1.

SEPARATION OF POWERS: Belgica vs Ochoa

Doctrine: Unless the Constitution provides otherwise, the Executive department should exclusively
exercise all roles and prerogatives which go into the implementation of the national budget as
provided under the GAA as well as any other appropriation law. From the moment the law becomes
effective, any provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its members to play any role in
the implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of powers
and is thus unconstitutional.

Facts:
 There are 3 consolidated cases before the court assailing the constitutionality of the Pork Barrel System.
 Pork Barrel: American English origin (degrading ritual of rolling out a barrel stuffed with pork to a
multitude of black slaves who would cast their famished bodies into the porcine feast to assuage their
hunger with morsels coming from the generosity of their well-fed master)  compared to actions of
American legislators in trying to direct federal budgets in favor of their districts
 In the Philippines: Pork barrel is referred to the lump sum discretionary funds of Members of Congress
 History:
A. Pre-Martial Law
 Act 3044 (Public Work Acts)  earliest form of pork barrel (subject to post-enactment
legislator approval
B. Martial Law Era
 1972: discontinued
 1982: Batasan Pambansa introduced new item in GAA called Support for Local Development
Projects (SLDP) where each assembly man receives 500K (covers hard projects/public
works projects and soft projects/non-projectworks
C. Post Martial Law
 Revived as Mindanao Development Fund and Visayas Development Fund for funding of
development projects there
 Clamor from Luzon legislators which results in the creation of Countrywide Development
Fund integrated into 1990 GAA
D. Ramos Administration
 GAA explicitly require the list of projects and activities of individual legislators
 Aside from CDF, other forms such as Congressional Insertions (DepEd School Building Fund,
EL Nino fund, etc)
E. Estrada
 CDF was removed in GAA and replaced by 3 separate forms of Cis: Food Security Program
Fund, Lingap para sa Mahihirap Program Fund, and Rural/Urban Development
Infrastracture Program Fund which requires prior consultation with Congress for the
release of the funds
F. Arroyo
 2002 PDAF: brief and straightforward (single special provision)
 2005: PDAF shall be used to fund priority programs and projects under the 10 point agenda
of the national govt
 Allowed formal participation of NGO in implementation of govt projects
G. Aquino
 Included an express statement on lump-sum amounts allocated for individual legislators
and the VP
 The individual legislator would choose and identify the project from priority list

Presidential Fund

 Malampaya Fund: created as a special fund under Sec 8 of PD 910 issued by Marcos (aim
to consolidate govt efforts relating to exploitation of indigenous energy in Palawan)
 Presidential Social Fund created under Sec 12 of PD 1869 or PAGCOR

 In 2004, several concerned citizens sought the nullification of the PDAF for being unconstitutional but
was dismissed
 In July 2013, NBI began its probe into allegations that govt has been defrauded of 10 Billion pesos
 6 whistle blowers declared that JLN had swindled billions of pesos from public for ghost projects using
20 dummy NGO
 Criminal complaints were filed before the Office of the Ombudsman charging 5 lawmakers for plunder
and 3 for malversation, direct bribery and violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
  Hence several petitions were filed in SC seeking to declare pork barrel system unconstitutional

Issue: whether PDAF is unconstitutional considering that it violates the principle of constitutional provision
on separation of power?

Held: YES
 The Pork Barrel System involves two (2) kinds of lump-sum discretionary funds:
1. Congressional Pork Barrel: kind of lump-sum, discretionary fund wherein legislators, either
individually or collectively organized into committees, are able to effectively control certain
aspects of the fund’s utilization through various post-enactment measures and/or practices.
2. Presidential Pork Barrel: allows the President to determine the manner of its utilization
(Malampaya Funds and the Presidential Social Fund).
 The Court held that there is a violation of the principle when there is impermissible (a) interference with
and/or (b) assumption of another department‘s functions.
 YES. Unless the Constitution provides otherwise, the Executive department should exclusively
exercise all roles and prerogatives which go into the implementation of the national budget as
provided under the GAA as well as any other appropriation law. From the moment the law becomes
effective, any provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its members to play any
role in the implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of
powers and is thus unconstitutional. The post-enactment measures which govern the areas of
project identification, fund release and fund realignment are not related to functions of congressional
oversight and, hence, allow legislators to intervene and/or assume duties that properly belong to the
sphere of budget execution. Legislators have been, in one form or another, authorized to participate
in the various operational aspects of budgeting, including the evaluation of work and financial plans
for individual activities and the regulation and release of funds in violation of the separation of powers
principle.
 Ultimately, legislators cannot exercise powers which they do not have, whether through formal
measures written into the law or informal practices institutionalized in government agencies, else the
Executive department be deprived of what the Constitution has vested as its own.

2. POWER OF CONTROL: Drilon vs Lim

Doctrine:

Control lays down the rules in the doing of act and if not followed order the act undone or re-done.
Supervision sees to it that the rules are followed.

Facts:
 4 oil companies and a taxpayer appealed to DOJ to declare Ordinance No. 7794 (Manila Revenue Code)
null and void for non-compliance with prescribed procedure in enactment of tax ordinances
 DOJ declare the Ordinance null and void
 RTC revoked DOJ Sec resolution and sustained the ordinance and it declared Sec 187 of LGC as
unconstitutional because of its vesture in the DOJ Sec the power of control over Local
Governments in violation of policy of local autonomy mandated in the Constitution

Issue: whether Sec 187 of the Local Government Code is unconstitutional since it empowered Sec of
Justice to review tax ordinance and annul them? And whether Drilon exercised control or mere
supervision?

Held: NO. Sec. Drilon’s act is that of mere supervision and not control.
 Sec 187 provides: Procedure For Approval And Effectivity Of Tax Ordinances And Revenue Measures;
Mandatory Public Hearings. — The procedure for approval of local tax ordinances and revenue
measures shall be in accordance with the provisions of this Code: Provided, That public hearings shall
be conducted for the purpose prior to the enactment thereof; Provided, further, That any question
on the constitutionality or legality of tax ordinances or revenue measures may be raised on
appeal within 30 days from the effectivity thereof to the Secretary of Justice who shall render a
decision within 60 days from the date of receipt of the appeal: Provided, however, That such appeal
shall not have the effect of suspending the effectivity of the ordinance and the accrual and payment of
the tax, fee, or charge levied therein: Provided, finally, That within 30 days after receipt of the
decision or the lapse of the sixty-day period without the Secretary of Justice acting upon the appeal,
the aggrieved party may file appropriate proceedings with a court of competent jurisdiction
  Section 187 authorizes the Secretary of Justice to review only the constitutionality or legality of the tax
ordinance and, if warranted, to revoke it on either or both of these grounds.
 Secretary Drilon did set aside the Manila Revenue Code, but he did not replace it with his own version of
what the Code should be.
 He did not pronounce the ordinance unwise or unreasonable as a basis for its annulment. He did not say
that in his judgment it was a bad law. What he found only was that it was illegal. All he did in
reviewing the said measure was determine if the petitioners were performing their functions in
accordance with law, that is, with the prescribed procedure for the enactment of tax ordinances and
the grant of powers to the city government under the Local Government Code. As we see it, that was
an act not of control but of mere supervision.

3. SOVEREIGNTY: Arigo vs Swift

DOCTRINE: Insofar as the internal waters and territorial sea is concerned, the Coastal State exercises
sovereignty, subject to the UNCLOS and other rules of international law. Such sovereignty extends to the
air space over the territorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil

FACTS:
 The name Tubbataha came from Samal language meaning long reef exposed at low tide
 Tubbataha reef and Jessie Bezley are considered part of Cagayancillo (Palawan)
 In 1988, Tubbataha was declared a National marine Park
 In 1993, it was recognized as one of PH oldest ecosystems
 In 2010, Congress passed RA 10067 known as Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park which aims to
conserve and protect the reefs
 In 2012, the US Embassy requested diplomatic clearance for USS Guardian to enter and exit the
territorial waters of PH and to arrive at Subic Bay
 While going to Indonesia, the ship ran aground on the northwest side of Tubbataha Reef
 Vice Admiral Swift and US Ambassador expressed regret over the incident and promised
compensation for damage
 Petitioners in this case filed petition against several people like Swift, Aquino, DFA Sec. to name a
few saying that the incident was a violation of their constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology

ISSUE: whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents who did not submit any
pleading or manifestation in this case?

