Solicitor General vs.

Metropolitan Manila Authority Facts:On July 13, 1990 the Court held in the case of Metropolitan Traffic Command,West Traffic istrict !s" #on" $rsenio M" %onon&, that the confiscation of the licenseplates of motor !ehicles for traffic !iolations 'as not amon& the sanctions thatcould (e imposed (y the Metro Manila Commission under ) 1*0+ and 'aspermitted only under the conditions laid do'n (y ,O- .3 in the case of stalled!ehicles o(structin& the pu(lic streets" /!en the confiscation of dri!er0s licenses fortraffic !iolations 'as not directly prescri(ed or allo'ed (y the decree" $fter nomotion for reconsideration of the decision 'as filed the 1ud&ment (ecame final ande2ecutor"Withstandin& the %onon& decision still !iolations of the said decisiontranspired, 'herein there 'ere se!eral persons 'ho sent complaint letters to theCourt re&ardin& the confiscation of dri!er0s licenses and remo!al of license platenum(ers"On May 3., 1990 the MM$ issued Ordinance 4o" 11, 5eries of 1991,authori6in& itself 7to detach license plate8to' and impoundattended8unattended8a(andoned motor !ehicles ille&ally par9ed or o(structin& theflo' of traffic in Metro Manila":On July 3, 1991, the Court issued a resolution re&ardin& the matter 'hichstated that the Ordinance 4o" 11, 5ection 3 appears to (e in conflict 'ith thedecision of the Court, and that the Court has recei!ed se!eral complaints a&ainstthe enforcement of such ordinance" -ssue:W84 Ordinance 4o" 11 5eries of 1991 and Ordinance 4o" ;, 5eries of 199< are!alid in the e2ercise of such dele&ated po'er to local &o!ernment actin& only asa&ents of the national le&islature= #eld:4o, the Court rendered 1ud&ment: 1> declarin& Ordinance 4o" 11, 5eries of 1991, of the MM$ and Ordinance 4o" ;, 5eries of 199<, of the Municipality of Mandaluyon&, 4ull and ?oid@ and 3> en1oinin& all la'Aenforcement authorities inMetropolitan Manila from remo!in& the license plates of motor !ehicles Be2cept'hen authori6ed under ,O-.3> and confiscatin& dri!er0s licenses for traffic !iolations'ithin the said area" To test the !alidity of said acts the principles &o!ernin& municipalcorporations 'as applied, accordin& to /lliot for a municipal ordinance to (e !alidthe follo'in& reCuisites should (e complied: 1> must not contra!ene the Constitution or any statute@ 3> must not (e unfair or oppressi!e@ 3> must not (epartial or discriminatory@ .> must not prohi(it (ut may re&ulate trade@ +> must not(e unreasona(le@ and *> must (e &eneral and consistent 'ith pu(lic policy"-n the %onon& decision it 'as sho'n that the measures under considerationdid not pass the first criterion (ecause it did not conform to e2istin& la'" ) 1*0+does not allo' either the remo!al of license plates or the confiscation of dri!er0slicenses for traffic !iolations committed in Metropolitan Manila" There is nothin& inthe decree authori6in& the MM$ to impose such sanctions" Thus ,ocal politicalsu(di!isions are a(le to le&islate only (y !irtue of a !alid dele&ation of le&islati!epo'er from the national le&islature Be2cept only that the po'er to create their o'nsources of re!enue and to le!y ta2es is conferred (y the Constitution itself>" Theyare mere a&ents !ested 'ith 'hat is called the po'er of su(ordinate le&islation" $sdele&ates of the Con&ress, the local &o!ernment unit cannot contra!ene (ut musto(ey at all times the 'ill of the principal" -n the case at (ar the

enactments inCuestion, 'hich are merely local in ori&in, cannot pre!ail a&ainst the decree, 'hichhas the force and effect of a statute" People vs Dacuycuy %D 4o" .+13; May +, 19<9 F$CT5: se!eral pu(ic school officials of ,eyte 'ere char&ed for !iolation of D$ .*;0 BMa&na Carta for pu(lic school teachers>"These officials motioned to Cuash the char&es a&ainst them for B1>lac9 of 1urisdiction B3> unconstitutionality of 5ection 33" This motion 'as denied for lac9 of merit" The pri!ate respondents filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of First -nstance of ,eyte"They added to the &rounds of unconsttutionality of 5ection 33 the follo'in& reasons: B1> it imposes a cruel and unusual punishment B3> it constitutes an undue dele&ation of le&islati!e po'er, for the duration of penalty of the imprisonment is left to the discretion of the court" Jud&e acuycuy, the respondent 1ud&e denied the motion sayin& that D$ .*;0 particularly 5ection 33 is !alid and constitutional" -55E/: Whether or not 5ection 33 of D$ .*;0 is constitutional #/, : 4O" 5ection 33 is unconstitutional since it pro!ides an indetermina(le period of imprisonment" Too much discretion 'as left (y the le&islature to the court, ma9in& it undue dele&ation of po'er of the le&islature" 5ection 33 did not pass the test of sufficient standard" -f section 33 'ill (e allo'ed, it 'ill !iolate not 1ust the rules of separation of po'ers (ut also the dele&a(ility of le&islati!e po'ers" 4ota Fene: The char&e a&ainst the pu(lic school officials 'ill still (e remanded to the municipal court 'here it 'as first filed" D$ .*;0 ontains a separa(ility clause in 5ection 3." $lthou&h 5ec 33 'as declared unconstitutional, other parts are still !alid" People v Dacuycuy Facts: )ri!ate respondents 'ere char&ed 'ith !iolation of D$ .*;0 BMa&na Carta for )u(lic 5chool Teachers" They also char&ed constitutionality of 5ec"33 BG(e punished (y a fine of not less than )100 nor more than )1000, or (y imprisonment, in the discretion of the court"> of said D"$ on &rounds that it a"> imposes a cruel and unusual punishment, ("> constitutes an undue dele&ation of le&islati!e po'er" Jud&e acuycuy ruled that the said section is a matter of statutory construction and not an undue of dele&ation of le&islati!e po'er" -ssue: W84 5ec" * constitutes undue dele&ation of le&islati!e po'er and is !alid" #eld: 4OT ?$,- H The duration of penalty for the period of imprisonment 'as left for the courts to determine as if the 1udicial department 'as a le&islati!e dep0t" The e2ercise of

1udicial po'er not an attempt to use le&islati!e po'er or to prescri(e and create a la' (ut is an instance of the admin" of 1ustice and the app" of e2istin& la's to the facts of particular cases" 5aid section !iolates the rules on separation of po'ers and nonA dele&a(ility of le&islati!e po'ers Abakada Guro Party List, et al vs Exec. Sec. Ermita )ost under case di&ests, )olitical ,a' at Monday, (y 5chi6ophrenic Mind March 0+, 3013 )osted

acts! On May 3., 300+, the )resident si&ned into la' Depu(lic $ct 933; or the ?$T Deform $ct" Fefore the la' too9 effect on July 1, 300+, the Court issued a TDO en1oinin& &o!ernment from implementin& the la' in response to a sle' of petitions for certiorari and prohi(ition Cuestionin& the constitutionality of the ne' la'" The challen&ed section of D"$" 4o" 933; is the common pro!iso in 5ections ., + and *: 7That the )resident, upon the recommendation of the 5ecretary of Finance, shall, effecti!e January 1, 300*, raise the rate of !alueAadded ta2 to 13I, after any of the follo'in& conditions has (een satisfied: Bi> ?alueAadded ta2 collection as a percenta&e of %ross omestic )roduct B% )> of the pre!ious year e2ceeds t'o and fourAfifth percent B3 .8+I>@ or Bii> 4ational &o!ernment deficit as a percenta&e of % ) of the pre!ious year e2ceeds one and oneAhalf percent B1JI>: )etitioners alle&e that the &rant of standA(y authority to the )resident to increase the ?$T rate is an a(dication (y Con&ress of its e2clusi!e po'er to ta2 (ecause such dele&ation is not co!ered (y 5ection 3< B3>, $rticle ?- Consti" They ar&ue that ?$T is a ta2 le!ied on the sale or e2chan&e of &oods and ser!ices 'hich can0t (e included 'ithin the pur!ie' of tariffs under the e2emption dele&ation since this refers to customs duties, tolls or tri(ute paya(le upon merchandise to the &o!ernment and usually imposed on imported8e2ported &oods" They also said that the )resident has po'ers to cause, influence or create the conditions pro!ided (y la' to (rin& a(out the conditions precedent" Moreo!er, they alle&e that no &uidin& standards are made (y la' as to ho' the 5ecretary of Finance 'ill ma9e the recommendation" "ssue! Whether or not the D$ 933;Ks standA(y authority to the /2ecuti!e to increase the ?$T rate, especially on account of the recommendatory po'er &ranted to the 5ecretary of Finance, constitutes undue dele&ation of le&islati!e po'er= 4O

#eld! The po'ers 'hich Con&ress is prohi(ited from dele&atin& are those 'hich are strictly, or inherently and e2clusi!ely, le&islati!e" )urely le&islati!e po'er 'hich can ne!er (e dele&ated is the authority to ma9e a complete la'A complete as to the time 'hen it shall ta9e effect and as to 'hom it shall (e applica(le, and to determine the e2pediency of its enactment" -t is the nature of the po'er and not the lia(ility of its use or the manner of its e2ercise 'hich determines the !alidity of its dele&ation" The e2ceptions are: Ba> dele&ation of tariff po'ers to )resident under Constitution B(> dele&ation of emer&ency po'ers to )resident under Constitution Bc> dele&ation to the people at lar&e Bd> dele&ation to local &o!ernments Be> dele&ation to administrati!e (odies For the dele&ation to (e !alid, it must (e complete and it must fi2 a standard" $ sufficient standard is one 'hich defines le&islati!e policy, mar9s its limits, maps out its (oundaries and specifies the pu(lic a&ency to apply it" -n this case, it is not a dele&ation of le&islati!e po'er FET a dele&ation of ascertainment of facts upon 'hich enforcement and administration of the increased rate under the la' is contin&ent" The le&islature has made the operation of the 13I rate effecti!e January 1, 300*, contin&ent upon a specified fact or condition" -t lea!es the entire operation or nonAoperation of the 13I rate upon factual matters outside of the control of the e2ecuti!e" 4o discretion 'ould (e e2ercised (y the )resident" #i&hli&htin& the a(sence of discretion is the fact that the 'ord 5#$,, is used in the common pro!iso" The use of the 'ord 5#$,, connotes a mandatory order" -ts use in a statute denotes an imperati!e o(li&ation and is inconsistent 'ith the idea of discretion" Thus, it is the ministerial duty of the )resident to immediately impose the 13I rate upon the e2istence of any of the conditions specified (y Con&ress" This is a duty,

'hich cannot (e e!aded (y the )resident" -t is a clear directi!e to impose the 13I ?$T rate 'hen the specified conditions are present" Con&ress 1ust &ranted the 5ecretary of Finance the authority to ascertain the e2istence of a factAAA 'hether (y ecem(er 31, 300+, the ?$T collection as a percenta&e of % ) of the pre!ious year e2ceeds 3 .8+ I or the national &o!ernment deficit as a percenta&e of % ) of the pre!ious year e2ceeds one and 1JI" -f either of these t'o instances has occurred, the 5ecretary of Finance, (y le&islati!e mandate, must su(mit such information to the )resident" -n ma9in& his recommendation to the )resident on the e2istence of either of the t'o conditions, the 5ecretary of Finance is not actin& as the alter e&o of the )resident or e!en her su(ordinate" #e is actin& as the a&ent of the le&islati!e department, to determine and declare the e!ent upon 'hich its e2pressed 'ill is to ta9e effect" The 5ecretary of Finance (ecomes the means or tool (y 'hich le&islati!e policy is determined and implemented, considerin& that he possesses all the facilities to &ather data and information and has a much (roader perspecti!e to properly e!aluate them" #is function is to &ather and collate statistical data and other pertinent information and !erify if any of the t'o conditions laid out (y Con&ress is present" Con&ress does not a(dicate its functions or unduly dele&ate po'er 'hen it descri(es 'hat 1o( must (e done, 'ho must do it, and 'hat is the scope of his authority@ in our comple2 economy that is freCuently the only 'ay in 'hich the le&islati!e process can &o for'ard" There is no undue dele&ation of le&islati!e po'er (ut only of the discretion as to the e2ecution of a la'" This is constitutionally permissi(le" Con&ress did not dele&ate the po'er to ta2 (ut the mere implementation of the la'" $ase! S%$"AL &'S("$E S%$"E() *S&S+ v. DA,GE-%'S D-'GS .%A-D and P#"L"PP",E D-'G E, %-$EME,(AGE,$) *G-s. /01213, /02455 and /4/402+Date! ,ovember 5, 6332Ponente! &. 7elasco &r. acts! Fefore the Court are 3 consolidated petitions assailin& the constitutionality of 5ection 3*1 of D$ 91*+ or theComprehensi!e an&erous ru&s $ct of 3003 insofar as it reCuires mandatory dru& testin& of candidates for pu(lic office,students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of pu(lic and pri!ate offices, and persons char&ed(efore the prosecutor0s office 'ith certain offenses" $ccordin& to $Cuilino )imentel Jr", a senator of the D) and a candidate for reAelection in May 300. elections, saidmandatory dru& testin& imposes an additional Cualification for 5enators

(eyond that 'hich are pro!ided (y theConstitution" 4o pro!ision in the Constitution authori6es the Con&ress or the COM/,/C to e2pand the CualificationreCuirements of candidates for senator"Mean'hile, 5J5 contends that 5ection 3*Bc>Bd>Bf> and B&> are constitutionally infirm as it constitutes unduedele&ation of le&islati!e po'er 'hen they &i!e un(ridled discretion to schools and employers to determine the manner of dru& testin&" -t also !iolates the eCual protection clause as it can (e used to harass a student or employee deemedundesira(le" The constitutional ri&ht a&ainst unreasona(le searches is also (reached"-n addition to the a(o!ementioned contentions, $tty" Manuel J" ,aserna, Jr", as a citi6en and ta2payers maintainsthat said pro!ision should (e struc9 do'n as unconstitutional for infrin&in& on the constitutional ri&ht to pri!acy, the ri&hta&ainst unreasona(le search and sei6ure, and the ri&ht a&ainst selfAincrimination, and for (ein& contrary to the dueprocess and eCual protection &uarantees" "ssue! WO4 5ection 3* Bc>, Bd>, Bf> and B&> are unconstitutional #eld! 5ection 3* Bc> and Bd> are constitutional 'hile Bf> and B&> are not" -atio! 5ection 3* Bc> and Bd> L as to students and employees of pri!ate and pu(lic offices Esin& E5 authorities, the Court ruled in fa!or of the constitutionality of 5ection 3*Bc> applyin& the follo'in& reasona(ledeductions: B1> schools and their administrators stand in loco parentis 'ith respect to their students@ B3> minor studentsha!e conte2tually fe'er ri&hts than an adult, and are su(1ect to the custody and super!ision of their parents, &uardians,and schools@ B3> schools, actin& in loco parentis, ha!e a duty to safe&uard the health and 'ell A (ein& of their students andmay adopt such measures as may reasona(ly (e necessary to dischar&e such duty@ and B.> schools ha!e the ri&ht toimpose conditions on applicants for admission that are fair, 1ust, and nonAdiscriminatory"Therefore, the pro!isions of D$ 91*+ reCuirin& mandatory, random, and suspicionless dru& testin& of students areconstitutional" -ndeed, it is 'ithin the prero&ati!e of educational institutions to reCuire, as a condition for admission,compliance 'ith reasona(le school rules and re&ulations and policies" To (e sure, the ri&ht to enroll is not a(solute@ it issu(1ect to fair, reasona(le, and eCuita(le reCuirements" Just as in the case of secondary and tertiary le!el students, themandatory (ut random dru& test prescri(ed (y 5ec" 3* of D$ 91*+ for officers and employees of pu(lic and pri!ate officesis 1ustifia(le, al(eit not e2actly for the same reason"For another, the random dru& testin& shall (e underta9en under conditions calculated to protect as much aspossi(le the employeeKs pri!acy and di&nity" $s to the mechanics of the test, the la' specifies that the procedure shall employ t'o testin& methods, i"e", the screenin& test and the confirmatory test, dou(tless to ensure as much as possi(lethe trust'orthiness of the results" Fut the more important consideration lies in the fact that the test shall (e conducted (ytrained professionals in access A controlled la(oratories monitored (y the

