Article VII. Sec.4, Par.

4,
The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the
board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress,
directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass,
the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the
election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of
Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the
authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the
votes.

G.R. No. 163193

June 15, 2004

SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., petitioner,

JOSE CONCEPCION, JR., JOSE DE VENECIA, EDGARDO J. ANGARA, DR. JAIME
Z. GALVEZ-TAN, FRANKLIN M. DRILON, FRISCO SAN JUAN, NORBERTO M.
GONZALES, HONESTO M. GUTIERREZ, ISLETA, AND JOSE A. BERNAS,
Petitioners-in-Intervention,
vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.

Facts:
Comelec issued resolutions adopting an Automated Elections System including the
assailed resolution, Resolution 6712, which provides for the electronic transmission
of advanced result of unofficial count. Petitioners claimed that the resolution
would allow the preemption and usurpation of the exclusive power of Congress to
canvass the votes for President and Vice-President and would likewise encroach
upon the authority of NAMFREL, as the citizens accredited arm, to conduct the
"unofficial" quick count as provided under pertinent election laws. Comelec
contended that the resolution was promulgated in the exercise of its executive and
administrative power "to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible
elections Comelec added that the issue is beyond judicial determination.
Issue:
Whether or not Comelec's promulgation of Resolution 6712 was justified.
Ruling:
The Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in issuing Resolution 6712. The issue squarely fell within the ambit of
the expanded jurisdiction of the court.

Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution, further bolstered by RA 8436, vest upon
Congress the sole and exclusive authority to officially canvass the votes for the
elections of President and Vice-President. Section 27 of Rep. Act No. 7166, as
amended by Rep. Act No. 8173, and reiterated in Section 18 of Rep. Act No. 8436,
solely authorize NAMFREL, the duly-accredited citizens arm to conduct the
unofficial counting of votes for the national or local elections. The quick count
under the guise of an unofficial tabulation would not only be preemptive of the
authority of congress and NAMFREL, but would also be lacking constitutional and/or
statutory basis. Moreover, the assailed COMELEC resolution likewise contravened
the constitutional provision that "no money shall be paid out of the treasury except
in pursuance of an appropriation made by law." It being unofficial, any
disbursement of public fund would be contrary to the provisions of the Constitution
and Rep. Act No. 9206, which is the 2003 General Appropriations Act.
The Omnibus Election Code in providing the powers and functions of the
Commission subjects the same to certain conditions with respect to the adoption of
the latest technological and electronic devices, to wit: (1) consideration of the area
and available funds (2) notification to all political parties and candidates. The
aforementioned conditions were found to have not been substantially met.
Resolution 6712 was null and void.

AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. versus JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS TO

CANVASS THE VOTES FOR PRESIDENT & VICE PRESIDENT IN THE MAY 10
2004 ELECTIONS

Facts:
By a petition for prohibition, Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. seeks a judgment
declaring null and void the continued existence of the Joint Committee of
Congress to determine the authenticity and due execution of the
certificates of canvass and preliminarily canvass the votes cast for
Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates in the May 10 2004 elections
following the adjournment of Congress on June 11 2004.
The petition corollarily prays for the issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the
Joint Committee to cease and desist from conducting any further proceedings
pursuant to the Rules of the Joint Public Session of Congress on Canvassing.
Issue:
Whether or not legislative procedure, precedent or practice as borne out by the
rules of both Houses of Congress supports Pimentels arguments against the

existence and proceedings of the Joint Committee of Congress after the

adjournment of Congress.
Held:
NO. Pimentels claim that his arguments are buttressed by legislative procedure,
precedent or practice as borne out by the rules of both Houses of Congress is
directly contradicted by Section 42 of Rule XIV of the Rules adopted by the Senate,
of which he is an incumbent member.
Moreover, the precedents set by the 1992 and 1998 Presidential Elections do not
support the move to stop the ongoing canvassing by the Joint Committee. Thus,
during the 1992 Presidential elections, both Houses of Congress adjourned on 25
May 1992. Thereafter, on 22 June 1992, the Eight Congress convened in joint public
session as the National Board of Canvassers, and on even date proclaimed Fidel V.
Ramos and Joseph Ejercito Estrada as President and Vice President, respectively.

Article VII, Section 10. The Congress shall, at ten oclock in the morning of the
third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President
occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call and within seven
days, enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and a VicePresident to be held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days from
the time of such call. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified
under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article VI of this Constitution and shall become law
upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special
election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt
from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article VI of this Constitution. The
convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election postponed.
No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months
before the date of the next presidential election.