HELD: YES.
 The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of sovereign immunity or non-suability
of the State, is expressly provided in Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution
 Even without such affirmation, we would still be bound by the generally accepted principles of
international law under the doctrine of incorporation.
 doctrine of state immunity is based on the justification given by Justice Holmes that ''there can be no
legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends."
 In the case of the foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local jurisdiction, the added inhibition is
expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals and
cannot assert jurisdiction over one another.
 While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also
applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the
discharge of their duties
 The UNCLOS gives to the coastal State sovereign rights in varying degrees over the different zones of
the sea which are:
1) internal waters
2) territorial sea
3) contiguous zone
4) exclusive economic zone, and
5) the high seas.
 It also gives coastal States more or less jurisdiction over foreign vessels depending on where the
vessel is located
 Insofar as the internal waters and territorial sea is concerned, the Coastal State exercises sovereignty,
subject to the UNCLOS and other rules of international law. Such sovereignty extends to the air
space over the territorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil
  In the case of warships, they continue to enjoy sovereign immunity subject to the laws and regulations
of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea. The flag States shall be
required to leave the territorial sea immediately if they flout the laws and regulations of
the Coastal State, and they will be liable for damages caused by their warships or any
other government vessel operated for non-commercial purposes under Article 31.
 As to the non-ratification by the US, Justice Carpio emphasizes that "the US' refusal to join the UN
CLOS was centered on its disagreement with UN CLOS' regime of deep seabed mining (Part XI)
which considers the oceans and deep seabed commonly owned by mankind," pointing out that such
"has nothing to do with its [the US'] acceptance of customary international rules on navigation."
 non-membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines
as a Coastal State over its internal waters and territorial sea. We thus expect the US to bear
"international responsibility" under Art. 31 in connection with the USS Guardian grounding which
adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs.

ISSUE: Whether there is a waiver of immunity from suit in VFA?

HELD: NO. The waiver of State immunity under the VF A pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to
special civil actions such as the present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan.

4. Functions of the Government: Bacani vs NACOCO

DOCTRINE: The government has two-fold functions: constitute and ministrant.

1. Constituent: hose which constitute the very bonds of society and are compulsory in nature
2. Ministrant: those that are undertaken only by way of advancing the general interests of society, and
are merely optional

FACTS:
 Petitioners are stenographers in CIF of Manila
 In a pending civil case where NAOCCO was involved, they requested for the services of the
stenographers and paid them for said transcript (P1 per page)
 But upon inspecting the books of the corporation, the Auditor General disallowed the payment of
such fees and sought for the recovery of the amounts paid
 Auditor general required petitioners to reimburse the amounts saying that the NACOCO is a govt
entity within the Revised Admin Code

ISSUE: whether the National Coconut Corporation may be considered as included in the term
“Government of the Republic of the Philippines” for the purposes of the exemption of the legal fees
provided for in Rule 130 of the Rules of Court?

HELD: NO. Despite performing govt functions, it was given corporate power separate and
distinct from the government. NCC belongs to what we call the GOCC which is governed by
Corporation Law

 Government” may be defined as “that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an

independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable
men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those
who possess the power or authority of prescribing them”
 his institution, when referring to the national government, has reference to what our Constitution
has established composed of three great departments, the legislative, executive, and the judicial,
through which the powers and functions of government are exercised.
 These functions are twofold: constitute and ministrant.
1. Constituent: hose which constitute the very bonds of society and are compulsory in nature
2. Ministrant: those that are undertaken only by way of advancing the general interests of
society, and are merely optional
 The principles determining whether or not a government shall exercise certain of these optional
functions are:
(1) that a government should do for the public welfare those things which private capital would
not naturally undertake and
 (2) that a government should do these things which by its very nature it is better equipped to
administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals
 the term “Government of the Republic of the Philippines” used in section 2 of the Revised
Administrative Code refers only to that government entity through which the functions of the
government are exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, and in this are included those arms
through which political authority is made effective whether they be provincial, municipal or other
form of local government. These are what we call municipal corporations. They do not include
government entities which are given a corporate personality separate and distinct from the
government and which are governed by the Corporation Law

5. Functions of the Government: Laurel vs. Misa

DOCTRINE: During enemy occupation, the political law is suspended. the exercise of the rights of
sovereignty is suspended and the control and government of the territory occupied by the enemy passes
temporarily to the occupant. the occupant is likely to regard to himself as clothed with freedom to
endeavor to impregnate the people who inhabit the area concerned with his own political ideology, and to
make that endeavor successful by various forms of pressure exerted upon enemy officials who are
permitted to retain the exercise of normal governmental functions."
FACTS:
 Sometime in May 1945, Anastacio Laurel, a Filipino citizen, was arrested by the US Army and was
interned, under a commitment order “for his active collaboration with the Japanese during the
Japanese occupation”.
 He was charged with treason as defined and penalized by Art. 114 of the Penal Code. But in
September 1945, he was turned over to the Commonwealth government and since then he has
been under the custody of the Director of Prisons.
 Laurel then filed a petition for habeas corpus mainly asserting that he cannot be prosecuted for
the crime of treason for the reason
(1) that the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the
correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens thereto was then suspended; and
(2) that there was a change of sovereignty over these Islands upon the proclamation of the
Philippine Republic.

ISSUE: Whether the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the Philippines and, consequently, the
correlative allegiance of Filipino citizens were suspended during the Japanese occupation?

HELD: NO. The absolute and permanent allegiance of the inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy
to their legitimate government or sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy’s occupation,
because the sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier
and if its is not transferred to the occupant it must necessarily remain vested in the legitimate government
 that the sovereignty vested in the titular government must be distinguished from the exercise of the
rights inherent thereto, and may be destroyed, or severed and transferred to another, but it cannot
be suspended because the existence of sovereignty cannot be suspended without putting it out of
existence or divesting the possessor thereof at least during the so-called period of suspension;
 that what may be suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty with the control and
government of the territory occupied by the enemy passes temporarily to the occupant; x x x and
that as a corollary of the conclusion that the sovereignty itself is not suspended and subsists during
the enemy occupation, the allegiance of the inhabitants to their legitimate government or sovereign
subsists, and therefore there is no such thing as suspended allegiance.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioner can be prosecuted for the crime of treason by giving aid and support to the
enemy during the Japanese occupation.

HELD: YES. Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code was applicable to treason committed against the
national security of the legitimate government because the inhabitants of the occupied territory were still
bound by their allegiance to the latter during the enemy’s occupation. Just as a citizen or subject of a
government or sovereign may be prosecuted for and convicted of treason committed in a foreign country,
in the same way a inhabitant of a territory occupied by the military forces of the enemy may commit
 treason against his own legitimate or sovereign if he adheres to the enemies of the latter by giving them
aid and comfort.

