Consti Review Midterm Doctrines (until Art 8)
2
Art 1
Magallona v Exec Sec
 Baseline law is not unconstitutional. It does not
demarcate Philippine territory. Rather, it fixes the
maritime zones and fixes the specific basepoints
for the baselines. RA 9522 does not weaken our
stance on ownership of Kalayaan and Scarborough
Shoal. Under RA 9522, the Congress did not include
the two island groups inside the baselines because
doing so entails a violation of UNCLOS. Lastly, RA
9522 did not make the Philippines lose sovereignty
over its internal waters, as it still possesses
sovereignty over the waters laying landward from
its baselines.
Art 2
Tondo Medical v CA
 Consti provisions are generally self executing
except for some which the court had decreed as not
Sec 1
Phil Society v COA
 The fact that the purpose has public interest does
not mean that it is a public corporation. It must be
created by the state to carry out governmental
functions.
 Charter test does not apply during the time when
corp law was yet inexistent.
 Use totality test: functions?, under control or
supervision of state?, employees are covered by
sss/gssis?
Serana v Sandiganbayan (UP student in board of
reagents who misappropriated funds)
 Compensation is not an important element of
public office. Sandigan bayan has jurisdiction over
official with a salary grade of 27 or higher and over
directors, presidents of GOCCs, State Universities.
She was considered as a public officer.
Republic v Sandiganbayan
 Search in house of Dimaano, paramour of Maj
General Ramas during interregnum after Marcos.
There was a search warrant but seized things even
not covered by it.
 Despite the fact that there is no constitution and
bill of rights, international laws and obligations
under it are still operative and the Philippines must
comply with them – ICCPR and UDHR. Because it
was the state w/c entered into these agreements
and not the government.
People v Gozo (as discussed by sir)
 State has the power of auto limitation or self
restriction. This means that via treaty, it waives
some of its sovereign rights. This does not mean
that the state has no more sovereignty.
Sec.
Tanada v Angara
 GATT WTO placing nationals of member-countires
and their products in same footing with member
countries is not violative of constitution.
 Declaration of principles re economic nationalism
is not self-executing. It must be read with other
consti madates.
Bayan v Zamora
 Regarding the VFA, the Philippines need not ask US
to submit the VFA to their senate (Phil requires
senate concurrence for a treaty to be binding), as
long as US recognizes it as treaty it will be binding
on us as well.
Deustche Bank v CIR
 Branch profit remittance tax. On RP-Germany tax
treaty. Benefit of lower tax rate is extended to the
bank despite non compliance with an RMO which
requires 15 day notice.
 Procedural requirements of the RMO should not
deprive anyone of the benefits of the tax treaty.
Pacta sunt servada.
Mijares v Ranada
 Alien Torts Act. Victims were able to get judgment
in Hawaii against Marcos estate and wants this
decision to be recognized here.
 In Rem Actions – foreign judgment is deemed
conslusive upon the title of the thing
 In Personam Actions – foreign judgment is
presumptive and not conclusive.
 Foreign judgment in both cases is susceptible to
impeachment in our courts for lack or jurisdiction,
notice, fraud, clear mistake of fact or law. – losing
party in the foreign judgment must be allowed an
opportunity to challenge these things in an action
in court to enforce a foreign judgment.
 Recognition and enforement of foreign judgment is
among those generally accepted principles of intl
law.
 Rules of comity – allows judgments of foreign
courts to be recognized and reciprocally respected.
Pharmaceutical v DOH
 Milk Code. ICMBS and WHA resolutions are not
treaties. ICMBS was made domestic law through
milk code
 WHA resolution was a mere soft law. In order to be
part of the law of the land, must show that it
became customary international law.
 It must be followed by states because they consider
it as obligatory (opinion juris)
 Soft law – non binding norms and principles that
influence state behavior. Not part of international
law.
Sec 3
IBP v Zamora
 Crime rate in metro manila was increasing, erap
gave a directive for AFP-Marines and PNP to
coordinate and work together. It was not
considered a violation of civilian supremacy
because the LOI was that police forces would be
incharged.
1st Class Cadet Cudia v Superintendent
 Cadet was dismissed and not allowed to graduate
for violating honor code of the military for lying
why he was late.
 Civilian court has jurisdiction and not military
court because what was being looked at is
GADALEJ – civilian supremacy
 fact that you are in the military does not mean you
gave up your civilian rights.
Sec 7
Lim v Exec Sec
 w/n Balikatan and VFA are constitutional? Yes
 May the US troops engage in combat in the
Philippines? No. In interpreting VFA and Mutual
defense treaty, read in context of Consti. The
Philippines pursues an independent foreign policy
paramount consideration would be national
sovereignty, territorial integrity and national
interest.
 Allowing foreign troops here are only via way of
exception.
Sec 12
Imbong v Ochoa
 RH Law is not unconstitutional except for certain
provisions
 Right to health is a self executing provision
 Natural law cant be a basis to invalidate a law
Wisconsin v Yoder
 Amish community. Compulsary education v
religious freedom. Balancing when it impinges on
fundamental rights.
 Only 2 years more in school will not make
substantial difference to the state.
 Going to school for longer would destroy their
exercise of way of life and religion.
 Power of parent, even linked to free exercise claim
can only be subject to limitation if the parental
decision will jeopardize the health or safety of the
child or significant social burden.
Sec 14:
Garcia v Drilon
 VAWC is not unconstitutional nor discriminatory
against men.
 It is the country’s compliance with CEDA Law
 There exists biological, social and cultural
difference between men and women. Which must
be recognized to achieve substantial equality
between them. Not enough to treat women and
men equal.
 It is an ameliorative action not reverse
discrimination to address patriarchy
 Gender based classification does not violate equal
protection clause.
Sec 16
Oposa v Factoran
 Inter-generational responsibility – every
generation has responsibility to conserve and
protect the natural resources
 Right to a balance and healthful ecology is a specific
fundamental right
Resident Marine Mammals
 Oppositors were claiming the marine mammals
have no locus standi
 Philippines are not like other countries which gives
right for rivers or trees to assert standing in envi
cases yet we have a liberalized view on it – any
citizen (even minor and unborn in accordance with
Oposa) may file a suit.
 Stewards were joined as real party in interest, not
just representative of the mammals and have legal
standing.
Sec 26
Pamatong v COMELEC
 Petitioner wanted to run for presidency but was
declared a nuisance candidate.
 There is no consti right ot run or hold public office.
It is merely a privilege.
 Article 2 is merely a declaration of principles and
generally not self executing
 In declaring certain candidates a nuisance, there is
compelling state interest to maintain electoral
exercise.
Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC
 Team patay and team buhay tarps in relation to RH
Bill outside church urging church goers not to vote
for them.
 SC considered them election propaganda and
subject to COMELEC power of removal for violating
the size requirements.
 This is not a violation of freedom of expression.
The petitioners can state who to vote and not to
vote as long as it complies with the requirements.
 Not a form of censorship. Only asked to remove
because did not comply with size requirement
Sec 28
Pollo v David
 Petitioner, a govt employee, did not have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in his work
place. Hence copying contents of the diskettes did
not invade his privacy. The computer was govt
issued, no password, no own office. – not an illegal
search
PS Bank v Senate
 PS Bank asked court for a TRO to stop senate from
implementing subpoena to their branch manager
to show the foreign currency accounts of CJ Corona.
–Yes to TRO but later moot due to Corona’s waiver
 Foreign currency deposits act establishes absolute
confidentiality of foreign deposits. Inly exception: if
there is written permission from depositor.
 Bank secrecy law is not an exemption to the
absolute confidentiality of foreign accounts.
In Re: Production of Court Records
 During Corona Impeachment, impeachment panel
wanted to obtain records of SC regarding certain
cases and to call certain justices to be questioned.
 Generally: there is a rule of transparency
 However, court records may be validly prohibited
to be disclosed under the following:
1. When there is a pending case
2. Deliberations of members in court session
3. Deliberative process priv – must show:
a. Predecisional – made in attempt to
reach a conclusion
b. Deliberative – disclosure would
discourage candid discussion
4. Internal discussions and memoranda
5. Confidential information by judges in course of
official duties
6. Comity – highest officials of each department
exempt from compulsory process (SC as an
institution not to judge/ justice in individual
capacity)
ART 6: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Sec 1
Rubi v Provincial Board
 Provincial Board of Mindoro adopted a resolution
to oblige Mangyans to live in one place in
accordance with Admin Code. – violation of non-
delegation of legislative power? NO
 There was legitimate legislative intent to promote
advancement and education of these people. The
board and the governor are better suited to select
the sites.
 Exceptions to non delegation of legislative power:
o Power to make law cant be delegated but
to execute it can.
o Congress can delegate legislative power
to local authorities
SEC v Interport
 Absence of IRR will not invalidate a law or prohibit
its application since the provisions of Revised
Security Act were clear enough.
*Issues on delegation of legislative power – will satisfy
if there is a fixed standard and law is complete in itself.
Agustin v EDU
 EWD device for cars. – standard was public safety
or safe transit on roads.
 The standard may either be express or implied.
Araneta v Gaitmaitan
 EO prohibiting trawl operators form operating is
not undue delegation of legislative power. The
standard was seen in Fisheries Law which
prohibits taking of fish and fishfry.
Social Justice Society v Dangerous Drugs
 Mandatory drug testing’s IRR was assailed as
invalid delegation of legislative power to schools
and offices.
 No. law states how the drug test will be conducted
(2 tests, privacy and confidentiality)
 Cant require drug testing as additional
requirement for senator – violates consti. Only
qualifications are ones stated in consti.
Disini v Sec of Justice
 Powers and functions of cybercrime investigation
and coordinating center is not undue delegation.
The law is complete when it directed the
formulation of cybercrime security plan, defined
what cybersecurity is and the reason behind the
law.
People v Rosenthal
 Sufficient standard: the certificate must recite that
the applicant has complied with the provisions of
this act.
Eastern Shipping v POEA (memo circular which
provides for a standard contract for OFW)
 2 tests in determining valid delegation:
o Completeness test – (complete in itself)
law must be complete in all its terms and
conditions, only thing left is to enforce it.
o Sufficient Standard – must be adequate
guidelines in the law to map out the
boundaries of the delegate’s authority.
 Delegation of power – power of subordinate
legislation – legislature has found it necessary to
entrust to admin agencies the authority to issue
rules to carry out general provisions of the statute.
 What may be delegated is to determine how the
law is to be enforced not what the law shall be.
 Admin bodies may fill in the details which congress
has no competency to do so.
Tablarin v Gutierrez
 Requirement by MECS to pass NMAT as prereq for
admission to Med School. Valid delegation of
legislative power. Standard was set forth in Medical
Act “standardization and regulation of medical
education”.
Viola v Alunan
 IRR for Creation of additional positions in for the
general elections if liga ng brgy valid rules. LGC
 required the board to create additional positions
necessary.
 Congress can delegate the power to create
positions provided there is sufficient standard.
Standard was “deemed necessary in management
of chapter”
Abakada v Ermita (VAT reform law)
 Gives the president the power to raise the vat from
10% to 12% after certain conditions are met – not
undue delegation. There was sufficient standard:
Sec of finance will recommend after certain
conditions.
 Recognized exceptions to undue delegation of
legislative power:
1. Delegation of tariff powers to the president
2. Emergency powers of the president
3. Delegation to people at large
4. Delegation to local govt units
5. Delegation to admin bodies
Beltran v Sec of Health
 Phasing out blood banks made by DOH through
Admin order is not undue delegation of legislative
power. It was made in pursuant of an RA to serve
as its IRR. Standard in the RA was promotion of
public health by providing a safe and adequate
supply of blood through voluntary blood donations.
Abakada v Purisima
 Revenue performance and evaluation board can set
criteria for removing officials who fail to reach
7½% of their targets – valid. Attrition act validly
stated policy and standard.
 Public interest, justice and equity is a sufficient
standard.