epartment of #ealth B O#> to safe&uarda&ainst results tamperin& and to ensure an accurate chain of custody" $ll told, therefore, the intrusion into the employeesKpri!acy, under D$ 91*+, is accompanied (y proper safe&uards, particularly a&ainst em(arrassin& lea9a&es of test results,and is relati!ely minimal" (he essence o8 privacy is the ri9ht to be le8t alone. -n conte2t, the ri&ht to pri!acy means the ri&ht to (e freefrom un'arranted e2ploitation of oneKs person or from intrusion into oneKs pri!ate acti!ities in such a 'ay as to causehumiliation to a personKs ordinary sensi(ilities" $nd 'hile there has (een &eneral a&reement as to the (asic function of the &uarantee a&ainst un'arranted search, Mtranslation of the a(stract prohi(ition a&ainst Nunreasona(le searches and sei6uresK into 'or9a(le (road &uidelines for the decision of particular cases is a difficult tas9,M to (orro' from C" Camara!" Municipal Court " $uthorities are a&reed thou&h that the ri&ht to pri!acy yields to certain paramount ri&hts of the pu(licand defers to the stateKs e2ercise of police po'er"The first factor to consider in the matter of reasona(leness is the nature of the pri!acy interest upon 'hich thedru& testin&, 'hich effects a search 'ithin the meanin& of 5ec" 3, $rt" --- of the Constitution, intrudes" Just as definin& asthe first factor is the character of the intrusion authori6ed (y the challen&ed la'" Deduced to a Cuestion form, is the scopeof the search or intrusion clearly set forth, or, as formulated in Ople !" Torres, is the ena(lin& la' authori6in& a searchMnarro'ly dra'nM or Mnarro'ly focusedM=To reiterate, D$ 91*+ 'as enacted as a measure to stamp out ille&al dru& in the country and thus protect the 'ellA (ein& of the citi6ens, especially the youth, from the deleterious effects of dan&erous dru&s" Ta9in& into account thefore&oin& factors, i"e", the reduced e2pectation of pri!acy on the part of the employees, the compellin& state concern li9elyto (e met (y the search, and the 'ell A defined limits set forth in the la' to properly &uide authorities in the conduct of therandom testin&, 'e hold that the challen&ed dru& test reCuirement is, under the limited conte2t of the case, reasona(leand, er&o , constitutional",i9e their counterparts in the pri!ate sector, &o!ernment officials and employees also la(or under reasona(lesuper!ision and restrictions imposed (y the Ci!il 5er!ice la' and other la's on pu(lic officers, all enacted to promote ahi&h standard of ethics in the pu(lic ser!ice" $nd if D$ 91*+ passes the norm of reasona(leness for pri!ate employees,the more reason that it should pass the test for ci!il ser!ants, 'ho, (y constitutional command, are reCuired to (eaccounta(le at all times to the people and to ser!e them 'ith utmost responsi(ility and efficiency"On the char&e of (ein& an undue dele9ation , the pro!ision in Cuestion is not so e2tensi!ely dra'n as to &i!eun(ridled options to schools and employers to determine the manner of dru& testin&" -t e2pressly pro!ides ho' dru&testin& for students of secondary and tertiary schools and officers8employees of pu(lic8pri!ate offices should (econducted" -t enumerates the persons 'ho shall under&o dru& testin&" -n the case of students, the

testin& shall (e inaccordance 'ith the school rules as contained in the student hand(oo9 and 'ith notice to parents" On the part of officers8employees, the testin& shall ta9e into account the companyKs 'or9 rules" -n either case, the random procedureshall (e o(ser!ed, meanin& that the persons to (e su(1ected to dru& test shall (e pic9ed (y chance or in an unplanned'ay" $nd in all cases, safe&uards a&ainst misusin& and compromisin& the confidentiality of the test results areesta(lished" 5ection 3* Bf> L as to persons char&ed (efore the prosecutor0s office 'ith criminal offenses "The Court found the situation entirely different in the case of persons char&ed (efore the pu(lic prosecutorKs office'ith criminal offenses punisha(le 'ith si2 B*> years and one B1> day imprisonment" The operati!e concepts in themandatory dru& testin& are MrandomnessM and Msuspicionless"M -n the case of persons char&ed 'ith a crime (efore theprosecutorKs office, a mandatory dru& testin& can ne!er (e random or suspicionless" (he ideas o8 randomness andbein9 suspicionless are antithetical to their bein9 made de8endants in a criminal complaint. (hey are notrandomly picked: neither are they beyond suspicion. When persons suspected of committin& a crime are char&ed,they are sin&led out and are impleaded a&ainst their 'ill" The persons thus char&ed, (y the (are fact of (ein& haled (eforethe prosecutorKs office and peacea(ly su(mittin& themsel!es to dru& testin&, if that (e the case, do not necessarilyconsent to the procedure, let alone 'ai!e their ri&ht to pri!acy" To impose mandatory dru& testin& on the accused is a(latant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated o(1ecti!es of D$ 91*+" Dru9 testin9 in this case ;ould violate a persons< ri9ht to privacy 9uaranteed under Sec. 6, Art. """ o8 the$onstitution. =orse still, the accused persons are veritably 8orced to incriminate themselves. MA-"A,% vs $%MELE$, 6>6 S$-A 6// Facts: T'o petitions are filed assailin& certain pro!isions of D$ ;<+., $n $ct Con!ertin& The Municipality of Ma9ati -nto a #i&hly Er(ani6ed City to (e 9no'n as the City of Ma9ati , as unconstitutional" 5ection +3 of D$ ;<+. is said to (e unconstitutional for it increased the le&islati!e district of Ma9ati only (y special la' in !iolation of $rt" ?-, 5ec" +B.> reCuirin& a &eneral reapportionment la' to (e passed (y Con&ress 'ithin 3 years follo'in& the return of e!ery census" $lso, the addition of another le&islati!e district in Ma9ati is not in accord 'ith 5ec" +B3>, $rt" ?- of the Constitution for as of the 1990 census, the population of Ma9ati stands at only .+0,000"

-ssue: Whether or not the addition of another le&islati!e district in Ma9ati is unconstitutional #eld: Deapportionment of le&islati!e districts may (e made throu&h a special la', such as in the charter of a ne' city" The Constitution clearly pro!ides that Con&ress shall (e composed of not more than 3+0 mem(ers, unless other'ise fi2ed (y la'" $s thus 'orded, the Constitution did not preclude Con&ress from increasin& its mem(ership (y passin& a la', other than a &eneral reapportionment la'" This is e2actly 'hat 'as done (y Con&ress in enactin& D$ ;<+. and pro!idin& for an increase in Ma9ati 0s le&islati!e district" Moreo!er, to hold that reapportionment can only (e made throu&h a &eneral apportionment la', 'ith a re!ie' of all the le&islati!e districts allotted to each local &o!ernment unit nation'ide, 'ould create an ineCuita(le situation 'here a ne' city or pro!ince created (y Con&ress 'ill (e denied le&islati!e representation for an indeterminate period of time" The intolera(le situations 'ill depri!e the people of a ne' city or pro!ince a particle of their so!erei&nty" )etitioner cannot insist that the addition of another le&islati!e district in Ma9ati is not in accord 'ith 5ec" +B3>, $rt" ?- of the Constitution for as of the 1990 census, the population of Ma9ati stands at only .+0,000" 5aid section pro!ides that a city 'ith a population of at least 3+0,000 shall ha!e at least one representati!e" /!en &rantin& that the population of Ma9ati as of the 1990 census stood at .+0,000, its le&islati!e district may still (e increased since it has met the minimum population reCuirement of 3+0,000" Monte?o vs. $%MELE$ *6>6 S$-A >/0+ acts! )etitioner Cerilo Doy Monte1o, representati!e of the first district of ,eyte, pleads for the annulment of 5ection 1 of Desolution no" 3;3*, redistrictin& certain municipalities in ,eyte, on the &round that it !iolates the principle of eCuality of representation" The pro!ince of ,eyte 'ith the cities of Taclo(an and Ormoc is composed of + districts" The 3rd district is composed of: $lmeria, Filiran, Ca(uc&ayan, Cai(iran, Calu(ian, Cula(a, Oa'ayan, ,eyte, Maripipi, 4a!al, 5an -sidro, Ta(an&o and ?illa(a" Filiran, located in the 3rd district of ,eyte, 'as made its su(pro!ince (y !irtue of Depu(lic $ct 4o" 31.1 5ection 1 enacted on 19+9" 5aid section spelled out the municipalities comprisin& the su(pro!ince: $lmeria, Filiran, Ca(uc&ayan, Cai(iran, Cula(a, Oa'ayan, Maripipi and 4a!al and all the territories comprised therein" On 1993, the ,ocal %o!ernment Code too9 effect and the su(pro!ince of Filiran (ecame a re&ular pro!ince" BThe con!ersion of Filiran into a re&ular pro!ince 'as appro!ed (y a ma1ority of the !otes cast in a ple(iscite"> $s a conseCuence of the

con!ersion, ei&ht municipalities of the 3rd district composed the ne' pro!ince of Filiran" $ further conseCuence 'as to reduce the 3rd district to fi!e municipalities Bunderlined a(o!e> 'ith a total population of 1.*,0*; as per the 1990 census" To remedy the resultin& ineCuality in the distri(ution of inha(itants, !oters and municipalities in the pro!ince of ,eyte, respondent COM/,/C held consultation meetin&s 'ith the incum(ent representati!es of the pro!ince and other interested parties and on ecem(er 39, 199., it promul&ated the assailed resolution 'here, amon& others, it transferred the municipality of Capoocan of the 3nd district and the municipality of )alompon of the .th district to the 3rd district of ,eyte" "ssue! Whether the unprecedented e2ercise (y the COM/,/C of the le&islati!e po'er of redistrictin& and reapportionment is !alid or not" #eld! 5ection 1 of Desolution no" 3;3* is annulled and set aside" The deli(erations of the mem(ers of the Constitutional Commission sho's that COM/,/C 'as denied the ma1or po'er of le&islati!e apportionment as it itself e2ercised the po'er" De&ardin& the first elections after the enactment of the 19<; constitution, it is the Commission 'ho did the reapportionment of the le&islati!e districts and for the su(seCuent elections, the po'er 'as &i!en to the Con&ress" $lso, respondent COM/,/C relied on the ordinance appended to the 19<; constitution as the source of its po'er of redistrictin& 'hich is traditionally re&arded as part of the po'er to ma9e la's" 5aid ordinance states that: 5ection 3: The Commission on /lections is here(y empo'ered to ma9e minor ad1ustments to the reapportionment herein made": 5ection 3 : $ny pro!ince that may hereafter (e createdGThe num(er of Mem(ers apportioned to the pro!ince out of 'hich such ne' pro!ince 'as created or 'here the city, 'hose population has so increases, is &eo&raphically located shall (e correspondin&ly ad1usted (y the Commission on /lections (ut such ad1ustment shall not (e made 'ithin one hundred and t'enty days (efore the election" Minor ad1ustments does not in!ol!e chan&e in the allocations per district" /2amples include error in the correct name of a particular municipality or 'hen a municipality in (et'een 'hich is still in the territory of one assi&ned district is for&otten" $nd consistent 'ith the limits of its po'er to ma9e minor ad1ustments, section 3 of the Ordinance did not also &i!e the respondent COM/,/C any authority to transfer municipalities from

one le&islati!e district to another district" The po'er &ranted (y section 3 to the respondent is to ad1ust the num(er of mem(ers Bnot municipalities"> ,otes! )etitioner also prayed for the transfer of the municipality of Tolosa from the 1st district to the 3nd district" -t is li9e'ise denied" Jan" 3+, 3010 ALDA.A 7S. $%MELE$ Facts: This is an ori&inal action for )rohi(ition to declare unconstitutional Depu(lic $ct 4o" 9+91 BD$ 9+91>, creatin& a le&islati!e district for the city of Malolos, Fulacan, for !iolatin& the minimum population reCuirement for the creation of a le&islati!e district in a city" On 1 May 3009, D$ 9+91 lapsed into la', amendin& Malolos City Charter,3 (y creatin& a separate le&islati!e district for the city" The population of Malolos City 'as 333,0*9" The population of Malolos City on 1 May 3009 is a contested fact (ut there is no dispute that #ouse Fill 4o" 3*93 relied on an undated certification issued (y a De&ional irector of the 4ational 5tatistics Office B45O> that 7the pro1ected population of the Municipality of Malolos 'ill (e 3+.,030 (y the year 3010 usin& the population &ro'th rate of 3";< (et'een 199+ to 3000": -ssue: D$ 9+91 is unconstitutional for failin& to meet the minimum population threshold of 3+0,000 for a city to merit representation in Con&ress as pro!ided under 5ection +B3>, $rticle ?- of the 19<; Constitution and 5ection 3 of the Ordinance appended to the 19<; Constitution" #eld: We &rant the petition and declare D$ 9+91 unconstitutional for (ein& !iolati!e of 5ection +B3>, $rticle ?- of the 19<; Constitution and 5ection 3 of the Ordinance appended to the 19<; Constitution Dulin&: P/5" The 19<; Constitution reCuires that for a city to ha!e a le&islati!e district, the city must ha!e 7a population of at least t'o hundred fifty thousand": #ouse Fill 4o" 3*93 cites the undated Certification of De&ional irector $l(erto 4" Miranda of De&ion --- of the 4ational 5tatistics Office B45O> as authority that the population of the City of Malolos 7'ill (e 3+.,030 (y the year 3010": The Certification states that the population of 7Malolos, Fulacan as of May 1, 3000 is 1;+,391": The Certification further states that it 'as 7issued upon the reCuest of Mayor anilo $" omin&o of the City of Malolos in connection 'ith the proposed creation of Malolos City as a lone con&ressional district of the )ro!ince of Fulacan":

