of the Secretary, DAR, through the Undersecretary for Operations (Assistant Secretary for Luzon

Operations) and the Regional Director of Region IV, submitted a report answering the two issues raised. According to them, firstly, by virtue of the issuance of the notice of coverage on August 11, 1989, and notice of acquisition on December 12, 1989, the property is covered under compulsory acquisition. Secondly, Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1990, Section IV D also supports the DAR position on the coverage of the said property. During the consideration of the case by the Board, there was no pending petition for land conversion specifically concerning the parcels of land in question. On February 19, 1991, the Board sent a notice of hearing to all the parties interested, setting the hearing for the administrative valuation of the subject parcels of land on March 6, 1991. However, on February 22, 1991, Atty. Ma. Elena P. Hernandez-Cueva, counsel for SRRDC, wrote the Board requesting for its assistance in the reconstruction of the records of the case because the records could not be found as her cocounsel, Atty. Ricardo Blancaflor, who originally handled the case for SRRDC and had possession of all the records of the case was on indefinite leave and could not be contacted. The Board granted counsel's request and moved the hearing to April 4, 1991. On March 18, 1991, SRRDC submitted a petition to the Board for the latter to resolve SRRDC's petition for exemption from CARP coverage before any administrative valuation of their landholding could be had by the Board. On April 4, 1991, the initial DARAB hearing of the case was held and subsequently, different dates of hearing were set without objection from counsel of SRRDC. During the April 15, 1991 hearing, the subdivision plan of subject property at Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna was submitted and marked as Exhibit "5" for SRRDC. At the hearing on April 23, 1991, the Land Bank asked for a period of one month to value the land in dispute. At the hearing on April 23, 1991, certification from Deputy Zoning Administrator Generoso B. Opina was presented. The certification issued on September 8, 1989, stated that the parcels of land subject of

the case were classified as "industrial Park" per Sanguniang Bayan Resolution No. 45-89 dated March 29, 1989.14 To avert any opportunity that the DARAB might distribute the lands to the farmer beneficiaries, on April 30, 1991, petitioner filed a petition15 with DARAB to disqualify private respondents as beneficiaries. However, DARAB refused to address the issue of beneficiaries. In the meantime, on January 20, 1992, the Regional Trial Court, Laguna, Branch 24, rendered a decision,16 finding that private respondents illegally entered the SRRDC property, and ordered them evicted. On July 11, 1991, DAR Secretary Benjamin T. Leong issued a memorandum directing the Land Bank of the Philippines to open a trust account in favor of SRRDC, for P5,637,965.55, as valuation for the SRRDC property. On December 19, 1991, DARAB promulgated a decision, the decretal portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the Board hereby orders: "1. The dismissal for lack of merit of the protest against the compulsory coverage of the landholdings of Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation (Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 81949 and 84891 with an area of 254.766 hectares) in Barangay Casile, Municipality of Cabuyao, Province of Laguna under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is hereby affirmed; "2. The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to pay Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation the amount of Seven Million Eight Hundred Forty-One Thousand, Nine Hundred Ninety Seven Pesos and Sixty-Four centavos (P7,841,997.64) for its landholdings covered by the two (2) Transfer Certificates of Title mentioned above. Should there be a rejection of the payment

tendered, to open, if none has yet been made, a trust account for said amount in the name of Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation; "3. The Register of Deeds of the Province of Laguna to cancel with dispatch Transfer certificate of Title Nos. 84891 and 81949 and new one be issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, free from liens and encumbrances; "4 The Department of Environment and Natural Resources either through its Provincial Office in Laguna or the Regional Office, Region IV, to conduct a final segregation survey on the lands covered by Transfer certificate of Title Nos. 84891 and 81949 so the same can be transferred by the Register of Deeds to the name of the Republic of the Philippines; "5. The Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform through its Municipal and Provincial Agrarian Reform Office to take immediate possession on the said landholding after Title shall have been transferred to the name of the Republic of the Philippines, and distribute the same to the immediate issuance of Emancipation Patents to the farmer-beneficiaries as determined by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of Cabuyao, Laguna."17 On January 20, 1992, the Regional Trial Court, Laguna, Branch 24, rendered a decision in Civil Case No. B-233318 ruling that respondents were builders in bad faith. On February 6, 1992, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review of the DARAB decision.19 On November 5, 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision affirming the decision of DARAB. The decretal portion of the Court of Appeals decision reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the DARAB decision dated September 19, 1991 is AFFIRMED, without prejudice to petitioner Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation ventilating its case

with the Special Agrarian Court on the issue of just compensation."20Hence, this petition.21 On December 15, 1993, the Court issued a Resolution which reads: "G. R. Nos. 112526 (Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et. al.) Considering the compliance, dated December 13, 1993, filed by counsel for petitioner, with the resolution of December 8, 1993 which required petitioner to post a cash bond or surety bond in the amount of P1,500,000.00 Pesos before issuing a temporary restraining order prayed for, manifesting that it has posted a CASH BOND in the same amount with the Cashier of the Court as evidenced by the attached official receipt no. 315519, the Court resolved to ISSUE the Temporary Retraining Order prayed for. "The Court therefore, resolved to restrain: (a) the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board from enforcing its decision dated December 19, 1991 in DARAB Case No. JC-R-IV-LAG0001, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a Decision dated November 5, 1993, and which ordered, among others, the Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform through its Municipal and Provincial Reform Office to take immediate possession of the landholding in dispute after title shall have been transferred to the name of the Republic of the Philippines and to distribute the same through the immediate issuance of Emancipation Patents to the farmer-beneficiaries as determined by the Municipal Agrarian Officer of Cabuyao, Laguna, (b) The Department of Agrarian Reform and/or the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, and all persons acting for and in their behalf and under their authority from entering the properties involved in this case and from introducing permanent infrastructures thereon; and (c) the private respondents from further clearing the said properties of their green cover by the

cutting or burning of trees and other vegetation, effective today until further orders from this Court."22 The main issue raised is whether the property in question is covered by CARP despite the fact that the entire property formed part of a watershed area prior to the enactment of R. A. No. 6657. Under Republic Act No. 6657, there are two modes of acquisition of private land: compulsory and voluntary. In the case at bar, the Department of Agrarian Reform sought the compulsory acquisition of subject property under R. A. No. 6657, Section 16, to wit: "Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed: a.) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof. b.) Within thirty (30) days from the date of the receipt of written notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. c.) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and other muniments of title.

d.) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit fifteen (15) days from receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision. e.) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this act, the DAR shall make immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue Transfer Certificate of Titles (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries. f.) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court23 of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation. In compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the landowners and farmer beneficiaries must first be identified. After identification, the DAR shall send a notice of acquisition to the landowner, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post it in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice of acquisition, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.

If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the certificate of title. Within thirty (30) days from the execution of the deed of transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the purchase price. If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the certificate of title. Within thirty days from the execution of the deed of transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the purchase price. If the landowner rejects the DAR's offer or fails to make a reply, the DAR conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine just compensation for the land. The landowner, the LBP representative and other interested parties may submit evidence on just compensation within fifteen days from notice. Within thirty days from submission, the DAR shall decide the case and inform the owner of its decision and the amount of just compensation. Upon receipt by the owner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection or lack of response from the latter, the DAR shall deposit the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with an accessible bank. The DAR shall immediately take possession of the land and cause the issuance of a transfer certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The land shall then be redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. Any party may question the decision of the DAR in the special agrarian courts (provisionally the Supreme Court designated branches of the regional trial court as special agrarian courts) for final determination of just compensation. The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition to hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Under Sec. 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory acquisition is the identification of the land, the landowners and the farmer beneficiaries. However, the law is silent on how the identification process shall be made. To fill this gap, on July 26, 1989, the DAR issued Administrative Order No. 12, series of 1989, which set

the operating procedure in the identification of such lands. The procedure is as follows: A. The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), with the assistance of the pertinent Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), shall: 1. Update the masterlist of all agricultural lands covered under the CARP in his area of responsibility; the masterlist should include such information as required under the attached CARP masterlist form which shall include the name of the landowner, landholding area, TCT/OCT number, and tax declaration number. 2. Prepare the Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title (OCT/TCT) or landholding covered under Phase I and II of the CARP except those for which the landowners have already filed applications to avail of other modes of land acquisition. A case folder shall contain the following duly accomplished forms: a) CARP CA Form 1MARO investigation report b) CARP CA Form No 2 Summary investigation report findings and evaluation c) CARP CA Form 3Applicant's Information sheet d) CARP CA Form 4 Beneficiaries undertaking e) CARP CA Form 5 Transmittal report to the PARO The MARO/BARC shall certify that all information contained in the above-mentioned forms have been examined and verified by him and that the same are true and correct. 3. Send notice of coverage and a letter of invitation to a conference/meeting to the landowner covered by the Compulsory Case Acquisition Folder. Invitations to the said conference meeting

shall also be sent to the prospective farmer-beneficiaries, the BARC representatives, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) representative, and the other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of the property. He shall discuss the MARO/BARC investigation report and solicit the views, objection, agreements or suggestions of the participants thereon. The landowner shall also ask to indicate his retention area. The minutes of the meeting shall be signed by all participants in the conference and shall form an integral part of the CACF. 4. Submit all completed case folders to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO). B. The PARO shall: 1. Ensure the individual case folders are forwarded to him by his MAROs. 2. Immediately upon receipt of a case folder, compute the valuation of the land in accordance with A.O. No. 6, series of 1988. The valuation worksheet and the related CACF valuation forms shall be duly certified correct by the PARO and all the personnel who participated in the accomplishment of these forms. 3. In all cases, the PARO may validate the report of the MARO through ocular inspection and verification of the property. This ocular inspection and verification shall be mandatory when the computed value exceeds P500,000 per estate. 4. Upon determination of the valuation, forward the case folder, together with the duly accomplished valuation forms and his recommendations, to the Central Office. The LBP representative and the MARO concerned shall be furnished a copy each of his report.

C. DAR Central Office, specifically through the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD), shall: 1. Within three days from receipt of the case folder from the PARO, review, evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the property covered by the case folder. A summary review and evaluation report shall be prepared and duly certified by the BLAD Director and the personnel directly participating in the review and final valuation. 2. Prepare, for the signature of the Secretary or her duly authorized representative, a notice of acquisition (CARP Form 8) for the subject property. Serve the notice to the landowner personally or through registered mail within three days from its approval. The notice shall include among others, the area subject of compulsory acquisition, and the amount of just compensation offered by DAR. 3. Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the order of acquisition. However, in case of rejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation, in accordance with the procedures provided under Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1989. Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the required order of acquisition. 4. Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or upon deposit of payment in the designated bank, in case of rejection or non-response, the Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Once the property is transferred, the DAR, through the PARO, shall take possession of the land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries."

Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 requires that the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) keep an updated master list of all agricultural lands under the CARP in his area of responsibility containing all the required information. The MARO prepares a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF) for each title covered by CARP. The MARO then sends the landowner a "Notice of Coverage" and a "letter of invitation" to a "conference/ meeting" over the land covered by the CACF. He also sends invitations to the prospective farmer-beneficiaries, the representatives of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the valuation of the property and solicit views, suggestions, objections or agreements of the parties. At the meeting, the landowner is asked to indicate his retention area. The MARO shall make a report of the case to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) who shall complete the valuation of the land. Ocular inspection and verification of the property by the PARO shall be mandatory when the computed value of the estate exceeds P500,000.00. Upon determination of the valuation, the PARO shall forward all papers together with his recommendation to the Central Office of the DAR. The DAR Central Office, specifically, the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) shall prepare, on the signature of the Secretary or his duly authorized representative, a notice of acquisition of the subject property. From this point, the provisions of R. A. No. 6657, Section 16 shall apply. For a valid implementation of the CARP Program, two notices are required: (1) the notice of coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner, the representative of the BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant to DAR A. O. No. 12, series of 1989; and (2) the notice of acquisition sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL.

The importance of the first notice, that is, the notice of coverage and the letter of invitation to a conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the State's police power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also a taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. In the case at bar, DAR has executed the taking of the property in question. However, payment of just compensation was not in accordance with the procedural requirement. The law required payment in cash or LBP bonds, not by trust account as was done by DAR. In Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, we held that "The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt of the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the landowner. No outright change of ownership is contemplated either."24 Consequently, petitioner questioned before the Court of Appeals DARAB's decision ordering the compulsory acquisition of petitioner's property.25 Here, petitioner pressed the question of whether the property was a watershed, not covered by CARP. Article 67 of the Water Code of the Philippines (P. D. No. 1067) provides:

"Art. 67. Any watershed or any area of land adjacent to any surface water or overlying any ground water may be declared by the Department of Natural resources as a protected area. Rules and Regulations may be promulgated by such Department to prohibit or control such activities by the owners or occupants thereof within the protected area which may damage or cause the deterioration of the surface water or ground water or interfere with the investigation, use, control, protection, management or administration of such waters." Watersheds may be defined as "an area drained by a river and its tributaries and enclosed by a boundary or divide which separates it from adjacent watersheds." Watersheds generally are outside the commerce of man, so why was the Casile property titled in the name of SRRDC? The answer is simple. At the time of the titling, the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources had not declared the property as watershed area. The parcels of land in Barangay Casile were declared as "PARK" by a Zoning Ordinance adopted by the municipality of Cabuyao in 1979, as certified by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. On January 5, 1994, the Sangguniang Bayan of Cabuyao, Laguna issued a Resolution26 voiding the zoning classification of the land at Barangay Casile as Park and declaring that the land is now classified as agricultural land. The authority of the municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna to issue zoning classification is an exercise of its police power, not the power of eminent domain. "A zoning ordinance is defined as a local city or municipal legislation which logically arranges, prescribes, defines and apportions a given political subdivision into specific land uses as present and future projection of needs."27 In Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform28 we held that lands classified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the CARL may not be compulsorily acquired for distribution to farmer beneficiaries.

However, more than the classification of the subject land as PARK is the fact that subsequent studies and survey showed that the parcels of land in question form a vital part of a watershed area.29 Now, petitioner has offered to prove that the land in dispute is a "watershed or part of the protected area for watershed purposes." Ecological balances and environmental disasters in our day and age seem to be interconnected. Property developers and tillers of the land must be aware of this deadly combination. In the case at bar, DAR included the disputed parcels of land for compulsory acquisition simply because the land was allegedly devoted to agriculture and was titled to SRRDC, hence, private and alienable land that may be subject to CARP. However, the scenario has changed, after an in-depth study, survey and reassessment. We cannot ignore the fact that the disputed parcels of land form a vital part of an area that need to be protected for watershed purposes. In a report of the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB), a research arm of the DENR, regarding the environmental assessment of the Casile and Kabanga-an river watersheds, they concluded that: "The Casile barangay covered by CLOA in question is situated in the heartland of both watersheds. Considering the barangays proximity to the Matangtubig waterworks, the activities of the farmers which are in conflict with proper soil and water conservation practices jeopardize and endanger the vital waterworks. Degradation of the land would have double edge detrimental effects. On the Casile side this would mean direct siltation of the Mangumit river which drains to the water impounding reservoir below. On the Kabanga-an side, this would mean destruction of forest covers which acts as recharged areas of the Matang Tubig springs. Considering that the people have little if no direct interest in the protection of the Matang Tubig structures they couldn't care less even if it would be destroyed.

The Casile and Kabanga-an watersheds can be considered a most vital life support system to thousands of inhabitants directly and indirectly affected by it. From these watersheds come the natural God-given precious resource water. x x x x x Clearing and tilling of the lands are totally inconsistent with sound watershed management. More so, the introduction of earth disturbing activities like road building and erection of permanent infrastructures. Unless the pernicious agricultural activities of the Casile farmers are immediately stopped, it would not be long before these watersheds would cease to be of value. The impact of watershed degredation threatens the livelihood of thousands of people dependent upon it. Toward this, we hope that an acceptable comprehensive watershed development policy and program be immediately formulated and implemented before the irreversible damage finally happens. Hence, the following are recommended: 7.2 The Casile farmers should be relocated and given financial assistance. 7.3 Declaration of the two watersheds as critical and in need of immediate rehabilitation. 7.4 A comprehensive and detailed watershed management plan and program be formulated and implemented by the Canlubang Estate in coordination with pertinent government agencies."30 The ERDB report was prepared by a composite team headed by Dr. Emilio Rosario, the ERDB Director, who holds a doctorate degree in water resources from U.P. Los Banos in 1987; Dr. Medel Limsuan, who obtained his doctorate degree in watershed management from Colorado University (US) in 1989; and Dr. Antonio M. Dano, who obtained his

doctorate degree in Soil and Water management Conservation from U.P. Los Banos in 1993. Also, DENR Secretary Angel Alcala submitted a Memorandum for the President dated September 7, 1993 (Subject: PFVR HWI Ref.: 933103 Presidential Instructions on the Protection of Watersheds of the Canlubang Estates at Barrio Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna) which reads: "It is the opinion of this office that the area in question must be maintained for watershed purposes for ecological and environmental considerations, among others. Although the 88 families who are the proposed CARP beneficiaries will be affected, it is important that a larger view of the situation be taken as one should also consider the adverse effect on thousands of residents downstream if the watershed will not be protected and maintained for watershed purposes. "The foregoing considered, it is recommended that if possible, an alternate area be allocated for the affected farmers, and that the Canlubang Estates be mandated to protect and maintain the area in question as a permanent watershed reserved."31 The definition does not exactly depict the complexities of a watershed. The most important product of a watershed is water which is one of the most important human necessity. The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate supply of water for future generations and the control of flashfloods that not only damage property but cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an "intergenerational responsibility" that needs to be answered now. Another factor that needs to be mentioned is the fact that during the DARAB hearing, petitioner presented proof that the Casile property has slopes of 18% and over, which exempted the land from the coverage of CARL. R. A. No. 6657, Section 10, provides:

"Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestration, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves, national defense, school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot production centers, church sites and convents appurtenent thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine centers, and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt from coverage of this Act." Hence, during the hearing at DARAB, there was proof showing that the disputed parcels of land may be excluded from the compulsory acquisition coverage of CARP because of its very high slopes. To resolve the issue as to the true nature of the parcels of land involved in the case at bar, the Court directs the DARAB to conduct a reevaluation of the issue. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP No. 27234. In lieu thereof, the Court REMANDS the case to the DARAB for reevaluation and determination of the nature of the parcels of land involved to resolve the issue of its coverage by the Comprehensive Land Reform Program. In the meantime, the effects of the CLOAs issued by the DAR to supposed farmer beneficiaries shall continue to be stayed by the temporary restraining order issued on December 15, 1993, which shall remain in effect until final decision on the case. No costs.

SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 110120 March 16, 1994 LAGUNA LAKE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL JN. SERAPIO, Presiding Judge RTC, Branch 127, Caloocan City, HON. MACARIO A. ASISTIO, JR., City Mayor of Caloocan and/or THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF CALOOCAN, respondents. Alberto N. Hidalgo and Ma. Teresa T. Oledan for petitioner. The City Legal Officer & Chief, Law Department for Mayor Macario A. Asistio, Jr. and the City Government of Caloocan.

ROMERO, J.: The clash between the responsibility of the City Government of Caloocan to dispose off the 350 tons of garbage it collects daily and the growing concern and sensitivity to a pollution-free environment of the residents of Barangay Camarin, Tala Estate, Caloocan City where these tons of garbage are dumped everyday is the hub of this controversy elevated by the protagonists to the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) for adjudication.

The instant case stemmed from an earlier petition filed with this Court by Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA for short) docketed as G.R. No. 107542 against the City Government of Caloocan, et al. In the Resolution of November 10, 1992, this Court referred G.R. No. 107542 to the Court of Appeals for appropriate disposition. Docketed therein as CA-G.R. SP No. 29449, the Court of Appeals, in a decision 1 promulgated on January 29, 1993 ruled that the LLDA has no power and authority to issue a cease and desist order enjoining the dumping of garbage in Barangay Camarin, Tala Estate, Caloocan City. The LLDA now seeks, in this petition, a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals. The facts, as disclosed in the records, are undisputed. On March 8, 1991, the Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City, filed a letter-complaint 2 with the Laguna Lake Development Authority seeking to stop the operation of the 8.6-hectare open garbage dumpsite in Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City due to its harmful effects on the health of the residents and the possibility of pollution of the water content of the surrounding area. On November 15, 1991, the LLDA conducted an on-site investigation, monitoring and test sampling of the leachate 3 that seeps from said dumpsite to the nearby creek which is a tributary of the Marilao River. The LLDA Legal and Technical personnel found that the City Government of Caloocan was maintaining an open dumpsite at the Camarin area without first securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, as required under Presidential Decree No. 1586, 4 and clearance from LLDA as required under Republic Act No. 4850, 5 as amended by

Presidential Decree No. 813 and Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983. 6 After a public hearing conducted on December 4, 1991, the LLDA, acting on the complaint of Task Force Camarin Dumpsite, found that the water collected from the leachate and the receiving streams could considerably affect the quality, in turn, of the receiving waters since it indicates the presence of bacteria, other than coliform, which may have contaminated the sample during collection or handling. 7 On December 5, 1991, the LLDA issued a Cease and Desist Order 8 ordering the City Government of Caloocan, Metropolitan Manila Authority, their contractors, and other entities, to completely halt, stop and desist from dumping any form or kind of garbage and other waste matter at the Camarin dumpsite. The dumping operation was forthwith stopped by the City Government of Caloocan. However, sometime in August 1992 the dumping operation was resumed after a meeting held in July 1992 among the City Government of Caloocan, the representatives of Task Force Camarin Dumpsite and LLDA at the Office of Environmental Management Bureau Director Rodrigo U. Fuentes failed to settle the problem. After an investigation by its team of legal and technical personnel on August 14, 1992, the LLDA issued another order reiterating the December 5, 1991, order and issued an Alias Cease and Desist Order enjoining the City Government of Caloocan from continuing its dumping operations at the Camarin area. On September 25, 1992, the LLDA, with the assistance of the Philippine National Police, enforced its Alias Cease and Desist Order by prohibiting the entry of all garbage dump trucks into the Tala Estate, Camarin area being utilized as a dumpsite.

Pending resolution of its motion for reconsideration earlier filed on September 17, 1992 with the LLDA, the City Government of Caloocan filed with the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City an action for the declaration of nullity of the cease and desist order with prayer for the issuance of writ of injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. C-15598. In its complaint, the City Government of Caloocan sought to be declared as the sole authority empowered to promote the health and safety and enhance the right of the people in Caloocan City to a balanced ecology within its territorial jurisdiction. 9 On September 25, 1992, the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the LLDA from enforcing its cease and desist order. Subsequently, the case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 126 of Caloocan which, at the time, was presided over by Judge Manuel Jn. Serapio of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, the pairing judge of the recently-retired presiding judge. The LLDA, for its part, filed on October 2, 1992 a motion to dismiss on the ground, among others, that under Republic Act No. 3931, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 984, otherwise known as the Pollution Control Law, the cease and desist order issued by it which is the subject matter of the complaint is reviewable both upon the law and the facts of the case by the Court of Appeals and not by the Regional Trial Court. 10 On October 12, 1992 Judge Manuel Jn. Serapio issued an order consolidating Civil Case No. C-15598 with Civil Case No. C15580, an earlier case filed by the Task Force Camarin Dumpsite entitled "Fr. John Moran, et al. vs. Hon. Macario Asistio." The LLDA, however, maintained during the trial that the foregoing cases, being independent of each other, should have been treated separately.

On October 16, 1992, Judge Manuel Jn. Serapio, after hearing the motion to dismiss, issued in the consolidated cases an order 11 denying LLDA's motion to dismiss and granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the LLDA, its agent and all persons acting for and on its behalf, from enforcing or implementing its cease and desist order which prevents plaintiff City of Caloocan from dumping garbage at the Camarin dumpsite during the pendency of this case and/or until further orders of the court. On November 5, 1992, the LLDA filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with prayer for restraining order with the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. 107542, seeking to nullify the aforesaid order dated October 16, 1992 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 127 of Caloocan City denying its motion to dismiss. The Court, acting on the petition, issued a Resolution 12 on November 10, 1992 referring the case to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition and at the same time, without giving due course to the petition, required the respondents to comment on the petition and file the same with the Court of Appeals within ten (10) days from notice. In the meantime, the Court issued a temporary restraining order, effective immediately and continuing until further orders from it, ordering the respondents: (1) Judge Manuel Jn. Serapio, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, Caloocan City to cease and desist from exercising jurisdiction over the case for declaration of nullity of the cease and desist order issued by the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA); and (2) City Mayor of Caloocan and/or the City Government of Caloocan to cease and desist from dumping its garbage at the Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City. Respondents City Government of Caloocan and Mayor Macario A. Asistio, Jr. filed on November 12, 1992 a motion for

reconsideration and/or to quash/recall the temporary restraining order and an urgent motion for reconsideration alleging that ". . . in view of the calamitous situation that would arise if the respondent city government fails to collect 350 tons of garbage daily for lack of dumpsite (i)t is therefore, imperative that the issue be resolved with dispatch or with sufficient leeway to allow the respondents to find alternative solutions to this garbage problem." On November 17, 1992, the Court issued a Resolution 13 directing the Court of Appeals to immediately set the case for hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not the temporary restraining order issued by the Court should be lifted and what conditions, if any, may be required if it is to be so lifted or whether the restraining order should be maintained or converted into a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals set the case for hearing on November 27, 1992, at 10:00 in the morning at the Hearing Room, 3rd Floor, New Building, Court of Appeals. 14 After the oral argument, a conference was set on December 8, 1992 at 10:00 o'clock in the morning where the Mayor of Caloocan City, the General Manager of LLDA, the Secretary of DENR or his duly authorized representative and the Secretary of DILG or his duly authorized representative were required to appear. It was agreed at the conference that the LLDA had until December 15, 1992 to finish its study and review of respondent's technical plan with respect to the dumping of its garbage and in the event of a rejection of respondent's technical plan or a failure of settlement, the parties will submit within 10 days from notice their respective memoranda on the merits of the case, after which the petition shall be deemed submitted for resolution. 15 Notwithstanding such efforts, the parties failed to settle the dispute.

On April 30, 1993, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision holding that: (1) the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction on appeal to try, hear and decide the action for annulment of LLDA's cease and desist order, including the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in relation thereto, since appeal therefrom is within the exclusive and appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals under Section 9, par. (3), of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129; and (2) the Laguna Lake Development Authority has no power and authority to issue a cease and desist order under its enabling law, Republic Act No. 4850, as amended by P.D. No. 813 and Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983. The Court of Appeals thus dismissed Civil Case No. 15598 and the preliminary injunction issued in the said case was set aside; the cease and desist order of LLDA was likewise set aside and the temporary restraining order enjoining the City Mayor of Caloocan and/or the City Government of Caloocan to cease and desist from dumping its garbage at the Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City was lifted, subject, however, to the condition that any future dumping of garbage in said area, shall be in conformity with the procedure and protective works contained in the proposal attached to the records of this case and found on pages 152-160 of the Rollo, which was thereby adopted by reference and made an integral part of the decision, until the corresponding restraining and/or injunctive relief is granted by the proper Court upon LLDA's institution of the necessary legal proceedings. Hence, the Laguna Lake Development Authority filed the instant petition for review on certiorari, now docketed as G.R. No. 110120, with prayer that the temporary restraining order lifted by the Court of Appeals be re-issued until after final determination by this Court of the issue on the proper interpretation of the powers and authority of the LLDA under its enabling law.

On July, 19, 1993, the Court issued a temporary restraining order 16 enjoining the City Mayor of Caloocan and/or the City Government of Caloocan to cease and desist from dumping its garbage at the Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City, effective as of this date and containing until otherwise ordered by the Court. It is significant to note that while both parties in this case agree on the need to protect the environment and to maintain the ecological balance of the surrounding areas of the Camarin open dumpsite, the question as to which agency can lawfully exercise jurisdiction over the matter remains highly open to question. The City Government of Caloocan claims that it is within its power, as a local government unit, pursuant to the general welfare provision of the Local Government Code, 17 to determine the effects of the operation of the dumpsite on the ecological balance and to see that such balance is maintained. On the basis of said contention, it questioned, from the inception of the dispute before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, the power and authority of the LLDA to issue a cease and desist order enjoining the dumping of garbage in the Barangay Camarin over which the City Government of Caloocan has territorial jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals sustained the position of the City of Caloocan on the theory that Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 984, otherwise known as the Pollution Control law, authorizing the defunct National Pollution Control Commission to issue an exparte cease and desist order was not incorporated in Presidential Decree No. 813 nor in Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983. The Court of Appeals ruled that under Section 4, par. (d), of Republic Act No. 4850, as amended, the LLDA is instead required "to institute the necessary legal proceeding against any person who shall commence to implement or continue implementation of

any project, plan or program within the Laguna de Bay region without previous clearance from the Authority." The LLDA now assails, in this partition for review, the abovementioned ruling of the Court of Appeals, contending that, as an administrative agency which was granted regulatory and adjudicatory powers and functions by Republic Act No. 4850 and its amendatory laws, Presidential Decree No. 813 and Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983, it is invested with the power and authority to issue a cease and desist order pursuant to Section 4 par. (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Executive Order No. 927 series of 1983 which provides, thus: Sec. 4. Additional Powers and Functions. The authority shall have the following powers and functions: xxx xxx xxx (c) Issue orders or decisions to compel compliance with the provisions of this Executive Order and its implementing rules and regulations only after proper notice and hearing. (d) Make, alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance of pollution specifying the conditions and the time within which such discontinuance must be accomplished. (e) Issue, renew, or deny permits, under such conditions as it may determine to be reasonable, for the prevention and abatement of pollution, for the discharge of sewage, industrial waste, or for the installation or operation of sewage works and industrial disposal system or parts thereof.

(f) After due notice and hearing, the Authority may also revoke, suspend or modify any permit issued under this Order whenever the same is necessary to prevent or abate pollution. (g) Deputize in writing or request assistance of appropriate government agencies or instrumentalities for the purpose of enforcing this Executive Order and its implementing rules and regulations and the orders and decisions of the Authority. The LLDA claims that the appellate court deliberately suppressed and totally disregarded the above provisions of Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983, which granted administrative quasijudicial functions to LLDA on pollution abatement cases. In light of the relevant environmental protection laws cited which are applicable in this case, and the corresponding overlapping jurisdiction of government agencies implementing these laws, the resolution of the issue of whether or not the LLDA has the authority and power to issue an order which, in its nature and effect was injunctive, necessarily requires a determination of the threshold question: Does the Laguna Lake Development Authority, under its Charter and its amendatory laws, have the authority to entertain the complaint against the dumping of garbage in the open dumpsite in Barangay Camarin authorized by the City Government of Caloocan which is allegedly endangering the health, safety, and welfare of the residents therein and the sanitation and quality of the water in the area brought about by exposure to pollution caused by such open garbage dumpsite? The matter of determining whether there is such pollution of the environment that requires control, if not prohibition, of the operation of a business establishment is essentially addressed to the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the DENR which, by virtue of Section 16 of Executive Order No. 192, series

of 1987, 18 has assumed the powers and functions of the defunct National Pollution Control Commission created under Republic Act No. 3931. Under said Executive Order, a Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) under the Office of the DENR Secretary now assumes the powers and functions of the National Pollution Control Commission with respect to adjudication of pollution cases. 19 As a general rule, the adjudication of pollution cases generally pertains to the Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB), except in cases where the special law provides for another forum. It must be recognized in this regard that the LLDA, as a specialized administrative agency, is specifically mandated under Republic Act No. 4850 and its amendatory laws to carry out and make effective the declared national policy 20 of promoting and accelerating the development and balanced growth of the Laguna Lake area and the surrounding provinces of Rizal and Laguna and the cities of San Pablo, Manila, Pasay, Quezon and Caloocan 21 with due regard and adequate provisions for environmental management and control, preservation of the quality of human life and ecological systems, and the prevention of undue ecological disturbances, deterioration and pollution. Under such a broad grant and power and authority, the LLDA, by virtue of its special charter, obviously has the responsibility to protect the inhabitants of the Laguna Lake region from the deleterious effects of pollutants emanating from the discharge of wastes from the surrounding areas. In carrying out the aforementioned declared policy, the LLDA is mandated, among others, to pass upon and approve or disapprove all plans, programs, and projects proposed by local government offices/agencies within the region, public corporations, and private persons or enterprises where such plans, programs and/or projects are related to those of the LLDA for the development of the region. 22

In the instant case, when the complainant Task Force Camarin Dumpsite of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City, filed its letter-complaint before the LLDA, the latter's jurisdiction under its charter was validly invoked by complainant on the basis of its allegation that the open dumpsite project of the City Government of Caloocan in Barangay Camarin was undertaken without a clearance from the LLDA, as required under Section 4, par. (d), of Republic Act. No. 4850, as amended by P.D. No. 813 and Executive Order No. 927. While there is also an allegation that the said project was without an Environmental Compliance Certificate from the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) of the DENR, the primary jurisdiction of the LLDA over this case was recognized by the Environmental Management Bureau of the DENR when the latter acted as intermediary at the meeting among the representatives of the City Government of Caloocan, Task Force Camarin Dumpsite and LLDA sometime in July 1992 to discuss the possibility of re-opening the open dumpsite. Having thus resolved the threshold question, the inquiry then narrows down to the following issue: Does the LLDA have the power and authority to issue a "cease and desist" order under Republic Act No. 4850 and its amendatory laws, on the basis of the facts presented in this case, enjoining the dumping of garbage in Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City. The irresistible answer is in the affirmative. The cease and desist order issued by the LLDA requiring the City Government of Caloocan to stop dumping its garbage in the Camarin open dumpsite found by the LLDA to have been done in violation of Republic Act No. 4850, as amended, and other relevant environment laws, 23 cannot be stamped as an unauthorized exercise by the LLDA of injunctive powers. By its express terms, Republic Act No. 4850, as amended by P.D. No.

813 and Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983, authorizes the LLDA to "make, alter or modify order requiring the discontinuance or pollution." 24 (Emphasis supplied) Section 4, par. (d) explicitly authorizes the LLDA to make whatever order may be necessary in the exercise of its jurisdiction. To be sure, the LLDA was not expressly conferred the power "to issue and ex-parte cease and desist order" in a language, as suggested by the City Government of Caloocan, similar to the express grant to the defunct National Pollution Control Commission under Section 7 of P.D. No. 984 which, admittedly was not reproduced in P.D. No. 813 and E.O. No. 927, series of 1983. However, it would be a mistake to draw therefrom the conclusion that there is a denial of the power to issue the order in question when the power "to make, alter or modify orders requiring the discontinuance of pollution" is expressly and clearly bestowed upon the LLDA by Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983. Assuming arguendo that the authority to issue a "cease and desist order" were not expressly conferred by law, there is jurisprudence enough to the effect that the rule granting such authority need not necessarily be express. 25 While it is a fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such powers as are expressly granted to it by law, it is likewise a settled rule that an administrative agency has also such powers as are necessarily implied in the exercise of its express powers. 26 In the exercise, therefore, of its express powers under its charter as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body with respect to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region, the authority of the LLDA to issue a "cease and desist order" is, perforce, implied. Otherwise, it may well be reduced to a "toothless" paper agency. In this connection, it must be noted that in Pollution Adjudication Board v. Court of Appeals, et al., 27 the Court ruled that the

Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) has the power to issue an exparte cease and desist order when there is prima facie evidence of an establishment exceeding the allowable standards set by the anti-pollution laws of the country. The ponente, Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano, declared: Ex parte cease and desist orders are permitted by law and regulations in situations like that here presented precisely because stopping the continuous discharge of pollutive and untreated effluents into the rivers and other inland waters of the Philippines cannot be made to wait until protracted litigation over the ultimate correctness or propriety of such orders has run its full course, including multiple and sequential appeals such as those which Solar has taken, which of course may take several years. The relevant pollution control statute and implementing regulations were enacted and promulgated in the exercise of that pervasive, sovereign power to protect the safety, health, and general welfare and comfort of the public, as well as the protection of plant and animal life, commonly designated as the police power. It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary requirements of procedural due process yield to the necessities of protecting vital public interests like those here involved, through the exercise of police power. . . . The immediate response to the demands of "the necessities of protecting vital public interests" gives vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies or the 1987 Constitution. Article II, Section 16 which provides:

The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. As a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person, it carries the correlative duty of non-impairment. This is but in consonance with the declared policy of the state "to protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them." 28 It is to be borne in mind that the Philippines is party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Alma Conference Declaration of 1978 which recognize health as a fundamental human right. 29 The issuance, therefore, of the cease and desist order by the LLDA, as a practical matter of procedure under the circumstances of the case, is a proper exercise of its power and authority under its charter and its amendatory laws. Had the cease and desist order issued by the LLDA been complied with by the City Government of Caloocan as it did in the first instance, no further legal steps would have been necessary. The charter of LLDA, Republic Act No. 4850, as amended, instead of conferring upon the LLDA the means of directly enforcing such orders, has provided under its Section 4 (d) the power to institute "necessary legal proceeding against any person who shall commence to implement or continue implementation of any project, plan or program within the Laguna de Bay region without previous clearance from the LLDA." Clearly, said provision was designed to invest the LLDA with sufficiently broad powers in the regulation of all projects initiated in the Laguna Lake region, whether by the government or the private sector, insofar as the implementation of these projects is concerned. It was meant to deal with cases which might possibly arise where decisions or orders issued pursuant to the exercise of such broad powers may not be obeyed, resulting in the thwarting

of its laudabe objective. To meet such contingencies, then the writs of mandamus and injunction which are beyond the power of the LLDA to issue, may be sought from the proper courts. Insofar as the implementation of relevant anti-pollution laws in the Laguna Lake region and its surrounding provinces, cities and towns are concerned, the Court will not dwell further on the related issues raised which are more appropriately addressed to an administrative agency with the special knowledge and expertise of the LLDA. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The temporary restraining order issued by the Court on July 19, 1993 enjoining the City Mayor of Caloocan and/or the City Government of Caloocan from dumping their garbage at the Tala Estate, Barangay Camarin, Caloocan City is hereby made permanent. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 109976 April 26, 2005

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE and TIRSO SAVELLANO, respondents. x--------------------x G.R. No. 112800 April 26, 2005

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, TIRSO B. SAVELLANO and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents. DECISION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: This is a consolidation of two Petitions for Review on Certiorari filed by the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC)1 and the Philippine National Bank (PNB),<2 assailing the decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 295833 and CA-G.R. SP No. 29526,4 respectively, which both affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in CTA Case No. 4249.5 The Petitions before this Court originated from a sworn statement submitted by private respondent Tirso B. Savellano (Savellano) to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on 24 June 1986. Through his sworn statement, private respondent Savellano informed the BIR that PNB had failed to withhold the 15% final tax on interest earnings and/or yields from the money placements of PNOC with the said bank, in violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1931. P.D. No. 1931, which took effect on 11 June 1984, withdrew all tax exemptions of government-owned and controlled corporations. In a letter, dated 08 August 1986, the BIR requested PNOC to settle its liability for taxes on the interests earned by its money placements with PNB and which PNB did not withhold.6 PNOC wrote the BIR on 25 September 1986, and made an offer to compromise its tax liability, which it estimated to be in the sum of P304,419,396.83, excluding interest and surcharges, as of 31 July 1986. PNOC proposed to set-off its tax liability against a claim for tax refund/credit of the National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR), then pending with the BIR, in the amount of P335,259,450.21. The amount of the claim for tax

refund/credit was supposedly a receivable account of PNOC from NAPOCOR.7 On 08 October 1986, the BIR sent a demand letter to PNB, as withholding agent, for the payment of the final tax on the interest earnings and/or yields from PNOC's money placements with the bank, from 15 October 1984 to 15 October 1986, in the total amount of P376,301,133.33.8 On the same date, the BIR also mailed a letter to PNOC informing it of the demand letter sent to PNB.9 PNOC, in another letter, dated 14 October 1986, reiterated its proposal to settle its tax liability through the set-off of the said tax liability against NAPOCOR'S pending claim for tax refund/credit.10 The BIR replied on 11 November 1986 that the proposal for set-off was premature since NAPOCOR's claim was still under process. Once more, BIR requested PNOC to settle its tax liability in the total amount of P385,961,580.82, consisting of P303,343,765.32 final tax, plus P82,617,815.50 interest computed until 15 November 1986.11 On 09 June 1987, PNOC made another offer to the BIR to settle its tax liability. This time, however, PNOC proposed a compromise by paying P91,003,129.89, representing 30% of the P303,343,766.29 basic tax, in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 44.12 Then BIR Commissioner Bienvenido A. Tan, in a letter, dated 22 June 1987, accepted the compromise. The BIR received a total tax payment on the interest earnings and/or yields from PNOC's money placements with PNB in the amount of P93,955,479.12, broken down as follows: Previous payment made by PNB Add: Payment made by PNOC pursuant to the compromise agreement of June 22, 1987 Total tax payment P P P 2,952,349.23 91,003,129.89 93,955,479.1213

Private respondent Savellano, through four installments, was paid the informer's reward in the total amount of P14,093,321.89, representing 15% of the P93,955,479.12 tax collected by the BIR from PNOC and PNB. He received the last installment on 01 December 1987.14 On 07 January 1988, private respondent Savellano, through his legal counsel, wrote the BIR to demand payment of the balance of his informer's reward, computed as follows: BIR tax assessment Final tax rate Informer's reward due (BIR deficiency tax assessment x Final tax rate) Less: Payment received by private respondent Savellano Outstanding balance P P P 385,961,580.82 0.15 57,894,237.12 14,093,321.89

P 43,800,915.2515

BIR Commissioner Tan replied through a letter, dated 08 March 1988, that private respondent Savellano was already fully paid the informer's reward equivalent to 15% of the amount of tax actually collected by the BIR pursuant to its compromise agreement with PNOC. BIR Commissioner Tan further explained that the compromise was in accordance with the provisions of E.O. No. 44, Revenue Memorandum Order (RMO) No. 39-86, and RMO No. 4-87.16 Private respondent Savellano submitted another letter, dated 24 March 1988, to BIR Commissioner Tan, seeking reconsideration of his decision to compromise the tax liability of PNOC. In the same letter, private respondent Savellano questioned the legality of the compromise agreement entered into by the BIR and PNOC and claimed that the tax liability should have been collected in full.17 On 08 April 1988, while the aforesaid Motion for Reconsideration was still pending with the BIR, private respondent Savellano filed a Petition for Review ad cautelam with the CTA, docketed as CTA Case No.