Fernandez v Sto Tomas
 Certain offices under the CSC were merged in one
office. However, these offices were among those
mentioned in the Admin Code.
 SC: Mentioning these offices in the admin code did
not mean that it can infringe on the delegated
power of CSC to reorganize itself.
 Standard: efficiency responsiveness, decentralized
personnel functions
Chiongbian v Orbos
 4 provinces voted in favor of creating ARMM. The
Organic Act of ARMM allows the president to
merge the existing regions for those provinces who
do not vote to be included in the admin region. –
valid delegation of legislative power.
 What was the standard?
 Standard need not be expressed in the law. The
standard for the power to merge is the same as the
standard in another RA which gave the authority to
the president to reorganize the exec dept.
“simplicity, economy and efficiency”
 Besides the regrouping is done only on paper for
facilitating the administrative supervision of LGUs
Pichay v Office of the Deputy Exec Sec
 EO 13 by Pinoy abolished Presidential Anti Graft
Commission created by PGMA and transferred its
functions to ODESLA – valid. No creation of new
office in violation of legislative power. President
has continuing delegated legislative authority to
reorganize the exec dept under the Admin Code.
PAGC and ODESLA are both within the office of the
president proper.
 Reorganization did not entail creation of new
separate office but alteration of admin structure of
ODESLA.
 ODESLA is only a fact finding body not quasi-
judicial even if it was called “adjudicatory” as part
of its title.
 Fact finding is not a judicial function – issue came
about because it will be unconsti if such power was
given to it by the president. Usurpation.
Arroyo v DOJ
 COMELEC issued a resolution approving creation of
a committee with DOJ to conduct preliminary
investigation re massive electoral fraud. –
constitutional. Joint committee and fact finding
team is not a new office. They were merely
performing their functions in accordance with their
mandated functions.
 Role of DOJ in prelim investigation has been long
recognized due to COMELEC lack of funds – not an
abdication of COMELEC’s independence.
People v Vera
 Probation law is an undue delegation of legislative
power. There was no fixed standard to guide the
discretionary power of the provincial board to
grant probation. Roving commission was given.
“the act shall apply only in instances where the
provincial board have provided for the salary of
probation officer”
 If the board does not want the act to be applied in
its province, all it has to do was to decline to
appropriate for the salary of the probation officer.
US v Barias
 Collector of Customs issued a circular prohibiting
lighters in Pasig River and imposed a fine for
violation – not an undue delegation of legislative
power. Act allows the collector to issue rules and
regulations. The act defines what a lighterage is.
US v Panlilio
 Carabaos belonging to panlilip were quarantined
by Dir of Agriculture. Can he be punished for
violating the order of the director? Act 1760 is the
law that relates to quarantine of animals. No where
in the law states that he may be convicted for
violating any of the orders of the director.
People v Maceren
 Fisheres law prohibits the use of obnoxious,
poisonous substance in fishing. The secretary
issued an AO prohibiting electrofishing. – Invalid.
An IRR cant penalize an act not penalized by the
enabling law.
People v Dacuycuy
 Magnacarta for Public School of teachers was
undue delegation of leagislative power for it give
undue delegation to the courts to impose any
length of imprisonment. (didn’t prescribe the term
or period).
 Court can only exercise legal discretion.
Ynot v IAC
 Ynot was punished for transferring Carabaos from
Masbate to Iloilo in violation of EO which prohibits
interprovincial movement of carabaos.
 EO was unconstitutional. It was issued by Marcos
in exercise of his emergency powers in accordance
with Ammendment no 6. In order to exercise this,
there must be the existence of emergency or grave
thereat and legislature failed to act.
 Also the means employed had no reasonable
connection to the purpose. Purpose was to prohibit
slaughter of carabao. Interprovincial movement
does not necessarily prohibit this.
Phil coconut v Republic (coco levy funds issue)
 Undue delegation of legislative authority to PCA
when it was given unbridled authority to exercise
who, how and when the shares of UCPB will be
distributed to farmers. No standard.
Belgicia v Exec Sec
 Congressional Pork barrel – violate non-deligability
because it allows appropriation by individual
legislators and not congress as a whole. The power
to appropriates is given to congress and may be
exercised only through legislation.
 Appropriation involves: setting aside a certain sum
for a specified purpose.
 PDAF gives a lump sum to a legislator and it is his
discretion on which project to use it for and for
how much.
 Presidential pork barrel:
o Malampaya Fund – no sufficient standard
“and for such other purpose” that the
president may deem
o Presidential social fund – for financing the
priority infrastructure development
project – no definition of what a priority
infrastructure project is.
Sec 5
Veterans v COMELEC
 Comelec proclaimed 38 additional party list reps
even if they obtained less than 2% of the total no.
of votes cast for the party-list system under the
consti thinking that the “at least 20% of the
members of the house should be party list
members” stated in the consti is mandatory – not
mandatory merely a ceiling.
Phil Guardians v COMELEC
 COMELEC may remove or cancel registration of a
party list if it fails to participate in the last two
preceding elections or fails to obtain at least 2% of
votes.
 It is an “or”. Cant cancel registration when fail to
get 2% in 1 election and fail to participate in
another election. Cant mix or combine
 Upheld BANAT – 2% threshold is unconstitutional
because it frustrates the 20% ceiling
Banat v Comelec
 20% threshold is merely a ceiling. It need not be
filled up entirely. – tama si veterans. Consti nor RA
did not mandated the filling up of the 20%. Consti
left the determination of the number of members
to congress.
 2% threshold is unconstitutional because it makes
it mathematically impossible to attain the
maximum number of party list seats once the
available seats exceed 50. It frustrates the 20%
threshold.
Ang Ladlad v COMELEC
 Ang ladlad was denied registration by comelec
based on the bible, quoran and that their ways are
immoral.
 Reliance to religion as a ground is a violation of non
establishment cause.
 Moral disapproval without more is not sufficient
justification to deny them registration
 Enumeration of certain sectors in the law (women,
urban poor etc) is not exclusive.
Magdalo v COMELEC
 COMELEC denied the registration of Magdalo
because it uses violence and unlawful means.
Oakwood incident was treated by COMELEC as
public knowledge – no GADALEJ.
 COMELEC did not render a decision of w/n the
members committed the crime. Evaluation was
limited to examining whether magdalo possessed
the qualifications and non of the disqualifications.
 Registration – not automatically authorized to
participate in party list system. Merely gives
juridical personality to file
 Accreditation – allows to take part in the party list
system. Not a right but merely a privilege
 But in view of the amnesty, the events can no
longer be interpreted as acts of violence in order to
disqualify.
Dayao v COMELEC
 LPG association
 For COMELEC to validly exercise power to cancel
registration of a party list:
 o Due notice and hearing
o Enumerated grounds for disqualification
of not exist
 Grounds for disqualification in accordance with Sec
6 RA 7941:
1. It is a religious sect. denomination or for
religious purpose
2. Advocates violence or unlawful means
3. Foreign party or organization
4. Receives support from foreign govt
5. Violates or fails to comply with laws on
election
6. Untruthful statement in petition
7. Ceased to exist for at least a year
8. Fails to participate in last 2 preceding election.
Atong Paglaum
 Who are included in the party list system – sectoral
and non sectoral
 Therefore, party list is not exclusive domain of
marginalized and underrepresented.
 Parameters for party list:
1. 3 different groups may participate: national,
regional, sectoral
 national parties or organizations – ideology or
cause based, no need to be marginalized, must
not be a major political party.
 regional parties – same as above
 sectoral parties -
a) marginalized under priv – labor, peasant,
fisher folk
b) lacking in well defined constituencies –
professional, elderly, youth
2. National and regional parties need not porganize in
sectoral lines
3. Political parties can participate in party list
elections provided they do not have a candidate in
legislative district elections and they register in
party list system.
o If they have a candidate, in legislative
districe (w/n major political party) they
can only participate in party list system
through their sectoral wing.
o Sectoral wing – must be registered under
party list, and in itself an independent
sectoral party. Only attached to the other
by coalition.
4. Sectoral may either be:
a. Marginalized and underrepresented –
labor, peasant, fisherfolk
b. Lacking in well defined political
constituencies – elderly, women, youth
5. Majority of the members of sectoral must belong to
the sector they represent.
6. Nominees of the sectoral must either belong to the
sector or have a track record of advocacy for the
sector
7. National, regional, sectoral parties shall not be
disqualified if their nominees are disqualified
provided they still have at least one nominee who
remains qualified.
Tobias v Abalos
 municipality of mandaluyong was turned into city
of mandaluyong – valid. Consti allows members of
house to be more than 250.”unless otherwise
provided by law”
 claim that mandaluyong failed to reach 250k
inhabitants – presumption of regularity
 Not Gerrymandering
 Gerrymandering – act of creating a legislative
district to favor a candidate.
 Reapportionment may be made through a special
law like a charter of a city. Congress did not limit
increase of membership only through general
reapportion law.
Mariano v COMELEC
 Municipality of Makati was turned into city
 Upheld tobias.
 For population requirement, the remaining city
which the municipality turned city left, need not
reach 250k population.
Sema v COMELEC
 RA gave ARMM Regional Assembly the power to
create provinces and cities without necessarily
complying with the 250k population requirement.
 They enacted Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act. Its
contents, among others, created the province of
sheriff kabunsuan, with a representative.
 Invalid delegation of legislative power.
 Power to increase membership in the house and
reapportion legislative districts is exclusive to
congress.
 Regional Assembly has no power to do this because
a member of congress is a national official, which
will have acts that will affect beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of ARMM.
Montejo v COMELEC
 Comelec transferred municipalities from one
district to another to remedy the population count
because after one district is turned into a province,
and the population in the remaining province was
below 250,000.
 Comelec cant do this. The only thing they are
allowed to do is make minor adjustments like:
correction of names or when a municipality is
between other municipalities that had been
overlooked upon reapportionment.
Herrera v COMELEC
 Basis for division is not the number of inhabitants
(population) in the province concerned but the
number of listed voters.
 Contiguous and adjacent – means adjoining,
nearby, abutting, having a common boarder,
connected or touching boundaries.
Samson v Aguirre
 Absence of certification by concerned agencies  Plebicite is not required for
such as NSO, DOF and LMB as to income, apportionment/reapportionment of legislative
population size and land area is not fatal because in district because the purpose is only to provide for
this instance during the oral manifestations, an increase in representative in the house of rep
representatives of these departments were present  Plebiscite is required in creation, division or
and did not object. conversion of LGUs
Aldaba v COMELEC  Legislative apportionment - the determination of
 Legislative district of malolos was created. An number of representatives that may be sent by the
undated certification by the Reg dir. Of NSO was subdivision to the legislature.
submitted showing that the population will be  Reapportionment – realignment/change in
254k by 2010. legislative districts because of increase in
 The creation was unconstitutional. A city must at population to comply with the consti requirement
least have 250k population. During that time an EO of equality of representation.
by pres ramos allowed certificate of projection to  LGUs are political and corporate units
support the population requirement for the  Legislative district is not a political subdivision or
creation of a legislative district. However, the corporate unit. Role of congressman is to be voice
certificate must be declared official by the NSO of people not oversee affairs of the place. Therefore
Coordinating Board and done in the middle of the no separate legal personality.
year. Apportionment Division of LGU
 Since the certificate was not by NSO and not in Purpose Representation Modification of
middle of year being undated, the creation of LGUs corp
malolos as legislative district was unconstitutional. existence and
territorial
Aquino v COMELEC coverage
 Consti states that : Requisites  Each 2 specific
o Province is entitled to at least 1 legislative standards:
representative with no mention of district 1. Meet
population must criteria
o A city must meet the 250,000 population comprise as stated in
requirement. far as LGC on
 Local government code: province must meed: practicable, income,
o Average annual income of 20 mil contiguous population
o Either: contiguous territory or population and and land
of 250k. adjacent area
 Population was not the only requirement for territory 2. Approval
reapportionment of cam sur – they took note of the  City must by majority
dialects, natural division sizes of the municipality. have a of votes
population cast in
Navarro v Ermita of at least plebiscite
 RA created dinagat province but the land area was 250k
only 802 sqm meter and population was only 106k,  Province
fails to meet land area requirement of 2000 sqm must have
and population of 250k one rep
 Land area requirement shall not apply when the
proposed province is composed of islands.