6. Doctrine of Transformation: SOJ v. Lantion

DOCTRINE: the principle lex posterior derogat priori takes effect — a treaty may repeal a statute and a
statute may repeal a treaty. In states where the constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the
Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the
constitution

FACTS:
 President Marcos issued PD 1069 prescribing procedure for the extradition of persons
who have committed crimes in a foreign country
 On Nov 13, 1994, DOJ Sec. Drilon signed in Manila the Extradition Treaty between
Philippines and US. Senate by way of Resolution No. 11 expressed its concurrence in
the ratification of the treaty
 DOJ received from DFA a US Verbale No. 0522 requesting the extradition of Mark
Jimenez to US due to offense of fraud and tax evasion
 Jimenez requested a copy of the extradition request but was denied
 Jimenez filed with RTC a petition for mandamus to compel the authorities to furnish
him the extradition documents
 RTC ordered the DOJ Sec to maintain the status quo and refrain from conducting
further proceedings in connection with the request of US
ISSUE: In the case at bar, is there really a conflict between RP-US Extradition Treaty and Constitution?
HELD: NO
 The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals (or local courts) are
confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international
law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state.
 Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to both since it is to be
presumed that municipal law was enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted
principles of international law in observance of the observance of the Incorporation Clause in the
above-cited constitutional provision
 In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between
a rule of international law and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should
be upheld by the municipal courts for the reason that such courts are organs of municipal law
and are accordingly bound by it in all circumstances
 The fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not pertain to or
imply the primacy of international law over national or municipal law in the municipal sphere.
 The doctrine of incorporation, as applied in most countries, decrees that rules of international law
are given equal standing with, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments.
 Accordingly, the principle lex posterior derogat priori takes effect — a treaty may repeal a statute
and a statute may repeal a treaty. In states where the constitution is the highest law of the land,
such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are
in conflict with the constitution

7. Freedom from Nuclear Weapons: Bayan vs Zamora

DOCTRINE: by virtue of Article II of the VFA, the United States commits to respect the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines, including the Constitution, which declares in Article II, Section 8 thereof, a
policy of freedom from nuclear weapons consistent with the national interest

FACTS:
 On March 14, 1947, the Philippines and US entered into a Military Bases Agreement
 To further strengthen their defense relationship, the PH and US entered into a Mutual Defense
Treaty
 In view of the impending expiration of their agreement, they negotiated for a possible extension
of their agreement
  On Sept 16, 1991, the Senate rejected the proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship Cooperation
 On July 18, 1997, the US (headed by US Defense Deputy Assistant Campbell) met with the PH
(headed by DFA Undersec Severino) to exchange notes on the strategic interests of US and PH
 They discussed the possibility of entering into a Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)
 On Oct 5, 1998, Pres. Estrada ratified the VFA
 The instrument of ratification was transmitted to Senate
 On June 1, 1999, VFA officially entered into force after an Exchange of Notes between Sec.
Siazon and US Ambassador Hubbard
 Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of the VFA

ISSUE: Does VFA violate the prohibition against nuclear weapons under Art. 2, Sec 8?
HELD: No.
 Art 2 of VFA states that: It is the duty of the United States personnel to respect the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines and to abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of this
agreement, and, in particular, from any political activity in the Philippines. The Government of
the United States shall take all measures within its authority to ensure that this is done

ISSUE: Whether VFA is constitutional?

HELD: YES.
 Both provisions require the concurrence of the Senate on treaties or international agreements
Sec 21, Art 7 Sec 25, Article 18
Deals with treatise or international Special provision that applies to treaties which
agreements involve the presence of foreign military bases
troops
Concurrence of 2/3 of all members of the Concurrence of Senate is only one of the
Senate is required requisites to render compliance with consti
requirements
May only be allowed by virtue of a treaty duly
concurred by the Senate (majority of the
votes cast in a national referendum)
a. Must be under a treaty
b. Must be duly concurred in by the Senate
(if so required by congress, ratified by
majority of votes cast by people in
national referendum)
c.Recognized as a treaty

 It all complies to the requirements under Sec 25

a. It is a treaty
b. It is concurred in by the senate
c. An executive agreement is equally binding
 With the ratification of the VFA, which is equivalent to final acceptance, and with the exchange of
notes between the Philippines and the United States of America, it now becomes obligatory and
incumbent on our part, under the principles of international law, to be bound by the terms of the
agreement.
 "Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good
faith." This is known as the principle of pacta sunt servanda which preserves the sanctity of
treaties and have been one of the most fundamental principles of positive international law,
supported by the jurisprudence of international tribunals

8. Right to a balanced and healthful ecology: C&M Timber v. Alcala

DOCTRINE: The Presidents order reconsidering the resolution of the Presidential Legal Adviser regarding
the reinstatement of FLDC timber license was prompted by concerns that such reinstatement may negate
the government’s efforts to enhance conservation and protection of our forest resources pursuant to Art 2,
Sec 16 of the Constitution.

FACTS:
  C & M Timber Corp seeks the nullification of the order and resolution of the President declaring as
of no force the Timber License Agreement No. 106
 In a letter to Pres. Marcos, Filipinas Loggers Devt Corp (FLDC) requested a timber concession
over the same area. This was granted
 The Ministry of Natural Resources issued TLA No. 360 to FLDC
 In 1986, Minister of Natural Resources Ernesto Maceda suspended TLA 360 for gross violation of
the terms and conditions especially reforestation and selective logging
 It also cancelled the license of FLDC due to continued logging operation
 C&M then asked for revalidation of its TLA 106
 DENR Sec Factoran declared the TLA 106 as of no force and effect and their petition was barred
by laches and he also denied FLDC appeal
 Both companies appealed to the Office of the President which affirmed DENR decision
 Hence the present case

ISSUE: Whether the denial of C&M’s petition, because of a new policy consideration on forest
conservation and protection would deny it the due process of law?

HELD: NO
 The Presidents order reconsidering the resolution of the Presidential Legal Adviser (insofar as it
reinstated the license of FLDC) was prompted by concerns expressed by the then Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources that said reinstatement [of FLDCs license] may negate our
efforts to enhance conservation and protection of our forest resources.
 There was really no new policy but, as noted in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc., a mere reiteration
of a policy of conservation and protection.
 The policy is contained in Art. II, 16 of the Constitution which commands the State to protect and
promote the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm
and harmony of nature.
 There is therefore no merit in petitioners contention that no new policy can be applied to existing
licenses.

9. Local Autonomy: Belgica

Doctrine: In this case, petitioners contend that the Congressional Pork Barrel goes against the
constitutional principles on local autonomy since it allows district representatives, who are national
officers, to substitute their judgments in utilizing public funds for local development

Facts: Petitioners assail the constitutionality of PDAF.

Issue: whether PDAF is unconstitutional considering that it violates the principle of constitutional provision
on local autonomy?
Held: YES
 The State‘s policy on local autonomy is principally stated in Section 25, Article II and Sections 2 and 3,
Article X of the 1987 Constitution as well as RA 7160
 These provisions reveal the policy of the State to empower LGU to develop and ultimately, become self-
sustaining and effective contributors to the national economy
 In this case, petitioners contend that the Congressional Pork Barrel goes against the constitutional
principles on local autonomy since it allows district representatives, who are national officers, to
substitute their judgments in utilizing public funds for local development
 Ultimately, the PDAF and CDF had become personal funds under the effective control of each legislator
and given unto them on the sole account of their office.
 With PDAF, a Congressman can simply bypass the local development council and initiate projects on his
own, and even take sole credit for its execution. Indeed, this type of personality-driven project
identification has not only contributed little to the overall development of the district, but has even
contributed to "further weakening infrastructure planning and coordination efforts of the
government."
 Thus, insofar as individual legislators are authorized to intervene in purely local matters and thereby
subvert genuine local autonomy, the 2013 PDAF Article as well as all other similar forms of
Congressional Pork Barrel is deemed unconstitutional.
 10. Complete in itself/ Completeness Test: Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drug Board

DOCTRINE: Sec. 94 of RA 9165 charges the DDB to issue, in consultation with other agencies, the IRR
necessary to enforce the law. In net effect then, the participation of schools and offices in the drug testing
scheme shall always be subject to the IRR of RA 9165. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that schools and
employers have unchecked discretion to determine how often, under what conditions, and where the
drug tests shall be conducted. In the face of the increasing complexity of the task of the government and the
increasing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the many problems demanding its attention, resort to
delegation of power, or entrusting to administrative agencies the power of subordinate legislation, has become
imperative, as here.

FACTS:
 What is assailed here is the constitutionality of Sec 36 of RA 9165 insofar as it requires
mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office
 Social Justice Society (political party) seeks to prohibit the Dangerous Drugs Board
(DDB) and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) from enforcing Sec 36 of RA
9165 on the ground that they are constitutionally infirm.
 According to them, it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power when they
give unbridled discretion to schools and employers to determine the manner of drug
testing
 They also contend that it will trench in the equal protection clause inasmuch as they
can be sued to harass a student or an employee deemed undersirable
 Third, a person’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches is also breached by
said provisions

ISSUE: Whether Sec 36 of RA 9165 constitute undue delegation of legislative power?

