Anda di halaman 1dari 6

Section 1.

A. RUBI, ET AL. (manguianes), plaintiffs, vs. THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO, defendant.
Petitioner and the other Mangyans filed an application for Habeas Corpus as they believe that they are
unlafully deprived of their liberty on account of the order issued by the Provincial !overnor of Mindoro. "he
#uestioned order by the Provicial !ov. of Mindoro states that the Mangyans should ta$e up their habitation on
the site of "igbao, %au&an 'a$e, otherise, they shall be i(prisoned. "his order as pursuant to sec. )1*+ of
the then ad(inistrative Code:
Section )1*+ of the Ad(inistrative Code of 1,1- reads as follos:
S.C. )1*+. Establishment of non-Christina upon sites selected by provincial governor. / 0ith the prior approval of
the 1epart(ent Head, the provincial governor of any province in hich non2Christian inhabitants are found is
authori3ed, hen such a course is dee(ed necessary in the interest of la and order, to direct such inhabitants to ta$e
up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be selected by hi( an approved by the provincial board.
4n connection ith the above2#uoted provisions, there should be noted section )-+, of the sa(e Code, hich read as follos:
S.C. )-+,. Refusal of a non-Christian to take up appointed habitation. / Any non2Christian ho shall refuse to
co(ply ith the directions lafully given by a provincial governor, pursuant to section to thousand one hundred and
forty2five of this Code, to ta$e up habitation upon a site designated by said governor shall upon conviction be
i(prison(ent for a period not e5ceeding si5ty days.
%o, the petitioners #uestions the validity of sec.)1*+ as it as a unduly delegates legislative poer to
provincial authorities hich is in co(plete violation of the principle of non2delegability of legislative poer.
06% Sec. )1*+ of the ad(inistrative code unconstitutional as it violates the principle of non2delegability
of legislative poers.
%o. "hat the (a5i( of Constitutional Law forbidding the delegation of legislative power should be
3ealously protected, e agree. An understanding of the rule ill, hoever, disclose that it has not been violated in
his instance.
"he rule has nohere been better stated than in the early 6hio case decided by 8udge 7anney, and since
folloed in a (ultitude of case, na(ely: "Te !"ue #is!in$!i%n !e"e&%"e is 'e!(een !e #e)ega!i%n %& *%(e" !%
ma+e !e )a(, (i$ ne$essa"i), in-%)-es a #is$"e!i%n as !% (a! i! sa)) 'e, an# $%n&e""ing an au!%"i!, %"
#is$"e!i%n as !% i!s e.e$u!i%n, !% 'e e.e"$ise# un#e" an# in *u"suan$e %& !e )a(. Te &i"s! $ann%! 'e #%ne/ !%
!e )a!e" n% -a)i# %'0e$!i%n $an 'e ma#e."
"he deter(ination of this policy 9that hich affects non2Christians, :c in this case pertains to the
(angyans; is for the legislative and executive branches of the government and that when once so decided upon, the
courts should not interfere to upset a carefully planned governmental system. Perhaps, &ust as (ay forceful reasons
e5ists for the segregation as e5isted for the segregation of the different 4ndian tribes in the <nited States.
11 "he phrase =non2Christian inhabitants= used in the provisions of articles )>-- and )-*1 of Act %o. )?+- 9articles )1*+ and )-+,; should be
understood as e#uivalent to (e(bers of uncivili3ed tribes of the Philippines, not only because this is the evident intention of the la, but because
to give it its literal (eaning ould (a$e the la null and unconstitutional as (a$ing distinctions based on the religion of the individual.11
Section +.
"his is an original action for Prohibition to declare unconstitutional 7epublic Act %o. ,+,1 97A ,+,1;,
creating a legislative district for the city of Malolos, @ulacan, for violating the (ini(u( population
re#uire(ent for the creation of a legislative district in a city.
"he population of Malolos City on 1 May )>>, is a contested fact but there is no dispute that House @ill
%o. A?,A relied on an undated certification issued by a 7egional 1irector of the %ational Statistics 6ffice
9%S6; that Bthe pro&ected population of the Municipality of Malolos ill be )+*,>A> by the year )>1> using the
population groth rate of A.-C beteen 1,,+ to )>>>.D
Herein petitioners thus, #uestions the validity of 7A ,+,1 as it fails to (eet the re#uire(ents contained in
Sec. + 9A;, Article E4 of the constitution.