Brgy Municip City Prov Sec 6: qualifications
Popu 2k 25k 150k 200k
5k (metro Bengzon v HRET
manila)  Natural born citizen who became naturalized US
Land Metes and 50km 100km 2000km citizen after taking oath of allegiance
Area bounds except if except except if  He reacquired his citizenship through repatriation
need not islands if island island  3 ways of acquiring citizenship:
be 1. naturalization
contiguous 2. repatriation
if island 3. direct act of congress
Income n/a 2.5 mil 20 mil 20 mil  Repatriation may be
for last for last o Initial acquisition of Philippine
2 yrs 2 yrs citizenship
o Reaquisition of Philippine citizenshio
Bagabuyo v COMELEC which was lost due to:
 a. Dissertion of military
b. Service in US armed forces
c. Woman marrying an alien
d. Political economic necessity
 Repatriation results in reacquisition of the original
citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance and
registering it with local civil registry and
renouncing the other citizenship.
 Cruz then validly became rep of 2nd district of
pangasinan. Not disqualified because of citizenship.
Aquino v COMELEC
Petitioner ran for 2nd legislative district of makati
For election purpose, residence in COC connotes
domicile.
Only renting a condo unit, he was not able to establish
his domicile – no intent to reside permanently
COC in previous election indicated he was a voter of
tarlac for 52 years.
Transfer of domicile must be coupled by actual change
and intent.
Animus manendi (maintain) and non-rivertendi (not to
return)
Marcos v COMELEC
Imelda amended her COC and changed residence from
for 7 months to “since childhood”
Petitioner claims that she ost her domicile after staying
in manila to study, live in malacanang when marcos was
president, returned from Hawaii and live in manila, ran
for public office in san juan, became governor of metro
manila.
Fact that a person lived in different places did not make
her lose her domicile
Marriage of a woman not automatically changes your
domicile
To change: need actual change, intent to abandon, acts
to indicate intent.
Domino v COMELEC
Domicile connotes fixed permanent residence in which
one intends to return.
Lease contract does not support the permanency.
Perez v COMELEC
Held to meet the residence requirement even if only
leasing an apartment because of other evidences:
1. Leasing since 1990
2. Marriage certificate and license indicate that
he was a resident in that district
3. Birth certificate of children indicate he was a
resident there
4. Letters addressed to him contained that
residence.
 Being a registered voter in one district is not
sufficient to state that you have abandoned your
residence in another.
Fernandez v HRET
Yes he was only leasing but there were other evidences
which points to the fact that he has domicile there: lease
contract, certification of homeowners, certification of
brgy chairman, ownership of a restobar in the area.
Ok to own another house in another place – not
prohibited to own properties.
Tagolino v HRET
Lucy torres substituting Richard gomez
Disqualified candidate – cant substitute. No question as
to qualification but committed an election offense.
Cancel – cant substitute, misrep in COC
Consti stated that COMELEC should have denominated
the case as cancellation not disqualification because of
misrep by Richard in COC because the 1 year
requirement of residence was not met.
Reyes v COMELEC
 Oath as provincial administrator is not deemed
compliance with oath of allegiance to reacquire
citizenship.
 Oath to reacquire citizenship must be:
1. Oath of allegiance
2. In consulate before consul general
3. Professional and sworn renunciation of
foreign citizenship
 Your compliance with residency, the reckoning pint
is when you renounce or reacquired your
citizenship.
Sec 11
People v Jalosjos
Jalosjos wanted to be able to attend legislative session
and fully discharge his duties despite his conviction of
statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness. The conviction
was pending appeal.
He claims the plea of electorate who voted for him
should not be frustrated by fears of him escaping.
No. to allow him to attend would make him equivalent
to a free man.
Congress cant compel a member to attend sessions if
the absence is legit.
Immunity from arrest does not apply if punishable by
greater than 6 yrs imprisonment.
Trillanes v Pimentel
Trillanes charged with cudeta but pending case, he was
proclaimed as senator
People v Jalosjos can be applied even if he is not yet a
convicted criminal because both he and jalosjos were
charged with an offense that has punishment of
reclusion perp and evidence of guilt is strong and not
entitled bail.
Doctrine of administrative condonation is not
applicable. He was not re-elected and it only applies to
civil not criminal cases.
Jimenez v Cabangbang
 Cabangbang, member of the house, wrote a letter
to the phil president and published it in the
newspaper while congress was not in session and
charged by libel.
 Not privilege speech
 To be privilege, must be delivered while congress
was in session or in performance of congressional
functions.
 However, not libel since he claimed that they “are
probably not aware” so not derogatory.
Pobre v Defensor Santiago
Senator Santiago made opening statements in senate in
expression of her frustration with JBC actions in
nominations of next CJ.
Court upheld parliamentary immunity since it was
made in opening speech in aid of legislation
If senate ethics committee did not want to punish her,
court cant do anything about it.
Sec 13
Dante v Liban
Acceptance of office of Chairman in Phil Red Cross is not
considered a government office or an office in GOCC
therefore does not fall under the prohibitions of
senators/ congressmen holding any other office or
employment in the govt.
PNRC is not a GOCC. It was privately owner, funded and
run. Chairman is elected by board of governors. Board
consists of 4/5th private sector.
In accordance with Geneva convention, need to
maintain its neutrality and independence due to its
functions.
Sec 14
Puyat v De Guzman
Fernandez a member of batasang pambansa was
prohibited to serve as counsel in a quo warranto
proceeding in relation to directorial seat issue in a
corporation. What he did instead was to purchase 10
shares of the company and moved to intervene as
owner of the shares.
Not allowed. Purchase was made after the fact.
Considered an indirect appearance of counsel.
Instances when one can appear as counsel:
1. Govt/ its subdivision is an adverse party in a
civil case
2. In a criminal case where he is accused of an
offense related to his office
3. In an admin case in front of admin bodies
4. Appellate jurisdiction of the court
Sec 16
Avelino v Cuenco
 Beginning of session 22 out of 24 senators were
present. One was in hospital, another was in US.
 Sen Tanada was scheduled to make a privilege
speech against senate president avelino but was
delayed due to several factors. Senate President
banged the gravel and walked out with other
senators. Only 12 senators remained
 They continued with the session and elected a new
senate president.
 There was a quorum.
 Session started with quorum: 22 senators
 10 left, there were still 12 remaining.
 Consti states majority of each house will constitute
quorum
 Majority does not mean all members
 1 senator was out of the country. Therefore there
were 23 senators left. 23 divided by 2 = 11.5. what
remains is 12, there was majority pa.
 Also session can be considered as continuing from
the morning session – therefore quorum pa din.
 Even if not continuing – may quorum pa din sa
afternoon session.
Datu Michael Abas Kida v Senate
Ammendment to organic act contains a supra majority
vote to be amended (must be 2/3 of senate and house
voting separately)
This violates the consti prohibition on pasing
irrepealable laws. Consti only requires a majority vote.
Limitation was greater than what the constitution
provides.
Arroyo v De Venecia
Law on sin taxes of manufacture and sale of tobacco and
beer was passed. Validity was being assailed due to
failure to conduct votes via yeas/nays but rather passed
through a resolution
Courts cant inquire into violation of house rules unless
there is a violation of consti provisions which would
affect rights of other persons who are not members of
the legislature
Rules are subject to modification by the body adopting
them, failure to comply with such rules does not mean
that the act resulting from such is void.
Consti only requires yeas/ nos for the following:
1. Last and 3rd reading of a bill
2. If required by 1/5 of members
3. To repass a bill which was vetoed by the president
 Enrolled bill doctrine – signing of a bill by speaker
and senate pres with certify by secretaries are
conclusive of its due enactment.
 Remedy: enact new law to repeal or ammend
Osmena v Pendatun
Osmena was punished for disorderly behavior for
failure to substantiate his accusations made in his
privilege speech after he was asked by the house
He claims that according to house rules, he can no
longer be punished if business intervened after
obnoxious words were said.
SC: house may chose to suspend the operation of its
rules
On parliamentary immunity: while the legislators may
not be questioned in any other place, congress itself
may punish the erring member.
Congress is the judge of disorderly behavior of their
members.
Santiago v Sandiganbayan
Complaint against Miriam Santiago regarding her duties
as an immigration commissioner. But during the
proceedings, she was now a senator.
She was preventively suspended by sandiganbayan
Valid preventive suspension. RA 3019 mandates
sandiganbayan to suspend public officials from office
when the charge is fraud upon the govt or regarding
public funds.
It was not a penalty but preventive suspension hence
not required that guilt may be found.
Preventive suspension under the RA is different form
the power of congress to discipline its members.
Preventive suspension Suspension by
Congress
Preliminary and Penal
preventive in nature
Sandiganbayan Prerogative by
congress
 Congress can punish disorderly behavior after 2/3
concurrence
 Suspension – shall not exceed 60 days
Duty to keep journal:
Journal vs Extraneous evidence –journal prevails
Record – direct transcript
Journal – abbreviated version
Which prevails – journal or record?
US v Pons
 Passage of anti-smuggling of opium act was
assailed as invalid. It was claimed to really passed
in March 1 but on Feb 28, the clock was stopped by
congress in order to settle all matters.
 SC: journals state that session was concluded
midnight of Feb 28, hence the act was passed
before march 1
 Courts are not allowed to go beyond the journal.
Casco v Gimenez
 Eurea formaldehyde was written in the law, they
were claiming tax exemption for eurea and
formaldehyde.
 SC: individual statements of representatives do not
necessarily reflect view of congress (in response to
the claim that in the deliberations eurea and
formaldehyde was meant to be the excempted one)
 Enrolled bill is controlling for it used eurea
formaldehyde.
 If there was a mistake in printing the enrolled bill,
the remedy is curative or amended law not a
judicial decree
 Enrolled bill is the official copy of the approved
legislation. It is prima facie proof of its contents.
Astorga v Villegas
 House Bill defining powers of VP of Manila. Sen
Tolentino made substantial amendments and was
approved by senate but the bill that was
transmitted to the house and signed and also
signed by the president into law was the bill
without amendments.
 Upon learning this the senate president and phil
president withdrew their signatures.
 VP of manila wants the law to be implemented
 SC: Normally enrolled bill theory will be upheld.
 Enrolled bill is based on the respect due to a co-
equal branch of govt. The signing of the speaker
and the senate pres in open session of an enrolled
bill is an official attestation that it has passed
congress. Once it reaches the president in due form
and signed by him, it is deemed complete
authentication.
 Courts will accept an enrolled bill as having been
passed if this authentication was followed.
 However, in light of the withdrawal of signatures,
bill was considered as duly enacted.
 Since it was not so authenticated, courts can look at
the journals to the extent to see only if there should
have been amendments. But the courts can not
incorporate these into the law.
Abakada v Ermita
 Still on 10%-12% vat reform law.
 10% was the rate given by senate, 12% was rate by
house. To harmonize, bicameral conference
committee decided to impose 10% then give the
president prerogative to increase to 12% subject to
certain conditions.
 The argument was that bicam conf committee
added provisions after passing 3 readings in senate
in violation of no amendment rule
 SC: each house may provide for the rules of
proceeding. They decided to provide for bicam
conference committee (because it was not
provided by consti) in cases where the 2 houses
could not agree.
 Bicam committee was correct.
 Committee itself was made up of both houses. No
violation. No need to undergo 3 readings again.
 After 3rd readings – senate or house can no longer
add but in bicam can still add.
Sec 17
Angara v Ermita
 Angara was proclaimed winner of 1st district of
tayabas. National Assembly issued a resolution
which fixed Dec 3 as last day to file election protest.