HELD: NO
 the provision in question is not so extensively drawn as to give unbridled options to schools and
employers to determine the manner of drug testing.
 Sec. 36 expressly provides how drug testing for students of secondary and tertiary schools and
officers/employees of public/private offices should be conducted.
 It enumerates the persons who shall undergo drug testing.
 In the case of students, the testing shall be in accordance with the school rules as contained in
the student handbook and with notice to parents.
 On the part of officers/employees, the testing shall take into account the company's work rules.
 In either case, the random procedure shall be observed, meaning that the persons to be
subjected to drug test shall be picked by chance or in an unplanned way. And in all cases,
safeguards against misusing and compromising the confidentiality of the test results are
established.
 Lest it be overlooked, Sec. 94 of RA 9165 charges the DDB to issue, in consultation with the
DOH, Department of the Interior and Local Government, Department of Education, and
Department of Labor and Employment, among other agencies, the IRR necessary to enforce
the law. In net effect then, the participation of schools and offices in the drug testing scheme
shall always be subject to the IRR of RA 9165. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that schools
and employers have unchecked discretion to determine how often, under what
conditions, and where the drug tests shall be conducted.
 The validity of delegating legislative power is now a quiet area in the constitutional landscape. In
the face of the increasing complexity of the task of the government and the increasing inability of
the legislature to cope directly with the many problems demanding its attention, resort to
delegation of power, or entrusting to administrative agencies the power of subordinate
legislation, has become imperative, as here.

11. Filling in the Details: Arroyo vs DOJ

DOCTRINE: under the Omnibus Election Code, while the exclusive jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation
had been lodged with the Comelec, the prosecutors had been conducting preliminary investigations pursuant to the
continuing delegated authority given by the Comelec. The deputation of the Provincial and City Prosecutors is
necessitated by the need for prompt investigation and dispensation of election cases as an indispensable part of
the task of securing fine, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. Enfeebled by lack of funds and the
magnitude of its workload, the petitioner does not have a sufficient number of legal officers to conduct such
investigation and to prosecute such cases.

FACTS:
 Due to discovery of new evidence and surfacing of new witnesses indicating the
occurrence of massive electoral fraud and manipulation of election results in 2004 and
2007 National elections, COMELEC issued Reso No. 9266 creating a committee jointly
with DOJ which shall conduct preliminary investigation on the alleged anomalies
 A Fact Finding Team was also created to gather evidence
 Eventually COMELEC Law Department filed with RTC an information against GMA, Gov.
Ampatuan and Atty. Bedol for violation of Sec 42 of RA 9369
 3 consolidated petitions were filed by Mike Arroyo, Benjamin Abalos and Gloria Arroyo
assailing the COMELEC resolution 9266 and Joint Order No. 001-2011 between DOJ and
COMELEC

ISSUE: Whether there is undue delegation of power in creating the Joint Panel, the DOJ and the
Comelec?

HELD: NO.
 The 1987 Constitution grant to the Comelec of the power to investigate and prosecute election
offenses as an adjunct to the enforcement and administration of all election laws is intended to
enable the Comelec to effectively insure to the people the free, orderly, and honest conduct of
elections.
 The constitutional grant of prosecutorial power in the Comelec was reflected in Section 265 of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code
 Under the above provision of law, the power to conduct preliminary investigation is vested
exclusively with the Comelec. The latter, however, was given by the same provision of law the
authority to avail itself of the assistance of other prosecuting arms of the government.
 Thus, under Section 2, Rule 34 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, provincial and city prosecutors
and their assistants are given continuing authority as deputies to conduct preliminary
investigation of complaints involving election offenses under election laws and to prosecute the
same. The complaints may be filed directly with them or may be indorsed to them by the
petitioner or its duly authorized representatives
 Thus, under the Omnibus Election Code, while the exclusive jurisdiction to conduct preliminary
investigation had been lodged with the Comelec, the prosecutors had been conducting
preliminary investigations pursuant to the continuing delegated authority given by the Comelec.
 The reason for this delegation of authority has been explained in Commission on Elections v.
Español: The deputation of the Provincial and City Prosecutors is necessitated by the need for
prompt investigation and dispensation of election cases as an indispensable part of the task of
securing fine, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. Enfeebled by lack of funds and the
magnitude of its workload, the petitioner does not have a sufficient number of legal officers to
conduct such investigation and to prosecute such cases.
 Moreover, as we acknowledged in People v. Basilla, the prompt and fair investigation and
prosecution of election offenses committed before or in the course of nationwide elections would
simply not be possible without the assistance of provincial and city fiscals prosecutors and their
assistants and staff members, and of the state prosecutors of the DOJ
 Section 265 of the Omnibus Election Code was amended by Section 43 of R.A. No. 9369, which
reads: The Commission shall, through its duly authorized legal officers, have the power,
concurrent with the other prosecuting arms of the government, to conduct preliminary
investigation of all election offenses punishable under this Code, and to prosecute the same
 As clearly set forth above, instead of a mere delegated authority, the other prosecuting arms of
the government, such as the DOJ, now exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the Comelec to
conduct preliminary investigation of all election offenses and to prosecute the same.
 12. Party-List Representation: Veterans Federation Party vs COMELEC

DOCTRINE: To determine the winners in a Philippine-style party-list election, the Constitution and Republic Act
(RA) No. 7941 mandate at least four inviolable parameters. These are:

First, the twenty percent allocation - the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty
percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives, including those elected under the party list.

Second, the two percent threshold - only those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes
cast for the party-list system are "qualified" to have a seat in the House of Representatives;

Third, the three-seat limit - each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled
to a maximum of three seats; that is, one "qualifying" and two additional seats.

Fourth, proportional representation - the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed "in
proportion to their total number of votes

FACTS:
 There are 3 consolidated petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the COMELEC
Resolutions ordering the proclamation of 38 additional party-list representatives to
complete the full complement of 52 seats in the House of Reps.
 Complying with the Constitutional duty to provide by law the selection or election of
party-list representatives, Congress enacted RA 7941
 The requirements for entitlement to a party-list seat are prescribed by RA 7941
 Pursuant to Section 18 of RA 7941, the Comelec en banc promulgated Resolution No. 2847,
prescribing the rules and regulations governing the election of party-list representatives through
the party-list system.
 On may 11, 1998, the 1st election for party-list representation was held and 123 parties
participated
 On June 26, COMELEC proclaimed 13 partylist reps from 12 parties which obtained atleast 2% of
the total number of votes cast for partylist
 PAG-ASA filed with COMELEC a petition to proclaim the full number of party-list reps provided by
the Constitution
 COMELEC then issued the assailed resolution ordering the proclamation of 38 additional parties
disregarding the 2% votes prescribed under the law
 The 12 parties originally proclaimed objected to the proclamation
 Nonetheless, COMELEC upheld its earlier resolution

ISSUE: Is the twenty percent allocation for party-list representatives mentioned in Section 5 (2), Article
VI of the Constitution, mandatory or is it merely a ceiling? In other words, should the twenty percent
allocation for party-list solons be filled up completely and all the time?

HELD: it is a mere ceiling. the mechanics by which it is to be filled up has been left to Congress (RA
7941, by which it prescribed that a party, organization or coalition participating in the party-list election
must obtain at least two percent of the total votes cast for the system in order to qualify for a seat in the
House of Representatives)
 The Constitution provides that:

Sec. 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred
and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with
the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive
ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected by a party-list system of registered
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.

(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of
representatives including those under the party-list. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives
 shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided
by law, except the religious sector."

 Clearly, the Constitution makes the number of district representatives the determinant in arriving
at the number of seats allocated for party-list lawmakers, who shall comprise "twenty per centum
of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list." We thus translate
this legal provision into a mathematical formula, as follows:

No. of district representatives

x .20 = No. of party-list representatives
.80

 This formulation means that any increase in the number of district representatives, as may
be provided by law, will necessarily result in a corresponding increase in the number of
party-list seats. To illustrate, considering that there were 208 district representatives to be
elected during the 1998 national elections, the number of party-list seats would be 52, computed
as follows:

208
x .20 = 52
.80

 The foregoing computation of seat allocation is easy enough to comprehend. The problematic
question, however, is this: Does the Constitution require all such allocated seats to be filled up all
the time and under all circumstances? NO

ISSUE: Are the two percent threshold requirement and the three-seat limit provided in Section 11 (b) of
RA 7941 constitutional?