06% 7A ,+)1 as unconstitutional.
Fes, 7A ,+)1 is unconstitutional.
"he Certification of 7egional 1irector Miranda, which is based on demographic proections, is ithout
legal effect because 7egional 1irector Miranda has no basis and no authority to issue the Certification. "he
Certification is also void on its face because based on its on groth rate assu(ption, the population of
Malolos ill be less than )+>,>>> in the year )>1>. 4n addition, in!e"$ensa) #em%g"a*i$ *"%0e$!i%ns $ann%!
'e ma#e &%" !e en!i"e ,ea". In an, e-en!, a $i!, (%se *%*u)a!i%n as in$"ease# !% 234,444 is en!i!)e# !%
a-e a )egis)a!i-e #is!"i$! %n), in !e 5 immediately following election 6 a&!e" !e a!!ainmen! %& !e 234,444
!irst, certifications on de(ographic pro&ections can be issued only if such pro&ections are declared
official by the %ational Statistics Coordination @oard 9%SC@;. "econd, certifications based on de(ographic
pro&ections can be issued only by the %S6 Ad(inistrator or his designated certifying
officer. #hird, intercensal population pro&ections (ust be as of the (iddle of every year.
Clearly, !e"e is n% %&&i$ia) "e$%"# !a! !e *%*u)a!i%n %& !e Ci!, %& Ma)%)%s (i)) 'e a! )eas! 234,444,
a$!ua) %" *"%0e$!e#, *"i%" !% !e 74 Ma, 2474 e)e$!i%ns, the i((ediately folloing election after the
supposed attain(ent of such population. "hus, the City of Malolos is not #ualified to have a legislative district
of its on under Section +9A;, Article E4 of the 1,C- Constitution and Section A of the 6rdinance appended to
the 1,C- Constitution.
Section 1*.
A. PU8AT vs. DE 9U:MAN,;R.
Asse(bly(an .stanislao Fernande3 bought 1> shares of stoc$ of 4nternational Pipe 4ndustries
Corporation. 1uring the conferences of the parties ith the S.C Co((. 1e !u3(an ith regard to the #uo
arranto proceeding instituted to #uestion the elections of directors of 4P4, Asse(bly(an Fernande3
entered his appearance as counsel for Acero. Subse#uently, Fernande3 decided to BinterveneD to protect his
rights as oner of 1> shares. "his intervention as granted by the S.C Co((issioner, thus, the present
action for prohibition : preli(inary 4n&unction.
06% Asse(bly(an Fernande3, as a then stoc$holder of 4P4 (ay intervene in the S.C Case
ithout violating Section 11, Article E444 of the Constitution.
6rdinarily, by virtue of the Motion for 4ntervention, Asse(bly(an Fernande3 cannot be said to be
appearing as counsel. 6stensibly, he is not appearing on behalf of another, although he is &oining the cause
of the private respondents. His appearance could theoretically be for the protection of his onership of ten
91>; shares of 4P4 in respect of the (atter in litigation and not for the protection of the petitioners nor
respondents ho have their respective capable and respected counsel.
Hoever, based on the circu(stances present in the case at bar, e are constrained to find that
there has been an indirect Gappearance as counsel before ... an ad(inistrative bodyG and, in our opinion,
that is a circu(vention of the Constitutional prohibition. #he $intervention$ was an afterthought to enable
him to appear actively in the proceedings in some other capacity. "o believe the avoed purpose, that is, to
enable hi( eventually to vote and to be elected as 1irector in the event of an unfavorable outco(e of the
S.C Case ould be pure naivete. He ould still appear as counsel indirectly.
A "u)ing u*%)#ing !e "in!e"-en!i%n" (%u)# ma+e !e $%ns!i!u!i%na) *"%-isi%n ine&&e$!i-e.
A)) an Assem'),man nee# #%, i& e (an!s !% in&)uen$e an a#minis!"a!i-e '%#, is !% a$<ui"e a minima)
*a"!i$i*a!i%n in !e "in!e"es!" %& !e $)ien! an# !en "in!e"-ene" in !e *"%$ee#ings. Ta! (i$ !e
C%ns!i!u!i%n #i"e$!), *"%i'i!s ma, n%! 'e #%ne ', in#i"e$!i%n %" ', a gene"a) )egis)a!i-e a$! (i$ is
in!en#e# !% a$$%m*)is !e %'0e$!s s*e$i&i$a)), %" im*)ie#), *"%i'i!e#.