Dec 8 a protest was filed against angara before
electoral commission. Electoral commission
adopted dec 9 to be last day of filing protest.
 w/n electoral commission can take cognizance
despite the national assembly declaration that the
last day was a few days ago? YES
 Electoral commission is a constitutionally created
organ, independent of the national assembly
 Express lodging of that power to judge all contests
relating to election returns and qualifications is an
implied denial to the national assembly.
Reyes v COMELEC
 Reyes was proclaimed as rep of marinduque and
took her oath of office
 4 days before proclamation, comelec cancelled her
coc
 she claims HRET has jurisdiction on her
 No. COMELEC has jurisdiction. During her
proclamation, there was already an order of
cancellation of COC, it was a bar to her
proclamation
 HRET is the sole judge of election, returns, and
qualifications of member of the house
 Yet she is not considered a member of the house
because she was not proclaimed by COMELEC as
winner.
 HRET’s jurisdiction only begins after valid
proclamation
 COMELC is not bound by technical rules of
evidence. Procedure is summary.
 She must be proclaimed, took her oath and
assumed office. She has not assumed office yet
Vera v Avelino
 Senate deferred the oath taking of several senator
elect in light of the reports of terrorism in certain
areas which resulted to the failure of elections to
reflect true intent of electorate.
 They claim that only the electoral tribunal can do
this.
 SC: only power given to electoral comm is to be the
sole judge of elections, returns, qualifications or
“election contest”
 Election contest – contestant seeks to oust the
person and have himself instead seated
 Since this is only the power conferred to them,
senate or house has then retained the power to
defer oath taking
 Senate can inqure into the credentials of its
members.
Guerrero v COMELEC
 Farinas substituted chevyll farinas. Claimed as
illegal substitution for he failed to file his COC on
last day.
 Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed,
taken his oath and assumed office, COMELEC’s
jurisdiction ends and HRET’s jurisdiction begins
 HRET can rule even on statutory qualifications
(omnibus election code) not only consti
qualifications.
Abayon v HRET
 Abayon and Palparan are nominees of 2 different
party lists. It was claimed that they were not
representative or belonging from the sector they
are representing.
 They claim that HRET has no jurisdiction over
them. It was the party list that was elected and they
were merely nominees. That their qualification is
an internal matter to the party list.
 They also claim ineligibility of party list falls under
jurisdiction of COMELEC
 HRET has jurisdiction because it is not the party
list who sits in the house but the nominee
 Party indeed has the intial jurisdiction to
determine the qualifications of who will represent
them
 Once the nominee was elected, took his owth and
assumed office, HRET has sole jurisdiction
Abbas v SET
 Election contest against 22 senators.
 Motion for disqualification/ inhibition to have
these senators sit in the senate electoral tribunal
because they are the ones who have concerns.
 Proposal is that to amend the rules of SET and
allow only the 3 SC justices to decide the election
protests
 SET rules state that concurrence of 5 members are
necessary for a resolution.
 The proposal is that if more than 4 members are
disqualified, there will still be considered a quorum
if at least 3 are still there and at least 1 is an SC
justice
 SC; proposal is unconstitutional. The consti states
that the electoral tribunals will be composed of 3
SC justices and 6 senators/ members of the house.
 The proportion is 2:1, they cant exclude the
senators.
 While the framers of the consti were not able to
visualize the instance where almost all members of
the senate will be disqualified no solution because
consti did not provide for it.
 Solution: tribunal member should just recluse
himself.
Bondoc v Pineda
 Camasura was part of the HRET. Was a member of
the liberal party. He delivered a conscience vote in
favor of the candidate of the opposing party during
a proceeding before HRET. Because of this, he was
removed from his party as the act was considered
betrayal to the party.
 House of rep removed him from HRET
 His removal to his party and consequently to HRET
due to apparently disloyal acts are in violation of
the independence of HRET
 Member of HRET must act with impartiality
 Expulsion of camasura from HRET violates his right
to security of tenure.
Lerias v HRET
 In an election contest, the best evidence are the
ballots themselves.
 If the ballots cant be produced, the election returns
 Election returns are prima facie bona fide reports
of election results
 Evidence before the HRET were original copy of
certificate of canvass of municipal board of
canvassers vs photocopy of canvass from COMELEC
– GADALEJ by HRET for considering the photocopy.
Futher, the teachers who canvassed already stated
that there were falsification from COMELEC
certificate.

Sec 18
Daza v Singson
 Daza, LP member, was a member of COA who was
removed and replaced by an LDP member.
 This is because LDP was reorganized, 24 members
of LP resigned and transferred to LDP. LDB became
159, LP only 17.
 House can change representatives in COA to reflect
the political alignments provided the change in
alignments are permanent.
Coseteng v Mitra
 Coseteng the lone member of KAIBA is not entitled
a seat in COA out of the 12 seats available. She
represents only .4%. Endorsements she gained
from other senators are of no moment because
they also endorsed other candidates and they are
not members of her party.
 TO be able to gain a seat in COA a political party
should at least represent 8.4% of house
membership. (it should be able to elect at leat 17
congressmen)
Guingona v Gonzales
 After computing seats in COA, the result is some
political parties would get a whole number plus .5
(ex: 2.5 seat)
 What LDP did was convert .5 seat into 1 seat and
reduced other political party’s seat by .5
 This is in violation of proportional representation.
 Guidelines:
1. Senate political party or coalition must have at
least 2 duly elected senator for every seat in
COA
2. Where there are more than 2 political parties
represented in senate, a political party/
coalition with a single senator in the senate
can not constitutionally claim a seat in COA
 It is not mandatory to elect 12 senators to COA,
Sec 21
Inquiry in aid of legislation. Sec 21 vs Sec 22. Who is
excused and not excused from appearing?
Senate v Ermita (confirm this)
 Ermita was executive secretary who along with
other officers of the AFP were being questioned in
senate regarding North Rail issue
 Power of inquiry is inherent in power to legislate
 Exception: executive privilege
o Question hour – president is exempt,
dept heads need prior consent from
president
o Inquiry in aid of legislation – only
president is exempt
 What else is important?
 Yung provisions of eo..
Gudani v Senga
 Sen Biazon asked AFP officers to testify in congress
re hello garci scandal.
 These officers were ordered that no AFP personnel
shall appear without first securing the president’s
approval yet they still testified.
 They were relieved for disobeying a legal order in
violation of articles of war
 President has authority to require them to seek
presidential authority prior to appearing in
congress in accordance with her commander in
chief power – may absolutely restrict speech,
travel, movement
What was the answer na if the president refuses, may he
be commanded by judicial order to order attendance of
military?
Negros Electrical Coop v Sangguniang Panglungsod
 Sangguniang panglungsod of dumaguete issued
subpoena requiring Negros coop to appear before
it in investigation of inefficient power lines
 w/n it has power to compel and order arrest and
contempt to negros? NO
 Congress power of issuing contempt is sui generis.
It is not to discharge legislative power per se but to
maintain independence as co-equal branch.
 Sangguniang panglungsod is not given this power
neither in consti or LGC
 Subpoena and contempt power are really judicial in
nature, it is not implied in the grant of legislative
power.
 Sanggu may invite resource persons but has no
capacity to cite them in contempt or punish them if
the refuse to do so.
 national parties or organizations – ideology or
cause based, no need to be marginalized, must
not be a major political party.
 regional parties – same as above
 sectoral parties -
c) marginalized under priv – labor, peasant,
fisher folk
d) lacking in well defined constituencies –
professional, elderly, youth
Standard Charter v Senate
 Inquiry in aid of legislation re violation of
securities and regulations code by std chartered.
They claim congress can no longer investigate
because there are already pending cases in court.
 No. Mere filing of a case in court/ quasi judicial
body does not automatically bar inquiry in aid of
legislation
 The purpose is different. Inquiry in aid of communication Communicative
legislation’s purpose is in order to enact laws or privilege
legislation. not punishment of the acts whereas President and Department heads
court proceedings aim to settle actual subordinates
controversies. Covers: diplomatic On basis of decision
negotiations, treaties, making
Dela Paz v Senate national security, close
 Members of PNP went to Moscow. Gen Dela paz door cabinet meetings
was detained on the way back due to failure to
declare certain amounts of cash. Arnault v Nazareno
 He was subpoenaed by senate to investigate the  Senate can impose a penalty during in aid of
Moscow incident legislation if the question is pertinent to the matter
 He claims senate has no jurisdiction because not in question
state to state issue  May be detained during term of members imposing
 It is a state to state issue. penalty or to the end of every last session (3 years)
 Senate rules gave it jurisdiction on all matters re but not too long to violate due process.
phil relations with other nations. Also concerns
compliance with UN conventions. Sabio v Gordon
 EO giving PGCC exemption from testifying in any
Romero v Estrada judicial, legal or admin proceeding is void. No
 Subjudice rule – restricts comments and where in consti gives PCGG this power.
disclosures pertaining to judicial proceedings to  Congressional power of inquiry is broad, it can
avoid obstruction of justice cover everything that concerns the administration
 Concerning use of OWWA funds for Smokey of existing laws and proposed statutes.
Mountain project is no longer subjudice (before the  Congress power to cite persons in contempt in
courts) since the case was already been decided. order to conduct inquiries
 Even if the case is pending, inquiry in aid of
legislation will not violate subjudice rule because Sec 22
different purpose. Senate v Ermita
 Void: appearance of senior officials of exec dept,
Garcillano v House generals and flag officers of AFP, all other officials
 Senate was prohibited from continuing with the determined by president must have permission
inquiry of hello garci scandal for failure to publish from president prior to appearing.
rules of procedure. Sec 21 Sec 22
 Senate composition changes every 3 years hence it Power of inquiry Question hour
must publish every 3 years. Dept heads can claim Can compel all except
 Fact that the rules have not been changed is of no this, they can deny the president and SC
moment for what is required by consti to be able to appearing. Cant compel justices. Other officials
conduct in aid of legislation, rules must be them without consent of cant be exempt unless
published (no distinction w/n there are changes to the president executive privilege.
rules)
 Fact that it is published in senate website is not
equivalent to publication. Sec 23
 E commerce act is not applicable in publication of Sanlakas v Exec Sec
laws.  In response to oakwood mutiny, arroyo issued Proc
to declare a state of rebellion and a general order
Neri v Senate to the armed forces to suppress the mutiny.
 Neri, sec of DOTC was in senate re NBN-ZTE issue.  President has the power to call out the military and
He refused to answer w/n Arroyo asked him to declare state of rebellion as part of his commander
prioritize the project, approve the project, follow in chief powers and chief exec powers.
up the project claiming executive privilege.  Not usurpation of power of congress because she
 IT was covered by executive privilege because in did not declare martial law
accordance with letter of exec sec ermita, it  Graduated power of commander in chief
concerns our diplomatic relations with china 1. Calling out power
 Doctrine of operational proximity – exec privilege 2. Power to suspend priv of writ
may only be claimed by those in close relation to 3. Power to declare martial law
the president  Last 2 requires: actual invasion or rebellion and
 Senate must show compelling need in order for requirement of public safety
such info to be disclosed
Privilege Deliberative,
 Calling out power to AFP – only requirement is
suppression of lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion (whenever necessary)
Ampatuan v Puno
 After maguindanao massacre, Gloria issued a
proclamation declaring a state of emergency in 3
places in Mindanao and called out to AFP and PNP
to suppress lawless violence.
 Not unlawful exercise of emergency powers. Did
not declare a national emergency, only a state of
emergency in 3 places
 No need to act in pursuant to law by congress –
only in times of war or national emergency.
Sec 24
Tolentino v Sec of Fin
 EVAT law
 Only requirement for revenue bills is that it
originates exclusively from the house. After house
sends it over to senate, senate may concur or make
its own version or substitute it wit a new bill.