4249. He claimed therein that BIR Commissioner Tan acted "with grave abuse of discretion and/or whimsical exercise of jurisdiction" in entering into a compromise agreement that resulted in "a gross and unconscionable diminution" of his reward. Private respondent Savellano prayed for the enforcement and collection of the total tax assessment against taxpayer PNOC and/or withholding agent PNB; and the payment to him by the BIR Commissioner of the 15% informer's reward on the total tax collected.18 He would later amend his Petition to implead PNOC and PNB as necessary and indispensable parties since they were parties to the compromise agreement.19 In his Answer filed with the CTA, BIR Commissioner Tan asserted that the Petition stated no cause of action against him, and that private respondent Savellano was already paid the informer's reward due him. Alleging that the Petition was baseless and malicious, BIR Commissioner Tan filed a counterclaim for exemplary damages against private respondent Savellano.20 PNOC and PNB filed separate Motions to Dismiss, both arguing that the CTA lacked jurisdiction to decide the case.21 In its Resolution, dated 28 November 1988, the CTA denied the Motions to Dismiss since the question of lack of jurisdiction and/or cause of action do not appear to be indubitable.22 After their Motions to Dismiss were denied by the CTA, PNOC and PNB filed their respective Answers to the amended Petition. PNOC averred, among other things, that (1) it had no privity with private respondent Savellano; (2) the BIR Commissioner's discretionary act in entering into the compromise agreement had legal basis under E.O. No. 44 and RMO No. 39-86 and RMO No. 4-87; and (3) the CTA had no jurisdiction to resolve the case against it.23 On the other hand, PNB asserted that (1) the CTA lacked jurisdiction over the case; and (2) the BIR Commissioner's decision to accept the compromise was discretionary on his part and, therefore, cannot be reviewed or interfered with by the courts.24 PNOC and PNB later filed their amended Answer

invoking an opinion of the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowing the payment by the BIR of informer's reward to private respondent Savellano.25 The CTA, thereafter, ordered the parties to submit their evidence,26 to be followed by their respective Memoranda.27 On 23 November 1990, private respondent Savellano, filed a Manifestation with Motion for Suspension of Proceedings, claiming that his pending Motion for Reconsideration with the BIR Commissioner may soon be resolved.28 Both PNOC and PNB opposed the said Motion.29 Subsequently, the new BIR Commissioner, Jose U. Ong, in a letter to PNB, dated 16 January 1991, demanded that PNB pay deficiency withholding tax on the interest earnings and/or yields from PNOC's money placements, in the amount of P294,958,450.73, computed as follows: Withholding tax, plus interest P 385,961,580.82 under the letter of demand dated November 11, 1986 Less: Amount paid under E.O. No. P 91,003,129.89 44 Amount still due and collectible P 294,958,450.7330 This BIR letter was received by PNB on 06 February 1991,31 and was protested by it through a letter, dated 11 April 1991.32 The BIR denied PNB's protest on the ground that it was filed out of time and, thus, the assessment had already become final.33 Private respondent Savellano, on 22 February 1991, filed an Omnibus Motion moving to withdraw his previous Motion for Suspension of Proceeding since BIR Commissioner Ong had finally resolved his Motion for Reconsideration, and submitting by way of supplemental

offer of evidence (1) the letter of BIR Commissioner Ong, dated 13 February 1991, informing private respondent Savellano of the action on his Motion for Reconsideration; and (2) the demand-letter of BIR Commissioner Ong to PNB, dated 16 January 1991.34 Despite the oppositions of PNOC and PNB, the CTA, in a Resolution, dated 02 May 1991, resolved to allow private respondent Savellano to withdraw his previous Motion for Suspension of Proceeding and to admit the supplementary evidence being offered by the same party.35 In its Order, dated 03 June 1991, the CTA considered the case submitted for decision as of the following day, 04 June 1991.36 On 11 June 1991, PNB appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ) the BIR assessment, dated 16 January 1991, for deficiency withholding tax in the sum of P294,958,450.73. PNB alleged that its appeal to the DOJ was sanctioned under P.D. No. 242, which provided for the administrative settlement of disputes between government offices, agencies, and instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations.37 Three days later, on 14 June 1991, PNB filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings before the CTA since it had a pending appeal before the DOJ.38 On 04 July 1991, PNB filed with the CTA a Motion for Reconsideration of its Order, dated 03 June 1991, submitting the case for decision as of 04 June 1991, and prayed that the CTA hold its resolution of the case in view of PNB's appeal pending before the DOJ.39 On 17 July 1991, PNB filed a Motion to Suspend the Collection of Tax by the BIR. It alleged that despite its request for reconsideration of the deficiency withholding tax assessment, dated 16 January 1991, BIR Commissioner Ong sent another letter, dated 23 April 1991, demanding payment of the P294,958,450.73 deficiency withholding tax on the interest earnings and/or yields from PNOC's money placements. The same letter informed PNB that this was the BIR Commissioner's final decision on the matter and that the BIR Commissioner was set to issue a

warrant of distraint and/or levy against PNB's deposits with the Central Bank of the Philippines. PNB further alleged that the levy and distraint of PNB's deposits, unless restrained by the CTA, would cause great and irreparable prejudice not only to PNB, a government-owned and controlled corporation, but also to the Government itself.40 Pursuant to the Order of the CTA, during the hearing on 19 July 1991,41 the parties submitted their respective Memoranda on PNB's Motion to Suspend Proceedings.42 On 20 September 1991, private respondent Savellano filed another Omnibus Motion calling the attention of the CTA to the fact that the BIR already issued, on 12 August 1991, a warrant of garnishment addressed to the Central Bank Governor and against PNB. In compliance with the said warrant, the Central Bank issued, on 23 August 1991, a debit advice against the demand deposit account of PNB with the Central Bank for the amount of P294,958,450.73, with a corresponding transfer of the same amount to the demand deposit-in-trust of BIR with the Central Bank. Since the assessment had already been enforced, PNB's Motion to Suspend Proceedings became moot and academic. Private respondent Savellano, thus, moved for the denial of PNB's Motion to Suspend Proceedings and for an order requiring BIR to deposit with the CTA the amount of P44,243,767.00 as his informer's reward, representing 15% of the deficiency withholding tax collected.43 Both PNOC and PNB opposed private respondent Savellano's Omnibus Motion, dated 20 September 1991, arguing that the DOJ already ordered the suspension of the collection of the tax deficiency. There was therefore no basis for private respondent Savellano's Motion as the same was premised on the erroneous assumption that the tax deficiency had been collected. When the DOJ denied the BIR Commissioner's Motion to Dismiss and required him to file his answer, the DOJ assumed jurisdiction over PNB's appeal, and the CTA should first suspend its proceedings to give the DOJ the opportunity to decide the validity and propriety of the tax assessment against PNB.44

The CTA, on 28 May 1992, rendered its decision, wherein it upheld its jurisdiction and disposed of the case as follows: WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered declaring the COMPROMISE AGREEMENT between the Bureau of Internal Revenue, on the one hand, and the Philippine National Oil Company and Philippine National Bank, on the other, as WITHOUT FORCE AND EFFECT; The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is hereby ordered to ENFORCE the ASSESSMENT of January 16, 1991 against Philippine National Bank which has become final and unappealable by collecting from Philippine National Bank the deficiency withholding tax, plus interest totalling (sic) P294,958,450.73; Petitioner may be paid, upon collection of the deficiency withholding tax, the balance of his entitlement to informer's reward based on fifteen percent (15%) of the deficiency withholding total tax collected in this case or P44,243.767.00 subject to existing rules and regulations governing payment of reward to informers.45 In a Resolution, dated 16 November 1992, the CTA denied the Motions for Reconsideration filed by PNOC and PNB since they substantially raised the same issues in their previous pleadings and which had already been passed upon and resolved adversely against them.46 PNOC and PNB filed separate appeals with the Court of Appeals seeking the reversal of the CTA decision in CTA Case No. 4249, dated 28 May 1992, and the CTA Resolution in the same case, dated 16 November 1992. PNOC's appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 29583, while PNB's appeal was CA-G.R. SP No. 29526. In both cases, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the CTA. In the meantime, the Central Bank again issued on 02 September 1992 a debit advice against the demand deposit account of PNB with the

Central Bank for the amount of P294,958,450.73,47 and on 15 September 1992, credited the same amount to the demand deposit account of the Treasurer of the Republic of the Philippines.48 On 04 November 1992, the Treasurer of the Republic issued a journal voucher transferring P294,958,450.73 to the account of the BIR.49 PNB, in turn, debited P294,958,450.73 from the deposit account of PNOC with PNB.50 PNOC and PNB then filed separate Petitions for Review on Certiorari with this Court, praying that the decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 29583 and CA-G.R. SP No. 29526, respectively, both affirming the decision of the CTA in CTA Case No. 4249, be reversed and set aside. These two Petitions were consolidated since they involved identical parties and factual background, and the resolution of related, if not exactly, the same issues. In its Petition for Review, PNOC alleged the following errors committed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 29583: 1. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the deficiency taxes of PNOC could not be the subject of a compromise under Executive Order No. 44; and 2. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that Savellano is entitled to additional informer's reward.51 PNB, in its own Petition for Review, assailed the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 29526, assigning the following errors: 1. Respondent Court erred in not finding that the Court of Tax Appeals lacks jurisdiction on the controversy involving BIR and PNB (both government instrumentalities) regarding the new assessment of BIR against PNB; 2. The respondent Court erred in not finding that the Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction to question the compromise agreement entered into by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; and

3. The respondent Court erred in not ruling that the Commissioner of Internal Revenue cannot unilaterally annul tax compromises validly entered into by his predecessor.52 The decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 29583 and CAG.R. SP No. 29526, affirmed the decision of the CTA in CTA Case No. 4249. The resolution, therefore, of the assigned errors in the Court of Appeals' decisions essentially requires a review of the CTA decision itself. In consolidating the present Petitions, this Court finds that PNOC and PNB are basically questioning the (1) Jurisdiction of the CTA in CTA Case No. 4249; (2) Declaration by the CTA that the compromise agreement was without force and effect; (3) Finding of the CTA that the deficiency withholding tax assessment against PNB had already become final and unappealable and, thus, enforceable; and (4) Order of the CTA directing payment of additional informer's reward to private respondent Savellano. I Jurisdiction of the CTA A. The demand letter, dated 16 January 1991 did not constitute a new assessment against PNB. The main argument of PNB in assailing the jurisdiction of the CTA in CTA Case No. 4249 is that the BIR demand letter, dated 16 January 1991,53 should be considered as a new assessment against PNB. As a new assessment, it gave rise to a new dispute and controversy solely between the BIR and PNB that should be administratively settled or adjudicated, as provided in P.D. No. 242. This argument is without merit. The issuance by the BIR of the demand letter, dated 16 January 1991, was merely a development in the

continuing effort of the BIR to collect the tax assessed against PNOC and PNB way back in 1986. BIR's first letter, dated 08 August 1986, was addressed to PNOC, requesting it to settle its tax liability. The BIR subsequently sent another letter, dated 08 October 1986, to PNB, as withholding agent, demanding payment of the tax it had failed to withhold on the interest earnings and/or yields from PNOC's money placements. PNOC wrote the BIR three succeeding letters offering to compromise its tax liability; PNB, on the other hand, did not act on the demand letter it received, dated 08 October 1986. The BIR and PNOC eventually reached a compromise agreement on 22 June 1987. Private respondent Savellano questioned the validity of the compromise agreement because the reduced amount of tax collected from PNOC, by virtue of the compromise agreement, also proportionately reduced his informer's reward. Private respondent Savellano then requested the BIR Commissioner to review and reconsider the compromise agreement. Acting on the request of private respondent Savellano, the new BIR Commissioner declared the compromise agreement to be without basis and issued the demand letter, dated 16 January 1991, against PNB, as the withholding agent for PNOC. It is clear from the foregoing that the BIR demand letter, dated 16 January 1991, could not stand alone as a new assessment. It should always be considered in the factual context summarized above. In fact, the demand letter, dated 16 January 1991, actually referred to the withholding tax assessment first issued in 1986 and its eventual settlement through a compromise agreement. In addition, the computation of the deficiency withholding tax was based on the figures from the 1986 assessments against PNOC and PNB, and BIR no longer conducted a new audit or investigation of either PNOC and PNB before it issued the demand letter on 16 January 1991. These constant references to past events and circumstances demonstrate that the demand letter, dated 16 January 1991, was not a new

assessment, but rather, the latest action taken by the BIR to collect on the tax assessments issued against PNOC and PNB in 1986. PNB argues that the demand letter, dated 16 January 1991, introduced a new controversy. We see it differently as the said demand letter presented the resolution by BIR Commissioner Ong of the previous controversy involving the compromise of the 1986 tax assessments. BIR Commissioner Ong explicitly declared therein that the compromise agreement was without legal basis, and requested PNB, as the withholding agent, to pay the amount of withholding tax still due. B. The CTA correctly retained jurisdiction over CTA Case No. 4249 by virtue of Republic Act No. 1125. Having established that the BIR demand letter, dated 16 January 1991, did not constitute a new assessment, then, there could be no basis for PNB's claim that any dispute arising from the new assessment should only be between BIR and PNB. Still proceeding from the argument that there was a new dispute between PNB and BIR, PNB sought the suspension of the proceedings in CTA Case No. 4249, after it contested the deficiency withholding tax assessment against it and the demand for payment thereof before the DOJ, pursuant to P.D. No. 242. The CTA, however, correctly sustained its jurisdiction and continued the proceedings in CTA Case No. 4249; and, in effect, rejected DOJ's claim of jurisdiction to administratively settle or adjudicate BIR's assessment against PNB. The CTA assumed jurisdiction over the Petition for Review filed by private respondent Savellano based on the following provision of Rep. Act No. 1125, the Act creating the Court of Tax Appeals: SECTION 7. Jurisdiction. The Court of Tax Appeals shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided -

(1) Decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; . . . (Underscoring ours.) In his Petition before the CTA, private respondent Savellano requested a review of the decisions of then BIR Commissioner Tan to enter into a compromise agreement with PNOC and to reject his claim for additional informer's reward. He submitted before the CTA questions of law involving the interpretation and application of (1) E.O. No. 44, and its implementing rules and regulations, which authorized the BIR Commissioner to compromise delinquent accounts and disputed assessments pending as of 31 December 1985; and (2) Section 316(1) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 (NIRC of 1977), as amended, which granted to the informer a reward equivalent to 15% of the actual amount recovered or collected by the BIR.54 These should undoubtedly be considered as matters arising from the NIRC and other laws being administered by the BIR, thus, appealable to the CTA under Section 7(1) of Rep. Act No. 1125. PNB, however, insists on the jurisdiction of the DOJ over its appeal of the deficiency withholding tax assessment by virtue of P.D. No. 242. Provisions on jurisdiction of P.D. No. 242 read: SECTION 1. Provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding, all disputes, claims and controversies solely between or among the departments, bureaus, offices, agencies, and instrumentalities of the National Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, but excluding constitutional offices or agencies, arising from the interpretation and application of statutes, contracts or agreements, shall henceforth be administratively settled or adjudicated as provided hereinafter; Provided, That this

shall not apply to cases already pending in court at the time of the effectivity of this decree. SECTION 2. In all cases involving only questions of law, the same shall be submitted to and settled or adjudicated by the Secretary of Justice, as Attorney General and ex officio legal adviser of all government-owned or controlled corporations and entities, in consonance with Section 83 of the Revised Administrative Code. His ruling or determination of the question in each case shall be conclusive and binding upon all the parties concerned. SECTION 3. Cases involving mixed questions of law and of fact or only factual issues shall be submitted to and settled or adjudicated by: (a) The Solicitor General, with respect to disputes or claims controversies between or among the departments, bureaus, offices and other agencies of the National Government; (b) The Government Corporate Counsel, with respect to disputes or claims or controversies between or among government-owned or controlled corporations or entities being served by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel; and (c) The Secretary of Justice, with respect to all other disputes or claims or controversies which do not fall under the categories mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b). The PNB and DOJ are of the same position that P.D. No. 242, the more recent law, repealed Section 7(1) of Rep. Act No. 1125,55 based on the pronouncement of this Court in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al., 56] quoted below:

The Court expresses its entire agreement with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals and the basic premises thereof that there is an "irreconcilable repugnancybetween Section 7(2) of R.A. No. 1125 and P.D. No. 242," and hence, that the later enactment (P.D. No. 242), being the latest expression of the legislative will, should prevail over the earlier. In the said case, it was expressly declared that P.D. No. 242 repealed Section 7(2) of Rep. Act No. 1125, which provides for the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA over decisions of the Commissioner of Customs. PNB contends that P.D. No. 242 should be deemed to have likewise repealed Section 7(1) of Rep. Act No. 1125, which provide for the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA over decisions of the BIR Commissioner.57 After re-examining the provisions on jurisdiction of Rep. Act No. 1125 and P.D. No. 242, this Court finds itself in disagreement with the pronouncement made in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al.,58 and refers to the earlier case of Lichauco & Company, Inc. v. Apostol, et al.,59 for the guidelines in determining the relation between the two statutes in question, to wit: The cases relating to the subject of repeal by implication all proceed on the assumption that if the act of later date clearly reveals an intention on the part of the law making power to abrogate the prior law, this intention must be given effect; but there must always be a sufficient revelation of this intention, and it has become an unbending rule of statutory construction that the intention to repeal a former law will not be imputed to the Legislature when it appears that the two statutes, or provisions, with reference to which the question arises bear to each other the relation of general to special. (Underscoring ours.) When there appears to be an inconsistency or conflict between two statutes and one of the statutes is a general law, while the other is a

special law, then repeal by implication is not the primary rule applicable. The following rule should principally govern instead: Specific legislation upon a particular subject is not affected by a general law upon the same subject unless it clearly appears that the provisions of the two laws are so repugnant that the legislators must have intended by the later to modify or repeal the earlier legislation. The special act and the general law must stand together, the one as the law of the particular subject and the other as the general law of the land. (Ex Parte United States, 226 U. S., 420; 57 L. ed., 281; Ex Parte Crow Dog, 109 U. S., 556; 27 L. ed., 1030; Partee vs. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 204 Fed. Rep., 970.) Where there are two acts or provisions, one of which is special and particular, and certainly includes the matter in question, and the other general, which, if standing alone, would include the same matter and thus conflict with the special act or provision, the special must be taken as intended to constitute an exception to the general act or provision, especially when such general and special acts or provisions are contemporaneous, as the Legislature is not to be presumed to have intended a conflict. (Crane v. Reeder and Reeder, 22 Mich., 322, 334; University of Utah vs. Richards, 77 Am. St. Rep., 928.)60 It has, thus, become an established rule of statutory construction that between a general law and a special law, the special law prevails Generalia specialibus non derogant.61 Sustained herein is the contention of private respondent Savellano that P.D. No. 242 is a general law that deals with administrative settlement or adjudication of disputes, claims and controversies between or among government offices, agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Its coverage is broad and sweeping, encompassing all disputes, claims and controversies. It has been incorporated as Chapter 14, Book IV of E.O. No. 292, otherwise known as the Revised Administrative Code of the Philippines.62 On the

other hand, Rep. Act No. 1125 is a special law63 dealing with a specific subject matter the creation of the CTA, which shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the tax disputes and controversies enumerated therein. Following the rule on statutory construction involving a general and a special law previously discussed, then P.D. No. 242 should not affect Rep. Act No. 1125. Rep. Act No. 1125, specifically Section 7 thereof on the jurisdiction of the CTA, constitutes an exception to P.D. No. 242. Disputes, claims and controversies, falling under Section 7 of Rep. Act No. 1125, even though solely among government offices, agencies, and instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations, remain in the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA. Such a construction resolves the alleged inconsistency or conflict between the two statutes, and the fact that P.D. No. 242 is the more recent law is no longer significant. Even if, for the sake of argument, that P.D. No. 242 should prevail over Rep. Act No. 1125, the present dispute would still not be covered by P.D. No. 242. Section 1 of P.D. No. 242 explicitly provides that only disputes, claims and controversies solely between or among departments, bureaus, offices, agencies, and instrumentalities of the National Government, including constitutional offices or agencies, as well as government-owned and controlled corporations, shall be administratively settled or adjudicated. While the BIR is obviously a government bureau, and both PNOC and PNB are government-owned and controlled corporations, respondent Savellano is a private citizen. His standing in the controversy could not be lightly brushed aside. It was private respondent Savellano who gave the BIR the information that resulted in the investigation of PNOC and PNB; who requested the BIR Commissioner to reconsider the compromise agreement in question; and who initiated CTA Case No. 4249 by filing a Petition for Review. In Bay View Hotel, Inc. v. Manila Hotel Workers' Union-PTGWO, et al.,64] this Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial

Relations over the ordinary courts and justified its decision in the following manner: We are unprepared to break away from the teaching in the cases just adverted to. To draw a tenuous jurisdictional line is to undermine stability in labor litigations. A piecemeal resort to one court and another gives rise to multiplicity of suits. To force the employees to shuttle from one court to another to secure full redress is a situation gravely prejudicial. The time to be lost, effort wasted, anxiety augmented, additional expense incurred these are considerations which weigh heavily against split jurisdiction. Indeed, it is more in keeping with orderly administration of justice that all the causes of action here "be cognizable and heard by only one court: the Court of Industrial Relations." The same justification is used in the present case to reject DOJ's jurisdiction over the BIR and PNB, to the exclusion of the other parties. The rights of all four parties in CTA Case No. 4249, namely the BIR, as the tax collector; PNOC, the taxpayer; PNB, the withholding agent; and private respondent Savellano, the informer claiming his reward; arose from the same factual background and were so closely interrelated, that a pronouncement as to one would definitely have repercussions on the others. The ends of justice were best served when the CTA continued to exercise its jurisdiction over CTA Case No. 4249. The CTA, which had assumed jurisdiction over all the parties to the controversy, could render a comprehensive resolution of the issues raised and grant complete relief to the parties. II Validity of the Compromise Agreement A. PNOC could not apply for a compromise under E.O. No. 44 because its tax liability was not a delinquent account or a disputed assessment as of 31 December 1985.

PNOC and PNB, on different grounds, dispute the decision of the CTA in CTA Case No. 4249 declaring the compromise agreement between BIR and PNOC without force and effect. PNOC asserts that the compromise agreement was in accordance with E.O. No. 44, and its implementing rules and regulations, and should be binding upon the parties thereto. E.O. No. 44 granted the BIR Commissioner or his duly authorized representatives the power to compromise any disputed assessment or delinquent account pending as of 31 December 1985, upon the payment of an amount equal to 30% of the basic tax assessed; in which case, the corresponding interests and penalties shall be condoned. E.O. No. 44 took effect on 04 September 1986 and remained effective until 31 March 1987. The disputed assessments or delinquent accounts that the BIR Commissioner could compromise under E.O. No. 44 are defined under Revenue Regulation (RR) No. 17-86, as follows: a) Delinquent account Refers to the amount of tax due on or before December 31, 1985 from a taxpayer who failed to pay the same within the time prescribed for its payment arising from (1) a self assessed tax, whether or not a tax return was filed, or (2) a deficiency assessment issued by the BIR which has become final and executory. Where no return was filed, the taxpayer shall be considered delinquent as of the time the tax on such return was due, and in availing of the compromise, a tax return shall be filed as a basis for computing the amount of compromise to be paid. b) Disputed assessment refers to a tax assessment disputed or protested on or before December 31, 1985 under any of the following categories:

1) if the same is administratively protested within thirty (30) days from the date the taxpayer received the assessment, or 2.) if the decision of the BIR on the taxpayer's administrative protest is appealed by the taxpayer before an appropriate court. PNOC's tax liability could not be considered a delinquent account since (1) it was not self-assessed, because the BIR conducted an investigation and assessment of PNOC and PNB after obtaining information regarding the non-withholding of tax from private respondent Savellano; and (2) the demand letter, issued against it on 08 August 1986, could not have been a deficiency assessment that became final and executory by 31 December 1985. The dissenting opinion contends, however, that the tax liability of PNOC constitutes a self-assessed tax, and is, therefore, a delinquent account as of 31 December 1985, qualifying for a compromise under E.O. No. 44. It anchors its argument on the declaration made by this Court in Tupaz v. Ulep,65 that internal revenue taxes are self-assessing. It is not denied herein that the self-assessing system governs Philippine internal revenue taxes. The dissenting opinion itself defines selfassessed tax as, "a tax that the taxpayer himself assesses or computes and pays to the taxing authority." Clearly, such a system imposes upon the taxpayer the obligation to conduct an assessment of himself so he could determine and declare the amount to be used as tax basis, any deductions therefrom, and finally, the tax due. E.O. No. 44 covers self-assessed tax, whether or not a tax return was filed. The phrase "whether or not a tax return was filed" only refers to the compliance by the taxpayer with the obligation to file a return on the dates specified by law, but it does not do away with the requisite that the tax must be self-assessed in order for the taxpayer to avail of the compromise. The second paragraph of Section 2(a) of RR No. 17-86 expressly commands, and still imposes upon the taxpayer, who is availing of the compromise under E.O. No. 44, and who has not

previously filed any return, the duty to conduct self-assessment by filing a tax return that would be used as the basis for computing the amount of compromise to be paid. Section 2(a)(1) of RR No. 17-86 thus involves a situation wherein a taxpayer, after conducting a self-assessment, discovers or becomes aware that he had failed to pay a tax due on or before 31 December 1985, regardless of whether he had previously filed a return to reflect such tax; voluntarily comes forward and admits to the BIR his tax liability; and applies for a compromise thereof. In case the taxpayer has not previously filed any return, he must fill out such a return reflecting therein his own declaration of the taxable amount and computation of the tax due. The compromise payment shall be computed based on the amount reflected in the tax return submitted by the taxpayer himself. Neither PNOC nor PNB, the taxpayer and the withholding agent, respectively, conducted self-assessment in this case. There is no showing that in the absence of the tax assessment issued by the BIR against them, that PNOC and/or PNB would have voluntarily admitted their tax liabilities, already amounting to P385,961,580.82, as of 15 November 1986, and would have offered to compromise the same. In fact, both PNOC and PNB were conspicuously silent about their tax liabilities until they were assessed thereon. Any attempt by PNOC and PNB to assess and declare by themselves their tax liabilities had already been overtaken by the BIR's conduct of its audit and investigation and subsequent issuance of the assessments, dated 08 August 1986 and 08 October 1986, against PNOC and PNB, respectively. The said tax assessments, uncontested and undisputed, presented the results of the BIR audit and investigation and the computation of the total amount of tax liabilities of PNOC and PNB. They should be controlling in this case, and should not be so easily and conveniently ignored and set aside. It would be a contradiction to claim that the tax liabilities of PNOC and PNB are self-assessed and, at the same time, BIR-assessed; when it is clear and simple that it had been the

BIR that conducted the assessment and determined the tax liabilities of PNOC and PNB. That the BIR-assessed tax liability should be differentiated from a selfassessed one, is supported by the provisions of RR No. 17-86 on the basis for computing the amount of compromise payment. Note that where tax liabilities are self-assessed, the compromise payment shall be computed based on the tax return filed by the taxpayer.66 On the other hand, where the BIR already issued an assessment, the compromise payment shall be computed based on the tax due on the assessment notice.67 For instances where the BIR had already issued an assessment against the taxpayer, the tax liability could still be compromised under E.O. No. 44 only if: (1) the assessment had been final and executory on or before 31 December 1985 and, therefore, considered a delinquent account as of said date;68 or (2) the assessment had been disputed or protested on or before 31 December 1985.69 RMO No. 39-86, which provides the guidelines for the implementation of E.O. No. 44, does mention different types of assessments that may be compromised under said statute (i.e., jeopardy assessments, arbitrary assessments, and tax assessments of doubtful validity). RMO No. 39-86 may not have expressly stated any qualification for these particular types of assessments; nonetheless, E.O. No. 44 specifically refers only to assessments that were delinquent or disputed as of 31 December 1985. E.O. No. 44 and all BIR issuances to implement said statute should be interpreted so that they are harmonized and consistent with each other. Accordingly, this Court finds that the different types of assessments mentioned in RMO No. 39-86 would still have to qualify as delinquent accounts or disputed assessments as of 31 Dcember 1985, so that they could be compromised under E.O. No. 44. The BIR had first written to PNOC on 08 August 1986, demanding payment of the income tax on the interest earnings and/or yields from

PNOC's money placements with PNB from 15 October 1984 to 15 October 1986. This demand letter could be regarded as the first assessment notice against PNOC. Such an assessment, issued only on 08 August 1986, could not have been final and executory as of 31 December 1985 so as to constitute a delinquent account. Neither was the assessment against PNOC an assessment that could have been disputed or protested on or before 31 December 1985, having been issued on a later date. Given that PNOC's tax liability did not constitute a delinquent account or a disputed assessment as of 31 December 1985, then it could not be compromised under E.O. No. 44. The assessment against PNOC, instead, was more appropriately covered by Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 31-86. RMC No. 31-86 clarifies the scope of availment of the tax amnesty under E.O. No. 4170 and compromise payments on delinquent accounts and disputed assessments under E.O. No. 44. The third paragraph of RMC No. 31-86 reads: [T]axpayers against whom assessments had been issued from January 1 to August 21, 1986 may settle their tax liabilities by way of compromise under Section 246 of the Tax Code as amended by paying 30% of the basic assessment excluding surcharge, interest, penalties and other increments thereto. The above-quoted paragraph supports the position that only assessments that were disputed or that were final and executory by 31 December 1985 could be the subject of a compromise under E.O. No. 44. Assessments issued between 01 January to 21 August 1986 could still be compromised by payment of 30% of the basic tax assessed, not anymore pursuant to E.O. No. 44, but pursuant to Section 246 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended.

Section 246 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended, granted the BIR Commissioner the authority to compromise the payment of any internal revenue tax under the following circumstances: (1) there exists a reasonable doubt as to the validity of the claim against the taxpayer; or (2) the financial position of the taxpayer demonstrates a clear inability to pay the assessed tax.71 There are substantial differences in circumstances under which compromises may be granted under Section 246 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended, and E.O. No. 44. Although PNOC and PNB have extensively argued their entitlement to compromise under E.O. No. 44, neither of them has alleged, much less, has presented any evidence to prove that it may compromise its tax liability under Section 246 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended. B. The tax liability of PNB as withholding agent also did not qualify for compromise under E.O. No. 44. Before proceeding any further, this Court reconsiders the conclusion made by BIR Commissioner Ong in his demand letter, dated 16 January 1991, that the compromise settlement executed between the BIR and PNOC was without legal basis because withholding taxes were not actually taxes that could be compromised, but a penalty for PNB's failure to withhold and for which it was made personally liable. E.O. No. 44 covers disputed or delinquency cases where the person assessed was himself the taxpayer rather than a mere agent.72 RMO No. 39-86 expressly allows a withholding agent, who failed to withhold the required tax because of neglect, ignorance of the law, or his belief that he was not required by law to withhold tax, to apply for a compromise settlement of his withholding tax liability under E.O. No. 44. A withholding agent, in such a situation, may compromise the withholding tax assessment against him precisely because he is being held directly accountable for the tax.73

RMO No. 39-86 distinguishes between the withholding agent in the foregoing situation from the withholding agent who withheld the tax but failed to remit the amount to the Government. A withholding agent in the latter situation is the one disqualified from applying for a compromise settlement because he is being made accountable as an agent, who held funds in trust for the Government.74 Both situations, however, involve withholding agents. The right to compromise under these provisions should have been claimed by PNB, the withholding agent for PNOC. The BIR held PNB personally accountable for its failure to withhold the tax on the interest earnings and/or yields from PNOC's money placements with PNB. The BIR sent a demand letter, dated 08 October 1986, addressed directly to PNB, for payment of the withholding tax assessed against it, but PNB failed to take any action on the said demand letter. Yet, all the offers to compromise the withholding tax assessment came from PNOC and PNOC did not claim that it made the offers to compromise on behalf of PNB. Moreover, the general requirement of E.O. No. 44 still applies to withholding agents that the withholding tax liability must either be a delinquent account or a disputed assessment as of 31 December 1985 to qualify for compromise settlement. The demand letter against PNB, which also served as its assessment notice, had been issued on 08 October 1986 or two months later than PNOC's. PNB's withholding tax liability could not be considered a delinquent account or a disputed assessment, as defined under RR No. 17-86, for the same reasons that PNOC's tax liability did not constitute as such. The tax liability of PNB, therefore, was also not eligible for compromise settlement under E.O. No. 44. C. Even assuming arguendo that PNOC and/or PNB qualified under E.O. No. 44, their application for compromise was filed beyond the deadline.

Despite already ruling that the tax liabilities of PNOC and PNB could not be compromised under E.O. No. 44, this Court still deems it necessary to discuss the finding of the CTA that the compromise agreement had been filed beyond the effectivity of E.O. No. 44, since the CTA made a declaration in relation thereto that paragraph 2 of RMO No. 39-86 was null and void for unduly extending the effectivity of E.O. No. 44. Paragraph 2 of RMO No. 39-86 provides that: 2. Period for availment. Filing of application for compromise settlement under the said law shall be effective only until March 31, 1987. Applications filed on or before this date shall be valid even if the payment or payments of the compromise amount shall be made after the said date, subject, however, to the provisions of Executive Order No. 44 and its implementing Revenue Regulations No. 17-86. It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that administrative authorities are vested with the power to make rules and regulations because it is impracticable for the lawmakers to provide general regulations for various and varying details of management. The interpretation given to a rule or regulation by those charged with its execution is entitled to the greatest weight by the court construing such rule or regulation, and such interpretation will be followed unless it appears to be clearly unreasonable or arbitrary.75 RMO No. 39-86, particularly paragraph 2 thereof, does not appear to be unreasonable or arbitrary. It does not unduly expand the coverage of E.O. No. 44 by merely providing that applications for compromise filed until 31 March 1987 are still valid, even if payment of the compromised amount is made on a later date. It cannot be expected that the compromise allowed under E.O. No. 44 can be automatically granted upon mere filing of the application by the taxpayer. Irrefutably, the applications would still have to be processed

by the BIR to determine compliance with the requirements of E.O. No. 44. As it is uncontested that a taxpayer could still file an application for compromise on 31 March 1987, the very last day of effectivity of E.O. No. 44, it would be unreasonable to expect the BIR to process and approve the taxpayer's application within the same date considering the volume of applications filed and pending approval, plus the other matters the BIR personnel would also have to attend to. Thus, RMO No. 39-86 merely assures the taxpayers that their applications would still be processed and could be approved on a later date. Payment, of course, shall be made by the taxpayer only after his application had been approved and the compromised amount had been determined. Given that paragraph 2 of RMO No. 39-86 is valid, the next question that needs to be addressed is whether PNOC had been able to submit an application for compromise on or before 31 March 1987 in compliance thereof. Although the compromise agreement was executed only on 22 June 1987, PNOC is claiming that it had already written a letter to the BIR, as early as 25 September 1986, offering to compromise its tax liability, and that the said letter should be considered as PNOC's application for compromise settlement. A perusal of PNOC's letter, dated 25 September 1986, would reveal, however, that the terms of its proposed compromise did not conform to those authorized by E.O. No. 44. PNOC did not offer to pay outright 30% of the basic tax assessed against it as required by E.O. No. 44; and instead, made the following offer: (2) That PNOC be permitted to set-off its foregoing mentioned tax liability of P304,419,396.83 against the tax refund/credit claims of the National Power Corporation (NPC) for specific taxes on fuel oil sold to NPC totaling P335,259,450.21, which tax refunds/credits are actually receivable accounts of our Company from NPC.76 PNOC reiterated the offer in its letter to the BIR, dated 14 October 1986.77 The BIR, in its letters to PNOC, dated 8 October 198678 and 11

November 1986,79 consistently denied PNOC's offer because the claim for tax refund/credit of NAPOCOR was still under process, so that the offer to set-off such claim against PNOC's tax liability was premature. Furthermore, E.O. No. 44 does not contemplate compromise payment by set-off of a tax liability against a claim for tax refund/credit. Compromise under E.O. No. 44 may be availed of only in the following circumstances: SEC. 3. Who may avail. Any person, natural or juridical, may settle thru a compromise any delinquent account or disputed assessment which has been due as of December 31, 1985, by paying an amount equal to thirty percent (30%) of the basic tax assessed. SEC. 6. Mode of Payment. Upon acceptance of the proposed compromise, the amount offered as compromise in complete settlement of the delinquent account shall be paid immediately in cash or manager's certified check. Deferred or staggered payments of compromise amounts over P50,000 may be considered on a case to case basis in accordance with the extant regulations of the Bureau upon approval of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, his Deputy or Assistant as delineated in their respective jurisdictions. If the Compromise amount is not paid as required herein, the compromise agreement is automatically nullified and the delinquent account reverted to the original amount plus the statutory increments, which shall be collected thru the summary and/or judicial processes provided by law. E.O. No. 44 is not for the benefit of the taxpayer alone, who can extinguish his tax liability by paying the compromise amount equivalent

to 30% of the basic tax. It also benefits the Government by making collection of delinquent accounts and disputed assessments simpler, easier, and faster. Payment of the compromise amount must be made immediately, in cash or in manager's check. Although deferred or staggered payments may be allowed on a case-to-case basis, the mode of payment remains unchanged, and must still be made either in cash or in manager's check. PNOC's offer to set-off was obviously made to avoid actual cash-out by the company. The offer defeated the purpose of E.O. No. 44 because it would not only delay collection, but more importantly, it would not guarantee collection. First of all, BIR's collection was contingent on whether the claim for tax refund/credit of NAPOCOR would be subsequently granted. Second, collection could not be made immediately and would have to wait until the resolution of the claim for tax refund/credit of NAPOCOR. Third, there is no proof, other than the bare allegation of PNOC, that NAPOCOR's claim for tax refund/credit is an account receivable of PNOC. A possible dispute between NAPOCOR and PNOC as to the proceeds of the tax refund/credit would only delay collection by the BIR even further. It was only in its letter, dated 09 June 1987, that PNOC actually offered to compromise its tax liability in accordance with the terms and circumstances prescribed by E.O. No. 44 and its implementing rules and regulations, by stating that: Consequently, we reiterate our previous request for compromise under E.O. No. 44, and convey our preparedness to settle the subject tax assessment liability by payment of the compromise amount of P91,003,129.89, representing thirty percent (30%) of the basic tax assessment of P303,343,766.29, in accordance with E.O. No. 44 and its implementing BIR Revenue Memorandum Order No. 39-86.80 PNOC claimed in the same letter that it had previously requested for a compromise under the terms of E.O. No. 44, but this Court could not

find evidence of such previous request. There are stark and substantial differences in the terms of PNOC's offer to compromise in its earlier letters, dated 25 September 1986 and 14 October 1986 (set-off of the entire amount of its tax liability against the claim for tax refund/credit of NAPOCOR), to those in its letter, dated 09 June 1987 (payment of the compromise amount representing 30% of the basic tax assessed against it), making it difficult for this Court to accept that the letter of 09 June 1987 merely reiterated PNOC's offer to compromise in its earlier letters. This Court likewise cannot give credence to PNOC's allegation that beginning 25 September 1986, the date of its first letter to the BIR, there were continuing negotiations between PNOC and BIR that culminated in the compromise agreement on 22 June 1987. Aside from the exchange of letters recounted in the preceding paragraphs, both PNOC and PNB failed to present any other proof of the supposed negotiations. After the BIR denied the second offer of PNOC to set-off its tax liability against the claim for tax refund/credit of NAPOCOR in a letter, dated 11 November 1986, there is no other evidence of subsequent communication between PNOC and the BIR. It was only after almost seven months, or on 09 June 1987, that PNOC again wrote a letter to the BIR, this time offering to pay the compromise amount of 30% of the basic tax assessed against. This letter was already filed beyond 31 March 1987, after the lapse of the effectivity of E.O. No. 44 and the deadline for filing applications for compromise under the said statute. Evidence of meetings between PNOC and the BIR, or any other form of communication, wherein the parties presented their offer and counteroffer to the other, would have been very valuable in explaining and supporting BIR Commissioner Tan's decision to accept PNOC's third offer to compromise after denying the previous two. The absence of such evidence herein negates PNOC's claim of actual negotiations with the BIR. Therefore, even assuming arguendo that the tax liabilities of PNOC and PNB qualify as delinquent accounts or disputed assessments as of 31

December 1985, the application for compromise filed by PNOC on 09 June 1987, and accepted by then BIR Commissioner Tan on 22 June 1987, was still filed way beyond 31 March 1987, the expiration date of the effectivity of E.O. No. 44 and the deadline for filing of applications for compromise under RMO No. 39-86. D. The BIR Commissioner's discretionary authority to enter into a compromise agreement is not absolute and the CTA may inquire into allegations of abuse thereof. The foregoing discussion supports the CTA's conclusion that the compromise agreement between PNOC and the BIR was indeed without legal basis. Despite this lack of legal support for the execution of the said compromise agreement, PNB argues that the CTA still had no jurisdiction to review and set aside the compromise agreement. It contends that the authority to compromise is purely discretionary on the BIR Commissioner and the courts cannot interfere with his exercise thereof. It is generally true that purely administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered with by the courts; but when the exercise of such functions by the administrative officer is tainted by a failure to abide by the command of the law, then it is incumbent on the courts to set matters right, with this Court having the last say on the matter.81 The manner by which BIR Commissioner Tan exercised his discretionary power to enter into a compromise was brought under the scrutiny of the CTA amidst allegations of "grave abuse of discretion and/or whimsical exercise of jurisdiction."82 The discretionary power of the BIR Commissioner to enter into compromises cannot be superior over the power of judicial review by the courts. The discretionary authority to compromise granted to the BIR Commissioner is never meant to be absolute, uncontrolled and unrestrained. No such unlimited power may be validly granted to any officer of the government, except perhaps in cases of national

emergency.83 In this case, the BIR Commissioner's authority to compromise, whether under E.O. No. 44 or Section 246 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended, can only be exercised under certain circumstances specifically identified in said statutes. The BIR Commissioner would have to exercise his discretion within the parameters set by the law, and in case he abuses his discretion, the CTA may correct such abuse if the matter is appealed to them.84 Petitioners PNOC and PNB both contend that BIR Commissioner Tan merely exercised his authority to enter into a compromise specially granted by E.O. No. 44. Since this Court has already made a determination that the compromise agreement did not qualify under E.O. No. 44, BIR Commissioner Tan's decision to agree to the compromise should have been reviewed in the light of the general authority granted to the BIR Commissioner to compromise taxes under Section 246 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended. Then again, petitioners PNOC and PNB failed to allege, much less present evidence, that BIR Commissioner Tan acted in accordance with Section 246 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended, when he entered into the compromise agreement with PNOC. E. The CTA may set aside a compromise agreement that is contrary to law and public policy. PNB also asserts that the CTA had no jurisdiction to set aside a compromise agreement entered into in good faith. It relies on the decision of this Court in Republic v. Sandiganbayan85 that a compromise agreement cannot be set aside merely because it is too one-sided. A compromise agreement should be respected by the courts as the res judicata between the parties thereto. This Court, though, finds that there are substantial differences in the factual background of Republic v. Sandiganbayan and the present case. The compromise agreement executed between the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and Roberto S. Benedicto in Republic v. Sandiganbayan was judicially approved by the

Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan had ample opportunity to examine the validity of the compromise agreement since two years elapsed from the time the agreement was executed up to the time it was judicially approved. This Court even stated in the said case that, "We are not dealing with the usual compromise agreement perfunctorily submitted to a court and approved as a matter of course. The PCGG-Benedicto agreement was thoroughly and, at times, disputatiously discussed before the respondent court. There could be no deception or misrepresentation foisted on either the PCGG or the Sandiganbayan."86 In addition, the new PCGG Chairman originally prayed for the renegotiation of the compromise agreement so that it could be more just, fair, and equitable, an action considered by this Court as an implied admission that the agreement was not contrary to law, public policy or morals nor was there any circumstance which had vitiated consent.87 The above-mentioned circumstances strongly supported the validity of the compromise agreement in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, which was why this Court refused to set it aside. Unfortunately for the petitioners in the present case, the same cannot be said herein. The Court of Appeals, in upholding the jurisdiction of the CTA to set aside the compromise agreement, ruled that: We are unable to accept petitioner's submissions. Its formulation of the issues on CIR and CTA's lack of jurisdiction to disturb a compromise agreement presupposes a compromise agreement validly entered into by the CIR and not, when as in this case, it was indubitably shown that the supposed compromise agreement is without legal support. In case of arbitrary or capricious exercise by the Commissioner or if the proceedings were fatally defective, the compromise can be attacked and reversed through the judicial process (Meralco Securities Corporation v. Savellano, 117 SCRA 805, 812 [1982]; Sarah E. Ramsay, et. al. v. U.S. 21 Ct. C1 443, aff'd 120 U.S. 214, 30 L. Ed. 582; Tyson v. U.S., 39 F. Supp. 135 cited in page 18 of decision) .88