HELD: YES
 The two percent threshold is consistent not only with the intent of the framers of the Constitution
and the law, but with the very essence of "representation." Under a republican or representative
state, all government authority emanates from the people, but is exercised by representatives
chosen by them.
 But to have meaningful representation, the elected persons must have the mandate of a
sufficient number of people. Otherwise, in a legislature that features the party-list system, the
result might be the proliferation of small groups which are incapable of contributing significant
legislation, and which might even pose a threat to the stability of Congress.
 Thus, even legislative districts are apportioned according to "the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio" to ensure meaningful local
representation
 the validity of the three-seat limit is not seriously challenged in these consolidated cases.

ISSUE: how should the additional seats of a qualified party be determined?

HELD:
 Step One. rank all the participating parties, organizations and coalitions from the highest to
the lowest based on the number of votes they each received. Then the ratio for each party is
computed by dividing its votes by the total votes cast for all the parties participating in the
system. All parties with at least 2% of the total votes are guaranteed one seat each. Only these
parties shall be considered in the computation of additional seats. The party receiving the highest
number of votes shall thenceforth be referred to as the "first" party.
 Step Two. determine the number of seats the first party is entitled to, in order to be able
to compute that for the other parties. Formula for Determining Additional Seats for the First Party
 Number of votes
of first party Proportion of votes of
= first party relative to
Total votes for total votes for party-list system
party-list system

 Step Three: solve for the number of additional seats that the other qualified parties are
entitled to, based on proportional representation. The formula is encompassed by the
following complex fraction:

No. of votes of
concerned party

Total No. of votes

Additional seats for party-list system No. of additional
for concerned = x seats allocated to
party No. of votes of the first party
first party

Total No. of
for party list system

 In simplified form, it is written as follows:

No. of votes of
Additional seats concerned party No. of additional
for concerned = x seats allocated to
party No. of votes of the first party
first party

ISSUE: Whether the Resolutions are constitutional?

HELD: NO.
 Because the Comelec violated these legal parameters, the assailed Resolutions must be struck
down for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion. The poll body is mandated to enforce
and administer election-related laws. It has no power to contravene or amend them. Neither does
it have authority to decide the wisdom, propriety or rationality of the acts of Congress.

13. Party-list: Abang Lingkod Party-List vs COMELEC

DOCTRINE: sectoral parties or organizations, such as ABANG LINGKOD, are no longer required to adduce
evidence showing their track record, i.e. proof of activities that they have undertaken to further the cause of
the sector they represent. it is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector. Not every misrepresentation committed by national, regional, and sectoral groups or
organizations would merit the denial or cancellation of their registration under the party-list system. The
misrepresentation must relate to their qualification as a party-list group. In this regard, the COMELEC gravely
abused its discretion when it insisted on requiring ABANG LINGKOD to prove its track record notwithstanding that a
group s track record is no longer required pursuant to the Court s pronouncement in Atong Paglaum

FACTS:
  Abang-Lingkod represents the interest of peasant farmers and fisherfolks
 It participated in May 2010 elections but failed to obtain the number of votes required
for a seat in House of Representatives
 It then manifested its intent to participate in May 2013 elections however COMELEC
issued Resolution No. 9513 requiring previously registered party-list groups to undergo
summary evidentiary hearing to determine their continuing compliance with the
requirements. Abang-Lingkod filed pertinent documents to prove its continuing
compliance
 COMELEC issued Resolution cancelling Abang-Lingkod’s registration as partylist for its
failure to establish its track record in uplifting the cause of marginalized and
underrepresented and for deliberately submitting digitally altered photographs of its activities
 Hence, Abang Lingkod filed a petition in Court assailing COMELEC’s resolution

ISSUE: whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling ABANG LINGKOD’s registration
under the party-list system?

HELD: YES.

 The flaw in the COMELEC's disposition lies in the fact that it insists on requiring party-list groups
to present evidence showing that they have a track record in representing the marginalized and
underrepresented.
 track record pertains to the actual activities undertaken by groups to uplift the cause of the
sector/s, which they represent.
 In Atong Paglaum the Court held that for purposes of registration under the party-list system,
national or regional parties or organizations need not represent any marginalized and
underrepresented sector; that representation of the marginalized and underrepresented is only
required of sectoral organizations that represent the sectors stated under Section 5 of R.A. No.
7941 that are, by their nature, economically marginalized and underrepresented.
 sectoral parties or organizations, such as ABANG LINGKOD, are no longer required to
adduce evidence showing their track record, i.e. proof of activities that they have
undertaken to further the cause of the sector they represent. Indeed, it is enough that their
principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector.
 However, submission of a group's constitution, by-laws, platform of government, list of officers,
coalition agreement, and other relevant information required by the COMELEC, as explained
earlier, is not synonymous with the track record requirement.
 There is thus no basis in law and established jurisprudence to insist that groups seeking
registration under the party-list system still comply with the track record requirement. Indeed,
nowhere in R.A. No. 7941 is it mandated that groups seeking registration thereunder must
submit evidence to show their track record as a group.
 ABANG LINGKOD, notwithstanding the cancellation of its registration three days prior to the May
13, 2013 elections, was able to obtain a total of 260 215 votes out of the 26 722 131 votes that
were cast for the party-list,thus entitling it to a seat in the House of Representatives. This is
indicative of the fact that a considerable portion of the electorate considers ABANG LINGKOD as
truly representative of peasant farmers and fisherfolk.
 the nominee of a party-list groups may either be: first one who actually belongs to the sector
which the party-list group represents, in which case the track record requirement does not apply;
or second one who does not actually belong to the sector which the party-list group represents
but has a track record showing the nominee's active participation in activities aimed at uplifting
the cause of the sector which the group represents."
 In the case under consideration, three of the five nominees of ABANG LINGKOD are farmers and,
thus, are not required to present a track record showing their active participation in activities
aimed to promote the sector which ABANG LINGKOD represents, i.e. peasant farmers and
fisherfolk. That two of ABANG LINGKOD's nominees do not actually belong to the sector it
represents is immaterial and would not result in the cancellation of ABANG LINGKOD's
registration as a party-list group.
 Not every misrepresentation committed by national, regional, and sectoral groups or
organizations would merit the denial or cancellation of their registration under the party-list
system. The misrepresentation must relate to their qualification as a party-list group. In this
regard, the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it insisted on requiring ABANG LINGKOD
to prove its track record notwithstanding that a group s track record is no longer required
pursuant to the Court s pronouncement in Atong Paglaum
14. Domicile and Residence: Domino vs. COMELEC

DOCTRINE: the term "residence," as used in the law prescribing the qualifications for suffrage and for
elective office, means the same thing as "domicile," which imports not only an intention to reside in a
fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such
intention. "Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, whenever absent for business,
pleasure, or some other reasons, one intends to return. "Domicile" is a question of intention and
circumstances. In the consideration of circumstances, three rules must be borne in mind, namely: (1) that
a man must have a residence or domicile somewhere; (2) when once established it remains until a new
one is acquired; and (3) a man can have but one residence or domicile at a time

FACTS:
 On March 25, 1998, Domino filed his certificate of candidancy for Representative of
Saranggani indicating that he had resided in there for 1 year and 2 months immediately
preceding the election
 Grafilo, Java, Bayonito and others filed with COMELEC a petition to deny or cancel
Domino’s candidacy saying he is not a resident and registered voter of Saranggani
 COMELEC promulgated a resolution declaring Domino disqualified as candidate

ISSUE: Was DOMINO a resident of the Province of Sarangani for at least one year immediately preceding
the 11 May 1998 election as stated in his certificate of candidacy?
HELD: NO