Pascual v Sec of Public Works
 RA was enacted appropriating funds for pasig
feeder road which would cover Antonio Subdivison
owned by Sen Zulueta. Sen Zulueta thereafter
donated the land to the government with a caveat
that it will only be used for street else it shall revert
back to him.
 This is a violation of the conti provision that memb
of congress shall not be finanfially interested w/
any contract with the government.
 The appropriation was void for being for private
purpose
 Subsequent donation to the govt does not cure the
defect. The appropriation was made when it was
still private in character.
Sec 25
Garcia v Mata
 RA 1600 is an appropriations law. Sec 11 of the
said law contains a provision on reversion from
active status of a military officer. And also those
who will not be reverted.
 This is deemed as a rider. It was a non
appropriation item in an appropriation bill
 Violates one subject one bill
 Rider – provision not embraced by the title or not
germane to the subject of the law.
Riders ba ay for appropriations bill lang? check..
Farinas v Exec Sec
 Fair elections act was passed, sec 14 of the law
repeals sec 67 of omnibus election code w/c
considers elective officials ipso facto resigned upon
filing coc.
 Sec 14 is not a rider.
 1 subj 1 bill means that all parts of the bill must be
expressed in the title.
 However, the title need not be an abstract or an
index of the bill. It must only be comprehensive
enough to include the general object.
 Title of fair election act was comprehensive enough
– to enhance holding of a free, orderly, honest
election
 Principle: ensure candidates are free from
harassment.
 It can be considered that sec 67 is a form of
harassment to candidates.
 Purpose of 1 subject 1 bill: to appraise legislators of
purpose and scope of the provisions and prevent
log rolling
Demetria v Alba
 Sec 44 of budget reform decree allowing the
president to transfer any fund appropriated for the
different departments of the Exec Dept in the GAA
to any program of any department without regard
as to whether there the item is savings or for the
purpose of augmentation.
 Unconstitutional.
 Consti prohibits a law that authorizes transfer of
appropriation from 1 item to another.
 It however allows the president, prime minister,
speaker, chief justice heads of commission, to be
allowed by law to augment any item in the GAA for
their respective offices from savings from other
items in the appropriation for them.
 The prohibition clearly prohibits transfer.
 Augmenting on the other hand is only allowed if
there are savings.
Liga v COMELEC
 COMELEC declares that it intends to fund the brgy
elections because the appropriation for such
elections were deemed to be not enough.
 SC: Omnibus election code allows COMELEC to
answer for expenses of the election
 Savings – portions of balances of any programmed
appropriation free of any encumbrance or
obligation after satisfactory completion or
abandonment of work for the purpose which the
appropriation was authorized or from unpaid
compensation and related costs pertaining to
vacant positions or absence without pay
 Augmentation- existence of item, project with an
appropriation which upon implementation or
evaluation of resources is determined to have
deficient appropriation or funds.
Sanchez v COA
 75 mil for DILG Capacity building program was set
aside in the GAA which is for training and technical
assistance of personnel of LGU to be implemented
by the Loc Govt Academy.
 Deputy Exec Sec allowed money from the funds to
be transferred for the ad hoc task force for
shamrock type of inter agency project
 Not a valid transfer of funds
 Not shown there was item for augmentation
 Transfer was not made by the president but the
deputy exec sec
 Only ones authorized to conduct a transfer:
1. President
2. Speaker
3. Senate Pres
4. Chief Justice
5. Head of consti comm
 In realigning funds must see to it:
1. Funds to be re aligned are actually savings
2. Purpose was to augment items of expenditure
to which transfer of realignment was made
 Actual savings is a sinequanon to valid transfer of
funds.
 While the fund was a regular appropriation, when
it is allotted for a specific purpose, it partakes the
nature of a trust fund and may only be used for that
purpose.
Belgicia v Ochoa
 2 kinds of discretionary funds:
1. Pork barrel – discretionary fund for member
of legislature. Post enactment measure that
allows a member of legislature to determine
how it will be spent and to what project.
2. Exec lump sum discretionary funds – invalid
insofar as it does not define what the priority
infrastructure projects are and in using “for
such other purposes.
a. malampaya -
b. presidential social fund
 Pork barrel of congress is unconsti. It makes the
item veto power of the president impossible for
there is no specified purpose which the president
may veto.
Araullo v Aquino
 DAP – not in violation of no money shall be paid out
of treasury unless in pursuant to an appropriation
made by law since it is not a fund nor
appropriation and no additional funds were
withdrawn from treasury.
 Not executive impoundment – executive
impoundment is when the president refuses to
spend appropriations for whatever reason
 Transfers made through DAP was unconstitutional.
Transfer or realignment should only be made
within their respective offices. Cross boarder is
prohibited. In DAP, funds for executive were being
transferred to legislative and other non executive
agencies
 Even projects of executive that are not in the GAA
are funded by the DAP
 DAP transfers are not savings. Savings only occur
when there is a completed, discontinued or
abandoned project. DAP were taken form slow
moving projects. Hence no savings.
 Also savings are only declared at end of the year.
DAP were taken in the middle of the year.
 Transfer of appropriated funds requisites:
1. There must be a law authorizing the
respective officials (Pres, Speaker etc) to
transfer funds within their offices
a. GAAs must expressly authorize the
transfer of funds. It allows but it does
not limit to transfer from and within
their respective office therefore
violative of constitution.
2. There must be savings - there were no savings
in this context as explained above
3. Purpose is to augment items in GAA – to
augment means there were deficiencies
 Beneficiaries of DAP who relied in good faith are
not faulted.
Sec 26
Philconsa v Enriquez
 RA was enacted to amend act establishing GSIS. But
a provision contains granting benefits to senators
and house of reps. The provision was deemed to be
not Germaine to the purpose to the law. The
members of congress are not gisis members. Not
related in any manner to the purpose of the law.
 Purpose of subject expressed in title:
1. Prevent surprise and fraud on legislature
2. Appraise the people and give them
opportunity to be heard.
Insular Lunber v CTA
 A partial exemption from the law imposing taxes is
germane to the purpose.
Tio v Videogram Regulatory Board
 Law was created to regulate videogram industry. It
imposed a tax on purchase price and rental rate.
 Tax is germane for it is a tool for regulation
Phil Judges v Prado
 Revoking franking privileges of judges is germane
to the purpose of the law which aims to make a
more efficient postal service.
 Title need not express that the law repeals another
section of another law. What is required to be
expressed is the subject and not the effect.
Sec 27
CIR v CTA
 Manila golf and tax on resto and sale of food and
drinks
 When the consti states that the president may veto
an item in the revenue bill, it does not mean that
the president may veto an entire section but
merely the subject of tax and tax rate.
Gonzales v Macaraig
 Veto powers of the president:
1. General veto power – if exercised, would
result to veto of the entire bill
 2. Item or line veto power – veto of an item in an
appropriations bill, revenue or tariff bill
 If the provisions in a revenue or appropriations bill
is a rider, the president may veto an entire section
even tho normally in an appropriations bill, she
cant veto an entire section but merely the items.
Philconsa v Enriquez
 President vetoed the provision on debt ceiling for
payment of foreign end domestic debts but did not
veto the appropriated amount for it – cant veto
them separately since they are connected
 Veto power exercised by the president is part of
the legislative process.
 Inappropriate provision – is when legislature
circumvents the power of the executive to veto by
artfully drafting general law measures by inserting
inappropriate provisions – when this happens, the
sections shall be considered as “item’ appropriate
for veto in a GAA, when not related to other items
in the GAA
 Doctrine of executive impoundment – refusal of the
president to spend funds already allocated by
congress for a specific purpose.
Sec 28
CIR v Lingayen Gulf
 Lingayen was given 2% franchise tax in lieu of all
other taxes – not violative of uniformity of tax
 Tax is uniform when it operates with the same
force and effect in every place where the subject is
found.
 Legislature not only has the power to select
subjects of tax but also grant tax exemptions
Abra Valley v Aquino
 Abra is an educ institution. Has a building which at
the ground floor is leased to a commercial
enterprise. 2nd floor is where the family of school
directors live and some students classrooms also
on that floor
 Tax exemption only extends to the ones which are
reasonably necessary and incidental to the main
purpose of education.
 Leasing for commercial purpose is not included.
Tax only that portion. Housing the director can be
considered incidental purpose.
Lung Center v QC
 Elements to determine if charitable institution:
1. Statue creating it
2. Purpose
3. Consti and by laws
4. Methods of administration
5. Nature of actual work performed
6. Character of service rendered
7. Indefiniteness of beneficiaries
8. Use and occupation of properties
 Charter of lung center shows that it is a charitable
institution
 One does not lose character as charitable
institution by merely accepting payments from
patients as long as all income is used for charitable
purpose.
 But even if so, leased premises of the land owned
by the hospital to commercial establishment like
the orchid garden center and canteen concessions
are not exempt from real property taxes.
 Consti only exempts from real property taxes those
actually, directly and exclusively used for
charitable purposes.
Sec 29
Guingona v Carague
 All appropriation laws must originate in congress
as mandated by the conti applies prospectively.
Those appropriation laws that were enacted prior
such as PDs of Marcos are still applicable and are
not rendered functus inorricio since all laws are
effective until altered or repealed.
 4 phases of budgeting process of the government:
1. budget preparation – executive
2. Legislative authorization – via an
appropriation law
3. Budget execution
4. Budget accountability
Phil Coconut v Republic
 Cocolevy funds are special funds, affected with
public interest. Purpose was to support coconut
industry.
 Conversion of these special public funds into
private funds by allowing private individuals to
own them in their private capacity deprives COA of
authority to audit hence unconstitutional
 It was unconsti to use the funds to buy a bank and
distribute the shares of the bank to private
individuals and farmers
Sec 30
First Lepanto v CA
 No law increasing the appellate jurisdiction of SC
shall be passed without its advice or concurrence.
Omnibus investment code which states that
appeals should be with SC are passed without SC
concurrence hence deemed never to be effective.
Sec 32
SBMA v COMELEC
 SSEZ was created. Sangu of morong passed a
resolution expressing absolute concurrence. The
people wanted certain changes and waited for a
period but when they cant wait they filed for an
initiative. COMELEC instead of initiative prepared
for referendum – GADALEJ
 Initiative – power of the people to propose
amendments to the consti or propose and enact
legislations. Resorted to by the people because
either the law making body fails or refuses to enact
the law.
 3 types: consti, statutes, local legislation
 Indirect initiative – exercise of initiative by the
people through a proposition sent to congress or
local legislative body for action.
 Referendum – power of electorate to approve or
reject legislation through an election. 2 types: on
statutes or local laws
 Initiative is entirely the work of the electorate.
Referendum is begun and consented to by law
making body.
 When the law is still in proposal stage, should the
people reject it, no controversy – only when people
have voted for it has it became a law or ordinance
Defensor Santiago v COMELEC
 Initiative on amendments of consti must have an
enabling law before it can happen. There is yet no
enabling law. RA 6735 was aimed to be such law
but had been inadequate and covers only for laws
and local legislation
 COMELEC therefore cant validly issue rules and
regulations to implement people’s right of initiative
for the consti.
 Consti requires for initiative: at least 10% of total
number of votes, rep by at least 3% voters from
every district
 RA 6735 provides:
o 10% for local law
o 12% for consti
Lambino v COMELEC
 Amendment is directly proposed by the people
only if the people signs a petition that contains the
draft before they sign – full text of the amendment
must be shown.
 Elements of initiative petition:
1. People must be the author of the proposal
2. Proposal must be embodied in the petition
 It was admitted that the proposed changes were
not attached to the signature sheets and only 100
copies were circulated – hence fialed to comply
with direct proposal of the people
 3 modes of amending the consti:
1. congress through ¾ vote of its members
2. cosnti convention
3. people’s initiative
 Only congress and consti convention can propose
revisions
 Initiative may only propose amendments.
 Revision – alters basic principle or a large part of
the consti
 Amendment – change that ads, reduces, deletes
without altering the basic principles.