Although the general rule is that compromises are to be favored, and that compromises entered into in good faith cannot be set aside,89 this rule is not without qualification. A court may still reject a compromise or settlement when it is repugnant to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.90 The compromise agreement between the BIR and PNOC was contrary to law having been entered into by BIR Commissioner Tan in excess or in abuse of the authority granted to him by legislation. E.O. No. 44 and the NIRC of 1977, as amended, had identified the situations wherein the BIR Commissioner may compromise tax liabilities, and none of these situations existed in this case. The compromise, moreover, was contrary to public policy. The primary duty of the BIR is to collect taxes, since taxes are the lifeblood of the Government and their prompt and certain availability are imperious needs.91 In the present case, however, BIR Commissioner Tan, by entering into the compromise agreement that was bereft of any legal basis, would have caused the Government to lose almost P300 million in tax revenues and would have deprived the Government of much needed monetary resources. Allegations of good faith and previous execution of the terms of the compromise agreement on the part of PNOC would not be enough for this Court to disregard the demands of law and public policy. Compromise may be the favored method to settle disputes, but when it involves taxes, it may be subject to closer scrutiny by the courts. A compromise agreement involving taxes would affect not just the taxpayer and the BIR, but also the whole nation, the ultimate beneficiary of the tax revenues collected. F. The Government cannot be estopped from collecting taxes by the mistake, negligence, or omission of its agents. The new BIR Commissioner, Commissioner Ong, had acted well within his powers when he set aside the compromise agreement, dated 22 June

1987, after finding that the said compromise agreement was without legal basis. When he took over from his predecessor, there was still a pending motion for reconsideration of the said compromise agreement, filed by private respondent Savellano on 24 March 1988. To resolve the said motion, he reviewed the compromise agreement and, thereafter, came upon the conclusion that it did not comply with E.O. No. 44 and its implementing rules and regulations. It had been declared by this Court in Hilado v. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al.,92 that an administrative officer, such as the BIR Commissioner, may revoke, repeal or abrogate the acts or previous rulings of his predecessor in office. The construction of a statute by those administering it is not binding on their successors if, thereafter, the latter becomes satisfied that a different construction should be given. It is evident in this case that the new BIR Commissioner, Commissioner Ong, construed E.O. No. 44 and its implementing rules and regulations differently from that of his predecessor, former Commissioner Tan, which led to Commissioner Ong's revocation of the BIR approval of the compromise agreement, dated 22 June 1987. Such a revocation was only proper considering that the former BIR Commissioner's decision to approve the said compromise agreement was based on the erroneous construction of the law (i.e., E.O. No. 44 and its implementing rules and regulations) and should not give rise to any vested right on PNOC.93 Furthermore, approval of the compromise agreement and acceptance of the compromise payment by his predecessor cannot estop BIR Commissioner Ong from setting aside the compromise agreement, dated 22 June 1987, for lack of legal basis; and from demanding payment of the deficiency withholding tax from PNB. As a general rule, the Government cannot be estopped from collecting taxes by the mistake, negligence, or omission of its agents94 because: . . . Upon taxation depends the Government ability to serve the people for whose benefit taxes are collected. To safeguard such interest, neglect or omission of government officials entrusted with

the collection of taxes should not be allowed to bring harm or detriment to the people, in the same manner as private persons may be made to suffer individually on account of his own negligence, the presumption being that they take good care of their personal affairs. This should not hold true to government officials with respect to matters not of their own personal concern. This is the philosophy behind the government's exception, as a general rule, from the operation of the principle of estoppel. (Republic vs. Caballero, L-27437, September 30, 1977, 79 SCRA 177; Manila Lodge No. 761, Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, L-41001, September 30, 1976, 73 SCRA 162; Sy vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, L-41480, April 30, 1976, 70 SCRA 571; Balmaceda vs. Corominas & Co., Inc., 66 SCRA 553; Auyong Hian vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 59 SCRA 110; Republic vs. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., 66 SCRA 553; Republic vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, L18841, January 27, 1969, 26 SCRA 620; Zamora vs. Court of Tax Appeals, L-23272, November 26, 1970, 36 SCRA 77; E. Rodriguez, Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, L-23041, July 31, 1969, 28 SCRA 119).95 III Finality of the Tax Assessment A. The issue on whether the BIR complied with the notice requirements under RR No. 12-85 is raised for the first time on appeal and should not be given due course. PNB, in another effort to block the collection of the deficiency withholding tax, this time raises doubts as to the validity of the deficiency withholding tax assessment issued against it on 16 January 1991. It submits that the BIR failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth in RR No. 12-85.96

Whether or not the BIR complied with the notice requirements of RR No. 12-85 is a new issue raised by PNB only before this Court. Such a question has not been ventilated before the lower courts. For an appellate tribunal to consider a legal question, it should have been raised in the court below.97 If raised earlier, the matter would have been seriously delved into by the CTA and the Court of Appeals.98 B. The assessment against PNB had become final and unappealable, and therefore, enforceable. The CTA and the Court of Appeals declared as final and unappealable, and thus, enforceable, the assessment against PNB, dated 16 January 1991, since PNB failed to protest said assessment within the 30-day prescribed period. This Court, though, finds that the significant BIR assessment, as far as this case is concerned, should be the one issued by the BIR against PNB on 08 October 1986. The BIR issued on 08 October 1986 an assessment against PNB for its withholding tax liability on the interest earnings and/or yields from PNOC's money placements with the bank. It had 30 days from receipt to protest the BIR's assessment.99 PNB, however, did not take any action as to the said assessment so that upon the lapse of the period to protest, the withholding tax assessment against it, dated 8 October 1986, became final and unappealable, and could no longer be disputed.100 The courts may therefore order the enforcement of this assessment. It is the enforcement of this BIR assessment against PNB, dated 08 October 1986, that is in issue in the instant case. If the compromise agreement is valid, it would effectively bar the BIR from enforcing the assessment and collecting the assessed tax; on the other hand, if the compromise agreement is void, then the courts can order the BIR to enforce the assessment and collect the assessed tax. As has been previously discussed by this Court, the BIR demand letter, dated 16 January 1991, is not a new assessment against PNB. It only demanded from PNB the payment of the balance of the withholding tax

assessed against it on 08 October 1986. The same demand letter also has no substantial effect or impact on the resolution of the present case. It is already unnecessary and superfluous, having been issued by the BIR when CTA Case No. 4249 was already pending before the CTA. At best, the demand letter, dated 16 January 1991, constitute a useful reference for the courts in computing the balance of PNB's tax liability, after applying as partial payment thereon the amount previously received by the BIR from PNOC pursuant to the compromise agreement. IV Prescription A. The defense of prescription was never raised by petitioners PNOC and PNB, and should be considered waived. The dissenting opinion takes the position that the right of the BIR to assess and collect income tax on the interest earnings and/or yields from PNOC's money placements with PNB, particularly for taxable year 1985, had already prescribed, based on Section 268 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended. Section 268 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended, provides a three-year period of limitation for the assessment and collection of internal revenue taxes, which begins to run after the last day prescribed for filing of the return.101 The dissenting opinion points out that more than four years have elapsed from 25 January 1986 (the last day prescribed by law for PNB to file its withholding tax return for the fourth quarter of 1985) to 16 January 1991 (the date when the alleged final assessment of PNB's tax liability was issued). The issue of prescription, however, was brought up only in the dissenting opinion and was never raised by PNOC and PNB in the

proceedings before the BIR nor in any of their pleadings submitted to the CTA and the Court of Appeals. Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Civil Procedure lays down the rule on defenses and objections not pleaded, and reads: SECTION 1. Defenses and objections not pleaded. Defenses and objections not pleaded either in a motion to dismiss or in the answer are deemed waived. However, when it appears from the pleadings or the evidence on record that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, that there is another action pending between the parties for the same cause, or that the action is barred by prior judgment or by the statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss the claim. The general rule enunciated in the above-quoted provision governs the present case, that is, the defense of prescription, not pleaded in a motion to dismiss or in the answer, is deemed waived. The exception in same provision cannot be applied herein because the pleadings and the evidence on record do not sufficiently show that the action is barred by prescription. It has been consistently held in earlier tax cases that the defense of prescription of the period for the assessment and collection of tax liabilities shall be deemed waived when such defense was not properly pleaded and the facts alleged and evidences submitted by the parties were not sufficient to support a finding by this Court on the matter.102 In Querol v. Collector of Internal Revenue,103 this Court pronounced that prescription, being a matter of defense, imposes the burden on the taxpayer to prove that the full period of the limitation has expired; and this requires him to positively establish the date when the period started running and when the same was fully accomplished. In making its conclusion that the assessment and collection in this case had prescribed, the dissenting opinion took liberties to assume the following facts even in the absence of allegations and evidences to the

effect that: (1) PNB filed returns for its withholding tax obligations for taxable year 1985; (2) PNB reported in the said returns the interest earnings of PNOC's money placements with the bank; and (3) that the returns were filed on or before the prescribed date, which was 25 January 1986. It is not safe to adopt the first and second assumptions in this case considering that Section 269 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended, provides for a different period of limitation for assessment and collection of taxes in case of false or fraudulent return or for failure to file a return. In such cases, the BIR is given 10 years after discovery of the falsity, fraud, or omission within which to make an assessment.104 It is also not safe to accept the third assumption since there can be a possibility that PNB filed the withholding tax return later than the prescribed date, in which case, following the dictates of Section 268 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended, the three-year prescriptive period shall be counted from the date the return was actually filed.105 PNB's withholding tax returns for taxable year 1985, duly received by the BIR, would have been the best evidence to prove actual filing, the date of filing and the contents thereof. These facts are relevant in determining which prescriptive period should apply, and when such prescriptive period should begin to run and when it had lapsed. Yet, the pleadings did not refer to any return, and no return was made part of the records of the present case. This Court could not make a proper ruling on the matter of prescription on the mere basis of assumptions; such an issue should have been properly raised, argued, and supported by evidences submitted by the parties themselves before the BIR and the courts below. B. Granting that this Court can take cognizance of the defense of prescription, this Court finds that the assessment of the withholding tax liability against PNOC and collection of the tax assessed were done within the prescriptive period.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this Court can give due course to the defense of prescription, it finds that the assessment against PNB for its withholding tax liability for taxable year 1985 and the collection of the tax assessed therein were accomplished within the prescribed periods for assessment and collection under the NIRC of 1977, as amended. If this Court adopts the assumption made by the dissenting opinion that PNB filed its withholding tax return for the last quarter of 1985 on 25 January 1986, then the BIR had until 24 January 1989 to assess PNB. The original assessment against PNB was issued as early as 08 October 1986, well-within the three-year prescriptive period for making the assessment as prescribed by the following provisions of the NIRC of 1977, as amended: SEC. 268. Period of limitation upon assessment and collection. Except as provided in the succeeding section, internal revenue taxes shall be assessed within three years after the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the return, and no proceeding in court without assessment for the collection of such taxes shall be begun after the expiration of such period SEC. 269. Exceptions as to period of limitation of assessment and collection of taxes. (c) Any internal revenue tax which has been assessed within the period of limitation above-prescribed may be collected by distraint or levy or by a proceeding in court within three years following the assessment of the tax. Sections 268 and 269(c) of the NIRC of 1977, as amended, should be read in conjunction with one another. Section 268 requires that assessment be made within three years from the last day prescribed by law for the filing of the return. Section 269(c), on the other hand,

provides that when an assessment is issued within the prescribed period provided in Section 268, the BIR has three years, counted from the date of the assessment, to collect the tax assessed either by distraint, levy or court action. Therefore, when an assessment is timely issued in accordance with Section 268, the BIR is given another three-year period, under Section 269(c), within which to collect the tax assessed, reckoned from the date of the assessment. In the case of PNB, an assessment was issued against it by the BIR on 08 October 1986, so that the BIR had until 07 October 1989 to enforce it and to collect the tax assessed. The filing, however, by private respondent Savellano of his Amended Petition for Review before the CTA on 02 July 1988 already constituted a judicial action for collection of the tax assessed which stops the running of the three-year prescriptive period for collection thereof. A judicial action for the collection of a tax may be initiated by the filing of a complaint with the proper regular trial court; or where the assessment is appealed to the CTA, by filing an answer to the taxpayer's petition for review wherein payment of the tax is prayed for.106 The present case is unique, however, because the Petition for Review was filed by private respondent Savellano, the informer, against the BIR, PNOC, and PNB. The BIR, the collecting government agency; PNOC, the taxpayer; and PNB, the withholding agent, initially found themselves on the same side. The prayer in the Amended Petition for Review of private respondent Savellano reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, petitioner respectfully prays that the compromise agreement of June 22, 1987 be reviewed and declared null and void, and that this Court directs: a) respondent Commissioner to enforce and collect and respondents PNB and/or PNOC to pay in a joint and several capacity, the total tax liability of P387,987,785.73, plus interests from 31 October 1986; and

b) respondent Commissioner to pay unto petitioner, as informer's reward, 15% of the tax liability collected under clause (a) hereof. Other equitable reliefs under the premises are likewise prayed for.107 (Underscoring ours.) Private respondent Savellano, in his Amended Petition for Review in CTA Case No. 4249, prayed for (1) the CTA to direct the BIR Commissioner to enforce and collect the tax, and (2) PNB and/or PNOC to pay the tax making CTA Case No. 4249 a collection case. That the Amended Petition for Review was filed by the informer and not the taxpayer; and that the prayer for the enforcement of the tax assessment and payment of the tax was also made by the informer, not the BIR, should not affect the nature of the case as a judicial action for collection. In case the CTA grants the Petition and the prayer therein, as what has happened in the present case, the ultimate result would be the collection of the tax assessed. Consequently, upon the filing of the Amended Petition for Review by private respondent Savellano, judicial action for collection of the tax had been initiated and the running of the prescriptive period for collection of the said tax was terminated. Supposing that CTA Case No. 4249 is not a collection case which stops the running of the prescriptive period for the collection of the tax, CTA Case No. 4249, at the very least, suspends the running of the said prescriptive period. Under Section 271 of the NIRC of 1977, as amended, the running of the prescriptive period to collect deficiency taxes shall be suspended for the period during which the BIR Commissioner is prohibited from beginning a distraint or levy or instituting a proceeding in court, and for 60 days thereafter.108 Just as in the cases of Republic v. Ker & Co., Ltd.109 and Protector's Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,110 this Court declares herein that the pendency of the present case before the CTA, the Court of Appeals and this Court, legally prevents the BIR Commissioner from instituting an action for collection of the same tax liabilities assessed against PNOC and PNB in

the CTA or the regular trial courts. To rule otherwise would be to violate the judicial policy of avoiding multiplicity of suits and the rule on lis pendens. Once again, that CTA Case No. 4249 was initiated by private respondent Savellano, the informer, instead of PNOC, the taxpayer, or PNB, the withholding agent, would not prevent the suspension of the running of the prescriptive period for collection of the tax. What is controlling herein is the fact that the BIR Commissioner cannot file a judicial action in any other court for the collection of the tax because such a case would necessarily involve the same parties and involve the same issues already being litigated before the CTA in CTA Case No. 4249. The three-year prescriptive period for collection of the tax shall commence to run only after the promulgation of the decision of this Court in which the issues of the present case are resolved with finality. Whether the filing of the Amended Petition for Review by private respondent Savellano entirely stops or merely suspends the running of the prescriptive period for collection of the tax, it had been premature for the BIR Commissioner to issue a writ of garnishment against PNB on 12 August 1991 and for the Central Bank of the Philippines to debit the account of PNB on 02 September 1992 pursuant to the said writ, because the case was by then, pending review by the Court of Appeals. However, since this Court already finds that the compromise agreement is without force and effect and hereby orders the enforcement of the assessment against PNB, then, any issue or controversy arising from the premature garnishment of PNB's account and collection of the tax by the BIR has become moot and academic at this point. V Additional Informer's Reward Private respondent Savellano is entitled to additional informer's reward since the BIR had already collected the full amount of the tax assessment against PNB.

PNOC insists that private respondent Savellano is not entitled to additional informer's reward because there was no voluntary payment of the withholding tax liability. PNOC, however, fails to state any legal basis for its argument. Section 316(1) of the NIRC of 1977, as amended, granted a reward to an informer equivalent to 15% of the revenues, surcharges, or fees recovered, plus, any fine or penalty imposed and collected.111 The provision was clear and uncomplicated an informer was entitled to a reward of 15% of the total amount actually recovered or collected by the BIR based on his information. The provision did not make any distinction as to the manner the tax liability was collected whether it was through voluntary payment by the taxpayer or through garnishment of the taxpayer's property. Applicable herein is another well-known maxim in statutory construction Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos when the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish.112 Pursuant to the writ of garnishment issued by the BIR, the Central Bank issued a debit advice against the demand deposit account of PNB with the Central Bank for the amount of P294,958,450.73, and credited the same amount to the demand deposit account of the Treasurer of the Republic of the Philippines. The Treasurer of the Republic, in turn, already issued a journal voucher transferring P294,958,450.73 to the account of the BIR. Since the BIR had already collected P294,958,450.73 from PNB through the execution of the writ of garnishment over PNB's deposit with the Central Bank, then private respondent Savellano should be awarded 15% thereof as reward since the said collection could still be traced to the information he had given. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petitions of PNOC and PNB in G.R. No. 109976 and G.R. No. 112800, respectively, are hereby DENIED. This Court AFFIRMS the assailed Decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 29583 and CA-G.R. SP No. 29526, which

affirmed the decision of the CTA in CTA Case No. 4249, with modifications, to wit: (1) The compromise agreement between PNOC and the BIR, dated 22 June 1987, is declared void for being contrary to law and public policy, and is without force and effect; (2)Paragraph 2 of RMO No. 39-86 remains a valid provision of the regulation; (3)The withholding tax assessment against PNB, dated 08 October 1986, had become final and unappealable. The BIR Commissioner is ordered to enforce the said assessment and collect the amount of P294,958,450.73, the balance of tax assessed after crediting the previous payment made by PNOC pursuant to the compromise agreement, dated 22 June 1987; and (4) Private respondent Savellano shall be paid the remainder of his informer's reward, equivalent to 15% of the deficiency withholding tax ordered collected herein, or P 44,243,767.61. SO ORDERED. [G.R. No. 163123. April 15, 2005] PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. CHINESE GENERAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, respondent. DECISION CORONA, J.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the March 29, 2004 decision[1] of the Court of Appeals, the dispositive portion of which read:

FOR THE FOREGOING DISQUISITIONS, the petition is GRANTED, the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation[2] is hereby ordered to give due course to petitioner's , Chinese General Hospital and Medical Center, claims for the period from 1989 to 1992, amounting to FOURTEEN MILLION TWO HUNDRED NINETY ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY EIGHT PESOS and 71/100 PESOS (P14,291,568.71).[3]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary The facts, as culled by the Court of Appeals, follow. On February 14, 1995, Republic Act No. 7875, otherwise known as 'An Act Instituting a National Health Insurance Program for all Filipinos and Establishing the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation For the Purpose, was approved and signed into law. As its guiding principle, it is provided in Section 2 thereof, thus: Section 2. Declaration of Principles and Policies. ' Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines declares that the state shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost. Priority for the needs of the underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women, and children should be recognized. Likewise, it shall be the policy of the State to provide free medical care to paupers. Prior to the enactment of R.A. 7875. CGH[4] had been an accredited health care provider under the Philippine Medical Care Commission (PMCC), more popularly known as Medicare. As defined by R.A. 7875, a health care provider refers to a health care institution, which is duly licensed and accredited devoted primarily to the maintenance and operation of facilities for health promotion, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care of individuals suffering from illness, disease, injury, disability or deformity, or in need of obstetrical or other medical and nursing care.[5]

As such, petitioner[6] filed its Medicare claims with the Social Security System (SSS), which, together with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), administered the Health Insurance Fund of the PMMC. Thus, petitioner filed its claim from 1989 to 1992 with the SSS, amounting to EIGHT MILLION ONE HUNDRED TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY-TWO and 10/100 (P8,102,782.10). Its application for the payment of its claim with the SSS was overtaken by the passage of R.A. 7875, which in Section 51 and 52, provides: SECTION 51. Merger. ' Within sixty (60) days from the promulgation of the implementing rules and regulations, all functions and assets of the Philippine Medical Care Commission shall be merged with those of the Corporation (PHILHEALTH) without need of conveyance, transfer or assignment. The PMCC shall thereafter cease to exist. The liabilities of the PMCC shall be treated in accordance with existing laws and pertinent rules and regulations. xxx SECTION 52. Transfer of Health Insurance Funds of the SSS and GSIS. ' The Health Insurance Funds being administered by the SSS and GSIS shall be transferred to the Corporation within sixty (60) days from the promulgation of the implementing rules and regulations. The SSS and GSIS shall, however, continue to perform Medicare functions under contract with the Corporation until such time that such functions are assumed by the Corporation xxx. Being the successor of the PMCC, PHILHEALTH, in compliance with the mandate of R.A. 7875,[7] promulgated the rules and regulations implementing said act, Section 52 of which provides: SECTION 52. Fee for Service Guidelines on Claims Payment. ' xxx b. All claims for payment of services rendered shall be filed within sixty (60) calendar days from the date of discharge of the patient. Otherwise, the claim shall be barred from payment except if the delay in the filing of thee claim is due to natural calamities and other fortuitous events. If

the claim is sent through mail, the date of the mailing as stamped by the post office of origin shall be considered as the date of the filing. If the delay in the filing is due to natural calamities or other fortuitous events, the health care provider shall be accorded an extension period of sixty (60) calendar days. If the delay in the filing of the claim is caused by the health care provider, and the Medicare benefits had already been deducted, the claim will not be paid. If the claim is not yet deducted, it will be paid to the member chargeable to the future claims of the health care provider. Instead of giving due course to petitioner's claims totaling to EIGHT MILLION ONE HUNDRED TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY-TWO and 10/100 (P8,102,782.10), only ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX and 32/100 Pesos (1,365,556.32) was paid to petitioner, representing its claims from 1989 to 1992 (sic). Petitioner again filed its claims representing services rendered to its patients from 1998 to 1999, amounting to SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FORTY TWO and 93/100 Pesos (P7,554,342.93). For being allegedly filed beyond the sixty (60) day period allowed by the implementing rules and regulations, Section 52 thereof, petitioner's claims were denied by the Claims Review Unit of Philhealth in its letter dated January 14, 200, thus: xxx This pertains to your three hundred seventy three Philhealth medicare claims (373) which were primarily denied by Claims Processing Department for late filing and for which you made an appeal to this office. We regret to inform you that after thorough evaluation of your claims, [your] 361 medicare claims were DENIED, due to the fact that the claims were filed 5 to 16 ' months after discharge. However, the

remaining medicare claims have been forwarded to Claims Processing Department (CPD) for payment. SECTION 52 (B) Rule 52 (B) Rule VIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of 7875 provides that all claims for payment of services rendered shall be filed within sixty (60) days from the day of discharge of the patient. However, Philhealth Circular No, 31-A, series of 1998, state that all claims pending with Philhealth as of September 15, 1998 and claims with discharge dates from September to December 31, 1998 are given one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of discharge to file their claim. In as much as we would like to grant your request for reconsideration, the Corporation could no longer extend the period of filing xxx. Petitioner's claim was denied with finality by PHILHEALTH in its assailed decision dated June 6, 2000. In a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, the Court of Appeals ordered herein petitioner Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (Philhealth) to pay the claims in the amount of Fourteen Million Two Hundred Ninety-one Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-eight Pesos and 71/100 (P14,291,568.71), principally on the ground of liberal application of the 60-day rule under Section 52 of RA 7875's Implementing Rules and Regulations. According to the Court of Appeals: The avowed policy in the creation of a national health program is, as provided in Section 11, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution, to adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services available to all people at affordable cost. To assist the state in pursuing this policy, hospitals and medical institutions such as herein petitioner are accredited to provide health care. It is true, as aptly stated by the OGCC, that petitioner was not required by the government to take part in its program, it did so voluntarily. But the fact that the government did not 'twist petitioner's arm, so to speak, to participate does not make

petitioner's participation in the program less commendable, considering that at rate PHILHEALTH is denying claims of health care givers, it is more risky rather than providential for health care givers to take part in the government's health program. It is Our firmly held view that the policy of the state in creating a national health insurance program would be better served by granting the instant petition. Thus, it is noteworthy to mention that health care givers are threatening to 'boycott PHILHEALTH, reasoning that the claims approved by PHILHEALTH are not commensurate to the services rendered by them to its members. Thus, how can these accredited health care givers be encouraged to serve an increasing number of members when they end up on the losing end of this venture. We must admit that the costs of operating these medical institutions cannot be taken lightly. They must also earn a modicum amount of profit in order to operate properly. Again, it is trite to emphasize that essentially, the purpose of the national health insurance program is to provide members immediate medical care with the least amount of cash expended. Thus, with PHILHEALTH, members/patients need only to present their card to prove their membership and the accredited health care giver is mandated by law to provide the necessary medical assistance, said health care giver shouldering the PHILHEALTH part of the bill. However, it is the members/patients who bear the brunt. Thus, they are made to shoulder the PHILHEALTH part of the bill, and the refund thereof is subject to whether or not the claims of the health care providers are approved by PHILHEALTH. This is blatantly contrary to the very purpose for which the National Health Insurance Program was created.[8] xxxxxxxxx We agree. The state policy in creating a national health insurance program is to grant discounted medical coverage to all citizens, with priority to the

needs of the underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women and children, and free medical care to paupers[9]. The very same policy was adopted in RA 7875[10] which sought to: a) provide all citizens of the Philippines with the mechanism to gain financial access to health services; b) create the National Health Insurance Program to serve as the means to help the people pay for the health services; c) prioritize and accelerate the provision of health services to all Filipinos, especially that segment of the population who cannot afford such services; and d) establish the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation that will administer the program at central and local levels. [11]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary To assist the state in pursuing the aforementioned policy, health institutions were granted the privilege of applying for accreditation as health care providers.[12] Respondent Chinese General Hospital and Medical Center (CGH) was one of those which received such accreditation. Under the rules promulgated by the Philhealth Board pursuant to RA 7875, any claim for payment of services rendered (to a patient) shall be filed within sixty (60) calendar days from the date of discharge of the patient. Otherwise, the claim is barred.[13]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary But before a claim is filed with petitioner Philhealth for services already rendered, an accredited health care provider like respondent CGH is required to: a. accomplish a Philhealth claim form;

b. accomplish an itemized list of the medicines administered to and medical supplies used by the patient concerned, indicating therein the quality, unit, price and total price corresponding thereto; c. require the patient concerned and his/her employer to accomplish and submit a Philhealth member/employer certification; d. in case the patient gave birth, require her to submit a certified true copy of the child's birth certificate; e. in case the patient died, require the immediate relatives to submit a certified true copy of the deceased's death certificate; and f. in case a member's dependent is hospitalized for which the member seeks coverage, require the member to submit proof of relationship to the patient and to execute an affidavit of support.[14]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Apart from the foregoing requirements which often necessitate securing documents from other government offices, and the fact that most patients' are unable to immediately accomplish and submit the required documents, an accredited health care provider like CGH has to contend with an average of about a thousand members and/or dependents seeking medical treatment for various illnesses per month. Under these circumstances, it is unreasonable to expect respondent CGH to comply 100% of the time with the prescribed 60-day rule of Philhealth. Despite the prescribed standard procedures, respondent has no assurance of the members' prompt submission of the required documents. This factor is completely beyond its control. There will always be delay not attributable to respondent.

The unreasonably strict implementation of the 60-day rule, without regard to the causes of delay beyond respondent's control, will be counter-productive to the long-term effectiveness of the NHIP. Instead of placing a premium on participation in the Program, Philhealth punishes an accredited health provider like CGH by refusing to pay its claims for services already rendered. Under these circumstances, no accredited provider will gamble on honoring claims with delayed supporting papers no matter how meritorious knowing that reimbursement from Philhealth will not be forthcoming. This Court will not hesitate, whenever necessary, to allow a liberal implementation of the rules and regulations of an administrative agency in cases where their unjustifiably rigid enforcement will result in a deprivation of legal rights. In this case, respondent had already rendered the services for which it was filing its claims. Technicalities should not be allowed to defeat respondent's right to be reimbursed, specially since petitioner's charter itself guarantees such reimbursement. A careful reading of RA 7875 shows that the law itself does not provide for any specific period within which to file claims. We can safely presume therefore that the period for filing was not per se the principal concern of the legislature. More important than mere technicalities is the realization of the state policy to provide Philhealth members with the requisite medical care at the least possible cost. Truly, nothing can be more disheartening than to see the Act's noble objective frustrated by the overly stringent application of technical rules. The fact is that it was not RA 7875 itself but Section 52 of its Implementing Rules and Regulations which established the 60-day cutoff for the filing of claims. While it is doctrinal in administrative law that the rules and regulations of administrative bodies interpreting the law they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law[15], these issuances are by no means ironclad norms. Administrative bodies themselves can and have in fact 'bent

the rules' for reasons of public interest. On September 15, 1998, for instance, petitioner issued Philhealth Circular No. 31-A:[16] IN ORDER to allow members of the National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) sufficient time to complete all documents to support their medical care claims, Philhealth is temporarily suspending the sixty (60)day reglementary period for filing claims. While Section 52 (b), Rule VIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 7875 provides that all claims for payment of services shall be filed within 60 calendar days from the day of discharge of a patient, there is a need to extend this period to minimize the incidence of late filing due to members' personal difficulties and circumstances beyond their control. (emphasis ours) And then again, on April 20, 1999, Philhealth Circular No. 50 was issued: TO MINIMIZE the incidence of late filing of claims due to members' personal difficulties in preparing the needed documents, Philhealth is extending the period for filing of claims xxx (emphasis ours) The above circulars indubitably recognized the necessity of extending the 60-day period because of the difficulties encountered by members in completing the required documents, often due to circumstances beyond their control. Petitioner appeared to be well aware of the problems encountered by its members in complying with the 60-day rule. Furthermore, implicit in the wording of the circulars was the cognition of the fact that the fault was not always attributable to the health care providers like CGH but to the members themselves. Delay on the part of members is an ordinary occurrence. There is no need to make a mountain out of a molehill as far as this particular point is concerned. To this day, members continue to encounter delay in submitting their documents. There was therefore no compelling reason

for the exacting and meticulous enforcement of the rule when, in at least two instances, petitioner itself implemented it liberally and on the same ground that it was using against respondent. Petitioner likewise contends that respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to judicial intervention. We disagree. Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, an administrative decision must first be appealed to the administrative superiors at the highest level before it may be elevated to a court of justice for review. This doctrine, however, is a relative one and its flexibility is conditioned on the peculiar circumstances of a case.[17] There are a number of instances when the doctrine has been held to be inapplicable. Among the established exceptions are: 1) when the question raised is purely legal; 2) when the administrative body is in estoppel; 3) when the act complained of is patently illegal; 4) when there is urgent need for judicial intervention; 5) when the claim involved is small; 6) when irreparable damage will be suffered; 7) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; 8) when strong public interest is involved; 9) when the subject of the controversy is private land; 10) in quo warranto proceedings.[18]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

As explained by the appellate court: It is Our view that the instant case falls as one of the exceptions, concerning as it does public interest. As mentioned earlier, although they were not made parties to the instant case, the rights of millions of Filipinos who are members of PHILHEALTH and who obviously rely on it for their health care, are considered, nonetheless, parties to the present case. This Court is mandated herein to take conscious and detailed consideration of the interplay of the interests of the state, the health care giver and the members. With these in mind, We hold that the greater interest of the greater number of people, mostly members of PHILHEALTH, is paramount. Furthermore, when the representatives of herein petitioner met with Dr. Enrique Zalamea, PHILHEALTH's President and Chief Executive Officer, he informed them that, in lieu of protest to be filed directly with him, the representatives could make representations with the Office of the President, which petitioner did to no avail, considering that the formal protest filed was referred back by the Office of the President to Dr. Zalamea. Being then the head of PHILHEALTH, and expected to have an intimate knowledge of the law and the rules creating the National Health Insurance Program, under which PHILHEALTH was created, he instructed herein petitioner to pursue a remedy not sanctioned by the rules and not in accord with the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies. In so doing, PHILHEALTH is deemed estopped from assailing the instant petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies when PHILHEALTH itself, through its president, does not subscribe to it.[19]chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary There is no need to belabor the fact that the baseless denial of respondent's claims will be gravely disturbing to the health care industry, specially the providers whose claims will be unpaid. The unfortunate reality is that there are today some health care providers who admit numbers for treatment and/or confinement yet require them to pay the portion which ought to be shouldered by Philhealth. A refund is

made only if their claim is first paid, due to the apprehension of not being reimbursed. Simply stated, a member cannot avail of his benefits under the NHIP at the time he needs it most. We cannot turn a deaf ear to respondent's plea for fairness which essentially demands that its claims for services already rendered be honored as the National Health Insurance Program law intended. WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. Petitioner is hereby ordered to pay respondent's claims representing services rendered to its members from 1989 to 1992. No costs. SO ORDERED Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-75697 June 18, 1987 VALENTIN TIO doing business under the name and style of OMI ENTERPRISES, petitioner, vs. VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD, MINISTER OF FINANCE, METRO MANILA COMMISSION, CITY MAYOR and CITY TREASURER OF MANILA, respondents. Nelson Y. Ng for petitioner. The City Legal Officer for respondents City Mayor and City Treasurer.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.: This petition was filed on September 1, 1986 by petitioner on his own behalf and purportedly on behalf of other videogram operators adversely affected. It assails the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1987 entitled "An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board" with broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry (hereinafter briefly referred to as the BOARD). The Decree was promulgated on October 5, 1985 and took effect on April 10, 1986, fifteen (15) days after completion of its publication in the Official Gazette. On November 5, 1985, a month after the promulgation of the abovementioned decree, Presidential Decree No. 1994 amended the National Internal Revenue Code providing, inter alia: SEC. 134. Video Tapes. There shall be collected on each processed video-tape cassette, ready for playback, regardless of length, an annual tax of five pesos; Provided, That locally manufactured or imported blank video tapes shall be subject to sales tax. On October 23, 1986, the Greater Manila Theaters Association, Integrated Movie Producers, Importers and Distributors Association of the Philippines, and Philippine Motion Pictures Producers Association, hereinafter collectively referred to as the Intervenors, were permitted by the Court to intervene in the case, over petitioner's opposition, upon the allegations that intervention was necessary for the complete protection of their rights and that their "survival and very existence is threatened by the unregulated proliferation of film piracy." The Intervenors were thereafter allowed to file their Comment in Intervention. The rationale behind the enactment of the DECREE, is set out in its preambular clauses as follows:

1. WHEREAS, the proliferation and unregulated circulation of videograms including, among others, videotapes, discs, cassettes or any technical improvement or variation thereof, have greatly prejudiced the operations of moviehouses and theaters, and have caused a sharp decline in theatrical attendance by at least forty percent (40%) and a tremendous drop in the collection of sales, contractor's specific, amusement and other taxes, thereby resulting in substantial losses estimated at P450 Million annually in government revenues; 2. WHEREAS, videogram(s) establishments collectively earn around P600 Million per annum from rentals, sales and disposition of videograms, and such earnings have not been subjected to tax, thereby depriving the Government of approximately P180 Million in taxes each year; 3. WHEREAS, the unregulated activities of videogram establishments have also affected the viability of the movie industry, particularly the more than 1,200 movie houses and theaters throughout the country, and occasioned industry-wide displacement and unemployment due to the shutdown of numerous moviehouses and theaters; 4. "WHEREAS, in order to ensure national economic recovery, it is imperative for the Government to create an environment conducive to growth and development of all business industries, including the movie industry which has an accumulated investment of about P3 Billion; 5. WHEREAS, proper taxation of the activities of videogram establishments will not only alleviate the dire

financial condition of the movie industry upon which more than 75,000 families and 500,000 workers depend for their livelihood, but also provide an additional source of revenue for the Government, and at the same time rationalize the heretofore uncontrolled distribution of videograms; 6. WHEREAS, the rampant and unregulated showing of obscene videogram features constitutes a clear and present danger to the moral and spiritual well-being of the youth, and impairs the mandate of the Constitution for the State to support the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character and promote their physical, intellectual, and social wellbeing; 7. WHEREAS, civic-minded citizens and groups have called for remedial measures to curb these blatant malpractices which have flaunted our censorship and copyright laws; 8. WHEREAS, in the face of these grave emergencies corroding the moral values of the people and betraying the national economic recovery program, bold emergency measures must be adopted with dispatch; ... (Numbering of paragraphs supplied). Petitioner's attack on the constitutionality of the DECREE rests on the following grounds: 1. Section 10 thereof, which imposes a tax of 30% on the gross receipts payable to the local government is a RIDER and the same is not germane to the subject matter thereof;

2. The tax imposed is harsh, confiscatory, oppressive and/or in unlawful restraint of trade in violation of the due process clause of the Constitution; 3. There is no factual nor legal basis for the exercise by the President of the vast powers conferred upon him by Amendment No. 6; 4. There is undue delegation of power and authority; 5. The Decree is an ex-post facto law; and 6. There is over regulation of the video industry as if it were a nuisance, which it is not. We shall consider the foregoing objections in seriatim. 1. The Constitutional requirement that "every bill shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof" 1 is sufficiently complied with if the title be comprehensive enough to include the general purpose which a statute seeks to achieve. It is not necessary that the title express each and every end that the statute wishes to accomplish. The requirement is satisfied if all the parts of the statute are related, and are germane to the subject matter expressed in the title, or as long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject and title. 2 An act having a single general subject, indicated in the title, may contain any number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject, and may be considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and means of carrying out the general object." 3 The rule also is that the constitutional requirement as to the title of a bill should not be so narrowly construed as to cripple or impede the power of legislation. 4 It should be given practical rather than technical construction. 5

Tested by the foregoing criteria, petitioner's contention that the tax provision of the DECREE is a rider is without merit. That section reads, inter alia: Section 10. Tax on Sale, Lease or Disposition of Videograms. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the province shall collect a tax of thirty percent (30%) of the purchase price or rental rate, as the case may be, for every sale, lease or disposition of a videogram containing a reproduction of any motion picture or audiovisual program. Fifty percent (50%) of the proceeds of the tax collected shall accrue to the province, and the other fifty percent (50%) shall acrrue to the municipality where the tax is collected; PROVIDED, That in Metropolitan Manila, the tax shall be shared equally by the City/Municipality and the Metropolitan Manila Commission. xxx xxx xxx The foregoing provision is allied and germane to, and is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of, the general object of the DECREE, which is the regulation of the video industry through the Videogram Regulatory Board as expressed in its title. The tax provision is not inconsistent with, nor foreign to that general subject and title. As a tool for regulation 6 it is simply one of the regulatory and control mechanisms scattered throughout the DECREE. The express purpose of the DECREE to include taxation of the video industry in order to regulate and rationalize the heretofore uncontrolled distribution of videograms is evident from Preambles 2 and 5, supra. Those preambles explain the motives of the lawmaker in presenting the measure. The title of the DECREE, which is the creation of the Videogram Regulatory Board, is comprehensive enough to include the purposes expressed in its Preamble and reasonably covers all its

provisions. It is unnecessary to express all those objectives in the title or that the latter be an index to the body of the DECREE. 7 2. Petitioner also submits that the thirty percent (30%) tax imposed is harsh and oppressive, confiscatory, and in restraint of trade. However, it is beyond serious question that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed. 8 The power to impose taxes is one so unlimited in force and so searching in extent, that the courts scarcely venture to declare that it is subject to any restrictions whatever, except such as rest in the discretion of the authority which exercises it. 9 In imposing a tax, the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in general, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation. 10 The tax imposed by the DECREE is not only a regulatory but also a revenue measure prompted by the realization that earnings of videogram establishments of around P600 million per annum have not been subjected to tax, thereby depriving the Government of an additional source of revenue. It is an end-user tax, imposed on retailers for every videogram they make available for public viewing. It is similar to the 30% amusement tax imposed or borne by the movie industry which the theater-owners pay to the government, but which is passed on to the entire cost of the admission ticket, thus shifting the tax burden on the buying or the viewing public. It is a tax that is imposed uniformly on all videogram operators. The levy of the 30% tax is for a public purpose. It was imposed primarily to answer the need for regulating the video industry, particularly because of the rampant film piracy, the flagrant violation of intellectual property rights, and the proliferation of pornographic video tapes. And while it was also an objective of the DECREE to protect the movie industry, the tax remains a valid imposition.

The public purpose of a tax may legally exist even if the motive which impelled the legislature to impose the tax was to favor one industry over another. 11 It is inherent in the power to tax that a state be free to select the subjects of taxation, and it has been repeatedly held that "inequities which result from a singling out of one particular class for taxation or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation". 12 Taxation has been made the implement of the state's police power. 13 At bottom, the rate of tax is a matter better addressed to the taxing legislature. 3. Petitioner argues that there was no legal nor factual basis for the promulgation of the DECREE by the former President under Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution providing that "whenever in the judgment of the President ... , there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof, or whenever the interim Batasang Pambansa or the regular National Assembly fails or is unable to act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action, he may, in order to meet the exigency, issue the necessary decrees, orders, or letters of instructions, which shall form part of the law of the land." In refutation, the Intervenors and the Solicitor General's Office aver that the 8th "whereas" clause sufficiently summarizes the justification in that grave emergencies corroding the moral values of the people and betraying the national economic recovery program necessitated bold emergency measures to be adopted with dispatch. Whatever the reasons "in the judgment" of the then President, considering that the issue of the validity of the exercise of legislative power under the said Amendment still pends resolution in several other cases, we reserve resolution of the question raised at the proper time.

4. Neither can it be successfully argued that the DECREE contains an undue delegation of legislative power. The grant in Section 11 of the DECREE of authority to the BOARD to "solicit the direct assistance of other agencies and units of the government and deputize, for a fixed and limited period, the heads or personnel of such agencies and units to perform enforcement functions for the Board" is not a delegation of the power to legislate but merely a conferment of authority or discretion as to its execution, enforcement, and implementation. "The true distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring authority or discretion as to its execution to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the latter, no valid objection can be made." 14 Besides, in the very language of the decree, the authority of the BOARD to solicit such assistance is for a "fixed and limited period" with the deputized agencies concerned being "subject to the direction and control of the BOARD." That the grant of such authority might be the source of graft and corruption would not stigmatize the DECREE as unconstitutional. Should the eventuality occur, the aggrieved parties will not be without adequate remedy in law. 5. The DECREE is not violative of the ex post facto principle. An ex post facto law is, among other categories, one which "alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense." It is petitioner's position that Section 15 of the DECREE in providing that: All videogram establishments in the Philippines are hereby given a period of forty-five (45) days after the effectivity of this Decree within which to register with and secure a permit from the BOARD to engage in the videogram business and to register with the BOARD all their inventories of videograms, including videotapes,

discs, cassettes or other technical improvements or variations thereof, before they could be sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of. Thereafter any videogram found in the possession of any person engaged in the videogram business without the required proof of registration by the BOARD, shall be prima facie evidence of violation of the Decree, whether the possession of such videogram be for private showing and/or public exhibition. raises immediately a prima facie evidence of violation of the DECREE when the required proof of registration of any videogram cannot be presented and thus partakes of the nature of an ex post facto law. The argument is untenable. As this Court held in the recent case of Vallarta vs. Court of Appeals, et al. 15 ... it is now well settled that "there is no constitutional objection to the passage of a law providing that the presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon the experience of human conduct, and enacting what evidence shall be sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence" (People vs. Mingoa 92 Phil. 856 [1953] at 858-59, citing 1 COOLEY, A TREATISE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS, 639-641). And the "legislature may enact that when certain facts have been proved that they shall be prima facie evidence of the existence of the guilt of the accused and shift the burden of proof provided there be a rational connection between the facts proved and the ultimate facts presumed so that the inference of the one from proof of the others is not unreasonable and arbitrary because of lack of

connection between the two in common experience". 16 Applied to the challenged provision, there is no question that there is a rational connection between the fact proved, which is non-registration, and the ultimate fact presumed which is violation of the DECREE, besides the fact that the prima facie presumption of violation of the DECREE attaches only after a forty-five-day period counted from its effectivity and is, therefore, neither retrospective in character. 6. We do not share petitioner's fears that the video industry is being over-regulated and being eased out of existence as if it were a nuisance. Being a relatively new industry, the need for its regulation was apparent. While the underlying objective of the DECREE is to protect the moribund movie industry, there is no question that public welfare is at bottom of its enactment, considering "the unfair competition posed by rampant film piracy; the erosion of the moral fiber of the viewing public brought about by the availability of unclassified and unreviewed video tapes containing pornographic films and films with brutally violent sequences; and losses in government revenues due to the drop in theatrical attendance, not to mention the fact that the activities of video establishments are virtually untaxed since mere payment of Mayor's permit and municipal license fees are required to engage in business. 17 The enactment of the Decree since April 10, 1986 has not brought about the "demise" of the video industry. On the contrary, video establishments are seen to have proliferated in many places notwithstanding the 30% tax imposed. In the last analysis, what petitioner basically questions is the necessity, wisdom and expediency of the DECREE. These considerations, however, are primarily and exclusively a matter of legislative concern.

