DE LEON v ESGUERRA

GR No. 78059, August 31, 1987

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

Facts: In the Barangay elections held on May 17, 1982, petitioner Alfredo M. De Leon was elected
Barangay Captain and other petitioners Salamat, Sta. Ana, Tolentino, De la Rosa, and Resurreccion as
Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal under Batasang Pambansa Blg. 22.

On February 8, 1987, respondent Benjamin B. Esguerra ,the OIC Governor then, signed a Memorandum
antedated December 1, 1986 designating respondents Tigas, Lacanienta, Medina, Paz, and Tolentino as
members of Barangay Council of the same Barangay and Municipality.

The petitioners pray that the memoranda of February 8, 1987 be declared null and void and that
respondents be prohibited from taking over their positions of Barangay Captain and Barangay
Councilmen, respectively.

Issue(s): whether or not the memorandum is valid.

Whether or not the writ of prohibition shall be granted.

Ruling: (1) The Memoranda issued by respondent OIC Governor on February 8,1987 designating
respondents as the Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen, respectively, of Barangay Dolores,
Taytay, Rizal, are both declared to be of no legal force and effect; and (2) the Writ of Prohibition is
granted enjoining respondents perpetually from proceeding with the take-over of petitioners’ positions
subject to this petition. Without costs.

CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION v EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

GR No. 83896, February 22, 1991

FERNAN, C.J.:

Facts: two petitions, dated August 9, 1988, were consolidated and jointly being resolved. In this case,
both seek the declaration of the unconstitutionality of Executive Order no. 284.

Petitioners maintain that the Executive Order No. 284, that its effect, allows members of the cabinet,
their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other government offices or positions in addition
to their primary positions, which violates Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 constitution. In addition,
Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B, states that:

“Sec. 7.”Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive
official shall hold any other office or employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

Issue(s): whether or not Executive Order No. 284 be declared unconstitutional.

Ruling: Yes, because Executive Order No.284 is a direct contravention of Section 13, Article VII of the
1987 constitution. Thus, the court granted the petition, declaring the Executive order null and void and
according ly set aside.

TAÑADA v CUENCO

GR No. L-10520, February 28, 1957

CONCEPCION, J.:

Facts: On Feb. 22, 1956, the senate upon nomination of senator Cipriano primicias, on behalf of the
Nacionalista Party, chose senators jose p. laurel, Fernando lopez and Cipriano primicias, as members of
the SET. Then, upon nomination of petitioner tanada, on behalf of the Citizens party, said the petitioner
was next chosen by the Senate as member of said tribunal. Then, upon the nomination of Senator
Primicias on behalf of the Committee on Rules of the Senate, chose respondents Cuenco & Delgado, an
NP member, as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. Consequently, the Chairman of the Tribunal
appointed the rest of the respondents as staff members of Cuenco & Delgado.

Petitioner claim that the SET should be composed of 9 members comprised of the following: 3 justices of
the Supreme Court, 3 senators from the majority party and 3 senators from the minority party. But since
there is only one minority senator the other two SET members supposed to come from the minority were
filled in by the NP. Petitioners pray for a writ of preliminary injunction against respondents (cannot
exercise duties), to be made permanent after a judgment to oust respondents is passed. Respondents
contend that the Court is without jurisdiction to try the appointment of SET members, since it is a
constitutional right granted to Senate. Moreover, the petition is without cause of action since Tañada
exhausted his right to nominate 2 more senators; he is in estoppel. They contend that the present action
is not the proper remedy, but an appeal to public opinion.

Issue(s): Whether or not the issue is a political question.

Whether or not the appointment of Senator Primicias of Cuenca and Delgado

Ruling: No. The court ruled that it is not a political question and may be settled by the courts.

Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that respondents Senators Mariano Jesus Cuenco
and Francisco A. Delgado, who have not been duly elected as Members of the senate Electoral Tribunal,
that they are not entitled to act as such and that they should be, as they are hereby, enjoined from
exercising the powers and duties of Members of said Electoral Tribunal and from acting in such capacity
in connection with Senate electoral case no. 4 thereof. With the qualification stated above, the petition
is dismissed, as regards respondents Alfredo Cruz, Catalina Cayetano, Manuel Serapio and Placido Reyes.
Without special pronouncement as to costs.

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

GR No. 122156, February 3, 1997

BELLOSILLO, J.:
Facts: Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to the privatization program of the
Philippine Government under Proclamation no. 50 dated December 8, 1986, decided to sell through
public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of respondent MHC. In a close bidding
held on September 18, 1995 only two bidders participated: petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corporation,
a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share,
and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per share.

The pending declaration of Renong Berhad as the winning bidder/strategic partner and the execution of
the necessary contracts, petitioner in a letter to the respondent dated September 28, 1995 matched the
bid price tendered by Renong Berhad. The respondent declined.

On October 17, 1995, petitioner came to the court on prohibition and mandamus. On October 18, 1995,
the court issued temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from perfecting and consummating
the sale to the Malaysian firm. On September 10, 1995, the case was accepted by the court en banc
after it was referred to it by the first division.

Petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Article XII of the 1987 constitution;

“Sec. 10.”In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and
patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.”

Issue(s): Whether §10, paragraph 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision and
does not need implementing legislation to carry it into effect;

Whether GSIS is included in the term “State,” hence, mandated to implement §10, paragraph 2, Article
XII of the Constitution;

whether it should give preference to the petitioner, a Filipino corporation, over Renong Berhad, a
foreign corporation, in the sale of the controlling shares of the Manila Hotel Corporation.

Ruling: (1) Yes, Sec. 10, second par., Article XII of the 1987 consti is a mandatory, positive command
which is complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or complementing laws or rules for its
enforcement.

(2) Yes, because when the constitution addresses the State, it refers not only to the people but also to
the government as elements of the State.

(3) respondents GSIS, MHC, CoP, and OGCC are directed to cease and desist from selling the 51% of the
shares of Manila Hotel Corp. to Renong berhad, and to accept the matching bid of petitioner MPHC and
thereafter to execute the necessary agreements and documents to effect the sale, to issue the
necessary clearances and to do such other acts and deeds as may be necessary for the purpose. So
ordered.

LAMBINO v COMELEC

GR No. 174153, October 25, 2006

CARPIO, J.:
Facts: On February 15, 2006, petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado (“Lambino Group”),
with other groups and individuals, commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change
the 1987 constitution. On August 25, 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to
hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under sec 5(b) and (c) and section 7 of R.A No.
6735. On August 30, 2006, the Lambino Group filed an amended petition with the COMELEC indicating
modifications in the proposed Article XVIII of their initiative. On august 31, 2006, the COMELEC issued its
resolution denying due course to the Lambino Group’s petition for lack of an enabling law governing
initiative petitions to amend the constitution.

Issue(s): (1) whether the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the
constitution on amendments to the constitution through a people’s initiative;

(2) whether or not this court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 “incomplete,
inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions” to implement the initiative clause on
proposals to amend the Constitution; and

(3) whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the
Lambino Group’s petition.

Ruling: (1) the initiative petition does not comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on
direct proposal of the people. Also, the initiative violates the Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution
disallowing revision through initiatives.

(2) No, a revisit of Santiago v COMELEC is not necessary because an affirmation or reversal of Santiago
ruling will not change the outcome of the present petition.

(3) No, the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Lambino Group’s
Initiative because the COMELEC en banc merely followed this court’s ruling in Santiago and people’s
initiative for reform, modernization and action (PIRMA) v. COMELEC. For following this court’s ruling, no
grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the COMELEC.

Wherefore, this court dismiss the petition GR. No. 174153