 Records show that petitioner's domicile of origin was Candon, Ilocos Sur and that sometime in
1991, he acquired a new domicile of choice at 24 Bonifacio St. Ayala Heights, Old Balara, Quezon
City, as shown by his certificate of candidacy for the position of representative of the 3rd District
of Quezon City in the May 1995 election. Petitioner is now claiming that he had effectively
abandoned his "residence" in Quezon City and has established a new "domicile" of choice at the
Province of Sarangani.
 A person's "domicile" once established is considered to continue and will not be deemed lost until
a new one is established. To successfully effect a change of domicile one must demonstrate an
actual removal or an actual change of domicile; a bona fide intention of abandoning the former
place of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with the
purpose. In other words, there must basically be animus manendi coupled with animus non
revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period
of time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for
the new domicile must be actual.
 As a general rule, the principal elements of domicile, physical presence in the locality involved
and intention to adopt it as a domicile, must concur in order to establish a new domicile. No
change of domicile will result if either of these elements is absent. Intention to acquire a domicile
without actual residence in the locality does not result in acquisition of domicile, nor does the fact
of physical presence without intention
 However, Domino's lack of intention to abandon his residence in Quezon City is further
strengthened by his act of registering as voter in one of the precincts in Quezon City.
While voting is not conclusive of residence, it does give rise to a strong presumption of residence
especially in this case where DOMINO registered in his former barangay. Exercising the right of
election franchise is a deliberate public assertion of the fact of residence, and is said to have
decided preponderance in a doubtful case upon the place the elector claims as, or believes to be,
his residence.
 While, Domino's intention to establish residence in Sarangani can be gleaned from the fact that
be bought the house he was renting on November 4, 1997, that he sought cancellation of his
previous registration in Qezon City on 22 October 1997, and that he applied for transfer of
registration from Quezon City to Sarangani by reason of change of residence on 30 August 1997,
DOMINO still falls short of the one year residency requirement under the Constitution.
 In showing compliance with the residency requirement, both intent and actual presence in the
district one intends to represent must satisfy the length of time prescribed by the fundamental
law. Domino's failure to do so rendered him ineligible and his election to office null and void

 15. Prohibitions on Members of Congress: Liban vs Gordon

DOCTRINE: the office of the PNRC Chairman is not a government office or an office in a government-
owned or controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution.

FACTS:
 Liban, Bernardo and Viari filed a petition to declare Sen. Gordon as having forfeited his
seat in the Senate for being Chairman of Philippine National Red Cross Board of
Governors raising Sec 13 of Article 6 of the Constitution
 Liban, Bernardo and Viari filed

ISSUE: whether the office of the PNRC Chairman is a government office or an office in a government-
owned or controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution

HELD: the office of the Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross is not a government office or an
office in a government-owned or controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13,
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
 PNRC is a Private Organization Performing Public Functions
 The PNRC, as a member National Society of the Movement, has the duty to uphold the
Fundamental Principles and ideals of the Movement. In order to be recognized as a National
Society, the PNRC has to be autonomous and must operate in conformity with the Fundamental
Principles of the Movement
 To ensure and maintain its autonomy, neutrality, and independence, the PNRC cannot be owned
or controlled by the government. Indeed, the Philippine government does not own the PNRC. The
PNRC does not have government assets and does not receive any appropriation from the
Philippine Congress
 The government does not control the PNRC. Under the PNRC Charter, as amended, only six of the
thirty members of the PNRC Board of Governors are appointed by the President of the Philippines.
Thus, twenty-four members, or four-fifths (4/5), of the PNRC Board of Governors are not
appointed by the President
 The President does not appoint the Chairman of the PNRC. Neither does the head of any
department, agency, commission or board appoint the PNRC Chairman. Thus, the PNRC Chairman
is not an official or employee of the Executive branch since his appointment does not fall under
Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution.
 Not being a government official or employee, the PNRC Chairman, as such, does not hold a
government office or employment.
 although the PNRC is created by a special charter, it cannot be considered a government-owned
or controlled corporation in the absence of the essential elements of ownership and control by the
government. In creating the PNRC as a corporate entity, Congress was in fact creating a private
corporation. However, the constitutional prohibition against the creation of private corporations
by special charters provides no exception even for non-profit or charitable corporations.
 the PNRC Charter, insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation and grants it corporate
powers, is void for being unconstitutional

16. Pre-proclamation controversies vs Election Contest: Roces vs HRET

DOCTRINE: HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of the members of
House of Reps and has the power to promulgate procedural rules to govern proceedings brought before it

FACTS:

 Roces and former Cong. Ang Ping filed COCC for the position of representative for 3rd
district of manila in May 2004
 Alejandro Gomez questioned Ang Ping’s candidacy on the ground that he was not a
natural born citizen
  Ang Ping filed a withdrawal of COCC and a motion to cancel scheduled promulgation
and dismiss petition asking that Mrs. Ang Ping substitute for him
 COMELEC issued a resolution ordering to not count his votes and deleted his name from
the list of candidates
 During election day, the Manila City Board of Canvassers resolved not to canvass the
votes for Spouses Ang Ping and proclaimed Roces as winner
 Hence the petition for certiorari

ISSUE: Whether or not HRET has jurisdiction to review COMELEC Resolution/order and/or declare it void
or set it aside?

HELD: YES

 HRET is the sole judge of all contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of the
members of House of Reps and has the power to promulgate procedural rules to govern
proceedings brought before it
 Accordingly, it has the power to hear and determine, or inquire into, the question of its
own jurisdiction, both as to parties and as to subject matter, and to decide all
questions, whether of law or fact, the decision of which is necessary to determine the
question of jurisdiction. One of the three essential elements of jurisdiction is that proper
parties must be present. Consequently, the HRET merely exercised its exclusive
jurisdiction when it ruled that Mrs. Ang Ping was a proper party to contest the election
of Roces.

17. Action/Decision: Arroyo vs HRET

DOCTRINE: Rule 80 of the Tribunals internal rules expressly makes the Rules of Court, Supreme Court
decisions, and Electoral Tribunal decisions of suppletory application. In fact, HRET quite consistently in the
past ultimately relied on the rules of evidence established by the Rules of Court in disposing election cases
brought before it. In the "Claver" case, the HRET said that it can only consider documents formally offered
in evidence, a ruling made apparently pursuant to Rule 60 of the HRET internal rules which provides that:
Evidence not formally presented shall be deemed waived and shall not be considered by the Tribunal in
deciding the case. Section 35, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court also reads: The court shall consider no
evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be
specified.

FACTS:
 After the May 11, 1992 elections, Joker Arroyo was declared as the duly elected Congressman of
the lone district of Makati against his opponent Syjuco
 Syjuco protested the declaration before the HRET allegeing that Arroyo won due to massive fraud
hence he moved for revision and recounting.
 HRET gave way but during the process some HRET employees and personnel conducted some
irregularities to ensure Syjuco’s win.
 After some paper battles between the two, Syjuco, realizing that mere revision and recounting
would not suffice to overthrow the more than 12,000 votes lead of Arroyo over him, revised his
complaint by including and introducing in his memorandum cum addendum that his complaint is
actually based on a broader and more equitable non-traditional determination of the existence of
the precinct-level document-based anomalies and that the revision he initially sought is just
incidental to such determination.
 The 3 justices members of the HRET ruled that such amendment is already beyond the tribunal’s
jurisdiction and the 6 representative members ruled otherwise.
 by a vote of 6-3, the HRET did not dismiss the protest filed by Syjuco and the HRET later
declared Syjuco as the winner.

ISSUE: Whether or not HRET acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction?
 HELD: YES
 Electoral Tribunal itself has laid down two mandatory requisites for the annulment of election
returns based on fraud, irregularities or terrorism, namely
(1) that more than 50% of the total number of votes in the precinct or precincts were involved,
and
(2) that the votes must be shown to have been affected or vitiated by such fraud, irregularities or
terrorism
 HRET proceeded to annul 50,000 votes without a dint of compliance with these requisites as it
annulled the results on the basis of lost or destroyed ballots despite the presence and availability
of election return and other competent secondary evidence whose authenticity were never
questioned, and on the basis of alleged forged signatures which were never competently proved
and substantiated by private respondent.
 Further, the tribunal nullified the 10% margin in several contested precincts with alleged
substitute voting which the dissenting opinion correctly observed as "a far cry from the existing
50% rule".
 What is even worse is that the nullification of these votes was based on inadmissible documents
some of them not offered in evidence by private respondent. The Court cannot countenance such
blatant nullification of votes as it fails to comply with the established standard on annulment.
 Elections should never be held void unless they are clearly illegal; it is the duty of the court to
sustain an election authorized by law if it has been so conducted as to give a free and fair
expression of the popular will, and the actual result thereof is clearly ascertained
 If the Court, in striking down the majority decision of HRET, pays unwavering reverence to the
rules of evidence as provided by the Rules of Court and jurisprudence, it is because they have
been tested through years of experience as the most effective means of ferreting out the truth in
any judicial controversy.
 And the Court will not allow even the slightest diminution of, much less a complete and brazen
departure from these time-honored rules especially when the will of the electorate as expressed
through the ballot, is at stake. Rules and uniformity of procedure are as essential to procure truth
and exactness in elections as in anything else.
 Thus, with the patent nullity of the entire proceedings before the HRET and its majority decision
in the election protest filed by private respondent, petitioner's proclamation as the winning
congressman of the then lone district of Makati is deemed not to have been challenged at all.