Article VII, Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all
armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call
out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a
period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight
hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to
the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its

Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or

suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the
initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the
invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

Article VII, Section 9. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the VicePresident during the term for which he was elected, the President shall nominate a
Vice-President from among the Members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all
the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

I. CONCUR IN TREATIES
Article VII, Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and
effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the
Senate.
Article XVIII, Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between
the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning military
bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the
Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the
Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a
national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other
contracting State.
Pimentel v. Executive Secretary Digest
G.R. No. 158088 July 6, 2005

Facts:

1. The petitioners filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Office of the
Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit the signed
copy of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Senate of the
Philippinesfor its concurrence pursuant to Sec. 21, Art VII of the 1987 Constitution.

2. The Rome Statute established the Int'l Criminal Court which will have jurisdiction
over the most serious crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and
crimes of aggression as defined by the Statute. The Philippines through the Chargie
du Affairs in UN. The provisions of the Statute however require that it be subject to
ratification, acceptance or approval of the signatory state.

3. Petitioners contend that ratification of a treaty, under both domestic and

international law, is a function of the Senate, hence it is the duty of the Executive
Department to transmit the signed copy to the senate to allow it to exercise its
discretion.

Issue: Whether or not the Exec. Secretary and the DFA have the ministerial duty to
transmit to the Senate the copy of the Rome Statute signed by a member of the
Philippine mission to the U.N. even without the signature of the President.

The Supreme Court held NO.

1. The President as the head of state is the sole organ and authorized in the
external relations and he is also the country's sole representative with foreign
nations, He is the mouthpiece with respect to the country's foreign affairs.

2. In treaty-making, the President has the sole authority to negotiate with other
states and enter into treaties but this power is limited by the Constitution with the
2/3 required vote of all the members of the Senate for the treaty to be valid. (Sec.
21, Art VII).

3. The legislative branch part is essential to provide a check on the executive in the
field of foreign relations, to ensure the nation's pursuit of political maturity and
growth.

Suplico vs. NEDA, GR 178830, July 14, 2008

Respondent avers that there is no more justicible controversy with the ZTE National
Broadband Network Project controversy for the Court to resolve. Petitioners contend
that because of the transcendental importance of the issues raised in the petition,

which among others, included the Presidents use of the power to borrow, i.e., to
enter into foreign loan agreements, this Court should take cognizance of this case
despite its apparent mootness.

ISSUE: Is the moot and academic principle a magical formula that can
automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case?

Judicial power presupposes actual controversies, the very antithesis of mootness. In

the absence of actual justiciable controversies or disputes, the Court generally opts
to refrain from deciding moot issues. Where there is no more live subject of
controversy, the Court ceases to have a reason to render any ruling or make any
pronouncement.

For a court to exercise its power of adjudication, there must be an actual case or
controversy one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite
legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution; the case must not be moot or
academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a
court of justice. Where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no
justiciable controversy, and an adjudication thereon would be of no practical use or
value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly
interest, however intellectually challenging.
While there were occasions when the Court passed upon issues although
supervening events had rendered those petitions moot and academic, the instant
case does not fall under the exceptional cases. In those cases, the Court was
persuaded to resolve moot and academic issues to formulate guiding and
controlling constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines or rules for future guidance
of both bench and bar.
RULING:
Partido ng Manggagawa vs. COMELEC , GR 164702, March 15, 2006
The petition involves the formula for computing the additional seats due, if any, for
winners in party-list elections. Several party-list participants sent queries to the
respondent COMELEC regarding the formula to be adopted in computing the
additional seats for the party-list winners in the May 10, 2004 elections. In response,
the respondent Commission issued Resolution No. 6835, adopting the simplified
formula of "one additional seat per additional two percent of the total party-list
votes.

ISSUE: What is a decision Pro Hac Vice?

Pro hac vice is a Latin term meaning "for this one particular occasion. A ruling
expressly qualified as pro hac vice cannot be relied upon as a precedent to govern
other cases. In this case, it was ruled that it was erroneous for respondent
Commission to apply Resolution No. 6835 and rule that the formula in Veterans has
been abandoned.
In a subsequent case, Banat vs. COMELEC, the court ruled that the formula in
Veterans is not applicable anymore.