Only congressional power or competence, not the wisdom of the action taken, may be the basis for declaring a statute invalid. This is as it ought to be. The principle of separation of powers has in the main wisely allocated the respective authority of each department and confined its jurisdiction to such a sphere. There would then be intrusion not allowable under the Constitution if on a matter left to the discretion of a coordinate branch, the judiciary would substitute its own. If there be adherence to the rule of law, as there ought to be, the last offender should be courts of justice, to which rightly litigants submit their controversy precisely to maintain unimpaired the supremacy of legal norms and prescriptions. The attack on the validity of the challenged provision likewise insofar as there may be objections, even if valid and cogent on its wisdom cannot be sustained. 18 In fine, petitioner has not overcome the presumption of validity which attaches to a challenged statute. We find no clear violation of the Constitution which would justify us in pronouncing Presidential Decree No. 1987 as unconstitutional and void. WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 119528 March 26, 1997 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, vs. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD and GRAND INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS, INC., respondents.

TORRES, JR., J.: This Special Civil Action for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks to prohibit respondent Civil Aeronautics Board from exercising jurisdiction over private respondent's Application for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, and to annul and set aside a temporary operating permit issued by the Civil Aeronautics Board in favor of Grand International Airways (GrandAir, for brevity) allowing the same to engage in scheduled domestic air transportation services, particularly the Manila-Cebu, ManilaDavao, and converse routes. The main reason submitted by petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) to support its petition is the fact that GrandAir does not possess a legislative franchise authorizing it to engage in air transportation service within the Philippines or elsewhere. Such franchise is, allegedly, a requisite for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience or Necessity by the respondent Board, as mandated under Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution. Respondent GrandAir, on the other hand, posits that a legislative franchise is no longer a requirement for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity or a Temporary Operating Permit, following the Court's pronouncements in the case of Albano vs. Reyes, 1 as restated by the Court of Appeals in Avia Filipinas International vs. Civil Aeronautics Board 2 and

Silangan Airways, Inc. vs. Grand International Airways, Inc., and the Hon. Civil Aeronautics Board. 3 On November 24, 1994, private respondent GrandAir applied for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity with the Board, which application was docketed as CAB Case No. EP-12711. 4 Accordingly, the Chief Hearing Officer of the CAB issued a Notice of Hearing setting the application for initial hearing on December 16, 1994, and directing GrandAir to serve a copy of the application and corresponding notice to all scheduled Philippine Domestic operators. On December 14, 1994, GrandAir filed its Compliance, and requested for the issuance of a Temporary Operating Permit. Petitioner, itself the holder of a legislative franchise to operate air transport services, filed an Opposition to the application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity on December 16, 1995 on the following grounds: A. The CAB has no jurisdiction to hear the petitioner's application until the latter has first obtained a franchise to operate from Congress. B. The petitioner's application is deficient in form and substance in that: 1. The application does not indicate a route structure including a computation of trunkline, secondary and rural available seat kilometers (ASK) which shall always be maintained at a monthly level at least 5% and 20% of the ASK offered into and out of the proposed base of operations for rural and secondary, respectively. 2. It does not contain a project/feasibility study, projected profit and loss statements, projected balance sheet, insurance coverage,

list of personnel, list of spare parts inventory, tariff structure, documents supportive of financial capacity, route flight schedule, contracts on facilities (hangars, maintenance, lot) etc. C. Approval of petitioner's application would violate the equal protection clause of the constitution. D. There is no urgent need and demand for the services applied for. E. To grant petitioner's application would only result in ruinous competition contrary to Section 4(d) of R.A. 776. 5 At the initial hearing for the application, petitioner raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the Board to hear the application because GrandAir did not possess a legislative franchise. On December 20, 1994, the Chief Hearing Officer of CAB issued an Order denying petitioner's Opposition. Pertinent portions of the Order read: PAL alleges that the CAB has no jurisdiction to hear the petitioner's application until the latter has first obtained a franchise to operate from Congress. The Civil Aeronautics Board has jurisdiction to hear and resolve the application. In Avia Filipina vs. CAB, CA G.R. No. 23365, it has been ruled that under Section 10 (c) (I) of R.A. 776, the Board possesses this specific power and duty. In view thereof, the opposition of PAL on this ground is hereby denied.

SO ORDERED. Meantime, on December 22, 1994, petitioner this time, opposed private respondent's application for a temporary permit maintaining that: 1. The applicant does not possess the required fitness and capability of operating the services applied for under RA 776; and, 2. Applicant has failed to prove that there is clear and urgent public need for the services applied for. 6 On December 23, 1994, the Board promulgated Resolution No. 119(92) approving the issuance of a Temporary Operating Permit in favor of Grand Air 7 for a period of three months, i.e., from December 22, 1994 to March 22, 1994. Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the issuance of the Temporary Operating Permit on January 11, 1995, but the same was denied in CAB Resolution No. 02 (95) on February 2, 1995. 8 In the said Resolution, the Board justified its assumption of jurisdiction over GrandAir's application. WHEREAS , the CAB is specifically authorized under Section 10-C (1) of Republic Act No. 776 as follows: (c) The Board shall have the following specific powers and duties: (1) In accordance with the provision of Chapter IV of this Act, to issue, deny, amend revise, alter, modify, cancel, suspend or revoke, in whole or in part, upon petitioner-complaint, or upon its own initiative, any temporary operating permit or Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity; Provided, however; that in the case of foreign air carriers, the permit shall be

issued with the approval of the President of the Republic of the Philippines. WHEREAS, such authority was affirmed in PAL vs. CAB, (23 SCRA 992), wherein the Supreme Court held that the CAB can even on its own initiative, grant a TOP even before the presentation of evidence; WHEREAS, more recently, Avia Filipinas vs. CAB, (CAGR No. 23365), promulgated on October 30, 1991, held that in accordance with its mandate, the CAB can issue not only a TOP but also a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to a qualified applicant therefor in the absence of a legislative franchise, citing therein as basis the decision of Albano vs. Reyes (175 SCRA 264) which provides (inter alia) that: a) Franchises by Congress are not required before each and every public utility may operate when the law has granted certain administrative agencies the power to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities; b) The Constitutional provision in Article XII, Section 11 that the issuance of a franchise, certificate or other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility does not necessarily imply that only Congress has the power to grant such authorization since our statute books are replete with laws granting specified agencies in the Executive Branch the power to issue such authorization for certain classes of public utilities. WHEREAS, Executive Order No. 219 which took effect on 22 January 1995, provides in Section 2.1 that a minimum of two (2) operators in each route/link shall be

encouraged and that routes/links presently serviced by only one (1) operator shall be open for entry to additional operators. RESOLVED, (T)HEREFORE, that the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Philippine Airlines on January 05, 1995 on the Grant by this Board of a Temporary Operating Permit (TOP) to Grand International Airways, Inc. alleging among others that the CAB has no such jurisdiction, is hereby DENIED, as it hereby denied, in view of the foregoing and considering that the grounds relied upon by the movant are not indubitable. On March 21, 1995, upon motion by private respondent, the temporary permit was extended for a period of six (6) months or up to September 22, 1995. Hence this petition, filed on April 3, 1995. Petitioners argue that the respondent Board acted beyond its powers and jurisdiction in taking cognizance of GrandAir's application for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, and in issuing a temporary operating permit in the meantime, since GrandAir has not been granted and does not possess a legislative franchise to engage in scheduled domestic air transportation. A legislative franchise is necessary before anyone may engage in air transport services, and a franchise may only be granted by Congress. This is the meaning given by the petitioner upon a reading of Section 11, Article XII, 9 and Section 1, Article VI, 10 of the Constitution. To support its theory, PAL submits Opinion No. 163, S. 1989 of the Department of Justice, which reads: Dr. Arturo C. Corona Executive Director

Civil Aeronautics Board PPL Building, 1000 U.N. Avenue Ermita, Manila Sir: This has reference to your request for opinion on the necessity of a legislative franchise before the Civil Aeronautics Board ("CAB") may issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and/or permit to engage in air commerce or air transportation to an individual or entity. You state that during the hearing on the application of Cebu Air for a congressional franchise, the House Committee on Corporations and Franchises contended that under the present Constitution, the CAB may not issue the abovestated certificate or permit, unless the individual or entity concerned possesses a legislative franchise. You believe otherwise, however, for the reason that under R.A. No. 776, as amended, the CAB is explicitly empowered to issue operating permits or certificates of public convenience and necessity and that this statutory provision is not inconsistent with the current charter. We concur with the view expressed by the House Committee on Corporations and Franchises. In an opinion rendered in favor of your predecessor-in-office, this Department observed that, . . . it is useful to note the distinction between the franchise to operate and a permit to commence operation. The former is sovereign and legislative in nature; it can be conferred only by the lawmaking authority (17 W and P, pp. 691-697). The latter is

administrative and regulatory in character (In re Application of Fort Crook-Bellevue Boulevard Line, 283 NW 223); it is granted by an administrative agency, such as the Public Service Commission [now Board of Transportation], in the case of land transportation, and the Civil Aeronautics Board, in case of air services. While a legislative franchise is a pre-requisite to a grant of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to an airline company, such franchise alone cannot constitute the authority to commence operations, inasmuch as there are still matters relevant to such operations which are not determined in the franchise, like rates, schedules and routes, and which matters are resolved in the process of issuance of permit by the administrative. (Secretary of Justice opn No. 45, s. 1981) Indeed, authorities are agreed that a certificate of public convenience and necessity is an authorization issued by the appropriate governmental agency for the operation of public services for which a franchise is required by law (Almario, Transportation and Public Service Law, 1977 Ed., p. 293; Agbayani, Commercial Law of the Phil., Vol. 4, 1979 Ed., pp. 380-381). Based on the foregoing, it is clear that a franchise is the legislative authorization to engage in a business activity or enterprise of a public nature, whereas a certificate of public convenience and necessity is a regulatory measure which constitutes the franchise's authority to commence operations. It is thus logical that the grant of the former should precede the latter. Please be guided accordingly.

(SG D.) SED FRE Y A. ORD ONE Z Secr etary of Justi ce Respondent GrandAir, on the other hand, relies on its interpretation of the provisions of Republic Act 776, which follows the pronouncements of the Court of Appeals in the cases of Avia Filipinas vs. Civil Aeronautics Board, and Silangan Airways, Inc. vs. Grand International Airways (supra). In both cases, the issue resolved was whether or not the Civil Aeronautics Board can issue the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity or Temporary Operating Permit to a prospective domestic air transport operator who does not possess a legislative franchise to operate as such. Relying on the Court's pronouncement in Albano vs. Reyes (supra), the Court of Appeals upheld the authority of the Board to issue such authority, even in the absence of a legislative franchise, which authority is derived from Section 10 of Republic Act 776, as amended by P.D. 1462.
11

The Civil Aeronautics Board has jurisdiction over GrandAir's Application for a Temporary Operating Permit. This rule has been established in the case of Philippine Air Lines Inc., vs. Civil Aeronautics Board, promulgated on June 13, 1968. 12 The Board

is expressly authorized by Republic Act 776 to issue a temporary operating permit or Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, and nothing contained in the said law negates the power to issue said permit before the completion of the applicant's evidence and that of the oppositor thereto on the main petition. Indeed, the CAB's authority to grant a temporary permit "upon its own initiative" strongly suggests the power to exercise said authority, even before the presentation of said evidence has begun. Assuming arguendo that a legislative franchise is prerequisite to the issuance of a permit, the absence of the same does not affect the jurisdiction of the Board to hear the application, but tolls only upon the ultimate issuance of the requested permit. The power to authorize and control the operation of a public utility is admittedly a prerogative of the legislature, since Congress is that branch of government vested with plenary powers of legislation. The franchise is a legislative grant, whether made directly by the legislature itself, or by any one of its properly constituted instrumentalities. The grant, when made, binds the public, and is, directly or indirectly, the act of the state. 13 The issue in this petition is whether or not Congress, in enacting Republic Act 776, has delegated the authority to authorize the operation of domestic air transport services to the respondent Board, such that Congressional mandate for the approval of such authority is no longer necessary. Congress has granted certain administrative agencies the power to grant licenses for, or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities. With the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly

growing tendency towards the delegation of greater powers by the legislature, and towards the approval of the practice by the courts. 14 It is generally recognized that a franchise may be derived indirectly from the state through a duly designated agency, and to this extent, the power to grant franchises has frequently been delegated, even to agencies other than those of a legislative nature. 15 In pursuance of this, it has been held that privileges conferred by grant by local authorities as agents for the state constitute as much a legislative franchise as though the grant had been made by an act of the Legislature. 16 The trend of modern legislation is to vest the Public Service Commissioner with the power to regulate and control the operation of public services under reasonable rules and regulations, and as a general rule, courts will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion when it is just and reasonable and founded upon a legal right. 17 It is this policy which was pursued by the Court in Albano vs. Reyes. Thus, a reading of the pertinent issuances governing the Philippine Ports Authority, 18 proves that the PPA is empowered to undertake by itself the operation and management of the Manila International Container Terminal, or to authorize its operation and management by another by contract or other means, at its option. The latter power having been delegated to the to PPA, a franchise from Congress to authorize an entity other than the PPA to operate and manage the MICP becomes unnecessary. Given the foregoing postulates, we find that the Civil Aeronautics Board has the authority to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, or Temporary Operating Permit to a domestic air transport operator, who, though not possessing a legislative franchise, meets all the other requirements prescribed by the law. Such requirements were enumerated in Section 21 of R.A. 776.

There is nothing in the law nor in the Constitution, which indicates that a legislative franchise is an indispensable requirement for an entity to operate as a domestic air transport operator. Although Section 11 of Article XII recognizes Congress' control over any franchise, certificate or authority to operate a public utility, it does not mean Congress has exclusive authority to issue the same. Franchises issued by Congress are not required before each and every public utility may operate. 19 In many instances, Congress has seen it fit to delegate this function to government agencies, specialized particularly in their respective areas of public service. A reading of Section 10 of the same reveals the clear intent of Congress to delegate the authority to regulate the issuance of a license to operate domestic air transport services: Sec. 10. Powers and Duties of the Board. (A) Except as otherwise provided herein, the Board shall have the power to regulate the economic aspect of air transportation, and shall have general supervision and regulation of, the jurisdiction and control over air carriers, general sales agents, cargo sales agents, and air freight forwarders as well as their property rights, equipment, facilities and franchise, insofar as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the provision of this Act. In support of the Board's authority as stated above, it is given the following specific powers and duties: (C) The Board shall have the following specific powers and duties: (1) In accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of this Act, to issue, deny, amend, revise, alter, modify, cancel, suspend or revoke in whole or in part upon petition or complaint or upon its own initiative any

Temporary Operating Permit or Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity: Provided however, That in the case of foreign air carriers, the permit shall be issued with the approval of the President of the Republic of the Philippines. Petitioner argues that since R.A. 776 gives the Board the authority to issue "Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity", this, according to petitioner, means that a legislative franchise is an absolute requirement. It cites a number of authorities supporting the view that a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity is issued to a public service for which a franchise is required by law, as distinguished from a "Certificate of Public Convenience" which is an authorization issued for the operation of public services for which no franchise, either municipal or legislative, is required by law. 20 This submission relies on the premise that the authority to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity is a regulatory measure separate and distinct from the authority to grant a franchise for the operation of the public utility subject of this particular case, which is exclusively lodged by petitioner in Congress. We do not agree with the petitioner. Many and varied are the definitions of certificates of public convenience which courts and legal writers have drafted. Some statutes use the terms "convenience and necessity" while others use only the words "public convenience." The terms "convenience and necessity", if used together in a statute, are usually held not to be separable, but are construed together. Both words modify each other and must be construed together. The word 'necessity' is so connected, not as an additional requirement but to modify and qualify what might otherwise be taken as the strict significance of the word necessity. Public convenience and

necessity exists when the proposed facility will meet a reasonable want of the public and supply a need which the existing facilities do not adequately afford. It does not mean or require an actual physical necessity or an indispensable thing. 21 The terms "convenience" and "necessity" are to be construed together, although they are not synonymous, and effect must be given both. The convenience of the public must not be circumscribed by according to the word "necessity" its strict meaning or an essential requisites. 22 The use of the word "necessity", in conjunction with "public convenience" in a certificate of authorization to a public service entity to operate, does not in any way modify the nature of such certification, or the requirements for the issuance of the same. It is the law which determines the requisites for the issuance of such certification, and not the title indicating the certificate. Congress, by giving the respondent Board the power to issue permits for the operation of domestic transport services, has delegated to the said body the authority to determine the capability and competence of a prospective domestic air transport operator to engage in such venture. This is not an instance of transforming the respondent Board into a mini-legislative body, with unbridled authority to choose who should be given authority to operate domestic air transport services. To be valid, the delegation itself must be circumscribed by legislative restrictions, not a "roving commission" that will give the delegate unlimited legislative authority. It must not be a delegation "running riot" and "not canalized with banks that keep it from overflowing." Otherwise, the delegation is in legal effect an abdication of legislative authority, a total surrender by the legislature of its prerogatives in favor of the delegate. 23

Congress, in this instance, has set specific limitations on how such authority should be exercised. Firstly, Section 4 of R.A. No. 776, as amended, sets out the following guidelines or policies: Sec. 4. Declaration of policies. In the exercise and performance of its powers and duties under this Act, the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Civil Aeronautics Administrator shall consider the following, among other things, as being in the public interest, and in accordance with the public convenience and necessity: (a) The development and utilization of the air potential of the Philippines; (b) The encouragement and development of an air transportation system properly adapted to the present and future of foreign and domestic commerce of the Philippines, of the Postal Service and of the National Defense; (c) The regulation of air transportation in such manner as to recognize and preserve the inherent advantages of, assure the highest degree of safety in, and foster sound economic condition in, such transportation, and to improve the relations between, and coordinate transportation by, air carriers; (d) The promotion of adequate, economical and efficient service by air carriers at reasonable charges, without unjust discriminations, undue preferences or advantages, or unfair or destructive competitive practices;

(e) Competition between air carriers to the extent necessary to assure the sound development of an air transportation system properly adapted to the need of the foreign and domestic commerce of the Philippines, of the Postal Service, and of the National Defense; (f) To promote safety of flight in air commerce in the Philippines; and, (g) The encouragement and development of civil aeronautics. More importantly, the said law has enumerated the requirements to determine the competency of a prospective operator to engage in the public service of air transportation. Sec. 12. Citizenship requirement. Except as otherwise provided in the Constitution and existing treaty or treaties, a permit authorizing a person to engage in domestic air commerce and/or air transportation shall be issued only to citizens of the Philippines 24 Sec. 21. Issuance of permit. The Board shall issue a permit authorizing the whole or any part of the service covered by the application, if it finds: (1) that the applicant is fit, willing and able to perform such service properly in conformity with the provisions of this Act and the rules, regulations, and requirements issued thereunder; and (2) that such service is required by the public convenience and necessity; otherwise the application shall be denied. Furthermore, the procedure for the processing of the application of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity had been established to ensure the weeding out of those entities that are not deserving of public service. 25

In sum, respondent Board should now be allowed to continue hearing the application of GrandAir for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, there being no legal obstacle to the exercise of its jurisdiction. ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Court RESOLVED to DISMISS the instant petition for lack of merit. The respondent Civil Aeronautics Board is hereby DIRECTED to CONTINUE hearing the application of respondent Grand International Airways, Inc. for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 144109 February 17, 2003

ASSOCIATED COMMUNICATIONS & WIRELESS SERVICES UNITED BROADCASTING NETWORKS, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, respondent. DECISION PUNO, J.: For many years now, there has been a "pervading confusion in the state of affairs of the broadcast industry brought about by conflicting laws, decrees, executive orders and other pronouncements promulgated during the Martial Law regime."1 The question that has taken a long life is

whether the operation of a radio or television station requires a congressional franchise. The Court shall now lay to rest the issue. This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals January 31, 2000 decision and February 21, 2000 resolution affirming the January 13, 1999 decision of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC for brevity). First, the facts. On November 11, 1931, Act No. 3846, entitled "An Act Providing for the Regulation of Radio Stations and Radio Communications in the Philippines and for Other Purposes," was enacted. Sec. 1 of the law reads, viz: "Sec. 1. No person, firm, company, association, or corporation shall construct, install, establish, or operate a radio transmitting station, or a radio receiving station used for commercial purposes, or a radio broadcasting station, without having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Congress of the Philippines..." Pursuant to the above provision, Congress enacted in 1965 R.A. No. 4551, entitled "An Act Granting Marcos J. Villaverde, Jr. and Winfred E. Villaverde a Franchise to Construct, Install, Maintain and Operate Public Radiotelephone and Radiotelegraph Coastal Stations, and Public Fixed and Public Based and Land Mobile Stations within the Philippines for the Reception and Transmission of Radiotelephone and Radiotelegraph for Domestic Communications and Provincial Telephone Systems in Certain Provinces." It gave the grantees a 50-year franchise.2 In 1969, the franchise was transferred to petitioner Associated Communications & Wireless Services United Broadcasting Network, Inc. (ACWS for brevity) through Congress Concurrent Resolution No. 58.3 Petitioner ACWS then engaged in the installation and operation of several radio stations around the country.

In 1974, P.D. No. 576-A, "Regulating the Ownership and Operation of Radio and Television Stations and for other Purposes" was issued, with the following pertinent provisions on franchise of radio and television broadcasting systems: "Sec. 1. No radio station or television channel may obtain a franchise unless it has sufficient capital on the basis of equity for its operation for at least one year, including purchase of equipment. xxxxxxxxx Sec. 6. All franchises, grants, licenses, permits, certificates or other forms of authority to operate radio or television broadcasting systems shall terminate on December 31, 1981. Thereafter, irrespective of any franchise, grant, license, permit, certificate or other forms of authority to operate granted by any office, agency or person, no radio or television station shall be authorized to operate without the authority of the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications or their successors who have the right and authority to assign to qualified parties frequencies, channels or other means of identifying broadcasting system; Provided, however, that any conflict over, or disagreement with a decision of the aforementioned authorities may be appealed finally to the Office of the President within fifteen days from the date the decision is received by the party in interest." A few years later or in 1979, E.O. No. 5464 was issued. It integrated the Board of Communications and the Telecommunications Control Bureau under the Integrated Reorganization Plan of 1972 into the NTC. Among the powers vested in the NTC under Sec. 15 of E.O. No. 546 are the following: "a. Issue Certificate of Public Convenience for the operation of communication utilities and services, radio communications systems, wire or wireless telephone or telegraph system, radio and television broadcasting system and other similar public utilities;

xxxxxxxxx c. Grant permits for the use of radio frequencies for wireless telephone and telegraph systems and radio communication systems including amateur radio stations and radio and television broadcasting systems; . . . " Upon termination of petitioners franchise on December 31, 1981 pursuant to P.D. No. 576-A, it continued operating its radio stations under permits granted by the NTC. As these presidential issuances relating to the radio and television broadcasting industry brought about confusion as to whether the NTC could issue permits to radio and television broadcast stations without legislative franchise, the NTC sought the opinion of the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the matter. On June 20, 1991, the DOJ rendered Opinion No. 98, Series of 1991, viz: "We believe that under P.D. No. 576-A dated November 11, 1974 and prior to the issuance of E.O No. 546 dated July 23, 1979, the NTC, then Board of Communications, had no authority to issue permits or authorizations to operate radio and television broadcasting systems without a franchise first being obtained pursuant to Section 1 of Act No. 3846, as amended. A close reading of the provisions of Sections 1 and 6 of P.D. No. 576-A, supra, does not reveal any indication of a legislative intent to do away with the franchising requirement under Section 1 of Act No. 3846. In fact, a mere reading of Section 1 would readily indicate that a franchise was necessary for the operation of radio and television broadcasting systems as it expressly provided that no such franchise may be obtained unless the radio station or television channel has sufficient capital on the basis of equity for its operation for at least one year, including purchase of equipment. It is believed that the termination of all franchises granted for the operation of radio and television broadcasting systems effective December 31, 1981 and the vesting of the power to authorize the

operation of any radio or television station upon the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications and their successors under Section 6 of P.D. No. 576-A does not necessarily imply the abrogation of the requirement of obtaining a franchise under Section 1 of Act No. 3846, as amended, in the absence of a clear provision in P.D. No. 576-A providing to this effect. It should be noted that under Act No. 3846, as amended, a person, firm or entity desiring to operate a radio broadcasting station must obtain the following: (a) a franchise from Congress (Sec. 1); (b) a permit to construct or install a station from the Secretary of Commerce and Industry (Sec. 2); and (c) a license to operate the station also from the Secretary of Commerce and Industry (id.). The franchise is the privilege granted by the State through its legislative body and is subject to regulation by the State itself by virtue of its police power through its administrative agencies (RCPI vs. NTC, 150 SCRA 450). The permit and license are the administrative authorizations issued by the administrative agency in the exercise of regulation. It is clear that what was transferred to the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Commerce and Industry under Section 6 of P.D. No. 576-A was merely the regulatory powers vested solely in the Secretary of Commerce and Industry under Section 2 of Act No. 3846, as amended. The franchising authority was retained by the then incumbent President as repository of legislative power under Martial Law, as is clearly indicated in the first WHEREAS clause of P.D. No. 576-A to wit: WHEREAS, the President of the Philippines is empowered under the Constitution to review and approve franchises for public utilities. Of course, under the Constitution, said power (the power to review and approve franchises), belongs to the lawmaking body (Sec. 5, Art. XIV, 1973 Constitution; Sec. 11, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution). The corollary question to be resolved is: Has E.O. No 546 (which is a law issued pursuant to P.D. No. 1416, as amended by P.D. No. 1771,

granting the then President continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the national government) modified the franchising and licensing arrangement for radio and television broadcasting systems under P.D. No. 576-A? We believe so. E.O. No. 546 integrated the Board of Communications and the Telecommunications Bureau into a single entity known as the NTC (See Sec. 14), and vested the new body with broad powers, among them, the power to issue Certificates of Public Convenience for the operation of communications utilities, including radio and televisions broadcasting systems and the power to grant permits for the use of radio frequencies (Sec. 14[a] and [c], supra). Additionally, NTC was vested with broad rule making authority to encourage a larger and more effective use of communications, radio and television broadcasting facilities, and to maintain effective competition among private entities in these activities whenever the Commission finds it reasonably feasible (Sec. 15[f]). In the recent case of Albano vs. Reyes (175 SCRA 264), the Supreme Court held that franchises issued by Congress are not required before each and every public utility may operate. Administrative agencies may be empowered by law to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities. The Supreme Court stated that the provision in the Constitution (Art. XII, Sec. 11) that the issuance of a franchise, certificate or other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress, does not necessarily imply . . . that only Congress has the power to grant such authorization. Our statute books are replete with laws granting specified agencies in the Executive Branch the power to issue such authorization for certain classes of public utilities. We believe that E.O. No. 546 is one law which authorizes an administrative agency, the NTC, to issue authorizations for the operation of radio and television broadcasting systems without need of a prior franchise issued by Congress.

Based on all the foregoing, we hold the view that NTC is empowered under E.O. No. 546 to issue authorization and permits to operate radio and television broadcasting system."5 However, on May 3, 1994, the NTC, the Committee on Legislative Franchises of Congress, and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas of which petitioner is a member of good standing, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that requires a congressional franchise to operate radio and television stations. The MOU states, viz: "WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 1 of Act No. 3846 (Radio Laws of the Philippines, as amended), only radio and television broadcast stations with legislative franchise are authorized to operate. WHEREAS, Executive Order No. 546, which created the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) and abolished the Board of Communications (BOC) and the Telecommunications Control Bureau (TCB), and integrated the functions and prerogative of the latter two agencies into the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC); WHEREAS, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) is authorized to issue certificate of public convenience for the operation of radio and television broadcast stations; WHEREAS, there is a pervading confusion in the state of affairs of the broadcast industry brought about by conflicting laws, decrees, executive orders and other pronouncements promulgated during the Martial Law regime, the parties in their common desire to rationalize the broadcast industry, promote the interest of public welfare, avoid a vacuum in the delivery of broadcast services, and foremost to better serve the ends of press freedom, the parties hereto have agreed as follows: The NTC shall continue to issue and grant permits or authorizations to operate radio and television broadcast stations within their mandate under Section 15 of Executive Order No. 546, provided that such temporary permits or authorization to operate shall be valid for two (2)

years within which the permittee shall be required to file an application for legislative franchise with Congress not later than December 31, 1994; provided finally, that if the permittee of the temporary permit or authorization to operate fails to secure the legislative franchise with Congress within this period, the NTC shall not extend or renew its permit or authorization to operate any further."6 Prior to the December 31, 1994 deadline set by the MOU, petitioner filed with Congress an application for a franchise on December 20, 1994. Pending its approval, the NTC issued to petitioner a temporary permit dated July 7, 1995 to operate a television station via Channel 25 of the UHF Band from June 29, 1995 to June 28, 1997.7 In 1996, the NTC authorized petitioner to increase the power output of Channel 25 from 1.0 kilowatt to 25 kilowatts after finding it financially and technically capable;8 it also granted petitioner a permit to purchase radio transmitters/transceivers for use in its television Channel 25 broadcasting.9 Shortly before the expiration of its temporary permit, petitioner applied for its renewal on May 14, 1997.10 On October 28, 1997, the House Committee on Legislative Franchises of Congress replied to an inquiry of the NTCs Broadcast Division Chief regarding the franchise application of ACWS filed on December 20, 1994. The Committee certified that petitioners franchise application was not deliberated on by the 9th Congress because petitioner failed to submit the required supporting documents. In the next Congress, petitioner did not re-file its application.11 The following month or on November 17, 1997, the NTCs Broadcast Service Department wrote to petitioner ordering it to submit a new congressional franchise for the operation of its seven radio stations and informing it that pending compliance, its application for temporary permits to operate these radio stations would be held in abeyance.12 Petitioner failed to comply with the franchise requirement; it claims that it did not receive the November 17, 1997 letter.

Despite the absence of a congressional franchise, the NTC notified petitioner on January 19, 1998 that its May 14, 1997 application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate television Channel 25 was approved and would be released upon payment of the prescribed fee of P3,600.00.13 After paying said amount,14 however, the NTC refused to release to petitioner its renewed permit. Instead, the NTC commenced against petitioner Administrative Case No. 98-009 based on the November 17, 1997 letter. On February 26, 1998, the NTC issued an Order directing petitioner to show cause why its assigned frequency, television Channel 25, should not be recalled for lack of the required congressional franchise. Petitioner was also directed to cease and desist from operating Channel 25 unless subsequently authorized by the NTC.15 In compliance with the February 26, 1998 Order, petitioner filed its Answer on March 17, 1998.16 In a hearing on April 22, 1998, petitioner presented evidence and asked for continuance of the presentation to May 20, 1998.17 On May 4, 1998, however, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Mandamus, Prohibition, and Damages to compel the NTC to release its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 which was approved in January 1998. The appellate court denied the petition on September 30, 1998. Meantime, on August 17, 1998, the NTC issued Memorandum Circular No. 14-10-98 which reads, viz: "SUBJECT: Guidelines in the Renewal/Extension of Temporary Permit of Radio/TV Broadcast operators who failed to secure a legislative franchise conformably with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated May 3, 1994, entered into by and between the National Telecommunications and the Committee on Legislative Franchises, House of Representatives, and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas (KBP). In compliance with the MOU and in order to clear the ambiguity surrounding the operation of broadcast operators who were not able to

have their legislative franchise approved during the last congress, the following guidelines are hereby issued: 1. Existing broadcast operators who were not able to secure a legislative franchise up to this date are given up to December 31, 1999 within which to have their application for a legislative franchise bill approved by Congress. The franchise bill must be filed immediately but not later than November 30th of this year to give both Houses time to deliberate upon and recommend approval/disapproval thereof. 2. Broadcast operators affected by this circular must file their respective applications for renewal/extension of their Temporary Permits in the prescribed form together with the certification from the Committee on Legislative Franchises, House of Representatives that a franchise bill has indeed been filed prior to 30 November 1998. 3. In the event the permittee will not be able to have its franchise bill approved within the prescribed period, the NTC will no longer renew/extend its Temporary Permit and the Commission shall initiate the recall of its assigned frequency provided that due process of law is observed. 4. Henceforth, no application/petition for Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to establish, maintain and operate a broadcast station in the broadcast service shall be accepted for filing without showing that the applicant has an approved Legislative Franchise. This Memorandum Circular shall be published in one (1) newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and shall take effect thirty (30) days from its publication. August 17, 1998, Quezon City, Philippines."18

The Memorandum Circular was published in the Philippine Star on October 15, 1998. Well within the November 30, 1998 deadline under the Memorandum Circular, House Bill No. 3216, entitled "An Act Granting the ACWSUnited Broadcasting Network, Inc. a Franchise to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain Radio and Television Broadcasting Stations within the Philippines, and for other Purposes," was filed with the Legislative Calendar Section, Bills and Index Division on September 2, 1998.19 On January 13, 1999, the NTC rendered a decision on Administrative Case No. 98-009 against petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, for lack of a legal personality to justify the issuance of any permit or license to the respondent (ACWS), the respondent not having a valid legislative franchise, the Commission hereby renders judgment as follows: 1) Channel 25 assigned to herein respondent ACWS is hereby RECALLED; 2) Respondents application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 is hereby DENIED; and 3) Respondent is hereby ordered to CEASE and DESIST from further operating Channel 25."20 Petitioner sought recourse at the Court of Appeals which affirmed the NTC decision. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari on the following grounds: "I.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RULING OF THE NTC THAT A CONGRESSIONAL FRANCHISE IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON IN THE OPERATION OF A RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTING SYSTEM. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING OPINION 98 SERIES OF 1991 DATED JUNE 20, 1991 OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE HOLDING THAT THE NTC MAY ISSUE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE OPERATION OF RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTING SYSTEMS, WITHOUT THE NEED OF A PRIOR FRANCHISE ISSUED BY CONGRESS, AS BINDING ON THE NTC WHO REQUESTED FOR SAID OPINION AND IS NOT MERELY ADVISORY, AS IT IS PREDICATED ON A DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT. III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONSIDERING ACT NO. 3846 AS REQUIRING A FRANCHISE FROM CONGRESS FOR THE LAWFUL OPERATION OF RADIO OR TELEVISION BROADCASTING STATIONS WHEN CLEARLY ITS PROVISIONS COVER ONLY RADIO BUT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE TELEVISION STATIONS. IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RECALL OF THE FREQUENCY CHANNEL 25 PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED TO THE PETITIONER AND/OR THE CANCELLATION OF ITS PERMIT TO OPERATE WHICH IS UNREASONABLE, UNFAIR, OPPRESSIVE, WHIMSICAL AND CONFISCATORY WHEN IT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED THE SAID PERMIT WITHOUT REQUIRING A LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISE.

V. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT NTC CASE NO. 98-009 HAD BEEN RENDERED MOOT AND ACADEMIC WITH THE ADOPTION AND PROMULGATION BY THE NTC OF MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 14-10-98 DATED AUGUST 17, 1998 AS PETITIONER FILED THE APPLICATION FOR LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISE PURSUANT THERETO."21 The petition is devoid of merit. We shall discuss together the first three assigned errors as they are interrelated. Petitioner stresses that Act. No. 3846 covers only the operation of radio and not television stations as Section 1 of the said law does not mention television stations in its coverage, viz: "Sec. 1. No person, firm, company, association or corporation shall construct, install, establish, or operate a radio transmitting station, or a radio receiving station used for commercial purposes, or a radio broadcasting station, without having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Congress of the Philippines" Petitioner observes that quite understandably, television stations were not included in Act No. 3846 because the law was enacted in 1931 when there was yet no television station in the Philippines. Following the rule in statutory construction that what is not included in the law is deemed excluded, petitioner avers that television stations are not covered by Act No. 3846. Petitioner notes that in fact, the NTC previously issued to it a temporary permit dated July 7, 1995 to operate Channel 25 from June 29, 1995 to June 28, 1997 without requiring a congressional franchise. Likewise, in 1996, the NTC issued to it a permit to increase its television operating power and to purchase a radio transmitter/transceiver for use in its television broadcasting, again without requiring a congressional franchise. Petitioner thus argues that, contrary to the January 19, 1999

decision of the NTC, its application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate television Channel 25 does not require a congressional franchise. In upholding the NTC decision, the Court of Appeals held that a congressional franchise is required for the operation of radio and television broadcasting stations as this requirement under Act No. 3846 was not expressly repealed by P.D. No. 576-A nor E.O. No. 546. Citing Berces, Sr. v. Guingona,22 it ruled that without an express repeal, a subsequent law cannot be construed as repealing a prior law unless there is an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy in the language of the new and old laws, which petitioner was not able to show.23 The appellate court correctly ruled that a congressional franchise is necessary for petitioner to operate television Channel 25. Even assuming that Act No. 3846 applies only to radio stations and not to television stations as petitioner adamantly insists, the subsequent P.D. No. 576-A clearly shows in Section 1 that a franchise is required to operate radio as well as television stations, viz: "Sec. 1. No radio station or television channel may obtain a franchise unless it has sufficient capital on the basis of equity for its operation for at least one year, including purchase of equipment." (emphasis supplied) As pointed out in DOJ Opinion No. 98, there is nothing in P.D. No. 576A that reveals any intention to do away with the requirement of a franchise for the operation of radio and television stations. Section 6 of P.D. No. 576-A merely identifies the regulatory agencies from whom authorizations, in addition to the required congressional franchise, must be secured after December 31, 1981, viz: "Sec. 6. All franchises, grants, licenses, permits, certificates or other forms of authority to operate radio or television broadcasting systems shall terminate on December 31, 1981. Thereafter, irrespective of any franchise, grant, license, permit, certificate or other forms of authority to operate granted by any office, agency or person, no radio or television

station shall be authorized to operate without the authority of the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications or their successors who have the right and authority to assign to qualified parties frequencies, channels or other means of identifying broadcasting system . . ." (emphasis supplied) To understand why it was necessary to identify these agencies, we turn a heedful eye on the laws regarding authorizations for the operation of radio and television stations that preceded P.D. No. 576-A. Act No. 3846 of 1931 provides, viz: "Sec. 1. No person, firm, company, association, or corporation shall construct, install, establish, or operate a radio transmitting station, or a radio receiving station used for commercial purposes, or a radio broadcasting station, without having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Congress of the Philippines: xxxxxxxxx Sec. 1-A. No person, firm, company, association or corporation shall possess or own transmitters or transceivers (combination transmitterreceiver), without registering the same with the Secretary of Public Works and Communications . . . and no person, firm, company, association or corporation shall construct or manufacture, or purchase radio transmitters or transceivers without a permit issued by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. xxxxxxxxx Sec. 3. The Secretary of Public Works and Communications is hereby empowered to regulate the construction or manufacture, possession, control, sale and transfer of radio transmitters or transceivers (combination transmitter-receiver) and the establishment, use, the operation of all radio stations and of all forms of radio communications

and transmissions within the Philippines. In addition to the above, he shall have the following specific powers and duties: xxxxxxxxx (c) He shall assign call letter and assign frequencies for each station licensed by him and for each station established by virtue of a franchise granted by the Congress of the Philippines and specify the stations to which each of such frequencies may be used;. . ." Shortly after the declaration of Martial Law, then President Marcos issued P.D. No. 1 dated September 24, 1972, through which the Integrated Reorganization Plan for the executive branch was adopted. Under the Plan, the Public Service Commission was abolished and its functions transferred to special regulatory boards, among which was the Board of Communications with the following functions: "5a. Issue Certificates of Public Convenience for the operation of communications utilities and services, radio communications systems . . ., radio and television broadcasting systems and other similar public utilities; xxxxxxxxx c. Grant permits for the use of radio frequencies for . . . radio and television broadcasting systems including amateur radio stations." With the creation of the Board of Communications under the Plan, it was no longer sufficient to secure authorization from the Secretary of Public Works and Communications as provided in Act No. 3846. The Boards authorization was also necessary. Thus, P.D. No. 576-A provides in Section 6 that radio and television station operators must secure authorization from both the Secretary of Public Works and Communications and the Board of Communications. Dispensing with the requirement of a congressional franchise is not in line with the declared purposes of P.D. No. 576-A, viz:

"WHEREAS, it has been observed that some public utilities, especially radio and television stations, have a tendency toward monopoly in ownership and operation to such an extent that a region or section of the country may be covered by any number of such broadcast stations, all or most of which are owned, operated or managed by one person or corporation; xxxxxxxxx WHEREAS, on account of the limited number of frequencies available for broadcasting in the Philippines, it is necessary to regulate the ownership and operation of radio and television stations and provide measures that would enhance quality and viability in broadcasting and help serve the public interests; . . ." A textual interpretation of Section 6 of P.D. No. 576-A yields the same interpretation that after December 31, 1981, a franchise is still necessary to operate radio and television stations. Were it the intention of the law to do away with the requirement of a franchise after said date, then the phrase "(t)hereafter, irrespective of any franchise, grant, license, permit, certificate or other forms of authority to operate granted by any office, agency or person (emphasis supplied)" would not have been necessary because the first sentence of Section 6 already states that "(a)ll franchises, grants, licenses, permits, certificates or other forms of authority to operate radio or television broadcasting systems shall terminate on December 31, 1981." It is therefore already understood that these forms of authority have no more force and effect after December 31, 1981. If the intention were to do away with the franchise requirement, Section 6 would have simply laid down after the first sentence the requirements to operate radio and television stations after December 31, 1981, i.e., "no radio or television station shall be authorized to operate without the authority of the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications." Instead, however, the phrase "irrespective of any franchise," was inserted to emphasize that a franchise or any other

form of authorization from any office, agency or person does not suffice to operate radio and television stations because the authorizations of both the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications are required as well. This interpretation adheres to the rule in statutory construction that words in a statute should not be construed as surplusage if a reasonable construction which will give them some force and meaning is possible.24 Contrary to the opinion of the Secretary of Justice in DOJ Opinion No. 98, Series of 1991, the appellate court was correct in ruling that E.O. No. 546 which came after P.D. No. 576-A did not dispense with the requirement of a congressional franchise. It merely abolished the Board of Communications and the Telecommunications Control Bureau under the Reorganization Plan and transferred their functions to the NTC,25 including the power to issue Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) and grant permits for the use of frequencies, viz: "Sec. 15. a. Issue Certificate of Public Convenience for the operation of communication utilities and services, radio communications systems, wire or wireless telephone or telegraph system, radio and television broadcasting system and other similar public utilities; xxxxxxxxx c. Grant permits for the use of radio frequencies for wireless telephone and telegraph systems and radio communication systems including amateur radio stations and radio and television broadcasting systems; . . . " E.O. No. 546 defines the regulatory and technical aspect of the legal process preparatory to the full exercise of the privilege to operate radio and television stations, which is different from the grant of a franchise from Congress, viz: "The statutory functions of NTC may then be given effect as Congress prerogative to grant franchises under Act No. 3846 is upheld for they are

distinct forms of authority. The former covers matters dealing mostly with the technical side of radio or television broadcasting, while the latter involves the exercise by the legislature of an exclusive power resulting in a franchise or a grant under authority of government, conferring a special right to do an act or series of acts of public concern (37 C.J.S., secs. 1, 14, pp. 144, 157). In fine, there being no clear showing that the laws here involved cannot stand together, the presumption is against inconsistency or repugnance, hence, against implied repeal of the earlier law by the later statute (Agujetas v. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 17, 1996)."26 As we held in Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,27 a franchise is distinguished from a CPC in that the former is a grant or privilege from the sovereign power, while the latter is a form of regulation through the administrative agencies, viz: "A franchise started out as a "royal privilege or (a) branch of the Kings prerogative, subsisting in the hands of a subject." This definition was given by Finch, adopted by Blackstone, and accepted by every authority since (State v. Twin Village Water Co., 98 Me 214, 56 A 763 [1903]). Today, a franchise, being merely a privilege emanating from the sovereign power of the state and owing its existence to a grant, is subject to regulation by the state itself by virtue of its police power through its administrative agencies."28 Even prior to E.O. No. 546, the NTCs precursor, i.e., the Board of Communications, already had the function of issuing CPC under the Integrated Reorganization Plan. The CPC was required by the Board at the same time that P.D. No. 576-A required a franchise to operate radio and television stations. The function of the NTC to issue CPC under E.O. No. 546 is thus nothing new and exists alongside the requirement of a congressional franchise under P.D. No. 576-A. There is no conflict between E.O. No. 546 and P.D. No 576-A; Section 15 of the former does not dispense with the franchise requirement in the latter. We adhere

to the cardinal rule in statutory construction that statutes in pare materia, although in apparent conflict, or containing apparent inconsistencies, should, as far as reasonably possible, be construed in harmony with each other, so as to give force and effect to each.29 The ruling of this Court in Crusaders Broadcasting System, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,30 buttresses the interpretation that the requirement of a congressional franchise for the operation of radio and television stations exists alongside the requirement of a CPC. In that case, we held that under E.O. No. 546, the regulation of radio communications is a function assigned to and performed by the NTC and at the same time recognized the requirement of a congressional franchise for the operation of a radio station under Act No. 3846. We did not interpret E.O. No. 546 to have repealed the congressional franchise requirement under Act No. 3846 as these two laws are not inconsistent and can both be given effect. Likewise, in Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,31 we recognized the necessity of both a congressional franchise under Act No. 3846 and a CPC under E.O. No. 546 to operate a radio communications system. In buttressing its position that a congressional franchise is not required to operate its television station, petitioner banks on DOJ Opinion No. 98, Series of 1991 which states that under E.O. No. 546, the NTC may issue a permit or authorization for the operation of radio and television broadcasting systems without a prior franchise issued by Congress. Petitioner argues that the opinion is binding and conclusive upon the NTC as the NTC itself requested the advisory from the Secretary of Justice who is the legal adviser of government. Petitioner claims that it was precisely because of the above DOJ Opinion No. 98 that the NTC did not previously require a congressional franchise in all of its applications for permits with the NTC. Petitioner, however, cannot rely on DOJ Opinion No. 98 as this opinion is merely persuasive and not necessarily controlling.32 As shown above, the opinion is erroneous insofar as it holds that E.O. No. 546 dispenses

with the requirement of a congressional franchise to operate radio and television stations. The case of Albano v. Reyes33 cited in the DOJ opinion, which allegedly makes it binding upon the NTC, does not lend support to petitioners cause. In that case, we held, viz: "Franchises issued by Congress are not required before each and every public utility may operate. Thus, the law has granted certain administrative agencies the power to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities. (See E.O. Nos. 172 and 202) That the Constitution provides in Art. XII, Sec. 11 that the issuance of a franchise, certificate or other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress does not necessarily imply, as petitioner posits, that only Congress has the power to grant such authorization. Our statute books are replete with laws granting specified agencies in the Executive Branch the power to issue such authorization for certain classes of public utilities. (footnote omitted)"34 Our ruling in Albano that a congressional franchise is not required before "each and every public utility may operate" should be viewed in its proper light. Where there is a law such as P.D. No. 576-A which requires a franchise for the operation of radio and television stations, that law must be followed until subsequently repealed. As we have earlier shown, however, there is nothing in the subsequent E.O. No. 546 which evinces an intent to dispense with the franchise requirement. In contradistinction with the case at bar, the law applicable in Albano, i.e., E.O. No. 30, did not require a franchise for the Philippine Ports Authority to take over, manage and operate the Manila International Port Complex and undertake the providing of cargo handling and port related services thereat. Similarly, in Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, et al.,35 we ruled that a legislative franchise is not necessary for the operation of domestic air transport because "there is nothing in the law nor in the Constitution which indicates that a legislative franchise is an indispensable requirement for an entity to

operate as a domestic air transport operator."36 Thus, while it is correct to say that specified agencies in the Executive Branch have the power to issue authorization for certain classes of public utilities, this does not mean that the authorization or CPC issued by the NTC dispenses with the requirement of a franchise as this is clearly required under P.D. No. 576-A. Petitioner contends that the NTC erroneously denied its application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 and recalled its Channel 25 frequency based on the May 3, 1994 MOU that requires a congressional franchise for the operation of television broadcast stations.1a\^/phi1.net The MOU is not an act of Congress and thus cannot amend Act No. 3846 which requires a congressional franchise for the operation of radio stations alone, and not television stations. We find no merit in petitioners contention. As we have shown, even assuming that Act No. 3846 requires only radio stations to secure a congressional franchise for its operation, P.D. No. 576-A was subsequently issued in 1974, which clearly requires a franchise for both radio and television stations. Thus, the 1994 MOU did not amend any law, but merely clarified the existing law that requires a franchise. That the legislative intent is to continue requiring a franchise for the operation of radio and television broadcasting stations is clear from the franchises granted by Congress after the effectivity of E.O. No. 546 in 1979 for the operation of radio and television stations. Among these are: (1) R.A. No. 9131 dated April 24, 2001, entitled "An Act Granting the Iddes Broadcast Group, Inc., a Franchise to Construct, Install, Establish, Operate and Maintain Radio and Television Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines;" (2) R.A. No. 9148 dated July 31, 2001, entitled "An Act Granting the Hypersonic Broadcasting Center, Inc., a Franchise to Construct, Install, Establish, Operate and Maintain Radio Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines;" and (3) R.A. No. 7678 dated February 17, 1994, entitled "An Act Granting the Digital Telecommunication Philippines, Incorporated, a Franchise to Install, Operate and Maintain

Telecommunications Systems Throughout the Philippines." All three franchises require the grantees to secure a CPCN/license/permit to construct and operate their stations/systems. Likewise, the Tax Reform Act of 1997 provides in Section 119 for tax on franchise of radio and/or television broadcasting companies, viz: "Sec. 119. Tax on Franchises. Any provision of general or special law to the contrary notwithstanding, there shall be levied, assessed and collected in respect to all franchises on radio and/or television broadcasting companies whose annual gross receipts of the preceding year does not exceed Ten million pesos (P10,000,000), subject to Section 236 of this Code, a tax of three percent (3%) and on electric, gas and water utilities, a tax of two percent (2%) on the gross receipts derived from the business covered by the law granting the franchise. . . " (emphasis supplied) Undeniably, petitioner is aware that a congressional franchise is necessary to operate its television station Channel 25 as shown by its actuations. Shortly before the December 31, 1994 deadline set in the MOU, petitioner filed an application for a franchise with Congress. It was not, however, acted upon in the 9th Congress for petitioners failure to submit the necessary supporting documents; petitioner failed to re-file the application in the following Congress. Petitioner also filed an application for a franchise with Congress on September 2, 1998, before the November 30, 1998 deadline under Memorandum Circular No. 1410-98.37 We now come to the fourth assigned error. Petitioner avers that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the recall of frequency Channel 25 previously assigned to it and the cancellation of its permit to operate which was already approved in January 1998. It claims that these acts of the NTC were unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory considering that the NTC previously issued petitioner a temporary permit without requiring a congressional franchise.

On February 26, 1998, the NTC issued a show cause order to petitioner with the following decretal portion: "IN VIEW THEREOF, respondents are hereby directed to show cause in writing within ten (10) days from receipt of this order why their assigned frequency, more specifically Channel 25 in the UHF Band, should not be recalled for lack of the necessary Congressional Franchise as required by Section 1, Act No. 3846, as amended. Moreover, respondent is hereby directed to cease and desist from operating DWQH-TV, unless subsequently authorized by the Commission."38 The order was supposedly based on a letter of the NTC dated November 17, 1997 informing petitioner that its application for renewal of temporary permits of its seven radio stations were being held in abeyance pending submission of its new congressional franchise. Petitioner was directed to submit the franchise within thirty days from expiration of its temporary permits to be renewed and informed that its failure to do so might constitute denial of its application. Petitioner is correct that the November 17, 1997 letter referred only to its radio stations and not to its television Channel 25. Thus, it could not serve as basis for the February 26, 1998 show cause order which referred solely to its television Channel 25. Besides, petitioner claims that it did not receive the letter. Be that as it may, the NTCs February 26, 1998 order for petitioner to cease and desist from operating Channel 25 was not unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory. The 1994 MOU states in unmistakable terms that petitioners temporary permit to operate Channel 25 would be valid for only two years, i.e., from June 29, 1995 to June 28, 1997. During these two years, petitioner was supposed to have secured a congressional franchise, otherwise "the NTC shall not extend or renew its permit or authorization to operate any further."39 Apparently, petitioner did not submit a congressional franchise to the NTC in applying for renewal of this temporary permit on May 14, 1997. The NTCs approval of petitioners application to

renew its temporary permit in January 1998 was thus erroneous because under the 1994 MOU, the NTC could not renew petitioners temporary permit to operate Channel 25 without a congressional franchise. In the absence of a renewed temporary permit, the NTC was correct in ordering petitioner to cease and desist from operating Channel 25, regardless of whether or not petitioner received the November 17, 1997 letter. The NTCs erroneous approval of petitioners application in January 1998 did not estop the NTC from ordering petitioner on February 26, 1998 to cease and desist from operating Channel 25 for failure to comply with the franchise requirement as estoppel does not work against the government.40 Likewise, the NTCs denial of petitioners application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 and recall of its Channel 25 frequency in its January 13, 1999 decision were not unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory so as to offend petitioners right to due process. In Crusaders Broadcasting System, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,41 the Court ruled that although a particular ground for suspending operations of the broadcasting company was not reflected in the show cause order, the NTC could nevertheless raise said ground if any basis therefore was gleaned during the administrative proceedings. In the instant case, the lack of congressional franchise as ground for denial of petitioners application for renewal of temporary permit and recall of its Channel 25 frequency was raised not only during the administrative proceedings against it, but was even stated in the February 26, 1998 show cause order, viz: "IN VIEW THEREOF, respondents are hereby directed to show cause in writing within ten (10) days from receipt of this order why their assigned frequency, more specifically Channel 25 in the UHF Band, should not be recalled for lack of the necessary Congressional Franchise as required by Section 1, Act No. 3846, as amended.

Moreover, respondent is hereby directed to cease and desist from operating DWQH-TV, unless subsequently authorized by the Commission." 42 (emphasis supplied) In Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr., et al.,43 we held that the requirements of due process in administrative proceedings laid down by this Court in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations44 should be satisfied before a broadcast station may be closed or its operations curtailed. We enumerated these requirements, viz: ". . . (1) the right to a hearing which includes the right to present ones case and submit evidence in support thereof; (2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3) the decision must have something to support itself; (4) the evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means such reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; (5) the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; (6) the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate; (7) the board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decisions in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered."45 Petitioner had the opportunity to present its case and submit evidence on why its assigned frequency Channel 25 should not be recalled and its application for renewal denied. Petitioner filed its Answer to the show cause order on March 17, 1998.46 A hearing was held on April 22, 1998 wherein petitioner presented its evidence in compliance with the show cause order. Based on the NTCs findings that petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of a congressional franchise, the NTC denied its application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 and recalled its assigned Channel 25 frequency. The requirements of due process in Ang Tibay were satisfied, thus petitioner

cannot say that the NTCs actions were unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory. Finally, petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that Administrative Case No. 98-009, the administrative proceeding against it for failure to secure a congressional franchise to operate its television Channel 25, has been rendered moot and academic by the adoption and promulgation of NTC Memorandum Circular No. 14-10-98 dated August 17, 1998 which took effect on November 15, 1998. The Memorandum Circular states, viz: "In compliance with the MOU and in order to clear the ambiguity surrounding the operation of broadcast operators who were not able to have their legislative franchise approved during the last Congress, the following guidelines are hereby issued: 1. Existing broadcast operators who were not able to secure a legislative franchise up to this date (August 17, 1998) are given up to December 31, 1999 within which to have their application for a legislative franchise bill approved by Congress. The franchise bill must be filed immediately but not later than November 30th of this year . . ." Petitioner avers that the NTC erroneously held that this Memorandum Circular is not applicable to it because the words of the circular are clear that it covers "existing broadcasting operators" including petitioner. In compliance with the Memorandum Circular, petitioner filed House Bill No. 32 on September 2, 1998, well within the November 30, 1998 deadline. Thus, petitioner argues that the NTC erred in denying its application for renewal of permit to operate Channel 25 and recalling its assigned Channel 25 frequency on January 13, 1999, long before the Memorandum Circulars December 31, 1999 deadline to secure a congressional franchise. Petitioner posits that the NTCs premature and arbitrary promulgation of its January 13, 1999 decision "slammed the door for the petitioner to secure its legislative franchise. The pending application for legislative franchise of petitioner was effectively struck out by said NTC decision."47

Whether or not the benefits of the Memorandum Circular extend to petitioner, the fact is, as correctly pointed out by the appellate court, petitioner failed to secure a legislative franchise by December 31, 1999. Consequently, the NTCs recall of petitioners assigned frequency Channel 25 and denial of its application for renewal of its permit to operate the said television channel were proper as the Memorandum Circular provides, viz: "1. Existing broadcast operators who are not able to secure a legislative franchise up to this date (August 17, 1998) are given up to December 31, 1999 within which to have their application for a legislative franchise approved by Congress. The franchise bill must be filed immediately but not later than November 30th of this year . . . xxxxxxxxx 3. In the event the permittee will not be able to have its franchise bill approved within the prescribed period, the NTC will no longer renew/extend its temporary permit and the Commission shall initiate the recall of its assigned frequency provided that due process of law is observed. 4. Henceforth, no application/petition for Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to establish, maintain and operate a broadcast station in the broadcast service shall be accepted for filing without showing that the applicant has an approved legislative franchise."(emphasis supplied) Petitioners argument is flawed when it states that the January 13, 1999 decision of the NTC "slammed the door" on its application for a congressional franchise as the process of securing a congressional franchise is separate and distinct from the process of applying for renewal of a temporary permit with the NTC. The latter is not a prerequisite to the former. In fact, in the normal course of securing authorizations to operate a television and radio station, the application

for a CPC with the NTC comes after securing a franchise from Congress.48 The CPC is not a condition for the grant of a congressional franchise.49 The Court is not unmindful that there is a trend towards delegating the legislative power to authorize the operation of certain public utilities to administrative agencies and dispensing with the requirement of a congressional franchise as in the Albano case which involved the provision of cargo handling and port related services at the Manila International Port Complex and the PAL case involving the operation of domestic air transport. The rationale for this trend was explained in the PAL case, viz: ". . . With the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly growing tendency towards the delegation of greater powers by the legislature, and towards the approval of the practice by the courts.1awphi1.nt (Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. The Public Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065, June 26, 1940, 70 Phil 221.) It is generally recognized that a franchise may be derived indirectly from the state through a duly designated agency, and to this extent, the power to grant franchises has frequently been delegated, even to agencies other than those of a legislative nature. (Dyer vs. Tuskaloosa Bridge Co., 2 Port. 296, 27 Am. D. 655; Christian-Todd Tel. Co. vs. Commonwealth, 161 S.W. 543, 156 Ky. 557, 37 C.J.S. 158) In pursuance of this, it has been held that privileges conferred by grant by local authorities as agents for the state constitute as much a legislative franchise as though the grant had been made by an act of the Legislature. (Superior Water, Light and Power Co. vs. City of Superior, 181 N.W. 113, 174 Wis. 257, affirmed 183 N.W. 254, 37 C.J.S. 158.) The trend of modern legislation is to vest the Public Service Commissioner with the power to regulate and control the operation of public services under reasonable rules and regulations, and as a general

rule, courts will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion when it is just and reasonable and founded upon a legal right."501a\^/phi1.net The criticism against the requirement of a congressional franchise is incisively expressed by a public utilities lawyer, viz: "As will be noted, a legislative franchise is required to install and operate a radio station before an applicant can apply for a Certificate of Public Convenience to operate a radio station based in any part of the country. Under Act No. 3846 of 1929, Sec. 1, it was provided that no one may install and operate a radio station without having first obtained a franchise therefore from the Congress of the Philippines. Since then, this has been strictly followed. And this holds true with respect to application for electric, telephone and many other telecommunications services. Before, even mere application for authority to operate an ice plant must have prior congressional franchise. But this was not strictly followed until ice plant operations were eventually deregulated. Right now, the both houses of the legislature are saddled with House Bill Nos. etc. for the grant of legislative franchise to operate this and that public utility services in various places in the Philippines. We hear during sessions in both houses the time wasted on reports and considerations of these house bills for grant of franchises. The legislature is empowered and has created respective regulatory bodies with requisite expertise to handle franchising and regulation of such types of public utility services, why not just entrust all these functions to them? What exactly is the reason or rationale for imposing a prior congressional franchise? There seems to be no valid reason for it except to impose added burden and expenses on the part of the applicant. The justification appears to be simply because this was required in the past so it is now. We are reminded of the forceful denunciation of Justice Holmes of a stubborn adherence to an anachronistic rule of law: It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the

rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past. (The Path of the Law, Collected Legal Papers [1920] 210, 212 quoted from The Justice Holmes Reader, Julius N. Marke, 1955 ed., p. 278.)"51 The call to dispense with the requisite legislative franchise must, however, be addressed to Congress as the lawmaker of the land for the Courts function is to interpret and not to rewrite the law. As long as the law remains unchanged, the requirement of a franchise to operate a television station must be upheld. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Court of Appeals January 13, 2000 decision and February 21, 2000 resolution are AFFIRMED. No costs. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 17122 February 27, 1922

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANG TANG HO, defendant-appellant. Williams & Ferrier for appellant. Acting Attorney-General Tuason for appellee. JOHNS, J.: At its special session of 1919, the Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 2868, entitled "An Act penalizing the monopoly and holding of, and speculation in, palay, rice, and corn under extraordinary circumstances, regulating the distribution and sale thereof, and authorizing the

Governor-General, with the consent of the Council of State, to issue the necessary rules and regulations therefor, and making an appropriation for this purpose," the material provisions of which are as follows: Section 1. The Governor-General is hereby authorized, whenever, for any cause, conditions arise resulting in an extraordinary rise in the price of palay, rice or corn, to issue and promulgate, with the consent of the Council of State, temporary rules and emergency measures for carrying out the purpose of this Act, to wit: (a) To prevent the monopoly and hoarding of, and speculation in, palay, rice or corn. (b) To establish and maintain a government control of the distribution or sale of the commodities referred to or have such distribution or sale made by the Government itself. (c) To fix, from time to time the quantities of palay rice, or corn that a company or individual may acquire, and the maximum sale price that the industrial or merchant may demand. (d) . . . SEC. 2. It shall be unlawful to destroy, limit, prevent or in any other manner obstruct the production or milling of palay, rice or corn for the purpose of raising the prices thereof; to corner or hoard said products as defined in section three of this Act; . . . Section 3 defines what shall constitute a monopoly or hoarding of palay, rice or corn within the meaning of this Act, but does not specify the price of rice or define any basic for fixing the price. SEC. 4. The violations of any of the provisions of this Act or of the regulations, orders and decrees promulgated in accordance therewith shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousands pesos, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both, in the discretion of the court: Provided, That in the case of

companies or corporations the manager or administrator shall be criminally liable. SEC. 7. At any time that the Governor-General, with the consent of the Council of State, shall consider that the public interest requires the application of the provisions of this Act, he shall so declare by proclamation, and any provisions of other laws inconsistent herewith shall from then on be temporarily suspended. Upon the cessation of the reasons for which such proclamation was issued, the Governor-General, with the consent of the Council of State, shall declare the application of this Act to have likewise terminated, and all laws temporarily suspended by virtue of the same shall again take effect, but such termination shall not prevent the prosecution of any proceedings or cause begun prior to such termination, nor the filing of any proceedings for an offense committed during the period covered by the Governor-General's proclamation. August 1, 1919, the Governor-General issued a proclamation fixing the price at which rice should be sold. August 8, 1919, a complaint was filed against the defendant, Ang Tang Ho, charging him with the sale of rice at an excessive price as follows: The undersigned accuses Ang Tang Ho of a violation of Executive Order No. 53 of the Governor-General of the Philippines, dated the 1st of August, 1919, in relation with the provisions of sections 1, 2 and 4 of Act No. 2868, committed as follows: That on or about the 6th day of August, 1919, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, the said Ang Tang Ho, voluntarily, illegally and criminally sold to Pedro Trinidad, one ganta of rice at the price of eighty centavos (P.80), which is a price greater than that fixed by Executive Order No. 53 of the Governor-General of the

Philippines, dated the 1st of August, 1919, under the authority of section 1 of Act No. 2868. Contrary to law. Upon this charge, he was tried, found guilty and sentenced to five months' imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500, from which he appealed to this court, claiming that the lower court erred in finding Executive Order No. 53 of 1919, to be of any force and effect, in finding the accused guilty of the offense charged, and in imposing the sentence. The official records show that the Act was to take effect on its approval; that it was approved July 30, 1919; that the Governor-General issued his proclamation on the 1st of August, 1919; and that the law was first published on the 13th of August, 1919; and that the proclamation itself was first published on the 20th of August, 1919. The question here involves an analysis and construction of Act No. 2868, in so far as it authorizes the Governor-General to fix the price at which rice should be sold. It will be noted that section 1 authorizes the Governor-General, with the consent of the Council of State, for any cause resulting in an extraordinary rise in the price of palay, rice or corn, to issue and promulgate temporary rules and emergency measures for carrying out the purposes of the Act. By its very terms, the promulgation of temporary rules and emergency measures is left to the discretion of the Governor-General. The Legislature does not undertake to specify or define under what conditions or for what reasons the Governor-General shall issue the proclamation, but says that it may be issued "for any cause," and leaves the question as to what is "any cause" to the discretion of the Governor-General. The Act also says: "For any cause, conditions arise resulting in an extraordinary rise in the price of palay, rice or corn." The Legislature does not specify or define what is "an extraordinary rise." That is also left to the discretion of the GovernorGeneral. The Act also says that the Governor-General, "with the consent of the Council of State," is authorized to issue and promulgate "temporary rules and emergency measures for carrying out the purposes of this Act." It does not specify or define what is a temporary rule or an

emergency measure, or how long such temporary rules or emergency measures shall remain in force and effect, or when they shall take effect. That is to say, the Legislature itself has not in any manner specified or defined any basis for the order, but has left it to the sole judgement and discretion of the Governor-General to say what is or what is not "a cause," and what is or what is not "an extraordinary rise in the price of rice," and as to what is a temporary rule or an emergency measure for the carrying out the purposes of the Act. Under this state of facts, if the law is valid and the Governor-General issues a proclamation fixing the minimum price at which rice should be sold, any dealer who, with or without notice, sells rice at a higher price, is a criminal. There may not have been any cause, and the price may not have been extraordinary, and there may not have been an emergency, but, if the Governor-General found the existence of such facts and issued a proclamation, and rice is sold at any higher price, the seller commits a crime. By the organic law of the Philippine Islands and the Constitution of the United States all powers are vested in the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary. It is the duty of the Legislature to make the law; of the Executive to execute the law; and of the Judiciary to construe the law. The Legislature has no authority to execute or construe the law, the Executive has no authority to make or construe the law, and the Judiciary has no power to make or execute the law. Subject to the Constitution only, the power of each branch is supreme within its own jurisdiction, and it is for the Judiciary only to say when any Act of the Legislature is or is not constitutional. Assuming, without deciding, that the Legislature itself has the power to fix the price at which rice is to be sold, can it delegate that power to another, and, if so, was that power legally delegated by Act No. 2868? In other words, does the Act delegate legislative power to the Governor-General? By the Organic Law, all Legislative power is vested in the Legislature, and the power conferred upon the Legislature to make laws cannot be delegated to the Governor-General, or any one else. The Legislature cannot delegate the legislative power to enact any law. If Act no 2868 is a law unto itself and within itself, and it does nothing more than to authorize the

Governor-General to make rules and regulations to carry the law into effect, then the Legislature itself created the law. There is no delegation of power and it is valid. On the other hand, if the Act within itself does not define crime, and is not a law, and some legislative act remains to be done to make it a law or a crime, the doing of which is vested in the Governor-General, then the Act is a delegation of legislative power, is unconstitutional and void. The Supreme Court of the United States in what is known as the Granger Cases (94 U.S., 183-187; 24 L. ed., 94), first laid down the rule: Railroad companies are engaged in a public employment affecting the public interest and, under the decision in Munn vs. Ill., ante, 77, are subject to legislative control as to their rates of fare and freight unless protected by their charters. The Illinois statute of Mar. 23, 1874, to establish reasonable maximum rates of charges for the transportation of freights and passengers on the different railroads of the State is not void as being repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or to that of the State. It was there for the first time held in substance that a railroad was a public utility, and that, being a public utility, the State had power to establish reasonable maximum freight and passenger rates. This was followed by the State of Minnesota in enacting a similar law, providing for, and empowering, a railroad commission to hear and determine what was a just and reasonable rate. The constitutionality of this law was attacked and upheld by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in a learned and exhaustive opinion by Justice Mitchell, in the case of State vs. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul ry. Co. (38 Minn., 281), in which the court held: Regulations of railway tariffs Conclusiveness of commission's tariffs. Under Laws 1887, c. 10, sec. 8, the determination of the railroad and warehouse commission as to what are equal and

reasonable fares and rates for the transportation of persons and property by a railway company is conclusive, and, in proceedings by mandamus to compel compliance with the tariff of rates recommended and published by them, no issue can be raised or inquiry had on that question. Same constitution Delegation of power to commission. The authority thus given to the commission to determine, in the exercise of their discretion and judgement, what are equal and reasonable rates, is not a delegation of legislative power. It will be noted that the law creating the railroad commission expressly provides That all charges by any common carrier for the transportation of passengers and property shall be equal and reasonable. With that as a basis for the law, power is then given to the railroad commission to investigate all the facts, to hear and determine what is a just and reasonable rate. Even then that law does not make the violation of the order of the commission a crime. The only remedy is a civil proceeding. It was there held That the legislative itself has the power to regulate railroad charges is now too well settled to require either argument or citation of authority. The difference between the power to say what the law shall be, and the power to adopt rules and regulations, or to investigate and determine the facts, in order to carry into effect a law already passed, is apparent. The true distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and the conferring an authority or discretion to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law.

The legislature enacts that all freights rates and passenger fares should be just and reasonable. It had the undoubted power to fix these rates at whatever it deemed equal and reasonable. They have not delegated to the commission any authority or discretion as to what the law shall be, which would not be allowable, but have merely conferred upon it an authority and discretion, to be exercised in the execution of the law, and under and in pursuance of it, which is entirely permissible. The legislature itself has passed upon the expediency of the law, and what is shall be. The commission is intrusted with no authority or discretion upon these questions. It can neither make nor unmake a single provision of law. It is merely charged with the administration of the law, and with no other power. The delegation of legislative power was before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in Dowling vs. Lancoshire Ins. Co. (92 Wis., 63). The opinion says: "The true distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made." The act, in our judgment, wholly fails to provide definitely and clearly what the standard policy should contain, so that it could be put in use as a uniform policy required to take the place of all others, without the determination of the insurance commissioner in respect to maters involving the exercise of a legislative discretion that could not be delegated, and without which the act could not possibly be put in use as an act in confirmity to which all fire insurance policies were required to be issued. The result of all the cases on this subject is that a law must be complete, in all its terms and provisions, when it leaves the legislative branch of

the government, and nothing must be left to the judgement of the electors or other appointee or delegate of the legislature, so that, in form and substance, it is a law in all its details in presenti, but which may be left to take effect in futuro, if necessary, upon the ascertainment of any prescribed fact or event. The delegation of legislative power was before the Supreme Court in United States vs. Grimaud (220 U.S., 506; 55 L. ed., 563), where it was held that the rules and regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture as to a trespass on government land in a forest reserve were valid constitutional. The Act there provided that the Secretary of Agriculture ". . . may make such rules and regulations and establish such service as will insure the object of such reservations; namely, to regulate their occupancy and use, and to preserve the forests thereon from destruction; and any violation of the provisions of this act or such rules and regulations shall be punished, . . ." The brief of the United States Solicitor-General says: In refusing permits to use a forest reservation for stock grazing, except upon stated terms or in stated ways, the Secretary of Agriculture merely assert and enforces the proprietary right of the United States over land which it owns. The regulation of the Secretary, therefore, is not an exercise of legislative, or even of administrative, power; but is an ordinary and legitimate refusal of the landowner's authorized agent to allow person having no right in the land to use it as they will. The right of proprietary control is altogether different from governmental authority. The opinion says: From the beginning of the government, various acts have been passed conferring upon executive officers power to make rules and regulations, not for the government of their departments, but for administering the laws which did govern. None of these statutes could confer legislative power. But when Congress had legislated

power. But when Congress had legislated and indicated its will, it could give to those who were to act under such general provisions "power to fill up the details" by the establishment of administrative rules and regulations, the violation of which could be punished by fine or imprisonment fixed by Congress, or by penalties fixed by Congress, or measured by the injury done. That "Congress cannot delegate legislative power is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution." If, after the passage of the act and the promulgation of the rule, the defendants drove and grazed their sheep upon the reserve, in violation of the regulations, they were making an unlawful use of the government's property. In doing so they thereby made themselves liable to the penalty imposed by Congress. The subjects as to which the Secretary can regulate are defined. The lands are set apart as a forest reserve. He is required to make provisions to protect them from depredations and from harmful uses. He is authorized 'to regulate the occupancy and use and to preserve the forests from destruction.' A violation of reasonable rules regulating the use and occupancy of the property is made a crime, not by the Secretary, but by Congress." The above are leading cases in the United States on the question of delegating legislative power. It will be noted that in the "Granger Cases," it was held that a railroad company was a public corporation, and that a railroad was a public utility, and that, for such reasons, the legislature had the power to fix and determine just and reasonable rates for freight and passengers. The Minnesota case held that, so long as the rates were just and reasonable, the legislature could delegate the power to ascertain the facts and determine from the facts what were just and reasonable rates,. and

that in vesting the commission with such power was not a delegation of legislative power. The Wisconsin case was a civil action founded upon a "Wisconsin standard policy of fire insurance," and the court held that "the act, . . . wholly fails to provide definitely and clearly what the standard policy should contain, so that it could be put in use as a uniform policy required to take the place of all others, without the determination of the insurance commissioner in respect to matters involving the exercise of a legislative discretion that could not be delegated." The case of the United States Supreme Court, supra dealt with rules and regulations which were promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture for Government land in the forest reserve. These decisions hold that the legislative only can enact a law, and that it cannot delegate it legislative authority. The line of cleavage between what is and what is not a delegation of legislative power is pointed out and clearly defined. As the Supreme Court of Wisconsin says: That no part of the legislative power can be delegated by the legislature to any other department of the government, executive or judicial, is a fundamental principle in constitutional law, essential to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government established by the constitution. Where an act is clothed with all the forms of law, and is complete in and of itself, it may be provided that it shall become operative only upon some certain act or event, or, in like manner, that its operation shall be suspended. The legislature cannot delegate its power to make a law, but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of

things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its own action to depend. The Village of Little Chute enacted an ordinance which provides: All saloons in said village shall be closed at 11 o'clock P.M. each day and remain closed until 5 o'clock on the following morning, unless by special permission of the president. Construing it in 136 Wis., 526; 128 A. S. R., 1100,1 the Supreme Court of that State says: We regard the ordinance as void for two reasons; First, because it attempts to confer arbitrary power upon an executive officer, and allows him, in executing the ordinance, to make unjust and groundless discriminations among persons similarly situated; second, because the power to regulate saloons is a law-making power vested in the village board, which cannot be delegated. A legislative body cannot delegate to a mere administrative officer power to make a law, but it can make a law with provisions that it shall go into effect or be suspended in its operations upon the ascertainment of a fact or state of facts by an administrative officer or board. In the present case the ordinance by its terms gives power to the president to decide arbitrary, and in the exercise of his own discretion, when a saloon shall close. This is an attempt to vest legislative discretion in him, and cannot be sustained. The legal principle involved there is squarely in point here. It must be conceded that, after the passage of act No. 2868, and before any rules and regulations were promulgated by the Governor-General, a dealer in rice could sell it at any price, even at a peso per "ganta," and that he would not commit a crime, because there would be no law fixing the price of rice, and the sale of it at any price would not be a crime. That is to say, in the absence of a proclamation, it was not a crime to sell rice at any price. Hence, it must follow that, if the defendant committed

a crime, it was because the Governor-General issued the proclamation. There was no act of the Legislature making it a crime to sell rice at any price, and without the proclamation, the sale of it at any price was to a crime. The Executive order2 provides: (5) The maximum selling price of palay, rice or corn is hereby fixed, for the time being as follows: In Manila Palay at P6.75 per sack of 57 kilos, or 29 centavos per ganta. Rice at P15 per sack of 57 kilos, or 63 centavos per ganta. Corn at P8 per sack of 57 kilos, or 34 centavos per ganta. In the provinces producing palay, rice and corn, the maximum price shall be the Manila price less the cost of transportation from the source of supply and necessary handling expenses to the place of sale, to be determined by the provincial treasurers or their deputies. In provinces, obtaining their supplies from Manila or other producing provinces, the maximum price shall be the authorized price at the place of supply or the Manila price as the case may be, plus the transportation cost, from the place of supply and the necessary handling expenses, to the place of sale, to be determined by the provincial treasurers or their deputies. (6) Provincial treasurers and their deputies are hereby directed to communicate with, and execute all instructions emanating from the Director of Commerce and Industry, for the most effective and proper enforcement of the above regulations in their respective localities.

The law says that the Governor-General may fix "the maximum sale price that the industrial or merchant may demand." The law is a general law and not a local or special law. The proclamation undertakes to fix one price for rice in Manila and other and different prices in other and different provinces in the Philippine Islands, and delegates the power to determine the other and different prices to provincial treasurers and their deputies. Here, then, you would have a delegation of legislative power to the GovernorGeneral, and a delegation by him of that power to provincial treasurers and their deputies, who "are hereby directed to communicate with, and execute all instructions emanating from the Director of Commerce and Industry, for the most effective and proper enforcement of the above regulations in their respective localities." The issuance of the proclamation by the Governor-General was the exercise of the delegation of a delegated power, and was even a sub delegation of that power. Assuming that it is valid, Act No. 2868 is a general law and does not authorize the Governor-General to fix one price of rice in Manila and another price in Iloilo. It only purports to authorize him to fix the price of rice in the Philippine Islands under a law, which is General and uniform, and not local or special. Under the terms of the law, the price of rice fixed in the proclamation must be the same all over the Islands. There cannot be one price at Manila and another at Iloilo. Again, it is a mater of common knowledge, and of which this court will take judicial notice, that there are many kinds of rice with different and corresponding market values, and that there is a wide range in the price, which varies with the grade and quality. Act No. 2868 makes no distinction in price for the grade or quality of the rice, and the proclamation, upon which the defendant was tried and convicted, fixes the selling price of rice in Manila "at P15 per sack of 57 kilos, or 63 centavos per ganta," and is uniform as to all grades of rice, and says nothing about grade or quality. Again, it will be noted that the law is confined to palay, rice and corn. They are products of the Philippine

Islands. Hemp, tobacco, coconut, chickens, eggs, and many other things are also products. Any law which single out palay, rice or corn from the numerous other products of the Islands is not general or uniform, but is a local or special law. If such a law is valid, then by the same principle, the Governor-General could be authorized by proclamation to fix the price of meat, eggs, chickens, coconut, hemp, and tobacco, or any other product of the Islands. In the very nature of things, all of that class of laws should be general and uniform. Otherwise, there would be an unjust discrimination of property rights, which, under the law, must be equal and inform. Act No. 2868 is nothing more than a floating law, which, in the discretion and by a proclamation of the Governor-General, makes it a floating crime to sell rice at a price in excess of the proclamation, without regard to grade or quality. When Act No. 2868 is analyzed, it is the violation of the proclamation of the Governor-General which constitutes the crime. Without that proclamation, it was no crime to sell rice at any price. In other words, the Legislature left it to the sole discretion of the Governor-General to say what was and what was not "any cause" for enforcing the act, and what was and what was not "an extraordinary rise in the price of palay, rice or corn," and under certain undefined conditions to fix the price at which rice should be sold, without regard to grade or quality, also to say whether a proclamation should be issued, if so, when, and whether or not the law should be enforced, how long it should be enforced, and when the law should be suspended. The Legislature did not specify or define what was "any cause," or what was "an extraordinary rise in the price of rice, palay or corn," Neither did it specify or define the conditions upon which the proclamation should be issued. In the absence of the proclamation no crime was committed. The alleged sale was made a crime, if at all, because the Governor-General issued the proclamation. The act or proclamation does not say anything about the different grades or qualities of rice, and the defendant is charged with the sale "of one ganta of rice at the price of eighty centavos (P0.80) which is a price greater than that fixed by Executive order No. 53."

We are clearly of the opinion and hold that Act No. 2868, in so far as it undertakes to authorized the Governor-General in his discretion to issue a proclamation, fixing the price of rice, and to make the sale of rice in violation of the price of rice, and to make the sale of rice in violation of the proclamation a crime, is unconstitutional and void. It may be urged that there was an extraordinary rise in the price of rice and profiteering, which worked a severe hardship on the poorer classes, and that an emergency existed, but the question here presented is the constitutionality of a particular portion of a statute, and none of such matters is an argument for, or against, its constitutionality. The Constitution is something solid, permanent an substantial. Its stability protects the life, liberty and property rights of the rich and the poor alike, and that protection ought not to change with the wind or any emergency condition. The fundamental question involved in this case is the right of the people of the Philippine Islands to be and live under a republican form of government. We make the broad statement that no state or nation, living under republican form of government, under the terms and conditions specified in Act No. 2868, has ever enacted a law delegating the power to any one, to fix the price at which rice should be sold. That power can never be delegated under a republican form of government. In the fixing of the price at which the defendant should sell his rice, the law was not dealing with government property. It was dealing with private property and private rights, which are sacred under the Constitution. If this law should be sustained, upon the same principle and for the same reason, the Legislature could authorize the GovernorGeneral to fix the price of every product or commodity in the Philippine Islands, and empower him to make it a crime to sell any product at any other or different price. It may be said that this was a war measure, and that for such reason the provision of the Constitution should be suspended. But the Stubborn fact remains that at all times the judicial power was in full force and effect,

and that while that power was in force and effect, such a provision of the Constitution could not be, and was not, suspended even in times of war. It may be claimed that during the war, the United States Government undertook to, and did, fix the price at which wheat and flour should be bought and sold, and that is true. There, the United States had declared war, and at the time was at war with other nations, and it was a war measure, but it is also true that in doing so, and as a part of the same act, the United States commandeered all the wheat and flour, and took possession of it, either actual or constructive, and the government itself became the owner of the wheat and flour, and fixed the price to be paid for it. That is not this case. Here the rice sold was the personal and private property of the defendant, who sold it to one of his customers. The government had not bought and did not claim to own the rice, or have any interest in it, and at the time of the alleged sale, it was the personal, private property of the defendant. It may be that the law was passed in the interest of the public, but the members of this court have taken on solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and it ought not to be construed to meet the changing winds or emergency conditions. Again, we say that no state or nation under a republican form of government ever enacted a law authorizing any executive, under the conditions states, to fix the price at which a price person would sell his own rice, and make the broad statement that no decision of any court, on principle or by analogy, will ever be found which sustains the constitutionality of the particular portion of Act No. 2868 here in question. By the terms of the Organic Act, subject only to constitutional limitations, the power to legislate and enact laws is vested exclusively in the Legislative, which is elected by a direct vote of the people of the Philippine Islands. As to the question here involved, the authority of the Governor-General to fix the maximum price at which palay, rice and corn may be sold in the manner power in violation of the organic law. This opinion is confined to the particular question here involved, which is the right of the Governor-General, upon the terms and conditions stated in the Act, to fix the price of rice and make it a crime to sell it at a higher price, and which holds that portions of the Act unconstitutional. It

does not decide or undertake to construe the constitutionality of any of the remaining portions of the Act. The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the defendant discharged. So ordered. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987 RESTITUTO YNOT, petitioner, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, THE STATION COMMANDER, INTEGRATED NATIONAL POLICE, BAROTAC NUEVO, ILOILO and THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY, REGION IV, ILOILO CITY, respondents. Ramon A. Gonzales for petitioner.

CRUZ, J.: The essence of due process is distilled in the immortal cry of Themistocles to Alcibiades "Strike but hear me first!" It is this cry that the petitioner in effect repeats here as he challenges the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 626-A. The said executive order reads in full as follows: WHEREAS, the President has given orders prohibiting the interprovincial movement of carabaos and the

slaughtering of carabaos not complying with the requirements of Executive Order No. 626 particularly with respect to age; WHEREAS, it has been observed that despite such orders the violators still manage to circumvent the prohibition against inter-provincial movement of carabaos by transporting carabeef instead; and WHEREAS, in order to achieve the purposes and objectives of Executive Order No. 626 and the prohibition against interprovincial movement of carabaos, it is necessary to strengthen the said Executive Order and provide for the disposition of the carabaos and carabeef subject of the violation; NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby promulgate the following: SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 626 is hereby amended such that henceforth, no carabao regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose and no carabeef shall be transported from one province to another. The carabao or carabeef transported in violation of this Executive Order as amended shall be subject to confiscation and forfeiture by the government, to be distributed to charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission may ay see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of carabaos.