18. Nature and Essence of Power of Inquiry: Neg. O. Elec Coop vs Sangguniang Panglungsod

DOCTRINE: The power of inquiry-with process to enforce it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to
the legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of
information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the
legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information — which is not infrequently true —
recourse must be had to others who possess it.
FACTS:
 In 1985, the SP of Dumaguete sought to conduct an investigation in connection with pending
legislation related to the operations of public utilities. Invited in the hearing are the heads of
NORECO II
 Paterio Torres and Arturo Umbac.NORECO II is alleged to have installed inefficient power lines in
the said city.
 Torres and Umbac refused to appear before the Sangguniang Panlungsod (SP) and they alleged
that the power to investigate, and to order the improvement of,alleged inefficient power lines to
conform to standards is lodged exclusively with the National Electrification Administration;
and neither the Charter of the City of Dumaguete nor the [old] Local Government Code (LGC –BP
337) grants the SP.
 The SP averred that inherent in the legislative functions performed by the respondent SP is the
power to conduct investigations in aid of legislation and with it, the power to punish for contempt
in inquiries on matters within its jurisdiction

ISSUE: Whether the LGU can issue contempt?

HELD: NO.
  There being no provision in the Local Government Code explicitly granting local legislative bodies,
the power to issue compulsory process and the power to punish for contempt, the Sanggunian
Panlungsod of Dumaguete is devoid of power to punish the petitioners Torres and Umbac for
contempt. The Ad-Hoc Committee of said legislative body has even less basis to claim that it can
exercise these powers.
 Even assuming that the Sangguniang Panlungsod and Ad-Hoc Committee had the power to issue
the subpoena and the order complained of, such issuances would still be void for being ultra
vires.
 The contempt power (and the subpoena power) if actually possessed, may only be exercised
where the subject matter of the investigation is within the jurisdiction of the legislative body
(Arnault v. Nazareno, supra, citing Kilbourn v. Thompson).
 As admitted by the respondents in their Comment, the investigation to be conducted by the Ad-
Hoc Committee was to look into the use by NORECO II of inefficient power lines "of pre-war
vintage" which the latter had acquired from the Visayan Electric Com. company, and "to hear the
side of the petitioners"
 It comes evident that the inquiry would touch upon the efficiency of the electric service of
NORECO II and, necessarily, its compliance with the franchise. Such inquiry is beyond the
jurisdiction of the respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod and the respondent committee.

19. Rules on Appropriation: Goh vs. COMELEC (par 5)

DOCTRINE: The 2014 GAA provides the line item appropriation to allow the COMELEC to
perform its constitutional mandate of conducting recall elections. There is no need for
supplemental legislation to authorize the COMELEC to conduct recall elections for 2014.

Augmentation implies the existence in this Act of an item, project, activity, or purpose with an
appropriation which upon implementation or subsequent evaluation of needed resources is
determined to be deficient. In no case, therefore, shall a non-existent item, project, activity,
purpose or object of expenditure be funded by augmentation from savings or by the use of
appropriations otherwise authorized in this Act.

FACTS:
 Goh filed a recall petition to the COMELEC due to loss of trust and confidence against
Hon. Bayron by violating provisions of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public officials and other related gross negligence of
duty, dishonesty and immaturity as mayor of Puerto Princesa
 COMELEC issued resolution No. 9864 found the recall petition sufficient but the funds of
any recall elections were suspended
 The Office of the Deputy Executive Director recommends the COMELEC the issuance of
a resolution certifying to the sufficiency of the petition for recall of the respondent
after review of the reports wherein it was stated in the said resolution that all
expenses incidental to recall elections shall be borne by the COMELEC as stipulated in
Sec 75 of LGC
 Hon. Bayron filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification with
COEMLEC which prayed for dismissal of the recall petition
 COMLECE issued Resolution No. 9882 which suspends any proceeding relative to recall
process since it does not have an appropriation in the 2014 GAA

ISSUE: Whether 2014 GAA has budget for the conduct of recall election?
HELD: YES. 2014 GAA provides the line item appropriation to allow comelec to conduct recall
elections
  Article VI, Section 25 (5) of the Constitution empowers the Chairman of the
Commission, along with other heads of the Constitutional Departments and
Commissions, to augment any item in the general appropriations law
 there are three (3) requisites for the valid exercise of the power to augment, namely:
1. There must be a law authorizing the Chairman to augment;
2. There must be a deficient existing line item in the general appropriations law to be
augmented; and
3. There must be savings on the part of the Commission.
 Considering that there is an existing line item appropriation for the conduct of recall
elections in the 2014 GAA, there is no reason why the COMELEC is unable to
perform its constitutional mandate to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of x x x recall."
 Should the funds appropriated in the 2014 GAA be deemed insufficient, then the
COMELEC Chairman may exercise his authority to augment such line item
appropriation from the COMELEC's existing savings, as this augmentation is
expressly authorized ]n the 2014 GAA.

20. General Prohibition of Riders: Tolentino vs. Sec of Finance

DOCTRINE: In the BICAM, however, the germane subject matter must be within the ambit of
the disagreement between the two Houses. If the "germane" subject is not covered by the
disagreement but it is reflected in the final version of the bill as reported by the Conference
Committee or, if what appears to be a "germane" matter in the sense that it is "relevant or
closely allied" with the purpose of the bill, was not the subject of a disagreement between the
Senate and the House, it should be deemed an extraneous matter or even a "rider" which
should never be considered legally passed for not having undergone the three-day reading
requirement. Insertion of new matter on the part of the BICAM is, therefore, an ultra vires act
which makes the same void.

FACTS:
 Republic Act No. 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and
enhance its administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Code.
 These are various suits for certiorari and prohibition, challenging the constitutionality
of Republic Act No. 7716 on various grounds
 They contended that the bill which became Republic Act No. 7716 is the bill which the
Conference Committee prepared by consolidating H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630. It
is claimed that the Conference Committee report included provisions not found in
either the House bill or the Senate bill and that these provisions were "surreptitiously"
inserted by the Conference Committee
ISSUE: Whether RA 7716 is valid?

HELD: YES
 Nor is there anything unusual or extraordinary about the fact that the Conference
Committee met in executive sessions. Often the only way to reach agreement on
conflicting provisions is to meet behind closed doors, with only the conferees
present. Otherwise, no compromise is likely to be made. The Court is not about to
take the suggestion of a cabal or sinister motive attributed to the conferees on the
basis solely of their "secret meetings" on April 21 and 25, 1994, nor read anything
into the incomplete remarks of the members, marked in the transcript of stenographic
notes by ellipses.
  As to the possibility of an entirely new bill emerging out of a Conference Committee,
it has been explained: under congressional rules of procedure, conference
committees are not expected to make any material change in the measure at issue,
either by deleting provisions to which both houses have already agreed or by
inserting new provisions. But this is a difficult provision to enforce. Note the problem
when one house amends a proposal originating in either house by striking out
everything following the enacting clause and substituting provisions which make it an
entirely new bill. The versions are now altogether different, permitting a conference
committee to draft essentially a new bill
 Indeed, this Court recently held that it is within the power of a conference committee
to include in its report an entirely new provision that is not found either in the House
bill or in the Senate bill.If the committee can propose an amendment consisting of
one or two provisions, there is no reason why it cannot propose several provisions,
collectively considered as an "amendment in the nature of a substitute," so long as
such amendment is germane to the subject of the bills before the committee. After
all, its report was not final but needed the approval of both houses of Congress to
become valid as an act of the legislative department. The charge that in this case the
Conference Committee acted as a third legislative chamber is thus without any basis

21. Limitations on the Power: Uniform and Equitable: CIR vs CA (1996)

DOCTRINE: Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 1, of the 1987 Constitution mandates taxation to be
uniform and equitable. Uniformity requires that all subjects or objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to
be treated alike or put on equal footing both in privileges and liabilities. Thus, all taxable articles or kinds
of property of the same class must be taxed at the same rate and the tax must operate with the same
force and effect in every place where the subject may be found.