First, certifications on demo&raphic pro1ections can (e issued only if such pro1ections are declared official (y the 4ational 5tatistics Coordination Foard B45CF>" 5econd, certifications (ased on demo&raphic pro1ections can (e issued only (y the 45O $dministrator or his desi&nated certifyin& officer" Third, intercensal population pro1ections must (e as of the middle of e!ery year" Moreo!er, the Certification states that 7the total population of Malolos, Fulacan as of May 1, 3000 is 1;+,391": The Certification also states that the population &ro'th rate of Malolos is 3";<I per year (et'een 199+ and 3000" Fased on a &ro'th rate of 3";<I per year, the population of Malolos of 1;+,391 in 3000 'ill &ro' to only 3.1,++0 in 3010" $ny population pro1ection formin& the (asis for the creation of a le&islati!e district must (e (ased on an official and credi(le source" That is 'hy the O5% cited /2ecuti!e Order 4o" 13+, other'ise the population pro1ection 'ould (e unrelia(le or speculati!e" .AG%,G .A)A," vs $%MELE$G.-. ,o. />102@ A &une 64, 633/ acts! Fa&on& Fayani and and $9(ayan Citi6ens )arty filed (efore the COM/,/C a )etitionunder Dule *+ of the Dules of Court, challen&in& Omni(us Desolution 4o" 3;<+ issued (y theCOM/,/C" This resolution appro!ed the participation of 1+. or&ani6ations and parties,includin& those impleaded, in the 3001 party list elections" )etitioners see9 thedisCualification of pri!ate respondents, ar&uin& mainly that the party list system 'asintended to (enefit the mar&inali6ed and underrepresented@ not the mainstream political parties , the noneAmar&inali6ed or o!errepresented" "ssues! a"Whether or not political parties may participate in the partyAlist elections("Whether or not the partyAlist system is e2clusi!e to Nmar&inali6ed and underrepresented0 sectors and or&ani6ations" #eld! The )etitions are partly meritorious" These cases should (e remanded to the COM/,/C'hich 'ill determine, after summary e!identiary hearin&s, 'hether the 1+. parties andor&ani6ations enumerated in the assailed Omni(us Desolution satisfy the reCuirements of theConstitution and D$ ;9.1" The resolution of this Court directed the COM/,/C 7to refrainproclaimin& any 'inner: durin& the last partyAlist election, shall remain in force until after theCOM/,/C ha!e compiled and reported its compliance"a " P e s ( " 4 o " -ationale! a" Political parties, even the ma?or ones, may participate in the partyAlistelections " Ender the Constitution and D$ ;9.1, pri!ate respondents cannot bedisBuali8ied 8rom the partyAlist elections, merely on the 9round that they are political parties. 5ection +, $rticle ?- of the Constitution pro!ides that mem(ers of the #ouse of Depresentati!es may M(e elected throu&h a partyAlist system of re&istered national,

re&ional, and sectoral parties or or&ani6ations"MFurthermore, under 5ections ; and <, $rticle -Q BC> of the Constitution, political parties may be re9istered under the partyAlist system" For its part, 5ection 3of D$ ;9.1 also pro!ides for Ma partyAlist system of re&istered national, re&ional andsectoral parties or or&ani6ations or coalitions thereof, 2 2 2"M 5ection 3 e2pressly statesthat a CpartyC is Ceither a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties"M (" That political parties may participate in the partyAlist elections does not mean,ho'e!er, that any political party AA or any or&ani6ation or &roup for that matter AA maydo so" The reCuisite character of these parties or or&ani6ations must (e consistent'ith the purpose of the partyAlist system, as laid do'n in the Constitution and D$;9.1" 5ection +, $rticle ?- of the Constitution" (he provision on the partyAlistsystem is not sel8Aexecutory " -t is, in fact, interspersed 'ith phrases li9e Minaccordance 'ith la'M or Mas may (e pro!ided (y la'M@ it 'as thus up to Con&ress tosculpt in &ranite the lofty o(1ecti!e of the Constitution " #ence, -A 1@>/ ;asenacted. 7eterans ederation Party v. $%MELE$ Facts:C O M / , / C p r o c l a i m e d 1 . pa r t yA l i s t r e p r e s e n t a t i! e s f r o m 13 parties 'hich o(tained at least 3I of the total num(er of !otes cast fort h e p a r t yA l i s t s ys t e m as mem(ers of the #ouse of D e p r e s e n t a t i! e s " E p o n p e t i t i o n f or r e s po n d e n t s , 'h o 'e r e p a r t yA l i s t o r &a n i 6 a t i o n s , i t p r o c l a i m e d 3 < ad d i t i o n a l pa r t yA l i s t r e p r e s e n t a t i! e s a l t h o u & h t h e y o(tained less than 3I of the total num(er of !otes cast for the partyAlist system on the &round that under the Constitution, it is mandatoryt h a t a t l e a s t 3 0 I o f t h e m e m ( e r s o f t h e #o u s e o f D e p r e s e n t a t i! e s come from the partyAlist representati!es" -ssue:- s t h e t 'e n t y p e r c e n t a l l o ca t i o n f o r pa r t yl i s t r e pr e s e n t a t i ! e s mentio ned in 5ection + B3>, $rticle ?- of the Constitution, mandatory ori s i t m e r e l y a c e i l i n & = - n o t h e r ' o r d s , s h o u l d t h e t ' e n t y p e r c e n t allocation for partyAlist solons (e filled up completely and all the time= #eld:-t is not mandatory" -t merely pro!ides a ceilin& for the partyA lists e a t s i n t h e # o u s e o f D e p r e s e n t a t i ! e s " T h e C o n s t i t u t i o n ! e s t e d Con&ress 'ith the (road po'er to define and prescri(e the mechanicso f t h e p ar t yA l i s t s ys t e m of representati!es" -n the e2ercise o f i t s constitutional prero&ati!e, Con&ress deemed it necessary to reCuireparti

es participatin& in the system to o(tain at least 3I of the total!otes cast for the party list system to (e entitled to a partyAlist seat"Con&ress 'anted to ensure that only those parties ha!in& sufficientn u m ( e r o f c o n s t i t u e n t s d e s e r ! i n & o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a r e a c t u a l l y represented in Con&ress"

-ssue:$re the t'o percent threshold reCuirement and the threeAseat limit pro!ided in 5ection 11 B(> of D$ ;9.1 constitutional= #eld: Pes" -n imposin& a t'o percent threshold, Con&ress 'anted toensure that only those parties, or&ani6ations and coalitions ha!in& as u f f i c i e n t n u m ( e r o f c o n s t i t u e n t s de s e r ! i n & o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ar e actua lly represented in Con&ress" This intent can (e &leaned from thed e l i ( e r a t i o n s o n t h e p r o p o s e d ( i l l " T h e t ' o p e r c e n t t h r e s h o l d i s consistent not only 'ith the intent of the framers of the Constitutionand the la', (ut 'ith the !ery essence of Mrepresentation"M Ender a repu(lican or representati!e state, all &o!ernment authority emanatesfrom the people, (ut is e2ercised (y representati!es chosen (y them"Fut to ha!e meanin&ful representation, the elected persons must ha!et h e m a n d a t e o f a s u f f i c i e n t n u m ( e r o f p e o p l e " O t h e r ' i s e , i n a le&islature that features the partyAlist system, the result mi&ht (e thep r o l i f e r a t i o n o f s m a l l & r o u p s ' h i c h a r e i n c a p a ( l e o f c o n t r i ( u t i n & s i & n i f i ca n t l e & i s l a t i o n , a n d 'h i c h m i & h t e! en p o s e a t hr e a t t o t he sta (ility of Con&ress" Thus, e!en le&islati!e districts are apportionedaccordin& to Mthe num(er of their respecti!e inha(itants, and on the(asis of a uniform and pro&ressi!e ratioM to ensure meanin&ful local representation" -ssue:# o ' s h o u l d t h e a d d i t i o n a l s e a t s o f a C u a l i f i e d p a r t y ( e determined= #eld: 5tep One" There is no dispute amon& the petitioners, the pu(lic and the pri!ate respondents, as 'ell as the mem(ers of this Court thatthe initial step is to ran9 all the participatin& parties, or&ani6ations andcoalitions from the hi&hest to the lo'est (ased on the num(er of !otest h e y e a c h r e c e i ! e d " T h e n t h e r a t i o f o r e a c h p a r t y i s c o m p u t e d ( y di!idin& its !otes (y the total !otes cast for all the parties participatin&in the system" $ll parties 'ith at least t'o percent of the total !otesare &uaranteed one seat each" Only these parties shall (e considered in the computation of $dditional seats" The party recei!in& the hi&hestnum(er of !otes shall thenceforth (e referred to as the 7first: party" 5tep T'o"

The ne2t step is to determine the num(er of seats thef ir s t pa r t y i s en t i t l e d t o , i n o r de r to (e a(le to compute that for theo t h e r p a r t i e s " 5 i n c e t h e d i s t r i ( u t i o n i s ( a s e d o n p r o p o r t i o n a l representation, the num(er of seats to (e allotted to the other partiescannot possi(ly e2ceed that to 'hich the first party is entitled (y !irtueof its o(tainin& the most num(er of !otes" 5tep Three The ne2t step is to sol!e for the num(er of additionals e a t s t h a t t h e other Cualified parties a r e e n t i t l e d t o , ( a s e d o n proportional representation" 7eterans ederation Party v. $%MELE$, %ctober 4, 6333. Facts: On May 11, 199<, the partyAlist election 'as held simultaneously 'ith the national election" $ total of 133 parties, or&ani6ations and coalitions participated (ut only 13 partyAlist representati!es from 13 parties and or&ani6ations 'hich o(tained at least t'o percent of the total num(er of !otes cast for the partyAlist system 'ere proclaimed" The COM/,/C en(anc determined that COCOF/ B)hilippine Coconut )lanters Federation -nc">, 'as entitled to one partyAlist seat for ha!in& &arnered 3"0.I of the total !otes cast for the partAlist system" Thereafter, se!eral partyAlist or&ani6ation filed a petition to the COM/,/C to proclaim the said 'inner under the Constitution 'hich 'as later on &ranted (y the COM/,/C in di!ision and affirmed (y COM/,/C en (anc" ConseCuently, se!eral petition for certiorari, prohi(ition and mandamus, 'ith prayers for the issuance of the temporary restrainin& order or 'rit of preliminary in1unction 'ere filed to the 5upreme Court (y the parties 'ho also o(tained at least t'o percent !otes cast for partyAlist system" -ssue: Whether or not the COM/,/C commit &ra!e a(used of discretion in rulin& that 3< parties, or&ani6ations, and coalitions are entitled to a partyAlist seat" #eld: The COM/,/C committed a &ra!e a(use of discretion in rulin& that the 3< herein respondents are each entitled to a partyAlist seat (ecause it &larin&ly !iolated t'o reCuirements of D$;9.1 'hich is the t'o percent threshold and proportional representation" .antay vs. $%MELE$ G.-. ,o. /1161/ May >, 6331 A$(S! Fefore the Court are t'o consolidated petitions for certiorari and mandamus to nullify and set aside certain issuances of the Commission on /lections BComelec> respectin& partyAlist &roups 'hich ha!e manifested their intention to participate in the

partyAlist elections on May 1., 300;" $ num(er of or&ani6ed &roups filed the necessary manifestations and su(seCuently 'ere accredited (y the Comelec to participate in the 300; elections" Fantay Depu(lic $ct BF$AD$ ;9.1> and the Er(an )oor for ,e&al Deforms BE)A,D> filed 'ith the Comelec an Er&ent )etition to isCualify, see9in& to disCualify the nominees of certain partyAlist or&ani6ations" oc9eted in the Comelec as 5)$ Case 4o 0;A03*, this ur&ent petition has yet to (e resol!ed" Mean'hile petitioner Dosales, in %"D" 4o" 1;;31., addressed 3 letters to the irector of the Comelec0s ,a' epartment reCuestin& a list of that &roups0 nominees" /!idently un(e9no'nst then to Ms" Dosales, et al", 'as the issuance of Comelec en (anc Desolution 0;A0;3. under date $pril 3, 300; !irtually declarin& the nominees0 names confidential and in net effect denyin& petitioner Dosales0 (asic disclosure reCuest" Comelec0s reason for 9eepin& the names of the party list nominees a'ay from the pu(lic is deduci(le from the e2cerpts of the ne's report appearin& in the $pril 13, 300; issue of the Manila Fulletin, is that there is nothin& in D"$" ;9.1 that reCuires the Comelec to disclose the names of nominees, and that party list elections must not (e personality oriented accordin& to Chairman $(alos" -n the first petition B%"D" 4o" 1;;3;1>, F$AD$ ;9.1 and E)A,D assail the Comelec resolutions accreditin& pri!ate respondents Fiyahen& )inoy et al", to participate in the forthcomin& partyAlist elections 'ithout simultaneously determinin& 'hether or not their respecti!e nominees possess the reCuisite Cualifications defined in D"$" 4o" ;9.1, or the M)artyA,ist 5ystem $ctM and (elon& to the mar&inali6ed and underrepresented sector each see9s to" -n the second petition B%"D" 4o" 1;;31.>, petitioners ,oreta $nn )" Dosales, Oilos(ayan Foundation and Fantay Oatarun&an Foundation impu&n Comelec Desolution dated $pril 3, 300;" While (oth petitions commonly see9 to compel the Comelec to disclose or pu(lish the names of the nominees of the !arious partyAlist &roups named in the petitions, F$AD$ ;9.1 and E)A,D ha!e the additional prayers that the 33 pri!ate respondents named therein (e MdeclareRdS as unCualified to participate in the partyAlist elections and that the Comelec (e en1oined from allo'in& respondent &roups from participatin& in the elections" "SS'E! 1" Can the Court cancel the accreditation accorded (y the Comelec to the respondent partyAlist &roups named in their petition on the &round that these &roups and their respecti!e nominees do not appear to (e Cualified" 3" Whether respondent Comelec, (y refusin& to re!eal the names of the nominees of the !arious partyAlist &roups, has !iolated the ri&ht to information and free access to documents as &uaranteed (y the Constitution@ and

3" Whether respondent Comelec is mandated (y the Constitution to disclose to the pu(lic the names of said nominees" #ELD! The 1st petition is partly /4-/ insofar as it see9s to nullify the accreditation of the respondents named therein" #o'e!er, insofar as it see9s to compel the Comelec to disclose or pu(lish the names of the nominees of partyAlist &roups, sectors or or&ani6ations accredited to participate in the May 1., 300; elections, the 3 petitions are %D$4T/ " $ccordin&ly, the Comelec is here(y OD /D/ to immediately disclose and release the names of the nominees of the partyAlist &roups, 1" The Court is una(le to &rant the desired plea of petitioners F$AD$ ;9.1 and E)A,D for cancellation of accreditation on the &rounds thus ad!anced in their petition" The e2ercise 'ould reCuire the Court to ma9e a factual determination, a matter 'hich is outside the office of 1udicial re!ie' (y 'ay of special ci!il action for certiorari" -n certiorari proceedin&s, the Court is not called upon to decide factual issues and the case must (e decided on the undisputed facts on record" The sole function of a 'rit of certiorari is to address issues of 'ant of 1urisdiction or &ra!e a(use of discretion and does not include a re!ie' of the tri(unal0s e!aluation of the e!idence" Bnote that no'here in D"$" 4o" ;9.1 is there a reCuirement that the Cualification of a partyAlist nominee (e determined simultaneously 'ith the accreditation of an or&ani6ation" > 3" 5ection ;, $rticle --- of the Constitution, !i6: 5ec";" The ri&ht of the people to information on matters of pu(lic concern shall (e reco&ni6ed" $ccess to official records, and to documents, and papers pertainin& to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as 'ell to &o!ernment research data used as (asis for policy de!elopment, shall (e afforded the citi6en, su(1ect to such limitations as may (e pro!ided (y la'" 5ection 3<, $rticle -- of the Constitution readin&: 5ec" 3<" 5u(1ect to reasona(le conditions prescri(ed (y la', the 5tate adopts and implements a policy of full pu(lic disclosure of all its transactions in!ol!in& pu(lic interest" COM/,/C0s (asis of its refusal to disclose the names of the nominees of su(1ect partyAlist &roups, 5ection ; of D"$" ;9.1,'hich last sentence reads: MRTShe names of the partyAlist nominees shall not (e sho'n on the certified listM is certainly not a 1ustifyin& card for the Comelec to deny the reCuested disclosure" There is a(solutely nothin& in D"$" 4o" ;9.1 that prohi(its the Comelec from disclosin& or e!en pu(lishin& throu&h mediums other than the MCertified ,istM of the names" -t has (een repeatedly said in !arious conte2ts that the people ha!e the ri&ht to elect their representati!es on the (asis of an informed 1ud&ment" While the !ote cast in a partyAlist elections is a !ote for a party, such !ote, in the end, 'ould (e a !ote for its nominees, 'ho, in appropriate cases, 'ould e!entually sit in the #ouse of