 Lambino’s proposal was a revision not an
amendment. Changing from bicam to unicam
involves changing 2 articles and 150 provisions.
Art 7 Executive Dept
Sec 1
Marcos v Manglapus
 Marcos wanted to return to the Philippines to die
here. W/n cory, the president has the power to
prohibit marcos from returning. – yes. Residual
unstated power
Pontejos v Ombudsman
 One of the accused in a case concerning anomaly in
HLURB was made state witness Ombudsman has
the power to extend immunity.
 Decision on whether to prosecute is executive in
character.
 Power to prosecute includes right to determine
who will be prosecuted
Biraogo v Truth Commission
 Creation of Phil Truth Commission is not exercise
of the president of the power to reorganize but
rather the power to ensure the laws are faithfully
executed. This power carries with it the power to
conduct investigations to aid the president in
ensuring faithful execution of laws.
 Reorganization is: (points to a situation where
there is already an existing office)
1. Restructuring internal organization of the
office of the president proper through
abolishing, merging offices within it
2. Transfer functions of OP to another dept and
vice versa
3. Transfer agency from OP to another dept and
vice versa
Akbayan v Aquino
 Petitioners wanted to obtain full text of JEPEPA and
offers made by both countries during negotiation
 JEPEPA is covered by the executive privilege on
secrecy of foreign negotiations
 Offers exchanged during negotiation is privileged
 It may be disclosed if there is dire public interest
 Power to negotiate and enter into treaties is
executive in character subject only to 2/3 vote of
concurrence by senate.
Soliven v Macasiar
 Newspaper account against Cory that she hid under
the bed. She filed a libel case against writer and
publisher. They claim since president is immune
from suit, she is not allowed to file a suit because in
doing so, she is opening herself up to perjury or
contempt.
 Immunity may only be invoked by the president
herself not on her behalf
David v Arroyo
 20th anniversary of EDSA, there were reports that
CPP-NPA were planning to conspire with the
military. PGMA issued PP declaring a state of
national emergency and Gen Ord calling on AFP to
prevent or suppress lawless violence
 Opposition members were arrested and a
newspaper was raided by CIDG
 PP was constitutional in so far as it constitutes a
call to AFP to suppress lawless violence
 But in so far as it gives the president emergency
powers to issue decrees and impose restraint on
media is unconstitutional – Consti: the president
can not take over private or public businesses
without legislation
 GO is valid in so far as it is an exercise of the
president’s power as commander in chief
 Acts of terrorism was however deemed delete for
congress had yet to define what are acts of
terrorism
 3 parts of the PP:
1. Calling out power – criteria: whenever it
becomes necessary can call out AFP
2. Take Care power – ensure that the laws are
faithfully executed. Not extend to
promulgating decrees
3. Take over power
o Declaring a state of national emergency –
only the president can exercise
o Exercise of emergency power – needs
delegation from congress through a law
o Condition of grant of emergency powers:
1. Delegation is only for a limited
purpose
2. Subject to restrictions by congress
3. Emergency powers are to carry out a
national policy declared by congress.
Sec 4
Pimentel v Joint Committee
 Congress had already adjourned. Pimentel wants
the Joint Committee of congress to stop canvassing
and determining the due authenticity fo certificates
of canvass for VP and Pres claiming that congress’
legal existence had already terminated. He claims
that the consti requires that session must be
concluded before 30 days before the start of the
next session (mandatory recess)
 SC: the mandatory recess does not pertain to the
term of congress but to the regular annual
legislative session
 Term is the 6 yrs/ 3 years depending if senator or
house rep
 Legislative functions of the congress may have
terminated but it still has non legislative functions
such as the canvass
 Express provision in the consti to canvass votes no
later than 30 days after elections.
Tecson v Lim
 FPJ is a Filipino. Grandfather was part of the mass
naturalization. Father was a Filipino.
 Petition to disqualify POE based on his citizenship
was dismissed by COMELEC. They were claiming it
should be the SC that has jurisdiction
 SC has no jurisdiction because:
1. Only the registered candidates for pres/VP
who received the 2nd highest number of votes
may contest the election with SC sitting as PET
2. There was no election yet. SC as PET
contemplates that there is already a
proclaimed winner.
 SC shall be the sole judge of all contests w/ re
election, returns and qualifications of pres, vp
 Contest – refers to post election scenario.
o Quo warranto – refers to qualification
o Election protest – based on fraud or
irregularity
 Mere qualification of a candidate is not within
jurisdiction of SC
Macalintal v PET
 Presidential Electoral Tribunal – composed of CJ
and 10 justices is not violative of the consti that SC
shall be the sole judge of all contests re election,
returns, qualifications
 PET is independent but not separate form the SC. It
only sits in a different capacity. It is not a quasi-
judicial agency
Sec 7-8
Estrada v Desierto
 w/n erap resigned? Yes
 Elements of resignation:
1. Intent to resign
2. Acts of relinquishment
 Totality of prior contemporaneous and subsequent
acts showed he resigned
 Congress had recognized his inability to govern in
passing house bills and resolutions in support of
GMA – recognition need not be prior to assumption
of VP of presidency.
 Fact of resignation – legal issue that can be ruled on
by the courts
 Inability to govern – political question. Court cant
review.
Sec 13
Rafael v Embroidery
 RA creating the embroidery apparel and control
inspection board to be composed of: rep from
customs, central bank, dept of commerce, national
econ council and private sector. They will be
appointed by their dept heads.
 Rafael claims while congress may create an office,
it cant specify who shall be appointed. Congress
infringed on presidential power to appoint.
 No. They will be merely serving in ex officio
capacity. These offices were just mentioned
because it has direct relation with importation.
Further, the dept heads are the ones who will select
them.
CLU v Exec Sec
 Law states that even if allowed by law, or ordinary
functions, member of cabinet, under sec or asst sec
 or other appointive executive officials may not hold
more than 2 positions in the govt or GOCC.
 It also states that GOCCs must have a board that at
least 1/3 is composed of sec, dept sec, asst sec
 Petitioners claim that the law contravenes the
consti by allowing stated officials to hold other govt
offices in contravention of the consti prohibition of
not allowing them to hold other positions in the
govt or otherwise
 Consti only allows: (“unless otherwise provided in
the consti”)
o VP as member of cabinet
o Sec of Justice as ex officio member of JBC
VP as acting president
 What governs the prohibition of cabinet officials
and appointive officials – Art 7 (blanket
prohibition) or the provision on civil service comm
(no office or employment in govt or gocc)? Art 7
o Consti imposes a stricter prohibition in
the Pres and this official family –
prohibits holding other positions in the
govt and elsewhere and not be financially
interested directly or indirectly.
o In comparison to others (senator/
member of house, AFP member) only
positions in the govt is prohibited
 Prohibition against holding multiple positions does
not apply if one is holding it in an ex officio capacity
 Ex officio – by virtue of office or from office
 The officers who were appointed and held their
position were considered de facto officers and are
entitled to emoluments for the services they
rendered.
Doromal v Sandiganbayan
 Petitioner, PCGG commissioner violated the
prohibition on having indirect financial interest in
a contract with the govt. The corporation that
participated in DECS bidding is family owned. He
was the president and a director.
 Presence of a signed document containing his name
is not a sinequa non.
 Being a family corp he has at least an indirect
interest
 Consti prohibits direct or indirect interest.
Sec 14-15
De Castro v JBC
 CJ Puno will compulsory retire on May 17, next
presidential election will be may 10
 2 consti provision seem to conflict: 1. 2 mos immed
before the next pres election up to end of term,
pres shall not make appointments except
temporary ones where the vacancy will prejudice
public service. 2. Vacancy in SC should be filed
within 90 days from occurrence. – 2nd is
controlling:
1. Had the framers intend that the prohibition
under the 1st extends to judiciary, they could
have expressly done so
2. Valenzuela decision (on RTC judges cant be
appointed during such time) was reversed
a. Records of commission disclose that
it is a command to the president to
fill in vacancy
b. Use of the word shall
3. Dangers surrounding midnight appointees are
neutralized by JBC
a. Prohibition was to prohibit
appointments in order to buy votes
influencing the presidential elections
and for partisan considerations
b. This prohibition on midnight
appointees do not extend to judiciary
because JBC screens candidates –
depoliticize the process
4. Sec 14 and 16 of consti only refers to exec dept
a. 14 – succeeding pres can revoke
apptmts of acting pres refers only to
apptmts in exec dept
b. 16- apptmts that require
confirmation by com on apptmts
c. 15 – only apply to exec because every
part of the statute must be
interpreted with reference to the
context
5. acting chief justice was not intended by
framers of consti
Sec 16
Govt v Springer
 voting committee composed of Pres, Speaker and
Senate President. Speaker and Senate president
elected directors of National Coal Company
 Encroachment on the power of the president.
Power to appoint resides in the executive
 Office – public station permanent in character,
created by law, whose duties were prescribed by
law.
Datu Michael Kida v Senate
 Elections for ARMM were transferred on a later
date. President was given the power to appoint
OICs during the interregnum. – President can
validly appoint. This falls under the "catch all
provision” – appointments whose otherwise not
provided for by law, president may appoint.
 Power of supervision- see to it that lower officer
performs functions in accordance with the law
 Power of control – power of an officer to alter or
modify or set aside acts of subordinate.
Pimentel v Ermita
 Arroyo issued appointments to acting secretaries.
After congress adjourned, she appointed the same
people as ad interim secretaries
 Petitioners were claiming cant appoint as acting
secretaries because EO states that when the
secretary is unable, undersecretary shall discharge
his duties
 Appointment as acting secretaries were valid.
 These appointments are stop gap measures
intended to fill the office for a limited time until
permanent appointments are issued.
 Vacancy of the office of alter ego of president,
president can appoint an alter ego of her choice
due to the nature of the position carrying trust and
confidence.
 No need for confirmation with Com on apptmts
 Not susceptible to abuse because acting capacity
cant exceed 1 year.
Acting Capacity Ad Interim
Anytime there is vacancy During recess of congress
No need to submit to Com Submitted to Com on apt
on appt for confirmation or
rejection
Temporary filling of office. Not temporary. Effective
Can only last for a year immediately but lasts only
until disapproval of Com
on apt or until next
adjournment of congress
Effective upon acceptance
Sarmiento v Mision
 Mision was appointed as Comm of Customs. They
were seeking to enjoin him because his
appointment was not confirmed by Com on apptmt.
No need for Com on apptmt confirmation.
 4 groups of officers that the president may appoint:
1. Heads of exec dept, ambassadors, consuls,
officers of the armed forces with the rank of
colonel/ naval captain, other officers whose
appointments were vested in the president by
the consti (only one that needs com on apptmt
confirmation)
2. All other officers of the govt whose
appointments were not provided for by law
3. Those whom the president is authorized by
law to appoint
4. Officers in lower rank whose appointments,
the congress may by law vest in the president
 How: initiated by nomination, confirmation by
COA, appointment by president
 “congress may by law vest the appointment of
lower rank officers in the president alone…” – use
of “alone” is mere laps in draftsmanship. Clear
intent that Com on apptmt confirmation is only for
1st group.
Bautista v Salonga
 appointed as acting chairman of CHR, then
permanent chairman. Letter of appointment states
that effective upon taking her oath. She took oath.
Her appointment was extended. Com on apptmt
states this need confirmation – NO.
 The appointment was complete die to her
acceptance and taking oath.
 She falls under other officers whose appointments
are vested in the president.
 When the appointment by president without the
consent of COA is stated expressly in the consti,
voluntary act of submitting to Com on apptmt is
GADALEJ.
Rufino v Endriga
 Marcos created CCP, Ramos appointed to CCP
board the endriga group, Erap appointed the
Rufino group. Endrida group opposed claiming that
the election of the new members must be through
election of the trustees themselves. The president
only steps in when the board becomes entirely
vacant. When erap appointed, only one seat was
vacant.