4n brief, e hold that the intervention of Asse(bly(an Fernande3 in S.C. %o. 1-*- falls ithin
the a(bit of the prohibition contained in Section 11, Article E444 of the Constitution.
Section 1-.
"e*"esen!a!i-e (% ma, 'e a**%in!e# -i$e "e*"esen!a!i-e ;uani!a 9. Camasu"a, ;"., an# THE
"his case involves the re(oval of Cong. Ca(asura 9'1P party (e(ber; as (e(ber of the House
of 7epresentative .lectoral "ribunal by reason of party disloyalty.
4n the local and congressional elections held on May 11, 1,C-, Marciano M. Pineda of the 'aban
ng 1e(o$rati$ong Pilipino 9'1P; and 1r. .(igdio A. @ondoc of the %acionalista Party 9%P; ere rival
candidates for the position of 7epresentative for the Fourth 1istrict of the province of Pa(panga. Pineda
as proclai(ed the inner but in due ti(e, Petitioner @ondoc filed a protest before the H7.". After the
revision of ballots, it as shon that Petitioner @ondoc on against Pineda by a (argin of )A votes. "he
'1P did not accept this finding and sought the reappreciation of the ballots hich delayed by at least four
9*; (onths the finali3ation of the decision in the case.
Moved by candor and honesty, Congress(an Ca(asura revealed on March *, 1,,1, to his =Chief,G
Congress(an 8ose S. Co&uangco, 8r., '1P Secretary !eneral, not only the final tally in the @ondoc case but
also that he voted for @ondoc Gconsistent ith truth and &ustice and self2 respect. 4t is for this reason that
'1P, on the eve of the pro(ulgation of the @ondoc decision, Congress(an Co&uangco infor(ed
Congress(an Ca(asura that he had already been e5pelled for co((itting acts hich are Gnot only ini(ical
uncalled for, unethical and i((oral, but also a co(plete betrayal to 9sic; the cause and ob&ectives, and
loyalty to '1PD. "hereafter, '1P sought to no(inate and elect Congress(an Palacol to ta$e Congress(an
Ca(asura=s seat in the "ribunal.
06% the House of 7epresentatives, at the re#uest of the do(inant political party therein, change
that party=s representation in the House .lectoral "ribunal to thart the pro(ulgation of a decision freely
reached by the tribunal in an election contest pending therein.
"o be able to e5ercise e5clusive &urisdiction, the House .lectoral "ribunal (ust be independent.
4ts &urisdiction to hear and decide congressional election contests is not to be shared by it ith the
'egislature nor ith the Courts.
"he E)e$!%"a) C%mmissi%n is a '%#, se*a"a!e &"%m an# independent of the legislature an#
!%ug n%! a *%(e" in !e !"i*a"!i!e s$eme %& g%-e"nmen!, i! is !% a)) in!en!s an# *u"*%ses, (en
a$!ing (i!in !e )imi!s %& i!s au!%"i!,, an in#e*en#en! %"gan/ (i)e $%m*%se# %& a ma0%"i!, %&
mem'e"s %& !e )egis)a!u"e i! is a '%#, se*a"a!e &"%m an# in#e*en#en! %& !e )egis)a!u"e.
"he resolution of the House of 7epresentatives re(oving Congress(an Ca(asura fro( the House
.lectoral "ribunal for disloyalty to the '1P, because he cast his vote in favor of the %acionalista Party=s
candidate, @ondoc, is a clear i(pair(ent of the constitutional prerogative of the House .lectoral "ribunal
to be the sole udge of the election contest beteen Pineda and @ondoc.