Depresentati!es" The Court fro'ns upon any interpretation of the la' or rules that 'ould hinder in any 'ay the free and intelli&ent castin& of the !otes in an election 3" COM/,/C has a constitutional duty to disclose and release the names of the nominees of the partyAlist &roups named in the herein petitions" The ri&ht to information is a pu(lic ri&ht 'here the real parties in interest are the pu(lic, or the citi6ens to (e precise, (ut li9e all constitutional &uarantees, ho'e!er, the ri&ht to information and its companion ri&ht of access to official records are not a(solute" The people0s ri&ht to 9no' is limited to Mmatters of pu(lic concernM and is further su(1ect to such limitation as may (e pro!ided (y la'" Fut no national security or li9e concerns is in!ol!ed in the disclosure of the names of the nominees of the partyAlist &roups in Cuestion" ou(tless, the Comelec committed &ra!e a(use of discretion in refusin& the le&itimate demands of the petitioners for a list of the nominees of the partyAlist &roups su(1ect of their respecti!e petitions" Mandamus, therefore, lies" .A,A( vs. $%MELE$ , G- /1@61 D April 6/, 633@ E )ost under case di&ests, )olitical ,a' at Thursday, Fe(ruary 33, 3013 )osted (y 5chi6ophrenic Mind Facts: Faran&ay $ssociation for 4ational $d!ancement and Transparency BF$4$T> filed (efore the Commission on /lections BCOM/,/C> a petition to proclaim the full num(er of party list representati!es pro!ided (y the Constitution" #o'e!er, the recommendation of the head of the le&al &roup of COM/,/C0s national (oard of can!assers to declare the petition moot and academic 'as appro!ed (y the COM/,/C en (anc, and declared further in a resolution that the 'innin& party list 'ill (e resol!ed usin& the ?eterans rulin&" F$4$T then filed a petition (efore the 5C assailin& said resolution of the COM/,/C" -ssues: B1> -s the 30I allocation for partyAlist representati!es pro!ided in 5ec + B3>, $rt ?- of the Constitution mandatory or is it merely a ceilin&= B3> -s the 3I threshold and 7Cualifier: !otes prescri(ed (y the same 5ec 11 B(> of D$ ;9.1 constitutional= B3> oes the Constitution prohi(it ma1or political parties from participatin& in the partyAlist elections= -f not, can ma1or political parties participate in the partyAlist elections= #eld: B1> 4either the Constitution nor D$ ;9.1 mandates the fillin& up of the entire 30I allocation of partyAlist representati!es found in the Constitution" The Constitution, in para&raph 1, 5ec + of $rt ?-, left the determination of the num(er of the mem(ers of the #ouse of Depresentati!es to Con&ress" The 30I allocation of partyAlist

representati!es is merely a ceilin&@ partyAlist representati!es cannot (e more then 30I of the mem(ers of the #ouse of Depresentati!es" B3> 4o" We rule that, in computin& the allocation of additional seats, the continued operation of the t'o percent threshold for the distri(ution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of 5ec 11B(> of D$ ;9.1 is unconstitutional" This Court finds that the t'o percent threshold ma9es it mathematically impossi(le to achie!e the ma2imum num(er of a!aila(le partyAlist seats 'hen the a!aila(le partyAlist seat e2ceeds +0" The continued operation of the t'o percent threshold in the distri(ution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissi!e ceilin& that 30I of the mem(ers of the #ouse of Depresentati!es shall consist of partyAlist representati!es"We therefore stri9e do'n the t'o percent threshold only in relation to the distri(ution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of 5ec 11 B(> of D$ ;9.1" The t'o percent threshold presents an un'arranted o(stacle to the full implementation of 5ec + B3>, $rt ?- of the Constitution and pre!ents the attainment of 7theA(roadest possi(le representation of party, sectoral or &roup interests in the #ouse of Depresentati!es": B3> 4o" 4either the Constitution nor D$ ;9.1 prohi(its ma1or political parties from participatin& in the partyAlist system" On the contrary, the framers of the Constitution clearly intended the ma1or political parties to participate in partyAlist elections throu&h their sectoral 'in&s" #o'e!er, (y !ote of <A;, the Court decided to continue the rulin& in ?eterans disallo'in& ma1or political parties from participatin& in the partyAlist elections, directly or indirectly" A,G LADLAD 7S. $%MELE$ Facts: )etitioner is a national or&ani6ation 'hich represents the les(ians, &ays, (ise2uals, and transA&enders" -t filed a petition for accreditation as a partyAlist or&ani6ation to pu(lic respondent" #o'e!er, due to moral &rounds, the latter denied the said petition" To (uttress their denial, COM/,/C cited certain (i(lical and Curanic passa&es in their decision" -t also stated that since their 'ays are immoral and contrary to pu(lic policy, they are considered nuissance" -n fact, their acts are e!en punisha(le under the De!ised )enal Code in its $rticle 301" $ motion for reconsideration (ein& denied, )etitioner filed this instant )etition on Certiorari under Dule *+ of the DOC" $n& ,adlad ar&ued that the denial of accreditation, insofar as it 1ustified the e2clusion (y usin& reli&ious do&ma, !iolated the constitutional &uarantees a&ainst the esta(lishment of reli&ion" )etitioner also claimed that the $ssailed Desolutions contra!ened its constitutional ri&hts to pri!acy, freedom of speech and assem(ly, and eCual protection of la's, as 'ell as constituted !iolations of the )hilippines0 international o(li&ations a&ainst discrimination (ased on se2ual orientation"

-n its Comment, the COM/,/C reiterated that petitioner does not ha!e a concrete and &enuine national political a&enda to (enefit the nation and that the petition 'as !alidly dismissed on moral &rounds" -t also ar&ued for the first time that the ,%FT sector is not amon& the sectors enumerated (y the Constitution and D$ ;9.1, and that petitioner made untruthful statements in its petition 'hen it alle&ed its national e2istence contrary to actual !erification reports (y COM/,/C0s field personnel" -ssue: WO4 Despondent !iolated the 4onAesta(lishment clause of the Constitution@ WO4 Despondent erred in denyin& )etitioners application on moral and le&al &rounds" #eld: Despondent mista9enly opines that our rulin& in $n& Fa&on& Fayani stands for the proposition that only those sectors specifically enumerated in the la' or related to said sectors Bla(or, peasant, fisherfol9, ur(an poor, indi&enous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, 'omen, youth, !eterans, o!erseas 'or9ers, and professionals> may (e re&istered under the partyAlist system" $s 'e e2plicitly ruled in $n& Fa&on& FayaniAOFW ,a(or )arty !" Commission on /lections, 7the enumeration of mar&inali6ed and underArepresented sectors is not e2clusi!e:" The crucial element is not 'hether a sector is specifically enumerated, (ut 'hether a particular or&ani6ation complies 'ith the reCuirements of the Constitution and D$ ;9.1" Our Constitution pro!ides in $rticle ---, 5ection + that 7RnSo la' shall (e made respectin& an esta(lishment of reli&ion, or prohi(itin& the free e2ercise thereof": $t (ottom, 'hat our nonAesta(lishment clause calls for is 7&o!ernment neutrality in reli&ious matters": Clearly, 7&o!ernmental reliance on reli&ious 1ustification is inconsistent 'ith this policy of neutrality": We thus find that it 'as &ra!e !iolation of the nonAesta(lishment clause for the COM/,/C to utili6e the Fi(le and the Ooran to 1ustify the e2clusion of $n& ,adlad" Fe it noted that &o!ernment action must ha!e a secular purpose" Despondent has failed to e2plain 'hat societal ills are sou&ht to (e pre!ented, or 'hy special protection is reCuired for the youth" 4either has the COM/,/C condescended to 1ustify its position that petitioner0s admission into the partyAlist system 'ould (e so harmful as to irrepara(ly dama&e the moral fa(ric of society" We also find the COM/,/C0s reference to purported !iolations of our penal and ci!il la's flimsy, at (est@ disin&enuous, at 'orst" $rticle *9. of the Ci!il Code defines a nuisance as 7any act, omission, esta(lishment, condition of property, or anythin& else 'hich shoc9s, defies, or disre&ards decency or morality,: the remedies for 'hich are a prosecution under the De!ised )enal Code or any local ordinance, a ci!il action, or a(atement 'ithout 1udicial proceedin&s" $ !iolation of $rticle 301 of the De!ised )enal

Code, on the other hand, reCuires proof (eyond reasona(le dou(t to support a criminal con!iction" -t hardly needs to (e emphasi6ed that mere alle&ation of !iolation of la's is not proof, and a mere (lan9et in!ocation of pu(lic morals cannot replace the institution of ci!il or criminal proceedin&s and a 1udicial determination of lia(ility or culpa(ility" $s such, 'e hold that moral disappro!al, 'ithout more, is not a sufficient &o!ernmental interest to 1ustify e2clusion of homose2uals from participation in the partyAlist system" The denial of $n& ,adlad0s re&istration on purely moral &rounds amounts more to a statement of disli9e and disappro!al of homose2uals, rather than a tool to further any su(stantial pu(lic interest" Sema vs $%MELE$ on &une 65, 63// Municipal Corporation L Creation of ,%Es (y $utonomous De&ions B$DMM> L )opulation DeCuirement The )ro!ince of Ma&uindanao is part of $DMM" Cota(ato City is part of the pro!ince of Ma&uindanao (ut it is not part or $DMM (ecause Cota(ato City !oted a&ainst its inclusion in a ple(iscite held in 19<9" Ma&uindanao has t'o le&islati!e districts" The 1stle&islati!e district comprises of Cota(ato City and < other municipalities" $ la' BD$ 90+.> 'as passed amendin& $DMM0s Or&anic $ct and !estin& it 'ith po'er to create pro!inces, municipalities, cities and (aran&ays" )ursuant to this la', the $DMM De&ional $ssem(ly created 5hariff Oa(unsuan BMuslim Mindanao $utonomy $ct 301> 'hich comprised of the municipalities of the 1 st district of Ma&uindanao 'ith the e2ception of Cota(ato City" For the purposes of the 300; elections, COM/,/C initially stated that the 1 st district is no' only made of Cota(ato City B(ecause of MM$ 301>" Fut it later amended this statin& that status Cuo should (e retained ho'e!er 1ust for the purposes of the elections, the first district should (e called 5hariff Oa(unsuan 'ith Cota(ato City L this is also 'hile a'aitin& a decisi!e declaration from Con&ress as to Cota(ato0s status as a le&islati!e district Bor part of any>" 5ema 'as a con&ressional candidate for the le&islati!e district of 5" Oa(unsuan 'ith Cota(ato B1st district>" ,ater, 5ema 'as contendin& that Cota(ato City should (e a separate le&islati!e district and that !otes therefrom should (e e2cluded in the !otin& Bpro(a(ly (ecause her ri!al ilan&alen 'as from there and 'as 'innin& L in fact he 'on>" 5he contended that under the Constitution, upon creation of a pro!ince B5" Oa(unsuan>, that pro!ince automatically &ains le&islati!e representation and since 5" Oa(unsuan e2cludes Cota(ato City L so in effect Cota(ato is (ein& depri!ed of a representati!e in the #OD"

COM/,/C maintained that the le&islati!e district is still there and that re&ardless of 5" Oa(unsuan (ein& created, the le&islati!e district is not affected and so is its representation" "SS'E! Whether or not D$ 90+. is unconstitutional" Whether or not $DMM can create !alidly ,%Es" #ELD! D$ 90+. is unconstitutional" The creation of local &o!ernment units is &o!erned (y 5ection 10, $rticle Q of the Constitution, 'hich pro!ides: 5ec" 10" 4o pro!ince, city, municipality, or (aran&ay may (e created, di!ided, mer&ed, a(olished or its (oundary su(stantially altered e2cept in accordance 'ith the criteria esta(lished in the local &o!ernment code and su(1ect to appro!al (y a ma1ority of the !otes cast in a ple(iscite in the political units directly affected" Thus, the creation of any of the four local &o!ernment units pro!ince, city, municipality or (aran&ay must comply 'ith three conditions" First, the creation of a local &o!ernment unit must follo' the criteria fi2ed in the ,ocal %o!ernment Code" 5econd, such creation must not conflict 'ith any pro!ision of the Constitution" Third, there must (e a ple(iscite in the political units affected" There is neither an e2press prohi(ition nor an e2press &rant of authority in the Constitution for Con&ress to dele&ate to re&ional or local le&islati!e (odies the po'er to create local &o!ernment units" #o'e!er, under its plenary le&islati!e po'ers, Con&ress can dele&ate to local le&islati!e (odies the po'er to create local &o!ernment units, su(1ect to reasona(le standards and pro!ided no conflict arises 'ith any pro!ision of the Constitution" -n fact, Con&ress has dele&ated to pro!incial (oards, and city and municipal councils, the po'er to create (aran&ays 'ithin their 1urisdiction, su(1ect to compliance 'ith the criteria esta(lished in the ,ocal %o!ernment Code, and the ple(iscite reCuirement in 5ection 10, $rticle Q of the Constitution" #ence, $DMM cannot !alidly create 5hariff Oa(unsuan pro!ince" 4ote that in order to create a city there must (e at least a population of at least 3+09, and that a pro!ince, once created, should ha!e at least one representati!e in the #OD" 4ote further that in order to ha!e a le&islati!e district, there must at least (e 3+09 Bpopulation> in said district" Cota(ato City did not meet the population reCuirement so 5ema0s contention is untena(le" On the other hand, $DMM cannot !alidly create the pro!ince of 5" Oa(unsuan 'ithout first creatin& a le&islati!e district" Fut this can ne!er (e le&ally possi(le (ecause the creation of le&islati!e districts is !ested solely in Con&ress" $t most, 'hat $DMM can create are (aran&ays not cities and pro!inces"

-omualdeFAMarcos vs. $%MELE$ %"D" 4o" 1199;* 5eptem(er 1<, 199+ Facts: )etitioner -melda Domualde6AMarcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Depresentati!e of the First istrict of ,eyte" )ri!ate respondent Cirilo Doy Monte1o, a candidate for the same position, filed a petition for cancellation and disCualification 'ith the COM/,/C alle&in& that petitioner did not meet the constitutional reCuirement for residency" )ri!ate respondent contended that petitioner lac9ed the ConstitutionTUVs oneAyear residency reCuirement for candidates for the #ouse of Depresentati!es" -ssue: Whether or not petitioner has satisfied the residency reCuirement as mandated (y $rt" ?-, 5ec" * of the Constitution" Dulin&: W#/D/FOD/, ha!in& determined that petitioner possesses the necessary residence Cualifications to run for a seat in the #ouse of Depresentati!es in the First istrict of ,eyte, the COM/,/CTUVs Cuestioned Desolutions dated $pril 3., May ;, May 11, and May 3+, 199+ are here(y 5/T $5- /" Despondent COM/,/C is here(y directed to order the )ro!incial Foard of Can!assers to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected Depresentati!e of the First istrict of ,eyte" For election purposes, residence is used synonymously 'ith domicile" The Court upheld the Cualification of petitioner, despite her o'n declaration in her certificate of candidacy that she had resided in the district for only ; months, (ecause of the follo'in&: Ba> a minor follo's the domicile of her parents@ Taclo(an (ecame petitionerTUVs domicile of ori&in (y operation of la' 'hen her father (rou&ht the family to ,eyte@ B(> domicile of ori&in is lost only 'hen there is actual remo!al or chan&e of domicile, a (ona fide intention of a(andonin& the former residence and esta(lishin& a ne' one, and acts 'hich correspond 'ith the purpose@ in the a(sence of clear and positi!e proof of the concurrence of all these, the domicile of ori&in should (e deemed to continue@ Bc> the 'ife does not automatically &ain the hus(andTUVs domicile (ecause the term TUWresidenceTU in Ci!il ,a' does not mean the same thin& in )olitical ,a'@ 'hen petitioner married )resident Marcos in 19+., she 9ept her domicile of ori&in and merely &ained a ne' home, not a domicilium necessarium@ Bd> e!en assumin& that she &ained a ne' domicile after her marria&e and acCuired the ri&ht to choose a ne' one only after her hus(and died, her acts follo'in& her return to the country clearly indicate that she chose Taclo(an, her domicile of ori&in, as her domicile of choice" Facts: )etitioner -melda Domualde6AMarcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for Depresentati!e of the First istrict of ,eyte" For residency, she indicated se!en months" $fter the incum(ent Depresentati!e Cirilo Doy Monte1o filed a petition for her disCualification, Domualde6AMarcos filed an amended COC, chan&in& residency from se!en months to TUWsince childhoodTU" 5he 'as e!entually disCualified" -ssue: WO4 petitioner 'as a resident, for election purposes, of the First ,eyte for a period of one year at the time of the May 9, 199+ elections" istrict of