 PD stating number of filling of vacancies of board
through votes of the trustees are unconti.
 Consti may by law vest appointing power of lower
ranked officers to heads of dept or agencies or
boards.
 “Lower in rank” is the operative word. The law
allows trustees to appoint someone similar in their
rank. It should be the chairperson of CCP who
should be allowed to appoint.
Sec 17
Ang Angco v Castillo
 Case concerning the release of pesi cola bottles
 w/n the president through the executive secretary
has the power to take direct action in the case of
collector Ang Angco by relieving him from office
even if he should be covered by the Civil Service
Act? No
 Power of control does not include removal from
service. Control only extends to acts of the
indivisual (nullify or set aside) not extend on the
person of the individual.
 Commissioner of Civil Service has the original and
exclusive jurisdiction over admin cases of civil
service officials in accordance with civil service act
 President’s control over executive department only
refers to general matters of policy and cant extend
to removal which is a specific policy.
 Power of control may extend to power to
investigate, suspend or remove if they are
presidential appointees or do not belong to
classified service since power to remove is
inherent to power to appoint.
Joson v Torres
 Governor Joson uttered threatening words with aid
of armed men against Vice Gov and sanggunian
 DILG denied his request for formal investigation
and instead considered his answer as a position
paper – Position papers are only allowed if the
official is appointive official. IN his case, he was an
elective, he should have been entitled to a hearing.
 Who has power to discipline the gov – president or
dilg?
 2 authorities which has jurisdiction over elective
officials (AO23):
 o Disciplining authority – president who
may act though exec sec
o Investigative authority – generally sec of
DILG who may create an investigative
committee. President may also create a
special committee to investigate instead
of them.
 Power of president over admin cases against
elective officials are from his power of general
supervision
 Supervision – overseeing authority of officer to see
to it that the subordinate performs his duties
 Power to discipline – involves power to investigate
 Can delegate the power to investigate to DILG or
special committee but can not delegate the power
to discipline.
 Power to investigate comes from the doctrine of
qualified political agency
 doctrine of qualified political agency – there is one
executive. All executive, admin org are adjuncts of
the executive dept. Acts of the heads of the exec
dept are acts of the executive unless conti requires
that the chief exec acts personally.
 Preventive suspension may be imposed by the
disciplining authority when:
1. After the issues are joined
2. Evidence of guilt is strong
3. Great probability that respondent who
continues to hold office could influence or
threaten the integrity of evidence or
witnesses.
KMU v Dir Gen
 Pres Arroyo ordering govt offices to streamline
their ID system is not usurpation of legislative
power. It is under her power of control. It only
applies to executive department which already
issues cards. And does not require special
appropriation.
Sec 18
Lansang v Garcia
 Liberal party public meeting, 2 grenades were
thrown causing killings and injuries
 Marcos issued PP claiming there were lawless
elements and suspended the writ of habeas corpus
for those presently detained for insurrection and
rebellion and for those who will be detained for the
same acts.
 Lifting the priv of the writ was valid
 Elements:
1. Actual, imminent anger of rebellion, invasion,
insurrection
2. Public safety must require suspension
 Test in declaration of suspension of the priv is not
correctness but arbitrariness
 Also the lifting of the priv is only for rebellion or
insurrection cases.
Sec 19
Cristobal v Labrador
 Santos was guilty of Estafa. He became a municipal
president and was a continued registered voter.
Omnibus Election Code was approved which
disqualifies him from voting if guilty of crime
against property
 He was extended absolute “restore full civil and
political rights” but eligible only for appointment to
positions which are clerical and manual in nature.
 He can remain in list of voters because the pardon
was absolute in the sense that it restores his full
civil and political rights. It was conditional only in
limits to the positions which he may be appointed
 Pardoning power is vested in the president
 Limitations on the pardoning power of the
president:
1. Only after conviction
2. Cannot extend to impeachment cases
Llamas v Orbos
 Ocampo governor of Tarlac was given executive
clemency in connection with his graft and
corruption case related to a foundation headed by
him
 President has the power to grant executive
clemency even in admin cases, not only limited to
criminal because the consti does not distinguish.
 “after conviction by final judgment” not only means
in criminal cases.
 DILG decision amounted to final conviction which
enabled occampo to enjoy enec clemency
 Disciplining authority to investigate, suspend,
remove LGU officials is in the DILG in the first
instance and ultimately to the president by virtue
of qualified political agency.
Torres v Gonzales
 Torres was given a conditional pardon not to
violate again any of the penal laws of the country
 President cancelled his conditional pardon after
learning from the board of pardons and parole that
e had been charged with 20 counts of estafa
pending trial and had a case of sedition which is
pending appeal
 w/n conviction of a crime by final judgment is
necessary before he may be rearrested and
recommitted for violation of conditional pardon?
No
 He is not constitutionally entitled to another
judicial determination of w/n he breached the
conditions of this parole by committing a
subsequent offense for he had already been
accorded due process in his trial and conviction.
 Grant of pardon and determination of terms and
conditions of pardon are purely judicial act not
subject to judicial scrutiny
 Determination of breach of condition of pardon
may be:
1. Purely executive act (admin code)– not subject
to judicial scrutiny
 2. Judicial act in accordance with RPC w/c
consists of a trial for and conviction of
violation of conditional pardon.
 But to be punished for the subsequent criminal act,
he must be convicted and tried for it.
Monsanto v Factoran
 Asst treasurer was convicted of estafa through
falsification. Was granted absolute pardon by
president
 She now claims that she should be reinstated to her
position without necessity of new appointment and
that she is entitled to backpay. – No
 Pardon – act of grace which exempts individual
from punishment. Does not erase the fact that the
crime is committed. Not remove the moral stain
 Still a convicted criminal though pardoned. Looks
to the future not retrospective
 Not ipso facto restore a convicted felon to public
office since public office is for the benefit of the
public, appointing power may refuse appointment
due to bad character.
 Not exempt from paying civil indemnity. (even if
pardoned, amnesty or commutation)
Sec 21
Gonzales v Hechanova
 Exec Sec authorized the importation of rice from
Laos and Vietnam in pursuant to an international
agreement with the countries
 Not executive agreements because the parties have
not been shown to have regarded the same as such.
 Although the president may enter into executive
agreements without legislative authority (because
only treaties require such) he may not enter into
transactions which are prohibited by statutes
 He may not defeat legislative enactments by
indirectly repealing statutes through executive
agreements.
 Exec agreements are not treaties
 Treaties require ratification by senate, exec
agreements don’t
 Treaties have same force of law is not applicable in
treaties.
Vinuya v Romulo
 Members of Malaya lolas wanted to compel exec
dept to take up their case against japan
 No GADALEJ in exec dept for not taking their case
because there was already a Treaty of Peace and
japan already gave monetary compensation
through the Bilateral Reparations Act
 Exec dept has the exclusive prerogative to
determine w/n to espouse the claims of private
individuals
 Political Question – questions under the consti are
to be decided by the people in their sovereign
capacity in regard to which full discretionary
authority had been delegated to exec or legislative
branch. Issues dependent on wisdom of the law not
legality.
 President is the sole representative in foreign
relations
 Peace treaties – international settlements which
generally wipe out all underlying private claims,
thereby terminating recourse under domestic law
 When an individual is able to persuade the govt to
bring a case in their behalf, the state’s own right is
being asserted not the private indiv’s right.
 Jus cogens – compelling law, norms that command
preemptory authority. Mandatory and do not admit
derogation.
 During the time case was decided, rape and system
of enslavement not crime against humanity, not jus
cogens.
Art 8: Judicial Dept
Sec 1
Santiago v Bautista
 Santiago 3rd honor graduating student questions
the giving of honors.
 w/n the committee granting honors is a tribunal,
board, performing quasi judicial functions – NO
 For special civil action for certiorari, elements:
1. Specific controversy involving rights which
are legally demandable
2. Tribunal or board vested with jurisdiction
 Judicial power – authority to determine rights of
persons or property by arbitrating between them
In re Laureta
 Lawyer and client were irate that they were not
allowed by SC to intervene in a case though a
minute resolution. They sent letters to the justices
which participated and also sent to media letter
which purported that there was graft charges
against them
 Client can be cited in contempt and the lawyer may
be made administratively liable
 SC can preserve its honor, no merely a vindicative
action
Noblejas vTehankee
 Fact that Comm of Land Reg is given the same rank
and privilege and salary of judge of first instance
does not mean that he is under the supervision and
control of the SC. Still under the executive and
hence may be disciplined by Sec of Justice
 If legislature included them under SC, unconsti
because violation of separation of powers
 No power in exec or legislative o charge judiciary
with admin functions except when reasonably
incidental to fulfillment of judicial duties.
Director of Prisons v Ang Cho Kio
 Ang Cho Kio was given conditional pardon never to
return in the Philippines. He returned under a
different name and his conditional pardon was
remitted and he was detained. His appeal went to
 CA, CA issued an opinion that he should be released
to the best interest of the country.
 Improper for CA to issue recommendation
 Recommendatory powers of court are only those
stated in RPC: when court has knowledge of acts it
deems should be repressed, or when the penalty it
thinks is clearly excessive – inform the chief exec
through dept of justice
 Matter of w/n an alien should be deported is a
political question
Tano v Socrates
 Ordinance banning shipment of live fish and
lobster outside Puerto princessa, thereafter,
Resolution by Sanggu prohibited catching of coral
dwelling organisms. Petitioners went straight to SC
invoking original jurisdiction to issue TRO
 While SC has concurrent jurisdiction with RTC and
CA to issue certiorari, prohibition, mandamus etc,
hierarchy of courts must still be respected. To go
directly to SC there must be special reasons set out
in the petition
Sec 2
Malaga v Penachos
 Dates and time for deadlines for submission of
prequalification bids and opening of bids were
changed but the change was not published, merely
posted on bulletin board
 Generally, PD prohibits courts from issuing
injunctions in cases that involve infrastructure
projects of the govt
 But when the issue concerning infrastructure
project does not merely involve administrative
matters or discretion in technical cases but on
failure to follow procedure mandated by law courts
may rule on the matter.
Sec 4
Fortich v Corona
 Case concerning Sumilao Farmers. The president
already agreed to convert the land into agro
industrial which had became final and executor.
Sumilao farmers staged a hunger strike which
became controversial so Deputy Exec Sec Corona
issued a win-win resolution converting only a part
of the land into agro-industrial and other as part of
CARP for the farmers.
 SC stated that it is void since the presidential
decision had already became final. On MR with SC
division, vote was 2-2. They were asking SC en
banc to rule on matter – SC en banc shouldn’t rule
Cases Matters
When the required Already a decided case. No
number is not obtained SC longer has recourse on en
en banc shall decide on it banc
Must be decided Must be resolved
(includes motions)
If there is a tie in voting, There was already a
no resolution yet resolution. Tie, motion is
lost.
Sec 5
Pacu v Sec of Educ
 Mere apprehension that their permits will be
revoked does not amount to a justiciable
controversy
 Judicial power is limited to deciding actual cases
and controversies
 Locus Standi – petitioners must show that they
suffered from wrong and in need of a relief.
Tan v Macapagal
 Laurel liedo resolution on revising the present
consti is still on proposal stage, not yet acted on
hence no controversy yet that may be decided by
court
 Perosn who impugns the validity of the statute
must have personal, direct and substantial interest
Concepcion v COMELEC
 Concepcion, chair of namfrel who at the same time
is brgy chair in Forbes. COMELEC issued a reso
stating that no brgy official shall be appointed as
member of the board
 NAMFREL filed for accreditation. COMELEC
granted on the condition that he be removed from
chairmanship. NAMFREL changed their officers and
requested for re-exam. Denied by COMELEC,
NAMFREL accepted
 Concepcion questions the COMELEC resolution
before the court.
 He has no personality because the issue and the
proceeding were between COMELEC and Namfrel.
He should have intervened in the COMELEC-
NAMFREL proceeding. Or it should have been
namfrel who file the petition.