As &udges, !e mem'e"s %& !e !"i'una) mus! 'e n%n>*a"!isan. Te, mus! #is$a"ge !ei"
&un$!i%ns (i! $%m*)e!e #e!a$men!, im*a"!ia)i!,, an# in#e*en#en$e e-en in#e*en#en$e &"%m !e
*%)i!i$a) *a"!, !% (i$ !e, 'e)%ng. Hen$e, "#is)%,a)!, !% *a"!," an# "'"ea$ %& *a"!, #is$i*)ine,"
a"e n%! -a)i# g"%un#s &%" !e e.*u)si%n %& a mem'e" %& !e !"i'una) . 4n e5pelling Congress(an
Ca(asura fro( the H7." for having cast a conscience voteG in favor of @ondoc, based strictly on the
result of the e5a(ination and appreciation of the ballots and the recount of the votes by the tribunal, the
House of 7epresentatives co((itted a grave abuse of discretion, an in&ustice, and a violation of the
Constitution. 4ts resolution of e5pulsion against Congress(an Ca(asura is, therefore, null and void.
Section )+.
A. EU=EBIO B. 9ARCIA, petitioner2appellant, vs. HON. ERNE=TO =. MATA, =e$"e!a", %& Na!i%na)
De&ense, an# 9ENERAL MANUEL T. 8AN, Cie& %& =!a&&, A"me# F%"$es %& !e
Pi)i**ines, respondents2appellees.
Petitioner as a reserve officer on active duty ith the Ar(ed Forces of the Philippines until his
reversion to inactive status on 1+ %ove(ber 1,?>, pursuant to the provisions of 7epublic Act %o. )AA). At
the ti(e of reversion, Petitioner held the ran$ of Captain ith a (onthly e(olu(ent of P*-C.>>,
co(prising his base and longevity pay, #uarters and subsistence alloancesH
0hen 7epublic Act 1?>> too$ effect, petitioner had an accu(ulated active co((issioned service
of 1> years, + (onths and + days in the Ar(ed Forces of the Philippines. 4t then filed a clai( before the
AFP Chief of Staff and subse#uently for the recovery of su( of (oney arising fro( the provisions of 7A
1?>> 9Special Provisions for the AFP;, in hich, according to petitioner arrants his reinstate(ent in
active service and receipt of e(olu(ents due to hi(.
06% paragraph 11 of the GSpecial Provisions for the Ar(ed Forces of the PhilippinesG of
7epublic Act %o. 1?>>

unconstitutional and therefore invalid and inoperative.
Fes, Paragraph 11 of 7A 1?>> is unconstitutional. A perusal of the challenged provision of 7.A.
1?>> fails to disclose its relevance or relation to any appropriation ite( therein, or to the Appropriation Act
as a hole. Fro( the very first clause of paragraph 11 itself, hich reads,
%fter the approval of this %ct, and when there is no emergency, no reserve officer of the
%rmed !orces of the &hilippines may be called to a tour of active duty for more than two
years during any period of five consecutive years'
the incongruity and irrelevancy are already evident. 0hile 7.A. 1?>> appropriated (oney for the operation
of the !overn(ent for the fiscal year 1,+?21,+-, the said paragraph 11 refers to the funda(ental
govern(ent policy (atters of the calling to active duty and the reversion to inactive status of reserve
officers in the AFP. "he incongruity and irrelevancy continue throughout the entire paragraph.
4n the language of the respondents2appellees, Git was indeed a non-appropriation item inserted in
an appropriation measure in violation of the constitutional inhibition against GridersG to the general
appropriation act.G 4t as indeed a ne and co(pletely unrelated provision attached to the Appropriation
4n deter(ining hether a provision contained in an act is e(braced in the sub&ect and is properly
connected thereith, the su'0e$! !% 'e $%nsi#e"e# is !e %ne e.*"esse# in !e !i!)e %& !e a$!, an# e-e",
&ai" in!en#men! an# "eas%na')e #%u'! s%u)# 'e in#u)ge# in &a-%" %& !e -a)i#i!, %& !e )egis)a!i-e
ena$!men!. Bu! (en an a$! $%n!ains *"%-isi%ns (i$ a"e $)ea"), n%! em'"a$e# in !e su'0e$! %& !e
a$!, as e.*"esse# in !e !i!)e, su$ *"%-isi%ns a"e in%*e"a!i-e an# (i!%u! e&&e$!. 4n "umulong vs.
Comelec, () &hil. *++, *,-, this Court held that i! is "a su&&i$ien! $%m*)ian$e (i! su$ "e<ui"emen! i&
!e !i!)e e.*"esses !e gene"a) su'0e$! an# a)) !e *"%-isi%ns %& !e s!a!u!e a"e ge"mane !% !a! gene"a)
su'0e$!." Te $%ns!i!u!i%na) *"%-isi%n (as in!en#e# !% *"e$)u#e !e inse"!i%n %& "i#e"s in )egis)a!i%n, a
"i#e" 'eing a *"%-isi%n n%! ge"mane !% !e su'0e$!>ma!!e" %& !e 'i)).