Dulin&: $ffirmati!e" The domicile of natural persons is their place of ha(itual residence B$rt" +0, 4CC>" omicile is an indi!idualTUVs permanent home, a place to 'hich, 'hene!er a(sent for (usiness or for pleasure, one intends to return" omicile includes the t'in elements of the fact of residin& or physical presence in a fi2ed place and animus manendi, or the intention of returnin& there permanently" $n indi!idual does not lose his domicile e!en if he has li!ed and maintained residences in different places" Desidence implies a factual relationship to a &i!en place for !arious purposes" omicile of ori&in is not easily lost" To successfully effect a chan&e of domicile, one must demonstrate: 1" $n actual remo!al or an actual chan&e of domicile@ 3" $ (ona fide intention of a(andonin& the former place of residence and esta(lishin& a ne' one@ and 3" $cts 'hich correspond 'ith the purpose" -n the a(sence of clear and positi!e proof (ased on these criteria, the residence of ori&in should (e deemed to continue" 4ote: 4CC: residence TU7 relation (et'een person and place is of fact@ domicile TU7 relation (et'een person and place is le&al or 1uridical, independent of the necessity of physical presence" $lthou&h the hus(and may fi2 the residence of the family, the 'ife does not automatically lose her domicile of ori&in in fa!or of the hus(andTUVs choice of residence upon marria&e" Justice Domero: $ 'ido' does not automatically re!ert to her domicile of ori&in Bif she lost it at all>, (ut, e2ercisin& free 'ill, she may opt to reesta(lish her domicile" AG'",% vs. $%MELE$ B3.< 5CD$ .00> acts! On 30 March 199+, $&apito $" $Cuino filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Depresentati!efor the ne' 5econd ,e&islati!e istrict of Ma9ati City" -n his certificate of candidacy, $Cuino stated that he 'as aresident of the aforementioned district for 10 months" Faced 'ith a petition for disCualification, he amended theentry on his residency in his certificate of candidacy to 1 year and 13 days" The Commission on /lectionsdismissed the petition on * May and allo'ed $Cuino to run in the election of < May" $Cuino 'on" $ctin& on amotion for reconsideration of the a(o!e dismissal, the Commission on /lection later issued an order suspendin&the proclamation of $Cuino until the Commission resol!ed the issue" On 3 June, the Commission on /lectionsfound $Cuino ineli&i(le and disCualified for the electi!e office for lac9 of constitutional Cualification of residence" "ssue! W he t h e r 7 r e s i d e n c y: i n t h e c er t i f i c a t e o f c an d i d a c y a c t u a l l y c on n o t e s 7 d o m i c i l e : t o 'a r r a n t t h e disCualification of $Cuino from the position in the electoral district"

#eld! The place 7'here a party actually or constructi!ely has his permanent home,: 'here he, no matter'here he may (e found at any &i!en time, e!entually intends to return and remain, i"e", his domicile, is that to'hich the Constitution refers 'hen it spea9s of residence for the purposes of election la'" The purpose is toe2clude stran&ers or ne'comers unfamiliar 'ith the conditions and needs of the community from ta9in&ad!anta&e of fa!ora(le circumstances e2istin& in that community for electoral &ain" $Cuino0s certificate of candidacy in a pre!ious B1993> election indicates that he 'as a resident and a re&istered !oter of 5an Jose,Concepcion, Tarlac for more than +3 years prior to that election" $Cuino0s connection to the 5econd istrict of Ma9ati City is an alle&ed lease a&reement of a condominium unit in the area" The intention not to esta(lish apermanent home in Ma9ati City is e!ident in his leasin& a condominium unit instead of (uyin& one" The shortlen&th of time he claims to (e a resident of Ma9ati Band the fact of his stated domicile in Tarlac and his claims of other residences in Metro Manila> indicate that his sole purpose in transferrin& his physical residence is not toacCuire a ne', residence or domicile (ut only to Cualify as a candidate for Depresentati!e of the 5econd istrictof Ma9ati City" $Cuino 'as thus ri&htfully disCualified (y the Commission on /lections" Domino vs. $%MELE$ G.-. ,o. /5>3/0, &uly /@, /@@@ acts! )etitioner omino filed his certificate of candidacy for theposition of Depresentati!e of the lone le&islati!e district of the )ro!ince of 5aran&ani indicatin& that he has resided in the constituency 'here he see9s to (e elected for 1 year and 3 months" )ri!ate respondents filed a petition see9in& to cancel the certificate of candidacy of omino, alle&in& that omino, contrary to his declaration in the certificate of candidacy, is not a resident, much less are&istered !oter, of the pro!ince of 5aran&ani 'here he see9s election" Thereafter, the COM/,/C promul&ated a resolution declarin& omino disCualified as candidate for the position of representati!e of the lone district of 5aran&ani in the May 11, 199< polls for lac9 of the oneAyear residency reCuirement and li9e'ise ordered the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy (ased on his o'n ?oter0s De&istration Decord and his address indicated as 3. Fonifacio 5t", $yala #ts", Old Falara, Xue6on City"

"ssue! Whether or not petitioner has resided in 5aran&ani )ro!ince for at least 1 year immediately precedin& the May 11, 199< elections

#eld! The term 7residence,: as used in the la' prescri(in& theCualifications for suffra&e and for electi!e office, means the same thin& as 7domicile,: 'hich imports not only an intention to reside in a fi2ed place (ut also personal presence in that place, coupled 'ith conduct indicati!e of such intention" 7 omicile: denotes a fi2edpermanent residence to 'hich, 'hene!er a(sent for (usiness,pleasure, or some other reasons, one intends to return" Decords sho' that petitioner0s domicile of ori&in 'as Candon, -locos 5ur and that sometime in 1991, he acCuired a ne' domicile of choice in Xue6on City, as sho'n (y his certificate of candidacy for theposition of representati!e of the Third istrict of Xue6on City in the May 199+ election" )etitioner is no' claimin& that he had effecti!ely a(andoned his residence in Xue6on City and has esta(lished a ne' domicile of choice in the )ro!ince of 5aran&ani" $ person0s domicile, once esta(lished, is considered to continue and 'ill not (e deemed lost until a ne' one is esta(lished" To successfully effect a chan&e of domicile, one must demonstrate an actual remo!al or an actual chan&e of domicile@ a (ona fide intention of a(andonin& the former place of residence and esta(lishin& a ne' one and definite acts 'hich correspond 'ith the purpose" The contract of lease of a house and lot entered into sometime in January 199; does not adeCuately support a chan&e of domicile" Thelease contract may (e indicati!e of omino0s intention to reside in 5aran&ani, (ut it does not en&ender the 9ind of permanency reCuired to pro!e a(andonment of one0s ori&inal domicile" The mere a(sence of indi!idual from his permanent residence, no matter ho' lon&, 'ithout the intention to a(andon it does not result in loss or chan&e of domicile" Thus, the date of the contract of lease of a house and lot in 5aran&ani cannot (e used, in the a(sence of other circumstances, as the rec9onin& period of the oneAyear residence reCuirement" Further, omino0s lac9 of intention to a(andon his residence in Xue6on City is stren&thened (y his act of re&isterin& as !oter in Xue6on City" While !otin& is not conclusi!e of residence, it does &i!e rise to a stron& presumption of residence especially in this case 'here ominore&istered in his former (aran&ay" $% vs. #-E( acts! The #D/T declared that respondent Jose On&, Jr" is a natural (orn Filipino citi6en and a resident of ,aoan&, 4orthern 5amar for !otin& purposes" The con&ressional election for the second district of 4orthern5amar 'as held"

$mon& the candidates 'ho !ied for the position of representati!e in the second le&islati!edistrict are the petitioners, 5i2to FalinCuit and $ntonio Co and the pri!ate respondent, Jose On&, Jr" DespondentOn& 'as proclaimed the duly elected representati!e of the second district of 4orthern 5amar" The petitioners filed election protests on the &rounds that Jose On&, Jr" is not a natural (orn citi6en of the)hilippines and not a resident of the second district of 4orthern 5amar" "ssue! Whether or not Jose On&, Jr" is a citi6en of the )hilippines" #eld! Pes" -n the year 1<9+, the pri!ate respondent0s &randfather, On& Te, arri!ed in the )hilippines fromChina and esta(lished his residence in the municipality of ,aoan&, 5amar" The father of the pri!ate respondent, Jose On& Chuan 'as (orn in China in 190+ (ut 'as (rou&ht (y On& Te to 5amar in the year 191+, he filed 'iththe court an application for naturali6ation and 'as declared a Filipino citi6en"-n 19<., the pri!ate respondent married a Filipina named esiree ,im" For the elections of 19<. and19<*, Jose On&, Jr" re&istered himself as a !oter of ,aoan&, 5amar, and !oted there durin& those elections"Ender the 19;3 Constitution, those (orn of Filipino fathers and those (orn of Filipino mothers 'ith analien father 'ere placed on eCual footin&" They 'ere (oth considered as natural (orn citi6ens" Fesides, pri!ater e s p o n d e n t d i d m o r e t h a n m e r e l y e 2 e r c i se h i s r i &h t o f s u f f r a & e " # e h a s e s t a ( l i s h e d h i s l i f e h e r e i n t he )hilippines"On the issue of residence, it is not reCuired that a person should ha!e a house in order to esta(lish hisresidence and domicile" -t is enou&h that he should li!e in the municipality or in a rented house or in that of afriend or relati!e" To reCuire him to o'n property in order to (e eli&i(le to run for Con&ress 'ould (e tantamountto a property Cualification" The Constitution only reCuires that the candidate meet the a&e, citi6enship, !otin&and residence reCuirements" Dimaporo v. Mitra A$(S! )etitioner Mohamad $li imaporo 'as elected Depresentati!e for the 5econd ,e&islati!e istrict of ,anao del 5ur durin& the 19<; con&ressional elections" On 1+ January 1990, petitioner filed 'ith the COM/,/C a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of De&ional %o!ernor of the $utonomous De&ion in Muslim Mindanao in the immediately follo'in& elections" Epon (ein& informed of this de!elopment (y the COM/,/C, respondents 5pea9er and 5ecretary of the #ouse of Depresentati!es e2cluded petitionerKs name from the Doll of Mem(ers of the #ouse of Depresentati!es pursuant to 5ection *;, $rticle -Q of the Omni(us /lection Code 'hich states: $ny electi!e official 'hether national or local runnin& for any office other than the one 'hich he is holdin& in a permanent capacity e2cept for )resident and ?iceA)resident shall (e considered ipso facto resi&ned from his office upon the filin& of his certificate of candidacy"

#a!in& lost in the autonomous re&ion elections, petitioner, in a letter addressed to respondent 5pea9er, e2pressed his intention Mto resume performin& my duties and functions as elected Mem(er of Con&ress" #e maintains that he did not there(y lose his seat as con&ressman (ecause 5ection *;, $rticle -Q of F")" Fl&" <<1 is not operati!e under the present Constitution, (ein& contrary thereto, and therefore not applica(le to the present mem(ers of Con&ress" -n support of his contention, petitioner points out that the term of office of mem(ers of the #ouse of Depresentati!es, as 'ell as the &rounds (y 'hich the incum(ency of said mem(ers may (e shortened, are pro!ided for in the Constitution" 5ection 3, $rticle Q?--- thereof pro!ides that Mthe 5enators, Mem(ers of the #ouse of Depresentati!es and the local officials first elected under this Constitution shall ser!e until noon of June 30, 1993,M 'hile 5ection ;, $rticle ?- states: MThe Mem(ers of the #ouse of Depresentati!es shall (e elected for a term of three years 'hich shall (e&in, unless other'ise pro!ided (y la', at noon on the thirtieth day of June ne2t follo'in& their election" #e asserts that under the rule e2pressio unius est e2clusio alterius, 5ection *;, $rticle -Q of F")" Fl&" <<1 is repu&nant to these constitutional pro!isions in that it pro!ides for the shortenin& of a con&ressmanKs term of office on a &round not pro!ided for in the Constitution" Moreo!er, he claims that he cannot (e said to ha!e forfeited his seat as it is only 'hen a con&ressman holds another office or employment that forfeiture is decreed" Filin& a certificate of candidacy is not eCui!alent to holdin& another office or employment" "SS'E! 1" -5 5/CT-O4 *;, $DT-C,/ -Q, OF F")" F,%" <<1 O)/D$T-?/ E4 /D T#/ )D/5/4T CO45T-TET-O4= 3" COE, T#/ D/5)O4 /4T 5)/$O/D $4 8OD T#/ D/5)O4 /4T 5/CD/T$DP, KFP $ M-4-5TD$T-?/ $CTK, /QC,E / T#/ )/T-T-O4/D FDOM T#/ DO,,5 OF T#/ #OE5/ OF D/)D/5/4T$T-?/5, T#/D/FP )D/?/4T-4% #-M FDOM /Q/DC-5-4% #-5 FE4CT-O45 $5 CO4%D/55M$4, $4 /)D-?-4% #-M OF #-5 D-%#T5 $4 )D-?-,/%/5 $5 5EC#= #ELD! The petition is -5M-55/ for lac9 of merit"

1" The officials runnin& for office other than the ones they are holdin& 'ill (e considered resi&ned not (ecause of a(use of facilities of po'er or the use of office facilities (ut primarily (ecause under our Constitution, 'e ha!e this Gchapter on accounta(ility of pu(lic officers B(oth in the 19;3 and 19<; constitution>" 5ection 1 of $rticle Q- B19<;> on M$ccounta(ility of )u(lic OfficersM states that:

5ec" 1" )u(lic office is a pu(lic trust" )u(lic officers and employees must at all times (e accounta(le to the people, ser!e them 'ith utmost responsi(ility, inte&rity, loyalty, and efficiency, act 'ith patriotism and 1ustice, and lead modest li!es" Ender this commentary on accounta(ility of pu(lic officers, the electi!e pu(lic officers must ser!e their principal, the people, not their o'n personal am(ition" )etitioner failed to discern that rather than cut short the term of office of electi!e pu(lic officials, this statutory pro!ision B5ection *;, $rticle -Q of F")" Fl&" <<1> see9s to ensure that such officials ser!e out their entire term of office (y discoura&in& them from runnin& for another pu(lic office and there(y cuttin& short their tenure (y ma9in& it clear that should they fail in their candidacy, they cannot &o (ac9 to their former position" This is consonant 'ith the constitutional edict that all pu(lic officials must ser!e the people 'ith utmost loyalty and not trifle 'ith the mandate 'hich they ha!e recei!ed from their constituents" Ender the Cuestioned pro!ision, 'hen an electi!e official co!ered there(y files a certificate of candidacy for another office, an o!ert, concrete act of !oluntary renunciation of the electi!e office presently (ein& held, he is deemed to ha!e !oluntarily cut short his tenure, not his term" Forfeiture Bis> automatic and permanently effecti!e upon the filin& of the certificate of candidacy for another office" Only the moment and act of filin& are considered" Once the certificate is filed, the seat is fore!er forfeited and nothin& sa!e a ne' election or appointment can restore the ousted official" The la' does not ma9e the forfeiture dependent upon future contin&encies, unforeseen and unforeseea(le" That the &round cited in 5ection *;, $rticle -Q of F")" Fl&" <<1 is not mentioned in the Constitution itself as a mode of shortenin& the tenure of office of mem(ers of Con&ress, does not preclude its application to present mem(ers of Con&ress" 5ection 3 of $rticle Q- pro!ides that MBt>he )resident, the ?iceA)resident, the Mem(ers of the 5upreme Court, the Mem(ers of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Om(udsman may (e remo!ed from office, on impeachment G $ll other pu(lic officers and employees may (e remo!ed from office as pro!ided (y la', (ut not (y impeachment" 5uch constitutional e2pression clearly reco&ni6es that the four B.> &rounds found in $rticle ?- of the Constitution (y 'hich the tenure of a Con&ressman may (e shortened are not e2clusi!e" The e2pression in the constitution of the circumstances 'hich shall (rin& a(out a !acancy does not preclude the le&islature from prescri(in& other &rounds $dditionally, this Court has enunciated the presumption in fa!or of constitutionality of le&islati!e enactment" To 1ustify the nullification of a la', there must (e a clear and uneCui!ocal (reach of the Constitution, not a dou(tful and ar&umentati!e implication" $ dou(t, e!en if 'ellAfounded, does not suffice" 3" $s administrati!e officers, (oth the 5pea9er and #ouse 5ecretaryA%eneral perform ministerial functions@ -t 'as their duty to remo!e petitionerKs name from the Doll considerin& the uneCui!ocal tenor of 5ection *;, $rticle -Q, F")" Fl&" <<1" When the