SECTION 2. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately. Done in the City of Manila, this 25th day of October, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty. (SGD.) FERDINAND E. MARCOS Pres ident Republic of the Philippines The petitioner had transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo on January 13, 1984, when they were confiscated by the police station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, for violation of the above measure. 1 The petitioner sued for recovery, and the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of a supersedeas bond of P12,000.00. After considering the merits of the case, the court sustained the confiscation of the carabaos and, since they could no longer be produced, ordered the confiscation of the bond. The court also declined to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order, as raise by the petitioner, for lack of authority and also for its presumed validity. 2 The petitioner appealed the decision to the Intermediate Appellate Court,* 3 which upheld the trial court, ** and he has now come before us in this petition for review on certiorari. The thrust of his petition is that the executive order is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes outright confiscation of the carabao or carabeef being transported across provincial

boundaries. His claim is that the penalty is invalid because it is imposed without according the owner a right to be heard before a competent and impartial court as guaranteed by due process. He complains that the measure should not have been presumed, and so sustained, as constitutional. There is also a challenge to the improper exercise of the legislative power by the former President under Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution. 4 While also involving the same executive order, the case of Pesigan v. Angeles 5 is not applicable here. The question raised there was the necessity of the previous publication of the measure in the Official Gazette before it could be considered enforceable. We imposed the requirement then on the basis of due process of law. In doing so, however, this Court did not, as contended by the Solicitor General, impliedly affirm the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 626-A. That is an entirely different matter. This Court has declared that while lower courts should observe a becoming modesty in examining constitutional questions, they are nonetheless not prevented from resolving the same whenever warranted, subject only to review by the highest tribunal. 6 We have jurisdiction under the Constitution to "review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or rules of court may provide," final judgments and orders of lower courts in, among others, all cases involving the constitutionality of certain measures. 7 This simply means that the resolution of such cases may be made in the first instance by these lower courts. And while it is true that laws are presumed to be constitutional, that presumption is not by any means conclusive and in fact may be rebutted. Indeed, if there be a clear showing of their invalidity, and of the need to declare them so, then "will be the time to make the hammer fall, and heavily," 8 to recall Justice Laurel's trenchant warning. Stated otherwise, courts should not follow the path of

least resistance by simply presuming the constitutionality of a law when it is questioned. On the contrary, they should probe the issue more deeply, to relieve the abscess, paraphrasing another distinguished jurist, 9 and so heal the wound or excise the affliction. Judicial power authorizes this; and when the exercise is demanded, there should be no shirking of the task for fear of retaliation, or loss of favor, or popular censure, or any other similar inhibition unworthy of the bench, especially this Court. The challenged measure is denominated an executive order but it is really presidential decree, promulgating a new rule instead of merely implementing an existing law. It was issued by President Marcos not for the purpose of taking care that the laws were faithfully executed but in the exercise of his legislative authority under Amendment No. 6. It was provided thereunder that whenever in his judgment there existed a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof or whenever the legislature failed or was unable to act adequately on any matter that in his judgment required immediate action, he could, in order to meet the exigency, issue decrees, orders or letters of instruction that were to have the force and effect of law. As there is no showing of any exigency to justify the exercise of that extraordinary power then, the petitioner has reason, indeed, to question the validity of the executive order. Nevertheless, since the determination of the grounds was supposed to have been made by the President "in his judgment, " a phrase that will lead to protracted discussion not really necessary at this time, we reserve resolution of this matter until a more appropriate occasion. For the nonce, we confine ourselves to the more fundamental question of due process. It is part of the art of constitution-making that the provisions of the charter be cast in precise and unmistakable language to avoid controversies that might arise on their correct interpretation. That

is the Ideal. In the case of the due process clause, however, this rule was deliberately not followed and the wording was purposely kept ambiguous. In fact, a proposal to delineate it more clearly was submitted in the Constitutional Convention of 1934, but it was rejected by Delegate Jose P. Laurel, Chairman of the Committee on the Bill of Rights, who forcefully argued against it. He was sustained by the body. 10 The due process clause was kept intentionally vague so it would remain also conveniently resilient. This was felt necessary because due process is not, like some provisions of the fundamental law, an "iron rule" laying down an implacable and immutable command for all seasons and all persons. Flexibility must be the best virtue of the guaranty. The very elasticity of the due process clause was meant to make it adapt easily to every situation, enlarging or constricting its protection as the changing times and circumstances may require. Aware of this, the courts have also hesitated to adopt their own specific description of due process lest they confine themselves in a legal straitjacket that will deprive them of the elbow room they may need to vary the meaning of the clause whenever indicated. Instead, they have preferred to leave the import of the protection open-ended, as it were, to be "gradually ascertained by the process of inclusion and exclusion in the course of the decision of cases as they arise." 11 Thus, Justice Felix Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, would go no farther than to define due process and in so doing sums it all up as nothing more and nothing less than "the embodiment of the sporting Idea of fair play." 12 When the barons of England extracted from their sovereign liege the reluctant promise that that Crown would thenceforth not proceed against the life liberty or property of any of its subjects except by the lawful judgment of his peers or the law of the land,

they thereby won for themselves and their progeny that splendid guaranty of fairness that is now the hallmark of the free society. The solemn vow that King John made at Runnymede in 1215 has since then resounded through the ages, as a ringing reminder to all rulers, benevolent or base, that every person, when confronted by the stern visage of the law, is entitled to have his say in a fair and open hearing of his cause. The closed mind has no place in the open society. It is part of the sporting Idea of fair play to hear "the other side" before an opinion is formed or a decision is made by those who sit in judgment. Obviously, one side is only one-half of the question; the other half must also be considered if an impartial verdict is to be reached based on an informed appreciation of the issues in contention. It is indispensable that the two sides complement each other, as unto the bow the arrow, in leading to the correct ruling after examination of the problem not from one or the other perspective only but in its totality. A judgment based on less that this full appraisal, on the pretext that a hearing is unnecessary or useless, is tainted with the vice of bias or intolerance or ignorance, or worst of all, in repressive regimes, the insolence of power. The minimum requirements of due process are notice and hearing 13 which, generally speaking, may not be dispensed with because they are intended as a safeguard against official arbitrariness. It is a gratifying commentary on our judicial system that the jurisprudence of this country is rich with applications of this guaranty as proof of our fealty to the rule of law and the ancient rudiments of fair play. We have consistently declared that every person, faced by the awesome power of the State, is entitled to "the law of the land," which Daniel Webster described almost two hundred years ago in the famous Dartmouth College Case, 14 as "the law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial." It has to be so if the rights of every person are to be secured

beyond the reach of officials who, out of mistaken zeal or plain arrogance, would degrade the due process clause into a worn and empty catchword. This is not to say that notice and hearing are imperative in every case for, to be sure, there are a number of admitted exceptions. The conclusive presumption, for example, bars the admission of contrary evidence as long as such presumption is based on human experience or there is a rational connection between the fact proved and the fact ultimately presumed therefrom. 15 There are instances when the need for expeditions action will justify omission of these requisites, as in the summary abatement of a nuisance per se, like a mad dog on the loose, which may be killed on sight because of the immediate danger it poses to the safety and lives of the people. Pornographic materials, contaminated meat and narcotic drugs are inherently pernicious and may be summarily destroyed. The passport of a person sought for a criminal offense may be cancelled without hearing, to compel his return to the country he has fled. 16 Filthy restaurants may be summarily padlocked in the interest of the public health and bawdy houses to protect the public morals. 17 In such instances, previous judicial hearing may be omitted without violation of due process in view of the nature of the property involved or the urgency of the need to protect the general welfare from a clear and present danger. The protection of the general welfare is the particular function of the police power which both restraints and is restrained by due process. The police power is simply defined as the power inherent in the State to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the general welfare. 18 By reason of its function, it extends to all the great public needs and is described as the most pervasive, the least limitable and the most demanding of the three inherent powers of the State, far outpacing taxation and eminent domain. The individual, as a member of society, is hemmed in by the

police power, which affects him even before he is born and follows him still after he is dead from the womb to beyond the tomb in practically everything he does or owns. Its reach is virtually limitless. It is a ubiquitous and often unwelcome intrusion. Even so, as long as the activity or the property has some relevance to the public welfare, its regulation under the police power is not only proper but necessary. And the justification is found in the venerable Latin maxims, Salus populi est suprema lex and Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, which call for the subordination of individual interests to the benefit of the greater number. It is this power that is now invoked by the government to justify Executive Order No. 626-A, amending the basic rule in Executive Order No. 626, prohibiting the slaughter of carabaos except under certain conditions. The original measure was issued for the reason, as expressed in one of its Whereases, that "present conditions demand that the carabaos and the buffaloes be conserved for the benefit of the small farmers who rely on them for energy needs." We affirm at the outset the need for such a measure. In the face of the worsening energy crisis and the increased dependence of our farms on these traditional beasts of burden, the government would have been remiss, indeed, if it had not taken steps to protect and preserve them. A similar prohibition was challenged in United States v. Toribio, 19 where a law regulating the registration, branding and slaughter of large cattle was claimed to be a deprivation of property without due process of law. The defendant had been convicted thereunder for having slaughtered his own carabao without the required permit, and he appealed to the Supreme Court. The conviction was affirmed. The law was sustained as a valid police measure to prevent the indiscriminate killing of carabaos, which were then badly needed by farmers. An epidemic had stricken many of these animals and the reduction of their number had

resulted in an acute decline in agricultural output, which in turn had caused an incipient famine. Furthermore, because of the scarcity of the animals and the consequent increase in their price, cattle-rustling had spread alarmingly, necessitating more effective measures for the registration and branding of these animals. The Court held that the questioned statute was a valid exercise of the police power and declared in part as follows: To justify the State in thus interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it must appear, first, that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference; and second, that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. ... From what has been said, we think it is clear that the enactment of the provisions of the statute under consideration was required by "the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class" and that the prohibition of the slaughter of carabaos for human consumption, so long as these animals are fit for agricultural work or draft purposes was a "reasonably necessary" limitation on private ownership, to protect the community from the loss of the services of such animals by their slaughter by improvident owners, tempted either by greed of momentary gain, or by a desire to enjoy the luxury of animal food, even when by so doing the productive power of the community may be measurably and dangerously affected. In the light of the tests mentioned above, we hold with the Toribio Case that the carabao, as the poor man's tractor, so to speak, has a direct relevance to the public welfare and so is a lawful

subject of Executive Order No. 626. The method chosen in the basic measure is also reasonably necessary for the purpose sought to be achieved and not unduly oppressive upon individuals, again following the above-cited doctrine. There is no doubt that by banning the slaughter of these animals except where they are at least seven years old if male and eleven years old if female upon issuance of the necessary permit, the executive order will be conserving those still fit for farm work or breeding and preventing their improvident depletion. But while conceding that the amendatory measure has the same lawful subject as the original executive order, we cannot say with equal certainty that it complies with the second requirement, viz., that there be a lawful method. We note that to strengthen the original measure, Executive Order No. 626-A imposes an absolute ban not on the slaughter of the carabaos but on their movement, providing that "no carabao regardless of age, sex, physical condition or purpose (sic) and no carabeef shall be transported from one province to another." The object of the prohibition escapes us. The reasonable connection between the means employed and the purpose sought to be achieved by the questioned measure is missing We do not see how the prohibition of the inter-provincial transport of carabaos can prevent their indiscriminate slaughter, considering that they can be killed anywhere, with no less difficulty in one province than in another. Obviously, retaining the carabaos in one province will not prevent their slaughter there, any more than moving them to another province will make it easier to kill them there. As for the carabeef, the prohibition is made to apply to it as otherwise, so says executive order, it could be easily circumvented by simply killing the animal. Perhaps so. However, if the movement of the live animals for the purpose of preventing their slaughter cannot be prohibited, it should follow

that there is no reason either to prohibit their transfer as, not to be flippant dead meat. Even if a reasonable relation between the means and the end were to be assumed, we would still have to reckon with the sanction that the measure applies for violation of the prohibition. The penalty is outright confiscation of the carabao or carabeef being transported, to be meted out by the executive authorities, usually the police only. In the Toribio Case, the statute was sustained because the penalty prescribed was fine and imprisonment, to be imposed by the court after trial and conviction of the accused. Under the challenged measure, significantly, no such trial is prescribed, and the property being transported is immediately impounded by the police and declared, by the measure itself, as forfeited to the government. In the instant case, the carabaos were arbitrarily confiscated by the police station commander, were returned to the petitioner only after he had filed a complaint for recovery and given a supersedeas bond of P12,000.00, which was ordered confiscated upon his failure to produce the carabaos when ordered by the trial court. The executive order defined the prohibition, convicted the petitioner and immediately imposed punishment, which was carried out forthright. The measure struck at once and pounced upon the petitioner without giving him a chance to be heard, thus denying him the centuries-old guaranty of elementary fair play. It has already been remarked that there are occasions when notice and hearing may be validly dispensed with notwithstanding the usual requirement for these minimum guarantees of due process. It is also conceded that summary action may be validly taken in administrative proceedings as procedural due process is not necessarily judicial only. 20 In the exceptional cases accepted, however. there is a justification for the omission of the right to a

previous hearing, to wit, the immediacy of the problem sought to be corrected and the urgency of the need to correct it. In the case before us, there was no such pressure of time or action calling for the petitioner's peremptory treatment. The properties involved were not even inimical per se as to require their instant destruction. There certainly was no reason why the offense prohibited by the executive order should not have been proved first in a court of justice, with the accused being accorded all the rights safeguarded to him under the Constitution. Considering that, as we held in Pesigan v. Angeles, 21 Executive Order No. 626-A is penal in nature, the violation thereof should have been pronounced not by the police only but by a court of justice, which alone would have had the authority to impose the prescribed penalty, and only after trial and conviction of the accused. We also mark, on top of all this, the questionable manner of the disposition of the confiscated property as prescribed in the questioned executive order. It is there authorized that the seized property shall "be distributed to charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission may see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of carabaos." (Emphasis supplied.) The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous and dangerous condition, if condition it is. It is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even corruption. One searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable guidelines, or better still, the limitations that the said officers must observe when they make their distribution. There is none. Their options are apparently boundless. Who shall be the fortunate beneficiaries of their generosity and by what criteria shall they be chosen? Only the officers named can supply the answer, they and they alone may choose the grantee as they see fit, and in their

own exclusive discretion. Definitely, there is here a "roving commission," a wide and sweeping authority that is not "canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing," in short, a clearly profligate and therefore invalid delegation of legislative powers. To sum up then, we find that the challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is violated because the owner of the property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and punished. The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear encroachment on judicial functions and militates against the doctrine of separation of powers. There is, finally, also an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of the properties arbitrarily taken. For these reasons, we hereby declare Executive Order No. 626-A unconstitutional. We agree with the respondent court, however, that the police station commander who confiscated the petitioner's carabaos is not liable in damages for enforcing the executive order in accordance with its mandate. The law was at that time presumptively valid, and it was his obligation, as a member of the police, to enforce it. It would have been impertinent of him, being a mere subordinate of the President, to declare the executive order unconstitutional and, on his own responsibility alone, refuse to execute it. Even the trial court, in fact, and the Court of Appeals itself did not feel they had the competence, for all their superior authority, to question the order we now annul. The Court notes that if the petitioner had not seen fit to assert and protect his rights as he saw them, this case would never have

reached us and the taking of his property under the challenged measure would have become a fait accompli despite its invalidity. We commend him for his spirit. Without the present challenge, the matter would have ended in that pump boat in Masbate and another violation of the Constitution, for all its obviousness, would have been perpetrated, allowed without protest, and soon forgotten in the limbo of relinquished rights. The strength of democracy lies not in the rights it guarantees but in the courage of the people to invoke them whenever they are ignored or violated. Rights are but weapons on the wall if, like expensive tapestry, all they do is embellish and impress. Rights, as weapons, must be a promise of protection. They become truly meaningful, and fulfill the role assigned to them in the free society, if they are kept bright and sharp with use by those who are not afraid to assert them. WHEREFORE, Executive Order No. 626-A is hereby declared unconstitutional. Except as affirmed above, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The supersedeas bond is cancelled and the amount thereof is ordered restored to the petitioner. No costs. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

EN BANC

ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (Formerly AASJAS) OFFICERS SAMSON S. ALCANTARA and ED VINCENT S. ALBANO, Petitioners,

G.R. No. 168056

Present: DAVIDE, JR., C.J., PUNO, PANGANIBAN, QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVALGUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CORONA, CARPIO-MORALES,

- versus -

CALLEJO, SR., AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, and GARCIA, JJ. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA; HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE CESAR PURISIMA; and HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE GUILLERMO PARAYNO, JR., Respondents. x------------------------x AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., LUISA P. EJERCITOESTRADA, JINGGOY E. ESTRADA, PANFILO M. LACSON, ALFREDO S. LIM, JAMBY A.S. MADRIGAL, AND SERGIO R. OSMEA III, Petitioners, - versus EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, CESAR V. PURISIMA, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, G.R. No. 168207

GUILLERMO L. PARAYNO, JR., COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents. x------------------------x ASSOCIATION OF PILIPINAS SHELL DEALERS, INC. represented by its President, ROSARIO ANTONIO; PETRON DEALERS' ASSOCIATION represented by its President, RUTH E. BARBIBI; ASSOCIATION OF CALTEX DEALERS' OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by its President, MERCEDITAS A. GARCIA; ROSARIO ANTONIO doing business under the name and style of 'ANB NORTH SHELL SERVICE STATION; LOURDES MARTINEZ doing business under the name and style of 'SHELL GATE ' N. DOMINGO; BETHZAIDA TAN doing business under the name and style of 'ADVANCE SHELL STATION; REYNALDO P. MONTOYA doing business under the name and style of 'NEW LAMUAN SHELL G.R. No. 168461

SERVICE STATION; EFREN SOTTO doing business under the name and style of 'RED FIELD SHELL SERVICE STATION; DONICA CORPORATION represented by its President, DESI TOMACRUZ; RUTH E. MARBIBI doing business under the name and style of 'R&R PETRON STATION; PETER M. UNGSON doing business under the name and style of 'CLASSIC STAR GASOLINE SERVICE STATION; MARIAN SHEILA A. LEE doing business under the name and style of 'NTE GASOLINE & SERVICE STATION; JULIAN CESAR P. POSADAS doing business under the name and style of 'STARCARGA ENTERPRISES' ; ADORACION MAEBO doing business under the name and style of 'CMA MOTORISTS CENTER; SUSAN M. ENTRATA doing business under the name and style of 'LEONA'S GASOLINE STATION and SERVICE CENTER; CARMELITA BALDONADO doing business under the name and style of 'FIRST CHOICE SERVICE CENTER; MERCEDITAS A. GARCIA doing business under the name

and style of 'LORPED SERVICE CENTER; RHEAMAR A. RAMOS doing business under the name and style of 'RJRAM PTT GAS STATION; MA. ISABEL VIOLAGO doing business under the name and style of 'VIOLAGO-PTT SERVICE CENTER; MOTORISTS' HEART CORPORATION represented by its Vice-President for Operations, JOSELITO F. FLORDELIZA; MOTORISTS' HARVARD CORPORATION represented by its Vice-President for Operations, JOSELITO F. FLORDELIZA; MOTORISTS' HERITAGE CORPORATION represented by its Vice-President for Operations, JOSELITO F. FLORDELIZA; PHILIPPINE STANDARD OIL CORPORATION represented by its Vice-President for Operations, JOSELITO F. FLORDELIZA; ROMEO MANUEL doing business under the name and style of 'ROMMAN GASOLINE STATION; ANTHONY ALBERT CRUZ III doing business under the name and style of 'TRUE SERVICE STATION',

'Petitioners, - versus CESAR V. PURISIMA, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Finance and GUILLERMO L. PARAYNO, JR., in his capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondents. x------------------------x FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO, VINCENT CRISOLOGO, EMMANUEL JOEL J. VILLANUEVA, RODOLFO G. PLAZA, DARLENE ANTONINOCUSTODIO, OSCAR G. MALAPITAN, BENJAMIN C. AGARAO, JR. JUAN EDGARDO M. ANGARA, JUSTIN MARC SB. CHIPECO, FLORENCIO G. NOEL, MUJIV S. HATAMAN, RENATO B. MAGTUBO, JOSEPH A. SANTIAGO, TEOFISTO DL. GUINGONA III, RUY ELIAS C. LOPEZ, RODOLFO Q. AGBAYANI and TEODORO A. CASIO, G.R. No. 168463

Petitioners, - versus CESAR V. PURISIMA, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance, GUILLERMO L. PARAYNO, JR., in his capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and EDUARDO R. ERMITA, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Respondents. x------------------------x BATAAN GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, JR. Petitioner, - versus HON. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, in his capacity as the Executive Secretary; HON. MARGARITO TEVES, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance; HON. JOSE MARIO BUNAG, in his capacity as the OIC Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue; and HON. ALEXANDER AREVALO, in his capacity as the OIC G.R. No. 168730

Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs,

Respondents.

Promulgated: September 1, 2005

x----------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

The expenses of government, having for their object the interest of all, should be borne by everyone, and the more man enjoys the advantages of society, the more he ought to hold himself honored in contributing to those expenses. -Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (1727-1781) 'French statesman and economist

Mounting budget deficit, revenue generation, inadequate fiscal allocation for education, increased emoluments for health workers, and wider coverage for full value-added tax benefits ' these are the reasons why Republic Act No. 9337 (R.A. No. 9337)[1] was enacted. Reasons, the wisdom of which, the Court even with its extensive constitutional power of review, cannot probe. The petitioners in these cases, however, question not only the wisdom of the law, but also perceived constitutional infirmities in its passage.

Every law enjoys in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. Their arguments notwithstanding, petitioners failed to justify their call for the invalidity of the law. Hence, R.A. No. 9337 is not unconstitutional.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

R.A. No. 9337 is a consolidation of three legislative bills namely, House Bill Nos. 3555 and 3705, and Senate Bill No. 1950.

House Bill No. 3555[2]was introduced on first reading on January 7, 2005. The House Committee on Ways and Means approved the bill, in substitution of House Bill No. 1468, which Representative (Rep.) Eric D. Singson introduced on August 8, 2004. The President certified the bill on January 7, 2005 for immediate enactment. On January 27, 2005, the House of Representatives approved the bill on second and third reading.

House Bill No. 3705[3]on the other hand, substituted House Bill No. 3105 introduced by Rep. Salacnib F. Baterina, and House Bill No. 3381 introduced by Rep. Jacinto V. Paras. Its 'mother bill is House Bill No. 3555. The House Committee on Ways and Means approved the bill on February 2, 2005. The President also certified it as urgent on February 8,

2005. The House of Representatives approved the bill on second and third reading on February 28, 2005.

Meanwhile, the Senate Committee on Ways and Means approved Senate Bill No. 1950[4] on March 7, 2005, 'in substitution of Senate Bill Nos. 1337, 1838 and 1873, taking into consideration House Bill Nos. 3555 and 3705. Senator Ralph G. Recto sponsored Senate Bill No. 1337, while Senate Bill Nos. 1838 and 1873 were both sponsored by Sens. Franklin M. Drilon, Juan M. Flavier and Francis N. Pangilinan. The President certified the bill on March 11, 2005, and was approved by the Senate on second and third reading on April 13, 2005.

On the same date, April 13, 2005, the Senate agreed to the request of the House of Representatives for a committee conference on the disagreeing provisions of the proposed bills.

Before long, the Conference Committee on the Disagreeing Provisions of House Bill No. 3555, House Bill No. 3705, and Senate Bill No. 1950, 'after having met and discussed in full free and conference, recommended the approval of its report, which the Senate did on May 10, 2005, and with the House of Representatives agreeing thereto the next day, May 11, 2005.

On May 23, 2005, the enrolled copy of the consolidated House and Senate version was transmitted to the President, who signed the same into law on May 24, 2005. Thus, came R.A. No. 9337.

July 1, 2005 is the effectivity date of R.A. No. 9337.[5] When said date came, the Court issued a temporary restraining order, effective immediately and continuing until further orders, enjoining respondents from enforcing and implementing the law.

Oral arguments were held on July 14, 2005. Significantly, during the hearing, the Court speaking through Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, voiced the rationale for its issuance of the temporary restraining order on July 1, 2005, to wit: J. PANGANIBAN : . . . But before I go into the details of your presentation, let me just tell you a little background. You know when the law took effect on July 1, 2005, the Court issued a TRO at about 5 oclock in the afternoon. But before that, there was a lot of complaints aired on television and on radio. Some people in a gas station were complaining that the gas prices went up by 10%. Some people were complaining that their electric bill will go up by 10%. Other times people riding in domestic air carrier were complaining that the prices that theyll have to pay would have to go up by 10%. While all that was being aired, per your presentation and per our own understanding of the law, that's not true. It's not true that the e-vat law necessarily increased prices by 10% uniformly isnt it? ATTY. BANIQUED : No, Your Honor. J. PANGANIBAN : It is not? ATTY. BANIQUED : It's not, because, Your Honor, there is an Executive Order that granted the

Petroleum companies some subsidy . . . interrupted J. PANGANIBAN : That's correct . . . ATTY. BANIQUED : . . . and therefore that was meant to temper the impact . . . interrupted J. PANGANIBAN : . . . mitigating measures . . . ATTY. BANIQUED : Yes, Your Honor. J. PANGANIBAN : As a matter of fact a part of the mitigating measures would be the elimination of the Excise Tax and the import duties. That is why, it is not correct to say that the VAT as to petroleum dealers increased prices by 10%. ATTY. BANIQUED : Yes, Your Honor. J. PANGANIBAN : And therefore, there is no justification for increasing the retail price by 10% to cover the E-Vat tax. If you consider the excise tax and the import duties, the Net Tax would probably be in the neighborhood of 7%? We are not going into exact figures I am just trying to deliver a point that different industries, different products, different services are hit differently. So it's not correct to say that all prices must go up by 10%. ATTY. BANIQUED : Youre right, Your Honor.

J. PANGANIBAN : Now. For instance, Domestic Airline companies, Mr. Counsel, are at present imposed a Sales Tax of 3%. When this EVat law took effect the Sales Tax was also removed as a mitigating measure. So, therefore, there is no justification to increase the fares by 10% at best 7%, correct? ATTY. BANIQUED : I guess so, Your Honor, yes. J. PANGANIBAN : There are other products that the people were complaining on that first day, were being increased arbitrarily by 10%. And that's one reason among many others this Court had to issue TRO because of the confusion in the implementation. That's why we added as an issue in this case, even if it's tangentially taken up by the pleadings of the parties, the confusion in the implementation of the E-vat. Our people were subjected to the mercy of that confusion of an across the board increase of 10%, which you yourself now admit and I think even the Government will admit is incorrect. In some cases, it should be 3% only, in some cases it should be 6% depending on these mitigating measures and the location and situation of each product, of each service, of each company, isnt it? ATTY. BANIQUED : Yes, Your Honor.

J. PANGANIBAN : Alright. So that's one reason why we had to issue a TRO pending the clarification of all these and we wish the government will take time to clarify all these by means of a more detailed implementing rules, in case the law is upheld by this Court. . . .[6]

The Court also directed the parties to file their respective Memoranda.

G.R. No. 168056

Before R.A. No. 9337 took effect, petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition on May 27, 2005. They question the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties, Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods, and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties. These questioned provisions contain a uniform proviso authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the

Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after any of the following conditions have been satisfied, to wit:

. . . That the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate of value-added tax to twelve percent (12%), after any of the following conditions has been satisfied: (i) Value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%); or (ii) National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1 '%).

Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional, as it constitutes abandonment by Congress of its exclusive authority to fix the rate of taxes under Article VI, Section 28(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

G.R. No. 168207

On June 9, 2005, Sen. Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., et al., filed a petition for certiorari likewise assailing the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337. Aside from questioning the so-called stand-by authority of the President to increase the VAT rate to 12%, on the ground that it amounts to an undue delegation of legislative power, petitioners also contend that the increase in the VAT rate to 12% contingent on any of the two conditions being satisfied violates the due process clause embodied in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, as it imposes an unfair and additional tax burden on the people, in that: (1) the 12% increase is ambiguous because it does not state if the rate would be returned to the original 10% if the conditions are no longer satisfied; (2) the rate is unfair and unreasonable, as the people are unsure of the applicable VAT rate from year to year; and (3) the increase in the VAT rate, which is supposed to be an incentive to the President to raise the VAT collection to at least 2 4/5 of the GDP of the previous year, should only be based on fiscal adequacy.

Petitioners further claim that the inclusion of a stand-by authority granted to the President by the Bicameral Conference Committee is a violation of the 'no-amendment rule upon last reading of a bill laid down in Article VI, Section 26(2) of the Constitution.

G.R. No. 168461

Thereafter, a petition for prohibition was filed on June 29, 2005, by the Association of Pilipinas Shell Dealers, Inc., et al., assailing the following provisions of R.A. No. 9337: 1) Section 8, amending Section 110 (A)(2) of the NIRC, requiring that the input tax on depreciable goods shall be amortized over a 60-month period, if the acquisition, excluding the VAT components, exceeds One Million Pesos (P1, 000,000.00); 2) Section 8, amending Section 110 (B) of the NIRC, imposing a 70% limit on the amount of input tax to be credited against the output tax; and

3) Section 12, amending Section 114 (c) of the NIRC, authorizing the Government or any of its political subdivisions, instrumentalities or agencies, including GOCCs, to deduct a 5% final withholding tax on gross payments of goods and services, which are subject to 10% VAT under Sections 106 (sale of goods and properties) and 108 (sale of services and use or lease of properties) of the NIRC.

Petitioners contend that these provisions are unconstitutional for being arbitrary, oppressive, excessive, and confiscatory.

Petitioners' argument is premised on the constitutional right of nondeprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. According to petitioners, the contested sections impose limitations on the amount of input tax that may be claimed. Petitioners also argue that the input tax partakes the nature of a property that may not be confiscated, appropriated, or limited without due process of law. Petitioners further contend that like any other property or property right, the input tax credit may be transferred

or disposed of, and that by limiting the same, the government gets to tax a profit or value-added even if there is no profit or value-added.

Petitioners also believe that these provisions violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, as the limitation on the creditable input tax if: (1) the entity has a high ratio of input tax; or (2) invests in capital equipment; or (3) has several transactions with the government, is not based on real and substantial differences to meet a valid classification.

Lastly, petitioners contend that the 70% limit is anything but progressive, violative of Article VI, Section 28(1) of the Constitution, and that it is the smaller businesses with higher input tax to output tax ratio that will suffer the consequences thereof for it wipes out whatever meager margins the petitioners make.

G.R. No. 168463

Several members of the House of Representatives led by Rep. Francis Joseph G. Escudero filed this petition for certiorari on June 30, 2005. They question the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9337 on the following grounds:

1) Sections 4, 5, and 6 of R.A. No. 9337 constitute an undue delegation of legislative power, in violation of Article VI, Section 28(2) of the Constitution; 2) The Bicameral Conference Committee acted without jurisdiction in deleting the no pass on provisions present in Senate Bill No. 1950 and House Bill No. 3705; and 3) Insertion by the Bicameral Conference Committee of Sections 27, 28, 34, 116, 117, 119, 121, 125,[7] 148, 151, 236, 237 and 288, which were present in Senate Bill No. 1950, violates Article VI, Section 24(1) of the Constitution, which provides that all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives

G.R. No. 168730

On the eleventh hour, Governor Enrique T. Garcia filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition on July 20, 2005, alleging unconstitutionality of the law on the ground that the limitation on the creditable input tax in effect allows VAT-registered establishments to retain a portion of the taxes they collect, thus violating the principle that tax collection and revenue should be solely allocated for public purposes and expenditures. Petitioner Garcia further claims that allowing these establishments to pass on the tax to the consumers is inequitable, in violation of Article VI, Section 28(1) of the Constitution.

RESPONDENTS' COMMENT

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Comment in behalf of respondents. Preliminarily, respondents contend that R.A. No. 9337 enjoys the presumption of constitutionality and petitioners failed to cast doubt on its validity.

Relying on the case of Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630 (1994), respondents argue that the procedural issues raised by petitioners, i.e., legality of the bicameral proceedings, exclusive origination of revenue measures and the power of the Senate concomitant thereto, have already been settled. With regard to the issue of undue delegation of legislative power to the President, respondents contend that the law is complete and leaves no discretion to the President but to increase the rate to 12% once any of the two conditions provided therein arise.

Respondents also refute petitioners' argument that the increase to 12%, as well as the 70% limitation on the creditable input tax, the 60-month amortization on the purchase or importation of capital goods exceeding P1,000,000.00, and the 5% final withholding tax by government agencies, is arbitrary, oppressive, and confiscatory, and that it violates the constitutional principle on progressive taxation, among others.

Finally, respondents manifest that R.A. No. 9337 is the anchor of the government's fiscal reform agenda. A reform in the value-added system of taxation is the core revenue measure that will tilt the balance towards a sustainable macroeconomic environment necessary for economic growth.

ISSUES

The Court defined the issues, as follows:

PROCEDURAL ISSUE Whether R.A. No. 9337 violates the following provisions of the Constitution: a. Article VI, Section 24, and b. Article VI, Section 26(2) SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES 1. Whether Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108 of the NIRC, violate the following provisions of the Constitution:

a. Article VI, Section 28(1), and b. Article VI, Section 28(2) 2. Whether Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 110(A)(2) and 110(B) of the NIRC; and Section 12 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Section 114(C) of the NIRC, violate the following provisions of the Constitution: a. Article VI, Section 28(1), and b. Article III, Section 1

RULING OF THE COURT

As a prelude, the Court deems it apt to restate the general principles and concepts of value-added tax (VAT), as the confusion and inevitably, litigation, breeds from a fallacious notion of its nature.

The VAT is a tax on spending or consumption. It is levied on the sale, barter, exchange or lease of goods or properties and services.[8] Being an indirect tax on expenditure, the seller of goods or services may pass

on the amount of tax paid to the buyer,[9] with the seller acting merely as a tax collector.[10] The burden of VAT is intended to fall on the immediate buyers and ultimately, the end-consumers.

In contrast, a direct tax is a tax for which a taxpayer is directly liable on the transaction or business it engages in, without transferring the burden to someone else.[11] Examples are individual and corporate income taxes, transfer taxes, and residence taxes.[12]

In the Philippines, the value-added system of sales taxation has long been in existence, albeit in a different mode. Prior to 1978, the system was a single-stage tax computed under the 'cost deduction method and was payable only by the original sellers. The single-stage system was subsequently modified, and a mixture of the 'cost deduction method and 'tax credit method was used to determine the value-added tax payable. [13] Under the 'tax credit method, an entity can credit against or

subtract from the VAT charged on its sales or outputs the VAT paid on its purchases, inputs and imports.[14]

It was only in 1987, when President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order No. 273, that the VAT system was rationalized by imposing a multi-stage tax rate of 0% or 10% on all sales using the 'tax credit method.[15]

E.O. No. 273 was followed by R.A. No. 7716 or the Expanded VAT Law,[16] R.A. No. 8241 or the Improved VAT Law,[17] R.A. No. 8424 or the Tax Reform Act of 1997,[18] and finally, the presently beleaguered R.A. No. 9337, also referred to by respondents as the VAT Reform Act.

The Court will now discuss the issues in logical sequence.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE I. Whether R.A. No. 9337 violates the following provisions of the Constitution: a. Article VI, Section 24, and b. Article VI, Section 26(2)

A. The Bicameral Conference Committee

Petitioners Escudero, et al., and Pimentel, et al., allege that the Bicameral Conference Committee exceeded its authority by:

1) Inserting the stand-by authority in favor of the President in Sections 4, 5, and 6 of R.A. No. 9337; 2) Deleting entirely the no pass-on provisions found in both the House and Senate bills; 3) Inserting the provision imposing a 70% limit on the amount of input tax to be credited against the output tax; and

4) Including the amendments introduced only by Senate Bill No. 1950 regarding other kinds of taxes in addition to the value-added tax.

Petitioners now beseech the Court to define the powers of the Bicameral Conference Committee.

It should be borne in mind that the power of internal regulation and discipline are intrinsic in any legislative body for, as unerringly elucidated by Justice Story, '[i]f the power did not exist, it would be utterly impracticable to transact the business of the nation, either at all, or at least with decency, deliberation, and order.[19] Thus, Article VI, Section 16 (3) of the Constitution provides that 'each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. Pursuant to this inherent constitutional power to promulgate and implement its own rules of procedure, the respective rules of each house of Congress provided for the creation of a Bicameral Conference Committee.

Thus, Rule XIV, Sections 88 and 89 of the Rules of House of Representatives provides as follows:

Sec. 88. Conference Committee. ' In the event that the House does not agree with the Senate on the amendment to any bill or joint resolution, the differences may be settled by the conference committees of both chambers. In resolving the differences with the Senate, the House panel shall, as much as possible, adhere to and support the House Bill. If the differences with the Senate are so substantial that they materially impair the House Bill, the panel shall report such fact to the House for the latter's appropriate action. Sec. 89. Conference Committee Reports. ' . . . Each report shall contain a detailed, sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in or amendments to the subject measure. ... The Chairman of the House panel may be interpellated on the Conference Committee Report prior to the voting thereon. The House shall vote on the Conference Committee Report in the same manner and procedure as it votes on a bill on third and final reading.

Rule XII, Section 35 of the Rules of the Senate states:

Sec. 35. In the event that the Senate does not agree with the House of Representatives on the provision of any bill or joint resolution, the differences shall be settled by a conference committee of both Houses which shall meet within ten (10) days after their composition. The President shall designate the members of the Senate Panel in the conference committee with the approval of the Senate. Each Conference Committee Report shall contain a detailed and sufficiently explicit statement of the changes in, or amendments to the subject measure, and shall be signed by a majority of the members of each House panel, voting separately. A comparative presentation of the conflicting House and Senate provisions and a reconciled version thereof with the explanatory statement of the conference committee shall be attached to the report. ...

The creation of such conference committee was apparently in response to a problem, not addressed by any constitutional provision, where the two houses of Congress find themselves in disagreement over changes

or amendments introduced by the other house in a legislative bill. Given that one of the most basic powers of the legislative branch is to formulate and implement its own rules of proceedings and to discipline its members, may the Court then delve into the details of how Congress complies with its internal rules or how it conducts its business of passing legislation? Note that in the present petitions, the issue is not whether provisions of the rules of both houses creating the bicameral conference committee are unconstitutional, but whether the bicameral conference committee has strictly complied with the rules of both houses, thereby remaining within the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Congress.

In the recent case of Farias vs. The Executive Secretary,[20] the Court En Banc, unanimously reiterated and emphasized its adherence to the 'enrolled bill doctrine, thus, declining therein petitioners' plea for the Court to go behind the enrolled copy of the bill. Assailed in said case was Congress's creation of two sets of bicameral conference committees,

the lack of records of said committees' proceedings, the alleged violation of said committees of the rules of both houses, and the disappearance or deletion of one of the provisions in the compromise bill submitted by the bicameral conference committee. It was argued that such irregularities in the passage of the law nullified R.A. No. 9006, or the Fair Election Act.

Striking down such argument, the Court held thus:

Under the 'enrolled bill doctrine, the signing of a bill by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President and the certification of the Secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed are conclusive of its due enactment. A review of cases reveals the Court's consistent adherence to the rule. The Court finds no reason to deviate from the salutary rule in this case where the irregularities alleged by the petitioners mostly involved the internal rules of Congress, e.g., creation of the 2nd or 3rd Bicameral Conference Committee by the House. This Court is not the proper forum for the enforcement of these internal rules of Congress, whether House or Senate. Parliamentary rules are merely procedural and with their observance the courts have no concern. Whatever doubts there may be as to the formal validity of Rep. Act No. 9006 must be resolved in its favor. The Court reiterates its ruling in Arroyo vs. De Venecia, viz.: But the cases, both here and abroad, in varying forms of expression, all deny to the courts the

power to inquire into allegations that, in enacting a law, a House of Congress failed to comply with its own rules, in the absence of showing that there was a violation of a constitutional provision or the rights of private individuals. In Osmea v. Pendatun, it was held: 'At any rate, courts have declared that 'the rules adopted by deliberative bodies are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them. And it has been said that 'Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and with their observance, the courts have no concern. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body. Consequently, 'mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action (taken by a deliberative body) when the requisite number of members have agreed to a particular measure.[21] (Emphasis supplied)

The foregoing declaration is exactly in point with the present cases, where petitioners allege irregularities committed by the conference committee in introducing changes or deleting provisions in the House and Senate bills. Akin to the Farias case,[22] the present petitions also raise an issue regarding the actions taken by the conference committee on matters regarding Congress' compliance with its own internal rules.

As stated earlier, one of the most basic and inherent power of the legislature is the power to formulate rules for its proceedings and the discipline of its members. Congress is the best judge of how it should conduct its own business' expeditiously and in the most orderly manner. It is also the sole concern of Congress to instill discipline among the members of its conference committee if it believes that said members violated any of its rules of proceedings. Even the expanded jurisdiction of this Court cannot apply to questions regarding only the internal operation of Congress, thus, the Court is wont to deny a review of the internal proceedings of a co-equal branch of government.

Moreover, as far back as 1994 or more than ten years ago, in the case of Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance,[23] the Court already made the pronouncement that '[i]f a change is desired in the practice [of the Bicameral Conference Committee] it must be sought in Congress since this question is not covered by any constitutional provision but

is only an internal rule of each house. [24] To date, Congress has not seen it fit to make such changes adverted to by the Court. It seems, therefore, that Congress finds the practices of the bicameral conference committee to be very useful for purposes of prompt and efficient legislative action.

Nevertheless, just to put minds at ease that no blatant irregularities tainted the proceedings of the bicameral conference committees, the Court deems it necessary to dwell on the issue. The Court observes that there was a necessity for a conference committee because a comparison of the provisions of House Bill Nos. 3555 and 3705 on one hand, and Senate Bill No. 1950 on the other, reveals that there were indeed disagreements. As pointed out in the petitions, said disagreements were as follows:

House Bill No. 3555

House Bill No.3705

Senate Bill No. 1950

With regard to 'Stand-By Authority in favor of President Provides for 12% VAT on every sale of goods or properties (amending Sec. 106 of NIRC); 12% VAT on importation of goods (amending Sec. 107 of NIRC); and 12% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties (amending Sec. 108 of NIRC) Provides for 12% VAT in general on sales of goods or properties and reduced rates for sale of certain locally manufactured goods and petroleum products and raw materials to be used in the manufacture thereof (amending Sec. 106 of NIRC); 12% VAT on importation of goods and reduced rates for certain imported products including petroleum products (amending Sec. 107 of NIRC); and 12% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties and a reduced rate for certain services including power generation (amending Sec. 108 of NIRC) Provides for a single rate of 10% VAT on sale of goods or properties (amending Sec. 106 of NIRC), 10% VAT on sale of services including sale of electricity by generation companies, transmission and distribution companies, and use or lease of properties (amending Sec. 108 of NIRC)

With regard to the 'no pass-on provision

No provision

similar

Provides that the VAT imposed on power generation and on the sale of petroleum products shall be absorbed by generation companies or sellers, respectively, and shall not be passed on to consumers

Provides that the VAT imposed on sales of electricity by generation companies and services of transmission companies and distribution companies, as well as those of franchise grantees of electric utilities shall not apply to residential

end-users. VAT shall be absorbed by generation, transmission, and distribution companies. With regard to 70% limit on input tax credit Provides that the input tax credit for capital goods on which a VAT has been paid shall be equally distributed over 5 years or the depreciable life of such capital goods; the input tax credit No similar provision Provides that the input tax credit for capital goods on which a VAT has been paid shall be equally distributed over 5 years or the depreciable life of such capital goods; the input tax credit for

for goods and services other than capital goods shall not exceed 5% of the total amount of such goods and services; and for persons engaged in retail trading of goods, the allowable input tax credit shall not exceed 11% of the total amount of goods purchased.

goods and services other than capital goods shall not exceed 90% of the output VAT.