#he subect of R.%. -.//, as expressed in its title, is restricted to $appropriating funds for the
operation of the government.$ Any provision contained in the body of the act that is fairly included in this
restricted sub&ect or any (atter properly connected thereith is valid and operative. @ut, if a provision in
the body of the act is not fairly included in this restricted subject, like the provision relating to the policy
matters of calling to active duty and reversion to inactive duty of reserve officers of the AFP, such
provision is inoperative and of no effect.
Section )C.
? ;O=E U. ON9, as COMMI==IONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.
Petitioners assails constitutionality of 7epublic Act %o. -*,?, also co((only $non as the Si(plified %et
4nco(e "a5ation Sche(e 9GS%4"G;, a(ending certain provisions of the %ational 4nternal 7evenue Code as it
allegedly places the inco(e ta5 treat(ent of professionals ho practice their respective professions individually
and of those ho do it through a general professional partnership in an une#ual footing. Petitioner inti(ates that
7epublic Act %o. -*,? desecrates the constitutional re#uire(ent that ta5ation $shall be uniform and e0uitable$
in that the la ould no atte(pt to ta5 single proprietorships and professionals differently fro( the (anner it
i(poses the ta5 on corporations and partnerships.
06% 7A -*,? is constitutional.
Fes, 7A -*,? is constitutional. "he contention that the #uestioned la desecrates the constitutional
re#uire(ent that ta5ation shall be Bunifor( and e#uitableD as it atte(pts to ta5 single proprietorships and
professionals differently fro( the (anner it i(poses the ta5 on corporations and partnerships, clearly forgets,
hoever, that such a syste( of inco(e ta5ation has long been the prevailing rule even prior to 7epublic Act %o.
A general professional partnership, unli$e an ordinary business partnership 9hich is treated as a
corporation for inco(e ta5 purposes and so sub&ect to the corporate inco(e ta5;, is not itself an inco(e
ta5payer. The income tax is imposed not on the professional partnership, which is tax exempt, but on the
partners themselves in their individual capacity computed on their distributive shares of partnership profits.
Section )A of the "a5 Code, hich has not been a(ended at all by 7epublic Act -*,?, is e5plicit:
Sec. )A. "a5 liability of (e(bers of general professional partnerships. / 9a; Persons e5ercising a co((on
profession in general partnership shall be liable for inco(e ta5 only in their individual capacity, and the share
in the net profits of the general professional partnership to hich any ta5able partner ould be entitled
hether distributed or otherise, shall be returned for ta5ation and the ta5 paid in accordance ith the
provisions of this "itle.
9b; 4n deter(ining his distributive share in the net inco(e of the partnership, each partner /
91; Shall ta$e into account separately his distributive share of the partnership=s inco(e, gain, loss, deduction,
or credit to the e5tent provided by the pertinent provisions of this Code, and
9); Shall be dee(ed to have elected the ite(i3ed deductions, unless he declares his distributive share of the
gross inco(e undi(inished by his share of the deductions.
"here is, then and no, no distinction in inco(e ta5 liability beteen a person ho practices his
profession alone or individually and one ho does it through partnership 9hether registered or not; ith others
in the e5ercise of a co((on profession. 4ndeed, outside of the gross co(pensation inco(e ta5 and the final ta5
on passive invest(ent inco(e, under the present inco(e ta5 syste( all individuals deriving inco(e fro( any
source hatsoever are treated in al(ost invariably the sa(e (anner and under a co((on set of rules.
Section ? of 7evenue 7egulation %o. )2,A did not alter, but (erely confir(ed, the above standing rule as
no so (odified by 7epublic Act %o. -*,? on basically the e5tent of alloable deductions applicable
to all individual inco(e ta5payers on their non2co(pensation inco(e. "here is no evident intention of the la,
either before or after the a(endatory legislation, to place in an une#ual footing or in significant variance the
inco(e ta5 treat(ent of professionals ho practice their respective professions individually and of those ho
do it through a general professional partnership.