COM/,/C communicated to the #ouse of Depresentati!es that petitioner had filed his certificate of candidacy for re&ional &o!ernor of Muslim Mindanao, respondents had no choice (ut to a(ide (y the clear and unmista9a(le le&al effect of 5ection *;, $rticle -Q of F")" Fl&" <<1" These officers cannot refuse to perform their duty on the &round of an alle&ed in!alidity of the statute imposin& the duty" The reason for this is o(!ious" -t mi&ht seriously hinder the transaction of pu(lic (usiness if these officers 'ere to (e permitted in all cases to Cuestion the constitutionality of statutes and ordinances imposin& duties upon them and 'hich ha!e not 1udicially (een declared unconstitutional" Officers of the &o!ernment from the hi&hest to the lo'est are creatures of the la' and are (ound to o(ey it" -n conclusion, We reiterate the (asic concept that a pu(lic office is a pu(lic trust" -t is created for the interest and (enefit of the people" $s such, the holder thereof is su(1ect to such re&ulations and conditions as the la' may impose and he cannot complain of any restrictions 'hich pu(lic policy may dictate on his office" ,%(ES! A -n theori6in& that the pro!ision under consideration cuts short the term of office of a Mem(er of Con&ress, petitioner seems to confuse MtermM 'ith MtenureM of office: The term of office prescri(ed (y the Constitution may not (e e2tended or shortened (y the le&islature B33 D"C",">, (ut the period durin& 'hich an officer actually holds the office Btenure> may (e affected (y circumstances 'ithin or (eyond the po'er of said officer" Tenure may (e shorter than the term or it may not e2ist at all" These situations 'ill not chan&e the duration of the term of office Bsee Topacio 4ueno !s" $n&eles, ;* )hil 13>" A . &rounds found in $rticle ?- of the Constitution (y 'hich the tenure of a Con&ressman may (e shortened: a> 5ection 13, $rticle ?-: Forfeiture of his seat (y holdin& any other office or employment in the &o!ernment or any su(di!ision, a&ency or instrumentality thereof, includin& &o!ernmentAo'ned or controlled corporations or su(sidiaries@ (> 5ection 1* B3>: /2pulsion as a disciplinary action for disorderly (eha!ior@ c> 5ection 1;: isCualification as determined (y resolution of the /lectoral Tri(unal in an election contest@ and, d> 5ection ;, par" 3: ?oluntary renunciation of office" A-",AS v (#E EHE$'("7E SE$-E(A-) A$(S! $ petition 'as filed see9in& the Court to declare unconstitutional 5ection 1. of D$ 900* or 7The $ct to /nhance the #oldin& of Free, Orderly, #onest, )eaceful and Credi(le /lections Throu&h Fair /lection )ractices: as it repealed 5ection *; of the

Omni(us /lection Code mandatin& the ipso 1ure resi&nation from pu(lic office of one 'ho filed his certificate of candidacy, e2cept for )resident and ?iceA)resident" -t is the petitioners0 contention that the repeal of 5ection *; is a rider on the said la', the same em(racin& more than one su(1ect, inconsistent to 'hat the constitution mandates" Further, it !iolated the eCual protection clause since the said la' didn0t repeal pro!ision relatin& to appointi!e officials" $ppointi!e officials 'ould still (e considered ipso 1ure resi&ned upon filin& of their respecti!e certificates of candidacy" #ELD! 5ection 1. is not a rider" The purported dissimilarity of 5ection *; of the Omni(us /lection Code, 'hich imposes a limitation on electi!e officials 'ho run for an office other than the one they are holdin&, to the other pro!isions of the contested la', 'hich deal 'ith the liftin& of the (an on the use of media forelection propa&anda, doesn0t !iolate the 7one su(1ectA one title rule:" The Court has held that an act ha!in& a sin&le &eneral su(1ect, indicated in its title, may contain any num(er of pro!isions, no matter ho' di!erse they may (e, so lon& as they are not inconsistent 'ith or forei&n to the &eneral su(1ect, and they may (e considered in furtherance of such su(1ect (y pro!idin& for the method and means of carryin& out the &eneral su(1ect" The repeal of 5ection *; is not !iolati!e of the eCual protection clause" /Cual protection is not a(solute especially if the classification is reasona(le" There is reasona(le classification (et'een an electi!e official and an appointi!e one" The former occupy their office (y !irtue of the mandate of the electorate" They are elected to an office for a definite term and may (e remo!ed therefrom only upon strin&ent conditions" On the other hand, appointi!e officials hold their office (y !irtue of their desi&nation thereto (y an appointin& authority" 5ome appointi!e officials hold their office in a permanent capacity and are entitled to security of tenure 'hile others ser!e at the pleasure of the appointin& authority" $nother su(stantial distinction is that (y la', appointed officials are prohi(ited from en&a&in& in partisan political acti!ity or ta9e part in any election e2cept to !ote" Philconsa v. Mathay */@44+ G ! Con&ress enacted D$ .13. and .*.3 increasin& salaries of Mem(ers of the #ouse of Deps for the year of 19*+A19**" )hilconsa see9s to en1oin the $ctin& $uditor %eneral to pass this in audit on the &round that < of the senators 'ho enacted the (ill ha!e terms that 'ill e2pire on 19*9 thus, it !iolates $rt ?-, 5ec 1. of the 193+ Constitution" )etition &ranted"

D%$(-",E! The lan&ua&e of the pro!ision on salaries of Mem(ers of Con&ress is clear" -t refers to the e2piration of the full term of all the Mem(ers of (oth 5enate and #ouse of Depresentati!es appro!in& such increase" -A("%,ALE! To remo!e personal interest from the increase &imeneF 7 $aban9ban9 F$CT5: 4icanor Jimene6, Carlos $l(ert and Jose ,u9(an they are the persons mentioned in the open letter of Ca(an&(an& to the )resident" Fartolome Ca(an&(an& TU7 mem(er of the #OD and 'rote the letter to the )resident" $ ci!il action 'as ori&inally instituted (y the petitioners in the CF- of Di6al for reco!ery of se!eral sums of money, (y 'ay of dama&es for the pu(lication of an alle&edly li(elous letter of defendant Ca(an&(an&" The letter contains information that: 1" There is an insidious plan or a massi!e political (uild up@ 3" There is a planned coup detat@ 3" Modified Y1, (y tryin& to assua&e the )resident and the pu(lic 'ith a loyalty parade, in a effort to rally the officers and men of the $F) (ehind %eneral $rellano"

-55E/5: 1" Whether or not the pu(lication in Cuestion is a pri!ile&ed communication" 3" Whether or not it is li(elous"

#/, : 1" -t 'as held that the letter is not considered a pri!ile&e communication (ecause the pu(lication: a" 'as an open letter, (" the Con&ress 'as not in session@ c" it 'as not a dischar&e of an official function or duty" 3" 3" -t 'as held not li(elous (ecause the letter clearly implies that the plaintiffs 'ere not the planners (ut merely tools, much less, un'ittin&ly on their part" The order appealed is confirmed" PE%PLE v. -%ME% &AL%S&%S *633/+

acts Dape is a crime a&ainst human di&nity, punisha(le (y reclusion perpetua ordeath, particulary odious 'hen committed a&ainst a minor" There 'ere si2 othercases 'here the Jalos1os 'as acCuitted of the char&es of acts of lasci!iousness forfailure of the prosecution to pro!e his &uilt (eyond reasona(le dou(t" /le!en yearold Dosilyn elantar accused Domeo %" Jalos1os of se2ual impropriety a&ainst her onthe dates of June 1< Z 30, 199*, at the Dit6 To'ers, Ma9ati City" The rest of theinformation pro!ided for lasci!ious conduct only" $lle&edly, he paid )hp109, )hp+9Z )hp+9 on different dates" 5he 'as pimped (y her homose2ual adopted father 5implicio elantar since the a&e of 9 Bshe 'as (orn in 19<+> and first met Jalos1os inFe(ruary 199*" #e let her stay ni&hts in his condominium unit and repeatedly 9epttryin& to ha!e se2 'ith her, sayin&, 7$fter all, - am your daddy: until, on the datesmentioned, he succeeded" This 'ent on for some months until Dosilyn ran a'ay in$u&ust 199*, 'hen she 'as ta9en to 5W and the 4F- conducted an in!esti&ationinto her rape claims" Jalos1os claimed that it 'as his (rother ominador 'ho Dosilyn met and he'as in the pro!ince alle&edly at the time the se2ual ad!ances too9 place" This issue'a s a l l e & e d l y cr a f t e d ( y h i s p o l i t i c a l e n e m i e s t o p u t h i m a t a d i s a d! a nt a & e " chadosorio#e 'as found &uilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua and )hp+09 for each count of rape B3>, and reclusion temporal and )hp309 dama&es for each countof acts of lasci!iousness B*>" "ssues 1"RMain CaseS -s the reliance of the trial court on the ' i t n e s s 0 s c r e d i ( i l i t y sufficient to hand him such sentence= chadosorio3" ROffshoot CaseS Can a le&islator perform his duties thru le&islati!e sessionsand committee meetin&s despite ha!in& (een incarcerated due to a nonA(aila(le offense= Decision "s the reliance o8 the trial court on the ; i t n e s s I s c r e d i b i l i t y su88icient to hand him such sentenceJ Petitioner! M F a l s u s i n u n o f a l s u s i n o m n i ( u s : B f a l s e i n p a r t , f a l s e i n e!er ythin&>" The fact that the trial court accepted his ali(i means that Dosilyn0sstory 'as concocted in part, and therefore her 'hole testimony falls" )lus, it0s not e ! e n 1u s t i f i e d t h a t D o s i l yn 'a s a m i n or ( e c a u s e 'e s h o u l d n 0 t r e l y o n h e r ( ir t h certificate, 'hich 'as e2pun&ed from the 45O" chadosorio

S$!

- t i s p e r f e c t l y r e a so n a ( l e t o (e l i e ! e t h e t e st i m o n y o f a 'i t n e s s 'i t h res pect to some facts and dis(elie!e it 'ith respect to other facts" -n )eople !s"Oeller, it 'as seen that Testimony may (e partly credited and partly re1ected" AAA Trier of facts are not( o u n d t o ( e l i e ! e a l l t h a t a n y ' i t n e s s h a s s a i d @ t h e y m a y a c c e p t s o m e portions of his testimony and re1ect other portions, accordin& to 'hat seemsto them, upon other facts and circumstances to (e the truthG /!en 'hen' i t n e s s e s a r e f o u n d t o h a ! e d e l i ( e r a t e l y f a l s i f i e d i n s o me materialpart ic ul ars , the 1ur y ar e not re Cui red t o re1e c t t h e ' h o l e o f t h e i r uncorro(orated testimony, (ut may credit such portions as they deem 'orthyof (elief":4 o 'o m a n 'o u l d a c cu s e s o m e o n e o f d e f l or a t i o n i f s he d i d n o t 'a n t t h e culprit apprehended and punished, (ecause of the accompanyin& shame of thein!esti&ation to pro!e such accusation" #er hesitation and uncertainty to ans'ersome of the Cuestions 'ere ho' rape !ictims ans'ered in real life, and not mereactin&" The fact that Dosilyn did not specify rape in her affida!its a&ainst Jalos1osdoes not mean that it ne!er occurred, (ecause rape is too much of a technical termfor such a youn& child"-n )eople !" Campuhan , 7rape is consummated (y the sli&htest penetration of the female or&an, i"e", t o u c h i n & o f e i t h e r l a ( i a o f t h e p u d en d u m ( y t he p e n i s " : There need not (e full and complete penetration of the !ictim0s !a&ina for rape to(e consummated" There 'as no case ori&inally a&ainst Jalos1os, (ecause the ori&inal case filed'as a&ainst the pimp 5implicio elantar, it 'as 1ust that Jalos1os 'as identified inthe pictures" 5ince rape is a crime a&ainst persons, any prosecutor can mo!e on'ith le&al action, not necessarily the !ictim herself"- t i s s e t t l ed t ha t i n c a s e s o f s t a t u t o r y r a p e , t h e a & e o f t h e ! ic t i m m a y ( e pro!ed (y the presentation of her (irth certificate" #o'e!er, e!en assumin& thea ( s e n ce o f a ! a l i d ( i r t h c er t i f i c a t e , t he r e i s s u f f i c i e n t a n d a m p l e pr o o f o f t h e complainant0s a&e in the records, li9e (aptismal certificate, hospital records BJoseFa(ella Memorial #ospital: master list if (irths, date and time of pre&nant mother0sconfinement>, et cetera" chadosorio 6 . $ a n a l e 9 i s l a t o r p e r 8 o r m h i s d u t i e s t h r u l e9 i s l at i v e se s s i o n s and committee meetin9s despite havin9 been incarcerated dueto a nonAbailable o88enseJ Petitioner! #is functions as a representati!e of the First istrict of [am(oan&adel 4orte, 'hose electorate chose him (y mandate of so!erei&n 'ill, should not (eimpeded (y the constraints of a pendin& criminal case" chadosorio#e cited $&uinaldo !" 5antos:

The Court should ne!er remo!e a pu(lic officer for acts done prior to his presentterm of office" To do other'ise 'ould (e to depri!e the people of their ri&ht to electtheir officers" When a people ha!e elected a man to office, it must (e assumed thatthey did this 'ith the 9no'led&e of his life and character, and that they disre&ardedor for&a!e his fault or misconduct, if he had (een &uilty of any" -t is not for the Court, (y reason of such fault or misconduct, to practically o!errule the 'ill of thepeople"7- 'ill not escape, &i!en the chance to perform my le&islati!e duties" Fesides,-0!e (een allo'ed to lea!e (efore to attend to my le&islati!e functions" This mustnot hinder my a(ility to ser!e my constituents" The duty to the le&islati!e ran9shi&hest in &o!ernment": S$! The hi&her t h e r a n 9, t h e &r e a t er s h o u l d t h e o( e d i e n c e ( e , no t t h e entitlement to e2emption"C o n f i n e m e n t p e n d i n& ap p e a l d o e s n o t r e m o! e the ri&hts of him ( e i n& a p u ( l i c o f f i c e r " - t 0 s m e r e l y t o p r ot e c t s o c i e t y" ) u ( l i c s e l f A de f e n s e i s an e 2 a m p l e a n d a 'arnin& to others" -t is the in1ury to the pu(lic 'hich 5tate action in criminal la's e e 9 s t o r e d r e s s , a n d s i n c e r a p e i s a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e , t h e p e r s o n m u s t ( e ans'era(le to procedures &o!ernin& criminal la'" chadosorio The first time the case 'as filed he only came for'ard after a lon& period of time hidin& due to the pleas of his fello' #oD mem(ers" There is no &uarantee thath e 'i l l n o t &o i n t o h i d i n & a & a i n " # i s s e c u r i n & o f pe r m i s s i o n t o l e a! e t h e pr i s o n (efore 'as (ased on a caseAtoAcase (asis due to emer&encies, and should not (econsidered the rule" %i!in& him a +Aday 'ee9 Bre&ular Con&ress sessions> 'ould!irtually ma9e him a free man" #is incarceration does not pre!ent him from filin&(ills and resolutions: his t'o fullyAmanned offices in Fatasan #ills and 4e' Fili(id)rison attest to that" The people 'ho !oted for Jalos1os, 9no'in& that he has (eencon!icted, 9no' of the fact of his incarceration, and it is their (elief that he canfulfill his duties re&ardless of his sentence" -t does not mean that 1ust (ecause thepeople !oted for him he 'as automatically (elie!ed to (e innocent (y them" T h e e C u a l p r o t e c t i o n o f l a 's a p p l y t o t h i s c a se , m e a n i n & t h a t pe o p l e i n similar circumstances must (e treated (y the la' similarly" Jalos1os should not (e&i!en pri!ile&e due to his position, and must (e treated the 'ay other con!ictedpeople are treated" There are 3+0 #oD mem(ers and 3. senators" Con&ress 'illfunction 'ell despite the a(sence of a small num(er of its mem(ers" Therefore, (ein& a con&ressman does not remo!e one from criminal lia(ility"-mprisonment is not merely the loss of freedom, (ut also a place of reha(ilitationand chan&e as 'ell" -t includes the curtailin& of certain ri&hts and pri!ile&es, ande l e c t i o n t o p u ( l i c o f f i c e d o e s n o t e 2 cu s e o n e f r o m t he c o n s e Cu e n c e s o f o n e 0 s actions, once pro!en contrary to la'" chadosorio Motion denied.GonFa9aA-eyes, concur! (-"LLA,ES 7S P"ME,(EL

/lection to Con&ress is not a reasona(le classification in criminal la' enforcement as the functions and duties of the office are not su(stantial distinctions 'hich lift one from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in li(erty of mo!ement" Justification for confinement 'ith its underlyin& rationale of pu(lic selfAdefense applies eCually to detention prisoners li9e petitioner or con!icted prisonersA appellants li9e Jalos1os"

A$(S! )etitioner Trillanes -? is on trial for coup d0etat in relation to the 7Oa9'ood -ncident": -n the 300; elections, he 'on a seat in the 5enate 'ith a si2Ayear term commencin& at noon on June 30, 300;" )etitioner no' as9s the Court that he (e allo'ed to attend all official functions of the 5enate, alle&in& mainly that his case is distinct from that of Jalos1os as his case is still pendin& resolution 'hereas that in the Jalos1os case, there 'as already con!iction" "SS'E! =hether or not valid classi8ication bet;een petitioner and &alos?os exists -'L",G! The petition is (ereft of merit"