 Person aggrieved is the one who was a party to the
original proceeding which gave rise to the original
action
 Interest means material interest
Galicto v Aquino
 Moratorium on increase in salaries and
compensations of GOCC and GFI employees and
suspension of bonuses by the board of directors
 Petitioner as employee of Philhealth and as
member of the bar assails the law
 No personality to file – he was not able to show he
has substantial interest. His interest was mere
expectancy for he had no vested right to salary
increases
 Being a member of the bar is too general of an
interest
 Not also considered to have filed in behalf of
philhealt for he must show that he had been
authorized by the board to do so.
Legaspi v CSC
 May by mandamus compel CSC to show
information regarding civil service eligibility of 2
sanitarians
 Petition for mandamus must be initiated by party
aggrieved by inaction of tribunal, corp, board
which unlawfully excludes person from enjoyment
of a legal right.
 Right of people to matters of public concern is a
public right
 When what is being asserted is a public right,
enough to show that petitioner is a citizen
 While manner of examining public records may be
subject to reasonable regulation, duty to disclose is
not discretionary. What is only discretionary is the
manner, time so as not to compromise the records
themselves – pervent damage etc.
 Public office is a public trust – legitimate concern of
citizen
 Unless: those info affecting national security
Joya v PCGG
 Re auction of paintings from metropolitan museum
and antique silverware of Marcoses
 Petitioners have no legal standing for taxpayers
suit. Because the items are owned privately by the
Museums and Marcoses – only the legal owners
may question.
 Not a taxpayer’s suit because no allegation that
public money have been used
Board of Optometry
 Petitioners were questioning the Revised
Optometry law
 No capacity to sue because they have no juridical
personality as they have not registered. Only
natural and juridical persons may file a case in
court.
 Requisites for declaratory relief:
1. Justiciable controversy
2. Between persons with adverse interest
3. Ripe for adjudication
4. Party seeking relief has legal interest
Anak Mindanao v Exec Sec
 AMIN (party list) has locus standi. Member of
house of rep has standing to maintain privilages
and powers of his office
 Constitutionality of a statute – person must have
direct and personal interest – requisites:
1. Personally suffers actual or threatened injury
2. Injury is fairly traceable to the action
3. Injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable
action
 Issue of transcendental importance to justify
relaxation of rule on legal standing- requisites:
1. Public character of funds
2. Clear case of disregard of consti or statutory
prohibition
3. Lack of any party with a more direct and
specific interest
People v Vera
 Gen: constitutionality of an act will not be
determined by courts unless properly raised and
presented at the earliest opportunity and is the
very lis mota of the case
 Generally they are raised in ordinary actions
 Except: May be made in extraordinary legal
remedies when the remedies in ordinary course of
law are not plain, speed and adequate.
 Court has allowed constitutionality questions in
mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus. (case
concerns prohibition and quo warranto re.
probation)
 General Rule: raise questions of const at earliest
opportunity
 ExceptionsL Court in exercise of sound discretion
may determine time when questioning
constitutionality should be presented.
Araullo
 Operative fact doctrine (prior to declaration of
nullity, must be enforced and complied with) is
applicable to DAP.
 It can apply to executive acts (DAP was through a
Circular) in general, not just limited to Eos or
Presidential Decrees which are similar to laws.
Phil Coconut v Republic
 General rule: Unconstitutional act is not a law,
confers no rights
 Exception: Operative Fact – vested rights conferred
by an unconstitutional act may be recognized when
the declaration of unconstitutionality will impose
an undue burden to those who have relied on the
invalid law.
 Operative fact does not apply to coco levy funds
becasues:
1. Claimants do not have a legal right to own the
shares
2. To give them the shares would grant injustice
to farmers who contributed to the fund but
received no shares
3. Intended beneficiaries were not able to
receive the shares due to operational
distribution problems
4. Coconut farmers would not be benefitted if the
doctrine will apply
People v Mateo
 Stepfather committed 10 counts of rape against
step daughter. Question was whether it may be
permitted to go through CA first when the consti
requires automatic revise by SC in cases where
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or death –
yes
 Consti provision is not preclusive in character, not
necessarily prevent the court from adding an
intermediate review
 Where life and liberty is at stake, all possible
avenues to determine guilt or innocence of accused
must be afforded.
 Power to amend rules of procedure is vested in the
SC
People v Gutierrez
 Massive arson, One of the accused was son of the
governor and mayor. Witnesses refuse to testify.
Also controversy that the promotion of the judge
was supported by the family of the accused.
Secretary issued an AO authorizing the judge to
transfer the case to circuit court.
 Yes transfer was merely permissive but..
 Where the transfer is merely permissive but the
miscarriage of justice is impending, SC has the
power to decide most suitable place of trial.
 One of the incidental power of the court is to
transfer cases from one court to another of equal
rank.
Santero v CFI of Cavite
 Civil code – support is given for surviving spouse
and children without distinction w/n minors
 Rules of court – only widow and minor or
incapacitated children are given support
 What is controlling? Civil code. Substantive law can
not be impaired by procedural law.
Damasco v Laqui
 Petitioner was convicted of an offense that has
already prescribed
 Accused cannot be convicted of a crime necessarily
included in the crime alleged in the info if such had
prescribed.
 While there is a move to relax the interpretation of
prescription of offenses and while SC has the
power to promulgate rules, it can not diminish or
increase substantive rights.
 Prescription of offense in RPC is a substantive right
Baguio Market Vendors
 Cooperative Code exempts cooperatives from
payment of legal fees and sheriff fees
 Exclusive power to promulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice and procedure is given to SC. It
cant be changed by congress.
In re exemption of court fees
 Total non exemption from court fees of
cooperatives
 Fiscal autonomy recognizes power and authority of
the court to levy, assess and collect fees
 Legal fees have 2 basic component:
1. Judiciary devt fund
2. Special allowance for judiciary fund
 Purpose of the fund is to maintain the
independence of the judiciary
 Legal fees are not only source of financial resources
but an element of the independence of the judiciary
 No exemption for cooperatves
Sto Tomas v Paneda
 Rules on criminal procedure allows exceptions by
law to rules on venue.
 Allowing filing of crim actions arising from illegal
recruitment in RTC of province or city where the
offense was committed or offended actually resides
is constitutional. It is an exception to rule in
criminal cases that venue is jurisdictional. In
accordance with public policy to protect labor.
In Re Cunanan
 Bar Flunkers act by congress is unconstitutional.
1. Admitting to practice people with inadequate
preparation is contrary to public interest
2. Admission, suspension etc of attorneys are
judicial function
3. Act of admitting people through bar is made
through court judgment
PNB v Acuncion
 Case for collection. One of those who signed the
credit accommodation died during the pendency of
proceedings. CFI dismissed the case stating that the
plaintiff should instead file in the estate
proceedings in accordance with revised rules of
court stating that “where the obligation is solidary,
the claim shall be filed against the decedent as if he
is the only debtor” – WRONG
 Revised rules of court does not prevent creditor
from proceeding against other solidary debtors. It
merely adds a choice if he wants to pursue against
the estate.
 Requiring the plaintiff to proceed against the estate
would deprive him of substantive right
 Revised rules of court being merely procedural
cant be made to prevail against a substantive law
or NCC
People v Lacson
 Kuratong Baleleng case
 Time bar rule will apply if:
1. Prosecution with express conformity of
accused or if the accused moves for
provisional dismissal or both moves for it
2. Offended party is notified of the motion for
provisional dismissal
3. Court issues an order granting the motion and
dismissing the case provisionally
4. Public prosecutor serves a copy of the order of
dismissal
 Time bar rule – provisional dismissal for cases
punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 6 years,
after 1 year shall be permanent. Provisional
dismissal for more than 6 years, permanent after 2
years.
 Cant be applied retroactively
Ampong v CSC
  Ampong took the Professional exam for
teachers in behalf of another. During that time,
she was till a public school teacher. During the
time the case is instituted, she is now a court
interpreter.
 Civil service commission found her guilty. She
claims SC has the exclusive jurisdiction to
discipline her.
 SC has exclusive jurisdiction w/n the offense
was committed before or after employment
 However, in light of the fact of estoppel, her
full admission and full participation in
proceedings, CSC decision is binding on her.
Sec 6
Maceda v Vasquez
 Person from PAO reported the judge to
ombudsman. w/n ombudsman may entertain a
criminal case for falsification of a judge’s certificate
of service – no
 a judge who falsifies his certificate of service is
liable to the SC for serious misconduct and
inefficiency and crim liable to the state
 In the absence however of an administrative action
taken against him by the SC, investigation of
Ombudsman encroaches on the power of
administrative supervision of the SC in violation of
doctrine of separation of powers.
 Ombudsman should have referred the matter to the
SC
Sec 8
Chavez v JBC
 Only one representative from congress may sit in
JBC (cant be 1 from senate and 1 from house)
 “a representative of congress” speaks of a single
person Consti intends that only 7 members sit in
JBC. That congress has a bicameral nature is of no
moment because no interaction/ liason between
the houses is needed. They should be then
considered as one body.
 Doctrine of operative fact is applied.
 Purpose of 7 members is provided for so no tie in
voting
Jardaleza v CJ Sereno
 Due process must be followed even in proceedings
before the JBC
 He was included in the list because while there are
issues regarding his morality and other issues, he
was not accorded due process – was not given
notice of opposition against him
 If there is an issue on morality of applicant, every
member should unanimously vote.
Sec 10
Nitafan v CIR
 Salaries of judges are taxable. This is not in
violation of the consti prohibition that their
salaries should not be decreased. All citizens
should bear the aliquot part of maintaining the
government.
Sec 11
Vargas v Rilloraza
 Commonwealth act disqualifies any justice of the
SC who held an office during the Japanese
Occupation to vote when the accused is also an
officer during the Japanese occupation. It also
allows members of CFI or Cadastral Courts to sit
temporarily in SC in lieu of the justice that was
disqualifies to vote – inconstitutional
 Violation of the requirements of the consti on who
can become a justice of SC. Judges of lower courts
need not comply with Consti requirements.
 Also it would deprive the court of jurisdiction
because in the case, only 4 of the 10 justices in SC
will not be disqualified.
People v Gacott
 Judge Gacott questions the fact that 2nd division of
SC ruled that he committed gross ignorance of the
law – he claims it should be the SC en banc.
 Decision of court en banc is only necessary when
the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a
judge, disbarment of a lawyer or suspension of
either for more than 1 year or a fine exceeding 10k
Sec 14
Air France v Carrascoso
 Filipino was asked to vacate his first class seat in
favor of a white man.
 Findings of fact – written statement of ultimate
facts by the court, essential to support a decision.
Consist of courts conclusion with respect to
determination of facts in issue
 Question of law – not call for examination of
probative value of evidence
 Only questions of law may be raised in appeal for
certiorari from CA. Judgment is conclusive as to
facts
Francisco v Permskul
 Decision via a memorandum is valid. It expedites
litigation where the decision of the appellate court
actually reproduces the findings of face and
conclusions of law of the lower court.
 Decision adopted by reference must be attached to
the memorandum for easy reference.
 Must be sparingly used – only when facts are
accepted by both parties and only in simple
litigations.
Deutsche Bank v CIR
 It is res judicata but if other parties or another
subject matter is involved it is not a binding
precedent.
Decision Minute Resolution
Signed by members of the Signed only by clerk of
court and certified by CJ court
Published Not published in Phil
Reports
Binding precedent Not
Facts and law on which Not required for minute
judgment is based must be reso
clearly established

Salazar v Marigomen
 Administrative matter – involves exercise of court’s
power to discipline. Undertaken and prosecuted
solely for public welfare
 Complainant need not be real party in interest.
Anyone may file an admin complaint against a
judge as long as it is in writing and state clearly
acts and omissions complained of
 Act of the judge constituted gross ignorance of the
law for admitting photocopies of contested ballots
in derogation of best evidence rule.