With regard to amendments to be made to NIRC provisions regarding income and excise taxes No similar provision No similar provision Provided for amendments to several NIRC provisions regarding corporate income, percentage, franchise and excise taxes

The disagreements between the provisions in the House bills and the Senate bill were with regard to (1) what rate of VAT is to be imposed; (2) whether only the VAT imposed on electricity generation, transmission and distribution companies should not be passed on to consumers, as proposed in the Senate bill, or both the VAT imposed on electricity generation, transmission and distribution companies and the VAT imposed on sale of petroleum products should not be passed on to consumers, as proposed in the House bill; (3) in what manner input tax credits should be limited; (4) and whether the NIRC provisions on corporate income taxes, percentage, franchise and excise taxes should be amended.

There being differences and/or disagreements on the foregoing provisions of the House and Senate bills, the Bicameral Conference Committee was mandated by the rules of both houses of Congress to act on the same by settling said differences and/or disagreements. The

Bicameral Conference Committee acted on the disagreeing provisions by making the following changes:

1. With regard to the disagreement on the rate of VAT to be imposed, it would appear from the Conference Committee Report that the Bicameral Conference Committee tried to bridge the gap in the difference between the 10% VAT rate proposed by the Senate, and the various rates with 12% as the highest VAT rate proposed by the House, by striking a compromise whereby the present 10% VAT rate would be retained until certain conditions arise, i.e., the value-added tax collection as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds 2 4/5%, or National Government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds 1%, when the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance shall raise the rate of VAT to 12% effective January 1, 2006.

2. With regard to the disagreement on whether only the VAT imposed on electricity generation, transmission and distribution companies should not be passed on to consumers or whether both the VAT imposed on electricity generation, transmission and distribution companies and the VAT imposed on sale of petroleum products may be passed on to consumers, the Bicameral Conference Committee chose to settle such disagreement by altogether deleting from its Report any no pass-on provision.

3. With regard to the disagreement on whether input tax credits should be limited or not, the Bicameral Conference Committee decided to adopt the position of the House by putting a limitation on the amount of input

tax that may be credited against the output tax, although it crafted its own language as to the amount of the limitation on input tax credits and the manner of computing the same by providing thus: (A) Creditable Input Tax. ' . . . ... Provided, The input tax on goods purchased or imported in a calendar month for use in trade or business for which deduction for depreciation is allowed under this Code, shall be spread evenly over the month of acquisition and the fifty-nine (59) succeeding months if the aggregate acquisition cost for such goods, excluding the VAT component thereof, exceeds one million Pesos (P1,000,000.00): PROVIDED, however, that if the estimated useful life of the capital good is less than five (5) years, as used for depreciation purposes, then the input VAT shall be spread over such shorter period: . . . (B) Excess Output or Input Tax. ' If at the end of any taxable quarter the output tax exceeds the input tax, the excess shall be paid by the VATregistered person. If the input tax exceeds the output tax, the excess shall be carried over to the succeeding quarter or quarters: PROVIDED that the input tax inclusive of input VAT carried over from the previous quarter that may be credited in every quarter shall not exceed seventy percent (70%) of the output VAT: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT any input tax attributable to zero-rated sales by a VAT-registered person may

at his option be refunded or credited against other internal revenue taxes, . . .

4. With regard to the amendments to other provisions of the NIRC on corporate income tax, franchise, percentage and excise taxes, the conference committee decided to include such amendments and basically adopted the provisions found in Senate Bill No. 1950, with some changes as to the rate of the tax to be imposed.

Under the provisions of both the Rules of the House of Representatives and Senate Rules, the Bicameral Conference Committee is mandated to settle the differences between the disagreeing provisions in the House bill and the Senate bill. The term settle is synonymous to 'reconcile and 'harmonize.[25] To reconcile or harmonize disagreeing provisions, the Bicameral Conference Committee may then (a) adopt the specific provisions of either the House bill or Senate bill, (b) decide that neither provisions in the House bill or the provisions in the Senate bill would be carried into the final form of the bill, and/or (c) try to arrive at a compromise between the disagreeing provisions.

In the present case, the changes introduced by the Bicameral Conference Committee on disagreeing provisions were meant only to reconcile and harmonize the disagreeing provisions for it did not inject any idea or intent that is wholly foreign to the subject embraced by the original provisions.

The so-called stand-by authority in favor of the President, whereby the rate of 10% VAT wanted by the Senate is retained until such time that certain conditions arise when the 12% VAT wanted by the House shall be imposed, appears to be a compromise to try to bridge the difference in the rate of VAT proposed by the two houses of Congress. Nevertheless, such compromise is still totally within the subject of what rate of VAT should be imposed on taxpayers.

The no pass-on provision was deleted altogether. In the transcripts of the proceedings of the Bicameral Conference Committee held on May 10,

2005, Sen. Ralph Recto, Chairman of the Senate Panel, explained the reason for deleting the no pass-on provision in this wise:

. . . the thinking was just to keep the VAT law or the VAT bill simple. And we were thinking that no sector should be a beneficiary of legislative grace, neither should any sector be discriminated on. The VAT is an indirect tax. It is a pass on-tax. And let's keep it plain and simple. Let's not confuse the bill and put a no pass-on provision. Twothirds of the world have a VAT system and in this two-thirds of the globe, I have yet to see a VAT with a no pass-though provision. So, the thinking of the Senate is basically simple, let's keep the VAT simple. [26] (Emphasis supplied) Rep. Teodoro Locsin further made the manifestation that the no pass-on provision 'never really enjoyed the support of either House.[27]

With regard to the amount of input tax to be credited against output tax, the Bicameral Conference Committee came to a compromise on the percentage rate of the limitation or cap on such input tax credit, but again, the change introduced by the Bicameral Conference Committee was totally within the intent of both houses' to 'put 'a cap on input tax that may be

credited against the output tax. From the inception of the subject revenue bill in the House of Representatives, one of the major objectives was to 'plug a glaring loophole in the tax policy and administration by creating vital restrictions on the claiming of input VAT tax credits . . . and '[b]y introducing limitations on the claiming of tax credit, we are capping a major leakage that has placed our collection efforts at an apparent disadvantage.[28]

As to the amendments to NIRC provisions on taxes other than the valueadded tax proposed in Senate Bill No. 1950, since said provisions were among those referred to it, the conference committee had to act on the same and it basically adopted the version of the Senate.

Thus, all the changes or modifications made by the Bicameral Conference Committee were germane to subjects of the provisions' referred

to it for reconciliation. Such being the case, the Court does not see any grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by the Bicameral Conference Committee. In the earlier cases of Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado[29] and Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance,[30] the Court recognized the long-standing legislative practice of giving said conference committee ample latitude for compromising differences' between the Senate and the House. Thus, in the Tolentino case, it was held that:

. . . it is within the power of a conference committee to include in its report an entirely new provision that is not found either in the House bill or in the Senate bill. If the committee can propose an amendment consisting of one or two provisions, there is no reason why it cannot propose several provisions, collectively considered as an 'amendment in the nature of a substitute, so long as such amendment is germane to the subject of the bills before the committee. After all, its report was not final but needed the approval of both houses of Congress to become valid as an act of the legislative department. The charge that in this case the Conference Committee acted as a third legislative chamber is thus without any basis.[31] (Emphasis supplied)

B. R.A. No. 9337 Does Not Violate Article VI, Section 26(2) of the Constitution on the 'NoAmendment Rule

Article VI, Sec. 26 (2) of the Constitution, states:

No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.

Petitioners' argument that the practice where a bicameral conference committee is allowed to add or delete provisions in the House bill and the Senate bill after these had passed three readings is in effect a circumvention of the 'no amendment rule (Sec. 26 (2), Art. VI of the

1987 Constitution), fails to convince the Court to deviate from its ruling in the Tolentino case that:

Nor is there any reason for requiring that the Committee's Report in these cases must have undergone three readings in each of the two houses. If that be the case, there would be no end to negotiation since each house may seek modification of the compromise bill. . . . Art. VI. ' 26 (2) must, therefore, be construed as referring only to bills introduced for the first time in either house of Congress, not to the conference committee report.[32] (Emphasis supplied)

The Court reiterates here that the no-amendment rule refers only to the procedure to be followed by each house of Congress with regard to bills initiated in each of said respective houses, before said bill is transmitted to the other house for its concurrence or amendment. Verily, to construe said provision in a way as to proscribe any further changes to a bill after one house has voted on it would lead to absurdity as this would mean that the other house of Congress would be deprived

of its constitutional power to amend or introduce changes to said bill. Thus, Art. VI, Sec. 26 (2) of the Constitution cannot be taken to mean that the introduction by the Bicameral Conference Committee of amendments and modifications to disagreeing provisions in bills that have been acted upon by both houses of Congress is prohibited.

C. R.A. No. 9337 Does Not Violate Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution on Exclusive Origination of Revenue Bills

Coming to the issue of the validity of the amendments made regarding the NIRC provisions on corporate income taxes and percentage, excise taxes. Petitioners refer to the following provisions, to wit:

Section 27 28(A)(1)

Rates of Income Tax on Domestic Corporation Tax on Corporation Resident Foreign

28(B)(1) 34(B)(1) 116 117 119 121 148 151 236 237 288

Inter-corporate Dividends Inter-corporate Dividends Tax on Persons Exempt from VAT Percentage Tax on domestic carriers and keepers of Garage Tax on franchises Tax on banks and Non-Bank Financial Intermediaries Excise Tax on manufactured oils and other fuels Excise Tax on mineral products Registration requirements Issuance of receipts or sales or commercial invoices Disposition Revenue of Incremental

Petitioners claim that the amendments to these provisions of the NIRC did not at all originate from the House. They aver that House Bill No. 3555 proposed amendments only regarding Sections 106, 107, 108, 110 and 114 of the NIRC, while House Bill No. 3705 proposed amendments only to Sections 106, 107,108, 109, 110 and 111 of the NIRC; thus, the other sections of the NIRC which the Senate amended but which

amendments were not found in the House bills are not intended to be amended by the House of Representatives. Hence, they argue that since the proposed amendments did not originate from the House, such amendments are a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution.

The argument does not hold water.

Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution reads:

Sec. 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

In the present cases, petitioners admit that it was indeed House Bill Nos. 3555 and 3705 that initiated the move for amending provisions of the NIRC dealing mainly with the value-added tax. Upon transmittal of said

House bills to the Senate, the Senate came out with Senate Bill No. 1950 proposing amendments not only to NIRC provisions on the value-added tax but also amendments to NIRC provisions on other kinds of taxes. Is the introduction by the Senate of provisions not dealing directly with the value- added tax, which is the only kind of tax being amended in the House bills, still within the purview of the constitutional provision authorizing the Senate to propose or concur with amendments to a revenue bill that originated from the House?

The foregoing question had been squarely answered in the Tolentino case, wherein the Court held, thus:

. . . To begin with, it is not the law ' but the revenue bill ' which is required by the Constitution to 'originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. It is important to emphasize this, because a bill originating in the House may undergo such extensive changes in the Senate that the result may be a rewriting of the whole. . . . At this point, what is important to note is that, as a result of the Senate action, a distinct bill may be produced. To insist that a revenue statute ' and not only the bill which initiated the legislative process culminating in the enactment of the law must substantially be the

same as the House bill would be to deny the Senate's power not only to 'concur with amendments but also to 'propose amendments. It would be to violate the coequality of legislative power of the two houses of Congress and in fact make the House superior to the Senate. Given, then, the power of the Senate to propose amendments, the Senate can propose its own version even with respect to bills which are required by the Constitution to originate in the House. ... Indeed, what the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of local application must come from the House of Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the districts, the members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. On the other hand, the senators, who are elected at large, are expected to approach the same problems from the national perspective. Both views are thereby made to bear on the enactment of such laws.[33] (Emphasis supplied)

Since there is no question that the revenue bill exclusively originated in the House of Representatives, the Senate was acting within its

constitutional power to introduce amendments to the House bill when it included provisions in Senate Bill No. 1950 amending corporate income taxes, percentage, excise and franchise taxes. Verily, Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution does not contain any prohibition or limitation on the extent of the amendments that may be introduced by the Senate to the House revenue bill.

Furthermore, the amendments introduced by the Senate to the NIRC provisions that had not been touched in the House bills are still in furtherance of the intent of the House in initiating the subject revenue bills. The Explanatory Note of House Bill No. 1468, the very first House bill introduced on the floor, which was later substituted by House Bill No. 3555, stated:

One of the challenges faced by the present administration is the urgent and daunting task of solving the country's serious financial problems. To do this, government expenditures must be strictly monitored and controlled and revenues must be significantly increased. This may be easier said than done, but our fiscal authorities are still optimistic the government

will be operating on a balanced budget by the year 2009. In fact, several measures that will result to significant expenditure savings have been identified by the administration. It is supported with a credible package of revenue measures that include measures to improve tax administration and control the leakages in revenues from income taxes and the value-added tax (VAT). (Emphasis supplied)

Rep. Eric D. Singson, in his sponsorship speech for House Bill No. 3555, declared that:

In the budget message of our President in the year 2005, she reiterated that we all acknowledged that on top of our agenda must be the restoration of the health of our fiscal system. In order to considerably lower the consolidated public sector deficit and eventually achieve a balanced budget by the year 2009, we need to seize windows of opportunities which might seem poignant in the beginning, but in the long run prove effective and beneficial to the overall status of our economy. One such opportunity is a review of existing tax rates, evaluating the relevance given our present conditions.[34] (Emphasis supplied)

Notably therefore, the main purpose of the bills emanating from the House of Representatives is to bring in sizeable revenues for the government to supplement our country's serious financial problems, and improve tax administration and control of the leakages in revenues from income taxes and value-added taxes. As these house bills were transmitted to the Senate, the latter, approaching the measures from the point of national perspective, can introduce amendments within the purposes of those bills. It can provide for ways that would soften the impact of the VAT measure on the consumer, i.e., by distributing the burden across all sectors instead of putting it entirely on the shoulders of the consumers. The sponsorship speech of Sen. Ralph Recto on why the provisions on income tax on corporation were included is worth quoting:

All in all, the proposal of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means will raise P64.3 billion in additional revenues annually even while by mitigating prices of power, services and petroleum products.

However, not all of this will be wrung out of VAT. In fact, only P48.7 billion amount is from the VAT on twelve goods and services. The rest of the tab ' P10.5 billion- will be picked by corporations. What we therefore prescribe is a burden sharing between corporate Philippines and the consumer. Why should the latter bear all the pain? Why should the fiscal salvation be only on the burden of the consumer? The corporate world's equity is in form of the increase in the corporate income tax from 32 to 35 percent, but up to 2008 only. This will raise P10.5 billion a year. After that, the rate will slide back, not to its old rate of 32 percent, but two notches lower, to 30 percent. Clearly, we are telling those with the capacity to pay, corporations, to bear with this emergency provision that will be in effect for 1,200 days, while we put our fiscal house in order. This fiscal medicine will have an expiry date. For their assistance, a reward of tax reduction awaits them. We intend to keep the length of their sacrifice brief. We would like to assure them that not because there is a light at the end of the tunnel, this government will keep on making the tunnel long. The responsibility will not rest solely on the weary shoulders of the small man. Big business will be there to share the burden.[35]

As the Court has said, the Senate can propose amendments and in fact, the amendments made on provisions in the tax on income of corporations are germane to the purpose of the house bills which is to raise revenues for the government.

Likewise, the Court finds the sections referring to other percentage and excise taxes germane to the reforms to the VAT system, as these sections would cushion the effects of VAT on consumers. Considering that certain goods and services which were subject to percentage tax and excise tax would no longer be VAT-exempt, the consumer would be burdened more as they would be paying the VAT in addition to these taxes. Thus, there is a need to amend these sections to soften the impact of VAT. Again, in his sponsorship speech, Sen. Recto said:

However, for power plants that run on oil, we will reduce to zero the present excise tax on bunker fuel, to lessen the effect of a VAT on this product.

For electric utilities like Meralco, we will wipe out the franchise tax in exchange for a VAT. And in the case of petroleum, while we will levy the VAT on oil products, so as not to destroy the VAT chain, we will however bring down the excise tax on socially sensitive products such as diesel, bunker, fuel and kerosene. ... What do all these exercises point to? These are not contortions of giving to the left hand what was taken from the right. Rather, these sprang from our concern of softening the impact of VAT, so that the people can cushion the blow of higher prices they will have to pay as a result of VAT.[36]

The other sections amended by the Senate pertained to matters of tax administration which are necessary for the implementation of the changes in the VAT system.

To reiterate, the sections introduced by the Senate are germane to the subject matter and purposes of the house bills, which is to supplement our country's fiscal deficit, among others. Thus, the Senate acted within its power to propose those amendments.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES I. Whether Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108 of the NIRC, violate the following provisions of the Constitution:

a. Article VI, Section 28(1), and b. Article VI, Section 28(2) A. No Undue Delegation of Legislative Power

Petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., Pimentel, Jr., et al., and Escudero, et al. contend in common that Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the NIRC giving the President the stand-by authority to raise the VAT rate from 10% to 12% when a certain condition is met, constitutes undue delegation of the legislative power to tax.

The assailed provisions read as follows:

SEC. 4. Sec. 106 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: SEC. 106. Value-Added Tax on Sale of Goods or Properties. ' (A) Rate and Base of Tax. ' There shall be levied, assessed and collected on every sale, barter or exchange of goods or properties, a value-added tax equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the gross selling price or gross value in money of the goods or properties sold, bartered or exchanged, such tax to be paid by the seller or transferor: provided, that the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate of value-added tax to twelve percent (12%), after any of the following conditions has been satisfied. (i) value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%) or

(ii) national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1 '%). SEC. 5. Section 107 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

SEC. 107. Value-Added Tax on Importation of Goods. ' (A) In General. ' There shall be levied, assessed and collected on every importation of goods a value-added tax equivalent to ten percent (10%) based on the total value used by the Bureau of Customs in determining tariff and customs duties, plus customs duties, excise taxes, if any, and other charges, such tax to be paid by the importer prior to the release of such goods from customs custody: Provided, That where the customs duties are determined on the basis of the quantity or volume of the goods, the value-added tax shall be based on the landed cost plus excise taxes, if any: provided, further, that the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate of value-added tax to twelve percent (12%) after any of the following conditions has been satisfied. (i) value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%) or (ii) national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1 '%). SEC. 6. Section 108 of the same Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

SEC. 108. Value-added Tax on Sale of Services and Use or Lease of Properties ' (A) Rate and Base of Tax. ' There shall be levied, assessed and collected, a value-added tax equivalent to ten percent (10%) of gross receipts derived from the sale or exchange of services: provided, that the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate of value-added tax to twelve percent (12%), after any of the following conditions has been satisfied. (i) value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%) or (ii) national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1 '%). (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioners allege that the grant of the stand-by authority to the President to increase the VAT rate is a virtual abdication by Congress of its exclusive power to tax because such delegation is not within the purview of Section 28 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, which provides:

The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the government.

They argue that the VAT is a tax levied on the sale, barter or exchange of goods and properties as well as on the sale or exchange of services, which cannot be included within the purview of tariffs under the exempted delegation as the latter refers to customs duties, tolls or tribute payable upon merchandise to the government and usually imposed on goods or merchandise imported or exported.

Petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., further contend that delegating to the President the legislative power to tax is contrary to republicanism. They insist that accountability, responsibility and transparency should dictate the actions of Congress and they should not pass to the President the decision to impose taxes. They also argue that the law also effectively nullified the President's power of control, which

includes the authority to set aside and nullify the acts of her subordinates like the Secretary of Finance, by mandating the fixing of the tax rate by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance.

Petitioners Pimentel, et al. aver that the President has ample powers to cause, influence or create the conditions provided by the law to bring about either or both the conditions precedent.

On the other hand, petitioners Escudero, et al. find bizarre and revolting the situation that the imposition of the 12% rate would be subject to the whim of the Secretary of Finance, an unelected bureaucrat, contrary to the principle of no taxation without representation. They submit that the Secretary of Finance is not mandated to give a favorable

recommendation and he may not even give his recommendation. Moreover, they allege that no guiding standards are provided in the law on what basis and as to how he will make his recommendation. They claim, nonetheless, that any recommendation of the Secretary of Finance

can easily be brushed aside by the President since the former is a mere alter ego of the latter, such that, ultimately, it is the President who decides whether to impose the increased tax rate or not.

A brief discourse on the principle of non-delegation of powers is instructive.

The principle of separation of powers ordains that each of the three great branches of government has exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters' falling within its' own constitutionally allocated sphere.[37] A logical corollary to the doctrine of separation of powers is the principle of nondelegation of powers, as expressed in the Latin maxim: potestas delegata non delegari potest which means 'what has been delegated, cannot be delegated.[38] This doctrine is based on the ethical principle that such as delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be

performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another.[39]

With respect to the Legislature, Section 1 of Article VI of the Constitution provides that 'the Legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The powers which Congress is prohibited from delegating are those which are strictly, or inherently and exclusively, legislative. Purely legislative power, which can never be delegated, has been described as the authority to make a complete law ' complete as to the time when it shall take effect and as to whom it shall be applicable ' and to determine the expediency of its enactment.[40] Thus, the rule is that in order that a court may be justified in holding a statute unconstitutional as a delegation of legislative power, it must appear that the power involved is purely legislative in nature ' that is, one appertaining exclusively to the legislative department. It is the

nature of the power, and not the liability of its use or the manner of its exercise, which determines the validity of its delegation.

Nonetheless, the general rule barring delegation of legislative powers is subject to the following recognized limitations or exceptions:

(1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Section 28 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution; (2) Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Section 23 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution; (3) Delegation to the people at large; (4) Delegation to local governments; and (5) Delegation to administrative bodies.

In every case of permissible delegation, there must be a showing that the delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate;[41] and (b) fixes a standard ' the limits of

which are sufficiently determinate and determinable ' to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.[42] A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected.[43] Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative.[44]

In People vs. Vera,[45] the Court, through eminent Justice Jose P. Laurel, expounded on the concept and extent of delegation of power in this wise:

In testing whether a statute constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power or not, it is usual to inquire whether the statute was complete in all its terms and provisions when it left the hands of the legislature so that nothing was left to the

judgment of any other appointee or delegate of the legislature. ... The true distinction', says Judge Ranney, 'is between the delegation of power to make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made. ... It is contended, however, that a legislative act may be made to the effect as law after it leaves the hands of the legislature. It is true that laws may be made effective on certain contingencies, as by proclamation of the executive or the adoption by the people of a particular community. In Wayman vs. Southard, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the legislature may delegate a power not legislative which it may itself rightfully exercise. The power to ascertain facts is such a power which may be delegated. There is nothing essentially legislative in ascertaining the existence of facts or conditions as the basis of the taking into effect of a law. That is a mental process common to all branches of the government. Notwithstanding the apparent tendency, however, to relax the rule prohibiting delegation of legislative authority on account of the complexity arising from social and economic forces at work in this modern industrial age, the orthodox pronouncement of Judge Cooley in his work on Constitutional Limitations finds restatement in Prof. Willoughby's treatise on the Constitution of the United States in the following language ' speaking of

declaration of legislative power to administrative agencies: The principle which permits the legislature to provide that the administrative agent may determine when the circumstances are such as require the application of a law is defended upon the ground that at the time this authority is granted, the rule of public policy, which is the essence of the legislative act, is determined by the legislature. In other words, the legislature, as it is its duty to do, determines that, under given circumstances, certain executive or administrative action is to be taken, and that, under other circumstances, different or no action at all is to be taken. What is thus left to the administrative official is not the legislative determination of what public policy demands, but simply the ascertainment of what the facts of the case require to be done according to the terms of the law by which he is governed. The efficiency of an Act as a declaration of legislative will must, of course, come from Congress, but the ascertainment of the contingency upon which the Act shall take effect may be left to such agencies as it may designate. The legislature, then, may provide that a law shall take effect upon the happening of future specified contingencies leaving to some other person or body the power to determine when the specified contingency has arisen. (Emphasis supplied).[46]

In Edu vs. Ericta,[47] the Court reiterated:

What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them; the

test is the completeness of the statute in all its terms and provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. To determine whether or not there is an undue delegation of legislative power, the inquiry must be directed to the scope and definiteness of the measure enacted. The legislative does not abdicate its functions when it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his authority. For a complex economy, that may be the only way in which the legislative process can go forward. A distinction has rightfully been made between delegation of power to make the laws which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, which constitutionally may not be done, and delegation of authority or discretion as to its execution to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law, to which no valid objection can be made. 'The Constitution is thus not to be regarded as denying the legislature the necessary resources of flexibility and practicability. (Emphasis supplied).[48]

Clearly, the legislature may delegate to executive officers or bodies the power to determine certain facts or conditions, or the happening of contingencies, on which the operation of a statute is, by its terms, made to depend, but the legislature must prescribe sufficient standards, policies or limitations on their authority.[49] While the power to tax cannot be delegated to executive agencies, details as to the enforcement

and administration of an exercise of such power may be left to them, including the power to determine the existence of facts on which its operation depends.[50]

The rationale for this is that the preliminary ascertainment of facts as basis for the enactment of legislation is not of itself a legislative function, but is simply ancillary to legislation. Thus, the duty of correlating information and making recommendations is the kind of subsidiary activity which the legislature may perform through its members, or which it may delegate to others to perform. Intelligent legislation on the complicated problems of modern society is impossible in the absence of accurate information on the part of the legislators, and any reasonable method of securing such information is proper.[51] The Constitution as a continuously operative charter of government does not require that Congress find for itself every fact upon which it desires to base legislative action or that it make for itself detailed determinations which it has declared to be prerequisite

to application of legislative policy to particular facts and circumstances impossible for Congress itself properly to investigate.[52]

In the present case, the challenged section of R.A. No. 9337 is the common proviso in Sections 4, 5 and 6 which reads as follows:

That the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate of value-added tax to twelve percent (12%), after any of the following conditions has been satisfied: (i) Value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%); or (ii) National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and onehalf percent (1 '%).

The case before the Court is not a delegation of legislative power. It is simply a delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement and administration of the increase rate under the law is contingent. The legislature has made the operation of the 12% rate effective January 1,

2006, contingent upon a specified fact or condition. It leaves the entire operation or non-operation of the 12% rate upon factual matters outside of the control of the executive.

No discretion would be exercised by the President. Highlighting the absence of discretion is the fact that the word shall is used in the common proviso. The use of the word shall connotes a mandatory order. Its use in a statute denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion.[53] 'Where the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says, and courts have no choice but to see to it that the mandate is obeyed.[54]

Thus, it is the ministerial duty of the President to immediately impose the 12% rate upon the existence of any of the conditions specified by Congress. This is a duty which cannot be evaded by the President. Inasmuch as the law specifically uses the word shall, the exercise of discretion by the President does not come into play. It is a clear directive to impose the 12% VAT rate when the specified conditions are present.

The time of taking into effect of the 12% VAT rate is based on the happening of a certain specified contingency, or upon the ascertainment of certain facts or conditions by a person or body other than the legislature itself.

The Court finds no merit to the contention of petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al. that the law effectively nullified the President's power of control over the Secretary of Finance by mandating the fixing of the tax rate by the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance. The Court cannot also subscribe to the position of petitioners Pimentel, et al. that the word shall should be interpreted to mean may in view of the phrase upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance. Neither does the Court find persuasive the submission of petitioners Escudero, et al. that any recommendation by the Secretary of Finance can easily be brushed aside by the President since the former is a mere alter ego of the latter.

When one speaks of the Secretary of Finance as the alter ego of the President, it simply means that as head of the Department of Finance he is the assistant and agent of the Chief Executive. The multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such departments, such as the Department of Finance, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. The Secretary of Finance, as such, occupies a political position and holds office in an advisory capacity, and, in the language of Thomas Jefferson, "should be of the President's bosom confidence" and, in the language of Attorney-General Cushing, is 'subject to the direction of the President."[55]

In the present case, in making his recommendation to the President on the existence of either of the two conditions, the Secretary of Finance is not acting as the alter ego of the President or even her subordinate. In such instance, he is not subject to the power of control and direction of the President.He is acting as the agent of the legislative department, to determine and declare the event upon which its expressed will is to take effect.[56] The Secretary of Finance becomes the means or tool by which legislative policy is determined and implemented, considering that he possesses all the facilities to gather data and information and has a much broader perspective to properly evaluate them. His function is to gather and collate statistical data and other pertinent information and verify if any of the two conditions laid out by Congress is present. His personality in such instance is in reality but a projection of that of Congress. Thus, being the agent of Congress and not of the President, the President cannot alter or modify or nullify, or set aside the findings of the Secretary of Finance and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.

Congress simply granted the Secretary of Finance the authority to ascertain the existence of a fact, namely, whether by December 31, 2005, the value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (24/5%) or the national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1%). If either of these two instances has occurred, the Secretary of Finance, by legislative mandate, must submit such information to the President. Then the 12% VAT rate must be imposed by the President effective January 1, 2006. There is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution of a law. This is constitutionally permissible.[57] Congress does not abdicate its functions or unduly delegate power when it describes what job must be done, who must do it, and what is the scope of his authority; in our complex economy that is frequently the only way in which the legislative process can go forward. [58]

As to the argument of petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al. that delegating to the President the legislative power to tax is contrary to the principle of republicanism, the same deserves scant consideration. Congress did not delegate the power to tax but the mere implementation of the law. The intent and will to increase the VAT rate to 12% came from Congress and the task of the President is to simply execute the legislative policy. That Congress chose to do so in such a manner is not within the province of the Court to inquire into, its task being to interpret the law.[59]

The insinuation by petitioners Pimentel, et al. that the President has ample powers to cause, influence or create the conditions to bring about either or both the conditions precedent does not deserve any merit as this argument is highly speculative. The Court does not rule on allegations which are manifestly conjectural, as these may not exist at all.The Court deals with facts, not fancies; on realities, not appearances. When the

Court acts on appearances instead of realities, justice and law will be short-lived.

B. The 12% Increase VAT Rate Does Not Impose an Unfair and Unnecessary Additional Tax Burden

Petitioners Pimentel, et al. argue that the 12% increase in the VAT rate imposes an unfair and additional tax burden on the people. Petitioners also argue that the 12% increase, dependent on any of the 2 conditions set forth in the contested provisions, is ambiguous because it does not state if the VAT rate would be returned to the original 10% if the rates are no longer satisfied. Petitioners also argue that such rate is unfair and unreasonable, as the people are unsure of the applicable VAT rate from year to year.

Under the common provisos of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, if any of the two conditions set forth therein are satisfied, the President shall increase the VAT rate to 12%. The provisions of the law are clear. It does not provide for a return to the 10% rate nor does it empower the President to so revert if, after the rate is increased to 12%, the VAT

collection goes below the 24/5 of the GDP of the previous year or that the national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year does not exceed 1%.

Therefore, no statutory construction or interpretation is needed. Neither can conditions or limitations be introduced where none is provided for. Rewriting the law is a forbidden ground that only Congress may tread upon.[60]

Thus, in the absence of any provision providing for a return to the 10% rate, which in this case the Court finds none, petitioners' argument is, at best, purely speculative. There is no basis for petitioners' fear of a fluctuating VAT rate because the law itself does not provide that the rate should go back to 10% if the conditions provided in Sections 4, 5 and 6 are no longer present. The rule is that where the provision of the law is clear and unambiguous, so that there is no occasion for the court's

seeking the legislative intent, the law must be taken as it is, devoid of judicial addition or subtraction.[61]

Petitioners also contend that the increase in the VAT rate, which was allegedly an incentive to the President to raise the VAT collection to at least 2 4/5 of the GDP of the previous year, should be based on fiscal adequacy.

Petitioners obviously overlooked that increase in VAT collection is not the only condition. There is another condition, i.e., the national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1 '%).

Respondents explained the philosophy behind these alternative conditions:

1.

VAT/GDP Ratio > 2.8%

The condition set for increasing VAT rate to 12% have economic or fiscal meaning. If VAT/GDP is less than 2.8%, it means that government has weak or no capability of implementing the VAT or that VAT is not effective in the function of the tax collection. 'Therefore, there is no value to increase it to 12% because such action will also be ineffectual. 2. Natl Govt Deficit/GDP >1.5%

The condition set for increasing VAT when deficit/GDP is 1.5% or less means the fiscal condition of government has reached a relatively sound position or is towards the direction of a balanced budget position. Therefore, there is no need to increase the VAT rate since the fiscal house is in a relatively healthy position. Otherwise stated, if the ratio is more than 1.5%, there is indeed a need to increase the VAT rate.[62]

That the first condition amounts to an incentive to the President to increase the VAT collection does not render it unconstitutional so long as there is a public purpose for which the law was passed, which in this case, is mainly to raise revenue. In fact, fiscal adequacy dictated the need for a raise in revenue.

The principle of fiscal adequacy as a characteristic of a sound tax system was originally stated by Adam Smith in his Canons of Taxation (1776), as: IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state.[63]

It simply means that sources of revenues must be adequate to meet government expenditures and their variations.[64]

The dire need for revenue cannot be ignored. Our country is in a quagmire of financial woe. During the Bicameral Conference Committee hearing, then Finance Secretary Purisima bluntly depicted the country's gloomy state of economic affairs, thus:

First, let me explain the position that the Philippines finds itself in right now. We are in a position where 90 percent of our revenue is used for debt service. So, for every peso of revenue that we currently raise, 90 goes to debt service. That's interest plus amortization of our debt. So clearly, this is not a sustainable situation. That's the first fact. The second fact is that our debt to GDP level is way out of line compared to other peer countries that borrow money from that international financial markets. Our debt to GDP is approximately equal to our GDP. Again, that shows you that this is not a sustainable situation. The third thing that Id like to point out is the environment that we are presently operating in is not as benign as what it used to be the past five years. What do I mean by that? In the past five years, weve been lucky because we were operating in a period of basically global growth and low interest rates. The past few months, we have seen an inching up, in fact, a rapid increase in the interest rates in the leading economies of the world. And, therefore, our ability to borrow at reasonable prices is going to be challenged. In fact, ultimately, the question is our ability to access the financial markets. When the President made her speech in July last year, the environment was not as bad as it is now, at least based on the forecast of most financial institutions. So, we were assuming that raising 80 billion would put us in a position where we can then convince them to improve our ability to borrow at lower rates. But conditions have changed on us because the interest rates have gone up. 'In fact, just within this room, we

tried to access the market for a billion dollars because for this year alone, the Philippines will have to borrow 4 billion dollars. Of that amount, we have borrowed 1.5 billion. We issued last January a 25-year bond at 9.7 percent cost. We were trying to access last week and the market was not as favorable and up to now we have not accessed and we might pull back because the conditions are not very good. So given this situation, we at the Department of Finance believe that we really need to front-end our deficit reduction. Because it is deficit that is causing the increase of the debt and we are in what we call a debt spiral. The more debt you have, the more deficit you have because interest and debt service eats and eats more of your revenue. We need to get out of this debt spiral. And the only way, I think, we can get out of this debt spiral is really have a front-end adjustment in our revenue base.[65]

The image portrayed is chilling. Congress passed the law hoping for rescue from an inevitable catastrophe. Whether the law is indeed sufficient to answer the state's economic dilemma is not for the Court to judge. In the Farias case, the Court refused to consider the various arguments raised therein that dwelt on the wisdom of Section 14 of R.A. No. 9006 (The Fair Election Act), pronouncing that:

. . . policy matters are not the concern of the Court. Government policy is within the exclusive dominion of the political branches of the government. It is not for this Court to look into the wisdom or propriety of legislative determination. Indeed, whether an enactment is wise or unwise, whether it is based on sound economic theory, whether it is the best means to achieve the desired results, whether, in short, the legislative discretion within its prescribed limits should be exercised in a particular manner are matters for the judgment of the legislature, and the serious conflict of opinions does not suffice to bring them within the range of judicial cognizance.[66]

In the same vein, the Court in this case will not dawdle on the purpose of Congress or the executive policy, given that it is not for the judiciary to "pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation. [67]

II. Whether Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 110(A)(2) and 110(B) of the NIRC; and Section 12 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Section 114(C) of the NIRC, violate the following provisions of the Constitution:

a. Article VI, Section 28(1), and b. Article III, Section 1

A. Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses

Petitioners Association of Pilipinas Shell Dealers, Inc., et al. argue that Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 110 (A)(2), 110 (B), and Section 12 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Section 114 (C) of the NIRC are arbitrary, oppressive, excessive and confiscatory. Their argument is premised on the constitutional right against deprivation of life, liberty of property without due process of law, as embodied in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Petitioners also contend that these provisions violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.

The doctrine is that where the due process and equal protection clauses are invoked, considering that they are not fixed rules but rather broad standards, there is a need for proof of such persuasive character as would lead to such a conclusion. Absent such a showing, the presumption of validity must prevail.[68]

Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Section 110(B) of the NIRC imposes a limitation on the amount of input tax that may be credited against the output tax. It states, in part: '[P]rovided, that the input tax inclusive of the input VAT carried over from the previous quarter that may be credited in every quarter shall not exceed seventy percent (70%) of the output VAT:

Input Tax is defined under Section 110(A) of the NIRC, as amended, as the value-added tax due from or paid by a VAT-registered person on the importation of goods or local purchase of good and services, including lease or use of property, in the course of trade or business, from a VAT-

registered person, and Output Tax is the value-added tax due on the sale or lease of taxable goods or properties or services by any person registered or required to register under the law.

Petitioners claim that the contested sections impose limitations on the amount of input tax that may be claimed. In effect, a portion of the input tax that has already been paid cannot now be credited against the output tax.

Petitioners' argument is not absolute. It assumes that the input tax exceeds 70% of the output tax, and therefore, the input tax in excess of 70% remains uncredited. However, to the extent that the input tax is less than 70% of the output tax, then 100% of such input tax is still creditable.

More importantly, the excess input tax, if any, is retained in a business's books of accounts and remains creditable in the succeeding quarter/s. This is explicitly allowed by Section 110(B), which provides that 'if the input tax exceeds the output tax, the excess shall be carried over to the succeeding quarter or quarters. In addition, Section 112(B) allows a VAT-registered person to apply for the issuance of a tax credit certificate or refund for any unused input taxes, to the extent that such input taxes have not been applied against the output taxes. Such unused input tax may be used in payment of his other internal revenue taxes.

The non-application of the unutilized input tax in a given quarter is not ad infinitum, as petitioners exaggeratedly contend. Their analysis of the effect of the 70% limitation is incomplete and one-sided. It ends at the net effect that there will be unapplied/unutilized inputs VAT for a given quarter. It does not proceed further to the fact that such unapplied/unutilized input tax may be credited in the subsequent periods as allowed by the carry-over provision of Section 110(B) or that it may

later on be refunded through a tax credit certificate under Section 112(B).

Therefore, petitioners' argument must be rejected.

On the other hand, it appears that petitioner Garcia failed to comprehend the operation of the 70% limitation on the input tax. According to petitioner, the limitation on the creditable input tax in effect allows VAT-registered establishments to retain a portion of the taxes they collect, which violates the principle that tax collection and revenue should be for public purposes and expenditures

As earlier stated, the input tax is the tax paid by a person, passed on to him by the seller, when he buys goods. Output tax meanwhile is the tax due to the person when he sells goods. In computing the VAT payable, three possible scenarios may arise:

First, if at the end of a taxable quarter the output taxes charged by the seller are equal to the input taxes that he paid and passed on by the suppliers, then no payment is required;

Second, when the output taxes exceed the input taxes, the person shall be liable for the excess, which has to be paid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR);[69] and

Third, if the input taxes exceed the output taxes, the excess shall be carried over to the succeeding quarter or quarters. Should the input taxes result from zero-rated or effectively zero-rated transactions, any excess over the output taxes shall instead be refunded to the taxpayer or credited against other internal revenue taxes, at the taxpayer's option. [70]

Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337 however, imposed a 70% limitation on the input tax. Thus, a person can credit his input tax only up to the extent of 70% of the output tax. In layman's term, the value-added taxes that a person/taxpayer paid and passed on to him by a seller can only be credited up to 70% of the value-added taxes that is due to him on a taxable transaction. There is no retention of any tax collection because the person/taxpayer has already previously paid the input tax to a seller, and the seller will subsequently remit such input tax to the BIR. The party directly liable for the payment of the tax is the seller.[71] What only needs to be done is for the person/taxpayer to apply or credit these input taxes, as evidenced by receipts, against his output taxes.

Petitioners Association of Pilipinas Shell Dealers, Inc., et al. also argue that the input tax partakes the nature of a property that may not be confiscated, appropriated, or limited without due process of law.

The input tax is not a property or a property right within the constitutional purview of the due process clause. A VAT-registered person's entitlement to the creditable input tax is a mere statutory privilege.

The distinction between statutory privileges and vested rights must be borne in mind for persons have no vested rights in statutory privileges. The state may change or take away rights, which were created by the law of the state, although it may not take away property, which was vested by virtue of such rights.[72]

Under the previous system of single-stage taxation, taxes paid at every level of distribution are not recoverable from the taxes payable, although it becomes part of the cost, which is deductible from the gross revenue. When Pres. Aquino issued E.O. No. 273 imposing a 10% multi-stage tax on all sales, it was then that the crediting of the input tax paid on purchase or importation of goods and services by VAT-registered

persons against the output tax was introduced.[73] This was adopted by the Expanded VAT Law (R.A. No. 7716),[74] and The Tax Reform Act of 1997 (R.A. No. 8424).[75] The right to credit input tax as against the output tax is clearly a privilege created by law, a privilege that also the law can remove, or in this case, limit.

Petitioners also contest as arbitrary, oppressive, excessive and confiscatory, Section 8 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Section 110(A) of the NIRC, which provides:

SEC. 110. Tax Credits. ' (A) Creditable Input Tax. ' Provided, That the input tax on goods purchased or imported in a calendar month for use in trade or business for which deduction for depreciation is allowed under this Code, shall be spread evenly over the month of acquisition and the fiftynine (59) succeeding months if the aggregate acquisition cost for such goods, excluding the VAT component thereof, exceeds One million pesos (P1,000,000.00): Provided, however, That if the estimated useful life of the capital goods is less than five (5) years, as used for depreciation purposes,

then the input VAT shall be spread over such a shorter period: Provided, finally, That in the case of purchase of services, lease or use of properties, the input tax shall be creditable to the purchaser, lessee or license upon payment of the compensation, rental, royalty or fee.

The foregoing section imposes a 60-month period within which to amortize the creditable input tax on purchase or importation of capital goods with acquisition cost of P1 Million pesos, exclusive of the VAT component. Such spread out only poses a delay in the crediting of the input tax. Petitioners' argument is without basis because the taxpayer is not permanently deprived of his privilege to credit the input tax.

It is worth mentioning that Congress admitted that the spread-out of the creditable input tax in this case amounts to a 4-year interest-free loan to the government.[76] In the same breath, Congress also justified its move by saying that the provision was designed to raise an annual revenue of 22.6 billion.[77] The legislature also dispelled the fear that the provision will fend off foreign investments, saying that foreign

investors have other tax incentives provided by law, and citing the case of China, where despite a 17.5% non-creditable VAT, foreign investments were not deterred.[78] Again, for whatever is the purpose of the 60-month amortization, this involves executive economic policy and legislative wisdom in which the Court cannot intervene.