-n attemptin& to stri9e a distinction (et'een his case and that of Jalos1os, petitioner chiefly points out that former Dep" Domeo Jalos1os BJalos1os> 'as already con!icted, al(eit his con!iction 'as pendin& appeal, 'hen he filed a motion similar to petitionerKs Omni(us Motion, 'hereas he Bpetitioner> is a mere detention prisoner" #e asserts that he continues to en1oy ci!il and political ri&hts since the presumption of innocence is still in his fa!or" Further, petitioner illustrates that Jalos1os 'as char&ed 'ith crimes in!ol!in& moral turpitude, i"e", t'o counts of statutory rape and si2 counts of acts of lasci!iousness, 'hereas he is indicted for coup dKetat 'hich is re&arded as a Mpolitical offense"M Furthermore, petitioner 1ustifies in his fa!or the presence of no(le causes in e2pressin& le&itimate &rie!ances a&ainst the rampant and institutionali6ed practice of &raft and corruption in the $F)" 222

plain

readin&

of

Jalos1os

su&&ests

other'ise,

ho'e!er"

The distinctions cited (y petitioner 'ere not elemental in the pronouncement in Jalos1os that election to Con&ress is not a reasona(le classification in criminal la' enforcement as the functions and duties of the office are not su(stantial distinctions 'hich lift one from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in li(erty of mo!ement" -t cannot (e &ainsaid that a person char&ed 'ith a crime is ta9en into custody for purposes of the administration of 1ustice" 4o less than the Constitution pro!ides: $ll persons, e2cept those char&ed 'ith offenses punisha(le (y reclusion perpetua 'hen e!idence of &uilt is stron&, shall, (efore con!iction, (e (aila(le (y sufficient sureties, or (e released on reco&ni6ance as may (e pro!ided (y la'" The ri&ht to (ail shall not (e impaired e!en 'hen the pri!ile&e of the 'rit of ha(eas corpus is suspended" /2cessi!e (ail shall not (e reCuired" BEnderscorin& supplied> The Dules also state that no person char&ed 'ith a capital offense, or an offense punisha(le (y reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall (e admitted to (ail 'hen e!idence of &uilt is stron&, re&ardless of the sta&e of the criminal action" That the cited pro!isions apply eCually to rape and coup dKetat cases, (oth (ein& punisha(le (y reclusion perpetua, is (eyond ca!il" Within the class of offenses co!ered (y the stated ran&e of imposa(le penalties, there is clearly no distinction as to the political comple2ion of or moral turpitude in!ol!ed in the crime char&ed" -n the present case, it is uncontro!erted that petitionerKs application for (ail and for release on reco&ni6ance 'as denied" The determination that the e!idence of &uilt is stron&, 'hether ascertained in a hearin& of an application for (ail or imported from a trial courtKs 1ud&ment of con!iction, 1ustifies the detention of an accused as a !alid curtailment of his ri&ht to pro!isional li(erty" This accentuates the pro!iso that the denial of the ri&ht to (ail in such cases is Mre&ardless of the sta&e of the criminal action"M 5uch 1ustification for confinement 'ith its underlyin& rationale of pu(lic selfA defense applies eCually to detention prisoners li9e petitioner or con!icted prisonersA appellants li9e Jalos1os" 222 )etitioner &oes on to alle&e that unli9e Jalos1os 'ho attempted to e!ade trial, he is not a fli&ht ris9 since he !oluntarily surrendered to the proper authorities and such can (e pro!en (y the numerous times he 'as allo'ed to tra!el outside his place of detention" 5u(seCuent e!ents re!eal the contrary, ho'e!er" The assailed Orders au&ured 'ell 'hen on 4o!em(er 39, 300; petitioner 'ent past security detail for some reason and

proceeded from the courtroom to a posh hotel to issue certain statements" The account, du((ed this time as the MManila )en -ncident,M pro!es that petitionerKs ar&ument (ites the dust" The ris9 that he 'ould escape ceased to (e neither remote nor nil as, in fact, the cause for fore(odin& (ecame real" Moreo!er, circumstances indicatin& pro(a(ility of fli&ht find rele!ance as a factor in ascertainin& the reasona(le amount of (ail and in cancellin& a discretionary &rant of (ail" -n cases in!ol!in& nonA(aila(le offenses, 'hat is controllin& is the determination of 'hether the e!idence of &uilt is stron&" Once it is esta(lished that it is so, (ail shall (e denied as it is neither a matter of ri&ht nor of discretion" PE%PLE 7 &AL%S&%S Fe(" 3, 3000 Facts: The accusedAappellant, Domeo Jalos1os, is a fullAfled&ed mem(er of Con&ress 'ho is confined at the national penitentiary 'hile his con!iction for statutory rape and acts of lasci!iousness is pendin& appeal" The accusedAappellant filed a motion as9in& that he (e allo'ed to fully dischar&e the duties of a Con&ressman, includin& attendance at le&islati!e sessions and committee meetin&s despite his ha!in& (een con!icted in the first instance of a nonA(aila(le offense on the (asis of popular so!erei&nty and the need for his constituents to (e represented -ssue: Whether or not accusedAappellant should (e allo'ed to dischar&e mandate as mem(er of #ouse of Depresentati!es #eld: /lection is the e2pression of the so!erei&n po'er of the people" #o'e!er, inspite of its importance, the pri!ile&es and ri&hts arisin& from ha!in& (een elected may (e enlar&ed or restricted (y la'" The immunity from arrest or detention of 5enators and mem(ers of the #ouse of Depresentati!es arises from a pro!ision of the Constitution" The pri!ile&e has al'ays (een &ranted in a restricti!e sense" The pro!ision &rantin& an e2emption as a special pri!ile&e cannot (e e2tended (eyond the ordinary meanin& of its terms" -t may not (e e2tended (y intendment, implication or eCuita(le considerations" The accusedAappellant has not &i!en any reason 'hy he should (e e2empted from the operation of 5ec" 11, $rt" ?- of the Constitution" The mem(ers of Con&ress cannot compel a(sent mem(ers to attend sessions if the reason for the a(sence is a le&itimate one" The confinement of a Con&ressman char&ed 'ith a crime punisha(le (y imprisonment of more than si2 years is not merely authori6ed (y la', it has constitutional foundations" To allo' accusedAappellant to attend con&ressional sessions and committee meetin&s for + days or more in a 'ee9 'ill !irtually ma9e him a free man 'ith all the pri!ile&es appurtenant to his position" 5uch an a(errant situation not only ele!ates accusedAappellant0s status to that of a special class, it also 'ould (e a moc9ery of the purposes of the correction system"

Puyat vs. De GuFman, Jr" %"D" 4o" ,A+1133, March 3+, 19<3 5unday, January 3+, 3009 )osted (y Coffeeholic ,a(els: Case i&ests, )olitical ,a'

Writes

acts! $fter an election for the irectors of the -nternational )ipe -ndustries Corporation B-)-> 'as held, one &roup, the respondent $cero &roup, instituted at the 5/C Cuo 'arranto proceedin&s, Cuestionin& theelection" Justice /stanislao Fernande6, then a mem(er of the -nterim Fatasan& )am(ansa, entered his appearance as counsel for respondent $cero to 'hich the petitioner, )uyat &roup, o(1ected on Constitutional &round that no $ssem(lyman could 7appear as counsel (efore any administrati!e (ody,: and 5/C 'as an administrati!e (ody" $ssem(lyman Fernande6 did not continue his appearance for respondent $cero" $ssem(lyman Fernande6 had purchased 10 shares of -)- for )300"00 upon reCuest of respondent $cero" Follo'in& the notari6ation of $ssem(lyman Fernande60 purchase, he filed a motion for inter!entionin the 5/C case as the o'ner of 10 -)- shares alle&in& le&al interest in the matter in liti&ation" The 5/C &ranted lea!e to inter!ene on the (asis of Fernande60 o'nership of the said 10 shares"

"ssue! Whether or not $ssem(lyman Fernande6, as a stoc9holderof -)-, may inter!ene in the 5/C case 'ithout !iolatin& 5ec" 11, $rt" ?--- Bno' 5ec" 1., $rt" ?-> of the Constitution

#eld! Ordinarily, (y !irtue of the motion for inter!ention, $ssem(lyman Fernande6 cannot (e said to (e appearin& as counsel" Ostensi(ly, he is not appearin& on (ehalf of another, althou&h he is 1oinin& the cause of the pri!ate respondents" #is appearance could theoretically (e for the protection of his o'nership of 10 shares of -)- in respect of the matter in liti&ation" #o'e!er, certain salient circumstances militate a&ainst the inter!ention of $ssem(lyman Fernande6 in the 5/C case" #e had acCuired a mere )300"00 'orth of stoc9 in -)-, representin& 10 shares out of 3*3,<.3 outstandin& shares" #e acCuired

them 7after the fact: that is, after the contested election of directors, after the Cuo 'arranto suit had (een filed (efore the 5/C and 1 day (efore the scheduled hearin& of the case (efore the 5/C" $nd 'hat is more, (efore he mo!ed to inter!ene, he had si&nified his intention to appear as counsel for respondent $cero, (ut 'hich 'as o(1ected to (y petitioners" Deali6in&, perhaps, the !alidity of the o(1ection, he decided, instead, to inter!ene on the &round of le&al interest in the matter under liti&ation" Ender those facts and circumstances, the Court is constrained to find that there has (een an indirect appearance as counsel (efore an administrati!e (ody" -n the opinion of the Court, that is a circum!ention of the Constitutional prohi(ition contained in 5ec" 11, $rt" ?--- Bno' 5ec" 1., $rt" ?->" The inter!ention 'as an afterthou&ht to ena(le him to appear acti!ely in the proceedin&s in some other capacity" &%SE A7EL",%, petitioner, vs. MA-"A,% &. $'E,$%, respondent " A$(S!Senator LorenFo M. (aKada reBuested that his ri9ht to speak on the 8loor on thenext session day o8 the senate to 8ormulate char9es a9ainst the then Senate President&ose Avelino (e reser!ed" #is reCuest 'as appro!ed" urin& the session, e!ery time5enator Ta\ada 'ould as9 to ha!e the floor to deli!er his speech, he 'ould (e denied (ecause of the dilatory tactics of the other 5enators to pre!ent him from deli!erin& hisspeech"5enator Ta\ada repeatedly stood up to claim his ri&ht to deli!er his oneAhour pri!ile&espeech (ut the petitioner, then presidin&, continuously i&nored him@ and 'hen after thereadin& of the minutes, Senator (aKada insisted on bein9 reco9niFed by the $hair,the petitioner announced that he ;ould order the arrest o8 any senator ;ho ;ouldspeak ;ithout bein9 previously reco9niFed by him. 4ot permittin& 5enator Ta\ada to deli!er his speech a&ainst then 5enate )resident$!elino, the session 'as ad1ourned (y the petitioner and duly seconded (y his follo'ers"When the petitioner to&ether 'ith his follo'ers left, the session 'as continued (y those5enators 'ho remain and appro!ed the pri!ile&e speech of 5enator Ta\ada"5enator 5anidad introduced -esolution ,o. 41, entitled C-esolution declarin9 vacantthe position o8 the President o8 the Senate and desi9natin9 the #onorable Mariano&esus $uenco Actin9 President o8 the Senate. M )ut to a !ote, the said resolution 'as unanimously approved.Senator $uenco took the oath and ;as reco9niFed as the actin9 president o8 Philippine Senate by the President. )etitioner then as9ed the Court to declare him the ri&htful )resident of the )hilippine5enate and oust respondent"

"SS'E!a. Does the $ourt have ?urisdiction over the sub?ectAmatterJb. "8 it has, ;ere resolutions ,o. 41 validly approvedJ -'L",G!a. Does the $ourt have ?urisdiction over the sub?ectAmatterJ To the first Cuestion, the ans'er is in the ne9ative, in !ie' of theseparation o8 po;ers ,the political nature of the contro!ersy and the constitutional 9rant to the Senate o8 the po;er to elect its o;n president,;hich po;er should not be inter8ered ;ith, nortaken over, by the ?udiciary.$ny'ay, if, as the petition must imply to (e accepta(le, the ma?ority o8 the Senators;ant petitioner to preside, hisremedy lies in the Senate 5ession #all ] not in theSupreme $ourt. /!en the Chief /2ecuti!e reco&ni6ed the ne'ly elected 5enate)resident" b. "8 it has, ;ere resolutions ,o. 41 validly approvedJ 5upposin& that the Court has 1urisdiction, there is unanimity in the !ie' that the sessionunder 5enator $rran6 'as a continuation o8 the mornin9 session and that a minorityo8 ten senators may not, by leavin9 the #all, prevent the other t;elve senators 8rompassin9 a resolution that met ;ith their unanimous endorsement. The ans'er mi&ht (e different had the resolution (een appro!ed only (y ten or less"-f the rump session 'as not a continuation of the mornin& session, 'as it !alidlyconstituted= -n other 'ords, 'as there the ma1ority reCuired (y the Constitution for thetransaction of the (usiness of the 5enate= Justices )aras, Feria, )a(lo and Fen&6on saythere 'as, firstly (ecause the minutes say so, secondly, (ecause at the be9innin9 o8 suchsession there ;ere at least 8ourteen senators and t;elve senators constitute ama?ority o8 the Senate o8 t;enty three senators in the absence o8 one ;hom le8t thecountry 8or o88icial duty. The rule of the 5enate a(out tenure of the )resident of its (ody can (e amended at anytime (y the ma1ority" $nd at any session hereafter held 'ith thirteen or more senators, inorder to a!oid all contro!ersy arisin& from the di!er&ence of opinion here a(out Cuorumand for the (enefit of all concerned, the said t'el!e senators 'ho appro!ed theresolutions herein in!ol!ed could ratify all their acts and there(y place them (eyond theshado' of a dou(t"$s already stated, the si2 1ustices hereina(o!e mentioned !oted to dismiss the petition. Without costs De8ensorASantia9o vs. Guin9ona %"D" 4o" 13.+;;, 4o!em(er 1<, 199< 5unday, January 3+, 3009 )osted (y Coffeeholic ,a(els: Case i&ests, )olitical ,a' Writes

acts! urin& the first re&ular session of the ele!enth Con&ress, 5enator Fernan 'as declared the duly elected )resident of the 5enate (y a !ote of 30 to 3" 5enator Tatad manifested that, 'ith the a&reement of 5enator 5antia&o, alle&edly the only other mem(er of the minority, he 'as assumin& the position of minority leader" #e e2plained that those 'ho had !oted for 5enator Fernan comprised the ma1ority, 'hile only those

'ho had !oted for him, the losin& nominee, (elon&ed to the minority" 5enator Fla!ier manifested that the senators (elon&in& to the ,a9asA4EC AEM ) )arty num(erin& ; and, thus, also a minority had chosen 5enator %uin&ona as the minority leader" Thereafter, the ma1ority leader informed the (ody that he 'as in receipt of a letter si&ned (y the ; ,a9asA4EC AEM ) senators, statin& that they had elected 5enator %uin&ona as the minority leader" Fy !irtue thereof, the 5enate )resident formally reco&ni6ed 5enator %uin&ona as the minority leader of the 5enate" 5enators 5antia&o and Tatad filed a petition for Cuo 'arranto, alle&in& that 5enator %uin&ona had (een usurpin&, unla'fully holdin& and e2ercisin& the position of 5enate minority leader, a position that, accordin& to them, ri&htfully (elon&ed to 5enator Tatad"

"ssues! B1> Whether or not the Court has 1urisdiction o!er the petition B3> Whether or not there is an actual !iolation of the Constitution