FACTS:
 CIR Tan wrote PCGG Deputy Minister Diaz that the initial position of the Commission was to classify
Champion, Hope and More as foreign brands since they were listed in the World Tobacco Directory as
belonging to foreign companies
 Fortunate Tobacco changed the names of Hope to Hope Luxury and More to Premium More, hence
removing the brands from foreign category
 It was also shown that Champion was a local brand
 Ad valorem taxes were imposed on these brands
 RA 7654 was enacted amending Sec 14(c)(1) of the NIRC
 A month after the enactment of RA 7654 and 2 days before the effectivity of the law, Revenue
Memorandum Circular No. 37-93 was issued by BIR which aims to collect deficiencies on ad valorem
taxes against Fortune Tobacco
 Fortune Tobacco filed a petition for review with CTA assailing RMC 37-93
 CTA found RMC 37-93 to be defective, invalid and unenforceable
 CA sustained the decision of CTA

ISSUE: Whether RMC 37-93 infringed on uniformity of taxation?

HELD: YES
 Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 1, of the 1987 Constitution mandates taxation to be uniform and
equitable.
 Uniformity requires that all subjects or objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to be treated alike or
put on equal footing both in privileges and liabilities.
 Thus, all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class must be taxed at the same rate and the
tax must operate with the same force and effect in every place where the subject may be found.
 Apparently, RMC 37-93 would only apply to "Hope Luxury," "Premium More" and "Champion" cigarettes
and, unless petitioner would be willing to concede to the submission of private respondent that the
circular should be considered adjudicatory in nature and thus violative of due process following
the Ang Tibay doctrine, the measure suffers from lack of uniformity of taxation.
 In its decision, the CTA has keenly noted that other cigarettes bearing foreign brands have not been
similarly included within the scope of the circular
  All taken, the Court is convinced that the hastily promulgated RMC 37-93 has fallen short of a valid and
effective administrative issuance.

22. Fiscal Powers of Congress: Pascual vs Sec of Public Works

Doctrine: the taxing power must be exercised for public purposes only, money raised by taxation can be
expended only for public purposes and not for the advantage of private individuals. It is a general rule
that the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenue for anything but a public purpose. It is
the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which must determine its validity as
justifying a tax, and not the magnitude of the interest to be affected nor the degree to which the general
advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by their promotion

FACTS:

 Rizal Gov Pascual instituted an action for declaratory relief with injunction, upon the ground that RA No.
920 contained, in section 1-C (a) thereof, an item (43[h]) of P85,000.00 "for the construction,
reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement" of Pasig feeder road terminals
 at the time of the passage of the law, the feeder roads were "nothing but projected and planned
subdivision roads, not yet constructed
 apparently, these were private properties of Zulueta, who, at the time of the passage and approval of
said Act, was a member of the Senate
 on May, 1953 Zulueta offered to donate said projected feeder roads to the municipality of Pasig, Rizal.
This was accepted by the council but no deed of donation in favor of Pasig was executed
 Zulueta called the attention of the council to RA 920 and the construction of feeder roads and the
P85,000 appropriated for the construction of the roads
 Gov Pascual prayed that deed of donation and the appropriation be declared null and void
 Sec of Public Workds moved to dismiss the petition upon the ground that petitioner had "no legal
capacity to sue", and that the petition did "not state a cause of action".
 Lower court: "the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenues for anything but a public
purpose", and that the donation or contract is "absolutely forbidden by the Constitution" and
consequently "illegal", for Article 1409 of the Civil Code, declares in existence and void from the very
beginning contracts "whose cause, objector purpose is contrary to law, morals or public policy"

ISSUE: Whether the 85K appropriation is proper?

HELD: NO. the property sought to be improved with public funds was private in nature at the time the
appropriation was made. The circumstance that the roads were later donated to the government did not cure the
basic defect of the appropriation as it was null and void ab initio.

 It is a general rule that the legislature is without power to appropriate public revenue for anything but a
public purpose. It is the essential character of the direct object of the expenditure which must determine
its validity as justifying a tax, and not the magnitude of the interest to be affected nor the degree to which
the general advantage of the community, and thus the public welfare, may be ultimately benefited by
their promotion. Incidental to the public or to the state, which results from the promotion of private
interest and the prosperity of private enterprises or business, does not justify their aid by the use public
money
 Corpus Juris Secundum: In accordance with the rule that the taxing power must be exercised for public
purposes only, money raised by taxation can be expended only for public purposes and not for the
advantage of private individuals.
 the legality of the 85K depended upon whether said roads were public or private property when the bill,
which, latter on, became Republic Act 920, was passed by Congress, or, when said bill was approved by
the President and the disbursement of said sum became effective, or on June 20, 1953
 since the land on which the feeder roads were to be constructed belong to Zulueta, then such
appropriation is for private purpose, hence, null and void.
 The donation to the Government, over 5 months after the approval and effectivity of said Act,

23. Initiative and Referendum: Defensor-Santiago vs COMELEC

DOCTRINE: There are 3 systems of initiative:
1. Initiative on the Constitution: refers to a petition proposing amendments to the
Constitution
2. Initiative on Statutes: proposing to enact a national legislation
 3. Initiative on Local Legislation: petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city,
municipal or barangay law, resolution or ordinance

FACTS:
 Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, founding member of the Movement for People's Initiative, filed with
COMELEC a "Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by
People's Initiative"
 The Delfin Petition sought to amend Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and
Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution.
 Sen. Miriam Santiago, Padilla and Ongpin filed a special civil action for prohibition to assail the
Delfin Petition saying that
1. the people’s initiative can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress
2. While RA 6735 provides for 3 systems of initiative (Constitution, statutes and local
legislation), it failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution. The deliberate
omission indicates that the people’s initiative to amend the Constitution was left to some
future law
3. RA 6735 provides for effectivity of the law after publication in print media hence the act
covers only laws and not constitutional amendments because constitutional amendments
take effect only after ratification and not after publication
4. COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 to govern the conduct of initiative is ultra vires since it has no
power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of people’s initiative
5. People’s initiative is limited to the Constitution not to revision thereof.
6. Congress has not appropriated funds for people’s initiative

ISSUE: Whether the people are accorded the power to directly propose, enact, approve or reject the
Constitution through the system of initiative?

HELD: NO.
 The power of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is recognized under
Section 2 of Article 17 of the Constitution. However, the Court held that this provision is not-self
executory. Without implementing legislation, this provision cannot operate.
 During interpellations, it was revealed that Sec 2 is limited to proposals to amend and not to revise
the Constitution

ISSUE: Whether RA 6735 is the legislative act which provides for the implementation of the exercise of
the right?

HELD: NO. It is incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as
initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned
 While RA 6735, Sec 3 defines initiative on amendments to the Constitution and mentions it as
one of the three systems of initiative, unlike the other 2 systems of initiative, the act does not
provide the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution
 Besides, no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution nor can it be said that the
initiative on amendments to the Constitution is subsumed under the subtitle National Initiative
and referendum since the classification is not based on the scope but on its nature and character
 RA 6735’s lacunae on the substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by
empowering the COMELEC to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act
 Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is concerned, RA 6735 miserably
failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation (1) complete in itself and (2) fixes a
standard

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

 RA 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution and
failed to provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation
 The parts of COMELEC Resolution 2300 prescribing rules and regulations on the conduct of
initiative or amendments to the Constitution is VOID
 COMELEC is ordered to dismiss the Delfin Petition