With regard to the 5% creditable withholding tax imposed on payments made by the government for taxable transactions, Section 12 of R.A. No. 9337, which amended Section 114 of the NIRC, reads:

SEC. 114. Return and Payment of Value-added Tax. ' (C) Withholding of Value-added Tax. ' The Government or any of its political subdivisions, instrumentalities or agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) shall, before making payment on account of each purchase of goods and services which are subject to the value-added tax imposed in Sections 106 and 108 of this Code, deduct and withhold a final value-added tax at the rate of five percent (5%) of the gross payment thereof: Provided, That the payment for lease or use of properties or property rights to nonresident owners shall be subject to ten percent (10%) withholding tax at the time of payment. For purposes

of this Section, the payor or person in control of the payment shall be considered as the withholding agent. The value-added tax withheld under this Section shall be remitted within ten (10) days following the end of the month the withholding was made.

Section 114(C) merely provides a method of collection, or as stated by respondents, a more simplified VAT withholding system. The government in this case is constituted as a withholding agent with respect to their payments for goods and services.

Prior to its amendment, Section 114(C) provided for different rates of value-added taxes to be withheld -- 3% on gross payments for purchases of goods; 6% on gross payments for services supplied by contractors other than by public works contractors; 8.5% on gross payments for services supplied by public work contractors; or 10% on payment for the lease or use of properties or property rights to nonresident owners. Under the present Section 114(C), these different rates, except for the

10% on lease or property rights payment to nonresidents, were deleted, and a uniform rate of 5% is applied.

The Court observes, however, that the law the used the word final. In tax usage, final, as opposed to creditable, means full. Thus, it is provided in Section 114(C): final value-added tax at the rate of five percent (5%).

In Revenue Regulations No. 02-98, implementing R.A. No. 8424 (The Tax Reform Act of 1997), the concept of final withholding tax on income was explained, to wit:

SECTION 2.57. Withholding of Tax at Source (A) Final Withholding Tax. ' Under the final withholding tax system the amount of income tax withheld by the withholding agent is constituted as full and final payment of the income tax due from the payee on the said income. The liability for payment of the tax rests primarily on the payor as a withholding agent. Thus, in case of his failure to withhold the tax or in case of underwithholding, the deficiency tax shall be collected from the payor/withholding agent. '

(B) Creditable Withholding Tax. ' Under the creditable withholding tax system, taxes withheld on certain income payments are intended to equal or at least approximate the tax due of the payee on said income. ' Taxes withheld on income payments covered by the expanded withholding tax (referred to in Sec. 2.57.2 of these regulations) and compensation income (referred to in Sec. 2.78 also of these regulations) are creditable in nature.

As applied to value-added tax, this means that taxable transactions with the government are subject to a 5% rate, which constitutes as full payment of the tax payable on the transaction. This represents the net VAT payable of the seller. The other 5% effectively accounts for the standard input VAT (deemed input VAT), in lieu of the actual input VAT directly or attributable to the taxable transaction.[79]

The Court need not explore the rationale behind the provision. It is clear that Congress intended to treat differently taxable transactions with the government.[80] This is supported by the fact that under the old provision, the 5% tax withheld by the government remains creditable against the tax liability of the seller or contractor, to wit:

SEC. 114. Return and Payment of Value-added Tax. ' (C) Withholding of Creditable Value-added Tax. ' The Government or any of its political subdivisions, instrumentalities or agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) shall, before making payment on account of each purchase of goods from sellers and services rendered by contractors which are subject to the value-added tax imposed in Sections 106 and 108 of this Code, deduct and withhold the value-added tax due at the rate of three percent (3%) of the gross payment for the purchase of goods and six percent (6%) on gross receipts for services rendered by contractors on every sale or installment payment which shall be creditable against the value-added tax liability of the seller or contractor: Provided, however, That in the case of government public works contractors, the withholding rate shall be eight and one-half percent (8.5%): Provided, further, That the payment for lease or use of properties or property rights to nonresident owners shall be subject to ten percent (10%) withholding tax at the time of payment. For this purpose, the payor or person in control of the payment shall be considered as the withholding agent. The valued-added tax withheld under this Section shall be remitted within ten (10) days following the end of the month the withholding was made. (Emphasis supplied)

As amended, the use of the word final and the deletion of the word creditable exhibits Congress's intention to treat transactions with the government differently. Since it has not been shown that the class subject to the 5% final withholding tax has been unreasonably narrowed, there is no reason to invalidate the provision. Petitioners, as petroleum dealers, are not the only ones subjected to the 5% final withholding tax. It applies to all those who deal with the government.

Moreover, the actual input tax is not totally lost or uncreditable, as petitioners believe. Revenue Regulations No. 14-2005 or the Consolidated Value-Added Tax Regulations 2005 issued by the BIR, provides that should the actual input tax exceed 5% of gross payments, the excess may form part of the cost. Equally, should the actual input tax be less than 5%, the difference is treated as income.[81]

Petitioners also argue that by imposing a limitation on the creditable input tax, the government gets to tax a profit or value-added even if there is no profit or value-added.

Petitioners' stance is purely hypothetical, argumentative, and again, onesided. The Court will not engage in a legal joust where premises are what ifs, arguments, theoretical and facts, uncertain. Any disquisition by the Court on this point will only be, as Shakespeare describes life in Macbeth,[82] full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

What's more, petitioners' contention assumes the proposition that there is no profit or value-added. It need not take an astute businessman to know that it is a matter of exception that a business will sell goods or services without profit or value-added. It cannot be overstressed that a business is created precisely for profit.

The equal protection clause under the Constitution means that 'no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances.[83]

The power of the State to make reasonable and natural classifications for the purposes of taxation has long been established. Whether it relates to the subject of taxation, the kind of property, the rates to be levied, or the amounts to be raised, the methods of assessment, valuation and collection, the State's power is entitled to presumption of validity. As a rule, the judiciary will not interfere with such power absent a clear showing of unreasonableness, discrimination, or arbitrariness.[84]

Petitioners point out that the limitation on the creditable input tax if the entity has a high ratio of input tax, or invests in capital equipment, or has several transactions with the government, is not based on real and substantial differences to meet a valid classification.

The argument is pedantic, if not outright baseless. The law does not make any classification in the subject of taxation, the kind of property, the rates to be levied or the amounts to be raised, the methods of assessment, valuation and collection. Petitioners' alleged distinctions are based on variables that bear different consequences. While the implementation of the law may yield varying end results depending on one's profit margin and value-added, the Court cannot go beyond what the legislature has laid down and interfere with the affairs of business. The equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the laws on all persons or things without distinction. This might in fact sometimes result in unequal protection. What the clause requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. By classification is meant the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different from all others in these same particulars.[85]

Petitioners brought to the Court's attention the introduction of Senate Bill No. 2038 by Sens. S.R. Osmea III and Ma. Ana Consuelo A.S. ' Madrigal on June 6, 2005, and House Bill No. 4493 by Rep. Eric D. Singson. The proposed legislation seeks to amend the 70% limitation by increasing the same to 90%. This, according to petitioners, supports their stance that the 70% limitation is arbitrary and confiscatory. On this score, suffice it to say that these are still proposed legislations. Until Congress amends the law, and absent any unequivocal basis for its unconstitutionality, the 70% limitation stays.

B. Uniformity and Equitability of Taxation

Article VI, Section 28(1) of the Constitution reads:

The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.

Uniformity in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. Different articles may be taxed at different amounts provided that the rate is uniform on the same class everywhere with all people at all times.[86]

In this case, the tax law is uniform as it provides a standard rate of 0% or 10% (or 12%) on all goods and services. Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the NIRC, provide for a rate of 10% (or 12%) on sale of goods and properties, importation of goods, and sale of services and use or lease of properties. These same sections also provide for a 0% rate on certain sales and transaction.

Neither does the law make any distinction as to the type of industry or trade that will bear the 70% limitation on the creditable input tax, 5-year amortization of input tax paid on purchase of capital goods or the 5% final withholding tax by the government. It must be stressed that the rule of uniform taxation does not deprive Congress of the power to classify subjects of taxation, and only demands uniformity within the particular class.[87]

R.A. No. 9337 is also equitable. The law is equipped with a threshold margin. The VAT rate of 0% or 10% (or 12%) does not apply to sales of goods or services with gross annual sales or receipts not exceeding P1,500,000.00.[88] Also, basic marine and agricultural food products in their original state are still not subject to the tax,[89] thus ensuring that prices at the grassroots level will remain accessible. As was stated in Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Inc. vs. Tan:[90]

The disputed sales tax is also equitable. It is imposed only on sales of goods or services by persons engaged in business with an aggregate gross annual sales exceeding P200,000.00. Small corner sari-sari stores are consequently exempt from its application. Likewise exempt from the tax are sales of farm and marine products, so that the costs of basic food and other necessities, spared as they are from the incidence of the VAT, are expected to be relatively lower and within the reach of the general public.

It is admitted that R.A. No. 9337 puts a premium on businesses with low profit margins, and unduly favors those with high profit margins. Congress was not oblivious to this. Thus, to equalize the weighty burden the law entails, the law, under Section 116, imposed a 3% percentage tax on VAT-exempt persons under Section 109(v), i.e., transactions with gross annual sales and/or receipts not exceeding P1.5 Million. This acts as a equalizer because in effect, bigger businesses that qualify for VAT coverage and VAT-exempt taxpayers stand on equal-footing.

Moreover, Congress provided mitigating measures to cushion the impact of the imposition of the tax on those previously exempt. Excise taxes on petroleum products[91] and natural gas[92] were reduced. Percentage tax on domestic carriers was removed.[93] Power producers are now exempt from paying franchise tax.[94]

Aside from these, Congress also increased the income tax rates of corporations, in order to distribute the burden of taxation. Domestic,

foreign, and non-resident corporations are now subject to a 35% income tax rate, from a previous 32%.[95] Intercorporate dividends of nonresident foreign corporations are still subject to 15% final withholding tax but the tax credit allowed on the corporation's domicile was increased to 20%.[96] The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) is not exempt from income taxes anymore. [97] Even the sale by an artist of his works or services performed for the production of such works was not spared.

All these were designed to ease, as well as spread out, the burden of taxation, which would otherwise rest largely on the consumers. It cannot therefore be gainsaid that R.A. No. 9337 is equitable.

C.

Progressivity of Taxation

Lastly, petitioners contend that the limitation on the creditable input tax is anything but regressive. It is the smaller business with higher input tax-output tax ratio that will suffer the consequences.

Progressive taxation is built on the principle of the taxpayer's ability to pay. This principle was also lifted from Adam Smith's Canons of Taxation, and it states:

I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. Taxation is progressive when its rate goes up depending on the resources of the person affected.[98]

The VAT is an antithesis of progressive taxation. By its very nature, it is regressive. The principle of progressive taxation has no relation with the VAT system inasmuch as the VAT paid by the consumer or business for

every goods bought or services enjoyed is the same regardless of income. In other words, the VAT paid eats the same portion of an income, whether big or small. The disparity lies in the income earned by a person or profit margin marked by a business, such that the higher the income or profit margin, the smaller the portion of the income or profit that is eaten by VAT. A converso, the lower the income or profit margin, the bigger the part that the VAT eats away. At the end of the day, it is really the lower income group or businesses with low-profit margins that is always hardest hit.

Nevertheless, the Constitution does not really prohibit the imposition of indirect taxes, like the VAT. What it simply provides is that Congress shall "evolve a progressive system of taxation." The Court stated in the Tolentino case, thus:

The Constitution does not really prohibit the imposition of indirect taxes which, like the VAT, are regressive. What it simply provides is that Congress shall 'evolve a progressive system of taxation. The constitutional provision has been interpreted to mean simply that 'direct taxes are . . . to be preferred [and] as much as possible, indirect taxes should be minimized. (E. FERNANDO, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES 221 (Second ed. 1977)) Indeed, the mandate to Congress is not to prescribe, but to evolve, a progressive tax system. Otherwise, sales taxes, which perhaps are the oldest form of indirect taxes, would have been prohibited with the proclamation of Art. VIII, '17 (1) of the 1973 Constitution from which the present Art. VI, '28 (1) was taken. Sales taxes are also regressive. Resort to indirect taxes should be minimized but not avoided entirely because it is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid them by imposing such taxes according to the taxpayers' ability to pay. In the case of the VAT, the law minimizes the regressive effects of this imposition by providing for zero rating of certain transactions (R.A. No. 7716, '3, amending 102 (b) of the NIRC), while granting exemptions to other transactions. (R.A. No. 7716, '4 amending '103 of the NIRC) [99]

CONCLUSION

It has been said that taxes are the lifeblood of the government. In this case, it is just an enema, a first-aid measure to resuscitate an economy in distress. The Court is neither blind nor is it turning a deaf ear on the plight of the masses. But it does not have the panacea for the malady that the law seeks to remedy. As in other cases, the Court cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional simply because of its yokes.

Let us not be overly influenced by the plea that for every wrong there is a remedy, and that the judiciary should stand ready to afford relief. There are undoubtedly many wrongs the judicature may not correct, for instance, those involving political questions. . . . Let us likewise disabuse our minds from the notion that the judiciary is the repository of remedies for all political or social ills; We should not forget that the Constitution has judiciously allocated the powers of government to three distinct and separate compartments; and that judicial interpretation has tended to the preservation of the independence of the three, and a zealous regard of the prerogatives of each, knowing full well that one is not the guardian of the others and that, for official wrong-doing, each may be brought to account, either by impeachment, trial or by the ballot box.[100]

The words of the Court in Vera vs. Avelino[101] holds true then, as it still holds true now. All things considered, there is no raison d'tre for the unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 9337.

WHEREFORE, Republic Act No. 9337 not being unconstitutional, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 168056, 168207, 168461, 168463, and 168730, are hereby DISMISSED.

There being no constitutional impediment to the full enforcement and implementation of R.A. No. 9337, the temporary restraining order issued by the Court on July 1, 2005 is LIFTED upon finality of herein decision.

SO ORDERED. SECOND DIVISION

BERNARDO A. TADLIP, A.C. No. 5708 ' Complainant,

Present: - versus - PUNO, J., Chairman, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CALLEJO, SR., TINGA, and ATTY. FIDEL H. BORRES, JR., CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ. ' 'Respondent. Promulgated:

November 11, 2005

x ------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

TINGA, J.:

Lawyers in government service should be more sensitive in their adherence to their professional obligations under the Code of Professional Responsibility, for their disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public eye.[1] The actuations of respondent brought to light in this case bring disrepute not only to his good name, but to the government and to the State. Restoration of public trust cannot ensue without an equivocal statement from this Court that such behavior will not stand unpunished.

We consider the administrative liability of Atty. Fidel H. Borres, Jr. (respondent), a Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) of the Department of Agrarian Reform Regional Arbitration Board (DARAB) for rendering a blatantly irregular decision.

The facts of the case are as follows:

On 3 October 1987, by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27), the Ministry of Agrarian Reform issued

Original Certificate of Title No. P-106 (OCT No. P-106), Emancipation Patent No. A-028380 to Eusebio E. Arce conveying to him Three Thousand Nine Hundred Eight (3,908) square meters of agricultural land situated in Mambajao, Camiguin. The land was formerly owned by Angel Madarieta.[2]

Subsequently, on 14 December 1987, a Deed of Transfer under PD 27 was executed by Angel Madarieta, as represented by his wife, Pelagia Madarieta (Madarieta) and Eusebio E. Arce.[3] The parties agreed that the land would be given to Arce in consideration of Seven Hundred Fifty (750) kerosene cans of palay.[4] Arce died on 23 December 1993. As he was succeeded by two minor daughters ages 5 and 6 years old, herein complainant Tadlip, who is his nephew, assumed the responsibility of tilling the land. Tadlip caused the reallocation of the disputed land through the aid of the Bureau of Legal Assistance, Department of Agrarian Reform, Yuming, Mambajao, Camiguin (BLA-DAR) in a

petition dated 9 October 1997 and docketed as DARAB Case No. X-861.[5]

Respondent, as PARAD of the DARAB, issued an Order[6] dated 3 April 1998 granting the petition of complainant reallocating the land to him and the heirs of Arce.

However, the title to the parcels of land was never transferred to complainant and the heirs of Arce because unknown to them, respondent rendered another Order[7] dated 26 January 1999 canceling the registration of the same OCT No. P-106 and ordering the issuance of a transfer certificate of title ex parte in favor of Madarieta in DARAB Case No. X-99-02.

As borne out by the records of the case, Madarieta filed two pleadings on 22 January 1999. The first was a Petition[8] entitled 'In the Matter of Cancellation of Original Certificate of Title No. EP-106/Emancipation Patent No. A-028380 and Retention Right docketed as

DARAB Case No. X-99-02. Madarieta based her Petition on the ground that she was not able to exercise her right of retention, the land is idle, abandoned, unattended and unproductive and that the late Eusebio Arce did not comply with the agreed monthly amortization as payment for the lot. By the nature of the pleadings filed, Madarieta obviously executed an ex parte proceeding. Hence, no attempt was made to implead Tadlip or the Arce heirs, despite the existence of their legal interest over the property and reality that a clear deprivation of such right would ensue should the petition be granted.

The

second

was

Complaint[9]

entitled

Pelagia

Madarieta v. Heirs of Eusebio Arce/Bernardo A. Tadlip, docketed as DARAB Case No. X-99-04 for Cancellation of Original Certificate of Title No. EP 106 and Retention. In the said complaint, Madarieta substantially alleged the same facts and prayed for the same remedies except that she included one more allegation, that which pertains to the reallocation of the land to complainant.

Complainant alleged that the Complaint was filed by Madarieta upon the instruction of respondent, to correct the procedural flaw attending to her initial Petition.[10] Interestingly, complainant also asserts that the filing of the petition and complaint of Madarieta was not simultaneously done albeit it would seem as if they were. According to him, respondent PARAD, after rendering the Order dated 26 January 1999, advised Madarieta to file a complaint impleading complainant and the heirs of Arce so as to make it appear that the cancellation of the title of the emancipated land was regular and legal.[11] In effect, complainant maintains that the filing of the petition and the complaint by Madarieta on 22 January 1999 was not simultaneous but successive,[12] where after respondent rendered the Order for the petition, Madarieta thereafter filed the complaint at a later date but made it appear that the same was also filed on 22 January 1999.

In any event, the Petition, despite its obvious flaws, was decided by respondent in favor of Madrieta just four (4) days after it had been filed. Thus, OCT No. P-106 was

ordered cancelled even before Tadlip or the heirs of Arce had any possible opportunity to be heard.

Complainant discovered this fact only when the DARABCamiguin furnished the BLA-DAR a copy of the Order in DARAB Case No. filed X-99-02 an on 25 February Motion 1999. for Complainant Urgent

Reconsideration[13] but this was denied by respondent in an Order[14] dated 19 March 1999. As if complainant's travails in the hands of respondent were not enough, respondent also rendered on 17 May 1999 a Decision[15] on the Complaint 'in DARAB Case No. X-99-04 also adverse to complainant.

Matters were aggravated when Madarieta filed a motion for execution pending appeal on 25 May 1999.[16] The same was granted by respondent on 11 June 1999[17] despite the vehement opposition[18] of complainant who cited procedural irregularities according to the DARAB Rules of Procedure, particularly the rule that any motion for execution of the decision of the Adjudicator pending

appeal shall be filed with the DARAB, and not the adjudicator.[19]

Hence, on 20 March 2002, complainant filed this instant administrative complaint. On 7 August 2002, this Court required respondent to comment on the complaint.

Respondent, in his comment dated 9 December 2002, denied all the accusations hurled against him. He related that complainant filed an 'appeal and certiorari case relative to the land dispute but instead of waiting for the result, the latter filed another case before the Ombudsman and subsequently this administrative case.

In a resolution dated 19 February 2003, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.

The IBP found that respondent violated Canon I of the Code of Professional Responsibility by disregarding and

failing to apply the specific provisions of the 1994 New Rules of Procedure[20] (DARAB Rules) in disposing of DARAB Case Nos. X-99-02 and X-99-04 and recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) months with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.[21] We agree with the findings of the IBP but hold that the recommended penalty is quite slight for the infractions done by respondent.

This Court cannot delve into the factual or legal questions raised by complainant. We can only rule on its administrative aspect. However, for us to fully dispose of the case, the multiple violations of respondent must be subjected to scrutiny and scorn.

Respondent is not only a lawyer practicing his profession, but also a provincial adjudicator, a public officer tasked with the duty of deciding conflicting claims of the parties. He is part of the quasi-judicial system of our government.

Thus, by analogy, the present dispute may be likened to administrative cases of judges whose manner of deciding cases was similarly subject of respective administrative cases.

To hold the judge liable, this Court has time and again ruled that the error must be 'so gross and patent as to produce an inference of ignorance or bad faith or that the judge knowingly rendered an unjust decision.[22] It must be 'so grave and on so fundamental a point as to warrant condemnation of the judge as patently ignorant or negligent.[23] Otherwise, to hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that the judge erred, would be nothing short of harassment and that would be intolerable.[24]

However, it has also been held that when the law violated is elementary, the failure to know or observe it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. The disregard of established rule of law which amounts to gross ignorance of law makes a judge subject to disciplinary action.[25]

In Pesayco v. Layague,[26] the Court had the opportunity to declare that:

A judge must be acquainted with legal norms and precepts as well as with procedural rules. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the public's confidence in the competence of our courts. Such is gross ignorance of the law. One who accepts the exalted position of a judge owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the law. . . . Basic rules of procedure must be at the palm of a judge's hands.[27]

Needless to say, respondent was sorely remiss in his duties as the PARAD of Camiguin in the disposition of cases filed by Madarieta.

He violated Rule VI of the DARAB Rules, to wit:

SECTION 1. Issuance of Summons, Time to Answer and Submission of Evidence. Upon the

filing of the complaint or petition, the hour/time, day, month, and year when it was filed shall be stamped thereon. The corresponding summons and notice of hearing to the adverse party, attaching therewith a copy of such complaint or petition, affidavit and documentary evidence if any, shall be served by personal delivery or registered mail to the defendant or respondent within two (2) days therefrom. The summons and notice of hearing shall direct the defendant or respondent to file an answer to the complaint or petition and submit counter affidavit and other documentary evidence, if any, within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt thereof furnishing a copy to the petitioner or the complainant. The summons shall also specify the date, time and place of the hearing and order the parties and their witnesses to appear at the scheduled date of hearing. The aforementioned affidavits and counter-affidavits of the witnesses shall take the place of their direct testimony. Failure of any party to submit his affidavits or counter affidavits as herein directed will be interpreted by the Adjudicator or Board as a waiver to present evidence or that he has more evidence to submit and the case could be considered submitted for decision.

Clearly, complainant was a party in interest in the two DARAB cases filed by Madarieta as he stood to be adversely affected by the decision of respondent. Yet, he was never summoned in DARAB Case No. X-99-02, which was decided against him just four (4) days after it was filed. Evidently complainant had no reasonable opportunity to be heard before he was divested of the land over which respondent, just a few months earlier, had affirmed complainant's rights thereto.

It would be absurd to accept the reasoning of respondent that since complainant was not impleaded as a party to DARAB Case No. X-99-02, the latter was not entitled to be notified of the hearing and the eventual disposition of the case. The DARAB Rules requires the joinder of all partiesin-interest whether as defendants or respondents. Parties-in-interest are defined as '(a)ll persons who claim an interest in the dispute or subject matter thereof adverse to complainant or petitioner, or who are necessary to a complete determination or settlement of the issue involved therein.[28] Complainant, as the

holder of title and possession of the property sought to be reconveyed, is ineluctably a party-in-interest.

Respondent should have dismissed Madarieta's petition for failure to implead complainant, the heirs of Arce, and all others who derive title from them.[29]

Complainant intimates that the Complaint was instituted precisely to cure the defect attending the Petition. The Court cannot conclude definitively that this remedial measure was instigated on the suggestion of the respondent. But assuming this were true, respondent's undue haste in granting the Petition just four days after it was filed practically obviated whatever curative effect the Complaint may have served, since the relief sought in the latter was the same already granted in the former. Whatever proceedings' may have transpired in the hearing of the Complaint, these were a redundancy, considering that the relief prayed for had already been granted.

Furthermore, Commissioner, reconsideration respondent as

as

correctly complainant's very

observed urgent be well for

by

the

IBP for by yet

motion considered and

may a

motion

intervention

respondent denied the same.

Remarkably, respondent, nine months prior to his Order dated 26 January 1999, has rendered an Order dated 3 April 1998 reallocating the land in question from Arce to complainant. Respondent himself had vested complainant with an interest in the lot with all the rights therewith accompanying the order of reallocation. He, therefore, cannot afterwards deny such right or interest from complainant to defend the latter's claim and subsequently cancel OCT No. P-106 unilaterally. In doing so, complainant's possession, if not ownership of the land has been adversely affected.

Complainant has also alleged that he was able to obtain positive action on his petition for reallocation only after paying the respondent One Thousand (P1,000.00) pesos.[30] He also categorically states that 'there was a rumored pay-off between respondent and the Madarieta Family. [31] Admittedly through, no other evidence was given to corroborate the alleged pay-off and his payment of P1,000.00. Thus, we cannot deem these serious allegations as proven. Still, the dubious nature of the decisions is inescapable, and on that basis administrative liability can ensue.

Compounding respondent's liability is the fact that in granting execution pending appeal, he also disregarded Rule XII of the DARAB Rules, which states:

SECTION 2. Execution pending appeal. Any motion for execution of the decision of the Adjudicator pending appeal shall be filed before the Board, and the same may be granted upon showing good reasons under conditions which the Board may require. (Emphasis ours.) It is unmistakably stated in unequivocal terms that execution pending appeal must be filed before the Adjudication Board. Respondent violated this rule in rendering an order of execution pending appeal when such authority has been given to the Board alone. Even the respondent cited the said provision of the DARAB Rules in his position paper[32] and yet it seems that he merely dispensed of the rules and replaced it with his own system of procedure contrary to the DARAB Rules.

In addition, on 14 May 1993, the DAR Region X, Macanhan, Carmen, Cagayan de Oro received an advisory through an official radiophone message addressed to all Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicators (RARADs) and PARADs of the DAR from the then Undersecretary Lorenzo Reyes not to execute any ejection proceedings promptly

appealed to the DARAB.[33] On 15 September 1993, the same undersecretary issued another official radiophone message addressed to RARAD Jimmy Tapangan of DAR Region X, Cagayan de Oro which is faithfully reproduced as follows:

HELLO, PLEASE ADVISE OUR ADJUDICATORS NOT TO EXECUTE DECISIONS WHERE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS FILED WITHIN THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD INSTEAD THE RECORDS OF THE CASE SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY FORWARDED TO THE BOARD PD SOME MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE CONTEMPLATING OF THROWING THE BOOKS TO THOSE WHO INSIST ON EXECUTING DECISIONS THAT ARE PROMPTLY INSPITE OF OUR PREVIOUS ADVISES NOT TO DO SO PD THE BOARD HAS CONSISTENTLY RULED IN SO MANY DECISIONS ALREADY THAT DECISIONS THAT ARE PROMPTLY APPEALED CAN NO LONGER BE EXECUTED BY THE ADJUDICATOR CONCERENED PD THESE RADIOMESSAGE IS THE OFFICIAL ADVISE VERBAL OF THE BOARD PD KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK WARMEST REGARDS END. . . .[34]

Hence, as early as 1993, the RARADs and PARADs have been aware that executions pending appeal was to be acted upon by the DARAB and not by them.

Respondent's non-observance of the DARAB Rules on notice and hearing and his grant to Madarieta of her motion for execution pending appeal in effect deprived complainant of the land he tills and the source of his income. Complainant woke up one day not knowing that the emancipated land which he thought was already reallocated to him was lost by order of respondent. He was not given the chance to defend his claim over the property. This is tantamount to deprivation of property without due process of law, a constitutional guarantee available to every individual.

The actual review of the subject issuance of the respondent should be undertaken in the proper judicial proceedings, and not by this Court at this time via an administrative action. Nevertheless, respondent's culpability under the Code of Professional Responsibility is indubitable. As a lawyer, the IBP determined, and we subscribe to such determination, that respondent violated Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states:

Canon 1A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.

While the duty to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws is an obligation imposed upon every citizen, a lawyer assumes responsibilities well beyond the basic requirements of good citizenship. As a servant of the law, a lawyer should moreover make himself an exemplar of others to emulate.[35]

A member of the bar who assumes public office does not shed his professional obligations. Hence the Code of Professional Responsibility, promulgated on 21 June 1988, was not meant to govern the conduct of private practitioners alone, but of all lawyers including those in government service. This is clear from Canon 6 of the said Code. Lawyers in government service are public servants who owe the utmost fidelity to the public service. Thus they should be more sensitive in the performance of their professional obligations, as their conduct is subject to the ever-constant scrutiny of the public.[36]

Respondent, as a Provincial Adjudicator of the DARAB, was reposed with a higher gravamen of responsibility than a lawyer in private practice. The recommended penalty of two months suspension is too

light under the circumstances, and a penalty of six (6) months' suspension more appropriate.

As held in recent cases,[37] the penalty for a judge found to be guilty of gross ignorance of the law is six (6) months. In the case at bar, after due consideration of the facts involved, the Court believes and so holds that the same penalty should be imposed upon respondent as he disregarded pertinent rules of procedure of the DARAB that led to the unjust deprivation of complainant of his property.

WHEREFORE,

premises

considered,

respondent

is

hereby

SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant for appropriate annotation in the record of respondent.

SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. L-13001

March 18, 1958

ALFREDO ABCEDE, petitioner, vs. HON. DOMINGO IMPERIAL, GAUDENCIO GARCIA, and SIXTO BRILLANTES, Commisioners Elections, respondents. Felipe L. Abel for petitioner. Dominador D. Dayot for respondents. CONCEPCION, J.: Prior to September 7, 1957, petitioner Alfredo Abcede filed, with the Commission on Elections, his certificate of candidacy for the Office of the President of the Philippines, in connection with the elections to be held on November 12 of the same year. On or about said date, Abcede and other candidates were summoned by the Commission on Elections to appear before the same on September 23, 1957, "to show cause why their certificates of candidacy should be considered as filed in good faith and to be given due course," with the admonition that their failure to so appear would be sufficient ground for the Commission to consider said certificates of candidacy as not filed in good faith and not to give due course thereto. After due hearing, at which Abcede appeared and introduced evidence, the Commission issued a resolution dated October 4, 1957, ordering that the certificates of candidacy of the persons therein named, including that of said petitioner, "shall not be given due course." A reconsideration of such resolution having been denied, Abcede filed with this Court a petition for certiorari and mandamus, praying that the resolution be annulled and that his aforementioned certificate of candidacy be given due course. Upon motion of petitioner herein, this Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction ordering the respondent to refrain and desist from carrying out the resolution above referred to, pending the final disposition of the case at bar.

Insofar as petitioner herein is concerned, the action taken by the Commissision on Elections is based upon the following facts, set forth in its said resolution, from which we quote: Alfredo Abcede was a candidate for senator in 1953, again in 1955, in both of which his votes were nil. In this election he presents his candidacy for President of the Philippines, with the redemption of the Japanese war notes as his main program of government. It is of record that the Bureau of Posts, by Fraud Order No. 2, dated November 2, 1955, banned from the use of the Philippine mail matter of whatever class mailed by, or addressed to, theJapanese War Notes Claims Association of the Philippines, Inc., and its agentand representatives, including Alfredo Abcede and Marciana Mesina-Abcede, which order was based on the findings of the Securities and Exchange Commission, confirmed by the Secretary of Justice, that said entity aid its agents and representatives, including Alfredo Abcede, are engaged in a scheme to obtain money from the public by means of false or fraudulent pretenses. The Commission is convinced that the certificate of candidacy of Alfredo Abcede was filed for motives other than a bona fide desire to obtain a substantial number of votes of the electorate. In holding that it has, under these facts the power not to give due course to petitioner's certficate of candidacy, the Commission on Elections gave the following reasons: The Commission believes that while Section 37 of the Revised Election Code imposes upon the commission the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge certificates of candidacy, the law leaves to the Commission a measure:of discretion on whether to give due course to a particular certificate of candidacy should it find said certificate of candidacy to have been filed not bona fide. We also believe that a certificate of candidacy is not bona fide when it is filed, as a matter of caprice or fancy, by a person who is

incapable of understanding the full meaning of his acts and the true significance of election and without any political organization or visible supporters behind him so that he, has not even the tiniest chance to obtain the favorable indorsement of a substantial portion of the electorate, or when the one who files the same exerts no tangible effort, shown by overt acts, to pursue to a semblance of success his candidacy. The law requires the certificate of candidacy to be under oath in acknowledgment of its serious character as an indispensable segment in the process of election, the first step that a citizen has to take in seeking public trust and in avoiding service to the common weal. It is a solemn matter, not to be taken lightly. The giving due course to a certificate of candidacy is a process of no mean proportion, particularly for the offices of President and Vice President of the Philippines and Senator which involve the printing at public expense of around 136,000 copies of each certificate of candidacy; the printing of the names of the candidates in several election forms; the mailing, sorting, and distribution of the copies of said certificates of candidacy and forms among the 34,000 polling places throughout the country; the entering of the names of the candidates by the board of inspectors in still other forms; etc. Conisidering all these, the Commission is satisfied with the view that Congress could not have meant to make as a ministerial duty of the Commission to give due course to every certificate of candidacy, no matter how senseless said certificate of candidacy may be, thus in effect authorizing a meaningless expenditure of a considerable amount of public funds, and in the process put added routinary burden on the already heavily burdened election machinery, as well as shear off the election much of its dignity as a solemn process of democracy. Based on existing records of the Commission and on evidence adduced during the hearing on the certificates of candidacy

mentioned above, the Commission finds, and so declares, that the said certificates of candidacy have not been filed in good faith on grounds hereunder stated. Section 36 of the Revised Election Code provides that 96 certificates of candidacy of candiddtes for President . . . shall be filed with the Commission on Elections which shall order the preparation and distribution of copies for the same to all the election precincts of the Philippines. . . . It further provides that said certificates shall be distributed as follows: . . . the Commission on Elections . . . shall immediately send copies thereof to the secretary of the Provincial Board of each province where the elections will be held, and the latter shall in turn immediately forward copies to all the polling places. The Commission on Elections shall communicate the names of said candidates to the secretary of the provincial board by telegraph. If the certificate of candidacy is sent by mail, it shall be by registered mail, and the date on which the package was deposited in the postoffice may be considered as the filing date thereof if confirmed by a telegram or radiogram addressed to the Commission on Elections on the same date. Moreover, pursuant to section 37 of said Code: The Commission on Election, the secretary of the provincial board, and the municipal secretary, in their respective cases, shall have the ministerial duty to receive the certificates of candidacy referred to in the preceding section and to immediately acknowledge receipt thereof. The foregoing provisions give the Commission no discretion to give or not to give due course to petitioner's certificate of candidacy. On the contrary, the Conunission has, admittedly, the "ministerial" duty to receive said certificate of candidacy. Of what use would it be to receive

it if the certificate were not to be given due course? We must not assume that Congress intended to require a useless act that it would have imposed a mandatory duty to do something vain, futile and empty. Moreover, in the words of section 37, the Commission "shall immediately send copies" of said certificates to the secretaries of the provincial boards. The compulsory nature of this requirement, evinced by the imperative character generally attached to the term "shall", is stressed by the peremptory connotation of the adverb "immediately." Again, the Constitution fixes the qualifications for the office of the highest magistrate of the land. All possessors of such qualifications are, therefore, deemed legally fit, at least, to aspire to such office and to run therefor, provided that they file their respective certificates of candidacy within the time, at the place and in the manner provided by law, and petitioner herein has done so. Lastly, as the branch of the executive department although independent of the President to which the Constitution has given the "exclusive charge" of the "enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections," the power of decision of the Commission is limited to purely "administrative questions." (Article X, sec. 2, Constitution of the Philippines.) It has no authority to decide matters "involving the right to vote". It may not even pass upon the legality of a given vote (Nacionalista Party vs. Commission on Elections, * 47 Off.; Gaz., [6], 2851). We do not see, therefore, how it could whether, if so granted in the vague, abstract, indeter-assert the greater and more far-reaching authority to determine who among those possessing the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution, who have complied with the procedural requirements relative to the filing of certificates of candidacy should be allowed to enjoy the full benefits intended by law therefor. The question whether in order to enjoy those benefits a candidate must be capable of "understanding the full meaning of his acts and the true significance of election," and must have over a month prior, to the elections (when the resolution complained

of was issued) "the tiniest chance to obtain the favorable indorsement of a substantial portion of the electorate," is a matter of policy, not of administration and enforcement of the law, which policy must be determined by Congress in the exercise of its legislative functions. Apart from the absence of specific statutory grant of such general, broad power as the Commission claims to have, it is dubious minate and undefined manner necessary in order that it could pass upon the factors relied upon in said resolution (and such grant must not he deemed made, in the absence of clear and positive provision to such effect, which is absent in the case at bar) the legislative enactment would not amount to undue delegation of legislative power. (Schechter vs. U.S., 295 U.S. 495, 79 L. ed. 1570.). The case of Ciriaco S. Garcia vs. Imperial, L-12930 (October 22, 1957) cited in respondent's answer is not in point. That case referred to the certificates of candidacy of Ciriaco S. Garcia of San Simon, Pampanga, Carlos C. Garcia of Iloilo City and Eulogio Palma Garcia of Butuan City, all for the Office of the President of the Philippines, filed in September, 1957. The facts therein are set forth in the pertinent resolution of the Commission on Elections from which we quote: Ciriaco S. Garcia, . . . admitted, . . . that he had not up to the date of the hearing held any public meeting relative to his candidacy; had not posted any handbills or posters or banners announcing candidacy; had not established any national headquarters; and had no line up for vice-president, senators, or members of Congress. In connection with the case of Ciriaco S. Garcia, counsel for the intervenor presented documents as exhibits. . . . all showing that Ciriaco S. Garcia had not shown any active interest in his candidacy. Relative to the case of Carlos C. Garcia, counsel for intervenor presented a witness, Salvador del Rosario who testifed to the effect that he knows personally said Carlos C. Garcia as a former dress maker and now maintains a bar in a city of Iloilo; that he has not done anything to promote his candidacy; and that he is a brother-in-law of Atty. Tomas Vargas a prominent Liberal Party

leader in the province of iloilo. He also submitted as evidence the telegram of the provincial commanderr of Iloilo reporting that said Carlos C. Garcia is not a well known person in Iloilo. And as regard Eulogio Palma Garcia, counsel for intervenor likewise submitted a telegram of the provincial commander of Agusan to the effect that said Eulogio Palma Garcia is an unknown person in Agusan. He farther pointed out that the address of said Eulogio Palma Garcia, as appearing in this certificate of candidacy, is % Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr., a nephew of ex-congressman Calo, and official candidate of the Liberal Party for Senator. (Emphasis ours.) The findings of the Commission were as follows: The Commission is convinced that the failure of Carlos C. Garcia, a bar tender, and Eulogio Palma Garcia, a person who has not even a residence of his own, to appear before the Commission, notwithstanding the mandatory statement issued them, which had been received in their behalf, to the effect that failure to appear on their part before the Commission as required would be sufficient for the Commission to consider their certificates of candidacy, as filed in bad faith, shows that they are not actually interested in the outcome of their pretended candidacy, and/or that they fear that their personal appearance before the Commission would not expose too clearly the true motives behind the filing of their certificates of candidacy. As regards Ciriaco S. Garcia, a former chief of police, with no visible property to his name, . . . the Commission is likewise satisfied . . . that his certificate of candidacy was filed without the least idea of actively pursuing the same, but simply to prejudice a legitimate and bona fide candidate, President Carlos P. Garcia. Each of said three certificates of candidacy is a well fitted piece in an overall conspired scheme to fairly prejudice the candidacy of President Carlos P. Garcia. Even the circumstances of geography

and of course of names have been suitably played upon to achieve in the most effective way the desired objective of destroying legitimate votes for the bona fide candidate. Ciriaco S. Garcia hails from Central Luzon; Carlos C. Garcia is from Central Visayas; and Eulogio Palma Garcia is from Northern Mindanao. The names used are such that all votes for "Carlos Garcia", "C. Garcia", "P. Garcia", and "Garcia" would, be declared stray. The mischief aimed to be realize by the plan is too plain to be missed by any impartial mind. . . . The Commission, . . . is clear in the conclusion that all raid three certificates of candidacy have been filed not for the purpose of winning the election or even to obtain a substantial number of votes for the presidency of the Philippines but for the purpose of prejudicing the candidacy of a candidate in good faith by nullifying the votes cast for the same name and/or surname of said candidate in good faith. xxx xxx xxx

We reiterate here what the Commission has already said in the similar case of Re-Certificate of Candidacy of Eduardo A. Barreto. (Case No. 179): The duty of the Commission under these circumstances is too plain to be mistaken. The law could not have intended nor will the Commission allow itself to be made a party to fraud against the integrity and purity of election. Election is not a game of mean political tricks where deceit wins a premium. It is an honest process, governed by fair rules of law and good conduct. In election as well as in any other field of fair contest, deceit cannot be allowed to clothe itself in legal technicalities and demand a prize. It must be condemned and never tolerated. (Emphasis ours.) In other words, the candidates in question did not really aspire to be elected President of the Philippines. Their certificates of candidacy were

filed merely for the purpose of nullifying, in effect, all votes cast in favor of "Garcia", "C. Garcia", and "P. Garcia", even if the voters intended to vote for Carlos P. Garcia, the incumbent of said office. The objective was, evidently, to prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate. Had the certificates of candidacy in question been given due course, whether or not such tax penalty, or sum has been election inspectors, who would be at a loss as to whom to credit the votes cast for "Carlos Garcia", "C. Garcia", "P. Garcia", and "Garcia" or whether said votes should not be counted, as stray votes. Thus, an opportunity would be created to subject the election officers throughout the Philippines to complaints, either by the opponents of, the incumbent President, if the votes were credited to him or by the Nacionalista Party, if the votes were counted in favor of either Ciriaco S. Garcia, or Carlos C. Garcia, or Eulogio Palma Garcia, or considered as stray votes. What this could have led to, or given an excuse for,public disorders which may not have been altogether unlikely, in the light of the conditions then existing. Worse, still, there would have been no means, under the law, to ascertain whether the aforementioned votes were intended for the incumbent President Carlos P. Garcia or for the petitioners in said case. The action of the Commission therein tended, therefore, to insure free, orderly and honest elections, which is its main Concern, under our fundamental law and the Revised Election Code. Such, however, is not the situation obtaining in the case at bar. Whether or not the Commission on Election should incur the expenses incident to the preparation and distribution of copies of the certificates of candidacy of those who, in its opinion, do not have a chance to get a substantial number of votes, is another question of policy for Congress,not the Commission, to settle. When the Revised Election Code imposes upon the Commission the ministerial duty to receive those certificates and provides that said Commission shall immediately prepare and distribute copies thereof to the offices mentioned in section 36 of said Code, it necessarily implies that compliance with the latter provision is, likewise, ministerial. If the Commission believes, however, that the effect thereof is to unnecessarily impose a useless burden upon

the Government, then the remedy is to call the attention of Congress thereto, coupled with the corresponding proposals, recommendations, or suggestions for such amendments as may be deemed best, consistently with the democratic nature of our political system. Needless to say, the vigilant attitude of the Commission on Elections and the efforts exerted by the same to comply with what it considers its duty, merit full and unqualified recognition, as well as commendation of the highest order. In this particular case, however, the action of the Commission as regards petitioner's certificate of candidacy is beyond the bounds of its jurisdiction, and, hence, void. Wherefore, the aforementioned resolution of the Commission on Elections is hereby annulled, insofar as petitioner Alfredo Abcede is concerned, and the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued made permanent, without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.