#eld! De&ardin& the first issue, 1urisdiction o!er the su(1ectmatter of a case is determined (y the alle&ations of the complaint or petition, re&ardless of 'hether the petitioner is entitled to the relief asserted" -n li&ht of the alle&ations of the petitioners, it is clear that the Court has 1urisdiction o!er the petition" -t is 'ell 'ithin the po'er and 1urisdiction of the Court to inCuire 'hether indeed the 5enate or its officials committed a !iolation of the Constitution or &ra!ely a(used their discretion in the e2ercise of their functions and prero&ati!es" #o'e!er, the interpretation proposed (y petitioners finds no clear support from the Constitution, the la's, the Dules of the 5enate or e!en from practices of the Epper #ouse" The term 7ma1ority,: 'hen referrin& to a certain num(er out of a total or a&&re&ate, it simply means the num(er &reater than half or more than half of any total" -n effect, 'hile the Constitution mandates that the )resident of the 5enate must (e elected (y a num(er constitutin& more than one half of all the mem(ers thereof, it does not pro!ide that the mem(ers 'ho 'ill not !ote for him shall ipso facto constitute the minority, 'ho could there(y elect the minority leader" 4o la' or re&ulation states that the defeated candidate shall automatically (ecome the minority leader" While the Constitution is e2plicit in the manner of electin& a 5enate )resident and a #ouse 5pea9er, it is, ho'e!er, dead silent on the manner of selectin& the other officers

in (oth cham(ers of Con&ress" $ll that the Charter says under $rt" ?-, 5ec" 1*B1> is that 7each #ouse shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary": The method of choosin& 'ho 'ill (e such other officers is merely a deri!ati!e of the e2ercise of the prero&ati!e conferred (y the said constitutional pro!ision" Therefore, such method must (e prescri(ed (y the 5enate itself, not (y the Court" %SME,A vs. PE,DA(', 4ature: )etition for declaratory relief and8or certiorari and prohi(ition 'ith preliminary in1unction" Facts:-n a pri!ile&e speech (efore the #ouse of Depresentati!es, Con&ressman 5er&io Osmena from the 3 4d istrict of Ce(u madeserious imputations of (ri(ery a&ainst then )resident %arcia" $ resolution BY+9> 'as then passed that a special committee of 1+mem(ers to (e appointed (y the 5pea9er shall (e tas9ed to in!esti&ate the truth of the char&es a&ainst %arcia and for Osmena tosu(stantiate his char&es 'ith e!idence Bi"e" papers and 'itnesses> and if he fails to do so, he sho' cause 'hy he should not (e punished (y the #ouse" #o'e!er, Osmena refused to comply" #e 'as then suspended for 1+ months for disorderly (eha!ior " Osmenathen filed this petition to the 5upreme Court" -ssue:W84 the #ouse had the po'er to discipline Osmena 'ith suspension= #eld: Whether the courts can determine 'hether personal attac9 upon the )resident constitutes disorderly (eha!ior: The #ouse is the 1ud&eof 'hat constitutes disorderly (eha!ior not only (ecause the Constitution dele&ates it (ut also (ecause this matter depends on factualcircumstances of 'hich the #ouse 9no's (est and cannot (e presented to and ad1udicated (y the Courts" The courts 'ill not assumean appellate 1urisdiction, 'hich 'ill amount to an interference (y the 1udicial department 'ith the le&islature" The theory of separationof po'ers demands a prudent refusal to interfere" )arliamentary immunity in!o9ed (y Osmena: 5ection 1+, $rticle ?- of the 193+ Constitution pro!ides that for any speech or de(ate inCon&ress, 5enators and Mem(ers of the #ouse shall not (e Cuestioned in any other place" This is understood to mean that althou&hmem(ers of Con&ress are e2empt from prosecution or ci!il action for their 'ords uttered in Con&ress, they can ne!ertheless (eCuestioned in Con&ress itself" Furthermore, Dule Q?--, sec" ; of the Dules of the #ouse reco&ni6es the #ouse0s po'er to hold a mem(er responsi(le for 7'ords spo9en in de(ate:" )arliamentary immunity &uarantees the le&islator complete freedom of e2pression'ithout fear of (ein& made responsi(le in criminal and ci!il actions (efore the courts or any other forum outside the Con&ressionalhall, ho'e!er, it does not protect him from responsi(ility (efore

the le&islati!e (ody itself 'hene!er his 'ords and conduct are considered disorderly or un(ecomin&" For unparliamentary conduct, mem(ers of Con&ress may (e censured committed to prison,suspended e!en e2pelled (y the !oted of their collea&ues" Whether the #ouse has lost po'er to Cuestion and discipline Osmena as it had ta9en up other (usiness (efore appro!in& Desolution 4o" +9: )arliamentary rules are merely procedural and may (e 'ai!ed or disre&arded (y the le&islature" The courts ha!e no concern'ith their o(ser!ance"Dulin&: The )etition is -5M-55/ 'nited States vs &uan Pons on &anuary >, 63/6 )ons and %a(ino Feliso 'ere tradin& partners" On + $pr 191., the steamer ,ope6 y ,ope6 arri!ed at Manila from 5pain and it contained 3+ (arrels of 'ine" The said (arrels of 'ine 'ere deli!ered to Feliso" Feliso su(seCuently deli!ered + (arrels to )ons0 house" On the other hand, the customs authorities noticed that the said 3+ (arrels listed as 'ine on record 'ere not deli!ered to any listed merchant BFeliso not (ein& one>" $nd so the customs officers conducted an in!esti&ation there(y disco!erin& that the 3+ (arrels of 'ine actually contained tins of opium" 5ince the ct of tradin& and dealin& opium is a&ainst $ct 33<1, )ons and Feliso 'ere char&ed for ille&ally and fraudulently importin& and introducin& such contra(and material to the )hilippines" )ons appealed the sentence ar&uin& that $ct 33<1 'as not appro!ed 'hile the )hilippine Commission BCon&ress> 'as not in session" #e said that his 'itnesses claim that the said la' 'as passed8appro!ed on 01 March 191. 'hile the special session of the Commission 'as ad1ourned at 13M4 on 3< Fe( 191." 5ince this is the case, $ct 33<1 should (e null and !oid" "SS'E! Whether or not the 5C must &o (eyond the recitals of the Journals to determine if $ct 33<1 'as indeed made a as la' on 3< Fe( 191." #ELD! The 5C loo9ed into the Journals to ascertain the date of ad1ournment (ut the 5C refused to &o (eyond the recitals in the le&islati!e Journals" The said Journals are conclusi!e on the Court and to inCuire into the !eracity of the 1ournals of the )hilippine ,e&islature, 'hen they are, as the 5C ha!e said, clear and e2plicit, 'ould (e to !iolate (oth the letter and the spirit of the or&anic la's (y 'hich the )hilippine %o!ernment 'as (rou&ht into e2istence, to in!ade a coordinate and independent department of the %o!ernment, and to interfere 'ith the le&itimate po'ers and functions of the ,e&islature" )ons0 'itnesses cannot (e &i!en due 'ei&ht a&ainst the conclusi!eness of the Journals 'hich is an act of the le&islature" The 1ournals say that the ,e&islature ad1ourned at 13 midni&ht on Fe(ruary 3<, 191." This settles the Cuestion, and the

court did not err in declinin& to &o (ehind these 1ournals" The 5C passed upon the conclusi!eness of the enrolled (ill in this particular case" $asco $hemical $o. vs GimeneF acts! Casco Chemical Co", is a manufacture of synthetic resin &lues used in (ondin& lum(er and !eneer (y ply'ood and hard'ood producers, The said company imports urea and formaldehyde 'hich are the main ra' materials in their production" )ursuant to the pro!isions of Depu(lic $ct 4o" 3*09, 9no'n as the Forei&n /2chan&e Mar&in Fee ,a', the Central Fan9 of the )hilippines issued a Circular 4o" 9+" fi2in& a uniform mar&in fee of 3+I on forei&n e2chan&e transactions" ,ater on the Fan9 promul&ated a memorandum for the e2emption from the payment of said fee" $s a mar&in fee the company paid ) 33,;*+".3 in 4o!em(er and ecem(er 19.9 and )*3.+";3 in May 19*0" The petitioner sou&ht the refund of the first and second sum relyin& upon Desolution 4o" 1+39 of the Monetary Foard of said (an9, dated 4o!em(er 3, 19+9, declarin& that the separate importation of urea and formaldehyde is e2empt from said fee" The $uditor of the Fan9, )edro %imene6, refused to pass and appro!e the said refund on the &round that the e2emption &ranted (y the (oard is not in accord 'ith the pro!ision of section 3 of D$ 3*09" "ssue! Whether or 4ot Erea and formaldehyde are e2empt (y la' from the payment of the mar&in fee" #eld! 4o, it is not e2empt from payment of the mar&inal fee (ecause 5ection 3 of D$ 3*09 cited that one particular e2ception as 7urea formaldehyde: not 7urea and formaldehyde:" The 7urea formaldehyde: is patentedly different from 7urea and formaldehyde:" Erea formaldehyde is not a chemical solution" -t is the synthetic resin formed as a condensation product from definite proportions of urea and formaldehyde" This produce 'hen applied in 'ater solution and e2tended 'ith ine2pensi!e fillers constitutes a fairly lo' cost adhesi!e for use in the manufacture of ply'ood" -t is conclusi!e to say that, Murea formaldehydeM is clearly a finished product, 'hich is patently distinct and different from 7urea and formaldehydeM, as separate articles used in the manufacture of the synthetic resin 9no'n as Murea formaldehydeM" Thus the distinction is contradictin& to the petitioners, contention that the con1unction MandM (et'een the terms MureaM and MformaldehydeM, is intended (y the framer to e2empt MureaM and MformaldehydeM separately as essential elements in the manufacture of the synthetic resin &lue called urea formaldehyde" ecision appealed from is $FF-DM/ 'ith cost a&ainst the petitioner"

Astor9a vs. 7ille9as %"D" 4o" ,A33.;+, $pril 30, 19;. 5unday, January 3+, 3009 )osted (y Coffeeholic Writes ,a(els: Case i&ests, )olitical ,a' acts! #ouse Fill 4o" 93**, a (ill of local application filed in the#ouse of Depresentati!es, 'as passed on third readin& 'ithout amendments" Fut 'hen the (ill 'as discussed in the 5enate, su(stantial amendments 'ere introduced (y 5enator Tolentino" Those amendments 'ere appro!ed in toto (y the 5enate" There 'as also an amendment recommended (y 5enator Do2as (ut this does not appear in the 1ournal of the 5enate proceedin&s as ha!in& (een acted upon" The #ouse of Depresentati!es thereafter si&nified its appro!al of #"F"93** containin& the amendments recommended (y 5enator Do2as and not the Tolentino amendments 'hich 'ere the ones actually appro!ed (y the 5enate" The printed copies of the (ill 'ere then certified and attested (y the 5ecretary of the #ouse of Depresentati!es, the 5pea9er of the #ouse of Depresentati!es, the 5ecretary of the 5enate and the 5enate )resident" Then the )resident affi2ed his si&nature thereto (y 'ay of appro!al" The (ill (ecame D$ .0*+" 5enator Tolentino issued a press statement that the enrolled copy of #"F" 93** si&ned into la' (y the )resident 'as a 'ron& !ersion of the (ill actually passed (y the 5enate (ecause it did not em(ody the amendments introduced (y him and appro!ed on the 5enate floor" $s a conseCuence, the 5enate )resident in!alidated his si&nature on the (ill" Thereafter, the )resident 'ithdre' his si&nature on #"F" 93**"

"ssue! Whether

or

not

the

enrolled

(ill

doctrine

should

(e

adhered

to

#eld! The enrolled (ill theory is (ased mainly on the respect due to coeCual and independent departments, 'hich reCuires the 1udicial department to accept, as ha!in& passed Con&ress, all (ills authenticated in the ri&ht manner" )etitioner0s ar&ument that the attestation of the presidin& officers of Con&ress is conclusi!e proof of a (ill0s due enactment, reCuired, it is said, (y the respect due to a coAeCual department of the &o!ernment, is neutrali6ed (y the fact that the 5enate )resident declared his si&nature on the (ill to (e in!alid and issued a su(seCuent clarification that the in!alidation of his si&nature meant that the (ill he had si&nedhad

ne!er (een appro!ed (y the 5enate" $(sent such attestation as a result of the disclaimer, and conseCuently there (ein& no enrolled (ill to spea9 of, the entries in the 1ournal should (e consulted" The 1ournal discloses that su(stantial and len&thy amendments 'ere introduced on the floor and appro!ed (y the 5enate (ut 'ere not incorporated in the printed te2t sent to the )resident and si&ned (y him" The Court declares that the (ill 'as not duly enacted and therefore did not (ecome a la'"

Arroyo v. De 7enecia acts! $n amendment to the 4ational -nternal De!enue Code 'as introduced to the #ouse of Depresentati!es in!ol!in& ta2ations on the manufacture and sale of (eer and ci&arettes" This 'aslater passed accordin&ly and (rou&ht to the #ouse of 5enate" Epon the interpellation on thesecond readin&, herein petitioner mo!ed for ad1ournment for lac9 of Cuorum 'hich isconstitutionally needed to conduct (usiness" )etitioner^s motion 'as defeated and 'asrailroaded" The (ill 'as then si&ned into la' (y )resident Fidel Damos" -ssue: Whether or not the la' 'as passed on !iolation on the constitutional mandate" #eld: There is no rule of the #ouse concerned that Cuorum shall (e determined (y !i!a !oce or nominal !otin&" The Constitution does not reCuire that the yeas and nays of the Mem(ers (eta9en e!ery time a #ouse has to !ote, e2cept only on the follo'in& instances _ upon the last andthe third readin&s of the (ill, at the reCuest of 18+ of the Mem(ers present and in repassin& a (illo!er the !eto of the )resident" 5econd, there is o(!iousness on the part of the petitioner to delaythe (usiness of the #ouse, thus eliminatin& the alle&ed s9ulldu&&ery on part of the accused"Third, the enrolled (ill doctrine states that enrolled (ills are in itself conclusi!e thus le&ally (indin& pro!ided it is in harmony 'ith the constitution" ,astly, the court upheld principle of separation of po'ers, 'hich herein, is applica(le for the le&islati!e (ranch for it has e2ercised its po'er 'ithout &ra!e a(use of discretion resultin& to lac9 or e2cess of 1urisdiction"

Ceferino )aredes Jr" !s 5andi&an(ayan on &anuary >, 63/6 )olitical ,a' L 5uspension of a Mem(er of Con&ress L D$ 3019 On 33 Jan 1990, %elacio, the then !ice mayor of 5an Francisco, $&usan del 5ur filed a case a&ainst )aredes B'ho 'as then the &o!ernor of the same pro!ince>, $tty" 5ansaet Bcounsel of )aredes>, and #onrada Bthe cler9 of court>" The three alle&edly conspired to falsify a copy of a 4otice of $rrai&nment and of the Transcript of 5teno&raphic 4otes" %elacio claimed that, in fact, no arrai&nment has e!er (een issued a&ainst him in a criminal proceedin& a&ainst him" %elacio 'as a(le to produce a certification from the 1ud&e handlin& the case himself that the criminal case a&ainst him ne!er reached the arrai&nment sta&e (ecause the prosecution 'as dismissed" $tty" 5ansaet on his part maintained that there 'as indeed a 4otice of $rrai&nment (ut he later retracted his testimonies" )aredes claimed that 5ansaet only chan&ed his side (ecause of political reali&nment" 5u(seCuently, the Office of the Om(udsman recommended that )aredes et al (e char&ed 'ith Falsification of )u(lic ocuments" )aredes appealed (ut 'as e!entually denied (y the 5andi&an(ayan" "SS'E! Whether or not )aredes, no' a mem(er of Con&ress, (e suspended (y order of the 5andi&an(ayan" #ELD! The 5upreme Court affirmed the order of suspension of Con&ressman )aredes (y the 5andi&an(ayan, despite his protestations on the encroachment (y the court on the prero&ati!es of con&ress" The 5C ruled: 72 2 2" )etitioner0s in!ocation of 5ection 1* B3>, $rticle ?- of the Constitution L 'hich deals 'ith the po'er of each #ouse of Con&ress inter alia to Npunish its Mem(ers for disorderly (eha!ior,0 and Nsuspend or e2pel a Mem(er0 (y a !ote of t'oAthirds of all its Mem(ers su(1ect to the Cualification that the penalty of suspension, 'hen imposed, should not e2ceed si2ty days L is una!ailin&, as it appears to (e Cuite distinct from the suspension spo9en of in 5ection 13 of D$ 3019, 'hich is not a penalty (ut a preliminary, pre!enti!e measure, prescindin& from the fact that the latter is not (ein& imposed on petitioner for mis(eha!ior as a Mem(er of the #ouse of Depresentati!es":